When did some protestants switch to grape juice for communion services?

[DavidFilmer]

Obviously the first protestants continued to use alcoholic wine in their communion services. I’m interested in who invented the idea that grape juice should be used instead.

As far as I can tell, the Wesleyan Church (invented in 1843) insisted on grape juice (“non-alcoholic wine”) from the beginning. Dr. Thomas Welch was a Wesleyan, so this may have led to his interest in pasteurizing grape juice, but he did not develop this technology until 25 years later. This marked the beginning of the commercial grape juice industry. Before this, it would have been somewhat difficult (though still possible) to secure a year-round supply of grape juice.

The Wesleyan Church is derived from Methodist Episcopal Church, a precursor to the modern United Methodist Church. I know that Methodists today use grape juice, but I can’t determine when that started.

Does anyone know who invented the practice of using wine in communion services?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Does anyone know who invented the practice of using wine in communion services?

Uh, Jesus?

That’s what happens when the brain outpaces fingers. Obviously the question should be:

Does anyone know who invented the practice of using grape juice instead of wine in communion services?

FWIW, Dr. Welch perfected his process for pasteurizing grape juice in 1869. He first marketed it to other churches as “Dr. Welch’s Unfermented Wine.” Today, of course, it is Welch’s Grape Juice. Welch was a dentist.

 

[cmodrmac]

we use Wine

 

[ComplineSanFran]

we use Wine

I don’t know any Anglicans who do not use wine in the Eucharist. Nor Lutherans.

 

[BartholomewB]

Some synagogues, even Orthodox synagogues, similarly use grape juice instead of wine for the Kiddush. I don’t know when that first started, but it ought to be possible to find out who did it first – whether the churches are copying the synagogues or the other way around.

 

[Songcatcher]

My Lutheran church switched to grape juice in the 70’s around the time that alcoholism was getting a lot of attention as a disease. There was a large AA group who used our church for meetings and our Pastor became very concerned about the difficulties recovering alcoholics have in remaining sober. He felt using wine would exclude or embarrass those members in recovery who could not, or should not, partake.

I know that doesn’t really answer your question, I just thought you might be interested in one church’s reasoning. Also, I think the practice may have generally become more widespread in the 70’s for the same reasons our church switched.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Also, I think the practice may have generally become more widespread in the 70’s for the same reasons our church switched.

The Catholic Church has a doctrinal way to get around that problem: the teaching of Concomitance. This maintains that Our Lord is fully present (in both Body and Blood) under both species (both bread and wine). If you receive either, you fully receive (you can’t get half of Jesus). So anyone is free to skip the chalice (if it is offered). Nobody makes assumptions about why - quite a lot of people skip the chalice simply because they don’t like the idea of drinking from a communal cup.

But it’s interesting that you said a Lutheran church had switched to grape juice. I would not have thought that would be allowed in the Lutheran communion.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I don’t know any Anglicans who do not use wine in the Eucharist.

John Wesley was an Anglican priest

But I don’t know if the Methodist practice of using grape juice goes back to him.

Baptists and many pentecostals use grape juice. So that means a substantial majority of protestants use grape juice. But I can’t figure out who invented this practice.

 

[phil19034]

John Wesley was an Anglican priest

But I don’t know if the Methodist practice of using grape juice goes back to him.

Baptists and many pentecostals use grape juice. So that means a substantial majority of protestants use grape juice. But I can’t figure out who invented this practice.

based on the Welch’s website, it sounds like Dr. Welch and his protestant community in Vineland, NJ started it.

welchs.com/about-us/our-story/our-history

 

[DavidFilmer]

based on the Welch’s website, it sounds like Dr. Welch and his protestant community in Vineland, NJ started it.

As I mentioned in Post 2, Dr. Welch perfected his process for pasteurizing grape juice in 1869. He first marketed it to other churches as “Dr. Welch’s Unfermented Wine.” Today, of course, it is Welch’s Grape Juice.

But we know the practice of using grape juice pre-dated the commercial sale of grape juice, because the Wesleyan Church (to which Dr. Welch subscribed and was one of the first members) was invented in 1843, 26 years earlier. They published a set of rules (Discipline) which, from the very beginning, insisted on grape juice only.

