Eating Blood in Eucharist?

[edarlitrix]

The apostles taught that “eating blood” was a sin, in accordance with the OT commandment (older than the Mosaic Law itself).

“But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (Gen. 9:4).

“Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:19-20).

But, Jesus says, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:54).

The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. If the apostles prohibited the consumption of blood, then why would they permit the consumption of the blood of Christ? Doesn’t their prohibition of blood imply that the “blood of Christ” is not literal?

 

[GospodiPomiluj]

The prohibition to drinking blood is because life is in the blood. That is why Jesus says that whoever drinks his blood has life in him. That would mean that Jesus literally wants us to drink His blood because Jesus really wants us to have His life in us, because we really need it. He doesn’t want us to drink animal blood or other human blood, that is what was prohibited. But His Divine life poured out in blood is certainly not prohibited, in fact it is absolutely essential for us to drink, as Jesus himself commands in John 6.

 

[marty1818]

catholic.com/quickquestions/is-jesus-command-to-drink-his-blood-a-violation-of-gods-law

 

[GospodiPomiluj]

catholic.com/quickquestions/is-jesus-command-to-drink-his-blood-a-violation-of-gods-law

in their interpretation, Jesus would be commanding us to eat his flesh symbolically and to drink his blood symbolically. He would be commanding us to act out symbolically an intrinsically evil deed as part of a sacred worship service.

I never thought of that argument. It is very good and simple… I am going to have to remember that one

 

[bsroufek]

If Jesus says seven times in a row that we must eat and drink His Body and Blood, not symbolically or figuratively but in Faith, then we must do it.

As Peter said to Jesus when Jesus asked if they were going to leave Him too, “Lord, where can we go? You have the words of everlasting Life.”

 

[landon13]

The prohibition to drinking blood is because life is in the blood. That is why Jesus says that whoever drinks his blood has life in him. That would mean that Jesus literally wants us to drink His blood because Jesus really wants us to have His life in us, because we really need it. He doesn’t want us to drink animal blood or other human blood, that is what was prohibited. But His Divine life poured out in blood is certainly not prohibited, in fact it is absolutely essential for us to drink, as Jesus himself commands in John 6.

 

[TylerJordan]

I don’t know.

 

[po18guy]

The apostles taught that “eating blood” was a sin, in accordance with the OT commandment (older than the Mosaic Law itself).

“But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (Gen. 9:4).

“Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:19-20).

But, Jesus says, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:54).

The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. If the apostles prohibited the consumption of blood, then why would they permit the consumption of the blood of Christ? Doesn’t their prohibition of blood imply that the “blood of Christ” is not literal?

As Christians, we follow the commands of Christ. He commanded us to eat and drink His Body and Blood. Why do we believe that the bread and wine become His Body and Blood, and that we must eat it and drink it? Jesus said so (in plain Aramaic). Simple.

All Christians believed this for over 1,500 years, and the majority of them (1.5 billion Catholic and Orthodox) still do. What happened 495 years ago in Europe that overturned the words of Christ? That is one question worth pondering.

 

[snarflemike]

The apostles taught that “eating blood” was a sin, in accordance with the OT commandment (older than the Mosaic Law itself).

“But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (Gen. 9:4).

Are Christians under the OT law?

“Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:19-20).

What is the context of “blood” here?

But, Jesus says, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:54).

The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. If the apostles prohibited the consumption of blood, then why would they permit the consumption of the blood of Christ? Doesn’t their prohibition of blood imply that the “blood of Christ” is not literal?

There are many answers to this. One interesting one is, where are the early Christians who taught this? If this was what Jesus meant, where are the records of it being taught in the early Church. Furthermore, where is the fight in the Church over the “heresy” of literal blood whenever that “heresy” was introduced (and when exactly WAS this “heresy” introduced?)?

I’m also curious, are you OK with literally eating the flesh of Jesus Christ, but it’s just the blood that you object to? Because if that’s not the case, then this is all just a red herring.

As has been pointed out, the explicit reason giving for not eating the blood of animals is that the life is in the blood. Is not the goal of every Christian to gain the life of God within us? Is that not also God’s desire for us? What is even the point of being a Christian if we cannot look forward to having the divine life within us?

 

[Abbigaelann]

So, you’re equating Christ with normal things that bleed on the planet?

To me, uncertain of exactitude of the Church on this, but Christ shares in our humanity…the blood sweat and tears that go into producing food and drink …generations upon generations…but Christ is the SON OF GOD…do we see a difference? Is the water of baptism the same to you as your drinking water? Is that what cleanses you? Then why immersion?

The wedding feast was wine. The Last Supper was wine. How many for celebration of Eucharist use Welch’s grape juice? Christ’s family tree was real. Yet let’s all use plastic trees to celebrate Christmas? The chrism of many churches…oh is that your extra virgin pompeii olive oil? However will they be healed…
Or are these thing sanctified… do they become real…is this how faith happens, is this the love we know? How else can it breed such hope?

And just for grins, can we throw a fews females in there that men learn a higher respect for them…Mary works…more than just at Christmas and Easter?

