|
|
Schism
I. GENERAL
IDEAS, MORAL CHARACTER, AND PENAL SANCTIONS
Schism (from
the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of
theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical 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 the Church and make him a member of the mystical
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 the New Testament. By this name St. Paul
characterizes and condemns the parties formed in the community of
Corinth (I Cor., i, 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
the faithful, he says elsewhere, should manifest itself in mutual
understanding and convergent action similar to the harmonious
co-operation of our members which
God hath
tempered "that there might be no schism in the body" (I Cor., xii,
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 in heresy or joined with it, the second, which
most theologians designate absolutely as schism, is the rupture of
the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistent error,
directly opposed to a definite dogma. This distinction was drawn by
St. Jerome and St. Augustine. "Between heresy and schism", explains
St. Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma,
while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the
Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a
heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit.,
iii, 10). And St. Augustine: "By false doctrines concerning
God
heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate
from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe" (De
fide et symbolo, ix). But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and
historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand;
schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy.
Schism,
therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral
standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy 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 constituted hierarchy. 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 distinct sect, much less the
creation of such a group. Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though
desiring to remain a
Christian,
rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the
rejection of
Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of
apostasy.
Formerly a
man was rightly considered a schismatic when he disregarded the
authority of his own bishop; hence the words of St. Jerome quoted
above. Before him
St. Cyprian
had said: "It must be understood that the bishop is in the Church
and the Church in the bishop and he is not in the Church who is not
with the bishop" (Epist., lxvi, 8). Long before, St. Ignatius of
Antioch laid down this principle: "Where the bishop is there is the
community, even as where Christ is there is the Catholic Church" (Smyrn.,
viii, 2). Now through the centralizing evolution which emphasizes
the preponderant rôle of the sovereign pontiff in the constitution
of ecclesiastical unity, the mere fact of rebelling against the
bishop of the diocese is often a step toward schism; it is not a
schism in him who remains, or claims to remain, subject to the
Holy 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 the
papacy, each of whom has on his side certain appearances of right
and consequently more or less numerous partisans. But under these
circumstances good 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 the Church as a most serious fault, and is
punished with the penalties inflicted on heresy, because heresy
usually accompanies it. These are:
excommunication
incurred ipso facto and reserved to the sovereign pontiff
(cf. "Apostolicæ Sedis", I, 3); this is followed by the loss of all
ordinary jurisdiction and incapacity to receive any
ecclesiastical
benefices or dignities whatsoever. To communicate in sacris
with schismatics, e. g., to receive the sacraments at the hands of
their ministers, to assist at Divine Offices in their temples, is
strictly forbidden to the faithful.
Some
theologians distinguish "active" from "passive" schism. By the
former they understand detaching oneself deliberately from the body
of the Church, freely renouncing the right to form a part of it.
They call passive schism the condition of those whom the Church
herself rejects from her bosom by
excommunication,
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 of
Protestants
who claim to hold the Church they abandoned responsible for their
separation. It is proved by all the historical monuments and
especially by the writings of
Luther and
Calvin
that, prior to the
anathema
pronounced against them at the
Council of
Trent, the leaders of the Reformation had proclaimed and
repeated that the Roman Church was "the Babylon of the Apocalypse,
the synagogue of
Satan, the
society of
Antichrist"; that they must therefore depart from it and that
they did so in order to re-enter the way of salvation. And in this
they suited the action to the word. Thus the schism was well
consummated by them before it was solemnly established by the
authority which they rejected and transformed by that authority into
a just penal sanction.
II. SCHISM
IN THE LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
As schism in
its definition and full sense is the practical denial of
ecclesiastical 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
of Scripture and Tradition show these aspects of the same truth 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 His Church He thereby
indicated its essential unity and especially the hierarchical unity
(Matt xvi 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, x, 16).
Unity of faith 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" (Matt., xxviii, 19). These various
forms of unity are the object of the prayer after the
Last Supper,
when Christ prays for His own and asks "that they may be one" as the
Father and the Son are one (John, xvii, 21, 22). Those who violate
the laws of unity shall become strangers to Christ and his spiritual
family: "And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as
the heathen and publican" (Matt., xviii, 17).
