Talk:Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist

message: Edit prior to User:CTSWyneken, tried to provide summary. This was removed. I believe it is useful to lead in discussion. May be possible to better present intro, and tie it into article. Removal of reference to consubstantiation (even if not a term used by Lutherans) and absence would not help readers Paul foord 03:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences of views need mention 

message: Why is Real Presence in the category for Restoration movement, and why does it mention the Disciples of Christ?  I don't believe these groups affirm Real Presence; aren't they memorialists?  I could be wrong.  KHM03 12:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Earlier edit indicated that they did not ascribe to real presence, removed at same time as consubstantiation. Paul foord 12:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Their Eucharistic theology is stated as being bible based. However, there is a sense of reaction amongst all memorialists, to perceived/actual abuses they observed amongst those having real presence beliefs. Possibly this needs to be stated but the range of perspectives from 0% - 100% are relevant to the topic. Paul foord 12:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration movement

message: Three things got changed in my edit.
1.  "ascribe to this doctrine", of course, should have read, "subscribe to this doctrine".
2.  I sectioned off the Reformed view, which does affirm the Real Presence, but in a very different manner from the ALCOMeths (Anglican, Lutheran Catholic, Orthodox, Methodist; and yes, I chose that acronym deliberately  : D  ).  It deserves its own section, because lumping it with the Baptistic view conflates the two, and they are quite different.  I couldn't get the opening of the section to work properly, though, so if anyone gets a brainwave on how to make it happen, please do.  The major problem is that, AFAIK, all holders of this view are Reformed, but not all the Reformed hold this view.
3.  I noted that the "non-presence" view is called Zwinglian, after Zwingli.  Oddly, the Wiki article on Zwingli doesn't note his (at the time, unique) views on the Sacraments.  I also noted that this view is commonly associated with Baptists and some Reformed churches.
Wooster 14:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See The sacraments in Christian Theology: An Introduction, Alister E. McGrath, 3rd edition and On Zwingli Paul foord 15:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: *Each view matches a tradition, so both being in the heading has a logic to it, whether RC-transubstantiation or transubstantiation-RC is something I'm not sure about
*Calvinistic and Zwinglian traditions are both Reformed, I think there is no simple was to get round this. 
Regarding a template, maybe a suggested/consistant structure would be useful. Maybe
*Summary
**What
**Current proponents/Range of views
**List options
**Impact
*Background/History
**precursors
**who what where when
**Biblical rationale
**Support from tradition
***Patristic background
**Other factors
*Related issues
*See also
I think these articles are sometimes short on Biblical and Patristic citations. 
Use of main template could be useful pointer.
Paul foord 14:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should utilize the Eucharist template and make changes as we deem necessary.  Too many tenmplates on one subject defeats the purpose of the templates in the first place.  KHM03 20:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings and tightening 

message: The Lutheran position on the Lord's Supper is more accurately labeled as Sacramental Union; therefore I propose the following revision of this section to clarify the Lutheran position here:
 
::"Level 2 headline: Lutherans - Sacramental Union"   Lutherans believe and teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under" the consecrated bread and wine. This is defined as "Sacramental Union": When the bread and wine for Holy Communion is used (consecrated, distributed, and received) the body of Christ is united to the consecrated bread and the blood of Christ to the consecrated wine in a substantial, real, though unseen manner. This "Sacramental Union" is unique in theology and philosophy according to Martin Luther and is not analogous to any other "union." This is brought about by Christ's first speaking "the Words of Institution" not by the recitation of these words by the presiding minister of the Lord's Supper. Augsburg Confession, Article 10 states: "Concerning the Lord’s Supper it is taught that the true body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper and are distributed and received there. Rejected, therefore, is also the contrary teaching," so that communicants eat and drink both, the elements (the consecrated bread and wine) and the body and blood of Christ Himself. For the vast majority of Lutherans, only bread and wine remain after the distribution of the Lord's Supper: the elements are treated with respect, but not "revered" or reserved as in Roman Catholic practice. Lutherans use the terms "Sacramental Union" and "in, with, and under the bread and wine" to distinguish their understanding of the Lord's Supper from that of the Reformed tradition. Lutherans reject the terms "Consubstantiation" and "Impanation" as names for their doctrine because these imply that Christ's body and blood are present in the way food is physically present in normal eating and drinking, a "gross, carnal, and Capernaitic" way.
:::Please allow some of this to be incorporated into this article, because this is of vital concern to Lutherans.drboisclair 22:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seeing no objection, go for it. The only caution I'd have is to be sure that the resulting text is as clear as possible to contemporary ears. Wiki articles often are translated to other languages, with resulting fuzziness. The clearer in English, the clearer in these languages. For example, I like what I see so far in the latest edits. Can we find another word for "very" in "very body..." Many of today's folk find the term odd. Perhaps, "true"? --CTSWyneken 11:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I Made that needed change, and I feel that the paragraph that I entered above is too long for the article, which needs to be short and concise as you have pointed out. drboisclair 14:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of ''Lutheran'' position 

message: The article makes no mention of eucharistic miracles, where the bread and wine has indeed changed into actual blood and flesh, usually to convince priests in doubt over the truthfulness of church teachings. The miracle of Lanciano is especially famous and has been the subject of medical investigations in the early 1970s. 91.83.19.148 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do grown up people really take these theories seriously? Why not a page on what the bodies of faires are "objectively" made of?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.0.171 (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because these are approved miracles of the Church, not fairies and other nonsense. If you are not a Christian nor a believer in miracles, then WHY are you even looking at the discussion for this page? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what 130.102.0.171 indelicately was trying to convey in response to 91.83.19.148 was that the appelation 'truthfulness' is not really the best word to use here, because the transformation has not been confirmed through the scientific method. In the case of claimed eucharistic miracles, it was decided by an obviously biased source, without an open view second source confirmation, that the bread/wine had been transformed into body/blood. Clearly, that would have to be met with skepticism by even strong believers, as it was simply one person/group's word that comes with an immediate benefit (justification, confirmation, etc) to that person/group making the judgement. If these miracles had occurred, an outside source (medical or laboratory at a minimum) with no ties to the Church, should have been invited in to test and document that the materials had indeed transformed, with a clear chain of custody that starts before the actual transformation. Unless this is done, it is not 'truthfulness' that the transformation has occurred, only that there is a claim of such.--LeyteWolfer (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Vatican is right

