We feel we have amply proved that there is a "one-to-one correspondence of literal applications in the specifics of the Passover", and we only briefly made our point. There is more we have yet to share with our readers, but will in future issues. The OT Passover lamb was but a shadow of the TRUE LAMB, JESUS CHRIST! (Jn.1:29,36, Rev.5:12) If we use this kind of "hermeneutic" concerning the Passover, it would not require us to use the same "literal application of every OT ceremonial law" simply because the Passover falls under the category of Feast days. We would only be required to prove a "one-to-one correspondence" with every other feast day of the Lord, and that we are prepared to do. Please remember Mr. Sungenis that the Feasts of the Lord (there are seven) and their appointments originated with the Lord, not with the children of Israel. It was God's desire to meet His people on His terms and on His grounds of approach. They are His Feasts. The Lord is the Host and we are His guests, invited to feast with Him (Rev.3:20). We cannot make up our own rules or alter His (which the Catholic Church wrongfully did when she altered the last supper). The Catholic eats a live sacrifice with the blood still in it, a practice forbidden by God in the OT - Lev.17:11-14! The Lord gave the bread first, then the wine, two separate elements signifying the blood being shed for our sins. The Catholic church has altered the Passover by combining the bread and wine into one element. This fact did not go unnoticed by her own popes. Pope Gelasius I (492-496), in a letter addressed to some bishops said:

"We have ascertained that certain persons having received a portion of the sacred body alone abstain from partaking of the chalice of the sacred blood. Let such persons...either receive the sacrament in its entirety, or be repelled from the entire sacrament, because a division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege." (Roman Catholicism, Boettner, 188)

The decree of pope Urban II, in 1095, and pope Paschal II in 1118, also condemned the practice of giving the bread only in the sacrament. Your early church fathers (at least three popes) disagree with the teachings of today's church! Nonetheless, the Catholic church can not honestly say that the last supper she practices is identical with the biblical account of the last supper, and therefore is a counterfeit.

You feel we side-stepped the issue of "chewing" the Eucharist. Let's reason this out just a bit. There are different meanings for the word "chew":

1. To crush or grind with the teeth; masticate, to injure.

2. To meditate upon; consider carefully.

3. To reprimand severely; berate. (a slang - to chew out)

4. To "chew the fat" (a slang - to talk)

5. That which is chewed, quid.

I think we can rule out 3, 4 and 5 without dispute, leaving us 1 and 2. So which one did Jesus refer to when He said that we were to chew Him? We believe the interpretation of "crush or grind with the teeth...to injure" (the literal eating of Jesus-a kind of mystical death in your mouth) would violate the intelligence. We here at FCFC believe the Lord Jesus wanted us to 2). carefully consider, meditate on what he did for us at the cross. We believe that other scriptures bear witness to this interpretation (Job 6:30; 12:11; 23:12; 34:3; Psa.34:8; 119:103; Prov.16:24; Mt.5:6; Heb.5:13-14; I Pet.2:2). There is not one scripture, as Mr. Sungenis admitted, commanding us to eat a live sacrifice with the blood still in it- the same blood that Mr. Sungenis said did not re-enter into Jesus after it was poured out on the earth (pg.6, last paragraph, question no.6), but according to The Sacramental Life of the Church , Rev. B.J. Otten, S. J., 77, "...the same blood that trickled down from the cross on Calvary, is there [in the Eucharist] pulsating with life and energy". So the blood must have re-entered into Jesus if it is the same blood that poured out at the cross and is present in the flesh of the Eucharist. Which one of you is speaking for the Catholic church? After all, Otten has an "imprimatur" and a "nihil obstat" to back him up, what do you have? And may I add that Rev. George Searle (a Catholic priest) who wrote How To Become A Catholic also has the "imprimatur and nihil obstat" (a certification that the given work has been inspected and there is nothing contrary to faith or good morals), so when he gave instructions on the eating of the Eucharist, he had the approval of the archbishop. Deharbe’s Catechism, No.1, 273 agrees with Searle:

“Do not keep the Sacred Host [God] in your mouth until it is quite dissolved; but let it moisten a little upon your tongue, and then swallow it.”

By the way, perhaps you had better talk to some older Catholics, because when I left the church (14 years ago), we were not permitted to "chew" the Eucharist. We were not to let it touch our teeth, as a matter of fact we still were not permitted to touch the Eucharist with our hands (but of course that changed, along with the forbidding to eat anything after midnight). It was a teaching of pope Pius X, the so-called "Pope of the Holy Eucharist":

“He [Communicant] must be fasting, at least from midnight; for so the Church commands, agreeable to a most ancient and apostolical tradition [I Cor.11 says differently]. So that if through inadvertence a person has taken anything, though it were no more than one drop or crumb, after twelve o’clock at night, he must by no means receive (Communion) that day; it would be a crime to attempt it" (The Catholic Christian Instructed in The Sacraments, Sacrifice, Ceremonies, etc.; Most Rev. Dr. Challoner, 100) (Emphasis mine).

