OK to use Byzantine-style Chalice for the Mass?

[Spiller]

Religious goods from places like Greece and Russia are indeed a great deal cheaper. Poland offers some good values too, but not as low. Religious goods from Western Europe and the USA are ridiculously priced.

I don’t think a brass chalice that was only plated on the inside would really be suitable for Mass. They would technically meet the spec and I am sure they are indeed used, but it wouldn’t really seem up to the task.

I have never seen a solid gold (10-14K) chalice. I have seen gold plated sterling silver chalices, but that’s about it.

 

[JReducation]

There is no rule that I have ever seen against using the Byzantine styles in the liturgy.

If I rememer correctly, at the mass for religious in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NY, the processional cross used when the Holy Father presided was the Byzantine cross with the three horizontal bars.

Technically speaking, the Holy Father’s pallium is Byzantine. It was the pallium uesed before the the 8th century. It was introduced by the popes who came from the east, before the schism.

I heard a commentary on EWTN that he wears it because it represents a time in the Church when the Church was one. Contrary to what many people think, it’s not because he’s being traditionalist or conservative.

He is sending a message of the unity between east and west.

Given the examples of the pallium and the processional cross which come from the East, I can’t see why not use an Eastern chalice.

I believe they are very expensive.

I know that in our parish, we do not use very expensive things, but it has to do with the religious order. They have a mandate from their founder to practice poverty in all things. Our chalices are gold plated (if that’s the correct term), but very smple and probably at the bottom end of the price range.

But then our religious are friars. They are not allowed to receive a chalice at their ordination. The chalices belong either to the parish or to the religious house.

I imagine that many other religious communities have similar rules regarding the simplicity and cost or not having a personal chalice.

JR

 

[JReducation]

There is no rule that I have ever seen against using the Byzantine styles in the liturgy.

If I rememer correctly, at the mass for religious in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NY, the processional cross used when the Holy Father presided was the Byzantine cross with the three horizontal bars.

Technically speaking, the Holy Father’s pallium is Byzantine. It was the pallium uesed before the the 8th century. It was introduced by the popes who came from the east, before the schism.

I heard a commentary on EWTN that he wears it because it represents a time in the Church when the Church was one. Contrary to what many people think, it’s not because he’s being traditionalist or conservative.

He is sending a message of the unity between east and west.

Given the examples of the pallium and the processional cross which come from the East, I can’t see why not use an Eastern chalice.

I believe they are very expensive.

I know that in our parish, we do not use very expensive things, but it has to do with the religious order. They have a mandate from their founder to practice poverty in all things. Our chalices are gold plated (if that’s the correct term), but very smple and probably at the bottom end of the price range.

But then our religious are friars. They are not allowed to receive a chalice at their ordination. The chalices belong either to the parish or to the religious house.

I imagine that many other religious communities have similar rules regarding the simplicity and cost or not having a personal chalice.

JR

 

[JReducation]

There is no rule that I have ever seen against using the Byzantine styles in the liturgy.

If I rememer correctly, at the mass for religious in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NY, the processional cross used when the Holy Father presided was the Byzantine cross with the three horizontal bars.

Technically speaking, the Holy Father’s pallium is Byzantine. It was the pallium uesed before the the 8th century. It was introduced by the popes who came from the east, before the schism.

I heard a commentary on EWTN that he wears it because it represents a time in the Church when the Church was one. Contrary to what many people think, it’s not because he’s being traditionalist or conservative.

He is sending a message of the unity between east and west.

Given the examples of the pallium and the processional cross which come from the East, I can’t see why not use an Eastern chalice.

I believe they are very expensive.

I know that in our parish, we do not use very expensive things, but it has to do with the religious order. They have a mandate from their founder to practice poverty in all things. Our chalices are gold plated (if that’s the correct term), but very smple and probably at the bottom end of the price range.

But then our religious are friars. They are not allowed to receive a chalice at their ordination. The chalices belong either to the parish or to the religious house.

I imagine that many other religious communities have similar rules regarding the simplicity and cost or not having a personal chalice.

JR

 

[JReducation]

There is no rule that I have ever seen against using the Byzantine styles in the liturgy.

If I rememer correctly, at the mass for religious in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NY, the processional cross used when the Holy Father presided was the Byzantine cross with the three horizontal bars.

Technically speaking, the Holy Father’s pallium is Byzantine. It was the pallium uesed before the the 8th century. It was introduced by the popes who came from the east, before the schism.

I heard a commentary on EWTN that he wears it because it represents a time in the Church when the Church was one. Contrary to what many people think, it’s not because he’s being traditionalist or conservative.

He is sending a message of the unity between east and west.

Given the examples of the pallium and the processional cross which come from the East, I can’t see why not use an Eastern chalice.

I believe they are very expensive.

I know that in our parish, we do not use very expensive things, but it has to do with the religious order. They have a mandate from their founder to practice poverty in all things. Our chalices are gold plated (if that’s the correct term), but very smple and probably at the bottom end of the price range.

But then our religious are friars. They are not allowed to receive a chalice at their ordination. The chalices belong either to the parish or to the religious house.

I imagine that many other religious communities have similar rules regarding the simplicity and cost or not having a personal chalice.

JR

 

[Phemie]

Fair enough, I defer to your superior experience :tiphat: Perhaps they prefer to NOT use the gift ones

Like I said, there’s nothing against using it per se, but you may want to run it by the priest who’s using it is all.

Let me give you my take on this.

Recently our youth group asked what we needed in the sanctuary. We suggested an altar cloth because we only have one that fits the altar, the rest came from who knows where and are too narrow, requiring a second cloth underneath.

