Talk:Eucharist/Archive 3

message: I put some comments into the article on editing it today where I saw that things appeared unclear or needed expansion.  Looks good, though; I tried not to mess up all the extensive work that's clearly gone into it.  I think it presents a quite balanced perspective, although the issue of whether to classify Anglicans as Protestants or not is problematic (however, this is a problem w/reference to the Anabaptists, as well - on the other side, so to speak).  I agree w/the commenters below who say we should talk about Christian's arguments for the origins of the Eucharist as celebrated today, such as the early Christian practice of the agape (see the book of Acts, discussion in book by Dix that I added to the bibliography).  The idea of propiation by blood sacrifice as taught in the OT should probably be referenced in this context, as well. Evan Donovan 20:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would really like to see someone present a synopsis of the meaning of the Lord's Supper as it was taught by Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D.  To date it remains the only teaching of this subject that ever made sense to me and which I could verify directly with Biblical references (i.e. 1 Corinthians 11:20-34) in the original Greek in the Strong's lexicon (available in http://www.blueletterbible.org .)TurtleofXanth 21:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for clarification, expansion

message: I rewrote the Anglican section at Eucharistic_theologies_contrasted since it was quite Anglo-Catholic in POV. I think we could improve the page here in a similar manner by outlining the various Anglican schools of thought but in a little more depth than was possible there, giving the background of what the BCP and 39 Articles say and how the various parties within Anglicanism differ over their attitude to those doctrinal statements. There's also the section on Anglicanism at Real Presence to consider. Some of that article is reproduced here under Eucharist (or vice versa). I left some comments on the talk page of Real Presence which would equally apply here. I think being as non-POV as possible (most of the articles still betray an Anglo-Catholic or general High Church bias) and trying to achieve some uniformity across these various pages would be a good idea. Could we write a general outline of the various approaches to Anglican Eucharistic theology here, linking to a more detailed analysis of the dispute over the Real Presence at Real Presence? What do people think? Apodeictic 11:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you want to add, without making the section too large and unwieldy?  Given your interests, you might consider starting a new article on the Anglican views of the Eucharist.  KHM03 (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact is that historically, Anglicans do believe the Eucharist to be a sacrifice. Saepius Officio is quite clear on that, to give just one example. We need to be careful to remember that being NPOV doesn't mean making everyone happy. For a further example, many "Roman" Catholics aren't transubstantiationists. Should we then have to change that entry in this article? Let's be careful to be factually honest as well as neutral. Valer 04:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglican

message: I do not see why the Graeco-Roman aspects of the ritual are treated as if they were controversial. They are obviously present, it is just a question of whether one thinks it useful to examine them. From the point of view of a practitioner, it is of course irrelevant how the ritual originated: that doesn't make for a controversy, just for lack of interest in the question. dab (ᛏ) 10:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is not Dbachmann's added phrase, "This transformation of cruder rituals", itself controversial, since it presents as fact the notion that the Eucharist was such a transformation?  While the notion has been put forward by writers that Dbachmann seems to trust implicitly, it is not how everyone (dare I say, how the great majority of writers) understand the earliest texts about the Eucharist.  These texts give no hint that the rite of the Eucharist was of Graeco-Roman origin, rather than Jewish.  Are Dbachmann's writers any less imaginative and ill-founded in their interpretation of the evidence than Michael Cacoyannis in his interpretation of Euripides?  If their notion is reported in objective terms in the article on the Eucharist, the opposing view should also be given in equally objective terms.  There is an opposing view.  The question is controversial.  Presenting Dbachmann's notion as fact is POV.  Lima 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "alleged" etc.

message: I, for one, do not understand Prasad as related to the Eucharist.  But only if supported by others, will I remove it from "See also".  Lima 09:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already did it. As described in the article, prasad is not significantly different from Greco-Roman pagan sacrifices, where a portion of the animal was offered to the god and the remainder consumed by the worshipers as part of the rite. Christians have always drawn very sharp distinctions between this and the Eucharist, to the point where they are positively forbidden to consume anything offered in sacrifice to a pagan god. I would say rather that the editor insisting on the link doesn't properly understand the Eucharist. Perhaps this points to a shortcoming in the article, or perhaps the editor simply didn't read it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prasad 

message: Could some of you from Catholic, Orthodox, and other traditions take a look at Christian views of alcohol to make it more inclusive, accurate, neutral, etc.? Many thanks! --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A little help for a related article

message: Maybe I just didn't see it, but I didn't seem to see anything in here about whether some churches only allow the lay people to receive part of the sacrament, or both.  I know Luther argued with Rome about this.  I believe it is also an issue in the Eastern chruch.  Anyone?  Kevlar67 20:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to Kevla's request, I have put in the Roman Catholic Church section a statement of that Church's teaching on that matter.  Lima 05:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In the Eastern Churches, Holy Communion is normally given to the laity by way of both species, i.e., both the consecrated bread and wine, normally by a form of intinction.  In these Churches, the bread, usually leavened (the Armenian Church is an exception), is placed in the chalice, and the bread and wine are administered together by means of a spoon.  --Midnite Critic 17:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thaks for the info.  I'm wondering if the Protestant Roman and Eastern positions on this is shouldn't be summarized somewhere.  Kevlar67 20:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both Bread and Wine? 

