Are we Catholics allowed to consume blood of animals?

[Lee_Aaronaldo]

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, I have been long time did not post a question here. However, I never neglect this good Catholic website as sometimes I will read the discussions posted here in order to know more about Catholic faith.

Alright as you all can see from the title itself, I have recently confused that whether we Catholics are allowed to consume or rather eat the blood of animals? To put in specific, I have been telling my protestant friends that I eat cooked pork blood. I told them is yummy and delicious? Anyone consume here? But they told me that we as christians should not eat that as it mentioned in the bible that Christians cannot consume any blood of animals.They added that blood is life something like that. What if it is cooked? Am I wrong? If no, how to defend? Please explain to me in this matter. I am confused. I have been eating the cooked blood of pork since I was small.

 

[NHInsider]

Jewish law prohibitted the consumption of blood and noted that “blood=life” and was therefore reserved for God alone. This is one of the things that made Jesus “unless you drink my blood” statements so shocking to His followers.

The Council of Jerusalem determined that Gentile converts to Christianity needed to observe only a tiny fragment of the Law, including the prohbittion of consumption of blood. But within the lifetime of Paul he was already teaching that decisions about foods were personal and that the only concern should be whether or not the eating would give scandal to a weaker believer.

Some Christian sects do not accept that the Church had or has the authority to determine which Old Testament precepts are binding on Christians and which are not - most notably, the Seventh Day Adventists. As Catholics we do accept the authority Jesus gave to His Apostles and so we are free to eat anything - although the guidelines about not giving scandal are still valid, so I wouldn’t make a point of consuming pork blood in front of someone who thinks it’s pagan . . .

 

[ML561]

Remember that St. Peter had a dream in which all kinds of “unclean” animals (according to Jewish law) were presented to him. The Lord said to him, “arise, Peter, kill and eat.”
We Christians are not bound by the Jewish dietary laws. (I once had dinner with a Polish Catholic family and was introduced to blood sausage–it was really good.) If we can, and indeed are commanded to, consume the Blood of Christ, we need not worry about the blood of animals. But if you feel uneasy about eating something that, as St. Paul said, would “cause your brother to stumble,” don’t expose that person to it. Peace be with you.

 

[aicirt]

Consuming cooked pork blood is obviously a cultural thing. Your Protestant friends, like many of us Catholics, enjoy a good piece of beef au jus which is the cooked blood of the beef. Ditto for gravy. The substance emitted from the cooked beef has blood in it as well as fat. Adding water and floor to it makes gravy. I’m sure too they’ve heard of the English dishes of blood pudding and blood sausage. Bon appetite!

 

[ricko]

The bible says “Everything created by God is good and nothing is forbidden”

 

[Lee_Aaronaldo]

The bible says “Everything created by God is good and nothing is forbidden”

Thanks everyone for clearing this doubt in my mind. I am now feel on the air and not afraid to consume cooked pork blood. Where can I find the verse stated above?

To ML561, you mentioned that ***‘But if you feel uneasy about eating something that, as St. Paul said, would “cause your brother to stumble,” don’t expose that person to it’

---

Do you mean that let’s say I don’t consume that, so it is not right to let people know that was not right to eat also? I have poor comprehension and please forgive me because of this. Can you explain a bit? Sorry

 

[Mailman]

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, I have been long time did not post a question here. However, I never neglect this good Catholic website as sometimes I will read the discussions posted here in order to know more about Catholic faith.

Alright as you all can see from the title itself, I have recently confused that whether we Catholics are allowed to consume or rather eat the blood of animals? To put in specific, I have been telling my protestant friends that I eat cooked pork blood. I told them is yummy and delicious? Anyone consume here? But they told me that we as christians should not eat that as it mentioned in the bible that Christians cannot consume any blood of animals.They added that blood is life something like that. What if it is cooked? Am I wrong? If no, how to defend? Please explain to me in this matter. I am confused. I have been eating the cooked blood of pork since I was small.

I’m neither a Catholic nor a Protestant. But I agree with your Protestant friends that blood should not be eaten by Christians because that’s what God says in His Word, the Holy Bible.

The reason why God forbids the eating of blood is this: “The life of every living thing is in the blood, and that is why the LORD has told the people of Israel that they shall not eat any meat with blood still in it…” (Lev. 17:14). Unless that truth has changed, God’s prohibition on eating blood must still remain in force.

