1 2 3 4 5 6 7

FCFC Closing Statement:

The "Sacrifice of the Mass" is Christ forever offering Himself. If there is no priest to "offer this sacrifice", there is no sacrifice and the work Christ did at Calvary ceases to have any effect, rendering the work of the cross useless. The Faith of Millions, by John O'Brien states: "The priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man - NOT ONCE BUT A THOUSAND TIMES! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command."

We here at FCFC reject such blasphemy. Christ cannot "offer Himself" again:."Now where remission of these is, THERE IS NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN." (Heb.10:18) "I am he that LIVETH, AND WAS DEAD; and behold, I AM ALIVE FOREVERMORE, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death." (Rev.1:18) Jesus "...NEEDETH NOT DAILY...TO OFFER UP SACRIFICE, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: FOR THIS HE DID ONCE, WHEN HE OFFERED UP HIMSELF." (Heb.7:27) "By His own blood HE ENTERED IN ONCE into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." (Heb. 9:12)

"For Christ is NOT ENTERED INTO THE HOLY PLACES MADE WITH HANDS...NOR YET THAT HE SHOULD OFFER HIMSELF OFTEN...FOR THEN MUST HE OFTEN HAVE SUFFERED SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD: but now ONCE in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Heb.9:24-26)

"So Christ was ONCE OFFERED TO BEAR THE SINS OF MANY; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." (Heb.9:28) Jesus "...OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOREVER...." (Heb.10:12)

"For by ONE OFFERING HE HATH PERFECTED FOREVER THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED." (Heb.10:14) "For Christ also hath ONCE SUFFERED FOR SINS...." (I Pet.3:18) "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead DIETH NO MORE; DEATH HATH NO MORE DOMINION OVER HIM. FOR IN THAT HE DIED, HE DIED UNTO SIN ONCE; BUT IN THAT HE LIVETH, HE LIVETH UNTO GOD." (Rom.6:9-10) (Emphasis mine in all the above Scriptures.)

We would ask Mr. Sungenis to produce Scriptures that prove that Christ must continually be sacrificed in order for the work of the cross to be complete.

Concerning the Eucharist (the alleged body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus), we here at FCFC maintain that according to Scripture, He did not choose to reveal Himself in this way. "...This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, SHALL SO COME IN LIKE MANNER AS YE HAVE SEEN HIM GO INTO HEAVEN." (Acts 1:11) Jesus "...is even AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD...." (Rom.8:34)

"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and SET HIM AT HIS OWN RIGHT HAND IN THE HEAVENLY PLACES...." (Eph.1:20) "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, WHERE CHRIST SITTETH ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD." (Col 23:1) "Then if ANY MAN shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; BELIEVE IT NOT." (Matt.24:23)

"Howbeit the most High dwelleth NOT IN TEMPLES MADE WITH HANDS...Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool; what house will ye build me? saith the Lord; or what is the place of my rest?" (Acts 7:48-49) "...Say NOT in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)" ( Rom.10:6) Yet in The Faith of Millions, by John O'Brien we read:

"When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, HE REACHES UP INTO THE HEAVENS, BRINGS CHRIST DOWN FROM HIS THRONE, AND PLACES HIM UPON OUR ALTAR TO BE OFFERED UP AGAIN AS THE VICTIM FOR THE SINS OF MAN." (Emphasis mine)

This is a direct violation of Rom.10:6. "Behold, HE COMETH WITH CLOUDS; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him;" (Rev.1:7) "For as often as ye eat THIS BREAD, and DRINK THIS CUP, ye do show the Lord's death TILL HE COME." (I Cor.11:26). (If Jesus is already present in the Eucharist, there would be no need to do it in "remembrance".) "For YET A LITTLE WHILE, and HE THAT SHALL COME WILL COME, and will not tarry," (Heb. 10:37) "...and unto them that look for him shall he appear the SECOND TIME WITHOUT SIN unto salvation." (Heb.9:28) "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD" ( Heb.10:12).

