What’ll it be? Schism or heresy?
During the pontificate of John Paul II there were recurring complaints that the pope too liberally tolerated heresy within the Catholic Church. Prominent laypeople, priests, and even some bishops advocated practices and beliefs contrary to the Church’s teachings, yet JPII rarely cracked down on such offenses. The pope’s defenders, however, argued that JPII was doing so in order to avoid a formal schism. If he too quickly punished those who advocated heresy, the argument went, then an even worse schism would rupture the Church.
This tension between tolerating heresy or tolerating schism has been with the Church since the beginning, and Church leaders have always had to tolerate one or the other when dealing with those members who promote something against the teachings of the Church. Pope John Paul II obviously leaned towards tolerating heresy more than schism, and in doing so, he stayed within the more common Western tradition. But this is not the way of the East; in fact, if you look at the history of the Church, a general rule of thumb has been that the West tolerates heresy more than schism, and the East tolerates schism more than heresy.
The very names that have been associated with the Church in the East and the West support this rule. The Church in the West has been known as the “Catholic” Church: “catholic” means “universal” and emphasizes the unity of the Body of Christ throughout the world. The Church in the East has been known as the “Orthodox” Church; “orthodox” means “right belief” and emphasizes the correct teachings of the church. Although there are obviously exceptions, this has been the path taken by each throughout the centuries: the Catholic Church has tolerated heresy in its ranks more liberally, but the Orthodox churches have endured more internal schisms than the West. This also partially explains the fact that the drive for reunification between East and West has mostly originated in the West: we are more willing to endure varied beliefs between us for the cause of unity, but the East is more adamant that our beliefs align fully before we talk unity (for example, note the differing receptions between the East and West to the Council of Florence).
Ecclesiology (the theological understanding of the Church) is the fundamental reason for these different perspectives. In the West, the Church is most often seen as a worldwide Body – each diocese is “part” of the one, universal Church. But in the East, each diocese is seen as the “whole,” even “catholic” (which can also mean “full”) church, and the universal Church is the communion of all these local, “catholic” churches. In fact, it is common to use the singular for the “Catholic Church” but the plural for the “Orthodox churches,” reflecting this essential difference in our understanding of what the Church is. So for a Western Christian, the rupture of one part of the Church is a horrendous calamity, but in the East, even if a part of the Church were to go into schism, one’s diocese still fulfills the meaning of being the “catholic” Church.
So, which way is better? Which should the Church tolerate more: schism or heresy? In an ideal (i.e. unfallen) world, neither would need to be tolerated, as neither would exist. But in our fallen world, both do exist and both must be addressed by the Church. For those of us who live in the West and have seen heresy rampant at times among our ranks, it is easy to long for a stricter stand by the hierarchy, schism be damned. But schism is a terrible breach in the Body of Christ, one that often has a long-lasting impact (consider the fact that two of the greatest schisms of the Church – the Nestorian and Monophysite schisms [both Eastern schisms] – are over 1,500 years old). It is too easy to have an attitude of “let them leave, they aren’t Catholic anyway,” but one must realize that a formal schism has the possibility of institutionalizing heresy or at least non-communion for endless generations to come. Of course, tolerating heresy has its limits as well, for what good is it to be in visible communion if we no longer confess “one Faith?”
Ultimately, the Church abhors both heresy and schism and does everything it can to avoid either. In each case the Church hierarchy must do all it can to avoid schism as well as avoid heretical beliefs or practices taking hold within the Church. As members of the Body of Christ, we must pray fervently for our leaders that when such situations arise they follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit in doing all they can to resolve both heretical teachings and schismatic tendencies.
Wow, this is as clear and accurate an assessment of the Eastern Orthodox churches by a Westerner as we’re likely to see.
I would add that many of the characteristic elements of Orthodoxy which you described, are also some of the most salient traits of the Protestant churches in America.
