How do we dispose of glass chalices?

[Daprato]

If you can provide the appropriate citation, that might help. However, the documents still say that it must be a precious metal.

Sure, read the GIRM and the part about noble to local locations or words to that effect.

 

[Daprato]

If you can provide the appropriate citation, that might help. However, the documents still say that it must be a precious metal.

Sure, read the GIRM and the part about noble to local locations or words to that effect.

 

[Daprato]

If you can provide the appropriate citation, that might help. However, the documents still say that it must be a precious metal.

First, they don’t have to be made of metal. But they cannot be made of glass, either.

From the current GIRM:

1. Sacred vessels are to be made from precious metal. If they are made from metal that rusts or from a metal less precious than gold, then ordinarily they should be gilded on the inside.
2. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, 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 suited to sacred use and do not easily break or deteriorate. This applies to all vessels which hold the hosts, such as the paten, the ciborium, the pyx, the monstrance, and other things of this kind.

Waterford does not easily break (certainly not like a cheap wine glass) and would be considered “precious.”

However RS slammed the door shut on this:

[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. 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, so that honor 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.

 

[Leopard]

…It seems like the only one making any sense here is Brother Rich.

I beg your pardon. My point was very simple: no person should take it uopn himself to intentionally destroy church property without proper authority to do so, and having done so, try to claim that said destruction was an accident.

If this does not make sense, please tell me why not, and I will be glad to discuss the issue in greater depth.

 

[Marauder]

Hey wait! I make sense too!

~Liza

You both may have made sense to yourselves but you were providing incorrect information and have yet to provide anything that contradicts my information. What you think the church says and what the church actually says are two different things in this regard.

 

[Leopard]

You both may have made sense to yourselves but you were providing incorrect information and have yet to provide anything that contradicts my information. What you think the church says and what the church actually says are two different things in this regard.

What is incorrect about what I said?

 

[Marauder]

What is incorrect about what I said?

Not you, I was directing that at the person who’s quote I included in my post and the post she included, both lizaanne and benedictgal have been saying how things I was saying lacked common sense, were wrong, etc. and yet I provided quotes from reputable sources and all they have provided have been things based on what they call their common sense and personal feelings.

 

[Leopard]

Ah. By “both”, I thought you meant the quoted poster and the poster immediately prior to you. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[lizaanne]

Not you, I was directing that at the person who’s quote I included in my post and the post she included, both lizaanne and benedictgal have been saying how things I was saying lacked common sense, were wrong, etc. and yet I provided quotes from reputable sources and all they have provided have been things based on what they call their common sense and personal feelings.

That’s because I just can’t ever imagine any purpose for anything that has ever held the blood of Christ. I don’t need some official document to tell me that anything that has touched the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ should never ever be used for any other purpose. To even consider the possibility is just totally outlandish to me.

I thank God that He gave me the common sense to realize this.

~Liza

 

[Brendan]

I don’t need some official document to tell me that anything that has touched the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ should never ever be used for any other purpose.

~Liza

If your parish has EMHC’s, would you ‘retire’ their fingers. How about the hands of everyone who has recieved the Eucharist in the hand?

 

[Daprato]

If your parish has EMHC’s, would you ‘retire’ their fingers. How about the hands of everyone who has recieved the Eucharist in the hand?

Or recipients’ mouths, throats, etc?

 

[Marauder]

That’s because I just can’t ever imagine any purpose for anything that has ever held the blood of Christ. I don’t need some official document to tell me that anything that has touched the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ should never ever be used for any other purpose. To even consider the possibility is just totally outlandish to me.

And that puts you at odds with the regulations, ideals, and doctrine of the church. Your “common sense” is wrong in this case. The church has dealt with these issues and has come up with policies that address it. Honestly it almost sounds like you are elevating the cup itself to a level of a talisman. Yes the chalice has been blessed and needs to be treated with utmost respect, but the church in its infinite wisdom has realized that chalices (and other sacred items) get old, go beyond usefulness, have reasons for being retired, or even what happens when those items become desecrated. It has put forth guidelines on what to do in all those cases. Just because those guidelines may sound “outlandish” to you, doesn’t mean anything unless you are part of the Holy See.

