Protestant Innovation - Protestants please explain your Innovated Tradition of using Grape Juice rather than Wine for Holy Communion

[Cat]

I know not ALL Protestants drink, but many do. Would they be willing to drink if they really believed it meant their soul? I don’t expect the ones I see buying beer at the grocery store to convert to Catholicism just because they drink, and I don’t expect my giving up a glass of wine at an installation banquet to influence them, either.

I understand the point you’re trying to make, Cat, but I find it difficult to believe that people would refuse to pursue the truth just because they’ve been taught that drinking alcohol is a sin. To be honest, what’s really difficult for me to understand is that Protestants ever started teaching that drinking is a sin at all. No doubt, drinking alcohol to excess is a sin; (drinking *anything *to excess is a form of gluttony and/or avarice). But you’re saying that just social drinking is a “major” stumbling block for people? It’s not that I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, but can’t you see why for some of us that’s hard to understand?

I’m glad you had a great time with your home church, but why would the people there (for example) assume that if we added alcohol to all that fun and fellowship, it would become evil or something?

I think you have to look at history to understand why Protestants started teaching that drinking is a sin.

It is a reality that some people become drunk when they drink. For most people, this involves consuming an excess of alcohol, but that “excess” varies for everyone. Some people can drink a few six-packs and remain sober (at least visibly), while others are snockered after a few beers. It depends on size, weight, body chemistry, etc.

So people get drunk. and then they do stupid, vile, and sometimes sinful things.

Nowadays, those sort of things are just accepted by the public. So you fall off your barstool and sprawl flat on the bar floor. Ha ha ha! Funny! So you say stupid things and slur your words and make dumb jokes. Hee hee hee–this was even funny on the rock-solid family show, “Andy Griffith.” So you throw up all night. Oh, well, just have a hangover remedy in the morning and remember the good time you had getting so sick. So you drive through a red light and kill a high school senior at 10:00 in the morning. Realistically, the murderer will receive a year or two in jail, because the judge knows that everyone else in the courtroom (except the evangelical Protestants) has driven buzzed before and probably will again, and this kind of tragedy could happen to anyone, including him or her, so we go light on our drunken murderers who deserve torture and then more torture before they are hanged.

I think THAT’S what made Protestants condemn alcohol. Although it can be used moderately, all too often, it isn’t used moderately. Health is destroyed, families are broken, children are abused, babies-in-utero are damaged irreparably, jobs are lost, women are raped, and people are murdered, all because of alcohol abuse.

Back in the beginnings of Protestantism, I think this kind of abuse happened even more than today, and I think a lot of women and children were left desolate when the husband/father made one too many trips to the local Bier Garten or pub for a “pint” and ended up in a brawl or involved in some other altercation that ended up with the loss of his health and/or life. The Protestants looked at that tragedy, shook their heads and said, “Why don’t people just stop drinking? How can something that is supposedly innocent cause such awful consequences?”

Look back in history and see some of the really bad consequences of drinking alcohol. Some of the vices that often came along with social drinking were just too much for the Protestant Fathers to stomach. Maybe it didn’t happen this way over in Italy, where wine was part of the daily meals in families. But in England, it wasn’t quite the same atmosphere, and drinking left a lot of women and children homeless and destitute. No wonder the Fathers of the Protestant churches condemned alcohol as sin. THEY were the ones who had to try to take care of those helpless women and children, and try to keep them from prostitution and early death.

When you think about it, that’s what ALL sin is–something GOOD that is twisted into something that has evil consequences. E.g., sex is good and given to us by God. In the context of a marriage, it is a wonderful gift. But outside of marriage, it is evil.

Another example is food. Used properly, food is a good thing that keeps us healthy and strong. But used to excess, food destroys a human body.

Or possessions. There is nothing sinful about owning possessions. But excessive desire for possessions, or stealing to acquire possessions–these are sins.

Likewise for alcohol–it’s a drug that can make people relaxed. That’s good. But too much of the drug–that’s bad.

