I think so. One of the indications that the Synod on Synodality result in a schism is the rejection of the Synod’s decisions IN ADVANCE. What arrogance! The attitude of the papal opponents is that any decision by the Pope or the Pope and the Synod — or even the Pope and the body of Bishops — contrary to their own understanding of the Faith is therefore certainly contrary to the Faith and must be opposed. Cardinal Burke has even stated that, in such a case (where the teaching of the Pope and the Bishops is contrary to the understanding of a few Cardinals and Bishops), those who oppose such teachings would not be in schism, but instead the Pope and the body of Bishops would be in schism.
Burke: “We have simply to be His faithful co-workers, soldiers, if I may say, and defend the truths of the faith,” the cardinal stated. “And if there are those who are denying those truths of the faith, they are the ones who are going into schism.”
Notice that the Cardinal assumes that his own understanding of “the truths of the faith” cannot err, so much so that if the Pope and Bishops teach the contrary, they would supposedly be the ones in schism. This attitude is not unique to Cardinal Burke. It is generally the position of the opponents of Pope Francis, that whenever their understanding of doctrine or proper discipline is different from the decision of the Roman Pontiff, even with most Bishops participating and agreeing, the Pope must be wrong. This attitude is faithless. Faith only in one’s own understanding is not faith at all. And so many papal critics have rejected anything the Synod might teach or decide, even to the extent of declaring the Pope and Bishops to be the ones in schism.
By definition, schism is refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, and/or refusal of communion with the persons who are faithful subjects of the Roman Pontiff. And on the second point, the Bishops as a body are most prominent as those who are in communion with the Pope, as the very structure of the Church is not Peter alone, but Peter and the other Apostles, then the successor of Peter with the successors of the other Apostles (the Pope and Bishops). So those who go into schism against the Pope necessarily rejection communion with the body of Bishops, who, by the grace of God, always remain with the Pope. The indefectibility of the Church prevents the Pope, or the body of Bishops, or the body of the faithful from ever defecting from the true Faith. And this means that schism also includes refusal of communion with the body of the faithful, who, by the grace of God, always remain with the Pope and the body of Bishops.
For someone to say that their understanding of the truths of the faith is so absolute, so certain to be free from grave error, that they would declare the Pope and the Bishops to be in schism, instead of themselves, is essentially a schismatic declaration. The Pope and the body of Bishops led by him can never be in schism, as separation from them is the definition of schism.
The Synod includes the participation of many Bishops and the Roman Pontiff. The usual post-Synodal exhortation can be an exercise of the authority of the Pope over doctrine and discipline, and is usually non-infallible. But Papal Infallibility is possible in such a document. I don’t know what level of authority Pope Francis will use in that document. But I think that the time has arrived, in his Pontificate, to decide certain questions, such as married priests, women deacons, and the position of the Church regarding LGBT persons as well as the divorced and remarried. These decisions will not go the way of the most conservative Catholics, and so they will break away from the Church.
Many of these papal opponents are already in formal schism and formal heresy, having accused Pope Francis of heresy, apostasy, and idolatry, and having rejected his decisions on discipline on multiple fronts. These same persons usually reject Vatican II, refuse to accept the teachings of post-conciliar Popes if contrary to their own minds, and also reject or denigrate Vatican I. They are already schismatics and heretics. But the Synod will tip the scales so that they finally leave the Church exteriorly, having left in their hearts and minds long ago.
Ronald L Conte Jr
the reproach of Christ 
Ben,
Your speculation of Russia could be spot on. I am not sure if the seers said they will see all the events while here on earth. I think they begin to see several events unfolding. The year of 2040 is only 16+ years away and the majority of the population
(2/3) will not see the conclusion of all the events.
Ron,
If I may on a broader scope – events are happening all around the world at a great pace. There truly is not much time for all events to begin and end in the year of 2040.
I say the year of 2040 because I have the most faith in that year for the 3 days of darkness and I need to work backwards to attempt a sequential list of upcoming events. I am not attaching any year to these events but knowing such events brings us closer to the start and end of Tribulation Part I. The list includes current events and these events could happen simultaneously:
1. Israel demolishes Hamas as we know it today.
2. Israel will not allow any UN peacekeeping force to be stationed in Gaza.
3. Israel will attack and cause much harm to Iran’s oil refineries and nuclear facilities.
4. USA will destroy a great majority of military arsenal in Lebanon belonging to Hezbollah.
5. Islamic nations will raise their voices in condemning the USA and Israel for the massacre they have committed against our Islamic neighbors.
6. The Holy Catholic Apostolic Church sees the beginning of a Great Schism.
7. Medjugorje begins to announce the Secrets.
8. Garabandal announces the Great Miracle.
9. Iran announces to the world that they have retained enough nuclear bombs and have already impregnated the soils of the USA, Great Britain, Italy and France. At a time of my choosing – the Western civilization will hear from us.
10. A new Alliance is born with Iran, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Egypt and Turkey. Yes, NATO losses a member but gains a member in Ukraine.
