Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
Gen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
Gen 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
Gen 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
Gen 4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
Gen 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
Gen 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
Cain and Abel both brought offerings before the Lord. Abel being a shepherd brought in addition to his other offerings, a first-born lamb to sacrifice to the Lord. Cain, being a farmer, brought only crops to offer to the Lord, but no lamb. The Lord accepted the offerings and sacrifice of Abel, but rejected the offerings of Cain. Why? Why would the Lord reject the best that Cain had produced? The answer is actually quite simple.
NIV Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
NIV 1 John 3:12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous.
Both Cain and Abel had been asked by the Lord to offer a sacrifice for a specific reason. Sacrifices to the Lord were symbolic of the price that Jesus would ultimately pay. The blood of the Lamb of God, the Christ, the Messiah, would be shed to atone for the sins of all humanity. Cain's offering lacked this symbolic animal blood sacrifice and as a result amounted to his works alone. So Cain represented salvation by works, while Abel's offering represented atonement with God through the shedding of blood of a first-born lamb, which represented Jesus Christ:
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Abel's offering of a first-born lamb was merely symbolic, while the offering of Jesus as the Lamb of God at the cross was the fulfillment of that symbolism. Cain's refusal to offer a lamb was actually a rejection of his need for a Redeemer. And make no mistake, Cain knew exactly what he was doing. He was not acting in ignorance. He was deliberately disobeying God by not offering a lamb-
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
The Lord makes clear to Cain that if he does well (follows God's instructions) then his offering to God will be accepted just like Abel's, but if he disobeys then he will have sinned against God. What is sin?
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
So Cain sinned against God by transgressing his instructions (law) to provide a lamb for a blood sacrifice, a sacrifice symbolic of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It should be clear that this is the reason that what some might call the unbloody "sacrifice" of Cain was not acceptable to God.
The Hebrew word for sacrifice is defined in Strong's as follows:
H2077. zebach, zeh'-bakh; from H2076; prop. a slaughter, i.e. the flesh of an animal; by impl. a sacrifice (the victim or the act):--offer (-ing), sacrifice.
H2076. zabach, zaw-bakh'; a prim. root; to slaughter an animal (usually in sacrifice):--kill, offer, (do) sacrifice, slay.
Note that a sacrifice specifically involves the slaughtering of an animal as an offering. Since Cain's offering lacked a slaughtered first-born lamb and was a completely bloodless offering, in that sense it was not a sacrifice at all, and so was rejected by God, since only blood (death) can atone for the sinner (Heb 9:22).
With the advent of the Tabernacle or Sanctuary at Sinai, God again gave instructions to his people to offer up blood sacrifices (such as lambs), on a regular basis. The Hebrew Sanctuary was an instructional tool of God's to illustrate the plan of salvation to His people, all of it pointing to Jesus Christ as the coming Lamb of God. These animal sacrifices which were brought by the people to the Temple, were a personal loss to the repentant sinner, illustrating death as the consequences of sin, and went on to be burnt offerings on the Brazen Altar.
The Lord's Supper / Passover Meal
The Passover meal of unleavened bread and wine on 14 Nisan, the evening before our Lord's sacrifice on the cross, was not part of a formal religious worship service. It was certainly not the elaborate, rather prolonged liturgical service found in the Roman Catholic Church. It was a simple yet solemn meal that the Jews had been having in their homes on Passover for hundreds of years, though to be sure, the symbolism of the unleavened Passover meal was indeed important, as it represented the sinless Messiah, the Lamb of God who would be crucified on 14 Nisan and shed His blood for the sins of the world.
During the Lord's supper, the evening before He was crucified, Jesus revealed to His disciples that He was the fulfillment of the Passover meal symbolism when He said "This is my body" and "This is my blood" (Matt 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Cor. 11:24-25), though it is unlikely His disciples understood this until after the resurrection.
This do in remembrance of me
And what purpose does the Lord's supper serve? Scripture tells us precisely:
1 Cor 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1 Cor 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1 Cor 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.
Jesus and Paul tell us clearly, the Lord's supper is a symbolic reminder, a memorial of the death of Christ.