…So that Protestants who study the history of the Church (and therefore convert) are more likely to convert to the OCA or Orthodox church (than to the Romish Church)?
My opinion is that it’s mostly a deeply ingrained antipathy to the Papacy, which I find is marked in my (otherwise very rational) Orthodox friends.
The problem with choosing heresy over schism is that it is easier it infect those who do not have a clear understanding of the issues involved. With formal schism (such as the SSPX), it is easy for an average Catholic to see that they are no longer within the Church, even if you are tempted to agree with them. On the other hand, with heresy inside the Church, the average person could say well this priest, that bishop or some Senator believes it and is still in good standing and receiving Communion in the Church so even if it is not completely orthodox, the question must still be open for discussion and I can take whatever belief I want and still be part of the Church. Heresy that is tolerated is actually more insidious than accepted schism.
Ms. Anderson,
There is no formal schism between the SSPX and the Catholic Church. The SSPX pledges full fidelity to the Catholic Church. Contrary to what you say, it is not “easy for an average Catholic to see that they are no longer within the Church.” I beg you to read some of the writings by the SSPX (esp. those of Archbishop Lefebvre) in regards to doctrine and Tradition instead of listening solely to the liberal heretics within the Church.
@Andrew:
The Society of St. Pius X does not “pledge full fidelity” to the Catholic Church, as you claim. The Society denies the legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council, which was an ecumenical council as defined by the Church over the 2000+ years She has existed, and thus inspired by the Holy Spirit. They may not be formal schismatics–but that does not mean that they are not schismatics at all.
However, this discussion is tangential, and I have a feeling that you are only trolling. Best wishes, though!
Andrew,
The situation with SSPX is complicated. Although they may nominally “pledge full fidelity to the Catholic Church”, recent statements by at least some of their leadership has made it clear that they consider themselves to be the final arbiter of what is and what is not Catholic teaching. In other words, they may pledge fidelity, but by that they do not mean obedience or even agreement. This leaves them little advantage over the “Anglo-Catholics”, except that (most of) the latter do not have valid priestly orders.
What do you expect? The church doesn’t bother to read much scripture to the starving sheep. The priests rarely answer questions with scripture or tradition supported by examples from the early fathers. The church has traditions that at least seem to contradict the scripture. Who knows what is going on? I really don’t think the Pope does. I doubt that he, or anyone, ever read the entire Catechism. And I have yet to find a priest or bishop who can explain from scripture or tradition of the early fathers how beliefs like “annulment” can be justified. I don’t even get reasonable responses from blogs like this, and I’ve been asking this question for over 30 years. You can’t expect unity when you make stuff up; especially when it at least seems to contradict scripture. I think doctrine should be directly supported by scripture, non-conflicting tradition should be supported by early father church documents, and everything else is irrelevant or God would have taken the time to say so. Since God didn’t make a point about Mary being a virgin post Jesus, or Jesus being an only child, it should not be doctrine – as in – you won’t go to hell because you believe one way or the other. Bogus (unsupported) beliefs ARE the problem. If the church seriously wants unity, it should only make Biblical facts supported by early father (before 1000 AD) agreements into doctrine. But Satan works within the church too. What do you expect?
Andrew and Henry,
Let this be a warning: I’m not going to let this post become a thread for bashing the Church’s teachings or advocating for schismatic groups. I will delete any future comments of that ilk if I find them crossing the line. Feel free to get your own blog if you wish to push such views publicly.
To everyone else: I welcome constructive comments and criticism on the subject at hand.
I think we cannot tollerate both. In the end they cannot even be separated: heresy leads to scism and viceversa.
—
@ Henry
I do not know what priests you met (alas not all are good), but I think you either you do not know what you are talking about or you are just making stuff up.
In any case there are plenty of cathesm courses for adults, sites and books out there with all the answers you seek.
Before you complain you might get informed first.
“Bogus (unsupported) beliefs ARE the problem.”