11. Here is where your previous posts of the Seven Seals (Tribulation Part I) begins.
Somewhere between these aforementioned events – Russia and Ukraine will call a ceasefire and come to some agreement.
During the Tribulation – China will attack the Philippines and Taiwan.
My only view for the Tribulation which I believe differs from yours are twofold:
1. The New Alliance will have a greater number of Islamic nations.
2. The Western civilization will have restraint in using nuclear weapons and regain their losses via conventional means.
Your comments are greatly appreciated.
I think the defining moment in this new conflict will be Russia. Russian Ukrainian ceasefire is not possible for some obvious reasons: Only ceasefire on the current line is not envisioned by Ukraine and the West since it will legitimize to some extend the Russian gains and will make it possible for Russia to rearm. Zelenski considers Putin war criminal (as well as ICC warrant). Kremlin dismissed the option of negotiation with the “regime in Kiev” as they call it. Both sides want the other to practically surrender territory and positions on the dispute. To have negotiation you need the minimal trust and respect of each one’s words that is apparently lacking. I’d rather expect an escalation, that currently is how to say technically postponed only because of the events in Israel.
After the above list of events you presented, or during them, if Russia supports the Arabs with more than words and weapons, i.e. enters in the conflict let say through Syria, then we go to WW3 rather quickly. Documentaries show how that happens in days and hours, not months. If only USA enters the conflict and starts bombing countries in the Middle East, we will have Iraq 3 and Afghanistan like scenario. I am not in Putin’s mind and don’t know what is to come. He may well prefer USA to be exhausted even more. But will USA enter in yet another trap, especially if Iran enters the war?
2040 is too far. Many of us won’t be around. Wasn’t it said in a number of apparitions the seers would see the events in their lifetimes? Not from heaven but while on earth.
Ron,
I am sure Pope Francis is well versed in the prophecies of the forthcoming schism. The overriding question for him and the guidance from the Holy Spirit could be to pick and choose individual decisions in a drip-drip mode to lessen its impact on the Holy Church or issue his proclamations sooner than later and say to himself as the Rabbi said when the tomb of Jesus Christ was empty – It now begins!!!
The enormous pressure he must be feeling as a human being but I am sure with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he knows with certainty the absolute truths shall prevail.
Ron,
Please correct me if I am wrong. The conclusions of any Synod produces a document “Apostolic Exhortation”. Pope Francis may take as much time as he deems necessary to inform the Body of Bishops of his decisions.
Yes. And any papal document can theoretically exercise papal infallibility.
The Schism is practically already here, some people just need to stop pretending they are not in schism when they are in fact in schism.
Yes, I agree.
Schism is highly possible, I said it some time ago.
The events in Israel and beyond could affect much of our way of life and soon. Maybe a dedicated thread for it. But the news are coming so fast that the comments will be always late.
Approaching Our Lady of Fatima feast the world seems closer to the nuclear major war than ever before including during the Cold War.
I’m concerned that, in the case of a schism prompted by the Synod, the schism will grow as Pope Francis issues more decisions of doctrine and discipline over time.
It’s amazing that such learned clergy can even submit to such ideology. If one calls himself Catholic and has faith in Christ, then how can one position themself with the idea that Christ after 2000 years has all of a sudden abandoned Peter, thus abandoning the Church.
Nevertheless, something triggered me to go back and read Catherine Emmerich’s prophecies about the future of the church. I then searched whether you had written anything on them and then found the following which I believe to be spot on:
“Once the people no longer accept the teaching authority of the successive Popes, whether the present Pope or a previous one, they easily fall into one heresy after another. Then, having lost faith in the true leader of the Faith and in his teachings, they fall away from Christianity altogether.”
Keep up the good work in your articles.
God Bless.
Ron,
It is a real possibility where Pope Francis decides to postpone the Synod for the betterment of the whole Catholic Church. Should the war with terrorism escalates, he may use that as an excuse.
It’s a multiyear worldwide Synod, I don’t think it can be postponed, practically speaking.
Do you think there will be deaconesses? It seems to me not. the controversial decision will be about LGBT
I think the Church has the authority to ordain women deacons, and that this will be decided under Pope Francis. It is an open question, with theological arguments on both sides. But it is for the Magisterium to decide. A small subset of Cardinals and Bishops — or of other clergy and laity — cannot proclaim themselves to be the guardians of the truths of the Faith, and thereby oppose the Pope and the body of Bishops.
God gave each of us an innate ability to discern right from wrong. (1) pedophilia is wrong; (2) transgenderism is wrong; (3) sex between same-sex couples is wrong. Other guidelines came from God: The ten commands, etc. There are many other “innate wrongs,” probably to numerous to mention. The first two I mentioned are in mental illness category. The third is mentioned in the Old Testament as being wrong (Lot, etc). In general, I agree with the article of Ron Conte. But I am not in schism if I refuse to follow a change that impunes my innate ability to discern right from wrong. To paraphrase, “we hold some truths to be self-evident.”