Schism and the Schismatic

 

Table of Contents

Introduction

1. Definition of schism

1.1 Conditions

1.1.1 Valid baptism

1.1.2 Material object

1.1.3 Pertinacity or obstinacy

1.2 Distinctions

1.2.1 Formal schism

1.2.2 Material schism

1.3 Difference between schism and heresy

1.4 Refutation of modernist counter-arguments

2. Definition of the schismatic

2.1 Formal schismatic

2.2 Material schismatic

2.3 Refutation of modernist counter-arguments

3. Further distinctions

3.1 Public and occult

3.2 Positive and negative forms of separation

3.3 Internal and external judgment: the internal forum and the external forum of the Church

3.4 Refutation of modernist counter-arguments

4. Treatment of the material schismatic

4.1 No latae sententiae excommunication in the absence of imputability

4.2 Loss of office ipso facto?

4.3 Setting aside in order to protect the faithful

4.4 Correction and instruction

4.5 Refutation of modernist counter-arguments

5. Canonical consequences for the formal schismatic, compared with the material schismatic

5.1 Latae sententiae excommunication

5.2 Ecclesiastical office: loss, exercise and reception

5.3 Reception and administration of the sacraments

5.4 Jurisdiction and validity of acts

5.5 Protection of the faithful and return to unity

5.6 Absence of an ecclesiastical procedure?

5.7 Refutation of modernist counter-arguments

6. Theological foundation

6.1 Saint Cyprian of Carthage: the unity of the Church

6.2 Saint Augustine: the gravity of schism

6.3 Saint Thomas Aquinas: the sin of schism and its correction

6.4 Saint Robert Bellarmine: the manifestly heretical pope

6.5 Cardinal Louis Billot: material separation and visible unity

6.6 Loss of the pontificate and the distinct case of schism without heresy

6.7 The limits of religious communion with schismatics

6.8 Pius XII: membership in the Church and the life of grace

6.9 Franzelin, Cajetan and Van Noort

6.10 Refutation of objections that relativize schism

7. Conclusion
8. Corollary: the present times of a vacant See lasting more than sixty years

8.1 Adherence to an antipope in a period of vacancy

8.2 The case of an antipope who is also a heretic

8.3 The case of an antipope without heresy

8.4 Theological-canonical development and conclusion

List of sources

 

 

Introduction

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, founded upon 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. Their study requires in particular that formal separation be distinguished from material separation, personal culpability from membership in the visible body of the Church, and the conditions proper to the canonical consequences of the separation.

Catholic doctrine on unity obliges one to reject what contradicts the apostolic faith. Schism is directly opposed to ecclesial unity; heresy is directly opposed to the faith, without these two notions being able to be confused (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, corpus and ad 3; Code of 1917, can. 1325, § 2). In the application defended here, the See of Peter has been vacant since the public defection of Paul VI in 1964. This position on the crisis issuing from Vatican II rests upon the doctrine of loss of the pontificate by manifest heresy set forth by Bellarmine; it must be distinguished from the opinions of theologians who require a prior declaration, as well as from the particular question of a purely schismatic pope (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30; Suárez, De fide, disp. X, sect. VI, nn. 3, 6 and 10, Opera omnia, t. XII, Paris, Vivès, 1858, pp. 316–318; De charitate, disp. XII, sect. II, n. 3, pp. 736–737).

1. Definition of schism

Schism is a voluntary rupture of the unity of the Church, consisting in the refusal of submission to the Sovereign Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him.

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

“Post receptum baptismum si quis […] si denique subesse renuit Summo Pontifici aut cum membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare recusat, schismaticus est.”

“After having received baptism, if anyone […] finally refuses to be subject to the Sovereign Pontiff or refuses to communicate with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

(Code of Canon Law of 1917, official edition, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, IX, pars II, p. 257.)

Schism is therefore the refusal, on the part of a baptized person, of submission to the Sovereign Pontiff or of ecclesial communion thus defined. The two refusals are not required cumulatively (M.-J. Congar, “Schisme”, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. XIV, first part, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1939, col. 1286).

1.1 Conditions

1.1.1 Valid baptism

Only the baptized can be schismatics in the sense of this definition: canon 1325, § 2, expressly requires the prior reception of baptism.

1.1.2 Material object

The separation must bear upon ecclesial unity, in submission to the legitimate head or in communion with the members who are subject to him. Boniface VIII teaches the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff:

“Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, diffinimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis.”

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

(Boniface VIII, Unam sanctam, in Corpus iuris canonici, ed. Emil Friedberg, t. II, Extravagantes communes, I, VIII, 1, col. 1245–1246.)

1.1.3 Pertinacity or obstinacy

Formal schism presupposes a culpable will to withdraw from ecclesial unity. Pertinacity expresses this obstinate refusal; it is not reduced to a determined duration of disobedience. Saint Thomas distinguishes the simple transgression of a precept from the rebellion by which one obstinately despises the precepts of the Church and refuses to submit to her judgment (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, ad 2). Franzelin likewise distinguishes culpable separation from the situation of those who find themselves materially in a separated community without culpable adhesion to the separation (Theses de Ecclesia Christi, Rome, 1887, thesis XXIII, pp. 402–406).

1.2 Distinctions

Saint Thomas teaches that schism is a special sin because it is directly opposed to the unity which ecclesial charity realizes. The Latin per se here means that the rupture constitutes the proper object of the will; per accidens designates a consequence that occurs outside this willed object. It is therefore not a question of two species of schism in the proper sense: the separation from God which results indirectly from another sin does not, for that reason alone, constitute a schism (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, corpus and ad 1).

A rupture can nevertheless be schismatic without taking the form of an explicit negation of papal primacy: the voluntary refusal of communion with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff also enters into the definition. One must thus distinguish the object of the rupture, its voluntary character and the culpability of the person.

1.2.1 Formal schism

It is the free and culpable refusal, after baptism, of submission to the legitimate Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him. It implies knowledge of the obligation of unity and a voluntary act of rupture.

Saint Thomas explains that the particular unity of the faithful must be ordered to the unity of the whole Church, as the members of a body to the unity of the entire body. This unity comprises the communion of the members among themselves and their relation to a single head, Christ, whose place the Sovereign Pontiff holds in the Church (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, corpus).

Pertinacity is the obstinate refusal of this unity. An occasional disobedience is not, by itself, a schism: the disobedient person may still recognize the authority of the pope and wish to remain in the Church, while transgressing a particular command. Billot likewise distinguishes the refusal of authority as such from a particular disobedience (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, 3rd ed., Prato, 1909, q. VII, thesis XII, pp. 305–307).

Saint Thomas writes:

“Non obedire praeceptis cum rebellione quadam constituit schismatis rationem.”

“Not to obey the precepts with a certain rebellion constitutes the proper reason of schism.”

He specifies that this rebellion consists in obstinate contempt for the precepts of the Church and refusal of her judgment; not every transgression is therefore schismatic (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, ad 2).

The principled refusal of Roman primacy, such as constitutes the separation of the Eastern communities that reject it, is thus distinct from resistance to a bad act of a superior. This distinction does not dispense from separately examining the culpability of persons raised in those communities.

An inferior may rebuke a superior when there is matter for correction, with the required dispositions of respect and charity. Saint Paul thus rebuked Saint Peter publicly (Galatians 2, 11–14). Saint Thomas teaches:

“Ubi immineret periculum fidei, etiam publice essent praelati a subditis arguendi.”

“When a danger to the faith would threaten, prelates ought to be rebuked by their subjects, even publicly.”

(Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 33, a. 4, ad 2; for the conditions of correction, corpus.)

