Catholic Apologists International/Rebuttal 3

Since FCFC has not answered my challenge concerning the alleged forgeries of the Church fathers on Baptism and the Eucharist, let me preface my rebuttal with a comment on Bill Jackson's assertion on page 3 of "Feedback" that the Catholic Church "substituted false documents and tampered with genuine ones" concerning the Church fathers. I challenge you, Dr. Jackson, as I did FCFC, to find me one reputable Protestant scholar who claims and has proof that the writings of the Church fathers on Baptism and the Eucharist were forgeries. Your demagogic attempts to cast a shadow on the early fathers by citing the fact that there were some forgeries in the Middle Ages indicates to me once again the totally biased view of history Protestants maintain despite the evidence before them. As for your reference to Donnel Jackson that studying the early Church fathers is like "entering another world," then tell us why Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110), who writes that he knew the apostle John, believed and wrote about baptismal regeneration and the real presence in the Eucharist? Are we to believe, as you are suggesting, that he just dreamed this up on his own? Ignatius also writes frequently of being faithful to the tradition handed down to him. Where did this tradition come from Dr. Jackson if it did not come from John and the other apostles, considering the fact that Ignatius is in the same generation as John the apostle? I suppose you are going to tell us that Ignatius' writings were forgeries, right? You find us one reputable scholar who claims and has proof that they were forgeries and I'll become a Protestant again. FCFC wasn't able to find any proof I doubt if you will either. And now that you have made the assertion, I suggest you stay out of the debate until you find us the proof.

Now to FCFC. I will assume, ladies, that since you didn't rebutt the matter concerning the real meaning of "trogo" (to chew, masticate, munch) in John 6:54-58, nor answered the fact that "amamnesis" in Leviticus 2:2 referred to the sacrifice itself not merely a remembrance of a sacrifice, nor answered the fact that the Church fathers had the same Spirit you claim to have, nor answered the fact that the NT teaches "infused" grace, that you have conceded these points. If not, then I expect rebuttals in your next installment.

Regarding your statement that the OT feasts were shadows of NT truths, you won't find me giving you an argument. What I will argue against, however, is your one-sided hermeneutic that seeks to limit the Old and New Testament directives to the spiritual realm. You would make a good Gnostic or Docetist (for those in Rio Linda and Greentown, those are heresies in the early centuries that claimed there were no physical realities to Christianity, just spiritual). Granted, there is plenty of spiritual truth in the New Testament. The Catholic Church has a whole history of allegorical and anagogical interpretation of Old and New Testament types. But this does not mean, contrary to what you are suggesting, that these types don't have their own physical counterpart. For example, though it is true that the New Testament speaks of a"spiritual circumcision" (Col. 2: Il), and that physical circumcision has been abolished (Gal 5:2-3), it transposes this Old Testament sign into a New Testament physical counterpart, namely, baptism. As a matter of fact, after Colossians 2:11 refers to spiritual circumcision, it follows immediately in Colossians 2: 12 with the physical reality of baptism that has replaced circumcision. So you see, ladies, its not just a "spiritual" application of Old Testament shadows but a physical application as well. Likewise, though the physical reality of Passover was fulfilled in the spiritual reality of salvation, nevertheless, the physical counterpart that was established in place of Passover was the Eucharist.

I might also mention that your analysis of the Sabbath is equally aschew [sic]. Granted, the literal Sabbath law, which fell under ceremonial law, became the typological shadow of the fact that we do not work for salvation, nevertheless, the NT church substituted a physical counterpart in its place, the Lord's Day (Rev. 1:10; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). In addition, contrary to your assertion that one is not required to attend worship on the Lord's day, as the Catholic Church requires, Hebrews 10:25 makes it clear that one is required to attend. Moreover, when the Church requires such practice of its people under pain of sin, this is no different than what was true in Acts 15 when the Council of Jerusalem, along with the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28), required all Christians to abstain from certain kinds of meats. If a Christian disobeyed this ordinance when it was imposed and valid, he would have been in sin. That the Church had the power to convict of sin was already established (Acts 5: 1-16). However, the Council of Jerusalem was no more "going back to the law" of the Old Testament anymore than the Catholic Church is when it requires attendance at Sunday Mass nor requires cessation from unnecessary work. Though the NT discontinues the ceremonial dimensions of the Third Commandment, it continues its moral obligations. In short, the Church extracted what was good from the OT and discarded what was obsolete.

