← Back to Distinction 11

Dist. 11, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 11

Textus Latinus
p. 257

Quaestio III. Utrum aqua sit de integritate Sacramenti eucharistiae.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum aqua sit de integritate Sacramenti eucharistiae. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Cyprianus1: « Sicut in sanctificando calicem Domini offerri sola aqua non potest, sic nec vinum solum potest »; sed vinum est de integritate, et sine illo non potest esse Sacramentum: ergo nec sine aqua.

p. 258

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia Sacramentum corporis non potest fieri in sola farina, nisi per commixtionem aquae fiat panis: ergo nec Sacramentum sanguinis sine commixtione aquae2.

3. Item, aut Dominus posuit3, aut non posuit; si posuit, et quod ipse instituit est de integritate Sacramenti, quia qui aliter facit nil facit: ergo etc. Si non posuit: ergo praesumtio fuit ponere.

4. Item, quod significat aliquid, quod est de substantia et principaliter in Sacramento, est de eius substantia; sed unio aquae cum vino significat unionem ad caput, ut dicit Beda4, et habetur in littera.

5. Item, vinum significat sanguinem, qui fluxit de latere Christi; sed non tantum sanguis fluxit, immo sanguis et aqua5: ergo imperfectum est Sacramentum, nisi utrumque apponatur.

Sed contra: 1. Nihil est de substantia Sacramenti huius materialiter, quod non remanet neque secundum substantiam neque secundum accidentia; sed aqua est huiusmodi6: ergo etc.

2. Item, elementum, quod est de substantia unius Sacramenti, non est de substantia alterius, cum sint Sacramenta distincta; sed aqua est materia baptismi: ergo non est de necessitate huius Sacramenti.

3. Item, omne quod est de substantia, aut est quantum ad significantiam, aut quantum ad efficaciam; non quantum ad significantiam7, quia debent significari corpus Christi verum et mysticum; et sanguis sufficienter significatur per vinum, et similiter unio corporis mystici. Nec quantum ad efficaciam, quia sine aqua est transsubstantiatio.

Item, quidquid sit de integritate, quaero de congruitate; et videtur, quod non sit congruum, aquam apponi:

6. Quia hoc Sacramentum est rei habentis omnis saporis suavitatem8; sed aqua est insipida: ergo non congruit.

7. Item, pani nihil additur, ergo nec vino; vel si additur, quaeritur: quare?

8. Item, Dominus non legitur apposuisse: ergo videtur, quod non peccat qui non apponit, sed multo magis qui apponit.

Quod autem sit de necessitate et congruitate praecepti:

Cyprianus9: « Nobis ignosci omnino non potest, qui admoniti sumus, ut calicem Domini cum vino et aqua mixtum, secundum quod Dominus obtulit, offeramus ».

Quaestio ergo est, si mortaliter peccat qui omittit.

Conclusio. Admixtio aquae non est de integritate, sed de congruitate Sacramenti eucharistiae.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod de integritate Sacramenti huius sunt quatuor, scilicet materia et forma et ordo et intentio consecrantis; de congruitate autem et bene esse sunt quae sunt his annexa. Aqua ergo, cum non sit aliquid horum, non est de necessitate, sed annexum est materiae, scilicet vino, quia adiungitur vino et in ipsum convertitur et postmodum in sanguinem; et ideo est de congruitate. — Ratio autem huius connexionis est expressior significatio: quia aqua significat populum et per coniunctionem sui cum vino significat unitatem capitis cum membris; per vinum autem significatur unio membrorum ad invicem10. — Rationes igitur ostendentes, quod aqua non sit de substantia Sacramenti concedendae sunt.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Cypriano, dicendum, quod Cyprianus dicit, illud non posse fieri, quod non bene potest, vel non de iure potest. Unde Alexander11, ubi Cyprianus dicit potest, dicit debet.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de farina, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia farina non commixta sive per se non est cibus, sed vinum potus est per se.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, utrum Dominus apposuerit; dicendum, quod sic12, sed non tanquam necessarium, sed tanquam congruum; et hoc patet, quia vinum erat, ex quo confecit: ergo aqua transierat in vinum, antequam conficeret; et quia apposuit, peccat qui non apponit, tamen nihilominus conficit.

p. 259

4. 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de unione, dicendum, quod illa unio significatur per vinum, quia significatur unio membrorum ad invicem, et per consequens ad caput, non tamen ita expresse; ideo congruit. — Similiter quod dicitur, quod fluxit simul; dicendum, quod per aquam illam non significatur aqua ista, nec e converso; sed aqua illa aquam baptismalem significat13. — Vel potest dici, quod ex hoc innuitur, commiscendam aquam vino; unde illud fuit figura huius, non hoc Sacramentum illius; hic enim sanguis, non ille tantum, sed totus, qui fluxit de corpore, significatur et continetur14.

