Why not use grapejuice?

Though the entire mass is heretical to begin with (another subject), in the communion service in general, the use of wine is Biblically wrong. Grape juice is the right substance to use one of the elements of the Lord's Table. It symbolizes the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ which was not corrupted.
Wine is corrupted juice. Fermentation is a leavening process. Leaven in the Bible is always symbolical of sin. The bread that we eat during the service must be unleavened. So must be the juice--thus unfermented. The Lord would have never used leavened or fermented juice to represent His body and blood.
He used "the fruit of the vine." The fruit of the vine infers the juice that was fresh from the vine. In no way could one justify that which was aged and corrupted or fermented by the time that they used it for the Last Supper. Chrust's body (and blood) saw "no corruption." Why would we use symbols of corruption to represent his body and blood.
DHK

 

Just a couple of thoughts. Communion wine can be purchased at liquor stores in Canada which is non-alcoholic. Two, Welch's grapejuice can be catastrophic for a diabetic....it is very high in sugar content. The small amount of juice wouldn't trouble a normal diabetic, but if his blood sugar happened to be out of line, he could collapse into a coma or worse.

I really don't care if one uses water. The symbol remains the same under the right circumstances.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Wine at the time of Jesus was fermented juice.

Must we make everything complicated?

The Passover was celebrated with unleavened bread and wine from the time of Moses to today.

 

No,

The Mass is always celebrated in the tradition that it has always been, priests are not permitted to change any portion of it and especially not any part of anything relating to a Sacrament.

Churches used Alcoholic Wine for communion because that is all that there was. Alcohol was used for a Preservative. It might be nice to think that they had unlimited supplies of grapes and were able to make and store all this freash grape juice 12 months of the year. The facts were that the only preservative that was available was the natural fermentation process. Grape juice non alcoholic became available in the 18th century. The Salvation Army often say that if Grape Juice had of been available to their founder William Booth then it is likely they would have had the communion sacrament in there churches. Yet because he would not permit alcoholic wine, they forgo the sacrament.

 

Excellent!

In Christ,

Bob

 

The problem with the argument that their grape juice turned to wine "automatically" - is that grape juice does not do that. It turns into a bitter undrinkable substance after it rots for a while. Making wine is a deliberate, closely managed process.

There is no indication in the NT or OT - that they did not have access to unfermented fruit of the vine.

In Christ,

Bob

 

1410 It is Christ himself, the eternal high priest of the New Covenant who, acting through the ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. And it is the same Christ, really present under the species of bread and wine, who is the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood. . . ."

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

Catechism of the Catholic Church


This is the Catholic Church's position on the elements used in the sacrifice of the Mass.

To say that grape juice could not be kept unfermented for any extended length of time during the time of Christ is not true. There is plenty of evidence that they did. Furthermore Christ would not have gone against His own word.
He would not use something that symbolized sin.
He would not use something condemned in the Old Testament. (Prov.20:1)
He would not use something that is an addiction and a stumbling block to many.
The fruit of the vine always refers to new wine or grape juice.

The word wine in both the O.T. and the N.T. is a generic word, much like the English word cider. Buy cider here at Second Cup and it is an unfermented apple drink. Buy it in Germany and you will get something that is fermented.
In the Bible you have the Greek word oinos, and the Hebrew word yayin. Both are translated wine, and both can mean either unfermented or fermented juice. Only the context can determine the proper meaning. You cannot assume that wine means fermented wine only because your western society defines it that way. What does the context say. The context says that in the Lord's Supper wine was unfermented.
DHK

 

Why the worry then about putting new wine into old wine skins?

 

The reason they didnt put new wine into an old wineskin, was because the wineskin was old from being streached already from one fermentation of wine. A wineskin is a sheeps gut, and it can streach once not twice, hence if you put wine in again it will break.

 

"fermented"

From a chemical standpoint, natural sugar could be considered the "leaven"; and the alcohol could be considered a "purifier."

Why not use coconut milk?--If nothing else is available?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

mr Ryan
"There is no indication in the NT or OT - that they did not have access to unfermented fruit of the vine."
"
12 months a year? I'd say you are projecting the existance of modern luxuries backwards in time.

DHK
"The context says that in the Lord's Supper wine was unfermented."
"
The context says that you are projecting a bit of 19th century theology onto a first century narrative.

 

I believe your statement of the Roman Catholic viewpoint is correct.

However, just to toss in a thought, I remember when I was younger, when we would make up boxes of things to send to missionaries in places like Africa, that we would include packets of grape kool-aid so they could have communion juice. I think all that matters to Baptists is that it's liquid and that it's either red or purple in color to symbolize blood.

 

Depends on what 'branch' of Baptists you are talking about. Primitive Baptists use fermented wine and unleavened bread...period. If those were not available, then we would not go on into the service.

It is my stand that when the Bible expressly gives us a way to conduct services that we should not deviate from that example. If Christ did it with wine, and he told us to follow his example, then there should be no reason to change that example here in modern times.

Just my thoughts.

 

"He used "the fruit of the vine." The fruit of the vine infers the juice that was fresh from the vine. In no way could one justify that which was aged and corrupted or fermented by the time that they used it for the Last Supper."

C'mon guys!



Of course it was fermented wine! People drank wine back then because the alcohol killed bacteria and prevented spoilage. It was safer to drink wine than water from the stream (just think - someone might be washing his camel in it a mile upstream!).

Today there is no reason to use an alcoholic beverage because we have lots of good clean drinks and lots of refrigerators.

But Jesus used wine. We cannot go back and force the scriptures because we don't like the way something looks. That's a bad precedent. To say that Jesus' REALLY used grape juice is like saying that 1 Cor 6:9 doesn't condemn sex between monogamous homosexual couples (whichhas been asserted by the liberals - ugh.)!! Both are twisting the scriptures!!

 

You are the one twisting Scripture Charles. You are insinuating that the people of New Testament times never had the opportunity to dring grape juice. They didn't even know what it was. They always drank alcoholic beverages--probably fed it to their infants as well. Little extreme don't you think? Of course they drank juice. It was widely available, a safe and common drink. Did they make sure that the water was fermented too?
DHK