On the first Sunday of Lent in some churches, part of which should be anathematization. What is anathema, to whom was it proclaimed in past times, and is it not necessary to include modernized anathematisms in the ancient rite? We asked Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, doctor of church history, teacher of canon law at Sretensky Theological Seminary, to answer these questions.
– Father Vladislav, when and in connection with what did the rite of the Triumph of Orthodoxy appear?
– The Rite of the Triumph of Orthodoxy came into use after the relapse of the iconoclastic heresy was overcome. , who became the ruler of Byzantium after the death of her husband, who was committed to iconoclasm. As an icon venerator, she used her power to help Orthodox Christians gain the upper hand.
– What is anathema in essence? Is it right, as some do, to call the anathema a “church curse”?
– The word “curse” is the Russian analogue of the Greek (ἀνάθεμα). At the same time, the word “curse” has given us the additional meaning of condemnation to eternal torment. The literal meaning of the word “anathema” is deprivation of church communion - not temporary, like penance, not for a certain period, but complete and complete. Of course, according to the spirit of the Church of Christ, such excommunication would still be subject to cancellation if there was repentance of the excommunicated person.
– That is, even an anathematized heretic, having repented, could return to the Church?
– In cases of anathematization of famous heresiarchs, unfortunately, there was no such return. This extreme measure is not applied by the Church lightly, but only when it arises. If in other cases this measure served to correct and admonish the anathematized, then it was, of course, cancelled.
– Are there similar examples in the history of the Church?
– I repeat: not in the case of those who went down in history as the founders of heresy. But at the Council of Chalcedon the anathemas from Blessed Theodoret and Willow of Edessa were lifted. An indispensable condition for lifting the anathema from them was their proclamation of a public anathema to Nestorius. When they, who had revered him in the past, although they were not of the same mind with him, fulfilled this, they were accepted into church communion.
– Would it be correct to say that the proclamation of anathema is a statement by the Church of the fact that a person resides outside Her body?
- That's right. Statement in cases of qualified guilt of the excommunicate. Almost always, with the exception of political criminals in Russia, heresiarchs - the leaders of heretics - were anathematized. As for other heretics, when anathematized, they were usually designated not by name, but simply “like them,” that is, those who follow the founder of the heresy and maintain communication with him.
– At present, the full rite of the Triumph of Orthodoxy is not performed in all churches, and anathematization is often omitted. In your opinion, what explains this?
– As for the ancient heresiarchs, they lived in the distant past. Anyone who knows church history knows the names of the heresiarchs and the very fact of their anathematization, that is, excommunication from church communion. I think this is the reason that in most temples, with the exception of a few cathedrals, these anathematisms are not proclaimed.
The point is also that over time new ones were added to the ancient anathematisms. Moreover, in Russia, in addition to heretics, political criminals were also anathematized, who, of course, committed serious sins: murder, violence - and, of course, deserved church repression. In this series are “Grishka Otrepyev”, “”, “Emelka Pugachev”, “Stenka Razin”. I name their names in the form in which they were used in the rite of anathematization. These are derogatory names, and writing them in this form under other circumstances, say, in historical research, would not be entirely correct. However, the very fact of anathematization for political reasons still does not fully correspond to the original message of the rite - the declaration of the founders of heresies as being outside the Church.
It is also likely that in Soviet times the annual proclamation of anathema to Pugachev or Razin would be perceived as some kind of political action. Then their names were surrounded by a romantic aura, they themselves were put on a par with revolutionaries, and their biographies and activities were key topics for Soviet historiography of the 17th–18th centuries. I don’t know exactly what the authorities’ reaction might be, but I fully admit that they could simply ban it, and in the 1930s, such a declaration of anathema from the church pulpit could have been followed by punishment.– Were these political criminals excommunicated from the Church upon conviction by a secular court?
“They were excommunicated for their established criminal, and therefore sinful, acts. Another thing is that for some of them there was no way back to the Church due to the fact that they were subject to the death penalty. But not all those anathematized were executed: in the case of Mazepa, for example, the execution was only symbolic.
– To what extent were the proclamation of anathema and the civil execution of a heretic interconnected in the past?
– In the Middle Ages, preserving the life of a heretic was a big problem. I do not mean early Christian times and the era of the Ecumenical Councils. Then, in Byzantium, only extreme heretics, for example the Manichaeans, were executed, and even then not always. It has never happened that Monophysites, or Monothelites, or Nestorians as such were subjected to the death penalty simply for their views. There could be all sorts of excesses, but this was not the norm.
On the contrary, in medieval Western Europe being declared a heretic usually entailed the death penalty. In Spain, for example, this happened in relation to Protestants until the beginning of the 19th century.
– Is there a similar rite in the Catholic Church containing anathema to heretics?
- Undoubtedly. I don’t know how this happens, but, of course, the canonical act of excommunication itself exists and is used quite widely in our time.
– Now among educated people, but far from the Church, when the term “anathema” is mentioned, Leo Tolstoy is often remembered. And then, as a rule, there are accusations against the Church, which supposedly helped the tsarist government deal with a bright dissident personality...
