Crystal Chalice??? - Page 3

Digitonomy · #31 Jun 12, '12, 7:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phemie

The requirement that they not be breakable was in Canon Law 20 years before RS was promulgated.

I tried to look this up, but unfortunately the Vatican website seems to be down at the moment. I did, however, find this 2003 Zenit column from Fr. McNamara, which is in line with my recollection:

Quote:

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. ZE03091624

Brendan · #32 Jun 12, '12, 7:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fr. McNamara

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.

I would suggest another test: the "Clumsy EMHC Test" Drop it from mid chest height, if it breaks the material should go into the rejection pile :P

Part of the concern for a glass chalice would seem to be just that. The shards of glass would hamper the prompt purification of an area in the event of a dropped chalice.

FCEGM · #33 Jun 12, '12, 11:29 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmadamsberry

. . .That said, it would be nice if His Holiness would follow the rules himself, which would help avoid conclusion. What's a priest supposed to think when he sees the Pope using a stone chalice and consecrating glass chalices?

Since the Holy Father used the stone chalice believed to have been used by Our Lord at the Last Supper (cf. the Chalice of Valencia), I don't see a problem.

bmadamsberry · #34 Jun 12, '12, 8:14 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by FCEGM

Since the Holy Father used the stone chalice believed to have been used by Our Lord at the Last Supper (cf. the Chalice of Valencia), I don't see a problem.

Maybe for the stone chalice (although in regards to the authenticity of the Holy Grail... come on. The Shroud of Turin has a lot of evidence, but the evidence of this being the Holy Grail, if the Holy Grail exists at all, is sparse).

But it still doesn't address the consecration of the glass chalices, or other examples like liturgical dancers.

FCEGM · #35 Jun 13, '12, 6:04 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmadamsberry

Maybe for the stone chalice (although in regards to the authenticity of the Holy Grail... come on. The Shroud of Turin has a lot of evidence, but the evidence of this being the Holy Grail, if the Holy Grail exists at all, is sparse).

St. Laurence and the Holy Grail, by Janice Bennett demonstrates the evidence.

Quote:

But it still doesn't address the consecration of the glass chalices, or other examples like liturgical dancers

My response wasn't meant to address the consecration of glass chalices, etc., but to explain to you why the Holy Father used the stone Chalice of Valencia since it was an issue for you in the discussion as a whole.

Phemie · #36 Jun 13, '12, 6:51 am

I beleive it's already been explained through the years that what happens at a Papal Mass when the Holy Father is travelling is not entirely under his control. When confronted with crystal vessels at the offertory, it would be unseemly for him to stop and say 'no, fetch me golden vessels. Ditto with 'liturgical dancers' and bare breasted women bringing up the gifts at the Offertory.

OTOH, you would think that those preparing a Papal Mass would be given a 'dos & don'ts' list -- of course perhaps they are and they just ignore it, wouldn't be the first time a liturgist 'knows better' than the official documents.

PazzoGrande · #37 Jun 13, '12, 9:42 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phemie

I beleive it's already been explained through the years that what happens at a Papal Mass when the Holy Father is travelling is not entirely under his control. When confronted with crystal vessels at the offertory, it would be unseemly for him to stop and say 'no, fetch me golden vessels. Ditto with 'liturgical dancers' and bare breasted women bringing up the gifts at the Offertory.

OTOH, you would think that those preparing a Papal Mass would be given a 'dos & don'ts' list -- of course perhaps they are and they just ignore it, wouldn't be the first time a liturgist 'knows better' than the official documents.

In addition, there is a provision in the GIRM that other materials are allowed if it's agreed in the area that they are worthy and dignified materials. Surely in their case, the supposed holy grail cup would be an example of that.

Irishgal49 · #38 Jun 14, '12, 2:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phemie

Ditto with 'liturgical dancers' and bare breasted women bringing up the gifts at the Offertory.

Could someone tell me where this church that has topless dancing women bringing up the gifts is located? Thank you.

Phemie · #39 Jun 14, '12, 2:51 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irishgal49

Could someone tell me where this church that has topless dancing women bringing up the gifts is located? Thank you.

It was at a Papal Mass in Papua, New Guinea, in 1984. Not only the native women were bare breasted but the American student who read was bare breasted. I doubt very much that the Pope had been told in advance that that was going to happen.

PazzoGrande · #40 Jun 14, '12, 10:07 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phemie

It was at a Papal Mass in Papua, New Guinea, in 1984. Not only the native women were bare breasted but the American student who read was bare breasted. I doubt very much that the Pope had been told in advance that that was going to happen.

Didn't Archbishop Marini (who I'm guessing was the Master of Ceremonies back then) plan out the Papal Liturgies overseas?

bmadamsberry · #41 Jun 14, '12, 5:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phemie

It was at a Papal Mass in Papua, New Guinea, in 1984. Not only the native women were bare breasted but the American student who read was bare breasted. I doubt very much that the Pope had been told in advance that that was going to happen.

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if he did know. These were probably native women, and it would not have been as much of a shock value to them (maybe this should be posted on the modest clothing thread going on right now, lol). Because it is cultural and regional, it's not particularly weird.

Nevertheless, the Pope gives implicit assent to things such as glass chalices when he 1) Does not move the Vatican MC who plans the Masses, after these things happen, and 2) when he does and says nothing to contradict his implicit assent.

Those people that say things such as "well he didn't know before hand" or "he doesn't plan his own Masses"... give me a break. He might not know before hand, but he also doesn't do anything afterwards. Plus, on the example of the glass chalices, it was a news item before hand. He surely knew his itinerary.

superamazingman · #42 Jun 14, '12, 6:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmadamsberry

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if he did know. These were probably native women, and it would not have been as much of a shock value to them (maybe this should be posted on the modest clothing thread going on right now, lol). Because it is cultural and regional, it's not particularly weird.

Nevertheless, the Pope gives implicit assent to things such as glass chalices when he 1) Does not move the Vatican MC who plans the Masses, after these things happen, and 2) when he does and says nothing to contradict his implicit assent.

Those people that say things such as "well he didn't know before hand" or "he doesn't plan his own Masses"... give me a break. He might not know before hand, but he also doesn't do anything afterwards. Plus, on the example of the glass chalices, it was a news item before hand. He surely knew his itinerary.

Let me say this: I've worked with some of the most conservative bishops in the states. Just because something happens at one of his Masses does not mean he automatically approves, just because he says nothing publicly. Keep that in mind.

bmadamsberry · #43 Jun 14, '12, 6:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by superamazingman

Let me say this: I've worked with some of the most conservative bishops in the states. Just because something happens at one of his Masses does not mean he automatically approves, just because he says nothing publicly. Keep that in mind.

True, but there are differences between the two. First, most bishops don't have the same press coverage. The Pope doesn't celebrate a public Mass without photos and video. Secondly, the Pope is the one to whom many people look for as an example and so has more pressure on him to denounce those practices he disagrees with and with which he participates at a Mass. Besides, the Pope could easily provide a do/don't list, and one would think that he would be kept well within the loop of what will occur at Mass.

One can see an example: the first televised Mass from Rome was around the time of Vatican II. The way many old cathedrals were built, the celebrant would celebrate "facing the people," because that would cause the celebrant to be facing East. Word began to get out that celebrating Mass "facing the people" was endorsed and supported by the Vatican... and so it stayed. (Of course, there are other reasons too, but this does illustrate the power of monkey see, monkey do)