message: The Baptist section comments only on the Bible.  It needs to say something about actual Baptist practice, I'd think.  CaliforniaKid 04:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baptist 

message: The opening paragraph states "Most Christians classify the Eucharist as a sacrament, but many Protestants avoid the term sacrament, preferring the term ordinance. In these traditions, the ceremony is seen not as a specific channel of divine grace but as an expression of faith and of obedience to Christ."  Who are these many?  Most mainliners would think of it as the two sacraments; the many is misleading.  How about some?  Reverend Mommy 21:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the opening paragraph refers to the Eucharist as ritualistic "Cannibalism".  That word choice is an obvious attempt to defame the rite of communion.  I'm not even a Catholic, and I take deep offense to that.  This is one example of why Wikipedia will never be a legitimate encyclopedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.133.162 (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Paragraph

message: I think it is time for others to intervene.  Just compare these changes and make up your own minds.  I strongly dislike just reverting another editor's work, which I think is the only practical way to undo what Eschoir has done to the article, and so I am withdrawing.  I have done enough work on the article for now. If nobody else takes the trouble to intervene, I give up.  Lima 15:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help 

message: I believe the parenthetical expressions in the following paragraph should be reversed:
: Though the Church sees this change as occurring "in a way surpassing understanding"[32] and so as something that can never be fully explained or understood, the Catholic Church considers that the term "transubstantiation", with its accompanying unambiguous distinction between "substance" or underlying reality, and "accidents" or humanly perceptible appearances, still best safeguards against the opposite extremes of a cannibalistic interpretation (the accidents remain real, not an illusion) or of a merely symbolic interpretation (the substance is changed from that of bread and wine to that of the body and blood of Christ) of the Eucharist.
A cannibalistic interpretation would be one in which the substance is changed to the body & blood of Christ, and thus the communicant is eating human flesh and drinking human blood.
A symbolic interpretation would be one in which the accidents remain real, and thus the communicant is eating bread and drinking wine.
--Sbroadwe 14:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please re-word:  Cannibalism vs. Symbolism 

message: Questions to Eschoir.
:What is the purpose of putting a link to a non-existent article entitled "Words of Instruction" in place of the relatively simple word "instruction"?  Does "instruction" need explaining?  Or does it require replacement with a shorter word such as "request"?
:What is the purpose of saying that the First Letter to the Corinthians is composed of ten thousand words, when the number of words is irrelevant to the question whether the letter says or does not say what is attributed to it?  (My computer counted the words as 6750, but Eschoir was doubtless referring to the number of words in some English translation.)
:What is the purpose of saying that what Paul wrote was written in a passing way?  He still wrote it, didn't he?
(I could add that it was in no passing way that Paul wrote it, since he mentioned it precisely to tell the Corinthians they were acting wrongly; but whether he wrote it in a passing or in an emphatic way is irrelevant: he did write it.)  Lima 12:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV. Eschoir 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Is The Odyssey a "document"? Is "The Acharnians" a document?  No, they are literature. They exist within many documents, and editions.  Such is the Bible, at least here in Neutral POV wiki-land.Eschoir 20:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation of your understanding of "document".  In view of it, the word "document" must certainly be avoided in this context.  Irrelevancies such as the remark about the absence of the word "" (or, for that matter, "Communion",  "liturgy", etc.) in 1 Cor 11:23-25 remain undefended.  Perhaps they belong elsewhere in the article.  Lima 03:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose? 

message: After spending several minutes scanning this lengthy article, I was still unable to learn just what exactly the eucharist is supposed to do.  Why go to the effort of writing a detailed, several page article, but fail to address the most basic questions that anyone might have concerning the subject??!!!!  What does the participant receive?  Is he supposed to become infused with the "holy spirit"? the "essence of Christ"  How is it a sacrament?  Why is it a sacrament?  --24.17.56.169 14:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brief Synopsis Needed

message: "Redundant with Eucharist in New Testament essay below," says Eschoir.  Would Eschoir please explain why he considers the paragraph redundant when it deals with something not dealt with below, something moreover that is necessary in the introduction.
*The account below of 1 Cor 11:17-34 speaks of how Christians in the 50s of the first century celebrated what Paul the Apostle called the Lord's supper; it does not describe what Jesus did at his Last Supper. The paragraph that Eschoir calls redundant says nothing of what Christians in the 50s of the first century did; it describes instead what Jesus is reported to have done and said at his Last Supper.
*The introduction needs an indication of what Christians actually do in the rite or act of worship that most of them perform.  An indication of why they do it, though not strictly necessary, is useful.
The paragraph that Eschoir for some reason calls redundant fulfils both these functions.  Lima 15:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It's redundant" 

message: as they ban books and burn believers who don't believe what they believe.Eschoir 01:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a point, or are you just being nasty? It would be better to explain yourself. You have been curiously reluctant to do so. Had you been more forthcoming, there would be less friction. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Believers think they are neutral 

message: As the article stands, there is no "First Eucharist" as there  is a Last Supper.  It's a rite performed by Chrisitians, not by Christ.  Is that what y'all wanted to say? Eschoir 01:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps a stupid question