Schism and Schismatic

Schism and Schismatic

 

Table of Contents:

 

Introduction

1. Definition of Schism

Conditions:

a)Valid Baptism

b) Material Object

c) Pertinacity

It is divided into two categories:

1. 1. Formal Schism
   2. Material Schism

– Difference between Schism and Heresy

– Refutation of Modernist Counter-Arguments

2. Definition of the Schismatic

– A- Formal Schismatic

– B – Material Schismatic

– Refutation of Modernist Counter-Arguments

3. Additional Distinctions

– Public vs Occult

– Positive vs Negative

– Internal Judgement vs External – the Internal Forum vs the External Forum of the Church

– Refutation of Modernist Counter-Arguments

4. Treatment of the Material Schismatic

– No Excommunication “Latae Sententiae”

– Loss of Office “Ipso Facto”?

– Setting Aside to Protect the Faithful?

– Correction and Instruction

– Refutation of Modernist Counter-Arguments

5. Canonical Consequences for the Formal Schismatic (in Comparison with the Material Schismatic):

– Excommunication “Latae Sententiae” (Ipso Facto, Canon 2314, §1)

– Incapacity to Receive or Exercise an Ecclesiastical Office (Canon 188)

– Deprivation of the Sacraments (Except in Danger of Death, and Canon 2261)

– Loss of Jurisdiction if the Schism is Public and Notorious (Canon 2264

– Deals with the Validity/Licity of Acts of Jurisdiction Performed by Excommunicated Persons: in Principle Valid but Illicit)

– Explicit Setting Aside to Protect the Faithful, in Accordance with Saint Thomas

– Absence of Ecclesiastical Procedure?

– Refutation of Modernist Counter-Arguments

6. Theological Foundation

– Saint Cyprian of Carthage (Treatise on the Unity of the Church)

– Saint Augustine (Contra Faustum, XX, 4)

– Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 39)

– Saint Robert Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 29-30)

– Cardinal Louis Billot (De Ecclesia Christi, 1910 and 1927)

– Francisco Suarez (De Fide, disp. 10, sect. 6)

– Ballerini (in His Commentary on Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca)

– Garrigou-Lagrange (De Verbo Incarnato, cap. XVII)

– Other Pre-1963 Theologians

– Refutation of Modernist Counter-Arguments

7. Conclusion

Corollary: Current Times of Vacant See for More than 60 Years

– 1) Proof of Schism by Adherence to an Antipope in Sede Vacante

– 2) Proofs, When the Antipope is at the Same Time Heretical (the Case of All Post-Conciliar Vatican II Popes)

– 3) Proofs, Even if the Antipope Does Not Deviate from the Faith (Not Heretical)

– Scientific Development and Conclusion

List of Sources Consulted

 

 

Introduction

 

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, founded on the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Doctors, the ecumenical councils and the Code of Canon Law of 1917, the terms “schism” and “schismatic” have precise theological and canonical definitions, with an essential distinction between the formal and material notions.

 

This doctrine, immutable and defined before 1963, rejects any subsequent deviation as contrary to the apostolic faith, as affirmed by Catholic theologians, who emphasise that schism, especially formal schism, entails the automatic loss of any ecclesiastical office, rendering the See of Peter vacant since the innovations of Vatican II, for any separation from legitimate authority or immutable doctrine constitutes a schism against the visible unity of the Church.

 

1. Definition of Schism

 

Schism is a voluntary rupture of the unity of the Church, consisting in a separation from hierarchical communion or obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff.

The Canon Code, can. 1325, § 2, presents this definition of the schismatic:

“§ 2. Fideles Christi fidem aperta profiteri tenentur quoties eorum silentium, tergiversatio aut ratio agendi secumferrent implicitam fidei negationem, contemptum religionis, iniuriam Dei vel scandalum proximi. Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquam ex veritatibus fide divina et catholica credendis denegat aut de ea dubitat, haereticus; si a fide christiana totaliter recedit, apostata; si denique subesse renuit Summo Pontifici aut cum membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare recusat, schismaticus est.”

“§2. The faithful of Christ are bound to profess their faith openly whenever their silence, evasion or manner of acting would carry with it an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, an insult to God or scandal to their neighbour. Any person who, after having received baptism and while retaining the name of Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, he is an apostate; finally, if he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

 

Hence schism is classically defined as follows:

 

a refusal by a baptised person to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff and/or a voluntary separation from the unity of the Church.

(Dictionary of Catholic Theology, art. Schism, col. 1286 et seq.)

