Glass Chalice

  • Thread starter Thread starter sbwith4k
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sbwith4k

Guest
My mother recently attended Christmas mass with us. She told me at the end that it was “illegal” to use glass chalices during mass. I know they were recently bought, we got a new priest about a year ago. So I looked on the Catholic answers boards and found out why it is wrong. So I e-mailed the parish priest and asked why we were using them if it is indeed wrong. He said that glass chalices have been approved by our archbishop. I guess I’m commenting about how our liberal diocese bothers me, but I’m also curious where you would take things like this if the archbishop is saying it’s OK. Anyone else trying to deal with a liberal diocese???
 
At my old parish we had all kinds of stange things. When your a kid growing up you don’t these things are approved these things aren’t. I remember in the early 80’s us having these really unattractive yellow speckled pottery ones with matching plates. Later we got glass or crystal I’m not sure which.

What I don’t understand is the “they were approved” thing. Why do people feel the need have something that is not the norm of the church? What’s wrong with beautiful golden chalices?
I’ve heard of churches that were “approved” not to have kneelers. But why? Why do people not want to kneel? (I kneel anyway if I happen to be visting a parish w/o kneelers.)

All these details they want to rebel against, it just boggles the mind.
 
First, it ain’t up to the archbishop. It’s up to the Church. Here is what the Church says on the matter:

G.I.R.M. – SACRED VESSELS
  1. Among the requisites for the celebration of Mass, the sacred
    vessels hold a place of honor, especially the chalice and paten,
    which are used in presenting, consecrating, and receiving the bread and wine.
  2. Vessels should be made from materials that are solid and that in the particular region are regarded as noble. The conference of bishops will be the judge in this matter. But preference is to be given to materials that do not break easily or become unusable.
  3. Chalices and other vessels that serve as receptacles for the
    blood of the Lord are to have a cup of nonabsorbent material. The
    base may be of any other solid and worthy material.
  4. Vessels that serve as receptacles for the eucharistic bread,
    such as a paten, ciborium, pyx, monstrance, etc., may be made of other materials that are prized in the region, for example, ebony or other hard woods, as long as they are suited to sacred use.
  5. For the consecration of hosts one rather large paten may
    properly be used; on it is placed the bread for the priest as well as
    for the ministers and the faithful.
  6. Vessels made from metal should ordinarily be gilded on the
    inside if the metal is one that rusts; gilding is not necessary if
    the metal is more precious than gold and does not rust.
  7. The artist may fashion the sacred vessels in a shape that is in keeping with the culture of each region, provided each type of vessel is suited to the intended liturgical use.
  8. For the blessing or consecration of vessels the rites prescribed in the liturgical books are to be followed.
So, the chalice should be “solid” and made from materials that are locally considered to be “noble.” Futher, preference is given to materials that do not easily break or soak-up liquid.

Therefore I would suggest that while a plain glass chalice is never acceptable except perhaps in dire emergencies, it would be acceptable to use a chalice made from Waterford Crystal at a Mass celebrated in Dublin Ireland, YET a chalice made from precious metal would still be preferred.

One of the worst abuses I ever saw though with the use of dimestore wine glasses and glass candy dishes at my former parish in place of acceptable sacred vessels.
 
40.png
rayne89:
What’s wrong with beautiful golden chalices?
Click to expand...
Nothing’s wrong with them, and I don’t know why people would want to get rid of them on aesthetic grounds… but here is an experience that may shed light on the question.

My pastor has a beautiful chalice - it is sterling silver on the outside, with a gold-lined “cup”. Actually I think it is a gold cup welded into a silver chalice, rather than simply a gold plate. But anyway, after years of daily use, the gold began to wear away (as gold is prone to do). So he sent his cup back to a metalsmith to get it refurbished, for many hundreds of dollars. And this needs to keep getting done every few years. Sacristans are now instructed not to use soap or dry with a towel when cleaning it, which helps it last a little longer. But the lesson is, once you have a beautiful golden chalice, it takes some $$$ to keep it beautiful. A lot of those beautiful gold chalices are actually gold plate, so after much use (and especially washing) you end up with something that isn’t so beautiful. And for those parishes that can not afford to heat the building, or turn the lights on, or maintain the pipe organ, I can understand the desire to keep father’s beautiful but worn-looking gold chalice in the sacristy, and use something that looks nice but is cheaper and/or lower-maintenance like nice crystal, or silver, or pewter. No, I don’t think dimestore wine glasses are appropriate. Fortunately I have never seen this, except for maybe once in the mid-80s.

Also for those churches that like to offer the Precious Blood to all communicants, this often involves having two or four or more chalices. So take the expense of a single gold chalice, and multiply by two or four or more.
 
as you can see from the GIRM quote above, glass is not per se illegal. Its a subjective question and therefore if the bishop and parish priest are okay with it, you would be best to persue this from something other than canonical grounds,
 
But the lesson is, once you have a beautiful golden chalice, it takes some $$$ to keep it beautiful. A lot of those beautiful gold chalices are actually gold plate, so after much use (and especially washing) you end up with something that isn’t so beautiful.

A So take the expense of a single gold chalice, and multiply by two or four or more.

I have seen precious metal chalices that are around $90 dollars a piece. It is unfortunate, but the reluctance to use precious metal chalices is the opposition from the liturgical terrorists at some parishes who insist upon making Holy Communion a “meal” instead of a sacrifice and want to diminish belief in the Real Presence to focus more on the presence of God within the “community”- Ironically, the parishes where I have seen the precious blood distributed in water goblets are generally the one with the wealthier congregations. The also tend to also have “risen christ” or just a plain cross in the sanctuary, or lack kneelers.

In other words- most would never serve their friends or guests wine in such cheap stemware- but it is acceptable for the distribution of the precious blood.
 
This issue was also addressed in Redemptonius Sacramentum were they were banned. We had some porcelin chalices and this was the one part of the document that needed to be addressed. I pointed it out to my priest who told me that he had already seen it. A few months later we bought new (and proper) metal chalises.

We should be understanding with practical concerns like finances.
 
Our priest uses a crystal “glass” and bowl for the paten. We have nicer vessels, too. I think he just like it. The assistant uses the metal ones.
 
Per Redemptoris Sacramentum, glass chalices are a no-no:

[RS 117.] Sacred vessels for containing the Body and Blood of the Lord must be made in strict conformity with the norms of tradition and of the liturgical books.[205]The Bishops’ Conferences have the faculty to decide whether it is appropriate, once their decisions have been given the recognitio by the Apostolic See, for sacred vessels to be made of other solid materials as well. It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region,[206]so that honour will be given to the Lord by their use, and all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in the eyes of the faithful will be avoided. Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from 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.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Our priest uses a crystal “glass” and bowl for the paten. We have nicer vessels, too. I think he just like it. The assistant uses the metal ones.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with crystal. Glass is banned though.
This according to Jiimy Akin.
 
I, too, learned that Waterford crystal chalices are acceptable – certainly “noble,” as defined in the GIRM. And breakable!

The one priest I knew who used a Waterford crystal chalice dropped it. (Thank goodness it did not, at that time, contain either wine or the Precious Blood!)

And that was the last time he used Waterford!

'thann
 
Glass is glass. Waterford is in my china cabinet and I see nothing “noble” about it. Look what’s going on folks and call it what it is.

My parish could certainly afford precious metal, but they use glass.
 
Could someone please explain the issue with breakability?

I drop a crystal or porcelein cup, it may break, the Precious Blood is spilled.

I drop a gold chalice, it may not break, but the Precious Blood still spills (unless it lands just so perfectly that it doesn’t bounce, tip, or slosh at all).

I am usually more afraid of dropping the gold & silver chalices that I’ve handled because they are much heavier.
 
I suspect the breakability issue is not about spilling, but about the likelihood of large numbers of broken sacred vessels going into the trash. 😦

It IS an interesting question. Why would a wealthy parish use cheap glasses instead of modestly priced metal cups with a gold liner? Would it REALLY break the bank?
 
I am to understand, Waterford Crystal is aprovable only if you are an Irish Catholic Priest.

A local priest here is using plain Glass. He does not use water and keeps the wine in a pitcher. Pours it into a wine glass and wamo. Its the blessed sacrement. Guess whos not going to communion.

This practice omits washing of the hands.
Lord CLeanse me of all my sins. Wash away all my inequities.

This is getting to be a regular things. We can hardly get away from it.
 
40.png
manualman:
I suspect the breakability issue is not about spilling, but about the likelihood of large numbers of broken sacred vessels going into the trash. 😦

It IS an interesting question. Why would a wealthy parish use cheap glasses instead of modestly priced metal cups with a gold liner? Would it REALLY break the bank?
Click to expand...
Is that it… the disposal of broken sacred vessels… if a sacred vessel is to be “retired” is it supposed to be buried or something like that?

Poor parishes I can completely understand not being able to afford the gold-lined cups. Not sure why wealthier parishes don’t do it, or why they would stop using serviceable gold ones in favor of cheaper glass ones. For some reason I don’t think it’s as simple as wanting to emphasize the “meal” aspect of Communion, as other posters have suggested.

Just curious - has anyone ever seen chalices made of platinum (or platinum-lined)? I’m sure such would be very expensive, but I think platinum is more resistant to wear than gold.
 
40.png
Franciscum:
First, it ain’t up to the archbishop. It’s up to the Church. Here is what the Church says on the matter:

G.I.R.M. – SACRED VESSELS
  1. Among the requisites for the celebration of Mass, the sacred
    vessels hold a place of honor, especially the chalice and paten,
    which are used in presenting, consecrating, and receiving the bread and wine.
  2. Vessels should be made from materials that are solid and that in the particular region are regarded as noble. The conference of bishops will be the judge in this matter. But preference is to be given to materials that do not break easily or become unusable.
  3. Chalices and other vessels that serve as receptacles for the
    blood of the Lord are to have a cup of nonabsorbent material. The
    base may be of any other solid and worthy material.
  4. Vessels that serve as receptacles for the eucharistic bread,
    such as a paten, ciborium, pyx, monstrance, etc., may be made of other materials that are prized in the region, for example, ebony or other hard woods, as long as they are suited to sacred use.
  5. For the consecration of hosts one rather large paten may
    properly be used; on it is placed the bread for the priest as well as
    for the ministers and the faithful.
  6. Vessels made from metal should ordinarily be gilded on the
    inside if the metal is one that rusts; gilding is not necessary if
    the metal is more precious than gold and does not rust.
  7. The artist may fashion the sacred vessels in a shape that is in keeping with the culture of each region, provided each type of vessel is suited to the intended liturgical use.
  8. For the blessing or consecration of vessels the rites prescribed in the liturgical books are to be followed.
So, the chalice should be “solid” and made from materials that are locally considered to be “noble.” Futher, preference is given to materials that do not easily break or soak-up liquid.

Therefore I would suggest that while a plain glass chalice is never acceptable except perhaps in dire emergencies, it would be acceptable to use a chalice made from Waterford Crystal at a Mass celebrated in Dublin Ireland, YET a chalice made from precious metal would still be preferred.

One of the worst abuses I ever saw though with the use of dimestore wine glasses and glass candy dishes at my former parish in place of acceptable sacred vessels.
Click to expand...
Totally true!!! But, well many liberal catholics still don’t get it, even after Redemptionis Sacramentum was publishe in 2004.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top