1 2 3 4 5 6 7

FCFC Rebuttal #4:

Mr. Sungenis seems to feel we haven't adequately responded to his "challenge" of finding scholars who claim the writings of "church fathers" on the Eucharist, and baptism were forgeries. The original statement was "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." (Vol.2, Jan. 96, issue 4) Saying the forgeries were an influence is not the same as saying everything these men wrote on the subjects was a forgery! Please don't misrepresent our statements. Your own Catholic Encyc. says on page 672 of Volume IV "The Decretals [a proven forgery] of Gregory IX still form the basis of Canon Law..." We feel the Law of the Church cannot help but to be tainted with these ancient forgeries. You also disagreed with, "...the Roman Catholic Church (by their own admission) has changed what the early church fathers have said...." The church's history bears out the fact that what was believed and taught early on, is not the same as today. Many dismiss this as being unimportant, contrasting doctrines with "disciplines." We feel any "discipline" that carries with it the intimation of loss of salvation upon non- conformity should be, at the least consistent with Biblical doctrine and ideally as unchanging as the Word itself. We do not find this to be the case. In fact:

"...history shows only too plainly that the Church, in their sense of the term, has varied in its doctrine, taught dogmas at various times and at various places at the same time, inconsistent with each other, and therefore to a considerable extent erroneous"(Plain Facts, 34).

Does the church not have to live by its own claim of "...if it be not identical in belief in, in government, etc., with the primitive Church, then it is not the Church of Christ" [?] (Catholic Facts, 27). Here are just a few examples of the changes this never-changing institution has made:

"Communion under both kinds [bread and wine] was the prevailing usage in Apostolic Times" (Cath. Encyc., IV, 176). "In the fifth century Pope Gelasius commanded the laity to receive under both kinds" (Question Box, 446, 1913 edition)"...Gelasius emphatically condemned persons who abstained from the chalice" (Cath. Dict.., 202). "Communion 'under both kinds' entirely and formally abolished in 1416 by the Council of Constance" (Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, Chevalier Artaud de Montier, I, 111).

"Actually, it was not until the twelth century that the word "sacrament' was defined with sufficient precision to disengage the seven rites, and only seven, from the numerous ceremonies that had been celebrated in the Church for centuries, and to apply to just seven sacraments of the New Law...This will explain, perhaps, why there is no mention of the sacraments in the early creeds of Christendom" (The Sources of Christian Theology, I, Palmer, 72).

Another sacrament that has altered its methodology is baptism.

"Baptism took place by immersion in ancient times" (New Interpretation of the Mass, 120). "...even St. Thomas, in the thirteenth century, speaks of baptism by immersion as the common practice of his time" (Catholic Dict., Addis and Arnold).

Today "sprinkling" seems to be the favored method, regardless of the fact it was not practiced by the apostles, nor set forth by the Word of God. this is also the case for infant baptism. The Catholic Dictionary tells us "It is difficult to give strict proof from Scripture in favor of it." (p.61) In the Short History of the Catholic Church on page 31 we read "Previously to the third century, infants were not baptized except in case of necessity."

"When in the fourth and fifth centuries the doctrine of original sin and consequently of the necessity of baptism for all became better known, the practice of infant baptism progressed rapidly" (Legislation on the New Code of Canon Law, 72).

We praise Jesus, He doesn’t leave us hanging while doctrines "progress" or "develop". The "Church Fathers" didn't even agree among themselves:

" 'St.' Anselm opposed 'St.' Augustine concerning 'Limbo' (the little baby hell) (Cath. Encyc., IX, 257), 'St' Jerome and 'St.' Athanasius opposed 'St.' Liberius (Cath. Encyc., IX, 220,222). Catholic writers claim that they have had only four 'doctors.' 'St.' Augustine and 'St.' Thomas were two of them, and they taught opposing doctrines concerning 'original sin,' and neither one talked the language of the Bible! so 'St.' Bellarmine, their greatest controversialist, found the situation embarrassing" (Cath. Encyc., IX, 257, 258; VI, 712).

