Friday, April 11, 2014

Bp. Williamson and The Midrash "of the Man God"

"… 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.

Telesphorus said:
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.

Telesphorus said:

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.

Seraphim said:

  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.

Nadir said:
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."


Michael Hoffman said...

Thank you for this important information.

Bishop Williamson is a very courageous man who has suffered tremendously at the hands of the Zionist lobby worldwide, but as a leader in the Church his blunders in promoting double-agent Fr. Malachi Martin, occultist Charles Coulombe and the horribly defective “Poem of the Man-God” need also to be addressed for the good of his soul and that of anyone who might be misdirected by him in these matters.

Neither Bishop Williamson nor that other brave Bishop, Tissier de Mallarais, have been willing to acknowledge that the Church of Rome fell under the spell of the Money Power and the Neoplatonic conspiracy from the 16th century onward.

hereisjorgebergoglio said...

Excellent post Maurice!

We had this on our list to investigate further but you saved us considerable time.

God willing we will have up some more blasphemy & apostasy of Francis with his favorite people this coming week.

Innocent Smith said...

Mr. Hoffman,

In reading your comment, I was shocked to see your description of Charles Coulombe as an occultist.

I am not that familiar with the man, only having listened to some audio files and some interviews he has given to the crew over at True Restoration.

So I am quite surprised at such a label. Could you please shed a little more light on the subject for those of us who may very well be less informed.

Of course, anyone else who may know what Mr. Hoffman is basing this opinion on is more than welcome to jump in as well.

Anonymous said...

I'm shocked, but maybe I shouldn't be. Years ago after SSPX had its new church built in Ridgefield, CT I attended high mass celebrated by Bp. Williamson. Sitting there were several Hasidic familes dressed in that garb. After mass, the bishop went straight to them and they chatted amicably, like they were on close terms. I still don't know what to make of it.

Katherine Gerak said...

I agree with you about Maria Valtorta's "Poem..." and I also, wrote a long letter to H.E. Bishop Williamson enumerating all the errors I found in only Volume I. I had not read her before H.E. wrote that article suggesting that the poem should be read to children, but I had read a lot about it and was not interested in reading it. But when H.E. recommended it to be read to children I was ready to protest immediately, but knew I had to read at least one volume in order to make my case. I sent for the book which cost me $80.00 plus postage and it was a used book at that! I read it and marked page after page with exclamation marks and protesting comments. When I got through it, and it was a chore, a penance even, I wrote a many page response against it on doctrinal grounds as well as protesting against Maria Valtorta herself who was clearly not mentally sound and got progressively worse so that for the last 8 years or so of her life she was no longer conscious, having lost her mind completely, but, it was obvious that the woman who looked after her when Maria took to her bed at 33 years of age, and stayed there until she died some 25 or so years later, manipulated her and influenced her in all this so-called conversing with, and having visions of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Mother and all the apostles etc. This woman inherited everything, rights to the book, house and property etc. I wrote all this to H.E. Bishop Williamson in my objection to his recommending the book, and he responded to my extensive critique with amazement that I had gone to such great lengths to try to convince him that he was in error, but, that I had not managed to change his opinion as to the value of the book. Needless to say, I considered that I had done my best and failed to convince him, but I must say that ever since then( a year or so ago)I have changed in my regard for his ability to judge clearly, to me that book should have stayed on the Index of Condemned Books where it had been put when the priest in league with the woman looking after Valtorta (whose name escapes me at the moment and my notes are elsewhere)attempted to have it published by the Vatican Press. There is so much that is wrong with that book that only reading one volume gave me many, many pages of criticism on all the reasons why that series of books should not be read by anyone since it is a pack of nonsense which totally changes anything the Bible says about Jesus, His mother, the Apostles et al. Needless to say, when I received Bishop Williamson's response, I burned the book and I would never recommend anyone to read it. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to thank you and to agree with you for more reasons why the book should not be read to children, or read by anyone for that matter as it will only distort that which is recorded in the Bible and thus, will only confuse and distort one's Faith. Thank you for bringing this difference of opinion over this Work of Valtorta's to your readers attention. When I first read H.E.'s praise and recommendation of this work to be read to children I checked on the Internet to see what it said about the "Poem..." and there it was recommended highly by H.E. and Fr. Robinson, and some Modernist theologians and I was eager to present a refutation and set about doing it. I am so thankful that you have brought it to the attention of your readers and I was happy to see Mr. Hoffman was also of the same mind. Well done and may God continue to bless your work! For Truth always, Katherine Gerak

Hans said...

Williamsons Holocaust "DEnial" could be a huge Psy-op. Someone in the Synagogue of Satan could have written the script to create an artificial antagonism between the RCC and religious Judaism, in order to conceal the fact, that both are branches of Mystery Babylon.

Anonymous said...

Thank you MAURICE PINAY and thank you KATHERINE GERAK. I personally know some of Williamson's seminary graduates, who, in my opinion, even the Novus Ordo would throw out of it's seminaries in no time at all. I have actually been told by a onetime Winona official, that he had recommended that one of these priests whom I know, not be ordained.

Reagan's Bush said...

