Schism

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

General ideas, moral character, and penal sanctions

Schism (from the Greekschisma, rent, division) is, in the language oftheology and canon law, the rupture ofecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of theChurch and make him a member of themystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act. In this etymological and full meaning the term occurs in the books of theNew Testament. By this nameSt. Paul characterizes and condemns the parties formed in the community ofCorinth (1 Corinthians 1:12): "I beseech you, brethren", he writes, ". . . that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment" (ibid., i, 10). The union of thefaithful, he says elsewhere, should manifest itself in mutual understanding and convergent action similar to the harmonious co-operation of our members whichGod hath tempered "that there might be no schism in the body" (1 Corinthians 12:25). Thus understood, schism is a genus which embraces two distinct species:heretical or mixed schism and schism pure and simple. The first has its source inheresy or joined with it, the second, which mosttheologians designate absolutely as schism, is the rupture of the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistenterror, directly opposed to a definitedogma. This distinction was drawn bySt. Jerome andSt. Augustine. "Between heresy and schism", explainsSt. Jerome, "there is this difference, thatheresy pervertsdogma, while schism, by rebellion against thebishop, separates from theChurch. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up aheresy to justify its departure from theChurch (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). AndSt. Augustine: "Byfalse doctrines concerningGodheretics woundfaith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe" (On Faith and the Creed 9). But asSt. Jerome remarks, practically and historically,heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of thepapal primacy.

Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to theheresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constitutedhierarchy. However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command. On the other hand, schism does not necessarily imply adhesion, either public or private, to a dissenting group or a distinctsect, much less the creation of such a group. Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain aChristian, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection ofChristianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy.

Formerly a man was rightly considered a schismatic when he disregarded the authority of his ownbishop; hence the words ofSt. Jerome quoted above. Before himSt. Cyprian had said: "It must be understood that thebishop is in theChurch and theChurch in thebishop and he is not in theChurch who is not with thebishop" (Epist., lxvi, 8). Long before,St. Ignatius of Antioch laid down this principle: "Where thebishop is there is the community, even as where Christ is there is theCatholicChurch" (Smyrnæans 8.2). Now through the centralizing evolution which emphasizes the preponderant rôle of thesovereign pontiff in the constitution ofecclesiastical unity, the mere fact of rebelling against thebishop of thediocese is often a step toward schism; it is not a schism in him who remains, or claims to remain, subject to theHoly See. In the material sense of the word there is schism, that is rupture of the social body, if there exist two or more claimants of thepapacy, each of whom has on his side certain appearances of right and consequently more or less numerous partisans. But under these circumstancesgood faith may, at least for a time, prevent a formal schism; this begins when the legitimacy of one of the pontiffs becomes so evident as to render adhesion to a rival inexcusable. Schism is regarded by theChurch as a most serious fault, and is punished with the penalties inflicted onheresy, becauseheresy usually accompanies it. These are:excommunication incurredipso facto and reserved to thesovereign pontiff (cf."Apostolicæ Sedis", I, 3); this is followed by the loss of all ordinaryjurisdiction and incapacity to receive anyecclesiastical benefices or dignities whatsoever. To communicatein sacris with schismatics, e.g., to receive thesacraments at the hands of theirministers, to assist atDivine Offices in theirtemples, is strictly forbidden to thefaithful.

Sometheologians distinguish "active" from "passive" schism. By the former they understand detaching oneself deliberately from the body of theChurch, freely renouncing theright to form a part of it. They call passive schism the condition of those whom theChurch herself rejects from her bosom byexcommunication, inasmuch as they undergo this separation whether they will or no, having deserved it. Hence, this article will deal directly only with active schism, which is schism properly so-called. It is nevertheless clear that so-called passive schism not only does not exclude the other, but often supposes it in fact and theory. From this point of view it is impossible to understand the attitude ofProtestants who claim to hold theChurch they abandoned responsible for their separation. It isproved by all the historical monuments and especially by the writings ofLuther andCalvin that, prior to theanathema pronounced against them at theCouncil of Trent, the leaders of theReformation had proclaimed and repeated that theRoman Church was "the Babylon of the Apocalypse, thesynagogue ofSatan, thesociety ofAntichrist"; that they must therefore depart from it and that they did so in order to re-enter the way ofsalvation. And in this they suited the action to the word. Thus the schism was well consummated by them before it wassolemnly established by the authority which they rejected and transformed by that authority into a just penal sanction.

