"Abstain ... from blood, from meats of strangled animals"

[rciadan]

ferdie;5199237]Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 11, 4 February 1442

FYI, *just for clarification *- In the Faith Database, this is listed as:
Ecumenical Council #17 Basel (1438), same session and date
It is also interesting (at least to me) that the title of this session is: (Bull of Union with the Copts)

 

[PJM]

=CMBlaise;5194549]Hey all,

I was at bible study last week, and we were reading through Acts. When we came across Acts 15:28-29:

we were a bit confused by this prohibition against eating the meat of strangled animals and blood, because we couldn’t think of when this was ever lifted by the church. Was it ever lifted? Or did it happen very early on in the church history and we just hadn’t heard?

Thanks!

Christopher Michael Blaise

Thanks for attending Bible Study!
**
Several key points.**

This was a matter of Church practice, not an issue of Morals and or Faith, thus it can be changed.There is no current valid and licit reference to this practice in any church document I have read.

This decision was handed down very early in the Church to a Jewish Community

From sacrificed to idols would be to acknowledge some validity of other religions and gods

From strangled animals was a health issue “in the Torah law”. One likely did not know when the annimal strangled itself, and therefore if the meat were suitable to eat? Also, if this happened it was seen as a punishment from God for some wrong, and would be insulting to God, to then enjoy the roasted fleash of sunh an annimal.

Hope this serves to clarify you’re concerns.

Love and prayer’s

 

[kepha1]

After everyone was silent from Peter’s discourse, James made a local disciplinary ruling. It was rescinded after the books of the Bible were enscripturated, and formally rescinded much later.

 

[distracted]

But why lift it? It says that if you were to abstain from those things, you’d be doing what was right. If you lift the restrictions, that simply makes doing them “not wrong”. Thereby, abstaining from them would still be preferable.

And for goodness sakes, they even stated the we placing the least possible burdens on them!

well, they lifted that thing about women not being able to speak in the Church also…

should we think that NOT having women speak is superior to having them… say, read Scripture?

 

[distracted]

As you read through the written Torah (first five books of the Bible), mankind is not allowed to eat anything from animals until after the flood of Noah’s time, when God changed the commandment.

?

hmmm… i don’t recal anythin of the sort… there’s nothing in MY Bible that says man was a vegetarian at ANY time in history…

and if he was, it was undoubtedly before the fall… things are differnt now… ,

 

[distracted]

.

How many people do you know who actually DO eat the meat of strangled animals? No abbatoir I know uses this method of killing, neither do the people that I know who butcher their own game.
…

really…

can you imagine strangling a pig??

that mental picture always gets me laughing…

 

[distracted]

Getting fat is not the problem. Simply put, stress on the animal as it’s killed makes it taste nasty. The taste of adrenaline and fear in the meat is nasty. If the animal was stressed enough to release its bowels when killed, it’s nastier still.

This is why hunters and slaughterers have a vested interest in killing meat animals before they know what’s happening. A quick and painless kill is good for cooking. A painful death makes the meat almost worthless, without a great deal of fiddling about with secret recipes and hanging the meat for a long time.

how do you know?

has anyone ever given you meat from the one to taste an compare with meat from the other??

I’ve never really had “nasty” tasting meat… If it fit that description, nobody would buy it…

 

[distracted]

i don’t think its possible to strangle a pig…

it doesn’t have a neck!!!

 

[Dtmccameron]

well, they lifted that thing about women not being able to speak in the Church also…

should we think that NOT having women speak is superior to having them… say, read Scripture?

I think staying in line with the teachings of the Diciples themselves more important that having women read, though I myself don’t care. When did Peter’s sucessor rise above Peter? (That sounded worse than I intended)

Someone in the future might say, “Should we thing that NOT having women as priest is superior…”

I’d rather it be forbidden for anyone to speak in the Church. Take your conversations outside, *this is the house of God. * (Though I could see the necessity of allowing “Father, the Church is on fire!” and things like that)

 

[distracted]

I think staying in line with the teachings of the Diciples themselves more important that having women read, though I myself don’t care. When did Peter’s sucessor rise above Peter? (That sounded worse than I intended)

Someone in the future might say, “Should we thing that NOT having women as priest is superior…”

I’d rather it be forbidden for anyone to speak in the Church. Take your conversations outside, *this is the house of God. * (Though I could see the necessity of allowing “Father, the Church is on fire!” and things like that)

not sure i understand what exactly you are saying…

would you care to re-word it?

And besides… what does all this have to do with the impossibility of strangling neck-less pigs??