Difference between "Schismatic" and "Protestant"

[dean24us]

Hello! As the title of this thread denotes, I am trying to understand the difference between the terms “Schismatic” and “Protestant”. Is there some difference between the two, or does “Protestant” simply refer to Schismatics which arose from the Protestant Reformation?

God bless,
Dean

 

[Skeptic92]

Hello! As the title of this thread denotes, I am trying to understand the difference between the terms “Schismatic” and “Protestant”. Is there some difference between the two, or does “Protestant” simply refer to Schismatics which arose from the Protestant Reformation?

God bless,
Dean

it’s messy but a Schismatic group tend to have valid Holy Orders while Protestants tend not to. However if you throw certain Anglican and Lutheran groups into the mix- Protestants can also be Schismatics.

 

[Gorgias]

if you throw certain Anglican and Lutheran groups into the mix- Protestants can also be Schismatics.

:banghead:

Umm… a schismatic is one who was united to the Catholic Church, but who has refused to follow the authority of the Pope. Those who broke away from the Church during the Protestant Reformation were schismatics. Those who were born into Protestant families, or who were never Catholics but are now Protestant, cannot properly be called ‘schismatics’.

So, the difference between ‘Protestant’ and ‘schismatic’ is that a Protestant is one who is a member of a Christian ecclesial community, but is not Catholic; a schismatic is one who is Catholic, but who has separated themselves from the Catholic Church and from the authority of the pope.

So, the distinction here has nothing to do with validity of Holy Orders; it has to do with a person’s previous association with the Church and their present break from the Church.

Now – a group may be called schismatic, but that’s not strictly the meaning of the term. In that case, we would be talking about a group that was originally part of the Catholic Church but now is not. Are Anglicans and Lutherans, as well as sedevacantists and SSPXers, members in ‘schismatic’ groups? Yes, in a manner of speaking. Is every member of these groups a schismatic? No, not properly speaking.

 

[JM3]

Hello! As the title of this thread denotes, I am trying to understand the difference between the terms “Schismatic” and “Protestant”. Is there some difference between the two, or does “Protestant” simply refer to Schismatics which arose from the Protestant Reformation?

God bless,
Dean

Code of Canon Law

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

“Protestant” falls under heresy and because of the heresy become schismatic.

 

[bzkoss236]

Those who broke away from the Church during the Protestant Reformation were schismatics. Those who were born into Protestant families, or who were never Catholics but are now Protestant, cannot properly be called ‘schismatics’.

They can’t properly be called Protestant either, because the word Protestant implies that they are protesting against something, while a lot of Protestants were born into the faith and have had no real education on Catholicism other than that “it’s wrong”, or in some circles it’s “pagan” and we’re all going to hell. And since they are not really protesting the Catholic faith, due to ignorance, they can’t rightfully be called Protestant. This is where “separated brethren” or non-Catholic Christian is the most accurate.

 

[Gorgias]

Code of Canon Law

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

“Protestant” falls under heresy and because of the heresy become schismatic.

I’ll call your Canon 751 and raise you Canon 11…

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

(This, by the way, is one of the most important differences between the 1917 Code of Canon Law and the 1983 Code – in the former, it was asserted that all the baptized were bound by Canon Law (cf c.12 of the 1917 code), whereas in the latter, only Catholics are held bound by ecclesiastical law.)

Therefore, Canon 751 refers to Catholics, not members of non-Catholic Christian ecclesial communities.

 

[Gorgias]

They can’t properly be called Protestant either, because the word Protestant implies that they are protesting against something, while a lot of Protestants were born into the faith and have had no real education on Catholicism other than that “it’s wrong”, or in some circles it’s “pagan” and we’re all going to hell. And since they are not really protesting the Catholic faith, due to ignorance, they can’t rightfully be called Protestant. This is where “separated brethren” or non-Catholic Christian is the most accurate.

Agreed; but, in common parlance, they call themselves ‘Protestant’, just as we call ourselves ‘Roman Catholic’ (although that’s not properly our name, either!)…

 

[bzkoss236]

Agreed; but, in common parlance, they call themselves ‘Protestant’, just as we call ourselves ‘Roman Catholic’ (although that’s not properly our name, either!)…

Agreed

 

[JM3]

I’ll call your Canon 751 and raise you Canon 11…

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

(This, by the way, is one of the most important differences between the 1917 Code of Canon Law and the 1983 Code – in the former, it was asserted that all the baptized were bound by Canon Law (cf c.12 of the 1917 code), whereas in the latter, only Catholics are held bound by ecclesiastical law.)

