Jesus Christ did not take “a precious chalice".The Sacred Scriptures are indeed the soul of the Liturgy in the sense that the texts of the Liturgy include quotations from the scriptures and, when they are not quotations, often allude to them.
"He the cup" (I Cor 11: 25)
"He took a cup" (Matt 26:27)
"He cup a cup" (Mark 14:23
"He did the same with the cup after supper.." (Luke: 22:20)
"The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the Sacred Scriptures." (Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 107)
Just as the Sacred Scripture is the “soul of theology” it should also be the “soul of the Liturgy”. Let’s not alter Holy Writ for pious claptrap!
It could also be said that the Liturgy is at the heart of Scripture. The canon of scripture (the determination of which books are to be recognised as inspired scripture) was formed particularly with reference to the Liturgy - the books to be included in the Canon were those that could be read as sacred scripture in the Liturgy. Furthermore, the Church was celebrating the Liturgy of the New Covenant (testament) some years before the books of the New Testament were written down. The scriptures of the New Testament came from the life of the Church, at the heart of which was the celebration of the Holy Eucharist.
The quotation from the Catechism is not to the point in this case. St Paul says that
All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice (2 Timothy 3.16)Protestants sometimes use this verse to argue that we must only use scripture for teaching. This is a logical fallacy: "All A is B" does not imply "Only A is B". Similarly, the quotation from Catechism of the Catholic Church does not imply that only the words of scripture should be used in the Liturgy or that embellishments may not be added within the liturgy out of faith by the Church which composed those scriptures in the first place.
In the Douai-Rheims translation of 1 Cor 11.25, the word used to translate the Greek "poterion" or Latin "calicem" is chalice. In the King James version, the word is translated "cup". This was a small indication of the protestant tendency to present the Eucharist as simply a meal and to downplay the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
It is noteworthy that although the older version of the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition) of the bible uses "cup" in these texts, the new version, revised by Ignatius Press in accordance with Liturgiam Authenticam has "chalice". Here is the relevant text from the document which has guided ICEL in preparing the new corrected translation of the texts of the Mass.
c) One should maintain the vocabulary that has gradually developed in a given vernacular language to distinguish the individual liturgical ministers, vessels, furnishings, and vesture from similar persons or things pertaining to everyday life and usage; words that lack such a sacral character are not to be used instead; (Liturgiam Authenticam 50.c)It should also be noted that the Last Supper was not an informal meal. There are debates over whether it followed the liturgy of the passover meal or of another form of communion sacrifice but it was undoubtedly a liturgical meal in which all the elements - including the bread, the wine, and the vessels, were set apart for sacred use and were not simply everyday kitchen items.
The vessel used by Our Lord, as well as being properly called a chalice was also precious, not necessarily on account of the material with which it was made, but because it was used in that liturgical action in which Our Lord instituted the most Holy Eucharist. I think we can agree that his hands were holy and worth of veneration.
As I have tried to emphasise here, the new corrected translation of the Mass is necessary because of errors and defects in the old ICEL translation. It is not a text newly composed from scratch. Therefore to suggest that the text should say simply "he took the cup" is to propose a change to the Roman Canon which has been in use in the Church since the time of St Ambrose. To say that the Roman Canon is "pious" is fine, if piety is understood correctly, but "claptrap" rather tends to contradict the defined doctrine of the Council of Trent:
And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs. (Council of Trent Session 22 "Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass" chapter 4)A Catholic would also want to be concerned about Canon 6 of the same decree:
CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
14 comments:
Let's not forget also that whether he took a 'cup' or the 'chalice' isn't really the issue.
The English should translate the Latin, nothing more. It should not seek to impose an understanding of what happened at the last supper that is different from what is written in the Latin text of the Mass.
I feel really stupid for even asking this - but I have heard nothing in the parish - these will be the new words we will be hearing in Mass, is that right? When do they start? Are there new "actions" for the laity too? Is there an idiots guide online?
Brilliant post, Father.