Schism in the light of Scripture and tradition

As schism in its definition and full sense is the practical denial ofecclesiastical unity, the explanation of the former requires a clear definition of the latter, and to prove the necessity of the latter is to establish the intrinsic malice of the former. Indeed the texts ofScripture andTradition show these aspects of the sametruth to be so closely united that passage from one to the other is constant and spontaneous. When Christ built on Peter as on an unshakable foundation the indestructible edifice of HisChurch He thereby indicated its essential unity and especially the hierarchical unity (Matthew 16:18). He expressed the same thought when He referred to the faithful as a Kingdom and as a flock: "Other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd" (John 10:16). Unity offaith and worship is more explicitly indicated by the words outlining the solemn mission of the Apostles: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations;baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19). These various forms of unity are the object of theprayer after theLast Supper, when Christprays for His own and asks "that they may be one" as the Father and the Son are one (John 17:21, 22). Those who violate thelaws of unity shall become strangers toChrist and his spiritualfamily: "And if he will not hear theChurch, let him be to thee as theheathen andpublican" (Matthew 18:17).

In faithful imitation of hisMaster's teachingSt. Paul often refers to theunity of the Church, describing it as one edifice, one body, a body between whose members exists the same solidarity as between the members of the human body (1 Corinthians 12;Ephesians 4). He enumerates its various aspects and sources: "For in one Spirit were we allbaptized into one body, . . . and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink" (1 Corinthians 12:13); "For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:17). He sums it up in the following formula: "One body and one Spirit; . . . one Lord, onefaith, onebaptism" (Ephesians 4:4-5). Finally he arrives at thelogical conclusion when heanathematizesdoctrinal novelties and the authors of them (Galatians 1:9), likewise when he writes to Titus: "A man that is aheretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid" (Titus 3:10); and again when he so energetically condemns the dissensions of the community ofCorinth: "There are contentions among you. . . . every one of you saith: I am indeed of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? Or were youbaptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:11-13). "Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name ofour Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment" (1 Corinthians 1:10). St. Luke speaking in praise of the primitive church mentions its unanimity ofbelief, obedience, and worship: "They were persevering in thedoctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and inprayers" (Acts 2:42). All the first Epistle of St. John is directed against contemporary innovators and schismatics; and the author regards them as so foreign to theChurch that in contrast to its members "the Children of God", he calls them "the children of the devil", (1 John 3:10); the children "of the world" (iv, 5), evenAntichrist (ii, 22; iv, 3).

The samedoctrine is found in all the evidences of Tradition, beginning with the oldest. Before the end of the first century St. Clement writing to theChurch ofCorinth in order to restore peace and harmony strongly inculcates the necessity of submission to the "hegoumenos" (Epistle 1.3), "to the guides of oursouls" (lxiii, 1), and to the "presbyters" (xlvii, 6; liv, 2; lvii, 1). It is, says he, a "gravesin" to disregard their authority as the Corinthians are doing (xliv, 3, 4, 6; xlvii, 6); it is aduty tohonour them (i, 3; xxi, 6). There must be no division in the body ofChrist, xlvi, 6. The fundamental reason of all this is the Divinely instituted hierarchical order. The work of Christ is in fact continued by theApostles, who are sent by Christ as He was sent byGod (xlii, 1, 2). It was they who established the"episcopi" anddeacons" (xlii, 4) and decided that others should succeed them in their ministry (xliv, 2). He thus explains the gravity of thesin and the severity of the reproaches addressed to the fomenters of the troubles. "Why should there be among you disputes, quarrels, dissensions, schisms, andwar? Have we not one and the sameGod, one and the same Christ? Is it not the same spirit of grace that has been poured out upon us? Have we not a common vocation in Christ? Wherefore, divide and separate the members ofChrist, be atwar with our own body, be so foolish as to forget that we are members of one another?" (xlvi, 5-7). St. Ignatius insists no less forcibly on the necessity of unity and the danger of schism. He is the first author in whom we find episcopal unity clearly outlined, and he beseeches thefaithful to range themselves about the "presbyters" and thedeacons and especially through them and with them about thebishop: "It is fitting that you be of one mind with thebishop, as you are, because your venerable presbyterium is attached to thebishop as the strings to the lyre" (Ephesians 6:1); "you must not take advantage of the age of yourbishop, but, being mindful of the power ofGod the Father, you should show him every manner of respect, as do the holy priests" (Magnesians 3.1). Thebishop is the centre and pivot of theChurch: "Where he is there should the community be" (Smyrnæans 11.1). Theduties of the faithful towards thehierarchy are summed up in one: to be united to it in sentiment,faith, and obedience. They must be always submissive to thebishop, the presbyterium, and thedeacons (Ephesians 2.2, 5.3 and 20.2;Magnesians 2, 3.1, 6.1-2, 13.2;Trallians 2.1-2 and 13.2;Philadelphians 7.1;Smyrnæans 8.1;Polycarp 6.1).Jesus Christ being the word of the Father and thebishop being in thedoctrine of Christ (en Iesou christou gnome) it is fitting to adhere to thedoctrine of thebishop (Ephesians 3:2;4:1); "Those who belong toGod andJesus Christ ally themselves with thebishop. Brethren, be not deceived; whosoever follows a schismatic shall not inherit theKingdom of Heaven" (Philadelphians 3.2-3). Finally, as thebishop is thedoctrinal and disciplinary centre so he is theliturgical centre: "Let that Eucharist be lawful which isconsecrated by thebishop or one deputed by him. . . . It is forbidden tobaptize or celebrate the agape without thebishop; what he approves is what is pleasing toGod, in order that all that is done may be stable and valid" (Smyrnæans 8.1-2).

