White wine...

[lak611]

I spoke with the pastoral associate about this since she was responsible for their training. The p.a. said that it can still be called wine. I said that it should not be spoken of using those words lest any do not fully understand the difference. I have found documents and writing supporting my belief. On the other hand, I have also found documents that referred to the consecrated wine as just that. Any thoughts to add?

I am an EMHC. After the Consecration, we always say that the contents of the chalices is the Blood of Christ or the Precious Blood because the elements ARE transformed by the Priest. Your p.a. is incorrect.

 

[didymus]

A priest told me that he (and other priests he knows) use white wine for practical reasons: it doesn’t stain the altar linens as much as red wine does, so they’re easier to wash and have to be washed less frequently.

There are some requirements for the sacramental wine (it has to be pure with nothing mixed into it, and have a certain sugar content) but the colour is not significant.

Karolina

Whatever the mandatory sugar content is I’m sure it’s being overfulfilled. Sacramental wine usually tastes like Manischevitz w/Karo syrup added.

 

[johnnykins]

Whatever the mandatory sugar content is I’m sure it’s being overfulfilled. Sacramental wine usually tastes like Manischevitz w/Karo syrup added.

without looking it up, I’m pretty sure there is no required “sugar” content. There is a required alcohol content which, if memory serves, is 12%.

 

[tee_eff_em]

without looking it up, I’m pretty sure there is no required “sugar” content. There is a required alcohol content which, if memory serves, is 12%.

“Required” by whom? Not the Church. Even mustum (new wine in which fermentation has been arrested by, eg, freezing) may be used for the Eucharist, especially by celebrants who suffer from or serve congregations suffering from alcoholism.

tee

 

[Morning_Star15]

OK, I’m not sure about the exact sugar content - I’ll be sure to ask the priest I spoke to when I see him again, but I do know that the wine is supposed to more on the sweet side than the dry side.

 

[johnnykins]

“Required” by whom? Not the Church. Even mustum (new wine in which fermentation has been arrested by, eg, freezing) may be used for the Eucharist, especially by celebrants who suffer from or serve congregations suffering from alcoholism.

tee

mustem, etc., are exceptions allowed for various reasons. As I recall, generally the wine must be 12% alcohol by Canon law. Perhaps someone who knows the canon can confirm? Perhaps it was a requirement under the old canon law and has been changed. In any event I am quite sure it must be wine - i.e. alcoholic.

 

[tee_eff_em]

mustem, etc., are exceptions allowed for various reasons. As I recall, generally the wine must be 12% alcohol by Canon law. Perhaps someone who knows the canon can confirm? Perhaps it was a requirement under the old canon law and has been changed. In any event I am quite sure it must be wine - i.e. alcoholic.

Perhaps it was the former law. The current law (and GIRM) is silent on alcholic content:

Can. 924 §1 The most holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist must be celebrated in bread, and in wine to which a small quantity of water is to be added.
§2 The bread must be wheaten only, and recently made, so that there is no danger of corruption.
§3 The wine must be natural, made from grapes of the vine, and not corrupt.

The commentary I have access to says that over the centuries the Apostolic See has established regulations regarding the wine-making process, alcoholic content and use of additives, but is silent as to what any of those might be.

It also notes that the matter mustum is valid, but gravely illicit except in cases of necessity.

tee