Talk:Host desecration

message: This edit  added "some" to "false confessions".
::some false confessions were exacted by torture, and then the accused Jews were condemned and burned, sometimes with all the other Jews of the place...
* Would the moral dimension of the act of killing Jews be any different if the confessions were true?
* Given the quality of investigative and forensic techniques of the 13th century how could anyone have certainty beyond reasonable doubt that any confession was true? patsw 16:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  True Confessions 

message: Ist there any specific reason, why this revert also delete items in the literature section:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Host_desecration&diff=88459359&oldid=88398961
Pjacobi 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Pjacobi, when someone does a massive edit and you want to revert just part of it, it's sometimes simpler to do a straight revert and then to reintroduce the good (or at least inoffensive) changes manually in your next edit. As you'll see if you look at the history, that's exactly what I did in the very next edit. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I've got confused while assessing the diffs. --Pjacobi 21:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad revert 

message: Non-Christians do not know what a "host" is. "Cookie" seems to be the best description of what is being "desecrated." Stripped of its religious pretensions, this outrageous and murderous libel thereby becomes manifest.--Lance talk 00:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Professor John Klier refers to "the consecrated sacramental bread" that appears to me to be a fairly good description of what is going on. An explanation of what "consecrated sacramental" means would be helpful.--Lance talk 01:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only above you are arguing in favour of "cookie", now it is "bread" (and I have already explained why "host" is better - it does not take sides in the contentious issue of whether transubstantiation takes place, hence NPOV). Str1977 (smile back) 01:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cookie" is a far better description, or perhaps "cracker"; I would accept "bread," but really its my third choice, after "cookie" and "cracker."--Lance talk 01:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a crash curse in a bakery before you return again. Str1977 (smile back) 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and in WP:NPOV as well. Str1977 (smile back) 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Stripping of the metaphysics, it is neither bread nor cookie, but Wafer (cooking). But as this is linked (now) from Host (Holy Communion), I'd say there will be no open questions even for non-catholics, if we use host in the intro sentence. That's the joy of hypertext, folks. --Pjacobi 11:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cookie v. bread 

message: It appears that there was a cut and paste from an unreliable blog here.--Lance talk 00:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut and paste from blog 

message: Lance, you've reverted to the "transsubstantiation" and "whom would be hit by it" mistakes again. Please don't keep doing that; it's very disruptive. I mentioned in my edit summary that I was correcting grammar and spelling, I mentioned it here, and another editor pointed out to you that one of your previous reverts had restored the wrong spelling. You're also very close to being in violation of the three-revert rule. Please try to get consensus for your edits rather than forcing them on us. Also, please note that you are the one who introduced massive changes, while complaining about the original article, so this edit summary is inappropriate. AnnH ♫ 01:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not acting in good faith. If spelling errors are a concern, not mine by the way, then correct them. What you are doing is removing CONTENT that you, by your own admission, are ignorant of. Such conduct is disruptive and constitutes vandalism. I'm asking an admin to intervene here to deal with this abuse.--Lance talk 01:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lance, read WP:AGF about what is required of WP editors. Then, you shouldn't be talking about ignorance, since you repeatedly reverted the "background" section to a version that contained inaccuracies (the EO do not believe in the concept of transubstantiation or adore the host, even though they agree in all other matters with Catholics). Also "your" version confused the issues of "real presence" with the concept of "transubstantiation", which is only an attempt to explain the former in philosophical terms (and attempt that was in the end defined as a dogma). Both have their place in this article but they are two distinct things. Str1977 (smile back) 01:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These absurd justifications are merely a pretext to wrongfully remove valid content from the article; nothing more.--Lance talk 01:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Address the issue or keep quiet. Str1977 (smile back) 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fairly certain Eastern Orthodox do believe in transubstaniation. -- Kendrick7talk 01:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I take that back. They believe in the "real presence" which is more or less the same thing. -- Kendrick7talk 01:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the doctrine was developed in the Western Church by St Thomas Aquinas two centuries after the Eastern Churches split from the West. It was also taught by the Council of Trent, later still. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the bread and wine really become the body and blood of Jesus, but they're not comfortable with philosophical explanations as to just how that happens. AnnH ♫ 02:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I know that is what is says here, but I wish it had a better ref than a "personal web site from Phil Porvaznik". Seems like the clerics are quibbling. -- Kendrick7talk 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to correct Ann on this. The concept of T. was developed not by Thomas (born 1225) but by earlier theologians and defined a dogma in 1215. However, she is correct about the difference between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches on this, which is not so much a difference in content but a different approach towards the use of philosophical means and their use in developing doctrine (later expounded by Gregory Palamas). The EOC is content not to delve into the technicalities of how come that Christ is present unter the species of bread and wine. Str1977 (smile back) 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept correction from the more knowledgeable ;-), though I'd still say that Thomas took the development further. AnnH ♫ 22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, he did. There is, I guess, no issue of theology on which Thomas has not done notable work. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But I don't think it is accurate to say the Catholic Church even "delves into the technicalities". Some Catholic theologians have; that's not quite the same thing. From the Catechism here, the main points I am taking away as to the how, is that it is by the priest's consecration and thru the power of God. Perhaps they don't teach this in Constantinople, which would strike me as odd, but I can't imagine them teaching any thing particularly different. -- Kendrick7talk 02:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kendrick, I agree. I was voicing the common criticism by Eastern Orthodox Christians with which I disagree, because a) I don't think you can stop short of such reflections, b) trinitarian theology and christology have developed over the first years as well by making use of philosophical tools and I can't see why it should have to stop. Finally I agree that the EOs agree with your quotes from the catechism. I was exclusively referring to the concept of transubstantiation. Str1977 (smile back) 09:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reintroduction of spelling and grammatical errors

