Schism

Schism.—Schism (etymologically, a split, rent) is defined: “A voluntary separation of oneself from the unity of the Church.”

(a) Schism is a voluntary separation, that is, a separation intended for its own sake. Every sinner in a sense separates himself from unity, for sin divides one from God (Is., lix. 2); but it is only the schismatic who expressly intends separation as such. Other sinners expressly intend some inordinate gratification. Moreover, schism is not the same thing as the state of the unbaptized, who have not separated themselves from unity, or of the excommunicated, whom the Church herself rejected from her body on account of some sin other than schism.

(b) Schism is a separation from unity, and so it differs from disbelief in unity (heresy) and dislike of unity (hatred). One may separate oneself from unity, although one believes in it. One may hate unity, and yet not separate oneself from it. Further, schism does not necessarily include affiliation with some schismatical body or the setting up of such a body.

(c) Schism is a separation of oneself from unity—that is, schism does not deprive the Church of the note of unity, but separates the schismatic himself from that unity which is in the Church. The schismatic may wish to take away the unity of the Church, but he accomplishes only the loss of union of himself with the Church.

(d) Schism is a separation from unity, that is, from fellowship in the mystical body of Christ (I Cor., xii). It is a refusal to recognize the authority of the head of the Church, or to communicate with those subject to him. Thus, schism differs from disobedience to the head of the Church or to particular prelates in the Church, for one may disobey orders and still recognize the authority of him who gives the orders.

(e) Schism is a separation from the unity of the Church, that is, of the spiritual kingdom of Christ on earth. Hence, rebellion in matters purely civil against a churchman who has civil authority, is not schism, but is unjust war or sedition. Schism is possible only in the Church Militant, for the members of the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant cannot fall away from unity.

The Principal Schismatical Movements.—(a) In Apostolic times there were local factions and dissensions, though not real schisms, at Corinth (I Cor., i. 10 sqq.) and in Asia Minor (III John, i. 10). (b) In post-Apostolic times there have been numerous schisms, such as that of the Novatians at Rome in the third century, that of the Meletians in Egypt in the fourth century, that of the Donatists in Africa in the fourth century, that of the Acacians in the East in the fifth century. The most lamentable of all the schisms, because of the number of those whom it led away from unity, was the Eastern Schism, begun by Photius in the ninth century and made permanent under Michael Caerularius in the eleventh century.

Schism is voluntary in two ways: (a) directly, when one intends schism itself, wishing to separate oneself from the head or members of the Church; (b) indirectly, when one intends to do that from which schism follows. Thus, a person who prefers to act as if he were not a member of the Church rather than desist from his design of calling or presiding over an unauthorized Council, is guilty of schism, even though he does not directly intend separation from the Church. His case is similar to that of one who does not wish to kill his neighbor, and yet is determined to do something from which the neighbor’s death will surely result.

There is a threefold unity of the Church, as follows: (a) unity in the theological virtues and in the Sacraments. All the faithful have the same faith, hope, charity, Sacraments, and thus there is a unity of similarity; (b) unity between head and members. There is but one head of the Church, Christ in heaven and the Vicar of Christ an earth. Thus, there is a unity of subordination; (c) unity between the members of the Church. All the faithful form but one society, and all are parts of one great whole. Thus, there is a collective unity.

The sin of schism is committed in two ways (Canon 1325, n. 2). (a) It is committed by separation from the head of the Church on earth and the keystone of unity, that is, the Pope (Col., ii. 18, 19). The mere fact that a man is in rebellion against his bishop does not make him a schismatic, if he continues to acknowledge subjection to the Holy See. But such rebellion is often the first step towards schism. (b) The sin of schism is also committed by separation from the members of the Church. Thus, one who refuses to communicate with Catholics in matters of faith or worship, choosing to act as an independent in those things, is a schismatic.

Rejection of a decision or command of the Pope can happen in three ways:

(a) The reason for rejecting the decision may be the thing commanded, and not the one who gave the command, as when a person refuses to keep a fast or make a restitution commanded by the Pope, because he considers it too difficult. In this case the person is guilty of disobedience, but not of schism, even though he persists in his refusal; for he rejects a commandment of the Church, not the head of the Church.

