The Nature of Heresy and Schism

by Rev. P. Rafferty, 1849

Note: Scripture references are based on the Latin Vulgate. English translations of the Latin Vulgate include the Douay-Rheims Bible and the Knox Version.

Heresy, according to the Catholics, is “an obstinate adhesion to any error contrary to divine revelation, duly proposed to our belief by the Church of God; that is, contrary to what God has taught, and the church holds to be a revealed and apostolical truth; or, a wilful separation from the doctrine of the Catholic church in matters of faith.” According to Protestants, “it is an obstinate defence of error against a necessary or fundamental article of Christian faith.” But the ancient church knew nothing of this distinction; and therefore condemned all heretics that dissented from doctrine, whether the articles in which they dissented were of the number of those, which these gentlemen called fundamental or not. And certainly “an obstinate defence of error against any article which God has taught,” must needs be a damnable sin; and what sin is it, if not heresy? and who shall be judge in these cases, what articles of Christian faith are necessary to be believed, if not the church of God, which proposes them to our belief?

Schism, according to Catholics “is a wilful separation from the unity and communion of the church, and the subordination due to the church governors.” According to Protestants, it is “a causeless separation of one part of the church from another.” But who shall be judge whether the separation be causeless, or not? Or can there be a just cause for a separation from the Catholic church, with which Christ has promised to abide for ever? (St. Matt. 28:19, 20)

Now the children of the primitive religion are very secure, that in adhering to their church guides, they are neither guilty of heresy nor schism. They cannot be guilty of heresy, because they hold nothing contrary to the definitions of the church, or to the word of God, as interpreted by the greatest authority upon earth, viz. that of the church of God. Much less can they be guilty of heresy, according to the Protestant notion of heresy, viz. of error in fundamentals; since our very adversaries are obliged to acknowledge, that our church does not err in fundamentals.

Besides, heresy, according to the scriptures, is a damnable crime, Galatians 5:20,21; Titus 3:10,11; 2 St. Peter 2:1,2; St. Jude 13. The malignity of which consists in wilfully refusing to believe that which God has taught, after it has been duly proposed to our belief, by such an authority, and upon such grounds, or motives of credibility, that it would be highly imprudent to doubt that God has taught it; in which case the refusing to believe, is highly injurious to God, by calling in question his truth. Now Catholics are very sure they are guilty of no such crime as this; because they refuse to believe no one revealed truth, which by sufficient authority and upon due grounds is proposed to their belief; and in all those things in which they believe differently from other Christians, they have on their side the greatest authority upon earth, and the strongest motives of all others to convince them that what they believe is the same as God has taught.

Moreover, the root of all heresy is pride and conceit of man's own judgment, which he prefers to all other authority; for an humble man can never be a heretic. Therefore the followers of the old religion, who walk in the humble way of submission to the church authority, and take up nothing of their own invention, or upon any presumption of their own judgment, follow their guides of divine appointment, can never be guilty of the sin of heresy. Again: — The chief points of the doctrine of the Catholic religion, which are accused by our adversaries as grievous and pernicious errors, were certainly held long before the pretended reformation, by the whole eastern as well as western church; and consequently the holding of them could be no heresy at that time, when they were held by the universal church, which (as Protestant divines allow) never falls into heresy. Now if the holding of these articles was not heresy then, I would gladly know what can make it heresy at present? Not the word of God, which was the same then as it is now. Nor any new declaration of the word of God, or definition of the church or council; because the most authentic, and most universal that has been since, has been on the side of the Catholic.

And as we are secure against heresy by following the old religion, so are we also against the guilt of schism. Because we never broke off from the communion of any more ancient or superior church, or withdrew our obedience from any church governors, keeping within the bounds of a due subordination to our superiors. Now as rebellion in the state, so schism in the church, can only be when a lesser, or at least an inferior part, separates from the greater or superior; which, I have said, was never our case, who never went out from any greater or superior church; but in all divisions of religion, that ever yet have been, we have always had at the time of the beginning of such division, both a majority of number, and a pre-eminence of dignity and authority with respect of number, and pre-eminence of dignity and authority with respect to those that have been divided from us. We are the great body of christians descending from the apostles, from which all other sects at their first beginning separated themselves; and whose authority they all acknowledged before the separation. Therefore we cannot possibly be schismatics.

If it be objected that the guilt of schism lies at our door, for giving cause to it, by insisting upon terms of communion which could not in conscience be complied with, and casting out of our communion all those that refused to concur with our innovations: we answer, first. That it has always been the method of all schismatics to charge the church with giving cause to the schism. 2dly, That the pretence of conscience against church authority is also the cloak, by which all heretics and schismatics have sought to cover their obstinacy and pride: and that it has alsombeen the way of all innovators to accuse the church of innovations. 3dly, That the church governors have been authorized by Christ to be judges in these cases, (St. Matt. 5:17) and to cast out of the communion of the church such as obstinately refuse to hear and obey them. 4thly, That even supposing the case of an unjust excommunication, the person excommunicated is not thereby authorized to set up altar against altar; nor does the excommunicator thereby forfeit all authority, or become a schismatic. 5thly, That the person excommunicated, is not a competent judge of the justice or injustice of the sentence of his superiors. 6thly, That in the case of modern sectaries, they did not stay till they were cast out of the church, but run out of it of their own accord, and enticed as many as they could to come out after them. In fine, that at the time when the division began, we only continued where we were, in the terms of communion which had been fixed long before; therefore they broke off from us, not we from them: as the ship breaks loose from the shore, not the shore from the ship; because the shore continues just where it was. From all which it is visible, that the schism is not on our side.

Besides, the professors of the Catholic religion wear none of the badges whereby scripture and antiquity will have us know and distinguish heretics and schismatics. Such as preaching without being sent, Jerem. 23:21; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4. Not entering into the sheepfold by the door, but climbing up another way, St. John, 10:1. Going out of the established church, and the communion of the undoubted successors of the apostles, 1 St. John, 2:19. Separating themselves, St. Jude 19 causing divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which the children of the church have learnt, Rom. 16:17. Preaching to them a new gospel, Gal. 1:8-9. Wolves in sheep's clothing, but easily known by their evil fruits, St. Matt. 7:15-16. Perpetually chopping and changing, and varying from their own rules, Tertullian (de Praescript. chap.xlii). Rising long after the church from which they separated themselves, Tertullan, ibid. chap.xxxi. Where he gives us this rule to distinguish heretics by, as a sentence that shall stand for the condemnation of all future heresies. “Id esse dominicum et verum, quod est prius traditum; id autem extraneum et falsum quod est posterius immissum.” That is of the Lord, and is true, which was of elder date; but that is foreign and false which came in later.

Now as it is evident that none of these marks of error and schism agree to the Catholic religion and its professors, so it is visible that they have all been found in every one of the modern sects: who all from their very first setting out, preached without any mission, either ordinary from the Church, or extraordinary from God; and consequently did not enter into the sheepfold by the door; they all went out and separated themselves from the ordinary succession of the Church; “caused divisions and offences, preached a new gospel;” fell out immediately amongst themselves; and have ever since been daily varying in their doctrine, and uncertain what they would be at: in fine, have all from the very beginning brought forth such fruits, as could never spring from a good tree.

But setting all this aside, it is easy to prove the guilt of schism upon them all, from this plain matter of fact. At the time of their first origin, when they separated themselves from the Roman Catholic church, they did not embrace the communion of any other church then in being; but stood all alone upon their own bottom, divided from all churches upon earth, which was confessedly Luther's case, about the year 1517. Therefore if at that time there any where was a true church of Christ upon earth, (as there always is, if the scripture and creed be true,) the first authors of all these sects originally separated themselves from the true church of Christ, wheresoever or whichsoever she was; because they separated themselves from all churches, pure or impure, which had any being upon earth before their time, and consequently they were all guilty of schism.

Neither is it much harder to prove the guilt of heresy upon them all. Because, from their very first setting out they all obstinately maintained sundry doctrines condemned by the universal Church, as heretical and contrary to divine revelation, many ages before. Now that which is once heresy, is always heresy; as that which is once truth, is always truth.

Nor is there indeed any rule by which the ancient or modern Arians, for example, can be proved to be heretics, but what will prove the same with regard to the sectaries of these days; both the one and the other were and are willing to be judged by the Scriptures as interpreted by themselves: both the one and the other have been condemned by the Scriptures as interpreted by the church. Therefore either both are heretics or neither.