On the Right of Church Excommunication, or Anathematization

Author: Holy Martyr Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky)

No action of the Church authorities has generated or generates so much misunderstanding, murmuring and discontent in Christian society, and has not been and is not subjected to such attacks from free but wrong-thinking people as the imposition of excommunication from the Church, the pronouncement of anathema. Some, not having a correct understanding of the meaning, spirit and character of church excommunication, look upon it as an action that does not correspond to the spirit of Christian love, and are indignant at the imaginary cruelty, which the Church in this case supposedly carries to the extreme1; while others, although they give it justice as an external, disciplinary measure, deny in it that which constitutes its essential belonging, deny the internal force and effectiveness of excommunication; Some extend their encroachment on ecclesiastical excommunication to such an extent that, denying the divinely revealed origin of ecclesiastical excommunication, they call it an invention of the Middle Ages, a product of barbaric times, a weapon wilfully seized by the clergy, serving as a support for hierarchical despotism, which allegedly does not want to recognize any rights for subordinates2. But to speak in this way means to admit such an injustice, greater than which it is difficult to imagine anything. For the punishment of ecclesiastical excommunication is as ancient as the Church itself. Its essential elements in our Eastern Orthodox Church3 have been the same at all times, and if there have been changes and additions, these are nothing more than inevitable results, with internal necessity flowing from the original principles and views. Likewise, upon closer examination of the matter, not the slightest trace of cruelty, malice and hierarchical despotism is found here; on the contrary, nowhere is the arbitrariness and self-will of the church authorities so limited as in that point of the law which deals with the application of excommunication – this most severe of all church punishments, and nothing is done by the church authorities with such sorrow as excommunication.

In the proposed study, we intend to reveal the true meaning and significance of excommunication and, contrary to those prejudices against church authority and misinterpretations that are so loudly heard, especially after the message of the Holy Synod about Count Leo Tolstoy, to prove the Divine initiative of this punishment, its necessity and expediency and to show that it does not stem from a feeling of hatred and malice, but from Christian love, compassion and mercy, and in relation to humanity stands incomparably higher than all the provisions of the latest criminal code.

The concept of church excommunication

Every human society, established for some external purpose, has every right to exclude from its midst those of its members who not only fail to fulfill the duties they have assumed, but also oppose the aspirations of the society, thus delaying the achievement of the intended goals. The removal of such members from society and the deprivation of them of those benefits and advantages which it provides to its participants is, of course, by no means a dishonest matter. It is not contrary to either justice or fairness and serves as a necessary means for society to its well-being and self-preservation. And there is no more or less well-ordered society that would not make use of this right and, at its foundation, would not authorize its representatives and leaders to make proper use of it in necessary cases. It is used not only by small circles, but also by entire states when the need arises to free themselves from harmful members through exile, imprisonment, and in extreme cases even through the death penalty. If, therefore, the right of expulsion or excommunication is a natural right, lying in the very nature of things, if it exists also in external allied societies, pursuing only external, material interests and having, in addition, other effective measures for achieving them, then the right of excommunication is all the more appropriate and necessary in religious societies, which are based solely on moral principles, have higher moral goals, for the achievement of which they use only moral means. The right to exclude from their midst those members who, by their bad behavior, non-observance of social rules and laws, are a temptation to others and harm religion, serves in such societies as the main condition of their well-being, the only means of preserving their honor and dignity, and of bringing those expelled to repentance and correction. Therefore, if not in all, then at least in very many of the ancient pagan religions, there were such institutions and rites that are closely connected with this right of excommunication, as history testifies.

