Summa de Ecclesia

With the three first books completed, our most kind Saviour the Lord helping us, we now extend our pen, with grace as our companion, to the fourth of the same work. In it we have resolved briefly to discuss and note some useful points concerning schismatics and heretics. We shall explain first what schism is, and consequently who are to be called schismatics. ¹ On this point it must be noted that schism signifies a kind of tearing apart, as Isidore says in the book of Etymologies, and as Pelagius says in c. Schisma, 24 q. 1. Schism can be taken in several ways: generally, less generally, and strictly. Taken generally, schism means a division of minds, whether lawful or unlawful, from any unity or community of men whatever, and so it can be used in a good or in a bad sense. In this way schism is taken in John 9, where, of the Jews interpreting variously, some well and some badly, the miracle worked by Christ on the man born blind, it is said that there was a schism among them; on which a certain gloss says: if they had all been evil, they would have been free of schism. Taken in the second way, namely less generally, schism means any unlawful division or dissension, and in this sense it is taken in 1 Cor. 1: That you all say the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you. Taking schism in this way, it has been defined variously by various authors. Brother Raymund of blessed memory, of the Order of Preachers, compiler of the Decretals, in his Summa de casibus, book 1, title On schismatics, defines it first thus: Schism is an unlawful departure between those among whom unity ought to be. Secondly he defines it thus: Schism is an unlawful departure from unity and community. Schism taken strictly and specially is defined by Alexander of Hales in his second book on the Sentences in this way: Schism is an unlawful departure from the unity of the Church. But because this definition of schism still seems general, since an unlawful departure from the unity of the Church can happen in many ways, Saint Thomas, on that passage of 1 Cor. 1, Let there be no schisms among you, says thus: properly speaking, schisms occur when men of one company separate themselves into different parties, either on account of diverse profession of faith or on account of diverse opinions about things to be done, in accordance with that passage of Isaiah 22: You will see the breaches of the city of David, because they have been multiplied; where the interlinear gloss on the word breaches says: that is, schisms of the Church. Accordingly, speaking more specially and strictly of schism, namely as it signifies a departure or division from the unity of the Church distinct in reason from departure from the unity of the Church through diverse profession of faith, it is defined first thus by Augustine against Cresconius the grammarian, speaking thus: Schism is a recent dissension of a congregation arising from diversity of opinion on certain matters. By Hostiensis in his Summa, under the title On schismatics, thus: Schism is an unlawful division made by disobedience from the unity of the Church. This definition sufficiently comprehends, among the others, the things that explain the nature of schism properly so called and its original cause. Hence we can say that in it, unlawful division is put as the genus. For the name schism, says Isidore, is derived from a splitting. But because, as we have said, such a division can arise unlawfully in many ways, it is put in place of the differentia, made by disobedience, to distinguish it from heresy, which arises from a false opinion against the faith. Hence blessed Cyprian, in a certain letter to Cornelius, says thus: Schisms have arisen from no other source than when obedience is not rendered to the priest of God, nor is one priest in the Church at a time and one judge at a time acknowledged in the place of Christ, to whom, if the whole brotherhood obeyed according to the divine precepts, it would not, by a breach of the unity of Christ, rend the Church. Thus far he. It is plain, therefore, that schism means a division made by disobedience against the supreme priest or judge who holds the place of Christ. But two points are to be noted here. First, it is rightly said that schism is an unlawful division, which occurs when someone separates himself from the Pope by disobedience in matters that are lawful and honourable and pertain to jurisdiction; for if the Roman pontiff were to command things that are evil in themselves, such as things contrary to divine law, or to faith, or to the salvation of souls, then division from the Roman pontiff by disobedience in such matters would not be unlawful, and consequently would not be called schism. Second, it is to be noted that since not every disobedience suffices to constitute the nature of schism, but only that which is made stubborn with a certain rebellion, that disobedience through which schism is incurred is rightly taken as having a certain obstinacy. Hence Alexander of Hales, in the passage above, in the second book says that schism taken properly is said to occur when one withdraws stubbornly from the obedience of the head of the Church. And blessed Thomas, in 2-2, q. 39, art. 1, says in the reply to the second argument that not obeying precepts with a certain rebellion constitutes the nature of schism. I mean by 'with rebellion' when he stubbornly scorns the precepts and refuses to submit to his judgment. The definition continues: from the unity of the Church, namely of the whole, in contrast to a division or departure that is unlawful from some particular congregation or society of men; for such a division from a particular brotherhood or society constitutes schism only in a broad sense, but a departure from the unity of the universal Church, which is called the principal unity, does so properly. For the particular unity of some with one another is ordered to the unity of the Church as the composition of the individual members in a natural body is ordered to the unity of the whole body. Now it is to be noted, according to Saint Thomas in the passage above, that the unity of the Church is considered in two respects: namely, in the connection of the members with one another, which lies in communication; and second, in the ordering of all the members to one head. Of this unity Pope Leo, in the third sermon of his own ordination, speaks thus: Although the whole Church of God is ordered in distinct grades, so that the integrity of the sacred body subsists from its diverse members, yet we are all, as the apostle says, one in Christ Jesus, and no one is so divided from another by office that the humility of each portion does not pertain to the connection of the head. Thus far he. To depart, therefore, from this head of the Church is to withdraw from this unity of the Church, according to that passage of Colossians 2: Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the head, from which the whole body, supplied and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows unto the increase of God. This head is Christ himself, whose place in the Church is held by the supreme pontiff. And therefore schismatics are so called, ² as Saint Thomas says, those who refuse to be subject to the supreme pontiff, and who refuse to communicate with the members of the Church that are subject to him. From these things it is plainly gathered that schism is an unlawful departure from that principal unity of the Church by which the whole body of the Church is ordered and joined together under one head, its ruler and leader or prince. Hence Cyprian, in his letter to Florentius: For schisms arise when the bishop, who is one and presides, is despised through the proud presumption of certain persons, and a man who is honoured by the dignity of God is judged unworthy by men. Likewise in his letter to Gratianus: For these are the beginnings of heretics, and the origin and endeavour of schismatics, evil thoughts, so that they please themselves and despise their superior with proud swelling. Thus one withdraws from the Church, thus a profane altar is set up outside, thus one rebels against the peace of Christ and against his order and unity. Thus far he. This opinion is shown by example in the schism that Core, Dathan and Abiron made with their accomplices, which arose from their refusal to be subject to Moses, the leader of Israel, and to Aaron, the high priest, of which it is written in Numbers 26. Likewise it is shown in the schism that the ten tribes made, when, having despised their own king, they set up another for themselves, namely Jeroboam, of which we read in 3 Kings 12. Hence it has been reasonably said that those first to be called schismatics are those who refuse to be subject to the supreme pontiff, who is the head of the universal Church, as we have shown in many ways in the second book. Hence Pelagius in c. Non vos, 23 q. 3: Whoever is divided from the apostolic sees is undoubtedly in schism, where the gloss says: therefore schism is not to have the Roman Church as head, as in 24 q. 1, This is the faith, and so on, since it is old. Hence Lord Aymar, in his book on synods, says, following the attestation of the holy fathers Augustine and Pope Pelagius, that all who are divided from the apostolic see are undoubtedly schismatics. Accordingly blessed Pope Callixtus says in c. Non decet, dist. 12: It is not fitting for the members to depart from the head, but according to the testimony of Scripture all the members should follow the head. Nor is there any doubt that the apostolic Church is the mother of all other churches, from whose rules it is in no way fitting for you to deviate. Likewise blessed Gregory, in c. Praeceptis, of the same distinction, says: Let pride not resist the apostolic precepts, but let those things that have been commanded by the holy Roman and apostolic authority be fulfilled for your salvation, if you desire communion with the same holy Church of God, which is our head. And further on, giving the reason: Since there is no doubt that not only the pontifical cause, but also the common relation of the holy religion to the apostolic see, which is the head of the churches, ought to be referred, and to take its rule from the source from which it took its beginning, lest the head of the institution seem to be neglected, whose authoritative sanction all priests who are unwilling to be torn away from the firmness of the apostolic see of Peter, upon which Christ founded the universal Church, should uphold. Thus far Gregory. Hence the Greeks and the Armenians and the Jacobites are said to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ, which is the Church, because they do not acknowledge the Roman pontiff as their head. Furthermore, those are called schismatics who refuse to communicate with the members of the Church that are subject to the Roman pontiff. Hence Pelagius in c. Schisma, 24 q. 1, speaks thus of certain schismatics: the worst opinion has divided those who rashly believe against the apostolic see; blessed Augustine declares this to be specially a schism, saying of such persons that, believing rashly against the authority of the churches which have deserved to receive letters from the apostolic see, they have not been able to ward off from themselves the most monstrous crime of schism. It is plain, therefore, that schism implies a division opposed to the union of charity, and that those are called schismatics who do not keep concord in the observances of the Church, namely by obeying the prelates of the Church, wishing by themselves to constitute a singular Church, as Saint Thomas says in the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 13.

So that a brighter understanding of what we have said above may be had, we shall introduce some objections of the adversaries against the foregoing and shall answer them in the following chapter. First it is objected against what is said, that schism has a place in the Church of God. ¹ In the first place, thus: where no division can exist, schism, which bespeaks division or a tearing, has no place; but in the Church of God there can be no division, since she is one, as is clear from Cant. 6: My dove is one, and in the creed it is said: I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church, and in unity there can be no tearing, as holy Pope Pelagius says in ch. Schisma 24. q. 1; it follows that in the Church of God schism has no place. The consequence seems clear.

