© Copyright 2026, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes added by the author)

Introduction

Because there’s been so much conflicting information about the La Salette secret and whether or not Catholics are allowed to read it and believe it, we felt it necessary to clarify the concerns of our readers about this issue. It is something of a tightrope walk as far as the secret goes, but I think probably one of the most useful things to remember in reading what we are allowed to read regarding the secret is that any Catholic prophecy — regardless of what it is or who relates it to us — any prophecy, as Rev. Pope tells us in his Scripture commentary, is to be judged on whether or not it is fulfilled or comes true. I think that there are parts of La Salette that were completely manipulated by Melanie Calvat’s confessor and are so misconstrued that it really did not reflect what Our Lady told Melanie and Maximin.

That being said, I also think that some of the real truths of what was said in the Secret shine through quite clearly. I say this because there was a separate secret that the children were asked to write out and hand to Pope Pius IX. Given what the pope said after reading that, I don’t think that there can be much doubt that Pius IX believed what Our Lady told Melanie to be true. It is recorded in one volume that I have here on the Secret or on the Apparition of La Salette, (Mary Fabyan Windeatt, The Children of La Salette, 1951).  After reading it, Pope Pius IX was asked what it said, and he just quoted from Holy Scripture: that if we don’t do penance, we shall all perish. So, I think it’s pretty clear. He certainly didn’t discount it, and that he understood and took to heart what was said.

Windeatt related in her work that Melanie asked how to spell infallibility and Antichrist, also the word defiled. Having asked those particular questions, and then later Pope Pius IX convening the Vatican Council in 1969, I think it’s pretty telling that obviously there was some other secret that was to be relayed only to the pope, and that whatever that secret was, he took it most seriously.  The council legislated that the pope has supreme power and authority over everyone, even all the bishops, all the priests, each one of us personally. And as Melanie Calvet herself would later say, as did St. Catherine of Siena and Pope Pius XI, “The pope is Christ on earth.” This is something people don’t understand and absolutely refuse to comprehend. So, having said that, I present here what I believe people need to know in order to be able to properly evaluate the secret and its worth to us today.

The Holy Office condemns the 1879 Secret

Contrary to information available on the Internet, the first instruction on the Secret was

issued by the Holy Office in 1880. At that time, Cardinal Caterini, Secretary of the

Congregation of the Holy Office in charge of pernicious works “wrote to the Bishop of

Castellamare to tell him that: ‘the Holy Office does not want the book published by

Melanie to be distributed and wishes it to be withdrawn.’” Caterini strongly recommended that the bishop forbid Melanie to write anything similar or comment on what she already had written. This was in reference to the 1879 version of the Secret printed with the imprimatur of Bishop Zola entitled Apparition of the Blessed Virgin on the Mountain of La Salette  (the 19^th of September, 1846.) After denouncing Melanie’s Lecce booklet to Rome, the Bishop of Troyes received a letter from Cardinal Caterini on Aug. 14, 1880. The Cardinal declared: “The Holy Office is displeased by the publication of this book. Its express will is that every copy which has been put into circulation be withdrawn, as far as is possible, from the hands of the faithful.” In 1901, The Great Coup and Its Probable Dates, a booklet published in 1894 byMelanie’s last confessor, Abbe Combe, was placed on the Index. And again in 1906, another commentary attempted by Combe entitled The Secret of Melanie and the Actual Crisis, probably the 1904 secret referred to in other works was condemned. The works of Combe and others, Zimdars-Swartz notes, “finally [brought the Secret] into general disrepute.” Because Combe and other commentators included versions of the Secret in the body of these condemned works, many believed the Secret itself was condemned.

However in October 1912, Rev. Albert Lepidi, Master of the Sacred Palace assured Cardinal Lucon that the secret itself never was placed on the Index. Yet another condemnation of the commentaries came from Pope Benedict XV in 1915.This admonitum acknowledged the many different editions of the secret “in all its diverse forms,” and forbid the faithful or the clergy to investigate or discuss the secret without the permission of their ordinary. It also stated: “Let the people be subject to the sanctions given by Pope Leo XIII through the Constitution of the offices and responsibilities of those who publish books…” This would refer to the instruction of the Holy Office given by Cardinal Caterini concerning the 1879 Lecce booklet Melanie published. The faithful were required to surrender any of these booklets to their ordinaries, and forbidden to read them. Pope Benedict XV seems to be saying this interdiction is still in effect. Apparently the Secret enjoyed a revival among Catholics following the outbreak of World War I.

In 1916, Pope Benedict also condemned a work on La Salette by one Henry Maraive, placing it on the Index. Maraive was a pseudonym for a Dr. Gremillion of Montpellier, whose first commentary on the secret was condemned in 1916. This same work on La Salette reissued by the Society of St. Augustine earned a place on the Index in 1923 under the reign of Pope Pius XI. This time Maraive had purchased 1,000 copies of the reprinted 1879 Secret, pasted an anticlerical tract on the inside back cover and reissued these copies. This second condemnation came because of the anti-clerical addition. It was said that Rev. Lepidi had approved the issuance of this version of the Secret, minus its anti-clerical tract, but was ill when the decision was delivered against it by the Sacred Congregation. Beevers cites this instance in his book, affirming the booklet, printed in 1922, was only a reprint of the interdicted Lecce Secret, bearing the same title. This is the very title found on the most popular version of the Secret in circulation today printed by the Gregorian Press, Most Holy Family Monastery, New Jersey. The Secret faithful to Our Lady’s message, however, was never banned specifically, only the Lecce version of the Secret and any investigation or discussion of this booklet by the faithful. Therefore the authentic Secret itself is not on the Index, to the best of our knowledge. Had the Holy See indeed proscribed the Secret itself, the Pope simply would have stated that clergy and faithful could not read the Secret in any of its versions.

Unfortunately, Catholics wishing to avoid mortal sin can read only the version of the Secret not prohibited by the Holy See. Since the advent of the crisis in the Church, the usual vigilance shown in the matter of pernicious books has been sadly lacking; Paul 6 lifted the bans on censored works in 1963. This deplorable absence of competent censors has allowed many articles and books essential to a proper understanding of the crisis in  the Church to suffer mistranslation, arbitrary “editing” and has resulted in many works  being maliciously rearranged or suppressed outright. The true Secret probably fell victim to all of these, especially following Vatican 2. It was after Vatican 2 that the version of the Secret various authors insist is the “authentic” and original version, free of any addition, became the one most widely circulated. This is suspicious in itself.

