Crystal Chalice?

[bmadamsberry]

The wording of RS 117 is a little confusing. It blatantly states what cannot be used, but shortly before that allows for bishops’ conferences (with the approval of the Holy See) to allow for regional and cultural differences. However, there doesn’t seem to be anything that could be allowed for a bishops’ conference to adopt. After all, what’s left when one takes away “glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily. This norm is to be applied even as regards metals and other materials that easily rust or deteriorate?” I just find the two statements confusing and possibly contradictory.

That said, it would be nice if His Holiness would follow the rules himself, which would help avoid conclusion. What’s a priest supposed to think when he sees the Pope using a stone chalice and consecrating glass chalices?

 

[PazzoGrande]

As a sidenote, glass actually can be used but only in extremely limited circumstances. In Mexico back during the revolution, when priests were forced into hiding, they’d celebrate Mass secretly in people’s homes. In those cases, they were allowed to use glasses from the household, provided that the glasses are destroyed afterward so they can’t be used for anything else out of respect for the Sacrament. This is because if they had metal ones that they brought around and were caught, they could be executed for practising their ministry.

That’s pretty much the only times I can think of when crystal vessels can be used. Otherwise, no.

I think there sometimes is the tendency to forget this rule. Where I go to Mass, they used to have them. I saw a Mass with Cardinal Mahoney presiding and it used glass chalices too. Both happened before RS was published but the rule was in place since even before that, yet these priests were ignorant of it. I’m sure a lot of people would accuse the Vatican of publishing useless legalistic documents, but those instances just go to show that RS was a necessity.

 

[Phemie]

As a sidenote, glass actually can be used but only in extremely limited circumstances. In Mexico back during the revolution, when priests were forced into hiding, they’d celebrate Mass secretly in people’s homes. In those cases, they were allowed to use glasses from the household, provided that the glasses are destroyed afterward so they can’t be used for anything else out of respect for the Sacrament. This is because if they had metal ones that they brought around and were caught, they could be executed for practising their ministry.

That’s pretty much the only times I can think of when crystal vessels can be used. Otherwise, no.

I think there sometimes is the tendency to forget this rule. Where I go to Mass, they used to have them. I saw a Mass with Cardinal Mahoney presiding and it used glass chalices too. Both happened before RS was published but the rule was in place since even before that, yet these priests were ignorant of it. I’m sure a lot of people would accuse the Vatican of publishing useless legalistic documents, but those instances just go to show that RS was a necessity.

Redemptionis Sacramentum was essentially Rome’s finger wag at priests and bishops who were blatantly ignoring previous documents. I don’t think I read any rule in RS that I hadn’t already read in the GIRM, the Code of Canon Law and various documents on the Eucharist. Oh, wait, yes, the one about never using non-consecrated hosts to intinct, something I saw one priest do in my parish when we ran out of Hosts one day. I’ve never read that anywhere else.

When I pointed out, during a Liturgee Committee meeting, the fact that on the odd times that we had 3 priests in the sanctuary EMHCs should not be used (for a congregation of ~150), the Pastor told me that “That document (RS) has not been promulgated in our diocese yet,” ignoring the fact that that rule of ‘need’ had been in existence since the day EMHCs were allowed and 3 previous documents stated as much. When I pointed that out, another priest yelled at me “We haven’t paid attention to those documents so far and we’re not about to start now!” Since that yeller had been the Pastor’s seminary professor, is it any wonder that we have the problems we do?

 

[PazzoGrande]

When I pointed out, during a Liturgee Committee meeting, the fact that on the odd times that we had 3 priests in the sanctuary EMHCs should not be used (for a congregation of ~150), the Pastor told me that “That document (RS) has not been promulgated in our diocese yet,” ignoring the fact that that rule of ‘need’ had been in existence since the day EMHCs were allowed and 3 previous documents stated as much.

How odd.

For one thing, I’m not sure that document even needed to be promulgated; I’m under the impression it was supposed to take immediate effect. In fact, the document ends referring to John Paul II signing it and says “he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.” Immediately. So there, it was promulgated right away, universally by the Pope himself.

For another, obviously the rules were already in place anyway with rules that were long ago promulgated.

Unless they are specially trained, lay people shouldn’t be better-versed in this stuff than priests. But alas, we do. Even when they’re wrong, priests will believe in their own opinions over those of us lay people who they presume don’t know what we’re talking about. I noticed that sometimes, they don’t really like (name removed by moderator)ut, they might presume that all lay people are untrained and would bunch us all in the same category. I guess it’s a professional hazard; doctors won’t like suggestions from their patients either. Heck, they don’t even like suggestions from other doctors.

 

[Phemie]

How odd.

For one thing, I’m not sure that document even needed to be promulgated; I’m under the impression it was supposed to take immediate effect. In fact, the document ends referring to John Paul II signing it and says “he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.” Immediately. So there, it was promulgated right away, universally by the Pope himself.

