• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Will the Catholic Church experience another schism?

Magna

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
Will the Catholic Church experience another schism? I think the answer is yes. I think it's inevitable and I think it could happen sooner than later for a few reasons.

My dad knows more about this kind of thing than I do, but he mentioned that Germany is one year into a synod and they generally take two years according to what he said. Francis called for a world synod shortly after and my dad said he believes it's because the outcome of the Germany synod is binding and Francis wants to try to override or overshadow the results of the Germany synod.

Per my dad, what could be the results of the Germany synod? An acceptance of gay marriage and abortion. If that happened the Vatican would be forced to react and either go along or reject.

Another reason I think a schism is inevitable is that secular society has become increasingly aggressive and outspoken against Catholic Church teachings against gay marriage, practicing homosexuality and abortion. I believe Francis and the Curia have been benefitting from largely "getting a pass" from secular society. Meaning, secular society hasn't been pushing the Vatican to declare where exactly The Church stands on those issues. Francis has been perplexing many Catholics because while he hasn't outright said that gay marriage and practicing homosexuality should be regarded as valid, he hasn't firmly stated or reaffirmed the Church's historical opposition to them. Francis is really "playing both sides of the fence" or is really making an attempt to appease both sides. That's not an honest representation in my opinion. He should very clearly pick one side or the other. Ambiguity abounds as a result and it's not right.

I believe secular society won't allow Francis to "play the middle" for much longer. I believe it will soon get to a point where secular society will pose an ultimatum to Francis: "Will you (ie The Catholic Church) allow for gay marriages in your churches or won't you? If you say you won't we demand you declare it plainly and unequivocally. If you say you flat out refuse to allow gay marriages in the Catholic Church, we're coming after you and you will once and for all be targeted and portrayed as the enemy. We will demonize you."

If the Catholic Church did allow for gay marriage, there would immediately be a schism. I think we'd see a splinter initially into three factions: 1) Pre-Vatican II Latin proponents. 2) Traditional Catholics (they type seen in the U.S. today as they currently practice and believe. 3) Neo-Catholics who would align with secular society in basically everything.

I'd like to hear other's thoughts on this. Also, if anyone disagrees with me that Francis is conveniently catering to "both sides" and "playing the middle", I'd like to hear why you think he's not doing that. In my opinion you can't have it both ways and by him doing that, it's really off-putting and disappointing.
 
Last edited:
I've always thought in a historical sense that the head of state of the Vatican has been and will continue to be an intensely political office. That in this context he can have it "both ways"- as a matter of political expediency.

Where his priorities may reflect holding the church together outweighing perpetual arguments of dogma within its ranks. Precisely to avoid such a schism. Being both mindful of how the world is changing, but attempting to deal with it in a pragmatic manner to keep the church whole.
 
Last edited:
I've always thought in a historical sense that the head of state of the Vatican has been and will continue to be an intensely political office. That in this context he can and does have it "both ways"- as a matter of political expediency.

Where his priorities may reflect holding the church together outweighing perpetual arguments of dogma within its ranks. Precisely to avoid such a schism.

I see your point. The issue however with many Catholics it seems is the current Pope is giving mixed messages. Great for a diplomatic position (ie cater to and be vague in dealing with both sides), but that doesn't work long term for either side.
 
I see your point. The issue however with many Catholics it seems is the current Pope is giving mixed messages. Great for a diplomatic position (ie cater to and be vague in dealing with both sides), but that doesn't work long term for either side.

All politicians give mixed messages when and where perceived as necessary or strategic. Then consider this is an 84 year old Pontiff elected by the Vatican's College of Cardinals. Not rank and file Catholics. There is no "long term" for Pope Francis whatever he does.

At his age and given the state of the church, he may be settling for a legacy as a peacemaker- not another strict ideologue. Especially considering the reign of his predecessor. Pope Benedict, a strict enforcer of rigid Catholic doctrine who simply threw in the towel and quit. Maybe Pope Francis got a little foresight from this.

Reflecting their human frailties, reaffirming the end of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Pontiffs whose rhetoric reaches from one end of the globe to another, while their actual reign remains behind the walls of the Vatican City State. Under such circumstances the Catholic masses may simply be expecting more than they can deliver.
 
Last edited:
I think it will. It might not be a large scale schism, cleanly into two, but perhaps a splintering off of segments.

Just trivia: I remember visiting a very old church in a fairly small town in Germany. After the Reformation, rather then build another protestant church, they just built a wall down the middle and divided it in two.
 
Just trivia: I remember visiting a very old church in a fairly small town in Germany. After the Reformation, rather then build another protestant church, they just built a wall down the middle and divided it in two.

German practicality at its best in my opinion.
 
Will the Catholic Church experience another schism? I think the answer is yes. I think it's inevitable and I think it could happen sooner than later for a few reasons.

My dad knows more about this kind of thing than I do, but he mentioned that Germany is one year into a synod and they generally take two years according to what he said. Francis called for a world synod shortly after and my dad said he believes it's because the outcome of the Germany synod is binding and Francis wants to try to override or overshadow the results of the Germany synod.

