thats true @Soul ma’am i like it.
And yes i have read the proofs, no doubt, but i just wanted to ask to know what others thought about this, nothing else sister.
but one part i cannot understand is this
And those who have Jesus in their hearts also have the Holy Spirit, for where I am, the Spirit of Love is, and it is sweet for Me to stay where the Spirit—Who proceeds from the Father and from Me and is Our Essence (Love)—is. (The Notebooks: 1945-1950 )
His Most Holy Father, from Whom the Son is begotten and from the two of Whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. (The Notebooks: 1945-1950 )
but im an orthodox and i know that this is a very controversial topic because as Orthodox i can assure that:
John 15:26 — Jesus says the Spirit “proceeds from the Father” and that He (Jesus) will send the Spirit to the disciples.
If i can get a helping hand, it would be good.
Precisely: “when there is no peace”, because Satan and His servants cannot produce peace, as I said. More importantly, as Jesus said.
As Jesus has said, Scripture is sufficient for bringing people to belief and salvation, but it is an incomplete knowledge of Him. And, you can’t forbid God from giving people visions of scenes from His own life on earth to help people understand Scripture and even Himself.
As you should, as do I and Samuel. We should thank Him for countless things in our lives constantly.
Thats very true @Soul sister, i can assure u that my fav The Complete Visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, are what caused me to study theology on the first place, it caused a very powerful change in my heart, that today im in this forum and discussing theological topics. That wasn’t the way it was, but i had a complete change of heart.
TO everyone
To everyone who desires to deepen their understanding of the Five Sorrowful Mysteries and the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ :
I wholeheartedly recommend reading The Complete Visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich . These mystical revelations, recorded by Clemens Brentano and Dr. Wesener, offer an unparalleled and soul-stirring insight into Christ’s suffering.
When I read them, my heart was changed. I discovered so much more about the depth of Jesus’ love, sacrifice, and the mystery of redemption.
You can access the full visions here: http://annecatherineemmerich.com/
I strongly encourage everyone to read it. It truly transformed me.
@Samuel_23 and @Soul,
Let’s pull this thing out of the poetic fog and set it down on solid rock. We are not playing with minor footnotes here. We’re talking about the nature of inspiration, the authority of revelation, and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit—so buckle up.
First, Soul, let’s deal with the glowing statement: “Jesus said it’s not canonical, but it’s still inspired.” That’s a theological landmine. If Jesus said that, where’s the proof? Chapter and verse, please. Because unless you can back that up with something stronger than a mystical footnote from a private diary, what you’re calling inspiration is dangerously close to spiritual fan fiction wearing a Jesus mask.
“Inspired” is not a casual word. 2 Timothy 3:16 defines it. It means God-breathed. It means Scripture. Not dreams. Not journals. Not poetic impressions that feel nice and align with your mood. Calling something inspired just because it moved you emotionally is how cults get traction and false doctrine gets baptized.
And now to the Filioque grenade.
Samuel, you spotted it. You’re right. That phrase “from the two of Whom the Holy Spirit proceeds” drops a doctrinal hammer—one that cracked the East and West into a schism that’s lasted over a thousand years. It’s not a side note. It’s a dividing line.
John 15:26 is clear. Jesus says the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Full stop. The Latin tradition later added “and the Son” into the Creed, but that wasn’t part of the early church’s universal confession. Whether you land East or West on that debate, one thing is certain: Maria Valtorta inserting that kind of precise Trinitarian language into a supposed private revelation is not just bold—it’s loaded.
Ask yourself this: did the Holy Spirit really need to settle an ancient theological controversy through a 20th-century mystic’s notebook? And if He did, why through a phrasing that perfectly aligns with the Roman Catholic doctrinal slant and not the original Creed received by the whole early Church?
You said it yourself—you’re Orthodox. So listen to your own roots. If this revelation pulls you toward Rome’s theological distinctives, maybe it’s not divine clarity you’re reading. Maybe it’s religious propaganda with a halo.
So here’s the test: is this pointing you deeper into the once-for-all delivered faith of the apostles—or nudging you into doctrinal detours dressed in spiritual beauty?
