3

"Ex opere operato" says that a person must have the proper disposition and desire in order to receive graces through sacraments (correct me if I'm over simplifying this).

Does this not apply to infants when being baptized?

How do infants receive graces from baptism?

What is the doctrine regarding infants and "ex opere operato".

|improve this question

closed as unclear what you're asking by fredsbend, Nathaniel♦, El'endia Starman♦ Aug 22 '15 at 10:11

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    Are you sure you don't mean "ex opere operantis"? That means, literally, "by the work of the worker". Your phrase ("ex opere operato") means, again very literally, "by the work of the thing worked" and I think it's typically used to emphasize the action of God as the cause of the grace given in the sacraments. It doesn't deny the necessity of a proper disposition; it simply doesn't address this aspect of the question. – Ben Dunlap Dec 20 '11 at 18:48
  • This question is about a Catholic doctrine and is tagged Catholic. It is clearly within side guidelines. – fredsbend Aug 11 '15 at 0:10
  • @fredsbend The beginning "Ex opere operato" says that a person must have the proper disposition and desire in order to receive graces through sacraments is dead wrong. "Ex opere operato" means the exact opposite of what's claimed there. Since the user who posted the question is deleted, it doesn't seem worth it to do anything other than close as unclear. I'm not sure why I didn't point that out before voting to close, so I'd say it's my fault no one else joined in the vote. But I'll re-vote when I can. – Mr. Bultitude Aug 14 '15 at 16:40
  • @Mr.Bultitude A false premise is not usually a reason to close. In this case, it makes the question mean nothing, so I do see your point. I'll vtc now. I didn't bother looking up ex opere operato so I did not realize this. – fredsbend Aug 14 '15 at 18:15
2

I'd say not, but this is just my opinion, and not because I've ever heard of Ex Opere Operato so I'll keep this short and hopefully someone adds a better answer. But Baptism leaves an indelible mark:

Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

CCC 1272

Which is more like chiseling yours and your bride's initials into a post with a big heart around it.

|improve this answer
  • Is that mark also applied to people who are baptized unworthily? – user23 Dec 6 '11 at 19:00
  • 2
    @Justin here's the Canon Law I'm pretty sure the only invalid baptism is the one done improperly. The grace is conferred regardless of intentions and the person being baptized gets the benefit of the doubt in all cases of conscience. – Peter Turner♦ Dec 6 '11 at 19:36