Irrefutable Counter-Argument to the Delusion Concerning Invalid Mysteries

In the decade of the 1970s, and on the occasion of Patriarch Athenagoras’ ecumenical initiatives, a certain well-known author expressed the view that when a clergyman falls into heresy, he automatically (that is, without being judged by a Synod) loses his priesthood, and the Mysteries he performs are invalid. These views were emphatically refuted by a renowned hieromonk of the time, literally crushing them, as the reader will ascertain. Because these views continue to have supporters even today, we are publishing their irrefutable refutation, linguistically adapted and without mentioning those involved at that time—on the one hand, because they have already passed away and are therefore under God’s judgment, and on the other, so that we may focus on the meaning of what was written rather than on their authors, who both erred in other matters. [- Nikolaos Mannis]

Reading Mr. K.’s two publications, one finds in them entirely unprecedented ecclesiological positions. Here is what Mr. K. believes concerning bishops who indeed preach heretical doctrines but have not been condemned by the Church: “A heretical bishop ceases to be a bishop, loses his episcopacy, and is outside the Church. Those who follow him through commemoration no longer follow a Bishop, but a man who has fallen from hierarchical Grace. But when the bishop has fallen from Grace, how is it possible that his flock does not also fall? From where do presbyters draw the commission of their priesthood? Can a fallen hierarch give the Body and Blood of Christ to his flock? The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council clearly writes that the heretical bishop is not a bishop but a false bishop, and thus a false priest. His Liturgies are false Liturgies, his ordinations are false ordinations, his Chrism is not Holy Chrism, and all his Mysteries are devoid of sanctifying content.”

Therefore, according to the newly emergent great ecclesiologist, Mr. K., the bishop who has fallen into heresy automatically loses Divine Grace and can no longer perform Mysteries, even if he has not yet been condemned by the Church, nor has he been synodically cut off from Her Body, nor has he ceased communion with the Church himself. We therefore request an answer to the following two questions:

1. Patriarch Athenagoras has the sincerity not to conceal his heretical views but to declare them publicly and openly (even in the last few weeks). According to Mr. K., he is already ecclesiastically dead, deprived of the episcopacy, and has ceased to impart divine Grace. Let us assume this is so!

Another Patriarch, however (speaking hypothetically), while being a great heretic, fully accepting the heresy of Arius, hesitates to proclaim it publicly and openly, fearing deposition and excommunication, but does something else: He privately calls various of his bishops and priests, and ostensibly calmly discusses theological matters, among which is the teaching of Arius. In these discussions, he initially expresses a very subtle sympathy toward Arius, then a greater appreciation, and so on. Thus, he skillfully tests the dispositions of his interlocutors. If he sees strong opposition, he retreats most artfully, and the interlocutor does not even perceive the Patriarch’s views. However, seeing minimal and weak resistance in other discussants, he continues, always most cleverly, his “catechesis,” and over time convinces a sufficient number of clergy, as well as laypeople, that Arius was right. Yet all of them, fearing the consequences, do not openly proclaim their views, but conduct initiations of followers in a hidden and conspiratorial manner. As for the remaining clergy, who are truly Orthodox, they do not even imagine that their Patriarch, along with certain bishops, are formidable heretics, and thus, entirely unsuspecting, they continue their communion with them in perfect harmony.

Therefore, the question is posed to Mr. K.: Is this Patriarch ecclesiastically alive or dead? Does he have the episcopacy, or has he automatically been deprived of it? Does he perform Mysteries and impart divine Grace, or not?

If he answers “no,” he is asked again: And then, what remains standing? Who can know whether they are truly receiving Mysteries from any clergyman, since it is impossible to know the beliefs he harbors in his innermost thoughts? Everything in the Church now hangs in the air!

If he answers “yes,” he is asked again: So, the entire matter is a question of hypocrisy and cunning? Allow me to explain: A patriarch or bishop of the Orthodox Church can believe in every heresy or be entirely faithless. He can even teach these heresies or his unbelief, proselytizing followers to them. It is enough for him to have the intelligence—or rather the satanic cunning—not to expose himself. It is enough for him to act skillfully, covertly, and conspiratorially. Then he is a “living head,” possesses the episcopacy, is the celebrant of genuine Mysteries, and is a source of Divine Grace!... But if he commits the naivety or foolishness to expose himself and openly and sincerely reveal his views, then everything changes! God immediately strips that fool of every Grace, and he henceforth becomes a “deceased head,” who no longer celebrates any Mystery nor imparts any Grace.

Does Mr. K. believe that these things can be seriously upheld? Indeed, the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council speaks of heresy that is proclaimed publicly and openly, but it does so in order to specify the case in which a priest may cease commemorating the heretical bishop, not to determine the position of the heretical bishop before God. For God, a heretical bishop is a heretic, whether he teaches his heresy publicly and openly, or privately and covertly, or even simply keeps it hidden in the depths of his heart. Is it possible to believe that God only in the first case strips the bishop of Grace, while in the second and third cases He continues—somehow rewarding the cowardice and cunning of the heretic—to enfold him in divine Grace?