But now you can eat the Eucharist one hour after eating a complete meal (alas, the infallible Catholic church that never changes). It is the belief that every particle of the host, no matter how small, contains the "whole and entire Christ":

“...for Christ, whole and entire, exists under the species of bread, and under each particle of that species” (Council of Trent, Sess.xiii, cap.3).

Therefore if you chewed Jesus, you would divide the bread in your mouth into several pieces, each one containing the "whole and entire Christ". Mr. Sungenis, if you have been chewing (“trogo”) Jesus, you have violated your own church’s decrees.

I can understand how my soul would grow if I were to "meditate or consider carefully" (chew) what Jesus did for me. As I consider (chew) the scriptures such as Isa.53 and Psa.22, and consider (chew) how Jesus prophesied of his suffering and death and the glory that should follow (I Pet.1:11), and how he paid such a price for my sins so that I could have eternal life in Him, my soul is strengthened, but I fail to see how eating something literally (especially in light of the fact that Jesus leaves you 15 minutes later unassimilated and unconsumed, whole and entire - as admitted by Mr. Sungenis on page 6, last paragraph, no.10) could possibly nourish or strengthen one's soul! We know from history that the Titans (pagans) would eat the raw flesh of a bull in a mystic sacrament of communion absorbing the divine essence anew. Is this what you believe Mr. Sungenis? Do you think if you eat Jesus literally you will absorb His divine essence? As former Catholics we ate the Eucharist for many years and can from experience say that after eating it, we were none the smarter or stronger spiritually! We would like for you to explain to our readers how one is nourished, according to the Catholic church, by literally eating Jesus. And please do not side-step this issue as irrelevant. It was so relevant that:

“St. Innocent I and St. Gelasius I [Elected Popes in 402 and 492 A.D.], had both declared as soon as infants were baptized the sacrament (of Communion) was necessary to secure them eternal life” (The Inquisition, Henry C. Lea, Vol.2, 474)

It was so important, that newborn babies were given communion in the form of wine. Why isn’t this a practice today? Did the popes err when they said it was “necessary to secure them eternal life”? One more point, were the babies spiritually nourished? Did the baby have to fast? Did the baby discern the body and blood of Jesus as commanded in I Cor.11? So many questions, so few answers!

Hebrews totally discredits the mass! It is a simple matter of do/done. If Jesus said, "It is finished" (Jn.19:30) then it is done. If He is still doing it, then it is not done, and He would have lied to us when he said it was done. You can't logically have it both ways. For Mr. Sungenis to say that it is continued in the mass is not scriptural, and definitely cannot be found in Hebrews. (Mr. Sungenis tends to add words to the Bible that are not there Many of the scriptures he cites do not support his case. We do hope our readers will check out all biblical references given by both sides, and it would be wise to compare the KJV with whatever other version you may be using, since there are differences.) 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." And I believe that the word "anamnesis" does not change a thing, since it is a remembrance of a sacrifice, therefore irrelevant to the argument. The other scriptures you alluded to were not sacrificial acts.

We never said "all the writings of the church fathers are forgeries". That is a false accusation. However, a careful look into history and Catholic sources will prove that many (not all) were forgeries or tampered with. Gratian's Decretum contains 324 passages from popes of the first four centuries, and only 11 of them are genuine. You asked for "one shred of credible evidence that their writings are forgeries and I will become a Protestant again". We hope you will accept The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia Press, 1913, XII, 768:

"There was need of revisions which is not yet complete, ranging over all that had been handed down from the Middle Ages under the style and titles of the Fathers, the Councils, the Roman and other official archives. In all these departments forgery and interpolations, as well as ignorance had wrought mischief on a great scale."

You can change your name from Protestant to Catholic to Protestant again and it will not matter. Unless you have a circumcision of the heart (which no priest can do) and accept the finished work of Jesus Christ for the payment for your sins, you will perish.

Concerning whether or not the “church fathers have the same Spirit of God that we have”, not all of them. The Bible warns us:

“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29)

When answering our questions in your last paragraph, you said that the Catholic Eucharist perishes (no.7). But John 6:27 says, "Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life..." Since the Catholic Eucharist perishes, it can not possibly be the bread spoken of in John which does not perish. The word for "endureth" is "meno" which means "to stay: abide, continue, dwell, endure, remain" (according to the Strong's Concordance - #3306) Therefore when you say that Jesus leaves you but says "I'll be back", you would be contradicting the promise of Jesus to never leave us, and that He would make His home in us. We believe the closer one looks at the Catholic Eucharist the more obvious it is that this could not be the true bread, but only a gross imitation. 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 our point exactly!

The Staff of FCFC