Jesus Christ's Shed Blood Cleanses Us From All Sin
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Eph 1:7 In whom (by Christ) we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Col 1:14 ... we have redemption through his (Christ's) blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Christ Was Offered Once As A Sacrifice For Sin
At the actual moment of His death on the cross, scripture tells us the veil in the Temple between the Holy and Most Holy place tore from top to bottom-
Mat 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
With the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, there would be no more need for actual blood sacrifices of lambs. The supreme sacrifice had been made, the price for the sins of humanity had been paid in full. Now an earthly priesthood would not be necessary to approach God for forgiveness. Jesus with His resurrection became our High Priest-
Heb 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.Heb 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
With Jesus as our High Priest, we now have direct access to the Most Holy place of the heavenly temple, the place of judgment.
Heb 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Heb 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
Heb 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Heb 7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
So the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which was finished at the cross (John
19:30), did away with the continual daily offering of sacrifices by earthly
priests
Please note Hebrews 7:27 again. It says that Jesus' sacrifice need not be offered up to the Father on a daily basis, yet this is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church teaches in respect to the Mass, in direct contradiction to scripture.
There Is But One Mediator of the New Covenant
1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he [Christ] is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
What does it mean that Jesus Christ is the one mediator of the New Covenant?
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he [Christ] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
The Unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the Church's greatest prayer. In it, Jesus Christ becomes present and offers Himself in love to the Father as He did on the Cross almost 2,000 years ago.
Although the Sacrifice of the Mass and Jesus' Sacrifice on Calvary are the SAME, there are important DIFFERENCES in these two actions of Christ. On the Cross, Our Lord offered Himself in a BLOODY MANNER; whereas, in the Holy Mass, He offers Himself in an UNBLOODY MANNER. This in no way implies that Jesus' Blood is no longer present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It simply means that Jesus chooses to act in a different way at Mass than He did on the Cross.
Source: Catholic Truth for Youth, by Father Robert J. Fox, Published by Ave Maria Institute, Copyright 1978, Washington, N.J. 07882, ISBN: 09265429, Lesson 12, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, page 121.
From section #9 of John Paul II's letter Dominicae Cenae:
All who participate with faith in the Eucharist become aware that it is a "sacrifice," that is to say, a "consecrated Offering." For the bread and wine presented at the altar and accompanied by the devotion and the spiritual sacrifices of the participants are finally consecrated, so as to become truly, really and substantially Christ's own body that is given up and His blood that is shed. Thus, by virtue of the consecration, the species of bread and wine re-present (50) in a sacramental, unbloody manner the bloody propitiatory sacrifice offered by Him on the cross to His Father for the salvation of the world.
Source:
Pope John Paul II, letter Dominicae Cenae - On the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist, February 24, 1980.
The book of Hebrews, chapters 7, 9 and 10, cited above, make it quite clear that Christ only offered Himself as a sacrifice once, and that sacrifice was finished at the cross. He need not offer Himself in sacrifice on a daily basis, yet in absolute contradiction to scripture, this is exactly what Catholic Truth for Youth and John Paul II, cited above, are claiming happens at the Catholic Mass.
From the new Vatican's Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1365
Because it is a memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The Sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." [185] In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." [186] 1366
The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies the fruit: [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish one for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit. [187]
1367
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner." [188] 185 Lk 22:19-20.
186 Mt 26:28
187 Council of Trent (1562): DS 1740; cf. 1 Cor 11:23; Heb 7:24,27.
188 Council of Trent (1562): DS 1743; cf. Heb 9:14,27.
Please notice above that in paragraph 1365 of the Vatican Catechism it is declared that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and in paragraph 1367 the Eucharist is described as an unbloody sacrifice? Did we not establish in the fourth chapter of Genesis that "unbloody sacrifices" like that of Cain are unacceptable to God? And 1366-1367 claim the Mass re-presents Christ as a sacrifice, which the book of Hebrews, cited above, specifically and absolutely denies.