Therefore, Canon 751 is refers to Catholics, not members of non-Catholic Christian ecclesial communities.

As stated in one of bzkoss236’s post, non-Catholic Christians are not “Protestant” and, so, Canon 751 does not apply. However, the, so called, “protestants” of the reformation were Catholic and very obstinate in their doubt and denial of the Catholic faith.

 

[porthos11]

The canon describes the crime of heresy, which applies to Catholics to fall into heresy.

Those who have been born into Protestantism aren’t bound by Canon Law and so cannot be formal heretics. They, do, however, remain material heretics as they adhere to doctrines contrary to Catholic teaching. Formal heresy is the crime and subject to penalty, while material heresy is not.

Schism is usually applied to those to generally hold correct doctrine and maintain valid apostolic succession, but have somehow broken communion with the See of Peter. This applies to such Churches as the Orthodox.

The Anglicans would have also been initially schismatic (since Henry VIII did not repudiate any Catholic doctrines; in fact, he reinforced them even after the break with Rome). They would also have retained valid Holy Orders at that time. It was only later when they began to repudiate Catholic teachings and so became heretics as well under Edward VI and Elizabeth I and lost valid Holy Orders.

As with heresy, there is also formal schism and material schism. Formal schism is culpable and subject to penalty, while material schism is not.

 

[JonNC]

They can’t properly be called Protestant either, because the word Protestant implies that they are protesting against something, while a lot of Protestants were born into the faith and have had no real education on Catholicism other than that “it’s wrong”, or in some circles it’s “pagan” and we’re all going to hell. And since they are not really protesting the Catholic faith, due to ignorance, they can’t rightfully be called Protestant. This is where “separated brethren” or non-Catholic Christian is the most accurate.

And the origins of the term Protestant is not in regards a protest of the Catholic Church, but of the Hoy Roman Empire at the Second Diet at Speyer in 1529.

Originally Posted by Gorgias
Agreed; but, in common parlance, they call themselves ‘Protestant’, just as we call ourselves ‘Roman Catholic’ (although that’s not properly our name, either!)…

Some do, some don’t, but you are essentially correct.

Jon

 

[Jehannette]

I’ll call your Canon 751 and raise you Canon 11…

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

(This, by the way, is one of the most important differences between the 1917 Code of Canon Law and the 1983 Code – in the former, it was asserted that all the baptized were bound by Canon Law (cf c.12 of the 1917 code), whereas in the latter, only Catholics are held bound by ecclesiastical law.)

Therefore, Canon 751 refers to Catholics, not members of non-Catholic Christian ecclesial communities.

It’s in the Catechism, also:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

There’s nothing here about a “Catholic baptism,” so heresy, whether material or formal, is something that could apply to all baptized individuals. Granted, Protestants do not suffer any “ecclesiastical penalties,” but as they are barred from the Sacraments anyway, what is there for them “to suffer”? Nowhere does the Church make the claim that all Protestants (or anyone else, for that matter) are in a state of grace.

Heresy is a matter of divine law (which would apply to everyone) and not just ecclesiastical law (the limits of which the Church can sometimes set). It’s ridiculous and absurd to say that a Protestant could go from being a formal heretic to being a material heretic upon the promulgation of a new Code of Canon Law!

 

[Gorgias]

It’s in the Catechism, also:

Yes, it is; yet, since you’re making an appeal to law, then the proper place to find an appropriate answer is the Canons (not the catechism). Are you claiming that the catechism legally binds Catholics? Further, attempting to make your case on the lack of the word “Catholic” in the sentence of the catechism is a rather weak argument.

Heresy is a matter of divine law (which would apply to everyone) and not just ecclesiastical law (the limits of which the Church can sometimes set). It’s ridiculous and absurd to say that a Protestant could go from being a formal heretic to being a material heretic upon the promulgation of a new Code of Canon Law!

