What would happen if wine was added to the Precious Body?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SenorSalsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SenorSalsa

Guest
Aside from the fact that it is probably very illicit and bad, what would happen to the Precious Blood, presumably it does not work like holy water, where you add as much as half of the total amount with normal water, but does that mean that only half of the Chalice now contains the Eucharist?
 
Hi, the fluids would mix, and the Precious Blood remain, but be diluted though no less powerful; but how on earth could that happen? It seems unlikely! I don’t think we need worry! 🙂

God Bless you!
 
SenorSalsa said:
Aside from the fact that it is probably very illicit and bad, what would happen to the Precious Blood, presumably it does not work like holy water, where you add as much as half of the total amount with normal water, but does that mean that only half of the Chalice now contains the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
Could you describe this more clearly? The Precious Blood is present so long as the appearances of wine remain; diluting the Precious Blood with water eventually eliminates the Real Presence. If you add a LITTLE water (not enough to remove the appearance of wine), I would surmise that it (the added water) is not automatically consecrated, but remains water: you would be consuming the Precious Blood mixed with a bit of water.

It sounds, though, like you’re talking about the opposite: “diluting” the Precious Blood with more wine. The appearance of wine remains, for sure, but I do not think that this wine is consecrated retroactively either: you would be drinking the Precious Blood mixed with wine. But, since the appearance of wine remains, the Precious Blood still remains.

That’s my take.
 
It is not unheard of in Orthodox Churches, when running low during Communion, for the priest to add more wine to the Chalice.

There is the theory of “contact consecration” held in some Eastern circles.
 
bpbasilphx said:
It is not unheard of in Orthodox Churches, when running low during Communion, for the priest to add more wine to the Chalice.

There is the theory of “contact consecration” held in some Eastern circles.
Click to expand...
This is interesting, I never would have thought that. Is there a rule as to how much you can add, or can you keep adding wine to your heart’s content and it will all be “contact consecrated”?
 
** Originally Posted by bpbasilphx View Post
It is not unheard of in Orthodox Churches, when running low during Communion, for the priest to add more wine to the Chalice.

There is the theory of “contact consecration” held in some Eastern circles.
This is interesting, I never would have thought that. Is there a rule as to how much you can add, or can you keep adding wine to your heart’s content and it will all be “contact consecrated”?**

I really don’t know. I’ve never had to do it, myself.
 
SenorSalsa said:
Aside from the fact that it is probably very illicit and bad, what would happen to the Precious Blood, presumably it does not work like holy water, where you add as much as half of the total amount with normal water, but does that mean that only half of the Chalice now contains the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
If you mixed more than 50% wine with the Precious Blood (51% wine/49% Precious Blood) The Real Presence would be no longer. No one should ever mix the Precious Blood with any other substance.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
If you mixed more than 50% wine with the Precious Blood (51% wine/49% Precious Blood) The Real Presence would be no longer.
Click to expand...
Br. Rich,

Just curious, is that a personal opinion or is that common teaching? If the latter, can you direct us to a source and/or explain the reasons for it?

Thanks!
VC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Br. Rich,

Just curious, is that a personal opinion or is that common teaching? If the latter, can you direct us to a source and/or explain the reasons for it?

Thanks!
VC
Click to expand...
It’s common teaching. In times past and in a few parishes today the chalice is purified not with water first but with the addition of wine in a “greater quantity” then the remaining Precious blood, and then the second purification is with water. I don’t have electronic documentation. I would have to go find the books and look it up.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
If you mixed more than 50% wine with the Precious Blood (51% wine/49% Precious Blood) The Real Presence would be no longer. No one should ever mix the Precious Blood with any other substance.
Click to expand...
I’d like to see the documentation supporting that claim.

It’s true that consecrated hosts that have been profaned (let’s say for example, regurgitated) can be soaked in water until they lose their identity as hosts, but the water must still be treated with great care – it cannot be simply dumped down the sewer. I’m sure that’s the same for the Precious Blood but this would be only in seriously grave situations for both species.

But to suggest that the Real Presence evaporates when a greater amount of wine is added to it is not only wrong, it’s pernicious thinking and it’s certainly not a “common teaching.”

