Biuletyn Stowarzyszenia Kanonistów Polskich XXXIV (2024), nr 37, s.

211-226

DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES IN THE EARLY CHURCH

PROCEDURY DYSCYPLINARNE W KOŚCIELE
PIERWOTNYM

Rev. Doc. Dr. Stanislav Přibyl

University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, the Czech Republic
e-mail: [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2470-1405

Abstract
The paper refers to numerous documents from the period of the early Church
which give testimony to the fact that the Church was never ruled by a charismatic
anarchy or boundless democracy. Nevertheless, the data concerning the arrange-
ment of the Church, which is passed on to us through the Scriptures, specifically
the New Testament, and the writings of Apostolic Fathers, is not found in the form
of a systematic treatise. Rather, it is found occasionally, mostly in connection with
resolving some concrete issue. It is therefore necessary to arrange these various
mentions in logical accordance with one another. The text of the paper firstly an-
alyzes the issue of charismatic authority which is, above all, described in the Acts
of the Apostles, Pauline letters, and especially in the early Christian treatise, the Di-
dache. This treatise also mentions the hierarchical duties of the bishops and dea-
cons, which can also already be seen in the New Testament alongside the duties
of apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and presbyters. Some of the Church
offices mentioned have primarily a missionary role, others are established
for the pastoral care of existing and stable Christian communities. The Church or-
der described in the eighteenth chapter of the Gospel according to St. Matthew is
chiefly addressed to these stable communities. The First Epistle of Clement, writ-
ten still in the first Christian century, gives testimony to the deposing of presby-
ters in the Church of Corinth and the intervention of the Roman authority in this
dispute. Canon Law, which gradually begun to develop in the Church, followed
directly in the footsteps of these disciplinary customs, which we know from early
Christian literature.
Keywords: Catholic Church, early Church, apostles, bishops, authority, charisma,
mission, discipline, punishing, Jesus, Spirit

ISSN 1731-1438; e-ISSN 2719-7255

https://doi.org/10.32077/bskp.8004
 212

Abstrakt
W artykule przywołano liczne dokumenty z okresu Kościoła pierwotnego, które
świadczą o tym, że w Kościele nigdy nie panowała ani charyzmatyczna anarchia, ani
bezgraniczna demokracja. Niemniej jednak dane dotyczące ustroju Kościoła, któ-
re są nam przekazywane poprzez Pismo Święte, zwłaszcza Nowy Testament i pisma
Ojców Apostolskich, nie znajdują się w formie systematycznego traktatu. Raczej
spotyka się go sporadycznie, głównie w związku z rozwiązaniem jakiegoś konkret-
nego problemu. Dlatego konieczne jest uporządkowanie tych różnych wzmianek
w logicznej zgodności. W artykule w pierwszej kolejności podjęto analizę problema-
tyki władzy charyzmatycznej, opisanej przede wszystkim w Dziejach Apostolskich,
listach Pawłowych, a zwłaszcza w traktacie wczesnochrześcijańskim Didache. Trak-
tat ten wspomina także o hierarchicznych obowiązkach biskupów i diakonów, które
także można dostrzec już w Nowym Testamencie obok obowiązków apostołów, pro-
roków, nauczycieli, ewangelistów i prezbiterów. Niektóre z wymienionych urzędów
kościelnych pełnią przede wszystkim rolę misyjną, inne powołane są do opieki dusz-
pasterskiej nad istniejącymi i stabilnymi wspólnotami chrześcijańskimi. Porządek
kościelny opisany w osiemnastym rozdziale Ewangelii według św. Mateusza adre-
sowany jest głównie do tych wspólnot stabilnych. Pierwszy List Klemensa, napisany
jeszcze w I w. chrześcijaństwa, daje świadectwo o usunięciu prezbiterów w Kościele
korynckim i interwencji władzy rzymskiej w tym sporze. Prawo kanoniczne, które
stopniowo zaczęło się rozwijać w Kościele, poszło bezpośrednio w ślady tych zwy-
czajów dyscyplinarnych, które znamy z literatury wczesnochrześcijańskiej.
Słowa kluczowe: Kościół katolicki, Kościół pierwotny, apostołowie, biskupi, wła-
dza, charyzma, misja, dyscyplina, karanie, Jezus, Duch