Catholic teaching is not bogus at all. If you took some time to inform yourself you’d know that.
PS: I apologize for the spelling mistakes
Keri Andersen at 11:36
Keri, you’ve nailed it!
“…could say well this priest, that bishop or some Senator believes it and is still in good standing and receiving Communion in the Church so even if it is not completely orthodox, the question must still be open for discussion and I can take whatever belief I want and still be part of the Church. Heresy that is tolerated is actually more insidious than accepted schism.”
How many times have we heard “well, Father says it’s okay”?
Hi Eric, you said:
“In the West, the Church is most often seen as a worldwide Body – each diocese is “part” of the one, universal Church. But in the East, each diocese is seen as the “whole,” even “catholic” (which can also mean “full”) church, and the universal Church is the communion of all these local, “catholic” churches.”
I may be splitting hairs here, but this distinction doesn’t seem so clear-cut to me, particularly because it seems that the western Church, in recent years, has sought to identify itself as a communion of local churches, with each local church being an embodiment of the fullness of the Catholic Church while also not weakening the importance of unity between the churches and with the Church of Rome. I am thinking primarily of CCC 832-835 and the CDF clarification from a few years ago:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html
Of course, my understanding could be off. I think it’s a delicate balance.
-Alan
Well, Horace, I am an adult convert. The fact that the Church insists upon a complete embrace of the entire package of faith and practice was precisely what I would expect the True Church to look like. Only if we’re dealing with make-believe, like asking who would win a fight between Batman and Dr. Doom, can we all make up our own answers.
Back to the main point of discussion, though. I think the question of which should be “preferred” depends at least on who the potential heretic/schismatic is. For the typical laity, it is surely better for them to be heretics in the Church or schismatics outside Her; if the priest and parish are solidly Catholic, one may reasonably hope that the good influence would win out over time. At the other extreme, I’m not at all sure it isn’t better for bishops to be allowed to go into schism rather than to teach heresy. Thus Milingo was excommunicated when he began both producing odd teachings and attempting to ordain married men (my understanding is that the ordinations were not merely illicit, but also invalid).
Alan,
Your understanding is correct. I would argue that in recent years, the Catholic Church has tried to integrate a more “Eastern” ecclesiology to its own understanding of what the Church is, based on the “return to the sources” (such as the Church Fathers) which began in the 20th century. So you see a greater appreciation for the role of a diocese as a “full” church within the universal Church. I welcome this integration, and I hope and pray it goes both ways, i.e. the Eastern churches begin to integrate the Western ecclesiology of the universal Church into their own.
But this is a recent development; you would be hard pressed to find such views in older Catholic catechisms or textbooks, and universal ecclesiology is still the predominant understanding within the Church in the West.
I see the logic in the prudential disciplinary approach you cited, but I think it faulty. It is true that schism always occurs when heretics are excommunicated and persist in their heresy. But schism also sometimes occurs when non-heretics dissent from disciplinary decisions and are excommunicated for disobedience. Among the disciplinary decisions which have provoked schism in the past include the suppression of certain forms of orthopraxis like orthodox liturgy, but also toleration of corruption like heresy.
So it is possible for schism to be provoked by tolerating heresy, as well as by suppressing it.
Horace:
Within Catholic teaching, there can’t be any flexibility when it comes to dogmas of our faith. The Church can’t allow three positions on who Jesus is, for example: some believing that He is only human, others believing that He is only divine, and another group believing that He is both human and divine. The Church teaches that Jesus is both human and divine. That teaching will never change. The understanding of that teaching may become more refined as time goes on.
When it comes to converting to the Catholic Faith, one needs to understand that conversion is an on-going process. Even cradle Catholics need to continue to become converted to Christ on an on-going basis. We stop converting to Christ only after He meet Him face-to-face at the time of our death when we encounter the Fullness of Christ.