 

– Conditions:

 

1. a) – Valid Baptism: Only the baptised can be schismatics, for they are bound to Catholic unity (1325 §2 “Any person who, after having received baptism and while retaining the name of Christian … refuses to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff and to remain in communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is schismatic”)

 

1. b) – Material Object: The separation must concern hierarchical unity (bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII): “Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis.”

(“Furthermore, we declare, say, define and pronounce that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature.”).

 

1. c) – Pertinacity (Obstinacy): A constant and voluntary opposition is required for formal schism, absent in the material case, as explained by Franzelin (J.B. Franzelin, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (Rome, 1876) that persistence is necessary for formal schism.

 

It is divided into two categories:

 

A – Formal Schism:

 

It is the obstinate refusal, after baptism, to submit to the legitimate authority of the Pope or the ecclesiastical hierarchy, with full awareness and pertinacity.

 

It implies:

 

– A full knowledge of the obligation of unity

– and a voluntary disobedience: a deliberate act of rupture with the visible communion of the Church.

 

As explained by Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, corpus): “Therefore those who, of their own free will and by their own intention, separate themselves from the unity of the Church, which is the principal unity, are properly called schismatics. For the particular unity among them is ordered to the unity of the Church, just as the composition of individual members in a natural body is ordered to the unity of the whole body. Now, the unity of the Church is manifested in two things: in the connection of the members of the Church with one another, or communication; and in the order of all the members of the Church to one single head.”

 

– A pertinacity: obstinate resistance to correction, as defined by Billot (De Ecclesia Christi, 1910, t. I, p. 612) that persistence in schism is the obstinate will to separate from the unity of the Church.

 

– Simple occasional disobedience is not schism, for the disobedient may still recognise the pope and wish in principle to remain in the Church, but he disobeys in particular cases for a singular reason (see the case of the monk Savonarola O.P. who resisted a pope in his view decadent to save morals in the Church).

 

As also taught by Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae, q. 39, a. 1):

“The disobedience to precepts by rebellion constitutes essentially schism. I say by rebellion, that is, when one obstinately despises the precepts of the Church and refuses to submit to its judgement. Not every sinner does this. Therefore not every sin is a schism.”

 

Heribert Jone, Moraltheologie, 15th edition, Paderborn, 1953, n° 432, p. 232.

“Nicht jede Auflehnung gegen den Papst ist Schisma, sondern nur diejenige, die den Papst als Haupt der Kirche ablehnt. Eine bloße Ungehorsamkeit ist noch kein Schisma.”

“Not every rebellion against the pope is schism, but only that which rejects the pope as head of the Church. A simple disobedience is not yet schism.”

 

By contrast, the disobedience of the Eastern schismatics is systematic, total and “in principle”, not recognising the primacy nor the authority of the pope over all other bishops.

 

Therefore opposing a legitimate but bad superior is permitted, as Paul opposed Peter (Galatians 2:11), as further taught by Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae, q. 33, a. 4 that a subordinate may resist a superior in evil:

“if there were danger for the faith, superiors should be reproved by inferiors, even in public”

 

Only the refusal in principle of papal authority, as among the Eastern schismatics who do not recognise the primacy of the Pope, makes someone schismatic. This nuance specifies that legitimate resistance to evil is not schism at all, but that formal schism is a fundamental abandonment of hierarchical unity.

 

– Accepting an Antipope against a True Pope is Schism

 

Likewise, accepting an antipope and thus implicitly or explicitly rejecting a true pope is formal schism, for it implies a separation from the legitimate unity of the Church by recognising an illegitimate authority, as in the historical examples of the Great Western Schism (1378-1417), where the supporters of the antipopes (Clement VII, Benedict XIII) were considered schismatics by the Church, or the Photian schism (863-867), where the faithful accepting Photius as illegitimate patriarch were separated from Rome.

 

– Accepting an Antipope in Times of Vacant See is also Schism

 

In times of sede vacante, accepting a heretical antipope is a schismatic act, for it refuses the unity of the Church by adhering to an intruder possibly deviating from the faith and thus rejected by the sound part of the Church, entailing excommunication and the absence of any office.

When there is no reigning Pope, the visible unity of the Church does not disappear; it subsists virtually in the See of Peter, and formally in the recognition of the principle of this See.

 

Reason:

 

Thus, during sede vacante, the faithful remain united to the Church by:

– keeping the same Catholic faith,

– recognising the divine necessity of the Roman Pontificate,

– and legitimately awaiting the restoration of a legitimate Pontiff.

But if someone, in such a state of vacancy, erects a man as pope without legitimacy, he breaks this unity. For he introduces into the Church a false authority, usurping the place reserved for that instituted by Christ.

