HOME  Why its a mistake to give the Catholic Church support via membership or donations

 

The Vindictive Side of the Catholic Mass

The Roman Catholic Mass is claimed to turn bread and wine into Jesus who is God. It is in violation of the rule that faith should risk upsetting and hurting nobody unduly. The Mass threatens bad people and those who are accused of being bad unjustly - such as those who are in committed relationships without being married.

The Vindictive Potential of Communions

1 Corinthians 11, God's word according to Christians, says:
 
Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment.

Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together.

Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
 
This text says taking the bread and cup without respect is sinning against the body and blood of Jesus. If you don't examine your conscience properly, you will be condemned. So you will be condemned for being careless with the examination. And if there are other sins, you will be condemned for taking the food and drink without having repented. The bread and cup become judgement or punishment. This is why a lot of people are suffering and dying. The text warns that eating and drinking alone is a sin and that if you are only interested in getting filled up you had better stay at home. This implies that anybody could take food or drink in memory of Jesus so there was no need for priests to bless them.
 
The Church disagrees with the Protestant sects that teach that only those who have repented all their sins and have some love for God receive the body and blood of Jesus in Communion. The Church says that all, no matter how evil or sinful, receive the body and blood of Jesus. For those who have rejected God by sin, it is a grave sin of desecration of communion and sacrilege for them to receive the body and blood of Jesus. Why is it so bad? Is it because you take Jesus into your body and won't unite your heart to him? But you are not uniting with him anyway. So why would eating and drinking him make it any worse? Surely not uniting spiritually with Jesus who dwells everywhere spiritually all the time is worse? The implication is that there is no union with Jesus except at communion. This alone makes the rite idolatrous and blasphemous.
 
The Mass is vindictive for it is Church teaching that it threatens judgment and death on anybody who eats the wafer and drinks the cup without believing its the body and blood of Jesus or who is in a state of grave sin. This is based on a text from the Bible that say he who eats without recognising the body eats judgment and punishment and condemnation to himself from God. It tells the Corinthian Church that the reason it has members sick and dying is because they have committed that sin!
 
If you answer the sinner has only herself to blame then consider this, "I should only believe or encourage what will not deliberately upset or harm another even if it is wrong. I should only have beliefs that should they prove to be wrong, no harm to me or others is done."

Homicide?

It is said that Paul makes it clear that the worship using the bread and cup involves the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ.   Now Paul says that anybody who takes the bread and wine unworthily or without faith or without recognising the body is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus.  This leads believers into the insane notion that to take communion sacrilegiously is actually in some real sense murder.  The believers can point to Numbers 35:27, Deuteronomy 21:8, 22:8, Ezekiel 35:6 which say that saying you are guilty of the body and blood of somebody means homicide. Communion is just spiteful if it has that connotation and when it is given that connotation say in Catholicism.  But perhaps Paul means it is symbolically homicide?  If the bread and cup are only markers of Jesus' body and blood then to abuse them is homicide in a symbolic sense.  The memory of Jesus' death is mocked.  The Catholic Church pretends to believe that Paul meant the communion is a human sacrifice and to abuse it is murder. But surely if you need Jesus to die for your sin you are in fact a murderer whenever you sin?  Paul did not say the sin of abusing the bread and cup was the only way to become guilty of Jesus' death.  Thus there is no way you can read sacrifice into it.  He spoke a lot of how our sins put Jesus on the cross.

Now the Church says that Paul talks as if the body and blood of Jesus are really present meaning the bread and cup become them so to partake in a bad manner is homicide and a grave and dangerous sin.  But it does not believe that at all.  What it believes is that Jesus is present but not as crucified and dead or dying but as risen and glorious.  Suppose the Church has a point about the real presence then the homicide link is only possible if the bread is the dying body of Jesus.  It is evident that Paul means symbolic homicide - or it could be that guilty of the body and blood of the Lord is not inspired by the Old Testament texts at all.  He may just mean it is an insult.  Why did he not say guilty of murdering the Lord?  He would have if he meant homicide for the Corinthians were not Jews and did not know the Jewish usage of the term as exemplified by the mentioned texts from the Jewish Bible.  There is no evidence that Numbers 35:27, Deuteronomy 21:8, 22:8, Ezekiel 35:6 was behind his choice of words or that they were important to Paul or remembered by him.

