A Resounding Refutation of the Delusion Concerning Invalid Mysteries

In the 1970s, prompted by Athenagoras’s ecumenistic overtures, a certain well-known author expressed the opinion 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 met with an indisputable refutation by a renowned hieromonk of that era, who literally crushed them, as the reader will see. Since such views continue to have supporters even today, we are publishing their unanswerable refutation, adapted linguistically and without mention of the individuals involved at the time—firstly, because they have already reposed and are therefore in God’s judgment, and secondly, in order to focus on the meaning of what is written, and not on their authors, both of whom erred in other matters.

Reading the two publications of Mr. K., one observes in them entirely novel ecclesiological positions. Here is what Mr. K. thinks concerning bishops who indeed preach heretical opinions but have not been condemned by the Church:

“A heretical bishop ceases to be a bishop, loses the priesthood, 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 falls from Grace, how is it possible that his flock does not also fall? From where do the presbyters draw the authority of the Priesthood? Is a fallen hierarch able to give the Body and Blood of Christ to his flock? The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council clearly writes that a heretical bishop is not a bishop but a pseudo-bishop, and therefore also a pseudo-priest. His liturgies are pseudo-liturgies, his ordinations pseudo-ordinations, his Chrism is not Holy Chrism, all his Mysteries are without sanctifying content.”

Therefore, according to the newly-emerged great ecclesiologist Mr. K., the bishop who has fallen into heresy automatically loses Divine Grace and is henceforth unable to perform Mysteries, even if he has not yet been condemned by the Church and has not been synodally cut off from Her Body, nor has he himself ceased communion with the Church—we ask, then, that we receive an answer to the following two questions:

1. Patriarch Athenagoras has the honesty not to conceal his heretical views but to proclaim them publicly and unabashedly (indeed, during the past few weeks). According to Mr. K., he is already ecclesiastically dead, deprived of the episcopacy, and has ceased to confer divine Grace. Let us suppose that this is so!

But another Patriarch (speaking hypothetically), while being a great heretic, fully accepting the heresy of Arius, nevertheless hesitates to proclaim it publicly and openly, fearing deposition and excommunication, does something else: he privately invites various bishops and priests of his, and discusses—seemingly dispassionately—various theological topics, among which is the teaching of Arius. In these discussions, he initially expresses a very subtle sympathy toward Arius, then greater appreciation, and so on. In this way, he skillfully probes the dispositions of his interlocutors. If he encounters strong opposition, he retreats most artfully, and the interlocutor does not even perceive the Patriarch’s views. But when he sees in other interlocutors little and weak resistance, he continues—always with great cunning—his “catechesis,” and over time persuades a considerable number of clergy, as well as laity, that Arius was right. Yet all of them, fearing the consequences, do not openly proclaim their views, but initiate followers in a hidden and conspiratorial manner. As for the rest of the clergy, the truly Orthodox, they have not the slightest idea that their Patriarch, together with certain bishops, are staunch heretics, and so, entirely unsuspecting, they continue to maintain communion with them in complete harmony.

Mr. K. is therefore asked: Is this Patriarch ecclesiastically alive or dead? Does he possess the episcopacy, or has he automatically been deprived of it? Does he perform Mysteries and confer divine Grace or not?

If he answers “no,” he is asked again: Then what remains standing? Who can know whether he truly receives Mysteries from any given clergy, since it is impossible to know the views he holds in his innermost soul? Everything in the Church henceforth hangs in the air!...

If he answers “yes,” he is asked once more: So then the entire matter is one of hypocrisy and cunning? I explain: A patriarch or bishop of the Orthodox Church may believe in all heresies or even be completely faithless. He may even teach these heresies or his unbelief, proselytizing followers to them. It suffices that he have the intelligence—or rather the satanic cunning—not to expose himself. It suffices that he act skillfully, covertly, and conspiratorially. Then he is a “living head,” possesses the episcopacy, is a celebrant of true Mysteries, and a source of divine Grace!... But if he should make the mistake or foolishness of exposing himself and openly and sincerely revealing his views—then everything changes! God immediately strips this foolish man of all Grace, and he henceforth becomes a “deceased head,” who performs no Mystery and bestows no Grace.

Does Mr. K. believe that such things can be seriously upheld? Certainly, the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council speaks of heresy that is preached publicly and openly, but it does so in order to define the case in which a priest may cease the commemoration of a heretical bishop—and not to define the standing of the heretical bishop before God. Before God, the heretical bishop is a heretic, whether he teaches his heresy publicly and openly, or privately and covertly, or even if he simply harbors it hidden in the depths of his heart. Is it possible for someone to believe that God, only in the first case, strips the bishop of Grace, while in the second and third cases, He continues—rewarding, in a way, the cowardice and cunning of the heretic—to surround him with divine Grace?