Concerning the priesthood that Catholicism needs to "offer the sacrifice of the mass", there is no scriptural evidence to support such a doctrine. There are four priesthoods to speak of:

1.Levitical - must be of the tribe of Levi. (Num.3:10)
2.Melchisedec - Jesus is the only one who can hold this priesthood since it is not changeable or transferrable. (Heb.7:1-3)
3.The priesthood of all believers (I Pet. 2:9, Rev.1:6) We offer the "sacrifice of praise"( Heb.13:15), "sacrifices of joy" (Ps.27:6), "the sacrifice of thanksgiving" (Ps.116:17) and ourselves as a "living sacrifice" (Rom.12:1).
4.The false priests - "priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi" (I Kings 12:31, 2 Kings 17:32, 2 Chron.11:14,15)

The Catholic Mass is a lie, their priesthood is a lie, and their Eucharist is a lie. The only hope a Catholic has to justify his actions is the "church fathers", but do they really agree with Catholicism? It is very easy to take a preconceived theology of the eucharist and read it back into their comments and teachings. According to Jaroslav Pelikan (a professor of history at Yale University), in his book, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), page 167, states:

"Yet it does seem 'express and clear' that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record either declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so)...Tertullian spoke of the eucharistic bread as a 'figure' of the body of Christ....[and Cyprian] believed the eucharistic sacrifice of the church was performed 'in commemoration' of the sacrifice...also insisted that 'the sacrifice of a broken spirit' was 'a sacrifice to God equally precious and glorious.'" (ibid, 168-169)

Several "church fathers" agree with Tertullian and Cyprian. Justin Martyr (100/110-165 A.D.) - "...the bread which our Christ gave us to offer IN REMEMBRANCE of the Body...the cup which He taught us to offer in the eucharist, in COMMEMORATION of His blood." Theophilus of Antioch (d. c.185-191 A.D.) - "For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would to have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians...THAT WE EAT HUMAN FLESH." Clement of Alexandria (150-211/216 A.D.) - "The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the SYMBOL of the sacred blood." Eusebius (263-340 A.D.) - "For by means of the wine, which was the SYMBOL..of His blood, He cleanses from their former sins those who are baptised into His death and have believed on His blood...." Athanasius (295-375) - "...what He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him..For, He says, what I have spoken unto you is spirit and life...."

"Tertullian (155/160-240/250 A.D.) spoke of the bread and wine in the eucharist as SYMBOLS OR FIGURES WHICH REPRESENT THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST. He specifically stated that these were NOT THE LITERAL BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. When Christ said, 'This is my body,,' Tertullian maintained that Jesus WAS SPEAKING FIGURATIVELY and that he consecrated the wine 'IN MEMORY of his blood' (Against Marcion 3.19)." (The Church of Rome At The Bar of History, Webster, 119) (Emphasis mine)

"Clement of Alexandria (150-211/216 A.D.) also called the bread and wine SYMBOLS of the body and blood of Christ, and taught that the communicant received NOT THE PHYSICAL but the spiritual life of Christ. Origen (185-253/254 A.D.), likewise, speaks in distinctively SPIRITUAL AND ALLEGORICAL TERMS WHEN REFERRING TO THE EUCHARIST. Eusebius of Caesarea (263-340 A.D.) identified the elements with the body and blood of Christ but, like Tertullian, saw the elements as being SYMBOLICAL OR REPRESENTATIVE OF SPIRITUAL REALITIES. He specifically states that the bread and wine are SYMBOLS of the Lord's body and blood and that Christ's words in John 6 are to be understood SPIRITUALLY and FIGURATIVELY AS OPPOSED TO A PHYSICAL AND LITERAL SENSE" (The Church of Rome At The Bar of History, Webster, 119) (Emphasis mine).

The theological giant who provided the most comprehensive and influential defense of the symbolic interpretation of the Lord's Supper was Augustine. He used John 6 as a specific example of a passage that should be interpretated figuratively.