For another, obviously the rules were already in place anyway with rules that were long ago promulgated.

Unless they are specially trained, lay people shouldn’t be better-versed in this stuff than priests. But alas, we do. Even when they’re wrong, priests will believe in their own opinions over those of us lay people who they presume don’t know what we’re talking about. I noticed that sometimes, they don’t really like (name removed by moderator)ut, they might presume that all lay people are untrained and would bunch us all in the same category. I guess it’s a professional hazard; doctors won’t like suggestions from their patients either. Heck, they don’t even like suggestions from other doctors.

In Canada, RS was ignored pretty much until the promulgation of the new Roman Missal last November and there is still no great knowledge of it. The priest who is now our administrator refused to even read it.

Only once did I have a Pastor who was thrilled to have a Liturgy Committee with members well-versed in the documents. He made sure he supported us going for further education. When RS was released I gave him a copy and he immediately stopped consecrating the wine in the flagon, he started purifying the vessels himself and he started rinsing the corporals before they were washed. Subsequent pastors refused to purify the vessels and forget about them touching the corporals after Mass was over.

As far as having laity well-versed in the documents, all that did was displease subsequent Pastors who resented being told that some of what they were doing violated some rule or other. Just try preparing for the Triduum with a Pastor who wants to burn your copy of “Paschale Solemnitatis”, a document that tells you from A-Z what you have to do. “NO, I’m not emptying the Tabernacle for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.” “NO, I will not be limiting Communion on that night and on Good Friday to Hosts that have been consecrated at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.” I saw the sacristan cry because she was so upset with the things he was determined to ignore.

 

[PazzoGrande]

As far as having laity well-versed in the documents, all that did was displease subsequent Pastors who resented being told that some of what they were doing violated some rule or other. Just try preparing for the Triduum with a Pastor who wants to burn your copy of “Paschale Solemnitatis”, a document that tells you from A-Z what you have to do. “NO, I’m not emptying the Tabernacle for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.” “NO, I will not be limiting Communion on that night and on Good Friday to Hosts that have been consecrated at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.” I saw the sacristan cry because she was so upset with the things he was determined to ignore.

I don’t get it; why the attitude? Are your priests a little bit on the stand-offish side?

We have way too many priests like that, don’t we. That’s something I never really understood. Maybe it comes as part of having to live alone.

The rector of where I go to Mass does follow the rules but he is rather disliked especially by the staff, and I get the impression that he’d rather get the job done quickly rather than do it well. I get the vibe that he’s tremendously unhappy in the job, but he’s been stationed there for at least a decade now and even went to do higher studies, so there’s no sign of him contemplating going to another assignment. He is a diocesan priest so he doesn’t live with a community. I think it’s having to live alone that makes some priests turn out that way. They have the same traits as others I know who live alone. Just more proof that priests need our prayers and support, I suppose.

Big shame too because the two most important parts of the priest’s job are to do Mass well and to mix with the people well, because those are the vehicles that keep the Church relevant in people’s lives. If you get one or both wrong, people will drift away. Who’s gonna wanna bother if Mass is lame and if the priest is aloof?

 

[Stylites]

The wording of RS 117 is a little confusing. It blatantly states what cannot be used, but shortly before that allows for bishops’ conferences (with the approval of the Holy See) to allow for regional and cultural differences. However, there doesn’t seem to be anything that could be allowed for a bishops’ conference to adopt. After all, what’s left when one takes away “glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily. This norm is to be applied even as regards metals and other materials that easily rust or deteriorate?” I just find the two statements confusing and possibly contradictory.

That said, it would be nice if His Holiness would follow the rules himself, which would help avoid conclusion. What’s a priest supposed to think when he sees the Pope using a stone chalice and consecrating glass chalices?

 

[Digitonomy]

I think there sometimes is the tendency to forget this rule. Where I go to Mass, they used to have them. I saw a Mass with Cardinal Mahoney presiding and it used glass chalices too. Both happened before RS was published but the rule was in place since even before that, yet these priests were ignorant of it.

I don’t believe the prohibition of glass chalices was clear before RS came out. I recall an episode of EWTN’s Web of Faith where the two hosts agreed that while common glass chalices that are sometimes seen didn’t really meet the Church’s requirements, Waterford crystal or similar might be OK.

 

[Phemie]

I don’t believe the prohibition of glass chalices was clear before RS came out. I recall an episode of EWTN’s Web of Faith where the two hosts agreed that while common glass chalices that are sometimes seen didn’t really meet the Church’s requirements, Waterford crystal or similar might be OK.

The requirement that they not be breakable was in Canon Law 20 years before RS was promulgated.

 

[superamazingman]

I wouldn’t jump straight to that. First speak to the priest. Then speak to the bishop (no need to cc the CDW). Only after one has not gotten an answer from the bishop should one begin ccing the CDW.

