Valencia Archdiocese Celebrates Jubilee Year of the Holy Chalice

Catholic News Agency ^ | 8/24/21 | Blanca Ruiz

[marshmallow]

The Archdiocese of Valencia conserves the relic of the Holy Chalice, believed to be that used by Christ at the Last Supper. Every five years a Jubilee Year of the Holy Chalice is celebrated to promote Eucharistic adoration.

The theme for this Jubilee Year, which began in October 2020 and will conclude in October 2021, is "the intimate relationship between the Passion of Christ and the Eucharist.”

The chalice is an agate cup, mounted on a gold base with precious stones. The cup has been dated to the first century at the latest, while the base is medieval.

It is believed that the chalice was brought to Rome by St. Peter, and was then sent to Spain by St. Lawrence, who was himself from Valencia, during the persecution of Valerian.

Four popes have recognized the chalice in various ways.

St. John XXIII granted a plenary indulgence on the feast of the Holy Chalice; St. John Paul II venerated it in the cathedral and used it for the consecration during his visit to Valencia in 1982; Benedict XVI used it at the Mass of the Fifth World Meeting of Families in 2006; and Pope Francis granted the Holy Year of the Chalice in 2016.

Fr. Edgar Esteve, in charge of liturgy for the Archdiocese of Valencia, encouraged people to participate in the Eucharistic Jubilee Year of the “Chalice of the Passion” by making a pilgrimage to the Valencia cathedral.

"All of us are invited to make a pilgrimage to the Chapel of the Holy Chalice to contemplate and pray before the relic of the Chalice of the Lord's Supper and to be renewed in our faith and hope and encouraged in our Christian charity," Fr. Esteve said.

“We are invited to visit the places where Eucharistic miracles have taken place, which........

[A strike]

Do Roman Catholics actually believe that their “relics” are authentic ?
(jus’ askin’)

[Campion]

Depends on the relic. Something like this, it's more a matter of pious choice. Its provenance can't be proven, but it is a very old stone cup, and Jews did favor stone cups for halakhic reasons, and many people over the years have believed that it's the Holy Grail ... so maybe it is.

On the other hand, I have a small piece of wood a few feet away from me which I'm quite sure is really taken from the coffin of a Mexican priest martyred in the 1920's.

[blackpacific]

Sweet. Thanks for posting.

[NTHockey]

Been to the chapel. Can’t get close enough for a real close look.

[Ann Archy]

Yes!! The Catholic Church studies and investigates these relics for DECADES and sometimes CENTURIES!!

I have been to this site and have seen the Chalice, I have also seen the Crown of Thorns and read all the history of where it had been. Praying that I get to see the SHROUD before I die.

[Petrosius]

Why the assumption that something with such an ancient provenance is not authentic? Jesus used a cup. The cup did exist. The early Christians, like all men, would have cherished such a token regarding an important person and event. The cup is typical of one that would have been used. There is an ancient history that says that this is it. The cup has to be somewhere; why the skepticism?

[A strike]

“... why the skepticism?”

Mine is not a hostile skepticism but rather a clear eyed commonsense question.

At the Last Supper the eleven remaining Apostles did not even know what was about to happen, ESPecially Christ’s resurrection. Is it likely that one or more of them secreted away the Cup of the Communion sacrament before Gethsemane? as a memento or something?
Why not also the plate of the Bread ?
And did they them maintain a chain of custody that can be shown until present day ?
How can it be known that the owner of the upper room seeing what had transpired did not offer the Cup(s) up for sale afterward ?
Same holds true if not even more so for His Crown of Thorns; in what kind of macabre sense would a follower of Jesus want to retain that?
There is NO Biblical evidence that there was ANY reverence bestowed on such “holy” relics or their subsequent disposition.
In fact that is antithetical to the early Church.

Do we have the cup/chalice that Socrates drank the hemlock from? Would not his followers be likewise as zealous?

And do we have the daggers with which Julius Caesar was dispatched? (actually I don’t know, they may be in a back room of the British Museum).

All that is to say that the Roman Catholic Church’s claims invite common sense scrutiny.
Possible, yes, but preponderance of evidence, not so much.

[A strike]

The Apostles would not have stolen the Cup from the upper room owner.

[Ann Archy]

WHAT????? It was from the UPPER ROOM’s OWNER!!! omg

[A strike]

I do not know it’s story.

[Ann Archy]

LOok it up...very interesting.

[A strike]

Again NO smart aleck snark or sarc intended, but

1. “Jesus swaddling clothes ... iffy about that one “
ya think ?
That the deteriorating, disintegrating swaddling clothes of what was at the time an insignificant manger birth in a small backwater village might be preserved to this day? Does the Roman Catholic Church claim to have such evidence ?
If so , why the “iffy”?

1a. Wouldn’t it be more likely that the burial wraps of Jesus to have been preserved ?

2. “Crown of Thorns”
How was that acquired? From the Roman soldiers who crucified Him who would presumably have been more likely to auction off His garments?

3. Ditto re Saint Peters Chains, how were they acquired by persecuted members of ‘the Way’ ?
Were they purchased from the Roman guards of St.Peter?, how can it be established that many ‘Chains of StPeter weren’t sold?; would one link be ‘holy’?

4. “ST.Mark, St.James and numerous other bodies of Saints...”
Much more plausible to me.

All to say that the preservation/provenance of all these ‘relics could only have come about by the hand of Our Father (and I don’t mean the bishop of Rome).

And to what His purpose as none of them are relevant to the resurrection and salvation?
Why would not He also provide the tablets of the law that Moses
brought down from Mt.Sinai or the Ark of the Covenant to prove the Old Testament which Christians believe?
To evidence the resurrection and salvation through faith would not Our Father otherwise provide Jesus’ clothing when appearing to the Apostles after His death and resurrection , His sandals from His walk on the road to Emmaus or fragments of the fishing net in Galilee ?

(aside, does the RomanCatholicChurch claim to have fragments of the true cross?)

[Ann Archy]

OMG!! You need some FAITH in GOD in your life.
About the Crown of Thorns....geesh.....do some RESEARCH.....Joseph of Aremethia took Jesus’s body, NOT the Roman Soldiers!!
The burial wraps of Jesus is the SHROUD of Turin and the “napkin” that covered his face is in another Church, not sure where....look it up.....PLEASE.

You sound like a Protestant leaning towards anti-Catholic.
examine your conscience on that.

[A strike]

Ok, correct. I had overlooked the Shroud of Turin, but not that Joseph of Armetheia took possession of Jesus body, so my bad wrt this discussion.

re Holy and sacred:
in a definitional (and historical) sense sacred means not secular,
in common understanding they are almost somewhat equivalent,

Is ‘sacred’ higher than ‘holy’?
after all only God is Holy (”only God is good”),
how is an artifact equal to God’s Holiness?
Notice I am not disputing whether or not the sacraments are holy; but if relics are holy why the disparity in consideration?

Also you should revise your supposition of “leaning towards anti-Catholic.” to a more accurate supposition of “leaning towards anti-Roman Catholic.” as the two are not the same.