1 2 3 4 5 6 7

FCFC Rebuttal #2:

First of all there is no reason for you to feel limited in time or space for we are willing to continue the debate till both sides have adequately presented their case, or till the Lord comes back and settles it! Feel free to use your entire two pages to expound on one verse if you choose. We will not deny you the opportunity to say all that you would choose to say. We feel we have amply proved that there is a "one-to-one correspondence of literal applications in the specifics of the Passover", and we only briefly made our point.

There is more we have yet to share with our readers, but will in future issues. The OT Passover lamb was but a shadow of the TRUE LAMB, JESUS CHRIST! (Jn.1:29,36, Rev.5:12) If we use this kind of "hermeneutic" concerning the Passover, it would not require us to use the same "literal application of every OT ceremonial law" simply because the Passover falls under the category of Feast days. We would only be required to prove a "one-to-one correspondence" with every other feast day of the Lord, and that we are prepared to do. Please remember Mr. Sungenis that the Feasts of the Lord (there are seven) and their appointments originated with the Lord, not with the children of Israel. It was God's desire to meet His people on His terms and on His grounds of approach. They are His Feasts. The Lord is the Host and we are His guests, invited to feast with Him (Rev.3:20). We cannot make up our own rules or alter His (which the Catholic Church wrongfully did when she altered the last supper). The Catholic eats a live sacrifice with the blood still in it, a practice forbidden by God in the OT - Lev.17:11-14! The Lord gave the bread first, then the wine, two separate elements signifying the blood being shed for our sins. The Catholic church has altered the Passover by combining the bread and wine into one element. This fact did not go unnoticed by her own popes. Pope Gelasius I (492-496), in a letter addressed to some bishops said:

"We have ascertained that certain persons having received a portion of the sacred body alone abstain from partaking of the chalice of the sacred blood. Let such persons...either receive the sacrament in its entirety, or be repelled from the entire sacrament, because a division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege." (Roman Catholicism, Boettner, 188)

The decree of pope Urban II, in 1095, and pope Paschal II in 1118, also condemned the practice of giving the bread only in the sacrament. Your early church fathers (at least three popes) disagree with the teachings of today's church! Nonetheless, the Catholic church can not honestly say that the last supper she practices is identical with the biblical account of the last supper, and therefore is a counterfeit.

You feel we side-stepped the issue of "chewing" the Eucharist. Let's reason this out just a bit. There are different meanings for the word "chew":

1. To crush or grind with the teeth; masticate, to injure.
2. To meditate upon; consider carefully.
3. To reprimand severely; berate. (a slang - to chew out)
4. To "chew the fat" (a slang - to talk)
5. That which is chewed, quid.

I think we can rule out 3, 4 and 5 without dispute, leaving us 1 and 2. So which one did Jesus refer to when He said that we were to chew Him? We believe the interpretation of "crush or grind with the teeth...to injure" (the literal eating of Jesus-a kind of mystical death in your mouth) would violate the intelligence. We here at FCFC believe the Lord Jesus wanted us to 2). carefully consider, meditate on what he did for us at the cross. We believe that other scriptures bear witness to this interpretation (Job 6:30; 12:11; 23:12; 34:3; Psa.34:8; 119:103; Prov.16:24; Mt.5:6; Heb.5:13-14; I Pet.2:2). There is not one scripture, as Mr. Sungenis admitted, commanding us to eat a live sacrifice with the blood still in it- the same blood that Mr. Sungenis said did not re-enter into Jesus after it was poured out on the earth (pg.6, last paragraph, question no.6), but according to The Sacramental Life of the Church , Rev. B.J. Otten, S. J., 77, "...the same blood that trickled down from the cross on Calvary, is there [in the Eucharist] pulsating with life and energy". So the blood must have re-entered into Jesus if it is the same blood that poured out at the cross and is present in the flesh of the Eucharist. Which one of you is speaking for the Catholic church? After all, Otten has an "imprimatur" and a "nihil obstat" to back him up, what do you have? And may I add that Rev. George Searle (a Catholic priest) who wrote How To Become A Catholic also has the "imprimatur and nihil obstat" (a certification that the given work has been inspected and there is nothing contrary to faith or good morals), so when he gave instructions on the eating of the Eucharist, he had the approval of the archbishop. Deharbe’s Catechism, No.1, 273 agrees with Searle:

"Do not keep the Sacred Host [God] in your mouth until it is quite dissolved; but let it moisten a little upon your tongue, and then swallow it."

