Talk:Eucharist/Archive 2

message: I merged the material from The Lord's Supper.  There was no reason to have a separate page for that.--JW1805 22:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the comments of Mkmcconn and KHM03 in the 'Main article for "Six contrasting views"' discussion above.  I see no problem in having a summary of the information you've added, with links to the old The Lord's Supper and Communion articles, but it may be forcing it a bit to have EVERYTHING here.  Or so it seems to me.  Thoughts?  JHCC (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there needs to be one article about the Christian ceremony of eating bread and wine in Church.  Different denominations use different ceremonies, and attach different theological implications to it, but essentially it is all the same thing.  The different variations are best described in one article.  I think all the "Lord's Supper" material fits nicely in this article, but I do think maybe the opening paragraph should be reworded a bit.  I realize that the term "Eucharist" would be unfamiliar to certain denominations.  But, as in other Wikipedia situations when something is called different things by different groups, a decision has to be made about what to call the article (see Gasoline/Petrol, the subject of a heated discussion).  That's why I suggest moving all this to Communion, since I think that word would be familiar to all denominations (am I right about that?)--JW1805 01:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lord's Supper and Communion 

message: Eucharist#Individual_pre-communion_preparation seems out of place. Should it be merged with theologies or go elsewhere? Paul foord 07:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual pre-communion preparation 

message: Regarding the two questions above, I would suggest the following:
*Our first priority is to settle the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion issue, especially as regards the article title.  Personally, I favor keeping Eucharist, as it does not have the multiple meanings that "Communion" does, but that is something for further discussion.
*Once we have decided whether or not to include the "Lord's Supper" material and how to name the article, I suggest that we reformat the article, so that we have:
:#Historical roots
:#Theology
:#Celebration
:#Open and closed communion
:#Footnotes
:#Resources
:#See also
:#External links
*The "Historical roots" and "Theology" sections can be essentially the same as they are now.
*The "Celebration" section can be divided by denomination/tradition (for example, "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Anglican/Episcopalian", "Lutheran", etc), with each of these sections further subdivided into "Individual preparation" (keeping the bulk of this material under Eucharistic discipline), "Setting", "Materials", "Participants", and "Ritual".  
The current format is a relic from when the article was a lot shorter.  With all the material that has been added, a reformatting is somewhat overdue.
Thoughts?  JHCC (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *HEADS UP!  I'm going to move the page to Communion (Christianity).  I will then rewrite the intro to discuss the different terms, change  to , do a small reformat of that template, and finally (probably over the next week or two) reformat the entire Communion article as I outlined above.  If anyone doesn't want me to do this, please let me know, and say why.  JHCC (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Format thoughts

message: First of all, a big THANK YOU! to everyone who jumped in to expand the introduction and terminology sections after my big edit.  I guess everyone was just waiting for someone else to make the first move.
Second, before we proceed further, let's talk about the specific language of the intro.  Mkmcconn did an excellent job expanding from my version, but I question some of the new language.  In particular, "ordinance" strikes me as insufficiently universal or descriptive, especially since it is used below in contrast with "sacrament".  I also think it is important to restore the section about the non-liturgical meaning of "communion", but it would be better in the intro.  Something like this:
:In Christianity, Communion is the celebration of and participation in a symbolic meal which commemorates Jesus Christ's death, resurrection, and future return.  It is believed  that Christ instituted this practice for his disciples at the Last Supper, prior to his crucifixion. According to the oldest continuous traditions, it is regarded as a sacrament and a means by which God grants salvation to the participants. Eucharist, a term preferred in some traditions, may refer either to the celebration of communion, or to the consecrated bread and wine of this sacrament.
:Communion can also refer to the relationship between Christians and God or between different churches and denominations (see full communion).
Note that I'm not saying by whom it is believed that Christ instituted this practice, since many non-Christians believe that, historically speaking, Jesus did exist and did institute the Eucharist, even if they do not believe in it (or him) themselves.  I've also added a comment within the text to future editors who might consider changing this to "Christians believe".
How does this sound?  JHCC (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: If we're talking about the rite itself and not the reception of the consecrated elements, then "Communion" is indeed more widely known as "Eucharist" based solely on the information given in the article. This being the preferred usage in Roman Catholic and Orthodox circles alone means that about 3/4 of all Christians use the terms in that way. What more reference is necessary? (That's an actual question, not rhetorical.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eucharist certainly does appear to be the more common name. Under the naming policy, that is where the article should have stayed. When it was moved, only some of the redirects were fixed, leaving double redirects that didn't function. I have moved the page back to Eucharist and fixed all of the redirects. Jonathunder 23:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "More widely known" 

