Aschism (/ˈsɪzəm/SIZ-əm,/ˈskɪzəm/,SKIZ-əm or, less commonly,/ˈʃɪzəm/SHIZ-əm)[1] is a division between people, usually belonging to an organization, movement, orreligious denomination. The word is most frequently applied to a split in what had previously been a single religious body, such as the GreatEast–West Schism or theWestern Schism. It is also used of a split within a non-religious organization or movement or, more broadly, of a separation between two or more people, be it brothers, friends, lovers, etc.
Aschismatic is a person who creates or incites schism in an organization or who is a member of a splinter group.Schismatic as an adjective means pertaining to a schism or schisms, or to those ideas, policies, etc. that are thought to lead towards or promote schism.
In religion, the charge of schism is distinguished from that ofheresy, since the offence of schism concerns not differences of belief or doctrine but promotion of, or the state of division,[2] especially among groups with differing pastoral jurisdictions and authority. However, schisms frequently involve mutual accusations of heresy, and also that of theGreat Apostasy. In Roman Catholic teaching, every heresy is a schism, while there may be some schisms free of the added guilt of heresy.[3]LiberalProtestantism, however, has often preferred heresy over schism.Presbyterian scholarJames I. McCord (quoted with approval by theEpiscopalianBishop of Virginia,Peter Lee) drew a distinction between them, teaching: "If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy. As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time."[4]
The wordschism comes from the Greek word σχίσμα, Greek transliteration: schisma which means "cleft, division".[citation needed]
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(August 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
InBuddhism, the first schism was set up byDevadatta, duringBuddha's life. This schism lasted only a short time. Later (after Buddha's death), theearly Buddhist schools came into being, but were not schismatic,[citation needed] only focusing on different interpretations for the same monastic community. In the old texts, 18 or 20 early schools are mentioned. Later, there were theMahayana andVajrayana movements, which can be regarded as being schismatic in origin. Each school has various subgroups, which often are schismatic in origin. For example, in Thai Theravadin Buddhism there are two groups (Mahanikaya andDhammayut), of which the Dhammayut has its origin partly in the Mahanikaya, and is the new and schismatic group. Both Mahanikaya and Dhammayut have many subgroups, which usually do not have schismatic origins, but came into being in a natural way, through the popularity of a (leader)monk.Tibetan Buddhism has seen schisms in the past, of which most were healed, although theDrukpa school centred inBhutan perhaps remains in a state of schism (since 1616) from the other Tibetan schools.[citation needed]
The wordsschism andschismatic are used to denote splits within a church, denomination or religious body. In this context, "schismatic", as a noun, denotes a person who creates or incites schism in a church or a person who is a member of a splinter Church; as an adjective, "schismatic" refers to ideas and activities that are thought to lead to or constitute schism, and ultimately to departure from what the user of the word considers to be the true Christian Church. These words have been used to denote both the phenomenon of Christian group-splintering in general, and certain significant historical splits in particular.
One can make a distinction[5] betweenheresy andschism. Heresy is rejection of adoctrine that a Church considered to be essential. Schism is a rejection ofcommunion with the authorities of a Church, and not every break of communion is necessarily about doctrine, as is clear from examples such as theWestern Schism and the breaking of the communion that existed betweenPatriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople andArchbishop Christodoulos of Athens in 2004.[6] However, when for any reason people withdraw from communion, two distinct ecclesiastical entities may result, each of which, or at least some members thereof, may then accuse the other(s) of heresy.
InRoman Catholic Churchcanon law, an act of schism, like an act ofapostasy orheresy, automatically brings the penalty ofexcommunication on the individual who commits it.[7] As stated incanon 1312 §1 1° of the1983 Code of Canon Law, this penalty is intended to be medicinal, so as to lead to restoration of unity. Roman Catholic theology considers formal schismatics to be outside the Church, understanding by "formal schismatics" "persons who, knowing the true nature of the Church, have personally and deliberately committed the sin of schism".[8] The situation, for instance, of those who have been brought up from childhood within a group not in full communion withRome, but who have orthodox faith, is different: these are considered to be imperfectly, though not fully, related to the Church.[8] This nuanced view applies especially to the Churches ofEastern Christianity, more particularly still to theEastern Orthodox Church.[8] While they don't possess "full communion" (communio in sacris) with the Catholic Church, they are still considered much more linked to it than the Protestant ecclesial communities, which have markedly different theological beliefs and rejected the concept ofapostolic succession (with the exception of the Anglicans, which, however, are viewed by the Catholic Church as not having a valid priesthood).