By the way, perhaps you had better talk to some older Catholics, because when I left the church (14 years ago), we were not permitted to "chew" the Eucharist. We were not to let it touch our teeth, as a matter of fact we still were not permitted to touch the Eucharist with our hands (but of course that changed, along with the forbidding to eat anything after midnight). It was a teaching of pope Pius X, the so-called "Pope of the Holy Eucharist":

"He [Communicant] must be fasting, at least from midnight; for so the Church commands, agreeable to a most ancient and apostolical tradition [I Cor.11 says differently]. So that if through inadvertence a person has taken anything, though it were no more than one drop or crumb, after twelve o’clock at night, he must by no means receive (Communion) that day; it would be a crime to attempt it" (The Catholic Christian Instructed in The Sacraments, Sacrifice, Ceremonies, etc.; Most Rev. Dr. Challoner, 100).

But now you can eat the Eucharist one hour after eating a complete meal (alas, the infallible Catholic church that never changes). It is the belief that every particle of the host, no matter how small, contains the "whole and entire Christ":

"...for Christ, whole and entire, exists under the species of bread, and under each particle of that species" (Council of Trent, Sess.xiii, cap.3).

Therefore if you chewed Jesus, you would divide the bread in your mouth into several pieces, each one containing the "whole and entire Christ". Mr. Sungenis, if you have been chewing ("trogo") Jesus, you have violated your own church’s decrees.

I can understand how my soul would grow if I were to "meditate or consider carefully" (chew) what Jesus did for me. As I consider (chew) the scriptures such as Isa.53 and Psa.22, and consider (chew) how Jesus prophesied of his suffering and death and the glory that should follow (I Pet.1:11), and how he paid such a price for my sins so that I could have eternal life in Him, my soul is strengthened, but I fail to see how eating something literally (especially in light of the fact that Jesus leaves you 15 minutes later unassimilated and unconsumed, whole and entire - as admitted by Mr. Sungenis on page 6, last paragraph, no.10) could possibly nourish or strengthen one's soul! We know from history that the Titans (pagans) would eat the raw flesh of a bull in a mystic sacrament of communion absorbing the divine essence anew. Is this what you believe Mr. Sungenis? Do you think if you eat Jesus literally you will absorb His divine essence? As former Catholics we ate the Eucharist for many years and can from experience say that after eating it, we were none the smarter or stronger spiritually! We would like for you to explain to our readers how one is nourished, according to the Catholic church, by literally eating Jesus. And please do not side-step this issue as irrelevant. It was so relevant that:

"St. Innocent I and St. Gelasius I [Elected Popes in 402 and 492 A.D.], had both declared as soon as infants were baptized the sacrament (of Communion) was necessary to secure them eternal life" (The Inquisition, Henry C. Lea, Vol.2, 474)

It was so important, that newborn babies were given communion in the form of wine. Why isn’t this a practice today? Did the popes err when they said it was "necessary to secure them eternal life"? One more point, were the babies spiritually nourished? Did the baby have to fast? Did the baby discern the body and blood of Jesus as commanded in I Cor.11? So many questions, so few answers!

Hebrews totally discredits the mass! It is a simple matter of do/done. If Jesus said, "It is finished" (Jn.19:30) then it is done. If He is still doing it, then it is not done, and He would have lied to us when he said it was done. You can't logically have it both ways. For Mr. Sungenis to say that it is continued in the mass is not scriptural, and definitely cannot be found in Hebrews. (Mr. Sungenis tends to add words to the Bible that are not there Many of the scriptures he cites do not support his case. We do hope our readers will check out all biblical references given by both sides, and it would be wise to compare the KJV with whatever other version you may be using, since there are differences.) Why would one need the "offering of the mass" when Heb.10:18 says, "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." And I believe that the word "anamnesis" does not change a thing, since it is a remembrance of a sacrifice, therefore irrelevant to the argument. The other scriptures you alluded to were not sacrificial acts.

We never said "all the writings of the church fathers are forgeries". That is a false accusation. However, a careful look into history and Catholic sources will prove that many (not all) were forgeries or tampered with. Gratian's Decretum contains 324 passages from popes of the first four centuries, and only 11 of them are genuine. You asked for "one shred of credible evidence that their writings are forgeries and I will become a Protestant again". We hope you will accept The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia Press, 1913, XII, 768:

"There was need of revisions which is not yet complete, ranging over all that had been handed down from the Middle Ages under the style and titles of the Fathers, the Councils, the Roman and other official archives. In all these departments forgery and interpolations, as well as ignorance had wrought mischief on a great scale."

You can change your name from Protestant to Catholic to Protestant again and it will not matter. Unless you have a circumcision of the heart (which no priest can do) and accept the finished work of Jesus Christ for the payment for your sins, you will perish.

Concerning whether or not the "church fathers have the same Spirit of God that we have", not all of them. The Bible warns us:

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:29)

When answering our questions in your last paragraph, you said that the Catholic Eucharist perishes (no.7). But John 6:27 says, "Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life..." Since the Catholic Eucharist perishes, it can not possibly be the bread spoken of in John which does not perish. The word for "endureth" is "meno" which means "to stay: abide, continue, dwell, endure, remain" (according to the Strong's Concordance - #3306) Therefore when you say that Jesus leaves you but says "I'll be back", you would be contradicting the promise of Jesus to never leave us, and that He would make His home in us. We believe the closer one looks at the Catholic Eucharist the more obvious it is that this could not be the true bread, but only a gross imitation. We appreciate your honesty Mr. Sungenis in admitting that if the Eucharist is not God, but only a piece of bread it would be idolatry to worship it. That is our point exactly!

CAI Rebuttal #2:

My first comments regard the contention of FCFC that Catholics eat literal blood in the Mass that, they claim, was forbidden in Leviticus 17: 11-14. FCFC further claims that because the Passover falls under the category of "feast days" therefore they are not required to show a "literal application of every OT law" in order to substantiate their use of the Levitical law to deny the validity of the Eucharist. Rather, they assert that they only have to give a "one-to-one correspondence with every other feast day of the Lord. " Ok let's deal with it in your parameters. The Jews were commanded to visit Jerusalem on the feasts of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. Did you visit Jerusalem three times in 1995? I’m sure you didn't. Suffice it to say, there are no such literal applications of OT law anywhere in the NT. Hence, for you to force the Levitical law of not eating blood on the NT is totally without warrant. The literal application of OT religious laws, whether they be of circumcision, diet, or festal, were discontinued in the NT as Paul states clearly in Col. 2: 16.

The issue of eating blood, along with eating things that were strangled and meats offered to idols (all of which the OT forbade), were brought up for discussion at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. In a pastoral decision, the council sent a letter to the churches asking the Gentiles to refrain from these things (Acts 15:28-29). The council made this decision not on the basis that they were required to obey OT religious laws literally but because they were trying to make the transition away from Judaism to Christianity more palatable for the Jews who had now become Christians. Temporarily observing such dietary customs would make relations between the Jews and Gentiles much better. Later on, however, Paul relaxed this requirement and allowed the eating of meat offered to idols, as long as it didn't harm a brother's conscience (cf., Roman 14: 14- 18; 1 Cor. 8: 1-13). Paul reinforced this teaching about foods in 1 Timothy 4:3 saying that all foods were edible if received with thanksgiving. In other words, Paul gave them freedom to eat any kind of meat, whether it was offered to idols, strangled, or had blood -- practices that were strictly forbidden in the OT. Hence, the literal law of "not eating blood" was no longer applicable in the NT although it could be practiced to accommodate a brother's conscience. Your attempt, then, to make a "one-to-one correspondence" between Leviticus 17: 11-14 and the Eucharist is not valid, unless, of course, you want to become a Seventh Day Adventist.

