Refutation of Their Sixth Failed Attempt to Demonstrate Error

The Resistance Dominicans made a list in which they attempted to demonstrate errors in Valtorta's work. Here is their sixth listed item:

She says that she redeemed women through her maternity;

We need the original context. I am quite confident considering the thorough combing through every line of her work done by world-renowned trustworthy theologians, that the statement in question is completely fine when considered in the relevant context.

Before we begin analyzing this, it is important to establish the complete legitimacy of referring to Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix.

Fr. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, O.P., wrote in The Mother of Our Savior and Our Interior Life:86

A decree of the Holy Office praises the custom of adding after the name of Jesus that of His Mother, our Co-Redemptrix, the Blessed Virgin Mary. The same Congregation has indulgenced (Jan. 22nd, 1914) the prayer in which Mary is addressed as Co-redemptrix of the human race. Since the word 'co-redemptrix' signifies of itself simple cooperation in the work of redemption, and since it has received in the theological usage of centuries the very precise meaning of secondary and dependent cooperation...there can be no serious objection to its use, on condition that it be accompanied by some expression indicating that Mary's role in this co-operation is secondary and dependent.

Furthermore, I quote #24 and #25 from St. Louis de Montfort's True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary (whose book Pope St. Pius X granted an Apostolic Blessing for those who read it) about Mary's role as Mediatrix of All Grace:87

24. God the Son imparted to his mother all that he gained by his life and death, namely, his infinite merits and his eminent virtues. He made her the treasurer of all his Father had given him as heritage. Through her he applies his merits to his members and through her he transmits his virtues and distributes his graces. She is his mystical channel, his aqueduct, through which he causes his mercies to flow gently and abundantly.

25. God the Holy Spirit entrusted his wondrous gifts to Mary, his faithful spouse, and chose her as the dispenser of all he possesses, so that she distributes all his gifts and graces to whom she wills, as much as she wills, how she wills and when she wills. No heavenly gift is given to men which does not pass through her virginal hands. Such indeed is the Will of God, who has decreed that we should have all things through Mary, so that, making herself poor and lowly, and hiding herself in the depths of nothingness during her whole life, she might be enriched, exalted and honored by Almighty God. Such are the views of the Church and the early Fathers.

With those preliminaries, we will now begin addressing the specific objection of the Resistance Dominicans.

Pope Saint Pius X wrote in his encyclical Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (notice the bolded words below and how perfectly it matches what the Resistance Dominicans were so quick to denounce):88

Now the Blessed Virgin did not conceive the Eternal Son of God merely in order that He might be made man taking His human nature from her, but also in order that by means of the nature assumed from her He might be the Redeemer of men. For which reason the Angel said to the Shepherds: "Today there is born to you a Savior who is Christ the Lord" (Luke ii., 11). Wherefore in the same holy bosom of His most chaste Mother Christ took to Himself flesh, and united to Himself the spiritual body formed by those who were to believe in Him. Hence Mary, carrying the Savior within her, may be said to have also carried all those whose life was contained in the life of the Savior. Therefore all we who are united to Christ, and as the Apostle says are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones (Ephes. v., 30), have issued from the womb of Mary like a body united to its head.

12. Moreover it was not only the prerogative of the Most Holy Mother to have furnished the material of His flesh to the Only Son of God, Who was to be born with human members (S. Bede Ven. L. Iv. in Luc. xl.), of which material should be prepared the Victim for the salvation of men; but hers was also the office of tending and nourishing that Victim, and at the appointed time presenting Him for the sacrifice. Hence that uninterrupted community of life and labors of the Son and the Mother, so that of both might have been uttered the words of the Psalmist "My life is consumed in sorrow and my years in groans" (Ps xxx., 11). When the supreme hour of the Son came, beside the Cross of Jesus there stood Mary His Mother, not merely occupied in contemplating the cruel spectacle, but rejoicing that her Only Son was offered for the salvation of mankind, and so entirely participating in His Passion, that if it had been possible she would have gladly borne all the torments that her Son bore (S. Bonav. 1. Sent d. 48, ad Litt. dub. 4). And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world (Eadmeri Mon. De Excellentia Virg. Mariae, c. 9) and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood. [...]

13. We are then; it will be seen, very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace -- a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno, and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces.

Then the love of God with which she burned made her a partaker in the sufferings of Christ and the associate in His passion; with Him moreover, as if forgetful of her own sorrow, she prayed for the pardon of the executioners although they in their hate cried out: "His blood be upon us and upon our children" (Matth. xxvii., 25).