– You know, with Tolstoy it wasn’t quite like that. What is written in Kuprin’s famous story is fiction. Tolstoy's name was never officially included in the rite of the Triumph of Orthodoxy for anathematization. And in general, in the act of excommunication from church communion, the term “anathema” is not used. The meaning of this act is tantamount to anathematization, but it is expressed more delicately, in more cautious words precisely because the word “anathema” was perceived in wide circles as odious. For obvious reasons, the Holy Synod did not use this term in relation to Tolstoy. The act of excommunication contained only a statement: until the writer repents (and the possibility of his repentance existed), he remains outside the Church, and what he preaches does not express the teachings of the Church. It was quite obvious that Tolstoy’s long preaching of ideas radically diverging from Orthodox church teaching, accompanied by caustic attacks against church sacraments, was bound to cause some reaction.
Of course, at the same time or a little earlier there lived and acted people who publicly declared their worldview, which placed them outside the Church, such as Chernyshevsky, Pisarev, Herzen, as well as political figures of the opposition - the same Miliukov, who directly declared himself an atheist. However, they were not anathematized. There was more danger in Tolstoy's preaching. The fact is that many of those who sincerely considered themselves Christians, but were looking for a “better” and “most perfect” Christianity, became Tolstoy’s followers. Under the guise of “Christianity,” the writer offered them his own speculations, and therefore, in religious terms, he was more dangerous than just an atheist.
– Do you consider it advisable to resume the use of this part of the rite of the Triumph of Orthodoxy with the introduction of some changes to those provisions that may currently be perceived as anachronistic, for example, in the part concerning Orthodox sovereigns? It anathematizes “those who think that Orthodox rulers are elevated to thrones not by God’s special favor for them,” as well as those who “daring to rebel and treason against them”...
– One might think about slightly changing the provisions of the anathematisms. But it is impossible to solve this problem easily, because in the absence of Orthodox monarchs at present, such a change would mean a completely definite political position. On the contrary, restoring the mention of sovereigns could be perceived as agitation for the restoration of the monarchy, and the Church cannot take a political platform. Meanwhile, if you carefully read the text of this particular anathematism, it will become obvious that it does not indicate monarchy as the absolutely correct and only possible form of government. The point is that if monarchs are crowned and anointed, then this happened through the action of the Holy Spirit, that anointing to the kingdom is not just a symbol, but a real action of grace.
Speaking abstractly, it is possible to change this anathematism in such a way that it applies to bearers of state power in general. But it is obvious that the Orthodox faith implies faith in the Providence of God. This means that every state power is established or allowed by God. Should we extend this anathema to all those who do not believe that any official, deputy, and in general anyone involved in state power is either allowed by God or appointed? But one cannot help but believe in this, because otherwise than by the will of God, and in O Loss will not fall from a person’s head. However, this is a completely different idea. Therefore, such a reworking of the text does not seem appropriate. It is possible to change the content of this anathematism in some other way, but this requires serious and thorough consideration by the conciliar mind of the Church.
List of 12 anathematisms proclaimed up to 1917:
- Those who deny the existence of God and affirm that this world is original and everything in it without the Providence of God and happens by chance: anathema.
- The one who speaks of God is not Spirit, but flesh; or not to be His Righteous, Merciful, All-Wise, Omniscient and similar blasphemy to those who pronounce: anathema.
- To those who dare to say that the Son of God is not Consubstantial and not Equal in Honor with the Father, so is the Holy Spirit, and to those who confess that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not the One being of God: anathema.
- Those who foolishly say that for our salvation and for the cleansing of sins there is no need for the coming into the world of the Son of God in the flesh, and His free suffering, death and resurrection: anathema.
- Those who do not accept the grace of redemption preached by the Gospel as our only means of justification before God: anathema.
- To those who dare to say that the Most Pure Virgin Mary did not exist before the Nativity, at the Nativity and after the Nativity the Virgin: anathema.
- To those who do not believe, for the Holy Spirit made wise the prophets and apostles and through them showed us the true path to eternal salvation, and confirmed this with miracles, and now dwells in the hearts of faithful and true Christians and guides them to all truth: anathema.
- Those who take away the immortality of the soul, the end of the century, the future judgment and eternal reward for virtues in heaven, and condemnation for sins: anathema.
- To those who reject all the holy Sacraments contained by the Church of Christ: anathema.
- To those who reject the councils of the holy Fathers and their traditions, in agreement with Divine Revelation, and piously preserved by the Orthodox Catholic Church: anathema.
- Those who think that in Orthodoxy Sovereigns are not elevated to thrones by God’s special favor for them and when they are anointed to the kingdom, the gift of the Holy Spirit for the passage of this great title is not poured out on them; and so to those who dare to rebel and treason against them: anathema.
- Those who scold and blaspheme the holy icons, whose Holy Church commemorates the works of God and His saints, for the sake of arousing those who look at them to piety, and accept their imitation, and those who say they are idols: anathema.
Many people think that this is a terrible curse that a priest can place on the head of an unfaithful sinner. Others say that this is an old, forgotten church ritual... Let's figure out what this means, and was it only in past centuries that public renunciation of the church was practiced?
Translated from Greek, this word means “imposition” or “excommunication.” In ancient times, it meant dedication to a deity, a sacrifice to the gods according to a vow. A little later (specifically, at the beginning of the 4th century AD), it took on a diametrically opposite meaning - the separation of a person from the church community. The term came into widespread use even later - in the 5th century.