(b) The reason for rejecting the command may be the one who gave the command, considered as a private individual. As the Pope in his personal relations is not above human weakness, he may be swayed by hatred, prejudice or impulsiveness in issuing commands to or forming judgments about individual subjects. Hence, if we suppose that it is reasonably certain that a Pope is unfavorable to an individual, and that the latter accordingly is unwilling to have a case in which he is concerned fall under the immediate decision of that Pope, neither schism nor any other sin is committed; for it is natural that the person should wish to protect his own interests against unfairness.

(c) The reason for rejecting the Pope’s judgment may be the one who gave the command considered in his official capacity as Pope. In this case the person is guilty of schism, since he disobeys, not because the thing ordered is difficult or because he fears that the individual will be unjust, but because he does not wish to recognize the authority of Pope in him who issued the judgment.

Comparison of Heresy and Schism.—(a) These sins are not the same, since heresy is opposed to faith, schism to charity. A person who really believes that the Church is one in its head and its body, may nevertheless out of pride, hatred, ambition, interest, self-sufficiency, etc., decide not to recognize the authority of the head, or not to communicate with the body. (b) There is an intimate union between heresy and schism, since every heretic separates himself from the unity of faith, while schism is always found to adopt some heresy as a justification for its separation (I Tim., i. 6). Thus, the Eastern Schism soon trumped up charges of heresy against the Church, and history shows that schism almost invariably leads to a denial of papal primacy.

The Opposition between Schism and Charity.—(a) Charity in itself is a spiritual bond of unity between the soul and God, for love is unitive. One who sins against this unity by offending God or his neighbor, is not thereby a schismatic, since one may hate an individual, for example, without hating the Church. (b) Charity in its effect is the communion of all the faithful in one mystical body of Christ, for charity inspires the desire to love, not only individuals, but also the spiritual society formed of individuals in the entire world. One who sins against the unity and peace of the Church is a schismatic.

The Sinfulness of Schism.—(a) Schism has a special seriousness, since it is opposed to the union and peace of mankind as a whole in the universal spiritual society which is the Church. It seems to be the greatest sin against the neighbor; for other sins are against the individual or against the multitude in temporal things, while this sin is against the multitude and in spiritual things. Scripture (cfr. I Cor., i. 10) and Tradition (e.g., St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine) energetically condemn the sin of schism.

(b) Objectively, it is not as serious as unbelief, since unbelief is against God, schism against the neighbor; but subjectively, or in its consequences, it may be greater than unbelief, as when a schismatic sins with greater contempt than an unbeliever, or is an occasion of more danger to others.

Schism, like heresy, may be either formal or material (see 828). (a) Formal schism is that described above, in which one wishes to separate oneself from the unity of the Church, and is in culpable revolt. It is a mortal sin. (b) Material schism is that in which one is in fact separated from the unity of the Church, but is in good faith. An example is the Great Schism of the West (1378-1417), when there were rival claimants for the Papacy, and invincible ignorance among the people as to who was the true head. This kind of schism is not a mortal sin.

The Spiritual Powers of Schismatics.—(a) The power of Orders is not lost through schism, for that power is conferred through a consecration, and the consecrations of the Church are permanent. Hence, a schismatical priest can perform validly the acts that pertain to the power of Orders, such as the celebration of Mass and administration of the Sacraments; but he does not perform those acts lawfully, unless the Church permits, for the power of Orders should not be used by an inferior except as permitted by the superior.

(b) The power of jurisdiction may be lost through schism, for that power depends on a commission received from a superior, which may be withdrawn by him. Hence, a schismatical priest deprived of jurisdiction could not absolve, excommunicate, grant indulgences, or perform other acts that pertain to the power of jurisdiction.

The law of the church on the powers of schismatics is as follows:

(a) All schismatics incur ipso facto excommunication, as well as various inhabilities and penalties (Canon 2314). It is fitting that those who separate themselves should be declared outside the communion of the faithful, and this is what Moses commanded to be done at the time of the schism of Core: “Depart from the tent of these wicked men and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be involved in their sin” (Num., xvi. 26).

(b) The excommunicated are forbidden the celebration of Mass and the active use and administration of the Sacraments and sacramentals, except when the faithful apply to them or when there is danger of death, as declared in Canon 2261.

(c) The excommunicated are denied the power of jurisdiction except in certain cases where the Church grants it for the sake of the common good. Thus, they may give absolution in danger of death (Canon 882), or in common error (Canon 209), or at request, if they are not vitandi or sentenced (Canon 2261). It is the teaching of learned authorities that the Roman Church for the good of souls has allowed ecclesiastical jurisdiction to remain in the schismatic Oriental Churches for the conferring of the Sacraments.

