Why do many Protestant Churches use grape juice instead of wine for communion?

[Roy5]

I have sometimes wondered if the wine at communion has an impact upon priests. Some years ago an AA meeting was held at a hall I had reason to be at from time to time. On several occasions I saw a couple priests at AA meetings, one of whom I knew rather well. So, one day I said to him that I assumed he must be chaplain at these AA gatherings. He looked sheepish, and replied: “Oh, no, I need the AA.”

I’ve wondered: did drinking wine so consistently at masses, as a priest normally does, make alcoholism more likely? Just asking.

 

[pismopal]

I have sometimes wondered if the wine at communion has an impact upon priests. Some years ago an AA meeting was held at a hall I had reason to be at from time to time. On several occasions I saw a couple priests at AA meetings, one of whom I knew rather well. So, one day I said to him that I assumed he must be chaplain at these AA gatherings. He looked sheepish, and replied: “Oh, no, I need the AA.”

I’ve wondered: did drinking wine so consistently at masses, as a priest normally does, make alcoholism more likely? Just asking.

You must be a non drinker. The wine taken for Holy Communion is sipped very gingerly…not gulped and even if it were there would not be enough to change a person’s attitude. The people who study these things seem to be unanimous is the opinion that some people are genetically predisposed to problem drinking…and this would not exclude priests…or anyone else. Christ drank wine just like everyone else in His time and since He drank it at meals He certainly had more than a little sip. I drink wine daily…except during this Lent…and it has not caused me to be a problem drinker…just one little example.

 

[Roy5]

pismopal

Good answer. However, when I attend mass it seems that the priest finishes up the wine in the chalice beforr wiping the chalice. And sometimes it leaves the impression that he has drunk quite a bit. And, if he has several masses on a Sunday morning?

 Yes, I am a non-drinker. One reason, in addition to saving a lot of money over the years, is that I'm never tempted to drink too much (as many friends have) and embarrass myself or loved ones - or injure others by driving etc. I also have heard that certain people have a predisposition to alcohol addiction and perhaps I could be just such a person???

 I also have wondered if some priests, especially in somewhat rural areas, might be afflicted by loneliness at times, and, like many other lonely people, find themselves responding to that feeling by drinking. That, in my view, is one argument for optional marriage of clergy. It used to be, in this area at least, there would be 2-3 priests in a rectory, providing daily companionship mornings, at meals, evenings, etc.. Today this is rare, and sometimes a priest has 2-3 parishes. Most normal people need some level of intimacy with one or more others.  
 
 I do not oppose social drinking, in moderation, of course, but it has never appealed to me, perhaps because I come from a non-drinking household. Dad and Mom always preached to us that it was a drug that could ensnare people like other drugs, and that millions of lives are seriously hurt because of alcohol. They would rattle off the evils, from hungry children to wife abuse and divorce, from tragic car accidents to depression, from unreliability on the job (absenteeism, etc.) to s bad reputatuon - and much more. To get the benefits of red wine, I do drink red grapejuice regularly. 

 Hats off to moderate wine drinkers. However, I've seen too many 'winos' in the Bowery and elsewhere in past years to change my pro-temperance position. Why run the risk? It's not unlike teens who try tobacco and become hardened smokers. Same danger, only worse.

 

[pismopal]

pismopal

Good answer. However, when I attend mass it seems that the priest finishes up the wine in the chalice beforr wiping the chalice. And sometimes it leaves the impression that he has drunk quite a bit. And, if he has several masses on a Sunday morning?

 Yes, I am a non-drinker. One reason, in addition to saving a lot of money over the years, is that I'm never tempted to drink too much (as many friends have) and embarrass myself or loved ones - or injure others by driving etc. I also have heard that certain people have a predisposition to alcohol addiction and perhaps I could be just such a person???

 I also have wondered if some priests, especially in somewhat rural areas, might be afflicted by loneliness at times, and, like many other lonely people, find themselves responding to that feeling by drinking. That, in my view, is one argument for optional marriage of clergy. It used to be, in this area at least, there would be 2-3 priests in a rectory, providing daily companionship mornings, at meals, evenings, etc.. Today this is rare, and sometimes a priest has 2-3 parishes. Most normal people need some level of intimacy with one or more others.  
 