1. Charismatic Authority and its Manifestations

In the Code of Canon Law, the basis for the lasting hierarchical estab-
lishment of the Catholic Church is seen in the analogical relationship be-
tween a particular historical event and its historical development: “Just
as by the Lord’s decision Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one
college, so in a like manner the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter,
and the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, are united among themselve.”1
This shows that the mainstay of the Church’s identity and organization from

1 Codex Iuris Canonici auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgatus (25.01.1983), AAS
75 (1983), pars II, p. 1-317; English text: Code of Canon Law, Latin-English edition: new
English translation, Canon Law Society of America, Washington, DC 1999 [henceforth:
CIC/83], Canon 330.
 213

its beginnings has been the apostolate. This is also true of all non-Catho-
lic, especially Eastern churches which have retained apostolic succession
and the episcopal office,2 even though they lack the Petrine ministry exer-
cised by the papacy. However, when looking back to the very beginnings
of the existence of the Church, we are struck by the presence of not only
the apostolate, but also of a highly valued prophetic and charismatic element.
For example, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, the prophets stand almost man-
ifestly alongside the apostles themselves: “Consequently, you are no longer
foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also mem-
bers of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone” (Eph 2:20).3
However, the prophetic element permeating the life of the first Chris-
tian generations faded over time. It can thus be assumed that the reference
to the Holy Spirit in the fourth century Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed
as “speaking by the mouth of the prophets,”4 refers solely to the prophets
of the Old Testament, whose writings were accepted by the Christian Church
and given christological ssignificance. The prophets mentioned in the Epis-
tle to the Ephesians, however, are not to be identified with the prophets
writing in the Old Testament. The evidence for this is clearly the context
in which they are included in the same epistle and among other ministries
in the Church: “so Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evan-
gelists, the pastors and teachers to equip his people for works of service,
so that the body of Christ may be built up” (cf. Eph 4:11-12). These proph-
ets were endowed with the charismatic gift of speaking,5 although especially
John’s Revelation, as a written record, can give us a glimpse of the nature
of such form of New Testament prophecy.6 Although the prophets’ statements

2 “The guardian and guarantor of this apostolic tradition and teaching is the apostolic
succession. The bishop who presides over the Eucharistic assembly is its bearer and must
therefore be in communion with the whole Church and appointed/ordained and recognized
by her.” [Kryštof 2000, 5].
3 All the biblical quotes are taken from the New International Version, available at: https://
www.biblegateway.com.
4 Denzinger and Hünnermann 1999, 84 (DS 150).
5 The Czech liturgical translation of the Bible (Nový zákon. Text užívaný v českých liturgických
knihách přeložený se stálým zřetelem k Nové Vulgátě) aptly calls them “preachers speaking
under the influence of inspiration” (kazatelé mluvící pod vlivem vnuknutí).
6 “As the author of the writings containing the ῾revelation of Jesus Christ’ (Rev 1:1), John
understands his role as the one who lists and writes down a series of visual and aural
 214

certainly bore the stamp of ecstatic utterances as well, they became a firm
part of the normative tradition of the Church. It also makes clear that
the artificially exacerbated opposition between the charismatic and institu-
tional elements was unknown in the early Church. For example, the apostle
Peter, according to Luke’s Acts, was endowed with the gift of prophetic ex-
altation that prompted him to proceed to the historically ground-breaking
baptism of the first member of the non-Jewish ethnic group, the Roman
centurion Cornelius. In the vision, he is urged to disregard the regulations
of the Book of Leviticus regarding unclean foods: in fact, these regulations
are seen as an obstacle to the acceptance of Gentiles into Christ’s church:
“Get up, Peter. Kill and eat. […] Do not call anything impure that God has
made clean” (cf. Acts 10:13.15). There are certainly ecstatic features in Pe-
ter’s vision, but in the end, the vision itself is entirely normative: it estab-
lishes a revolutionary and henceforth binding rule in the Church, exempt-
ing its members from the kosher dietary regulations.7
Peter’s charismatic endowment goes hand in hand with his supremacy
in the Church; however, many other members of the Church, who may
have had similar endowments, were unable back up their prophetic words
with such a spiritual authority. Other Christians are to respect their proph-
ecy, but they also need to test it: “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat
prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good” (1 Th
5:19-21). Naive credulity proves misplaced.8 In this section, Paul addresses

