A thought about biblical "wine" being grape juice

[ckempston]

Assertions without basis, to be accepted on your authority I suppose? As I recall, the Bible says nothing about guaranteeing the correct rendering of scripture by each and every believer. In fact, the Bible doesn’t even identify itself as the measuring rod of Christian truth.
Wow, a lot of condemnation without substance.

Are you denying that technical terms used by the Catholic church find their origin with Aristotle? That would be a shock.

We’ve forsaken our first love? How exactly has the Catholic Church forsaken Jesus Christ?

That list wasn’t actually meant to be a blanket accusation against Catholicism, so sorry if it came across that way. I was simply illustrating what we can gather from what Jesus condemned in the Asian churches; specifically, I pointed out the Nicolaitians in reference to the Catholic church. I probably could have worded that more clearly.

Becoming rich in the world? The Catholic Church operates at a budget deficit in most years.

Holding to the teachings of Balaam is just too vague to address, but if you’re calling us pagans by reference, you’re gonna have a steep hill to climb, since I know of no pagans worshipping Jesus Christ.

See above. Didn’t mean anything specific about Catholicism in this comment.

Learning deep secrets of the faith? That’s a reference to secret knowledge like that of heretical sects (Gnostics and the like).

Do you deny gnostic influences on Catholicism? This one actually fits quite well.

Not maintaining repentance? The Bible and Catechism are full of references to the importance of repenting, changing our ways and following Christ. Pick up your cross daily and all that… But if you mean that there are people in the Catholic Church who fail to repent, so what? Why is the Catholic Church called to account for what exists in every single Christian church on earth? Can leaders harass their members until they all manifest a lifestyle of repentance? What an absurd claim!

This one seems to apply as well. You can write all you want about repentance, but in my personal experience, most Catholics don’t take it seriously.

Being lukewarm? You mean there are non-Catholic churches where each and every single member is totally, 100% fired up about being Christian every moment of every day? I’ve yet to find a church like that. Our Church as an institution is about as far from lukewarm as one could possibly imagine.

I’d tend to agree with you here. Another one I didn’t mean as a direct criticism of Catholicism.

You’re twisting what I’ve said. First, you’re claiming that the Eucharist was a full meal, while there’s no evidence of that.

Read 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 and riddle me this: How do some “get drunk” while others go hungry if it’s not a meal?

Second, you’re extrapolating that false belief about the Eucharist to what’s practiced today (in accord with Scripture and 2000 years of divine tradition). Third, I never said “doesn’t matter what the Jews or first Christians did.” I was illustrating that your claim that the Eucharist consisted of a full meal (which, need I remind you, has no evidence in Scripture) is beside the point that Jesus commanded only two things about that meal: eat this, which is my flesh, and drink this, which is my blood. So if you’re using Scripture alone, that’d be the Eucharist - not a full-on banquet as you’re claiming.

yes, it was. See above.

So the tradition matters, and thus I repeat: ask a Jew if the bread is leavened, and if the cups on their Passover table contain wine or Welch’s.
Again, you have no evidence that it was a full meal. EDIT: by ‘it,’ I mean the Eucharist. Certainly the Passover was a full meal, but Jesus replaced it by commanding two things… consumption of His flesh and blood.
Again, ask a Jew what’s meant by “fruit of the vine.” It ain’t grape juice, and they’d be the ones to know. You’re employing the anachronism of modern food processing technology (that which is capable of producing grape juice that doesn’t ferment) to 1st century Palestine, and are losing credibility in so doing.

Let’s clarify the point of bringing up the Jews and the early Christians: The Jews had the Passover meal. Christ instituted the Eucharist at a Passover meal. You claim that since it was a Jewish Passover meal, wine must have been used, so nothing else is acceptable. I’m simply pointing out that if you’re going to be dogmatic about the exact substance used, you should also be dogmatic about the fact that it was indeed a meal. You’re not. Therefore, you’re inconsistent, but making accusations against Evangelicals on the very basis of your inconsistency. Your position is unsupportable.

Further, you reject Christian philosophy out of hand with respect to substance and accidents, thus there’s really not much else anyone can say to you on the subject. Suffice it to say, if you consume the flesh of a living being, you consume its blood as well. Dismiss that as mere human philosophy if you want, but it’s an unavoidable fact.

Let’s get it straight: substance and accidents are Aristotlean philosophy, not Christian philosophy. Jesus said do both, Catholics say do one. I choose Jesus.

You have a strange attitude toward Catholic theology (and Catholic believers) for someone who claims to be ‘reverting’…

I haven’t updated my profile in some time. All I did was make a visit when I saw an interesting topic, in which I was sure a Catholic would make some outlandish, false accusations against evangelicals (which he did).

I have yet to see his apology.

 

[ckempston]

Then you are dead wrong sir.

No, YOU’RE WRONG! See how easy that is? You don’t actually have to make an argument.

The point is that the Church does indeed have that divine authority and you with a Bible in hand, do not. This is another vestige of errant Protestant thinking that needs dealing with if you really are considering returning to the Catholic faith.

 

[ckempston]

Hi ckempston,

Thanks for the above, I think it shows that you are sincere and not trying to be unduly antagonistic. You also seem thoughtful and reasonable.

Had to throw that in there, because I am responding to umpteen Catholics, while I am just one person. I’m responding as quickly as I can, and I’m coming across overly combative in some cases, which I’m not always intending.

Considering the issue at hand,

You’ve appealed to scripture, 1 Cor 11:23-26 for your position. But what do you make of, and how do you reconcile your position with other passages of scripture?

I would answer with:

1 Corinthians 10:16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

The cup allows us to participate with the blood, the bread with the body. It’s quite plain. I’d say using 11:27 to justify some hidden meaning violates several interpretive norms. You don’t use a semantically awkward passage to support a doctrine, when another passage plainly states it (as I think 10:16 and others do) plainly. Being “guilty of” does not necessarily mean they are both the same thing. If we approached the Bible with that interpretive method, I think we’d come up with all kinds of wacky ideas.

 

[jmcrae]

Here we go again, back to the “personal interpretation” issue. Catholics rely on personal interpretation as well: the personal interpretation that the Catholic church is correct.

This is perfectly Biblical. “Whoever hears you, hears Me.” Luke 10:16. We look at history - what Church did the men that Jesus said those words to, establish? Answer: The Catholic Church.

Some might argue that it was the Orthodox Church - no big deal, since under Orthodoxy, the Pope is considered Patriarch of the West (Europe and everything west of Europe), and we happen to live in the West, so it still applies, either way.

The Lord did not say that both are equally efficacious to us.

No, but the Church, speaking with Christ’s authority (He who hears you hears Me), did.

“Eat his flesh AND drink his blood.” He didn’t say OR, which is what he would have had to say for your point to be valid.

Christian priests (which is who Jesus was speaking to at the Last Supper) do, in fact, do this.

The priest is always required to receive under both species - lay people don’t have to receive at all if they don’t want to, or they can receive one species only - either one, it doesn’t have to be the Host; a lay person could also receive under the appearance of wine only - many people do this - or he can receive both. The lay person has actually got a great deal of liberty - much more than the priest does.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks for the reply ckemptson. I was curious how you fit your interpretation together, taking those passages into account. I think I see how you approach it.

You seem to have a strong belief in Christ’s real body and blood in the Eucharist. With sincerity, I hope that your path leads you back to the Church so that you may partake of it in its fullness.

Thanks and God bless,
VC

 

[Church_Militant]

Here we go again, back to the “personal interpretation” issue. Catholics rely on personal interpretation as well: the personal interpretation that the Catholic church is correct. How is that any different individual interpretation?

That’s hogwash. So at this point you are willing to equate 2,000 years of interpretation by the church that Christ Himself founded in the New Testament with the modern post reformation new winds of doctrines of men in the last 500 years? :whacky:

That’s trying to assert that Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Didache have no better authority than Scofield’s References or a Thompson Chain Reference, even though the former three are far and away closer to the original source and the direct teaching of the apostles?!

That’s dead wrong.

The Lord did not say

that both are equally efficacious to us. “Eat his flesh AND drink his blood.” He didn’t say OR, which is what he would have had to say for your point to be valid.Answer me this. Does not the body contain the blood and the blood contain the essentials that make up that body?

As usual, this is another of those literalist interpretations instead of a literal one, the way the Word of God should be treated.

 

[Church_Militant]

No, YOU’RE WRONG! See how easy that is? You don’t actually have to make an argument.

You’re dead wrong.

I refuted your argument and this is the best argument you have?

What relevance does that quote have to this discussion? It didn’t seem to support any position.

Plenty…the modern Protestants (et al) do not have any such authority, and neither do you, which is what you try to assert by your arguments.

It’s unscriptural (namely Sola Scriptura), the early Christians didn’t believe it or teach it, it didn’t work 500 years ago, and doesn’t work today, but has allowed a myriad of errant doctrines to cascade down from it to virtually inundate modern n-C Christianity.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

the early Christians didn’t believe it or teach it,

CM,

Taking this portion of your post out of context provides another reason why “the faithful must consume both species” is errant. Although the early church did often administer Holy Communion under both species, there were also instances where only one or the other species was administered. It was acceptable then for the same reason it is acceptable now – Christ’s church allows it, and the same Christ is received regardless of “how much” or “under which species” one receives him.

Could you imagine if someone wanted more “bread” or “wine” because they didn’t feel they had a big enough piece of Christ’s body or drink of his blood?

Is it possible that as one’s sacramental theology becomes less manifest the natural inclination is to elevate symbolism and ritual? Maybe insisting on both species stems from this view. I suppose you could (and my guess is some have) taken it farther and insisted on the full supper; or that everyone share the same cup (as is happened at the Last Supper?). Are there any groups that insist that baptism must be done in river? That would seem to be the same idea.

What do you think CM?
VC

 

[CentralFLJames]

CM,

Taking this portion of your post out of context provides another reason why “the faithful must consume both species” is errant. Although the early church did often administer Holy Communion under both species, there were also instances where only one or the other species was administered. It was acceptable then for the same reason it is acceptable now – Christ’s church allows it, and the same Christ is received regardless of “how much” or “under which species” one receives him.

Could you imagine if someone wanted more “bread” or “wine” because they didn’t feel they had a big enough piece of Christ’s body or drink of his blood?

Is it possible that as one’s sacramental theology becomes less manifest the natural inclination is to elevate symbolism and ritual? Maybe insisting on both species stems from this view. I suppose you could (and my guess is some have) taken it farther and insisted on the full supper; or that everyone share the same cup (as is happened at the Last Supper?). Are there any groups that insist that baptism must be done in river? That would seem to be the same idea.

What do you think CM?
VC

I think you are onto the crux of the problem in the strange position that some Protestants get into in “sort of accepting” real presence then chauvinistically insisting that if Catholics can do it we can do it one better by demanding on “all of Christ” in both species.

And yes there are a number of Protestant sects who demand not only full immersion but some literally will insist on going the extra mile to get out in the country to conduct “living water” baptisms. Then of course yet other Protestant denominations insist that a person be re-baptised if they change churches and ministers to “get proper” and “and in the family” so to speak. And yet others will over their lives think they need a booster shot so to speak and get a new baptism if they feel like they are in need of a spiritual reawakening. Still others will wait until they feel they are “saved” before they go get a baptism to demonstrate to their communities that they “are saved”.

There are about as many variations of Protestant belief about baptism practice and rituals and theology as there are denominations.

Back to the OP - I suppose that there are different opinions about what color and variety of grape juice should be permitted in those congregations that want to “symbolically” do what Christ commanded them to do.

James

 

[ckempston]

This is perfectly Biblical. “Whoever hears you, hears Me.” Luke 10:16. We look at history - what Church did the men that Jesus said those words to, establish? Answer: The Catholic Church.

I would agree with you, if the Catholic church didn’t contradict Christ. I contend that it does.

Some might argue that it was the Orthodox Church - no big deal, since under Orthodoxy, the Pope is considered Patriarch of the West (Europe and everything west of Europe), and we happen to live in the West, so it still applies, either way.

OK.

No, but the Church, speaking with Christ’s authority (He who hears you hears Me), did.

God has laid out specific guidelines for accepting authority. He said in the Old Testament that if a prophet said something untrue, you could totally disregard that prophet. On that basis, I reject the authority of the Catholic church. Even if, for the sake of argument, I agreed that the Catholic church was speaking with Christ’s authority, it could not say “no” where Christ said “yes” or vice versa.

Christian priests (which is who Jesus was speaking to at the Last Supper) do, in fact, do this.

I’m a Christian priest. So are you.

The priest is always required to receive under both species - lay people don’t have to receive at all if they don’t want to, or they can receive one species only - either one, it doesn’t have to be the Host; a lay person could also receive under the appearance of wine only - many people do this - or he can receive both. The lay person has actually got a great deal of liberty - much more than the priest does.

So, commands to the Apostles do not apply to “regular” Christians? How do you know which ones?

 

[ckempston]

That’s hogwash. So at this point you are willing to equate 2,000 years of interpretation by the church that Christ Himself founded in the New Testament with the modern post reformation new winds of doctrines of men in the last 500 years? :whacky:

Correction: 2000 years of contradictory interpretation.

That’s trying to assert that Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Didache have no better authority than Scofield’s References or a Thompson Chain Reference, even though the former three are far and away closer to the original source and the direct teaching of the apostles?!

 

[CentralFLJames]

I would agree with you, if the Catholic church didn’t contradict Christ. I contend that it does.

You are slinging lots of unsubstantiated personal accusations and unsubstantiated polemics about the Catholic Church without mentioning any specific charges. Why not give your top 10 things that you imagine are contradictions so we can respond to them? Perhaps you should start a new thread since this is far afield of the topic of “biblical wine” - unless you came in here thinking this is a thread about “whining”.

God has laid out specific guidelines for accepting authority. He said in the Old Testament that if a prophet said something untrue, you could totally disregard that prophet. On that basis, I reject the authority of the Catholic church. Even if, for the sake of argument, I agreed that the Catholic church was speaking with Christ’s authority, it could not say “no” where Christ said “yes” or vice versa.

Jesus was very clear about authority when he said to his apostles:

Luke 10:16 “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”

Interesting that you should mention the OT as a reference for authority. I bet you have forgotten or never knew that in the OT if a person tried to privately interpret scripture outside of the priesthood they were either run out of camp or stoned to death.

So, in addition to rejecting the teaching of those who are in direct apostolic succession you now want to teach us what the OT says with absolutely no scholarly or priestly authority to do so?

Except by direct personal intervention when Christ forms His new Catholic Church on Himself and the rock of St. Peter where in the bible has God EVER told His people to go start a new Church and a new priesthood every-time some faction or discontented person comes along?

If you have legitimate issues with certain ecclesial practices you are entitled to bring them forward to a true apostolic bishop to discuss them but you are not free to sow dissension in Christ’s Church to serve yourself.

*2 Peter 1:20
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. *

I’m a Christian priest. So are you.

From all the attacks on Christ’s Church you are making I am having trouble accepting you as a Christian - much less a priest. Would you say that Judas was a priest too?

So, commands to the Apostles do not apply to “regular” Christians? How do you know which ones?

Your problem is that you do not accept the priesthood and think everyone calling themselves Christian irrespective to any semblance of orthodox teaching has an equal ecclesial authority. This is absurd.

Congratulations you have arrived at the extremism of Antinomianism. In your attempt to escape its opposite legalism (e.g. “moral scrupulosity”) you fall into the trap of antinomianism (e.g. license, lawlessness, thinking that since you are now a Christian nothing outside of your own conscience is binding on you). Bravo - welcome to the personal hell of anarchy.

James

 

[Teflon93]

So, is anyone going to offer a reasoned defense for the Protestant practice of falsely claiming that Christ didn’t mean wine when he said wine but completely anachronistic grape juice?

Or perhaps a reasoned defense for those Protestant communities which claim to hold Scripture above tradition and yet bend Scripture to their own traditions, beginning as they did with the temperance movement of the late 19th/early 20th century?

 

[ckempston]

You are slinging lots of unsubstantiated personal accusations and unsubstantiated polemics about the Catholic Church without mentioning any specific charges. Why not give your top 10 things that you imagine are contradictions so we can respond to them? Perhaps you should start a new thread since this is far afield of the topic of “biblical wine” - unless you came in here thinking this is a thread about “whining”.

No, you just made an unsubstantiated, and might I add, false accusation against me. I have indeed made a specific charge:

Jesus said do both.
Catholics say do one.

The Catholic church has contradicted Christ. Is that a sufficiently clear, substantiated accusation for you?

Jesus was very clear about authority when he said to his apostles:

Luke 10:16 “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”

Interesting that you should mention the OT as a reference for authority. I bet you have forgotten or never knew that in the OT if a person tried to privately interpret scripture outside of the priesthood they were either run out of camp or stoned to death.

Yeah, and from what I remember prostitutes were stoned as well. Now, who was it that didn’t stone a prostitute? Oh, yeah, that’s right: Jesus Christ.

So, in addition to rejecting the teaching of those who are in direct apostolic succession you now want to teach us what the OT says with absolutely no scholarly or priestly authority to do so?

I simply repeat what the Bible says. It’s not that complicated.

Except by direct personal intervention when Christ forms His new Catholic Church on Himself and the rock of St. Peter where in the bible has God EVER told His people to go start a new Church and a new priesthood every-time some faction or discontented person comes along?

Nowhere. I never claimed it did. I’m a product of the times, and I had no control over when I was born, or what I grew up believing.

If you have legitimate issues with certain ecclesial practices you are entitled to bring them forward to a true apostolic bishop to discuss them but you are not free to sow dissension in Christ’s Church to serve yourself.

Then why does this forum exist? I brought a legitimate issue here:

Christ said do both.
Catholics say do one.

Let’s see, I think I’ll listen to…Christ. Gee, that was a hard one.

*2 Peter 1:20
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. *

This is not even talking about interpreting scripture, but a prophet interpreting what he heard before writing it down.

From all the attacks on Christ’s Church you are making I am having trouble accepting you as a Christian - much less a priest. Would you say that Judas was a priest too?

Yeah, the truth hurts. Judas was indeed a priest. He fell, and didn’t get back up.

Your problem is that you do not accept the priesthood and think everyone calling themselves Christian irrespective to any semblance of orthodox teaching has an equal ecclesial authority. This is absurd.

No, what’s absurd is contradicting Christ and then saying the Magesterium has authority to do so.

Congratulations you have arrived at the extremism of Antinomianism. In your attempt to escape its opposite legalism (e.g. “moral scrupulosity”) you fall into the trap of antinomianism (e.g. license, lawlessness, thinking that since you are now a Christian nothing outside of your own conscience is binding on you). Bravo - welcome to the personal hell of anarchy.

James

Funny how you can deduce so much about a simple disagreement over wine. You must be psychic or something.

 

[ckempston]

So, is anyone going to offer a reasoned defense for the Protestant practice of falsely claiming that Christ didn’t mean wine when he said wine but completely anachronistic grape juice?

Or perhaps a reasoned defense for those Protestant communities which claim to hold Scripture above tradition and yet bend Scripture to their own traditions, beginning as they did with the temperance movement of the late 19th/early 20th century?

Here is a simple question for you:

Is grape juice a “fruit of the vine?”

 

[Teflon93]

Here is a simple question for you:

Is grape juice a “fruit of the vine?”

Prune juice is a fruit of the vine.

Did Christ bid you drink prune juice?

Did he turn water into prune juice at Cana?

You cannot both claim to do as Christ bid you do, and substitute grape juice in the process.

I receive in both species at my parish—will you now proclaim to one and all that I am perfectly following Christ’s commandments, and that those who do not possess the Eucharist and those who mock it with grape juice are not?

 

[CentralFLJames]

No, you just made an unsubstantiated, and might I add, false accusation against me. I have indeed made a specific charge:

Jesus said do both.
Catholics say do one.

The Catholic church has contradicted Christ. Is that a sufficiently clear, substantiated accusation for you?

I made no false accusation against you. You made unsubstantiated statements indicating that the Catholic Church has been in a routine habit of contradicting Christ. If you are sincere in wanting to learn about Catholicism then please stop the deceptive generalization game-play and the rope a dope tactics and justify your hyperbole with real substance. Your off topic point about real presence in both species does not disobey or contradict Christ in anyway. It certainly does not scale to the level of your general charge that The Catholic Church contradicts Christ.

You have been given ample rationale by those in this discussion to justify the Church teaching.

As we have said the priest receives both the Host and the Precious Blood, and he receives it on our behalf as well as his. Further, in most churches it is offered to the laity in both species. For pragmatic reasons (spillage, protection of the Precious Blood from profanation, medical hygiene of those who are ill, and timeliness to serve etc.) some parishes do not elect to offer the wine at all masses. This decision is well within the ecclesial authority of The Church to establish ecclesial practices that are honored in heaven and on earth (the general authority of the keys given to The Church through St. Peter). In my parish we always have it offered under both species but I would say that perhaps only 50% of those present always partake of the cup as well as the host. This is usually because the line gets long and it congests foot traffic or because somone is ill and does not want to pass germs.

You are also making a logical error in assuming that all masses must have laity present taking community. This is false. In fact in some masses there are none present who come forward to receive communion or becuase the mass is conducted solely by a priest in private communion. Does the number of people partaking of Christ under both species make them mass invalid? Of course not - all that is required is that the priest take both species.

Indeed, that reception is central to the celebration of the Mass. What isn’t central to the celebration of the Mass is the reception of Holy Communion by anyone other than the priest.

More Here Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America

Also as was mentioned the priest receives under both kinds, on behalf of the people. In this manner if no one is worthy to receive at all (outside of the priest) The Church is still obeying Christ’s commandment - which we choose to obey daily.

**Assuming you are not just being blatantly hypocritical in your charges let me ask you: “How often do you go to a mass and obey Christ and receive his body and blood from a validly ordained apostolic priest?” **

For the general congregation the fact that Christ is present “body and blood, soul and divinity” in both species is simple enough. If we are properly disposed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion, we receive all of the graces of the sacrament, even if we receive only under one kind–either the Host or the Precious Blood or both. Another little factoid that you may not be aware of is that the cup of the precious blood contains a small fragment of the Host and so those who drink from the chalice are also actually explicitly getting both forms in that one act of drinking - but most usually receive both species anyway (first host then the cup).

This is yet another reason why it is spiritual suicide to privately interpret scripture and get all wrapped up in literalistic reading and not adhere to the apostolic teaching that goes along with it.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued from above]

Yeah, and from what I remember prostitutes were stoned as well. Now, who was it that didn’t stone a prostitute? Oh, yeah, that’s right: Jesus Christ.

And you are sounding sort of stoned yourself here - how is this relevant?

I simply repeat what the Bible says. It’s not that complicated.

What makes it complicated is your picking and choosing bits and parts of scripture and presenting them in contexts that they were not intended to address. Satan slung scripture out of context at Christ so I suppose Catholics should not take offense when you do it either.

Nowhere. I never claimed it did. I’m a product of the times, and I had no control over when I was born, or what I grew up believing.