 I do not oppose social drinking, in moderation, of course, but it has never appealed to me, perhaps because I come from a non-drinking household. Dad and Mom always preached to us that it was a drug that could ensnare people like other drugs, and that millions of lives are seriously hurt because of alcohol. They would rattle off the evils, from hungry children to wife abuse and divorce, from tragic car accidents to depression, from unreliability on the job (absenteeism, etc.) to s bad reputatuon - and much more. To get the benefits of red wine, I do drink red grapejuice regularly. 

 Hats off to moderate wine drinkers. However, I've seen too many 'winos' in the Bowery and elsewhere in past years to change my pro-temperance position. Why run the risk? It's not unlike teens who try tobacco and become hardened smokers. Same danger, only worse.

You have swerved into the answer why SOME priests have a drinking problem and it is certainly not Holy Communion. They are free to use alcohol socially like all the rest of us and like all the rest of us they can fall prey. We live in California where a day without wine is a day without sunshine…I borrowed that

 

[Curious_Seed]

Hi there,
I mean no disrespect to our Protestant friends with this question-I’m honestly curious. Why do many Protestant communion celebrations use grape juice instead of the wine that Catholics use? And why do many also use bread cubes/regular “bread” instead of the wafters (unleavened bread) that we use?

Thanks!

The question of wine and unleavened bread is interesting, but not enlightening to delineating the differences between Protestant and Catholic communion celebrations.

The direct answers have a historical basis.

Theologically, the differences are profound.

Catholics hold that by transubstantiation Christ - Himself - is present in the wine and bread.

Protestants hold that by symbolization Christ is present in the wine and bread.

Catholics hold the communion is a sacrament, performed by priest or deacon, only.

Protestants hold that communion is a sacrament, performed by any Christian.

Of course, Luke 22:19-20, is open to interpretation - though both interpretations cannot be correct.

At the very least, both Protestants and Catholics are attempting to show, in their view, adherence to Jesus’ command.

 

[Nicea325]

The question of wine and unleavened bread is interesting, but not enlightening to delineating the differences between Protestant and Catholic communion celebrations.

The direct answers have a historical basis.

Theologically, the differences are profound.

Catholics hold that by transubstantiation Christ - Himself - is present in the wine and bread.

Protestants hold that by symbolization Christ is present in the wine and bread.

Catholics hold the communion is a sacrament, performed by priest or deacon, only.

Protestants hold that communion is a sacrament, performed by any Christian.

Of course, Luke 22:19-20, is open to interpretation - though both interpretations cannot be correct.

At the very least, both Protestants and Catholics are attempting to show, in their view, adherence to Jesus’ command.

And at the end God will sort us out…

 

[rbarcia]

So just because Welch’s method of stopping fermentation was not used, it does not mean there were other techniques.

Mark 2

22And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins—and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins."

A. The Biblical Words for Wine

1. Oinos/Yayin

The most common word in the New Testament for wine is the Greek word oinos. It is a general word that simply refers to the fermented juice of the grape. The Old Testament equivalent to the Greek word oinos is yayin, the root of which means to “bubble up” or “boil up.” The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia (vol. 12, p. 533) states that yayin, at least in the rabbinic period, was diluted with water.

1. Gleukos/Tirosh

The Greek word gleukos–from which we get the English word glucose, means “new wine.” It is used in Acts 2:13 to refer to the apostles on the day of Pentecost. It says they were “full of new wine.” Although it was comparatively fresh and not yet fully aged, it was potentially intoxicating. The mockers in in Acts 2:13 were accusing the apostles of being drunk.

The Old Testament word for new wine is tirosh. Hosea 4:11 says “wine [yayin] and new wine [tirosh] take away the heart.” Drunkenness is the result of drinking this new wine.

1. Sikera/Shakar

The Old Testament word for strong drink is shakar, a term that eventually became restricted to intoxicants other than wine. According to the 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia, it refers to unmixed wine. The New Testament equivalent is the Greek word sikera.

