Nothing of what you list is an "irregularity". You simply don't understand how Church law works. Fr. Feeney was excommunicated by a similar decree signed simply by a notary. It was a real excommunication.
Notice that it wasn't until after Pope Pius X died in 1914 that those who detested the messages of La Sallette began to attack Melanie Calvet from the Vatican
The first books about the Secret were condemned in the pontificate of Leo XIII, with additional ones in the time of St. Pius X. Go back and look at the dates on the Index of Prohibited Books.
Here is a quote from L'Osservatore Romano, under the Pontificate of Pope Saint Pius X, on 25th December, 1904,:
The quote, if genuine, refers to the true original secret which is approved by the Church (though still not published), and not Melanie's false concoction published in 1878.
There are no longer any ecclesiatical penalties for reading books that formerly appeared on the now abolished Index.
It will be immoral to read evil books until the end of time.
According to Solange Hertz, the decree, (which I have not seen in full myself)
How can you claim that? I gave you the text of the decree in my Post 159.
As to its posession, the Decree notes the secret is under a ban (more precisely, the Holy Office forbade what you mention in 1880). If it is already under a ban, there is hardly reason to reban it when condemning its further dissemination.
It seems to me that the single sentence within the whole prophesy, "Rome will lose faith and become the seat of the antichrist", is the whole issue for the La Salette detractors. This intimidates them to the core because they feel it means the Pope, forgetting it probably refers to the people of Rome.
As well it should, since it is a quote of Martin Luther, ably refuted by St. Peter Canisius.
Who could dare deny any of this? And many of these prophesies, dealing with flight, advanced science, high technology and seasons being altered were unimaginable in 1879
I take it you've never read Jules Verne?
Anyway, here is the judgement of one Cardinal about this secret.
"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 Milanie 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 Milanie Calvat's personal statement, supported by the signature of two bishops from around Naples. Milanie 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, Milanie 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.
"What aggravates the rashness of these judgements is that they are, on several occasions, given in a form that is both mocking and insulting, which is belied by the character and dignity of the persons the author sees fit to denounce.
"The holy pope Pius IX, venerable cardinals such as Mgr Perraud, Mgr Lugon and Mgr Sevin, bishops like Mgr Maurin of Grenoble, and all his predecessors down to Mgr Ginoulhiac, of such learned memory: all are included in the hurtful reproaches, which the commentator dares to attribute in the first place to the Most Blessed Virgin Herself!
"And all this is written and published, offered and distributed for those who would like to find in these pages food for their curiosity. Would they learn charity and love by learning to despise the legitimate authority of the priesthood? For, the remarkable thing is that this Christian, this Catholic, seems to savour a sort of enjoyment in scourging the leaders of holy Church, those whom he mocks in calling them 'our princes'
"You will not, therefore be surprised, Monseigneur, if I condemn these two pamphlets by Dr Mariavi, 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 Cabrihres
Bishop of Montpellier.(Le Hidec, Les secrets de La Salette, p. 164-167)
Actually, there are canon lawyers who dispute the legitimacy of Fr. Feeney's "excommunication". In fact, he never arrived in Rome for his 'hearing' because the Vatican did not allow him his canonical right to be represented by a Canon Lawyer, nor did they ever notify him of the nature of the original charges they were bringing against him. And it is very strange that it was the Church itself, (through Cardinal Medeiros), that requested the Vatican lift the censure against Fr. Feeney, which they did without asking him to recant anything, but merely asked him to make a profession of faith. He got shafted by the modernists who seek to change the Catholic Church just as surely as Melanie Calvet did. None of your aruments are convincing, and that nonsensical cunard that I am excommunicated and "urged to confession" because I posted some excerpts of the La Sallette prohpesy was right off the wall and a carefully crafted crock of b.s. from the start.
Every Catholic knows that the Index of Prohibited Books was permanently vacated by Pope Paul VI, along with all of the Church's eccliastical penalties connected with them. And since the La Sallette apparition is fully approved, and Melanie Calvet's 1879 brochure has the Imprimatur of the Bishop of Lecce, we have the assurance there is nothing doctrinally unsound contained in the prophesies.
"The quote, if genuine, refers to the true original secret which is approved by the Church (though still not published), and not Melanie's false concoction published in 1878."
The quote has a source and a date. And it's ludicrous and downright perverse to imply that the original, UNPUBLISHED, UNRELEASED account of the apparitions of La Sallette could bring the wrath of the masonic powers to bear upon Melanie Calvet. They wouldn't even know what she said. This quote from the official Vatican Newspaper cannot possibly refer to anything but the 1879 publication. I'm beginning to see exactly what I'm dealing with here.
It is interesting to note that Jesus said that we will be held accountable for every slander and idle word we spew out against others, and that the detractors of Melanie Calvet attempt to prove her prophesy false primarily by attacking her sanity and her character. The references you have shown me do little other than assail the mental stability and character of this visionary, chosen personally by the Mother of God to pass on Her heavenly messages. Which psychiatrist interviewed her, which of the Cardinals who viciously attack her character had known her personally or had even met her?
Throughout the Old Testament the prophets got assailed, calumniated, tortured and murdered by their own, right through John the Baptist. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by the Church as a heretic, and Saint Padre Pio was forced to remain in his cell for three years, forbidden to say Mass, forbidden to answer any mail, and forbidden to hear any confessions; and he was calumniated by the Vatican Inquisitors as they claimed he made his own wounds and poured nitic acid over them. Padro Pio was also investigated by the Vatican for sexual transgressions and fraud. Certain Vatican officials wanted him destroyed.
There have always been "powers and principalities" that seek to destroy messages from Heaven, and the Vatican has been frequently wrong throughout the ages regarding many visionaries, mystics and Saints. In this particular case you have often referred me to the hearsay and embittered, unproven allegations by certain Church heirarchy regarding Melanie Calvet, and always they attack her character, raging at the prophesies that appear to reveal their own shortcomings and pierce their pride.
All any faithful Catholic believer really need know is that the Marian appartions that occurred at La Sallette to Melanie Calvet are fully Church approved, and that her 1879 brochures detailing in full the messages and secrets carry the Imprimatur of the Bishop of Lecce, allowing us to trust they are free from doctrinal error. That the Vatican decided, more than 35 years after the fact, to place certain of the various La Sallette publications on the proscribed literature list does not even necessarily condemn all that were printed, which were many. There is to this day a great confusion surrounding the 1879 brochure, the original is missing from the archives, the 1846 version remains unpublished, the Index of Prohibited Books and all their eccliastical censures have been abolished, and the original censure stated that the prophesies could not be discussed, and did not forbid them from being read, possessed, or published.
I'm tired of this little debate, nice talking with you though.
Pax Christi
Jules Verne was a genius, and remains a literary monument, his books are still read and popular a century after his death. Now you place the "embittered, twisted, neurotic" mind of Melanie Calvet on a par with Jules Verne? You can't have it both ways.
btw, Verne never prophesied that the earth's weather patterns would be altered.
pax Christi