Judas Went to His Own Place – A Biblical Verdict of Eternal Judgment

[amigo de christo]

Dude...you need to get off this misplaced hero worship and focus on the one who died for you...that wasn't Maria, it was The Lord Jesus Christ.

What a lovely wonderful good reminder my friend .
Too many have been caught up with a voluntary worshipping of saints and angels and etc .
Idolatry is not good at all .
Thanks again for such a lovely reminder that is so needed to be said to many peoples .

 

[Sister-n-Christ]

Dude...you need to get off this misplaced hero worship and focus on the one who died for you...that wasn't Maria, it was The Lord Jesus Christ.

Amen.

You'd think his promoting Maria over Christ would get the attention of higher board member powers. You'd think.

 

[Origen]

Dude...you need to get off this misplaced hero worship and focus on the one who died for you...that wasn't Maria, it was The Lord Jesus Christ.

You need humility. Without even having read Maria Valtorta's writings, you presented the baseless assertion that she was "delusional" during the time she wrote. So, I laid at your feet professional studies done on The Poem of the Man-God and their conclusions, where they ruled out that Maria Valtorta had mental illness, and lend credence to her claims of the writings having a supernatural origin. And, all you could reply with is another baseless assertion, this time about me, saying that I "worship" Maria Valtorta, but that's just a knee-jerk reaction out of frustration and pride.

 

[Origen]

You'd think his promoting Maria over Christ [...]

Another baseless assertion. Maria Valtorta was God's instrument, His "pen". Nothing more.

 

[Origen]

Too many have been caught up with a voluntary worshipping of saints and angels and etc .
Idolatry is not good at all .

Veneration of Jesus's Mother, the saints, the angels, isn't the same as worship of God.

 

[shepherdsword]

You need humility. Without even having read Maria Valtorta's writings, you presented the baseless assertion that she was "delusional" during the time she wrote. So, I laid at your feet professional studies done on The Poem of the Man-God and their conclusions, where they ruled out that Maria Valtorta had mental illness, and lend credence to her claims of the writings having a supernatural origin. And, all you could reply with is another baseless assertion, this time about me, saying that I "worship" Maria Valtorta, but that's just a knee-jerk reaction out of frustration and pride.

She was delusional. I didn't say you worshipped her. I said you need to shift your focus onto Jesus.

 

[Sister-n-Christ]

She was delusional. I didn't say you worshipped her. I said you need to shift your focus onto Jesus.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

From the earlier article I posted.

“A monument to pseudo-religiosity”: A case against <i>The Poem of the Man-God</i>

www.catholicworldreport.com

I don't think Maria's apostle actually read anything I shared and that proves she was not considered credible by the church.

" on April 17, 1993, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith directed the Italian Bishops’ Conference to order this disclaimer placed in future re-issues of the Poem: “…the ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in it are simply literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in origin.” "

This is important for anyone reading his Maria copy/paste and think to give the mystic's work respect.
Btw,what did God say about mystic's?

" The Poem’s (The Poem of the Man-God) fundamental flaw is its claim to compensate for the inadequacies of the Gospels. As Jesus himself explains to Valtorta, the New Testament needs to be supplemented (I: p. 432) because of the evangelists’ “unbreakable Jewish frame of mind.” Their “flowery and pompous” Hebrew style kept them from writing everything that God wished. (V: p. 947) So nineteen centuries later, he finds a worthy secretary in Valtorta, his “Little John,” to expand what the Apostle St. John and the others wrote. “There is nothing of my own in this work,” she insists. (I: p. 57) She presents herself as a mere transmitter of Divine content."

 

[Origen]

From the earlier article I posted.

“A monument to pseudo-religiosity”: A case against <i>The Poem of the Man-God</i>

www.catholicworldreport.com

I don't think Maria's apostle actually read anything I shared and that proves she was not considered credible by the church.

" on April 17, 1993, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith directed the Italian Bishops’ Conference to order this disclaimer placed in future re-issues of the Poem: “…the ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in it are simply literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in origin.” "

That is their current opinion and they didn't even explain why. You should read the following article: Response to the Vatican's 2025 Press Release on Maria Valtorta, as well as A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work, especially the chapters on proofs in support of her writings having a supernatural origin.

