FTS Team
Do Anathemas apply to Protestants?
In January of this year, Archpriest Stephen Andrew Damick created a post where he asserted that anathemas do not apply to Protestants. Is this correct?
The patristic witness proves that this fundamentally misunderstands both anathemas and Orthodox theological method. His post lacks substantive patristic citation, resorting instead to isolated scriptural references—a method Protestants themselves favor. This approach attempts to explain who anathemas apply to without first establishing what anathema truly is.
This oversight represents a grave failure of pastoral responsibility, especially when, as Metropolitan Augoustinos Kantiotes observes, many contemporary Orthodox Christians “are unenlightened in the great topics of the Faith, and should be enrolled in the ranks of catechumens.” (On the Divine Liturgy, Orthodox Homilies, Vol. 1, pg. 257).
Fr. Damick’s fundamentally flawed explanation was predictably parroted by countless Orthodox who—without having read The Rudder and lacking any substantive understanding of what anathema means—eagerly disseminated his error. By leading the theologically unformed to confidently spread what they do not comprehend, Fr. Damick violated his pastoral duty and exploited ignorance to advance his predetermined agenda.
Let us endeavor to do a better job educating people in these essential matters of the Faith.
Fearful is the anathema. Leave off your evil opinions. Amen.
— St. Theophan the Recluse, https://www.orthodox.net/articles/anathema-bp-theophan.html
Fr. Damick’s original post can be found here.
I. The True Nature of Anathema: Scriptural Foundation and Patristic Understanding
To expose this error’s magnitude, we must first establish what anathema actually is according to Scripture and the Fathers—the very sources Fr. Damick systematically avoids.
Authentic Orthodox understanding begins with its scriptural and patristic foundations. The Apostle Paul lays down and then immediately reaffirms the inescapable foundation in Galatians:
But even if we, or an angel from out of heaven, should preach a gospel to you besides what Gospel we have preached to you, let such a one be anathema. As we said before, and now again I say, if anyone preach a gospel to you besides what ye received, let such a one be anathema.
— Galatians 1:8-9 (ONT)
Commenting on this universal “any man,” St. John Chrysostom makes no distinction as to limits, affirming its broad application against any who would distort the apostolic preaching:
He says, if ‘any man’ preach another Gospel to you than that which we have preached—not ‘if this or that man’.
— Commentary of St. John Chrysostom on Galatians
St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco gives us a more in-depth and historical definition of anathema:
The Greek word ‘anathema’ consists of two words: ‘ana’, which is a preposition indicating movement upwards and ‘thema’, which means a separate part of something… ‘Anathema’ literally means the lifting up of something separate. In the Old Testament this expression was used both in relation to that which was alienated due to sinfulness and likewise to that which was dedicated to God.
— St. John Maximovitch, http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/anathema.aspx
He further clarifies that anathema targets the distortion of the Gospel, irrespective of the perpetrator, signifying a complete separation:
Here [Gal 1:8-9] ‘anathema’ is proclaimed against the distortion of the Gospel of Christ as it was preached by the Apostle, no matter by whom this might be committed… In the acts of the Councils and the further course of the New Testament Church of Christ, the word ‘anathema’ came to mean complete separation from the Church.
— St. John Maximovitch, http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/anathema.aspx
To further distill the Church’s understanding of this solemn term, St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, in his commentary within The Rudder, explains:
The word anathema (written with epsilon in Greek) means, on the one hand, that which has been separated from men and consecrated to God – in which sense it is also written with eta in Greek – and, on the other hand, that which has been separated from God and from the Christian Church and consecrated to the Devil, in which sense the spelling with epsilon has prevailed for the most part, and not that with eta.
— Prologue to the Gangra Council footnote 4, in The Rudder (Pedalion), ed. Nicodemus the Hagiorite.
St. Nicodemus underscores this grave import by citing St. John Chrysostom, who, when speaking of this form of anathema, asks:
What else can be the meaning of the anathema you utter, O man, than that you wish the person in question to be consecrated (or, as we say in English, consigned) to the Devil, and to have no longer any possibility of salvation, to be estranged, in fact, from Christ?
— Prologue to the Gangra Council footnote 4, in The Rudder (Pedalion), ed. Nicodemus the Hagiorite.
This reveals anathema not as a mere internal disciplinary tool, but as a spiritual reality tied to the proclamation of a false gospel by anyone. The formal pronouncements of the Church often declare a separation that heretical teaching has already created in spirit. St. Theophan the Recluse powerfully articulates this inherent spiritual consequence of embracing teachings contrary to the Church:
Whether your teaching and your name are pronounced as being under anathema or not, you already fall under it when your opinions are opposed to those of the [Orthodox] Church, and when you persist in them.
— St. Theophan the Recluse, https://www.orthodox.net/articles/anathema-bp-theophan.html
Fr. Damick’s central error lies in restricting anathema to formal, internal Church discipline. He neglects its foundational scope, which addresses spiritual separation arising from any false gospel by any person.
This piece will demonstrate, through the consistent witness of the Fathers, the profound error of such a restrictive and superficial understanding.
We begin by examining Fr. Damick’s specific arguments, which collapse under scrutiny and reveal fundamental theological confusion.
II. Dismantling Flawed Analogies and Foundational Misdirections
Having established the authentic scriptural and patristic understanding of anathema as a spiritual consequence tied to the promulgation of false gospels, we now turn to Fr. Damick’s attempts to diminish this grave reality. He employs flawed analogies and scriptural misdirections that obscure, rather than illuminate, the Church’s teaching.
