The document discusses the symbolism behind pouring wine and water into the chalice during the Divine Liturgy. It states that the piercing of the bread and pouring of the wine and water into the chalice portray the piercing of Jesus' side and the outpouring of blood and water. It describes how the commingling of the wine and water symbolizes the union between Christ and the Church, and between Christ's divine and human natures. Finally, it discusses how removing the particle of bread called the "ahnets" from the loaf and placing it on the diskos symbolically represents Christ's birth and placement in the manger at Bethlehem.

1. CHAPTER XXIV
THE POURING OF WINE AND WATER
As soon as the priest has pierced the host, the deacon takes the
cruets of wine and water and says to the priest :
Sir, bless the holy union.
The priest blesses the cruets. Ei"ther he or the deacon pours wine
into the chalice and adds a little water.
John the Apostle saw what happened on Golgotha. He was
there. When one of the soldiers opened the side of Jesus with his
spear," immediately there came out blood and water" (John 19:34).
The piercing and the outpouring were phases of the same event.
In the Proskomidia the ahnets bread is pierced, and immediately
wine and water are poured into the chalice. Forming one complete
whole, both liturgical actions portray what John described as
happening at the crucifixion, except that in the proskomidia rite, it is
still in the realm of prophecy relative to the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
To the Fathers of the Church, the stream of blood and water was
providential, full of mystical meaning, symbolic of all the blessings
and graces streaming upon mankind by the power of Christ's Passion
and death. The water symbolized baptism, which washes away all
stain of sin and the blood, and also the Eucharist, the life-giving
fountain of reconciliation and the food of eternal life. 1
Baptism is
the beginning and the Eucharist the complement of all the other
sacraments; hence, all the sacraments are mystically represented
here in baptism and the Eucharist. The sacraments derive the
fullness of grace and power from the sacrificial death of Christ
expressed in the outpouring of the blood and water from his side.
The Fathers also saw in the pierced side of Jesus the divine origin
ofthe Church when they said that from!the opened side ofthe second
Adam, sleeping in death on the cross,fwas formed and came forth
the new Eve (the Church). The reason for this is that the Church,
1 Thus, Chrysostom, Hom. 85 in Io., 3 (edit. Montfaucon 8, 507 DE); Canon 32
of Council in Trullo (Mansi II, 956-957).

2. as symbolized. by the outpouring of the blood and water from the
side of Christ, is the only lawful possessor and administrator of the
sacraments by virtue of which it is ever undergoing purification
and sanctification in its members.
There is further symbolism contained in the commingling of the
wine and water in the chalice : the mystical relationship of Christ
with his Church. Christ is represented by the wine, and the mem-
bers of the Church, by the water. This symbolism probably
originated in the earliest days of the Church, for St. John, writing
the Apocalyse some sixty-four years after Christ's ascension, already
spoke of the water which he saw as a figure of the nations. 2
Since
the drops of water are mixed into the wine and diffused in it, they
merge with the wine and take on its qualities, all of which will later
be transformed into the blood ofChrist. So also the members ofthe
Church are incorporated into Christ. This belief echoes the words
of St. Peter (II Pet. I :4), that we may be made partakers ofthe divine
nature. This same mystery, taught by many of the early Fathers, 3
is beautifully expressed by Cyprian in his letter to Caecilius :
For since Christ who bore our sins, bore us all, we see that
the water represents the people, but the wine signifies the
blood of Christ. When the water is mixed with the wine in
the cup, the people are united to Christ : the believing nation
is joined and united to Him in whom it had believed. This
mingling and union of the water and wine in the Lord's
chalice are effected in such a way that the elements can no
longer be separated from one another; so also nothing can
separate the Church, that is, the people formed into the
Church and faithfully, firmly persevering in its faith, from
Christ.'
Still another mystical meaning is expressed by the commingling
of the water and wine : the union of the divine and human natures
•Rev. 17:15. This symbolical interpretation is one of the reasons given by
the Council of Trent (Sess. 22, 7) for the admixture of water to the wine (cf.
Denzinger, 945).
• Irenaeus (A.D. 202), Adv. haer., 5, 2, 3 (PG 7, 1125 B); Clement ofAlexandria,
Paedagogus, 2, 2 (PG 8, 409 f.); Chrysostom, Ham. 46 in lo., 3 (edit. Montfaucon
8, 272 D-273 C); Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio catechetica, 37 (PG 45, 96 BC.
• Cyprian, Ep. 62 ad Caecilium, 13 (PL 4, 383-384).