In faithful
imitation of his Master's teaching St. Paul often refers to the
unity 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 (I Cor., xii; Eph., iv). He enumerates its
various aspects and sources: "For in one Spirit were we all baptized
into one body, . . . and in one Spirit we have all been made to
drink" (I Cor xii, 13); "For we, being many, are one bread, one
body, all that partake of one bread" (ibid., x, 17). He sums it up
in the following formula: "One body and one Spirit; . . . one Lord,
one faith, one baptism" (Eph., iv, 4-5). Finally he arrives at the
logical conclusion when he
anathematizes
doctrinal novelties and the authors of them (Gal., i, 9), likewise
when he writes to Titus: "A man that is a heretic, after the first
and second admonition, avoid" (Tit., iii, 10); and again when he so
energetically condemns the dissensions of the community of Corinth:
"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
you baptized in the name of Paul?" (I Cor., i, 11-13). "Now, I
beseech you, brethren, by the name of
our 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" (I Cor., i, 10). St. Luke speaking in praise of
the primitive church mentions its unanimity of belief, obedience,
and worship: "They were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles,
and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers"
(Acts, ii, 42). All the first Epistle of St. John is directed
against contemporary innovators and schismatics; and the author
regards them as so foreign to the Church that in contrast to its
members "the Children of
God", he
calls them "the children of the
devil", (I
John, iii, 10); the children "of the world" (iv, 5), even
Antichrist
(ii, 22; iv, 3).
The same
doctrine is found in all the evidences of Tradition, beginning with
the oldest. Before the end of the first century St. Clement writing
to the Church of Corinth in order to restore peace and harmony
strongly inculcates the necessity of submission to the "hegoumenos"
(I Cor., i, 3), "to the guides of our souls" (lxiii, 1), and to the
"presbyters" (xlvii, 6; liv, 2; lvii, 1). It is, says he, a "grave
sin" to disregard their authority as the Corinthians are doing
(xliv, 3, 4, 6; xlvii, 6); it is a duty to honour them (i, 3; xxi,
6). There must be no division in the body of Christ, xlvi, 6. The
fundamental reason of all this is the Divinely instituted
hierarchical order. The work of Christ is in fact continued by the
Apostles, who are sent by Christ as He was sent by
God (xlii,
1, 2). It was they who established the "episcopi
and deacons"
(xlii, 4) and decided that others should succeed them in their
ministry (xliv, 2). He thus explains the gravity of the sin and the
severity of the reproaches addressed to the fomenters of the
troubles . "Why should there be among you disputes, quarrels,
dissensions, schisms, and
war? Have
we not one and the same
God, 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 of Christ, be at war 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
the faithful to range themselves about the "presbyters" and the
deacons and
especially through them and with them about the bishop: "It is
fitting that you be of one mind with the bishop, as you are, because
your venerable presbyterium is attached to the bishop as the strings
to the lyre" (Eph., vi, 1); "you must not take advantage of the age
of your bishop, but, being mindful of the power of
God the Father,
you should show him every manner of respect, as do the holy priests"
(Magn., iii, 1). The bishop is the centre and pivot of the Church:
"Where he is there should the community be" (Smyrn., xi, 1). The
duties of the faithful towards the hierarchy are summed up in one:
to be united to it in sentiment, faith, and obedience. They must be
always submissive to the bishop, the presbyterium, and the
deacons
("Eph.", ii, 2; v, 3; xx, 2; "Magn.", ii; iii, 1; vi, 1, 2; xiii, 2;
"TraIl.", ii, 1, 2; xiii, 2; "Philad.", vii, 1; "Smyrn.", viii, 1; "Polyc.",
vi, 1). Jesus
Christ being the word of the Father and the bishop being in the
doctrine of Christ (en Iesou christou gnome) it is fitting to
adhere to the doctrine of the bishop (Eph., iii, 2; iv, 1); "Those
who belong to
God and
Jesus Christ ally themselves with the bishop. Brethren, be not
deceived; whosoever follows a schismatic shall not inherit the
Kingdom of Heaven" (Philad, iii, 2, 3). Finally, as the bishop is
the doctrinal and disciplinary centre so he is the liturgical
centre: "Let that Eucharist be lawful which is consecrated by the
bishop or one deputed by him. . . . It is forbidden to baptize or
celebrate the agape without the bishop; what he approves is what is
pleasing to God,
in order that all that is done may be stable and valid" (Smyrn.,
viii, 1, 2).
