Giving blood and sacraments

[JosephJohn]

Hey all,

I have kind of a weird question. I was giving blood the other day and two separate concerns came up. The first one is weird, but I have always understood that in consuming Christ’s blood he deifies our own blood and makes us one with his body. Not that we are divine on our own at all but that his divinity is in our blood in a literal sense. I know this cannot be the case exactly but does that make our blood in any way an extension of the Eucharist that it would be unfit to give to non Catholics… I’m more looking for the reason this argument doesn’t hold than to decide if it is right because it clearly isn’t.

The second question regards dietary restrictions. There is some tension in the new testimate between Christ who says NOTHING that enters a person can defile them and the church who claims that we shouldn’t eat blood/food sacrificed to idols/or strangled animals… the church sides more towards the former today but I’m wondering why, and why blood transfusion isn’t prohibited by the church in Acts.

(Sorry one more thing came to mind- pork is commonly used as a symbol of idolatry in the OT, some would argue that it is therefore still prohibited by the prohibition on idolatrous food in ACTs. Anyone have a simple airtight answer to that?)

 

[JosephJohn]

I wrote this quickly so I realize the first paragraph is kind of verbal spaghetti… basically my question is whether becomint one with Christ’s body literally makes our corpus sacramental to any extent?

 

[1ke]

I have always understood that in consuming Christ’s blood he deifies our own blood and makes us one with his body. Not that we are divine on our own at all but that his divinity is in our blood in a literal sense.

The Church does not teach anything of this sort.

does that make our blood in any way an extension of the Eucharist that it would be unfit to give to non Catholics

No.

and the church who claims that we shouldn’t eat blood/food sacrificed to idols/or strangled animals

The first century Church asked that Christians refrain (as a discipline) so as not to scandalize others. The Church never taught it was wrong to eat these things.

I’m wondering why, and why blood transfusion isn’t prohibited by the church in Acts.

Well, first because blood transfusions didn’t exist in the first century. And secondly because they have nothing to do with anything.

some would argue that it is therefore still prohibited by the prohibition on idolatrous food in ACTs

Who is this “some”, because they aren’t Catholics. Again, Acts doesn’t prohibit foods doctrinally, only as a discipline. And those things are no longer prohibited under current church law.

 

[1ke]

I wrote this quickly so I realize the first paragraph is kind of verbal spaghetti… basically my question is whether becomint one with Christ’s body literally makes our corpus sacramental to any extent?

No.

You are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[porthos11]

I wrote this quickly so I realize the first paragraph is kind of verbal spaghetti… basically my question is whether becomint one with Christ’s body literally makes our corpus sacramental to any extent?

No.

The Eucharist does not enter our blood. The Real Presence persists only for as long as the appearance of bread and wine remain. Once those disappear, so does the Presence. The grace remains, but that’s a spiritual reality, and does not make our blood “blessed” or anything.

And no, blood alcohol level does not count as the “appearance of wine” either. It is perfectly permissible to donate blood right after Mass.

We are “deified” by baptism, not by the Eucharist. It is the fact that we are “deified” that we can even partake of the Eucharist. The Eucharist increases sactifying grace, but that sanctifying grace must already be present to begin with, otherwise, we receive sacrilegiously.

 

[JosephJohn]

Interesting- let me rephrase I seem to have struck a nerve slightly. I am genuinely curious and don’t seek to offend at all.

The church would say that through the sacrament of the Eucharist Christ draws us into his divine life. We do not become God or become worthy of co worship in any way shape or form but we do believe we consume Christ’s Body Blood Soul and Divinity. I acknowledge this doesn’t mean that our blood is sacramental… I’m asking for the reason WHY it doesn’t. The wording of the catechism around the Eucharist seems like it might lead to that interpretation. I’m on board with you and the church about the resolution to these questions… as I’m am with all issues- I’m trying to understand why.

And I agree it is not a catholic belief at all that koscher is still in affect. “Some” referred to some groups among the Jews for Jesus movement.

 

[JosephJohn]

@parthos thanks for your answer that makes sense. I have heard priests use the term deified to refer to what happens at baptism (good distinction there by the way thank you) but you put in air quotes. What is your objection to it? I don’t intend to imply any human besides Christ is worthy of worship or is God.

I was more using the words along the lines of the mantra “by God becoming Human, he made humanity divine”. Apologies if I seemed to be saying something really incorrect.

 

[porthos11]

@parthos thanks for your answer that makes sense. I have heard priests use the term deified to refer to what happens at baptism (good distinction there by the way thank you) but you put in air quotes. What is your objection to it? I don’t intend to imply any human besides Christ is worthy of worship or is God.

I was more using the words along the lines of the mantra “by God becoming Human, he made humanity divine”. Apologies if I seemed to be saying something really incorrect.

I put “deified” in air quotes to reduce the possibility of misunderstanding by other readers. But this concept of deification is a very real thing (theosis), because it draws straight from scripture. I use the quotes because we are “deified” and not really deified that we shed our human nature and become divine. We rather become “divine” (quotes emphasized) in that we “partake of the divine nature”, i.e. transformed by grace. The quotes are there to simply mean “in a sense”.

 

[BartholomewB]

I’m wondering why, and why blood transfusion isn’t prohibited by the church in Acts.

Blood transfusion hasn’t been around all that long.

 

[JosephJohn]

Ok that all makes sense. I wanted to make sure I wasn’t completely doctrinally off center here. I wrote my original messege very quickly as I said. I struggle with scrupulousity and I’m also curious about theology so I wrote the original question in a sort of knee jerk way… thay wasn’t particularly smart of me and I hope I didn’t seem like I was troling. I appreciate your answer though- I understand better now.

 

[JosephJohn]

I was thinking blood transfusion might fall into the same category as eating because they are both consumption.

 

[1ke]

deified

Divinization, called Theosis in the East, doesn’t mean what you seem to think.

And scruples are best served by regular spiritual counsel with one priest or spiritual director. If you aren’t receiving counseling for your scruples please contact your pastor.

 

[Fauken]

I was thinking blood transfusion might fall into the same category as eating because they are both consumption.

A blood transfusion is not consumption. Your body extracts nutrients from food and it turns into waste. Blood is blood and is replacing lost/tainted blood.

 

[JosephJohn]

Yes, I want to make sure I have it right now. Our spirit is in some sense made a host to Christ divinity in baptism (not in the Eucharist as I though) and if that “deification” ever extends to our corpus it is not in this era through theeucharist but In the next through the resurrection?

I think the reason I was confused is because we have such a. Beautiful literal understanding of the Eucharist as a physical happening and the Eucharist does in some degree draw us more into Christ’s body even physically (?) it seemed to follow that our bodies would be made like our spirit somehow. I meant to make it clearer that I knew this understand was at least partially wrong but like I said I was not super eloquent in my first post. Thanks everyone. Let me know if I still have it wrong at all.