Recently I wrote about a priest pouring wine into a chalice of the Precious Blood and alluded to the fact that he might add enough that the point was reached where the Real Presence ceases.
Following this, Ed Peters wrote:
And Jimmy, what point is that? We’re not talking about adding water, etc., which at some hard-to-identify point would render what is in the cup no longer "Wine" (yes, you know what I mean), since at no point would this not still have the appearance of "Wine". Little help? Great question and a good start toward it. Thx, edp.
Excellent question!
Obviously, we cannot in this case use the test of when the accidents of wine cease to be present since the accidents do not cease to be present.
That fact might lead one to suppose–and I’m not at all saying that Ed supposes this, those someone might–that one could continue to add wine to the Precious Blood without the Real Presence ceasing at all.
This would not be the historic understanding of the Church.
This can be seen from the document De Defectibus in Celebratione Missae Occurentibus ("On Defects Occurring in the Celebration of Mass"), which is a document that deals with liturgical abuses and used to be printed in the front of every Missal before the reform of the liturgy following the Second Vatican Council.
It so happens that I have just translated this document (and will be putting it online soon, after I polish the translation and have it vetted), but since Ed has raised an excellent question, I’ll share one bit of the draft translation here:
If a fly, or a spider, or something else falls into the chalice before the Consecration, he [the priest] pours out the wine in a decent place, and he puts other [wine] in the chalice, mixes in a little water, and offers it, as above, and the Mass proceeds. If after the Consecration a fly or something of this sort has fallen in, he removes it, and washes it with wine. After the Mass is finished he burns it, and the ashes and the liquid of this kind is poured into the sacrarium [De Defectibus X §5].
The document thus expressly directs priests to wash whatever has fallen into the chalice with wine. This would make no sense if the addition of wine did not cause the Real Presence to cease, since the whole point of washing the thing that fell in the chalice is to cause the Real Presence to cease, so that it can be reverently burned.
The Church–in a document that was part of the Roman Missal for 400 years–thus has understood the addition of wine in sufficient quantity to cause the Real Presence of the Precious Blood to cease.
Which gets us back to Ed’s question: At what point does this happen?
My answer would be that this would happen when, in the opinion of reasonable men, so much wine had been added that what is in the chalice would no longer be judged by the senses to be the same wine that was there before. I’m talking, in this case, about the wine that was in the chalice as a whole, not the taste or color or other properties it has.
It’s difficult to verbalize what I mean since "wine" in this context if functioning as a mass noun rather than a count noun, and we don’t have a good word in English for the particular body of wine that is poured into a chalice, but I can offer a couple of examples that should be illuminative:
1) Suppose that a priest had a chalice with the Precious Blood in it and the accidents of wine in this case were of white wine. But then suppose that (God forbid) he started pouring unconsecrated red wine into the chalice. If he poured in only a drop and then mixed it throughly, it seems to me that a reasonable man would say that he had not substantially changed the accidents that were in the chalice–any more than pouring a drop of water in would substantially alter them. The Real Presence would thus remain.
But if he poured in a large amount of red wine then at some point a reasonable man would say, "That’s not the same wine any more" and at that point the accidents masking the Real Presence would have changed so much that the Real Presence would have ceased.
In this case it would be easy(er) to tell because the color would have changed (and the taste as well), but I think the same thing would hold even if the color and taste and smell don’t change. At some point so much wine is added that it no longer appears to be "the same wine" (meaning the same unit of wine) that was in the chalice.
Thus my second illustration . . .
2) Suppose that the priest had a large vat full of white wine and then put some of this in a chalice and consecrated it. He then (God forbid) took the Precious Blood in the chalice and pours it back into the vat and mixes it thoroughly.
It seems to me that a reasonable man would say that the unit of wine that appeared to be in the chalice is no longer present. It has been mixed into the vat of wine and has no independent status any longer. Consequently that unit of wine is no longer present, and neither is the Real Presence.