To begin with, why wasn’t the entire matter investigated and an assay made of the various Secrets circulating pre-1959 to determine which version of the Secret was condemned? The French author Le Hidec’s 1969 work The Secrets of La Salette did make such an appeal to the Church to clarify the confusion regarding the secrets, imploring the Holy Office to “reconstruct the original and authentic Secret,” but it was too late for Catholics. Already the Antichrist had ascended his throne and was busy working his false miracles. After all, he did what no other man in history had done; he brought down the indestructible edifice that was once the Catholic Church. Still, Catholic writers were bound to do their best to discover the truth about the matter in the absence of any true authority to consult in the situation. It was not by accident that the version of the Secret the Holy Office forbade the faithful to read gained the widest acceptance following Vatican 2, since this false council’s spirit embraced only evil things. Yet it must be kept in mind that this Secret contains the words of Our Lady, herself. We owe it to Christ’s Mother and the seers she visited to authenticate the Secret as far as we are able and purify it of the dross of any and all human addition or omissions. Then we must notify all true Catholics that the true version of the Secret and that version only is worthy of belief.

Which Secret is authentic?

What is the difference between the two versions of the Secret? Rev. Gerald Culleton’s version, found in his book The Reign of Antichrist is shorter, more cohesive, and more likely to be the actual version of the authentic secret, according to Church teaching. This is true because we are warned by the Church that no works published (or translated) by a younger, more “modern” person are automatically deemed probable simply because they have not been condemned by the Holy See. We are bound to hold to that which was not placed on the Index or prohibited by ecclesiastical authorities prior to the death of Pope Pius XII. Therefore all versions circulated after 1958 are suspect and cannot be trusted. In circulating the reprint of Rev. Culleton’s book, first published in 1951, TAN publishers explain in their preface to the second 1974 edition that the text of the Secret as given by Rev. Culleton had been omitted in the first edition for fear it was condemned by the Holy Office. They later discovered this was not the case and included the Secret in their second edition. This is the Secret we refer to in this discussion, but even in this version there are appear to be a few apparent additions that must be disregarded.

The other editions most commonly found on the Internet vary little one to the other. They generally issue from the most popular version of the Secret available from Most Holy Family Monastery and various authors who have commented on this version of the Secret over the past four decades. This version is longer and is occasionally punctuated by political statements. It provides dates for the various calamities, not given in Culleton’s version, dates Melanie herself seems to indicate came from Abbe Combe, (1904 and later versions only). Abbe Combe did not correspond with Melanie until 1896. “Melanie acknowledged receipt of [The Great Coup and Its Probable Dates] 30^th January, 1896. She had reservations as to the dates…” Rev. Paul Gouin (1885-1968) confirmed this in his Sister Mary of the Cross, Shepherdess of La Salette, stating that Combe, according to his temperament, “must have been avidly interested in the apocalyptic sideof the secret… (He) was working on an overall interpretation and the construction of hypotheses on the projected dates of the prophesied events.” But the dates are not the only problem. The popular version of the secret overall is ordered much differently than Culleton’s Secret and does not leave one with the same impression upon completion. This does not seem to satisfy the wishes of Melanie Calvat, who expressed to her director, Abbe Combe, the desire to present the 1904 edition of the Lecce Secret: “completely bare, stripped of any insertion no matter how holy or useful it might appear.”

This is no doubt a reference to the 1879 Lecce text proscribed by the Church. This is the last we hear anything about the 1904 edition of the Secret until 1906, when Abbe Combe’s second work, including Melanie’s Secret (reissued and stripped of any insertion?) was placed on the Index. It is possible that the current Culleton edition is the 1904 edition, because this edition was never placed on the Index in and of itself. But Abbe Combe lived until 1927. This left plenty of time for him to circulate the final edition of the Secret, minus his commentary, although it is not known whether he actually did so. Surely he would have honored Melanie’s wishes to publish the secret free of all her own commentary or insertions, as she called them. Speaking of all the opposition to her Secret, shortly before her death in 1904, Melanie predicted what would happen. “I protest highly against a different text, which people may dare publish after my death.” Yet the version printed by one author claims to be the authentic 1904 version, although it is almost identical to the 1879 Lecce secret circulated by Most Holy Family Monastery.

In the inside front cover of the Most Holy Family Monastery version we find these ambiguous words: “[The message] was published at Lecce, 1879, with the ‘Imprimatur’ of Bishop Zola – and reprinted ‘ne varietur’ [no variation] at Lyon in 1904, a few months before Melanie’s death.” On the next (title) page we find printed at the bottom: “Simple reproduction without commentary or controversy of the original edition of Lecce in 1879.” Ne varietur could mean two things: either the booklet was reprinted exactly as it first appeared, without any comment or controversy on the part of the present publisher, or the Secret and the children’s account of the apparition was printed exactly as it was found in the Lecce booklet. The second statement seems to indicate that “controversy and commentary” did surround the 1879 booklet, and is undoubtedly a backhanded reference to the 1880 Holy Office condemnation.  Yet the way it is written, it also could be taken to mean that it is an exact reproduction of the original 1879 publication. On the inside pages of this reprinted booklet we further learn that the manuscript (the origin of which is not identified) came not from ecclesiastical authority, but from a French publication, Marian revue – l’Impartial.  And the issuing entity, which identifies itself as anorganization supporting La Salette, is, according to Zimdars-Swartz, “The most important association which understands itself to be carrying on the mission of Melanie.”

The president Zimdars-Swartz lists for this association in 1992, however, is the same president listed in Most Holy Family Monastery’s edition of the Secret, which began circulating sometime in the 1980s. It is even possible that the booklets issued by Most Holy Family Monastery are simply English translations provided by the French association, which obviously has operated under the man listed as its president in 1992, at least, only after Vatican 2. Unfortunately this booklet bears no imprimatur from an American censor, which the Index laws require if it is to be read without fear of danger to faith and/or morals. As noted above, the imprimatur of Bp. Zola was not deemed sufficient to guarantee theLecce version of the secret safe for the faithful to read. If this booklet is the reprint of an earlier reprint, it might provide the missing link between Culleton’s version of the Secret and the more popular version, which is either the reprinted original and prohibited Lecce version, or yet another rearrangement advanced by those interested in obscuring the trueSecret. The translation of the secret by Ronald L. Conte, Jr., from the 1904 French copy of the original version sheds further light on the matter. “I have based this new translation on a copy of the original manuscript of the 1904 edition of Le Secret de Melanie, handwritten (in French) by Abbe Combe, Cure of Diou, (Allier), published in Lyon, France,” Conte writes.

