Pope Francis' Chalice at Lampedusa

[Spirithound]

Greetings friends!
I have been looking for information about the chalice that Pope Francis used at Mass in Lampedusa. It was amply reported that he used a chalice made from the wood of a boat that had sunk and killed refugees on their way to Lampedusa. I haven’t been able to find out, however, whether this chalice was lined with a precious metal cup. Further, whether it was or was not lined, does this act by the pope have any impact on whether similar chalices can be used in the parish?
Thank you, God bless

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

According to PrayTell Blog the chalice was lined with silver.

 

[Bergon]

Greetings friends!
I have been looking for information about the chalice that Pope Francis used at Mass in Lampedusa. It was amply reported that he used a chalice made from the wood of a boat that had sunk and killed refugees on their way to Lampedusa. I haven’t been able to find out, however, whether this chalice was lined with a precious metal cup. Further, whether it was or was not lined, does this act by the pope have any impact on whether similar chalices can be used in the parish?
Thank you, God bless

It is my understanding that it is prohibited to use any material that is permeable, i.e. into which some of the Precious Blood would soak. This would certainly happen with wood unless it had been treated in some way that made it impermeable. I’d guess such treatment would mean it wasn’t suitable for such sacred use. Furthermore, such treatment probably can’t be 100% effective. It seems highly likely the cup would’ve be lined with a precious metal.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Unfortunately, when it comes to the Pope (any Pope, not just Pope Francis), it’s more of a “do as I say, not as I do.” The Pope, as final legislator if you will, can make changes to the rules of Mass as he wills. Therefore, he can essentially never break the liturgical rules because he can just create a one-time, for me only exception.

That said, the Pope often has very little say in regards to the details of the Mass. Instead, the Master of Ceremonies handles those issues. Pope Francis was probably not aware of what chalice he would be using until he was using it. I know another issue occurred a few years ago with Pope Benedict XVI and a glass chalice from Murano.

 

[TheDoctor]

Unfortunately, when it comes to the Pope (any Pope, not just Pope Francis), it’s more of a “do as I say, not as I do.” The Pope, as final legislator if you will, can make changes to the rules of Mass as he wills. Therefore, he can essentially never break the liturgical rules because he can just create a one-time, for me only exception.

That said, the Pope often has very little say in regards to the details of the Mass. Instead, the Master of Ceremonies handles those issues. Pope Francis was probably not aware of what chalice he would be using until he was using it. I know another issue occurred a few years ago with Pope Benedict XVI and a glass chalice from Murano.

Please read post #2. It appears the chalice was lined with silver, so was perfectly acceptable.

Nothing more to see here folks, move along.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Please read post #2. It appears the chalice was lined with silver, so was perfectly acceptable.

Nothing more to see here folks, move along.

Sorry if I was unclear. I didn’t intend to suggest that whatever the Pope did was right or wrong. Simply stating a context.

 

[EasterJoy]

Unfortunately, when it comes to the Pope (any Pope, not just Pope Francis), it’s more of a “do as I say, not as I do.” The Pope, as final legislator if you will, can make changes to the rules of Mass as he wills. Therefore, he can essentially never break the liturgical rules because he can just create a one-time, for me only exception.

That said, the Pope often has very little say in regards to the details of the Mass. Instead, the Master of Ceremonies handles those issues. Pope Francis was probably not aware of what chalice he would be using until he was using it. I know another issue occurred a few years ago with Pope Benedict XVI and a glass chalice from Murano.

GIRM 330. As regards chalices and other vessels that are intended to serve as receptacles for the Blood of the Lord, they are to have bowls of nonabsorbent material. The base, on the other hand, may be made of other solid and worthy materials.

In the section pertaining to the United States, hard woods are specifically mentioned as being suitable materials for sacred vessels.

Here is a YouTube of the Mass: The chalice used clearly has a wooden base with a gilded cup that sticks up beyond the “lip” of the base. (The inner lining may be silver, but the outer surface seems to be gold-plated.) The entire portion that would be brought to the lips is made of a noble metal. youtube.com/watch?v=WdpL-SVklwo

As far as I can see, there is nowhere in the world where this chalice could not be used without any special permission at all.

 

[bmadamsberry]

GIRM 330. As regards chalices and other vessels that are intended to serve as receptacles for the Blood of the Lord, they are to have bowls of nonabsorbent material. The base, on the other hand, may be made of other solid and worthy materials.

