Eating Blood in Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edarlitrix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peebo said:
Sorry muffindell…I didn’t realize you are a Catholic…and sorry to hear about your case…there are millions of Catholics …maybe tens of millions who are in similar situations…here is a website that may help with what some in the church are thinking… not those who show a condemning attitude: patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/02/new-call-for-divorced-and-remarried-catholics-to-be-able-to-receive-communion/
Click to expand...
Thank you Peebo, I have just had a quick look at the article you mention. It’s very interesting and something that our new pope will quickly look at, in fact I have a new optimism with regards to no fault divorce. I will read more later, thank you for your kind words and help - there is still, I now pray that God gives the Pope the strength needed to fix this situation that millions of Catholics now find themselves in.
 
edarlitrix said:
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?
Click to expand...
In this world or in the heavens is Christ’s flesh now flesh? Is Christ’s blood now blood? Please don’t confuse the things of and for this world with that which is of and from the Heavenly Father. Christ is our eternal life force. After His personal sacrifice in which He even concurred death for us, Christ’s flesh and blood is no more the same as a human animal, but became the life force for the human animal.
That’s the juvenal way I understand this. But, it’s interesting enough for me to go study up on this subject. I’d like to know I can explain this very correctly for myself and for others.
 
When Jesus said, “Take & eat, this Is my body”, He still was in His body. Certainly no disciple thought they were eating Jesus literally! Would it have been o.k. To bite the hand that fed them?

"and when He had given thanks, He broke it (bread or His own body?) and said, “Take, eat;* this is My body which is broken* (not yet broken, but soon - pointing to his crucifixion) for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

And

For as often as you eat this bread (this what?) and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death (reason for the Lord’s Supper) till He comes.
1Cor.11

“My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work." John 4:34

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” John3:6

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63

"He who has an ear (metaphor), let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. " Rev. 2:17
 
Michael_Francis said:
i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/Off-Topic–Alert.gif

***Several off topic posts have been deleted.

Please remain on the thread topic or it will be closed***
Click to expand...
Gosh, sorry for being a little off topic, I thought we were all talking about communion and what it means to each of us. Alas my comments have been deleted, a bit like how I feel about the church and the way that they view a divorced catholic,not being allowed to participate at our Lords table.
 
The body and blood of Christ we consume in the Eucharist is the glorified, resurrected
body and blood.
 
“This is correct. Catholics believe his Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are all present together.” /QUOTE]

Seems to me that this argument robes of all meaning the explanation given to Jesus´s words in Mat. 24,36: “. But as for that day and hour, nobody knows it, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, no one but the Father alone.”
(bibliacatolica.com.br/new-jerusalem-bible)

It would not be wright to pretend that Jesus as a human person did not know, but the Divine person did, since his “Body, Blood, Soul an Divinity are all present together”.
 
edarlitrix said:
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?
Click to expand...
The fact that it was forbidden to drink blood was why it was so shocking for them at the time. Many got up and left at this point. Then Jesus turned to the apostles and said, “will you also leave,” and Peter replied, “teacher, where will we go. You have the words of everlasting life.”

Think of the person you most admire and trust in this world. It can be someone you know personally, or someone whom you recognize as a great leader (the pope, a saint, etc.) Let’s say that one day they say something completely bizarre. If you truly trusted this person and believed the things that they spoke to be true, would you suddenly throw all that up in the air and never listen to them again, or would you stay, like Peter, even though you didn’t understand at first, and beg for understanding?

The rule not to drink blood is very clear in the Bible, and it’s also very clear that we need to drink Jesus’ blood. I think the very first response to your question was a good one, that Jesus is the life blood for us. He is in each of us. Animals and other humans are not in us, and therefore a sacrilege to drink their blood. But, the more we eat Christ’s blood, the more we a transformed into Him.
 
edarlitrix said:
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?
Click to expand...
This is the wonderful mystery of Christ in the Eucharist, and proof of the hierarchy of the Church. The apostles were told to ""do this as often as you eat, and “do this when you drink with me” Also, Jesus was so literal, and in a Gnostic gospel where there were absolutely no parables…this is how we know for sure.
 
edarlitrix said:
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?
Click to expand...
The blood of animals is what is forbidden. Because to Jews, blood is where the life of a being is. That is why Christ, who is life himself, gives us everlasting life when we drink His blood and eat His flesh. We only get that from Christ and not from anyone or anything else, that is why it is prohibited by Mosaic Law.
 
OT sacrifices were dead animals, and their lifeblood was drained out. But the Eucharist is a living sacrifice, so naturally we consume both the Body and the Blood.
 
GospodiPomiluj said:
I never thought of that argument. It is very good and simple… I am going to have to remember that one 👍
Click to expand...
You can’t seperate someone’s blood from their flesh, this is why you are still receiving the body and blood of Christ when wine is not available. It is also true that we receive the flesh when only receiving the blood.
 
Since Jesus commanded his disciples to drink eat and drink his Body and Blood, I don’t think it’s a sin to partake of it.

God Bless. :highprayer:
 
bben15 said:
Since Jesus commanded his disciples to drink eat and drink his Body and Blood, I don’t think it’s a sin to partake of it.
Click to expand...
It’s similar to God commanding us not to worship any other god or thing, while at the same time commanding us to worship him. How come no Protestants find this a contradiction?
 
I don’t quite understand what you’re saying. Are you saying we shouldn’t worship God, snarflemike?
 
bben15 said:
I don’t quite understand what you’re saying. Are you saying we shouldn’t worship God, snarflemike?
Click to expand...
I’m saying just as God telling us not to worship other gods does not mean we are not to worship God, so God telling us not to eat the blood of creatures does not mean we are not to drink the blood of God. Protestants accept the first “contradiction” without a peep, but a great many then turn around and claim the second is a contradiction and cannot be true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top