This interpretation seems very reasonable, since the devil, wanting to imitate the works of God, would place the seat of his vicar, who is the Antichrist, next to the seat of the Vicar of Christ."

So what do we make of that demon worshipper in St Peter's then?

What a buffoon.  Did you even read Lamentabili, or Pius X's condemnation of those who dismiss Indexed works, or pay any heed to the fact that the book was written in obedience to her confessors, burnt twice, and recommenced three times, never of her own volition. The book was condemned in 1681 by Innocent XI, but execution was suspended for Spain. The Sorbonne or University of Paris did the same in 1696 by 102 votes of 152 after having had it examined by 132 doctors of theology.

  We were talking about LaSalette.  St. Pius X didn't condemn it in that wall of text that you posted but didn't bother to read.  He was condemning something else, and condemning a priest for disobeying his bishop.

As for Mary of Agreda ...

1) The Sorbonne is not the Church.

2) You do realize that the same Innocent XI himself lifted the "Prohibition", no?  Speaking of ignorant buffoonery.

Initially, Innocent XI issued a Prohibition based solely on The Sorbonne's verdict, but then there was an outcry of protest, including from the King and Queen of Spain, and so Innocent XI lifted the Prohibition and ordered an independent study of the work.  At that point the Inquisition studied it and gave its full approval, as did numerous Popes, including ST. PIUS X.

So make sure you know what you're actually talking about before engaging your (virtual) mouth.

https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/e082_Agreda.htm

http://www.neemcog.com/OfficialPapalApproval.htm

The Sorbonne was infested with Jansenists who were both Gallicans and, as most Jansenists, were vehemently opposed to what they considered excessive reverence for Our Lady, and they opposed the "Scotist" doctrine of the Immaculate Conception ... and on top of everything else, they issued the condemnation based on a very poor French translation that had been done by Jansenists.

Just as Jerusalem, the seat of the OT Church, became the seat of the antichrist, so too will Rome, the seat of the NT Church, become the seat of the antichrist.  The Jews crucified the physical body of Christ, and Catholics today are crucifying the Mystical Body of Christ.  The first pope, Peter, fled from Jerusalem to Rome; the last pope, Peter, will flee from Rome to Jerusalem.  The Temple was destroyed, and so too will St. Peter's be destroyed.  And what Catholic can deny that St. Peter's is worthy of this destruction?  The New Mass warrants this destruction a thousand times over.  In fact, the Church warrants a greater punishment than that meted out to the Jews, and this is a terrible truth.  

I personally believe that God will allow most of the "cardinals" to be murdered.  I also believe that God will allow Rome to be nearly destroyed -perhaps ransacked by the Muslims or Commies.  

It is interesting to me how many of the writings of the mystics/apparitionists are or were actually condemned by the Church (e.g., Mary of Agreda, Ann Catherine Emmerich, Valtorta, Melanie, Sr. Faustina, et al.), which is why I don't get too much into them, except for the ones which time has proven true (e.g., Fatima, Lourdes).

Re: Ann Catherine Emmerich
Can someone point out where her works are or were condemned by the Church? Thank you