Refutation of Their Third Failed Attempt to Demonstrate a Contradiction with the Canonized Gospels

The Resistance Dominicans made a list in which they attempted to demonstrate a contradiction between Valtorta's work and the canonized Gospels. Here is their third listed item:

One can note numerous contradictions with the Gospel, for example: Our Lady gets angry, cries out and becomes "almost" delirious after the death of her Son;

Prof. Leo A. Brodeur, M.A., LèsL., Ph.D., H.Sc.D., wrote:118

Let us return to the alleged dogmatic or moral errors which some opponents of the Poem of the Man-God claim to find in it. The alleged errors result from the opponents' own doing: they rarely present complete quotations, they mutilate them; they wrench the quotations out of context, when only the context gives them their proper meaning; they sometimes even go so far as to falsify certain texts. Also, the testimony of those opponents often is not credible because of their lack of knowledge in mystical theology, their ignorance of Valtorta's work, or their prejudice against it. Some have even gone so far as to declare publicly that they had not read it and did not intend to in the least.

If one actually reads what Valtorta wrote with the surrounding context, what she wrote is perfectly acceptable and a reasonable and normal human reaction of a mother who just saw her son tortured to death. Scripture recounts that such mourning was the custom of the times for women in the first century Hebrew culture: "And there followed Him a great multitude of people, and of women, who bewailed and lamented him." (Luke 23:27) Scripture even relates that Jesus wept over the death of Lazarus. (John 11:35) How much more would Our Lady experience the most tremendous emotions of pain and sorrow upon the death of Her Son, and such an ignominious death! Many canonized saints have experienced similar human reactions to tragedies during their life. Some Scripture scholars think that St. Mary Magdalene got angry with the One she mistook for a gardener when she cried out at the tomb, "Where have you placed him?" (John 20:15); and yet she didn't suffer even one thousandth the amount that Our Lady did in seeing her Son die, because Mary Magdalene's love of Our Lord wasn't even one thousandth the degree of Our Lady's love for Our Lord. The passage in Valtorta is perfectly acceptable and has been approved as acceptable by too many completely orthodox, reputable, balanced, and highly learned theologians to list here while trying to keep this article brief. I believe it is sufficiently evident to anyone who reads the passage in question that it is acceptable, realistic, and a non-problem, just as many world-renowned theologians, among them the greatest Mariologist of the 20^th century, Fr. Roschini, affirmed.

As a matter of fact, it is significant that Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M., analyzed the chapter under examination and provided commentary on it. Before we analyze this chapter of Valtorta's work in further depth, I think it is important to relate what he wrote about this, especially considering that he was a distinguished theologian.

Fr. Corrado Berti, O.S.M., was a professor of dogmatic and sacramental theology of the Pontifical Marianum Theological Faculty in Rome from 1939 onward, and Secretary of that Faculty from 1950 to 1959. He is one of the three priests who had an audience with Pope Pius XII about the Poem of the Man-God wherein Pope Pius XII commanded him to publish the Poem of the Man-God "just as it is". Fr. Berti is also the one who supervised the editing and publication of the critical second edition of the Poem and provided the extensive theological and biblical annotations that accompany that edition and all subsequent editions. Fr. Berti wrote in his signed testimony on December 8, 1978:

"I read and annotated (by myself from 1960 to 1974; with the help of some confreres from 1974 on) all the Valtorta writings, both edited and unedited."119

Fr. Berti was an extremely learned and traditional/orthodox scholar who thoroughly analyzed Maria Valtorta's writings and provided more than 5,675 scholarly footnotes and appendices for her work, including for difficult passages that critics have or could potentially criticize. This averages about 568 footnotes per volume and averages slightly more than one footnote per page throughout the whole 5,264 printed pages. In 1961, the second critical Italian edition of the Poem of the Man-God, published by Knight Michele Pisani's son Emilio Pisani, contained these scholarly footnotes and appendices by Fr. Berti. The subsequent editions, including the current fourth edition released in 2001, have many of these footnotes.

Fr. Gabriel Roschini, Consultant of the Holy Office, stated in 1961 that the new critical second edition "was not to be considered to be on the Index, because it was totally renewed, conformed in all to the original, and provided with notes that removed any doubt and which demonstrated the solidity and orthodoxy of the work."120

In fact, Bishop Williamson, who is at the forefront of the traditional Catholic Resistance, wrote in an article in October 2012, "the seeming doctrinal errors are not difficult to explain, one by one, as is done by a competent theologian in the notes to be found in the Italian edition of the Poem."121 He is referring to Fr. Berti in this quote of his.