S. Th. II-II, q. 37-42.

954. Sins against private peace. - To peace, which is an effect of charity, several sins are opposed. To private peace there is opposed:

1. In the heart, discord, which is directly contrary to concord or union of wills, and is a dissension of wills (not only of intellects) concerning the good of God or neighbor which from charity we ought to will, namely, concerning a necessary good about which we are bound to consent.

Discord happens in two ways: a) in itself, when someone knowingly and from intention dissents from the good of God or neighbor in which he ought to consent, and thus it is a mortal sin from its genus because it is contrary to charity; b) accidentally, when the intention of some persons is toward a good which pertains to the honor of God or the utility of neighbor, but one judges this to be good, while another has a contrary opinion, and such discord, which is rather of opinions and intellects than of wills, is not against charity nor a sin, unless it is with error concerning those things which are of the necessity of salvation, or exceeds the limits of moderation so that pertinacity is unduly applied. - Discord arises from vainglory, because we love our own will and our own judgment more than is right.

2. From discord often is born contention, which is an altercation of words by which one contradicts another inordinately, either by attacking the truth, or by defending it in an undue mode, for example, with too much acrimony. In the first case it is a mortal sin from its genus, namely, in matter of great moment: of faith, morals, justice, etc.; in the second case it is only venial, unless it generates grave scandal. It likewise arises from vainglory, by which each of those contending strives to carry off victory over the other.

3. From discord and contention sometimes is born strife, which is a fight of hands among private persons, by which, with souls inflamed by anger, one strives to strike or injure another. It is a mortal sin from its genus in the aggressor; yet if it does not exceed measure, as also a very light fight, it is venial. In one defending himself there is no sin, if he does not exceed the limits of moderation; if he exceeds a little, it is venial; if much, mortal, for example, if without necessity someone rises up to injure another gravely. - It arises from anger.

955. Sins against public peace. - To public peace, or peace of a multitude, there are opposed:

1. To the peace of the Church, schism, which is the voluntary separation of oneself from the unity of the Church, the profession of faith being retained, or the voluntary separation of a baptized person from the Catholic Church. It is committed in two ways, for "the unity of the Church is attended in two things, namely, a) in the connection of the members of the Church with one another..., and b) again in the order of all the members to one head... And therefore they are called schismatics 1. (perfectly) who refuse to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff (with rebellion, so that they pertinaciously refuse to obey precepts), and 2. who refuse to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him" (in doctrine, worship, sacraments). From this it is clear that it is a most grave and mortal sin from its whole genus. Nevertheless it is less grave than infidelity, which is against God himself according as he is in himself the first truth upon which faith rests, while schism is against the unity of the Church, which is a participated good and less than God himself. And although charity is nobler than faith, the sin which is opposed against the secondary good of charity, namely, the good of neighbor, is less than infidelity, because the good of neighbor is less than the object of faith, which is God himself.

2. To the peace of a civil multitude, both a) illicit war; and b) sedition, which is a tumult or aggressive war by which one part of the commonwealth unjustly rises up against another, or against the legitimate prince, in which latter case it is called rebellion. It is a sin so much graver as the common good (namely, the peace and unity of society) excels a private good; whence it is mortal from its whole genus.

These sins are also against justice, and are better considered in the treatise on Justice.

956. Observation. - External heretics are also schismatics, but not conversely, although nevertheless schism leads to heresy. Schismatics also are punished by the same ecclesiastical penalties as heretics. Moreover, concerning communication with schismatics and concerning cooperation with schism, one must speak similarly as for heresy (cf. treatise on Faith).

VII. Schism. — Schism, in Greek, in Latin scission, according to usage received among ecclesiastical writers, is taken for a special sin, which is defined : «Voluntary separation of oneself from the unity of the Church²¹² .» The unity of the Church moreover is chiefly regarded in two things, namely in the connection or communion of the members of the Church with each other, and in the order of all members toward one head, which is Christ himself, whose place the supreme Pontiff holds in the Church. ²¹² Here q. 39, a. 1, c.

Whence one can become schismatic three ways : 1° separating himself from the head; 2° from the members; 3° from head and members at once.