"Augustine argued that the sacraments, including the eucharist, are signs and figures which represent or symbolize spiritual realities. He made a distinction between the physical, historical body of Christ and sacramental presence, maintaining that Christ's physical body could not literally be present in the sacrament of the eucharist because he is physically at the right hand of God in heaven, and will be there until he comes again. But Christ is spiritually with his people. Augustine viewed the eucharist in spiritual terms and he interpreted the true meaning of eating and drinking as being faith; 'To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.' These views of Augustine are obviously in direct opposition to those of the Council of Trent. In fact, teachings such as his on the eucharist were anathematized by that Council." (The Church of Rome At The Bar of History, Webster, 121)

As for your challenge concerning the influence of Plato and Gnosticism on the early "church fathers". Historian Abraham Freisen states:

"This argument, that one had a divine spark within, came into Christian thought through the Church Fathers. These great thinkers of the early church, beginning with Justin Martyr and culminating in St. Augustine, had nearly all been Platonists before they became Christians. Because of certain similarities, they were attracted to Christianity as a higher form of the same truth that Plato had perceived. Augustine especially in his early years developed the Platonic view of the soul and integrated it into Christianity. Thus he could say, 'The soul has within itself a hidden abyss, and the things of time and this world have no place therein, but only what is high above.' It was in this hidden abyss of the soul that God resided. Therefore, one could find God only by turning inward." (Vengeance is Ours, The Church In Dominion, Dager, 36)

According to George N. Shuster, in his introduction to The Confessions of St. Augustine:

"The ideas set forth in the Enneads of Plotinus were to remain deeply embedded in [Augustines's] mind...Augustine recognized in the human person a stature and range of creative endeavor that the newer Platonists he so genuinely admired had not accorded to it. The ultimate certitudes were knowable, in his view, not through a vision of the 'Ideas' which hover far above the world of sense, but through full awareness of the Self. 'I cannot doubt that I doubt' was for him the first immovable stone on the road to knowledge of Reality."

The search for knowledge from within oneself is the basis for gnosticism and characterizes one form of theosophic expression. Because Augustine believed that knowledge of reality is locked up within Self, he did not perceive God as transcedent alone, but immanent within the human soul:

"With such a view of the soul, it is not surprising that adherents from Plato to the Renaissance Humanists, from Augustine to the medieval mystics and Thomas Muentzer, can speak of the 'deification of man.' After all, man has within him a divine spark which, if ignited, can start a holy fire that can purify the individual. Augustine at one point spoke of 'growing god-like' " (Vengeance Is Ours, The Church in Dominion, Albert James Dager, 37-38)

Concerning the word "trogo", we asked a Greek expert, Dr. Samuel Gipp, who informed us that it meant "to crunch, to eat, to take food, partake of a meal". We do definitely partake of a meal, as I Cor.10:21 reaffirms, ""...ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." As Tertullian said, we also agree, "...[We] devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate [to chew over again...to meditate or reflect upon] on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith."

In regards to your accusation of our supposed misrepresentation of a portion of an encyclopedic entry; not true.

We used brackets which denote we added the words which is the standard method used by most writers.

Our point was and still remains that Gratian’s Decretum contained "three centuries of forgeries and conclusions drawn from them with his own fictional additions. Of the 324 passages he quotes from popes of the first four centuries, only eleven are genuine" (Vicars of Christ, De Rosa, 60).

Thomas Aquinas (who knew very little Greek) relied heavily on Gratian’s Decretum as a source book for his Summa Theologica, the second most widely-known work by a Catholic writer. Even Aquinas’ contemporaries blasted his book by sayin t it was a "monstrous accumalation of pagan reasonings fatal to the Christian faith" (The Age of Faith, Durant, 977).

These are foundational documents upon which the Catholic Church relies as a basis for their Canon Law. Despite the assertion of "modification" by later additions, this rationalization cannot stand. If a house has worm-eaten wood for its base, no amount of later addtions or beautifcation can make up for or alter the fact that rotten wood forms the foundation.

Concerning the word "anamnesis". We do not accept the Septuagint. The Greek word for remembrance (#364 - Strong’s Concordance) states that it is no more than a recollection, a remembrance.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7