As Jesus himself explains to Valtorta, the New Testament needs to be supplemented (I: p. 432) because of the evangelists’ “unbreakable Jewish frame of mind.”

Firstly, according to your source, the words "unbreakable Jewish frame of mind" are found in The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I, p. 432, but they aren't, rather Vol. V, p. 479.

Secondly, your source claims that Jesus told Maria Valtorta that "the New Testament needs to be supplemented because of the evangelists’ “unbreakable Jewish frame of mind.” Jesus actually said, "Some people, when reading this Work, will object: "It does not appear from the Gospel that Jesus was in touch with Romans and Greeks, and consequently we reject these pages." How many things do not appear from the Gospel, or can just be detected behind thick curtains of silence, drawn by the Evangelists on episodes, of which they did not approve, because of their unbreakable Jewish frame of mind! Do you think that you know everything I did? I solemnly tell you that not even after reading and accepting this illustration of My public life will you know everything about Me. I would have killed My little John, in the fatigue of reporting all the days of My ministry and all the actions performed on each day, if I had made him acquainted with everything so that he might transmit everything to you! "Then there were other things done by Jesus, which if written one by one, I think that the world would not be able to contain the books that should be written" says John. Apart from the hyperbole, I solemnly tell you that if all My single actions had to be written, all My particular lessons, My penances and prayers to save a soul, it would have taken the halls of one of your libraries, and one of the largest, to contain the books speaking of Me. And I also solemnly tell you that it would be much more advantageous for you to burn so much useless dusty poisonous science, to make room for My books, than to know so little of Me and worship so much that press that is almost always soiled with lust and heresy."

Their “flowery and pompous” Hebrew style kept them from writing everything that God wished. (V: p. 947)

Firstly, according to your source, the words “flowery and pompous” are found in The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. V, p. 947, but they aren't, rather Vol. V, p. 479.

Secondly, by "their" your source is referring to the apostles and is claiming that Jesus said the apostle's flowery and pompous Hebrew style kept them from writing everything that God wished for, which is a LIE. Jesus was actually referring to what Maria Valtorta heard Mary say to Jesus in the visions she received and described when He said, "To those who consider Mary's love for Jesus too affectionate, I say that they should consider who Mary was: the Woman without sin and therefore without fault in Her love towards God, towards Her relatives, towards Her spouse, towards Her Son, towards Her neighbor; they should consider what the Mother saw in Me beside seeing the Son of Her womb, and finally that they should consider the nationality of Mary. Hebrew race, eastern race, and times very remote from the present ones. So the explanation of certain verbal amplifications, that may seem exaggerated to you, ensues from these elements. The eastern and Hebrew styles are flowery and pompous also when commonly spoken. All the writings of that time and of that race prove it, and in the course of ages the eastern style has not changed very much."

So nineteen centuries later, he finds a worthy secretary in Valtorta, his “Little John,” to expand what the Apostle St. John and the others wrote.

Jesus gave Maria Valtorta the nickname "little John" for the following reason: "John, to place her close to the Evangelist who was the favorite disciple. Little, because of the dependence of her Work, although quite extensive, on those of the Evangelists who, in short manuscripts, enclosed what is essential." And, Jesus's seven reasons for The Poem of the Man-God can be read here.

“There is nothing of my own in this work,” she insists. (I: p. 57) She presents herself as a mere transmitter of Divine content."

Firstly, according to your source, the words "There is nothing of my own in this work" are found in The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I, p. 432, but it's not, rather Vol. I, p. 34.

Secondly, after a vision Maria Valtorta received and described on September 2nd, 1944, Maria Valtorta added the following: "A note of mine. All day yesterday I thought I was going to see the news of the death of Her parents being given to Mary by Zacharias, I do not know why. I also thought, in my way, that Jesus would have dealt with the point « remembrance of God by the saints ». This morning, when the vision started, I said to myself: « Here we are, they will now tell Her that She is an orphan » and my heart was already trembling because I would have experienced my own sadness of these past days. Instead there has been absolutely nothing of what I thought I was going to see or hear. Not even one word by mistake. I am very happy about this because it confirms that there is nothing of my own in this work, not even an honest suggestion with regard to one situation. It all comes from a different source. My continuous fear ceases... until the next time because I shall always be afraid of being deceived and deceiving."