Per my dad, what could be the results of the Germany synod? An acceptance of gay marriage and abortion. If that happened the Vatican would be forced to react and either go along or reject.

Another reason I think a schism is inevitable is that secular society has become increasingly aggressive and outspoken against Catholic Church teachings against gay marriage, practicing homosexuality and abortion. I believe Francis and the Curia have been benefitting from largely "getting a pass" from secular society. Meaning, secular society hasn't been pushing the Vatican to declare where exactly The Church stands on those issues. Francis has been perplexing many Catholics because while he hasn't outright said that gay marriage and practicing homosexuality should be regarded as valid, he hasn't firmly stated or reaffirmed the Church's historical opposition to them. Francis is really "playing both sides of the fence" or is really making an attempt to appease both sides. That's not an honest representation in my opinion. He should very clearly pick one side or the other. Ambiguity abounds as a result and it's not right.

I believe secular society won't allow Francis to "play the middle" for much longer. I believe it will soon get to a point where secular society will pose an ultimatum to Francis: "Will you (ie The Catholic Church) allow for gay marriages in your churches or won't you? If you say you won't we demand you declare it plainly and unequivocally. If you say you flat out refuse to allow gay marriages in the Catholic Church, we're coming after you and you will once and for all be targeted and portrayed as the enemy. We will demonize you."

If the Catholic Church did allow for gay marriage, there would immediately be a schism. I think we'd see a splinter initially into three factions: 1) Pre-Vatican II Latin proponents. 2) Traditional Catholics (they type seen in the U.S. today as they currently practice and believe. 3) Neo-Catholics who would align with secular society in basically everything.

I'd like to hear other's thoughts on this. Also, if anyone disagrees with me that Francis is conveniently catering to "both sides" and "playing the middle", I'd like to hear why you think he's not doing that. In my opinion you can't have it both ways and by him doing that, it's really off-putting and disappointing.
I’m not sure if I can join in on this conversation, it goes much deeper, and much more complex than you think and I can explain; for now, I’ll just give you an example of how deeper it goes:

Traditionis Custodes, the recent encyclical.
 
So there’ll be the Eastern , and 2 Western Catholic Churches, but will any of them allow priests to marry?
 
^ I forgot about this. That had to upset a lot of Latin Rite proponents.
Yeah, most young people are Traditional Catholics and attracted to the Tridentine Mass. Some say that Traditionis Custodes was made as a deliberate and desperate clamp down on the growth of young people flocking to Traditional parishes.

Here’s a video touches on it when it was issued; (please note I strongly disagree with what he says about Lefebvre and the SSPX, I am NOT a fan of him and his group) I might post more videos on this subject if I have time tomorrow:
 
The eastern already does I believe.
Yes, and I also think that the Anglican Ordinariate (Latin-rite priests that are allowed to say the Anglican Mass and keep certain other Anglican traditions) are allowed to marry; I could mistaken on this though.
 
I don't know anything about Schisms. Is that where a church splits and a new denomination is created? If it's anything like where the Orthodox broke away from the Roman church I don't think that'll happen. But I do think right now, there are Priests who are pretty much ignoring the pope and going with tradition.

Schism is when a group of clergy break from the authority of the Pope, or communion with the Church; but don’t preach heresy. (The Eastern Orthodox actually do have certain beliefs that differ from the Catholic Faith, but because they haven’t made those teachings official, they aren’t considered heretics) Most schisms actually aren’t as dramatic as the Orthodox Schism, there actually are quite a few Schismatic groups out there but most of them are quite small.
 
Under a one world order thier has to be a one world religion with that being said if I had to pick a religion that becomes that it will fall under catholicism even though they don't follow the bible which is why it will be instrumental in helping to run the spiritual new world order.
 
I belong to a traditional Anglican Church / Church of England. Our former Rector was a married woman with children. The Bishop is also a woman. The Rector was recently replaced by a gay man who has been married to his husband for 25 years. They both minister and work in mental health / correctional facilities as well.

I can’t weigh in on the OP question because I don’t know much about the Papacy, but I’m proud of my church for their views.
 
Last edited:
I belong to a traditional Anglican Church / Church of England. Our former Rector was a married woman with children. The Bishop is also a woman. The Rector was recently replaced by a gay man who has been married to his husband for 25 years. They both minister and work in mental health / correctional facilities as well.

I can’t weigh in on the OP question because I don’t know much about the Papacy, but I’m proud of my church for their views.
Hi Ella! I am so happy to see you back on the forums. It's been so long!
 
If it does, I wouldn't even care all that much. I'd just sit back, relax, and eat popcorn as I watch the drama unfold. I'd probably even make a few memes making fun of the situation.
 
So there’ll be the Eastern , and 2 Western Catholic Churches, but will any of them allow priests to marry?

Before the Schism, when the Catholic Church split off from the Eastern Orthodox Christian church, priests could be married. Most Orthodox priests are in fact married, but they must marry before being ordained as priests. In my opinion, the restrictions against ordained priests marrying are illogical, when a married man can be ordained an Orthodox priest.

Of Marriage and Orthodox Priests | Wesley J. Smith
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Top Bottom