message: I liked the edit that Tom harrison did on Premeditated Chaos's edit. Like Tom, I have no idea if the actual claims are true. However, I didn't feel that "folk belief" was quite right. To me, a folk belief is something like sleeping with a piece of wedding cake under your pillow and thinking that you'll then dream of your future husband — in other words, something superstitious and related to people of a particular culture. However, the belief that Satanists desecrate the host at a Black Mass may be erroneous. I'm not convinced that it is, though it may be true that "mainstream" Satanists (if there is such a thing) don't do that. But I wouldn't call it a folk belief: it would simply be an mistaken belief, like thinking that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus. I'm open to discussion on the wording. AnnH ♫ 19:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Folk belief

message: Lance has been adding a lot of tags. First, I'll say that although when I reverted him, I removed some "citation needed" tags, I am not particularly opposed to them.  While I do think it's bad manners to do a full page revert and make no effort to restore things like spelling corrections which were wiped out by the revert, I think when someone makes such massive changes without seeking consensus, he shouldn't be too surprised to find his edits reverted. If Lance wishes to restore some of the citation needed tags, without filling the whole article with POV language about libel (every second word!) and being cruelly murdered, and cookies, and with inaccuracies about EO adoring the host, and false accusations being said to have caused an earthquake, I will not remove them.
With regard to the more recently-added (and removed) templates, the article does not at all read like a sermon. It would seem that Lance is not familiar with sermons. I await an explanation on the talk page for the "disputed" tag.  Lance, could you state, one by one, which statements you dispute? Thanks. AnnH ♫ 19:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: Anonymous writes, "Trachtenberg and Langmuir are the authorities on this issue, as set out on the talk page, but these sources have been supressed in the article."
:As far as I can see, Trachtenberg and Langmuir are in agreement with what is written in the article.  For example, I did not see anywhere where they refered to the execution of Jews accused of host desecration as "murder".  But I didn't read a lot of those sources, so I might have missed that part.  However, if some explanation of the problem is not forthcoming, I will delete the disputed tag again. Certainly, those sources are listed in the references, so the accusation that they have been supressed seems to me to be hyperbole. -- Cat Whisperer 06:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed tag 

message: I updated the caption by copying it's description from wikicommons. The official description describes the woodcut more precicely and with less error: in the first panel the hosts are already stolen, the Jews are depicted with distinguishing badges etc.... Elephx4 (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image:Descreationofhost.gif

message: Should mention be made of current events?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php#more
http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=6932236&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1
Belgianatheist (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should think so.VatoFirme (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it, it is my first edit so if it is wrong please correct or remove, also (after I saved) I have seen that on the Pharyngula (blog) page there already is a paragraph with pretty much the same thing, don't know what the procedures are for that.Belgianatheist (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current instances of persecution 

