Schism

SCHISM. - Originally s. (σκίωμα) means a tear, a fissure, hence a divergence of opinion, dissent; in particular: a division that separates the members of one and the same society. In ecclesiastical language it means separation from the unity of the Church.

I. NOTION

St. Paul uses the term for the internal dissensions of the community of Corinth, caused by different interpretations of Christian doctrine (I Cor. 1:10), by the diversity of classes (11:18) and by natural egoism (12:25). In II Cor. 18-19 the two terms s. and heresy (v.) recur, the latter of which seems conceived as an aggravation of s. through doctrinal divergence.

The Apostolic Fathers do not give the term s. a technical ecclesiological value. In St. Ignatius of Antioch there is the first formula for a criterion for determining the word s., which he used to indicate separation from the legitimate bishop. S. therefore meant at first the breaking of unity within the ambit of the local Church, in relation to the bishop. Then, since all the local Churches were united among themselves, breaking communion with a particular bishop was separation from the unity of the universal Church. St. Cyprian insists clearly on the universal character of s. He does not, however, stop to distinguish s. from heresy and against Novatianism uses the two terms indiscriminately. But 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 too (Adv. Haer., IV, 33, 7: PG 7, 1076) had indicated with s. the breaking of unity, without detriment to the faith. St. Optatus of Milevis noted the difference, finding in heresy the corruption of the faith and in s. the separation from unity (De schism. donatist., I, chaps. 10-11: PL 11, 906-907). The clear distinction also occurs in St. Basil (cf. Epist., 188, canonical 1st: PG 32, 665). St. Augustine distinguished well between heresy, which violates the faith, and s., which breaks fraternal communion (De fide et symb., chap. 10: PL 40, 193). In defending, however, the constitution of the emperor Honorius, which subjected the Donatists to the penalties sanctioned against heretics, he expressed the idea that every dissent, by persisting, ends in heresy and that this was precisely what had happened in Donatism (Contra Cresc., II, chap. 7: PL 43, 471). St. Jerome too pointed out that every schismatic, in order to justify his secession, gives life to a heresy (In epist. ad Tit., chap. 3, vv. 10-11: PL 26, 598). At the time of the scholastic period, when a treatise on the nature and effects of s. began to be elaborated, s. came to be conceived as rebellion against the pope. The controversies of the 16th-17th centuries confirm the exclusive insistence on the concept of s. as defection from the pope. The polemics over later schisms brought no new elements.

II. IN DOGMATICS

Schism is the voluntary separation from the unity of the Church as a society resulting from the faithful as members and from the Roman pontiff as head. Schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the pontiff and to communicate with those who are subject to him (CIC, can. 1325 § 2). For Protestants, who deny the visibility and the hierarchical constitution of the Church, the Catholic notion of schism is foreign. Separated Christians and Anglicans, on account of their different ecclesiology, conceive of schism as a rupture with the local or national Church, in relation to the bishop. They indeed consider the Church as a confederation of autonomous particular Churches. The Sacraments administered by schismatics are valid, if their essential elements are intact.

III. IN MORAL THEOLOGY

Schism, according to St. Thomas (Sum. Theol., 2ª-2ªc, q. 39), is a sin against the virtue of charity. It is in fact directly opposed to ecclesiastical communion and to unity, which is the effect of charity.

Schism is divided into mixed and pure, according as the separation from unity is or is not accompanied by heresy. After the Vatican Council defined the primacy of the Roman pontiff as a truth of faith, schism without heresy is no longer possible. Theoretically, however, they are two distinct sins, because of the diversity of their formal object. Schism is in fact opposed to unity, the effect of the virtue of charity, whereas heresy is opposed to the virtue of faith. The sin of schism implies more than simple disobedience, because it involves a rebellion and a denial of legitimate authority. Such a sin is in itself mortal and admits no parvity of matter, that is, it cannot be venial, except through lack of advertence.

Like heresy, the sin of schism is divided into: 1) formal and material, according as it is or is not joined with pertinacity; 2) internal and external, according as it resides only in the soul or is manifested outwardly; 3) public or occult, according as it is manifested to a considerable number of persons or not.

Most grave are the consequences of this sin. The schismatic, finding himself voluntarily outside the Church, does not participate in the divine life of the mystical body and is deprived of the means of sanctification. In fact, to the schismatic, even if he is in good faith, the Sacraments cannot be administered, unless he has first been reconciled with the Church (can. 731 § 2). An exception may be made in the case of danger of death, in which, in order to ensure the salvation of the soul, the sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction may, with every danger of scandal removed, be administered, at least sub condicione, if the schismatic is deprived of his senses, or if, having the use of his senses, it seems opportune to leave him in good faith.

IV. IN CANON LAW

Schism is placed on the same level as heresy (can. 1325 § 2). According to can. 2242 § 1, it is a crime, which requires in the subject full awareness and obstinacy in a grave matter, besides public manifestation or at least a character that is in itself external and verifiable. Therefore, if an act that may appear to be one of schism is done without awareness, there is no crime. If someone, for a grave crime, were separated unwillingly from the communion of the faithful by excommunication, he would be excommunicated, but not a schismatic. For schismatics the ecclesiastical penalties are the very same as those decreed for heretics (v. ERESIA).

V. IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH

Here mention is made of the principal schisms, referring for a fuller treatment to the respective entries. From the time of the Apostles there were dissensions, which however did not take on the character of schism in the current sense of the word. These were internal disagreements 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 different practice of celebrating Easter (v.) threatened a schism between the Church of Rome and those of Asia, which was able to be avoided. But a party of converted Jews began to celebrate Easter in the Jewish and Ebionite manner, with the killing of the lamb on the 14th of Nisan. The priest Blastus wished to spread this custom in Rome; but the restoration of Jewish customs could not be tolerated. Therefore the Pope excommunicated Blastus, who gave rise to a schism. In the 3rd century a series of schisms opened in Rome and in Africa concerning the election of Callistus (v.) and of Hippolytus (v.). A short time later the schism of Novatian (v.) broke out in Rome in opposition to Pope Cornelius. On the other hand, Novatus and Felicissimus represented the lapsi at Carthage against the discipline of Cyprian, and allied themselves with the Roman group in order to fight their respective bishops. Despite the excommunication, the schism continued to spread for about two centuries. At the beginning of the 4th century, after the persecution of Diocletian, the question of the readmission of the traditores was very much alive, especially in Africa. The rigid current, represented by Donatus (v.), gave rise to the Donatist schism, which dragged on for a long time.

With the intensifying of the Trinitarian doctrinal controversies (v. HERESY) schismatic groups also arose, such as, for example, the Meletian (v. MELETIUS) and Luciferian (v. LUCIFER OF CAGLIARI) ones. The condemnation of the Three Chapters (v.) at the Fifth Ecumenical Council provoked serious disturbances in the West, which in northern Italy ended in schism. In the 11th century, with Michael Cerularius, the Eastern schism was consummated, which cut the Byzantine Church off from communion with Rome. In the West, during the Middle Ages, the elections of Innocent II and of Alexander III provoked schisms. Particularly vast and grave was the Western Schism (v.), and then that of the Council of Basel (v.). During the Jansenist controversy the schismatic Church of Utrecht was constituted; and after 1870 that of the Old Catholics (v.), who must moreover be counted among the true heretics.

Vincenzo Carbone