Bellarmine also found himself a victim of the changing attitudes within the church:

"A great fight was being waged for and against the Jesuits. Sixtus V excommunicated Robert Bellarmine, a high-ranking Jesuit, but after about two years Bellarmine became the right hand of Pope Clement VIII. A 'heretic' in two years became the main support of the Pope, who was at that time a Jesuit. Nearly four hundred years later Robert Bellarmine was enrolled among the Catholic saints!...Sixtus not only excommunicated Robert Bellarmine, but placed his books on the Index of Forbidden Books" (Catholicism Against Itself, Lambert, 169).

Papal infallibility was opposed on a large scale as we see from the following quote:

"The church historian, Philip Schaff, says there was strong opposition to the call for the council, [which ratified the infallibility decree] and that delegates representing 80 million Roman Catholics were opposed to it. A preliminary vote in secret session gave the delegates a limited opportunity to express themselves. Eighty-eight delegates voted against it, 65 voted for it with reservations, and over 80 abstained. But the papal party was in firm control and easily carried the final voting. To take sides against the strong-willed pope and against the Jesuits a minority had to be particularly courageous to express itself at all. It was a foregone conclusion that the decree would be passed. Opposition clearly was futile, and could mean reprisals affecting the delegates' present positions or injury to any chances for future promotion. Before the final vote was taken 410 bishops petitioned in favor of the dogma, and 162 against it" (Roman Catholicism, Boettner, 244).

Bishop Purcell was quoted as saying:

"No enlightened Catholic holds the Pope's infallibility to be an article of faith, I do not; and none of my brethren that I know of, do" (Campbell-Purcell Debate, 26, 27).

Mr. Sungenis says "2000 years of Church history has stated it [the eucharist] 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." First, the eucharist doesn't have 2000 years of history behind it. On page six of Volume X of the Catholic Encyclopedia we find "The word Mass (missa) first established itself as the general designation of the Eucharist Sacrifice in the West after the time of Gregory the Great (died 604), the early church having used 'breaking of bread.' " The "breaking of bread" has its origin in the Bible, the mass does not. Why this deviation from Apostolic practice and Scripture?

Second, when arguing against you, sir, we will use the beliefs we find laid out in Scripture. We'll leave it to the sorcerers to "conjure." It has been said:

"If only one instance could be given in which the church ceased to teach a doctrine of faith which had been previously held, that single instance would be a death blow to her claim of infallibility" (Faith of Our Fathers, Gibbons, 61).

We maintain that "death blow" has been dealt.

Your accusation that FCFC would "make a good Gnostic" is ironic, especially in light of the fact that the mandate to rule the nations in the name of Christ was the outgrowth of Gnostic influences in the early Church. The theosophical philosophies that illuminated the Roman Church gave rise to the belief that since Christ had failed to return for three centuries, and heathenism threatened the Roman Empire which was perceived as "Christian" , it must be up to the church of Rome to do something about the evil in the world. But the problem was that the true faith had been corrupted by pagan philosophy. Virtually all the early "Church Fathers" had been schooled in Greek and Roman philosophy. They believed that man has within himself a "divine spark" which must be awakened in order to bring him to perfection. Plato called this divine spark the "immortal principle". To all our readers, we would warn that this is a New Age doctrine promoted in all New Age writings. (Col.2:8)

Concerning the word "amamnesis" (anamnesis), the Hebrew word used in Lev.2:2 is "azkarah" which means "a reminder: spec. remembrance offering: memorial." It was only used 7 times (Lev.2:2,9,16; 5:12; 6:15; 24:7; Num.5:26). Each reference is concerning a meal offering, not blood. The word "anamnesis" means "recollection: remembrance (again)" . It comes from "anamimnesko" which means "to recollect: - call to mind, remembrance". Mark 11:21 uses this word: "And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him...." This is obviously not a sacrifice.

Concerning the word "trogo", would you have us believe that the infallible church erred when she forbid her subjects to chew (trogo) the Eucharist? One of the root words for "trogo" means "to wound". Are you now saying that you wound Jesus all over again as you chew him?

In your third paragraph you claim to have the physical reality of the Passover. If this were true, then the mass would be identical in pattern to that feast, which it is not. The Catholic eats a live sacrifice, whereas the the true Passover Lamb was slain. "...Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." (I Cor.11:24) "...Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt.26:27-28) The disciples were not eating a live sacrifice at the last supper! Even if you choose to be literal in your interpretation, you would have to eat the body that was broken separate from drinking the blood that was shed, or you violate and vandalize the scriptures.

