Lasalette I recall reading and it sounded legit. Akita? What about Fatima? Lourdes? St. Malachy has been approved I believe. I think Padre Pio spoke of him.
The thing with Catholic prophecy/private revelation is that it's normally
up to the individual whether they believe it or not. Even though something like Lourdes or Fatima has been deemed "worthy of belief" it is completely possible for someone to be a good Catholic and not believe that Mary appeared at either. I personally believe that she did, but the problem with prophecy for me is that we can't judge it until after
the events. I believe in the prophecies at Quito and La Salette because I can read the prophecies and match them exactly to real events. I can do that for the first two secrets of Fatima, but I can't for the 3rd (if we've even heard the real one).
Of course, there are certain "revelations" that have been explicitly condemned
by the local bishop (Medj, Bayside), bishops' conference (Medj), and the Pope.
And then there are things like the "St. Malachy prophecy." They haven't been deemed "worthy of belief" or condemned. It's up to you.
ETA: Here's Fr. Longenecker's breakdown of Malachy
The problems are manifold. First of all, the prognosticators behave like all conspiracy theorists and prophecy lovers: Begin with the theory or prophecy and make the facts fit.
The second problem is something called evidence. Although St Malachy was a historic figure from the twelfth century there is no mention of his prophecies before 1590, and surprise! surprise! the prophetic mottos for the popes are quite accurate for the period between 1150 up to the late 1500s. Then they become obscure and inaccurate. Kind of fishy. Maybe like the whole thing was written about 1590 or so when the prophecies were purportedly discovered. And then there is the problem that Malachy’s original document is not extant. It sort of disappeared–like those Mormon golden tablets written in ancient Egyptian.
This post was edited on 2/11 at 11:36 pm