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

[Lion_of_Narnia]

…The wine of passover is new wine, which is the juice of freshly crushed grapes…

TILT

In the Holy Land, as throughout the lands of the Mediterranean, Grape Harvest is in September or October. Ditto the wine crushing for wine making.

Passover, months later, NO fresh grapes. What grapes there are are small, tiny and SOUR

Without pastuerization, without refrigeration, the ONLY way they had of preserving “grape juice” was allowing it to go it’s god given course and turn into wine.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Yeast on the outside and sugar on the inside of a grape is a divine idea! All one has to do is* crush a grape*** and it goes** it’s God given** course.
Something underhanded has to take place, such as pasteruization to** prevent** grapes from going there God given course and becoming wine!
The process of* pasteruization*** was not used on grape juice in the USA until Prohibition, a process put on the market by the Welch family. Up until that time all Methodists churches celebrated the Lord’s supper with wine. Is it not* odd*** that one of the major bishops at the time of the ruling out of wine at the Eucharist,** was a chap named Welch?** Same family, same market .

That’s from Jeff Smith (ordained Methodist minister, though I don’t know current status) from his cookbook The Frugal Gourmet Cooks with Wine

 

[Howie01]

Lion of Narnia:

Yes it is–you seem to be stuck on the shape of the Substance, and how it has varied in time and place.

You’ve yet to properly understand my question as originally posed to SingleMomMonica, and now you are keying off the response by LutheranDK, which I fully expected the next Catholic to respond to do; however, LutheranDK doesn’t understand my question either.

There’s a context for my question: the OP, and a subsequent statement made by the same poster:

**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…

When that sinks in for you, move down to the next statement by SMM:

Catholics stick soley [sic] to the Traditions of God, not the Traditions of Man, but Protestants, save a couple of its sects, cleave tightly to a Tradition of Men by using Grape Juice rather than Wine.

That is the context of my question. (ISTM context is something Catholics have a great deal of difficulty following.)

Moving on, if Monica’s statement (colored blue above) is true, there should be some inspired apostolic teaching instructing the Church to switch to circular hosts of various sizes somewhere; wouldn’t you agree?

And, since the only inspired source I’m aware of is the Scripture, where in Scripture is this directive recorded?

If it’s not recorded in Scripture, then it is in fact not a Tradition of God, but a Tradition of the Church, a Tradition of Man.

Are you following me now?

Personally, I find the OP obnoxious. In Luke’s account, Christ’s words are, ”do this in remembrance of Me.”

He doesn’t give a specific outline of the supper, He doesn’t give a frequency for how often the supper is to be celebrated, He doesn’t give a recipe for the bread, He doesn’t give a recipe for the wine.

He does none of that.

Is using grape juice a Tradition? Yes.

Are round circular hosts of various sizes a Tradition? Yes.

Is SingleMomMonica, or any Roman Catholic for that matter, correct when she says Catholics follow only the Traditions of God, and not the Traditions of Man.

** Absolutely NOT! **

And neither are Protestants who think as Monica thinks.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

You’ve yet to properly understand my question as originally posed to SingleMomMonica, …If it’s not recorded in Scripture, then it is in fact not a Tradition of God, but a Tradition of the Church, a Tradition of Man.…
…Luke’s account, Christ’s words are, ”do this in remembrance of Me.”

He doesn’t give a specific outline of the supper, He doesn’t give a frequency for how often the supper is to be celebrated, He doesn’t give a recipe for the bread, He doesn’t give a recipe for the wine…

Is using grape juice a Tradition? Yes…

Are round circular hosts of various sizes a Tradition? Yes…

Is SingleMomMonica, or any Roman Catholic for that matter, correct when she says Catholics follow only the Traditions of God, and not the Traditions of Man…

**Absolutely NOT! **

And neither are Protestants who think as Monica thinks.

“Remembrence” comes from a koine greek word "Re-present, make present’–As the Passover Feast brought Jews of subsequent generations to the time and events of Exodus, so the Eucharist brings us to the ONE, Eternal Sacrifice of Christ. Also, the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine as first foreshadowed in the offering of Melchizidek is a “chaboura”–a Jewish (or Middle Eastern) ritual meal for the institution OR the re-presentation of a Covenant–the context of such would have been understood by the Apostles.

