We received our first letter from a woman in Canton who attended the debate between Gerry Matatics and Former Catholics For Christ. FCFC put the poem, Roman Miracle, in each pew which caused her to accuse us of being cowardly. Before we print the letter however, we would like our readers to read the poem.

To Whom It May Concern,

I must protest in the very strongest language and feelings about that most vicious attack on the central belief of my faith and the faith of millions of Catholics of the most Holy Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. (The poem called The Roman Miracle.)

You do your cause and belief no good by being so nasty.

What you and your friends believe is your business between you and God. But to attack somebody else’s belief in this manner is totally uncalled for. It is very cowardly for someone to write, print and distribute material and not sign your name.

I have always held to the principle that if you are person enough to make a statement, then be person enough to back it up by putting your name to the material.

This is a very unChristian way to do something. If you want to be like Christ, then be a upright man like Him, and put your name to your beliefs - just as He did!!

J.K. of Canton, OH

Dear J.K.,

Thank you for writing FCFC. We do take the responsibility for putting the poem in the pews. The poem was probably written by a Protestant during the Reformation. (Note the Old English: horse and carriage, lass and begorra) If it was written during this period, that would explain why the author did not sign his/her name. Persecutions by the Roman hierarchy raged for centuries. It is estimated that “50-60 million people” have been viciously slaughtered by the Church of Rome. (Other Side of Rome, John Wilder, 153)

As a former Catholic, I understand your devotion to the communion host, for truly if it is the “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity” of Jesus Christ, then we should worship this bread as our Lord and God, but if it is not, then we have committed idolatry, because we have worshipped as God something that is not God. That is why it is crucial that we honestly examine this “central belief of faith”.

The Church of Rome holds that ordinary bread and wine are miraculously turned into the literal body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus, and although it still appears to the eyes as bread and wine, the nature is changed (transubstantiation). Scientifically, we could prove the claims of the RCC by adding something like arsenic to the bread. If the nature is truly changed by the mere words of a priest, then it would not matter. I challenge you, would you be the first to test it? Do you know anyone who would be willing to eat bread tainted with arsenic, simply because a man said some words over it? I believe there is an easier way to test transubstantiation, and that is by the word of God!

Now we know that Acts 17:48 says:

“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.” (Emphasis mine)

It is very clear from several scriptures that God does not dwell in temples or tabernacles made with men’s hands. So why does the Catholic believe that Jesus dwells in the tabernacle (a storage place for the host), in the host (both made with men’s hands)? Does this not contradict scripture? As the priest holds up he host, he says, “The body of Christ”. The recipient replies, “Amen”. Yet Matthew 24:23, 26 says:

“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, HE IS IN THE SECRET CHAMBERS; BELIEVE IT NOT.” (Emphasis mine)

“Secret chambers” means “a storage place”. It is a well known fact that the Roman church “stores” the host (whom they believe is Jesus) in a place called a tabernacle. I would have to ask, “why are they storing the flesh and blood of Jesus anyway?” According to the pattern of the passover set before us in Exodus 12:10, “And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning....” So where does Jesus dwell if not in the host?

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1Co 3:16)

Eph.3:17 tells us that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith. The word “dwell” there means “to house permanently, i.e. reside”. Jesus says:

“...If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” (Joh 14:23)

Scriptures clearly teach us that God dwells in man, and not in things made by man. If God already dwells in the believer, does not that negate a need to receive Him again? He is already there!

But a Catholic will say, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” (Jn.6:53) This is true! Let us examine the 6th chapter of John. Are the words Jesus spoke meant to be taken literally or spiritually? We see in verse 4 that the passover feast was near, and important fact since Jesus was the passover lamb to be slain. I Cor.5:7-8 says:

“Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

Here we have a connection between the passover sacrifice and the bread. Notice the bread here is spiritual in that it is “sincerity and truth” as opposed to “malice and wickedness”. In Matthew 16:11-12 Jesus speaks of bread again in a spiritual sense.

“How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”

Remember that Jesus spoke those words after feeding the multitude in the wilderness. Going back to John 6, Jesus again had just fed the multitude in the wilderness, and they followed him , not because of the miracles they saw, but because they did eat of the loaves and were filled. Jesus then rebukes them in v.27,

“Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.”

According to the book How To Become A Catholic, by George M. Searle (contains the imprimitur and nihil obstat), the host only remains for 15 minutes at most. This is not what Jesus said in John. Let me repeat His words, “labor NOT for the MEAT WHICH PERISHETH....” The bread that Jesus gives endures, the host that the Catholics give does not. In John 6:54, it says:

“Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, HATH ETERNAL LIFE; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Does the Roman Catholic Church claim that if you eat of their bread (host) you can live forever? The answer is NO! The bread of the Church of Rome does not endure and does not promise eternal life. If you don’t have security or that blessed assurance, then you are eating the wrong bread.

“Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.” (Joh 6:49-50)

So, are the words of John 6 to be taken literally or spiritually? In verse 62, Jesus said, “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” This scripture clearly shows where the flesh will be! But then Jesus reinforces the spiritual meaning by being more explicit:

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: THE WORDS that I speak unto you, they ARE SPIRIT, and they are life.”

Jesus Himself says that the words he spoke wee spiritual. How much more clear could the scriptures be!

In Matthew 4:4, Jesus says:

“...It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

And Jesus said this in response to Satan’s temptation to see stones turned into bread. Hmmm........interesting. As bread is to the body, the Word of God is to the soul; it is nourishment.

There are other dilemma’s if we take the words of John 6 literally. For example, in Matt.26:26-30 we have the account of the last supper. If the Roman Catholic Church is correct about transubstantiation then Jesus would have misled his disciples when he said in v.29: “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of THIS FRUIT OF THE VINE, until that day when I DRINK IT new with you in my Father's kingdom.”

Jesus just called the cup of the New Testament “fruit of the vine”. Another question arises, “Is Jesus going to drink His own blood?” Keep in mind that the apostles taught to abstain from blood in Acts 15:29.

I Cor.10:16 is used by Catholic apologists to prove that the bread and wine is really and truly Jesus Christ. But again, we have a problem. The apostle Paul when he said, “The cup of blessing we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ” had two Greek words that could have been used for the word “blessing”: 1. makarizo -which means “God-indwelt” 2. eulogia - which means “something to be well spoken of” (the same as our English word of eulogy). If Paul would have used the word “makarizo”, then there would be no doubt that the bread and cup are “God-indwelt”, but he did not!

Catholics often use I Cor.11:17-34 as a proof text, but here again, if transubstantiation really took place, then why were some getting drunk while others went away hungry? (v.21) Did not Jesus say in John 6:35:

“I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger: and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”[?]

Why were some hungry? Why were some drunk on wine? After all...didn’t the priest change the nature, and even though it looked like wine and smelled like wine and tasted like wine, according to Rome...it is not wine? Would you have me believe that men were getting drunk on the blood? Contrary to what Rome instructs her people, when commanding them to fast before they come to eat, Paul instructed the Corinthians:

“Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home....” (v.33)

I Corinthians 11:24-25 clearly states, “...do this IN REMEMBRANCE” of me” (Emphasis mine). The word for “remembrance” is anamnesis which comes from the Greek word anamimnesko which means “to call to mind”.

In 1 Cor.11:25, we read, “...the cup is the new testament in my blood.” Did they drink the new testament? In verse 26 we read:

“For as often as ye EAT this BREAD, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death TILL HE COME.” (Emphasis mine)

If Jesus is literally present in the Eucharist, they why does v.26 says “till he come”?

There are many more questions that come to mind. How does the host feed you? As soon as the “species” ceases to exist it ceases to be Christ, meaning that all you really “ate” was bread anyway! How then did you “eat Jesus”? To “eat” is to “consume, to assimilate, to destroy and break down”. You cannot “destroy” Jesus or really “assimilate” Him LITERALLY! Am I to believe that a priest says some words over a piece of bread and it becomes God yet my bodily functions can turn it back into bread? Rome is in a dilemma! Even the Lord Jesus Himself said:

“And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.” (Mt 15:16-18)

Feeding our flesh is not feeding our spirit. But reading the word of God does!

In conclusion, I would like to say that the Roman system of eating the passover lamb is in direct violation of scripture. They eat a pre-crucified, pre-glorified body of Christ. Pre-crucified because they are eating Jesus with His blood still in Him, and we know that the precious blood of Jesus was spilled on the ground! (Jn.19:34) Pre-glorified because Jesus now sits on His throne “till his enemies be made his footstool” (Heb.10:13) and his flesh is glorified (Read 1 Cor.15:35-58) Exodus 12 sets the pattern, and the lamb was to be slain (v.9), not alive and roasted with fire, and definitely not with the blood still in it! We were to eat the head (the mind of Christ), the legs (the walk of Christ) and the purtenance (the heart of Christ). It is unlawful to literally consume blood. Leviticus 17:10- 12 says:

“And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.”

Rome has failed to observe the passover in the true manner spoken of in the scriptures. I would have to ask, “How many other scriptures has she twisted to her own destruction?”

If the bread that Catholicism claims is not God, then Rome has lead all her people into idolatry, and her sins are reached unto heaven!

by Rebecca A. Sexton