A. The Body of Christ is Not a Social Club
Fr. Damick attempts to trivialize the weight of anathema for those outside formal Church membership with a particularly superficial analogy:
“Anathemas don’t really apply to [Protestants] […] It would be like telling someone that you’re canceling his membership in a club he was never a member of”. — Fr. Stephen Andrew Damick
This reduction transforms the Body of Christ into a mere social organization—both inaccurate and profoundly offensive. It deliberately neglects the deeper theological reality that anathema addresses—a separation from Divine Truth and the life-giving grace of the Church, not the administrative cancellation of a social register. As St. Theophan the Recluse establishes (Section I), one “already fall[s] under” anathema by persistent opposition to Church teaching, regardless of formal pronouncements or canonical standing. The spiritual reality of separation due to heresy precedes and transcends any mere “membership” status in a worldly or organizational sense.
This superficial club analogy, however, represents only the beginning of Fr. Damick’s scriptural misdirections.
B. The “Light to the Nations” – A Self-Defeating Analogy
Beyond this superficial analogy, he commits an even more critical misdirection when seeking to limit the scope of anathema by arguing:
“This is why Israel was never called upon to subject the nations to the stipulations of the Torah but rather to be a light to the nations”. — Fr. Stephen Andrew Damick
He frames anathemas as akin to imposing religious rules or normative disciplines on non-members. This fundamentally misunderstands their purpose. Anathemas do not enforce ecclesiastical disciplines externally; they declare the spiritual reality that false doctrine and idolatrous worship inherently bring accursedness and separation from God. This is a truth with universal implications, irrespective of an individual’s formal affiliation with the Church.
Fr. Damick’s own scriptural analogy, when examined with any rigor, immediately proves the opposite of his thesis. While Israel did not impose Torah observance on Gentile nations, Israel’s prophets fulfilled a different function. Precisely as part of being a “light to the nations,” they relentlessly pronounced God’s judgment and impending doom upon these very nations for their false worship and idolatry. This prophetic function is a direct parallel to the solemn warning intrinsic to anathema. Consider the following:
Behold, the Lord rides on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; the idols of Egypt will tremble before him.
— Isaiah 19:1 (KJV)
Because you trusted in your works and your treasures… Chemosh shall go into exile with his priests and his princes together.
— Jeremiah 48:7 (KJV, judgment on Moab)
And I will kindle a fire in the houses of the gods of Egypt; and he shall burn them, and carry them away captives: and he shall array himself with the land of Egypt, as a shepherd putteth on his garment; and he shall go forth from thence in peace. He shall break also the images of Bethshemesh, that is in the land of Egypt; and the houses of the gods of the Egyptians shall he burn with fire. Milcom shall go into exile, with his priests and his officials…
— Jeremiah 43:12-13
Consider this clear example regarding Ammon:
Concerning the Ammonites, thus saith the Lord; Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth their king inherit Gad, and his people dwell in his cities? Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will cause an alarm of war to be heard in Rabbah of the Ammonites; and it shall be a desolate heap, and her daughters shall be burned with fire: then shall Israel be heir unto them that were his heirs, saith the Lord. Howl, O Heshbon, for Ai is spoiled: cry, ye daughters of Rabbah, gird you with sackcloth; lament, and run to and fro by the hedges; for their king shall go into captivity, and his priests and his princes together.
— Jeremiah 49:1-3 (KJV, judgment on Ammon, with “their king” often understood as Milcom/Molech or representing the nation under him)
Indeed, vast sections of Old Testament prophecy (e.g., Jeremiah 46-51, Isaiah 13-23, Ezekiel 25-32) consist of divine judgments declared against pagan nations precisely for their engagement in false religion—nations entirely outside the Old Covenant. Anathemas continue this prophetic function, declaring that false teaching and worship bring divine judgment and spiritual separation in the New Covenant. This is exemplified by St. Paul’s apostolic anathema in Galatians 1:9 against “any man” who preaches “another gospel.”
Thus, Fr. Damick’s appeal to Israel’s role as a “light” serves only to disprove his own argument, for that light included the uncompromising declaration of God’s judgment against all forms of false worship—the very essence of anathema’s condemnatory warning and call to truth.
Scripture alone, however, does not exhaust the evidence against his position. The historical practice of the Church’s saints provides equally devastating testimony.
III. Patristic Practice: Anathemas Beyond Formal Membership
This attempt to narrowly confine anathemas primarily to a disciplinary tool for Orthodox Church members contradicts not only Scripture but also the historical practice of the Church and the actions of Her saints. The Fathers did not hesitate to identify and declare teachings destructive to the Gospel as anathematizable, regardless of the formal status of those promoting them, when such teachings posed a threat to the faithful.
A. St. Theophan the Recluse Condemns External Ideologies
St. Theophan the Recluse, a sainted pillar of 19th-century Orthodoxy, extended the Church’s condemnation to prominent non-Orthodox thinkers and hostile ideologies of his time, demonstrating that anathema is concerned with poisonous doctrine, not merely internal infractions:
Feyerbach, Buchner, and Renan, to the spiritists, and to all their followers — to the nihilists — be anathema.
— St. Theophan the Recluse, https://www.orthodox.net/articles/anathema-bp-theophan.html
These individuals—Feuerbach, Büchner, and Renan—were German and French philosophers, materialists, and critics of Christianity, far outside the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church. St. Theophan’s action underscores that the Church’s saints understood the anathema’s protective power to extend against any who would lead souls astray with destructive, anti-Gospel teachings.
B. St. Photius the Great on Roman Innovations
St. Photius the Great established this precedent centuries earlier. Confronted with the Western Church’s alteration of the Nicene Creed, he indicated that such a deviation in core dogma subjects those responsible to the Church’s strongest censure:
Nevertheless, even if we did not cite all these and other innovations of the Church of Rome, the mere citing of their addition of the Filioque to the Nicene Creed would be enough to subject them to a thousand anathemas.