So there was a time when at least one protestant denomination was using grape juice before Dr. Welch figured out how to pasteurize it. The practice may not have been widespread before 1869, but it wasn’t unheard of. Certainly the year-round commercial availability of grape juice (initially marketed specifically to churches) promoted wider adoption, but it was not the beginning of the practice.

I’m wondering if the Wesleyans were the first.

FWIW, my spell checker doesn’t recognize the word “unfermented.” I think that’s funny.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I don’t know any Anglicans who do not use wine in the Eucharist. Nor Lutherans.

I don’t either other than I do know of an Episcopal church where communicants are given the option of wine or grape juice at its contemporary service. Grape juice is available to those who do not want to or can not consume wine.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I don’t either other than I do know of an Episcopal church where communicants are given the option of wine or grape juice at its contemporary service. Grape juice is available to those who do not want to or can not consume wine.

REALLY? Would you care to name this parish?

Are there TWO chalices on the corporeal. along with the paten (bread)?

How do communicants know how to indicate their preference? After receiving the bread, are there then two queues to receive either the wine or the grape juice? Or, if there is an altar rail (the usual furnishing of a traditional Anglican/Episcopal church), is there some signal?

 

[Sy_Noe]

REALLY? Would you care to name this parish?

Are there TWO chalices on the corporeal. along with the paten (bread)?

How do communicants know how to indicate their preference? After receiving the bread, are there then two queues to receive either the wine or the grape juice? Or, if there is an altar rail (the usual furnishing of a traditional Anglican/Episcopal church), is there some signal?

Hi David, I’ve only listened to podcasts of their sermons. I’ve never attended a service but the church offers 4 services on weekends. Sat evening they have a reflective healing, more intimate service, with piano and acoustic guitar, healing candles and anointing, and at that service, communion is passed from person to person around the altar. Then on Sundays the traditional rites 1 & 2 along with their contemporary service. From my understanding Rite 2 and the contemporary draw the most people. The grape juice is offered at the contemporary service to the right side of the altar. On the website it says after receiving the bread, to merely proceed off to whichever side for the wine or grape juice. I will try to PM you links.

Edit: You’re not accepting PMs.

stjoesunplugged.org/page.html

stjoesweb.org/

 

[exnihilo]

I remember reading about this years ago and my understanding was for all practical purposes Welch invented it simply because it was basically impossible to have grape juice prior to his invention. Grape juice naturally ferments. In fact I know of a funny story about a Baptist church. They used grape juice of course. I forget the exact details but they had left some communion grape juice out overnight. It was summer in a particularly hot part of the South. The AC had failed in the church. When someone walked in the next day the church reeked of alcohol. The pasteurized grape juice had started to ferment. While people might have had ideas about using grape juice before Welch there was no way the theology could be put into practice.

I’ve been to a Lutheran church where they had the choice of grape juice or wine. They let you know which line had which and you just went to the chalice you wanted.

 

[Sy_Noe]

My Lutheran church switched to grape juice in the 70’s around the time that alcoholism was getting a lot of attention as a disease. There was a large AA group who used our church for meetings and our Pastor became very concerned about the difficulties recovering alcoholics have in remaining sober. He felt using wine would exclude or embarrass those members in recovery who could not, or should not, partake.

I know that doesn’t really answer your question, I just thought you might be interested in one church’s reasoning. Also, I think the practice may have generally become more widespread in the 70’s for the same reasons our church switched.

I actually think that’s not too bad a reason. The Episcopal service I referenced says grape juice is offered for those who can not consume wine. Or for those who do not want to. And I know I personally just prefer the taste of grape juice to wine so if I were at a service with an option, I could see myself taking the grape juice.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I’ve been to a Lutheran church where they had the choice of grape juice or wine. They let you know which line had which and you just went to the chalice you wanted.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The Catholic Church has a doctrinal way to get around that problem: the teaching of Concomitance. This maintains that Our Lord is fully present (in both Body and Blood) under both species (both bread and wine). If you receive either, you fully receive (you can’t get half of Jesus). So anyone is free to skip the chalice (if it is offered). Nobody makes assumptions about why - quite a lot of people skip the chalice simply because they don’t like the idea of drinking from a communal cup.

But it’s interesting that you said a Lutheran church had switched to grape juice. I would not have thought that would be allowed in the Lutheran communion.