It is therefore not the absence of a pope that divides the Church, but rather the institution of a false pope.

 

Indeed the Church can never adhere to a false pontiff, for that would equate to following a false rule of faith, which is impossible according to the promises of Christ (Matthew 16:18; 28:20). Those who nevertheless recognise a false pontiff separate themselves from the true Church and are therefore schismatics, as taught by the Church in its established tradition.

 

Suarez teaches (De Fide, disp. X, sect. 6, n.6):

“Adhaerere antipapae est verus schisma, quia fit divisio in corpore Ecclesiae circa caput visibile.”

“Adhering to an antipope is true schism, for it creates a division in the body of the Church concerning the visible head.”

 

This demonstrates that schism does not depend on the current presence of the Pontiff, but on the principle of unity that he represents. He who usurps this place, or who adheres to an usurper, formally separates himself from this unity.

 

Read the corollary at the bottom of the page for further explanations

 

B – Material Schism:

 

It is a de facto separation from the unity of the Church, but without deliberate intention or clear knowledge of opposing legitimate authority.

 

It occurs through invincible ignorance or sincere error, without formal guilt or pertinacity, as explained by Franzelin (Thesis de Ecclesia Christi, 1876, p. 417) that material schism is a separation without schismatic intention.

 

Historical examples: the Eastern schism (1054, separation of the Eastern Churches from Rome), the Anglican schism (1534, Henry VIII’s refusal to recognise papal primacy), or the Old Catholics schism (1870, rejection of papal infallibility defined at Vatican I).

 

– Difference between Schism and Heresy:

 

Although schism is often linked to heresy, it is fundamentally distinguished from it.

Heresy consists in the obstinate denial or doubt of one or more dogmas of the faith defined by the Church (canon 1325 §2).

Schism, on the other hand, is a rupture with hierarchical unity, even if the dogmas are recognised.

As explained by Tanquerey that the heretic denies the dogmas of the faith; the schismatic, even if he adheres to the dogmas, refuses to submit to legitimate authority (Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. I, n. 869). This distinction is essential to understand that schism directly attacks ecclesiastical charity and obedience, while heresy targets faith itself, although both often entail the loss of membership in the Church.

 

– Refutation of Modernist Counter-Arguments:

 

Some post-1963 affirm that schism is “relative” or “avoidable through dialogue”, allowing separations without loss of communion. Currently apostate Rome accepts the Eastern schismatic sect as a “sister Church”.

This is refuted by Pius IX (Quanta Cura, 1864): “Against the doctrine of Scripture… they favour the error that freedom of worship is a right proper to every man”, as explained by Kleutgen (Theologia Wirceburgensis, 1880, t. II, p. 234) that the unity of the Church requires absolute submission to the Roman Pontiff against any separation.

 

2. Definition of the Schismatic

 

A schismatic is a baptised person who commits schism.

The Code of Canon Law of 1917 (canon 1325, §2) stipulates that schismatics are those who obstinately refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff.

 

The formal/material distinction applies:

 

A – Formal Schismatic:

 

He who, knowing the obligation of unity, freely and obstinately refuses submission to the Pope.

“Est schismaticus formalis qui voluntarie et pertinaciter separat se ab unitate Ecclesiae”

(Dictionary of Catholic Theology, Schism, col. 1289).

 

He is fully guilty and excommunicated “latae sententiae” (canon 2314, §1), losing all office ipso facto (canon 188, §4: for apostasy which includes schism), as explained by Wernz-Vidal (Ius Canonicum, 1933, t. VII, n. 401) that a public schismatic is ipso facto excommunicated and loses his charge.

 

B – Material Schismatic:

 

He who separates de facto without knowing that he opposes unity, through ignorance or non-voluntary error.

He is objectively in separation, but without subjective guilt or pertinacity, remaining a member of the Church until corrected.

 

– Refutation of Modernist Counter-Arguments:

 

The post-1963 innovators claim that the schismatic can maintain a “partial communion”, but this is refuted by Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II) : that a schismatic separated from the unity of the head ceases to be a member of the Church.

 

3. Additional Distinctions

 

– Public vs Occult:

 

The “public” formal schismatic manifests his separation externally (refusal of obedience, creation of separate groups) and is juridically sanctioned, losing his jurisdiction (canon 2264).

Canon 1258 of the 1917 Code (concerning communicatio in sacris with schismatics):

This canon prohibits any active participation in the worship of non-Catholics.

 

The “occult” schismatic keeps his separation in his conscience without making it public; he is not treated as schismatic in the canonical sense, although his interior sin remains grave if formal, as explained by Prümmer (Manuale Theologiae Moralis, 1931, t. I) that occult schism does not induce censures but is internal.