[Schism is one thing pure, opposed only to charity and peace, as in those who believe one holy Church, under visible head the Roman Pontiff, and whatever the Roman Church teaches, yet out of pride refuse to submit and obey the Pope, or to be united with the other members of the Church. Another is joined with heresy, in those who separate themselves from obedience to the Pope because they acknowledge not his power. Hence, although all heretics are schismatics, but not conversely, and schism can be severed absolutely from heresy, nevertheless scarcely or hardly ever is true schism found re ipsa without some heresy, or at least without breaking forth into heresy. Schismatics, whether they depart from the unity of the Church, or withdraw themselves from due obedience to the Pope, are punished with excommunication latae sententiae specially reserved in the Roman manner to the Roman Pontiff in the constitutio Apostolicae Sedis, in these words : «Schismatics and those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves or recede from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff existing for the time being.» This censure was renewed by the bull Coenae. From it follows privation of jurisdiction, when schism is manifest²¹³ .] ²¹³ Ibid., a. 3, o.

I. Hatred of God is twofold: one which is included in every sin; the other peculiar, which is described as an aversion from God, by which the will detests God insofar as he prohibits sins and inflicts punishments. This hatred of God is the gravest of all crimes, since it is opposed to the most excellent virtue of charity according to its primary act, namely the divine love. It is by its kind mortal, nor does it admit the excuse of parvity of matter; but it can turn out venial only from imperfect deliberation.

II. Hatred of the neighbor is an expressed malevolence, by which we wish him evil. It is by its kind deadly; yet it can become venial, both by parvity of matter and by imperfect deliberation — as if you wish a light evil to your neighbor, or if with imperfect deliberation you desire it for him.

III. It is licit to abominate the sinner, as sinner, according to Proverbs 29: The just abominate a wicked man. For then the sin is hated, not the man. For it is never licit to wish evil to a man, insofar as it is his evil, even with an inefficacious affection; nor is it licit to be saddened over his good, or to rejoice over his evil, as is plain from the proscribed thesis of Innocent XI recounted in the preceding chapter.

IV. Although it is never licit either to desire or to rejoice over the neighbor's evil, it is nevertheless licit, with an inefficacious affection, to wish some temporal evil to another, and to rejoice over it, insofar as this temporal evil conduces to his spiritual good — for instance, that he desist from sin, that he be called back to a better way — as St. Thomas teaches, on the third book, distinction 30, article 1, ad 4. For charity has an order, and each one ought to love himself more than another, and his kin more than strangers, and friends more than enemies, and the common good of many more than the good of one.

One can, without violating charity, wish some temporal evil to another, or rejoice if it should happen — not insofar as it is his evil, but insofar as it is an impediment of evils to another whom one is more bound to love, or to the Community, or to the Church. Similarly of his temporal evil, according as by the evil of punishment the evil of fault is frequently prevented. Hence it is licit to wish for victory in a just war, for the destruction of the Turks, for the common good of the Church or of the Principality; it is licit to wish that a punishment be inflicted by the judge on a malefactor, that he desist from inflicting harm on the Community or on a neighbor. Yet the utmost vigilance is needed in desires of this kind, however inefficacious, lest under the appearance of the common good the cupidity of private vengeance lie hidden. Similarly it is never licit to wish a lesser evil to oneself or to others in order to avoid a greater. Wherefore they gravely sin who deliberately desire death for themselves in order to avoid other troubles.

V. Question I. Is it a sin to speak ill of one's neighbor? Answer. He who with deliberate mind imprecates a grave evil upon his neighbor sins mortally. Weak women, and base men, frequently burst forth into these imprecations, and, to excuse themselves, allege the impulse of anger, as though anger were not a sin. That anger can at times forestall reason is true; but frequently, from a depraved habit and from grave negligence in restraining anger, women and men break forth into such curses. They often say, when their anger has cooled, that they are displeased at having hurled such curses; but this is not a sign that they did not sin: for when the anger has been poured out, the mind perceives the evil it has committed, and therefore is then displeased. Parish priests and Confessors, then, should instruct such persons, and show them the necessity of curbing the savage beast of anger: since their frequent curses flow from a depraved habit of becoming angry. But this wicked habituation does not excuse them, but accuses them. That Confessors may be able to discern whether they have offended gravely or lightly, let them weigh all the circumstances, the deliberation of mind, the scandal, the gravity of the evil wished, and the rest of that kind.

VI. Question II. What is discord? Answer. It is a dissension of wills from the divine good and the good of the neighbor, in which they ought to agree. It is opposed to concord, which unites hearts and wills. By its kind it is a mortal sin. For God, Proverbs 6, detests him who sows discord among brethren. It is required, however, that someone knowingly dissent from the good of God or of the Neighbor, as St. Thomas teaches, II-II, q. 37, art. 1. Wherefore there is no discord when one, in good faith, judges that this pertains to the honor of God and the utility of the Neighbor, and another judges otherwise. For this frequently happens even among the holier men themselves.