I think perhaps Protestants decided that the risk of alcohol use becoming bad was just too great. And I don’t think they were all that far off in this thinking. Think about it–today, alcohol is a factor in 50% of all car accidents. If you had a lottery in your state with odds of 50/50, you would probably play it! I know I would! Those are darned good odds! And if you knew that a certain activity would result in a 50/50 chance of dying, you probably wouldn’t risk that activity. I wouldn’t! One out a million odds–that’s OK. But 50/50–no thanks!

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I think you have to look at history to understand why Protestants started teaching that drinking is a sin.

It is a reality that some people become drunk when they drink. For most people, this involves consuming an excess of alcohol, but that “excess” varies for everyone. Some people can drink a few six-packs and remain sober (at least visibly), while others are snockered after a few beers. It depends on size, weight, body chemistry, etc.

So people get drunk. and then they do stupid, vile, and sometimes sinful things.

Nowadays, those sort of things are just accepted by the public. So you fall off your barstool and sprawl flat on the bar floor. Ha ha ha! Funny! So you say stupid things and slur your words and make dumb jokes. Hee hee hee–this was even funny on the rock-solid family show, “Andy Griffith.” So you throw up all night. Oh, well, just have a hangover remedy in the morning and remember the good time you had getting so sick. So you drive through a red light and kill a high school senior at 10:00 in the morning. Realistically, the murderer will receive a year or two in jail, because the judge knows that everyone else in the courtroom (except the evangelical Protestants) has driven buzzed before and probably will again, and this kind of tragedy could happen to anyone, including him or her, so we go light on our drunken murderers who deserve torture and then more torture before they are hanged.

I think THAT’S what made Protestants condemn alcohol. Although it can be used moderately, all too often, it isn’t used moderately. Health is destroyed, families are broken, children are abused, babies-in-utero are damaged irreparably, jobs are lost, women are raped, and people are murdered, all because of alcohol abuse.

Back in the beginnings of Protestantism, I think this kind of abuse happened even more than today, and I think a lot of women and children were left desolate when the husband/father made one too many trips to the local Bier Garten or pub for a “pint” and ended up in a brawl or involved in some other altercation that ended up with the loss of his health and/or life. The Protestants looked at that tragedy, shook their heads and said, “Why don’t people just stop drinking? How can something that is supposedly innocent cause such awful consequences?”

Look back in history and see some of the really bad consequences of drinking alcohol. Some of the vices that often came along with social drinking were just too much for the Protestant Fathers to stomach. Maybe it didn’t happen this way over in Italy, where wine was part of the daily meals in families. But in England, it wasn’t quite the same atmosphere, and drinking left a lot of women and children homeless and destitute. No wonder the Fathers of the Protestant churches condemned alcohol as sin. THEY were the ones who had to try to take care of those helpless women and children, and try to keep them from prostitution and early death.

When you think about it, that’s what ALL sin is–something GOOD that is twisted into something that has evil consequences. E.g., sex is good and given to us by God. In the context of a marriage, it is a wonderful gift. But outside of marriage, it is evil.

Another example is food. Used properly, food is a good thing that keeps us healthy and strong. But used to excess, food destroys a human body.

Or possessions. There is nothing sinful about owning possessions. But excessive desire for possessions, or stealing to acquire possessions–these are sins.

Likewise for alcohol–it’s a drug that can make people relaxed. That’s good. But too much of the drug–that’s bad.

I think perhaps Protestants decided that the risk of alcohol use becoming bad was just too great. And I don’t think they were all that far off in this thinking. Think about it–today, alcohol is a factor in 50% of all car accidents. If you had a lottery in your state with odds of 50/50, you would probably play it! I know I would! Those are darned good odds! And if you knew that a certain activity would result in a 50/50 chance of dying, you probably wouldn’t risk that activity. I wouldn’t! One out a million odds–that’s OK. But 50/50–no thanks!

were you have made some valid points you are laying the blame on alcohol which is not the problem the problem is man. If you took away all the alcohol in the world it would not change these issues. those that abuse alcohol would find some other intoxicant to abuse. up to and including things you would never expect.

oh and by the way did you really mean to say that you would torture people? were I have no problem with the capital punishment I do not think that torture is the correct response. It just does not sound like the Christian thing to do.

