Skip to comments.Liturgy: Are Glass Chalices OK for Mass?
Posted on 09/17/2003 6:34:12 AM PDT by NYer
ROME, SEPT. 16, 2003 (Zenit.org).- With this column ZENIT is launching a feature on common questions about liturgical norms and the proper way to celebrate the Mass. The questions are answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum. The feature will appear every other week.
Readers may send their own questions to email@example.com. Please put the word "Liturgy" in the subject field.
* * *
Q: May a celebrant at Mass use a glass chalice when consecrating the wine?
A: From the historical point of view, glass chalices were known in antiquity up to about the time of St. Gregory the Great (died 604), although most Christians preferred gold and silver vessels, even in time of persecution.
The most relevant document regarding this theme are numbers 328-332 of the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) whose adapted English version recently received approval from the Holy See and is now in force in the dioceses of the United States.
No. 328 states clearly: "Sacred vessels are to be made from precious metal." Liturgical law, however, allows the bishops' conference to propose other esteemed materials for use in sacred vessels.
The U.S. bishops have allowed for the use of other solid materials "that, according to the common estimation in each region, are precious, for example, ebony or other hard woods," but, "provided that such materials are suited to sacred use and do not easily break or deteriorate."
No. 330 has an added proviso that chalices and other vessels destined to serve as receptacles for the blood of Christ should have bowls of nonabsorbent material. These norms are topped off by No. 332, which gives some leeway to artistic taste with respect to the outward form of the sacred vessels, "provided each vessel is suited to the intended liturgical use and is clearly distinguishable from those intended for everyday use."
So, can a priest celebrate with a glass chalice? The above-mentioned norms don't allow for a crystal clear response as they do not specify very much at all. Glass is not widely regarded as a precious material; it generally seems more like a household product. Then again, a glass chalice might recall, for some parishioners, the pleasures of cognac.
Some cut crystals, however, especially if artistically and uniquely fashioned with liturgical motifs, might pass the quality test. It is certainly not porous and does not easily deteriorate. But most glass is easily breakable.
A rule of thumb in deciding if a material is suitably strong for use as a chalice could be called the "clumsy server test." What happens if a server hits the rim of the chalice with a cruet? If the result is splinters, then the material should go to the rejection pile.
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.
For the same reason they omitted the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel.
Ahhhhhh .... I would make the drive too, if your parish were near me.
Huh??? By orthodox, are you referring to those who celebrate the Tridentine rite or those who attend catholic mass on a regular basis? Ultima Ratio does not impress me as someone who is happy, much less funny.
Well, they had to cut something to make room for that stupid "prayer of the faithful" (not to be judgmental, but this a.m. one of ours was for "resources" for teachers). (Of course, we always prayed in the Canon for the living and the dead, so I'm not sure who they thought we were leaving out!)
So it would stand to reason that on a board like this,with so many conservative,orthodox and traditional Catholics,one would find the brightest people and if Fr. Andrew is correct then we would also find some pretty funny,amusing,droll,witty,humorous posters.And we do!!!
So to answer your question:"Or am I being stupid and gerealizing?",NO,YOU ARE BEING BRILLIANT AND GENERALIZING.
It was probably a stupid observation on my part.
NYer, never mind, I was being brilliant AND generalizing at the same time. ;-)
Actually, despite myself, I do like him. I have an elderly 1st cousin, 3 times removed (took me 6 mos to figure the relationship out- he's my grandfather's 1st cousin) who lives in St. John's, Newfoundland. He is quite devoted to Fr. Greeley's novels (yes, I know!) and a couple of years ago he wrote Fr. Greeley a nice little note to tell him how much he enjoyed reading his books and also gave him some background on a particular subject Fr. Greeley had written about in the past (Ireland). And you know, Fr. Greeley hand wrote him a rather lengthy and kind reply. I was pretty impressed by that act of kindness.
If the practitioners of illicit general absolutions have their way, yes.
Neo-Catholicism (which I do not use in the limited and erroneous sense the Remnant editors do) has effectively abolished the practice of private confession.
Whether general absolution will be the sole form of the sacrament in Neo-Catholicism, or confession itself disappears from Neo-Catholicism`s sacramental economy, has yet to be determined.
The Utraquist heresy was based on the superstitious notion that one could not receive the full Eucharist except under both species and that those who did not drink from the chalice were somehow cheated of the Lord's Blood.
There are many people today who insist upon communion in both kinds and consider the Mass to not have been a "real" Eucharist unless they have been able to drink from the chalice.
It is precisely this attitude that I am condemning.
Dunno about dancing--but the music, art, statues, etc.--yes, because they are precisely sensual. THAT's what I mean by understanding the human as both body and soul. The Puritans simply repeated (was it the Gnostics?---I lost my 'heresy' book..) the error which in effect stated that people are really souls 'trapped' in fallen bodies. Denies the resurrection of the dead.
Asa to your main question, the answer lies in the Vatican's term for homosexuality: a GRAVE DISORDER.
While the homos are not ALL of it, the disorder is present--and it's defined as Whom we worship. In effect, they are worshipping the world, the flesh, and ol' you-know-who.
If you had ever heard my pastor or priest-in-residence preach, you would not want that 5-minute limit imposed universally. Their sermons are passionate, orthodox, educational, inspiring, and could not be cut to 5 minutes.
I know. We're unusually blessed in this Parish. Many should be limited to five seconds. ;-}
I also thought there would be a spate of articles ,remarking on,and analyzing why the majority of the "helping" professionals,who lost ther lives in9/11,were Catholic.Now it could be that they were buried with Catholic funerals but were not practicing,it could be that ,it was the natural outcome of nepotism,or,it could be that information that was initially reported,was not true.It's conceivable that there was an overreporting of the number of police and firemen killed,or that the number of Catholics was not as high as initially reported. While I,unlike many, do not believe that all that happens on earth is God's will,I do know He could prevent it,if He thought it necessary,I do think He expects us to use these trials to bring more of us back home to Himself.
As individuals I think many,many people did just that with their time,prayers,gifts etc.;as a Church,I think we did not use the gifts we really have to offer,wisely.Just my thoughts.