Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H


The Roman Catholic Church re-enacts the time when Jesus took bread and wine and said they were his body and blood and invited his apostles to eat and drink. This ceremony is called the Mass or Eucharist. Incredibly, the Church insists that the bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Jesus. The bread and wine at Mass turn into the real body and blood of Jesus. The Church says that the priest uses God’s power to change bread and wine into Jesus. He changes what makes the bread to be bread but without the bread seeming any different. So too with the wine. The priest raises the bread and wine at the heart of the Mass for adoration by the people.


The worship of idols not to be named is the beginning and cause and end of every evil. For their worshippers either rave in exultation, or prophesy lies, or live unrighteously, or readily commit perjury; for because they trust in lifeless idols they swear wicked oaths and expect to suffer no harm (Wisdom 14:27-29).
The text says that some idolaters do not live in an obviously bad way and exult and love their faith. That will prove significant.
God is spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. John 4:24
The Mass is worshipping the body and blood of God. It is not worshipping him in spirit. And what use is truth if it could be that your cup of tea is not really tea but transubstantiated into urine?
I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory I will not give to another and I will not give my praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:8
Graven images includes images of God. He will not give his praise to them - meaning the praise we give him. He takes it all and shares none of it.
John Calvin the reformer wrote:
If it is not lawful to affix Christ in our imagination to the bread and the wine, much less is it lawful to worship him in the bread. For although the bread is held forth to us as a symbol and pledge of the communion which we have with Christ, yet as it is a sign and not the thing itself, and has not the thing either included in it or fixed to it, those who turn their minds towards it, with the view of worshipping Christ, make an idol of it.
"A Catholic is a person who eats small pieces of bread on Sunday mornings and pretends to be a cannibal" said Edwin Brock.  The Eucharist experiences no physical change - yet the Church says it is literally the body and blood of Jesus. Sounds like pretending to me! If it's not then there is no such thing as pretending. A pretend God would be an idol. When you pretend your doll is alive, you treat it as if its substance has changed. Those who think they believe in the Eucharistic change are mistaking pretending for recognising a real change or vice versa. If you are pretending that your door knocker is God you cannot admit this to others. You would have to invoke mystery and say it changed into God somehow without seeming to be anything other than a door knocker. The alleged change in the Eucharist is really just a refusal to admit that a lot of pretending is going on. If Catholics are pretending that the wafer is Jesus, they have no excuse but to say, "No we are not pretending. The wafer changed into Jesus but its an undetectable change." That is exactly what you would say to cover up the pretending.
Lots of people, religious and non-religious, seem to think that words are things. They worship religious language and mistake it for God. Many worship the concept of God and feel as if they worship God. But the words or doctrines or concepts are not the reality. They can be a substitute for it. The worship of the Eucharist bread and wine is based on our ability to engage in reification. It is idolatry.
Some believers in the bread and wine becoming Jesus' body and blood think that it means a piece of flesh and some real blood are there. But God tricks your senses so that it looks and feels like you are consuming bread and wine. It is exactly the same as disguising soya as meat. This is not transubstantiation which is a bit more complicated than turning buttermilk into butter, it is more complicated than a strictly physical change.
Others hold that God does not trick your senses and that you really sense bread and wine but by faith you know something has changed and they are not the bread and wine they seem to be.
Even if the Bible says bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus it does not say that transubstantiation is the answer. And most people think it makes no sense so when they worship at Mass they are in effect intending to worship something they feel is God. What matters to them is the feeling.
Augustine of Hippo laid down that if the Bible talks absurdities then you must reason as follows: "If a passage is prescriptive, and if it either forbids a crime or wickedness or enjoins usefulness or charity, it is not figurative. But if it seems to command a crime or wickedness or to forbid usefulness or kindness, it is figurative." Speaking of John 6:53 Augustine said that it "appears to enjoin wickedness or a crime. It is a figure therefore teaching us that we partake of the benefits of the Lord's passion, and that we must sweetly and profitably treasure up in our memories that flesh of our Lord that was crucified and wounded for us."
We hear of some bizarre miracles in the religious world. It is not the result of the miracle that should count as making it ridiculous. It is the power used. Its a bigger miracle to turn bread into Jesus without any change being perceptible than it is to turn a prince into a frog. It takes more power. The Catholic Mass where bread allegedly becomes Jesus surpasses any fairy story.
Catholic idolatry?
The really good person does not use prayer to make themselves feel they are doing something for others. They strive to accomplish by themselves what they ask. They do not pray for John to get better instead of prayerfully going to help John. If all they do is pray, their prayers are just the "vain repetitions" that Christ went on about. The fact that the Catholic Church lays down rules and laws and complex rites, and Masses, for prayer show it is more concerned with magic than with action.