Among the Egyptians, for example, pig herders were not allowed to enter the temples.4 Among the Persians, the Magi did not allow people covered with scabs or with a rash or any other morbid manifestations on their faces to participate in sacrifices, as well as those over whom a funeral rite had been performed during their lifetime.5 Among the Scythians, sacrifices were not accepted from those who had not killed any of their enemies.6 Among the Greeks, excommunication was imposed on serious criminals by the general consent of the people and was carried out by the priests in the most solemn manner, after which the name of the excommunicated person was carved on stone pillars and thus passed on to posterity as the most terrible and disgusting.7 Julius Caesar remarks of the Gauls that if anyone did not obey the orders and decrees of their priests, the Druids, they excluded him from participation in the divine services, and this was considered the greatest of all punishments. Such a person was looked upon as an arrant villain and impious person. Everyone avoided him, no one entered into any communication with him, fearing to expose themselves to some danger through this. They refused to bring him to trial and did not grant him any honors. This was especially the case with obstinate people who did not yield to any measures of correction.8 Among the ancient Germans, cowardice in war was considered a great disgrace and the most serious crime. Anyone who, leaving his sword on the battlefield and throwing down his arms, turned to flight, was looked upon as the most dishonorable person; he was excommunicated as a criminal from all religious services and sacrifices and was not allowed to attend any public meetings. He was an object of universal contempt, and often such people, in order to put an end to their difficult situation, decided to commit suicide9. A similar kind of excommunication from religious and political communication also existed in the Roman state. It is known that the relationship between patron and client was considered sacred among the Romans: both mutually protected themselves in all circumstances of life and provided each other with mutual assistance; neither of them dared to file a complaint against the other or give evidence in court against him or, in general, take the side of his opponent. And whoever violated this right was recognized by law as a traitor; he was appointed as a sacrifice to the underground gods, excluded from society as a lawless person, and anyone could kill him with impunity10. If the author who reports this then adds that it was a Roman custom to dedicate the bodies of criminals killed with impunity, in the sense of a sacrifice, to the subterranean gods,11 then we find this custom a second time in the later history of Rome. Divis devovere, dedication to the Furies, was nothing other than the solemn removal of a criminal from human society. It would be possible to produce several more historical proofs of this,12 but those given are enough to see that excommunication from religious communion of criminals and violators of divine law was already considered a natural and necessary right in pagan religions. And if we do not want to assert that this institution had only a moral side, without any political character, and existed everywhere in a definite and constant form, then no one will equally deny in it the closest resemblance to ecclesiastical excommunication. This excommunication dates back to the earliest times of the human race. Its prototype is the terrible condemnation with its fatal consequences, which the Creator Himself pronounced on our first parents after their fall. And the Lord God drove him out of the paradise of delight, the earth by works, from which he was taken. And He cast out Adam and settled him straight out of the paradise of delight (Gen. 3:23-24). This expulsion from paradise is the first excommunication of man from direct communication with God, accompanied by grave consequences for man. Close to God until now, he became distant from Him, alien to Him, His slave. He was deprived of his former advantages, and the curse (which is equivalent to the excommunication of man from God) henceforth weighs upon the whole earth. Deprived of the direct guidance of God, he now violated the will of God more and more often, fell deeper and deeper morally; and the deeper these falls were, the more menacing was the voice of the Lord God, punishing man for every crime against His law. Old Testament history gives us many examples of such punishments, or excommunications, carried out by God Himself. Thus, after the curse that was still in paradise as punishment for the first fall of the first parents (Gen. 3:14-24), He pronounces a curse on the first son of the first parents, the fratricide Cain: and now, He says to him, cursed art thou on the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand… Groaning and shaking shalt thou be upon the earth (Gen. 4:11-12). And then in the Great Flood, all corrupted humanity was destroyed as unworthy of God’s mercy, with the exception of Noah and his family. After the flood, when the newly multiplied humanity did not prove better, we again see a whole series of excommunications, emanating from God Himself, and later pronounced in His name by His faithful servants in the person of the high priests, prophets and pious kings. These excommunications were either general, such as the curse pronounced by Moses on the transgressors of the law (Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all the words of the law to do them (Deut. 27:26; cf. Deut. 28:15-68), and also by Jesus Navin on Jericho (Josh. 6:16), or private, in relation to a specific person, such as the excommunication and execution of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num. 16:1-40), the rejection of Saul (1 Samuel 15:10-33), etc.

These and other similar examples of individual and seemingly accidental excommunications, indisputable in their divine character and effective significance, were the basis of the rite of excommunication from religious fellowship that existed among the Jews of the post-exilic period. Already Ezra clearly mentions this institution as actually existing (2 Esdras 9:9), and later rabbis in many places in the Talmud provide detailed and thorough information about it. Jewish excommunication, according to the testimony of the Talmud, had three degrees. The lowest of them was called “nidui” (nidui, from nidoa – to separate, exclude, drive out, in Greek aphorisin, see Luke 6:22) and consisted in the fact that the one subjected to this punishment was excommunicated for 30 days from communication with others, and no one, except his wife and children, dared to come closer than 4 feet to him. He was not allowed to cut his hair, shave, or wash, and at the same time he was obliged to wear mourning clothes. If anyone died under excommunication, the court ordered heavy stones to be thrown on his coffin as a sign that he was worthy of stoning. No one dared either accompany his ashes to the grave or mourn his death. Although excommunicated people of this degree were allowed to visit the temple, there were special gates through which they had to enter and leave the temple. Although it was not forbidden to accept and render services, to give instructions and listen to answers to the excommunicated, it was with the strict observance of the legal rule, i.e. at a distance of four cubits. The rabbis count 24 sins for which minor excommunication was imposed, for example, resistance to secular or spiritual authorities, blasphemy, perjury, testimony against co-religionists before pagan judges, the sale of real estate to pagans, etc. 13. Every private person had the right to subject another to this punishment, only in this case he was obliged to present a sufficiently valid reason. If he was unable to do this, then he himself was subject to a similar punishment. If this excommunication was imposed not by a private person, but by a court, then a warning and a special summons to court were always given. The excommunicated person was released from punishment only when he showed sincere repentance and a decisive promise to improve. If he did not do this within 30 days, the term of excommunication was sometimes increased to 60, and sometimes to 90 days; and if after this he continued to be obstinate, he was subjected to the great excommunication, which was called “cherem” (cherem, from charam – to throw out, to cast out, in Greek ekvallin, see Luke 6:22). In this second degree, excommunication was always combined with many and terrible curses, and the sentence was always publicly announced with an indication of its reasons. This sentence was pronounced by the court; but when some circumstances did not allow the court to bring the matter to an end, then at least 10 members of the society had to join together to continue it. The actions of the cherem consisted in the complete exclusion of the condemned person from society, in complete removal from religious communication, in the strictest prohibition of any communication with him, and sometimes in the confiscation of his property. The excommunicated person had no right to teach, or to learn, or to accept services, or to render them to others. No one dared to approach him, except in cases where it was necessary to provide him with the necessary means of subsistence. Whoever dared to enter into communication with the excommunicated person was himself subjected to the same punishment. In the case of correction and sincere repentance of the excommunicated person, he was released from punishment, and this release was made by the same higher authority or the same person who determined the punishment. The absolution formula is very short and simple: “absolutiotibiestetremittitur”14. If even after this the excommunicated person remained adamant, then the third and most severe excommunication followed – shammata, which was performed publicly and solemnly, with the observance of certain ceremonies, and was accompanied by even more fiery curses15. Excommunication in this last degree had such a significance that the excommunicated person, in the name of God, was forbidden to return to the community of believers forever, and he was already submitted to the judgment of God. Whether the word shammata really denotes the last and most severe degree of excommunication, or whether this punishment is identical with “nidui” – this question, which has long been the subject of scholarly controversy, has not been brought to a final decision, but for our purpose this is not essential. It is enough for us to know that excommunication existed among the Jews, and existed in a fairly definite form, and that this punishment was caused by circumstances and internal necessity as an inevitable means for maintaining social discipline and order. If in this way all non-Christian religions in general, not only pagan ones, but also the divinely revealed Jewish Old Testament, in the interests of their honor and dignity and in order to correct their vicious members, found it necessary to expel them from their midst – to excommunicate them, then in exactly the same way the Christian Church, as a society of believers, must use this means , and to use it to a greater extent, the more difficult it is for a natural person to fulfill its moral demands and the less inherent in it, as a purely spiritual power, external, coercive, violent measures.

