I do not recall any discussion of the consumption of blood in the LCMS church I grew up in. According to Wikipedia, the Catholic Church decided that consumption of blood is OK for Christians (excepting during fasts, of course). Within Protestant circles, I have heard different ideas, but I'm not sure what the overall teaching is for most denominations. Wikipedia didn't give much information on whether any denominations/traditions forbid eating blood in the modern day. It does report that many of the Church Fathers taught that eating blood is not allowed for Christians. To be clear, I am not asking about who is right or wrong on this issue, nor what reasoning leads to the different conclusions (though this is definitely interesting!). I'm just asking for a survey of major denominations, or prominent non-denominational pastors, which forbid blood. I am also not asking about the consumption of blood that Real Presence implies happens during Holy Communion; that is a different issue.

For those that believe in transubstantiation, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist literally become the flesh and blood of Christ, why were there no schisms concerning this within the Early Church IF this is what they believed and taught? The Noahide Covenant and the Mosaic Law not only both expressly forbid the consumption of blood - with the penalty of being cut off from Israel - but it is one of the few commands deemed essential for Gentile converts to follow as well, despite not being under the Mosaic Law. It is thus not simply a matter of ceremonial cleanliness at stake; but an ex-communicable offense. The early church itself was composed of Jewish converts who carried with them their previous beliefs. This led to controversies like demanding that Gentiles get circumcised and to those who claimed within the church that there was no resurrection (like the Sadducees) as well as to controversies over what food they were permitted to eat amongst Gentiles. Such concerns are clearly reflective of Jewish religious life back when. Now, if the disciples and apostles had gone around preaching that the Eucharist literally was flesh and BLOOD - do you not think that this would have caused not a little controversy amongst the Jewish Christians? Would not Paul have to defend why he was not cut off from Israel - let alone how Gentiles are grafted onto Israel - if they routinely committed an excommunicatable offense? And even if fellow Christians could be convinced of the matter - it surely would have been a point of objection from those Jewish authorities that sought to persecute the Church; like Paul prior to his conversion. Yet the biblical testimony is absolutely silent on such a controversy. Nor, again, do the Church Fathers record such a controversy; even in their lengthy volumes recording actual or fictional conversations with Jews. The closest we get are apologies against those who assert that Christians were cannibals - a valid claim IF the Eucharist is literal flesh and blood.

Some creatures, such as locusts and oysters, have hemolymph that serves the same purpose as what we normally call blood. Do any historical sources (from early church history, for example) address whether hemolymph qualifies as lifeblood, which Genesis 9:6 and Acts 15:20, 28–29 forbids from consumption?

Among the religious organizations and sources that discourage blood consumption, do any extend the principle to hemolymph, the equivalent of blood in creatures such as locusts and oysters? While organizations that require a kosher diet would prohibit shellfish already, even kosher diets include locusts, so this question is applicable to any denomination or other source that discourages blood consumption.

I drink animal blood strictly for health reasons. As far as I am concerned, it is integral to being **extremely healthy**, and not just moderately more healthy than normal. I'm not particularly interested in debating the merits of that perspective here. What I am interested in is how that affects my Catholic Faith. Some have mentioned that there is a reaffirmed prohibition on the consumption of blood in Catholicism: > Acts 15:20 "abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood." But the reading of that being literal seems to miss the mark. It seems to be more about the ritualistic or symbolic blood or Cannibalism, rather than say "Korean Blood Sausage" or "Blood Pudding" or drinking that from a freshly butchered animal. I am not sure if I am prepared to put my personal health below Catholic teaching. If they forced me to be a vegetarian for example, I simply would not convert, or rather I would convert with every intention to break that hypothetical commandment every day. So for Catholics, what are the relevant technicalities to my dilemna here? If I were to become a Catholic, and then subsequently consumed animal blood for health reasons, would I then have to go to confession? Could I be excommunicated from the church for doing so insolong as my genuine belief was that this was for my health and longevity? Obviously there is blood in a rare steak; but I have not heard that the consumption of this as being a problem in Catholicism. Has this been ruled against officially or included as part of their catechism in any particular context?