message: I would request that the references to the Anglican Church be placed under an entirely seperate heading, as opposed to being placed under the "Protestant" category. Anglicans are not technically Protestant. They consider themselves to be fully Catholic and fully reformed, and are therefore unique among groups. A more accurate grouping of Christian denominations would be "Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal, Protestant." The Anglican church, in all of her official documents, never identifies herself as protestant. -- Anonymous.
:Am I wrong in thinking that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England takes a coronation oath "to uphold the Protestant Reformed religion"? – Lima 12:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Protestant" in what way? To equivocate "Protestant" in the same way each time is fallacious. "Protestant" can mean just about anything you want to define it as. Anglicanism has historically regarded itself not really as the "Church of England" but the "Church IN England." Henry VIII was truly Catholic, and a number of English monarchs were rather Catholic too. While Anglicanism is the "Via Media," that can be taken in many ways. The truth of the matter, however, is that Anglicanism traditionally and historically only rejected papacy and church corruption. Valer 18:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with Anglicanism being listed separately from Protestantism; I also have no problem with its inclusion.  It seems to me a fine middle way between Roman Christianity and Protestant Christianity.  I defer to community consensus.  KHM03 13:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  We can list Anglicanism separately; however, there are also Anglicans who would find it highly offensive not to be listed as "Protestant".  And, Anglicanism played an important role in the Reformation. Having grown up Episcopalian, I don't think that these despisers of the name "protestant" speak for everyone.  Lutheranism took one track, the Reformed another, and Anglicanism yet another.  Call that "via media" if you want; but to many of us, unless the Orthodox recognize them as part of their communion, or they are in communion with Rome, they are by themselves.  So, to Protestants they are Protestant, to Catholics they are Protestants, to themselves they are not.  As long as it's recognized that this separate listing accomodates the special preference and point of view of some Anglicans (and not of others), it's fine to list them that way.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglican and Protestant 

message: While the article covers quite a lot of ground, it only hints at the 'status' of the 'accidents' of the transubstantiation. A mention is made that 'catholics (...)  offer adoration to the Eucharist'. Yet, during the communion, we are only in contact with the 'bread' for a short ammount of time - and the ritual of receiving the bread in itself if quite varied. For example, I've seen people:
*receiving it using both hands in a cup-like way, then using only one hand to pick and eat the bread
*or raising both hands cupped to their mouth in order to eat it (that way bypassing the 'picking' stage)
*opening their mouth only, and the priest depositing the bread straight in (that way not touching the bread altogether)
Does anyone know what's the appropriate way? Also, this morning my 10 year old daughter had the ingenious idea to break the bread in half (probably copying what she saw the priest do), drawing looks of horror from the rest of the congregation. I must say I was myself quite horrified, but not sure why. Does anyone know if 'breaking' the bread post-transubstantiation is blaphemous? And dare I say, what is someone walked out with the Eucharist out of the church? Would it stay transubstantiated? Adidas 13:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Contrary to the above, Anglicans cannot just "pick and choose." There is a requirement as per the Articles of Religion that one must believe in the Real Presence of Christ. Difference in opinion arises on how much an Anglican chooses to not only interpret the Article in question, but also on the level of integration of Holy Tradition or Holy Reason. In addition, Anglicanism does hold to the belief that once consecrated, stays consecrated unless reverently disposed of. There is an established practice of bestowing the "Reserved Sacrament" in Anglicanism, and even, among many Anglicans, adoration. Valer 20:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'status' of the 'accidents' post-trasnsubstantiation 

message: Can someone tell me which ones don't use it?--HistoricalPisces 18:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: United Methodists do not use wine. Instead, we use "the unfermented juice of the grape".  KHM03 18:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the United States, many Protestant denominations do not use fermented wine in communion. Probably most U.S. Protestants do not, including both mainline and Evangelicals. I don't know about the practice elsewhere. It would be interesting to compare. Jonathunder 02:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: ELCA and ELCIC Lutherans do typically use wine, although grape juice is often offered as an option for those who are avoiding alcohol. I had thought that most mainline churches were similar, but perhaps I was mistaken. I'm pretty certain that at least some Anglican churches use wine.--Srleffler 06:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I live in Minnesota where we have a lot of Lutherans. I asked a couple of Lutheran friends; in their experience unfermented juice is much more common. In Episcopal churches, however, I've never seen anything but wine. All of this is original research, of course. Maybe someone can find something citable for this or another article. Could be interesting. Jonathunder 03:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I should have anticipated that there would be regional variations.--Srleffler 18:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wine 

message: Lima, I really think this should be briefer.  ISTM the place for a discussion this detailed is in Eucharistic theology, which obviously should be expanded to cover the whole range of theologies in more detail anyway.  Here there should be nothing more than a brief summary for a "gross" comparison. If all the sections were to be as long as this, we'd have a very lengthy article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  KHM03 08:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps there should be a Communion article for non-transubstatiation or non-consubstatiation communion, and the Eucharist should be reserved only for Real Presence meaning. The section on open and close communion doesnt really belong here at all! Dominick 14:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Its an absolutely fair criticism that this article has lost its focus.  I suspect editors got too interested in the details, particular details at that, and forgot the big picture.  My gut feeling is that there should be in this place a general outline of the practice with perhaps one-line summaries of the various theologies behind it, a very brief description of the rites surrounding it in the different traditions, all with links to other articles with more detailed information.  There will then be sufficient space to give due emphasis where it belongs. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic section 

message: I think the article is looking better, more concise.  Still some more trimming to do.  I think we cover the Roman Catholic view adequately, incidentally (at least in terms of length of the section)...there is a link provided to Transubstantiation for further particulars.  Perhaps the "Summary" section can be cut in favor of a link to Eucharistic theologies contrasted, which covers pretty much the same thing.  Also, a paragraph or two under the Roman Catholic liturgy section & the Protestant liturgy section (focusing on, I would assume, the BCP & the Lutherans) are needed.  I personally think it really is looking more "cleaned up", less rambling and "all over the place", and more concise.  KHM03 14:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oct 05 

message: Communion, Christian meaning article was created recently, I moved to Community (Christian) based on statement that it relates to koinonia κοινωνία maybe merge with Communion of Saints? Has cleanup and merge notices --> needs work. Paul foord 14:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Communion, Community and the Communion of Saints all mean very very different things in CAtholicism. Dominick 18:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Partly because some Christian traditions do not use the word Eucharist at all. Communion is a much more familiar term to some Christians. See above for more discussion of this.--Srleffler 06:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communion/Community article 

message: The use of the word accident in dicussing transubstantiation troubles me.  While the Catholic Catechism uses the term in dicussing The Real Presence, I feel that the artice gives the term an unattained meaning; in which the transubstantiation is in itself an accident, or unattended.  I propose that if the term, accident is to be kept, it must not refer to accident (philosophy).  A possible redirect to a small article specificly dealing with the term in its Christian  context?  Trevor 18:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware that "accident" had a different sense in the Aristotelian and Christian contexts.  How are they different? TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The "accidents" here do not refer to the transubstantiation itself, but to the aspects of the bread and wine which do not "matter"—their taste, smell, texture, appearance, etc. The idea is that the essence of the bread and wine are gone, replaced with the body and blood of Christ, but the superficial properties remain. I am not a philosopher, but I think that the link to accident (philosophy) is probably correct, but perhaps the concept needs to be explained better on that page, and introduced better in the text of this page. Take a look at the use of "accident" in the "Summary of views" section. Does that seem clearer than the first appearance, under "Roman Catholic: Sacrifice; Transubstantiation"?--Srleffler 02:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This was precisely my understanding, but Trevor seemed to be saying something else. Both sections seem equally clear to me, although the "Summary" explanation is (oddly) a bit more thorough.  If there's a problem with the accident (philosophy) link, it's perhaps that it's written in highly technical language not likely to be understood by someone not already familiar with the subject. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I just took a quick look at some philosophy pages, and I wonder if "accident" is used differently in Aristotelian substance theory than it is in essence theories. The accident page seems to relate to the latter, rather than the former (if there is a difference). I put out some calls for help. Hopefully someone who knows something will take a look at the page.--Srleffler 02:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that "essence" and "substance" mean exactly the same thing; both are used to translate the Greek "ousia". Substance theory seems to discuss the subject beyond the point to which it had developed at the time Roman Catholic eucharistic theology was formulated, but I have to confess I'm not familiar with (for instance) Cartesian thought on the subject and I can't say how it might differ from the Aristotelian. Having said that, Substance (philosophy), Essence and Ousia should probably be merged, but I'm the wrong person for such an undertaking. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transubstantiation/Accident 

