nono brother, @SFsergio, in my bible we have canon and Deuterocanon books, the canon books u can see in any protestant bible, but the Deuterocanon books like 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Judith,etc are Deuterocanon..
Just to point this out:
The Holy See frequently receives requests from both clergy and laity for a clarification about the Church’s position on the writings of Maria Valtorta, such as her work, Il poema dell’Uomo Dio (The Poem of the Man-God), now known by the title, L’Evangelo come mi è stato rivelato (The Gospel as Revealed to Me), and other publications.
It should be reiterated that alleged “visions”, “revelations,” and “messages” contained in the writings of Maria Valtorta—or, in any case, attributed to them—cannot be regarded as having a supernatural origin. Rather, they should be considered simply as literary forms that the author used to narrate the life of Jesus Christ in her own way.
In its long tradition, the Church does not accept as normative the Apocryphal Gospels and other similar texts since it does not recognize them as divinely inspired. Instead, the Church refers back to the sure reading of the inspired Gospels.
Vatican City, 22 February 2025
Link: Press Release regarding the Writings of Maria Valtorta (22 February 2025)
1 Like
I’ve read it and they didn’t explain why. It’s also their opinion and they’ve been wrong before. I’ve also read A Comprehensive Analysis of the Vatican's February 2025 Press Release on Maria Valtorta's Writings. Have you? And have you read the proofs in A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work in support of having a supernatural origin?
Yes, I’ve reviewed the Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work, including its claims about scientific, astronomical, historical, and linguistic accuracy supporting supernatural origin. However, the Vatican’s February 2025 decree neither cites nor responds to any of these “proofs.” The Church does not derive theological recognition from internal or private documentation. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed: Valtorta’s writings lack supernatural origin and must be treated as literary.
Official Vatican source: press.vatican.va
J.
You can’t appeal to the authority of the Magisterium of the [Roman] Catholic Church when it suits you, and then dismiss it when it doesn’t.
If the Magisterium is authoritative on the canonical status of the Deuterocanonical books; then the Magisterium is also authoritative when it comes to Maria Valtorta’s writings. It’s all or nothing.
I’m a Lutheran, I don’t consider the Magisterium authoritative in either case. But I did notice your appeal to authority when it came to discussing the Deuterocanonical books, which are often called “The Apocrypha” in Protestant circles; but you are also appealing to the “authority” of the works of Maria Valtorta–which the Magisterium has declared non-inspired, of non-supernatural origin, and merely private literary works reflecting Valtorta’s personal views.
If you are cherry-picking when and where you want to appeal to the authority of the Roman Magisterium, then you are simply making yourself your own authority.
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) put out the statement, their opinion (and they’ve been wrong before in their opinions), and the DDF is not the same as the Magisterium. Therefore, I’m not cherry picking anything.
The more you know.
By the way, you didn’t answer me. Again, have you read A Comprehensive Analysis of the Vatican’s February 2025 Press Release on Maria Valtorta’s Writings, as well as the proofs in A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work in support of having a supernatural origin?
I was talking to a Protestant who speaks of the Canon, apostolic origin, Christian doctrine, but refuses to be a member of Jesus’s Christian (Catholic) Church that He founded on the apostles, and rejects seven of the seventy-three canonical books compiled, declared, and confirmed by that Church. Why would the Holy Spirit lead the Christian (Catholic) Church into compiling, declaring, and confirming multiple times the seventy-three canonical books just to lead non-members of that Church into removing and rejecting seven of them?..
The DDF is not “just opinion”, it exercises magisterial authority when reaffirming doctrinal judgments
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the CDF) is the official doctrinal arm of the Holy See, entrusted explicitly by the Pope to “promote and safeguard doctrine on faith and morals” (cf. Praedicate Evangelium, Art. 69–70). When it issues a public doctrinal clarification on a matter involving claims of supernatural origin, it speaks with the ordinary Magisterium’s delegated authority. This is not “just an opinion.” To dismiss it is to reject the organ entrusted to protect the flock from false doctrine (Acts 20:28–30).
