[soc.religion.christian] Submission for soc-religion-christian

kilroy@cs.umd.edu (Darren F. Provine) (10/19/89)

While discussing the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, someone
of my aquaintance produced some tracts written by a man named Keith
Green, titled `The Catholic Chronicles'.

They struck me as being poorly researched (a property which most Bash
Books share, oddly enough), and reflected what I felt was a serious
misunderstanding of RCC doctrine -- which is bad enough, but then the
author used these (possible) misunderstandings to claim the Roman church
was not truly Christian.  Sigh.

What I would like to do is present Mr. Green's (mis?)understanding of
RCC Communion theology, and then present it the way I understand it.
I would like those who are more familiar with the topic to advise me
on where I've gone wrong or misunderstood, and to let me know if Mr.
Green's version is accurate.

Also, Mr. Green refers to snatches of Roman encyclicals in a few places,
but he doesn't provide any substantive quotes -- can someone provide a
`pointer to function returning doctrine' [ oops, too much programming
lately  8-) ], ie, Some Official Book With Offical Pronouncements In It?
(Is the _Summa Theologica_ official doctrine, or is it just highly
 regarded, or . . . ?)


Firstly, Mr. Green's position summarised:

a) Rome teaches that Jesus' sacrifice on Calvary doesn't suffice for
   sin.

b) Therefore, Rome believes that they must re-sacrifice Jesus every week
   as an `insurance policy' to cover the last week's sins.

c) In order to accomplish this, RC theologians invented Transsubstantiation
   in order that they may re-sacrifice Jesus every week.

Mr. Green is of the opinion that RC theology, in denying that Jesus'
sacrifice was sufficient, denies the truth of the Gospel.


As I understand it, RC Eucharistic theology works like this:

a) Jesus said "this is my body", and was being literal when he did so.

b) In order for that to be true, and the elements still have the same
   properties, it must be that the substance changed; hence, everybody's
   favorite 18-letter Communion theology (no flames about this being based
   on old philosophy, please).

c) Since there is only one sacrifice for sin (the one on Calvary), that
   the Mass is a sacrifice of Jesus means that it must be the same one;
   and, in fact, this week's Mass is the same sacrifice as last week's,
   and the week before that, etc. -- the fact that they are distinct in
   time is somehow irrelevant to the issue of being the same sacrifice.
   (Presumably not unlike the reference in 1 Corinthians 10:17, wherein
    Paul says that `we all partake of one loaf', though the Corinthians
    were using different physical loaves (being so far away).)

d) While salvation was accomplished at Calvary, people still sin; ergo,
   Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient to stop us from sinning in & of
   itself.  God's grace comes to us through the Mass, however, and this
   grace is helpful(?) to us.  Doing this every week helps keep one's
   `grace batteries' recharged (or something like that).


Have I got the general explanation down correctly?  And can someone
magnify on my `somehow's?  (I'm guessing that number (d) is the most
broken.)


In looking at this, it seems that Mr. Green's biggest mistake was in
insisting that (grace == salvation) -- as I understand it, Rome says one
is saved through faith in Jesus, but that grace is more than salvation
and that grace is also conferred through the sacraments.  Is this a
correct understanding of Roman teachings about grace?

- -=-=-

Also, I know some former Roman Catholics who insist that Mr. Green's
explanation is mostly correct, and that this is what they were always
taught.

They do not always agree, however, on just which parts Mr. Green has
right and what parts he has wrong.  Further, Mr. Green's explanation
disagrees with some I've seen on the net (not that I trust the net,
which is why I'm asking for Official Statements of Doctrine).  I am
wondering if perhaps some of the problem is that the subtleties (of
which I am sure I missed a few myself) are perhaps *too* subtle, and
if this is a regular problem encountered in RC education.  Is there
any first-hand experience Out There?


kilroy@cs.umd.edu          Darren F. Provine          ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy
"As a Christian whose faith is deeply indebted to both Catholic and Protestant
 traditions, I find the argument `Catholics believe XXX; Catholicism is icky;
 therefore XXX is false' to be as rhetorically powerless as it is logically
 flawed." -- Nancy L. Tinkham

jhpb@lancia.att.com (10/23/89)

