Talk:Eucharist/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Its the actual flesh and blood of jesus

The ceremony from the start was that the bread and wine where magiced into the actual body and blood of their dead jew god, so why isn't that stated the Catholics invented the religion and thats how communion was created. There was never a problem with it until the last few decades when they have tried to cover up this up. The churches stance it is actual blood and flesh of jesus. I know theres alot cover and rewrite, this is the stance of most priest today.--Trrrrrrtttrrr (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Too many images

It might just be me, but I think the Eastern section has too many images... any thoughts? Shark96z (talk · contribs) 14:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Two parts of the article are overcrowded with images, while the other sections have none at all. I'm revising this. There are some good images on Commons for other areas. Jonathunder (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Timing of the sacring

"The consecration of bread and a cup within the rite recalls the moment at the Last Supper when Jesus gave his disciples bread, saying, 'This is my body', and wine, saying, 'This is my blood'." This is only technically true in reference to the Roman Catholic Mass and some Protestant services. In the Eastern Orthodox understanding, the bread and wine are not sanctified until well after the Words of Institution, at the epiclesis (calling down of the Holy Spirit]]. Unfortunately, I don't really have a good idea yet how to rework this sentence to retain its broad character while avoiding giving a wrong impression about specific beliefs within the Christian milieu. -- JALatimer 00:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Query on reverting

An anonymous Paris-based editor is repeatedly inserting an original-research opinion on which of the evangelists is to be believed in place of a duly sourced statement on the symbolism that Eastern Orthodox attach to leaven in the Eucharist. Am I permitted to continue reverting this as vandalism?

It would be helpful if the anonymous editor would at least discuss the matter here. Esoglou (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction non-neutral

The intro to this article treats Christian mythology as actual fact, stating that Jesus had a last meal with his followers and that he performed the ritual as described in the Bible. I was going to take a stab at revising it but it's hard to do without sounding stilted or offensive. Powers ^T 18:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are alluding to the following language: "generally considered to be a re-enactment of the Last Supper, the final meal that Jesus Christ shared with his disciples before his arrest and eventual crucifixion." IMHO, the term "generally considered" is the equivalent of believed or thought. However, if you think using the term believed is better, I see no reason not to make such a change. Would that suffice or are you looking for something else? --^StormRider 18:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In that passage, it's far from clear that "generally considered" applies to not just the identification of the re-enactment's antecedent, but to the identification of the final meal. It seems to presuppose that the final meal existed, and that he was arrested and crucified. The following passage is likewise problematic, asserting that Jesus said certain things without attributing them to the Bible. Powers ^T 14:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The article cites the Encyclopaedia Britannica, not the Bible, for the words and the meal (short answer). Esoglou (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and not suitable for our purposes. In addition, note that the Britannica is careful to say "(according to tradition)" immediately before describing what Jesus supposedly did, which is precisely the sort of thing we ought to be doing. Powers ^T 17:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sacred Tradition is considered of equal importance and validity in the Catholic Church, as well as in the Orthodox churches, many Anglican churches, and some Lutheran churches. Not all Christian beliefs come straight from the Bible. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Powers, what do you want the wording to be? This isn't difficult; let's move forward. --^StormRider 18:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe I stated in the opening that I tried some options but I wasn't able to compose something appropriate. So, it may not be difficult for you, but apparently it is for me. Powers ^T 01:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A priori doubt is not the same thing as neutrality. -- JALatimer 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Holy Qurbana

I disagree that Holy Qurbana belongs under the "Eucharistic practice" section, which is clearly for practices relating specifically to Holy Communion and does not include other Eucharistic liturgies. But there are fitting places to describe Holy Qurbana in the article. The sections "Ritual and liturgy" and "Terminology for the Eucharist" seem appropriate. Elizium23 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As a first step, I have moved the Terminology section up close to the Names section. More remains to be done. Esoglou (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Advertising in disguise

I feel that 50.80.134.137 (talk · contribs), rather than acting in good faith, is attempting to sneak in a mention of their company which makes "sanitary" host dispensers for churches. While the edits have been well-referenced and relevant, I question the due weight given to some obscure device that only one parish seems to be using. This article is the wrong place to be seeking an advertising platform, and I believe that without widespread use of such devices, it should not be given this kind of coverage here. Elizium23 (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Diderot's Encyclopédie entry for "The Eucharist"

I kinda think this referenced fact is noteworthy and should not have been deleted without comment. MacStep (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Its trivial nature, and placement in the article made it look like vandalism. As such it was deleted as vandalism. PeRshGo (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Pray tell, when did Diderot become trivial? "The Eucharist" became trivial after him...thats some achievement.MacStep (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Order of "ritual and litrugy section"

Upon examination of this article, I notice that the sections in the ritual section don't appear to be in any order. I think they either be alphabetized or put in order by those who regard the Eucharist the highest. Thoughts? Shark96z (talk · contribs) 13:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think alphabetical order is suitable. Among other considerations, it would then become important to choose between "Roman Catholic" (R) and "Catholic" (C); the present "Orthodox" section, which is really about the Eastern Orthodox, excluding the Oriental Orthodox, would perhaps have to be under E, rather than O. There would seem to be no longer any reason for placing in close proximity the Protestant traditions, and Reformed/Presbyterians would have to choose between R and P, Baptists would be under B, and it would be quite a problem to choose a letter under which to put "Brethren and Mennonites/Anabaptists"; and I suppose Jehovah's Witnesses would have to be put under J. One could certainly argue that the present order is something close to that of the churches that place the highest value on the Eucharist, but an argument about that would be unlikely to be pacific and would be based chiefly on personal opinions, since I don't believe there are any reliable sources that make pronouncements on that matter. So what other order do you have in mind? I don't see any order that everyone would agree is better than the present. Let us not stir up controversy unnecessarily. Esoglou (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism and alcohol

I think it is not sufficiently stressed in this article that Roman Catholics usually do not receive Eucharist under the two species, that is, the wine is only consummed by the priest. In my whole life as a (former) Roman Catholic I only took the wine once, at my First Communion, when I was nine, and I think it is common practice to reserve the consecrated wine to the priesthood at least from the Council of Trent (1564) onwards. This issue caused a considerable perturbation during the Late Middle Ages with the Utraquist controversy (see article about the Hussites). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.171.72 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Modern pratice varies on this, but permission has been given in many cases to distribute under both species. According to the General Instructions on the Roman Missal, the diocesan bishop is empowered to grant permission for distribution under both kinds, and where he has granted permission, it is at the discretion of the pastor whether it is offered. Some pastors limit this to just special occasions, such as First Communion, weddings, etc. Some offer it at every Sunday Mass. The GIRM encourages limiting the practice or using intinction to reduce the number of Extraordinary Ministers needed (EMHCs may not perform intinction.) It is true that in the Extraordinary Form there is no provision at all to offer both species, and recipients communicate by the host only. But, in celebration of the Ordinary Form, this practice has become rather common. I have heard reports from all over the country that people receive under both kinds. Yes, it is considered heresy to deny that the Real Presence is divided or does not subsist entirely in each species, but it is also considered a "fuller sign" of the Eucharist to receive under both species, and Rome has taken steps to encourage it more widely. Elizium23 (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Section "Terminology"

The article states "Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans apply this term not to the Eucharistic rite as a whole, but only to the partaking of the consecrated bread and wine, and to these consecrated elements themselves." I have my doubts about this so far as Anglicans are concerned: while some individuals may do what is described here, the C-of-England Alternative Services (1980) entitles its "Eucharist" The Order for Holy Communion, also known as the Eucharist and The Lord's Supper while the 1978 Australian PB speaks just of Holy Communion --Jpacobb (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably most statements about Anglicans should say "some Anglicans" given that there are almost always variations therein. History2007 (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that, even apart from the doubt raised by Jpaccobb, it is unnecessary to preserve the unsourced statement about the identity of the groups that have this understanding of the term "Communion" or "Holy Communion". I have therefore removed it. Esoglou (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Refs?

Several sections here have zero references and I have no idea if they have correct info. I tagged a few, but do not want to start deleting them yet. Suggestions? History2007 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC) look through the C.C.C. Catechism of the Catholic Church for beliefs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmanizer (talk • contribs) 02:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Cup or wine

The sources cited are not Scripture. We are using secondary sources for two reasons. One, WP:PRIMARY says there are only limited circumstances to use primary sources such as Scripture. Primary sources are not suitable in this situation. Two, it is clearer what we mean and more historically precise. The uninitiated will not know what was in the "cup" or "chalice", and those who use grape juice might assume He used that instead. So to say "wine" and use sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica (actually a tertiary source) is preferable to me. Please discuss here. Elizium23 (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Scripture doesn't say "wine" and to many, "wine" would automatically imply alcoholic wine rather than unfermented wine, and as there is not consensus on the type of wine used, "wine" should not be used in this context. The only reference to the contents of the cup in this context in scripture is "the fruit of the vine" (Matthew & Mark) which could be interpreted as unfermented or fermented wine.

We can't rely on Scripture because of the reasons above. If there is a notable controversy over fermented wine then make a footnote and document the controversy. Gather reliable secondary sources which document the theory that unfermented wine could have been used, and sources which document the controversy which may exist. Then we can use them in the article. Until then, you must use what the secondary sources say. Elizium23 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I will note that there is no mention of "unfermented" at Last Supper, while there are mentions of "wine", so you will also have to convince editors there that there is a controversy. Elizium23 (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to prove that non-alcoholic wine or grape juice was used at the last supper, simply pointing out that it is not a universally accepted fact. The scripture accounts do not mention wine, only the "fruit of the vine" and scholars are not united on it. Whilst I will concede that a majority of views would lean towards alcohol being used, there is still a sizable opinion that it was non-alcoholic (see: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/4.html for example). Therefore, to use "wine" in the article (which implies it is alcoholic) is misleading and therefore better to stick to what the scriptural text actually says. Supt. of Printing (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I encountered the above link in my search, but I am afraid that it fails reliable source criteria. Do you have anything reliable? Elizium23 (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I admit i don't fully understand the reliable source criteria or how my reference has failed, but as I said, I am not trying to prove anything, but rather just point out that there isn't full agreement and therefore "wine" is an inappropriate word to use in the article in this instance. Supt. of Printing (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

On reading the above, the following points came to mind.

(i) The opening paragraph is heavily dependent on the Enc. Brit which uses the word "wine" at least twice and I presume from the title of Silone's book that he uses it as well: therefore, unless the lead is rewritten and alternative sources provided, wine must stand.

(ii)Although not refered back to the institution narratives, the question of the nature of the liquid is raised in the second paragraph of the lead and this might considered sufficient in a lead. Alternatively, a note or comment to the effect that in the originals the reference is not to "wine" but to "the fruit of the vine". In this case, I would accept references to the primary sources (Luke 22:17,18; Mark 14:25/Matthew 26:29) as there is no question of interpretation involved.

I hope this helps.Jpacobb (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Eucharist Myths

The "Eucharist" has some confused. The Eucharist is a Catholic ritual and not a Christian practice.

