Explanations of the Holy Martyr Vladimir (Epiphany).
The relics of the saint rest in the Far Caves of the Kiivo-Pechersk Lavra.
Just as the Lord clearly entrusted the apostles and their successors with the right and authority to baptize and thus introduce the worthy into the Church, so He clearly authorized them to excommunicate the unworthy from her.
A clear indication of the Lord's gift of this last authority to the Church is found in His commandment recorded in the Gospel of Matthew: If your brother sins against you, go and reprove him between you and that one, if he listens to you, he acquired your brother's ecu (Matthew 18 , 15).
These are the first words of this commandment; they mean that if your neighbor offends you in word or deed, or does any harm, then do not take this matter to court immediately, but first stand eye to eye with the offender, explain to him his wrongness and try to personally persuade him to the world , remorse and correction.
If you succeed in this, then you saved him, made a moral revolution in him and returned him to the path of good; for, as St. ap. Jacob, converting a sinner from the error of his way, will save the soul from death and cover a multitude of sins (James 5, 20) - If he does not listen to you, understand one or two more with you; yes, with the success of two or three witnesses, every verb will become (Matthew 18:16), the Lord continues; that is, if your first attempt to convert a sinner remains without consequences, then intensify your admonitions, put the matter publicly, instruct the offender in front of the witnesses, so that your words in their presence have more power, and he, seeing their like-mindedness with you, then rather, he came to the consciousness of his sin and correction; for “Savior,” as St. John Chrysostom, - seeks the benefit of not only offended, but also offended. "
- If he does not listen to them, he leads the Church (Matthew 18:17), that is, if he remains adamant in the face of witnesses, and your convictions to correction without success, in this case you have the right to declare this circumstance to the representatives of the Church, so that the latter, in the presence of society, would more publicly and convincingly instruct him and demanded correction from him even more insistently.
- If the Church listens too, wake you like a pagan and a publican (Matthew 18:17); that is, if he turns out to be so stubborn in his vicious direction that he neglects the sacred authority of church representatives, will show them open and stubborn resistance, then the representatives of the Church have the right to excommunicate him as stubborn and incorrigible from their society and reduce him to the level of such people who do not belong to the Church at all.
"On the right of church excommunication, or anathematization"
The person in the hospital "patient", "patient" is a passive word; "Sinner" is an active word. If a person wants to get rid of the flu, he can “be patient”, be a patient. If he wants to get rid of lies, he must become intolerant - intolerant of lies.
G.K. Chesterton
What does it mean what happened at the Council?
Its decision is indeed based on "the centuries-old traditions of our Church." Throughout the ages, it has been the duty of the Church to measure the religious doctrines that emerge from time to time near the church walls with the apostolic teaching that was first committed to it. The Church does not judge strangers, but she cannot remain silent when, under her name, under the name of Christianity, the sacred things of her faith are misinterpreted and trampled underfoot. If an attempt is made on behalf of the Gospel, on behalf of the Apostolic Church to spread views that are incompatible with the Apostolic tradition, the Church must warn people who value Christ's message about counterfeiting. This is not just a “right” of the Church, but its direct duty ...
This is not the first time in its history the Church has encountered counterfeits. Already the apostles had to defend the completeness and purity of the Gospel faith from occult interpretations of the Good News. Both the men of the apostles, and the apologists, and the first teachers of the Church had to resist the efforts of the pagan world to reshape the Gospel in their own way. At the end of the first century, St. Ignatius the God-bearer: “Heretics mix Jesus Christ with the poison of their teachings, and thereby gain confidence in themselves: but they serve up mortal poison in sweetened wine. The one who does not know willingly accepts it, and together with the pernicious pleasure accepts death ”(To the Trallyians). And in the same first, apostolic age, was it not about our time that the apostle Paul said: “There will be a time when they will not accept sound doctrine, but according to their own whims they will choose teachers for themselves who would flatter the ear; and turn their ears away from the truth ”and turn to myths (2 Tim. 4: 3-4)?
In recent years, sorcerers, "esoterics", occultists, "contactees with the Cosmos", false Christians and "healers" began to replace each other in an endless succession in "houses of culture", in libraries, at stadiums, on television screens and in schools. Russia has never known such aggressive, self-confident and crafty paganism, even in the pre-Christian period of its history. But the most unworthy thing is that this dark offensive is covered by Christian terms and assurances that everything they accomplish is fully consistent with the Gospel and is almost blessed by the Church. Taking advantage of the religious illiteracy of people who grew up in an atheistic society, the preachers of paganism pretend to be the disseminators of Christian views.
In order for every person, in conditions of freedom of conscience and religious diversity, characteristic of modern society, to be able to really freely, with the consciousness of the essence of the matter, make a choice of their own faith, he must know that Christianity and the occult are incompatible. Seeking to help people in finding a truly free way of action and seeing attempts to use the authority of Orthodoxy to preach pagan doctrines, the Council of Bishops, following the apostolic tradition, testified: people who share the neo-pagan teachings of theosophists and occultists, propagandize them and contribute to their dissemination, weaned themselves from like-mindedness with Orthodox Church.
Agni Yoga adherents expressed their indignation at the fact that someone considered it possible to express disagreement with them. The press was delighted with one more occasion to talk about the "intolerance" of Orthodoxy and its "retrograde".
The acrimony of not quite literate journalists is understandable. It is not clear why the Roerich hierarchs themselves made an astonished face. They must know that the Theosophical community itself provides for the possibility of excommunication from oneself. “Deprivation of a blessing is an act of the most ancient Patriarchy. He is far from further cursing. The curse is already a product of ignorance, but the most ancient act provided for breaking the connection with the Hierarchy. The connection with the Hierarchy is a real blessing with all the consequences ”(Admonition to the leader. 153). Or: "If you allow yourself to communicate with sabotage personalities, then grave consequences are inevitable." By the way, who are the "sabotage personalities" is explained in another letter: "I do not think that one could expect anything productive or even useful from a religious circle, which would include church-minded people." "We consider it more useful to separate a dangerous satellite than to disrupt the whole caravan." “There may be false communists: they must be separated, like the infection of syphilis” (Community. 178). Or: “Is it possible at the present time to unite all the scattered occult organizations? Unification requires full recognition of the unity of the Hierarchical Principle, therefore, complete devotion, which teaches us, first of all, to discern faces. But the chaotic mixing of the most heterogeneous elements, just because they have labeled themselves "occult", is unacceptable. One can and should be tolerant of rare benign groupings, but why certainly sit down at the same table. Why arrange artificial explosions by combining incompatible elements? You cannot combine sheep with tigers. It is impossible to gather everyone in one heap, is a shapeless heap the goal of the Teaching being given? There are plants that will never grow together. One should guard against degeneration by preventing poisonous neighbors. "
And although Christians did not use expressions like "syphilis" or "poisonous neighbors" to address Theosophists, in essence we agree. Any religious community has the right to determine the conditions of membership in it itself. Any - including the Orthodox Church.
Helena Roerich admits that it is better to remove a truly Orthodox person from the Theosophical circle. Now the Church itself has confirmed that there can be no communion between us. Helena Blavatsky complained that "there are millions of spiritualists, most of whom do not have the courage to break away from their own churches." As you can see, Madame Blavatsky is only ready to welcome the final break of her adherents with the Church. Now the Church also invited people to become more clearly aware of their own views and decide whether to become Christians or theosophists.
So the question of church anathema is not the case when one can oppose the “religious tolerance” of the Roerichs to the “fanaticism” of Christians with the benefit of the former. Many centuries later, once again, it is necessary to explain to anti-Christians what Origen explained to Celsus in the 3rd century: “The famous school of the Pythagoreans looked at members who had fallen away from their teachings as if they were dead and erected tombstones for them. Likewise, Christians mourn as lost and dead to God all those who fall under the power of debauchery or some other lewdness ”(Against Celsus, 3.51).
Those who consider themselves followers of the secret Pythagorean teachings should respect the right of the religious community to protect itself from pseudo-disciples.
But propaganda is propaganda. And now the President of the ICR G. Pechnikov preaches to the Patriarch: "We consider it a great sin to anathematize people only for their inner way of thinking, because in a Christian way we deeply respect the freedom of conscience of every person."
First, what Pechnikov considers “a great sin” is recommended by Helena Roerich.
Secondly, Pechnikov presents himself as a greater Christian than ap. Paul, on whose advice the Church did: “Heretic, after the first and second admonition, turn away” (Titus 3.10).
Thirdly, excommunication from the Church is not a violation of "freedom of conscience." If, after becoming closely acquainted with someone's “inner way of thinking,” I stop accepting the bearer of these thoughts in my home, this does not mean that I am becoming a persistent violator of “human rights”. If I didn’t let someone on the threshold of my house, it doesn’t mean that I am pursuing him.
By no means does “freedom of conscience” stipulate that a religious community is obliged to accept as its members a person of opposite views. Freedom of conscience assumes that no community should entice people by force or deception, and also that it should not forcibly keep those people who decide to leave it. The Council, having closed the church gates to the sectarians, did not commit either one or the other violation of freedom of conscience.
And yet the question of what happened at the Council of Bishops requires a special and long discussion. The fact is that ordinary language does not always coincide with the language of the Church. This has always been the case, but this discrepancy has become especially sharp in recent decades, when people were deprived of the opportunity to master the language of Christian theology, at least to the extent of Sunday school. And so it turned out that the Council spoke its own language, while the people who read its Definition perceived the theological vocabulary of the Council as quite ordinary, colloquial speech.
In theological language, excommunication from the Church is anathema. And, accordingly, the opposite definition is true: anathema is nothing more than excommunication from the Church. But since antiquity, the everyday Russian language understood the foreign word "anathema" as a curse (this is how it is given, for example, in Dahl's dictionary and in the Dictionary of the Old Russian Language, edited by R. I. Avanesov). And the moral feeling of many people was quite naturally revolted: how can the Church, which is the source of Divine blessings for the world, become a source of curses?
An even greater difficulty lies in the fact that the theological language of the Church is also diverse. And, for example, the language of Western Christian theology differs from the language of Eastern Christian, Orthodox. For many reasons, it turned out that the intelligentsia of Russia for several centuries has heard better about Western theological thought and church practice than about their own, Orthodox. The robe of an Orthodox priest is more often called in Catholicism - a cassock. Instead of "father", they refer to him in the Catholic manner as "holy father". And so - not only when a person accepts something in church life, but also when he is looking for reasons for his repulsion from the Church. A considerable number of theological formulas originating from Western scholasticism and not organic to Orthodoxy have taken root in the conventional theological ideas of the non-church intelligentsia (they were discussed above - in the chapters on the Fall and the Atonement).
Accordingly, since the time of Leo Tolstoy, it has already become a tradition of anti-Orthodox polemics to ascribe Catholic views and practices to Orthodoxy. What our Church herself does not agree with and what she denies is charged with her.
And pro-Roerich propaganda also quite successfully took advantage of the theological ignorance of its contemporaries.
One of the points of divergence between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is precisely the question of what anathematization means. Orthodox theology believes that anathema is excommunication from the Church, separation from the mysterious life of the church body. Catholics, in their theological, and not just ordinary language, believe that anathema is not only excommunication, but also a curse.
In the perception of the Orthodox tradition, public excommunication is evidence that the Church does not recognize her faith and her sanctity in the labors or in the life of such and such a person. Here there is no desire for evil to the excommunicated, but rather a warning to his disciples. In Latin practice, anathema was understood precisely as the curse of a specific person.
This gave birth to the second difference: the Orthodox tradition since ancient times has believed that the Council can make its own judgment on the non-ecclesiastical nature of people who have already departed from earthly life. Since ancient times, the Catholic tradition has also been convinced that anathematization is only possible while still living. It is understandable why the West was against anathema to the dead: if anathema is a curse, then it turns out that the dead are punished. But if the anathema is evidence of the unchurching of a person or teaching, then this testimony can be pronounced at any time.
It seems clear that the Council of the Orthodox Church in 1994 was guided by the Orthodox tradition, and not by the Catholic one. However, for some reason, anti-church critics showed their acquaintance with Catholic practice and began to accuse us, proceeding precisely from Western ideas. We were told that: a) it is not good to curse people in general, and b) how can the dead be punished?
To understand how great the difference is between the Orthodox and the Latin-Roerich understanding of anathema, I propose to compare several texts. One is the Synod's ruling on the excommunication of Leo Tolstoy. The rest are the excommunicational practices of Catholicism.
