Author Topic: I Am Needing help on LaSalette! (Read 6536 times)

OldMerry · « **Reply #30 on:** February 14, 2015, 01:08:36 AM »

Ok - well, maybe I should start with, where can I find the most reliable, EARLIEST, English account of the apparition. Anyone know? That may have to be sufficient. Many thanks.

Cera · « **Reply #31 on:** February 15, 2015, 02:32:24 PM »

[/quote]

Sometime in the early 1900's (20th century) some official publication came out with a revised version of the La Salette message where the sentence about Rome losing the faith and becoming the seat of the Antichrist was REMOVED. Ever since then, there has been controversy over whether it was ever "approved" or not, since once approved, it should not be up for new unapproval. Correct?

Correct.

Remember, in 1962 some creepy guys of the same stripe "removed" St. Philomena from the calendar. Their excuse was that insufficient evidence could be found for her existence. That's a good example of a half-truth, which by the way, is a whole lie.

.[/quote]

Why is the previous poster asking for the oldest version when Neil Obstat already gave us this info in a previous post? (I am not tech savvy, so this is the best I can do.)

OldMerry · « **Reply #32 on:** February 15, 2015, 02:58:26 PM »

Cera I think what Neil Obstat was saying was that there may be a cover up with some, at least, of the LaSalette story, the same way St. Philomena was pulled from the list of saints. Maybe, also, by the same people. He is also saying there is a defensiveness by liberals who will not suffer the thought that "Rome will lose the faith." He says Angelqueen is one site that defends modernist Rome in this way, and that if you try the site Catholic Answers is the same in defense of Rome, and you will actually not be welcomed there with your LaSalette questions for long.

For myself, I am going back to original docuмents from the early 1850s on LaSalette - then examine the story and the docuмents as they developed in the years to come from there.

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #33 on:** February 15, 2015, 03:25:49 PM »

Here are some links I found.

The one from Pope in Red is interesting. Since a source is actually listed you may try that avenue.

Secret of La Salette

This also is interesting because the author includes the original, then says the original is actually a second copy. He then clarifies the 1879 version listed above as actually something Melanie added later after she became discontent with cloistered life and the faithless clergy around her. It is claimed that she was forbidden to write anything else after 1880 and later her writing was placed on the Index of Prohibited Books in the 1920s.

The "Authentic" Message of La Salette

When asked the very question you ask over at TIA, there response was this: ".....Many persons contest the authenticity of the last message of Melanie, who--they say--would have added her own ideas to it.... The difficulty in distinguishing between the authentic words of Our Lady and the additions of Melanie would be one of the reasons why the Holy See allowed the faithful to read these prophecies, but forbade them to comment on it. This is also the main argument of many bishops against La Salette..... We do not know of a particular person who could help you to explain it in more detail..."

In other words, we may never really know what Our Lady exactly said to Melanie.

But does one really need to this to be Melanie's secret? It's no longer a secret, is it? Anyone with eyes can see that Rome has lost the faith.

Cera · « **Reply #34 on:** February 16, 2015, 12:16:21 PM »

Quote from: Merry

Cera I think what Neil Obstat was saying was that there may be a cover up with some, at least, of the LaSalette story, the same way St. Philomena was pulled from the list of saints. Maybe, also, by the same people. He is also saying there is a defensiveness by liberals who will not suffer the thought that "Rome will lose the faith." He says Angelqueen is one site that defends modernist Rome in this way, and that if you try the site Catholic Answers is the same in defense of Rome, and you will actually not be welcomed there with your LaSalette questions for long.

For myself, I am going back to original docuмents from the early 1850s on LaSalette - then examine the story and the docuмents as they developed in the years to come from there.

Yes, I though Neil was saying the cover-up included taking out "Rome will become the seat of the anti-christ." My posting problem was trying to quote both Neil and the person who had not read his post. (Is there a way to do that?)