Wine in a chrystal/class dispenser on the alter?

[Aramis]

Within the context of the Roman Church, the Pope is THE last say; the pope can censure and/or remove bishops for failure to obey the liturgical prescriptions (and in some cases has done so).

In point of fact, control over the liturgical prescriptions has always been a function of a patriarchal see; sometimes by synodal action, others by unilateral declaration of the patriarch… the Rites of the Catholic Church… Roman, Constanopolitan (aka byzantine or greek), Antiocean (W. Syrian), Chaldean (E. Syrian), Alexandrian (Coptic), Armenian… each diverges under a patriarch’s guiding hand… in different directions. The Gallican, Celtic, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Bragan “Rites” also grow divergent, but under the Roman Patriarch, as Rome didn’t standardize as strongly until later than the other patriarchates.

So while a priest must answer to his bishop, his bishop is responsible to the Pope…

But the Bishop is not supposed to grant such exceptions to the GIRM.

 

[boatbearer]

Within the context of the Catholic Church, the Sacred Deposit of Faith is THE last say.

 

[boatbearer]

…Are we to be Catholics of so puny of faith like this that we have to throw out are precious metals inlaid in gold and silver within our sacred vessels so we can visualized the species of water and wine through glass.

What puny minds do we have boasting of pride.

This all makes me sick and gets my blood boiling.
I certainly don’t want to be the sort of Catholic that attends Mass only to ignore the miracle taking place on the altar in favor of obsessing over the Waterford Crystal chalice.

And yes, it happens…

 

[centurionguard]

I certainly don’t want to be the sort of Catholic that attends Mass only to ignore the miracle taking place on the altar in favor of obsessing over the Waterford Crystal chalice.

And yes, it happens…

Respectfully; maybe I’m not reading you right. I certainly didn’t imply ignoring the beautiful Miracle of Transubstantiation. There is no Humility comparable on earth or in Gods entire creation seen and unseen than the miracle of what happens on the Altar of our Catholic Churches at Mass.

Its not the obsession for my distaste of using crystal or glass sacred vessels that offends me. Its the point of the matter. Its not allowed, coupled with the obsession of liberal know-it-all’s in the Church that causes me to feel the way I do.

Perhaps you misinterpreted the thrust of the matter of what I was trying to explain in my last post. Again perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.

When it comes to liberal know-it-all’s in the Church, I’m not casting them aside to the wind. They too have to nurture there sense what is right in the Magisterium of the Church.
Be it as it may that I’m am not perfect either. So we all must humble ourselves to know are place before God.

Fraternally Yours In Christ
Chris

 

[Newbie2]

It really doesn’t matter what you feel is or is not offensive to the Lord. The GIRM is meant to be obeyed, not debated. The use of glass or pottery vessels and consecration in flagons are no longer permitted, regardless of “what they did in the early Church.” The early Church also practiced exomologesis (public confession and severe public penances). Should we perhaps go back to that?

.

I was responding to post #3 “it is a sacriliege, and is offensive to Our Lord”. I assume that you hold the same for that post as well?

My point was that none of us are in a position to state what is and what is offensive to our Lord. May I also point out that the over the milennia, Christians have not always used gold chalices, and it is my personal belief that the Almighty was not offended by such use.

We also need to be careful not to appear to sound like pharisees with statements like “The GIRM is meant to be obeyed, not debated”. I know what you’re saying, but some might say that sounds legalistic. Better, methinks, to say that the authority of God’s Church needs to be obeyed.

Unfortunately, such statements also run the risk of antiquarianism. What we need to do, as you rightly pointed out, is to read the documents and heed them.

All due respect to your opinion, BG, that is overly simplistic, pie-in-the-sky thinking, if by “we” you mean laypersons. In my Archdiocese, our priest and the bishops that have been to our parish have pretty much spoken clearly on the subject; our using glass (Crystal) chalices is no big deal.

So we can read all the documents we’d like, write all the letters we want, complain until we’re blue in the face but the reality of the situation, at least at my parish and it seems a number more out there is that their use will continue.

And given that reality, I’m sort of with boatbearer in that I too * "…certainly don’t want to be the sort of Catholic that attends Mass only to ignore the miracle taking place on the altar in favor of obsessing over the Waterford Crystal chalice.*

Perhaps when we change priests, we’ll get back to the rubrics, and I’m fine with that too.

 

[Newbie2]

**Seems today in the liberal minds of priests in bishops that its not enough that Catholics have faith in the miracle of Transubstantiation that takes place on the Holy Altar. As if parishioners want to see the species of water and wine being changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. As if to say like Saint Thomas: I will not believe unless I can place my fingers on the wounds of Jesus hands, feet and side.

