Why aren't glass chalices acceptable?

[drafdog]

I’m in agreement that the milk white Corell ware glass is not suitable for sacred vessels for reasons of aesthetics. This is not to say that the local ordinary may not make a decision to approve the use of a suitably colored (or clear) high strength glass for chalices and patens. This covers the “local estimation” of nobility.

Matthew

PS Some of the spelling in this forum is atrocious. Can people at least use the spell checker? Please?

 

[benedictgal]

I’m in agreement that the milk white Corell ware glass is not suitable for sacred vessels for reasons of aesthetics. This is not to say that the local ordinary may not make a decision to approve the use of a suitably colored (or clear) high strength glass for chalices and patens. This covers the “local estimation” of nobility.

Matthew

PS Some of the spelling in this forum is atrocious. Can people at least use the spell checker? Please?

Nonetheless, Rome has made its ruling. Why are you so quick to go against the CDWDS? Cardinal Arinze is pretty crystal clear on how the Church stands as far as glass is concerned.

As a reminder, here is what he said:

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.

His Eminence can’t get any clearer than the glassware you are trying to advocate, Matthew.

 

[Manfred]

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

WHAT? You mean there’s a video of Cardinal Mahony using a glass “chalice”? Well, then, what further need have we of witnesses? That alone should be enough to indicate that it must be the WRONG thing to do.

 

[piusphilistine]

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

Waterford crystal is “glass” and it is most precious…

I am sorry that you have obviously never attended Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. They have gorgeous (and HEAVY!) precious vessels there. Some are even made out of metal AND crystal…

 

[benedictgal]

Waterford crystal is “glass” and it is most precious…

I am sorry that you have obviously never attended Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. They have gorgeous (and HEAVY!) precious vessels there. Some are even made out of metal AND crystal…

Just because these are used at Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles does not make them licit. Francis Cardinal Arinze has made this point crystal clear in the question and answer quote that I posted. He said that glass is forbidden for use in the liturgy.

It is regrettable when pastoral leaders do not take directives from the Vatican seriously. However, the prohibition against glassware remains.

 

[benedictgal]

Waterford crystal is “glass” and it is most precious…

I am sorry that you have obviously never attended Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. They have gorgeous (and HEAVY!) precious vessels there. Some are even made out of metal AND crystal…

Furthermore, Redemptionis Sacramentum, which has been referenced before in previous posts, specifically states that:

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 honor 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

Glass is clearly listed as reprobated material. How much more crystal clear do you want the Vatican to be on this matter? Incidentally RS was written in collaboration with the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, which, at the time, was headed by none other than Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who, just happens to go by a new name now, Pope Benedict XVI. Therefore, if the Holy Father, as Cardinal Ratzinger, played an instrumental role in this document, I highly doubt that he will make any changes to it, including allowing glassware to be used in the making of sacred vessels.

 

[Brendan]

I’m in agreement that the milk white Corell ware glass is not suitable for sacred vessels for reasons of aesthetics. This is not to say that the local ordinary may not make a decision to approve the use of a suitably colored (or clear) high strength glass for chalices and patens. This covers the “local estimation” of nobility.

No, an Ordinary has no authority to use glass. It is reprobrated on the grounds of breakability, not nobility. If a bishop desires to use a supposed “high strength” glass, he must first consult the legislating authority, in this case, that would be the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

The CDWDS did not grant local estimation of breakablilty. It only permitted a local determination of what constitutes “nobility”, not what consititutes “breakability” so the authority is not granted.

If a bishop felt particular glassware was not breakable, he would have to submit the request to the CDWDS for approval.

 

[benedictgal]

drafdog;3013876:

I’m in agreement that the milk white Corell ware glass is not suitable for sacred vessels for reasons of aesthetics. This is not to say that the local ordinary may not make a decision to approve the use of a suitably colored (or clear) high strength glass for chalices and patens. This covers the “local estimation” of nobility.

