Calix, chalice and cup

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frankk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Frankk said:
You’re right in the sense that a chalice has three parts including a cup. My query is that calix can be translated as cup or chalice. It does not differentiate between thre three parts of a chalice and a singular cup. It is either, or.

I am not aware that the Romans had three words for the separate parts of a chalice but I’d be grateful to hear from anyone who knows if they do have such words.
Click to expand...
The ancient Romans night not have used such words for the different parts of a chalice.

The Church, however, does. There are Church documents defining a chalice as having 3 parts: the cup, the node, and the base. I can’t locate them, but I know there were clarifications made by the Holy See that a vessel without a node does not meet the definition of a chalice. I know this because a priest friend of mine had a vessel without a node and the bishop told him to stop using it, citing the directives from Rome.

These words are also used in more practical terms; for example when a catalog describes a chalice, it might say “gold cup” or “jeweled node” or “carvings on the base” and anyone in the market knows what that means.

Keep in mind, this is used to define what constitutes a chalice. It’s not the same thing as the difference between “chalice” and “cup” as fas as the translation of the Mass texts is concerned.
 
FrDavid96 said:
There are Church documents defining a chalice as having 3 parts: the cup, the node, and the base. I can’t locate them, but I know there were clarifications made by the Holy See that a vessel without a node does not meet the definition of a chalice.
Click to expand...
I would be interested to see these clarifications if you come across them.

There is certainly an ample supply of sources that describe the different parts of a chalice, but that doesn’t by itself exclude from “chalice-hood” a vessel lacking one or another. An illustration of sailing ships might detail all the different features one finds on such vessels, but just because one can’t find a fore topgallant sail doesn’t mean he’s not on a ship.
 
FrDavid96 said:
The Church, however, does. There are Church documents defining a chalice as having 3 parts: the cup, the node, and the base. I can’t locate them, but I know there were clarifications made by the Holy See that a vessel without a node does not meet the definition of a chalice. I know this because a priest friend of mine had a vessel without a node and the bishop told him to stop using it, citing the directives from Rome.
Click to expand...
Fr, is it because the chalice should be held up at the consecration by its node?
 
ProVobis said:
Fr, is it because the chalice should be held up at the consecration by its node?
Click to expand...
Yes. That’s what it’s for.

Also, I missed something on my last post.

The chalice also has to have a stem. So it’s 4 parts, not 3.
 
How does this fit into the scenario where the priest lifts the chalice at consecration and we drink from that same chalice but call it a cup?

Has ICEL (or anyone) made comment on this that you’re aware of? After all the years it took to come up with the new translation we might hope that discussions on these things were minuted. Or not??

Many thanks.
 
Frankk said:
How does this fit into the scenario where the priest lifts the chalice at consecration and we drink from that same chalice but call it a cup?

Has ICEL (or anyone) made comment on this that you’re aware of? After all the years it took to come up with the new translation we might hope that discussions on these things were minuted. Or not??

Many thanks.
Click to expand...
Two things.
  1. In conversation, there’s nothing wrong with saying “receive [the Precious Blood] from the Cup” or “drink from the cup” or any other way we can vary it. It is not incorrect. We cannot take the new translation too far. In the Eucharistic Prayers, the word “chalice” is the better option than the word “cup” but that does not exclude the use of the word cup in another context.
  2. Sometimes there is a difference between a chalice and a cup. If it had a node, it’s a chalice. If it does not have a node, it’s a cup. This is relevant, for example, if the parish is buying a whole new set of vessels. They might buy a matching set of 1 chalice and 4 cups. In a situation like that, it would be necessary to keep the vocabulary straight; not for any strict theological sense but for purely practical reasons. Buying, keeping inventory, preparing for the Mass, etc., the distinction would have meaning. But when it comes down to which vessel (chalice or cup) a person receives from, the words have no difference.
 
FWIW,
“he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands, and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying:”
Click to expand...
Commentary:
The Current Translation certainly strips out the exalted language of the institution narrative at this point. Notice how “precious chalice” (a literal translation of the original Latin) replaces “cup” and “in his holy and venerable hands” now appears. The New Translation intentionally chose the word chalice in lieu of cup (the Latin word here, calix, may be translated as either) to avoid a pedestrian or profane quality.
Click to expand...
op-stjoseph.org/resources/publications/newtranslationinsert16.pdf
 
An excellent find ProVobis. Thanks.

I guess we could say the translation as cup, though certainly not profane, could be thought as pedestrian?! Or the differentiation could be said to be pedantic.

Still, I guess we have what we have and it will be many more decades before there is another review. (Everyone breathes a sigh of relief! ;). )

Many thanks for everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut and efforts.
 
FrDavid96 said:
The Church, however, does. There are Church documents defining a chalice as having 3 parts: the cup, the node, and the base. I can’t locate them, but I know there were clarifications made by the Holy See that a vessel without a node does not meet the definition of a chalice. I know this because a priest friend of mine had a vessel without a node and the bishop told him to stop using it, citing the directives from Rome.
Click to expand...
I’ve been thinking more about this. Since there is no separate word for chalice in Latin, it makes the alleged rule more difficult to express: they can’t very well say “a cup must have a node, or it does not meet the definition of a cup.”

Is there an adjective used to distinguish the main cup with the node from the other cups without nodes?
 
Digitonomy said:
I’ve been thinking more about this. Since there is no separate word for chalice in Latin, it makes the alleged rule more difficult to express: they can’t very well say “a cup must have a node, or it does not meet the definition of a cup.”

Is there an adjective used to distinguish the main cup with the node from the other cups without nodes?
Click to expand...
What does the word poculum mean?
 
I heard that the British Catholics were suggesting the use of the term beaker instead of cup. 😃
 
I think that the bottom line is that a chalice is a kind of cup. Not all cups are chalices.
 
Cristiano said:
I heard that the British Catholics were suggesting the use of the term beaker instead of cup. 😃
Click to expand...
:eek:Well, English is an analytical language but sometimes things tend to get too over-analytical. Beakers are used for experiments in the lab inter alia.
 
ProVobis said:
:eek:Well, English is an analytical language but sometimes things tend to get too over-analytical. Beakers are used for experiments in the lab inter alia.
Click to expand...
Sometime the term beaker is used to refer to what people call a mug in the US. I was just joking and I was thinking of the TV sitcom “Keeping Up Appearances” where the neighbor lady would be offered a beaker (mug) to drink the tea because she always banged the china cups.
 
Cristiano said:
Sometime the term beaker is used to refer to what people call a mug in the US. I was just joking and I was thinking of the TV sitcom “Keeping Up Appearances” where the neighbor lady would be offered a beaker (mug) to drink the tea because she always banged the china cups.
Click to expand...
I know you were trying to lighten up the discussion (good to do sometimes IMO) but out of curiosity I looked up the etymology of the word anyway.
beaker
“open large-mouthed vessel,” mid-14c., from O.N. bikarr or M.Du. beker “goblet,” probably (with O.S. bikeri, O.H.G. behhari, Ger. Becher) from M.L. bicarium, which itself is probably a dim. of Gk. bikos “earthenware jug, wine jar” (said to be an oriental word, perhaps a borrowing from Syrian buqa “a two-handed vase or jug”). Form assimilated in English to beak.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry if this has been explained before:

The EP changed the translation to “chalice” in the words of the consecration. But the memorial acclamation stayed “cup”.

Are they two different latin words and why the discrepancy:?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top