— St. Photius the Great (as cited by Patrick Barnes [Ford] in The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church, quoting from The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, J.P. Migne, PG 102, 393D)
At the time St. Photius was contending with this issue, the formal schism was developing. His statement highlights that a departure from apostolic doctrine itself warrants anathema, irrespective of whether a complete canonical break had yet been finalized or acknowledged by all parties.
C. The Anathematization of Barlaam of Calabria
The 14th-century anathematization of Barlaam of Calabria provides an even more compelling precedent. Barlaam, initially an Orthodox monk, later embraced Roman Catholic positions and became a prominent opponent of St. Gregory Palamas and Hesychasm. Even after his departure from Orthodoxy and conversion to Roman Catholicism, his teachings continued to pose a threat. Consequently, Church councils (such as the Fifth Council of Constantinople, 1351) anathematized Barlaam and his heresies:
To Barlaam, Akindynos, and their followers and successors, anathema!
— Synodikon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy (referencing the Palamite Councils)
This demonstrates that the Church can and does formally anathematize individuals who, though no longer within Her canonical fold, propagate teachings perilous to the spiritual lives of the faithful and contrary to Orthodox dogma.
D. Montanus, Forerunner of Protestant minds
But since the Luthero-calvinists, following Montanus, who lived in the second century and disregarded ecclesiastic usages and the traditions handed down by the Apostles (and see Footnote 5 to Canon VII of the 2nd Ecumenical Synod), abolish traditions and insist upon saying that God in the Book of Deuteronomy (Chapter 4) and in the Book of Revelation (Chapter 22) commands that no one shall add anything to what is found in Scripture, we reply that, according to St. Augustine (Chapters 79, on John), God prohibited the addition of harmful and discordant matter, but not of what is beneficial and agreeable. If, on the other hand, in interpreting the passage saying, “If anyone preach any other gospel unto you than that which you have received, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:9).
— St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, The Rudder
The editors of the Rudder, in labeling of this section, call Montanus the “forerunner” of Protestant minds, as he was NOT Orthodox, and he was guilty of exactly what Protestants are guilty of, in his disregard of the traditions handed down by the Apostles. Notice that through exegesis, St. Paul declares him anathema.
What is even further interesting here, is what we can find in the supplementary index at the back of the book. This index, put together by the editors of The Rudder, is arranged in alphabetical order and so when one navigates to the letter P, they will find Protestants, and they will find an entry that links to this above quote. The entry is rather poignant:
PROTESTANTS AND PAPISTS: In rejecting holy tradition they are under anathema
— The Rudder, Supplementary Index
This direct assertion, rooted in the comprehensive reasoning of The Rudder itself, further shatters any attempt to claim that anathemas hold no true spiritual import for those who, by Orthodox standards, stand outside the Church through their rejection of foundational Apostolic teachings like Holy Tradition. If Fr. Damick had truly engaged with The Rudder, he would be confronted by this direct application.
Conclusion to Section III
These examples establish a clear patristic and historical principle: anathemas fundamentally address the content of teaching and belief and their impact on the integrity of the Gospel. The Church’s saints and councils have confronted external threats and heretical doctrines that endanger the flock of Christ, prioritizing saving truth over organizational boundaries.
Yet this historical evidence, devastating as it is, unveils an even graver reality that Fr. Damick’s diplomatic theology systematically conceals.
IV. The Graver Question: Patristic Assessment of Protestantism and the Illusion of Comfort
A. Orthodox Saints on Protestant Doctrine
Fr. Damick’s attempt to comfort Protestants by exempting them from conciliar anathemas overlooks a far graver reality: the spiritual status of Protestantism itself as consistently articulated by Orthodox saints and elders. If Protestant doctrines place adherents outside Orthodox salvation, then debates over formal anathemas become secondary, if not misleading.
Our saints have not minced words regarding the core divergences of Protestant teachings from Orthodox truth:
Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev directly addresses the consequences of Protestant doctrinal distortions:
Do the Protestants, who have distorted the teaching on salvation, who teach wrongly about baptism, the Eucharist, and the Church, and some of whom preach unconditional predetermination – do they rightly glorify God? No. Hence, according to Galatians they are heretics, and consequently are at risk of perishing eternally.
— Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev, Letters, Letter 89, pg. 101
St. Cleopa (Ilie) of Sihăstria speaks to the deficiencies in Protestant frameworks concerning salvation:
Salvation in the Protestant formats of faith is terribly impossible being that it lacks the union in Christ through the True Faith in Him… it lacks the Divine Mysteries through which Christ Himself works out His salvation in the hearts of men.
— St. Cleopa of Sihăstria, as cited in George D. L. Grassos, The Church Fathers on Love in Truth: An Enquiry into the Patristic Teaching on Christians Outside the Church, pp. 28-29
Elder Athanasius Mitilinaios points to the ecclesiological void created by the rejection of Orthodox priesthood:
The Protestants spurn the mystery of the priesthood. So, in reality, they do not have the Church.
— Elder Athanasius Mitilinaios, Revelation Series Vol. 1
St. Theophan the Recluse deems Protestantism as a fall into falsehood and darkness:
In the beginning, there was one Church with one, true faith. But temptation set in. The pope of Rome, through sophistries of his own invention, fell away from the Church and the Faith. This constitutes the first degree of the fall into falsehood and darkness.
From the Roman Catholics, the Protestants sprang forth, who, through more sophistries of their own invention, fell into deception and broke away from Roman Catholicism. This constitutes the second degree of the fall into falsehood and darkness.
— St. Theophan the Recluse, Preaching Another Christ: An Orthodox View of Evangelicalism, pg. 19
These authoritative declarations from recognized Orthodox spiritual guides establish a consistent position: Protestantism, by its foundational doctrines on salvation, sacraments, and ecclesiology, has already separated itself from the Orthodox Church and lacks what Orthodoxy considers the necessary presuppositions for salvation.
