Years back, as a seminarian, I inquired of a senior priest who had vast experience in Church life, having been for years Secretary to Cardinal Ottaviani, about the use of “unofficial” wine at Mass. “Joseph,” he said, “in my (Roman) seminary days wine was served at every evening meal, and the sacristans leaving the refectory to go to the sacristies to set up for the private Masses would scoop up a carafe from the table to bring to the sacristy and fill the cruets. Ordinary red table wine was used at all Masses.” He was in the seminary during the reign of Pius the Eleventh, ordained in the first year of Pius the Twelfth.
Fr. - I took over my current parish from a priest who annually invited people to contribute wine for use throughout the year, so I ended up doing a bit of research on this.
The problem is that the FDA does not require an ingredient list for wines. So, while the base may be grapes, wine makers can add whatever else they want and not tell you. Given that valid matter is defined as "pure" grape wine, that becomes a huge problem. The only way to guarantee valid matter is to have the manufacturer itself certify that they used ONLY grapes.
I would say that sugar is beyond the pale. I would definitely never buy an Oregon or Florida wine because of that. But I find this quote enlightening, "For many hundreds of years in Italy and France, winemakers would add an egg white or two to a large barrel of wine." Either most Masses have been invalid, or its fine.
My current assignment means that I do not have ready access to sacramental wine. I could get it, but it is easier to just go buy some wine. I may have assignments in the future where I have no access to such wine. If I really think commercial wine is invalid, I cannot use it, even then. So either a normal bottle of Pinot Grigio is valid matter or it isn't. Obviously, the priests of KC need to take their bishop's instruction as the letter of the law, but what is being stated is a bit scrupulous if it were going to be applied as a general rule.
What I find interesting is the 1896 document from the Office of the Inquisition (pretty sure that is what that abbreviation means) with very detailed instructions about the nature of what can be added. If I had access to an appropriate library, that is exactly what I would be referencing, because I'll be there is a lot of other really pertinent information.
What finally motivated me to change the practice of my predecessor and give away all of the donated wine was the idea that, when it comes to sacramental validity, it does not make sense to play around with doubts. Given the sources cited by the article above, I was pushed to a point where every use of non-sacramental wine is now of doubtful validity for me.
Regardless of how this resolves, I am really glad to see this come out of KC because hopefully this will get Rome and the bishops reengaging with this question, especially given the diversity of opinions and practices. Priests in the trenches should not have to figure this out for themselves in the comments section, am I right?
The article has a major error. He cites a reader that "Kosher" wines are a good choice. That is a complete misunderstanding. Kosher wines are at least potentially invalid. They are boiled like grape juice specifically to prevent Catholics from using them for Mass.
Your attitude of "better safe than sorry" is generally a good one, but there is a danger of scruples. Most Masses in the world are being celebrated today with wine that was made using normal additives such as yeast and clarifying agents like egg whites. I agree that if all these Masses are invalid, Rome needs to speak, but let's be clear: I doubt Pope Francis or Cardinal Roche uses special sacramental wine, so I have a guess how that letter might go.
Fr. - I think you misunderstand the purpose of the boiling. Kosher wine requires that it only be touched by Jews, so if a non-Jewish waiter brings you your wine, it becomes non-Kosher between the kitchen and the table. Unless it is boiled, apparently. Regardless, boiling wine does not make it invalid matter according to our own standards.
When kosher wine is mevushal (Hebrew: "cooked" or "boiled"), it thereby becomes unfit for idolatrous use and will keep the status of kosher wine even if subsequently touched by an idolater. It is not known whence the ancient Jewish authorities derived this claim; there are no records concerning "boiled wine" and its fitness for use in the cults of any of the religions of the peoples surrounding ancient Israel. Indeed, in Orthodox Christianity, it is common to add boiling water to the sacramental wine. Another opinion holds that mevushal wine was not included in the rabbinic edict against drinking wine touched by an idolater simply because such wine was uncommon in those times.
Mevushal wine is frequently used in kosher restaurants and by kosher caterers so as to allow the wine to be handled by non-Jewish or non-observant waiters."
Upon further research, I agree that Fr. MacNamera made some assumptions about Kosher wine that are not borne out and that make it invalid matter. Apparently, even Manischewitz's "Kosher for Passover" wine adds cane sugar, which would render it invalid. Regardless, that does not negate the presentation of historical Church teaching in the article.
Still, I am not sure on what basis you are assuming such a wide use of non-sacramental wine. I'm in one of the traditionally more anti-nomian dioceses in the country (Seattle, ref: Hunthausen) and mine is the first parish I have experienced the use of non-sacramental wine, despite wide travels within the diocese as a seminarian and visiting priest.
