1 2 3 4 5 6 7

FCFC Rebuttal #1:

We were rather disappointed with Mr. Sungenis's answers, mainly the fact that he never really answered anything! We posed these 10 questions, which we will repeat!

1. Would you please produce one scripture where we are commanded to eat a live sacrifice with the blood? (Mr. Sungenis side steps this question as irrelevant.)
2. Did the Jews eat the passover lamb alive? (Doesn't answer.)
3. Did Jesus command his follower's to "literally eat blood and disobey God's command? (Doesn't answer.)
4. Why does Jesus call it the "fruit of the vine" if it’s His blood? ( Mr. Sungenis poses a problem for himself which we will discuss later.)
5. If he [Jesus] is already there in the flesh, then why would we "do in remembrance" "till he come"? (Doesn't answer.) (I Cor.11:24-26)
6. Did the blood re-enter Jesus? (Doesn't answer.)
7. Does the Catholic Eucharist perish? (Doesn't answer.)
8. If you ate a "whole and entire" steak dinner, and 15 minutes later your dinner left you, "whole and entire, unconsumed and unassimilated, how then would you have been nourished? (Doesn't answer.)
9. What happens to Christ when the Eucharist is digested? (Doesn't answer.)
10. Did we destroy Jesus, or did he leave "whole and entire"? (Doesn't answer.)

The first question that Mr. Sungenis called a "straw man argument" and discarded as "irrelevant" is anything but. Please let us keep in mind that the feast days and Sabbaths of the Jews were but a "...shadow of things to come". Christ is the substance. "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."(Heb.10:4) Now with that in mind, let us look at the Passover, since Jesus is our Passover Lamb! How are we to interpret this? We must go to the first Passover and see how Jesus fulfills this role. Exodus 12:1-2 tells us that the the feast of the Passover was "...beginning of months" (v.2) for Israel, establishing the blood of the lamb as the foundation. Verse 3 says "...a lamb for a house", whereas John the Baptist says, "...Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (Jn.1:29). Exodus 12:5 tells us the lamb must be "...without blemish, a male of the first year" which Jesus was the first-born son of a virgin and as Hebrews 4:15 states, "...without sin" (unblemished). Ex.12:6 describes the killing of the Lamb "...and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening". In Matthew 27:25, after Pilate said, "...I am innocent of the blood of this just person", the Jews answered "...His blood be on us, and on our children" thus fulfilling Ex.12:6. In verse 8-11 we are told how to eat the Passover Lamb.

Now, if every other verse in Exodus 12 refers to Jesus, then how can you say that the eating of the sacrifice is irrelevant? Would not the eating of the passover lamb be just as important of a testimony as the killing of it? Ex.12:7-11 gives us the instructions for the eating of the lamb. First you were to take the blood of the slain lamb and put it on "...the two side posts and on the upper door post", notice there is no mention of drinking blood! The flesh was to be "..roasted with fire" and eaten with "...unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs". The antitypical fulfillment is seen in the fact that Jesus suffered and died in the same night. He experienced the burning fires of Calvary (Heb.12:29). He was without sin, unleavened by any taint of evil (I Cor.5:7-8). He also experienced the bitter sufferings of the cross. The lamb could not be eaten "...raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof". The gospel was not to be presented as if Christ was merely a martyr, or watered down in any manner, it must be presented exactly as it took place in the sight of God and man (( Cor.5:7-8; 11:23-30; Jn.6:53-55; 19:29) The true Christian must feed on the virtues of the lamb. The head (the mind of Christ), the legs (the walk of Christ) and the purtenence (the heart of Christ). Nothing of it was to remain until morning (a far cry from the Catholics who store Jesus in a box under lock and key). You were to eat it with your "...loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD'S passover". This simply means that we eat the passover lamb with our "...loins girt about with truth" (Eph.6:14), and our "...feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace" (v.15). The staff in our hand is the declaration that we are strangers and pilgrims on the earth (Heb.11:13). To eat it in haste is to be ready at all times for the second coming of Jesus Christ. As you can see, the shadow of those things all pointed to the true lamb, which we partake of spiritually, as the Lord said, "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn.6:63). For Mr. Sungenis to call our question of eating a live sacrifice with the blood in it as "irrelevant" shows a total lack of spiritual discernment, the very thing required to partake at His table (not an altar). (I Cor.11:29).