“He obtained a copy of her secret ‘entirely written by her own hand’ and which conformed to the text of the secretoriginally printed in 1879, at Lecce, Italy…The important correction made in the 1904 edition was to clearly distinguish Melanie’s comments from the words of the Virgin Mary.” If this secret is the same one found in Combe’s condemned work, entitled Le Secret de Melanie (et la crise actuelle), it cannot be published unless done so by invoking Paul 6’s illegal lifting of the condemnations. And if it is the exact secret that circulates today as the Lecce secret, this means that Abbe Combe did not keep his promise to Melanie to publish her “stripped bare” Secret. It also is likely, then, that Romecondemned it not only for the commentary attached to it, but because it was the republished Lecce secret. This 1904 version of Conte’s seems to verify that the 1879 secret of Lecce and the 1904 version are one and the same. And it brings to light one other somber fact: Rome may well have been condemning these Lecce versions of the secret precisely because they did not tally with the Secret given to Pope Pius IX.

Melanie remained in France until June 1904. She had easy access to Combe and he to her in the last four years of her life. Most of their time was spent in documenting Melanie’s life story, which he printed following her death. Alice Dennis records that “The Abbe used his authority to ask her questions about her spiritual gifts. Melanie found this invasion of her inner privacy distressing.” Certainly Abbe Combe could have used what he learned from Melanie to his own advantage. Only one of the books in English translation mentions anything about the “stripped bare” secret Melanie wished AbbeCombe to publish in 1904. And it seems unlikely that we will know whether her wishes were ever realized.

Freemasonry and the Secret

Masonic and/or Gallicanist bishops relentlessly persecuted Melanie, using all their powers in Rome to have the Secret placed on the Index. “Melanie revealed her Secret at the time indicated to her, although she knew that such an action would draw towards her the wrath of those who having lost all moral sense were attached to the chariot of the Masonic sect.” Gouin noted that, following the publication of the 1879 Lecce Secret, “a certain number of French bishops…troubled by the severity of the warnings in the Secret, felt that this was not the time to publicize reproaches of the clergy, which might act as a springboard to anti-clerical activity.” According to insights Gouin gathered from private correspondence during this time period, these concerned bishops wrote to the Sacred Congregation asking Rome to prohibit circulation of the message for these and other reasons. They even threatened to withhold Peter’s Pence if this prohibition was not enacted. This resulted in Cardinal Caterini’s letter to the Bishop of Castellamare, which Gouin and Zimdars-Swartz style as “unofficial.” In other words Rome, knowing that the Gallican bishops loyal to the French government were connected to the Church only by a slim thread, chose to “cave” and play politics rather than take a firm stand in Melanie’s favor. This is understandable, since the Vatican views apparitions with measured caution anyway and the general welfare of the French Church would win out against the welfare of one individual.

Yet even Melanie took Cardinal Caterini’s admonition to heart. “…I wish to obey the Holy Church of God,” Melanie wrote to a Mr. Schmid July 25, 1896. “’Whosoever hears you, hears Me,’ said the Divine Lord. The Caterini letter seems to demonstrate the wishes of the Holy Father, and it tells the Bishop of Castellamare, my Lord Sarnelli, to forbid me to write things of this kind and to provide explanations of things already said… If Canon B. can be sure that this [Caterini’s] letter was written without the knowledge of the Holy Father, then I shall be free to write, and write I shall.” Since Melanie later told Abbe Combe she desired the 1904 edition of the Secret “be stripped bare,” it does not seem that she ever received any confirmation that the Pope was unaware of Cardinal Caterini’s activities. Rev. Gouin’s biography of Melanie is peppered with references to Freemasons and their ‘craft’; Melanie was well aware of the enemy she fought and knew full well why Our Lady complained so bitterly to her about the clergy. But the clergy was one thing and the papacy another. Many may have objected to the Secret because it seemed to predict the papacy could somehow be subverted to become the seat of Antichrist. Yet this speculation was not new in the Church, although it has been entirely misunderstood, misrepresented, and until the actual event, even censored. But for all that, it reflected the teaching of St. Bernard and medieval theologians.

What is misarranged in the false secret:

• The first three introductory paragraphs from the Culleton version are spread randomly throughout the text of the condemned secret. The Lecce version opens with Our Lady’s complaint about priests.
• The second paragraph appears at the end of the Culleton version.
• Two dislocated paragraphs from Culleton’s first four appear after the paragraph that begins: “(In the year 1865) there will be desecration of holy places.”
• Following the second dislocated paragraph is the second half of Culleton’s section on Antichrist and the period following his reign.
• The paragraph beginning: “A forerunner of Antichrist” succeeds the paragraph describing the time period after his reign. In Culletion this paragraph precedes Antichrist’s actual appearance.
• The last paragraph of the Lecce secret actually appears in Culleton’s version directly following the first two sentences: “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Yet the heathen Rome will disappear…” In Culleton’s, a brief summary of events in this paragraph are given at the end, but not the actual paragraph.

Additions contained in the false Secret:

• The third, fourth and fifth paragraph of the popular secret following the chastisement of the clergy are not found in Culleton’s version. This is probably because the third paragraph heaps yet more coals upon the heads of the clergy, the fourth paragraph is suggestive of apocalyptic influence, and the fifth paragraph smacks of politics. The third and fifth paragraphs also specify dates, something true prophecies seldom do. The dating itself is suggestive of outside influence, posssibly that of Abbe Combe (in the 1904 edition of the secret).
• Actual commentary can be found in the paragraph “The mischievous will attempt his life,” where a statement found in a letter from Melanie to a French priest is included. In the succeeding paragraph, following the word “plan,” there is definite evidence of The sentence following this word identifies the plan as related to several heresies named in Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus.
• There is confusion both in Culleton’s version and the Lecce version over Melanie’s description of Antichrist. Both versions basically restate what is purported to be the portion of the secret given by Our Lady that deals with Antichrist, (and Maximin’s secret consisted only of a few paragraphs). Yet the only copy of his secret in existence is the one sent to Rome and nearly all the sources consulted for this work confirm that no official version of his secret was ever released by the Holy See or by Maximin, himself.