Nowadays, church anathema means that a person is excommunicated from attending church and communicating with the faithful. He will not be baptized, have a funeral service, or be buried on church (consecrated) ground. It should not be confused with penance, during which a Christian also cannot go to church - penance is a temporary renunciation, and anathema is eternal (with rare exceptions).
It is curious that not only an individual can “have the honor” of falling under such disgrace from the church. Nihilism, naturalism, socialism, and communism were anathema. And in the 15th century, the Pope anathematized an entire city - the Czech Žatec. Reason: supporting Hus and the Hussite movement.
Is it possible to remove an anathema from a person: the opinion of the Orthodox Church
Yes! If the anathematized person sincerely repents of his sins, the body that excommunicated him from the church can reverse its decision. There have been striking examples of this in world history (you can read about them in more detail below). So anathema is not a final and irrevocable sentence. Although, of course, this is a very, very serious decision of the church.
Which rulers “had the honor” of being anathematized?
- King Henry IV of Germany(1050-1106). This crowned ruler wanted to appoint bishops himself, which the Vatican really did not like, and the pope excommunicated the obstinate king from the church. At that time, this was a very strong punishment, which could cost Henry the throne. He had to go for forgiveness of sins (on foot!), wait several days for an audience... The anathema was lifted.
- Frederick II of Hohenstaufen(1194-1250). This ruler extended his hands to the lands belonging to the Vatican. The ruler was anathematized several times and was also called the Antichrist. At first he did not react to this in any way, but under the pressure of the believing nobles, he decided to do something nice for the Vatican - he led the 4th Crusade, wanting to occupy Jerusalem. And he did it, and in a completely peaceful way - through negotiations. True, this did not save him from anathema.
- English King Henry the Eighth(1491-1547). He turned out to be very loving, marrying 6 times. His first divorce did not please the holy fathers so much that the Pope excommunicated him from the church. The king responded quite harshly by banning Catholicism in England. His Catholic compatriots, who did not like the king's decision, were persecuted. True, in politically the country became more independent, because it had its own church.
- Zaporozhye Hetman Mazepa(1639-1709). He led his Cossacks against Peter the Great, concluding an alliance with the Swedish king. This action was not anti-religious, but worldly, political, but the Russian church subordinate to Peter declared the hetman a renegade and anathematized him, with great pomp and curses.
- Revolutionary Cuban Fidel Castro(1926-2016). The Vatican fought against communism, and Fidel also fell under their “hand.” However, in Cuba most of the revolutionaries were true Catholics. They did not burn churches, did not shoot priests, Castro even met with the pontiff. In general, most likely, this anathema did not last long.
And not rulers, but also famous people
- There is an opinion that they were excommunicated from the church Dmitry Donskoy, hero of the Battle of Kulikovo. Historians even prove that before the battle, Sergius of Radonezh, who supported Cyprian, did not bless him (it was he who anathematized the future hero of the well-known battle). It is interesting that today he is canonized.
- Otrepiev, later called False Dmitry the First. A fugitive monk who called himself the son of Ivan the Terrible, became king, and was later killed. Excommunicated from the church in 1604, while still alive.
- Razin(1671). This Don Cossack and ataman fell out of favor with the church because he rebelled against the current government, and the Cossacks behaved quite cruelly.
- Emelyan Pugachev(anathema - 1775, lifted before the execution of the rebel in the same year).
- Leo Tolstoy. Yes, yes, that same writer. One of his novels, “Resurrection,” was especially disliked by the clergy because of his criticism of the morals prevailing in the author’s contemporary churches. The excommunication took place in 1901, it was proclaimed by the Holy Synod. True, there was no proclamation in Russian churches.
- Markov, mathematician who studied number theory, probability and calculus. The excommunication took place in 1912. Reason: the scientist ardently stood up for Leo Tolstoy, protesting against the excommunication of the writer.
As for the Catholics, they anathematized Joan of Arc (warrior), Martin Luther (theologian, Protestant), Giordano Bruno (philosopher), and Jan Hus (preacher). However, since 1983, Catholics no longer use this term.
And who is the Russian Orthodox Church taking up arms against these days?
- Evgraf Duluman, the main atheist of the country, who lured many believers and even some priests to his side. He was excommunicated in 1959. By the way, these same atheists were anathematized for their company with Evgraf.
- (he was anathematized in 1970). Reason: persecution of the church. The Russian Orthodox Church Council announced its decision while abroad.
- Supporters of ecumenism who want to unite all churches into one. The excommunication occurred in 1983.
- Kyiv Patriarch Filaret, Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church(in the world Denisenko), anathematized by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997, and also defrocked. However, he remained in the UOC, declaring that the anathema was carried out for political reasons.
- Yakunin, dissident, Protopresbyter of the Apostolic Orthodox Church. Anathema was given in the same 1997. Even earlier, in 1993, he was defrocked because he took part in elections (and this was not befitting a clergyman). But this church punishment did not prevent Gleb from becoming a deputy.
- Dementiev, journalist, atheist. “Honoured” in 2009, for critical articles about the nunnery.