The elements of Wine and Bread are mandatory for a chaboura–they are NOT optional–it is considered invalid without them (ref Scott Hahn, The Lamb’s Supper). Christ instituted the Eucharist with wheaten bread and fermented wine. The Church (even the Protestant schism “Lord’s Suppers”) celebrated the Eucharist with wheaten bread and fermented wine–until the temperance movement of the 1830’s when some Protestants changed to water (This is why the Mormons use water instead of grape juice), Christ instituted that form of celebration, the Church never felt at liberty to change the elements. This departure could ONLY have occured with a disbelief in the Real Presense.

Christ did NOT condemn all “traditions of men”–only those that lead people from obeying God

 

[O.S.Luke]

That’s from Jeff Smith (ordained Methodist minister, though I don’t know current status) from his cookbook The Frugal Gourmet Cooks with Wine

The Frugal Gourmet was mistaken. Welch was never a bishop because the Wesleyan Church had no bishops.

A more accurate history can be read here.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

The Frugal Gourmet was mistaken… .

Considering the sex scandal (settled out of court) that ruined his television career, his judgement is sorta suspect…

 

[Howie01]

“Remembrence” comes from a koine greek word "Re-present, make present’–As the Passover Feast brought Jews of subsequent generations to the time and events of Exodus, so the Eucharist brings us to the ONE, Eternal Sacrifice of Christ.

My friend, you are completely ignoring the point of my post, nevertheless, anamnesis, is a “remembrance,” and not a “re-presentation,” and it is not a literal “making present,” neither in the koine of the NT, nor in the pagan usage outside of the NT.

It’s certainly not a mere “memory,” but an active recollection, by enactment of the taking of the bread, and the cup to proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor 11:24, 25, 26). That is the key point of the Supper—the proclamation of Christ’s death until He comes.
Lion of Narnia:

Also, the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine as first foreshadowed in the offering of Melchizidek is a “chaboura”–a Jewish (or Middle Eastern) ritual meal for the institution OR the re-presentation of a Covenant–the context of such would have been understood by the Apostles.

The elements of Wine and Bread are mandatory for a chaboura–they are NOT optional–it is considered invalid without them (ref Scott Hahn, The Lamb’s Supper).

From Envoy Magazine, in a critique of Brown’s *The Da Vinci Code.*In fact, the meal in the course of which Christ instituted the Eucharist seems to have been a ritual meal, a chaboura, such as was customarily celebrated by the Jewish communities. . . It was, then, in this framework of a sacred Jewish meal that Christ instituted the meal of the New Covenant, as it as in the framework of the Jewish commemoration of the Pasch that He died on the Cross."

Jean Danielou, The Bible and the Liturgy (University of Notre Dame Press, 1956), (p. 160; see 142-190).The article says "seems to have been…" Seems to have been… ≠ It certainly was…

One can find a Catholic to support what one wants to support. Clearly, there’s no agreement between the Catholic source you’ve cited, and the Catholic source I’ve cited.
Lion of Narnia:

Christ instituted the Eucharist with wheaten bread and fermented wine. The Church (even the Protestant schism “Lord’s Suppers”) celebrated the Eucharist with wheaten bread and fermented wine–until the temperance movement of the 1830’s when some Protestants changed to water (This is why the Mormons use water instead of grape juice), Christ instituted that form of celebration, the Church never felt at liberty to change the elements. This departure could ONLY have occured with a disbelief in the Real Presense.

ISTM you’re equating Real Presence with transubstantiation; the two are not the same.

And please, spare me the argument that "transubstantiation is nothing but a word to describe the Real Presence."

Christ’s Real Presence is available to believers even outside of the Supper (Mt 18:20), and it’s available in the same way at the Supper, regardless of the elements.
Lion of Narnia:

Christ did NOT condemn all “traditions of men”–only those that lead people from obeying God

Which is the point of my last post.

The Protestant celebration of the Supper, sans wine, is not disobeying God; however, it’s my opinion, and the opinion of many others, that worshipping and adoring any of the elements is.

