Quinisext Council, Canon 32.previous | next
Since it has come to our knowledge that in the country of the Armenians those conducting the bloodless sacrifice are wont to offer wine alone at the sacred table, without mixing water with it, on the alleged ground that the teacher of the Church John Chrysostom said in his commentary of the Gospel according to St. Matthew the following: “On what account did He not drink water after He rose, but wine? — another wicked heresy being thus eradicated, roots and all. For since there were some who used water in the Mysteries, He showed both when He delivered the Mysteries and when He rose from the grave, that he set a mere table without mysteries and used wine, derived, he says, from the product of the vine” (Homily 82). But a vine produces wine, not water. Hence they infer that the teacher disallowed the offering of water in the sacred sacrifice (Matt. 26:29). Lest they remain henceforth in ignorance of the facts, we proceed to reveal the father’s meaning Orthodoxically. For, in view of the fact that the wicked heresy of the Aquarians was an old one, wherein they use water alone instead of wine in their own sacrifice, by way of refuting the unlawful doctrine of that particular heresy and showing that they are contravening the Apostolical tradition, this God-bearing man asserted the said words. Since even in the church of his jurisdiction, where he had the pastoral rulership in his hands, he taught that water should be admixed whenever it was requisite to perform the blood sacrifice, pointing out that from the precious flank of our Redeemer and Savior Christ the God there had exuded a mixture of blood and water, which mixture was shed, or poured out, for vivification of all the world and redemption from sins. And in connection with all churches where the spiritual luminaries shone forth, this God-given procedure prevails. For this is also in keeping with the fact that both James the carnal brother of Christ our God, who was the first to be entrusted with the throne of the church of the Jerusalemites, and Basil the Bishop of the Caesareans and one whose renown rapidly spread over the whole inhabited earth, having each of them handed down to us in writing the mystical hierurgy, have given out that the sacred chalice (or cup) is to be filled full of water and wine in the Divine Liturgy. And the devout Fathers assembled in Carthage, too, thus expressly mentioned that in the holy elements nothing more than the body and the blood of the Lord should be offered, just as the Lord Himself taught, that is, bread and wine, mixed with water. If, therefore, any Bishop, or Presbyter, fail to follow the procedure taught by the Apostles, and, mixing water with wine, thus to offer the intemerate sacrifice, let him be deposed from office, on the ground that he has been divulging the mystery imperfectly or deficiently and novating the rites handed down.
The present Canon corrects the bad custom which came to prevail in the country of the Armenians — that of conducting the liturgy, that is to say, with wine alone, without combining it with water in accordance with the tradition of the Church. Since they adduce in support of such custom evidence resting upon the explanation which John Chrysostom gives to the Gospel according to St. Matthew, and think that that divine Father, by saying there that both before and after His resurrection the Lord used wine, is denying in these words the admixture of water in the Mysteries, therefore, owing to this mistaken view of theirs, these Fathers are making known the true meaning of the saint’s words, which say that because there was an old heresy called that of the Aquarians, who used water alone in the Eucharistic celebration, and not wine, divine Chrysostom, in refuting this heresy, employed these words thus, and not as one accepting that wicked custom of the Aquarians, since the same Chrysostom himself in his divine Liturgy taught the church of Constantinople that in the bloodless sacrifice of the Mysteries water must be mixed with the wine by way of representing the blood and water which emerged from the precious side of the Lord’s body while it was hanging on the cross, for the remission of the sins and the vivification of all the world, according to that Gospel saying that “one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water” (John 19:34). But not only St. Chrysostom, but also James the brother of God and first hierarch of Jerusalem, as well as St. Basil the Great in their Liturgies gave directions for the holy chalice to be filled full of wine and water. In addition, the Fathers in Carthage in c. XLIV, which they set forth verbatim, do so too. So if any bishop or priest in the divine service of the hierurgy fails to mix water with the wine, in accordance with the Apostolic tradition, let him be deposed from office. For by failing to do so, he renders the mystery of the divine Eucharist incomplete or imperfect, and upsets what has been handed down. Read also Ap. c. III.