 

– Positive vs Negative:

 

Positive schism: Direct separation by act (e.g.: refusal of obedience to the Pope).

 

Negative schism: Pertinacious doubt about papal authority, as defined by Billot (De Ecclesia, 1927, p. 618) that a persistent doubt about unity is negative.

 

– Internal Judgement vs External – the Internal Forum vs the External Forum of the Church

 

The internal vs external judgement of schism (that is, the distinction between the internal forum and the external forum of the Church) in pre-conciliar dogmatic theology manuals (e.g.: Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, 1927, t. III, n. 1248 ; Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, 1910, t. I, p. 618):

The internal forum concerns the sin of separation judged by God or in confession, while the external forum pertains to the visible ecclesiastical judgement to sanction public rupture, thus limiting contagion without awaiting proven internal pertinacity.

 

In the sedevacantist context, even without a formal sentence (external forum), a manifestly schismatic pope loses his office ipso facto, for he who is not a member of the Church cannot be its head (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30): one cannot submit to a head who is no longer a member of the visible Church, reinforcing that external unity requires rejecting a publicly failing authority without awaiting an official declaration.

 

– Refutation of Modernist Counter-Arguments:

Some affirm that occult schism does not affect the office, but this is refuted by Cajetan (Commentaria in Summam Theologicam, II-II, q. 39, a. 2) that occult schism also deprives of jurisdiction, rendering acts invalid if public.

This is only in principle (that is, for God and for the conscience of the schismatic in the sense that it accuses him of this crime and makes him guilty of the sin of usurpation), for in practice, since nothing is known, nothing happens and his acts are rejected by the Church only from the moment his schism manifests and becomes public.

 

4. Treatment of the Material Schismatic

 

Unlike the formal schismatic, the material schismatic does not incur the same automatic sanctions, for he lacks pertinacity and subjective guilt. Here are the details of his status according to pre-1963 doctrine:

 

– No Excommunication “Latae Sententiae”:

 

Automatic excommunication (canon 2314, §1) applies only to the formal schismatic, for it requires voluntary pertinacity. The material schismatic, acting through ignorance or sincere error, is not considered a conscious rebel against the Church. Thus, he does not lose ipso facto (by the very fact) ecclesiastical communion, as explained by Billot (De Ecclesia Christi, 1927, t. I, p. 618) that a material schismatic is not considered a rebel against the Church.

 

– Loss of Office “Ipso Facto”?

 

According to the 1917 Code, the loss of an ecclesiastical office (canon 188) or the incapacity to receive one (canon 2314, §1) applies to clerics who commit grave offences, such as public and notorious schism.

However, for the material schismatic, this sanction does not apply automatically:

 

– If he holds an office (priest, bishop, etc.) and commits a material schism without making it public, he retains his office as long as his separation remains occult or not judged by ecclesiastical authority, as affirmed by Prümmer (op. cit., t. II) that material schism does not induce automatic censures.

 

– If his separation becomes public (for example, by joining a separate group without knowing it is schismatic), a trial or monition is required to establish his intention. Without proven pertinacity, he does not lose his office ipso facto, but a ferendae sententiae sentence may limit his ministry, as explained by Franzelin (op. cit., p. 419) that material separation must be corrected without automatic loss of function.

 

A public separation may entail warnings and a ferendae sententiae suspension (canon 2316), teaches Van Noort.

 

– Setting Aside to Protect the Faithful?

 

The material schismatic is not systematically set aside from the Church to “not contaminate the other faithful”, unlike the public formal schismatic, of whom Saint Thomas says that after the first and second admonition, one must avoid the schismatic (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 39, a. 3).

 

However, if the material schismatic propagates his separation (for example, by publicly encouraging a separate group, even without malice), the Church may intervene to limit his influence:

 

– A formal admonition could be addressed to him to limit his activity (canon 2316, suspect of schism).

 

– If he persists after being instructed, his ignorance ceases to be invincible, and his schism becomes formal, then entailing full sanctions, as explained by Van Noort (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 1920, p. 248) that a public material schismatic may be warned and limited for the protection of the faithful.

 

In practice, a public material schismatic cleric could be suspended from his functions (by a sentence: “ferendae sententiae”) to avoid confusion among the faithful, even without immediate excommunication, as written by Billot (op. cit., p. 619) that public separation may limit scandal.

