top of page




1)  What good does eating a human body do for you? physically.

2)  How can you get the entire body of Jesus on a spoon? (Orthodoxy always feeds communion on a spoon - totally not in the bible)

3)  Why does it still smell, taste and look like bread and wine?

4)  How could the disciples eat Jesus if he stood in front of them?

5)  How could the disciples eat Jesus Christ crucified before he was crucified?

6)  How can they eat Jesus Christ resurrected before he was resurrected?

7)  If we eat Christ's resurrected body, that is a special transfigured body with special attributes and powers. It is in effect an altered body than the disciples are supposed to have eaten.

8)  Why is bowing the knee to (Roman Catholic) or prostrating yourself before (Orthodox) a piece of bread not idolatry?

9)  Why isnt it blasphemy to call a piece of bread God? (it is called fornication to worship any thing or one except God).

10)  If you chew up Jesus and digest him, why does that not break the prophecy "You shall not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption"?  (Acts 2:27 & Acts 13:35 & Psalm 16:10) see 1 Corinthians 15:54 where it further says Jesus' resurrected body is incorruptible.

11)  The new testament says the crucifixion of Christ was a sacrifice ONCE for ALL.


12)  Why isn't eating human flesh and blood cannibalism?

13)  The cup the Whore of Babylon offers the world is obviously the mass.

14)  Why isn't multiple Christs across the whole planet in mass and holy eucharists a multitude of false Christs (a prophecy Jesus said would happen).

15)  (Catholics only) How can a man be empowered to create God in the flesh?

16)  The Book of Acts forbids drinking blood.

17)  Why does Jesus say the communion is specifically only a remembrance?

18)  If you have "no life in you" unless you have physically eaten Jesus, does that mean no one can be saved without the mass or eucharist supplied through men? (the real meaning is you should have an all consuming love for God that transcends even the love of your family, without which the relationship of a true believer is not there.) .

19) In Orthodoxy, they drop onto a spoon together:

a) bread (his body, blood, soul and divinity) onto
b) wine mixed with water (his body, blood, soul and divinity), so why is that not two of Jesus? Same eating the crumbs
c) The priest take the elements separately, as if it is a higher form of taking it, as trusted not to spill crumbs, whereas the masses must be spoon fed it in a mixing of the two. It may be the so called laity kept dropping crumbs on the floor and standing on them, thus this tradition evolved (?).


20)  Nowhere in the bible does it say to mix water and wine for communion (Orthodoxy).

​21) In Orthodoxy the priest takes "the elements" separately, being careful every crumb has been eaten up, put on a napkin and take wine, so no separate droplets fall to the dust. That is simply a different communion than the laity in the same service.


22) The Jewish Passover (The Feast of Unleavened bread) did not use leaven, so the bread was unleavened and the wine was grape juice according to most Evangelical preachers. So how is the Holy Eucharist the same as Jesus gave if the bread and wine are different (in Orthodoxy - who use leavened bread and alcoholic wine?


23) It is as obvious to spiritual people that the eucharist or mass bread do not turn into flesh and blood, as it is that the Miracle of Holy Fire that occurs every year in Jerusalem is a complete and utter fake. It is as real sa saying "It is not raining, that is the angels crying." 

24) Do you admit that if the bread and wine do stay the same, as Evangelical born again Christians say, then by saying the bread and wine are the "body, blood, soul and divinity" of Christ, it is an act of idolatry (spiritual fornication), especially if you bow to them or prostrate yourself before them? Answer.

25) If the Orthodox Church do not believe they eat the flesh and blood of Christ, what do they think they eat, and when did they repudiate the Pope and the Catholics as heretics for thinking and saying they do?

26) The Orthodox religion (that performs infant communion) puts water into the communion wine. This is not found in scripture. Giving children and babes neat wine is against natural parental instincts, thus in order to practice their bogus tradition of infant communion (as if part of their salvation) water may have been added to the wine for this cause, to help to dupe people into the practice.

27) In the Great Schism the Orthodox believers accused the Roman Catholics of "Judaising the communion" by using unleavened bread not leavened bread, but in so doing they pointed to the fact the first communion, a passover, did use unleavened bread.

28) The Roman Catholics and Orthodox believers DO NOT take the bible literally about the communion, if they did they would believe the wine is ONLY blood and the bread is ONLY his Body. If the Orthodox want to say they are different because they really do believe it is blood only, and body only, there seems to be few conflicts over it, as it would mean a VERY pronounced difference between transubstantiation and metousiosis.  It is worded in Orthodoxy as if they believe the change is that simplistic, but if they stick to this it brings up a lot of questions Catholics would not necessarily have to answer. Like drinking blood is forbidden even in the new covenant in Acts.

​29) "Do this in remembrance of me." How could they be remembering his death and resurrection when he had not died yet? the obvious answer the Orthodox might give is "it was an instruction for future eucharists"....... but then they stop and think < if I say that, the very first eucharist was just bread and wine, like Evangelicals say! > thus they decide to totally discount that possibility and instead prefer to believe they were remembering his death then, and were eating his crucified and resurrected body, with such fanciful excuses as "God dwells outside of  time!" Yes but Jesus died inside of time, and it had not happened yet, and they were not remembering him then, or his resurrection, neither were they eating his resurrected body.