Fr. Berti provided a footnote for the entire chapter entitled "The Burial of Jesus and the Spiritual Distress of Mary" which is the chapter that the Resistance Dominicans are undoubtedly most likely referring to. Here is his footnote:122

That the Virgin Mary, most holy but true Mother of Jesus, intimate Sharer of His destiny, and a distinctly Oriental woman---that she should have grieved and wailed, even in accordance with the style of that time and place, though with the greatest propriety and dignity, is something credible and well founded. See: Luke 23:27 and the antiphon of the Roman Breviary, at Lauds of Holy Saturday: "Mulieres sedentes ad monumentum lamentabantur, flentes Dominum" ["the women sitting at the tomb were bewailing, weeping for the Lord"]. But if someone were still struck by the content and expressions of the Lamentations of Most Holy Mary, as we read them in this Work, let him carefully consider that, as the Experts assure us, the Work is in fullest accord with a long Oriental, Syriac, and Greek homiletic and hymnographic tradition (see Ephrem, 4^th century; Anphilochius of Iconium, 4^th century; Romano the Lyricist, 6^th century), which culminates in the 7^th century in the "Weeping of the Virgin", handed down to us by St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, where a very similar or identical style of lament recurs (theological; with considerations on the past and the present, on goodness and wickedness, etc.), and with very close or identical expressions (sweet, strong, terrible). Of his [St. Germanus'], therefore, one should read attentively the "Oratio in ... Corporis Domini ... sepulturam ...” ["Prayer for ... the burial ... of the Lord’s Body”] in Migne, Patrologia Graeca [Greek Patrology], tome 98, col. 267-278 (243-290). What is affirmed by the Oriental Patristic tradition is also valid for the [Oriental] liturgical [tradition]: we see many of the so-called "staurotheotokia" (praises to the Mother of God at the foot of the Cross) of the Greek liturgy.

Fr. Berti, who was extremely learned, provided very helpful insight. He shows how such lamentation of Our Lady in Valtorta's work was perfectly in accord with the customs of her race, culture, and time period. As a matter of fact, the fact that Valtorta described Our Lady mourning in this way is not only beautifully indicative of her great love and showcases certain beautiful aspects of the first century Hebrew culture and customs, but it supports the fact that Valtorta was having a true vision of a real historical event because if Valtorta had been trying to make things up to appeal to a modern 20^th century audience, she would not have described Our Lady's lamentations in a way that seems foreign to 20^th century modern man who lives 2,000 years later in a whole different culture, continent, and time period. The very fact that the Resistance Dominicans object to her lamentations only shows their academic ignorance, their prejudice, and their bias.

I could go on listing 24 extremely learned clerics or Doctors of Theology/Divinity/Canon Law, seven Members or Consultants of the Holy Office/Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and seven Saints/Blesseds/Venerables/Servants of God (not all of whom honest traditional Catholics would doubt the holiness or learning) who have all publicly praised Valtorta's writings and recommended their use and affirmed that they are free of errors in faith and morals. All of these renowned theologians fully approved and embraced the written account of Our Lady's lamentations in the chapter under examination. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of lay faithful and dozens of bishops have also expressed approval and appreciation of the chapter in question. The only ones who would have problems with it are those who are purposefully looking for faults, are highly uneducated in the relevant historical customs under examination, and are oftentimes swayed by personal bias and an ill-disposed, closed mindset. One must be mature, open-minded, and interested in the truth to find the truth, but unfortunately, many people are not, including among traditional Catholics.

Speaking of emotions, Paul T.Y. Atworth relates:123

Objection: Valtorta's books are too emotional.

Answer: Emotions are not wrong, unless they are directed at the wrong object. Tenderness and lofty feelings are proper when one loves God mystically, as can be seen in the Canticle of Canticles. The onus is therefore on critics to: 1. produce examples of misplaced tenderness, feeling, or affection in Valtorta's writings, 2. make sure the examples are not taken out of context, and 3. explain why they are misplaced according to clear theological and moral principles. As for us, we have never noticed any such misplaced show of emotions. On the contrary, we have found all emotions expressed by Jesus or Mary in praising God or helping their neighbors in Valtorta's writings to be totally worthy of them. (See also The Poem of the Man-God, vol. 5, p. 947, #4)

