Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: kilroy@cs.umd.edu (Darren F. Provine) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Submission for soc-religion-christian Keywords: Eucharist, Communion, Transsubstantiation, `Woof!' Message-ID: Date: 18 Oct 89 21:43:37 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci. Lines: 96 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Disclaimer: The following are not the opinions of UMD, or my dog, Brandy. Moderator-comment: Then where did the `Woof!' come from? 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