The case of Savonarola recalls the necessity of distinguishing zeal for the reform of morals from the judgment passed upon each act of resistance: his conflict with Alexander VI comprises the refusal of the prohibition of preaching, the excommunication and the appeal to a council; it cannot be reduced to an incontestable example of legitimate resistance (Johann Peter Kirsch, “Girolamo Savonarola”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XIII, New York, Robert Appleton Company, 1912).

Legitimate correction of a superior and resistance to evil therefore do not of themselves constitute an abandonment of hierarchical unity. Conversely, schism is not limited to a doctrinal negation of the primacy: the refusal of communion with the legitimate members of the Church can likewise constitute it.

Pius XII sets forth the conditions of membership in the visible Body of the Church: baptism, profession of the true faith and the unity of this Body, of which Christ is the head and the Roman Pontiff the visible chief. Separation from this unity is not reduced to a mere private divergence (Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XXXV, pp. 202–203 and 210–211).

Accepting an antipope against a true pope

Knowingly recognizing an antipope against the legitimate Pontiff constitutes a schism when one thereby refuses the submission due to the true pope or communion with the Church subject to him. Suárez considers the election of an antipope among the acts of ecclesial division; he nevertheless distinguishes the refusal of a certain pope from cases in which legitimacy is really doubtful (De charitate, disp. XII, sect. I, nn. 2 and 11, Opera omnia, t. XII, Paris, Vivès, 1858, pp. 733–734 and 736).

The divisions surrounding the claimants of the Great Western Schism and the Photian conflict illustrate the importance of legitimate authority. The Council of Constance forbids the continuation of the obedience of Benedict XIII in its sentence of session 37, of 26 July 1417. The Fourth Council of Constantinople condemns Photius and aims at his supporters, notably in canons 4 and 6. These decisions concerning the divisions and those responsible for them do not allow one to hold every deceived faithful person indiscriminately as personally guilty of a formal schism.

Accepting an antipope in a time of vacant See

In a time of vacancy, the visible unity of the Church does not disappear. Cajetan affirms that the Church remains one when the Apostolic See is vacant (Commentaria in IIam-IIae, q. 39, point VI). The divine necessity of the Roman Pontificate also remains; the vacancy does not transform the Church into an association independent of the institution founded by Christ (Vatican Council, Pastor aeternus, 18 July 1870, chapters II–III).

Thus, during the vacancy, the faithful remain attached to the unity of the Church by keeping the Catholic faith, by recognizing the necessity of the Roman Pontificate and by awaiting the restoration of a legitimate Pontiff.

Knowingly erecting an illegitimate authority into pontifical authority, with refusal of legitimate ecclesial communion, attacks this unity. The division then proceeds from the false authority that is substituted for it, not from the vacancy itself. Adhesion to a heretical claimant adds the question of the faith to that of legitimacy.

The promises of Christ guarantee the permanence of His Church (Matthew 16, 18; 28, 20). The argument defended here is that one cannot invoke pontifical obedience in order to justify a rupture with the faith and the unity of this same Church. Nevertheless, the illegitimate character of the claimant, the exterior separation of his partisans and their personal culpability are distinct questions. Suárez specifies that, when the truth concerning the pontiff cannot otherwise be known to them, the faithful of the people satisfy their duty by following their pastors and Catholic doctors (De charitate, disp. XII, sect. I, n. 11, p. 736).

Schism therefore does not depend exclusively upon the present existence of a pope: it can affect the ecclesial communion that subsists during the vacancy. In order to qualify as formal the schism of a determined person, the conditions of knowledge and culpable will must also be present. The final corollary develops the application to the present crisis.

1.2.2 Material schism

It is a de facto separation from the unity of the Church without the culpability of a conscious refusal of that unity, notably through invincible ignorance or involuntary error. Franzelin treats of persons materially attached to a separated community without culpable adhesion to its separation (Theses de Ecclesia Christi, Rome, 1887, thesis XXIII, pp. 402–406).

Such may be the case of the faithful living in distant regions who have long followed a separated community without knowing the obligation of submission to the Roman Pontiff, or of the baptized raised in those communities without sufficient knowledge of that obligation. This situation must be distinguished from the conscious and voluntary refusal of unity.

The Eastern, Anglican and Old Catholic separations must be examined under the same relation: the acts by which legitimate authority is consciously rejected belong to formal schism; mere inherited membership in a separated community does not demonstrate the personal culpability of each of its members.

Inculpable ignorance excludes the imputability of the delict, and a censure presupposes an exterior, grave, consummated delict accompanied by contumacy (Code of 1917, can. 2202, § 1, and 2242, § 1). This absence of culpability does not, however, render the exterior separation indifferent: the faithful need to be instructed and brought back to unity. Saint Thomas expressly maintains the possibility of relations destined to bring the separated back by salutary warnings (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 4, ad 2).

Visible membership must be distinguished from culpability and from interior union with God. Billot excludes from the visible body of the Church both formal and material schismatics (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, 3rd ed., 1909, q. VII, thesis XII, § 1, p. 307; 5th ed., 1927, p. 312). Van Noort presents the exclusion of public material schismatics as the more common and more probable opinion, not as a dogmatic definition (Dogmatic Theology, t. II, Christ’s Church, English version translated and revised by Castelot and Murphy, Westminster, The Newman Press, impression of 1959, n. 154, pp. 243–244). Good faith therefore does not suffice to establish membership in the visible body; it concerns first of all personal imputability.

1.3 Difference between schism and heresy

Although schism is often linked to heresy, it is distinguished from it by its object.

Heresy consists, after baptism and while retaining the name of Christian, in the obstinate denial or doubt of a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith (Code of 1917, can. 1325, § 2). These truths may be proposed by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church (can. 1323, § 1).

Schism is a rupture of ecclesial unity, even when the truths of faith are recognized. Saint Thomas distinguishes heresy, directly opposed to the faith, from schism, directly opposed to the unity of ecclesial charity. He adds that schism can lead to heresy when the separated seek a doctrinal justification for their rupture (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, ad 3).

This distinction is essential: faith and ecclesial unity are linked, but they are not one and the same object. One cannot therefore qualify every error indiscriminately as schism, nor claim that the conservation of certain truths of faith suffices to exclude every schismatic rupture.

1.4 Refutation of modernist counter-arguments

The objection according to which schism would become relative or would cease to be a rupture of unity by the mere fact of dialogue confuses the means of reconciliation with communion itself. Dialogue destined for return does not dispense from the unity of faith and government required by the Church (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 4, ad 2; Vatican Council, Pastor aeternus, chapter III).

Likewise, designating a separated community as a sister Church does not, by that expression alone, resolve the question of its membership in Catholic unity. Hierarchical submission to the legitimate Pontiff and ecclesial communion remain necessary. Pius IX condemns in Quanta cura the opinion that erects liberty of conscience and of worship into a proper right of every man, in the terms and the context aimed at by the encyclical; this condemnation does not dispense from examining directly the conditions of unity taught by Vatican I and Pius XII (Quanta cura, 8 December 1864; Pastor aeternus, chapter III; Mystici Corporis Christi, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XXXV, pp. 202–203).

2. Definition of the schismatic

A schismatic is a baptized person who separates himself from ecclesial unity. The Code of Canon Law of 1917, can. 1325, § 2, defines him by the refusal to be subject to the Sovereign Pontiff or to communicate with the members of the Church who are subject to him.

The formal and material distinction applies to the culpability of this separation.

2.1 Formal schismatic

He is the one who, knowing the obligation of unity, freely and obstinately refuses submission to the legitimate Pontiff or communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, corpus and ad 2).