You also claim that baptism is the physical reality of circumcision. Circumcision in the flesh does not save a man, neither does physical baptism. Circumcision is that of the heart, and baptism is that in the Holy Ghost. If an unbelieving man gets baptized, does the water save him? No, you only have a wet sinner.

I appreciate your admitting that we cannot work for salvation (4th paragraph), although you will find some few million Catholics who disagree with you. Your allegation that we are permitted to eat living things with the blood in them is not only unscriptural, it is cannibalisms.

"And the people flew upon the spoil, and took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground: and the people did eat them with the blood. Then they told Saul, saying, Behold, the people sin against the LORD, in that they eat with the blood." (I Sam.14:32-33)

Your argument concerning "whole and entire" leaves many questions. First you are supposed to chew Jesus, but you really don't chew him since no matter how many pieces you divide Jesus into, each particle contains the "whole and entire" Christ as the council of Trent declared. Then you eat Jesus, but you really can't eat Him since the minute the host is digested, it ceases to be Christ, so the only real nourishment one gets from eating the Eucharist is bread, by their own doctrine. Then Mr. Sungenis tells us that Jesus leaves us "whole and entire", yet the bread has been dissolved, leaving Jesus no body, but only His Spirit, so then how did He leave "whole and entire"? Yet John 6, the very scriptures that Catholics lean on so heavily to prove transubstantiation tells us literally that he will not leave us! "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." The word "dwelleth" means "to remain, endure, last, abide". If your host does not remain, then it is not the same bread that Jesus was talking about. His bread promised eternal life (Jn.6:54), your bread does not.

CAI Closing Statement:

For people who claim to use the Bible to support their beliefs, I found very little of the Bible in your last rebuttal, except for the times you were forced to use it to comment on the meanings of "anamnesis" in Luke 22:19/Lev. 2:2 and "trogo" in John 6:54-58. Even then your comments were totally inane as I will show shortly. Most of what you have done in your last installment, and much of your previous rebuttals, is attack the Catholic Church with material other than from the Bible. Your lack of biblical information, along with your biased and selective use of historical citations from third party sources presents a poor defense for your position. In addition, more than half of your rebuttal has nothing to do with the topic at hand, the Mass and the Eucharist. The "shotgun blast" method of debate is not going to impress me, ladies...By the way, your interpolation: "[a proven forgery]" gives the biased impression that those words appear in the Catholic Encyclopedia. You and I both know that they are not part of the text, thus I wonder who is guilty of misrepresentation. In addition, I think the audience deserves to see the quote you did not cite -- a quote which shows that you are taking things out of context. The full passage reads: "The Decretals of Gregory IX still form the basis of Canon Law, so far as it has not been modified by subsequent collections and by the general laws of the Church." I would also like to comment on G.S. of Alliance, OH's remark that, "It never ceases to amaze me at how much Mr. Sungenis is able to fill your pages of the debate yet unable to say anything that can be backed with the Word of God." Where have you been, G.S, on Mars? I suggest you reread my rebuttals and observe what percentage of the time I spent in Scripture and then compare that to what percentage FCFC spent. You will be "amazed" at how little they have to say from Scripture. Most of their rebuttal is filled with their biased interpretation of Catholic history.

As for your comment, Dr. Jackson, that the word "finished" in John 19:30 means "to discharge a debt" I challenge you to find one biblical and lexical reference that uses your definition. As for your assertion that the word in John 19:30 ("teleo") is a "different" word than in John 17:4 ("teleio"), what you didn't tell the audience, Dr. Jackson, is that they are synonyms and are used in almost exactly the same way in the NT. I find it ironic that you accused me of giving an "incomplete" answer to the meaning of "nihil obstat" and then you turn right around and give a most incomplete and misleading analysis of teleo and teleio. Regarding your question: "what ever happened to Romans 11:5?," I suggest you read the Sixth Session, Chapter 8, of the Catholic Council of Trent (1563), which states, "...none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is a grace, it is not now by reason of works; otherwise (as the Apostle says) grace is no more grace (Rom. 11:5-6)" Denzinger, p. 252). Hopefully, after reading this, you will have enough theological integrity to cease from saying that Catholic theology teaches that we "work for salvation."

