‍ 

Dialogue on Anathema and Excommunication (Part 1)

 

What do these words mean, and how do they apply to modern Protestants?

‍ 

Gary Hoge

 

 

 

First, I would like to say that I very much appreciate the irenic tone in which you wrote to me, especially since as a Protestant, I stand convicted under the eternal anathema of your Church (expressed in its Councils, most notably Trent and Vatican I).

 

I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood both the nature of an “anathema” and its application to you. An anathema is simply a formal excommunication from the church. It is not a condemnation to hell. The church does not have the authority to condemn anyone to hell, only God can do that. All the church can do is excommunicate someone, which is an explicitly biblical thing to do (as I’m sure you’d agree). By its very nature, then, an anathema cannot be “eternal.”

 

In order to be excommunicated, one must be a member of the church in the first place. Since you are not, and never were, you cannot be excommunicated. The anathemas of Trent applied only to the first-generation reformers, they do not apply to modern Protestants. In fact, the church acknowledges that “men of both sides were to blame” for the Reformation, and it says, “The children who are born into these [Protestant] Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. … It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.” (Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio, 3).

 

I was unaware of the exact details of Roman Catholicism’s post-Vatican II openness to Protestants, and I thank you for the quotes you provided. However, I have always been told that the word “anathema” means “damned” (as in Gal. 1:9 regarding those who would bring another gospel) [and I] have not been told that it refers to “excommunication”.

 

Actually, according to its etymology, “anathema” means “placed on high, suspended, set aside.” Sometimes, it refers to “a thing set aside, or offered to God.” Thus, in Luke 21:5, we read, “Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God [Greek: ἀναθήμασιν (anathemasin)].” The word is also used in the sense of “placed on high, suspended.” Because the head of a defeated enemy, for example, was sometimes displayed suspended for all to see, “anathema” came, over time, to mean “a thing despised.”

 

In the New Testament, “anathema” usually refers to a loss of goods, or to exclusion from the society of the faithful (excommunication). For example, in Romans 9:3, Paul wrote, “For I could wish that myself were accursed [ἀνάθεμα (anathema), i.e., separated] from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (KJV). According to the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, “At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: ‘If anyone says . . . let him be anathema’.”

 

You must also understand the difference between formal and material heresy (as I’m sure you already do). A formal heretic, having willfully and culpably rejected the gospel, cannot be saved. But it is possible to be a material heretic in good faith. This is how you and I hopefully view each other, each seeing the other as holding to theological error, but doing so in good faith, and in a sincere desire to serve and follow Christ. Thus, neither of us is a formal heretic, though one of us might have innocently embraced material heresy. In the Catholic Church, an anathema is directed first and foremost against heresy itself, then secondarily against formal heretics. It is not directed at those who are already outside of the visible structure of the Church, for they are beyond the Church’s jurisdiction. Thus, the Council’s anathemas do not apply to you, both because you are not a formal heretic, and because you are not subject to the temporal jurisdiction of the Church.

 

You quote Vatican II as saying “the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.” This is curious. Didn’t Pope Boniface VIII say that, “Submission on the part of every man to the bishop of Rome is altogether necessary for his salvation.” (Unam Sanctam, 1302 AD)? It seems that according to Boniface VIII, I cannot be saved since I am not in subjection to the bishop of Rome, but according to Vatican II, I can be saved since my “separated Church” has (possibly, at least) been used by the Spirit of Christ as a means of salvation. I am, understandably confused by this. Perhaps you can explain the apparent contradiction to me.

 

In Unam Sanctam Pope Boniface VIII wrote, “Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.” Contrasted with the later teaching of Vatican II, there is indeed an apparent contradiction here. How to resolve it? First I would note that this paradox reflects a tension that is found throughout Christian history. The Church Fathers often said that there was no salvation outside the Church, yet they also acknowledged that there were those who were not formally members of the Church who were nevertheless saved.

 

To make a long story short, the Church has consistently taught (long before Vatican II) that formal membership in the Church is a normative requirement (meaning that exceptions can be made) and that a merely implicit submission, in good faith, is sufficient. One is implicitly subject to the authority of the pope when one is in some way joined to the Church, even if not formally. Vatican II taught, “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter” (Lumen Gentium 15). Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (Unitatis Redintegratio 3; CCC 838). That is how, in the Catholic view, you can be saved. Because you are really and truly a Christian, you are already in communion with us, though imperfectly. That’s why we call you a “separated brother,” not an infidel. Assuming you are in good faith, and would follow the truth at all costs (even if the truth turned out to be Catholic), you can indeed be saved. Karl Adam, in his excellent book, The Spirit of Catholicism, wrote,

 

To begin with, it is certain that the declaration that there is no salvation outside the Church is not aimed at individual non-Catholics, at persons as persons, but at not-Catholic churches and communions, in so far as they are non-Catholic communions. Its purpose is to formulate positively the truth that there is but one Body of Christ and therefore but one Church which possess and imparts the grace of Christ in its fulness. …

‍ 

[But when these non-Catholic communions] set themselves up against the original Church of Christ, they took over and maintained a considerable amount of the Catholic inheritance, and also certain Catholic means of grace, in particular the sacrament of Baptism. … The Church … upheld the validity of baptism in the Name of Jesus conferred by heretics. And it was Rome, Rome that is so violently attacked for her intolerance, and Pope Stephen, who even at the peril of an African schism would not allow heretical baptism to be impugned. …

‍ 

Non-Catholic sacraments have the power to sanctify and save, not only objectively, but also subjectively. It is therefore conceivable also, from the Church’s standpoint, that there is a true, devout and Christian life in those non-Catholic communions which believe in Jesus and baptize in His Name. We Catholics regard this Christian life, wherever it appears, with unfeigned respect and with thankful love …

‍ 

[I]n so far as the Body of Christ comprehends all whose who are saved by Christ, those also who are visited by His grace in this immediate way belong to His Church. It is true that they do not belong to its outward and visible body, but they certainly belong to its invisible, supernatural soul, to its supernatural substance. For the grace of Christ never works in the individual in an isolated fashion, but always in the unity of His Body … And thus it holds good, even for those brethren who are thus separated from the visible organism of the Church, that they too are saved in the Church, and not without her or in opposition to her. (p. 174, 175, 177, 180).

 

Your points on the definition of “anathema” are well taken. I have discovered similar definitions in some resources I have. And yet, while the term itself does not mean “damned”, as I said in my earlier letter, it remains true that one who has been anathematized by the Church will be damned by going to Hell if they do not repent. The New Catholic Encyclopedia lists “anathema” as the strongest form of excommunication performed by the Church. Part of the papal ceremony which initiates an anathema against someone reads, “we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church”. So in one sense, in the case of an unrepentant anathematized person, the anathema does end up being eternal damnation.

 

Your confusion on this issue is certainly understandable. Let me see if I can clarify it further. A heretical Catholic is only excommunicated as a last resort, after repeated attempts at correction have failed. The anathema is intended as an official declaration that this person, and more importantly, his doctrines, are heretical. The anathematization presupposes that the person in question is a formal heretic, and a formal heretic, having willfully and culpably, and with full deliberation, rejected the gospel, cannot be saved. Now, it is hoped that the act of excommunication will have the effect of “jolting” the person back to orthodoxy. The very next sentence after the part of the papal ceremony you quoted reads, “we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.” That is the goal of excommunication, that the formal heretic may be induced to give up his heresy and that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

 

Of course, it may very well be that the person in question is not a formal heretic. If so, if the person is only a material heretic, acting in good faith, he may indeed be saved, even if he is never reconciled to the Church. For example, the Reformers were excommunicated and anathematized, and they died unreconciled. But the Catholic Church has never declared that they (or anyone else for that matter) were not saved. She simply does not know. Further, the anathemas directed against the founders of a heresy do not apply to their subsequent followers (again, provided that they are in good faith). As time passes, and heresies become established, and people are born and raised in them, formal heresy among its members becomes less and less likely. Let me quote to you again from Karl Adam’s book, The Spirit of Catholicism. I think Adam explains this in a most understandable way:

 

From the purely theological standpoint, … the only possible conclusion regarding all heretics and schismatics, Jews and pagans, is that judgment of condemnation which the Council of Florence [1438-1445] pronounced upon them. … It is thus, from this purely theological standpoint, that we are to understand the sharp anathemas pronounced by the Church against all heretics and schismatics. … In these pronouncements the Church is not deciding the good or bad faith of the individual heretic. Still less is she sitting in judgment on his ultimate fate. The immediate purport of her condemnation is that these heretics represent and proclaim ideas antagonistic to the Church. When ideas are in conflict, when truth is fighting against error, and revelation against human ingenuity, then there can be no compromise. … Dogmatic intolerance is therefore a moral duty, a duty to the infinite truth and to truthfulness.

‍ 

But so soon as it is a question, not of the conflict between idea and idea, but of living men, of our judgment on this or that non-Catholic, then the theologian becomes a psychologist, the dogmatist a pastor of souls. He draws attention to the fact that the living man is very rarely the embodiment of an idea, that the conceptual world and mentality of the individual are so multifarious and complicated, that he cannot be reduced to a single formula. In other words the heretic, the Jew and the pagan seldom exist in a pure state. … Therefore the Church expressly distinguishes between “formal” and “material” heretics. A “formal” heretic rejects the Church and its teaching absolutely and with full deliberation; a “material” heretic rejects the Church from lack of knowledge, being influenced by false prejudice or by an anti-Catholic upbringing. St. Augustine forbids us to blame a man for being a heretic because he was born of heretical parents, provided that he does not with obstinate self-assurance shut out all better knowledge, but seeks the truth simply and loyally (Ep. 43,1,1). Whenever the Church has such honest enquirers before her, she remembers that our Lord condemned Pharisaism but not the individual Pharisee, that He held deep and loving intercourse with Nicodemus, and allowed himself to be invited by Simon … (Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, 180-182).

 

Now, I don’t know your heart, so I will not presume to say that you personally are a formal heretic. I will give you the benefit of the doubt as you do me by speaking only of material heresy.

 

Thank you!

 

However, the original Reformers believed that Rome itself, as an official body, anathematized the gospel at the Council of Trent, and from that point on, they viewed it as an apostate communion (hence, the many Puritan-era condemnations of Rome as the whore of Revelation 17).

 

Well, there are those who would say that Trent defended the gospel against those who had corrupted it. But it’s understandable that the Reformers would think that Rome had “anathematized the gospel,” because they felt free to redefine the “gospel” to suit their own interpretations of Scripture. They trusted their own private interpretation of Scripture over against what had been believed and proclaimed for over a thousand years before them. This, by the way, is historically how all heresies started, whether Arianism, Donatism, Pelagianism, etc. Consider this fifth-century testimony from St. Vincent of Lerins, who was a contemporary of St. Augustine, and see how well it applies to the Reformers:

 

Do heretics also appeal to Scripture? They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture,—through the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Prophets. Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavour to shelter under words of Scripture. Read the works of Paul of Samosata, of Priscillian, of Eunomius, of Jovinian, and the rest of those pests, and you will see an infinite heap of instances, hardly a single page, which does not bristle with plausible quotations from the New Testament or the Old. …

‍ 

But the more secretly they conceal themselves under shelter of the Divine Law, so much the more are they to be feared and guarded against. For they know that the evil stench of their doctrine will hardly find acceptance with any one if it be exhaled pure and simple. They sprinkle it over, therefore, with the perfume of heavenly language, in order that one who would be ready to despise human error, may hesitate to condemn divine words. …

‍ 

And if one should ask one of the heretics … How do you prove? What ground have you, for saying, that I ought to cast away the universal and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? he has the answer ready, “For it is written;” and forthwith he produces a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities from the Law, from the Psalms, from the apostles, from the Prophets, by means of which, interpreted on a new and wrong principle, the unhappy soul may be precipitated from the height of Catholic truth to the lowest abyss of heresy. …

‍ 

Therefore, as soon as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith, the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of the Canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty, and consequently the profaneness, whatever it may be, that arises, may both without any doubt be exposed, and without any tergiversation be condemned. … But whatsoever a teacher holds, other than all, or contrary to all, … let that be regarded as a private fancy of his own … lest … rejecting the ancient truth of the universal Creed, we follow, at the utmost peril of our eternal salvation, the newly devised error of one man. (St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, 64-74, A.D. 434).

