A thought about biblical "wine" being grape juice

[Letchitsa1]

I highly doubt your characterization. The cults and some Baptist churches (those that strictly adhere to the SBC), are the only churches that come to mind for me, although I’d be open to seeing your evidence to the contrary. However, the SBC resolution on alcohol makes no mention about non-alcoholic wine in the Bible:

sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1156

I believe what Catholics are seeing is a) misunderstanding on the part of Protestant members (which is not absent from the Catholic church either) who defend this doctrine on this basis, b) fringe groups that just make radical claims to stir the pot (which is also not absent from the Catholic church), and c) leftover feelings that were passed on from American Prohibition, which, quite frankly, wasn’t all that long ago.

I was raised in the United Methodist Church and we always used grape juice for pretty much the reasons provided. I have family that are fairly devout in the Baptist, Mennonite, Church of Christ and Church of the Brethren, and all of them use grape juice as well. Based on my experience - the practice of using grape juice instead of wine is far more wide-spread among Protestants than you seem to believe.

I would agree that part of the issue is misunderstanding on the part of various Protestant groups, and I can certainly see some of it being leftover feelings from our own period of prohibition in this country, but I do not agree that it is the “fringe elements” of Protestantism that embrace this belief. Case in point - the Methodists are among the largest of the Protestant denominations, and I know for a fact the overwhelming majority of them use grape juice instead of wine (though it isn’t always easy to tell with Methodists what they will believe and do, and I don’t say that to be mean or disparaging).

 

[Thing]

And while we’re at it, let’s see what Christ—himself accused by the Pharisees of being a drunkard and consorting with drunkards—had to say.

Luke 5:

30: But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
31: And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
32: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
33: And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?
34: And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?
35: But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.
36: And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
**37: And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
38: But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
39: No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better. **

“The old is better.”

And John 2:

“1”: And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

“2”: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

“3”: And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

“4”: Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

“5”: His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

“6”: And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.

“7”: Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

“8”: And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

“9”: When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

**“10”: And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. **

“11”: This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

The first of Christ’s miracles.

Very inconvenient for those teetotalers who would out-Pharisee the Pharisees while claiming to do no such thing.

…And the stone jars which He ordered to be filled with water have been calculated to have held something like 780 bottles of wine. The best tasting wine the guest said, but also wine in a generous amount, lots of wine for the wedding.:stretcher:

 

[CentralFLJames]

And He didn’t make any mention of possible substitutions. He was using as his basic format a ritual that had been prescribed by God to Moses, and given to Moses in a ritual that hearkened back to the Covenant of Abraham - and hearkened forward to the Mass.

Melchizedek, Moses, and Jesus used wine. The Mass uses wine. Why not use wine?

This is the key aspect of this topic that Protestants just “don’t get”. The centuries of historical linkage to the OT Jewish practices and histories and to the passover rituals REQUIRES “WINE” - not grape juice.

The only ones that don’t want to use wine are those who don’t have a real apostolic priesthood and those who want to reinvent the religion to secularize it and to make it into something new and “reformed”. Wine is much “too Catholic” and too Roman for those who’s tastes have become addicted to the easy believism of “Christianity Lite” and the convenience of instant salvation.

(Edited)

Sorry - just getting bored with going round and round on this topic that has been argued to death with people who do not even recognize the need for a genuine apostolic priesthood in any of this…

James

 

[script77]

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

What sacred species are these you refer to?

 

[VociMike]

Hi
Why would it matter to Catholics, you don’t believe that it’s wine when you drink it. Why would it have to be wine for Protestants?

It should matter to anybody when people teach things that aren’t true.

And your comparison demonstrates nothing, it is comparing apples to aardvarks.

 

[VociMike]

Hi Teflon
I appreciate your answer, but could you please tell me why it would matter if it’s grape juice or wine. Catholics believe that it’s the actual blood of Christ so therefore it’s no longer wine. I think it’s relevent because we seem to waste so much time on differences that won’t have an impact on our Salvation.