Towards the
end of the second century St. Irenæus lauds in glowing terms the
unity of that universal Church "which has but one heart and one
soul, whose faith is in keeping" and which seems "as the sole sun
illuminating the whole world" (Adv. hæres., i, 10). He condemns all
doctrinal division, basing his arguments on the teaching authority
of the Church in general and of the Roman Church in particular. The
doctrine of salvation, preached by the Apostles, 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
of Rome: "For the entire Church, that is all the faithful in the
world, should be in agreement with this Roman Church, because of its
superior pre-eminence; and in it all the faithful have preserved the
Apostolic tradition" (iii, 2, 3). It is therefore of the utmost
necessity to adhere to this Church because where the Church is,
there is the
Spirit of God, and where the
Spirit of God
is there is the Church, there is all grace and the spirit is truth
(iii, 24). But to adhere to this Church is to submit to the
hierarchy, its living and
infallible
magistracy: "The priests of the Church are to be obeyed, those who
are the successors of the Apostles and who with the episcopal
succession have received an assured charisma of truth. . . . Those
who leave the successors of the Apostles and assemble in any
separated place must be regarded with suspicion or as heretics, as
men of evil doctrines, or as schismatics. Those who rend the unity
of the Church receive the Divine chastisement awarded to Jeroboam;
they must all be avoided" (iv, 26).
At the
beginning of the third century Clement of Alexandria describes the
Church as the city of the Logos which must be sought because
it is the assemblage of all those whom
God desires
to save ("Strom." iv, 20; vii, v; "Pædag.", i, 6; iii, 12). Origen
is more explicit; for him also the Church is the city of
God (Contra
Cels., iii, 30), and he adds: "Let no one be deceived; outside this
abode, that is outside the Church, no one is saved. If anyone leaves
it he himself shall be accountable for his death" (In lib. Jesu
Nave, Hom., iii, 5). In Africa
Tertullian
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 of truth
and the relative novelty of error (principalitatem veritatis et
posteritatem mendacii), thus implying the prohibition to withdraw
from the guidance of the living magisterium: "If the
Lord Jesus
Christ sent His Apostles 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 the Apostles themselves,
to which they preached the Gospel by word and writing" (De præscr.,
xxi).
But the great
African champion of ecclesiastical unity was
St. Cyprian,
against the schismatics of Rome as well as those of Carthage. He
conceived this unity as reposing on the effective authority of the
bishops, their mutual union, and the pre-eminence of the Roman
pontiff: "God
is one, Christ is one, one is the Church, and one the chair founded
on Peter by the word of the Lord" (Epist. lxx); "This unity we
bishops who govern in the Church should firmly uphold and defend, in
order to show that the episcopate itself is one and undivided" (De
ecclesiæ unit., v); "Know that the bishop is in the Church and the
Church in the bishop, and that if anyone is not with the bishop he
is not in the Church. . . . The Catholic Church is one, formed of
the harmonious union of pastors who mutually support one another" (Epist.
lxxvi, 5). To unity of faith must be joined liturgical unity: "A
second altar and a new priesthood cannot be set up beside the one
altar and the one priesthood" (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, the
Church of Jesus
Christ?" (De eccl., unit., viii); "The spouse of Christ is
chaste and incorruptible. Whoever leaves the Church to follow an
adulteress renounces the promises of the Church. He that abandons
the Church 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 the Church is not a mother. As well might
one be saved out of the ark of Noah as out of the Church. . . . He
who does not respect its unity will not respect the
law of God;
he is without faith in the Father and the Son, without life, without
salvation" (op. cit., viii).
From the
fourth century the doctrine of the unity of the Church was so
clearly and universally admitted that it is almost superfluous to
quote particular testimonies. The lengthy polemics of Optatus of
Milevis ("De schism. Don.", P. L., XI) and of St. Augustine
(especially in "De unit. eccl.", P. L., XLIII) against the Donatists
accuse these sectaries of being separated from the ancient and
primitive trunk of
Christianity.