Now, at what precise point the Real Presence would cease is not something that can be determined, any more than the precise point that so much water is added that it ceases can be determined. We can say, in general terms, that this happens when so much water has been added that it would no longer appears to be wine, but we can’t specify a percentage of change where this happens. It’s a fuzzy boundary, like the boundary between red and orange on a color spectrum.
In the same way we can’t specify precisely when too much wine has been added to the Precious Blood, but in principle it seems to me that it would be the point where the unit of wine that appeared to be in the chalice is so substantially altered that it no longer appears to be the same unit. It has been mixed into another unit of wine and no longer has independent status.
Incidentally, we know by faith that these accidents are divisible in the sense that you can drink part of it and leave enough of the apparent unit of wine in the chalice that the Real Presence stays. The apparent unit of wine can be diminished through drinking without losing the Real Presence as soon as the first sip is taken, and the sip also retains the Real Presence. Though at some point, so much can be removed that the Real Presence does cease–as would happen if there were only an undrinkably thin film of wine molecules (or apparent wine molecules) that refuses to form a drop were left in the chalice.
But it seems to me that the accidents masking the Precious Blood can be altered in two ways that cause the Real Presence to cease: (1) they can alter in quality such that it no longer seems to be wine at all or (2) they can alter in quantity such that they no longer appear to be the same unit of wine that was consecrated.
At least that’s the best I can make out of the Church’s historic understanding that the addition of wine to the Precious Blood can cause the Real Presence to cease.
PRE-PUBLICATION UPDATE: After writing the above, I decided to check the Summa Theologia to see what Aquinas said, and he says the same thing. He even uses some of the same examples, like adding red wine to white, and speaks in terms of the wine having to be not just qualitatively but "numerically" the same wine that was consecrated, which is what I was getting at by talking about it being the same "unit" of wine that was consecrated.
Great. THAT makes sense, and seems defensible. (I luv having smart friends. Saves me all sorts of thinking and looking stuff up.) Thx!
Your illustrations, Jimmy, were extremely helpful to understanding the context of your other comments. Terrific.
It seems that your mind and the mind of Aquinas think alike…not bad company!
Jimmy, would you say this same concept would apply to adding additional water to holy water bottles?
– this is in regard to a tradition i’d heard of where folks would just add tap water to their holy water bottles and continue blessing themselves with it, claiming the new water was made holy by the old water.
At what molar concentration would the Holy Spirit withdraw the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity from the molecules that -had- been changed?
I notice that the document does not mention what to do with the consecrated wine (ie ‘blood’).
– Does the priest serve it to the people?
– Does he pour wine on it as well to ‘undo’ the consecration?
Does “the liquid of this kind” refer to the a)the fly + the wine used to wash the fly, or b) the fly, the wine, and the blood. I think it’s a) because there’s no mention of a second consecration.
I have a question about consecration of wine not in the chalice.
At my church and at few others I have been to I have noticed that the wine distributed to the people is never in the chalice. There is either several cups of wine or a larger pitcher on the alter.
The priest consumes all of the holy blood from the chalice. But the pitcher or cups are not touched untill after the consecration.
I looked in the GIRM paragraphs 139-146 and could find no mention of wine in anything other than the chalice for consecration.
Does the wine (and I assume some water) that is on the alter but not in the chalice become consecrated?
I think the recent posts regarding legal minutia (dogs and wine) ought to come with a serious discussion of how this all fits in with Romans, chapter 7.
The Navarre Bible commentary on Romans 7 explains that the paradox of the Law (Paul is speaking OT Law, but I think it could apply to Canon Law, as well) is that, the Law is Holy, but does not equip a person to conquer sin.
The good news is that the Law can show us the gravity of our sins, and thus motivate us to seek the grace of God.
—
I found this explanation very helpful in understanding the relationship between Law and Spirit.
JamesD – you are correct. I believe that the GIRM regulates that wine in addition to that in the chalice may also be placed on the altar for consecration. Just as the priest does not elevate every host. For the consecration to be valid, the keys are (1) the words, (2) the intention, and (3) the physical presence of the bread and wine.
Obviously, Jimmy could go into more detail.