The earliest text dates back to the 11th century. Its central part sounds like this: “May he be cursed by the sun, and the moon, and the stars of heaven, and birds, and sea fish, and four-legged, and herbs, and trees, and all Christ's creations! May his corpse be left to be devoured by the dogs, and may he not be buried! May the Lord send down on him smoothness and thirst, and anger and torment and the misfortunes of evil angels, until he falls into the depths of hell, where eternal darkness, inexhaustible fire, eternal smoke, sorrow without quenching, and where every day every evil grows !. Let his sons be orphans, and his wife a widow! Let his sons begging in a shudder, being driven out of their dwellings! "
A century passes - and the parting words with which the Catholic Church sees off people who leave her do not become more evangelical. At the beginning of the 12th century, Bishop Ernulf of Rochester anathematizes as follows: “By the power of the almighty God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and all the saints [further there is a detailed listing of several dozen names of saints on whose behalf the bishop acts] we excommunicate this villain and sinner, and anathematize, and we expel the almighty God beyond the threshold of the holy church, so that he would be betrayed to eternal torment with Dathan and Abiron, and with all who say to the Lord God: "Get away from us, for we do not want to know your ways." And as fire is extinguished by water, so may its light be extinguished forever and ever, if it does not repent and make amends for its guilt. May God the Father, who created man, curse him! may the Son of God, who suffered for us, curse him! May the Holy Spirit, sent down to us in holy baptism, curse him! [this is followed by the enumeration of the saints who participate in the curse of the guilty]. May heaven and earth curse him and everything that is holy on them! " Here A. Gurevich, according to whose book I am citing this text, rightly remarks: “the author of the Rochester text, forgetting, it seems, about the soul of the excommunicated person, further rains down an avalanche of curses on his body”. “May he be damned, wherever he is - in the house or in the field, on the high road or on the back path, in the forest or in the grove, or in the temple! May he be cursed in life or at the moment of death, eating and drinking, hungry, thirsty, fasting, falling asleep, sleeping, awake, walking, standing, sitting, lying, working, resting, urinating, defecating and bleeding! May he be cursed in all the abilities of his body! May he be cursed outside and inside! May he be cursed in the hair of his head! May he be cursed in his brain! May he be cursed in the crown, in the temples, in the forehead, in the ears, in the eyebrows, in the eyes, in the cheeks, in the jaws, in the nostrils [further there is a scrupulous listing of the cursed parts of the body up to the feet] May there be nothing healthy in him! ".
Several centuries go by. Anathema sounds over the troubled head of Giordano Bruno. I do not have authentic documents at hand, so I will use the information provided by the secular historian V.S.Rozhitsyn:
Bruno's death sentence lacks documents on the curse procedure. Only the statement on the payment of remuneration to the bishops from March 14, 1600 has survived. It says that Bishop Sidonia received four scudi (in scudi - 25-30 grams of silver) for the rite of excommunication and damnation of two heretics - Cipriano Crucifero and Giordano Bruno, priests convicted and handed over to secular justice.
The rite of damnation or church death of the excommunicated took place on February 8, 1600. The Catholic Church generally observed a ceremonial order when carrying out inquisitorial acts. The curse of Giordano Bruno was not, in the proper sense of the word, an act of the Inquisition. The execution of this rite was entrusted to a bishop who was not part of the Inquisition, and was a double act of "deposition and degradation." Degradation is an eruption from dignity. In Catholic practice, there is verbal and ceremonial "degradation". “There are many differences between real and verbal degradation. The real takes place in an extremely solemn atmosphere. It is performed by persons invested with high authority. The ejected one puts on robes and receives sacred vessels corresponding to the dignity from which he erupts. The bishop consecutively removes the vestments from him. In conclusion, his head is shaved, while uttering the appropriate words that inspire terror and awe. "
This is how the Jesuit Abbot Previtti describes the ceremony of cursing Giordano Bruno: “Giordano Bruno was led to the altar by the clerics who were dragging him by the arms. He was wearing all the vestments that he received, in accordance with the degrees of initiation, starting with the novice's stichary and ending with the insignia of a priest. The bishop performing the dedication ceremony wore an omophorion, white vestments with lace, red epitrachili and a priestly vestment. On his head was a simple miter. In his hands he held the bishop's rod. Approaching the altar, he sat down on a mobile bishop's bench facing the secular people and the people. Giordano Bruno was forced to pick up the objects of church utensils, usually used in worship, as if he were preparing to begin performing the sacred rite. Then he was forced to prostrate before the bishop. The bishop pronounced the established formula: "By the power of the almighty God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and by the power of our dignity, we remove your vestments, depose, excommunicate, cast out of all spiritual dignity, deprive you of all titles." Then the bishop cut off the skin from the thumb and forefinger of both hands of Giordano Bruno with a proper tool, allegedly destroying the traces of chrismation performed during his ordination. After that, he tore off the priest's vestment from the condemned vestment, and finally destroyed the traces of tonsure, pronouncing the formulas required for the dedication ceremony. "
An indispensable condition for the ceremony of the church curse is the presence of the condemned. If the heretic was dying at the time of sentencing, his corpse or even bones dug from the grave must have been present. A heretic who had gone into hiding or long-dead was replaced by his image.
Since V. S. Rozhitsyn does not quote the “proper words that inspire terror and awe,” uttered during excommunication, they have to be looked for in other sources. Perhaps these are the words that were said when Leo Taxil was anathematized by Rome:
“In the name of the almighty Father God, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Holy Scripture, the holy and blameless Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, in the name of all angels, archangels, thrones, powers, cherubim, seraphim, glorious in virtue, in the name of patriarchs, prophets, evangelists, saints, martyrs and confessors and all others saved by the Lord, We proclaim that we excommunicate and anathematize that villain who is called Leon Taxil, and drive him out of the doors of God's Holy Church. And God the Father, who created the world, curses him; and God the Son, who suffered for the people, curses him; and the Holy Spirit, who revived people by baptism, curses him, and the holy faith, with which Christ redeemed us, curses him. And the Holy Virgin, Mother of God, curses him. And Saint Michael, intercessor of souls, curses him. Heaven and earth, and everything that is saint on them, curses him. May he be cursed wherever he is: in the house, in the field, on the high road, on the stairs, in the desert, and even on the doorstep of the church. May he be cursed in life and at the hour of death. Cursed be he in all his affairs, when he drinks, when he eats, when he craves and thirsts, when he fasts, when he sleeps, or when he is awake, when he walks or when he rests, when he sits or lies, when he eats. when he is wounded, when he bleeds. May he be cursed in all parts of his body, internal and external. Cursed be his hair and his brain, his cerebellum, his temples, his forehead, his ears, his eyebrows, his eyes, his cheeks, his nose, his hands and arms, his fingers, his chest, his heart, his stomach. , his bowels, his loins, his groin, his thighs, his knees, his feet, his nails. May it be cursed in all the joints of its members. So that diseases gnaw at him from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet. So that Christ, the Son of the Living God, would curse him with all his might and majesty. And so that heaven and all living forces turn to him, to curse until he gives us open repentance. Amen. May it be so, may it be so. Amen".
So, at least until the beginning of the twentieth century, the medieval tradition of excommunication through a curse survived.
And this Latin tradition can be compared with the famous "excommunication of Leo Tolstoy." Here is the full text of the Synodal Decree of February 22, 1901: “From the beginning, the Church of Christ endured blasphemy and attacks from numerous heretics and false teachers who sought to overthrow it and shake it in its essential foundations, which were based on faith in Christ, the Son of the Living God. But all the powers of hell, according to the promise of the Lord, could not prevail against the Holy Church, which will remain undivided forever. And in our days, by God's permission, a new false teacher, Count Leo Tolstoy, has appeared. The world famous writer, Russian by birth, Orthodox by baptism and upbringing, Count Tolstoy, in the seduction of his proud mind, boldly rebelled against the Lord and His Christ and His holy property, clearly before everyone he renounced the Mother, the Orthodox Church, who had nurtured him, and dedicated his literary activity and the talent given to him from God to spread among the people teachings that are contrary to Christ and the Church, and to exterminate in the minds and hearts of people the paternal faith, the Orthodox faith, which established the universe by which our ancestors lived and were saved and which hitherto kept and holy Russia was strong. In his writings and letters, scattered in many by him and his disciples all over the world, especially within the boundaries of our dear Fatherland, he preaches, with the zeal of a fanatic, the overthrow of all the dogmas of the Orthodox Church and the very essence of the Christian faith: he rejects the personal living God, in The Holy Trinity, the glorified Creator and Provider of the universe, denies the Lord Jesus Christ - the God-man, Redeemer and Savior of the world, who suffered for us and for our sake for salvation and rose from the dead, denies the seedless conception of Christ the Lord through humanity and virginity before and after the birth of the Most Pure Theotokos The ever-virgin Mary, does not recognize the afterlife and the creation of money, rejects all the sacraments of the Church and the grace-filled action of the Holy Spirit in them, and, cursing the most sacred objects of faith of the Orthodox people, did not shudder to mock the greatest of the sacraments, the Holy Eucharist. All this is preached by Count Leo Tolstoy continuously, in word and in writing, to the temptation and horror of the entire Orthodox world, and thus not hiddenly, but clearly before everyone, consciously and deliberately rejected himself from all communion with the Orthodox Church. The attempts that were made to his reason were unsuccessful. Therefore, the Church does not consider him as her member and cannot count him until he repent and restores his communion with her. Now we testify about this before the whole Church to the confirmation of the righteous and to the admonition of the erring ones, especially to the new admonition of Count Tolstoy himself. Many of his neighbors, who keep the faith, with sorrow think that at the end of his days he remains without faith in God and our Lord Savior, having rejected the blessing and prayers of the Church, and from all communion with her. Therefore, testifying about his falling away from the Church, together we pray that the Lord grant him repentance into the mind of truth. Pray, merciful Lord, not even though the death of sinners, hear and have mercy and turn him to your holy Church. Amen".
If you wish, you can also call this text "a cruel act of church reaction." But nevertheless, there is an obvious difference in the understanding of anathema by the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.
In the Orthodox Church there is no rites deprivation of dignity or excommunication. There are no "proper words to inspire fear and awe." The rite of "anathema" to Tolstoy was invented by Kuprin to make the corresponding story more attractive. In none of the churches was an "anathema" proclaimed to Leo Tolstoy. Everything was much less solemn and more prosaic: the newspapers published the Epistle of the Synod.
In general, there is a striking contrast between the setting of Orthodox blessings and restraints. The wedding celebration - and the cold bureaucracy of divorce. Entering into a church marriage is a mystery, there is something tangibly non-paper. Divorce does not have its own rite and is reduced only to obtaining the necessary piece of paper from the diocesan office. The exultation of the priestly ordination does not have any ritual and mysterious antagonist in the deprivation of the priest who has sinned. The warmth and light of baptism are extinguished when excommunicated from the Church, not by prayer, not by a rite, but by a simple message: “I will no longer be able to commune you” ...
This contrast of entry into church life and exodus from it is so striking that V. Rozanov considered the Synod's Determination of Tolstoy's excommunication something inauthentic - for the "piece of paper he issued about Tolstoy" was too "prosaic". The same sense of the disproportionality of the circumstances of the bestowal of grace and the loss of it led in Catholicism to the dark romance of negative rituals (a kind of "black magic").
Orthodoxy did not do this. And this is more true even humanly. People remember the minute of the birth of love. And when exactly it went out - it is much harder to notice. Even the moment when a person fell in love with a poet or poem can be clearly remembered. And when these same lines for the first time presented themselves as nothing more than cold ash - it is almost impossible to remember. So the moment of loss of faith is much more difficult to determine than the moment of its birth. And if this loss is noticed, then what else is left to say to the unfortunate man? .. And only if he continues to pass off his unbelief as the Church's faith, we can tell him and others: do not be deceived - he does not have true faith, he lives outside the Church.
The procedure for anathematization that existed in the Russian Orthodox Church is described in the Spiritual Regulations (that is, in the text of the early 18th century). If a certain non-Orthodox thinking person does not give in to the admonitions of a priest or bishop, “then the bishop will command the protodeacon on a feast day in the Church to announce to the people these or similar words:“ a man known to you (name), with such a blatant sin he tempts the Church, and the scornful of the wrath of God appears, and the pastoral admonition, repeated to him more than once, with a curse, swept aside; For this sake, your pastor (name) begs your fatherly love, so all pray for him to the gracious God, may he soften his hard-heartedness, and may his heart cleanly create in him, and incline him to repentance. And those who are closest to him have a message, exhort him, and implore and individually everyone and with others, together with all diligence, may bring repentance; and report to him that if he remains incorruptible and contemptuous until such a time (the time will be curtailed according to reasoning), then he will fall into ejection from the Church. " And if there is already, and for this reason, the criminal remains adamant and stubborn, the Bishop will not begin the anathema even then; but first about everything that was done, the Collegium will write to the Spiritual Collegium: and having received permission from the Collegium in writing, he will obviously anathematize the sinner, making up such or a similar formula or model, and commanding the protodeacon in the Church with the people to honor: “The person you know before ( name) by such a manifest law of God he seduced the Church, and the repeated pastoral admonition to repentance despised his leading; follow his rejection from the Church, if he does not repent, having annihilated it in the ears of the people, remains hitherto to his hard-heartedness, not giving hope of his correction, for this sake our Shepherd, according to the commandment of Christ, given to himself by the power of the Lord, casts him out of society He cuts off a Christian, and like an obscene member, from the body of the Church of Christ, telling all the faithful about him that he has nothing to do with this there are gifts of God, acquired by the blood of the Savior and our Lord Jesus Christ, until he truly repent from the heart. And for this reason it is forbidden and not blessed for him to have a church entrance, since more than the holy and terrible mystery of the Eucharist and other Mysteries of the Saints and the requirements of the church, he cannot be a participant both in the church and in his home and in any other place. And if only he entered the Church secretly or openly, but by force; then it is subject to greater condemnation, and much more, if insidiously or by force of the Mysteries of the Saints dares to partake of the Holy Communion, but the Priests forbid him in every way to enter the Church; and even if they cannot forbid him for the sake of his strength, then apart from the Liturgy, let them cease from any church service, they will not come out until now. Likewise, let the priests not go to him with prayer, blessings and the Saints of the Sacrament under their defrocking. " It’s all known that he (name) is subject to this one-handed anathema, but neither his wife, nor his children, and not his other household, unless they would be jealous of his fury, and for this oath imposed on him, they would have dared proudly and clearly reproach the Church of God. "
Here we see that anathema approaches the "oath" - but precisely in the sense of "prohibition": the excommunicated person is sworn to enter the temple. In addition, it becomes clear from this text that the Synod, when deciding to excommunicate Leo Tolstoy from the Church, did not invent something unprecedented, but acted precisely according to the procedure of the “Spiritual Regulations”.
