This is good, as far as it goes. We could lob bombs at various "fundamentalists" until the cows come home. But it only brings the question into sharp relief: "Was the Reformation at its core anti-sacramental?" In a word, yes.
It will not do to see all the ill effects of denying the sacramental reality of Holy Orders centuries later, and then try to smuggle the benefits in, without grappling with the question of authority that give this issue its real salience in the first place.
I do not deny or minimize all that is held in common by Christians. But the challenge is precisely this: If you don't have a real sacramental succession from the apostles, you vainly presume to carry the signs of grace to the people for whom Christ died.
It will not do to see all the ill effects of denying the sacramental reality of Holy Orders centuries later, and then try to smuggle the benefits in, without grappling with the question of authority that give this issue its real salience in the first place.
I do not deny or minimize all that is held in common by Christians. But the challenge is precisely this: If you don't have a real sacramental succession from the apostles, you vainly presume to carry the signs of grace to the people for whom Christ died.
Comments