Horace, you say that the church is too rigid in its positions which forces the church into a corner. If you don’t mind my pointing out that you have taken a rigid position in your attitude towards the Catholic Church. You have backed yourself into a corner. Let the Holy Spirit guide you as to where you are being led in your practice of faith in the Triune God. If the Spirit is leading you to the Catholic Church,don’t fight it. Surrender to the Spirit.
Hi, im not catholic or anglican, does that make he a heretic?
Very enlightening Mr. Sammons. Thank you!
Cheers,
Charles
I think some of the comments above still reflect a bit on the American (and Protestant) individuaistic viewpoint. I believe one must also consider the welfare of the Whole Church not just today but for the future 1,000 years. It’s a sort of triage similar to medical treatment. Do you treat and wait out an infection or amputate a limb? Do you perform surgery to remove a tumor or try chemo-therapy?
No other church or ecclesial community bears the responsibility either in fact or perception of being The Church for all time. Being in schism creates a fundamentally new perspective. They have already broken from the whole and necessarily must justify why they are in schism. At the same time they now identify as a remnant preserving the true teaching. The result is not surprising that orthodoxy must be weighted more than unity. This model breaks down somewhat when it comes to the 4th generation of Protestant schism groups in the non-denominational, bible alone, emerging church circles where the faith has become complete atomized.
For the Catholic Church schism must continue to be taken very seriously. Thus I tend to be respectful (although uncomfortably) of the JPII / BXVI approach to material heresy and even formal heresy of not aggressively trying to root it out. Even though I am impatient, I can see the virtue of starving out the heresy vs. provoking schism. The problem I see historically is that schisms have a way of deepening and very seldom heal.
Unfortunately I think we will see some schism in the next few decades, but I think the hope of BXVI is that very few or no Bishops will be willing to join the schism. By taking the patient approach and BXVI appointing more orthodox Bishops the Bishops it is hoped that the Bishops that may have lead a schism will be off the scene.
One more note. We shouldn’t be at all shocked that this is so difficult. Luke 22:24 placed immediately after the First Eucharist at the Last Supper “a dispute arose among them about who should be regarded as greatest.” It is clear from the beginning (Judas’ betrayal, Peter’s denial) that keeping the Church united is something that can only be accomplished with the Holy Spirit.
Lest someone on this blog become tempted to call for the burning-at-the-stake of heretics in the Church, let me say this in “defense” of heretics. Throughout the history of the Church, not every heretic deliberately promoted teachings as an attack upon the Person and Ministry of Jesus Christ. Since many of the Church’s teachings took decades and centuries to be refined and clarified, we can say that God used the teachings of “heretics” to pressure the Church leadership to clarify and to refine its teachings. God will use whatever method, or whomever, to make the Truth known.
The real question to me is how much of either we should tolorate. We have individuals teaching in our Catholic Colleges in America whose teachings are far more radical than the reformers ever dreamed of being. Some examples are throwing the sixth commandment out the window, and advocating secular rule over dioceses. I could go on and on, and name names, but I don’t think I have to.
Fr. Hugo:
Under some circumstances, error can be guiltless. Origen appears to be an example, and St. Thomas Aquinas was famously mistaken about the Immaculate Conception. Neither of these are really to the point, however, since they did not defy the Church Teachings that were available in their times. The situation discussed here is not that of speculative theologians whose speculations have not yet been rejected but which might be authoritatively rejected in the future, but rather with those who refuse to accept the solemn Teachings that the Church has already given us. If you still hold to your point with this latter group, I would respond that it is no more true of heretics than of apostates. In neither case does the good that God brings of their loss of faith justify their loss of faith — nor does it justify scare quotes.
Sorry about the bashing. I didn’t advocate schismatic groups, I pointed out a cause of the schisms. I also didn’t realize how hot a topic this is with me until I re-read what I wrote.