 

[po18guy]

Jeff Cavins, on EWTN radio, just now made the connection: man, made in the image and likeness of God, is not to share in the life blood of animals (which were not made in the image and likeness of God). Yet, we are called to be like God, but how? By sharing in the divine nature - becoming partakers of the divine nature says Saint Paul. How? By drinking Christ’s Blood and Eating His Body - that’s how. We do not lower ourselves to the animal kingdom with animal blood, but are raised to the divine Kingdom by drinking divine Blood.

 

[FrancisBenedict]

Christ came to fulfil the law.
It is only HIS blood we are to consume, no other.
It is really his blood transformed by Divine Grace via Transubstantiation not into the form of blood but into reality of Jesus’blood and life.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/eucha1a.htm

He told us to eat this bread and drink this wine so we are to do that.

 

[snarflemike]

Christ came to fulfil the law.
It is only HIS blood we are to consume, no other.

In just the same way as we are to worship no person or thing on earth, while at the same time we ARE to worship God. This obvious parallel (which all Christians accept as regards worship) actually argues FOR the real presence in the Eucharist, not against it.

 

[edarlitrix]

Thanks for all your replies, guys.

In response to snarflemike–I don’t really have a problem with eating Jesus’ flesh, even though some would say that’s comparable to cannibalism. My main issue with taking the Eucharist to be literal is that it involves consumption of blood.

The response that we want to partake of Jesus’ life and not animal life makes sense. However, this thread (posted below) claims it’s OK to eat animal blood. In which case, it is OK to partake of the life of animals:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=418502&highlight=rare+steak

So, the answer that we want to partake of Jesus’ life but not animal life doesn’t work.

I also do not understand why Jesus’ blood, which is human blood, is said to be divine. Isn’t it just human blood? Or is his divinity fused with his flesh in such a way that his flesh and the blood thereof is both human and divine?

 

[GospodiPomiluj]

In response to snarflemike–I don’t really have a problem with eating Jesus’ flesh, even though some would say that’s comparable to cannibalism.

The ancient first and second century Roman authorities actually used this argument against early Christians, that they were cannibals. This would show that the first Christians indeed held strongly, even dying for, the believe in the real presence.

Or is his divinity fused with his flesh in such a way that his flesh and the blood thereof is both human and divine?

This is correct. Catholics believe his Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are all present together.

 

[FCEGM]

–I don’t really have a problem with eating Jesus’ flesh, even though some would say that’s comparable to cannibalism.

Yes, that’s a claim sometimes made here. To address that briefly: if you were to cut off a small piece of your flesh, your body would have lost a piece of itself and thus been diminished. In the Eucharist, though, the Flesh (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) we consume is not lost to the One Who gives us to eat. We receive Christ’s Glorified Body and Blood. Glorified now, His Body and Blood cannot be changed or diminished by our partaking of Him in the Eucharist (in contrast to cannibalism which changes by diminishment that which is consumed). He feeds our bodies and souls that we may share in that same glory.

 

[snarflemike]

Thanks for all your replies, guys.

In response to snarflemike–I don’t really have a problem with eating Jesus’ flesh, even though some would say that’s comparable to cannibalism. My main issue with taking the Eucharist to be literal is that it involves consumption of blood.

The response that we want to partake of Jesus’ life and not animal life makes sense. However, this thread (posted below) claims it’s OK to eat animal blood. In which case, it is OK to partake of the life of animals:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=418502&highlight=rare+steak

So, the answer that we want to partake of Jesus’ life but not animal life doesn’t work.

Jesus also said their are no unclean foods. The question of eating blood comes down to intention, not the presence of red blood cells in your food. If your intention in eating blood is the pagan intention of bringing the life of the animal into yourself, this is prohibited. If your intention in eating blood is seeking nutrition, this is not prohibited.

The Gentiles were prohibited from blood, and they were also prohibited from things strangled. These are related to their worship practices at the time. Do you really believe that prohibition applies to us? Again, it is the intention, not the substance or act.

And regarding cannibalism, the charge is immediately seen to be baseless when you ask yourself, what exactly is objectionable in cannibalism, and does this objection apply to the Eucharist? The Eucharist is much more like a woman feeding her child with the milk from her own body.

 

[benjohnson]

My main issue with taking the Eucharist to be literal is that it involves consumption of blood.

I acknowledge that I can’t truly understand the full mystery of the Eucharist. However, God doesn’t call us to ‘understand’ - He call’s us to do do as instructed - for “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

So don’t let your lack of understanding keep you from Him!

 

[po18guy]

I also do not understand why Jesus’ blood, which is human blood, is said to be divine. Isn’t it just human blood? Or is his divinity fused with his flesh in such a way that his flesh and the blood thereof is both human and divine?

Look up the “hypostatic union” of God and man in Jesus Christ. If His blood is only human, then it could not atone for our sins and we are not saved - any of us. If purely human blood atoned for sins, then Abel’s blood would have done that shortly after the fall from grace, would it not?

 

[po18guy]

I acknowledge that I can’t truly understand the full mystery of the Eucharist. However, God doesn’t call us to ‘understand’ - He call’s us to do do as instructed - for “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

So don’t let your lack of understanding keep you from Him!

“Understanding is the reward given by faith. Do not try to understand in order to believe, but believe so that you may understand” - Saint Augustine of Hippo