message: There is a widespread belief among Church leaders that satanic cults have contributed to the phenomenon of host desecration. One liturgist, Guido Marini, has even opposed communion in the hand on the grounds that it makes it much easier for these cults to steal and desecrate hosts.  ADM (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Satanic cults

message: The link with the title Student Who Took Religious Icon Getting Death Threats no longer works - the Fox server redirects browsers to the home page for that site.Autarch (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken reference link 

message: What is wrong with you?  Host desecration is an article under "antisemitism"?  You know, it's getting a little nuts that almost every Christian article on wiki is overwhelmed by Jews sob stories about how mean Christians are.  And now you take a topic called "Host Desecration" and have it as part of series on antisemitism?  This is completely out of line and this article needs to be fixed.  Host desecration is not antisemitism, Jews are not the Eucharist, Jesus is.  Host desecration is not antisemitism against Jews, it's desecration of the Eucharist, a Christian sacrament. 
I'm so bored and fed up with Jews sob stories and chutzpah, the amount of gall one must have to put this article under "antisemitism" makes me believe Jews probably were desecrating hosts and insulting Christians at every opportunity that presented itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.55.43 (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To be frank, you may have something of a point, but your own hateful comments about Jews destroy your credibility.Sorry.--Benfergy (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Hateful or not, the point stands. My jaw about hit the floor when I saw the "Part of a series on Antisemitism" banner.. it's almost as if some editor is intentionally trying to be provocative by evoking the "It's always all about them (Jews)" stereotype. If I can remove it, I will.  Drlegendre (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment inadvertently points to a problem with the article. While the theological and dogmatic issues of transubstantiation of the host is a Christian matter, when it comes to history an practice the accusations of host desecration were a part of the anti-Semitic persecutions in Europe. With few exceptions, the allegations probably had no more merit than charges of sorcery or consorting with the devil. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:181B:D992:4624:3963 (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This topic is a Catholic topic, not a antisemitism topic. 

message: I copied the following text from the Jewish Museum in Berlin, I noticed that it mentions some places and events that aren't in the Wikipedia article. Hopefully it will be useful to someone in completing the article. 188.223.5.83 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text from Jewish Museum in Berlin 

message: " 'Catholics were being told' that they were consuming flesh and blood. "
This statement makes no sense in light of the fact that Christian doctrine has always taught that the Eucharist is transubstantiated at consecration, even though the rigid terminology developed over time (ante-Nicene writings well attest to this). The Catholic Church did not arbitrarily decide one day that a host is now going to be the body and blood of the incarnate God. So, I ask, where are the citations? Much of this article is spurious. For instance, a section (which I removed, which will, no doubt, be put back) describes the blood libel allegation "absurd" on the grounds that the accused Jews did not believe in the divine properties of the Host. The obviously false, and tragic, allegations against Jewish people aside, one does not have to believe anything to show purposeful disrespect (for instance, out of respect for my Muslim friends, I would not commission a portrait of Mohammad, but this does not mean that I fear the wrath of Allah or believe that such a commission is necessarily wrong in and of itself). Hierosolimitanum (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Issues 

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: There are two particular faults with this article. First, it us hard to find the definition of the term. In the third section, fifth sentence, we finally learn: " Theft, sale, or use of the host for a profane purpose is considered a grave sin and sacrilege..." And I don't think that's even a complete description. Second, the two recent incidents are so minor compared to the numerous massacres in history that the space given to them is grossly undue. Overall, it needs a rewrite. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:181B:D992:4624:3963 (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of balance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Host desecration. 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/20080712015833/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204001624/http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/24313139.html to http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/24313139.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080713023423/http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459 to http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459
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) 06:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Host desecration. 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  tag to http://www.thesundaily.com/article.cfm?id=44069
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308035529/http://www.nst.com.my/articles/9ml/Article/index_html to http://www.nst.com.my/articles/9ml/Article/index_html
*Added  tag to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2010%2F3%2F6%2Fnation%2F20100306144414&sec=nation
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) 01:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's a common subject for History of Christianity, but "Anti-Semitism" is given as reason. A bit less ideological balance and less conspiracy theory would be appreciated --105.4.2.242 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Mistake