The Catholic Church during Mass gives the bread and wine of communion the same worship as it gives God. It says they are the body and blood of Jesus Christ, who is God.
The heathens worshipped idols. Nobody worships a statue for example just because it is a statue. Thus it is clear that sincere worship of idols is adoring them not God. There is no room for saying, "They mean to worship the divine despite appearances." Such an argument would mean there is no such thing as idolatry after all!
The Catholics worship bread and wine. They justify this by saying that a change has happened. But there is no change.
The Church teaches that the Mass is at the centre of Christian life. In other words, it is the Jesus present in the Eucharist that matters. Jesus is to be contemplated and approached only through the Eucharist. The prayers and sacraments are ultimate preparation for the Eucharist. When we pray to him, we must pray to the Eucharist. All things are done through the Eucharist. If this worship is idolatry, it follows then that the Catholic religion is wholly superficially Christian. It honours something it calls Jesus but which is not Jesus. There is far too much staked on such a philosophically and scripturally unconvincing doctrine. The bigger the claim the better the evidence you need.
Idolatry can be understood as excessive worship. The Catholic worship of the Eucharist is excessive worship at least in attitude. It is the deliberate cultivation of idolatry.
Magic means to have a formula by which a person can get God under his power. God by definition is greater than man and so he must consent to this scheme. There is no point in doing magic if you are more powerful than God. Black magic is when a person has the formula to put evil spirits under his power. White magic is when a person thinks that through a certain prayer or a blessed object he can put God under his power. White magic is hypocrisy for it treats God as a fool while pretending to honour him. If God claims to be God and takes orders from you he is lying and deluded and is not much of a God. So then you are really masking your devotion to forces that lie they are God. Be clear on this - the mass is black magic for even if Jesus is good, the Mass is not based on that goodness. The talk of good is just words. If Jesus advocated magic then he clearly had no right to condemn people to Hell forever and is evil beyond what even a million Hitlers would be. The Church says that Hell exists because God is all-perfect love. The Church says it will agree with all condemnations of the doctrine of Hell as immoral and evil and hateful if its doctrine of God is wrong. The Mass is an abomination.
The priest turns the bread and wine into Jesus whenever he wants. Even if the intention is to mock the Eucharist it still changes. The Church denies that it is forcing Jesus against his will to change them into him because it says he sees all that will happen and it only happens because he agreed to do what the priest asks and empowers the priest. But Jesus cannot make a decision now based on what he sees the future will bring. The future cannot cause the past. He makes the decision and then he sees the results in the future. Spiritualists claim that when they make the dead appear it is because the dead have consented. Nobody admits to trying to control supernatural entities such as Jesus and spirits. But they act as if they do and that is the point. Jesus agreeing to turn bread and wine through the priest into himself even if all priests do it to mock the consecrated bread and wine is superstition. It is not about love but about giving an honour to the priest. The priest is merely looking for an honour. Jesus is not behind such a daft scheme.
If a host that is merely bread and is not changed into Jesus is put into a monstrance for worship by the Catholics, they will still think their veneration of it brings them spiritual favours and graces. They will sense that it is Jesus. This test would show that whether it is consecrated or not, worship of the wafer is idolatry. You could even try it out by using white cardboard cut into a circle. Worshippers of the fake host and the real one will not feel any different and both will experience the fake Jesus the same way as they do the "real" one. The experiment shows the degradation of the worship of communion.
We tend to be grateful to things when they benefit us. We feel a sense of gratitude towards the car that gets us to hospital. We kick and curse the car and swear at it when it breaks down. We treat events and things as if they consciously bless us and curse us. This irrationality is behind people's devotion to the Eucharist. It is no wonder so many easily and too easily believe in God. Even if adoring the Eucharist is not idolatry in itself, our motivations for honouring it are most likely idolatrous.
The Catholic believer hungers for the Eucharist and feels Jesus is united with him for the few minutes that the host is in him before it is digested. This contradicts Jesus' promise in John 6 that he who consumes Jesus will have no spiritual hunger. The Catholic then is not receiving the real Jesus. The Mass is a trick to prevent people really receiving Jesus and to keep them coming back for spiritual food. Jesus was speaking about spiritual food that is keeps feeding you forever if you let it. Eating Jesus is a spiritual eating and is not about changing bread into his body and losing that spiritual food after a few minutes when it becomes bread again.
The Church uses statues in the veneration of saints. Why not teach that statues are transubstantiated into the saints they represent? The Church would see that as idolatry even though it worships communion wafers as God. The worship of the Eucharist as God then is idolatry.
Doctrine that the bread and wine of Communion are literally the body and blood if Christ is not in the Bible