- The February 2025 statement is not private opinion, it reaffirms decades of official restriction
The 2025 release is not a new theological guess, it reaffirms what was stated by Pope Pius XII in 1948 (non-approbation), repeated by the Holy Office in 1959 (official condemnation of promoting it as divine revelation), and confirmed again in 1985 under Cardinal Ratzinger. Three generations of official caution are now summed and repeated in 2025. That’s continuity. Not cherry-picking.
Full text here
-
A “Summa” or “Analysis” of Maria Valtorta’s writings cannot override the Magisterium
Yes, I’ve examined the Summa and Encyclopedia and the Comprehensive Analysis. But no amount of literary structure, speculative astronomy, or private defense committees can override the Church’s judgment. Private writings, no matter how pious or poetic, do not stand above the Church that Christ founded (Matt 16:18). Authority to bind and loose belongs to the apostles and their successors, not to authors, editors, or supporters of visionary works. -
Supernatural origin is not proved by phenomena, it must be discerned by the Church
Even if Valtorta described stars, rivers, or timelines with uncanny precision, that does not establish divine origin. The criteria for supernatural recognition include freedom from doctrinal error, spiritual fruit, and alignment with Revelation.
Valtorta’s works have been found doctrinally problematic (e.g., anti-Semitic portrayals, additions to the Gospel narrative, and overly sensual descriptions of Mary). The Church, in fidelity to the Spirit, has said no supernatural origin, and that remains binding.
- Final word: Christ entrusted the Church, not mystics, with authority over doctrine
Luke 10:16 – “He who hears you hears Me.”
1 Timothy 3:15 – “The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
Acts 15 shows the apostolic Church resolving disputes, not through private revelations, but council and Magisterium.
If you choose Valtorta over that, you’re not just disagreeing with the DDF, you’re contradicting the very structure of authority Christ instituted.
So no, I do not accept the claims of supernatural origin, and no “Summa” proves what the Church has definitively rejected. Christ’s voice speaks through the Church, not through self-authenticating mysticism.
J.
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) put out a statement that Maria Valtorta’s writings “cannot be considered to have a supernatural origin” (their opinion and they’ve been wrong before in their opinions) and without explaining why. And, we don’t even know if they’ve reviewed the proof in support of her writings having a supernatural origin. Any person with sense will find that unfair to Maria Valtorta, the public, and it causes people to question the DDF’s motive and honesty on this matter. But I have read her writings and reviewed the proof. And, so have countless others. Have you even read her writings? If not, you should, if you want to be knowledgeable of what you’re criticizing, or defending for that matter.
The DDF did not offer an “opinion”; it rendered a doctrinal judgment in its jurisdiction
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith is not a commentary desk, it is the highest doctrinal body under papal mandate. Its 2025 statement didn’t speculate, it declared: Maria Valtorta’s writings “must be considered literary works, not divine revelation.” This affirms prior rulings from 1949, 1959, and 1985. To call that “just their opinion” is to misrepresent what a Roman dicastery is. It guards the deposit of faith (2 Tim 1:14). That’s its job. And that’s what it did.
-
Lack of explanation ≠ lack of review, especially when precedent exists
The 2025 release didn’t spell out a new refutation because the Church has already acted multiple times. The Holy Office in 1959 issued a public warning; Cardinal Ratzinger reaffirmed restrictions in the 1980s; the Index decision remains historically instructive. The DDF’s statement is not ignorance, it’s finality. Ecclesial declarations aren’t subject to internet tribunal or private approval panels. -
Reading the “proofs” does not override ecclesial judgment
Yes, I’ve read the claims in the Summa and Encyclopedia. Alleged astronomical precision, topographical detail, and inner coherence do not establish supernatural origin. Scripture itself warns that deceptive signs can impress but mislead (2 Thess. 2:9–11). Church discernment weighs content, doctrinal conformity, and fruit (Matt. 7:16). Valtorta’s writings contain speculative additions to the life of Christ, sensual depictions of Mary, and subtle doctrinal distortions. That’s why it was never approved. -
Personal opinion does not trump apostolic authority
You may feel it’s unfair. But fairness is not the measuring rod of doctrinal discernment, faithfulness is. Christ did not entrust the Church to visionaries or their supporters but to the apostles and their successors (Luke 10:16, Matt. 16:18). That means when the Church declares something non-supernatural, the faithful are obligated to obey unless proven otherwise by the Church itself, not by a fanbase. -
Argument from “read it first” is rhetorical deflection
“Read it before you judge” is often used to bypass authority.
But the issue is not literary taste, it’s doctrinal discernment. Would you ask someone to read the full Book of Mormon or Quran before rejecting them as non-revelatory? No, you would test them by Scripture and the Church’s judgment. Valtorta’s writings have been tested. They failed. And Rome said so.
Official DDF Statement – Vatican, Feb 2025
Final word:
The Spirit leads the Church, not just private readers.
The DDF guards the truth, not private devotions.
Valtorta’s writings are not condemned for lack of poetry—they are rejected for lack of supernatural origin.
And that decision stands.
J.
As a Lutheran, and therefore a member of Christ’s Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (but not Roman), the official pronouncements of the Vatican don’t mean anything other than opinion on anything.
It still seems to me that you simply want your cake and to eat it too.
Valtorta’s works have the same value to me as other modern fiction, if not less so (I suspect I’d be more spiritually edified reading the fictional works of Tolkien or Lewis). So I’m not interested in debating the validity or invalidity of the work; my faith is summed up in the words of the Nicene Creed which state my faith in Christ’s Church and in the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures. You might as well quote the Qu’ran or Book of Mormon as far as where I stand here.
Now, as for the Deuterocanonical books are concerned, though that isn’t the point of this discussion. I don’t have an official position on their canonical status; the Lutheran Confessions make no definitive statement; and while Luther had his opinions those opinions are not Lutheran dogma. The status of the Deuterocanonical books is, in the history of the Church Catholic, an open question without definitive resolution.
And by Church Catholic I don’t mean Rome.
Pope Pius XII is the one who gave verbal approval for the first edition of The Poem of the Man-God to be published “as it is”. Subsequent editions have been published in multiple languages.
In 1959, there was an anonymous article in the official Vatican newspaper which gave their opinion.
Then, Cardinal Ratzinger gave his opinion on The Poem of the Man-God, which doesn’t bear juridic weight.
In 2025, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) put out a statement that Maria Valtorta’s writings “cannot be considered to have a supernatural origin” (their opinion and they’ve been wrong before in their opinions) and without explaining why. And, we don’t even know if they have even reviewed the proof in support of her writings having a supernatural origin .
I’m at work, so I don’t have access to the links, but I can get them when home. Unless you want to go and do some proper research yourself?
Really not interested in what Rome has to say.
J.
So, that’s a no to my question. Got it.
What you’re doing here is a textbook case of selective ecclesial relativism, you appeal to Church authority when it supports your view, but dismiss it as mere “opinion” when it doesn’t. That’s not fidelity to the Magisterium, that’s cafeteria submission.
Let’s be honest:
You cite Pope Pius XII’s alleged verbal comment, a private, undocumented statement, as if it overrides the formal rulings of the Holy Office in 1949 and 1959, Cardinal Ratzinger’s repeated affirmations in the 1980s and 1990s, and the DDF’s public clarification in 2025. That’s argument from anecdotal authority, not binding Church teaching.
You call the DDF’s judgment “just their opinion” and “unexplained,” yet it was issued by the body Christendom entrusts with doctrinal discernment, not fan committees. This is magisterial minimalism, reducing official rulings to suggestions when they cut against your conclusions.
