Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Secunda Secundae·Q39. Schism
Source context
- Theme
- ecclesial schism as sin against the unity of the Church's mystical body
- Soul-faculty
- Consciousness Soul
Steiner
- GA 185, 1918-11-02Steiner traces the Great Schism between Rome and Constantinople to the Filioque controversy, identifying Patriarch Photius as the central figure whose theological dispute crystallized the institutional rupture between Eastern and Western Christianity.
- GA 175, 1917-03-27Steiner notes that the Greek Schism originated with Photius's refusal to accept Roman authority, and that the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869) condemned Photius on this basis, treating the Filioque as the doctrinal fault-line of the division.
- GA 193, 1919-03-09Steiner characterizes the production of schisms in spiritual life as deeply harmful, contrasting divisive fragmentation with the work of genuine spiritual unity.
Cross-tradition
- Eastern Orthodox ecclesiologyOrthodox theology regards the 1054 schism as Rome's departure from conciliar authority rather than a mutual rupture, structurally inverting Aquinas's framing of schism as rebellion against hierarchical unity — a cross-tradition congruence in the category of ecclesial authority with opposed normative conclusions.
- Donatist controversy (patristic)Augustine's anti-Donatist writings established that schism is defined by willful separation from Catholic communion rather than by doctrinal heresy alone, providing the patristic framework Aquinas systematizes in Q39.
Q39. Schism
Article 1
[II-II.q.39.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that schism is not a special sin. For "schism," as Pope Pelagius I says (Epist. ad Victor. et Pancrat.), "denotes a division." But every sin causes a division, according to Isaiah 59: "Your sins have divided between you and your God." Therefore schism is not a special sin.
[II-II.q.39.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod schisma non sit peccatum speciale. Schisma quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam. Super unum ædificat Ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, et dicat: Sicut misit me Pater, et ego mitto vos; accipite spiritum sanctum, tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit. » Ad idem est cap. « Alienus, « cap. « Omnibus, » cap. « Quoniam vetus, » præfata causa et quæstione. Sed hic oritur unum dubium. Quid cum duo vel plures sunt in Ecclesia gerentes se pro papa, et quilibet eorum habet suam sequelam? Quis eorum videtur schismaticus cum suis sequacibus? Respondeo: aut constat, aut communiter tenetur quod quilibet eorum intrusus est, id est, non canonice electus. Aut constat unum eorum rite et canonice electum esse, videlicet a duobus partibus cardinalium et sine violentia, et postea alium superinductum. Aut dubitatur quis eorum sit canonice vel rite electus, unus vel alter. In primo casu nullus eorum est papa, sed quilibet eorum est schismaticus cum his qui scienter sequuntur ipsum; et excommunicati sunt ipso facto. Extrav. « De elect., » cap. « Licet. » Et de hoc loquitur cap. « Si duo, » LXXIX dist., ubi dicitur: « Si duo forte contra fas temeritate concertantium fuerint ordinati in summos pontifices, nullum ex eis futurum sacerdotem, id est summum pontificem permittimus. Sed illum solum in sede apostolica permansurum censemus quem ex numero clericorum, id est cardinalium, nova ordinatione divinum judicium et universitatis consensus elegerint. » Nec obstat quod hoc statuit Honorius Augustus, et ad imperatorem non spectat statuere aliquid de electionibus Ecclesiae, sicut nec de rebus aliis ecclesiasticis, ut XCVI dist., cap. « Bene, » quia, ut dicitur in Glossa, in praefato cap. « Si duos »: Honorius fecit illud rogatu Ecclesiae, et Ecclesia approbavit; ideo ratione approbationis, statutum illud habet quasi fecisset Ecclesia. Quando ergo constat nullum eorum canonice electum, ut qui non a cardinalibus sed ab aliis in quo casu loquitur cap. « Si quis ex episcopis, » et cap. « Si quis pecunia » LXXIX dist., vel si a cardinalibus, non tamen a duabus partibus cardinalium, ut in c. « Licet, » Extrav. De electione, qui tali adhæret vere schismaticus est, et per concilium providendum esset cum cardinales hujusmodi essent. In secundo casu, scilicet cum constat unum canonice electum, et alius se intendit, sicut Cornelius papa, qui Fabiano successit, et post eum canonice creatum Novatianus quidam papam se enim, ut Pelagius papa, Ep. ad Viat. et Pancrat., dicit, Decret., XXIV, q. 1, cap. « Schisma, » « scissuram » sonat. Sed omne peccatum scissuram quamdam facit, secundum illud Isa., LIX, 2: Peccata vestra * diviseunt inter vos et Deum vestrum. Ergo schisma non est speciale peccatum.
[II-II.q.39.a.1.arg.2] Further, a man is apparently a schismatic if he disobeys the Church. But every sin makes a man disobey the commandments of the Church, because sin, according to Ambrose (De Parad. viii) "is disobedience against the heavenly commandments." Therefore every sin is a schism.