Towards the end of the second centurySt. Irenæus lauds in glowing terms the unity of that universal Church "which has but one heart and onesoul, whosefaith is in keeping" and which seems "as the sole sun illuminating the whole world" (Against Heresies 1.10). He condemns alldoctrinal division, basing his arguments on the teaching authority of theChurch in general and of theRoman Church in particular. Thedoctrine ofsalvation, preached by theApostles, is preserved in the Churches founded by them; but since it would take too long to question all the Apostolic Churches it is sufficient to turn to that ofRome: "For the entireChurch that is all the faithful in the world, should be in agreement with thisRoman Church, because of its superior pre-eminence; and in it all the faithful have preserved theApostolic tradition" (iii, 2, 3). It is therefore of the utmost necessity to adhere to this Church because where theChurch is, there is theSpirit of God, and where theSpirit of God is there is theChurch, there is all grace and the spirit istruth (iii, 24). But to adhere to this Church is to submit to thehierarchy, its living andinfallible magistracy: "Thepriests of theChurch are to be obeyed, those who are the successors of the Apostles and who with the episcopal succession have received an assured charisma oftruth. . . . Those who leave the successors of the Apostles and assemble in any separated place must be regarded with suspicion or asheretics, as men ofevil doctrines, or as schismatics. Those who rend theunity of the Church receive the Divine chastisement awarded to Jeroboam; they must all be avoided" (iv, 26).

At the beginning of the third centuryClement of Alexandria describes theChurch as the city of theLogos which must be sought because it is the assemblage of all those whomGod desires to save (Stromata IV.20 andVII.5; "Pædag.", i, 6; iii, 12).Origen is more explicit; for him also theChurch is the city ofGod (Against Celsus III.30), and he adds: "Let no one be deceived; outside this abode, that is outside theChurch, no one is saved. If anyone leaves it he himself shall be accountable for his death" (In lib. Jesu Nave, Hom., iii, 5). In AfricaTertullian likewise condemns all separation from the existing Church. His "De præscriptionibus" is famous, and the fundamental thesis of the work, inferred by its very title, is summed up in the priority oftruth and the relative novelty oferror (principalitatem veritatis et posteritatem mendacii), thus implying the prohibition to withdraw from the guidance of theliving magisterium: "If theLord Jesus Christ sent HisApostles to preach we conclude that we must not receive other preachers than those appointed by Him. What they have preached, in other words, what Christ has revealed to them, can only be established by the Churches founded by theApostles themselves, to which they preached the Gospel by word and writing" (De præscr., xxi).

But the greatAfrican champion ofecclesiastical unity wasSt. Cyprian, against the schismatics ofRome as well as those of Carthage. He conceived this unity as reposing on the effective authority of thebishops, their mutual union, and the pre-eminence of theRoman pontiff: "God is one, Christ is one, one is theChurch, and one the chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord" (Epist. lxx); "This unity webishops who govern in theChurch should firmly uphold and defend, in order to show that the episcopate itself is one and undivided" (De ecclesiæ unit., v); "Know that thebishop is in theChurch and theChurch in thebishop, and that if anyone is not with thebishop he is not in theChurch. . . . TheCatholicChurch is one, formed of the harmonious union ofpastors who mutually support one another" (Epist. lxxvi, 5). To unity offaith must be joinedliturgical unity: "A second altar and a newpriesthood cannot be set up beside the one altar and the onepriesthood" (Epist. lii, 24).Cyprian saw no legitimate reason for schism for "what rascal, what traitor, what madman would be so misled by the spirit of discord as to believe that it is permitted to rend, or who would dare rend the Divine unity, the garment of the Lord, theChurch of Jesus Christ?" (De eccl., unit., viii); "The spouse of Christ is chaste and incorruptible. Whoever leaves theChurch to follow an adulteress renounces the promises of theChurch. He that abandons theChurch of Christ will not receive the rewards of Christ. He becomes a stranger, an ungodly man, an enemy.God cannot be a Father to him to whom theChurch is not a mother. As well might one be saved out of theark of Noah as out of theChurch. . . . He who does not respect its unity will not respect thelaw of God; he is withoutfaith in the Father and the Son, without life, withoutsalvation" (op. cit., viii).

