Schisms and Their Implications

[TylerAlex]

I started another thread about salvation, but I wanted to broaden the topic to discuss schisms and their implications- specifically whether they hurt or harm a person’s road to salvation and restoration of unity with God.

The Catechism defines a schism as: refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff, or of communion with the members of the Church subject to them.

**Is there such thing as a good schism?

What modern day examples of schisms are there?

What are the implications of schisms to the Catholic Church?**

Here is an example I found on the CA site:

Namesake of a Schism

At the time Giuseppe Sarto was elected pope in 1903 and took the name Pius X, the Church was being attacked in Spain, Portugal, and France. The French government suppressed religious orders, attacked religious education, and in 1905 unilaterally separated Church and state and confiscated Church property. When Pius forbade Catholics to form the associations required by the French government to run the churches, things looked desperate; but the government backed down, and, though extremely poor, the French Church struggled on with its integrity intact.

But attack from outside was not the greatest danger. Some priests, infected with bad philosophical ideas and worse theological ones, were striving to make modernism prevail in the Church. While modernism is difficult to define, since its tent is spread large, the Catholic Encyclopedia gives a three-pronged description:

1. A spirit of complete emancipation—the emancipation of science from fear of conflict with the Church, the emancipation of the state from being hampered by religious authority, and the emancipation of the private conscience whose inspirations must not be overridden by papal definitions or anathemas.

1. A spirit of movement and change that abhors anything fixed and stationary.

1. A spirit of reconciliation among all men through the feelings of the heart that must be superior to mere doctrinal differences.

Pius banned the works of leading early–twentieth-century modernists and in 1907 struck hard at modernism with his encyclical Pascendi and his decree Lamentabilis. He demanded from every priest an oath against modernism. Under this vigorous defense the movement wilted.

Pius took as his motto Paul’s expression, “to restore all things in Christ.” He reformed Church music. He reorganized the papal court and Italian seminaries. He reformed the breviary. He began the tremendous task of codifying canon law. But above all, he will be remembered as the Eucharistic Pope. He wished children to receive Communion when they reached the age of reason, and, in a return to early Christian practice, he exhorted Catholics to receive Communion frequently.

Pius predicted that a great war would erupt in 1914, and when it did— the Battle of Liege, first land battle of World War I, ran from August 5–6, 1914—it seemed to break his great heart. He died on August 20, 1914. People thronged around the kind-hearted Pope’s tomb, and miracles occurred. In June 1951, Pope Pius XII beatified and in May 1954 canonized Pius X.

 

[mcs7474]

I would say without judging anyones salvation. I would say that if they know full well the teachings of the church, then they put thier very soul in danger. Like luther for example, but that would be schism and herersy right?

 

[TylerAlex]

Would you consider Joel Osteen Ministries to be a schism?

If so, what are the implications?

 

[thistle]

Would you consider Joel Osteen Ministries to be a schism?

If so, what are the implications?

To be in schism doesn’t it mean you have to be Catholic and and in communion with the Church first and then as a group subsequently refuse to submit to Rome?
Can an individual be in schism?

By the way who is Joel Osteen? If he’s American then most people outside the US like myself would probably not have heard of him.
Is he a Catholic who has left the Church or just some Protestant preacher who started his own church in order to ask for money from people to enrich himself.

 

[TylerAlex]

By the way who is Joel Osteen? If he’s American then most people outside the US like myself would probably not have heard of him.
.

The latest “star” among the Christian world. Sells out 40,000-50,000 stadiums when he preaches. It is the whole mega-church phenomenon based on charismatic leaders.

He typically presents a feel-good, watered-down Christian message … but leaves out theology and references to sin and salvation. If you do not want to be offended or feel guilty… he’s probably your guy.

 

[mcs7474]

He’s a heratic, a good honest man it seems, but nontheless a heratic.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I started another thread about salvation, but I wanted to broaden the topic to discuss schisms and their implications- specifically whether they hurt or harm a person’s road to salvation and restoration of unity with God.

The Catechism defines a schism as: refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff, or of communion with the members of the Church subject to them.

Is there such thing as a good schism?

What modern day examples of schisms are there?

What are the implications of schisms to the Catholic Church?

Here is an example I found on the CA site:

Are you suggesting that the Society of St Pius X, founded by the excommunicated schismatic Archbishop Lefebvre, is a good thing?

 

[TylerAlex]

Are you suggesting that the Society of St Pius X, founded by the excommunicated schismatic Archbishop Lefebvre, is a good thing?

No, I am not. I put it in there as an example of a schism… one within the Catholic Church itself none-the-less.

Can any schism ever be good?

 

[Nita]

Can any schism ever be good?

No. Jesus desired unity for His Church. His final prayer at the Last Supper (John 17) was for unity.

Nita

 

[TylerAlex]

No. Jesus desired unity for His Church. His final prayer at the Last Supper (John 17) was for unity.

Nita

If that is so, what does that say then about the implications of having schisms outside the Catholic Church?

What modern day examples can you think of?

 

[Randy_Carson]

If that is so, what does that say then about the implications of having schisms outside the Catholic Church?

What modern day examples can you think of?

There are no schisms “outside the Church” because schism is a rejection of the authority of the Church. Once you have hived off from Rome, no further schism is possible. It is finished.

You can have denominationalism and division, of course, but some of the Protestants here will have to explain how that works because, frankly, I can’t fathom that mentality. :nope:

 

[TylerAlex]

There are no schisms “outside the Church” because schism is a rejection of the authority of the Church. Once you have hived off from Rome, no further schism is possible. It is finished.

