La Salette, True and False
The following dialogue concerns the legacy of the late Melanie Calvat, which has, occasionally been the a cause of scandal and controversy---firstly among Traditionalists, but, also, among our conciliarist critics. In the texts transcribed below, I expound my own opinions about her book of prophecies.
Concerning... Catholics site
Hello, after reading your introductory page, I find myself sympathetic with your emphasis on Faith as a unifying principle for traditionalists.
I, nevertheless, am wary of the book Apparitions of the Virgin on the Mountain of Lasalette, and its purported prophecies.
"Secret of La Salette" Writings Placed on the Index of Forbidden Books - the 1915 to 1925 Decrees
Besides the ways that that Bishop Pivarunas, Gary Giuffre, and others have... have presumed to ignore the Church's condemnation of Ms. Calvat's book, they also seem to have taken Ms. Calvat's statements out of their original context [NOTE: in most all other ecclesiastical matters, my opinions concur with those of Mr. Giuffre --
Mrs. Anon. wrote:
I am not convinced that Mr. Loughnan has settled the question on La Salette. Holy Scripture and those writing pre-1959 overrides much of what he says
Even though I may disagree with some of what you have written, I hope my remarks may not, therefore, offend. Please consider an old Russian proverb:
yes-man is your enemy, but your friend will argue with you."
--cited by author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, fmr. victim of Soviet persecution, in his address, A Warning to the West, 1976
Subject: Concerning... Catholics site
Hello, [Mrs. Anon.]. I am writing some responses within the text of your reply.
The link I provided <http://jloughnan.tripod.com/sal_decr.htm> contains the full text from the Holy Office's instructions condemning the book, Apparitions of the Virgin on Lasalette, from the years 1915 to 1929. All these instructions were published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
I am [not] entirely sure what you are alluding to by "those writing pre-1959." Some alleged revelations by the late Melanie Calvat, and Maxim Giraud, were published by the late Passionist Father, Fr. Gaudentius Rossi, in an 1873 book---however, these facts have no bearing on the extraordinary jurisdiction, or competence, of the Holy See in officially discerning the credibility of various private revelations. The late Ms. Calvat's book [was] condemned, and placed on the Index of Condemned Books, on Dec. 21, 1915---nearly forty-three years prior to the 1958 Conclave.
Regardless of what Mr. Loughnan, you, or I, might like to believe, these documents relate the official, and constant, judgments of the Holy See concerning this alleged private revelation---given at times when the Holy Office was an organ of the Church's Magisterium.
the instruction of the Holy Scriptures, I would remind you, "we have not
by following artificial fables made known to you the power and presence of our
objection would seem to indicate that we are to submit to the instructions of
Ms. Calvat---rather than to the divinely established
Hierarchy of the Church. In conscience, I must differ with you concerning this
opinion. New devotions, alleged private revelations, alleged visions---not
excepting the late Ms. Calvat's book---have always
been subject to the jurisdiction of diocesan ordinaries---and, in extraordinary
cases, to the Holy See, and its lawful representatives (such as the Holy
Are you arguing that we should disobey God's Church, in order to follow the instructions of a seer?
Besides, what is said in La Salette is repeated in numerous other approved prophecies, or prophecies that we are free to believe or not believe.
believe my previous remarks, and citations, have fairly demonstrated the condemned status of Ms. Calvat's
book. The differences which distinguish the dire predictions in her book from
approved private revelations are, meanwhile, significant. While her alleged
prophecies have some resemblances to various approved revelations, any careful
reading of Ms. Calvat's book will present the reader
with her prophecies foretelling the overthrow of secular republics, and their
replacement by monarchies. Her book foretells that these temporal changes will
occur BEFORE her prophesied eclipse of the Church, and BEFORE her prophesied
I indicated the defective status Ms. Calvat's unfulfilled prophecies in my initial message addressing these matters. I must conclude that what I stated on that occasion is holding up fairly well, inasmuch as you made no comments in response to these points.
Notwithstanding various similarities, no approved private revelation foretells the same series of future events related in Ms. Calvat's book.
To sum up my points, thus far, it is not merely a sin, and a violation of the Law of the Church, to spread the alleged prophecies in Ms. Calvat's book. While such activity would certainly make one culpable of wrongs against God, [the] Church, and his neighbor, I believe the reasons I have given show that it also is fair to conclude that the promotion of her book is irrational, and imprudent. I might not sympathize with Richard Salbato's affiliation with the hierarchy of the Vatican II sect, however, to his credit, he has studied the Church's canons, and disciplines, regarding the discernment of alleged private revelations, for forty years. I believe the following remarks by Mr. Salbato bear heavily on the subjects we are discussing:
[Concerning] the statement of Pope Urban VIII (17th Century), "It's better
to believe than not to believe."