Mr. Sungenis also asked us why we are so "critical of this doctrine [transubstantiation]". The Catholic church teaches its members that they must worship a piece of bread with the same reverence with which they worship God. This is nothing short of idolatry! But this is only the beginning of the real blasphemy which is the sacrifice of the mass. The reason the Catholic hierarchy holds the doctrine of transubstantiation is so that she may present Christ as a victim being offered to God as a propitiation for sin, although the book of Hebrews (especially 9-10) totally discredits such a doctrine! French Catholic "saint" J.B.M. Vianney said:

"Where there is no priest there is no sacrifice, and where there is no sacrifice there is no religion...without the priest the death and passion of our Lord would be of no avail to us...see the power of the priest! By one word from his lips, he changes a piece of bread into a God! A greater feat than the creation of a world."

Their religious system of works keep men prisoners to Roman Catholicism.We will deal with this subject later on in the debate. We are critical of anyone or anything that adds or takes away from the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross!

Mr. Sungenis's reference to the "early church fathers" on both the Eucharist and Baptism is highly suspect! Evidently the forgeries have been an influence. The most terribly blatant and ugly history of the Roman Catholic Church and all its centuries of works is proof enough that its fruits are inedible, therefore the truth is not in it. As for the "church fathers" knowing more of Christ than we do, is of course nonsense. "For there is no respect of persons with God." (Rom.2:11) The youth Elihu, in Job 32:21-22, said:

"Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away."

Elihu had other words of wisdom that he rightly preached to Job. In verses 6-9 he said:

"...I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not show you mine opinion. I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment."

So let us not be a respecter of persons, since our God is not. Quit leaning on the church fathers and lean on Jesus. Sometimes I get the feeling that those who are so busy quoting the church fathers do not have confidence in their own relationship with the Lord, so instead of studying about God through his Word, they study about men who study about God, a kind of theology-ology (the study of those who study about God). The promise of the Holy Spirit is to all believers. The reason we don’t have to "literally eat him" is because he always dwells in us. Perhaps Matthew 4:4 says it best: "...It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

What is so embarrassing to the Catholic apologists is that the Roman Catholic Church (by their own admission) has changed what the early church fathers have said to gain some credence for their "doctrinal claims" since the scriptures do not give credence to most Catholic doctrines, for example purgatory, baby baptisms, but mostly papal authority.

Really Mr. Sungenis, since when does water have the power to save? Gee, maybe we should go around with water and start throwing it on everybody since Mr. Sungenis thinks water saves us! If a man gets baptized without faith in the blood of Jesus, did the water save him? Of course not! He would only come up out of the water a wet sinner! Besides the Catholic church does not really believe that baptism guarantees salvation, since they believe you can lose your salvation after baptism.

Mr. Sungenis's interpretation of I Cor.1:27 was not only pathetic, but poor apologetics. There is no way that these verses have anything whatsoever to do with transubstantiation! Paul was referring to the foolishness of preaching, which is able to save them that believe,and even rebukes those who seek signs (v.22)! Nowhere in scriptures does God use idolatry to reveal Himself to man. I challenge our readers to very carefully read the verses Mr. Sungenis uses, since we have feel many of them did not validate his stand.

