Merely Grape Juice

[a_priori]

Why don’ t they accept all the other stuff the Bible says which supports the Catholic Church?

There is a tendency to start with a comfortable Protestant interpretation and then scrunch scripture into it rather than drop all of one’s presuppositions about early Christianity and give Catholicism a fair shot based on the big picture.

Many criticisms of Catholicism are based on a faulty interpretation of what Catholics believe. It is easy to tell me that I worship Saints and then tell me that worshipping Saints is wrong. The fact that I don’t “worship” Saints doesn’t seem to matter to them.

They construct a caricature of Catholicism and then tear it down. Anyone can do that. Approach the discussion with the honest intent of learning exactly what Catholics believe and why they believe it then perhaps actual communication and understanding may result.

 

[KarenNC]

Just fyi, not all non-Catholic churches use grape juice. The Baptist and Assembly of God churches I have attended did so, but the Presbyterian one in which I grew up used homemade wine (unfortunately, not very good homemade wine) and the Episcopal Church I attended used port.

I know the question is about transsubstantiation vs. consubstantion vs. remembrance, but in light of the “when do they mean wine as wine and wine as grape juice” made me want to clarify.

 

[Subrosa]

There is a tendency to start with a comfortable Protestant interpretation and then scrunch scripture into it rather than drop all of one’s presuppositions about early Christianity and give Catholicism a fair shot based on the big picture.

Many criticisms of Catholicism are based on a faulty interpretation of what Catholics believe. It is easy to tell me that I worship Saints and then tell me that worshipping Saints is wrong. The fact that I don’t “worship” Saints doesn’t seem to matter to them.

They construct a caricature of Catholicism and then tear it down. Anyone can do that. Approach the discussion with the honest intent of learning exactly what Catholics believe and why they believe it then perhaps actual communication and understanding may result.

Most people I encounter would rather hold onto thier misconceptions, especially former Catholics. This particular group are the most hard headed.

The only thing that seems to sway them is showing them the love of God residing within. It usually takes some time, so that means building a relationship with them.

I once had a Jehovah’s Witness friend who was fiercely anti-Catholic. By not giving in to his challenges and by constant correction and show of love, he became less so. But, being indoctrinated from birth, he still believes that the JW’s are right.

I simply tell him to go with God.

Subrosa

 

[rbarcia]

The OP didn’t mention alcohol. I think you are misunderstanding the OP.

The issue is, how can you drink damnation upon yourself if it is merely grape juice? That is, if it is merely a remembrance, how can you drink damnation upon yourself?

ok, got it. Did get confused.

Even so, God does not like hypocrisy. So even if someone believes the meal is symbolic, there are many sincere Christians who are doing this in memory of Him. They, by faith, believe that the sacrifice Christ made on the cross is real. And show this faith by participating at the table. (Notice the difference, participation in the meal shows faith in the event 2000+ years ago)

So that if they declare this faith, but then live in sin, they are being hypocrites and eating and drinking damnation on themselves, because they truly do not understand the sacrifice on the cross. Their participation declares they believe the sacrifice, but their sin denies it.

For example, a married man taking off his wedding ring when he goes on business trips, to meet women. Then puts it on when he get home. He is still an adulterer. And wearing that ring will proclaim even faster on the day of judgment. His wedding ring, however, never becomes his wife, but is a very real symbol of their love. And he is tramping on the love, not the ring when he cheats.

So Paul’s writing does not necessarily have to, nor does it, imply real presence, that is just a twist of scripture. We trample on “Christ’s sacrifice for sin” whenever we sin, it is quite simple.

 

[colliric]

That’s Revelation, right?

Yeah in relation to the question that was posed about why protestants don’t accept Catholicism as biblical. Yes my question was about the book of revelations and how it clearly supports the deuterocanon in a direct manner as it takes a doctrine straight from the book of Tobit chapter 12 verses 12-15.

The same passage of scripture which Revelations references, also supplies catholics with the biblical support on Prayers for the dead… which are then “presented to god”.

This prayers for the dead passage also is the main biblical basis for the Purgatory Doctrine too. It seems Revelation directly takes an entire doctrine from Tobit 12:13-15, one of the most important passages for 3 of the catholic faith’s distinct doctrines. Without a doubt the Apostle John was “Catholic”.

Protestants conveniently ignore Tobit 12:12 -15 or sugar coat it and say it was only biblical when the exact same doctrine occues in Revelations, several passages over. Only Martin Luther was the one with the guts to say something along the lines of “the book of revelations is Catholic and there’s nothing of Jesus in it, I want to get rid of it” and not be hypocritical or silly.

 

[lak611]

Yeah in relation to the question that was posed about why protestants don’t accept Catholicism as biblical. Yes my question was about the book of revelations and how it clearly supports the deuterocanon in a direct manner as it takes a doctrine straight from the book of Tobit chapter 12 verses 12-15.

I think you were actually originally answering a different poster, not me. I just happened to notice a typo in your post, hence my question.

 

[colliric]

I think you were actually originally answering a different poster, not me. I just happened to notice a typo in your post, hence my question.

no it wasn’t a typo, I was saying “in relation to your question” not “In revelations”. but you are right in asserting that my question was about Revelations.

Only Luther had the guts to try to get rid of it, because he knew that to keep it in the bible yet not accept the book of Tobit as scriptural, was hypocritical and downright dangerous in terms of biblical harmony(on both ends, He thought it was dangerous to keep Revelations as it supports the Deutrocanon, we think it’s dangerous to exclude Tobit).
.