When a supposed edition of Maximin’s secret appeared in 1871, authored by one M. Girard, Filip Coppens reports that the seer, “…denied the text in the most vigorous terms,” stating “The only one who knows it is the Holy Father, unless he has communicated it…As for me I shall be in the future what I always have been in this matter: impenetrable.” Coppens notes that: “Maximin never revealed his secret.”

• In the Lecce version, Melanie’s description of Antichrist’s origin is followed by a truncated paragraph (compared to Culleton’s version) announcing, “The seasons of the year will change.” The next paragraph/sentence (Lecce version) is the all-important and much disputed, “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist.” In the Leccetext, this sentence stands alone. In Culleton’s text, it is followed by “Yet heathen Rome will disappear…” and the remainder of this paragraph is the last paragraph of the Lecce The Lecce edition includes a paragraph not found in Culleton’s, beginning “The demons of the air,” warning about false miracles and assuring the faithful God will takecare of them. This is a paragraph stated elsewhere, in different terms, in both versions of the secret and therefore adds little value to the secret as a whole.
• In the Lecce version, this inconsequential paragraph is followed by “I make an urgent appeal to earth,” which in Culleton’s version precedes the paragraph treating of the seasons of the year, a paragraph about a precursor of Antichrist and a stand-alone sentence stating that during Antichrist’s initial arrival, the Gospel will be preachedeverywhere and all will “recognize the Truth.” A great number, but not all of those receiving the Gospel message, believe that Antichrist will be the head of a new, one-world church. The word “recognize” is essential to the understanding of this sentence, which seems to contradict later statements in the secret that the Gospel will be preached and believed only after Antichrist’s destruction. Recognition may or may not be accompanied by a formal acknowledgment or profession of faith.

Many are well aware that we live in the time of Antichrist, even that the Novus Ordo church is false, their pope is a usurper and their doctrines erroneous. It is not a matter of knowing, as St. Thomas teaches, but of being, that is, acting on our beliefs.

Unless we act, Christ tells us, faith is not in us; “Faith without works is dead.” This recognition, then, would appear to be a superficial one at best, corresponding more to Rev. Bruce Vawter’s definition of religiosity: “Talk of religion and illusion of religion without religious commitment” Because this is what we see and experience in reality, and what others besides ourselves saw even before Antichrist’s arrival, Our Lady’s assessment of the situation can scarcely be any different. ‘Recognize’ must be taken for an indefinite verb as Webster demonstrates, and the context of its use considered.

• Following the paragraph outlining Our Lady’s “urgent appeal” in the Lecce text, we find an added paragraph that intersperses parts of Maximin’s message and a private comment made by Melanie. These are the parts of the Lecce secret dealing with Enoch and Elias which are not found in Culleton’s secret and are mentioned only in the unauthorized account of Maximin’s secret. Culleton identifies part of this reference, however, as “Maximin’s secret,” but gives only a partial reference to its alleged contents.
• In the second to last paragraph of the Lecce secret, we find two more sentences inserted.

These also deal with Enoch and Elias, when they are “put to death.” And strangely there appears here the dislocated sentence from the paragraph in Culleton’s secret, following “Rome will lose the faith…” i.e., “Pagan Rome will disappear.” And so we have come to the end of both versions of the Secret. Secondly, the differences between the two versions can be explained by better understanding how revelations are received by the subject and transmitted once they are received. Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey provides the following guidelines for judging the authenticity of private revelations.

Revelations in General

1. The assent given to private revelations is “not an act of Catholic faith but one of human faith, based upon the fact that these revelations are probable and worthy of credence.” Pope Benedict XIV states in his teaching governing beatification that such an assent is to be made “according to the rules of prudence,” for these rules dictate that such revelations are “probable and worthy of pious belief.”

Note: The Church declared in 1858 that “The apparition of the Blessed Virgin…in the parish of La Salette…bears in itself all the characteristics of truth, …and the faithful have good grounds for believing it to be indubitable and certain.”)

2. The visions of Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, La Salette, Lourdes and Fatima as well as others all fall into the category of “sensible or corporeal visions, also called apparitions, in which the senses perceive some real object that is naturally invisible to man.”
3. “Supernatural words are manifestations of the Divine thought conveyed to the exterior or to the interior senses, or directly to the intelligence. They are called auricular when they come to the ear in the form of sound waves, miraculouslyproduced; imaginative when such manifestations are directed to the imagination; intellectual when addressed directly to the intellect.”
4. The great mystics teach unanimously that “one must neither desire nor ask for these extraordinary favors.”

Note: The La Salette children did not ask for these favors, but were chosen.

Rules For Discerning Revelations

Tanquerey cautions that in order to determine if a revelation is true, one must “recognize the human element that may enter into them…Very precise rules must be drawn up concerning the subjects, the object, the effects of revelations and the signs which accompany them. Concerning the subjects, “God can make revelations to whomever He pleases, even sinners, but invariably He makes them only to persons who are not only fervent, but already raised to the mystic state.

Note: Several authors have criticized and dismissed Melanie’s mystical reports of the “Little Brother,” the Christ Child, who kept her company as a child. This is not surprising in a young girl who spent much time alone and was afraid of her severe parents. Either these accounts were true or Melanie believed them to be true, just as many children truly believe in invisible playmates. Her later characterization by these authors as delusional, however, and given to prophetic fancies is not entirely true. Melanie was no doubt naïve and indiscreet; she may have trusted the wrong people and allowed them to manipulate her. It is almost certain she became overly engrossed in apocalyptic predictions and imagery. But it is also true that many of her predictions came to pass, and that what she said concerning the Secret and the end times are now the reality in which we live. Critics writing even 50 years ago could not appreciate this fact.

In order to know the qualities and defects of those receiving the revelations, “we must study their natural and supernatural qualities.”

1. Natural qualities take into consideration the mental state of the seer, their predominant temperament, level of education and home life, and any physical or physiological conditions. Such persons must be thoroughly sincere, not given toexaggeration or an overactive imagination and should be of a self-possessed vs. passionate nature.

Note: Mary Alice Dennis’ work Melanie provides some searing insights into the early years of the seer and the life of abuse she endured at the hands of her own mother and various employers. Deprived of a nurturing home life, Melanie was forced to survive as best she could. No doubt she had emotional scars that remained with her for life. She had littleeducation or any real instruction in manners or deportment until after she received her Secret. She probably suffered more than others did in her generation from a lack of nourishing food during her early development; her siblings often went begging on the streets. She was so ignorant of her catechism she was not allowed to receive Holy Communion until the age of 17. If she had trouble settling into religious life, spoke too freely and was too trusting, was overzealous in promoting her Secret it did not spring from carelessness, but rather from a total lack of experience with others on a social level.

