The Liberal Schism follows the Conservative Schism

I want to remind my readers of my prediction that, after a conservative schism, in which the schismatics accuse the Pope of heresy (fulfilled prediction), there will be a liberal schism. The next Pope after Pope Francis will be conservative. I’m predicting it will be Cardinal Arinze as Pope Pius XIII. And his conservative teachings, which are just as true as the liberal teachings of Pope Francis, as well as his conservative changes in discipline, will drive liberal heretics and apostates away from the Church. They will have to choose between leaving the Church and remaining in the Church, but the latter will require that the follow the beliefs and practices of Catholicism. Many will leave rather than believe what the Church teaches.

The two schisms are one in God’s eyes. Both groups leave because they choose their own understanding over the teaching of the Church. Both leave out of pride. Both leave in conflict with a Pope. Both leave thinking they are right and the Church is wrong. And both leave because they were excessively influenced by secular society.

Yes, the conservative critics of Pope Francis are acting just as secular society teaches people to act: no respect for authority, putting one’s own ideas above the teachings of any authority; treating persons who have different views on society and politics with animosity; polarization between liberals and conservatives; lack of humility; not accepting correction; joining (esp. on the internet) with persons of the same opinions to oppose everyone else; acting like you have the right to judge and condemn others; feeling entitled to treat those who think differently with contempt; etc.


This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Liberal Schism follows the Conservative Schism

  1. David says:

    “O Holy Spirit,
    take me as Your disciple.
    Guide me; illuminate me; sanctify me.
    Show me what is holy,
    and I will pursue it.
    Show me what is unholy,
    and I will turn from it.
    Direct me, and with Your grace
    I will obey.
    Lead me, then, into the fullness
    of Your Truth and Wisdom.

    All of these schisms and heresies running rampant through the world are almost enough to make one despair, and even fear that they themselves will fall into it. Nevertheless, God will guide us into all truth if we ask Him, and keep us on the straight and narrow road of humility, showing what to avoid and where to go.

  2. Alex says:

    Ron, your predictions are great, but they did not always happen in the past. I mean particularly of the dating of great warning.

    What if cardinal Arinze dies until the next conclave? He is 87 now. And I can’t imagine how the cardinals who voted in the Amazon synod and several other synods, who half of them elected Pope Francis and half of them are elevated by Pope Francis, would vote for cardinal Arinze now.
    We are approaching the 7th year of pope Francis pontificate, he said several times he will resign and even once said, he will do that in two years that are long gone by now, and yet he stays. I don’t know, I prefer to let everything in God’s hands and to be ready for His plans that my human understanding cannot comprehend.

    Vigano said St Peters must be reconsecrated and said the words ” abomination of… ” Stopping short of saying ” desolation.” So now he rejects the holiness of the place where St Peter died….good to hear where he stands.

    • Ron Conte says:

      my predictions are speculative fallible eschatology. So, take them with a grain of salt. The Cardinals Francis appointed will not necessarily vote for a Francis-like successor. Just as happens with Supreme Court Justice appointments, a conservative president might appoint a justice who turns out to be moderate or liberal. Arinze is a safe choice because he is old, and if he turns out to be a problem, he cannot have a very long reign. He is also from Africa, and the liberal Cardinals wanted first a Pope from South America, then one from Africa, rather than an Italian or European.

  3. Alex says:

    Ron, obviously only time can tell about that. I would not think “what if” today’s papal supporters the pro-reform bishops who are also called “liberals” (don’t know why) would oppose a future “conservative” pope to the extend of walking out in a schism. They never said so.

    Meanwhile, we have urgent problems with the schism of the conservatives. And the fact that while accusing the reform of pope Francis (and actually everything since Vatican II) they still do not leave the Church but stay and spread their poisonous teachings to maximum possible faithful. And because as a given fact those faithful who are the most on masses and who drive the spiritual life, are conservative by their nature, those wolves practically draw away the most devote part of the flock. Simple devote people who do not necessarily have the logic, the historical knowledge, the theology, to make the discernment needed. Some of those simple faithful whom I met personally in US latin mass community, did not know who Putin is, for example…

    As I read now those wolves want the annulment of the Amazon synod in a similar way that Pope Theodore II annulled the Synodus Horrenda and rehabilitated pope Formosus… Only do they notice that actually pope Formosus was the homosexually leaning one, and quoting the cancellation of the synod against him, today’s conservatives enter themselves into the pit they dig in for their brethren… The fact they would use such a controversial historical case from 9th century with completely different historical background etc, shows how desperate they grow by the hour. Perhaps we are only weeks away from the moment when they will have to either accept some definitive rulings of pope Francis or to openly declare themselves schismatics.