experiences which the prophetic writings of Israel do not directly quote, but ῾assimilate’.
He thus overcomes the previous primacy of Israel’s prophecy with his own new prophecy,
sent in the form of letters to the seven church communities in Asia (Rev 2-3). He is guided
by a prophetic spirit, with the ῾testimony of Jesus’ (the genitive of the subject) which
for him is the criterion of true prophecy (19:10).” [Müller 2014, 174].
7 “The apostle’s reaction is entirely negative. Thus it provokes a statement which comes from
a voice from heaven (v. 15), with which the scene culminates: the law of Lev. 11 concerning
the distinction between clean and unclean animals is abrogated (cf. Mk 7:19). The Word
of God brings all creation back to its original goodness (cf. Gen. 1:25), and there are
no obstacles to the birth of the universal Church any longer.” [Rossé 2010, 136].
8 “When Paul warns the Thessalonians against uncritical acceptance of the prophetic word
(1 Th 5:20 ff.), he exhorts them to inquire about the abilities or competence of prophets
and teachers. Clearly, by this he neither means an official trial, nor a democratic vote. Rather,
the activities of charismatics are to be somehow reviewed (or scrutinized) and accepted
by the ecclesial community. Prophets and teachers need to have not only an internal
regulative regarding their charismatic preaching, but also an external corrective through
 215

the whole community of the Church and does not indicate any particular
authority to which the judgement of prophetic statements should be specif-
ically entrusted. On the other hand, the Thessalonian church is internally
structured, there are “representatives (proistamenoi) in Christ” whose role
is to “admonish” the members of the community (cf. 1 Th 5:12). These rep-
resentatives evidently had a decisive say in determining the genuineness
and truth of the prophetic statements, and whose judgement certainly could
not be left out in the process of the common discernment of the charismata.
Contrary to this balanced position we find in Paul’s first Epistle
to the Thessalonians, the early Church tended to either overestimate pro-
phetic gifts uncritically or, on the contrary, reserve them solely to those
who were holding various offices. The latter case is personified in the bish-
op and martyr Ignatius of Antioch. In his epistle to the Philadelphians from
beginning of the 2nd Christian century, he gives a short parenetic dis-
course which he describes as being inspired by the Spirit: “But the Spirit
proclaimed these words: Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies
as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus
Christ, even as He is of His Father” (IgnFil 7,2b).9 As it seems, the ecclesial
communities Ignatius addresses in his epistles no longer have charismatics
in their midst who make prophecies, or at least they are not worthy of spe-
cial attention. For example, the charism of purity of the body at a time when
bishops were usually married was not, according to Ignatius, intended to be
a sting against the exclusive position of a single bishop in an ecclesial com-
munity: “If any one can continue in a state of purity, to the honour of Him
who is Lord of the flesh, let him so remain without boasting. If he begins
to boast, he is undone; and if he reckon himself greater than the bishop, he
is ruined” (IgnPol 5,2a).

2. Missionary and Charismatic Work under the Discipline

of the Church

The overestimation of the charismatic element and of pneumatic manifes-

tations can be documented above all in the ancient non-canonical Christian

the authority of the reviewing members of the community.” [Mühlsteiger 2001, 780-81].
9 The texts of apostolic fathers in: Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by A. Roberts, J. Donalds‑on,
C.A. Cleveland, Christian Literature Publishing Co., Buffalo 1885, http://www.newadvent.
org/fathers/0108.htm [accessed: 30.11.2023].
 216

writing of the Didache, dating probably from the turn of the first and second
centuries: “And every prophet that speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try
nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven”
(Did 11:7). Here we witness the first historical attempt to clarify the mean-
ing of Jesus’ logion about the unpardonable blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit (cf. Mt 12:31). The prophets of whom the Didache speaks are at first
itinerant prophets who come to the various churches, stay for a short time,
and then mostly leave. In the local churches they receive generous Christian
hospitality; nonetheless, there is a danger that the benevolence of the church-
es can be abused: “But concerning the apostles and prophets, according
to the decree of the Gospel, thus do. Let every apostle that comes to you be
received as the Lord. But he shall not remain except one day; but if there
be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet”
(Did 11:4-5). As regards the members of the church, the Didachist defines
the rules for judging and discerning the authenticity of charismatic Spirits
by observing their conduct. In particular, the way they deal with money is
an important discernment marker of the prophet’s authenticity: “But whoev-
er says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen
to him; but if he says to you to give for others’ sake who are in need, let
no one judge him” (Did 11:12). However, the question is whether there was
any decisive instance to authoritatively confirm the discernment of the mem-
bers of the ecclesiastical community in the cases when the charismatics were
dishonest. Evidently, the institution of the prophets at that time had already
been in crisis, and the author of the Didache felt obliged to warn vigorous-
ly against cases of abusing the office: surely, such instances were numerous
causing painful experience in the Church. However, the ecclesiastical author-
ities testifying to the existence of a hierarchical organization of ecclesiastical
communities seem no longer have the proper weight, nor possess the nec-
essary unshakable authority. Rather, the Didachist must exhort the faithful
to take charge of their appointment: “Therefore, appoint (cheirotonésate)
for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not
lovers of money, and truthful and proven; for they also render to you the ser-
vice of prophets and teachers” (Did 15:1a). Candidates for both offices must
demonstrate these qualifications and, subsequently, the members themselves
will choose from among the men who are so endowed. However, the charis-
matics settled in the ecclesiastical communities still enjoyed greater prestige;
thus a special admonition concerning due respect for bishops and deacons
 217