2. “Solid and tried virtue” is preferred to a “more or less sensible fervor” and sincere and deep humility to a love for attention and sensationalism. Since true humility is the “touchstone of sanctity,” the lack of it argues against a revelation. A revelation should be made known to a spiritual director first, not others, and the seer must be ready to follow his advice. The virtues should be practiced in an heroic degree by the seer, since God generally reserves these visions for perfect souls.

Note: Beevers relates in his work that Bp. Zola said of Melanie that “he had never seen in her the slightest trace of pride, nor had he ever considered her the victim of illusions.” Rev. Gouin’ s work records that Melanie stated on more than one occasion she was totally unworthy of the Secret and the mission entrusted to her by Our Lady. Gouin also related that only with great difficulty did Melanie escape her abusive family, and when she did escape, “It is to her bishop that Melanie goes. She carries on in complete obedience.” Along with reports of strange happenings and inconsistent behavior, her superiors in religious life generally describe her as humble, modest, pious and obedient. Eventually, as it became clear to Melanie that she could not fulfill her mission in the Carmelite convent in England, or with the Sister of Compassion in Marseille, she became what her superiors say was unbalanced. Later Pope Pius IX released her from her vows and agreed the convent was not conducive to fulfillment of the mission Our Lady gave to her. We already read above of Melanie’s obedience to her bishop in not distributing the Lecce Secret in 1879, and refraining from all discussion of it. And Bp. Zola and Bp. Petagna both attested to her religious fervor.

3. Verification of natural qualities and the presence of supernatural qualities does not prove the existence of a revelation, but increases the likelihood the revelation is true. “Their absence does not disprove the fact of revelation, but makes it quite unlikely.”

Note: Concerning Melanie’s true personality and character, there are pros and cons. Following her exit from the convent, tales came to light of her “mystical” childhood and a priest accused her of being mad. She was castigated for complaining that she had practically been held prisoner in the convent by secret arrangement of Masonic prelates. (And here we see what well may have happened to Lucia dos Santos. No wonder Melanie wished to be released from her vows!) If her reputation suffered because she was persecuted and calumniated, this can only add to her virtue, not detract from it, since persecution often is called the “fifth mark” of the Church. In studying the revelations given to her as a young girl prior to seeing Our Lady, we find in her writings distinct echoes of the Divine Love messages of Sr. Josefa Menendez. The Church has endorsed this devotion.

In considering the object of revelation, “We must consider as false every private revelation in opposition to any truth of faith, (or) revelations opposed to the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, for this forms part of the ordinary teaching of the Church…Any revelation pretending to solve a problem freely discussed among theologians must also be suspected. Likewise suspect are “visions opposed to morality or decency” or apparitions that “lack dignity or proper reserve.”

Note: This is the sword that impaled the La Salette Secret. In putting priests on notice and announcing the appearance of the abomination of desolation in Rome, the Secret became the plaything of those Protestants decrying the Papists and served as fuel for their fires of the Pope as Antichrist always persecuting. Since the days of Joachim of Fiore the Church had carefully separated Herself from this teaching, de-emphasizing and obscuring it at every possible turn. This is the reason for the general dislike of Pope Paul IV, whose 1559 Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio gives the lie to any pretended heresy advanced by the (Culleton version of) the Secret. By not meeting this problem head on and opening the floor todebate about the probability of such an affair, the Popes, who wished only to preserve their authority and avoid anti-clericalism until the appointed time, shot themselves in the foot instead. By buying time they hoped to see a reversal of the Church’s fortunes. Their refusal to comment on the matter opened up the reconsideration of the “papal heresy,” theory, something that candid discussion and a review of Scripture might have avoided. The Popes were running scared and the enemy knew they would soon be closing in.

Those wishing to keep the Secret from the hands of the faithful succeeded in preventing Catholics from paying close attention to affairs in Rome. As a result,  superiors and the laity were not on their guard against faithless priests and bishops, and Masonic infiltrators easily slipped into seminaries and religious houses. The hierarchy was not, however, unmindful of the storm about to break upon the Church. Shortly after the Vatican Council, Henry Cardinal Manning wrote: “A period of storm has set in and  the rising waters of a flood can be seen approaching. If a time of trial for the Church is at hand, a time of ruin and desolation to all countries of Europe will come with it…The Church may suffer, but cannot die…The Head of the Church, be he where he may, in Rome or in exile, free or in bondage will be all that the council of the Vatican has defined, supreme in jurisdiction, infallible in faith…

“The Council has thus made provision for the Church in its time of trial when it may be that Ecumenical Councils cannot be held, but even the ordinary administration of ecclesiastical government and consultation may be hardly possible” Strangely enough, an aide to Pope Pius XII once reported that in his final days the Pope made the comment, “After me, the deluge,” repeating the words of the ill-fated French king, Louis XV. It may be speculated that the calling of the Vatican Council was a direct response to the private message given to Melanie by Our Lady, to be delivered to Pope Pius IX.  Athis request in July, 1850, the seers wrote out their secrets. Melanie asked help with three words: “Infallible…Will come about infallibly; defiled/ defiled city and Antichrist.” It may be presumptuous to propose a meaning implied by these questions, but it would seem that Melanie may have told the Pope that unless infallibility was defined and all did penance and devoted themselves to prayer and repentance, Rome could expect to see the reign of Antichrist and would become “a defiled city.”

Nowhere in her true version of the Secret can one find the words “infallible” or “defiled city.” Provisions may have beenmade, but the faithful were not prepared, which is why the apostasy predicted by St. Paul is termed “great.” Without seriously endangering her own tenuous hold on what spiritual powers She had left, the Church could not afford to sound the alarm. The captain went down with his ship but unfortunately so did nearly all of his passengers, because the lifeboats were never available. La Salette provided those lifeboats. The Church’s enemies made certain from the beginning that the message was so flawed, so hopelessly rearranged, that even were the faithful to read it, it would not convey the message as intended by Our Lady. Melanie and certainly Maximin may never have known the true extent of the damage. They obviously were used and manipulated by all who wished to know their Secrets and appropriate them for their own purposes; the Secrets were the bombshell of the century. Abbe Combe was not guiltless in this regard; also other priestsand laymen the seers corresponded with during their lifetime. We will examine the alleged heresy of Melanie’s statement about Rome as the seat of Antichrist in greater detail below. Concerning parts of the prophecy that “lack dignity or proper reserve” this could apply to both Melanie’s paragraph about the birth of Antichrist as well as her attempt todescribe the use of human beings by evil spirits, both included in Culleton’s version. For this reason they should be omitted from the Secret, especially since the Antichrist references can be traced to Maximin’s alleged ‘secret,’ not Melanie’s. This does not necessarily render the Secret suspect, but only guards against useless and provocative additions.