1. Unfermented wine

Because of refrigeration problems in ancient times, wine was often boiled until the liquid evaporated, leaving behind a thick, unintoxicating paste that stored well. It was somewhat similar to modern grape jelly. The people would spread it on bread like a jam, and some still do today in the Middle East.

1. Fermented wine

a) The procedure

Wine stored as a liquid, however, would ferment. Professor Robert Stein, in his “Wine-drinking in New Testament Times” (Christianity Today, 20 June 1975: 9-11), tells us liquid wine was stored in large jugs called amphorae. The pure, unmixed wine would be drawn out of these jugs and poured into large bowls called kraters, where it was mixed with water. From these kraters, it would then be poured into kylix, or cups. Wine would never be served directly from the amphora without first being mixed. And according to other historical data on this period, the mixture could be as high as a 20:1 ratio or lower than 1:1.

b) The perception

Drinking unmixed wine was looked upon by Greek culture as barbaric. Stein quotes Mnesitheus of Athens as saying, “The gods have revealed wine to mortals, to be the greatest blessing for those who use it aright, but for those who use it without measure, the reverse. For it gives food to them that take it and strength in mind and body. In medicine it is most beneficial; it can be mixed with liquid and drugs and it brings aid to the wounded. In daily intercourse, to those who mix and drink it moderately, it gives good cheer; but if you overstep the bounds, it brings violence. Mix it half and half, and you get madness; unmixed, bodily collapse.”

As a beverage, wine was always thought of as a mixed drink in Greek culture. The ratio of water might have varied but only barbarians drank it unmixed. Stein cites patristic writings that show the early church served mixed wine.

c) The present

Beer has approximately 4% alcohol, wine 9-11%, brandy 15- 20%, and hard liquor 40-50% (80-100 proof). So, unmixed wine in biblical times measured at approximately 9-11%. Mixed wine, at a 3:1 ratio, would therefore be between 2.25- to-2.75%. By today’s standards, a drink has to exceed 3.2% to be considered an alcoholic beverage. The wine they consumed was either completely non-alcoholic or sub- alcoholic by today’s standards. To become drunk with wine in those days you would have to drink all day. That is why the Bible commands elders in the church not to be addicted to much wine (1 Tim. 3:3). With such a low alcoholic content, you would have to purpose to become drunk.

So, is drinking wine today the same as in Bible times? No.

Because of the lack of fresh water, it was often necessary to drink wine in biblical times. That is sometimes the case today. If you were in a country and wine was all there was and you were dying of thirst, you would take whatever was available.

 

[Curious_Seed]

And at the end God will sort us out…

If not sooner !

 

[rinnie]

LOL Jericho777,post #777, @ 7:17pm.
Only time at my Church when wine wasn’t available is when the Bishop makes a statement when he thinks it is unsafe, for example when the swine flu was a problem.

And I believe when aids first came out. But there are times the Pope can have the say when its for our benefit. But it does not ever change the word of God. As soon he is sure it is safe he goes back to the teaching’s of the Church.

 

[rinnie]

I have sometimes wondered if the wine at communion has an impact upon priests. Some years ago an AA meeting was held at a hall I had reason to be at from time to time. On several occasions I saw a couple priests at AA meetings, one of whom I knew rather well. So, one day I said to him that I assumed he must be chaplain at these AA gatherings. He looked sheepish, and replied: “Oh, no, I need the AA.”

I’ve wondered: did drinking wine so consistently at masses, as a priest normally does, make alcoholism more likely? Just asking.

When a person takes the wine it is just to touch ones lips. You don’t take a shot of wine. But even if a person had 4 shots of wine per day that would in not means make one a Alcoholic.

A person who is a Alcoholic drinks to escape something. They cannot stop when they are drinking. They must drink until they are drunk. You could take communion 20 times a day and not even have enough wine to make one shot.

 

[Cat]

When a person takes the wine it is just to touch ones lips. You don’t take a shot of wine. But even if a person had 4 shots of wine per day that would in not means make one a Alcoholic.

