I would also like to comment on G.S. of Alliance, OH's remark that, "It never ceases to amaze me at how much Mr. Sungenis is able to fill your pages of the debate yet unable to say anything that can be backed with the Word of God." Where have you been, G.S, on Mars? I suggest you reread my rebuttals and observe what percentage of the time I spent in Scripture and then compare that to what percentage FCFC spent. You will be "amazed" at how little they have to say from Scripture. Most of their rebuttal is filled with their biased interpretation of Catholic history.

As for your comment, Dr. Jackson, that the word "finished" in John 19:30 means "to discharge a debt" I challenge you to find one biblical and lexical reference that uses your definition. As for your assertion that the word in John 19:30 ("teleo") is a "different" word than in John 17:4 ("teleio"), what you didn't tell the audience, Dr. Jackson, is that they are synonyms and are used in almost exactly the same way in the NT. I find it ironic that you accused me of giving an "incomplete" answer to the meaning of "nihil obstat" and then you turn right around and give a most incomplete and misleading analysis of teleo and teleio. Regarding your question: "what ever happened to Romans 11:5?," I suggest you read the Sixth Session, Chapter 8, of the Catholic Council of Trent (1563), which states, "...none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is a grace, it is not now by reason of works; otherwise (as the Apostle says) grace is no more grace (Rom. 11:5-6)" Denzinger, p. 252). Hopefully, after reading this, you will have enough theological integrity to cease from saying that Catholic theology teaches that we "work for salvation."

Now back to FCFC. You wrote: "Saying the forgeries were an influence is not the same as saying everything these men wrote on the subjects was a forgery! Please don't misrepresent our statements." Ladies, I don't have to misrepresent you. You just did a good job of it yourselves. Let's look again at your original quote from the previous newsletter: "Mr. Sungenis's reference to the 'early church fathers' on both the Eucharist and Baptism is highly suspect! Evidently, the forgeries have been an influence." Now, are you trying to tell me, ladies, that you were not suggesting that the alleged forgeries are not implying that the early fathers' writings on Baptism and the Eucharist are suspect of error and false teaching?? I wasn't born yesterday. Even taking the statement, "Mr. Sungenis' reference to the early church fathers ....is highly suspect" by itself shows that you consider the fathers flawed and unimportant. This was also proven by your comments denigrating the use of the church fathers to support doctrine in the same newsletter. Now I can see why you don't interpret the Bible correctly -- you can't even interpret your own statements correctly.

Here's another one of your misstatements: "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...the early church having used �breaking of bread.�" � You continue: "The 'breaking of bread' has its origin in the Bible, the mass does not. Why this deviation from Apostolic practice and Scripture?" You just keep digging your hole deeper. Are you sure you want to go on? Notice that the above quote says that the "WORD" Mass was established after the time of Gregory, NOT the practice or understanding that the bread was the body of Christ. Similarly, the word transubstantiation was first established in the 3rd century at the 4th Lateran Council but this didn't mean that the practice or understanding of the Real Presence was not held prior. Further, I would hate to bore you with quotes from the early Fathers again, but you really should give them a gander. In them you will find that the early church from the first four centuries of fathers, believed both in the Real Presence and the sacrifice it entailed, e.g., Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, Cyril, Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement, Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, et al. If your newsletter would spend just a little time delving into the fathers, which is how we know what the early church really believed, instead of constantly quoting from biased third party sources that are 20 centuries removed from the early church you and your Protestant audience might gain a more accurate understanding of the Church. But of course, you would rather mislead the audience by misconstruing references in the Catholic Encyclopedia rather than quote directly from the fathers. I plead with Good Newsletter readers. Does it make sense to you that the church fathers, who followed right after the apostles (some being in the same century as the apostles) and who were so forthright in giving us many of the doctrines Catholics and Protestants still hold today, could be so devilishly misled that they just invented the Real Presense? I think it has become obvious that the Good Newsletter editors will do anything to stop you from studying the Church fathers -- BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THE INFORMATION SUPPORTING THE REAL PRESENCE IS THERE. If you don't believe me, than take a look at this next outlandish attempt to dismiss the father's writings.

FCFC writes: "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)" If anyone out there is guilty of a crime and needs a lawyer to get them off, I suggest you call the editors of FCFC they have a fiendish way of controverting the evidence. Since FCFC didn't follow their normal practice of citing a third party source, I'Il have to conclude that they just dreamed up this little gem on their own. I went to college and learned about Greek and Roman philosophy too, but nobody accused me of believing in Plato�s "divine spark." Come on, ladies, is this the best you can do?? Is this the kind of garbage you have been feeding your Good Newsletter audience before I entered into the fray? As always: you make the assertion -- I'11 demand the proof. I challenge you to find one church father who wrote that he believed and taught as Church doctrine Plato's "divine spark." Any takers? Besides that, you might want to check the Council of Nicea in 325, Serdica in 344, Rome in 384 and Constantinople in 381, for the utter condemnation of the Gnostic heresy, which many of the Church fathers had attended.

As for your analysis of the word "anamnesis" used in Luke 22:19, here is what you wrote: "The word "anamnesis" means, "recollection: remembrance (again)". It comes from "anamimnesko" which means "to recollect: - call to mind, remembrance". Mark 1 1.21 uses this word: "And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him..."...This is obviously not a sacrifice." Would you mind telling us from what Greek reference you got this information? The word "anamnesis" does not, as you say, "come from," the word "anamimnesko." It is a cognate of "anamnesis." Both have a common root, "anamneo," but they are different words used different ways. I have proved and stated previously that "anamnesis" is used EXCLUSIVELY in reference to a memorial sacrifice in the NT (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25; Heb. 10:3). The word "anamimnesko" is used EXCLUSIVELY in reference to �memory" or "remembrance" Mk. 11:21; 14:72; 1 Cor. 4:17; 2 Cor. 7:15; 2 Tim. 1:6, Heb. 10:32). It is never used with sacrifice. The Jews chose the word "anamnesis" when they were performing sacrifices (Lev. 2:2,9,16; 5:12; 6:15; 24:7; Num. 5:26; 10:10), never the word "anamimnesko." They only used "anamimnesko" when referring to a non- sacrificial remembrance (Gen. 8:1; 41:9; Ex. 23:13; 2 Sam. 18:18, et al). In fact, Numbers 10:9-10 shows us the distinction of the two words very vividly. Numbers 10:9 says, "...Then you will be remembered [anamimnesko] by the Lord your God." Numbers 10:10 says, "you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial [anamnesis] for you before the Lord."It is obvious that the latter reference is purposely being changed to "anamnesis" to accomodate the sacrificial language since that is the way the word is exclusively used in the OT. In addition, the use of "anamnesis" in Numbers 10:10 is in reference to a "burnt offering" (which required the shedding of blood and the application of that blood, cf, Levitcus 1:1- 17; 4:1-26) and hence, this discredits your comment that, "each reference is concerning a meal offering not blood." Thus, audience, we see that Catholic theology is vindicated again. Jesus uses a specific word in his Last Supper "anamnesis" in Luke 22:19) that was used EXCLUSIVELY for sacrifices in the Old Testament, including those of blood. Do I have to say more?

Regarding "trogo" in John 6, FCFC says, "Are you now saying that you wound Jesus all over again as you chew him." This is another attempt by FCFC to evade the issue. Rather than deal specifically with the fact that Jesus purposely changed from "phago" (to eat) to "trogo" (to chew) in John 6:54-58, FCFC would rather debate an internal issue in the Catholic Church over whether someone can chew the Eucharist or not. That's our house, ladies. Let us worry about whether we teach people to chew or not. Let's you and I just go to the Scripture as we agreed at the outset. I have made your plate full enough by challenging you to show us some rationale as to why Jesus changes his wording in John 6. Previously, you told us that "trogo" meant "to consider." I challenged you to prove that. Now, are you sticking with that interpretation or do you have an alternative? If you have an alternative, show it to us from the Scripture and then show us how it fits in the context of John 6. If you can't then you owe it to all of us to cut out the letters of the word "CONSIDER" and after you have "considered" them for a while, put them in your mouth and chew them.

Regarding the Passover, FCFC writes: "...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." No, ladies, it does not have to be "identical," only typological. Where do you come up with these self-made rules, anyway? They are certainly not from Scripture .

As for your comment that Baptism just makes a sinner "wet," here again, I plead with your audience: Go read the Church Fathers. Obviously, FCFC does not want you to. But you owe it to yourself to find out. Don't take FCFC's word for it. In your study you will find that there wasn't one early Father who taught that baptism just makes a sinner wet. Again, were they just bumbling idiots, totally deluded, so far from the apostles' teaching that they just invented such doctrines? Your common sense tells you that can't be the case.

FCFC then attempts to say that we are not permitted to eat meat with blood by referencing 1 Sam. 14:32-33. Ladies, I don't know if you noticed or not but I Sam. 14:32-33 is in the OLD TESTAMENT when the Levitical laws were still in force. It is only in the NEW TESTAMENT when these ceremonial laws are abrogated (Col.2:16; Gal. 4:10). Or, perhaps you are Seventh Day Adventists after all (?)

Robert Sungenis

Catholic Apologetics International