|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: what is wine in communion ?
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
What is " fruit of the vine" used in accounts of the Last Supper Mt.26:27-29,Mk.14:23-25,Lk.22:18-18 ? Some places it appears it means wine, in others grape juice. In my Anglican tradition it is real wine. Wjat do
some of my shipmates think ? ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
[ 24. January 2013, 18:28: Message edited by: PaulBC ]
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Where does it mean grape juice?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The only biblical reference to grape juice I can think of is Genesis 40:11, but it refers to a cup, not the beverage.
"And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand: and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand."
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Can I get a clarification here - is this a discussion of the practices followed at the Last Supper? If it is, then it is probably a Kerygmania topic.
However, the OP appears to imply that the question relates to what is blessed at Holy Communion which would be a good Ecclesiantics topic...
dj_ordinaire, a Host of very Little Brain
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
dj
I think it is an appropriate question to ask in Ecclesiasticus; however, most liturgical practices are based on some Biblical principal. Thus, I think Zach's observation may be appropriate too.
That said, I disagree with Zach's interpretation. Genesis 40 is relating how Joseph was imprisoned by Pharaoh along with the chief cupbearer and the chief baker. Both have dreams which they told Joseph. While the chief cupbearer says he has a dream in which he will again press the grapes into Pharaoh's cup, there is really no indication that the juice of the grape goes immediately into the cup and Pharaoh drinks immediately from the cup. As in many dreams, the actions are compressed, and present tense is used.
The question of what was meant by "fruit of the vine" is always referred to as wine in the Bible. It was not until the temperance movement in the US that the suggestion of it meaning simple grape juice came up. Baptists and some Methodists, maybe even Reformed people will like to argue that the wine in Jesus's day was not as fermented as it is now. I think that is a stretch. Most likely it was even more fermented than now, because in modern times fermentation is arrested at about 10% alcohol content. Fermentation can continue until the wine becomes vinegar. Which is what the steward of the wedding at Cana was referring to. Most weddings back then started out with the good wine, but as time went on, they would start to use the old wine that was just about to turn into vinegar.
No, "fruit of the vine" means wine. However, since we have to be concerned about serving alcohol to recovering alcoholics or even little children, I would say it is permissible to have grape juice available to those who should not have alcohol.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
The kerygmania reply is that "fruit of the vine" is a figurative expression for wine.
Opinions are divided as to whether that means it is necessary to use wine for the Lord's Supper to be authentic, and also what authentic means.
"The cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" may be alluding to Jer 31 quote:
The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.
which we would then say applies to the church as the new Israel/Judah
As to the fermentation. Fermentation will continue to produce alcohol until all the sugar is converted unless the yeast is inhibited by concentration of alcohol (yeasts vary in their ability to ferment). Conversion to vinegar is another process that wine lovers would regard as spoiling the wine. Whether vinegar is still regarded as 'fruit of the vine' and Jesus drank the fruit of the vine on the cross I do not know; but if so, that would imply that the Kingdom of God came at the Crucifixion, which would raise other questions.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The Biblical literalist in me wants to say that "wine" means wine. The stuff that people who drink wine drink when they think they are drinking wine.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
I think we can ignore what I wrote about the wine/vinegar Jesus drank on the cross being him drinking again to show the kingdom had come.
It is only in John he drinks it, and there is no Last Supper bread & wine in John. And in the synoptics it appears He did not get to drink the wine.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
My understanding is that in the classical period, water was added to wine, diluting the alcohol content which is where the possible argument that grape juice comes from.
Myself, I'm unconvinced: diluted, watered down wine is still wine, it's not grape juice as we think of it.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I think there is a strong theological imperative to use fermented wine at the Eucharist, just because alcohol is prone to misuse. Christ redeems everything that sin distorts.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
That seems a bit close to sinning more that grace may abound (cf Romans 6) for my liking... I'm not sure I'd like to try and extend that logic into other areas of the church's life.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My understanding is that in the classical period, water was added to wine, diluting the alcohol content which is where the possible argument that grape juice comes from.
Myself, I'm unconvinced: diluted, watered down wine is still wine, it's not grape juice as we think of it.
I'd have to check the sources, but I think Plato mentions something about two parts wine to one part water, so that you could have a reasonable drinking party (i.e. a "Symposium") without getting too drunk. But I've always had the impression it wasn't just about diluting the alcohol, but because a lot of wine back then must have been pretty rough stuff - "Chateau Backyard".
