Can Anathemas Be Only "Locally" Applicable?

[Justin Kissel]

While I do think that Vladimir Moss gets carried away a bit in his polemical works, and while I think that tendency to exaggeration brings down the persuasiveness of his writings, I must admit that in his some of his works Mr. Moss seems to hit a lot of nails right on their head. One such nail is the issue/concept of anathema. So, I thought I'd post his thoughts here:

The attack on the validity of the anathema against ecumenism has continued in recent decades. Thus the ROCA priest Alexander Lebedev called the idea that the anathema strikes down all ecumenists “the heresy of universal jurisdiction”. However, the tradition of the Church has always been that an anathema, if just – that is, if the heresy anathematised is really a heresy, - strikes down all those who confess that heresy, wherever they may be.

Thus the present writer replied to Fr. Alexander: “Thinking about your "heresy of universal jurisdiction", it seems to me that you confuse two things: the Church as an external organisation, and the Church as a mystical organism, to use the terminology of Hieromartyr Catacomb Bishop Mark (Novoselov) (+1938). It seems to me that you are right as regards the Church as an external organisation, but wrong as regards the Church as a mystical organism. Let me explain.

“An anathema excludes the person anathematised from the holy mysteries, from membership of the Holy Church. In the first place, of course, that applies to the local Church of which that person is a member. It applies to other Churches only to the extent that the leaders of those other Churches agree with the original anathema and "sign up to it", as it were. Thus the heretic Arius was originally anathematized by the Bishop of Alexandria, which meant that he was excluded from receiving the sacraments throughout the Church of Alexandria. However, not all the bishops of neighbouring Churches agreed with this anathema, so Arius was able to receive communion in other Local Churches. To this extent the anathema was only of local significance. It required the convening of the First Ecumenical Council before Arius was anathematized "universally" - and even then, the anathema was not universally received, as the history of the Church in the next fifty years demonstrates.

“It is a different matter when we consider an anathema sub specie aeternitatis, in its mystical, super-terrestrial significance. From that point of view, the anathematization of a heretic begins in the heavens. Thus even before Arius had been "locally" anathematized by St. Alexander of Alexandria, the Lord appeared to his predecessor, St. Peter, with a torn cloak, and in answer to St. Peter's question: "O Creator, who has torn Thy tunic?", replied: "The mindless Arius; he has separated from Me people whom I had obtained with My Blood" (St. Dmitri of Rostov, Lives of the Saints, November 25). So not only Arius, but all those who followed him, had been separated from the Church by the anathema of Her First Bishop, the Lord Jesus Christ, years (or rather, aeons) before even the first "local" anathema had been uttered. All heresies and heretics are anathematized "from all eternity" by the eternal Lord, for just as every truth is approved by the Truth Himself from all eternity, so is every lie condemned by Him from all eternity, being condemned with "the father of lies" to the gehenna of fire (Revelation 22.15).

“The task of hierarchs on earth is to discern the decisions of the heavenly Church, and then apply these eternal and heavenly decisions on earth, in space and time. As St. Bede the Venerable (+735) writes: "The keys of the Kingdom designate the actual knowledge and power of discerning who are worthy to be received into the Kingdom, and who should be excluded from it as being unworthy" (Sermon on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, P.L. 94, col. 219). From this point of view, it matters not a jot whether a heretic is anathematized locally or universally, since he has already been anathematized by the heavenly Church. Or rather, it matters in this sense: that if the heretic has been anathematized locally, but this anathema is not accepted by the rest of the Church, then the rest of the Church is under the grave danger of falling under this same anathema. For the local anathema, if it is just, is the reflection of a heavenly anathema; and the anathema of the heavenly Church is universal….

“This explains why, when local Churches anathematized a heresy, they never qualified the anathema (as you, Fr. Alexander, would like to qualify the ROCA's anathema against ecumenism) by saying: "but of course, this applies only to the heretics in our local Church". On the contrary: history shows that local Churches freely anathematized heretics, not only in their own Churches, but also in others. Thus Nestorius, a heretic of the Church of Constantinople, was first condemned by a local Synod of the Church of Rome under St. Celestine; the Monothelite heretics were first condemned by a local Synod, again, of the Church of Rome; and the Papist heretics were first condemned by a local Synod of the Church of Constantinople.