² In the second place, thus, confirming the argument: the tunic of Christ, which figured the Church, was seamless and woven from above throughout, as is had in John 19, and the same is said in the Gloss in ch. Sicut 16. q. 7: As the garment of the Lord was not torn, but they cast lots for it, so neither ought the Church to be torn, because she stands whole in unity. Therefore the same as before.

³ In the third place it is argued against that definition of schism, namely that schism is an unlawful departure from the unity of the Church, because if that definition were good, it would follow that any sinner existing in mortal sin would be a schismatic, but this is false. Therefore etc. The consequence is clear, however, since mortal sin bespeaks a tearing and a certain division from God, and consequently from the Church who is the spouse of God, according to that of Isaiah 59: Your sins have divided between you and your God.

⁴ In the fourth place it is argued against the definition given by Hostiensis, when it is said that schism is an unlawful division through disobedience made from the unity of the Church, because if that definition were good, it would follow that all transgressors of the canons and of the precepts of the apostolic see would be schismatics, but this is false, as is manifest. Therefore also the aforesaid definition from which it follows. The consequence seems clear, however.

⁵ In the fifth place it is argued against what has been said, that that definition is understood of pertinacious disobedience, of which kind not every disobedience of those transgressing the precepts of the apostolic see is. On the contrary: disobedience with pertinacity does not seem sufficient to constitute anyone a schismatic; otherwise every excommunicated person would be called a schismatic, since excommunication is not inflicted except against the contumacious, according to ch. Absit 10. q. 3, which however is false. Therefore that definition is insufficient.

⁶ In the sixth place it is argued: schism is said to be an unlawful division from the principal unity of the Church, as was declared in the preceding chapter; but the principal unity is considered in relation to Christ, whom God gave as head over the whole Church, in Eph. 1, and not in relation to the pope, with whom even when dead the Church always remains one in the unity of faith, hope, and charity. Therefore schism does not seem well defined by this, that it is division from the apostolic see or from the supreme pontiff, but by this, that it is division from Christ. ⁷ In the seventh place, thus. When the faithful are divided from one another by diverse opinions concerning things to be done, while one and the same faith remains among all, one part of them does not seem to be called the Church more than the other, since among both the one and the same faith remains undivided, and Jerome says on Ps. 133: The Church is where the true faith is. Therefore these do not seem to be called schismatics more than those. ⁸ In the eighth place, thus. It is said in Matt. 18: where two or three are gathered in my name, I am in the midst of them. From this it is argued thus. The Church is to be said to be among those in whose midst Christ is, but among all the faithful even when divided into two parts some can be gathered in the name of Christ, therefore the Church is to be said to be among them also.

It is easy to answer the foregoing objections. Hence we say in the first place that schism has a place in the Church, as is well known from what was said above in the first ch. Hence the Apostle also says in 1 Cor. 12: Lest there be schism in the body, the Gloss 1: in the Church in which there ought to be unity. But it must be noted that when schism is said to have a place in the Church, it is not to be understood that the Church herself is properly divided, so that the Church which is one would be divided into many churches. Hence Cyprian says in the letter on the unity of the Church: There is one God, Christ is one, and one faith, and a people joined into a solid unity with the glue of concord; unity cannot be torn, nor can one body be separated by the rupture of its frame with its vitals torn and rent into pieces. Thus Cyprian. But in this way schism is said to have a place in the Church, because from the unity by which all the faithful, ordered by the divine institution of Christ, are gathered together under one head of the Church herself, namely the Roman pontiff, according to that of John 10: There shall be one fold and one shepherd, it happens that some faithful man or men are divided or separated through pertinacious disobedience with a certain rebellion and refusal to undergo his judgment.

Secondly we say that the assigned definitions of schism are fitting according to the understanding given above. Hence a reply must be made to the arguments on the contrary. ¹ To the first, when it is said that no division falls upon the Church, it is answered that although it is true, as we have said above, that the Church properly cannot be divided, since she stands whole in unity and in unity division and departure cannot exist, as Pope Pelagius says in ch. Scisma 24. q. 1, nevertheless division and departure from the unity of the Church can exist, and such division constitutes the nature of schism. Hence schism is named from tearing, not that which is made properly in the Church, but that which is made from the unity of the Church, as we have more fully explained above. ² To the second, when argument is made concerning the tunic of Christ etc., it is answered that the charity or unity of the Church is not said to be designated by the seamless tunic of Christ because no one could be divided or separated from it, but because, as Aug. says on John and as is had in the Gloss, the Church ought not to be torn, just as that garment was not torn. Hence he says: Rightly is the garment by which the Church is signified attested to be woven from above, but seamless lest it ever be ripped apart, and it came to one, because it gathers all into one. Thus he. Nevertheless however many recede from it, the Church always remains, since she cannot be nothing, as Aug. says in ch. Pudenda 24. q. 1. Hence the argument does not proceed. ³ To the third, when it is argued that through sin a division of man from God is made etc., and yet not every sinner is a schismatic, it is answered according to St. Thomas in 2.2. q. 39. art. 1, denying the consequence, and the reason is that the division of man from God through sin is not intended by the sinner, but happens beside his intention from his inordinate turning to a changeable good. But as in natural things what is accidental does not constitute a kind, so also not in moral matters, in which what is intended is per se, but what follows beside the intention is as it were per accidens, and therefore that division of man from God through sin, since it is not intended per se by the sinner, is not schism speaking per se, nor is any sinner to be called a schismatic per se.

⁴ To the fourth, when it is argued that if that definition of Hostiensis were good, any transgressor of the canons would be a schismatic, it is answered by denying the consequence, and the reason is that, as we have expounded above in the first ch., that definition does not speak of any disobedience whatever, but of disobedience simply and pertinaciously, as has been said. And I say simply, because as Lord Peter de Palude says in 4. dist. 13, one who does not obey in one article is not on that account immediately reputed a schismatic, for instance if he does not at once dismiss an adulteress or something of this kind. But I say pertinaciously, namely when he contemns the precepts of the apostolic see and refuses to undergo its judgment. But not everyone disobedient to the precepts of the apostolic see does this, nor every transgressor of the canons, and therefore not every transgressor of the canons is called a schismatic.

⁵ To the fifth, when it is argued that from that definition it would follow that every excommunicated person would be a schismatic, the consequence is denied. Both because contumacy in one article does not argue a departure simply from the unity of the Church or from obedience to the head of the Church, just as neither does all disobedience, as we have said above. And secondly because in not every contumacy is there imported that pertinacity with rebellion which constitutes the nature of schism.