**

I"m not sure that’s the case, entirely. Surely, nobody expects to actually see the transubstantiation, do they? Have you every heard somebody express that sentiment?

If so, they’re in for a disappointment.

I get what you’re saying, though. One of the most common reasons for using glass/crystal is that the wine, consecrated or not, can be seen.

Not to derail the thread, but along those lines I would ask of those who are in favor of eucharistic adoration (with hosts visible, not just inside the tabernacle), if centurionguard has a valid point about the importance to some parishioners in seeing the wine (consecrated or not) through a clear chalice, can’t the same point be made about eucharistic adoration with the hosts being visible?

Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not arguing either way, just asking a question of continuity.

In other words, nobody can tell the difference by just looking at a consecrated or unconsecrated host or consecrated or unconsecrated wine. How can we, aside from tradition, defend exposure of the consecrated hosts and dismiss using crystal so we can see the consecrated wine?

 

[centurionguard]

I"m not sure that’s the case, entirely. Surely, nobody expects to actually see the transubstantiation, do they? Have you every heard somebody express that sentiment?

If so, they’re in for a disappointment.

I get what you’re saying, though. One of the most common reasons for using glass/crystal is that the wine, consecrated or not, can be seen.

Not to derail the thread, but along those lines I would ask of those who are in favor of eucharistic adoration (with hosts visible, not just inside the tabernacle), if centurionguard has a valid point about the importance to some parishioners in seeing the wine (consecrated or not) through a clear chalice, can’t the same point be made about eucharistic adoration with the hosts being visible?

Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not arguing either way, just asking a question of continuity.

In other words, nobody can tell the difference by just looking at a consecrated or unconsecrated host or consecrated or unconsecrated wine. How can we, aside from tradition, defend exposure of the consecrated hosts and dismiss using crystal so we can see the consecrated wine?

**Surely, nobody expects to actually see the transubstantiation, do they? Have you every heard somebody express that sentiment?
**

Of course not.

**This whole thread surrounds around the topic (“On the invalid use and Disobedience of Priests and Bishops using forbidden crystal and glass for sacred vessels”)

This is a matter of the Church not policing itself with deliberate defiance against the GIRM.

And who really expects anything to happen differently when a bunch of ordinary parishioners brazenly reports priests or bishops to the Nuncio even if one has video to support their claims.

Meanwhile it just seems we dumb-sponge parishioners are suppose to put up and shut up. Well I don’t suppose we have to shut up entirely. We can resort to humble prayer for our priest and bishops.**

Maybe its just me but it seems some here in this thread don’t seem to think the use of Crystal and Glass used for sacred Vessels is worth the sound-bite and just don’t care about such complacency happening in the Church.

 

[benedictgal]

Of course not.

**This whole thread surrounds around the topic (“On the invalid use and Disobedience of Priests and Bishops using forbidden crystal and glass for sacred vessels”)

This is a matter of the Church not policing itself with deliberate defiance against the GIRM.

And who really expects anything to happen differently when a bunch of ordinary parishioners brazenly reports priests or bishops to the Nuncio even if one has video to support their claims.

Meanwhile it just seems we dumb-sponge parishioners are suppose to put up and shut up. Well I don’t suppose we have to shut up entirely. We can resort to humble prayer for our priest and bishops.**

Actually, legitimate complaints regarding liturgical abuse do not go to the Apostolic Nuncio. They must first be addressed to the pastor, in writing. If the pastor does not respond, or, if he responds in the negative, then the complaint is sent, again, in writing, to the bishop, along with all copies of the correspondence between the faithful and the priest. This should be sent certified mail, return recepit requested. If the bishop does not respond, or, responds in the negative, then the faithful have recourse to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, sending them a package detailing the issue along with copies of all correspondence exchanged between the parties.

 

[Brendan]

I certainly don’t want to be the sort of Catholic that attends Mass only to ignore the miracle taking place on the altar in favor of obsessing over the Waterford Crystal chalice.

And yes, it happens…

Well, the Vatican cleared ‘obessed’ over that issue, even to the extend of issuing a document defining it as being a grave abuse.

 

[FrDavid96]

So is your bishop. I have absolutely no doubt that my bishop had the authority to use that crystal chalice. Using it DID NOT increase the possibly of profaning the Precious Blood. Given that fact and his own inherent authority as a bishop I’m sure my bishop had the authority to do what he did.

Those that might have fixated on him deviating from the GIRM/RS on that day ARE taking things too far and that’s on them. They would be better off making contact with the bishop and politely asking why he did what he did.

Not following what the Church documents direct is one source of liturgical problems in the Church. Not understanding where authority rests in the Church and over reacting are two other sources.

