Ask your questions in the comment section below.
Also, please pray for my brother’s health.
grace and peace to everyone.
Ron Conte
-
Those who reject the Magisterium, grasp at straws seeking its replacement.
-
Click here for a list of my Roman Catholic theology books and booklets, including books about the future.
-
To read the Kindle versions of my books, without a Kindle device, get the free cloud reader — or — any of the free Kindle reading apps.
The CPDV — my conservative Catholic translation of the Bible, from the Latin Vulgate into English, is available at Amazon.com in Kindle format and online here.
Meta
Subscribe to my RSS Feed. (If you use Google Chrome, first add a Chrome RSS reader or extension.)
the reproach of Christ 
Can I pray to God for relatively “trivial” things? For example, praying to be taller in stature. (just an example)
You can pray for anything that is not evil. If you pray for trivial things, God may change your heart over time to put greater value in greater things.
Is Bishop Strickland a heretic? He has written strong material against Pope Francis and it is questionable writing. Thank you for your insight Ron.
I can’t be the judge of each case. But all the faithful, certainly also bishops, must accept each Roman Pontiff as the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ. Popes are subject to legitimate but limited possible criticism. But some bishops and priests, and many laity go too far. Refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff is schism.
Hi Ron,
maybe i missed it altogether, but what’s your brother’s name. Hope he’s improving.
Peace.
my brother’s name is Jay
two questions:
1) will 2025 be the year of the warning?
2) does Iran already has nuclear weapons for attacking Israël?
I hope the Warning occurs soon, as it will improve the Church and the world. But I don’t know what year the Warning will occur in.
Iran might already have one or a few working nuclear weapons. They need at least 5 nukes to use at least one nuke.
Ron
I am struggling with the Pope’s recent visit to abortion advocate Emma Bonino. While I agree with not shunning a sinner, this particular visit just sews more confusion among faithful catholics like myself.
What is your take on this?
thank you
Popes can err in their prudential decisions, such as with whom they meet and whom they appoint to different positions. I agree with your criticism, but Popes are not personally infallible, and decisions such as this are not under the Keys of Peter (doctrine, discipline).
Dear Ron,
Thank you for these observations. You are correct that the condemnations of the Holy See were directed primarily against booklets containing the 1879 version of the Secret of La Salette. In the summer of 1880, however, the Holy Office offered this assessment of the 1879 revelations of Mélanie:
“The thought [of the Holy Office] is that the revelations of Mélanie, printed and distributed everywhere, cannot be considered authentic or doctrinally sound; that therefore, without any prejudice to the cult given to the Blessed Virgin under the title of La Salette, they [the archbishops] don’t approve of them in any way whatsoever, and moreover that they ensure the said revelations won’t get printed and spread over their dioceses and the dioceses of their suffragans, but let them even carefully remove these wherever they have already been spread.” [Notification of the Consultors and Decree of the Holy Office, Monday 26 July, and Tuesday 3 August, 1880 (CORTEVILLE, p. 272-273)]
It might be true that, in the strict sense, there are no assertions contrary to Catholic faith and morals in the 1879 version of the Secret. This, no doubt, is why Bishop Zola of Lecce, Italy, gave his imprimatur to the booklet containing the 1879 version of the Secret. I don’t dispute that Mélanie wrote the 1879 version of the Secret in her own handwriting and that she claimed what she wrote down corresponded to what the Virgin Mary told her. The Church, though, has never given approval to the 1879 version of the Secret. Moreover, in 1880 the Holy Office stated that these revelations “cannot be considered authentic and doctrinally sound.”
With the suppression of the Index, it is not prohibited to publish and distribute the 1879 version of the Secret. In light of the prior statements of the Holy Office, however, caution might be advisable. Apart from the earlier statements of the Holy Office, some Catholic writers believe there are other problems with the 1879 version of the Secret (see this article by Jimmy Akin written in 2000: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/la-salette-sorting-fact-from-fiction).