Puzzled – I had the same thoughts. I always thought that the consecration worked on a molecular level, and that dissolution would merely disperse the consecrated matter. However, one logical explanation that an “unconsecration” of some kind CAN theoretically take place is that after receiving communion, our digestive systems do something similar.
But I’m no expert and everything above is based upon my own personal speculation.
The Real Presence departs when the accidents are gone. Thus digested bread is no longer the Real PResence.
One of the accidents of the Blood of Christ is Quantity. This quantity is divisable until a reasonable person can no longer perceive it as wine and additive until a resonable person can no longer recognise it as “this unit” of wine. Thus Jimmy’s example of a Chalice of Precious Blood being mixed in a vat of wine.
As for the molar concentration of when this happens please consult the defination of “reasonable person” and use the Popes recent speech on how reason is not just numbers but also spiritual as a guide. I would reasonably suppose that the Holy Spirit might guide one on roughly where this point is.
Please also bear in mind we are talking about exceptional circumstances, not the day to day.
Would that be an ordinary reasonable person, such that a wine connoisseur would not be considered a reasonable person?
Let me point out that a priest should never do what was described! (Add wine to the Precious Blood) That is, unless he’s purifying the chalice; in the old days, a priest added wine to the near-empty chalice, before adding water; but it isn’t the way it’s done anymore.
“Would that be an ordinary reasonable person, such that a wine connoisseur would not be considered a reasonable person?”
Anyone who swirls, gargles then spits wine back in a cup is abnormal and unreasoning. 😉
This is certainly revealing—what is its actual Scriptural basis? One begins to suspect that you all sit around making stuff up.
None of this seems to be described in Jesus’ presentation of the first Communion (Luke 22:18-20). His intent is clearly to present the ceremony of the Passover in its completed form under the New Covenant, with Himself as the Lamb of the Sacrifice(Hebrews 9:24-28), whose Blood turns aside the punishment for our sins. He said “Do this in Remembrance of me”.
Nor did the Ceremony itself confer the Holy Spirit, which the Apostles only received after His return to Heaven (Acts 2:1-4). The ceremony isn’t a magical incantation, it is our expression of remembrance of God’s Greatest Gift, our final Exodus from slavery to sin and death—as the Passover commemorated Israel’s Exodus from slavery in Egypt.
Nowhere in the descriptions of the Holy Spirit and His Purpose by Jesus (John 14:26) or Paul (1 Corinthians 12:7-11), for examples, is there any apparent reference to this “dilution” issue. Are we to believe that the Presence of the infinitely powerful, Living God, Who struck down the Israelites who rebelled, Who drove out nations before them, Who empowers us as the children of God, the “deposit guaranteeing our inheritance” (Ephesians 1:14) until ultimate Redemption, is somehow affected by solvents?!
If you had to present your discussion to the King Himself in person, wouldn’t you at least find it sort of embarassing?
He said “Do this in Remembrance of me”.
What He actually says is “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”
His real body, which He had told his followers they had to eat. It was the only time that anyone left Him because of His teaching, but when they left Him, He did not explain that it was not a literal saying.
“until ultimate Redemption, is somehow affected by solvents?!”
The discussion is about the ‘laws of nature’ of the spiritual world. It is in the same spirit as asking questions like: are translations of Scripture also inspired? Is it alright to dump old copies of the bible into a trashcan? Does the holiness of a translator affect the inspiration of the resulting translation? Is it alright to buy/sell (and profit from) the word of God?
These are questions that seem trivial, until you find yourself in the specific situation — in which case you either invent YOUR OWN answer, or look for the Church’s intruction on the matter.
Jesus sighs and says, “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?”
Discussion and judgment go hand in hand.
After the sigh, Jesus went on to say, “As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way.” Whether that requires discussion or not is up to you.
I don’t get the relevance of the quote. You need to discuss it, or not. You judge for yourself.
Re: “Are we to believe that the Presence of the infinitely powerful, Living God… is somehow affected by solvents?!”