And that's really why we still put water in the wine these days. All the symbolic stuff - "by the mystery of this water and wine, etc." - came later. The origin of the practice was that we just carried on taking our wine the way the ancients had done.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
True, although one suspects that the water might have been pretty suspect back then as well! Honey and spices were also added for the same reasons.
Accepting this, it seems the nub of the question is the extent to which Communion practices should be informed by, or seek to imitate, the Last Supper. In most traditions, only a few elements will typically be conserved - the incorporation into an act of worship rather than a formal meal being an obvious one. (Not to mention the fact that the 'Supper' is usually held at breakfast time!).
Which is a deep matter!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My understanding is that in the classical period, water was added to wine, diluting the alcohol content which is where the possible argument that grape juice comes from.
Myself, I'm unconvinced: diluted, watered down wine is still wine, it's not grape juice as we think of it.
I'd have to check the sources, but I think Plato mentions something about two parts wine to one part water, so that you could have a reasonable drinking party (i.e. a "Symposium") without getting too drunk. But I've always had the impression it wasn't just about diluting the alcohol, but because a lot of wine back then must have been pretty rough stuff - "Chateau Backyard".
And that's really why we still put water in the wine these days. All the symbolic stuff - "by the mystery of this water and wine, etc." - came later. The origin of the practice was that we just carried on taking our wine the way the ancients had done.
My understanding is that Protestants don't put water into communion wine/grape juice, that the mixing of water and wine is a mark of high churchmanship?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My understanding is that Protestants don't put water into communion wine/grape juice, that the mixing of water and wine is a mark of high churchmanship?
Yes. In the Church of England, the "mixed chalice" was one of the "Catholic" practices explicitly mentioned in the Ritualist controversies and prosecutions of the late 19th century. That was after it had become laden with symbolic meaning, and it had largely been forgotten that that was how everyone used to drink wine anyway.
Dj_ordinaire - yes, dodgy water was probably one reason people took to drinking alcohol in the first place, as soon as they'd learned how to ferment things (though they soon discovered other reasons!). I don't know whether adding water to wine disinfects the water: perhaps it does so just enough to make it a relatively safe drink.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I dimly recall very early Church sources mentioning the use of bread and water during the Lord's Supper. The practice was apparently widespread enough for Cyprian to say not to do it.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
And there are the early sources which refer to milk and honey along with the wine and bread - although I think that is specifically linked to first communion after Baptism and Confirmation...
It may still happen in the East, an Orthodox peep would be useful to guide me aright here...
[ 25. January 2013, 14:20: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The Biblical literalist in me wants to say that "wine" means wine. The stuff that people who drink wine drink when they think they are drinking wine.
There's no Biblical literalist in me, and I completely agree.
Preferably proper wine bought from Oddbins rather than some ecclesiastical muck that I wouldn't give house room.
And perfectly appropriately white as soon as red. It's not mock blood.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Do you apply the same logic to the bread, venbede?
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
When I've arranged a house mass, I've used a pitta from the local store.
In church, broken bits from one large unleavened wafer seem more appropriate than individual wafers.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Wouldn't "proper bread bought from the bakery" be the analogue of "proper wine bought from Oddbins" (other wine merchants are available)?
I'm actually quite happy with the use of wafers and unleavened bread more generally although it's not usually our custom but I think a great deal of the argument for wafers boils down to pragmatism. I have no problem with that but our use of grape juice/non-alcoholic wine is a pragmatic response to the social ills of alcohol rather than any attempt to claim that the wine Jesus used at the last supper was non-alcoholic.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
No, "fruit of the vine" means wine. However, since we have to be concerned about serving alcohol to recovering alcoholics or even little children, I would say it is permissible to have grape juice available to those who should not have alcohol.
Agreed that the fruit of the vine is definitely alcoholic wine. You suggest that wine used to be stronger than it normally is these days--the Greeks would always water their wine at banquets and symposia, and anyone who drank his wine unwatered was considered something of a lush. To me that also suggests that wine was typically more alcoholic.
As far as using grape juice, I'm agin it, just as I am agin using non-wheaten bread for the Eucharist. If a person can't receive the cup, then they just can't receive it; the doctrine of concomitance ensures that they are receiving just as much Jesus in the host as those who are receiving both elements.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
venbede, the individual wafers are stamped from a big sheet, so it seems to me about the same thing as breaking a big disc of matzoh. It just doesn't happen within the sight of the congregation, which may be a semiotic disadvantage--not that it bothers me much.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
dj If you want to move this elsewhere that is
your option as a host
PaulBC
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
As far as using grape juice, I'm agin it, just as I am agin using non-wheaten bread for the Eucharist. If a person can't receive the cup, then they just can't receive it; the doctrine of concomitance ensures that they are receiving just as much Jesus in the host as those who are receiving both elements.
Presumably the alcoholic coeliac is still excluded?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
He didn't have those reasons in mind, but Thomas thought of this problem (part of the scandal of particularity, really):
quote:
ST III, q. 73, a. 3
Now it was stated above that the reality of the [Eucharist] is the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation;...And it has been said above that before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the desire of receiving the sacrament. Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, one can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it...
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
When my uni chaplaincy has Communion services, the (open evangelical Anglican) chaplain uses standard bought wine and pitta bread. When we have our Christian discussion group that's not CU, we have a box of wine and a large loaf of tiger bread ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) I personally prefer bread to wafers but I understand the practicality of wafers in a church setting. I would never consider taking non-alcoholic wine as part of Communion (my own church often uses port), although obviously allergies/food intolerances make a difference. Some people have yeast and/or alcohol allergies, so I don't think there is a problem with providing grape juice and gluten-free bread - but it should only be for those who need it, not used as the standard.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
He didn't have those reasons in mind, but Thomas thought of this problem...
That's one to remember when the Quakers and Salvationists view everyone else across the ecumenical table... ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
As far as using grape juice, I'm agin it, just as I am agin using non-wheaten bread for the Eucharist. If a person can't receive the cup, then they just can't receive it; the doctrine of concomitance ensures that they are receiving just as much Jesus in the host as those who are receiving both elements.
Presumably the alcoholic coeliac is still excluded?
I'm not sure how giving them improper elements which would render the sacrament of dubious validity would count as inclusion, except in a dolly-tea-party sense. And as Hart points out above, in the rare instances where someone can receive neither the host nor the chalice there is always communio in sacris, whereby the worshiper receives the benefit of the sacrament through his disposition to receive it.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Now if there is room for discussion, it would be on what type of bread is to be used in communion. Granted, the Lord's Supper was instituted during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Passover). One would assume the bread Jesus blessed would be unleavened. However, there is a curious change in the word that is used in the blessing. Instead of άζυμο ψωμί (unleavened bread), we have all the accounts of the institution saying Jesus took άρτος, which is a generic word for bread, or ccommon bread or leavened bread.
The Eastern Church has continued to use leavened bread in its communion. They argue that the leavened bread reflects the Resurrected Christ.
On the other had, the Western Church has traditionally used unleavened bread because of the emphasis on the sacrificial meal.
But, why did the writers of the Gospels, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, use the word άρτος? Was it because as the church transitioned from a Jewish community to a Gentile Community Gentiles were not likely to have unleavened bread? Or is it because, as the Eastern Church teaches, the word was changed to place the emphasis on the Resurrected Christ.
I would say at least in my congregation we tend to use leavened bread during communion because of the word άρτος. We do switched to unleavened bread during Lent and then a honey bread during Eastertide. Of course, we go have a few glutton intolerate people so we do have a rice bread available for them all the time. Again, the wor dάρτος can mean any type of bread.
On another note: about the use of grape juice over wine for communion, especially for those who should not be drinking alcohol: I think Paul's admonition to the Romans about not becoming a stumbling block to those who may object comes into play. If people say they cannot take wine for whatever reason, it is best to have grape juice available.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Granted, the Lord's Supper was instituted during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Passover).
Can this be taken for granted? One of the reasons for the differences between eastern and current western practice that you mention later in your post is precisely that there is not a consensus on this point.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I'm not sure how giving them improper elements which would render the sacrament of dubious validity would count as inclusion, except in a dolly-tea-party sense.
Well, it's already a pretty thin communion, isn't it? I mean, it's so symbolic already that using crisps (= chips) and grape juice instead of bread and wine doesn't seem that big a step, frankly.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I've always mixed water with wine, as I was taught to do this and I liked the reason given for it (water and blood flowing from Christ's side at his death). I used this as a (very minor) teaching point in a sermon recently. Hope nobody reported me to the Protestant Police!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Granted, the Lord's Supper was instituted during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Passover).
Can this be taken for granted? One of the reasons for the differences between eastern and current western practice that you mention later in your post is precisely that there is not a consensus on this point.