Two Popes denounce Half Communion
Gelasius [492-496] complains: † "That some received the bread, but abstained from the cup; whom he condemns as guilty of superstition, and orders that they should either receive in both kinds, or else be excluded from both, because one and the same mystery cannot be divided without grand sacrilege." Leo the Great [440-461] denounces them with equal vehemence:‡ "They receive the body of Christ," says he, "with unworthy mouth, but refuse to drink the [p. 193] blood of our redemption, such men's sacrilegious dissimulation being discovered, let them be marked, and by the authority of the priesthood cast out of the society of the faithful." Gelasius was a respectable pontiff, but Leo the Great deserved his title: he was one of the ablest churchmen, and most celebrated popes that ever lived, and his condemnation of half communion in Catholic eyes should strip it of all authority.
† —Gelas., de Consecrat., Dist. ii. cap. 12.
‡ —Leo. Ser., 4, de Quadragesima.Source: The Papal System: From Its Origin to the Present Time, by William Cathcart, D.D., published in 1872 by Menace Publishing Company, Aurora, Mo., pages 192, 193.
It is interesting to note that for centuries Catholics have been denied
drinking from the cup of wine, which only the priest was allowed to do. In the
13th session of the Council
of Constance, in June of 1415, you will find the following:
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit, Amen. Certain people, in some parts of the world, have rashly dared to assert that the christian people ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine. They communicate the laity everywhere not only under the form of bread but also under that of wine, and they stubbornly assert that they should communicate even after a meal, or else without the need of a fast, contrary to the church's custom which has been laudably and sensibly approved, from the church's head downwards, but which they damnably try to repudiate as sacrilegious. Therefore this present general council of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, wishing to provide for the safety of the faithful against this error, after long deliberation by many persons learned in divine and human law, declares, decrees and defines that, although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after a meal and ministered it to his apostles under the forms of both bread and wine, nevertheless and notwithstanding this, the praiseworthy authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the church have and do retain that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated after a meal nor received by the faithful without fasting, except in cases of sickness or some other necessity as permitted by law or by the church. Moreover, just as this custom was sensibly introduced in order to avoid various dangers and scandals, so with similar or even greater reason was it possible to introduce and sensibly observe the custom that, although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread. For it should be very firmly believed, and in no way doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained under both the form of bread and the form of wine. Therefore, since this custom was introduced for good reasons by the church and holy fathers, and has been observed for a very long time, it should be held as a law which nobody may repudiate or alter at will without the church's permission. To say that the observance of this custom or law is sacrilegious or illicit must be regarded as erroneous. Those who stubbornly assert the opposite of the aforesaid are to be confined as heretics and severely punished by the local bishops or their officials or the inquisitors of heresy in the kingdoms or provinces in which anything is attempted or presumed against this decree, according to the canonical and legitimate sanctions that have been wisely established in favour of the catholic faith against heretics and their supporters.
This holy synod also decrees and declares, regarding this matter, that instructions are to be sent to the most reverend fathers and lords in Christ, patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, and their vicars in spirituals, wherever they may be, in which they are to be commissioned and ordered on the authority of this sacred council and under pain of excommunication, to punish effectively those who err against this decree. They may receive back into the church's fold those who have gone astray by communicating the people under the forms of both bread and wine, and have taught this, provided they repent and after a salutary penance, in accordance with the measure of their fault, has been enjoined upon them. They are to repress as heretics, however, by means of the church's censures and even if necessary by calling in the help of the secular arm, those of them whose hearts have become hardened and who are unwilling to return to penance.
This was also affirmed at the Council of Trent, the 21st session, July 16th, 1562:
Canons on Communion Under Both Kinds
1. If anyone says that each and every one of Christ's faithful ought to receive both species of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, because of a command from God or because it is necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.
2. If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church was not led by good reasons to have the laity and the clerics who are not celebrating Mass communicate under the species of bread alone, or that the Church erred in doing so: let him be anathema.
3. If anyone denies that the whole and entire Christ, the source and author of all graces, is received under the species of bread alone, alleging, as some falsely do, that such reception is not in accord with Christ's institution of the Sacrament under both species: let him be anathema.
This practice of the laity receiving only the bread continues to a large extent even today, although Vatican II in 1965 (Article 55 of the Liturgical Constitution) permitted communion in both kinds. The body and blood are both fully represented in the bread only, or so Catholics are told to excuse their not receiving the wine. The truth is they have been denied the symbol of Christ's blood in an "unbloody Mass" and then given doubletalk that the blood is really contained in the bread.
John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.Mat 26:26 (NIV) While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
Mat 26:27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
Mat 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Catholics interpret the above verses quite literally, yet they will regularly deny anyone but the priest from drinking the wine. When Christ celebrated the Passover meal everyone received both bread and wine, but the Catholic Church makes excuses about not wanting to spill any wine, or that a common cup is not sanitary, to withhold it from their congregation.
Also, did you notice in the quote from the Council of Trent, in paragraph 1366, that man's nature demands the sacrifice of Jesus be re-presented (presented again)? What did scripture tell us?-
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
The nature of man showed itself with Cain, who insisted his "unbloody sacrifice" was sufficient. Who are we in our fallen sinful nature to demand anything of God? The sacrifice of Jesus was made but once, and is not presented time and again in what is called the Mass.
I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Mark 14:25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
Luke 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
Luke 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
Luke 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
What did Jesus drink at the Last Supper? The fruit of the vine: grape juice. And He says He will only drink it again with the Saints in Heaven. Catholics contradict this, and say it is not the fruit of the vine they drink at Mass, since they teach it has been transubstantiated by the priest into the blood of Christ.
The Catholic Eucharist and Forgiveness.
What does reception of the Eucharist during Mass do according to Catholic Church? Again, the following is from the Vatican's Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1394
As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins. ... 1395
By the same charity that it enkindles in us, the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins. The more we share the life of Christ and progress in his friendship, the more difficult it is to break away from him by mortal sin. The Eucharist is not ordered to the forgiveness of mortal sins - that is proper to the sacrament of Reconciliation. The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the church. 1416 Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant's union with the Lord, forgives his venial sins, and preserves him from grave sins. Since receiving this sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant and Christ, it also reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.
Note that even though the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist re-presents the same sacrifice of Jesus (CCC #1365-1367), it is "not ordered for the forgiveness of mortal sins!" So just what is the alleged difference in venial and mortal sins?
Every violation of the Commandments of God or of the Church is a sin: mortal sin, if three conditions are present - serious matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will; venial sin, if the law violated concerns matter that is not grave or the offense is committed without sufficient reflection or full consent of the will. Venial sin does not deprive the soul of sanctifying grace.
Mortal sin deprives us of sanctifying grace and brings eternal punishment to the soul, if we pass from this life before confessing this sin and obtaining forgiveness. ...
Source: Dictionary of the Liturgy, by Rev. Jovian P. Lang, OFM, Catholic Book Publishing Co., New York, Copyright 1989, ISBN 0-89942-273-X, page 588.
So the Mass of the Catholic Church, the re-presentation or continuation of Christ's sacrifice in the Eucharist, will only wash away trivial daily sins. The true Body and Blood of Christ, they say (contrary to scripture), is insufficient for redemption. For serious intentional soul damning sin you must go to the Catholic priest and obtain forgiveness from him! Note that even the Old Testament priests never could take away sin.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man (Jesus Christ), after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Note again that the one sacrificial offering was completed before Christ sat down on the right hand of God. The sacrifice is over, done, finished at the cross, having been offered but once.
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he [Jesus Christ] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
The sacrificial death of Jesus was sufficient for all the sins of mankind, and that offering of his blood was made only once. It is not something that is dispensed or re-presented by earthly priests, it was offered once by Jesus Christ Himself directly, and He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, without need of earthly priests. As scripture shows, the Roman Catholic Priest who claims to repeatedly offer an unbloody sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins during Mass, stands with Cain in defiance of God, and as such can never receive God's approval, and does nothing that really forgives any sins at all. Go directly to your High Priest Jesus Christ in prayer, to the Lamb of God Himself to repent of your sins, and you will indeed be forgiven completely of all your sins!
See also
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM on the Roman Catholic
teaching of transubstantiation.
