Brian Cross has a post responding to Michael Horton's thoughts which he thinks reduce schism to heresy. He is right as he usually is. But he focuses on the fact that the church fathers saw heresy as distinct from schism and modern protestants don't. Now if a protestant is going to start being bothered by discrepancies with the early church fathers I don't think this is the one that is going to be the hardest to ignore. So I wonder how convincing this particular line of reasoning will be.
For me, I found it more convincing the idea that schism was my issue and heresy was not my issue. You can see this in the biblical language. Eph 4:3 says, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." There is no verse that tells us to make every effort to keep doctrinal purity. We are not told to do that. Why not? Because it is Jesus' job. He says, "I will build my church." We can't so it because we will mess it up.
Think about it this way. When did Arius fall into sin. When he taught that Jesus was no God? No. He was teaching what he thought was truth. It was not yet condemned by the church so he was not putting himself into schism by teaching that. Over time that changed. Eventually the council of Nicaea decided the matter and condemned Arianism. That is when he committed the sin of schism. The body of Christ had chosen one path and he refused to follow.
As a protestant I thought of heresy as teaching a theological opinion that I strongly disagreed with. If that is the definition of heresy then it is not a sin. People have all sorts of opinions. Most of the time they have them in good faith. How are they supposed to know their opinion is wrong? That is the key. Should they know? In the Catholic world that question can be answered objectively. Do they explicitly reject some infallible teaching of the church? If so, they have separated themselves from the church by doing that. It is really a form of schism. So theological error that has grown into schism is really the problem.
Perhaps we might not have a full blown schism but just some form of discord with the magisterium. In that case we cannot be sure who is right. The smart money is on the magisterium but infallibility is not in play yet so it is at least possible the opinionated individual might be right. That is when the individual in question needs to worry more about keeping the unity of the church and not at all about the possibility that the church has it wrong on this issue. There are two things that can go wrong. The church can split or the church can teach false doctrine. The first problem is ours to prevent. The second problem is God's to prevent.
Thinking about that was big for me. I had this notion that I had to fight for the truth. That in this world of theological confusion we were supposed to embrace the true doctrine. That meant not just giving in to the Catholic church. When I realized that God might not want me to do that it was quite a break-though. Why does God need to me to show people the truth? I can't be sure I even have the truth.
But what about schism? I had a heart for church unity but could I really say I was not just embracing a schismatic culture? My desire to fight for truth was keeping me from being united with the Catholic church. I was letting truth trump unity when I was supposed to let unity trump truth. Not that truth was unimportant. Just that I could not get it by pursuing it. Unity I could get. Truth would come.
If you think about it schism has always been a much harder problem to solve. When bad theology is taught the church can institute reforms and correct the issue. Maybe they hold a council. Maybe God raises up a saint. There are lots of examples of theological errors being fixed. But schisms are another matter. How often are schisms healed? Even when the reasons for the schism are long forgotten they tend to be very hard to fix. So how did we get so focused on heresy to the point where we completely ignore schism?
There are lots of examples of theological errors being fixed. But schisms are another matter. How often are schisms healed? Even when the reasons for the schism are long forgotten they tend to be very hard to fix. So how did we get so focused on heresy to the point where we completely ignore schism?
ReplyDeleteProtestants more or less consider schism a positive thing. Sure they play some lip service to opposing schism, but in practice this means that they don't want people to not break from churches without at least a pretty good reason.
Catholics on the other hand do fight schism where it counts. We are all discussing American Catholics and birth control. If you look at the behavior of the Vatical leadership with the American leadership on these social issues they have been slowly making them more conservative and avoiding enflaming the situation with Catholic liberals more than they think they absolutely have to. This has frustrated Conservative Catholics, but I think it is fair to say that the Vatican leadership has been putting their money where they mouth is in not creating a schism.
A few thousand excommunications and there would be something like an "American Catholic church" with 20 million members and there would be a full blown schism. I know there is a church that calls itself the American Catholic church but it has a few thousand members at best), not a few tens of millions.
Whether the vatican leadership can maintain conservative doctrinal unity and avoid schism I don't know. I can assert though they are trying really hard, and living out this teaching that schism CCC 817 and not repeat the mistakes the church make that led the Reformers (in large numbers) to feel they had no option but to setup an anti-church. This one Catholic conservatives can pat yourself on the back for living the teaching.
I don't know if that many liberal Catholics would ever leave. They tend to threaten to leave a lot but never actually do it. When they do they don't often join another church. They just drop out. Like they sense something holy about the Catholic church that they can't find anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteSometimes they are in positions of power in Catholic institutions. Then they have a lot to lose if they go to another church. They almost never do. They don't go and their superiors almost never force them out. Are they being virtuous because they are avoiding schism or are they being cowardly?
Hi Randy. Good to see you back.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if that many liberal Catholics would ever leave. They tend to threaten to leave a lot but never actually do it. When they do they don't often join another church. They just drop out.
Actually Catholics do convert out in huge numbers, the largest of any major group in the USA. I wrote a post on this a few years back Michael Bell on inflows and outflows.
As far as never do... remember this is a hypothetical involving a crackdown that hasn't happened. The question is what would happen if there did a few thousand excommunications targeting liberals. I think we got a taste of this while you were away with Sister Carol Keehan and Joe Biden vs. Cardinal Dolan. Basically we had a debate about:
a) The facts of healthcare law.
b) What actions were morally permissible with respect to acting as an accessory to sin in the case of birth control.
They openly disagreed issue and over 1/2 the Catholic community sided with her. When they were unified, prior to the compromise they had over 80% support Catholics. Liberal Catholics were willing to openly defy Cardinal Dolan but yielded to Sister Keehan. I think that's worth noting.
Catholics do convert in huge numbers but that is a different dynamic. What happens is they run into another teacher or another community they think is closer to God. That assumes they are seriously seeking God outside of themselves. Not a typical liberal thing to do. Many ex-Catholic protestants end up being quite conservative.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Cardinal Dolan/Sister Keehan thing goes. Nobody was yielding or defying. They were talking to a pollster. Most are not willing to sacrifice much for any church leader. The ones that are are the only ones that matter. They tend not to be liberal.
Would liberal Catholics pull their kids out of Catholic schools or stop self-identifying as Catholic if a few liberal leaders were excommunicated? I doubt it. Liberals don't care about any leaders. They follow the culture. Who needs leaders to do that?