And to those who represented their group as a portion of the
universal Church St. Augustine replied: "If you are in communion
with the
Christian 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 with
St. Cyprian
in maintaining that outside of it there is no salvation: "Salus
extra ecclesiam non est" (De bapt., iv, 24), and he adds in
confirmation of this that outside the Church the means of salvation,
baptism, and even martyrdom 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,
says St. 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 the episcopal see of Rome, 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); "Solictude 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 that Christ gave to Peter alone the power 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 the Latin Church, Hilary, Victorinus, St.
Ambrose, the Ambrosiaster, St. Jerome, speak in like manner and
quite as explicitly. All regard Peter as the foundation of the
Church, 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 the Church; where the Church is
there is no death but eternal life" (In Ps., xl, 30). And St.
Jerome: "That man is my choice who remains in union with the chair
of Peter" (Epist., xvi, 2). Both declare, like St. Optatus, that to
be out of the Roman communion is to be out of the Church, 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, the Roman Church, and the most holy Apostolic Faith
be disturbed; for thence all derive the rights of the Catholic
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. I know that on this rock the Church is built. Whosoever
partakes of the Lamb outside this house commits a sacrilege.
Whosoever does not gather with you, scatters: in other words
whosoever is not with Christ is with
Antichrist"
(Jerome, "Epist.", xv, 2).
The East also
saw in Peter and the episcopal 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
unshakable faith" ("Anchor.", ix, 34; "Hær.", lix, 7, 8) and
St. Chrysostom
speaks unceasingly of the privileges conferred on Peter by Christ.
Moreover the Greeks recognized in the Roman Church a pre-eminence
and consequently an incontestable unifying rôle by acknowledging her
right to intervene in the disputes of the particular Churches, as is
proved by the cases of Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra, and
Chrysostom.
In this sense
St. Gregory Nazianzen calls ancient Rome "the president of the
universe, ten proeodron ton olon" (Carmen de vita sua), and
it is also the reason why even the Eusebians were willing that the
case of Athanasius, after they had passed on it, should be submitted
to the pope's judgment (Athan., "Apol. contra Arian", 20).
III.
ATTEMPTS TO LEGITIMIZE SCHISM
The foregoing
texts are sufficient to establish the gravity of schism from the
standpoint of the economy of salvation and morals. In this
connection it may be of interest to quote the appreciation of Bayle,
a writer above suspicion of partiality and a tolerant judge: "I know
not," he writes, "a more grievous crime than that of tearing the
mystical body of
Jesus Christ,
His church which He purchased with His own blood, that mother which
bore us to God,
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 the Church of abuses, dogmatic and
liturgical 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 the Church is necessarily an evil,
an injurious and blameworthy act, and abandoning of the true way of
salvation, and this independent of all contingent circumstances.
Moreover the doctrines of the Fathers exclude a priori any
such attempt at justification; to use their words, it is forbidden
for individuals 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 the Donatists 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 their proofs 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. Under
FUNDAMENTAL
ARTICLES it is shown that this distinction, wholly unknown prior
to the sixteenth century, and repugnant to the very conception of
Divine faith, is condemned by Scripture, and, for want of a clear
line of demarcation, authorizes the most monstrous divergences. The
indispensable unity of faith extends to all the truths revealed by
God and
transmitted by the Apostles. Tradition repeats, though in different
forms, all that Irenæus wrote: "The Church spread everywhere
throughout the world received from the Apostles and their disciples
faith in one
God" (here follow the words of the Creed), then the writer
continues: "Depositary of this preaching and this faith, the Church
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 and soul; 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 in Gaul, nor those among the Iberians, nor those in
the countries of the Celts, nor those in the East, nor those of
Egypt, nor those of Lybia, nor those in the centre of the world
present any differences of faith or preaching; but as the sun
created by God,
is one and the same throughout the world, so a single light, a
single preaching of the truth, illuminates every place and
enlightens all men who wish to attain to the knowledge of truth"
(Adv. Hær., i, 10). It has been shown above how the Bishop of Lyons
declared that the continuators of the Apostolic ministry were the
"presbyters of the Church", and that a man was a
Christian
and a Catholic only on condition of obeying them without reserve.
