"CHALICE" in the new translation.

[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.

I kind of tried to transliterate it myself, and came up with “potiriov”. I googled “Greek potiriov” and ended up w/ the definition “chalice, grail, holy grail”. Not “cup”.

 

[opus101]

I kind of tried to transliterate it myself, and came up with “potiriov”. I googled “Greek potiriov” and ended up w/ the definition “chalice, grail, holy grail”. Not “cup”.

Also, there are three other Greek words listed , all of which have “chalice” as one of the meanings…but, interestingly, the “potiriov” one is the only one that also lists “Holy Grail” among it’s meanings. Wow. Very, very interesting!

 

[SenorPaulito]

img523.imageshack.us/img523/2169/pdvd049up1.jpg

The Holy Grail (Holy Chalice of Valencia, just the cup) being used by Pope Benedict XVI during the celebration of the Mass.

 

[opus101]

Also, there are three other Greek words listed , all of which have “chalice” as one of the meanings…but, interestingly, the “potiriov” one is the only one that also lists “Holy Grail” among it’s meanings. Wow. Very, very interesting!

The “potiriov” word is preceded by something that looks like “ayio”. Does that mean “holy”? I couldn’t find the word potiriov alone.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

I wouldn’t say anything against the bishop because, for all I know, he knows English better than you or me. And he’s probably well versed in all the English translations made since the Church of England started them in the 16th century and what effect they had on churchgoers since then. He may very well be in the right as far as being the pastor of his flock. It is not for either of us to judge him. And what evidence do you have other than what you read about him?

That said, Vatican II voted to retain Latin in the Latin Rite. PERIOD. It also allowed haud raro bishops the use of vernacular where it would be of valde utilis. I fail to see where there is an advantage when people already know and understand a few Latin phrases; furthermore an all-vernacular seems to lead only to translation controversies, divisiveness between cultures, bitterness against their bishops, and people leaving in droves which can’t be good.

And as far as the “dumb American” comment made by another poster, I find it also problematic that reading, math, and science scores in America are declining. However, I can’t see all cultures not being able to recognize at least some of the vocabulary of the Latin Mass, which consists of only 240 nouns, 34 proper names, 99 adjectives, 177 verbs, 23 prepositions, and 33 adverbs.

gmr.sourceforge.net/html/word_list.html

And that’s all I’m going to say on this thread.

 

[Transformer]

Potārion or potērion, I think. Here it is in a standard classical Greek lexicon:

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpoth%2Frion

And here it is in some kind of New Testament Greek lexicon, though not a really authoritative one I think:

biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/poterion.html

 

[thistle]

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.

That is totally untrue. That the chalice there is the one used by Christ is complete speculation.

 

[SenorPaulito]

That is totally untrue. That the chalice there is the one used by Christ is complete speculation.

What are your references?

Janice Bennett’s research in “St. Laurence & The Holy Grail” is not only compelling it’s also footnoted with an extensive bibliography. I did not detect any issues with her critical thinking. I have never heard of Ignatius Press printing questionable works. I also don’t think that Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI would have used this very chalice while celebrating the Mass if as you say “the chalice there is the one used by Christ is complete speculation” given the well-known belief that it was the vessel used at the Last Supper.

Many people cannot bring themselves to accept the fact that the Holy Grail does indeed exist probably because of all the claptrap surrounding its history over the ages. As I noted in my original posting Bennett’s book is a good place to begin a historical study of the history of the Holy Grail.

What do you have to offer to support your belief? Thanks.

 

[Digitonomy]

What do you have to offer to support your belief? Thanks.

One source which I find believable on this topic is the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:

No reliable tradition has been preserved to us regarding the vessel used by Christ at the Last Supper. In the sixth and seventh centuries pilgrims to Jerusalem were led to believe that the actual chalice was still venerated in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, having within it the sponge which was presented to Our Savior on Calvary. Curiously enough, while Antoninus of Piacenza refers to it as made of onyx, Adamnan, less than a century later, describes it as a “silver cup holding the measure of a Gallic sextarius and with two opposite handles” …At a much later period two other vessels have been venerated as the chalice of the Last Supper.

…The other, at Valencia in Spain, is a cup of agate. The fact is that the whole tradition is untrustworthy and of late date.