The delict of schism entails latae sententiae excommunication, that is, incurred by the very fact, when the general conditions of the censure are present (Code of 1917, can. 2314, § 1, n. 1; 2242, § 1; 2229). Loss of office must be considered separately: canon 188, n. 4, provides that the offices of a cleric become vacant by the very fact and without declaration when he has publicly defected from the Catholic faith. Canon 2314, § 1, n. 3, expressly reserves this provision in the case of a cleric who publicly adheres to a non-Catholic sect or enrolls in it. The mere qualification of formal schism therefore does not dispense from examining the conditions proper to each canonical effect.

2.2 Material schismatic

He is the one who finds himself objectively separated without the culpability of a conscious refusal of unity, through inculpable ignorance or involuntary error. He does not incur a censure by the mere fact of this separation lacking imputability (Code of 1917, can. 2202, § 1, and 2242, § 1).

The absence of culpability does not, however, allow one to affirm that he necessarily remains a member of the visible body of the Church until his correction. Billot maintains the exclusion of material schismatics; Van Noort qualifies the exclusion of public material schismatics as the more common and more probable opinion (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 1909, t. I, p. 307; Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, t. II, 1959, n. 154, pp. 243–244).

2.3 Refutation of modernist counter-arguments

The objection drawn from a partial communion does not allow one to conclude that the separation would be compatible with membership in the visible body in the sense intended by these theologians. Conservation of baptism and of certain truths of faith must be distinguished from ecclesial unity. Bellarmine invokes the separation of schismatics and heretics in his argumentation on the members of the Church and the manifestly heretical pontiff (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30). Pius XII likewise distinguishes baptism from the ensemble of conditions necessary in order to be counted among the members of the Church (Mystici Corporis Christi, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XXXV, pp. 202–203).

3. Further distinctions

3.1 Public and occult

The delict is public when it is already divulged, or when the circumstances allow one prudently to judge that it will easily be divulged. It is occult when it is not public; the fact itself or its imputability may remain occult (Code of 1917, can. 2197, nn. 1 and 4). A separation can therefore be manifested by exterior acts without yet being public.

Purely interior schism is another question. The voluntary refusal of unity can be a grave sin in conscience; nevertheless, a canonical censure presupposes an exterior, grave, consummated delict accompanied by contumacy (can. 2195, § 1, and 2242, § 1). One cannot assimilate every occult schism to an act that is only interior, nor exclude every censure for the sole reason that an exterior delict remains hidden.

Canon 1258, § 1, forbids the faithful from taking active part in the sacred rites of non-Catholics. Its § 2 separately regulates the conditions of a passive or purely material presence. These provisions protect ecclesial communion without identifying every material presence with a formal schism.

The public character of the separation, the loss of office and the validity of acts of jurisdiction must also be distinguished. Canon 188, n. 4, treats of the vacancy of office by public defection from the Catholic faith; canon 208 attaches the cessation of ordinary power to the loss of the office to which it is attached. Canon 2264, for its part, regulates the acts of jurisdiction performed by the excommunicate: before a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, these acts are valid when he possesses the required jurisdiction, but their liceity depends upon the conditions provided; after sentence, they are also invalid, subject to the exception of canon 2261, § 3.

Schism and supplied jurisdiction

The loss of ordinary jurisdiction must not be confused with the impossibility of every supply for a determined act. Billot distinguishes ordinary jurisdiction lost by separation from the visible body and a limited concession for certain effects in necessity, taking the example of absolution at the point of death (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 1909, t. I, q. IX, pp. 341–342 and note 3).

In the present times of a vacant See, the ministry of Catholic priests who keep the integral faith must be considered in the light of the provisions on supply. Canon 209 provides for it in case of common error or of a positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, in the internal forum as in the external forum. Doctrinal fidelity and the vacancy of the See do not, by themselves, take the place of the conditions expressed by this canon. The application of these principles to the ministry in a prolonged vacancy is developed in the chapters devoted to that matter.

3.2 Positive and negative forms of separation

The rupture can be expressed by a positive act, for example the voluntary constitution of an obedience opposed to legitimate authority, or by a refusal of due submission or communion. Under this second form, here called negative, it is the voluntary refusal of unity that is in question; a mere material abstention does not suffice to demonstrate it (Code of 1917, can. 1325, § 2; Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, corpus and ad 2).

A doubt concerning the legitimacy of a claimant does not constitute, by its mere persistence, a schism. One must distinguish a groundless doubt concerning a certain pope from a really founded doubt concerning legitimacy. Suárez expressly establishes this distinction and takes account of the situation of the faithful who cannot otherwise know the truth (De charitate, disp. XII, sect. I, n. 11, Opera omnia, t. XII, p. 736).

3.3 Internal and external judgment: the internal forum and the external forum of the Church

The distinction between the internal forum and the external forum allows one to consider separately personal culpability and the ecclesiastical judgment passed upon exterior facts. Franzelin thus distinguishes the judgment of God from what is presumed in the exterior judgment of the Church (Theses de Ecclesia Christi, Rome, 1887, thesis XXIII, pp. 402–406). Billot sets forth the distinction of the two forums in his treatise on ecclesiastical jurisdiction (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, 3rd ed., 1909, q. XI, thesis XXI, pp. 457–462).

The internal forum concerns notably conscience and confession. The external forum bears upon the visible ecclesiastical order and the facts that fall under its judgment. Once the exterior violation of the law is established, dolus is presumed in the external forum until proof of the contrary (Code of 1917, can. 2200, § 2). This presumption allows a juridical judgment; it does not constitute an infallible knowledge of conscience and does not suppress the possibility of bringing contrary proof.

In the sedevacantist argumentation followed here, the loss of the pontificate by manifest heresy is understood according to the opinion defended by Bellarmine: the manifestly heretical pontiff ceases of himself to be pope and head, as he ceases to be a member of the Church (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30). The absence of a sentence therefore does not exclude the loss of office in this opinion. It no more allows one to hold as demonstrated the defection of a determined man without establishing the facts that constitute it. The divergences among theologians on the prior declaration and on the case of schism without heresy are examined further on.

3.4 Refutation of modernist counter-arguments

The objection according to which an occult separation would have no consequence must be examined according to what the word occult designates. If the rupture remains purely interior, it can constitute a sin without constituting the exterior delict required for a censure. If it has been expressed exteriorly while remaining hidden, its occult character does not suppress the conditions of the delict that may be present (Code of 1917, can. 2195, § 1; 2197, n. 4; 2242, § 1).

One must also distinguish moral culpability from the juridical invalidity of acts. The hidden sin does not suffice to demonstrate that every office has been lost and that all acts are invalid. The public defection aimed at by canon 188, n. 4, the cessation of ordinary jurisdiction governed by canon 208 and the acts of the excommunicate regulated by canon 2264 each have their own conditions. The defense of the unity of the Church requires that they be applied without confusing these different objects.

4. Treatment of the material schismatic

The treatment of the material schismatic requires that personal culpability, membership in the visible body of the Church, possession of an office and the application of a penalty be distinguished. Invincible ignorance can exclude fault and censure without suppressing the exterior separation. The protection of unity must therefore be united to charity toward the person who has gone astray.

4.1 No latae sententiae excommunication in the absence of imputability

The excommunication provided by canon 2314, § 1, n. 1, applies according to the general conditions of penal law. Inculpable ignorance excludes imputability; a censure presupposes an exterior, grave, consummated delict accompanied by contumacy. He whose separation is purely material, without fault or will of rebellion, therefore does not incur this censure for a delict that he has not formally committed. The mere affirmation of his sincerity does not, however, dispense from examining the facts and the conditions of his ignorance (Code of 1917, canons 2202, §§ 1 and 3; 2229; 2242, § 1).

This absence of censure does not prove the maintenance of membership in the visible body of the Church. Billot excludes from this body both formal and material schismatics. He thus distinguishes exterior separation from personal culpability: the material schismatic is not formally rebellious, but good faith does not transform the separated community to which he belongs into a part of the Catholic Church (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, q. VII, thesis XII, § 1, 3rd ed., Prato, 1909, p. 307; 5th ed., Rome, 1927, p. 312).

4.2 Loss of office ipso facto?

Canon 188, n. 4, provides for the vacancy of office, by tacit resignation admitted by law, when the cleric has publicly defected from the Catholic faith. This vacancy occurs by the very fact and without declaration. It must be distinguished from deprivation of office pronounced as a penalty, from the prohibition of exercising an office and from the prohibition of receiving one (Code of 1917, canons 188, n. 4; 2263; 2265; 2314, § 1, nn. 2–3).

A separation that has remained occult does not, as such, fulfill the condition of publicity posed by canon 188, n. 4. This canon therefore does not allow one to declare the office vacant for that sole reason. Conversely, when the defection is public, the absence of a sentence does not suffice to establish the conservation of the office, since the law expressly provides an effect without declaration.

The absence of a personal censure does not by itself settle this question: one must establish whether the facts constitute the public defection aimed at by the canon. Instruction of the person and examination of his intention serve to determine his responsibility; they do not render universally necessary a prior process before every juridical effect of a public defection.

The rules on suspicion of heresy constitute a distinct regime. Canon 2316 aims at him who voluntarily and knowingly helps to propagate heresy, or takes part in sacred acts with heretics contrary to canon 1258. Canon 2315 provides measures if the cause of suspicion is not removed after warning, notably the suspension of the acts of the sacred ministry for the cleric after a further fruitless monition. These provisions apply when their conditions are present; they do not make every material separation an identical case of suspicion of heresy.

4.3 Setting aside in order to protect the faithful

The absence of personal culpability does not oblige one to allow a separation objectively contrary to unity to spread. It is fitting to instruct him who goes astray, to prevent confusion among the faithful and to see to it that the teaching given in the name of the Church remains Catholic. These pastoral duties are not to be confused with the immediate application of a censure to an inculpable person.

When the conditions of suspicion of heresy are present, the monitions and, for a cleric who does not amend, the measures provided in canon 2315 have their place. Outside that case, a determined suspension does not follow from the mere qualification of material schismatic: it requires its own juridical foundation and the intervention of the competent authority.

If, after sufficient instruction, the person understands the obligation of unity and freely refuses it, his separation is no longer purely material. The qualification of formal schism then rests upon this voluntary opposition, and the penal consequences depend upon the conditions provided by law. The mere reception of a warning does not prove, by itself, that all invincible ignorance has ceased (Saint Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, corpus and ad 2; Code of 1917, canons 2202 and 2242, § 1).

Saint Thomas attaches the excommunication of the schismatic to his rupture of ecclesial communion; he also specifies that this penalty does not forbid the relations destined to bring the separated back to unity by salutary warnings. The protection of the faithful and the effort of conversion must thus remain united (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 4, corpus and ad 2).

4.4 Correction and instruction

Pastoral charity toward the material schismatic aims at his return to true unity. One must set forth to him the doctrine of the Church, dissipate the errors that maintain his separation and show him the obligations of Catholic communion. His absence of pertinacity does not render this step useless.

Nor does it give him, of itself, access to the sacraments. Canon 731, § 2, forbids administering the sacraments to heretics or schismatics, even of good faith and even if they ask for them, before they have rejected their errors and have been reconciled with the Church. This discipline clearly distinguishes personal good faith from ecclesial reconciliation.

The duty of preventing the propagation of error also commands prudence in the attribution of functions of teaching or government. One must neither entrust the formation of the faithful to him who would draw them into separation, nor treat indiscriminately every deceived person as an obstinate propagator. Instruction and warnings remain necessary for his return.

The precept of the first and second admonition is found in the epistle to Titus, 3, 10, and Saint Thomas takes it up again concerning the heretic in the Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 11, a. 3, sed contra and corpus. For the schismatic, his teaching on relations ordered to conversion remains that of II-II, q. 39, a. 4, ad 2. Avoidance of the contagion of error therefore does not mean the prohibition of every contact destined to instruct and convert.

4.5 Refutation of modernist counter-arguments

The argument that would deduce from good faith the indifference of the separation confuses the excuse of the person with the conformity of his situation to the unity willed by Christ. Proposition XVI of the Syllabus of Pius IX, of 8 December 1864, condemns the affirmation according to which men can find the way of eternal salvation and obtain that salvation in the worship of any religion whatsoever. The discipline of canon 731, § 2, requires, even for persons of good faith, the return to Catholic communion before admission to the sacraments.

In the crisis opened by Vatican II, the same distinction guides pastoral action: the inculpable ignorance of certain faithful may exclude their personal culpability without authorizing the diffusion of errors or rendering legitimate an authority that is not so. One must preserve the faith and unity, instruct the persons who have gone astray and apply the canonical measures according to their proper conditions, without transforming every material separation into a formal delict.

5. Canonical consequences for the formal schismatic, compared with the material schismatic

5.1 Latae sententiae excommunication

Canon 2314, § 1, n. 1, provides for the excommunication by the very fact of schismatics. This censure presupposes the general conditions of the delict and of contumacy; it does not strike a purely material separation lacking imputability (Code of 1917, canons 2202; 2229; 2242, § 1).

5.2 Ecclesiastical office: loss, exercise and reception

Public defection from the Catholic faith entails the vacancy of office according to canon 188, n. 4. Excommunication, for its part, comprises the prohibition of exercising ecclesiastical offices or functions according to canon 2263, and the prohibition of receiving them according to canon 2265, § 1, n. 2. For the latter, § 2 distinguishes the prohibition from nullity: the act contrary to the prohibition is null if it is performed by an excommunicate to be avoided, called vitandus, or by another excommunicate after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence. This rule leaves standing the other causes of incapacity or of nullity that may be applicable.

The question of the pontificate further requires its own theological examination. Bellarmine maintains that the manifestly heretical pope ceases of himself to be pope and head of the Church, as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the Church. His argument is found in De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter 30. This position must be distinguished from the other opinions on the deposition of the pope and from the particular question of schism without heresy.

5.3 Reception and administration of the sacraments

Canon 2260, § 1, forbids the excommunicate to receive the sacraments. For heretics and schismatics, even of good faith, canon 731, § 2, requires the rejection of errors and reconciliation with the Church before their admission.

Canon 2261 treats of another aspect: the administration of the sacraments and sacramentals by an excommunicated minister. Its § 2 allows the faithful to ask them of him for a just cause, subject to § 3. The latter limits to danger of death recourse to excommunicates to be avoided and to those who have been struck by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence: sacramental absolution may then be asked, as well as the other sacraments and sacramentals if no other minister is available.

Danger of death thus opens possibilities of sacramental assistance; it does not dispense an impenitent schismatic from returning to the Church and does not transform his refusal of Catholic communion into a sufficient disposition for receiving the sacraments.

5.4 Jurisdiction and validity of acts

The loss of an office entails the cessation of the ordinary power attached to it, according to canon 208. It must be distinguished from the regime of the acts of an excommunicate and from the cases in which the Church supplies jurisdiction according to canon 209.

