Is eating blood a sin?

[cvbreno]

In Acts 15, we read that the Jerusalem council discussed how much of the Jewish law and customs (such as circumcision) should be imposed on the Gentile Christians. They declared that the Gentile Christians should “abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.”

Does this mean that it’s sinful to drink blood or to eat products made from blood, such as blood sausages and blood puddings? I have always thought so, but I saw such foods in Europe, in predominantly Catholic regions. Not that I really wanted to eat these anyway, but what does the Church teach about this?

 

[Et_Cetera]

They’re not foods of which I am particularly fond, but I don’t think the Church is necessarily against eating such items. If you’re craving those foods, then you might have an iron deficiency.

 

[Geremia]

If it were sinful to consume blood, then the Sacrament of Communion—where one receives the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ—would be sinful, too.

 

[Roman_Army]

In Acts 15, we read that the Jerusalem council discussed how much of the Jewish law and customs (such as circumcision) should be imposed on the Gentile Christians. They declared that the Gentile Christians should “abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.”

Does this mean that it’s sinful to drink blood or to eat products made from blood, such as blood sausages and blood puddings? I have always thought so, but I saw such foods in Europe, in predominantly Catholic regions. Not that I really wanted to eat these anyway, but what does the Church teach about this?

Our Lord had already explained in the Gospel that no food in itself causes one to sin, it is instead what comes out of us (e.g. desires, thoughts) that brings the guilt of sin to us. The decree in Acts 15 was intended to be a temporary disciplinary measure designed to prevent quarrel and controversy between the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. It obliged back then, but it is no longer obligatory since there is no longer any contention between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, at least not in the Catholic Church. I remember reading one of the Ecumenical Councils that explained that very clearly, though I don’t remember which one it was.

Here is what the Haydock Douay-Rheims Bible Commentary says:
Haydock Commentary on Acts 15::

Ver. 20. Things strangled and from blood. In these prohibitions, the Church indulged the particular feelings of the Jews, that the bond of union between them and the Gentiles might be more closely united; the latter in these two instances giving way to the prejudices of the former, who in their turn gave up much, by submitting to the abolition of the ceremonial law of Moses. This prohibition was of course only temporary, and to cease with the reasons, which gave rise to it. (Menochius) — The Jews had such a horror of blood, that they considered those who eat it as defiled, and violators of the law of nature. The Lord had in effect from the beginning forbidden the use of blood to Noe [Noah], (Genesis ix. 4.) which he likewise reported in the strongest terms in Leviticus viii. 26.[vii. 26.?] By this we see the great authority of God’s Church, and Councils which may make permanent or temporary decrees, such as are fitting for the state of the times or peoples, without any express Scripture at all, and by this authoritative exaction, things become of strict obligation, which previous to it, were in themselves indifferent. (Bristow)

Ver. 29. From blood, and from things strangled. The use of these things, though of their own nature indifferent, were here prohibited, to bring the Jews more easily to admit of the society of the Gentiles; and to exercise the latter in obedience. But this prohibition was but temporary, and has long since ceased to oblige; more especially in the western churches. (Challoner) — See note on ver. 20, above.

Source: haydock1859.tripod.com/

 

[Crumpy]

In the law of Moses, eating blood was forbidden. The surprising thing is why such a law would be necessary in the first place.

The explanation seems to be that there were pagan religions and practices nearby that the Israelites were tempted to follow, one of which was eating blood.

So, to avoid the slippery slope of practicing these pagan rituals, the eating of blood was therefore prohibited.

A similar situation seemed to prevail about the law of not touching a corpse – people who did were considered ritually unclean and there was a procedure to follow to overcome the uncleanness. Priests were totally forbidden even from attending a funeral of even a family member.

Similarly, there seemed to be ancestor worship among the surrounding pagans, So, the law seems to greatly discourage defilement by a corpse to avoid the practice of the pagan cults. Same general idea as prohibiting the eating of blood. We are to worship only the living God (not dead corpses or idols).

 

[Roman_Army]

In the law of Moses, eating blood was forbidden. The surprising thing is why such a law would be necessary in the first place.

The explanation seems to be that there were pagan religions and practices nearby that the Israelites were tempted to follow, one of which was eating blood.