[II-II.q.39.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, illi videntur esse schismatici qui Ecclesiæ non obediunt. Sed per omne peccatum fit homo inobediens præceptis Ecclesiæ; quia peccatum, secundum Ambrosium, lib. De paradiso, cap. vIII, col. 309, t. 1, est « cælestium inobedientia præceptorum. » Ergo omne peccatum est schisma. fecit. Tunc primus est verus papa, et secundus apostaticus et schismaticus cum sequacibus ejus. Sic sub Eugenio IV, factum est schisma tempore beati Bernardi. Nam, ipso Eugenio rite electo, alius intrusus est; sed meritis et labore sancti Bernardi schisma illud ablatum fuit, remanente Eugenio in apostolica sede. Deinde sub Joanne XXII factum est aliud schisma. Nam cum ipse declararet fore hæreticos qui assererent Christum nihil habuisse in communi, etiam mobile, quidam, Fraticelli nuncupati, de opinione dixerunt ipsum papam Joannem hæreticum cum successoribus et sequacibus ejus, et fecerunt alium papam Pisis. Græci autem circa annum Domini nongentesimum schisma facientes in hæresim inciderunt de Spiritu sancto damnatam, sed reducti fuere ad Ecclesiae unitatem tempore Eugenii IV, unde postea iterum divisi sunt, retinentes de Spiritu sancto verba hæresim redolentia, licet forsitan doctrinam sanam de processione Spiritus sancti non rejiciant intime, saltem omnes. In tertio casu, cum dubium est quis horum duorum sit canonice electus, quia electio primi dicitur facta per metum qui cadit in constantem virum, quamvis a duobus partibus cardinalium, et postmodum ab eis fit electio sine violentia et metu quocumque sicut accidit casus circa ann. 1380; nam, mortuo Gregorio XI, cardinales debentes procedere ad electionem successoris fuerunt a Romanis comminati quod occiderentur si non eligent Italicum aliquem. Elegerunt igitur archiepiscopum Barensem, qui tunc erat Romæ, exprentes ei quod eligebant eum, et fingebant eligere, ad vitandum periculum. Electo ergo illo qui Urbanus VI dictus est, ille, ut fertur, dixit quod si volebant eum eligere voluntarie eligerent, quia intendebat esse papa. Publicato igitur Urbano papa, et a cardinalibus ipsis adorato et consecrato de consensu eorum, ac principibus christianitatis per eos significato quod erat canonice electus, inde ad aliquot menses ipsi recesserunt ab eo, et fugientes ad civitatem Fundensem ibi elegerunt alium qui dictus est Clemens VI, qui transtulit curiam suam Avenionem, illumque venerata est pro papa tota Francia, et Hispania et Cathalaunia. Alteri vero, scilicet Urbano, adhæserunt Italia, Alemannia et Ungaria, perseveravitque hoc pessimum schisma ultra xxx annos. Cum ergo hic esset dubium ex ignorantia facti, quia, exceptis cardinalibus et pau-
[II-II.q.39.a.1.arg.3] Further, heresy also divides a man from the unity of faith. If, therefore, the word schism denotes a division, it would seem not to differ, as a special sin, from the sin of unbelief.
[II-II.q.39.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, hæresis etiam dividit hominem ab unitate fidei. Si ergo schismatis nomen divisionem importat, videtur quod non differat a peccato infidelitatis, quasi speciale peccatum.
[II-II.q.39.a.1.sc] Augustine (Contra Faust. xx, 3; Contra Crescon. ii, 4) distinguishes between schism and heresy, for he says that a "schismatic is one who holds the same faith, and practises the same worship, as others, and takes pleasure in the mere disunion of the community, whereas a heretic is one who holds another faith from that of the Catholic Church." Therefore schism is not a generic sin.
