"CHALICE" in the new translation.

[opus101]

I was so happy to see that the new translation uses the word “chalice” instead of “cup”. But now I’ve been thrown a bit. Can anyone help me with this?

Today I listened to an NPR broadcast on the web (at npr.com) of an interview with Bishop Donald Trautman of the Diocese of Erie, PA. It can be googled by typing “New Catholic Mass Already Causing Stir”. The interview took place 11-25.

In it he said:

“…sometimes the new translation is not faithful to the Bible. For example, it has Jesus, a poor carpenter, sipping from a precious chalice during the Last Supper. Any Greek dictionary will tell you, it’s a drinking cup…it’s a vessel. I’ts not a chalice…even Indiana Jones got that one right! The rugged archeologist selected a rough cup as the Holy Grail.”

Sure, Jesus was a carpenter, but does that mean that during the Passover, common people did not use better vessels? Didn’t they have the special “cup of Elijah”, etc.?
Even if it was a more common cup, the Blood of Christ certainly must have ontologically elevated it in some way, just like the the wood of the True Cross. “Chalice” seems more fitting a term for a vessel that holds the Blood (and Body, Soul and Divinity) of Christ.

Those of you with so much more knowledge than I of Biblical languages, Jewish customs, etc., what is you take on this?

 

[thistle]

I was so happy to see that the new translation uses the word “chalice” instead of “cup”. But now I’ve been thrown a bit. Can anyone help me with this?

Today I listened to an NPR broadcast on the web (at npr.com) of an interview with Bishop Donald Trautman of the Diocese of Erie, PA. It can be googled by typing “New Catholic Mass Already Causing Stir”. The interview took place 11-25.

In it he said:

“…sometimes the new translation is not faithful to the Bible. For example, it has Jesus, a poor carpenter, sipping from a precious chalice during the Last Supper. Any Greek dictionary will tell you, it’s a drinking cup…it’s a vessel. I’ts not a chalice…even Indiana Jones got that one right! The rugged archeologist selected a rough cup as the Holy Grail.”

Sure, Jesus was a carpenter, but does that mean that during the Passover, common people did not use better vessels? Didn’t they have the special “cup of Elijah”, etc.?
Even if it was a more common cup, the Blood of Christ certainly must have ontologically elevated it in some way, just like the the wood of the True Cross. “Chalice” seems more fitting a term for a vessel that holds the Blood (and Body, Soul and Divinity) of Christ.

Those of you with so much more knowledge than I of Biblical languages, Jewish customs, etc., what is you take on this?

The bottom line is that absolutely nobody knows what type of vessel was used at The Last Supper or what it was made of.

 

[opus101]

Thanks, Thistle.
Does anyone know what word was used in the Bible in the Gospels and in the Letters of Paul? How far back does the use of the term “chalice” go in the Latin text of the Mass?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Doesn’t chalice (calix) basically just mean a cup or drinking bowl? At least this was my impression, with the specially liturgical sense of the word evolving because that’s what we’ve always called both the vessal that was used for the Last Supper and the vessal used for the Mass.

 

[ChadS]

While the text we have that is the mass is very Biblical and relies on large amounts of direct Bible quotes and allusions we shouldn’t hold the notion that because the mass prayers uses a different word than that of the Bible it is somehow less authentic or wrong and needs to be changed. The mass developed over time and its prayer and actions developed also, so while drawing heavily from the Bible the mass isn’t beholden to it for word choice.

So the issue isn’t whether Jesus drank from a plain wooden cup or a jewel encrusted chalice. What is important is that the Church has chosen to use the word chalice. Until they feel the need to rewrite the prayer we should gladly accept the word and try to understand why the Church uses chalice and not cup – in my opinion the church understands “chalice” both literally and figuratively, so whether the cup was wooden or not doesn’t matter but the fact that it held the precious blood of Jesus, would make it a chalice.

Chad

 

[HelenRose]

A plastic cup would be a “chalice” if it were the only container available to hold the Precious Blood of Christ" (For instance in a prison and that is all that a priest had to celebrate the Eucharist)

It isn’t the container that is special. It is the Precious Blood that determines the value of the container .

 

[opus101]

While the text we have that is the mass is very Biblical and relies on large amounts of direct Bible quotes and allusions we shouldn’t hold the notion that because the mass prayers uses a different word than that of the Bible it is somehow less authentic or wrong and needs to be changed. The mass developed over time and its prayer and actions developed also, so while drawing heavily from the Bible the mass isn’t beholden to it for word choice.