This patristic understanding explains why Church councils primarily address those within the Orthodox communion when issuing formal anathemas. This occurs not because anathemas are intrinsically limited to “members,” but because those embracing fundamental heresies have already positioned themselves outside the saving enclosure of the Church through their very beliefs.
B. The “Pastoral Concern” Charade: Diplomatic Placation vs. Theological Truth
Fr. Damick admits he writes because “certain of our Protestant friends…are very upset about the anathemas.” This confession exposes theological priorities subordinated to diplomatic comfort.
Fr. Damick expends considerable effort shielding Protestants from anathemas while systematically ignoring these Orthodox saints’ pronouncements:
- Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev: “they are heretics…at risk of perishing eternally.”
- St. Cleopa of Sihăstria: “Salvation in Protestant formats of faith is terribly impossible.”
- Elder Athanasius Mitilinaios: “The Protestants…do not have the Church.”
- St. Theophan the Recluse: “Protestants constitute the second degree of the fall into falsehood and darkness”.
These declarations far exceed any anathema in severity. Why shield from the lesser condemnation while suppressing the greater one?
This selective sensitivity exposes the enterprise’s true nature: political theology—theological discourse manipulated to serve diplomatic objectives rather than truth.
Yet the Church’s mandate remains unambiguous:
…we ought to anathematize heretical tenets, and to censure them…
— The Rudder, Prologue to Gangra Council, fn. 4
Fr. Damick inverts this—shielding heretical tenets to placate those holding them. This produces pastoral malpractice disguised as sensitivity.
Such corruption reveals not merely tactical error, but fundamental methodological perversion that corrupts Orthodox theology at its source.
C. The Methodological Corruption: Authentic Orthodox Method vs. Political Theology
Fr. Damick’s approach represents systematic methodological corruption where predetermined outcomes dictate theological conclusions.
Authentic Orthodox Method:
- Start with foundational question: “What do the Church Fathers teach?”
- Follow Holy Tradition wherever it leads, regardless of consequences
- Accept uncomfortable truths if the consensus patrum demands them
- Let doctrine shape all other considerations
Political Theology Method:
- Start with desired social/relational outcome
- Work backwards to construct theological arguments supporting this goal
- Ignore or reinterpret inconvenient traditional evidence
- Let contemporary concerns shape doctrinal presentation
Fr. Damick exemplifies this corruption perfectly: beginning with the goal of not upsetting “Protestant friends,” then constructing elaborate arguments to exempt them from anathematical implications, while systematically avoiding comprehensive patristic engagement that would contradict his predetermined conclusion.
Fr. Damick’s methodological corruption extends beyond practice to explicit theory. When challenged about his lack of patristic engagement, he makes a revealing statement:
“Orthodox Christianity is not ‘Christianity + The Fathers.’ It is simply Christianity.” — Fr. Damick
This statement reveals Fr. Damick’s fundamental misunderstanding of his own methodological failure. While one need not quote the Fathers directly to Protestants in evangelistic contexts, Fr. Damick deploys this truism to deflect from a far graver problem: his own departure from patristic consensus within Orthodox theological discourse.
The critical distinctions Fr. Damick disregards:
- The Fathers’ and saints’ authority: The early Church Fathers and saints could rely upon Scripture alone because they had achieved Pentecost and possessed direct spiritual illumination. They were the consensus being formed under the Holy Spirit’s guidance.
- The deflection exposed: Fr. Damick uses evangelistic methodology to excuse his theological methodology. It would be legitimate if he studied the Fathers and presented Scripture within their consensus to Protestants. Instead, he avoids comprehensive patristic engagement even in his Orthodox theological work, manifestly doing what the Church Fathers never did—skewing doctrine for ecumenical comfort.
- The standard for the rest of us: Those who have not achieved Pentecost should teach primarily with the Fathers and, at minimum, defer to their consensus. Fr. Damick does neither. His interpretation of anathema contradicts clear patristic witness, yet he offers no patristic support for his novel position.
Fr. Damick’s “simple Christianity” abstracted from patristic witness is precisely the methodology of every heterodox group that claims to follow “just the Bible.” As Metropolitan Augoustinos Kantiotes establishes:
The Rudder is the interpretation of the Holy Bible by the Church Fathers.
— Metropolitan Augoustinos Kantiotes, Christians of the Last Times, pg. 112
When Fr. Damick contradicts The Rudder’s clear teaching on anathemas, he contradicts the Fathers’ authoritative interpretation of Scripture itself. His novel interpretation, devoid of patristic support and contradicting the Church’s authoritative sources, employs precisely the methodology that the Fathers consistently warned leads to heretical distortion. This approach—using Orthodox vocabulary while departing from Orthodox consensus—represents the very pathway by which authentic Christian teaching is perverted and destroyed.
D. The Real Issue: Progressive Orthodox Discomfort with Tradition
Fr. Damick’s argument reflects a significant discomfort within contemporary Orthodoxy regarding the Church’s traditional stance against heresy. This internal unease, rather than genuine concern for Protestant perspectives, fuels attempts to diminish such “hard” aspects of Orthodox heritage. St. Theophan the Recluse recognized this sentiment in his time:
To some people our anathemas seem inhumane, to others constricting.
— St. Theophan the Recluse, The Path to Salvation: A Manual of Spiritual Transformation, “Anathema” (from https://www.orthodox.net/articles/anathema-bp-theophan.html)
The discomfort primarily lies with Orthodox Christians embarrassed by their own sacred tradition. This manifests visibly in widespread parish practices of omitting or abbreviating the Synodikon of Orthodoxy precisely because these declarations make them uncomfortable. Arguments like Fr. Damick’s provide theological cover for retreating from the Church’s authoritative voice rather than robustly defending Orthodox distinctives.