 

[IowaJay]

Jesus would have been aware of stories in the Hebrew Bible about alcohol abuse, like Noah getting drunk and falling asleep naked. Did he use those stories to tell people to not drink alcohol?

Of course not - he turned water into wine at Cana and used wine at the Last Supper.

 

[George_Everson]

HI

It’s interesting that you should ask this question. A few years ago a friend of mine who is presently in an Anglican church asked me why we used grape juice instead of wine since wine was what was used by Jesus at the Last Supper.

It took me several weeks to track down a definitive answer and if correct it had nothing to do with the Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura. It had everything to do with Charles Finney, a noted 19th century evangalist/pastor. Finney was one of those who started the “temperance movement” which eventually led to Prohibition.

The problem was that Finney saw a growing problem in drunkeness which by his time was epidemic in the U.S. cities. Finney felt that adding wine in communion to the mix only made things worse so he started encouraging the use of non-fermented grape juice in the sacrament. Incidentally, that is one of the reasons we have Welch’s Grape Juice today. Welch’s found a way to remove the element in grape juice that caused it to ferment. Unfortunately, Finney’s ideas were later accepted as “gospel” by other evangelicals. Sola Scriptura I assure you had nothing to do with Finney’s ideas, but rather an attempt at social reformation/engineering (take your pick).

Sincerely,

George Everson,
Lynchburg, Virginia

 

[Cat]

were you have made some valid points you are laying the blame on alcohol which is not the problem the problem is man. If you took away all the alcohol in the world it would not change these issues. those that abuse alcohol would find some other intoxicant to abuse. up to and including things you would never expect.

oh and by the way did you really mean to say that you would torture people? were I have no problem with the capital punishment I do not think that torture is the correct response. It just does not sound like the Christian thing to do.

I agree that alcohol is not the problem, although I think it’s very interesting to observe the efforts many people will go to drink this “perfectly innocent” beverage. When I was in college in 1979, the region was beset with a terrible blizzard. (Mayor Bilandic lost the election over the snow pileup in Chicago.) Schools, including our college, were closed for a week, and a day after the closing announcement, the mayor of our college town CLOSED DOWN all the bar and liquor stores and banned the sale of liquor from other stores and outlets. College kids were risking their LIVES to drive or walk to buy liquor. IMO, that’s just too much power for a drink to possess.

I think that those who have killed someone while driving under the influence should be confronted with what they have done. It was not “an accident.” They deliberately ingested a substance into their bodies that is known to impair judgement, and instead of taking the responsibility to get someone else to drive them home, they made a decision that resulted in the painful death of a perfectly innocent person who just happened to get in the way of their drunken careen.

I think they should be shown photos and slides and videos of the person they have killed, along with the family members. I think they should be made to face the horror and devastation that their self-indulgence has caused. I think they should have to talk to all the family members who want to talk with them, and be made to listen to any name-calling or accusations or curses that the family members wish to hurl upon them. (In some cases, Christan families will offer forgiveness.)

Since it is often the case that drunk drivers commit the SAME selfish and cruel act AGAIN, I think it is in keeping with the teachings of the Catholic Church to remove this threat to society through an execution.

I’ll bet my approach would bring about the very quick cessation of drunk driving in the U.S.

Here is a link to a touching article about one of those innocent victims of such a monster, who had apparently been arrested for drunk driving several times in the past (repeat offender = threat to society = permissible to execute):

wsaw.com/home/headlines/39290582.html#

Other than execution, the only other logical and sensible solution to drunk drivers is to use them for research purposes, to try to figure out why some people abuse drink and terrify society, while others are happy to enjoy a glass of wine with dinner.

 

[jblake]

mercygate;:

Is this for real? I can’t believe the kosher folks would sit still for that.

