Chalice Wine MUST be Red?!

[OraLabora]

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.

That’s true, but then I don’t think Jesus said “Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
this is the cup of my plasma, the plasma of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for many so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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.

Not only the Eucharist, but all the sacraments are precisely supposed to symbolize the realities they effect. That is what makes them sacraments. A sacrament that is not a sign is nonsensical. The Catholic Encyclopedia has many definitions of sacrament, all of which include its sign value:

“Signum sacro sanctum efficax gratiae” — a sacrosanct sign producing grace, is a good, succinct definition of a sacrament of the New Law. Sacrament, in its broadest acceptation, may be defined as an external sign of something sacred. In the twelfth century Peter Lombard (d. 1164), known as the Master of the Sentences, author of the manual of systematized theology, gave an accurate definition of a sacrament of the New Law: A sacrament is in such a manner an outward sign of inward grace that it bears its image (i.e. signifies or represents it) and is its cause — “Sacramentum proprie dicitur quod ita signum est gratiae Dei, ei invisibilis gratiae forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et causa existat” (IV Sent., d.I, n.2). This definition was adopted and perfected by the medieval Scholastics. From St. Thomas we have the short but very expressive definition: The sign of a sacred thing in so far as it sanctifies men - “Signum rei sacrae in quantum est sanctificans homines” (III.60.2).

Hence it is often argued that red wine accomplishes the sacramental role more effectively because of its closer symbolic valence with the blood both signified and truly present. You’ve established a false dichotomy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s true, but then I don’t think Jesus said “Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
this is the cup of my plasma, the plasma of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for many so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”

bwahahahahahah!
True, but its just an interesting thought that white wine isn’t so far from whats in the blood from a visual aspect as we think it is.

 

[FrCorey]

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.

Blood from a accident?
yeck.

 

[Medic_Mark]

Blood from a accident?
yeck.

Blood fascinates me. It is only yecky when someone takes their bloody hand and puts it on your knee or something when you’re trying to take a set of vitals. :ehh:

My parish priest uses red wine. I’m rather glad about that because I don’t like the flavor of white wine. Not that I’d partake (or not partake) because of the taste of the wine… If I did, my focus would be off.

 

[FrCorey]

Blood fascinates me. It is only yecky when someone takes their bloody hand and puts it on your knee or something when you’re trying to take a set of vitals. :ehh:

My parish priest uses red wine. I’m rather glad about that because I don’t like the flavor of white wine. Not that I’d partake (or not partake) because of the taste of the wine… If I did, my focus would be off.

I think it should always be red because it’s the color of jesus’s blood.
If it stained, get better stain cleaners.

Thats why jesus keeps the taste of his blood as wine, otherwise people would prolly not do as he said to.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think it should always be red because it’s the color of jesus’s blood.
If it stained, get better stain cleaners.

Thats why jesus keeps the taste of his blood as wine, otherwise people would prolly not do as he said to.

So why keep the Host/bread white then? Jesus obviously is not white.

 

[Brendan]

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

The item mentioned (GIRM 322) was incorrectly listed as being from the USCCB. It is rather part of the General Instructions of the ROMAN Missal.

Eastern Churches have different Canons, and at least in the Byzantine Churches, you would be correct, the wine must be red wine to be licit.

It is entirely likely that the same in true in the Maronite Church, but I have no direct knowledge.

But in the Latin Church, the only requirement is that it be wine from grapes.

 

[malphono]

It is entirely likely that the same in true in the Maronite Church, but I have no direct knowledge.

I do, and no, it’s not, at least not these days or in recent memory. I’ve known many (very many) Maronite priests over the years, and few actually used red, even in pre-conciliar days. A good number of them preferred white “Angelica” (which is so cloyingly sweet that it’s nearly unpalatable to me). A few habitually use(d) rosé which is (IMO) probably the best choice anyway.

 

[tee_eff_em]

The item mentioned (GIRM 322) was incorrectly listed as being from the USCCB. It is rather part of the General Instructions of the ROMAN Missal.

Eastern Churches have different Canons, and at least in the Byzantine Churches, you would be correct, the wine must be red wine to be licit.

It is entirely likely that the same in true in the Maronite Church, but I have no direct knowledge.

But in the Latin Church, the only requirement is that it be wine from grapes.

Is there a more specific Eastern Canon or instruction than this one?

Canon 706
In the Divine Liturgy the sacred gifts which are offered are bread made of wheat alone and recently made so that there is no danger of corruption and natural wine of the grape and not corrupt.

tee

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is there a more specific Eastern Canon or instruction than this one?

tee

It may be dictated by particular traditions of the Rite of the sui juris. Each sui juris may also have their own Canons of the Particular Church. This would be derived from the CCEO but claried, specified and/or adapted for their specific sui juris. For example, in the Canon you quoted it doesn’t specify if the bread is to be leavened or not, nor if there is to be a more specific color of wine. This may be found in their own Canons or other documents within each particular Church.

 

[FrCorey]

So why keep the Host/bread white then? Jesus obviously is not white.

true, beats me thou.
maybe it’s red because thats what jesus used?