30) when the bread turns into the body of Jesus, is it his crucified body without resurrection, his resurrected body, or his ascended body?

​​31) When put in its simplest rendering it is "Eat and digest Jesus to "stay saved", this meal can only be provided via priests."

​32) If they supposedly eat the resurrected Jesus, they a) "eat him alive", and, b) "digest him alive". a) is quite painful, b) even more so unless you say he dies in the process of eating,

​33) If you chew the bread you have (say) 50 Jesus in your mouth at the same time, as each crumb is the "body, soul and divinity" of Jesus, and at very least 50 people in the communion queue eat 50 different Jesus.

The Orthodox way of taking the eucharist is unhygienic. Plunging the same spoon into people's mouths over and over again can spread several viruses and diseases, including the common cold, mumps, herpes simplex (cold sores), strep throat, mononucleosis (kisser's disease), and possibly meningitis. It is even possible, though it seldom happens, to contract foot and mouth disease in this way. The same napkin is used over and over again too.

In what year was a spoon even first used?

35) do you bow the knee before the "changed" bread (Catholic) or prostrate yourself before it (Orthodoxy)

36) the vocabulary of Orthodoxy proves its man made ritualism, as names are given to almost each one, especially in the blasphemy room at the back of the so called church, where the "cannibalism" is supposed to be initiated.

37) Throughout Fox's Book of Martyrs we see countless tales of men and women burnt alive "for denying the real presence" in the eucharist. This is "the wine of the wrath of her fornication" Rev 16:3 & 14:8. They literally wanted to murder everyone who would not call a piece of bread God in the flesh, and similarly every drop of wine.

38) did Jesus keep the old testament law in full if he went against the old covenant law and used leavened bread and alcoholic wine in the Last Supper? Interesting point of discussion as Orthodoxy use both, and is their communion the same as Christs therefore??? Also this gives babies and children their first taste of alcohol.

39) If a strict vegetarian refuses to "eat flesh" he cannot be saved?

40) Jesus said he would not drink the wine..... but did he eat himself at the Last Supper? 


John 6:53 It is a simile, like "the sheep and the goats" representing the necessity to have an all consuming love for God, that transcends that even of love for your family.


42) If Jesus is being eaten alive, why would he not feel pain?

43) Do the Orthodox eat his living flesh or his dead flesh and blood?

44) Prove a resurrected body even has any blood, 1 Cor 15 says you are a fool if you think you know what the resurrected body is like. What colour is the blood? Red? Like water? What is in it? How is it the same communion the disciples took BEFORE he was resurrected?

45) What is this supposed consecration in sequence?


"And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body." Mark 14:22

Jesus said here "this is my body" sequentially after he gave it to them. 

46) Even the Orthodox will admit that the bread and wine were just symbols before the so called "consecration". It was Jesus himself who blessed the bread and supposedly "turned it into" his flesh. The Orthodox variously try to explain away the dissimilarity by saying sometimes "Jesus possesses the priest" however do do what? Jesus possesses the priest to invoke the Holy Ghost? Was it the Holy Ghost or Jesus who first supposedly turned the bread into his human flesh (Catholics say the bread is his blood also).

This is also a double blasphemy if they say that, as first the Holy Ghost is "invoked" into supposedly supplying cannibalism, and second they say it was Jesus possessing the priest (I think we will so bust that heresy and the Orthodox will say it far less frequently and deny it as doctrine)

47) Some Orthodox try to argue a priest is "possessed by Jesus" as he "invokes the Holy Ghost", that could be seen by some as a fulfilment of the prophecy of false Christs at the end of the age?

48) Orthodoxy teaches - the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice for confessed sins in addition to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

49) Rule 2 of the Council of Antioch penalizes those who “turn away” from the Communion with excommunication. Zonaras explains that the turning away should not be understood as outright defiance of the Sacrament, which leads to a full banishment and anathema, but rather reluctance to take part in the Eucharist due to false humility.


reverse transubstantiation.


Filthiness - The mass is one of the major identifying things that links the Mother of Harlots to her daughters - the various Orthodox churches. A Protestant (and I believe correct) interpretation of "the filthiness of her fornication" is the fornication is calling bread and wine God (idolatry) and the filthiness is the concept of the being cannibals, and also digesting Jesus. The Roman Catholics have therefore at some point in history invented a doctrine that states "Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist". What this means is that when the bread hits your stomach acid and begins to be digested, at some point, perhaps 15 minutes, the bread begins to move along into the digestion process so that it will eventually (pardon my bluntness but it must be dealt with) be turned into faeces, and the Catholic get-around that this breaks the scripture "Thou shalt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption" is to say that it is at this point that the "species no longer subsists". So a second so called miracle occurs, that might be termed by Protestants perhaps as "de-transubstantiation" or "reverse transubstantiation". So chewing up Jesus and having him swilling about inside your stomach with pepsin, and the remainders of your breakfast is not breaking the scripture "Thou shalt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption" ??? Sorry - but it clearly is breaking the scripture.

