Is Paul or Barnabus the schizmatic? acts 15:38,39.

A schismatic is one who splits from the Church. Paul and Barnabas had a personal disagreement.

God Bless,

I just want to note that that is not only a great title for a thread—it is the perfect title for the Reformation edition of Monopoly.

Go to Augsburg. Do not pass Rome. Do not collect Bull of Excommunication.

hilarious! perhaps one could find it as the title of a protestant bible college course as well.

I see the difference. what if a person remains loyal to the catholic church but sharply disagrees with a point of pastoral teaching (not dogma) have any such people been excomunicated and counted as schizmatics or is that a different deal. (presumably bad for the rebel)

To qualify as schismatic, you have to set up or join a parllel church. Just walking out doesn’t count.

ok, I get it.

are people like me who have access to knowledge about the rcc but who have never joined it but profess loyalty to Christ considered schismatics if they join some other sect such as the anglicans?

No. To be a schismatic you must be a Catholic apostate.

Short answer - by RC standards - no.

Longer, but incomplete, answer:

  1. You can’t separate yourself from something you are not a member of
  2. For an RC to join an RC Church would not be schism - because joining a body already separate from Rome, is not the same as making a separation which did not exist.
  3. Schism presupposes that one is a member of the Church considered under its aspect of a visible communion.
    *]The authors of a division that did not exist until they made it are schismatics - those who join a body which came into being through such a division, are not.
    *]And one cannot - from Rome’s POV - be a schismatic if one leaves non-Catholic Christian group X for non-Catholic Christian group Y; schism is only committed if one leaves a Church which is in hierarchical communion with the Pope, so as to form a body which is not in hierarchical communion with the Pope
    *]So the bishops of the SSPX are schismatics - but a Protestant who goes from being Episcopalian to being a Methodist, is not. OTOH, if (say) a Methodist bishop were to become a Catholic, & then go off and found a Church not in hierarchical communion with the Pope, he would be a schismatic.
    *]Orthodox & Protestant Churches will have their own theology, doctrine & laws on this
    *]BTW: schism, apostasy, heresy, unbelief, disobedience, & legitimate difference, are not the same thing - just so you know :)[/LIST]Does that help ? :slight_smile:

I think I follow so far. now the real question arises. do I have to be confirmed/ join the rcc in order to be ASSURED of salvation or can participation in communion, baptism, marriage etc in another sect suffice.


Participation in a sect (not *another *sect, because the Catholic Church is by no means a “sect”) is not sufficient if you believe that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Jesus Christ. That’s a no-brainer because if the Church is true, than it is true and nothing else can also be true.

Once you come to that level of belief, there are no other options. The sects may “assure” you of salvation on their terms, but only the Church can guide you to salvation on Christ’s terms.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit