In the book of Deuteronomy, we read, "A curse on him who tampers with the rights of a stranger, the orphan and the widow."

We talk much about the rights of individuals, and it seems the time is right to apply this to the table of the Lord. Now that women are being ordained and those individuals who have difficulty with steps are provided with ramps, is it not time to consider the rights of those who, for whatever reason, have difficulty with communion wine?

Episcopalians would agree that we use wine for the Eucharist for two reasons: That Jesus used wine at the Last Supper, and that wine is necessary to kill bacteria on the rim of the common cup to prevent the spread of diseases. The first reason is somewhat valid but not proven from scripture. The technique for intervening in the fermentation process had not been developed so it is concluded that Jesus used wine.

There is no scripture statement that Jesus took "a cup filled with wine." This phrase came from the church fathers of the third century. In their scripture research for unifying relationships, they found what they considered examples of meal offerings to be a type of Eucharist. Clement of Alexandria and Ambrose used the example of Melchizedek offering bread and wine. Didymus and Eusebius used the texts of Isaiah 55:1 and 25:6, and Cyprian used the text from Proverbs 9:5 as a eucharistic text.

The Lambeth Conferences of 1888 and 1908 passed resolutions reaffirming that in the Anglican Church the use of "any liquid other than true wine diluted or undiluted...is unwarranted by the example of our Lord and is an unauthorized departure from the custom of the Catholic Church."

In 1948, this same conference stated that women could not be ordained. Perhaps it is time to review these resolutions and take our cue from the Documents of the Vatican Council on Sacred Liturgy which states:

"...the Liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it ..."

From a medical point of view, it would appear that the use of wine as the only symbol has become unsuitable. Even the argument that wine is necessary for the killing of bacteria is not valid. The research in medical journals under the title "The Common Cup" from 1897-1993 points to the use of individual cups as a preference if for no other reason than hygiene.

It is my belief that the time has come for us to be more in step with our baptismal covenant to "strive for justice among all peoples and respect the dignity of every human being." This is not an issue for alcoholics only. There are many people who choose not to drink alcoholic beverages, and some for medical reasons. For those in recovery from alcoholism, we have no right to put before them what may not be "the blood of Christ, the cup of salvation," but rather a reminder of their limitation or of their past.

Jesus identified himself with the words "I am the vine, you are the branches." Theologically, then, it seems more appropriate and biblically correct to look to the vineyard and the fruit of the vine as a symbol, rather than to the vat and its degree of fermentation.

As Episcopalians, we could do well to follow the lead of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and take an official position for the Eucharist which states: "Whenever wine is used in the Lord's Supper, unfermented grape juice should be clearly identified and served also as an alternative for those who prefer it."

The Rev. Seamus P. Doyle is the area minister in the Purchase Area of Kentucky.