Now back to FCFC. You wrote: "Saying the forgeries were an influence is not the same as saying everything these men wrote on the subjects was a forgery! Please don't misrepresent our statements." Ladies, I don't have to misrepresent you. You just did a good job of it yourselves. Let's look again at your original quote from the previous newsletter: "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." Now, are you trying to tell me, ladies, that you were not suggesting that the alleged forgeries are not implying that the early fathers' writings on Baptism and the Eucharist are suspect of error and false teaching?? I wasn't born yesterday. Even taking the statement, "Mr. Sungenis' reference to the early church fathers ....is highly suspect" by itself shows that you consider the fathers flawed and unimportant. This was also proven by your comments denigrating the use of the church fathers to support doctrine in the same newsletter. Now I can see why you don't interpret the Bible correctly -- you can't even interpret your own statements correctly.

Here's another one of your misstatements: "First, the eucharist doesn't have 2000 years of history behind it. On page six of Volume X of the Catholic Encyclopedia we find 'The word Mass (missa) first established itself as the general designation of the Eucharist Sacrifice in the West after the time of Gregory the Great...the early church having used ‘breaking of bread.’" " You continue: "The 'breaking of bread' has its origin in the Bible, the mass does not. Why this deviation from Apostolic practice and Scripture?" You just keep digging your hole deeper. Are you sure you want to go on? Notice that the above quote says that the "WORD" Mass was established after the time of Gregory, NOT the practice or understanding that the bread was the body of Christ. Similarly, the word transubstantiation was first established in the 3rd century at the 4th Lateran Council but this didn't mean that the practice or understanding of the Real Presence was not held prior. Further, I would hate to bore you with quotes from the early Fathers again, but you really should give them a gander. In them you will find that the early church from the first four centuries of fathers, believed both in the Real Presence and the sacrifice it entailed, e.g., Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, Cyril, Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement, Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, et al. If your newsletter would spend just a little time delving into the fathers, which is how we know what the early church really believed, instead of constantly quoting from biased third party sources that are 20 centuries removed from the early church you and your Protestant audience might gain a more accurate understanding of the Church. But of course, you would rather mislead the audience by misconstruing references in the Catholic Encyclopedia rather than quote directly from the fathers. I plead with Good Newsletter readers. Does it make sense to you that the church fathers, who followed right after the apostles (some being in the same century as the apostles) and who were so forthright in giving us many of the doctrines Catholics and Protestants still hold today, could be so devilishly misled that they just invented the Real Presense? I think it has become obvious that the Good Newsletter editors will do anything to stop you from studying the Church fathers -- BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THE INFORMATION SUPPORTING THE REAL PRESENCE IS THERE. If you don't believe me, than take a look at this next outlandish attempt to dismiss the father's writings.

FCFC writes: "Virtually all the early "Church Fathers" had been schooled in Greek and Roman philosophy. They believed that man has within himself a "divine spark" which must be awakened in order to bring him to perfection. Plato called this divine spark the "immortal principle." To all our readers, we would warn that this is a New Age doctrine promoted in all New Age writings. (Col. 2:8)" If anyone out there is guilty of a crime and needs a lawyer to get them off, I suggest you call the editors of FCFC they have a fiendish way of controverting the evidence. Since FCFC didn't follow their normal practice of citing a third party source, I'Il have to conclude that they just dreamed up this little gem on their own. I went to college and learned about Greek and Roman philosophy too, but nobody accused me of believing in Plato’s "divine spark." Come on, ladies, is this the best you can do?? Is this the kind of garbage you have been feeding your Good Newsletter audience before I entered into the fray? As always: you make the assertion -- I'11 demand the proof. I challenge you to find one church father who wrote that he believed and taught as Church doctrine Plato's "divine spark." Any takers? Besides that, you might want to check the Council of Nicea in 325, Serdica in 344, Rome in 384 and Constantinople in 381, for the utter condemnation of the Gnostic heresy, which many of the Church fathers had attended.

As for your analysis of the word "anamnesis" used in Luke 22:19, here is what you wrote: "The word "anamnesis" means, "recollection: remembrance (again)". It comes from "anamimnesko" which means "to recollect: - call to mind, remembrance". Mark 1 1.21 uses this word: "And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him..."...This is obviously not a sacrifice." Would you mind telling us from what Greek reference you got this information? The word "anamnesis" does not, as you say, "come from," the word "anamimnesko." It is a cognate of "anamnesis." Both have a common root, "anamneo," but they are different words used different ways. I have proved and stated previously that "anamnesis" is used EXCLUSIVELY in reference to a memorial sacrifice in the NT (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25; Heb. 10:3). The word "anamimnesko" is used EXCLUSIVELY in reference to "memory" or "remembrance" Mk. 11:21; 14:72; 1 Cor. 4:17; 2 Cor. 7:15; 2 Tim. 1:6, Heb. 10:32). It is never used with sacrifice. The Jews chose the word "anamnesis" when they were performing sacrifices (Lev. 2:2,9,16; 5:12; 6:15; 24:7; Num. 5:26; 10:10), never the word "anamimnesko." They only used "anamimnesko" when referring to a non- sacrificial remembrance (Gen. 8:1; 41:9; Ex. 23:13; 2 Sam. 18:18, et al). In fact, Numbers 10:9-10 shows us the distinction of the two words very vividly. Numbers 10:9 says, "...Then you will be remembered [anamimnesko] by the Lord your God." Numbers 10:10 says, "you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial [anamnesis] for you before the Lord."It is obvious that the latter reference is purposely being changed to "anamnesis" to accomodate the sacrificial language since that is the way the word is exclusively used in the OT. In addition, the use of "anamnesis" in Numbers 10:10 is in reference to a "burnt offering" (which required the shedding of blood and the application of that blood, cf, Levitcus 1:1- 17; 4:1-26) and hence, this discredits your comment that, "each reference is concerning a meal offering not blood." Thus, audience, we see that Catholic theology is vindicated again. Jesus uses a specific word in his Last Supper "anamnesis" in Luke 22:19) that was used EXCLUSIVELY for sacrifices in the Old Testament, including those of blood. Do I have to say more?

Regarding "trogo" in John 6, FCFC says, "Are you now saying that you wound Jesus all over again as you chew him." This is another attempt by FCFC to evade the issue. Rather than deal specifically with the fact that Jesus purposely changed from "phago" (to eat) to "trogo" (to chew) in John 6:54-58, FCFC would rather debate an internal issue in the Catholic Church over whether someone can chew the Eucharist or not. That's our house, ladies. Let us worry about whether we teach people to chew or not. Let's you and I just go to the Scripture as we agreed at the outset. I have made your plate full enough by challenging you to show us some rationale as to why Jesus changes his wording in John 6. Previously, you told us that "trogo" meant "to consider." I challenged you to prove that. Now, are you sticking with that interpretation or do you have an alternative? If you have an alternative, show it to us from the Scripture and then show us how it fits in the context of John 6. If you can't then you owe it to all of us to cut out the letters of the word "CONSIDER" and after you have "considered" them for a while, put them in your mouth and chew them.

Regarding the Passover, FCFC writes: "...you claim to have the physical reality of the Passover. If this were true then the mass would be identical in pattern to that feast, which it is not." No, ladies, it does not have to be "identical," only typological. Where do you come up with these self-made rules, anyway? They are certainly not from Scripture .

As for your comment that Baptism just makes a sinner "wet," here again, I plead with your audience: Go read the Church Fathers. Obviously, FCFC does not want you to. But you owe it to yourself to find out. Don't take FCFC's word for it. In your study you will find that there wasn't one early Father who taught that baptism just makes a sinner wet. Again, were they just bumbling idiots, totally deluded, so far from the apostles' teaching that they just invented such doctrines? Your common sense tells you that can't be the case.

FCFC then attempts to say that we are not permitted to eat meat with blood by referencing 1 Sam. 14:32-33. Ladies, I don't know if you noticed or not but I Sam. 14:32-33 is in the OLD TESTAMENT when the Levitical laws were still in force. It is only in the NEW TESTAMENT when these ceremonial laws are abrogated (Col.2:16; Gal. 4:10). Or, perhaps you are Seventh Day Adventists after all (?)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7