Ship of Fools: Eccles: Why grapes?

Thread: Eccles: Why grapes? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000929

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

Related questions:

For those who use Communion wine, must/should it be wine from grapes? Why or why not?

For those who don't use Communion wine, must/should it be grape juice? Why or why not?

Wine and juice are, of course, produced from any number of sources other than grapes. What's so ecclesiasically special about grapes?

[ 29. April 2013, 21:57: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I suspect it's because that's what Jesus used. Many churches place great weight on using what Jesus used to institute the Sacrament; the RCC has really specific rules (that don't allow for gluten-free hosts, e.g.) for that reason. Those rules also stipulate, if I understand correctly, that you can't use a fortified wine - I think that's also true in the Episcopal Church. There are wines that are sold as "approved for altar use."

Other churches may not place such value on using what Jesus used, especially those that consider it a memorial meal. In some cases, it may be understood to be so symbolic of Jesus' body and blood that it is desired to use a liquid that looks like blood (red wine or red grape juice) - if that's the issue, I can't see why a cherry wine (a wonderful product of my home state of Michigan) couldn't be used.

I've also heard of people using completely different elements, particularly in cultures that don't traditionally have wheat and grapes as staples in their diet - or perhaps even locally available. (I heard a missionary, e.g., once describe using banana leaves and coconut milk, but this was a memorialist tradition.) That can be based on a different understanding of what Jesus was doing, even if it's considered a Sacrament of his Real Presence. Did he use (wheat) bread because there's something inherent in wheat bread that makes it a suitable host and symbol of his body? Did he use wine for a similar reason? Or did he use them because they were typical, and staples, of the local diet? Considering the question of staples, at least, rules out one experiment I've heard of (from someone who was there) where some seminarians in the '70s tried consecrating Doritos and Coke, and concluded that it didn't work at all. No matter what you think of the necessity to use the exact same thing Jesus used, it's easy to see that Doritos and Coke are junk food, not healthy dietary staples!

No doubt others will be along quickly to explain the canon law aspects much better than I could (or would want to be able to, really). And mousethief perhaps will share his perspective of the "scandal of particularity," which is a really interesting way to look at it, I think.

[ 04. March 2013, 21:17: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Other churches may not place such value on using what Jesus used, especially those that consider it a memorial meal. In some cases, it may be understood to be so symbolic of Jesus' body and blood that it is desired to use a liquid that looks like blood (red wine or red grape juice) - if that's the issue, I can't see why a cherry wine (a wonderful product of my home state of Michigan) couldn't be used.

Indeed there are plenty of people (including me, it must be confessed) who would say you shouldn't use red wine, because it looks like blood. Merely looking like blood obscures the fact that this really is the blood of Christ.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I'm afraid to say I've always thought the "it shouldn't look like it because it is it" argument to be a little strange. Surely the sign value is enhanced if it does look like it?

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I'm not sure that you can argue you can make wine out of anything other than grapes... even the name (wine and vine are just the same word, I think...). Of course, you can make 'parsnip wine', 'elderflower wine' and so forth but it is still, clearly, not wine. In the same way that you could have a go at making cider out of raspberries but it still clearly wouldn't be cider in any meaningful sense.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Personally, yes, I believe it should be wine from grapes. Firstly, it is what Christ himself used. Secondly, if we look at the sacraments we see a common link. Wine, bread, water and olive oil. These were the staples which gave life to the people. Christ takes them and gives them a spiritual meaning. The people would have recognised this and understood.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

You can't make 'wine', i.e. just 'wine' out of anything else other than grapes. Yes, there is 'elderberry wine', but that's a fermented drink made out of elderberries, not grapes - hence the word 'elderberry' in the name. There's also mulled wine which is heated and has things added to it, but the core element is still wine made out of grapes.

If you are serving mulled cider, you call it mulled cider. It's as misleading not to, as to sell beef burgers that are made of horse meat.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

There's surely a risk of getting too picky about "using what Jesus used"? OK, the gospels and epistle say "bread" and "wine" (they don't actually, of course, because they say something in Greek).

But is it wheat bread or barley bread? Was it leavened or unleavened? How was it prepared? Was it in the form of a small flat disk with a cross imprinted into it? (Almost certainly not)

What was the ABV of the wine? What grape variety was used to make it? Did Jesus add water to it? Did it contain sulphur dioxide as a preservative? (Almost certainly not)

You could spend your life debating this... We use what we use and by the Spirit and grace of God it becomes to us Christ's Body and Blood. Does anything else matter?!