My personal concern is that radical Catholic traditionalists are using the 1879 Secret of La Salette to claim that present Apostolic See has become the seat of the Antichrist. As we know, such a claim contradicts the indefectibility of the Apostolic See of the Roman Pontiff. If Catholics wish to give personal belief in the 1879 version of the Secret, they should at least avoid suggesting that the Apostolic See of Rome is now in apostasy
Dear Ron,
Your explanation of Rome losing the faith and becoming the seat of the Antichrist is quite good. I think, though, we should realize that this line comes from the 1879 version of the Secret of La Salette, which is found in various booklets that have been condemned by the Holy See.
On Feb. 26, 1879, the Holy Office issued a decree forbidding Bishop Zolla of Lecce, Italy from disseminating a booklet in which the 1879 version of the Secret of La Salette was contained. There were subsequent interventions of the Holy See against booklets containing this 1879 version of the secret. See the Dec. 21, 1915 Decree of the Holy Office (AAS 7 [1915] p. 594) and the May 23, 1923 Decree of the Holy Office (AAS 15 [1923] pp. 287-288). There is a dossier in French on the documents of the Holy See concerning the 1879 version of the Secret of La Salette: https://www.sodalitium.eu/saint-siege-secret-de-la-salette/. An English translation of these documents of the Holy See on the “Secret of La Salette” can be found on this website (which seems to be from a Catholic traditionalist source): https://www.truerestoration.org/the-holy-see-and-the-secret-of-la-salette/.
As can be seen from the dossier, various publications containing the 1879 version of the Secret were condemned. Melanie Calvat (1831–1904) one of the two visionaries of La Salette, was influenced by various people in composing her 1879 version of the Secret, including the French writer, Léon Bloy (1846–1917). Unfortunately, the 1879 condemned version of the Secret of La Salette continues to be cited by people on the internet, including Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò (now excommunicated).
I hope this information is helpful.
I don’t believe the 1879 secrets themselves were condemned. Rather, books containing those secrets, which gave them unorthodox interpretations, were condemned. Then, too, any prohibitions on books containing these secrets may have been prudential, to stop the spread of these unfaithful interpretations (e.g. that Rome as in the Holy See would lose the faith). In any case, the index and other decrees on these books are no longer in force. The Church no longer prohibits the dissemination of works on the secrets of La Salette.
As for the faithfulness of the 1879 version of the secrets, in the book “Le Secret De Melanie”, the Abbé Combe, Curé of Diou (Allier) states that he “obtained from Melanie a copy of her secret ‘entirely written by her hand’ and which conformed to the text of the secret originally printed in 1879, at Lecce, Italy” (Le Secret De Melanie, p.7). So I don’t believe that the 1879 edition is corrupted, but rather that it represents a genuine edition of the private revelations to Melanie from the Virgin Mary.
I find nothing in the secrets of La Salette contrary to doctrine, nor contrary to the eschatology found in Scripture.
Hi Ron,
Do you believe the real version of the third Fatima secret was revealed by the Vatican?
Apparently the Catholic Church will have an apostate pope?
How does this square up with your understanding?
And finally because Fatima is approved by the Church, what type of sin did the pope commit when he refused to release it in 1960 as per the direct divine instruction from Heaven?
The real version of the Fatima third secret was revealed in the year 2000 by Pope Saint John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger. The seer sister Lucy confirmed this. The secret did not match the rumors and speculations that had accumulated over many years, but why should it? One should not put faith in rumor and speculation.
Our Lady at La Salette: Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.
This means that the Holy See will move from Rome and that the people of Rome will generally lose the faith (with those who remain faithful being forced out of the city). Then the Antichrist will make Rome the seat of his false religion and false church, which opposes the Catholic Christian religion and true Church. The religion and church of the Antichrist does not claim to be the Christian Church, nor does the Antichrist or false prophet claim to be the Pope.
The Pope did not sin by declining to reveal a secret from private revelation. That is a matter of prudential judgment.