So, Mr. Hoffman,
Are you saying Christianity failed?

Anonymous said...

Tradition In Action posted an unfavorable review of the Valtorta book.

Maurice Pinay said...

"I'm shocked, but maybe I shouldn't be. Years ago after SSPX had its new church built in Ridgefield, CT I attended high mass celebrated by Bp. Williamson. Sitting there were several Hasidic familes dressed in that garb. After mass, the bishop went straight to them and they chatted amicably, like they were on close terms. I still don't know what to make of it.


Some context:

Michael Hoffman said...

This is a two part comment.

Part One consists of Mr. Hugh Akins' public, e-mailed response to Maurice Pinay concerning Pinay’s protest over the presence of Talmudic garbage in Maria Valtorta's Poem of the Man-God.

Part Two consists of my rejoinder to Mr. Akins.

--Michael Hoffman


On Apr 14, 2014, at 12:55 PM,
Hugh Akins wrote:

My friends:

I wish my brother trads would set their priorities higher and busy themselves fighting the combats of Christ and stop letting so many self-appointed 
experts keep diverting our attention and splitting our ranks on relatively insignificant issues.

The great Pope Pius XII strongly favored The Poem of the Man-God.  The great Abp. Lefebvre approved of it.  The great Bp. Williamson gives it 
his blessing.  THAT'S ENOUGH FOR ME.   

If the work is imperfect that's because it was written by an imperfect woman.  So what?  It's still a spiritual gem.  Enough knit-picking!  Catholic men are called not 
to such silliness but to Christian COMBAT.  

Sadly, all these condemnations of The Poem are just one more episode in the endless divisions that beset and weaken and neutralize the Traditional
Movement and the Counterrevolution, which is already too weak and unmilitant.


Michael Hoffman said...

PART TWO (of Three)

Dear Mr. Akins

It is difficult to credit your sentiments with regard to the "Poem of the Man God" in light of the fact that you are enlisted in the campaign to expose Talmudic infiltration of the Church. Yet when you are confronted with evidence of Talmudic infiltration in this "Poem" you reply: "If the work is imperfect that's because it was written by an imperfect woman.  So what?  It's still a spiritual gem. "

Are you certain that the matter of having Our Lord Jesus Christ subordinate to the Pharisee Hillel is merely an imperfection in a work that is otherwise allegedly a "spiritual gem”? Is this matter really only a "diversion of attention"? If we are not to have our attention focused on the denigration of Jesus Christ and the ascendance of an evil cretin like Hillel, who was one of the “Chazal" (founding fathers) of the "Torah shebeal Peh" (Oral law) nullification of the Bible, what are we to focus on?

Should we march to war oblivious to infiltration in the ranks, consisting of a work that puts the Son of God on his knees venerating the grave of Hillel?There is laughter in hell when Catholics are encouraged to uphold a tome that contains this demonic degradation of Our Savior. You have written an entire book on Judaism, yet you are unable to discern the magnitude of mockery at work here?

Are you not aware of the infiltrator's principle of the "leaven of the Pharisees," whereby a small amount of deadly poison is injected into something that appears to be otherwise salutary so as to infect the whole, by gaining ingestion of the poison, which no matter how small at first, grows like malignant yeast?

You mention "Catholic men" and being "weak." I have often been disturbed by the spectacle of so many Catholic men preferring the dubious sayings and writings of lay women "seers" and clairvoyant nuns to the Bible, and in particular the Gospel and the writings of theologians such as Aquinas and John of the Cross...

...Continued in PART THREE

Michael Hoffman said...

PART THREE (see two previous comments for Parts One and Two)

Letter to Hugh Akins (continued from Part Two):

...It has been claimed that Bishop Wiliamson would ordain a man based on his devotion to "Poem of the Man God" (see Pinay quoting Fr. Robinson's statement). With all due respect to the courageous bishop, this is another one of his eccentricities for which the English are well-known; some are harmless and even endearing, others like the matter at hand, are misleading and potentially highly subversive.

I do not accuse Bishop Williamson of consciously perpetrating any sort of iniquity; rather it is a case of an eccentric turn of mind that sometimes has difficulty in restraining certain well-intentioned enthusiasms that nevertheless lead to much confusion and potentially, evil consequences. Some of this gains cachet because of the enormous and well-deserved admiration he has earned for his noble defiance, contra mundum, of the idolatrous religion of Holocaustianity. A prudent counsel would be to support Bishop Williamson when he is very right and admonish him when is very wrong. Knowing him as I think I do, I believe he would agree!

Hillel is a major saint in the occult pantheon and within the Neoplatonic conspiracy that gained hold of the Renaissance Church of Rome; the SSPX mindlessly promoted this occultism when it published its notorious article, "Saint of the Sanhedrin" in "The Angelus." They have never retracted it.

Let us be more concerned with details and exactitude rather than dismissing a clear case of Talmudic infiltration in a lady's novel, which Catholic men then proclaim as a virtual fifth gospel, to the dismay of those of us who have spent a lifetime in exposing this type of farrago and reminding Christians that >the devil is in the details.<

It is more than our dismay that is at issue. I know of at least one man who seems to have had a vocation who did not enter the SSPX seminary a few years ago in part due to "Saint of the Sanhedrin" and Bp. Williamson's promotion of Valtorta's stuff.