“Consider what St. Maximus said of the Monothelites: "In addition to having excommunicated themselves from the Church, they have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood at the local council which took place recently in Rome. What Mysteries, then, can they perform? Or what spirit will descend upon those who are ordained by them?" (The Life of our Holy Father Maximus the Confessor, Boston, 1982, p. 38 ). Note that the saint says that the heretics have excommunicated themselves; for as the Apostle Paul writes, "he that is such [a heretic] is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself" (Titus 3.11). But the heretics' self-condemnation and self-exclusion from the Church as a mystical organism must be followed by their exclusion from the Church as an external organization, lest others be infected with their heresy. Hence the need for councils of bishops to anathematize them, following the rule: "A heretic after the first and second admonition reject"

(Titus 3.10), and: "If he refuses to listen to the Church, let him be unto you as a heathen and a publican" (Matthew 18.17). And clearly St. Maximus considered that the anathema of the local Church of Rome had validity throughout the Ecumenical Church.

“Administrative matters and moral falls are the business of local Churches and councils. However, heresies of their very nature are of universal significance, having the potential to infect the whole Church. That is why the appearance of a heresy in one local Church is not the business only of that local Church, but of all the local Churches - and every local Church can and must anathematize it.

“Even the anathema of single bishopric or metropolitanate has universal power and validity if it is uttered in the Holy Spirit, in accordance with the eternal Truth. Thus in 1069 the bishops of the metropolitanate of York, in the north of England, solemnly anathematized both the Pope of Rome and his stooge, William the conqueror, the first papist king of England. All the evidence is that they did not know that the Church of Constantinople had already anathematized Rome in 1054. So they were not simply confirming the word of a higher authority. They did not need a higher authority. They were successors of the apostles, with the power to bind and to loose. And they used that power, not for personal gain (on the contrary: they paid for their boldness with their lives), even against the most senior bishop in Christendom…

“In the same way, in 1983 the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, using the power to bind and to loose given them by the Bishop of bishops, the Lord Jesus Christ, translated onto earth, into space and time, the completely binding and universally applicable decision already arrived at from all eternity by the Council of the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Ecumenism is, was and always will be a heresy, indeed "the heresy of heresies", and the ecumenist heretics are, were and always will be outside the Church, the mystical Body of Christ. The decision of the ROCA Sobor in 1983, confirmed with no change to its universal wording in 1998, expelled these already self-condemned and Divinely condemned heretics also from the external organization of the Church - and woe to any man, of whatever Church, who despises that decision, for he will then surely fall under the same anathema…” - Vladimir Moss, The Orthodox Church at the Crossroads: From 1900 to the Present Day, Chapter 7 (Online Version)

[bogoliubtsy]

Well, this interpretation of the anathema was written by Arcbhishop Vitaly during the time of Met. Philaret.

INTERPRETATION OF THE ANATHEMA -

"The Orthodox Russian Church Abroad, headed at the present time by Metropolitan Philaret, confesses itself to be an inseparable part of the historical Russian Church. As a Local Church it has the right to assemble its own regular sobors and to pronounce resolutions which are completely obligatory for all her children dispersed throughout the world. Time will show whether the other Local Churches will accept our decision concerning Ecumenism, even as in their own time, the decrees of the ten Local Councils were accepted by all, and were entered into the "Book of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and the Holy Fathers" of the Ecumenical Church. ... As far as Ecumenism is concerned, every Local Church has had sufficient time over the past one hundred years to study it, and if any given Local Church bases its teaching and life on the canons of the Holy Apostles, on the canons of all the Orthodox Councils, then it cannot but acknowledge the fact that Ecumenism has assembled into one all the heresies which have ever existed, both past and present, and called this unity a church. Such a manifestation is already plainly of the Antichrist. Thus, in proclaiming the Anathema, we have protected our flock from this apocalyptic temptation, and unintentionally have simultaneously posed a serious question to the conscience of all the Local Churches, which they must sooner or later resolve on one side or the other. Their future spiritual fate in the universal Orthodox Church will depend upon the resolution of this question. De jure the Anathema which has been pronounced by us is of a purely local character of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, but de facto it has an immense historical significance universally, historically and ecclesiastically, precisely because Ecumenism itself is a heresy of a world-wide scale. This position of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is clearly on the conscience of all the Orthodox. For us, this is a great cross which the Lord has placed upon us. But we can be silent no longer, for further silence would be tantamount to a betrayal of the truth; from which betrayal may the Lord deliver us all.

+Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal"

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Thank you Justin, this is the first time I've seen this, although I've always thought it bordering on the ridiculous that an Anathema can be "local".

To disagree is like saying after a person dies in the United States that he may not be dead if his body were moved to Mexico.

The word "Pharisitical" is often misused and abused, but I think it is very fitting here.

EDIT: After reading the post immediatley above, Archbishop Vitaly doesn't seem to disagree.

.

[Justin Kissel]

Bogo,

Do you dispute the interpretation/position given by Vladimir Moss? I'm not quite sure...

[Seraphim Reeves]

After reading what both Vladimir Moss and what Metropolitan Vitaly said (a passage oft quoted as some kind of defense against the "extremists"), I can find no qualitative disagreement between the two.

Obviously if a given ruling is formulated and unmabiguously endorsed in a local Church it is going to have a "local character" in terms of who synodically supports it and makes it a matter of pastoral policy. However it is a papist mentality, which believes heresies are only soul destroying and ruinous sins after some form of "universal" declaration of such has occured (in the papist case, some excercise of ecclessiastical authority rubber stamped by the Pope, whether it come from a concilliar organ, or is simply a personal act of the Pope alone).

Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, the ecumenists, etc. were heretics the moment their godless fantasies first occured to them and were taken to be correct interpretations of God and His economy. The Greek for "heresy" bears this out - it refers to "choice", in this case the choosing of something opposed to what the Church teaches. Arius' doctrine was never the mind of the Church/Christ. Neither was that of Eutyches. The same is true for the ecclessiology and other erring views of the ecumenists. They did not represent one "acceptable opinion" among many possible opinions until further notice.

Given this, as Vladimir Moss rightly points out, heresies are condemned and anathematized from eternity by God. The Church's role in this, is properly expressing this will of God on earth, in time. Hence why we pray "thy will be done, on earth as it is in the Heavens" (where heresy has already been forcefully denounced and expelled.)

It's kind of a no brainer then (and really just stating the obvious) to say that the ROCOR's 1983 Anathema is "local" (though this is not entirely true, since it was accepted elsewhere amongst genuine Orthodox Churches). However, even the scope of this anathema as "local" is not simply "provincial", even in it's application. One would think, if disciplinary order was/is in tact in the ROCOR (I submit this is a long term problem in ROCOR, which has contributed caused the current state of confusion in it's ranks), it would apply not simply to the ROCOR's government of it's own clergy and flocks, but also to who it will have relations with. For taking this "local" anathema as is, they obviously could not have relations with those persons and groups who are obviously guilty of what it describes.

This is where the innovation in contemporary ROCOR is taking place - by "local", the anathema is now being buried, to the point that it has practically no bearing on those ROCOR is fraternizing with, and it's decisions as to who it will seek communication with. This is the new spin on the "locality" of the anathema, which is objectionable.

There have really been only two consistant choices for ROCOR in regard to the Anathema of '83 - accept (even while excercising some patience with others) it's consequences and that it really is a statement in accord with truth (truly an inspired, Godly sentence by the Synod against a real heresy), or declare it was a gross error, an injustice, not in accord with truth, and hence a monument to ROCOR's heterodoxy, for it obviously would have to betray a wrong-headedness on the matters it addresses. The "extremists" refuse to admit the latter, knowing better (to the point that they had to seperate from ROCOR when it began to betray it's own teachings and heritage); the lords of the "new and improved ROCOR" will do neither, since they want to have their cake and eat it too (move forward as integral parts of "world Orthodoxy", but also not lose face and formally renounce their past.) Thus, most in ROCOR now are actively involved in the business of burying or distorting the content and implications of this monument of Orthodoxy in the modern age.