Further, the "Regulations" prescribe the text of the anathema to be hung on the walls of the cathedral or all churches of the diocese. The announcement of the anathema has no liturgical character - it is just an announcement of what happened to the church people. But the very event that occurred when a certain person fell away from the Church has a mysterious-liturgical character: he cannot receive communion in Orthodox churches. So, the essence of anathema is the prohibition of the sacrament. And the way it is announced to the people depends on the circumstances. In Peter's times, this was an announcement at large gatherings of the people. Later, newspapers were used for this. The essence of what happened does not change from the way of announcing the anathema. But in any case, there is no dark romance of Catholic anathemas here. There are no curses. And "anathema" is simply "excommunication"; “Excommunication” is evidence that a given person lives outside the Church.
Actually "curse" in the Greek language is expressed by the word katara, but by no means anathema. And in the texts of the New Testament katara and words derived from it never denote the actions of the Church or Christians (see Matt. 25.41; Mark. 11.21; Luke 6.28; James 3.9-10; 2 Peter 2,14; Rom 12,14; Gal 3,10; Heb 6,8). Moreover, Christians are forbidden to katarasthe (curse) even their persecutors - Rom. 12.14. And even “Michael the Archangel, when he spoke with the devil, did not dare to pronounce the reproachful judgment, but said: 'may the Lord forbid you' (Jude 1: 9). Just as in the Old Testament the Hebrew verb “bara” (to create) can only describe the actions of God and never has a human subject as its subject, so in the New Testament no one can katarasthe - neither man nor angel. The Church cannot curse, but she can separate from herself those who “do not know God”, remembering the words of the Apostle: “Do not be deceived: bad communities corrupt good morals” (1 Cor. 15.33).
Yes, in Latin practice and, as far as can be judged, in Hebrew, anathematization is more than excommunication. But I will say again - the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church undoubtedly followed the Orthodox understanding of excommunication, according to which excommunication and anathema are synonymous, and, accordingly, anathema is not perceived as a curse. In order not to be unfounded, I will give those definitions of this church action that are found in authoritative theological sources of the Orthodox Church.
1. Anathema (1 Cor. 16:22) (spell, excommunication). By this word, in a general sense, we mean the doom of any animal, person or place of final death and divine revenge (Lev. 27.28; Josh. 6.16). In a closer sense, the word anathema in the ancient Church meant excommunication from the Church or exclusion from society of believing heretics or unrepentant sinners. In Hebrew, the word anathema denoted by the word shit... - Illustrated complete popular Bible encyclopedia. issue 1. The work of archim. Nicephorus. - M., 1891, p. 47.
2a. Anathema (from the Greek anathema). Seventy interpreters in their translation of the Bible from the Hebrew mastered the reading of anafema and translated the Hebrew herem for them. But the content of this concept among the Jews includes not only the sign of dedication to God and the inviolability of the gift, due to its holiness, but also the sign of the gift to God for propitiation and destruction. This second sign, translated by seventy interpreters, entered the concept of anafema. With the transformation of the concept of God in the post-captivity period, the content of the concept of anathema also changed. It now denotes excommunication. Synagogue practice has developed two types of exclusion from the community: excommunication is simple and excommunication with a curse - here. In the New Testament, the word anathema is used primarily by the apostle Paul. He takes into account its established meaning, but does not use it deliberately when, for example, it comes to the excommunication of a Corinthian incest, obviously wanting to show that Christian excommunication is something different from synagogue (1 Cor. 5:13). Apostolic canons do not use the word anathema to express their rebukes, but use the terms kathaireisthos aphorizestho. The word anafema has come into use since the 4th century (cathedrals of Elvir and Laodicea) and has become dominant since the time of the Council of Chalcedon (451). See Excommunication for details. - Anathema. // New Encyclopedic Dictionary. T. 2. Edition of F. A. Brockhaus and I. A. Efron. - SPb., B.g., art. 529-530.
2b. Excommunication. In the Christian church, excommunication existed already at the very first stages, as is evident from the words of I. Christ about those who disobeyed the church, who should become for her "like a pagan and a publican." Ap. Paul commands (1 Cor. 5:11) church members not to eat or drink (that is, not to have fellowship) with fornicators, covetous people, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, predators. Apostolic Canon 72 legalizes O. for those who steal church wax or oil. The consequences of Christian O. consisted in the exclusion of those excommunicated from participation in public worship, love suppers and sacraments; the names of the excommunicated were crossed out from the diptychs, Christians did not call them brothers and did not give them brotherly kissing. O.'s action in the primitive church did not deprive the excommunicated of his civil rights. Communion with the excommunicated was considered a crime, punishable also by O. Excommunicated in one church could not be accepted into communion by another (canon 21 of Chalcedonian council and rule 8 of Carthaginian cathedral) ... According to the rule of Metropolitan John O. consecutive, selling their Christian servants to the filthy, incestuous people who did not receive communion, eating meat during Great Lent. A. consisted in the recognition of the excommunicated as a stranger to the church, until he forsake his sin. Metropolitan Kirill's rule deprives the excommunicated, after his death, of priestly prayers and burial near the church; it threatens to excommunicate those who adhere to demonic customs, on holidays creating disgrace with whistling and crying, beating with a whistle to death, etc. The Stoglavy Cathedral understood O. in the sense of not admitting to worship and refusing to accept any offerings for the church from the excommunicated. The "Spiritual Regulations" of Peter I distinguish between greatness and smallness. O. the great was appointed after unsuccessful priestly admonitions, for open blasphemy of the name of God, Holy Scripture, the church, for evading communion for more than a year, and consisted in the fact that, according to the synod's definition, the excommunicate was prohibited from entering the church and communion of her sacraments ; if he entered the temple by force or cunning, then, while he was in it, the service would be suspended. - Excommunication. // New Encyclopedic Dictionary. T. 22. Edition of F. A. Brockhaus and I. A. Efron. - SPb., 1897, art. 429-430.
3. Anathema (anatithemi, sob. what is set aside is excommunicated) anathema, excommunication, curse. - A. D. Weisman. Greek-Russian dictionary. - SPb., 1899, p. 86.
4. Anathema. By production from the Greek anatithemi - I put it up, I separate it, the word anathema means everything that is isolated from the circle of everyday life, a gift, a donation. In this sense, it is used by the Greek classics - Homer, Sophocles, Herodotus, the author of the 2nd Maccabean book (9.16) and the Evangelist Luke (21.5). But since a thing dedicated to God, that is, an anathema, is alien to everyday use, and an anathema person is alien to human society, they began to combine the concept of excommunication with this expression. It is found with a similar meaning in Ezra (1 Ezra 10.8) and Ap. Paul, when he expresses a desire to be excommunicated (anathema einai) from Christ for his brothers in the flesh (Rom. 9: 3), to pronounce excommunication (anathema esto) to those who teach differently from them, taught by God (Gal. 1, 8-9) and excommunicates (eto anathema) those who do not love the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 16:22). This is precisely the meaning that the words of Apostle assimilate. Paul John Chrysostom: “Listen, he notices what Paul says: if anyone does not love the Lord Jesus, let him be anathema. Just as no one dares to touch unnecessarily with his hands or approach the anathema offered to God, so the apostle who is cut off from the church in the opposite sense calls this name. No one dared to approach anathema out of respect, with the cut off they cut off the connection for another opposite feeling. In both cases, the connection is equally interrupted, and the object is made alien to people. But one is shunned because it is dedicated to God, and the other because it is alienated from God, cut off from the church. In the latter sense, the Apostle Paul said: I would like to myself be excommunicated from Christ for the brothers. " With the meaning of “excommunication,” the word anathema passed from the apostles to the Christian church of later times ... Subject to anathema, if he was alive, he completely erupted from the church, was deprived of the right to participate in sacraments, prayers and public worship, and moreover, not in any local churches, but everyone, without exception; if he was dead, then his name was excluded from the diptychs ... No matter how strong the excommunication was in its consequences, it was performed without any solemnity or special rituals. A bishop with a clergy or a council drew up a definition in which he excommunicated a well-known person, and reported this definition to other churches ... In the history of excommunication, the 7 Ecumenical Councils have the meaning that they formed the basis of the liturgical rite of Orthodoxy. At all times, it specifies 1) to carry out icons for worship and kissing, 2) to offer thanks to God for the triumph of the church over heresies, 3) to pronounce a confession of faith, 4) to proclaim anathema to heretics and 5) many years to living defenders of the church and eternal memory to the dead. - A. Petrovsky. Anathema. // Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. - SPb., 1900, vol. 1.
5. Anathema from anathema, anaphora - laying on, (anatithemi, tithemi - to put; ana - up); laying on, offering, dedication to the deity. The main thing is the idea of isolation in relation to the sphere of the everyday, non-sacred. This meaning of isolation, withdrawal, further developed in two directions: isolation as a benevolent dedication and isolation as a rejection from the sacred, from the deity. A second meaning was added to the New Testament. “Let it be anathema” - “let it be isolated”. Curse - kathara - presupposes complete excommunication with an element of revenge on the excommunicated one, punishment for him, that is, the idea of punishment is clearly present in the curse. Anathema is a more neutral and unemotional statement of the non-conjugation of the anathematized with the betrayers. Anathema is not a punitive, but rather even an educational, even a preventive measure - as a patient with an infectious disease is isolated from healthy people not at all for the purpose of punishment, not in order to punish for the very fact of the disease. In the context of the New Testament, anathema acquires the idea of helping the excommunicated, providing them good, saving them, since those who fall under the anathema are thus deprived of the opportunity to “tempt these little ones,” which is the greatest sin. That is, anathema is a kind of medicine for the patient. - Griechisch ‑ Deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der ubrigen urchristlichen Literatur. Von Walter Bauer. Berlin, 1963.
6. Anathema - excommunication from the community of the faithful and surrender to the judgment of God; one who has undergone such excommunication. - A Brief Church Slavonic Dictionary. // Handbook of the clergyman. T. 4. - M., 1983, p. 613.
7. Anathema, spell, excommunication - from the Semitic root herem - to separate, to leave exclusively for religious use. In the Russian translation of the Bible, the word "herem" is translated in the Old Testament - a curse, and in the New Testament - anathema ... in case of violation of the oath. For the Apostle Paul, this is a formula that expresses the judgment of God over the unbelievers (Gal. 1.8; 1 Cor. 16.22). When he says: “I myself would like to be excommunicated from Christ for my brothers, relatives of me in the flesh, that is, the Israelites” (Rom. 9: 3-4), he clarifies that A. for a Christian is excommunication from Christ ... - Theological-liturgical dictionary. // Handbook of the clergyman. T. 4. - M., 1983, pp. 661-662.
8. Anathema - excommunication in the ancient Christian church of those who reject or pervert the basic truths of the faith, exclusion from the society of believers, removal from communion with believers. In this sense, anathema or excommunication was declared to heretics or unrepentant sinners. - Complete Orthodox Encyclopedic Dictionary. T. 1. - M., 1992, p. 155.
9. Speaking about the hierarchs who accepted the heretical confession of faith (the promonothelite Tipos), St. Maximus the Confessor said: "They have excommunicated themselves many times from the Church and exposed themselves to wrongdoing."
10. The canon law of the Orthodox Church warns: in the event of grave sins, a bishop or cleric must be defrocked, and a layman must be excommunicated from the Church. If anathema were a curse, it would be strange that a bishop would only lose his office, continuing to remain a member of the Church, while all the forces of hell are turning on the head of a much less guilty layman. At the same time, church authors have always emphasized that defrocking is a much greater punishment than excommunication of a layman: after all, a layman can be returned to the church, and the defrocked one leaves him forever. It is worth noting that the Second Rule 4 of the Ecumenical Council directly uses the word "anathematization": those who are trying to acquire the priestly dignity for money are subject to it.
11. In 754, an iconoclastic pseudo-council took place in Constantinople. Although he significantly distorted church tradition in many of his judgments, he, however, retained in his procedure precisely the Orthodox understanding of anathema. About people who do not agree with his decrees, this council decreed: “If they are bishops or clergy, let the bishopric be alien, and the clergy clergy; if they are monastics or laymen, then let them be anathematized. " This anathema itself is incorrectly imposed (on Orthodox icon-worshipers), but in this case this text is of interest to us as evidence that in the Eastern Christian consciousness of this time the words “excommunication” and “anathema” were used as synonyms ..
12. The Gospel contains the words of Christ: “If your brother sins against you, go and reprove him between you and him alone; if he listens to you, you have won your brother; but if he does not listen, take one or two more with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the mouth of two or three witnesses; if he does not listen to them, tell the church; and if he does not listen to the church, then let him be to you like a heathen and a publican "(Matthew 18: 15-17). The largest researcher of ecclesiastical law, Bishop. Nikodim Milosevic remarks on this: “This is the place of St. the scriptures tell us what the essence of church punishment is. " The essence of these punishments, as we see, is that a Christian who has again become a pagan begins to be perceived by Christians precisely as a pagan. Christ's commandment extends to him about treating him (as to any person, and above all to the enemy) with love. But he no longer constitutes one spiritual whole with the rest of the Christians. “The founder of the church, mentioning the means that should be used to correct the criminal of the law, announced that if he persisted, he should be deprived of communion with the church, expelled from the church and considered alien to it. The deprivation of communion with the Church is, therefore, the last and therefore the highest punishment that an ecclesiastical court can impose on persons who have transgressed its laws. The name of communion is understood as all the rights received by a person upon his entry into the church, and in particular the right to use the blessed gifts of the church, of which the highest is the sacrament of St. communion ”- continues the Serbian canonist.