[corrected typo]

[ 05. March 2013, 09:39: Message edited by: iamchristianhearmeroar ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

A quick whizz around t'intertubes finds wine generally defined as an alcoholic drink made from the fermented juice of grapes or other fruits.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I'm not sure that you can argue you can make wine out of anything other than grapes... even the name (wine and vine are just the same word, I think...).

Wine is from Latin Vinum, wine (Latin V is pronounced as a W). Vine is from Latin Vinea, vine or vinyard. Both derive from the same root, vin-

/linguistic geek public service announcement

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I'm afraid to say I've always thought the "it shouldn't look like it because it is it" argument to be a little strange. Surely the sign value is enhanced if it does look like it?

It's more that it doesn't have to look like it, because it is. Using non-red wine provokes people into a consideration of what it is they say, do and believe.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Churchgeek:

quote:
Considering the question of staples, at least, rules out one experiment I've heard of (from someone who was there) where some seminarians in the '70s tried consecrating Doritos and Coke, and concluded that it didn't work at all. No matter what you think of the necessity to use the exact same thing Jesus used, it's easy to see that Doritos and Coke are junk food, not healthy dietary staples!

And flat, little, flour wafers are "healthy dietary staples"? I think not. No more healthy than plain, unfried tortillas.

(However, I agree that Coke is the beverage of the Devil.)

Besides- are we sure they didn't eat barley bread? [Paranoid]

Not that it would help those with celiac disease.

Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on :

For the CofE Canon B 17. Paragraph 2 of the Canon states:
“The bread, whether leavened or unleavened, shall be of the best and purest wheat flour that conveniently may be gotten, and the wine the fermented juice of the grape, good and wholesome.”

Fermented juice of the grape contains alcohol by its very nature. Therefore, in the CofE only of course, only fermented wine, containing alcohol, may lawfully be used, in the opinion of the Legal Advisory Commission of the General Synod.

Why? Because that's what our rules say, at the risk of sounding stupid.
Seriously, the logic is that the Jewish feast itself used fermented juice of the vine and unleavened bread and so, in simple and similar (if not identical) form do we in the CofE.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
you can't use a fortified wine - I think that's also true in the Episcopal Church. There are wines that are sold as "approved for altar use."

Surely not. We always use fortified wine. I don't think i have encountered anything else.

reasons - because it will keep once the bottle is open - until next Sunday if you don't have daily mass

and it will keep in the tabernacle for taking to the housebound.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I'm not sure that you can argue you can make wine out of anything other than grapes... even the name (wine and vine are just the same word, I think...).
Wine is from Latin Vinum, wine (Latin V is pronounced as a W). Vine is from Latin Vinea, vine or vinyard. Both derive from the same root, vin-

/linguistic geek public service announcement

Yes, thought it would have been something like this. Thank you for the entomology!

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I'm not sure that you can argue you can make wine out of anything other than grapes... even the name (wine and vine are just the same word, I think...).
Wine is from Latin Vinum, wine (Latin V is pronounced as a W). Vine is from Latin Vinea, vine or vinyard. Both derive from the same root, vin-

/linguistic geek public service announcement
Yes, thought it would have been something like this. Thank you for the entomology!

Or even etymology .. [Smile]

Cognate with Latin uinum is the Greek oinos. Unqualified this means wine as we would understand it, but it also occurs in the phrase oinos ek krithon 'wine from barley', or some kind of beer. oinos ex ampelou 'wine from grapes' is found where specifically grape wine is meant.

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

Are we sure of even the color of the wine at the Last Supper? Perhaps it looked like this but without the fancy bottle and price tag.

If symbolism is primary, doesn't chruchgeek have a point in suggesting that there are fruit wines and juices that more closely than grape wine resemble blood?

On the other hand, if we want to do "what Jesus did", and we recognize that our knowledge in this area has some limitations, isn't white wine (and white grape juice for those who don't use wine) just as "authentic" (as far as we know) as the red varities?

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

I wonder if anyone here has ever seen or even heard of white grape juice regularly used in any church.

Of course, the CoJCoLDS uses water (as far as I know), but I suppose that's not something we want to discuss here for fear of a major derailment.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Are we sure of even the color of the wine at the Last Supper? Perhaps it looked like this but without the fancy bottle and price tag.