    I wonder, what did their leaders already decide in advance, those handful of cardinals who are not stupid at all. Did they decide they have no chance in a future conclave, and therefore will preempt it by declaring pope Francis “heretic and idolatrous” (as Vigano practically does while saying that St peter’s basilica needs reconsecration after the stupid pachamama incident)? Or do they hope that indeed a conservative pope is possible to be elected after pope Francis, and therefore they would formally stay in the Church waiting for “their time”? If that happens, it would go out of your scenario as well. Because as of today, no matter how fierce rhetoric they show, they still do not pretend to have their own “true church” rather want the entire Catholic Church. Only they may have not noticed that the majority of those 1 bln faithful, the majority of the 5,000 bishops are not on that side. And I think the color of the next pope would be the last thing to play a role here. Well if we have pope Arinze, I would congratulate you! But it could be pope Marx instead, if secretly most cardinals and also bishops wanted even bigger reform, wanted all their lives some form of blessing of the gay people that some of themselves have been even only in their thoughts…(I wrote in your previous post about it). And if so, unearthing the case of pope Formosus by churchmilitant website really plays a bad joke to those desperate fanatics who seem play “va banque” now.
    Personally, I pray for a pope that is not on the list of the cardinals at all. The cardinals who are very, very clever people, should realize at one moment in history that the secluded form of the conclave draws away the millions in a world where presidents are elected in a public vote, and where thos emillions faithful would want to have a bigger say as of who is their bishop for example (why should the Chinese communist party be able to have a say, but not the people who carry out the spiritual life of the Church?). The least the cardinals could do is to show the rule of “every man who can become bishop can become pope” is really valid and not empty rhetoric. But that is my view, and as you say, speculation on prophecy that may never happen in my days…

  4. Denis says:

    To Alex: “they still do not leave the Church but stay and spread their poisonous teachings to maximum possible faithful” – I couldn’t agree more, but we know from history that schism spends a long time brewing before their leaders (or even the successors of their leaders) finally can no longer resist publicly denying some doctrine(s) of the faith. When one looks at history one sees many decades involved in the development of schisms, the difference with our times may be the technological reach of the schismatics, akin to Luther and the printing press, where accusations and denials are coming at the faithful at breakneck speed and theologically sounding justifications for schismatic attitudes abound.

    We live in the age of the Individual (I-phone, I-pad, etc.) where secular culture has deified individuality to the detriment of community (gender identity, my body my choice, IVF embryo selection). What scares me is that Catholic culture should be standing out like a sore thumb in this current cultural climate, just like when one became a Christian under Diocletian one had to resign one’s office. There’s a reason after all why Christians were so despised in the early centuries, they were a sect that did not find favor with popular culture precisely because their beliefs and practices were so at odds with secular practices like polytheism, abortion, euthanasia, contraception, homosexual relationships, polygamy, etc.

    This lack of ‘standing out’ of Catholic culture is part of what’s feeding the rise of schism. If persecution of Christians begins en masse in the near term (its already begun locally) a line will be drawn by the secular powers that will make this decision for Christians more public and stark. I personally hold that such persecution will precede schism as it will provide necessary fuel to the position of the ultra-conservative schismatics.

  5. Alex says:

    Indeed schisms develop over time, and today the poor faithful are targeted personally via new technology, made to believe it is they who decide while in fact they are the targeted victims. Many of them are not qualified to decide theologically, and make their decisions based on purely human, emotional and other reasons, including financial (as for example a grown up son who, despite he doesn’t want to attend latin mass any longer, is obliged to do so and even to serve on the altar, because otherwise the family car that he uses everyday would be taken from him, or even the right to live with the family. That I would call a kind of modern psychological torture, that I witnessed Personally in USA).