was still necessary: “Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured
ones, together with the prophets and teachers” (Did 15:2).
Of the triad of the charismatic functions apostles – prophets – teach-
ers found in the Didache (cf. Did 12:18), only teachers are seen qualified
for integration into the gradually stabilizing structure of ministries within
the local church communities, together with bishops, presbyters, deacons
and holders of other offices. In contrast, itinerant prophets and apostles
have exhausted their unique initial potential in contributing to the building
up of the unity of the whole Church.10 Within the canon of New Testa-
ment literature, it is especially the third Epistle of John which demonstrates
how much the ministry of itinerant preachers was valued in the early
Church. His addressee, Gaius, is encouraged: “Dear friend, you are faith-
ful in what you are doing for the brothers and sisters, even though they
are strangers to you. They have told the church about your love. Please
send them on their way in a manner that honors God. It was for the sake
of the Name that they went out, receiving no help from the pagans. We
ought therefore to show hospitality to such people so that we may work
together for the truth” (3 John 5-8). It is clear that this is an itinerant apos-
tolate; nonetheless, one that does not establish new ecclesial communities
but enters into the existing churches. In them, however, he may find in-
comprehension, even disgust: “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who
loves to be first (filoproteuon), will not welcome us. So when I come, I will
call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us.
Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also
stops those who want to do so and puts them out (ekballei) of the church”
(3 John 9-10). There is no concrete evidence that this should indicate any
form of discord between the itinerant missionaries and the representative
of the hierarchical authority, i.e. the monarchical episcopate. The conflict
is depicted more as personal one rather than a one between ecclesiastical
authority and the charismata.11 The author of the epistle presents himself

10 “Finally, it must be considered that, according to the consensual conception of the earliest
witnesses, the apostles, prophets, and teachers were a gift and value not to individual
communities but to the whole Church. Thanks to them, the scattered Christianity had
a bond of unity; and a bond of unity which is often underestimated.” [Harnack 1977, 38].
11 “This does not necessarily mean that Diotrephes intended to usurp the new office; rather,
all possibilities remain open, whether it was usurpation or abuse of the office, or a desire
for domination or autocracy, ambition, vanity, or hubris.” [Schnackenburg 1963, 327].
 218

as a presbyter (cf. 3 John 1), and considers himself to be an authority to in-

tervene in the case, however, not by a penal measure, but by an admonition.
Nevertheless, opposite cases occurred when new false prophets infiltrat-
ed the communion of the believers: “I say this because many deceivers, who
do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into
the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7).
False doctrine is to be recognized by the church communities and its dis-
seminators are not to be received: “If anyone comes to you and does not
bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them”
(2 John 10). Refusing admission to a house is both an act of self-defence
and a practical exercise in the exclusion of heretics from the communion
of the Church. Because of the connection of the Eucharistic meal with
the fraternal love feasts (agapé) in the early days of the Church, it was espe-
cially necessary to protect the Lord’s Table from those who would defile it
with heretical teaching and morally corrupting behaviour, as it is evidenced
in the following warning of in the epistle of Jude: “These people are blem-
ishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm-shep-
herds who feed only themselves” (Jude 12).

3. Disciplinary Action Outside the Local Church

In the case of itinerant preachers who spread perverted doctrine or led

debauched lifestyle, Church communities had to preserve their own iden-
tity. A different case is qualified interest of Christians of a particular local
church in the internal affairs of another church. This illustrates the Epistle
of Clement, dating from the end of the first century, addressed to the believ-
ers in Corinth. The apology for the slothfulness of the response to the up-
heaval in the local church suggests a clear awareness of a special respon-
sibility on the part of the epistle’s author, who came from Rome. Clement
writes in the plural, on behalf of the entire Roman community, and espe-
cially those who have authority in it, i.e. the presbyters. Unlike Paul, who
half a century earlier was ready to discipline the Corinthians with a “rod”
(cf. 1 Cor 4,21), the Roman community, through Clement, first attempts
to gain attention of the Corinthians with a lengthy passage12 revealing

12 “Thus, it is not impossible that Clement was de facto the foremost and thus the leading
bishop among his fellow bishops of Rome, it actually seems very likely. Indeed, the epistle
 219

an attempt at captatio benevolentiae where he appreciates their previous

merits, with which the present excesses are incompatible (1 Clem 1,2-2,8).
The latter consisted in the deposition of legitimately appointed presbyters:
“For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who
have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presby-
ters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful
and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one
deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have
removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they
fulfilled blamelessly and with honour” (1 Clem 44,4-6).
Even though Clement had information from only one of the conflicting
parties,13 it is clear that there must have been a real coup in Corinth; i.e.
the validity of the appointment of presbyters or perhaps even the meaning
of the office of presbyter itself was questioned.14 In the Epistle of Clem-
ent, the Church of Rome does not call on the Corinthians to exclude
the disturbers from the Church, but addresses the disturbers of the uni-
ty of the Church and asks them leastwise to leave voluntarily: “Who then
among you is noble-minded? Who compassionate? Who full of love? Let
him declare, If on my account sedition and disagreement and schisms have
arisen, I will depart, I will go away wherever ye desire, and I will do whatev-
er the majority commands; only let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace
with the presbyters set over it” (1 Clem 54:1-2).15 Clement also exhorts to in-
tercessory prayer: “He who is full of love will incur every loss, that peace
may be restored to the Church” (1 Clem 54,1a). For him, it is not impossible
that the perpetrators of the inner-church revolt will be converted and re-
main in the fellowship of the Corinthian church: “You therefore, who laid

shows such insight, perspective, and strength that it is hard to imagine that the Roman
Church had so many wise and energetic minds and Christian characters at that time, or that
Clement shared the representation of the Church with someone else.” [Harnack 1929, 50].
13 “Although there is no reason to accuse him of being false, he cannot be considered
an objective reporter. Whatever the reasons may be, he is partisan, and therefore Corinthian
conditions are presented to us only in the light which he sees and presents.” [Wrede 1891, 8].
14 “One may conclude that the instigators of the disturbances in Corinth not only claimed
a prominent position in the community for themselves, but also fundamentally questioned
the very office of the presbyters.” [Klausnitzer 2004, 152].
15 “The way in which they are encouraged to leave – by appealing to their magnanimity –
shows that Clement himself, despite all the sharp invectives, respects them and thus confers
a certain dignity upon them.” [Wrede 1891, 36].
 220

the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and re-
ceive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn
to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your
tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but hon-
ourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you
should be cast out from the hope of His people” (1 Clem 57,1-2).
The question naturally arises as to how it is possible that the Church
of Rome, so geographically distant from the Corinthian Church, should in-
terfere in its internal affairs. Nowhere in the epistle can we find even a hint
that the Church of Rome seeks to explain why it is intervening in the dis-
ciplinary affairs of a such a distant church, instead of the more practically
viable option of mutual aid between neighbouring churches.16 It is quite ev-
ident that Rome is fully aware of its responsibility.17 The evidence for this is
the sending of the “delegates” of the Roman community to Corinth, from
whom Clement expects heartwarming news of a remedy: “Send back speed-
ily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephe-
bus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce
to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among
you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-­
established among you” (1 Clem 65,1). The constitution “Pastor aeternus”
of the First Vatican Council of 1870, which defined the universal jurisdic-
tion of the Bishop of Rome,18 thus represents the culmination of a gradual
historical process, which, in addition to the mandate and action of the Apos-
tle Peter himself, began with Clement’s documented concern for the situa-
tion in Corinth. Canon law then translates this lived reality of the Church
from the beginning into its specific language: “The bishop of the Roman
Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter,
the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head

16 “Certainly, the primacy of Rome is nowhere explicitly stated; however, there is also
no passage that contradicts it.” [Fischer 1964, 12].
17 „If we take into account the internal relations in the church listed in the title of the epistle,
in connection with the fact which it recounts, i.e. Clement’s intervention on behalf
of the Roman Church in the internal and disciplinary life of the Church at Corinth,
it is clear that this document from the end of the first century shows how the idea
of the episcopate and the role of the Roman Church in relation to the other churches was
already maturing.” [Maccarone 1976, 4].
18 Denzinger and Hünnermann 1999, 826 (DS 3054).
 221

of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal
Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, imme-
diate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able
to exercise freely” (Canon 331 CIC/83).

4. Rectification Within the Community of the Local Church

The New Testament and other early Christian writings clearly demon-
strate that an established community of believers is also in need of in-
ternal procedures that would lead its members to proper discipline con-
sistent with the nobility of the Christian vocation. From among the four
canonical evangelists, Matthew records the stages of disciplinary procedure
in the form of a series of Jesus’ logia as it was to be obligatorily practiced
by the local churches which his gospel addresses. It is a short series of say-
ings, commonly referred to as “fraternal correction” (correctio fraterna).
In fact, these logia go far beyond the framework of private relations, as it is
the case with the first act: “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out
their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won
them over” (Mt 18:15). This logion – unlike the following – finds its paral-
lel also in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 17:3). Apart from the crucial moment
of turning a brother away from sin, what is important here is the confiden-
tiality of such a procedure, which does not shame the sinner publicly.
It is only in the second phase that other outsiders should be brought
in: “But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘ev-
ery matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witness-
es” (Mt 18,16). In fact, it is an allusion to the law of witnesses found
in the book of Deuteronomy, in which two or three witnesses are required
for a just judgement (Dt 19,15), though Paul himself already proves that
such a principle has been domesticated in the early Church without ex-
plicitly emphasizing its sacred origin. The same moment can be identified
in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, where the honoured position of min-
isters of the Church is particularly emphasized. They are to receive special
protection for their honour also by not admitting unfounded denunciations:
“Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two
or three witnesses” (1 Tim 5:19). Thus the canon law principle testis unus,
testis nullus, which does not admit the sufficiency of the testimony of a sin-
gle witness, has thus been applied in the Church from its beginnings.
 222

In the third stage, the individual’s offence becomes a matter for the en-
tire community of the local Church. It is no longer sufficient to have only
selected witnesses, who, as mediating instances, were to give due weight
to the sinner’s conversion: “If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church
(ekklésia); and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you
would a pagan or a tax collector” (Mt 18:17). Here the word “church” is
to be understood as an assembly of members of the local church, whose
primary function in such cases was not to pronounce judgement, but to at-
tempt to persuade the sinner to abstain from his sinful conduct. It is only
the subsequent unrepentant stubbornness that will move the community
to expel the guilty party, whose depraved conduct can no longer be consid-
ered merely a private matter, but a serious offence threatening the healthy
growth of the entire Christian community. The strong Judeo-Christian char-
acter of Matthew’s Gospel is reflected also in the way he identifies the two
categories excluded from God’s redemptive action: the unrepentant sinner
who has disobeyed the voice of the ecclesial assembly acting as a judicial
authority is likened to the pagans and the tax collectors.19
If we take the forensic approach and the whole procedure is conceived
as a schematic outline of the various stages of the judicial procedure,
it is important to emphasize that the sanction of expulsion from the life
of the community is presented only as extrema ratio, once the means of pas-
toral action have been exhausted. Thus, excommunication is primarily seen
as a self-purifying mechanism of the ecclesial community, not as an act
of vengeance against the guilty party: pastoral discretion is taken both to-
wards the reparable sinner and the community, which obviously cannot tol-
erate actions that could cause irreparable damage within itself.20
Matthew’s recorded logia on fraternal correction served as inspiration
for disciplinary orders even at a time when the majority church had devel-
oped into a form which required punishment of offenders along the verti-
cal lines, without the participation of other representatives of the church

