I’m an occasional drinker in a pro-abtinence church (Assemblies of God) and the position papers against drinking rely a lot more on alcohol’s effects on persons & society than on the Scriptures, no matter how Bible-based it claims it’s position to be. And of course, we use grape juice in Communion.
It so happens that my minister was discussing this very question at our devotional meeting last night. He told a story about how right after graduating from divinity school, he was assigned to a small Methodist church in a hick-leaning part of rural Tennessee. At the time he arrived, the community was having a debate about whether to permit alcohol at church weddings. There was a meeting, and when someone asked the minister for his opinion, he responded, “Well you know, Jesus did turn water into wine at the wedding at Cannae.” A classic little old lady responded by raising her cane in the air and resolutely declaring, “Jesus shouldn’t have done that.”
Honestly, I’m not completely clear on what your question is. If I don’t answer it here, let me know that I’m missing the boat.
I am not sure, actually, of the theology involved, in terms of why transubstantiation would occur only with a very specific type of substance. I know a little bit about what the rules are, though, from some research I did for the liturgy committee for my parish. Basically, there are two issues at work here, and my understanding is this:
-
Once they have been consecrated, Christ is fully present in both the bread and the wine. Therefore, assuming that they both have properly undergone consecration, one can assume that transubstantiation has occurred for both, and consuming either one is sufficient to have received the sacrament.
-
There are very specific requirements for the ingredients of the bread, in order for transubstantiation to occur. (Can’t remember exactly what they are, but they are very minimal…possibly only wheat flour and water…I believe no leavening whatsoever may be present.) Likewise, the wine has to be wine…no particular type, as far as I know, but it must be regular alchoholic wine.
That point about the bread ingredients may be debatable, as there are parishes who are using different kinds of bread, and I’m sure they have some theological work-around regarding this issue. This is a relatively new controversy, as far as I know, though. Even for those who question the rigidity of the “flour and water only” rule would probably agree that you couldn’t properly consecrate some sandwich bread someone brought from home.
This issue gets into areas of “invalidity” of consecration, vs. “illicitness” of consecration. That is, if a consecration is “invalid,” that means it did not actually occur, and those who were attending mass that day did not legitimately receive communion (through no fault of their own, of course). If it is “illicit,” that means that it may not be liturgically “kosher” (to borrow a term), but that transubstantiation did occur and the sacrament was actually received.
There may be a Catholic who is smarter about such things, such as tomndebb, who can jump in with a little more infomation on what constitutes invalidity vs. illicitness, and/or explain more behind the theology of it.
I guess I need to change my WWJD bracelet for a WJSD one, then. 
I was raised in the Church of Christ (the only notable exception to that article being that mine and most of the other Churches of Christ in the area did use the piano/organ for music). We used grape juice for communion. In my ~20 years of attending regularly, I never saw alcoholic beverages of any kind at any church-sponsored function, including church picnics, New Year’s Eve parties*, Super Bowl parties*, or wedding receptions held on the premises (there was alcohol at some wedding receptions held off-site). I don’t know if this was a definite rule, because it seemed understood – this is also likely why I don’t know the justification for it. No one really discussed it, it just wasn’t done.
There wasn’t a complete prohibition on alcohol that I’m aware of either (through conversations with the other kids, we discerned that most of our parents drank occasionally), though again it just wasn’t talked about all that often – I may have heard a few sermons cautioning against overindulgence in my time there, but it certainly wasn’t a recurring theme.
*These events were held mainly for the youth, though there were adults present.
No, you’re on the right track.
If I were Catholic, and had a Communion of consecrated bread and unconsecratable grape juice, ISTM that since the bread had been transsubstantiated into the body of Christ, the fact that the grape juice was just grape juice wouldn’t somehow untranssubstantiate the bread, and I would have received the sacrament. It’s just that the grape juice would have presumably been irrelevant. I don’t know that that’s so, but it seems like that would be logical, so that’s what I’m asking: is that the way it is?
No offense, but I think I’ll stay a Protestant.
Good!
Yes, that is correct. As far as I know, one of them being invalid does not invalidate the other.
Can’t say I blame you. 
Right, but there’s no reason anyone would be eating or drinking other things around Communion time. I guess if someone had trouble swallowing maybe they would drink water with the host, but that would be an individual thing.
I think what RTFirefly was asking is what if the priest used an invalid substance for one, but not the other, would you still receive valid communion?