Scripture is already sufficient. Christ is already revealed. The Spirit already speaks through the Word.
Don’t trade the blazing light of the Bible for a glow-in-the-dark journal.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
I’ll find and link the scene of Jn. 15:26 from Scripture and The Poem of the Man-God (which is that scriptural scene in full), as well as Jesus’s dictations about how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. I work until 4:30 pm today and tomorrow. So, thank you in advance for your patience.
thank u @Soul
Also i thank @SincereSeeker for his replies
Praise be to God
Both Soul and SincereSeeker are putting forward very strong arguments. This is good.
We are having a good discussion.
Peace
Sam
Soul,
Let’s clear the table and put the meat of the matter front and center. You’re trying to carve out a category of “inspired but not canonical” to make space for private revelations like Valtorta’s, and saying Scripture is sufficient—but incomplete. That right there is where the slope turns slippery.
Jesus didn’t say Scripture gives “incomplete knowledge of Him.” He said “Search the Scriptures… they are they which testify of Me” (John 5:39). He didn’t add a footnote about waiting for future visions to fill in the gaps. And Paul didn’t call the Scriptures “sufficient for some.” He called them “able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” and “profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:15–17).
Complete means complete. Not emotionally satisfying. Not artistically embellished. Just complete.
Now about that Jeremiah 6:14 rebuttal. You said Satan can’t produce peace, quoting “when there is no peace” as proof. But the whole point of the verse is that false prophets said there was peace when there wasn’t. That means they created the illusion of peace. That’s Satan’s specialty—false calm, false comfort, false light. That’s why Paul warned in 2 Corinthians 11:14 that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. If he couldn’t imitate peace, no one would be deceived by him. You’re confusing the presence of peace with the appearance of it.
And your comment about not being able to “forbid” God from giving visions—of course God can speak however He wants. But He won’t contradict what He already said. He won’t encourage dependence on visions that draw people away from the sufficiency of Scripture. And He won’t endorse a mystic’s expanded gospel that includes doctrinal landmines and theological opinions masquerading as divine truth.
Here’s the uncomfortable but essential reminder: when someone starts claiming their mystical experiences “help people understand Scripture and even Himself,” they’ve crossed the line from devotion to competition. Scripture doesn’t need a sequel. The Holy Spirit doesn’t need a co-writer. And Jesus doesn’t need an Italian ghostwriter to clarify what He already revealed.
So yes, I’ll thank Him for countless things. But I won’t thank Him for something He didn’t author.
—Sincere Seeker. Stay grounded. Stay sharp. Stay in the Word.
Samuel_23,
I hear the sincerity in your words, and I don’t doubt for a second that something stirred in you through those pages. But let me ask the hard question, not to wound, but to wake: was it transformation by truth—or just captivation by imagery?
You said Anne Catherine Emmerich’s visions caused a powerful change in your heart and led you to study theology. I’m glad your heart was moved. But here’s the danger—even the wrong road can have beautiful scenery. Emotion is not the same as edification, and goosebumps are not a guarantee of gospel truth.
You’re recommending private visions as a tool to understand the Five Sorrowful Mysteries and the Passion of Christ. But Scripture already gives us the cross in full color. The Gospels don’t need extra blood, extra drama, or extra dialogue to make them powerful. They are already breathed out by God, already pierce soul and spirit, already lift Christ high without the help of a 19th-century mystic’s embellished dreamscape.
Now let’s talk Emmerich specifically. Her visions don’t just fill in artistic gaps. They add dialogue, detail, and doctrinal implications that go beyond Scripture. That’s not just risky. That’s spiritually reckless. You can’t build a theology on someone else’s dreams, no matter how heartfelt they are.
And the fact that Clemens Brentano “recorded” them? He admitted he edited, expanded, and revised her words. That’s not divine dictation. That’s religious ghostwriting. You’re handing out a book that has been reshaped by human hands and calling it insight into the Passion of Christ. That’s not revelation. That’s redirection.
