Chalice Material

[CatholicCid]

patg:

I think you have it backwards. At least the things I mentioned made sense in the mind of a first century Jew.

We are talking about the person who preached the total rejection of all earthly riches, power, and the related symbols! And we think its not only right, but somehow required to consecrate his body and blood in something which is an exact symbol of everything he rejected??? That is an insult.

I’m sure that in many cases it makes us feel good - that we are doing something for Jesus - but I have my doubts.

Isn’t there passage of something along the lines of a woman using her money to buy precious and scented oils, then going and washing Jesus’ feet with the said oils? Then Jesus says something along the lines of ‘Do so while I am here’ when someone rebuked her?
I can’t remember exactly where it is in the Gospels, but I am pretty sure it is there…
Wait… found it… thanks Google©

John 12:1-7

1Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3Then Mary took about a pint[a] of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
4But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5"Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.**" 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

7"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." **

We use such items when Jesus is with us in the Form of Holy Communion. It;s our form of perfume say.

 

[Catholic_Heart]

In our parish the priest uses a gold chalice…the other cups are crystal, as is a large bowl that holds the consecrated hosts…Other ciboria are made of what looks like gold, but probably isn’t.

Our congregation is quite large…nearly 3,000 families, and our church seats fifteen-hundred people…I counted 22 EM’s Sunday…That didn’t count the priest. Add one more when a deacon is present…It was CROWDED up there!

 

[CatholicCid]

Catholic Heart:

In our parish the priest uses a gold chalice…the other cups are crystal, as is a large bowl that holds the consecrated hosts…Other ciboria are made of what looks like gold, but probably isn’t.

Our congregation is quite large…nearly 3,000 families, and our church seats fifteen-hundred people…I counted 22 EM’s Sunday…That didn’t count the priest. Add one more when a deacon is present…It was CROWDED up there!

Would the word Pius right a bell? Because you sound just like my Parish

 

[NKY_Catholic]

CatholicCid:

Why would you not want to use the most precious thing you can find?

Because we have largely forgotten what the Eucharist really is, unfortunately.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

The only requirements are that 1) the chalice be made of “noble material” and, 2) it not be easily broken. Thus, although Waterford crystal is, indeed, “noble material” it should not be used for a chalice as it is easily broken. The same would apply to ceramic. A more modern tradition holds that the inner portion of the cup be made of a “precious metal” such as gold or silver, but this is not a requirement that the Church puts forth.

Deacon Ed

 

[Catholic_Heart]

CatholicCid:

Would the word Pius right a bell? Because you sound just like my Parish

It’s St. Susanna, in Mason!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Kristopher:

I voted “no”, because it is a liturgical abuse to use anything else other than noble metals, and the reason for this is because throughout the 2 yrs. that the Church has existed: People found glass chalices breaking.

Incorrect. Fine crystal (Waterford, etc.) is permitted (I don’t like it, but it’s permitted). Glass is not.

 

[buffalo]

patg:

I wonder what Jesus used?

Its interesting that we can only have male priests because Jesus only chose men and we can only use wheat for hosts because thats what Jesus used and we can only use male terms for God because that’s what Jesus used…
So, did he use a precious metal vessel studded with gems? Or is his example to be selectively ignored?

Now let’s see. Jesus dropping his own body or spilling his own blood? Now since we are handling it we need to protect it and reverence it. Jesus did teach we are to pay homage to God.

 

[Ignatius]

CatholicCid:

patg:

Its interesting that we can only have male priests . . . .

In case any of you haven’t noticed, patg will hijack any thread to promote the liberal agenda. I would suggest not responding to those posts.

Yours in christ.

 

[patg]

Ignatius:

In case any of you haven’t noticed, patg will hijack any thread to promote the liberal agenda. I would suggest not responding to those posts.

Yours in christ.

Yes - I agree. Especially since you don’t have a logical answer to simple observations.

Patg

 

[OhioBob]

patg:

Its interesting that we can only have male priests because Jesus only chose men…

Yes, the “matter” of the sacrament of ordination is a male, the form is the words of ordination and laying on of hands by the Bishop. No problem there…

patg:

…and we can only use wheat for hosts because thats what Jesus used…

Yes, the matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist is bread from wheat and water and the form is the words of consecration by the priest. No problem there…

patg:

…and we can only use male terms for God because that’s what Jesus used…

Actually I believe that those are the terms that God used if you believe in the Divine inspiration of scripture. Your beef should be with God, not with the Church.

patg:

So, did he use a precious metal vessel studded with gems? Or is his example to be selectively ignored?

The vessel isn’t relavent to the efficacy of the sacrament, it is only relavent to us in the liturgy due to the reverence which WE accord the sacrament. That is why precious material and unbreakability are proscribed.

The “gem-studded” part is just your cynicism showing.

 

[Ignatius]

patg:

Yes - I agree. Especially since you don’t have a logical answer to simple observations.

Patg

You are of course absolutely right, the Church must change to “keep up with the times”. They must ordain women, use rice for the Eucharist and permit same sex and other species marriages otherwise the Church will be out of step with the people. After all it’s their church, right?

 

[patg]

Ignatius:

You are of course absolutely right, the Church must change to “keep up with the times”. They must ordain women, use rice for the Eucharist and permit same sex and other species marriages otherwise the Church will be out of step with the people. After all it’s their church, right?

What the H are you talking about? I merely mentioned the church practices “you all” defend so vehemently - I didn’t say a word either for or against them and I made no judgement of them.

Then I mentioned (mostly just as a silly comment) that we don’t follow Jesus’ lead in this area and that we somewhat ignore his teachings and preaching against worldly power and wealth by putting his body and blood in a golden vessel…

Is there a problem here??