Anyway, since God told us to guard our doctrine, there are people like me trying to make sure the doctrine they believe in is correct. We perceive unsupported beliefs as unnecessary. I can’t find support for annulment, holy water, Mary as a co-redeemer, or Jesus as an only child. My feeling is that if these traditions were handed down by the apostles through the early fathers, we should be able to readily identify documents that substantiate them; and if we can’t, I feel the church shouldn’t insist on these beliefs being doctrine (i.e. you don’t go to hell because you don’t believe in them) because it causes schisms over beliefs that the Bible doesn’t mention as even relevant. Since Jesus prayed to the Father for unity the night He was betrayed, do you think the Holy Spirit is promoting division by adding new, unnecessary doctrines to the faith 2,000 years later?
Since annulment is now doctrine, can anyone tell me where it came from?
As far as Jesus being an only child, I know there is scripture mentioning that He had siblings. How is it fair to consider people a heretic when they have scripture that contradicts a tradition?
I’m seriously considering the Eastern Orthodox Church now. Are there any reasons why I shouldn’t?
Vatican II is not the only council in the history of the Church. Any statement that contradicts previous councils must obviously be rebuked. Why would the Vatican and the SSPX be presente involved in discussions if the Pope did not recognize that all the problems faced by the Church today are either directly or indirectly caused by the ambiguity of Vatican II? It is amazing that JPII excommunicated the four SSPX bishops and allowed pro-abortion priests, bishops, nuns and lay people to remain as part of the Church .
Hi Folks!
I agree with you, Eric, that, as a prelate, one has to carefully make a prudential judgment weighing schism vs. heresy. However, it’s too easy to lean in favor of tolerating heresy to avoid schism, since schism tends to be a more visible product, whereas the consequences of accommodating heresy tend to be more hidden. In a given case in which it was decided to tolerate heresy we could express relief that a visible schism didn’t occur, yet fail to see the loss of souls resulting from the individuals not receiving the authentic teaching required for their salvation.
God bless!
One factor you leave out of the discussion is the method of punishment for heresy. Long ago this particular offense was seen as a crime and in some cases, too many to be sure there was torture and execution for the perpetrators. This occured even after the protestant revolt and was common among protestants as well, especially when dealing with Catholics. The memory of that has driven the Western Church to be far more careful in accusing people of heresy. The fact that for a long time after Vat. II we had difficulty in discovering what the Church actually taught and teaches made to fact of heresy far more common. Happily now with the Catechism is far easier for Joe Blow to say to Fr. Oops: “That ain’t so father the Catechism says this…” Hopefully as the Catechism becomes more and more used the incidence of heresy will dicrease and the Church may also find a more charitable way of correcting error; but, correct it She must.
Peace and all good.
Heresy is worse, far worse. How can anyone not say so? I’ll take a good schism (maintaining valid Orders, of course) over heresy any day of the week!
Mr. Sammons,
My apologies if I came off harsh in any way. I definitely was not bashing Church teaching. I was simply refuting a previous comment that a group that is faithful to the full Tradition of the Church is not formally schismatic. If my mentioning of heretics within the Church is at dispute, you yourself heresy arising from the beginning of the Church. My apologies again if I seemed harsh. Thank you for the article – I quite enjoyed it by the way.
correction from previous post:
“you yourself mention heresy arising from the beginning…”
I think there is a simple answer to all this: schism should be the unacceptable option. Anything that invalidates the Sacraments, the methods of salvation, should be out of the question. Toying with the idea of going into schism is playing with fire, and by “fire” I mean the Eternal Hellfire for your soul.
On the other hand, heresies can be suppressed and reigned in by good Magisterium and clergy. And remember that heresies never die or are created; they simply resurface after getting suppressed. All the heresies we see today, including the everything Protestants are preaching, are as old as (or older than) the Church. The emergence of heresy was the catalyst for the Council of Trent, even today a standard for Church doctrine: in the face of heresy, we are forced to come to a deeper understanding of and affirm the Truth. In the long run this is only good.