If God is love and Catholics adore what is not God, then they are going away from him and from love when they worship with the Mass. They call on a god for help who cannot hear. The Mass does not focus on love but on elements allegedly changed into Jesus. There is nothing in the Bible that says there is a change. The Bible has Jesus saying the bread he will give is his flesh for the life of the world. He says that bread is his body. But we don't have the words "changed into". The Bible never states that the bread and wine change into Jesus Christ. The Church invented the doctrine to satiate its flock which was addicted to idolatry.
Scholars see a parallel between, "The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world" and "This is my body which is given for you." 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.
The Bible has Jesus saying before he was crucified that the wine is his blood which is being poured or shed (Matthew 26:28). Jesus’ blood wasn’t shed then. Yet the Church claims that this was the first Mass. This event contradicts Catholic teaching that it is the resurrected Jesus that is present in the Eucharist giving his entire self as spiritual food. The reasoning is that the risen body of Jesus is full of grace so to eat it gives you God's transforming power to make you from a sinner into a saint. The Church sees the risen body of Jesus as feeding us spiritually not by being flesh but by being the source of grace, it is saturated with grace. If it is divine grace that feeds us then the body and blood of Jesus cannot feed us. It is blasphemy to indicate that we need to top up on grace by attending Mass and communion as if God's grace is not effective for long. The Bible makes it clear that divine grace is so effective that it is worth dying to get it.
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.


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.


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 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.
Interestingly, if you cannot receive because you are in a state of serious sin imagine the blasphemy of going to Mass while adhering to sin and refusing to at least repent? It is on the level of Jesus offering you his body and you telling him to f**king stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
The gospeller never claimed that his gospel was infallible. The Church believes that God is the author of the gospel but that does not necessarily mean that God approves of all in it. God can guide a person in writing down their vindictive feelings in a Psalm. He is only helping the person to put it on paper but that does not suggest that he approves of the opinions expressed. We cannot conclude that just because the gospel says something that it is necessarily true. The thought that we have to gnaw or eat the body and blood of Jesus at Mass in the form of bread and wine is based on the chapter. Catholics incorrectly interpret it. Jesus in John 6 was speaking of himself, body and blood, as spiritual food. He never said you need food turned into him to feast on him.
The chapter states that the food Jesus offers is the new manna. It is better and even more important than the manna God dropped down out of heaven to the Israelites during Moses time. The manna saved the lives of the starving people of Israel. By describing the bread he shall give as manna, Jesus indicates that it is absolutely necessary to eat it. The Church has never claimed this for the Eucharist.

If Jesus taught what the Church says he taught about the Eucharist then Jesus was promoting the lowest kind of idolatry, praying to food and drink! It is worse than praying to a Golden Calf like the people of Israel did.
We must remember that the Bible talks about the Church being the body and person of Jesus Christ in very literal terms. Yet nobody takes that seriously - not even Catholics. Thus a declaration that bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus cannot be taken as proof that they are!
There is no authority for the celebrating of communion
The Church of Rome argues that only priests and bishops have the power to give you the body and blood of Jesus in the Mass so Jesus' commands that we must eat his body and drink his blood presuppose a Church.  Not a word of the New Testament mentions anybody needing power to do it.  In fact if Jesus did tell the Jews to eat his body and drink his blood Catholic style that would rule out the need for the Church for he implied to them that they could have his body and blood there and then and there was no Church or priests then! 


