[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism#Christianity) says that formal schismatics are those who: > knowing the true nature of the Church, have personally and deliberately committed the sin of schism. But if formal schismatics have to truly know the true nature of the Church, is it ever actually a category that can apply to people? For example, Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope, and so would not be said, I would think, to know the true nature of the Church. Likewise, are the SSPX truly formal schismatics if, in their rejection of Vatican II, they believe the true nature of the church is other than that of the Catholic Church after Vatican II? If you have to know and truly believe in the true nature of the Church in order for your rejection of it to be "formal", then it seems to be that this is a largely academic category, and that there would be exceedingly few actual cases of formal schismatics.

I see Eastern Orthodox keyboard warriors commonly posting memes, bite size apologetics and propaganda against Catholicism which make some variation on the claim "4 out of 5 Patriarchs choose Eastern Orthodoxy. You should too". I was wondering how much veracity is behind this claim. I was under the impression that the Patriarch of Alexandria wasn't even in communion with the Eastern Orthodox church at all. I thought he was a Copt and a member of the Oriental Orthodox communion instead? Likewise for Jerusalem and Antioch. I thought that the only Patriarch of the original Pentarchy that is an actual Eastern Orthodox is the Patriarch of Constantinople? My understanding is that 1 out of 5 Patriarchs chooses Catholicism, 1 out of 5 Patriarchs chooses Eastern Orthodoxy, and 3 out of 5 Patriarchs choose Oriental Orthodoxy. Please help me understand this situation further?

I was reading into the history of the Society of Saint Pius X, and I came across a rather dense portion regarding the validity of their sacraments that mentioned that Reconciliation and Marriage specifically require canonical jurisdiction in order to be valid, yet the other sacraments do not. My understanding was that all sacraments are valid if performed by a priest, but not necessarily licit unless they had canonical jurisdiction (with the obvious exception of Baptism). As I am pretty sure that Holy Orders is still valid if done without approval, it just results in an automatic excommunication. So what makes Reconciliation and Marriage special that they are not valid unless done under proper jurisdiction? Does this mean Rome does not recognize there to be valid confessions and marriages in any of the apostolic churches not in communion with Rome (Easter Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc.)? Because I was under the impression that Rome did view all of their sacraments as valid in light of their apostolic succession. Or does excommunication invalidate the ability for clergy to perform those specific sacraments? If someone could explain the nuances to me that would be appreciated.

I stumbled across the wikipedia article for a sedevacantist, schismatic Catholic group called the Palmarian Catholic Church which states that this group > has also declared the Real Presence of the Virgin Mary in the sacred host and the bodily assumption into heaven of St. Joseph to be dogmas of the Catholic faith I don't really know whether I should be shocked, outraged, amused or curious, but I'll go with curious. Would anyone happen to know the theological justification for the dogma of the Real Presence of Mary in the Eucharist?

I am a Roman Catholic, baptised when I was a child and later confirmed and have received communion. The Roman Catholic Church is the “default” church in my home country. I have now moved to the United Kingdom and find myself attending mass in a parish of the Church of England — quite “High Church”, although I don't think it matters. (I could reasonably attend mass in a Catholic Church, but the community + practical reasons make me feel better in the Anglican church.) I would like to take an active part in the parochial church council. For this, I shall enroll in the church's electoral roll, and declare that: > I am a member in good standing of a Church (not in communion with the Church of England) […] and also **declare myself to be a member of the Church of England** […] What does the Roman Catholic Church say on its members declaring themselves (also) members of another Church?

I've been reading a little about the controversy and I can't quite wrap my head around it. Are Syro-Malabar Catholics upset that the Pope says to their priests that they need to face the altar while in the USA, several Bishops are telling the priests that they need to face the people? Is this really what's happening and why is that worth a schism?

