Talk:Holy Chalice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Too idiotic! Here's an (anonymous, blissfully) example of how the most preposterous non-historical assertions— as long as they are made within a Christianist context— pass for "neutral point-of-view" at Wikipedia. And some self-righteous fool will claim to be 'offended" by my scorn! An agate cup at the Last Supper? Why not gold knives and forks? "Archaeological" tests on an agate turned vessel? How are "tests" made on polished agate? A "certificate of authenticity" the entry says, like from the Franklin Mint! An inventory from the 3rd century— conveniently including in its text an explication of how it came to be made! and older than the very oldest authentic Church treasury inventory in the world! —How does this oatmeal pass for historical reality? So, when is this chalice actually first recorded at Valencia? What about its earlier record, if any, at San Juan de la Peña in Catalonia? Is this the chalice described by Arculf in Palestine? What about the other chalices from the Last Supper preserved in other church treasuries? At least two. Let's have the inventory of them too, please! This is infantile pious babble suitable for My Big Bible Coloring book. I scorn to post an NPOV or Cleanup notice, because they have been degraded. Too dreadful... --Wetman 07:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The Chalice of Antioch isn't a chalice--it's actually thought to be an oil lamp. It's far too big to be a chalice, for one thing--at the top, it's at least 10" in diameter. I've seen it at the Met--it's no longer at the Cloisters. And the Met says it's actually an oil lamp. --MaryJones 16:38, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Contents

[edit] Be careful, please

Well, you are angry, in fact... But if you claim for more rigour about historic concepts, you must be rigourous also, in your exposition: you say "San Juan de la Peña, in Catalonia", and it is "San Juan de la Peña, in Aragon", or, at least, "in Spain". And the first document referring the existence of this piece in this monastery of ARAGON is dated in 1135.

[edit] Translation comment

I take issue with the following text:

"En un arca de marfil está el Cáliz en que Cristo N. Señor consagró su sangre, el cual envió S. Lorenzo a su patria, Huesca" According to the wording of this document, the Chalice was considered the Grail in which "Christ Our Lord consigned his blood"

First, "consagró" means "consecrated," not consigned. Also, the entire passage should be translated, or trimmed so that the translated portion is equivalent to the Spanish language phrase. I translate the entire passage as "In an ivory coffer is the Chalice in which Christ Our Lord consecrated His blood, the which Saint Lawrence sent to his mother country (or fatherland, or homeland), Huesca."

Carlos X. Carlos_X 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent additions

Elonka, where are you getting this? Some of it is just wrong; Thomas Malory did not create Galahad or anything about the Grail, he took them from earlier sources. The link between the Holy Grail and the chalice of the last supper is made by Robert de Boron sometime after about 1190. I don't know about the earlier traditions you added, but I put in a Disputed tag until this is sorted out.--Cúchullain t/c 20:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if I add something that is disputed, by all means pull it. I've been using a History Channel documentary as source, and the mix of fact and fiction is definitely tough to sort through. An exact quote of the Galahad portion is, "A proliferation of grail stories, originally part of an oral tradition, hopelessly mixed fact and fiction... Some of the most popular stories were collected and blended with Celtic and German tales by Sir Thomas Malory. Published in 1485, they told romantic tales of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. As Malory told it, when the famed sword in the stone appeared, Sir Galahad, son of Sir Lancelot, was the only knight, besides Arthur himself, who was able to pull it out. For this, he was chosen to undertake the quest for the Holy Grail. He found it after years of struggle and travail, and then died, having reached his life's goal." If you need other quotes, let me know. --Elonka 21:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the name?

Why is this called "Holy Chalice"? I am not an expert, but I am familiar with the sources and modern uses, and I don't see or hear this term used. It is called "Holy Grail" in English. Who would go looking for this info under this title?

--Sean Lotz 02:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a separate article for Holy Grail. This one is about actual cups said to be the ones used by Jesus.--Cúchullain t/c 23:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Why the name?

A cup was used at the Last Supper. This cup, whether still in existence or not, is the Holy Chalice. This article describes traditions and claimants for the chalice used at the last supper.

The Holy Grail tradition says that the cup was also used to catch the blood of Christ as it dripped from the cross. This made it not only significant as a relic, but meant that it contained an even holier relic, part of the body of the incarnate Christ.

The two traditions have become confused. That Peter took the original communion cup and continued to do as Christ said, "Do this as oft as ye shall drink it in Remembrance of me", is not beyond the realms of possibility, and or likelihood, particularly as (for many centuries) cups were personal possessions commonly carried by travellers.

On the other hand, the notion that some specifically Jewish person used the same cup (or any cup) to collect body fluid of any sort is highly unlikely. The blood running down the cross was no more collectable than the piss and excrement that would also have been running down the cross from a man dying a most excruciating and ignoble death.

It is clear that the two traditions converged and that they are not compatible. If the cup had the blood in it, then it could not be used for communion. And no-one, by any Catholic tradition, would have rinsed away the blood of Jesus in order to put wine in the cup.

The tradtion of the Holy Grail is that it contains the Holy Blood. So no vessel that is actually in use as a chalice, like the vessels at both Genoa and Valencia, is actually a contender as the grail, although they might (hypothetically speaking) be contenders as the Holy Chalice.

Into this come Pope Benedict (I think) who goes happily along with both conflicting traditions simultaneously, drinks his wine out of it, and says that it held Christ's blood. Well, so, by trans-substantiation, it may have, but it certainly never held the stinking mess that ran down the cross.

--Amandajm 08:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Getting the terms right

It offends me, as a Christian, that the Holy Grail article begins with the words - "In Christianity the Holy Grail is..."

This article, on the other hand began - "In Christian tradition the Holy Chalice is..."

So, what's the problem? If you place the curser on Christian tradition, you'll see it's been linked to Christian mythology.

  • Moreover, it is Christian tradition that says that Peter continued to use the cup for the Eucharist. There is nothing in the least strange or remarkable or improbable about this. Nor is there anything particularly strange about the suggestion that a Deacon of the church, Lawrence, might have regarded the cup as precious and sent it away for safe keeping. This stuff really ought not be regarded as mythology. Not unless.....
  • If, in fact, this tradition is a pure invention of the middle ages, a story created to give a particular vessel Provenance so that a church might, for example, compete with Santiago de Compostela in attracting pilgrims, then it's not mythology. It's blatant fraud.
  • Also- on another issue, Christian traditions and Catholic traditions are two very different things. Anglicans and members of Protestant churches do not hold to many of the customs, traditions and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. This is the whole reason for the Reformation. In cases where beliefs and traditions are specific to Roman Catholicism, Protestants can be a little sensitive about having things lumped together as Christian tradition. Could people be a little more sensitive to this!

--Amandajm 08:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to: Chalice (cup)

I've added the {{mergeto|Chalice (cup)}} tag. This article needs to be re-written to an extent to make it more NPOV (though not as badly as some of the critics above would have us believe). The title of this article "Holy Chalice" may be part of what seems so POV. Much of the info here could be added to the Chalice (cup), and controversial or unsubstantiated material could be left out. MishaPan 18:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of chalices; the Holy Chalice is a particular legendary object. Does the suggestion that "controversial or unsubstantiated material could be left out" reveal the motivation for blurring the two subjects? A very concise version of this article should be at Chalice (cup).--Wetman 21:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right. I apologize, and I have removed the tags (no "blurring" intended). MishaPan 22:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I have just reread this article, which I did some work rewriting. I find nothing POV in the article whatsoever.

It begins by quoting three written works. It goes on to say:

  • there are several traditions; these are the tradtions.
  • there are several objects of which the claim is made that they are the Holy Chalice; this is what is known about these objects.

While MishaPan's aplogy makes it clear that this editor must have reread the article differently, I feel obliged to make some very general comments.

  • There are a lot of editors who simply do not understand that stating what a particular body's point of view is, doesn't constitute POV. It constitutes a statement of fact; the fact being that the particular body holds these beliefs.
Such editors then mistakenly feel justified in applying their scepticism (POV) to eliminate the material.
The opposite position is taken by the "believer" who wants every belief stated as "fact", rather than "this is what is believed by a certain body of people".
While the admirable attitudes of both these parties may be based on logic, science, reading of the "scripture" (whichever scripture), personal conviction and/or revelation, and although both may be seeking to reveal a "certain truth" (ie. a truth that is beyond question), neither is helpful in the construction of an encyclopedia.
  • There are even more editors who use comments or tags "POV", "OR" (original research) and "needs citation" indiscriminately and without little understanding of the difference between them.

In the case of this particular article, there are a number of passages which require citation. It would be a very good thing if some person could go through this and make inline references for everything possible, including those places where the source is already stated within the text, but requires specific publication details, ISBN etc.

If this could be done, then I think the article is worthy of a GA classification.

--Amandajm 01:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)