In the section pertaining to the United States, hard woods are specifically mentioned as being suitable materials for sacred vessels.

Here is a YouTube of the Mass: The chalice used clearly has a wooden base with a gilded cup that sticks up beyond the “lip” of the base. (The inner lining may be silver, but the outer surface seems to be gold-plated.) The entire portion that would be brought to the lips is made of a noble metal. youtube.com/watch?v=WdpL-SVklwo

As far as I can see, there is nowhere in the world where this chalice could not be used without any special permission at all.

Again, I was not stating whether what the Pope did was liturgically allowed for or not. I was simply providing a context for the Popes’ celebrations of Mass.

 

[TheDoctor]

Sorry if I was unclear. I didn’t intend to suggest that whatever the Pope did was right or wrong. Simply stating a context.

Nothing to be sorry about. Sometimes when a thread gets longer than a few posts subsequent posters do not go back and read previous ones where the issue was addressed. All to often I have seen good loving people argue over things that were settled 10 posts previously (just a personal pet peeve).

Have a wonderful day and God Bless.

 

[TheDoctor]

GIRM 330. As regards chalices and other vessels that are intended to serve as receptacles for the Blood of the Lord, they are to have bowls of nonabsorbent material. The base, on the other hand, may be made of other solid and worthy materials.

In the section pertaining to the United States, hard woods are specifically mentioned as being suitable materials for sacred vessels.

Here is a YouTube of the Mass: The chalice used clearly has a wooden base with a gilded cup that sticks up beyond the “lip” of the base. (The inner lining may be silver, but the outer surface seems to be gold-plated.) The entire portion that would be brought to the lips is made of a noble metal. youtube.com/watch?v=WdpL-SVklwo

As far as I can see, there is nowhere in the world where this chalice could not be used without any special permission at all.

If you look at the link in Post #2 (you may have missed it), it appears the chalice was silver lined, so it was acceptable for use.

 

[EasterJoy]

Again, I was not stating whether what the Pope did was liturgically allowed for or not. I was simply providing a context for the Popes’ celebrations of Mass.

Well, on that note, the Pope can make exceptions because the Pope ought to be able to make exceptions. I’m forced to disagree with you: that the Pope can and does make exceptions for himself is not at all unfortunate. The rules are given so that Catholics around the world know a way to carry out liturgies that will always be acceptable, without confusion. It should surprise no one that the Holy Father is uniquely capable of deciding when particular exceptions to a code intended for general use are reasonable. Should we imagine, after all, that the legislation ought to own the legislator, or that a father should reserve no decisions to himself that he does not freely give to every one of his sons in his absence? No, a father of a household might rightly reserve certain exceptions to himself and his own discretion. There is nothing wrong with that.

It is actually not true that Pope Francis “has very little say in regards to the details of the Mass”. He personally appoints the Papal Master of Ceremonies, who in turn oversees the Office of Liturgical Celebrations. That office has among its duties “to prepare all that is necessary for liturgical celebrations or any other sacred celebrations either presided by the Pope, or at which he participates or assists, or which are presided in his name by a Cardinal or Prelate. These preparations include everything necessary to ensure worthy celebration and active participation of the people. Also included in the competencies of the Office:] the celebration of a Consistory and the direction of liturgical celebrations of the College of Cardinals while the Papal See is vacant. One most important task of the Office is the planning, publication and distribution of special prayer-booklets for each liturgy, an asset that guarantees worthy and active participation of those present.”

When the Pope or the Pope’s direct representative is to preside at a liturgical celebration, the Holy See leaves nothing to chance. All preparations are entirely overseen by those given that office by the Pope himself. ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur404.htm This is also as it should be.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Well, on that note, the Pope can make exceptions because the Pope ought to be able to make exceptions. I’m forced to disagree with you: that the Pope can and does make exceptions for himself is not at all unfortunate. The rules are given so that Catholics around the world know a way to carry out liturgies that will always be acceptable, without confusion. It should surprise no one that the Holy Father is uniquely capable of deciding when particular exceptions to a code intended for general use are reasonable. Should we imagine, after all, that the legislation ought to own the legislator, or that a father should reserve no decisions to himself that he does not freely give to every one of his sons in his absence? No, a father of a household might rightly reserve certain exceptions to himself and his own discretion. There is nothing wrong with that.

