!? Madeleine Porsat
(Porzat, Poisat) (c. 1843 - 1870s)
SUSPECT: NO CHURCH
APPROVAL – CONTAINS INACCURATE / FALSE PROPHECY REGARDING ST.
MALACHY'S PROPHECIES and proved INACCURATE by POPE LEO XIII's VISION
Allegedly,
the first we hear of this mystic is in a French monthly review
magazine called 'Mémorial Catholique', edited by a Mr. 'Laverdant'.
The earliest mentions of Laverdant list his first name as Dérimé,
but was actually the fouriériste journalist,
Gabriel Désiré Laverdant, (1810-1884). According to the first
English translations of Porsat's prophecy in the 'Christian Trumpet'
(1875), Madeleine Porsat was a …
“... a
humble, illiterate, and aged country maid. She has been a domestic
servant above fifty years in the family Labbe, in the town of St.
John de Bournay, (I.e. Saint-Jean-de-Bournay between Lyon and
Grenoble) department of Isere, France. She speaks about future events
with the authority and exactness of a learned divine.”
According to
Laverdant, she first began receiving divine revelations in 1843 when
she went to receive Communion in a Poor Clare convent in Lyon.
(NOTE: some
French and Spanish authors have misread this information given by
Laverdant and assumed she was a Poor Clare Sister in Lyon, and that
she died in 1843, which is not the case. The year of her birth is
sometimes given as 1773, but there is no proof of that either from
Laverdant, who provided the first ever publication of her prophecies.
There is also no evidence or record her cause for canonisation was
opened, so she is not a 'venerable' as certain sites claim, nor even
a 'servant of God'. This too is false information.)
Laverdant
claims he first heard many of her predictions from her own mouth at
Hyéres in 1848-1849, during Christmas and the Epiphany. He claims
he 'did not have the Faith' at the time, meaning he was either a
fallen away Catholic, or not a Catholic at all. He said he paid
attention to her prophecies though, and then after the vision of La
Salette (which occurred in 1846) and a visit to the Curé of Ars'
confessional, after which he was converted, but attributed the
pivotal point of his conversion to Porsat's prophecies.
(Note: The French site 'Le Maitron', says he converted in 1848 - also, 'L'Écho du Cabinet de lecture paroissial de Montréal recounts what was printed in the 'Mémorial Catholique'-namely that Porsat told Laverdant to go to La Salette. The Écho prints: '
(Note: The French site 'Le Maitron', says he converted in 1848 - also, 'L'Écho du Cabinet de lecture paroissial de Montréal recounts what was printed in the 'Mémorial Catholique'-namely that Porsat told Laverdant to go to La Salette. The Écho prints: '
“He went there. As he saw on the
mountain the statue of the Assumption, he was moved, the memory his
mother's heart ran through him, and he cried, saying to Mary, *
'Mother of my mother, enlighten me! "Then he entered the church,
and felt like a violent blow on the right side of the chest. He was
defeated, and happy tears signaled his triumphant defeat.” (i.e. a
reference his conversion was complete.
This is very
commendable but the next details show something is off about her
prophecies … .
Laverdant published them in 1866 and 1868 in the 'Mémorial Catholique'
magazine, and, Porsat was still living at the time according to the
context of the prophecies. He later published the prophecies again
in 1870 c. February 24 in a brochure entitled “Prophétie de
Madeleine, l'Avénement de Marie”. (Source: see footnote below.)
Laverdant
claimed his text at the time, “... is the sole authentic and
certain version”, (i.e. of Porsat's prophecies.) Meaning, his
version is the only 'sure text', and, his text is the the first
account we have of her. Nothing from the Church, or anything
circulating before then when she first had made prophecies in the mid
1840s? This is odd. Especially as she came from the region close to
La Salette and also in the region of the Curé of Ars' parish –
since this area was already receiving many graces from Heaven, you
would think the Church would pay attention to another mystic that was
in the area and investigate her.
(!)
Considering there is no evidence of any Church investigation
regarding her prophecies whatsoever, or that there is no mention of a
spiritual director looking into her case at the time, and, one of her distinct prophecies did not come to pass, and then clouded with a confusing explanation that ends up expalining nothing- this casts the rest of
her revelations into serious doubt - even if they correspond with the
revelations of other mystics:
(*)
Porsat predicted that Bl. Pius IX would be the 'last' pope of the
'oppressed Church' and implies the Age of Peace and the great
intervention of Mary and the 'Age of Mary' will come right after him.