Canon 2264 regulates the acts of jurisdiction, in the internal forum as in the external forum, performed by an excommunicate. Before a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, these acts are valid under the regime of this canon, but illicit, except when they are asked by the faithful in conformity with canon 2261, § 2. After sentence, they are also invalid, subject to canon 2261, § 3.

These provisions on excommunication do not by themselves confer a jurisdiction that the minister does not possess. One must therefore examine distinctly his title of office, the eventual cessation of his ordinary power, the effects of the censure and the conditions of an eventual supply. The mere reference to canon 2264 does not allow one to declare indiscriminately all acts valid or all acts invalid.

5.5 Protection of the faithful and return to unity

Saint Thomas justifies the excommunication of the schismatic by the rupture that he has voluntarily introduced into communion. He nevertheless maintains the possibility of relations destined to bring him back to unity by salutary warnings (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 4, corpus and ad 2). Firmness toward the separation must thus protect the faithful and aim at the amendment of the guilty.

5.6 Absence of an ecclesiastical procedure?

The loss of the pontificate for manifest heresy has been the object of distinct positions among Catholic theologians. Bellarmine defends a cessation of the pontificate by the very fact of manifest heresy: the loss of membership in the Church precedes, in his reasoning, the judgment that the Church can afterwards pass upon the former pontiff (De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter 30).

Cajetan maintains another position: “Papa manifestus haereticus non est ipso facto depositus” — “The manifestly heretical pope is not deposed by the very fact.” He then develops the ministerial intervention of the Church with a view to deposition. The divergence therefore concerns the deposition itself, and not simply the publicity of a vacancy already acquired (De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, chapters XIX–XX, ed. Pollet, Rome, Institutum Angelicum, 1936, nn. 263–282, pp. 120–127; citation: n. 274, p. 124).

Suárez likewise requires a prior judgment before privation of the pontificate. He situates the cessation at the declaratory sentence passed by the Church and explains that Christ then deprives the pontiff of his dignity. In him, loss by the very fact occurs under these conditions; it is not placed before every declaration (De fide, disputation X, section VI, nn. 3, 6 and 10, in Opera omnia, ed. Charles Berton, t. XII, Paris, Ludovicus Vivès, 1858, pp. 316–318).

John of Saint Thomas also requires a prior declaration of the crime by the general council. He distinguishes this declaration from the role that the cardinals may exercise in the convocation of the council. His position therefore does not consist in having the cardinals take cognizance of a vacancy already produced independently of every ecclesiastical judgment (Cursus theologicus, commentary on II-II, q. 1, a. 7, De auctoritate Summi Pontificis, disputation II, article III; French translation by Pierre-Marie O.P., Le Sel de la Terre, n. 90, autumn 2014).

The question of the purely schismatic pope still requires a distinction. Billot contemplates schism as a possible cause of cessation of the pontificate, in the hypothesis that the pope would no longer wish to communicate with the Catholic Church. Suárez admits the possibility of a schismatic behavior of the pope, but refuses to conclude from that sole motive the loss of his dignity; he contemplates a defensive resistance. These authors therefore do not here defend an identical proposition (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, q. XIV, ed. 1909, p. 614; ed. 1927, p. 629; Suárez, De charitate, disputation XII, section II, n. 3, cited edition, t. XII, pp. 736–737).

The thesis of the loss of the pontificate without prior judgment, retained here for manifest heresy, rests upon the position of Bellarmine. It does not require that Cajetan, Suárez and John of Saint Thomas have professed this same position. Its application to the present crisis presupposes that one establish the facts of manifest heresy that constitute its premise; it does not follow from the mere existence of a controversy among theologians.

5.7 Refutation of modernist counter-arguments

The affirmation according to which no loss of office nor any nullity of election could exist without a prior declaration is too general. Canon 188, n. 4, expressly provides a vacancy without declaration in the case that it defines; Bellarmine defends, for the manifestly heretical pope, a cessation of the pontificate by the very fact. A prior procedure cannot therefore be presented as the unanimous position of Catholic authorities.

The constitution Cum ex apostolatus officio of Paul IV contemplates, in § 6, the bishop, even archbishop, patriarch or primate, the cardinal, even legate, and the Roman pontiff himself, of whom it is discovered that he had deviated from the Catholic faith or had fallen into heresy before his promotion or elevation. The passage comprising the clause of schism also aims at him who would have incurred, fomented or committed it. The promotion or elevation is then declared null and of no value, even if it was accomplished in concord and with the unanimous assent of the cardinals (Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio, 1559, § 6, in Bullarum diplomatum et privilegiorum sanctorum Romanorum pontificum, Turin edition, t. VI, 1860, p. 554, text and note 1).

This case concerns an impediment prior to elevation and the initial nullity of the latter. It is distinguished from the loss of the pontificate by a heresy that has become manifest after a valid election. In the first hypothesis, the person concerned has not acquired the office; in the second, Bellarmine’s thesis explains how a pontiff who had possessed it ceases to possess it. These two questions must be set forth distinctly in order to establish with precision the consequences of a public defection.

6. Theological foundation

The teaching of the Fathers, the Doctors and Catholic theologians establishes the necessity of the visible unity of the Church. Schism properly so called is a special sin against this unity, willed by Christ. Its study requires that exterior separation, personal culpability, membership in the visible body and the juridical consequences be distinguished. The sedevacantist application of these principles to the crisis opened by Vatican II must respect each of these distinctions.

6.1 Saint Cyprian of Carthage: the unity of the Church

Saint Cyprian teaches that the Church is one and indivisible. He compares her unity to the seamless tunic of Christ and affirms that he who does not have the Church for mother cannot have God for father. The image of the spouse signifies that the abandonment of the Church for a separated communion is an infidelity and a separation from her promises (De ecclesiae catholicae unitate, nn. 6–7). Saint Paul teaches that Christ loved the Church and delivered Himself for her in order to sanctify her (Ephesians 5, 25–26).

In his letter to Pompeius, Saint Cyprian also takes up the image of the sealed fountain in his argumentation on the Church and baptism (Letter to Pompeius, n. 11; letter 73 in the translation of Robert Ernest Wallis, Ante-Nicene Fathers, t. V, 1886).

The necessity of unity does not, however, erase the difference between persons deceived in their simplicity and the obstinate leaders of the division: Cyprian expressly distinguishes these situations and invites a return to the Church (De ecclesiae catholicae unitate, n. 23). The separation must be overcome; instruction and the call to unity must take account of the responsibility of each.

6.2 Saint Augustine: the gravity of schism

Against the Donatists, Saint Augustine affirms that a necessity cannot justify the tearing of ecclesial unity. He writes, in the French translation of the Latin: “It is not easy to find anything more grave than the sacrilege of schism” (Contra epistulam Parmeniani, II, 11, 24–25).

This gravity concerns the rupture of unity. It does not allow one to presume indiscriminately the same culpability in all those who find themselves in a separated community. Invincible ignorance suppresses the imputability of the delict, whereas culpable ignorance does not produce the same effect (Code of Canon Law of 1917, canon 2202, § 1). The moral distinction therefore does not transform the separation into a good: it regulates the judgment passed upon persons and the manner of bringing them back to unity.

The objection according to which ecclesial divisions could be accepted as a permanent richness thus collides with the necessity of the unity willed by Christ.

6.3 Saint Thomas Aquinas: the sin of schism and its correction

Saint Thomas defines schism as a special sin against the unity of ecclesial charity. Properly schismatic are those who separate themselves of their own accord and intentionally from the unity of the Church. This unity comprises the communion of the members among themselves and their subordination to a single head. A particular disobedience therefore does not become, by that alone, a schism: the rebellious refusal to submit to the judgment of the Church constitutes the properly schismatic rupture (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, corpus and ad 2).