You want to base your argument on the divine / ecclesiastical law distinction? OK, we can disprove your argument on those grounds, too! Take a look at c.748:

Can. 748 §1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.

Heresy is a failure to ‘embrace and keep’ the truth. Canon 748 identifies that there is a divine law component to heresy; however, it binds “when (one) has found” “the truth in matters (of) God and his Church”. In other words, if one was never a Catholic, one could not be considered to have found the truth of Catholicism. Therefore, the divine law implications do not attach.

Another translation I’ve seen of this canon renders it this way:

All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

This makes even a stronger claim against your argument. If we read the canon in this way, then we see that a non-Catholic Christian is bound by divine law to observe “the truth which they have come to know”. In other words, not only is there not an ecclesiastical sanction for heresy, but there’s an obligation to hold to one’s belief (inasmuch as that belief speaks to the truth). Read this way, there is no corresponding divine law requirement to hold to truth that they have not come to know. Therefore, you cannot claim that c. 751 implies a divine law sanction for a non-Catholic Christian.

 

[Jehannette]

Everything that you said is irrelevant. Protestants cannot receive the Sacraments, which places them in a de facto state of excommunication:

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.

Can. 844 §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

No difference exists between a Protestant and a Catholic who has been excommunicated, other than the latter is still bound by ecclesiastical law.

If you’re saying that formal heresy is impossible for a Protestant, then you would be contradicting what Vatican II declared in Lumen Gentium:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, **would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.**

 

[dean24us]

Just wanted to say ‘thanks’ to everyone who took the time to provide such informative responses. I have to admit that it was a bit like drinking from a fire hose, but better too much information than not enough.

God bless,
Dean

 

[Gorgias]

Everything that you said is irrelevant. Protestants cannot receive the Sacraments, which places them in a de facto state of excommunication:

:ehh: Again, excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty; therefore it doesn’t apply to non-Catholics. The two just don’t have any connection to one another: it’s like saying something as incongruous as “that apple is in a state of mortal sin”. Those who are not Catholic are not and cannot be “in a state of excommunication”, de facto or not; they were never fully part of the communion in the first place. If all you’re saying is that they cannot receive the sacraments, then fine; but that doesn’t imply ‘excommunication’. By your standard, my dog is ‘excommunicated’, since he cannot validly receive the Eucharist…

No difference exists between a Protestant and a Catholic who has been excommunicated, other than the latter is still bound by ecclesiastical law.

Not at all true. If that were true, then it’d be true that all Protestants go to hell. That’s not at all what the Church teaches.

If you’re saying that formal heresy is impossible for a Protestant, then you would be contradicting what Vatican II declared in Lumen Gentium:

Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

I am absolutely not contradicting LG – however, in reference to that passage, I am asserting that Protestants do not, properly speaking, know the necessity of the Church, and therefore, their refusal to enter into it doesn’t apply here.

 

[Jehannette]

:ehh: Again, excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty; therefore it doesn’t apply to non-Catholics. The two just don’t have any connection to one another: it’s like saying something as incongruous as “that apple is in a state of mortal sin”. Those who are not Catholic are not and cannot be “in a state of excommunication”, de facto or not; they were never fully part of the communion in the first place. If all you’re saying is that they cannot receive the sacraments, then fine; but that doesn’t imply ‘excommunication’. By your standard, my dog is ‘excommunicated’, since he cannot validly receive the Eucharist…

Why then are Protestants, in virtue of their Christian baptisms, barred from receiving the Sacraments of the Church:

Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.

Not at all true. If that were true, then it’d be true that all Protestants go to hell. That’s not at all what the Church teaches.

The Church teaches that there “is no salvation outside the Church”:

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm

I am absolutely not contradicting LG – however, in reference to that passage, I am asserting that Protestants do not, properly speaking, know the necessity of the Church, and therefore, their refusal to enter into it doesn’t apply here.

Are you saying that this is true of all Protestants? If “the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church,” are you saying that everyone who does not is automatically “invincibly ignorant” of that command? Do Protestants, as human beings, possess human free will? If so, is it at least possible for the Triune God to reveal to them the truths of the Catholic faith in such a way as to make them culpable for their not entering into the Catholic Church?

