Reporting use of Glass Chalice

[FrDavid96]

I think most would agree that even crystal should not be used but is it in fact prohibited?
I hear that it has been demonstrated that crystal does not break easily. So the question is whether or not crystal is included in the prohibition against “glass, earthenware, clay or other materials that break easily.”

Yes, it is forbidden.

The criteria is not “breaks easily” all by itself. It has to be put into the context of the entire sentence. There is another place in the liturgical norms which prohibits clear substances from being used (at least for the cup part of the chalice–a gold chalice can have glass adornments for example). Crystal is a type of substance which breaks easily, even though there might be examples of individual pieces which are quite sturdy.

Keep in mind that the Church lists which substances may be used for chalices, to the exclusion of everything else–in other words, the norm says that any substance not permitted is forbidden. For anything other than precious metal (or base metal plated in precious metal), the conference of bishops must permit it. That’s why we’re in the situation we find ourselves now. The US Conference of Bishops apparently did permit crystal chalices at some point. But that permission has since been reprobated–meaning that even if permission was given in the past, such permission is withdrawn.

 

[Malkin71]

Why have them? Because the crystal was initially purchased because it was believed to be noble but yet much less expensive than noble metals. Once parishes or chapels have them, they keep them because replacing what they have been using with noble metals is very expensive (…and the furnace is going out…and the poor are going hungry…most parishes always feel short of money…).

Also, fine crystal does scratch, but not nearly so easily as gold. The truth is, gold takes much more careful handling than crystal to stay in perfect condition, even though metal vessels are far more difficult to break entirely. In spite of best efforts, gold-plated vessels will eventually scratch or suffer wear, and have to be re-plated or replaced, which is also expensive. I’m not saying these are correct reasons, but those are the reasons. Call parishes frugal, call them pressed for funds, or call them cheap, but it is about money.

There is a difference between what we “should” do and what “must” do in order to have a valid and licit Mass. Crystal is illicit; Kool Aid is invalid. Big difference, even though both are incorrect. You won’t get anywhere by making this into an issue of heresy, though, because that isn’t the problem. Heresy is not a matter of how deeply we feel about something that is not right, but a word with a specific definition, and not every disobedience or violation of rubrics amounts to heresy! It is hard to convince someone else that they’re wrong when you won’t admit the extent to which you’re wrong, too.

How am I wrong. I am pointing out throughout history, when problems occur in the Church, The church will have individuals who will stand firm on errors and abuses and put a stop to them. That is the point that I was refering to. For the past 40 years abuses, experiments, inovations, etc., have crept slowly into the Mass. Majority did not complain because they feel that you shouldn’t question the Priest or Bishop on these matters. Or if you do the response will be," You do not have to follow some rules." I got that response already!

With the advent of the internet, EWTN, and the avaliability of Leaflett Missal company, Tan Books, Roman Catholic Books, Catholic Answers, etc. people can get information from books and from church documents to look up information, get answers on Church doctrine and the Rubrics of the Mass.

Fr. Dave made a excellent point. The Knights of Columbus have a project that donates chalices to thos Parishes and Priests who need them. There are abundances of them. There should be no excuse for “not enough funding” for a required chalice. If there is there is a problem.

 

[benedictgal]

Yes, it is forbidden.

The criteria is not “breaks easily” all by itself. It has to be put into the context of the entire sentence. There is another place in the liturgical norms which prohibits clear substances from being used (at least for the cup part of the chalice–a gold chalice can have glass adornments for example). Crystal is a type of substance which breaks easily, even though there might be examples of individual pieces which are quite sturdy.

Keep in mind that the Church lists which substances may be used for chalices, to the exclusion of everything else–in other words, the norm says that any substance not permitted is forbidden. For anything other than precious metal (or base metal plated in precious metal), the conference of bishops must permit it. That’s why we’re in the situation we find ourselves now. The US Conference of Bishops apparently did permit crystal chalices at some point. But that permission has since been reprobated–meaning that even if permission was given in the past, such permission is withdrawn.

Exactly. Unlike the secular world, where we can have a “grandfather” clause for a city ordinance or a state law, I do not believe that the Church operates that way. As I read Redemptionis Sacramentum, I do not see any form of a “grandfather” clause in the document.

 

[malphono]

The US Conference of Bishops apparently did permit crystal chalices at some point. But that permission has since been reprobated–meaning that even if permission was given in the past, such permission is withdrawn.

I could be wrong about this, but I don’t believe glass (or clay or pottery or whatever) was ever explicitly permitted even by the USCCB (aka NCCB). But, as I recall (and again it’s quite possible that memory fails), neither did they do or even say anything to stem the tide when this “spirit of Vatican II” (ugh!) trend, got going in the late 1960s.

