Communion wine

[Lupinus]

And the point isn't the water, it's the holy spirit.

In both baptism and the Lords supper we are told what physical elements to use, which is why we should use them as told in both cases.

 

[AngelusSax]

Either Christ is present in the Sacrament because of Christ and His promises to us, or because we're using the right things, saying the right things, and being the good little dogmatists we like to be.

One way it's all about God. The other way it's about us, whether we know it or not, admit it or not.

One way it's about Christ's love and redemption of us. The other way it's about our works, trying to bring about some part of Grace through the works of us using "the right things".

As a very wise person on here said, just go to communion and don't worry about it.

Either God's there because He's God, or He's not there. Being the Christian of the Lutheran Tradition that I am, I believe He is there, but only because He wills Himself to be and keeps His promises, not because I happen to have gotten something right, or my church has gotten something right. God does what God does because of God's glory.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'm thinking that THIS POST got lost in all the arguing.

 

[Lupinus]

But it doesn't say "fruit of the vine." Again I'll say: if the tpe of wine was important, don't you think he'd mention it..

He tells us. You are choosing to ignore what scripture is telling you. Scripture is telling you he distributed wine.

 

[Lupinus]

PW-

I don't believe so. It's a debate, but all in all it's been friendly.

In any case since I have work in the morning and just encase it drifts that way I'm heading to bed.

 

[DaRev]

See? You take it one step too far. The point wasn't the wine, it is the blood.

...in, with, and under the wine. Have you ever read the Small Catechism?

But it doesn't say "fruit of the vine." Again I'll say: if the tpe of wine was important, don't you think he'd mention it..

He didn't need to specifically mention something that was a given. The Passover meal included grape wine. Read any of the passages concerning the Passover, going back to Exodus. It's a given. There is no question.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

From the WELS Q&A:

With the material elements in the Lord's Supper it is helpful to distinguish between what God's Word commands and what Jesus and his disciples did. When Jesus said, "Do this" he indicated that we should use bread and "fruit of the vine." Scripture never uses the word "wine" but simply calls the contents of the cup "fruit of the vine." The issue is not the alcoholic content of the cup. In fact, in Jesus' time the wine was usually mixed with water. It is true that from the historical context we know that Jesus and his disciples used unleavened bread and grape wine (probably mixed with water as was the custom). That is why we usually use unleavened bread (wafers) and grape wine today.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Also from the WELS Q&A, and I think this is VERY important to note:

In closing, allow me to stress that it is wise to make the use of leavened bread and non-alcoholic wine the exceptions to the rule. Although God's Word simply tells us to use "bread" and "fruit of the vine" the preferred material elements in the Lord's Supper would be unleavened bread and grape wine. In keeping with the historical context of the sacrament, these are the customary elements the Christian church has used for centuries.

 

[BreadAlone]

Either Christ is present in the Sacrament because of Christ and His promises to us, or because we're using the right things, saying the right things, and being the good little dogmatists we like to be.

One way it's all about God. The other way it's about us, whether we know it or not, admit it or not.

One way it's about Christ's love and redemption of us. The other way it's about our works, trying to bring about some part of Grace through the works of us using "the right things".

As a very wise person on here said, just go to communion and don't worry about it.

Either God's there because He's God, or He's not there. Being the Christian of the Lutheran Tradition that I am, I believe He is there, but only because He wills Himself to be and keeps His promises, not because I happen to have gotten something right, or my church has gotten something right. God does what God does because of God's glory.

 

[AngelusSax]

PW--

I notice that the wording of the Q&A says the elements of bread and grape wine are preferred. Preferred is one thing, required is something else.

Some on here are saying, or at least implying, that those specific elements either are, or should be, absolute requirements.

Do you know if this is the more "practical" stance within the WELS (as oftentimes churches have official stances, but by practice something else is the "actual law", so to speak).

 

[BreadAlone]

From the WELS Q&A:

With the material elements in the Lord's Supper it is helpful to distinguish between what God's Word commands and what Jesus and his disciples did. When Jesus said, "Do this" he indicated that we should use bread and "fruit of the vine." Scripture never uses the word "wine" but simply calls the contents of the cup "fruit of the vine." The issue is not the alcoholic content of the cup. In fact, in Jesus' time the wine was usually mixed with water. It is true that from the historical context we know that Jesus and his disciples used unleavened bread and grape wine (probably mixed with water as was the custom). That is why we usually use unleavened bread (wafers) and grape wine today.

Also from the WELS Q&A, and I think this is VERY important to note:

In closing, allow me to stress that it is wise to make the use of leavened bread and non-alcoholic wine the exceptions to the rule. Although God's Word simply tells us to use "bread" and "fruit of the vine" the preferred material elements in the Lord's Supper would be unleavened bread and grape wine. In keeping with the historical context of the sacrament, these are the customary elements the Christian church has used for centuries.

These I can, for all intents and purposes, agree with.

 

[Tetzel]

I am of the opinion that wine should be consecrated for communion.