If symbolism is primary, doesn't chruchgeek have a point in suggesting that there are fruit wines and juices that more closely than grape wine resemble blood?

On the other hand, if we want to do "what Jesus did", and we recognize that our knowledge in this area has some limitations, isn't white wine (and white grape juice for those who don't use wine) just as "authentic" (as far as we know) as the red varities?

There is, of course, the constant practice of the Church to consider. Was anything other than red wine from grapes ever used?

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
Fermented juice of the grape contains alcohol by its very nature. Therefore, in the CofE only of course, only fermented wine, containing alcohol, may lawfully be used...

The alcohol acts as a preservative, preventing bacteria from growing in the grape juice and thereby preventing your congregation from getting ill. This is also why mediaeval monks brewed beer for drinking, rather than drinking water.

The use of a silver chalice is also a good idea, as silver is a great anti-bacterial agent.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

I remember reading an account written by a chaplain in a North Korean POW camp of how he celebrated Holy Communion for his fellow-prisoners at Christmas with rice cakes and a some rice wine obtained by bribing a guard with cigarettes.

Do we maintain that this was not a valid celebration? or was it nullified, not by the incorrect elements but by the unethical bribe to the guard?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I remember reading an account written by a chaplain in a North Korean POW camp of how he celebrated Holy Communion for his fellow-prisoners at Christmas with rice cakes and a some rice wine obtained by bribing a guard with cigarettes.

Do we maintain that this was not a valid celebration? or was it nullified, not by the incorrect elements but by the unethical bribe to the guard?

Certainly I wouldn't talk in terms of "validity". At the end of the day it is the Holy Spirit which makes a sacrament a sacrament. It would be wrong to reduce the sacrament to the mere scholastic formula of elements, form and intent. It's quite possible that under exceptional circumstances God makes exceptions but ultimately I don't know.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Do we maintain that this was not a valid celebration? or was it nullified, not by the incorrect elements but by the unethical bribe to the guard?

We maintain that, if it is a priest in the apostolic succession using bread and wine, it works. We cannot say that other things do not work but, rather, that we cannot know they do.

Thurible

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

...if he has sufficient Power Points available and has learnt the Consubstantiate or Transubtantiate spells and listed them amongst his memorised spells on his character sheet, naturally.

Perhaps using alternative elements results in a -5 to the D20 casting roll?

[ 06. March 2013, 10:24: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...if he has sufficient Power Points available and has learnt the Consubstantiate or Transubtantiate spells and listed them amongst his memorised spells on his character sheet, naturally.

Perhaps using alternative elements results in a -5 to the D20 casting roll?

What a Western approach! [Biased]

Thurible

Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on :

I suspect Karl's wise comment refers most particularly to the Church of Middle Earth rather than the CofE, but there may be some overlap....

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I remember reading an account written by a chaplain in a North Korean POW camp of how he celebrated Holy Communion for his fellow-prisoners at Christmas with rice cakes and a some rice wine obtained by bribing a guard with cigarettes.

Do we maintain that this was not a valid celebration? or was it nullified, not by the incorrect elements but by the unethical bribe to the guard?

There are circumstances where a bribe is not unethical or (a different thing) where it might be deemed to be the lesser of two evils.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
I suspect Karl's wise comment refers most particularly to the Church of Middle Earth rather than the CofE, but there may be some overlap....

MERP used spell lists rather than memorised spells, and used D100 to resolve actions. D20 is more associated with D&D/AD&D, but no casting rolls are required in that system, though what's happened since the 1st Ed. rules I used to play by I cannot say. So my comments do not actually refer to any specific system but are general in nature.

Posted by Ebbtide (# 17519) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Are we sure of even the color of the wine at the Last Supper? Perhaps it looked like this but without the fancy bottle and price tag.

The Jewish practice of using only white wine at Passover was initiated during the Middle Ages in order to dispel the anti-Semitic libel that Jews mixed the wine with the blood of Christian children. Before that, either red or white wine could be used, so which was used at the Last Supper is anybody's guess.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ebbtide:

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Are we sure of even the color of the wine at the Last Supper? Perhaps it looked like this but without the fancy bottle and price tag.
The Jewish practice of using only white wine at Passover was initiated during the Middle Ages in order to dispel the anti-Semitic libel that Jews mixed the wine with the blood of Christian children. Before that, either red or white wine could be used, so which was used at the Last Supper is anybody's guess.