[II-II.q.39.a.1.sc] Sed contra est quod Augustinus, Contra Faustum, lib. XX, cap. III, col. 369, t. 8, distinguit inter schisma et hæresim, dicens, quod « schisma est eadem opinantem, atque eodem ritu colentem, quo cæteri, solo congregationis delectari dissidio : hæresis vero diversa opinatur ab his quæ catholica credit Ecclesia. » Ergo schisma non est gerale peccatum. Et quamvis una pars excommunicaret alteram, tamen qui simpliciter inhærebant excusari videbantur. Durante vero illo schismate, post Urbanum successit ex altera parte Bonifacius IX, Bonifacio successit Innocentius VI, et Innocentio Gregorius XII; ex alia parte Clementi successit Benedictus XII. Sub his autem, scilicet Gregorio XII ex una parte, et Benedicto XII ex altera, factum est aliud schisma ann. Domini 1410. Nam recedentibus cardinalibus ab utroque et convenientibus, Pisis concilio celebrato, depositis illis duobus, scilicet Gregorio et Benedicto, sub eadem ratione, videlicet quia dicebantur scandalizare facto suo publico totam Ecclesiam, cum non vellent convenire insimul in uno aliquo loco ut promiseant et juraverant, demum creatus est Pisis Alexander papa, qui fuit Petrus de Candia, ordinis Minorum, cui successit Joannes XXIII, Bononiæ electus. Et cum pene omnes reges et principes christiani-tatis obedientiam dedissent Alexandro et ejus successori, tamen adhuc maximum dubium erat utrum causa depositionis Gregorii et Benedicti esset vera. Nihilominus ex quacumque trium partium quicumque simpliciter credebat suum papam esse verum, excusatus creditur a vitio schismatis et sententiis ejus. Sub Urbano et Bonifacio fuerunt S. Brigida et S. Catharina de Senis; sub Clemente et Benedicto S. Vincentius Ferrerius. Tandem, congregato concilio Constantiae, Gregorius sponte renuntiavit, Joannes XXIII et Benedictus XII depositi fuere, et creatus est papa Odo de Columna cardinalis, qui fuit Martinus V. « Delectari dissidio. Secta vero est longe alia opinantem quam cæteri, alio etiam sibi ac longe dissimili ritu divinitatis instituisse culturam. » Has
[II-II.q.39.a.1.co] As Isidore says (Etym. viii, 3), schism takes its name "from being a scission of minds," and scission is opposed to unity. Wherefore the sin of schism is one that is directly and essentially opposed to unity. For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental. Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit.
Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Colossians 2:18-19: "Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God." Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.
[II-II.q.39.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut Isidorus dicit in lib. VIII Etymolog., c. 111, col. 297, t. 3, « nomen schismatis a scissura animorum vocatum est, » scissio autem unitati opponitur; unde peccatum schismatis dicitur quod directe et per se opponitur unitati. Sicut enim in rebus naturalibus id quod est per accidens, non constituit speciem, ita etiam nec in rebus moralibus; in quibus id quod est intentum, est per se; quod autem sequitur praeter intentionem, est quasi per accidens. Et ideo peccatum schismatis proprie est speciale peccatum, ex eo quod intendit se ab unitate separare, quam charitas facit; quae non solum alteram personam alteri unit spirituali dilectionis vinculo; sed etiam totam Ecclesiam in unitate spiritus. Et ideo proprie schismatici dicuntur qui propria sponte et intentione se ab unitate Ecclesiæ separant, quae est unitas principalis; nam unitas particularis aliquorum ad invicem, ordinatur ad unitatem Ecclesiæ, sicut compositio singulorum membrorum in corpore naturali ordinatur ad totius corporis unitatem. Ecclesiæ autem unitas in duobus attenditur; scilicet in connexione membrorum Ecclesiæ ad invicem, seu communicatione; et iterum in ordine omnium membrorum Ecclesiæ ad unum caput, secundum illud ad Coloss., 11, 48: Inflatus sensu carnis suæ, et non tenens caput, ex quo totum corpus per nexus et conjunctiones subministratum et constructum, crescit in augmentum Dei. Hoc autem caput est ipse Christus, cujus vicem in Ecclesia gerit summus pontifex. Et ideo schismatici dicuntur qui subesse renuunt summo pontifici, et qui membris Ecclesiæ ei subjectis communicare recusant.
[II-II.q.39.a.1.ad.1] The division between man and God that results from sin is not intended by the sinner: it happens beside his intention as a result of his turning inordinately to a mutable good, and so it is not schism properly so called.
[II-II.q.39.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod divisio hominis a Deo per peccatum non est intenta a peccante: sed praeter intentionem ejus accidit ex inordinata conversione ipsius ad commutabile bonum; et ideo non est schisma, per se loquendo.
[II-II.q.39.a.1.ad.2] The essence of schism consists in rebelliously disobeying the commandments: and I say "rebelliously," since a schismatic both obstinately scorns the commandments of the Church, and refuses to submit to her judgment. But every sinner does not do this, wherefore not every sin is a schism.
[II-II.q.39.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod non obedire praeceptis cum rebellione quadam constituit schismatis rationem. Dico autem « cum rebellione, » cum et pertinaciter praecepta Ecclesiæ contemnit, et judicium ejus subire recusat. Hoc autem non facit quilibet peccator, unde non omne peccatum est schisma.
[II-II.q.39.a.1.ad.3] Heresy and schism are distinguished in respect of those things to which each is opposed essentially and directly. For heresy is essentially opposed to faith, while schism is essentially opposed to the unity of ecclesiastical charity. Wherefore just as faith and charity are different virtues, although whoever lacks faith lacks charity, so too schism and heresy are different vices, although whoever is a heretic is also a schismatic, but not conversely. This is what Jerome says in his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians [In Ep. ad Tit. iii, 10]: "I consider the difference between schism and heresy to be that heresy holds false doctrine while schism severs a man from the Church." Nevertheless, just as the loss of charity is the road to the loss of faith, according to 1 Timothy 1:6: "From which things," i.e. charity and the like, "some going astray, are turned aside into vain babbling," so too, schism is the road to heresy. Wherefore Jerome adds (In Ep. ad Tit. iii, 10) that "at the outset it is possible, in a certain respect, to find a difference between schism and heresy: yet there is no schism that does not devise some heresy for itself, that it may appear to have had a reason for separating from the Church."