(3) The
theory of the happy medium or via media advocated by the
Anglicans,
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 his
conversion to Catholicism. 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 the Church should not
be regarded as
infallible, but only as a trustworthy witness with regard to the
true 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 of belief which requires
conformity with Scripture and, no less, with the living authority of
the Church, or more exactly, implies absolute obedience to the
infallible
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 him faith is
proved and its enemies confounded equally by Scripture and tradition
(Adv. Hær., iii, 2), but the authentic guardian of both is the
Church, i. e. the bishops as successors of the Apostles: "Apostolic
tradition is manifested throughout the world, and everywhere in the
Church it is within the reach of those who desire to know the truth,
for we can enumerate the bishops established by the Apostles, 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: "The truth which it is easy to know through the Church
must not be sought elsewhere; in the Church in which as in a rich
treasury, the Apostles deposited in its fulness all that concerns
the truth: 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 who believe
in Christ and who bear the law of salvation written in their hearts
by the Holy 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 the Church is
preserved from error: "Where the Church is, there is the
Spirit of God;
and where the
Spirit of God is there is the Church with every grace, and the
Spirit is truth" (iii, 24). "That is why obedience must be rendered
to the presbyters who are in the Church, and who having succeeded
the Apostles, together with the episcopal succession have received
by the will of the Father a certain charisma of truth" (iv, 26).
This is far removed from the half-way assertions and the
restrictions of the Oxford School. The same conclusion may be drawn
from
Tertullian's declaration of the impossibility of solving a
difficulty or terminating a dispute by Scripture alone (De præscript.,
xix), and from Origen's words: "Since among many who boast of a
doctrine in conformity with that of Christ some do not agree with
their predecessors, let all adhere to the ecclesiastical doctrine
transmitted from the Apostles by way of succession and preserved in
the Church till the present time: we have no truth in which to
believe but that which does not deviate from the eccelesiastical and
Apostolic tradition" (De princip., præf., 2).
IV.
PRINCIPAL SCHISMS
In this world
the Church 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", says St. Paul, "that . . . there are
schisms among you; and in part I believe it. For there must be also
heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest
among you" (I Cor., xi, 18-19). In the full and primitive sense of
the word every serious rupture of unity and consequently every
heresy is a schism. This article, however, will pass over the long
series of heresies and treat only those defections or religious
sects to which historians commonly give the specific name of
schisms, because most frequently, and at least in the beginning of
each such sectarian division, doctrinal error 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 of
Corinth, 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 them St.
Paul's energetic intervention put an end.
(2) According
to Hegesippus, the most advanced section of the Judaizers or
Ebionites
at Jerusalem followed the bishop Thebutis as against St. Simeon, and
after the death of St. James, A. D. 63, separated from the Church.
(3) There
were numerous local schisms in the third and fourth centuries. At
Rome 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 as bishop 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 no doubt that
Hippolytus himself returned to the pale of the Church (cf. d'Alès,
"La théol. de s. Hippolyte", Paris, 1906, introduction).
(4) In 251
when Cornelius was elected to the See of Rome a minority set up
Novatian as an
antipope, the pretext again being the pardon which Cornelius
promised to those who after apostatizing should repent. Through a
spirit of contradiction Novatian went so far as to refuse
forgiveness even to the dying and the severity was extended to other
categories of grave sins. The Novatians sought to form a Church of
saints. In the East they called themselves katharoi, pure.
Largely under the influence of this idea they administered a second
baptism to those who deserted Catholicism to join their ranks. The
sect developed greatly in the Eastern countries, where it subsisted
until about the seventh century, being recruited not only by the
defection of Catholics, but also by the accession of Montanists.
(5) During
the same period the Church 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 called libelli pacis the importance desired by
some. One of the principal adversaries was the priest Donatus
Fortunatus became the bishop of the party, but the schism, which was
of short duration took the name of the
deacon
Felicissimus who played an important part in it.
(6) With the
dawn of the fourth century Egypt was the scene of the schism of
Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, in the Thebaid. Its causes are not
known with certainty; 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 his diocese. The Council 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 to
Arianism,
presents peculiar complications. When the bishop Eustathius, was
deposed in 330 a small section of his flock remained faithful to
him, but the majority followed the
Arians. The
first bishop created by them was succeeded (361) by Meletius of
Sebaste in Armenia, who by force of circumstances became the leader
of a second orthodox party. In fact Meletius did not fundamentally
depart from the Faith of Nicæa, and he was soon rejected by the
Arians: on
the other hand he was not recognized by the Eustathians, who saw in
him the choice of the heretics and also took him to task for some
merely terminological differences. The schism lasted until about
415. Paulinus (d. 388) and Evagrius (d. 392), Eustathian bishops,
were recognized in the West as the true pastors, while in the East
the Meletian bishops were regarded as legitimate.