In the very circumstance that by means of baptism she freely receives into her bosom everyone who confesses her teaching and promises to fulfill her commandments, there is also contained for her a natural right and authority to tear away from her bosom those of her fellow members who overthrow her teaching and harm her discipline; so that even if the Divine Founder of the Church had not made any special decree in this regard, the circumstances of religious life would of themselves have forced the ecclesiastical authority to make practical use of this natural right, and this would be entirely lawful and just. But just as the Lord clearly entrusted to the apostles and their successors the right and authority to baptize and thus introduce into the Church the worthy, so He clearly authorized them to excommunicate from her the unworthy. A clear indication of the Lord’s granting of this latter authority to the Church is found in His commandment recorded in the Gospel of Matthew: If thy brother sin against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee; and if he hear thee, he hath gained thy brother’s soul (Matt. 18:15). These are the first words of this commandment; they mean that if thy neighbor offends thee by word or deed, or does any harm, do not bring the matter to court immediately, but first stand face to face with the offender, explain to him his wrongdoing, and try to personally incline him to peace, repentance, and correction. If you succeed in this, then you have saved him, brought about a moral revolution in him, and returned him to the path of good; for, as the holy Apostle says, James, having converted a sinner from the error of his way, will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins (James 5:20) – And if he will not listen to you, take with you one or two more; that by the success of two or three witnesses every word may be established (Matt. 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 the presence of witnesses, so that your words in their presence will have more power, and he, seeing their unanimity with you, will come to the consciousness of his sin and correction all the sooner; for “the Savior,” as St. John Chrysostom says, “seeks the benefit not only of the offended, but also of the one who offended.” – But if he does not listen to them, let him tell the Church (Matt. 18:17), that is, if he remains unyielding even in the face of witnesses, and your persuasions to correct himself are unsuccessful, in that case you have the right to declare this circumstance to the representatives of the Church, so that the latter, in the presence of society, will even more publicly and convincingly admonish him and even more persistently demand correction from him. – But if he also disobeys the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican (Matt. 18:17); that is, if he turns out to be so hardened in his vicious direction that he neglects even the sacred authority of the church representatives, and shows 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 those people who do not belong to the Church at all. That it is precisely in this sense, and not in any other, that we must understand the words of Christ quoted above: esto si osper o ephnikos ke o telonis – let you be like a pagan and a publican – this is beyond doubt. In the context of the speech, they cannot be understood in the sense that if the sinning brother does not listen to the Church, then you, the offended one, have the right to look at him as a dishonest person and, having broken off all communication with him, leave him on his wicked path, as the Protestants assert. Here the Lord speaks of the decision of the Church; consequently, there should be no talk here of the activity of the injured plaintiff. The representatives of the Church, called by the duty of their service to convert the sinner to the path of salvation, give him instructions – reminders of his duties and warnings against danger, trying to incline him to repentance. If he responds to all this with obstinacy and resistance, then they have the right to go further in the case of one who resists their power and authority and pronounce the final judgment on him: estô ei osper o ephnikos ke o telonis. That in this case it is really the representatives of the Church who are meant as actors, clearly follows from the words of the Savior that immediately follow, in which He, addressing the apostles, says: For verily I say unto you (imis), whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: the word imis, standing here parallel to the preceding word ekklesia (Church), clearly indicates the same activity both for this (the Church) and for those (the apostles). If in the present binding the actors and judges deciding the case and determining the punishment are the apostles, then the same is contained in the more general expression ekklesia. As for the judicial decision or sentence itself, determined here by the ecclesiastical authority, it is certain that it means excommunication from the Church, anathema, and the words estos si osper o efnikos ke o telonis are nothing other than the direct commandment of the Savior about excommunication. Indeed, if we examine more closely the political and religious relations in which the Jews stood towards the pagans and publicans, we will be struck by the sharp line of disunity and mutual exclusion. The Jews hated and despised the pagans to the utmost degree as not belonging to the chosen people of God,16 and the pagans, in turn, completely avoided external relations with the Jews as with a hostile tribe of the human race, and this hostility was so great that a pagan, even in cases of the most extreme need, did not dare not only to ask for any services from his Jewish neighbor, but also to accept them, even if they were offered to him without any solicitation on his part. He was ready to abandon himself in utter helplessness to the will of fate rather than violate the sacred custom of his nation. In the same way, the publicans were the objects of universal hatred and contempt (Matt. 9:10; Luke 7:34), partly because of the injustices and oppressions they committed in collecting the taxes, partly, and perhaps mainly because they directly handed over what they collected to the Roman government and looked after its interests alone. Therefore, as dishonest people and extortioners on the one hand, and as traitors to their nation and religion on the other, they were so hateful to everyone that it was considered a sin to have any communication with them. Sometimes they were even subjected to formal excommunication from religious fellowship in the synagogues as enemies of their religion and their tribe. If such, and no other, were the relations between Jews and pagans and publicans in the time of Christ, then what else could the Savior express with the words esto si osper o efnikos ke o telonis, if not the authority of the representatives of society to excommunicate from the Church notorious and hardened sinners, violators of its laws, and to place them