I, myself, have a love-hate relationship with the use of epigraphs, primarily because of the few years I spent judging a poetry book contest, where I read many authors who overused epigraphs for a variety of the "wrong" reasons pointed out by the linked discussion. The two that peeved me most were the name-droppers and the over-explicators.
What I love about the Via Negativa post -- and the comments that follow it -- are the very well-thought out examples of how epigraphs can be most useful:
"they situate the poem not merely in a tradition but also within a kind of network of shared wonder at similar phenomena, ideas, or linguistic perversities"
"a way of letting other voices in"
"One other point I would raise with Orr is that his categorization is too serious for some epigraphs; he misses the role of irony and sarcasm in epigraphs. Epigraphs not as explication or homage or commentary, but as humor."
I am not anti-epigraph. I have used them in a few of my own poems, including a poem called "Pearls", where I feel the epigraph worked to bring in that sense of "shared wonder" with another poet.
My favorite comment was from the poet who astutely pointed out that many poets mis-use epigraphs because they don't trust the reader to "get it" -- whatever the poem is about. I feel this is probably the most troubling mis-use I've seen, especially when it comes to book manuscripts.
I recall reading manuscripts that used several epigraphs in the front of the book, then an epigraph for each section, as well as epigraphs on many of the poems (Orr's essay cites a poetry collection by Liz Waldner as suffering from this particular condition).
If you don't have enough trust in the reader's ability to understand your poems without these prefaces, then your poems -- and perhaps your manuscript -- is not fulfilling the potential you envision for it.
And if you are using the epigraphs to "limit" your reader's interpretation of the poems, that does a disservice to both the reader and the poetry.