But what exactly does the “procedure” for anathematization look like? This is clearly shown in a short video filmed in the church:
Anathema is the excommunication of a Christian from the holy sacraments and from contacts with the faithful. It was used as punishment for particularly serious sins against the Church.
Term
Comes from the Greek word αναθεμα, meaning something dedicated to God, an offering to the temple, a gift. In the Greek translation of the Bible it was used to convey the Hebrew term (herem) - something cursed, rejected by people and doomed to destruction. It was under the influence of the Hebrew language that the meaning of the word “anathema” acquired a negative meaning and began to be interpreted as something that was rejected by people, doomed to destruction and therefore cursed.
Essence
The question of the need for anathema and its admissibility is one of the most difficult church problems. Throughout the history of the Church, both the application and non-application of this punishment was dictated by a series of specific circumstances, the main one of which was the degree of danger that the sinner posed to the church community.
In the Middle Ages, both in the East and in the West, the opinion was established that Baptism does not completely exclude a person from the Church, and therefore even anathema cannot completely close the path to the salvation of the soul. And yet, such punishment in the era in the West was considered as “tradition to eternal destruction.” True, it was used only for and only when there was absolute persistence in errors, and there was no desire for correction.
Orthodoxy said that anathema is a conciliarly proclaimed excommunication of a person (or group), whose actions and thoughts posed a threat to the unity of the Church and the purity of doctrine. This act of isolation had an educational, healing function in relation to the anathematized and a warning in relation to the believing community. Such punishment was applied only after many futile attempts to induce repentance in the sinner and gave hope for future repentance and, as a result, the person’s return to the bosom of the Church in the future, and therefore for his salvation.
Catholicism still believes that to anathematize means to curse and deprive of all hopes of salvation. Therefore, the attitude towards the anathematization of those who left this world differs. Anathema is a curse, Catholicism believes, a punishment for the dead. But Orthodoxy looks at it as evidence of a person’s excommunication from the Church, which means that a person can be subjected to it at any moment.
Proclamation of anathema
The act for which this punishment could be inflicted had to be in the nature of a major disciplinary or dogmatic crime, therefore schismatics, false teachers, and heresiarchs were subjected to personal Anathema. Due to the severity of this, they resorted to it in extremely rare cases, when none of the milder means had any effect on sinners.
The anathema was originally pronounced “let the name be anathema,” which literally meant “let him be excommunicated.” Over time, the wording has changed. In particular, the term “anathema” is no longer the excommunication of the subject, but the act of excommunication itself (“name-anathema”). Therefore, such an expression is possible: “I anathematize (I) the name and (or) his heresy.”
Because of the seriousness of this punishment, he could be subjected to a representative council of bishops or a synod headed by the Patriarch, and in particularly difficult situations - an Ecumenical Council. If any Patriarch decided such a question individually, then the decision was still formalized as a conciliar one.
When anathema was imposed after death, it was forbidden to remember the soul of the deceased, conduct a memorial service, funeral service, or pronounce
Removing the anathema
The imposition of this punishment did not at all mean that the path to return to the Church and, as a consequence, to salvation was closed. To remove this highest church punishment, a complex legal action had to be performed: the sinner’s repentance in public. In the case of sufficient grounds (completeness and sincerity of repentance, the absence of a threat from the sinner to the rest of the Church members and execution of the prescribed punishment), the body that imposed the punishment could decide to forgive the anathematized. The anathema could also be lifted after death. Then again any of the types was allowed
(18 votes: 3.9 out of 5)Apparently, Father Maxim, it’s natural to start the conversation by clarifying the meaning of the term “anathema” itself. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia claims that in Christianity this is “a church curse, excommunication.” Is it so?
- “Anathema” is a Greek word that goes back to the verb “anatifimi”, meaning “to assign, to hand over something to someone.” Anathema- what is given is handed over to the absolute will, to the absolute possession of anyone. In the church meaning, anathema is that which is handed over to the final judgment of God and about which (or about whom) it no longer has its own care or prayer. By declaring anathema to someone, she thereby openly testifies: this person, even if he calls himself a Christian, is such that he himself has confirmed by his worldview and actions that he has nothing to do with the Church of Christ.
So anathema is not a “curse of the church,” as some people believe, following the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, or as the worldly media illiterately interprets it; this is not excommunication from the Church in the secular understanding of this term. Of course, someone who has been anathematized no longer has the right to participate in the life of the Church: to confess, receive communion, or attend divine services. But excommunication from church communion, as such, occurs without anathema. According to our canons, a person who has gravely sinned can be removed from participation in the Church Sacraments for a certain period of time... Therefore, anathema does not simply mean excommunication, but the testimony of the Church about what the guilty person, for his part, has long known and was confirmed in: his worldview, positions and views do not coincide with church ones 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 that those who do not confess Christ as the Son of God are anathematized, considering Him just a wise moral teacher or some kind of ideal prophet. The Holy Apostle Paul wrote: “As we said before, so now I say again: if anyone preaches to you anything other than what you have received, let him be accursed.” Anathemas were, of course, also declared at Ecumenical Councils. Thus, in the 4th century, the presbyter of the Alexandrian Church Arius was condemned, who denied 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 natures in Christ. Such church courts existed until the VII Ecumenical Council, at which the iconoclasts were anathematized.
