Does "Being in schism" merely imply mutual excommunication? (Catholic perspective)

Upvote:1

It is important to note that when we speak of the "schism" between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church that began in the 11th century, that it was not the first time that the Orthodox Church was out of communion with Rome. In fact, the division was seen as completely reversible until the pillaging of Constantinople during the 4th crusade.

The word "schism" in my mind conveys a sense of permenance and or/finality. In this sense, I feel that the Great Schism only acheived the status corresponding to its name after no viable path to reconciliation appeared possible.

Upvote:1

in these cases, it is always useful to look at the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

So schism does not imply mutual excommunication; it merely implies that a certain party will, while not holding any belief which is contrary to the teaching of the Church (which would make them a heretic), still refuses to recognise the authority of the Bishop of Rome, or those Bishops which are in communion with him. Naturally, if a bishop excommunicates the Pope, by definition they refuse to submit to his authority, and therefore incur in automatic schism.

Naturally, the Code itself also prescribes a penalty for those who incur in schism, which, not surprisingly, is excommunication:

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

Therefore, according to Canon Law, Constantinople could not excommunicate Rome without incurring in automatic excommunication for herself. The practical result is that schism does not imply excommunication, but excommunication does imply schism (when it doesn't imply worse — heresy or apostasy).

Note, however, that the state of schism was sadly a rather common occurrence in the First Millennium Church. Fr Adrian Fortescue reported in his book on the Eastern Orthodox (page 96) that, in the period from AD 323 (the year Arius published his theories on the nature of Jesus) to AD 852 (the year Fortescue claimed the Photian Schism took place), Constantinople and Rome were in schism:

  • for 55 years during the Arian troubles (343–398);
  • for 11 years due to St John Chrysostom's deposition (404–415);
  • for 35 years during the Acacian schism (484–519);
  • for 41 years due to Monothelitism (640–681);
  • for 61 years due to Iconoclasm (726–787).

Added up, that yields an impressive 203 years out of 529. Adding the four years of the Photian schism, we have 207 years of schism between the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 — when Emperor Constantine notionally adopted Christianity — and the Great Schism in 1054.

More post

Search Posts

Related post