According to its species, infidelity is more grave than schism, because it is opposed to God as first truth, whereas schism is opposed to ecclesial unity, a participated good inferior to God. A schismatic can nevertheless sin more than an infidel by reason of the circumstances of his act. The good of the multitude therefore does not allow one to conclude that schism would be, by nature, more grave than infidelity (ibid., a. 2, corpus and ad 2).

Saint Thomas justifies the excommunication of the schismatic, while reserving the relations that aim at bringing him back by salutary warnings (ibid., a. 4, corpus and ad 2). Concerning heretics, he also sets forth the correction preceding their exclusion and takes up the first and second admonitions of Titus 3, 10 (II-II, q. 11, a. 3, sed contra and corpus). The instruction of him who errs without culpability and the sanction of him who obstinately refuses unity thus correspond to different situations.

6.4 Saint Robert Bellarmine: the manifestly heretical pope

Saint Robert Bellarmine maintains that a manifestly heretical pope ceases of himself to be pope and head of the Church, as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the Church. The reason he gives is that a man who no longer belongs to this body cannot remain its head (De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter 30, fifth opinion).

In his argumentation, Bellarmine invokes Saint Celestine I concerning the persons struck with excommunication by Nestorius after his heretical preaching: they remain in the communion of Celestine. Those whom Nestorius had unjustly struck thus conserve ecclesial communion (ibid., letters of Celestine to John of Antioch and to the clergy of Constantinople cited by Bellarmine).

This position furnishes the theological principle retained in the sedevacantist argumentation: the loss of the pontificate by manifest heresy does not depend, according to Bellarmine, upon a sentence that would produce it. It is distinguished from the opinion of Cajetan and from that of Suárez on the prior intervention of the Church. This divergence belongs to Catholic theology prior to the council; to require a declaration according to their reasoning does not therefore suffice to characterize a position as modernist.

Pius XII recalls the necessity of union with the Vicar of Christ in order to belong to the Mystical Body (Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. XXXV, pp. 210–211). During a vacancy of the See, fidelity to the principle of the primacy remains: it bears Catholics toward the restoration of a legitimate pontiff and toward submission to him who really possesses the pontifical title.

6.5 Cardinal Louis Billot: material separation and visible unity

Billot distinguishes formal heretics, to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known, from material heretics, who invincibly ignore this authority and of good faith choose another directing rule (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, q. VII, thesis XI, 3rd ed., 1909, p. 292; 5th ed., 1927, p. 297).

He nevertheless distinguishes this question of culpability from membership in the visible body: in his exposition on schism, he excludes from this body both formal and material schismatics (ibid., q. VII, thesis XII, § 1, ed. 1909, p. 307; ed. 1927, p. 312). The absence of culpable rebellion therefore does not suffice, in his analysis, to maintain exterior membership in the Church.

Concerning the cessation of the pontificate, Billot also contemplates the case of schism: “Per schisma, ut si cum Ecclesia catholica communicare iam nollet” — “By schism, as if he no longer wished to communicate with the Catholic Church” (ibid., q. XIV, ed. 1909, p. 614; ed. 1927, p. 629). He immediately presents the hypotheses of apostasy and of schism of the pontiff as extremely improbable.

His exposition of unity distinguishes government, communion and faith (ibid., q. III, ed. 1909, pp. 147–150). These bonds constitute visible unity; personal good faith therefore does not give to an objective separation the character of a legitimate form of this unity.

6.6 Loss of the pontificate and the distinct case of schism without heresy

Bellarmine’s principle on the manifestly heretical pope rests upon the incompatibility between separation from the Church and the function of her head. His argumentation also treats of schismatics, notably concerning Novatian (De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter 30). Billot expressly contemplates the cessation of the pontificate by a refusal of communion with the Catholic Church (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, ed. 1909, p. 614; ed. 1927, p. 629).

One must nevertheless distinguish this question from that of manifest heresy. Suárez admits the possibility of a schism without heresy, but rejects the opinion according to which the pope would lose his dignity by schism alone. He admits on the other hand defensive resistance to harmful acts (De charitate, disp. XII, sect. II, n. 3, in Opera omnia, t. XII, Paris, Vivès, 1858, pp. 736–737).

The sedevacantist argument retained here rests upon Bellarmine’s doctrine concerning manifest heresy. The distinct question of pontifical schism without heresy must keep its own arguments and the divergences of Catholic authors.

6.7 The limits of religious communion with schismatics

The protection of visible unity comprises precise limits to participation in non-Catholic worship. Canon 1258, § 1, of the Code of 1917 forbids the faithful active participation in the sacred ceremonies of non-Catholics. Its § 2 regulates certain cases of merely passive or material presence for a grave reason, without danger of perversion or scandal.

This discipline bears upon the exterior act of religious communion. The invincible ignorance of a person belonging to a separated community does not suffice to authorize a Catholic to take active part in the worship of that community. Charity toward persons must therefore be united to fidelity to the rules that protect the faith and the unity of the Church.

6.8 Pius XII: membership in the Church and the life of grace

Pius XII distinguishes membership in the body of the Church from the possession of charity. Not every grave sin separates from this body as do, by their nature, heresy, schism or apostasy. A member can lose the life of grace without for that reason alone ceasing to belong to the Church; conversely, the absence of personal culpability does not allow one to confuse every exterior separation with an intact visible membership (Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. XXXV, pp. 202–203; for material separation, Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, ed. 1909, p. 307).

Non-submission to a purported authority, in the sedevacantist argumentation, is therefore founded upon the absence of a legitimate title, notably by reason of manifest heresy, and must be distinguished from the mere observation of the personal sins of a superior. Resistance to a bad act and the refusal to recognize a true title of authority are distinct acts (Saint Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 33, a. 4, ad 2; q. 39, a. 1, ad 2).

6.9 Franzelin, Cajetan and Van Noort

Franzelin distinguishes material separation and separation accompanied by a culpable intention. He also distinguishes the judgment of God and the presumptions of the external forum (Theses de Ecclesia Christi, Rome, 1887, thesis XXIII, pp. 402–406). This distinction imposes that one not automatically identify the exterior situation and personal culpability.

Cajetan describes the interior withdrawal by which a person refuses ecclesial unity (Commentaria in IIam-IIae, q. 39, commentary on a. 1, point III). On the deposition of the manifestly heretical pope, he maintains that the latter is not deposed by the very fact (De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, chapter XIX, n. 274, ed. Pollet, Rome, Institutum Angelicum, 1936, p. 124). His position is therefore not to be confused with that of Bellarmine.

Van Noort presents the exclusion of the public material schismatic from the body of the Church as the more common and more probable opinion (Dogmatic Theology, t. II, Christ’s Church, translation and revision by John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy, Westminster, The Newman Press, second impression, 1959, n. 154, pp. 243–244). The qualification of opinion here concerns the visible membership of the public material schismatic; the necessity of Catholic unity remains.

Pastoral care must thus call separated persons to unity without attributing to them a culpability that does not result from their voluntary conduct. Censures presuppose an exterior, grave and consummated delict, joined to contumacy; their application must respect these conditions (Code of 1917, canon 2242, § 1).

6.10 Refutation of objections that relativize schism

The objection that reduces hierarchical separation to a legitimate diversity misunderstands the nature of the unity of the Church. The Vatican Council teaches the obligation of hierarchical subordination and of true obedience toward the Roman Pontiff, in order that the Church be one flock under one supreme pastor (Pastor aeternus, 18 July 1870, chapter III).