Blessed Gabriel M. Allegra, O.F.M., was a very learned and world-renowned exegete, theologian, and missionary priest in the Order of the Friars Minor, which he entered into at the age of 16. After being ordained in 1930, he departed to China, and distinguished himself as an exemplary missionary and man of culture. As a St. Jerome of our time, he was the first to translate the entire Bible into Chinese, and his work had the support and acknowledgement of successive popes from Pius XI to Paul VI. Gabriel Allegra is the only biblical scholar of the 20^th century who has been beatified. He wrote the following about this chapter in Valtorta's work:

And not only from the human point of view, but especially a theological one, who can remain indifferent reading the two chapters on the desolation of His most holy Mother after the tragedy of Calvary, which reveal to us how the Co-Redemptrix had been tempted by Satan, and how Her Redeemer-Son had been tempted? The sublime theology of these two chapters may be compared to that of so many of the laments of the Sorrowful Mother.

Blessed Allegra also wrote:

[...] After Jesus died, Mary co-redeemed with her desolation up to the moment of His Resurrection. The Desolation of the Dolorous Mother comprised a direct personal attack by Lucifer, and then so many indirect assaults against her faith in the Resurrection, and---even for her---the abandonment by the Father.

In two long chapters, Valtorta describes what she saw and heard during the night of Good Friday, the day of the Sabbath, and the night of the Sabbath [Holy Saturday]. The little that I have read on the Sorrowful Mother on this subject remains in generalities; it cannot be compared to these powerful and very tender pages of Maria Valtorta. I cannot for anything convince myself that they are a simple meditation of a pious woman. No. This soul has seen and heard! The Finger of God is here!

So now let's analyze one of the passages in question.

Here is the account of what Valtorta saw in her vision when Our Lord was let down from the Cross into Our Lady's arms:124

The left palm is unnailed. The arm falls along the Body, which is now hanging semi-detached.

They tell John to climb up as well, leaving the ladders to the women. And John, after climbing up where Nicodemus was previously, passes Jesus' arm round his neck and holds it so, hanging completely on his shoulder, embraced at the waist by his arm and held by the tips of the fingers not to touch the horrible gash of the left hand, which is almost open. When the feet are unnailed, John has to make a great effort to hold and support the Body of his Master between the cross and his own body.

Mary has already placed Herself at the foot of the cross, sitting with Her back against it, ready to receive Her Jesus in Her lap.

But the unnailing of the right arm is the most difficult operation. Despite all John's efforts, the Body is hanging completely forward and the head of the nail is deeply sunk in the flesh. And as they do not want to make the wound worse, the two compassionate men work hard. At last the nail is seized with the tongs and pulled out gently.

John has been holding Jesus all the time by the armpits, with His head hanging on his shoulder, while Nicodemus and Joseph get hold of Him, one at the thighs, the other at the knees, and they cautiously come down the ladders.

When on the ground, they would like to lay Him on the sheet that they have spread on their mantles. But Mary wants Him. She has opened Her mantle, letting it hang on one side, and She is sitting with Her knees rather apart to form a cradle for Her Jesus.

While the disciples are turning round to give Her Son to Her, the crowned head falls back and the arms hang down towards the ground, and the wounded hands would rub on the soil, if the pity of the pious women did not hold them up to prevent that.

He is now in His Mother's lap... And He looks like a big tired child who is asleep all cuddled up in his mother's lap. Mary is holding Him with Her right arm round the shoulders of Her Son and Her left one stretched over the abdomen to support Him also by the hips.

Jesus' head is resting on His Mother's shoulder. And She calls Him... She calls Him in a heart-rending voice. She then detaches Him from Her shoulder and caresses Him with Her left hand, She takes and stretches out His hands and, before folding them on His dead body, She kisses them and weeps on their wounds. Then She caresses His cheeks, particularly where they are bruised and swollen, She kisses His sunken eyes, His mouth lightly twisted to the right and half-open.

She would like to tidy His hair, as She has tidied His beard encrusted with blood. But in doing so, She touches the thorns. She stings Herself trying to remove that crown, and She wants to do it by Herself, with the only hand which is free, and She rejects everybody saying: « No, no! I will! I will! » and She seems to be holding the tender head of a new-born baby with Her fingers, so delicately does She do it. And when She succeeds in removing the torturing crown, She bends to cure all the scratches of the thorns with Her kisses.

With a trembling hand She parts His ruffled hair, She tidies it and weeps, speaking in a low voice, and with Her fingers She wipes the tears that drop on the cold body covered with blood and She thinks of cleaning it with Her tears and Her veil, which is still round Jesus' loins. And She pulls one end of it towards Herself and She begins to clean and dry the holy limbs with it. And She continually caresses His face, then His hands and His bruised knees and then reverts to drying His Body, on which endless tears are dropping.

And while doing so Her hand touches the gash on His chest. Her little hand, covered with the linen veil, enters almost completely into the large hole of the wound. Mary bends to see in the dim light which has formed, and She sees. She sees the chest torn open and the heart of Her Son. She utters a cry then. A sword seems to be splitting Her heart. She shouts and then throws Herself on Her Son and She seems dead, too.

They succour and console Her. They want to take Her divine Dead Son away from Her and as She shouts: « Where, where shall I put You? In which place, safe and worthy of You? » Joseph, all bent in a respectful bow, his open hand pressed against his chest, says: « Take courage, o Woman! My sepulchre is new and worthy of a great man. I give it to Him. And my friend here, Nicodemus, has already taken the spices to the sepulchre, as he wishes to offer them. But I beg You, as it is getting dark, let us proceed... It is Preparation Day. Be good, o holy Woman! »

Also John and the women beg Her likewise and Mary allows Her Son to be removed from Her lap, and She stands up, distressed, while they envelop Him in a sheet, begging: « Oh! do it gently! »

Nicodemus and John at the shoulders, Joseph at the feet, they lift the Corpse enveloped not only in the sheet, but resting also on the mantles which act as a stretcher, and they set out down the road.

Mary, supported by Her sister-in-law and by the Magdalene, goes down towards the sepulchre, followed by Martha, Mary of Zebedee and Susanna, who have picked up the nails, the tongs, the crown, the sponge and the cane.

On Calvary remain the three crosses, the central one of which is bare and the other two have their living trophies, who are dying.

There is no indication in this passage of Our Lady getting (to quote the Resistance Dominicans) "angry and becoming 'almost delirious'" in this passage. The way Our Lady responded in the above scene is very reasonable, realistic, and holy.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, the relevant chapter which the Dominicans are most probably referring to is the next chapter, entitled: "The Burial of Jesus and the Spiritual Distress of Mary". I won't quote the chapter here for the sake of brevity because it is lengthy, but readers are invited to read the entire chapter in context themselves.

Many renowned theologians have read both of these chapters of Valtorta's work and affirmed they are perfectly consistent with the canonized Gospels and are not only not against faith or morals, but are remarkably instructive and enlightening, including Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M. (one of the top two Mariologists of the 20^th century and Consultant to the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints), Archbishop Carinci (Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites from 1930 to 1960), Blessed Gabriel Allegra, O.F.M. (World-Renowned Scripture scholar and Theologian, whose work had the support and acknowledgement of successive popes from Pius XI to Paul VI), Msgr. Hugo Lattanzi (Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Lateran Pontifical University and Consultant to the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints), Bishop John Venancio (who taught Dogmatic Theology at a Pontifical University in Rome and was Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Portugal, from 1954 to 1972), and many others.

For what it's worth, I have also carefully read the entire chapter just mentioned, while specifically keeping in mind the specific objections of the Resistance Dominicans. What I read in that chapter only increased my appreciation of what Our Lady had to go through as Co-Redemptrix. What I read only increased my love for Our Lady and my compassion on her sufferings. What I read only deepened my understanding of the sorrows of Jesus and Mary and the heroic virtue they practiced. What I read only increased my faith and love. In all of the human emotions that Our lady experienced, there is no indication other than that they were proper, normal, and without sin, especially when you consider the circumstances. Insofar as Our Lady experienced the emotion of anger, it was not sinful nor expressed in a sinful way in the least. Even Our Lord expressed anger when He overturned the tables of money-changers and the chairs of those that sold doves and "when He had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, He drove them all out of the Temple." (John 2: 14-15) Would the Resistance Dominicans consider that expression of anger sinful? Or would they consider Jesus whipping them with cords as sinful? Scripture tells us that Jesus wept (John 11:35). Scripture relates that mourning of the type that Our Lady expressed was the custom of the times for women in the first century Hebrew culture: "And there followed Him a great multitude of people, and of women, who bewailed and lamented him." (Luke 23:27)

There is a dictation of Jesus Christ Himself given at the end of the Poem of the Man-God when He gave the reasons for this work and His concluding remarks. He says some comments that are relevant in our discussion here:125

Jesus says:

« The reasons that have induced Me to enlighten and dictate episodes and words of Mine to Little John [Maria Valtorta] are, in addition to the joy of communicating an exact knowledge of Me to this loving victim-soul, manifold.

But the moving spirit of all of them is My love for the Church, both teaching and militant, and My desire to help souls in their ascent towards perfection. The knowledge of Me helps to ascend. My word is Life.