From the fourth century thedoctrine of theunity of the Church was so clearly and universally admitted that it is almost superfluous to quote particular testimonies. The lengthy polemics of Optatus ofMilevis ("De schism. Don.", P.L., XI) and ofSt. Augustine (especially in "De unit. eccl.", P.L., XLIII) against theDonatists accuse these sectaries of being separated from the ancient and primitive trunk ofChristianity. And to those who represented their group as a portion of the universal ChurchSt. Augustine replied: "If you are in communion with theChristian world send letters to the Apostolic Churches and show us their replies" (Ep., xliv, 3). These letters (litteræ formatæ) then constituted one of the authentic marks and elements of visible unity. Concerning this unity the various forms of which he explains,St. Augustine agrees withSt. Cyprian in maintaining that outside of it there is nosalvation: "Salus extra ecclesiam non est" (De bapt., iv, 24), and he adds in confirmation of this that outside theChurch the means ofsalvation,baptism, and evenmartyrdom will avail nothing, the Holy Ghost not being communicated. During the same century Roman supremacy began to be emphasized as a factor of unity.Jesus Christ, saysSt. Optatus, desired to attach unity to a definite centre; to this end He made "Peter the head of all the Apostles; to him He first gave theepiscopal see ofRome, in which sole see unity should be preserved for all; he is therefore a sinner and a schismatic who would erect another see in opposition to it" (De schism. Don., ii, 2); "Solicitude for assuring unity caused blessed Peter to be preferred before all the Apostles and to receive alone the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven that he might admit others" (vii, 3). Pacianus of Barcelona also says thatChrist gave to Peter alone thepower of the keys "to make him alone the foundation and beginning of unity" (ad unum ideo ut unitatem fundaret ex uno Epist., iii, 11).

Most contemporary writers in theLatin Church, Hilary, Victorinus,St. Ambrose, theAmbrosiaster,St. Jerome, speak in like manner and quite as explicitly. All regard Peter as the foundation of theChurch, the Prince of the Apostles who was made perpetual head in order to cut short any attempt at schism. "Where Peter is," concludes St. Ambrose, "there is theChurch; where theChurch is there is no death but eternal life" (In Ps., xl, 30). AndSt. Jerome: "That man is my choice who remains in union with the chair of Peter" (Epist., xvi, 2). Both declare, likeSt. Optatus, that to be out of the Roman communion is to be out of theChurch, but they lay especial emphasis on the jurisdictional and teaching authority of the centre of unity. Their texts are classics: "We must have recourse to your clemency, beseeching you not to let the head of all the Roman world, theRoman Church, and the most holy Apostolic Faith be disturbed; for thence all derive therights of theCatholic communion" (Ambrose, "Ep.", xi, 4). "I who follow no guide save Christ am in communion with Your Holiness, that is with the chair of Peter. Iknow that on this rock theChurch is built. Whosoever partakes of the Lamb outside this house commits asacrilege. Whosoever does not gather with you, scatters: in other words whosoever is not with Christ is withAntichrist" (Jerome, "Epist.", xv, 2).

The East also saw in Peter and theepiscopal see founded by him the keystone of unity. Didymus calls Peter "the corypheus, the head, who was first among the Apostles, through whom the others received the keys" (De Trinit., i, 27, 30; ii, 10, 18). Epiphanius also regards him as "the corypheus of the Apostles, the firm stone on which rests the unshakablefaith" ("Anchor.", ix, 34; "Hær.", lix, 7, 8) andSt. Chrysostom speaks unceasingly of the privileges conferred on Peter byChrist. Moreover the Greeks recognized in theRoman Church a pre-eminence and consequently an incontestable unifying rôle by acknowledging her right to intervene in the disputes of the particular Churches, as isproved by the cases ofAthanasius,Marcellus of Ancyra, andChrysostom. In this senseSt. Gregory Nazianzen calls ancientRome "the president of theuniverse,ten proeodron ton olon" (Carmen de vita sua), and it is also the reason why even the Eusebians were willing that the case ofAthanasius, after they had passed on it, should be submitted to thepope's judgment (Athan., "Apol. contra Arian", 20).

Attempts to legitimize schism

The foregoing texts are sufficient to establish the gravity of schism from the standpoint of the economy ofsalvation andmorals. In this connection it may be of interest to quote the appreciation of Bayle, a writer above suspicion of partiality and a tolerant judge: "Iknow not," he writes, "a more grievous crime than that of tearing the mystical body ofJesus Christ, His church which He purchased with His own blood, that mother which bore us toGod, who nourishes us with the milk of understanding, who leads us to eternal life" (Supplement to Philosophical Comment, preface).

Various motives have been brought forward in justification of Schism:

(1) Some have claimed the introduction into theChurch of abuses, dogmatic andliturgical novelties,superstitions, with which they are permitted, even bound, not to ally themselves. Without entering into the foundation for these charges it should be noted that the authors cited above do not mention or admit a single exception. If we accept their statements separation from theChurch is necessarily anevil, an injurious and blameworthy act, and abandoning of thetrue way ofsalvation, and this independent of all contingent circumstances. Moreover the doctrines of the Fathers excludea priori any such attempt at justification; to use their words, it is forbidden forindividuals or particular or national Churches to constitute themselves judges of the universal Church; the mere fact of having it against one carries its own condemnation.St. Augustine summed up all his controversy with theDonatists in the maxim: "The whole world unhesitatingly declares them wrong who separate themselves from the whole world in whatsoever portion of the whole world" (quapropter securus judicat orbis terrarum bonos non esse qui se dividunt ab orbe terrarum, in quacumque parte orbis terrarum) . Here Bayle may be quoted again: "Protestants bring forward only questionable reasons; they offer nothing convincing, no demonstration: they prove and object, but there are replies to theirproofs and objections; they answer and are answered endlessly; is it worth while to make a schism?" (Dict. crit., art. Nihusius).