VII. Question III. What is contention? Answer. It is an altercation of words for impugning the truth; or it is an impugning of the truth with a confidence of clamor, as the Angelic Doctor says, II-II, q. 38, art. 1, where he opportunely adds: But if contention is called an impugning of falsity with a due measure of acrimony, then contention is praiseworthy. Acrimony must never be poured out upon persons, but only, with due sparingness, upon errors. This acrimony is like a seasoning, which must be used with great prudence and moderation, especially in vocal disputations. For when men dispute with mutual words, if they clamor with an immoderate outcry of voices, if they rub each other with mutual wit, the disputation easily ends in criminal contention, because the persons are present. But when errors are refuted in writing, often the authors of the errors are either dead or absent; therefore there is no danger of culpable contention. Hence it is that the mildest Fathers — Augustine, Bernard, and others — often used a style sprinkled with wit. For the reader is wearied by a cold reading; but, on the contrary, writing seasoned with a moderate pepper of acrimony sharpens his palate.

VIII. Question IV. What is Schism? Answer. It is a deliberate separation from the unity of the Church. Now he is separated from the Church who refuses either to communicate with her members, or to render due obedience to the Roman Pontiff, her visible head. Not every disobedient man is a schismatic, because pertinacity can be lacking. But every schismatic is disobedient; just as every heretic is a schismatic, but not conversely. Yet in practice these two crimes, schism and heresy, are scarcely separated, as St. Thomas teaches, II-II, q. 39, art. 1, ad 3.

IX. Question V. What is sedition? Answer. It is an aggressive war of one part of the Commonwealth against another part, or against its own Prince. It is by its kind a mortal sin, because it is gravely adverse to peace, to unity, and to the common good. Of war and duel I shall treat in explaining the fifth precept.

BY Schism, worse still, one sins, in that he rejects with a discordant will the truth acknowledged in his mind, and, in place of the closer union in the dogma of faith, follows a long distance of wills; wherefore it is chiefly opposed to Charity, which dwells in the will and reduces the members of the Church into one body; hence we shall inquire what sort of sin, and how great, Schism is.

The name of SCHISM is derived from the verb scindo (I rend), as St. Bonaventure notes in speculo animae, cap. 1. From this word begins to shine forth what sort of sin Schism is: For schism is a disjunction by which one separates himself from the unity of the Church, as it is a certain mystical body, consisting of the faithful of various conditions as members mutually connected, especially with the Head, the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ. So reports St. Bonaventure in declaratione terminorum Theologiae. It is defined more briefly by the Angelic Doctor in the place cited here near the end: Schism is the illicit dissension of those among whom unity ought to exist.

The Fathers insert this, when they say that by Schism a man is separated from the Church, as Jerome says in cap. 3. ad Titum; that the unity of the Church is rent, as Irenaeus says Lib. 4. cap. 43., and Cyprian in Lib. de unitate Ecclesiae.

HOW, however, one rends himself from that unity will be perceived once the reason of the unity of the body of the Church is recognized, which consists in an analogical proportion to offices, and to the unity of the human body, in which the members are various, deputed to various offices: some for working, as the hands; some for seeing, as the eyes; some for speaking, as the tongue, lips, palate, etc. For so in this mystical body some are destined for laboring in holy works; others for seeing and providing; others for speaking, teaching, instructing, etc. Hence the Apostle often expounds the state of the Church with this metaphor in his Epistles, as Rom. 12., 1 Cor. 13., Ephes. 4.

HENCE indeed the reason of Schism appears, which is: refusing to conduct oneself in the manner proposed by the Church, and suitable to oneself, among those working and subject to the Supreme Head, to whose governance the whole body is subject.

I assert, therefore, first, that Schism is a mortal sin.

It is proved by 1 Cor. 1. where the Apostle gravely enjoins: Let there be no schisms among you; for to separate oneself from the unity necessary for salvation is a great sin.

I assert that Schism is a special mortal sin.

It is proved, because by Schism the singular bond of Charity is broken, as the Apostle teaches, 1 Cor. 12., saying: Let there be no schism in the body, but the members should be mutually careful one for another, etc. And Ephes. 4.: Bearing with one another in Charity, careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body, and one Spirit; and below: The whole body, compacted and connected by every joint of administration, according to the operation in the measure of the increase of every member, makes the increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in Charity. See also St. Bonaventure in 4. dist. 13. dub. 4. litt.