 The Aquarians — those, that is to say, who offered water instead of wine — had as the leader of their heresy Tatian, who had formerly been a disciple of St. Justin. (Theodoret, Cacomythy of Heretics, Book I, ch. 20).
 The miracle of the Lord’s indefectible body was a double one, not only because of the fact that it spurted blood and water, the blood like that of a human being but the accompanying water like that of a supernatural source, according to St. Gregory the Theologian, but also because it spurted them warm and alive, as though that side of the body were living, and life-producing because of the substantial union therewith of the life-producing Divinity, according to Symeon of Thessalonica. Hence, in order to represent the first miracle, it was made a law for blood and water to be placed in the holy chalice; and in order to represent the second, it was ordered from above and in the beginning, as Balsamon and Germanus of Constaninople say, that this water be poured in hot and boiling at the time of the communion troparion (or hymn), not cold, or lukewarm, in order that the priest himself and the others, by partaking of the blood and water while thus hot, may be disposed to think that they are partaking of them just as they came out of the Savior’s life-producing flank. So those priests who are neglectful in this regard are making a mistake, a great mistake, when they fail to heat the holy element to boiling, but pour it lukewarm into the holy chalice. For it must be boiled and be bubbling hot when it is poured in (so that the holy chalice itself will be heated by it to the boiling temperature), as the name of it denotes. For zeon, in Greek, signifies boiling water. That is why divine Nicephorus in his c. XIII says that a presbyter must not conduct the liturgy without boiling hot water. The Latins, on the other hand, who conduct their mass with water that is not hot, represent the living Divinity as dead, as well as the Savior’s divine flank which is vivified by that Divinity. But priests must be careful and put less water in the chalice when first pouring water in at the time of the prothesis, but later they must pour in more of the hot water for two reasons: both in order to heat up the previous combination in the chalice, and in order that the mixture of wine and water may be moderate, and not become the contrary, and afford the Latins occasion to accuse us of corrupting the mixture in the chalice with excessive water. It is fitting in regard to the present Canon and most necessary to priests that we add in this Footnote what ought to be done if the divine Mysteries should happen to be spilled or be eaten by insects or other small animals. In this connection Symeon of Thessalonica (Question 81) says that if they happen to be spilled when the Great Entrance is ended (which is the same as saying before the sanctification and transessentiation), or the bread happens to be eaten by rats or mice during the preparative (called in Greek proscomide, or proskomide, according to a different system of transliteration), or prothesis, and this fact is not perceived until after the Great Entrance, the priest must make a second union (i.e., mixture) in the chalice, and bring forward other bread with the prophetic words, and adding, or saying in addition thereto, the prayer of the prothesis. Afterwards he must begin saying the prayers that follow the Great Entrance, as lustrative (for those said before the Entrance need not be repeated, as not being lustrative). The spilled holy elements, on the other hand, must be gathered up together with the dirt and other matter by the priest in a holy vessel, and be thus reserved or placed aside in the crucible, or in some other sacred place that is safe and not liable to be stepped upon, lest they be trodden underfoot or suffer anything else that is unbecoming. Accordingly, if the place where the holy elements were spilled is strewn with small and easily removable pieces of marble, he must take them away entirely and put them in a separate place; if, on the other hand, they are big and cannot be moved, let him not take them away, but he must excavate them deep with a chisel over all the surface where the holy elements may have spread, and he deposit all the particles of marble chipped off and the accompanying marble dust in the crucible, after cleaning all the region as thoroughly as he can. If not all the holy elements were spilled, but a part of them remained, he must add some more, as much as may be needed for the sacred rite. If, however, before the sanctification is finished the holy elements be spilled upon the sacred vestments of the priest, which are luxurious and costly, they must be washed out well in a separate vessel, so as to leave nothing of them in the