I might also add that the use of the demonstrative pronoun hunc in the phrase hunc praeclarum calicem extends the meaning of the phrase, so that it signifies not only the vessel that was used at the Last Supper, but identifies the "here-and-now" chalice of the Mass as well. Thus, hunc calicem refers practically to the to the priest's chalice, and mystically to the vessel used by Our Lord to institute the Holy Eucharist.
Thank you for writing this well though tout article. God bless you and Mary keep you.
Justin - calix can be translated as "cup" or "chalice". Both are accurate as far as simple translation goes.
The translator must do more because he is forced to choose which word to use. The principles that he should work with in Liturgical translation are given in Liturgiam Authenticam.
Lucy - there is some material at the USCCB website's Roman Missal section.
There is an iPod/iPhone app called "New Mass" which describes the various parts of the Mass from the Sign of the Cross through the Concluding Rite, comparing the old to the new, and giving a reason for each change.
More info: http://thefaithexplained.com/the-new-mass/iphone/
Nicely put, Father.
Sadly, though, I wonder if the new translation is going to change much. The priest in my parents' parish says at the end of the Canon, 'Through Jesus, with Jesus, and in the spirit of Jesus, all glory and honour is yours, Almighty Father for ever and ever, Amen.'
Notice that the Holy Ghost doesn't get a look-in at all, unless of course He is the spirit of Jesus, which could only be half true at best, but rather sounds like a new Trinitarian heresy to me.
What I'm saying is that if priests don't even say the current faulty translations of the Pauline Mass, what chance is there that they will say the new translations which they abhor even more?
Sorry to be cynical, but I even tried writing to the bishop several times about this problem, was promised his attention to the matter, and nothing has been done - and that was 4 years ago. The fact that bishops refuse to use their authority to safeguard the Liturgy means that the new translation may also become a dead letter.
It will at least help to identify even more clearly - by their refusal to follow the letter of the new translation - those priests in true material schism.
Well, that seems clear enough. Game, Set and Match to the Council of Trent.
Any change in a sacramental formula is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff alone. The Holy Father himself has judged in respect to this matter and has decreed that in this context, the English translation of 'calix' should be 'chalice'.
What a mess! This all goes to show the dangers of handing over the Liturgy lock stock and barrel to vernacular languages, which, being living, constantly change along with the tastes of those who speak them. We were warned about this many times by the Magisterium, but in the 1960's sane voices were derided as 'prophets of doom' and the fuddy-duddies were drowned out of the debate.
None of these translation controversies would have been necessary if Pope Paul VI and the bishops had all kept their heads 45 years ago and remembered what that fuddy-duddy John XXIII had told them a few years before: "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time ... of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular." (Pius XI, quoted in John XXIII's Veterum Sapientia, 1962).
I think our Holy Father is hinting that Latin is the solution by pointedly using it for the Preface and Canon in Scotland in a few days' time. Will the message get through?
I doubt it would even occur to Lawrence the Roman that the words of Institution belong to another Tradition which precedes the writing down of the Gospels.
When did Jesus drink the last cup?
Jesus drank from 3 cups during the Last Supper, but the last - the fourth - he did not drink from then.
Matthew 27:48, Mark 15:36, Luke 23:36, and John 19:30 show Jesus drinking vinegar or sour wine on the cross, from a sponge placed on a hyssop branch.
The hyssop branch was symbolic of the sprinkling of the Passover lamb's blood using a hyssop branch - see Exodus 12:22.
So Jesus was truly the Passover Lamb; then he said, "It is finished."
Read more > > >
What a rude fellow - surely he ought realise that "præclarum" is an allusion to the words of Psalm 22(23): "et calix meus inebrians quam præclarus est"?
Janice Bennett, in The Story of the Holy Chalice of Valencia, quotes a life of St Laurence by St Donato which says that before his martyrdom Laurence arranged for the cup used at the Last Supper to be spirited away from Rome to Spain. If true, that would suggest that the cup used at the Last Supper was taken to Rome, doubtless by Peter, and could have continued in use for the celebration of the principal Eucharist in Rome. That would give special point to the use of the word HUNC in the Roman liturgy - THIS actual cup.
Post a Comment