But the Jews can use this same argument for turning Christ over for crucifixation and for persecuting the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. So can the Arians and the Gnostics etc. You have an opportunity to know the fullness of the faith and its never been achieved through revolution and breakaway sects from the mainline church. What we have is a new NT convenant and a new single and visible Catholic Church. Why not come in and take a look around?

Then why does this forum exist? I brought a legitimate issue here:

Christ said do both.
Catholics say do one.

Let’s see, I think I’ll listen to…Christ. Gee, that was a hard one.

Listen to Christ like Simon Magus did or how Judas did or how the false disciples who walked away from Him did in John 6:66 over their nonacceptance of real presence?

This is a forum to help others know what Catholics teach but some come here to pick fights and to slander The Church. Many who do that often end up staying and converting when they find out what we really believe is so different than what others have told them Catholics believe. I think you will be amazed at how much you can learn a lot here if you listen sincerely to what we say.

Yeah, the truth hurts. Judas was indeed a priest. He fell, and didn’t get back up.

And you think you have the sacerdotal authority to effect the sacraments and to forgive sins? Are you an apostolically ordained priest who has since left the faith and been defrocked? If not then show your scriptural basis for having the rights to conduct mass and effect the sacraments.

No, what’s absurd is contradicting Christ and then saying the Magesterium has authority to do so.

What is absurd is the self delusion in imagining that you speak and interpret for Christ. You contradict Christ by rejecting His church - its that simple.

James

 

[ckempston]

Prune juice is a fruit of the vine.

Did Christ bid you drink prune juice?

AFAIK, but I could be wrong, prunes are part of the plum family and grow on trees, not vines.

Did he turn water into prune juice at Cana?

You cannot both claim to do as Christ bid you do, and substitute grape juice in the process.

Apparently, Christ didn’t bid me to do anything. Catholics in this discussion have repeatedly said that his words only apply to Priests in this instance. Guess I’m free to just do whatever I please.

See Matthew 26, Jesus says “fruit of the vine,” which grape juice certainly is. Paul also says it is OK for anyone to abstain from alcohol. The only way to reconcile these passages is to say that any “fruit of the vine” can be substituted. Use the rational mind that God gave you.

I receive in both species at my parish—will you now proclaim to one and all that I am perfectly following Christ’s commandments, and that those who do not possess the Eucharist and those who mock it with grape juice are not?

Why would I proclaim such a thing? You still believe contrary to what Christ said: this is my body, this is my blood. Catholics make a HUGE deal over this verse when some non-Catholics don’t take it literally. And yet, they hypocritically change what Jesus says in regard to the “species.” Amazing. He didn’t take bread, and say, “This is both my body and my blood, take the wine if you feel like it. If you don’t, no big deal.”

He also nowhere insisted on alcoholic wine and we have no way of knowing “how alcoholic” it was. This dogmatic approach is a slippery slope. Was it 5%, 10%, 15%, 25%? Where is the cut-off point? At what percentage does it become disobedience? Can you not see how ridiculous this is?

 

[ckempston]

I made no false accusation against you. You made unsubstantiated statements indicating that the Catholic Church has been in a routine habit of contradicting Christ. If you are sincere in wanting to learn about Catholicism then please stop the deceptive generalization game-play and the rope a dope tactics and justify your hyperbole with real substance. Your off topic point about real presence in both species does not disobey or contradict Christ in anyway. It certainly does not scale to the level of your general charge that The Catholic Church contradicts Christ.

All those paragraphs are an effort to distract from the obvious fact that you are quite clearly wrong. Catholics go so far out of their way to take Jesus literally in Matthew 26, I find it hard to comprehend how they depart from that literalism on the same exact subject in the same exact passage! This is a contradiction:

Jesus’ claim: X is my body, Y is my blood.
Catholic claim: X is my body and my blood.

Do Catholics, or do they not, rail against those that do not take Jesus literally in Matthew 26? A simple yes or no will suffice.