[II-II.q.39.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod hæresis et schisma distinguuntur secundum ea quibus utrumque per se et directe opponitur. Nam hæresis per se opponitur fidei; schisma autem per se opponitur unitati ecclesiasticæ charitatis. Et ideo sicut fides et charitas sunt diversæ virtutes, quamvis quicumque caret fide, careat charitate; ita etiam schisma et hæresis sunt diversa vitia, quamvis quicumque est hæreticus, sit etiam schismaticus; sed non convertitur. Et hoc est quod Hieronymus dicit in Epist. ad Tit., sup. illud cap. 111, Hæreticum hominem, col. 598, t. 7: « Inter hæresim et schisma et hoc interesse arbitror, quod hæresis perversum dogma habeat, schisma ab Ecclesia separet. » Et tamen sicut amissio charitatis est via ad amittendam fidem, secundum illud I Timoth., 1, 6: A quibus quidam aberrantes, scilicet a charitate et aliis hujusmodi, conversi sunt in vaniloquium; ita etiam schisma est via ad hæresim. Unde Hieronymus ibidem subdit quod « schisma a principio aliqua in parte potest intelligi diversum ab hæresi; cæterum nullum schisma non sibi aliquam confingit hæresim, ut recte ab Ecclesia recessisse videatur. »
Article 2
[II-II.q.39.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that schism is a graver sin than unbelief. For the graver sin meets with a graver punishment, according to Deuteronomy 25:2: "According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be." Now we find the sin of schism punished more severely than even the sin of unbelief or idolatry: for we read (Exodus 32:28) that some were slain by the swords of their fellow men on account of idolatry: whereas of the sin of schism we read (Numbers 16:30): "If the Lord do a new thing, and the earth opening her mouth swallow them down, and all things that belong to them, and they go down alive into hell, you shall know that they have blasphemed the Lord God." Moreover the ten tribes who were guilty of schism in revolting from the rule of David were most severely punished (2 Kings 17). Therefore the sin of schism is graver than the sin of unbelief.
[II-II.q.39.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod schisma gravius peccatum sit quam infidelitas. Majus enim peccatum graviori pœna punitur, secundum illud Deut., xxv, 2: Pro mensura peccati erit et plagarum modus. Sed peccatum schismatis gravius inventur punitum quam etiam peccatum infidelitatis, sive idololatriæ: legitur enim Exod., xxxii, quod propter idololatriam sunt aliqui humana manu gladio interfecti; de peccato autem schismatis legitur Num., xvi, 30: Si novam rem fecerit Dominus, ut apeiens terra os suum deglutiat eos, et omnia quæ ad illos pertinent, descenderintque viventes in infernum, scietis, quod blasphemaverint Dominum: decem etiam tribus, duas definitiones schismatis et sectæ a Fausto Ma- quæ vitio schismatis a regno David recesserunt, sunt gravissime punitæ, ut habetur IV Reg., xvii. Ergo peccatum schismatis est gravius peccato infidelitatis.
[II-II.q.39.a.2.arg.2] Further, "The good of the multitude is greater and more godlike than the good of the individual," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. i, 2). Now schism is opposed to the good of the multitude, namely, ecclesiastical unity, whereas unbelief is contrary to the particular good of one man, namely the faith of an individual. Therefore it seems that schism is a graver sin than unbelief.
[II-II.q.39.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, « bonum multitudinis est majus et divinius quam bonum unius, » ut patet per Philosophum in I Ethic., c. ii. Sed schisma est contra bonum multitudinis, id est, contra ecclesiasticam unitatem; infidelitas autem est contra bonum particulare unius, quod est fides unius hominis singularis. Ergo videtur quod schisma sit gravius peccatum quam infidelitas.
[II-II.q.39.a.2.arg.3] Further, a greater good is opposed to a greater evil, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 10). Now schism is opposed to charity, which is a greater virtue than faith to which unbelief is opposed, as shown above (10, 2; 23, 6). Therefore schism is a graver sin than unbelief.
[II-II.q.39.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, majori malo majus bonum opponitur, ut patet per Philosophum, in VIII Ethic., cap. x, circa princ. Sed schisma opponitur charitati, quæ est major virtus quam fides, cui opponitur infidelitas, ut ex præmissis patet. Ergo schisma est gravius peccatum quam infidelitas.
[II-II.q.39.a.2.sc] That which results from an addition to something else surpasses that thing either in good or in evil. Now heresy results from something being added to schism, for it adds corrupt doctrine, as Jerome declares in the passage quoted above (1, ad 3). Therefore schism is a less grievous sin than unbelief.
