My Church in Milwaukee continues to use a glass chalice for the consecration of the wine. My question, and one I struggle with, is this, does the consecration of wine to blood actually occur? The Rubric requires something precious, which this oversized wine glass is not. On the other hand, hypothetically, if a precious cup were not available (as in a Military field environment) would that preclude the consecration from occuring, despite the circumstances. That being said, it annoys me that this parish won't use a acceptable chalice when they have half a dozen in the sacristy. My priest is also one of the uber libs aforementioned on this post.
Yes. The composition of the chalice does not affect the validity of the consecration in any way.
"My question, and one I struggle with, is this, does the consecration of wine to blood actually occur?"
Providing that the form, the matter and the intent are all valid, then the consecration truly occurs - no matter what the material of the chalice consists of - although the vessel could be illicit.
However, where a violation of the rubrics is consistent, intentional and pre-mediated (rather than being a genuine cock-up as ninenot intimated above), then the priest may be in such a state of rebellion against authority that his intent is no longer to do what the Church does.
Ideally one should be able to talk to one's priest to determine their true intent, although if they are on the liberal end of things, this may be difficult.
I suggest a "playing it dumb" approach might be helpful:
"Father, someone from CCC was telling me the other day that Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation any more but we believe in consubstantiation now. Is that right? What exactly is consubstantiation?"
The consecration is valid, but not LICIT. That is, transubstantiation is effected, but the deficiency in the chalice means that there is something wrong in the rubrics.
See your FReepmail.
The use of a glass chalice goes in the same category with wering the stole on top of (or instead of) a chasuable: it is a sign of disent. It is a sign of disobedience - of the worst of the Novus Ordo revolution in the church.
You are quite correct that the chalice is supposed to be made of a durable substance.
The fact that the priest uses that kind of chalice alone does not invalid the consecration. It is dependant on three things: the valid ordination of the priest, the use of the proper rite (of the mass), and the correct sacramental intention of the priest (to intend to effect transubstantiation).
I would insert this cautionary note: these "signs of dissent" can run much deeper then the surface. There are many priests who no longer believe in transubstantiation.
If you observe from anything the priest does, says, writes, that he does not share the faith of the church in terms of the sacrificial nature of the mass - or in terms of what happen to the bread and wine at the consecration, then you may have a priest who is saying invalid masses.
In such as case, you should not receive communion from the priest, as it may literally be material idolatry of bread & wine - if it is not properly consecrated. The same would be true if the priest made up his own mass (or canon) as he went along. If you become aware of such abuses, seek another mass, priest, parish.