The defense of this unity obliges one to recognize legitimate authority and to reject a really established usurpation. In the application to the conciliar crisis, it requires that one distinguish the acts contrary to the faith, the title of authority of those who impose them, and the personal responsibility of those who follow them. Catholic unity allows neither the legitimizing of error, nor the indiscriminate attribution of the same fault to all those who suffer its consequences.

7. Conclusion

Formal schism is a voluntary rupture of ecclesial unity. When it constitutes a canonical delict and the conditions of imputability are fulfilled, it is struck with excommunication incurred by the very fact (Code of 1917, canons 2242, § 1, and 2314, § 1, n. 1). A purely material separation proceeding from invincible ignorance does not entail this censure for the delict of schism (canon 2202, § 1).

The absence of censure does not, however, by itself settle visible membership nor the possession of an office. Billot excludes material schismatics from the visible body; Van Noort qualifies the exclusion of the public material schismatic as the more common and more probable opinion. As for the vacancy of an office, canon 188, n. 4, aims at public defection from the Catholic faith. Membership, imputability and office must therefore be examined according to their proper conditions.

The Church must instruct him who is mistaken, correct him who goes astray and protect the faithful against the public diffusion of the separation. Penal measures cannot be applied indiscriminately to the material schismatic as to the formal rebel. Pastoral prudence and the protection of the faith remain necessary even when personal fault is not established (Saint Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 4, ad 2; Code of 1917, canons 1258 and 2242).

In the sedevacantist application defended here, the vacancy of the See results from the public heresy of Paul VI in 1964, according to the principle of loss of the pontificate by manifest heresy set forth by Bellarmine. This application comprises a judgment upon the doctrinal acts in question; it never dispenses from distinguishing objective separation from the culpability of each.

8. Corollary: the present times of a vacant See lasting more than sixty years

The sedevacantist position retained considers the See of Peter as vacant since the public heresy of Paul VI in 1964. One must therefore examine the recognition of a claimant deprived of pontifical title in a Church deprived of a reigning pope. Schism does not necessarily presuppose a heresy: it bears directly upon ecclesial communion and upon hierarchical subordination.

Voluntarily recognizing a usurper against Catholic unity can constitute a formal schism, whether he be a heretic or not. The illegitimacy of his title and the culpability of his partisan are nevertheless two distinct questions. An invincible error does not render an invalid title legitimate; it prevents one from attributing to him who is mistaken the culpable refusal that he has not willed.

8.1 Adherence to an antipope in a period of vacancy

Vacancy designates the absence of a legitimate titular of the See of Peter, notably after the death or valid resignation of a pope. The Church then remains united under Christ and ordered to the Roman pontificate. Cajetan explains that her unity subsists even when the See is vacant (Commentaria in IIam-IIae, q. 39, commentary on a. 1, point VI). The restoration of a pontiff must respect divine law and the conditions of a legitimate designation; the search for extraordinary means in case of prolonged vacancy remains subject to this requirement.

An antipope is a claimant to the pontificate who does not possess a valid title. When his party constitutes itself against the communion of the Church, the usurpation introduces a hierarchical division. The canonical definition of schism bears upon the refusal of submission to the Sovereign Pontiff or the refusal of communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him (Code of 1917, canon 1325, § 2). In a period of vacancy, Catholic communion and ordination to the Apostolic See subsist; the absence of a reigning pope therefore does not authorize one to substitute for them an illegitimate obedience.

This unity rests upon the institution of Christ: “Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam” — “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church” (Matthew 16, 18).

Suárez treats of the schism raised around the visible head, notably by the establishment of an antipope. He nevertheless distinguishes the refusal of a certainly legitimate pope from the case in which his legitimacy is reasonably doubtful. The faithful who cannot otherwise discover the truth can satisfy their duty by following their pastors and their Catholic doctors (De charitate, disp. XII, sect. I, nn. 2 and 11, in Opera omnia, t. XII, Paris, Vivès, 1858, pp. 733–734 and 736).

Thus, the will to support a false head against recognized unity is schismatic; the mere observation of an error concerning the identity of the pontiff does not prove this will. The distinction of formal schism and material schism here retains all its bearing.

8.2 The case of an antipope who is also a heretic

Heresy consists, after baptism and while retaining the Christian name, in pertinaciously denying or calling into doubt a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. It is not limited to the sole truths solemnly defined: the revealed truths proposed by the ordinary and universal magisterium must likewise be believed (Code of 1917, canons 1323, § 1, and 1325, § 2).

According to Bellarmine, the manifestly heretical pope ceases of himself to be pope and a member of the Church (De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter 30). To recognize as head of the Church him who has lost this title therefore establishes a false submission. But adhesion to his person and adhesion to his heresies must be distinguished: the partisan becomes personally a heretic only if his own conduct fulfills the conditions of heresy, and a formal schismatic if he voluntarily refuses Catholic communion.

We apply Bellarmine’s principle to Paul VI since his public heresy in 1964 and to the claimants who have succeeded him in the continuation of the conciliar errors. The questions of religious liberty and of ecumenism belong to the doctrinal acts upon which this application bears. Canon 188, n. 4, establishes for ecclesiastical offices the vacancy by public defection from the Catholic faith; the demonstration relative to the pontificate here rests upon Bellarmine’s own reasoning.

The objection drawn from good faith must receive a distinct answer according to its object. Good faith does not confer the pontificate upon a man who does not possess its title. On the other hand, invincible ignorance suppresses the imputability of the delict in him who errs (canon 2202, § 1). One must therefore instruct the faithful and show them the objective separation without declaring them all guilty of the same refusal.

Pius IX condemns religious indifferentism, notably the idea that every religion can constitute a way of salvation interchangeable with the true religion, as well as the general hope of salvation granted to all those who do not live in the true Church of Christ (Syllabus, 8 December 1864, propositions XVI–XVII). The necessity of the Church obliges one to seek and to conserve Catholic unity; it does not suppress the distinction between invincible ignorance and voluntary rebellion.

8.3 The case of an antipope without heresy

Schism can exist without heresy, since its proper object is the rupture of ecclesial unity (Saint Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, ad 3). A claimant can therefore profess an orthodox doctrine and be deprived of pontifical title. Conservation of the faith does not render a usurpation valid and does not legitimize the formation of an obedience opposed to Catholic communion.

One must distinguish the man who has never acquired the pontificate from the validly elected pope who would afterwards become schismatic without heresy. Billot contemplates the cessation of the pontificate by schism; Suárez rejects this consequence for schism alone (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, ed. 1909, p. 614; Suárez, De charitate, disp. XII, sect. II, n. 3, Opera omnia, t. XII, pp. 736–737). The illegitimacy of an intruder can be established without assimilating these two cases.

The obligation of visible unity remains. Pius XII sets forth the bonds by which the members belong to the Mystical Body, and the Code forbids active participation in non-Catholic worship (Mystici Corporis Christi, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. XXXV, pp. 202–203 and 210–211; Code of 1917, canon 1258, § 1). These principles justify fidelity to Catholic communion even when a separation does not comprise, in each of its members, a conscious negation of a dogma.

The Great Western Schism shows the necessity of resolving concurrent claims to the pontificate. At its session XXXVII, on 26 July 1417, the Council of Constance condemns Benedict XIII, qualifies him as schismatic and heretic and forbids the continuation of his obedience. The sentence thus aims at a determined claimant and the continuation of his party after the acts and admonitions set forth by the council.