In 842, in the Greek Church, on the first Sunday of Great Lent, the Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy was celebrated for the first time 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 the kings, patriarchs and other current defenders of the faith and, finally, the declaration of anathema to the main heresies and their bearers.
- Is this festive rite still performed in our Church?
On the Week of the Triumph of Orthodoxy (“week” in Slavic means “Sunday”) this rite was fully performed in our country until the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. And although there was no special church decree on this matter, they stopped declaring anathema so as not to aggravate the already hostile attitude new government to the Church. This order has not been restored as a general church order today, which seems reasonable, since it certainly needs clarification in relation to the current church situation. What is the reason to anathematize the non-existent Arians or the successors of the same Nestorians, who have largely moved away from long-standing errors, if today Russians are literally groaning from an orgy of totalitarian sects hostile to Orthodoxy, pseudo-Christian “teachings” and false Christs?
We will definitely return to the issue of restoring the rite of anathematization later, but for now I would like to talk about particularly loud condemnations in our church history. Some people are still asking the question: did she go too far with the excommunication of Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy?
Recognizing him as one of the greatest Russian writers, the Church at the same time could not remain silent about the religious errors of the writer, for “God is betrayed by silence.” Just don’t imagine that event based on Kuprin’s well-known story; from the pulpits of Russian churches, anathema to “boyar Lev” was never proclaimed - this is the author’s artistic speculation. In fact, the very consistent Synodal definition of February 22, 1901 was evidence of the writer’s own views. By that time, in his religious and philosophical quests, he himself had come to deny the need for the Church and its Sacraments - Baptism, Confession, Communion, and to deny the main postulate of Christianity - that Christ is truly the Son of God. Finally, the writer dared to compose “The Gospel Set forth by Leo Tolstoy,” in his pride, believing that he understood better than anyone who had lived nineteen centuries before him, better than anyone else what Christ taught... “... Therefore, the Church does not consider him its member and does not can count until he repents and restores his communication with her...” - said the church definition. Let me remind you that Lev Nikolaevich was in the Optina Hermitage shortly before his death, but he never dared to enter the elder’s cell, and later the Optina elder was not allowed to see the dying writer. So God’s judgment was final for him.
- What explains the anathematization of such a person as Hetman Mazepa?
Not only he, a traitor to the Fatherland, but also Grishka Otrepiev and Stepashka Razin were excommunicated from the Church 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 cared 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 had been the stronghold of universal Orthodoxy. Because of this, anti-state actions were simultaneously regarded as anti-church, and therefore those guilty of them were subject to church condemnation through anathematization.
IN recent years were anathematized for anti-church activities former metropolitan Filaret (Denisenko), former priest Gleb Yakunin... 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: “Come to your senses! The utmost 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.” No matter how strange it may seem to someone, anathema is also evidence of Christian love for people who have seemingly become completely lost; anathema still does not deprive them of the path to repentance.
The rite of anathema from people who have deeply repented and renounced their errors is lifted, the fullness of their stay in the Church is restored, they can again begin the Sacraments, and most importantly, they again receive the opportunity of salvation. The only thing that cannot be returned to them is their former dignity.
- I wonder if anathematization exists in the Roman Catholic Church?
The Vatican has the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is the successor to the notorious Holy Inquisition, which threw heretics throughout Europe into the fire in the Middle Ages. I would like to emphasize here that the Russian Church has never engaged in the forcible eradication of heresy... So, in the current Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, judgments are periodically made about specific individuals and about specific directions of religious thought. One can name a number of former Catholic theologians and religious views (for example, “liberation theology” in Latin America) that in modern times have been condemned by the Vatican, which amounts to anathema.
In conclusion, I would ask you, Father Maxim, to return to the problem of restoring the church-wide rite of anathematization on the Week of the Triumph of Orthodoxy...
I think that with a thorough and broad explanation to the Orthodox people, what constitutes anathema, what is testimony Churches about those who are mistaken, the restoration of this rank would have serious significance for many of our contemporaries. First of all, for those who, under the influence of sectarian grandiosity, began to believe that it was indeed permissible to be both Orthodox and, say, a Scientologist. Or be Orthodox and belong to some odious Protestant sect, the leaders of which deceptively say about themselves - “we are Christians in general.”
I believe that the “prospect” of being anathematized can deter the promiscuous spiritually a person from a dangerous infatuation with false teachers, and this will ultimately prove beneficial for the spiritual health of the people as a whole. As far as I know, many priests and laity share this opinion.
Newspaper Trud
[Greek ἀνάθεμα - excommunication], excommunication of a Christian from communion with the faithful and from the holy sacraments, applied as the highest church punishment for grave sins (primarily for betrayal of Orthodoxy and deviation into heresy or schism) and conciliarly proclaimed. Church A. (or great excommunication) should not be confused with “excommunication” (ἀφορισμός), which is the temporary exclusion of an individual from the church community with a ban on participating in the sacraments and (for clergy) holding church positions. Sometimes also called “minor excommunication,” it, unlike A., serves as punishment for lesser offenses, for example: theft, fornication (Ap. 48), participation in obtaining a church position through a bribe (Ap. 30), etc. , does not require a conciliar decision and does not need a conciliar proclamation to enter into force.