I mention the main ones:

[Note: I am skipping reasons #1-3 in this present excerpt and jumping to reason #4 below because it is the most relevant for this section]

4. To reinstate in their truth the figures of the Son of Man and of Mary, true children of Adam by flesh and blood, but of an innocent Adam. The children of the Man were to be like Us, if our First Parents had not depreciated their perfect humanity -- in the sense of man, that is of a creature in which there is the double nature, spiritual, in the image and likeness of God, and the material nature -- as you know they did. Perfect senses, that is, subject to reason even in their great efficiency. In the senses I include both the moral and the corporal ones. Therefore total and perfect love both for Her spouse, to whom She is not attached by sensuality, but only by a tie of spiritual love, and for Her Son. Most loved. Loved with all the perfection of a perfect woman for the child born of Her. That is how Eve should have loved: like Mary: that is, not for what physical enjoyment her son was, but because that son was the son of the Creator and out of obedience accomplished His order to multiply the human race.

And loved with all the ardor of a perfect believer who knows that that Son of Hers, is not figuratively but really the Son of God. To those who consider Mary's love for Jesus too affectionate, I say that they should consider who Mary was: the Woman without sin and therefore without fault in Her love towards God, towards Her relatives, towards Her spouse, towards Her Son, towards Her neighbor; they should consider what the Mother saw in Me besides seeing the Son of Her womb, and finally that they should consider the nationality of Mary. Hebrew race, eastern race, and times very remote from the present ones. So the explanation of certain verbal amplifications, that may seem exaggerated to you, ensues from these elements. The eastern and Hebrew styles are flowery and pompous also when commonly spoken. All the writings of that time and of that race prove it, and in the course of ages the eastern style has not changed very much.

As twenty centuries later you have to examine these pages, when the wickedness of life has killed so much love, would you expect Me to give you a Mary of Nazareth similar to the arid superficial woman of your days? Mary is what She is, and the sweet, pure, loving Girl of Israel, the Spouse of God. The Virgin Mother of God cannot be changed into an excessively morbidly exalted woman, or into a glacially selfish one of your days.

And I tell those, who consider Jesus' love for Mary too affectionate, to consider that in Jesus there was God, and that God One and Trine received His consolation by loving Mary, Who requited Him for the sorrow of the whole human race, and was the means by which God could glory again in His Creation that gives citizens to His Heavens. And finally, let them consider that every love becomes guilty when, and only when, it causes disorder, that is, when it goes against the Will of God and the duty to be fulfilled.

Now consider: did Mary's love do that? Did My love do that? Did She keep Me, through selfish love, from doing all the Will of God? Through a disorderly love for My Mother, did I perhaps repudiate My mission? No. Both loves had but one desire: to accomplish the Will of God for the salvation of the world. And the Mother said all the farewells to Her Son, and the Son said all the farewells to His Mother, handing the Son to the cross of His public teaching and to the Cross of Calvary, handing the Mother to solitude and torture, so that She might be the Co-Redeemer, without taking into account our humanity that felt lacerated and our hearts that were broken with grief. Is that weakness? Is it sentimentalism? It is perfect love, o men, who do not know how to love and who no longer understand love and its voices!

And the purpose of this Work is also to clarify certain points that a number of circumstances has covered with darkness and they thus form dark zones in the brightness of the evangelic picture and points that seem a rupture and are only obscure points, between one episode and another, indecipherable points, and the ability to decipher them is the key to correctly understand certain situations that had arisen and certain strong manners that I had to have, so contrasting with My continuous exhortations to forgive, to be meek and humble, a certain rigidity towards obstinate, inconvertible opponents. You all ought to remember that God, after using all His mercy, for the sake of His own honor, can say also "Enough" to those who, as He is good, think it is right to take advantage of His forbearance and tempt Him. It is an old wise saying.

In the passage under question in Valtorta (Our Lady at Our Lord's Tomb) there is absolutely no contradiction with Scripture, nor have the Resistance Dominicans demonstrated any such contradiction with Scripture or any theological problem or error against faith or morals. To the contrary, we have Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle, FSSPX, who was the first spiritual director and a professor of the SSPX Econe seminary, and a confessor of Archbishop Lefebvre, whom Archbishop Lefebvre called "our model spiritual guide", and about whom Archbishop Lefebvre said in a homily to the traditional Carmelites of Quievrain on July 21, 1986:

I read part of [The Poem of the Man-God] because Father Barrielle was very much in favor of this book of Maria Valtorta. He was convinced that it was absolutely true, that it could not be not true. [emphasis added]

To the contrary of the Resistance Dominican's assertion that Valtorta's work contradicts Scripture in this chapter (which they fail to argue with any valid argument or context), we have the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites from 1930 to 1960 (which was later renamed the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in 1969), who was in charge of investigating causes for pre-Vatican II beatification and canonization, who was conversant in recognizing true and false sanctity and was of distinguished repute, who was master of ceremonies for Pope Leo XIII and a confidant of Pope St. Pius X, and who many prelates considered to have passed away in the odor of sanctity.