in the same relationship to believers as the pagans and publicans were to the Jews, so that everyone would avoid closeness to them and would look upon them no longer as their brothers in faith, but as strangers? The justice of such an understanding of the words of the Lord quoted is also evident from the fact that this passage of the Gospel was understood in the sense of the commandment about excommunication (anathematization) by the entire ancient Church17; but the most incontestable witness, even for Protestants, that Christ in these words really means excommunication from the Church and gives a special right to this to the apostles and their successors, of course, must be called the holy apostle Paul. With stern speech he reproaches the Corinthian society and its representatives in his letter to this Church (1 Cor. 5:1-5) for the fact that they tolerated an incestuous person in their midst for so long and did not remove him from their society. As for him himself, although in absentia, he had long ago decided to hand over the criminal to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. If the expression erin ek mesu imon (to remove from the midst) and the identical paradune to satana (to deliver over to Satan) can be understood in no other sense than in the sense of ecclesiastical excommunication, and if the apostle says above that he determines this punishment in the name and by the power of Jesus Christ (en to onomati… sin ti dynami tou Kyriou imon Iisu Christu), then this undoubtedly indicates his conviction that the right of excommunication from the Church has its basis in Divine institution and was granted by Christ to His apostles18. The same thought guides him in his actions regarding Hymenaeus and Alexander, about whom he says: whom I delivered over to Satan, that they might be punished not for blasphemy (1 Tim. 1:20). For here, although he does not directly say that he is acting in the name and power of Christ, the confidence, the bold determination with which he carries out this work, show quite clearly that he was fully convinced of his Divine authority to do this and looked upon his determination of punishment as something self-evident and indisputable. He gives a fairly transparent hint of his high authority to excommunicate from communion with the Church when he addresses the Corinthians with an authoritative word: What will ye? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of meekness? (1 Cor. 4:21). Finally, when, after the most strict and insistent exhortation of the Corinthians to repent and amend their vicious life in general and to abstain from unchastity and debauchery in particular, he threatens them: I write these things, not being with you, lest, when I come, I should ruthlessly exercise the power which the Lord hath given me for edification, and not for destruction (2 Cor. 13:10); then in this again is contained a clear indication of the power granted by Christ to him, and consequently to the other apostles and their successors, to excommunicate stubborn and incorrigible sons of the Church from communion with her. According to these sayings of Holy Scripture, our Orthodox Church from the very beginning of its existence has held and holds the conviction that excommunication is a Divine institution and that bishops, in determining such a punishment, act in the name and on behalf of God. St. Cyprian more than once said that bishops have the right and duty to excommunicate from the Church violators of the Divine law, heretics and seducers of the faithful in the name of Christ and by His command, that they should not pay the slightest attention to threats, hatred or persecution on the part of those excommunicated and under no pretext should they renounce their rights, since they act in this case by the authority of Christ. “God,” he says, “whose mediators and ministers they are in this, will preserve them” (“On the Unity of the Church”). Blessed Augustine writes to Bishop Auxinius, who excommunicated the famous Felicissimus with his entire family without sufficient grounds, that “he must cancel his sentence, because his excommunication is contrary both to justice and fairness, and to Christian humility and meekness, for he subjected the innocent to such a punishment, which, being divinely instituted phenomenon, entails the most serious consequences, touching not only the body but also the soul, making the possibility of salvation doubtful for the latter. Blessed Jerome, using the literal expression of the Apostle Paul, says: “It is not fitting for me to sit before the presbyter, for he can deliver me to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order to save the spirit. As in the Old Testament, one who did not obey the Levites was expelled from the camp and stoned, so now such an adversary is beheaded with the spiritual sword, i.e., cast out from the depths of the church, he is given over to the power and torture of the evil spirit.” This passage gives a clear allusion to the death penalty instituted by God Himself (Deut. 17:12). Blessed Jerome places this penalty in its origin and purpose on the same level as the New Testament excommunication, and understands the latter, consequently, as a Divine institution. St. John Chrysostom also expresses this thought beautifully and unambiguously when, describing the grave consequences of excommunication, he says: “Let no one despise the bonds of the Church, for the one who binds here is not a man, but Christ, who has given us this power, and the Lord, who has honored men with such great honor.” Since the Church has always understood the right of excommunication as a right granted to it by Christ Himself, it has, following the example of the apostles, made practical use of this right from its very foundation. Pope Victor excommunicated the heretic priest Theodotus. Montanus and his followers were subjected to prohibition by the Councils of Asia Minor,20 and Marcion, the son of the Bishop of Pontus, was excommunicated from church fellowship by his father for the grave sin of unchastity. All these facts date back to the second century, and it is hardly necessary to note that later, when the number of believing members grew more and more, zeal for the faith weakened more and more, and the original moral purity in their lives declined, the use of this punishment became more and more frequent. Although involuntary, but undoubted proof that church excommunication is a Divine institution is finally given by the Protestant Church. Proceeding from the position that in the teaching and practice of the Church one can accept and justify only that which is based on Holy Scripture, it uses excommunication as a living part of church discipline, as a means of preserving the latter. Both Luther21 and Calvin22, on the basis of the passages of Holy Scripture they cited, also recognized the Divine initiative of excommunication, as did our Orthodox and then the Catholic Church. In agreement with the latter, they also attributed to it the same actions, properties and power23.