You say it transformed you. Good. But now let the Word refine that transformation. Don’t stop at the emotional impact. Test it. Filter it. Hold it up to the Gospels. If what you saw in those visions is true, you’ll find it already written. If it’s not, then no matter how beautiful it felt—it’s not holy.
Christ’s suffering doesn’t need a commentary. His Passion doesn’t need a poet. And your walk doesn’t need to be built on anything but the Word.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
Which is not the same as saying that Scriptures are a complete knowledge of Him.
Precisely: when there wasn’t peace. As Jesus said, Satan and his servants cannot produce peace, which is why there wasn’t peace, despite them saying “Peace Peace!”
Of course God won’t contradict Himself. Have you ruled out the possibility that your interpretation of certain things in Scripture is inaccurate? And thus what you see as “contradictions” between Sripture and The Poem of the Man-God are not so?
Again, Jesus said that Scripture is sufficient for bringing people to belief and salvation.
Look at the thousands of Christian and other religious flocks there are in the world now (which flies in the face of Jesus’s desire of one flock), each with their own interpretation of Scripture (they can’t all be right), and the translation errors, and the Jehovah’s WItnesses who literally edited Scripture to their liking, and so on. Look at the Christians who clamor for the death penalty, or the deaths of Iranians, and so on, despite Scripture saying to love your enemy and not kill, and so on. Therefore, you cannot reasonably say that people do not need a better understanding of Scripture and thus of Jesus.
Keep the faith, @SincereSeeker, plenty of “strange” voices out there dressed up as truth.
J.
Yes here is a test i made for Maria Valtorta’s writings, just being honest here ok.
Now this is not an accepted one, but from what i learned from theology, i made 25 criterias i look for when reading it, till now im nearing the end of the Poem of Man-God (Chapter 106). I made this in my free-time, i though abt it day and night, this was a hard one
@SincereSeeker and @Soul can help me and are free to correct me where im wrong.
- Does it fully align with Scriptures, without contradiction.
Ans- Fail, i pointed out one which i cannot explain abt Filioque. - Does it claim divine inspiration or revelation equal to scripture?
Ans- Fail, Scripture is final
Some texts of Maria Valtorta imply direct inspiration, sometimes bordering on equal authority with scripture. It sometimes challenges the bible but like i pointed out one abt Filioque. - Is the author’s life characterized by holiness and obedience.
Ans- Pass - Did the Church approve or at least not condemn the writings.
Ans- Inconclusive - Does it exalt Jesus as sole saviour and Son of God
Ans- Solid Pass - Does it encourage obedience to Scripture
Ans- Solid Pass - Does it lead to spiritual fruits consistent with the Holy Spirit
Ans- Pass, like i had one. - Does it avoid promoting fear, superstition or cultic behaviour
Ans- Pass, the tone is hopeful and prayerful - Does it harmonize with orthodox Christian doctrine
Ans- Inconclusive - Does it encourage testing the spirits and discernment
Ans- Mixed, Discernment is encouraged but followers lack caution - Does it lead believers away from the Bible or Church sacraments
Ans- Mixed, i have seen some who rely on it over the bible. - Are the supernatural claims verifiable or corroborated
Ans- Fail, there is no external conformation of her visions beyond her writings. - Does it acknowledge the sufficiency of Scripture for faith
Ans- Fail, at times it suggest extra illumination beyond Scripture. - Does it promote humility toward the mystery of God or claim exhaustive knowledge.
Ans- Fail, its risks of over-certainity. Some scenes i read in the poem of Man-God are very detailed, almost exhaustive in scenes and teachings, one example i gave was the above one. - Does it promote unity among Christians?
Ans- Mixed - Does it contain accurate historical and cultural details consistent with Scripture?
Ans-Fail, Sometimes when i read the Poem of Man-God feels imaginative. From what ik about 1st Century Judea and historical books that there are several geographical and botanical inaccuracies in her work. Personally, when i was young i took bio in which we studied about botany, i must say that descriptions of plants or terrain don’t align with 1st Century Judea descriptions. - Does it discourage idolatry of Private revelation or its author
Ans- Fail, some followers i have seen, treat the writings with near-canonical reverence, which can border idolatry of the text. - Is the writing style consistent with genuine prophetic revelation.
