Jump to content

Talk:Holy Chalice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 16:09, 1 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Historical Correctness

[edit]

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)

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.
--unsigned by 80.35.40.212 at 14:20, 12 June 2006

Just thinking, perhaps the "agate cup" is a confusion (misquotation) of the "agape cup"? Marek Wilk 15:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horse-Coachee (talk • contribs)

Chalice of Antioch

[edit]

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)

Additions of 2006-07

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Translation comment

[edit]

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

Why the name?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Getting the terms right

[edit]

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.

  • It's not Christianty that says what the Holy Grail is. It is Christian mythology.
  • It's not Christian mythology that says that Christ used a cup at the Last Supper. And it's not even Christian tradition. It is Christianity that accepts this fact as it is presented in the Gospels.
  • 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)[reply]

Merge to: Chalice (cup) / NPOV

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Agape feast

[edit]

The picture of Agape feast does not fit. It is not Eucharist/Communion. Removing for now. Complains below, please. --Paxcoder (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... Anything other than a Roman Catholic Mass is inappropriate for this page. --Stephen Bolintalk 04:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
* The picture of the Agape Feast was already moved before the above comment was made. The lead picture is a celebration of the Eucharist, not an Agape Feast. The Roman Catholic Church does not have an exclusive right to the continued use of a chalice to celebrate the Eucharist. The present picture illustrates the important fact of the continued use of a symbolic chalice, across the world, wherever Christians get together to celebrate the Eucharist.
* This article is about the Holy Chalice i.e. the chalice used by Jesus at the Last Supper, and the various traditions that have come to be associated with that object. The continued use of a chalice for the wine of the Eucharist is one of those traditions.
* The "Holy Grail" is another such tradition.
* The claim for several vessels being the Holy Chalice itself is another tradition.
* While the Valencia Chalice might have the strongest claim, it remains of little or no significance to millions of Christians.
* While the Chalice of Valencia may represent the original cup, in physical reality, the chalice of the Eucharist represents that cup in a mystical sense, throughout Christendom.
Amandajm (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is specifically about purported relics claiming to be the actual cup. There are many other articles covering all aspects of the Eucharist in general, & the lead pic you have returned is just off-topic here. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at the present it isn't, because the introduction was rewritten quite some years back, to reflect a general belief that the object ( the chalice of the Last Supper) actually existed, at least in so much as the Bible states that it did. The same editor took umbrage at the notion of the chalice of the Last Supper being described as part of "Christian Mythology". The Grail is Christian Mythology. The existence, in the first century, of a "cup" over which Jesus made blessing, is best referred to as part of a "Biblical account" rather than "Christian Mythology". hence the changes.
On the other hand, the tag refers specifically to Christian "relic". This being the case, then the first paragraph ought to mention the fact that there are relics, such as the Valencia Chalice, that are purported to be the Holy Chalice.
This change ought to be made, because I don't think that the present intro properly fulfils the purpose, from the point of "MOS". The actual content of the article needs to be made clearer.
Under these circumstances, the Eucharist pic needs to go.
But I would recommend the painting, rather than the very poor photo of the Valencia Chalice, because it relates to the instigation of the Sacrament, as well as to the best known contender for the Cup......
Amandajm (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you've said so much, but I can't see your point, what is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.135.103 (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that you forgetting to sign Johnbo, or someone else?
The point is that the first paragraph needs some rewriting, to the effect that there are several claimants to being the actual "Holy Chalice".
Once that has been done, then the lead pic will definitely need changing.
I favour the painting which relates to both the Last Supper as q, and the Valencia Chalice. ........
Oh never mind!
I'll do it, and you'll either like it or you won't!
Amandajm (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wasn't me. I agree - rewrite & put the painting in the lead & the poor photo of the actual cup next to the section. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"....quite apart from other issues."..... I'm sure there is a Wkipedia term for that type of writing. Do we need to hint at other issues, or can we express it more definitely?
I did some work on the photo: straightened, cropped, reduced yellow, upped contrast. The object itself is more visible as a result.
Amandajm (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Grail/the Holy Chalice

[edit]

The legend of the Grail is that it was the cup of the Last Supper and was then used to collect the blood of Christ, a Holy Relic, which it still contains.
The legend of the Holy Chalice is that it was the cup of the Last Supper which was subsequently used for Holy Communion by Saint Peter, then taken by him to Rome. This is compatible with the tradition of the Chalice of Valencia, but incompatible with the notion that it still contains a Holy Relic of the blood of Christ.
Amandajm (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline Questions

[edit]

Someone added the following argument:

The previous tradition is false, because Alphonse of Castille died in 1214, Valencia was Muslim until 1238, when it was conquered by king James I (Jaime Primero) and the Cathedral was started at 1262.