 

[fbl9]

disobeying God; however, it’s my opinion, and the opinion of many others, that worshipping and adoring any of the elements is.

it is with faith that i beleive transubstantaition,it is with this faith that i worship Christ Jesus present.I never have worshipped a mere peice of bread,once though i did mistake a mere peice of bread for Christ in a pentacostal church.But then again i was lied to when i was told that He was present in that which i recieved.

 

[Fisher]

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”?

The word “wine” is mentioned 231 times in the King James Bible. In the Old Testament there are 3 Hebrew words that are all translated as “wine”.

YAYIN: Intoxicating, fermented wine (Genesis 9:21).

TIROSH: Fresh grape juice (Proverbs 3:10).

SHAKAR: Intoxicating, intensely alcoholic, strong drink (often referred to other intoxicants than wine) (Numbers 28:7).

The New Testament, translated from Greek, uses the word “wine” for both fermented and unfermented drink. There are 2 Greek words for wine the New Testament.

OINOS: Wine (generic) - Matthew 9:17 – unfermented, Ephesians 5:18 – fermented.

GLEUKOS: Sweet wine, fresh juice (Acts 2:13).

The context reveals the type of wine as in Proverbs 20:1, ”Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise”. If grape juice is substituted for the word wine, the verse doesn’t make sense.

The Bible is full of prohibitions about using alcoholic wine. It was forbidden for priests and for those who took the Nazarite vow. It was forbidden for kings and princes (Proverbs 31:4-6) and pronounced woe upon anyone who provided his neighbor alcoholic wine and made him drunk (Habakkuk 2:15). It would be inconsistent for the Bible to speak against alcoholic wine and then have Jesus ignore it.

What Does the Bible Say About Drinking?

Proverbs 23:29-35
29 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?
30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.
31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.
32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.
33 Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things.
34 Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast.
35 They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again.

I know, I know, you guys that drink alcohol never drink too much do you? Sure you don’t. I was around people who drank this stuff a lot before I was saved and I know from experience that someone who drinks almost always does it to get a buzz from it. Do your eyes behold strange women when you drink? Do you utter perverse things, like curse words, or dirty jokes when you drink? I am convinced that most of the fornication going on out there is at least partially attributable to alcohol consumption. Even the most worldly people consider it a sin product. Keep justifying it in your mind, but remember this verse:

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

[MarieCB]

I can’t think of two items which would be more ubiquitous in ancient Jewish meals than bread and wine. I’ve always felt that what became a weekly ritual started out more along the lines of “Remember me and what I’m about to do every time you eat bread, every time you drink wine. Don’t forget. Make this memory a central part of your every day, something that’s ever at the front of your mind.”

 

[Bill_Pick]

The Bible says to refrain from all appearance of evil. So because of all the evil that alcohol has caused we do not want contribute to that evil.

Do non-cathloic know what the bible has to say about drinking wine with out looking I,l bet we have over 10 verse that said its ok to drink wine and a lot that say do not get DRUNK off my head I remember one its 1Tim5;23. drinking a little wine is good for you.And its in the Bible if you care to look,but please do not tell that to any baptist,smile

 

[O.S.Luke]

I think this thread has digressed into much ado about nothing.

Historically and liturgically, some Protestants have certainly been guilty of using “fake” wine. In fairness, buying hosts from church supply houses is buying bordeline “fake” bread (it tastes more like styrofoam than bread). Why not have every parish make its own bread? It would certainly be more “the work of our hands.”

To quote one of my Catholic colleagues: “The there are two miracles at the Eucharist: (1) the Real Presence; and (2) believing those wafers are really bread.”

Maybe we can all agree on that; this afternoon, you can come and have a pint with me and we’ll drink to Francis Bouyer and Dom Gregory Dix (two eminent sacramental scholars).

O+

 

[O.S.Luke]

Maybe we can all agree on that; this afternoon, you can come and have a pint with me and we’ll drink to Francis Bouyer and Dom Gregory Dix (two eminent sacramental scholars).

O+

I’ll be darned… maybe we DO agree on something!

 

[RobbyS]

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.

