"… if I had a family to defend: [I would read] aloud each night to the children selected chapters from Maria Valtorta’s Poem of the Man-God. And when we had reached the end of the five volumes in English, I imagine us starting again from the beginning, and so on, until all the children had left home!" (Bp. Williamson, Eleison Comments CCLXXV (275) 20 October 2012. HOME READING)
I've been asked to collate research I've done on the 'Catholic' Midrash titled The Poem of the Man God allegedly written by a woman named Maria Valtorta which is heavily promoted by Bp. Williamson. Most of this was posted at a traditionalist forum which was taken offline making it inaccessible. Below are some comments based upon that research which I posted at another traditionalist forum which doesn't include all my objections, most notably that "the Poem" depicts a Mary who reasons that she should be "a big sinner" so that she could repent later. This is barely veiled Lurianic theology which one might expect to find in a Frankist sect.
Below starts my comments and some dialogue which came in response to one of Bp. Williamson's published recommendations for children to be read The Poem of the Man God :
Below is a link to a recording of a talk given by Fr. Robinson (SSPX) promoting "The Poem." What interested me most is that Fr. Robinson says that his initial reaction to "The Poem" was negative but that Bp. Williamson insisted that he continue reading it.
Sadly, he states that Bp. Williamson stakes his theological reputation on "The Poem" being free from error. He says that Bp. Williamson has stated he would ordain any man to the priesthood who reads "The Poem" because he believes it contains an entire seminary curriculum within it (something I find unsettling in light of Bp. Williamson's recent statement about making his bishop's powers available "to anyone who will use them wisely").
Fr. Robinson has said that he has looked at every objection to "The Poem" but he nor any of "the Poem's" apologists have answered to its outrageous depiction of Christ venerating the Pharisee and father of rabbinic Judaism, Hillel; just as The Angelus administration never answered for the similar outrage in "Saint of the Sanhedrin."
This is where Bp. Williamson sadly walks in lockstep with the "Saint of the Sanhedrin" agenda.
"The Poem" or more accurately, the Midrash "of the Man-God," like "The Saint of the Sanhedrin" extols the virtue of the Pharisee Hillel, outrageously putting Jesus on his knees venerating Hillel's grave, among many other absurdities.
Quote "Jesus" as depicted in The Poem of the Man God:
"I love and venerate Hillel, I respect and honour Gamaliel. They are two men through whose justice and wisdom the origin of man is revealed"
Who in their right mind cannot see the pharisaic/rabbinic hand behind this outrageous Pharisee-veneration put in the mouth of Christ?
There is no justice in the Pharisee Hillel. A book that claims that Jesus venerated the Pharisee Hillel who overruled God's law on divorce and allowed divorce for any reason; who nullified God's 7 year release of debts and created loopholes for incest by defining it as "not sex" is absolutely, 100% certainly not from God.
"The Poem" was shepherded past Cardinal Ottaviani and the Holy Office by Cardinal Bea of unhappy memory whose treachery reached its zenith with the shepherding of Nostra Aetate through Vatican II.
At least Bp. Williamson admits that he recommends this Pharisee-venerating tome against the will of Archbishop Lefebvre although he minimizes the Archbishop's objections to it, and the objections of others.
To understand why it's impossible that Jesus would venerate the creature Hillel for "justice and wisdom" we look at Mark 10;2-10 and Matthew 19;3-9 in which the Pharisees attempt to ensnare Jesus on the topic of divorce.
Judaic and Christian scholarship of any given era largely takes for granted that Jesus is being confronted with the pharisaic positions of Hillel and Shammai in this passage. The Gospel passage makes it clear that Jesus condemns both the positions of Hillel and Shammai, corrects the injustices of both positions and teaches what God intends on the indissolubility of marriage.