19 “The term ῾heathen’ should, from a Christian point of view, have meaning only
in a religious sense. In the case of the publican, then, it is a person imaginable only outside
the Jewish community.” [Trilling 1975, 115].
20 “It is not quite clear wherein the brother’s fault should lie. But even if the sin cannot be more
precisely determined, the pericope still has something to say. For it shows that Matthew, while
reflecting on the ordinary forms of judgement, did so only in order to restore the brother
who had erred hat by spiritual and pastoral means, i.e. by exhortation.” [Sebott 1993, 170].
 223

community, let alone the possibility of deciding on guilt and punishment

together with the superiors. However, religious communities could at least
maintain in their practice the immediate inspiration of Jesus’ words, as we
find them, e.g. in the Rule of Benedict: “If any brother be found to be con-
tumacious or disobedient or proud or murmuring or in any other way out
of harmony with the holy rule and despising the precepts of his seniors, let
such an one be admonished, in accordance with our Lord’s precept, once
and again privately by his seniors. If he amend not, let him be publicly re-
buked before all. But if even so he be not amended let him be subjected
to excommunication (excommunicationi subiaceat).”21
In the New Testament, the participation of the whole community
in the act of excluding offenders from its midst is also attested by Paul him-
self. He urges the Corinthian Christians to take this extreme step to rid
themselves of a member who is “living with his father’s wife” (cf. 1 Cor
5:1). In this case, the apostle’s written mandate declares excommunica-
tion: “For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you
in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed
judgement in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing
this. So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power
of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruc-
tion of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord” (1
Cor 5:3-5). As this is an offence which in Paul’s eyes is one of the extremely
serious ones, the congregation of believers will be present when the pun-
ishment is imposed. The effects of the penalty imposed in the Church,
however, do not concern the final fate of the condemned, which will only
become apparent “on the day of the Lord.”22 Nonetheless, the community
of the Church must defend itself, and Paul leads them to find courage to-
gether, “Expel the wicked person from among you” (1 Cor 5,13b).
However, Paul also exhorts to leniency when the situation requires it:
“The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. Now instead,
you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed

21 Regula Benedicti, https://www.solesmes.com/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/rule_of_st_benedict.

pdf [accessed: 30.11.2023], 23, 1-4.
22 „The apostle demands that he be excluded from the community (5:13) and clothes his
command in a somewhat magical ritual formula. […] Whatever is meant by the surrender
to Satan – it may have been a cursing formula – the important reference is to the judgement
of God on the day of the Lord.” [Gnilka 1996, 174].
 224

by excessive sorrow” (2 Cor 2,6-7). The inspiration of this Pauline ap-

proach remained present in the Church even at times when excommunica-
tions were not spared, as evidenced, for example, by the constitution Cum
in multis of the First Council of Lyons (1245), which characterizes excom-
munication as a “healing (medicinalis), not death” punishment, intended
to “correction, not destruction” [Tanner 1990, 291].

Conclusion

From the beginning the Church had means to strengthen discipline.

However, the Church itself operated in a hostile environment of the Roman
Empire, which exercised jurisdiction over its members and often resort-
ed to excesses against them. Under these circumstances, one might expect
the Christian response to the actions of the pagan state power was going
to be one of principled rejection, however, the opposite is true. Paul him-
self acknowledges the legitimacy of the public authority’s punitive measures
against the perpetrators of crimes, including the right to use the sword (ius
gladii): “For rulers are not a threat to those who do right, but to those who
do wrong. Do you want not to fear the ruling power? Act well, and you will
receive praise from it. For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you act
wrongly, you have reason to fear, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he
is God’s servant, the executor of punishment on him who does evil. There-
fore it is necessary to submit, not only for fear of punishment, but also
for conscience’ sake” (Rom 13:3-5).
Although temporal power operates in accordance with the will of God,
all are to submit to it only where it is absolutely necessary.23 This is why
Paul rebukes the Corinthian believers for letting their mutual disputes be
settled by secular courts, “If any of you has a dispute with another, do you
dare to take it before the ungodly for judgement instead of before the Lord’s
people? […] And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent
to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How
much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such
matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned

23 “Even if such a conception of the secular superiors is, from today’s point of view, contrary
to the democratic mindset, Rom 12-13 represents the first early Christian attempt
to understand the relations of the Church and the State with a conceptually different
definition.” [Becker 1998, 456].
 225

in the church? I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody
among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? How dare
any of you, if he has a dispute with another, go to the pagan judges instead
of to the brethren?” (1 Cor 6,1.4-5). Paul is clearly referring to the natu-
ral need for internal judiciary in the Church.24 In the end, believers will
be entrusted with the eschatological judgement of God Himself, so there is
no need at all for them to resort to pagan courts, however highly qualified
in order to resolve disputes among themselves. The Epistle of James fur-
ther defines the reasons for the Christian rejection of secular justice in light
of the social stratification of ancient society: “But you have dishonoured
the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones
who are dragging you into court?” (Jm 2:6b).
Thus, ecclesial communities are to be prepared to settle disputes among
believers as well as to punish unrepentant sinners. They assess the authen-
ticity of the charismata, accept only confirmed missionaries, and appoint
superiors who ensure the observance of ecclesiastical discipline. In the early
days of the Church, the concept of the Church as a juridically perfect so-
ciety (societas iuridice perfecta), which possesses all the means to achieve
its ends without the need to resort to the help of any other external au-
thority,25 is certainly far from being achieved. However, in terms of inter-
nal discipline, the judgement, discernment, and eventual condemnation
of the guilty, can the germs of a system that would in the future be fully
grasped and regulated by canon law be found already in the early Church.