No, an Ordinary has no authority to use glass. It is reprobrated on the grounds of breakability, not nobility. If a bishop desires to use a supposed “high strength” glass, he must first consult the legislating authority, in this case, that would be the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

From what I have read, no such indult has been given regarding glassware for use in sacred vessels. I subscribe to Zenit and the Vatican News Service and they’re excellent about informing us of updates, especially when it comes to liturgy. Furthermore, if an indult had been given, the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship (as it is now called) would have posted it. So far, the only thing regarding indults is the fact that Pope Benedict XVI rescinded the indult allowing EMHC’s to purify the sacred vessels after communion. Interestingly enough, the RS reprobation also includes a ban on the use of flagons and bowls.

 

[Digitonomy]

he must first consult the legislating authority

I find the use of this term interesting. Is “legislating authority” a canon law term, or a term you’ve adopted from American law?

 

[Brendan]

I find the use of this term interesting. Is “legislating authority” a canon law term, or a term you’ve adopted from American law?

No, it’s a Canon Law term. I learned it in my Canon Law class.

It describes the level at which you must address questions. For example, if a Bishop established Particular Law, if you had a question, or sought an exemption, you must contact the bishop, as he was the legislating authority.

In this case, the body issuing he directive is the CDWDS. They are the legislating authority, and questions, or a request for an exemption, are to be referred to that body.

One interesing way that Canon Law differs from almost all civil law is the executive, legislative and judical body for a level of authority is one and the same.

In civil law, the city council, or state or national legislature creates the law, the executive (mayor, governor, president\prime minister) executes the law, and the judiciiary interpretes the law.

In Canon Law, the bishop creates, executes and interpretes Particular Law.

On the “Federal” level (to use a civil term) each Dicastery has full authority in their area of competency to create, execute and interpret Universal Law. There is no “seperation of powers” in Universal Liturgical Law, the CDWDS has the full authority.

And at the top of the Church Heirarchy, is the Pope, the highest temporal Legislator, Executor and Judge.

The term used to describe that combination of function is “legislating body”.

If that was borrowed from civil law, I have no idea. I’ve never had a civil law class, only Canon Law.

 

[palmas85]

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

They can break. Pretty simple.

 

[drafdog]

Many metal chalices are of multiple part construction and are subject to breaking at the points of join if dropped. How does this stack up against the “easily breakable” prohibition in the canon?

How easily breakable does it have to be before it fails to pass the canon?

For the poster who accused me of going against the CDWDS: Please note that in order for me to have gone against the CDWDS in this particular matter, it would be necessary that I actually use in the liturgy a vessel which does not meet established norms. As I am not a priest, that can’t happen. Watch the accusations on a public forum, they may constitute criminal libel.

Matthew

 

[benedictgal]

Many metal chalices are of multiple part construction and are subject to breaking at the points of join if dropped. How does this stack up against the “easily breakable” prohibition in the canon?

How easily breakable does it have to be before it fails to pass the canon?

For the poster who accused me of going against the CDWDS: Please note that in order for me to have gone against the CDWDS in this particular matter, it would be necessary that I actually use in the liturgy a vessel which does not meet established norms. As I am not a priest, that can’t happen. Watch the accusations on a public forum, they may constitute criminal libel.

Matthew

Matthew, you don’t have to be a priest to go against Redemptionis Sacramentum. The document applies to all of us. Laity can also commit liturgical abuses. Furthermore, there is something called the sin of ommission which means that if you know that something reprobated is being done and you did not, in good conscience, try to correct it, or at least bring it to the offending party’s attention, then your silence is just as culpable.

The fact of the matter is that Cardinal Arinze has made it very clear as to what is allowable and what is not. Why are you so quick to challenge him on this?

 

[Manfred]

It is regrettable when pastoral leaders do not take directives from the Vatican seriously.

Seems it’s been this way ever since “the spirit of Vatican II” overcame some (not-so-well-meaning) liturgists AND THEIR DIOCESAN LEADERS!

 

[Manfred]

Matthew, …the fact of the matter is that Cardinal Arinze has made it very clear as to what is allowable and what is not. Why are you so quick to challenge him on this?

