A thought about biblical "wine" being grape juice

[ckempston]

“Many” does not equal “All”. Let me be very clear, I have no interest in pursuing this discussion with you, because your reaction is so out of line it bothers me. Clear enough?

What’s out of line is your original post, which was a rash generalization, which is all too common on this site, against Evangelicals.

Secondly, what’s also out of line is your clear inability to admit that you are wrong, when I have demonstrated quite clearly that you intimated, suggested, or blatantly stated obvious falsehoods, with no intention other than to attack evangelicals.

 

[ckempston]

Mike, I think that’s the real question we should be asking them. Thanks for mentioning it!

Yeah, it’s not like Catholics ever changed anything, for instance, taking only bread, instead of bread and wine. OH, wait a second, they did, and still, do that!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Yeah, it’s not like Catholics ever changed anything, for instance, taking only bread, instead of bread and wine. OH, wait a second, they did, and still, do that!

ckempston, with respect, perhaps you should look for another example. Catholic priests don’t just take the species of bread – they follow Christ’s command to His priests to take both the sacred species of bread and the sacred species of wine. The laity (who were not given the same command) sometimes receive only the species of bread.

VC

 

[djrakowski]

Yeah, it’s not like Catholics ever changed anything, for instance, taking only bread, instead of bread and wine. OH, wait a second, they did, and still, do that!

You’ve stated a bit of a misunderstanding about the Eucharist in this post. After consecration, both bread and wine have been transformed by Our Lord into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Thus, when one receives only the host (or only the cup), it is still the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. Therefore, speaking of withholding wine is inaccurate, as nothing of substance was ever withheld from the laity in the Eucharist.

The withholding of the cup from the laity was done, if I remember correctly, in response to certain erroneous beliefs about the Eucharist. Specifically, some (I wish I could be more specific at this point, but my resources are limited by the fact that I’m at work) were claiming that the bread was only transformed into Christ’s body, and the wine only into Christ’s blood. Thus, it was claimed that, in order to fully receive the Eucharist, a communicant would need to receive both. But, as I stated above, this is an inaccurate assessment of the Catholic belief in the Eucharist. In other words, it was a change in discipline, not *doctrine *or dogma.

Here’s a paragraph from the Catechism explaining what I’ve feebly attempted to explain in this post:

**1390 **Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

Note that the paragraph says that receiving under both species makes the *sign *more complete, but that receipt under the species of “bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace.” Thus, nothing of substance, as I mentioned above, was ever withheld from the laity in the Eucharist.

 

[djrakowski]

ckempston, with respect, perhaps you should look for another example. Catholic priests don’t just take the species of bread – they follow Christ’s command to His priests to take both the sacred species of bread and the sacred species of wine. The laity (who were not given the same command) sometimes receive only the species of bread.

VC

And even in cases where the laity only receive under the species of bread, they’re still receiving the full fruits of grace from the sacrament, as both species are completely the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

AMEN.

I am a convert to Catholicism and being born into and brought up in a Southern Baptist church gives me some perspective on this topic.

I would add to the previous post, that I agree with completely, that this should be a warning to anyone about painting yourself into the ‘dogma corner’. One of the things I find so frustrating with certain groups of believers is their propensity to sell their faith out for political gain and their need to push their belief on others to strengthen it.

How does my statement concerning my experience here.

“Many mainline Protestant communities also use grape juice, because “Jesus didn’t use wine.””

Paint myself into the ‘dogma corner’?

Several Methodist, Baptist (SBC, IND, etc.), Non-denom, and Inter-Denom, around here all use Juice. Because Jesus didn’t drink wine.

 

[ckempston]

ckempston, with respect, perhaps you should look for another example. Catholic priests don’t just take the species of bread – they follow Christ’s command to His priests to take both the sacred species of bread and the sacred species of wine. The laity (who were not given the same command) sometimes receive only the species of bread.

VC

I’m quite clear on what the Catholic church practices in this matter. Doesn’t matter how you cut it, Jesus said to do both. If you’re going to condemn Protestants over a technicality such as using non-fermented “fruit of the vine” over fermented “fruit of the vine”, then you are surely being inconsistent by not judging Catholics who do not obey Christ to take both the body and the blood.

Jesus’ statement about the bread: This is my body.
Jesus’ statement about the wine: This is my blood.

The Catholic statement: This (the bread) covers both.

 

[ckempston]

And even in cases where the laity only receive under the species of bread, they’re still receiving the full fruits of grace from the sacrament, as both species are completely the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord.

That’s not what Jesus said. Period.

 

[ckempston]

You’ve stated a bit of a misunderstanding about the Eucharist in this post. After consecration, both bread and wine have been transformed by Our Lord into His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Thus, when one receives only the host (or only the cup), it is still the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. Therefore, speaking of withholding wine is inaccurate, as nothing of substance was ever withheld from the laity in the Eucharist.

The withholding of the cup from the laity was done, if I remember correctly, in response to certain erroneous beliefs about the Eucharist. Specifically, some (I wish I could be more specific at this point, but my resources are limited by the fact that I’m at work) were claiming that the bread was only transformed into Christ’s body, and the wine only into Christ’s blood. Thus, it was claimed that, in order to fully receive the Eucharist, a communicant would need to receive both. But, as I stated above, this is an inaccurate assessment of the Catholic belief in the Eucharist. In other words, it was a change in discipline, not *doctrine *or dogma.

Here’s a paragraph from the Catechism explaining what I’ve feebly attempted to explain in this post:

**1390 **Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

Note that the paragraph says that receiving under both species makes the *sign *more complete, but that receipt under the species of “bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace.” Thus, nothing of substance, as I mentioned above, was ever withheld from the laity in the Eucharist.

This explanation illustrates quite clearly why I am not Catholic: Jesus says one thing, the Catholic church another.

 

[djrakowski]

I’m quite clear on what the Catholic church practices in this matter. Doesn’t matter how you cut it, Jesus said to do both. If you’re going to condemn Protestants over a technicality such as using non-fermented “fruit of the vine” over fermented “fruit of the vine”, then you are surely being inconsistent by not judging Catholics who do not obey Christ to take both the body and the blood.

Jesus’ statement about the bread: This is my body.
Jesus’ statement about the wine: This is my blood.

The Catholic statement: This (the bread) covers both.

No, the Catholic Church does NOT say that one *covers *both Body and Blood - it says that each species is *both *Body *and *Blood. That is to say, that either by receiving the host or the cup, one is *both *eating His Body *and *drinking His Blood.

Think of it this way… can you separate your body from your blood and still be alive? Whatever you answer is also true for the living Christ.

Thus, there is no inconsistency here.

That’s not what Jesus said. Period.

See above.

This explanation illustrates quite clearly why I am not Catholic: Jesus says one thing, the Catholic church another.

Not true - see above.

 

[DavidFilmer]

One of the more preposterous claims of American Fundamentalism (and a good portion of Evangelicalism) is that the “wine” spoken of in the bible was really grape juice.

Many protestants (including the Southern Baptists, the world’s largest protestant denomination) believe that drinking alcohol (in any quantity) is sinful. Since Jesus would not sin, he must have been using grape juice.

This is sometimes justified using Proverbs 23:31:

Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly.

They regard the word “when” as indicating a relative difference in time. There is a time "when "wine is not red, but purple (“when” it is grape juice). So grape juice is wine that is not red.

Groan.

 

[VociMike]

Yeah, it’s not like Catholics ever changed anything, for instance, taking only bread, instead of bread and wine. OH, wait a second, they did, and still, do that!

OK, this is an interesting side issue. The Church has the divine authority and guidance to pronounce without error that Jesus Christ is contained in his entirety in either the bread and the wine, and that one make receive either or both and be receiving “full” communion. So what equivalent divine authority and guidance is invoked in substituting grape juice for wine?

 

[ckempston]

No, the Catholic Church does NOT say that one *covers *both Body and Blood - it says that each species is *both *Body *and *Blood. That is to say, that either by receiving the host or the cup, one is *both *eating His Body *and *drinking His Blood.

Think of it this way… can you separate your body from your blood and still be alive? Whatever you answer is also true for the living Christ.

Thus, there is no inconsistency here.
See above.

Not true - see above.

You can get indignant about semantics all day long, but what I said and what you said are essentially the same thing. You think taking the bread achieves the same end as taking both the bread and the wine. Jesus disagrees with you, and quite plainly at that.

The sad thing is the Catholic church goes through all kinds of philsophical gymnastics to justify contradicting Jesus. Jesus’ statements are quite simple and quite direct.

Catholics are so quick to pride themselves in their literal interpretation of “this IS my body, this IS my blood”, that I would think they would be consistent with their internal dogmas, but they are not.

 

[djrakowski]

You can get indignant about semantics all day long, but what I said and what you said are essentially the same thing. You think taking the bread achieves the same end as taking both the bread and the wine. Jesus disagrees with you, and quite plainly at that.

You’ve misstated our belief once again. Quite clearly, I have shown that each species is entirely the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. Thus, receiving under each species is a full receipt of the grace of the sacrament, and it constitutes receiving both Body and Blood (thus eating and drinking).

So no, it does NOT achieve the same end. Both species are of the same substance. Thus, you have no argument, since you start from a flawed understanding of what we teach and believe.

The sad thing is the Catholic church goes through all kinds of philsophical gymnastics to justify contradicting Jesus. Jesus’ statements are quite simple and quite direct.

Catholics are so quick to pride themselves in their literal interpretation of “this IS my body, this IS my blood”, that I would think they would be consistent with their internal dogmas, but they are not.

Is Jesus alive or dead? Can a being be regarded as alive if its body contains no blood? So can you consume the flesh of a living being without consuming its blood? This seems so elementary to me, and about as far from philosophical gymnastics as I can imagine.

Even if we were to concede this point to you (which we won’t, since you haven’t demonstrated an accurate understanding of our beliefs), the non-Catholic churches that use grape juice in place of the wine are not also violating the Word of God. Thus, according to your logic, the only churches obeying Christ on this matter are those that insist upon distributing both the bread and the wine (not grape juice). Correct?

 

[ckempston]

OK, this is an interesting side issue. The Church has the divine authority and guidance to pronounce without error that Jesus Christ is contained in his entirety in either the bread and the wine, and that one make receive either or both and be receiving “full” communion. So what equivalent divine authority and guidance is invoked in substituting grape juice for wine?

That’s one big question begging statement. First, I reject that the Catholic church has such divine authority. Second, even if the Catholic church did have such divine authority, it could not contradict the plain statements of Christ, which it clearly does:

Jesus: do both.
Catholics: do one or the other; just as good either way.

 

[VociMike]

That’s one big question begging statement. First, I reject that the Catholic church has such divine authority.

Well, people trapped in Protestant error often reject what is true, so that’s nothing new.

Second, even if the Catholic church did have such divine authority, it could not contradict the plain statements of Christ, which it clearly does:

Jesus: do both.
Catholics: do one or the other; just as good either way.

And the priest does do both, at every single Mass. And who was at the Last Supper? Our Lord’s first priests.

 

[ckempston]

You’ve misstated our belief once again. Quite clearly, I have shown that each species is entirely the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. Thus, receiving under each species is a full receipt of the grace of the sacrament, and it constitutes receiving both Body and Blood (thus eating and drinking).

In contradiction to Christ’s plain statement that the bread IS his body, and the wine IS his blood. He didn’t say that both are both. Catholics have rendered Christ’s plain statements meaningless.

So no, it does NOT achieve the same end. Both species are of the same substance. Thus, you have no argument, since you start from a flawed understanding of what we teach and believe.
Is Jesus alive or dead? Can a being be regarded as alive if its body contains no blood? So can you consume the flesh of a living being without consuming its blood? This seems so elementary to me, and about as far from philosophical gymnastics as I can imagine.

More quibbling and arguing over semantics because you are clearly wrong and cannot seem to admit it. I know all about “substances,” “essences,” “species,” and “accidents.” It’s all based on Western human philosophy, which fortunately, Paul warned us against many times.

Even if we were to concede this point to you (which we won’t, since you haven’t demonstrated an accurate understanding of our beliefs), the non-Catholic churches that use grape juice in place of the wine are not also violating the Word of God. Thus, according to your logic, the only churches obeying Christ on this matter are those that insist upon distributing both the bread and the wine (not grape juice). Correct?