Then you shift the burden of proof, “Do your own research”-as if that nullifies Rome’s declarations. That’s evasion, not dialogue. And citing how many have read her or claiming we must read all her writings before evaluating her? That’s a proof-by-popularity fallacy. The Church evaluates theological works by content, not by crowd size.
At root, you’ve already decided Valtorta is right, so you’re reverse-engineering an argument to protect her from ecclesial correction. That’s not discernment. That’s doctrinal bias.
Christ gave the keys to Peter, not to mystics or to their loyal fanbase. The DDF acts by that authority. To resist that, repeated, reaffirmed, and clarified, is to edge toward functional schism behind devotional language.
I’m not rejecting her lightly, I’m submitting to the Church that guards the deposit of faith. That’s the line. That’s where I stand.
J.
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) and the Magisterium are related but distinct entities within the Christian (Catholic) Church.
Here’s why they are not the same:
- Magisterium: This term refers to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, which is vested in the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. It’s the authority to authentically interpret the Word of God, whether written (Scripture) or handed down (Tradition).
- Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF): This is a specific department or dicastery within the Roman Curia, the administrative body of the Holy See. The DDF’s primary task is to promote and defend Catholic doctrine.
Firstly, you said, “The 2025 release is not a new theological guess, it reaffirms what was stated by Pope Pius XII in 1948 (non-approbation)”, but again, Pope Pius XII is the one who said “Publish it as it is”.
Secondly, in 1949, the Holy Office forbade the publication of the Work, threatening to place it on the Index in case of eventual publication. This means Maria Valtorta’s writings had not yet become published and were forbidden from becoming so or else. Long story short, in 1959, her writings became published, and so on January 6, 1960, the Holy Office placed the first edition of The Poem of the Man-God on the Index of Forbidden Books.
L’Osservatore Romano, in an anonymous article for that day, justified the aforesaid condemnation, not for doctrinal errors, but for the offense of disobedience by publishing the writings. But in truth there was no disobedience, because Pope Pius XII, in 1948, had said “Publish [it]”; and only the Holy Office—which was subject to him—had strangely prohibited its publication.
All this notwithstanding, that first edition spread. And, there have been subsequent editions published in multiple languages. (A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work
Thirdly, Cardinal Ratzinger’s letters regarding The Poem of the Man-God has no juridic weight. You can read why here.
Fourthly, the following is an excerpt from Our Position and Response to the Vatican's 2025 Press Release on Maria Valtorta :
If informed Catholics can present credible evidence that a statement is erroneous, they are not committing a sin by rejecting it. We do not reject the authority of the DDF, but rather we challenge the validity of the specific conclusion in this case, considering it to be an erroneous judgment.
2. There is compelling evidence that Maria Valtorta’s work is far more than just a novel.
I’m not going to call the decision of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) a fact when it’s not (and they have been wrong before). Also, re-read their statement, and see for yourself that it lacks an explanation for why, and acknowledgment of whether or not they have even reviewed the proof in support of Maria Valtorta’s writings having a supernatural origin.
No, I asked if you wanted to take over doing proper research about The Poem of the Man-God, as if you were someone who might still care about verifying your own sources, rather than continue sitting and watching someone else do it for you.
You shouldn’t be on a forum like this if you think I’m wrong to expect or say that people should be knowledgeable about the subject matter in a discussion, particularly when they’re going to be actively opposing or defending it.
You haven’t even read The Poem of the Man-God, but you choose to actively oppose it anyway, as well as cite others who do without question. Apathy, bias, and prejudice contribute to negligence. For example, you cited an article where the author was pointing out “errors” within The Poem of the Man-God, because you assumed they were right, and confidently echoed, “Errors everywhere”. Indeed. I angled the floodlight on several errors and showed that they lie with your source, not the subject.
