Saturday, February 11
A Question
Sacrosanctum Concilium, in paragraph 59, states that the sacraments both nourish and presume faith.
I've been looking for some--any--theological commentary on this passage, but haven't found any. My reactions to this passage:
(1) Does this mean that faith is required for validity? It would seem so.
(2) How is infant baptism reconciled with this? Obviously, it is. But: how, exactly?
(3) Does this lend itself towards Donatism? "Bp. X may have been a Communist imposter, and so therefore had no faith--and all his sacraments were invalid!"
(4) Similarly, does this lend itself towards Rigorism? "When I was confirmed, I didn't believe any of it; so, therefore I was not really confirmed."
To be honest, I had formerly assumed that sacraments were valid as long as the recipient did not willfully object--regardless of their faith. Hmm.
Sacrosanctum Concilium, in paragraph 59, states that the sacraments both nourish and presume faith.
I've been looking for some--any--theological commentary on this passage, but haven't found any. My reactions to this passage:
(1) Does this mean that faith is required for validity? It would seem so.
(2) How is infant baptism reconciled with this? Obviously, it is. But: how, exactly?
(3) Does this lend itself towards Donatism? "Bp. X may have been a Communist imposter, and so therefore had no faith--and all his sacraments were invalid!"
(4) Similarly, does this lend itself towards Rigorism? "When I was confirmed, I didn't believe any of it; so, therefore I was not really confirmed."
To be honest, I had formerly assumed that sacraments were valid as long as the recipient did not willfully object--regardless of their faith. Hmm.
![[SMMMHDH]](http://www.mgilleland.com/music/smmmhdh.png){kind=small}
