M
Malkin71
Guest
The ruberics of the Mass must be followed!
I do not know what you mean in your first question?
- Status
I do not know what you mean in your first question?
M
Malkin71
Guest
What period is that? What were the years? Masses that I have be from the past 40 years the chalice was metal with gold. Prior to that From what I was told they were metal too.
What area are you speaking of?
I am making a point about heresy. You do not have to be sarcastic about my spelling.
If Bishops, and Priests would have taken hard line approace to all the inovations and experiments to the Mass, the OF Mass would be more reverent.
Also, Here in Pittsburgh, Pa. was once the Glass capitol of the world. Glass that was made here was shipped and ordered throughout the world. Palaces, heads of state, etc. knew about the high quality of our glass products from here. So wouldn’t that make a case for the chalices here in the Dioecesis of Pittsburgh to be made of galss?
C
Contarini
Guest
I refer you to Aquinas’s explanation. Basically he says that a Eucharistic miracle is not a direct expression of the Real Presence but an *additional *miracle pointing to the reality of Christ’s sacramental presence. In a Eucharistic miracle believers are not seeing something that is always there in the consecrated Eucharist but which their eyes are usually too dull to perceive. They are seeing something that illustrates the sacramental reality that is always there. A Eucharistic miracle involves a real change in the sacramental species themselves (not of course in the substance–that is already changed in transubstantiation) and not just in the perceptions of the beholders.
From my perspective as a non-Catholic, another possible explanation is that these miracles were hoaxes or honest mistakes of some sort. I don’t say that this is what I believe, only that I do not find miracles to be conclusive proof of anything. As Hume pointed out, the possibility for deception or error is always too great for that (I don’t of course agree with Hume that this means that we should never believe in miracles at all, only that we should believe in them if and when the empirical evidence for them is in agreement with a convincing non-empirical account of reality).
Edwin
Z
zab
Guest
Since the OP used the word “Chalices” in plural, I took it to mean the cups used by the EMHC. Our parish which is a very conservative, traditional (in the sense that it is loyal to the teachings of the church and tries to do things the way they are supposed to be done) had crystal cups for the use of the EMHC several years ago (around 15 years ago). At the time these were thought to be OK. To my knowledge there had not been any discussion of the subject at the time our crystal cups were purchased. Even the response coming from Rome in 2003 did not outright prohibit the use of crystal. *" the latitude provided in liturgical law does not allow for an outright prohibition. " *However, I believe this issue has been further clarified in more recent updates to the G.I.R.M. Our parish has since replaced the beautiful crystal cups with silver cups with gold inside. Most parishes should have had plenty of time to make this change as well. But there may be some places, such as the college chapel that have not had the funds to make this change. I believe that the best way to show concern for this issue is to approach the college chaplain and asked what can be done to get the appropriate sacred vessels.
C
Contarini
Guest
Where it should be drawn. This is one of those false questions people ask, like “since there are so many religions, how do we know that which one is true?” Asking the question in that rhetorical way indicates that you aren’t really interested in finding an answer, and that you think that the mere existence of such a question is a fatal problem. It isn’t.
Surely the bottom line here would be what your Communion teaches to be necessary for validity.
I don’t think you are being orthodox here in terms of the official teaching of your Church. As I understand it, the line between valid and invalid is quite sharply defined–you don’t make a sacrament invalid by accumulating “small violations.”
You have a right to the sacraments. I’m not sure why you think you have a right to something called a “Catholic experience.” That seems very consumeristic to me.
Sorry to butt in on this thread as a non-Catholic, but I think you guys need a bit of a reality check at times. You need to know that this legalistic approach is one of the reasons folks like me–who agree with much Catholic doctrine and could submit to the rest of it in a pinch–find it impossible to unite with your Communion. I simply can’t believe that belonging to the Body of Christ should hinge on whether one uses glass chalices.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
You aren’t really making a “point” about anything but your feeling. And you haven’t shown why anyone should care about your “feeling,” except perhaps for concern about what such censorious and unwarranted feelings may be doing to your soul.
Edwin
N
Newbie2
Guest
And if glass chalices are used, what exactly happens or does not happen?
If the consecrated wine is offered in glass chalices, would you refuse it on the basis of what sort of material is used for the chalice? Don’t parishes, not individuals, make the choice of which chalice to use (I mean the priest in any particular parish)?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
And if glass chalices are used, what exactly happens or does not happen?
If the consecrated wine is offered in glass chalices, would you refuse it on the basis of what sort of material is used for the chalice? Don’t parishes, not individuals, make the choice of which chalice to use (I mean the priest in any particular parish)?
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.
M
Malkin71
Guest
It is the respect that Catholics have for The Body and Blood of Christ! Treating it unworthy is disrespectful! Christ is the King of Kings! How should we treat him? Nothing but the best! A glass chalice can break. Also, the GIRM points out what the chalice is to be made out of.
If you think I am being Orthodox, the Eastern Rite and Orthodox have very strict rules in their services.
Like I said before Catholics, Eastern Rite, and Orthodox belive in the Devine presence in Holy Communion. Priotestants do not share that same view. It is a important one!
E
EasterJoy
Guest
The practice is forbidden, but it doesn’t make the Mass invalid. I couldn’t say one way or the other whether it would be laudatory to avoid reception of the Precious Blood when the GIRM instructions concerning the materials to be used for chalices and communion cups are not being followed. It isn’t required. (If the faithful were bound to avoid receiving Holy Communion every time they were aware of a violation of rubrics, some people couldn’t observe the Church precept to receive annually during the Easter season.)And if glass chalices are used, what exactly happens or does not happen?
If the consecrated wine is offered in glass chalices, would you refuse it on the basis of what sort of material is used for the chalice? Don’t parishes, not individuals, make the choice of which chalice to use (I mean the priest in any particular parish)?
To the OP:
If you really want to be sacrificial about it, offer to raise the money from yourself and others who think it important to have cups of sufficiently noble and durable materials, so that the glass ones can be retired. As in: “Father, the GIRM doesn’t allow the sacred vessels to be made of glass, but I know we’re not flush with money, so I’d like to raise money to replace them with metal ones. Would you be OK with that?” If he replies that there are other needs more pressing, you can merely reply, “Yes, there will always be lots of pressing needs, but this is the need that is pressing on my heart right now”…although if you’re taking responsibility for raising the money, I doubt you’ll get an objection. It would be gracious, though, to ask him to select what he would like from the options you and your cohort can afford, so that he doesn’t have to ask to have the (name removed by moderator)ut that he should have by rights.
I know a place where this was done, and the pastor was not only open to the idea, but entirely pleased with it. It is a sizable sum to raise, but it is not beyond doing. Sometimes, though, when the furnace is on its last legs and the roof is counting down to retirement, it isn’t easy for the pastor to spearhead such an effort.
Remember that Judas was the one who objected when the woman honored the Lord extravagantly. The poor you will always have with you. We have to see to their needs. Sometimes, though, the right thing to do is to plunk down the money for that alabaster jar.
M
Malkin71
Guest
Excellent! I agree!
F
fultonfish
Guest
I attended a funeral mass for a priest. The mass was said by the Cardinal Archbishop with a hundred priests con-celebrating. He used Waterford crystal that had belonged to the deceased priest and wove the priest’s collection into his homily.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
If it is not made into a “we’re right, they’re wrong”, but just coming forward to do what needs to be done, I think there will be many people willing to pitch in. I think it is the least contentious solution, too, and a very difficult gift for any pastor to turn down.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
This is not going to be a chancery office that is going to bring down the boom on this particular issue.
Still, most parishes that have not yet replaced glass cups with metal* do not* have Waterford. They have crystal or even glass cups that were felt to be sufficiently noble in appearance but far less expensive to acquire than noble metals. I would predict that arranging the direct donation of vessles that conform with the rubrics is an immediately effective solution in most cases, and saves waiting for the Vatican to choose to take this on out of all the other fish Rome has to fry with her brother bishops in the US. It does take the willingness to do what the youth group has to do in order to get to a youth conference that the parish can’t payroll.
Having said that, though, when offering to raise the money, I wouldn’t be above asking a pastor who seems sympathetic if the parish would be willing to provide matching funds for the effort. You never know! Oh, and hit up the Altar Society and the Knights of Columbus, too. Ask around. It is entirely likely that there are some who have this on their heart among the parish organizations, too.
M
Malkin71
Guest
You are right. If the Priest turns the offer down, then there is something wrong. You are right about the “we’re right, they’re wrong but needs to be done”.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Yes, but there’s also a reason by the police don’t give out speeding tickets to people going 1mph over the limit. One could argue that if we allow 1mph over, then why not 2, and then 3, and so on and so forth. But God-given common sense prevails.
A glass/crystal chalice while not common was not unheard of up until the last 10 years. Plenty of transubstantiation believing priests have used them at one time or another. So at issue here is not one of denying the real presence or an attempt to change the meaning of a liturgical function. Its simply a priest using an “outdated” chalice.
I’m not claiming that its perfectly fine to violate liturgical norms. I’m just saying it strikes me as strange to want to report somoene to an authority due to a minor violation.
Exactly my point, people have better things to be doing.
In my diocese about once or twice a year a letter goes out to all parishes outlining various “common errors” that have been taking place and points out the correct way things should be done. But short of changing the words of consecration or changing of the order of the liturgy no one I am aware of has ever been personally told to change something.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Using a glass chalice is not a heresy. And grape kool aid instead of wine would invalidate the sacrament so there’s no comparison.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
RS–2004
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 honour 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]
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 honour 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]
- Grave Matters
M
MusicMan
Guest
Well, clearly what we need are a sanctioned corps of top secret lay people charged with “supervising” what’s going on in churches, reporting abuses, and questioning the belief of the faithful. This corps would make their reports directly to the Diocesesan Bishop, or, should the corps of a diocese determine that their Bishop is too liberal, permissive, or abusive himself, make their report directly to Rome.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
RS-2004
[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or** lay member of Christ’s faithful,** has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.
- Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters
[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or** lay member of Christ’s faithful,** has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.
- Status