I would be interested in knowing what people here consider the best reaction to the needs of someone who cannot drink wine. Should the communicant be offered consecrated grape-juice in the hope that God is also willing to send his blood through that means, or should only real wine be consecrated and the communicant only receive the wafer, thus taking us back to communion of one kind?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I think that to take only the bread invalidates the sacrament. Christ said "take and drink" AND "take and eat". In the rare occasion that one cannot stand the alcohol, whether because of a disease or an allergy, I think grape juice serves just as well. However, I do also believe that much counseling should be done before this decision is to be made.

My uncle and grandpa are both recovering alcoholics. My grandpa takes communion with no problem. My uncle, on the other hand, cannot even stand the smell of wine. He once spent 4 hours on the phone with his sponsor because someone sitting at a table next to him had a glass of really strong wine. My uncle is a born again Christian, recently saved. He desperately wants and needs to take communion. His pastor has an individual cup for him that has grape juice in it. It looks no different than the wine. My uncle walks away from communion knowing his sins are forgiven and fully reminded of Christ's sufferings on the cross. There is no public spectacle made of his drink. I'm not even sure anyone in the church knows about it.

The only other time I have seen grape juice used is when I attended a youth rally when I was 15. 1500+ attendees were there...they used grape juice instead of wine. Part of it was because of the rules of the campus that the rally was held on. Alcohol could not be served where minors were present. Nitpicky, but true. They also used individual cups!!

I am of the opinion that wine should be consecrated for communion.

I would be interested in knowing what people here consider the best reaction to the needs of someone who cannot drink wine. Should the communicant be offered consecrated grape-juice in the hope that God is also willing to send his blood through that means, or should only real wine be consecrated and the communicant only receive the wafer, thus taking us back to communion of one kind?

 

[BreadAlone]

They also used individual cups!!

The HORROR!!

 

[DaRev]

From the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations document "Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper":

b. The Wine

All four accounts of the Lord's Supper speak of "the cup." The content of this cup was most definitely wine. The references in Matt. 26:29 and parallels to the "fruit of the vine" would not have suggested anything else to Jesus' listeners than the grape wine of the Jewish Passover ritual.

In 1 Cor. 11:21 there is corroboration that the early Christian church understood wine for "fruit of the vine." Some of the Corinthians, sadly, had abused the Holy Supper by becoming drunk.
The color, type, or origin of the grape wine is a matter which Christians can select in accord with their situation.
In the oft-cited pastoral circumstance of an alcoholic communicant, the counsel of foregoing Communion for a period of time or the action of diluting the wine with water (perhaps done at the Lord's Supper itself) are preferable. In the extreme situation where even greatly diluted wine may lead to severe temptation, no fully satisfactory answer, in the opinion of the CTCR, can be formulated. The counsel of completely foregoing Communion is clearly unsatisfactory. In this situation, too, the actions of diluting the wine with water or intinction would be preferable. The substitution of grape juice raises the question of whether the Lord's instruction is being heeded. Luther's openness to Communion in one kind is difficult in view of confessional texts which strongly urge the Biblical paradigm of both kinds, though the Confessions do not address the extreme situation.
A similar pastoral problem is posed by those rare instances where a severe physical reaction is caused by the elements (as, for example, when the recipient is concurrently taking certain medications, or is simply allergic to one or the other of the elements). The pastor, in such cases, will surely stress the Gospel's power and total effectiveness in the individual's life and patiently seek a practical solution that both honors Christ's word and satisfies the desire to partake in the Lord's Supper.

We also need to keep in mind that the Confessions state that the Church is found where "the Gospel is preached in it's puirty and the Sacraments are administered according to Christ's command." Christ's command included unleavened bread and grape wine. The use of anything other than that could very well be outside of Christ's command.​

​

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I think that to take only the bread invalidates the sacrament. Christ said "take and drink" AND "take and eat". In the rare occasion that one cannot stand the alcohol, whether because of a disease or an allergy, I think grape juice serves just as well. However, I do also believe that much counseling should be done before this decision is to be made.

There was a woman in our Congregation who was an chemotherapy and other medication so that her Dr. insisted that "no alcohol whatsoever could be consumed. We prepared an individual cup for her which contained one drop of wine in water. This was acceptable to her Dr, and she was able to receive both kinds in the sacrament.

Mark

 

[PreachersWife2004]

There was a woman in our Congregation who was an chemotherapy and other medication so that her Dr. insisted that "no alcohol whatsoever could be consumed. We prepared an individual cup for her which contained one drop of wine in water. This was acceptable to her Dr, and she was able to receive both kinds in the sacrament.

Mark

 

[porterross]

I learned something new.

I know they can make vodka from about anything ...

Now you're talkin'!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Christ's command included unleavened bread and grape wine. The use of anything other than that could very well be outside of Christ's command.

No, Christ did not command that the bread be unleavened and the grapes be fermented. That was simply the practice during that time. Christ said "Take and drink" and "Take and eat". We know that they had fruit of the vine, which does not expressly mean wine. Ask anyone who works at a winery and they will tell you that. We know they used unleavened bread, but the bible merely says bread. It was a well-known practice to add water to the wine as well, but we don't do that in church. Do you? If not, and you adhere to the command being partly the practices of the time, then by your own logic you may not be receiving the sacrament.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Veering slightly off-topic to say:

HAPPY BIRTHDAY PORTERROSS!!!
​

Now you're talkin'!