In my attempts to read the Church fathers and hunt for the mysterious Islamic Christians who don’t seem to exist, I’ve been reading the works of St. Cyprian of Carthage; a third century Church father who was martyred in 258 AD. He had to deal with the issue of the Novatian Schism.
In The Unity of the Catholic Church he writes the following about schismatic martyrs:
Such persons, even if they have been slain whilst confessing the name, their stains will not be washed away with their blood. The blame for discord is serious and cannot be atoned for, and is not purified through suffering. Someone not in the Church cannot be a martyr. Someone who has abandoned the Church that is destined to reign will not be able to arrive at the kingdom of heaven.
Later on in the same treatise he gets harsher. He writes:
Those who are unwilling to be of one mind in the Church of God are unable to abide with God. Even though they burn in the flames, and, surrendered to the fire, or exposed to the wild beasts, they should lay down their lives, the latter will not be their crown of faith but the punishment of their bad faith. Their death will enjoy no renown for its religious courage but an annihilation of despair. Such a person can be slain, he cannot be crowned.
Pretty harsh words for those outside the Church. Is it bad to be outside the Church? Of course, but I think the case of invincible ignorance plays a role. Let me explain. St. Cyprian talks about one kind of Schism but there is actually another kind of schism that he doesn’t talk about. I don’t blame him, because the schism happened after he was dead.
If we think of various schisms in history we anachronistically assign relative dates to them. The Assryian Church of the East is 431 AD, the Oriental Orthodox schism is 451 AD, and the Greek Schism in 1054 AD. We could also throw in the Protestants in there for 1517 AD though they’re not really a schism in the traditional sense.
All of these schisms are after the Church gains political power. The schism of Novatian is before that and is purely religious. In the post-Constantine era the state played a role in the Church. Doctrine was still an issue but it was only an issue if the secular authorities wanted it to be. Politics played large roles in the events of 431, 451, 1054, and 1517. In this case I think God would be more lenient since the average citizen has no say in politics.
If you were a peasant in Egypt in 550 AD or a blacksmith in England in 1539 AD you wouldn’t have a choice in where you attended Church. It was local political authorities that threw up the theological barricades in front of you. I think in this case, God would be more lenient in judging the subjects of that country.
In this day and age we’re essentially back to the era of St. Cyprian. Christianity has some power in historically Christian countries but it’s only ceremonial.
This is just my opinion. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section below whether you’re Catholic or not. God bless.
This is a good point, thank you Allan. Indeed it seems even like the kind of culpability we have is heightened with the preponderance of information on the internet now. Those who choose to reject church doctrine with so many resources available freely to explain things in more detail would seem to be at greater fault than one who does so with more ignorance. On the other hand not everyone necessarily realizes this to be the case, nor has the time or mental fortitude to do so.
Presumably extra Ecclesiam nulla salus must be understood with these considerations. Another factor which I think is important is language differences. There is a notion that particular schisms in history perhaps we due to linguistic misunderstandings rather than true disagreements. In those cases, I think we can understand that not just the lay people who were caught up in these schisms, but even those involved in the instigation would be viewed with more lenience in the eyes of God.
Of course, it’s possible to take this notion too far. We definitely shouldn’t just give those in an unfortunate state of ignorance a “free pass”, as some people are want to do for the unevanglized, and claim that their prospects are good. Only that there are mitigating reasons why we have reason to have a good hope for them, but God is the judge after all.
These are all really good points Nathan!
Thanks for sharing!
Allan