Retired items have been used in statues, stained glass windows, altars, been melted down and used again, placed on display, used for alternate purposes like baptismal cups, etc. for years. Just because you can’t think of a valid use for them doesn’t mean that none exist.

 

[benedictgal]

By the way, you, too, lizanne, make sense. The others who have been rather facetious with you quote are somewhere on left field.

I, too, have a statement regarding “glass” chalices. This comes straight from Francis Cardinal Arinze, himself:

In the United States, we have adequate income, why would we have to use glass or porcelain for the precious Blood and the Body of our Lord on the altar and not gold?

Oh, for the vessels. Ah! Actually, the liturgical laws forbid [this]. This is actually for bishops and priests to work out, because you cannot work out all that. But the liturgical laws are laid down about what type of vessel will be allowed at Mass.

Glass is forbidden. Yes, Forbidden. And anything that can break. Not to talk of those using baskets! Terrible things happen in this world!

However, not all priests know that. There are places where they had glass and they didn’t know.

This quote came from Adoremus Bulletin where Cardinal Arinze had fielded several questions. If you have issues regarding his remarks, Marauder, then you can take it up with His Eminence.

 

[THurifer2]

First, they don’t have to be made of metal. But they cannot be made of glass, either.

From the current GIRM:

1. Sacred vessels are to be made from precious metal. If they are made from metal that rusts or from a metal less precious than gold, then ordinarily they should be gilded on the inside.
2. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, 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 suited to sacred use and do not easily break or deteriorate. This applies to all vessels which hold the hosts, such as the paten, the ciborium, the pyx, the monstrance, and other things of this kind.

Waterford does not easily break (certainly not like a cheap wine glass) and would be considered “precious.”

However RS slammed the door shut on this:

[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. 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, so that honor 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.

Why oh why does it seem like the people who are looking for loopholes in the canon the same people who have half naked, incense bearing, liturgical dancers who pride themselves in the centering prayer. Its almost like in some places modernists pour over the documents to find amibiguities so they can push the enevelope…seemingly for the sake of pushing the envelope as opposed to anything else.

 

[Marauder]

By the way, you, too, lizanne, make sense. The others who have been rather facetious with you quote are somewhere on left field.

Your charity is somewhat lacking. Let me put this in very clear words that I have stated several times. Nobody is saying that people should continue to use glass chalices. This entire thread deals with the disposition of the glass chalices once they have been used. The fact that they shouldn’t have been used in the first place has NO bearing on their disposal other then the fact that they are now something that has carried the sacred blood. You can quote articles about how they aren’t supposed to be used to you are blue in the face, that doesn’t mean that you and lizanne are correct when you state that the only option is to destroy them and bury them.
benidictgal:

If you have issues regarding his remarks, Marauder, then you can take it up with His Eminence.

I have no problems with the words of His Eminence, since I have never said that glass chalices should be used during Mass I totally agree with him. I do not agree with you that the only disposition of the glass chalices once they have been used is destruction because as I have pointed out from a reputable authority you are incorrect and your “common sense” is leading you in the wrong direction.

 

[Daprato]

Why oh why does it seem like the people who are looking for loopholes in the canon the same people who have half naked, incense bearing, liturgical dancers who pride themselves in the centering prayer. Its almost like in some places modernists pour over the documents to find amibiguities so they can push the enevelope…seemingly for the sake of pushing the envelope as opposed to anything else.

Do you even know what modernism is in an ecclesial sense? No, I didn’t think so…

What would make you type such a mean-spirited ad hominem attack? It added absolutely no value to the dialog. It did nothing but make you appear like a bitter and angry person.

The absolute masters at “pushing the envelope” are the self-described “traditionalist” dissenters. Their masterpiece was and remains kneeling for holy communion. They disregard what the Church instructs and ignore any post-communion counseling they should receiving (as directed by the Church) because they (and not the Church) know what is “best.”

Gimme a break.

 

[roymckenzie]

I’m a little disturbed with the direction some of these answers seem to be going. While glass vessels certainly ought not be used as chalices, that is no excuse for intentionally destroying church property and pretending it was an “accident”. The decision to destroy the glass vessels should be made by the pastor, bishop or other legitimate ecclesial authority and executed by his orders only.