This is why it's important to be knowledgeable about the subject matter, in this case The Poem of the Man-God, and verify your source's claims, @Sister-n-Christ.

 

[amigo de christo]

Veneration of Jesus's Mother, the saints, the angels, isn't the same as worship of God.

to call her blessed would not have been ,
but what i see folks doing and calling veneration , IT IS worship and it must be ceased .
Praying to saints , to mary , to etc is no good .

 

[Origen]

to call her blessed would not have been

"Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." (Lk. 1:48)

but what i see folks doing and calling veneration , IT IS worship and it must be ceased .

You say that because you don't understand the difference between the veneration of Jesus's Mother, the Saints, and angels vs the worship of God.

Praying to saints , to mary , to etc is no good .

Then you've never googled why Catholics pray to Mary, the Saints, and the angels. See, that's the problem with most non-Catholics. They don't take the time to properly learn about Catholicism.

 

[amigo de christo]

"Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." (Lk. 1:48)



You say that because you don't understand the difference between veneration of Jesus's Mother, the Saints, and angels vs the worship of God.



Then you've never googled why Catholics pray to Mary, the Saints, and the angels. Well, that's the problem with most non-Catholics. They don't take the time to properly learn about Catholicism.

As i said to call her blessed was never the problem .
But that veneration stuff is total bad news .
And beleive me i have reasoned with a deacon or two about this .
As always its the same party line , OH ITS not worship . OH but IT IS WORSHIP .
Truth is we got two sisters at work
Holetta which is the protestant realm
and Ho etta which is of the RCC .
This people is being deceived . What , did ya think i was not going to also expose
much of that protestant realm too .
So its time to listen to a real simple truth .
MEN DID THIS NOT GOD . I highly suggest bibles get opened and people just learn for themselves .
Cause men be fleecing the hoot out of this people and been doing it for years .

 

[Origen]

OH but IT IS WORSHIP .

But we don't worship them as God or gods. There are humans who venerate kings and queens on earth, but you don't accuse them of worshipping them as God or gods. You haven't properly learned about Catholicism. Most non-Catholics haven't, particularly here in the U.S.

Catholics worship the one and trine God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So, why do you want to go around spreading the lie that Catholics worship Mary, the Saints and angels as God or gods?

 

[Scott Downey]

How about it, Catholic Mariology

Co-Redemptrix - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[1]

According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[2]

The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[3] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Catholic Mariology.

When still just a cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI said that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[4] Pope Francis has repeatedly said the title should not be used.[4]

Doctrine and context​

[edit]
The concept of Mary offering Christ's sufferings is theologically complex. Christ offered himself alone; “the Passion of Christ did not need any assistance.”[5] It is according to the spirit of the offertory or preparation of the gifts within the Mass to prepare to offer oneself with Christ as a part of the Eucharistic Prayer, being members of his mystical body, acknowledging that not even the greatest effort, of itself and apart from Christ, can be of any significance to God. A priest participates in the Eucharistic Celebration as an icon of Christ.

Theologians distinguish between "remote cooperation", by which she consents to the Incarnation and gives birth to the Son of God, and "immediate cooperation", in which she willingly unites herself to her Son's Passion and offers him back to the Father.[6] Philosophers also draw a distinction between merit de condigno (Christ's merit), which is based on justice, and merit proprie de congruo (Mary's merit), founded on the friendship of charity.[7] In his encyclical on the Immaculate Conception, Ad diem illum, Pope Pius X said, "...since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno."[8] Where it concerns post-Assumption graces, it is a pious opinion that the entirety of them come through the "intercession" of Mary,[9] a concept that is in itself in need of clarification.[10]

Proponents view the title Co-Redemptrix as not implying that Mary participates as equal part in the redemption of the human race, since Christ is the only redeemer.[11] Mary herself needed redemption and was redeemed by Jesus Christ. Being redeemed by Christ, implies that she cannot be his equal part in the redemption process.[12] Similarly, if Mary is described as the mediatrix of all graces, it “is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator”.[13]

 

[Origen]

How about it, Catholic Mariology

Co-Redemptrix - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[1]

According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[2]

The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[3] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Catholic Mariology.