With something as serious as this, combined with the fact that it seems those might have been already tried (“I have given up on the war of the glass chalices locally”), this seems like the best situation.

And don’t forget, we always have a right to write Rome directly, particularly in cases of grave abuse.

 

[Digitonomy]

The requirement that they not be breakable was in Canon Law 20 years before RS was promulgated.

I tried to look this up, but unfortunately the Vatican website seems to be down at the moment. I did, however, find this 2003 Zenit column from Fr. McNamara, which is in line with my recollection:

On the basis of these considerations I would say that in most cases glass is unsuitable material for use as a chalice, but the latitude provided in liturgical law does not allow for an outright prohibition. ZE03091624

 

[Brendan]

Fr. McNamara:

A rule of thumb in deciding if a material is suitably strong for use as a chalice could be called the “clumsy server test.” What happens if a server hits the rim of the chalice with a cruet? If the result is splinters, then the material should go to the rejection pile.

I would suggest another test: the “Clumsy EMHC Test” Drop it from mid chest height, if it breaks the material should go into the rejection pile

Part of the concern for a glass chalice would seem to be just that. The shards of glass would hamper the prompt purification of an area in the event of a dropped chalice.

 

[FCEGM]

. . .That said, it would be nice if His Holiness would follow the rules himself, which would help avoid conclusion. What’s a priest supposed to think when he sees the Pope using a stone chalice and consecrating glass chalices?

Since the Holy Father used the stone chalice believed to have been used by Our Lord at the Last Supper (cf. the Chalice of Valencia), I don’t see a problem.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Since the Holy Father used the stone chalice believed to have been used by Our Lord at the Last Supper (cf. the Chalice of Valencia), I don’t see a problem.

Maybe for the stone chalice (although in regards to the authenticity of the Holy Grail… come on. The Shroud of Turin has a lot of evidence, but the evidence of this being the Holy Grail, if the Holy Grail exists at all, is sparse).

But it still doesn’t address the consecration of the glass chalices, or other examples like liturgical dancers.

 

[FCEGM]

Maybe for the stone chalice (although in regards to the authenticity of the Holy Grail… come on. The Shroud of Turin has a lot of evidence, but the evidence of this being the Holy Grail, if the Holy Grail exists at all, is sparse).

St. Laurence and the Holy Grail, by Janice Bennett demonstrates the evidence.

But it still doesn’t address the consecration of the glass chalices, or other examples like liturgical dancers

My response wasn’t meant to address the consecration of glass chalices, etc., but to explain to you why the Holy Father used the stone Chalice of Valencia since it was an issue for you in the discussion as a whole.

 

[Phemie]

I beleive it’s already been explained through the years that what happens at a Papal Mass when the Holy Father is travelling is not entirely under his control. When confronted with crystal vessels at the offertory, it would be unseemly for him to stop and say 'no, fetch me golden vessels. Ditto with ‘liturgical dancers’ and bare breasted women bringing up the gifts at the Offertory.

OTOH, you would think that those preparing a Papal Mass would be given a ‘dos & don’ts’ list – of course perhaps they are and they just ignore it, wouldn’t be the first time a liturgist ‘knows better’ than the official documents.

 

[PazzoGrande]

I beleive it’s already been explained through the years that what happens at a Papal Mass when the Holy Father is travelling is not entirely under his control. When confronted with crystal vessels at the offertory, it would be unseemly for him to stop and say 'no, fetch me golden vessels. Ditto with ‘liturgical dancers’ and bare breasted women bringing up the gifts at the Offertory.

OTOH, you would think that those preparing a Papal Mass would be given a ‘dos & don’ts’ list – of course perhaps they are and they just ignore it, wouldn’t be the first time a liturgist ‘knows better’ than the official documents.

In addition, there is a provision in the GIRM that other materials are allowed if it’s agreed in the area that they are worthy and dignified materials. Surely in their case, the supposed holy grail cup would be an example of that.

 

[Irishgal49]

Ditto with ‘liturgical dancers’ and bare breasted women bringing up the gifts at the Offertory.

Could someone tell me where this church that has topless dancing women bringing up the gifts is located? Thank you.

 

[Phemie]

Could someone tell me where this church that has topless dancing women bringing up the gifts is located? Thank you.

It was at a Papal Mass in Papua, New Guinea, in 1984. Not only the native women were bare breasted but the American student who read was bare breasted. I doubt very much that the Pope had been told in advance that that was going to happen.

 

[PazzoGrande]

It was at a Papal Mass in Papua, New Guinea, in 1984. Not only the native women were bare breasted but the American student who read was bare breasted. I doubt very much that the Pope had been told in advance that that was going to happen.

Didn’t Archbishop Marini (who I’m guessing was the Master of Ceremonies back then) plan out the Papal Liturgies overseas?