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."
Submitted by Robert Sungenis
Catholic Apologetics International