As an answer, I will say this…my sister’s parish is, shall we say, “progressive,” and they use some kind of sweetened, leavened bread for communion. I am extremely suspicious as to whether this is a valid substance (as I said earlier, the priest may be able to find some theological loophole for it, but I have my doubts), so when I go there, I always partake of the Holy Blood, as well, just to cover my bases. Typically I only take the Host, even when both are offered (not for any particular reason…it’s just my habit).
A Methodist minister explained it to me as being a decision taken based on the prevailing abuse of alcohol at that time - people weren’t so much going out for a few quiet drinks with friends, or enjoying a bottle of Chablis with the sunday roast, as much as knocking back half pints of rough gin in some seedy dive; habitual drinking with the sole intent to get paralytic was commonplace and there was a perceived impact on morality, crime, social structures, etc - it was considered that drinking in moderation just wasn’t easy to do and wasn’t going to happen, so as you say, they said “Nope, you guys can’t handle it, so you get none”
Oh, I see. And, yes, I’ve been to one of those newfangled churches with the tastier bread; I don’t think there is a loophole to be had.
And as an United Methodist who has had any number of different types of bread and a few types of cracker offered, this whole discussion is fascinating because of the degree to which “It Must Be Done This Way And No Other” that the Catholic church employs, while my own church says “Just take some bread, bless it, break it, and distribute it. Follow that up with a drop of grape juice for everyone. It’s just a symbol, the details don’t matter”.
Many who don’t drink alcohol do not necessarily hold that one can’t. I was raised a Southern Baptist minister’s son and went on to go to Bible college. 99.9% of the teaching I was exposed to was that it was permissible to drink alcohol; but verses like
were often cited as to why Christians should probably think twice.
My mom kept a bottle of red wine in the house for insomnia, but dad asked she keep it hidden lest people find the reverend had wine in the house and make a stink. I drink wine and beer, and do not feel guilty at all; nonetheless, I am hesitant to do it in front to some Christians who might feel uncomfortable.*
(*Ironically, two Christian freinds who are not uncomfortable are a couple that has spent most of their adult lives living in jungles as missionaries, helping translate Bibles; they’re always quick to offer or accept a beer.)
It’s the greatest miracle we have. It’s a miracle each time, everywhere throughout the world. That’s huge and crucial and essential. “Just a symbol” does not compute.
PLEASE don’t take this as my denomination vs. yours. I’m just trying to express where I am coming from.
Could a small amount of wine, really 1/2 a sip at most, done in a situation where you really can’t get more right away really a problem with alcoholics?
Also one aspect I never understood is why is in necessary to take of the body and blood of Christ every weekend? Wouldn’t once in a lifetime be enough or more then enough?
gigi,
“Just a symbol” is (deliberately) a bit trivializing to me, as well. And I kind of doubt that it’s truly the church doctrine. And the details matter a bit more than that post of mine indicates. But on the other hand, devoting more than a quick casual thought or comment to one’s companion about a change in the routine/the liturgy/the bread/wine(juice) being offered seems kind of silly to me. Certainly having eating or been offered “breads” with wheat, corn, rye and rice as the main ingredient at various times, I find it fascinating–and bizarre that one could worry about whether the bread might have a pinch too much sugar or leavening in it so that the miracle can’t take place.
(Not offended, or feeling attacked, just recognizing that one’s past experiences shape one’s present expectations at least as much as they do one’s theology.)
Church of Christ (lapsed) checking in. I remember Proverbs 23:29-35 figuring heavily into anti-drinking ideas:
But yeah, they always had trouble working around Jesus turning water into wine, and I Timothy 5:23: “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.”
In the Catholic Church, for special cases you may use mustum – grape must, that is, juice that has just started the fermentation process but is nowhere near full strength yet.
Here we have the rules regarding the use of low-gluten (NOT gluten-free) azime and mustum as per the Congergation for the Doctrine of the Faith (issued, if I’m not mistaken, when the current pope was head of that Office).
NO.
No, no, no, no, no.
There is no rule that says that all religious threads must go in GD.
Witnessing must go in GD, but simple questions with clear answers are very much permitted in GQ and since even the “poll” aspect of your question is simply seeking information, not personal preferences, I’m sending this over to GQ where it belongs.
[ /Moderating ]
tomndeb, thanks for the clarification and the move.
I have had all kinds of bread for communion. From the regular wafer to a hunk of dry whole wheat bread that probably wasn’t too different from what they used at the last supper.
I may be wrong here but I believe the RCC is very flexible as to how sacraments are conducted under special circumstances. What is not so clearly defined is what constitute special circumstances.
I guess this is where the whole illicit/invalid thing comes into play. Pretty much nothing would invalidate it but you are not really supposed to deviate from the standard if there are no compelling reasons.