You also disagreed with, "...the Roman Catholic Church (by their own admission) has changed what the early church fathers have said...." The church's history bears out the fact that what was believed and taught early on, is not the same as today. Many dismiss this as being unimportant, contrasting doctrines with "disciplines." We feel any "discipline" that carries with it the intimation of loss of salvation upon non- conformity should be, at the least consistent with Biblical doctrine and ideally as unchanging as the Word itself. We do not find this to be the case. In fact:

"...history shows only too plainly that the Church, in their sense of the term, has varied in its doctrine, taught dogmas at various times and at various places at the same time, inconsistent with each other, and therefore to a considerable extent erroneous"(Plain Facts, 34).

Does the church not have to live by its own claim of "...if it be not identical in belief in, in government, etc., with the primitive Church, then it is not the Church of Christ" [?] (Catholic Facts, 27) (Emphasis added). Here are just a few examples of the changes this never-changing institution has made:

“Communion under both kinds [bread and wine] was the prevailing usage in Apostolic Times" (Cath. Encyc., IV, 176). "In the fifth century Pope Gelasius commanded the laity to receive under both kinds" (Question Box, 446, 1913 edition)"...Gelasius emphatically condemned persons who abstained from the chalice" (Cath. Dict.., 202). "Communion 'under both kinds' entirely and formally abolished in 1416 by the Council of Constance" (Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, Chevalier Artaud de Montier, I, 111).

"Actually, it was not until the twelth century that the word "sacrament' was defined with sufficient precision to disengage the seven rites, and only seven, from the numerous ceremonies that had been celebrated in the Church for centuries, and to apply to just seven sacraments of the New Law...This will explain, perhaps, why there is no mention of the sacraments in the early creeds of Christendom" (The Sources of Christian Theology, I, Palmer, 72).

Another sacrament that has altered its methodology is baptism.

"Baptism took place by immersion in ancient times" (New Interpretation of the Mass, 120). "...even St. Thomas, in the thirteenth century, speaks of baptism by immersion as the common practice of his time" (Catholic Dict., Addis and Arnold).

Today "sprinkling" seems to be the favored method, regardless of the fact it was not practiced by the apostles, nor set forth by the Word of God. this is also the case for infant baptism. The Catholic Dictionary tells us "It is difficult to give strict proof from Scripture in favor of it." (p.61) In the Short History of the Catholic Church on page 31 we read "Previously to the third century, infants were not baptized except in case of necessity."

"When in the fourth and fifth centuries the doctrine of original sin and consequently of the necessity of baptism for all became better known, the practice of infant baptism progressed rapidly" (Legislation on the New Code of Canon Law, 72). (Emphasis mine)

We praise Jesus, He doesn’t leave us hanging while doctrines “progress” or “develop”. The "Church Fathers" didn't even agree among themselves:

" 'St.' Anselm opposed 'St.' Augustine concerning 'Limbo' (the little baby hell) (Cath. Encyc., IX, 257), 'St' Jerome and 'St.' Athanasius opposed 'St.' Liberius (Cath. Encyc., IX, 220,222). Catholic writers claim that they have had only four 'doctors.' 'St.' Augustine and 'St.' Thomas were two of them, and they taught opposing doctrines concerning 'original sin,' and neither one talked the language of the Bible! so 'St.' Bellarmine, their greatest controversialist, found the situation embarrassing" (Cath. Encyc., IX, 257, 258; VI, 712).

Bellarmine also found himself a victim of the changing attitudes within the church:

"A great fight was being waged for and against the Jesuits. Sixtus V excommunicated Robert Bellarmine, a high-ranking Jesuit, but after about two years Bellarmine became the right hand of Pope Clement VIII. A 'heretic' in two years became the main support of the Pope, who was at that time a Jesuit. Nearly four hundred years later Robert Bellarmine was enrolled among the Catholic saints!...Sixtus not only excommunicated Robert Bellarmine, but placed his books on the Index of Forbidden Books" (Catholicism Against Itself, Lambert, 169).

Papal infallibility was opposed on a large scale as we see from the following quote:

"The church historian, Philip Schaff, says there was strong opposition to the call for the council, [which ratified the infallibility decree] and that delegates representing 80 million Roman Catholics were opposed to it. A preliminary vote in secret session gave the delegates a limited opportunity to express themselves. Eighty-eight delegates voted against it, 65 voted for it with reservations, and over 80 abstained. But the papal party was in firm control and easily carried the final voting. To take sides against the strong-willed pope and against the Jesuits a minority had to be particularly courageous to express itself at all. It was a foregone conclusion that the decree would be passed. Opposition clearly was futile, and could mean reprisals affecting the delegates' present positions or injury to any chances for future promotion. Before the final vote was taken 410 bishops petitioned in favor of the dogma, and 162 against it" (Roman Catholicism, Boettner, 244).

