Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that schism is not a special sin. For "schism," as Pope Pelagius I says (Epist. ad Victor. et Pancrat.), "denotes a division." But every sin causes a division, according to Is. 59:: "Your sins have divided between you and your God." Therefore schism is not a special sin.

Objection 2: Further, a man is apparently a schismatic if he disobeys the Church. But every sin makes a man disobey the commandments of the Church, because sin, according to Ambrose (De Parad. viii) "is disobedience against the heavenly commandments." Therefore every sin is a schism.

Objection 3: Further, heresy also divides a man from the unity of faith. If, therefore, the word schism denotes a division, it would seem not to differ, as a special sin, from the sin of unbelief.

On the contrary, Augustine (Contra Faust. xx, 3; Contra Crescon. ii, 4) distinguishes between schism and heresy, for he says that a "schismatic is one who holds the same faith, and practises the same worship, as others, and takes pleasure in the mere disunion of the community, whereas a heretic is one who holds another faith from that of the Catholic Church." Therefore schism is not a generic sin.

I answer that, As Isidore says (Etym. viii, 3), schism takes its name "from being a scission of minds," and scission is opposed to unity. Wherefore the sin of schism is one that is directly and essentially opposed to unity. For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental. Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit.

Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Col. 2:18,19: "Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God." Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.

Reply to Objection 1: The division between man and God that results from sin is not intended by the sinner: it happens beside his intention as a result of his turning inordinately to a mutable good, and so it is not schism properly so called.

Reply to Objection 2: The essence of schism consists in rebelliously disobeying the commandments: and I say "rebelliously," since a schismatic both obstinately scorns the commandments of the Church, and refuses to submit to her judgment. But every sinner does not do this, wherefore not every sin is a schism.

Reply to Objection 3: Heresy and schism are distinguished in respect of those things to which each is opposed essentially and directly. For heresy is essentially opposed to faith, while schism is essentially opposed to the unity of ecclesiastical charity. Wherefore just as faith and charity are different virtues, although whoever lacks faith lacks charity, so too schism and heresy are different vices, although whoever is a heretic is also a schismatic, but not conversely. This is what Jerome says in his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians : "I consider the difference between schism and heresy to be that heresy holds false doctrine while schism severs a man from the Church." Nevertheless, just as the loss of charity is the road to the loss of faith, according to 1 Tim. 1:6: "From which things," i.e. charity and the like, "some going astray, are turned aside into vain babbling," so too, schism is the road to heresy. Wherefore Jerome adds (In Ep. ad Tit. iii, 10) that "at the outset it is possible, in a certain respect, to find a difference between schism and heresy: yet there is no schism that does not devise some heresy for itself, that it may appear to have had a reason for separating from the Church."

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod schisma non sit peccatum speciale.

Schisma enim, ut Pelagius Papa dicit, scissuram sonat.

Sed omne peccatum scissuram quandam facit, secundum illud Isaiae LIX, peccata vestra diviserunt inter vos et deum vestrum.

Ergo schisma non est speciale peccatum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, illi videntur esse schismatici qui ecclesiae non obediunt. Sed per omne peccatum fit homo inobediens praeceptis ecclesiae, quia peccatum, secundum Ambrosium, est caelestium inobedientia mandatorum.

Ergo omne peccatum est schisma.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, haeresis etiam dividit hominem ab unitate fidei.

Si ergo schismatis nomen divisionem importat, videtur quod non differat a peccato infidelitatis quasi speciale peccatum.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Augustinus, contra faustum, distinguit inter schisma et haeresim, dicens quod schisma est eadem opinantem atque eodem ritu colentem quo ceteri, solo congregationis delectari dissidio, haeresis vero diversa opinatur ab his quae catholica credit ecclesia.

Ergo schisma non est generale peccatum.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Isidorus dicit, in libro etymol., nomen schismatis a scissura animorum vocatum est.

Scissio autem unitati opponitur. Unde peccatum schismatis dicitur quod directe et per se opponitur unitati, sicut enim in rebus naturalibus id quod est per accidens non constituit speciem, ita etiam nec in rebus moralibus. In quibus id quod est intentum est per se, quod autem sequitur praeter intentionem est quasi per accidens. Et ideo peccatum schismatis proprie est speciale peccatum ex eo quod intendit se ab unitate separare quam caritas facit. Quae non solum alteram personam alteri unit spirituali dilectionis vinculo, sed etiam totam ecclesiam in unitate spiritus. Et ideo proprie schismatici dicuntur qui propria sponte et intentione se ab unitate ecclesiae separant, quae est unitas principalis, nam unitas particularis aliquorum ad invicem ordinatur ad unitatem ecclesiae, sicut compositio singulorum membrorum in corpore naturali ordinatur ad totius corporis unitatem.

Ecclesiae autem unitas in duobus attenditur, scilicet in connexione membrorum ecclesiae ad invicem, seu communicatione; et iterum in ordine omnium membrorum ecclesiae ad unum caput; secundum illud ad Coloss. II, inflatus sensu carnis suae, et non tenens caput, ex quo totum corpus, per nexus et coniunctiones subministratum et constructum, crescit in augmentum dei.

Hoc autem caput est ipse christus, cuius vicem in ecclesia gerit summus pontifex. Et ideo schismatici dicuntur qui subesse renuunt summo pontifici, et qui membris ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare recusant.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod divisio hominis a deo per peccatum non est intenta a peccante, sed praeter intentionem eius accidit ex inordinata conversione ipsius ad commutabile bonum.

Et ideo non est schisma, per se loquendo.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod non obedire praeceptis cum rebellione quadam constituit schismatis rationem. Dico autem cum rebellione, cum et pertinaciter praecepta ecclesiae contemnit, et iudicium eius subire recusat. Hoc autem non facit quilibet peccator.

Unde non omne peccatum est schisma.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod haeresis et schisma distinguuntur secundum ea quibus utrumque per se et directe opponitur. Nam haeresis per se opponitur fidei, schisma autem per se opponitur unitati ecclesiasticae caritatis. Et ideo sicut fides et caritas sunt diversae virtutes, quamvis quicumque careat fide careat caritate; ita etiam schisma et haeresis sunt diversa vitia, quamvis quicumque est haereticus sit etiam schismaticus, sed non convertitur.

Et hoc est quod Hieronymus dicit, in Epist. Ad Gal., inter schisma et haeresim hoc interesse arbitror, quod haeresis perversum dogma habet, schisma ab ecclesia separat.

Et tamen sicut amissio caritatis est via ad amittendum fidem, secundum illud I ad Tim. I, a quibus quidam aberrantes, scilicet a caritate et aliis huiusmodi, conversi sunt in vaniloquium; ita etiam schisma est via ad haeresim.

Unde Hieronymus ibidem subdit quod schisma a principio aliqua in parte potest intelligi diversum ab haeresi, ceterum nullum schisma est, nisi sibi aliquam haeresim confingat, ut recte ab ecclesia recessisse videatur.