The Synoptics make it a Passover meal, John doesn't. Strangely, considering John is the latest Gospel, John's timing of the Passion makes more sense. The muck-a-mucks in the Synoptics don't want to make a scene during the Passover celebrations, but then proceed to do exactly that.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
I mean, it's so symbolic already that using crisps (= chips) and grape juice instead of bread and wine doesn't seem that big a step, frankly.
The issue is that chips are not bread; bread is bread, even if it is a little wafer (wheat flour, etc.). Simili modo,* all of the various types of wine we could use are still wine, whereas grape juice is not wine.
You seem to want an admission that certain hypothetical people may, in circumstances so remote as to be unlikely ever to occur, be excluded from the Christian 'dolly-tea-party' because of how we decide that we must conduct it, and that this may be an indictment of some sort. This may be true, though I don't see the relevance Fr. Weber, I think, is correct in noting that if no pastoral accommodation may be with regards the elements themselves, the person in question could still receive communion in sacris, obviating the problem (at least from a theological standpoint).
*which, being translated, means 'in a similar way.'
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I mean, it's so symbolic already that using crisps (= chips) and grape juice instead of bread and wine doesn't seem that big a step, frankly.
If it's that symbolic for you, then what you're doing can hardly be considered the Eucharist in any historical sense, even a Protestant one.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I mean, it's so symbolic already that using crisps (= chips) and grape juice instead of bread and wine doesn't seem that big a step, frankly.
If it's that symbolic for you, then what you're doing can hardly be considered the Eucharist in any historical sense, even a Protestant one.
I swear I've lived this day before. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
You seem to want an admission that certain hypothetical people may, in circumstances so remote as to be unlikely ever to occur, be excluded from the Christian 'dolly-tea-party' because of how we decide that we must conduct it, and that this may be an indictment of some sort.way.'
I'm exploring the theology by trying to determine the limits. And, to be clear, it was Fr. Weber who claimed that anything but "real" bread and "real" wine would make the ceremony a "dolly-tea-party". That is not my phrase, and I don't mean to denigrate anyone's experience of participating in the ritual.
I'm actually quite happy with Hart's explanation that someone can still take communion spiritually without consuming the material elements. However, I suspect many would claim that I'm not partaking in communion if I claim to have done so without so consuming! (Indeed, if I'm in a congregation that is taking outward communion, I don't feel that I'm fully participating unless I also do so). And the emphasis on getting the material elements right rather seems to count against the idea that intent is sufficient.
And I just don't understand Mousethief's point. The eucharist is a symbolic meal (I accept that for some it may not be only a meal) that in practice has been stripped down to the bare minimum. Quibbling over wine or grape juice (or root beer, for which one Catholic of my acquaintance used to argue) really doesn't seem that important. I don't know if we're using "symbolic" in different ways? I just mean we're not actually sitting down to fish sarnies, or roast lamb (depending on which passage you think is the foundation text); rather, the elements act as a place holder for the full experience of sharing a meal.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I suppose for those who really believe in the fullest version of pre-Reformation transubstantiation, it shouldn't matter what the elements were before they were consecrated, since they now no longer are. However, I don't recall having even heard anyone of that tradition argue that, and I'm not expecting to.
As for me, I think the wine should be of the grape and fermented. Though perhaps endorsed by tradition, the practice in some places before the Civil War of the squire and his family having different and better wine than the hoi polloi should be thoroughly deprecated. I would class the addition of wine or otherwise as a thing indifferent.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Booze, probably provided by the local smugglers for the gentry, and grape juice for the working classes. As we all know the only reason they are in poverty is not due to an unjust social structure, but due to their hopeless addiction to alcohol.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
And I just don't understand Mousethief's point. The eucharist is a symbolic meal (I accept that for some it may not be only a meal) that in practice has been stripped down to the bare minimum. Quibbling over wine or grape juice (or root beer, for which one Catholic of my acquaintance used to argue) really doesn't seem that important. I don't know if we're using "symbolic" in different ways? I just mean we're not actually sitting down to fish sarnies, or roast lamb (depending on which passage you think is the foundation text); rather, the elements act as a place holder for the full experience of sharing a meal.
It's a logical fallacy. Any Protestant might argue "The Eucharist is a shared, symbolic meal," but no Protestant can draw from that the conclusion "Every shared, symbolic meal is a Eucharist."
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Opinions are divided as to whether that means it is necessary to use wine for the Lord's Supper to be authentic...