⁶ To the sixth, when it is argued that the principal unity of the Church is considered in respect of Christ and not of the Roman pontiff, it is answered by denying the minor, namely that the unity of the Church is not considered in relation to the supreme pontiff. For which it must be noted that just as a twofold influx into the members of the body of the Church is distinguished, according as we have noted above in book 2, ch. 23, namely an interior one according to which grace and the virtues and other spiritual gifts are infused into the members of the Church, and another exterior one which is considered as to exterior government, so the unity of the body of the Church can be considered and regarded in two ways. In one way as to the interior influx, and in this way, since Christ alone is the head of the Church, the unity of the Church is considered in relation to Him alone. In another way there can be considered in the Church, which is the multitude of the faithful, a unity as to the exterior influx, and thus the unity of the Church is considered in relation to the one who presides over the whole Church as prince and head in the place of Christ, as we have said above most amply both in book 1. ch. 6. and in 2. ch. 2., concerning which unity blessed Cyprian in ch. Loquitur dominus 24. q. 1. says thus: The Lord speaks to Peter: I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. Upon one He built the Church, and although after His resurrection He grants to all the apostles an equal (that is, a like) power and says: As the Father sent me, so also do I send you. Receive the Holy Spirit, yet that He might manifest unity, He disposed by His authority the origin of the same unity beginning from one. Thus Cyprian. But this unity which is considered in dependence on the principal vicar of Christ is not called principal in respect of that which is in relation to Christ, but in respect of that particular unity which is of the members among themselves, as was expounded in the first ch. What is said, that when the pope is dead the Church still remains one, is no obstacle, since although the actual relation of the whole Church to this person of the pope fails through the death of this person, there always remains nevertheless to the apostolic see which never dies, as is had in Extra de rescrip. ch. Gratiosae, and a habitual one to the person to be elected, as we have said more fully on this matter in book 2. ch. 8. ⁷ To the seventh, when it is argued that this part is not to be called the Church more than that etc., it is answered that the assumption is false, since when the Church is one and cannot be torn, and her unity, as was expounded above, is considered from the order through obedience to one head and ruler of her, only those are to be called the Church of Christ in whom that order of obedience to that ruler holding the place of Christ remains. But others dividing themselves from unity of this kind cannot be called the Church of Christ, which holy Cyprian testifies to us most clearly in the letter to Magnus, saying thus: The Lord insinuating to us the unity coming from divine authority places and says: I and the Father are one. Reducing His Church to that unity He says anew: And there shall be one flock and one shepherd. But if there is one flock, how can he be counted in the flock who is not in the number of the flock? Likewise in the letter to Florentius: the Lord also in the Gospel, when the disciples abandoning Him as He spoke, turning to the twelve said: Do you also wish to go? Peter answered Him saying: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the word of eternal life, and we believe and have known that Thou art the Son of the living God. There Peter speaks, upon whom the Church had been built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that although the contumacious and proud multitude of those unwilling to obey departs, the Church nevertheless does not recede from Christ, and those are the Church, a people joined to the priest and a flock adhering to its shepherd. Hence you ought to write that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church, which is also placed in 7. q. 1. To the same effect is blessed Aug., who as Pope Pelagius deduces in ch. Pudenda 24. q. 1. says thus: If the Church can in no way be said to be where schism is, it remains that, since the Church cannot be nothing, she is that which, constituted in the root of the apostolic see through the successions of bishops, the malice of no men can in any way extinguish. Likewise the same Pelagius in ch. Schisma, in sum: Do you believe those to be the Church, and when there cannot be two churches will you judge us, which God forbid, to be schismatics, or if it stands that the true Church is in the apostolic sees, know that those are divided from unity, and that the question of communion is removed, which it stands cannot truly exist except in unity. Do not therefore, as if there were no difference between schismatics and the Church, wish to be satiated indifferently by the sacrifices of both. It is not the body of Christ, namely as to effect, which the schismatic confects, if we are directed with truth as guide. For no one could feign Christ to be divided without the reproof of the Apostle. But that which is the body of Christ, as has often been said, stands to be the one Church, which cannot be divided into two or more. For at the same time as anyone departs from her he ceases to be the Church. But to what was argued, that the same faith remains, it is answered that unformed faith alone does not suffice for anyone to be said to be in the Church of Christ, but it is required that he remain in the unity of the Church which is considered in relation to the head of the Church, and thus that he be subject according to the ordination of Christ to the head of the Church who is the Roman pontiff. Hence blessed Cyprian in the letter, and it is had in ch. Denique 7. q. 1: But that schismatics are said to know the same God the Father whom we know, the same Son, the same Holy Spirit, cannot help such. For Chore and Dathan and Abiron knew the same God with the priest Aaron and Moses, living under an equal law and religion; they invoked the one true God who was to be worshipped and called upon. Yet because, transgressing the ministry of their place, they claimed for themselves the license of sacrificing against Aaron the priest, who had completed the lawful priesthood by the condescension and ordination of God, being struck from heaven they immediately paid the penalties for their unlawful attempts, nor could the sacrifices offered irreligiously and unlawfully against the law of the divine disposition be ratified and avail. Thus he. Wherefore blessed Jerome favors this opinion, writing to Pope Damasus, and it is had in ch. Quoniam vetus oriens 24. q. 1: I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of Christ, I following no reward but Christ am joined to thy blessedness, to the chair of Peter, in communion ⁸, I know the Church founded upon that rock; whoever eats the lamb outside this house is profane; if anyone was not in the ark of Noah, he shall perish with the flood reigning; and below: whoever does not gather with thee scatters; that is, whoever is not of Christ is of antichrist. Likewise of this opinion is blessed Ambrose on the letter to Tim. ch. 3: I write to thee that thou mayest know how the Church is ordered which is the house of God, so that although the whole world of God be the Church, yet that is said to be His house whose ruler today is Damasus. For the world is disturbed by diverse error of transgression, therefore it is necessary that the house of God and the truth be said to be there where He is feared according to His will. But to the saying of Jerome, that there is the Church where there is faith, it is answered, as has been said, that it is true so long nevertheless as there is no receding from the unity of the Church. Or it must be said and understood of faith not only toward God, but also toward the Church, toward which the schismatics do not keep faith, that is fidelity, who suffer the members of the Church to be divided from the unity of the Church, as in ch. Advocavit 24. q. 1. ⁹ To the eighth argument it is answered by denying the minor, namely that any who are divided from the unity of the Church and the obedience of the vicar of Jesus Christ could be said to be gathered in the name of Christ. Hence in ch. Audivimus 24. q. 1. Alexander the second says: Christ does not dwell in the hearts of those who, following a proud singularity, tear themselves from the frame of the body of Christ. Hence blessed Cyprian, because in his time certain schismatics were deceived by a vain interpretation of the aforesaid authority, answers in this way: ¹⁰ The despisers of the Gospel and false interpreters set down the last things and pass over the earlier, mindful of a part and deceitfully suppressing a part, so that they themselves, as they are cut off from the Church, thus cut up the sentence of a single chapter. For the Lord, when urging unity and peace upon His disciples, says: I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything whatsoever that you ask, it shall come to you from my Father who is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am with them; He shows that very much is attributed not to multitude but to the unanimity of those praying. If two, He says, of you agree on earth etc. He first set unanimity, He premised the concord of peace, teaching that it may so come to you faithfully and firmly. But how can he himself agree with another who does not agree with the body of the Church herself and with the whole brotherhood? But how can two or three be gathered in the name of Christ who, it stands, are separated from Christ and from His Gospel? Thus Cyprian in chapter Alienus 24. quest. 1.

For as faith and charity are diverse virtues, although whoever lacks faith lacks charity, so also schism and heresy are diverse vices, although whoever is a heretic is also a schismatic, but it is not convertible. But the proper difference of these must be taken according to those things to which each is per se and directly opposed. But heresy is opposed to faith; schism to the unity of ecclesiastical charity. Hence the difference between heresy and schism is rightly assigned on this ground, that heresy is perverse doctrine concerning those things which are of faith; but schism bespeaks a tearing from ecclesiastical unity, and this is what Jerome says in the letter to the Galatians and is adduced by Gratian 24. q. 3. ch. Inter haeresim: Between heresy and schism I judge this to be the difference, that heresy has perverse doctrine; schism after the episcopal departure equally separates from the Church. Hence blessed Augustine in the book against Faustus, distinguishing between schism and heresy, says thus: Schism is to hold the same opinions and to worship with the same rite as the rest, being delighted by the mere rupture of the congregation. But heresy holds diverse opinions from those which the catholic Church believes. Likewise the same blessed Augustine in the book of Questions on the Gospels, assigning the difference between heretics, bad catholics, and schismatics, says thus: Between heretics and bad catholics there is this difference, that heretics believe false things; but the latter, believing true things, do not live as they believe. But it is also wont to be asked in what schismatics differ from heretics, and this is found, that not diverse faith makes schismatics but a disrupted common society. Likewise the same distinction is placed by blessed Augustine in the book On Faith and the Creed, saying thus: We believe in the holy universal catholic and apostolic Church. For heretics and schismatics also call their congregations Churches, but heretics by holding false opinions concerning God violate the faith itself. But schismatics by their wicked dissensions dissolve themselves from brotherly charity, although they believe what we believe. Wherefore neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Church. But as the loss of charity is the way to the loss of faith according to that of 1 Tim. 1: From which, namely from charity, some departing are turned to vain talking, so also schism is the way to heresy. Hence Jerome in the place above adds that schism at the beginning can in some part be understood to be diverse from heresy. For the rest, no schism already grown old or continued is without feigning for itself some heresy, so that it may seem to have receded from the Church rightly. Thus Jerome. With which opinion blessed Augustine agreeing says thus against Cresconius the grammarian: Between schism and heresy I rather approve that distinction by which schism is said to be a recent dissension of a congregation from some diversity of opinions. For it cannot happen unless those who make it follow something diverse; heresy is also an inveterate schism. Thus he. But considering this, that schism is the way to heresy, the Gloss in ch. Inter haeresim 24. q. 3. says, and almost all the doctors, the jurists, also say that the difference between schism and heresy is that which is between disposition and habit, and because every heretic is a schismatic and not conversely, as the difference between genus and species. But these, although they have truth in some way taking the name of schism generally, nevertheless taking it properly it is not true that such is the difference between schism and heresy as is between disposition and habit or genus and species; since although the name of schism taken generally, namely as it is taken for any unlawful departure, in which way it is taken in Exod. 20: Thou shalt not build an altar of hewn stones, where the Gloss says: hewn stones are those who tear unity, can be a genus to heresy; nevertheless schism taken properly, namely as it bespeaks a departure with pertinacity from obedience to the Church, however much it concur together with heresy, always differs from it in species, since they are sins distinct in species, which is not the case with disposition and habit, genus and species. Although, as has been said above, schism even taken properly is the way to heresy, since a schismatic cannot long endure unless he feigns for himself some heresy in defense of his dissension. From which is confuted the opinion of certain jurists who, not understanding the specific distinction of these sins, say that schism passes into heresy as substantially one into the other.