A person who is a Alcoholic drinks to escape something. They cannot stop when they are drinking. They must drink until they are drunk. You could take communion 20 times a day and not even have enough wine to make one shot.

Not all alcoholics drink until they are drunk. And not all acts of alcohol abuse are alcoholism.

 

[rinnie]

Not all alcoholics drink until they are drunk. And not all acts of alcohol abuse are alcoholism.

I was always taught that when People use alcohol as a means to escape it is what makes them a Alcoholic. It is thier way of coping with life, it is a means of escape and the buzz which they get is what helps them to forget or lets say escape. I was told that when a person is an alcoholic they cannot quit at one or two. They must have many. I was told it was the one or two that gets them going.

And I did believe that when a person continues to abuse alcohol that makes them a Alcoholic:shrug:

I will admit I do not have much knowledge of it though. I do know there are what are called functioning alcoholic;s etc. But I always thought when a person was a Alcoholic they have to have it everyday. And usually all day.

While I agree that they may not always appear drunk it is because their body can just handle more. But the reason they still continue to drink it to escape from something.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi there,
I mean no disrespect to our Protestant friends with this question-I’m honestly curious. Why do many Protestant communion celebrations use grape juice instead of the wine that Catholics use? And why do many also use bread cubes/regular “bread” instead of the wafters (unleavened bread) that we use?

Thanks!

veilofveronica,

I grew up in Southern Baptist Churches and they strictly prohibited any form of alcohol. As many have already said, Baptists believe Baptism and The Lord’s Supper are purely symbolic, so there is no concept of the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist. Either bread or tiny crackers are used instead of unleavened bread.

Sadly, if one wants to join a Southern Baptist Church, having been Baptized in a Church that views Baptism as ***sacramental ***or regenerate, were not immersed, or were not Baptized in a Church that embraces the doctrine of the “security of the believer”; they must be Baptized again in the Baptist Church.

What is so odd to me now, is that Baptists insist that, though Baptism is purely symbolic and is performed only for the regenerate believer in Christ; it must be done by immersion, because that is the Biblical way-the way Christ was Baptized. Yet, they completely disregard the way Christ instituted the Eucharist. It really doesn’t make sense.

This is a quote from the Southern Baptist Convention website:

"The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29; Colossians 2:12."

Link: sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp

Notice in the list of Scripture passages cited to support their view of “The Lord’s Supper”; John Chapter 6 is not cited.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[wbthrower]

pismopal

Good answer. However, when I attend mass it seems that the priest finishes up the wine in the chalice beforr wiping the chalice.......

No Wine from the cup may be left over in the cup after all have recieved the Eucharist. If any remains, it must be consumed by the priest, deacon, or person that is giving it at that time in the Mass.

 

[newconvert56]

But I always thought when a person was a Alcoholic they have to have it everyday. And usually all day.

.

I agree with much of what you said but this is not true. A couple drinks will usually be too many (“one drink is too many and one hundred drinks are not enough”), but until the later stages of alcoholism many alcoholics can go days, weeks or longer without drinking UNTIL they have that first drink again, then they are right back where they started. Even after years of abstinance an alcoholic picks up where they left off, needing as much alcohol to get a “buzz” as they did when they stopped. Yes, I do think there is a very strong genetic component to alcohol abuse, I’ve seen it first hand in my family and many others. Studies have shown that alcoholics process alcohol differently than non-alcoholics and that’s why those prone to abuse will keep drinking when others would normally stop, an alcoholic does not understand a “normal” person who can have one or two drinks and truly be satisfied with that.

 

[rinnie]

I agree with much of what you said but this is not true. A couple drinks will usually be too many (“one drink is too many and one hundred drinks are not enough”), but until the later stages of alcoholism many alcoholics can go days, weeks or longer without drinking UNTIL they have that first drink again, then they are right back where they started. Even after years of abstinance an alcoholic picks up where they left off, needing as much alcohol to get a “buzz” as they did when they stopped. Yes, I do think there is a very strong genetic component to alcohol abuse, I’ve seen it first hand in my family and many others. Studies have shown that alcoholics process alcohol differently than non-alcoholics and that’s why those prone to abuse will keep drinking when others would normally stop, an alcoholic does not understand a “normal” person who can have one or two drinks and truly be satisfied with that.

