Why do some Protestants use grape juice instead of wine?

[theology101]

I had someone tell me this too. and it is laughable! the bible refers to drunkeness. Guess there
“grape Juice” was not so weak after all!

Yeah, my old protestant church taught that the ‘wine’ referred to was just grape juice, too. I always countered with, “Well, then why does the Bible say not to get drunk with too much wine? Must take a lot of grape juice to get drunk!”

As a side note, I love wine and drink it often, but I do prefer to cut it with some water (about 1 part water to 2 parts wine) to kill the alcohol taste. When I’m done it does taste like grape juice, but packs a punch!

 

[Keith_W_OR_USA]

I don’t understand this…Even if they don’t believe in a real existance of Jesus in the bread and wine, why use grape juice? It’s clearly not wine and that is clearly what Jesus used.

Some Protestant sects forbid alcohol so they use grape juice. They argue that Jesus didn’t drink wine, but grape juice.

 

[joshua_b]

Some Protestant sects forbid alcohol so they use grape juice. They argue that Jesus didn’t drink wine, but grape juice.

Yes they do, and this proclaimation is completely dishonest on an intellectual level. This argument is not supported by history, Scripture, or Jewish culture.

 

[peace2u2]

The argument may be that the mere offering of wine is temptation enough.

At the Catholic Mass, the chalice is not the mere offering of wine as temptation. . . It is truly the blood of Christ. When you partake, you are not drinking gulps down from the chalice, but a sip and sometimes it just touches the lip of what Jesus said it would be, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/a.html

John 6:53-68
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

(Many Disciples Desert Jesus)

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[a] and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Some churches forbid the drinking of alcohol (as was mentioned). Also, I’ve seen some use grape juice for the sake of “inclusion” (so those under 21 can take it).

My son started receiving Communion at 1 and never had the problem of receiving the Precious Blood.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

At the Catholic Mass, the chalice is not the mere offering of wine as temptation. . . It is truly the blood of Christ. When you partake, you are not drinking gulps down from the chalice, but a sip and sometimes it just touches the lip of what Jesus said it would be, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

This is a lovely sentiment, but is entirely impractical. Many alcoholics would not do well with just a sip, just a taste. It is an all-or-nothing sort of thing.

Fortunately, Catholic doctrine seems to account for this somewhat. Receiving the body and blood under the form of both bread and wine is optional. One can receive both Christ’s body and blood in bread alone, since the understanding is that Christ’s sacrifice is unbloody, it does not harm him, and so his body and blood cannot again be separated.

So the alcoholic should indeed refrain from receiving under the form of wine, but receive only the host.

At the same time, some people may be too tempted by the mere presence of alcohol. Those people should attend a nice Disciples or Church of Christ worship, in my opinion.

 

[peace2u2]

At the same time, some people may be too tempted by the mere presence of alcohol. Those people should attend a nice Disciples or Church of Christ worship, in my opinion.

I don’t know what a nice Disciples or Church of Christ worship is, but if it is not a Catholic church, then those receiving communion would not be receiving the Real Presence of Jesus in the Host as in order to do so, ordinary bread and wine must be consecrated by a validated, ordained, Catholic Priest in order for this to happen. After the consecration of the bread and wine, no bread or wine remains on the altar, only Jesus Himself, under the appearance of bread and wine.

 

[Nicea325]

And not Orthodox Christianity? You would be even more ecstatic to learn about the Christian East and its venerable spirituality!

Alex

The Orthodox Church is ALL valid…no arguments from me. Apostolic Succession,valid ordained priets,etc,etc,etc.

 

[Nicea325]

I think that was my point Nicea. There are many seeking out, and/or claiming to practice “New Testament Christianity”, which of course they will say is based solely on what is in the bible. Their traditions will not allow them to follow this quest to its ultimate conclusion however, because they find themselves very quickly in an uncomfortably close proximity to sacramental theology and Catholic doctrine. So, they perform all kinds of eisegetical and intellectual gymnastics to be able to declare their rendition as correct, and usually what they come up with ends up being pseudo-Catholic in form and concept.

I thought the poster who commented on the Protestant congregation soaking bread in grape juice particularly interesting, because I believe that in eastern Churches, that is the norm by which the Eucharist is celebrated, and has been since antiquity. In that sense, they are probably “closer” to ancient Christianity than the Roman Catholic church, and many of these congregations will use that as their argument that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong because in their mind, this is how the original Christians did it. They either ignore, or try to rationalize away, the substitution of juice for wine, the use of leavened bread, and that whole “Real Presence” thing.