So the issue isn’t whether Jesus drank from a plain wooden cup or a jewel encrusted chalice. What is important is that the Church has chosen to use the word chalice. Until they feel the need to rewrite the prayer we should gladly accept the word and try to understand why the Church uses chalice and not cup – in my opinion the church understands “chalice” both literally and figuratively, so whether the cup was wooden or not doesn’t matter but the fact that it held the precious blood of Jesus, would make it a chalice.

Chad

 

[opus101]

A plastic cup would be a “chalice” if it were the only container available to hold the Precious Blood of Christ" (For instance in a prison and that is all that a priest had to celebrate the Eucharist)

It isn’t the container that is special. It is the Precious Blood that determines the value of the container .

 

[ProVobis]

Doesn’t chalice (calix) basically just mean a cup or drinking bowl? At least this was my impression, with the specially liturgical sense of the word evolving because that’s what we’ve always called both the vessal that was used for the Last Supper and the vessal used for the Mass.

In the English, the cup is the top part of the chalice. Calix has been accepted to mean “cup,” “chalice,” “goblet,” or “drinking vessel.”

As to the etymology of the word,

chalice
early 14c., from Anglo-Fr. chalice, from O.Fr. chalice, collateral form of calice (Mod.Fr. calice), from L. calicem (nom. calix) “cup,” cognate with Gk. kylix “cup, drinking cup,” from PIE base *kal- “cup.” Ousted O.E. cognate cælic, an ecclesiastical borrowing of the Latin word.

 

[Lancer]

Bishop Trautman had “a dog in the fight”…in the translation process…he was adamantly against any move to go to more explicit literal translation of the Latin text into English.

He used to be the chair of the USCCB liturgy committee and worked on a new translation that never was approved by the USCCB bishops at the general meetings…he got “shot down” and guess who old unbiased NPR goes after to discuss anything Catholic…someone who has an axe to grind against the Church.

I say this wirh no desire to cast any unorthodox or heterodox dispersion or suspicion on the good bishop of Erie (but most of his supporters are not orthodox)…but he does have a personal dislike for the final translation…and even as a faithful bishop will “toss a few spears” against the Pope and the Vatican in what he sees as a bad translation…not as good as his translation. See excerpts below on final approval meeting and note at link how much “noise” Bishop Trautman made in opposition. In my opinion…the good bishop has become a legend…mostly in his own mind…when he starts challenging Pope B-XVI on theology, doctrine and biblical interpretation…and reform of the liturgy.

Pax Christi

With their overwhelming approval of the final segments of the English translation of the Roman Missal, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) cleared a major hurdle at their 2009 fall meeting, held November 16-19 in Baltimore. The required approval (recognitio) from the Vatican is anticipated very soon. A year will be allowed for instruction and for publishing the new books.

Bishop Trautman’s public objection at the November meeting to what he considers untoward interference by the Holy See in the liturgy was not surprising.

Only weeks before the meeting, Bishop Trautman had sharply criticized what he called the “slavishly literal” translation into English of the new Roman Missal from the original Latin. In a speech at Catholic University of America on October 22, he said the “sacred language” used by translators “tends to be elitist and remote from everyday speech and frequently not understandable” and could lead to a “pastoral disaster”.

He explicitly criticized the pope’s decision to translate literally the words “pro multis” as “for many”, rather than “for all” as in the current translation. Bishop Trautman stated that this signals “a major and radical change” in doctrine, and “a major pastoral, catechetical problem erupts”. He said that the Church’s original Latin text “is a human text, reflecting a certain mindset, theology and worldview” (Mark Pattison, “Bishop criticizes ‘slavishly literal’ English translation of missal”, Catholic News Service, October 23, 2009).

Just days before the meeting Bishop Trautman told an interviewer that he hoped the bishops would reject at least one section of the Missal. He said that he thinks the only procedural way the bishops can halt the process and gain a new review of texts they have already approved (including Vatican reversals of many of their amendments to earlier texts) is to vote down at least one of the final segments up for review and to form a committee to go to Rome and consult with the Vatican on what he considers the questionable texts approved by the Holy See (Jerry Filteau, “Last-ditch effort to dump Mass translations”, National Catholic Reporter, November 6, 2009).