Ans- Fail, some are lengthy, poetic, some sentimental, rather than the prophetic style we see in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Maria Valtorta’s writings are not near it. - Does it point always and only to Christ and His Cross.
Ans- Pass - Is there any form of doctrinal confusion or theological inaccuracy
Ans- Fail, Inexact and careless depictions of the Trinity is VERY dangerously misleading. - Does it portray Jesus in a way inconsistent with Gospels?
Ans- Fail, when i read the Poem of Man-God, i felt it was more of a poetic, emotional, and overly dramatic work that differs from the calm authority in the Gospels. - Does the work promote or imply spiritual elitism or secret insight?
Ans- Fail, i have seen that Valtorta claims these visions are for those “able to handle the full mystery” - Does it contradict apostolic tradition?
Ans- Fail, her writings on Mary’s role verge on quasi-divine status for Mary, at times i felt it was a co-mediatrix theology, going beyond Catholic dogma. - Is there any claim of infallibility?
Ans- Fail, In her writing, Jesus says that “Write what I dictate. You will not err because I am guiding your hand.”
This completely removes accountability, making criticism seem like heresy. - Does the work claim or imply new doctrine or divine insight not previously revealed in Scripture?
Ans- Fail, Valtorta’s writings provided detailed doctrines like Christ’s exact physical movements during miracles. It violates the closed canon of Scripture.
Conclusion: Debatable, i feel its not supernatural writing, but some sources say yes, some no, thats why we can discuss about this in this thread. Im sorry, but i like questioning to squeeze out the truth. Now yes, i have an incomplete knowledge, i have read only Vol 1 but this is what i feel after reading it…
Peace
Sam
Soul,
You’re drawing circles around confusion and calling it insight. Let’s straighten the lines.
You said “Search the Scriptures” isn’t the same as saying they’re a complete knowledge of Him. But that’s not the claim. The claim is this: Scripture is complete in what God intended to reveal for salvation, sanctification, and a true knowledge of Christ. That’s not my opinion. That’s what the Word says. “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). That’s not a teaser trailer. That’s the whole foundation.
You keep circling back to the false peace point from Jeremiah 6. But you’re missing the warning. The issue isn’t that peace was absent—it’s that false prophets claimed peace while people were heading for judgment. That’s deception through the illusion of calm. That’s exactly what Satan does. If he couldn’t fake peace, Paul wouldn’t have said he appears as an angel of light. That’s not peace from the Spirit. That’s counterfeit comfort to keep people spiritually asleep.
Now here’s where the real twist comes in. You’re suggesting the problem isn’t with the visions—but with my interpretation of Scripture. That maybe I’m just not reading it right, and Valtorta’s writings are helping. No, friend. That’s not how this works. Scripture is the lens. Private revelation doesn’t interpret the Word. The Word judges every word spoken, dreamed, or written. If a so-called vision needs to step in as a decoder ring for Scripture, then you’ve already said Scripture is insufficient—even if you say the opposite with your mouth.
Then you toss out the chaos of denominations as evidence that we need extra visions to help us understand Jesus better. That’s not a defense of mysticism. That’s an indictment of rebellion. Division isn’t caused by the Bible. It’s caused by those who twist it, ignore it, or patch it up with man-made visions and emotional gospels. More subjective revelation won’t solve that. It will multiply it.
Jehovah’s Witnesses rewrite the Bible. Cults reimagine it. False teachers repackage it. And you’re suggesting the solution is to add mystical visions from private individuals who claim exclusive insights into the life of Christ? That’s not the path back to unity. That’s the path into deeper deception.
The problem isn’t Scripture. The problem is people who don’t submit to it. The answer isn’t more revelation. The answer is returning to the one God already gave.
—Sincere Seeker. Stay grounded. Stay sharp. Stay in the Word.
