Indeed I am, yet I must clarify that I am not saying that the human act itself does any of these things. The human act is necessary, but it is God's work ocurring simultaneoulsy with the human act that actualy regenerates the believer and puts them in the kingdom, remits their sins. That is why Colossians 2:12 says that it is "through faith in the operation [working] of God." I would not (as many do) pretend that God will do this work without the human act; It is only when we obey and submit to this act that He performs this work.
I would certainly agree with what you have said. To state that one might be baptized without faith and have the Sacrament work is not a sensible statement to me. That is the same as the Hindu who "baptizes" himself in the Ganges River. Nothing happens, for there is no faith in Christ associated with this act.
However, in a Christian baptism, there is faith present. Faith in Christ and His redeeming work.
Rather than "by the doing it is done" I would say "when a believer does the outward act God does the inward work." It is not the act alone without faith that saves, but the act with faith in the promise that God has made concerning what He will do in the act.
Again, no disagreement between us. I think the definition of ex opere operato as stated is perhaps lacking, for no article of the Catholic Faith I have seen excludes the necessity for faith.
Now, concerning the other things which Catholics call sacraments (I have heard so many different definitions of sacrament given by Catholics that I'm not really sure what it means. I think in Latin it means "holy act" or something close to that, but it is generally taken by Catholics to mean something that must be done by/with a priest, thus even marriage is not valid unless the priest perform it. Am I right?)
Actually, the Latin word "sacramentum" means "oath". In a covenant, you will see that covenants are made with oaths/sanctions. That is Ray Sutton's fourth principle of covenantalism as found in his book THAT YOU MAY PROSPER - Dominion by Covenant. Covenants are unions between two people, of which marriage is the premier example, however, they also have a legal side to them. There are rules (legalities - oaths/sanctions) to making a covenant and if these rules are broken, the sanctions come into play.
In the OT, for instance, when two people passed through the carcass of an animal to make a covenant, they were saying in effect "I pledge to keep my half of this covenant and if I fail, may it be done to me as has been done to these animals." Thus, the oath.
I believe you will readily admit that nowhere did Christ ever say "this is My body SUBSTANTIATED" and nowhere did Christ ever say "the substance of the bread is absolutely gone." Surely you will not pretend that He said these things at the last supper?
Sola, the definitions of the Council of Trent became necessary to refute the erroneous definitions of the Protestants which had crept into the religious scenario. In both the Orthodox East and the Latin West, up until the Reformation, the elements were defined as being really and truly the Body and Blood of our Lord. There was no need to define such in terms such as "transsubstantiation" because there simply was no controversy. In fact, the Orthodox East still to this day has never needed a council to define the Eucharist as the West did. That is because they never faced the heresies and problems in regards to this definition as did the West.
So, in not believing the Catholic transubstantiation I am not denying that a Christian has communion/fellowship with Christ in the supper, but I am rather denying the manmade definition and restraints that have been put on it.
All definitions of orthodoxy are not manmade. They are extensions and clarifications in time of that which the apostles orginally taught. Again, we see these definitions as early as St. Ignatius in the second century.
Christ never said that the fruit of the vine would substantiate into His blood, nor indeed could it, for it is and was then a sin to consume blood - read Lev 17 & Acts 15.
This IS my Body...not this "represents" my Body.
As for the blood issue, you are discussing OT. There was a very good reason for the kosher laws which forbade blood -- because it is the LIFE of the FLESH. To eat blood is take that life force into one's person, to unite with the life force of that animal. It is to make union with that which you eat. This is why in the book of Acts, the new converts were instructed to refrain from eating things strangled and with the blood still in them. They would be uniting with demonic forces.
But now, since Christ's Blood is our life according to His own words in John 6, whenever we eat of His Blood, we become filled with and united to His very lifeforce. That is why the Sacraments convey the grace of God, because Jesus Himself is in them, and especially that Sacrament which is His Blood, His lifeforce Himself.
As to confession, John plainly declares that when we confess our sins the blood of Christ cleanses our sins. (1 Jn 1:7-9)
You must understand the context of this. In proper orthodox practice, which has been lost here in America, confession preceeds the reception of the Eucharist. In Europe today, there are long lines of penitents who will confess before the Liturgy takes place AND THEN the Blood of Christ cleanses them of their sins.
He does not, however, say that confession must be to a priest, nor is such a thing as a Christian priest found in the New Testament except for the priesthood of all believers.
