Reporting use of Glass Chalice

[Joannm]

To your first point, I checked the link you provided and found some inconsistencies. The one that really stuck out at me was:

I am hoping that what is posted in the website is simply a matter of being outdated, as Pope Benedict XVI did away with this indult for the United States back in 2005 shortly after he took office.

Regarding your second question, I would break the glass “chalices” and bury the fragments. There is no need to store them, lest some well-intentioned, but, misguided person might assume that they can be used for the Mass and then the problem starts all over again.

I would not take a $1,000 + Waterford glass chalice and paten and break it and bury it. especially if his parents bought it for him as an ordination gift.

 

[cerad]

Skip the middle men and go right to the top. A few lightning bolts from god should correct this distasteful behavior. Unless the church has lightning rods but what are the odds of that.

 

[malphono]

I would not take a $1,000 + Waterford glass chalice and paten and break it and bury it. especially if his parents bought it for him as an ordination gift.

IMHO, it would then perhaps be best to wash them in a sacrarium then sterilize them in a dishwasher and ultimately put them where they belong: in a cabinet in either the rectory or the parents’ home.

 

[benedictgal]

I would not take a $1,000 + Waterford glass chalice and paten and break it and bury it. especially if his parents bought it for him as an ordination gift.

But, neither would I use them for Mass. With all due respect, the parents should have checked before going that route. You can get a beautiful gold chalice and paten for that amount of money.

 

[EasterJoy]

To your first point, I checked the link you provided and found some inconsistencies. The one that really stuck out at me was:

I am hoping that what is posted in the website is simply a matter of being outdated, as Pope Benedict XVI did away with this indult for the United States back in 2005 shortly after he took office.

That is outdated in our archdiocese, anyway. It is allowed for a EMHC to consume the Precious Blood in a solemn fashion, if any is remaining at the end, presumably because the combination of what remains in several communion cups may be too much of the accidents of wine for the priest to take care of himself. This is done before the cup is returned to be purified.

Other than that, EMsHC return the vessels to the altar (in the case of vessels containing hosts that the priest or deacon must transfer over the corporal to the main ciborium that he will then return to the tabernacle) or to the credence table, but purification of the vessels is done by the priests or deacons only, in silence and during Mass. This change was reiterated several times and in no uncertain terms during training of EMHC. Laypeople do clean linens and sacred vessels, but only after those have been ritually purified, and even that is to be done in a solemn manner as well, even the ironing done at home. This was also communicated in no uncertain terms, if in a nice way for all of that.

I know of parishes that have not yet replaced their glass communion cups, though. As far as I know, there isn’t a deadline by which parishes have to spend the money to get ones that meet the requirements, but I’m not in a parish office where I’d be given that information.

Regarding your second question, I would break the glass “chalices” and bury the fragments. There is no need to store them, lest some well-intentioned, but, misguided person might assume that they can be used for the Mass and then the problem starts all over again.

The question is whether it is a forbidden that they be returned to secular use. That is, if they are removed from the sacristy, can they ever be used for a secular purpose, or must they be kept out of use entirely? If not, is it required that they be destroyed…for instance, in the case of a glass that has sentimental value? Is it required that the glass be buried, and if so, does it matter where?

If your sister has a priest friend over for Mass at her house, and she uses one the crystal glasses she inherited from Grandma for a chalice, then returns it to the cupboard to mix in with the others, you aren’t saying that the whole lot needs to be destroyed? Or if your cousin does the same so the chalice used at her wedding will be “sentimental” or a priest has a glass chalice he got for ordianation, you’re not saying it must be broken? Or are you just saying that breaking and burying is the way to dispose of glass chalices, when it is necessary, prudent, or desirable to do so? (Does it matter which: necessary, prudent, desirable? Which applies when?)

I’m not trying to be argumentative, just find out what is required vs. what is permitted. If you were to post something definitive on the rules concerning possession and disposal of licit and illicit altar vessels after their use at a valid Mass (licit vs. illicit, if it matters), that would be great.

 

[benedictgal]

That is outdated in our archdiocese, anyway. It is allowed for a EMHC to consume the Precious Blood in a solemn fashion, if any is remaining at the end, presumably because the combination of what remains in several communion cups may be too much of the accidents of wine for the priest to take care of himself. This is done before the cup is returned to be purified.

Other than that, EMsHC return the vessels to the altar (in the case of vessels containing hosts that the priest or deacon must transfer over the corporal to the main ciborium that he will then return to the tabernacle) or to the credence table, but purification of the vessels is done by the priests or deacons only, in silence and during Mass. This change was reiterated several times and in no uncertain terms during training of EMHC. Laypeople do clean linens and sacred vessels, but only after those have been ritually purified, and even that is to be done in a solemn manner as well, even the ironing done at home. This was also communicated in no uncertain terms, if in a nice way for all of that.

I know of parishes that have not yet replaced their glass communion cups, though. As far as I know, there isn’t a deadline by which parishes have to spend the money to get ones that meet the requirements, but I’m not in a parish office where I’d be given that information.