4. The effects of a true revelation should be a “sense of deep and lasting peace.”

Note: Towards the end of her life, Melanie announced to one priest: “The Blessed Virgin knows I have done everything I could, and so I am at peace.”

5. True revelations increase the practice of the virtues; false revelations the practice of vice, especially sins against obedience. “A revelation may be true in the main and yet contain some incidental errors.” Note: Such “incidental errors” can account for Melanie’s statement that the Gospel would be preached to all before the appearance of Antichrist, (if this is taken literally and not as suggested above). In distinguishing the true from the false in revelations, and especially where the imagination and intellect is very active, the following must be taken into consideration:

a.) Errors of the times, such as the belief that the earth is flat.

b.) Prejudices and systems used by the seers’ spiritual directors, which can greatly influence what seers believe they have seen in visions. Rev. Tanquerey gives as an example the case of St. Coletta, whose director thought her visions meant that “St. Anne had been thrice married and was coming to visit her with her numerous family.”

(!) Note: Such interference in Melanie’s Secret is definitely noticeable and can be documented. If the 1904 Secret later released by Abbe Combe is “identical” to the 1879 Secret, or Combe added his own commentary to this version, taken from The Great Coup…, then Melanie’s wishes to issue a “stripped bare version” were never fulfilled, at least not by Combe. It does appear, however, that another hand or hands is at work in the rearrangement of the Secret. And certainly Melanie’s revelations may have been tainted with the beliefs and interpretations of those other than Combe. Zimdars-Swartz notes that Melanie’s writings were examined by Jean Stern, archivist for the Missionaries of La Salette and Stern believes she may well have absorbed some of the ideas of her friends and supporters “before writing down the ‘complete’ text of her Secret.”

c) Incidental historical errors, i.e. as in visions of the Passion, the number of strokes Christ received during His scourging. “Many seers, intertwining their own devout meditations with the revelations they receive, give details, numbers, dates, which contradict historical documents or other revelations.”

Note: It is highly likely that Melanie inserted dates and numbers into the Lecce Secret; also certain unnecessary details. But it also must be remembered that, as Rev. Gouin explained, she had the gift of prophecy, and this gift may have interfered greatly with her conveyance of the Secret, proper. Lucia dos Santos received additional messages from Our Lady after the Fatima apparitions and no one thought anything of this. Melanie, however is censured for any appearance of prophetic gifts or continuing messages.  And in reality, Rev. Gouin may be crossing a line Melanie herself would not have him cross. For what Melanie knew and said could have come primarily from Our Lady, and only secondarily from Melanie herself.

d) An incorrect interpretation of the message can mislead the seer. St. Gregory the Great and St. Norbert both believed Antichrist lived during their lifetime; St. Paul and St. Vincent Ferrer believed his coming to be imminent.

Note: Melanie’s belief that some of the events described by Our Lady already were in motion in certain hidden ways was true, but not perhaps always to the extent she perceived. Commentators on the Secret often chastised Melanie for her paranoia about Freemasons attempting her life. Yet no one ever chided St. Anthony Mary Claret, who died shortly before Melanie’s release of the Secret, for taking reasonable precautions to preserve his life. And this saint survived a total of 14 different attempts by Freemasons to shorten his time on earth.

e) “A revelation may be unwittingly altered by the seer himself when he attempts to explain what he saw and/or heard], or, still oftener, by those to whom he dictates his St. Brigid realized herself that at times she retouched her revelations, the better to explain them; these added explanations are not always free from errors. It is acknowledged today that the scribes who wrote the revelations of Ven. Mary of Agreda, Anne Catherine Emmerich and Marie Lataste modified them to an extent difficult to determine.”

Note: Abbe Combe was not in the picture when Melanie released the condemned version of the Secret under Bp. Zola, although other clerics were. If this is the same as the later, 1904 edition, Abbe Combe cannot be implicated in any attempt to encourage Melanie to expand upon her Secret. But we cannot be certain that the Secret as it is presented in its“original” form today is the same “Secret” condemned in 1879 and 1923! We know only that it varies drastically from the one presented by Rev. Culleton. At least some of the comments contained in the 1879 version may well be accounted for by the explanation above, although this cannot explain the rearrangement of the Secret. Melanie was not able to obtain approval of her Secret for many years following the date designated for the Secret’s release by Our Lady. During this time period, many things happened in Europe that fit in with her Secret, and she could not help but notice these things. The further one travels in time from the initial event, the more likely it is the memory will fade some, allowing the imagination and newer, related material greater play. Certainly Melanie must have felt compelled to elaborate on a Secret that seemed so impossible and fantastic to so many, in attempting to reach them. If she fell into the errors described in #’s 3 and 5, it is not surprising given the difficulty of her mission.

Tanquerey concludes by cautioning that we cannot pronounce with certitude on a revelation until we have obtained convincing proofs. He refers his readers to the work on canonization by Pope Benedict XIV. The following is a brief summary of this pope’s teaching concerning the virtues necessary to achieve heroic sanctity, since these virtues “should be practiced to an heroic degree by the seer.”

III. Pope Benedict XIV’s Teaching on Heroic Sanctity Sanctity is defined by Pope Benedict XIV as “simple conformity to the Divine Will expressed in the exact fulfillment of the duties of one’s proper state.” The cardinal virtues must be evident in one who practices heroic sanctity. The following special points demonstrate the existence of theological faith:

1. The candidate must keep the Commandments.

Note: Melanie has been accused of lying, but it is certainly possible that those relating what she said were mistaken, or were liars themselves. This is especially true concerning whatever the nun “Adele” may have said to Boullan, Sauniere, or others. Certainly she honored her parents, even taking care of them in their old age, despite their abuse of her. There is no indication in any of the works consulted that she was anything but pious (especially under the direction of Bp. Petagna), regular in her attendance at Mass and faithful in seeking spiritual direction.

