Real Wine?

[FrCorey]

I have just celebrated my one year anniversary as a Catholic, Last Saturday was a busy day for me so I went to church because I knew I might not make it on Sunday and so part of my anniversary at Holy Communion I decided to take both bread and wine ( body and blood) when I recieved the wine I realized it was real wine, I was not aware of the Catholic Church using real wine until my Dear Husband explained it to me, I was used to a substitiute (Grape Juice). However my experience with Communion was different then I anticipated, I can say it was not a bad feeling. So I guess my question is has the Catholic Church used real wine since the beginning or has this come about in recent years?

real wine, pure and clean, no additives or preservatives.
i.e. something GOD would be proud of, something fit for a king.

 

[centurionguard]

Quote:
[50.] 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.127 During the celebration itself, a small quantity of water is to be mixed with it. Great care should be taken so that the wine intended for the celebration of the Eucharist is well conserved and has not soured.128 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.

I had heard of some churches using fortified wine…(“that is wine that has had alcohol artificially added”) not naturally fermented wine. Fact is that “most” naturally fermented wines (“do not”) have an alcohol volume rating higher than 13%. Any higher in alc/vol is usually fortified. The only remaining question that I am not fully aware of although my suspicions are that most Mass wines themselves should have a ecclesiastical approval rating prior to use for Mass.

 

[Dicerning]

Bless you for asking these questions. If you do not understand something, that is what the forums are for!

As for the Eucharist, it does not matter whether you only take the bread, if you only take the wine, or you take both. The bread and wine both contain the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. In my case, I like to partake of both the bread and wine whenever I can. However, since I am in the choir, many times I can only take the bread because the wine is gone. It doesn’t matter, though, because any consecrated bread or wine contains the whole of Jesus.

I have never taken bread OR wine at mass. I have, however, Recieved, the Glorified Christ at communion. Either by cup or by tongue.

 

[Heath_Bar]

I have never taken bread OR wine at mass. I have, however, Recieved, the Glorified Christ at communion. Either by cup or by tongue.

That is absolutely true. We are receiving the Eucharist. However, since I wasn’t splitting hairs and talking like a Catholic attorney, I was using a common vernacular. I believe my meaning was completely understood by the OP. Its sort of like the George Carlin joke: “Sir, would you like to get on the plane?” “No! I’m getting IN the plane!” The meaning is completely understood. Yes, technically, we are RECEIVING the Eucharist, but we TAKE the Blessed Eucharist into our mouths. The priest or EMHC does the giving, we do the taking or receiving. If a doctor gives you a spoonful of medicine, are you taking your medicine or receiving your medicine? Let us celebrate the wonderful mystery of Jesus being present to us in his body, blood, soul, and divinity rather than bicker over semantics.

 

[benedictgal]

That is absolutely true. We are receiving the Eucharist. However, since I wasn’t splitting hairs and talking like a Catholic attorney, I was using a common vernacular. I believe my meaning was completely understood by the OP. Its sort of like the George Carlin joke: “Sir, would you like to get on the plane?” “No! I’m getting IN the plane!” The meaning is completely understood. Yes, technically, we are RECEIVING the Eucharist, but we TAKE the Blessed Eucharist into our mouths. The priest or EMHC does the giving, we do the taking or receiving. If a doctor gives you a spoonful of medicine, are you taking your medicine or receiving your medicine? Let us celebrate the wonderful mystery of Jesus being present to us in his body, blood, soul, and divinity rather than bicker over semantics.

Let me give you an example. The serpent tempted Eve to take the forbidden fruit from the tree. Taking means that we are seizing something that we are not entitled to have. Receiving, on the other hand, is a humble gesture. Children receive love, food, clothing and shelter from their parents. We are receiving our Heavenly Manna from the Father in the form of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of His Divine Son, Jesus Christ.

 

[LilyM]

Let me give you an example. The serpent tempted Eve to take the forbidden fruit from the tree. Taking means that we are seizing something that we are not entitled to have. Receiving, on the other hand, is a humble gesture. Children receive love, food, clothing and shelter from their parents. We are receiving our Heavenly Manna from the Father in the form of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of His Divine Son, Jesus Christ.