Ad illud quod quaeritur de congruitate, dicendum, quod est de congruitate.

6. Quod dicit de insipiditate, dicendum, quod significat populum, qui est insipidus et sapidus fit per coniunctionem cum Sapientia, Christo15, sicut aqua, cum adiungitur vino.

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non commiscetur aliquid pani; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia non potest ei sic aliquid commisceri, ut transeat in ipsum, quia durius; propterea non habet virtutem conversivam, ut vinum. Praeterea16, principalius refertur ad significandam nostram redemptionem.

8. Ad aliud, dicendum, quod Dominus apposuit; et quidam hoc coniiciunt propter Domini sobrietatem, quod non biberit vinum purum, maxime forte, tale quale est in terra promissionis. Sed haec coniectura debilis est. — Sed scimus, quod Apostoli, qui Coenae Domini interfuerunt, ita Ecclesiae reliquerunt17. Nec obiectio valet de Evangelio: quia non omnia scripta sunt; et ratio, quare de aqua non est scriptum, est, ne putetur de substantia Sacramenti; ne autem putetur praeter necessarium, fuit in passione Domini insinuatum, cum exivit sanguis et aqua18.

Et ideo peccat qui omittit, et qui ex haeresi, vel contemptu omitteret, peccaret mortaliter. Qui enim negligit ex hoc, quod nullam habet diligentiam, peccat mortaliter; qui negligit ex hoc, quod habet diligentiam semiplenam, peccat venialiter, sed tamen graviter peccat, quia hoc Sacramentum cum omni diligentia est consecrandum. Et quantum istud opus et hoc Sacramentum praecellit alia opera, tantum negligentia in hoc praeponderat aliis negligentiis19.

Scholion

Cf. the scholion (sections I–III) rendered with Articulus I, Quaestio I (`bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q1`), which covers questions 1–4 of this article together. Footnote 7 of p. 259 above expressly refers the reader there: De ipsa quaestione vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

---

English Translation

Question III. Whether water belongs to the integrity of the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Thirdly it is asked whether water belongs to the integrity of the sacrament of the Eucharist. And that it does, it seems.

1. Cyprian1: "Just as in sanctifying the chalice of the Lord water alone cannot be offered, so neither can wine alone"; but wine belongs to its integrity, and without it there can be no Sacrament: therefore neither without water.

2. Likewise, by reason it seems so, because the Sacrament of the body cannot be made from flour alone, unless bread comes to be by the mixing in of water: therefore neither [can] the Sacrament of the blood [be made] without the mixing in of water2.

3. Likewise, either the Lord placed [it there]3, or he did not; if he placed it, and what he himself instituted belongs to the integrity of the Sacrament, because he who does otherwise does nothing: therefore, etc. If he did not place it: then it was presumption to place it.

4. Likewise, that which signifies something which belongs to the substance and is principally in the Sacrament, belongs to its substance; but the union of water with wine signifies the union to the Head, as Bede says4, and as is found in the text.

5. Likewise, wine signifies the blood which flowed from the side of Christ; but not blood alone flowed, but rather blood and water5: therefore the Sacrament is imperfect unless both are added.

Sed contra: 1. Nothing belongs materially to the substance of this Sacrament which does not remain either according to substance or according to accidents; but water is of this kind6: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, an element which belongs to the substance of one Sacrament does not belong to the substance of another, since they are distinct Sacraments; but water is the matter of baptism: therefore it does not belong to the necessity of this Sacrament.

3. Likewise, everything that belongs to the substance is so either as regards signification or as regards efficacy; not as regards signification7, because the true and the mystical body of Christ must be signified; and the blood is sufficiently signified by the wine, and likewise the union of the mystical body. Nor as regards efficacy, because transubstantiation [occurs] without water.

Likewise, whatever may belong to the integrity, I ask about the fittingness; and it seems that it is not fitting for water to be added:

6. Because this Sacrament is of a thing that has the sweetness of every savor8; but water is tasteless: therefore it is not fitting.

7. Likewise, nothing is added to the bread, therefore neither to the wine; or if it is added, it is asked: why?

8. Likewise, the Lord is not read to have added [it]: therefore it seems that he does not sin who does not add [it], but much more he who adds [it].

But that it belongs to the necessity and fittingness of the precept:

Cyprian9: "It can in no way be forgiven us, who have been admonished to offer the chalice of the Lord mixed with wine and water, according as the Lord offered it."