 

[Gorgias]

Why then are Protestants, in virtue of their Christian baptisms, barred from receiving the Sacraments of the Church:

They’re unable to receive the sacraments because they’re not in full communion with the Church. It’s not a matter of being under a particular penalty (which is what excommunication is); rather, they’re simply not ‘eligible’, as it were, to receive sacraments. In order to be excommunicated, one must first be in communion with the Church; they never were in communion, so they’re likewise not excommunicated (in the juridical sense).

The Church teaches that there “is no salvation outside the Church”:

Yes, you and I have discussed this in other threads around here. You think that if you’re not a Catholic, you’re outta luck. I think the Church teaches otherwise, and magisterial documents over the past fifty years bear out that teaching. We won’t get embroiled in that debate here.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

So, you think that Protestants who were born and raised in their non-Catholic Christian ecclesial communities “know (that) the (Catholic) Church (was) divinely established by Christ”? You think that they know that obedience to the Roman Pontiff is necessary? Because if they don’t, then your assertion – “no one will be saved” – doesn’t apply. The statement is clear: the assertion about salvation (or lack thereof) only applies to those who have this knowledge.

Are you saying that this is true of all Protestants? If “the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church,” are you saying that everyone who does not is automatically “invincibly ignorant” of that command?

No. I think that some Protestants know enough about the Catholic Church to say that they’re not invincibly ignorant. I believe that folks who abandon the Catholic Church and go to a Protestant congregation might know this – on the other hand, they may be so poorly catechized as to be invincibly ignorant. So, whereas I’m not saying that all non-Catholic Christians get a ‘free pass’, I’m also saying that not all non-Catholic Christians are damned (which is what I think you’re saying).

Do Protestants, as human beings, possess human free will? If so, is it at least possible for the Triune God to reveal to them the truths of the Catholic faith in such a way as to make them culpable for their not entering into the Catholic Church?

To those to whom the truths of the Catholic Church are given, there is the responsibility to enter and remain in the Catholic Church. Are you saying that all non-Catholic Christians fall under this category?

 

[Jehannette]

Yes, you and I have discussed this in other threads around here. You think that if you’re not a Catholic, you’re outta luck. I think the Church teaches otherwise, and magisterial documents over the past fifty years bear out that teaching. We won’t get embroiled in that debate here.

Depends on what one means by “Catholic”. Lets look at that Holy Office letter which you can reference here:

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm

This letter is cited one time as a footnote in Vatican II and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, so one can hardly claim that it is not representative of Magisterial teaching:

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

What “infallible statement”? Well, probably this one:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

But, did Florence say that one must be “incorporated into the Church actually as a member”? Probably not, as they used the word “joined with Her”? They could have used a stronger verb, if they had wanted to, say, “incorporated into Her” if they had wanted to teach canonical membership.

However, the Holy Office letter teaches us that membership in the Catholic Church is not “optional”:

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

Now, could there be some exceptions? Certainly, if:

1. “a person is involved in invincible ignorance” AND
2. “a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God…” AND
3. “that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity” AND
4. “unless a person has supernatural faith” AND
5. “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire.”

HOWEVER, “they cannot be sure of their salvation”.

So, you think that Protestants who were born and raised in their non-Catholic Christian ecclesial communities “know (that) the (Catholic) Church (was) divinely established by Christ”? You think that they know that obedience to the Roman Pontiff is necessary? Because if they don’t, then your assertion – “no one will be saved” – doesn’t apply. The statement is clear: the assertion about salvation (or lack thereof) only applies to those who have this knowledge.

I don’t know and you don’t either.

 

[Sirach2]

Jehannette,

You are conveniently cherry-picking those parts of the Vatican’s letter to make the Church mean what you want Her to mean. The letter is merely setting the stage for what follows, which you omitted completely, giving the reader here a meaning that it is not full Church teaching whatsoever.

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

The reference to *From the Housetops *refers to the Fr. Feeney periodical that was being circulated from their Center. This letter was an official denial that what the periodical taught is the same as what the Church teaches. And you seem to have adopted the Feeneyite position completely.

Back up and post the very next paragraphs following the last one in your post.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

And thus follows more explicit teaching regarding this desire, all of which you avoided posting, and which gave an untrue meaning to that Lettter if you truncate it as you have done.