Lev17: 11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood…14 **For [it is] the life of all flesh; **the blood of it [is] for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: **for the life of all flesh [is] the blood **thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.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?
It’s also interesting how some Protestants become OT Jews when it suits them in objecting to Catholic teaching, but under no other circumstances. They become Cafeteria OT Jews.As with so many of the apologetics threads, this goes back to the error of the private interpretation of scripture. To think that we are prohibited from drinking Christ’s blood is to go against His explicit -]advice/-] command from that very same scripture. It also risks the assumption (not to say in this case) that each and every one of the twelve Apostles, Saint Paul, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, the Early Chirch Fathers, all of the Doctors of the Church, each Pope, Patriarch, Bishop, Metropolitan, Priest, Deacon, religious Brother and Sister, their Superiors, as well as the billions of lay practitioners of the faith over the past two thousand years have all been wrong - and that one’s own understanding of a few passages from scrioture is right.
God reserved the consumption of blood only to Christ’s blood, because Christ was God.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?
I take it literally but not the way some of you do…I see it as a product of human hands, thus shared because we are human…it is the request for forgiveness, and blessing, that sanctifies to make it holy and the actual transforming process…i.e. God’s blessing and our ability to participate in it as we have done as we are commanded to do so, as a viable part of the Church proper. Just as Christ was human and divine…through this following we too shall share more fully now and later through grace in the communion that is God. The way some are making it sound gets downright gross here…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?
Just wondering how you came to this conclusion about the Eucharist.I take it literally but not the way some of you do…I see it as a product of human hands, thus shared because we are human…it is the request for forgiveness, and blessing, that sanctifies to make it holy and the actual transforming process…i.e. God’s blessing and our ability to participate in it as we have done as we are commanded to do so, as a viable part of the Church proper. Just as Christ was human and divine…through this following we too shall share more fully now and later through grace in the communion that is God. The way some are making it sound gets downright gross here…
But as far as some neat stuff to read, poor judge Pliny finally got it worked out they weren’t cannibals, it was just folks overhearing and misunderstanding the Eucharist. Yet, he still didn’t know what to do with them…nice folks, good workers, helpful…just wouldn’t bow down to Roman gods…what can he do? what should he do? Pliny was born in 62 A.D. One excerpt that references these ‘newfangled’ Christians are X 96 and X 97. Hopefully you can find some good commentaries of his work with cross references. This was just from my h.s. 3rd year Latin book… (As an aside, comparisons and contrasts with mythologies, and writings such as these helped cement rather than turn me away from Christianity. We also read Ovid’s Metamorphosis. But Pliny, Cicero, Catiline…complaints of their day…not unlike those today…It makes you realize we aren’t as smart as we’d like to think compared to past generations, and like Isaiah, the world history is repeat, repeat, repeat…we’re just trying to do damage control LOL)
I would say this is incorrect. Jesus is more than spirit since the incarnation. He is body and blood and soul too. All those aspects of Jesus are present in the Eucharist. I believe the language used is that Jesus is substantially present in the Eucharist; that is, his entire substance (body, blood, soul and divinity) IS the substance of the “bread” and of the “wine”.It is literally spiritually the flesh and blood of Christ.
At least thats how I understand it. Someone correct me if Im wrong.
I just know no one who can seperate parts of their body. God did this by design. If you believe in the Trinity which it seems you do, then the Father Son and Holy Spirit are all in one. …even daily thoughts are are all connected. When I go to confession, I confess everything I have done and what I have thought that may have lead to a wrong action. Maybe look at the entire book of John as there are no parables, only Jesus talking straight to people, especially His Apostles who went around the world which is why we have so many Rites of the Catholic Church, and those Apostles ordained future priests and so on…I would say this is incorrect. Jesus is more than spirit since the incarnation. He is body and blood and soul too. All those aspects of Jesus are present in the Eucharist. I believe the language used is that Jesus is substantially present in the Eucharist; that is, his entire substance (body, blood, soul and divinity) IS the substance of the “bread” and of the “wine”.
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.
Yet As Catholics we know Jesus to be Both God AND Man.
Mercy is highly (and sadly) under-ratedThe Eucharist is Truly, Verily The Body and Blood of Christ.I would say this is incorrect. Jesus is more than spirit since the incarnation. He is body and blood and soul too. All those aspects of Jesus are present in the Eucharist. I believe the language used is that Jesus is substantially present in the Eucharist; that is, his entire substance (body, blood, soul and divinity) IS the substance of the “bread” and of the “wine”.
