Talk:Eucharist in the Catholic Church

message: Should some of the information concerning Eucharistic miracles be placed here, with the appropriate link?  71.232.60.16 (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eucharistic Miracles 

message: User:PStrait has added this article into Good Article nomination page, see , but I saw there's no  tag here. So I assume that (s)he forgot to put it in this talk page.
However, I am making a speedy failing of this article to get Good Article status. This article is totally unsourced, thus it fails criterion 2 per WP:WIAGA. Please add your sources to conforms the three pillars of Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View, no original research and verifiable. Please read WP:CITE on how/when/where to put reliable citations. I've put  template in the article page for editors to put sources in this article. Please do not consider it as discouraging. After all of these matters are resolved, you can  this article back for GA status. 
Note, if somehow this article was not yet finished and User:PStrait had mistakenly put this article for GA nomination, you can disregard my review above. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 09:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, was a mistake, although hopefully I will have time next week to turn this into a 'good article.'  Sorry for the trouble of recommending it early-- I pasted the wrong article.PStrait 23:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Failing GA 

message: I added Matter to the sacrament.  Do we need to add form, or does it appear to be clear without it?DaveTroy 20:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  matter added 

message: Will someone who knows how to do it please undo Styrofoam1994's move of this article from "Eucharist (Catholic Church)" to "Eucharist (Catholic church)"?  "Catholic Church" is a title and so should be capitalized.  "Catholic church" is even illogical, in comparison to "catholic church".  Lima (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This time it worked.  Lima (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong move of article 

message: So the article states "But all the ancient Churches of the East ... believe, as the Catholic Church does, that in the Eucharist the bread and wine do become the body and blood of Christ."  Doesn't this make them cannibals?
Could someone please update the article to make this more obvious.  Thanks ~~
: No, they are not cannibals; the mode of Christ's presence, in Catholic theology, is supernatural, not natural, and this rules out any attribution of cannibalism. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Catholics considered Cannibals 

message: I don't know if this is worth mentioning in the article. It seems to apply only to the Pope himself, not to something that applies to the whole Catholic Church. 85.178.4.118 (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, Pope Benedict has done this exactly twice.  It certainly does not apply to the whole Church: at both Masses the other priests distributed Communion to people who stood when receiving.  Lima (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope returns to old way of distributing Communion 

message: On the occasion of his renunciation of the privileges of the Sancta Sede, I was moved to update and expand the Perichoresis#Human body as icon of the communio personarum page on Pope BXVI's hermeneutic of continuity as a member the communio school of theologians and needed to link to a Eucharist page under liturgy (page had a very long and muddled structure making this rather difficult). I shuffled the table of contents by adjusting the subhead nesting seniority and forced two of the template TOC boxes to nearer the top of page in relation to the mainTOC. MrsKrishan (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Nesting of topics for improved legibility in cross referencing

message: The Lutheran-Roman Catholic talks suggested that validity is a graduated concept rather than a simple yes-or-no. The officials at the talks granted that Lutherans have the Real Presence in our Sacrament. It was published with Rome's stamp of approval. The current pope agrees with this historic concession on the part of Rome. Real Presence in the Sacrament means Real Presence in the Sacrament, and you can't simply say that is merely spiritual. You, I, and Martin Luther all know that forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are only given in a valid sacrament. So, while Rome does not believe that non-Swedish Lutheran sacraments are not fully valid--given that they lack ordinations accepted as valid by the Pope, Rome does in fact accept partial validity to Lutheran Sacraments, given all that is in common between Wittenburg & Rome. Please do not revert my edit until this has been been taken to consensus.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From , The historical and theological reflections made above move us to doubt whether Roman Catholics should continue to question the eucharistic presence of the Lord in the midst of the Lutherans when they meet to celebrate the Lord's supper. And so we make the following statement...Furthermore, in our study we have found serious defects in the arguments customarily used against the validity of the eucharistic Ministry of the Lutheran churches. In fact, we see no persuasive reason to deny the possibility of the Roman Catholic church recognizing the validity of this Ministry. Accordingly we ask the authorities of the Roman Catholic church whether the ecumenical urgency flowing from Christ's will for unity may not dictate that the Roman Catholic church recognize the validity of the Lutheran Ministry and, correspondingly, the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic celebrations of the Lutheran churches.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation given justifies saying that the Roman Catholic theologians participating in the dialogue in question "doubt(ed) whether Roman Catholics should continue to question the eucharistic presence of the Lord in the midst of the Lutherans when they meet to celebrate the Lord's supper", and that the same theologians "ask(ed) the authorities of the Roman Catholic church whether the ecumenical urgency flowing from Christ's will for unity may not dictate that the Roman Catholic church recognize ... the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic celebrations of the Lutheran churches" (emphases added).  It does not justify saying that "the Roman Catholics conceded that Lutherans possess the Real Presence in their Sacrament of the Altar" (the edit to the Wikipedia article).  They expressed a doubt and raised a question, but did not state positively that, even in their personal opinion, Lutherans do indeed possess the Real Presence.  They found the arguments used against Lutheran possession of the Real Presence inadequate, but indicated that the actual teaching of the Church does question Lutheran possession ("whether Roman Catholics should continue to question").  Lima (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic view on Lutheran Sacraments 