REFERENCES
Becker, Jürgen. 1998. Paulus. Der Apostel der Völker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Berger, Klaus. 2011. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlagshaus.
Dalla Torre, Giuseppe. 1996. La città sul monte. Contributo ad una teoria canonis-
tica sulle relazioni fra Chiesa e Communità politica. Roma: An Veritas Editrice.

24 „In 6:1-11, Paul finds inspiration in the institution of diaspora Judaism, which possessed
partial autonomy in the exercise of justice.” [Berger 2011, 582].
25 “The qualification of the Church as a juridically perfect society constituted an appropriate
and necessary premise on the basis how canonical jurisprudence treated the legal relationship
between Church and State. If the State is societas iuridice perfecta in the temporal sphere,
the Church is it in the spiritual sphere. Although their spheres of action are fundamentally
different, it is possible to establish their legal relationship precisely because, as perfect
societies, they are on the same level.” [Dalla Torre 1996, 62].
 226

Denzinger, Heinrich, and Peter Hünermann. 1999. Enchiridion symbolorum defini-

tionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Kompendium der Glaubens-
bekenntnisse und kirchlicher Lehrentscheidungen. Lateinisch-Deutsch. Freiburg
in Breisgau: Herder.
Fischer, Joseph A. 1964. Die Apostolischen Väter. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Gnilka, Joachim. 1996. Paulus von Tarsus – Apostel und Zeuge. Freiburg im Breis-
gau: Herder.
Harnack, Adolf von. 1929. Einführung in die alte Kirchengeschichte. Das Schreiben
der römischen Kirche an die korinthische aus der Zeit Domitians (I. Klemens-
brief). Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich.
Harnack, Adolf von. 1977. “Die christlichen Missionare: Apostel, Propheten und
Lehrer als Einheit.” In Das kirchliche Amt im Neuen Testament, edited by Karl
Kertlege, 30-44. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Klausnitzer, Wolfgang. 2004. Der Primat des Bischofs von Rom. Entwicklung – Dog-
ma – Ökumenische Zukunft. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder.
Kryštof (arcibiskup). 2000. Pravoslavný svět. Přehledné dějiny patriarchátů a míst-
ních církví [The Orthodox World. An Overview of the History of Patriarchates
and Local Churches]. Prešov: Pravoslávna bohoslovecká fakulta Prešovskej uni-
verzity v Prešově.
Maccarone, Michele. 1976. Apostolicità, episcopato e primato di Pietro. Ricerche e
testimonianze dal II al V secolo. Roma: Pontificia Università Lateranense.
Mühlsteiger, Johannes. 2001. “Zum Verfassungsrecht der Frühkirche.” In Konrad
Breitsching, and Wilhelm Rees. Tradition – Wegweisung in die Zukunft. Fest-
schrift für Johannes Mühlsteiger zum 75. Geburtstag, 741-810. Berlin: Duncker
& Humblot.
Müller, Ulrich B. 2014. “Frühchristliche Prophetie und die Johannesoffenbarung.”
Novum Testamentum 56:174-95.
Rossé, Gérard. 2010. Atti degli Apostoli. Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Alba
(Cuneo): Società San Paolo.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. 1963. Die Johannesbriefe. Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag.
Sebott, Reinhold. 1993. Fundamentalkanonistik. Grund und Grenzen des Kirchen-
rechts. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht Verlag.
Tanner, Norman P. 1990. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Vol. I: Nicaea I to Lat-
eran V. Shecd & Ward and Georgetown University Press.
Trilling, Wolfgang. 1975. Das wahre Israel. Studien zur Theologie des Matthäusevan-
geliums. Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag.
Wrede, William. 1891. Untersuchungen zum Ersten Klemensbriefe. Göttingen: Van-
derhoeck & Ruprecht.