I don’t know enough about TEC in regard to “you can’t get half of Jesus” but I know they officially believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus and anyone baptized is welcome to receive Jesus. At the church I referenced, after receiving the bread of life, one may pass up the wine or grape juice or if someone doesn’t want to take communion at all, there is no rule that they have to and they can remain seated and commune with God in their own way. I don’t know whether they would say or not that someone who has received the bread of life has only received half of Jesus. Was that your previous understanding as a former Anglican? Or maybe one of our Episcopalian brothers or sisters could comment on what it means to receive half.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I don’t know enough about TEC in regard to “you can’t get half of Jesus” but I know they officially believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus

That’s not quite true. TEC adopted Cranmer’s 39 Articles without modification in a synod held Sept 12, 1801. These ratified Articles are found in every Episcopal Book of Common Prayer (including the 1928 and 1979 editions). In the 1979 BCP, they are relegated to the strange category of “historical documents.” That seems to be an attempt to undermine their authority. Which is odd, because the Catholic Church is very fond of “historical documents.” We cite and defend them (ALL) here constantly.

Your BCP includes this article, which I cite from AnglicansOnline.org:

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.

This Article espouses a Eucharistic theology called Receptionism - it is the Body/Blood if I believe and have faith that it is. It’s KINDA a “real presence” theology, but the reality is subjective, not objective.

This Article has never been rescinded or superseded, so it remains the most recent “official” teaching of both TEC and the CoE.

When the Catholic Church talks about a “real presence,” She means it is REAL, no matter what you might believe.

 

[Sy_Noe]

That’s not quite true. TEC adopted Cranmer’s 39 Articles without modification in a synod held Sept 12, 1801. These ratified Articles are found in every Episcopal Book of Common Prayer (including the 1928 and 1979 editions). In the 1979 BCP, they are relegated to the strange category of “historical documents.” That seems to be an attempt to undermine their authority. Which is odd, because the Catholic Church is very fond of “historical documents.” We cite and defend them (ALL) here constantly.

Your BCP includes this article, which I cite from AnglicansOnline.org:

This Article espouses a Eucharistic theology called Receptionism - it is the Body/Blood if I believe and have faith that it is. It’s KINDA a “real presence” theology, but the reality is subjective, not objective.

This Article has never been rescinded or superseded, so it remains the most recent “official” teaching of both TEC and the CoE.

When the Catholic Church talks about a “real presence,” She means it is REAL, no matter what you might believe.

We will no doubt have to agree to disagree. Catholics of course as well must believe in transubstantiation. A former Catholic priest, now an Episcopalian priest, explained the Episcopal Eucharist to me in this way.

“Episcopalians believe Jesus is truly present. The communion minister says to the person, the Body of Christ/the Blood of Christ, the Bread of Heaven/The Cup of Salvation, to which the person responds Amen. We don’t know exactly how or when it becomes Christ’s body and blood. But it is a real presence. The Episcopal Church does not provide any dogmatic statement that we must believe other than this. The Roman Catholics have an elaborate doctrine called Transubstantiation which sort of attempts to answer the how it happens. We concentrate on living into the mystery that Christ is present. Episcopalians just say that it is.”

Blessings on your faith journey and peace.

 

[phil19034]

We will no doubt have to agree to disagree. Catholics of course as well must believe in transubstantiation. A former Catholic priest, now an Episcopalian priest, explained the Episcopal Eucharist to me in this way.

“Episcopalians believe Jesus is truly present. The communion minister says to the person, the Body of Christ/the Blood of Christ, the Bread of Heaven/The Cup of Salvation, to which the person responds Amen. We don’t know exactly how or when it becomes Christ’s body and blood. But it is a real presence. The Episcopal Church does not provide any dogmatic statement that we must believe other than this. The Roman Catholics have an elaborate doctrine called Transubstantiation which sort of attempts to answer the how it happens. We concentrate on living into the mystery that Christ is present. Episcopalians just say that it is.”

Blessings on your faith journey and peace.

I know a Catholic priest who once said this about the Episcopalians…

“What do they do with the little crumbs from the consecrated Hosts?”

The Catholic Church treats them just as if they are a full size host, because the smallest crumb is still Jesus. The Episcopalians don’t treat the crumbs with the same reverence.