From what I’ve read of Cardinal Arinze’s speeches, he’s not the one to challenge.

Now Cardinal Mahony is another matter; anyone ever challenge him?

 

[sphilomena]

From what I’ve read of Cardinal Arinze’s speeches, he’s not the one to challenge.

Now Cardinal Mahony is another matter; anyone ever challenge him?

As a matter of fact, yes; Mother Angelica did!! That is a whole other story!! Bless her heart.

(And she would never even dream of letting the priests use a glass chalice!)

 

[Manfred]

As a matter of fact, yes; Mother Angelica did!! That is a whole other story!! Bless her heart.

(And she would never even dream of letting the priests use a glass chalice!)

Yes, of course! I remember when she read his God-awful “pastoral” letter on gathering together faithfully on the air, stopping every phrase or so to criticize it heavily, finally saying that she was afraid that if she lived in that archdiocese, her obedience factor would be close to zero. And then all hell broke loose, when other bishops came to HIS aid!

Story goes that eventually EWTN was wrested from her control by order of the episcopate; the alternative was that the USCCB would assume control of EWTN. So poor Mother stepped aside, and within a year or so, had a major stroke.

Ever since Bp. Foley of Birmingham began to exert his influence over EWTN, we got televised Masses versus populum, less Latin, and the nuns retreated to their new chapel in Hanceville.

 

[peary]

Yes, of course! I remember when she read his God-awful “pastoral” letter on gathering together faithfully on the air, stopping every phrase or so to criticize it heavily, finally saying that she was afraid that if she lived in that archdiocese, her obedience factor would be close to zero. And then all hell broke loose, when other bishops came to HIS aid!

Story goes that eventually EWTN was wrested from her control by order of the episcopate; the alternative was that the USCCB would assume control of EWTN. So poor Mother stepped aside, and within a year or so, had a major stroke.

Ever since Bp. Foley of Birmingham began to exert his influence over EWTN, we got televised Masses versus populum, less Latin, and the nuns retreated to their new chapel in Hanceville.

**Actually, Mother Angelica should have known better. Did she think that she would have been immune to having bishops come to his aid or that she would have to apologize?

And how much control does bishop Foley have over EWTN anyway?**

 

[Manfred]

**Actually, Mother Angelica should have known better. Did she think that she would have been immune to having bishops come to his aid or that she would have to apologize?

And how much control does bishop Foley have over EWTN anyway?**

I don’t have the encyclical handy but as I recall it was theologically off-key and misleading, but enough to catch the attention of Mother’s keen eye.

Since the bishops weren’t about to correct one of their own, they should have just kept quiet.

Bp. Foley is now retired, but search the Forums for threads documenting some of his less than favorable rulings regarding specifically “televised” Masses in his diocese.

 

[Newbie2]

I have to smile when I hear these debates about glass chalices…some posts border (not necessarily in this thread) border on implying that the sacrament isn’t valid if glass chalices are used.

When our current priest started using crystal chalices, there was one EME who had a fit over it, insisting that because “Rome said so”, we should be using gold-plate chalices.

“Because Rome says so” is a lousy reason to accept anything. “Rome” always has reasons for mandating certain rites and rubrics,whether it be Tradition, tradition, or some other reason. When we have questions about Roman Catholic tradition, we deserve more that what a parent would tell us, “Because I said so”. Anything less goes against Fides quarens intellectum; faith seeking understanding.

Don’t misunderstand; I’m not suggesting that we challenge Rome’s authority, just that the faithful deserve explanations to our questions.

But I digress. I’m not clear on the droppage/breakage/spillage issue. It doesn’t seem to me to be an adaquate explanation that if a glass/cryatal chalice was dropped, it would break. Isn’t the contents more important than the container? If it gets dropped and spilled, it’s spilled just the same if it’s in a gold chalice or a glass/crystal one.

BTW, I’m also not clear on why nice crystal wouldn’t be considered worthy to use (the breakage issue aside). Any vatican documents that adress this specifically?