How is the life of a living thing in its blood? All living things – animal life as well as human life – have, what the Bible calls, “the breath of life.” This is what keeps animals and human beings alive. When this “breath of life” is taken away, death takes over. In the Noachian flood, the Bible tells us that “…all flesh was destroyed that moved upon the earth, both of fowl and of cattle, and of beasts, and of all creeping things that creep upon the earth: and all men. And all things wherein there is THE BREATH OF LIFE on the earth, died” (Gen. 7:21-22).

God is the Giver of this “breath of life” which imparts life to all creatures on earth. When God formed man out of the dust of the ground, man was a lifeless being until God “breathed into his nostrils the BREATH OF LIFE.” Only then did man “became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). The same holds true for all animal life. God’s breath of life imparts life to all these creatures.

The life of ALL living things therefore is symbolically in God’s hands: “IN WHOSE HAND is the soul of every living thing, and the spirit [breath of life] of all flesh…” (Job 12:10).

When we die, the Bible tells us that our breath of life will go back to God who gave it: “Our bodies will return to the dust of the earth, and the breath of life will go back to God, who gave it to us” (Ecc. 12:7). This is true for all animal life as well.

Now we can see why God forbids the eating of blood. God is the Giver of life [the breath of life] and will take it back when a creature dies. Since the life of all living things is in the blood, eating blood is like taking away the breath of life that was supposed to go back to God, who is the Giver and Sustainer of it.

Now, how is the life a living thing in its blood? The breath of life from God is like the breath of air that a creature breathes into its nostrils and into its lungs. This breath of air, upon contact with the surface of the lungs gives up oxygen which is absorbed by the blood flowing through the wall of the lungs and is burned up in creating the energy needed to keep the body alive. The life of a living thing is in the blood because the blood needs the breath of life to keep the body active and alive.

 

[patrick457]

Here’s my take on the Leviticus ban. I think that it has got to do with the cultural thinking of the time. In Semitic thought, which aside from Israelite society is also present in Ugaritic and Mesopotamian ones, the blood is identified as the animal’s life-force. As such, in Israelite tradition, it properly belongs only to YHWH, the life-giver. This is the reason why the sons of Israel are prohibited from consuming “blood” (actually meat with blood still on it) - they had to drain this precious fluid and pour it on the ground so it could return to the earth (Leviticus 17:11-12).

The ban is repeated in Leviticus 19:26, now tied to the injunction against participating in any divination or sorcery, as can be seen in the context:

“You shall not eat on the blood; you shall not practice divination; and you shall not practice soothsaying.*”
*Septuagint: on the mountains

If we take the ban on Leviticus 19 to be connected to the other two bans, this would not be a dietary ban (as the other quotes are), but a ban on the divinatory practice - attested in Hittite culture and even in the Odyssey (XI, 23-29, 34-43) - of draining animal blood into the ground or a pit to attract the spirits of the dead or chthonic deities. These were condemned because they infringed on the idea that God is not controlled by fate and is all-powerful.

The ban on eating meat with blood also stems from the fact that Israelite religion is the only one to take a huge importance on blood and give it a great religious significance, making it a central element in religious rituals. While many other Near Eastern cultures did consider blood to be the seat of life, they attached less importance to it; blood is often used in medical and magical rituals - such as appeasing bloodthirsty demons - and in one case, is used as a ritual detergent as in Israelite custom - but it is only in Israel where blood played a huge role in sacrificial offerings. Blood, the seat of life, belongs exclusively only to YHWH. Consumption of blood was also associated with pagan ceremonies; in this light the prohibition on eating blood was of the same nature as the ban on trimming beards in Leviticus 19:27. To eat blood was to strive to be like what you ate (“you are what you eat”), and to eat it as the seat of life was to strive to be like God, the giver of life. The ban, therefore, is one of the efforts to set the Israelites apart from their neighboring cultures and their religious practices.

As an aside, the Rabbinic commentary on Leviticus (the Sifra) interprets the command of Leviticus 17:10 (“And if any man from the house of Israel or from the sojourner who sojourns in their midst who eats any blood, I will set my face in the life who eats the blood and I will cut it off from the midst of its people, for the life of the flesh - it is in the blood”) as follows: Israel, obviously, refers to (male) Israelites, while the sojourner refers to (male) converts. Who sojourns is taken to mean the wives of the converts, while in their midst refers to Israelite women and slaves. It also explains the any man (which at first glance would seem to include non-Israelites as well) to refer to the offspring of any Israelite woman: gentiles are not bound to the prohibition, but people with an Israelite mother are, even if the father be a gentile or a slave - in consonance with the rabbinic matrilineal principle.

 

[Lee_Aaronaldo]

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, thanks for your all replied!

I am here to share with you 2 paragraphs which I found from the book, ‘Confession’ by St. Augustine. I just feel at this moment he is telling me that cooked pork blood can be eaten as long I eat it in a moderate amount. Let’s say I eat pork everyday, definitely I will get unhealthy right? The key word? Balanced diet!

***St Augustine wrote:

Good Father, you have taught me that nothing can be unclean for those who have clean hearts, yet it goes ill with the man who eats to the hurt of his own conscience. You have taught me that all is good that God has made, nothing is to be rejected; only we must be thankful to him when we partake of it; that it is not what we eat that gives us our standing in God’s sight; that no one must be allowed to take us to task over what we eat or drink; and that no man, over his meat, should mock at him who does not eat it, nor, while he abstains, pass judgement on him who eats it. For these lessons which I have learnt it all praise and all thanks be to you, my God, my Master, yo you who knock at the door of my ears and shed your light over my heart! Deliver me from all temtation. It is the uncleaness of gluttony that I fear, not unclean meat. For I know Noe was allowed to eat all kinds of meat that were suitable as food; that Elias was fed on meat; and that John the Baptist, remarkable ascetic though he was, was not polluted by the flesh of living creatures, the locusts which were granted him as food. On the other hand I know that Esau was defrauded by his greed for a dish of lentils; that David reproached himself for longing for a drink of water; and that our Christ our king was tempted not by meat but by bread. And the Israelites in the desert deserved rebuke, not because they wanted meat, but because in their greed for food they sulked and grumbled against the Lord.
In the midst of these temptations I struggle daily against greed for food and drink. This is not an evil which I can decide once and for all to repudiate and never to embrace again, as I was able to do in the case of fornication. I must therefore hold back my appetite with neither too firm nor too slack a rein. But is there anyone, O Lord, who is never enticed a little beyong the strict limit of need? If there is such a one, he is a great man. Let him praise your name. But I am not such a man: I am a poor sinner. Yet I too praise your name, and Christ, who conquered the world, pleads with you for my sins. He numbers me among the weak members of his Body, for your eyes looked upon me, when I was yet unformed; all human lives are already written in your record.*** (Extracted from page 237 BOOK X)

 

[Todd_Easton]

Jesus declared all foods clean. Mark 7:14-22.

However, we should not let our freedom to eat anything become a stumbling block to those, like your Protestant friends, who are weak in faith. Romans 14:13-23.

The council decision that Gentile converts should abstain from blood, mentioned in Acts 15, is not regarded by the Catholic Church as an unchangeable doctrine but as an amendable pastoral decision given at that time so as not to scandalize the Jewish converts and others who were then weak in faith.

Similarly, see what St. Paul has to say about eating food offered to idols in Romans 8:1-13.

 

[mardukm]

I’m neither a Catholic nor a Protestant. But I agree with your Protestant friends that blood should not be eaten by Christians because that’s what God says in His Word, the Holy Bible.

The reason why God forbids the eating of blood is this: “The life of every living thing is in the blood, and that is why the LORD has told the people of Israel that they shall not eat any meat with blood still in it…” (Lev. 17:14). Unless that truth has changed, God’s prohibition on eating blood must still remain in force.

The reason God forbade the Israelites to drink the blood is because not merely because life is in the blood. That’s not some new teaching from God, but was recognized by every pagan religion that surrounded the Israelites. The fact is, drinking the blood of animals was a common practice of these religions. The lifeblood of the animal was the means of communion with their deities.

In that context, God forbade them to drink blood NOT because the blood is life per se, but because that was the very reason (that blood is life) the pagans used to drink the blood.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Jewish law prohibitted the consumption of blood and noted that “blood=life” and was therefore reserved for God alone. This is one of the things that made Jesus “unless you drink my blood” statements so shocking to His followers.

The Council of Jerusalem determined that Gentile converts to Christianity needed to observe only a tiny fragment of the Law, including the prohbittion of consumption of blood. But within the lifetime of Paul he was already teaching that decisions about foods were personal and that the only concern should be whether or not the eating would give scandal to a weaker believer.

Some Christian sects do not accept that the Church had or has the authority to determine which Old Testament precepts are binding on Christians and which are not - most notably, the Seventh Day Adventists. As Catholics we do accept the authority Jesus gave to His Apostles and so we are free to eat anything - although the guidelines about not giving scandal are still valid, so I wouldn’t make a point of consuming pork blood in front of someone who thinks it’s pagan . . .

St. Paul’s exhortation regarding giving scandal was not in relation to consuming blood per se, but rather in relation to consuming meat that was sacrificed to idols. So there is no prohibition at all to eat blood.

Blessings

 

[peregrinus_sg]

The Church has no teachings against eating blood (not in the CCC), nor canon law against it. Since Jesus continues to teach through his Church, we know therefore that the prohibition against the eating of blood is not a teaching of Jesus.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Lee,

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, I have been long time did not post a question here. However, I never neglect this good Catholic website as sometimes I will read the discussions posted here in order to know more about Catholic faith.

Alright as you all can see from the title itself, I have recently confused that whether we Catholics are allowed to consume or rather eat the blood of animals? To put in specific, I have been telling my protestant friends that I eat cooked pork blood. I told them is yummy and delicious? Anyone consume here? But they told me that we as christians should not eat that as it mentioned in the bible that Christians cannot consume any blood of animals.They added that blood is life something like that. What if it is cooked? Am I wrong? If no, how to defend? Please explain to me in this matter. I am confused. I have been eating the cooked blood of pork since I was small.

If your criticizers really did follow the Bible, then they wouldn’t be complaining against you eating pork blood.

Read I Corinthians 10: 23-31. According to St. Paul, the only scandal that one needs avoid as far as eating food is if the food was sacrificed to idols. Especially pay attention to verse 25. There is no prohibition at all about the type of food one eats (except, as you pointed out, it should not lead to gluttony). In fact, if your Protestant friends gave heed to St. Paul, they should eat what you offer them if you offer them blood pork. The “don’t give offense” applies more to them than to you, because it is they who are approaching you.

Blessings

 

[Mailman]

Hi Lee,

This is what the Lord said: “Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh…” (Lev. 17:14). Why? Why should we not eat the blood of any animal? Here’s why: “FOR THE LIFE OF ALL FLESH IS THE BLOOD THEREOF” (same verse).

The blood is the LIFE of all creatures. That’s what God says. That’s His REASON for prohibiting the eating of blood. But is that still true today? Is the blood still the life of all creatures today? Of course! How could that truth change with the passage of time?

Now, if the blood is still the life of all creatures today, then God’s prohibition against the eating of blood must still be binding today.

During the time of the Apostles and the early New Testament Church, we find the elders of the Church giving this instruction to the Gentile converts: “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, AND FROM BLOOD, and from things strangled and from fornication” (Acts 15:29). And again: “As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded… that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, AND FROM BLOOD, and from strangled and from fornication” (Acts 21:25).

Do you consider yourself a Gentile convert to Christianity – a part of the New Testament Church of God? If you do, you would have to follow that clear instruction from God’s NT Church.

 

[Mailman]

Jesus declared all foods clean. Mark 7:14-22.

However, we should not let our freedom to eat anything become a stumbling block to those, like your Protestant friends, who are weak in faith. Romans 14:13-23.

The council decision that Gentile converts should abstain from blood, mentioned in Acts 15, is not regarded by the Catholic Church as an unchangeable doctrine but as an amendable pastoral decision given at that time so as not to scandalize the Jewish converts and others who were then weak in faith.

Similarly, see what St. Paul has to say about eating food offered to idols in Romans 8:1-13.

Jesus NEVER declared all foods clean in Mark 7. In fact, the law on unclean meats was not the subject matter of Mark 7. Mark 7 is about eating with unwashed hands and the many ceremonial washings of the Pharisees: “And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elder” (v. 2-3). NOT ONCE did Christ mention unclean meats for this was not the subject matter. Notice Christ said: “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do” (v. 8).

Interestingly though, even if Jesus had declared all foods clean in Mark 7, the taking of blood would still be a no-no. Here’s the proof: Notice that during the time of Moses when animal sacrifices were commanded, only “clean” animals can be offered for sacrifice. Yet, in spite of these animals being “clean”, the instruction was still to “pour all the blood… at the bottom of the altar” (Lev. 4:7), because, as God said: “It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, THAT YE NEITHER EAT FAT NOR BLOOD” (Lev. 3:17).

If the prohibition against eating blood is only a pastoral decision and therefore subject to change, then the injunction against fornication must also just be a pastoral decision that is subject to change. But why can we not now engage in fornication?

Romans 14 is properly understood when taken in its context. It begins with the first verse. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him…” (Rom. 14:1-16).

The entire passage is concerning JUDGING one another because of certain personal choices, such as vegetarianism versus eating flesh, or perceived efficacy of one day or another. Obviously, Paul’s expression, “believeth he may eat all things” does not mean that one believeth he may eat carrion, or poisonous mushrooms, or ground glass and nails. Nor did it mean that one believeth he could eat snakes, mice, or pigs. The expression is clearly meant to imply that one person had no major dietary restrictions against EDIBLE MEATS, while another did have such restrictions, and believed he should practice vegetarianism.

 

[Mailman]

The reason God forbade the Israelites to drink the blood is because not merely because life is in the blood. That’s not some new teaching from God, but was recognized by every pagan religion that surrounded the Israelites. The fact is, drinking the blood of animals was a common practice of these religions. The lifeblood of the animal was the means of communion with their deities.

In that context, God forbade them to drink blood NOT because the blood is life per se, but because that was the very reason (that blood is life) the pagans used to drink the blood.

Blessings

That is purely conjecture. God only gave ONE reason [in His Word] why He forbids the eating of blood. And that is, because the life of every living creature is in the blood. Since He is the Giver and Sustainer of life, God wants that which He imparted to all living creatures to go back to Him.

 

[Mailman]

Dear Lee,

If your criticizers really did follow the Bible, then they wouldn’t be complaining against you eating pork blood.

Read I Corinthians 10: 23-31. According to St. Paul, the only scandal that one needs avoid as far as eating food is if the food was sacrificed to idols. Especially pay attention to verse 25. There is no prohibition at all about the type of food one eats (except, as you pointed out, it should not lead to gluttony). In fact, if your Protestant friends gave heed to St. Paul, they should eat what you offer them if you offer them blood pork. The “don’t give offense” applies more to them than to you, because it is they who are approaching you.

Blessings

NOT ONE WORD is said about clean or unclean meats in the passage quoted. The entire subject is meats “offered in sacrifice to idols” (I Cor. 10:19).

Paul said, “All things are lawful for me [did he mean robbery, or murder? Of course, not. Obviously, all LAWFUL things, not unlawful things], but all things are not expedient… Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake [did Paul mean anything can be eaten, including unclean meats? No. Whatever was lawful to eat, that we may eat]” (I Cor. 10:23-25).

It was the practice of the pagan Romans and Greeks to slaughter animals to various pagan gods. The animals could then be sold in the meat markets. Because many Christians believed the meat was somehow contaminated if the animal were killed in sacrificial rites, they avoided eating it. Paul explained that a non-existent “god” or pagan idol had no power to contaminate edible meat. If one person believed the meat had been offered in sacrifice to an idol, and was therefore contaminated, the person who knew that the idol had no power to contaminate the meat – that it was perfectly edible – should not exercise his “lawful” privilege to eat if it would offend the conscience of another. Here, the entire matter is to avoid defiling the conscience of a brother.

Paul concluded the passage by saying, “But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice to idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake… Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty [to eat edible meat, even though sacrificed to a dead, non-existent “god”] judged of another man’s conscience?..” (v. 28-33).

 

[Dan_Parker]

Jewish law prohibitted the consumption of blood and noted that “blood=life” and was therefore reserved for God alone. This is one of the things that made Jesus “unless you drink my blood” statements so shocking to His followers.

The Council of Jerusalem determined that Gentile converts to Christianity needed to observe only a tiny fragment of the Law, including the prohbittion of consumption of blood. But within the lifetime of Paul he was already teaching that decisions about foods were personal and that the only concern should be whether or not the eating would give scandal to a weaker believer.

Some Christian sects do not accept that the Church had or has the authority to determine which Old Testament precepts are binding on Christians and which are not - most notably, the Seventh Day Adventists. As Catholics we do accept the authority Jesus gave to His Apostles and so we are free to eat anything - although the guidelines about not giving scandal are still valid, so I wouldn’t make a point of consuming pork blood in front of someone who thinks it’s pagan . . .

The Holy Spirit commanded Christians to abstain from blood:
NJB Acts 15:27 Accordingly we are sending you Judas and Silas, who will confirm by word of mouth what we have written. 28 It has been decided by the Holy Spirit and by ourselves not to impose on you any burden beyond these essentials: 29 you are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from illicit marriages. Avoid these, and you will do what is right. Farewell.’

Note that these commands are called “essentials.”