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 news@zenit.org. 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.
I was unaware that this abuse had been reglarized too! The universal norms do not allow this.
If you don't agree with communion under both species, you're entitled to your opinion.
Actually, while I completely disagree with the practice (because of the need it usually causes for lay extraordinary eucharistic ministers) and its implementation, I always receive both species when offered. The early Popes spoke harshly about those who would "despise" the Precious Blood by not receiving it.
I also find lay ministers handling the cup less distasteful than those handling the Host, since the ones with the Hosts never purify their fingers in my experience.
However, it shattered at one mass, after consecration, after the elevation. It was all over the pastor and the altar. No way could it be consumed. We also know of another instance upstate where the priest was using a glass ciborium and glass chalice. When he lifted the ciborium at the "This is the Lamb of God....", he hit the chalice which chipped and went into the now "Blood of Christ" making it dangerous to consume.
The negligence that caused this is very close to a sacrilege.
He may not have mentioned it, but it is standard practice to grant a "dispensation" to Catholics who marry non-Catholics. It's strictly routine.
It's near to impossible to believe something like that and still be a Catholic. The revelation to us of the second Person as Logos assures us that beauty, subtlety, economy, order, and reason are all godly attributes. Hence their absolute qualities. When God created the world and saw that it was good, he wasn't expressing some arbitrary, idiosyncratic opinion.
The unreflective acceptance and canting repetition of such sentiments as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is an assertion of radical relativism. It's a reflection of the fallen, alienated world in which we live and is about as far as you can get from the redemption, in which all things are made right in Christ.
Someone recently said that Mahony's Cathedral in LA will be old fashioned in the near future. The ceramic "tree of life" chalice and ciborium used by my parish priest is already hopelessly outdated as well. Typical 70s hippy stuff.
But traditional beauty will and always has lasted for centuries and people know that in their hearts. Notre Dame vs. Mahony's Cathedral.
As a corrollary, the Church abhors the concept of "ars pro gratia artis" which detaches art from Beauty, Truth, Goodness, and Holiness--the ONLY qualities which make art 'art'...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.