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) is not a separate doctrinal authority from the Magisterium, it functions under it, not alongside it. The Magisterium refers to the divinely instituted teaching authority of the Church, vested solely in the Pope and the bishops in communion with him (see Lumen Gentium §25). The DDF serves that Magisterium, it investigates, advises, and applies doctrinal oversight, but it does not itself constitute magisterial authority. So, while the DDF is indeed distinct in function as a Curial body, it does not stand as a separate doctrinal entity. It’s an arm of service, not a second voice.
[quote=“Soul, post:57, topic:8476”]
Secondly, in 1949, the Holy Office forbade the publication of the Work, threatening to place it on the Index in case of eventual publication. This means Maria Valtorta’s writings had not yet become published and were forbidden from becoming so or else. Long story short, in 1959, her writings became published, and so on January 6, 1960, the Holy Office placed the first edition of The Poem of the Man-God on the Index of Forbidden Books.
L’Osservatore Romano, in an anonymous article for that day, justified the aforesaid condemnation, not for doctrinal errors, but for the offense of disobedience by publishing the writings. But in truth there was no disobedience, because Pope Pius XII, in 1948, had said “Publish [it]”; and only the Holy Office—which was subject to him—had strangely prohibited its publication.
All this notwithstanding, that first edition spread. And, there have been subsequent editions published in multiple languages. (A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work
Thirdly, Cardinal Ratzinger’s letters regarding The Poem of the Man-God has no juridic weight. You can read why here.
@Soul
Your narrative overlooks crucial distinctions in ecclesial authority and misrepresents what actually occurred. First, Pope Pius XII’s 1948 comment, “Publish it as it is,” was an informal verbal remark to three laymen, not an official papal decree or act of Magisterial approbation. It carried no juridic or canonical force, nor did it override the competent authority of the Holy Office, which in 1949 explicitly forbade publication under threat of censure. That prohibition was formal, and later culminated in the 1960 placing of the work on the Index of Forbidden Books. Disobedience isn’t erased by quoting a pope’s private words; the Church does not legislate by anecdote. Secondly, the Index’s reasoning did include doctrinal concerns as well as the improper mystification of Christ’s life, contrary to norms on private revelation. Finally, Cardinal Ratzinger’s caution, though not juridically binding, reaffirmed the Church’s enduring theological discomfort with the text. So no, the 2025 press release is not correcting the past, it’s reiterating the consistent and restrained position the Church has held for decades.
You’re confusing spiritual discernment with academic credentialism. The Bereans were commended not for reading every apocryphal scroll, but for testing all things against the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). I don’t need to swallow every page of Valtorta’s work to recognize when it speaks contrary to the character, tone, and chronology of Christ revealed in the Gospels. The Church condemned it for good reason: theological embellishments, fabricated dialogues, and mystical detail that veer into fiction. The Index was not created for “unread minds,” but to warn the faithful against writings that appear as light yet deviate from truth. Also, citing vetted sources is not bias, it’s called accountability. If your defense of the work depends on critics reading every line before raising a red flag, then you’ve already admitted its errors are subtle, not self-evident truth. That’s not how divine revelation works. Truth withstands scrutiny; it doesn’t require blind immersion.
J.
There’s no such thing as the “Roman” Catholic Church. There’s only the Christian (Catholic) Church, which is comprised of over 20 Liturgical Rites, of which the Roman/Latin is only one. There is also the Melkite, Maronite, Byzantine, Coptic, Alexandrian, Ruthenian, etc., and they are ALL just as Christian (Catholic) as the rest. Lutheranism is a major branch of Protestantism.
Again, there’s no such thing as the “Roman” Catholic Church. There’s only the Christian (Catholic) Church. The Christian (Catholic) Church headquartered in Rome was led by the Holy Spirit to compile and declare the Canon.
The Synod of Rome (382) is where the Canon was first formally identified—all seventy-three books.
11 years after that, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393) .
4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this Canon”. There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the Canon.
14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the Canon was again formally confirmed.
The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century, in part because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.