"As remarkable a display of unity as eucharistic congresses are they also show us how far we are from unity among all Christians. A eucharistic congress makes us long for the day when all Christians can share in the one body of Christ: intercommunion"

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0500.asp

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Oct1997/Wiseman.asp#F3 - Had this to say: " Canon 844, #2, says that, as often as necessity requires it or genuine spiritual advantage recommends it, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, the faithful, for whom it is physically or morally impossible to go to a Catholic minister, may receive the Sacraments of Penance, Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Whatever else might be said, I think it would be very unlikely that a Catholic living in ordinary circumstances in a large city would find it physically or morally impossible to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister. Therefore I do not believe you may receive the Eucharist at an Orthodox wedding. Even if all the conditions seemed to be present, a Catholic might stop to ask or consider how members of the other Church might feel about a non-member receiving Communion in their Church." [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catmerl (talk • contribs) 07:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What is your suggestion for improving this article? Have you read the article? I suggest reading it again, and taking note that many Christian groups observe the Eucharist in some form. Not just Catholics. Elizium23 (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Calvin wrote on it too: A Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper, and of course there is Eucharist in the Lutheran Church. History2007 (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Roman Catholics use the word does not mean that it only refers to their understanding of it. The meaning of a word depends on who is using it. "Eucharist" has become the standard academic and technical label for what Roman Catholics mostly call The Mass; the Anglican BCP of 1662, The Lord's Supper or Holy Communion with many other variants being found in different denominations. Alasdair I.C. Heron (a presbyterian) wrote Table and Tradition: Towards an Ecumenical Understanding of the Eucharist; Christopher J. Cocksworth (an anglican), Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England and Yngve Brilioth (a lutheran), Eucharistic Faith and Practice Evangelical and Catholic. In his prologue, Heron faces the problem of terminology opting for E. despite the fact that "... in some [protestant] quarters it is looked upon as a kind of Trojan horse, used by ecumenical fanatics to smuggle in unreformed ideas about the sacrament." He points out that eucharistein is simply the Greek word for "to give thanks" and is found in the NT accounts of The Last Supper and the noun became the established label for the sacrament and was widely used as from an early date. Jpacobb (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ptolemy V Epiphanes

Eschoir has boldly inserted the following text both here and in Origin of the Eucharist:

The adjectival form "Eucharistos" appears both in Colossians 3:15, and in the Rosetta Stone as a title for King Ptolemy V (reigned 204–181 BC), son of a God, decreeing twice-a-month feasts and libations to honor the "everliving king,"

1. The use of the adjective εὐχάριστος (grateful) in Colossians 3:15 has not been shown to have any relation whatever with the Eucharistic rite, any more than the noun εὐχαριστία (thanksgiving) in 15 different NT verses or than the verb εὐχαριστῶ (to thank) in the 33 NT verses other than the 6 in which it is applied to the action of Jesus at his last supper. Eschoir's edit does not even claim that it is related.
2. The Greek text of the Rosetta Stone gives King Ptolemy V Epiphanes of Egypt the titles, among others, of "the everliving", "the beloved of Ptah", "the God", "Epiphanes" (illustrious), "Eucharistos" (grateful), records his donations and grants of tax exemption to the temples and the decision of the priests to set up in all the temples an image of him to be honoured three times a day and that in every month a celebration with sacrifices and libations should be held on the days corresponding to those of his birthday and his accession to the throne. Again nothing related to the Eucharist. Eschoir's edit does not even claim that it is related.

If Eschoir means to imply that these two items of information are related to the Eucharist, as he does in his edit summary, it is a case of WP:SYN. If he does not, his edit has no place in the article. Esoglou (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I did initially comment that it used an ancient 1902 reference, and did not seem right. Now that you also object, I say leave it out unless a really solid case is made. History2007 (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The reference to "eucharistos"/Ptolemy is an abstruse one suitable for a philological article but out of place here. However, Esoglou's revision seems to have a couple of weaknesses: strictly speaking, the passages referred to speak of what is usually called the "Last Supper" while the "Lord's Supper" of 1 Cor. 11:20,21 refers to some sort of commemorative ceremony at Corinth; and I am not sure that it is correct to speak of "the rite" since there are few if any signs in the NT of something as definite as that. The following seems preferable:

"The Greek noun εὐχαριστία (eucharistia), meaning "thanksgiving", which appears 15 times in the New Testament, is never used in it as a name for a rite. However, the verb εὐχαριστῶ ("to thank") is found in the major texts concerning the Last Supper, including the earliest:"

Jpacobb (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If the criterion for a discussion of the origins of the noun Eucharist exclude adjectival references, they must exclude verb references too, in which case the section becomes very brief indeed.

The noun "εύχαριστία" (thanksgiving, Eucharist), which became the usual term for the rite, does not appear in the New Testament asssociated with the Lord's Suppper.

If on the other hand "the earliest" reference to Eucharist is sought, the fact that it was in use as a title for Hellenic dynasts two hundred years before would appear to be germane. It is not an opinion, it is a translation, therefore WPSYN does not apply. If the 1902 cite troubles you,, read the Wiki article Rosetta Stone for attribution. Eschoir (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The verb εὐχαριστῶ is used 6 times in the New Testament of actions done by Jesus at his last supper. Later, Justin Martyr used it in relation to the Eucharistic rite. It is also used both in the New Testament and in earlier and later writings with no reference to what Jesus did at his last supper or to the Eucharistic rite.

The noun εὐχαριστία is used many times in the New Testament and in earlier and later writings with no reference to the Last Supper or the Eucharist. But by the end of the last century (Didache, Ignatius) Christians were using it as a specific term for the Eucharist.

The adjective εὐχάριστος is used both in the New Testament and in earlier and later writings with no reference to the Eucharist.

The earliest reference to the Eucharist is in 1 Corinthians. Esoglou (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And in any case, I agree with jpacoob's statement that the other is an "abstruse one suitable for a philological article but out of place here" and I would support leaving it as, or a very minor modification based on jpacobb's point. In any case, I do no see an agreement to make major changes to what there is now. History2007 (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Too abstruse and philogical? Come on. The section is called Names and their Origin.

Eschoir (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Try

The noun εὐχαριστία is used many times in the New Testament with no reference to the Last Supper or the Eucharist. Not until 150 AD were Christians using it to identify a rite with bread and wine.

END

If you want to include verbs you cannot connect them to "the Eucharist." Every reference to catching a football is not a reference to the Catch, as much as San Francisco 49ers fans revere Dwight Clark.

If you want to include verbs you must include adjectives. Ignoring the rites of Ptolemy V Epiphanes Eucharistos in an article on Origins of the Eucharist is like ignoring the Feast of Saturn in an article on the Origins of Christmas because "it is not related to Christmas."

"The earliest reference to the Eucharist is in 1 Corinthians." How is that? The verb to give thanks appears many times in 1 Corinthians, some earlier in the book, some later, none distinguishing anything special, not any THING. Eschoir (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

To speak of what is called the Lord's Supper, Communion or Eucharist, the early Christians used the noun εὐχαριστία and the verbs εὐχαριστῶ and εὐχαριστίζω. They never used the adjective εὐχάριστος to speak of it. The Rosetta Stone used the adjective εὐχάριστος to speak of King Ptolemy V Epiphanes only, not of anything else whatever. Not, for instance, of what is called the Lord's Supper, Communion or Eucharist. There is no place in this article for the irrelevant mention of the Rosetta Stone. Esoglou (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You say to speak of a THING they used a VERB? Come on.

You say there is no place in this article for Ptolemy V Epiphanes Eucharistos. That is not an argument, it is a conclusion. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Make an arguement, not a diktat. Eschoir (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope this does not sound like a diktat, but may I note that you have 3 editors arguing the other way? So not a diktat, just s hint... I was unhappy with the Ptolemy from the start, now I am squarely against it based on the arguments presented. I will leave it there. History2007 (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a diktat, just a veiled threat. "We outnumber you so your facts are not welcome." How is that Wiki? Eschoir (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of an article in an encyclopedia is to give a concise summary of essential and relevant information about the immediate subject. The section under discussion indicates how one particular name (Eucharist) came to be applied to the rite and it does so quite clearly without bringing in the appearance of a related adjective 200 years earlier, therefore references to the Rosetta Stone are out of place at this point.Jpacobb (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't so indicate. It is called Names and their Origins, and seeks to gain credibility or bolster a POV by counting appearances of a noun (which never references a rite in the NT) and a simmilarr looking verb (which CANNOT reference a THING) thus adding a sense of cumulative authority to an inndefensible assertion, but which simmutaneously seeks to block counting a similar looking adjective, which, if acknowleged, could cast doubt on the view of the originn not preferred by those editors, but rather lend credence to the hitherto unthinkable notion that Eucharist table pracice may not havve been unique to this Son of a God, but just another iteration of usual divinity, much like the claim that Jesus status as the Son of God is unique is belied by the inscription on the silver denarius that Caesar was also a god, Son of God, and bore titles as Redeemer and Savior of the World.

However, I offer a choice: word counting, in which case Ptolemy stays, or abandonment of the current bean-counting language and adoption of the aforementioned

The noun "εύχαριστία" (thanksgiving, Eucharist), which became the usual term for the rite, does not appear in the New Testament asssociated with the Lord's Suppper or the Last Supper. It is not until 150 AD that it is used in a writing that mentions bread and wine.

What'll it be? Eschoir (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but which part of Wikipedia has the multiple choice policy? History2007 (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you find, as I do, that answering a question with a question is an effective means of wresting control of a discussion without having to make answers in affirmative statements?Eschoir (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Was that a question? History2007 (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What'll it be? Eschoir (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we can now close the discussion on Eschoir's insertion of his statement about the Rosetta Stone, which has failed to get support from any other editor. Let him have the last word, if he wishes, but do not prolong the discussion. Esoglou (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I will take that as an endorsement of the aforementioned edit

The noun "εύχαριστία" (thanksgiving, Eucharist), which became the usual term for the rite, does not appear in the New Testament asssociated with the Lord's Suppper or the Last Supper. It is not until 150 AD that it is used in a writing that mentions bread and wine.

omitting any references to the verb or adjective.

