“Our Lady of La Salette” and Church Teaching

Image result for Our Lady of La Salette

June 13, 2008  St. Anthony                           

Pope Leo X, (who was no angel ) concluded the Fifth Lateran Council, (1512-1517), on how to preach, tells us, “They are in no way to presume to preach or declare a fixed time for future evils, the coming of antichrist or the precise day, (date setting), of judgment…”

Pope Benedict XV in 1915 forbade all speculation and discussion of the purported contents of the messages of Our Lady of La Salette that deal with future coming of Antichrist.

To understand what seems like a complex subject,  then have those  prophecies come true as a result  of Paul VI and the V-2 Council. It’s no wonder that disorientation rules the day.

First let’s look at the Fifth Lateran Council. The part of the text that’s generally’s not reveled is, “…before they are published, or preached to the people, are to be understood as reserved for examination by the apostolic see.”… or in an emergency situation… be given to the local ordinary…”
So all the Church is saying that if one is exposed to some revelation that before you expose it to the public that you obtain permission from the proper authorities.

The problem with the Messages of La Salette are somewhat similar with that of Our Lady of Fatima in as much it came in two parts and in both cases the first parts of the messages were approved but in both cases, the second parts were not approved. As I will explain.
In the case of La Salette the first part had to do with France in 1846 but like Fatima there was a secret but confided to each of the two children separately which neither Melanie or Maximin ever made known to each other but were sent to Pope Pius IX. Actions were never taken by the Pope and they were never published until Melanie got (her) part printed in 1879 at Lecce, Italy with the approval of the Bishop of that town. Rome and the Local ordinary would have nothing to do with it.

Here is the problem with these messages. First of all, Rome didn’t become the seat of the AntiChrist, unless it was Mussolini. It was THE HOLY SEE that became the seat of the AntiChrist (1967-69) also they were predicting that the AntiChrist would come into the world before the end of the century. Now even thou Scriptures refers to Rome and Jerusalem as places for the AntiChrist. The Holy See in Rome didn’t have legal status for about 300 years later and the AntiChrist that was referred to in Rome by St. Peter was NERO.

Now how does all of this apply to our current problem which was mainly caused by  Paul VI. As we know that a Pope has to have infallibility and the line of successors can never be broken except for death. Vatican I, 1869. But Paul VI did break infallibility and NO OTHER POPE WAS ELECTED to take his place.

Now the true definition of AntiChrist is a God against God, therefore the first true AntiChrist was Caiphas who represented the God of Moses who had God killed. “He will sit in the Temple of God and give himself out to be God.”  Paul VI became the “Man of Sin,” predicted by the Scriptures and all of these other popes are just continuing the Reign of Antichrist as I explain in my writings, etc.

Now there you are my friends. Do you see the difference between   private revelations and Divine revelation. It’s Our Lady Queen of the Apocalypse that we need to stand by today as we get ready  for the final victory on Judgment day.  Pentecost  Sunday..

In Christ,  Joseph B. D. Saraceno                        Catholic Encyclopedia 1912