A thought about biblical "wine" being grape juice

[benedictus2]

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

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

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

I am jumping here midway into the discussion and have not read all the posts.

But here’s my two bits.

The reason why it is not mandatory to receive both species is the understanding of the word body. For the Jews, body does not just mean flesh, it means body, the entirety of the person.

And that is why in John 6 he says “I” am the bread that came down from heaven.

It is only because of people’s disbelief that He went into much more specific wording of flesh and blood.

Since the Eucharist is about receiving Christ, when you receive the host, you are receiving the entirety of Christ.

This is also to get away from the idea of cannibalism which the early Christians were accused of.

We also have to remember that we are receiving the glorified body of Christ.

Those who are arguing on the right of the Church to teach that Christ is present in totallity in both species are also not off topic because if the Church is divinely instituted by Christ, then what she teaches is divine as well and not in error. Therefore we can believe that if the Church says Christ is present in both species so receiving only under one form is okay, can rightly believe that they are not going against Christ’s teaching.

Also, where circumstances permit, both species are offered to communicants.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

The whole Catechism is wonderful. Converts and reverts have found it most helpful. It is completely referenced back to Scripture. Thomas Howard and his wife Lovelace (both converts) absolutely love it.

If there is anything Parishes should do is to run a classes on the catechism.

 

[benedictus2]

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”.

Protestants believing in Tradition!!! Surely not.
Why that would be called Traditions of men wouldn’t it?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

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.

It must take Catholics aback because it’s no different than any Christian religion. The Apostle’s creed has all of the essential teachings.

We say “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church.”

When we say that we don’t add, as limited by these 39 articles.

There is NO LIST of “essential” Catholic teachings, because ALL that the Church teaches is essential. It does not concern itself with non-essentials.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Lovelace Howard said that the turning point for her towards Catholicism is when she realized that not everything has to be passed by her. I think it is good that those coming into the Church study her doctrines but the one claim upon which the Church stands or falls is her infallibility.

If it can be established that the Catholic Church is who she claims to be, then it follows that she will teach only Truth because that is what Christ promised, that she will be guided into all Truth by the Holy Spirit.

And if she is indeed who she claims to be and therefore teaches only Truth, then all her doctrines can be believed.

I think C S Lewis said that he did not become Catholic because it meant he is giving his assent to whatever the magisterium will promulgate later on, even before he has digested it himself.

But if the Church is indeed Christ’s Church, whatever it pronounces later on as dogma will be of Christ for He said whoever hears you, hears me.

So in reality, this is the question that has to be addressed first of all for someone considering the Catholic Catholic Church.

And once one has given assent to this then Augustine’s words will ring true: Faith is believing what one does not see. The gift of faith is seeing what one believes.

 

[benedictus2]

It must take Catholics aback because it’s no different than any Christian religion. The Apostle’s creed has all of the essential teachings.

We say “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church.”

When we say that we don’t add, as limited by these 39 articles.

There is NO LIST of “essential” Catholic teachings, because ALL that the Church teaches is essential. It does not concern itself with non-essentials.

Excellent point!!! Bravo!! :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[ckempston]

Excellent point!!! Bravo!! :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

That is a good point. I kind of noticed that a large part of the Catechism is broken out into subheadings based on each of statements in the creed.

 

[Cattitude]

That being the case, it seems to me there would have been no possible way anyone could have been drinking grape juice year-round back then.
isn’t grape harvest in the fall? Passover is in the spring. The only thing Jesus could have been drinking during Passover was fermented wine. Am I right or wrong?

To get back to the original topic… This made perfect sense to me, until I was shown this link. Can anyone comment? It looks pretty legit at first scan.

Chapter 4: THE PRESERVATION OF GRAPE JUICE

and

Chapter 5: JESUS AND WINE

 

[ckempston]

To get back to the original topic… This made perfect sense to me, until I was shown this link. Can anyone comment? It looks pretty legit at first scan.

Chapter 4: THE PRESERVATION OF GRAPE JUICE

and

Chapter 5: JESUS AND WINE

I had previously pointed out, and provided a link to the Jewish Encyclopedia, which expounded on the different types of wine, and it made it quite clear that a) there was certainly such a thing as unfermented wine, and b) juice from a grape was called wine whether fermented or not. These articles would seem to further support those claims, but I doubt anybody will be changing positions.

 

[patrick457]

I had previously pointed out, and provided a link to the Jewish Encyclopedia, which expounded on the different types of wine, and it made it quite clear that a) there was certainly such a thing as unfermented wine, and b) juice from a grape was called wine whether fermented or not. These articles would seem to further support those claims, but I doubt anybody will be changing positions.

Yes, there were actually different Hebrew words for wine.

The most common word for wine is yayin, but there are other words in use like chemer or even tirosh, which denoted fresh grape juice or must. This is most probably the one you are referring to.

While unftermented grape juice is not unknown, back then it was a very difficult thing to keep grape juice without the aid of modern antiseptic precautions, and its preservation in the warm and not over-cleanly conditions of ancient Palestine was impossible. Consequently, tirosh also meant wine that was not fully aged or even “new wine” – the product of the most recent harvest as opposed to “old wine,” the product of last year’s harvest – which is alcoholic (Hosea 4:11).

The Catholic Church had actually declared mustum (“grape juice that is either fresh or preserved by methods that suspend its fermentation without altering its nature,” excluding pasteurized grape juice) to be valid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist since the 4th century (beneficial for those who could not consume ‘true’ wine, say priests who suffer from alcoholism), but only then with permission of the Ordinary (the local Bishop).