Glass chalices?

[Cavaille-Coll]

I don’t really see a big problem with using a Glass Chalice instead of a Gold or Silver one. A metal one costs a lot more than a Glass one. And you could be using that money for the poor and sick. But that’s only my opinion.

If Redemptionis Sacramentum and the GIRM mandates that glass and breakable vessels not be used, we must obey. The Holy Eucharist contained within deserves the finest materials money can buy, and even that pales in value to the Real Presence. There are many beautiful pieces of glassware in the world, but glass is cheaply made (even if sold at exorbitant prices in religious goods stores!) from various grades of common sand. When I was serving Mass in my home parish, one of the glass cups used for Holy Communion dropped from the credence table just before it was to be placed on the altar (empty, thank God!) and shattered noisily into a million pieces. The following week, two silver cups appeared in its place.

The poor we will always have with us, and if the $30,000 gold-and-ruby chalice from my home parish were sold today and the money given to the area’s poor, it would feed them for a day or two. Then they would be hungry again and we would no longer have a beautiful vessel to hold the Blood of Christ. It is not a matter of ostentation that churches have valuable works of art, but rather of inspiration. Even the poorest person can drink from the cup of the King.

 

[Newbie2]

My bad.

Have you written a letter to the bishop, referencing Redemptionis Sacramentum? All bishops and priests are bound, by obedience, to follow this document. If your bishop has not responded, then, the next step is to write to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

I guess it’s not that important to me to go that far. If the bishops and our priest do not mind…well, let’s just say this isn’t my battle.

 

[James0235]

Redemptionis Sacramentum makes it crystal clear that glassware is probhited.

crystal clear

pun intended?

James

 

[SacredHeartFan]

Redemptionis Sacramentum makes it crystal clear that glassware is probhited. Because there were many abuses, the Holy See sought fit to have the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in collaboration with the Congretation for the Doctrine of the Faith (under the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) publish this document.

quote it. i want to see for myself.

 

[adrift]

Redemptionis Sacramentum

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.

quote it. i want to see for myself.

 

[Digitonomy]

I wonder if there are any Eastern Churches which use glass vessels?

Can someone - anyone - please tell me where they have found anything made of glass or crystal, in the form of a chalice, that when dropped from the hight of an altar onto a marble floor, will not break or chip?

I think that alone should end this conversation~Liza

I don’t see why the chipping is relevant. Materials such as wood are sometimes acceptable, even though they could chip. Also, gold-plated items could conceivably chip if dropped, although the malleability of gold makes this unlikely.

 

[japhy]

I wonder if there are any Eastern Churches which use glass vessels?I don’t see why the chipping is relevant. Materials such as wood are sometimes acceptable, even though they could chip. Also, gold-plated items could conceivably chip if dropped, although the malleability of gold makes this unlikely.

Chipping can result in people getting cut when holding the vessel (or drinking from the chalice). Wood is questionable because it can be porous and end up absorbing some of the Precious Blood.

 

[Newbie2]

Chipping can result in people getting cut when holding the vessel (or drinking from the chalice). Wood is questionable because it can be porous and end up absorbing some of the Precious Blood.

Very true, especially on the rim with a thin-walled crystal. A thick water glass would be more sturdy, but not suitable (in a logistical or visual sense only…yes, they’re not acceptable per the rubric ) for use in communion.

Ours get chipped on a rare when they’re washed…easy to do, but we just replace them…I think about one a year.

I think that a fine glass or cryatal chalice is doomed when dropped from just about any height, and I don’t mean just a chip.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I don’t see why the chipping is relevant. Materials such as wood are sometimes acceptable, even though they could chip. Also, gold-plated items could conceivably chip if dropped, although the malleability of gold makes this unlikely.

It seems to me that if someone drops a chalice with the Precious Blood, the last thing we should be worried about is whether the chalice breaks. The terrible damage of spilling Christ’s blood on the floor has been done. The chalice is very secondary.

Don’t get me wrong: I think gold looks much more precious than any crystal chalice.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

It seems to me that if someone drops a chalice with the Precious Blood, the last thing we should be worried about is whether the chalice breaks. The terrible damage of spilling Christ’s blood on the floor has been done. The chalice is very secondary.

The shards of glass would scatter the Precious Blood over a wide area, and it would be very difficult to purify all those tiny pieces.

 

[LighthouseRon]

This is what I found on our diocese web-site:

Materials for sacred vessels(see # 329): In the dioceses of the USA, sacred vessels may also be made from other solid materials that, according to the common estimation in each region, are precious, for example ebony or other hard woods, provided that such materials are suitable for sacred use and do not break easily. This applies to all vessels which hold the host such as the paten, the ciborium, the pyx, the monstrance, and other things of this kind.
In the Archdiocese of xxxxxxxx, vessels acquired prior to this directive may be used, even if they are glass or crystal

 

[PhilotheaZ]

This is what I found on our diocese web-site:

Materials for sacred vessels(see # 329): In the dioceses of the USA, sacred vessels may also be made from other solid materials that, according to the common estimation in each region, are precious, for example ebony or other hard woods, provided that such materials are suitable for sacred use and do not break easily. This applies to all vessels which hold the host such as the paten, the ciborium, the pyx, the monstrance, and other things of this kind.
In the Archdiocese of xxxxxxxx, vessels acquired prior to this directive may be used, even if they are glass or crystal

This document on your diocese’s website is in response to the 2000 GIRM. However, Redemptionis Sacramentum, the instruction cited several times in this thread which forbids glass chalices, was issued in March 2004 and made immediately binding on all, thus superceding your bishop’s “exemption”:

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.

From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Rome, on the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, 25 March 2004.