The symbolic books of the Protestant Church also speak out in favor of observing excommunication, and in the church decrees of various countries there are often even prescriptions about how, in what manner and order it should be carried out and in what words the sentence about it should be pronounced.

If everything we have said so far leads us to the conclusion that excommunication consists in complete removal from the Church, that it is based not only on natural law, but was instituted by Christ Himself, then this does not exhaust the concept and content of this punishment. It does not consist only in external removal or separation from the society of believers, but is accompanied by incomparably more important consequences and actions – consequences of a spiritual and moral nature. Having established excommunication with the words: And if he disobey the Church, be to you as a heathen and a publican, our Lord Jesus Christ adds to this the following significant words: Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven (Matt. 12:18). Thus, here we are dealing with such a sentence of an ecclesiastical court, with such a punishment, the effect and limits of which are broader than the judicial decisions of secular authorities – with a punishment that goes beyond the limits of earthly existence, a punishment that concerns the soul, which, having been pronounced on earth, must be confirmed, remain in its force in heaven. The internal efficacy of excommunication is not, of course, such that it in itself, regardless of the moral state of the excommunicated, separates from God and deprives of Divine grace. If it were pronounced over an innocent person, even in a completely correct and legal manner, it would not in the least change his relationship with God, it would not distance him from God – only sins can distance him from God and deprive him of His grace. Sin and the separation from God it produces are the necessary presupposition of real excommunication. The inner essence of the latter consists in the fact that it subjects the sinner, already separated from God, to even greater danger and adds a new misfortune to his one misfortune. For it deprives a person of that help and grace which the Church offers to all her brothers. It takes away from him those benefits and advantages which he acquired in the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. It completely cuts him off from the Church organism. For the excommunicated person, the merits and intercessions of the saints, the prayers and good deeds of the faithful are alien and ineffective. He is inaccessible to the reception of the Holy Mysteries, he is also deprived of those benefits which are poured out from here on the believing children of the Church. He is cut off from Christ and His living Body, from His redemptive merits and the gracious means which they bring to man. The sinner and the ungodly wicked man, as long as excommunication has not yet touched him, is still a member of the Church, and although he no longer participates in her grace, the prayers, moral merits and virtues of his brothers can obtain for him again God’s mercy and favor; but the excommunicated man has no access to even this indirect help, he is left entirely to himself and, deprived of the gracious means which are always inherent in the Church, without the support and help, without protection and defense, is given over to the power of the evil one. Such is the nature of the punishment of excommunication, a punishment truly severe and terrible. Being imposed on earth, it is not added up in heaven; having begun in time, it continues forever.

From this and no other point of view has the Church always considered the essence of excommunication; such and no other has it always recognized for it the actions and characteristic properties. The Apostle Paul already beautifully expresses this as paradune to satan, as a transfer, a handing over to Satan; for just as within the Church Christ reigns, and her believing members are under His protection, so outside her is the kingdom of the evil one, where Satan reigns. He who is cast out of the Church falls under his cruel domination without higher help and protection, just as pre-Christian humanity once experienced his wiles and temptations and became more and more entangled in the bonds of sin. No less successfully and accurately do the Holy Fathers compare the punishment of ecclesiastical excommunication with the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise. As our first parents, having brought upon themselves the wrath of God by transgressing the commandment, were driven out of the place where God had hitherto conversed with them, and, deprived of Divine grace, were left in all the adventures of life and the temptations of the enemy exclusively to their own strength, so he who is cast out of the Church, where he was in living communion with God, is helpless and unarmed, given over to the power of the dark, hostile forces of the devil. Furthermore, the punishment of excommunication is often called by the Holy Fathers of the Church spiritual death, in comparison with bodily death. When they call excommunication this way, the basis of this expression is the idea that the soul, deprived of the grace of the Church, the highest help and Divine protection, gradually becomes exhausted in the struggle with evil and in the case of hardening in a state of sin and impenitence is deprived of the opportunity to correct itself or, what is the same, dies morally; that just as the sword puts an end to physical life, so expulsion from the Church in the last resort entails spiritual death. 25 The Fathers of the Church want to express the same idea, finally, when they present excommunication from the Church as a prototype, as the beginning of the future terrible Judgment of God. 26 For when the excommunicated person lingers in his impenitence and, without the help of grace, moves further and further away from God, sinks deeper and deeper into the abyss of sin, then this can only end in complete and eternal destruction, and the punishment of excommunication is truly here the beginning and, so to speak, the attack of Divine judgment.

