Drinking the Blood of Jesus at Mass, /the Apostles condemned drinking blood

  • Thread starter Thread starter JDGaney
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JDGaney

Guest
James stood up at the Council of Jerusalem and said: Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

How can we reconcile the theology of drinking actual blood with this command? Doesn’t this mean it is a symbol and not the real thing? Or something like Consubstantiation? or something mystical like the Presbyterians do?
 
In addition to what Fr. Serpa said, or maybe in summary of part of what he said, Christ commanded us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

It was a long-running heresy and still is, about the consecrated bread and wine only symbolizing the Body and Blood of Christ.

But the orthodox (small o) position, that is to say, belief and teaching in the church is that the Body and Blood of Christ is present after the priest says the “words of institution.”

some of the Eastern Orthodox assert that it is the epiclesis, the invocation of the Holy Spirit that results in the transubstantiation, not the repetition of Christ’s words.

Yes, drinking the Blood of Christ is very unusual, even in itself. You know you are Catholic when you do it.

You listen to Marcus Grodi’s Journey Home program in EWTN and you can listen to all the Protestant ministers who convert to Catholicism, and have no problem with this doctrine, and even embrace it enthusiastically.

The Mass is a wonderful and almost overwhelming experience. It is only boring to those who don’t have as much faith as God wants them to have.
 
JDGaney said:
James stood up at the Council of Jerusalem and said: Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

How can we reconcile the theology of drinking actual blood with this command? Doesn’t this mean it is a symbol and not the real thing? Or something like Consubstantiation? or something mystical like the Presbyterians do?
Click to expand...
This should Help also:catholic.com/video/does-receiving-the-blood-of-jesus-violate-the-old-testament-prohibition-on-consuming-blood
 
JDGaney said:
James stood up at the Council of Jerusalem and said: Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

How can we reconcile the theology of drinking actual blood with this command? Doesn’t this mean it is a symbol and not the real thing? Or something like Consubstantiation? or something mystical like the Presbyterians do?
Click to expand...
First of all you need to make a distiction, a subtantian and substantive difference.

The flesh we eat and the blood we drink in the Eucharist, are supernatural in nature since it is the flesh and blood of our resurrected saviour. Not the flesh of a mere creature.
It is the Glorified body of Jesus.

Also St. James is rightly forbidding eating and drinking flesh and blood of sacrificial offerings to pagan “gods” NOT because they are bad intrinsically. But because they have been used as an offer of sacrifice to something different from the living GOD they have been defiled.
In a real sense the meat and blood has been rendered unfit for human consumption due to the contamination of being offered to “idols” or false gods.

–
 
By the way, while it the idea of it may gross you out, animal blood is made into dishes such as blood stew in countries like the Philippines. It’s perfectly acceptable to eat it. We are no longer under such a prohibition. I eat blood stew myself.
 
First of all, this command not to drink blood was written to Gentile Christians, not Jewish Christians. Second, it was addressed only to the Churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. It says all of this right in the first line of the letter.

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab’bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, with the following letter: "The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili’cia, greeting. (Acts 15:22-23)

The letter was not addressed to the universal Church. The letter was sent to Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. It was not sent anywhere else.

The four commands in the letter; 1) abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, 2) abstain from blood, 3) abstain from meat that was strangled and, 4) abstain from immorality - these were the exact four requirements which Gentiles had to observe in order to be able to live in Israel amongst the Jews from way back in Leviticus 17 and 18. This delighted the Jewish Christians because it meant that the Gentiles could live among the Jews. It delighted the Gentile Christians because they didn’t have to be circumcised. Therein lies the genius of Jame’s solution - he extends this Law of Moses to this particular group of people at this particular time and makes everyone happy. This is a temporary fix for a particular situation in the Church in one specific area.

And these commands were not a matter of salvation apart from anything else that was not already taught such as the 6th commandment, avoiding sexual immorality, and the other commandments of Christ.

***If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. *(Acts 15:29)

The council did not say that they would not go to heaven if they did these things but only that they would “do well” if they observed these disciplines.

As to blood, we can drink Christ’s blood because God wants us to live the life of Christ. God said that the life of every creature is in the blood.

Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh. (Deuteronomy 12:23)

Ancient people drank the blood of animals and they lived like animals. We drink the blood of Christ so that we can live the life of Christ. God was telling people not to drink animal blood as a way to teach them not to live like animals. God was reserving the consumption of blood for when Christ came, so that all could drink the blood of Christ and participate in the divine life of Christ.

The blood is the life. We drink the correct blood, the Blood of Christ, not the blood of animals. We are to live like Christ, not like animals. This understanding of the Eucharist in light of Jewish law about drinking blood is how the early Jewish Christians understood so quickly that the cup was the literal blood of Jesus.

-Tim-
 
porthos11 said:
By the way, while it the idea of it may gross you out, animal blood is made into dishes such as blood stew in countries like the Philippines. It’s perfectly acceptable to eat it. We are no longer under such a prohibition. I eat blood stew myself.
Click to expand...
In Spain and many South American countries that were colonized by the Spaniards they have a dish called “morcilla” made of pig’s blood, rice and spices. Possibly the same as Philippines as they also were a Spanish colony.

In the US there is a similar dish in Lousiana called “black boudin”.

–
 
This command (and other such commands from Acts 15) was given to the Gentile Christians living in a Church with many Jewish Christians, as a concession so that they could live together and share table fellowship without offending either group. It refers to animal blood and meat not slaughtered so the blood was drained.

What it does not refer to is the Blood of Communion, taken under the appearance of wine. That command is found in John 6: 52-59. This was given to Jews, not Gentiles, and many found it hard to stomach. It was so shocking that many left him (6:66). Indeed, Jesus at the Last Supper also gave a command to take and drink the Blood of the New Covenant, and to “Do this in my memory.” (Matt 26:27-28/Mk 14:23-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1Cor 11:23-29). Note that this command and the reference to blood are found in very different traditions–from very Jewish traditions (Matthew and John) to Gentile ones (Luke and Paul). And the constant tradition of the Church from earliest days affirms it: we are to drink the Blood of Christ, because He told us to do so. It is not the blood of animals or even of the Temple sacrifices that was forbidden. Blood was considered the life of the animal, and thus sacred. But God gave us this blood to take part in, so that we might have life, abundant and everlasting life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top