On the 1983 Anathema: A Letter of Archbishop Anthony (Bartoshevich) of Geneva to Archpriest Igor Dulgov

February 4, 1987

Dear Father Igor,

Regarding the anathema, I would like to share my thoughts with you.

Anathemas were usually pronounced not against the false teaching, but against its creator or its malicious spreader.

Strictly maintaining the boundaries of the autocephalous Churches, the Episcopal Council can anathematize exclusively and only individuals belonging to its Church.

Therefore, the anathema pronounced by our Episcopal Council was a mistake and a misunderstanding.

First of all, no, there was no answer to the question: who was anathematized? In our Church, such a malicious ecumenist was not found. Thus, the anathema was cast to the wind, moreover, without any explanation from the church authorities.

There are two possibilities of holding erroneous beliefs. A person may think incorrectly, but solely for themselves, not trying to impose their thoughts on anyone, not convincing anyone. For example, an unbeliever in God may keep their unbelief to themselves. This is their error, their matter, for which they are not subject to anathema. But if a heretic is like a militant atheist, using their eloquence and strength to lead others astray, if the purpose of their life is a struggle against the Truth, then such a person must be anathematized, excluded from the Church to stop the evil. It is precisely such heretics that the Church anathematized.

We must not forget that during the Christological heresies, anathemas against heretics were proclaimed by ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, which were above inter-church boundaries.

Our Episcopal Council is far from being an ECUMENICAL one, and the anathema supposedly issued from our mouths has no significance for the whole Church. The very word "proclamation" (of anathema) is also inappropriate and sounds illiterate. One can proclaim something to someone, a specific person or group of people, but such were not identified by our Council, and therefore, in fact, there was no proclamation of anathema.

We ourselves (thank God, not all) have embarrassed ourselves with this anathema and created a scandal.

But it was impossible to write about this openly. Therefore, through my explanation of the anathema, I tried to nullify its mistake. It was necessary to save the face of our Church.

We have all long been speaking about the danger of ecumenism as a heresy against the Church. This is also testified to by the "Sorrowful Epistles" of Metropolitan Philaret. And this is where we should have stopped. Taking on an anathema was beyond our capacity, which we ourselves proved by casting the anathema to the wind. This confused those who attributed it to Patriarch Athenagoras, not understanding that we have no right to such an act. I conclude here, admitting the possibility of error in my understanding of the "proclamation of anathema."

With love in Christ,

Archbishop Anthony

 

Russian source: https://kirillov-v-y.livejournal.com/34231.html