The question is, does Orthodoxy have the same doctrine of reverse transubstantiation? Or do they claim their less specific word metousiosis does not require the same answer as they avoid the word "substance"? I feel pretty well 100% sure the Orthodox will never give a specific answer and will use the get-out the Pharisees used quote "we cannot tell".

Roman Catholics have a doctrine, yes, a definite official teaching, that after approximately 15 minutes inside a person's stomach when "the elements" (that is the bread and wine) begin to be digested (that is start the first stages of turning into faeces) Jesus then vanishes out of the bread and wine, and reverse transubstantiation occurs. The phrase used to describe this change is "while the species subsists" the bread and wine is in fact Jesus, but when the "species" begins to digest Jesus vanishes but the bread and wine is still there. Basically what this means is that when confronted with the fact it is a refutation that Jesus would turn into faeces, they are forced to invent the bizarre teaching that reverse transubstantiation occurs. So do the Orthodox say reverse metousiosis occurs or does their version of eating Jesus have him turning into faeces?

51) Scientific testing. A Liverpool preacher called Pastor David Braid GSM, who died this year (2019) on Good Friday, several years before his death, went into a Catholic church and received Catholic Communion (though he was Protestant) and took the bread to Liverpool University Science Lab so the bread could be analysed. The result of the analysis was that the bread was just a starchy material like bread of potato, it did not contain the trace elements of the human body etc. As this can be done the modern Roman Catholic response seems to be that every atom and molecules of the bread remains the same, but some mysterious concept of its substance changing occurs. I say "modern Catholic response" as before such analysis was invented Catholics would probably have given an answer saying the very physical molecules were altered in some way. If I am right about this, the Catholics would "at last" be resorting to more desperate measures of the Eastern Orthodox church to keep mystifying this instead of explaining it. What are they really saying here? That the atoms and molecules in the bread are physically the same VISUALLY but the actual individual atoms turn into atoms from Jesus body? But would that be flesh and blood in the same sense? I am speculating here as of course I as yet have heard no explanation from the Pope.

52) ONLY THE ORTHODOX PRIESTS are used by God to turn bread and wine into God incarnate, as only in Orthodoxy is salvation found. Therefore all Catholic masses are fake,




“The celebration of Holy Mass has the same value as the Death of Jesus on the Cross.”

-St. Thomas Aquinas


“Man should tremble, the world should quake, all Heaven should be deeply moved when the Son of God appears on the altar in the hands of the priest.”

-St. Francis of Assisi


“It would be easier for the world to survive without the sun than to do so without the Holy Mass.”

-St. Pio of Pietrelcina


“No human tongue can enumerate the favors that trace back to the Sacrifice of the Mass. The sinner is reconciled with God; the just man becomes more upright; sins are wiped away; vices are uprooted; virtue and merit increases; and the devil’s schemes are frustrated.”

-St. Lawrence Justinian


“O you deluded people, what are you doing? Why do you not hasten to the churches to hear as many Masses as you can? Why do you not imitate the angels, who, when a Holy Mass is celebrated, come down in myriads from Paradise and take their stations about our altars in adoration to intercede for us?”

-St. Leonard of Port Maurice


“Know, O Christian, that the Mass is the holiest act of religion. You cannot do anything to glorify God more, nor profit your soul more, than by devoutly assisting at it, and assisting as often as possible.”

-St. Peter Julian Eymard


“One merits more by devoutly assisting at a Holy Mass than by distributing all of his goods to the poor and traveling all over the world on pilgrimage.”

-St. Bernard


“Martyrdom is nothing in comparison with the Mass, because martyrdom is the sacrifice of man to God, whereas the Mass is the Sacrifice of God for man!”

-St. John Marie Vianney


1) Do the Eastern Orthodox have an equivalent of 


Reparation is a theological concept closely connected with those of atonement and satisfaction. In ascetical theology, reparation is the making of amends for insults given to God through sin, either one's own or another's. The response of man is to be reparation through adoration, prayer, and sacrifice. In Roman Catholic tradition, an act of reparation is a prayer or devotion with the intent to expiate the "sins of others", e.g. for the repair of the sin of blasphemy, the sufferings of Jesus Christ or as Acts of Reparation to the Virgin Mary.


Do the Eastern Orthodox have an equivalent of 


Catholics say the bread and wine in holy communion change into the physical body of Jesus, but, when he begins to be digested, and starts turning into dung inside the stomach and intestines, "Jesus" is there only as long  as "the species subsists", and he vanishes out of it, but as matter still remains this is a doctrine of "reverse transubstantiation". Orthodox theology tries to evade the cannibalistic aspects of the mass, by being less specific about what happens, but..... do they also believe "reverse Metousiosis" occurs? 

bottom of page