Bishop Trautman’s arguments against the Missal translation and examples (unfamiliar vocabulary, long sentences) are by now familiar. Two years ago, he received strong support for his views from the politically leftist National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN). Their October 21, 2007 letter to all the bishops said, in part:

…The proposed text, “he who was born ineffably of the inviolate Virgin”, is not easily understandable to Christian people, much less to the youth who are leaving the Church because of its irrelevancy. Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, PA, chair of the U.S. Bishops Committee on the Liturgy, has said the proposed changes by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy are “not acceptable”. We agree. We ask you to make the translations appropriate, meaningful, and significant for today’s Catholic.

(Signed) Jeannine Gramick SL,** Donna Quinn OP**, Beth Rindler SFP, for the Board of the National Coalition of American Nuns.

The complete letter is accessible on the NCAN web site, www.ncan.us.

Dominican Sister Donna Quinn, coordinator of NCAN, is an outspoken abortion supporter who was revealed in October 2009 to be volunteering as an escort for an abortion clinic in Illinois. Jeannine Gramick was co-founder of the homosexualist advocacy group New Ways Ministry. In 1999 she was ordered by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to cease public speaking and writing on the subject and was permanently prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons or holding office in her religious community. Formerly a School Sister of Notre Dame, in 2001 Gramick joined the Sisters of Loretto, who reportedly supported her activist “ministry to sexual minorities”. Beth Rindler, a Sister of St. Francis of the Poor, is a longstanding member of Women Church Convergence, and in 1991 organized a “Women’s Eucharist” group that meets monthly to celebrate “mass” in Detroit.

adoremus.org/1209USCCBMeeting.html

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m sorry to burst someone’s bubble here, but Indiana Jones is hardly a reliable source for liturgical or biblical sources.

It amazes me how certain people can become so suddenly ignorant of Sacred Scripture whenever it suits their purposes.

Let’s have a little review of the Last Supper, shall we?

First of all, it was a Passover meal. Whether it was the Passover itself (synoptics) or the meal of preparation (John) it was a ritual meal–the single most important day of the entire year for the Jewish people.

The idea that Christ, at the Last Supper would have used a cheap vessel for the Passover meal is not just naive, it’s downright deceiving. Throughout all of their history, the Jewish people have used nothing but the best available to them when celebrating the Passover. Why would Christ have been any different?

Some say that because he was the “son of a poor carpenter” NONSENSE. Carpenters in 1st century Jerusalem were not poor. They were (what we would call) middle class. There were no poor carpenters. Carpentry is a highly skilled profession, and let’s not forget that the job itself required some very specialized (and very expensive) metal tools. Those tools cost money, and lots of it. They didn’t go down to the local “everything’s a shekel” store and pickup a cheap hammer made in China. Carpentry was an expensive profession. Archeology tells us that carpenters in the ancient near east were not poor–they had better than average homes. The “poor carpenter” myth is just that, a myth.

Well, some will say that Christ Himself was a poor itinerant teacher, so he didn’t have expensive vessels to celebrate the Passover. This might or might not be true, but the fact is that it is irrelevant what Christ did or did not own. That’s right. How much money Christ Himself had has nothing, not a single thing, to do with what He used at the Last Supper.

This gets us back to where I started, in saying that certain people will simply ignore the Scriptures when it suits their purposes.

Let’s look again at the Gospel narratives, shall we?

In whose house was the Last Supper celebrated? In the house of a “poor carpenter”? No. In the house of an itinerant Rabbi? Again, No.

Mark 14
On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb,* his disciples said to him, “Where do you want us to go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
He sent two of his disciples and said to them, “Go into the city and a man will meet you, carrying a jar of water.* Follow him.
Wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’
Then he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready. Make the preparations for us there.”
The disciples then went off, entered the city, and found it just as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover.

or Luke 22

On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb,* his disciples said to him, “Where do you want us to go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
He sent two of his disciples and said to them, “Go into the city and a man will meet you, carrying a jar of water.* Follow him.
Wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’
Then he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready. Make the preparations for us there.”
The disciples then went off, entered the city, and found it just as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover.

It was not the house of Jesus where the Last Supper was held–even though some people would like us to forget that.