I am at a quandary on this one. The thing on your post that confuses me is; if it is outside the authority of the Bishop to authorize glass, and I believe it is from the church documents I have read, how can we assume it is only in his authority to destroy them. My point is if “The General Instruction of the Roman Missal”, “Redemptionis Sacramentum” and “Sacrosanctum Concilium” allow only for precious metal and do not afford the Bishop the authority to change it how can he be the only one with the authority to destroy illicit objects.
This is all very confusing to me, why can’t the people of the church, Priests and Bishops just follow the rules as given by the Church.
I am of the opinion that it would be best to just destroy the illicit objects.

 

[Marauder]

… allow only for precious metal and do not afford the Bishop the authority to change it how can he be the only one with the authority to destroy illicit objects.
This is all very confusing to me, why can’t the people of the church, Priests and Bishops just follow the rules as given by the Church.
I am of the opinion that it would be best to just destroy the illicit objects.

The point Leopard was making is that early in the thread people were saying that they should just take it upon themselves to “accidentally” drop the chalice. Leopard was saying that nobody should do that without the permission of someone like a priest, deacon, or bishop. In affect that is vandilism at best, sacrilege at worst. The chalice, even though it wasn’t supposed to be used in the first place is still a blessed/sacred object due to the fact it held the Precious blood and it was probably blessed by the priest and/or a bishop at some point. The church itself has said that a chalice that is no longer useful should either be reused in some other sacred manner or destroyed in a sacred manner and buried. It is up to the authorities in that parish/diocese to decide which is the better course of action.

 

[roymckenzie]

The point Leopard was making is that early in the thread people were saying that they should just take it upon themselves to “accidentally” drop the chalice. Leopard was saying that nobody should do that without the permission of someone like a priest, deacon, or bishop. In affect that is vandilism at best, sacrilege at worst. The chalice, even though it wasn’t supposed to be used in the first place is still a blessed/sacred object due to the fact it held the Precious blood and it was probably blessed by the priest and/or a bishop at some point. The church itself has said that a chalice that is no longer useful should either be reused in some other sacred manner or destroyed in a sacred manner and buried. It is up to the authorities in that parish/diocese to decide which is the better course of action.

I am sorry that I am unclear on my thoughts, I think my point is that that glass goblets are not sacred objects. The Church does not allow for a glass goblet to be chalice so it can not be a chalice.

It would be similar to taking Wonder Bread and having the Priest say the words of concretion over it. Just like the real Eucharist it still looks like bread but unlike the real Eucharist Wonder Bread will never become the Body of Christ. A Bishop or Priest can say the words of blessing over a glass goblet but that does not make it a chalice.

I am still under the opinion that these objects should be destroyed. I am not suggesting that the congregation rush the Sanctuary but I am suggesting that the sacristan or other church official should be free to destroy such objects.

 

[Marauder]

I am sorry that I am unclear on my thoughts, I think my point is that that glass goblets are not sacred objects. The Church does not allow for a glass goblet to be chalice so it can not be a chalice.

Actually it is a chalice. Glass has been used in the past for chalices. Read the Catholic encyclopedia for examples. Even one of the earliest chalices that was thought at one time to be the Holy Grail was in fact glass. The church has said that glass is not valid for ordinary Mass but it doesn’t affect the validity of the Mass in any way. The wine still becomes the precious blood. It is a practice of the church that glass is not to be used both due to the fact that it is breakable and most glass is considered not a high enough quality to be considered a noble material.

roymckenzie:

It would be similar to taking Wonder Bread and having the Priest say the words of concretion over it. Just like the real Eucharist it still looks like bread but unlike the real Eucharist Wonder Bread will never become the Body of Christ.

Actually you are wrong there. Wonder Bread would still become the body of Christ. Any wheat containing bread becomes the body of Christ. Use of bread that contains anything other then wheat and water makes it illicit (except you can add yeast in Eastern rite) but it is still valid matter. The farther you get from the wheat/water combination the more illicit it is, but in unusual situations like concentration camps, prison, etc. different bread materials have been used. But hosts consisting of wheat and water only should be used for Masses except for extraodinary circumstances.