3. THE WINE AND WATER 275
in one Person, the incarnate Son of God. This interpretation arose
in the Orient where its roots are firmly embedded in the christological
strife against Monophysitism, the heretical belief that there is but
one nature, the divine, in Christ. 6
It is mostly for this reason that
the Armenian Church, after accepting Monophysitism, rejected the
admixture of water into the wine-and this, as far back as the sixth
century, certainly before A.D. 632. 8 This same point has remained
an obstacle to union not only with Rome, but also with the Byzantine
Church. 7
This selfsame symbolism with all its implications had
led the Catholic Armenians to carefully maintain the mixing.
Did the custom come about for the sole purpose of symbolism?
Probably not. The practice was carried out from the earliest days
of the Church. At the Last Supper, Jesus consecrated wine mixed
with water. 8
Palestinian Jews added water to their wine at all their
meals, including the paschal supper. This custom, a Greek import
rather than Palestinian, was nevertheless universally practiced in
Palestine during Christ's time. 0
That this was the usage of the
Church from the earliest times is clear from the testimony of the
early writers and Fathers. Justin mentions it twice, Irenaeus and
Clement of Alexandria repeat it, Pope Julius I in writing to the
bishops of Egypt presupposes it. 10
Almost all the Eastern Liturgies
tell of Christ mixing water with the wine before the consecration;
for example, the Clementine Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions,
• Euthymius Zigabenus, Panoplia dogmat., tit. XXIII (PG 130, 1184); Isaac,
Oratio inveaiva contra Armen., I (PG 132, 1176 BC); Simeon of Thessalonica,
Dialogus, chap. 93 (PG 155, 276 B).
• Cf. Hanssens, Institutiones liturgicae de ritibus orientalibus, De Missa rituum
orientalium, II (Rome, 1930), pp. 250-271.
7
The mingling of the water with wine is not de necessitate sacramenti neque
praecepti divini but only de necessitate praecepti ecclesiastici, i.e., apostolici; hence,
in itself the mere admixture of water to the wine would not have been such an
insurmountable obstacle to union had it not been for theological considerations
which have been annexed to this practice in the Orient.
•Cf. G. Beer, Pesachim (Ostern} Text, tlbersetzung und Erklarung. Nebst
einem textkritischen Anhang (Giessen, 1912), pp. 71-72, 1o6.
I However, cf. Prov. 9:2, 5; Rev. 18:6; Deut. 32:14; also Beer, ibid., pp. 71-72.
•• Justin, First Apology, chaps. 65-67 (cf. however, F. X. Funk, "Die Abend-
mahlselemente bei Justin," T.Q., 74 [1892], pp. 643-659). Irenaeus, Adv.
haeres., I, 13, 2 (PG 7, 580); IV, 33, 2 (PG 7, 1073 B); V, 2, 3 (PG 7, 1125 B);
Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, II, 2 (PG 8, 409 f.); Pope Julius I (337-352),
Epistula ad episcopos per fi!,gyptum (PL 8, 970 B-D).