What’s happening here is that it’s not others who misunderstand where the authority rests. What you do not understand is that the bishop does not have complete authority over the Mass. He has considerable authority to regulate the Mass, and even to dispense from certain liturgical norms. However, he does not have the authority to outright “over-rule” the Holy See–which has been quite clear in saying that crystal chalices are forbidden. Since the Holy See has called this practice “objectively grave matter” (and we’ve already seen the docs quoted enough here), that’s not an issue from which the bishop can dispense.

 

[centurionguard]

Actually, legitimate complaints regarding liturgical abuse do not go to the Apostolic Nuncio. They must first be addressed to the pastor, in writing. If the pastor does not respond, or, if he responds in the negative, then the complaint is sent, again, in writing, to the bishop, along with all copies of the correspondence between the faithful and the priest. This should be sent certified mail, return recepit requested. If the bishop does not respond, or, responds in the negative, then the faithful have recourse to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, sending them a package detailing the issue along with copies of all correspondence exchanged between the parties.

Actually when my father was alive he did make an official file of letters documenting standing for the consecration that was enforced in one parish we formerly went to for seventeen years.

Letters were sent to two bishops including the Nuncio. They all bounced back to our parish priest at the time. He did nothing. Every time afterword when my father exited the Church after Mass my father remained respectful and cordial. However he knew the priest didn’t like what he did because the priest wouldn’t acknowledge him perhaps out of hurt. Even so my father dis forgive him and maintained great respect for him as I did too serving with him as Sacristan for a number of years. The priest died a few years ago. I made it my duty to attend his wake and Requiem Mass and placed my hands on his with the rosary on his hands while he lay in his coffin. I loved him as a priest.

 

[benedictgal]

Actually when my father was alive he did make an official file of letters documenting standing for the consecration that was enforced in one parish we formerly went to for seventeen years.

Letters were sent to two bishops including the Nuncio. They all bounced back to our parish priest at the time. He did nothing. Every time afterword when my father exited the Church after Mass my father remained respectful and cordial. However he knew the priest didn’t like what he did because the priest wouldn’t acknowledge him perhaps out of hurt. Even so my father dis forgive him and maintained great respect for him as I did too serving with him as Sacristan for a number of years. The priest died a few years ago. I made it my duty to attend his wake and Requiem Mass and placed my hands on his with the rosary on his hands while he lay in his coffin. I loved him as a priest.

However, that is why the letters should not be addressed to the Nuncio precisely because of what you experienced. My father sent copies of the letters he wrote to his former pastor and to the bishop (including a copy of the certified receipt, which the bishop never acknowledged) to the CDWDS. Granted, it took him two years, but, the problem was finally resolved. That is why, in matters like this, one should not write to the Apostolic Nuncio; rather, one should direct correspondence to the appropriate Congregation. In this case, the letters should be addressed to the CDWDS.

 

[zab]

You’re right. While I don’t think the GIRM can ever be taken too seriously – and I do think efforts must be made to follow it, I do think a great many take it too far. I think that’s why the Church instills so much local authority in the form of bishops. Let me give an example.

In my parish we used to use cheap stemware and glass candy dishes to distribute the Eucharist. The sacristan very loudly and proudly made it clear that we would NEVER have gold or silver sacred vessels at that parish (it’s not like we had a cupboard of fine sacred vessels sitting on the shelf.) That the Mass was a MEAL and that using common glassware was appropriate. She should have been canned for those continuing remarks. At one point there was an article in the local paper about how reverent things were at my parish. Someone wrote a laundry list of abuses that were taking place (including the glassware) and it was printed in the letters-to-the-editor and a copy made it to the bishop. Within a month we had a second collection that raised $7,500 for proper vessels.

On the other hand take the case of a large Mass I coordinated. Holy communion was being offered under one species by our bishop. There were 2 concelebrating priests, no deacon. He wanted to use an absolutely gorgeous crystal chalice that was gifted to him by a member of our parish. The Holy See still says don’t do it but consider: there was NO increased chance of profaning the Precious Blood by using the chrystal chalice. None. So while I think it would have been wrong for a priest to do this (without permission from the bishop) I think it was well within the bishop’s authority to do what he did. Some will claim he does not have that authority but they’re wrong.

STILL I am sure at least one or two people were very upset that the bishop had not followed the GIRM – even though there was no greater risk of profaning the Precious Blood and the bishop had the authority to choose to use the crystal chalice. It no doubt impacted their experience at the Mass – that’s where the “taking it too far” comes into play. And it’s on them, not the bishop.

I don’t know who your bishop is but I can see that you do believe that efforts must be made to follow the G.I.R.M. I really don’t want to take either side of this argument that has been going on in this thread. I just want to add my two cents.