Now Sola, that is just not so. Look:
Joh 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
HOW could the apostles remit the sins of a person unless that person CONFESSED TO THEM? This is a continuation of the Old Covenantal priestly structure. In the Old Covenant there were three classes of priest -- the general priesthood of all believers, the Arronic priesthood who were there to offer sacrifice for personal sins, and the high priest who went once a year into the Temple to offer sacrifice for the NATION.
In the New Covenant we see the same structure. Jesus is the Great High Priest. We see the apostles being given the ministry of the mediatorial (Arronic) priesthood, and there is still the general priesthood of all believers. The structure of God's kingdom did not change -- but the administration did, from the Jews to the Church.
Furthermore, he does not say that this nonexistant priest will dish out a penence of Hail Marys or absolve the sin - he says, rather that Christ's blood will cleanse it.
It is not an issue of cleansing. Penance is for the TEMPORAL EFFECTS of our sin. Every sin, even though forgiven and cleansed by the Blood of Christ, still has an effect upon us in this world. Look at King David. He repented and was forgiven, but his son still died!! Now why is that if he was forgiven? It is the temporal consequences which attend sin. Pennance is a way of mitigating those consequences.
Concerning "confirmation," as I understand it, it is merely when those who were baptized as infants "confirm" that they believe and wish to live as Christians. Hebrews 8:11 says that no one in the New Covenant will need to be taught "know the Lord" for they will all know the Lord PRIOR to entering the New Covenant. This verse shows that none may enter the Covenant by baptism without knowing the Lord, which means that infant baptism is invalid. And, if infant baptism be invalid, confirmation disappears.
Sorry, but once again the typology of the OT proves you to be wrong. The infant in the OT was circumcized and made a member of the kingdom without a lick of knowledge of what he was doing. The act was accompanied by the faith of the covenantal head, the father, and thus it operated ex opere operato.
In such a case, one is entered into the covenant, but there must come a time when one affirms whether he will accept and keep or reject and break that covenant for him/herself. That is what confirmation is. The one being confirmed is making his own statement of faith in the covenant and vowing to keep covenant with the Lord for the rest of his/her life.
Concerning holy orders, I have nothing to say except that I do not believe in transubstantiation and thereby do not see any need for a "sacrament" the purpose of which is to transfer the magical ability to transubstantiate the bread into the body of Christ.
Here is the record of the first "holy orders":
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Lu 9:1 ¶ Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
Holy orders is simply the passing on of this initial authority, given by Christ to His apostles. We see that Paul mentioned to Timothy the "laying on of hands" so we know that this had a very early practice. It is not a question of "magical" powers. It is a question of the giving of authority to men, specifically to the twelve apostles and those who would succed them in their office.
Concerning the unction, I'm thinking that the Eastern Orthodox may view it differently from the Romans. I don't see any need to perform a last ritual on someone to prepare them for death. Nowhere is such a thing spoken of in the New Testament. If, however, the unction is performed to raise up the sick...what can I say against that?
The reason you see no need for Last Rites (as the Romans call it) is that you have the false view, invented by the Reformers, that once one has "accepted Jesus" he has no more sins to deal with. That simply is not so, and the Last Rites is the way in which both the Orthodox and the Latins help the soul prepare for its journey to God by cleansing it of its sins through the Body and Blood of Christ.
Concerning marriage, I have no idea how you can even call it a sacrament (in the Catholic sense of the word) since Paul plainly shows that the marriages of the heathen are legitimate in the place concerning those who were married while heathens and then became Christians - he does not doubt that their marriage was legitimate when they were heathens. 1 Cor 7:12
Their marriage was legitimate, but not a means of grace. Sacraments are a means of grace to believers. Christ is in the priest, by means of his valid ordination and the authority he bears in Christ's name. It is not the priest, in and of his own authority, who "does" the Sacrament. It is Jesus Himself, truly present in the priest, who makes the Sacraments work. It is Jesus who performs marriage, who forgives the sinner, who offers us His Body and Blood, who ordains the priest, who comforts and cleanses the dying, who baptizes the infant into the kingdom. He is the one doing the work. The priest is just a convenient tool for doing the work.
As I said, if you believe that Jesus uses the water of baptism to really and truly effect both cleansing of sin and entrance into the kingdom, why stop there? Why can He not use other physical items to effect His grace in us?
Cordially in Christ and the Blessed Virgin,
Brother Ed