Seraphim

[Lounger]

What is an Anathema?
Bishop Theophan the Recluse
http://www.orthodox.net/articles/anathe ... ophan.html

Rarely does the Rite of Orthodoxy, which is now being performed, take
place without censures and reproaches on somebody's part. And no matter
how many sermons are given explaining that the Church here acts wisely for
the salvation of her children -- still the malcontents just keep repeating
their line. Either they do not listen to the sermons, or these sermons do
not strike home as regards the latters' perplexities, or perhaps they have
formed their own conception of this rite and do not want to abandon it, no
matter what you tell them.

To some people our anathemas seem inhumane, to others constricting. Such
charges might be valid in other situations, but there is no way they can
apply to our Rite of Orthodoxy. I will clarify for you briefly why the
Church acts thus, and I think you yourselves will agree with me that in so
doing, the Church acts wisely.

What is the holy Church? It is a society of believers, united among
themselves by a unity of confession of divinely revealed truths, by a
unity of sanctification by divinely established Mysteries, and by a unity
of government and guidance by God-given shepherds. The oneness of
confession, sanctification, and administration constitutes the rule of
this society, which is obligatory for anyone who joins it. Membership in
this society is contingent upon accepting this rule and agreeing with it;
remaining in this society is contingent upon fulfilling it. Let us see how
the holy Church grew and how it continues to grow. The preachers preach.
Some of the listeners do not accept the preaching and leave; others accept
it and as a result of accepting it are sanctified by the holy Mysteries,
follow the guidance of the shepherds, and thus are incorporated into the
holy Church -- they are churched. That is how all the Church's members
enter her. In entering her, they are mingled with all her members, they
are united with them, and they remain in the Church only as long as they
continue to be one with them all.

From this simple indication regarding how the Church is formed, you can
see that as a society, the holy Church came to be and continues to exist
just like any other society. And so regard it as you would any other, and
do not deprive it of the rights belonging to any society. Let us take, for
example, a temperance society. It has rules which every member must
fulfill. And each of its members is a member precisely because he accepts
and abides by its rules. Now suppose that some member not only refuses to
abide by the rules but also holds many views completely opposed to those
of the society and even rises up against its very goal. He not only does
not himself observe temperance but even reviles temperance itself and
disseminates notions which might tempt others and deflect them from
temperance. What does the society ordinarily do with such people? First it
admonishes them, and then it expels them. There you have an anathema! No
one protests this, no one reproaches the society for being inhuman.
Everyone acknowledges that the society is acting in a perfectly legitimate
manner and that if it were to act otherwise, it could not exist.

So what is there to reproach the holy Church for when she acts likewise?
After all, an anathema is precisely separation from the Church, or the
exclusion from her midst of those who do not fulfill the conditions of
unity with her and begin to think differently from the way she does,
differently from the way they themselves promised to think upon joining
her. Recollect how it happened! Arius appeared, who held impious opinions
concerning Christ the Savior, so that with these notions he distorted the
very act of our salvation. What was done with him? First he was
admonished, and admonished many times by every persuasive and touching
means possible. But since he stubbornly insisted upon his opinion, he was
condemned and excommunicated from the Church -- that is, he is expelled
from our society. Beware, have no communion with him and those like him.
Do not yourselves hold such opinions, and do not listen to or receive
those who do. Thus did the holy Church do with Arius; thus has she done
with all other heretics; and thus will she do now, too, if someone appears
somewhere with impious opinions. So tell me, what is blameworthy here?
What else could the holy Church do? And could she continue to exist if she
did not employ such strictness and warn her children with such solicitude
about those who might corrupt and destroy them?

Let us see -- what false teachings and what false teachers are
excommunicated? Those who deny the existence of God, the immortality of
the soul, divine providence; those who do not confess the all-holy
Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the One God; those who do not
acknowledge the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and our redemption by
His death on the Cross; those who reject the grace of the Holy Spirit and
the divine Mysteries which bestow it, and so forth. Do you see what manner
of issues they touch upon? These are issues which are the very reason the
holy Church is the Church, principles upon which she is founded and
without which she could not be that which she is. Therefore those who rise
up against such truths are to the Church what those who make attempts
against our lives and our property are to us in our daily life. Robbers
and thieves, after all, are nowhere permitted to carry on freely and go
unpunished! And when they are bound and handed over to the law and to
punishment, no one considers this to be inhumane or a violation of
freedom. On the contrary, people see in this very thing both an act of
love for man and a safeguard for freedom -- with regard to all the members
of society. If you judge thus here, judge thus also concerning the society
of the Church. These false teachers, just like thieves and robbers,
plunder the property of the holy Church and of God, corrupting her
children and destroying them.