You may not be aware of this small fact about the Catholic Communion, but because they believe that the wafer is God, they have taught us not to "chew, nibble, munch or gnaw", but to swallow it whole. As Rev. George Searle (A Roman Catholic priest) states in his book How To Become A Catholic, pg.83-85:

"It is very difficult for the priest to give Communion [God] to people holding their mouths shut without striking it [God] against their teeth, in which case it is very probable that it [God] may be broken, or at any rate that some particle of it [God] may be knocked off. Don't follow their bad example then, but hold your mouth wide open, and your tongue well out; then the priest can lay the Communion [God] on it without fear, and without danger of accident. When it [God] is laid on your tongue, withdraw your tongue immediately, and then close your mouth, being careful not to do so till the tongue is inside; then swallow it [God] as soon as possible. It [God] must not be allowed to melt in the mouth; if it [God] does, you do not receive the Sacrament [God] at all. If, however it [God] should adhere to the roof of the mouth, so that it [God] cannot immediately be swallowed, do not be disturbed, but loosen it [God] with your tongue; you will pretty certainly be able to do this before it [God] is all dissolved. Do not on any account, touch it [God] with your fingers. And take care not to CHEW it [God], or even touch it [God] with your teeth. Having swallowed it [God] you have now receive; and now is the time, more than any other, for fervent prayer, when the Real Presence of our Lord is with you.This Real Presence only remains while the Blessed Sacrament [God] still continues undestroyed, which will only be for a few minutes at most, for it [God] will usually be acted on more quickly by the stomach than by the mouth; but even after it [God] has passed away, prayer and thanksgiving for what has been received should be continued for some time...if possible, for as much as a quarter of an hour."

If Mr. Sungenis interprets the "eat" (trogo in the Greek, meaning to "gnaw, chew, nibble or munch" ) of John 6:54,56,57,58 literally, he would in fact be contradicting the Catholic Church's command to not "chew" (trogo). But if we were to "spiritually" interpret the word "eat", we would rather meditate and think about what Jesus did for us at Calvary. Gnaw on that for awhile!

CAI Rebuttal #1:

For the record, when FCFC typed my opening statement that appeared in January's issue, they made many errors in transcribing. There were four places in which they left out whole sentences or parts of them. I have asked FCFC to print the corrections on a separate page of the February newsletter. Unfortunately, the errors in transcribing were all made at crucial points. I suggest that everyone reread my opening statement with the corrections to get an accurate understanding of what I said. My thanks to FCFC for adding the corrections.

The FCFC staff opened their last rebuttal by saying they were disappointed in my answers because I,"never really answered anything! We posed ten questions..." First, let me say that my first installment was an opening statement, not a rebuttal. Second, this is a common Protestant ploy in debate. They throw a shotgun blast of questions and expect the opponent to answer all of them in the limited time and space allotted. If they don't answer all of them, then they complain we're evading the issue. Third, in the limited space available I tried to give a general answer to the queries posed by FCFC. If they want more detailed answers I suggest they limit the number of questions or expand the debate to more than two pages. I cannot get in all the material I want to say and also answer all of the specific questions they pose. Nevertheless, I have given brief answers to all ten questions at the end of this rebuttal.

Now for my rebuttal. Despite the protestations of FCFC, I maintain that the specific rules regarding the Passover in the Old Testament are not literally applicable in the New Testament. Jesus was not a literal lamb, therefore, we shouldn't expect him to come under practices designated for a real lamb. Granted, there is much spiritual typology between the OT Passover and the Atonement of Christ. I agree with the instances of this spiritual typology that FCFC pointed out. But the spiritual typology does not mean that there is a one-to-one correspondence of literal application in the specifics of the Passover. If FCFC insists on this type of hermeneutic, then they are required to give a corresponding literal application of every OT ceremonial law in the New Testament. The Scripture simply does not teach this type of interpretation, so, as I said, to force it upon the text makes their question "irrelevant."