message: Do we really need this new category :Category:Christian events, and if so, does Eucharist actually belong in it?--Srleffler 23:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep the new category for special events like music festivals, crusades, awards, etc. Otherwise, almost anything can be counted as an "event" and you'll end up with a category with a hundred entries that is completely useless. The categories are a great tool for finding interesting or relevant articles, when they are well organized. Note that there is already a category :Category:Christian festivals. This seems to have been created specifically for events related to the liturgical calendar, not for events of the type you mentioned. I added a note to that category explaining this, and a link to :Category:Christian events.--Srleffler 07:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian events

message: This article seems to have many more links than my reading of WP:WEB indicates it should.  I removed these ones as apparently being homepages, but I'm not sure how much need there is for any of them given the completeness of the article.  I left in things like Emerson and Wesley's articles, but even they should arguably be moved to the articles on those people unless they are sources for this article.
=== Liturgical texts & services ===
*The Ordinary...according to the Roman Rite, Missal of 1962 (alternate source)
*Do This; Remember Me!, a 21st century hymn text telling the Upper Room story
=== History, theology, etc. ===
*Patristic citations concerning the Holy Eucharist.
* American Catholic Resources on the Eucharist
*Holy Eucharist from The Orthodox Faith by Fr Thomas Hopko, online essay from the website of the Orthodox Church in America.
*Do This!: The Eucharist as a Key to Pastoral Care & Church Renewal
* A Short Introduction to Holy Communion and Celiac Sprue Disease from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
*The Lord's Supper: Four Views by Joe Slowiaczek
*Four Views of the Lord's Supper - discusses transubstantiation, consubstantiation, spiritual presence, and symbolism (from spiritual presence point of view)
[Unsigned comment by User:Just zis Guy, you know?
Hi again Guy. Why do you keep bringing up WP:WEB? That guideline is clearly not the standard for external links. WP:WEB defines whether a website is notable. Websites must be notable for there to be an entire Wikipedia article about that website. There is AFAIK no requirement anywhere that websites need be notable in order to be linked to in an "External links" section. If you know of such a requirement or recommendation, please post it. 
Looking through the links, I agree that most of them are not useful enough to merit inclusion. Three of the links you deleted seem like they might be worth keeping, at a glance:
*Fordham: Looks useful: medieval mass with translation into English. Good for those interested in the history of the Eucharistic liturgy.
*Catholic.com: Provides historical quotes (citations/sources) on catholic theology and the Real Presence. 
*www.geocities.com/pastorkeith/...: provides a good bibliography. 
This is a complicated page, since it deals with the discrepant beliefs and practices of many different Christian sects, and attempts to document and compare those of each while maintaining NPOV. It seems useful to me on a page like this to have a large selection of external links and futher reading to provide more information relevant to each sect, as well as material comparing them. Links that themselves provide bibiographies for further research or material of historical interest seem useful.--Srleffler 04:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: *Patristic citations concerning the Holy Eucharist.
* American Catholic Resources on the Eucharist
*Holy Eucharist from The Orthodox Faith by Fr Thomas Hopko, online essay from the website of the Orthodox Church in America.
*Do This!: The Eucharist as a Key to Pastoral Care & Church Renewal
* A Short Introduction to Holy Communion and Celiac Sprue Disease from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
*The Lord's Supper: Four Views by Joe Slowiaczek
*Four Views of the Lord's Supper - discusses transubstantiation, consubstantiation, spiritual presence, and symbolism (from spiritual presence point of view)
[Unsigned comment by User:Just zis Guy, you know?
Hi again Guy. Why do you keep bringing up WP:WEB? That guideline is clearly not the standard for external links. WP:WEB defines whether a website is notable. Websites must be notable for there to be an entire Wikipedia article about that website. There is AFAIK no requirement anywhere that websites need be notable in order to be linked to in an "External links" section. If you know of such a requirement or recommendation, please post it. 
Looking through the links, I agree that most of them are not useful enough to merit inclusion. Three of the links you deleted seem like they might be worth keeping, at a glance:
*Fordham: Looks useful: medieval mass with translation into English. Good for those interested in the history of the Eucharistic liturgy.
*Catholic.com: Provides historical quotes (citations/sources) on catholic theology and the Real Presence. 
*www.geocities.com/pastorkeith/...: provides a good bibliography. 
This is a complicated page, since it deals with the discrepant beliefs and practices of many different Christian sects, and attempts to document and compare those of each while maintaining NPOV. It seems useful to me on a page like this to have a large selection of external links and futher reading to provide more information relevant to each sect, as well as material comparing them. Links that themselves provide bibiographies for further research or material of historical interest seem useful.--Srleffler 04:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History, theology, etc.