Historically, heresy has been less problematic to heal then schism. Moreover, if by heresy we mean “dissent”, we also need to make a distinction between various kinds of teachings for not all acquired the status of dogma. Theologians who deny say the divinity of Christ or the transubstantiation have been quickly silenced or dismissed from teaching positions within Catholic universities (e.g. Curran, Kung, Haight). It seems that it is in matters of morals and ecclesiastical discipline that the dissenters are vociferous and this, from the perspective of the Church who “thinks” in centuries, is a very recent phenomenon. Also, one should not have the impression that somehow in the past the teachings of the Church were better followed. That would be rather naive. Finally, as far as Councils are concerned, historical knowledge and understanding are a must. There is such a thing as the “reception” of the Council’s teachings which by necessity represents also the “correct” interpretation. This takes time and requires a healthy “battle” within the Church. Consequently, the dissenters are not to be forced outside the Church since the dialogue and the challenge itself are part and parcel of the reception process.
Pope John Paul II wrote Ad Tuendam Fidem, which includes:
“Canon 1371 – The following are to be punished with a just penalty:
1° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in canon 1364 § 1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in canon 750 § 2 or in canon 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;
2° a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience.”
I am very much against heresy but i do see the strength in the Church sometimes not immediately moving against it. Bad ideas will always go out of favour, especially when they are given time to come to fruition. Sometimes the promise of bad ideas is more attractive than the realisation. Also, as heresy progresses it forces the faithful to come up to the plate and start swinging which re-invigorates the Church. I think with so much theological rubbish in the Church over the last 60 years the laity itself is not standing for any more. That is the strongest position for the Church to be in.
The problem of not dealing harshly with heresy comes when a well known Senator leads many Catholics astray by using his office to advance things like abortion. Many Catholics have learned from that that they may separate their beliefs into different “compartments” depending on the circumstances. This thinking is very harmful to the church and her teachings.
“Shall we again break your commands and intermarry with the peoples who commit such detestable practices? Would you not be angry enough with us to destroy us, leaving us no remnant or survivor?” Ezra 9:14
If a remnant of the true Faith is to survive then heresy must be rigorously rooted out even at the risk of schism.
schism (maintaining valid Orders, of course)
Good luck with that, Mike. Specifically, good luck with Confession, Confirmation and Matrimony.
Just two quick thoughts/questions:
1. Truly being schismatic is heresy – denial of papal supremacy. ?
2. Is the SSPX (or any of us for that matter) required to obey those superiors who themselves are being disobedient?
Howard, your comment at 5:40: your questions are easily answered by some good, and dare I say, basic catechism. Please (re)read the CCC and take some good parish/diocese catechism classes. Also avail yourself of catholic.com forums and radio show. Don’t leave Peter’s flock. Your soul is at stake and is worth all the time and effort you must expend in the course of proper catechesis. We are all grown ups here. You must find the answers to your questions. Lucky for you, they are not objectively challenging ones!
Sorry, that was for Henry, not Howard.
Well, the premise is off.
Most of the major heretics in the first thousand years of the Church were associated with the Eastern Church.
At least a half-dozen patriarchs of Constantinople were formally condemned heretics.
This isn’t an “either-or” proposition – the East has historically been both heretical AND schismatic.
The reason they emphasize “right belief” is they’re heretics who keep protesting that they aren’t.
@ Henry– A few things about the specific questions you raise:
1) Annulment is not a doctrine. It is a determination that a valid sacramental marriage has not occurred between two people. Non-sacramental marriages are respected civil arrangements, but they are not indissoluble (see, for example, 1 Cor 7:10-15 for the case of two pagans who marry, then one of them converts to Christianity). The Church has to make such determinations for all of the sacraments — and so do the Orthodox churches, of course. You may be upset by how “easy” it is in modern times to have a marriage declared invalid, but since you aren’t privy to the details of any case save your own, you’re not in a very good place to make judgments (negative or positive) about any given situation. PS, in the case of converts, at least, the Orthodox generally ignore previous marriages entirely; which is, in effect, a blanket annulment for any reason whatsoever.
