Dist. 11, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/11/q/bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### 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. Cyprian: "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 water.

3. Likewise, either the Lord placed [it there], 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 says, 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 water: 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 kind: 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 signification, 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 savor; 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:

Cyprian: "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 another. — 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 Alexander, 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 did, 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 baptism. — 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 contained.

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, Christ, 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. *Moreover*, 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 Church. 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 forth.

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 negligences.