The Teaching on Invalid and Non-Existent Mysteries, whether from the Healthy or the Sick Part of the Church

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | December 30, 2025

 

 

Introduction

This section examines the view that the mysteries (such as Holy Communion or Baptism) may be devoid of divine grace and considered invalid.

The analysis focuses on how this teaching affects both sides:

The "sick" part: That is, those faithful and clergy who remain in communion with bishops who are considered to be preaching delusions/errors.

The "healthy" part: That is, those who have broken ecclesiastical communion (walled themselves off) for reasons of purity of faith.

The text argues that if either side begins to consider the mysteries of the other side as "invalid" prior to an official synodal decision, it leads to serious theological and ecclesiological errors.

Fr. D.A.

***

The Teaching on Invalid Mysteries and Its Consequences

This section examines two cases concerning the view that the mysteries may be invalid or non-existent.

The First Case (A):

We examine what happens when the "sick" part of the Church (that is, those faithful who have not broken communion with heretical bishops) supports the view that the "healthy" part (those who have walled themselves off) is outside the Church. If the "sick" part considers that the walled-off are not being saved and that their mysteries are invalid, then the following problems arise:

1. The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council is nullified: This canon praises those who break communion with a bishop who preaches heresy, even before he is officially condemned by a Council. If we consider that those who apply this canon are placed “outside the Church,” then this canon is useless, and the Church was wrong to include it among her sacred canons.

2. An extreme “Episcopocentrism” is imposed: According to this logic, the faithful are obliged to commemorate their bishop even if he is a heretic, in order not to lose their salvation.

3. Similarity with Papism: If a bishop openly preaches a heresy (e.g., the Filioque) and the flock is forced to follow and commemorate him for the validity of their mysteries to be maintained, then the validity of the Divine Eucharist depends solely on the name of the bishop and not on the truth of the faith.

The Conclusion

If the above are valid, then anyone who ceases to commemorate the name of the bishop (even for reasons of protecting the faith) is automatically considered to lose the grace of the mysteries. If the view prevails that whoever does not commemorate the bishop loses his salvation, then we are led to extreme positions, such as those of Metropolitan John Zizioulas. He maintains that:

• Whoever does not commemorate his bishop in the Divine Eucharist erases himself from the living faithful.

• The Divine Eucharist has no salvific value if it is not celebrated in the name of the local bishop.

• We cannot pray directly to Christ, but the bishop must always mediate as His “image.”

These positions coincide with Papism, where everything depends on communion with the Pope. Moreover, if we accept this logic, the notion of "shared defilement" [συμμολυσμού] is abolished—namely, that Orthodox are defiled when they commune with uncondemned heretics—something taught by the Fifth Ecumenical Council and the patristic tradition.

***

The Second Case (B):

What happens when the "healthy" part (the walled-off) adopts the teaching that the mysteries of the "sick" part (those who have not walled themselves off) are invalid? The consequences are as follows:

The schism deepens: Instead of this teaching helping to unite the two sides, it deepens the chasm and renders the healing of the Church impossible.

Arbitrary exercise of authority: The "healthy" part behaves as if it is the entire Church and decides on its own that someone else has been deprived of Divine Grace.

Bypassing the synodal process: In order for a cleric (and much more so a bishop or an entire local Church) to be declared an unrepentant heretic, an official ecclesiastical trial is necessary. He must be summoned three times to give an account, and if he persists in his delusion, only then is he deposed and cut off from the body of the Orthodox Church.

When a group of faithful proceeds on its own with such a bold action without having the authority, it usurps powers and rights that belong solely to the official Church. This group has the duty to break communion with the heretic (to wall itself off), but it is not permitted to overstep the boundaries defined by the holy Canons. If it does so, it violates the Canons and Ecclesiastical Law.

Moreover, one of the primary aims of those who wall themselves off is to press for the convocation of an Ecumenical Council. The purpose of the Council is to restore Orthodoxy by expelling the unrepentant heretical bishops and placing Orthodox ones in their stead.

However, when a group of clergy and laity has already issued a condemnatory decision on its own before the Council, the meaning and aim of its struggle are entirely altered. According to this logic, there is no longer any need for a Council, since the group believes that the judgment has already been rendered by itself. It considers the episcopal sees to be already vacant, even though the bishops remain in place without having been tried or called to account. This group hastens to find and appoint its own bishops by any means.

Ultimately, in this way, a group that began as a simple part of the Church is arbitrarily transformed into a separate “Church” of its own.

Moreover, what is even worse is the way it treats the other part. Instead of showing love and helping the brethren of the “sick” part (those who have not walled themselves off) to return to the truth, it shows indifference and abandons them, on the grounds that they no longer constitute the Church. Thus, these faithful are left unprotected among the heretics, who appear as sheep but are wolves, and who now exploit them freely and lead them to spiritual destruction.

For example, what Orthodox has ever truly cared about what the Protestants are doing or about the fate of their faithful? Apart from a few rare exceptions, no one. But how would this community be treated if it were truly considered a Church and a part of Her, even a “sick” one?

If this teaching (concerning invalid mysteries) is accepted, we are led to another absurdity: it leaves the part that has broken ecclesiastical communion in a suspended state. For, as much as it may appear to function as a separate Church, establishing its own altar, in reality, the part that has walled itself off continues to be part of the Church from which it was separated, and from there it derives its canonical existence. However, when in its own conscience this Church ceases to exist (because it is considered invalid), then from where will it draw its legitimacy? It is thus forced to self-identify as a “Church” in a manner reminiscent of the Protestants—something which is an evident illegality and violation of the canons.

Consequently, if the “healthy” part of the Church accepts the teaching that the mysteries of the “sick” part are invalid and non-existent, it is led into many errors. Then it too ceases to be the healthy part of the Church and is likewise transformed into the “sick” part.

In conclusion, the teaching that the mysteries are invalid or non-existent—wherever it may come from, whether from one part of the Church or the other—is to be condemned and creates immense responsibilities.

(Source: The book by Hieromonk Eugenios, The Concept of Defilement; the text is linguistically adapted)

***

Summary Conclusions

The key points, summarized in simple language, are the following:

1. The invalidity of the mysteries is a dangerous theory: arguing in favor of the view that the mysteries are “invalid” (i.e., without divine grace) causes serious problems, whether it is adopted by the official Church or by the walled-off.

2. Criticism of the official Church (the “sick” part):  

• If the official Church considers the mysteries of those who have walled themselves off to be invalid, then it nullifies the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, which praises the breaking of communion with heretics.

• This stance leads to a kind of “Papism,” where salvation blindly depends on the commemoration of the bishop, even if he teaches delusions.

3. Criticism of the walled-off (the “healthy” part):

• If the walled-off consider the mysteries of the official Church to be invalid, then they usurp the authority of a Synod. Only an official ecclesiastical court can depose someone and declare his mysteries invalid.

• If they consider the official Church to be “invalid,” then there is no meaning in seeking a Council (since they have already made the decision on their own) and they end up behaving like an autonomous “Protestant” group.

4. The abandonment of the faithful: The theory of “invalidity” leads the walled-off to disregard the faithful who remained behind, leaving them unprotected among the heretics, instead of striving with love to bring them back to the truth.

Conclusion: The teaching that the mysteries are invalid before a synodal decision is an error for both sides. The “healthy” part ceases to be healthy if it adopts such extreme and uncanonical views.

 

Greek source (slightly edited): https://apotixisi.blogspot.com/2025/12/blog-post_30.html