Eschoir (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot accept this proposal. The occurence of the verb "eucharistein" in the Biblical passages is highly relevant to the attachment of the ame "Eucharist" to the Christian ceremony which is the subject of this article. I propose that the body of the subsection under discussion be the following quotation from Heron, after an introductory phrase like: "Alisdair Heron writes:

"The Greek word eucharistia means simply 'thanksgiving'. The verb eucharistein, 'to give thanks', is used in all four New Testament accounts of the Last Supper: all describe Jesus as giving thanks either over the bread or over the cup. Very early in the ancient church, 'Eucharist' became the established name for the sacrament, as is recorded around the middle of the century by Justin Martyr¹, and perhaps even earlier.²[1. First Apology, 66 | 2. Didache, ix.12]

[From Alasdair I.C. Heron, Table And Tradition: Towards an Ecumenical Understanding of the Eucharist Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1983, p.xiii.]Jpacobb (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine - I will put you down as supporting the Ptolemaic reference along with the word counters, whoever you are.68.55.171.173 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Would this edit be accurate: The verb eucharistein, 'to give thanks', is used in all four New Testament accounts of the Last Supper as well as dozens of other places in the NT and Septuagint and pagan literature having little or nothing to do with any future rite, while the adjective eucharistos appepars both in Colossians and pagan literature such as the Memphis Decree written on the Rosetta Stone in 196 BC describing the rites mandated to honor the Hellenic King of Egypt Ptolemy V Epiphanes Eucharistos. 68.55.171.173 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Eschoir (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Eschoir (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for the omission of my signature to my previous post. My proposal was for a complete text of the subsection. It includes a brief but necessary indication of when the name Eucharist came to be used of the Christian rite. The reference to Ptolemy and the Rosetta Stone in Eschoir's latest proposal is irrelevant (as already pointed out by Esoglou and History2007) For these reasons I cannot accept Eschoir's suggestion and I stand my previous (now signed) proposal.Jpacobb (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to much like answering quesstions, do you? Eschoir (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Didache and Ignatius of Antioch wrote of the Christian rite as the εὐχαριστία some half-century before Justin. Esoglou (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think thhat inn greek you could differentiate beetween a εὐχαριστία and the εὐχαριστία . It's a lot different to have to say : The Didache and Ignatius of Antioch wrote of a Christian rite as a εὐχαριστία some half-century before Justin

Isn't much of a Eucharist without the bread or wine, is it? Sportswriters wrote of Dwight Clark mmaking a catch or two that season but they weren't the Catch without Joe Montana and the Dallas Cowboys.Eschoir (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me pick up Esoglou's point first. The text I proposed is a direct quote which said everything that essentially needs to be said. I hoped it would be acceptable as a secondary source and thus provide closure. The dating of the Didache has been extensively debated with dates as early as the beginning of the first century and as late as the third being proposed. Hence the "perhaps" in the text which is foot-noted for the Didache. I accept the reference to Ignatius as probably the earliest and would have no difficulty with its inclusion.

Eschoir comments that I don't "seem to much like answering quesstions,..." Eschoir (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)" the question being "Would this edit be accurate: ...? I did not want to get drawn into a debate about accuracy, but here goes. Each individual statement in his proposal may be considered factually correct and, therefore, in it itself "accurate". However, taking the proposal as a whole, it is inaccurate in that it does not hit the target of the explaining the origin of the word Eucharist as a label (in fact, a key label) for the Christian rite. Anyone reading the other sub-sections will understand why the other labels were applied. In the case of "Eucharist", Eschoir's proposal leaves this unclear. Coming at the question from another angle, there are three necessary criteria which must be met in evaluating a proposed draft: the truth of the statements, their relevance to the matter under discussion, and the reasonable completeness of the information provided. Eschoir's draft fails the second and third of these.

Contrary to Eschoir's statement, Greek does have a definite article. It is used twice in Didache 9 with eucaristia both times in the singular. I don't have a Greek text of Ignatius to hand, but the English translations use "the" nearly all the time in the relevant passages.

My position is that any satisfactory draft will exclude the Ptolemy material (because it is not relevant) and will include both to the verb "eucharistein" (which suggested the noun) and also to Justin, Didache and Ignatius which indicate when the noun came into use.Jpacobb (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rosettaa Stone is a primary source. Frescoes inn catacombs are primary sources. Coins and statues are primary sourceS. An English translation of a copy of a copy of an uncertain manuscript, or rather a blending of manuscripts, in Greek, purporting to quote an Aramaic speaker directly who perished ssome yearss before does not provide more 'relevance " and "reasoonable completeness" by selectively designating words as ssatisfactorilly explaining Ehcharist and coounting themm up while pretendng thst other words or even classes ofo words dont exist and must be excluded though not because they are inaccurate, Eschoir (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Eschoir, let me give you a hint my friend: "there is life beyond this passage". You don't have the necessary momentum to make the tide turn here. There is more to life to be pursued elsewhere.... History2007 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It may just be historical coincidence, but didn't the High Priest say the same exact thing to Jesus, before turning him over to Pontius Pilate? :) Eschoir (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I recall that meeting predated the term momentum, although alas I was not present at that meeting to know for sure. History2007 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted Eschoir's interpretation of I Cor 11 because it (i) relies on an incomplete quotation, cutting short the original blockquote and (ii) is potentially misleading as it seems to imply that the author of I Cor made a negative reference to the Lord's Supper when he was making a comment about the behaviour of the Corinthians in their meetings.

I propose modifying the beginning which currently reads:

The Greek noun εὐχαριστία (eucharistia), meaning "blessing" or "thanksgiving", appears 15 times in the New Testament, never as a name for ritual reenactment.

to read as follows:

The Greek noun εὐχαριστία (eucharistia) was in common use when the books of the New Testament were being written with the meaning "blessing" or "thanksgiving". It appears 15 times in the New Testament in this general sense, but never as a name for a ritual reenactment.

The reinsertion of the reference to the Rosetta stone is not justified by the claim (made above) that it is a "primary source". It is an irrelevant primary source and thus should be removed along Eschoir's additions which immediately precede it since they are now covered by the modification proposed for the opening sentence. This can now end: "...all four New Testament accounts of the Last Supper." Jpacobb (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jpacobb. I did not revert Eschoir on that because I had already done 2 reverts, but truncating that quote was serving no purpose. Is Wikipedia short of server disk space? Certainly not, with all this talk... So no need to do that type of truncation. And Eschoir, you are on the 3RR line again, so please avoid a revert cycle here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that Esoglou asked "do we need to go into all this" about the Rosetta stone, etc. and my suggestion is "no". I suggest we go back to what there was before this game of musical edits started, say a version from 5-10 days ago. History2007 (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As stated here Eschoir has now crossed WP:3RR even after a message to avoid it. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Eschoir just crossed the "5RR line" now. I do not agree with the edit, given that it runs against this discussion, but will not revert it, for I do not want to play ping-pong on this. But policy must be respected. This can not continue like this. History2007 (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Since this section has become so long and there are so many edits, I have created a new section further down "Names and their Origin" with the proposal that we continue the discussion taking as our starting point the text of the section as it stands at this moment in time.Jpacobb (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Names and their Origin

Since the previous talk section (Ptolemy V Epiphanes) which mainly dealt with possible changes to this section has become so long and involved, I am starting a fresh section here and propose that we take as a basic text for all future discussion the text of the section as it currently stands:

The noun Eucharist, from Greek εὐχαριστία (eucharistia), meaning "thanksgiving," does not appear in the New Testament itself, but the adjectival form eucharistos appears in the Epistle to the Colossians (3:15). The Greek verb εὐχαριστῶ, the usual word for "to thank" in the Septuagint and the New Testament, is found in the major texts concerning the Last Supper, including the earliest:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:23-24)

The adjectival form eucharistos also appears in the third Memphis Decree of 196 B.C., recorded in the Rosetta Stone, as a title for King Ptolemy V (reigned 204–181 BC), son of a God, instituting ritual twice-a-month feasts and priestly libations to honor the "everliving king."

The Lord's Supper (Κυριακὸν δεῖπνον) derives from 1 Corinthians 11:20–21.

When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. ........ (last part omitted as non-controversial)

I am modifying the first statement since in its present form it is incorrect: the word "eucharistia" appears 15 times in the NT.

If other editors are in agreement I shall also remove the reference to eucharistos for the reasons I have given earlier.Jpacobb (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, that version probably came from my misclick, given that i has Memphis TN in it etc. What I intended to go back to was:

The Greek noun εὐχαριστία (eucharistia), meaning "thanksgiving", which appears 15 times in the New Testament, is not used in it as a name for the rite, but is the term by which the rite is referred to by the Didache (late 1st or early 2nd century), Ignatius of Antioch (who died between 98 and 117) and Justin Martyr (writing between 147 and 167). In its instructions on the Eucharist, the Didache also uses εὐχαριστίζω (to "eucharistize"), a verbal form of εὐχαριστία, and, again in relation to the rite, Justin Martyr uses another verbal form: εὐχαριστῶ ("to thank"), which moreover is found in the major New Testament texts concerning the Last Supper, including the earliest:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:23-24)

The Lord's Supper (Κυριακὸν δεῖπνον) derives from the First Epistle to the Corinthians (11:20-21):

When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.

Communion is a translation (other translations are "participation", "sharing", "fellowship") of the Greek κοινωνία (koinōnía) in 1 Corinthians 10:16. The King James Version has

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

I would suggest this one, or a slightly modified one as you may suggest. I think I just misclicked. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Esoglou (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agreeJpacobb (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

so many errors, so little time.

this article should be understandable not just to peopl who has been attending churches all their lives, bu Martian who hapo observe a Catholic mass and wondered what the heck they were doing.

That is why the use of verbs like reenact is preferable to using vague terms like celebrate. If a Martian were to see the Eucharist being celebrated in a Catholic church today, would he say, me oh my, that looks like a reenactment of the time the disciples ate a meal with their leader for the last time, minus the meal parts? Then it begins to become comprehensible to the lay reader.

But comprehension may not be what you desire here.

I personally think word counting is useless. What are you saying to our Martian craft when you say the Greek it now appears 15 times in the New Testament not as a name for the rite.

Even using the term "the rite" is wrong(get it??). Using it as you do presupposes that it was a done deal first timeout of the gate. They just did not know what to call it, fished around for a good name and stumbled on Eucharist about 150.

There is an alternate universe, aptly sourced, that says the Last Supper was not a Eucharist and that an argument can be made that the Eucharist as we know it dates from the 18th century. Saying the New Testament did not use estimate for the right presupposes that the right is established. Our presuppositions are not supposed to appear in Wikipedia.

Another presuppositions with the written word is that it trumps other sources-I found the mention of the frescoes perfectly interesting in a Sherlock Holmes dog that did not bark sort of fashion-to say right existed from time immemorial and was a central tenet of the church in say 380 AD, why are there no depictions of it in the catacombs?

Let's say that Ignatius of Antioch used a word once, and proves that word carried meating that the editor wishes to coroborate, it is not enough to just say so, and ignored the 47 times he used it and didn't refer to a ritual reenactment-or meal, or a gymnastic routine.

I have a friend who developed a system for winning at horseraces. We went to the track and tried his system on the first race and we lost. So we try to system on the 2nd race and we lost, and the 3rd race, and the 4th race, we lost them all. The 5th race he won! And he said to me, There! You see? My system works!

What is the purpose of the use of the word earliest? Is not the earliest use of the word in the New Testament or even Corinthians.

The Lord's supper should be translated properly as a supper of the Lord, and I don't see how a citation that something is not a supper of the Lord adds anything to a discussion of what it is a supper of the Lord.

Eschoir (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue of users who are unfamiliar with a subject is handled in Wikipedia by "hypertext" that expands a term when clicked on. So, ignoring the Martian comments, horse races, etc. that are perhaps beside the point here, I will wait for others to address the "reenact vs celebrate" issue - perhaps a rephrasing can be suggested e.g. using celebrate in parentheses etc.