THEN it is proved from the Fathers, who say that by Schism Charity and peace are violated; so St. Cyprian Lib. de unitate Ecclesiae, where he offers wondrous things on this matter; Augustine Lib. de fide, et Symbolo, cap. 10. et Lib. 2. de Baptismo contra Donatum, cap. 6.

It is proved third, because each one is bound to will, for himself and his neighbor, that good of Charity, and of peace, and of communion in the same body of the Church.

HENCE you can know that someone can be a Schismatic even if he is not a heretic, if, namely, he separates himself from obedience to the Pontiff whom he nonetheless believes to be the Vicar of Christ. For heresy, besides the scission, adds a perverse dogma, as St. Bonaventure notes in centil. in the place to be cited.

The Fathers recognized this distinction: Chrysostom homil. 11. ad Eph., Augustine de fide, et Symbolo, cap. 10. et Lib. 2. contra Cresconium, cap. 7., Jerome in 3. ad Titum, as St. Bonaventure notes in speculo animae, cap. 1.

MOREOVER this disobedience is not against some simple precept, say, of fasting, but is rebellious disobedience against the very Pastor; as Valencia notes (disp. 3. quaest. 15. puncto 1.), Cajetan (in summa, verbo Schisma.). The Angelic Doctor warns, however (p. p. centil. sect. 26.), that Schism usually leads into heresy, that is, into a heretical dogma; namely, that the Church is not to be obeyed.

There will also be Schism if one separates himself from the members of the Church by refusing to conform himself to the other members in the rites: from which it is clear that even the Pope, should that supposition occur, could become a Schismatic, as Turrecremata notes (lib. 4. summa de Ecclesia, part. 1. cap. 11.), Cajetan (hic, art. 1.), Bannes (ibi), Valencia (loco cit.). This would happen if he excommunicated the whole Church; if he refused to use the ecclesiastical rites, etc. See these Doctors.

MOREOVER I say this would come to pass if the Pontiff were so to behave; for I hold that God will ever stand by with a special providence, lest the person of the Pontiff fall so, just as he has ever stood by, lest any Pontiff fall into heresy or Schism. See the authors cited.

I assert first that Schism is a most grave sin.

It is proved, because it wounds a great good of the Church, which is the most splendid unity of the mystical body of the Church; whence it seems the gravest among sins against one's neighbor, as Valencia says, puncto 1. Hence the holy Doctors gravely reprehend this scission. So Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34., Chrysostom homil. 11. ad Eph., Augustine Lib. 2. de Baptismo cont. Donat. cap. 6.

I assert second that heresy is graver by its object, since it is against divine truth; yet by its harm Schism is often the worse, as is clear, and has been clear, from experiences, as they note with St. Thomas, Tannerus disp. 2. quaest. 6. dub. 2. num. 17.

I suppose first that Schismatics do not lose spiritual power: that which consists in the Character of Baptism, Confirmation, or Order; for this is indeleble, as St. Thomas teaches, art. 3., and others, and as is clear from Urban, can. Ordinationes, dist. 9 quaest. 1., who decrees that those ordained by Schismatic Bishops are truly ordained; and St. Augustine Lib. 6. de Baptismo, cap. 5., where he says: A man in separation can hand on the Sacrament, just as he can have it.

Second, it is certain that these Schismatics are deprived of the faculty of using rightly and lawfully this power of the Character; and indeed are deprived of this power as to its lawful use. So St. Thomas art. 3. It is had in cap. Novatianus, causa 7. quaest. 1.

Understand the Fathers of the Lateran Council in this sense, cap. 1. extra, de Schismaticis, saying: We judge the ordinations made by Octavian and Guy, heresiarchs, to be null. This Urban also says in can. Ordinationes, 9. quaest. 1.; for it must be understood as to their lawful execution, as the Gloss expounds there, and St. Thomas loco cit., and Turrecremata Lib. 4. summae, part. 1. cap. 7.

Yet in necessity it is lawful to receive Baptism from a Schismatic, as St. Thomas notes, art. 4. ad 1.