The question is whether it is a forbidden that they be returned to secular use. That is, if they are removed from the sacristy, can they ever be used for a secular purpose, or must they be kept out of use entirely? If not, is it required that they be destroyed…for instance, in the case of a glass that has sentimental value? Is it required that the glass be buried, and if so, does it matter where?

If your sister has a priest friend over for Mass at her house, and she uses one the crystal glasses she inherited from Grandma for a chalice, then returns it to the cupboard to mix in with the others, you aren’t saying that the whole lot needs to be destroyed? Or if your cousin does the same so the chalice used at her wedding will be “sentimental” or a priest has a glass chalice he got for ordianation, you’re not saying it must be broken? Or are you just saying that breaking and burying is the way to dispose of glass chalices, when it is necessary, prudent, or desirable to do so? (Does it matter which: necessary, prudent, desirable? Which applies when?)

I’m not trying to be argumentative, just find out what is required vs. what is permitted. If you were to post something definitive on the rules concerning possession and disposal of licit and illicit altar vessels after their use at a valid Mass (licit vs. illicit, if it matters), that would be great.

However, in the hypothetical case you mentioned, the priest would have a Mass kit which would have everything needed (sacred vessels, cruets, hosts) for the Mass. I would hope that a priest would know better than to use glass goblets.

Redemptionis Sacramentum already indicates what is required and what is permissible. It clearly states that glass is not permissible.

Even in the one home Mass I attended, glass was not used. The celebrant brought his Mass kit, in fact, he used his own chalice (given to him by his uncle, an archbishop) for the Mass. Given the fact that he was in his 90s when he celebrated and the chalice was an heirloom (made of gold with enamel and jewels decorating it), he certainly knew which vessel to bring with him.

During the Mexican Revolutionary period, when being a practicing Catholic was an automatic death sentence, I believe that Rome granted specific permission to use glassware, provided that, after the clandestinely celebrated Mass (often in homes and often in basements), the glass vessel was shattered and buried. Blessed Miguel Pro had to do that many times when he was celebrating Mass. That is why I suggeseted breaking the glass and burying its fragments, based, in part, with the example from Mexico’s not too distant past.

 

[malphono]

Sorry to jump in here, but FWIW, I will offer a comment:

But, neither would I use them for Mass. With all due respect, the parents should have checked before going that route. You can get a beautiful gold chalice and paten for that amount of money.

The priest’s parents probably did. Usually, the parents of the ordinand will purchase whatever chalice and paten the ordinand wants and present it to him as an ordination gift. Without knowing the principals here, my guess would be that that is exactly what happened. It seems for all the world that the ordinand wanted a glass “chalice” and his parents dutifully provided it. Most likely he even selected it. To take my guess one step further, I’d imagine that his parents knew little or nothing of canonical requirements, other than what they were told. (BTW, I’m not pulling this out of my hat: I make these “guesses” based on certain personal experience in such matters which I am not about to go into here.)

 

[Cristiano]

The Eucharist does not become the physical presence. Yes, it is the real substantial presence - body, blood, soul and divinity - but it is a sacramental presence, not a physical one. There is a difference. But your point about respect and reverence is well noted…however I don’t think Jesus is offended over His Blood in glass chalices, but then again it’s in the documents so I guess we have to follow it. I would take it to those in charge at the school first and express your concerns. But using glass chalices has nothing to do with Protestant beliefs.

I am sorry but your statement goes against the encyclical “Misterium Fidei” by Paul VI where it is stated:

“sub quibus totus et integer Christus adest in sua physica «realitate» etiam corporaliter praesens”

 

[kevstar31]

So how do address the archbishop in the letter?

 

[benedictgal]

So how do address the archbishop in the letter?

The Most Reverend ----- -------
Archbishop of the Archdiocese of -------
1234 Main
Anytown, TX ----

Most Reverend and Dear Archbishop --------:

Greetings in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

and then proceed with the body of your letter.

Respectfully submitted,
Your name

 

[zab]

I am sorry but your statement goes against the encyclical “Misterium Fidei” by Paul VI where it is stated:

“sub quibus totus et integer Christus adest in sua physica «realitate» etiam corporaliter praesens”

You are no more correct than she. It is just a matter of trying to explain a mystery.
Here is a translation of “Misterium Fidei”:

CHRIST PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST THROUGH TRANSUBSTANTIATION
46. To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, (50) we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. (51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new “reality” which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, **although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place. **

 

[Cristiano]

You are no more correct than she. It is just a matter of trying to explain a mystery.
Here is a translation of “Misterium Fidei”:

One thing is trying to explain a mystery, another is to deny something specific and stating that as a fact.

 

[EasterJoy]

Skip the middle men and go right to the top. A few lightning bolts from god should correct this distasteful behavior. Unless the church has lightning rods but what are the odds of that.

Although waiting to be struck by lightning is a widely-use method of moral and liturgical discernment, I personally think it leaves much to be desired.

Besides, golfers can’t be that morally repugnant to the Almighty, not to mention the little kids with the kites.

 

[Catholic90]

Glass Chalices were used at mass at my collage. Since it is a Jesuit institution I wrote a letter to the local Jesuit Province. Is there anything else I should do in the meantime?

OK, to be nit-picky here…

Was this mass at your COLLAGE or your COLLEGE?

If you put glass chalices in a** collage**, then it is just a picture and art, usually held together by scotch tape on a piece of 11x17 paper.

If it was at mass in COLLEGE, then what the others are discussing applies.

If you are IN COLLEGE, then you should know the difference between a COLLAGE and a COLLEGE. (you might use spell check, but you still have to read it over for clarity!)

Collage: http://www.firelands.bgsu.edu/images/fire/img63933.jpg

College:
http://blog.stanford.edu/unofficial/College-Trip---Harvard-2004.jpg

 

[EasterJoy]

However, in the hypothetical case you mentioned, the priest would have a Mass kit which would have everything needed (sacred vessels, cruets, hosts) for the Mass. I would hope that a priest would know better than to use glass goblets.

Redemptionis Sacramentum already indicates what is required and what is permissible. It clearly states that glass is not permissible.

Even in the one home Mass I attended, glass was not used. The celebrant brought his Mass kit, in fact, he used his own chalice (given to him by his uncle, an archbishop) for the Mass. Given the fact that he was in his 90s when he celebrated and the chalice was an heirloom (made of gold with enamel and jewels decorating it), he certainly knew which vessel to bring with him.

During the Mexican Revolutionary period, when being a practicing Catholic was an automatic death sentence, I believe that Rome granted specific permission to use glassware, provided that, after the clandestinely celebrated Mass (often in homes and often in basements), the glass vessel was shattered and buried. Blessed Miguel Pro had to do that many times when he was celebrating Mass. That is why I suggeseted breaking the glass and burying its fragments, based, in part, with the example from Mexico’s not too distant past.

Do not get me wrong. I’m not saying that it is alright to use your grandma’s crystal for celebrating Mass! I’m asking what must be done, once the deed is done.

Since there are many reasons prudence would require destroying the glass vessel in the Mexican case, though, I was kind of hoping you had some pfficial published guidelines that were a bit more current. I also want to know if it is so imperative that a glass vessel be broken immediately after use in every case that an entire set should be necessarily be destroyed if it is known that one of them was used in the Mass. That is what I meant by the difference between desirable, prudent, and necessary.

That is:

1. What is to be done when there is danger the piece used illicitly in the past will be used illicitly again, or, as in the Mexican case, a danger that it will purposefully be profaned by enemies of the Church?
2. What is to be done when there is no greater danger that this piece will be used illicitly than any other, but it is desired to get rid of it?
3. What is to be done when there is no greater danger that this piece will be used illicitly than any other, but it is desired to keep it?
4. May such a piece ever be kept for sentimental reasons? Secular use?

A table not made of noble materials should never be used at Mass and a dedicated altar in danger of being profaned is better off destroyed, but it does not follow from that that any table not made of noble materials should be destroyed if it has ever been used at Mass.

What are the current guidelines, if any, about the disposal of sacred vessels that cannot be used again? Does that apply here, or does this fall under something else?

 

[MusicMan]

[edited] Holy Communion is to be respected. The Protestants believe it is only a symbol. Catholics believe the bread and wine become the physical presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior Christ! Proper respect and reverence is required!

And what, exactly, does what the Protestants may or may not believe about Holy Communion have to do with the licity of using glass chalices at Mass?

 

[Malkin71]

And what, exactly, does what the Protestants may or may not believe about Holy Communion have to do with the licity of using glass chalices at Mass?

Because, as Catholics we do not believe Holy Communion is symbolic. At Mass Catholics believe that transubstination occurs at Mass and the Hosts and Wine become the Body and Blood of Our Lord. We as Catholics know to have more respect for Our Lord and Savior.

This is one of the major differences between Catholics and Protestants. The most important one.

 

[MusicMan]

Because, as Catholics we do not believe Holy Communion is symbolic. At Mass Catholics believe that transubstination occurs at Mass and the Hosts and Wine become the Body and Blood of Our Lord. We as Catholics know to have more respect for Our Lord and Savior.

This is one of the major differences between Catholics and Protestants. The most important one.

Which has what to do with, exactly, the licity of the chalices used at Mass?

 

[Malkin71]

Which has what to do with, exactly, the licity of the chalices used at Mass?

I am making a point. I have a feeling that individuals who use glass Chalices do not believe in the presence and believe it is only a symbol.

 

[MusicMan]

Well, we all know that any time there is a deviation from the rubrics of the Mass it has to do with unbelief in the Real Presence.

When, in reality, the logical reason for forbidding glass chalices is due to their breakablility. Crystal is far from indestructible, and the last thing we want to have happen at Mass is for a lay person serving as emHC or a communicant to do something to shatter the glass and cause the Precious Blood to be spilled, splashed, etc.

With metal chalices, this danger is just reduced to spillage from dropping the chalice, not it’s accidental destruction.

Further, in my life of faith and music on this Earth, I have only encountered glass chalices in a Catholic Church. Even those wily unbelieving Protestants know better and use metal ones.