We have a good and holy pastor. And over the past several years we have had bishops that have corrected many liturgical abuses. I don’t know all of the details but I believe that there are still obsticals that make it difficult for the Archbishop to bring every parish up to what it should be. So there are abuses that still go on in some parishes. And even in my own parish, the questionable practice of allowing blessings in the Communion continues. But my pastor and my Archbishop have earned my trust. They know what is right. I leave that between them and God. It does no good to defend an abuse. And it does no good to villianize a good priest or bishop when we do not know all of the details and difficulties involved.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t know who your bishop is .

His bishop is Cardinal Mahony of L.A.

 

[LoyalViews]

Within the context of the Roman Church, the Pope is THE last say; the pope can censure and/or remove bishops for failure to obey the liturgical prescriptions (and in some cases has done so).

In point of fact, control over the liturgical prescriptions has always been a function of a patriarchal see; sometimes by synodal action, others by unilateral declaration of the patriarch… the Rites of the Catholic Church… Roman, Constanopolitan (aka byzantine or greek), Antiocean (W. Syrian), Chaldean (E. Syrian), Alexandrian (Coptic), Armenian… each diverges under a patriarch’s guiding hand… in different directions. The Gallican, Celtic, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Bragan “Rites” also grow divergent, but under the Roman Patriarch, as Rome didn’t standardize as strongly until later than the other patriarchates.

So while a priest must answer to his bishop, his bishop is responsible to the Pope…

But the Bishop is not supposed to grant such exceptions to the GIRM.

Yes. I am dead-set against crystal chalices and the sort, but if the Pope gave special permission, which only happened probably once or twice, he could. For example, Pope John Paul II have permission for local potters to make ciboria for the Hosts, when he visited Newfoundland. Though, I do believe it was gold on the inside…
But, Priests and Bishops must obey, NO EXCEPTIONS.

 

[boatbearer]

Respectfully; maybe I’m not reading you right. I certainly didn’t imply ignoring the beautiful Miracle of Transubstantiation. There is no Humility comparable on earth or in Gods entire creation seen and unseen than the miracle of what happens on the Altar of our Catholic Churches at Mass.

Its not the obsession for my distaste of using crystal or glass sacred vessels that offends me. Its the point of the matter. Its not allowed, coupled with the obsession of liberal know-it-all’s in the Church that causes me to feel the way I do.

Perhaps you misinterpreted the thrust of the matter of what I was trying to explain in my last post. Again perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.

When it comes to liberal know-it-all’s in the Church, I’m not casting them aside to the wind. They too have to nurture there sense what is right in the Magisterium of the Church.
Be it as it may that I’m am not perfect either. So we all must humble ourselves to know are place before God.

Fraternally Yours In Christ
Chris

Perhaps my comments were not specifically aimed at you?

What I do know is you tipped your hand in the next paragraph: “When it comes to liberal know-it-all’s…” What a bunch of bunkum. Misapplication of political labels aside I have seen forms of extremism (“left” or “right”) lead to liturgical irregularities and abuses.

Still some need to realize their personal interpretation of Church documents is not the voice of the “Magisterium of the Church” yet their local bishops certainly are.

 

[boatbearer]

His bishop is Cardinal Mahony of L.A.

No he’s not and I have made that clear in more than one posting.

Why would you lie?

 

[Brendan]

Still some need to realize their personal interpretation of Church documents is not the voice of the “Magisterium of the Church” yet their local bishops certainly are.

But what if the documents are ADDRESSED to us?

And give us a command to report any abuses that the document describes.

Redemptionis Sacramentum was both.

 

[I_Fortuna]

It most certainly is not a sacrilege nor is it offensive to the Lord. Glass or crystal chalices are not to be used due the fact that they break easily but that’s a far cry from being a sacrilege or offense against the Lord. Not to mention that early Christians seemed to indeed use glass chalices. Are you claiming the early Church approved of sacrilege and offenses against the Lord?

I agree, sort of. This is the most foolish thing I ever heard of yet. Some crystal is even more valuable than metal. A crystal carafe is not an offense. Metals alloyed with certain metals can prove harmful when the wine is poured in them aqnd the metal leeches into the wine. It is just wine until it is consecrated and then it is offered to us in silver chalices. Our church also uses crystal. They are less likely to be stolen and I am sure our priest will not allow it to be broken.

Why do people look for something to criticize all the time? Trust God and trust our clergy during Mass.

I don’t know who is worse, the people who spread this nonsense or those who believe it.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
Still some need to realize their personal interpretation of Church documents is not the voice of the “Magisterium of the Church” yet their local bishops certainly are.

Please explain something: what happens when a bishop contradicts what the Church teaches? Please understand, I am not in any way referring to any particular bishop. I am asking about a bishop, any bishop. What happens when what the bishop says goes directly against what the Church says? Which one is in the right, the Church or the bishop? They can’t both be right when they make statements which contradict each other.