13. In addition, one can listen to what theologians - specialists in the field of canon law say about anathema as the highest ecclesiastical punishment.
“The essence of church punishments lies in the fact that a criminal of church canons is deprived of all or only some of the rights and benefits that are at the exclusive disposal of the Church. Hence the common name for these ecclesiastical punishments: excommunication (aphorismos, excommunicatio). It can be either complete - consisting in complete exclusion from the membership of the Church (anathema, excommunicatio major), or incomplete, when the guilty person is deprived of only some of the rights and benefits that are at the disposal of the Church, ”writes A. S. Pavlov.
The just cited Bp. Nicodemus believes that “the punishments imposed by the church on the laity, prior to their full conversion, are not punishment, in the strict sense, but penance, and she accepts into her communication even such criminal laity who have been subjected to the most capital punishment - anathema, if only they they will sincerely repent and fulfill the prescribed penances. " According to Bishop Nicodemus, anathema differs from excommunication from the sacraments in that 1) it is performed publicly, and not in confession; 2) deprives of the anathematized right to communicate with Orthodox Christians not only in the sacraments, but also in everyday life; and 3) in Christian states entails repressive measures on the part of the state authorities. One can condemn the appeal to the secular authorities, which is customary for theocratic consciousness, but one cannot fail to notice that there is still no "curse" here.
Finally, the modern canonist, teacher of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin writes about anathema: “Great excommunication, anathema, is struck only for the most serious crimes: heresy, apostasy, sacrilege. The great excommunication consists in the complete exclusion of the criminal from the Church. But the anathema still does not lose the character of healing, for it is not an irrevocable punishment. If an anathematized sinner repents of the crimes he has committed, then he cannot be cruelly rejected by the Church. According to the 52nd Apostolic Canon, “if anyone, a bishop or a presbyter, does not accept a person who turns from sin, but rejects: let him be cast out of the priesthood. He grieves Bo Christ rekchago: joy is in heaven about the only sinner who repents. "
So, the word "anathema" had the meaning of "curse" only in Judaism and, in part, in Catholicism, but by no means in Orthodoxy. The Orthodox consciousness is so disgusted with the desire for spiritual and physical evil for a person that one of the theologians believes that the biblical meaning of even such a word as “curse” should not be understood as sending evil to a person - “A curse only means that something is left to its fate, loses support: "I curse" means "I excommunicate." So to do a scarecrow, and even from such a word as "curse" does not follow at all. It's a scary word, but it doesn't show any active violence. And if the Judge says to sinners 'damned', it only means: those who were cut off from Me, left to themselves. "
It seems that E. Blavatsky knew about this. Speaking that spiritualism (as a practice of communication with the souls of the dead) was never encouraged in the East, she uses this very term: "Theosophists had the courage to assert that the belief in the penetration of disembodied human spirits has always been anathema maranatha (subject of condemnation) in the East." ... The translation of this expression of the apostle from 1 Cor. 16.22 is almost correct. In any case, it is worth noting that in this case it was not translated by Blavatsky as "the subject of the curse." It remains only to clarify that the apostle unites together the Greek word and the Aramaic, which together gives the meaning "may he be excommunicated until the coming of the Lord." That is, before the Court. Full verse: "Who does not love our Lord Jesus Christ, anathema, maran-afa."
It is clear that it would be absurd to translate this Pauline expression as "whoever does not love our Lord Jesus Christ - be damned until the day of His coming." The Church separates from herself the one who lives completely different from the Christians - but she does not undertake to pronounce the final judgment on him. Neither the apostles nor the hierarchs, but only Christ Himself has the right (John 5.27) to say: "Depart from Me, you damned" (Matt. 25.41).
Christ's disciples have no right to hate, desire evil, or curse. They only have the right to be angry. To prep. Pimen the Great was once approached by his disciples and asked: There are words in the Gospel that forbid “to be angry with your brother in vain”. Does this mean that some righteous anger is possible? And how to know - when anger is “in vain”, “in vain”, and when this movement of the soul is due? The Monk Pimen answered: you are in vain angry for any covetousness - even if someone gouged out your right eye. If anyone tries to remove you from God - be angry with him.
Anger is not hate or ill will. This is the utmost detachment from one's soul of what seems extremely unworthy, dangerous and destructive. It is a kind of immune defense system of the soul against invisible infection of "prigots". In Orthodox asceticism, anger is the movement of a will that rejects something that is identified as a temptation. With anger, Christ speaks of the Pharisees - but without any desire for their destruction. With anger, the Savior removes the Apostle Peter's proposal to evade the Cross - but it is hardly reasonable to assume that Christ at that moment hated and cursed Peter himself.
Naturally, the attempt of the occultists to introduce their mystical atheism into the consciousness of believers and through it "remove you from God" provoked a reaction of rejection from the Council. And the Council said what can and should be said to a Christian in such cases, and an example of which we see already in the words of St. John about the Gnostics: “They went out from us, but they were not ours: for if they were ours, they would have remained with us; but they went out, and through this it was revealed that not all are ours ”(1 John 2:19).
Why, after the departure of a heretic, is there a need for a public announcement of his falling away from the Church? To make the answer to this question clearer, let us precede it to others: why does the Church have an opposite practice of canonizing saints? “Church canonization, an act addressed to the earthly church, is guided by religious-pedagogical, sometimes national-political motives. The choice it establishes (and canonization is only a choice) does not claim to coincide with the dignity of the heavenly hierarchy, ”writes Georgy Fedotov. Andrei Rublev, obviously, has been in the Kingdom of Christ since his death, and not since 1988, the year when the Church Council announced his canonization. The Lord Himself gives crowns to His children, without waiting for the decision of the church authorities. The Church of some (by no means all and very few) of Christ's servants openly reveals to the world as a role model. This is precisely a pedagogical act. The saint does not add heavenly joy from his earthly canonization, but before the eyes of living people it is important to warm up one more candle of pure life, to point out another way to salvation.
The same can be said about people who have fallen away from the Church. Their excommunication itself does not take place at the moment when the church hierarchy declares it. It occurs earlier, when some passion (intellectual, spiritual or carnal) is squeezed between the person and the Church. If, in such a state of alienation and opposition to the Gospel and the Church, a person ends his earthly journey, his posthumous fate is determined immediately upon his death. In the language of theology, this is called "the private Judgment of God" - when the image of that eternity into which a person directed himself by his earthly affairs is revealed to him shortly after his death. And this touch of him to the Eternal takes place, as it were, outside the obvious connection with the destinies of the whole world, of all mankind (which will be determined at the universal, Final Judgment).
God seeks - is there still a place in this soul where the Truth can be grafted into, is there such a life that can be eternally fulfilled in the communion with Christ. The Lord wants everyone to be saved, therefore, you too ... “God has one thought and one desire - to have mercy and have mercy,” says the saint. Theophan the Recluse. - Come, everyone ... the Lord, and at the Last Judgment, will not seek, how to condemn, but how to justify everyone. And he will justify everyone, if only there is even a small opportunity. "
But if a person's entire life was spent in opposition to Christ, if the constant violation of His commandments led to the destruction of the soul itself, then God's Judgment, removing the sinner from Eternal Joy, occurs immediately after death. “The lot of those will be torment, or rather, rejection of God and shame in conscience that will never end ”(St. Gregory the Theologian). For them, Christ Himself may turn out to be terrible - for it was to Him, to the face of God's love, that the prayer of a certain spirit was addressed: "I beg You, do not torment me!" (Luke 8:28).
He Who is Joy itself, Who says to his disciples: “My joy will abide in you and your joy will be complete” (John 15:11) - He torments the spirits of evil and those who are possessed by Him.
It is in Theosophy that there are quite vivid descriptions of the "lower worlds", numerous hells, karmic prisons (Unlimited, 462). Orthodox theology (I repeat again - it is necessary to distinguish Orthodox, patristic Theology from everyday ideas and from applied ambo moralism) about the mystery of torment in the Kingdom of Love thinks as follows: “I say that those tormented in hell are struck by the scourge of love. And how bitter and cruel is this torment of love! For those who have sensed that they have sinned against love, they endure torment more than any fearful torment; the sorrow that strikes the heart for sin against love is more caustic than any possible punishment. It is inappropriate for a person to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God. Love is a product of the knowledge of truth, which is given to everyone in general. But love by its power works in two ways: it torments sinners, just as here it happens to a friend to endure from a friend, and it rejoices those who have observed their duty. And so, in my opinion, such is the torment of hell - it is repentance "(St. Isaac the Syrian).
The Lord will decide whether He can fit His love into a person's soul, or whether it is already incapable of doing this. Before the decisions of Councils, hierarchs, priests and theologians, the Lord leaves the heart of the person who leaned his life against the forces of death. Actually, this God-forsakenness is generated by the Christ-fighter even during his earthly life. Immediately after death, its consequences become apparent.
A public word of the Church denouncing the heretic is necessary only if, even after his death, his ideas continue to spread, and are accepted by ignorant people as a Christian, ecclesiastical teaching. It is not worth preaching anti-Christian views, pretending that they are like two peas in a pod similar to Christianity. As during the posthumous canonization of a saint, the Church points out a possible path of salvation, so during the posthumous excommunication of a heretic, she warns of the path of destruction. Just as the canonization of a saint is not a "reward" for him, so the posthumous excommunication does not contain any special punishment. Everything happened with God before.
But if the destructive work begun by the heresiarch continues to inhabit the earth, then it is never too late for the Church to publicly warn that this path led to the destruction of both himself and his followers. This is important not so much for the dead as for the living. And so, in order to break through, at least not to the hearts, but also to the ears of people, the Church was forced to perform an act that is given to her every time with pain.
The Church's public refusal to participate in prayers with a certain person (who has already left the Church himself) can make other people more serious about religious reality.
Yakov Krotov once wittily remarked that through the mirror of modern media the Church is visible only like an “invisible man”. Just as the Wells character was noticed by people only by the dirt that stuck to his feet, so the Church attracts the attention of the media only by some scandal. Writing about the normal life of the Church, about her prayer and hope, about her inconspicuous re-creation is somehow uninteresting, non-plot. But, say, the relationship between Gleb Yakunin and the Synod (a question that very few people in the Church itself are interested in) can be traced according to the laws of the Secular Life rubric, without burdening oneself with either theological or church-historical knowledge.
Since this is the reality of the newspaper world, it is foolish to just complain about it. It is better to try to use the knowledge of this reality for the needs of preaching. I want to say that if the Church cannot attract close attention of the media except for scandals, it must be able to create these scandals by itself. There is nothing too impious about this thought. It is enough to remember that in the famous verse of Ap. Paul about the Crucified Christ, Who is "to the Jews a temptation and to the Hellenes madness", the Russian word "temptation" translates the Greek word skandalon. On the other hand, physicists have learned to use the energy of a directed explosion, and since the time of Diogenes, philosophers have bullied the audience from time to time in order to "force the reader to understand."
The "scandal" in itself can hardly convince many, but it is capable of informing very many about the real position of the Church on a specific issue. "Scandal" is a statement that runs counter to the intellectual fashion that is currently considered "public opinion" and therefore attracts attention. If the Church makes such a statement, she does it not in order to convince everyone of the correctness of her position, but in order to at least inform everyone about it.
Such a statement on behalf of the Church was made by the Council of Bishops on the issue of neo-pagan and occult sects. In principle, church preachers and hierarchs constantly say that Christianity is incompatible with the occult. But just as constantly adherents of occult-pagan doctrines come to schools, TV shows, houses of culture and libraries and declare that their views very peacefully coexist with the Gospel, and that in general they have found a way to create a "world religion" without any damage to the Christian message. And, frankly, their self-promotion is believed more than the warnings of the Church.
The last one in this situation was one thing. The loudest and most unambiguous statement. Anathema.
This is not an administrative-legal act expelling or punishing apostates, but simply a bitter recognition of the separation that has taken place. Anathema is a testimony that a given person does not have the power of grace that is bestowed in the sacraments of the Church.
Each of us falls away from the Church in our sins, and in the same way, every Orthodox Christian can be reunited with the Church through sincere repentance, confession and Communion. In the prayers of confession, the priest asks for us: "reconcile and unite him to your holy Church." However, among those sins that separate a person from communion with the Church is the sin of preaching a doctrine that is contrary to the Gospel. Among the Ten Commandments, to the fulfillment of which the Lord called people back in the time of Moses, the first four speak of how a person should think about God, and their violation is no less a sin than, for example, violation of the commandment "do not steal."
Yes, non-church people have the legal right to preach non-Christian worldview systems. But the Church also has the right to warn when meeting with surrogates: this is a fake. The Church has the right to polemics, has the right to respond to accusations against her and has the right not to admit to her sacraments people who are blasphemous to the same sacraments.
This testimony was expressed by the Church after a long, even too long, protracted for several decades, silence.
When, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Synod made a similar statement that Leo Tolstoy had placed himself outside the Church by his anti-Christian beliefs, Countess Sofia Tolstaya replied with a rather irritated letter: “I read yesterday in the newspapers the cruel order of the Synod to excommunicate my husband ... there were limits. " In response, one Orthodox intellectual quite reasonably remarked: “But excuse me, Countess: what happened? Until this day, until the day of the publication of the synodal definition, did you not know at all what your spouse was writing and publishing? Why, then, can he defame the Church in every possible way, mock her and her holy things, blaspheme, insult the consciences of believers, but the Church cannot say calmly to her faithful children: beware of Tolstoy, he excommunicated himself from the Church? If this seems unexpected to you, then you only have to be surprised at your shortsightedness. To be indignant that the Church calmly warned her children against the delusions that your husband spreads, that she openly announced in front of the whole world that he had cut off communion with her, that therefore she does not consider him to be her member, that she invites all believers even to the prayer that the Lord will admonish your husband - to be indignant at this, forgive me: at least it is incomprehensible. "
Is it the same thing - to believe in God the Creator or to profess materialism? Is it all the same - to confess the mystery of the Incarnation or to assert that “to understand Christ as God and to pray to Him is the greatest blasphemy”? Is the difference between the understanding of prayer by Tolstoy (“prayer is a reminder of the meaning of life”) and the living, religious understanding of prayer as a real appeal of a human person to the Person of the Creator belong to the number of “ritual trifles”?
Would Lev Nikolaevich have the right to be indignant if he found out that he was called "the mirror of the Russian revolution"? (And by the way, maybe it really is a "mirror"? The commissars who smashed churches and made footcloths from church vestments, weren't they looking at the temple with the eyes of Lev Nikolaevich?).
In the same way, church people raise objections when their faith, the faith of the apostles and Fathers of the Church, the faith of the Gospel and the faith of the Optina elders are subjected to ridicule or false interpretations.
A lot of people come to the temples, who have come there on a tip from sorcerers-"healers". They are not looking for Christ and sent them there to "recharge with the Cosmos" or "clean up karma." And church people are simply obliged to explain to these people that the temple is not a "cosmodrome". They need to be explained that they were simply deceived, that the path to Christ is completely different - past the "healers", past the healers, past the astrologers.
In the same way, to those really already numerous people who believe that Orthodoxy (understood rather purely ethnographically) can be combined with Theosophy, the Church had to explain: do not be deceived. Christ has no fellowship with magicians.
The fact that the Church takes away the Chalice with the atoning Blood of Christ from those who do not consider it as such - the Roerich publicists see almost hooliganism - “It is clear that pounding with a club on the heads of different believers, excommunication, prohibitions, and threats, - do not partake, do not to baptize, not to perform a funeral service (as A. Kuraev promised us) - the matter cannot be corrected ”. For goodness sake, where is the club here? That is why the Last Supper was secret that pagans and non-Christians were not invited to it. The fact that the Savior did not call the Jews to this Supper - does it mean that He was running through the streets of Jerusalem, “beating with a club on the heads of those of different faith”?
Is it possible to say that Christ resorted to repression only on the grounds that He gave communion only to the apostles, and not the Roman legionaries? But according to V. Sidorov, this is exactly what happens: “The Church was frightened. The resolution of the Council of Bishops testifies that she has taken the vicious path of prohibitive, repressive measures. "
The Church does not punish by excommunication from itself, just as a doctor does not punish a patient when he diagnoses him.
I. V. Shaifulin, Master of Theology, NBBS - teacher of systematic theology, hermeneutics, history
It follows from numerous passages of Scripture that excommunication has more serious consequences than is often thought.
Jesus Christ with the words “let him be like a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mat. 18:17) clearly showed that any contact with the excommunicated is not just disapproved, but directly condemned. Sometimes one comes across the opinion that these words imply the need to preach the gospel to the excommunicated. To this it should be noted that before excommunication there were three attempts to convince a person of the perniciousness of his path. Moreover, judging by the factual citation of the Law (18:16), these attempts had to be reasoned, which means that the excommunicated can no longer hear anything new in this evangelism. He was in the community of believers, which means that he constantly heard instructions, he was repeatedly admonished when he was convicted of sin, so that new attempts to convey the Gospel to him will resemble "throwing pearls in front of pigs." With such a person, God will now work in different ways.
In 1 Cor. 5 the idea of complete isolation sounds no less bright. As we have noted, Paul seeks to convey the same key message on several occasions in different terms - the unrepentant sinner must be removed from the church. To emphasize the degree of alienation of such a person, he exclaims: “I don’t even eat with such a person” (1 Cor. 5:11). In the East, in antiquity - somewhere this is preserved to this day - a joint meal meant a lot. In any home, a traveler could find shelter and a table (see Luke 10: 5-7). Even the enemy could not be denied hospitality! If someone refused hospitality, then this meant an extreme degree of hostility and was considered something out of the ordinary. For Christians in the early years, eating together meant even more than traditional friendliness, because it often ended in what we today call evenings. Thus, "eating together" meant a confirmation of solidarity, deep acceptance of each other, symbolized the unity of faith and life. That is why Paul gives such an example of the detachment of the excommunicated from the unity of the church.
It is quite appropriate to ask the question about the reasons for this harshness. Why do both Christ and Paul take such an extreme, “inhuman” attitude? There are several reasons for this:
(1) The removal of the sinner from the church shows her determination to fight against sin. Sin, if not removed, will spread like infection or leaven (1 Cor. 5: 6). A sin-ridden church will not be able to celebrate new life in Christ (5: 8) and, as a result, may face God's judgment not only for the individual sinner, but for the entire community (Rev. 2:16). Sin outside the church is not as dangerous as sin inside. Outside the church, it can be unequivocally viewed as something hostile to the community (1 Cor. 5: 9-13). Inside, he can evoke sympathy, complicity, he becomes something inalienable and close, which leads first to the familiarity, normality of such behavior, and then to the repetition of sin by others.
(2) Maintaining a relationship with the sinner damages the church's public image. This negates all the testimony and all the calls of the church. The indiscriminate church gives unbelievers a reason to justify their position, their immorality (1 Cor. 5: 1-2). The Church represents the action of Jesus Christ in the world mediated through people. Hence - a high responsibility for this mediating role, for this representation. One of the clearest manifestations of this responsibility is the moral standard that the church demonstrates to society. A striking example is Paul's denunciation of the church in Corinth, when he points out that the sin that the church put up with is reprehensible even for society.
(3) The excommunication of the sinner demonstrates the depth of the unity of the church. The problem with the Corinthian church was that there was no unity, and this also manifested itself in the fact that the sin of one of its members did not disturb anyone. Everyone lived by themselves and even believed that they had a reason for arrogance (1 Cor. 5: 2). The unity of the church should also be manifested in the same assessment of sin and uncompromising decision not to have anything to do with it. This is why Paul writes about “unity of spirit” in deciding excommunication (5: 3-4) and motivating the church to resolve to judge the sinner (5: 9-13).
(4) By excommunicating the sinner, the church is, in fact, only doing the will of God, and not being self-righteous. Christ Himself testifies to this when he speaks of the interconnectedness of the decisions of the church and decisions in heaven (Mat. 18:18), as well as Paul, when he writes about excommunication "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" and "by the power of the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 5: 4). That is, the apostle declares that the judgment over the sinner is not carried out at the simple desire of the church, this is not some kind of revenge on the sinner, but the use of the authority given by the Head of the Church. Unity in the application of church discipline is of maximum benefit to the excommunicated. So, the decision is made on the basis of the authority of Christ and the conscience of the whole church.
(5) Excommunication, strange as it may sound, brings hope for the sinner that after going through difficult trials he will be restored by God (1 Cor. 5: 5). The church, showing condescension to the sinner, actually ruins him, not allowing God's judgment to be fully realized. Such a manifestation of pity is akin to the compassion of a surgeon who, out of unwillingness to cause discomfort to the patient, will refuse to perform a painful but necessary operation.
So the reasons for excommunication are very serious. Each of them individually is already worthy of following this rule unquestioningly, and together they form the unshakable foundation of church discipline as an order established by God. However, there is one more question that requires final conclusions. What level of relationship is possible with an excommunicated church member? We have already said above that most often in churches one can observe only a few church-wide restrictions imposed on the excommunicated. And this does not interfere with relationships with the excommunicated on a personal level and even drawing him into church life outside those areas that are directly related to spiritual issues.
As has been noted more than once, excommunication implies a complete break in the relationship. Moreover, this means the non-possibility of relations not only on matters of spiritual service, but also on all others, including even such seemingly harmless ones as visiting. And this is true both at the level of the entire church and at the level of each member of the community. Moreover, the latter is of fundamental importance, because it is a prerequisite for the effectiveness of the punishment imposed by the church. There are several reasons for this:
(1) If a member of the church continues to maintain a relationship with the excommunicated, it destroys the unity of the church. As we wrote above, the whole church "in one spirit" makes the decision about excommunication. The exclusion creates the danger of the emergence of different "groups" in the church, who have different attitudes towards this or that excommunicated person, or are generally indifferent to such an episode of church life. Paul speaks of the unity of the church, both in the contrition over the sin of one of its members (1 Cor. 5: 2), and in the joy of a new life in Christ (5: 8).
(2) Maintaining relations with the excommunicated person creates in him the illusion of his “normality” that nothing terrible is happening to him. He does not feel his isolation, because, in fact, it does not exist. The whole essence of excommunication as an action aimed at bringing the sinner to his senses is profane, since he actually feels support for his way of life. In this case, words of accusation are not enough, exact fulfillment of the requirements of Scripture is necessary: “But I wrote to you not to associate with someone who, calling himself a brother, remains a fornicator, or a covetous man, or an idolater, or a spiteful person, or a drunkard, or a predator; one cannot even eat with such a person ”(1 Cor. 5:11). The sinner without punishment remains who he was. In this regard, the practice seems quite justified in which the excommunicated is not allowed even to general church meetings, small groups, to Sunday school for adults, that is, to any community where believers gather. A sober and calm assessment of this practice allows us to see its justice and focus on complete obedience to biblical instructions.
(3) Maintaining a simple, everyday relationship with the excommunicated, even with the best motives - to help through a difficult period, support, comfort - erases the line between the excommunicated and other members of the church over time. In the future, neither the excommunicated person himself nor those around him may already remember such an “annoying” fact of biography as excommunication, or simply perform a formal ritual of repentance just for the sake of restoration.
(4) Sin persists among the church. Over time, it ceases to cause rejection. There is a certain feeling of "understanding" of sin, agreement with it. Thus, there is a gradual internal disintegration of the church, which as a result will lead to losses already at the level of the entire community (1 Cor. 5: 6-8).
(5) The division of the excommunicated into categories with whom it is possible to communicate and with whom it is impossible, leads to the degradation of the very institution of excommunication, to the loss of confidence in such punishment. In the New Testament there is no indication of such a practice; excommunication is described without any divisions and is characterized quite unambiguously.
(6) The arbitrary execution of the conditions of excommunication destroys the authority of Scripture as the primary source of instruction in all areas of church life. The biblical passages we have quoted attest to the profound practicality of these instructions. The Bible is not a textbook of theoretical reasoning. When we stop thinking of it as a book of practical instructions, the consequences are dire. Therefore, it is better if we always have a biblical "error response."
Undoubtedly, the above reasoning does not differ in breadth of coverage and necessary depth. As already mentioned, one of the goals of the article was to identify those difficult questions that arise in connection with the topic under discussion. Perhaps in order to stimulate discussion. Church practice shows that such a discussion is ripe. And it is necessary not just because it can take a place in theological journals, but because we are entrusted with responsibility for the church: for its purity, its well-being, its faithfulness to biblical principles, its triumph in Christ.
BLESSING, Theological Almanac, Novosibirsk Biblical Theological Seminary, 2012
Anathema[greek. ἀνάθεμα - excommunication from the Church] is the excommunication of a Christian from communion with the faithful and from the holy sacraments, used as the highest ecclesiastical punishment for grave sins (primarily for betrayal of Orthodoxy and deviation into heresy or schism) and proclaimed by the Council.
Church anathema should not be confused with excommunication (ἀφορισμός) - a temporary ban on a person to participate in church sacraments - punishment for committed misdeeds:
theft, fornication (Apt. 48), participation in obtaining a church office by means of a bribe (Apt. 30), etc., does not require a conciliar decision and does not need a conciliar proclamation to take effect.
The meaning of the anathema
interview of Archpriest Maxim Kozlov to the newspaper Trud
Apparently, Father Maxim, it is natural to start the conversation by clarifying the meaning of the term "anathema". The Great Soviet Encyclopedia claims that in Christianity this is "a church curse, excommunication." Is not it?
- “Anathema” is a Greek word, it goes back to the verb “anatifimi”, meaning “to lay down, to betray something to someone”. Anathema is what is given, given into absolute will, into the absolute possession of anyone. In the ecclesiastical sense, anathema is that which is delivered to the final judgment of God and about which (or about whom) the Church no longer has either its own care or its own prayer. Announcing anathema to someone, she thereby openly testifies: this person, even if he calls himself a Christian, is such that he himself has confirmed with his worldview and actions that he has nothing to do with the Church of Christ.
So the anathema is not a "curse of the church", as other people believe after the Great Soviet Encyclopedia or illiterately interpret the secular media; nor is it excommunication from the Church in the secular sense of the term. Of course, one who is anathematized no longer has the right to participate in the life of the Church: to confess, to receive communion, to be at divine services. But excommunication from church communion, as such, happens even without anathema. According to our canons, a gravely sinned person can for a certain period be barred from participating in the Church Sacraments ... Therefore, anathema means not just excommunication, but testifying to the Church about what the guilty person, for his part, has long known and was confirmed in that: his attitude, positions and views with the church do not coincide in any way, do not correlate in any way.
