Roman Catholic teachings denounced by Orthodox groups?

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Forgive me, I seem to have given the wrong impression. I am not advocating for the eating of blood products, but am rather seeking to explain how it is that they might be permitted, or alternatively, how it is that they are officially forbidden but are consumed anyway:

The canons, as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware stresses, are not to be interpreted in a legalistic manner…the word literally means “guideline” and it is up to the bishop whether a canon is enforced with exactness or whether to grant economy. For example, one priest in North America who suffers from hypoglycemia is permitted to eat a full breakfast immediately before serving the Eucharist. No clergy are penanced for staying in hotels or eating in restaurants, even though such actions violate the canon prohibiting clergy from staying at or dining in taverns. For that matter, there is a canon that in addition to prohibiting prostitutes and gladiators from being received into the church, also excludes actors and schoolteachers, in addition to the canon against using the services of a Jewish doctor. Needless to say those are no longer in force.

Ultimately, the power to interpret the canon rests with the bishops, and if you are in doubt of something, the normal pathway is to ask your priest who should know what the policy is, or if the opportunity exists, ask Vladyka in person. However, I am not aware of any Russian, Ukrainian, Belarussian, Polish or other Orthodox Christians from Northeastern Europe where blood sausages are a thing being excommunicated, and I also have not personally heard of any pastoral encyclical in the British churches prohibiting black pudding, although it is possible such exist.

And to be clear, I am not advocating consuming blood sausages or black pudding, I am merely seeking to explain how it is they could be permitted.

Now, this all being said, I think there are good reasons for clarification to be sought on the question of the propriety of eating blood sausages and other blood products. Therefore, I suggest you consider contacting bishops or other clergy, who are from Northeastern Europe, in the autocephalous and autonomous churches from that region, for example, the Moscow Patriarchate, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, the Polish Orthodox Church, the Belarussian Orthodox Church, and others, to see what their interpretation of this canon is. It would not come as a shock to me to learn that consuming blood sausages actually is canonically prohibited in the Orthodox Church, and that the main driver of its sale consists of Byzantine Rite and Roman Rite Catholics and Protestants, and persons of no religious affiliation, and that the Orthodox who do consume it do so owing to ignorance and poor catechesis.

However, it is also entirely possible that owing to historic shortages in the food supply that were exacerbated by the rise of the Soviet Union, and then WWII and the Warsaw Pact, and which continue in the Russian Federation and Ukraine and Belarus, that the bishops responsible for those jurisdictions are not enforcing the canons in question for reasons of oikonomia.

i understand your views. However, most of what you wrote regarding Canons are not scriptural like the prohibition of blood and sexual immorality is (these are Apostolic prohibitions). Going or not going to a Jewish doctor, fasting or not before the Eucharist as well as Bishops staying in hotels is not prohibited in scripture, that was my point.

 

[The Liturgist]

i understand your views. However, most of what you wrote regarding Canons are not scriptural like the prohibition of blood and sexual immorality is (these are Apostolic prohibitions). Going or not going to a Jewish doctor, fasting or not before the Eucharist as well as Bishops staying in hotels is not prohibited in scripture, that was my point.

But to be fair, Acts 15 only says to abstain from various things, including, specifically, “from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.” This could be very narrowly interpreted to literally just mean blood, that is to say, the liquid that conveys oxygen and nutrients to the cells of the body while carrying away carbon dioxide, nitrogen and waste products. And certainly, the idea of actually consuming blood is intrinsically revolting to most people, evoking a disgust rivaled only by the idea of eating a living animal, and by arsenokoetia.

I myself think that the Council of Jerusalem was enacting a de minimus set of legislation, prohibiting only idolatry and these most sickening of behaviors, which, despite their horrid nature, were widely practiced in the debauched, decadent society of ancient Rome.

That being said, there is considerable reason to believe that a broader interpretation, which we see in certain canons, is warranted, but whether or not those canons are enforced or set aside like so many others is a question for the bishops. If the bishops say that blood sausages are permitted via oikonomia, the prohibition of the Council of Jerusalem would still be in effect; it would simply be applied more narrowly, for example, to actually drinking blood.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

But to be fair, Acts 15 only says to abstain from various things, including, specifically, “from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.” This could be very narrowly interpreted to literally just mean blood, that is to say, the liquid that conveys oxygen and nutrients to the cells of the body while carrying away carbon dioxide, nitrogen and waste products. And certainly, the idea of actually consuming blood is intrinsically revolting to most people, evoking a disgust rivaled only by the idea of eating a living animal, and by arsenokoetia.

