Vere -  2003-06-14 06:56:08

Re : schisme et sédévacantisme

Tu devrais visite nos chapels FSPX ici en Amerique du Nord qui sont, pour la pluspart, sous l'influence de Mgr. Williamson. Par example, dans son lettre du <a href="http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/December1-1996.htm">Decembre 1996</a>, Mgr. Williamson, ayant dit qu'il n'est pas sedevacante, laisse la porte ouvert pour le future en disant:<br><br>-----<br><br>Q: Then what do you see concerning the next Conclave to elect a Pope? Malachi Martin is saying that, "short of a miracle", John-Paul II will die or be replaced within a year by someone who will co-operate with the New World Order and with their agenda of control of population and education.<br><br>A: Surely the next Conclave will significantly darken the Church. John-Paul II may have such faults as Pope as to at least partly excuse the distress reaction of sedevacantism, but just let sedevacantists see John-Paul's successor! Then they may think John-Paul II was an angel in comparison! They must admit that it is to John-Paul's credit that (as Malachi Martin tells us) the globalist churchmen want him out of the way, pushing him to resign if he will not die. Inadequate though he may have been as Pope, objectively speaking, things are set to be worse without him. It is possible to imagine the See of Rome becoming truly vacant.<br><br>Q: Why? Do you think the next conclave to elect a pope will not be valid?<br><br>A: Possibly. An invalid election has certainly been made easier by one of the recent changes in the rules for electing a pope. From 1179 until earlier this year a two- thirds majority of the Cardinals voting was required, but now a pope may be elected by a one-vote majority, making his election potentially as dubious as any one of the votes electing him. Did the liberals now in power in Rome make this change to facilitate the election of one of their own men? Or do they envisage undermining the one-man rule of the Church, instituted by Our Lord, because an individual man can always let himself be moved by God's grace to block their plans, whereas some more or less democratic substitute like a Cardinals' Committee will always be subject to control by themselves? Interesting speculation.<br><br>Q: But would not such a dissolution of the papacy be the end of the Church?<br><br>A: Such an eclipse of the Papacy would surely bring on the virtual eclipse of the Church mentioned earlier. But man proposes, God disposes. Just suppose a globalist pope is dubiously elected at the next conclave, thanks to the unwisely loosened rules. It is easy to imagine a parallel with the introduction of the Novus Ordo missal in 1969. Back then, a Catholic had to love the Mass to take the trouble of examining the legislation supposedly mandating the new missal, but if he did take the trouble, sure enough, he found the legislation was so flawed that the new missal is not in fact mandatory. Similarly tomorrow, it may take a Catholic who loves the papacy to question the new "pope" acclaimed by the vile media and accepted by nearly all "Catholics", but if, thanks to the new rules' looseness, the election will have been a fraud, God will have left enough evidence for souls of good will to see clearly that it was a fraud.<br><br>--------<br><br>De ma part, ayant entendu Mgr. Williamson dire des choses comme ca dans ses presentations publique aussie, je trouve que le FSPX est plutot semi-vacantiste maintenant, avec l'oueil pour sedevacantism dans le future.