I should point out that if a Catholic priest used grape juice instead of wine in the Mass, the juice would not become the Blood of Christ but would remain juice. From a Catholic standpoint that’s a pretty significant situation, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[CWBetts]

As for only “fringe groups” using grape juice instead of wine, it is simply not true. My parens go to a United Mothoist church, my brother a Presbetyrian Church, my sister a non-denominational, and I have gone to Baptist and a CMA church in the past. Guess what? All have used grape juice. And the Baptist says this is because drinking any amount of alcohol at all is a sin.

 

[Teflon93]

Hi Teflon
I appreciate your answer, but could you please tell me why it would matter if it’s grape juice or wine. Catholics believe that it’s the actual blood of Christ so therefore it’s no longer wine. I think it’s relevent because we seem to waste so much time on differences that won’t have an impact on our Salvation.

Because Christ used wine.

It also matters because a number of these Protestant communities go beyond their own temperance era traditions to alter the very wording of Scripture (and certainly the interpretation of it) anachronistically. The Pentecostal Church of God I used to attend is a good example—they simply replaced “juice” with “wine” wherever in Scripture wine was referenced in a positive light.

Catholics dislike falsehood.

 

[Teflon93]

…And the stone jars which He ordered to be filled with water have been calculated to have held something like 780 bottles of wine. The best tasting wine the guest said, but also wine in a generous amount, lots of wine for the wedding.:stretcher:

Yes, that is a point well-taken.

Not only the best wine, but an abundance of it.

This reminds me of a remarkable print called “Laughing Christ” I saw some years back. It was remarkable because for some reason so many think Christ only experienced sorrow, pain, and anger (as when he drove the moneylenders from the Temple) during his pre-Resurrection life on Earth.

By attempting to turn the Lord into a 20th century prohibitionist, we cannot but drain some of the joy from him, even as we dishonor Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Teflon93]

As for only “fringe groups” using grape juice instead of wine, it is simply not true. My parens go to a United Mothoist church, my brother a Presbetyrian Church, my sister a non-denominational, and I have gone to Baptist and a CMA church in the past. Guess what? All have used grape juice. And the Baptist says this is because drinking any amount of alcohol at all is a sin.

It is no coincidence that the majority of Protestant communities which engage in this unScriptural practice do so because of the temperance movement in existence as their doctrines were defined.

They elevate tradition above Scripture.

Some are even honest about doing so. Others—mainly on “the fringe”—deny, deny, deny even as they do so. Their hysterical reactions are easy to spot.

Just ask them where in Scripture Christ used “grape juice”.

 

[CentralFLJames]

ShellKell:
The short answer I would give is:
“Because the profoundly symbolic signs of the sacrament present in the pre-effected form of wine and the post-effected accident of the ‘appearance of wine’ would be unavailable to us. And because Catholics want Protestants to understand the fullness of the sacrifice and the importance of the outward signs of the offerings.”

Now let me give a longer answer that requires a bit of a read though.

This is metaphorically like asking why did Jesus have to die on the cross for our sins - couldn’t He have just substituted an unblemished lamb instead? From here it just cascades progressively down in silliness. “Why do we have to slaughter the good lambs - why not a lame one or a blemished one”. “Hey, why do lambs at all - let’s put up an straw effigy of Satan - all this ‘sin stuff’ is his fault anyway and God burned him so we should too”.

Back to the mainline thought:
At some point the same line of reasoning would have us eventually offering a cup of coffee or diet coke in the social hall with donuts - or perhaps use regional secular social conventions - tea & crumpets anyone? Then the most frugal of reasoning leads us to further water-down the drink offering to its most primitive unsubstantial form - water. Yeah, I can just see some enterprising secular “man of gawd” eventually glomming onto a faux epiphany: “Aha - let’s just fill all the Dixie cups with good ol tap water since that is kinda the same stuff we use in baptism and its all the same symbolic thing anyways”!

I suspect the real reason some fundamentalists use grape juice over wine is because they are too cheap to buy the more expensive drink and because inwardly they know they lack the authority to transform it and see it as merely symbolic. Once its just a symbol then anything “wet” works. Grape snow-cones children?

Pardon the sarcasm but the fact any adult minded person can take this whole grape juice nonsense seriously is just utterly ridiculous to me. Those that think the form of the offered sacrifice is immaterial in a sort of “all that matters is what you believe and what’s in your heart” kind of naivety just don’t “get it”. The sacrifice of the mass is “not about us”. Its about what is an acceptable sacrifice to God and His worship. Thus to imagine that by the whims of men we are free to substitute whatever we want for an oblation to God demonstrates an utterly vacuous and shallow grasp of the holistic Bible message. Of course rebelling against God’s Church in the first place was in the same vein of error. So its not surprising where this secularized view of worship and watering down of theology comes from.

All should go back to their bibles and read from cover to cover - Genesis to Revelation. It’s so easy to see the consistent imagery of God’s garden and the life providing Tree of Life and the restorative waters and man working in cooperation with God (God provides & man works with God to cultivate). Recollect the many OT references to the kinds of “cups” that God prepares for His friends at His Banquet (and the cups of wrath He gives to His enemies) and it linkage to the 4 pascal cups of wine.

Does any of this sound like simple grape juice? No. these are adult drinks - all are mostly ceremonial in imagery. God’s cup constitute a sophisticated multi-dimensional depth of substance and complexity not found in the simple one-dimensionalism of unrefined sugary flavored grape juice. It might taste good but it’s not the “real thing”.

Recollect too Jesus’ own many references to himself as “the vine” and us being the branches and together with Christ’s in our hearts He can cause us all to bear good fruit as God rains down His grace. See the consistently repeating biblical message of of “goodwill to man” in God joining Himself to man’s condition in prefiguring events (e.g. Moses) and through fulfillment in Christ and in God. From the very beginning God uses the natural order of Creation’s seasons to bring forth the produce of the earth in cooperation with man’s “sweat of the brow” to produce “fruit of the earth - work of human hands”. See how Man himself in God’s hands is a literal fruit if the earth (where we get the word “human” from - humus) that can be either good or bad depending on who we let work us.

Throughout, the bible shows that God provides the conditions necessary for growth and harvest (seed, seasons, sunshine, rain) as well as the transformational yeast (Holy Spirit). But the yeast can only do its work when the grape is broken and crushed in a press (or under foot). Just as Christ is broken on the cross (the Divine seed is crushed and the juice pressed out like in a wine press), dies and is planted in the earth - in short season it yields a great harvest. “The Kingdom of God is at hand” - “The laborers are few but the harvest is plentiful”. The banquet of the Lord is served in the view of His enemies - “happy are they who are invited to the wedding feast” (imagery - the wine at Cana) - etc. etc. - profoundly etc.

The signs in wine are all important, instructional and integral with God’s Cup of Blessing.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued from above]

Clearly, from the proceeding, grape-juice is an incomplete work - the yeast has not been released to “spirit the fruit of the vine” into wine. And God will not do His part to spirit it into the Blood of Christ unless we fully cooperate and demonstrate we understand His message and Christ’s fulfillment. Those who drink grape-juice to attempt to emulate the effected wine of Christ’s banquet are only showing themselves through purple lips to be royally ignorant of scripture; as well as deficient of insight into the profound depth of celebration, sacrifice and worship that is going on in the mass. Staining one’s lips on grape juice is like paying lip service to God – only going through the motions without any knowledge of what one is doing (and what we Catholics do is worship God in the highest way possible).

This is probably a good time to remind Protestants of the story of Cain and Abel. There were two brothers, both who believed in God but had very different ideas of how to properly worship God and very different interior motives and dispositions. Abel’s way was to worship in a spirit of sincerity/truth and in acceptable form. Abel offered a shepherd’s offering from the ‘firstlings of his flock’. In our convenient place in history it should be no surprise then God accepted Abel’s sacrifice since it directly prefigured the perfect sacrifice of The Pascal Lamb of God (Christ Himself). Cain’s sacrifice on the other hand consisted of offerings fruits of the earth (recollect the earth was cursed in Genesis due to Adam’s fall). But Cain’s sacrifice proved to be an unacceptable sacrifice (not divided rightly in form nor offered in proper interior contrition of heart). Of course we know what happens after being rejected. So here we have an explicit example that some forms of worship (as well as the inner sincerity of the offeror) are not acceptable to God.

Grape juice might be well received by those who do not think the form of worship matters (or by those who do not know any better) in the land of Nod in the City of Cain. But grape juice is not what has been used in worship or celebration for thousands of years before Christ; nor is it what Christ exemplified in Himself as the spirit filled fruit of the vine, crushed for our offenses and offered as an oblation. We can only conclude that wine is suitable to God’s tastes.

As a passing bible-study sort of thought I should wonder now if its merely coincidental that it appears that in the Mass God rejoins together and makes good and acceptable both of the same original species offerings made by Cain and Abel. The blood of Abel spilled by Cain in that first murder was swallowed by the earth. But God in the catharsis of “The Flood” and by Christ coming to enter and sanctify the baptismal waters, the earth is no longer cursed. Through God’s restorative grace the cursed and defiled earth is made to yield a new offering of finest wheat (made unleavened without yeast) and “fruit of the wine” (fermented with the “germ” of yeast) that becomes a completely and wholly acceptable sacrifice to God. Emanuel- God with us.

Maranatha! Cheers everyone!

James

 

[Teflon93]

James-

You are correct that Protestants by and large simply “do not get it”.

Some communities view alcohol as evil—period. They cannot reconcile this extra-Scriptural tradition with Scripture and so they do one of two things: ignore Scripture or change Scripture to suit their extra-Scriptural tradition. It is simply beyond them to challenge their own tradition in light of Scripture, or to ask how much else do they falsely justify from twisting Scripture.

Okay, that’s the hypocrisy from the Protestant/sola scriptura viewpoint.

From the Catholic viewpoint, these Protestants can’t see beyond their own noses. They are wrapped up in the accidents of the bread and wine. Some don’t use bread at all—they substitute crackers. Why not, right? Haven’t they improved upon what Christ commanded by using crackers and grape juice?

The Anglicans and Lutherans are closer to the mark. They at least use wine and emphasize the Real Presence, although they lack valid Holy Orders and thus the Eucharist. It is not merely empty ceremony for them, not simply something they can do very infrequently until somebody tosses the offending passages of John and Mark out of the Bible or offers a popular new interpretation which will save that precious sermon time in the future.

When we consider how the seven sacraments Christ ordained play out in the various Protestant communities, we can see clearly the fidelity these shadow churches have to the Catholic Church.

There can be only one Church, after all.

To become Catholic is to embrace the fullness of Truth God has revealed to man. To take the Eucharist is to have Truth itself within us.

To mock the Eucharist is to mock Christ himself, which is why Catholics tend to disdain such practices as substituting children’s snack food for the Eucharist in the mock Masses practiced in various communities.

 

[ckempston]

Try to find the point.

How do you know that “fruit of the vine” referred to grape juice and not tomato juice?

I know, based on the social/cultural context. I also know, based on social/cultural and Biblical context that the first Christians met in the Temple Courts. We don’t do this any longer. Are we all going to hell because of it? You try to find the point.

It was neither false nor bitter. “Doing your best” has resulted in schism after schism within Protestantism, several more of which are underway in the mainline Protestant denominations as we speak.

I wouldn’t say Luther was doing his best to be like Christ. He was bitter and hateful, as was Calvin, and several others who started modern movements.

“Go your own way” is not Christ’s message. Never has been.

And I would never tell someone to do so.

St Paul’s exhortations were invariably for unity—for resisting the lures of heretics and schismatics by keeping to what the Apostles had taught.

Unity of the Spirit, not unity forced upon people by an ecclesiastical body.

This included St Paul’s own teaching of the Eucharist, which completely refutes the notion in many a Protestant community that it is simply symbolism at best and an abomination at worst.

I don’t believe Jesus or Paul meant the Eucharist to be a symbol.

I seem to recall St Paul urging Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach, as well—no “fruit of the vine” wiggle room there.

I’ve already proven that unfermented “fruit of the vine” was still called wine. Look at the link I provided. It was called “new wine” or “tirosh.”

Since he refers to the Body and the Blood we must consume six or seven times, you can have your pick. What you cannot do is refer to Matthew’s account while completely ignoring John’s. Both are Gospels; both must be reckoned with.

I’m not ignoring anything. If the scriptures say it, I believe it.

No, our claim is that those who subordinate Scripture itself to their 19th/20th century traditions and then claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith are deluding themselves, if not attempting to delude others.

Even the Catholic church interprets scripture from a modern worldview. Not many (including the Catholic church) teach that there was a geographically universal flood in Genesis. Why? Because 19th/20th century evidence has proven that this is not the case.

You attempted to contest the obvious by making silly claims that “fruit of the vine” referred to grape juice rather than wine.

It’s not silly. It’s fact. “New wine” that is not yet fermented (tirosh) is still referred to as Wine. This should be obvious from Jesus’ comments about new wine in wineskins. It’s self-evident. “New wine” has not yet fermented, yet they still called it wine.

You seem to believe charity requires embracing others’ falsehoods. Some save with fire, says St Jude.

You didn’t attack doctrines, you attacked individual’s motives and hearts.

Protestants chiefly reject Christ’s command in John 6. It is clear and compelling; he says it over and over again, even with people leaving as a consequence. Moreover, the Early Church Fathers uniformly practiced the Eucharist. It is one of the “distinctives” which led the pagans and Jews to claim Christians were “cannibals”.

Protestants do not reject, they misinterpret.

Christ could not have been more clear. Some refused to follow his commandments then; many still do so today.

Agreed.

And for the same reason.

Wine is the product of fermentation. Are you now going to claim Christ produced non-alcoholic wine? Let’s see the Scripture reference, please.

“new wine” has not yet fermented, but it was still called wine. Your point has been demolished. This should be self-evident.

Where in Scripture does it say Christ produced “new wine” or bid the Apostles to drink it?

Where in the Early Church do we see evidence of new wine?

The point is that it was called wine, regardless of the level of fermentation.

Have you become Jewish now?

Comments were made that the Jews should know what the “wine” in the Bible actually was. I proved that any “fruit of the vine” (grape vine, obviously) was referred to as “wine” regardless of fermentation.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I’ve already proven that unfermented “fruit of the vine” was still called wine. Look at the link I provided. It was called “new wine” or “tirosh.”

I’m not ignoring anything. If the scriptures say it, I believe it.

It’s not silly. It’s fact. “New wine” that is not yet fermented (tirosh) is still referred to as Wine. This should be obvious from Jesus’ comments about new wine in wineskins. It’s self-evident. “New wine” has not yet fermented, yet they still called it wine.

Protestants do not reject, they misinterpret.

“new wine” has not yet fermented, but it was still called wine. Your point has been demolished. This should be self-evident.

The point is that it was called wine, regardless of the level of fermentation.

Comments were made that the Jews should know what the “wine” in the Bible actually was. I proved that any “fruit of the vine” (grape vine, obviously) was referred to as “wine” regardless of fermentation.

Then you must be Protestant since you are misinterpreting and drawing false conclusions just like many of them do in this matter.

You are making the same single point over and over again but you keep misstating it. The expression “new wine” biologically and chemically must refer to the juice of grapes that is in “the process” of being FULLY converted to wine by action of yeast (which it is from the very first moment the skin breaks). The instant the first molecule of sugar is broken down toward alcohol we have “wine” - not grape juice. In fact, I will go so far as to state that at the instant a grape is picked and broken from its stem by man or by nature that membrane or grape skin has been pierced (e.g. no longer virgin so to speak ) and it is starting to form wine in the grape itself. So all we are talking about here is the specific gravity and of the alcohol content of “the new wine” and if it has gone all the way to natural completion (where the natural alcohol concentrations either overcome the yeast to prevent it from converting all sugar to alcohol or till the yeast converts substantially all sugars to alcohol - or until wild evil yeast gets in to convert it to vinegar). So in any event, in the bible we are always talking about wine either in completed form or in its “new wine” or beginning form.

It is ONLY by modern pasteurisation methods that concentrated grape juice is even possible since it heats the mix to kill the yeast and stop the conversion of sugars to alcohol. Interesting to note here is that pasteurisation of grape juice is in some ways a perversion of nature (and to those who see the symbolism here - it’s rude). Pasturation is a man-made way of interrupting the natural act so to speak to interrupt the natural preservation of the drink that would naturally occur by the products of fermentation. I am no expert on wine - but this is common sense.

Bottom Line: Depending on how soon after it is bottled (or put into skins) “new wine” is just low to very low alcohol content wine that will soon be fully fermented wine - assuming we don’'t let strange yeasts get in to sour it or heat it hot enough to kill the yeast.

In case you can’t tell - this means your argument is without merit.

James

 

[ckempston]

ckempston,

I’ve seen it alluded to in this thread, although I don’t know all of the details, that you were Catholic at one point. I just wanted to clarify some things regarding what the Church teaches – although you may already be aware of it – and perhaps I misunderstood you or you weren’t able to be as accurate as you would have liked (which is understandable given the fast pace of these posts ometimes).

I was not properly Catechized (isn’t that what you call it?). It’s a long story. My interest in Catholic doctrine started as an adult, and has been ongoing for years.

I have some serious frustration with Catholics in being “accurate” because we often say the same thing but because I don’t use Catholic lingo, Catholics invariably say, “no, that’s wrong.” I could say the sky was blue, and a Catholic would probably start arguing with me about the higher frequencies of the visible light spectrum.

There are two different but concurrent considerations regarding the necessity of wine from the Catholic point of view. Wine **is **absolutely necessary for the celebration of the Mass and the consecration. Without wine there is no Mass.

Wine = Fruit of the vine. Fermented or unfermented. I think I’ve sufficiently proven this point both Biblically and from Rabbinical quotes.

Although I know you intend the above as a simplified statement and not an exhaustive examination of the issue, I don’t think your statement accurately represents the Catholic position even in simplified form.

The Church wholeheartedly believes Christ when he says that “this is my body” and the Church teaches that he changed the bread into his body only.** Likewise, Christ changed the wine into his blood only.

Following you so far.

Similarly the Church teaches that when priests follow Christ’s command to “do this in memory of me” and consecrate bread and wine, the sacramental change is such that the bread changes into Christ’s body only and the wine changes into Christ’s blood only.

Still following.

The action of confecting the Eucharist and obeying Christ’s command to confect it, is distinct from the reality of receiving the Eucharist. The Church believes so strongly in the reality of Christ’s body and blood, and takes Christ at his word that this now is his real body, that She must also point out that, since Christ can never die again, where his real body is his real blood is.

This is where it breaks down for me. I’ve already pointed out that this is a worldly, human argument. Just because a thing can be inferred from the Bible, doesn’t make it true. Following that type of reasoning would result in all kinds of nonsense.

The Church takes this position because to do otherwise would be to consign the Eucharist and Christ’s words “this is my body” to symbolism and not reality. The bread doesn’t symbolize his body, but it is Christ in totality as he is now – flesh and blood.

But he doesn’t just say “this is my body.” He also says, “this is my blood.” Catholics simply emphasize the “IS,” while I would also emphasize the “THIS.” I go back to my original statement:

Christ said, “this (bread) is my body, this (wine) is my blood.” For your argument to hold, he would have had to say, “this (bread) is my body AND my blood, and this (wine) is just my blood.” That’s not what he says. It is Catholics who seem to have gone too far into symbolism.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

ckemptson,

Thanks for the reply – I’m glad my post didn’t get lost in the shuffle (or scuffle?) back there.

I was not properly Catechized (isn’t that what you call it?). It’s a long story. My interest in Catholic doctrine started as an adult, and has been ongoing for years.

Ok. I commend you for taking an interest and your efforts at trying to understand Church teaching.

This is where it breaks down for me. I’ve already pointed out that this is a worldly, human argument. Just because a thing can be inferred from the Bible, doesn’t make it true. Following that type of reasoning would result in all kinds of nonsense.

Thank you for sharing that in sincerity. I’ll suggest to you that there are areas where we need to think it through, and this is one of them. Somewhere else you yourself exhorted another poster to “use your God given reason” (paraphrased).

Take, for example, Christ’s agony in the garden, and his poignant and intimate statement to the Father “Nevertheless, not my will, but yours be done.” This was something that had to be thought through – how could Christ’s will be different than His fathers? What are the two wills that are being talked about? Just a glance at the Christological controversies of the early Church will show that these things have real consequences. They had to be worked out, using reason. And once they were worked out they suggested other things that followed as necessary conclusions. The truth of the incarnation, the hypostatic union, with all that it entails is a seed in scripture but the blood of martyrs and the sweat of saints helped it grow into an understandable doctrine which all true Christians accept today and rely on.

What I’m getting at is that sometimes the reasoning of the faith – theological conclusions – don’t have to be spoken of pejoratively as “worldy, human arguments”.

But he doesn’t just say “this is my body.” He also says, “this is my blood.” Catholics simply emphasize the “IS,” while I would also emphasize the “THIS.” I go back to my original statement:

Christ said, “this (bread) is my body, this (wine) is my blood.” For your argument to hold, he would have had to say, “this (bread) is my body AND my blood, and this (wine) is just my blood.” That’s not what he says. It is Catholics who seem to have gone too far into symbolism.

I see your point, I think. Respectfully, I disagree. And I’m afraid I may not have communicated clearly.

Christ’s words show that he enacted a change. He changed bread into his body and wine into his blood. That’s it. At the moment of the change, that is exactly what Christ changed them into – body and blood only.

It seems you are interpreting Christ’s words as “This is only my body forevermore, and this is only my blood forevermore.” If He had said that – well the Church would have to accept and understand it. But what he did say, we hold to with tenacious faith – this is my body, this is my blood. By virtue of the change the bread becomes Christ’s body and the wine Christ’s blood. By virtue of reality (not the change!) Christ’s body (under the appearance of bread) has blood coursing through its veins. By virtue of reality (not the change!) Christ’s blood under the appearance of wine courses through his body.

I’ll add that by virtue of reality (not the change!) that body and blood under each appearance has a soul and is alive – it is Christ, after all. And, by virtue of reality (not the change!) that body and blood and soul (that man!) is joined to the Divine nature.

ckempston:

For your argument to hold, he would have had to say, “this (bread) is my body AND my blood, and this (wine) is just my blood.”

I don’t quite see why what I said (and what the Church teaches) implies the above. Could you explain more? Or does the above help you see it in a new light?

Thanks for the discussion.
God bless,
VC

 

[ckempston]

ckemptson,

Thanks for the reply – I’m glad my post didn’t get lost in the shuffle (or scuffle?) back there.

Our discussion has been pleasant, while some others have not been as much so, which is why I’m responding to your posts.

Ok. I commend you for taking an interest and your efforts at trying to understand Church teaching.

Thank you for sharing that in sincerity. I’ll suggest to you that there are areas where we need to think it through, and this is one of them. Somewhere else you yourself exhorted another poster to “use your God given reason” (paraphrased).

Take, for example, Christ’s agony in the garden, and his poignant and intimate statement to the Father “Nevertheless, not my will, but yours be done.” This was something that had to be thought through – how could Christ’s will be different than His fathers? What are the two wills that are being talked about? Just a glance at the Christological controversies of the early Church will show that these things have real consequences. They had to be worked out, using reason. And once they were worked out they suggested other things that followed as necessary conclusions. The truth of the incarnation, the hypostatic union, with all that it entails is a seed in scripture but the blood of martyrs and the sweat of saints helped it grow into an understandable doctrine which all true Christians accept today and rely on.

