Reporting use of Glass Chalice

[Contarini]

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.

And it is this kind of centralized control that makes the Roman Communion look so un-Catholic to those of us with some knowledge of the early Church.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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.

A golden one can be spilled.

If Jesus wanted to preserve Himself from hurt, He would have avoided that whole crucifixion thing.

And at any rate, do I need to remind you that according to Catholic theology Christ is *not *harmed in any way by what is done to the consecrated elements? That of course is no excuse for carelessness, much less deliberate irreverence. But the use of relatively simple materials is not irreverent. It’s a different aesthetic. Both the Eastern (as you note) and Western Church naturally tended to interpret respect for the Sacrament in terms of how an emperor would be treated. For some modern Christians, that does not seem like the most appropriate way to show respect. Celebrating the Sacrament in a way that focuses on the basics and emphasizes the simplicity and humility of Christ may *also *be legitimate. And a healthy Catholicism allows for local variation in such matters. The Real Presence is not in question. What is in question is how it is best expressed aesthetically.

Also, the GIRM points out what the chalice is to be made out of.

I am aware of this.

If you think I am being Orthodox

I’m not sure what you mean by that. What I said was that your belief that small “abuses” add up to invalidity is *unorthodox. *It contradicts the sacramental teaching of the Catholic Church. Just as many venial sins don’t make a mortal sin, so many “illlicit” elements in a sacramental celebration don’t make an “invalid” one. That is according to the teaching of your own Church. Check with a priest, if you know any priests who meet your standards!

Like I said before Catholics, Eastern Rite, and Orthodox belive in the Devine presence in Holy Communion. Priotestants do not share that same view.

You show your ignorance of Protestantism here.

Edwin

 

[Gaudium86]

In regard to my question about where the line between acceptable and unacceptable liturgical abuses should be drawn, it was written:

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 can’t agree with this. On this view, there is some minimalistic list of requirements for the validity of a Mass, and so long as the priest hits all these major points, he is free to make up the rest. The Catholic Mass - in its Ordinary and Extraordinary forms - is a beautiful thing that has been imbued with symbolism and meaning over centuries. As much as I like my pastor, I don’t think he should be free to alter the Mass as he sees fit.

I used to live in Manhattan, and in Harlem it was common to see “Reverend X’s Church of Christ” or “Reverend Z’s New Evangelical Church.” By overlooking abuses in the Catholic Church, I think we’re taking a step in that direction. When I go to Mass on Sunday, however, I expect to find the rites and practices of the Roman Catholic Church - whether or not the priest likes them.

An example that I referenced in my original post in this thread relates to the availability of screens in the confessional. I’m sure that some priests hate the screen; considering how much I enjoy hearing the words of absolution, it must be wonderful as a priest to see the happiness on the face of a freshly-absolved penitent. Yet by ignoring Church doctrine and failing to provide a screen, a priest would be making people like me who love the anonymity of the screen uncomfortable. What gives him the right to do that?

While using a glass chalice isn’t likely to make people uncomfortable like the absence of the confessional screen, the point is the same: Catholic priests are called to evangelize and provide access to the sacraments as they are, not to alter them.

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.

I agree, the phrase “Catholic experience” sounded hokey to me when I wrote it. But still, I think the point I was trying to make is important. While Latin is no longer the common language of the Mass, the form of the Mass is still “catholic,” or universal. OK, so we in North America may kneel a little longer during the consecration than most other countries, but the Mass I attend in the US is essentially the same as the Masses I’ve attended in France and Italy. I think that unless a Vatican indult says otherwise, Roman Catholics are entitled to a catholicity of form in the Mass. Quite simply, liturgical abuses undermine this.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
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.

---

Well knowledge of the “early” Church hasn’t quite helped the protestant communities has it. For they have been in the process of splintering more and more —getting weaker and weaker in doctrine and morality as time progresses.

 

[Brendan]

And it is this kind of centralized control that makes the Roman Communion look so un-Catholic to those of us with some knowledge of the early Church.