But how most grave the sin of schism is and detestable in the eyes of the divine majesty is easily gathered from the attestations of the holy fathers and from many other things. For Augustine says against the letter of Parmenian that the sacrilege of schism surpasses all crimes, and in book 4 against Cresconius the grammarian he says that Cyprian compared the evil of schism to idolatry. The sin of schism is aggravated therefore in the first place by this, that schismatics are specially called enemies of God. For Cyprian says in the letter as is had in ch. Alienus 24. q. 1: He is alien, he is profane, he is an enemy; he cannot have God as father who does not hold the unity of the universal Church. Secondly the gravity of this sin is shown by this, that the Lord is said singularly to hate, nay even to cast away the festivals and sacrifices of schismatics. Hence the Lord speaking of them through Amos the prophet ch. 5, which Gratian transfers in ch. Odit 24. q. 1, says thus: I hate and have cast away your festivals, and I will not catch the odor of your assemblies; but if you offer me holocausts and your gifts I will not receive them, and the vows of your fatlings I will reject. But the Lord hates, says Jerome, and not only hates but casts away the festivals of those who celebrate not the festival of God but their own, and below: And if they offer holocausts, so as to seem to fast, to give alms, to promise chastity, which are true holocausts, the Lord does not receive them. For He judges not the greatness of the sacrifices or the merits and causes of those offering. Likewise blessed Augustine testifies this same thing in the book On Faith to Peter: Hold most firmly and doubt in no way that any schismatic or heretic baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, if he has not been aggregated to the Church, however many alms he has made, and even if for the name of Christ he has shed his blood, can in no way be saved. For to every man who does not hold the unity of the Church, neither alms however copious, nor baptism, nor death undertaken for the name of Christ will be able to avail for salvation, so long as in him either heretical or schismatic perversity perseveres which leads to death. No wonder if the Most High does not accept the sacrifices and oblations of schismatics, since as Cyprian says in a certain letter: Nothing can be pleasing and firm with God which they do whom God calls His enemies and adversaries in His Gospel, saying: Who is not with me is against me, and who gathers not with me scatters. Moreover schism is shown to be most grave. Also because schismatics, crueler toward Christ than His crucifiers, presume to tear the unity of the Church signified by it, the seamless tunic of the Lord which the soldiers of Pilate did not dare to tear. Against whom blessed Augustine in the letter to Severinus against the schismatics says thus: Why do you wish to be dividers of the garments of the Lord and do you not wish to hold with the whole world that tunic of charity woven from above, which not even His persecutors divided? And blessed Cyprian in the letter On the Unity of the Church: Who is so wicked and faithless, who so insane with the madness of discord, as either to believe that the unity of God, the garment of the Lord, the Church of Christ, can be torn, or to dare to tear it? He Himself warns us in the Gospel and teaches saying: And there shall be one flock and one shepherd. Moreover the gravity of this crime of schism is shown from this, that schismatics seem to deny the faith of Christ. Hence Ambrose, and it is had in ch. Advocavit 24. q. 1, speaking of Cyprian says thus: He did not judge faith to be in schism. For even if they held faith toward God, namely the schismatics, yet toward the Church of God they did not hold it, whose members as it were they suffered to be divided and whose limbs to be torn. For since Christ suffered for the Church and the Church is the body of Christ, faith does not seem to be shown to Christ by those by whom His passion is emptied and torn asunder. Further the gravity of this crime is regarded from this, that it seems to be a desperate sickness, hence Augustine On the Words of the Lord, book 3. sermon 12: Christ is the head of the Church and the Church His body, and in His body the unity of the members and the compact of charity exists as health. But whoever grows cold in charity sickens in the body of Christ; but He who has already exalted our head is able also to heal the sick members, so long nevertheless as they are not cut off by too great impiety, but adhere to the body until they are healed. For whatever still adheres to the body is not of desperate health; but what has been cut off can neither be cured nor healed. Moreover the detestable gravity of this sin is gathered from the gravity of the punishment with which it is read to have been punished by God not only in the principal authors but also in accomplices and consenters and followers. Hence blessed Augustine in the letter to Emeritus speaks of this thus: But how heavily this crime is weighed in the divine judgment read what I do not doubt thou hast read, thou shalt find: Dathan and Abiron devoured by the opening of the earth, all the rest who consented to them consumed by fire going out from their midst. That crime therefore the Lord God demonstrated with present punishment as an example to be avoided, so that when He most patiently spared such, He showed what He reserved for the last judgment. Thus Augustine. And blessed Cyprian demonstrating the gravity of this crime from the same root in the letter, and it is had in ch. Denique 7. q. 1, says thus: Finally how inseparable the sacrament of unity is, and how without their own hope they are and acquire for themselves the greatest perdition from the indignation of God who make schism and, abandoning their bishop, constitute for themselves another pseudo-bishop outside, the divine Scripture declares in the book of Kings, where from the tribe of Judah and of Benjamin ten tribes were torn, and abandoning their king they instituted another for themselves outside. He was angered, says the Lord, at all the seed of Israel, and demolished them and gave them into plunder until He cast them away from His face, because Israel was scattered from the house of David and they constituted for themselves king Jeroboam son of Nabat. He said God was angered and gave them into perdition, because scattered from unity they constituted another king for themselves; and so great was the indignation of the Lord against those who made schism, that even when the man of God was sent to Jeroboam to reproach him with his sins and to foretell the vengeance to come, he was forbidden to eat bread among them and to drink water; which when he did not keep and stretched forth against the precept of the Lord, he was immediately struck by divine censure, so that returning thence he was killed on the way by the onset and bite of a lion. But still in the Gospel the Lord manifests a greater light of His understanding, that the same who then tore themselves from the tribe of Judah and Benjamin were reckoned among pseudo-prophets and Gentiles. For when He sent the first disciples into the ministry of salvation, He commanded and said: Go not into the way of the nations, and enter not into the cities of the Samaritans; sending first to the Jews, He bids the Gentiles still to be passed by. But by adding that the city of the Samaritans, where there were schismatics, ought to be omitted, He shows schismatics to be equated with Gentiles. Likewise blessed Jerome, and it is had in ch. Non afferamus 24. q. 1, speaking of the gravity of this crime says thus: Let us not bring deceitful balances where we weigh what we wish at our pleasure saying this is grave, this is light, but let us now bring the divine balance from the holy Scriptures as from the treasuries of the Lord, and in it let us weigh what is graver. At the time when the Lord showed prior faults to be avoided by recent examples of punishments, both an idol was fabricated and adored, and a prophetic book was burned by the wrath of a contemptuous king, and schism was attempted; idolatry was punished with the sword, the burning of the book with slaughter in war and foreign captivity, schism with the authors buried alive in the opening of the earth and the rest consumed with heavenly fire. Who shall now doubt that this was committed more wickedly which was avenged more gravely? Thus he.

It will perhaps seem to someone from what has been said that schism is a graver sin than the sin of heresy or of unbelief, since a greater sin is to be punished with a graver punishment according to that of Deut. 25: According to the measure of the sin shall the measure of the stripes be. But the sin of schism is found punished more gravely than even the sin of idolatry, as has been said, according as it is read in Deut. 32 that for idolatry some were killed by the sword with human hand. But concerning the sin of schism it is read in Num. 16: If the Lord do a new thing, so that opening the earth its mouth swallow them and all things that pertain to them, and they go down alive into hell, you shall know that they have blasphemed the Lord. The ten tribes also which by the vice of schism receded from the kingdom of David were most gravely punished, 4 Kings 7. Nevertheless it is not so in truth that schism is a graver sin than unbelief. For there is a general rule that whatever is related by addition to another exceeds it in good or in evil. But thus it is that heresy stands by addition to schism, for it adds perverse doctrine, as is clear from the authority of Jerome adduced above. Hence there is no doubt that schism absolutely speaking is a lesser sin than unbelief. For which it must be noted according to St. Thomas in 2.2. q. 39. art. 2. that the gravity of a sin can be considered in two ways: in one way according to its species, in another way according to its circumstances; and because particular circumstances can be varied in infinite ways, when it is asked in common concerning two sins which is graver, the question must be understood of the gravity which is regarded according to the genus of the sin. But genus or species is regarded from the object, and therefore that sin which is contrary to a greater good is graver in its genus, as sin against God is graver than sin against neighbor. But it is manifest that unbelief is a sin against God Himself, according as in Himself He is the first truth on which faith rests; but schism is against ecclesiastical unity, which is a certain participated good and less than God Himself is. Hence it is manifest that the sin of unbelief in its genus is graver than the sin of schism, although it could happen that some schismatic sins more gravely than some unbeliever, either on account of greater contempt, or on account of the greater danger which he brings about, or on account of something of this kind. Nor does it stand against this truth that schism is said to be opposed to charity, which is a greater virtue than faith to which unbelief is opposed, since charity has two objects: one principal, namely the divine goodness, and another secondary, namely the good of neighbor. But schism and other sins which are against neighbor are opposed to charity as to the secondary good, which is less than the object of faith, which is God Himself, and therefore these sins are less than unbelief. But hatred of God which is opposed to charity as to the principal good is not less; yet among sins which are against neighbor the sin of schism seems to be the greatest, because it is against the spiritual good of the multitude.

