Schism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Richard_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Richard_I

Guest
Got a quick question. The Orthodox Church is seen to be in schism, formal separation from the Catholic Church by Catholics. Are Protestants Schismatics? Specifically those Protestant Churches that are the rare extremities, almost cult like that are hateful and divisive to Catholics? Are they schismatics?
 
Just an opinion, but the Methodists, Episcopalians, and others are in schism. The “way-outs” are just what you said, in some strange cult or offshoot.

If a group morphs into something almost unrecognizable, it doesn’t really matter what they call themselves. We don’t have to argue with anyone who wants to call themselves Christians.
 
You can’t really compare the various Protestant bodies to the Orthodox in this context. The various Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches are true Churches. They possess apostolic succession and valid sacraments. They are in an imperfect communion with the Catholic Church by virtue of these sacraments, though yes, a state of schism exists between our Churches. The various Protestant communities are not true Churches. Individual Protestants, assuming they are validly baptized, certainly are true Christians.
That being said, the term schism is better used to describe groups that break directly from the Catholic Church. The Church doesn’t hold individual Orthodox today guilty of the sin of schism by any means…in fact, Orthodox Christians are welcome to receive holy communion in the Catholic Church.
 
Richard_I said:
Are Protestants Schismatics? Specifically those Protestant Churches that are the rare extremities, almost cult like that are hateful and divisive to Catholics? Are they schismatics?
Click to expand...
Protestant Christians today are not guilty of schism, as most have been separated from the Catholic Church for centuries. There are some who try to justify the continuing fragmentation of Christians instead of praying for unity. They are in grave error, from the Catholic point of view. We should all pray for unity of doctrine as well as communion.
 
Richard_I said:
Got a quick question. The Orthodox Church is seen to be in schism, formal separation from the Catholic Church by Catholics. Are Protestants Schismatics? Specifically those Protestant Churches that are the rare extremities, almost cult like that are hateful and divisive to Catholics? Are they schismatics?
Click to expand...
Catechism
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272​
 
Richard_I said:
Got a quick question. The Orthodox Church is seen to be in schism, formal separation from the Catholic Church by Catholics. Are Protestants Schismatics? Specifically those Protestant Churches that are the rare extremities, almost cult like that are hateful and divisive to Catholics? Are they schismatics?
Click to expand...
The Orthodox are schismatics because they deny the authority of the Pope.

Protestants are heretics because they deny some of the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“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” (CCC 2089).

The Great Heresies
catholic.com/tract/the-great-heresies

The Great Heresies
By Hillaire Belloc
cs.cmu.edu/~spok/metabook/heresies.html

(Chapter Six: ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY6.TXT)
 
One can be schismatic and not be a heretic. One can be a heretic and not be in schism.
The orthodox are, with a couple of exceptions, examples of the first.
Protestants are almost universally both heretics and schismatic.
 
tafan said:
One can be schismatic and not be a heretic. One can be a heretic and not be in schism.
The orthodox are, with a couple of exceptions, examples of the first.
Protestants are almost universally both heretics and schismatic.
Click to expand...
Dogma of the faith from Vatican I:

Session 4 : 18 July 1870

Chapter 1
  1. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.
Chapter 2
  1. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
Chapter 3
  1. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Chapter 4
  1. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
 
Vico, yes, I should have been more clear. Not accepting papal infallibility is one I the exceptions I was referring to. So saying the Orthodox were not heretics, just schismatics was not technically correct.
 
Richard_I said:
Got a quick question. The Orthodox Church is seen to be in schism, formal separation from the Catholic Church by Catholics. Are Protestants Schismatics? Specifically those Protestant Churches that are the rare extremities, almost cult like that are hateful and divisive to Catholics? Are they schismatics?
Click to expand...
I think the Wycliffes’, Luther, Calvin and other FOUNDERS of NEW sects COULD be seen in this light.

I’m [ME here] less sure the title is appropriate to their followers in later years; many of who have been Born into that set of Faith beliefs…

GBY

Patrick
 
If I understand the terms correctly, the Orthodox - Catholic Divide is a “schism” as it is the result of the church splitting over an issue on a macrocosmic level. One bishop went one way, one bishop went another. Who was faithful to the correct, underlying “truth” is determined by which side of the schism you’re on.

This differs from the Protestant “heresy” as there was no common root, per se. The reformation was the result of a completely new “innovation” on how to approach the Christian faith and is not built (perhaps with some pride) on the “fallen” Church it sprang from. Protestantism, is then, a “reboot” of the faith.

Protestants today are certainly not to be regarded as heretics in the same sense Luther, Calvin, Knox or Zwingli are. However, it can be safely said that they are the sons and daughters of spiritual rebellion. The Orthodox, from the Catholic perspective, are sons and daughters of a church separated by Greek-Latin jealousy and pride.

As I have a soft-spot for the Orthodox, I will offer that there have been many Catholics in authority who have given the Greeks some valid fuel for their fires.
 
Vonsalza said:
If I understand the terms correctly, the Orthodox - Catholic Divide is a “schism” as it is the result of the church splitting over an issue on a macrocosmic level. One bishop went one way, one bishop went another. Who was faithful to the correct, underlying “truth” is determined by which side of the schism you’re on.

This differs from the Protestant “heresy” as there was no common root, per se. The reformation was the result of a completely new “innovation” on how to approach the Christian faith and is not built (perhaps with some pride) on the “fallen” Church it sprang from. Protestantism, is then, a “reboot” of the faith.

Protestants today are certainly not to be regarded as heretics in the same sense Luther, Calvin, Knox or Zwingli are. However, it can be safely said that they are the sons and daughters of spiritual rebellion. The Orthodox, from the Catholic perspective, are sons and daughters of a church separated by Greek-Latin jealousy and pride.

As I have a soft-spot for the Orthodox, I will offer that there have been many Catholics in authority who have given the Greeks some valid fuel for their fires.
Click to expand...
Over a;; a GREAT post:thumbsup: thanks

But as for your last sediment: even though it is true, TRUTH, like God - Triune Himself can be nothing other than singular per defined issue.

Well done!

GBY
 
Perhaps those churches founded by reformers who were once part of the Roman Catholic Church could be classified as being in schism with the Roman Catholic Church. Those Protestant Churches which arose in Evangelical contexts or have had no formal relationship with the Roman Catholic church could not be considered schismatic.
 
ignatianphilo said:
perhaps those churches founded by reformers who were once part of the roman catholic church could be classified as being in schism with the roman catholic church. Those protestant churches which arose in evangelical contexts or have had no formal relationship with the roman catholic church could not be considered schismatic.
Click to expand...
agreed!🙂
 
Vico said:
Dogma of the faith from Vatican I:

Session 4 : 18 July 1870

Chapter 1
  1. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.
Chapter 2
  1. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
Chapter 3
  1. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Chapter 4
  1. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
That’s very clearly the Teaching. I receive it, but many say, “hogwash”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top