Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Sedevacantism Proven Wrong by La Salette  (Read 1252 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline apollo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 689
  • Reputation: +354/-246
  • Gender: Male
Sedevacantism Proven Wrong by La Salette
« on: May 25, 2021, 08:05:01 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • In the message of La Salette, an important line was deleted. This line was deleted:
    .
    "There will be two worm-ridden popes".  
    .
    "popes" not "men who claim to be pope".
    .
    The video by Fr Gregory Hesse is here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPNpxv0Fnv0
    .
    So, The Resistance, as long as it is NOT sedevacantist, is OK.
    And when the SSPX says,
    .
    The Resistance is "practical sedevacantism", they are WRONG.  
    .
    Logged

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4106
    • Reputation: +2419/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantism Proven Wrong by La Salette
    « Reply #1 on: May 25, 2021, 08:16:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Is this the "message of La Salette" that is on the Index of Forbidden Books? Because that long strange text that Melanie published, claiming it is the message Our Lady gave her, is on the Index. Few people seem to know this.
    .
    As far as I know, none of Melanie's claimed visions and messages from heaven enjoy any approval from the Church.
    Logged

    Offline LaramieHirsch

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2751
    • Reputation: +968/-252
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Re: Worm-Ridden Popes
    « Reply #2 on: August 01, 2025, 10:20:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Yeti on May 25, 2021, 08:16:40 AM
    Is this the "message of La Salette" that is on the Index of Forbidden Books? Because that long strange text that Melanie published, claiming it is the message Our Lady gave her, is on the Index. Few people seem to know this.
    .
    As far as I know, none of Melanie's claimed visions and messages from heaven enjoy any approval from the Church.


    Yeah, so I went down a La Salette rabbit hole in writing this week's blog post. I found some original sources, and I was able to provide the original French of Melanie when she mentions the worm-ridden popes comment.  It was a rabbit hole that distracted me for hours. But the good thing that came out of it, I found an additional prophecy to include at the end of the article.


    https://theweltgeist.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/169787594?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fposts%2Fpublished
    Logged
    .........................

    Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.  - Aristotle

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4106
    • Reputation: +2419/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantism Proven Wrong by La Salette
    « Reply #3 on: Yesterday at 09:45:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Yeti on May 25, 2021, 08:16:40 AM
    As far as I know, none of Melanie's claimed visions and messages from heaven enjoy any approval from the Church.
    .

    I forget what I meant by this, but the apparition of Our Lady at La Salette was approved for veneration by the Church, and the message about people needing to observe the Sunday rest and stop blaspheming was approved.

    Of course her text of the secret that she published was condemned, and her other apparitions that she claims to have had in her life are not approved by the Church either, as far as I am aware.
    Logged

    Offline BaldwinIV

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 15
    • Reputation: +19/-3
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantism Proven Wrong by La Salette
    « Reply #4 on: Yesterday at 05:48:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote from: LaramieHirsch on August 01, 2025, 10:20:04 AM

    Yeah, so I went down a La Salette rabbit hole in writing this week's blog post. I found some original sources, and I was able to provide the original French of Melanie when she mentions the worm-ridden popes comment.  It was a rabbit hole that distracted me for hours. But the good thing that came out of it, I found an additional prophecy to include at the end of the article.


    https://theweltgeist.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/169787594
    The Substack page is set to private. Could you post it on a public page? Thanks. I personally haven't seen the "Sea of Peter will become the Antichrist" bit the last time I looked for the original La Salette text. I'm also not sure which version / text was approved of the Vatican.

    That being said, the "two worm-ridden popes" can mean any pair of popes. It could mean Paul VI and JPII, JPII and Benedict, Benedict and Francis, etc. So, that wouldn't "disprove" sedevacantism per se. Also, why just two? We've had more than two bad popes by now, one worse than the other.

    I am personally anti-sedevacantist, but I obviously cannot overlook the purely canonical problems, which have nothing to do with judging heresy (Viganós arguments):

    - Benedict did not resign properly and after "resigning" still dressed in white, gave the apostolic blessing, etc. (obviously this was intentional from a Modernist perspective, in order to split the munus and magisterium and pave the way for a primus-inter-pares papacy)
    - Leo was voted in by too many cardinals
    - 1917 Canon law requiring the pope to be at least a valid priest, yet the NO bishop rites are likely invalid, which means that Francis and Leo would not have been valid priests and therefore canonically not admissable to the papacy

    So even with La Salette, it doesn't resolve the above - purely canonical - doubts.