But concerning this, that schism was at some time punished more gravely and with an unwonted punishment than unbelief, as in Num. 16, a manifold reason can be assigned. The first according to St. Thomas in 2.2. in the place above: because to that Hebrew people it was already manifest through the received law that there was one God and that no other was to be worshipped, and this was confirmed among them by manifold signs, and therefore there was no need for those sinning against this faith through idolatry to be punished with any extraordinary punishment, but only with a common one; but it was not thus known among them that Moses ought always to be their prince, and therefore those rebelling against his principate had to be punished with a miraculous and unwonted punishment. The second reason: the sin of schism was at some time more gravely punished in that people, because that people was prompt to seditions and schisms. For it is said in 1 Esdras 4: That city from ancient days rebelled against the king, and seditions and wars are stirred in it. But a greater punishment is at times inflicted for a more customary sin. But punishments are certain medicines for deterring men from sin; hence where there is greater proneness to sin a severer punishment ought to be applied. The third reason: schism is at times punished more gravely because it is a very dangerous and pernicious sin. For which it must be noted, as the same St. Thomas says in the question on evil, art. 10. in the answer to the 4th argument, that the punishments which are inflicted by God in the future life correspond to the gravity of fault, hence the Apostle says to the Romans 2: The judgment of God is according to truth against them that do such things; but the punishments which are inflicted in the present life whether by God or by man do not always correspond to the gravity of fault. For at times a lesser fault is punished temporally with a graver punishment on account of the greater danger to be avoided; for the punishments of the present life are applied as medicines. But the sin of schism is most pernicious to human affairs, because it dissolves the whole kingdom of human society. The fourth reason can be assigned according to Master Alexander of Hales in book 2, why schism was more gravely punished in them: because those seem to have acted from greater contumacy than others who fell into heresy; but the greater the contempt is, the more wickedly is the sin committed.

Since schismatics are divided and separated from the body of the Church, and outside the unity of the Church the Holy Spirit is not received, it is not without reason doubted whether among those thus segregated from the Church by such a rent anything of spiritual power remains, and therefore something must be said on this point. For which it must be noted, according to Saint Thomas in 2.2, q. 39, art. 3, that spiritual power is twofold: one sacramental, the other jurisdictional. Sacramental power is indeed that which is conferred through some consecration. But all consecrations of the Church are immovable while the things consecrated remain, as is clear even in inanimate things: for an altar once consecrated is not consecrated again unless it has been destroyed, and therefore such power according to its essence remains in the man who obtained it through consecration as long as he lives, whether he fall into schism or into heresy, which is clear from the fact that on returning to the Church he is not consecrated again. On which blessed Augustine in the book against the Donatists says: Just as those returning to the Church who before they departed had been ordained are by no means ordained again. Schismatics therefore retain sacramental power, retaining orders.

Moreover this same point is clearly gathered from what Pope Urban says, found in ch. Ordinationes, 9, q. 1: Those consecrated by bishops once ordained as Catholics but separated from the Roman Church in schism, when they return to the unity of the Church we order to be mercifully received with their own orders preserved, if life and learning commend them. But this could not be unless spiritual power given through consecration remained among schismatics. Yet because an inferior power ought not to pass into act except insofar as it is moved by a superior power, as is clear in natural things, hence it is that such men lose the use of power, namely in the sense that it is not lawful for them to use their power; if however they have used it, their power has effect in sacramental matters, because in these one works only as an instrument of God. Hence sacramental effects are not excluded on account of any fault whatever of the one conferring the sacrament. Hence authorities saying that schismatics and heretics do not have the aforesaid sacramental spiritual power are always to be understood as to the lawful use of it, but are not to be referred to the very essence of the power, as is that text in Extra, On Schism, ch. 1, where the Lateran council says: We have judged ordinations made by Octavian and Guido, leaders of heresy, and by those ordained by them, to be void. And the same is found in ch. Ordinationes, 9, q. 1. But understand this, as the Gloss says, as to execution, unless dispensation has been granted with them, or if the one ordained should prove that he did not know that he who ordained him was a schismatic, as in ch. Ordinationes above. From which it is also manifestly had that among schismatics there are true sacraments, provided they are given or dispensed in the form of the Church. Hence Aug. in the book On the One Baptism says: A separated man can hand on the sacrament just as a separated man can have it. For as the same Aug. testifies against Petilian the Donatist: The morals of evil men are no hindrance to the sacraments of God, making them either not exist or be less holy. Hence all authorities of the holy fathers which seem to sound as though among schismatics or heretics there are no true sacraments are either to be understood of those schismatics and heretics who do not keep the form of the Church, as that saying of Pope Pelagius in ch. Pudenda, 24, q. 1: He who is divided from the apostolic sees rather curses himself and does not consecrate. Rightly therefore he who is cursed can be said only to curse and not to consecrate, and similar authorities; or the aforesaid authorities are to be understood of the sacraments not as to the truth of the essence of the sacraments, but as to the reality of the sacrament or their salutary effect; since it is true that if they are manifestly cut off from the Church, whoever receive sacraments from them sin, except the sacrament of baptism in the article of necessity, and by this they are hindered from attaining the effect of the sacrament, and thus as to the reality of the sacrament those sacraments are called false or vain. In this way, Saint Thomas says in the third part, is to be taken what Pope Leo, writing to the Emperor Leo, says, that in the Alexandrian see the light of all the heavenly sacraments is extinguished, the oblation of the sacrifice intercepted, the sanctification of chrism fails, etc. But the sayings of Cyprian which seem to hold that among schismatics and heretics there are no true sacraments do not compel, because his opinion is not held, as Saint Aug. says.

The jurisdictional power, however, is that which is conferred by the simple injunction of a man, and such power does not adhere immovably. Hence it does not remain in schismatics and heretics, and therefore they cannot absolve nor excommunicate nor grant indulgences nor anything of this kind; and if they do so, nothing is done. To this power seems to be referred the authority of Cyprian in the letter, found in 7, q. 1, ch. Novatianus: He who observes neither the unity of the spirit nor the peace of communion, and separates himself from the bond of the Church and the college of priests, can have neither the power nor the honor of a bishop. Likewise the same Cyprian in the letter to Magnus, found in ch. Didicimus, 24, q. 1: We have learned that heretics and schismatics have altogether no power or right. Therefore in ch. 1, Extra, On Schism, after the words alleged above, it is said thus: Adding that those who have received ecclesiastical dignities or benefices through the said schismatics shall lack what they obtained. Alienations also of ecclesiastical property made through the same schismatics, whether laymen, shall lack all firmness. And this because among schismatics nothing of jurisdictional power remains. Hence the Gloss on the words lack all firmness says: Because while the Church has a heretic or schismatic as pastor it is understood to be vacant, above, On Rescripts, first chapter.

Schism is both punished by God and punished by the Church; how gravely it is read to have been punished by God we have set forth above in ch. 5 by way of example concerning Dathan and Abiron, who were swallowed up by the opening of the earth, Numbers, ch. 16. Likewise concerning the ten tribes which, because they adhered to Jeroboam, were given over to dispersion, 3 Kings 12 and 13, and it is clear from many other examples. It remains to speak of the punishment by which schismatics are punished by the Church. They are punished by the Church in many ways. First, by excommunication, as is clear in Extra, On Schism, ch. 2, and consequently, since schismatics are excommunicated, as is also found in ch. De liguribus, 23, q. 5, and since there must be no communion with the excommunicated, it follows that there must be no knowing communion with schismatics. Hence in Num. 16 it is said: Depart from the tents of the impious men, namely those who had made schism, and touch not the things that belong to them, lest you be involved in their sins. Second, if schismatics do not come to their senses through excommunication, they are punished with the penalty of deposition, as in ch. In nomine Domini, 23 dist. But if they should still obstinately presume, so that they cannot be coerced by the aforesaid penalties, third they are to be punished by an armed hand, that is, coerced by the power of the secular arm. The fittingness of these penalties is taken according to Saint Thomas in 2.2, q. 39, art. 4, thus: As is found in Wisdom 11: By what a man sins, by that he is punished. But schismatics, as is clear from what has been said, sin in two ways. In one way indeed, because they separate themselves from the communion of the members of the Church, and in this respect the fitting penalty for schismatics is that they be excommunicated. They sin second, because they refuse to be subject to the head of the Church, and for this they are deservedly deposed from dignity. And because they refuse to be coerced by the spiritual power of the Church, it is just that they be coerced by temporal power. But the penalties of the present life are medicinal, and therefore when one penalty does not suffice to coerce a man another is added. Just as physicians also apply diverse bodily medicines when one is not effective, so the Church, when some are not sufficiently restrained by excommunication, applies the coercion of the secular arm or power; but if one is sufficient, another ought not to be applied. Of this penalty of the secular arm or power many chapters speak in the Decree, especially 22, q. 5, as in ch. De liguribus and ch. Quali, where Pope Pelagius, writing to Narses the patrician, says thus: Greeting your glory with fatherly affection, we ask that you lend your aid in all things to the aforesaid, since they have been sent by our see, nor think it to be the sin of anyone if men of this kind are pressed hard. For both divine and human laws have decreed this, that those divided from the unity of the Church and most wickedly disturbing its peace be repressed by the secular powers, nor is there anything greater by which you can offer sacrifice to God than if you ordain that those who rage to their own and others' ruin be restrained with fitting rigor.