2. He must pray to God.

Note: “I keep silent…I pray. That is enough — to pray, to pray a great deal.”

3. He must manifest submission of the heart and obedience to God, to the Catholic

Church and its visible head, the Roman Pontiff in all things which must be believed and done for eternal salvation. Note: Melanie’s observance of the Lecce Secret’s condemnation by the Holy Office and overall faithfulness to spiritual direction can be observed above.

a.) His faith must increase or he must desire that it increase.

Note: “The love which my dear Jesus poured into my heart always keeps on growing.”

b.) He must fear the Lord.

c.) He must adore God and His saints.

d.) He must exhibit a horror for sin and do penance if he falls into sin.

Note: Melanie’s constant association with priests, adherence to spiritual direction and

faithful devotion to her mission confirms numbers 5-8.

e.) He must show patience in the trials of life.

Note: “All is thorns around me and I must keep complete silence. Blessed be God by all things and in all things.”

f.) He must be joyful in carrying out good works, in humility and in humiliations.

Note: “The more I see myself swimming in bitterness, the happier I am to have found the Beloved of our souls.”

The following are objective signs of the existence of heroic hope, “which may be presumed from external acts.”

1. Great labors undertaken by the servants of God for His sake and the severity of their penitential life. “Such labors and penances would never be undertaken without hope.”

Note: Certainly Melanie’s labors to make the Secret known can be determined “great.”

She also “slept only three hours a night…on the floor fully clothed. Her only solid food was the Eucharist. She drank very little.”

2. “Entrance into a religious order with surrender of all temporal goods, especially when

this involves great property and positions of high dignity.”

Note: Melanie entered two religious orders, but had no “dowry” to speak of.

3. “Joy at the news of approaching death.”

Note: Melanie laughed at Abbe Combe’s housekeeper who referred to the possibility of her death all alone, the year before she died. “That is exactly how I will die,” Melanie told her.

4. “Joy in adversity.”
5. The special confidence exhibited by some of the saints that God would suddenly come to their aid when such aid seemed impossible, a fact which was confirmed by the event. St. Thomas defines Divine charity as “Friendship between man and God.

Pope Benedict XIV describes one sign of Divine charity as becoming as close to God on this earth as is humanly possible. Others signs are enumerated below.

1. Sinlessness
2. Unceasingly seeking after God

Note: “God of my heart, life of my life, I love you…This insatiable love is not idle. While always making itself better known, it calls on the soul to love more…”

3. Observing heroic virtue at least for the last 10 years of life, (but each case is different)
4. Immediate signs of sorrow and penance performed if there is a relapse into sin
5. Avoidance of near occasions and works of piety to make reparation for venial sins

Note: “It [the soul] feels in the bottom of its heart a beloved fear of giving the slightest displeasure to God.”

The following are signs of heroic charity toward others:

1. Correcting those in error and leading them back to the straight path to salvation, and this must be done selflessly and frequently. Note: Melanie’s entire life’s mission was devoted to this end.
2. Giving selflessly of whatever funds, time and energies we have, even if this is only the widow’s mite, to assist the less fortunate Note: A Salesian Mother Superior of the Convent of the Visitation in Rome, who for a time received Melanie into her order wrote: “We have been greatly enlightened by the charity she has shown our disabled sisters.”
3. Forgiveness of even the most painful injuries. Note: This can be observed by Melanie’s kind attitude towards her relatives, who, Mary Alice Dennis writes: “…were never of any comfort to her.” 78 Perhaps it is Melanie who, in the end, sums up her life best: “There are certain obvious defects which God, in His infinite mercy, leaves in those He loves to preserve them from all pride.” 79 Melanie would be the first to agree with her critics that she was a hindrance to her own cause, the bane of her own existence.

The Secret stripped bare

Melanie, then, exhibited great devotion to God and obvious heroic qualities despite her difficult nature and many eccentricities. Any qualms on the worthiness of the seer can be laid aside. She was not perfect, but her holiness was far above the ordinary. Those who choose to believe the lies and calumnies of certain others who opposed the Secret becauseits content somehow applied to them or their ventures neither understand the true import of the Secret or the painful obstacles Melanie faced.

This leaves us only with that puzzle that is the Secret itself. Obviously the longer version, whatever its origin, is not the version Melanie wished to circulate. Either Rev. Culleton or his censor arrived at a version of the Secret that would pass muster with the Holy Office, or they found Canon Rousselot’s copy of the Secret from the Pope himself. But if Culleton’s censor edited the Secret, his slight attenuation of the text cannot, however, explain the rearrangement of the paragraphs in the supposed Lecce secret. Only two series of dots are found in Culleton’s version. One appears after the reference in the Lecce text to a bishop as the father of Antichrist. The other is found at the end of the very last paragraph, which seems to indicate that in the original version the entire paragraph concerning faithless Rome and Antichrist was repeated, as in the Lecce text. All dates and times are omitted from Culleton’s version without dots, which could mean that they were later additions to the text.

What possible motives could account for the rearrangement of the Secret?

The most obvious motive is to obscure the true nature of the crisis in Rome and the arrival of Antichrist. This could have been the work of the Novus Ordo church, but if so why is the paragraph concerning priests allowed to remain in nearly all the versions of the Lecce secret appearing on Traditionalist websites? The one Traditionalist site that carries the Culleton version of the Secret tellingly omits the paragraph concerning priests.

We know this paragraph was contained in the original version of the Secret because Bp. Zola told Abbe Roubard the approaches addressed to the clergy “were contained word for word in the text given to Pius IX.” 80 The other Traditionalist sites retain it, but refer it to the ministers of the Novus Ordo, either by inference or outright identification. Some Novus Ordo sites retain the paragraph chastising priests, but then omit or explain away the paragraph beginning “Rome will lose the faith…” Obviously no one believes Our Lady knew what she was talking about.