The house where it was held, had a large, furnished upper room, designated as a guest room. Would that be the house of someone poor, or someone well-off? It certainly doesn’t sound like a poor house. Whoever the “master of the house” was, we don’t know, but we do know that he didn’t have to fetch his own water. He had someone to do that for him. Does this sound more like a poor man, or more like a rich one?

Where did this rich man who owned the house get this “poor cup” that some people want us to believe Christ used at the Last Supper? Did the Apostles bring their own cups? No, not even that works because we’re told the room was already furnished. The did NOT bring their own cups.

Are we actually to believe that this rich man who hosted the Last Supper told his servants to hide all the good chalices and go down to the market to buy some cheap clay cups and put these in the upper room for Christ and His disciples to use to celebrate the Passover?

Which is more believable? Which is more elaborate and complicated? Which is more likely?
That Christ borrowed a rich man’s furnished house, but that the rich man provided poor cups? or…
That the rich man who let Christ use his home for the Last Supper furnished expensive chalices for their use?

The notion that Christ would have used a poor cup at the Last Supper is pure nonsense.

 

[opus101]

I’m sorry to burst someone’s bubble here, but Indiana Jones is hardly a reliable source for liturgical or biblical sources.

It amazes me how certain people can become so suddenly ignorant of Sacred Scripture whenever it suits their purposes.

Let’s have a little review of the Last Supper, shall we?

First of all, it was a Passover meal. Whether it was the Passover itself (synoptics) or the meal of preparation (John) it was a ritual meal–the single most important day of the entire year for the Jewish people.

The idea that Christ, at the Last Supper would have used a cheap vessel for the Passover meal is not just naive, it’s downright deceiving. Throughout all of their history, the Jewish people have used nothing but the best available to them when celebrating the Passover. Why would Christ have been any different?

Some say that because he was the “son of a poor carpenter” NONSENSE. Carpenters in 1st century Jerusalem were not poor. They were (what we would call) middle class. There were no poor carpenters. Carpentry is a highly skilled profession, and let’s not forget that the job itself required some very specialized (and very expensive) metal tools. Those tools cost money, and lots of it. They didn’t go down to the local “everything’s a shekel” store and pickup a cheap hammer made in China. Carpentry was an expensive profession. Archeology tells us that carpenters in the ancient near east were not poor–they had better than average homes. The “poor carpenter” myth is just that, a myth.

Well, some will say that Christ Himself was a poor itinerant teacher, so he didn’t have expensive vessels to celebrate the Passover. This might or might not be true, but the fact is that it is irrelevant what Christ did or did not own. That’s right. How much money Christ Himself had has nothing, not a single thing, to do with what He used at the Last Supper.

This gets us back to where I started, in saying that certain people will simply ignore the Scriptures when it suits their purposes.

Let’s look again at the Gospel narratives, shall we?

In whose house was the Last Supper celebrated? In the house of a “poor carpenter”? No. In the house of an itinerant Rabbi? Again, No.

Mark 14
On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb,* his disciples said to him, “Where do you want us to go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
He sent two of his disciples and said to them, “Go into the city and a man will meet you, carrying a jar of water.* Follow him.
Wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’
Then he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready. Make the preparations for us there.”
The disciples then went off, entered the city, and found it just as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover.

or Luke 22

On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb,* his disciples said to him, “Where do you want us to go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
He sent two of his disciples and said to them, “Go into the city and a man will meet you, carrying a jar of water.* Follow him.
Wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’
Then he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready. Make the preparations for us there.”
The disciples then went off, entered the city, and found it just as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover.

It was not the house of Jesus where the Last Supper was held–even though some people would like us to forget that.

The house where it was held, had a large, furnished upper room, designated as a guest room. Would that be the house of someone poor, or someone well-off? It certainly doesn’t sound like a poor house. Whoever the “master of the house” was, we don’t know, but we do know that he didn’t have to fetch his own water. He had someone to do that for him. Does this sound more like a poor man, or more like a rich one?

Where did this rich man who owned the house get this “poor cup” that some people want us to believe Christ used at the Last Supper? Did the Apostles bring their own cups? No, not even that works because we’re told the room was already furnished. The did NOT bring their own cups.

Are we actually to believe that this rich man who hosted the Last Supper told his servants to hide all the good chalices and go down to the market to buy some cheap clay cups and put these in the upper room for Christ and His disciples to use to celebrate the Passover?