When still just a cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI said that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[4] Pope Francis has repeatedly said the title should not be used.[4]

Doctrine and context​

[edit]
The concept of Mary offering Christ's sufferings is theologically complex. Christ offered himself alone; “the Passion of Christ did not need any assistance.”[5] It is according to the spirit of the offertory or preparation of the gifts within the Mass to prepare to offer oneself with Christ as a part of the Eucharistic Prayer, being members of his mystical body, acknowledging that not even the greatest effort, of itself and apart from Christ, can be of any significance to God. A priest participates in the Eucharistic Celebration as an icon of Christ.

Theologians distinguish between "remote cooperation", by which she consents to the Incarnation and gives birth to the Son of God, and "immediate cooperation", in which she willingly unites herself to her Son's Passion and offers him back to the Father.[6] Philosophers also draw a distinction between merit de condigno (Christ's merit), which is based on justice, and merit proprie de congruo (Mary's merit), founded on the friendship of charity.[7] In his encyclical on the Immaculate Conception, Ad diem illum, Pope Pius X said, "...since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno."[8] Where it concerns post-Assumption graces, it is a pious opinion that the entirety of them come through the "intercession" of Mary,[9] a concept that is in itself in need of clarification.[10]

Proponents view the title Co-Redemptrix as not implying that Mary participates as equal part in the redemption of the human race, since Christ is the only redeemer.[11] Mary herself needed redemption and was redeemed by Jesus Christ. Being redeemed by Christ, implies that she cannot be his equal part in the redemption process.[12] Similarly, if Mary is described as the mediatrix of all graces, it “is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator”.[13]

And, did you actually read the article, or just the headline and assume it's "bad"? Here: Mary Is Co-Redemptrix - Traditional Catechism

 

[Origen]

She was delusional.

According to you Maria Valtorta was delusional, a baseless assertion by someone who hasn't even read The Poem of the Man-God. But she wasn't delusional, nor had any mental illness, according to the people who actually knew her, as well as the professionals who read and performed studies on The Poem of the Man-God. And, their conclusions actually lend credence to her claims. Are you just going to continue ignoring all of that?

I didn't say you worshipped her. I said you need to shift your focus onto Jesus.

You said, "Dude...you need to get off this misplaced hero worship and focus on the one who died for you...that wasn't Maria, it was The Lord Jesus Christ." And, Maria Valtorta received visions and took dictations from Jesus, and thus the focus is Jesus! Maria Valtorta was His instrument, His "pen". Nothing more.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Yep, that's what happened to people that follow calvinism

 

[Sister-n-Christ]

to call her blessed would not have been ,
but what i see folks doing and calling veneration , IT IS worship and it must be ceased .
Praying to saints , to mary , to etc is no good .

The idol worshippers,necromancers, can't show any scripture where Jesus said to revere the dead.

 

[Origen]

The idol worshippers,necromancers, can't show any scripture where Jesus said to revere the dead.

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: as the spirit [soul] shall return to God Who gave it." (Ecc. 12:7)

A spirit, such as the soul, is incorporeal (Lk. 24:39), which means it isn't subject to the limits of physical death, and thus is immortal [Note: while all spirits are immortal, the only Spirit Who is eternal, as in "without beginning or end", is God]. Eve's and Adam's first act of disobedience (sin) is what brought death into the world, not just physical death of the body, but a spiritual death of the soul, which is separation from God (Rom. 5:12), and thus Satan did lie when he told them that they would not die.