Whoever is able to understand what it means to be a member of the Church, to be in a living, organic connection with the body of Christ and to participate through this in all the gracious gifts and blessings of His redemption, will naturally understand why the Church has always understood excommunication from this saving communion as the greatest and most severe punishment. Saint John Chrysostom briefly calls it timoria pason timorion halepotera, and Augustine calls it damnatio, quapoenaine cclesianullamajorest strong27, that is, such an ecclesiastical punishment, than which there can be no greater.

In accordance with this view of the essence and meaning of excommunication, the Church, resorting to this most severe of all punishments (poenarum omnium gravissima) only in the most extreme need, when no other way out was seen, always acted, according to the word of the holy apostle, with great sorrow, with a heavy heart and many tears (2 Cor. 2:4). As once a catechumen, upon his reception of St. The brethren greeted baptism, the greatest of all the blessings of the Church, with joy and jubilation and welcomed it with good will as a new friend and comrade, while, on the contrary, excommunication from the Church, which deprives one of the right to communicate with the excommunicated, was always carried out with deep sorrow and tears. 28 Of the many facts that serve to confirm this idea, we will cite the following two. The Council of Ephesus in its sentence against Nestorius says: “Forced by the rules and letter of our holy father and fellow-servant Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church, with great tears we approach this sad decision against him. The Lord Jesus Christ, reviled by Nestorius, in the person of this Council determines that he (Nestorius) be deprived of the episcopal rank and all priestly community.” The sentence of the Council of Constantinople pronounced against Eutyches is also of the same nature and content. It reads: “For this reason, grieving and mourning his complete error and disobedience, we, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Whom he (Eutychius) blasphemes, have determined to remove him from all priestly rights and duties, to excommunicate him from our society and to deprive him of the office of abbot of the monastery. Let anyone who will have relations with him know that he too will be subject to the same excommunication (Harduin, 11, p. 163). But although excommunication, as is evident from what has been said, is the greatest and most severe of all church punishments, although it takes away from the excommunicated hardened sinner all the spiritual benefits acquired by him through Holy Baptism, however, the Church, in subjecting him to this punishment, by no means has the goal of cutting off, so to speak, the path to salvation and causing eternal destruction, but, on the contrary, wants to lead him to this salvation, to return him to the true path. The Church, in the words of the Apostle, received the right of excommunication for edification, and not for destruction (2Co 10:10, 13:10). In this case, she acts as the vicar of the One Who came not to destroy human souls, but to save them. 29 That the Church, when excommunicating, has as her goal first of all the correction and salvation of the excommunicated, is more than once and very clearly attested in Holy Scripture. Thus, the Apostle Paul delivered the Corinthian incestuous man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order to save his spirit.

