![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
"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. -- J A Latimer 00:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
I kinda think this referenced fact is noteworthy and should not have been deleted without comment. MacStep ( talk) 17:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Eschoir has boldly inserted the following text both here and in Origin of the Eucharist:
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)
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)
Eschoir ( talk) 18:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You don't seem to much like answering quesstions, do you? Eschoir ( talk) 20:54, 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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). [2] 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." [2]
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)
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), [3] Ignatius of Antioch (who died between 98 and 117) [4] and Justin Martyr (writing between 147 and 167). [5] In its instructions on the Eucharist, the Didache also uses εὐχαριστίζω (to "eucharistize"), a verbal form of εὐχαριστία, [3] and, again in relation to the rite, Justin Martyr uses another verbal form: εὐχαριστῶ ("to thank"), [6] 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") [7] 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? [8]
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)
Eschoir ( talk) 03:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Eschoir ( talk) 18:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
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), [3] Ignatius of Antioch (who died between 98 and 117) [9] and Justin Martyr (writing between 147 and 167). [10] In its instructions on the Eucharist, the Didache also uses εὐχαριστίζω (to "eucharistize"), a verbal form of εὐχαριστία, [3] and, again in relation to the rite, Justin Martyr uses another verbal form: εὐχαριστῶ ("to thank"), [11] 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") [12] 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? [13]
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
You are something else. Quick, where is this from
"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."
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)
Haw haw haw! Where do you get your materiAL? Funny stuff! Eschoir ( talk) 05:21, 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)
Mazza, the source for this section, uses imitation of Christ Eschoir ( talk) 13:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Long run on sentence needs complete rewrite. Wikidgood ( talk) 22:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
@ 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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=42When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Should this be added to the category called "Religious rituals"? Vorbee ( talk) 20:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
Sunday, I belive? Yet there is no mention of sunday. Martianmister ( talk) 00:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
@ 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)
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, per nom. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 01:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
"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. -- J A Latimer 00:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
I kinda think this referenced fact is noteworthy and should not have been deleted without comment. MacStep ( talk) 17:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Eschoir has boldly inserted the following text both here and in Origin of the Eucharist:
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)
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)
Eschoir ( talk) 18:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You don't seem to much like answering quesstions, do you? Eschoir ( talk) 20:54, 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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). [2] 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." [2]
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)
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), [3] Ignatius of Antioch (who died between 98 and 117) [4] and Justin Martyr (writing between 147 and 167). [5] In its instructions on the Eucharist, the Didache also uses εὐχαριστίζω (to "eucharistize"), a verbal form of εὐχαριστία, [3] and, again in relation to the rite, Justin Martyr uses another verbal form: εὐχαριστῶ ("to thank"), [6] 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") [7] 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? [8]
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)
Eschoir ( talk) 03:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Eschoir ( talk) 18:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
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), [3] Ignatius of Antioch (who died between 98 and 117) [9] and Justin Martyr (writing between 147 and 167). [10] In its instructions on the Eucharist, the Didache also uses εὐχαριστίζω (to "eucharistize"), a verbal form of εὐχαριστία, [3] and, again in relation to the rite, Justin Martyr uses another verbal form: εὐχαριστῶ ("to thank"), [11] 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") [12] 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? [13]
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
You are something else. Quick, where is this from
"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."
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)
Haw haw haw! Where do you get your materiAL? Funny stuff! Eschoir ( talk) 05:21, 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)
Mazza, the source for this section, uses imitation of Christ Eschoir ( talk) 13:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Long run on sentence needs complete rewrite. Wikidgood ( talk) 22:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
@ 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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=42When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Should this be added to the category called "Religious rituals"? Vorbee ( talk) 20:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
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)
Sunday, I belive? Yet there is no mention of sunday. Martianmister ( talk) 00:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
@ 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)
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, per nom. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 01:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)