Ironically, with all your talk of "spiritual" realities fulfilling the shadows of the OT, on what basis, then, do you insist on a literal fulfillment or application of the OT law of not eating blood in the New Testament? Laying aside the Eucharist for the moment, are you trying to tell us that it would be sin for someone today to consume blood? I hope in light of Col. 2: 16 and 1 Tim.4:3 you are not saying such. The only ones who teach that absurd doctrine are Seventh Day Adventists. Are you one of them? If not, then I suggest you stop the forcing of this OT law onto the NT, whether it be concerning comestible items or the Eucharist.

Regarding your contention that "finished" refers to the "work" of Christ, you won’t get an argument from me. What I will contend with, however, is your application of John 19:30 to prohibit the continuing work of Christ with his Church after his Asension [sic]. Granted, the most likely interpretation of "it is finished" in John 19:30 is to Christ's death on the cross. He finished that part of his work. But how does this prove, as you suggests it does, that his work does not continue in another mode? Does not Jesus have more work to do for the Father? Yes he does. Jesus needs to come again and put all things under the Father's rule (1 Cor. 15:24-28). Thus, his work is not finished.

Incidentally, your use of Rev. 13:8 ("finished from the foundation of the world...the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world") is not going to help you for it simply proves too much for your case. If the work was "finished," in the strict sense of the word, before the world was created, then there was no need for Christ to come to earth and die. Consequently, your discovery of the word "finished" in Rev. 13:8 only proves how ambiguous and general this word is, and thus shows that it can be applied in many different ways and therefore does not exclude Christ coming to us presently as a re-presented sacrifice in the Eucharist. I have also pointed out the same anachronistic use of the word "finished" in John 17:4 to which you did not respond.

This brings up another point that may help in understanding how Christ's work can be "finished" in one sense and yet "not finished" in another sense. The NT speaks of Christ "coming." Normally, we associate this with either his first or second coming. His first coming is considered a "finished" work and his second coming will be the ultimate "finishing. " However, the NT also speaks of Christ "coming" before or in between these two events. For example, in Matt. 16:27-28 Christ tells the apostles that the kingdom would come before any of them died. This is fulfilled in the Transfiguration of Matt. 17:l. Hence, the Transfiguration was a "coming" of Jesus in his kingdom long before the Second Coming at the end of time. Similarly, Acts 2:20 speaks of the "coming" in relation to Pentecost. In Acts 7:55, Stephen sees a "coming" of Jesus. In Acts 9:4-5 and 22:17-2 1 and 23: 1 1, Paul experiences a "coming" of Jesus. Peter experiences something similar in Acts 10: 13-14 and John in Rev. 1-3. Hence, Jesus' coming to us is not confined to the first or second coming, rather, he has much work to do for the Father throughout the Church age. Similarly, though Jesus "finished" the first phase of his work for the Father, (i.e., his actual death and resurrection), this does not exclude his continuing work. This is why I stressed in my last installment that the context of Hebrews 7-9 only contrasts the one sacrifice of Christ over against the multitudinous sacrifices of the OT priests; it does not contrast Christ's one sacrifice over against Christ's continuing work as a priest for the Father. That continuing work is shown in his "coming" to us at each Mass and making his abode with us as he promised. That work (i.e., his perpetual priesthood, cf. Heb. 7:25) is not "finished" and will not be until he comes at the end of time.

Regarding your question concerning Jesus coming and leaving "whole and entire," I have already explained this mystery by an analogous work of God when he comes into a physical entity with his Spirit "whole and entire," as Romans 8:9 teaches. The Spirit can also leave a physical entity "whole and entire" as well (1 Sam. 16:14, et al). Christ can come into a rock (l Cor. 10:4), a donkey (Num 22:28), and just about anything he feels is necessary. In addition, his resurrected body was not subject to the same time and space limitations that we are as is proven by his suddenly appearing to the disciples in a room in which the doors were locked (John 20: 19,26). There are many mysteries to the hypostatic union we will never comprehend. Thus, though your question is intriguing, it does not disprove anything about the Eucharist.

Regarding the practice of taking both elements and giving the Eucharist to children I will answer in my next installment. Also, your assertion that Gal. 5:21, I Cor. 6:9, Eph. 5:5 et al, are speaking about the unsaved is totally absurd. The context of the passages will not allow such an interpretation. But I will save that for a future debate.

Robert A Sungenis MA

PO Box 2247

Columbia MD 21045-1247

[We felt your concluding paragraph was irrelevant to the debate issues and inappropriate. Your address is published with your letter, so if anyone wishes to contact you, they are free to do so. We do not charge for our newsletter, nor sell materials. We will not permit you to sell your products in our newsletter.]