TheFirst Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) distinguished between schism and heresy. It declaredArian and non-Trinitarian teachings to be heretical and excluded their adherents from the Church. It also addressed the schism betweenPeter of Alexandria andMeletius of Lycopolis, considering their quarrel to be a matter of discipline, not of faith.
The divisions that came to a head at the Councils ofEphesus (A.D. 431) andChalcedon (A.D. 451) were seen as matters of heresy, not merely of schism. Thus theEastern Orthodox Church andOriental Orthodoxy regard each other as heretical, not orthodox, because of the Oriental Orthodox Church's rejection and the Eastern Orthodox Church's acceptance of theConfession of Chalcedon about the two natures (human and divine) of Christ. However, this view has been challenged in the recentEcumenical discussion between these two groups, classifying the matter of Chalcedon as a matter of schism, not of heresy.
In its extended and final form (possibly derived from theFirst Council of Constantinople in 381 although only known from the Acts of theCouncil of Chalcedon seventy years later),[9] what is commonly called theNicene Creed declares belief in theOne Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Some who accept this creed believe they should be united in a single Church or group of Churches in communion with each other. Others who accept this creed believe it does not speak of a visible organization but of all those baptized who hold the Christian faith, referred to as "Christendom". Some churches consider themselves to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For instance, theRoman Catholic Church claims that title and considers theEastern Orthodox Church to be in schism, while the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims that title and holds the view that the Catholic Church is schismatic. SomeProtestant Churches believe that they also represent the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and consider the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to be in error, while others do not expect a union of all Christian churches on earth. See alsoOne true church andGreat Apostasy.
Protestant groups, lacking the stronger traditional authority-structures of (say) Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, and often riven by politico-national divides (sometimes resulting fromcuius regio, eius religio), show a high degree of fissibility, which ecumenical efforts may only intensify.[10]
Schisms have occurred particularly frequently amongAnabaptists, to the extent that divisions over even minute details of doctrine and theology are common and scholars have dubbed the phenomenonTäuferkrankheit or "The Anabaptist Disease".[11] Emphasizing fully voluntary membership in the church, and without an established authority of hierarchical structure, Anabaptists, especiallyMennonites have experienced dozens of schisms, resulting in the establishment of dozens of various unaffiliated Mennonite churches.
A current dispute with an acknowledged risk of schism for theAnglican Communion involvesresponses to homosexuality.
In 2018Eastern Orthodoxy suffered a schism,the 2018 Moscow-Constantinople schism between the primatial See of Eastern Orthodoxy, theEcumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and theRussian Orthodox Church over the issue of Constantinople grantingautocephaly to theOrthodox Church of Ukraine.
TheSringeri Matha, also called the 'Tunga Sringeri Math' diverged after a schism with theKoodli Sringeri Matha during the 16th century after which the Tunga Math gained prominence.[12]
TheKanchi Math was originally established as the Kumbakonam Mutt in 1821 by theMaratha king of Tanjore,Serfoji II Bhonsle, as a branch of theSringeri Mutt, one of the four cardinalShankaracharya Maths of the mainstreamSmarta denomination. It became a schismatic institution when Tanjore and theWodeyars of Mysore went to war against each other. It is on record that in 1839 the Kumbakonam Mutt applied for permission from the English Collector of Arcot to perform the “kumbhabhishekham” of the Kamakshi temple in Kanchipuram.[citation needed]
In 1842, theEast India Company headquartered atFort William, Calcutta appointed the head of the mutt as the sole trustee of the Kamakshi temple. The protests of the traditional priests of the Kamakshi temple are well documented and preserved. Incidentally, Fort William is also the firstFreemason lodge of India.[13] Since then, the Math has maintained cordial relations with theBritish Raj though the main math at Sringeri fell sour with the colonial power[14]
Thus, the Kanchi Mutt can at best claim its origin to be in 1844.[15][16]
After the death of the Islamic prophetMuhammad, there have arisen manyMuslim sects by means ofschools of thought, traditions and related faiths.[17][18] According to ahadith report (collections of accounts of the life and teachings of Muhammad), Muhammad is said to haveprophesied "MyUmmah (Community or Nation) will be fragmented into seventy-three sects, and all of them will be in theHell fire except one." TheSahaba (his companions) asked him which group that would be, whereupon he replied, "It is the one to which I and my companions belong" (reported inSunan al-Tirmidhi Hadith No. 171).
