E
EdFoust
Guest
It’s a bit more complicated than that. What did they break away from…by the way?Breaking away, I thought, is the very definition of schism. It is the doctrinal error.
What teaching did they reject and have they been reprimanded for those errors? That was my original question to you that you never answered.
Dogmatic Theology:
EFProposition: Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of rule (hierarchical unity) which consists in this, that all the members of the Church obey one and the same visible authority. [18]
This authority rests in the Catholic episcopate with the Roman pontiff at its head, yet in such wise that it is found full and entire in the latter all by himself.
That Christ so built His Church as to make it necessarily one in oneness of rule is proved by what has already been said about the institution by Christ of the hierarchy and of the Primacy and about their permanent continuity.
The Vatican Council called the supreme pontiff the “principle and foundation” of unity, because by his influence he establishes and preserves unity. Leo XIII called him the “principle and focal point” of unity, especially because all, faithful and bishops alike, must look up to him and stand faithfully by him. This latter description expresses the relationship of the Church to the pope, the former the relationship of the pope to the Church.
Scholion. The Western Schism.
It might seem that unity of rule suffered a setback in the Church at the time of the Western Schism, when for forty years (1378—1417) two or three men claimed to be sovereign pontiff. But with the preservation of unity of faith and communion, hierarchical unity was only materially, not formally, interrupted. [19] Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed the one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance. Consequently, those who through no fault of their own gave their allegiance to an illegitimate pope would no more be schismatics than a person would be a heretic who, desirous of following the preaching of the Church, would admit a false doctrine because he was under the impression that it was taught by the Church.