However your comment that the Lord's supper should be translated as a supper of the Lord runs against WP:COMMONNAME for what we think should be the term is always secondary to WP:COMMONNAME, so I do not see any other issues that need attention. History2007 (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"My dear fellow, I have to take your last comment to be in a bad faith, for the alternative, that you reallly think WP:COMMONNAME not to be about article titles, would otherwise inevitably lead one to the uncharitible conclusiion that you had the reading comprehension of a prawn." --C.S. Lewis

Eschoir (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF Esoglou (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So you think he has the reading comprehenstion of a prawn? Say it isn't so! Eschoir (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Eschoir was blocked here for the comment he made above. History2007 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If that were the rule, your reasoning, as herein demonstrated, would be a major argument in its favor.

Eschoir (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Names and their origin text

Given that after a few days 3 out of 4 users are in favor of this version, I suggest that we make that the text in the article.

The Greek noun εὐχαριστία (eucharistia), meaning "thanksgiving", which appears 15 times in the New Testament, is not used in it as a name for the rite, but is the term by which the rite is referred to by the Didache (late 1st or early 2nd century), Ignatius of Antioch (who died between 98 and 117) and Justin Martyr (writing between 147 and 167). In its instructions on the Eucharist, the Didache also uses εὐχαριστίζω (to "eucharistize"), a verbal form of εὐχαριστία, and, again in relation to the rite, Justin Martyr uses another verbal form: εὐχαριστῶ ("to thank"), which moreover is found in the major New Testament texts concerning the Last Supper, including the earliest:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:23-24)

The Lord's Supper (Κυριακὸν δεῖπνον) derives from the First Epistle to the Corinthians (11:20-21):

When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.

Communion is a translation (other translations are "participation", "sharing", "fellowship") of the Greek κοινωνία (koinōnía) in 1 Corinthians 10:16. The King James Version has

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Given my misclick last time, could one of you guys who supported it please put that back to avoid another misclick by me. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Esoglou (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Bearded Christ

A typo and a fresco combinned to suggest this parallel line of inquiry: When did Christ grow a beard? Is there a study of say the frescos of when they started depicting him as hirsute? Just as say when a Supper of the Lord became separate Agape and Eucharist parts?

If a Martian were to see 'the Eucharist' being 'celebrated' in a Catholic church today, would he say, me oh my, that looks like a reenactment of the time the disciples ate a meal with their leader for the last time, minus the meal parts? Or is it better to say there is a qualified group of people exclusively eating their god? I can picture Mazza wwriting that there is no reenacting going on, they are there to eat them some God in real time (but of course using more refined language) or would they say "Exactly like Kool & the Gang!" Eschoir (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the above digression be removed per WP:Forum. Eschoir, you must stop using this page as a forum, given that these passing comments about beards, Martians, etc. have no direction and can not be used to improve the article. History2007 (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Readiing the Mazzi piece and one other makes me think that reenactment may not be as accurate as veneration, as in Jesus commanded a periodic veneration of himself using symbolic elements of Bread and wine Eschoir (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia the terms to be used are generally determined by an approach based on the WP:COMMONNAME strategy and less by reasoning by editors. History2007 (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations for Names and origins section

Esoglou, I saw that you added one citation for that section. I had taken a look and there are several others available, but I did not have time to get them all out. I did, however, add Bromeily, to have more WP:Secondaries, etc. Could we talk you into adding a couple more secondaries, because in a few months some IP may ask why there is just one. I can add more, but I may need a few days because I am busy with a few other things until early next week. If you manage to add a couple more, that would be great. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Lede change

I had to revert two lede changes by Eschoir now, once based on one assumption, that he accepted was lacking merit, then based on its failing to meet the source and another assumption about Passover meal, etc. But I used "reenacted " now, to avoid celebrated, that should be no big deal. Now the Britannica source says:

Eucharist, also called Holy Communion or Lord’s Supper, in Christianity, ritual commemoration of Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples, at which (according to tradition) he gave them bread with the words, “This is my body,” and wine with the words, “This is my blood.”

So what is the motive and rationale here to change what the source says and bring in blessing at the start and end and Passover etc. into it in deviation from the source? Eschoir please discuss on talk before reverting again. There are multiple editors here to discuss with you, and they are likely more knolwedgeable than myself. So please discuss, not revert. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Now I saw that there were changes against the previous discussion and had to leave this message about it. Eschoir please use a "lead us not into an edit war temptation" approach here. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for using Talk finally. I felt confident that I could gain your attention eventually. Is there anything inaccurate about this: Eucharist, at least in part, is a ritual reenactment of Jesus' blessings at the beginning and end of the last Passover meal with his Disciples, as retold in the Synoptic Gospels (Paul, writing to Gentile converts in Corinth, doesn't mention Passover in connection with the meal).

Response? Eschoir (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

My friend, you have my attention all along... all along. Not that I can figure you out, but that is another story. As for your edit, as I said in the edit summary it does not correspond to the source and the "very question" you ask means that a reading of WP:V is in order, specially the part about "verifiability not truth". And I see no reason for the change given that the current version is succinct and correspods well to the source. There is an old engineering saying: if it is not broken don't fix it. There is much more to fix in Wikipedia and to be frank this edits series and the ensuing discussions are eating up time like Pac-man with no useful purpose in my view. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I ask you again, my brother, is there anything inaccurate about this:

Eucharist, at least in part, is a ritual reenactment of Jesus' blessings at the beginning and end of the last Passover meal with his Disciples, as retold in the Synoptic Gospels (Paul, writing to Gentile converts in Corinth, doesn't mention Passover in connection with the meal).

Eschoir (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not know how to handle this, given that it seems that you just crossed the "5RR line" now. So how can I have a discussion when policy seems to be getting ignored? I will just mention that a discussion of "accuracy" between the two of us runs against WP:V unless it has a WP:RS source, and without it it will be WP:OR. And the blessing statement you have is a cross-current from the other discussion above, it seems, and is source-free. History2007 (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I ask you again, my brother, is there anything inaccurate about this:

Eucharist, at least in part, is a ritual reenactment of Jesus' blessings at the beginning and end of the last Passover meal with his Disciples, as retold in the Synoptic Gospels (Paul, writing to Gentile converts in Corinth, doesn't mention Passover in connection with the meal).

Eschoir (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a forum. The rule here at present is: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true." Esoglou (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Lima, this is Talk. I ask for the fourth time, is there anything inaccurate about this:

Eucharist, at least in part, is a ritual reenactment of Jesus' blessings at the beginning and end of the last Passover meal with his Disciples, as retold in the Synoptic Gospels (Paul, writing to Gentile converts in Corinth, doesn't mention Passover in connection with the meal).

Eschoir (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, this is not a forum. Even the Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for debating the subject. Esoglou (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Per WP:Forum we should stop discussions of unsourced comments and edits based on them and follow WP:V. The current lede material is fully sourced. History2007 (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Silence, under the law, bespeaks assent, therefore nno specific area of inaccuracy haaving being adduced, I will add the edit. Eschoir (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but where do you get these ideas? "The law"? Wikipedia works on policies, not laws. A mention of WP:SILENCE may be in order, but it does say that it is "the weakest form of consensus". But in this case there has been no silence and plenty of complaints have been made about you on WP:ANI/RS and here. So objections have been raised and there has been no silence. No one has agreed with you on this or the other issue. History2007 (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You are something else. Quick, where is this from

• Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit (Thus, silence gives consent; he ought to have spoken when he was able to).

"The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented."

— Thomas More in A Man For All Seasons

Perhaps now you know where I get these ideas.

I haven't asked you if you agree with me. I have asked eight times whether a certain statement was accurate and gotten silence to the substance of my inquiry.

Plus some comic relief as you bluster and try and bully your local Pontius Pilate to silence me. Eschoir (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but you just ran against WP:NPA here. I don't know which policies are not getting violated here.... History2007 (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Haw haw haw! Where do you get your materiAL? Funny stuff! Eschoir (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is poor reasoning to apply the maxim "Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit" to an attempt to turn a Wikipedia discussion into a non-Wikipedia forum. There loqui neque debuimus neque nunc debemus. Esoglou (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Kids say the darndest things. Eschoir (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to point out that not all editors can spend a large proportion of their time monitoring their watch-list pages. To assume that even a couple of day's silence means consent and then act on a controversial proposed edit does not help the community to work together on improving any article.Jpacobb (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you propose to be an appropriate number of days for a controversia edit? and:

For a non-controversial edit? Eschoir (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)?

Eschoir (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(I will post my reply to the above question on Eschoir's talkpage.) With regard to his proposals, it is not enough to ask whether ".............." is accurate while leaving it unclear whether the "................." replaces the complete paragraph (or a substantial part of it) or represents a much smaller change. The impact and meaning of a statement depends on its context and until that is clear no rational decision is possible. Furthermore, there are other Wiki criteria to be taken into account, including relevance, balance, and verifiability. Also, as I explain below, I am unconvinced by the use of the word "reenact". If the purpose of repeated questions as to the accuracy of a statement is to justify the editor making the change to the article, I have to say that a pòsitive reply does not in itself constitute grounds for such an action. Therefore I do not approve the proposals.

I am reasonably happy with the lede as it stands even though I should prefer it to follow more closely the previous version with its fuller use of the Enc. Brit. My serious concern is the use of the phrase It is reenacted ... .

The previous sentence says that the E. is a sacrament/ordinance. These are not (and cannot be)"reenacted", the most common term is "celebrated". One might make out a case for stating that "one of the elements in the Eucharist is the idea of reenacting what Jesus is reported in the Synoptic Gospels and I Corinthians as doing when he took bread, broke it and ...."; but (whatever the origins of the Eucharist) the rite / ceremony of today is a gathering of Christian believers in which many other actions are included and which draws on many other biblical themes and images. The sermon may be as long, or longer, than the prayer of consecration / canon and this in itself ranges far wider than 'reenactment'.Jpacobb (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right that the correct term is "celebrated" but then that would be an invitation to endless discussions with anyone who happens on the page and thinks it is not appropriate. I do not mind either way, but was trying to cut back on future discussion, hence used reenacted. If you want to go back to celebrated fine, but then we need to talk to any IP who questions it in 3 months. Or please suggest another term. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Mazza, the source for this section, uses imitation of Christ Eschoir (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of Terminology Section