[II-II.q.39.a.2.sc] Sed contra, quod se habet ex additione ad alterum, potius est vel in bono vel in malo. Sed hæeresis se habet per additionem ad schisma; addit enim perversum dogma, ut patet ex auctoritate Hieronymi supra inducta. Ergo schisma est minus peccatum quam infidelitas.
[II-II.q.39.a.2.co] The gravity of a sin can be considered in two ways: first, according to the species of that sin, secondly, according to its circumstances. And since particular circumstances are infinite in number, so too they can be varied in an infinite number of ways: wherefore if one were to ask in general which of two sins is the graver, the question must be understood to refer to the gravity derived from the sin's genus. Now the genus or species of a sin is taken from its object, as shown above (I-II, 72, 1; I-II, 73, 3). Wherefore the sin which is opposed to the greater good is, in respect of its genus, more grievous, for instance a sin committed against God is graver than a sin committed against one's neighbor.
Now it is evident that unbelief is a sin committed against God Himself, according as He is Himself the First Truth, on which faith is founded; whereas schism is opposed to ecclesiastical unity, which is a participated good, and a lesser good than God Himself. Wherefore it is manifest that the sin of unbelief is generically more grievous than the sin of schism, although it may happen that a particular schismatic sins more grievously than a particular unbeliever, either because his contempt is greater, or because his sin is a source of greater danger, or for some similar reason.
[II-II.q.39.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod gravitas peccati dupliciter potest considerari: uno modo secundum suam speciem; alio modo secundum circumstantias. Et quia circumstantiæ particulares sunt infinitæ, ita et infinitis modis variari possunt; unde cum quæritur in communi de duobus peccatis quid sit gravius, intelligenda est quæstio de gravitate quæ attenditur secundum genus peccati. Genus autem seu species peccati attenditur ex objecto, sicut ex supradictis patet. Et ideo illud peccatum quod majori bono contrariatur, ex suo genere est gravius, sicut peccatum in Deum quam peccatum in proximum. Manifestum est autem quod infidelitas est peccatum contra ipsum Deum, secundum quod in se est veritas prima, cui fides innititur; schisma autem est contra ecclesiasticam unitatem, quæ est quoddam bonum participatum, et minus quam sit ipse Deus. Unde manifestum est quod peccatum infidelitatis ex suo genere est gravius quam peccatum schismatis; licet possit contingere quod aliquis schismaticus gravius peccet 1 Scilicet Jerusalem. Vulgata habet: Urbs illa, urbs rebellis est, et nocens regibus et provinciis, et bella concitantur in ea ex diebus antiquis. 2 Ita cum codicibus Tarrac., Alcan. et Paris., quam quidam infidelis, vel propter majorem contemptum, vel propter majus periculum quod inducit, vel propter aliquid hujusmodi.
[II-II.q.39.a.2.ad.1] It had already been declared to that people by the law which they had received that there was one God, and that no other God was to be worshipped by them; and the same had been confirmed among them by many kinds of signs. Consequently there was no need for those who sinned against this faith by falling into idolatry, to be punished in an unwonted manner: it was enough that they should be punished in the usual way. On the other hand, it was not so well known among them that Moses was always to be their ruler, and so it behooved those who rebelled against his authority to be punished in a miraculous and unwonted manner.
We may also reply by saying that the sin of schism was sometimes more severely punished in that people, because they were inclined to seditions and schisms. For it is written (Ezra 4:15): "This city since days gone by has rebelled against its kings: and seditions and wars were raised therein [Vulgate: 'This city is a rebellious city, and hurtful to the kings and provinces, and . . . wars were raised therein of old']." Now sometimes a more severe punishment is inflicted for an habitual sin (as stated above, I-II, 105, 2, ad 9), because punishments are medicines intended to keep man away from sin: so that where there is greater proneness to sin, a more severe punishment ought to be inflicted. As regards the ten tribes, they were punished not only for the sin of schism, but also for that of idolatry as stated in the passage quoted.
[II-II.q.39.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod populo illi manifestum erat jam per legem susceptam quod erat unus Deus, et quod non erant alii dii colendi; et hoc erat apud eos per multiplicia signa confirmatum; et ideo non oportebat quod peccantes contra hanc fidem per idololatriam punirentur inusitata aliqua pœna, sed solum communi. Sed non erat sic notum apud eos quod Moyses deberet esse semper eorum princeps; et ideo rebellantes ejus principatui oportebat miraculosa et inconsueta pœna puniri. Vel potest dici quod peccatum schismatis quandoque gravius est punitum in populo illo qui erat ad seditiones et schismata promptus. Dicitur enim Esdr., I, c. iv, 45: Civitas illa a diebus antiquis adversum reges rebellat; et seditiones, et prælia concitantur in ea. Pœna autem major quandoque infligitur pro peccato magis consueto, ut supra habitum est; nam pœnæ sunt medicinæ quædam ad arcendum homines a peccato; unde ubi est major pronitas ad peccandum, debet severior pœna adhiberi. Decem autem tribus non solum fuerunt punitæ pro peccato schismatis, sed etiam pro peccato idololatriæ, ut ibidem dicitur.