 

[peace2u2]

The symbol is subjective. If our culture developed in such a way that coke and popcorn came to evoke blood and flesh, then these would be just as good symbols as wine and bread.

I prefer bread and wine, but in most Protestant communities use grape juice. Since it is an effective symbol for them, it is an effective symbol, period.

Jesus prefered bread and wine too when He institued The Sacrament of The Eucharist at the Last Supper and The Sacrament of Holy Orders, His Priests Forever, men that are chosen by God Himself to share in Christ’s priesthood.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc3.htm

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

…after the consecration of the bread and wine, no bread or wine remains on the altar, only Jesus Himself, under the appearance of bread and wine.

All of which is of little consequence to an alcoholic, who should refrain from the wine (or, as you believe, from the accidents of wine, which themselves may cause drunkenness).

 

[JonNC]

All of which is of little consequence to an alcoholic, who should refrain from the wine (or, as you believe, from the accidents of wine, which themselves may cause drunkenness).

Perhaps they should, but if they are Catholic, they should refain at a Catholic Church, not a “nice Disciples or Church of Christ worship”, in my opinion.

Jon

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Perhaps they should, but if they are Catholic, they should refain at a Catholic Church, not a “nice Disciples or Church of Christ worship”, in my opinion.

Maybe so. But then it is good that Catholic doctrine is so amenable to their refraining. The teaching about the body and blood both being present in the host is genius.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe so. But then it is good that Catholic doctrine is so amenable to their refraining. The teaching about the body and blood both being present in the host is genius.

Genius? Only in the sense that it’s true.

And that it’s “genius” to proclaim that Jesus didn’t really die but was resurrected.

I suppose a Muslim might offer that comment, no? “Isn’t it ‘genius’ to proclaim that your crucified hero really didn’t die after all.”

 

[JonNC]

Maybe so. But then it is good that Catholic doctrine is so amenable to their refraining. The teaching about the body and blood both being present in the host is genius.

I don’t suspect that this is the reason for the Catholic teaching of concomitance. Our Lutheran dislike of concomitance has to do with its use in withholding the cup from the laity, a Catholic practice that, at least in large measure, was changed by Vatican II, if I’m not mistaken. But as I said before, if a health issue prohibited me from receiving the chalice, I would receive only the host, because it is the true and substantial body of Christ, given for the remission of sins.
But Christ did not use grape juice. He used wine, and it seems to me He did what He intends us to do.

Jon

 

[AlltheRoses]

I don’t suspect that this is the reason for the Catholic teaching of concomitance. Our Lutheran dislike of concomitance has to do with its use in withholding the cup from the laity, a Catholic practice that, at least in large measure, was changed by Vatican II, if I’m not mistaken. But as I said before, if a health issue prohibited me from receiving the chalice, I would receive only the host, because it is the true and substantial body of Christ, given for the remission of sins.
But Christ did not use grape juice. He used wine, and it seems to me He did what He intends us to do.

Jon

Well, concomitance also allows people suffering from celiac’s disease to partake of the consecrated wine, rather than the host, but, on a whole, I think recovering alcoholics make up a greater percentage of a given population than celiac’s.

If I remember my history correctly, I think that the practice of withholding the cup from the laity began after the Protestant Reformation as a sort of test for those receiving Communion. I think that the basic theory behind it was that someone who subscribed to Sola Scriptura would want to receive the Body and Blood under both species and somebody who accepted the Church’s authority to determine doctrine would be willing to believe that Jesus was fully present in both species, so it is only necessary to partake of one.

As someone who definitely grew up solidly entrenched in the Vatican II world (at the risk of dating my parents, they barely remember the world before Vatican II), I would say that I’ve never seen the cup withheld from the laity.

That being said, is not uncommon for most of the laity to choose to just partake of the host and not of the consecrated wine, and I admit that I am one of those people. I am not convinced a swipe of a cloth makes a chalice clean enough for me to want to drink out of it, and, even though I’m twenty-one, I don’t want to have even the accidental properties of alcohol. So, based on the one Lutheran service I attended, in which almost everyone present had both species, I think that, while on paper, things might look more similar between contemporary Catholic thought and Lutheran thought on the issue, in practice there are probably significant differences still, if that makes sense.

