Because I purchase the wine for my parish.Why should you have easy access to it? Are you a winemaker? Apparently it was as readily-available as it needed to be, since the company had it in their documents.
What?!? What did you ever say in the above paragraph? Simply that we are relying on the obscure 1922 permission? Is that what it boils down to?If it started out valid, it continues to be valid. We are talking about valid matter for the Precious Blood. If it made a valid Eucharist then, it makes a valid Eucharist now. The Church cannot promulgate invalid sacraments.
So we are relying on that 1922 RESPONSUM? No where else can I find where the Church even hints at approving added sulfates. What was the DUBIUM even based upon? WHAT was it interpreting?And as for the 1922 “permission:” that is what is known as a “dubium” or request for interpretation of the law. It did not signify any new permission for something novel, it merely requested that the Holy See make a definitive ruling on something that was unclear under norms that were current for that time.
What did the person before you buy? Have you talked to your pastor? Diocese? All of these are things that a person without access to the dubium, or the sulphite content can do.Because I purchase the wine for my parish.
It boils down to the question “What is valid matter for the Eucharist?” If the answer was “Yes” in 1922, then the answer is “Yes” today. This is because validity is defined by Divine Law, not Ecclesiastical Law. The Church only discerns what is valid, she does not create validity.What?!? What did you ever say in the above paragraph? Simply that we are relying on the obscure 1922 permission? Is that what it boils down to?
I mean that the answer was in favour of validity. This tells me that nobody except the bishop in question was unsure.What?
You asked a great question and you really didn’t get an answer.In all Church documents that stipulate the requirements for valid matter to use in Communion, a big deal is always made about natural grape wine, with NO other ingredients/additives. But almost all wine used in parishes has a little note on the bottle saying “contains sulfites.”
I know sulfites are a common preservative, but why is that not in violation of the given rules?
Please. I drilled down far deeper than that. I didn’t simply want to do what the person before me did. I want to do better by my parish. My parish used to use a foul-tasting “certified” sacramental wine. Not cheap. A neighboring parish with a very respected pastor uses Two Buck Chuck. Better tasting and far cheaper.What did the person before you buy? Have you talked to your pastor? Diocese? All of these are things that a person without access to the dubium, or the sulphite content can do.
On please. You mean it boils down to relying on that private 1922 responsum. That’s all you are saying.It boils down to the question “What is valid matter for the Eucharist?” If the answer was “Yes” in 1922, then the answer is “Yes” today. This is because validity is defined by Divine Law, not Ecclesiastical Law. The Church only discerns what is valid, she does not create validity.
Where did all the other bishops get the idea that adding sulfites was OK to begin with? What document(s) gave them that idea? What document(s) gave the one bishop a need to get clarification?I mean that the answer was in favour of validity. This tells me that nobody except the bishop in question was unsure.
I can’t believe you are asking this question, but you are.In all Church documents that stipulate the requirements for valid matter to use in Communion, a big deal is always made about natural grape wine, with NO other ingredients/additives. But almost all wine used in parishes has a little note on the bottle saying “contains sulfites.”
I know sulfites are a common preservative, but why is that not in violation of the given rules?
What bugs me is most “experts” feel we need to use “certified” (per Canon Law) sacramental wine and that’s just not the case it would appear. If pastors knew they simply need a 100% grape-based wine with the only allowed additives being XYZ preservatives they could shop accordingly and they might well get a superior wine at a far cheaper price.I am totally on board with the idea that the Church should be more clear about the issue, if it was answered in 1922 then certainly they have had time to insert the clarification and seeing as the bread being made of wheat is considered essential to the point where most consider it wrong to make exceptions for those with allergies I would think this would be something that is also of high importance. Alas the idea will get little support on these forums
Pardon me?I can’t believe you are asking this question, but you are.
I guess you are partaking of both species?
You and how many others are?
Out of curiosity where/why is zero-gluten banned again? I can never really remember, and while we are at it do you know if it is permissible for some of the other rites to not follow this since it is common practice to use other matter in Asia where gluten allergies are common?What bugs me is most “experts” feel we need to use “certified” (per Canon Law) sacramental wine and that’s just not the case it would appear. If pastors knew they simply need a 100% grape-based wine with the only allowed additives being XYZ preservatives they could shop accordingly and they might well get a superior wine at a far cheaper price.
So you know there can be NO EXCEPTIONS when it comes to the 100% wheat flour used to make hosts. LOW GLUTEN 100% wheat flour can be used but zero gluten wheat flour, rice, corn, potato, etc. may not be used in place of wheat.
Come to think of it though, I wonder if the Church allows flour preservatives based on some obscure private responsum?
Sulfites are used as a preservative.Pardon me?
Baptists love seeing threads like this!Let’s do a little word substitution and hear how silly this argument sounds.
Replace “sulfites” with “alcohol.”
Q: Does the Church allow wine with alcohol in it? Is it valid matter for the Eucharist?
A: Alcohol occurs naturally as wine is produced so it is permitted and valid for wine to contain alcohol.
Luger: BUT THE CHURCH MUST SAY IN CANON LAW WHETHER WINE CAN CONTAIN ALCOHOL OR NOT!!
Nonsense: the Church has spoken explicitly where it needed to, in response to a dubium, and nothing has to change. I’m sure there is a certain amount of weevil eggs in ordinary wheat flour and the Church doesn’t have to tell us how much of that is OK, either.
That isn’t a valid analogy at all, he was clearly asking about the addition of sulfites not the sulfites that are naturally present. I am pretty sure the Church would not approve of a priest adding distilled ethanol to the wine.Let’s do a little word substitution and hear how silly this argument sounds.
Replace “sulfites” with “alcohol.”
Q: Does the Church allow wine with alcohol in it? Is it valid matter for the Eucharist?
A: Alcohol occurs naturally as wine is produced so it is permitted and valid for wine to contain alcohol.
Luger: BUT THE CHURCH MUST SAY IN CANON LAW WHETHER WINE CAN CONTAIN ALCOHOL OR NOT!!
Nonsense: the Church has spoken explicitly where it needed to, in response to a dubium, and nothing has to change. I’m sure there is a certain amount of weevil eggs in ordinary wheat flour and the Church doesn’t have to tell us how much of that is OK, either.
Regarding low gluten hosts:Out of curiosity where/why is zero-gluten banned again? I can never really remember, and while we are at it do you know if it is permissible for some of the other rites to not follow this since it is common practice to use other matter in Asia where gluten allergies are common?
Oh and as for your other question about flour preservatives I recall someone asking if a small bit of salt could be added to the bread dough since the church views it as a purifying agent and nobody really seemed sure.
Don’t be foolish. Your nonsensical diatribe adds nothing.Let’s do a little word substitution and hear how silly this argument sounds.
Replace “sulfites” with “alcohol.”
Q: Does the Church allow wine with alcohol in it? Is it valid matter for the Eucharist?
A: Alcohol occurs naturally as wine is produced so it is permitted and valid for wine to contain alcohol.
Luger: BUT THE CHURCH MUST SAY IN CANON LAW WHETHER WINE CAN CONTAIN ALCOHOL OR NOT!!
Nonsense: the Church has spoken explicitly where it needed to, in response to a dubium, and nothing has to change. I’m sure there is a certain amount of weevil eggs in ordinary wheat flour and the Church doesn’t have to tell us how much of that is OK, either.