(2) Other schismatics have pleaded the division of the articles of the Creed into fundamental and nonfundamental. UnderFUNDAMENTAL ARTICLES it is shown that this distinction, wholly unknown prior to the sixteenth century, and repugnant to the very conception of Divinefaith, is condemned by Scripture, and, for want of a clear line of demarcation, authorizes the most monstrous divergences. The indispensable unity offaith extends to all thetruths revealed byGod and transmitted by theApostles. Tradition repeats, though in different forms, all that Irenæus wrote: "The Church spread everywhere throughout the world received from the Apostles and their disciplesfaith in oneGod" (here follow the words of the Creed), then the writer continues: "Depositary of this preaching and thisfaith, theChurch which multiplies throughout the world, watches them as diligently as though she dwelt in one house. She believes unanimously in these things as though she had but one heart andsoul; she preaches them, teaches them, and bears witness to them as though she had but one mouth. Though there are in the world different languages there is but one single and identical current of tradition. Neither the Churches founded inGaul, nor those among the Iberians, nor those in the countries of the Celts, nor those in the East, nor those ofEgypt, nor those of Lybia, nor those in the centre of the world present any differences offaith or preaching; but as the sun created byGod, is one and the same throughout the world, so a single light, a single preaching of thetruth, illuminates every place and enlightens all men who wish to attain to theknowledge oftruth" (Adv. Hær., i, 10). It has been shown above how theBishop ofLyons declared that the continuators of the Apostolic ministry were the "presbyters of theChurch", and that a man was aChristian and aCatholic only on condition of obeying them without reserve.

(3) The theory of thehappy medium orvia media advocated by theAnglicans, especially by the Oxford leaders of the early nineteenth century as a means of escape from the difficulties of the system of fundamental articles, is no more acceptable.Newman demonstrated and extolled it to the best of his talent in his "Via Media", but he soon recognized its weakness, and abandoned and rejected it even before hisconversion toCatholicism. According to this theory, in order to safeguard unity and avoid schism it is sufficient to abide by Scripture as interpreted by each individual under the direction or with the assistance of tradition. At any rate theChurch should not be regarded asinfallible, but only as a trustworthy witness with regard to thetrue sense of the inspired text when she testifies to an interpretation received from Apostolic times. It seems unnecessary to point out the illusory and almost contradictory character which such a rule ascribes to the living teaching authority; obviously, it does not meet the conditions for unity ofbelief which requires conformity with Scripture and, no less, with the living authority of theChurch, or more exactly, implies absolute obedience to theinfallible teaching authority — both to that which interprets the Scripture and to that which preserves and transmits under any other form the deposit of Revelation.

St. Irenæus is most explicit on all these points: according to himfaith isproved and its enemies confounded equally by Scripture and tradition (Against Heresies III.2), but the authentic guardian of both is theChurch, i.e. thebishops as successors of the Apostles: "Apostolic tradition is manifested throughout the world, and everywhere in theChurch it is within the reach of those who desire toknow thetruth, for we can enumerate thebishops established by theApostles, as well as their successors down to our own times" (op. cit., iii). To these guardians and to them alone we should have recourse with confidence: "Thetruth which it is easy toknow through theChurch must not be sought elsewhere; in theChurch in which as in a rich treasury, the Apostles deposited in its fulness all that concerns thetruth: from her whosoever desires it shall receive the draught of life. She herself is the gate of life; all the others are thieves and robbers" (iii, 4). Such is the authority of the living tradition that, in default of Scripture, recourse must be had to tradition alone. "What would have become of us if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures? Would we not have to rely on that tradition which they confided to those to whom they committed the government of the Churches? This is what is done by many barbarian peoples whobelieve in Christ and who bear thelaw ofsalvation written in their hearts by theHoly Spirit without ink or paper and who faithfully preserve the ancient tradition" (iii, 4). It is plain that with the assistance of the Holy Ghost the teaching authority of theChurch is preserved fromerror: "Where theChurch is, there is theSpirit of God; and where theSpirit of God is there is theChurch with every grace, and the Spirit istruth" (iii, 24). "That is why obedience must be rendered to thepresbyters who are in theChurch, and who having succeeded the Apostles, together with the episcopal succession have received by the will of the Father a certain charisma oftruth" (iv, 26). This is far removed from the half-way assertions and the restrictions of the Oxford School. The same conclusion may be drawn fromTertullian's declaration of the impossibility of solving a difficulty or terminating a dispute by Scripture alone (De præscript., xix), and fromOrigen's words: "Since among many who boast of adoctrine in conformity with that of Christ some do not agree with their predecessors, let all adhere to theecclesiasticaldoctrine transmitted from the Apostles by way of succession and preserved in theChurch till the present time: we have notruth in which to believe but that which does not deviate from the eccelesiastical andApostolic tradition" (De Principiis Preface, no. 2).