Some decades ago, there were clay and pottery (and even wood) chalices, lined with gilded metal, (along with matching patens), available in quite a few mainstream religious supply stores. While such things are not at all my taste, they would (because of the gilt lip and interior) seem to qualify as acceptable. Again, memory may fail here, but I don’t remember seeing anything in those stores in glass, or even in “pure” (i.e. unlined) clay, pottery, or wood.

 

[EasterJoy]

How am I wrong. I am pointing out throughout history, when problems occur in the Church, The church will have individuals who will stand firm on errors and abuses and put a stop to them. That is the point that I was refering to. For the past 40 years abuses, experiments, inovations, etc., have crept slowly into the Mass. Majority did not complain because they feel that you shouldn’t question the Priest or Bishop on these matters. Or if you do the response will be," You do not have to follow some rules." I got that response already!

With the advent of the internet, EWTN, and the avaliability of Leaflett Missal company, Tan Books, Roman Catholic Books, Catholic Answers, etc. people can get information from books and from church documents to look up information, get answers on Church doctrine and the Rubrics of the Mass.

Fr. Dave made a excellent point. The Knights of Columbus have a project that donates chalices to thos Parishes and Priests who need them. There are abundances of them. There should be no excuse for “not enough funding” for a required chalice. If there is there is a problem.

I’m not saying you’re wrong in thinking this is not small potatoes. I’m just saying that it is not correct to use the word “heresy” on every violation of rubrices, even serious ones. There is such a thing as reserving some words for the times when the sky actually is falling.

 

[Malkin71]

I’m not saying you’re wrong in thinking this is not small potatoes. I’m just saying that it is not correct to use the word “heresy” on every violation of rubrices, even serious ones. There is such a thing as reserving some words for the times when the sky actually is falling.

I understand you point. I should have used a different word.

 

[zab]

Yes, it is forbidden.

The criteria is not “breaks easily” all by itself. It has to be put into the context of the entire sentence. **There is another place in the liturgical norms which prohibits clear substances from being used (at least for the cup part of the chalice–**a gold chalice can have glass adornments for example). Crystal is a type of substance which breaks easily, even though there might be examples of individual pieces which are quite sturdy.

Keep in mind that the Church lists which substances may be used for chalices, to the exclusion of everything else–in other words, the norm says that any substance not permitted is forbidden. For anything other than precious metal (or base metal plated in precious metal), the conference of bishops must permit it. That’s why we’re in the situation we find ourselves now. **The US Conference of Bishops apparently did permit crystal chalices at some point. But that permission has since been reprobated–**meaning that even if permission was given in the past, such permission is withdrawn.

Thanks for the info. That is what I wanted to know. It would be good if you had the references for this. However, it is my understanding that it is as you say -that even the crystal was “reprobated” otherwise our previous pastor may not have felt the need to replace them. But then again, it could have been his preference to do so.
Personally, I never was comfortable with the use of the crystal cups for the fact that they seemed fragile regardless if they were or not.

 

[zab]

I could be wrong about this, but I don’t believe glass (or clay or pottery or whatever) was ever explicitly permitted even by the USCCB (aka NCCB). But, as I recall (and again it’s quite possible that memory fails), neither did they do or even say anything to stem the tide when this “spirit of Vatican II” (ugh!) trend, got going in the late 1960s.

I believe the crystal cups came about after it was decided that the faithful should receive Communion under both Species around the year 2000 or 2001. As has been mentioned before, it was not unheard of that some faithful pastors, with the understanding that crystal cups were permissable, purchased crystal cups for the EMHC . It had nothing to do with the “spirit of Vatican II”.

 

[zab]

Exactly. Unlike the secular world, where we can have a “grandfather” clause for a city ordinance or a state law, I do not believe that the Church operates that way. As I read Redemptionis Sacramentum, I do not see any form of a “grandfather” clause in the document.

I don’t know what you mean by “grandfather clause” but this is what it say in the G.I.R.M which Redemtionis Sacramentum referrs to:
*329. 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.

usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter6.shtml

 

[malphono]

I believe the crystal cups came about after it was decided that the faithful should receive Communion under both Species around the year 2000 or 2001. As has been mentioned before, it was not unheard of that some faithful pastors, with the understanding that crystal cups were permissable, purchased crystal cups for the EMHC . It had nothing to do with the “spirit of Vatican II”.

Sorry but glass (and clay and pottery and wood) “chalices” were around from the late 1960s.

Further, communion under both kinds came around well before the year 2000 … since at least the early 1970s.

 

[zab]

Sorry but glass (and clay and pottery and wood) “chalices” were around from the late 1960s.

Further, communion under both kinds came around well before the year 2000 … since at least the early 1970s.

For the most part, Communion under both Species was only allowed on special occassions. My husband and I were allowed to receive from the chalice at our wedding in 1971, but not the rest of the congregation. It was not happening on a regular basis like every Sunday, in most places anyway,until around 2000.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWNORMS.HTM

 

[zab]

Sorry but glass (and clay and pottery and wood) “chalices” were around from the late 1960s.
.