4. CHAPTER XXIV
the Greek anaphora of St. James, the anaphora of St. Basil, etc. 11
The clergy in celebrating the Eucharistic Mysteries would not
deviate from what they believed was a practice established by Christ
himself. 11
Most of the Catholic Orientals add somewhat more water to the
wine than do the Latins. Yet, they are conforming with the rule of
the Council of Florence, which states that " a little water " is to be
added to the wine. 18
The practice of dissident Eastern Churches
is difficult to assess. The rule followed in most Russian churches,
for example, is that of the Ustav : the amount of water to be added
11 The Clementine Liturgy, Book VIII, 12, 37 (edit. F. X. Funk, Didascalia et
Constitutiones Apostolorum, I [Paderbom, 1905], p. 508) has : " In like manner
also the chalice; he mixed it of wine and water and sanctified it and gave to them,
saying: Drink ye all ofthis ...• " The Greek Anaphora of St. James (cf. Bright-
man, LEW, p. 52) : "In like manner after he had supped, when he took the chalice
and mixed the wine and water•.•. " The Byzantine St. Basil (cf. Brightman,
LEW, p. 328) puts it : " Likewise taking the chalice of the fruit of the vine and,
when he had mixed it and had given thanks.... " Our translations from the
Greek. For the exceptions see Hanssens, op. cit., I, p. 233.
11
Despite the proven general practice of the early Church, there is an element
of doubt whether or not water was added to the wine either before Mass or at
any tinie before the consecration in the Byzantine Church (outside the Italo-
Greek churches) before the twelfth century. This element of doubt rests mainly
on the discussions between Anselm of Havelberg and Nicetas of Nicomedia in
the year 1136 (cf. Dialogus, 1, III, chap. 20, De commixtione vini et aquae in calice,
quod aliter Graeci aliter Latinifaciunt [PL 188, 1241-1245]). Anselm ofHavelberg
certainly believed that the Greeks did not do so, as is evident from his words :
" Pray, tell me, why do you not offer during the Sacrifice ofthe altar wine and water
poured and mixed together in the chalice? Why do you consecrate only the wine
without the water? " · What is more disconcerting, Nicetas did not deny the
charge; his lack of denial is therefore usually considered tantamount to silent
admission. Yet, Anselm of Havelberg was mistaken on this point. Because
of the uniquely Byzantine custom of pouring warm water into the chalice just
before Communion, he seems to have concluded that the Byzantine Church did
not add any water at the proskomidia. Nicetas, on the other hand, in his excessive
zeal to defend the practice of adding warm water, concerned himself only with
providing arguments justifying this same custom. One very weighty piece of
evidence, among others, which definitely proves that the Byzantine Church did
add water to the wine at some point before the consecration and not merely just
before Communion, is offered by Euthymius Zigabenus (fl. 1100) when he writes
against the Armenian usage : "In the Sacrifice, again, they (the Armenians) do
not offer wine mixed with water but merely the wine without any admixture of
water.... We, on the other hand, mix the wine with water and sacrifice it and
partake of it .... " (Euthymius Zigabenus, Panoplia dogmatica, tit. XXIll,
Contra Armenos [PG 130, 1181 D]). There can hardly be any doubt from this
passage that the Byzantine Church did commingle the wine with water before
consecrating it.
13 Decretum pro Armenis (Mansi, 31, I056).

5. THE WINE AND WATER
at the proskomidia (and just before Holy Communion) must not be
so great that the taste of wine would be lost, i.e., changed into the
taste of water. a This is generally understood as no more than
one-third water. Dissident Coptic priests add "a little water";
again, this seems to be interpreted as not more than one-third water.
Syrian Jacobites, since ancient times, use equal quantities of water
and wine. 15
The Symbolical Bethlehem
The major events of Christ's life, his passion, and his death
were heralded and signified to mankind by types, figures, and
prophecies. The Byzantine Liturgy does the same in word, cere-
monial, and ritual. It begins in the proskomidia with the sacrificial
prophecies pronounced over the bread destined to become that true
Bread which is Christ crucified and sacrificed. " The words and
actions performed over the bread which signify the death of the
Lord are only a description and a symbol. The bread, therefore,
remains bread and has received no more than the capacity to be
offered to God. This is why it typifies the Lord's body in his
early years, for. . . he himself was an offering from his birth
onwards. " 18
Christ received the capacity to be offered to God, to
suffer, to die, when he was born; indeed he became an offering from
his birth onward. In the Liturgy, when the large particle is removed
from the prosphora, it formally becomes the ahnets, destined to be
offered to God, to become Christ's body crucified and sacrificed;
that is why the action ofremoving the ahnets from the loaf mystically
represents Christ's birth. As the flesh of Christ was separated
from that of his Virgin Mother at birth, so the ahnets is separated
and removed from the prosphora. It is then placed on the diskos,
which portrays the placing of the Christ Child in the manger at
Bethlehem. Like Simeon of old, who linked the divine Infant
" Cf. K. Nikolsky, Posobie k izucheniu Ustava Bogosluzhenia pravoslavtwi
tserkvy (St. Petersburg, 1907), p. 365.
u For an excellent discussion and bibliography concerning this matter, see
I. M. Hanssens, op. cit., II, pp. 244-250.
18
Cabasilas, Commentary; trans. Hussey and McNulty, A Commentary on the
Divine Liturgy (London: SPCK, 196o), 11, p. 41.

6. CHAPTER XXIV
with the sacrifice ofthe cross (Luke 2:22-35), the sacrificial prophecies
accompanying the cutting and removing of the ahnets from the loaf
represent the redemptive and sacrificial role Christ had from the
moment of his birth.