message: There should maybe be mention of related ecclesiology, per Ecclesia de Eucharistia of John Paul II. For instance, while many Lutherans may sometimes believe in Real Presence, they may not exactly share or comprehend the official magisterial view that the Eucharist is the Church. 
Another interesting point would be to show the links between the Eucharist and the consistent life ethic commonly taught by the Church. ADM (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ecclesiology

message: This article seems to me like neutrality was merely an afterthought and it was written from an obviously Catholic perspective, with little things like "according to the faith" inserted afterward as a half-hearted nod to WP:NPOV. The "Receiving the Eucharist" section has quotes that are cited but not attributed in the body of the article, for one, and the entire article seems to be weighted towards stating religious doctrine as fact with little to no regard for criticism of this particular ritual (rather significantly from the Protestant movement and Evangelicalism in particular). Pw33n (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's function is to present what the Eucharist is in the Catholic Church. It is not about the Eucharist in general, nor in Protestantism and Evangelicalism in particular. The recently inserted comments on Lutheran and Anglican viewpoints are out of place. They, and thus the ground for complaint about lack of neutrality, have now been removed.  Lima (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: It seems to me that the history of receiving communion (along with confession, now called reconciliation) is missing. Communion can be received up to twice a day today. I think in, say, 1100, that believers might confess once in a lifetime and be given communion once. The idea being that you'd better not do anything wrong, there being no relief from hell if you did! Changes through the ages, communion for children, for example, should be presented IMO. Student7 (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be added to the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, confession and communion have always been ecouraged to be recieved as much as possible (confession once a year is a more common thing now-a-days). However, the history should be added. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I do not have a short list of specific prayers for specific periods such as Advent, etc. but I think it is needed. Instead of looking for it, I should ask: does anyone here have it read to go? We can dig it out of here etc. but if you guys already have it will be easier. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific prayers & seasons, Advent, Mercy Sunday, etc.

message: I think it would be good to give first the Summa Theologica's (perhaps incomplete) list of prefigurings, and then to fill in information about each of the listed prefigurings in turn, with a paragraph about each.  I think therefore that it was not a good move to reduce the typology of Melchizedek from a paragraph to an extremely generic one-sentence remark that the CCC refers in some unspecified way to Melchizedek in that regard, a remark that furthermore gives no hint that the idea that associates Melchizedek with the Eucharist is far older than the CCC and even Aquinas.  I leave this observation entirely to the consideration of others, and will not follow it up if disagreed with.  I have no wish to get really involved at present, especially not in any arguments.  Esoglou (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if you want to re-org it, go for it. But please do add refs as you did to Aquinas. The other bullets there are mostly WP:Primary types. I think this section is beginning to eat time liek Pac-man now, and is probably far too long given that there are no major refs. History2007 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph that you reduced to a generic sentence provided information based entirely on Horton and CCC, scarcely primary sources.  That paragraph was all I was talking about here, not about any reorganizing of the whole section by me.  So, in spite of what I said, I have again discussed the matter of that paragraph.  I shouldn't have.  Esoglou (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the pre-Aquinas item, so all refs are there now, I think. Time to move on to the rest and wrap this up. History2007 (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Have no fear, go for it. I wish you would fix this once and for all and let us be done with it given that you know the topic well.  Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of prefigurations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160818210304/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720091216/http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/documents/200707031933.pdf to http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/documents/200707031933.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150101045530/https://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080203210044/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20I to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080203210044/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20I to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080203210044/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20I to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628182123/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628182123/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130144307/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_codex-can-eccl-orient-2_lt.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_codex-can-eccl-orient-2_lt.html#TITULUS_XVI
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628182123/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628182123/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151221023647/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Nobody ever teaches that it is sacrilege to receive the Eucharist in "original sin". It is invalid to receive it without having been baptized. To extrapolate "original sin" from "lack of sanctifying grace" is eisegesis not present in the cited Catechism passages and not present in Catholic teaching that I have ever seen. Elizium23 (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original sin 

message: The redirect Eucharist, Introduction to 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  until a consensus is reached.  Veverve (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Eucharist, Introduction to the]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Introduction to the 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  until a consensus is reached.  Veverve (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Introduction to the Eucharist]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Historical Roots of Catholic Eucharistic Theology 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  until a consensus is reached.  Veverve (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Historical Roots of Catholic Eucharistic Theology]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Historical roots of Catholic Eucharistic theology 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  until a consensus is reached.  Veverve (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Historical roots of Catholic Eucharistic theology]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I have been trimming unnecessary and repetitive content from the subsection on transubstantiation.  I am thinking of removing entire chunks of text, such as the discussion on the concepts of "substance" and "accidents" since there are links anyway to the Wikipedia articles on these philosophical terms.  Either this, or overhauling those paragraphs to make them briefer and encyclopedic in tone. Thoughts? @Pbritti LaivineOrodrim (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsection on Transubstantiation -- "Substance" and "Accidents"