You refuse to be a member of Jesus’s Christian (Catholic) Church that He founded on the apostles, whom Leo XIV and the other leaders are the successors of, and reject seven of the seventy-three canonical books compiled, declared, and confirmed by that Church. Why would the Holy Spirit lead the Christian (Catholic) Church into compiling, declaring, and confirming multiple times the seventy-three canonical books just to lead non-members of that Church* into removing and rejecting seven of them??
In 1 Cor. 12, Paul explains the individual parts make up one Body, that is, the Body of Christ, or Mystical Body, which Jesus is the invisible Head of, while Peter was the first visible leader or first head on Earth, with regards to ecclesiastical hierarchy. Our Pontiff, Leo the XIV, is Peter’s 267th successor. Those that, for any reason, should separate from the Mother Church would be members cut off, no longer nourished with the Mystic Blood that is Grace coming from Jesus, the divine Head of the Church. If/when they return, whether it is a member of a separated Church, or an entire Church, or only one person or an assembly that comes back, the Church is to open the doors to them, because Jesus ardently wishes there to be only one fold under only one shepherd. (Jn. 10:16)
Serious accusation to another member.
The Canon of Scripture Did Not Originate from the Roman Church
You claim, “Why would the Holy Spirit lead the Catholic Church to compile 73 books, only for others to remove seven?” But this rests on historical revisionism. The canon was not “declared” by the Roman Church as if it had the power to invent it. The canon was recognized, not created, by the early church based on apostolic authorship, doctrinal purity, and widespread use in the churches. The Old Testament canon Jesus used was the Hebrew canon, which excluded the seven Apocryphal books you mention.
– Jesus repeatedly says (λέγει, legei) “It is written” (γέγραπται, gegraptai) and cites from the Law, Prophets, and Writings—never from Tobit, Judith, or Maccabees.
– In Luke 24:44, He lists “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms,” which is a technical threefold reference to the Hebrew canon—not the expanded Greek Septuagint that includes the Apocrypha.
– The Council of Trent (1546) declared the 73-book canon only after the Reformation, not as a settled ancient tradition, but as a reactionary move. The early church debated many books, but the Apocrypha never had the same authority as Scripture in the Hebrew or apostolic tradition.
So no, Protestants did not “remove” books. They rejected later additions based on Jewish canon, Christ’s example, and apostolic teaching.
- The Church is Built on Christ, Not Peter as a Roman Bishop
You cite 1 Corinthians 12 and John 10:16, assuming those texts establish the Papacy and the Roman Church as the exclusive Body of Christ. That is a category error.
– In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul says (λέγει) that believers are “baptized into one Body” (ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς ἓν σῶμα, ebaptisthēmen eis hen sōma) by one Spirit, not by Peter or Leo XIV.
– The verb ἐβαπτίσθημεν is passive—we were baptized, showing the initiative is God’s, not the Church’s hierarchy.
– The unity Paul speaks of is spiritual, rooted in Christ and the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13), not institutional or episcopal succession.
Christ never commands loyalty to Rome, but to Himself. He says (John 14:6): “No one comes to the Father except through Me,” not through Leo XIV.
As for John 10:16, Jesus declares (λέγω): “There will be one flock and one shepherd.” But the “one Shepherd” is not Peter. It is Jesus Himself, as stated explicitly in John 10:11 — “I am the good shepherd” (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός).
– The Greek verb εἰμι (I am) and the noun ποιμήν (shepherd) leave no room for a visible headship in Rome.
– Christ doesn’t delegate Shepherdhood. He remains (μένει, menei) the Head (Col. 1:18), and we are united to Him by the Spirit, not by an earthly hierarchy.
- Apostolic Succession Does Not Equal Doctrinal Authority
Even if Peter had successors, their succession does not guarantee truth. Paul warns in Acts 20:30 that from among the elders themselves, men would arise speaking perverse things to draw disciples after them. Succession in office does not equal continuity in truth.
The Bereans were more noble (εὐγενέστεροι, eugenesteroi) because they examined the Scriptures (ἀνακρίνοντες, anakrinontes) daily to see if what Paul taught was true (Acts 17:11). They didn’t accept truth based on office, but on Scripture’s authority.
The church is built on the apostolic foundation, yes—but on their doctrine, not an unbroken line of bishops. Ephesians 2:20: “Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone.” The verb οἰκοδομηθέντες (oikodomēthentes, “having been built”) points to a completed foundation laid by Christ and the apostles, not a structure perpetually changing under new successors.
Conclusion
The Roman Church is not the sole Body of Christ, and Christ never gave her authority to canonize Scripture, redefine the gospel, or establish a line of infallible successors. Scripture alone is θεόπνευστος (theopneustos, God-breathed, 2 Tim. 3:16), and the Body of Christ consists of all those who have been born again by the Spirit, justified by faith, and baptized into Christ, not by submission to Leo XIV.
So I reject the seven apocryphal books not because I “resist the Church,” but because I submit to the Word that Christ Himself quoted, fulfilled, and preached. And I refuse to be grafted into a vine that does not abide in the words of Christ, who said, “My sheep hear My voice, and they follow Me”—not the voice of a distant throne in Rome.
The verbs speak, the Word speaks, and Christ remains Head.
J.
As I said, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) and the Magisterium are related but distinct entities within the Christian (Catholic) Church.
Here’s why they are not the same:
- Magisterium: This term refers to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, which is vested in the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. It’s the authority to authentically interpret the Word of God, whether written (Scripture) or handed down (Tradition).
- Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF): This is a specific department or dicastery within the Roman Curia, the administrative body of the Holy See. The DDF’s primary task is to promote and defend Catholic doctrine.
Three “lay men”?? [Sigh]. No. On February 26, 1948 Pius XII received in audience Fr. Romualdo Migliorini, O.S.M., Valtorta’s spiritual director, Father Corrado Berti, O.S.M., professor of dogmatic and sacramental theology at the Marianum Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Rome, and Father Andrea Cecchin, Prior of the Order of the Servants of Mary.
Pius XII had been given some months earlier a typewritten copy of Valtorta’s still unpublished work. The above-mentioned priests reported that Pius XII told them at the audience, “Publish this work as it is. There is no need to give an opinion about its origin, whether it be extraordinary or not. Who reads it, will understand." And, no again, that was not an “informal remark”. Those three ecclesiastical eyewitnesses were of distinguished repute, and it may be worth mentioning that in a court of law in the United States, only two eyewitnesses are necessary to convict someone with the death penalty. This command of Pope Pius XII in front of three witnesses made it just as binding as a command in writing, according to the 1918 Code of Canon Law, which was in force in 1948. Cardinal Edouard Gagnon (who had a Doctorate in Theology and taught canon law for ten years at the Grand Seminary) writing to the Maria Valtorta Research Center from the Vatican on October 31, 1987, referred to Pope Pius XII’s action as: “The type of official Imprimatur granted before witnesses by the Holy Father in 1948.” It is also of significance that Cardinal Gagnon was known as a specialist of censorship, a theme for which he had written a reference book in 1945: The Censorship of Books (Éditions Fides, Montreal, 222 pages). The word imprimatur merely means “it may be printed” (in Latin: “let it be printed”). Here the Pope went further: he commanded them, “Publish this work just as it is.” Furthermore, the contents were deemed acceptable and very good to his judgment, for he said: “Publish this work just as it is.” Pope Leo X stated at the Fifth Lateran Council: “When it is a question of prophetic revelations, the Pope is the sole judge!”
Good, you finally understand that Ratzinger’s letters aren’t juridically binding. And, I never said the statement by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF)is “correcting the past” (??), but rather said I’m not going to say that Maria Valtorta’s writings don’t have a supernatural origin when they do. I also told you to re-read their statement, and see for yourself that it lacks an explanation for why The Poem of the Man-God “cannot be considered to have a supernatural origin”, as well as an acknowledgment of whether or not they have even reviewed the proof in support of Maria Valtorta’s writings having a supernatural origin.