Mercy is highly (and sadly) under-ratedGreat analogy.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.
How can Jesus be God? Jesus is the son of God.Yet As Catholics we know Jesus to be Both God AND Man.
I also had asked my Parish Priest not too long Which Do We Receive: His Crucified/Dying body OR His Resurrected One. I was that we receive Jesus’ Resurrected Body and Blood.
- Truly Divine and Truly Man.
So it would be incorrect (would it not?), to state or imply the Divine status of His particular blood is what makes this Rule not applicable.
Being both God and Man means His humanity, His human blood was spilled out as well.
Not that of a Deceased Body; but of One in which Still Lives.
VERY Different thing from even those who had died but were risen from the grave, as is written in both The Old and New Testaments. For although they too had arose from death when as the breath of life was returned to them… none had entered into the new-form of The Glorified Body.
For there is Nothing That can be likened to that of The Eucharistic Body and Blood.
Unlike any and all beasts or men.
For It is The Glorified Body and Blood which is given unto us.
The Glorified Blood of Jesus Christ, True God and True Man.
Code:Mercy is highly (and sadly) under-rated
Forgive all sins indeed! Does that mean that I can be forgiven and then go on my merry way committting the same sin?How can Jesus be God? Jesus is the son of God.
Bread & wine are purely symbols of life. Jesus is saying eat and drink these, ‘Remember me’ when you eat and drink them and you will be nourished in what I have taught you. It’s all open to interpretation of the words, I actually think that the RC church has got it wrong.
I am banned from the table of god by mere mortals who decide that if you have remarried you are not welcome - forgiveness is truly present in the Catholic church. Perhaps they should practice what Jesus taught us and why he died on the cross, mainly to forgive all sins.
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?
Alas a typical answer of blind belief. My priest told me that I had no option but to divorce my wife after seeing what I had become from her being a serial adultress and carrying someone else’s child. I have not done anything wrong to repent with regards to this. My two children from our marriage live with me. I have moved on and married again after many years of soul searching and sadness. My wife and I also have a little girl who is baptised RC, but as it stands she will be brought up as a Christian but nothing more. My ex-wife re-married a few months after our divorce and divorced again a couple of years later. She has has been in and out of relationships ever since, some things don’t change.Forgive all sins indeed! Does that mean that I can be forgiven and then go on my merry way committting the same sin?
To be forgiven I need to be repentant (SORRY) of having commited the sin.
If I divorce my wife or by my actions force her to divorce me and then I just flippantly go and commit adultery by “remarrying” someone else, how can I be sorry if after I confess my sin I go back home and continue in my behaviour?
NO you are not barred from the table by mere mortals but by GOD Himself.
Be truly sorry and MEND your actions to fulfill what Jesus commanded.
“Your sins are forgiven now, Go in peace and sin no more!”
Peace![]()
Unfortunately you fall into the same trap that all Protestants do…picking part of a verse to fit your interpretation…so what did Jesus say…THIS is my body…eat it…THIS is my blood…drink it…do THIS …in memory of me…you see …that is where I had my epiphany as a former Protestant many years ago…Jesus said DO THIS in memory of me…not do this IN MEMORY of me…I pray you may understand the truth in what he said…also if you read John 6: 52-71 you will read that even some of his disciples left him because they couldn’t accept what he was saying…he didn’t tell them he only meant it to be symbolic…and they had no doubt that he meant it in the literal sense…the church for 1500 years had no doubts neither…protestants have to deny the truth of the Eucharist…just as they have to deny the truth that Jesus called Peter ‘the rock’.upon who he would build his church…to admit either would mean admitting that the Holy Spirit has been guiding the Catholic Church like Jesus promised that he would…they would rather deny the truth of the Holy Spirit than admit they are wrong.How can Jesus be God? Jesus is the son of God.
Bread & wine are purely symbols of life. Jesus is saying eat and drink these, ‘Remember me’ when you eat and drink them and you will be nourished in what I have taught you. It’s all open to interpretation of the words, I actually think that the RC church has got it wrong.
I am banned from the table of god by mere mortals who decide that if you have remarried you are not welcome - forgiveness is truly present in the Catholic church. Perhaps they should practice what Jesus taught us and why he died on the cross, mainly to forgive all sins.