The worst version of the notion that taking the bread or cup without recognising the body is that it means if you take them without believing that the bread actually is the body of Jesus. That is totally vindictive for belief is not a choice. 

To think that Christians are happy with an apostle and a Jesus who says people must suffer and get sick and die if they take communion without recognising the body or unworthily is alarming and disgraceful and intolerable.

Patrick Madrid on the subject

Paul the apostle wrote in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 11:17) that whoever partakes of the bread and the drink (he never says wine) without recognising the body is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and so people should examine themselves first. Patrick Madrid says Paul means three things cause this guilt. The person in a state of grave sin so its sacrilege for him to eat and drink. The person who partakes and doesn't believe the bread and drink are the body and blood of Christ is committing a grave sin. The person who partakes and doesn't examine himself to make sure he is not guilty of grave sin also commits a grave sin. See page 113, Where is that in the Bible? But Paul simply says that whoever partakes of the bread without recognising the body eats and drinks judgement and suffering to himself. He doesn't say recognising the body in the bread or that the bread is the body but nevertheless the Catholics do believe that it is a grave sin for anyone to take communion while being sceptical that communion is the body and blood of Jesus. Romanism does not believe that Protestant communion is real communion. But nevertheless the Protestant intends to partake of communion by taking it. He or she is in the same position as a Catholic who takes real communion but doesn't believe it is the body of Christ. Both intend to take communion while believing that bread does not become Jesus. The intention is the same so if one sins so does the other. The reality or not of the communion is not the point. Paul does not say that grave sinners are banned from the bread and cup or that it is a sin for them to partake.
 
Whoever partakes of the bread and cup without recognising the body is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. So Paul says. Madrid says this is a euphemism for murder (page 113, Where is that in the Bible?). Christianity thinks there isn't enough guilt in the world causing trouble and making people anti-social so it has to add to it with rubbish like this. It must be the worst form of murder to kill the son of God or the man who is God, Jesus Christ. Doctrines like that accustom you to feel you are a murderer and live with it. It won't be surprising if you get the strength to go out and kill somebody and not mind doing so! Christianity has a nerve accusing a person taking communion who has the sense to disbelieve that it is the body of Jesus of murder and then deny that the Church is a murderer for gathering up treasures and not selling them for the dying poor in Africa. Nobody can prove I kill Jesus by taking communion while not believing. But people can prove I kill by neglect when I won't serve the poor in Africa. The Church says it is not a murderer for it doesn't intend to kill the poor. But when I take communion I don't intend to kill Jesus either! And besides, if I won't take my dying cat to the vet knowing the vet could save it, I am simply lying if I say I didn't intend to kill it. Its actions not words that tell the tale!

Abraham

After the bread and wine are supposedly changed, the priest offers them to God in the spirit of Abraham who was willing to murder his son as a sacrifice after God told him to. "Look with favour on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchisedech." That is a quote from the Catholic Mass. The root problem is people believing that Abraham should be praised for being willing to obey God's order to kill his son in sacrifice. Decent people reject such ideas outright whether they appear in Catholicism or Islam.

Jesus was called a good teacher in the earliest gospel, Mark, and he strenuously objected to being called a good teacher. The Mass insults him by calling him sinless and making him into God. It mocks his death and his god by making out that Jesus was a human sacrifice appointed by God to pay for sins he did not commit.

Conclusion

The Mass is a serious violation of the humanitarian conscience. What right has any religious person to exclude another at a fellowship ritual over faith? What about innocent until proven guilty?  The fruits of the Mass are accusations of murder and what kind of smug person can be happy with it while knowing all that? Those who partake against the rules are even accused of bringing evil on themselves and those they love!