FCFC said, "The Catholic church teaches its members that they must worship a piece of bread with the same reverence with which they worship God. This is nothing short of idolatry." Yes, I agree, if it were nothing but a piece of bread it would be idolatry to worship it. However, if FCFC is going to argue the point then at least they should use our understanding of the matter, not their's. In Catholic theology, after consecration, it is not a piece of bread any longer, therefore, we don't teach people to "worship a piece of bread." FCFC said in regard to the sacrifice of the Mass, "...although the book of Hebrews totally discredits such a doctrine!" This is another piece of Protestant fiction. Hebrews sets aside the OT Levitical sacrifices, not the memorial sacrifice of Christ instituted at the Last Supper. Hebrews does this because the Levitical sacrifices were part of the Law (cf, Hebrews 7: 11,18,28); the memorial sacrifice of Christ does not come under Law but comes under the promise or oath of God, as Heb. 7:20-21 explains, therefore it can be continued. It is the same distinction between Law and Promise that the New Testament often speaks of (cf, Rom. 4: 13-17; Gal. 3:15-22). Since Christ is a priest forever, his priestly office continues, as Heb. 7:25 says, "because he lives always to intercede for them." Christ's first intercession took place on the cross. His continuing intercession takes place as he offers himself as a memorial sacrifice to the Father through his eternal priesthood. The Catholic Church does not teach that it is a new sacrifice, rather, it is the same sacrifice, in an unbloody manner, to the Father on behalf of our sins. Christ went to Calvary "once for all" and thus will not come back to die on a cross ever again, but the re- presentation of this sacrifice is offered to the Father through Christ's eternal priesthood.

In support of this perpetual sacrifice, the word translated "memorial" or "remembrance" used at the Last Supper (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor.11:24-25) is the Greek word "anamnesis." It is also used in the Septuagint in connection with sacrifice (Lev.24:7). "Anamnesis" translates the Hebrew word "azkarah," which is used seven times in the OT in reference to sacrifice (Lev.2:2,9,16; 5:12; 6:15; Num. 5:26). It is also significant that "anamnesis" is only used four times in the NT, the fourth time appearing in Hebrews 10:3 also in reference to a memorial sacrifice. Hence, Jesus' use of "anamnesis" in Luke 22:19 specifies the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist. In effect, Jesus would be saying, "Whenever you do this, do it as a memorial sacrifice of me." The use of "anamnesis" in Luke 22:19 is even more significant in denoting sacrifice since there was another Greek word Luke could have used for a non-sacrificial memorial ("mnemosunon," cf., Mt.26: 13; Mk.14:9; Acts 10:4).

Now, the most revealing bias of the perspective of FCFC on this issue, and most other Protestants I might add, is their denigration of the church fathers on Baptism and the Eucharist. They said: "Mr. Sungenis's reference to the "early church fathers" on both the Eucharist and Baptism is highly suspect! Evidently the forgeries have been an influence." Really listen close to what they are saying. In one fell swoop, they want you to believe that all the writings of the Church fathers on Baptism and the Eucharist are "forgeries" ! It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which anti-Catholics will go. I would challenge FCFC to show me one reputable Protestant scholar that agrees with them that the writings of the Church fathers on Baptism and the Eucharist were forgeries. We're not talking about the Donation of Constantine here, madams. We're talking about Baptism and the Eucharist. Show me one shred of credible evidence that these writings are forgeries and I will become a Protestant again.

FCFC continues: "As for the "church fathers" knowing more of Christ than we do, is of course nonsense. For there is no respecter of persons with God." It is always interesting to see Protestants squirm when the subject of the church fathers is brought up. Since they can't find any church father that agrees with their view of Baptism and the Eucharist, their only recourse is to dismiss the four centuries of writings in this period. We're to believe that the fathers were just a bunch of misguided airheads who didn't know what they were talking about. FCFC said: "The promise of the Holy Spirit is to all believers." Well, then, didn't the church fathers have the same Spirit of God that you claim to have? Hence, why should the leading of the Spirit be any better for you than it was for four centuries of men who directly followed the apostles?! Doesn't it seem more likely that the closer one is in time to the apostles' teaching, the more likely they will have the truth of the apostles? Are we to believe, as you imply, that all the church fathers got together and conspired to conceal the truth and invent new doctrines? How can this be in light of the fact that these were the same men who for the slightest deviation in doctrine did not hesitate to call someone a heretic, (e.g., the Trinitarian and Incarnation doctrines)? And you want us to believe that these same fathers weren't as equally thorough with Baptism and the Eucharist? Come on, ladies, that is totally absurd. What you end up doing as a Protestant is claiming that the church fathers were brilliant and faithful men on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, but the most despicable heretics on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Common sense tells us this can't be the case.

