Tuesday, July 7, 2020

Why the "fruit of the vine" argument against Catholic Theology of the Eucharist is Not a Great Argument

I have written a number of articles critiquing the Roman Catholic dogmas relating to the Mass (Transubstantiation; Concomitance; Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice). However, one argument I do not think has as much weight behind it as other critics of the Mass is the "fruit of the vine" argument (Matt 26:2; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18).

 

Thomas Cranmer, (1489-1556), a leader of the English Reformation and Archbishop of Canterbury during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and, briefly, Mary I, in his work on the Eucharist, wrote the following against the Roman Catholic position based on Jesus' calling the wine the "fruit of the vine" (in Matthew and Mark, such is presented after the consecration):

 

By these words it is clear, that it was very wine that the Apostles drank at the godly supper. For the blood of Christ is not the fruit of the vine, nor the accidents of wine; nor none other thing is the fruit of the vine, but very wine only.

 

How could Christ have expressed more plainly, that bread and wine remain, than by taking the bread in his hands, and breaking it himself and giving unto his disciples, commanding them to ear it? And by taking the cup of wine in his hands, and delivering it unto them, commanding them to divide it among them and to drink it, and calling it the fruit of the vine? These words of Christ be so plain, that if an angel of heaven would tell us the contrary, he ought not be believed; and then much less may we believe the subtle lying of the papists. (Thomas Cranmer, A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Saviour Christ with a Confutation of Sundry Errors Concerning the Same Grounded and Stablished Upon God’s Holy Word, and Approved by the Consent of the Most Ancient Doctors of the Church [London: Chas. T. Thynne & Jarvis Ltd., 1928], 38-39)

 

The problem is that the use of the phrase by Jesus is consistent with all models of the Eucharist, such as the mystical presence view (as held by Ignatius of Antioch); the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views, and Lutheran, not simply the symbolic view (Cranmer, for e.g., argued for a mystical presence view of sorts in his book).

 

Why is it not a good argument against the more corporeal understanding a la Catholicism? There are a few, including the fact that in Luke’s account, Jesus makes the promise not to drink the fruit of the vine before he consecrates the bread and wine:

 

For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:18-20)

 

In light of this, one Catholic apologist noted that:

 

the most plausible interpretation is that Jesus is referring to normal bread and wine that He will later consume in the kingdom of God after His resurrection. It is no surprise, then, to read in Acts 10:41 that the apostles, speaking of Jesus, state: “[We] who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead,” and in Jn 21:13, “Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead” (Lk 24:42).126 If Jesus ate the Passover meal after his resurrection, which at that time would still have been common practice, then the words of Lk 22:16: “I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God” would indeed have prophetic significance, since after the resurrection the prophetic dimension of the Old Testament Passover meal would have reached its “fulfillment” through Christ’s suffering and death on the cross. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d ed.; State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 125)

 

Furthermore, even if one argues that Jesus made the promise not to drink the fruit of the vine after the words of institution, it does not necessarily pose a problem for the Catholic position, as Scripture often uses phenomenological language (i.e., the language of appearances merely). Examples of phenomenalistic language in the Old Testament include:

 

·       Descriptions of the rising and falling of the sun (the sun does not literally rise or fall, but it appears to)--Num 2:3; Psa 50:1; 113:3; Isa 45:6

 

·       References to the "four corners of the earth" (the earth does not literally have four corners, but it appears to)--Isa 11:12; Ezek 7:2

 

·       The "standing still" of the sun and moon on Joshua's "long day" (the sun did not literally stand still, but it appeared to)--Josh 10:12-13.

 

Furthermore, describe something or someone according to its prior state. Examples include:

 

Eve is called Adam's bone (Gen 1:23)

 

Aaron's rod is said to have devoured the "rods" of the magicians after they transformed into serpents (Exo 7:12)

 

There are better arguments to use against the Roman Catholic dogmatic teachings on the Lord’s Supper. The “fruit of the vine” argument, while consistent with non-Catholic models of the Eucharist is not as powerful as some critics impute to it.

 

Further Reading

 

Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone (2000/2009)