Yes, it does cut both ways. While we cannot be completely sure that a Bishop is sinning in secret, it is our faith in God which validates the Sacraments if the Bishop IS sinning.
HOWEVER, If we know a Bishop is sinning or is promoting heresy or schism, then we are now held accountable NOT to accept the gifts he offers. They are no longer gifts, for we know of the nature of the tree, and the gifts are the fruits thereof. If we knowingly partake of the gifts of a Schismatic or heretic, then we are stating that we are KNOWINGLY in Communion and agreement with a heretic or Schismatic.
Therefore, in the knowledge that the Anglicans come from the seed of the fruit of a tree of heresy (namely the Roman Catholic doctrines held by the priests ordaining the first priests to break away from the Romans), how then can we expect them to be valid? The Anglican Church has never in its history been able to claim a Succession unbroken by heresy. It is simply impossible.
Therefore, it is the solemn duty of the Anglican priest to seek a Succession which is unbroken. It is not a chore, but a blessing, to receive Ordination into the TRUE Apostolic Succession. And seeing how Anglicans are the ONLY Protestants to receive such an offer from the Orthodox Church, it is quite an example of the Economia (grace) extended thereto.
The standard I hold is this: If heresy is known or visible in the Successive Ordination of a priest, or if heresy or sin is visible in his life in a habitual way, he is to be considered invalid. In the case of an Orthodox Priest, the discovery of heresy or habitual sins of large magnitude, or single sins of such magnitude, results in instant defrocking. It is grace which is practiced when a schismatic priest is offered re-ordination, much more so when a whole group of schismatics are offered re-ordination.
Alright, but now I must ask this: What are the requisite conditions to be met for there to be known or visible heresy in a cleric's ordinal line?
As I see it, two conditions need to be met for there to be a true case of heresy:
(1) An individual must hold a belief that is significantly at odds with with the orthodox dogma of the Church, and
(2) said individual must
willfully subscribe to said belief,
despite having sufficient knowledge that it is at odds with orthodox dogma.
Note that although (1) is a
necessary condition for there to be a case of heresy, it is
not a
sufficient condition.
Why? Take tritheism, for example. Tritheism is heterodox theology. Orthodox dogma holds that the three Divine Hypostases are three distinct Persons, but these Persons are not three distinct gods. Nevertheless, it is possible for someone to subscribe to tritheism and not be a heretic. This is because it is possible for someone to subscribe to tritheism and yet lack sufficient knowledge to understand that his belief is at odds with the orthodox teaching of the Church (as in the case of, e.g., a child, or a recent convert who is ignorant of Church teaching on this matter). Condition (1) does not by itself does not constitute the sin of heresy; in order for there to be heresy, it must be conjoined with condition (2).
It seems to me that your standard needs to be able to identify that, for a single case of ordination in a cleric's ordinal line, condition (2) holds in addition to condition (1) for the particular individual performing that particular ordination in order for heresy to be known or visible in that cleric's line.
But let's say that you can meet this requirement. Let's say that you can positively identify a heretic in a cleric's ordinal line (or at least that you can positively confirm that he has at least one heretic in his ordinal line, even if you can't point that particular individual out). Does this invalidate that cleric's orders? I don't think so. I can spot at least three problems:
First, although it may be clear to
you that the cleric has a heretic in his line, it might not have been clear to the ordinand. Clarity is an epistemic issue. What is clear to one person might not be clear to another. You seem to be willing to say that even if a cleric is guilty of invalidating sin, the faith of those who receive his sacraments confers the validity thereto. If the ordinand submits to ordination in good faith, and is therefore not complicit in the heresy of his ordainer, then why should his faith not validate the sacrament?
Second, If you stipulate that conferral of the sacramental grace of ordination is dependent upon the ordainer's innocence of the sin of heresy, then I fail to see how your standard doesn't qualify as a case of Donatism.
And third, your standard still doesn't entirely ward off the threat of decimation of Orthodox clerical ranks. Say that you have an Orthodox ordination where the ordainer and the ordinand are both heretics, and they both keep quiet about their heretical beliefs and so are never found out. In this case, you don't have the good faith of the ordinand to supply sacramental validity, so then where does it come from?
You might say that the validating faith comes from those who are in the Church, and who have faith in God that He will faithfully deliver to them the sacraments through His ministers, despite their faults. But might we not have this in the Roman West also? Might we not also have a faithful contingent therein, whose faith supplies the validity to the sacraments which they would otherwise lack?
And lest you should say that those faithful must hold certain proper beliefs in order for their faith to count--that they must fail to meet even my condition (1) above, in other words--then I ask you this: Why should the faith of a child, or of a simpleton, or of one who for whatever reason lacks sufficient knowledge to form proper theological beliefs be any less valuable than the faith of one who does?