2. There have been, from time to time, bishops and even patriarchs who, although they fell into heresies that they publicly preached, were nevertheless never condemned until their death, but died while still serving as bishops or patriarchs!... Since, according to Mr. K., heresy automatically and immediately drives away Grace, and since, according to him, the liturgies of a bishop who has fallen into heresy “are pseudo-liturgies, his ordinations pseudo-ordinations, his Chrism not Holy Chrism, and all his mysteries lack sanctifying content,” what, then, remains standing in the Church? For these particular patriarchs ordained bishops, who in turn ordained others, and so on. Wouldn’t the apostolic succession have been broken, since “their ordinations are pseudo-ordinations”? Wouldn’t the priesthood have been irreparably corrupted? Perhaps Mr. K. will say that, even if later, the Church “resolved” these matters. But what of the faithful who died before the time of that “resolution,” since the Mysteries they received in life were “without sanctifying content”???

One more issue remains to be examined: If the bishop (or priest) who has fallen into heresy performs valid Mysteries until he is deposed by a Synod and cut off from the Body of the Church or until he himself discontinues communion with Her, then how can the Canon of the First-Second Council characterize these Bishops as “false bishops,” if it refers to them before their synodical condemnation? The answer is very simple: because every Bishop who falls into heresy becomes automatically a potentially false bishop. By his fall into heresy, he has created the conditions to be deposed and cut off from the Body of the Church. All that remains is the Church’s condemnatory act for him to become a dead and useless conduit in actuality. Yet until that takes place—namely, his condemnation by the Church—the bishop or priest who has fallen into heresy continues, by Divine Economy, to impart Divine Grace. Of course, God does this not because He shows favor to the heretical bishop or priest, but because He shows favor to the pleroma of the Church. Does God, when He acts through Clergy who are thieves, fornicators, adulterers, blasphemers, and the like, show favor to them? Certainly not! He shows favor to the pleroma of the Church!

If indeed a bishop who has fallen into heresy cuts off his ties with the Church—meaning he discontinues communion with Her, leaves Her, and creates a separate “Church,” or joins another, heretical “Church”—then he becomes a dead instrument, even if he has not yet been denounced by a Synod. The Church is the Treasury of Grace, and the bishop who discontinues communion with Her becomes an empty conduit. From where would he receive Grace to transmit it to others? However, the bishop who performs his hierarchical acts while within the Church, even if he has fallen into heresy, truly performs Mysteries until he is condemned by a Synod.

The ordinations of Orthodox clergy performed by bishops who were indeed heretical but still operating within the Church have never been considered uncertain by the Church, nor was there any need to apply “economy” in these cases. I will mention only two indicative examples: Saint Cyril of Jerusalem was ordained bishop by the Arian Metropolitan of Caesarea, Akakios, who was still serving and acting within the Church. Saint Anatolios was ordained Patriarch of Constantinople by the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, before he was deposed by the Fourth Ecumenical Council and expelled from the Church. It is also highly noteworthy that whenever bishops or patriarchs who preached heretical doctrines were summoned by the Holy Councils to be judged, they were summoned with full ecclesiastical protocol as active bishops or patriarchs! And upon being deposed, they were deposed from “the Grace of the High Priesthood,” from “the patriarchal or episcopal office,” and were “stripped of the Grace of the Episcopacy,” etc. In other words, until the last moment, the Church regarded them as active hierarchs! Only after their condemnation by the Church did She then consider them deprived of Grace, stripped of the priesthood.

- “Was Nestorius within the Church throughout the entire period before his anathematization?” Mr. K. triumphantly asks.

 - Yes, sir, he was! In other words, he was an active hierarch of the Church of Christ. If he wasn’t for you, he was for Saint Cyril, for the Synod of the Alexandrian Church, and even for that very Third Ecumenical Council! Have you ever read the three famous letters of the divine Cyril to Nestorius, which were sent after he proclaimed his heresy? Have you seen how he addresses the already heretical Nestorius? First Letter: “To the most reverent and God-beloved BISHOP, my co-celebrant Nestorius, Cyril the Bishop in the Lord greets you.”  Second Letter: “To the most reverent and God-beloved my co-celebrant Nestorius, Cyril in the Lord greets you.” Third Letter: “To the most reverent and God-revering my co-celebrant Nestorius, Cyril and the Synod that convened in Alexandria from the Egyptian jurisdiction greet you in the Lord.” What more do you want?

And the Third Ecumenical Council, convened in Ephesus under the presidency of Saint Cyril, sent a delegation of six Bishops (thus honoring the episcopal dignity of Nestorius) to summon the heresiarch to appear before it and stand judgment. He refused to come. The Council, judging his teaching as heretical, condemned him in absentia. “...We shed many tears (the Fathers of the Council say in their condemnatory decision), and therefore reached this dire verdict against him: The Lord Jesus Christ, whom he blasphemed, has decreed THROUGH THIS MOST HOLY COUNCIL that the same Nestorius be alienated from the episcopal rank and from every priestly assembly.” Do you hear that, Mr. K.? So, was Nestorius or was he not an active hierarch until his condemnation by the Third Ecumenical Council?

Mr. K. dogmatizes that the bishop who publicly preaches heresy becomes, by that very act alone, a stranger to the high priesthood and imparts no Grace whatsoever. However, the Third Ecumenical Council, which pronounces infallibly, declares that it was not by any other means, but by synodical condemnation—and only through it—that Nestorius became “alien to the episcopal rank”! Similarly, the infallible Definition of the Seventh Ecumenical Council affirms and proclaims that it was not some other act, but rather the decision of the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus that cast Nestorius out of the Church: “…Just as the previously convened Council in Ephesus defined, and expelled the impious Nestorius and those with him, who introduced a personal duality, from the Church.”

These are the statements of the Ecumenical Councils. What, then, does Mr. K. want? That we declare him superior and more authoritative than the Ecumenical Councils?

Greek source: https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2025/03/blog-post_21.html