Quote from her prophecy: “Pio IX is the last pope of the
oppressed Church: 'Cross of the Cross' To him the pain, and also the
joy. After him, deliverance. 'Lumen in coelo': it's the eye of
Mary.”
First of
all, describing St. Malachy's line 'Lumen in Coelo', i.e. 'Light in
Heaven' as the 'eye' of Mary, just seems strange when it is reference
to a person and in general to his papacy, not an actual 'light' per
se.
Also, this
description of the sequence of events is a bad interpretation of St.
Malachy's prophecies of the popes, which is odd coming from an
alleged mystic who saw or heard Our Lady. Since Porsat was
supposedly illiterate and not able to write, she must have known
about St. Malachy's prophecy only from the revelations she received.
In that case, surely Our Lady knew what was coming next in St.
Malachy's prophecies?
Bl. Pius IX
was indeed 'Cross of the Cross', but 'Lumen de Coelo' which comes
right after, aka Leo XIII, did not bring in the Age of Peace. In
fact. Pope Leo XIII was still one of the 'oppressed popes' as one of
the 'prisoner popes of the Vatican'. The period of the 'Prisoner of
the Vatican' popes did not end until 1929 when the Lateran Treaty
created the modern state of Vatican City.
Considering
Pope Leo received his famous vision in 1884 of Satan attacking the
Church for 100 years sometime in the future, this means the Promised
Age of Peace had yet to come and that it was not going to happen
until a considerable time had passed after his pontificate. The
Church has since had to battle Liberalism, Modernism, Socialism,
Communism, the Nazis, WWI, WW II, etc. And as we see, the the Age of
Peace with the eradication of heresies hasn't happened yet in our own
times. We're now heading into the 2020s and have seen 'Pachamama'
idols brought into the Vatican grounds and venerated!
Porsat also
somehow didn't know that St. Malachy predicted the second pope to
come after Leo XIII would see 'Religion Laid Waste' (Pope Benedict
XV, 1904-1922 ). So, her interpretation of St. Malachy's prophecies
and the timing of the deliverance of Church and the world beginning
with pope Leo XIII does not add up at all.
(*)
Next, when she was questioned on this
point, she attempted to clarify her prediction of Pius IX by saying,
“Pius
IX is the last pope of an epoque (or age). Do you think Mary, who
comes, would destroy the work of her Son?
The Pope holds the place
of God upon earth; so does the bishop in every diocese, and the
parish priest in every parish. Behold the representative of Jesus
Christ, as a good and religious mother is the image of Mary.
”
Note the
strange bombastic lines defending the supreme authority of the papacy
and the authority of the bishops, but still without clarifying why her interpretation of Bl. Pius IX doesn't make sense.
When a load
of correct-sounding but non-clarifying verbiage is added it is a sign
an error has been made that can't be rectified and the speaker has to
try and camouflage or deflect away from their mistake. In the
process she actually added another strange error by saying Pius IX
was the 'last pope of an age.'
According to
her, Bl. Pius IX was the last pope of an age, and was the last
'oppressed' pope, and the next pope after him was to open the Age of
Deliverance, aka the 'Age of Peace', this has not come to pass yet at
all. The Church has still not come out of that 'oppressed age'.
Porsat indicates Pope Leo XIII was to bring them out of it, when in
fact Leo XIII saw in a prophetic vision of his own that things were
going to get far worse for the world and the Church!
In all, no,
we did not have the Great Age of Peace after Bl. Pius IX with Leo
XIII.
Since
this does do not add up, the rest of her revelations are very suspect
True, we could give Porsat the benefit of the doubt and say she made
a personal interpretation of what she was told, and her own personal
interpretation was wrong which would not nullify the rest of the
revelations she received, but as stated above, how did she know about
St. Malachy's prophecies to get the sequence wrong in the first place
since she was illiterate and therefore uneducated about such matters
and could only have heard about them from her revelations?
If they were from her revelations, then her revelations were wrong-
meaning there were of human origin and / or were not supernatural.
Then, we
also have to consider, if the mentions of St. Malachy's lines were
not from her but from Laverdant, there is evidence her prophecies
have been edited by him, which make them doubly suspect. We don't
know what else he may have added.
What does
this all mean?
To recap,
we have a few paragraphs of prophecies by a 'Madeleine Porsat' that
have not received any Church investigation by a local bishop before
they were first published by a Fourniest playwright named Gabriel
Désiré Laverdant. We do not even have a mention of approval of
these prophecies by a spiritual director. We have to take
Laverdant's word for it she was a pious and chaste illiterate woman
from the Grenoble region who apparently made several prophecies
starting in 1843.