Now we come to the part of FCFC's rebuttal that is really incredible. Remarking on the point I made that John 6:54 , 56,57,58 changes the Greek word for eating from "phago" (used in John 6:23-58) to "trogo" (the specific Greek word for "chewing, masticating, munching,'' etc.), FCFC appeals to one of the metaphorical definitions of "chew" in the American dictionary, that is, "to carefully consider." FCFC then reasons that the Greek word "trogo" must then refer to the fact that Jesus wants us to "carefully consider" what he did on the cross. This just proves to me once again the extreme danger of "private interpretation" of Scripture. Be that as it may, the Greek lexical definition of "trogo" does not in any way, shape or form, carry the idea of "carefully consider. " If you have a Greek lexicon I suggest you look it up. Further, the same Greek word is used in Matthew 24:38 ("they were eating [trogo] and drinking") and John 13:18 ("he that eats [trogo] bread with me has lifted up his heel against me"). Besides John 6:54-58, these are the only other times the word "trogo" is used in the NT. It is never used in a metaphorical context. Carefully considering these verses (pun unintended), are you also going to tell us that in Matthew 24:38 Jesus was saying that the people of Noah's day were "carefully considering and drinking until the day that the flood came"? Are you going to tell us that in John 13:18 Jesus was saying that Judas was "carefully considering" at the Last Supper and lifted up his heel. If you are not prepared to do so, then please don't force this meaning onto John 6:54-58 when it uses "trogo." In addition, the FCFC interpretation would make no sense in light of the fact that the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking of actually eating him as noted in their remark, "How can he give us his flesh to eat?" before he even used the word "trogo." Once Jesus uses "trogo" they reiterate their complaint saying, "This is a hard saying, who can accept it?" They knew what "trogo" meant, how come you don't? By the way, the verses you cited to prove your case have nothing to do with the meaning of "trogo." Those verses do not use the word "trogo." Further, they are in different contexts than that used in John 6:54-58. I have already agreed that the word for "eating" (Greek: "phago") can have a spiritual application. What you are missing is the fact that "trogo" does not have that connotation, neither lexically nor biblically.

Regarding the "chewing" of the Eucharist that you say we were taught not to do, or the fact that we had to fast three hours before receiving the Eucharist, I am not denying that these were church practices. What I am denying, however, is that this was Church dogma. Practices and disciplines can change. We don't have to eat fish on Friday anymore, either. That was not a dogma, it was a disciplinary practice -- a practice that can be modified as the Church sees fit, even as the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and Paul modified OT mandates. By the way, an "imprimatur" or "nihil obstat" does not mean that everything contained in the book is infallible or that it is official church dogma. All it means is that it has the approval of a bishop.

FCFC writes: "We would like you to explain to our readers how one is nourished, according to the Catholic Church, by literally eating Jesus." I’Il be glad to. In order to understand what the Eucharist does for us, we must understand the Catholic concept of grace. Catholic theology holds that grace is not only a state of relationship with God (i.e., "the state of grace") but it is also "ontic" grace, that is, the power of grace that actually resides in us. The NT speaks of grace in both ways, the latter meaning being used in Rom 12:6; 15: 10; 1 Cor. 15:10; 2 Cor. 1:12; 9:8; 12:9; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 4:7; Heb. 4: 16; 12: 15; 13:9; 1 Pt. 4: 10; 2 Pt. 1:2, et al. From such passages, Catholic theology teaches that grace is "infused" into the person -- "infusion" being the process whereby one substance comes into another and thereby changes the latter, e.g., pouring a white liquid into a black liquid till the latter changes to a light color. In colloquial language we can say that God's grace, "restructures" or "renovates" our sin nature to be conformed to God's nature. God gives us these graces as we participate in the means he chooses to provide them, the seven sacraments being the chief means of obtaining these graces. The more we participate in the vehicles of grace, the more God fills us with the power of his Spirit. If we receive them in faith and obedience, this power allows us to lead stronger Christian lives and become holy in God's sight.

I also alluded to the fact in my last installment that since Christ's relationship to the church as compared to a husband and wife becoming "one flesh" (Eph. 5:31-32), taking in the Eucharist is the closest thing we have to becoming "one flesh" with Christ on this earth. His body comes into our body. As husband and wife enhance their relationship by such means, so Christ does with his Church.