In article <Oct.18.17.43.34.1989.2569@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@cs.umd.edu (Darren F. Provine) writes:

   Also, Mr. Green refers to snatches of Roman encyclicals in a few places,
   but he doesn't provide any substantive quotes -- can someone provide a
   `pointer to function returning doctrine' [ oops, too much programming
   lately  8-) ], ie, Some Official Book With Offical Pronouncements In It?
   (Is the _Summa Theologica_ official doctrine, or is it just highly
	regarded, or . . . ?)

Here's a good one: Henry Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum, AKA The
Sources of Catholic Doctrine, available in English translation from
Marian House Publishers, Powers Lake, North Dakota 58773.  (That's all
the address you need, the place is *small*.)  It's a summary of Papal
and Conciliar teaching up to the late 1950's.  650 pages complete with
systematic and scriptural indices.

The Summa is highly regarded; the council of Trent placed it on the
altar with the Bible.  It's not official, though, in the sense that a
Papal encyclical is.  But if one wants to study the Catholic religion in
depth, the Summa is an excellent place to go.  There's an English
translation in print (Christian Classics).

The sacrifice of Calvary was all-sufficient to obtain the necessary
graces, but our Lord may distribute the graces however He wishes.  The
way that the graces are distributed to souls is the Mass and the
Sacraments.

In Catholic theology, faith == a grace whereby we unhesitatingly believe
what God has revealed.  One can't believe in the Divine revelation
without grace: "No man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost."
"Flesh and blood have not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in
Heaven."

Salvation is "by faith" in the sense that one's salvation is grounded on
their beliefs.  But faith alone does not save anyone.  Salvation is
through the love of God.

Since faith is a grace that is a completely free gift from God, a
person's salvation is a completely free gift from God.  One cannot
deserve or earn Faith.

The Catholic Church has the concept of "sanctifying" grace.  Sanctifying
grace is a quality that inheres in a person's soul, and is basically the
image of the Blessed Trinity in a special, supernatural way.  Everyone
either has this image or doesn't.  Persons who die with this grace in
their souls are saved.  A soul in a state of grace is more beautiful
than the rest of the visible creation, is I think what one saint once said.

Sacraments are outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace.  They
effect the grace that they symbolize, e.g., Baptism uses the symbolism
of washing, and that's what it does to one's soul.

The Sacraments were instituted by our Lord to either give or increase
sanctifying grace.  Baptism infuses sanctifying grace for the first
time; the Sacrament of Penance restores it if one should lose it through
serious sin.  Holy Communion bestows the grace of greater detachment
from common venial sins ("the just man falls seven times daily"), and
the ability to not commit any serious sins.

Mr. Green is mistaken in stating that the sacrifice of Calvary is
insufficient; Catholic theology doesn't teach that.  It earned all the
necessary graces for everyone's salvation.  The graces have to be
applied to souls somehow -- that's what the Mass is for, sort of like so
everyone can be at Calvary.

The doctrine on the Mass is that the Sacrifice of the Cross is somehow
re-presented to God in the Mass through the centuries.  That the Mass
involves human actions repeated in time is irrevelant.  The central
action of the Mass -- the double consecration -- is not a human act, but
a Divine one.

Looking at the symbolism, one can easily see the sacrificial aspect,
from the Catholic point of view.  The two consecrations (of the bread
and of the wine) symbolize the separation of the Body and Blood of our
Lord, thus, in some manner, which is not completely understood, it
effects this.

The exact metaphysics of all this are much disputed, and will probably
never be completely worked out on this earth (much like the relationship
between free will and grace).  The Church has only defined things like
"The Mass is a true and proper sacrifice"; it hasn't said exactly how
this works.

The definitive Catholic teaching on the Mass, grace, and the Sacraments
is that of the council of Trent.  The texts are in Denzinger.

A good book to read on the subject of people like Mr. Green is
"Catholicism and Fundamentalism".  What happens is that a caricature of
Catholic doctrine gets set up, and then knocked down, and people go away
convinced that Catholicism is trivially erroneous.

