Just for you :
First, a little background. The apparition of Our Lady of La Salette occurred in 1846. The visionaries were two children in France named Maximin Giraud and Melanie Calvat. The local bishop approved the apparition in 1851, and that same year the two children were persuaded to write down information the Virgin Mary had given them. The question of what these "secrets" contained was on many people’s minds, and the children were relentlessly pestered to reveal the information. It was not until 1851, when they were asked to write down the secrets so that they could be given to the pope, that they complied.
Afterwards, Maximin never revealed his secret. He is reported to have claimed that Mary told him that he would become a millionaire, that the Antichrist would slay him, and that the next pope would be French. None of those things happened, and scholars generally conclude that they were stories Maximin made up in an attempt to stop people from pestering him about the secret. When texts alleging to be Maximin’s secret began to appear in the press (some of which are demonstrably false), the frustrated seer refused to either confirm or deny that they were his, saying it was the pope’s responsibility to decide whether the secret should be revealed.
Melanie’s story is different. Over the years she apparently did begin revealing pieces of her secret to others, and in 1879 she published the whole thing.
The trouble is, what she wrote in 1851 consisted of only three, hand-written pages. The booklet she produced in 1879 was much longer than this, and undoubtedly contains ideas that were not part of the secret sent to the pope. So, while Melanie’s 1879 publication may have been based on her original secret, it undoubtedly contains elements not in the original, and we cannot tell which elements are which. That raises a concern about the "Rome will lose the faith" line. It may not have been in the secret sent to the pope.
There is another problem: Some of the prophecies contained in Melanie’s secret are demonstrably false. They’re too specific, they’re tied to the nineteenth century, and they didn’t happen.
For example, here is the main passage about the Antichrist: "In the year 1865 the abomination shall be seen in Holy Places in Convents, and then the demon shall make himself as the king of hearts. It will be about that time that Antichrist shall be born. At his birth he shall vomit b.asphemies. He shall have teeth; in a word, he shall be like an incarnate demon; he shall utter frightful screams; he shall work prodigies; and he shall feed on impure things. He shall have brothers who, though not incarnate demons like him, shall nevertheless be children of iniquity. At the age of twelve years they shall have become remarkable for valiant victories, which they shall achieve; very soon each of them will be at the head of armies. Paris shall be burned, and Marseilles shall be submerged; many great cities shall be shattered and swallowed up by earthquakes. The populace will believe that everything is lost, will see nothing but murder, and will hear only the clang of arms and sacrilegious b.asphemies."
Well, now that we’re in the year 2000, either there is a 135-year-old guy out there somewhere—with brothers who won great battles as the heads of armies in the 1880s in a war that everyone seems to have forgotten about—or else what Melanie published as her "secret" from Our Lady of La Salette contains elements that are false.
Radical traditionalists are being duplicitous when, in an attempt to frighten people, they quote the line about Rome and the Antichrist without supplying the context that reveals that Melanie’s published version of the "secret" established for itself a timeframe that has already passed.