Up until roughly 20 years ago, vegans would happily drink kosher wine, because it was vegan. However that changed, and now vegans either don’t drink wine, or else ask so many technical questions, that anybody else would confuse them for being a sommelier.

And Communion wine must be made from nothing but nothing but grapes.

Traditionally, vegans have rejected sacramental wine, because it is an animal by-product.

jonathon

 

[jblake]

Parce Domine;:

To be honest, what’s really difficult for me to understand is that Protestants ever started teaching that drinking is a sin at all.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth century, to describe the united states as a nation of drunk drunkards, would have been understating the case. To give you an idea of how extensive the problem was, imagine that in contemporary united states instead of drinking a cup of coffee, everyone had an alcoholic beverage of the same size. Then replace every coffee bar and cart with a tavern or place that sold poured alcoholic beverages to go.

But you’re saying that just social drinking is a “major” stumbling block for people? It’s not that I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, but can’t you see why for some of us that’s hard to understand?

For an alcoholic, social drinking is the surest and fastest way to get to a state where one is never sober.

jonathon

 

[erigby27]

(repeat offender = threat to society = permissible to execute)

That’s not really what the Church says. The Catholic Church says that if there is no other alternative to protect society from such a threat, then execution is permissible. Today there is basically no instance where execution would be permissible.

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

 

[fbl9]

FBL I wasn’t trying to be nasty honestly and I certainly wasn’t implying ONLY fruit of the vine as in no big deal. You need to re-read my post. I said Jesus still referred to it as fruit of the vine even after HE supposedly consecrated it. Meaning that it’s clear Jesus recognized it as being wine or grape juice whatever it was. I wasn’t downplaying it at all.

But the word wine is never used in reference to communion. Christ calls the cup the new covenant in HIS blood. So the covenant is in HIS blood and the cup represents it. But after Christ supposedly changes it to blood HE calls it fruit of the vine and states HE will not drink again until HE drinks it new in Heaven with HIS disciples. If fruit of the vine is wine or grape juice then Christ didn’t make a physical change to blood. Unless HE was calling HIS blood wine

And I didn’t forget the Pope supposedly takes his orders from Jesus. What I’m saying is if you knock Protestants for using grape juice for good reasons, then you have to look at the Pope’s actions also and his reasoning. If it came from Christ then it just shows that Christ is just as sensitive as Protestants are trying to be by using grape juice.

NDfan the word was HASTY not Nasty…lol…
Right He is saying the contents of the cup is His blood,it is a matter of FAITH not senses…

 

[spoiltvictorian]

I think you have to look at history to understand why Protestants started teaching that drinking is a sin.

It is a reality that some people become drunk when they drink. For most people, this involves consuming an excess of alcohol, but that “excess” varies for everyone. Some people can drink a few six-packs and remain sober (at least visibly), while others are snockered after a few beers. It depends on size, weight, body chemistry, etc.

So people get drunk. and then they do stupid, vile, and sometimes sinful things.

Nowadays, those sort of things are just accepted by the public. So you fall off your barstool and sprawl flat on the bar floor. Ha ha ha! Funny! So you say stupid things and slur your words and make dumb jokes. Hee hee hee–this was even funny on the rock-solid family show, “Andy Griffith.” So you throw up all night. Oh, well, just have a hangover remedy in the morning and remember the good time you had getting so sick. So you drive through a red light and kill a high school senior at 10:00 in the morning. Realistically, the murderer will receive a year or two in jail, because the judge knows that everyone else in the courtroom (except the evangelical Protestants) has driven buzzed before and probably will again, and this kind of tragedy could happen to anyone, including him or her, so we go light on our drunken murderers who deserve torture and then more torture before they are hanged.

I think THAT’S what made Protestants condemn alcohol. Although it can be used moderately, all too often, it isn’t used moderately. Health is destroyed, families are broken, children are abused, babies-in-utero are damaged irreparably, jobs are lost, women are raped, and people are murdered, all because of alcohol abuse.

Back in the beginnings of Protestantism, I think this kind of abuse happened even more than today, and I think a lot of women and children were left desolate when the husband/father made one too many trips to the local Bier Garten or pub for a “pint” and ended up in a brawl or involved in some other altercation that ended up with the loss of his health and/or life. The Protestants looked at that tragedy, shook their heads and said, “Why don’t people just stop drinking? How can something that is supposedly innocent cause such awful consequences?”

Look back in history and see some of the really bad consequences of drinking alcohol. Some of the vices that often came along with social drinking were just too much for the Protestant Fathers to stomach. Maybe it didn’t happen this way over in Italy, where wine was part of the daily meals in families. But in England, it wasn’t quite the same atmosphere, and drinking left a lot of women and children homeless and destitute. No wonder the Fathers of the Protestant churches condemned alcohol as sin. THEY were the ones who had to try to take care of those helpless women and children, and try to keep them from prostitution and early death.

When you think about it, that’s what ALL sin is–something GOOD that is twisted into something that has evil consequences. E.g., sex is good and given to us by God. In the context of a marriage, it is a wonderful gift. But outside of marriage, it is evil.

Another example is food. Used properly, food is a good thing that keeps us healthy and strong. But used to excess, food destroys a human body.

Or possessions. There is nothing sinful about owning possessions. But excessive desire for possessions, or stealing to acquire possessions–these are sins.

Likewise for alcohol–it’s a drug that can make people relaxed. That’s good. But too much of the drug–that’s bad.

I think perhaps Protestants decided that the risk of alcohol use becoming bad was just too great. And I don’t think they were all that far off in this thinking. Think about it–today, alcohol is a factor in 50% of all car accidents. If you had a lottery in your state with odds of 50/50, you would probably play it! I know I would! Those are darned good odds! And if you knew that a certain activity would result in a 50/50 chance of dying, you probably wouldn’t risk that activity. I wouldn’t! One out a million odds–that’s OK. But 50/50–no thanks!

It’s a sad worldview. These Protestants don’t believe in the Real Presence, so they think alcohol is all downside and no upside. They can’t think of why anyone should drink wine because for them, Communion means nothing. Also, it shows they have eyes only for this life and not the life to come. Also, as Belloc says, alcoholism would end (and speech and poetry improve) if we restricted ourselves to drinks existing before the Reformation, because of course the concentrated drinks of the industrial age are hard for most to handle.

Even your own post has strange biases in it. You don’t account for how alcohol is a gift to the poor (Proverbs 31.) You wish punishments on hapless drunk drivers that really should be reserved for premeditating serial murderers, etc. You confuse alcohol being present in 50% of accidents with alcohol causing 50% of accidents, and with alcohol having a 50% chance of causing an accident! I guess you are trying to paint the picture realistically, but it’s an unreasonable and doctrinally poor picture.

 

[SyCarl]

They can’t think of why anyone should drink wine because for them, Communion means nothing.

While I believe Jesus is really present in Communion, although not as in transubstantiation, I think it is a gross unfairness to say that Communion means nothing for those who don’t. They still remember and meditate on Christ’s sacrifice.

 

[IrishDude45]

My grandparent’s church (churches of Christ) usees grape juice I think because they are terrified of alcohol. (We have to hide the whiskey when they come over ).
This topic always confused me as well because they do pride themselves on “doing everything by the Good Book”. Our Lord Himself drank wine and commanded us to as well, don’t see why they have a problem with it.

Pax Vobiscum

 

[spoiltvictorian]

While I believe Jesus is really present in Communion, although not as in transubstantiation, I think it is a gross unfairness to say that Communion means nothing for those who don’t. They still remember and meditate on Christ’s sacrifice.

I guess they find it sentimental. These days sentimental and meaningful are similar words, e.g., I had a meaningful dinner with my wife Saturday. I suppose I should have said something like they think it “empty” or “merely a commandment to obey vs. a gift.”