How can this saving action of excommunication be accomplished? How can the soul be saved by the exhaustion of the flesh? In answer to this inevitable and urgent question, it must be remembered that a sinner excommunicated from the Church, having imagined the full magnitude of the punishment and misfortune that has befallen him, having pictured to himself the terrible abyss into which he has been cast, the dangers with which his separation from the bosom of the Church and the body of Christ threatens him, cannot but become sober and come to the consciousness of his sad situation and feel deep sorrow. And this sorrow, this consciousness, must naturally suppress in him those passions and vicious sensual inclinations (exhaustion of the flesh), by which he brought upon himself this punishment, must break his obstinacy and resistance with which he responded to all the demands of the Church. In this case he is, so to speak, forced to change the perverse way of his life and thoughts and, in feelings of repentance, to return to the bosom of the Church in order to ask forgiveness, to become again a partaker of grace and thus save his soul, as was actually the case with the Corinthian incestuous man, who, having brought sincere repentance, was again received into communion with the Church. In exactly the same sense the Apostle speaks of Hymenaeus and Alexander, that he delivered them over to Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme (1 Tim. 1:20); that is, when he excommunicated them, he had in mind to bring them to the consciousness of their guilt and force them to change their criminal way of thinking, expressed chiefly in blasphemy against Christ and the Christian faith; in a word, he excommunicated them in order, like the Corinthian, to save their souls. Finally, when the Apostle Paul writes to the Thessalonians: If anyone will not hear our word, mark him with a letter, and do not associate with him, that he may be put to shame (2 Thessalonians 3:14), he means by this that those who oppose his decrees must be excommunicated from the Church and all communion with them must be broken off, so that they may come to the consciousness of their lawlessness and submit to his demands. Since in Holy Scripture excommunication is everywhere presented as an exclusively corrective means, the Church has at all times recognized the same meaning for it and applied it to the matter with the same purpose. Discussing the purpose of excommunication, John Chrysostom, among other things, notes, “that the Apostle Paul did not completely surrender the incestuous person to the power of Satan (he used the latter as a tool to achieve his goal – the correction of the sinner), i.e., so that the excommunicated person under the power of the enemy of the human race would come to his senses, come to his senses and, after repentance, be again accepted into the Church as a living member of it. “Great is the punishment of excommunication, but even greater is its benefit: that is only temporary and fleeting, but this extends into eternity.” Likewise, Blessed Augustine more than once and most clearly notes the correction of the guilty person as the most important goal of excommunication. It is the most severe punishment that can affect Christians; however, in using it, the Church does not act at all out of the passion of anger and revenge, but is imbued with that love and pity that is inherent in the heart of a shepherd when a sheep is stolen from his flock. Her activity in this case, as Blessed Augustine rightly notes, there is “misericorsseveritas” (the mercy of severity). However, when determining the punishment of excommunication, the attention of the ecclesiastical authority is directed not only to the person of the excommunicated, but also to the honor of the Church and the good of its members. Since the honor and dignity of the Church primarily consists in its members proving the truth of their religion and the divinity of its origin by the purity of their morals, their highly moral, impeccable way of life, then, as lawlessness and vice develop among them, it would lose its authority and respect, and would even more humiliate its dignity if it began to keep in its bosom, or at least leave unpunished, notorious and gross sinners. That is why, not wishing to lower its dignity and give an extra weapon against itself into the hands of its enemies, the Church has always considered and considers it its duty to subject stubborn and incorrigible sinners to formal excommunication. This reason for determining excommunication is very natural and understandable to everyone. Although it is not supported and confirmed by historical data to the same extent as others, there can be no doubt that in many cases it was the main and decisive reason for determining this punishment; for who does not know with what unceasing care the Church, in spite of the pagans, tried to maintain a good opinion of itself and how highly it held the banner of its honor in all respects. In confirmation of this idea, one historical fact can be cited. When Bishop Eucratius addressed St. Cyprian with the question: should a certain actor who taught his art to children be tolerated in society and have relations with him, the latter answered that this was not in accordance with either the majesty of God or the demands of the Gospel, since through such relations the honor of the Church suffers. The bishop should in every way persuade him to abandon such an occupation. But if, having ceased this occupation, he falls into poverty, ь, then Christian society will provide him with the necessary means of living. But if this is impossible for him, then let him go to Carthage for food, so that instead of teaching others sinful deeds, he himself will learn here what serves for his salvation30.

The third aim pursued by the Church in excommunicating public sinners from communion with herself is the welfare and protection of the rest of her members from the danger of infection. As in every society the vices and crimes of one, if left unpunished, easily become the subject of temptation and imitation for others, and, spreading more and more, cause substantial harm to the whole, so in the Church the bad example of one can infect and spread to others. Public order and discipline could easily be shaken, and the moral and religious life of her weaker children could be exposed to great danger, if she did not begin to cut off harmful and infected members of hers with moral disease and did not protect the healthy from it. This thought was expressed by the Apostle when he put the following question to the Corinthian society and its representatives, whom he urged to excommunicate an incestuous person: Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6); that is, I insist, as it were, on separating the criminal from your midst, because the sin of one, as experience shows, too easily passes to another; it, like a sore, infects others when it is not removed from contact with them. This thought is then repeated by the Fathers of the Church. St. John Chrysostom, explaining the present passage of the Epistle to the Corinthians, notes that in excommunication not only the person of the excommunicated is meant, but the whole Church: for only in this way can the danger of infection be prevented from it; since the crime of one, in the case of impunity, is immediately transmitted to the whole Church and exposes it to destruction. 31 St. Cyprian writes to Bishop Pomponius32 that he should excommunicate virgins who have broken their vow of chastity, as well as their seducers, and never receive them back unless they reform, neexemplum, he continues, exeteris adruinam delictis suis face reincipiant, that is, so that by their bad example they do not involve others in a similar crime. Blessed Augustine also says that the pastors of the Church have the duty to separate the sick sheep from the healthy, so that the poison of the infection does not pass to the healthy. “He,” he says, “for whom nothing is impossible will heal even the sick through this separation.”33 Pope Innocent I, having approved and confirmed the decision of the African bishops, who excommunicated the Pelagians from church communion, adds: “If they had remained unpunished in the Church for a long time, the inevitable consequence of this would have been that they would have drawn many innocent and careless members into their error. The latter might have thought that the teaching they preached was orthodox, since they were still members of the Church. Therefore, the diseased member is cut off from the healthy body, in order to preserve that which has not yet been touched by the infection.” And in the Apostolic Constitutions (Book II, 7) it is said: “A mangy sheep, if not excommunicated from healthy sheep, transmits its disease to others, and a man infected with an ulcer is terrible for many … Therefore, if we do not excommunicate a lawless man from the Church of God, we will make the house of the Lord a den of thieves.” And the Church legislation, therefore, understands excommunication as a means of preserving its members who have not yet been damaged by infection, and by means of the fear aroused in them by the severity of this punishment, to restrain them from those crimes and vices which bring it upon them. This point of view makes itself felt here in the most perceptible way.

All these indicated motives and considerations, guiding the Church in determining the punishment of excommunication, in most cases are combined with each other and all together act on the will of the excommunicator. But circumstances sometimes come together in such a way that one goal takes precedence over another, and the latter retreats into the background, so that of two or three goals only one is achieved34.

