On Schism

With the recent goings on concerning schism from the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps you would be interested in a primer on schism.

First of all, schism is defined in Roman Catholic Canon Law #751 as:

Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

For an in depth analyses from the Roman Catholic point-of-view see Definition of Schism.

Much of the information and additional discussion that is available in regard to formally leaving the Roman Catholic Church centers around the sacrament of marriage and annulments. Canon #1117 covers it rather well.

The form prescribed above is to be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the catholic Church or received into it and has not by a formal act defected from it, without prejudice to the provisions of canon 1127.2 (dispensation from form by the local ordinary)

From the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fargo (emphasis mine):

If a Catholic has formally left the Catholic Church, he or she is not bound by Canonical Form. The law has not defined what constitutes a formal act of defection. If there is the possibility of this having happened, in each individual case this will have to be determined by a Tribunal. Items that would lead to suspicion of having formally left would be an open declaration of abandonment of the Catholic faith, a formal enrolling in another religion, a public affiliation to an atheistic ideology or movement manifestly opposed to the Catholic faith or being involved in an established heresy, apostasy or schism. Merely ceasing to practice the faith even over a considerable length of time, regular attendance at the religious services of another religion or similar actions would not prove the formal act of leaving the Catholic Church. (The Canon Law Letter and Spirit, p.603).

I found an excellent write-up (can’t exactly remember where) that discusses joining an Orthodox Church and the implications of Dominus Iesus:

Dominus Iesus clarifies that the Catholic Church does not teach that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church are sister churches, but that the constituent sui juris Churches of Catholicism are sisters to the particular Orthodox Churches, who are, despite being fully “churches” (and not “ecclesial communities”, as are the Protestant Christians), nevertheless lacking in full communion because of the refusal to acknowledge the role of the Bishop of Rome. So from the Catholic perspective, someone who leaves Catholicism for Orthodoxy has (1) broken communion with Rome, which of course is a sin in itself and (2) joined a church which, despite its ‘churchiness’, does not have the same degree of fullness as the Catholic sui juris churches do. The person has embraced schism from the Catholic Church by rejecting communion with it, from the Catholic perspective: breaking communion with Rome is, per Catholicism, a personal act of schism, and hence an act which makes one a schismatic in the eyes of Catholicism, regardless of how Catholicism may view other people who are members of the Orthodox Church.

 

On Point of View

Now having been raised a Roman Catholic, and having a fairly good idea of the rules, my having left the Roman Catholic Church, having officially joined the PNCC, and having received Holy Orders in the PNCC is a blatant act of schism. So accused, so guilty.

However, one would have to believe that the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church is binding upon them. If I fly over to Poland and break the laws there (or God forbid Singapore or Saudi Arabia) I am by my act of going there making myself subject to their law. By manifestly removing myself from the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church (yes and I know that there is some reasoning that the Roman Catholic Church has universal jurisdiction over all humanity, including me, whether I like it or not) I make myself not subject to its laws.

In my mind, and in accordance with Dominus Iesus, para. 17, I am still part of a particular Church (why —“ because I need the sacraments and a Church in valid Apostolic succession).

Dominus Iesus states:

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. .Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

As a member of a —true particular Church— (cf. Canon 844) i.e., the Polish National Catholic Church along with members of the Orthodox Churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East, I have exercised my ability to choose to honor the Roman pontiff as first among equals, but not the administrative head of the Church, to belong to a Church with valid Holy Orders, and that is in Apostolic succession.

So to me, it is the point-of-view that determines. That all should be one, I agree. That all should be part of the one, holy catholic and apostolic faith, I agree. That all are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and are required to cooperate in that salvation, I agree. In Catholicism there are many houses and means to come unto Christ.

For those who wish to comment, I welcome your perspective. I also respect your right to follow the law you have subjected yourself to, and to follow it thoroughly, as you should. However, I also expect you to respect my right to be unbound from your laws.