With God's sacrifice, Grace was restored to humankind, and Heaven re-opened. So, now, upon the death of our physical body, our immortal spirit (soul) will receive judgement. If it's just, it will continue to live with God in Heaven. If it's unjust, it will live with Satan and his demons in Hell. When Jesus returns, our physical body will be resurrected and reunited with our soul, and then we will return to our eternal dwelling place, be it Heaven or Hell. (Ezek. 18:4;5;17, Matt. 25: 31:46, 1 Cor. 15:35-58)

God is not of the dead, but the living. (Matt. 22:32, Mk. 12:27)
"Honor your Mother and Father" (Ex. 20:12, Deut. 5:16, Eph. 6:2)

Mary is alive in Heaven, She is humankind's holy Mother, and we honor Her as God commands.

 

[Sister-n-Christ]

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: as the spirit [soul] shall return to God Who gave it." (Ecc. 12:7)

A spirit, such as the soul, is incorporeal (Lk. 24:39), which means it isn't subject to the limits of physical death, and thus is immortal [Note: while all spirits are immortal, the only Spirit Who is eternal, as in "without beginning or end", is God]. Eve's and Adam's first act of disobedience (sin) is what brought death into the world, not just physical death of the body, but a spiritual death of the soul, which is separation from God (Rom. 5:12), and thus Satan did lie when he told them that they would not die.

With God's sacrifice, Grace was restored to humankind, Heaven re-opened, and all just souls live with Him eternally in Heaven, and the unjust souls live with Satan and his demons eternally in Hell, of their own free will. Therefore, upon the death of our physical body, our immortal soul will receive judgement. When Jesus returns, our physical body will be resurrected and reunited with our soul, and then we will return to our eternal dwelling place, be it Heaven or Hell. (Ezek. 18:4;5;17, Matt. 25: 31:46, 1 Cor. 15:35-58)

In summary, the body dies, but the spirit He gives every man is immortal, and when our body dies, the spirit (soul) continues to live either in Heaven with God, or in Hell with Satan and his demons.

God is not of the dead, but the living. (Matt. 22:32, Mk. 12:27)
"Honor your Mother and Father" (Ex. 20:12, Deut. 5:16, Eph. 6:2)

Mary is alive in Heaven, She is humankind's holy Mother, and we honor Her as God commands.

None of those scriptures actually answer the question.


God has no mother. Jesus was born to Mary however, she is not a co-redemptrix in heaven. She was the vessel for the arrival of The Word made flesh,Immanuel.

And scripture tells us Jesus said we are to ask him for aid,help, in his name. Not in the name of the dead a church deemed to be saints.

All Christians are saints.
Of course God is God of the living. Which refutes the authority of veneration of dead people.

When we are dead,as scripture says,our bodies return to the dust from which it sprang. This then nullifies relics.
And our soul,spirit,returns to God who gave it.

When dead we are with God. We no longer see God as we did when in mortal flesh.

 

[Origen]

God has no mother. Jesus was born to Mary however...

God is one and trine: the Thought (the Father), the Word (the Son), and the Holy Spirit, and thus the Word is God, because He's the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. And, God is eternal, but there came a point when the Word became human in time, through being conceived by the Holy Spirit (the First Person of the Holy Trinity) in Mary, and was born of Her, and thus She is the Mother of God the Word made flesh. That is a biological and scriptural fact.

Of course God is God of the living. Which refutes the authority of veneration of dead people.

You're the one who claimed that Catholics revere the dead, but we don't, which is why I had to remind you that God is not of the dead, but the living. (Matt. 22:32, Mk. 12:27)

When we are dead, as scripture says, our bodies return to the dust from which it sprang.
And our soul, spirit, returns to God who gave it.

Way to reiterate the scriptural verse that I just cited in my previous post to you: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: as the spirit [soul] shall return to God Who gave it" (Ecc. 12:7), and your reply to it is the following:

This then nullifies relics.

What does that even mean??

And scripture tells us Jesus said we are to ask him for aid, help, in his name. Not in the name of the dead [...]

Where did you pick up that Catholics ask for help in the name of the dead??

When dead we are with God. We no longer see God as we did when in mortal flesh.

What does that even mean??

All Christians are saints.

How can all Christians be Saints when not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is truly a Christian? And, explain to me your understanding of what constitutes a "Saint" within Catholicism?

...by the way, what denomination are you??