So if there is a pint of Precious Blood left over after Mass (gravely wrong in itself) you could just co-mingle it with 17 ounces of fresh wine and the Real Presence vanishes?

I think not.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
It’s common teaching. In times past and in a few parishes today the chalice is purified not with water first but with the addition of wine in a “greater quantity” then the remaining Precious blood, and then the second purification is with water. I don’t have electronic documentation. I would have to go find the books and look it up.
Click to expand...
Ablutions of sacred vessels can be done either with water or fresh wine. This has nothing to do with your 51/49% claim.
 
Rickwood said:
Ablutions of sacred vessels can be done either with water or fresh wine. This has nothing to do with your 51/49% claim.
Click to expand...
It MUST be more fresh wine or water than the remaining Blood of Christ. 51/49 would be the the extreme limit, but way too close, 50/50 won’t do it. One MUST simply assure that there is more fresh wine or water. Maybe you misunderstood the point I was trying to make with the 51/49%.
 
Rickwood said:
I’d like to see the documentation supporting that claim.

It’s true that consecrated hosts that have been profaned (let’s say for example, regurgitated) can be soaked in water until they lose their identity as hosts, but the water must still be treated with great care – it cannot be simply dumped down the sewer. I’m sure that’s the same for the Precious Blood but this would be only in seriously grave situations for both species.

But to suggest that the Real Presence evaporates when a greater amount of wine is added to it is not only wrong, it’s pernicious thinking and it’s certainly not a “common teaching.”

So if there is a pint of Precious Blood left over after Mass (gravely wrong in itself) you could just co-mingle it with 17 ounces of fresh wine and the Real Presence vanishes?

I think not.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that if you mix a greater amount of water with the remaining Precious Blood the Real Presence vanishes. But if you mix a greater quantity of fresh wine with the remaining Precious Blood, the Real Presence remains? So explain why one, but not the other? Neither one of us accepts the idea of “Consecration by contact”, correct?

And yes in most cases the Ablutions should be consumed, but not in all cases. They may be poured down the sacrarium in certain circumstances, such as contamination.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
It’s common teaching. In times past and in a few parishes today the chalice is purified not with water first but with the addition of wine in a “greater quantity” then the remaining Precious blood, and then the second purification is with water. I don’t have electronic documentation. I would have to go find the books and look it up.
Click to expand...
This is what actually got me thinking about it, because this is how they do it in the EF form, at least where I am learning how to serve it. They add wine–a lot–then the priest consumes, then they add water plus a drop or so of wine, and he consume again
 
SenorSalsa said:
This is what actually got me thinking about it, because this is how they do it in the EF form, at least where I am learning how to serve it. They add wine–a lot–then the priest consumes, then they add water plus a drop or so of wine, and he consume again
Click to expand...
You can use water or wine in the OF as well…
 
I know in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer there is a ritual to, as it were, emergency consecrate more Bread and Wine should the need arise. I do not know how Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox address the issue though.
 
This thread has me thinking of something I once observe, if I can do my memory any justice. From what I recall, I once attended a Mass in which they ran out of the Eucharist before everyone had received. So the priest retrieved more hosts, did a fairly quick, quiet blessing over them, and then continued to distribute to the remainder of the congregation.

Was this a valid consecration for those extra hosts?
 
Rickwood said:
But to suggest that the Real Presence evaporates when a greater amount of wine is added to it is not only wrong, it’s pernicious thinking and it’s certainly not a “common teaching.”
Click to expand...
Rickwood said:
That makes sense. It is did, there would be no need to consume the ablutions…
Click to expand...
Perhaps we could consider the Precious Blood to be a different “species”, so to speak, from wine. We know that when the Precious Blood no longer has the accidents of wine, then it is also no longer the Precious Blood of our Lord. But when we say that, we are just using an observable thing to describe an unobservable thing. What we really mean to say is that when the Precious Blood is no longer present, the Precious Blood is no longer present. So, recalling that the Precious Blood is really a different species than wine, we must conclude that if water can dilute it, then unconsecrated wine must also dilute it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top