Does the holy Church really err in judging them, binding them, and casting
them out? And would it really be love for man if she regarded the actions
of such people with indifference and left them at liberty to destroy
everyone else? Would a mother permit a snake to freely crawl up to and
bite her little child, who does not understand the danger? If some immoral
person were to gain access to your family and begin tempting your
daughter, or your son -- would you be able to regard their actions and
their speeches with indifference? Fearing to gain a reputation for being
inhumane and old- fashioned, would you tie your own hands? Would you not
push such a person out the door and close it against them forever?! You
should view the actions of the holy Church in the same way. She sees that
individuals of corrupt mind appear, and corrupt others -- and she rises up
against them, drives them away, and calls out to all those who are her
own: Beware -- so-and-so and such-and-such people wish to destroy your
souls. Do not listen to them; flee from them. Thus she fulfills the duty
of motherly love, and therefore acts lovingly -- or as you put it, humanely.

At the present time, we have a proliferation of nihilists, spiritists and
other pernicious clever ones who are carried away with the false teachers
of the West. Do you really think that our holy Church would keep silence
and not raise her voice to condemn and anathematize them, if their
destructive teachings were something new? By no means. A council would be
held, and in council all of them with their teachings would be given over
to anathema, and to the current Rite of Orthodoxy there would be appended
an additional item: To Feyerbach, Buchner, and Renan, to the spiritists,
and to all their followers -- to the nihilists - - be anathema. But there
is no need for such a council, and there is no need either for such an
addition. Their false teachings have already all been anathematized in
advance in those points where anathema is pronounced to those who deny the
existence of God, the spirituality and immortality of the soul, the
teachings concerning the all-holy Trinity and concerning the divinity of
our Lord Jesus Christ. Do you not see with what wisdom and foresight the
holy Church acts when she makes us perform the present proclamation and
listen to it? And yet they say, "This is outdated." It is precisely now
that it is relevant. Perhaps 100 years ago it was not relevant. But one
must say concerning our time, that if a Rite of Orthodoxy did not as yet
exist, it would be needful to introduce one, and to perform it not only in
the capital cities but in all places and in all churches: in order to
collect all the evil teachings opposed to the Word of God, and to make
them known to all, in order that all might know what they need to beware
of and what kind of teachings to avoid. Many are corrupted in mind solely
due to ignorance, whereas a public condemnation of ruinous teachings would
save them from perdition.

Thus, the Church excommunicates, expels from her midst (when it is said,
"Anathema to so-and-so", that means the same thing as, "So-and-so: out of
here"), or anathematizes for the same reason that any society does so. And
she is obliged to do this in self-preservation and to preserve her
children from destruction. Therefore there is nothing blameworthy or
incomprehensible about this present Rite. If anyone fears the act of
anathema, let him avoid the teachings which cause one to fall under it. If
anyone fears it for others, let him restore him to sound teaching. If you
are Orthodox and yet you are not well disposed toward this act, then you
are found to be contradicting yourself. But if you have already abandoned
sound doctrine, then what business is it of yours what is done in the
Church by those who maintain it? By the very fact that you have conceived
a different view of things than that which is maintained in the Church,
you have already separated yourself from the Church. It is not inscription
in the baptismal records which makes one a member of the Church, but the
spirit and content of one's opinions. Whether your teaching and your name
are pronounced as being under anathema or not, you already fall under it
when your opinions are opposed to those of the Church, and when you
persist in them. Fearful is the anathema. Leave off your evil opinions. Amen.

Translated from the Russian text published in Pravoslavnaya Rus, #4, 1974.

[Justin Kissel]

Bogo,

I'm curious what you think of what Seraphim said here?