Schism?

I am a bit surprised everytime I read of bloggers and commenters warning about an impending “schism”. I thought I would add a couple of reflections.

St Athanasius refused to obey to Pope Liberius. He went so far as to start appointing bishops of his own initiative and without papal approval. Mind, his were – for all I know – real territorial bishops, appointed to run a diocese. Not bidhops like the SSPX, who have no territorial jurisdiction and whose task is principally to allow the SSPX to survive as acreligious order.

So: was St. Athanasius (and his allies and appointees) “schismatic”? Of course not! They were good, orthodox Catholic caring for the perpetuation of good, orthodox Catholicism. Were they, in their time, accused of schism? I am sure they were. No doubt, the Papal fraction threw at them every insult in the dictionary. But were they, therefore, scismatics? No.

The same will apply to the Burke, Schneider, & Co. Of the world, if in October, the heresy hits the fan. There will be lack of obedience. There may well be own ordination of bishops. I can well imagine a number of diocese and even Countries (African, mainly) refusing en block every appointee of Francis, and basically shutting the Vatican heresy out of their own diocese exactly as Athanasius & Co. did. But they will, most certainly, not be in schism.

I leave it to others to decide if a Pope can himself be in schism, as he refuses to obey to the Petrine Authority as expressed in and practiced by his predecessors. It seems a strange concept to me, that is difficult to digest. A Pope who disobeys to the Church does not seem, to me, in “schism”. It’s a bit like accusing a King of lese majesty.

Personally, I do not care much about how you call it, and I wonder if at the time of Athanasius there were big discussions about it rather than a simple, but very effective hands-on approach to the crisis that plagued them. But I know one thing: a Pope to whom obedience must be refused is a Pope who has put himself in a position of factual heresy, however he may try to deny the fact. It is, therefore, so, that in this case the Pope is outside, and the orthodox Catholics are inside. And it is so, that the latter can never be told – and should never claim for themselves – that they are “in schism”, albeit a justified one. They can – like the SSPX – never be Schismatic, as long as they are on the side of Ortodoxy. You can never be true to Christ and Schismatic at the same time.

We will, no doubt, read more about it in the months to come, as the two opposing fronts of Orthodoxy and Heresy face each other and outright war is a distinct possibility. But I truly would suggest that bloggers and commenters do not put us, the orthodox Catholic, in some “schismatic” drawer merely because we refuse to obey to a Pope of whom our religion says that the very man should not be obeyed.

I do not feel well in the shoes of a “schismatic”, and be they so virtuous. I can’t fathom the Athanasius party as such. I also have difficulties in seeing a Pope as disobedient to himself, and I remind you that the decision that he is not the Pope anymore could not be left to our private judgment, so he would still be Pope pending deposition.

I just can’t see a “schism” in the traditional sense (in the Orthodox, or Henry VIII sense) coming. What I can see is a Pope falling into heresy, and carrying with himself a part of the Church whilst formally still the Pope, until he dies or is declared deposed by a Universal Council in the proper way.

But a “schism”? No.

M