Whether Water Should Be Added in Great Quantity?
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 (John 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.
Obj. 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.
Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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.
_______________________