Is it true that for the first time all apostates were anathematized in the 9th century, after the victory of the Church over the heresy of iconoclasm?
This is not entirely true. Already in the Apostolic Epistles, it is said about the anathema of those who do not confess Christ as the Son of God, considering Him to be just a wise teacher of morality or some kind of ideal prophet. The Holy Apostle Paul wrote: "As we said before, so now I say again: whoever preaches the gospel to you other than what you received, let him be anathema." Anathemas were announced, of course, at Ecumenical Councils. So, in the IV century, the presbyter of the Alexandrian church Arius was condemned, denying that the Son of God is equal to the Father in everything. In the 5th century, the same fate befell the Patriarch of Constantinople Nestorius, who falsely taught about the union of the Divine and human nature in Christ. Such ecclesiastical courts were up to the 7th Ecumenical Council, at which the iconoclasts were anathematized.
In 842, in the Greek Church on the first Sunday of Great Lent, it was first performed as a sign of victory over all heresies condemned at the Ecumenical Councils, and in general over all wicked anti-Christian teachings. The liturgical rite of this holiday included, firstly, the proclamation of eternal memory to the ascetics of piety, defenders of the faith, secondly, the proclamation of many years to kings, patriarchs and other defenders of the faith today, and, finally, the announcement of anathema to the most important heresies and their bearers.
- Is this festive rite still performed in our Church?
While recognizing him as one of the greatest Russian writers, the Church, at the same time, could not remain silent about the writer's religious delusions, for "God is betrayed by silence." Just do not need to represent that event according to the well-known story of Kuprin, from the pulpits of Russian churches the anathema to "Boyar Lev" was never proclaimed - this is an artistic conjecture of the author. In reality, the very consistent Synodal determination of February 22, 1901 was evidence of the writer's own views. By that time, in his religious and philosophical searches, he himself had come to a denial of the need for the Church and its Sacraments - Baptism, Confession, Communion, and to a denial of the basic postulate of Christianity - that Christ is really the Son of God. Finally, the writer dared to compose the "Gospel set forth by Leo Tolstoy", in his pride believing that he was the best of all those who lived for nineteen centuries before him, better than anyone else understood what Christ taught ... "... Therefore, the Church does not consider him a member and does not he can count until he repents and restores his communion with her ... ”- said in the church definition. Let me remind you that shortly before his death, Lev Nikolaevich was in Optina Hermitage, but did not dare to enter the elder's cell, and later the Optina elder was not allowed to see the dying writer. So the judgment of God was final for him.
- And what explains the anathema of such a person as Hetman Mazepa?
Not only he, a traitor to the Fatherland, but also Grishka Otrepiev and Stepashka Razin were excommunicated not on doctrinal grounds, but as enemies of the state. In those days, there was a fundamental understanding of the "symphony of powers" - ecclesiastical and secular. The first was concerned about the moral health of the people, the second - about the security of the state and the protection of the Church itself. Anyone who rebelled against the state rebelled not only against the monarchy, but against the Power, which for centuries was the stronghold of universal Orthodoxy. Due to this, anti-state actions were simultaneously regarded as anti-church, therefore those guilty of them were also subjected to church condemnation through anathematization.
In recent years, former Metropolitan Filaret (Denisenko) and former priest Gleb Yakunin have been anathematized for their anti-church activities ... Tell me, do they and other people equally severely condemned by the Church still have the possibility of returning to the House of God?
Anathema is not only a testimony to the church world about the guilty, but also a testimony addressed to them themselves, to these unfortunate people who have fallen into delusion, into proud self-blinding people: “Think about it! The ultimate possible judgment on earth has been passed on you. Repent of what you have done and return to your father's house, to your native Church. " Strange as it may seem to someone, but anathema is also evidence of Christian love for seemingly completely lost people, anathema still does not deprive them of their paths to repentance.
The rite of anathema is removed from people who have deeply repented and abandoned their delusions, the fullness of their stay in the Church is restored, they can start the Sacraments again, and most importantly, they again get the opportunity to be saved. The only thing that cannot be returned to them is their previous rank.
- I wonder if there is anathematization in the Roman Catholic Church?
The Vatican has a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is the successor to the infamous Holy Inquisition that threw heretics throughout Europe in the Middle Ages. I would like to emphasize here that the Russian Church has never been engaged in the forcible eradication of heresy ... So, in the current Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, judgments are periodically made about both specific individuals and specific directions of religious thought. One can name a number of former Catholic theologians and religious beliefs (for example, "liberation theology" in Latin America), which in recent times have been condemned by the Vatican, which is tantamount to anathema.
In conclusion, I would ask you, Father Maxim, to return to the problem of restoring the general church rite of anathematization on the Week of the Triumph of Orthodoxy ...
I think that with a detailed and broad explanation to the Orthodox people what constitutes an anathema, what is the Church's testimony of those who are mistaken, the restoration of this rite would have serious significance for many of our contemporaries. First of all, for those who, under the influence of sectarian eloquence, began to believe that it is indeed permissible to be both Orthodox and, say, a Scientologist. Or to be Orthodox and be a member of some odious Protestant sect, whose leaders deceivingly say about themselves - "we are generally Christians."
I believe that the “prospect” of being anathematized can keep a spiritually indiscriminate person from a dangerous passion for false teachers, and this will ultimately prove useful for the spiritual health of the people as a whole. As far as I know, many priests and lay people share this opinion.
Anathematize
Term
Greek the term ἀνάθεμα (ἀνάθημα) meant by pagan authors (Homer, Sophocles, Herodotus) “something dedicated to God; a gift, an offering to the temple "(that is, something separate, alien to everyday use). It was used in Greek. the translation of the Bible (Septuagint) to convey the Hebrew term - something damned, rejected by people and doomed to destruction (Numbers 21.2-3; Lev 27.28 et seq .; Deut 7.26; 13.15 (16), 17; 20. 17; Josh 6.17 pp; 7.11 pp; Zach 14.11; and others). Under the influence of the Hebrew, the term "Anathema" received specific negative connotations and began to mean "that which is rejected by people, doomed to destruction" and therefore "cursed."
In this latter sense, the term is used in the Epistles of St. ap. Paul: 1 Cor. 12.3; 16.22; Gal 1. 8-9; Rome 9. 3. Apt. Paul in one place uses a special form of curse: “Whoever does not love the Lord Jesus Christ is anathema, maran-afa” (1 Cor. 16. 22). The addition of "maran-afa" (aram - the Lord is near) indicates bud. the coming of Christ, Who alone can finally decide the fate of the sinner.
In early Judaism, excommunication from the synagogue can be considered a prototype of anathema, which was applied, in particular, to those who confessed Christ as the Messiah (cf. the term ἀποσυνάϒωϒος in John 9:22; 12:42; 16.2), St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (Adv. Haer. 81, citing John 16.2).
The use of anathema in the history of the Church against heretics, schismatics and gross violators of church discipline is based on the use of this term in Galatians 1 8-9 and 1 Corinthians 16. 22. For the first time the term "Anathema" was officially applied in the canons of the Council of Elvir (after 300), and the canonical formula "if anyone ... let it be anathema" has been established in church canons since the Gangres Council (c. 340 - Gangres 1-20). Later the term was used in Laod. 29, 34, 35; II All. one; Karf. 11, 81 (92), 109 (123), 110-116 (124-130); III Vsec. 7; Trul. one; VII All. one; Const. (879). 3, etc.
In Byzantium, the term "katafema" was also occasionally used (κατάθεμα - something betrayed to the curse). "Katafema" in the meaning of "curse" is present in Revelation 22.3, as well as in the "Doctrine of the 12 Apostles" (Didache). The NT contains the verbs ἀναθεματίζω (to swear; compare: Mk 14. 71; Acts 23.12 and 14) and καταθεματίζω (compare: Mt 26.74). All R. IX century K-Polish Patriarch Methodius I proclaimed anathema and "katafema" to the disciples of St. Theodore the Studite to Navkratia and Athanasius, who did not want to condemn the writings of their teacher against the Patriarchs Tarasius (784-806) and Nicephorus I (806-815) (I. Doens, Ch. Hannick; J. Darrouzès; K. A. Maksimovich).
Socrates Scholasticus in "Church History" gives his understanding of the term: anathema, lit. "Laying", in his opinion, means, as it were, the "erection" of a special stele, on which curses to heretics are carved for general observation and edification (Hist. Eccl. VII 34. 15-17).
Essence of anathema
In 1 Corinthians (5. 1-5) ap. Paul offers to "betray Satan" the one who took his father's wife to wife. But the apostle himself says that only the flesh is given over to torment, and that only so that the soul may be saved (1 Tim 1:20; see the interpretation of this passage in St. John Chrysostom (On 1 Tim. 5 - PG. 62. Col 528) However, under the influence of the apostolic epistles named, the belief that A. is a tradition to Satan became widespread. , compiled in the form of a teaching and came down under the name of St. John Chrysostom (although, apparently, not belonging to him), shares this view (Col. 949), and therefore considers A. unacceptable, since the deprivation of hope for salvation is contrary to the fundamental law of Christianity - the law love for one's neighbor, regardless of the purity of his faith (in connection with this, the parable of the merciful Samaritan is cited from Luke 10. 30-37). He admits only anathematization of dogmatic errors (Col. 952). This is exactly what the Apostle Paul did, saying “ let it be anathema "not against specific c, but against unrighteous deeds (1 Cor. 16.22 and Gal. 1.8) (pg. 48. Col. 948). As for people, the Supreme Judge is the one who condemns others to eternal destruction, arrogates to themselves His authority and will be severely punished as usurpers of the highest power (Col. 949). This view of A. found its support among the Byzantines. Canonist Theodore Balsamon (XII century) (Ράλλης, Ποτλής. III 97; cf .: PG. 137, 1237A).
The church anathema is based on the words of Christ: “... if he does not listen to the Church, then he will be like a pagan and a publican to you” (Matthew 18. 17) (Sinai, Archpriest S. 23, 25-26; Trinity. S. 5- 6).
The problem of the necessity and permissibility of anathema is very complex. In the history of the Church, the use or non-use of anathema was dictated each time by a number of specific circumstances, among which the main role was played by the degree of danger for the church community of the punishable act or person. The problem of A. gives particular complexity to its both theological and legal nature.
In the Middle Ages, both in the West and in the Orthodox East, the opinion of Blzh. Augustine that St. Baptism prevents the complete exclusion of the individual from the Church, and even anathema does not completely close the path to salvation (Aug.). Nevertheless, the tradition of anathema was explicated in the early medieval era in the West as a "tradition to eternal destruction" (Latin damnatio aeternae mortis, excommunicatio mortalis), which was used, however, only for mortal sins and only in the case of special persistence in delusions and inability to correct ( 56th right of the Cathedral in Mo - Mansi J. D. Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Florentiae, 1759. T. 14. Col. 832).
In Orthodoxy, church anathema is the conciliarly proclaimed excommunication of a person (group of persons) whose thoughts and actions (which) threaten the purity of doctrine and the unity of the Church, a “healing” act of isolation from the community of believers, an educational act both in relation to the anathematized and in relation to the community of the faithful. A. is applied after repeated vain attempts to induce repentance in the perpetrator and with the hope of repentance and his return to church communion in the future, and of traces., And his salvation. Catholic tradition continues to consider A. a curse and a loss of hope for salvation. Hence the different attitude towards anathema to those who have departed from earthly life: if anathema is a curse, then it turns out that the dead are punished; if the anathema is evidence that a person does not belong to the Church, then this evidence can take place at any time.
Since the basis of its anathema as a punishment is in the Holy. Scripture, that is, it follows from Divine law, its application is not limited to the historical framework.
Declaration of anathema
Acts deserving anathema, as a rule, have the character of a major dogmatic or disciplinary crime, therefore personal anathema was applied in the ancient Church mainly to heresiarchs, false teachers, schismatics. Due to the severity of this punishment, they preferred to resort to it in the most extreme cases, when milder means of influencing the sinners turned out to be ineffective.
Pronouncing an anathema over someone originally assumed the formula “let the name be anathema” (ἀνάθεμα ἔστω), that is, “let it be excommunicated (accursed)”; gradually the formula could take on a different form, in which the term "Anathema" already meant not the excommunicated subject, but the act of excommunication as such: "namerek'u is anathema." The wording “I anathematize the name and (or) his heresy” is also possible.
In view of the seriousness and responsibility of such a step as giving someone anathema, the authorized body for this could initially only be a representative council of bishops, a synod headed by the Patriarch, and in the most difficult cases - Vsell. The cathedral. The patriarchs, even in those cases when they individually decided the question of the betrayal of someone to A., preferred to present this as an official council decision. An episode from the life of St. John Chrysostom, when, as Archbishop of Constantinople, he refused to single-handedly condemn the adherents of Bishop. Hermopolis Dioscorus and the works of Origen, but insisted on a "council decision" (καθολικὴ διάϒνωσις - cf. Socr. Schol. Hist. Eccl. VI 14. 1-3).
In the history of the Christian Church, the most dramatic use of A. was the mutual anathematization of the papal legates, card. Friedrich (b. Pope Stephen X), card. Humbert and Archbishop. Amalfi Peter, and K-Polish Patriarch Michael I Kirularia in 1054, which served as a formal reason for the irrevocable division of West. (Catholic) and East. (Orthodox) Christ. Churches.