Ockham (cf. [this article on him](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/) by the Catholic logician [Paul V. Spade](http://pvspade.com/)) invented his dead-end nominalist philosophy in order to justify his being against the papacy (cf. Thomist John Deely's _Four Ages of Understanding_ [p. 394](https://books.google.com/books?id=zAsjkHJ8aP8C&pg=PA394#v=onepage&q&f=false) ff., which shows how the Great Western "Schism" lead to the adoption of Ockham's nominalism, despite its weakness). But **was Ockham really a sedevacantist** (i.e., one not explicitly against the papacy _per se_ but against a particular pope claimant)**?** The following quote from Salza & Siscoe's _True or False Pope?: Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors_ p. 210 is quite convincing. Ockham wrote—"at the end of his letter to the General Chapter in Assisi in the spring of 1334" (cf. [_Tractatus de Successivis_ translation p. 12](https://books.google.com/books?id=MOEtAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22Because+of+the+errors+and+the+heresies+mentioned+above+and+countless+others%22)) , defending his opposition to Pope John XXII, who opposed the (then-material) dogma that the souls of the deceased destined to heaven behold the Beatific Vision immediately after death, defined by John XXII's successor Benedict XII in [_Benedictus Deus_](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html)—that : > Because of the errors and the heresies mentioned above and countless others, I turned away from the obedience of the false Pope and all who were his friends to the prejudice of the orthodox faith. For men of great learning showed me that because of his errors and heresies the same pseudo-Pope is heretical, deprived of his papacy, and excommunicated by Canon Law itself, without need of further sentence. … In proof thereof several volumes have been published. … For against the errors of this pseudo-Pope I have turned my face like the hardest rock, so that neither lies nor calumnies nor any persecution (which cannot touch my innermost self in any bodily fashion), nor great numbers of men who believe in him or favor him or even defend him, shall be able to prevent me from attacking or reproving his errors, as long as I shall have hand, paper, pen, and ink. … > > If anyone should like to recall me or anyone else who has turned away from the obedience of the false Pope and his friends, let him try to defend his Constitutions and sermons, and show that they agree with Holy Scripture, or that a Pope cannot fall into the wickedness of heresy, or let him show by holy authorities or manifest reasons that one who knows the Pope to be a notorious heretic is obliged to obey him. Let him not, however, adduce the great number of his adherents, nor base his arguments on reproaches, because those who try to arm themselves with great numbers of lies, reproaches, threats, and false calumnies, show that they are void of truth and reason. Therefore let none believe that I mean to turn away from the recognized truth because of the great number of those in favor of the pseudo-Pope, or because of proofs that are common to heretics and to orthodox men, because I prefer Holy Scripture to a man unlearned in holy science, and I have a higher esteem for the doctrine of the Fathers who reign with Christ than for the tradition of men dwelling in this mortal life. The Church never condemned Ockham's theories, although Ockham was excommunicated for leaving Avignon without permission. W. Turner writes in the old _Catholic Encyclopedia_ "[Ockham](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm) " entry: > Ockham's attitude towards the established order in the Church and towards the recognized system of philosophy in the academic world of his day was one of protest. He has, indeed, been called "the first Protestant". **Nevertheless, he recognized in his polemical writings the authority of the Church in spiritual matters**, and did not diminish that authority in any respect. This is sedevacantism because sedevacantism doesn't deny the papacy (as Protestants do).

What were the doctrinal differences that caused the split of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic Church in 1054?

I'm a Catholic who also attends Eastern Orthodox services, mainly Greek. One of the most bizarre differences between Catholics and Orthodox is that the Orthodox service regularly reminds everyone that they're Orthodox. However, in the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, both in the "original" Greek, and the translated English, regularly mentions that "we pray for all pious and Orthodox Christians". This liturgy was written some time around the year 400 A.D., at which point the Church was relatively unified compared to today. At least Constantinople and Rome were together. So I think that the inclusion of the word "Orthodox" is unlikely to be original. Furthermore, I noticed that in the ROCOR service which is a "translation" of the Roman Mass, they again added the word "Orthodox", which seems *highly unlikely* to be within the original text. As a Catholic, I was taught in childhood that yes, Christianity has broken up into different sects, but that doesn't make us any better. The Orthodox seem to have taken the exact opposite approach, as the sect-consciousness is *much stronger* there than among Catholics or Protestants. The addition of "Orthodox" may seem trivial, but the Orthodox make a big deal about being the original unchanged church, which seems to be very doubtful to me. I've asked an Orthodox priest about the addition of this word, but he doesn't know, and seemed bothered by the question, honestly. I was very surprised. Why/when/who added the "Orthodox" to the service?

Back in the 1980s, Archbishop Lefebvre of the Society of St. Pius X consecrated four priests as bishops without the Pope's approval. Does this action make the Society schismatic?

How can the excommunication of a schismatic group be lifted, for the purposes of reconciliation? If no reconciliation happens, does the excommunication resume?

As I read through Oman's treatment of the Dark Ages, I am struck again and again by his references to Catholics (which seems in a contextual sense to mean Christian orthodoxy writ large) and what I read as the seeds of the Great Schism of 1054. Before the Iconoclast dispute, the Henoticon seems to have created an uproar. I am at a loss to understand why, beyond the usual problems of counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. As I understand the document, it was *an attempt to heal the rift* between the Monophysites and the rest of Christian orthodoxy at the time. **On what theological basis did the bishop of Rome excommunicate the Patriarch Acacius, for assisting Zeon in drafting the Henoticon ?**

Where could I find a source or a chart that compares the arguments of the Roman Catholic narrative and of the Eastern Orthodox narrative regarding the issues associated with the Schism of 1054?