2. There have been, from time to time, bishops—and indeed even patriarchs—who, although they fell into heresies which they also preached publicly, were nevertheless never condemned until their death, but died still exercising episcopal or patriarchal authority!... Since heresy, according to Mr. K., automatically and immediately drives away Grace, since—again according to him—the liturgies of a bishop who has fallen into heresy “are pseudo-liturgies, his ordinations pseudo-ordinations, his Chrism is not Holy Chrism, all his Mysteries are without sanctifying content,” then what remains standing in the Church? For those said patriarchs ordained bishops, who in turn ordained others, and so on. Was not the apostolic succession thereby broken, since “their ordinations are pseudo-ordinations”? Was not the Priesthood irreparably adulterated? Perhaps Mr. K. will say that, even if belatedly, the Church “regulated” these matters. But what became of all the faithful who had died before the time of this “regulation,” since the Mysteries which they received while alive 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 synodally deposed and cut off from the Body of the Church—or until he himself ceases communion with Her—then how does the Canon of the First-Second Council characterize these bishops as “pseudo-bishops,” if it refers to them prior to their synodal condemnation? Quite simply, because every bishop who falls into heresy becomes automatically potentially a pseudo-bishop. By his fall into heresy, he creates the conditions for his deposition and his cutting off from the Body of the Church. What remains is only the condemnatory Act of the Church, for him to become in actuality a dead and useless vessel. However, until this takes place—namely, his condemnation by the Church—the bishop or priest who has fallen into heresy continues, by divine economy, to confer divine Grace. Of course, God does this not out of favor toward the heretical bishop or priest, but out of favor toward the Pleroma of the Church. Does God perhaps act, when working through clergy who are thieves, fornicators, adulterers, blasphemers, and the like, out of favor toward them? Certainly not! He acts out of favor toward the Pleroma of the Church!

If, of course, a bishop who has fallen into heresy cuts off his ties with the Church—that is, ceases communion with Her, departs from Her, and establishes a separate “Church,” or attaches himself to another, heretical “Church”—then he becomes a dead instrument, even if he has not yet been synodally denounced. The Church is the Treasury of Grace, and the bishop who severs his communion with Her becomes an empty conduit. From where will he receive Grace, in order to transmit it to others? But the Bishop who remains within the Church and performs his hierarchical acts—even if he has fallen into heresy—truly celebrates Mysteries until he is condemned by a Synod.

The ordinations of Orthodox clergy performed by bishops who were indeed heretical, yet still acted within the Church, were never considered uncertain by the Church, nor was it ever necessary to apply “economy” in such cases. I shall mention only two indicative examples: Saint Cyril of Jerusalem was ordained bishop by the Arian Metropolitan of Caesarea, Akakios, who was still functioning and acting within the Church. Saint Anatolius was ordained Patriarch of Constantinople by the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, before he was deposed by the Fourth Ecumenical Council and cast out of the Church. It is moreover most noteworthy that every time bishops or patriarchs who preached heretical views were summoned by the Holy Synods to be judged, they were summoned with full ecclesiastical order, as active bishops or patriarchs! And when they were deposed, they were deposed from the Grace of the episcopacy, from the patriarchal or episcopal office, they were stripped of the Grace of the hierarchy, etc. That is, until the very last moment, the Church considered them as active hierarchs! Only after condemnation by Her did She regard them as deprived of Grace, as stripped of the episcopacy.

– “Was Nestorius within the Church the entire time prior to his anathematization?” Mr. K. asks triumphantly.

– Yes, sir, he was! That is, he was an active hierarch of the Church of Christ. If he was not for you, he was for Saint Cyril, he was for the Synod of the Alexandrian Church, he was even for the Third Ecumenical Council itself! Have you ever read the three famous letters of the divine Cyril to Nestorius, which were sent after the proclamation of heresy by him? Have you seen how he addresses the already heretical Nestorius? First Letter: “To the most reverend and God-beloved BISHOP and CONCELEBRANT Nestorius, Cyril the Bishop in the Lord greetings.” Second Letter: “To the most reverend and God-beloved CONCELEBRANT Nestorius, Cyril in the Lord greetings.” Third Letter: “To the most reverend and most God-revering CONCELEBRANT Nestorius, Cyril and the Synod assembled in Alexandria from the Egyptian diocese, in the Lord greetings.” What more do you want?

The Third Ecumenical Council, convened in Ephesus under the presidency of Saint Cyril, summoned—through a delegation of six bishops (thus honoring the episcopal rank of Nestorius)—the heresiarch to appear before it and be judged. He refused to come. The Council, judging his teaching to be heretical, condemned him in absentia. “…Having wept many times,” say the Fathers of the Council in their condemnatory decision, “we have come to this grim verdict against him: Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was blasphemed by him, has determined THROUGH THIS MOST HOLY COUNCIL that the said Nestorius is alien both to the episcopal dignity and to every assembly of the priesthood.” Do you hear, 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 act alone, alien to the hierarchy and imparts no Grace whatsoever. However, the infallibly judging Third Ecumenical Council proclaims that it was not by some other means, but by the synodal condemnation and by that alone that Nestorius became “alien to the episcopal dignity”! Likewise, the infallible Oros of the Seventh Ecumenical Council affirms and declares that it was not some other act, but the decision of the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus that cast Nestorius out of the Church: “…Just as the previously held Council in Ephesus decreed and drove out of the Church the impious Nestorius and those with him, for introducing a personal dyad.”

This is what the Ecumenical Councils declare. What does Mr. K. then want? That we proclaim him superior and more authoritative than the Ecumenical Councils?

 

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