message: Certain writers have claimed that peritus Joseph Ratzinger wrote a book called Die Sacramentale Begrundung Christliche Existenz  in which he criticized traditional beliefs on the real presence. It would be interesting if we could find sources on what his actual beliefs on the subject are. In any event, as Sovereign Pontiff he has strongly promoted a belief in the Real Presence of Jesus.   ADM (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratzinger on Real Presence

message: The article mainly identifies the Eucharistic belief of the United Methodist Church.. so I was wondering if all Methodists beleive the same thing? There are various Methodist denominations and denominations that branched off of methodism, but I do not know much about their beliefs: United Methodist Church, Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, African Methodist Episcopal Church, African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, Methodist Church of Great Britain, Methodist Church Ghana, Free Methodist Church, Evangelical Methodist Church, Wesleyan Church, Church of the Nazarene, United Church of Canada, Christ's Sanctified Holy Church, Congregational Methodist Church, Methodist Protestant Church, Primitive Methodist Church, etc.. does anyone know if all Methodist Churches have the same Eucharistic belief as the United Methodist Church? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Methodist belief

message: I think that we need a plan to merge and/or simplify certain sections of Eucharist-related articles. Another editor wrote in 2009 that he thinks they should all be merged.
For more information these ideas, see this discussion on the Eucharistic_theologies_summarised talk page. 
Thanks, --Geekdiva (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestions for Eucharist-related articles: help and strategy needed 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Oppose. The capitals are useful in the title to indicate that the article is not about just any real presence (such as the presence, real or supposed, in a food of some particular substance), but about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Esoglou (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I interpret this argument (as well as Esoglou's) as an appeal for an exception to the guidelines rather than an explanation on how they apply in this case. Jojalozzo 13:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I suppose. I don't feel that strongly either way, in fact. If we did Real presence of Jesus or Real presence of Christ, that might be better still (at least in terms of clarity).--Kotniski (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is rather a question of interpretations of the guidelines and how they, taken in their totality, apply to this concrete case.  Esoglou (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: "Catholic and Orthodox" as subheading is merely meant to designate Churches practicing "Catholicism".  A better title might be found.  The previous title suggested that beliefs regarding the Eucharist were universal before the reformation; there were however many sects with differing beliefs that are not covered here.  The current title is meant to cover the content found within the subsection in its current form. --Zfish118 (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic and orthodox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204101123/http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BrugReal.pdf to http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BrugReal.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807115823/http://www.gbod.org:80/worship/thisholymystery/theologyofsacraments.html to http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/theologyofsacraments.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214070816/http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/parttwo.html to http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/parttwo.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=814&cuItem_itemID=1045
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=258&cuItem_itemID=8633
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=58&cuItem_itemID=11345
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=58&cuItem_itemID=2250
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=58&cuItem_itemID=1325
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/theologyofsacraments.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/parttwo.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629124157/http://www.tserkovnost.org/catechism_filaret/catechism_filaret-2.html to http://www.tserkovnost.org/catechism_filaret/catechism_filaret-2.html
*Added  tag to http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/default.html
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) 01:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are many non-Christian editors out there who edit articles like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Gospel, Biblical reliability, but a lot of Early Fathers and controversial (within Christianity) articles are NOT POV checked. 
* "Christians must have faith that the bread and wine are in fact the body and blood of Christ, despite what they see with their eyes" - on the Augustine of Hippo page. Which is WP:OR, in fact a Catholic apologetics source is also used on that page. Someone is reading and interpreting the statements of Augustine and putting it on that page. When I read that I also don't see any "transubstantiation", good that the article doesn't say that. Augustine says in spite of their being a physical body of Christ, there was the spiritual aspect which made it true. In the same way no one looks at the Elements and says "this is not his Body" and "this is not His blood"  
*And on this page, I see a lot of WP:OR as well and a lack of actual scholarly sources. 
* So I want to ping       and  to help with neutrality and source checking on the following articles (kindly if possible): Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and Augustine of Hippo articles. 
* We are here to keep a scholarly tone I believe. And for those who think this is somehow canvassing, I don't know the opinions of each of these authors on the topic (they probably don't agree with me since they tend to take an extreme critical view on the articles I've seen them edit) my points here User_talk:Dr._Ryan_E.#April_2020 Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Check 

message: The proposed lede suggests that the Real Presence doctrine is a "problem" and that there are "contradictions". I don't see the need for introducing such controversy in the first paragraph. Elizium23 (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal was a disimprovement both linguistically and conceptually. It presents as an unquestionable fact that there are actual "logical contradictions", it presents as important in this matter a distinction between "Jesus" and "the historical Jesus", and it declares that the term "real presence" was never used by anybody before the bull Transiturus de hoc mundo (of whose text there seem, I haven't checked, to be three different versions).  I indicate my thoughts on the proposal because I am confident that, although Vorov has been unsuccessful in this case, he can make valuable contributions in the English Wikipedia.  Bealtainemí (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

text: OK, I return the old lead. But I also added one painting (of Mass of Saint Gregory) and few other words. Sorry for bad linguistic, feel free to edit whatever you find necessary. --Vorov (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality