Why aren't glass chalices acceptable?

[Denis_Laplante]

I have read that clay and glass chalices aren’t acceptable. Are there reasons which can explain this prohibition?
Thanks and God bless you! Denis from Moncton, N.B., Canada

 

[Brendan]

I have read that clay and glass chalices aren’t acceptable. Are there reasons which can explain this prohibition?
Thanks and God bless you! Denis from Moncton, N.B., Canada

First of all “Rome said so” should be enough for any Catholic.

But that said, if a chalice that fell from the altar to the floor would break, it can’t be used. That includes both glass and earthenware.

The procedure for a spill of the Precious Blood is to cover the area with purificators until either the Precious Blood is entirely removed, or the accidents of wine are not longer present.

The presence of chalice fragments would unecessarily complicate the process.

It would be far better just to pick up the still intact ( if perhaps dented) chalice and use the normal procedure.

 

[drafdog]

As I recall there is a condition on the specification for materials used in the making of sacred vessels to the effect that the material be “durable in nature.” Apparently the Vatican hasn’t seen the latest in the science of glass making. There is some really tough glass out there on the market.
The objection is not really that the glass will break if dropped. The precious blood would be spilled out no matter what the material.

Matthew

 

[drforjc]

The objection is not really that the glass will break if dropped. The precious blood would be spilled out no matter what the material.

Matthew

Sure it is. Re-read the last two sentences of Brendan’s post immediately above yours.

 

[joecap]

The Chalice is expected to be either gold or gold-plated on the inside. It must be made of precious metal to contain the Precious Blood of our Lord.

 

[stmaria]

As I recall there is a condition on the specification for materials used in the making of sacred vessels to the effect that the material be “durable in nature.” Apparently the Vatican hasn’t seen the latest in the science of glass making. There is some really tough glass out there on the market.
The objection is not really that the glass will break if dropped. The precious blood would be spilled out no matter what the material.

Matthew

Redemptionis Sacramentum
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20V

Chapter V
CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS CONCERNING
THE EUCHARIST
3. Sacred Vessels
“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. …It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region, 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.”

 

[drafdog]

Stmaria underlined a couple of things that I think are noteworthy in specifications for materials for sacred vessels. She noted “noble material” and “not easily broken.” Glass is a “noble material” in the sense that it does not tarnish or oxidize in any fashion. The material is actually an oxide itself. Further note that new work in glass making has yielded types of glass that do not break easily. I saw a demonstration where a glass was repeatedly pounded on a hard (wooden) surface without damage. So in the common parlance the use of certain types of glass would be acceptable.
For the record, gold does look nicer. But that isn’t the point.

Matthew

 

[benedictgal]

Stmaria underlined a couple of things that I think are noteworthy in specifications for materials for sacred vessels. She noted “noble material” and “not easily broken.” Glass is a “noble material” in the sense that it does not tarnish or oxidize in any fashion. The material is actually an oxide itself. Further note that new work in glass making has yielded types of glass that do not break easily. I saw a demonstration where a glass was repeatedly pounded on a hard (wooden) surface without damage. So in the common parlance the use of certain types of glass would be acceptable.
For the record, gold does look nicer. But that isn’t the point.

Matthew

Evidently, you did not read the quote from Cardinal Arinze that I had posted in another thread (similar subject). Here it is:

In the United States, we have adequate income, why would we have to use glass or porcelain for the precious Blood and the Body of our Lord on the altar and not gold?

Oh, for the vessels. Ah! Actually, the liturgical laws forbid [this]. This is actually for bishops and priests to work out, because you cannot work out all that. But the liturgical laws are laid down about what type of vessel will be allowed at Mass.

Glass is forbidden. Yes, Forbidden. And anything that can break. Not to talk of those using baskets! Terrible things happen in this world!

However, not all priests know that. There are places where they had glass and they didn’t know.

Don’t roll your eyes like a slot machine because this quote comes from Adoreums (which has an extensive library of comments, statements and rulings issued by Cardinal Arinze). Here he is, in fact, speaking not as himself, but as the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

I don’t mean to sound flippant, but, as another poster indicated, Rome has already decided upon the matter.

 

[sphilomena]

Redemptionis Sacramentum
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20V

Chapter V
CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS CONCERNING
THE EUCHARIST
3. Sacred Vessels
“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. …It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region, 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.”

One of the key words is “noble”. From a historical perspective, precious metal is more noble than glass. Think of kings and queens drinking from their gold goblets. Drafdog doesn’t seem to be getting it - Rome says so!

 

[pnewton]

I go to a parish back in the suburbs of nowhere and yet my priest heard of the papal document two years ago banning these things. When I asked him, we had just been given new porcelain chalices as a gift to the parish. It took a few months to get the money for new gold plated chalices, but within six months we had them. Sometimes things like this happen. I do not fault the priest, especiallu when they comply as soon as "reasonably possible.

 

[stmaria]

Stmaria underlined a couple of things that I think are noteworthy in specifications for materials for sacred vessels. She noted “noble material” and “not easily broken.” Glass is a “noble material” in the sense that it does not tarnish or oxidize in any fashion. The material is actually an oxide itself. Further note that new work in glass making has yielded types of glass that do not break easily. I saw a demonstration where a glass was repeatedly pounded on a hard (wooden) surface without damage. So in the common parlance the use of certain types of glass would be acceptable.
For the record, gold does look nicer.** But that isn’t the point.
**Matthew

But that is the point. The blood of Christ should be contained in only the most precious materials. Glass is commonware.It is for drinking common elements.

Here is a video of [edited by Moderator] Cardinal Mahoney using glass vessels. You can’t tell me that these glass vessels reduce the appearance of the blood of Christ to mere wine. This cannot be allowed.
youtube.com/watch?v=exeJwY1FD4Q&mode=related&search

 

[Lovemyfaith]

Glass chalices can break…Ever since the new rules went into effect (December 2005)… not allowed to use anything but metal or metal coated wood. However, if you were using them prior to Dec 2005, you can continue to use them until they break. If they break, they may not be replaced

 

[peary]

As I recall there is a condition on the specification for materials used in the making of sacred vessels to the effect that the material be “durable in nature.” Apparently the Vatican hasn’t seen the latest in the science of glass making. There is some really tough glass out there on the market.
The objection is not really that the glass will break if dropped. The precious blood would be spilled out no matter what the material.

Matthew

The way it was explained to me, not only should sacred vessels be “durable in nature” but that they need to be pure in the making. Tempered glass is ‘tampered’ glass; this means that the process of creating it was changed in such a way that its elements were radically altered. Sacred vessels have been made in the same way as they had for thousands of years. I understand it to mean that they are created by a specific process that does not contain impurities (or the least amount) and is naturally durable.

 

[scylla]

To quote the Fiddler on the Roof…
I can tell you in one word…

Tradition

Tradition is the reflection of the reality of our faith that comes from God not from us. To reject it is like the rude kid who smashes anothers sandcastle and puts his own there. To accept it is like the kid who takes an old sandcastle repairs it and adds to the beauty.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[drafdog]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The material has to be “noble.” But there are stainless steel chalices out there in common use and the Vatican is not frothing at the mouth over them. Just the glass ones. As I said the nobility of glass resides in the fact that it is incorruptable and can be made to be strong enough that the dictum against easily breakable materials is not countermanded.
And if you’re interested, all you have to do is take the glass chalice and preheat it to an appropriate temperature and dip it in a gold bath. Voila! A gold chalice. Gold melts at a lower temperature than glass.

Matthew

 

[benedictgal]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The material has to be “noble.” But there are stainless steel chalices out there in common use and the Vatican is not frothing at the mouth over them. Just the glass ones. As I said the nobility of glass resides in the fact that it is incorruptable and can be made to be strong enough that the dictum against easily breakable materials is not countermanded.
And if you’re interested, all you have to do is take the glass chalice and preheat it to an appropriate temperature and dip it in a gold bath. Voila! A gold chalice. Gold melts at a lower temperature than glass.

Matthew

Matthew, I don’t know what you have against rulings from Rome. You tone shows a certain disregard for Tradition. Perhaps it would do you well to read the documents so as to better educate yourself on things. Cardinal Arinze has already made his statement. Rome has made its ruling. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[peary]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The material has to be “noble.” But there are stainless steel chalices out there in common use and the Vatican is not frothing at the mouth over them. Just the glass ones. As I said the nobility of glass resides in the fact that it is incorruptable and can be made to be strong enough that the dictum against easily breakable materials is not countermanded.
And if you’re interested, all you have to do is take the glass chalice and preheat it to an appropriate temperature and dip it in a gold bath. Voila! A gold chalice. Gold melts at a lower temperature than glass.

Matthew

**Matthew - you don’t “get it” and I doubt you ever will. **

 

[drafdog]

I get it very clearly. The quote from the Vatican left the definition of noble up to local usage of the term: “such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region”. In other words it is a flexible requirement around what the local community calls a noble material.
Bear in mind that stainless steel is not a “noble substance” by some definitions. It is also a modified material since it is an alloy of iron, a corruptable material which is forbidden for use in sacred vessels. The stainless steel chalice is approved, but the strong glass, an incorruptable material, not easily broken is not.
Maybe you didn’t get the point I was making.

Matthew

 

[Digitonomy]

It does seem clear that Cardinal Arinze’s statement ruled out glass because of its breakability, and so one could appeal for approval of non-breakable glass. Although to my mind, Corning Ware glass and the like don’t qualify as noble substances.

 

[Brendan]

I get it very clearly. The quote from the Vatican left the definition of noble up to local usage of the term: “such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region”.

You are correct, the defintion of ‘nobel’ may be influnced by local standards.

But that is irrelevant to the point.

The CDWDS ruled out glass due to it’s fragility.

And if chemists have created glass that could reasonable withstand a 4 ft drop onto a stone floor, its use would be seperate from a determination on “nobel” materials, and thus not be a local decision.

The use of “high strength” glass would still have to be approved by the CDWDS, as they are the legislating authority.