Nowhere in the Bible is wine commanded, any more than unleavened bread is, though that is what most people use based on the example; however, nobody that I know of follows the real example of Christ and the Apostles at the last supper, because the Eucharist was originally a real meal, not a sliver of bread and a sip of wine. This is evident from the Last Supper itself and the description of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11.

In any case, there is a direct passage of scripture, which Baptists could freely use to justify rejecting alcoholic wine:

Romans 14:21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

This is indeed the very reasoning and justification that Baptists use. Go read the link I provided. Perfectly reasonable. Since they still use “fruit of the vine” which is the phrase Christ himself uses, you have no basis for condemning them, or anyone else, who chooses not to use alcoholic wine.

 

[ckempston]

Well, people trapped in Protestant error often reject what is true, so that’s nothing new.

ad hominem.

And the priest does do both, at every single Mass. And who was at the Last Supper? Our Lord’s first priests.

Read your Bible. Not just priests were commanded to take the bread and the cup. 1 Corinthians 11, if you need a hint.

 

[VociMike]

ad hominem.

To say that somebody who is trapped in error is trapped in error is not ad hominem, and to accuse otherwise is just a debater’s gimick.

Read your Bible. Not just priests were commanded to take the bread and the cup. 1 Corinthians 11, if you need a hint.

“If you need a hint”. You get more charming by the minute.

Anyway, 1 Cor 11 doesn’t say what you claim it says. Is that more ad hominem on my part?

 

[djrakowski]

More quibbling and arguing over semantics because you are clearly wrong and cannot seem to admit it. I know all about “substances,” “essences,” “species,” and “accidents.” It’s all based on Western human philosophy, which fortunately, Paul warned us against many times.

Goodness, Paul condemned “Western human philosophy?” My Catholic Bible publishers must’ve omitted those verses

Seriously, he condemned the philosophies of man. Tell me, how does an application of philosophical principles to the matter of the Eucharist, which is Jesus Christ Himself, deny Jesus Christ?

God gave us brains and intended to use them. What you call “arguing over semantics” is just the application of plain ol’ common sense.

Christ is alive. How could you say that His body doesn’t contain His blood?

Nowhere in the Bible is wine commanded, any more than unleavened bread is, though that is what most people use based on the example; however, nobody that I know of follows the real example of Christ and the Apostles at the last supper, because the Eucharist was originally a real meal, not a sliver of bread and a sip of wine. This is evident from the Last Supper itself and the description of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11.

Ask the Jews if the bread for Passover is supposed to contain leaven, and ask them what’s in the cup.

And where is your evidence that “the Eucharist was originally a real meal, not a sliver of bread and a sip of wine?” If I recall correctly from that same Last Supper, there were only two things Jesus specifically commanded: “take, eat, this is my Body,” and “take, drink, this is my Blood.” Whatever else was present at this meal is irrelevant, as Jesus didn’t command the consumption of anything but His Body and Blood.

In fact, we know that Christ Himself is the Passover sacrificed for us (1 Corinthians 5:7). Thus, if we’re celebrating the Passover feast, then Christ is the Lamb.

Thus, the meal is complete simply by following His command. There need not be a complete meal, since He IS our Passover, which is what he was celebrating at that Last Supper.

In any case, there is a direct passage of scripture, which Baptists could freely use to justify rejecting alcoholic wine:

Romans 14:21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

This is indeed the very reasoning and justification that Baptists use. Go read the link I provided. Perfectly reasonable. Since they still use “fruit of the vine” which is the phrase Christ himself uses, you have no basis for condemning them, or anyone else, who chooses not to use alcoholic wine.

Except, they have no command of Christ to abstain from alcohol, and plenty of evidence that Christ Himself both drank wine (including on the cross), and endorsed its consumption (miracle at Cana). The passage you quoted, as everyone is aware, is intended as an injunction against doing something that causes a weaker Christian to fall, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Eucharist.

So I have no need to read your link, and the common Baptist prohibition against alcohol isn’t the least bit reasonable, since it goes against the direct commands of Our Lord - and that’s never “perfectly reasonable.”

Thus, the very clear command (clear, that is, to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Jewish Passover ritual) is that of consuming wine - not grape juice.