vestments; and the wash-water must be thrown into the crucible. But if they are spilled upon the vestments after the finish and transessentiation, that part of the raiment on which they spilt must of necessity and indispensably be cut away and be made a sacred wrapper or cover by being washed out in that place in which the holy chalices are washed. As for the priest who spilled the elements, he must first confess the sin to the bishop. Then, if it appear that this was a result of his negligence and carelessness, he must be canonized (i.e., penalized canonically) sufficiently and be suspended for a time, unless a priest is not available to replace in that territory; for in that event he is not suspended, but penanced (by way of reprimand) with fasting, prayer, and genuflections. Balsamon, in Reply 20, according to the manuscripts, though in his published Replies this is not found, that if the Holy Elements are spilled before the sanctification, the matter may be remedied by means of a moderate penance. But if they are spilled after the transessentiation, in case it be due to the priest’s negligence, he is to be canonized with a severe penance, and with suspension from his holy orders, or priesthood; but in case it be due to some demoniacal complicity, his static sin is to be penanced more lightly with a canonical penance, lest the Devil appear with that method and complicity to be gaining an advantage by preventing the priest from officiating uninterruptedly, or, in other words, in order that the Devil may not be furnished an occasion to prevent the priest from exercising the liturgical function continuously. This very same identical thing is said also by John of Kitros in his Reply 11, preserved in manuscripts. Manuel Charitopoulos, on the other hand, of Constantinople, in a synodical decision, decreed that if the presaiictified bread be eaten by cats or rats, the priests are to be penanced because they failed to keep them safe and in a secure place (page 239 of Juris Graecorom). All priests that are celebrating in chapels must be very careful lest any rat snatch a piece of the prepared bread from the holy paten. Hence they ought to wrap up the paten well with its cover and have a servant to watch over the holy prothesis, or they themselves must take care of it, lest on account of their carelessness the divine bread be devoured and consequently they themselves be penanced on this account. If, on the other hand, the holy pieces of bread should get mouldy (in the accidents only, that is to say, of the bread, and the dampness inhering in the accidents, according to Coresius), the priest ought not to burn them up or throw them in the crucible, but ought first to dry thoroughly at the fire of a coal fire, with proper skill, according to the directions of Nectarius of Jerusalem; afterwards, he ought to work them up with sweet wine and eat them, as is prudently recommended by those who are possessed of experience and discernment in such matters. Nevertheless, in order to prevent the occurrence of such moldiness, the priests ought to let the holy bread be aired enough until the dampness of the accidents thereof be dried out. Or better, as others more discerning say, the priests ought more safely and more easily exsiccate the holy bread at the fire of a coal fire of burning coals with great skill, and thus preserve it. Symeon of Thessalonica (Reply 83) says that if the priest happens to forget to make the union, and covers the chalice when it is empty, but discovers this during the Great Entrance, he must at once make the union on the holy table, and read the prayer of the prothesis, and thus finish the liturgy. But if he discovers it when he is to commune, he must make a union, and say the prayer of the prothesis, and repeat from the beginning all the prayers from the time of the Great Entrance, and at the invocation of the Holy Spirit he must seal the chalice, and do whatever follows, and thus commune.
 Note from the present Canon that the Liturgy of the Brother of God is acceptable which was formerly celebrated in Palestine, but has now fallen into desuetude, and is performed only in some places at some times. Balsamon, however, though seeing that an Ecumenical Council accepts it, says nevertheless in Question 1 of Marcus of Alexandria that it is not acceptable, perhaps because it appears to be adulterated at some points. For the hymn “He rejoices in Thee,” which he says is to be chanted after the one commencing “Exceptionally of the All-holy Virgin Intemerate,” is not an old one, but a later one, and see the Catechism. But then again Emmanuel Malxus in ch. 220 of the Nomocanon records the historical fact that the Church uscd the Liturgy of St. James down to the time of St. Basil the Great.
previous | next