Which is more believable? Which is more elaborate and complicated? Which is more likely?
That Christ borrowed a rich man’s furnished house, but that the rich man provided poor cups? or…
That the rich man who let Christ use his home for the Last Supper furnished expensive chalices for their use?

The notion that Christ would have used a poor cup at the Last Supper is pure nonsense.

THIS was extremely helpful! Thank you so much!

 

[thistle]

I’m sorry to burst someone’s bubble here, but Indiana Jones is hardly a reliable source for liturgical or biblical sources.

It amazes me how certain people can become so suddenly ignorant of Sacred Scripture whenever it suits their purposes.

Let’s have a little review of the Last Supper, shall we?

First of all, it was a Passover meal. Whether it was the Passover itself (synoptics) or the meal of preparation (John) it was a ritual meal–the single most important day of the entire year for the Jewish people.

The idea that Christ, at the Last Supper would have used a cheap vessel for the Passover meal is not just naive, it’s downright deceiving. Throughout all of their history, the Jewish people have used nothing but the best available to them when celebrating the Passover. Why would Christ have been any different?

Some say that because he was the “son of a poor carpenter” NONSENSE. Carpenters in 1st century Jerusalem were not poor. They were (what we would call) middle class. There were no poor carpenters. Carpentry is a highly skilled profession, and let’s not forget that the job itself required some very specialized (and very expensive) metal tools. Those tools cost money, and lots of it. They didn’t go down to the local “everything’s a shekel” store and pickup a cheap hammer made in China. Carpentry was an expensive profession. Archeology tells us that carpenters in the ancient near east were not poor–they had better than average homes. The “poor carpenter” myth is just that, a myth.

Well, some will say that Christ Himself was a poor itinerant teacher, so he didn’t have expensive vessels to celebrate the Passover. This might or might not be true, but the fact is that it is irrelevant what Christ did or did not own. That’s right. How much money Christ Himself had has nothing, not a single thing, to do with what He used at the Last Supper.

This gets us back to where I started, in saying that certain people will simply ignore the Scriptures when it suits their purposes.

Let’s look again at the Gospel narratives, shall we?

In whose house was the Last Supper celebrated? In the house of a “poor carpenter”? No. In the house of an itinerant Rabbi? Again, No.

Mark 14
On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb,* his disciples said to him, “Where do you want us to go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
He sent two of his disciples and said to them, “Go into the city and a man will meet you, carrying a jar of water.* Follow him.
Wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’
Then he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready. Make the preparations for us there.”
The disciples then went off, entered the city, and found it just as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover.

or Luke 22

On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb,* his disciples said to him, “Where do you want us to go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
He sent two of his disciples and said to them, “Go into the city and a man will meet you, carrying a jar of water.* Follow him.
Wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’
Then he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready. Make the preparations for us there.”
The disciples then went off, entered the city, and found it just as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover.

It was not the house of Jesus where the Last Supper was held–even though some people would like us to forget that.

The house where it was held, had a large, furnished upper room, designated as a guest room. Would that be the house of someone poor, or someone well-off? It certainly doesn’t sound like a poor house. Whoever the “master of the house” was, we don’t know, but we do know that he didn’t have to fetch his own water. He had someone to do that for him. Does this sound more like a poor man, or more like a rich one?

Where did this rich man who owned the house get this “poor cup” that some people want us to believe Christ used at the Last Supper? Did the Apostles bring their own cups? No, not even that works because we’re told the room was already furnished. The did NOT bring their own cups.

Are we actually to believe that this rich man who hosted the Last Supper told his servants to hide all the good chalices and go down to the market to buy some cheap clay cups and put these in the upper room for Christ and His disciples to use to celebrate the Passover?

Which is more believable? Which is more elaborate and complicated? Which is more likely?
That Christ borrowed a rich man’s furnished house, but that the rich man provided poor cups? or…
That the rich man who let Christ use his home for the Last Supper furnished expensive chalices for their use?

The notion that Christ would have used a poor cup at the Last Supper is pure nonsense.

Nothing in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or tradition supports your assertion.
Nobody (not even you) knows what type of vessel was used at The Last Supper.
Therefore telling people their opinion is nonsense is itself nonsense!

 

[opus101]

Whether it be Fr. David’s considerations or the notion that “no one knows”, the comments have been very helpful!
I DO like the more literal translation from the Latin (“chalice”) as it just seems more fitting for a vessel that holds the Blood of Christ.

