Jesus neither violates His own law when doing good deeds on Sabbath nor contradicts His precept against consuming blood when instructing to partake Blood & Wine in the form of Eucharist

If Jews were prohibited from drinking blood by the Old Testament, does it follow that Jesus breaks the Law of the Father, if the Catholic idea about the Eucharist composed of he "Blood of Christ" (and the Body) is accurate?

Certainly not, Jesus fulfills it. “The blood is the life,” as the Torah taught the Jews, and the life of a creature belongs to God. For this reason, the Jews were to pour the blood out on the earth, not because it was overly abhorrent but because it was too sacred. They were to seek their life, not from any creature, but from God Himself. 

Which is suitable, a teaching coming from Jesus Himself (Who is the Life - John 14:6) and who comes who commands His creations to drink His blood (Matthew 26:27–28), or a teaching which was always and only meant to be observed by the Jewish people, and was revoked by our Lord when He says, “Hear Me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.” And when He had entered the house, and left the people, His disciples asked Him about the parable. And He said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” Hence, Jesus declared all foods clean(Mark 7:14-19). The Lord “canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this He set aside, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14). Paul tells here that humans must let no one pass judgment on anyone in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ (Colossians 2:16).[1]

Jesus said,  “Drink from it all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:27-28)  After drinking from it, Jesus said, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many. (Mark 14:24)  Jesus said, “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.” (John 6:53) Jesus said, “Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.” (John 6:54)  Jesus said, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55)

The Bible’s first prohibition against consuming blood origins from (Genesis 9:2-4), where God says to Noah, “Any living creature that moves about shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants. Only meat with its lifeblood still in it you shall not eat.” This prohibition was presumably a ban on eating raw blood (i.e., uncooked meat). For the first time, animals were a permissible food source, and the Father ensured that Noah did not eat them uncooked. A Jewish Targum  made a remark on this passage: “But the flesh which is torn from a living beast at the time that its life is in it, or which is torn from a beast while it is slain, before all its breath is gone out, you shall not eat.”

Far along, the proscription of Genesis 9:4 is restated in Mosaic Law rationalizing that “For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life.” (Leviticus 17:14).  

Come to think of it,  Catholic Christians do not drink raw animal blood but Jesus’ blood in the form of Eucharist as taught by our Lord Himself (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:17-20 , 1 Corinthians 11:23-25).  Catholicism do not promote cannibalism by drinking some of  Jesus’ blood cells, plasma, and antibodies, nor any physical parts. The Catholic church is mystically and sacramentally consuming the whole Christ, not just His Body and Blood, but also his very Soul and Divinity. Also, He is, of course, alive, and consuming Him does Him no impairment.

Thus, His is the blood that humans not only may but must drink if everyone desires to have life in each and every one (John 6:53) . It is the reality of which all other blood is an image (Hebrew 9) .

Non-Catholics confuse the blood of animals, with the blood of Christ and choose not to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ. They are taking the above-mentioned verse out of context with the impression that  Jesus Christ is endorsing sin by charging people to drink blood even though He has given a well-defined commandments in the Old Testament prohibiting the wicked behavior of the pagans.[2]

The blood that they didn’t drink in the Old Testament was the blood of animals.  Nevertheless, the drinking of blood of animals is an arguable point because no one is recommending drinking the blood of animals in the New Testament.

Jesus commands His creations in the New Testament to drink of His blood and there is no proscription against this.  As a matter of fact, it was Jesus who said, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55).

It may take the wind out of one's sails but this is it. As a matter of fact, Jesus asked the same of those who were having difficulty believing Him (John 6:51).   It was surprising because this is the only place in all of the Gospels where many of Jesus very own disciples “returned to their former way of life” (John 6:66).   Of course, as puzzling as it was, His twelve Apostles did not leave Him.  Peter said, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (Jhn 6:68).

When Jesus proclaims “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55), it was very hard for some of His disciples to believe; and it is hard for some of today’s generation either.

When Non-Catholics oppose drinking blood, they are confusing the prohibition against drinking the blood of animals in the (Deuteronomy 12:27), with drinking the blood of Christ, which was instructed by Jesus.  It was Jesus who proclaims, “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.” (John 67;53).

A lot of non-Catholics along with Pagans assert that the drinking of the Blood of Christ is not Scriptural, .  Nonetheless, that is not the way Jesus perceives it.

It was Jesus who proclaims, “Drink from it all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:27-28).

Similarly, it was our Lord Jesus who says, after drinking from it, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many (Mark 14:24). 

Likewise, it was Jesus who articulates, “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.” (John 6:53).

Harmoniously, it was Jesus who utters, “Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.” (John 6:54) 

Compatibly, it was Jesus who pronnounces, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55) .

Simply, the Catholic Church obeys Biblical tradition by echoing the words of Jesus “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”  In reality though, it is possible for non-Catholics to be following a Biblical tradition and at the same time not accept these words of Jesus.  They have a Biblical tradition as well; they are following the tradition of the disciples who could not turn to the words of Jesus. These disciples were identified Biblically: “This saying is hard; who can accept it” (John 6:60).   These same disciples left Jesus and “returned to their former way of life” (John 6:66).   There is one distinction between the disciples who left Jesus and today's non-Catholics who follow the same footsteps of those disciples who fled from Jesus, who still claim to be followers of Jesus but they are not actually following Jesus when He says, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55).

To be nondiscriminatory, there are many non-Catholics in this generation, who while not having similar comprehension of Communion as Catholics, yet believe in a real presence of Jesus in or around the elements of bread and wine as articulated in their liturgies.   Martin Luther and John Calvin believed in a real presence; Ulrich Zwingli  did not.  Most Evangelicals today are coming from the Zwinglian tradition.

Whether Catholics or Non-Catholics, anyone can listen to indoctrination which attempts to confuse the blood of animals, with the blood of Christ and choose not to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ.  Or, anyone can listen to Jesus who proclaims; “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day” (John 6:54).  

What about Sabbath? If Jesus broke the Sabbath then so can His creatures and thus also assert that it was not sin to do so as Jesus never sinned. (1 Peter 2:21-22; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Does it mean that God gives a Commandment in a tablet of stone and then consider it to be agreeable to infringe and not be a transgression to do so?

Some non-Catholics[3] claim that Christians must not worship on Sunday but on Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath), asserting that at some unidentified time after the apostolic age, the Church "changed" the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Nevertheless, it Scripturally indicates that even during New Testament times, the Sabbath is no longer compulsory and that Christians are to worship on the Lord’s day, Sunday, instead (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, and Revelation 1:10).

The early Church Fathers associated the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision. Hence, they established that if the apostles eliminated circumcision (Galatians 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been eliminated.

1 John 3:4 enlightens of what should already be aware of, which is, that sin is contravention of the law. Hence, if Jesus did violate the Sabbath then He would have broken His own law and would be a sinner, and if Jesus had sinned then He could not have been the humanity’s Savior. Hereafter, this is an extremely grave accusation some have made against Jesus just to avoid loving obedience to our Lord.

Take note in John 9:14-24 who is laying blame on Jesus of breaking the Sabbath. As a result, if one prefers to believe the allegation of the Pharisees, then one has to acknowledge that they (and the others) are also right in calling Jesus a sinner for doing so and that they have no Savior.[4]

The core of disagreement is John 5:18 where once again Jesus is found healing a man on the Sabbath, and so the Pharisees indicted Jesus of breaking the Sabbath over again. When John transcribed the words Jesus broke the Sabbath, he was depicting Jesus' acts from the Pharisees' perspective (compare John 9:14-16) and certain proof can be found of this directly. But notice first what Jesus had to say about the Pharisees: “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:20). So whose utterances should be listened to here, the words of Jesus or the words of the Pharisees who also had Jesus crucified?

Did Jesus break the Sabbath by healing the sick? Take note that the Pharisees also indicted Jesus of blasphemy for making Himself equal with the Father. They were no more truthful on this accusation than they were on their contention of Jesus breaking the Sabbath.

Validation discloses that this indictment was from the Pharisees than John and that it was not breaking the Sabbath by healing on this day:

Matthew 12:10-12 And behold, there was a man there who had a withered hand. They questioned him, “Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?”so that they might accuse Him.  He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep that falls into a pit on the sabbath will not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable a person is than a sheep. So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.”

Again the Pharisees reproached Jesus of breaking the Sabbath by healing on His day as in John 5:18. Nevertheless, this time Jesus Himself affirms doing good deeds like healing on the Sabbath as legally recognized.

Come to think of it, the adversaries of true Sabbath worship place their faith in the words of the Pharisees than the words of the Lord and Savior. If one truly recognizes that he’s/she’s a Christian, would it be befitting to listen to the words of the Pharisees whom Jesus said would not enter the Kingdom of God ((Matthew 5:20) than Jesus?

It is the Pharisees that questions good deeds through healing on Sabbath (Matthew 12:10-12) than Jesus Himself who instead affirm that rightful acts never choose a day even on Sabbath (John 5:5-18).

It is the Pharisees that are sinners who uphold their own tradition than Jesus tradition on act of charity. Jesus was not a sinner and never broke any of the Ten Commandments as He acknowledges “that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath,” such as healing the sick or pulling an animal out of a hole that would otherwise agonize.

---

References:

[1] Did Jesus break Old Testament Law by telling his followers to drink his blood?, August 04, 2011, https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-jesus-break-old-testament-law-by-telling-his-followers-to-drink-his-blood

[2]Steve Ray on January 7, 2017, Did Jesus Contradict the Old Testament’s Prohibition on Drinking Blood?, http://www.catholicconvert.com/blog/2017/01/07/did-jesus-contradict-the-old-testaments-prohibition-on-drinking-blood/

[3] Sabbath or Sunday?, https://www.catholic.com/tract/sabbath-or-sunday

[4] Did Jesus Break the Sabbath?, http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/did-jesus-break-the-sabbath.html