 

– Correction and Instruction:

 

The preferred approach towards the material schismatic is pastoral charity: he must be instructed and corrected to return to unity. As long as there is no pertinacity, he remains a member of the Church and may receive the sacraments, unless his public separation causes manifest scandal necessitating intervention, as explained by Hurter (Compendium Theologiae Dogmaticae, 1907, t. III, n. 681) that public material separation must be limited so as not to give rise to scandal.

 

– Refutation of Modernist Counter-Arguments:

 

The post-1963 innovators claim that the material schismatic is “always innocent” and deserves no measures, but this is refuted by Pius IX (Syllabus Errorum, 1864, prop. 16) condemning that men can find the way to eternal salvation in any religion, which implies that separation, even material, cannot be tolerated if it corrupts the visible unity of the Church; in the current crisis, the post-Vatican II schisms, propagated through ignorance, justify limiting offices to protect the faithful, relying on the immutable pre-1963 doctrine which refuses any complacency towards divisions that alter the apostolic faith.

 

5. Canonical Consequences for the Formal Schismatic (in Comparison with the Material Schismatic):

 

– Excommunication “Latae Sententiae” (Ipso Facto, Canon 2314, §1).

 

– Incapacity to Receive or Exercise an Ecclesiastical Office (Canon 188), Even for a Pope, as Explained by Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 29) that a Manifest Schismatic Automatically Ceases to Be a Member of the Church.

 

– Deprivation of the Sacraments (Except in Danger of Death, and Canon 2261).

 

– Loss of Jurisdiction if the Schism is Public and Notorious (The 2264 Deals with the Validity/Licity of Acts of Jurisdiction Performed by Excommunicated Persons: in Principle Valid but Illicit).

 

– Explicit Setting Aside to Protect the Faithful, in Accordance with Saint Thomas.

 

– Absence of Ecclesiastical Procedure?

 

Even if “Cum ex apostolatus officio” (Paul IV) and Saint Robert Bellarmine affirm that the heretic or manifest schismatic loses the office ipso facto, some classical theologians (such as Cajetan or John of Saint Thomas) insist on the necessity of a juridical ascertainment of the public heresy or schism to draw canonical consequences from it.

 

Cajetan, in his Tractatus de Fide (1530), argues that, although heresy or schism deprives interiorly of jurisdiction, an ecclesiastical declaration is required for external effects, to avoid chaos in the visible Church.

 

John of Saint Thomas, in Cursus Theologicus (1643, disp. 20, art. 2), maintains that public heresy or schism renders the pope ipso facto deposed, but an ascertainment by the cardinals or an imperfect council is necessary to declare the vacancy and proceed to an election.

 

Cajetan and John of Saint Thomas represent minority opinions, reinforcing the sedevacantist argument by showing that even prudent theologians confirm automatic loss, with or without formal procedure, in the face of a manifest schism like that of Vatican II, where the separation from pre-1963 doctrine is public and notorious.

 

Indeed the dominant doctrine (Bellarmine, Paul IV) confirms loss ipso facto without formal declaration.

 

– Refutation of Modernist Counter-Arguments:

 

Some affirm that a “declaration” is necessary for loss of office, but this is refuted by Cum ex apostolatus officio (Paul IV, 1559):

“§. 6. We add that if ever a Bishop, even having the function of Archbishop, Patriarch or primate; a cardinal of the Roman Church, even Legate, a Sovereign Pontiff even, appears, before his promotion, or to the cardinalate, or his elevation to the Sovereign Pontificate, to have deviated from the Catholic faith or to have fallen into some heresy, to have incurred schism, to have aroused it or committed it, his promotion or elevation, even carried out in concord and with the unanimous assent of all the cardinals, is null, void and without value”.

 

And Cajetan (Tractatus de Fide, 1530, cap. 6) that occult schism also deprives of jurisdiction.

 

6. Theological Foundation

 

The theological foundation of schism rests on the teaching of the Fathers, Doctors and pre-1963 theologians, who emphasise the visible and indivisible unity of the Church as an essential mark, rendering any separation a grave sin against charity and obedience. This doctrine confirms the sedevacantist perspective, where the post-1963 separation from immutable faith constitutes a formal schism entailing automatic loss of office, relying on these authorities.

 

Saint Cyprian of Carthage (Treatise on the Unity of the Church):

 

He teaches that the Church is one and indivisible, compared to the seamless tunic of Christ. He affirms that he who does not have the Church as mother can no longer have God as father. For schismatics, he declares that whoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who has separated himself from the unity of the Church has done so from the promises of the Church, which Christ loved as a spouse and for which he gave himself.

 

The schismatics and heretics have no access to the sealed fountain of grace, for they are outside the organic unity of the Church. This doctrine refutes the modernists who speak of “imperfect communion”, for Saint Cyprian insists on absolute unity: any separation, even through initial ignorance, must be corrected to avoid loss of salvation, reinforcing that public material schism may justify measures to protect the faithful.