 

[NDfan]

NDfan the word was HASTY not Nasty…lol…
Right He is saying the contents of the cup is His blood,it is a matter of FAITH not senses…

FBL I must be blind my brother. I thought you wrote nasty. Now that’s funny

Actually Christ is identifying the cup as the covenant in HIS blood. The new covenant is in Christ’s blood symbolized by the cup. And I certainly understand it’s faith no doubt. That’s why I say transubstantiation is a false doctrine. It tries to wrap definition around something that can’t be defined. And the definition it uses expanded on by Aquinas just can’t be done.

 

[fbl9]

FBL I must be blind my brother. I thought you wrote nasty. Now that’s funny

Actually Christ is identifying the cup as the covenant in HIS blood. The new covenant is in Christ’s blood symbolized by the cup. And I certainly understand it’s faith no doubt. That’s why I say transubstantiation is a false doctrine. It tries to wrap definition around something that can’t be defined. And the definition it uses expanded on by Aquinas just can’t be done.

take iron for example,it has substance and qualities,we can feel that it is hard,we can see it too.but we can see what iron is only it’s qualities.And it is these qualities that can change ie heat it and it becomes soft instead of hard yet it remains iron.Therefore the qualities differ from the substance or we would not be able to change one without changing the other.And if we can change the qualities without changing the other certainly God can change the substance without changing the qualities…

thus by your standard"trying to wrap a defination around something that can not be defined is false" you would have to also apply this same logic to the Trinity and the hardest one of all the God-man(Jesus)…

 

[NDfan]

take iron for example,it has substance and qualities,we can feel that it is hard,we can see it too.but we can see what iron is only it’s qualities.And it is these qualities that can change ie heat it and it becomes soft instead of hard yet it remains iron.Therefore the qualities differ from the substance or we would not be able to change one without changing the other.And if we can change the qualities without changing the other certainly God can change the substance without changing the qualities…

Ahh but what you miss here is the church claims the substance itself changes. This is the problem with Thomistic Thesis. Yes you can heat iron and change the way it appears i.e. making it soft. But the substance is still iron. You only altered the substance and now the accidents are reflective of this change. Instead of iron feeling hard, the substance by heat induction is now soft. But the substance is still iron.

Aquinas in using Aristotle’s model stated that the substance completely changed while the accidents did not. According to the council of Trent the substance of bread and wine completely departs to make room for the substance of flesh and blood. The opposition claimed that you can’t have a change in substance without a change in the accidents. Meaning that if you have a banana then the accidents will be that of a banana. It will be yellow, soft, smell and feel like a banana etc. etc. But if you claim that by consecration the banana becomes an orange then the accidents will be reflective of an orange. You can’t tell someone that they are eating an orange when all the accidents point to the substance of a banana.

Now Aquinas is his rebuttal stated that the accidents of the bread and wine were held in place by a miracle. Ok so we’re dealing with a miracle. I’m good with that. But if we test the substance then it can’t be that of bread and wine because those substances are completely gone. The subtance has to be that of flesh and blood with accidents of bread and wine. Now here’s the kicker. If you test the bread after consecration you still have the substance of gluten present in the bread and the substance of alcohol in the wine. Point of fact many folks with celiac disease cannot partake in the bread because of the gluten. Many alcoholics will refrain from the cup for obvious reasons. If the substance really changed to flesh and blood then celiacs and alcoholics should not have a problem. If you go to your church this weekend FBL, ask the priest if the substance of alcohol still exists in the wine after consecration. He most assuredly will say yes. Same for the gluten in the bread. If that’s the case then we do not have transubstantiation because transubstantiation means a literal change of substance. The gluten and alcohol substances by definition can’t be there. So we’re left with 1 of 2 possibilities. Either the bread and wine are symbolic. Or Christ is present with the bread and wine which is what Luther claimed.

thus by your standard"trying to wrap a defination around something that can not be defined is false" you would have to also apply this same logic to the Trinity and the hardest one of all the God-man(Jesus)…

I’m not using my standard. I’m using the church’s definition of transubstantiation and the method in which they tried to define it. It simply doesn’t work. You can’t then just apply a universal falsehood to the Trinity or Jesus as GOD incarnate because you invalidate transubstantiation. Nor am I proposing to do that.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Jesus would have been aware of stories in the Hebrew Bible about alcohol abuse, like Noah getting drunk and falling asleep naked. Did he use those stories to tell people to not drink alcohol?

