"Cup" vs "Chalice" in the New Translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter EasterJoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EasterJoy

Guest
I was told that the Latin “calix” was being translated everywhere as “chalice” instead of “cup”, which is evidence that the only acceptable term for a sacred vessel dedicated to containing the Precious Blood is “chalice”, and that “cup” will be wrong.

Now I find that this is not true in the Mystery of Faith (formerly the Memorial Acclamation):

Old: When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.

New: When we eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until you come again.

This is pointed out in the blog “Roma locuta est”:
causafinitaest.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-translation-monday-mystery-of-faith.html

An exerpt:
It is curious that the new translation chose to use the word “cup” here. The Latin calicem can mean “cup,” but a more liturgical translation is “chalice.” I would not question this if it were not for the deliberate change in the new translation of the Institution Narrative (which we will discuss in a future installment). The words, “This is the cup of my blood,” will soon be, “For this is the Chalice of my Blood.” The Latin word in the eucharistic prayer is calix, which is a form of the same word used here. In the words of institution, the translators sought deliberately to change “cup” to “chalice,” yet in this response to the Mystérium fídei, the translators opted for the word “cup.”
 
Thank you for posting this!! 🙂

I was actually reading through the new Missal over the long weekend,
and noticed and questioned the very same thing!

Looking forward to hearing some thoughts from others!!
 
Re
When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.
Click to expand...
It occurs to me that here cup refers to the contents, not the container. I don’t think I have ever heard chalice used to refer to the contents.
 
Joe_Kelley said:
Re It occurs to me that here cup refers to the contents, not the container. I don’t think I have ever heard chalice used to refer to the contents.
Click to expand...
A cup of wine, a goblet of wine, a chalice of wine. I don’t think that’s the problem.
 
EasterJoy said:
A cup of wine, a goblet of wine, a chalice of wine. I don’t think that’s the problem.
Click to expand...
You’re right; that’s not the problem. The English “this” seems to be the bigger problem. For example in the Latin “Accipite et munducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur” the “hoc” refers not to the bread but the Body (“corpus” is neuter, “panem” is masculine); this means transubstantiation has occurred; “this” is no longer bread but the Body of Christ. If it were still bread, the Latin would be “hic.” There is also an artificial “this” (Take this…) in the English which further complicates the reference.

In the second part of the consecration, it is important to note that the content of the cup/chalice is not wine any longer but Christ’s Blood. The translation does not make this clear, in my opinion.
 
I wonder if it has to do with the passage where Paul uses the term “w…eats this bread or drinks this cup” I don’t know what the Greek word was used.
 
EasterJoy said:
Maybe the Mass should have been left in Greek.
Click to expand...
Well, we did save the Κύριε, ἐλέησον. 🙂

And our cases, which have been all lost in the English, especially in the demonstrative pronouns and adjectives, which unfortunately linger even in the new translation.
 
ProVobis said:
Well, we did save the Κύριε, ἐλέησον. 🙂

And our cases, which have been all lost in the English, especially in the demonstrative pronouns and adjectives, which unfortunately linger even in the new translation.
Click to expand...
This is what happens when one translates from one vernacular to another. Your bound to lose some nuances in meaning. But I’m OK with the change to Chalice verses Cup.
 
EasterJoy said:
Maybe the Mass should have been left in Greek.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s an interesting question how much meaning might have been lost when the translations were made from Greek, the language of the New Testament itself, to the vulgar tongue, the Latin of Nero and Caligula. I guess it’s worth it for the sake of upgrading to the vernacular, though. And isn’t it ironic that the only part we now have in Greek (the Kyrie) wasn’t even in the Mass at the time, but was a novelty imported from the East into the already-Latinized Mass in about the sixth century?
 
centurionguard said:
This is what happens when one translates from one vernacular to another. Your bound to lose some nuances in meaning.
Click to expand...
Well, the Greek was no doubt a translation too. But either the Church wanted to preserve all three languages of the cross (there is Hebrew as well) in the Mass, or they felt strongly that Kyrie Eleison was truly a better expression than “Miserere nobis” or Sabaoth was better than either the Greek or Latin. My guess is all of the above. 🙂

That said, the Aramaic might have been better left for the words of consecration so there would have been less doubt about its validity. But that’s my opinion.
 
