Is it a liturgical abuse for the blood of the Lord to be held in glass not gold/silver?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lead_Me_Home
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lead_Me_Home

Guest
I was at a parish once where the communion wine after transubstantiation was given to the parishioners from glasses. I thought that the plate that held the Eucharist and the cup, had to be gold or silver plated. Or is this just a modern thing, I had never been to a church that did not have the eucharist in a gold chalice before. I don’t remember the proper names for the plate and chalice, I saw a brief description on EWTN catholic dictionary.

BTW I am not in full communion with the church yet so I would not have taken communion either way.
 
Redemptionis Sacramentum notes:
Click to expand...
[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 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.207
Click to expand...
This is an abuse that some parishes insist on doing.
 
I don’t understand why it was done though. This church was a Chicago parish in a well to-do area. This does not mean the parishioners were wealthy but I think if the churches in my diocese can afford it they can save up.

Should one abstain from receiving communion when such an abuse occurs?
 
So the objection to glass isn’t that it’s common, or fashioned in a sense that lacks artistic quality, but simply that it breaks easily? :hmmm: And is this simply for the practical reason that should someone drop the glass it would shatter, or that the Host ought to be carried in a sturdy container?
 
Lead_Me_Home said:
I don’t understand why it was done though. This church was a Chicago parish in a well to-do area. This does not mean the parishioners were wealthy but I think if the churches in my diocese can afford it they can save up.

Should one abstain from receiving communion when such an abuse occurs?
Click to expand...
No, one should not abstain from communion. The mass is still the mass even if the chalice used is not the proper one.
 
Dtmccameron said:
So the objection to glass isn’t that it’s common, or fashioned in a sense that lacks artistic quality, but simply that it breaks easily? :hmmm: And is this simply for the practical reason that should someone drop the glass it would shatter, or that the Host ought to be carried in a sturdy container?
Click to expand...
It is for that reason and the rules also call for it to be made of a substance that is considered “noble” in that part of the world, and not porous.
 
Making no comment on the use of glass chalices from an abuse perspective but…you may find that it is specially hardened glass. I have been familiar with a parish which uses hardened-glass chalices that cost a great deal. The same hardened-glass chalices have been safely used for twelve years. I’m not making comment on the desirability or otherwise of the use of such chalices, just throwing possible light on the quality of the glass.
 
One of the priests in my home parish loves using a chalice make out of clay from the city he went to seminary in. He’s mentioned how much he loves it a couple times in his homilies, because he loves the symbolism of how a “lowly” substance can become such a sacred vessel.

I think that’s great and all, but it still bothers me that he’s not using a gold or silver chalice when it’s available.
 
Erica_Rae said:
One of the priests in my home parish loves using a chalice make out of clay from the city he went to seminary in. He’s mentioned how much he loves it a couple times in his homilies, because he loves the symbolism of how a “lowly” substance can become such a sacred vessel.

I think that’s great and all, but it still bothers me that he’s not using a gold or silver chalice when it’s available.
Click to expand...
Trishie said:
Making no comment on the use of glass chalices from an abuse perspective but…you may find that it is specially hardened glass. I have been familiar with a parish which uses hardened-glass chalices that cost a great deal. The same hardened-glass chalices have been safely used for twelve years. I’m not making comment on the desirability or otherwise of the use of such chalices, just throwing possible light on the quality of the glass.
Click to expand...
I personally like the glass chalice because you can see the Precious Blood. And the specially hardened glass is a wise choice. I also think that a hand thrown pottery chalice can be a work of art. At home I usually drink from a large hand thrown mug because I love the colors of the glaze and the feel of it in my hand. I think either glass or pottery would be a great choice for a chalice.

However, my opinions are only opinions. We are called to be obedient in small things as well as big things. The norms call for a material that is considered ‘noble’ as well as being unbreakable, non-porous, and non-rusting. The reasons for using chalices of other materials are only excuses for disobedience. If the people of the parish or the priest are unhappy with the norms they should ‘offer it up’ and follow the norms anyway.
 
No it’s not a “liturgical abuse.” Those two words are terribly over used and incorrectly used. I’m not really sure if such a practice would be called a delict or a irregularity.

We used to have a priest that had his own Waterford Crystal chalice. It was magnificent. Stunning actually. It was also tempered so that it would not shatter. If I was that priest and if I had been using that chalice for 20 years before it became “illegal” to do so, I might well continue to do so.

On the other hand I am beginning to believe that some clerics use glass/pottery chalices and the pouring of the Precious Blood just to flaunt their authority. In other words they don’t want to be told what to do by the Holy See…
 
OhMalley said:
No it’s not a “liturgical abuse.” Those two words are terribly over used and incorrectly used. I’m not really sure if such a practice would be called a delict or a irregularity.

We used to have a priest that had his own Waterford Crystal chalice. It was magnificent. Stunning actually. It was also tempered so that it would not shatter. If I was that priest and if I had been using that chalice for 20 years before it became “illegal” to do so, I might well continue to do so.

On the other hand I am beginning to believe that some clerics use glass/pottery chalices and the pouring of the Precious Blood just to flaunt their authority. In other words they don’t want to be told what to do by the Holy See…
Click to expand...
Actually, it is a liturgical abuse and one that the Holy See deems reprobate.
  1. Sacred Vessels
    [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 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.207
Click to expand...
Thus, it is not the celebrant’s call, nor the bishop’s call to make. Rome has effectively decided upon the matter.
Click to expand...
 
OhMalley said:
We used to have a priest that had his own Waterford Crystal chalice. It was magnificent. Stunning actually. It was also tempered so that it would not shatter. If I was that priest and if I had been using that chalice for 20 years before it became “illegal” to do so, I might well continue to do so.
Click to expand...
I wonder (I think I’ve heard…) if there is an exception, or perhaps just tolerance? if the glass vessels are already in use, and golden vessels would cause a financial burden?
 
benedictgal said:
Actually, it is a liturgical abuse and one that the Holy See deems reprobate.
Click to expand...
  1. Sacred Vessels
    [117.] …
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.207
Click to expand...
I certainly don’t mean to dispute what the Holy See requires. I would just like some clarification. Perhaps from the Latin?

Does the prepositional phrase, “that break easily” refer merely to “other materials” or is it meant to modify “other vessels”? If it refers to “other materials” then it seems that all glass, earthenware, and clay are forbidden. But it it refers to “other vessels” then it seems that glass, earthenware, and clay could be permitted if they don’t break easily. I am only aware of certain types of glass which could fit the unbreakable requirement.

The general sense of the text seems to suggest “that break easily” refers to “other materials” but at least in the English there does seem to be some minor ambiguity.
 
Spirithound said:
I wonder (I think I’ve heard…) if there is an exception, or perhaps just tolerance? if the glass vessels are already in use, and golden vessels would cause a financial burden?
Click to expand...
Unlike secular laws which have a so-called “grandfather clause”, I don’t believe that such exists in liturgical matters. Why can we not take the CDWDS at its word, respect the decision and obey? The vendors of sacred vessels do have price ranges that just about every parish can meet. Furthermore, the local Knights of Columbus councils could very well take it upon themselves and notate a chalice and ciborrium. They do it a lot in memory of priests and, since this is the Year of the Priest, it may not be a bad idea for the councils to start doing something like this.
 
First, Redemptionis Sacramentum 173 says that “objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in … 117 …” Number 117 deals with the material the sacred vessels are made from, as has already been quoted.
SMHW said:
Does the prepositional phrase, “that break easily” refer merely to “other materials” or is it meant to modify “other vessels”?
Click to expand...
The English: 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.

The Latin: Reprobandus igitur est quivis usus, quo ad Missae celebrationem vasa communia vel viliora adhibentur ad qualitatem quod attinet, vel omni artificio carentia vel simplicia canistra vel alia vasa ex vitro, argilla, creta aliisve materiis confecta, quae facile frangantur.

I’ve underlined phrases for ease of identification. The word vasa is plural neuter. The word materiis is plural feminine. The pronoun quae can be either plural neuter or plural feminine in this case. So I’m afraid the Latin does not clarify your question. I would suspect “that break easily” refers to “other materials”; if it were meant to modify other vessels, I think the Latin construction would have been closer to “as also other vessels that break easily, made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials.” But the problem (to my grammatical sensibilities) there is that “other materials” then seems to be on its own.
 
Trishie said:
Making no comment on the use of glass chalices from an abuse perspective but…you may find that it is specially hardened glass. I have been familiar with a parish which uses hardened-glass chalices that cost a great deal. The same hardened-glass chalices have been safely used for twelve years. I’m not making comment on the desirability or otherwise of the use of such chalices, just throwing possible light on the quality of the glass.
Click to expand...
We then test them. Hold them above a hard surface at about the same height an EMCH whould hold them (about mid chest). And then drop them and see what happens.

If they are as strong as you are claiming, it should not be an issue to do such a test.

The point is that there should not be any pieces or shards that would interfere with the proper disposition of any spillage.

If the chalice lands with no such damage, it would meet the standard of breakage that the Church looks for.

If it doesn’t, or there doubt that the test will suceed, then the chalices should not be used.
 
benedictgal said:
Actually, it is a liturgical abuse and one that the Holy See deems reprobate.
Click to expand...
“Actually” you should read and study RS to determine what a “liturgical abuse” truly is. That label is so mis-used and over-used that it sadly means less and less…
 
OhMalley said:
“Actually” you should read and study RS to determine what a “liturgical abuse” truly is. That label is so mis-used and over-used that it sadly means less and less…
Click to expand...
If the Church says that it is “objectively to be considered among grave matters…” it’s safe to say that the words “liturgical abuse” would apply. No? Am I missing something?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top