2) Mary has never been declared a co-redeemer by the Catholic Church. This is not a doctrine, and there is no need for you to believe it as a Catholic.
3) Mary’s perpetual virginity is a doctrine taught by all churches founded before Luther (ie the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches). This is amply testified to in documents dating to the second century, such as the writings of Origen, Athanasius, Jerome, Ambrose, and many others. It also is mentioned prominently in the liturgies of all of these churches, dating to the fourth and fifth centuries. Scriptural commentaries by the Fathers interpret the terms “Jesus’s brothers” as either a more generic “kinsman”, or as Jesus’s step-siblings (from an earlier marriage by Joseph). The use of “adelphoi” in either of these senses is clearly done in different places in the rest of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments). In any event, converting to Orthodoxy doesn’t resolve this one for you, and if this weight of testimony from the Fathers isn’t enough for you, then nothing is enough for you.
Now in general: ultimately, both in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, doctrine is not about what you “feel” or your impression of how important a particular fact is. The hard but liberating truth taught by both is that, if there is a disagreement between your personal judgment and the Church’s judgment on faith and morals, then you are wrong and the Church is right. The thought that your personal judgment can be better than the inspired teaching of the Holy Spirit, voiced through the men He has chosen for bishops, and the 2,000 years of lived experience of countless saints, is breathtaking pride. You’ll be happier and spiritually healthier if you drop it.
Dear Mr. Sammons,
Thank you for this thoughtful and thought-provoking post!
I am not sure I am convinced by the ‘sweep’ of your distinctions between ‘West’ and ‘East’, however.
Take ‘Arianism’ for one major example: it was ‘Western’ as well as ‘Eastern’ in its first 70 years – as what? ‘heresy’, ‘schism’, either, or both variously? – to continue as a ‘Germanic’ (more ‘Western’ than ‘Eastern’?) heresy/schism for at least a couple centuries.
Take ‘Novatianism’ for another: was it not mainly successful in the West – for several centuries?
Take ‘Donatism’ for a third: very much a ‘Latin’/'Western’ heresy/schism that lasted ‘successfully’ for centuries – indeed, until the Moslem conquests.
I heartily agree when you say, “In each case the Church hierarchy must do all it can to avoid schism as well as avoid heretical beliefs or practices taking hold within the Church.” But what must (so to put it) non-hierarchical “members of the Body of Christ” do when hierarchs are (so far as one in good conscience before God can discern) also (acting like) heresiarchs – or ‘merely’ in one way or another ‘de facto enablers’ of heresy?
In this context, it strikes me that Janet’s last paragraph may, quite unintentionally, conduce to the danger of misidentifying (the thoughts and deeds of) any (number of) given hierarch(s) with “the Church”.
If I had been living when St. Maximus the Confessor and Pope St. Martin the First were tried and condemned, I hope I would have had the perceptiveness – and courage – to side (as I take it, in obedience to God and the leading of the Holy Spirit) with them, against (I suspect) the overwhelming majority of “the Church hierarchy”. But if I did, I am sure there would have been innumerable members of the Undivided Church of East and West ready to tell me that I was heretically following my “personal judgment” and to assure me “you are wrong and the Church is right”. I do not suggest Janet would have been one of them, had she also lived then, or expect that she would hope otherwise than I in this imaginary example. I would suggest that if St. Martin had not equally been persecuted with St. Maximus – if, say, he had thought it prudent not (yet) openly to condemn what in fact he did condemn – I would hope to have sided with St. Maximus nonetheless.
To pursue the point of the (possibly) heretical hierarch in (so far as anyone can tell) ‘good standing’ further, the following.
I am not widely enough read in Church history or polemics, I regret to say, to know how the following question(s) (or any other(s) like it) touching heresy and schism has been – or, more importantly, can be correctly – answered. Perhaps you, Mr. Sammons, and/or someone else can help me (and be more widely helpful), here?
