White Wine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kevin42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kevin42

Guest
Can it become the blood of our Lord? I know it is not supposed to be used at all, but I just came back from vacation, and unfortunately we attended a not-so-Catholic Catholic Church in the Seattle area that decided to use white wine instead of whatever is traditionally used. The priest also changed some of the words he used during the Eucharist (Then Jesus took some bread and gave it to some of his friend…took the cup and gave it to His friends…).

How do these to things effect the validity of the sacrament?

(By the way…I know now that these horror stories of irreverent masses do indeed happen, and I feel sorry for anyone who has had to attend one.)
 
Even the Cathedral here in Seattle uses white wine. There is no rule regarding the type of wine used. White or red can both be consecrated.
 
blessedtoo said:
Even the Cathedral here in Seattle uses white wine. There is no rule regarding the type of wine used. White or red can both be consecrated.
Click to expand...
For the record, the church where I was confirmed uses a rose wine. I ought to know. After I was confirmed at the Easter Vigil, us new members were asked to help bring in the communion bread and wine.🙂

I was chosen to bring in the large carafe of wine, so I had a good sniff of it. “A niave domestic Rose without any breeding, but I think you would have been amused at its presumption.” 😃

O yes, and I am 23 years sobbr in AA. :rolleyes:
 
Part of prayer by celebrant after the presentation of the gifts:

"Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation,
Through your goodness we have this wine to offer,
fruit of th evine and work of human hands.
It will become our spiritual drink.

We reply “Blessed be God for ever.”

No mention that the wine must be made from red grapes.
 
blessedtoo said:
Even the Cathedral here in Seattle uses white wine. There is no rule regarding the type of wine used. White or red can both be consecrated.
Click to expand...
what he said
there are also several Eucharistic prayers the priest can choose and at least one has the phrases you cite. as long as he says the actual words of consecration properly there is a valid sacrament.
 
tee_eff_em said:
How do you “know” this? :confused:

tee
Click to expand...
I was actually fairly certain I had heard it or read it somewhere along the line…but apparently not. That added to the fact that I have never seen this done before made it very strange indeed. Thank you everyone!
 
I think red, white or rose can be used but it has to be grape wine and wheat bread… no saki and rice cakes or beer and cornbread. The point is to use the substances that Christ would have used.

Joe
 
Franciscan said:
Just common sense. Red wine is a better sign of what it signifies and becomes—Blood.
Click to expand...
That was my train of thought too. Plus I never imagined them having anything but red coloured wine during that time period. I think the idea of anything but a red wine just seemed somewhat taboo in my mind, and I was sure it must be wrong…just as grape juice or beer would be wrong. But I am glad to see that this Church was right and I was wrong, so thanks for the corrections:D .
 
FWIW (which is probably nothing), both red and white wine can come from the exact same grapes. What makes red wine red, for the most part, is that the skins of red grapes were left on during the winemaking process. The longer the skins are in the process, the darker the wine.

'thann
 
Just to add, there is a biblical precedent for signifying Jesus’ blood by the color red: Joshua 2:18.
In Jean Danielou’s book From Shadows To Reality, he quotes St. Clement, who considered the scarlet cord of Rahab to be a sign of the redemptive blood of Christ. “and they gave her a sign which she was to hang from her house, a scarlet cord. This was to show clearly beforehand that the blood of the Lord should bring redemption”
Also he quotes St. Justin who said the scarklet cord was a “symbol of the blood of Christ”.
Jean Danielou goes on to make the point that the cord was scarlet for a reason that it was not just random or coincidental but the divine Authorship at work through this ‘type’.
So red, or in this case ‘scarlet’, was a sign of the Eucharist before it was even instituted.
If the cord were white it would hardly have been a good sign for the Blood of Christ, so too the altar wine should be scarlet in color- A BETTER SIGN.
 
Kevin42 said:
Can it become the blood of our Lord? I know it is not supposed to be used at all, but I just came back from vacation, and unfortunately we attended a not-so-Catholic Catholic Church in the Seattle area that decided to use white wine instead of whatever is traditionally used. The priest also changed some of the words he used during the Eucharist (Then Jesus took some bread and gave it to some of his friend…took the cup and gave it to His friends…).

How do these to things effect the validity of the sacrament?

(By the way…I know now that these horror stories of irreverent masses do indeed happen, and I feel sorry for anyone who has had to attend one.)
Click to expand...
I understand that if the priest changes the word of consecration it is invalid. A priest also told me if the priest does that he is in mortal sin.
 
Greetings!

OK, here it is, straight from the GIRM:
The wine for the eucharistic celebration must be from the fruit of the grapevine (cf. Lk 22:18), natural, and unadulterated, that is, without admixture of extraneous substances.
G.I.R.M. 2003, paragraph 322
Click to expand...
There is no liturgical law against using white wine, as long as it is the fruit of the grapevine.

I agree with Franciscan that red is a better symbol, but white is just as valid.

MT
 
MichiganTrumbul said:
Greetings!

OK, here it is, straight from the GIRM:

There is no liturgical law against using white wine, as long as it is the fruit of the grapevine.

I agree with Franciscan that red is a better symbol, but white is just as valid.

MT
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that the wine is not a symbol… it IS the blood of Christ.
 
calvin1970 said:
Except for the fact that the wine is not a symbol… it IS the blood of Christ.
Click to expand...
At first when I read this I thought come on we know what he meant. But it brings up an important distinction between symbol and sign. The wine is ‘a sign’ not a symbol. It is an efficacious sign , one that becomes what it signifies. As a sign it points to an exernal reality.
If it were just a symbol than any wine will do, heck you can even have grape juice. But becuase it’s a sacramental sign, it’s necessary to follow the rubrics and the Church’s rules regarding it.And there is nothing that says white wine can’t be used.

So white wine is just as good a ‘sign’ for the Eucharist but red is a better ‘symbol’ of blood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top