At Mass in Valencia, pope used what tradition says is Holy Grail

Catholic News Service ^ | July 10, 2006 | Carol Glatz

[NYer]

Those who watched the Mass on EWTN, you may recall seeing the pope use this chalice. Here is a close up.

[cammie]

"It's impossible Jesus drank from it; that there were such rich and fine vessels used at the Last Supper was nonsensical," he said, especially since Jesus and most of the apostles came from humble or poor backgrounds. I beg to differ! According to world-famous archeologist Indiana Jones, the Pope must have chosen wisely or else y'all know what would have happened! :-)

[wideawake]

"He most probably used a cup made from glass like everybody else," he said.

It seems Father Utro, who probably knows quite a bit about art, is not up to snuff on life in ancient Israel.

While glassware certainly existed, earthenware was far more common and stoneware wasn't any rarer than glassware.

[keithtoo]

"We seek the grail"

[Rodney King]

I beg to differ! According to world-famous archeologist Indiana Jones, the Pope must have chosen wisely or else y'all know what would have happened! :-)

Although at the same time that movie suggested that the cup was in fact nothing "special" from an appearence point of view.

[ArrogantBustard]

Choose wisely ...

[mtbopfuyn]

The custodian of the "Santo Caliz," or Holy Grail, said the age of the stone chalice and documents tracing its history back to 1071 make it "absolutely likely that this beautiful cup was in the hands of the Lord" during the Last Supper.

1071? So, He didn't die on the cross but lived to be a very, very, very, very, very old and obviously quite wealthy man?

[af_vet_rr]

It seems Father Utro, who probably knows quite a bit about art, is not up to snuff on life in ancient Israel.

While glassware certainly existed, earthenware was far more common and stoneware wasn't any rarer than glassware.

That's what I thought - while glass was available, it was not widespread until later on (I maybe wrong and would love to be corrected if I am, but I didn't think glass useage was widespread in the Roman Empire during that time).

[A CA Guy]

I really doubt the cup that Christ had at the last supper would be ornate. I think that is a fake.

IMO it was probably a simple cup, because Christ was a simple Rabbi on earth, not an earthly king.

[cammie]

Very true. It was partially wooden...The line was "This is the cup of a carpenter." right?

[A CA Guy]

A Rabbi, his dad was the Carpenter.

[Nihil Obstat]

the ornate part was added later. only the top part (the stone cup) is what they think could be the Grail.

[livius]

It's not a fake - it is indeed a very old chalice, but probably not the original one used at the Last Supper. However, there is some suggestion that it was used in Rome for the celebration of the Eucharist very early in the history of the Church, and then eventually ended up in Spain (which was a Roman territory) during a 3rd century persecution.

There is another chalice in Spain, known as the Holy Grail of Galicia, in the 9th century church at O Cebreiro, a steep and foggy mountain known for the bad weather at its summit. This chalice is famous for a miracle: during a storm, a devout peasant came, as usual, to attend mass. The lazy and faithless monk didn't want to be bothered and said to himself the equivalent of, "oh, here comes that stupid peasant again, out in the storm, just to see a piece of bread and some drops of wine." And then the bread and wine turned into the flesh and blood of Christ before the monk's very eyes. The chalice and paten (which are 12th century) are preserved and visible in a glass case in the church.

So in other words, there are various ways in which something can be a sacred chalice or Holy Grail, if not "the" Holy Grail.

[A CA Guy]

That makes sense, thanks. Now watch for Libertarians to say Christ liked to get stoned. :-)

[A CA Guy]

I was just given a nice explanation that the top part was the original part (made out of stone).

The rest was added and that makes sense to me.

[ArrogantBustard]

IMO it was probably a simple cup, because Christ was a simple Rabbi on earth, not an earthly king.

A defensible position. As an alternative, though, may I remind that He did not celebrate the Passover in His own house ... rather, in the house of someone wealthy enough to have a fully furnished spare dining room, that could be loaned to an itinerant rabbi and His disciples. Hence, the cup in question might have been very rich and ornate.

[marshmallow]

Think of all the thousands of pages of sensationalist tripe which have been devoted to this subject by hacks like Brown and the numerous rolls of Hollywood cellulose acetate, all of which have lapped up eagerly by the dumbed down hoi polloi.

The Pope offers the Holy Sacrifice with the real Holy Grail and nobody bats an eyelid.

Typical.

We deserve to be hoodwinked and deceived by liars and con artists.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Joseph of Arimathea was wealthy, contributed the Tomb and according to legend took the Grail with him to England.

[A CA Guy]

Read below what someone posted to me about the cup. It was an education and made sense.