St. Theophan commented on this persistent dissatisfaction:
Rarely does the Rite of Orthodoxy, which is now being performed, take place without censures and reproaches on somebody’s part. And no matter how many sermons are given explaining that the Church here acts wisely for the salvation of her children – still the malcontents just keep repeating their line. Either they do not listen to the sermons, or these sermons do not strike home as regards the latters’ perplexities, or perhaps they have formed their own conception of this rite and do not want to abandon it, no matter what you tell them.
— St. Theophan the Recluse, https://www.orthodox.net/articles/anathema-bp-theophan.html
Fr. Damick’s methodological corruption inevitably produces theological contradictions. His attempt to circumscribe anathemas creates an artificial separation between Scriptural and conciliar reality—a distinction existing nowhere in patristic thought.
V. Compounding the Error: Illegitimate Redefinitions and Inescapable Contradictions
Having exposed Fr. Damick’s corrupted methodology, we now confront the theological contradictions this produces. His attempt to circumscribe anathemas creates an artificial separation between Scriptural and conciliar reality—a distinction existing nowhere in patristic thought.
A. The Illegitimate Redefinition of Anathema
Fr. Damick constructs two distinct anathema categories where theological reality recognizes only one unified principle. Scripture tolerates no such distinction: St. Paul declares universally that anyone preaching “another gospel” is anathema—spiritually separated from God by that very act.
When Orthodox councils anathematize individuals, they excommunicate them specifically for heresy—for teaching doctrines contradicting the Gospel. Every conciliar excommunication for heresy effectively declares: “This person preaches another gospel.” The formal act recognizes spiritual reality that already exists through heretical teaching. Indeed, The Rudder itself, in commenting on the effects of conciliar actions, makes a crucial distinction concerning formal pronouncements versus underlying liability
…if the council does not actually effect the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of laymen, these priests and laymen, are neither actually deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized. They are liable to stand trial, however, judicially, here as touching deposition, excommunication, or anathematization, but there as touching divine vengeance.
— Third Apostolic Canon, footnote 1, in The Rudder [Pedalion], ed. Nicodemus the Hagiorite
This passage from The Rudder is critical: while formal conciliar sentences are necessary for canonical effects, individuals remain ‘liable… as touching divine vengeance’ even without such sentences. Spiritual liability before God persists independently of formal juridical acts. Fr. Damick’s error lies in attempting to sever this intrinsic connection. He suggests conciliar anathemas function as mere organizational discipline, devoid of deeper spiritual implications for non-members. In fact, the grounds for such anathemas—heresy itself—already place one in a state of spiritual separation recognized by St. Paul and the Fathers.
Fr. Damick’s error lies in severing this intrinsic connection by treating conciliar anathemas as mere organizational discipline—an artificial dichotomy the Fathers never recognized and Scripture explicitly contradicts.
The logical consequence undermines his thesis: if someone is excommunicated for heresy, they are definitionally guilty of propagating “another gospel” and thus fall under St. Paul’s universal anathema regardless of ecclesiastical status. Conciliar acts cannot create separate categories immune from apostolic condemnation.
Fr. Damick’s redefinition attempts to create theological space that simply does not exist.
B. The Self-Defeating Logic of Exempting “Another Gospel”
Fr. Damick’s position contains a fundamental logical contradiction. As an Orthodox priest, he necessarily affirms that Protestantism systematically distorts essential teachings on salvation, sacraments, priesthood, and Church nature—constituting “another gospel” in Orthodox understanding. Yet he simultaneously argues Protestants remain exempt from St. Paul’s apostolic anathema explicitly pronounced against “any” who preach “another gospel.”
The contradiction is absolute. Either Protestantism represents “another gospel” (which Orthodox doctrine demands he affirm), or it does not (requiring him to abandon Orthodox teaching entirely). Fr. Damick cannot simultaneously maintain Orthodox commitments while exempting those who embody what Orthodoxy identifies as Gospel distortion from the apostolic anathema against Gospel distortion.
His hair-splitting about formal versus spiritual anathema becomes theologically irrelevant. St. Paul’s universal declaration establishes spiritual reality independent of subsequent conciliar recognition. Fr. Damick attempts exemptions from apostolic condemnation for those who, by his own Orthodox framework, clearly fall under its scope.
C. The Practical Absurdity: Shielding Major Threats, Condemning Minor Ones
Fr. Damick’s restrictive interpretation produces a practically absurd inversion: major external spiritual threats would escape formal condemnation while minor internal infractions could warrant anathema. His logic grants Protestant mega-church pastors teaching salvation by faith alone and rejecting sacraments effective immunity from Orthodox anathematization, while Orthodox Christians erring on disciplinary points might face solemn condemnation.
This completely inverts anathema’s fundamental purpose: protecting Christ’s flock from soul-destroying teachings regardless of their source. As St. John Chrysostom clarifies, the focus targets false teaching itself:
Neither formerly, nor in this case, did he speak with a view of disparaging the Apostles or of extolling himself, (how so? when he included himself under his anathema?) but always in order to guard the integrity of the Gospel.
— Commentary of St. John Chrysostom on St. Paul’s Anathema in Galatians
Fr. Damick’s framework paradoxically shields external false teachings while focusing anathematical defense primarily on internal matters. This selective application undermines the Church’s pastoral responsibility and contradicts anathema’s historical understanding as comprehensive defense against all significant Gospel threats.
D. The Ecclesiological Impossibility: A Diminishing Church Authority
Fr. Damick’s attempt to restrict conciliar anathemas compared to St. Paul’s universal anathemas creates a severe ecclesiological contradiction. His position necessarily implies that the Church’s power to condemn heresy has somehow diminished over time rather than remained constant through the same Holy Spirit’s guidance.