Of course not - he turned water into wine at Cana and used wine at the Last Supper.

That’s a great point IowaJay & it totally negates some Protestant Claims that the wine used prior to the 1800’s was alcohol free, so actually grape juice!

I’d forgotten about that passage in the Old Testatment re: Noah getting drunk off the fresh wine after they finally made it out of the Ark after the Flood.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Well, whatever he meant, it was some kind of romantic ascertion. Considering the way it is stated in scripture, how do we know that he was not saying that his blood was to become wine and his body to become bread?:juggle:

We know because of the rest of the New Testament writings and all the Early Christians writings that Christ meant what He said, that the elements of Bread and Wine become His actual Body and Blood.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

HI

It’s interesting that you should ask this question. A few years ago a friend of mine who is presently in an Anglican church asked me why we used grape juice instead of wine since wine was what was used by Jesus at the Last Supper.

It took me several weeks to track down a definitive answer and if correct it had nothing to do with the Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura. It had everything to do with Charles Finney, a noted 19th century evangalist/pastor. Finney was one of those who started the “temperance movement” which eventually led to Prohibition.

The problem was that Finney saw a growing problem in drunkeness which by his time was epidemic in the U.S. cities. Finney felt that adding wine in communion to the mix only made things worse so he started encouraging the use of non-fermented grape juice in the sacrament. Incidentally, that is one of the reasons we have Welch’s Grape Juice today. Welch’s found a way to remove the element in grape juice that caused it to ferment. Unfortunately, Finney’s ideas were later accepted as “gospel” by other evangelicals. Sola Scriptura I assure you had nothing to do with Finney’s ideas, but rather an attempt at social reformation/engineering (take your pick).

Sincerely,

George Everson,
Lynchburg, Virginia

Hi George,

Thanks for sharing!

Now that you know why Protestants of today do not use wine as Christ taught us for Holy Communion, has it caused you to question remaining in your Protestant church that is not Biblically based, but rather based on a man’s ideas in the 19th Century? Are you considering attending a more Biblical Based Church like for example Holy Cross Catholic Church?

Didn’t the Anglican Church in Lynchburg become an Orthodox Church? Even the Orthodox Church uses the element of wine for Holy Communion and has always taught and still teaches in the True Presence of Jesus, Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist.

 

[LutheranDK]

The Protestants I’ve spoken to, pride themselves with their Doctrine of Sola Scriptura…that everything they do comes straight out of the Bible and they accuse us Catholic of all kinds of 'Innovations".

By only reading the Bible, how in the world do Protestants defend their innovation of using Grape Juice rather than Wine during their Communion services? The Bible is clear during all accounts of the Last Supper that bread and WINE were used by Jesus, not bread and Grape Juice.

Please explain how you as a Protestant can hold at the same time the belief that everything you do is from the Bible and yet you are practicing a Tradition not found in the Bible by using Grape Juice rather than Wine for Holy Communion.

This is not a Tradition that was taught by any of the Apostles. Do you simply not realize that by using Grape Juice you are clinging onto a “Tradition of Man”?

I will explain, just after I point out that
“protestants” are not one single group that has the same practices everywhere!!!
ahem…just getting tired of pointing that out time and again…

Now, those who practise sometimes point out (if they refer to the Scriptures at all…) that in NT times, “wine” described a whole lot of things - including what we call wine, but also plain grape juice.

I, as some might have guessed from my earlier posts, reject that practise, and the argument, as a plain and simple attempt to justify biblically what was not instituted because of the Bible.
We know how the Passover Meal was celebrated, and that was with wine - as in WINE, not grape juice. So I reject that fallacy, and does not want to be pigeonholed with these people…