This prelate, Archbishop Alfonso Carinci (1862-1963), visited Maria Valtorta three times, said Mass for her, read her writings in depth, wrote many letters back and forth with her (which have been published), and analyzed her case. He praised Maria Valtorta and The Poem of the Man-God (now entitled The Gospel as Revealed to Me), writing in 1952:126

"There is nothing therein which is contrary to the Gospel. Rather, this work, a good complement to the Gospel, contributes towards a better understanding of its meaning... Our Lord's discourses do not contain anything which in any way might be contrary to His Spirit." [emphasis added]

Archbishop Carinci also stated:127

"...it seems impossible to me that a woman of a very ordinary theological culture, and unprovided with any book useful to that end, had been able on her own to write with such exactness pages so sublime."

"Judging from the good one experiences in reading it [i.e., The Poem], I am of the humble opinion that this Work, once published, could bring so many souls to the Lord: sinners to conversion and the good to a more fervent and diligent life. [...] While the immoral press invades the world and exhibitions corrupt youth, one comes spontaneously to thank the Lord for having given us, by means of this suffering woman, nailed to a bed, a Work of such literary beauty, so doctrinally and spiritually lofty, accessible and profound, drawing one to read it and capable of being reproduced in cinematic productions and sacred theater."

To the contrary of the Resistance Dominican's assertion that Valtorta's work contradicts Scripture in this chapter (which they fail to argue with any valid argument or context), we have Fr. Gabriel Roschini's testimony. Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., was a world-renowned Mariologist, decorated professor and founder of the Marianum Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome, professor at the Lateran Pontifical University, and a Consultant to the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints. An article on Gabriel Roschini relates:128

During the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, he worked closely with the Vatican on Marian publications. In light of the encyclopedic accuracy of his work, Roschini is considered as one of the top two Mariologists in the 20th century. His first major work, a four-volume Mariology, Il Capolavoro di Dio, is judged to be the most comprehensive Mariological presentation in the 20th century. Several theologians called him "one of the most profound Mariologists" and "irreplaceable".

He was highly esteemed by all the Popes during his priestly life (especially Pope Pius XII). Fr. Roschini has written over 790 articles and miscellaneous writings, and 130 books, 66 of which were over 200 pages long. Most of his writings were devoted to Mariology. Lest someone automatically think he's a modernist whose writings can't be trusted, it is good to note that he was born in 1900, became a priest in 1924, and spent most of his priestly life prior to the crisis in the Church that has broken out during the past 50 years. All of his writings on Mariology are completely traditional/orthodox. An article relates, "During the pontificate of Pius XII, 'the most Marian Pope in Church history,' Roschini worked closely with the Pontiff, arranging his own publications parallel to Papal Mariological promulgations... Together he published over 900 titles, mostly on Mariology, in addition to his encyclopedic works, reviewing the Mariological contributions of saints like Bernard of Clairvaux and Anthony of Padua. In 1950, he explained the Mariology of Thomas Aquinas. He detailed his Mariology in a major work in the year 1952."129

He was also at some time Prior General of the Order of the Servants of Mary, Vicar General, and General Director of its studies. He was also a member of several scholarly academies, and vice-president of the Pontifical Academy of Our Lady Immaculate (founded in 1847).130

Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., in his last book, The Virgin Mary in the Writings of Maria Valtorta:131

I have been studying, teaching, preaching, and writing Mariology for half a century already. To do this, I had to read innumerable works and articles of all kinds on Mary: a real Marian library.

However, I must candidly admit that the Mariology found in all of Maria Valtorta's writings -- both published or unpublished -- has been for me a real discovery. No other Marian writings, not even the sum total of everything I have read and studied, were able to give me as clear, as lively, as complete, as luminous, or as fascinating an image, both simple and sublime, of Mary, God's Masterpiece.

It seems to me that the conventional image of the Blessed Virgin, portrayed by myself and my fellow Mariologists, is merely a paper mache Madonna compared to the living and vibrant Virgin Mary envisioned by Maria Valtorta, a Virgin Mary perfect in every way.