 

Now, I am not sure that Rome is the whore, but I’m inclined to agree with Calvin and Luther that its official positions are, in fact, a different Gospel. Hence, I must see Rome’s official teachings as being subject to Paul’s anathema in Galatians 1:8-9.

 

Okay, then you must also consider either Calvin’s or Luther’s gospel to be “a different gospel,” since their doctrines were radically different from each other. Which of these men do you think fell under Paul’s anathema, Luther or Calvin?

 

Also, it is no surprise that you would agree with these men that Rome teaches “a different gospel,” because you interpret the Scriptures in the light of their teachings. How then could you conclude otherwise? Is it a coincidence that those who learn the faith from Calvin tend to be Calvinists, or those who learn it from Luther tend to be Lutherans, or those who learn it from the Catholic Church tend to be Catholics? The Bible can be interpreted in many ways, and we all tend to interpret it in the ways we were taught, or we may change our views if we read a new and more persuasive argument. This, too, is something St. Vincent of Lerins addressed, as I quoted previously: “The same text is interpreted different by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men. Novatian, for example, expounds a passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another. Arius, and Eunomius, and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillian; in another way, Jovian, Pelagius, and Caelestius; finally still another way, Nestorius.”

 

You can be sure that the Pelagians considered their doctrines to be the “true gospel,” and they had the Scriptures to back it up. Likewise the Nestorians, Donatists, and Monophysites considered their doctrines to be the “true gospel,” and they too had the Scriptures to back it up. You consider Calvinism to be the “true gospel,” and a Fundamentalist considers his doctrines to be the “true gospel,” and you both have the Scriptures to back it up. Obviously, unless the Catholic Church, or some other communion, is guided by the Holy Spirit to define infallibly the true gospel, there is simply no way objectively to define it. We know that the Bible itself is infallible, but our interpretations of it, which become our doctrines, obviously are not. This became problematic within the first generation of Protestantism when Luther’s gospel clashed with Calvin’s. Unless the Church speaks with the voice of Christ in defining doctrine, we cannot define doctrine infallibly, but must inevitably rely upon our own fallible opinions. And what do you do then, when your interpretation clashes with that of other, equally sincere, equally intelligent, and equally fallible Christians? Unless the Church speaks with the voice of Christ in defining doctrine, Christian doctrine is inevitably reduced from the level of divine revelation to the level of mere opinion and philosophy.

 

You may believe that Rome’s doctrines are “a different gospel,” and if you mean different from yours, I agree. But it is manifestly not different from what was believed by the early Church, as I attempted to demonstrate in my paper, Was the Early Church Protestant. In my opinion, Church history is the death of Protestantism, or as John Henry Newman put it, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

 

The relevant sections of Trent’s decrees (Canons 9,12,13,14, and 33) do not seem to make the distinction you made between someone who is under the temporal jurisdiction of the Church and someone who is not. I recall them using the formula, “If anyone says (x,y,z)...let him be anathema.” If, as you say later in this letter, I am “implicitly subject to the authority of the Pope”, in what way am I not under the anathemas of Trent?

 

I hope I, and Karl Adam, explained that well enough above. If not, I’ll try again. :-)

 

Do you mean to say that what you consider to be my material heresy does not affect my salvation at all?

 

No, I would not say that. The farther one is from the truth, the more difficult it is for him to be saved. For example, you believe that you cannot lose your salvation. If that doctrine is true, then it is a glorious comfort, but if it is untrue, then it is one of the most dangerous doctrines ever conceived by the mind of man. Let me illustrate by supposing that at some future time you commit a horrible sin, such as murder, or rape. According to your doctrine, you would still be saved (I hope you’re not going to disappoint me at this point and repeat the lame idea that the commission of such sins would prove that you were never really saved in the first place, an idea that makes a mockery of the assurance you claim to have). If you sinned like that, according to Catholic theology (and just about everyone else’s theology) you would be lost (unless you repented, of course). In that case, your doctrine, if untrue, places you in extreme danger. At the very time when your soul is in jeopardy and your conscience should be screaming at you to repent, the seductive voice of Satan whispers in your ear that all is well, you are secure, you cannot be lost. Now, you may not commit murder in your lifetime, but the cumulative effect of lesser sins also serves to sever you from God by inclining you to more and greater sins. In C.S. Lewis’s brilliant book, The Screwtape Letters, a demon named Screwtape advises his nephew, Wormwood, how to destroy the human to whom he has been assigned:

 

You will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. But do remember, the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy. It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one--the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. (C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, 51).