I have restored this section since it was apparently mislaid in the reversions made to cope with a run of vandals. If its removal was a deliberate editorial decision I apologise and the change can easily be reverted, but note the following detail in doing so: we also ended up with the names section repeated, so I deleted the second of them. Having, I hope, got the text back to where it should be, I wonder whether the titles of these two sections are really appropriate. The first seems to pick up the Biblical "labels": the second, to list the names used currently. Would some more informative titles to these two subsections be appropriate? The alternative seems to be to run them into one and perhaps eliminate a certain amount of overlap.Jpacobb (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not even remember what the original was. But please fix it as necessary. However, this restored section may get a flag that it has no WP:Secondary sources. So those should get added. And it may also run into one of the WP:ISNOT items so should look less like a list with some text thrown in between. But overall those definitions are absolutely needed. And whatever effort goes in to fix it now will be paid back by avoiding debates later. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Should the two sections be combined? Esoglou (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a big deal either way, but the Names section is more scholarly, the terminology more tutorial, so might as well keep them separate. History2007 (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have had a shot at running the two together and slightly compacting the information by eliminating overlaps and commenting out for the moment some stuff which seems to be marginal. Please take a look at User:Jpacobb/sandbox and see what you think. I have also added a few sources, but even so the Terminology Section would be pretty sparsely referenced if left on its ownJpacobb (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I think the "list form" loses the nice scholarly tone of the current Names section. That is bound to generate two separate issues: loss of the scholarly tone will start debates later, and the objection to the use of list forms in articles on style grounds. In general sections used as list eventually get converted in most cases, unless just terminology. History2007 (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I see your point, but I feel that, as the sections stand, appearances are somewhat misleading. There is a not very scholarly overlapping of information about Eucharist between the two sections. There are three names repeated in both and four names are not listed under their logical placing in the first of the two sections. Finally the reference to the KJV about "communion" is misleading in the the translation appeared in 1611 and the name communion appears in the subtitle to Cranmer's 1552 rite. (It is I suspect much earlier even than that). These points need attention however the material is presented. I have reformatted the presentation in my sandbox User:Jpacobb/sandbox to avoid the list effect and to recuperate the "scholarly tone". If someone likes to move graft my corrections as to detail into the present text, this is a perfectly good alternative. Jpacobb (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I do like your new version. Really nice. Shall I we just paste it in? History2007 (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Do. Esoglou (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wine may be inappropriate for alcoholics

There is no citation nor any explanation of this and there for cannot be true. Almost calling for a delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmanizer (talk • contribs) 02:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you are contesting the fact that wine with alcohol may be inappropriate for alcoholics, and saying this is unverifiable? Elizium23 (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how many drinks one has had.... History2007 (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly nothing false about the statement that "Wine may be inappropriate for alcoholics". The word to note here is may—it doesn't say "is". Supt. of Printing (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I referenced it anyway - storm in a teacup.... History2007 (talk)

it dosen't give any explanation. When I read it it seem like it was with no proof. After thinking about it I decided that an recovering alcoholic would "fall off the wagon" it is how ever unclear --Gmanizer (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The depth of some these discussions in Wikipedia talkpages is truly edifying. Where else can one get this level of depth and scholarship? And this issue is totally, totally, totally peripheral to this article. It is for the alcoholism page. Read that. This page is for improvement to this article. I suggest your irrelevant comments should now be ignored. History2007 (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In the Catholic Church receiving the blood of Christ in the form of wine is unnecessary because He is also present body, blood, soul, and divinity in the consecrated bread. Therefore alcoholics can just not receive the cup/consecrated wine at Catholic Churches and Orthodox Churches maybe if they do not dunk the consecrated bread in the consecrated wine. But, yes this is a peripheral matter. JBGeorge77 (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Navbox/template Heresies in Catholicism

A navbox/template Heresies in Catholicism was added earlier today to this article. I am considering deleting it for the reasons expressed on the related talk-page [2]. Jpacobb (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. History2007 (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... it needs to go.ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Anglican / Protestant?

I reverted the edit which removed Anglicanism from the Protestant subsection partly because it was inadequately done in that it left Anglicanism as a sub section of Syriac Christianity, and partly because I feared an editing "ping-pong" match as there are divided opinions within Anglicanism on this point. Any attempt at synthesis will be open to criticism but the historical details are as follows:

When Henry VIII's schismatic break with the Vatican became a doctrinal reform under his son Edward VI, it was understood as part of the general European Protestant return to the purity of the early Church teaching and practice and a rejection of what were seen as medieval Roman accretions. Despite the insistence on retaining episcopal ordination, up to the start of the the Oxford Movement in the 1830's the belief that the Church of England was a Protestant Church went (virtually) unquestioned. (Indeed the Episcopal Church in the USA was known at first at the Protestant Episcopal Church.) Today there are still Anglicans who are firmly attached to these roots. The Oxford Movement and its later developments brought about a generalised shift in the self perception of "Anglicanism" but failed to establish one of its being simply "catholic". The tendency today is to speak of Anglicanism as both Catholic and Reformed, or Catholic and Evangelical, or in one particular article as "Catholic", "Episcopal" and "And yet Protestant".

That is as far as history can take us. My own impression is that the the current understanding and usage of "Protestant" has shifted as well and moved away from simply identifying an "offshoot of the 16th century reformation" to describing a hard-line, rigid almost fundamentalist attitude. If so this may an additional factor in the Anglican rejection of the label "Protestant". In the light of all this and considering what I know of the Anglican Communion and how Anglicans perceive themselves, I feel the wiser course would be to not to class Anglicanism today as a part of Protestantism, but I hope this can be done as a general agreement rather than a series of edits undertaken as private initiatives. Jpacobb (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how to resolve that issue. But a better way would be to seek other opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism, and a consensus on how the label is attached may emerge. I also asked Carl Bunderson, since he would know more about it than myself. History2007 (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this could go either way. Jpacobb, I am not familiar with the use of "Protestant" as "hardline, rigid, almost fundamentalist attitude"; I just call that fundamentalist or evangelical (Protestant). From the Catholic POV, they're Protestants. But I know that many Anglicans reject that label. So I would suggest either including them among Protestantism, or giving them their own category. Moreover, Anglicanism is such a big tent, their eucharistic views vary widely. Some would have a very protestant understanding of the eucharist, and some Anglican parishes reserve the sacrament, have a tabernacle light, and look more Catholic than most Catholic parishes. Not sure that this solves much, but it offers another view. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies - I should have expressed myself more carefully. Basically there are three strands to my thought.

1. When used historically of the Anglican Church up till say the 1840's the use of "Protestant" to express the origins and self-understanding at the time of the Anglican Churches is fully justified, even if some Anglo-catholics would be unhappy about it.
2. However, since the Oxford Movement, there has been a theological and liturgical shift within Anglicanism away from traditional protestant emphases and it would be difficult to class current thought and practise as "merely" protestant although many prominent authorities would include "protestantism" as a component alongside "catholicism" among the constituent elements of Anglicanism today. In England at least only the extreme low church reactionary traditionalists put any emphasis on protestant, "evangelical" has become the principal label for the heirs of the protestant strand of English Anglicanism.
3. I have the subjective impression that in some quarters (at least) outside Anglicanism the use of "protestant" to describe current ecclesiastical positions has gone the same way as within English Anglicanism.

Hence my opinion that it would be wiser not to speak of current Anglicanism as "protestant". I agree we shall need to take this conversation elsewhere before arriving at a decision, but I feel happier if we have an "in house" discussion first and polish the question/proposal before going fully public with it. Jpacobb (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Arms crossed (queries)

1. Is this (new) custom of coming forward with crossed arms limited to English-speaking countries or has it now become universal? May Wikipedia make it a universal rule, saying: "In the Anglican Church ... those who do not receive Holy Communion may enter the communion line with their arms crossed over their chest ..."? Nor is a "communion line" universal, although recommended (but not made obligatory) in the liturgical texts of the Roman Catholic Church. Not many years ago, the Anglican practice in one country was for those not receiving Communion to come to the altar rail at the conclusion of the service, not at Communion time, for a blessing.
2. Is a source of the Antiochian Orthodox Church a valid one for Eastern Orthodox in general, even in English-speaking countries? Esoglou (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that the Roman Catholic Church has mostly a negative stance on the reception of "blessings" during distribution of Holy Communion: thread here, including CDWDS letter. But I also know it is widespread among the laity in the USA and even explicitly permitted by bishops in England and Wales. Many RCIA programs are reportedly teaching this, so it is not going to go away without a fight. The primary message of the letter from the CDWDS is that laypersons are incapable of giving these blessings. Those who insist had better go to the clergy, or it is invalid. To my knowledge, and in direct opposition to this article and the "source", in the Byzantine Rite - I don't know about other Eastern rites - it is standard practice to approach with arms crossed in order to receive Holy Communion - so unprepared visitors can be surprised! Elizium23 (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be good reasons to doubt the accuracy of the material inserted on this question. In line therefore with WP:BRD, I think it is best to remove it until it has been discussed here (as I have done also at Closed communion, where the difficulties were more numerous). Esoglou (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Qn #1 - The supporting source for the Anglican practice is a handbook for ECUSA and describes an optional practice in that one Province. How far it extends outside the USA is not clear. My experience of Anglican practice in England and South America is that communion is almost always received kneeling and those who do not want to receive it and those who are to young to do so but accompany their parents to the communion rail are asked to keep their hands down by their sides rather than holding them up to receive the bread. I have no RS for this at the moment as the instruction is usually given as a note on the service paper or verbally in the invitation to the table. I suggest altering the text to read as follows with the corresponding adjustment to the references: In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Lutheran Church, and the Roman Catholic Church, those who do not receive Holy Communion may enter the communion line with their arms crossed over their chest, in order to receive a blessing from the priest, instead of receiving Holy Communion and this practice is followed in some Anglican parishes. Jpacobb (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC) (Editing clashed with last posting by Esoglou.Jpacobb (talk))

Jpacobb's contribution suggests that, for Anglicans, the practice does not exist everywhere even within the English-speaking area. Elizium23's suggests that it does not hold for all Eastern Orthodox, and that the practice, though existing in some English-speaking areas for Roman Catholics, is deprecated by the highest authorities of the Roman Catholic Church (perhaps a reason for thinking that it will be discontinued even where it now exists). No evidence has been presented for its existence among non-English-speaking Lutherans in, say, Germany and Scandinavia or perhaps even for the English-speaking area as a whole. Esoglou (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The information, at least for the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church, is supported by two scholarly books. If one does a search on the practice in Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism, one can find the practice on many websites. As a compromise, I would recommend prefacing the sentence in question with "In some English-speaking areas,". In regards to the Roman Catholic Church, a letter from Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University states that the practice is permissible; I think it is better to reference this than an online forum. I hope that this compromise is acceptable and look forward to hearing your thoughts. In Christ, Anupam^Talk 18:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The link I provided is to a forum wherein is posted a letter directly from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, the highest authority in the world regarding liturgy in the Catholic Church. The letter comes with a protocol number attached, and is subject to publication in Notitiae: http://notitiae.ipsissima-verba.org/ If you doubt the authority of the letter, you are welcome to follow the references to Church documents it makes, namely Ecclesia de Mysterio, Familiaris Consortio, and the Code of Canon Law. Your source is from a random priest at a random university, and was published three years before the CDWDS letter. Many priests permit the practice, this doesn't make it acceptable; and the places where I have seen it practiced, nobody makes any distinction between a priest and a lay EMHC; this is a fatal error, because as is explained in the letter, laypersons are incapable of bestowing blessings in the context of the Mass. A person seeking a blessing from an EMHC would not receive anything but kind words. They would be deceived and it would be better if they had stayed in the pew. Elizium23 (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether the practice is acceptable or not is irrelevant. The fact is that the practice does occur in many parishes and Wikipedia should report this. If you are strongly against mentioning this practice in the article, however, I can understand that and will not push to have the material regarding Roman Catholicism reinstated. Nevertheless, I wish to at least reinstate the information in regards to Anglicanism, with the prefacing clause "In some English-speaking areas". Are you okay with this User:Elizium23? I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. And there is some more information from the same professor here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur263.htm Elizium23 (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I've restored the information regarding Anglicanism. You and the others here can decide if you want to mention that this practice is performed in many Catholic parishes. Have a nice day! With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Any mention of the practice should avoid giving the impression that it is either widespread or uncontroversial. It also seems to be too minor a matter to merit space in the article. More deserving of treatment would be fasting (in what form and for how long) or not fasting, abstension (for how long) from even licit sexual relations or no abstension, reception allowed or not allowed by menstruating women, and even such minor matters as standing/kneeling posture, altar rail or no altar rail ... Esoglou (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing "Ritual and Liturgy/Catholic"

The opening part contained a great deal of repetition and some dubious phrasing: "infallibility" is not in the sources and there seemed to be touches of WP:Synthesis; also though perhaps defensible on technical grounds, the claim that Jesus Christ is the Eucharist reads oddly. I have tried to simplify the essential bits into a shorter statement.

There is also a secondary consideration: the section title is Ritual and Liturgy, the bulk of the sub-section on Catholicism is theological and might be considered misplaced here. 21:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Latin Church or Roman Rite

I cannot find any documentation about practices of Western Rites other than the Roman, but Esoglou thought I had confused Rite with Church, so in hopes of a compromise I have replaced where I wrote "Roman Rite" with "Latin Church". Once again, there is no such thing as "Latin Rite", it is a confusing hybrid term. Elizium23 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

... but one used by Pope Benedict XVI, who has decreed: "In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970" (Summorum Pontificum, article 2) - each Catholic priest of the "Latin rite", the "rite" of which he is a member, whatever liturgical rite he may normally use (nobody is a member of a liturgical rite): the Ambrosian Rite, or the Carthusian, or the Mozarabic, or ... Besides, canon 1015 §2 of the Code of Canon Law forbids a Latin bishop to ordain, without permission of the Holy See, a subject of his who is "of an Eastern rite" (not "who uses an Eastern rite", the faculty for which is sometimes granted to Latin clergy). Esoglou (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I contend that your citations do not matter to this article which is on the Eucharist and not on using the Roman Missal nor on ordaining a priest. Furthermore, these are primary sources. If we are talking directly of those things and citing the primary sources, then we should adhere to the language used in them and refer to the Latin Rite. However, if we are not referring to these documents or topics, we are free to refer to the precise official term (yes, they are official, as you will not find "Latin Rite" anywhere in Canon Law, but you will find "Latin Church" there, and you will not find "Latin Rite" in the GIRM, but you will indeed find "Roman Rite" there.) So please restrict your arguments to the documents at hand, or your arguments become mere synthesis to say that the Church used a term here, so we must use it everywhere in Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit surly in the above comment. Here is a good explanation of the provenance of the term "Latin Rite" as used in Church documents. As you can see, there is a "Roman/Latin Family of Rites". The Ambrosian and Dominican etc. Western Rites can be considered in the "Latin family of Rites" and therefore a priest or bishop in the Latin Church is of a "Latin Rite" even if he does not celebrate the Roman Rite. Now, the usage in Church documents differs from the widespread slang usage. The rank and file Catholic does not understand the fine difference between Rite and Church. I will contend that the rank and file Catholic does not know of the existence of 22 sui iuris Catholic Churches, only the Latin Church, and he does not know it by name. I did not know myself until 9 years ago. Catholics are not catechized about this and they do not hear it in homilies. I think this situation is getting better in the age of the Internet, but there is still a lot of ground to be traveled. I understand your personal confusion and I suggest that we do not perpetuate the term "Latin Rite" here on Wikipedia except where specifically used by relevant documents. This discussion is also worthy of a larger audience at WT:CATHOLIC. Elizium23 (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I was proposing a change to the text of the article. I was only pointing out the inaccuracy in the comment here on the Talk page that "there is no such thing as 'Latin Rite'". There is. Benedict XVI was not talking nonsense, when he spoke about "the Latin Rite" (click on the wikilink), which is an autonomous particular Church of which people are members, while the Roman Rite is a form of liturgy, one of the Latin liturgical rites, that they may use or attend, not be members of. The Second Vatican Council also was not talking nonsense when it spoke of the faithful combining together into various "groups" (people, not liturgies) which "form separate Churches or Rites" (Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 2).

The one thing that I would myself change in the article, but that I preferred to let wait until someone else will inevitably change it, is the repetition of "Church" in your edit "Latin Church Roman Catholic Church", instead of something on the lines of "Catholics of the Latin Church". Of course, I did earlier object to the inaccurate "Roman Rite Roman Catholic Church" - there is no such thing. I presume that what was meant was those Catholics who frequent the Roman Rite, whether they belong to the Latin Church/Latin Rite or to another autonomous particular Church.

Latin Church/Latin Rite Catholics in Milan who use the Ambrosian Rite do genuflect. Latin Church/Latin Rite Catholics in India, who use the Roman Rite, bow instead. Esoglou (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the article that you linked to perhaps disagrees with the rules laid down in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. That Code of Canons says that the word "rite", which it does not use of particular Churches (it calls them "autonomous Churches", Ecclesiae sui iuris) is not limited to liturgy. It defines the meaning attached to "rite" within that Code as "the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary heritage, distinguished by peoples' culture and historical circumstances, that finds expression in each autonomous Church's way of living the faith" (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28 §1). Of course, that does not exclude other uses of the word "rite" outside that Code, as for instance by Benedict XVI. Esoglou (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"Physical" vs "Objective"

Historically, "physically" can be justified in the context of the sixteenth century Reformation debates (see for example the decrees of Trent in Denzinger: #873ff) and Sayes (La Presencia Real de Cristo en la Eucharistía, Chap 1, sect 1) points out that in the 1930's a debate broke out as to whether the hylemorphic understanding of substance could be purely metaphysical or whether it had to include the physical as well. I accept that the Catholic Church has widened its perspectives though the alternatives proposed have been somewhat cautiously received by the Magesterium and so I am happy to find another word. However, "objective" on its own is not enough. Calvinists believe in an objective presence, as did Hooker and his Anglican successors. Jpacobb (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

To me it seems that "objective" rules out a presence merely by faith, and to this extent does serve to distinguish Catholic theology of the Eucharist from some Protestant theologies, perhaps including, in view of the question of the reliqua/reliquae, Lutheran theology. Official Anglican rules on the matter have been interpreted in different ways. As a thought experiment: If all Christians were wiped out tomorrow, would Christ still be present in the consecrated Eucharist?

"Physical" suggests something that takes up space and can be acted upon, for instance by touch. It seems not to fit either Catholic or Lutheran theology. According to Catholic faith, as I think Sayés too says (I don't have access to the book you mention), the physical body of Christ is present in the Eucharist, but it is not present physically. According to the Catholic Church Christ's presence is "substantial", as a thing's substance, or inner reality, is present in a thing. It can be described as "physical" only in a very loose sense.

"Localised" seems to contradict what Catholic theology says about Christ not being present "as in a place" (see Summa Theologica III, q. 76, art. 5).

The only dogmatically defined adjectives of Catholic teaching (but not of Lutheran) are "real, true and substantial" (Council of Trent). (A claim that the presence is "physical" in the proper sense of the word "physical" surely robs "substantial" of all meaning.) Of the three adjectives defined by the Council of Trent, "real" has been explicitly explained as meaning "ontological and objective" (Avery Dulles, "Christ's Presence in the Eucharist: True, Real and Substantial"). "Objective" thus seems to be the best of the three adjectives ("physical", "localised" and "objective") discussed here for Catholic Eucharistic theology. And since "objective" is expressly (and not by some synthesis of ours) supported by a reliable Catholic source as the defined teaching of the Church, it can be put in Wikipedia as the Catholic teaching on the matter.

Whether the word "objective" can (also) be applied in Protestant Eucharistic theologies is another matter. Esoglou (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Cup or wine? and other details

User:Afaprof01 replaced the word "wine" with "cup" plus a note to the effect that nowhere in scripture is it stated that wine was used. There is in fact a statement that it was. In the Synoptic Gospels, immediately before (Luke) or after (Mt & Mk) the institution Jesus is reported as saying that he will not drink of "the fruit of the vine until ...." The phrase the "fruit of the vine" is a Old Testament periphrasis for wine (See Num 6:4; Hab 3:17; Is 37:12) and occurs in the Jewish blessing over the cup (Swete H.B. The Gospel according to St. Mark p.337) Other reliable secondary sources use wine in this context e.g. the commentaries on both Matthew and Mark in the New Interpreter's Bible.

In this particular case there are further arguments in favour of reversion: (i) in the first paragraph, the change was introduced into a referenced statement and is (almost) certainly not in the original; (ii) in the third paragraph, the reference is not to the New Testament but to current practices. [N.B I have taken the chance to reduce the blue links in the lead section as per WP:OVERLINK Jpacobb (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Closed communion

This also affects the main article closed communion, but I suppose it will get more participation by discussing it here. Catholics practice it, but do not call it, closed communion. You will not find a document from the Catholic Church which refers to "closed communion" because of several reasons. Here is a popular apologetics tract (not even an official document) that does not mention "closed communion" anywhere. Right now, I am engaging in original research; I have not yet found sources that explicitly say "Catholics do not call it 'closed communion'". So I will continue to search. Elizium23 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Several editors have supported a move of this page to Lord's Supper at Talk:Lord's Supper#Requested move. Please comment there. --JFH (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The correct link is Talk:Lord's Supper (disambiguation)#Requested move. I have reverted the move because no consensus or discussion was placed here at the affected article, Eucharist. Elizium23 (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Elizium23. The generally accepted and most neutral name is "Eucharist", not "Lord's Supper" or "Holy Communion", which are names preferred only by minority groups of Christians, who also accept "Eucharist". "Eucharist" is the term used in the Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry document of the World Council of Churches. Esoglou (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Esoglou. See my comments at Talk:Lord's Supper (disambiguation)#Requested move. Anglicanus (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Move to Lord's Supper

The following discussion is an archived 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 move. -- tariqabjotu 06:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Eucharist → Lord's Supper – Please first read Talk:Lord's Supper#Requested move. I contended there and contend here that Eucharist is a term used only in some circles (such as Catholic ones) to refer to the taking of bread and wine. In theory, Eucharist could be an article specifically on the Catholic conception of this, but in general, Eucharist is not as recognizable and is in fact too precise, since no one would expect to learn about the Seventh-day Adventists' practices within an article titled "Eucharist", a word they do not ever use. Sometimes we have to choose one word over the other, like with tire vs tyre, which is bound to make someone unhappy and confused no matter what. But everyone uses (or at least recognizes and comprehends) the phrase "Lord's Supper". Red Slash 07:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: While I can appreciate the motives of some for wanting to change from "Eucharist" to "Lord's Supper" I don't accept that the latter is a more "common name" ~ only that it is a more universal or a more generic one. But that is not the same thing at all as it being the sacrament's common name. "Lord's Supper" is, in fact, one of the more uncommonly used of the various names for the sacrament. The vast majority of Christians are not Protestants (especially not the kinds of Protestants who prefer to use "Lord's Supper") and they don't commonly call the sacrament the "Lord's Supper" ~ The name for the sacrament that the great majority of Christians (Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican) use in common is "Eucharist". Therefore the argument above that it "is a term used only in some circles (such as Catholic ones) to refer to the taking of bread and wine" is seriously incorrect. The opposite is actually correct. "Eucharist", therefore, should remain as the name of the article. An improved disambiguation page is the appropriate and best solution to any confusion. Anglicanus (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose for the reasons indicated by Anglicanus. Do some Wikipedia editors think they know better than the World Council of Churches (by no means "a Catholic circle" or an organization representing only a small minority of Christians), which uses the term "Eucharist", as in its Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry document? This same document also puts paid to the above claim that "no one would expect to learn about the Seventh-day Adventists' practice in an article titled 'Eucharist'" (see this complaint against the Seventh-day Adventists; see also this book). Esoglou (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• oppose Actually the term used by the greatest number of English-speakers is probably "mass", but in any case the claim about "only in some circles" really translates to "everywhere outside of a certain set of Protestants." Even then, I'm finding a consistent pattern for most of the main Protestant traditions that even where they supposedly tend prefer "Lord's Supper", Googling gives at least twice as many hits for "Eucharist". Its use in scholarly works, I imagine, is well nigh universal. I'm just not seeing the evidence of common usage that is going to trump use of the technical term that the largest groups prefer common use. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose: Eucharist has been the documented, stable WP:COMMONNAME for 2,000 years. It has nothing to do with the "taking of bread and wine". "The Lord's Supper" is a specific term for something celebrated once yearly on Holy Thursday. Per arguments above, particularly the World Council of Churches document. Elizium23 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in arguing this point, as I don't care what happens, either way. However, the notion that "Lord's Supper" is something celebrated only on Holy Thursday is not correct for all Christian churches. Baptists, Pentecostals and other Evangelical Christians use this term to describe their Eucharist, which is celebrated in most of their churches more than once a year, and not necessarily on Holy Thursday. Some churches use one term, and some the other. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• True. As Elizium23 in fact knows, the Catholic term for the Holy Thursday celebration is not "the Lord's Supper", but "the Mass of the Lord's Supper". Still, only a minority of Christians use "the Lord's Supper" as a normal term "to describe their Eucharist". Catholics and Orthodox never do. Esoglou (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• It may be a minority compared to those two, but it's a pretty large minority, LOL... - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• I greatly doubt it. Apart from Brethren and Anabaptist groups most mainstream and traditional Protestants usually call the sacrament "(Holy) Communion" rather than "Lord's Supper". I would suggest that the usual use of "Lord's Supper" is actually a considerable minority use even within Protestantism. Anglicanus (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose In addition to the comments already made on the terminology in Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry the following are strong specific arguments in favour of retaining Eucharist as the title of the article, this being the most common name and the academic standard: (i) The 1971 Anglican/Roman Catholic report stated that although various names are used (Lord's supper, liturgy, holy mysteries, synaxis, mass, holy communion) the most universally used name is "eucharist" (paragraph 1); (ii) Alisdair IC Heron (Presbyterian) makes a similar point in (Table and Tradition-p.xiii) and adds that "eucharist" was the earliest standard name. (iii) CK Barrett (Methodist) uses it in Church, Ministry and Sacraments in the New Testament, lectures given to the British Isles Nazarene College. The question of redirects is not a real problem: if properly set up they are automatic. Jpacobb (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any serious evidence given by the nominator to support this move. Their statement that, "But everyone uses (or at least recognizes and comprehends) the phrase "Lord's Supper"" is just an opinion—and a wrong one at that. Count me as at least one person who knows exactly what the Eucharist is, but found myself wondering whether "Lord's Supper" refers to the annual event, artistic representations of the original event, or something else altogether. First Light (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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.

Medicinal properties

I know there's no way to mention this without calling other aspects of the belief into question, but we still need to talk about the historical use of the eucharist as literal medicine for literal illnesses and sicknesses (as well as a fertility aid &c.) Its magical and medicinal properties are... well, not presently experimentally verified, to say the least, but the belief that the eucharist has such power is very historically important and well documented.

(I'd be bold &c. but have no interest in dealing with an edit war on the subject; if some of the local caretakers here could find a way to mention this aspect in the article, though, that'd be great.) — LlywelynII 09:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What LlewelynII suggests seems matter not so much for this article on the rite as for a new article on superstitious or magical use of the consecrated elements, on the lines of the article Black Mass for a similarly unsanctioned distortion of the rite or the article Host desecration, neither of which fit within the article on the Eucharist. Esoglou (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Question if the LDS Church practices open or closed communion

As I created the comparative summary, I thought I put that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints practices closed communion. So the question is, is that correct? I know the Community of Christ practices open communion. I'm surprised to notice that the LDS Church practices open communion. I don't know if that's correct. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I am no longer LDS, but I was for a period during and immediately after my Army years. I remember a small set of books we were issued by the LDS Church containing a Book of Mormon, D&C/PoGP, and a small dictionary-like book with LDS topics whose title I have now forgotten. I seem to remember reading something in that dictionary-book to the effect that while the church's official policy is that only members partake of the Sacrament (as it is called in the LDS Church), "care should be taken to avoid offending non-members by forbidding them to partake." I think that's an exact quote, or pretty close--perhaps another veteran or someone else out there knows the book to which I refer, and might be able to provide a reference. Not sure if this helps, but I hope it does. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The LDS Church does not prevent anyone from partaking of the Sacrament. They teach that the Sacrament is a renewal of the baptismal covenant. If someone partakes of the Holy Sacrament its major purpose has been lost. In addition, the Sacrament prayers are specific and are one of the few memorized prayers in the LDS Church. If someone listens to the prayer and feels moved to partake they do so without reproach from anyone else. Similar to the Catholic teaching, the real issue is to be worthy to partake of the Sacrament i.e. personal repentance weekly prepares each member to partake each Sunday. --^StormRider 19:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In one respect, the parallel with Catholic teaching does not hold: Catholic teaching is that, in the case of grave sins, personal repentance must involve reception of the sacrament of Penance. Esoglou (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Catholic Church forbids anyone who is not Catholic from partaking of Communion, with the exception of those Eastern Orthodox who ask to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic priest (since Roman Catholicism recognizes the validity of Orthodox orders and sacraments, despite the lack of union between the two); however, she advises the Orthodox to respect their own church's prohibition against doing so (which is why this seldom occurs). (Source). Non-Orthodox, non-Catholics are not permitted to receive Communion except under certain extremely stringent guidelines that require the prior approval of a bishop (same source). So in that sense, the Catholic teaching differs substantially from the LDS policy. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Orthodox Church does not allow a Protestant or a Catholic to receive communion. And some Lutheran churches non Lutherans are forbidden to receive communion which is close communion. And among some Baptist churches communion is restricted to their own members and that means that members even from other Baptist churches will be excluded from partaking in the communion since they do this even more strictly than the Catholic Church and some Lutheran churches also exclude non members. These are similarities with the LDS Church. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Modern Greek

I agree with user:esoglou. The modern Greek adds nothing for an English reader, which is who the encyclopedia is written for. --JFH (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

In line with WP:BRD, the reference to "F. Harry Stowe" should be deleted and restored only when the bold proposer has discussed it here and won support or at least consent from at least one other editor. Esoglou (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi both, my view is that a large number of readers of English Wikipedia are familiar with the modern greek word for "thank you", as it is usually the first Greek word that non-Greeks learn, and the comparison with the word Eucharist is therefore helpful to understand the etymology. This view is supported by a simple googling of "efcharisto eucharist", which shows exactly how popular this connection is.

I believe Wikipedia should be about making complex topics accessible to the general public, not just to experts on religious studies, and every little bit helps.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Lede

Long run on sentence needs complete rewrite.Wikidgood (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Try this... - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

See my new wording. It is important not to declare the Eucharist to be a sacrament straight off. We should describe it as a rite and then state that most (or perhaps "nearly all") Christian churches consider it to be a sacrament. Let's not sacrifice accuracy for conciseness. -- Hazhk^Talk 16:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Anglican

@Alexander Domanda: I fear you are making the Anglican section on this article too long. Because this whole article is long, Eucharistic theology was split out as a separate article. It would be better if Eucharist only summarized Anglican Eucharistic theology, and more details are left to Eucharistic theology and Anglican eucharistic theology. tahc ^chat 14:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The recent editing has also been too verbose and repetitive as well as containing some personal commentary which has no place in any articles. Afterwriting (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eucharist. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110320044022/http://www.livingwordmedina.com:80/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=8 to http://www.livingwordmedina.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"Once and for all": Two issues

Recent edits which inserted and deleted the phrase "once and for all" raise both a technical issue and a second one as to the contents themselves of the lead section. The phrase "once and for all" and similar expressions were used by protestants to reject the traditional medieval doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass as a genuine sacrifice in parallel or perhaps as a repetition of that of Christ on Calvary. This teaching seemed to protestants to go against biblical evidence found in Hebrews 9 & 10 as well as other places. The Church of England's 1662 Prayer Book says the following of Christ's work on the Cross: "who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world".(Prayer of Consecration) Although the debate has cooled down somewhat, it is still an issue today in interchurch conversations.

The technical issue is the fact that the phrase is part of a referenced quotation. If it is removed then, since the Methodist document includes the phrase and as argued above it is far more than a cliché, another reference must be provided (or at the very least, the justification of the statement transferred to the body of the article).

I myself am inclined to omit the phrase and the reference as being out of place in the lead section of a general article. I would also remove the whole of the comment which follows on "epiousios": it is extremely recondite and speculative. However, for the moment I have limited myself to removing the word "parsed" which is too technical and arguably a misuse of the term. — Jpacobb (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I am in favour of removing the phrase. I would focus on that fact that the phrase is superfluous or unnecessary (the widely accepted view amongst Catholics and Protestants is that the Eucharist remembers Christ's sacrifice - other details are secondary to this). The Methodist catechism does indeed use the phrase, though I doubt a deep theological point was being made in the wording; I expect the editors were merely repeating a cliche. Now the idea that the Eucharist marks a sacrifice is referenced in the article, so often that I don't think a citation is required in the lead. -- --Hazhk (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I am certainly in favor of removing this phrase. It's too perfunctory an expression to impart any information to a reader, and its meaning is not explained at all in the text. As noted above, it's not universal to the various traditions of Eucharist and thus it would require elaboration and qualification, something I'm not seeing as necessary in this context. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Eucharist. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://stephenpimentel.tripod.com/papers/eucharist2.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=42
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628182123/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130144307/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_codex-can-eccl-orient-2_lt.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_codex-can-eccl-orient-2_lt.html#TITULUS_XVI
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130144307/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_codex-can-eccl-orient-2_lt.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_codex-can-eccl-orient-2_lt.html#TITULUS_XVI
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628182123/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616060732/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P42.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P42.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204185953/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P3A.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3A.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609042650/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3W.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3W.HTM

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) 20:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eucharist. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www./
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110324191349/http://www.lutheransonline.com/servlet/lo_ProcServ/dbpage%3Dpage%26mode%3Ddisplay%26gid%3D20052995655655607101111555%26pg%3D20053264518475013601111555 to http://www.lutheransonline.com/servlet/lo_ProcServ/dbpage%3Dpage%26mode%3Ddisplay%26gid%3D20052995655655607101111555%26pg%3D20053264518475013601111555
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160310205704/http://www.lutheransonline.com/servlet/CpsServlet/dbpage%3Dpage%26mode%3Ddisplay%26gid%3D20052995655655607101111555%26pg%3D20053264518475013601111555 to http://www.lutheransonline.com/servlet/CpsServlet/dbpage%3Dpage%26mode%3Ddisplay%26gid%3D20052995655655607101111555%26pg%3D20053264518475013601111555

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) 09:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Categorisation

Should this be added to the category called "Religious rituals"? Vorbee (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I would say yes. Jzsj (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is already in several (grand)child categories of Category:Religious rituals and doesn't need to be added to the grandparent, per WP:DIFFUSE. Elizium23 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• You're correct. I hadn't checked that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I will say it's usually a good clue when the proposed cat is unusually sparse and empty. Once in a while I notice a diffusing category that's not entirely empty but deserves to be, and I repair that. Takes a little intuition. Elizium23 (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Translation

Eucharist does not literally mean thanksgiving. Eu=good Charis=thanks

Giving is not part of the literal translation. 'Thanksgiving' has too much cultural connotation to be used in such a manner, it could lead to falsification of history. 82.72.16.103 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

When is it performed?

Sunday, I belive? Yet there is no mention of sunday. Martianmister (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It is performed at nearly every mass - Sunday most notably as that is known as the "Lord's Day", but not exclusively at Sunday masses. 174.92.64.144 (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Eucharistic definitions

The word Eucharistic comes from the Greek word, (eurcharistia) which means thanksgiving. Which is thanking God for the gift of salvation 2600:1010:B113:D94E:81B6:70BE:E92B:E6F4 (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

Greetings. The article has "permanently dead external links" and is tagged as having unsourced statements. The B-class criteria states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited., so fails the criteria.

If someone decides to do some clean-up I would also suggest the appendices. The "See also" section has eight subsections with 43 links. The "Further reading" has 40 links. With the addition of the large, and what I consider unnecessarily over-explanative "Notes" section, there is a critical need for attention. Thanks, -- Otr500 (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

"As a Sacrifice Eucharist" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect As a Sacrifice Eucharist has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § As a Sacrifice Eucharist until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Eucharist, as a Sacrifice" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Eucharist, as a Sacrifice has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Eucharist, as a Sacrifice until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Mass, Sacrifice of the" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mass, Sacrifice of the has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Mass, Sacrifice of the until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Lord's Supper" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Lord's Supper has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 8 § Lord's Supper until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

"controversial and WP:UNDUE" !!!??? -- The Last Supper is not a Passover meal according to the Gospel of John

I adamantly contest the reversion [3] by @Desmay. That John contradicts the Synoptic Gospels is a well established fact that has been discussed since ancient times. I do admit to picking a poor reference, a result of a hastily finding one that was not from an unreliable or questionable source.

I've reread WP:UNDUE and can in no way see how that applies to my edit.

Neither @Indyguy nnor @Rafaelosornio has, since my adding the content reverted here, edited the article and neither has the matter been discussed on either one's talk page. While I did interact with the latter editor a few times before my reverted edit, I believe that that editor's concerns were addressed; in short, I fail to see any basis for the contention in the edit summery for the reversion that the edit has been "already contested by Rafaelosornio or Indyguy".

My eventual intention, for what it matters, is to add in the body of the article that the Passover meal notion is contradicted by the belief that "the great day of the passover, which that year was the Sabbath" (quoted from [4]) is held by the the second largest Christian denomination, the Eastern Orthodox Church.

When time allows, I hope to find better references and add back this text; meanwhile, please discuss any objections thereto. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

You say that the Passover was the next day according to he Gospel of Jhon. Wrong! I think you misread the reference, the source says that John refers that the death of Christ was the day before Passover meal, when the lambs were sacrificed, and it was not the next day, since Jesus was the lamb of God that was to be immolated. Apart from this, I don't see why this should be added in the introduction of the article. Maybe, this should go in the Passover article.Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that Rafaelosornio! I absolutely 100% agree! And no Lipsio you're not going to add back the text because you don't have consensus to do that. Read WP:BRD again. There is no contradiction, as your low-quality citation claims, but you haven't looked at the context of the word Passover in the context of the passage in the Gospel of John, as Rafaelosornio said above. An article published by the Saint John Vianney Seminary says:

The difficulty disappears when we understand the word “Passover” in its first-century Jewish context. “Passover”—pesach in Hebrew and pascha in Greek—was used to refer to more than just the Passover Seder meal. It could refer to the entire week of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the sacrificial Passover lamb, the Passover Seder meal, or the additional peace offerings sacrificed and eaten during the week of Passover (see Leviticus 23:4–8). So when John tells us that the Jewish officials wanted to remain ritually clean so that they could “eat the Passover,” he’s not necessarily referring to the Passover Seder meal. “Eating the Passover” could also refer to partaking of the peace offerings sacrificed throughout the week of Passover. In the same way, when John identifies Good Friday as “the day of Preparation of the Passover,” he is simply telling us that it is Friday of the week of Passover, not necessarily the day of preparation for the Passover meal. The Greek word paraskene, “day of preparation,” is the word commonly used for Friday, because Friday is always the day of preparation for the Sabbath. John is merely referring to the various elements of the week-long feast of Passover in simple and common terms for a first-century Jew. He is not necessarily setting up a timeline where the Passover Seder occurs on Friday night of Holy Week rather than Thursday.

Therefore, no, you're not going to shove your opinion about there being a contradiction in the lead of the article because it's just your mere opinion and there are scholars who dissent from your view. And especially in the lead of the article on the Eucharist! The lead on such an important article is not the place for you to claim that there are contradictions in the Bible. The fact that you tried to do it on Holy Thursday, which is a very important day for Catholics, is questionable as well. I am sure that Rafaelosornio will agree with me. desmay (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI held my "mere opinion", so I take umbrage with "shove". Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It is an opinion and quite WP:UNDUE for the lead. The lead can just mention the Synoptic gospels, which is non-controversial. That's the way this article has been. desmay (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This opinion is widespread and held by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that the Britannica article on the Last Supper [5]] states " the account of the Crucifixion in the Gospel According to John indicates that the Last Supper could not have been a Passover meal".

Pope Benedict XVI contended it makes more sense that Friday evening would have marked the beginning of Passover, i.e. after the Crucifixion. That is the second of three arguments given in [6]; you may wish to read the other two arguments there.

This is not "controversial and WP:UNDUE" Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

You know people can now edit Britannica just like they can with Wikipedia right? desmay (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I did not know; but the, why is a Britannica reference a source of contention to begin with? Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Let us wait until other editors weigh in on the matter.

Meanwhile, tonight begins the Great Feast of the Annunciation! Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Break

@Lipsio, Desmay, and Rafaelosornio: This conversation has gotten way out of hand. Dial it back. There is no sinister purpose behind Lispio's edits (even if I think they can be reasonably challenged on merit by reliable sources), so accusations of some perfidious nature behind the edits occurring during Holy Week are absolutely not in keeping with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL; any more of that and I (a Catholic about to enjoy a Maundy Thursday liturgy) will gladly do the report myself. As to Lipsio, I encourage them to find their sources before opening a discussion. Please resume discussion based on merit with explicit quotes—sans accusations and vague presumptions based on primary sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Pbritti, to refocus this discussion, Rafaelosornio and I agree that debating claims of Scriptural contradictions in the lead is WP:UNDUE. As you acknowledge, Lipsio's edits can be "challenged on merit by reliable sources". I provided such a source above. This is why I don't think it should be mentioned in the lead. Most citations, when discussing the Eucharist, do not include such a debate in their introductory paragraphs. If this article did, it would have to include all of the arguments and there is just not room for that. Indyguy, what do you think? desmay (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there are differing points of view on the question of John's chronology, so we should not pick just one and put it in the lead. This is especially true when, as far as I can see, the body of the article doesn't discuss it at all. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article body, so there generally shouldn't be anything in it that is not in the body. (That also means that footnotes are not needed in the lead inasmuch as they should be in the body, but that's a different question.) Indyguy (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

From those who have commented, there is a broad agreement (per my, Indyguy's, and Rafaelosornio's entries) not to include Lipsio's edit in the article. desmay (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging Blessed Sacrament into Eucharist. The two terms are synonymous, and the material at the former substantially duplicates contents of the latter. — Moriwen (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support – they cover the same thing and there's already content under the subheading "terminology" to cover 'blessed sacrament' as a term anyway.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 20:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Support, per nom. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Some info may have to be merged to articles pertaining to Eucharistic devotions but I agree. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Support but agree with Pbritti because in Eastern Christianity Eucharistic devotions are unknown despite agreement with Catholics about the Real Presence. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral The Eucharist article is long since it addresses all Christian denominations, I hope that with the merger you will not make it longer, although I agree that most of what is contained in the Blessed Sacrament article is already in the of the Eucharist.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge blocking

@Rafaelosornio: Please look at the above consensus. You are engaging in edit-warring to block a merge that was broadly supported. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't blocked anything, stop adding information without sources. Even if this info comes from the Blessed Sacrament article, it requires sources. Anglican part doesn't have references. please add them if you find them. You can't change what you want without reliable sources as the intro that is not according to the given sources. --Rafaelosornio (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability caveats that eventually all material must be sourced, but the merge procedures explicitly state that the content from the merged article should be added. If you think it must be sourced, use a cn template. Besides, absolutely everything can be easily sourced, as I did for you on the article already. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rafaelosornio: Has repeatedly removed the following phrase from the lead: and the product of that rite. In context, the passage reads as follows: The Eucharist, also known as Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper, and the Blessed Sacrament, refers to both a Christian rite that is considered a sacrament in most churches (and as an ordinance in others) and the product of that rite. [Note: alternate languages and links removed by me.] This is substantiated in the body of the article several times, such as in the passage sourced to Mattox & Roeber and the subsection "As a real presence". There is not indication that the removal is warranted, particularly considering the expanded scope of the article post-merger. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rafaelosornio: You have failed to acknowledge discussion and have elected to use language outside of the citations provided. Why? Without elaboration, the version utilizing "product" will be restored. Please be aware that you have already engaged in edit warring by refusing to acknowledge discussion and failure to accept sourced material. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)