 

Saint Augustine (Contra Faustum, XX, 4) writes that schism is the separation from the unity of charity, defining schism as a rupture of ecclesiastical charity; intention determines guilt, but the separation itself is a grave sacrilege. Saint Augustine combats the Donatists by linking schism to the vice of superbia (pride), affirming: “There is nothing more grave than the sacrilege of schism, for there is no just cause to break the unity of the Church”.

 

For the material schismatic, the absence of intentional malice attenuates guilt, but the visible separation remains an objective evil to correct, for it offends the unity that Christ willed.

This view refutes the post-1963 innovators who relativise schism as an “enriching diversity”, for Saint Augustine teaches that schism deprives of communion with the Body of Christ, confirming the vacancy of the See in case of manifest schism as at Vatican II.

 

Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 39):

 

Schism is a grave sin against the unity of charity, while material schism is a separation without malice. Saint Thomas specifies that the sin of schism is a special sin, for by it the unity of the Church is torn apart. He adds that schism is opposed to ecclesiastical charity, which unites to God and to neighbour, and that it is graver than unbelief in certain aspects, for the good of the multitude is greater and more divine than the good of one. For the material schismatic, the absence of pertinacity distinguishes him from the formal, but his public separation may justify intervention, as explained by Billot (op. cit., p. 619) that a material schismatic is not formally a rebel.

 

Saint Thomas refutes modernist counter-arguments by insisting on avoiding the schismatic after admonition, showing that even a non-malicious separation, if public, must be limited to preserve unity.

 

Saint Robert Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 29-30, for link with heresy):

 

He teaches that manifest schism entails automatic loss of office, citing Pope Saint Celestine I: “It is evident that he who has been excommunicated remains separated from communion”. He affirms: “A pope who is a manifest heretic ceases automatically (per se) to be pope and head, as he automatically ceases to be a Christian and member of the Church”. For schism, accepting an antipope or separating from legitimate unity is a manifest act against the Church, entailing ipso facto loss of office without need of sentence, reinforcing the sedevacantist argument in the face of the post-1963 crisis, where innovations separate from immutable doctrine. This refutes modernists who require a “declaration” for loss of office, for Bellarmine confirms automatic deposition.

 

Cardinal Louis Billot (De Ecclesia Christi, 1910 and 1927):

 

The cardinal defines schism as a separation from unity, dividing heretics and schismatics into formal and material: “Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known. Material heretics are those who, without fault on their part, ignore the Church of Christ”. For schism, he specifies: “By schism, if [the pope] were no longer disposed to be in communion with the Catholic Church”.

The material schismatic is not a formal rebel, but his public separation may be limited to avoid scandal. Billot refutes innovators by insisting on visible unity: “The unity of the Church consists principally in the common profession of the same faith”, condemning any tolerance of separations that corrupt this unity, justifying the vacancy of the See in case of post-1963 schism.

 

Francisco Suarez (De Fide, disp. 10, sect. 6)

confirms that a pope who becomes publicly schismatic automatically loses his office, for manifest schism separates him from the Church, applying logic similar to that of heresy: such a pontiff can no longer be head of that of which he is no longer a member, reinforcing the sedevacantist thesis without necessity of a formal procedure.

 

Antonio Ballerini S.J.,

in his commentary on Ferraris (Prompta Bibliotheca), emphasises strict pastoral limits with schismatics, insisting on the prohibition of any communion that could encourage division, even if the separation is initially material, to preserve the integrity of the visible Church.

 

Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P.,

in De Verbo Incarnato (cap. XVII), treats implicitly of the loss of ecclesiastical membership by public apostasy or schism, affirming that whoever manifestly departs from unity ceases to be a living member of the Church, justifying non-submission to a failing hierarchy in the current crisis.

 

Other pre-1963 theologians:

 

Father Johann Baptist Franzelin (Thesis de Ecclesia Christi, 1876) teaches that material schism is a separation without schismatic intention, to be corrected without automatic loss of office.

Franzelin and others insist on the indefectibility of the Church, rendering impossible a legitimate schismatic hierarchy, refuting modernists who speak of “diversity” instead of absolute unity.

Pre-1963 doctrine insists on the visible unity of the Church: the material schismatic is a case of separation to correct, not of rebellion to punish immediately, but limited if public, as explained by Franzelin (op. cit., p. 419) that material separation must be corrected without automatic loss of function.