The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia identifies Hillel and his "lax" teaching on divorce with the Gospel narrative of the Pharisaic attempted ensnarement of Jesus on that topic:
In the time of Christ there was an acute controversy between the recent, lax school of Hillel and the strict, conservative school of Schammai about the meaning of the Hebrew phrase ["for some uncleanness"]. Hence the question with which the Pharisees tempted Our Lord: "Is it lawful [for a man to put away his wife] for every cause?" The putting-away of the wife for frivolous reasons had been sharply condemned by God through the Prophets Micheas (ii, 9) and Malachias (ii, 14), but in later days it became very prevalent. (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Divorce")
We know from the Gospel that Jesus condemned Hillel's unjust teaching on divorce. We know with absolute certainty that the Gospel is of God. If the law of non-contradiction has any bearing on the matter, the Midrash "of the Man-God" which outrageously depicts Jesus venerating the creature Hillel for his "justice and wisdom" cannot be of God.
It may interest people to know that the shepherd of the Midrash "of the Man God," Augustin Bea wrote the draft for the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu which opened the Bible to textual and historical criticism within the Church. This same Augustin Bea abused every means to assure that the error-strewn Midrash "of the Man God" suffered no criticism at all.
Single-issue traditionalists who don't care about Augustine Bea's shepherding of the Midrash "of the Man God" past any criticism or his shepherding of Nostra Aetate through Vatican II or his shepherding of textual and historical criticism of Scripture into the Church may be interested to know of his role in shepherding the Novus Ordo Mass into Catholic parishes. Augustin Bea, along with Annibale Bugnini and others, was a member of the secretive Commission for Liturgical Reform from its very beginning in 1948. As we know, the first target of attack was the Holy Week liturgy.
There is a clear trajectory to his treachery for anyone with eyes to see. The Judaizing "Poem of the Man God" is very much in alignment with it.
It will be very good to have Bishop Williamson in the resistance.
We can only pray that Bishops Tissier and Alphonso will join it, so that there is no question as to which side is carrying the legacy of the Archbishop.
Catholic Tradition needs new leaders, new consecrations.
With the children being led to believe that Jesus venerated Hillel, among too many other absurdities to list, there will be no resistance worth speaking of.
How could a just man argue that a husband could put his away wife for spoiling supper, as the Pharisee Hillel taught?
It is maddening that the modernists have tried to cast Our Lord as a follower of Hillel. And worse that the ignorant or insane editors of the Angelus would attempt to place him between Isaiah and John the Baptist. Hillel does not appear in Holy Writ. Hillel is not a figure in salvation history. St. Paul asserted plainly that his pharisaic training was useless.
Indeed. And how can Bp. Williamson not only promote a work that goes far beyond "Saint of the Sanhedrin" in its outrages and claim that this work is of God?
This is far, far worse than The Angelus article which does not go so far as to make Jesus venerate Hillel or claim an imprimatur from heaven.
But again, someone reading your great posts could be led to believe that you are accusing Bishop Williamson of Judaizing, whereas I think he is really just (imprudently) recommending a book for other literary qualities.
The Bp. makes no such distinction. He claims it is from God. Children subjected to "the Poem" are unable to distinguish between the 'literary qualities' of the work and the errors it contains.
I don't know what the Bp.'s intention is here. I know that this work he recommends to the children of the resistance is part of the attack.
"Neil Obstat," the misunderstanding is on your part. I'm referencing not only this most recent endorsement of "The Poem" from Bp. Williamson but all of the countless endorsements of this Midrash that he's made throughout his entire ministry, most of which go much farther than this most recent Eleison Comments.
Bp. Williamson has gone so far as to say that he stakes his theological reputation on "The Poem of the Man God" being entirely free of error. He has said explicitly in another Eleison Comments (CCI May 21, 2001, "Two Repentances") that he believes "The Poem" is from God.
Those who were giving it high praise, even adulation, at the time were saying things like "but it fills in the gaps" (in Holy Scripture). What gaps did God leave in His book?
What's wrong with reading the Holy Bible as a family? Beats me!
I can only agree. The con-man Augustin Bea sold us something we not only don't need, but is damaging to us.
The rabbinic heirs of Hillel have been rendering their followers completely alien to Scripture for 2000 years with their Midrash, which purports to "fill in the blanks."
The shepherd of "The Poem of the Man God" Cardinal Augustin Bea with Vatican II co-conspirator Rabbi Abraham Heschel who said of Christians, "I want to attack their souls."