Meat with the blood still ini it

[johnnyjones]

God told St. Paul, “kill and eat” (animals with blood in them). All things are new, a new covenant. In addition I believe the “meat with blood in it” referred to a freshly killed animal. Eating an uncooked animal with the life still in it is what is meant because the blood IS the life.

 

[JM3]

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm

SESSION 11 4 February 1442 [Bull of union with the Copts]

It firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel. It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food. In places, however, where the Christian religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no Jew is to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly practicing the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased. It condemns, then, no kind of food that human society accepts and nobody at all neither man nor woman, should make a distinction between animals, no matter how they died; although for the health of the body, for the practice of virtue or for the sake of regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things that are not proscribed can and should be omitted, as the apostle says all things are lawful, but not all are helpful.

 

[IneedGod]

I think the OP is referring to the part in Acts where the apostles sit down and try to figure out what laws from the Old Testament to keep. They decided on not eating blood, sexual immorality, and something else that escapes me at the moment. I’m not sure how to reconcile this.

Yes this is it. I think the third was not eating food sacrificed to idols?

 

[TimothyH]

It isn’t about cruelty to animals, or blood sausage or whether we can order a medium rare steak. Those subjects completely miss the point.

It’s about the Eucharist.

The prohibition against the consumption of blood was about the perfect blood of Christ which was to come. The prohibition against the consumption of blood is about the Eucharist. Christ’s flesh is true food, and his blood is true drink, and unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life in you.

Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh. (Dueteronomy 12:23)

Consuming the blood of an animal is allegorical, symbolic of living the life of an animal. The life of an animal is its blood. The pagans of the Old Testament lived like animals. God doesn’t want us to live like animals. God want’s us to live the eternal life of Christ, and so that’s why drink the blood of Christ, because the “The blood is the life.”

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. (John 6:53-54)

The prohibition against consumption of blood is less about blood than it is about life, and which life the Jews chose to live - the life of an animal or the life of God? God was telling them not to live like animals until the messiah came, and then they would consume the messiah’s blood, and they would be given divine life.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9676741&postcount=13

-Tim-

 

[johnnyjones]

It isn’t about cruelty to animals, or blood sausage or whether we can order a medium rare steak. Those subjects completely miss the point.

It’s about the Eucharist.

The prohibition against the consumption of blood was about the perfect blood of Christ which was to come. The prohibition against the consumption of blood is about the Eucharist. Christ’s flesh is true food, and his blood is true drink, and unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life in you.

Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh. (Dueteronomy 12:23)

Consuming the blood of an animal is allegorical, symbolic of living the life of an animal. The life of an animal is its blood. The pagans of the Old Testament lived like animals. God doesn’t want us to live like animals. God want’s us to live the eternal life of Christ, and so that’s why drink the blood of Christ, because the “The blood is the life.”

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. (John 6:53-54)

The prohibition against consumption of blood is less about blood than it is about life, and which life the Jews chose to live - the life of an animal or the life of God? God was telling them not to live like animals until the messiah came, and then they would consume the messiah’s blood, and they would be given divine life.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9676741&postcount=13

-Tim-

No read post 22

 

[JM3]

God told St. Paul, “kill and eat” (animals with blood in them). All things are new, a new covenant. In addition I believe the “meat with blood in it” referred to a freshly killed animal. Eating an uncooked animal with the life still in it is what is meant because the blood IS the life.

Acts 10

9 And on the next day, whilst they were going on their journey, and drawing nigh to the city, Peter went up to the higher parts of the house to pray, about the sixth hour.
10 And being hungry, he was desirous to taste somewhat. And as they were preparing, there came upon him an ecstasy of mind.
11 And he saw the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great linen sheet let down by the four corners from heaven to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him: Arise, Peter; kill and eat.
14 But Peter said: Far be it from me; for I never did eat any thing that is common and unclean.
15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time: That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common.
16 And this was done thrice; and presently the vessel was taken up into heaven.

 

[johnnyjones]

Acts 10

9 And on the next day, whilst they were going on their journey, and drawing nigh to the city, Peter went up to the higher parts of the house to pray, about the sixth hour.
10 And being hungry, he was desirous to taste somewhat. And as they were preparing, there came upon him an ecstasy of mind.
11 And he saw the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great linen sheet let down by the four corners from heaven to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him: Arise, Peter; kill and eat.
14 But Peter said: Far be it from me; for I never did eat any thing that is common and unclean.
15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time: That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common.
16 And this was done thrice; and presently the vessel was taken up into heaven.

I meant St. Peter . My bad.

 

[lerapt78]

I’ve never tried the black pudding in England, but I’ve had morcilla in Spain, which I’m guessing is almost the same thing. What is white pudding, though, and what’s the difference between the two?

 

[YKohen]

In RCIA last night 3 jewish laws we still keep were mentioned.
One was to abstain from meat with the blood still in it.
Does that mean such things as a med. rare steak?

FYI: Jews aren’t forbidden to eat medium rare steaks- thank G-d. Even rare is fine according to Jewish law. The blood is removed from meat and poultry through a combination of salting, soaking, and rinsing the meat.

 

[Catholic80]

In RCIA last night 3 jewish laws we still keep were mentioned.
One was to abstain from meat with the blood still in it.
Does that mean such things as a med. rare steak?

The liquid that comes from rare steak is not blood. … it’s myoglobin.

Read about it here: todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/the-red-juice-in-raw-red-meat-is-not-blood/

 

[pollylodges]

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.

Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.

Amen.

†

Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Amen.

†

 

[fames]

Council of Florence:

It [the holy Roman church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning.

…]

It [the holy Roman church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel. It also declares that the apostolic prohibition, to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled, was suited to that time when a single church was rising from Jews and gentiles, who previously lived with different ceremonies and customs. This was so that the gentiles should have some observances in common with Jews, and occasion would be offered of coming together in one worship and faith of God and a cause of dissension might be removed, since by ancient custom blood and strangled things seemed abominable to Jews, and gentiles could be thought to be returning to idolatry if they ate sacrificial food. In places, however, where the Christian religion has been promulgated to such an extent that no Jew is to be met with and all have joined the church, uniformly practicing the same rites and ceremonies of the gospel and believing that to the clean all things are clean, since the cause of that apostolic prohibition has ceased, so its effect has ceased. It condemns, then, no kind of food that human society accepts and nobody at all neither man nor woman, should make a distinction between animals, no matter how they died; although for the health of the body, for the practice of virtue or for the sake of regular and ecclesiastical discipline many things that are not proscribed can and should be omitted, as the apostle says all things are lawful, but not all are helpful.

 

[lerapt78]

I guess I could have just looked it up myself.

I’m sure I would love white pudding. I’m usually the one devouring the juicy bits of fat on meat cuts while all the conscientious dieters around me are cutting it off.

 

[kbwall]

And food offered to idols. However, with the exception of sexual immorailty, dietary regulations are disciplinary in nature and the Church has seen it fit to since lift those restrictions, in light of the Lord’s words.

I guess eating food offered to idols breaks the first commandment, so that makes sense. I don’t get the other thing though. Why lift the restriction for consuming blood, but leave the others intact?

 

[porthos11]

I guess eating food offered to idols breaks the first commandment, so that makes sense. I don’t get the other thing though. Why lift the restriction for consuming blood, but leave the others intact?

I think even food offered to idols is kosher (so to speak) now. For example, if a Christian were invited to a Hindu party held by friends and they serve food over which they invoked the blessings of their (false) gods, or even “offered” to Shiva or whoever. A Catholic (I believe) would not be morally obligated to refuse to eat the food. You are merely eating at a party, not condoning false worship.

Sexual immorality is part of the moral, not disciplinary law, so it remains binding always and everywhere.

Now I say this purely as opinion.