Case LIX: Wine Without Water at Mass

A clumsy server let the water-cruet fall at the offertory, and its contents were wasted. He went into the sacristy, but could not find the water-bottle to refill the cruet. He went back to the altar, and told the priest, who was saying Mass, what had happened, and he, regarding the defectus aquae as unimportant, consecrated the wine without it. Quid ad casum? In the Decretum pro Armenis 1 it is explicitly stated that at the institution of the Holy Eucharist our Lord used a chalice containing wine mixed with water: "According to the testimonies of the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church long ago presented in the discussion, it is believed that the Lord Himself instituted this Sacrament in wine mixed with water." With regard to the above-mentioned testimonia Patrum et Doctorum, it is enough to point out that the earliest ecclesiastical authors speak of the mixed chalice, calix mixtus, ποτήριον κεκραμένον.

In his well-known account of the Christian observance of Sunday, Justin Martyr says (Apol., I. c. 67): "Bread is brought forward, and wine and water. Similar language is used by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., V. 2, 3) and St. Cyprian (Ep. 63 ad Caecil, n. 13).

The third provincial synod of Carthage in 397 gave instructions (can. 22), "that in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord nothing more be offered than the Lord Himself handed down, that is, bread and

1 Denzinger-Bannward, Ench. symb. 698 (593). The instruction on the Sacraments, given in the decree, is not a definitio de materia et forma sacramentorum, as many suppose, but only a practical rule, claiming, however, to have full authority. It is taken almost word for word from St. Thomas's opusculum " de fidei articulis et septem sacramentis " (l. c., 695, note 1). wine mixed with water." The second synod of Trulla (the so-called Quinisexta) in the year 692 threatened Armenian Bishops and priests with removal, if, like the Monophysites, they consecrated unmixed wine. The symbolical reason for the addition of water to the wine is given in the Decretum pro Armenis, I. c. "because this accords with the representation of the Lord’s Passion. For blessed Pope Alexander, the fifth after blessed Peter, says: In the sacramental offerings presented to the Lord within the solemnities of Mass, only bread and wine mixed with water are to be offered in sacrifice. For neither wine alone nor water alone ought to be offered in the Lord’s chalice, but both mixed together, because both—that is, blood and water—are read to have flowed from Christ’s side. This also accords with signifying the effect of this Sacrament, which is the union of the Christian people with Christ. For water signifies the people, according to the passage of the Apocalypse: many waters ... many peoples (Apocalypse 17:15). And Pope Julius, the second after blessed Sylvester, says: The Lord’s chalice ought, according to the precept of the canons, to be offered with wine and water mixed, because we see the people understood in the water and the Blood of Christ shown in the wine. Therefore, when wine and water are mixed in the chalice, the people are united to Christ, and the assembly of the faithful is joined and united to Him in whom it believes." With reference to this important symbolism the Decretum pro Armenis contains a strict command: "We therefore decree that the Armenians themselves also conform to the whole Christian world, and that their priests, in the offering of the chalice, mix a little water with the wine, as has been stated." The Council of Trent (Sess. XXII. c. 7) gave almost the same reason for renewing this order: "The holy Synod next admonishes that priests have been commanded by the Church to mix water with the wine offered in the chalice, both because Christ the Lord is believed to have done so and because water together with blood flowed from His side; this mystery is recalled by this mixture, and since the waters in the Apocalypse of blessed John are called peoples, the union of that faithful people with Christ its Head is represented." (Denzinger-Bannwart, 945 (822). The corresponding can. 9 (I. c. 956) contains a similar statement.

Taking into consideration this command so often repeated by the Church, based as it is on our Lord's own example and on deeply significant symbolism, theologians agree in saying that it is an obligatio sub gravi to mix the wine with water at Mass. The only difference of opinion is regarding the character of the law, which some maintain to be a praeceptum divinum, and others only a praeceptum ecclesiasticum. Cf. Müller (Theol. mor., III. p. 213), Lehmkuhl (Theol. mor., II. n. 118), Göpfert (Moraltheologie, III. 52), Génicot (Theol. mor., II. n. 172), Bucceroni (Instit. teol. mor de euch., n. 7), and Noldin (Theol. mor., III. n. 109). The last-named says plainly: "This precept seems so grave to theologians that they admit no case in which it is lawful to celebrate if the lack of water is foreseen."

In the case presented to us the priest was therefore too lax. On hearing what the server said, he should not at once have been satisfied that no water could be obtained. It was his duty to send the server to fetch some (it could not have been difficult to get a little water), and meantime to wait quietly. If the interruptio missae seemed likely to last unduly long, he might have continued the Mass, and have added the water, that had been fetched in the meantime, ante consecrationem.—Dr. Johann Gföllner.