Jesus said ‘take and eat’ ‘take and drink’ - while ‘receive’ is a more humble expression, it’s not inappropriate to say ‘take’.

 

[benedictgal]

Jesus said ‘take and eat’ ‘take and drink’ - while ‘receive’ is a more humble expression, it’s not inappropriate to say ‘take’.

But, if you also look at the connotation of the Last Supper, Jesus was instituting both the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders. He does not ask us “Do this in memory of me” because we, as the laity, do not confect (cause to happen) the Holy Eucharist, the Sacrament. He says “take and eat” and “take and drink” to the Apostles because they are the ones (they and their successors, the bishops and their collaborators, the priest) who will be offering and taking the Sacrifice.

On the other hand, we receive Holy Communion.

 

[Seatuck]

Yes, the Priest is the one perfoming the memorial sacrifice as Christ instructed. He is the one who “takes and eats”. Not us. We receive the gift of that sacrifice.

 

[LilyM]

But, if you also look at the connotation of the Last Supper, Jesus was instituting both the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders. He does not ask us “Do this in memory of me” because we, as the laity, do not confect (cause to happen) the Holy Eucharist, the Sacrament. He says “take and eat” and “take and drink” to the Apostles because they are the ones (they and their successors, the bishops and their collaborators, the priest) who will be offering and taking the Sacrifice.

On the other hand, we receive Holy Communion.

Since when does ‘DO THIS’ refer only to the confecting of the Eucharist? I’m not saying it doesn’t primarily refer to it, but not exclusively.

The eating and drinking, which everyone who is able does, is ALSO part of the ‘doing this’ - otherwise whence the obligation for us to receive at least once a year? If Our Lord’s command wasn’t directed to at least some extent to all, surely it would be fine if the laity never received, no?

 

[Marauder]

Let me give you an example. The serpent tempted Eve to take the forbidden fruit from the tree. Taking means that we are seizing something that we are not entitled to have. Receiving, on the other hand, is a humble gesture. Children receive love, food, clothing and shelter from their parents. We are receiving our Heavenly Manna from the Father in the form of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of His Divine Son, Jesus Christ.

It is this exact nitpicking that scares away new posters. You have someone come in and ask a valid question and then you get numerous people jumping down their throat about a word in their post whether it be take instead of receive, using EM instead of EMHC or something like that. Everyone needs to consider their charity when dealing with newer posters. Yes you may be technically correct, but this fits in the winning the battle but losing the war category.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

I have never heard that word either, I did not even know it was a word and if you had asked me what I thought the word was I might have told you it was a form of Mustard LOL

I have heard of mustum, but your post made me wonder where the word came from. I looked it up online, and found that it comes from the Latin vinum mustum, “young wine.”

There’s my piece of trivia for the day!

 

[Heath_Bar]

It is this exact nitpicking that scares away new posters. You have someone come in and ask a valid question and then you get numerous people jumping down their throat about a word in their post whether it be take instead of receive, using EM instead of EMHC or something like that. Everyone needs to consider their charity when dealing with newer posters. Yes you may be technically correct, but this fits in the winning the battle but losing the war category.

Amen, Amen, Amen! There is absolutely no point at all to be so dadgum uptight over “receiving” the Eucharist or “taking” the Eucharist when most people understand it as being the same action. We are the body of Christ, not the attorneys of Christ.

 

[benedictgal]

Amen, Amen, Amen! There is absolutely no point at all to be so dadgum uptight over “receiving” the Eucharist or “taking” the Eucharist when most people understand it as being the same action. We are the body of Christ, not the attorneys of Christ.

Taking and receiving are two very different things. Taking means that you are reaching out and grabbing something on your own initiative. Receiving means that you are being giving something, or, in this case, Someone, by another person.

When it’s Christmas time or your birthday, or some other important event, I doubt that you will take your presents, right? You don’t just grab the gifit from the person who is trying to hand it to you. Rather, you receive it.

Precisely because we have new folks visiting the forums we should make every effort to use the correct terminology with the proper understanding of things, otherwise we continue to perpetuate misunderstandings.

 

[Spirithound]

Hmm, I was told that one could take both and that it was not required but we had to take one at communion. I know I was not mistaken in hearing it as it was told to me by my last Pastor. So was he right or was he wrong?