 

[msproule]

patg:

What the H are you talking about?

I think most of us know what Ignatius is talking about.

I merely mentioned the church practices “you all” defend so vehemently - I didn’t say a word either for or against them and I made no judgement of them.

Really? This sure seems to be pretty all-assuming and judgmental to me:

…And we think its not only right, but somehow required to consecrate his body and blood in something which is an exact symbol of everything he rejected??? That is an insult.

I’m sure that in many cases it makes us feel good - that we are doing something for Jesus - but I have my doubts.

Is there a problem here??

Hmmmm.

Here, try reading this. It contradicts what patg “knows” about first century Judaism, but it might still be worth a few minutes of everybody’s time.

 

[ncjohn]

It is clear that the rules exist in the GIRM, and as such they should be obeyed.

That being said, it makes me wonder why the Church gets SO caught up in such relatively unimportant issues. There are many places in the world where gold or gold-plated chalices are just plain out of the question. In fact, even a priest to carry one more than occasionally is a true luxury. Does that somehow make the Eucharist invalid or less reverent?

The whole issue to me skirts very close to the “Woe to you Pharisees” passages. While our reverence is absolutely essential, that reverence is for what is IN the container, not the container itself–for the state of our hearts, not he state of the bowl. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t use containers of value, only that when it’s all said and done, the container is just a “finger pointing at the moon”–it’s not the moon itself.

As has been stated previously in the thread, it is highly doubtful that Jesus used anything beyond whatever the common container would have been at the time, which I would tend to believe would have been some sort of earthenware. I further doubt that the early home churches would have done any differently, since “masses” were often held in pretty dirty places like catacombs and graveyards, mostly in small groups that would not have had access to expensive dishes.

The breakability issue also seems somewhat irrelevant to me. The true issue is the spilling of the Blood. Crystal, or even ceramic, does not spontaneously shatter. It has to be dropped or have some other significant jarring to make it break. In the presence of that jarrring, any container is likely to cause spillage.

While we all want to be offering “our utmost for His highest” I think we would be much better invested in promoting the reverence due to our Awesome God and worry less about the “straining of gnats”. As is obvious in the disparate opinions, and the vehemence that comes with some of them, each of these issues creates another potential point of division. We see whole Protestant denominations which have sprung up over smaller issues than this–for instance splitting over “debts” vs “trespasses” in the Lord’s Prayer. Imputing a lack of reverence or devotion to someone who is focused on the contents rather than the container is extremely judgmental and unfair. Imputing “holier than thou” motives to someone who believes that the most precious container available is what should be used is similarly unfair. People are able to view the same question differently without being “wrong” or evil. Arguing whether gold-plated or crystal is more valuable is just plain silly–either of them can be far cheaper or far more expensive than its counterpart.

Quite frankly, we need to spend a lot more time focusing on finding Jesus, both on our altars and in each other.

Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me!
John

 

[msproule]

ncjohn:

It is clear that the rules exist in the GIRM, and as such they should be obeyed.

That being said, it makes me wonder why the Church gets SO caught up in such relatively unimportant issues. There are many places in the world where gold or gold-plated chalices are just plain out of the question. In fact, even a priest to carry one more than occasionally is a true luxury. Does that somehow make the Eucharist invalid or less reverent?

It certainly should not affect the validity of the Sacrament. Furthermore, I doubt a parish in a poor (financially, not spiritually ) area that truly cannot afford gold or other precious materials is acting less reverently. But in light of the instructions provided in the GIRM, it seems scandalous to me for a parish with adequate financial means to employ anything less than what is prescribed.

As to the point of why such a “small” detail is of such great importance to the Church, I will offer this analogous question: What is the relevance of Mary’s Immaculate Conception?

Abbreviated answer (my words, not those of the Church): God provided a perfect vessel through which His Son would be brought into the world. Why should we not do our best to provide the most fitting vessel for Our Lord in the Eucharist? While nothing is truly worthy of Him, the Church directs us toward the materials which get us the closest.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I don’t want my Savior and Lord shattering on the floor because of glass implements, no matter how lovely. Even if crystal is handled appropriately (and I’ve seen it handled poorly), a bump, a small child in line with a parent, a jostle…BAM!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

OutinChgoburbs:

I don’t want my Savior and Lord shattering on the floor because of glass implements, no matter how lovely. Even if crystal is handled appropriately (and I’ve seen it handled poorly), a bump, a small child in line with a parent, a jostle…BAM!

The Most Precious Blood can be spilled from a metal chalice as easily as from a crystal. The issue is one of obedience to the Holy See.

 

[vegpotter]

This thread caught my attention b/c I have made several chalices and patens for Catholic churches. I’m a potter and one of the most terrifying/awe inspiring things I’ve ever done is make a full set of Communion ware for a large church. While I was making them I just kept thinking about how this is going to hold the actual body and blood of Christ; very intimidating. I made sure to pray a lot through the process and kept in mind who I’m really making this for, the One who gave me this amazing gift.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

JKirkLVNV:

The Most Precious Blood can be spilled from a metal chalice as easily as from a crystal. The issue is one of obedience to the Holy See.

I am sorry if I was not sufficiently clear. I was talking about crystal breaking, as in shattering, etc. I am quite aware anything liquid can spill. It is NOT an issue of obedience to the Holy See, in the sense of His Holiness, but adherence to the Magisterium, which is NOT a group of people istting around making up rules.

It doesn’t help to pick on those who agree on point for a different reason, or who bring up a lesser reason. Dialogue and statement of opinion does not include curt dismissal.