Okay I agree with what you are saying. But that was kind of like my point one or 2 is never enough, there is never enough. They can’t quit at one or 2.

I think where we can agree is drinking becomes a sin like any other sin when the sin control’s you, you don’t control the sin.

And when you have anything control you and put it ahead of God it becomes a sin.

And I also agree addiction is a mystery. But again sin is really not a mystery because it is revealed in the way we live and God can conquer any sin. But the mystery is how sin is never the same for anyone. We all have sin and we all have to fight it everyday.

Just with a person who abuses Alcohol their sin is revealed to all to see. Where differnt sin can be hidden better… Kind of makes you wonder who is the most lucky of the 2. At least when you sin is out there for all to see you can receive quicker. But when it is not revealed it gets even a stronger hold over you.

But I also never knew that they could go weeks w/o it. Thank-you for sharing that with me.

 

[Miriam1947]

Okay I agree with what you are saying. But that was kind of like my point one or 2 is never enough, there is never enough. They can’t quit at one or 2.

I think where we can agree is drinking becomes a sin like any other sin when the sin control’s you, you don’t control the sin.

And when you have anything control you and put it ahead of God it becomes a sin.

And I also agree addiction is a mystery. But again sin is really not a mystery because it is revealed in the way we live and God can conquer any sin. But the mystery is how sin is never the same for anyone. We all have sin and we all have to fight it everyday.

Just with a person who abuses Alcohol their sin is revealed to all to see. Where differnt sin can be hidden better… Kind of makes you wonder who is the most lucky of the 2. At least when you sin is out there for all to see you can receive quicker. But when it is not revealed it gets even a stronger hold over you.

But I also never knew that they could go weeks w/o it. Thank-you for sharing that with me.

So is an alcohol abuser a sinner or an addict?

I think you are forgetting the mercy of God here.

 

[Genovefa]

I didn’t read the whole thread but I can answer this. I was raised Methodist. The main reason is because of prohibition. During prohibition, there was a Methodist bishop named Herbert George Welch. Some churches felt like they needed to come with a way to serve communion without the alcohol. Hence…Welch’s Grape Juice. After prohibition, it just stuck. As far as I know, Protestant churches served wine before prohibition.

Many Protestant churches still serve wine. It is only Baptists, Methodists, and the evangelical non-denominations that serve grape juice. You will still find wine in Lutheran and Episcopalian churches.

 

[Roy5]

I believe the Methodists never used wine in communion, though I could be wrong. The ‘General Rules’ of John Wesley forbid the use of alcohol in any form long before Prohibition in the USA. Wesley had seen the negative impact of alcohol, especially among the poorer people (among whom Methodist initially had great appeal). so he condemned it entirely. He also was dead set against slavery, tobacco, etc. - long before the emancipation fervor.

As for Bishop Welch, I doubt if he had anything to do with Welch grapejuice, though I could be wrong. Among his main achievements was living to something like 106, going on a worldwide trip when he was 100, etc. He served for some years in the Far East - China and Korea, as I recall.

 But it is true, I believe, that the Welch family was Methodist. I have a feeling that the Coca-Cola family was Methodist, too, and did a lot to endow Emory University, one of a couple hundred USA colleges and universities established by the Methodists - among them, for example, Duke, Syracuse. Boston U, Wesleyan, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, and dozens more.  

 I have the highest respect for the Methodists, along with many other Christian groups. It troubles me that so often religion preaches love and peace while promoting bigotry and hostility. Christianity should be a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[Genovefa]

I could be wrong Roy5. The above is just what I learned from my Methodist paster in a a class on the “Book of Discipline”.

I would like to note however, that grape juice has to be pasteurized in order to remain non-alcoholic. This process is a relatively recent inventation, leading into the temperance movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s.