 

Cardinal Cajetan (Commentaria in Summam Theologicam, II-II, q. 39)

affirms that schism, even occult, deprives interiorly of unity. These authorities confirm that formal schism deprives ipso facto of membership and office, while material remains corrigible, but public, it justifies pastoral measures.

 

These authorities confirm the current situation according to which a manifestly schismatic occupant is no longer the head of the Church, as affirmed by Bellarmine (o.c.) that he who is not a member of the Church cannot be its head.

 

– Refutation of Modernist Counter-Arguments:

 

The post-1963 relativise schism as “diversity”, but this is refuted by Pius IX (Syllabus Errorum, 1864, prop. 55): “Ecclesia separanda est a Statu, et Status ab Ecclesia”, condemning any separation of unity; in the crisis, Vatican II embodies formal schism, for the Fathers and Doctors teach an indivisible unity, rendering null any tolerance of divisions that alter the apostolic faith.

 

7. Conclusion

 

Formal schism is a voluntary rupture of ecclesiastical unity, punished by excommunication and setting aside; material schism is an involuntary separation, without automatic sanctions. The material schismatic does not lose his office “ipso facto” nor is he excommunicated “latae sententiae”, but if he publicly propagates his separation, he may be corrected or suspended to protect the faithful, without being treated as a formal schismatic as long as pertinacity is not established, as explained by Van Noort (op. cit., p. 248) that a material schismatic remains a member of the Church, but public separation must be limited.

 

In the current crisis, this confirms the vacancy of the See due to post-1963 formal schism. This development clarifies that the material schismatic escapes automatic sanctions, but may be subject to disciplinary measures if his separation becomes public and risks harming the Church, in line with the immutable doctrine.

 

8. Corollary: Current Times of Vacant See for More than 60 Years

 

Let us return to this stated truth, namely that in times of sede vacante, accepting an antipope constitutes a schismatic act. One refuses the unity of the Church by adhering to an illegitimate or abuser, whether this antipope is at the same time heretical or not, and this finds its solid foundation in traditional Catholic doctrine.

According to this view, which aligns with immutable doctrine, any adherence to a false pope breaks the visible unity of the Church, entailing ipso facto schism, independently of any possible heresy.

Counter-arguments, often advanced by post-1963 innovators or holders of a minimalist view of schism, will be rigorously refuted.

 

1. Proof of Schism by Adherence to an Antipope in Sede Vacante

 

Sede vacante designates the period when the See of Peter is vacant, following the death or valid renunciation of a legitimate pope. During this vacancy, the Church remains united under the invisible authority of Christ, awaiting the election of a legitimate successor by the cardinals or an equivalent mechanism conforming to divine and ecclesiastical law. Accepting an antipope – that is, an illegitimate claimant who usurps the pontifical title without valid election or in violation of canonical norms – equates to breaking with this unity, for it creates an artificial hierarchical division.

 

The Code of Canon Law of 1917 (canon 1325, §1) defines schism as the pertinacious refusal to submit to the legitimate Sovereign Pontiff. In sede vacante, there is no pontiff in office, but adhering to an illegitimate one creates a false submission that opposes the faithful to one another, breaking unity. This adherence is not neutral: it implicitly refuses the awaiting of a legitimate pope and favours a division contrary to the apostolic faith, rendering the See vacant not only de facto, but also by recognition of an abuser.

 

2) Proofs, When the Antipope is at the Same Time Heretical (the Case of All Post-Conciliar Vatican II Popes)

 

If the antipope is heretical – that is, he publicly deviates from the faith by denying a defined dogma –, the act of adherence is doubly schismatic and heretical. Saint Robert Bellarmine teaches that a manifestly heretical pope ceases ipso facto to be pope and member of the Church (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30): such an individual automatically loses his office, without need of sentence, for “non potest esse caput Ecclesiae qui non est membrum eius”. Adhering to him after this loss equates to separating from the Church to follow a false head who is no longer Catholic.

 

Francisco Suarez confirms this view (De Fide, disp. 10, sect. 6), arguing that a public heretical pope excludes himself from the Church, and that the faithful who accept him commit schism by refusing unity with the true Church. In the sede vacante context, we apply this to post-1963 antipopes, such as those from Vatican II, who promulgated heretical doctrines (for example, on religious liberty or ecumenism), rendering their acceptance a heretical and schismatic act. Canon 188, §4 of the 1917 Code stipulates that public apostates lose all office ipso facto; adhering to such an antipope prolongs this heresy and divides the Church.