I would suggest that seeing as the constant practice of the Church, from the Apostles to this day, has to been to use only red wine then here is your answer. Nothing to do with guess work.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I am surprised how quickly this has got onto church rubrics. Really I am. The simple answer is that Our Lord knew the rich symbolism of the wine in the Hebrew tradition and also the vine and he is in instituting the Eucharist availing himself of that tradition.

Something is lost from the symbolism if we break that link, a connection between the prsent and the past. Equally I would argue that bread and wine is used because those are the elements of the shared meal, and in turn that reminds us of all the others who share this meal who have drunk wine and eaten bread just as we are doing.

Jengie

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...if he has sufficient Power Points available and has learnt the Consubstantiate or Transubtantiate spells and listed them amongst his memorised spells on his character sheet, naturally.

Perhaps using alternative elements results in a -5 to the D20 casting roll?

Surely Consubstantiate and Transubstantiate are Cleric spells, not Magic User ones! And in any case, don't the wrong material components usually make a botch of the spell?

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...if he has sufficient Power Points available and has learnt the Consubstantiate or Transubtantiate spells and listed them amongst his memorised spells on his character sheet, naturally.

Perhaps using alternative elements results in a -5 to the D20 casting roll?
Surely Consubstantiate and Transubstantiate are Cleric spells, not Magic User ones! And in any case, don't the wrong material components usually make a botch of the spell?

Only if you're doing magic. Personally, I think that's not what we're doing at Mass. [Biased]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...if he has sufficient Power Points available and has learnt the Consubstantiate or Transubtantiate spells and listed them amongst his memorised spells on his character sheet, naturally.

Perhaps using alternative elements results in a -5 to the D20 casting roll?
Surely Consubstantiate and Transubstantiate are Cleric spells, not Magic User ones! And in any case, don't the wrong material components usually make a botch of the spell?

Well, they are in D&D, but in D&D there's no casting roll anyway. They'd be Channeling in MERP, but as I said that's a percentile system.

It's a long time since I played D&D; I'd forgotten clerics don't need to memorise spells.

Wrong material components was always a DMs call really. Were I DMing, and the components were nearly but not quite right, I'd either come up with an amusing result based on what was actually in use, or put a penalty on the casting roll in a system that used them. Of course, with D&D having no casting roll you don't have that option. You could reduce the area of effect or the target quantity, but the area of effect for these two spells is of course "whatever the priest intends to consecrate".

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...if he has sufficient Power Points available and has learnt the Consubstantiate or Transubtantiate spells and listed them amongst his memorised spells on his character sheet, naturally.

Perhaps using alternative elements results in a -5 to the D20 casting roll?
Surely Consubstantiate and Transubstantiate are Cleric spells, not Magic User ones! And in any case, don't the wrong material components usually make a botch of the spell?
Only if you're doing magic. Personally, I think that's not what we're doing at Mass.

No, but the way some people talk... which was rather the point.

Posted by anon four (# 15938) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Ebbtide:

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Are we sure of even the color of the wine at the Last Supper? Perhaps it looked like this but without the fancy bottle and price tag.
The Jewish practice of using only white wine at Passover was initiated during the Middle Ages in order to dispel the anti-Semitic libel that Jews mixed the wine with the blood of Christian children. Before that, either red or white wine could be used, so which was used at the Last Supper is anybody's guess.
I would suggest that seeing as the constant practice of the Church, from the Apostles to this day, has to been to use only red wine then here is your answer. Nothing to do with guess work.

I look forawrd to the production of the invoice or bottle lable from Corinth in 93AD to prove this confident assertion... [Biased]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anon four:
I look forawrd to the production of the invoice or bottle lable from Corinth in 93AD to prove this confident assertion...

Still, the practice of the Church speaks volumes, I feel. But then I guess that all depends upon how one views practice within the Church.

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

It's my observation as a Congregationalist/Baptist that the Anglican rubric (and, I presume, those of the RC and Lutheran churches as well) precludes the use of grape juice for the Eucharist. Personally, for the reasons given in the previous posts, I'm with those who maintain that actual wine should be used. But I do see a need to provide unfermented grape juice for communicants who have a problem with alcohol --- and of course that's the reason grape juice was first processed and bottled to begin with. Mr. Welch, a Massachusetts Methodist, invented it in the early 19th century because alcoholism had become such a major issue in American society, even among church folk.