Welcome to the scandal of the Incarnation. The infinitely powerful Living God became man, and puked and needed a diaper and skinned his knee and lived among us. And then he started telling his disciples what was going to happen next.
And Peter took him aside and said, “Never say these things! They won’t happen to you!” And Jesus said, “Get behind me, Satan!”
Just so, when Jesus, true God and true man, comes to us in Holy Communion, He allows Himself to be affected by natural processes, like eating. Or solvents.
Scandalous, I know. But given that He created me, saved me and is making me live forever, I should hope I’d be willing to allow God to do things His way and not mine.
Er, forgot the rest of Jesus’ quote. His rebuke to Peter was that he was thinking like a human, not like God.
God made solvents, so He thinks they’re pretty cool. 🙂
Christ created the sacrament, He left the Church with the power and authority, guided by the Holy Spirt to practice it and to regulate it, lest it’s efficacy be lost. That’s entirely reasonable, without the Church’s authority to regulate, we would have to figure out for ourselves (seems like a dim prospect) which “gospels” are true and which are gnostic forgeries…
Let me rephrase the question, then. Where, among the legitimate written testimonies of the witnesses to what Jesus said and did—John, Mark, Matthew, and others—and their close associates, such as Luke, do you find any justification for what you are doing here?
Need an older Bible? http://www.greekbible.com/ (I recommend their “Athena” font)
Need more documentation of the legitimacy of the witnesses? Try the textual apparatus in the print version of the GNT, such as the ABS 4th ed. Aland, et al., ISBN 3438051109, to see the exhaustive requirements still placed on the original manuscripts in determining their authority. We’re not making this up.
As to the other points here, how far does a Church need to deviate from the Guidance of the Word and the Spirit before it becomes just another tedious human ceremonial exercise? What else is idolatry but limiting God by our mortal imagination (Exodus 20:3-5)?—and you’re talking about how to keep Him conveniently undiluted in your dinnerware! Which side of the line Jesus drew in Matthew 7:21-23 are you standing on?
Jesus understands that some people find this a hard teaching. But He didn’t change the teaching.
All he said was, “Will you leave, too?”.
“This IS my body… This IS my blood…”
What else is idolatry but limiting God by our mortal imagination (Exodus 20:3-5)?—and you’re talking about how to keep Him conveniently undiluted in your dinnerware!
Here you see a subtle attack on the Incarnation. It is not JJR2’s intention, but the attack is real.
The ceremony isn’t a magical incantation
Indeed it is not, but then no one is claiming it is. The ceremony is the simple actions dirrected to us by God through which we may be certain that God will work. It is not magic, but the infinite power of God and our cooperation with it through following His directives, allowing Him to work in this sublime and extremely personal way. I wish you could see the distinction. To use an imperfect analogy to call sacraments magic is like when non-Christians say the Incarnation makes God finite, or that God should beget makes Him sexual, or that the Trinity is three gods.
Are we to believe that the Presence of the infinitely powerful, Living God, Who struck down the Israelites who rebelled, Who drove out nations before them, Who empowers us as the children of God, the “deposit guaranteeing our inheritance” (Ephesians 1:14) until ultimate Redemption, is somehow affected by solvents?!
No, JJR, we are to believe that Jesus Christ through His infinite generosity offers us to himself under the appearance of bread and wine. By His own will He is present as long as the accidents of bread or wine remain. “Solvants” do not affect him (at least now that he is glorified in heaven), but affect the accidents. I can understand if you do not accept this part Divine Revelation, since it is indeed a hard saying for the undiscerning, but you reveal your ignorance about what Catholics believe by your comments.
JJR2,
Which side of the line Jesus drew in Matthew 7:21-23 are you standing on?
I am standing on the Rock on which Jesus built His Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, and which the gates of hell will not prevail against. I am securely within the sheepfold which He set His apostles to watch over and guard, and I receive the Sacraments which Jesus so graciously provided to us. I am a sinner constantly in need of God’s mercy and forgiveness, who takes very seriously Jesus’ gift to the Apostles of the power to bind and loose. But you probably get the picture.
How’s your footing?