Third, it is certain that these incur excommunication, laid down in can. Nulli, dist. 19., according to Sylvester, V. Schismatici, num. 5. after Archidiaconus, Hugo, Innocentius, and Ioan. Andreas, and in cap. Excommunicamus, de haeret., and in the Bulla coenae, as Valencia notes, quaest. 15 puncto 3., Tannerus disp. 2. quaest. 6. dub. 2.

Fourth, it is certain that through Schism those who can incur excommunication lose jurisdiction ipso facto, and they are all below the Pope; for the Excommunicated lose jurisdiction, from whose power we are freed, as Valencia notes loco cit., drawing on Cajetan de authoritate Papae, cap. 22., indeed on Gregory VII, can. Nos sanctorum, 15. quaest. 6.

But the Pontiff cannot by excommunication fall from his dignity.

Fifth, it is certain that pertinacious Schismatics can be punished by deposition, as is clear in Can. In nomine Domini, 23., and Turrecremata and Valencia note it above. And if they still do not come to their senses, they can be punished with corporal punishments, with the help of the secular arm, as Pope Pelagius orders, de Liguribus, 23. q. 5., and St. Thomas teaches, art 4. ad 3., Tannerus num. 11.

The controversy, however, is whether by the force of Schism jurisdiction is lost, and indeed whether even the Pontiff, should he become a Schismatic, falls from the Papacy.

The same question is about the sin of heresy: whether by its force jurisdiction, even papal, is lost.

The first opinion is that jurisdiction, especially papal, is never lost, neither through Heresy nor through Schism, which is the lesser. So Cajetan, de authoritate Papae, cap. 20. 21. and 22. Sotus seems to feel the same, 4. dist. 22. quaest. 2. art. 2.; Canus lib. 4. de locis, cap. 2. and cap. ult. ad arg. 22.; and others as gathered by Turrecremata, Lib. 4. summae, part. 2. cap. 19.

The second opinion, extremely opposite, is that by Schism or heresy, even occult, the power of jurisdiction is lost, even papal. So St. Thomas hic, art. 3.; Turrecremata cap. 20.; Sylvester, verbo Schismatici, num. 3., where he says this is the unanimous sense of all the Doctors; and others as gathered by Valencia, disp. 3. quaest. 15. puncto 3.

The third opinion is the middle one: that the manifest Schismatic and heretic loses the power of jurisdiction ipso facto; but not the occult one, until he either becomes manifest or is declared by the sentence of the Church. All who judge that those do not altogether cease to be members of the Church who communicate with the other faithful, at least by external profession of faith and of the Sacraments, seem to hold this opinion. So Vuald. Tom. 1. Lib. 2. cap. 9. et 11.; Driedo Lib. 4. de Ecclesiasticis dog. et Scripturis, cap. 2. part. 2. sent. 2. et 7.; Castro Lib. 4. de locis, cap. 6. ad arg. 12.; Bellarm. Lib. 3. de Ecclesia, cap. 12. and Lib. 2. de Romano Pontifice, cap. 30.; Valencia supra, who says this opinion more easily avoids the confusions and dangers which could otherwise follow in the Church if the actions of Schismatics and heretics were invalid ipso facto; so also Tannerus disp. 3. quaest. 6. dub. 2. num. 22.

Second, because this man, though he is not intrinsically a part of the Church, is nevertheless still a member of the Church by external union, through the profession and use of the Sacraments.

It is confirmed by what Pope Coelestinus says, epist. ad clerum Constantinop., where he says that Nestorius and his followers, after they began to preach their heresies, could not excommunicate anyone or remove anyone from his place, because they no longer had the power to do so. He says the same in another letter to John of Antioch. The same is said of any Bishop in can. Audivimus, 24. quaest. 1.: that no one can condemn anyone from the moment he begins to preach a heresy of his own devising.

Finally others, the Fathers, want it to hold absolutely, being brought forward by the Doctors of the second opinion, as Cyprian Lib. 1. epist. 6.; Ambrose Lib. 1. de poenit. cap. 2.; Augustine in Enchir, cap. 65.; Optatus Lib. 1. cont. Parmen.; and Bede in cap. 18. Matthaei.

You will object, with the second opinion: He who has jurisdiction over the body of the Church must be a member united to it; for he who is divided cannot influence or move; but the Schismatic and heretic, even occult, is severed: Therefore. The minor is proved of the heretic; for Faith is the foundation of the union. As to the Schismatic, it is clear from the definition of Schism.

[Page 156 of the 1676 edition is missing from the only scan of this volume available to us, and therefore from this text. It held the end of this question, the opening of Disputation XVI, On War, and the beginning of its first question; the headings are supplied from the printed index.]