FCFC writes: "Quit leaning on the church fathers and lean on Jesus...those who are busy quoting the church fathers do not have confidence in their own relationship with the Lord, so instead of studying about God's word, they study about men who study about God..." I'm sorry ladies, but no one has to live in the "either/or" world that you live in. We are content to lean on both because they both teach the same thing. Paul commands Timothy, "Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you...And the things you have heard me say...entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others" (2 Tim. 1:14, 2:2). Those "reliable men" were in Timothy's generation, and the generation after them -- the early church fathers. The gospel truths were passed down to them at Paul's command (cf. 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Tim. 3:15). Studying the church fathers gives you more confidence in your relationship with the Lord because you now have the interpretation of Scripture that was passed down from the apostles instead of the hodgepodge of opinions you find in Protestantism with its thousands of denominations all disagreeing on how to interpret Scripture. And as far as going to God's word to prove the Catholic side, most of my argumentation thus far has been from God's word.

FCFC says: "...the Roman Catholic Church (by their own admission) has changed what the early church fathers have said..." I challenge FCFC to show us one statement in official Catholic Church teaching saying that they have "changed...by their own admission," the teaching of the early church fathers. If not, I expect a retraction of this allegation in the next installment. FCFC says regarding 1 Cor 1:27: "There is no way these verses have anything whatsoever to do with transubstantiation! Paul was referring to the foolishness of preaching." I never said it was talking about transubstantiation. I said it was referring to the principle in which God uses ordinary, mundane things to reveal his truth. That principle is applied to many things God does.

I find it interesting how FCFC totally side-steps the fact that the apostle John changes from using "phago" to "trogo" in John 6:53-56 (the specific word for "chewing" food) by citing some book written by a priest that tells us not to chew the Eucharist. This is typical of the kind of argumentation in which FCFC constantly engages in their newsletter. There are many priests that write many things, some good, some not so good. The point in fact is that nowhere in official Catholic Church teaching are we told not to chew the Eucharist. Rev. George Searle does not speak for official Catholic Church teaching in this regard. For future reference, I suggest that you cite official Church teaching before you say, as you did, "he would in fact be contradicting the Catholic Church's command to not 'chew' (trogo)."

As for John 6:63, in the latter part of the verse, Jesus says that the words he just spoke to them, i.e., eating his flesh and drinking his blood, are "spirit" and "life." He had just mentioned "life" in verse 53 in which he warned that unless one "eats the flesh of the Son of Man...you have no life in you." Also, verse 57 says, "the one who feeds on me will live." By the use of the words "life" or "live," verses 53, 57 and 63 are all talking about the same "life." What gives the eating of the flesh the power of life? Jesus answers that in the first part of John 6:63 when he says, "the Spirit gives life." It is not just ordinary bread we are eating. It is bread which is given life by the Spirit. As Jesus says in verse 55, "my flesh is real food." It's real because it has real life-giving power by the Spirit. If it were not animated by the Spirit, then, as Jesus says in John 8:63, the "flesh [would] profit nothing." This fits in perfectly with the objection of the Jews. They thought Jesus was saying that merely eating his natural flesh would give eternal life. Jesus says, no, it is my flesh - - flesh that has the Spirit -- which will giive you life, not natural flesh.

As for the questions FCFC posed at the beginning of their rebuttal, here is the answer key: 1) No, 2) No, 3) No, 4) already answered in my last letter, 5) because he is talking about his Second Coming, not his Sacramental coming. 6) No, 7) Yes, 8) a steak dinner is not the miracle of the Eucharist, just like apples aren't oranges, 9) You tell me. What happens after two (man and woman) become one-flesh? 10) He left, but as Arnold Schwartzenegger says, "I'll be back."

1 2 3 4 5 6 7