Chalice Wine MUST be Red?!

[TomMoreFan]

Pax Christi to All,

It is my distinct understanding that the wine used for the Holy Eucharist must be red and must not be white. I have experienced on now mor than one occasion with more than one priest, Eucharistic wine being used that was white. Should this not be corrected? and shouldn’t I let the bishop know about this so he might send out a corrective memo or something similar?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Pax Christi to All,

It is my distinct understanding that the wine used for the Holy Eucharist must be red and must not be white. I have experienced on now mor than one occasion with more than one priest, Eucharistic wine being used that was white. Should this not be corrected? and shouldn’t I let the bishop know about this so he might send out a corrective memo or something similar?

I’m afraid that your understanding is what is at fault. Both red and white wine are perfectly acceptable.

From the USCCB:

1. The wine for the eucharistic celebration must be from the fruit of the grapevine (cf. Lk 22:18), natural, and unadulterated, that is, without admixture of extraneous substances.

By definition, fruit of the grapevine would include both those which make ‘red’ and those which make ‘white’ wine.

 

[Corki]

There is no requirement that the wine to be consecrated be red. White wine is fine. The requirment is for it to be made from grapes and not have additives.

 

[malphono]

I’m afraid that your understanding is what is at fault. Both red and white wine are perfectly acceptable. …

By definition, fruit of the grapevine would include both those which make ‘red’ and those which make ‘white’ wine.

There is no requirement that the wine to be consecrated be red. White wine is fine. The requirment is for it to be made from grapes and not have additives.

Yes, red or white, as well as rosé, are equally acceptable, provided it is 100% grape wine (and the “no additives” requirement is met).

 

[EasterJoy]

White wine is fine, and you will find many varieties of white wine sold by vineyards that specifically make wine that is fully acceptable for use at the altar, according to canon law: montlasallealtarwines.com/wines.php

I cannot find the citation, but I have read that when red wine is used, it is better not to use a variety that is so densely pigmented as to make cleaning the purificators unduly difficult. Personally, I have found that it can be difficult to judge how much white wine there is inside a communion cup of polished gold. I was a bit concerned that I wouldn’t tip the cup back by the correct amount, but I think that is just me.

 

[puzzleannie]

Pax Christi to All,

It is my distinct understanding that the wine used for the Holy Eucharist must be red and must not be white. ?

what is the source of your understanding? have you a citation from the relevant liturgical document, because I have never heard of this rule

 

[tee_eff_em]

It is my distinct understanding that the wine used for the Holy Eucharist must be red and must not be white.

Your understanding differs from mine – How did you come to it?

tee

 

[MarkThompson]

Your understanding differs from mine – How did you come to it?

tee

Not to speak for him, but my sense is that there tend to be some strong regional variations in practice on this – in some areas, it’s all white wine all the time, in others it’s all red, etc. He may just have grown up someplace where all the churches exclusively use red wine.

 

[TomMoreFan]

I am relieved to hear from all of you that I was incorrect. I had heard from a good friend of mine who is very orthodox in his following of rite and catechism that the wine should be red. This may be a pre-Vatican II belief as he has much antipathy for what the Church has done liturgically since V-II. He is always concerned that the Mass he occasionally has to attend by a liberal priest fails in offering a valid consecration of the eucharist.

I have been in the Maronite church for 8 years now and it may have also been a belief I got from that rite.

Also, I may have confused this idea with another which I’m told is that the chalice must be opaque and non-porous, i.e. not a transparent glass, but of metal or stone or some other non-transparent material.

Anyway, I’m relieved to hear that all is well with my priest and his choice of wine. I find it odd nonetheless that he isn’t consistent in the type he uses. I imagine that Jesus used red grapes, but I certainly don’t know, but it would be interesting to hear if there were white varietals consumed in ancient Palestine, or if as I imagine, all wine there was red.

Thank you all for clearing this up for me. Pax vobiscum.

 

[joandarc2008]

I am relieved to hear from all of you that I was incorrect. I had heard from a good friend of mine who is very orthodox in his following of rite and catechism that the wine should be red. This may be a pre-Vatican II belief as he has much antipathy for what the Church has done liturgically since V-II. He is always concerned that the Mass he occasionally has to attend by a liberal priest fails in offering a valid consecration of the eucharist.

I have been in the Maronite church for 8 years now and it may have also been a belief I got from that rite.

Also, I may have confused this idea with another which I’m told is that the chalice must be opaque and non-porous, i.e. not a transparent glass, but of metal or stone or some other non-transparent material.

Anyway, I’m relieved to hear that all is well with my priest and his choice of wine. I find it odd nonetheless that he isn’t consistent in the type he uses. I imagine that Jesus used red grapes, but I certainly don’t know, but it would be interesting to hear if there were white varietals consumed in ancient Palestine, or if as I imagine, all wine there was red.

Thank you all for clearing this up for me. Pax vobiscum.

God is good and I am sure that whatever grapes Christ may have had at passover does not change our Lords ability to consecrate whatever grapes we may have available. I am sure (IMHO) that he would much rather we use whichever wine allows us to pour without risk of spilling the Most Precious Blood.

 

[malphono]

I am relieved to hear from all of you that I was incorrect. I had heard from a good friend of mine who is very orthodox in his following of rite and catechism that the wine should be red. This may be a pre-Vatican II belief as he has much antipathy for what the Church has done liturgically since V-II. He is always concerned that the Mass he occasionally has to attend by a liberal priest fails in offering a valid consecration of the eucharist.

It really has nothing to do with pre- or post-conciliar. White (and rosé) were used along with red before it and after it.