BEFORE Jesus Christ came on earth religion was a national institution. The religion of the Egyptians, Persians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans was national; they all worshipped the national gods in the national way. Even the Jewish religion was national, but, according to many a glowing passage of the Old Testament, a great change was to take place in this respect when the Messias came. He would establish a universal kingdom, he would rule from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth; all kings would adore him, and all the nations of the earth would serve him. Jesus Christ himself foretold that his Gospel was to be preached in the whole world, that they would come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and sit down in the kingdom of God, and that penance and remission of sins would be preached to all nations. In his final charge to his Apostles he commanded them to teach all nations, to make disciples of all nations, to preach the Gospel to every creature. All that believed and were baptized would be saved. The Apostles were to be witnesses unto him even to the uttermost part of the earth. And so the middle wall of partition was broken down; the religion of Jesus Christ was not a national religion: it was a religion for all mankind; it was a universal, a Catholic religion.

Catholicity, then, was always a distinguishing mark of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. Christians were taught from the beginning to profess their faith in the Catholic Church. When heresies and schisms arose they were easily distinguished from the Church founded by Jesus Christ. They were particular, sectional: she was universal, Catholic. Schisms and sects were given the name of their founder; they were Donatist, Arian; or they took their name from some doctrine which they preached, like the Monophysites; or from the country where they lived, like the Cataphrygians: the Church founded by Jesus Christ was simply the universal, the Catholic Church. All through history it has been the same. In the sixteenth century Lutherans, Calvinists, Protestants separated from the Church, which always remained simply Catholic. Sometimes a sect would give itself the name of Catholic and Apostolic, but the world insisted on calling it Irvingite. When the Eastern Church went into schism it maintained that it was the whole Catholic Church, but still it called itself and was called by others the Orthodox Church. When Henry VIII and Elizabeth set up a new form of religion in England, it became known as the Church of England. An active section of the Church of England calls itself Catholic, and it would give much if it could induce others to do the same, but the most that the world will concede to them is to call them Anglo-Catholics. The simple name of Catholic is reserved for the old, historic, universal Church founded by Jesus Christ.

In the past, Anglo-Catholics have frequently protested against “the exclusive and arrogant usurpation of the name Catholic by the Church of Rome.” The last to do so was Bishop Gore, who devoted to this theme a course of sermons delivered in the Grosvenor Chapel, Mayfair, London. Father F. Woodlock, S.J., answered him in a course preached at Farm Street. This course has been published by Longmans with the title Constantinople, Canterbury, and Rome. Father Woodlock has no difficulty in showing that the Bishop is neither Catholic nor consistent. The Catholic doctrine about the Church is quite clear and precise, and it is founded on the teaching of our Lord himself. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth. As the Apostles and their successors were commanded to teach all the truths contained in the Gospel, so all who heard them were commanded, under pain of damnation, to believe all that the Apostles and their successors taught. He would guarantee their teaching; he would be with them in their teaching to the end of time; the powers of evil and of falsehood should never prevail against his Church. Those who heard their preaching heard him; those who despised them despised him and the Father who sent him. If anyone refused to hear the Church and preferred his own private judgement, he was to be treated as a heathen and a publican.

This is very different from Dr. Gore’s teaching. According to him there is no security that the Church of the New Covenant may not go wrong as the Church of the Old Covenant went wrong. Again and again the evidence shows that it has done so, he says. Throughout life it has been a principle with him that “to accept ecclesiastical authority in the face of the best judgement of his own reason would be an impossible treason against light.” That is not Catholic doctrine; it is not even orthodox Protestantism: it is flat rationalism. Bishop Gore claims the right to follow his own private judgement against the judgement of the Church, but if any of his hearers ventures to follow his own private judgement against that of some Anglo-Catholic leaders, he threatens them with the judgement of Christ !

One of the plainest things in the New Testament is that Jesus Christ taught with authority and required in his hearers absolute faith in and submission to his teaching. If any teacher was ever authoritative and dogmatic, Jesus Christ was. And yet Dr. Gore, who claims to be a Christian Bishop, and who undoubtedly is an able man, tells us that Christ “plainly desired that every man should think for himself’; that he “was strangely adverse to the dogmatic method,’ and that according to Christ “mere submission to dogmatic authority ” was a spirit to be discouraged. Truth to say, Catholicism and Anglo-Catholicism are poles apart even on first principles.