That wasn’t visible enough for them. They kept insisting on something bigger. OK, we need one new ciborium. We have one very good one & 2 beautiful chalices. Or, you could have the two chalices replated - they have ornate bases but the inside of the cup is scratched.

No, that wasn’t good enough for them either. So recently they presented to the parish 2 new, very plain chalices, a matching ciborium and 2 patens. So our beautiful chalices are now relegated to the sacristy cupboard.

The last time they did something like this we ended up with fake candles for the altar and a processional cross with the Risen Christ on it. They never listen, then the parish is stuck with that kind of stuff because, well, because the youth group, who are never seen except when fund-raising, gave it to the parish.

Nothing should be purchased for liturgical use before running it before the people who make this kind of decision. That way you don’t have people thinking that since Joe got the parish to use his preferred vessel/statue/icon, Sue & George can turn around and get their pet project imposed on the parish too.

 

[Spiller]

Let me give you my take on this.

Recently our youth group asked what we needed in the sanctuary. We suggested an altar cloth because we only have one that fits the altar, the rest came from who knows where and are too narrow, requiring a second cloth underneath.

That wasn’t visible enough for them. They kept insisting on something bigger. OK, we need one new ciborium. We have one very good one & 2 beautiful chalices. Or, you could have the two chalices replated - they have ornate bases but the inside of the cup is scratched.

No, that wasn’t good enough for them either. So recently they presented to the parish 2 new, very plain chalices, a matching ciborium and 2 patens. So our beautiful chalices are now relegated to the sacristy cupboard.

The last time they did something like this we ended up with fake candles for the altar and a processional cross with the Risen Christ on it. They never listen, then the parish is stuck with that kind of stuff because, well, because the youth group, who are never seen except when fund-raising, gave it to the parish.

**Nothing should be purchased for liturgical use before running it before the people who make this kind of decision. ** That way you don’t have people thinking that since Joe got the parish to use his preferred vessel/statue/icon, Sue & George can turn around and get their pet project imposed on the parish too.

I would certainly ask my pastor and the other priests who regularly celebrate Mass at my parish if they would enjoy using it now and then. If they would, I would buy it, have it blessed – but I would keep it myself. Far too much gear (particularly more formal/solemn gear and things like sanctus bells and ablution cups) is either stolen or hidden by people at my parish who don’t want to see it be used during the Mass.

I regularly set-up and serve Mass and I have a whole duffel bag of stuff my parish does not own (or at least no longer owns) that I regularly use. I also make it a point of using gear that has been donated by different groups/individuals over the years that sits in our sacristy closets.

In your case, get some people to pony-up to re-plate your older gear and ask that it be used at least some of the time. No need to relegate it to the back of the closet.

I looked in our parish museum yesterday. We have a lot of old liturgical gear from the old days in it – including what appears to be a byzantine inspired chalice. In a way it’s good it’s there else it would likely have been stolen or lost, but it’s remarkable just how much more we used to spend on such things more than a 100 years ago when compared to today.

 

[AJV]

There is no rule that I have ever seen against using the Byzantine styles in the liturgy.

If I rememer correctly, at the mass for religious in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NY, the processional cross used when the Holy Father presided was the Byzantine cross with the three horizontal bars.
JR

I’m not sure whether my memory is exact, but IIRC the cross used at St. Patrick’s was not a ‘Byzantine’ cross (with the diagonal bar near the bottom) but an Archepiscopal cross (I presume belonging to the Archbishop of NY). The Archepiscopal cross has two bars.

Prior to 1968, it was carried ahead of the archbishop (which meant there were two crosses in the procession - the processional cross at the head, and the archepiscopal). The corpus of the cross would face the archbishop.

In 1968, the document *Pontificales Ritus *ordered that only one cross be used in the procession. Thus if an archbishop was presiding in his area of jurisdiction, then the archepiscopal cross was carried at the head of the procession - but with the corpus of the cross facing in front.

It seems a bit strange to carry an archepiscopal cross in the procession involving a Pope, but whatever…

 

[JReducation]

I’m not sure whether my memory is exact, but IIRC the cross used at St. Patrick’s was not a ‘Byzantine’ cross (with the diagonal bar near the bottom) but an Archepiscopal cross (I presume belonging to the Archbishop of NY). The Archepiscopal cross has two bars.

Prior to 1968, it was carried ahead of the archbishop (which meant there were two crosses in the procession - the processional cross at the head, and the archepiscopal). The corpus of the cross would face the archbishop.

In 1968, the document *Pontificales Ritus *ordered that only one cross be used in the procession. Thus if an archbishop was presiding in his area of jurisdiction, then the archepiscopal cross was carried at the head of the procession - but with the corpus of the cross facing in front.

It seems a bit strange to carry an archepiscopal cross in the procession involving a Pope, but whatever…

I have to go back and see if EWTN still has the videos on their website of mass for religious. In any case, it’s not a big deal.

As to why one would use the archepiscopal cross in the procession where the Pope is presiding, it’s simple. He’s not the Ordinary of the diocese. The Archbishop is. It is out of respect for the Ordinary of the diocese that this is done.

Technically speaking, each diocese constitutes a church. The Bishop of Rome is a visiting prelate. The local bishop can defer to him or the other way around. The local bishop also has the authority to require that his cross be used in the procession, if he is a Cardinal Archbishop.

I don’t believe this was the case. It was more than likely the case of the Pope deferring to the local Ordinary, because the mass is celebrated in the Ordinary’s parish. If you noticed the mass at the stadium, that cross was not used. That’s another diocese. The same was the case in Washington.

That being said, the tradition of an archepiscopal cross comes from Eastern world where each diocesan bishop is a sovereign entity. The crosses, chalices, vestments etc are very particular to each one. This holds true for both the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics.

JR