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 Hence, the literal law of "not eating blood" was no longer applicable in the NT although it could be practiced to accommodate a brother's conscience.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.

Robert Sungenis

c/o Catholic Apologetics International

P.O. Box 247

Columbia, MD 21737