Principal schisms

In this world theChurch is militant and as such is exposed to conflict and trial. Human conditions being what they are partial or local schisms are bound to occur: "I hear", saysSt. Paul, "that . . . there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it. For there must be alsoheresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you" (1 Corinthians 11:18-19). In the full and primitive sense of the word every serious rupture of unity and consequently everyheresy is a schism. This article, however, will pass over the long series ofheresies and treat only those defections orreligioussects to which historians commonly give the specific name of schisms, because most frequently, and at least in the beginning of each such sectarian division,doctrinalerror was only an accessory. They are treated in chronological order and the most important only briefly, these being the subjects of special articles in the ENCYCLOPEDIA.

(1) Mention has already been made of the "schisms" of the nascent Church ofCorinth, when it was said among its members: "I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." To themSt. Paul's energetic intervention put an end.

(2) According to Hegesippus, the most advanced section of theJudaizers orEbionites atJerusalem followed thebishop Thebutis as against St. Simeon, and after the death of St. James, 63, separated from theChurch.

(3) There were numerous local schisms in the third and fourth centuries. AtRome Pope Callistus (217-22) was opposed by a party who took exception to the mildness with which he applied the penitential discipline.Hippolytus placed himself asbishop at the head of these malcontents and the schism was prolonged under the two successors of Callistus,Urban I (222-30) and Pontianus (230-35). There is nodoubt thatHippolytus himself returned to the pale of theChurch (cf. d'Alès, "La théol. de s. Hippolyte", Paris, 1906, introduction).

(4) In 251 whenCornelius was elected to theSee of Rome a minority set upNovatian as anantipope, the pretext again being the pardon whichCornelius promised to those who after apostatizing should repent. Through a spirit of contradictionNovatian went so far as to refuse forgiveness even to the dying and the severity was extended to other categories of gravesins. TheNovatians sought to form a Church ofsaints. In the East they called themselveskatharoi, pure. Largely under the influence of thisidea they administered a secondbaptism to those who desertedCatholicism to join their ranks. Thesect developed greatly in the Eastern countries, where it subsisted until about the seventh century, being recruited not only by the defection ofCatholics, but also by the accession ofMontanists.

(5) During the same period theChurch of Carthage was also a prey to intestinal divisions. St. Cypnan upheld in reasonable measure the traditional principles regarding penance and did not accord to the letters of confessors calledlibelli pacis the importance desired by some. One of the principal adversaries was thepriest Donatus Fortunatus became thebishop of the party, but the schism, which was of short duration took the name of thedeaconFelicissimus who played an important part in it.

(6) With the dawn of the fourth centuryEgypt was the scene of the schism of Meletius,Bishop ofLycopolis, in theThebaid. Its causes are not known withcertainty; some ancient authors ascribe it to rigorist tendencies regarding penance while others say it was occasioned by usurpation of power on the part of Meletius, notably the conferring of ordinations outside hisdiocese. TheCouncil of Nicæa dealt with this schism, but did not succeed in completely eradicating it; there were still vestiges of it in the fifth century.

(7) Somewhat later the schism of Antioch, originating in the troubles due toArianism, presents peculiar complications. When thebishop Eustathius, was deposed in 330 a small section of his flock remained faithful to him, but the majority followed theArians. The firstbishop created by them was succeeded (361) by Meletius ofSebaste inArmenia, who by force of circumstances became the leader of a secondorthodox party. In fact Meletius did not fundamentally depart from the Faith of Nicæa, and he was soon rejected by theArians: on the other hand he was not recognized by the Eustathians, who saw in him the choice of theheretics and also took him to task for some merely terminological differences. The schism lasted until about 415. Paulinus (d. 388) and Evagrius (d. 392), Eustathianbishops, were recognized in the West as thetruepastors, while in the East the Meletianbishops were regarded as legitimate.

(8) After the banishment ofPope Liberius in 355, thedeacon Felix was chosen to replace him and he had adherents even after the return of the legitimatepope. The schism, quenched for a time by the death of Felix, was revived at the death of Libenius and the rivalry brought about bloody encounters. It was several years after the victory of Damasus before peace was completely restored.

(9) The same period witnessed the schism of the Luciferians. Lucifer,Bishop ofCalaris, orCagliari, was displeased withAthanasius and his friends who at the Synod of Alexandria (362) had pardoned the repentantSemi-Arians. He himself had been blamed byEusebius of Vercelli because of his haste in ordaining Paulinus,Bishop of the Eustathians, at Antioch. For these two reasons he separated from the communion of theCatholicbishops. For some time the schism won adherents inSardinia, where it had originated, and inSpain, where Gregory,Bishop of Elvira, was its chief abettor.