 

[ChadS]

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.

I suppose in a strict academic sense you could make a “chalice” on your lathe, but I’m not sure oak and maple are rare or precious enough, even if they are substantially indestructible enough to meet the requirements of the GIRM. In comparison to precious metals like gold and silver oak and maple are pretty porous and most likely not suitable to hold the Precious Blood.

However my main point in the original post of mine had more to do with that fact that Holy Mother Church in her wisdom has chosen to use the word “chalice” in its Eucharistic celebrations. While the Mass owes much to the Bible it isn’t always required to adhere to a particular word. So even if the Greek word used by Jesus can mean cup or chalice the Church has found the word “chalice” to be more suitable and a better expression of our theology.

ChadS

 

[thistle]

What are your references?

Janice Bennett’s research in “St. Laurence & The Holy Grail” is not only compelling it’s also footnoted with an extensive bibliography. I did not detect any issues with her critical thinking. I have never heard of Ignatius Press printing questionable works. I also don’t think that Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI would have used this very chalice while celebrating the Mass if as you say “the chalice there is the one used by Christ is complete speculation” given the well-known belief that it was the vessel used at the Last Supper.

Many people cannot bring themselves to accept the fact that the Holy Grail does indeed exist probably because of all the claptrap surrounding its history over the ages. As I noted in my original posting Bennett’s book is a good place to begin a historical study of the history of the Holy Grail.

What do you have to offer to support your belief? Thanks.

I don’t have to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those who claim it is the chalice used by Jesus. Nothing I have read and nothing in documentaries I have watched on this subject convinces me it anything other than speculation.

Show me a official Church document declaring this chalice to be the true one.

 

[opus101]

I don’t have to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those who claim it is the chalice used by Jesus. Nothing I have read and nothing in documentaries I have watched on this subject convinces me it anything other than speculation.

Show me a official Church document declaring this chalice to be the true one.

I think this would constitute another thread. My OP is about the use of the word “chalice” as opposed to “cup”.

 

[SenorPaulito]

One source which I find believable on this topic is the Old Catholic Encyclopedia:

No reliable tradition has been preserved to us regarding the vessel used by Christ at the Last Supper. In the sixth and seventh centuries pilgrims to Jerusalem were led to believe that the actual chalice was still venerated in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, having within it the sponge which was presented to Our Savior on Calvary. Curiously enough, while Antoninus of Piacenza refers to it as made of onyx, Adamnan, less than a century later, describes it as a “silver cup holding the measure of a Gallic sextarius and with two opposite handles” …At a much later period two other vessels have been venerated as the chalice of the Last Supper.

…The other, at Valencia in Spain, is a cup of agate. The fact is that the whole tradition is untrustworthy and of late date.

One sentence from a dated encyclopedia blurb? In all sincerity are you being serious? I would never reach a conclusion without digging deeper. A great deal deeper.

 

[SenorPaulito]

I don’t have to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those who claim it is the chalice used by Jesus. Nothing I have read and nothing in documentaries I have watched on this subject convinces me it anything other than speculation.

Show me a official Church document declaring this chalice to be the true one.

“Prove a negative?” What are you talking about? The proof is documented in the author’s book that I noted. The onus is now on you to disprove the evidence and conclusions she and her references have provided because she has met the burden of proof. This has nothing to do with “proving a negative.” The evidence and conclusions presented in the book is compelling and I’m not going to let you tarnish it with nothing more than your personal opinion. My apologies but your personal belief of “That is totally untrue. That the chalice there is the one used by Christ is complete speculation” or a one sentence blurb from a dated Catholic Encyclopedia simply don’t cut the academic rigor mustard.

As far as your comment about “a official Church document”, I’ll treat that as I do the question “where is that in the Bible?” frustrated non-Catholics ask when they are unable to adequately attack a Catholic position with the facts.

 

[SenorPaulito]

I think this would constitute another thread. My OP is about the use of the word “chalice” as opposed to “cup”.

Indeed. My apologies.