Doctrinal differences abound in Christianity. This is attested to by the numerous times the Church has suffered splits and given birth to different denominations, branches, and sub-branches. The question [Can somebody summarize the different “branches” of Christianity to me, and explain why they exist in the first place?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74835/can-somebody-summarize-the-different-branches-of-christianity-to-me-and-expla) gets this point across tremendously well. But this inevitably leads us to ask the question: **Why did God allow something like this to happen in the first place?** If we look at the root causes of the many divisions in the history of the Church, one main reason that immediately stands out is the many different ways in which the Scriptures have been interpreted throughout history. And this is nothing to be surprised about when you have Scriptures that are inherently ambiguous, lending themselves to different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, interpretations. And just to make matters even more complicated, even before we get to interpret anything, the question about what is considered part of the canon of Scripture and what isn't is also controversial in and of itself (for evidence of this, simply take a look at the [many questions](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/canon?tab=Votes) that have already been asked on the topic of the canon of scripture). If God was behind the scenes inspiring and guiding the compilation of the Bible, then it follows that the existence of ambiguity in Scripture (what should be included in the canon, how Scripture should be interpreted, etc.) couldn't have been a coincidence. It had to be intentional. God, for some unknown reason, deliberately and intentionally allowed ambiguity to exist in Scripture. Why? ____ *(\*) Note: I don't intend this question to be opinion-based, so I would rather encourage answers that draw on reputable sources, e.g., the works of reputable Christian philosophers or theologians that have discussed this question before, etc. Alternatively, if a denomination has an official denominational answer to the question, it would be great to know about that too.* ______ Related questions: - [How do proponents of Sola Scriptura choose the “correct” interpretation of a key Bible verse?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83846/how-do-proponents-of-sola-scriptura-choose-the-correct-interpretation-of-a-key) - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89211/50422 - [Are there any denominations that give official advice on how to handle the uncertainty in their doctrines?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/81069/are-there-any-denominations-that-give-official-advice-on-how-to-handle-the-uncer)

This is both a terminology question and a Catholic doctrine question regarding the status of [sedevacantists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism) , that is, those who reject the current pope as illegitimate. I found the following Catholic definition of "schism" in [Canon §751](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P2H.HTM) : > schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. This seems like it could plausibly applied to sedevacantists by the "official" Catholic Church, but I'm not sure that it actually is. The penalty for schism is severe – excommunication, per [canon §1364](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM) – and I haven't heard of this being applied. So my question is, according to the post-Vatican II *magisterium of the Catholic Church* – that is, the official teachings of the pope (Francis, Benedict XVI, etc.) and his bishops – are believers of sedevacantism necessarily in schism with the Church? If not, why not? And if only some are in schism, where is the dividing line? Note that I'm focusing here on the *magisterium* – not the views of sedevacantists themselves, nor those of theologians who recognize the legitimacy of post-1970 popes. Here I'm interested in the official teaching of the Catholic Church (as led by Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, etc.).

The terms **orthodox** and **catholic** have immense significance to those that seek to make exclusive truth claims about their particular Christian Tradition. Both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox trace their descent from (prior to schism) one catholic and orthodox Church. As a result, it would seem to be virtually impossible to concede the exclusive use of one of these terms to "the other side". **How does the Roman Catholic Church view using the terms orthodox or Orthodox generally, but particularly in regard to describing Eastern Orthodoxy?** This is one of a number of related questions I intend to ask regarding the Great (East-West) Schism, terminology and self-identication of the resulting Churches. The others so far: - How do the Eastern Orthodox view using the term 'catholic', particularly in regard to Roman Catholicism? - At what point did the Roman see start self-identifying as the Catholic Church? - At what point did the Eastern Church start self-identifying as the Orthodox Church?

The number of Presbyterian denominations in Korea is breathtaking: [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterianism_in_South_Korea) lists dozens of them. From what I can tell, most of these denominations originate in the [Presbyterian Church of Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_of_Korea) , which was founded in 1884. In 1959, however, the denomination apparently split in half, some members forming the [TongHap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_of_Korea_(TongHap)) and others the [HapDong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Church_in_Korea_(HapDong)) . These are now two of the largest Presbyterian denominations in the world, each with about 3 million members. Wikipedia provides some very high-level information about the debate (conservative vs. liberal, disagreement over ecumenism). But I'd like to have a deeper understanding of the underlying issues behind the divide. Were common "Western" debates a factor, like biblical inerrancy and female leadership? Do outside observers see personality conflict to be a major cause of the divide, as many do with respect to some Presbyterian denominations in the US? What is an overview of the causes of the 1959 split of this denomination?

(This question is aimed at the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perspective only) What is the difference between a heretic and a schismatic, and what are the soteriological consequences of each?

Why is denial of the primacy of the bishop of Rome considered a Schism, not a Heresy? **Disclaimer**: I'm interesting only in authoritative answer according to the Roman Catholic Doctrine. The Papal primacy is essentially dogma of Roman Catholic Church. So why are those who deny this dogma (say, Orthodox Church officials) not formally considered as *heretics*?

A common misconception I encounter among people interested in the history of Christianity is that the term "Catholic" refers solely to the Roman Catholic church and likewise "Orthodox" only to the Eastern Orthodox church (indeed, officially the Orthodox *Catholic* Church). While these terms can serve as shorthands for those churches today in many contexts excluding formal ones, I don't know much of their history in this current use. One would think people who lived in the centuries leading to the Great Schism of 1054 wouldn't have used such positive terms of each other: to describe the other side of the ongoing disputes as catholic or orthodox would seem to undermine one's own side in the deepening controversy. What terms did the Roman and Greek sides of the church use of each other, in the centuries leading to the Schism and immediately after it, until the "Catholic" and "Orthodox" terms became commonly associated with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, respectively?