Multiple Chalices and the Mixture of Water and Wine

  • Thread starter Thread starter japhy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

japhy

Guest
Can someone point me to a liturgical document that explains how many Chalices, having been filled with wine, receive water as well? I think I have seen the same priest perform it in two different manners (the principal Chalice vs. all Chalices). I have seen statements online that only the principal Chalice needs it, but one reference in particular said that the confection of the Eucharist is not dependent on the mixture of water and wine, and I don’t know if that’s accurate. An article at zenit.org confuses the matter even more for me:
Although the water is not essential for the validity of the sacrament, the Church holds it in great importance and it must never be omitted. The Council of Trent even went so far as to excommunicate whoever denied the need for this mixture (see Canon 9, Session XXII).
Click to expand...
So you cannot deny the need for the mixture, but the mixture is not essential for the validity of the sacrament? That seems odd to me. (That article, by the way, sheds some light on why water is used.)

I can understand why only one Chalice receives water, since it seems inappropriate to “interrupt” the prayer at the commixture (Per huius aquae…, “By the mystery of this water and wine…”) by moving the cruet of water from one Chalice to the next.
 
I found this in another thread:

"Originally Posted by Zenit
*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."

What the reference you quoted in your post is trying to say is that valid matter is the wine, not wine/water; however, the wine/water symbolism is very powerful so should be used.
 
Come to think of it, I believe I’ve seen priests pour the water into the cruet of wine first, and then pour the wine into the Chalices.
 
In my parish, we use 3 chalices at each Sunday Mass, and the priest or deacon adds water to each one of them.

Peace,
Linda
 
Maybe this will help. As a deacon, we prepare the gifts and we were instructed when we are using multiple common cups for distribution of the precious blood. #1, all the wine is poured prior to consecration into their proper vessels. #2, only a tiny bit of water is added then to the celebrant’s chalice.

here is a link that will explain the biblical nature of mixing water and wine. ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur39.htm
 
I have seen water added to the principal chalice, and added to the wine in the flagon before it is distributed to the various chalices prior to Consecration. There does not seem to be a specific rule.
 
otjm said:
I have seen water added to the principal chalice, and added to the wine in the flagon before it is distributed to the various chalices prior to Consecration. There does not seem to be a specific rule.
Click to expand...
Aah the flagon! 😃 That most sacred of vessels *(sarcasm intended). *Sorry to hijack the thread- couldn’t resist.

On the actual topic- I would imagine that since the norms do not say so, the water is not actually necessary for the validity of the consecration- just a symbolic rite. Thus it seems more appropriate to only perform the rite (and say the words) with one chalice.
 
Titus said:
Aah the flagon! 😃 That most sacred of vessels *(sarcasm intended). *Sorry to hijack the thread- couldn’t resist.

On the actual topic- I would imagine that since the norms do not say so, the water is not actually necessary for the validity of the consecration- just a symbolic rite. Thus it seems more appropriate to only perform the rite (and say the words) with one chalice.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Appears that you were not here prior to Vatican 2. As altar boys, we had a “mini” flagon, a cruet, for both water and wine. the flagon you so dismissively refer to is nothing more than a container for the wine; it is larger than a cruet because we now, once again, can receive both Species.

I have no problem with the revision that the wine is to be poured into the chalices before Consecration. That simply returns to what we did before.

However, given the symbolism of water and blood, I can see it either way; it is all going to be consecrated, and adding it before separating to separate chalices doesn’t seem to lesen the symbolism.
 
otjm said:
Hmmm. Appears that you were not here prior to Vatican 2. As altar boys, we had a “mini” flagon, a cruet, for both water and wine. the flagon you so dismissively refer to is nothing more than a container for the wine; it is larger than a cruet because we now, once again, can receive both Species.

I have no problem with the revision that the wine is to be poured into the chalices before Consecration. That simply returns to what we did before.
Click to expand...
I think Titus was referring to the recent practice of having wine poured from a flagon into the Chalice prior to consecration, then consecrating both the Chalice and the flagon, and then pouring the Precious Blood from the flagon into other Chalices just prior to Communion.
 
japhy said:
I think Titus was referring to the recent practice of having wine poured from a flagon into the Chalice prior to consecration, then consecrating both the Chalice and the flagon, and then pouring the Precious Blood from the flagon into other Chalices just prior to Communion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps; however, my original post was not referring to that; I may not have been explicit enough, but I have seen the water added to the bulk of the wine, and then poured into the chalices; I have seen the wine poured into the chalices and then water added to each one, and I have seen it added only to the main chalice. All before Consecration.
 
otjm said:
What, did you think he could pour it out of his sleeve?😛

That is how the wine is brought to the altar, in a flagon.
Click to expand...
You seem to misunderstand. Please don’t be patronising. Of course there must be a vessel for the wine and water. But the quote implied the mixing was in the chalice, not the flagon.
 
Titus said:
You seem to misunderstand. Please don’t be patronising. Of course there must be a vessel for the wine and water. But the quote implied the mixing was in the chalice, not the flagon.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen the quote; does anyone have the specific rubrics? So far, I have ony seen references to it.
 
Titus said:
My quote was from the Missal. The GIRM does not speak to this matter.
Click to expand...
I am assuming that you are referring to a parishoner’s missal? If so, it is one step off the rubrics and is vague enough to allow any of the three options, it would seem, although it would seem to favor the flagon the least.

If it is from the sacramentary, then I guess I would look to publication date, unless context would indicate that they are referring specifically to the priest’s chalice by reference.

In any event, if it is an issue that someone wants to persue as to a specific technical answer, one that is exclusionary to any of the other two possibilites, one may find that it is a rather lonely path with no answers - re: Rome’s response to washing men’s feet via Cardinal O’Malley.
 
In the absence of an exact rubric for this, it would probably depend upon the number of chalices used. We use two in our parish and it’s simple to put a drop in each while praying, per huius aquae et vini… At a Mass in a much larger setting at which there were twenty chalices, it would probably be best to just put the drop in the celebrant’s chalice or the one cup symbolism is really destroyed. I served a Mass at which the priest handed one of the chalices to a concelebrating priest and one to me – an example of trying to be fair and not leaving anyone out trumped the integrity of the Mass.

As a p.s.:We use one large chalice and a much smaller, simpler one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top