I'll get right to it: Right at the point where someone says, "The sacraments are intrinsically efficacious," this is exactly the point where you walk out of the Reformation. Because apostolic succession is the only way to assure this, within the theological paradigm where that's important. Obviously, you could say, the sacraments are conditionally efficacious, depending on the faithful reception of the word preached, by faith alone, blah, blah, blah. In other words, the Reformers felt they could separate from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church precisely because they denied the theological significance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of sacramental efficacy. That's why the perspicuity (clarity in an absolute sense) of Scripture goes right along with Sola Scriptura. Put it together, think like a Protestant: "Look fellas, we don't need this hierarchy, because the Scripture is clear, and your doctrines are false, anyway. Because [long litany of Bible quotes to refute whatever]".
This is actually the meaning of the terms "ex opera operato" and "ex opera operantis." The first means, "by the work worked." In the context of sacraments, then, this means that if the priest says the right words, and bread and wine is there (and he's actually a priest, of course) that's the Eucharist. Bam. Doesn't matter if he killed a guy before the liturgy started. Well, it does, but just go with me here.
"Ex opera operantis" means, "in virtue of the agent". That means that, in the context of the sacrament of the Supper, you'll receive the Body and Blood if you have true faith, etc. There's no need for "magic Bread," because it's by faith that any of this really serves its spiritual purpose.
So, James Jordan, Ben Carmack, et al., pick a side. You're welcome to adopt ex opera operantis as an explanation for how the sacraments work. But that means the whole lot of you are getting sappy about a piece of bread. And that also means that nothing objective can be given through it, strictly speaking. Sorry, Federal Vision.
This is actually the meaning of the terms "ex opera operato" and "ex opera operantis." The first means, "by the work worked." In the context of sacraments, then, this means that if the priest says the right words, and bread and wine is there (and he's actually a priest, of course) that's the Eucharist. Bam. Doesn't matter if he killed a guy before the liturgy started. Well, it does, but just go with me here.
"Ex opera operantis" means, "in virtue of the agent". That means that, in the context of the sacrament of the Supper, you'll receive the Body and Blood if you have true faith, etc. There's no need for "magic Bread," because it's by faith that any of this really serves its spiritual purpose.
So, James Jordan, Ben Carmack, et al., pick a side. You're welcome to adopt ex opera operantis as an explanation for how the sacraments work. But that means the whole lot of you are getting sappy about a piece of bread. And that also means that nothing objective can be given through it, strictly speaking. Sorry, Federal Vision.
Comments