In his ‘Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity’ (III, i, 13), Richard Hooker, defending the English ‘local national Church reformation’ (so to put it), asks, “With what congruity doth the Church of Rome deny, that her enemies, whom she holdeth always for heretics, do at all pertain to the Church of Christ; when her own do freely grant, that albeit the Pope (as they say) cannot teach heresy nor propound error, he may notwithstanding himself worship idols, think amiss concerning matters of faith, yea, give himself unto acts diabolical, even being Pope? How exclude they us from being any part of the Church of Christ under the colour and pretense of heresy, when they cannot but grant it possible even for him to be as touching his own personal persuasion heretical, who in their opinion not only is of the Church, but holdeth the chief place of authority over the same?” (The edition I have quotes Harding and “Alphonsus de Castro de Haer. i.4″ at some length as illustrating what Hooker is referring to: I could type these out, if useful.)
Again, with thanks.
St Thomas defines heresy as a sin against the TRUTH of the Faith and schism as a sin against CHARITY of Communion. Since many ERR about the Truth through ignorance one does not break communion with them but instructs them first, and those who insist on their error are given consideration in the West, especially if they are not influential. But when they become by their errors a THREAT to the unity of TRUTH of the Faith practically THEN IT IS IMPERATIVE THEY BE CENSURED LEST THE BODY BE DAMAGED, and their own soul imperiled.
It can be argued that only recently since Vat II have the Shepherds been naively lax and CULPABLE in vigilance of the truth AND OF CHARITY TO THE SOULS INFLUENCED BY INFLUENTIAL HERITICS.
D,
Thank you for your comments. Note that my “rule” was a generalization of each side’s attitudes towards schism and heresy and not a hard-line rule. In general, Western Church leaders have been more tolerant of heresy than schism and the opposite has been true of Eastern Church leaders. Of course there are exceptions in the history of both lungs.
Dear Mr. Sammons – and/or anyone else still (re)visiting this post,
A couple general questions:
1. Is there any academic (sub)discipline devoted to the study of ‘schism’? (My web-search attempts with ‘schismology’ and ‘schismatology’ as likely possibilities, did not turn up much, but I am no skillful searcher…)
2. I read a ‘letter to the editor’ somewhere a couple years ago where a former president of ‘Syndesmos’ wrote to correct the description of there being ‘schism between the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and the Church of Greece’, clarifying that “the Patriarch had broken the sacramental union with Archbishop Christódolous, which means that this union remains in force with all the rest of the faithful and clergy of the Church of Greece” and that there is only “a ‘schism’ when the sacramental bonds between Churches are broken on all levels (lay and clerical)”.
Is there any (or are there various, different)elaborated ‘systems’ of distinctions about such things, and ‘how they work’?
With thanks for any help!
D
You are right – neither should be tolerated by I would err on the side of tolerating schism, if the definition of “tolerate” still means allowing to exist or enduring. Better to withstand a separation than a lie. Schisms are open for all to see but lies/heresies can be hidden and can have in insidious effect on the faithful, and we have seen so much of that after Vatican II.
Also, how many Nestorians or Monophysites are there today? Schisms often die out but the persistent Orthodox church-es’ schism from the Western Catholic Church must end soon or the Orthodox will go the way of the Nestorians. They are have difficulty existing in an increasingly militant Moslem Middle East and are creaking along in Russia. When we become one body for the sake of the Body of Christ, schism will not have to be tolerated nor will it even exist between us.
[...] What’ll it be? Schism or heresy? – I’m actually surprised this post was so popular, as it was a somewhat theoretical discussion of the difference between the Eastern and Western Churches in handling heresies in their midst. [...]
Pingback by Top 10 Most Popular Posts of 2010 « Divine Life – A Blog by Eric Sammons — December 29, 2010 @ 7:57 am