 

[thistle]

“Prove a negative?” What are you talking about? The proof is documented in the author’s book that I noted. The onus is now on you to disprove the evidence and conclusions she and her references have provided because she has met the burden of proof. This has nothing to do with “proving a negative.” The evidence and conclusions presented in the book is compelling and I’m not going to let you tarnish it with nothing more than your personal opinion. My apologies but your personal belief of “That is totally untrue. That the chalice there is the one used by Christ is complete speculation” or a one sentence blurb from a dated Catholic Encyclopedia simply don’t cut the academic rigor mustard.

As far as your comment about “a official Church document”, I’ll treat that as I do the question “where is that in the Bible?” frustrated non-Catholics ask when they are unable to adequately attack a Catholic position with the facts.

You are wrong. The evidence is not compelling at all. Its wishful thinking on the part of those who want to believe its the real chalice and come up with anything to make it seem that way.
This has nothing to do with “is it in the Bible”. If something is clearly genuine the Church would declare it so. That Church has not declared this to be the true chalice and so I have to accept the Church’s position.

 

[SenorPaulito]

You are wrong. The evidence is not compelling at all. Its wishful thinking on the part of those who want to believe its the real chalice and come up with anything to make it seem that way.

Yeah? What points in her book are in error? Please list them for us. Are they errors in her reporting of historical facts or did you find a problem with the conclusions she formed based on the information she provided? Please reference specific page and paragraph numbers.

This has nothing to do with “is it in the Bible”. If something is clearly genuine the Church would declare it so. That Church has not declared this to be the true chalice and so I have to accept the Church’s position.

You came up with “Show me a official Church document declaring this chalice to be the true one” when I backed your comments into a corner.

Consider this. The claim of the Sacred Chalice of Valencia being the Holy Grail is known internationally. It’s famous. There is no way that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI would both have celebrated the Mass using this specific chalice if there was a serious question about its authenticity. That much is very clear.

The fact is the Church does not always “declare it so” when something is authentic, nor obviously is such a declaration required for something to be authentic. You’re simply wrong about that. You popped-off on this historical matter with nothing more than a personal opinion. The best anyone did to counter Janice Bennett’s work printed by Ignatius Press is a single sentence from a dated encyclopedia. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[thistle]

Yeah? What points in her book are in error? Please list them for us. Are they errors in her reporting of historical facts or did you find a problem with the conclusions she formed based on the information she provided? Please reference specific page and paragraph numbers.

You came up with “Show me a official Church document declaring this chalice to be the true one” when I backed your comments into a corner.

Consider this. The claim of the Sacred Chalice of Valencia being the Holy Grail is known internationally. It’s famous. There is no way that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI would both have celebrated the Mass using this specific chalice if there was a serious question about its authenticity. That much is very clear.

The fact is the Church does not always “declare it so” when something is authentic, nor obviously is such a declaration required for something to be authentic. You’re simply wrong about that. You popped-off on this historical matter with nothing more than a personal opinion. The best anyone did to counter Janice Bennett’s work printed by Ignatius Press is a single sentence from a dated encyclopedia. ** You should be ashamed of yourself**.

Oh right. I just happen to have the book at my hand! That was some time ago I read that. Give me a break.
Either the chalice is authentic or it it not. The test is whether the Church has declared it to be genuine or not. The Church has not. Why? Because it cannot be proven!! I believe it to be a fake, just like the Shroud of Turin, and the pieces of the True Cross. All of these are fake.

Your comment which I highlighted is a personal attack and is forbidden by forum rules. Please apologise or I will report you to the moderators. You can challenge any opinions I have but you are not allowed personal attacks.

 

[opus101]

I’d appreciate it if you two would take your argument somewhere else.

 

[SenorPaulito]

Oh right. I just happen to have the book at my hand! That was some time ago I read that. Give me a break.
Either the chalice is authentic or it it not. The test is whether the Church has declared it to be genuine or not. The Church has not. Why? Because it cannot be proven!! I believe it to be a fake, just like the Shroud of Turin, and the pieces of the True Cross. All of these are fake.

Your comment which I highlighted is a personal attack and is forbidden by forum rules. Please apologise or I will report you to the moderators. You can challenge any opinions I have but you are not allowed personal attacks.

I did not personally attack you. After reviewing our discourse it is crystal clear you owe me (and author Janice Bennett) an apology and not the reverse as you suggest.

My apologies to opus101 for straying away from the original topic.