I agree that Jesus didn’t use grape juice, but rather wine, in keeping with the fact that the Last Supper was a Passover Supper, and that He did what He intended us to do:thumbsup:

 

[JonNC]

=AlltheRoses;9260823]Well, concomitance also allows people suffering from celiac’s disease to partake of the consecrated wine, rather than the host, but, on a whole, I think recovering alcoholics make up a greater percentage of a given population than celiac’s.

Yes, I understand that it is now applied to that situation, but I was replying to a post that seemed to imply that this was the intent, hence, “genius”.

If I remember my history correctly, I think that the practice of withholding the cup from the laity began after the Protestant Reformation as a sort of test for those receiving Communion. I think that the basic theory behind it was that someone who subscribed to Sola Scriptura would want to receive the Body and Blood under both species and somebody who accepted the Church’s authority to determine doctrine would be willing to believe that Jesus was fully present in both species, so it is only necessary to partake of one.

Maybe you’re right, though I thought that it had been a long-standing practice, because of the fear of spilling His precious blood in the process of communing the laity, and the belief that, since only the apostles received the chalice, it was implied that only the celebrant really needed to receive it. That said, I’m open to correction, and I strive to not tell Catholics (or others) what they believe, since I take umbrage when others tell me what Lutherans believe.

As someone who definitely grew up solidly entrenched in the Vatican II world (at the risk of dating my parents, they barely remember the world before Vatican II), I would say that I’ve never seen the cup withheld from the laity.

That being said, is not uncommon for most of the laity to choose to just partake of the host and not of the consecrated wine, and I admit that I am one of those people. I am not convinced a swipe of a cloth makes a chalice clean enough for me to want to drink out of it, and, even though I’m twenty-one, I don’t want to have even the accidental properties of alcohol.

Historically, I don’t think there has ever been a case of desease spreading from use of the cup, but I respect your concerns.

So, based on the one Lutheran service I attended, in which almost everyone present had both species, I think that, while on paper, things might look more similar between contemporary Catholic thought and Lutheran thought on the issue, in practice there are probably significant differences still, if that makes sense.

Well, the reason Lutherans almost universally receive both is because we believe that is what Christ instituted - that we should eat

and

drink (“drink of it, all of you”). It isn’t a matter of sola scriptura or being oppositional to Catholic practice (after all, Orthodox receive both, AFAIK), it is a matter of doing what Christ calls us to do - eat and drink is body and blood for the forgiveness of sins in remembrance of Him.

I agree that Jesus didn’t use grape juice, but rather wine, in keeping with the fact that the Last Supper was a Passover Supper, and that He did what He intended us to do

Agreed.

And regarding the thread, as I said, even though I’m not Catholic, if I had a health issue that prohibited one or the other, I would be satisfied that I receive Him and His forgiveness of sins by receiving only one species.

Jon

 

[exnihilo]

If I remember my history correctly, I think that the practice of withholding the cup from the laity began after the Protestant Reformation as a sort of test for those receiving Communion. I think that the basic theory behind it was that someone who subscribed to Sola Scriptura would want to receive the Body and Blood under both species and somebody who accepted the Church’s authority to determine doctrine would be willing to believe that Jesus was fully present in both species, so it is only necessary to partake of one.

My understanding was that withholding the cup from the laity was happening long before the official start of the Protestant Reformation. The Hussites, followers of John Hus, who was condemned as a heretic and burnt at the stake in 1415, were Ultraquists. They believed that in order to be saved the laity must also partake of both species.

 

[Izdaari]

I don’t understand this…Even if they don’t believe in a real existance of Jesus in the bread and wine, why use grape juice? It’s clearly not wine and that is clearly what Jesus used.

In my semi-Protestant opinion, for no good reason. I think that’s not doing it right. And I do believe in the Real Presence, though not as transubstantiation, but as an undefinable holy mystery.

That’s one reason (one of many, an accumulation of small things) why I left my Assemblies of God church for an Episcopal/Lutheran one (yes, it has both affiliations).

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

I don’t understand this…Even if they don’t believe in a real existance of Jesus in the bread and wine, why use grape juice? It’s clearly not wine and that is clearly what Jesus used.

They may say that it has Biblical roots, but the reality is that it is a cultural prohibition disguised as a religious prohibition.

Peace…