FCFC says: "Hebrews totally discredits the mass!...If Jesus says, "It is finished" (John 9:30) then it is done." First, I find it puzzling how you can say that "Hebrews" discredits the Mass and then proceed to quote from "John. " Hebrews is not John. Further, if you analyze John 19:30 the Greek grammar will tell you that we cannot know specifically what the "it" of "it is finished" refers to. The verb "finished" has no subject in the Greek and that is why all translations render it as "IT." The only information the context of John 19 gives us is the reference to the fulfillment of Scripture in verse 28. Moreover, the same Greek word "teleioo" of John 19:30 is also used in the past tense in John 17:4 and is translated as "finished" or "completed." Jesus is here speaking of the work he had done for the Father saying that he had "completed" it. Yet we know Jesus had not gone to the cross as yet. Thus, the word is used in a relative sense. Hence, to say that its usage in John 19:30 discredits the Mass is not only grammatically unallowable, but it is an anachronism that is forced on the text which says nothing about the Mass, nor excludes the Mass.

FCFC says, "Why would one need the "offering of the mass" when Heb 10:18 says, "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin"? Look at the context. The point of discussion in Hebrews is NOT the one sacrifice of Christ over against a re-presentation of that same sacrifice. The contrast is stated in Hebrews 10:11 as: "Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices which can never take away sins. " The contrast is between the OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICE over against the New Testament sacrifice, the former not being able to take away sin. The contrast is not between the sacrifice of Christ and the ongoing ministry of his priestly office in the Mass. If we impose you interpretation on the text then we might as well not ask God to forgive our sins any longer (1John 1:8-10) because, as you say, Hebrews 11:18 says, "these sins have been forgiven" once and for all. If that were the case Paul wouldn't have warned the Galatians and other churches that they would "lose their inheritance in the Kingdom of God" if they continued in sin (cf, Gal. 5:21; 1 Cor. 6:9; 15:2; Eph. 5:5; Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-29, et al.).

FCFC said, "And I believe the word "anamnesis" does not change a thing, since it is a remembrance of a sacrifice." That's odd. John could have used a word that calls to mind a non-sacrificial event, (the Greek word "mnemosunon"), instead he uses the precise word that calls to mind a sacrificial event. In the Septuagint we find "anamnesis" used in Lev. 2:2: "And the priest shall offer it up in smoke as its memorial portion (anamnesis) on the altar, an offering by fire of soothing aroma to the Lord." This verse is equating the word "memorial portion" with the actual sacrifice taking place. The burnt sacrifice WAS the memorial; the memorial was not merely the remembrance of a past sacrifice. What is even more significant in the typology is that the sacrifice was a "portion" of the whole grain offering that, in turn, served as the whole of the grain offering. Analogously, the host offered as the Eucharist, though only a "portion," serves as and contains the whole body, soul, and divinity of Christ.

FCFC said that they "never said all the Writings of the church fathers are forgeries." I never said you did either. What I said was that you said that the writings of the Church fathers on Baptism and the Eucharist were forgeries. The general quote you gave from the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding some forgeries doesn't address those specific doctrines. I am aware of some forgeries in other areas. But let me say again, ladies, there are no forgeries of the writings of the Church fathers on Baptism and the Eucharist. The challenge remains for you to find us the scholars who claim they were forgeries.

FCFC says: "Concerning whether or not the "church fathers have the same Spirit of God that we have", not all of them. The Bible warns us..." Your logic escapes me, ladies. You say, "not all of them" had the Spirit. I’ll grant you that for the sake of argument. But the point you are missing is that ALL the church fathers believed in Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence, NOT just the ones that you claim didn't have the Spirit of God! You either take all of them or none of them, but don't try to weasel out of this by claiming that only some had the Spirit. The point remains that either all the church fathers are wrong and you are right, or vice-versa.

FCFC says "We appreciate your honesty Mr. Sungenis in admitting that if the Eucharist is not God, but only a piece of bread it would be idolatry to worship it. That is exactly our point." Yes, that may be YOUR point, but MY point is that 2000 years of Church history has stated it is not a piece of bread any longer, therefore we don't worship a piece of bread. If you are going to argue against us, use the beliefs we use, not those you conjure up.

By the way, I read your piece on the papacy and infallibility in the last issue. I suggest we make that our next topic of debate. Let me know when you're ready. Thank you.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7