 

– Refuted Counter-Argument:

 

Some claim that the heresy of an antipope does not automatically entail schism for his followers, as long as they sincerely believe in his legitimacy. This is refuted by Pius IX (Syllabus Errorum, 1864, prop. 15), which condemns the idea that one can hope for salvation outside the true Catholic faith: adhering to a heretic, even through error, corrupts unity and exposes to schism, especially in sede vacante where the Church awaits an orthodox pope. Invincible ignorance attenuates subjective guilt, but the objective act remains schismatic, necessitating correction.

 

3) Proofs, Even if the Antipope Does Not Deviate from the Faith (Not Heretical)

 

Even if the antipope is not heretical and maintains orthodox faith, his illegitimacy renders adherence to him schismatic, for it creates an illicit hierarchical division. Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30) explains that schism does not always require heresy: it suffices to refuse submission to the legitimate successor of Peter or to recognise an intruder, as during the Great Western Schism, where supporters of non-heretical antipopes were considered schismatics for dividing the Church without legitimate basis.

 

Suarez (De Fide, disp. 10, sect. 6) extends this: a pope who would become schismatic without heresy would lose his office, and adhering to an illegitimate antipope, even orthodox, equates to rejecting the visible unity established by Christ. Canon 1325 defines schism as refusal of communion with members subject to the legitimate Pope; in sede vacante, accepting a false pope before a valid election (conforming to divine law) breaks this potential communion.

 

Indeed, even if an antipope professed the pre-1963 faith, his illegitimacy (by invalid election or usurpation) renders adherence schismatic, for it opposes the faithful to those awaiting a legitimate pope. Garrigou-Lagrange (De Verbo Incarnato, cap. XVII) treats implicitly of the loss of Church membership by public apostasy or schism, affirming that whoever manifestly departs from unity ceases to be a living member of the Church, justifying non-submission to a failing hierarchy.

 

Ballerini, in his commentary on Ferraris (Prompta Bibliotheca), emphasises pastoral limits with schismatics, insisting on the prohibition of any communion that could encourage division, even if the separation is initially material and non-heretical.

 

4) Refuted Counter-Argument:

 

Objectors maintain that without heresy, adhering to an illegitimate antipope is not schismatic if one believes in his legitimacy.

This is refuted by the Council of Constance (1414-1418), which condemned supporters of non-heretical antipopes for pure schism, for they divided the Church without legitimate basis. Objective illegitimacy suffices: unity rests on divine law, not on subjective perception, and any act dividing the hierarchy, even without doctrinal deviation, is schismatic (cf. Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943, emphasising indivisible visible unity).

 

5) Scientific Development and Conclusion

 

Scientifically, this truth rests on a theological-canonical analysis: schism is a sin against ecclesiastical charity (Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 39, a. 1), and adhering to an antipope in sede vacante violates this charity by creating a false unity. Historical cases (Greek, Anglican schisms) confirm that illegitimacy, with or without heresy, entails schism. In these times of sede vacante, this explains the prolonged vacancy: accepting post-1963 antipopes, heretical or not, keeps the faithful in schism.

 

Modernist counter-arguments, relativising schism to a “diversity”, are refuted by Pius IX (Syllabus, prop. 55), condemning any separation.

 

Thus, this truth is proven: in sede vacante, accepting an antipope is always schismatic, for it refuses the legitimate unity of the Church.

 

Come, Jesus, come!

 

List of Sources Consulted:

 

Dictionary of Catholic Theology, art. Schism, col. 1288-1289 (ed. 1912).

 

Code of Canon Law of 1917, canons 1325, 2314, 188, 2264, 2315, 2316, 2261.

 

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 39, a. 1-3; q. 33, a. 4.

 

Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, 1910, t. I, p. 612, 618-619; 1927, p. 618.

 

Franzelin, Thesis de Ecclesia Christi, 1876, p. 417-419.

 

Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, 1907.

 

Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio, 1559.

 

Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 29.

 

Cajetan, Commentaria in Summam Theologicam, II-II, q. 39, a. 2; Tractatus de Fide, 1530, cap. 6.

 

Van Noort, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 1920, p. 248.

 

Hurter, Compendium Theologiae Dogmaticae, 1907, t. III, n. 681.

 

Kleutgen, Theologia Wirceburgensis, 1880, t. II, p. 234.

 

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, 1931

 

Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, 1933, t. VII, n. 401.

 

Saint Augustine, Contra Faustum, XX, 4.

 

Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, cap. 3.

 

Saint Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise on the Unity of the Church.

 

Benedict XIV, Allatae Sunt, 1755.

 

Suarez, De Fide, disp. 10, sect. 6.

 

Ballerini, Commentary on Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca.

 

Garrigou-Lagrange, De Verbo Incarnato, cap. XVII.

 

Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. I, n. 869.