Posted on 09/17/2003 6:34:12 AM PDT by NYer
ROME, SEPT. 16, 2003 (Zenit.org).- With this column ZENIT is launching a feature on common questions about liturgical norms and the proper way to celebrate the Mass. The questions are answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum. The feature will appear every other week.
Readers may send their own questions to news@zenit.org. Please put the word "Liturgy" in the subject field.
* * *
Q: May a celebrant at Mass use a glass chalice when consecrating the wine?
A: From the historical point of view, glass chalices were known in antiquity up to about the time of St. Gregory the Great (died 604), although most Christians preferred gold and silver vessels, even in time of persecution.
The most relevant document regarding this theme are numbers 328-332 of the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) whose adapted English version recently received approval from the Holy See and is now in force in the dioceses of the United States.
No. 328 states clearly: "Sacred vessels are to be made from precious metal." Liturgical law, however, allows the bishops' conference to propose other esteemed materials for use in sacred vessels.
The U.S. bishops have allowed for the use of other solid materials "that, according to the common estimation in each region, are precious, for example, ebony or other hard woods," but, "provided that such materials are suited to sacred use and do not easily break or deteriorate."
No. 330 has an added proviso that chalices and other vessels destined to serve as receptacles for the blood of Christ should have bowls of nonabsorbent material. These norms are topped off by No. 332, which gives some leeway to artistic taste with respect to the outward form of the sacred vessels, "provided each vessel is suited to the intended liturgical use and is clearly distinguishable from those intended for everyday use."
So, can a priest celebrate with a glass chalice? The above-mentioned norms don't allow for a crystal clear response as they do not specify very much at all. Glass is not widely regarded as a precious material; it generally seems more like a household product. Then again, a glass chalice might recall, for some parishioners, the pleasures of cognac.
Some cut crystals, however, especially if artistically and uniquely fashioned with liturgical motifs, might pass the quality test. It is certainly not porous and does not easily deteriorate. But most glass is easily breakable.
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.
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.
Earlier this year in "Commonweal" I read a sickening article on General Absolution and how it is wanted and needed. The writer is the rector of the Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago and the leader of the Priest's Forum there. FWIW, the first time I had occasion to have General Absolution was at my grandmother's wake in 1993. The parish priest walked in and just "did it" - much to the shock of my family. And surprisingly, that same parish priest is the leader/founder of the Boston Priest's Forum and the second parish to found a Voice of the Faithful chapter.
Here's a pretty good article useful for understanding the progressive's argument(s) against traditional Confession.
Cardinal, pastors discuss general absolution
By ROBERT McCLORY
Special to the National Catholic Reporter
ChicagoA long festering controversy over the practice of general absolution in Chicago-area parishes may be moving toward a resolution. During a two-hour meeting in mid-June between Cardinal Francis George and some 100 pastors, tentative steps were taken toward rapprochement, though the two sides are still far apart.
Many Chicago pastors favor general absolution -- one of three forms for the sacrament of penance prescribed in the Roman Ritual -- as a way of attracting more people to the sacrament and responding to a growing shortage of priests. Pastors say the tradition is firmly established in the archdiocese and should be respected.
George, however, says the Chicago practice does not meet criteria established in canon law.
According to canon law, the rite of general absolution is reserved for situations in which people are in danger of death or when the number penitents is so large that there aren’t enough confessors to hear confessions in a timely manner.
George said he would be willing to “bring a report on our experience with the rite directly to the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship.” But he immediately added, “This does not mean I personally believe that the conditions for the ordinary use of general absolution are met here at this time; they are not.”
For more than 25 years a sizable number of Chicago archdiocesan parishes, especially large ones (and most often during Advent and Lent), have followed the church’s rite for general absolution as an alternative to individual confession to a priest. Some of the parishes using general absolution in the Chicago area have more than 3,500 families. The rite consists of a communal service involving prayer, scripture reading, an extended examination of conscience, a joint statement of contrition, a silent imposing of hands on each penitent by a priest, followed by a statement general absolution for participants.
Though all present are absolved through this rite, the law states that those conscious of mortal sin must intend to confess individually at a later time.
The diocesan bishop is to determine if circumstances justify use of general absolution.
Clearly, the sticking point is conflict between pastoral service and episcopal authority.
“I think we’re in dialogue with the cardinal, and that’s a good place to be,” said Fr. Robert McLaughlin, rector of Holy Name Cathedral and a leader of the Pastors’ Forum, a loose coalition of some 125 pastors. “I’m not discouraged.”
In a letter to pastors after the meeting, George wrote, “The reasons for making use of general absolution are not unpersuasive, and those talking to the question were some of our most effective pastors, all of whom are also giving time to hearing individual confessions.” He added, “If we are to work toward change we have to work together, with mutual trust and in obedience to the church, which gives us the only authority we possess.”
Pope John Paul II has inveighed against a too liberal use of the rite in Australia and elsewhere, and George has stated repeatedly that he does not believe the conditions for the third rite exist in Chicago.
“Though the misuse of authority weakens the church,” he wrote, the pastoral question is “how can we together come to some alternative for general absolution which will still bring the forgiveness of God into our people’s lives. This demands more discussion.” He called for another meeting with the priests in three months.
During the June meeting, the forum presented a history of sacramental penance, noting that its form has changed many times over the centuries. Cited was a mid-1980s poll that reported that 61 percent of Catholics go to confession once a year at most or never.
The forum statement also said that Cardinal Joseph Bernardin in June 1997 had prepared a letter to Vatican officials stating his intention to permit general absolution in Chicago. Two months later, the cardinal’s cancer returned and his decision was never promulgated.
Fr. William Stenzel, pastor of a large suburban parish, said general absolution had long been of benefit to Catholics in Chicago. “Why should we abandon such an effective ministry when we have been mandated by Jesus through the apostles to do this ministry,” he said. “I always remember the elderly lady from Pullman who brought neighbors back to regular church practice by inviting them to a penance service where they could experience God’s love without risking a closeted conversation with a stranger whose reaction was unpredictable. [She said] ‘The pope ought to go to one of these. He’d like it.’ ”
Fr. Donald Headley, a priest for 43 years, told George concerns about making forgiveness too easy are unfounded. “Grace is not cheap,” he said. “It’s free. It should be made available in as many ways as possible.”
McLaughlin said the pastors’ differences with the cardinal derive from different views of church and authority. The pastors’ is rooted in their experience of listening to parishioners and in their understanding of service, while the cardinal’s is rooted in law and a top-down approach to authority, he said.
Unless one was fortunate enough to have seen the EWTN program on the huge role that Catholics played on 09/11, people just have no idea. Supposedly 85% to 90% of the firemen and policemen were Catholics and most of them asked for a priest at some point.
I don't believe that most priests (or deacons, for that matter) are insisting that non-Catholics who marry Catholics convert. In fact, I'm sure they're not.
To require that as a condition for marriage would likely be grounds for an annulment later, if the marriage failed.
You make an excellent point!! Thanks for posting it.
Uh, no. Dispensations are given to marry non-Catholics with regularity; there is no requirement that a non-Catholic convert before or after the ceremony. None.
Very much. Not because he needs our reverence or our sacrifices, but because we need to be reverent, and we need to sacrifice. Part of reverence, a sense of what's sacred, requires that we set aside things exclusively for worship. And part of worship requires that the material things we consecrate to God's glory reflect the beauty and preciousness of our own souls, which are made for him.
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.