I once read that the Kyrie was introduced by a pope from on of the Eastern Churches. I think he hoped to introduce more Greek into the mass but that was as far as he got.
 
ProVobis said:
That said, the Aramaic might have been better left for the words of consecration so there would have been less doubt about its validity. But that’s my opinion.
Click to expand...
There is never any doubt as to the validity of the words of consecration sanctioned by the Church. The Latin text of the consecration itsef is an authentic witness to what Jesus did and commanded his Church to do.
 
ProVobis said:
Well, the Greek was no doubt a translation too. But either the Church wanted to preserve all three languages of the cross (there is Hebrew as well) in the Mass, or they felt strongly that Kyrie Eleison was truly a better expression than “Miserere nobis” or Sabaoth was better than either the Greek or Latin. My guess is all of the above. 🙂

That said, the Aramaic might have been better left for the words of consecration so there would have been less doubt about its validity. But that’s my opinion.
Click to expand...
Nobody will ever know for sure but I wonder if the original Last Supper by Jesus surrounded by His Apostles was said in Aramaic or Greek?

In the end its probably irrelevant and really doesn’t matter.
 
centurionguard said:
Nobody will ever know for sure but I wonder if the original Last Supper by Jesus surrounded by His Apostles was said in Aramaic or Greek?
Click to expand...
But even if it were, say, in Aramaic, it doesn’t mean what we have today in Aramaic is a verbatim (exact) account of what Christ actually said. Don’t forget we had at least 12 different witnesses to the same event and the original manuscripts and dictation have been lost. We have to go with the consensus of what we have in the four gospels.
In the end its probably irrelevant and really doesn’t matter.
Click to expand...
Yes, as long as the meaning of what happens is conveyed clearly and unambiguously. Whether one calls it “calix” or “cup” or “chalice” (or “glass,” for that matter) shouldn’t affect the transubstantiation one iota, I would think, though “calix” is more original and codified.
 
ProVobis said:
But even if it were, say, in Aramaic, it doesn’t mean what we have today in Aramaic is a verbatim (exact) account of what Christ actually said. Don’t forget we had at least 12 different witnesses to the same event and the original manuscripts and dictation have been lost. We have to go with the consensus of what we have in the four gospels.

Yes, as long as the meaning of what happens is conveyed clearly and unambiguously. Whether one calls it “calix” or “cup” or “chalice” (or “glass,” for that matter) shouldn’t affect the transubstantiation one iota, I would think, though “calyx” is more original and codified.
Click to expand...
Agreed;

In Latin the word Calix signifies Chalice ?

I know this is technical but also the Latin word Caliae signifies Cup. Are they one in the same using the Latin derivative? saints.sqpn.com/chalice/
 
centurionguard said:
Agreed;

In Latin the word Calix signifies Chalice ?

I know this is technical but also the Latin word Caliae signifies Cup. Are they one in the same using the Latin derivative? saints.sqpn.com/chalice/
Click to expand...
I might be wrong but it appears the cup is the top part of the chalice which includes the cup. What is your take? I didn’t know about caliae. Thanks for the link.
 
ProVobis said:
I might be wrong but it appears the cup is the top part of the chalice which includes the cup. What is your take? I didn’t know about caliae. Thanks for the link.
Click to expand...
I’m assuming there the same (possibly a plural annotation in Latin grammar) 🤷

I did take not of one particular in the web link I gave. It states as follows:
if a plated chalice needed regilding it had to be reconsecrated, but under the present law this is not necessary.

I guess this is new to me (“if the weblink source is correct”) and I’m assuming their speaking about the 1983 Canon Law edition.

Never knew this? 🤷 I thought if any Sacramental object got broken especially a Chalice or Ciboria it had to be re-blessed. New to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top