Posted on 12/16/2011 7:45:36 PM PST by Salvation
The reason is that words have meaning. The first meaning of chalice is, of course, cup, from the Latin “calix.” But during the middle ages, it acquired a special meaning: a cup for the Eucharistic wine.
In other words, in using “cup” with the general meaning, the translators ignored the special meaning. Not just “a” cup, but a cup used as a sacred vessel. When a priest is ordained, he is given his own chalice. This is a symbol of his office. It is sacred, and therefore normally made of precious metals.
Now how has this worked out in practice this “demotion” of chalice to cup? I have seen priests using glass or even wood for the chalice. Getting closer to Jesus, being simply like him? Or just de-emphasizing the purpose of the “cup.” A bit like using coca-cola instead of wine, or a saltine cracker for the host. Now you are downnplaying the doctrine of transubstantiation, of the Real Presence.
It happens. It happened during the reformation, it happened after Vatican II, when iconaclasts take matter into their hands.
Thanks, Robby!
I can send you the link to Father Jeremy’s talks if you wish. Just FReepmail me.
ROFL!! Nice!! LOL!!
If the priests are so attached to the old text that they cannot pray with the new, they’re too attached to the text and not attached enough to prayer.
I am very thankful that my parish priest has a wonderful sense of humor in regards to the recent English changes. When last Sunday when he did the monthly children’s mass and was asking the kids questions, he said that he needs a person who knows a little theology. LOL :)=^..^=
RobbyS,
you’ve brought up one of the most important points here, the one, as another put it, that gets all the aging hippies’ codwallopers in a bunch. The old phrase: Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. As we pray, so we believe. As we believe, so we live. The changes to the translation of the Novus Ordo reflect a more accurate, more reverent, more Catholic statement of belief. The fourth grade terminology of the previous translation, whatever the motives, couldn’t convey as well. When the language used at Mass does not give reverence where it is due, this is likely to encourage people to hold less reverence during Mass, and where it is being held. Language matters, and whatever the genuine motive, the outcome, these last forty years, in part, of reduced care for where they are, in the presence of the Lord, and what they are doing, have hurt people, whether they recognize it or not. At the very least, the changes put us on par with the rest of the world in use of language.
One of the places I have been for Mass has a monsignor who is very advanced in years. Where he had previously spent probably forty or so of his years saying the Novus Ordo to the point of complete comfort with it, he now uses the new Roman Missal, paying greater attention to every word. While he isn’t one of those who had the propensity to, um, “improvise,” he’s making sure he does the red and says the black, probably more than in years past. This is a Good Thing, for him, and for his parish, and for the folks attending periodically there, such as myself.
I am in complete agreement with those who would like to see this as a first step, on a road to greater reverence and tradition in general Catholic life, whether that means Mass eventually returning to the Traditional Latin Mass (my stated preference), or a vernacular version of same. This first step is one I didn’t think I’d live to see. The modernist crowd WILL LOSE, if for no other reason than the FACT that there ARE eternal Truths, much to their dismay. And while this broad brush may not cover all in the category of displeasure over the third translation, I say, good, if they don’t like it. They’ll get used to it, and hopefully, one day, see why they were wrong, and realize the errors of their ways.
I think most of the disciples would have said “cup” rather than “chalice.” Especially the one on whom the Church was built.
Pretty sure Jesus would not have cared then and does not now, what you call it, as long as you get the ox out of the ditch.
Exactly. The liberals might use 'mug', or Dixie cup. What's the difference, eh?
You're just saying this because it's true.
Both too short, and too long, if you get my drift.
I wasn't upset about the old version, and I'm not upset about the new. Also not upset about Spanish (Spain-type, Mexican, or South American) or Vietnamese, or anything at all, really.
That said, I like the vocabulary of the new translation. It Pays to Enrich Your Word Power, and free SAT review is not to be sneezed at.
Christ gave us the sacrament of Communion at The Last Supper, a humble repast above a modest inn and a simple meal of bread and wine. You mean to tell me HE would have had something as expensive looking at what is in that photo?
Truer words could not be better said.
The one really big test to come will be come Christmas Eve/Christmas Day when the Catholics who are better known as the “C,E,A, and P” Catholics who come at best a few times a year will either notice the change for the better and return or be caught a bit on the “flat-footed side” of NOT being prepared. Time will tell.
“I am in complete agreement with those who would like to see this as a first step, on a road to greater reverence and tradition in general Catholic life, whether that means Mass eventually returning to the Traditional Latin Mass (my stated preference), or a vernacular version of same. This first step is one I didn’t think I’d live to see. The modernist crowd WILL LOSE, if for no other reason than the FACT that there ARE eternal Truths, much to their dismay. And while this broad brush may not cover all in the category of displeasure over the third translation, I say, good, if they don’t like it. They’ll get used to it, and hopefully, one day, see why they were wrong, and realize the errors of their ways.”
We can only HOPE and PRAY that what you said in the end of your posting will come to past in the course of time.
If the last Supper was a Passover meal it wouldn’t have been just bread and wine, would it?
As A Catholic of the ‘’old school’’ this is how it was always explained to me. The bread and wine representing the body and blood of Christ. These were after all simple, rather poor Hebrew men of the 1st.AD. Perhaps in reality maybe a fish or two, some dates and other fruits common to that time and place.
Jesus and the Apostles were guests of someone for the Passover meal (which includes a whole roast lamb and several cups of wine, among other fixed menu items). Surely the householder would have brought out his family’s best Seder setting. It might have been very nice - the good inherited silver - or might have been basic, if the family had fallen on hard times and pawned the good stuff.
However, the fact that the person owned a house with “a large upper room, well-furnished,” as the Gospel says, suggests the former more than the latter. Although Jesus lived as a mendicant during his public ministry, he was a guest of the well-off numerous times; he was provided for “out of their own resources” by various women of Galilee; and the Apostles had their own funds (carried by Judas Iscariot).
In summary, although it’s fine for us to have our own images of Jesus’s material circumstances and other aspects of His earthly life, those images ought to be consistent with the texts of the Gospels.
well, the synoptics present it as a Seder, FWIW.
Amen to your post. The new presidential prayers (Priest’s prayers) are so reverent, so prayerful.
**Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. As we pray, so we believe. As we believe, so we live.**
So right. And some of these disagreeing priests are showing their true colors. LOL!
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.