[II-II.q.39.a.2.ad.2] Just as the good of the multitude is greater than the good of a unit in that multitude, so is it less than the extrinsic good to which that multitude is directed, even as the good of a rank in the army is less than the good of the commander-in-chief. On like manner the good of ecclesiastical unity, to which schism is opposed, is less than the good of Divine truth, to which unbelief is opposed.
[II-II.q.39.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod, sicut bonum multitudinis est majus quam bonum unius qui est de multitudine, ita est minus quam bonum extrinsecum, ad quod multitudo ordinatur, sicut bonum ordinis exercitus est minus quam bonum ducis; et similiter bonum ecclesiasticæ unitatis, cui opponitur schisma, est minus quam bonum veritatis divinæ, cui opponitur infidelitas.
[II-II.q.39.a.2.ad.3] Charity has two objects; one is its principal object and is the Divine goodness, the other is its secondary object and is our neighbor's good. Now schism and other sins against our neighbor, are opposed to charity in respect of its secondary good, which is less than the object of faith, for this is God Himself; and so these sins are less grievous than unbelief. On the other hand, hatred of God, which is opposed to charity in respect of its principal object, is not less grievous than unbelief. Nevertheless of all sins committed by man against his neighbor, the sin of schism would seem to be the greatest, because it is opposed to the spiritual good of the multitude.
[II-II.q.39.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod charitas habet duo objecta: unum principale, scilicet bonitatem divinam; et aliud secundarium, scilicet bonum proximi. Schisma autem et alia peccata quæ fiunt in proximum, opponuntur charitati quantum ad secundarium bonum, quod est minus quam objectum fidei quod est ipse Deus; et ideo ista peccata sunt minora quam infidelitas. Sed odium Dei, quod opponitur charitati, quantum ad principale objectum, non est minus. Tamen inter peccata quæ sunt in proximum, peccatheologi, Nicolaï, et edit. Patav.; edit. Rom.: « Ita etiam bonum multitudinis, ad quod unus ordinarum, est minus quam bonum extrinsecum, » etc. tum schismatis videtur esse maximum, quia est contra spirituale bonum multitudinis.
Article 3
[II-II.q.39.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that schismatics have some power. For Augustine says (Contra Donat. i, 1): "Just as those who come back to the Church after being baptized, are not baptized again, so those who return after being ordained, are not ordained again." Now Order is a kind of power. Therefore schismatics have some power since they retain their Orders.
[II-II.q.39.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod schismatici habeant aliquam potestatem. Dicit enim Augustinus in lib. I De baptismo contra Donatistas, cap. 1, col. 109, t. 9: « Sicut redeuntes ad Ecclesiam, qui priusquam recederent, baptizati sunt, non rebaptizantur; ita redeuntes, qui priusquam recederent ordinati sunt, non utique rursus ordinantur. » Sed ordo est potestas quædam. Ergo schismatici habent aliquam potestatem, quia retinent ordinem.
[II-II.q.39.a.3.arg.2] Further, Augustine says (De Unico Bapt. [De Bap. contra Donat. vi, 5): "One who is separated can confer a sacrament even as he can have it." But the power of conferring a sacrament is a very great power. Therefore schismatics who are separated from the Church, have a spiritual power.
[II-II.q.39.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Augustinus dicit in lib. De unico baptismo, cap. v, § 7, col. 200, t. 9: « Potest sacramentum tradere separatus, sicut potest habere separatus. » Sed potestas tradendi sacramentum est maxima potestas. Ergo schismatici, qui sunt ab Ecclesia separati, habent potestatem spiritualem.
[II-II.q.39.a.3.arg.3] Further, Pope Urban II [Council of Piacenza, cap. x; cf. Can. Ordinationes, ix, qu. 1 says: "We command that persons consecrated by bishops who were themselves consecrated according to the Catholic rite, but have separated themselves by schism from the Roman Church, should be received mercifully and that their Orders should be acknowledged, when they return to the unity of the Church, provided they be of commendable life and knowledge." But this would not be so, unless spiritual power were retained by schismatics. Therefore schismatics have spiritual power.
[II-II.q.39.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, Urbanus II papa, cap. « Ordinationes, » IX, quæst. 1, dicit: « Ab episcopis quondam catholice ordinatis, sed in schismate a romana Ecclesia separatis, qui consecrati sunt, eos, cum ad Ecclesiae unitatem redierint, servatis propriis ordinibus, misericorditer suscipi jubemus; si tamen vita et scientia eos commendat. » Sed hoc non esset, nisi spiritualis potestas apud schismaticos remaneret. Ergo schismatici habent spiritualem potestatem.