This isn’t a “test”-this is a theological demolition. You’ve laid out 25 criteria rooted in Scripture, sound doctrine, and spiritual discernment, and Valtorta’s writings crash and burn on nearly all of them. When a so-called private revelation fails to uphold the sufficiency of Scripture, fails to present a Christ consistent with the Gospels, fails to distinguish itself from poetic fantasy, and fails to avoid quasi-divine Marian exaltation, then we’re not dealing with edification, we’re dealing with confusion wrapped in sentimental mysticism. Christ said His sheep hear His voice (John 10:27), not the embellished whispers of a mystic centuries later who claims divine dictation without error. That’s not spiritual insight, that’s unchecked presumption. When something leads people to treat non-canonical visions with canonical reverence, you’re not building the Church, you’re building a cult. Period.
J.
As Jesus said, “Scripture is sufficient for bringing people to belief and salvation. But it’s not a complete knowledge of Me”. So, if you understand that Scripture isn’t a complete, but rather a sufficient knowledge of Jesus, then good.
Precisely: Satan and his servants can only proclaim peace, not actually produce it, which is why peace was absent.
It’s not? Scripture says what it says. Then people translate it, interpret it, or change it to their liking if it’s in their power to do so. Are all the differing interpretations of the same verse accurate? If not, then how did you come to rule out the possibility that your interpretation is inaccurate?
I said the existence of thousands of denominations, each differing in understanding of Scripture, flies in the face of Jesus’s desire of one flock. God isn’t the author of chaos and confusion. And, I pointed out the individual Christians who do the opposite of what Scripture teaches. For example, they clamor for people’s deaths, including the Iranians, despite Jesus teaching to love our enemy and not kill. Many Christians show they don’t understand Scripture and Jesus everyday in many ways. So, you cannot reasonably say that we don’t need a better understanding of Scripture and Jesus.
Samuel_23,
Now that’s what I call discernment with backbone. You didn’t just drink the wine of mysticism because it was sweet—you tested it, measured it, and found the sediment at the bottom. That’s rare. And it’s commendable.
Your criteria were sharp, honest, and painfully revealing. Let’s call it what it is: this isn’t a near miss. This is a theological train wreck dressed in devotional language. When a private revelation fails more than half your doctrinal test, including on essentials like Trinitarian theology, Scriptural sufficiency, and the uniqueness of Christ’s revelation, it’s not a supplement—it’s a rival gospel.
You pointed out the Filioque issue. That alone should make any Orthodox believer pause. But it doesn’t stop there. The moment a vision says, “You will not err because I am guiding your hand,” it’s claiming infallibility. That’s not humility. That’s untouchable authority—exactly what the Holy Spirit warns us to test, not blindly trust.
And your observation that Valtorta’s Jesus speaks differently than the Christ of the Gospels? That’s not just literary style. That’s a different voice. And John 10:27 is clear—My sheep hear My voice. If it doesn’t match the tone, truth, and authority of the Jesus who walked through Galilee, it’s not Him.
You’ve done the work. You’ve followed 1 John 4:1. You tested the spirits. And now you see it for what it is. Not the Spirit of truth. But something else cloaked in light, leaning on emotion, and appealing to pride through secret knowledge and spiritual elitism.
Brother, you’re standing at the fork. Don’t second-guess what you’ve just uncovered. If it leads away from the Word, it doesn’t matter how beautiful, moving, or life-altering it felt—it’s not from the God who magnified His Word above His name (Psalm 138:2).
Tear down the altar, not just the statue. Don’t just stop reading—warn others. Because when a revelation exalts itself against the knowledge of Christ as revealed in Scripture, it’s not a devotion. It’s a deception.
—Sincere Seeker. Stay grounded. Stay sharp. Stay in the Word.
@Johann and @SincereSeeker To be honest, im now against it, but when i read the Poem of Man-God i had to bring this up for further scrutiny. Now I cannot stop myself from telling the truth..
On research i found that
Maria Valtorta’s poem of the Man-God is a five-volume work. The work purports to “fill in the gaps” left by canonical Gospels, offering vivid descriptions of events, dialogues and even the inner thoughts of Jesus, Mary and the apostles. Again some like Pope Pius XII and certain theologians say its divinely inspired supplement to Scripture, but im hesitant.
