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.
Topic: Sedevacantism Proven Wrong by La Salette (Read 5322 times)