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)