WHY THE VIRGIN MARY WOULD NOT BE A MASS GOER
The Catholic Mass has probably been the most successful public worship system
ever. It claims that bread and wine are turned into Jesus and the people are fed
with Jesus. Jesus' mother Mary is often honoured by the Mass for her feasts and
she is named in every Mass. The real Mary would not want this and would not
attend Mass.
The Mass is thought to be taught by Jesus in John 6. He is supposed to have said
the first Mass at the last supper shortly before he died. There he said that
bread was his body and the cup was his blood.
Scholars see a parallel between, "The bread which I will give is my flesh for
the life of the world" in John 6 and "This is my body which is given for you" of
the Last Supper. But this is a poetic parallel. Jesus giving his flesh does not
mean the same thing as Jesus giving his body. His body would be his entire self.
If the parallel is meant to shed light on the last supper then it contradicts
the Catholic doctrine that Jesus gives us his whole self and not just his flesh
in communion.
"Take this and eat it all of you for this is my body" implies that these words
do not cause the change if the bread really changes. The words could be said if
the change has already happened. The change has already been done. If the words
had been meant literally, we would see a prayer by Jesus for the bread and wine
to change before he said that it was to be taken for it was his body.
The Church says the bread and wine become one thing, the body and blood of
Jesus. The problem is that both become the body and blood of Jesus. So why not
call the wafer the blood of Jesus and the cup the body of Jesus? This problem
shows that what Jesus did was symbolism.
Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah and gave no hint that this was symbolism.
He applied prophecies that spoke of Elijah's literal return to John. Yet the
Church says its symbolism for John was not Elijah. If the Church is right, then
Jesus may not have meant to say that the bread was literally his body.
There is no scriptural authority for the celebrating of communion for the
request to use bread and a cup in memory of Jesus was made to the apostles. Paul
in his letter tells the story as well. But nowhere is there a command to say the
bread is the body and the wine is the blood. It seems to be just taking bread
and wine and thinking of Jesus' body and blood. There is no mention of them even
being symbols!
In John 6:53, Jesus asserts that unless his listeners eat his body and drink his
blood they will not have life in them. He implied that none of his listeners
were on the road to Heaven for life is the fulfilled life which is a life that
is closed to God. Jesus said that those “who eat the bread that I shall give
shall never die unlike the Israelites in the wilderness who ate the manna and
died.” If you have no life in you, you are not connected with God at all. The
listeners were Jewish so Jesus is implying they must convert to Catholicism and
if they ever go to Mass and decide not to bother with communion they will be
damned. That is the interpretation a Catholic must take though they often try to
avoid taking it. The Mass is vindictive and judgemental in principle. There is
no evidence in the Bible that Jesus' mother was a disciple and approved of his
ministry. In fact the earliest gospel says she came to take charge of him saying
he was insane. The Mass attacks the real Mary.
John 6 allegedly has Jesus saying he will give his flesh and whoever eats it
will have eternal life. The Church sees communion in all that. Jesus did not say
whoever eats his flesh will have eternal life. He said that whoever gnaws his
flesh like an animal and not like a human will have eternal life. This indicates
a symbolic interpretation.
The Church argues however that the striking use of that word indicates that
Jesus was emphasising that he was to be physically eaten in communion. But
despite that, it still says the gnawing is symbolic. Why didn't Jesus simply
say, "Bread will be changed into my flesh and to eat it is to eat me." Why risk
confusing people? The reason is he didn't mean what the Church wants him to
mean.
John 6:54 has Jesus saying that whoever eats him will live because of him in the
same way as he lives because of the Father. Jesus does not eat the Father. The
Father gives him love and supernatural help to overcome the crave to sin. That
is how he eats the Father. Taking communion to become good is looking for a way
out of having to make yourself good for it would be damn hard work.
Jesus said that he will give his flesh as food for the life of the world. The
Jews ask how he can give his flesh to eat. The Catholic Church says that Jesus
kept repeating that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. So they say he
meant it literally for he did not correct the Jews. Jesus told them minutes
before to stop their murmuring when they said he was only the son of Joseph and
couldn't have come down from Heaven. Thus he had told them he was not going to
respect their mutterings and so the Catholic argument is devoid of substance.
Jesus said we must gnaw his body and drink his blood to have eternal life in
John 6. He said that if you do not eat the flesh and drink the blood you have no
life in you - God does not live in you and does not have a relationship with
you. Rome does not believe this for it says that you can go to Heaven for an
eternal relationship with God without ever having taken communion. The Church
even says that though Jesus commanded us to take and eat his body you don't have
to (except once a year) for nobody is worthy to do so anyway. It is really
annulling what it takes to be a commandment from God just like the Pharisees
allegedly did. Jesus severely condemned the Pharisees for that. The permission
to refuse to receive though you can contradicts the Church's doctrine that it is
a hospital for sinners and not a haven for the righteous. Not partaking implies
that you don't want to receive the graces given by communion in order to help
you live more righteously. More importantly, if Jesus meant communion by eating
flesh and drinking blood then it is a serious sin not to eat and drink. You cut
yourself off from spiritual life by grave sin according to Catholic doctrine. So
the Church should say that those who go to Mass and will not eat the body and
drink the blood of Jesus are guilty of rejecting spiritual life and there is no
life in them for Jesus said you must eat and drink his flesh and blood to have
life. The Church won't take this interpretation which shows that it is simply
does not really believe John 6 proves the bread and wine becoming Jesus.
The first teachings thought to be about the Eucharist are laden with
anti-semitism and threats against a good people who had enough bad things in
their lives for the Romans were oppressing them. Even if John 6 is not about the
Eucharist it can still be used as relevant. Texts are used to shine light on
other subjects. The Mass insults Mary's religion and people and her and she
would not be a massgoer.