Edwin

Yep, like in the Council of Jerusalem when Peter spoke and all further debate stopped? Is that the Early Church you are talking about

 

[Brendan]

A golden one can be spilled.

But when a golden one is dropped, it doesn’t add shards to the matter that needed to be cleaned up.

 

[Joannm]

But when a golden one is dropped, it doesn’t add shards to the matter that needed to be cleaned up.

A well known liturgy professor told us the story of going to a conference where Cardinal Arinze was giving a talk. There was a display area with different companies selling liturgical vessels, vestments, books, etc. The professor and the Cardinal were walking past a popular high end supplier of liturgical vessels and the Cardinal spied a glass chalice. He pointed out to the vendor that that was not allowed. The vendor asked why and the Cardinal told him that because they can break easily. At that point the vendor held the chalice over his head and dropped it on the uncarpeted floor. The chalice remained intact without the least crack (it was made of heavy crystal and was very expensive). So much for all glass chalices being easily broken.

 

[Brendan]

A well known liturgy professor told us the story of going to a conference where Cardinal Arinze was giving a talk. There was a display area with different companies selling liturgical vessels, vestments, books, etc. The professor and the Cardinal were walking past a popular high end supplier of liturgical vessels and the Cardinal spied a glass chalice. He pointed out to the vendor that that was not allowed. The vendor asked why and the Cardinal told him that because they can break easily. At that point the vendor held the chalice over his head and dropped it on the uncarpeted floor. The chalice remained intact without the least crack (it was made of heavy crystal and was very expensive). So much for all glass chalices being easily broken.

No problem then, simply perform that test on whatever chalice the parish has, if it passes, great, if not, it shouldn’t have been used in the first place

 

[Walking_Home]

A well known liturgy professor told us the story of going to a conference where Cardinal Arinze was giving a talk. There was a display area with different companies selling liturgical vessels, vestments, books, etc. The professor and the Cardinal were walking past a popular high end supplier of liturgical vessels and the Cardinal spied a glass chalice. He pointed out to the vendor that that was not allowed. The vendor asked why and the Cardinal told him that because they can break easily. At that point the vendor held the chalice over his head and dropped it on the uncarpeted floor. The chalice remained intact without the least crack (it was made of heavy crystal and was very expensive). So much for all glass chalices being easily broken.

---

Apparently–the demonstration was not sufficient to change the directive–since the Church still reprobates glass.

 

[EasterJoy]

If they know it is wrong to have a Glass Chalice, WHY HAVE ONE? Question, where do we draw the line? Hersays sprung up throughout history and have been confronted. If it hadn’t what shape would we be in? We are required to have a proper Mass. To celebrate Mass properly, ruberics should be followed. Having a glass chalice is against the ruberics.

What next grape kool aide instead of wine?

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.

 

[benedictgal]

And it is this kind of centralized control that makes the Roman Communion look so un-Catholic to those of us with some knowledge of the early Church.

Edwin

With all due respect, the Church knows what the early Church was like because she was there. Remember that Jesus, in the 16th chapter of St. Matthew, gave Peter (and his successors) the power to bind and loosen. St. Peter exercised this authority when he called for the election of a new Apostle to take the place of Judas. Even St. Paul showed deference to St. Peter as he sought to meet him first. St. Justin, Martyr, one of the Church Fathers, noted that wherever Peter is, there is the Church. St. Paul, asserting himself in his ministry as Apostle, chided the Corinthians, in the first recorded liturgical abuse in the New Testament, that they should not be engaged in ilicit practices during the Eucharist.

Part of the Petrine ministry, as I mentioned earlier, is to bind and loosen. The Pope exercises this ministry through Congregations like the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The documents of the Church, as both Walking Home and I have quoted, help to safetuard the Holy Sacrifice.

Furthermore, to want to hearken back to the Early Church, I wonder, is to also want to share in the persecutions and all of the trials. It would also mean sacrificing your life to protect the integrty of the Holy Eucharist. That is part and parcel of being a part of the Early Church.