Avoiding the fact is tht bread and wine, like olives, were staples at that time. Avoiding the use of wine in communion services is part of an effort to make the service as unlike
the mass as possible. It also fits the prohibitionism that was so strong among Protestants during the 19th Century. The Puritans didn’t feel that way: not uncommon to have a pint of rum with meals and, for the wealthier, “port”.

 

[RobbyS]

My friend, you are completely ignoring the point of my post, nevertheless, anamnesis, is a “remembrance,” and not a “re-presentation,” and it is not a literal “making present,” neither in the koine of the NT, nor in the pagan usage outside of the NT.

It’s certainly not a mere “memory,” but an active recollection, by enactment of the taking of the bread, and the cup to proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor 11:24, 25, 26). That is the key point of the Supper—the proclamation of Christ’s death until He comes.

From Envoy Magazine, in a critique of Brown’s *The Da Vinci Code.*In fact, the meal in the course of which Christ instituted the Eucharist seems to have been a ritual meal, a chaboura, such as was customarily celebrated by the Jewish communities. . . It was, then, in this framework of a sacred Jewish meal that Christ instituted the meal of the New Covenant, as it as in the framework of the Jewish commemoration of the Pasch that He died on the Cross."

Jean Danielou, The Bible and the Liturgy (University of Notre Dame Press, 1956), (p. 160; see 142-190).The article says "seems to have been…" Seems to have been… ? It certainly was…

One can find a Catholic to support what one wants to support. Clearly, there’s no agreement between the Catholic source you’ve cited, and the Catholic source I’ve cited.

ISTM you’re equating Real Presence with transubstantiation; the two are not the same.

And please, spare me the argument that "transubstantiation is nothing but a word to describe the Real Presence."

Christ’s Real Presence is available to believers even outside of the Supper (Mt 18:20), and it’s available in the same way at the Supper, regardless of the elements.

Which is the point of my last post.

The Protestant celebration of the Supper, sans wine, is not disobeying God; however, it’s my opinion, and the opinion of many others, that worshipping and adoring any of the elements is.

Isn’t the point of transsubstantiation that we are NOT worshipping the elements, but the Lord Himself?

 

[jblake]

RobbyS;:

Isn’t the point of transsubstantiation that we are NOT worshipping the elements, but the Lord Himself?

Transubstantiation was made an essential doctrine in 1215.
Adoration of the communion wafer followed in 1220.

But then, all of the Early Church Fathers considered the Eucharist to be symbolic.

jonathon

 

[ufamtobie]

Transubstantiation was made an essential doctrine in 1215.

Adoration of the communion wafer followed in 1220.

Jblake,

You are Wrong, Jesus Christ himself said that this IS my body this IS my blood. Jesus Christ did not say that this is my symbolic body and my symbolic blood now did he.

St. Paul also speaks about the reality of Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-30:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

jblake, Can a symbol realy make many ill and some have died because they ate unworthily? NO! But eating the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ/Eucharist unworthily can

Ufamtobie

 

[jblake]

ufamtobie;:

You are Wrong, Jesus Christ himself said that this IS my body this IS my blood. Jesus Christ did not say that this is my symbolic body and my symbolic blood now did he.

He was talking in symbolic terms.

Can a symbol really make many ill and some have died because they ate unworthily? NO!

A symbol can have that effect. (Study that religions that were created by Roman Catholic Priests, for examples of just how powerful belief in a symbol can be.)

jonathon

 

[Bill_Pick]

He was talking in symbolic terms.

A symbol can have that effect. (Study that religions that were created by Roman Catholic Priests, for examples of just how powerful belief in a symbol can be.)

jonathon

Why did Mark and matt say it is a symbolic. How many thime did Jesus talk in symbolic and the aposle talk about in the other gosples. I will wait foe you reply

 

[MarieCB]

Jblake,

You are Wrong, Jesus Christ himself said that this IS my body this IS my blood. Jesus Christ did not say that this is my symbolic body and my symbolic blood now did he.

Jesus also said that he was bread, water, a sheepfold gate, a shepherd, and a vine. Yet we have no difficulty in realizing that he was speaking metaphorically at those times.