 

[japhy]

Materials for sacred vessels(see # 329): In the dioceses of the USA, sacred vessels may also be made from other solid materials that, according to the common estimation in each region, are precious, for example ebony or other hard woods, provided that such materials are suitable for sacred use and do not break easily. This applies to all vessels which hold the host such as the paten, the ciborium, the pyx, the monstrance, and other things of this kind.

In the Archdiocese of xxxxxxxx, vessels acquired prior to this directive may be used, even if they are glass or crystal

I’m not sure the Archbishop has the authority to make that statement. The page you mention quotes GIRM 329 accurately; however, the page also claims that, pursuant to GIRM 329, “It is up to the diocesan bishop to determine the materials for … the sacred vessels.” That is not what GIRM 329 says, nor is it what GIRM 390 says: “It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations
include … The materials for … the sacred vessels…”

Therefore, a diocesan Bishop cannot allow sacred vessels to be made of a substance that his Conference does not permit. Now, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has already made that judgment, and it is found, as quoted, in GIRM 329. GIRM 329 disqualifies materials that break easily.

Furthermore, the Conference is not an autonomous body, but must remain obedient to the Holy See. This is important because the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments said this in 2004: “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.” (Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 117) So, since 2004, not only are you not allowed to introduce vessels that go against #117, the very practice of using such vessels is reprobated. That doesn’t just mean prohibited from now on, it means prohibited from now and NOT allowed to continue! This instruction is universal in nature.

Perhaps I’m interpreting the documents wrong; that’s quite possible. However, the Church has stated since 2004 that the practice of using vessels that break easily (including glass) is reprobated, and the Church has stated since 2002 (in the GIRM) that the Conference of Bishops decides the materials for the vessels, and they decided against materials that break easily.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m not sure the Archbishop has the authority to make that statement. The page you mention quotes GIRM 329 accurately; however, the page also claims that, pursuant to GIRM 329, “It is up to the diocesan bishop to determine the materials for … the sacred vessels.” That is not what GIRM 329 says, nor is it what GIRM 390 says: “It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations
include … The materials for … the sacred vessels…”

Therefore, a diocesan Bishop cannot allow sacred vessels to be made of a substance that his Conference does not permit. Now, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has already made that judgment, and it is found, as quoted, in GIRM 329. GIRM 329 disqualifies materials that break easily.

Furthermore, the Conference is not an autonomous body, but must remain obedient to the Holy See. This is important because the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments said this in 2004: “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.” (Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 117) So, since 2004, not only are you not allowed to introduce vessels that go against #117, the very practice of using such vessels is reprobated. That doesn’t just mean prohibited from now on, it means prohibited from now and NOT allowed to continue! This instruction is universal in nature.

Perhaps I’m interpreting the documents wrong; that’s quite possible. However, the Church has stated since 2004 that the practice of using vessels that break easily (including glass) is reprobated, and the Church has stated since 2002 (in the GIRM) that the Conference of Bishops decides the materials for the vessels, and they decided against materials that break easily.

I think the big problem is that there are perhaps some Metropolitans, Ordinaries, priests and parishes who think that just because they’ve used the reprobated materials in the past, then, they are “grandfathered” into retaining their use. The Church, to my knowledge, doesn’t employ the “grandfather” clause too often, especially when it comes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. RS is the defiinitive legislative document in force and must be obeyed.

 

[Digitonomy]

The Church, to my knowledge, doesn’t employ the “grandfather” clause too often, especially when it comes to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I think it is actually a principle of canon and liturgical law that traditional practices and interpretations are permitted unless specifically stated otherwise. Canon law particularly points out that traditions dating back 35 years and 100 years are given special status.

However, most documents bandied about here, such as RS, or the 1983 Code of Canon Law, have language that makes it clear that these new laws supersede previous rules and traditions - such as the “Reprobated” statement quoted above. Even then the old laws may be referred to - in some cases the 1983 Code is a bit unclear, and the 1917 Code can be used to see what has been omitted and thus intentionally changed, or what the context of an unclear 1983 canon was when used identically in 1917.

So in some sense “grandfathering” is an ever-present part of Church and liturgical law, but it is frequently the case, as here, that Grandfather was specifically excluded.

 

[Spiller]

A chalice carved out of a large diamond would be stronger and would allow the Precious Blood to be seen and would also give the respect of a precious material. Something to consider…

Diamond are not “strong.” They are hard – and also rather brittle…

 

[Spiller]

The shards of glass would scatter the Precious Blood over a wide area, and it would be very difficult to purify all those tiny pieces.

They wouldn’t necessarily be purified. They would be buried…

 

[Newbie2]

Interesting Screen name in relation to this thread.

 

[A2SciTeach]

Newbie,

I left a very large and successful parish in S.E. Michigan because of the priest looking for loopholes instead of standing up to the Parish Council and following the rules.

If perhaps you are in the diocese of S.E. Michigan that just received a new bishop, things may be looking up! The new bishop is very mindful of correct liturgy and I’m sure will be tightening things up in the diocese. Please pray that this will happen.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

At my church, we have one large chalice that looks like it’s made of gold, and then three smaller glass chalices that Father also consecrates. The gold one is used by only the priest and EMHC’s, and then the EMHC’s are given the glass chalices of Precious Blood to distribute. Is this okay since there is a gold chalice, or are the glass ones still prohibited? and if they are, what can/should I do?

In the end, it is not the make of the chalice but what is inside it that really matters. If you are conserened with breakability of the glass, offer to donate some type of metal one, it does not have to be specifically gold or gold plated. That is often the reason for keeping glass ones, the budget to replace them as many parishes are struggling with overall funds. The official policy come from one Cardinal’s writings and has been officially adopted for the time being, but glass is not outlawed.