I had a question from a reader/viewer who was wondering about the preparation of the chalice during a streamed Mass. When it came to the water, I didn’t pick up the water cruet to add water.
QUAERITUR:
It looks like you don’t pick up the water and add it to the wine. I though that was necessary. Clearly I’m missing something but I asked, “Was that valid?” I know you would never offer an invalid Mass but you also say all the time about priests who make up things that it is cruel to leave people wondering about the validity of sacraments.
The question reveals the underlying answer: the use of the scruple spoon.
The addition of water to the wine in the chalice is of profound significance. First, historically, in the ancient world wine was not consumed uncut. It was cut with water. As a matter of fact, the ancient Romans considered the consumption of merum (uncut vinum) was a mark of debauchery. The rite of the addition of water to wine was mentioned twice by St. Justin Martyr in his Apology to Antoninus Pius (+161). Fathers of the Church and Council mandated the addition, Trent in particular. Trent obliges priests because a) this is what the Jews did and Christ did with wine at the Last Supper b), Blood and water flowed from Christ’s side and c) It is a symbol of the unity of Christ and the Church.
Moreover, as the following prayer reveals, it hearkens to the indestructible bond of Divinity and humanity in Christ. What Christ took he, He irrevocably transformed.
When the priest adds water to the wine he first blesses it (unless it is a Requiem Mass) and prays:
Deus, + qui humánæ substántiæ dignitátem mirabíliter condidísti, et mirabílius reformásti: da nobis per huius aquæ et vini mystérium, eius divinitátis esse consórtes, qui humanitátis nostræ fíeri dignátus est párticeps, Iesus Christus, Fílius tuus, Dóminus noster: Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti Deus: per ómnia s?cula sæculórum. Amen.
O God, who, in creating human nature, didst wonderfully dignify it, and still more wonderfully restore it, grant that, by the Mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His divine nature, who vouchsafed to be made partaker of our human nature, even Jesus Christ our Lord, Thy Son, who with Thee, liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God: world without end. Amen.
This prayer, already in a 6th c. sacramentary, is also the Collect for the 3rd Mass of Christmas. Appropriate. It is a masterpiece of Roman concision and echoes the Christmas sermons of St. Leo the Great (+461).
What Christ took up, He irrevocably transformed. Christ came ultimately for what Fathers of the Church called our “divinization”. Be mindful of how the drops of water are lost into the larger quantity of the wine, merged and transformed. This is why I often urge people to “pour” their hearts and petitions into the chalice with that little bit of water: to be taken up and transformed. The water… that’s you.
BTW… I recall an ignorant comment from the Prefect for Worship, who violated the adage Si tacuisses. He asserted that under the influence of Vatican II now the people also offer the sacrifice with the priest, as it says in the – here it comes – 1st Eucharistic Prayer: “or them, we offer you this sacrifice of praise or they offer it for themselves and all who are dear to them,…”. 1st Eucharistic Prayer! Therefore its from VATICAN II! RIGHT?!? The 1st Eucharistic Prayer is also known as the Roman Canon, which predates Vatican II by a millennium. The unity of Christ with us in offering the Sacrifice has been clear for centuries and Vatican II has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
For example, St. Thomas Aquinas, “When water is mixed with wine in the chalice, the people is united to Christ” (STh III q.74, a.6). The mixing is necessary for the symbolic value of the offering of the chalice. To offer the wine without the water would be like to offer Christ without us. To offer the water alone would be to offer us without Christ. The faithful are not merely the co-offerers. They are the co-offered. This is possible because of the conformity to Christ in baptism. He is Priest and Victim. The baptized is also priest and victim, not in the ordained sense, but the baptized sense. This is the way. If there is anything about this in Vatican II it is because it has always been the way.
The priest should be careful never to add too much water to the wine in the chalice. This is not because we do not want too many lay people present at Mass! It has to do with substance and accidents. If you add a tiny bit of water to wine, the water is subsumed into the wine. Add a lot of water to the wine, you can break the substance of the wine rendering it no longer valid for Mass.
As I have written in the past, in the manual of dogmatic theology by Tanquerey, that tonic for the soul, we read that “quinta pars aquae ad vinum corrumpendum non sufficiat … a fifth part of water isn’t enough to break [the substance of] the wine”, and thus render it invalid matter for consecration.
Prümmer is not too lenient in saying a third part water and you have highly doubtful matter, it should not be consecrated, and more wine ought to be added before it is consecrated.
I am inclined to be guided by Tanquerey’s view and never add more than a fifth part.
A priest who seriously doubts the validity of the matter of the host or the wine, sins mortally by continuing.
This is important especially for priests who prefer small quantities of wine for Mass, for whatever reason.
It is not a bad idea to use a “scruple spoon”. This has nothing to do with “having scruples” or “being scrupulous”.
This small spoon measures a scruple, an old apothecary measurement for the 24th part of an ounce in weight.
Sometimes an image of a scruple spoon will appear in the header of this blog.
I grant that there is something proper about the pouring gesture. However, given the issue of dilution, I think safe is better than iffy. Sometimes the surface tension of the water before pouring can result in the subsequent necessity of adjustments with the wine.
Prümmer prudishly posits that the scruple spoon tolerari potest. Whatever.
If pouring is a strong symbol, no less powerful is that of a little drop.
The Belgian Désiré Félicien François Joseph Card. Mercier (+1926) wrote of this symbolism:
“I am the little drop of water absorbed by the wine of the Mass, and the wine of the Mass becomes the blood of the Man-God. And the Man-God is substantially united to the Holy Trinity. The little drop of water is swept into the main-stream of the life of the Holy Trinity. Shall I ever be pure enough, limpid enough, as the little drop of water destined to take part in the sacrifice of the Mass?”
Loading ...
“When the priest adds water to the wine he first blesses it (unless it is a Requiem Mass) and prays:”
Why would the priest not bless the water at a Requiem Mass?
Sorry that above should read:
Why would the priest not bless the water and wine at a Requiem Mass?
With respect to the Prefect, the words of Cicero apply:
“Nescire autem quid ante quam natus sis accederit, id est semper esse puerum.”
Not to be too scrupulous about this, but the measurement known as a scruple is actually two different measures, a wet and a dry measure. The dry of course gets its identity from scrupulum (literally “tiny stone”) weighing 1/24 of a Roman ounce. The scruple spoon, however, comes by way of British apothecary as a measurement of volume, not mass. Like it’s dry cousin, it is 1/24 of an ounce, but a liquid ounce. We would call that amount a quarter teaspoon, or in olden times, a saltspoon worth.
Pingback: TVESDAY MORNING EDITION – Big Pulpit
If I recall correctly, the Armenian Catholics do not add water to their wine for consecration.
I found it odd in the pre-Covid days of consecrating several chalices for distribution to the laity, of the widespread practice that water would only be added to one chalice. I always added water to all chalices.
Where can one watch the livestream? Many blessings, Fr Z!