15. These principles laid down, and to return to our design, who will not see that we have with good reason claimed for Mary that -- as the constant companion of Jesus from the house at Nazareth to the height of Calvary, as beyond all others initiated to the secrets of his Heart, and as the distributor, by right of her Motherhood, of the treasures of His merits, – she is, for all these reasons, a most sure and efficacious assistance to us for arriving at the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ. Those, alas! furnish us by their conduct with a peremptory proof of it, who seduced by the wiles of the demon or deceived by false doctrines think they can do without the help of the Virgin. Hapless are they who neglect Mary under pretext of the honor to be paid to Jesus Christ! As if the Child could be found elsewhere than with the Mother! [emphasis added]

So we have the Dominicans criticizing the idea that Our Lady contributed to the merits of redemption of women by means of her Divine Motherhood, and yet we have Pope St. Pius X saying, "Hence Mary, carrying the Savior within her, may be said to have also carried all those whose life was contained in the life of the Savior. Therefore all we who are united to Christ, and as the Apostle says are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones (Ephes. v., 30), have issued from the womb of Mary like a body united to its head. [...] These principles laid down, and to return to our design, who will not see that we have with good reason claimed for Mary that ... as the distributor, by right of her Motherhood, of the treasures of His merits, – she is, for all these reasons, a most sure and efficacious assistance to us for arriving at the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ." [emphasis added]

Matching what Pope St. Pius X said, it is interesting that St. Catherine of Sienna is quoted as having said more or less the same thing that the Resistance Dominicans denounced:89

"O Mary, Mary, bearer of the fire of love, and dispenser of mercy! Mary, Co-redemptrix of the human race, when you clothed the Word with your flesh, the world was redeemed. Christ paid its ransom with His Passion and you paid it with the sorrows of your body and soul." [emphasis added]

St. Irenaeus wrote: "Mary is the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race."90

As a side note: it is a secondary causality completely dependent upon the all-encompassing causality of Christ; it is an instrumental causality, but it is a true causality.

In addition to these considerations, it is helpful to point to the classic parallel that Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, and many saints and Doctors of the Church have recognized: Jesus is the New Adam and Our Lady is the New Eve. In Fr. Roschini's book, The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta, he comments on the development of this theme in the Mariology in Maria Valtorta's writings :91

Private revelations are useful

Though they do not add and cannot add anything substantially new to public revelation (already complete in Christ), we should not regard private revelations as useless. In fact, they are very useful to the souls of those they are communicated to. In several ways: they nourish and develop the Church's faith and piety; they promote a greater intelligence of the truth and documents of public revelation. By means of private revelations, God helps us draw a greater profit from public revelation.

Characteristics of Valtorta’s Mariology

On January 6, 1960, the Osservatore Romano published an article about Il Poema dell’Uomo-Dio [the Poem of the Man-God] as well as a stern censure against it. However, in the article it frankly admitted that we can find in this work "lessons in Marian Theology which show a complete knowledge of the latest studies by present day specialists on the matter.... These theological lessons are written in the very terms which a professor of our day would use." The article went so far as to insinuate that a knowledgeable Marian theologian could have helped Valtorta to write her work! This admitted that the Marian doctrine in this work is accurate; which is undeniable. But, it is also undeniable that Maria Valtorta never read a Mariological treatise. She never took courses or lessons on that subject, nor was there a Mariologist to suggest to her what she wrote on the Blessed Virgin.

Maria Valtorta did not invent her Mariology on her own; that much is obvious. Nor is it in the slightest [way] possible that it could be the devil's invention. As Most Reverend Carinci, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, cleverly put it: "the devil has too little in common with the Blessed Virgin." (Poema, IX, 219, note 69) As we shall see, Maria Valtorta's writings constitute the most melodious hymn rising from earth to the noble Queen of Heaven.

"My dear daughter," [the Virgin Mary told Maria Valtorta,] "write about Me. All your grief will be comforted." (Poem, Vol. 1, p. 11) [Jesus said:] "Find your happiness in My Mother!" (Quaderni dal 1943. p. 699. December 6)

She obeyed, she wrote and she found her delight in Mary.

There are basically three characteristics of Valtorta's Mariology:

1. It is a new Mariology in several respects;
2. It is a vivid Mariology, for various reasons;
3. It is an eminently biblical Mariology.

1. A New Mariology

Valtorta's Mariology is new in several respects. It sheds more light on old, traditional Mariology as it completes and renews it (always, however, "in eodem sensu eademque sententia" -- "In the same sense and along the same line of thought").

One of the many reasons which led our divine Master to give us The Poem of the Man-God is: "To restore both the characters of the Son of Man and of Mary back to their original truth. They were true children of Adam according to flesh and blood, but of Adam from when he was innocent." (Poem, Vol. 5, p. 947)

The idea is to restore our perception of Christ and Mary. This restoration implies the overcoming of obvious omissions in the Canonical Books about the Blessed Virgin.