Jesus merely said that the apostles were to think of him when they took bread and wine.
He did not say he commanded them to take bread and wine just for this. He only asked them to do it. There is no reason to think that he asked us to do it.
We can only remember him in the loose sense. Do this in memory of me when spoken to friends must mean, “This is personal to you for you know me. Revive your personal memories of me”. The friends of Jesus were asked to remember him. We may do so as well but we are not asked to.
Nowhere is it said that somebody has to take bread and wine and say, “This is my body” or “This is my blood.”
At least the Salvation Army knows all that!
The Spiritual Barrier - the Mass cannot work even if there is a change in bread and wine
Jesus Christ said that the greatest commandment was to love God with all your powers i.e. in totality. We are to love God to that extent just because he commanded it. We therefore do not do it because it will be good for us or anybody else. We are to love our neighbour because God commanded it which means we do not love the neighbour for herself or himself but for God only. Love for God alone is expressed through doing his will for others. He wants us to do good for others but for his sake and not theirs at all. It makes us inhuman. Catholics cannot want the bread and wine to turn into a God like that. They would not really want to be nourished by him or to worship him in the form of bread and wine. What Catholics worship is a fantasy god. The Eucharist is idolatry. The Catholic has no right to ask for anything in return for going to Mass apart from a reprimand.
Idolatry is adoring what is not divine as your god who has power over you. Whether intentional or not it is a degrading error. It degrades and those who are influenced by you and if God exists it means you are bypassing him to adore a man-made idol. Christianity says that as we are to love God with all our heart and soul and mind and powers that idolatry is the ultimate sin. It keeps you from seeing the love of God properly and from growing through seeing it. Religion argues that idolaters soon turn into brutes.
In pagan magic, sometimes cannibalism was practiced in the thought that the courage or qualities of the dead person could pass into the person eating his flesh. The Catholic desire to eat of the body of Jesus is based on that notion. But a theologian will say that as Jesus' virtues are in his spiritual soul that is unlikely to be the motive. But that is irrelevant. You cannot absorb the qualities of a person by eating their flesh unless there is spiritual or magical power in the flesh to make that possible.
The Catholic Church reveres the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Jesus. That is what makes it special. If Jesus were believed to be spiritually present in the Eucharist it would not get the veneration it gets. This clearly shows the Catholic is interested in the magic and in the body and blood not what really matters, the spirit and life and divinity - and therefore virtue - of Jesus. Even if Jesus is in the Eucharist, the Catholics are guilty of idolatry in their intent. If he is not in it, then their idolatry is immeasurable.
Do not attend idolatrous worship
Any religion that practices idolatry is openly insulting human dignity and we should not degrade ourselves to attend its worship. To attend its worship is to give that worship a reason to take place.
Even if you went to worship at a Presbyterian Church which had no members, the worship could still take place if enough curiosity seekers went. To attend is to approve of the worship or to say that it is not bad enough to deserve avoidance.

Catholicism condemns idolatry because it contradicts the commandment to love God with all our being. So its worry is the disrespect idolatry gives to God the Creator when the creation is worshipped instead of him.
Some disagree. They say that if the bread and wine are not Jesus, then to worship them is to worship him for that is what we mean to worship. They say we are just making an error not about Jesus but about where he is. We think he is where the wafer is but he is not.
But Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:4 says that an idol has no real existence and we know it. If the bread and wine are not Jesus then to worship them is idolatry.
The Church says we are all sinners - or rebels against God. It warns that we cannot look down on others as worse sinners than us. It quotes the Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee from Luke 16 to prove that. If we are sinners then nobody can argue, "They mean well when they worship this idol so maybe God understands and accepts the worship as being ultimately intended for him?" Our attitude would prevent that rationalisation from having any validity. 

