Mélanie Calvat on "two doubtful Popes"

Mélanie Calvat on "two doubtful Popes" Jan 23, 2020 17:43:26 GMT

Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2020 17:43:26 GMT

The following is an excerpt from The Secret of La Salette: Little Apocalypse of Our Lady quoting Mélanie Calvat, one of the two seers of Our Lady on the mountain of La Salette:

Mélanie was not acquainted with the famous prophecy of St. Malachy, but in 1894 she told this good priest ["Fr. Roubaud – who had hoped in the beginning to publish a volume on the subject from her pen..."] that among the future events she saw unrolling in the course of the apparition,

“I didn’t see, I don’t see, any Great Pope or Great Monarch before an extremely great tribulation, horrifying, terrible and general for all Christendom. But before that time, twice there will be a short-lived peace two shaky, servile, doubtful popes.”

* * *

As many of you may be aware that these last two popes, Benedict XVI and Francis, have both been consecrated bishops in the doubtful new Rite of Consecration of the Conciliar Church [see here and here].

The degree to which traditional Catholics will accept the New Rites of the Sacraments has settled into three main groups:

1. The sedevacantists consider the New Rites all utterly null and void and rejected outright. Based on this and other conclusions they claim that the Conciliar Popes, including Popes Benedict XVI and Francis, are not true popes.

2. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are those that claim that these new Rites of Ordination and Consecration are all completely valid and legitimate. Here we typically see the Indult crowd, the new Conciliar-SSPX, and now it seems that OLMC has migrated in this direction as well. One of the frequent tactics of this group is to label as 'sedevacantist' anyone who expresses even a doubt about the validity of the New Rites.

3. The midpoint between these two positions is of course the one adopted by Archbishop Lefebvre: when it came to New Rite Sacraments he was clear in summarizing them as doubtful. [See here and here.] Their may be instances where they were validly confected and there have been many instances when it was painfully apparent they were not. What Archbishop Lefebvre was NOT was sedevacantist [see here].

It has long been recognized that the New Rite of Ordination imitates very closely the changes made by the Anglicans for their Ordinations, which were eventually declared invalid by Pope Leo XII in Apostolicae Curae.

It was also the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, the old-SSPX, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Ruiz, etc. echoing how the Church has always taught, that it is up to the Church herself to declare for or against doubtful things. It is for the Magisterium to pass final judgement.

For example, Archbishop Lefebvre has said:

One day these popes will be condemned by their successors. One day the truth will return. ... Those who would have followed Pope Honorius at that time would have been mistaken since he was condemned afterwards. So then, I believe that we would be misled in actually following the Popes in what they are doing... but they will probably also one day be condemned by the ecclesiastical authority. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference on Sedevacantism and Liberalism, Econe, 1984)

This question [of bad popes] will have to be answered one day, but leaving this problem to the theologians and the historians... (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre in Écône, of August 2nd, 1976)

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais repeats this as well, in 1991:

We do not have the authority to decide on these questions. The Church will herself judge. A future council or pope will decide on the mysterious situation of this Pope John Paul II and his predecessor Pope Paul VI. It is not for us to judge. We do not have the power. Even a single bishop does not have the power to decide on these things. It is the Church who will have to resolve this problem as she will without doubt do.

To proclaim the New Rites doubtful is NOT the same as declaring them invalid. Again, this is a tactic the Conciliar SSPX and now OLMC, who have tried to attack anyone who expresses doubt about the New Rites. It is a subtle shifting away from what "doubt' really means by instead giving it a new meaning.

A doubt is just that - it's a doubt. What it is NOT, is a judgement. According to Prummer's Manuale Theologiae Moralis, a "doubt" is a suspension of judgement. A suspension of judgement is not a declaration.

To express doubt about the New Rite Sacraments and in this case, the clergy that are generated through the New Rite of Ordination and Consecration makes perfect sense since those New Rites are a radical departure from the Traditions of the Catholic Church. And what have we been told from the earliest days of the Church when faced with such situations? To stay with Tradition! There is nothing wrong with expressing a doubt about the validity of the New Rites, nor does it make one a sedevacantist. St. Vincent of Lerins tells us:

'What should the Catholic Christian do if a part of the Church were to detach itself from communion with the universal law? What other side could he take but to prefer instead of the gangrenous and corrupted member, the body in its whole which is healthy? And if some new contagion would poison not only a small part of the Church but the entire Church all at the same time! Then again, his great concern would be TO STAY WITH THE ANTIQUITY, which, of course, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty!'

For Mélanie Calvat to use the phrase "doubtful popes" in her prophecy validates the prudent stance taken by Archbishop Lefebvre and all his true sons that these Conciliar popes [particularly Benedict XVI and Francis to whom this prophecy may well apply!], are still considered "popes." But one cannot say with certainty that they are not doubtful.