In a technical sense, [name omitted] properly distinguishes the efficacious benefits of sacramental grace from what Aristotle would characterize as the efficient cause of sacramental grace. It is nevertheless a highly academic point, which has not been properly applied, because of a persistent error on his part in not understanding or acknowledging the Augustinian argument against Donatism. Applying that argument here, even if our Bishop is in great error because neither he nor the ACC mandates canonical adherence to the 39 Articles or the Elizabethan Settlement (which is an argument with which I would not agree, needless to say), that does not mean that there is defective sacramental grace, when he administers the Sacrament of Confirmation, so long as there is proper form and matter. Conversely, even if a recipient of a sacrament fails to maintain a perfect faith, or is not totally in line with the official teaching of his Bishop, that does not mean then that there is defective sacramental grace, when he receives the Sacrament of Confirmation. Otherwise, only persons without sin, or in a state of total harmony with their Bishop, would be able to receive full, sacramental grace. That is an affront to the mercy of God and contrary to the explicit teaching of Christ Jesus, that He comes to administer first and foremost to sinners (those in need of a doctor). Now, I would agree that a man should not receive a sacrament from an avowed heretic, such as a Bishop Spong; conversely, a man who is in a state of great disbelief, as in denying the most basic tenets of the faith, should not receive a sacrament, lest he do so to his own condemnation. Nevertheless, neither situation is the case here. As such, in my mind, the argument against Donatism applies, which means that in making his rather technical distinction in regards to receptionism, [name omitted] is missing the beautifully lush forest for a solitary, misapplied weed.