The promoters of un-approved apparitions and private revelations, appeal to two false conclusions from past Pope's statements, and in both cases they take statements out of context...
... And regarding Pope Urban VIII, this also is taken out of context. He was referring to a private revelation that was under investigation but no conclusion was reached yet, for as he said, "and if it should prove to be false". The question you should ask is "prove to be false" by whom? By the promoters, the sheep, the bishop of the mystic, or by
The doctrine of the Church is "to the judgment of the diocesan Bishop". Of course, there must be a period of time before the diocesan Bishop comes to a conclusion, and during this period of time one is not held responsible for a false belief. If, however, you continue to believe in a mystic that the local Bishop has "proved to be false", will you still "receive all the blessings as if it were to be true"? No! Because then you have violated the Fourth Commandment. "Honor your Father and your Mother" because no one can have God for their Father without having the Church for their Mother.
"But, Lord, I believed with all my heart." (Matt. 7:21=24) "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day,
`Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?' And then will I profess unto them, `I never knew you, depart from me, you that work iniquity.' Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock."
The important thing about this statement of
"We are of God. [the bishops] He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." (1
5. Why should we listen to bad bishops?
When you ask that question, you are saying that God has no power over His creatures. This powerless God of yours, can give prophesies and miracles to a mystic, but has no power over the very bishop that he commands us to obey to influence him to make the proper judgment. Therefore, you become your own bishops and your own Church. Then when you go up to heaven, He will say what? When you say I would rather believe in God than man, what you are really saying is I would rather believe in the mystic than the Church, and this is a Gnostic heresy.
Can a bishop make a mistake? Yes! But if you obey him, you are not sinning; but if you disobey him, you are, even if he made a mistake. However, I know of no private revelation in the 2000 year history of the Church that was condemned by a local bishop and later found to be true. I do know of private revelations that were approved by the local bishop and then found to be false. In fact one Pope lamented on his death bed that he almost brought the Church into its ruin by following a false mystic. That Pope was Urban VIII.
6. If it's better to listen to God than man, why should we obey a bishop?
What you really mean is to listen to the seer instead of the bishop. Experience with those who follow false apparitions will show that no amount of argument will convince them that they are wrong, since they get their information directly from "Heaven". These followers of false mystics are so brain-washed that: if the local Bishop condemns the apparitions, they say he is corrupt; if the Doctrine of the Faith condemns the apparition, they say the Doctrine is outdated; and even if the Holy Father condemns the apparition, (which has never happened in history) they will say that he is a false pope. They will only believe the message, nothing else.
It is the bishop and not us, or even a saint (as the Cure De Ares discovered), that God gave the gift of discernment. In Matthew 18: 17
(Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Pages 289, 290) "By virtue of Divine right the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses. In regard to the relation between the Papal powers the Vatican Council declared: `This power of the Pope in no way derogates from the ordinary and immediate power of Episcopal jurisdiction by which bishops who have been set by the Holy Ghost to succeed and hold the place of the Apostles feed and govern each his own flock as true pastors; but rather, this authority is asserted, strengthened and vindicated by the Supreme and Universal Pastor."
Ordinary power refers to the authority of the bishop coming from his office. Even if you believe your bishop to be bad, whatever his decision on an apparition in his See is, it is bound in Heaven. You have an obligation of obedience to his decision.
forty years of researching these matters, Mr. Salbato maintains that no condemned revelation has ever, afterward, been
approved---neither by any local diocese, nor by
It grieves me that too many of my brother and sister Catholics have persuaded themselves that the promoting Ms. Calvat's book is permissible. Some even believe that, by doing so, they offer some kind of spiritual remedy to the unheard-of woes of the Church during our time. While I might hope that their motives are sincere, sadly, they are, at best, sincerely wrong. I certainly hope that you will prayerfully consider these points.
Why do we need La Salette to tell us that what happened HAS happened? Isn't it pretty obvious? And isn't the best gauge of all prophecy whether it is fulfilled or not? True, some of it is in the future, or appears to be. The rest, almost without a fault, has already taken place.
I have explained, the events which, according to Ms. Calvat,
were to preceed the eclispe
of the Church, the Antichrist subverting
Mr. Richard Salbato is a Catholic re-vert. Neither Mr. Salbato, nor his company, Unity Publishing, have ever had any affiliation whatsoever with the bohemian liberal Unity
Mr. Salbato takes the name of his website from the Church approved private revelations given to Myrna Nazzour, a Syrian Maronite Catholic. Mrs. Nazzour, and her husband, Mr. Nicholas Nazzour, both reside in
The revelations of Jesus
The Nazzours, however, have never been affiliated in any way with the aforementioned, bohemian liberal Unity
Mr. Salbato previously published a carefully researched book on the revelations of Jesus
Interestingly, concerning Mr. Salbato, in 2002, he was also dubbed a knight by the principal heir of the deposed royal family of