(10) But the most important of the fourth-century schisms was that of theDonatists. These sectaries were as noted for their obstinacy and fanaticism as for the efforts and the writings rather uselessly multiplied against them bySt. Augustine andSt. Optatus ofMilevis.

(11) The schism of Acacius belongs to the end of the fifth century. It is connected with thepromulgation by the emperor Zeno of the edict known as theHenoticon. Issued with the intention of putting an end to theChristological disputes, this document did not satisfy eitherCatholics orMonophysites.Pope Felix IIexcommunicated its two real authors,Peter Mongus,Bishop of Alexandria, andAcacius of Constantinople. A break between the East and the West followed which lasted thirty-five years. At the instance of the general Vitalian, protector of theorthodox, Zeno's successor Anastasius promised satisfaction to the adherents of theCouncil of Chalcedon and the convocation of ageneral council, but he showed so little good will in the matter that union was only restored by Justin I in 519. The reconciliation received official sanction in a profession of Faith to which the Greekbishops subscribed, and which, as it was sent by Pope Hormisdas, is known in history as the Formula of Hormisdas.

(12) In the sixth century the schism of Aquilea wascaused by the consent ofPope Vigilius to the condemnation of theThree Chapters (553). The ecclesiastical provinces ofMilan and Aquilea refused to accept this condemnation as valid and separated for a time from theApostolic See. The Lombard invasion ofItaly (568) favoured the resistance, but from 570 theMilanese returned by degrees to the communion ofRome; the portion of Aquilea subject to theByzantines returned in 607, after which date the schism had but a few churches. It died out completely underSergius I, about the end of the eighth century.

(13) The ninth century brought the schism of Photius, which, though it was transitory, prepared the way by nourishing a spirit of defiance towardsRome for the final defection of Constantinople.

(14) This took place less than two centuries later underMichael Cerularius who at one stroke (1053) closed all the churches of the Latins at Constantinople and confiscated theirconvents. The deplorableGreek schism (seeGREEK CHURCH), which still subsists, and is itself divided into several communions, was thus consummated. The two agreements of reunion concluded at theSecond Council of Lyons in 1274, and at that of Florence in 1439, unfortunately had no lasting results; they could not have had them, because on the part of the Greeks at least they were inspired by interested motives.

(15) The schism of Anacletus in the twelfth century, like that ofFelix V in the fifteenth, was due to the existence of anantipope side by side with the legitimate pontiff. At the death of Honorius II (1130)Innocent II had been regularly elected, but a numerous and powerful faction set up in opposition to him Cardinal Peter of the Pierleonifamily.Innocent was compelled to flee, leavingRome in the hands of his adversaries. He found refuge inFrance.St. Bernard ardently defended his cause as did alsoSt. Norbert. Within a year nearly allEurope had declared in his favour, onlyScotland, SouthernItaly, andSicily constituting the other party. The emperor Lothaire broughtInnocent II back toRome, but, supported by Roger ofSicily theantipope retained possession of the Leonine City, where he died in 1138. His successorVictor IV two months after his election, sought and obtained pardon and reconciliation from the legitimate pontiff. The case ofFelix V was more simple.Felix V was the name taken by Amadeus ofSavoy, elected by the Council of Basle, when it went into open revolt againstEugenius IV, refused to disband and thus incurredexcommunication (1439). Theantipope was not accepted save inSavoy andSwitzerland. He lasted for a short time with the pseudo-council which had created him. Both submitted in 1449 toNicholas V, who had succeededEugenius IV.

(16) TheGreat Schism of the West is the subject of a special article (WESTERN SCHISM); see alsoCOUNCIL OF CONSTANCE;COUNCIL OF PISA.

(17) Everyone knows the shameful origins of the schism ofHenry VIII, which was the prelude to the introduction ofProtestantism intoEngland. The voluptuous monarch was opposed by thepope in his projects fordivorce and remarriage, and he separated from thepope. He succeeded so well that in 1531 the general assembly of theclergy and the Parliament proclaimed him head of the national Church.Warham,Archbishop ofCanterbury, had at first caused the adoption of a restrictive clause: "as far asDivine law permits". But this important reservation was not respected, for the rupture with the Roman Court followed almost immediately. In 1534 the Act of Supremacy was voted according to the terms of which the king became the sole head of theChurch of England and was to enjoy all the prerogatives which had hitherto belonged to thepope. Refusal to recognize the new organization waspunished with death. Various changes followed: suppression ofconvents, destruction ofrelics and of numerous pictures andstatues. Butdogma was not again attacked underHenry VIII, who pursued with equal severity both attachment to thepope and the doctrines of theReformers.