I don't think scruples is the right category here, because it is not a subjective feeling we are evaluating. The Church has clearly defined that valid matter must be "pure" wine and we seem to be debating the meaning of that word. So far, the only clarifying documents we have referenced indicate that pure really does mean nothing except grapes. To equate this with scruples feels like many of the reactions to the "We baptize..." controversy, which concluded that God could not be so legalistic as to invalidate a baptism because of a change from singular to plural.
The "idolatrous worship" they are trying to avoid is Mass. I wouldn't celebrate Mass with a wine which was specifically boiled so as to keep me from using our for Mass.
I agree that in most parishes in the US, sacramental wine is what should be used. But there are many priests outside the US who have no access to these wines, and some in the US. We have no idea what was so wrong with the wines in KC, but we can presume they were something ridiculous like raspberry wine. Some people think that the average pinot grigio might be invalid, which would be a big deal.
Oh my. I hope Jesus used the CORRECT type at the wedding feast of Cana. Also at the Last Supper. Just think of the incorrectness through the ages if not. Nesxt we will be installing vineyards ion the church properties. Does intent count,or is Jesus up there with His red pen keeping score? Come on!
Intent is necessary (it would be silly to imagine that someone could accidentally consecrate bread and wine without intending to) but if intent were sufficient in all areas of life, then radical sanation would not exist, because there would be no need for it; and yet, it does exist (usually I hear about it with regard to marriage, but it also came up recently in another context in which someone, I freely assume, had the best of intentions but was not following some arbitrary, nitpicky, tedious rules made by the Church.)
I think the rub is the words "pure" and "unmixed", which imply an almost impossibly high standard to meet unless the wine is intentionally being made for this purpose. Everything has addatives these days, including tap water, so what counts as pure and unmixed is a lot more difficult to discern.
In a parish I served the wine I use had less than 1 percent of elderberry extract in it, for color I was told. According to KCK all the many Masses offered using that wine were invalid.
There is no ingredient listing requirements in most countries including the us. Many major brands use additives to create particular taste profiles. This can include a number of substances that go far beyond stabilization efforts. Winemakers for large production facilities are often akin to a food scientist, sweetening here, acidifying there. The challenge is to create a consistent product that delivers across hundreds of thousands of cases with little to no vintage variation.
As a person only lightly familiar with Canon Law, I would have liked to see which canon(s) states that if the material in the wine used renders it invalid for sacramental use then the whole of Mass is invalided, even if proper material was used for the host.
I ask this because the article says,
'As a result, he wrote, in those parishes, “for any number of years all Masses were invalid and therefore the intentions for which those Masses were offered were not satisfied, including the obligation pastors have to offer Mass for the people.”'
Another question that occurred to me is there is no real distinction mentioned between valid and illicit. The article mentions, 'The Church also regulates hosts, explaining that in the Latin Catholic Church, “the bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition.”' And yet if leavened bread is used, it is only a matter of it being illicit, not invalid.
It would have also been helpful to know & have explained that most (if not all) Eastern Catholics use leavened bread completely validly, so this is only a norm in the Latin rite. At Latin rite Catholics, we can validly receive Eucharist in leavened form by attending an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy.
Valid has to do with something actually happening, whereas licit has to do with other regulatory laws. The Church has told us what the bare minimum is for a sacrament to be valid, but also has other rules to make sure the sacrament is celebrated well and not abused. The Easterners have a separate canon law than us, and use leavened bread because they have an ancient tradition of doing so. It's about protecting the integrity of the tradition - Romans are Roman, Byzantines are Byzantines etc.
I'll also add that licety does not necessarily affect validity, although sometimes it can. For example, a priest hearing confessions without faculties outside an emergency situation results in the confession being invalid and thus the penitent's sins do not get absolved (Canon 966 §1).
He does, yes, but the Sacraments were instituted by Jesus: they are not Him. The Sacraments are by their very definition limited, as they are bound by form and matter. Jesus is capable of turning chocolate cake into His body, but that's not how He set up the Eucharist. Likewise, a priest cannot reconcile a penitent to God and the Church when he is not authorized to do so, and one cannot be reconciled to God and not His Church, and vice versa. Remember, the formula for absolution says "Through the ministry of the Church", which necessarily implies a permission (faculties) to then say "May God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you of your sins...". A priest's ministry is inextricably tied to be subordinate to that of the bishop’s, and that too is a limitation of the priesthood.
I will agree to disagree. Subordination to a bishop absolutely needs to be changed. Take a long look at what has transpired with bishops. They are human and subject to the same faults and biases as we are. They were called to be Shephers. The only law they should follow is the law of LOVE
Thank you, I am aware of this. I suppose I was looking for more clarity in the article itself with more references to official documents.
As I said, the article does not adequately address the distinction, which can lead one to assume that every instance of variation leads to invalidity, and this is just not true. But reading the article can lead to this thought or just lead to more confusion rather than clarity.
I thought it would be helpful to mention what info I thought would be useful to have in the article as a reader, I guess. If I'm looking to share an article with others, I'm not going to share something that requires a lot of pre-knowledge to understand unless they have formation already.
I would point you to canon 927: "It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration." These instances are definitely in the category of consecrating one element without the other.
I don't think there is a single part of canon law that stipulates all of the requirements for a valid mass, but rather it is a combination of canon law and other directives from the Church (and the CCC), and other materials such as the GIRM. But what Archbishop Naumann stated here is correct as I've always understood it - if both species are not consecrated, then the sacrifice was not completed, and therefore the mass intentions were not fulfilled, and people's Sunday obligations were technically not fulfilled either (through no fault of their own).
I've heard of other stories where a diocese has to go to the Vatican for situations like this to sort out mass offerings and intentions; one fairly well-known example was in Detroit not too long ago when a priest found out he was invalidly baptized (due to the recent directive that saying "We baptize" is invalid) and they had to sort out all of the mass intentions and offerings that he had done over the years since he had technically never offered a valid mass.
I think that "we" baptism was valid (but perhaps not licit). I just happened to be reading the Decree of Pope Eugene to the Council of Florence, and I came upon this; "The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. But we do not deny that true baptism is conferred by the following words: May this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit; or, This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. Since the holy Trinity is the principle cause from which baptism has its power and the minister is the instrumental cause who exteriorly bestows the sacrament, the sacrament is conferred if the action is performed by the minister with the invocation of the holy Trinity. "
There is no way that this has any credibility to me. If the priest or deacon had pure intention then I believe the Sacrament is valid. Jesus must have a great sense of humor.
Even when they go directly against what Christ has prescribed? Even when it opens the door to markedly unequal treatment of how Christians receive the Sacraments? Christ is capable of acting outside the Sacraments, but then what is occurring isn't a Sacrament.
Pretty good article, but on what basis does he reject sparkling wine? Wine which is carbonated (not artificially but through natural fermentation) would seem to be valid matter. I think he meant that he doesn't like the idea of using such wine, but if I had nothing else on hand I would not hesitate to use a Moscato d'asti, though preferably giving it time to flatten before Mass. Champagne and some other sparkling wine have sugar added, so maybe he was basing it on that.
I think the bishop may be unfocused... I was listening with empathy to the concern until the commercially marketed part. Perhaps we should all re-read Jesus mission statement from his first ever sermon in Luke 4:16 and re-focus our day based on that: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.”
I used to work for a parish that encouraged parishioners to donate wine for Mass. I received a number of eye rolls when I asked if we told them it had to be wine from only grapes, after I found an unopened bottle of wine that included other fruits in the sacristy.
People may think it's stupid to care about such specific detail but the fact is the Church has specified in the law to a level of detail, so we must obey. To do otherwise is traveling down the road to beer and pizza Masses.
Woestman cites Dominus Salvator Noster (1929): "cannot be regarded as valid matter...wine to which water has been added in greater or equal quantity. In fact, matter is to be regarded as dubious, and hence is not to be used, if a notable quantity of any other substance has been added..."
When pushed for an opinion on validity (as distinct from the licit or moral question), I fall back on this 'greater or equal quantity'.
I am the Vintner for O-Neh-Da Authentic Sacramental Wines and I want to address several points made in the article. Canon Law 924 and GIRM322 direct the production of valid and licit sacramental wine. The wine for the Eucharist must be natural, pure grape and not corrupt. While many claims can be made that wine is "natural" let me offer a clarification and insight. Grapes ferment into wine without any additions because there is a fungus/yeast present in the vineyard and on the skin of the grape. "Spontaneous fermentation" occurs without the addition of any dried bagged yeast, diammonium phosphate (DAP) tartaric acid, citric acid, non-grape sugars, mega red, mega purple, etc. Just like 'artificial insemination' of the womb is not allowed in married couples, inseminating the wine with yeast and nutrients is not, in our opinion, following the Canons strictly. O-Neh-Da grapes are grown without any herbicides, pesticides or chemicals and the wine is not 'made' it is grown, filtered and bottle. O-Neh-Da wines are truly pure and natural and have received continuous approbation fro the Bishop of Rochester since our founding in 1872. Not any wine will suffice as almost all wines have added sugars, bagged, yeast, stabilizers such as potassium sorbate and the like. Also wines can be ameliorated with water and may contain non-grape flavors. O-Neh-Da sacramental wines are simply Finger Lakes grapes which spontaneously ferment (slowly) into sacramental wine over many months. Great pains are taken in the vineyard and winery to assure that the wine is pure, natural, and of premium quality. It is sad to hear from Bishops that 'any wine will do.' That was not Bishop McQuaid's understanding in 1872 and it is not our understanding to this day. It is absolutely NOT a marketing gimmick at O-Neh-Da to label our wines as "Sacramental." Not only do we consider production of sacramental wine for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be the second most important vocation on Earth (first being the priest in persona Christi), but we labor tirelessly to produce only the best wine in accord with the Canons.
At the same time, this is admirable work which I am glad is being done, but the comparison to artificial means of insemination is bad sacramental theology which overstates the case.
Your wine is surely one of the best options, but to call it a necessary type of wine gets very close to the kind of purity laws which Jesus cleansed the temple over. Any grape wine, even with yeast, egg whites, etc. is valid matter.
You are right to use the word "must" because the rule does not change under any circumstances. If a wine is good enough when nothing else is available, it is good enough. It would be crazy if a priest had access to a bottle of chardonnay but cancelled Mass because it was just "normal" chardonnay.
Your work is important and good, but this comment suggests that most Masses throughout the world today are invalid because they do not have such pure wine.
Thank you Father for your comment. My lay understanding is that most wine is valid for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but unless it is "natural" and only "fruit of the vine" it is illicit. If it was not suppose to be made in strict accord with the Canons, there would be no issue of liceity, but as I understand it, liceity matters. Cardinal Sarah thought so also and wrote all Ordinaries around the world to instruct on validity and liceity, giving weight to both. Pax Christi
The issue is not actually one of validity and liceity, but of validity and doubtful validity. If a priest celebrated Mass with strawberry wine, it would definitely be invalid. If he celebrates Mass with a wine to which sugar has been added, it is doubtfully valid.
What is illicit is celebrating Mass with wine that is doubtfully valid. Even if the priest himself thinks it is valid, the doubt is a reason for him to not use it. The wine you provide is surely beyond any shadow of a doubt.
But the question becomes where the line between doubts and scruples is. A normal California wine is not doubtful, so it is not illicit. Unless, as in KC, the bishop is requiring a higher standard. Priests there must hold the standard set by their bishop.
But the idea that the entire Church requires special wines made without added yeast or fining agents is not the practice in many countries, would be impractical in various situations, and goes beyond the current requirements.
Perhaps this story will result in greater clarification.
Beautifully said. Certainly the validity of the Mass is the issue at hand. If valid, whether licit or illicit my lay understanding is that Christ is still present and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass occurred. The greater concern for us all should be the lack of understanding and acceptance of the Real Presence in the Eucharist among those who identify as "Catholic," according to the Pew Research paper on the matter. May God have mercy on us all!
Thank you Father for your comment. My lay understanding is that most wine is valid for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but unless it is "natural" and only "fruit of the vine" it is illicit. If it was not suppose to be made in strict accord with the Canons, there would be no issue of liceity, but as I understand it, liceity matters. Cardinal Sarah thought so also and wrote all Ordinaries around the world to instruct on validity and liceity, giving weight to both. Pax Christi
When I was younger my parish used a bread that was baked by someone in the parish. While it wasn't "leaven" it certainly wasn't flat wafers. And I swear there was some sweetness. so I shudder to think how many masses are using bad wine or bad bread even.
Will await what the word is on all the masses that were invalid. that's scary
I have a family recipe for illicit altar bread for *house* Masses (it tastes really good, as I recall from childhood, and it is from the 1970s/80s when the people using it simply had no idea; if it is mostly whole-wheat flour how can you go wrong, etc.; I do not know its original provenance.)
I was hoping someone else would bring up the issue of the house bread from the seventies. If using the wrong wine invalidates the Mass then surely using the wrong bread does as well. Which also surely means that in a LOT of Masses during the 1970's there was no consecration of the host. I remember seeing a 'host', made with honey at least, that had been put in a monstrance, and was molding away. Absolutely horrifying, but I didn't realize that it invalidated the Mass itself.
No, as far as I know the tasty unleavened house bread is illicit not invalid, at least the one whose recipe I have seen. (It is certainly possible to make invalid breads but you have to be a little farther off the rails.) The only flour in it is wheat but it had non-flour non-water ingredients.
Either the danger is being overstated, or I do not understand something about the wine market.
Invalid or doubtful:
Any wine cooler, strawberry wine, super cheap wine, kosher wines, etc.
Definitely fine:
Any normal wine bought at a liquour store that just lists a type of grape (moscato, chardonnay, pinot grigio, etc.)
Have I misunderstood what is going into normal wines in the US?
Years back, as a seminarian, I inquired of a senior priest who had vast experience in Church life, having been for years Secretary to Cardinal Ottaviani, about the use of “unofficial” wine at Mass. “Joseph,” he said, “in my (Roman) seminary days wine was served at every evening meal, and the sacristans leaving the refectory to go to the sacristies to set up for the private Masses would scoop up a carafe from the table to bring to the sacristy and fill the cruets. Ordinary red table wine was used at all Masses.” He was in the seminary during the reign of Pius the Eleventh, ordained in the first year of Pius the Twelfth.
Fr. - I took over my current parish from a priest who annually invited people to contribute wine for use throughout the year, so I ended up doing a bit of research on this.
The problem is that the FDA does not require an ingredient list for wines. So, while the base may be grapes, wine makers can add whatever else they want and not tell you. Given that valid matter is defined as "pure" grape wine, that becomes a huge problem. The only way to guarantee valid matter is to have the manufacturer itself certify that they used ONLY grapes.
This article is interesting:
https://winefolly.com/deep-dive/wine-additives/
I would say that sugar is beyond the pale. I would definitely never buy an Oregon or Florida wine because of that. But I find this quote enlightening, "For many hundreds of years in Italy and France, winemakers would add an egg white or two to a large barrel of wine." Either most Masses have been invalid, or its fine.
My current assignment means that I do not have ready access to sacramental wine. I could get it, but it is easier to just go buy some wine. I may have assignments in the future where I have no access to such wine. If I really think commercial wine is invalid, I cannot use it, even then. So either a normal bottle of Pinot Grigio is valid matter or it isn't. Obviously, the priests of KC need to take their bishop's instruction as the letter of the law, but what is being stated is a bit scrupulous if it were going to be applied as a general rule.
The egg white is removed. It is used as a clarification method. Particulates adhere to the egg and it is removed from the wine.
This has been my go-to article on this for a while now: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/table-wine-for-mass-4460
What I find interesting is the 1896 document from the Office of the Inquisition (pretty sure that is what that abbreviation means) with very detailed instructions about the nature of what can be added. If I had access to an appropriate library, that is exactly what I would be referencing, because I'll be there is a lot of other really pertinent information.
What finally motivated me to change the practice of my predecessor and give away all of the donated wine was the idea that, when it comes to sacramental validity, it does not make sense to play around with doubts. Given the sources cited by the article above, I was pushed to a point where every use of non-sacramental wine is now of doubtful validity for me.
Regardless of how this resolves, I am really glad to see this come out of KC because hopefully this will get Rome and the bishops reengaging with this question, especially given the diversity of opinions and practices. Priests in the trenches should not have to figure this out for themselves in the comments section, am I right?
The article has a major error. He cites a reader that "Kosher" wines are a good choice. That is a complete misunderstanding. Kosher wines are at least potentially invalid. They are boiled like grape juice specifically to prevent Catholics from using them for Mass.
Your attitude of "better safe than sorry" is generally a good one, but there is a danger of scruples. Most Masses in the world are being celebrated today with wine that was made using normal additives such as yeast and clarifying agents like egg whites. I agree that if all these Masses are invalid, Rome needs to speak, but let's be clear: I doubt Pope Francis or Cardinal Roche uses special sacramental wine, so I have a guess how that letter might go.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/82688/jewish/Mevushal-Kosher-Wine-and-Grape-Products.htm
Fr. - I think you misunderstand the purpose of the boiling. Kosher wine requires that it only be touched by Jews, so if a non-Jewish waiter brings you your wine, it becomes non-Kosher between the kitchen and the table. Unless it is boiled, apparently. Regardless, boiling wine does not make it invalid matter according to our own standards.
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_wine
"Mevushal wines
When kosher wine is mevushal (Hebrew: "cooked" or "boiled"), it thereby becomes unfit for idolatrous use and will keep the status of kosher wine even if subsequently touched by an idolater. It is not known whence the ancient Jewish authorities derived this claim; there are no records concerning "boiled wine" and its fitness for use in the cults of any of the religions of the peoples surrounding ancient Israel. Indeed, in Orthodox Christianity, it is common to add boiling water to the sacramental wine. Another opinion holds that mevushal wine was not included in the rabbinic edict against drinking wine touched by an idolater simply because such wine was uncommon in those times.
Mevushal wine is frequently used in kosher restaurants and by kosher caterers so as to allow the wine to be handled by non-Jewish or non-observant waiters."
Upon further research, I agree that Fr. MacNamera made some assumptions about Kosher wine that are not borne out and that make it invalid matter. Apparently, even Manischewitz's "Kosher for Passover" wine adds cane sugar, which would render it invalid. Regardless, that does not negate the presentation of historical Church teaching in the article.
Still, I am not sure on what basis you are assuming such a wide use of non-sacramental wine. I'm in one of the traditionally more anti-nomian dioceses in the country (Seattle, ref: Hunthausen) and mine is the first parish I have experienced the use of non-sacramental wine, despite wide travels within the diocese as a seminarian and visiting priest.
I don't think scruples is the right category here, because it is not a subjective feeling we are evaluating. The Church has clearly defined that valid matter must be "pure" wine and we seem to be debating the meaning of that word. So far, the only clarifying documents we have referenced indicate that pure really does mean nothing except grapes. To equate this with scruples feels like many of the reactions to the "We baptize..." controversy, which concluded that God could not be so legalistic as to invalidate a baptism because of a change from singular to plural.
The "idolatrous worship" they are trying to avoid is Mass. I wouldn't celebrate Mass with a wine which was specifically boiled so as to keep me from using our for Mass.
I agree that in most parishes in the US, sacramental wine is what should be used. But there are many priests outside the US who have no access to these wines, and some in the US. We have no idea what was so wrong with the wines in KC, but we can presume they were something ridiculous like raspberry wine. Some people think that the average pinot grigio might be invalid, which would be a big deal.
Oh my. I hope Jesus used the CORRECT type at the wedding feast of Cana. Also at the Last Supper. Just think of the incorrectness through the ages if not. Nesxt we will be installing vineyards ion the church properties. Does intent count,or is Jesus up there with His red pen keeping score? Come on!
Intent is necessary (it would be silly to imagine that someone could accidentally consecrate bread and wine without intending to) but if intent were sufficient in all areas of life, then radical sanation would not exist, because there would be no need for it; and yet, it does exist (usually I hear about it with regard to marriage, but it also came up recently in another context in which someone, I freely assume, had the best of intentions but was not following some arbitrary, nitpicky, tedious rules made by the Church.)
I think the rub is the words "pure" and "unmixed", which imply an almost impossibly high standard to meet unless the wine is intentionally being made for this purpose. Everything has addatives these days, including tap water, so what counts as pure and unmixed is a lot more difficult to discern.
In a parish I served the wine I use had less than 1 percent of elderberry extract in it, for color I was told. According to KCK all the many Masses offered using that wine were invalid.
We changed wines.
There is no ingredient listing requirements in most countries including the us. Many major brands use additives to create particular taste profiles. This can include a number of substances that go far beyond stabilization efforts. Winemakers for large production facilities are often akin to a food scientist, sweetening here, acidifying there. The challenge is to create a consistent product that delivers across hundreds of thousands of cases with little to no vintage variation.
This is interesting.
As a person only lightly familiar with Canon Law, I would have liked to see which canon(s) states that if the material in the wine used renders it invalid for sacramental use then the whole of Mass is invalided, even if proper material was used for the host.
I ask this because the article says,
'As a result, he wrote, in those parishes, “for any number of years all Masses were invalid and therefore the intentions for which those Masses were offered were not satisfied, including the obligation pastors have to offer Mass for the people.”'
Another question that occurred to me is there is no real distinction mentioned between valid and illicit. The article mentions, 'The Church also regulates hosts, explaining that in the Latin Catholic Church, “the bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition.”' And yet if leavened bread is used, it is only a matter of it being illicit, not invalid.
It would have also been helpful to know & have explained that most (if not all) Eastern Catholics use leavened bread completely validly, so this is only a norm in the Latin rite. At Latin rite Catholics, we can validly receive Eucharist in leavened form by attending an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy.
Valid has to do with something actually happening, whereas licit has to do with other regulatory laws. The Church has told us what the bare minimum is for a sacrament to be valid, but also has other rules to make sure the sacrament is celebrated well and not abused. The Easterners have a separate canon law than us, and use leavened bread because they have an ancient tradition of doing so. It's about protecting the integrity of the tradition - Romans are Roman, Byzantines are Byzantines etc.
I'll also add that licety does not necessarily affect validity, although sometimes it can. For example, a priest hearing confessions without faculties outside an emergency situation results in the confession being invalid and thus the penitent's sins do not get absolved (Canon 966 §1).
I will take my chances on that one. Jesus forgives our sins.
He does, yes, but the Sacraments were instituted by Jesus: they are not Him. The Sacraments are by their very definition limited, as they are bound by form and matter. Jesus is capable of turning chocolate cake into His body, but that's not how He set up the Eucharist. Likewise, a priest cannot reconcile a penitent to God and the Church when he is not authorized to do so, and one cannot be reconciled to God and not His Church, and vice versa. Remember, the formula for absolution says "Through the ministry of the Church", which necessarily implies a permission (faculties) to then say "May God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you of your sins...". A priest's ministry is inextricably tied to be subordinate to that of the bishop’s, and that too is a limitation of the priesthood.
I will agree to disagree. Subordination to a bishop absolutely needs to be changed. Take a long look at what has transpired with bishops. They are human and subject to the same faults and biases as we are. They were called to be Shephers. The only law they should follow is the law of LOVE
Thank you, I am aware of this. I suppose I was looking for more clarity in the article itself with more references to official documents.