Luke 18 praises the tax collector for keeping to the back of the Temple to pray and would not even raise his eyes to God but just prayed for mercy.  The Mass is nothing like that where people go to communion to show they are to be considered free from serious sin!!  Their priest is very far from the tax collector in arrogantly posing as another Jesus.
The readings from the Bible at Mass are often disturbing and spiteful. One wonders what kind of impression they make to the simple layperson. They look absurd and insane and vicious especially at first. The worshippers must have a passive aggressive streak to be able to celebrate and honour those readings by calling them the word of God. Only a tiny number in the Church attempt to justify the readings and what they say and it takes a lot of distorting and contorting to justify the intolerable. The worship of a spiteful degraded God is idolatry by everybody's definition.
If the Mass is not idolatry then what is? Could you imagine Jesus looking at a pagan adoring an idol of Baal and saying that the pagan worships God but just has made a mistake and thinks Baal is God.

It would follow that you could adore whatever you wish as long as you convince yourself that it has been turned into Jesus and this will never be idolatry.
Mass is Occult
If bread can turn into Jesus then why can’t we turn frogs into Jesus as well if he wants us to? Can’t you see that this belief is magic? It is more magical than princes being turned into frogs. To turn a prince into what is a real frog in a pond is magic. It is even more magical to turn a prince into a frog without the prince seeming to have changed at all! The alleged change is EXTREME MAGIC, EXTREME OCCULT!
The Bible God commands that we destroy idols and refuse to tolerate them. In Acts 15, the apostles commanded believers to keep away from food polluted by being offered to idols. Imagine how bad it must be if the food is the idol! Paul says that eating such food is only a sin if eaten in the context of religious worship (1 Corinthians 10:19-22). He described it as communion with demons.
Also, the Catholic is to regard the Mass as the sacrifice for his or her sins. The Church argues that though Jesus died once for sins, his sacrifice is made present at the Mass so that the sacrifice of the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass are identical and one and the same. This doctrine is based on a notion of time and eternity taken from Greek philosophy. It is thought that every moment of time is with God like it is happening now. So it follows that World War 2 is present in the Mass as well. And it follows that everything is a Mass or Sacrifice. Even going to the toilet makes Jesus' offering present. The Church denies all that which proves that it does not really think the Mass is the same sacrifice as Jesus'. It is a new one. Thus Catholicism is not Christian for rather than depending on the sacrifice of Jesus for forgiveness and sanctification it invents a new one and pretends its the same.
Politics of Mass
Do not attend the Catholic Mass for estimations of the attendance at Mass is or could be taken into account by the state and government officials. If hardly anybody went, those entities would have less interest in the views of the Church than they have. They would not for example be able to humour the pope who may wish to make a visit to the country that is subsidised by the state to the detriment of healthcare. The vast majority of the Irish went to Mass in the past and they obeyed the priests without question. As a result, the government assumed that the will of the Church was the will of the people and Ireland - for example - was left without contraceptive and divorce rights. Going to Mass is indicating that other people may do the same and that the faith should pollute politics if enough people do it. Don’t do it.
Atheist and Mass