In the Russian Orthodox Church, "canonical bans, such as ... excommunication through anathematization, are imposed by the diocesan bishop or Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod only upon the submission of the church court" (Ustav, 2000, VII 5).
If an anathema is imposed after death, then this means a ban on commemoration of the soul of the deceased, requiem and funeral services, reciting prayers of permission.
In the Orthodox liturgical tradition since 843 (restoration of icon veneration there is a special rite "Triumph of Orthodoxy" - the annual proclamation of the saving dogmas of faith, A. heretics, "Eternal memory" to the departed and many years of living faithful (see Orthodoxy week).
Anathema for non-church purposes
Since anathema is the highest ecclesiastical punishment, its use for non-church (in particular, political) purposes is not considered canonical: it has no basis in canon law. However, in conditions of close rapprochement between ecclesiastical and secular authorities in Orthodox states, sometimes anathema of a political nature took place. In the history of Byzantium, there are cases of anathema against rebels and usurpers of the imperial power: in 1026, with the active participation of Emperor Constantine VIII, a council decree was adopted to anathematize the organizers and participants of the revolt. Similar definitions were published by subsequent emperors (in 1171 and 1272). (In 1294, Patriarch John XII Cosmas and the bishops did not allow the publication of a similar decree in favor of Michael IX Palaeologus). The "political" use of anathema was resorted to in Byzantium also during the civil war in the 40s. XIV century. However, even then this practice met with a sharp rebuff from such leading canonists and theologians as Patriarch Philotheus of Kokkine and Matthew the Angel Panaret, who relied in their argumentation on the already considered treatise attributed to St. John Chrysostom, and the opinion of Theodore Balsamon. Opponents of the "political" anathema, in addition, rightly pointed out that the Orthodox Byzantine emperors were also usurpers, whose names, therefore, should have been deleted from the diptychs and not remembered at the liturgy, which, however, did not happen. In the history of the Russian Church, a similar case took place at the Council of 1667, when a dispute arose between Greek and Russian bishops regarding the permissibility of anathema for conspirators trying to overthrow the existing government. The Greeks, referring to a certain Alexandrian patriarchal "collection of laws", insisted on anathema for such persons, but the Russian bishops, recognizing the legality of the anathema for heretics and schismatics, saw no reason to excommunicate from the Church those who opposed not church, but secular power (Sinai , prot. S. 58-59).
Under Emperor Peter I, in conditions of complete state control over the Church, there is a known case of anathema to a state criminal, imposed not by a council of bishops, but by an imperial decree (excommunication of the rebel Stephen Glebov by decree of 23 August 1718).
To apotropic use, that is, averting undesirable actions, anathemas include inscriptions on numerous medieval tombstones, threatening anathema to the one who breaks up the grave. Copywriters often wrote an anathema on the first or last page of a manuscript for possible theft of the book in order to scare off the kidnappers. Curses were sometimes called upon the heads of those who dare to change the text of the book, although in the latter case one cannot speak of “non-church purposes”, for such an anathema is also used in the text of Holy Scripture (cf. Rev. 22. 18-19).
Spiritual and legal consequences of anathema
The official proclamation of someone anathematized (or anathema over someone) leads to the expulsion of this person from the church community, excommunication from the holy sacraments, a ban on attending church and claiming a Christian burial. In the West, at the latest from the 9th century. anathema was also relied on for communicating with persons betrayed to anathema (enshrined in the 3rd canon of the Lateran II Council of 1139). The anathematized person was limited in his right to act as a plaintiff and a witness at the trial, and his murder was not punished in the usual legal order.
Removal of anathema
Anathema is not an act that irrevocably closes the path to return to the Church and ultimately to salvation. The lifting of anathema as the highest ecclesiastical punishment occurs through a complex legal action, including a) the repentance of the anathematized person, which is carried out in a special, as a rule, public order; repentance is brought directly through an appeal to the church authority that imposed the anathema, or through a person appointed by him (for example, through a confessor), b) if there are sufficient grounds (sincerity and fullness of repentance, execution of the prescribed church punishment, no danger from the anathematized for others members of the Church) making a decision by the body that imposed the penalty on the forgiveness of this person. Anathema can also be removed after death - in this case, all types of commemoration of the deceased are again allowed.
In 1964, in Jerusalem, at the initiative of Athenagoras, Patriarch of Constantinople (1886-1972), he met with Pope Paul VI. This was the first meeting of this level since the Union of Florence in 1439 (see Ferraro-Florence Cathedral). The result of the meeting was the abolition of mutual anathemas that had existed since 1054. Of great importance for the Russian Church is the abolition of the anathema to the schismatics of the Old Believers by the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971.
Anathema in the Russian Orthodox Church
The use of anathema in the Russian Church has a number of essential features in comparison with the ancient Church. In the history of the ROC, unlike the Byzantine Church, there was not so many heresies, she almost did not know any cases of an obvious falling away from Christianity into paganism or other religions. In the pre-Mongol era, a number of rules arose against pagan rites - for example, rules 15 and 16 of John II, Metropolitan of Kiev (1076 / 1077-1089), declare everyone who makes sacrifices on the heights "alien to our faith and rejected from the catholic Church" mountains, near swamps and wells, does not observe the establishment of Christian marriage and does not receive Communion at least once a year. According to rule 2 Cyril II, Metropolitan of Kiev (c. 1247-1281), excommunication from the Church threatened those who organized noisy games and fist fights on church holidays, and those who died in such battles were cursed "in this century and in the future" (Beneshevich V. N. Old Slavic helmsman of XIV titles without interpretation. Sofia, 1987. T. 2. P. 183). In addition, rule 5 of Metropolitan John excommunicates from the Church those who do not commune and consume meat and "bad" during Great Lent, rule 23 - persons who sell Christians into slavery to "filthy", rule 25 and 26 - entered into incestuous marriages (Ibid., P. 79, 85-86).
Among the population of the western outskirts of the Russian state, there were deviations to Catholicism or Protestantism, however, against compatriots who entered union with Rome or converted to Protestantism, the ROC never used anathema, it prayed for their reunification with the Orthodox Church. A characteristic feature of the ROC in the fight against heresies, sects and schisms was, as a rule, careful and balanced use of anathema - it was proclaimed to irreconcilable schismatics and heretics in accordance with canon law. In 1375 the strigolniks were excommunicated from the Church - the Novgorod-Pskov heresy of the strigolniks was almost the only Russian heresy. It continued in the XV - early. XVI century in the Novgorod-Moscow heresy of the "Judaizing" (see t. ROC. pp. 53, 69-71), the anathema to the "Judaizing" followed in 1490 and 1504. The Old Believer schism of 1666-1667 became a peculiar phenomenon of the Russian Church, which arose on the basis of disagreement with the correction of church books and rituals according to the Greek model - anathema to schismatic Old Believers was proclaimed at the Councils of 1666-1667. The "Spiritual Regulations" of Peter I (1720) also contains an anathema to the gentlemen who harbor schismatics in their estates (Part 2. Worldly persons. 5).
The "Spiritual Regulations" details in what cases, for what crimes anathema is imposed ("... if anyone clearly blasphemes the name of God or Holy Scripture, or the Church, or is clearly a sinner, is not ashamed of his deeds, but even more so proudly , or without the correct guilt, repentance and the holy of the Eucharist will not accept the Eucharist for more than a year; or does something else with the explicit law of God, cursing and ridicule, such, after repeated punishment, being stubborn and proud, is worthy of being judged with a bit of execution. but for the obvious and proud contempt of the judgment of God and the power of the church with the great temptation of the weak brethren ... "- Part 2. About bishops. 16), what is the procedure for anathema (if after repeated admonitions" the criminal is adamant and stubborn, then the bishop will not proceed even to anathema, but first about everything that was done, the Collegium will write to the Spiritual, and having received permission from the Collegium in writing, he will obviously anathematize the sinner ... "- Ibid), what are the consequences of anathema for anathema nnogo and his family ("... he himself is solely subject to anathema, but neither his wife, nor children ..." - Ibid.) to scold the Church's anathema ”, then the Spiritual Collegium asks for the judgment of secular authority. Anathema, a person is cut off from the Body of Christ, the Church, being already a non-Christian and “alienated from the inheritance of all the blessings that were acquired by the death of the Savior” (Ibid.).
The heretics-iconoclasts D. Tveritinov and his supporters were betrayed to Anathema during their trial in 1713-1723. Punishment of heretics and schismatics in the Patriarchal period was not limited to anathema - as a rule, it was supplemented with either corporal (including self-mutilating) punishment, or exile and imprisonment, and often the death penalty by burning (the latter was applied to the "Judaizing" in 1504 , in relation to the schismatics of the Old Believers, legalized by the tsar's decree of 1684).
Church excommunication was also proclaimed against persons who committed grave crimes against the state - impostors, rioters, traitors. In all these conflicts with the secular authorities, there was, however, an element of uprising against Orthodoxy - either in the form of collusion with heretics (the impostor Grigory Otrepiev went over to the side of the Polish interventionists in the early 17th century, the betrayal of the hetman of Little Russia Ivan Mazepa in 1709, during wars with the Swedes), or in the form of direct persecution of the Church, as during the peasant wars of the 18th century.
The rite of the "Triumph of Orthodoxy", which came to the Russian Church after the baptism of Rus, was gradually subjected to changes and additions here: in the end. XV century. it included the names of the leaders of the "Judaizers", in the 17th century - the names of the traitors and impostors "Grishka Otrepiev", "Timoshka Akindinov", the rebel Stenka Razin, the schismatics Avvakum, Lazar, Nikita Suzdalts and others, in the 18th century - the name "Ivashki Mazepa". The rite, which allowed changes on the part of diocesan bishops, lost its uniformity over time, so the Holy Synod in 1764 introduced its new, revised edition, obligatory for all dioceses. In 1801, the rite of the Triumph of Orthodoxy was significantly reduced: it lists only the heresies themselves, without mentioning the names of heretics, and of the names of state criminals left (already in a corrected form) "Grigory Otrepiev" and "Ivan Mazepa". Later, in the 1869 edition, these names were also omitted - instead of them, a general phrase appeared in the rank about “daring to revolt” against “Orthodox sovereigns”. In the course of time, thus, when anathematizing famous persons, the Russian Church gradually reduced their number, avoiding naming names and designating these persons in general, due to involvement in one or another dogmatic or disciplinary delusion, as well as in a state crime.
The excommunication of the writer Count Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy, carried out by the Holy Synod (February 20-23, 1901), received a great resonance in Russian society at the beginning of the 20th century. In the Definition of the Synod, Count Tolstoy is called a “false teacher”, preaching “the overthrow of all the dogmas of the Orthodox Church and the very essence of the Christian faith,” who, “swearing at the most sacred objects of faith of the Orthodox people, did not shudder to mock the greatest of the Sacraments - the Holy Eucharist. … The attempts that were made to his reason were unsuccessful. Therefore, the Church does not consider him a member and cannot count him until he repent and restores his communion with her. " Instead of the word "Anathema", the Synod's Definition uses the expressions "he rejected himself from all communion with the Orthodox Church," "his falling away from the Church." Apr 4 1901 c. Tolstoy responded to the Determination of the Holy Synod, in which he stated: “I really renounced the Church, stopped performing her rituals and wrote in my will to my loved ones so that when I die they would not allow church ministers to see me ... I reject the incomprehensible Trinity and the fable about the fall of the first man, the story of God, born of the Virgin, redeeming the human race, then this is absolutely fair "(Quote from: Spiritual Tragedy of Leo Tolstoy. M., 1995, p. 88). In Feb. In 2001, the great-grandson of the writer V. Tolstoy turned to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II with a letter in which he asked to lift Count Tolstoy's excommunication. In reply to correspondents on this issue, His Holiness the Patriarch said: Count Tolstoy refused to be an Orthodox Christian, refused to be a member of the Church, we do not deny that this is a genius of literature, but he has clearly anti-Christian works; Do we have the right in 100 years to impose on a person what he refused?
His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon twice anathematized “those who create lawlessness and persecutors of the faith and the Orthodox Church”: in 1918 in connection with the outbreak of persecution and in 1922 in connection with the confiscation of sacred objects from churches under the pretext of helping the starving (Acts of St. Tikhon. S. 82-85, 188-190). The anti-religious policy of the authorities in the late 50s - 60s caused the appearance of the Resolution of the Patriarch and Priest. Synod No. 23 dated December 30. 1959 “On those who publicly cheated on the Name of God”: the clergy who committed this crime, ex. Archpriest Alexander Osipov, the former priest Pavel Darmansky, “to be considered cast out of the priesthood and deprived of any church communion”, “Evgraf Duluman and other former Orthodox laity, who publicly sneered at the Name of God, should be excommunicated from the Church” (ZhMP. 1960, No. 2. S. 27). In the fall of 1993, during an armed confrontation at the White House in Moscow, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church issued a Statement (October 1), urging people to change their minds and choose the path of dialogue. On October 8, His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II, the Holy Synod and the hierarchs, who arrived at the Trinity-Sergius Lavra on the day of commemoration of St. Sergius of Radonezh, issued an Appeal, in which, without naming specific names, they condemned those who shed the innocent blood of their neighbors - “this the blood cries out to Heaven and, as the Holy Church warned, it will remain an indelible seal of Cain ”on their consciences (Orthodox Moscow. 1993. No. 5).
The Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1994 in the Definition "On pseudo-Christian sects, neo-paganism and occultism", following the apostolic tradition, pronounced the words of excommunication (A.) to those who share the teachings of sects, "new religious movements", paganism, astrological, theosophical, spiritualistic - in, etc., declaring war on the Church of Christ. The Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997 excommunicated mon. Filaret (Denisenko). Deprived of all degrees of priesthood at the 1992 Bishops 'Council, warned by the 1994 Bishops' Council that if he continued his schismatic activity he would be anathematized, he continued to perform “divine services”, false ordinances; “Without a holy dignity, monk Filaret, to the temptation of many, dared to call himself“ the patriarch of Kiev and all Russia-Ukraine ”,” with his criminal acts he continued to damage Orthodoxy. Cathedral, based on Ap. 28, Sardik. 14, Antioch. 4, Vasil. 88, determined: “To excommunicate the monk Filaret (Mikhail Antonovich Denisenko) from the Church of Christ. May he be anathema to all the people. " The cathedral warned those involved in the criminal activities of the former. mon. Filaret, called them to repentance - otherwise they will be excommunicated from church communion through anathematization. The Council notified the Primates of the Local Orthodoxy. Churches about the anathematization of the former. mon. Filaret (Denisenko) (ZhMP. 1997. No. 4. P. 19-20). The Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997 condemned the anti-church activities of Gleb Pavlovich Yakunin, who was defrocked by the definition of Holy. Synod of 8 Oct. 1993 and warned by the 1994 Council of Bishops: "In the event of the continuation of the outrageous wearing of the priestly cross and priestly clothes ... the question of his excommunication from the Church will be raised." G. P. Yakunin did not heed the appeal addressed to him for repentance and an end to the atrocities. Cathedral on the basis of Ap. 28, Carf. 10, Sardik. 14, Antioch. 4, two-way 13, Vasil. 88 determined: “To excommunicate Gleb Pavlovich Yakunin from the Church of Christ. May he be anathema to all the people ”(Ibid. P. 20).
Lit .: Kober F. Der Kirchenbann nach den Grundsätzen des Kanonischen Rechts dargestellt. Tübingen, 1857; Suvorov N. On Church Punishments: An Experience of Research on Church Law. SPb., 1876; Nikolsky K. Anathematization, or Excommunication. SPb., 1879; Uspensky F. AND . Synodikon on the Week of Orthodoxy. Odessa, 1892; Petrovsky A.V. Anathema // PBE. Stb. 679-700; Turner C. H. The History and Use of Creeds and Anathemas in the Early Centuries of the Church. L., 1906; Sinaisky A., prot. About the fallen and excommunicated in the ancient Christian Church and the Russian. SPb., 1908; Preobrazhensky A. Church excommunication (anathema) in its history and in its fundamental motives. Kaz., 1909; Shiryaev V. N. Religious crimes. Yaroslavl, 1909; Troitsky A. D. Church excommunication and its consequences. K., 1913; Amanieu A. Anathème // Dictionnaire de droit canonique. 1935. Vol. 1. P. 512-516; Moshin V. A., prot. Serbian edition of the Synodik // VV. 1959. T. 16. S. 317-394; 1960, vol. 17, pp. 278-353; ̓Αλιβιζάτος Α. ̓Ανάθεμα // ΘΗΕ. T. 2. Σ. 469-473; Gouillard J. Le Synodicon de l'Orthodoxie // Travaux et Mémoires. 2. Center de Recherches d 'Hist. et Civ. Byzant. P., 1967; Doens I., Hannick Ch. Das Periorismos-Dekret des Patriarchen Methodios I. gegen die Studiten Naukratios und Athanasios // JÖB. 1973. Bd. 22 S. 93-102; Beck H.-G. Nomos, Kanon und Staatsraison in Byzanz. W., 1981, S. 51-57; Darrouz è s J. Le patriarche Méthode; Ράλλη Κ. Μ. Ποινικὸν δίκαιον τῆς ̓Ορθοδόξου ̓Ανατολικῆς ̓Εκκλησίας. Θεσσαλονίκη, 19933; F ö gen M. Th. von. Rebellion und Exkommunikation in Byzanz // Ordnung und Aufruhr im Mittelalter: Historische und juristische Studien zur Rebellion. F./M. 1995 S. 43-80; Palamarchuk P. (comp.) Anathema: History and the XX century. [M.], 1998; Maksimovi č K. Patriarch Methodios I. (843-847) und das studitische Schisma (Quellenkritische Bemerkungen) // Byz. 2000. T. 50/2. P. 422-446.
Biblical Requirements for Keeping the Church Clean
I. V. Shaifulin, Master of Theology, NBBS - Lecturer in Systematic Theology, Hermeneutics, History
God does not leave His church in the dark about how the community of believers should respond to the emergence of sin in their midst. Mat. 18: 15-20 and 1 Cor. 5: 1-13, where Christ Himself and the Apostle Paul give instructions on this issue.
These two texts clearly demonstrate, firstly, the importance of maintaining the moral purity of the church, and secondly, the way in which a community of believers must go when it is faced with the stubbornness of a person in sin.
Without setting ourselves the goal of making a detailed exegetical study of these texts, we will try to focus on the conclusions that follow from their general consideration:
1. First, every action must have a clear and understandable purpose. Discipline is inherently determined by a certain set of rules for the behavior of an individual, corresponding to accepted norms. Discipline is impossible without a certain system of punishment. If you do not see the ultimate goal of church discipline, then a distorted idea of the punishment system may arise. There are three goals of church discipline:
(1) The restoration of the sinner. First of all, we must firmly remember that the primary goal of church discipline should be the desire to help the sinner restore his damaged relationship with God (“so that the spirit may be saved on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” 1 Cor. 5: 5). For this reason, the alienation of the sinner from the community occurs only after the obligatory three-step process of reproof (Mat. 18: 15-17), which gives all the chances of correcting the situation ("you have got your brother", Mat. 18:15).
(2) Keeping the church clean. The church is in a constant state of struggle with sin, so it has a serious responsibility to control its condition. Otherwise, there is a danger of uncontrolled spread of evil in the environment of the church itself. The Apostle Paul, speaking of this danger, gives a vivid image of leaven, the characteristic feature of which is the ability of a small amount to influence all matter (1 Cor. 5: 6). Paul's address in a letter to the Corinthian church, not to the criminal, but only to the community, shows that it is responsible for the moral behavior of its members.
(3) Keeping a good testimony to the outside world. The Church is called to communicate moral guidelines to society. If the church lives, like a perishing world, then it has nothing to offer this world (1 Cor. 5: 1, 9-13). The presence of sin erases all the moral boundaries that separate holy people from their unbelieving neighbors. Thus, maintaining discipline in the church should be no exception, but common practice. In this sense, discipline should not, of course, be viewed solely in the form of punishments, but also in the form of instructions, impulses, denunciations, and spiritual support. However, excommunication - the last stage of the process - is also indispensable.
2. Secondly, it is necessary to recognize that excommunication should be carried out, in fact, not for the sin itself committed, but for persistence in sin. Today, in the churches of the ECB, the practice of imposing church penalties in accordance with the severity of the sin has developed. Simplified it looks like this: "light", insignificant sin - a remark, "heavy" sin - excommunication. However, in Mat. 18 we see Christ's instruction that the expulsion of a person from the community is carried out only when the sinner persists and does not repent. That is, it turns out that excommunication should not be committed for the sin itself, but for unwillingness to agree with reproof, for maintaining the state of "living in sin." Only then can we be sure that our decision is “bound in heaven”, and Christ Himself participates in making such a decision (Matthew 18:20).
3. Third, it is important to define what excommunication is in essence. In the New Testament, this ecclesiastical punishment appears under two descriptions: “let it be like a Gentile and a publican” (Mat. 18:17) and “surrender to Satan” (1 Cor. 5: 5, 1 Tim. 1:20). What does each of these descriptions mean?
In the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 18, chronologically, the first prescription is given how the church should deal with the sinner. After a series of unsuccessful steps aimed at rectifying the situation, a decision is made that a person who persists in sin should henceforth be perceived "as a pagan and a publican." This is a very tough definition, given the community in which these words were spoken. Among the Jewish people, to which both Christ Himself, who gave this instruction, and the apostles who listened to Him, pagans and tax collectors belonged to that category of people, communication with whom was not only disapproved of, but defiled every faithful Jew. There was certainly a difference between the pagans and the publicans. The pagans never, at all, belonged to the chosen society of God's people, therefore they had nothing to do with God's wonderful promises, which means they could not hope for the blessedness of the future Kingdom. The situation with the tax collectors is, in a sense, even worse. The tax collectors - a kind of tax collector in the Roman Empire stricken with corruption - by their birth could belong to the chosen people, but they lost this right due to the betrayal and oppression of their own people. Publicans were usually excommunicated from synagogues, which was almost tantamount to declaring a person a leper.
Thus, although there were pagans and tax collectors from different nations, they tried to reduce communication with both those and others to the most possible minimum, since it led to ritual desecration.
In 1 Corinthians, chapter 5, the apostle Paul harshly denounces the church for their indifference to the fact of immoral behavior of one of its members. As a necessary remedy for the situation, Paul encourages the church to make a definite decision regarding the libertine. Paul describes this decision as “surrendering to Satan” (1 Cor. 5:50, the same wording we read in 1 Tim. 1:20). There are many comments about these words with different points of view. Without contesting the certain exegetical complexity of this text, it is hardly worth looking for special “exclusivity” in its interpretation. Paul's point is clear enough when viewed in the light of the entire fifth chapter.
Paul encourages the church to wake up from spiritual pride and show zeal and integrity towards the offender. The decision to which Paul prompts them is extremely important, so he speaks about it three times, and in different ways, so that the readers of his letter understand everything as deeply as possible. The first time he speaks about it directly: “so that he who has done such a deed may be removed from among you” (1 Cor. 5: 2). The second time he expresses the same thought metaphorically: “Purify the old leaven” (5: 7). For the third time, Paul quotes from the book of Deuteronomy (Deut. 17: 7, 19:19, 21:21): "Cast out the perverse from among you" (5:13).
In this case, the phrase “give to Satan” becomes clearer. It means removing a person from the church, taking him out of church communion, “transferring” him to the realm where Satan has the power.
It is important to understand that this is not a definition of the question of salvation. That is, the church in this case does not decide the final fate of a person, whether he will be saved or condemned. It is up to God to decide. Paul is here calling on the church to make a decision only that a person who calls himself a brother, but who does not behave like a brother and resists instruction, should be taken out of the church. The church, thus, relieves itself of responsibility for the behavior of such a person - he is now outside the church - and gives everything to the judgment of God.
This judgment of God against the stubborn sinner is described in the words: “give to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (5: 5). It is unlikely that the words about "emaciation of the flesh" mean the idea of salvation only of the spirit without the body. Such a dualistic view of man was characteristic of Platonism, but in no way for Judaism, the anthropology of which was also adopted by the Church. And in Judaism, a person has always been perceived as a single whole. And when reading the Apostle Paul, you can see that he in no way opposes the material and immaterial nature of man, moreover, speaking about the future of Christians, he writes about the salvation of man in aggregate: “May the God of peace himself sanctify you in his entirety, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved in all integrity without blemish at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ ”(1 Thess. 5:23).
In this case, “flesh” and “spirit” belong to the worldview category, and “emaciation of the flesh” is the destruction of man’s sinful qualities, his defective, “fleshly” views, “works of the flesh”, the result of which will be the salvation of the “new nature”.
So, in the words about the attitude towards the unrepentant sinner as a "pagan and a tax collector" and "betraying him to Satan" one idea is expressed - the isolation of the criminal from the Christian community so that he feels the depth of punishment in full, was deprived of communication with believers, turned out to be outside protection from the attacks of the "enemy of human souls" and, as a result of all this, he could repent.
4. And finally, fourth, what is the significance of excommunication for the life of the community and how it should build relationships with the excommunicated.
The understanding of this important issue in the ECB churches suffers from a certain vagueness. First, excommunication itself is perceived either as “revenge” on the sinner, or as a statement of the fact that the sinner has lost salvation, and there is no close relationship between the entire church and a specific sinner. Hence, there are often appeals to “be patient-wait-pray”, because “it’s a pity / a person will be completely lost / it is impossible to quench smoking flax”. Secondly, the status of the excommunicated person and the level of relations with him are not fully understood. If you try to summarize the most common restrictions for the excommunicated, you get the following list. The excommunicated is deprived of the right to a Christian greeting, which is often understood to mean the uttering of the word “welcome” when meeting, which is given a corporate or even some sacred meaning.
The excommunicated person is deprived of the right to certain types of work in the church related to spiritual matters, such as preaching or singing in a choir. It is recognized by everyone that the excommunicated cannot participate in the breaking of bread. At the same time, ordinary, out-of-church communication with an excommunicated person (invitation to visit, common interests) is usually not prohibited. The presence of an excommunicated person at all church services, except for membership, is quite allowed. It is also allowed to attract the excommunicated to any work in the church that is not related to spiritual service, for example, to physical labor (construction work, cleaning the premises, etc.). Sometimes there is a differentiation of the excommunicated according to the severity of the sin. That is, if excommunication was associated with a certain “grave” sin, then a more strict level of relations with the excommunicated person is prescribed, if with “light” sin, then you can have a closer relationship.
Only one thing is clear - the excommunicated person is no longer a member of the church, which means that he does not perform any spiritual service and cannot participate in the breaking of bread and in membership meetings. Everything else is at the level of the initiative of the church members.
BLESSING, Theological Almanac, Novosibirsk Biblical Theological Seminary, 2012
Loading ...