You argue that Ratzinger’s letters are non-binding and that the 2025 Dicastery statement fails to justify why The Poem of the Man-God cannot be considered of supernatural origin. From this, you conclude that you are free to affirm its divine source. But this is a flawed inversion of biblical discernment. The burden of proof never rests on the Church to refute every private claim. The burden lies on the claimant to demonstrate conformity to Scripture, alignment with apostolic doctrine, and the fruit of the Spirit. The Dicastery’s conclusion—“It cannot be considered to have a supernatural origin”—is a formal verdict. The Church is not obligated to write theological essays for every rejection. That statement represents the traditional formula of non constat de supernaturalitate, meaning not confirmed as supernatural. That is enough. You are not free to override the Church’s refusal with your personal certainty.
You say, “I’m not going to say her writings don’t have a supernatural origin when they do.” But that’s not an argument, that’s circular reasoning. Scripture does not permit us to accept spiritual claims by default. It commands, “Test the spirits” (1 John 4:1), and “Examine everything carefully” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The verb dokimazete means to test for authenticity. You appeal to what you feel, while ignoring what God has revealed. The Jesus of the canonical Gospels speaks briefly, commands with clarity, rebukes with authority, and acts with divine economy. He heals, forgives, teaches, dies, and rises—all with theological weight and narrative precision. The Jesus of Valtorta’s writings speaks in drawn-out monologues, sentimental digressions, and dramatized scenes that do not match the Gospel accounts. That is not harmless art, that is distortion.
You insist the Dicastery ignored the “proofs” of Valtorta’s inspiration. But you never demonstrate that those proofs satisfy biblical or doctrinal tests. The Church does not evaluate authenticity by popularity or aesthetic impact. It examines doctrine, Christology, and fruit. The Church’s duty is to guard the faith, not to entertain visionary literature that speaks beyond Scripture. If a private revelation adds new words to Jesus or extends His public ministry, it must be rejected. “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). The canon is closed. Divine revelation is complete. Christ does not need poetic supplements.
You claim Pope Pius XII approved the Poem’s publication in 1948, but that claim rests on a private audience, undocumented, without canonical form, and never ratified by papal decree. In contrast, the Holy Office formally forbade publication in 1949 and placed the work on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1960. L’Osservatore Romano publicly stated the Indexing was not only due to disobedience, but because of content. The Index, though no longer juridically enforced after 1966, remains a moral warning. There has been no reversal. The Church has never approved the Poem, and silence in later decades does not imply endorsement.
You refer to John 10:16 and Christ’s desire for one flock under one shepherd. But Jesus identifies Himself as that shepherd. “I am the good Shepherd” (John 10:11). His sheep hear His voice in the Scriptures, not in post-canonical expansions. Unity does not come through approving mystical literature. It comes through submission to the gospel, faith in the crucified and risen Christ, and life in the Spirit. Visions that overshadow the written Word fracture unity, they do not build it. Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27). That voice is in the Gospels, not in imaginative visions filled with speech He never uttered.
You also argue that the Holy Spirit would not let the Church affirm seventy-three canonical books only for others to remove seven. But this is historically inaccurate. The Hebrew canon affirmed by Christ and the apostles included the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Christ never quoted from Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, or Maccabees. The Jewish Scriptures, not the Greek Septuagint, were the basis of His teaching. The Council of Trent affirmed the expanded canon in 1546 in response to the Reformation, not in continuity with Christ’s use of Scripture. Protestants did not remove books. They restored the canon Christ affirmed.
In conclusion, your defense of the Poem relies on personal belief, silence from Rome, and unproven claims. But private conviction cannot replace divine authority. The Church’s refusal to approve the work remains valid.
J.