Finally, would you please produce documentation for your statement that Archbishop Lefebvre "approved" of The Poem of the Man God”?

Rest assured of my prayers for you. I solicit the same for myself.

Maurice Pinay said...

Finally, would you please produce documentation for your statement that Archbishop Lefebvre "approved" of The Poem of the Man God”?


I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that. Bp. Williamson admits in his Eleison Comments 275 that he promotes 'the Poem' despite Archbishop Lefebvre's disapproval of it.

Moreover there is no evidence that Pope Pius XII approved of it either, only the claim from a Fr. Berti who was heavily invested as 'theological annotator' of the Midrash.

Readers should also recall that as the Pope's confessor, the scoundrel Augustine Bea had tremendous leverage over Pius XII and that another priest handled by Bea, Malachi Martin, also peddled fraudulent 'papal' 'Jews'-worshipping claims.

Anonymous said...


A quote from 'The Plot Against the Church':

"Concerning the repeated attempts of Jewish freemasonry to
introduce itself into the Society (Jesuits) and to control it, another
source gives us information about this freemasonic rite created
for this gloomy purpose. It is stated in the official
encyclopaedic dictionary of freemasonry under the term
“estricta observancia” (strict observance): “Estricta
observancia. Description for a rite which had split up into
many others and represents the most perfect expression of the
Templar system in freemasonry. This rite was the third
freemasonic innovation of the Jesuits, who stirred up the hope
among their supporters to come into the possession of the riches of the old Templars. The chronological history of the
Grandmasters corresponds to that of the generals of the Society
of Jesus. The rite of strict observance was finally set up in
Germany, between 1760 and 1763, by the brother Karl Gathels,
the Baron of Hund, who to the six grades of the Order at first
determined added yet another. The rite was organised in the
following seven degrees: pupil, companion, master, Scottish
master, novice, Templar in three classes: Eques, Socius and
Armiger, and Eques professus.”342
The fact that, since his grounding in this Rite which was
intended to control the Jesuits, a new Grandmaster was also
chosen if a new general of the Order was appointed, shows the
tenacity of Jewry and its satellites, freemasonry, to introduce
themselves in the Holy Work of St. Ignatius and to control it."

Strict Observance - SSPXSO?

“Chazal" (founding fathers)

Father Chazal, SSPXSO?

Maurice Pinay said...

I've been contacted by an SSPX priest warning that it's "rash judgement" to criticize 'the Poem, a work which has already been condemned by the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Maurice Pinay said...

I've been contacted by an SSPX priest warning that it's "rash judgement" to criticize 'the Poem, a work which has already been condemned by the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani.

April 17, 2014 at 5:36 PM
The SSPX works on something called "supplied jurisdiction", meaning, the lay person in need of a sacrament/sacramental etc., in the case of necessity, supplies the SSPX priest with the jurisdiction to carry out the act.
If you (Maurice Pinay)did not supply the SSPX priest the jurisdiction to offer a theological comment on your criticism of Valtorta's poem, then he has no authority to do so.
Almost all the time the SSPX priests forget that this "supplied jurisdiction" is their oxygen, and, more often than not, to use a phrase of Hutton Gibson, "they strut even when seated".

Maurice Pinay said...

Needless to say, they don't have authority to overrule Cardinal Ottaviani/the Holy Office's condemnation of 'the Poem.' Doing so, for the cause of crypto- rabbinic apparitionist nonsense, would seem to be a case of rash judgement if there ever was one.

Unknown said...

Williamson no longer directly challenges the SSPX leadership over it's inordinate desire to be readmitted into the Conciliar Church.
He is a toothless bulldog.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Williamson is an infiltrator and a provocateur. His mission? To discredit Catholicism in general and tradition in particular.

I'd like to ask him what he knew about the 18 paedophile teachers at St Pauls during his time there that British police are presently investigating. (Google 18 paedophile teachers at St Pauls)

And his promotion and protection of Carlos Urrutigoity and the cabal of gay priests he allowed to be ordained at Winona. The same gay priests that formed a mafia at STA and left to form the Society of St John where they molested underage boys.

And why more than one of those disgraced priests has found his way into the resistance.

Then I'd like to hear about His Excellency's contacts to homosexual Nazis with a pretend love of catholicism.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Anonymous May 3, 2014 at 6:55 PM was probably making reference to Fr Marshall Roberts who now goes by the name "Fr Dominic Mary of the Pillar."

Anonymous said...

April 17, 2014 at 8:02 AM writes:

"Strict Observance - SSPXSO?

“Chazal" (founding fathers)

Father Chazal, SSPXSO?"

This may be of interest:

and there is the Comte de Chazal of Rosicrucian fame.

Anonymous said...

Now the Apostles of Jesus and Mary

Anonymous said...

Did Urritigoity read the poem of the mangod?

Anonymous said...

Archbishop LeFebvre never approved the reading blasphemous poem of the mangod.