On another point, we are actually not required to receive Communion at all, except once a year, preferably in the Easter season.

 

[daeve]

---

It probably did but so much was covered during the time when I was in RCIA and in process of joining the church, I caught bits and pieces. I don’t know everything and will try learn whatever possible. I have learned in my journey to ask as many question as I need to so I thought I would ask. No harm in that.

I’ve been Catholic for my entire 58 years, grade school, high school and college, and I’m frequently amazed at how little I actually know.

 

[Through_Him]

When I first returned, at first I wanted to have non-alcoholic wine but then realized that was not tradition. Wine really affects me greatly so I quit receiving it as we are participating in the fullness with the host. But I think I will on Easter or special occasions.

I thought I might add that the priest adds water to the wine. On Tuesday I was at Mass at our nursing home, and the priest spoke on the living water. The water represents the people, the Church, even just a drop, means we are participating. The story for the Mass was how the man wanted to be put in the pool of water after it had been stirred and how alone he felt, because he had no one. It also occurred to me how water has life in it, and bacteria but of course the holy water the priest uses is blessed and pure. And our priests speaks of renewing our baptism even at the sacrifice of the Mass so it sort of all ties together.

 

[Through_Him]

real wine, pure and clean, no additives or preservatives.
i.e. something GOD would be proud of, something fit for a king.

Amen!

 

[a_pilgrim]

Taking means that we are seizing something that we are not entitled to have.

???

Not entitled to have??

Forgive me for saying so, but I’ve never heard of any defenition for the term “taking” (or its root term, “take”) that limits its use in reference only to that which we’re “not entitled to have.”

Is this a “made-up” defenition?

 

[JAGCath28]

I’m sorry if this is slightly off topic, but something that has been bothering me lately is when does the bread and wine become the body/blood. I always thought it was once you receive it and “swallow”. Also, is it wrong to chew the bread?

God Bless,

Jessica

 

[benedictgal]

???

Not entitled to have??

Forgive me for saying so, but I’ve never heard of any defenition for the term “taking” (or its root term, “take”) that limits its use in reference only to that which we’re “not entitled to have.”

Is this a “made-up” defenition?

If you are only looking in a secular dictionary, then you could be correct. However, there is a deeper, theological sense to the word. Look at what happened in the Garden of Eden. Eve took the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Life. She took something that she was not entitled to have. We do take a gift from someone else. We are not entitled to take gifts. Gifts are something that are freely given by the giver. Jesus gives us His Body and His Blood in Holy Communion. We do not take. We receive.

When he says “take and eat” and “take and drink”, he is making a clear reference to the Apostles because as this was also their ordinations, they took and ate. The celebrant of the Mass, takes and eat. We receive and eat. We receive and drink.

Perhaps this explanation, given by Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect Emeritus for the Congregataion for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, will make this point even clearer for you:

**Because the nature of the Holy Eucharist is such that the person who is not a priest celebrating the Mass must be given the Body of Christ. You say “amen”. And you receive, on the tongue or in the hand. If you are not the priests celebrating Mass – if you are the deacon assisting – you must be given [Communion]. You may not take.

Even if you are bishop or cardinal, and you are not celebrating that Mass, you must be given. You must not take.**

For example, if you watch us in Rome in St. Peter’s basilica or square, when the pope is saying a major Mass, there may be 40 cardinals, 100 bishops. When we are not concelebrating – we are wearing red vestments but we are not concelebrating – we are just assisting at Mass as all of you who are baptized. When it is time for Communion, we receive, exactly as everybody else. A deacon comes to us and says “the Body of Christ”. I say “amen”. He gives to me, and the same for all.

None of us is allowed to take. We must be given. This is the Church law. It is not to lower anybody, it is just the nature of the sacrament. Even when Christ multiplied bread and fish, He told the apostles to distribute it. It was a sign.

So the Church that regulates Eucharistic practice says that the holy Body and Blood of Christ will be given us. We will not take. Only the celebrating priests or the concelebrating communicate themselves. Everybody else must be given it, even if that person is a bishop or a priest.

Thus, taking and receiving are two very different things.