So, to avoid the slippery slope of practicing these pagan rituals, the eating of blood was therefore prohibited.

A similar situation seemed to prevail about the law of not touching a corpse – people who did were considered ritually unclean and there was a procedure to follow to overcome the uncleanness. Priests were totally forbidden even from attending a funeral of even a family member.

Similarly, there seemed to be ancestor worship among the surrounding pagans, So, the law seems to greatly discourage defilement by a corpse to avoid the practice of the pagan cults. Same general idea as prohibiting the eating of blood. We are to worship only the living God (not dead corpses or idols).

Personally, I tend to subscribe to the theory that most of these Mosaic laws (including prohibition of blood, avoid touching corpses, circumcision, no pork or shell fish, etc.) were intended to prevent disease. There was no such thing as adequate health care back then, so the best thing they could do was avoid things that were known to cause disease or infection. There was also no such thing as FDA or USDA inspectors back then to inspect food and stuff. So, just like today governments require vaccinations, back then they required everyone to avoid such possible contaminants. It’s ancient preventive medicine. But, it could also be that they intended to distinguish themselves from the pagans. It could be more than one reason for it.

 

[stiskytwi]

it may, in fact, be going with a new controller, entirely different from the much-waggled Wii Remote.

 

[yupthemas]

Thanks so much 4 sharing with us,bros

 

[TLM08]

If it were sinful to consume blood, then the Sacrament of Communion—where one receives the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ—would be sinful, too.

If these early followers of Christ actually believed that they were drinking the blood of Christ during the communion meal the following passage surely would have made an exception for it.

“Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.” Acts 15:27-29

Christians are not to drink blood under any circumstances

 

[Ron_Conte]

The reason for the OT prescriptions was to teach a spiritual meaning by a living figure, by a metaphor that was lived in daily life. So in distinguishing between clean and unclean foods, the Israelites cultivated a daily habit of considering and following the will of God, and of distinguishing between what is acceptable before God and what is not.

This was new to religion at the time. The pagan religions did not distinguish at all between good and evil. They had many gods, and a person might do something that supposedly pleased one god, but angered another. There was no sense of absolute right and wrong. So the various ceremonial precepts, i.e. the disciplines of the OT were useful to cause the Israelites to have to consider the will of God in the various areas of daily life.

In NT times, we still have disciplines, but they are the disciplines of the new covenant. Now discipline is not doctrine, and so even the new disciplines are dispensable and changeable. For example, we abstain from meat on Fridays of Lent, but a dispensation can be granted for a just reason (e.g. when St. Patrick’s feast falls on a Friday of Lent, and there are many Irish Catholics in a particular diocese).

But are all the OT disciplines dispensed, i.e. set aside in favor of the NT disciplines? According to Acts, no.

{15:28} For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose no further burden upon you, other than these necessary things:
{15:29} that you abstain from things immolated to idols, and from blood, and from what has been suffocated, and from fornication. You will do well to keep yourselves from these things. Farewell.”

First, notice that idolatry and fornication are still prohibited. This is by way of indicating that all the OT law that is of the moral law is still in force. Right and wrong have not changed. But then certain precepts from the OT that are not strictly of the moral law are retained, including not eating blood. This is a useful precept because of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. We drink the Blood of Christ. It would be harmful to our spiritual understanding of that Sacrament, and it would conflict with the practice of devout reception of Communion, if we also drank animal blood as food.

The reference to ‘things immolated to idols’ on the one hand indicates that we must still follow the moral law, which prohibits idolatry. It also refers to foods sacrificed to idols, which we avoid not because eating that food is in itself wrong (for idols are nothing, as Paul explains), but because of the scandal to others who might think that idolatry were acceptable by our bad example. Christ is our sacrifice, so we ought not to participate, or even seem to participate, in sacrifices that are contrary to that Sacrifice.

The reference to foods that have been strangled (suffocated) might be a reference to the method of killing used in preparing foods dedicated to idols, which would be prohibited also under the above prescription on any foods immolated to idols. But it may also be similar to the prescription against drinking blood, in that Christ suffocated on the Cross, and in that God breathed life into mankind, so that breathing is a symbol for our spiritual life (the word spirit being related to the word for breath). If we ate animals that had been suffocated, this practice conflicts with the symbolism used in our spiritual life.