 

In the Bible, we are warned, “Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the Devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.” (1 Pet. 5:8). How much easier it is to devour someone whose defenses are down, and who thinks he cannot be devoured!

 

At nearly every point along the soteriological way, I seem to believe in a different sort of Christ and a different sort of Atonement than does Rome.

 

First of all, your Christology is entirely orthodox. You and I believe in exactly the same Christ. As far as that goes, you are neither a material nor a formal heretic, but you have preserved the Catholic and apostolic faith unblemished. As far as the atonement goes, I don’t know where we differ on that. I assume we agree that Christ willingly sacrificed himself to make atonement for our sins, and that this sacrifice is the only way sins can be forgiven.

 

I reject the Roman conception of the Gospel. Does that not make me a formal heretic?

 

Consciously rejecting the Catholic faith does not make you, for that reason alone, a formal heretic. Other factors come into play, such as, any anti-Catholic prejudices you may have, or false teachings you may have embraced. The very word “Catholic” may conjur up for you all sorts of negative connotations. That sort of thing can be very difficult to overcome. You will only become a formal heretic if and when you have seen good and sufficient reason to overcome any biases you may have, and to believe that the Catholic faith really is the faith once delivered unto the saints, and yet, reject it. That is a very subjective thing, and it is for God to judge, not me. But let me ask you this: do you value Christian truth above denominational loyalty? Is your loyalty to Christ greater than your loyalty to anything else? Would you follow Christ anywhere? even into the Catholic Church, if that’s where you thought he was leading you? If you can answer those questions affirmatively, then you are not a formal heretic, even though you consciously reject the Catholic faith.

 

I find the concept of “implicit submission to the Pope”, to be a quite interesting and rather convenient idea. I am not sure there is any way I can answer this, especially if Rome recognizes that any baptism given with the Trinitarian formula is valid.

 

You hit on an important point there. Rome has always accepted Trinitarian baptism as valid, even if administered by heretics, or non-Christians. As I mentioned before, there have always been two strains of thought running side-by-side through the writings of the Fathers. On the one hand, they believed that the Church was necessary for salvation, but on the other, they acknowledged that those who were not visible members of the Church might still be saved. There is an element of paradox and mystery here, to be sure, but less, I think, than in other areas of the Christian faith, areas we both accept.

 

If you wish to view me as being in implicit submission to the Pope, that is your prerogative. Nevertheless, I disavow in the strongest manner I can the Pope’s authority over me. His office cannot be shown to be biblical except by a question-begging and eisegetical analysis of Matthew 16:18-19, and so I reject his theological claims. I also reject his historical claims due to the fact that the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” regarding Matthew 16:18-19 was certainly not the view espoused by Rome. But that will have to be another post.

 

Perhaps this should be another post, but I will just comment that there is nothing “question-begging” about the papacy. It is an entirely straight-forward exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19, and other passages. It is also confirmed by the writings of the Fathers. To be sure, the concept developed over time, as Christians came to understand it better, but so did the Trinity and the Canon of Scripture, so that should not be a problem. You yourself put it very eloquently when you wrote [elsewhere] that the Church “is guided by the infallible God through His infallible Word over the ages into increasing comprehension of the truth (Eph. 4:11-16).” We call this increasing comprehension of the truth, “development of doctrine,” but it’s the same concept.

 

I actually wrote a short post! That is pretty amazing, eh? :)

 

If only I could have done so too! :-) I seem to be genetically incapable of brevity, though, so I will apologize right now for any eyestrain or other optical damage I may cause! :-)

 

 

Part 1, Part 2