In the Lecce secret, paragraphs containing dates and times are arranged in such a way that it appears the great crisis will arrive prior to the reign of Antichrist, and that the peace promised by Our Lady at Fatima also will occur before Antichrist’s reign. This permits those using the Secret to advise delay and discourage their followers from undertakingany course of action to resolve the crisis in the Church. Placing everything on hold, instead, they encourage their followers to await the Three Days, caused by WWIII, the comet, the volcanic eruption, the worldwide earthquake or whatever they decide will constitute the chastisement. Many teach that the period of peace before Antichrist will feature the Great Monarch, reigning in conjunction with a Holy Pontiff, leaving the door wide open, it seems, to the New World Order plan for world domination. Per Melanie’s alleged description, Antichrist is made to resemble some sci-fi version of evil incarnate, not a simple man like an incarnate demon, which is what the message actually states. By implication, then, and the inclusion of what may be an addition to the secret — not by the words of the secret itself — Catholics are led to believe that Antichrist will be an easily identified monster who will arrive shortly before the consummation. This cannot be true simply because it does not follow the order or the meaning of Holy Scripture, as explained by the Fathers and the commentators approved by the Church.

One of the arguments advanced against the Secret is that it infers an order for the latter days that smacks of the Millenarist heresy (also known as Chiliasm), which may explain the order observed in the Lecce version of the secret. The condemnation of this heresy, however, reads as follows:

“In recent times on several occasions this Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord, before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is: “The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be safely taught,’” (DZ 2296, July 21, 1944).  Note that this decision was not given until 1944. So while there may have been some question of the Holy Office’s stand on this question before this decision was handed down, what is not safe to teach now has been clarified.

Several commentators on the Apocalypse, among them Rev. Arminjon, Rev. George Haydock, Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, Rev. Raphel Eyzaguirre, Rev. William Heidt, O.S.B., Rev. H.M. Feret, O.P. and Rev. H.B. Kramer all admit either the likelihood or the possibility of a period of peace following the death of Antichrist. St. Justin and St. Augustine both teach it could occur in a spiritual, but not material sense, as long as it is understood Christ would not rule visibly with His saints. And as St. John Eudes teaches, “All the holy Fathers agree that after the death of Antichrist the whole world will be converted.”  Yet we know that even the idea of a spiritual Millenium has been forbidden if we read the entire context of Pope Pius XII’s condemnation HERE. And the conversion of what sinners Christ intends to save may occur in the brief period preceding the Last Judgment, as some commentators opine. Let us now discuss the heart of the Secret, that dealing with Antichrist and his reign.

The first sentence of Rev. Culleton’s version of the Secret begins with the period of false peace before Antichrist’s reign commences. It ends with a warning about the identity of the Beast and it’s primary focus and center is Antichrist’s coming. As stated earlier, the condemned Lecce version carves up the entire discourse on Antichrist found towards theend of the Secret. It offers one sentence of this section compared to the two adjoined paragraphs found in the Culleton version. This is not an accidental arrangement, (or rather rearrangement). In the Lecce version, there is no clarification of the nature of Antichrist’s reign or what follows it. In Culleton’s Secret, there is a very clear picture of the actual course of events. Culleton’s book is available form Amazon and used book stores. The following part of the secret is the most controversial and needs some additional commentary.

“Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist.” First we must ask here what is meant by the word “Rome.” Those criticizing the Secret claim this is an heretical statement because the Church teaches that the church of Rome is to be indefectible and infallible along with its head, the Roman Pontiff. And yet the Vatican Council teaches clearly that thePope as an individual person and only the Pope canonically elected possesses the charism of infallibility and never-failing faith. This was the entire purpose of the Vatican Council definition. And it is true beyond doubt that as long as a validlyelected Pope reigns in Rome, the local church of Rome is infallibly and indefectibly joined to him insofar as the Roman See encompasses that same church.

Enter now Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton, who cites the condemned proposition DZ 730, “the Church of the city of Rome can err,” advanced by Peter of Osma, as proof that the Roman population cannot lose their faith or err in matters of faith. According to Msgr. Fenton, “It is definitely the more common teaching among the scholastic theologians that the office of the visible head of the entire Church militant is inseparably attached to the position of the Bishop of Rome, and that this absolutely permanent attachment exists by reason of the divine constitution of the Church itself… If, until the end of time, the man who is charged with the responsibility of presiding over the universal Church militant as Christ’s vicar on earth is necessarily the head of the local Church in Rome, then it follows quite obviously that the local Church of the Eternal City must be destined by God to continue to live as long as the Church militant itself.”

In the course of his demonstration on this topic, Msgr. Fenton cites this opinion as the one common among scholastics, but admits that the other opinion is still tenable, and this even according to St. Robert Bellarmine. Three facts must be noted here that qualify Msgr. Fenton’s argument. First of all, he could not have been speaking of the situation as it exists during an interregnum, when the Roman Pontiff is absent from Rome and nothing can be joined to anything. Secondly, he most certainly cannot mean those periods of time during which it appears that the better part of the Church of Rome recognized and willingly hosted antipopes. A bishop of any diocese of the world can reign over that diocese even when all its baptized Catholics or nearly all have deserted the faith; it has nothing to do with the episcopacy of that diocese.  And third, he cannot and does not ever consider the situation that would exist were false popes to rule for an extended period of time from Rome without a true pope reigning elsewhere. Msgr. Fenton considered only the situation as it exists during the reign of a valid Roman Pontiff. As a rule, those dealing with the law always consider what normally happens, not what happens infrequently or rarely.

What is important to note, as explained in the link above and by Msgr. Fenton’s comment, is that the Church will last until the end of time — the Church’s appointed time on earth — as the Vatican Council teaches, and as long as the Church militant herself continues to exist. This Rev. Berry also states: “The Apostolic See of Rome is the only particular Church to which the promise of perpetual indefectibility has been made” (p. 56). “The Apostolic succession cannot fail in the Apostolic See SO LONG AS THE CHURCH HERSELF CONTINUES TO EXIST…” (The Church of Christ). That time ends with the arrival of Antichrist. For as we read in Apoc. Ch. 13, Antichrist will make war with the saints and overcome them.

The same is predicted in Daniel Ch. 8: 11-12: the saints will be crushed and the Prince of Strength (the pope) will be cast down and the continual sacrifice taken from him. There is no period of peace foretold between Ch. 13 and the end of the Apocalypse. All that is foretold is that the Devil himself will come down to earth and surround the camp pf the saints; and after that the earth shall be consumed by fire, God will renew Heaven and earth and the earth shall become the New Jerusalem. We believe the Scripture prophecies and those explaining them prior to 1958, according to Pope Pius XII’s teaching on the Millenium. Private prophecies do not bind us to belief; Holy Scripture and papal teachings do. And that is what all must remember when reading the La Salette message or any other private prophecies, even from the saints. As Our Lady told the children, “Faith alone will survive.” Not faith in things human, but divine faith alone.