Sunni Muslims, often referred to asAhl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamā‘h orAhl as-Sunnah, are the largestdenomination ofIslam. The wordSunni comes from the wordSunnah, which means the teachings and actions or examples of theIslamic prophet,Muhammad; therefore, the term Sunni refers to those who follow or maintain the Sunnah of Muhammad. The Sunni believe that Muhammad died without appointing a successor to lead theUmmah (Muslim community). After an initial period of confusion, a group of his most prominent companions gathered and electedAbu Bakr, Muhammad's close friend and father-in-law, as the firstCaliph. Sunnis regard the first four caliphs –Abu Bakr,Umar (`Umar ibn al-Khattāb),Uthman Ibn Affan, andAli (Ali ibn Abu Talib) – as theal-Khulafā’ur-Rāshidūn or "Rashidun" (The Rightly Guided Caliphs). Sunnis believe that the position of Caliph may be democratically chosen, but after the first four Rightly Guided Caliphs the position turned into a hereditarydynastic rule. There has not been another widely recognized Caliph since the fall of theOttoman Empire in 1923.
Shia Islam is the second largestdenomination ofIslam. Shia Muslims believe that, similar to the appointment of prophets,Imams after Muhammad are also chosen by God. According to Shias,Ali was chosen by Allah and thus appointed by Muhammad to be the direct successor and leader of the Muslim community. They regard him as the firstShia Imam, which continued as a hereditary position throughFatimah and Ali's descendants.
Sufism is amystical-ascetic form of Islam practised by both Shia and Sunni Muslims. Some Sufi followers consider themselves Sunni or Shia, while others consider themselves as just Sufi or Sufi-influenced. Sufism is usually considered to be complementary to orthodox Islam, although Sufism has often been accused by thesalafi of being an unjustifiedBid‘ah or religious innovation. By focusing on the more spiritual aspects of religion, Sufis strive to obtain direct experience of God by making use of "intuitive and emotional faculties" that one must be trained to use.[19] One starts withsharia (Islamic law), theexoteric or mundane practice of Islam, and then is initiated into the mystical (esoteric) path of aTariqah (Sufi Order).
Kharijite (lit. 'those who seceded') is a general term embracing a variety of Islamic sects which, while originally supporting the Caliphate ofAli, eventually rejected his legitimacy after he negotiated withMu'awiya during the 7th Century Islamic civil war (First Fitna).[citation needed] Their complaint was that the Imam must be spiritually pure, whereas Ali's compromise with Mu'awiya was a compromise of his spiritual purity and therefore of his legitimacy as Imam or Caliph. While there are few remaining Kharijite or Kharijite-related groups, the term is sometimes used to denote Muslims who refuse to compromise with those with whom they disagree.
Dates:
The first schism in Jainism happened around the fourth century BCE, leading to rise of two major sects,Digambara andŚvetāmbara, which were later subdivided in further sub-sects.[20]
MajorJewish denominations areOrthodox Judaism and non-Orthodox:Reform,Conservative andReconstructionist. In earlyJewish history, the Jewish andSamaritan religions were the product of the schism during theBabylonian Exile (6th Century BCE). Schisms in Judaism included the emergence ofChristianity andMandaeism.
Dates:
The causes of church division are complex, and the effects can be paradoxical. In a study of American Protestant schisms between 1890 and 1990, John Sutton and Mark Chaves conclude that churches do not divide for purely doctrinal reasons but rather 'in response to attempts by denominational elites to achieve organizational consolidation.' [...] Ironically, 'mergers and foundings sharply raise the likelihood of schism.' Efforts to reunite the church can go wrong and sow further and deeper divisions. Ironically again, schism can reduce the chance of schism, though only briefly: 'one year after a founding or merger, rates of schism are five times higher than they are one year after a schism.'
