The only problem, JosephFG, is that the quotes below are from a controversial version of the secret that may not be from the original secret delivered to Pius IX written in 1851. Rather, they appear to be from a later, embellished version of the secret :
1.“Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist”
and
- “It will be during this time that the antichrist will be born of a Hebrew nun, a false virgin, who will communicate with the old serpent, the master of impurity; his father will be a bishop. He will be the devil incarnate, he will work wonders, he will feed on nothing but impurity.”
Here is a little more history, JosephFG:
Melanie Calvat befriended Gilbert Combe, a French priest who was drawn toward the La Salette apparition. Until nearly the end of her life, they would remain in close contact. Calvat confided in him, and he made an important contribution in the further study of the secrets on the basis of his extensive collection of private letters and notes. She told him a number of moral confidences relating to the end times. These moral confidences are a third source of relevant information concerning the secret, next to the message given to Melanie, and the ecclesiastical rule of the religious orders. They are also a source of controversy and speculation.
In 1901 Gilbert Combe republished Melanie’s latter edition secret of 1873, the now prohibited secret, together with her moral confidences. His book was labeled anti-Bonapartist and pro-Bourbon by opponents. It favoured traditional monarchism over republicanism. It was put on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Catholic Church. Again in 1906 another of Combe’s publicationswas placed on the index.
These actions of the church caused a great deal of confusion in Catholic minds, so that it was compelled to clarify that the original shortened edition of the message of 1851 remained approved, and it was only the latter contributions, that were precautious.
During the pontificate of pope Benedict XV, the church was compelled to address the issue again. Benedict XV issued an admonitum or formal papal warning recognizing the many different versions of the secret from 1858 onwards, in all its diverse forms, and forbidding the faithful or the clergy to investigate or discuss them without permission from their bishops. The admonitum further affirmed that the church’s prohibition of discussion issued under Pope Leo XIII issued in 1879 remained binding.
Here is also a letter that you may find relevant, JosephFG:
In order to answer your question Monseigneur, I have just read the two pamphlets concerning which you desire to know my opinion. It is absolutely unfavourable. The authors of previous publications, to do with this secret, were condemned, if not because of the secret itself, at least because of the scope and the consequences they gave it. A similar fate awaits this present publication.
I. –** It seems, in fact, that we do not have here the secret handed by the Bishop of Grenoble’s envoys to HH Pope Pius IX in 1851***. In its present form, it was written by Mélanie Calvat, but on various occasions and in successive fragments, and seems rather to be the result of a personal composition than an exact repetition of the original text given to Pius IX, and which is said to be no longer in the Vatican.
II. – As it stands, this secret has no value other than as Mélanie Calvat’s personal statement, supported by the signature of two bishops from around Naples. Mélanie seems to have been sincerely pious, but she may have been deluded, and it seems that her ‘mission’, instead of extending to our period, ended with the Church’s recognition of the reality of the Apparition.
III. – What is certain, according to a well informed author, is that the first versions of the secret were less developed than the last; it is probable, therefore, that under the influence of the setting in which her life ended, Mélanie amplified the first form of the writing she had had sent to the Pope; for certain, we do not have here an official copy of the secret handed to Pius IX. Only the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office could, with the Pope’s consent, seek out the original and so determine, against the original contents, its true authority.
IV. – The nature of this secret, as we read it today, is so strange, arranged in such a confused manner, containing particular allusions to politics, it seems to favour, in such a very precise way, the errors of the ancient millenarists – in that it announces a renovation to be accomplished in time and on earth, unlike the teaching of the true religion about the general resurrection at the end of the world, and about the eternal happiness of the elect – that one necessarily hesitates to ascribe it a heavenly origin. Finally, and more especially, the commentator has taken such liberty in evaluating and judging the Catholic hierarchy, in all its degrees, that one wonders what basis there is for the severity of his words, which would not be out of place in the pages of a newspaper most hostile to the Christian faith. One also wonders how he allies the true piety he professes with the harshness he displays towards persons worthy of every respect…You will not, therefore be surprised, Monseigneur, if I condemn these two pamphlets by Dr Mariavé, if I rebuke their spirit and their character, and if I advise the faithful not to read them.
With my affectionate respect,
A., cardinal de Cabrières
Bishop of Montpellier.