(18) In the articleJANSENIUS AND JANSENISM are described the formation and vicissitudes of the schism ofUtrecht, the unhappy consequence ofJansenism, but which never spread beyond a handful of fanatics. Subsequent schisms belong to the end of the eighteenth and the nineteenth century.

(19) The first was caused inFrance by the Civil Constitution of theclergy of 1790. By thislaw the national Constituent Assembly aimed at imposing on theChurch a new organization which essentially modified its condition as regulated by public ecclesiastical law. The 134bishops of the kingdom were reduced to 83, according to the territorial division into departments; the choice of curés fell to electors appointed by members of district assemblies; that ofbishops to electors named by the assemblies of departments; andcanonical institution devolved upon themetropolitan and thebishops of the province. Allbenefices withoutcure of souls were suppressed. A later ordinance made obedience to these articles a condition of admission to anyecclesiastical office. A large number ofbishops andpriests, in all, according to some sources, about a sixth of theclergy, and according to other documents nearly a third, were weak enough to take theoath. Thenceforth the Frenchclergy was divided into two factions, the jurors and the non-jurors, and the schism was carried to the utmost extreme when intruders under the name ofbishops claimed to occupy the departmental sees, during the lifetime and even in defiance of therights of the real titulars. The condemnation of the Civil Constitution byPius VI in 1791 opened the eyes of some, but others persisted until their "Constitutional Church" declined shamefully and disappeared irrevocably in theRevolutionary turmoil.

(20) A schism of another nature and of less importance was that of the so-calledPetite Église or theIncommunicants, formed at the beginning of the nineteenth century by groups who were dissatisfied with the Concordat and the concordatoryclergy. In the provinces of the west ofFrance the party acquired a certain stability from 1801 to 1815; at the latterdate it had become a distinctsect. It languished on till about 1830, and eventually became extinct for lack ofpriests to perpetuate it. InBelgium some of its members call themselves Stevenists, thus abusing the name of a reputable ecclesiastic, Corneille Stevens, who was capitularvicar-general of theDiocese of Namur until 1802, who afterwards wrote against theOrganic Articles, but accepted the Concordat and died in 1828, as he had lived, in submission to theHoly See.

(21) In 1831 the Abbé Chatel founded theFrenchCatholicChurch, a small group which never acquired importance. The founder, who at first claimed to retain all thedogmas, had himselfconsecratedbishop by Fabre Palaprat, another self-styledbishop of the "Constitutional" type; he soon rejected theinfallibility of the teaching Church,celibacy of priests, and abstinence. He recognized norule of faith except individual evidence and he officiated in French. Thesect was already on the point of being slain by ridicule when its meeting-places were closed by the Government in 1842.

(22) About the same timeGermany was the scene of a somewhat similar schism. When in 1844 theHoly Coat was exposed atTrier for the veneration of thefaithful, a suspendedpriest, Johannes Ronge, seized the occasion to publish a violent pamphlet against Arnoldi,Bishop ofTrier. Some malcontents ranged themselves on his side. Almost simultaneously John Czerski, a dismissed vicar, founded in the Province of Posen, a "ChristianCatholic community". He had imitators. In 1845 the "German Catholics", as these schismatics called themselves, held a synod at Leipzig at which they rejected among other things the primacy of thepope, auricular confession,ecclesiastical celibacy, the veneration of thesaints, and suppressed the Canon in their Eucharistic Liturgy which they called the "German liturgy". They gained recruits in small numbers until 1848, but after thatdate they declined, being on bad terms with the Governments which had at first encouraged them but which bore them ill-will because of their political agitations.

(23) While thissect was declining another sprang up in antagonism to theVatican Council. The opponents of the recently-defineddoctrine ofinfallibility, theOld Catholics, at first contented themselves with a simple protest; at the Congress ofMunich in 1871 they resolved to constitute a separate Church. Two years later they chose asbishop the Professor Reinkens ofBreslau, who was recognized asbishop byPrussia,Baden, andHesse. Thanks to official assistance the rebels succeeded in gaining possession of a number ofCatholic churches and soon, like the GermanCatholics and schismatics in general, they introduced disciplinary anddoctrinal novelties, they successively abandoned the precept of confession (1874),ecclesiastical celibacy (1878), the Roman liturgy, which was replaced (1880) by a German liturgy, etc. InSwitzerland also the opposition to theVatican council resulted in the creation of a separate community, which also enjoyed governmental favour. An OldCatholic faculty was founded atBerne for the teaching oftheology, and E. Herzog, a professor of this faculty, was electedbishop of the party in 1876. A congress assembled in 1890, at which most of the dissident groups,Jansenists,Old Catholics, etc., had representatives, resolved to unite all these diverse elements in the foundation of one Church. As a matter of fact, they are all on the road tofree-thinking andRationalism. InEngland a recent attempt at schism under the leadership of Herbert Beale and Arthur Howarth, two Nottinghampriests, and Arnold Mathew, has failed to assume proportions worthy of serious notice.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT