A thought about biblical "wine" being grape juice

[phil8888]

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.”

WHAT?? He actually called it a cracker?? Man, I thought people only did that to insult our belief.

 

[djrakowski]

WHAT?? He actually called it a cracker?? Man, I thought people only did that to insult our belief.

Well, he called it a cracker because that’s what they used. So, he wasn’t trying to be insulting toward Catholicism, but reflecting the reality of what was used as matter for communion.

 

[ckempston]

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.”

I attend a church where lay persons will often lead the congregation in communion. Typically they will share personally how the Cross of Christ changed their lives, some scripture, and then they will pray for the bread and the “wine” .

Sometimes, but not always, a lay person will use the word “represents” when describing or praying for the bread and “wine”. I always cringe at this point because, of course, Jesus never used the word “represents.” Fortunately, our pastor has gotten up and corrected this after the fact, but he doesn’t always when it happens.

I just wanted to point this out because I have doctrinal and practical problems with my own church, not just the Catholic church, as some have suggested, but oftentimes, I end up being more “catholic” that most in my denomination.

 

[phil8888]

I attend a church where lay persons will often lead the congregation in communion. Typically they will share personally how the Cross of Christ changed their lives, some scripture, and then they will pray for the bread and the “wine” .

Sometimes, but not always, a lay person will use the word “represents” when describing or praying for the bread and “wine”. I always cringe at this point because, of course, Jesus never used the word “represents.” Fortunately, our pastor has gotten up and corrected this after the fact, but he doesn’t always when it happens.

I just wanted to point this out because I have doctrinal and practical problems with my own church, not just the Catholic church, as some have suggested, but oftentimes, I end up being more “catholic” that most in my denomination.

So what does the pastor say? “No, you’re not supposed to SAY represents. we just believe it does”. I mean it doesn’t seem to make sense, maybe you can clarify. it’s like he’s telling him not to say that, but that’s what they believe.

And it sounds so weird to say cracker. He’s not trying to insult Catholics, but it just sounds funny. Can’t they even find another word? Jesus certainly didn’t say take this cracker…

 

[jmcrae]

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?

Because grape juice, or water, or tomato juice, or milk, or anything other than grape wine, cannot be displaced with the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Jesus told us to use wine - specifically, the wine of the Passover feast, which is described in the Book of Exodus in detail, so we know precisely what we’re looking for, with regard to valid matter for the Eucharist.

He didn’t offer any substitutions. So, we use wine, because we know that wine can be displaced by the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Consecration - Jesus told us that it could. But He never mentioned anything about anything else.

And what a cheat, if it could! The angels would probably feel ripped off if we sent grape juice to Heaven, instead of wine.

 

[djrakowski]

I attend a church where lay persons will often lead the congregation in communion. Typically they will share personally how the Cross of Christ changed their lives, some scripture, and then they will pray for the bread and the “wine” .

Sometimes, but not always, a lay person will use the word “represents” when describing or praying for the bread and “wine”. I always cringe at this point because, of course, Jesus never used the word “represents.” Fortunately, our pastor has gotten up and corrected this after the fact, but he doesn’t always when it happens.

I just wanted to point this out because I have doctrinal and practical problems with my own church, not just the Catholic church, as some have suggested, but oftentimes, I end up being more “catholic” that most in my denomination.

C, I appreciate this description, since it helps me understand your perspective a bit better than I had previously.

And your pastor is to be commended for correcting his habit of substituting the word “represents.” Jesus didn’t say it, and thus, we don’t have the luxury of changing it or re-interpreting it to fit a particular theology.

And your communion ceremony sounds similar to what I experienced in my old church. About once a month, the pastor would take a break from his sermon series (as you know, there’s no lectionary in non-denominational churches, so the pastor preaches on whatever strikes a chord with him and his congregation) and talk about some aspect of forgiveness, repentance and commitment to living as a Christian, then solemnly say the words of institution as recorded in scripture, with the exceptions I mentioned above.

Communion was not received very frequently. It was held once a month, but in a different service each time. So if you normally attended the 9:30 service, which at the time was one of 4 weekend services, you received communion 3 times a year.

 

[Teflon93]

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.

The point is that your “fruit of the vine” argument holds no water—Scripturally, theologically, culturally, historically, or scientifically.

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.

You said it; I didn’t.

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

“Like unto a heathen man and publican.”

Who said that?

And how is one to read St Paul’s epistles with their constant appeals to embrace true ecclessiastic unity and reject heretics and schismatics, in light of your claim above?

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

Clearly they did not, or St Paul would not have warned us lest we approach the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily.

By the same token, we must not mock Christ’s commandments in John 6. Wine + bread + valid priest + valid Mass = Eucharist.

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.”

You have proven no such thing. Fermentation begins instantly once the skin of the grape is pierced. It is not “unfermented wine” but “less formented” wine, or as Jesus would call it “bad wine.”

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

Then we await your response to Christ’s discussion of the Old and New Covenants in the form of attempting to pour new wine into old wineskins as provided in Luke 5 and elsewhere.

Christ knew his wine.

Scripture refers to him turning water into wine, and turning wine into his blood. It does not say he turned it into grape juice or new wine; indeed, the governor pronounced the wine to be “good”, which meant fully-fermented then and now.

So if Scripture says it, why don’t you believe it?

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.

A complete red herring—and a false one.

You’ll have to point me to the Church’s de fide pronouncement on The Flood.

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.

As has been noted above by the person who actually has winemaking experience, there was no such thing as unfermented grape juice prior to the pasteurization process Welch developed to make shelf-life stable grape juice feasible.

But you continue to prove my point—those who place the temperance movement tradition above all else have no problem savaging Scripture in the process.

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

Let’s see exact quotations of this. Use that Quote button.

Protestants do not reject, they misinterpret.

Oh no, they reject. That is why they are outside the Church.

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

Repetition does not create facts.

Are you now claiming that Christ turned water into unfermented wine?

What Scriptural evidence is there for this?

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

The point that Christ himself made was that new wine would burst the old wineskin because fermentation COULD NOT BE STOPPED.

I apparently have to resort to CAPS so that you can follow the point.

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.

You have proven no such thing, merely asserted it.

You ought to know the difference by now.

 

[ckempston]

So what does the pastor say? “No, you’re not supposed to SAY represents. we just believe it does”. I mean it doesn’t seem to make sense, maybe you can clarify. it’s like he’s telling him not to say that, but that’s what they believe.

And it sounds so weird to say cracker. He’s not trying to insult Catholics, but it just sounds funny. Can’t they even find another word? Jesus certainly didn’t say take this cracker…

Actually, what he said was, “that’s not what Jesus says. Jesus said, this IS my body, this IS my blood.” He sounded pretty Catholic for a minute there. My church does not teach a symbolic meaning of the Eucharist; I suppose it’s closer to Lutheran, affirming the Real Presence without actually expounding on how exactly this happens.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, what he said was, “that’s not what Jesus says. Jesus said, this IS my body, this IS my blood.” He sounded pretty Catholic for a minute there. My church does not teach a symbolic meaning of the Eucharist; I suppose it’s closer to Lutheran, affirming the Real Presence without actually expounding on how exactly this happens.

How seriously do they take it? What happens to any left-over elements after the Communion service is over? Is it reserved in a tabernacle, or do they consume the remainder, to prevent it from being profaned?

 

[ckempston]

How seriously do they take it? What happens to any left-over elements after the Communion service is over? Is it reserved in a tabernacle, or do they consume the remainder, to prevent it from being profaned?

Huh. Wow. They throw it away. Good point.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Huh. Wow. They throw it away. Good point.

It is a good point. But, why do you believe so, if I may ask? Why do you personally think that Christ’s real presence abides?

VC

 

[CentralFLJames]

How seriously do they take it? What happens to any left-over elements after the Communion service is over? Is it reserved in a tabernacle, or do they consume the remainder, to prevent it from being profaned?

A Lutheran (or was it an Anglican?) on a similar thread on real presence mentioned that they feed the left over crackers to the birds. If they believed in real presence like they claim they do then they would not be profanating the body of Christ. Actions just like good Christian works of charity speak louder than mere words and platitudes and reveal true attitudes.

James

 

[Verbum_Caro]

oftentimes, I end up being more “catholic” that most in my denomination.

c,

I don’t doubt that. You seem to be heading in that direction, no offense intended.

VC

 

[ckempston]

It is a good point. But, why do you believe so, if I may ask? Why do you personally think that Christ’s real presence abides?

VC

Because it’s what he said.

 

[jmcrae]

Because it’s what he said.

 

[VociMike]

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

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

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

In any normal circumstance you’d be completely justified in your wariness, because the explanation, while making sense, is as you say an extension. But the Church does not teach what she teaches based on human logic. She teaches what she teaches based on divine revelation, and only then may seek to explain what she teaches in terms of human logic. So I believe what the Church teaches not because it makes sense, but because she has received it from God. Lucky for us, these things also do make sense when viewed from the proper world view, because God’s revelation does not pit faith against reason.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Because it’s what he said.

ck,

It occurs to me that my question could have been baiting or leading, although I didn’t intend it as such. In the interest of treating you with Christian courtesy, I’ll mention what was on my mind.

I was wondering where we find Christ saying that his body remains after the change. We’ve discussed the words that show it does change: “This is my body”, but where are the words that show that it must remain his body. And. . if it does, how long does it remain so?

The Church has answers to those questions – Very well thought out and reasonable answers, guided by the Holy Spirit (who teaches us all truth) and explained by humble, intelligent, holy men and women who thought it through.

It seems to me, unless I am missing something in the words of scripture (which is quite possible), that the theological conclusion of an abiding presence (and the parameters of it) aren’t easily drawn from scripture without a bit of thought. Does it raise any questions for you? Would you say you are as suspicious of the conclusion the Christ’s presence abides as you are that Christ’s presence is whole and entire under each species?

Interested in your thoughts and continued discussion if you think it might be fruitful.

Thanks and God bless,
VC

 

[ckempston]

ck,

It occurs to me that my question could have been baiting or leading, although I didn’t intend it as such. In the interest of treating you with Christian courtesy, I’ll mention what was on my mind.

I wasn’t sure what you were getting at, hence, the one-line answer.

I was wondering where we find Christ saying that his body remains after the change. We’ve discussed the words that show it does change: “This is my body”, but where are the words that show that it must remain his body. And. . if it does, how long does it remain so?

I guess we don’t find him saying that. It wouldn’t really make sense to me if there was an expiration date.

The Church has answers to those questions – Very well thought out and reasonable answers, guided by the Holy Spirit (who teaches us all truth) and explained by humble, intelligent, holy men and women who thought it through.

While I can’t really disagree, in essence, with what you’re saying here, it doesn’t make it any easier to accept some of the doctrines of the Catholic church that (no offense intended) seem rather outlandish to an outsider.

It seems to me, unless I am missing something in the words of scripture (which is quite possible), that the theological conclusion of an abiding presence (and the parameters of it) aren’t easily drawn from scripture without a bit of thought. Does it raise any questions for you? Would you say you are as suspicious of the conclusion the Christ’s presence abides as you are that Christ’s presence is whole and entire under each species?

I agree with you here, and it does raise questions, and I can actually follow the reasoning pretty easily; however, I still have a hard time with the very dogmatic approach to it. i.e. “Believe it, or else.”

Interested in your thoughts and continued discussion if you think it might be fruitful.

Thanks and God bless,
VC

Ditto.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I wasn’t sure what you were getting at, hence, the one-line answer.

My question was pretty obscure. Your mind-reading skills need work. :hypno:

While I can’t really disagree, in essence, with what you’re saying here, it doesn’t make it any easier to accept some of the doctrines of the Catholic church that (no offense intended) seem rather outlandish to an outsider.

ck, I appreciate that. That is a very honest and really quite understandable.

I agree with you here, and it does raise questions, and I can actually follow the reasoning pretty easily; however, I still have a hard time with the very dogmatic approach to it. i.e. “Believe it, or else.”

Thanks. I follow you.

Perhaps over time, as you continue your studies, you’ll find things might be a bit more nuanced than you thought. The Church actually is quite careful regarding what is essential and what is not, and I find evidence of remarkable restraint and humility in Her teachings. There are levels of certainty; there are areas where She treads softly. Of course, there are also truths that Christ’s martyrs died for, and which the Church safeguards.

There’s one more thing I feel I should mention, although I’m sure you already know. The problem with Truth, if it is true, is that it never stops being true no matter how we feel about it, or how someone presents it to us, or how difficult or easy it is for us to accept it. That can be a sobering and challenging thought.

I’ll just say this, in the final analysis Catholicism is based on one simple idea – that Christ spoke truly. That conviction has been treasured for almost 2000 years, and it vivifies everything the Church teaches and does. If you can’t tell already. . . I love Her.

So. Now that I’ve waxed overly poetic. . . where are we at in this thread? Is there more on this specific topic of the Eucharistic species that is yet to be explored?

VC

 

[ckempston]

My question was pretty obscure. Your mind-reading skills need work. :hypno:

ck, I appreciate that. That is a very honest and really quite understandable.

Thanks. I follow you.

Perhaps over time, as you continue your studies, you’ll find things might be a bit more nuanced than you thought. The Church actually is quite careful regarding what is essential and what is not, and I find evidence of remarkable restraint and humility in Her teachings. There are levels of certainty; there are areas where She treads softly. Of course, there are also truths that Christ’s martyrs died for, and which the Church safeguards.

Where do I find more information on the “essential” teachings? In the past, I have had a hard time nailing Catholics down for a list, or even a general idea, of essential Catholic beliefs. It’s pretty obvious that Ex Cathedra statements (I guess there are not many of these), and the results of Ecumenical councils would be included, but I’m not sure of what else. The whole Catechism? The CCC? That’s quite a bit of stuff.

There’s one more thing I feel I should mention, although I’m sure you already know. The problem with Truth, if it is true, is that it never stops being true no matter how we feel about it, or how someone presents it to us, or how difficult or easy it is for us to accept it. That can be a sobering and challenging thought.

Agreed.

I’ll just say this, in the final analysis Catholicism is based on one simple idea – that Christ spoke truly. That conviction has been treasured for almost 2000 years, and it vivifies everything the Church teaches and does. If you can’t tell already. . . I love Her.

So. Now that I’ve waxed overly poetic. . . where are we at in this thread? Is there more on this specific topic of the Eucharistic species that is yet to be explored?

VC

I think the thread has gotten far enough off track from the OP.