 

[FrDavid96]

If the parish was able to raise funds to purchase a crystal chalice in the past, they are more than likely able to raise enough to purchase a proper chalice today. I myself am pastor of parish that is struggling financially. I know with certainty that if I were to tell the other priests in the diocese that we don’t have a proper chalice and can’t afford one, not only would they be more than willing to give me some “spares” but we would receive more than enough assistance from other parishes to purchase a new one.

I have never seen a parish which has only one chalice. In reality, most parishes have more than they know what to do with. I know of many parishes who have actually requested the Knights of Columbus to stop donating chalices in memory of deceased Knights because they simply have too many chalices. There are so many unused chalices out there that the claim “we can’t afford one, so we’re using the old crystal” simply doesn’t hold water.

For something as important as a proper chalice, there is always some source for obtaining one.

 

[zab]

In my Archdiocese in Atlantic Canada (“New Brunswick”) one large parish with over 10,000 families has regrettably been using glass crystal chalices for over five years now.
Does the Archbishop know about it ? He clearly does but in his discretionary liberalized wisdom, he has sought to do absolutely nothing about it dispite numerous complaints.
Letters were sent to both the Canadian Nuncio and the Vatican to no avail.
It certainly doesn’t take five years to get an answer to this kind of liturgical abuse.
However; the clergy members adopting this abuse will give answer to it by their Creator.

It is possible that one could question whether crystal would be included in the directive “glass, earthenware, clay or any other materials that break easily.” I’m just wondering why an answer to the letters were never received. Or if there has been any clarification from the Vatican since the 2003 letter on this subject.
*“On the basis of these considerations I would say that in most cases glass is unsuitable material for use as a chalice, **but the latitude provided in liturgical law does not allow for an outright prohibition.” *zenit.org/article-8181?l=english

 

[zab]

If the parish was able to raise funds to purchase a crystal chalice in the past, they are more than likely able to raise enough to purchase a proper chalice today. I myself am pastor of parish that is struggling financially. I know with certainty that if I were to tell the other priests in the diocese that we don’t have a proper chalice and can’t afford one, not only would they be more than willing to give me some “spares” but we would receive more than enough assistance from other parishes to purchase a new one.

I have never seen a parish which has only one chalice. In reality, most parishes have more than they know what to do with. I know of many parishes who have actually requested the Knights of Columbus to stop donating chalices in memory of deceased Knights because they simply have too many chalices. There are so many unused chalices out there that the claim “we can’t afford one, so we’re using the old crystal” simply doesn’t hold water.
For something as important as a proper chalice, there is always some source for obtaining one.

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.

 

[FrDavid96]

The date of the ZENIT article is September 2003. Whether or not the conclusions of that article were correct at the time, the conclusion no longer applies.

Redemptionis Sacramentum was published in March 2004, so the words in ZENIT " the latitude provided in liturgical law does not allow for an outright prohibition" cannot be applied to the liturgical norms of today since there now is such an outright prohibition.

 

[Renko]

Glass Chalices are a No No.:tsktsk::tsktsk:

 

[zab]

The date of the ZENIT article is September 2003. Whether or not the conclusions of that article were correct at the time, the conclusion no longer applies.

Redemptionis Sacramentum was published in March 2004, so the words in ZENIT " the latitude provided in liturgical law does not allow for an outright prohibition" cannot be applied to the liturgical norms of today since there now is such an outright prohibition.

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.”

 

[benedictgal]

Redemptionis Sacramentum is the prevailing document here. As Walking Home and Fr. David pointed out, this supercedes whatever opinion held back in 2003. And, the use of glassware for sacred vessels is reprobate.

 

[zab]

Redemptionis Sacramentum is the prevailing document here. As Walking Home and Fr. David pointed out, this supercedes whatever opinion held back in 2003. And, the use of glassware for sacred vessels is reprobate.

Forget about the 2003 letter. I’m just asking a simple question.

1. 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.http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...0423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#_ftn207

 

[Joannm]

---

Apparently–the demonstration was not sufficient to change the directive–since the Church still reprobates glass.

True, but, at least in this case, the reasoning was not valid. If it was a lesser quality glass or crystal it would be a valid reason.