I myself think that the Council of Jerusalem was enacting a de minimus set of legislation, prohibiting only idolatry and these most sickening of behaviors, which, despite their horrid nature, were widely practiced in the debauched, decadent society of ancient Rome.

That being said, there is considerable reason to believe that a broader interpretation, which we see in certain canons, is warranted, but whether or not those canons are enforced or set aside like so many others is a question for the bishops. If the bishops say that blood sausages are permitted via oikonomia, the prohibition of the Council of Jerusalem would still be in effect; it would simply be applied more narrowly, for example, to actually drinking blood.

Strangling an animal is not kosher. It does not remove the blood which is the point. Again, what reason would there be to grant such Oikonomia to consume blood or to eat a strangled animal? Gentiles wanting to enter (ger toshav) would likely start with simple Noahide laws.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I think that is a good point brought up here about the blood in flesh foods. So many people teach against biblical dietary laws of clean and unclean meats but there is nothing in scripture to support this view. Also, the other point is that everyone is prohibited from eating any meat with blood in it. The meat that is purchased from a normal butcher is red because it has the blood in it and is not kosher. So even if most people point to Acts of the Apostles 15 it testifies against them if they consume non koshered meat with the blood still in it.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

But to be fair, Acts 15 only says to abstain from various things, including, specifically, “from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.” This could be very narrowly interpreted to literally just mean blood, that is to say, the liquid that conveys oxygen and nutrients to the cells of the body while carrying away carbon dioxide, nitrogen and waste products. And certainly, the idea of actually consuming blood is intrinsically revolting to most people, evoking a disgust rivaled only by the idea of eating a living animal, and by arsenokoetia.

I myself think that the Council of Jerusalem was enacting a de minimus set of legislation, prohibiting only idolatry and these most sickening of behaviors, which, despite their horrid nature, were widely practiced in the debauched, decadent society of ancient Rome.

That being said, there is considerable reason to believe that a broader interpretation, which we see in certain canons, is warranted, but whether or not those canons are enforced or set aside like so many others is a question for the bishops. If the bishops say that blood sausages are permitted via oikonomia, the prohibition of the Council of Jerusalem would still be in effect; it would simply be applied more narrowly, for example, to actually drinking blood.

Fr. John says: "such foods as blood sausage, black pudding and some wines that have blood added to them should not be consumed by an Orthodox Christian."

Fr. John Whiteford: Stump the Priest: The Council of Jerusalem on the Blood of Animals

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The meat that is purchased from a normal butcher is red because it has the blood in it and is not kosher. So even if most people point to Acts of the Apostles 15 it testifies against them if they consume non koshered meat with the blood still in it.

That is just myoglobin, a protien in muscle cells. Hemoglobin (blood) is found in your bloodstream. Myoglobin only enters your bloodstream if you experience muscle damage.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

That is just myoglobin, a protien in muscle cells. Hemoglobin (blood) is found in your bloodstream. Myoglobin only enters your bloodstream if you experience muscle damage.

Agreed but it is simply meat blood to a Jew and still needs to be removed before consumed. There is no life in the animal if they do not have Hemoglobin or Myoglobin as both are oxygen carriers for the body. The Jews never made this distinction as science does today when God gave them His law not to eat the meat with the blood in it and there is nothing in scripture that makes this distinction. Which is why the Jews have a kosher process to remove the remaining blood from the meat of slaughtered animals.

Blood in meat and kosher linked.

Draining of Blood from the flesh (meat)

The Torah prohibits consumption of blood. Lev. 7:26-27; Lev. 17:10-14. This is the only dietary law that has a reason specified in Torah: we do not eat blood because the life of the animal is contained in the blood. This applies only to the blood of birds and mammals, not to fish blood. Thus, it is necessary to remove all blood from the flesh of kosher animals.

The first step in this process occurs at the time of slaughter. As discussed above, shechitah allows for rapid draining of most of the blood.

The remaining blood must be removed, either by broiling or soaking and salting. Liver may only be kashered by the broiling method, because it has so much blood in it and such complex blood vessels. This final process must be completed within 72 hours after slaughter, and before the meat is frozen or ground. Most butchers and all frozen food vendors take care of the soaking and salting for you, but you should always check this when you are buying someplace you are unfamiliar with.

An egg that contains a blood spot may not be eaten. This isn't very common, but I find them once in a while. It is a good idea to break an egg into a container and check it before you put it into a heated pan, because if you put a blood-stained egg into a heated pan, the pan becomes non-kosher. (Virtual Jewish Library)

Is eating steak kosher?

Genesis 9:4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

 

[The Liturgist]

Fr. John says: "such foods as blood sausage, black pudding and some wines that have blood added to them should not be consumed by an Orthodox Christian."

Fr. John Whiteford: Stump the Priest: The Council of Jerusalem on the Blood of Animals

Indeed, I am personal friends with Fr. John, however, what I would be more interested in is the view of the Russian and Ukrainian bishops of ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate, as well as those of other churches under its omophorion, as well as the bishops of the Polish Orthodox Church, basically, hierarchs in places in Europe where people actually eat blood sausage.

The reason for this is not because I am trying to find a bishop to give me a blessing to eat blood sausage (the thought of it sickens me) and since I’m not a Klingon, blood wine doesn’t appeal to me either, but rather I am curious if there is some sort of mass disobedience of the Church going on in those countries, or if the bishops are unaware of the issue, or if they are granting oikonomia for some reason (and if so, what).

 

[The Liturgist]

Strangling an animal is not kosher. It does not remove the blood which is the point. Again, what reason would there be to grant such Oikonomia to consume blood or to eat a strangled animal?

That would be a question to ask the bishops, if in fact such oikonomia is granted. Because as I see it, if you care about this issue, you should ask some geographically relevant bishops if they are permitting it, and if so why, and if not, why is the custom so prevalent, and are they doing anything to dissuade it?

Gentiles wanting to enter (ger toshav) would likely start with simple Noahide laws.

I’m sorry, what? Are you suggesting that Torah observance should be an objective for Orthodox Christians?

Furthermore, in what respect does the concept of a ger toshav even apply to Christianity, from the perspective of the Christian faith? I mean, if Jews regard us as having that status, such as Rabbi Yaakov Emden, good for them, although many do not, for example, Rabbi Zevi Yehudah Kook. However, internally within Orthodox Christianity I don’t see how it makes a difference.

Also, there is a fairly substantial difference between the seven Noahide Laws and the decree of the Council of Jerusalem. For example, the Noahide Laws only prohibit eating meat torn off of a living animal, and say nothing about consuming blood.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Agreed but it is simply meat blood to a Jew and still needs to be removed before consumed. There is no life in the animal if they do not have Hemoglobin or Myoglobin as both are oxygen carriers for the body. The Jews never made this distinction as science does today when God gave them His law not to eat the meat with the blood in it and there is nothing in scripture that makes this distinction. Which is why the Jews have a kosher process to remove the remaining blood from the meat of slaughtered animals.

Blood in meat and kosher linked.

Draining of Blood from the flesh (meat)

The Torah prohibits consumption of blood. Lev. 7:26-27; Lev. 17:10-14. This is the only dietary law that has a reason specified in Torah: we do not eat blood because the life of the animal is contained in the blood. This applies only to the blood of birds and mammals, not to fish blood. Thus, it is necessary to remove all blood from the flesh of kosher animals.

The first step in this process occurs at the time of slaughter. As discussed above, shechitah allows for rapid draining of most of the blood.

The remaining blood must be removed, either by broiling or soaking and salting. Liver may only be kashered by the broiling method, because it has so much blood in it and such complex blood vessels. This final process must be completed within 72 hours after slaughter, and before the meat is frozen or ground. Most butchers and all frozen food vendors take care of the soaking and salting for you, but you should always check this when you are buying someplace you are unfamiliar with.

An egg that contains a blood spot may not be eaten. This isn't very common, but I find them once in a while. It is a good idea to break an egg into a container and check it before you put it into a heated pan, because if you put a blood-stained egg into a heated pan, the pan becomes non-kosher. (Virtual Jewish Library)

Is eating steak kosher?

Genesis 9:4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

You have to also remember that it is the slaughtering that it pertains to. Much of this is current rabbinic rulings. Do you also agree with no milk and chicken being cooked or eaten together?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Indeed, I am personal friends with Fr. John, however, what I would be more interested in is the view of the Russian and Ukrainian bishops of ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate, as well as those of other churches under its omophorion, as well as the bishops of the Polish Orthodox Church, basically, hierarchs in places in Europe where people actually eat blood sausage.