As I said, the article does not adequately address the distinction, which can lead one to assume that every instance of variation leads to invalidity, and this is just not true. But reading the article can lead to this thought or just lead to more confusion rather than clarity.
I thought it would be helpful to mention what info I thought would be useful to have in the article as a reader, I guess. If I'm looking to share an article with others, I'm not going to share something that requires a lot of pre-knowledge to understand unless they have formation already.
I would point you to canon 927: "It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration." These instances are definitely in the category of consecrating one element without the other.
Thank you. That's helpful.
I don't think there is a single part of canon law that stipulates all of the requirements for a valid mass, but rather it is a combination of canon law and other directives from the Church (and the CCC), and other materials such as the GIRM. But what Archbishop Naumann stated here is correct as I've always understood it - if both species are not consecrated, then the sacrifice was not completed, and therefore the mass intentions were not fulfilled, and people's Sunday obligations were technically not fulfilled either (through no fault of their own).
I've heard of other stories where a diocese has to go to the Vatican for situations like this to sort out mass offerings and intentions; one fairly well-known example was in Detroit not too long ago when a priest found out he was invalidly baptized (due to the recent directive that saying "We baptize" is invalid) and they had to sort out all of the mass intentions and offerings that he had done over the years since he had technically never offered a valid mass.
I think that "we" baptism was valid (but perhaps not licit). I just happened to be reading the Decree of Pope Eugene to the Council of Florence, and I came upon this; "The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. But we do not deny that true baptism is conferred by the following words: May this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit; or, This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. Since the holy Trinity is the principle cause from which baptism has its power and the minister is the instrumental cause who exteriorly bestows the sacrament, the sacrament is conferred if the action is performed by the minister with the invocation of the holy Trinity. "
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecumenical-council-of-florence-1438-1445-1461
It's a fantastic letter from the Pope, as he is summarizing pretty much all doctrine we shared with the Greeks.
The "We baptize you" formula was condemned by the Vatican as being invalid.
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2020-08/cdf-baptisms-with-arbitrarily-modified-formulas-are-not-valid.html
There is no way that this has any credibility to me. If the priest or deacon had pure intention then I believe the Sacrament is valid. Jesus must have a great sense of humor.
Even when they go directly against what Christ has prescribed? Even when it opens the door to markedly unequal treatment of how Christians receive the Sacraments? Christ is capable of acting outside the Sacraments, but then what is occurring isn't a Sacrament.
https://adoremus.org/2022/01/q-what-are-the-liturgical-laws-concerning-altar-wine/
Pretty good article, but on what basis does he reject sparkling wine? Wine which is carbonated (not artificially but through natural fermentation) would seem to be valid matter. I think he meant that he doesn't like the idea of using such wine, but if I had nothing else on hand I would not hesitate to use a Moscato d'asti, though preferably giving it time to flatten before Mass. Champagne and some other sparkling wine have sugar added, so maybe he was basing it on that.
I think the bishop may be unfocused... I was listening with empathy to the concern until the commercially marketed part. Perhaps we should all re-read Jesus mission statement from his first ever sermon in Luke 4:16 and re-focus our day based on that: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.”
I used to work for a parish that encouraged parishioners to donate wine for Mass. I received a number of eye rolls when I asked if we told them it had to be wine from only grapes, after I found an unopened bottle of wine that included other fruits in the sacristy.
People may think it's stupid to care about such specific detail but the fact is the Church has specified in the law to a level of detail, so we must obey. To do otherwise is traveling down the road to beer and pizza Masses.
Hardly
It would be nice to see the letter from Archbishop Naumann.
Woestman cites Dominus Salvator Noster (1929): "cannot be regarded as valid matter...wine to which water has been added in greater or equal quantity. In fact, matter is to be regarded as dubious, and hence is not to be used, if a notable quantity of any other substance has been added..."
When pushed for an opinion on validity (as distinct from the licit or moral question), I fall back on this 'greater or equal quantity'.