If St. Paul’s anathemas against “any man” preaching “another gospel” possessed universal spiritual import transcending membership boundaries, then subsequent Ecumenical Councils—guided by the identical Holy Spirit and wielding the same apostolic authority—cannot suddenly possess only restricted, primarily internal-disciplinary anathematical power. This creates an ecclesiological trajectory no Orthodox Christian can accept, as it strikes at the heart of Orthodox ecclesiology and the Church’s divine mandate to preserve apostolic truth against all comers.
History itself provides the definitive refutation of Fr. Damick’s proceduralist framework.
E. Formal Pronouncement vs. Spiritual Reality: The Case of St. John of Damascus
Fr. Damick’s emphasis on formal conciliar pronouncements as determinative for anathema systematically avoids a crucial reality that undermines his framework: formal conciliar anathemas can be spiritually void when they contradict Orthodox truth. The iconoclastic Council of Hieria in 754 formally anathematized St. John of Damascus for defending Holy Icons, yet this formal condemnation carried no spiritual weight.
Despite formal condemnation by a council claiming ecclesiastical authority, St. John remained blessed by God and vindicated by authentic Orthodoxy, while his accusers fell under true anathema for their heresy. The later Seventh Ecumenical Council did not restore St. John’s orthodoxy; it simply recognized what had been spiritually true throughout: St. John championed truth while Hieria was a “robber council” in fundamental error.
This establishes the principle refuting Fr. Damick’s thesis: spiritual content and doctrinal truth—not formal ecclesiastical status—ultimately determine anathematical reality. If Orthodox saints can be invalidly anathematized by erring councils, then those outside canonical boundaries who propagate heretical doctrines can be spiritually anathematized by God regardless of conciliar naming.
F. Conciliar Declaration Recognizes Pre-Existing Spiritual Reality
The principle that formal conciliar declarations recognize spiritual realities that already exist—rather than creating those realities—finds powerful illustration in Fr. Seraphim Rose’s analysis of the Iconoclast heresy, which subverts any attempt to subordinate spiritual truth to formal ecclesiastical procedure:
Before the Seventh Ecumenical Council the Orthodox Church did not have any explicit ‘doctrine on icons,’ and so one could argue that the Iconoclasts were not heretics at all… Nonetheless, the Church felt She was fighting a heresy, something destructive to the Church Herself; and after Her champions had suffered and died for this Orthodox sensitivity, and Her theologians had finally managed to put down explicitly the doctrine She already knew in Her heart — then the cause of Orthodoxy triumphed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and the Iconoclasts were clearly singled out as heretics.
— Fr. Seraphim Rose, Life and Works
This establishes that the Church possessed inherent recognition of heretical teaching as “destructive to the Church Herself” even prior to formal conciliar definition. The spiritual reality of heresy and consequent separation from Church life existed independently of subsequent juridical acts.
This principle operates universally—recognizing no artificial distinction between those within and those outside canonical boundaries when heresy is embraced or taught. Those embracing intrinsically heretical positions suffer spiritual separation through their adherence to falsehood, regardless of whether specific councils have yet pronounced their names in formal anathemas.
Fr. Damick’s framework, which attempts to create immunity zones for external heretical teaching while focusing anathematical concern primarily on internal matters, systematically contradicts this foundational understanding.
The Church’s primary concern remains constant: Gospel truth and protection of Christ’s flock from all who would distort it, independent of the canonical status of those propagating false teaching.
Fr. Damick’s innovation crumbles under examination. Scripture, patristic witness, historical precedent, and logical consistency unite in devastating refutation of his position. What remains is the choice every Orthodox Christian must make: authentic tradition or comfortable innovation."
VI. Conclusion: Standing Firm with the Holy Fathers
If someone reads the Holy Bible without using the aid of the holy Church Fathers, they may misinterpret it and fall into many heresies.
— Metropolitan Augoustinos Kantiotes, Christians of the Last Times, pg. 111
Fr. Damick’s reinterpretation of anathemas demonstrates precisely this departure from patristic method, revealing logical contradiction, historical ignorance, and most fundamentally, the corruption of Orthodox theology by political considerations.
The Fathers speak with unified clarity. St. Theophan the Recluse thoroughly refutes Fr. Damick’s thesis:
Whether your teaching and your name are pronounced as being under anathema or not, you already fall under it when your opinions are opposed to those of the [Orthodox] Church, and when you persist in them.
— St. Theophan the Recluse, https://www.orthodox.net/articles/anathema-bp-theophan.html
True Orthodox teaching demands uncompromising fidelity to received tradition. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov establishes the standard:
This word is not my own — it belongs to the Holy Fathers. All my counsels come from them.
— St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, The Field
Fr. Damick has violated this standard. His arguments are demonstrably his own, not those of the Fathers—private theological speculation dressed in Orthodox vocabulary, precisely what the Church condemns as the pathway to heresy.
St. Gregory Palamas provides the Church’s response to such theological malpractice:
Let us flee from those who reject patristic interpretations and attempt by themselves to deduce the complete opposite. While pretending to concern themselves with the literal sense of the passage, they reject its godly meaning. We should run away from them more than we would from a snake, for when a snake bites it kills the body temporarily, separating it from the immortal soul, but when these evil men get their teeth into a soul, they separate it from God, which is eternal death for that soul. Let us escape as far as we can from such people, and take refuge with those who teach piety and salvation in accordance with the traditions of the Fathers.
— St. Gregory Palamas, The Homilies, “On the Transfiguration I,” pg. 267
Orthodox Christians must reject Fr. Damick’s counsel entirely and cleave steadfastly to the unanimous witness of the Fathers—something he has manifestly failed to do.