(8) After the
banishment of Pope Liberius in 355, the
deacon
Felix was chosen to replace him and he had adherents even after the
return of the legitimate pope. 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 of
Calaris, or Cagliari, was displeased with Athanasius and his friends
who at the Synod of Alexandria (362) had pardoned the repentant
Semi-Arians.
He himself had been blamed by
Eusebius 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 the Catholic bishops. For some time the schism won
adherents in Sardinia, where it had originated, and in Spain, where
Gregory, Bishop of Elvira, was its chief abettor.
(10) But the
most important of the fourth-century schisms was that of the
Donatists (q. v.). These sectaries were as noted for their obstinacy
and fanaticism as for the efforts and the writings rather uselessly
multiplied against them by St. Augustine and St. Optatus of Milevis.
(11) The
schism of Acacius belongs to the end of the fifth century. It is
connected with the
promulgation
by the emperor Zeno of the edict known as the
Henoticon.
Issued with the intention of putting an end to the Christological
disputes, this document did not satisfy either Catholics or
Monophysites. Pope Felix II
excommunicated
its two real authors, Peter Mongus, Bishop of Alexandria, and
Acacius 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 the orthodox, Zeno's successor
Anastasius promised satisfaction to the adherents of the Council of
Chalcedon and the convocation of a general 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 Greek bishops 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 was caused by the consent of
Pope Vigilius to the condemnation of the
Three Chapters
(553). The ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquilea refused to
accept this condemnation as valid and separated for a time from the
Apostolic See. The Lombard invasion of Italy (568) favoured the
resistance, but from 570 the Milanese returned by degrees to the
communion of Rome; the portion of Aquilea subject to the Byzantines
returned in 607, after which date the schism had but a few churches.
It died out completely under Sergius 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
towards Rome for the final defection of Constantinople.
(14) This
took place less than two centuries later under Michael Cerularius
(q. v.) who at one stroke (1053) closed all the churches of the
Latins at Constantinople and confiscated their convents. The
deplorable Greek schism (see GREEK CHURCH), which still subsists,
and is itself divided into several communions, was thus consummated.
The two agreements of reunion concluded at the Second 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 of Felix V in
the fifteenth, was due to the existence of an
antipope
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
Pierleoni family.
Innocent
was compelled to flee, leaving Rome in the hands of his adversaries.
He found refuge in France. St. Bernard ardently defended his cause
as did also St. Norbert. Within a year nearly all Europe had
declared in his favour, only Scotland, Southern Italy, and Sicily
constituting the other party. The emperor Lothaire brought
Innocent II
back to Rome, but, supported by Roger of Sicily the
antipope
retained possession of the Leonine City, where he died in 1138. His
successor Victor IV two months after his election, sought and
obtained pardon and reconciliation from the legitimate pontiff. The
case of Felix V was more simple. Felix V was the name taken by
Amadeus of Savoy, elected by the Council of Basle, when it went into
open revolt against Eugenius IV, refused to disband and thus
incurred
excommunication (1439). The
antipope
was not accepted save in Savoy and Switzerland. He lasted for a
short time with the pseudo-council which had created him. Both
submitted in 1449 to
Nicholas V,
who had succeeded Eugenius IV.
(16) The
Great Schism of the West is the subject of a special article
(SCHISM, WESTERN); see also CONSTANCE, COUNCIL OF; PISA, COUNCIL OF.
(17) Everyone
knows the shameful origins of the schism of
Henry VIII,
which was the prelude to the introduction of
Protestantism
into England. The voluptuous monarch was opposed by the pope in his
projects for divorce and remarriage, and he separated from the pope.
He succeeded so well that in 1531 the general assembly of the clergy
and the Parliament proclaimed him head of the national Church.
Warham,
Archbishop
of Canterbury, had at first caused the adoption of a restrictive
clause: "as far as Divine 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 the
Church of
England and was to enjoy all the prerogatives which had hitherto
belonged to the pope. Refusal to recognize the new organization was
punished with death. Various changes followed: suppression of
convents, destruction of
relics and
of numerous pictures and statues. But dogma was not again attacked
under Henry
VIII, who pursued with equal severity both attachment to the
pope and the doctrines of the Reformers.