 

[DaveBj]

Which begs the question…

if you are OSAS

then you obviously can NOT drink your own damnation…

…so what’s the consequence for taking communion unworthily?

snip

Thanks for bringing that up, Rachel. I had never thought about that.

files this for future reference



DaveBj

 

[Flying_Bison]

I think this is a terrific example of the faults of Protestantism.

The majority of Protestants wish to follow Christ; however, they do so in a manner acceptable to them, not Christ.

I say this with all due respect, but with protestants they find a denomination acceptable to them. Unfortuately, Jesus had ONE gospel, but their are 100-1000s of different interpretation.

The Catholic Church is bound by time and historical teachings. In this way the cannot revamp Jesus in a manner that is more palatable to a certain audience.

There are few doctorine that are so cleary defined by the early Church as the Eucharist. It was always believed to be the true body and blood of Christ. WINE and bread were believed to be changed to the real blood and body of Jesus.

Catholics Cannot explain this. We simply do it because it is what Christ taught and what the Apostles passed on and clearly stated by the Earliest Church.

Protestantism, when it runs into a doctorine that it can’t really understand or is not palatable to them, they simply ignore historical teachings and historical biblical interpretations to fit their own mindset.
This is following one’s OWN interpretation of the Gospel rather that Jesus’.

So when one doesn’t like alcohol, they simply teach that Jesus drank Grape Juice, which is historically impossible. So, who’s Gospel are these people following? Jesus’ or their own? I believe that the proof is in history.

The catholic Church does’t always understand why some things are done. Why Baptism, Why Body and Blood of Christ, Why one Church. We can only say that this is what Jesus commanded and we must folow his wants not our own.

 

[a_priori]

So Paul’s writing does not necessarily have to, nor does it, imply real presence, that is just a twist of scripture. We trample on “Christ’s sacrifice for sin” whenever we sin, it is quite simple.

Scripture twisting? Well, there seem to be two options.

Option #1.) The historical Church twisted scripture for the first 15 centuries of Christianity because they believed in the Real Presence.

Option #2.) The adherents of the Reformation twisted scripture because they espouse a latter-day extrapolation of scripture that directly contradicts the understanding of the first 15 centuries.

I’m afraid I have to side with 1500 years of Eucharistic inertia on this one and suggest that if scripture was twisted, it most likely happened in large part after October 31, 1517.

 

[rbarcia]

Scripture twisting? Well, there seem to be two options.

Option #1.) The historical Church twisted scripture for the first 15 centuries of Christianity because they believed in the Real Presence.

Option #2.) The adherents of the Reformation twisted scripture because they espouse a latter-day extrapolation of scripture that directly contradicts the understanding of the first 15 centuries.

I’m afraid I have to side with 1500 years of Eucharistic inertia on this one and suggest that if scripture was twisted, it most likely happened in large part after October 31, 1517.

You cannot claim with such absolution that the whole early church believed in real presence.

 

[kangnamdragon]

You cannot claim with such absolution that the whole early church believed in real presence.

You cannot claim that today either.

 

[psr13]

I have never attended a Protestant church which taught that Jesus drank grape juice. Yes, they use grape juice as communion, but the people know that Jesus drank wine. Protestants are not dumb, and a good number of them have actually read the Bible.

 

[lak611]

I have never attended a Protestant church which taught that Jesus drank grape juice. Yes, they use grape juice as communion, but the people know that Jesus drank wine. Protestants are not dumb, and a good number of them have actually read the Bible.

Not all Protestants use grape juice for communion. Lutherans do not. There are other denominations besides Lutherans who also use real wine.

 

[6YRSHOME]

I have never attended a Protestant church which taught that Jesus drank grape juice. Yes, they use grape juice as communion, but the people know that Jesus drank wine. Protestants are not dumb, and a good number of them have actually read the Bible.

Adventist teach that Jesus drank unfermented wine,( which is the juice boiled and reduced into a thick syrup and then kept and reconstituted with water). That is why they abstain from all alchohol although they claim it is strictly for health reasons.

 

[RachelB]

I have never attended a Protestant church which taught that Jesus drank grape juice. Yes, they use grape juice as communion, but the people know that Jesus drank wine. Protestants are not dumb, and a good number of them have actually read the Bible.

My dear husband became a Christian in an Independent Baptist church that teaches Jesus drank grape juice. The pastor will actually use Greek words to try and prove his point, which makes the whole congregation think he is right and also learned. The man himself is pompous, but probably not intentionally being deceptive. He went to an Independent Fundamentalist college which drummed these things in his head, and his teachers were taught incorrectly, blah blah.

So, yes, some Protestants do teach that. A minority, certainly. Even ones that read the Bible.

Luckily my husband was smart enough to take this sort of thing with a grain of salt.

 

[psr13]

Wow, I have been to many different churches and none have taught that.

I also did not say all Protestants use grape juice. I know that some use wine. I’ve always gone to grape juice ones, though.

 

[a_priori]

You cannot claim with such absolution that the whole early church believed in real presence.

If you are attempting to prove that Christianity’s historical understanding of Communion is that it has been merely a symbol, you have your work cut out for you.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You cannot claim with such absolution that the whole early church believed in real presence.

Yes they did. All of them. I have not found one ECF who denied Real Presence of the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[rbarcia]

Yes they did. All of them. I have not found one ECF who denied Real Presence of the Blessed Sacrament.

You have writings you interpret. You do not know what those men believed, unless you have a time machine. Like you do the Bible, you take single sentences of some of the writings and twist them to mean that. You may be able to conclude some of them believed that, but not all.