Since this
occurred in the 19th century when record-keeping was
becoming more prevalent, it is odd we don't even have an account of
anyone else meeting with her or talking about her prophecies until
Laverdant published them. We have no evidence anyone met with her
afterwards either. Only reprints of Laverdant's texts have
circulated, and they have been taken 'as Gospel' so to speak without
any research into whether or not Laverdant's text was authentic in
the first place. We don't have any evidence Porsat even existed as
no one else seems to have spoke with her or talked with her except
Laverdant.
So, the only
document text we have of Porsat was written by Laverdant, a pro-
fouriériste journalist and writer who before his conversion was
noted for once being part of the 'avant-gaurde' movement leading up
to the 1848 French Revolution, and, had also once been sympathetic to
the Saint-Simonians, who advocated a pro-worker socialist-type
movement in which science and industry would take over the moral and
temporal power of medieval theocracy. Laverdant later modified
his views after his conversion to Catholicism, but still he advocated
for a reformation of society in accordance with Catholic teachings,
albeit with some fourieriste principals.
Reading the
brochure, 'Prophétie de Madeleine, l'Avénement de Marie' in 1870
it apparently is an exact reproduction of the original article in the
'Mémorial Catholique' and republished by Laverdant himself. In the
text is printed: “This is the sole authentic and certain version”,
(i.e. of the prophecies.) Meaning, his text is the first account we
have of her. No report from the Church, or anything circulating
before then when she first had made prophecies in the mid 1840s or
afterwards?
As she was
uneducated, she could not have known anything about St. Malachy's
prophecies which she quoted in her own revelations, and, as her
prophecy regarding them has NOT come to pass, either her revelations
were wrong and therefore of human origin and / or not supernatural,
or, they were an addition by Laverdant, making these prophecies of
Porsat doubly suspicious.
We
suspect Laverdant may have edited her prophecies and /or possibly
added to them. The dramatic, bombastic line about defending the
authority of the papacy without explaining what was meant about Bl.
Pius IX being the last 'oppressed pope' and further adding the odd error
regarding him as 'the last pope of an epoque' seems to point to this
– it may have been Laverdant's misinterpretation of St. Malachy's
prophecies.
In fact, it is still within the realm of possibility he
could have fabricated Porsat's prophecies in order to scare people
about the coming chastisements and in a round-about way promote his
idea that society needed to be reformed, aka, along his vision of a
reformed Catholic society. There is a deliberate attempt to link his
conversion story with regards to La Sallette and the Curé of Ars in
order to make a connection with the mystic happenings that recently
occurred in the area to give the 'Porsat Prophecies' creditability.
Laverdant was known as an 'avant-guarde radical' before his
conversion, we don't know how much of this changed after his
conversion, and / or, if he was liable to go to extremes and
entertained 'radical' right-wing ideas regarding his conversion to
the Faith and believed that the ends justify the means. We just
don't know.
Also, Porsat's 'visions' (if they were from her at all if she even existed), are the very first to mention a 'Universal Illumination of Consciences' event before the renewal and that it would be Our Lady that would bring it, not God - and, according to the prophecies of Ven. Bernardo Maria Clausi, this prophecy that was completely new, appearing in his own time afer never haing been revealed before is a sign we should NOT pay attention to this mystic, another sign something is 'off' about the Porsat prophecies. See more about why, click here.
In all,
there is too much of a question regarding the 'Porsat Prophecies' as
a result. Therefore, I have not included them in the Timeline.
::::::::::::::::::::::
FOOTNOTE on
the text by Laverdant:I have not been able to find even one
extant copy of this ´Mémorial Catholique´magazine online in which
Porsat's prophecies were supposedly first published, which is very
strange as the Bibliotheque National de France has one of the most
detailed archives regarding newspapers and periodicals, and one of
the most accessible online digital document databases at B n F –
Gallica.
However, the
1870 brochure 'Prophétie de Madeleine, l'Avénement de Marie'
published by Laverdant is still available. It is an exact reprint of
the first publication in the Catholic magazine. This digital
document was supplied by the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di
Firenze, (National Central Library of Florence, Italy.)
This
brochure was obviously reprinted a few times as a 1872 printing was
mentioned in the 'Memorial Catholique' according to the “Dictionnaire
des ouvrages anonymes. Tome III. M-Q” by Ant.-Alex. Barbier”
(Paris, 1872-1879).
