haralampopoulosjc wrote: ↑Sun 24 May 2026 8:54 pm
@eish If you go with a word for word interpretation of the anathema then it doesn't anathematize people who are in communion with ecumenists. Someone like Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem for example would not fall under the anathema, even though he was in communion with ecumenists (Bartholomew, Alexey of Moscow); because he did not have communion with the Papists and Protestants, which is why the ROCOR remained in communion with him during his tenure as Patriarch.
First, let's address your word-for-word interpretation theory and then I will explain why it is not a problem:
Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!
You are saying that the anathema says:
- The heretics are outside the Church. (1)
- The heretics' sacraments are ineffectual. (2)
- Those who knowingly have communion with the heretics are anathema. (3)
- Those who advocate Oecumenism are heretics. (4)
And that it does not say:
- Those in communion with Oecumenists are anathema.
It DOES say that. It says (4), by which it necessarily claims also that (1) they are outside the church, (2) their sacraments are ineffectual, and (3) those who knowingly commune with them are anathema. To say otherwise would be to claim that there is one, and only one, heresy in all the world to which the rulings on heresy do not apply, not even the ruling on itself. It never said anything like other heretics, it spoke of all heretics.
Now, let me explain where I think the confusion comes from. The critical distinction is that of time. The Scriptures speak clearly: “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject” The qualification matters. Bishops don't go around cutting off all contact with people the first instant they can catch them speaking falsely or overstepping the boundaries of the Church.
The primary purpose of any anathema is to call people to repentance. The secondary purpose is to cut them off if they refuse to repent. That is the historical precedent as well. When Sergius betrayed the faith, the saints begged him to repent. They sent a delegation. The delegation asked his blessing before they spoke with him. When the legates of Pope Leo slammed their writ of excommunication on the altar table in Constantinople, the Orthodox begged them not to. It didn't mean that Filioque was not a heresy--it was--but that they had not by no means exhausted the opportunity for talking it through.
So it was also with the Oecumenists. They became heretics and the Orthodox naturally tried to talk sense to them. As they hardened in their hearts and refused to repent, the response from the Orthodox hardened as well. When ROCOR proclaimed an anathema, they had to propagate it, to talk about it. They had to try to clarify the stance of everyone else they had been in communion with because the operative word is “knowingly.” It took time.
That--knowledge and admonition--is why we cannot always apply the in hindsight very clear facts of the anathemas to specific people at that time.