...whoever wants to know the Blessed Virgin (a Virgin in perfect harmony with the Holy Scriptures, the Tradition of the Church, and the Church Magisterium) should draw from Valtorta's Mariology.

If anyone believes my declaration is only one of those ordinary hyperbolic slogans abused by publicity, I will say this only: let them read before they judge! [emphasis added]

Fr. Roschini has written over 790 articles and miscellaneous writings, and 130 books, 66 of which were over 200 pages long. Most of his writings were devoted to Mariology.

For a theologian, such as Fr. Roschini, O.S.M., to be so well-read and so learned as to have written 130 totally orthodox books about Our Lady, and to be a decorated professor at the Marianum Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome (which he founded), an advisor to the Holy Office, and to be called by a Pope "one of the greatest Mariologists who ever lived", it is not presumptuous to assume that he has probably read every single great work ever written about Our Lady -- including Venerable Mary of Agreda's Mystical City of God, the revelations of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, the revelations about Our Lady given to St. Bridget of Sweden, and almost every single other major work about Our Lady. Yet -- even so -- Fr. Roschini declared: "No other Marian writings, not even the sum total of everything I have read and studied, were able to give me as clear, as lively, as complete, as luminous, or as fascinating an image, both simple and sublime, of Mary, God's Masterpiece." Such a declaration from such a theologian as he carries a lot of weight!

In fact, Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., had personally met Valtorta, but admitted that, at first, like many others, he was a respectful and condescending skeptic. But after carefully studying her writings for himself, he underwent a radical and enthusiastic change of heart, later declaring Valtorta to be "one of the eighteen greatest mystics of all time."132 As material for a course which he taught at the Marianum Pontifical Theological Faculty in Rome on the Marian intuitions of the great mystics, Fr. Gabriel Roschini used both Maria Valtorta's The Poem of the Man-God as well as her other mystical writings as a basis for his course.133

Fr. Roschini praised Maria Valtorta's Poem as the greatest Mariology he has ever read in his life, stating, "It seems to me that the conventional image of the Blessed Virgin, portrayed by myself and my fellow Mariologists, is merely a paper mache Madonna compared to the living and vibrant Virgin Mary envisioned by Maria Valtorta, a Virgin Mary perfect in every way."134 I think that if Fr. Roschini -- again, very likely the greatest and most learned Mariologist of the 20^th century -- found something objectionable in Maria Valtorta's writings along the lines of what the Resistance Dominicans claimed, he would have mentioned it in his 395-page book about the Mariology in Maria Valtorta's writings. But he had only praise for her writings and affirmation that her Mariology is in perfect line with Tradition and true Catholic doctrine.

Fr. Gabriel Roschini, O.S.M., is easily ten times (if not fifty times) more learned than the Resistance Dominicans in Mariology, and so if the Resistance Dominicans want to say something contrary to the conclusions of Fr. Gabriel Roschini in his 395-page Mariological analysis of Valtorta's work (including that her Mariology is "in perfect harmony with the Holy Scriptures, the Tradition of the Church, and the Church Magisterium"), then the burden of proof is on them. Until they can irrefutably prove such error in Mariology (which will never happen), what Fr. Roschini affirms stands.

Other renowned theologians and Catholics have also affirmed that Valtorta's writings are free from error in faith and morals and consistent with what is in the canonized Gospels; in fact, so much so, that she even surpasses most exegetes in resolving many thorny exegetical problems. Earlier in this article, I quoted an excerpt revealing how the traditional-minded priest, Fr. Kevin Fitzpatrick, doctor of theology, wrote to William F. Buckley, Jr., "In fact, Valtorta seems to have solved the Synoptic problem that's been plaguing scholars for centuries, viz., the contradictions between Matthew, Mark, and Luke."135

Camillo Corsánego (1891-1963) was National President of Catholic Action in Italy, Dean of the Consistorial Lawyers (where he functioned as advocate of causes of beatification and canonization), and a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome. He wrote in a signed testimony in 1952:136

Throughout my life, by now fairly long, I have read a very large number of works in apologetics, hagiography [saints' lives], theology, and biblical criticism; however, I have never found such a body of knowledge, art, devotion, and adherence to the traditional teachings of the Church, as in Miss Maria Valtorta's work on the Gospels.

Having read those numerous pages attentively and repeatedly, I must in all conscience declare that with respect to the woman who wrote them only two hypotheses can be made: a) either she was talented like Manzoni or Shakespeare, and her scriptural and theological learning and her knowledge of the Holy Places were perfect, at any rate superior to those of anyone alive in Italy today; b) or else "digitus Dei est hic" ["God's finger is here"].

Obedient as I am (and as, with God's grace, I intend being all my life) to the supreme and infallible Magisterium of the Church, I will never dare take its place. Yet, as a humble Christian, I profess that I think the publication of this work will help to take many souls back to God, and will arouse in the modern world an apologetic interest and a leavening of Christian life comparable only to the effects of the private revelation [of the Sacred Heart] to St. Marie Alacoque. [emphasis added]

Blessed Gabriel M. Allegra, O.F.M., was a very learned and world-renowned exegete, theologian, and missionary priest in the Order of the Friars Minor, which he entered into at the age of 16. After being ordained in 1930, he departed to China, and distinguished himself as an exemplary missionary and man of culture. As a St. Jerome of our time, he was the first to translate the entire Bible into Chinese, and his work had the support and acknowledgement of successive popes from Pius XI to Paul VI. His Cause was opened in 1984, just eight years after his death; he was elevated to "Venerable" only 10 years later in 1994, and the decree of a miracle and his beatification was approved by the Holy See in 2002. He was finally beatified on September 29, 2012, at the Cathedral of Arcireale, Catania, in Sicilia. Gabriel Allegra is the only biblical scholar of the 20^th century who has been beatified. He was an outspoken and avid long-time supporter of Maria Valtorta, and his latter years were spent reading, studying, promoting, and defending the Poem of the Man-God. Here are a number of thought-provoking quotes from this very learned and holy priest:137

"In this work I find so many revelations which are not contrary to, but instead complete, the Gospel narrative... I find in her the charism of prophecy in the proper sense of a voice through which Valtorta exhorts, encourages, and consoles in the Name of God and, at rare times, elucidates the predictions of the Lord. I find in her doctrine: and doctrine such as is sure; it embraces almost all fields of revelation. Hence, it is multiple, immediate, luminous."

"What amazes me more is that Valtorta never falls into theological errors; on the contrary, she renders revealed mysteries easier for the reader, transposing them into a popular and modern language."

"Certain of the Lord's discourses, whose principle subject is only hinted at in the Gospels, are developed in this work with a naturalness, with a linking of thought so logical, so spontaneous, so coherent with the time, the place, and the circumstances, as I have never found in the most famous exegetes..."

"Regarding Valtorta's exegesis, it would be necessary to write a book; here I limit myself to reaffirming that I find no other works of eminent scripture exegetes which complete and clarify the Canonical Gospels so naturally, so spontaneously, with such liveliness as does The Poem of Valtorta."

"The dogmas which the Church continues defending in the course of the ages...are a solemn affirmation of the faith of the Apostles. Through an ineffable charism, Valtorta had been plunged again into the tender, moving, spontaneous faith of the Apostles, especially of St. John."

"As to the Mariology of this work, I know of no other books which possess a Mariology so fascinating and convincing, so firm and so simple, so modern and at the same time so ancient, even while being open to its future advances. On this point the Poem even, or rather above all, enriches our knowledge of the Madonna and irresistibly also our poor love, our languid devotion for Her. In treating the mystery of the Compassion of Mary, it seems to me that Valtorta, by her breadth, depth, and psychological sounding of the Heart of the Virgin, surpasses even St. Bonaventure and St. Bernard." [emphasis added]

In fact, as a result of the findings of my research, I can provide you with the following facts (there are undoubtedly more but these are only the ones I have been able to document so far):

I think that it is quite obvious to anyone with common sense that if there were such basic/elementary problems and contradictions to Scripture as the Resistance Dominicans were so quick to affirm (without providing any theological analysis, without consideration of the wider context, and without a clear demonstration), all these renowned theologians, bishops, professors, and pious lay faithful would not have fully embraced and praised Valtorta's work as the facts show they did, including the chapters under examination.

--

At Least 28 Bishops Have Approved, Endorsed, or Praised the Poem

(Bishops Representing 11 Different Countries)

Those who have approved/endorsed/praised the Poem of the Man-God include:

• Pope Pius XII
• 4 Cardinals
• 14 Archbishops
• 10 Regular Bishops
• 24 Extremely Learned Clerics or Doctors of Theology/Divinity/Canon Law
• 7 Members or Consultants of the Holy Office/Congregation for the Causes of Saints
• 7 Saints/Blesseds/Venerables/Servants of God
• 28 University Professors