[II-II.q.39.a.3.sc] Cyprian says in a letter (Ep. lii, quoted vii, qu. 1, can. Novatianus): "He who observes neither unity of spirit nor the concord of peace, and severs himself from the bonds of the Church, and from the fellowship of her priests, cannot have episcopal power or honor."
[II-II.q.39.a.3.sc] Sed contra est quod Cyprianus dicit in quadam Epist., et habetur VII, quæst. 1, cap. « Novatianus, » col. 746: « Qui nec unitatem, » inquit, « spiritus, nec conjunctionem pacis observat, et se ab Ecclesiae vinculo et sacerdotum collegio separat, episcopi nec potestatem potest habere, nec honorem. »
[II-II.q.39.a.3.co] Spiritual power is twofold, the one sacramental, the other a power of jurisdiction. The sacramental power is one that is conferred by some kind of consecration. Now all the consecrations of the Church are immovable so long as the consecrated thing remains: as appears even in inanimate things, since an altar, once consecrated, is not consecrated again unless it has been broken up. Consequently such a power as this remains, as to its essence, in the man who has received it by consecration, as long as he lives, even if he fall into schism or heresy: and this is proved from the fact that if he come back to the Church, he is not consecrated anew. Since, however, the lower power ought not to exercise its act, except in so far as it is moved by the higher power, as may be seen also in the physical order, it follows that such persons lose the use of their power, so that it is not lawful for them to use it. Yet if they use it, this power has its effect in sacramental acts, because therein man acts only as God's instrument, so that sacramental effects are not precluded on account of any fault whatever in the person who confers the sacrament.
On the other hand, the power of jurisdiction is that which is conferred by a mere human appointment. Such a power as this does not adhere to the recipient immovably: so that it does not remain in heretics and schismatics; and consequently they neither absolve nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgence, nor do anything of the kind, and if they do, it is invalid.
Accordingly when it is said that such like persons have no spiritual power, it is to be understood as referring either to the second power, or if it be referred to the first power, not as referring to the essence of the power, but to its lawful use.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
[II-II.q.39.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod duplex est spiritualis potestas: una quidem sacramentalis, alia jurisdictionalis. Sacramentalis quidem potestas est quæ per aliquam consecrationem confertur. Omnes autem consecrationes Ecclesiae sunt immobiles, manente re quæ consecratur; sicut etiam patet in rebus inanimatis: nam altare semel consecratum, non consecratur iterum, nisi fuerit dissipatum. Et ideo talis potestas secundum suam essentiam remanet in homine qui per consecrationem eam est adeptus, quamdiu vivit, sive in schisma, sive in hæresim labatur; quod patet ex hoc quod rediens ad Ecclesiam, non iterum consecratur. Sed quia potestas inferior non debet exire in actum, nisi secundum quod movetur a potestate superiori, ut etiam in rebus naturalibus patet; inde est quod tales usum potestatis amittunt, ita scilicet quod non liceat eis sua potestate uti. Si tamen usi fuerint, eorum potestas effectum habet in sacramentalibus; quia in his homo non operatur nisi sicut instrumentum Dei; unde effectus sacramentales non excluduntur propter culpam quam-cumque conferentis sacramentum. Potestas autem jurisdictionis est quæ ex simplici injunctione hominis confertur; et talis potestas non immobiliter adhæret; unde in schismaticis et hæreticis non manet; unde non possunt nec absolvere, nec excommunicare, nec indulgentias facere, aut aliquid hujusmodi; quod si fecerint, nihil est actum. Cum ergo dicitur tales non habere potestatem spiritualem, intelligendum est vel de potestate secunda, vel si referatur ad primam potestatem, non est referendum ad ipsam essentiam potestatis, sed ad legitimum usum ejus. Et per hoc patet responsio ad objecta.
Article 4
[II-II.q.39.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that schismatics are not rightly punished with excommunication. For excommunication deprives a man chiefly of a share in the sacraments. But Augustine says (Contra Donat. vi, 5) that "Baptism can be received from a schismatic." Therefore it seems that excommunication is not a fitting punishment for schismatics.
[II-II.q.39.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod poena schismaticorum non sit conveniens ut excommunicentur. Excommunicatio enim maxime separat hominem a communione sacramentorum. Sed Augustinus Seu libro VI De baptismo contra Donatistas. Nota schismaticos occultos potestatem juris- dicit, in lib. VI De baptismo contra Donatistas, cap. v, quod baptisma potest recipi a schismatico. Ergo videtur quod excommunicatio non est conveniens pœna schismaticis.
[II-II.q.39.a.4.arg.2] Further, it is the duty of Christ's faithful to lead back those who have gone astray, wherefore it is written against certain persons (Ezekiel 34:4): "That which was driven away you have not brought again, neither have you sought that which was lost." Now schismatics are more easily brought back by such as may hold communion with them. Therefore it seems that they ought not to be excommunicated.