I try to follow the Biblical principle of “not going beyond what is written.” (1 Cor 4:6) I have no problem with deducing things from the scriptures; however, the Catholic church, in my opinion, has taken it way to far, deducing to the umpteenth degree. Mary went from being “blessed among women” and the “theotokos” to being immaculately conceived, free from sin, Queen of Heaven, etc., etc., etc. You have to stop somewhere. I try to stop with what the Bible says (though, admittedly, I find Sola Scriptura to be untenable and self-contradictory, just to clarify a bit).

What I’m getting at is that sometimes the reasoning of the faith – theological conclusions – don’t have to be spoken of pejoratively as “worldy, human arguments”.

These are phrases that Paul used. He was never concerned with expounding doctrines and making all sorts of conclusions. A good example is his potter/clay analogy. Human reason would lead us to ask, “If God made me this way, why does he condemn me?” That question makes so much sense, and is so simply stated, that it is hard to believe someone would disagree with it or find fault with it. But what does Paul do? He rejects the question entirely and says, “Who are you to question God?!?!” What? That makes no sense to a human mind. It is a spiritually discerned, direct revelation from God. Doesn’t matter how much sense the reasoning makes. It’s wrong to question God. Would you agree with that?

I see your point, I think. Respectfully, I disagree. And I’m afraid I may not have communicated clearly.

Christ’s words show that he enacted a change. He changed bread into his body and wine into his blood. That’s it. At the moment of the change, that is exactly what Christ changed them into – body and blood only.

OK.

It seems you are interpreting Christ’s words as “This is only my body forevermore, and this is only my blood forevermore.” If He had said that – well the Church would have to accept and understand it. But what he did say, we hold to with tenacious faith – this is my body, this is my blood. By virtue of the change the bread becomes Christ’s body and the wine Christ’s blood. By virtue of reality (not the change!) Christ’s body (under the appearance of bread) has blood coursing through its veins. By virtue of reality (not the change!) Christ’s blood under the appearance of wine courses through his body.

Thank you for explaining this in this way. It does make more sense to me now.

I’ll add that by virtue of reality (not the change!) that body and blood under each appearance has a soul and is alive – it is Christ, after all. And, by virtue of reality (not the change!) that body and blood and soul (that man!) is joined to the Divine nature.

Ok, I’m still following, but I become wary of these logical extensions.

I don’t quite see why what I said (and what the Church teaches) implies the above. Could you explain more? Or does the above help you see it in a new light?

I think I have a better understanding based on your explanations, but I will again point out my wariness of these conclusions.

 

[phil8888]

In the evangelical churches I’ve attended, we used grape juice, but it had nothing to do with any notion that “wine” in the Bible actually means “grape juice.” It was borne out of a sensitivity toward those suffering and/or recovering from alcoholism.

Maybe some Protestant denominations can use grape juice instead of wine as this poster says, is because they only believe it is a symbol. For Catholics, the valid ingredients must be present in order for consecration to occur. I guess as long as their doing something to remind themselves of what’s going on, then they’re fine.

My friend, who is marginally Pentecostal, has made reference about his former church using grape juice.

 

[djrakowski]

Maybe some Protestant denominations can use grape juice instead of wine as this poster says, is because they only believe it is a symbol. For Catholics, the valid ingredients must be present in order for consecration to occur. I guess as long as their doing something to remind themselves of what’s going on, then they’re fine.

My friend, who is marginally Pentecostal, has made reference about his former church using grape juice.

Oh, we too believed it was a symbol, and I suppose that was the primary reason for our use of grape juice in place of wine. I think it was a base assumption we never challenged, and thus when it was explained that we use grape juice out of sensitivity to those with alcohol-related problems, it simply made sense. I’d also add that, while I disagree with the theology of what they were doing, the stated motive of trying to protect people from temptation to sin was a good one, and I applaud them for it.

Believe it or not, the celebration of Holy Communion in this church is as reverent as it can be. The church’s leadership team takes it very seriously. However, I started having problems when I paid closer attention to the pastor’s words, and noticed that he changed scripture to suit his notion of a purely symbolic communion. He would say, “take this cracker (it was a matzoh cracker, if that matters), this symbolizes Christ’s body, and take this juice, this symbolizes Christ’s blood.”