Catholic Liturgy - Follow-up: Why Water With Wine

Follow-up: Why Water With Wine

In line with the June 29 column on why water is mixed with the wine at Mass, some readers asked if water should be placed in all of the chalices when more than one is used for the Eucharistic celebration.

The norms are not very precise on this question. It appears that this is the preferred option and the one that best corresponds to the tradition that water be added to the wine used for consecration. Yet, this is not specifically mandated.

Several liturgists suggest that adding water to the principal chalice alone sufficiently fulfills the symbolic meaning of the rite and the liturgical norms. They argue that the several chalices are in an analogous situation to that of the small hosts present in additional ciboria and adding water to one is symbolically adding it to all.

Both options are probably legitimate unless the Holy See states otherwise.

Preparing extra chalices may be done in several ways. If only one or two extra chalices are needed, they may be prepared in the usual way at the altar during the preparation of the gifts. If more are needed, they may be prepared at this time at the credence table by a deacon and brought to the altar.

In situations were a rather large number of chalices are required, or due to some other circumstance such as a shortage of proper ministers, then chalices with wine (and water) may be prepared before Mass at the credence table and brought to the altar during the preparation of gifts.

This is the usual practice at large papal concelebrations.

A reader from New York asks if the wine left unconsecrated in the cruet should be discarded or may be used or added to for a later Mass.

In principle there is no reason why this wine should not be reused. But great care must be taken, lest exposure during hot weather causes it to go sour rendering it unsuitable for consecration.

Another reader asked a rather technical question regarding proper matter for the sacrament.

"Some will argue that sacramental wine may not contain sulfites," the reader wrote. "Others explain that the sulfites are not added as part of the end of the final product, but that the sulfites in sacramental wine are present because they were added while the grapes were still on the vine. Also, what is the current regulation on the percentage amount of alcohol that needs to be present in sacramental wine? Is the 11-18% alcohol regulation still in effect?"

Regarding the necessary qualities of sacramental wine, No. 50 of the instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum" states:

"The wine that is used in the most sacred celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice must be natural, from the fruit of the grape, pure and incorrupt, not mixed with other substances. ... It is altogether forbidden to use wine of doubtful authenticity or provenance, for the Church requires certainty regarding the conditions necessary for the validity of the sacraments. Nor are other drinks of any kind to be admitted for any reason, as they do not constitute valid matter."

Therefore if there is any positive doubt about the validity of any particular wine as proper sacramental matter, then it should not be used until the doubt is cleared up.

Resolving these doubts is the competence of the Pope acting through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The crux of the question posed is whether sulfites fall under the heading of "not mixed with other substances."

Having only a basic knowledge of the chemical processes involved I can only give a tentative opinion based on the information received. (I will also leave aside any discussion of special provisions made for priests unable to take alcohol.)

Official replies from the Holy See stating the criteria for the validity of sacramental wine say simply that it should be natural grape wine with no added substances. But they do not specify what these other substances might be, mentioning only mixing in extra sugars or alcohol derived from non-grape sources.

Grape alcohol is sometimes added to some weak wines during the fermenting process so that it keeps longer. In this case the alcohol level must be between 12% and 18%. (See Denzinger, Nos. 3312-3313. Denzinger is a standard theological reference book that collects authoritative magisterial statements in one volume.)

Because of this, wine specially prepared for Mass should generally be used. Commercial wines often contain additives or mixtures of other substances which give them their particular qualities but which may render them doubtful matter.

However if other elements enter the wine naturally, without changing its nature, it would not appear that this affects the wine's suitability as valid matter.

Many wines have traces of particular minerals due to factors such as soil and water composition, or from other natural sources during the fermenting process, and this has never been considered as a condition of invalidity.

Otherwise a chemical analysis would have to be made of every wine. And that would cast doubt on the validity of every Mass celebrated over the last 2,000 years before such a chemical analysis was possible.

As the case is presented, it would appear that sulfites fall into this category. But if doubt persists, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith should be formally consulted through the local bishop.

Finally, a reader asked if only red colored wine should be used at Mass in order to better convey the sign of Christ's blood.

While the use of red wine might appear better from an external point of view, especially in countries were Communion under both species is common, it has nothing to do with the validity of the sacrament. Hence, white wine may be legitimately used.

In fact, many older liturgical manuals preferred white wine for cleanliness' sake, as red wine often left permanent stains when wiping the lips of cruets or from accidental spillage.

No matter what color the wine is, the Eucharist will always remain as a mystery of faith which goes beyond the senses.

As St. Thomas Aquinas says in his magnificent sequence of the Mass of Corpus Christi:

"Sight has fail'd, nor thought conceives
But a dauntless faith believes,
Resting on a pow'r divine.
Here beneath these signs are hidden
Priceless things to sense forbidden;
Signs, not things are all we see:
Blood is poured and flesh is broken
Yet in either wondrous token
Christ entire we know to be."

THIS explains why our Catholic parish uses a rather weak red wine. The ECUSA always used port wine (20-23 percent alcohol) which was a pretty hefty surprise if you weren't expecting it. I guess they figure that it kills germs more effectively.

But port wine is made by adding brandy to the wine after the fermentation process is complete, to bring the alcohol content up to 20 percent. Enjoying Port Wine. So it doesn't meet the requirements.

Pity, I love port wine. But of course your average ECUSA uses cheap New York State jug port . . . yeccch!

Because of this, wine specially prepared for Mass should generally be used. Commercial wines often contain additives or mixtures of other substances which give them their particular qualities but which may render them doubtful matter.

However if other elements enter the wine naturally, without changing its nature, it would not appear that this affects the wine's suitability as valid matter.

Sulfites are naturally present in all wine, including sacramental wine. It is only labeled because some people have been paranoid about sulfites from allergic reactions. The reality is, most fruits contain natural sulfites.

I had this problem for an organization I was a member of, we had to provide wine for a special Mass. We went nuts looking for a wine. I went to a wine pantry place hoping for guidance, because they all said, "Contains sulfites".

Many commercial wines, like a Beaujolais, where it is a single grape rarely contain additives.

Absolutely correct on the sulfites. My dad made his own wine for many years from California Cabernet and Zinfandel grapes, and he told me the same thing.

He did also say that the quantity of sulfites is different depending on the variety of grape. A lot of white wines for some reason have pretty high sulfite levels. (We're talking relative here, the amount is still tiny.) Many winemakers "smoke" their barrels by burning sulfur strips to sterilize the wood (my dad always did), but that's not like charring whisky barrels and it doesn't impart any taste to the wine (just kills unwanted yeasts and bacteria.)

I'm sure NYS has some good wines - but every ECUSA church I've ever been in must buy the stuff in the discount bins.

I hate to be a purist, but Cabernet is not Port. It may be made in a Port style, but it doesn't taste the same. Real Oporto is made from Touriga Nacional grapes. In Portugal. And preferably by Taylor Fladgate, Cockburn, or Dow. A little bit goes a long way, so you might as well get the best stuff going. Vintage Port is a bit of a bother to keep, open, decant, and serve (you wouldn't believe the sediment it throws), but it is unbelievably good.

You're quite right, of course: Pindar's Cabernet Port does taste different, and it's quite heavy. My staple is Dow's tawny. My favorite vintage is 1977, opened only when I know we'll kill the bottle.

Cheers! : )

Prosit!

I have one bottle of 1977 Taylor Fladgate VP. It's sitting in the bottom of my wine cooler waiting for an appropriate occasion . . .

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.