 

[Roman_Army]

Ron Conte:

In regards to the spiritual reason for those OT laws and the laws in Acts 15, that is certainly a new interpretation I’ve never heard about. Do you have actual evidence to back that up? I personally doubt those were the reasons for those laws. Does not make much sense to me, though it could be part of the case.

 

[Ron_Conte]

In regards to the spiritual reason for those OT laws and the laws in Acts 15, that is certainly a new interpretation I’ve never heard about. Do you have actual evidence to back that up? I personally doubt those were the reasons for those laws. Does not make much sense to me, though it could be part of the case.

Could you be more specific as to which points you refer?
How do you understand the OT ceremonial precepts?

Are you familiar with St. Thomas on this question:
newadvent.org/summa/2.htm
See the section on the Old Law.

 

[Greebus]

The real reason why it says not to eat blood, or bloody meat is because people got sick from it. Same goes for pork although it was forbidden because it must be cooked properly at a hit enough temperature for long enough otherwise you’ll get bugs living in your guts. Nasty bugs too. It’s really irrelevant what any scriptures said about the issue since the reality of the issue is health.

 

[Roman_Army]

Could you be more specific as to which points you refer?
How do you understand the OT ceremonial precepts?

Are you familiar with St. Thomas on this question:
newadvent.org/summa/2.htm
See the section on the Old Law.

Well, what I meant was that I do not understand how the specific dietary laws, hygiene, and types of clothing had to do with anything spiritual. I do see how the liturgical rites and sacrifices of the OT, the moral laws, and the various punishments for sins could help the Jews spiritually in seeing an absolute right and wrong as well as how to atone for it. But, I fail to see how the dietary rules, hygienic rules, and specific dress code have anything to do with spirituality or distinguishing right from wrong. I also do not see how the consumption of animal blood causes conflict with one’s belief in the Eucharist. And no, I have not read that part of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, maybe I’ll check it out. I do find it a bit difficult to understand Aquinas at times given that I have no Philosophical background and have never studied Greek Philosophy, he uses a lot of that. Plus, the New Advent website’s translation is old and a bit archaic, makes it a bit harder.

 

[PaladinGirl]

There’s no such thing as sin in my opinion but that’s besides the point. Why would eating blood be a sin? Catholics believe that they drink the blood of Jesus when they receive from the chalice at Mass so why would it be a sin?

 

[Newbie2]

If these early followers of Christ actually believed that they were drinking the blood of Christ during the communion meal the following passage surely would have made an exception for it.

“Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.” Acts 15:27-29

Christians are not to drink blood under any circumstances

Beg to differ:

1 Corinthians 11:25: In the same way, he took the cup of wine after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with my blood. Do this to remember me as often as you drink it."

The real reason why it says not to eat blood, or bloody meat is because people got sick from it. Same goes for pork although it was forbidden because it must be cooked properly at a hit enough temperature for long enough otherwise you’ll get bugs living in your guts. Nasty bugs too. It’s really irrelevant what any scriptures said about the issue since the reality of the issue is health.

I assume you’re talking about Trichinella spiralis:

Trichinella spiralis larvae are released in the stomach and enter the small intestine where they mature into adults and reproduce. Newborn larvae usually enter the bloodstream and are distributed around the body. Most eventually end up in the host’s muscles. Here the larvae mature into infective larvae and will pass to the next host when the host’s meat is eaten in a raw or undercooked state. As they penetrate cells, the larvae can cause extensive damage and a severe reaction in the animal or human host.

In humans, it’s actually more of a muscle disease when the larvae encyst in the muscles.

(Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood veterinarian)

I agree, though, that a big part of why such foods were forbidden was for health reasons. From the Almighty’s perspective, how better to get people to avoid it if it’s part of their religious law?

 

[Crumpy]

There’s no such thing as sin in my opinion but that’s besides the point. Why would eating blood be a sin? Catholics believe that they drink the blood of Jesus when they receive from the chalice at Mass so why would it be a sin?