That's only been true in recent centuries among a relative minority of Christians. For the first 15 centuries the consensus among Christians was for the use of wine in the Eucharist and the majority of Christians continue to believe so today, including all the ancient apostolic churches.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I think we can ignore what I wrote about the wine/vinegar Jesus drank on the cross being him drinking again to show the kingdom had come.
It is only in John he drinks it, and there is no Last Supper bread & wine in John. And in the synoptics it appears He did not get to drink the wine.
The wine/vinbegar offered Jesus was issue wine as the troops got and it had a bad reputation for being truely bad.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos navis
# 5818
|
Posted
My take:
1) The Johannine chronology is more likely to be right, in which the last supper is on Nisan 13/14, not 14/15 as in the synoptics. The supper would not then have been what is now called the seder, but it would have had some of the same elements anyhow: Grace over bread, Grace-after-meat possibly with a "cup of blessing". Also the bread would have been wheaten bread (unless they were running short of cash, in which case barley cakes) and the wine would have been wine (i.e. alcoholic) made from grapes of the species vitis vinifera.
Arguably the indispensable elements are (a) nourishing food (not necessarily in portions large enough by themselves to sustain our animal life) (b) shared by the baptised (c) with thanksgiving to God the Father in Jesus' name and memory. This is the archetype of all our meals, the heavenly truth that all our earthly life strives for. This gives great leeway, but because I am a traditionalist, my preference is to keep practice close to what it has been. Hence:
2) My preference, under modern conditions, is ordinarily to use wheat or barley bread and grape wine of the genus vitis, though not necessarily v. vinifera; but
3) under special circumstances brandy might be substituted for wine and corn-pone or other forms of bread, even potato bread, for the more traditional bread, and
4) under even more special circumstances other substitutions might be made.
Additional comments:
5) People who normally use unleavened bread are not thereby teaching that Jesus did not have a human soul, as some Eastern teachers at one time alleged. (Do any still teach this?)
6) Potato chips are out of order not because they are not "bread", but because they are undignified.
--------------------
Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.
Posts: 1443 | From: Between Broken Bow and Black Mesa | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
On the other had, the Western Church has traditionally used unleavened bread because of the emphasis on the sacrificial meal.
The sacrificial bread of the OT, the shewbread or "bread of the Presence" that was on a table between the menorah and the altar of incense in front of the Holy of Holies, was probably leavened bread.
The unleavened passover bread is not a sacrifice, it is travel food, symbolising readiness to drop everything and go at a moment's notice. With an extra added-on layer of symbolism comparing leaven to sin working though the whole body.
There are multilayered e metaphorical onions of imagery.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Any Protestant might argue "The Eucharist is a shared, symbolic meal," but no Protestant can draw from that the conclusion "Every shared, symbolic meal is a Eucharist."
a) Who was arguing that?
b) What has Protestantism to do with it?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Any Protestant might argue "The Eucharist is a shared, symbolic meal," but no Protestant can draw from that the conclusion "Every shared, symbolic meal is a Eucharist."
a) Who was arguing that?
b) What has Protestantism to do with it?
I believe that 'every shared, symbolic meal' is the Quaker position, hence no Eucharist in their meetings.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
b) What has Protestantism to do with it?
Only a Protestant could argue as you have. It is an argument born of Protestantism, and foreign to Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and other "real presence" believing strains of Christianity.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I think there is a strong theological imperative to use fermented wine at the Eucharist, just because alcohol is prone to misuse. Christ redeems everything that sin distorts.
Wine is a little risky, and so is following Jesus!
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Any Protestant might argue "The Eucharist is a shared, symbolic meal," but no Protestant can draw from that the conclusion "Every shared, symbolic meal is a Eucharist."
a) Who was arguing that?
b) What has Protestantism to do with it?
A)You said
quote:
"Quibbling over wine or grape juice (or root beer, for which one Catholic of my acquaintance used to argue) really doesn't seem that important...the elements act as a place holder for the full experience of sharing a meal."
You go from the premise, to paraphrase, "The Eucharist is bread and wine representing the full experience of sharing a meal'" to "The Eucharist is any 'place holder' representing the full experience of sharing a meal.'" As I said, that is a logical fallacy. It would be equally unsound to conclude "All dogs are dalmatians" from the premise "All dalmatians are dogs."
Now, it might be true that the Eucharist is a symbolic meal, but that doesn't mean anything can be used in that particular symbolic meal.
B) What MT said.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