Jesus Himself told Maria Valtorta: "The Gospels had described Me well enough to save souls, at least. The Blessed Virgin, however, was little known. Her personality was described incompletely; too many things were left in the dark. Now I have revealed Her. I Myself have given you this perfect account of My Mother. She is the Glory of Orderliness... Her name adorns the Orderliness [of all things]..." (Text dictated on Jan. 6, 1949).

The goal of this extended knowledge of Mary is to increase our love for Her. The Blessed Virgin told Maria Valtorta: "Presently you are a child who does not know much about Me, your Mother, but one day you will know many things about Me. You will no longer know Me as one knows a nameless, distant star from its ray of light. Nor will you know Me only as an ideal or idealized being. You will know Me as a living and loving reality. You will know the heart of the Mother of God and the dear Mother of Jesus. I am a woman who understands the sufferings of women; I understand because I was not spared the worst sufferings of all. To understand the sufferings of others, I have only to remember My own. When you see all this, you will love Me as I loved My Son, with your whole being." (Quaderni dal 1943. p. 639. December 8)

This explains why Maria Valtorta, as a writer, spared neither labor nor sacrifice.

"I don't feel well at all," [she admitted]. "To write wears me out. After writing, I turn into a rag doll. But I don't hold back: I want to make other people know Her better and love Her better. My shoulders hurt? My heart fails? I get headaches? My temperature goes up? So what! As long as Mary is known, beautiful and lovable as I see Her, thanks to God's goodness and Hers too, that's enough for me." (Quaderni dal 1944. p. 381. June 7)

Maria Valtorta's work, going in Italian under the title of Il poema dell’Uomo-Dio, could just as well have been called Il poema of the Mother of God. Besides restoring and completing the evangelical form of Christ, it also restores and completes Mary's.

We could also say that Maria Valtorta's Mariology is new, because it presents the Blessed Virgin in a new light, it presents Her as a new creature. While apparently similar to all other pure creatures, in reality She is very different. [Footnote: The expression pure creature refers to any creature except the humanity of Jesus. Christ, superior to His Mother Mary, is not a pure creature, since He is at once Creator and creature. As God, He is the Creator; as man, He is a creature]. She is a creature always engulfed in the infinite light of Her Creator, in the light of the One God in three Persons. She is a creature surrounded with an exceptional and fascinating splendor which emanates from Her unique mission. God "conceived Her, gathering all graces in Her. She is the Virgin. She is the Only One. She is the Perfect One. The Complete One. Conceived as such [by God]. Generated as such. Remained such. Crowned such. Eternally such. She is the Virgin. She is the {abyss} of intangibility, of purity, of grace that is lost in the Abyss from which it emerged: in God: most perfect Intangibility, Purity, Grace." (Poem, Vol. 1, p. 32)

Finally, Maria Valtorta's Mariology is new, because she presents the Blessed Virgin in a new form, with new developments and new, attractive images.

One example of new developments in Maria Valtorta's writings is the famous classical parallel Eve/Mary. None of the Fathers or ecclesiastical writers, not even all of the Fathers and writers put together, have developed this parallel in such a captivating, expansive, or complete a way as Maria Valtorta did. What is amazing is that she was totally independent of these traditional sources: they were totally unknown to her.

I think that these considerations more than adequately refute the Dominican's groundless objection (which itself is rather ambiguous, unclear, and definitely not developed). Moreover, as I said earlier, we need the original context of their isolated quotation. No serious scholar quotes from a book he is criticizing without giving a reference. Did they merely paraphrase in their own words what Valtorta wrote or is it a word-for-word quotation? Did they misrepresent or distort what Valtorta actually wrote (which they have already done on other occasions) and did they take into account the relevant context? How do we look the quotation up if they didn't provide a reference? (We are talking about a text of 4,200 printed pages here). I am quite confident, considering the thorough and detailed combing through every line of her work done by world-renowned trustworthy theologians and by Fr. Gabriel Roschini (one of the greatest and most learned Mariologists of the 20^th century who published a 395-page Mariological study of Valtorta's writings), that the statement in question is completely fine when considered in the relevant context.

Scripture, the writings of the saints, and Church Tradition all confirm that Mary was and is Co-Redemptrix. I would be surprised if knowledgeable Catholics were not already aware of this. The Church Fathers and Scripture frequently speak about Our Lady as the New Eve. It is obvious that Our Lady's holy maternity contributed to the merits that she accumulated during her life as Co-Redemptrix; and, as the New Eve, that Our Lady's "Fiat" (which cancelled Eve's disobedience) contributes to the redemption of women, just as many saints have already written.