I think this excellent article can put a light on these issues
On anathemas by Vladimir Moss
- The Meaning and Use of the Word "Anathema".
A common tactic used is to declare that anathemas do not constitute expulsion from the Church in the full sense, but rather warnings about false doctrine.
The falseness of this argument was shown by St. John Maximovich, who, after explaining the use of the words "anathema" in the New Testament, wrote: "In the acts of the Councils and the further course of the New Testament Church, the word "anathema" came to mean complete separation from the Church. "The Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes", "let him be anathema", "let it be anathema", means a complete tearing away from the Church. While in cases of" separation from the communion of the Church" and other epitimia or penances laid on a person, the person remained a member of the Church, even though his participation in her grace-filled life was limited, those given over to anathema were thus completely torn away from her until their repentance. Realizing that she is unable to do anything for their salvation, in view of their stubbornness and hardness of heart, the earthly Church lifts them up to the judgement of God. That judgement is merciful unto repentant sinners, but fearsome for the stubborn enemies of God. "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God"? for our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 10.31;12.29)."[1]
Sometimes it is added that only God can expel from the Church, which is clearly false, in that Christ God specifically entrusted His True Church with the power to bind and to loose (Matt. 18.18; John 20.23) "“ that is, to retain people as members of the Church or to expel them from Her (provided, of course, that She exercises this power with justice and discernment). Other variations on this tactic include the theory that anathemas anathematize, not individual men or churches, but teachings of men and churches, which again is clearly false, in that the Apostle Paul"s anathemas (I Cor. 16.22; Gal. 1.8,9) are directed against people, as are many of the anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils. Again it is asserted that anathemas anathematize nobody if specific names are not mentioned, which would imply that the Apostle Paul"s anathemas, as well as
many of those of the Ecumenical Councils and those more recent anathemas pronounced on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, are all just a pompous form of game-playing and not to be taken seriously.
No, the matter is extremely serious. And no amount of Jesuitical circumvention of the plain meaning of the word "anathema", and of the obvious significance of the formula: "To all those who teach"?. Anathema", can deny that in all true anathemas, whether with names or without them, somebody is anathematized, that is, cut off from the Church. For the word of anathema is no less than "the word of God, quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit"?" (Heb. 6.12).
- Cavilling with the Scope of Individual Anthematisms.
If it is accepted that a given anathema does apply to people, and not only to teachings, and that it does in fact separate people from the Church, and
not simply warn them about a possible falling-away, the next tactic usually employed is to attempt to limit the scope of the anathema. This can be done either by mocking the small number of bishops involved, or by asserting that as ynod of bishops, however large, can only anathematize those within its jurisdiction. One variant of this ploy is to assert that one Local Church cannot
anathematize another.
Those who assert this are usually thinking of the ROCOR"s anathema against ecumenism and the ecumenists in 1983, which supporters of union with the MP like to think applies only to members of the ROCOR, contrary to its obviously universal scope and wording. Of course, many anathemas are formulated in the first place against heretics living within the jurisdiction of the bishops who pronounce them. But that in no way limits the application of such anathemas to those heretics, and those alone; and still less does it mean that there is a "heresy of universal jurisdiction", as one supporter of the MP has put it.
Concerning this so-called "heresy of universal jurisdiction, I wrote two years ago: "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". [2] 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 beenuttered. 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 (Rev. 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".[3] 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 bythe 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 "? 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?'
"Note that the saint says that the heretics have excommunicated themselves; for as the Apostle Paul writes, 'he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself' (Tit. 3.11). But the heretics' self-condemnation and self-exclusion from the Church as a mystical organism [here I borrow a distinction between the Church as a mystical organism and the Church as an external organization from the Catacomb Hieromartyr Bishop Mark of Sergiev Posad
(+1938)] 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' (Tit. 3.10), and: 'If he refuses to listen to the Church, let him be unto you as a heathen and a publican' (Matt. 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"?" [4]
Parallel to the theory that anathemas are not universal in space is the theory that they are not universal in time either, that they have a "sell-by date", after which they need to be "reapplied" by "living" Synods of bishops.
In answer to this we reply in the words of the Lord: "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matt. 22.32), and his true bishops, together with the words of truth and power that they pronounce, live for ever. In any case, are not the anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils "reapplied" by "living Synods of bishops" every year on the Sunday of Orthodoxy? And not because these anathemas have somehow "died out" in the course of the previous year (what a blasphemous thought!), but precisely so that the people should not forget their eternal significance and should, by pronouncing them themselves, take care that they should not "fall under their own anathema" by participating in heresy and the communion of heretics.
[1] St. John Maximovich, "The Word "Anathema" and its Meaning", Orthodox Life, vol.27, March-April, 1977, pp. 18-19.
[2] St. Dmitri of Rostov, Lives of the Saints, November 25.
[3] St. Bede, Sermonon the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, P.L. 94, col. 219.
[4] V. Moss, "Re: [paradosis] The Heresy of Universal Jurisdiction", October 12, 2000.