The reason for this is not because I am trying to find a bishop to give me a blessing to eat blood sausage (the thought of it sickens me) and since I’m not a Klingon, blood wine doesn’t appeal to me either, but rather I am curious if there is some sort of mass disobedience of the Church going on in those countries, or if the bishops are unaware of the issue, or if they are granting oikonomia for some reason (and if so, what).

I am sure many are eating it without Oikonomia. Again, not the point...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

That would be a question to ask the bishops, if in fact such oikonomia is granted. Because as I see it, if you care about this issue, you should ask some geographically relevant bishops if they are permitting it, and if so why, and if not, why is the custom so prevalent, and are they doing anything to dissuade it?

I’m sorry, what? Are you suggesting that Torah observance should be an objective for Orthodox Christians?

Furthermore, in what respect does the concept of a ger toshav even apply to Christianity, from the perspective of the Christian faith? I mean, if Jews regard us as having that status, such as Rabbi Yaakov Emden, good for them, although many do not, for example, Rabbi Zevi Yehudah Kook. However, internally within Orthodox Christianity I don’t see how it makes a difference.

Also, there is a fairly substantial difference between the seven Noahide Laws and the decree of the Council of Jerusalem. For example, the Noahide Laws only prohibit eating meat torn off of a living animal, and say nothing about consuming blood.

That was my point regarding a ger toshav, this was a Torah designation and would likely have been in effect in the time period in question, in ACTS (although flesh torn would have blood so basically the same thing). I was not saying or suggesting anything else other than that. Um, the Orthodox DO observe certain Torah observences...love God and neighbor as well as the 10 Commandments are just 1 example...

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You have to also remember that it is the slaughtering that it pertains to. Much of this is current rabbinic rulings. Do you also agree with no milk and chicken being cooked or eaten together?

Agreed but the koshering of the meat to remove all traces of the blood has always been a part of the koshering process since God gave the commandment and the Jews have been practicing this for 1000's of years since the command was given by God.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Agreed but the koshering of the meat to remove all traces of the blood has always been a part of the koshering process since God gave the commandment and the Jews have been practicing this for 1000's of years since the command was given by God.

Which animals can be eaten, how they should be slaughtered (shekhita) and how they should be cooked is Torah. Yes blood must be drained, boiled or broiled out from meat. Rabbinic laws sometimes are "extras" in the Mishnah and Talmud

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Which animals can be eaten, how they should be slaughtered (shekhita) and how they should be cooked is Torah. Yes blood must be drained or broiled out from meat. Rabbinic laws sometimes are "extras" in the Mishnah and Talmud

Slaughtering is only one part of the process of kashrut. (Koshering meat).

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Slaughtering is only one part of the process of kashrut. (Koshering meat).

Yes, that what I said. However, as I said, some of the rules are not in Torah but are only Rabbinic in nature (such as not mixing milk and chicken and others).

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Yes, that what I said. However, as I said, some of the rules are not in Torah but are only Rabbinic in nature (such as not mixing milk and chicken and others).

Yes agreed Yesh. I was mainly referring to the process of removing of all traces of blood from the meat and preparing the meat after slaughtering through soaking the meat and salting (kosher salt).

 

[The Liturgist]

That was my point regarding a ger toshav, this was a Torah designation and would likely have been in effect in the time period in question, in ACTS (although flesh torn would have blood so basically the same thing). I was not saying or suggesting anything else other than that. Um, the Orthodox DO observe certain Torah observences...love God and neighbor as well as the 10 Commandments are just 1 example...

The Summary of the Law is not the Law. The Orthodox do not observe the Torah as the Torah; in particular, the ceremonial laws and laws related to ritual purity are not followed. Only those which make a general statement about morality are adhered to, but it is worth noting that all of those laws are restated in the New Testament anyway.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The Summary of the Law is not the Law. ...it is worth noting that all of those laws are restated in the New Testament anyway.

Paul says it is Galatians 5:14 restated in the NT...yeah that was my point and as I said, originally from the Torah.

 

[The Liturgist]

Paul says it is Galatians 5:14 restated in the NT...yeah that was my point and as I said, originally from the Torah.

And our Lord restates it in Matthew 22:36-40, and corresponding pericopes in the other synoptics. However, the summary of the Law and Prophets transcends the 613 commandments in the Torah and is universally applicable to the entire human race, whereas a substantial portion of the 613 commandments (as reckoned by the Pharisees) are ceremonial laws pertaining to the Old Covenant between God and the Israelites.