I am the Vintner for O-Neh-Da Authentic Sacramental Wines and I want to address several points made in the article. Canon Law 924 and GIRM322 direct the production of valid and licit sacramental wine. The wine for the Eucharist must be natural, pure grape and not corrupt. While many claims can be made that wine is "natural" let me offer a clarification and insight. Grapes ferment into wine without any additions because there is a fungus/yeast present in the vineyard and on the skin of the grape. "Spontaneous fermentation" occurs without the addition of any dried bagged yeast, diammonium phosphate (DAP) tartaric acid, citric acid, non-grape sugars, mega red, mega purple, etc. Just like 'artificial insemination' of the womb is not allowed in married couples, inseminating the wine with yeast and nutrients is not, in our opinion, following the Canons strictly. O-Neh-Da grapes are grown without any herbicides, pesticides or chemicals and the wine is not 'made' it is grown, filtered and bottle. O-Neh-Da wines are truly pure and natural and have received continuous approbation fro the Bishop of Rochester since our founding in 1872. Not any wine will suffice as almost all wines have added sugars, bagged, yeast, stabilizers such as potassium sorbate and the like. Also wines can be ameliorated with water and may contain non-grape flavors. O-Neh-Da sacramental wines are simply Finger Lakes grapes which spontaneously ferment (slowly) into sacramental wine over many months. Great pains are taken in the vineyard and winery to assure that the wine is pure, natural, and of premium quality. It is sad to hear from Bishops that 'any wine will do.' That was not Bishop McQuaid's understanding in 1872 and it is not our understanding to this day. It is absolutely NOT a marketing gimmick at O-Neh-Da to label our wines as "Sacramental." Not only do we consider production of sacramental wine for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be the second most important vocation on Earth (first being the priest in persona Christi), but we labor tirelessly to produce only the best wine in accord with the Canons.
I am replying here solely so that this comment gets more notice. Thank you for chiming in!!
At the same time, this is admirable work which I am glad is being done, but the comparison to artificial means of insemination is bad sacramental theology which overstates the case.
Your wine is surely one of the best options, but to call it a necessary type of wine gets very close to the kind of purity laws which Jesus cleansed the temple over. Any grape wine, even with yeast, egg whites, etc. is valid matter.
You are right to use the word "must" because the rule does not change under any circumstances. If a wine is good enough when nothing else is available, it is good enough. It would be crazy if a priest had access to a bottle of chardonnay but cancelled Mass because it was just "normal" chardonnay.
Your work is important and good, but this comment suggests that most Masses throughout the world today are invalid because they do not have such pure wine.
Thank you Father for your comment. My lay understanding is that most wine is valid for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but unless it is "natural" and only "fruit of the vine" it is illicit. If it was not suppose to be made in strict accord with the Canons, there would be no issue of liceity, but as I understand it, liceity matters. Cardinal Sarah thought so also and wrote all Ordinaries around the world to instruct on validity and liceity, giving weight to both. Pax Christi
The issue is not actually one of validity and liceity, but of validity and doubtful validity. If a priest celebrated Mass with strawberry wine, it would definitely be invalid. If he celebrates Mass with a wine to which sugar has been added, it is doubtfully valid.
What is illicit is celebrating Mass with wine that is doubtfully valid. Even if the priest himself thinks it is valid, the doubt is a reason for him to not use it. The wine you provide is surely beyond any shadow of a doubt.
But the question becomes where the line between doubts and scruples is. A normal California wine is not doubtful, so it is not illicit. Unless, as in KC, the bishop is requiring a higher standard. Priests there must hold the standard set by their bishop.
But the idea that the entire Church requires special wines made without added yeast or fining agents is not the practice in many countries, would be impractical in various situations, and goes beyond the current requirements.
Perhaps this story will result in greater clarification.
Beautifully said. Certainly the validity of the Mass is the issue at hand. If valid, whether licit or illicit my lay understanding is that Christ is still present and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass occurred. The greater concern for us all should be the lack of understanding and acceptance of the Real Presence in the Eucharist among those who identify as "Catholic," according to the Pew Research paper on the matter. May God have mercy on us all!
Thank you Father for your comment. My lay understanding is that most wine is valid for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but unless it is "natural" and only "fruit of the vine" it is illicit. If it was not suppose to be made in strict accord with the Canons, there would be no issue of liceity, but as I understand it, liceity matters. Cardinal Sarah thought so also and wrote all Ordinaries around the world to instruct on validity and liceity, giving weight to both. Pax Christi
When I was younger my parish used a bread that was baked by someone in the parish. While it wasn't "leaven" it certainly wasn't flat wafers. And I swear there was some sweetness. so I shudder to think how many masses are using bad wine or bad bread even.
Will await what the word is on all the masses that were invalid. that's scary
I have a family recipe for illicit altar bread for *house* Masses (it tastes really good, as I recall from childhood, and it is from the 1970s/80s when the people using it simply had no idea; if it is mostly whole-wheat flour how can you go wrong, etc.; I do not know its original provenance.)
I was hoping someone else would bring up the issue of the house bread from the seventies. If using the wrong wine invalidates the Mass then surely using the wrong bread does as well. Which also surely means that in a LOT of Masses during the 1970's there was no consecration of the host. I remember seeing a 'host', made with honey at least, that had been put in a monstrance, and was molding away. Absolutely horrifying, but I didn't realize that it invalidated the Mass itself.
No, as far as I know the tasty unleavened house bread is illicit not invalid, at least the one whose recipe I have seen. (It is certainly possible to make invalid breads but you have to be a little farther off the rails.) The only flour in it is wheat but it had non-flour non-water ingredients.