Bishop Purcell was quoted as saying:

"No enlightened Catholic holds the Pope's infallibility to be an article of faith, I do not; and none of my brethren that I know of, do" (Campbell-Purcell Debate, 26, 27).

Mr. Sungenis says "2000 years of Church history has stated it [the eucharist] 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." First, the eucharist doesn't have 2000 years of history behind it. On page six of Volume X of the Catholic Encyclopedia we find "The word Mass (missa) first established itself as the general designation of the Eucharist Sacrifice in the West after the time of Gregory the Great (died 604), the early church having used 'breaking of bread.' " The "breaking of bread" has its origin in the Bible, the mass does not. Why this deviation from Apostolic practice and Scripture?

Second, when arguing against you, sir, we will use the beliefs we find laid out in Scripture. We'll leave it to the sorcerers to "conjure." It has been said:

"If only one instance could be given in which the church ceased to teach a doctrine of faith which had been previously held, that single instance would be a death blow to her claim of infallibility" (Faith of Our Fathers, Gibbons, 61).

We maintain that "death blow" has been dealt.

Your accusation that FCFC would "make a good Gnostic" is ironic, especially in light of the fact that the mandate to rule the nations in the name of Christ was the outgrowth of Gnostic influences in the early Church. The theosophical philosophies that illuminated the Roman Church gave rise to the belief that since Christ had failed to return for three centuries, and heathenism threatened the Roman Empire which was perceived as "Christian" , it must be up to the church of Rome to do something about the evil in the world. But the problem was that the true faith had been corrupted by pagan philosophy. Virtually all the early "Church Fathers" had been schooled in Greek and Roman philosophy. They believed that man has within himself a "divine spark" which must be awakened in order to bring him to perfection. Plato called this divine spark the "immortal principle". To all our readers, we would warn that this is a New Age doctrine promoted in all New Age writings. (Col.2:8)

Concerning the word "amamnesis" (anamnesis), the Hebrew word used in Lev.2:2 is "azkarah" which means "a reminder: spec. remembrance offering: memorial." It was only used 7 times (Lev.2:2,9,16; 5:12; 6:15; 24:7; Num.5:26). Each reference is concerning a meal offering, not blood. The word "anamnesis" means "recollection: remembrance (again)" . It comes from "anamimnesko" which means "to recollect: - call to mind, remembrance". Mark 11:21 uses this word: "And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him...." (Emphasis mine) This is obviously not a sacrifice.

Concerning the word "trogo", would you have us believe that the infallible church erred when she forbid her subjects to chew (trogo) the Eucharist? One of the root words for "trogo" means "to wound". Are you now saying that you wound Jesus all over again as you chew him?

In your third paragraph you claim to have the physical reality of the Passover. If this were true, then the mass would be identical in pattern to that feast, which it is not. The Catholic eats a live sacrifice, whereas the the true Passover Lamb was slain. "...Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." (I Cor.11:24) "...Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt.26:27-28) The disciples were not eating a live sacrifice at the last supper! Even if you choose to be literal in your interpretation, you would have to eat the body that was broken separate from drinking the blood that was shed, or you violate and vandalize the scriptures.

You also claim that baptism is the physical reality of circumcision. Circumcision in the flesh does not save a man, neither does physical baptism. Circumcision is that of the heart, and baptism is that in the Holy Ghost. If an unbelieving man gets baptized, does the water save him? No, you only have a wet sinner.

I appreciate your admitting that we cannot work for salvation (4th paragraph), although you will find some few million Catholics who disagree with you. Your allegation that we are permitted to eat living things with the blood in them is not only unscriptural, it is cannibalisms.

"And the people flew upon the spoil, and took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground: and the people did eat them with the blood. Then they told Saul, saying, Behold, the people sin against the LORD, in that they eat with the blood." (I Sam.14:32-33) (Emphasis mine)

Your argument concerning "whole and entire" leaves many questions. First you are supposed to chew Jesus, but you really don't chew him since no matter how many pieces you divide Jesus into, each particle contains the "whole and entire" Christ as the council of Trent declared. Then you eat Jesus, but you really can't eat Him since the minute the host is digested, it ceases to be Christ, so the only real nourishment one gets from eating the Eucharist is bread, by their own doctrine. Then Mr. Sungenis tells us that Jesus leaves us "whole and entire", yet the bread has been dissolved, leaving Jesus no body, but only His Spirit, so then how did He leave "whole and entire"? Yet John 6, the very scriptures that Catholics lean on so heavily to prove transubstantiation tells us literally that he will not leave us! "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." The word "dwelleth" means "to remain, endure, last, abide". If your host does not remain, then it is not the same bread that Jesus was talking about. His bread promised eternal life (Jn.6:54), your bread does not.

The Staff of FCFC