The question, therefore, is whether he who omits [it] sins mortally.

Conclusion. The mixing in of water does not belong to the integrity, but to the fittingness, of the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Respondeo: It must be said that four things belong to the integrity of this Sacrament, namely matter and form and order and the intention of the one consecrating; but to its fittingness and well-being belong the things that are annexed to these. Water, therefore, since it is none of these, does not belong to its necessity, but is annexed to the matter, namely to the wine, because it is joined to the wine and is converted into it and afterward into the blood; and therefore it belongs to the fittingness. — Now the ground of this connection is a more expressive signification: because water signifies the people and through its conjunction with the wine signifies the unity of the Head with the members; while through the wine is signified the union of the members with one another10. — The reasons, therefore, showing that water does not belong to the substance of the Sacrament are to be granted.

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning Cyprian, it must be said that Cyprian says that that cannot be done which cannot be done well, or cannot be done by right. Hence Alexander11, where Cyprian says can, says ought.

2. To that which is objected concerning flour, it must be said that it is not similar, because flour not mixed or by itself is not food, but wine is drink by itself.

3. To that which is objected, whether the Lord added [it]; it must be said that he did12, yet not as something necessary, but as something fitting; and this is clear, because it was wine from which he made [it]: therefore the water had passed into wine before he made [it]; and because he added [it], he sins who does not add [it], yet nonetheless he confects.

4. 5. To that which is objected concerning the union, it must be said that that union is signified by the wine, because the union of the members with one another is signified, and consequently to the Head, yet not so expressly; therefore it is fitting. — Likewise, as to what is said, that it flowed at the same time; it must be said that by that water this water is not signified, nor conversely; but that water signifies the water of baptism13. — Or it can be said that by this it is intimated that water is to be mixed with wine; whence that was a figure of this, not this Sacrament a figure of that; for here [is] the blood, not that alone, but the whole that flowed from the body, which is signified and contained14.

To that which is asked concerning the fittingness, it must be said that it belongs to the fittingness.

6. As to what he says concerning tastelessness, it must be said that it signifies the people, who are tasteless and become savory through conjunction with Wisdom, Christ15, just as water [becomes savory] when it is joined to the wine.

7. To that which is objected, that nothing is mixed into the bread; it must be said that it is not similar: because something cannot be so mixed into it as to pass over into it, because it is too hard; on which account it does not have a converting power, as wine does. Moreover16, it [the wine] is more principally referred to the signifying of our redemption.

8. To the other, it must be said that the Lord did add [it]; and some conjecture this on account of the Lord's sobriety, that he did not drink pure wine, especially perhaps such as it is in the land of promise. But this conjecture is weak. — But we know that the Apostles, who were present at the Lord's Supper, so handed it down to the Church17. Nor does the objection from the Gospel hold: because not all things are written; and the reason why nothing is written about the water is, lest it be thought to be of the substance of the Sacrament; but lest it be thought beyond what is necessary, it was intimated in the Lord's passion, when blood and water came forth18.

And therefore he sins who omits [it], and he who omitted it out of heresy or contempt would sin mortally. For he who neglects [it] from this, that he has no diligence, sins mortally; he who neglects [it] from this, that he has half-full diligence, sins venially, yet nonetheless sins gravely, because this Sacrament is to be consecrated with all diligence. And by how much this work and this Sacrament excels other works, by so much does negligence in it outweigh other negligences19.