The path forward requires no innovation, only fidelity to what the Church has always taught.
(this text ends here, but we’ve added all the quotes we can find on Protestantism).
There is not a single nation that has been converted to Christianity by Protestants. This is not surprising, since without the aid of God’s power people are not able to truly receive Christ (1 Cor. 12:3).
— Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev, A Protestant’s Walk Through an Orthodox Church, pg 24-25
…without the direct apostolic succession preserved by the Orthodox Church, fellowship with God is impossible - as in the case of the Protestants, for example, who don’t have it, who think that God has forgotten His Church, and want to correct His ‘oversight’.
— Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev, A Protestant’s Walk Through an Orthodox Church, pg 20
Consequently, our faith and the Church are the only place where one can attain salvation, because those who don’t serve God correctly cannot achieve eternal life.
— Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev, A Protestant’s Walk Through an Orthodox Church, pg, 11
“Ah, you’re talking about your Communion.” The young man waved his hand. “But that’s just symbols, a remembrance. Only faith can save you.”
“We already heard all that 2000 years ago,” I answered. "Immediately after the Savior spoke those words, many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? (John 6:66-67). In exactly the same way the Protestants, like the unbelieving Jews, say: This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
— Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev, A Protestant’s Walk Through an Orthodox Church, pg, 15
Yet it’s precisely this all-important object [the Altar] that is missing in protestant houses of worship, and for this reason they cannot be called biblical churches.
— Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev, A Protestant’s Walk Through an Orthodox Church, pg 14
Later, many offshoots sprang forth from Anglicanism and Protestantism. Schisms and heresies multiplied. Every new offshoot boasted of having found—at last—the truth. While, in fact, each one was only sinking deeper into falsehood and darkness. Everyone looked for the truth, not where the true God placed it, but where their own devices suggested. This is why they did not find the truth, but came only to embrace various shades of the truth. In reality, their confession of faith and their beliefs are founded upon shadows. And it is among such shadows that the contents of the preaching, which—as you say-attracts you now, lies.
― St. Theophan The Recluse, Preaching Another Christ, pg. 20
The English did not like the German version of Protestantism and came up with their own, tailored to their own measurements and according to their own views, but not according to the eternal truths that God Himself revealed. They veered even further from the correct faith in their attempt to approach it by human means alone.
― St. Theophan the Recluse, Preaching Another Christ, pg. 20
The Roman Catholics, who were the first to split from the Church, consider the truth to be with their side. The Protestants, who protested against the Roman Catholics failure on a score of points, failed themselves to return to the truth and, in fact, strayed from it even further than the former. They did not establish their new faith upon God’s truth, but upon heretical sophistries of their own invention. No matter how much they claim to be right, they are very far from the truth.
― St. Theophan the Recluse, Preaching Another Christ, pg. 20
When the Apostle Paul was informed of the situation, he wrote the following, as an unshakable law for all ages: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other [24] gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8). And so that it might be better impressed upon them, he repeated: As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:9). Do you see then that there can be such a gospel and such an evangelism, whose preachers are anathematized, even by the Apostle Paul himself! But you forgot all about this as soon as some teacher appeared with the Gospel in his hand. You trusted him, without thinking that your faith is orthodox and that you correctly strive for your salvation. You imitated those Galatians exactly. It is only fair then that the apostolic censure be addressed to you too: O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth (Gal. 3:1)?”
― St. Theophan the Recluse, Preaching Another Christ, pg. 25
First of all each Protestant is an independent pope when it comes to matters of faith. This always leads from one spiritual death to another; and there is no end to this “dying” since a person can suffer count- less spiritual deaths (in a lifetime).
— St. Justin Popović, Orthodox Faith and Life In Christ, pg. 170
Protestantism? It is the loyal child of Papism. It went from one heresy to another over the centuries because of its rationalistic scholasticism, and it is continually drowning in the various poisons of its heretical errors.
— St. Justin Popović, Orthodox Faith and Life In Christ, pg. 170
Truly, then, Protestantism is nothing other than an abstract papism being applied to everything, that is, the basic principle of the infallibility of one man has been applied to every individual human being. According to the example of the infallible man of Rome, every Protestant becomes infallible since he claims personal infallibility in matters of faith. From this it can be said that Protestantism is a popularized papism lacking however a mystical dimension, authority, and power.
— St. Justin Popović, Orthodox Faith and Life In Christ, pg. 90
Ecumenism is the common name for the pseudo Christianity of the pseudo-Churches of Western Europe. Within it is the heart of European humanism, with Papism as its head. All of pseudo-Christianity, all of those pseudo-Churches, are nothing more than one heresy after another. Their common evangelical name is: Pan-heresy. Why? This is because through the course of history various heresies denied or deformed certain aspects of the God-man and Lord Jesus Christ; these European heresies remove Him altogether and put European man in His place. In this there is no essential difference between Papism, Protestantism, Ecumenism, and other heresies, whose name is “Legion.”
— St. Justin Popović, Orthodox Faith and Life In Christ, pg. 169
…the papacy is the first Protestantism.
— St. Justin Popović, Orthodox Faith and Life In Christ, pg. 111
Therefore, all humanisms, all hominisms are, in the final analysis, idolatrous and polytheistic in origin. Pre-Renaissance, Renaissance, and post-Renaissance—Protestant, philosophical, religious, social, scientific, cultural, or political —all the European humanisms strive consciously or subconsciously, but they strive unceasingly, for one result: to replace faith in the God-man with a belief in man, to replace the Gospel of the God-man with a gospel according to man, to replace the philosophy of the God-man with a philosophy according to man, to replace the culture of the God-man with a culture according to man. In brief, they seek to replace life according to the God-man with life according to man.