To substantiate the Orthodox Critique, let us examine it
- Historical and Cultural Anachronisms
Valtorta text contains numerous anachronisms that betray its modern origin. For instance, she describes Jesus using a screwdriver, an tool not invented at Jesus’ time. This is not a trivial error but a sign of imaginative reconstruction.
THe poem includes detailed descriptions of daily life in the first century Palestine that are inconsistent with the archaeological and historical evidences i found in the internet. For example
Valtorta’s portrayal of agricultural practices and clothing, social norms often reflects what i feel as romanticized 20th century European perspective rather than the realities of Second Temple Judaism, @Johann can attest to the fact that i have learnt the Second Temple context well to know whats in alignment with it.
The work’s depiction of Jewish culture occasionally veers into problematic stereotypes.
One is that Jesus condemns the Jewish people as a “…” (i will not say it, it was a curse) This is in such a STARK CONTRAST to the Orthodox understanding of Christ’s universal love and the Church’s rejection of collective racial condemnation. - Theological errors
Orthodox Christology as defined by Ecumenical councils affirm the hypostatic union of Christ divine and human natures fully united without confusion or division. Valtorta’s poem often overemphasizes His humanity at the expense of His divinity. He speaks in a lengthy, modern sounding manner unlike the authoritative, concise teachings of the Gospels.
A very big error of Valtorta’s account of Christ Temptation . She claims that Satan primarly sought to tempt Jesus with impurity…lets leave the next part as @SincereSeeker and @Johann can search for themselves, i dont want to go there and write blasphemies here.
THIS IS VERY STARK CONTRADICTION with the Orthodox teaching that Christ being sinless and divine, was tempted externally but NOT INTERNALLY SWAYED by sinful desires. St.Gregory the Theologian emphasises that Christ’s temptations were external texts of obedience. Valtorta’s depictions borders on Nestorianism.
The poem attributes to Jesus the statement that Eve’s temptation involved sensuous caressing by the serpent, with her sin beginning alone and being completed with Adam in Vol 1 which i read. This interpretation lacks any basis in Genesis or patristic exegesis, which views Eve’s sin as one of disobedience and pride. St.Irenaeus of Lyons in Against Heresies in Book 5 Chapter 21 describes the Fall as a failure of trust in God. - Mariological excesses
Valtorta’s portrayal of the Virgin Mary aligns with the modern Roman Catholic Marian Theology, depicting her as a propagandist for doctrines like the Immaculate conceptions, and Mediatrix of all graces, foreign to Orthodox.
The Orthodox venerate her as the Theotokos, the ever-Virgin Mother of God but her role is subordinate to Christ’s and her depiction in the Gospel is marked by humility and reserve as we see in Luke 1:38.
The Poem has irreverent language where Jesus calls Mary as “Mummy” or “mamacita” which diminishes the reverence due to the Theotokos in the Orthodox tradition. St.Cyril of Alexandria in his homilies at the Council of Ephesus emphasizes Mary’s exalted role as the Mother of God, not a sentimental figure. - Inauthentic Tone and Style:
The Poem’s verbose and sentimental style contrast sharply with the Gospels’ economy of words and authority. The Evangelists, inspired by the Holy Spirit, convey profound truths with brevity, as we seen in John 21:25, where St.John acknowledges that not all of Christ’s deeds were recorded, yet what was written suffices for salvation. Valtorta’s lenghty dialogues, filled with modern idioms and psychological detail, resemble a novel, thats what i feel.
The portrayal of the Apostle John as having “the face of a young girl” with the “gaze of lover” introduces an inappropriate tone, potentially implying a distorted relationship to Christ. THIS IS UTTERLY foreign to the Orthodox veneration of St.John as the Theologian and Beloved Disciple, whose writings reflect profound spiritual insight.