 From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great
 among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is
 offered to my name a clean oblation; for my name is great among the
 Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.  Mal. 1:11

Joe Buehler

[There are unfortunately differences in terminology that tend to obscure these
discussions.  While I do not claim that Catholics and Protestants agree on
everything, it is useful to realize that they may be brought somewhat closer
by being clear on what is being said.  Joe says that faith alone does not
save.  I agree, when faith is defined as he defines it.  Note that when
Protestants use this term, they are using a broader definition of faith than
Joe is.  Joe's definition captures something important: the grace by which we
believe.  But faith to the Reformers had a much broader set of implications.
There also seem to be differences in the way "grace" and "justification" are
used.  Thus the concept of grace coming through the sacraments may not mean
quite what it sounds like to Protestants, which is that people can be saved
without faith.  I hope David Cruz-Uribe won't object to my repeating here a
portion of his posting from talk.religion.misc.  I believe it clarifies some
of the differences in terminology that may otherwise obscure for Protestants
what is being said by Catholics.  (David is a Franciscan.  The Rule he
mentions is the rule of his order.)

"... Salvation is a free gift from God, available to all.  We are
saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, "the gift of the
Father's love" for us.  (Quote again from the Rule.)  However (and
this is a very subtle point which I may mess up) the Catholic church
draws a distinction between salvation and justification.  Salvation is
the act of our being saved from sin; justification is the process by
which we learn the consequences of this salvific act.  [Protestants
would normally call this "santification" --clh]  In particular,
it is how we are protected from the further temptations of sin.

"Salvation is primary and sufficient, justification is secondary.  Both
originate from God and are possible only by his grace.  The key
difference between salvation and justification is this: salvation is
acheived entirely by God, requiring only my assent; justification is a
co-operative process initiated by God.  (This distinction may be moot:
as St. Anselm said, "It pleases God to call our merits what are in
fact His gifts.")

"Catholics believe that the sacraments were established by God as fonts
of grace for our _justification_.  I am glossing over some important
points involving baptism, etc., because I want to make one point
_very_ clear: I am not "earning" my salvation by participating in the
sacraments.  The sacraments exist so that as living, breathing and
most fallible mortals we have a visible means of growing ever closer
to God."

--clh]

conan@sizzlean.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (10/25/89)

[In article <Oct.22.13.32.46.1989.25269@athos.rutgers.edu> 
jhpb@lancia.att.com recommended two reference books for official
Catholic statements: Henry Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum, AKA The
Sources of Catholic Doctrine, and the Summa.  --clh]

Both of these references are very good, but I don't think they go quite
far enough.  In particular, I would recommend the principle documents of
the Second Vactican Council.  While this Council was primarily pastoral 
(as opposed to doctrinal in its focus), it did change the focus slightly on
some Catholic thought.  Also, the work of Karl Rahner, SJ, is quite repre-
sentative of modern Catholic theology.

(Also, let me put in a plug for the works of St. Augustine.  His work, I
believe, had a major impact on all branches of Western Christianity, and
not just Roman Catholicism.)

>[I hope David Cruz-Uribe won't object to my repeating here a
>portion of his posting from talk.religion.misc.  I believe it clarifies some
>of the differences in terminology that may otherwise obscure for Protestants
>what is being said by Catholics.  (David is a Franciscan.  The Rule he
>mentions is the rule of his order.)... -clh]

My pleasure...I'm actually pleased that you find my ramblings so cogent.
If anyone has questions or thinks I messed up, please let me know.

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO

nelson@vax1.acs.udel.edu (Todd M Nelson) (10/27/89)

I don't understand Catholic celebration of the Eucharist, however
I do know a bit about Keith Green.
I don't know if what he says is true or not, but what I do know
is that for a time when he was alive he had a one man crusade 
against the RC's, however just before he died in 1982, he repented of
his actions against the Roman Catholic Church.  
I know this doesn't answer the question, but I thought I'd mention it 
anyway.

		Todd M. Nelson