SUSPECT/ NOT CREDITABLE – Contains a Failed Prophecy and a Prophecy that Contradicts Creditable Prophecies – Indicates fake prophetic additions were made to the text favouring the Orleans Branch of the French royal family making it unreliable as a prophetic source. The earliest printed texts itself sounds very shady as a 'sensation piece' to sell booklets, and does not appear to be a creditable source.
(NOTE: these have also been attributed to the 'nursing nun' Sr. Bertina / Bertina of St. Omer, but they are very different from her prophecies and there is no proof Sr. Bertina made the 'Belley / Bellay' prophecies. Click here for more about Sr. Bertina, her own prophecies are also problematic.)
(*) The
major red flag is that the text contradicts itself and gives a date
which did not come to pass:
“The great
monarch rides on that of his fathers; the throne is posed at noon.”
“Everything
subsides with their voices. Altars rise, religion reborn, the wicked
are destroyed and confused, the injustices are repaired. The great
monarch, with his restorative hand; all is saved.”
“He's just
passing; his glory is short.”
“He is
born in misfortune.”
“In the
year 1840, the child of exile will succeed him; and peace then will
be given to France”
"But
the end of the end will not be far away.” (i.e the end of the world)
NOTE: this
sounds correct, until we see that the prophecy regarding 1840 did not
come to pass, which would make it a fake prophecy, and, also it says
'the child of exile' will rule *after him* aka after the Great
Monarch and will bring the peace to France? It says while the Great
Monarch will restore all, a 'Child of Exile' will rule after him and
give the promised peace? That does not make sense!
Obviously,
someone tried to make up their own prophecy regarding prophecies they heard
about the 'Child of Exile'. True prophecies from real mystics and
saints say the 'Child of Exile' and the Great Monarch are one and the
same, therefore, how can the 'Child of Exile' come after the 'Great
Monarch' who is destined to bring the Age of Peace? So, we have an
obvious fake prophecy here.
Of interest,
the author of the text of the 'Belley Prophecies', M(achet) de le
Marne, provides a footnote regarding this 1840 prediction that gives
a clue this prophecy was completely made up in order to
declare Louis Philippe I, the Duke of Orleans, to be the 'Great
Monarch' and that his son, Prince Ferdinand Philippe of Orléans,
was the promised 'Child of Exile' destined to bring the Age of
Peace 'after' him. Prince Ferdinand was born in 1810, (the year
the supposed Prophecies of Belley were made, which is convenient!) and was born in
exile in Palermo. Marne in his footnote regarding this “1840
prophecy” makes the following 'prophetic' commentary:
(Marnes)
“In the year 1840, the Duke of Chartres, (i.e. Prince Ferdinand)
born in Palermo during the exile of his parents, will succeed his
father, who, to end his life in rest, will have given him the throne.
In this time a deep peace will reign in the whole of France.”
Marne proved to be
completely wrong – Prince Ferdinand died in 1842, never to succeed
his father or see the collapse of the July Monarchy and subsequent
exile of his family to England. The fact Marne also calls King
Charles X, the true Bourbon line of the French throne a 'tyrant' in
his text, shows that Marne was a complete Orleanist supporter and was
in favour of the July Revolution which overthrew Charles X. Charles
abdicated in favour of his grandson, Henry V, and Louis Philippe was
chosen as regent, but Louis Philippe was made King of the French by
the National Assembly and therefore usurped the throne from the true
King Henry V – the chosen king of God according to authentic
mystics and visionaries such as Marie-Julie Jahenny, Ven. Josefa of
Bourg, the “Ecstatic of Tours”, and Sr. Marie Lataste.
We also
know that the the Duke de Orleans branch of the Royal Family of
France is cut off from God according to the true mystics, such as
Marie-Julie Jahenny who foretold that they would try to claim the
throne but would never hold it. The Great Monarch would not be from
the Orleans branch.
(*) Red flags regarding the text of the 'Belley prophecies'
itself:
The earliest
edition of the texts attributed to a mystic nun called the 'Nun of
Belley' or 'Nursing Nun of Belley' was printed in France in the 1831.
It is possible to find both the first and second editions online.
The texts were printed in Paris and entitled “Prophéties d'une
religieuse de Belley et d'un cultivateur de Villeneuve-de-Berg”.
The text itself reads very sketchy.
The author M
de le Marne (Louis Philibert Machet ) says that the first of the prophecies were
made circa 1810, and were 'religiously' kept by her family in the
Béziers region of France, which is situated in the south of France
west of Montpelier. M. de la Marne proceeds to explain how he came to
know of the prophecies: by several booksellers who seemed to know
about this nun, but he does not publish the booksellers' names,
supposedly in fear of giving their names to the authorities.
Apparently, publishing prophecies was a crime in France? Who knew!
Sounds very odd.
Marne also
proceeds to say that he knew several 'renowned ecclesiastics' who
knew of her, but again, without giving names of the sources. He
provides 'sources' without giving the sources. He then drops a name,
that Bishop Salmon of Évreux knew her, but again, he hears this is
from hearsay from another person, supposing his unnamed source who
gave him this information is even a real person let alone a
creditable source to begin with. This could be just a name dropped
to lend the text credibility. Marne then says he received a letter
from another religious in the 'Kingdom of Sardinia' saying these
prophecies 'came from Belley', again, without naming the source.
Another
'source' then informed him these prophecies came from a nun who was a
'very young girl' and that they must have been made at least from
before 1830. So, it all sounds very cloak and dagger, with nothing
of substance to verify his claims this nun even existed.
Even
Marne / Machet has to admit: “I do not even have any proof
that it is a nun, nor that the prophecy comes originally from
Belley.” (Despite all the 'sources' who said so!”)
So, of all
the people who knew her, no one seems to know what her name was, the
author won't reveal the names of sources, (if they are real to begin
with!) and, even he has to admit he cannot verify the info he has
been told.
Some sources
online say that the doctor from Lyon who treated the
nun transmitted these texts to Father Fulgence, the door keeper of
of Notre-Dame des Gardes, near Angers, but this information was not
provided in the earliest sources by Marne / Machet, therefore, this
must be 'good-sounding' but false information added at a later date
to give the text credibility.
The 'Nun of Belley' prophecies are obviously not from a true mystic, they appear to be a forgery.
::::::::::::::::::
Please help support this site, click here to find out how.