Term
Greek the term ἀνάθεμα (ἀνάθημα) meant among pagan authors (Homer, Sophocles, Herodotus) “something dedicated to God; gift, offering to the temple” (i.e. something separated, alien to everyday use). It was used in Greek. translation of the Bible (Septuagint) for the transmission of ancient Hebrew. term - something cursed, rejected by people and doomed to destruction (Num. 21. 2-3; Lev 27. 28 et seq.; Deut. 7. 26; 13. 15 (16), 17; 20. 17; Joshua 6. 17 et seq. ; 7. 11 ff.; Zech 14. 11; etc.). Under the influence of ancient Hebrew. the term "A." 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; Rom 9. 3. Ap. Pavel uses in one place special shape curses: “Whoever does not love the Lord Jesus Christ is anathema, maran-atha” (1 Cor 16.22). The addition of “maran-afa” (Aramic - the Lord is near) indicates Bud. the coming of Christ, Who alone can finally decide the fate of the sinner.
In Orthodox liturgical tradition since 843 (the restoration of icon veneration, there is a special rite of the “Triumph of Orthodoxy” - the annual proclamation of the saving dogmas of faith, A. heretics, “Eternal memory” of the deceased and many years of living faithful (see Orthodoxy week).
A. for non-church purposes
Since A. is the highest church punishment, its use for extra-church (in particular, political) purposes is not considered canonical: it has no basis in canon law. However, in conditions of close rapprochement between church and secular authorities in the Orthodox Church. state-wah sometimes there was A. of a political nature. In the history of Byzantium, there are known cases of the legend of A. rebels and usurpers to the emperor. authorities: in 1026 with the active participation of the emperor. Constantine VIII adopted a conciliar decree about the A. organizers and participants of the rebellion. Similar definitions were issued 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 Palaiologos). Byzantium also resorted to “political” use of astrology during the civil war in the 40s. XIV century However, even then this practice met with sharp rebuff from such leading canonists and theologians as Patriarch Philotheus Kokkin and Matthew the Angel Panaret, who based their argumentation on the already discussed treatise attributed to St. John Chrysostom, and the opinion of Theodore Balsamon. Opponents of the “political” A., in addition, rightly pointed out that the Orthodox were also usurpers. Byzantine the emperors, whose names, traces, should have been crossed out from the diptychs and not mentioned at the liturgy, which, however, did not happen. In the history of the Russian Church, a similar incident took place at the Council of 1667, when a dispute arose between the Greek. and Russian bishops regarding the permissibility of A. for conspirators trying to overthrow the existing government. The Greeks, referring to a certain Alexandrian patriarchal “collection of laws,” insisted on A. for such persons, but Russian. The bishops, recognizing the legality of A. for heretics and schismatics, saw no reason to excommunicate from the Church persons who speak out not against church, but against secular power (Sinaisky, Archpriest pp. 58-59).
When imp. Peter I, in conditions of complete control of the state over the Church, the case of A. state is known. criminal, imposed not by the Council of Bishops, but by the Emperor. decree (excommunication from the Church of the rebel Stefan Glebov by decree of August 23, 1718).
Apotropaic use, i.e., aversion from unwanted actions, includes inscriptions from numerous Middle Ages. tombstones, threatening A. to anyone who digs up the grave. Scribes-copyists often placed written A. on the first or last page of the manuscript for the possible theft of a book, in order to scare away thieves. Curses were sometimes called upon the heads of those who dared to change the text of the book, although in the latter case one cannot speak of “extra-church purposes,” for a similar use of A. also contains the text of the Holy Scripture. Scriptures (cf. Rev. 22. 18-19).
Spiritual and legal consequences A.
Official the proclamation of someone A. (or over someone A.) leads to the exclusion of this person from the church community, excommunication from the holy sacraments, a ban on attending church and claiming Christ. burial. In the West, at the latest from the 9th century. A. also relied on communication with persons devoted to A. (enshrined in the 3rd law of the Lateran II Council 1139). Devotee A. was limited in the right to act as a plaintiff and witness in court, and his murder was not punishable in the usual legal manner.
Removal A.
A.'s tradition is not an act that irrevocably closes the path to return to the Church and, ultimately, to salvation. The removal of A. as the highest church punishment occurs through a complex legal action, including a) repentance of the anathematized person, which is carried out in a special, usually public, manner; repentance is brought directly through an appeal to the church authority that imposed the A., or through a person appointed by it (for example, through a confessor), b) in the presence of sufficient grounds (sincerity and completeness of repentance, execution of the prescribed church punishment, absence of danger from the anathematized for other members of the Church) the decision by the body that issued the penalty to forgive the person. A. can also be removed after death - in this case, all types of commemoration of the deceased are again allowed.
In 1964, in Jerusalem, on the initiative of Athenagoras, Patriarch of Poland (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 Council). The result of the meeting was the abolition of mutual A., which had existed since 1054. Of great importance for the Russian Church is the abolition of A. for schismatic Old Believers by the Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1971.