It is unfortunate because a good number of priests will take that as a sign that they, too, can disregard the rules. I know that doesn’t make sense, but they’ll do it anyway. Further, it makes it more difficult for those priests who want to follow the GIRM and other liturgical rules, and who look to the Pope’s actions for guidance as opposed to reading the text itself. As a result, I’ve known a few priests who, in their zeal to follow the liturgical law and who looked to the Popes’ actions as a reference guide, actually did things incorrectly.

I do not disagree that the Pope should have the ability to change the rules as he ought. My disagreement is that the Pope should do so sparingly. Both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have done so (although this is a matter of opinion) sparingly.

It is actually not true that Pope Francis “has very little say in regards to the details of the Mass”. He personally appoints the Papal Master of Ceremonies, who in turn oversees the Office of Liturgical Celebrations. That office has among its duties “to prepare all that is necessary for liturgical celebrations or any other sacred celebrations either presided by the Pope, or at which he participates or assists, or which are presided in his name by a Cardinal or Prelate. These preparations include everything necessary to ensure worthy celebration and active participation of the people. Also included in the competencies of the Office:] the celebration of a Consistory and the direction of liturgical celebrations of the College of Cardinals while the Papal See is vacant. One most important task of the Office is the planning, publication and distribution of special prayer-booklets for each liturgy, an asset that guarantees worthy and active participation of those present.”

When the Pope or the Pope’s direct representative is to preside at a liturgical celebration, the Holy See leaves nothing to chance. All preparations are entirely overseen by those given that office by the Pope himself. ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur404.htm This is also as it should be.

We’ll have to disagree on that. From what I’ve read, the Pope often leaves the decisions up to the Master of Ceremonies. While the Pope does indeed appoint the MC, there have often been times in the past when the Pope wasn’t consulted about certain liturgical practices or something that was going to happen during Mass. I remember well Pope John Paul II’s visit to Africa, where he was a little surprised by the dancing African women.

I do not disagree that the MC takes great strides to know every minutia of what will occur at the Mass; however, whether the Pope takes an extremely active role in each and every planning of each and every Mass is a different question, to which I believe the answer is no. Instead, again from what I’ve read, the Pope appoints someone who is largely in line with his view of the liturgy so that the Pope doesn’t have to worry about every minutia.

 

[EasterJoy]

It is unfortunate because a good number of priests will take that as a sign that they, too, can disregard the rules. I know that doesn’t make sense, but they’ll do it anyway. Further, it makes it more difficult for those priests who want to follow the GIRM and other liturgical rules, and who look to the Pope’s actions for guidance as opposed to reading the text itself. As a result, I’ve known a few priests who, in their zeal to follow the liturgical law and who looked to the Popes’ actions as a reference guide, actually did things incorrectly.

I do not disagree that the Pope should have the ability to change the rules as he ought. My disagreement is that the Pope should do so sparingly. Both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis have done so (although this is a matter of opinion) sparingly.

We’ll have to disagree on that. From what I’ve read, the Pope often leaves the decisions up to the Master of Ceremonies. While the Pope does indeed appoint the MC, there have often been times in the past when the Pope wasn’t consulted about certain liturgical practices or something that was going to happen during Mass. I remember well Pope John Paul II’s visit to Africa, where he was a little surprised by the dancing African women.

I do not disagree that the MC takes great strides to know every minutia of what will occur at the Mass; however, whether the Pope takes an extremely active role in each and every planning of each and every Mass is a different question, to which I believe the answer is no.

I don’t disagree with you–it is unfortunate when priests feel free to take liberties that no one has given them. I suppose in a world of a billion Catholics, there will be those who don’t think the rules are for them, and another group who thinks that any exception that applies to anyone else must always apply to them, too, even all the way up to the Pope.

When the Pope decides to leave something to the Master of Ceremonies, though, that is a decision, too. It isn’t out of his hands. Who knows, perhaps that rather famous dancing incident was something Bl. Pope John Paul II agreed to in concept as being fully appropriate to the local setting, but which still caught him off-guard when he actually saw it! (He did look surprised!) I would not be at all surprised if was not somewhat more specific about his guidelines after that. Surely, though, if he were to see fit to lay blame about the incident, he would not spare himself. As you imply, when he decides to allow exceptions, it is entirely by his authority that it is done, and the consequences are also his to cope with, whether intended or not. If a Pope were to make exceptions without being realistic about the consequences, then yes, that is unfortunate.