So . . . is this something to which more denominations should give consideration, along with the gluten-sensitivity matter?

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Do we maintain that [a celebration of the Eucharist with rice cakes and rice wine] was not a valid celebration? or was it nullified, not by the incorrect elements but by the unethical bribe to the guard?

"Unethical bribe"? What does this even mean? Surely you meant rather something like, "paying the market price for rice wine"?

[ 07. March 2013, 13:59: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
So . . . is this something to which more denominations should give consideration, along with the gluten-sensitivity matter?

I think that rather depends on what one believes happens in the Eucharist.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would suggest that seeing as the constant practice of the Church, from the Apostles to this day, has to been to use only red wine then here is your answer. Nothing to do with guess work.

In my life i've often been at RC celebrations of the Eucharist where white wine has been used.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I would suggest that seeing as the constant practice of the Church, from the Apostles to this day, has to been to use only red wine then here is your answer. Nothing to do with guess work.
In my life i've often been at RC celebrations of the Eucharist where white wine has been used.

If that's so then the celebrant was acting in opposition to 1. Tradition and 2. RC canon law.

[ 08. March 2013, 04:20: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If that's so then the celebrant was acting in opposition to 1. Tradition and 2. RC canon law.

I don't think it is out of line to ask you for a cite for both of these assertions.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

Ad Orientem will have to make his/her own argument for tradition, but it doesn't appear that either the Code of Canon Law or the General Instruction on the Roman Missal requires that the wine be red, merely that it be made from grapes.

Canon 924 ss. 3: "The wine must be natural, made from grapes of the vine, and not corrupt."

GIRM 284: "The wine for the eucharist must be from the fruit of the vine natural, and pure, that is not mixed with any foreign substance." [citations omitted]

I agree with the argument that red wine is more desirable aesthetically, but it does not appear to be a requirement.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

For the first one just look at the practice of the Church. Ask yourself, was it ever custom anywhere at anytime to use white wine? Certainly not in the ancient Churches of the East and West. The second you'll have to wait for. I'm on the bus going to work.

In all my time as Christian I have fortunately never seen or heard of such a practice and hopefully never will. I suspect such things happen when priests try to be novel.

[ 08. March 2013, 05:18: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
For the first one just look at the practice of the Church. Ask yourself, was it ever custom anywhere at anytime to use white wine? Certainly not in the ancient Churches of the East and West. The second you'll have to wait for.

I figured the Canon Law question would get sorted out one way or the other; thanks to Jon in the Nati for sorting it sooner rather than later.

For the second one: I asked you for some evidence, so I'm not going to go asking myself. So far, all we have from you is more proof by assertion.

There's no rush; it's an asynchronous communication medium.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Well, if you think tradition is picking the right document from a pile of documents then you're sorely mistaken. The only justification I have seen (and it's a poor justification at that) for using white wine is that red wine leave stains on the altar cloth. This to me seems nothing more than a rationalisation for a novelty. The Eastern Churches stipulate that it must be fermented, red grape wine.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Well, if you think tradition is picking the right document from a pile of documents then you're sorely mistaken. The only justification I have seen (and it's a poor justification at that) for using white wine is that red wine leave stains on the altar cloth. This to me seems nothing more than a rationalisation for a novelty. The Eastern Churches stipulate that it must be fermented, red grape wine.

Are you implying that the Eastern Churches set the invariable standard all churches everywhere are required to follow?

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

I doubt that is what AO is saying. Nonetheless, there are lots of folk (particularly Anglicans and some Lutherans) who love go about giving obsequious faux-deference to the practice of the Orthodox churches, as though the Eastern liturgical traditions should have anything at all to do with how westerners go about their business.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Well I'd say they should have 'anything at all' to do with our practices - we ought to be aware of what happens in the Eastern Rites, and why, and there is certainly nothing wrong with being informed by them. This does not of course mean that we have any right to appeal to carefully picked aspects of their worship to support our own prejudices, of course. For what it's worth, I'm happy to regard the colour (and grape, body, etc.) of the wine as adiaphora, in a way that requiring it to be fermented grape juice is not.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
... Nonetheless, there are lots of folk (particularly Anglicans and some Lutherans) who love go about giving obsequious faux-deference to the practice of the Orthodox churches, as though the Eastern liturgical traditions should have anything at all to do with how westerners go about their business.

It is, or should be, always interesting to know how other people do things, because it is always possible they may have good ideas to learn from, or do them better.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0