In conclusion of all that has been said, we will make a general conclusion and give a general concept of church excommunication. Having united all that we have said so far about the essence and meaning of excommunication into one general idea, we will receive the following definition of it: it is a rejection from external and internal communion with the Church, based on natural and Divine law, a complete deprivation of all means of salvation acquired in Holy Baptism, cutting off from the living body of Jesus Christ and reducing the excommunicated person to the state of an unredeemed person; it is the most severe of all church punishments, used with the goal of correcting the guilty person, supporting the honor and dignity of the church community and preventing the danger of temptation and infection from other members.

Notes:

1. God is love, they say. He so loved the world, as He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16). Why then is there excommunication in His Church? Why is there excommunication from God and Christ, after that, having been enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son (Rom. 5:10)? Why is there a curse, when Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us (Gal. 3:13)? The Gospel of the Lord Jesus is a message of peace and love; nowhere did He command hatred or enmity in it, but everywhere He commands one all-encompassing love (1 Cor. 13:7). The Orthodox Church must be the guardian of the spirit of the Gospel, the spirit of Christ. Why then is there a cutting off from Christ, anathema (see “Christian Reading”, 1826, part XXII, p. 86)? “The Church must loudly proclaim the law of love, forgiveness, love for enemies, for those who hate us, pray for everyone – from this point of view, excommunication from the Church by order of the Synod is incomprehensible,” says Countess S. Tolstaya in a recent letter to the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg.

2. These thoughts are expressed under the influence of the work “RechtKirchenbannes” (“Right of Church Excommunication”) by Perch, which from beginning to end breathes hatred and malice against the Holy Fathers and the clergy. 3

We mean only the Orthodox Church, without at all defending those abuses of the right of anathematization that are known to us from the medieval practice of the Roman Catholic Church and where, we note, lies the source of prejudice against anathematization in our society.

4. Herodotus. History. Book 2

5. Bershatsky. “On Anathema”, p. 69.

6. Alexander. lib. 4

7. Cornelius Nepos. From the Life of Alcibiades. Ch. IV.

8. Julius Caesar. Notes on the Gallic War. Book VI, Ch. 13.

9. Tacitus. Germany. Ch. VI.

10. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Roman Antiquities, Book II, Ch. 10.

11. Ibid.

12. Perch. RechtKirchenbannes, 3, 4 and 5.

13. Buxtorf, Lexicon chaldaic, talmubic et rabbinieum.

14. Selden. De sinedriis.

15. Selden. De jure nat. et gent., p. 508–510. Although a brief but historically correct exposition of all three types of Jewish excommunication can be read in the book “On the Rite of Orthodoxy,” student of the Kyiv Theological Academy of Stefan Semenovsky, pp. 13–17.

16. As a result, they called them dogs, in the most hateful sense of this word (Matt. 15:26).

17. Read Chrysostom’s 18th homily on the Gospel of Matthew, and Origen’s Commentarin Evang. Mathei., at 6 p. Augustine Contra adversar., vol. I, p. 17, etc.

18. John Chrysostom. Homily 5 on the First Epistle to Timothy.

19. See Eusebius. Church History, book V, ch. 28.

20. Ibid., book I, ch. 16.

21. Having listed the passages of Holy Scripture that speak of ecclesiastical excommunication, Luther says: “These and similar passages are the immutable commandment of the great God; we have no right to abolish it. Although the papacy abuses the right of excommunication, allowing it to harm the Church, nevertheless we must not abolish it, but only use it more correctly and with due caution, according to the will and commandment of Christ” (see F. Tischreden. Frankfort, Ausgabe 1569. S. 177).

22. In the formula of excommunication drawn up by Calvin it is said: “We, the ministers of God, who fight with the weapons of the Spirit, we who have been given power to bind and to loose, have plucked N.N. in the name and by the authority of Jesus Christ from the bosom of the Church, excommunicated and removed him from communion with the faithful; let him be accursed among them; let everyone turn away from him as from a plague, and let no one have any communion or communication with him. This sentence of excommunication will be confirmed by the Son of God (see LebenKalwins, II, S. 31)

23. “Be careful, I say, that excommunication from the Church be carried out correctly and lawfully, for it entails the terrible judgment of God.” F. Tischreden. S. 176.

24. For example, blessed Jerome and Augustine.

25. Blessed Jerome. Epist. XIVadHeliodor. (Letter 14 to Heliodorus.)

26. Tertullian. Apolog.(Apology), 31.

27. De corruptione et gratia, p. XV.

28. Bingam. Origen, book VII, ch. IV, p. 5.

29. This idea is beautifully developed in the work “On the Rite of Orthodoxy” by Stefan Semenovsky, student. of the Kyiv Theological Academy.

30. St. Cyprian. Epist. LXI. (Letter 61).

31. John Chrysostom, Homily 15 on 1 Cor. 5.

32. St. Cyprian. Epist. LXII ad Pomponium. (Letter 62, to Pomponius.)

33. Blessed Augustine. Epist. ad Carthagen. Concili patres.

34. Comp. Spiritual Regulation, p. 38, item 16.

Source in Russian: On Anathema or Church Excommunication / Hieromartyr Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky), Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia. – M.: Otchiy Dom, 1998. – 47 p.