If you are an atheist, going to Mass will be considered to be against your principles. What if you do it to please your devout parents? Are you abandoning the principle? Or are you keeping the principle but obeying a more important one: the desire to keep your parents happy? Are you selfish if you refuse to go to Mass? Or are you selfish if you go to please your parents? Suppose you refuse. Is it about the principle or about how you feel about the principle?
The Argument from Fruits refutes the goodness and usefulness of the Mass
In terms of good fruits, even if the Mass does not produce bad fruits it does not help produce good ones. Any good that mass goers do was going to be happen anyway and it would be arrogant and degrading to them to say the Mass was behind this good. If our goodness comes from us then it needs to be acknowledged.
Matthew 7:15-20 New International Version (NIV)
Jesus said 15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."
The text mentions that the prophets will seem so good that they are like sheep. All false prophets need to do a lot of good to get a following. Also, how much bad fruit does a tree need to be called a bad tree? Jesus is saying that a good tree bears only good fruit. This is a metaphor for a good tree can bear a little bad fruit. But the metaphor suggests that the true prophet makes his followers into trees that bear only the best of fruit. True followers of the prophet will be like angels.
Jesus said that bad fruits follow false prophets. He said that we know the true prophets and the false from their fruits. Good prophets make good fruits. He asked if grapes can be gathered from thorns. He meant us to see that they cannot. He denied that an evil religious teacher or prophet can produce ANY good fruits. Or did he?
Others say he meant that the false prophet cannot turn evil people into good rapidly. They point out that he said that a true prophet is able to gather grapes from thorns metaphorically speaking. He is talking about miracle conversions following true prophets. So if evil people miraculously turn good that is like the impossible happening and it is like grapes coming from thorns. The agent is God through his prophet.
Whatever Jesus meant, he rejected the popular view that if a religion does a reasonable amount of good it is from God. A reasonable amount of good is not enough. It is normal and so it means nothing. It has to be abnormally or miraculously good. Clearly the fruits he has in mind are heroic and supernatural virtue. He means true prophets have an unusually high following of saints. He denied that an evil or good natured but fraudulent religious teacher or prophet can produce such good fruits. People tend to think a religious claim is true if followers feel happy because of it and do good. But Jesus says that is not enough. You need to see saintly heroism in them.
The Mass does nothing special. It is a con.
Communion - the Placebo for a Tarnished Conscience
The world suffers great harm because of the violence and hatred unleashed by religions identifying themselves as Islamic. The Muslim is asked to repent before he prays. There is nothing in Islam that sanctions the person in his evil and gives him a placebo so that he feels good about being bad along the shameless lines of the Catholic Eucharist. The Muslims do nothing to make themselves look virtuous and to win the acclaim of the community when they are at worship.
The Roman Catholic Church pretended to vehemently oppose IRA violence. This was mere words. Moreover, the Church says that it is ultimately up to you to decide if your violent activities are self-defence or protecting people for only you can know. So the disapproval of the Church does not count for much and may only be cosmetic. IRA enablers in Sinn Fein or the republican movement were given holy communion without hesitation though they did nothing to indicate that they had repented.
Holy Communion in public is a declaration that you are trying to participate in the Church's ambition to become a family united in love and faith and free from serious sin. It is a declaration that you are trying to get grace from God to prevent you sinning seriously. It is parading virtue. It is also saying, "If I am bad I am trying to do something about it and need God to help for I cannot do much alone. Therefore do not condemn me but admire me for trying. I may fall but I am only human." This is just a ploy to feel good while you do outrageous evil. It shows why the doctrine of grace, God magically turning you from a monster into God's gift in record time, is so appealing. Holy Communion is a placebo for the evil person. Thus it can be argued that Roman Catholicism sanctioned religious terrorism in a way that Islam does not and cannot. It is sanctioned in a very clear and public and religious way. Which religion then is the worst? It is the religion that is the best at sanctioning evil and enabling it that is the worst even if it seems on the face of it to do less violence than say Islam. That religion is Roman Catholicism.
The Mass is proof that the idolatry of old is with us. It's presentation is different but its essence is the same. Neither Christian or atheist should attend Mass except for very grave reasons. And nobody should enable it to take place for any reason.

The real purpose of the Mass is to bolster up Church power and influence and thus it is a dreadful lie.  The idea that the rite gives you Jesus as food and he sacrifices himself for you is a bait and so are all the lavish trappings of the Mass.  The Church needed a ritual concept like no other and the ceremony is definitely the most effective religious ritual of all time in terms of drawing people.  The plan is to get society to attend Mass and thus listen to the propaganda of the Church. The Mass is to blame for drawing people to Church to hear a message of lies and without the Mass there would have been a smaller Inquisition and less religious wars.  The Mass bolstered and represented the power of clerics.  The fruits of the Mass are akin to the fruits of Hell itself.  You drink blood at Mass only it is not the blood of Christ.


People are conditioned into the Catholic faith and attending Mass is to help maintain that conditioning. Religious error and refusal to see the truth gets validation from the public presence of religion and seeing others congregating in its name.


People should bear in mind that by partaking of communion in the Roman Catholic Church they are in principle professing that church's doctrine despite its errors and lies and dangers.


Jesus celebrated the feast of death, the Passover and based the Eucharist on it according to the Church. The feast praised God for killing innocent children in Egypt and was based on that event. God was trying to force Egypt to let Israel go free from slavery. Neither Jesus or the Eucharist deserve any respect for honouring evil.


Some unbelievers still enjoy the Mass when performed with passion and dignity and drama. If they understood the malignance behind its artistic presentation their blood would run cold.