|
Objection 1: It seems that water ought to be added in great
quantity, because as blood flowed sensibly from Christ's side, so
did water: hence it is written (Jn. 19:35): "He that saw
it, hath given testimony." But water could not be sensibly present
in this sacrament except it were used in great quantity. Consequently
it seems that water ought to be added in great quantity.
Objection 2: Further, a little water mixed with much wine is
corrupted. But what is corrupted no longer exists. Therefore, it is
the same thing to add a little water in this sacrament as to add none.
But it is not lawful to add none. Therefore, neither is it lawful to
add a little.
Objection 3: Further, if it sufficed to add a little, then as a
consequence it would suffice to throw one drop of water into an entire
cask. But this seems ridiculous. Therefore it does not suffice for a
small quantity to be added.
On the contrary, It is said in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb.
Miss.): "The pernicious abuse has prevailed in your country of
adding water in greater quantity than the wine, in the sacrifice,
where according to the reasonable custom of the entire Church more wine
than water ought to be employed."
I answer that, There is a threefold opinion regarding the water added
to the wine, as Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decretal.
For some say that the water remains by itself when the wine is changed
into blood: but such an opinion cannot stand, because in the sacrament
of the altar after the consecration there is nothing else save the body
and the blood of Christ. Because, as Ambrose says in De Officiis
(De Mysteriis ix): "Before the blessing it is another species
that is named, after the blessing the Body is signified; otherwise it
would not be adored with adoration of latria." And therefore others
have said that as the wine is changed into blood, so the water is
changed into the water which flowed from Christ's side. But this
cannot be maintained reasonably, because according to this the water
would be consecrated apart from the wine, as the wine is from the
bread.
And therefore as he (Innocent III, Decretals, Extra, De
Celeb. Miss.) says, the more probable opinion is that which holds
that the water is changed into wine, and the wine into blood. Now,
this could not be done unless so little water was used that it would be
changed into wine. Consequently, it is always safer to add little
water, especially if the wine be weak, because the sacrament could not
be celebrated if there were such addition of water as to destroy the
species of the wine. Hence Pope Julius I reprehends some who "keep
throughout the year a linen cloth steeped in must, and at the time of
sacrifice wash a part of it with water, and so make the offering."
Reply to Objection 1: For the signification of this sacrament it
suffices for the water to be appreciable by sense when it is mixed with
the wine: but it is not necessary for it to be sensible after the
mingling.
Reply to Objection 2: If no water were added, the signification
would be utterly excluded: but when the water is changed into wine, it
is signified that the people is incorporated with Christ.
Reply to Objection 3: If water were added to a cask, it would not
suffice for the signification of this sacrament, but the water must be
added to the wine at the actual celebration of the sacrament.
|
|