A. in the Russian Orthodox Church
The use of A. in the Russian Church has a number of significant features compared to the ancient Church. In the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, in contrast to the Byzantines. The Church did not have so many heresies; it knew almost no cases of obvious falling away from Christianity into paganism or other religions. To Domong. era, a number of rules arose against pagan rituals - so, right. 15 and 16 John II, Met. Kievsky (1076/1077-1089), declare “alien to our faith and rejected from the conciliar Church” all those who make sacrifices on the tops of mountains, near swamps and wells, and do not comply with the establishment of Christ. marriage and does not receive communion at least once a year. By rights. 2 Cyril II, Met. Kievsky (c. 1247-1281), excommunication threatened those who staged 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. Ancient Slavic helmsman XIV titles without interpretation. Sofia, 1987. T. 2. P. 183). Besides, you're right. 5 mit. John excommunicates from the Church those who do not partake and who eat meat and “bad things” during Lent, right. 23 - persons who sell Christians into slavery to the “filthy”, right. 25 and 26 - those who entered into incestuous marriages (Ibid. pp. 79, 85-86).
Among the population of Western On the outskirts of the Russian state, there were deviations into Catholicism or Protestantism, but the Russian Orthodox Church never used A. against compatriots who entered into a union with Rome or converted to Protestantism; it prayed for their reunification with the Orthodox Church. Church. Characteristic feature The Russian Orthodox Church in the fight against heresies, sects and schisms was, as a rule, a cautious and balanced application of A. - it was proclaimed to irreconcilable schismatics and heretics in accordance with canon law. In 1375, the Strigolniki were excommunicated from the Church - the Novgorod-Pskov heresy of the Strigolniki was almost the only Russian one. heresy. It continued in the XV - beginning. XVI century in the Novgorod-Moscow heresy of the “Judaizers” (see volume of the Russian Orthodox Church, pp. 53, 69-71), A. “Judaizers” were followed in 1490 and 1504. A peculiar phenomenon of the Russian Church was the Old Believer schism of 1666-1667, which arose on the basis of disagreement with the correction of church books and rituals in Greek. model - A. to the schismatic Old Believers, proclaimed at the Councils of 1666-1667. The “Spiritual Regulations” of Peter I (1720) also contain A. to the gentlemen who shelter schismatics on their estates (Part 2. Worldly persons. 5).
The “Spiritual Regulations” speak in detail about in what cases, for what crimes, A. is imposed (“...if anyone clearly blasphemes the name of God or Scripture, either the Church, or he is clearly a sinner, not ashamed of his deeds, but even more so arrogant, or without the correct guilt of repentance and the Holy Eucharist does not accept the Holy Eucharist for more than a year; or does something else with obvious abuse and ridicule of the law of God, such a person, after repeated punishment, remains stubborn and proud, and is worthy of being judged to death. For it is not just for sin that one is subject to anathema, but for the obvious and proud contempt of the judgment of God and the authority of the church with the great temptation of the weak brethren...” - Part 2. About bishops. 16), what is the procedure for A. (if, after repeated admonitions, “the criminal is adamant and stubborn, then the bishop will not proceed with the anathema, but first he will write to the Ecclesiastical Collegium about everything that happened, and from the Collegium he will receive permission in a letter , will clearly anathematize the sinner...” - Ibid.), what are the consequences of A. for the anathematized and his family (“... I personally am subject to this anathema, but neither my wife nor children...” - Ibid.) and the conditions of permission from A., if the “exiled” one repents and wants to repent, but if he does not repent and “even learns to curse the church anathema,” then the Spiritual Collegium asks for the court of the worldly authorities. A. a person is cut off from the Body of Christ, the Church, being no longer a Christian and “alienated from the inheritance of all the blessings acquired for us by the death of the Savior” (Ibid.).
A. were betrayed by the heretical iconoclasts D. Tveritinov and his supporters during the trial of them in 1713-1723. The punishment of heretics and schismatics in the Patriarchal period was not limited to A. - it, as a rule, was supplemented by either corporal (including self-mutilation) punishment, or expulsion and imprisonment, and often the death penalty by burning (the latter was applied to “Judaizers” in 1504, in relation to the schismatic Old Believers, legalized by the royal decree of 1684).
Church excommunication was also proclaimed against persons who committed serious crimes against the state - impostors, rebels, traitors. In all these conflicts with the secular authorities, there was, however, an element of action against Orthodoxy - either in the form of a conspiracy with heretics (the defection of the impostor Grigory Otrepyev to the side of the Polish interventionists at the beginning of the 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', gradually underwent 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 traitors and impostors “Grishka Otrepiev”, “Timoshka Akindinov”, the rebel Stenka Razin, the schismatics Avvakum, Lazar, Nikita Suzdalets 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, corrected edition, mandatory for all dioceses. In 1801, the rite of Orthodoxy was significantly reduced: it lists only the heresies themselves, without mentioning the names of heretics, and from the names of state. the criminals were left (already in a corrected form) as “Grigory Otrepiev” and “Ivan Mazepa”. Later, in the 1869 edition, these names were also omitted - instead of them, a general phrase about “those daring to revolt” against “Orthodox sovereigns” appeared in the rank. Over time, that is, when anathematizing famous persons, the Russian Church gradually reduced their number, avoiding naming names and designating these persons in general terms, according to their involvement in one or another dogmatic or disciplinary error, as well as in state. crime.
