**SCHISM**
Originally, *schisma* (σχίσμα) means a rent, a fissure, and hence a divergence of opinions, dissent; in particular, a division that separates members of the same society. In ecclesiastical language, it signifies separation from the unity of the Church.
I. **Notion.** — St. Paul uses the term for the internal dissensions of the Corinthian community, caused by differing interpretations of Christian doctrine (1 Cor 1, 10), by social divisions (11, 18), and by natural selfishness (12, 25). In 2 Cor 18-19, the two terms *schisma* and *heresy* (v.) recur, the latter appearing as an aggravation of the former through doctrinal divergence.
The Apostolic Fathers do not give the term *schisma* a technical ecclesiological value. In St. Ignatius of Antioch, we find the first formula for a criterion of determination of the term, which he uses to indicate separation from the legitimate episcopate. *Schisma* thus initially signified the rupture of unity within the local Church in relation to the bishop. Since all local Churches were united among themselves, breaking communion with a particular bishop meant separation from the unity of the universal Church. St. Cyprian clearly insisted on the universal character of *schisma*. However, he does not distinguish *schisma* from heresy and, in opposing Novatianism, uses the two terms interchangeably. Yet he admits a certain distinction and considers heresy as more grave (Epist., 51, 1; PL 4, 352-53), in relation to teaching (Epist., 55, 1; PL 3, 822-23). St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., IV, 33, 7; PG 7, 1076) also used *schisma* to denote the rupture of unity without detriment to the faith. St. Optatus of Milevis noted the difference, observing that in heresy there is corruption of the faith, while in *schisma* there is separation from unity (De schism. donatist., I, chaps. 10-11; PL 11, 906-907). A clear distinction is also found in St. Basil (cf. Epist., 188, canon 1; PG 32, 665). St. Augustine well distinguished between heresy, which violates faith, and *schisma*, which breaks fraternal communion (De fide et symb., chap. 10; PL 40, 193). Yet, in defending the decree of Emperor Honorius, which subjected the Donatists to the penalties prescribed for heretics, he expressed the idea that every prolonged dissent ends in heresy, and that this had indeed occurred in Donatism (Contra Cresc., II, chap. 7; PL 43, 471). St. Jerome likewise noted that every schismatic, to justify his secession, gives rise to a heresy (In epist. ad Tit., chap. 3, vv. 10-11; PL 26, 598). In the scholastic period, when a treatise began to be elaborated on the nature and effects of *schisma*, it came to be conceived as rebellion against the pope. The controversies of the 16th and 17th centuries confirm the exclusive insistence on the concept of *schisma* as defection from the pope. Later polemics added no new elements.
II. IN DOGMATICS. — *Schisma* is the willful separation from the unity of the Church as a society composed of the faithful as members and the Roman Pontiff as head. Schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the pope and to communicate with those subject to him (CIC, can. 1325 § 2). For Protestants, who deny the visibility and hierarchical constitution of the Church, the Catholic notion of *schisma* is foreign. Separated Christians and Anglicans, with their differing ecclesiology, conceive of *schisma* as a rupture with the local or national Church in relation to the bishop. They indeed regard the Church as a confederation of autonomous particular Churches. The sacraments administered by schismatics are valid if their essential elements are intact.
III. IN MORALS. — According to St. Thomas (Sum. Theol., II-II, q. 39), *schisma* is a sin against the virtue of charity, since it directly opposes ecclesiastical communion and unity, which is an effect of charity.
*Schisma* is divided into mixed and pure, according as the separation from unity is or is not accompanied by heresy. Since Vatican Council I defined as a dogma the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, it is no longer possible to have *schisma* without heresy. Theoretically, however, the two sins remain distinct by reason of their formal object. *Schisma* opposes unity, an effect of charity, while heresy opposes the virtue of faith. The sin of *schisma* implies more than simple disobedience, for it involves rebellion and the denial of legitimate authority. This sin is in itself mortal and admits of no parity of matter, that is, it cannot be venial except through lack of full advertence.
Like heresy, the sin of *schisma* is divided into: 1) formal and material, according as it is or is not conjoined with pertinacity; 2) internal and external, according as it resides only in the soul or is manifested outwardly; 3) public and occult, according as it is manifested to a considerable number of persons or not.
The consequences of this sin are most grave. The schismatic, by willfully placing himself outside the Church, does not share in the divine life of the Mystical Body and is deprived of the means of sanctification. Even if in good faith, a schismatic cannot receive the sacraments unless first reconciled with the Church (can. 731 § 2). An exception may be made in the case of danger of death, in which, to ensure the salvation of the soul, the sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction may be administered, provided there is no danger of scandal, at least conditionally, if the schismatic is unconscious, or if, being conscious, it seems advisable to leave him in good faith.
IV. IN CANON LAW. — *Schisma* is placed on a par with heresy (can. 1325 § 2). According to can. 2242 § 1, it is a delict requiring in the subject full advertence and obstinacy in a grave matter, as well as public manifestation or at least an external and verifiable act. Hence, if an act that might seem to be *schisma* is done without knowledge, the delict is not incurred. If someone, through a grave delict, unwillingly, is separated from communion with the faithful, he is excommunicated but not a schismatic. For schismatics, the ecclesiastical penalties are the same as those prescribed for heretics (v. ERESIA).
V. IN CHURCH HISTORY. — We here touch upon the principal schisms, referring for a fuller treatment to the respective articles. From Apostolic times there were dissensions, though they did not assume the character of *schisma* in the present sense of the word. These were internal disputes within the communities, such as those to which St. Paul alludes and, at the end of the 1st century, St. Clement (v.). In the 2nd century, the differing observance of Easter (v.) threatened a *schisma* between the Church of Rome and those of Asia, which was averted. Yet a party of Jewish converts began to celebrate Easter in a manner judged Ebionite, with
**SCHISM OF THE WEST**
Schisme, in DThC, XIV, 1, cols. 1286 ff.; H. Lesètre, Schisme, in DB, V, 1529 ff.; P. Hayoit, Les délits d'hérésie, d'apostasie et de schisme, in Rev. dioc. de Tournai, 5 (1930), pp. 134 ff. For the study of CONCILIO (v.), see the bibliography of the respective articles. Vincenzo Carbone