Do what the books say. That's the solution. Don't invent a tension to worry about. The Lectionary's not going to be retranslated for several years at the earliest; the bishops don't have the appetite for that. And I doubt there will be much pressure from above for them to hurry that along. In the meantime, move on.

Not meaning to be another "stickler," but is it still worth mentioning that "cup" is also a unit of measurement in addition to the other known noun. Chalice is clearly just a vesse

Um... anyone else ever hear the second version of the Mysterium Fidei? Pretty sure it uses cup too.

Here's one attempt to explain the memorial acclamation translation

Practically all English-language Bibles translate the Greek poterion as "cup" rather than chalice, as current English attributes a technical meaning to this word which it did not have in the original. In a similar vein the word calicem in Latin can refer to many drinking and cooking vessels and not just those reserved for liturgical use.

These memorial acclamations constitute a novelty within the Latin rite, and they were only introduced with the liturgical reform. With the removal of the acclamation "Christ has died …," which was found only in the English missal, the remaining three are basically scriptural quotes.

For this reason I think the translator is justified in following here the commonly accepted biblical translation while translating the same word as "chalice" in the texts that manifest the Church's 2,000-year development of her liturgical traditions.

The responsorial psalm refrain in question uses the term "Calix benedictionis," translated as "blessing-cup." Remember that the lectionary does itself contain full passages of scripture, but merely lists of scripture passages to be read at certain times, along with responsorial psalm refrains and Gospel acclamation verses.

If the given refrain were translated "chalice," there would, as chonak points out, be a discrepancy between the refrain and the verses since it is unlikely we will ever have an "official" psalm translation that uses "chalice" (as Mark points out, the psalms are not translated from the Latin, though the translators do reference the vulgate and take its sense into account...whatever that means; also, calix has many more senses in Latin than just the Catholic understanding of "chalice").

I rather thought this sort of absolutist, deconstructionist linguistical analysis was left to the disgruntled at ... well, nevermind.

Um... anyone else ever hear the second version of the Mysterium Fidei? Pretty sure it uses cup too.

Whether citing the B memorial or the Holy Thursday psalm, there's really no cognitive difference between what I said above as "measurement," which also meant to imply (as if I'm subtle) "contents" in the usage of the translated "cup."
Just, for an antidote to Ted, take the mem/acc. and justifiably paraphrase "When we eat this sup, and drink this cup, we proclaim..." Well, we call it the Last Supper, yes? But clearly in JN 6 Jesus only signifies the breaking of bread and consumption as the institution. Even if the rest of the evening was spent unknowingly to us sharing spoons of beluga caviar and gelato, the Melchizedekian inference would remain clear, even despite the miracle of loaves and fishes, plus the post-resurrection breakfast Jesus fried up like dried kipper in Scotland.
When we drink the cup, we take in the content is the clear reference. One cannot "drink a chalice." We can both sup, and describe a subset of that verb/noun by recounting the "breaking of the bread." Yeesh.

.

.