(18) In the
article
JANSENIUS AND JANSENISM are described the formation and
vicissitudes of the schism of Utrecht, the unhappy consequence of
Jansenism,
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 in France by the Civil Constitution of the clergy
of 1790. By this law the national Constituent Assembly aimed at
imposing on the Church a new organization which essentially modified
its condition as regulated by public ecclesiastical law. The 134
bishops 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 of
bishops to electors named by the assemblies of departments; and
canonical institution devolved upon the metropolitan and the bishops
of the province. All
benefices
without cure of souls were suppressed. A later ordinance made
obedience to these articles a condition of admission to any
ecclesiastical office. A large number of bishops and priests, in
all, according to some sources, about a sixth of the clergy, and
according to other documents nearly a third, were weak enough to
take the oath. Thenceforth the French clergy 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 of bishops
claimed to occupy the departmental sees, during the lifetime and
even in defiance of the rights of the real titulars. The
condemnation of the Civil Constitution by
Pius VI in
1791 opened the eyes of some, but others persisted until their
"Constitutional Church" declined shamefully and disappeared
irrevocably in the
Revolutionary
turmoil.
(20) A schism
of another nature and of less importance was that of the so-called
Petite Eglise or the Incommunicants, formed at the
beginning of the nineteenth century by groups who were dissatisfied
with the Concordat and the concordatory clergy. In the provinces of
the west of France the party acquired a certain stability from 1801
to 1815; at the latter date it had become a distinct sect. It
languished on till about 1830, and eventually became extinct for
lack of priests to perpetuate it. In Belgium some of its members
call themselves Stevenists, thus abusing the name of a reputable
ecclesiastic, Corneille Stevens, who was capitular vicar-general of
the Diocese of Namur until 1802, who afterwards wrote against the
Organic Articles, but accepted the Concordat and died in 1828, as he
had lived, in submission to the
Holy See.
(21) In 1831
the Abbé Chatel founded the French Catholic Church, a small group
which never acquired importance. The founder, who at first claimed
to retain all the dogmas, had himself consecrated bishop by Fabre
Palaprat, another self-styled bishop of the "Constitutional" type;
he soon rejected the
infallibility
of the teaching Church,
celibacy of
priests, and abstinence. He recognized no rule of faith except
individual evidence and he officiated in French. The sect 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 time Germany was the scene of a somewhat similar schism.
When in 1844 the
Holy Coat
was exposed at Trier for the veneration of the faithful, a suspended
priest, Johannes Ronge, seized the occasion to publish a violent
pamphlet against Arnoldi, Bishop of Trier. Some malcontents ranged
themselves on his side. Almost simultaneously John Czerski, a
dismissed vicar, founded in the Province of Posen, a "Christian
Catholic 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 the
pope, auricular confession,
ecclesiastical
celibacy, the veneration of the saints, and suppressed the Canon
in their Eucharistic Liturgy which they called the "German liturgy".
They gained recruits in small numbers until 1848, but after that
date 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
this sect was declining another sprang up in antagonism to the
Vatican Council. The opponents of the recently-defined doctrine of
infallibility,
the Old Catholics, at first contented themselves with a simple
protest; at the Congress of Munich in 1871 they resolved to
constitute a separate Church. Two years later they chose as bishop
the Professor Reinkens of Breslau, who was recognized as bishop by
Prussia, Baden, and Hesse. Thanks to official assistance the rebels
succeeded in gaining possession of a number of Catholic churches and
soon, like the German Catholics and schismatics in general, they
introduced disciplinary and doctrinal novelties, they successively
abandoned the precept of confession (1874),
ecclesiastical
celibacy (1878), the Roman liturgy, which was replaced (1880) by
a German liturgy, etc. In Switzerland also the opposition to the
Vatican council resulted in the creation of a separate community,
which also enjoyed governmental favour. An Old Catholic faculty was
founded at Berne for the teaching of theology, and E. Herzog, a
professor of this faculty, was elected bishop 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 to free-thinking and Rationalism.
In England a recent attempt at schism under the leadership of
Herbert Beale and Arthur Howarth, two Nottingham priests, and Arnold
Mathew, has failed to assume proportions worthy of serious notice.
|