 

[FrDavid96]

Nothing in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or tradition supports your assertion.
Nobody (not even you) knows what type of vessel was used at The Last Supper.
Therefore telling people their opinion is nonsense is itself nonsense!

Not true. Not even close to true.

For one thing, I’ve just shown how the Gospel accounts completely contradict the idea that the chalice used at the Last Supper was “poor cup.”

If you do support this idea of a poor cup, please explain to me just HOW that cup would have been there in the rich man’s house?

Remember, he furnished the large upper room, not the disciples (again, according to the Gospel).

If we want to believe that a poor cup was used, then we must necessarily believe that the rich man went out of his way to remove the vessels which would have already been there, and replace them with poor vessels. Is this a believable scenario?

Was he afraid that someone would steal the family silver?

 

[thistle]

Not true. Not even close to true.

For one thing, I’ve just shown how the Gospel accounts completely contradict the idea that the chalice used at the Last Supper was “poor cup.”

If you do support this idea of a poor cup, please explain to me just HOW that cup would have been there in the rich man’s house?

Remember, he furnished the large upper room, not the disciples (again, according to the Gospel).

If we want to believe that a poor cup was used, then we must necessarily believe that the rich man went out of his way to remove the vessels which would have already been there, and replace them with poor vessels. Is this a believable scenario?

Was he afraid that someone would steal the family silver?

You haven’t paid attention to what I said. I did not venture an opinion of what type of vessel was used. I was pointing out that nobody knows and therefore everyone may have their own opinion which should not be berated by anyone.

 

[FrDavid96]

You haven’t paid attention to what I said. I did not venture an opinion of what type of vessel was used. I was pointing out that nobody knows and therefore everyone may have their own opinion which should not be berated by anyone.

Still, not true.

While no one knows exactly what chalice/cup was used at the Last Supper, we can certainly know what KIND of chalice was used.

We do know that it is the constant Jewish custom that the best available vessels have been used for the Passover meal. Even 2,000 years ago, they would have the best available. They would not have used cheap cups if something better was available to them.

Just because we do not know exactly what something “was” is not the same thing as saying that it could have been anything. The notion that the vessel used would have been a poor cup simply contradicts the facts of what we do know.

I cannot sit here and say that it was made of gold. I cannot sit here and say that it was made of silver.

On the other hand, I certainly can say that given what we do know about the Last Supper (from the Gospels themselves) and given what we do know about Jewish custom (that the best available has always been used for Passover) and given what we do know about Jewish laws (that Passover vessels must be designated as such, and not be those used everyday), we cannot reconcile this information with the notion that the Passover meal celebrated in a rich home would have used a poor cup; It’s a contradiction of too many known facts.

 

[Matt241]

When I read your question, I reached for the old Douay-Rheims translation (I figured the compilers at Rheims would have had to translate it directly from the Latin Vulgate, which in turn was translated from the original Greek). In three of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), the text is “chalice”. Since the text was sloppily translated by ICEL in the first place, I think that there should be no conflict. The new text is consistent with tradition.

 

[jimrob]

We get the English word from the Latin calix which means a cup. Its particular meaning is the cup that holds an acorn on an oak tree. In modern English a chalice is a cup of a particular shape with a boss on the stem - even if it’s made of pottery or glass. We don’t know what the cup used at the last supper looked like. It was the Pascal meal where the tradition is to use a comparatively expensive ceremonial cup. Jesus had apparently pre-arranged the upper room for the occasion, so he may well have hired a ceremonial cup from the same person.

 

[ProVobis]

Since the text was sloppily translated by ICEL in the first place, I think that there should be no conflict. The new text is consistent with tradition.

Yes, but in these types of translations we’re always trying to find modern verbal equivalents to ancient terms. Even 14th century “traditional” English is still more modern than Classic Latin or Greek. You can’t tell me what we know today as chalices were the same ones used back in the time of Christ any more than the houses they lived in had all our modern conveniences. Yet we try to use the word roof for both periods, for example. So the tendency is to picture what we see as brand-named 2011 equipment being prevalent 2000 years ago.

To further cloud the issue, I did a reverse lookup.

“cup” - poculum, calix

“chalice” - calix

So maybe the argument isn’t so much as translations as it is with English semantics, which really are distracting from the meaning of the consecration. Just stick with the Latin where we can just accept that a consecration takes place without arguing about whether chalice or cup makes things more valid.