    The course of the so called traditionalists is not traditional at all. With the same denial they would attack the Sacred Heart devotion if they were living in 17th century (see how it developed).
    The inculturation they are against, goes back to early centuries and to St Paul himself and is one of the reasons why Christianity succeeded en masse in Greece, Rome and the European (pagan then) tribes. We wouldn’t have the Christendom and the medieval cathedrals, we wouldn’t have St Thomas Aquinas with his Aristotelian approach, if there wasn’t the large scope of the Church thanks to wise popes now saints. We would only have the Inquisition and the denial the Earth is rotating around Sun. Stupid it sounds today, but those same people today question also basic scientific postulates with the words “have you seen it yourself?” I heard priests serving latin mass who said so. I heard preaching priests who approved the Inquisition “with few mistakes such as Jeanne d’Arc”… Let stop and ask ourselves, where are we going with that trend? Do we see we have been taken centuries back, not to some real Christianity but to the Dark Ages? Because I can’t remember Jesus ever to have approved those actions.

    What those wolves do now, is nothing less than Suiciding the Church. Under various good looking pretexts, one of which is unfortunately the beautiful otherwise latin mass and the creation of a church within the church on that basis. See their forums, they openly question the election of pope Francis and still accept Benedict as “true pope”. Some of them go even further denying all since Vatican II. And if their leaders keep themselves from such dire statements, their actions show otherwise. They want to reverse Vatican II at all cost. They don’t care that such historical reversal will make millions, hundreds of millions to stop attending church and therefore will endanger their salvation. The ultraconservatives would burn books they would do it. They threw pachamama not because pachamama was an idol (or was it for THEM?) They couldn’t dream of a better chance to prove how right they are. Amazon synod is being attacked as if the devil himself presided over it. Similarly the Synod of families, and so on.

    Thanks God they do not have majority. However now they try to disguise for the last time, when saying they are not against the pope (Burke the last one, after Sarah and Muller said something similar). Perhaps, as I argued before, they would try to influence the next conclave from inside. If they lose, they may separate even during the conclave or shortly after (they are not literally locked up in prison like system as in the middle centuries they dream of). But I am not a prophet. Everything is possible because it is God who rules, not a bunch of people vested in red who should long be stripped from the cardinalate. If there would be “pope Sarah” (a dreadful dream indeed, but one promoted in their forums all the time) would he ever allow the level of criticism that he now lashes out at pope Francis? Or he would excommunicate dozens, hundreds of bishops instead? Let face the truth: we have a Coup inside the Church, that intends to suicide everything since Vatican II by using people’s own human errors. The way Satan the big accuser is doing since the beginning. Jesus and Paul warned us.

  6. Alex says:

    I do not see the so called liberals to be in a similar position as the de facto coup of the conservatives. Who is liberal? Everyone since St John XXIII with the majority of bishops as well. Was St John Paul II liberal or conservative? I’d say rather conservative. But the fanatics today list him among those “failed popes” since Vatican II who in their screwed view do not deserve to be at the Peter’s helm, and at beast would burn in flames for long after death… So the liberal/conservative division is very speculative depending on who makes it. St Paul VI was conservative compared to St John XXIII and yet he approved today’s ordinary mass that the conservatives practically deny (see Burke’s double tongue interview).

    Similarly, I do not see organization of ultraliberals locally the way it is done by the ultraconservatives around the latin masses in USA (therefore the pope’s rebuke against them and not another nation).

    If the German Catholic bishops adopt more liberal rules on the incoming synod, it would be like a prelude for adoption such rules in the wide Church, as is in fact the Amazon synod. All those synods would logically lead to the next Council, be it Vatican III or Nicaea as pope Francis suggested.

    I know Ron don’t mean that conservative/liberal view in your predictions. But I have to say it because it may seem for some readers that those bishops and innumerable faithful who want the reforms now, are equally schismatic as the ultraconservatives described above, only unfortunately the pope is on their side, FOR NOW. And once he is changed, the reformers would become the schismatics and the conservatives will take the rule and revert back history… too simple view, unfortunately held by too many simplistic thinking or unthinking faithful who believe they are the true remnant church blessed by God from prophecies and so on… What Worse can happen to the Church than the most devote people to be led astray?
    “To deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Marc 13:22).

Comments are closed.