A Necessary Distinction between Personal Grace and the Grace of the Priesthood

Andrei Mitocaru

 

 

In these times of spiritual confusion, one of the greatest temptations is to judge the validity of the Holy Mysteries through the prism of the morality of the one who performs them. Often, through a lack of theological discernment, a grave confusion is made between the personal grace of the man who wears the cassock and the objective grace of the priesthood received at the moment of ordination. In this regard, some time ago I posted an article in which Saint Nectarios of Aegina explains very precisely that the validity of the Mysteries does not depend upon the moral state of the minister.

There are voices that maintain that a dogmatic error or a heresy preached by a cleric would instantly affect the validity of the Holy Mysteries, even before he has been judged. From a canonical standpoint, however, heresy—although it is the gravest sin against the truth—does not automatically and mechanically annul the operation of the grace received at ordination. The Church does not act impulsively, but according to order and discernment. Until the minister has been heard, questioned, and officially condemned by an ecclesiastical tribunal, in accordance with all the strict procedures prescribed by the Apostolic and Ecumenical Canons, the Mysteries celebrated by him remain valid for the faithful.

In order to understand these complex procedures correctly, we need discernment acquired through a profound study of the Church’s juridical tradition. Just as, when you undergo medical tests, you need a specialist physician who knows how to interpret them correctly—because an erroneous diagnosis based on personal intuitions can be fatal—so it is also in the ecclesial sphere. In the Church, personal opinions or well-intentioned impulses of the moment do not automatically become dogma or canonical norm. Not everyone has the right to interpret the canons according to his own pleasure or his own sense of justice.

In order not to fall into the error of judging matters according to our own impulses, it is salutary to heed the voice of the great canonists of the Orthodox Church. One of the most distinguished authorities in this regard is Bishop Nikodim Milaš, universally recognized as one of the foremost specialists in ecclesiastical law. In his writings, he addresses with surgical precision this very fundamental distinction: the radical difference between the unworthiness or personal sins of the minister and the objective, indelible character of the grace received at ordination. His clear and illuminating words, which we reproduce in conclusion, put an end to all speculation and show us how the Church truly thinks [1]:

Irrespective of these rules, this is also demonstrated by the relationship between ordination and spiritual authority.

According to the canonical teaching of the Orthodox Church concerning the Mystery of the Priesthood, just as important as its spiritual aspect—that is, the communication of divine grace to a particular person—is its juridical aspect, namely, the spiritual authority through which this grace is communicated. This authority is a public right, and when it is transferred to a person, the transfer is effected through a solemn act of public law.

So long as a particular person possesses this authority, he may exercise it fully, and everything he does by virtue of that authority has legal effect, irrespective of the fact that he himself may be corrupt and unworthy of it. The latter circumstance does not deprive him of his authority, but may merely serve as grounds for that authority to be taken away from him. Again, this authority can be removed only through a solemn act of public law, by virtue of which it ceases, together with all its legal prerogatives; and, above all, any act performed by him thereafter is devoid of efficacy and of any legal significance.

By virtue of this, if a bishop were to preach heresy or organize a schismatic body, he would not thereby be deprived of the right to ordain; but if such a bishop were condemned by a council for that same offense or for any other grave offense and were ultimately deposed from his office, he would lose all his hierarchical rights, because he would lose the grace of the priesthood and the right to be the mediator of that grace to others—that is, he would no longer be able to ordain anyone. For deposition, that is, definitive expulsion (παντελής αφορισμός), is the canonical act by which a person loses the priestly authority that had belonged to him until then and is reduced to the state of a layman, as he was before ordination.

The words of the great canonist Nikodim Milaš put an end to every misunderstanding: the validity of the Holy Mysteries does not rest upon the human virtue of the priest, but upon the inviolate power of Christ, Who acts through the visible institution of the Church. Just as we cannot diagnose ourselves by reading medical test results according to our own intuition, so too we have no right to make ourselves judges of grace and to declare the Mysteries invalid on the basis of our own indignation or private interpretations of the canons.

Let us therefore retain this salutary distinction: personal sin and even dogmatic error gravely affect the soul and the personal grace of the minister; nevertheless, the grace of his priesthood remains operative for the faithful until the moment when the Church officially and synodally decides upon his removal. Until then, Christ remains the One Who baptizes, the One Who absolves, and the One Who offers Himself in sacrifice upon the Holy Table, protecting His flock from the errors of His ministers.

 

1. In The Canons of the Orthodox Church, the 1934 Romanian edition, I did not find this commentary. It is, however, available in Russian on the website below. I have no explanation as to why the commentary is more extensive in the Russian version.

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Nikodim_Milash/pravila-pomestnyh-soborov-s-tolkovanijami/#0_65

 

Romanian source: https://rezistentaortodoxa.org/2026/06/25/har-personal-preoti/