Great resonance in Russian society beginning XX century received excommunication from the Church of the writer gr. L. N. Tolstoy, carried out by the Holy Synod (February 20-23, 1901). In the Definition of the Synod gr. Tolstoy is called a “false teacher” who preaches “the overthrow of all the dogmas of the Orthodox Church and the very essence of the Christian faith,” who, “while 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. ...To his understanding, the attempts that were made were not crowned with success. Therefore, the Church does not consider him a member and cannot consider him until he repents and restores his communion with her.” Instead of the word "A." in the Definition of the Synod the expressions “he has torn himself away from all communication with the Orthodox Church”, “his falling away from the Church” are used. 4 Apr. 1901 gr. Tolstoy responded to the Definition of the Holy Synod, in which he stated: “I really renounced the Church, stopped performing its rituals and wrote in my will to my loved ones so that when I die they would not allow me to see church ministers... The fact that I reject the incomprehensible Trinity and the fable about the fall of the first man, the story about God born of the Virgin, redeeming the human race, is completely fair" (Quoted from: The Spiritual Tragedy of Leo Tolstoy. M., 1995. With 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 the excommunication from the gr. Tolstoy. In response to correspondents on this issue His Holiness Patriarch said: gr. Tolstoy refused to be Orthodox. a Christian, refused to be a member of the Church, we do not deny that he is a literary genius, but he clearly has an Antichrist. works; Do we have the right, after 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 removal of sacred objects from churches under the pretext of helping the hungry (Acts of St. Tikhon. S. 82-85, 188-190). Anti-religion. government policy in con. 50's - 60's (see vol. ROC. pp. 188-189) caused the appearance of the Resolution of the Patriarch and Priest. Synod No. 23 of December 30. 1959 “On those who publicly blasphemed the Name of God”: the clergy who committed this crime, former. prot. Alexandra Osipova, former priest Pavel Darmansky, “to be considered expelled from the priesthood and deprived of all church communion,” “Evgraf Duluman and other former Orthodox laymen who publicly blasphemed the Name of God, to be excommunicated from the Church” (ZhMP. 1960. No. 2. P. 27). In the fall of 1993, during an armed confrontation near the White House in Moscow, St. The Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church issued a Statement (Oct. 1), calling on people to come to their senses and choose the path of dialogue. Oct 8 His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II, Priest. The Synod and hierarchs who arrived on the day of memory of St. Sergius of Radonezh in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, issued an Appeal, in which, without naming specific names, they condemned those who shed the innocent blood of their neighbors - “this blood cries out to Heaven and, as the Holy Church warned, will remain the indelible seal of Cain "On their conscience (Orthodox Moscow. 1993. No. 5).
Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church 1994 in the Definition “On pseudo-Christian sects, neo-paganism and occultism,” following the apostolic tradition, he pronounced words of excommunication (A.) to those who share the teachings of sects, “new religious movements,” paganism, astrological, theosophical, spiritualist societies, etc. ., declaring war on the Church of Christ. Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church 1997 excommunicated Monk from the Church. Philareta (Denisenko). Deprived of all degrees of the priesthood at the Council of Bishops in 1992, warned by the Council of Bishops in 1994 that if he continued his schismatic activities he would be anathematized, he continued to perform “divine services” and false consecrations; “not having holy orders, monk Philaret, to the temptation of many, dared to call himself “Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus'-Ukraine””, with his criminal acts he continued to damage Orthodoxy. Cathedral, based on Apostle. 28, Sardik. 14, Antioch. 4, Vasil. 88, determined: “Excommunicate monk Philaret (Mikhail Antonovich Denisenko) from the Church of Christ. Let him be anathema before all the people." The Council warned the former people involved in criminal activities. mon. Philaret, called them to repentance - otherwise they will be excommunicated from church communion through anathematization. The Council notified the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches. Churches about the anathematization of the former. mon. Filareta (Denisenko) (ZhMP. 1997. No. 4. P. 19-20). The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997 condemned the anti-church activities of Gleb Pavlovich Yakunin, who was deprived of the priesthood by the Determination of Priest. Synod of October 8 1993 and warned by the Council of Bishops in 1994: “If the disorderly wearing of the priest’s cross and priestly vestments continues... the question of his excommunication from the Church will be raised.” G.P. Yakunin did not heed the call addressed to him for repentance and an end to the atrocities. Cathedral based on St. Ap. 28, Karth. 10, Sardik. 14, Antioch. 4, Double 13, Vasil. 88 determined: “Excommunicate Gleb Pavlovich Yakunin from the Church of Christ. Let him be anathema before all the people” (Ibid. p. 20).
Lit.: Kober F. Der Kirchenbann nach den Grundsätzen des Kanonischen Rechts dargestellt. Tubingen, 1857; Suvorov N. About church punishments: Experience in research on church law. St. Petersburg, 1876; Nikolsky K. Anathematization, or Excommunication. St. Petersburg, 1879; Uspensky F. AND . Synodikon on the Sunday 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 and Russian Church. St. Petersburg, 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 Synodic // VV. 1959. T. 16. P. 317-394; 1960. T. 17. P. 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 method; Ράλλη Κ . M. 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 20th century. [M.], 1998; Maksimovič K. Patriarch Methodios I. (843-847) und das studitische Schisma (Quellenkritische Bemerkungen) // Byz. 2000. T. 50/2. P. 422-446.
K. A. Maksimovich