The objection according to which a sincere conviction would render the usurpation legitimate confuses title and conscience. The conviction of the partisan does not create the right of the claimant. But the objection according to which a person could be mistaken without committing a formal schism must be admitted under the conditions specified by Suárez and by the rules on imputability. Objective separation calls for a return to unity; personal fault depends upon knowledge and will.

8.4 Theological-canonical development and conclusion

The reasoning distinguishes three points: the existence of a valid pontifical title, exterior communion with the Church and personal responsibility. Formal schism requires a voluntary rupture of unity; an exterior separation can exist without this culpable will being present. Sanctions and loss of office then obey their proper conditions.

In our sedevacantist position, the prolonged vacancy goes back to the public heresy of Paul VI in 1964. Fidelity to the Apostolic See then requires that one keep the integral Catholic faith, recognize the primacy of divine institution and work for the restoration of a legitimate pontiff. It excludes the voluntary establishment of a false authority against the unity of the Church.

The recognition of an antipope, heretic or not, must therefore be abandoned when his illegitimacy is established. He who knowingly supports this false authority against Catholic communion renders himself guilty of formal schism. He who is invincibly mistaken must be instructed and brought back to unity, without one’s attributing to him the culpability of the refusal that he has not willed. Firmness in the truth and charity toward souls serve together the unity of the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

Come, Jesus, come!

List of sources

1. Code of Canon Law of 1917. Codex Iuris Canonici Pii X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus, Benedicti Papae XV auctoritate promulgatus, Rome, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1917, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. IX, second part. Original Latin. Canons 188, n. 4, p. 41; 208–209, p. 45; 731, § 2, p. 156; 1258, p. 245; 1323 and 1325, p. 257; 2195 and 2197, p. 412; 2200 and 2202, p. 413; 2229, p. 420; 2242, p. 422; 2260–2261, p. 427; 2263–2265, p. 428; 2314–2316, pp. 438–439; official appendix, corrections of 17 October 1917 for canon 2265, § 2, and Errata corrige for canon 2264.
2. Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa theologiae — Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 11, a. 3; q. 33, a. 4, ad 2; q. 39, aa. 1–4. Latin text of the Leonine edition, Rome, 1895. English translation of the Dominican Fathers of the English Province, second revised edition, 1920.
3. Saint Cyprian of Carthage. De ecclesiae catholicae unitate — On the Unity of the Catholic Church, nn. 6–7 and 23; letter to Pompeius, nn. 6 and 11, numbered 73 in Ante-Nicene Fathers, t. V, English translation by Robert Ernest Wallis, edition Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, Buffalo, Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886. Latin originals.
4. Saint Augustine. Contra epistulam Parmeniani — Against the Letter of Parmenian, book II, chapter XI, nn. 24–25. Latin original.
5. Boniface VIII. Unam sanctam, in Corpus iuris canonici, edition Emil Friedberg, t. II, Extravagantes communes, book I, title VIII, chapter 1, col. 1245–1246; reprint, Graz, Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1959. Latin original.
6. Paul IV. Cum ex apostolatus officio, 1559, § 6, in Bullarum diplomatum et privilegiorum sanctorum Romanorum pontificum. Taurinensis editio, t. VI, Augustae Taurinorum, Seb. Franco et Henrico Dalmazzo editoribus, 1860, pp. 551–556, especially p. 554, text and note 1. Latin original.
7. Pius IX. Quanta cura and Syllabus complectens praecipuos nostrae aetatis errores, 8 December 1864; Syllabus, propositions XVI and XVII. Latin originals.
8. First Vatican Council. Pastor aeternus, dogmatic constitution of 18 July 1870, chapters II–III, Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. VI, 1870–1871, pp. 40–47. Latin original.
9. Leo XIII. Satis cognitum, encyclical letter of 29 June 1896, notably § 10. Latin original.
10. Pius XII. Mystici Corporis Christi, encyclical letter of 29 June 1943, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, t. XXXV, 1943, pp. 193–248, especially pp. 202–203 and 210–211. Latin original.
11. Saint Robert Bellarmine. De Romano Pontifice — On the Roman Pontiff, book II, chapters 29–30. English translation by Ryan Grant: De Romano Pontifice. On the Roman Pontiff, De Controversiis, vol. Ia, books I–II, Mediatrix Press, first edition, 2015, from the Latin edition of Ingolstadt of 1588. Latin original.
12. Saint Celestine I. Letters to John of Antioch and to the clergy of Constantinople, cited by Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter 30, concerning the persons struck with sentences by Nestorius.
13. Francisco Suárez. Opera omnia, new edition established by Charles Berton, t. XII, Paris, Ludovicus Vivès, 1858. Latin original. De fide, disp. X, sect. VI, nn. 3, 6 and 10, pp. 316–318; De charitate, disp. XII, sect. I, nn. 2 and 11, pp. 733–734 and 736; sect. II, n. 3, pp. 736–737.
14. Thomas de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan. Scripta theologica, vol. I, De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii cum apologia eiusdem tractatus — On the Comparison of the Authority of the Pope and of the Council, with the apology of that treatise, edition Vincentius M. Iacobus Pollet, Rome, Institutum Angelicum, 1936, chapters XIX–XX, nn. 263–282, pp. 120–127, especially n. 274, p. 124. Latin original.
15. Thomas de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan. Commentaria in IIam-IIae — Commentary on the second part of the second part of the Summa Theologiae, q. 39, points III and VI–VIII. Latin original.
16. John of Saint Thomas. Cursus theologicus, treatise De auctoritate Summi Pontificis — On the Authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, disp. II, art. III, in the commentary on II-II, q. 1, a. 7. Latin original. French translation by Pierre-Marie O.P., Le Sel de la Terre, n. 90, autumn 2014.
17. Louis Billot. Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi sive continuatio theologiae de Verbo Incarnato, t. I, De credibilitate Ecclesiae et de intima ejus constitutione, third edition, Prato, Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1909. Latin original. Q. III, pp. 147–150; q. VII, thesis XI, p. 292, and thesis XII, pp. 305–307; q. IX, pp. 341–342 and note 3; q. XI, thesis XXI, pp. 457–462; q. XIV, p. 614. Fifth edition, Rome, apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1927: pp. 297, 310–312 and 629.
18. Johann Baptist Franzelin. Theses de Ecclesia Christi. Opus posthumum, brevi praemisso de eiusdem vita commentario, Rome, ex Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1887, thesis XXIII, pp. 402–406. Latin original.
19. Van Noort. Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, Christ’s Church — Dogmatic Theology, volume II, The Church of Christ, translation and revision John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy, Westminster, Maryland, The Newman Press, second impression, July 1959, n. 154, pp. 243–244. Work of Latin origin; English version.
20. -J. Congar. “Schisme”, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. XIV, first part, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1939, col. 1286–1312. French original.
21. Council of Constance. Session XXXVII, 26 July 1417, sentence concerning Benedict XIII. English translation according to Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.
22. Fourth Council of Constantinople. 869–870, definition and canons 4 and 6 concerning Photius and his supporters.
23. Johann Peter Kirsch. “Girolamo Savonarola”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XIII, New York, Robert Appleton Company, 1912. Secondary historical source, in English.
24. Sacred Scripture. Vulgate: Galatians 2, 11–14; Matthew 16, 18; Matthew 28, 20; Titus 3, 10–11; Ephesians 5, 25–26. Latin text.
25. Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition. Lamentabili sane exitu, decree of 3 July 1907, approved and confirmed by Pius X on 4 July 1907, Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. XL, 1907, pp. 470–478. Latin original.
26. Benedict XIV. Allatae sunt, 1755. Latin original.