SCHISM
533
SCHISM
declaration of the impossibility of solving a difficulty
or terminating a dispute by Scripture alone (De
pru'script., xix), and from Origen's words: "Since
among many who boast of a doctrine in conformity
with that of Christ some do not agree with their pred-
ecessors, let all adhere to the ecclesiastical doctrine
transmitted from the Apostles by way of succession
and preserved in the Church till the present time:
we have no truth in which to believe but that which
does not deviate from the eccclesiastical and Apos-
tolic tradition" (De princip., praef., 2).
IV. Principal Schisms. — In this world the Church is militant and as such is exposed to conflict and trial. Human conditions being what they are partial or local schisms are bound to occur: "I hear", says St. Paul, "that . . . there are schisms among you; and in part I believe it. For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you" (I Cor., xi, 18-19). In the full and primitive sense of the word every serious rupture of unity and consequently every heresy is a schism. This article, however, will pass over the long series of heresies and treat only those defections or religious sects to which historians commonly give the specific name of schisms, because most frequently, and at least in the beginning of each such sectarian division, doctrinal error was only an accessory. They are treated in chronological order and the most im- portant only briefly, these being the subjects of special articles in the Encyclopedia.
(1) Mention has already been made of the "schisms" of the nascent Church of Corinth, when it was said among its members: "I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." To them St. Paul's energetic intervention put an end. (2) AccorcUng to Hegesippus, the most advanced section of the Judaizc^rs or Ebionites at Jerusalem followed the bishop Thebutis as against St. Simeon, and after the death of St. James, a. d. 63, separated from the Church. (3) There were numerous local schisms in the third and fourth cen- turies. At Rome Pope Callistus (217-22) was op- posed by a party who took exception to the mildness with which he applied the penitential discipline. Hippolytus placed himself as bishop at the head of these malcontents and the schism was prolonged under the two successors of Callistus, Urban I (222-30) and Pontianus (230-35). There is no doubt that Hip- polytus himself returned to the pale of the Church (cf. d'Ales, "La th^ol. de s. Hippolyte", Paris, 1906, introduction). (4) In 251 when Cornelius was elected to the See of Rome a minority set up Novatian as an antipope, the pretext again being the pardon which Cornelius promised to those who after aposta- tizing should repent. Through a spirit of contradic- tion Novatian went so far as to refuse forgiveness even to the dying and the severity was extended to other categories of grave sins. The Novatians sought to form a Church of saints. In the East they called themselves Ka6apol, pure. Largely under the in- fluence of this idea they administered a second bap- tism to those who deserted Catholicism to join their ranks. The sect developed greatly in the Eastern countries, where it subsisted until about the seventh century, being recruited not only by the defection of Catholics, but also by the accession of Montanists.
(5) During the same period the Church of Carthage was also a prey to intestinal divisions. St. Cyprian upheld in reasonable measure the traditional prin- ciples regarding penance and did not accord to the letters of confessors called libelli pads the importance desired by some. One of the principal adversaries was the priest Donatus Fortunatus became the bishop of the party, but the schism, which was of short duration, took the name of the deacon Felicissimus who played an important part in it. (6) With the dawn of the fourth century Egypt was the scene of the schism of Meletius,
Bishop of Lycopolis, in the Thebaid. Its causes are
not known with certainty; some ancient authors
ascribe it to rigorist tendencies regarding penance,
while others say it was occasioned by usurpation of
power on the part of Meletius, notably the con-
ferring of ordinations outside his diocese. The
Council of Nicaea dealt with this schism, but did not
succeed in completely eradicating it; there were still
vestiges of it in the fifth century. (7) Somewhat
later the schism of Antioch, originating in the troubles
due to Arianism, presents peculiar complications.
When the bishop, Eustathius, was deposed in 330 a
small section of his flock remained faithful to him,
but the majority followed the Arians. The first
bishop created by them was succeeded (361) by
Meletius of Sebaste in Armenia, who by force of cir-
cumstances became the leader of a second orthodox
party. In fact Meletius did not fundamentally de-
part from the Faith of Nicaea, and he was soon re-
jected by the Arians: on the other hand he was not
recognized by the Eustathians, who saw in him the
choice of the heretics and also took him to task for
some merely terminological differences. The schism
lasted until about 415. Paulinus (d. 388) and Eva-
grius (d. 392), Eustathian bishops, were recognized
in the West as the true pastors, while in the East the
Meletian bishops were regarded as legitimate.
(8) After the banishment of Pope Liberius in 355, the tleacon Felix was chosen to replace him and he had adherents even after the return of the legitimate pope. The schism, quenched for a time by the death of F'elix, was revived at the death of Liberius and the rivalry brought about bloody encounters. It was several years after the victory of Damasus before peace was completely restored. (9) The same period witnessed the schism of the Luciferians. Lucifer, Bishop of Calaris, or Cagliari, was displeased with Athanasius and his friends who at the Synod of Alexan- dria (362) had pardoned the repentant Semi-Arians. He himself had been blamed by Eusebius of Vercelli because of his haste in ordaining Paulinus, Bishop of the Eustathians, at Antioch. For these two rea- sons he separated from the communion of the Cath- olic bishops. For some time the schism won ad- herents in Sardinia, where it had originated, and in Spain, where Gregory, Bishop of Elvira, was its chief abettor. (10) But the most important of the fourth-century schisms was that of the Donatists (q. v.). These sectaries were as noted for their obstinacy and fanaticism as for the efforts and the writings rather uselessly multiplied against them by St. Augustine and St. Optatus of Milevis. (11) The schism of Acacius belongs to the end of the fifth century. It is connected with the promulgation by the emperor Zeno of the edict known as the Henoticon. Issued with the intention of putting an end to the Christological disputes, this document did not satisfy either Catholics or Monophysites. Pope FeUx II excommunicated its two real authors, Peter Mongus, Bishop of Alexandria, and Acacius of Constantinople. A l)n>ak between the East and the West followed which lasted thirty -five years. At the instance of the g(>n('ral Vitalian, protector of the orthodox, Zeno's successor Anastasius promised satisfaction to the adherents of the Council of Chalcedon and the con- vocation of a general council, but he showed so little good will in the matter that union was only restored by Justin I in 519. The reconciliation received of- ficial sanction in a profession of Faith to which the Greek bishops subscribed, and which, as it was sent by Pope Hormisdas, is known in history as the Formula of Hormisdas.
(12) In the sixth century the schism of Aquilea was caused by the consent of Pope Vigilius to the con- demnation of the Three Chapters (553). The ec- clesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquilea refused to accept this condemnation as valid and separated