— St. Justin Popović, Orthodox Faith and Life In Christ, pg. 102
The voices of some people in the Protestant world crying, “Zurück zu Jesus! Back to Jesus!” constitute weak cries in the moonless night of humanistic Christianity. It is this Christianity which has abandoned theanthropic values and criteria and is presently drowning in desper- ation and stalemate while from the depths of the centuries echo the harsh words of the bereaved prophet of God, Jeremiah: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man” (Jer. 17: 5).
— St. Justin Popović, Orthodox Faith and Life In Christ, pg. 92
Today’s Europe is neither Papist nor Lutheran. It is above and outside of them both. It is totally earthly, without even the desire to ascend to heaven, either with the passport of the infallibility of the Pope or by the ladder of Protestant wisdom.
— St. Justin Popović, Orthodox Faith and Life In Christ, pg. 184
Far worse, however, is the state of those who, being unrooted in the true sources of Holy Orthodoxy, occupy the positions of pastors and theologians and in their “learned ignorance” seek to guide their flocks according to some fashionable intellectual current of the day. Such are the leaders of the “charismatic movement,” swept off their feet by an experience which, while compatible with Protestantism and Papism, is easily discerned as a satanic deception by those who are rooted in and live in the Holy Fathers.
— Fr. Seraphim Rose, Blessed Paisius Velichcovsky, Introduction, pg. 14
"In this perspective we might say that from the Orthodox point of view the exclusive concentration on Christ in Western Christianity does not in fact suggest the presence of an ever more intimate union with him, for this union is not affirmed in the Holy Spirit. The proof is that Catholicism treats Christ as if he were removed from the Church - hence the need to have a vicar for him - while in Protestantism Christ is similarly thought to remain at a distance from the faithful - however movingly this is expressed - for he has no effect on the conduct of their lives or on their ecclesial union. In both Trinitarian Relations and the Life of the Church15 traditions Christ is at a distance, because both have for all practical purposes forgotten the Holy Spirit through whom Christ is present. And the Church as the Body of Christ exists effectively where the Holy Spirit is present.
— St. Dumitru Staniloae, Theology and the Church, pg. 14
Because Protestantism has not kept this image alive and Revelation Through Acts, Words and Images active by the use of icons and the imitation of its various stages in the sacraments, and has thereby retained only the word cut off from the practical activity of the image, it comes as no surprise that some Protestant theologians have even espoused the idea of replacing the fundamental image itself, because they consider the incarnation of the Son of God to be a pure myth.
— St. Dumitru Staniloae, Theology and the Church, pg. 139
Where the experience of the Spirit in the Church and in the faithful grows weak, there appears a Church which is predominantly juridical and institutional, or a religious life characterized by an exaggerated individualism. It is not because the presence of Christ apart from the Spirit produces these phenomena - as some Western theologians and even some Orthodox authors hold - for Christ does not in fact abide in the Church and in the faithful apart from the Spirit. Rather it is because he is conceived either as a remote figure who has left behind a vicar to guide the Church according to his commands (Catholicism), or else as the one who allows each believer to guide himself according to the reasonings of his own conscience (Protestantism).
— St. Dumitru Staniloae, Theology and the Church, pg. 28
Protestantism has also experienced this same weakness, for, having rejected the direction of a vicarial hierarchy it has lost even that unity which was maintained by largely human means.
— St. Dumitru Staniloae, Theology and the Church, pg. 107
With respect both to revealed images and to the attributes of God based upon these images, there is no need to embrace unilaterally either the cataphatic attitude which can degen- erate into a mythical mentality, or the apophatic attitude which can tend to produce a complete lack of belief in the possibility of any connexion between God and man, and even a complete lack of confidence in man. It is, moreover, con- fidence in the ability of man to grasp what God reveals about himself which is the basis of any confidence in our own word about God - a confidence so cultivated in Protestantism.
— St. Dumitru Staniloae, Theology and the Church, pg. 153
Having cut itself off from ecclesial unity, the entire Western Church, in the persons of its hierarchy, morally fell so profoundly that it provoked a protest headed by Luther and, later, Zwingli and Calvin. A new and frightful schism took place in the heart of Roman Catholicism itself, under the general name of Protestantism. Proudly renouncing the Church and its authority to interpret Holy Scripture and recognizing man himself as the sole authority—once again, that same spirit of self-asserting pride—Protestantism gave birth to a countless number of the most varied sects. As a result, we see the lamentable picture of the once united Church of Christ being divided into many different mutually hostile confessions. This is where that pernicious spirit of self-asserting human pride has led!
— Archbishop Averky, The Struggle for Virtue
The spirit of self-asserting human pride brought about, finally, a frightful and disastrous schism within the very heart of the Christian Church. The entire Western Roman Church, with its patriarch-pope at its head, fell away from ecclesial unity. And in turn Protestantism, with its numberless multitude of assorted branches or so-called sects, separated itself from it as well.
— Archbishop Averky, The Struggle for Virtue
"We can add that antinomianism is expressed chiefly by Protestantism, which has discarded and is discarding the laws and Canons of the Church, the whole tradition of the Church, for the sake of ‘faith’.
— Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, The Mind of the Church
…we know that the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, tried to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Epistle of James since it definitively underlines the insufficiency of faith alone without deeds for salvation (Jas 2:26 — “faith without works is dead”), while a key tenet of the Protestant faith is the exact opposite — that a person is justified by faith alone without good deeds.
— Archbishop Averky, Commentary On The Holy Scriptures Of The New Testament, Introduction
The Church of God acts not by words only, but by power. This power is certainly lacking in Protestantism, and we can see where this has led. In 400 years of Protestantism they have slid from the strictest discipline to justifying homosexuality and other similar things, the repulsiveness of which is evident to all.
— Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev, Questions to a Priest, pg. 64