I have been in the Maronite church for 8 years now and it may have also been a belief I got from that rite.

There is no “color” restriction on the wine used in the Maronite Church.

Anyway, I’m relieved to hear that all is well with my priest and his choice of wine. I find it odd nonetheless that he isn’t consistent in the type he uses.

Some priests will always use one particular type of wine, but others do not. I personally know (and have known in the past) quite a few priests who vary the wine used. It’s simply a matter of taste and what’s available.

I imagine that Jesus used red grapes, but I certainly don’t know, but it would be interesting to hear if there were white varietals consumed in ancient Palestine, or if as I imagine, all wine there was red.

White grapes traditionally do grow in the Eastern Mediterranean so there’s no reason to think that wine was always red. Wine made from “white” grapes will always be white. Wine made from “red” grapes, though, will not always be red.

 

[patg]

There is no requirement that the wine to be consecrated be red. White wine is fine. The requirment is for it to be made from grapes and not have additives.

I think there is another requirement - it also must be bad wine. Of course that didn’t stop the altar boys from sneaking a little back in the old days.

 

[malphono]

I think there is another requirement - it also must be bad wine.

If that’s tongue-in-cheek, I think I know what you mean. It was (and often still is) common for altar wine to be rather sweet. And cloyingly so (similar in its way to Eastern European-style Kosher wine). Of course that sweetness was (and is) natural, resulting from both the variety and ripeness of the grapes used. OTOH, there are some altar wines that have always been bone-dry, for the same reasons.

Of course that didn’t stop the altar boys from sneaking a little back in the old days.

Oh yeah … and it’s probably because of the sweetness. Not likely, at least not in North America, that many would have taken the risk just to get a taste of an ultra-dry chablis or pinot.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Also, I may have confused this idea with another which I’m told is that the chalice must be opaque and non-porous, i.e. not a transparent glass, but of metal or stone or some other non-transparent material.

It is not so much the case that the chalice must be *opaque *as that it must be *non-frangible *(non-breakable), which pretty much rules out glass or crystal, and (as you correctly note) the interior must be non-absorbent. The GIRM for the US instructs thus:

1. Sacred vessels are to be made from precious metal. If they are made from metal that rusts or from a metal less precious than gold, then ordinarily they should be gilded on the inside.

1. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, sacred vessels may also be made from other solid materials that, according to the common estimation in each region, are precious, for example, ebony or other hard woods, provided that such materials are suited to sacred use and do not easily break or deteriorate. This applies to all vessels which hold the hosts, such as the paten, the ciborium, the pyx, the monstrance, and other things of this kind.

1. As regards chalices and other vessels that are intended to serve as receptacles for the Blood of the Lord, they are to have bowls of nonabsorbent material. The base, on the other hand, may be made of other solid and worthy materials.

1. As to the form of the sacred vessels, the artist may fashion them in a manner that is more in keeping with the customs of each region, provided each vessel is suited to the intended liturgical use and is clearly distinguishable from those intended for everyday use.

tee

 

[patg]

If that’s tongue-in-cheek,

Of course…

 

[Tsuwano]

I think there is another requirement - it also must be bad wine. Of course that didn’t stop the altar boys from sneaking a little back in the old days.

Do you really think so? I’ve always enjoyed altar wine. It is usually rather sweet, but I’ve always found that the taste somehow matches the feeling and mood of a very early morning mass. It gives me a feeling of possibility.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Judging only anecdotally I have been led to believe that it was for some time (and this before the council) more common to use white wine than red specifically because of laundry concerns. I had always assumed that the push for returning the cup with its symbolism to the laity was what drove the push back to an expectation of red wine (which does more naturally symbolize blood).

 

[ConstantineTG]

According to one of our forum posters who’s very knowledgable of Byzantine traditions, Byzantine Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) use red wine exclusively because Byzantines value the symbolisms of everything. This is more attached to tradition of the Byzantines rather than whats valid or not. As malphono said, there is not such tradition or rule in the Maronite Church, and neither there is in the Roman Church.

 

[OraLabora]

Judging only anecdotally I have been led to believe that it was for some time (and this before the council) more common to use white wine than red specifically because of laundry concerns. I had always assumed that the push for returning the cup with its symbolism to the laity was what drove the push back to an expectation of red wine (which does more naturally symbolize blood).

It’s not supposed to “symbolize” blood. It is blood. Really and truly, though it still retains the appearance of the accidents.

I think for that reason white wine might in fact be more appropriate in that it more fully underscores the miracle, and the mystery, of the sacrament which converts wine into the blood of Christ, and underscores the fact that the wine is not meant to be a mere symbol, but truly is the blood of Christ, made sacramentally present for us. The red colour may in fact end up confusing less well catechized faithful into thinking that the wine is in fact only a symbol.

That said though, either type of wine is entirely licit for the sacrament. The above is my opinion only.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It’s not supposed to “symbolize” blood. It is blood. Really and truly, though it still retains the appearance of the accidents.

I think for that reason white wine might in fact be more appropriate in that it more fully underscores the miracle, and the mystery, of the sacrament which converts wine into the blood of Christ, and underscores the fact that the wine is not meant to be a mere symbol, but truly is the blood of Christ, made sacramentally present for us. The red colour may in fact end up confusing less well catechized faithful into thinking that the wine is in fact only a symbol.

That said though, either type of wine is entirely licit for the sacrament. The above is my opinion only.

In a thread a month or two back, someone who works with blood (as in human blood) commented that when you separate the RBC from the blood to store it for use later on, the plasma looks exactly like white wine.