You can have denominationalism and division, of course, but some of the Protestants here will have to explain how that works because, frankly, I can’t fathom that mentality. :nope:

Ok… so you are a schism while connected to the Catholic Church, say like Henry VIII, which was the prelude to the introduction of Protestantism into England… but once you split, you then become something else?

What is that “something else” called then formally?

Can anything that is split then from the Church… via schism or something greater… ever good?

Can the works of the Joel Osteens, the Bill Grahams, the Baptists, Protestants, etc ever considered to be good if they are part of some anethma (or for a better word) to the Catholic Church?

 

[Nita]

Hi Tyler Alex,

I just read the quote from a CA site in your opening post - titled Namesake of a Schism. I was wondering why you cited that artical since it is not about schism (even tho the word appears in the title). It’s about Pope Pius X’s fight against the heresy of modernism. (Actually the scope of modernism is so broad it can almost be called “apostasy”.)

Nita

 

[Nita]

Ok… so you are a schism while connected to the Catholic Church, say like Henry VIII, which was the prelude to the introduction of Protestantism into England… but once you split, you then become something else?

What is that “something else” called then formally?

The following is my understanding.

It’s not until after a group is no longer connected to the Catholic Church (excommunicated) that it’s in schism; prior to excommunication, they’d be members of the Catholic Church who were dissenting, rebelling, erroneous, etc. (I think it is the official excommunication that makes them a schismatic group.)

The split off group would be considered schismatic - as opposed to protestant - if they retain a valid priesthood, sacraments, Mass, and core teachings. A break away group without a valid priesthood would not be considered schismatic.

A schismatic group would lose this designation if the valid priesthood was lost (therefore no valid Mass, and loss of several sacraments). This is what eventually happened with the Church of England (Episcopal/Anglican). I don’t know if there’s is a “formal” name for such groups. Generally just think of them as Protestant.

Would appreciate correction if any of this is in error. Too bad there’s not a priest here to answer your questions.

Nita

 

[TylerAlex]

The following is my understanding.

It’s not until after a group is no longer connected to the Catholic Church (excommunicated) that it’s in schism; prior to excommunication, they’d be members of the Catholic Church who were dissenting, rebelling, erroneous, etc. (I think it is the official excommunication that makes them a schismatic group.)

The split off group would be considered schismatic - as opposed to protestant - if they retain a valid priesthood, sacraments, Mass, and core teachings. A break away group without a valid priesthood would not be considered schismatic.

A schismatic group would lose this designation if the valid priesthood was lost (therefore no valid Mass, and loss of several sacraments). This is what eventually happened with the Church of England (Episcopal/Anglican). I don’t know if there’s is a “formal” name for such groups. Generally just think of them as Protestant.

Would appreciate correction if any of this is in error. Too bad there’s not a priest here to answer your questions.

Nita

Thank you Nita. To answer your previous question, I used a search of the CA site and found that citation- there was no rhyme or special reason for that specific example. I wanted to keep the example “close to home” so as to not alienate anyone from the argument.

Back to the argument . What are the implications for each one: schism, schismatic, and splinter groups (waiting for a better word)? By implications, what can we expect are the consequences of being separated from the Church which each different degree?

 

[Nita]

Back to the argument . What are the implications for each one: schism, schismatic, and splinter groups (waiting for a better word)? By implications, what can we expect are the consequences of being separated from the Church which each different degree?

Schism and schismatic refer to the same thing - schism is the noun and schismatic is the adjective.
One obvious consequence of any separation from full union with the Catholic Church is a lack of the fullness of gifts Our Lord gave to His Church. The schismatic groups lack the gift of the papacy and the magisterium. (And they truly are wonderful gifts.) Although they may accept the authority of its declarations up to some point in time prior to their split, they have rejected it as a current ongoing part of their faith.

Taking “splinter groups” to mean denominations that do not have a valid priesthood. The obvious consequence of no valid priesthood means there is no Sacrifice of the Mass (the sacrificial offering of the New Covenant), nor the following sacraments: Eucharist, Confirmation, Confession, Holy Orders, and Annointing of the Sick. Further consequences would involve doctrinal error. The amount and seriousness of the deviation from truth would vary with the particular splinter group.

If by consequences you mean particular guilt, only God knows that. But it would seem that one who was raised in the Catholic faith and then chose to reject it could be in more peril than one who was born into a non-Catholic faith and had never been taught it’s truths as truth. Again, God is the ONLY one who can judge personal guilt.

Nita

 

[TylerAlex]

Schism and schismatic refer to the same thing - schism is the noun and schismatic is the adjective.
One obvious consequence of any separation from full union with the Catholic Church is a lack of the fullness of gifts Our Lord gave to His Church. The schismatic groups lack the gift of the papacy and the magisterium. (And they truly are wonderful gifts.) Although they may accept the authority of its declarations up to some point in time prior to their split, they have rejected it as a current ongoing part of their faith.

Taking “splinter groups” to mean denominations that do not have a valid priesthood. The obvious consequence of no valid priesthood means there is no Sacrifice of the Mass (the sacrificial offering of the New Covenant), nor the following sacraments: Eucharist, Confirmation, Confession, Holy Orders, and Annointing of the Sick. Further consequences would involve doctrinal error. The amount and seriousness of the deviation from truth would vary with the particular splinter group.

If by consequences you mean particular guilt, only God knows that. But it would seem that one who was raised in the Catholic faith and then chose to reject it could be in more peril than one who was born into a non-Catholic faith and had never been taught it’s truths as truth. Again, God is the ONLY one who can judge personal guilt.

Nita

You have been very enlightening… thank you.

Is it possible to be separated from the Church (schism or splinter group) and still do good? By that I mean, is the offense of separation so bad that it would discount or invalidate any good it may bring to the Church?

This question is open for anyone… but I appreciate Nita for taking it on.