Since we have judged it no small use to this part, as a precaution for future times, that the schisms arisen in the Church in earlier times be recalled, together with the ways in which they were quieted or removed, we have therefore wished to run through them briefly. But because schisms in the Church happen in various ways, namely either through the introduction of perverse doctrine, since heresy includes schism in itself, or through separation and division by obstinate disobedience from the apostolic see, or through usurpation of the apostolic see, in speaking of schisms in the first way it is not our purpose to count past or present schisms, because that would be long and very difficult, since as many schisms would have to be recounted as there have been heresies or now are. Nor do we intend to recall schisms introduced in the second way, since in those, as in the first, many heresies are involved. For of those is properly understood the saying of Jerome in ch. Inter haeresim, 24, q. 1, saying that every inveterate schism fashions for itself some heresy so that it may seem to have departed from the Church rightly, as is clear in the schism of the Greeks, in the schism of the Jacobites and Armenians, and now of the Bohemians, who to color their separation from the Roman Church fashioned many heresies. But at present we have proposed to enumerate only those schisms which were introduced into the Church by the illicit daring of usurpation of the apostolic see.

The first schism was between blessed Cornelius and Novatian, a priest of the city of Rome. The first therefore who after the lawful succession of the pontiffs strove to usurp the apostolic see, as the ecclesiastical histories report, was Novatian, a priest of the Roman Church, and he became the chief of the heresy of the Novatians, who called themselves Cathari, that is, the pure, denying to the lapsed the hope of pardon; hence they did not communicate with lapsed brethren nor said their penance was to be received, and so Novatian fell into schism and heresy. For which reason Pope Cornelius gathers a council in the city of 70 bishops, and as many priests with many deacons, in which, Novatian with all his followers having been execrated by all and his heresy condemned, it is decreed that pardon be promised to penitent lapsed and reconciliation granted after worthy penance.

The second schism was between Felix and Liberius. Indeed, with Pope Liberius exiled by the Emperor Constantius for the faith, Felix, a priest, is substituted in the papacy with the consent of Liberius himself, who at length, for constancy in the faith, with a council of Arians gathered, is deposed from the papacy. Liberius, who, overcome by weariness of exile, was recalled, subscribing in heretical depravity, was restored to the see, which he held for nearly six years. This schism was quieted by death. For first Pope Felix is crowned with martyrdom; then after six years the pseudo-pope Liberius was extinguished by an evil death through the prayers of the saints, whom afterwards Pope Damasus publicly condemned by synodal judgment and annulled all that he had done.

The third schism was between Damasus, the first pope of that name, and Ursinus, a cardinal deacon. For the latter, not bearing Damasus set over him, stirs up sedition against Damasus, and by the power of seditious men extorts being made bishop in the basilica called that of Sisinnius, with the order of law and tradition perverted; by which deed great disturbance arose. This schism was quieted with God as author; for with a council gathered, Damasus, who had been elected by the greater and sounder part, is established in the see. Ursinus, cast out of the city, is made bishop of Naples.

The fourth schism was between Boniface the first and Eulalius, a priest of the city of Rome. Boniface is ordained in the basilica of Saint Peter, Eulalius in the Constantinian basilica. This schism is quieted thus, since both leave the city by order of the Emperor Honorius, and with an inquiry made into the truth of the election of both, Eulalius is rejected, and Boniface, who had been elected by the greater and sounder part, is restored to the apostolic see.

The fifth schism was between Symmachus the first and Laurentius. For Symmachus is elected pope in the Constantinian basilica by one party of the cardinals and clergy; Laurentius however is elected by the other party in the basilica of Saint Mary. This schism was quieted in this way, that since one would not yield to the other, they decided that the whole dispute should be settled by the judgment of King Theodoric, who then had full dominion in Italy; who, being at Ravenna, with the legates of both parties fully heard, decreed that he who had been elected first or whom the greater part of the clergy together with the people had elected should reside in the apostolic see. And because Symmachus had been ordained first, the greater part came to favor him, who out of mercy made Laurentius bishop of Nocera. But after a few years Symmachus is accused from envy by false witnesses, and, accused before Augustus, Laurentius is secretly recalled, and with schism renewed the clergy is divided. But it is quieted in this way: for by order of the aforesaid King Theodoric a council of 115 bishops is gathered in the city, as is clear in dist. 17, ch. Concilia. Hence also, in which, with Symmachus purged of the false charge and both the false witnesses and Bishop Laurentius, usurper of the apostolic see, condemned, Symmachus is restored with the highest honor and glory.

The sixth schism was between Silverius the first and Vigilius. For Vigilius, archdeacon of the Roman Church, aspiring to the height of the apostolic see, prepares treachery for his pontiff Silverius. For since Pope Silverius would not at the suggestion of the Empress recall Anthimus, bishop of Constantinople, because he was a heretic, Vigilius promised he would do this, and so, with blessed Silverius deported into exile through the patrician Belisarius, Vigilius, with the Empress favoring him on account of the promise made, seized the evilly coveted see, although afterwards he washed away the crime by blessed confession. This schism was quieted because, as certain histories report, with Silverius dead in exile Vigilius was assumed by all as pope.

The seventh schism was between Eugenius the second and another co-elected with him in discord, which schism was quieted by the power of Lothair, son of the Emperor Louis, who, coming to Rome, pacified the state of the people, depraved by his predecessors, with the pontiff Eugenius, and so, with the antipope rejected, Eugenius remained in the papacy, whom also the greater part of the nobles and people favored.

The eighth schism was between Leo the fifth and Christopher the pseudo-antipope, which Christopher with diabolical presumption was so accursed that he presumed to seize Pope Leo by force and consign him to prison, and so in this manner he usurped the apostolic see. But with Pope Leo dead in prison and Christopher the antipope shamefully rejected, Sergius the second is elected to the apostolate, and so the schism is quieted.

The ninth schism was between John the twelfth and Leo the eighth. For although John the twelfth for his demerits, because he was slippery and a hunter, had been deposed with a council of the bishops of Italy gathered through the Emperor Otto, and Leo constituted in the apostolate, nevertheless after the departure of the Emperor, John, received by the Romans through the favor of his own, was restored, and with a synod gathered resumed the papacy with Leo deposed, and with John at length extinguished by the just judgment of God at the hand of the devil the schism was quieted.

The tenth schism was between the aforesaid Leo and Benedict the fifth, which Benedict, since he was elected by the friends of John while Leo still lived, gave rise to schism. This schism is quieted thus: for the Emperor, hearing this, returns to the city and wearies it with siege until Benedict was handed over to him, whom the Emperor sends into exile into Saxony, and Leo is restored, and so by the power of the Emperor the schism is quieted.

The eleventh schism was between Gregory the fifth and a certain John, bishop of Piacenza, whom Crescentius the consul, corrupted by money, violently thrust into the apostolic see, but the Emperor, hearing this with much grief, swiftly returns to the city, and orders Crescentius to be slain, and the said John, deprived with his eyes gouged out, he consigned to perpetual prison in the castle of Saint Angelo, and Gregory is restored, and so by the power of the Emperor the schism is quieted.

The twelfth schism was between Benedict the ninth and three others assumed. For it is read that Benedict the ninth, after he had sat in the apostolic see for some years, is cast down, and the papacy was given to John, bishop of Sabina, who was afterwards called Sylvester the third, and with the latter cast out by the power of certain Romans who favored Albert, father of the aforesaid Benedict, Benedict was restored; and with him again rejected, the papacy was given to John, priest of Saint John before the Latin Gate, who was called Gregory the sixth, who on account of rudeness of letters, as they report, had another consecrated with him to execute the turns of office, and since this institution of a coadjutor did not please many, a third is brought in over them, who alone should fill the turns of the two. Among three therefore there is contention over the papacy, with one disputing against two and two against one over the papacy, the Emperor Henry comes to Rome, and with the three cast out a fourth is substituted, who was called Clement the second, and so by the power of the Emperor the schism is quieted.

The thirteenth schism was when Benedict the tenth, relying on the power of certain Roman nobles, occupied the apostolic see, who at length, led by conscience, yielded, acknowledging that he had not entered through the door, and Nicholas the second was made.

The fourteenth schism was between Alexander the second and Cadalus, bishop of Parma. Indeed the bishops of Lombardy, saying that no one ought to be elected Roman pontiff except from the paradise or garden of Italy, which they called Lombardy, against the custom of the Church elect the aforesaid Cadalus as pope, with the Emperor Henry favoring them in this; but this schism is quieted in this way, for the Emperor Henry, returning to his heart and grieving for the disturbance of the Church, sets out for Rome and is reconciled to Alexander. But Cadalus, seeing this, recognizing his error, with presumption of the papacy laid aside, comes to the obedience of Alexander.

The fifteenth schism was between Gregory the seventh and a certain Clement. Indeed, when discord arose between Pope Gregory the seventh and the Emperor Henry the fourth over the investitures of bishops in the Empire, at the suggestion of the Emperor another is brought in. For with the bishops and archbishops of Lombardy convening at Brescia, the archbishop of Ravenna, Gilbert by name, is elected pope, who was called Clement. Hence there followed a most grave schism, which lasted until the death of the aforesaid antipope and of the aforesaid Emperor Henry who fostered that schism, and so by their death the schism was quieted.

The sixteenth schism was between Paschal the second and three other pseudo-pontiffs. Indeed, when Paschal, after the decease of Urban the second, had been assumed as pontiff, with Henry the fourth crowned in the empire, certain of the clergy, rising up against the pontiff, strove at diverse times to advance three leaders of heresy to the papacy, namely Albert, Arnulf, and Theodoric, who although in the beginning of their profane assumption stirred up no mean disturbances, yet soon were restrained by the true pontiff, and with them at length extinguished by an evil death their schism was quieted by their death.

