"CHALICE" in the new translation.

[markomalley]

Matt 20.22: respondens autem Iesus dixit nescitis quid petatis potestis bibere **calicem **quem ego bibiturus sum dicunt ei possumus

Luke 22:20: similiter et calicem postquam cenavit dicens hic est calix novum testamentum in sanguine meo quod pro vobis funditur

It sure is funny that out of ALL the bishops in the US, NPR picks Bishop Trautman.

 

[opus101]

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.

Hey, thanks Matt! This is one of things I was wondering about.

 

[HelenRose]

Matt 20.22: respondens autem Iesus dixit nescitis quid petatis potestis bibere **calicem **quem ego bibiturus sum dicunt ei possumus

Luke 22:20: similiter et calicem postquam cenavit dicens hic est calix novum testamentum in sanguine meo quod pro vobis funditur

It sure is funny that out of ALL the bishops in the US, NPR picks Bishop Trautman.

It makes sense that NPR would pick Bishop Trautman.

Our little mission Church can’t afford an expensive chalice but we do have one appropriate for what we can afford. I for one like the word “chalice” whatever its meaning was or is, one has to agree that it has much lovelier sound to the ears than the word “cup”.

I really can’t see where the argument is. The words mean essentially the same thing. The new translation is using the the more excellent term.

 

[ProVobis]

Our little mission Church can’t afford an expensive chalice but we do have one appropriate for what we can afford. I for one like the word “chalice” whatever its meaning was or is, one has to agree that it has much lovelier sound to the ears than the word “cup”.

And I think calicem (KA-LI-CHEM) has still a lovelier sound to the ear.

 

[Orogeny]

They didn’t go down to the local “everything’s a shekel” store and pickup a cheap hammer made in China.

Priceless!!!

Peace

Tim

 

[markomalley]

It makes sense that NPR would pick Bishop Trautman.

Our little mission Church can’t afford an expensive chalice but we do have one appropriate for what we can afford. I for one like the word “chalice” whatever its meaning was or is, one has to agree that it has much lovelier sound to the ears than the word “cup”.

I really can’t see where the argument is. The words mean essentially the same thing. The new translation is using the the more excellent term.

In essence, you’re going to use a goblet vice a coffee cup.Regardless of the material used to construct the goblet.

 

[HelenRose]

And I think calicem (KA-LI-CHEM) has still a lovelier sound to the ear.

I have to agree it has a beautiful sound.

Earlier in this conversation Lancer posted this about Bishop Trautman:

"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”.

I find Bishop Trauman’s concept insulting and “elitist”
To my mind he is saying that “the ignorant masses are not capable of understanding difficult words and concepts.”

I am a part of “the masses” I am a grandma who was born and lives in a small farming community. I have a high school education and enough college education to be a reasonable good bookkeeper. My neighbors and friends are farmers, ranchers, miners, school teachers, waitresses, retirees and construction workers. Our mission church reflects this population.

Elite we are not! We are, however, capable of comprehending difficult words and concepts. Are the words of the new transalation remote from everyday speech? Yes, Yes, Thank God - Yes.

Everyday speech is fine for everyday but the soul longs for poetry and beauty when lifting up our hearts to God.

 

[HelenRose]

In essence, you’re going to use a goblet vice a coffee cup.Regardless of the material used to construct the goblet.

The chalice we use is quite beautiful. We are using what is appropriate for what we can afford. You can call it a goblet if you wish. We are not using a coffee cup.

 

[johnnykins]

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?

1. Bishop Trautman has an axe to grind. He, and his position, was slapped down by the USCCB, ICEL and the Vatican. He apparently still doesn’t like that. Well, he obviously fails to see the arrogant beam in his eye as he criticizes the motes in others. For some reason the word, “jerk” comes to mind. But, we are all sinners; all fall short and all have our egos. Human beings are by nature jerks or act like jerks from time to time, I guess.
2. Jesus was certainly no “carpenter” as understood today. He was a builder and worked with wood, but in terms of being a skilled craftsman that the word carpenter implies - not so likely - indeed no such information is available anywhere. He was more like today’s “handyman,” if anything. That very comment indicates His excellency will take a non-historic position from time to time.
3. Who ever said today’s Mass must replicate exactly the physical staging of the Last Supper? If that is needed, must we all not wear sandals, recline at meal, exclude women, wear tunics, etc., etc.? His Excellency doth protest too much. While Mass is a re-presentation of the Paschal Mystery, it is one that is done as a ritual - not an exact replication. The re-presentation is such in a mystical/eternal/omnipresent intersection with the Divine - not a play-acting tableau. If HMC determines that in this time and place the best way to physically enact that ritual is with large buildings, gold, fine fabrics, incense, bells, linens - and chalices - in order to try to best convey that sense of the sacred ineffable mystery of the Eucharist - who is His Excellency to publicly denigrate that? He had his say - and was told, in effect, “No!”

 

[ProVobis]

I find Bishop Trauman’s concept insulting and “elitist”

1. Bishop Trautman has an axe to grind. He, and his position, was slapped down by the USCCB, ICEL and the Vatican. He apparently still doesn’t like that.

I’m not defending Bishop Trautman but does he have any more, perhaps excessive, pride in his national tongue than many of us do who think this or that is a better translation so long as it’s in our vernacular? Where is the acceptance of the Church’s own language in all this debate? Or do we have to swallow our cultural pride to accept any Latin, not morphisms or cognates, in the liturgy?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I’m not defending Bishop Trautman but does he have any more, perhaps excessive, pride in his national tongue than many of us do who think this or that is a better translation so long as it’s in our vernacular? Where is the acceptance of the Church’s own language in all this debate? Or do we have to swallow our cultural pride to accept any Latin, not morphisms or cognates, in the liturgy?

Not sure what you are saying, but the liturgy is not the place to be expressing national identity or pride. Indeed, from my reading it’s my impression that the link between desiring the liturgy in the vernacular and nationalism was one of the reasons the Church kept the liturgy in Latin for so long, until the post-war era when that nationalism had been shamed and was no longer a predominant reason for the desire for translation.

That said, I don’t know that the old translation is any more “American” than the new one, unless you adhere to stereotypes of “dumb Americans”.

 

[HelenRose]

I’m not defending Bishop Trautman but does he have any more, perhaps excessive, pride in his national tongue than many of us do who think this or that is a better translation so long as it’s in our vernacular? Where is the acceptance of the Church’s own language in all this debate? Or do we have to swallow our cultural pride to accept any Latin, not morphisms or cognates, in the liturgy?

I am grateful that we have both Latin and English to learn from. I also find much to appreciated when we find ourselves at the the Spanish Mass. I struggle to understand what is going on there as well.

 

[ProVobis]

I am grateful that we have both Latin and English to learn from. I also find much to appreciated when we find ourselves at the the Spanish Mass. I struggle to understand what is going on there as well.

I guess I’m not so much opposed to translations as to the translation process. Having done many translations myself, I would always give multiple meanings to certain words for clarity.

I would have no reservations about having the entire liturgy recited in Latin and then on the right side of the handmissal page list calicem as {“cup,” “chalice,” “drinking vessel,” “kielich”} and then have the bishop’s conferences adding to the set of meanings as they see fit. But to say the word has one and only one possible meaning, which is implied in using only the vernacular, literal or otherwise, is/was very dangerous, IMO.

 

[ProVobis]

That said, I don’t know that the old translation is any more “American” than the new one, unless you adhere to stereotypes of “dumb Americans”.

The pride I was referring to is not limited to Americans or Anglophones, for that matter. My godfather would not let me say anything unless it was in Polish, even though he understood English. That’s being a little over-excessive, don’t you think? Perhaps even pompous?

 

[johnnykins]

I’m not defending Bishop Trautman but does he have any more, perhaps excessive, pride in his national tongue than many of us do who think this or that is a better translation so long as it’s in our vernacular? Where is the acceptance of the Church’s own language in all this debate? Or do we have to swallow our cultural pride to accept any Latin, not morphisms or cognates, in the liturgy?

Yeah he does, because he is a Bishop; he made his case,; his case was rejected and he now denigrates the decision. Hubris like His Excellency’s is part and parcel of the clericalism that is at the root of many problems with HMC.

 

[johnnykins]

I guess I’m not so much opposed to translations as to the translation process. Having done many translations myself, I would always give multiple meanings to certain words for clarity.

I would have no reservations about having the entire liturgy recited in Latin and then on the right side of the handmissal page list calicem as {“cup,” “chalice,” “drinking vessel,” “kielich”} and then have the bishop’s conferences adding to the set of meanings as they see fit. But to say the word has one and only one possible meaning, which is implied in using only the vernacular, literal or otherwise, is/was very dangerous, IMO.

Unfortunately for your position is that Mass is not an academic exercise. What you describe can, and IMHO should, be part of adult (and maybe HS) catechesis, i.e, it is appropriate for teaching, etc.

 

[Transformer]

I had no problem with cup because that’s what the Greek New Testament says. ποτήριον. It’s just the Greek word for cup.

That said, I also have no problem with chalice because chalice is a cognate and a more direct translation of the Latin word that’s been prayed in the liturgy for centuries, because any cup that holds the blood of Christ is a chalice, and because there’s no reason why the cup Jesus actually used had to be a poor cup, and as FrDavid pointed out, there’s perhaps good reason to conclude the opposite.

 

[opus101]

I had no problem with cup because that’s what the Greek New Testament says. ποτήριον. It’s just the Greek word for cup.

That said, I also have no problem with chalice because chalice is a cognate and a more direct translation of the Latin word that’s been prayed in the liturgy for centuries, because any cup that holds the blood of Christ is a chalice, and because there’s no reason why the cup Jesus actually used had to be a poor cup, and as FrDavid pointed out, there’s perhaps good reason to conclude the opposite.

Could you transliterate the Greek spelling for those of us who have not studied Greek? I’m interested in pursuing this a bit more.

 

[Evan]

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.

Chad. A chalice need not be jewel encrusted or even metalic. I could go make one this evening on my lathe out of oak or maple. A chalice is a form of ‘cup’.

The top part is a bowl
The bottom part is a stand
and between is a section with a knob.

These can be made with anything (even wood) if it meets requirements of the GIRM. Of course, if it is to hold the precious blood, it must be lined with some material (like silver or gold) that is non-absorbent.

 

[SenorPaulito]

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

That’s not true.

We do not know with absolute, 100% for certainty what the Holy Grail was/is. We do however know with something like 90% certainly that it is the Holy Chalice of Valencia. Given the huge amount of hyperbole about the Holy Grail over the ages I think most people are very reticent to accept the fact that the Catholic Church is in possession of the vessel used at the Last Supper. I know that I certainly am cautious but facts are facts.

Read Janice Bennett’s “St. Laurence & The Holy Grail” from Ignatius. It’s compelling and it makes a great starting point for a study of the Holy Grail.