What qualifies as a formal schism?

[Digitonomy]

I’ll post in this forum, because while not directly related to liturgy or sacraments, it is a question on Vatican rules as to what constitutes a schism.

In a recent article about the reinstatement of the SSPX bishops, I read

“This is certainly a major concession to the traditionalists, part of a long effort by Rome to heal the only formal schism after Vatican II,” said John L. Allen Jr., a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter.

While Allen is widely respected for his longtime reporting from the Vatican for NCR and a short time for Fox News, and for his well-received books on Opus Dei, the conclave process, etc, this statement flies in the face of what I thought I knew about recent schisms.

Is he oversimplifying the matter by saying SSPX is the only formal schism, or is there some reason why other defections like the Imani Temple, the Palmarian Catholic Church, the True Catholic Church, the American Catholic Church in the United States, or even the parish of Saints Volodymyr and Olha Ukrainian Catholic Church, do not constitute formal schisms?

I’ll grant that the True Catholic people claim the seat was vacant after 1963, but I don’t think the group actually came into existence until after Vatican II, qualifying them as a post-Vatican II schism in my mind.

 

[BSHoop96]

I’ll post in this forum, because while not directly related to liturgy or sacraments, it is a question on Vatican rules as to what constitutes a schism.

In a recent article about the reinstatement of the SSPX bishops, I read While Allen is widely respected for his longtime reporting from the Vatican for NCR and a short time for Fox News, and for his well-received books on Opus Dei, the conclave process, etc, this statement flies in the face of what I thought I knew about recent schisms.

Is he oversimplifying the matter by saying SSPX is the only formal schism, or is there some reason why other defections like the Imani Temple, the Palmarian Catholic Church, the True Catholic Church, the American Catholic Church in the United States, or even the parish of Saints Volodymyr and Olha Ukrainian Catholic Church, do not constitute formal schisms?

I’ll grant that the True Catholic people claim the seat was vacant after 1963, but I don’t think the group actually came into existence until after Vatican II, qualifying them as a post-Vatican II schism in my mind.

Don’t want to hijack the thread but can anyone answer a question for me? Seeing this post reminded me of it. Last summer in Santa Fe, NM, we saw a Catholic Church that said it was NOT connected to the Roman Catholic Church. Anyone know what it was??? Thanks.

 

[cameron_lansing]

. . . Is he oversimplifying the matter by saying SSPX is the only formal schism, or is there some reason why other defections like the Imani Temple, the Palmarian Catholic Church, the True Catholic Church, the American Catholic Church in the United States, or even the parish of Saints Volodymyr and Olha Ukrainian Catholic Church, do not constitute formal schisms?

Loose or overly general with words perhaps. “Formal schism” requires a different kind of discussion. The notion of “formal schism” as opposed to “material schism” would be the proper arena in which to discuss that term.

Here we must examine something else, and keep in mind that there is a distinction among imposed, incurred and declared penalty.

Some penalties arise because they are imposed after a process by a competent Church authority (ferendae sententiae) and this contains the declaration of penalty.

Others are incurred by an operation of the law itself (latae sententiae) but this does not contain in itself the declaration of penalty by a competent Church authority.

Here it was a matter of the Apostolic See declaring that the penalty was incurred in the particular case. In other cases, when a penalty is incurred latae sententiae, it is not always declared as such. As I understand it, it was done in this case to clarify the situation for the common good and the good of the offenders.

The technical term in English for what has now happened is that the penalty has been remitted (remittere). See c. 1355 and c. 1358. The latter requires that the offender withdraw from contumacy according to canon 1347, §2, and that canon should be consulted as well.

There may have been similar declarations regarding the other groups, but not all declarations are made publicly known to the general population.

 

[passus]

Is he oversimplifying the matter by saying SSPX is the only formal schism, or is there some reason why other defections like the Imani Temple, the Palmarian Catholic Church, the True Catholic Church, the American Catholic Church in the United States, or even the parish of Saints Volodymyr and Olha Ukrainian Catholic Church, do not constitute formal schisms?

The language he uses in saying “formal schism” is awkward because the law isn’t written with respect to “formal schism” and “material schism” but just schism.

I cannot comment on any of the churches you have listed there because I frankly don’t know enough about them to tell you if they are in schism, but I can tell you what the Church does say.

According to Canon Law:chism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him (751).