The seventeenth schism was between Gelasius the second and the antipope Burdinus. Indeed Henry the fourth, taking occasion that he had not been called to the election of Gelasius, opposing himself to the aforesaid election, had a certain Burdinus, one of the Spaniards, ordained as pope. But with Gelasius dead at Cluny in France, Calixtus the second is elected, who, coming to Rome, captures Burdinus at Sutri and leads him to the city in ignominy, shuts him in prison, and the schism is quieted.

The eighteenth schism was between Pope Innocent the second and Peter Leonis, although elected by the lesser part, nevertheless, girt with the power of his kinsmen, he prevailed in the city, for which cause Pope Innocent with the cardinals adhering to him withdrew from the city into France. But Peter Leonis, remaining in the city, seized the prelacy ordering himself to be called Anacletus. This schism is ended in this way: since the Emperor Lothair, coming to the city, extirpates the whole party of Peter Leonis, and restores the said Pope Innocent, and so by the power of Lothair that schism is quieted.

The nineteenth schism was between Alexander the third and four pseudo-antipopes. For when the aforesaid Alexander, on account of discord arisen between him and Frederick the first, had been compelled to leave Italy, he went into France, where he remained nearly 18 years, in which intervening time, with the aforesaid Frederick favoring, four antipopes were successively intruded, profaning the apostolic see. The first was Octavian, who had himself called Victor; the second was Guido of Cremona, who had himself called Paschal; the third was John of Fremenz, who had himself called Calixtus; the fourth was Lando, who had himself called Innocent, all of whom, excommunicated by Alexander, at length perished by an evil death. But with peace composed between Pope Alexander and the aforesaid Frederick, the schism was quieted.

The twentieth schism was between John the twenty-second pope and the pseudo-pontiff Brother Peter of Corbara. Indeed Louis of Bavaria, because the aforesaid Pope John did not favor him in the matter of the empire but was rather opposed to him, coming to Rome, in contempt of him had the aforesaid pseudo-religious, a brother of the order of Minors, Brother Peter of Corbara, raised up as pope, usurping from him the crown of the empire, and so a grave schism arose in the Church. But with the Lord disposing, the aforesaid antipope is captured and presented to Pope John, and at length dies in the Cremonese castle, and so the schism is quieted.

The twenty-first schism was, as it were, partly in our own times; for it was begun about the year of the Lord 1378 and lasted down to our times. For with the apostolic see vacant through the death of Gregory the eleventh, two were assumed to the supreme pontificate: first indeed Bartholomew, bishop of Bari, and he was called Urban the sixth; at length with the cardinals withdrawing and betaking themselves to Avignon, where they believed themselves safe, the cardinal of Geneva was elected and called Clement the seventh, and so a great schism arose in the Church of God, which lasted many years. For after the death of Urban the sixth there was assumed to the papacy by the cardinals made by him Boniface the ninth, and after him Innocent the seventh, and after him Gregory the twelfth; for the other party, after the death of Clement, Benedict the thirteenth was assumed. At length by certain cardinals of Gregory and Benedict a council was celebrated at Pisa, in the year of the Lord 1408, and with Gregory and Benedict deposed, as far as was in them, there was elected to the papacy Brother Peter of Candia, master in theology, who was called Alexander the fifth, after whom John the twenty-third was elected, and so where first two contended now three contended. But with the mercy of God aiding, through the religious solicitude of Lord King Sigismund there was gathered the council of Constance, in which, with the three obediences at length convening, Gregory resigns his right. John and Benedict are deposed, and so, with the schism quieted, peace was restored to the Church. The twenty-second schism was in this our time between Pope Eugenius the fourth and the pseudo-pontiff Amadeus, duke of Savoy, called Felix. Indeed, when between the aforesaid Eugenius and the council of Basel, which began in the year 31, in the month of July, over certain things rashly attempted in its progress by certain fathers of that council which were never attempted by any other universal councils with one undoubted pontiff existing in the apostolic see, and especially over the place to which the Greeks were to come to treat of their union, a grave and exceedingly scandalous dissension had arisen, for to such an extent grew the audacity of certain impious men who after the dissolution of the council of Basel obstinately remained, that they profaned Amadeus, duke of Savoy, as pseudo-pontiff, whom they named Felix; to whom, although few except those of his dominion obeyed, nevertheless by stupid presumption the Church was wounded. But with Eugenius dead and our most blessed lord Nicholas the fifth succeeding, at the suggestion of the most illustrious kings and lords, namely the king of France and of England, the aforesaid lord Amadeus desisted from the enterprise of the supreme pontificate, which Amadeus, as much for nobility of blood as for peace restored to the Church, our most holy lord Nicholas receiving with the greatest charity for his clemency, instituted and created him perpetual cardinal legate with certain prerogatives in the whole land of Savoy, and so, thanks be to God, the schism was quieted.

From what has been said in the preceding chapter, anyone can easily gather that there are several ways by which schisms can be quieted and removed from the Church. We have noted ten such ways, among others. The first way is by the discussion of truth and justice, namely by examining who among the contenders is the true pope; and this way is very fitting, for by it truth prevails, justice shines forth, falsehood is repelled, rashness is condemned, and audacity is restrained, lest schisms easily arise henceforth through pressure or other unlawful means. Hence in this way the future schisms are cut off, and the unity of the Church is confirmed, when justice and peace have kissed, as the psalm says. Yet this discussion of truth and of the justice of the contenders is read to have been made at times by the emperors in ancient times, when the emperors were more powerful, and especially when the schism had only recently been introduced and had not yet, so to speak, gone beyond the walls of the city, and had little room for doubt; as is plain in the fourth schism recalled in the preceding chapter. For when there was a dispute over the papacy between Boniface the First and Eulalius, a priest of the city of Rome, both contenders left the city by order of the emperor; and, an inquiry having been made into the truth of the election of both, and it having been found that Boniface had been elected by the greater and the sounder part, he was received, and Eulalius was rejected. Nor let anyone marvel, as some do who look to a few things, that the emperors acted in this way; for they did not act like judges or like men usurping an ecclesiastical judgment, but as patrons of the Church and protectors of the peace and unity of the Church, by way of having the truth declared, so that it might be known through learned men which of the contenders was the true pontiff whom they ought to favour, and which the intruder whom they were bound to expel, in accordance with the chapter Si quis pecunia, dist. 79. At other times, however, this inquiry into truth and justice has been made by a council of prelates, and this happened when the doubt about the truth of the papacy between the contenders was somewhat probable, and especially when each party had powerful lords, both secular and ecclesiastical, favouring it, or when it had grown somewhat old with time and was thereby more firmly established; and this seems to have been done fittingly, since a council seems to be the fitting judge of such doubts, as some gather from the gloss on the chapter Si duo, dist. 79, where, however, the gloss asks only this: Gloss: But who will be the judge of whether the election is contrary to right?¹ Not the cardinals themselves, for thus they would be judges in their own cause; for no superior can be found, as in extra, de elect., Licet in fine. Say that chapter applies when neither has been elected by both parts, or say that a council shall be convoked. Thus the gloss. But Hugo, in his apparatus, says thus: But to whose examination shall this cause be committed, whether they have been so elected or not? Perhaps he speaks of what is manifest, or it belongs to the cardinals to know this, or, if the cardinals disagree so much, a council must be convoked by the authority of the cardinals. Thus Hugo. By this one way, namely by the way of a council, several schisms have been quieted, as is plain from the preceding chapter. For thus was quieted the third schism, which is read to have been between Pope Damasus the First and Ursinus. For, as has been said in the preceding chapter, a council having been gathered, and it having been found that Damasus had been elected by the greater and the sounder part, he was received, and Ursinus, expelled from the city, was made bishop of Naples. Likewise by this way was quieted the fifth schism, which arose a second time, between Symmachus and Laurentius. For, as has been said and is had in Hinc etiam, dist. 17, a council of many prelates having been gathered by order of King Theodoric, but authorized by Symmachus himself, Symmachus was restored, and Laurentius was ejected.

