Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 13.djvu/591

 SCHISM

529

SCHISM

date of his birth has been disputed, as the statements concerning it differ nearly twenty years. The year is unknown, and all direct indications are lacking. We know, however, that he attended the school of Lupulus at Bern, which was not opened until 1493. As Schinner was a priest in 1492, the year of his birth could not be later than 1470.

JoLLER, Kardinal Schinner als kathol. Kirchenfurst in Blatter zur Walliser Gesch., I (1895); Idem, Kardinal Schinners Bezie- kungen zur Wahl Kaiser Karls V, 1519, ibid.; Lauber, Kardinal Schinners Bann u. Interdikt iiber seine Gegner, ibid., IV (1909); BixJscH, Der Kardinal Schinner in Sonnlagsblatt des Bund (1890), noa. 14, 15; Wirt, Akten iiber die diplomatisch. Beziehungen der rSmisch. Curie in der Schweiz 1512-1552 in Quellen zur Schweiz. gesch., XVI (1895), xiii-xix.

Albert BtJCHi.

Schism. — I. General Ideas, Moral Character, and Penal Sanctions. — Schism (from the Greek o-x^«^M«, 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 beseechyou, brethren", he writes, ". . .that there be no Bchisms 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 imderstanding and conver- gent 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 ac- companying 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 rebel- lion 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 fra- ternal charity, although they believe what we be- lieve" (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 con- trary 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 dis- obedience is a schism; in order to possess this char- acter 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 neces- sarily 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 schis- matic 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. XIII.— 34

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 mu.st 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., Ixvi, 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 Cathohc Church" (Smyrn., viii, 2). Now through the centralizing evolution which emphasizes the preponderant role of the sov- ereign 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 e.xist two or more claimants of the papacy, each of whom has on his side certain appear- ances 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 accom- panies it. These are: excommunication incurred ipso facto and reserved to the sovereign pontiff (cf. "Apos- tolicse 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 i7i 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 "pas- sive" schism. By the former they understand detach- ing oneself dclibcratc'ly from the" body of the Church, freely renouncing tli(> right to form a part of it. They call passive schism the condition of those whom the Church herself rejects from her bosom by excom- munication, inasmuch as they undergo this separation whether they will or no, having deserved it. Hence, this article %vill 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 monu- ments 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 prac- tical 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