You prove the point in scripture that religion is foolish to those who do not have faith. The simple answer to your questions is to look at the issues through the lens of faith.

Ask God for faith, even if you don’t believe. Ask God for faith and for salvation.

 

[TLM08]

There’s no such thing as sin in my opinion but that’s besides the point. Why would eating blood be a sin? Catholics believe that they drink the blood of Jesus when they receive from the chalice at Mass so why would it be a sin?

If there is no god… there cannot be sin. Also, if someone would have just told me the story of God and Jesus without any evidence of a creator, I might easily be an atheist too. But the evidence for God is overwhelming. A lot of young people turn to athiesm because they cannot understand why a “good” god would allow suffering and evil.

For me, the evidence of a creator is this planet… this universe… the stars… our bodies… our conscience… the hugely vast array of animals, plants, and organisms, and our capacity to love.

The sheer complexity of these things that stay in nearly perfect balance for millions of years are as likely to have come as a matter of accident as shaking up a bag of broken wrist watch parts and having a working watch come out of the mess.

For anyone who claims to be a christian, drinking blood is wrong because the Bible says so.

Catholics believe they are drinking Jesus blood during the Mass because of an unfortunate misinterpretation of John 6

 

[TLM08]

You prove the point in scripture that religion is foolish to those who do not have faith. The simple answer to your questions is to look at the issues through the lens of faith.

Ask God for faith, even if you don’t believe. Ask God for faith and for salvation.

Where did you get that idea? Scripture doesn’t say that. This athiest doesn’t need anybody’s religion. Religion is absolutely useless for yours, mine or anyone else’s salvation and it drives people away from intimacy with God. More evil has been perpetrated in the name of religion than any other cause. It is only the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ shed on the cross that saves!

It is my hope that PaladinGirl abandon any previously held notions of religion and simply embrace the Lord Jesus Christ that we read about in the Bible.

***"For *the message of the cross **is foolishness to those who are perishing"
1 Corinthians 1:18

 

[Ron_Conte]

Well, what I meant was that I do not understand how the specific dietary laws, hygiene, and types of clothing had to do with anything spiritual. I do see how the liturgical rites and sacrifices of the OT, the moral laws, and the various punishments for sins could help the Jews spiritually in seeing an absolute right and wrong as well as how to atone for it. But, I fail to see how the dietary rules, hygienic rules, and specific dress code have anything to do with spirituality or distinguishing right from wrong. I also do not see how the consumption of animal blood causes conflict with one’s belief in the Eucharist. And no, I have not read that part of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, maybe I’ll check it out. I do find it a bit difficult to understand Aquinas at times given that I have no Philosophical background and have never studied Greek Philosophy, he uses a lot of that. Plus, the New Advent website’s translation is old and a bit archaic, makes it a bit harder.

Sacred Scripture has two main levels of meaning:

1. literal/figurative sense
2. spiritual sense
   So the many passages on the ceremonial precepts have two levels of meaning.
   On the literal level of meaning, they provided the Jews with exterior acts to make it easier to worship God. On the spiritual level of meaning, they prefigured Christ. This is perhaps clearest in the precepts about sacrifices.

Saint Thomas Aquinas: “I answer that, As is clear from what has been said (101, 2; 102, 2), the legal ceremonies were ordained for a double purpose; the worship of God, and the foreshadowing of Christ. Now whoever worships God must needs worship Him by means of certain fixed things pertaining to external worship. But the fixing of the divine worship belongs to the ceremonies; just as the determining of our relations with our neighbor is a matter determined by the judicial precepts….”

Saint Thomas Aquinas: “The Old Law is said to be ‘forever’ simply and absolutely, as regards its moral precepts; but as regards the ceremonial precepts it lasts forever in respect of the reality which those ceremonies foreshadowed.”

The various rules, such as dietary rules, ritual purity and impurity pertaining to sexuality, circumcision, etc. were a useful means for the Jews to consider the will of God in every area of life, every day, even if they were considering only disciplines, so that they could more readily also consider the will of God in matters of morals. The Jews had to consider every day what the will of God was in Scripture in order to fulfill this OT discipline, and this habit made it easier to also consider the will of God in Scripture on matters of faith and morals.