Here, however, it must be noted that for the discussion of the truth of the contenders about the papacy, no universal council is ever read to have been convoked in earlier times, such as one of the prelates of the whole world; but it was a council that was indeed particular, because it was either of the prelates of one province, namely of Italy only, or of a few others, as is plain from what was said in the preceding chapter. The second way of quieting schisms is the way of compromise, namely that the contenders for the papacy compromise upon arbiters and arbitrators, promising to stand by their judgment or their sentence, whether these arbitrators are laymen or clerics. And to this way is reduced that by which the contenders for the papacy would commit to certain persons the power of examining their right, whether one of them is the true pope or none, and promise with this to abide by the sentence without any contradiction. By this way was quieted the fifth schism, which first arose between Symmachus and Laurentius. For when both had compromised upon King Theodoric, as has been said in the preceding chapter, Symmachus was accepted as pope by the judgment of that king, since the greater part of the clergy and people had elected him, and Laurentius was rejected. The third way is by a new election, so that he among the contenders between whom there is doubt as to who is the true pope is held as pope who has been elected by a new election by the greater part of the community; and in this way the chapter Si duo forte, dist. 79, runs, in which the emperor Honorius writes thus to Pope Boniface: If two, having been ordained by the rash contention of men acting contrary to right, that is, elected, we do not allow either of them to be priest in the future, but we judge that he alone should remain in the apostolic see who, from the number of the clergy, by ordination, that is by a new election, shall have been chosen by divine judgment and the consent of the community. Thus he. Hugo says: or of the greater part. The fourth way is that, all the contenders having been expelled or rejected, another is elected; and this way seems fitting when there is no certainty as to the right of any of the contenders, or when, if either of them were to remain, it would be a great scandal; and so the gloss found in the chapter Si forte, dist. 63, seems to run, in which it is determined: When the votes of the electors divide into two parts, which of the two is to be preferred to the other; where the gloss on the words tamen ut nullus says thus: that if scandal is feared, the election of both shall be annulled, as in dist. 79, Si duo. By this way was quieted the eighth schism, which was between Leo the Fifth and Christopher. For, as has been said in the preceding chapter, Leo having died in prison and Christopher having been shamefully ejected, Sergius the Second was elected, and so the schism was quieted. Likewise by the same way was quieted the twelfth schism, which was between Benedict the Ninth and three other adversaries, since all the contenders were ejected by the power of the emperor Henry, and one other was elected, who was called Clement the Second. Likewise by this way the great schism in the Council of Constance seems to have been quieted in our own days, where, John the Twenty-third and Benedict the Thirteenth having been deposed, Martin the Fifth was elected. The fifth way is by the ceding or ceasing from the pursuit of the papacy by one of the contenders. By this way some schisms have been quieted; for the thirteenth schism was quieted, because Benedict the Tenth, moved by conscience, ceded the papacy which he had entered by violence, and Nicholas the Second was elected. Likewise the fourteenth schism, between Alexander the Second and Cadalus, who, as is plain in the preceding chapter, when the favour of the emperor Henry failed him, ceased from the pursuit of the papacy. Likewise the twenty-second schism, which was between our most holy lord Pope Nicholas and a certain Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, which was removed when, with the almighty Lord acting mercifully among us, Amadeus ceased from the pursuit of the papacy.

The sixth way is the way of arms used against intruders. This way is especially fitting when the right of one is certain and the intrusion of another is certain. For by this way many schisms are read to have been removed, such as the seventh schism between Eugene the Second and his adversary; likewise the eighth schism between Leo the Fifth and Christopher; likewise the tenth schism between Leo the Eighth and Benedict the Fifth, and so on through many others, as is contained more fully in the preceding chapter. The seventh way is the way of reconciliation with the emperors or princes by whose favour a schism is fostered and maintained. In this way the fourteenth schism, which was between Alexander the Second and Cadalus, was quieted. And the nineteenth schism, between Alexander the Third and four other antipopes, as has been seen in the preceding chapter. The eighth way is, on the death of one of the contenders, to receive the other of the contenders; so the schism between Silverius and Vigilius is read to have been quieted, since, as has been said in the preceding chapter, Silverius having died in exile for the faith of Christ, Vigilius, although he had entered badly, is nevertheless believed to have been received as pope by all, though by means of a new election. Likewise by this way was quieted the second schism, which was between Felix and Liberius. Felix was crowned with martyrdom. But Liberius, having become a heretic, who under another name was called Leo, lived for several years after taking possession of the apostolic chair, and afterwards perished by a bad death; and Damasus was elected, and so that schism was extinguished. The ninth way of quieting schisms is by the capture of the intruder or intruders, which is sometimes possible with the help of divine mercy, especially when they have few supporters and are less powerful. By this way the schism between Calixtus the Second and the antipope Burdinus was quieted. For Pope Calixtus captured the aforesaid antipope Burdinus in Butrio, and the schism was quieted. Likewise in this way the twentieth schism, between John the Twenty-second and Peter of Corbara, was quieted. For Peter of Corbara was captured and led to the aforesaid John the Twenty-second, and so the schism was removed. The tenth way is the way of persuasion to be made through great princes, especially since they are to be revered not only for the excellence of their dignity, but also are to be feared for the loftiness of their power. For a method ought to be given by which the intruder or intruders are persuaded, through such great princes of revered authority and of fearsome power, to desist from their purpose out of reverence for God and for the honour of the Church, adding threats that otherwise they must do those things which they are bound to do in favour of the unity of the Church. By this way was quieted the last schism, which the Basilians introduced concerning Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, who, at the persuasion of the most illustrious lords kings, namely of France and of England, desisting from his purpose, the schism was removed, as was said more fully in the preceding chapter.

Hence there arises from what has been said a question of no small moment among some: namely, whether the Roman pontiff, since he is the head of the Church, can fall into schism or be a schismatic. And it has seemed to some that he cannot. ¹ First, because if schism, as has been held above, is an unlawful division by disobedience from the unity of the militant Church, whose head is the pope, as Hostiensis says, then no one could be separated from himself (as is known); and so it does not seem that a true pope can fall into schism, any more than he can be separated or divided from himself. ² Secondly, because no one in whom and with whom the Church is falls into schism; but a true pope is such, as 24 q. 1 and c. Dicimus state; rather, schism is incurred by separation from him, according to that saying of Cyprian in c. Scire, 7 q. 1, speaking thus: You ought to know that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if anyone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. Therefore no true pope can fall into schism. The inference seems sound, and the antecedent seems evident in both of its parts. ³ To others, however, the contrary seems to be the case; and these, always saving a better judgment, seem to us to speak more soundly. Hence it seems that the Roman pontiff can fall into schism, not only on that side by which he can fall into heresy, according to c. Si papa, dist. 40, and consequently into schism, since schism is included in heresy, as we have declared above in c. 1; but also on that side by which schism is distinguished from heresy and can exist without it. Plainly in favour of this seems to be the gloss on c. 1, 24 q. 1, in the Summa, where it is said thus: Especially since schism cannot be without heresy, except perhaps in the supreme pontiff, as if two were created and each believed the Church to be with himself, 7 q. 1, Factus. Behold, this gloss too manifestly seems to presuppose that the pope can fall into schism; which blessed Cyprian also plainly seems to assert, speaking of Novatian in his letter to Antonianus: Thus he could not hold the episcopate, even if a bishop, having been made first, were to withdraw from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church; since the Apostle teaches that we should bear with one another, lest we depart from the unity which God established, and says: bearing with one another in charity, taking pains to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. Thus Cyprian. Consequently, the aforesaid conclusion is proved by reason thus: the pope can unlawfully divide himself from the unity of the Church and from the obedience of the head of the Church; therefore he can fall into schism. The inference is good by the place from definition to the defined. The antecedent is proved thus: since the pope can withdraw from Christ, who is the principal head of the Church, and with respect to whom the unity of the Church is chiefly considered, by disobedience, by not obeying his law or by commanding those things which are contrary to natural or divine law, and consequently separate himself from the body of the Church, which is subject to Christ through obedience; and so without doubt it seems that the pope can fall into schism.

Secondly, thus. If the pope can separate himself, without any reasonable cause but by his mere will, from the body of the Church and from the college of priests, through non-observance of those things which the universal Church observes by tradition from the apostles, according to the chapter Ecclesiarum, dist. 11; or through non-observance of those things which have been ordained universally by universal councils or by the authority of the apostolic see, especially those concerning divine worship, as for example by being unwilling to observe in himself those things which concern the universal state of the Church or the universal rite of ecclesiastical worship, such as being unwilling to celebrate in sacred vestments, or in consecrated places, or with lights, or to sign himself with the sign of the cross, as the rest of the college of priests does, and similar things which seem to be generally ordained for perpetual utility, against the chapters Quae ad perpetuam, and Violatores, and Contra statuta, 25 q. 1; therefore it seems that the pope, in such matters, by dividing himself from the observance of the universal Church with obstinacy, can fall into schism. The inference is good, and the antecedent is not in doubt, since just as he can fall into heresy, so also into disobedience and obstinate non-observance of those things which are ordained for the common state of the Church. Hence Innocent, in c. De consuetudine, says that the pope is to be obeyed in all things so long as he does not come against the universal state of the Church; for in that case he says he is not to be borne with, unless for a reasonable cause.

Thirdly, it can be argued thus: when some are contending about the papacy, if he who would be the true pope, though doubtful in the judgment of some, were so negligent and stubborn in procuring the union of the Church that he would be unwilling to do whatever lies in him for the restoration of the unity of the Church, such a one would seem to be a fosterer of schism, as many argued even in our own days concerning Benedict XIII and Gregory XII. Having said this, it can be replied to the arguments on the other side that they do not seem to hold good.

⁴ Not indeed the first, because schism is not merely a division from the unity of the Church with respect to the pope, made by disobedience toward the primary and principal head, which is Christ. Nor does that prove the proposition of the adversaries, which they bring forward, saying that the pope cannot be separated from himself; for although this be true, he can nevertheless be separated by disobedience from Christ the head, whose vicar he is, and from the institution of the apostolic see, insofar as he divides himself from the observance of those things which the holy fathers, his predecessors in the apostolic see, have established generally for the common utility or state of the Church, as we have said.

⁵ To the second, the answer is given by others, saying with regard to the minor premise that then the Church of Christ is understood to be truly with the pope when he remains subject to Christ the head, whose vicar he is, acknowledging that his power depends on him, keeping the subjection due to him, and conforming himself to the observances of the universal holy mother Church, the canonical spouse of Christ himself.