[II-II.q.39.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, ad fideles Christi pertinet ut eos qui sunt dispersi, reducant; unde contra quosdam dicitur Ezech., xxxiv, 4: Quod abjectum est, non reduxistis; quod perierat, non quæsistis. Sed schismatici convenientius reducuntur per aliquos qui eis communicent. Ergo videtur quod non sint excommunicandi.
[II-II.q.39.a.4.arg.3] Further, a double punishment is not inflicted for one and the same sin, according to Nahum 1:9: "God will not judge the same twice" [Septuagint version]. Now some receive a temporal punishment for the sin of schism, according to23, 5, where it is stated: "Both divine and earthly laws have laid down that those who are severed from the unity of the Church, and disturb her peace, must be punished by the secular power." Therefore they ought not to be punished with excommunication.
[II-II.q.39.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, pro eodem peccato non infligitur duplex pœna, secundum illud Nahum, 1, 9: Non judicabit Deus bis in idipsum⁺. Sed pro peccato schismatis aliqui pœna temporali puniuntur, ut habetur XXIII, q. v, cap. « Quali nos, » col. 1233, ubi dicitur: « Divinæ et humanæ leges statuerunt ut ab Ecclesiæ unitate divisi, et ejus pacem perturbantes, a sæcularibus potestatibus comprimantur. » Non ergo sunt puniendi per excommunicationem.
[II-II.q.39.a.4.sc] It is written (Numbers 16:26): "Depart from the tents of these wicked men," those, to wit, who had caused the schism, "and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be involved in their sins."
[II-II.q.39.a.4.sc] Sed contra est quod Num., xvI, 26, dicitur: Recedite a tabernaculis hominum impiorum, qui scilicet schisma fecerunt, et nolite tangere ea quæ ad eos pertinent, ne involvamini in peccatis eorum.
[II-II.q.39.a.4.co] According to Wisdom 11:11, "By what things a man sinneth, by the same also he should be punished" [Vulgate: 'he is tormented']. Now a schismatic, as shown above (Article 1), commits a twofold sin: first by separating himself from communion with the members of the Church, and in this respect the fitting punishment for schismatics is that they be excommunicated. Secondly, they refuse submission to the head of the Church, wherefore, since they are unwilling to be controlled by the Church's spiritual power, it is just that they should be compelled by the secular power.
[II-II.q.39.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod per quæ pecat quis, per ea debet puniri⁺, ut dicitur Sap., xI, 17. Schismaticus autem, ut ex dictis patet, in duobus peccat. In uno qui dem, quia separat se a communione membrorum Ecclesiæ; et quantum ad hoc conveniens pœna schismaticorum est ut excommunicentur. In alio vero, quia subdi recusant capiti Ecclesiæ; et ideo quia coerceri nolunt per spiritualem potestatem Ecclesiæ, justum est ut potestate temporali coerceantur.
[II-II.q.39.a.4.ad.1] It is not lawful to receive Baptism from a schismatic, save in a case of necessity, since it is better for a man to quit this life, marked with the sign of Christ, no matter from whom he may receive it, whether from a Jew or a pagan, than deprived of that mark, which is bestowed in Baptism.
[II-II.q.39.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod baptismum a schismaticis recipere non licet nisi in articulo necessitatis; quia melius est de hac vita cum signo Christi exire, a quocumque detur, etiamsi sit judæus, vel paganus, quam sine hoc signo, quod per baptismum confertur.
[II-II.q.39.a.4.ad.2] Excommunication does not forbid the intercourse whereby a person by salutary admonitions leads back to the unity of the Church those who are separated from her. Ondeed this very separation brings them back somewhat, because through confusion at their separation, they are sometimes led to do penance.
[II-II.q.39.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod per excommunicationem non interdicitur illa communicatio per quam aliquis salubribus monitis divisos reducit ad Ecclesiæ unitatem; cum etiam ipsa separatio quodammodo eos reducat, dum de sua separatione confusi, quandoque ad pœnitentiam reducuntur.
[II-II.q.39.a.4.ad.3] The punishments of the present life are medicinal, and therefore when one punishment does not suffice to compel a man, another is added: just as physicians employ several body medicines when one has no effect. On like manner the Church, when excommunication does not sufficiently restrain certain men, employs the compulsion of the secular arm. If, however, one punishment suffices, another should not be employed.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
[II-II.q.39.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod pœna præsentis vitæ sunt medicinales; et ideo quando una pœna non sufficit ad coercendum hominem, superadditur altera; sicut et medici diversas medicinas corporales apponunt, quando una non est efficax. Et ita Ecclesia quando aliqui per excommunicationem sufficienter non reprimuntur, adhibet coercitionem brachii sæcularis; sed si una pœna sit sufficiens, non debet alia adhiberi.
JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/secunda-secundae/q039.json