    I think the smartest solution is naming the pope "sub conditione", as it's valid either way. Some Resistance priests do this.
    Logged

    Offline Horatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 40
    • Reputation: +59/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantism Proven Wrong by La Salette
    « Reply #5 on: Yesterday at 05:54:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • The ultimate redpill is realising that sedevacantism is a grift. Do the sedevacantist clergy offer any solutions or any different services than the typical R&R clergy? Nope. But they will roll into town and siphon faithful regardless. Sounds like a cash grab to me.
    Logged

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9381
    • Reputation: +9182/-913
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantism Proven Wrong by La Salette
    « Reply #6 on: Yesterday at 09:48:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Rather, the neoSSPX, the fake resistance and all their 62’ missal minions are the compromised status quo.

    And taking a $100 million bribe in 2010, from a Dresden Marrano to rebrand your religious order… is big time grifting 😊

    Demonizing you’re fellow Catholics who don’t agree with your Liturgical and Sacramental compromises to newChurch’s ecclesiastical Freemasons… 
    is wholesale calumny.
    Logged
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Giovanni Berto

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1380
    • Reputation: +1117/-87
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sedevacantism Proven Wrong by La Salette
    « Reply #7 on: Yesterday at 10:56:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Incredulous on Yesterday at 09:48:26 PM
    Rather, the neoSSPX, the fake resistance and all their 62’ missal minions are the compromised status quo.

    And taking a $100 million bribe in 2010, from a Dresden Marrano to rebrand your religious order… is big time grifting 😊

    Demonizing you’re fellow Catholics who don’t agree with your Liturgical and Sacramental compromises to newChurch’s ecclesiastical Freemasons…
    is wholesale calumny.

    You mean they made the deal with Benedict XVI because of the donation? I had heard about some strange inheritance that was donated to them from a (supposedly) Jєωιѕн family, but I had never made the connection. Can you expand on this? Is there more information about it?
    Logged

    Offline OABrownson1876

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 715
    • Reputation: +590/-27
    • Gender: Male
      • The Orestes Brownson Society
    Re: Sedevacantism Proven Wrong by La Salette
    « Reply #8 on: Yesterday at 10:57:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • We have had more than two "Worm-ridden" popes.  Unless, of course, you are a partial Sede and maintain that John XXIII and Paul VI were popes and all the rest were non-popes.  I have never understood why it must be an either/or scenario.  
    Logged
    Bryan Shepherd, M.A. Phil.
    PO Box 17248
    2312 S. Preston
    Louisville, Ky. 40217; email:letsgobryan@protonmail.com. substack: bryanshepherd.substack.com
    website: www.orestesbrownson.org. Rumble: rumble.com/user/Orestes76

    Offline LaramieHirsch

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2751
    • Reputation: +968/-252
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Re: Sedevacantism Proven Wrong by La Salette
    « Reply #9 on: Today at 12:52:12 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: BaldwinIV on Yesterday at 05:48:22 PM
    The Substack page is set to private. Could you post it on a public page? Thanks. I personally haven't seen the "Sea of Peter will become the Antichrist" bit the last time I looked for the original La Salette text. I'm also not sure which version / text was approved of the Vatican.

    That being said, the "two worm-ridden popes" can mean any pair of popes. It could mean Paul VI and JPII, JPII and Benedict, Benedict and Francis, etc. So, that wouldn't "disprove" sedevacantism per se. Also, why just two? We've had more than two bad popes by now, one worse than the other.

    I am personally anti-sedevacantist, but I obviously cannot overlook the purely canonical problems, which have nothing to do with judging heresy (Viganós arguments):

    - Benedict did not resign properly and after "resigning" still dressed in white, gave the apostolic blessing, etc. (obviously this was intentional from a Modernist perspective, in order to split the munus and magisterium and pave the way for a primus-inter-pares papacy)
    - Leo was voted in by too many cardinals
    - 1917 Canon law requiring the pope to be at least a valid priest, yet the NO bishop rites are likely invalid, which means that Francis and Leo would not have been valid priests and therefore canonically not admissable to the papacy

    So even with La Salette, it doesn't resolve the above - purely canonical - doubts.

    I think the smartest solution is naming the pope "sub conditione", as it's valid either way. Some Resistance priests do this.
    I apologize, Baldwin IV.  Please try this link and let me know if it works:


    https://theweltgeist.substack.com/p/bergoglio-and-prevost-two-worm-ridden



    Logged
    .........................

    Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.  - Aristotle
    Pages: [1]
    « previous next »