Ah, you see that's what happens when you don't read the whole chapter. If you did, you would see that Jesus was not talking about foods that were declared clean and unclean under the Law. That whole discussion was concerning the fact that the disciples were not following the Jewish tradition (not Law) of ceremonially washing their hands before they ate. The Pharisees were offended by the fact that the disciples didn't follow the tradition. Never once in that chapter did the topic of whether the foods were "clean" or "unclean" according to the Law come into the discussion - as a matter of fact, the food they were eating was bread.
That’s true what you say but two things:
One, the fact that He was speaking of a ceremonial law being abolished (the washing of hands before eating) actually only compliments the argument(s) made on Catholic.com regarding the alleged prohibition of drinking blood still in effect today. For indeed the author of that piece made the same point to whit: since Jesus said that it is no longer “unclean” to eat before ceremonially washing one’s hands it’s indeed the dirt of one’s hands that is the subject of His edict there. So even if one doesn’t agree that blood is food, then in Mark 7:18-19 we can still see Jesus lifting the “uncleanliness” of not ceremonially washing one’s hands, which isn’t due to food per se but rather dirt. (Read the article). So if accidentally consuming dirt with one’s meal no longer makes a man unclean, then surely it can’t be said that purposefully consuming the blood of Jesus is unclean, since that contains His life.
Secondly about the lifting of all food restrictions: if accidentally consuming dirt is now ok, then surely it can’t be said purposefully consuming any food is “unclean” as St Paul later goes on to teach again. In other words St Paul wasn’t just making up what he taught about clean/unclean foods, he was just repeating what was taught by Jesus in Mark 7:18-19.
As I said before I will now say again: I won’t respond any more unless all the points in that article are addressed and I’ll say this now too: in one post. I’m not going to chase down a myriad of posts to get a cohesive reply to all those points (in the linked article above).
So even if you disagree with what I’ve said here that doesn’t change my mind since you haven’t addressed all the points there.