How do we work this in?
Amandajm (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't rip it out in the first place. I'm putting it back in. (slightly reworded to fit a decent article a bit better.)
I feel that the article has a long way to go towards a Good Article Status. So please don't revert useful information somone else added, just because you don't like his style or wording.
The claim, that Valencia has been the owner (let alone in posession) of the chalice since Alfonso of Castile's credit default is also inconsistent with Martin I of Aragon buying the chalice from San Juan de la Peña in 1399.
What the article is still missing is the last change of ownership, how the Valencia Chalice passes from the King to the Cathedral. Unless someone got the two Alfonso's confused and it was actually A. V of Aragon who did that credit default deal? (Sounds just like something a renaissance king would do, too...)
--BjKa (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Holy Chalice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 August 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– GScholar gives 144,000 hits for grail, reduced to about 115,000 when I add "-Arthur", about 438 for chalice. GBooks gives about 1,290,000 for grail, reduced to about 1,070,000 when I add "-Arthur", 6,450 for chalice. GNews, about 267,000 for grail, 264,000 when I leave out Arthur, 173 for chalice. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is also a thing, and this is not the primary topic over the broader legendary use, as is shown by the page view and Google Books evidence.—Cúchullain t/c 18:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • REALLY strong oppose. Holy Grail is the primary topic of, well, "Holy Grail". The legendary version is how it originated, and the reason it's famous today. And Holy Grail is the article that discusses that topic. This hodgepodge article about some cups that are said to be the Holy Grail is certainly not what people are looking for. Just look at the page views, they're not remotely comparable.[1] That said, this article is a mess, and it's not even clear why it's a separate article from the article that's rightly at the title Holy Grail. The solution is to clean the articles up, not to further confuse the issue by moving the actual primary topic to a different topic, and moving this mess to Holy Grail. At most, the present article could be moved to Holy Grail (artifacts) or somesuch, but the main article on the Holy Grail needs to stay at the base name Holy Grail.--Cúchullain t/c 15:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, sources that are talking about the actual cup used at the Last Supper and the vessels fashioned after it used in Mass would only ever refer to it as a "chalice" or cup. I doubt any would refer to it as the "Holy Grail", which, again, originates in medieval literature, and which didn't always intend Jesus' chalice.--Cúchullain t/c 15:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even more additionally, the search results discussed in the nomination are off. Looking through the first 2 pages of Gbooks hits for "Holy Grail", I find:
In short, only one of them is on one of the chalices covered in this article. All the others that are remotely reliable are about the Grail as a legend, and still others are conspiracy books where the Holy Grail is usually not the Last Supper Chalice.--Cúchullain t/c 16:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Holy Grail refers to the Holy Grail legend. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see the justification for having separate articles here, this looks like a case for a merge, not a move. PatGallacher (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per opposers. There might be a case for moving this to Holy Grail (claimed relics) or something, but the literary grail is, especially in English, much the better known, and the odd word "grail" is associated with this rather than the actual cups. The individual cup articles of this bunch get very low views relatively. It would be good if Holy Chalice of Valencia got its own article, as it rather over-dominates here. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as amended to also move the current page "Holy Grail" to "Holy Grail (Arthurian literature)". The current Holy Grail page is definitely about the Arthurian legend, and its name should reflect that. This page is about items that may or may not be the Holy Grail / Holy Chalice / Cup of Christ, and of those names, "Holy Grail" seems to me to be the best-known. --Rob Kelk 17:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, best-known almost entirely because of the Arthurian literature and its offshoots. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. The Holy Grail article covers the offshoots in literature, art, film, and pseudohistory, and this one doesn’t. The other article is the much more intuitive and reasonable WP:BROADCONCEPT article than this one, which is about some cups that are claimed to be the Holy Grail/Chalice. This move would generate a lot more confusion than it could hope to resolve.—Cúchullain t/c 18:55, 5 August 2018
  • Support both per nom. Clear common name. Is the Arthurian topic primary? Maybe. But I still think it makes more sense to have the general article at the title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holy Grail is the general topic. This article is a fork about some cups said to be the relic.—Cúchullain t/c 13:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't agree with that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It needs updating, but the Holy Grail article includes, for instance, interpretations of the sources for the Grail legend (which are not tied to the Holy Chalice), treatment in modern literature, treatment in pseudohistory and conspiracy theories (in which the Grail is generally not the Holy Chalice), treatment in art, and film. Shortly it will have a section on the Holy Chalice relics with a link to this article. It's the general article. The only way to transform this article into the general article will be to remove those sections from Holy Grail and move them here, which is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent improving the current articles.--Cúchullain t/c 14:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bennett: propose removal of selfpublished material

[edit]

I propose the removal of:

"Bennett (2004) argues for the chalice's authenticity, tracing its history via Saint Peter's journey to Rome, Pope Sixtus II, Saint Lawrence, and finally to the Monastery of San Juan de la Peña whence it was acquired by King Martin I of Aragon in 1399. Bennett presents as historical evidence a 17th-century Spanish text entitled Life and Martyrdom of the Glorious Spaniard St. Laurence from a monastery in Valencia, which is supposed to be a translation of a 6th-century Latin Vita of Saint Laurence, written by Donato, an Augustinian monk who founded a monastery in the area of Valencia, which contains circumstantial details of the life and details surrounding the transfer of the Chalice to Spain.[9]"

This is all based on her self published books by Ignatius press (Catholic). None of it is peer reviewed. She herself is Catholic and not independent. see also:http://ignatiusinsight.com/features/jbennett_part1_oct04.asp and http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features/jbennett_part2_oct04.asp

I also propose the removal of but I am for now just putting a citation needed: " but the red agate cup itself has been most likely produced in a Palestinian or Egyptian workshop between the 4th century BC and the 1st century AD.[7][8]"

this is based on those 2 sources:https://web.archive.org/web/20061010135931/http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1999/oct1999p12_297.html http://www.archden.org/dcr/archive/20020911/2002091121ln.htm but they (one is Bennett) both refer to Antonio Beltrán who is a spanish historian (he has a Spanish wikipedia article). This is everything that I find in google scholar (https://scholar.google.be/scholar?hl=nl&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Antonio+Beltr%C3%A1n%2C+%E2%80%9CEl+Santo+C%C3%A1liz+de+la+Catedral+de+Valencia%E2%80%9C&btnG=). I can't find what he has written about this anywhere. It is probably a non peer reviewed book. It gets cited 5 times (3 times by the same person).

--2A02:1810:BC04:4B00:50F3:D47B:F97F:C82A (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holy_Chalice&oldid=1201894392"