“While the flesh of an animal was cleared to eat, the drinking of the blood was not.”
That still changes nothing about the fact that the prohibition was lifted.
“However, the flesh of a man nor the blood of a human was never given the ok to consume.”
No one was consuming the flesh of a man nor the blood of a man. The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the God-man and it is consumed sacramentally and at the express order of God Himself. No law or prohibition is, therefore, violated.
“However, the main issue is the concept of the Mass being the same sacrifice as that of the Cross per the Baltimore catechism.”
No, actually it is not the main issue.
“Every mass, another sacrifice contradicting Hebrews.”
Nope. Hebrews says Jesus gave ONE sacrifice. The Mass is the re-presentation of that ONE sacrifice.
As always, you’re wrong. I’m sure you’ll keep throwing in the kitchen sink - anything to change the topic yet again.
Nope.. No change of topic needed. Was providing the Biblical reason why the Mass was non-Biblical using the words of Hebrews and Catholicism.
That still changes nothing about the fact that the prohibition was lifted.
The prohibition on unclean flesh was lifted....not the drinking of blood. Paul, IIRC, said it was ok to eat food sacrificed to idols but if it caused a brother to stumble not to do so.
I'd think that would have a great deal of importance in this discussion.
In the OT the blood of the sacrifice was never consumed.
But keep spinning away.