I can say that Orthodox rejects this completely:
- Lack of Synodal Validation
Unlike the canonical Gospels, which were received and canonized by the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Valtorta’s poem lacks any authoritative endorsement from the Orthodox Church. Even in Roman Catholic side, i learn that it was in the index of Forbidden books with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger later affirming its fiction. - Imaginative excess
Again Orthodox teaches that Gospels are sufficent for salvation as they contain “all things necessary for salvation”. Valtorta does the attempt to fill in the Gospels’ silences assumes a deficiency in divine revelations, which is an affront to the Holy Spirit’s inspiration of the Evangelists. - What i feel happened was Spiritual Delusion
Orthodox spirituality, particularly in the hesychastic tradition, warns against prelest (spiritual delusion), where individuals mistake their imaginations or demonic influences for divine revelations. St.Symeon the New Theologia, in his Discourses cautions that visions must be tested against Church’s teaching to avoid deceptions. Valtorta’s claim to be the “secretary” of Jesus and Mary combined with her voluminous output concerns about prelest, especially for the historical and theological errors i put forward. - Comparison with Approved Mystics
Valtorta’s work contrasts sharply with the revelations of Orthodox saints, such as St.Seraphim of Sarov and St.Silouan the Athonite, whose visions reinforced existing doctrines without adding speculative narrative. Unlike Valtorta, these saints’ experiences were validated by their holiness, humility and submission to the Church’s authority. I have said about this in our chat that i have read other works as well and Maria Valtorta’s work is in stark contrast with his.
Let’s untangle this once and for all. You’re trying to wedge in the idea that Scripture is “sufficient” but “incomplete,” as if those terms can peacefully coexist. They can’t. If God says the Word is sufficient to make the man of God complete and fully equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16–17), then what you’re calling “incomplete” isn’t lacking—it’s just not pandering to curiosity. There’s a holy difference between God withholding exhaustive knowledge and us presuming He should have given more.
You say Satan “can’t actually produce peace.” But Jeremiah 6 proves otherwise. He doesn’t have to create true peace—just the illusion of it. That’s deception 101. He doesn’t bring shalom. He brings sedation. If you’re measuring a revelation’s legitimacy by whether it makes you feel peaceful, you’re using the wrong thermometer. Jesus said the Spirit would guide us into all truth, not into all comfort.
Now for your point about Scripture interpretation. Yes, people twist it, spin it, and mutilate it. That’s why we test every doctrine, every preacher, every supposed revelation by the Word itself. Not by layering on visions. Not by supplementing with mystics. The problem isn’t the clarity of the Word. It’s the rebellion in the reader. When people clamor for death while holding Bibles that say “love your enemies,” that doesn’t prove Scripture is unclear. It proves they don’t obey it.
So no, the chaos of denominations, rogue Christians, or cultural hypocrisy isn’t solved by Maria Valtorta’s visions. It’s solved by returning to the Book, submitting to it, and refusing to add footnotes God never asked for. Private revelations don’t clean up confusion. They often deepen it.
Scripture says what it says. The problem isn’t that we don’t have enough light. The problem is we keep shutting our eyes to what’s already shining.
—Sincere Seeker. Stay grounded. Stay sharp. Stay in the Word.
Some supporters of the Poem cite endorsement from figures like Pope Pius XII, who said “publish this work as it is. Who reads it will understand”. Now i found that this claim is dubious as it is based on private audience and not offical documentation and the Holy Office later condemned the wrok. Others point to alleged approvals from Medjugorje visionaries or saints like Padre Pio, its fine but they are unverified or misinterpreted. The Orthoodx does not rely on individual endorsement but a collective discernment of the episcopate.
Orthodoxy teaches that emotional appeal is not a reliable criterion for truth. St.John Cassian warns that even demons can produce compelling visions to deceive the faithful. The Poem’s popularity among some Catholics reflect a modern hunger for detailed account of Christ’s life, but this doesnt confer authenticity.
The poem also promotes an inclusivist view of salvation, claiming that “everyone is part of the same people of God, both believers and non-believers.” This anticipates the universalist tendencies of Vatican II, which Orthodoxy rejects as diluting the unique truth of the Church. St.Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Philadelphians, insists that the Church is the sole ark of salvation.