Yeah, I’m sorry, too. I wasn’t denying that clay and wood vessels were used in the late 60’s and 70’s. But I was referring to the crystal cups used by the EMHC which did not come about until much later.

 

[Brendan]

It is possible that the “glass Chalices” being used at this “collage” were donated. But like you said, if this need were to be made known, people will come forward to help purchase an appropriate chalice or cups.

And most dioceses have had parish closures or consolidations of one variety or another, so chalices would probably be available through the chancellory just for the asking.

 

[Newbie2]

---

In case you may have missed it --the Church decides what type of Chalices are to be used for the Precious Blood. Glass is abrogated by the Church.

Of course, but individual priests have been deciding which type of chalices to use in their parish…that was my point.

 

[benedictgal]

Of course, but individual priests have been deciding which type of chalices to use in their parish…that was my point.

But, the individual priests need to make their choices in light of what Redemptionis Sacramentum has to say on the matter.

 

[Bull]

It’s quite likely the **Holy Grail **(the vessel Jesus Christ used at the Last Supper to hold the wine) was made out of breakable stone…

Priests ultimately need to follow their bishops who have the authority and who shoulder the responsibility on such matters and not their personal interpretation of church documents.

 

[Digitonomy]

Exactly. Unlike the secular world, where we can have a “grandfather” clause for a city ordinance or a state law, I do not believe that the Church operates that way. As I read Redemptionis Sacramentum, I do not see any form of a “grandfather” clause in the document.

Actually, that’s exactly how the Church operates. Canon 28 spells out when a custom is grandfathered:

Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 5, a contrary custom or law revokes a custom which is contrary to or beyond the law (praeter legem). Unless it makes express mention of them, however, a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

It is to avoid various things being grandfathered that Redemptionis Sacramentum reprobates them, thus invoking Canon 24, §2.

A custom contrary to or beyond canon law (praeter ius canonicum) cannot obtain the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law, however, is not reasonable.

Paragraph 65 of RS makes explicit what is implicit in the other 7 reprobations in the document:

This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

 

[FrDavid96]

I believe the crystal cups came about after it was decided that the faithful should receive Communion under both Species around the year 2000 or 2001. As has been mentioned before, it was not unheard of that some faithful pastors, with the understanding that crystal cups were permissable, purchased crystal cups for the EMHC . It had nothing to do with the “spirit of Vatican II”.

Timelines aside, using something which looks like a wineglass has a lot to do with the false-understanding of the “spirit of Vatican II” Often enough, these glasses are used as a way to deny the sacrificial aspect of the Mass and over-emphasize the “communal meal.” A gold chalice looks like it belongs in some kind of religious sacrificial ritual (naturally), but a wineglass looks like it belongs on the dining room table–for many people, that’s exactly the point they’re trying to make. And perhaps that, more than the issue of breakage alone, might be the point the Church is trying to make in forbidding these vessels.

 

[Newbie2]

But, the individual priests need to make their choices in light of what Redemptionis Sacramentum has to say on the matter.

Hello! Are you not getting my point??

THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING. :banghead:

The rubrics are pretty clear, and yet certain priests decide otherwise.

 

[centurionguard]

Timelines aside, using something which looks like a wineglass has a lot to do with the false-understanding of the “spirit of Vatican II” Often enough, these glasses are used as a way to deny the sacrificial aspect of the Mass and over-emphasize the “communal meal.” A gold chalice looks like it belongs in some kind of religious sacrificial ritual (naturally), but a wineglass looks like it belongs on the dining room table–for many people, that’s exactly the point they’re trying to make. And perhaps that, more than the issue of breakage alone, might be the point the Church is trying to make in forbidding these vessels.

Father; I’m certainly glad you brought this much needed excellent point which needs to be emphasized.

A gold chalice looks like it belongs in some kind of religious sacrificial ritual (naturally), but a wineglass looks like it belongs on the dining room table

I mean just how many parishes in North America can’t afford a chalice or ciborium that is not gold or silver plated on the inside of the cup.

So many flimsy reasons have been rationalized as to why glass chalices are used which are far from the very least of being edifying or showing great respect towards the Blessed Sacrament and the humbling miracle that Jesus Christ would come before us in the consecrated species of bread and wine.

I remember many years ago working for a new French Catholic religious community in my city named “Maison Nazereth” (“House of Nazereth”) that worked solely on helping the poor in the city with clothing and food donated by many benefactors. The Archbishop had given permission for this community run by a Nun to have a Tabernacle located in a special located room away from the public so the community could pray in adoration. However; what I found strange was a burlap veil used to cover the Tabernacle. I questioned the Nun as to what the burlap veil signified. She said it was to remind the community novitiates of their mission of service to the poor. Rather than argue a commotion with her I tried to fathom her reasoning as to why she used a burlap veil once used as a potato sack on the Holy of Holies before the presence of the Holy Tabernacle. Needless to say this once thriving religious community has since died off.