Scholion

See the scholion (sections I–III) rendered with Article I, Question I (`bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q1`), which treats questions 1–4 of this article together. Footnote 7 of p. 259 above expressly refers the reader there: Concerning this very question, see the scholion on question 1 of this article.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Epist. 63. n. 13. Cfr. C. Sic in sanctificando (2.), de Consecrat. d. 2. — Minor ostensa est supra q. 1. 2.
    Letter 63, n. 13. Cf. the canon Sic in sanctificando (2.), On Consecration d. 2. — The minor [premise] was shown above in qq. 1, 2.
  2. 2
    Arg. est secundum Cyprianum, hic in lit. Magistri, c. 5, relatum.
    The argument is according to Cyprian, reported here in the text of the Master, c. 5.
  3. 3
    Cod. X supplet aquam.
    Codex X supplies water.
  4. 4
    Expos. in Marc. 14, 23: Quia et nos in Christo, et in nobis Christum manere oportet, vino dominici calicis aqua miscetur; attestante enim Ioanne (Apoc. 17, 15.), aquae populi sunt. — In lit. Magistri, cfr. hic c. 5. — Post unionem cod. L addit corporis, edd. membrorum.
    Exposition on Mark 14, 23: Because it behooves both us to remain in Christ and Christ in us, water is mixed with the wine of the Lord's chalice; for, as John attests (Rev. 17, 15), the waters are peoples. — In the text of the Master, cf. here c. 5. — After union codex L adds of the body, the editions of the members.
  5. 5
    Ioan. 19, 34.
    John 19, 34.
  6. 6
    Cfr. infra dub. 6, et Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 29, ubi dicit: Oportet quidem, quod tantum vini ibi ponatur, quod aqua commixtum saporem vini retineat.
    Cf. below dub. 6, and Innocent III, IV On the sacred mystery of the Altar, c. 29, where he says: It is indeed necessary that only so much water be put there that, mixed in, it retains the savor of the wine.
  7. 7
    Supple: aqua est de substantia Sacramenti. — De hac propos. cfr. supra q. 1. seq., et de ultima huius arg. vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 5. — Superius post de substantia codd. O X supplent Sacramenti.
    Supply: water belongs to the substance of the Sacrament. — Concerning this proposition cf. above q. 1 ff., and concerning the last [part] of this argument see here the text of the Master, c. 5. — Above, after of the substance codices O X supply of the Sacrament.
  8. 8
    Sap. 16, 20.
    Wisdom 16, 20.
  9. 9
    Epist. 63. n. 17. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.
    Letter 63, n. 17. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 5.
  10. 10
    Cfr. supra q. 1.
    Cf. above q. 1.
  11. 11
    In C. In Sacramentorum oblationibus (1.), de Consecrat. d. 2: Non enim debet, ut a Patribus accepimus, et ipsa ratio docet, in calice Domini aut vinum solum, aut aqua sola offerri, sed utrumque permixtum, quia utrumque ex latere eius in passione sua profluxisse legitur. Cfr. infra dub. 6, et Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 32.
    In the canon In Sacramentorum oblationibus (1.), On Consecration d. 2: For neither wine alone nor water alone ought to be offered in the chalice of the Lord—as we have received from the Fathers, and reason itself teaches—but both mixed together, because both are read to have flowed from his side in his passion. Cf. below dub. 6, and Innocent III, IV On the sacred mystery of the Altar, c. 32.
  12. 12
    Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5, verba Cypriani et infra ad 8. — Pro apposuerit permulti codd. et ed. 1 posuerit.
    Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 5, the words of Cyprian, and below at [reply] 8. — For added very many codices and the first edition [read] placed.
  13. 13
    Hanc rationem tangit Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 29. — Superius post fluxit simul codd. X supplent aqua.
    Innocent III touches this reason, IV On the sacred mystery of the Altar, c. 29. — Above, after flowed at the same time codices X supply water.
  14. 14
    Vide supra d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. in fine corp. et ad 5.
    See above d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 2, at the end of the body and at reply 5.
  15. 15
    Cfr. I. Cor. 1, 20. seqq., et Hebr. 2, 11.
    Cf. 1 Cor. 1, 20 ff., and Heb. 2, 11.
  16. 16
    Codd. L Y Est etiam alia ratio, quia vinum [conversum in Christi sanguinem, cuius effusione redempti sumus; cfr. Eph. 1, 7, et I. Petr. 1, 19.]. Pro durius edd. durior.
    Codices L Y [read] There is also another reason, because the wine [is converted into the blood of Christ, by whose pouring out we have been redeemed; cf. Eph. 1, 7, and 1 Pet. 1, 19]. For too hard the editions [read] harder.
  17. 17
    Cfr. Liturgiae tum Iacobi sive Hierosolymitana, tum Marci sive Alexandrina. Vide etiam supra pag. 194, nota 1. Inferius respicitur Ioan. 20, 30. et 21, 23. — Paulo superius pro biberit non pauci codd. biberet.
    Cf. the Liturgies both of James, or the Jerusalem [liturgy], and of Mark, or the Alexandrian. See also above p. 194, note 1. Below, John 20, 30 and 21, 23 are referred to. — A little above, for drank not a few codices [read] would drink.
  18. 18
    Ioan. 19, 34.
    John 19, 34.
  19. 19
    Vide infra dub. 6. — De ipsa quaestione vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.
    See below dub. 6. — Concerning this very question, see the scholion on question 1 of this article.
Cited by

1 place in the Opera Omnia citesthis question. Derived from Quaracchi’s own apparatus, never tagged by hand.

Whether the four figures were sufficient
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 8 · 3×
infra d. 11. p. II. a. 1. q. 3.
← Dist. 11, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 11, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 4→