Talk:Holy Chalice

message: Elonka, where are you getting this? Some of it is just wrong; Thomas Malory did not create Galahad or anything about the Grail, he took them from earlier sources. The link between the Holy Grail and the chalice of the last supper is made by Robert de Boron sometime after about 1190. I don't know about the earlier traditions you added, but I put in a Disputed tag until this is sorted out.--Cúchullain t/c 20:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if I add something that is disputed, by all means pull it.  I've been using a History Channel documentary as source, and the mix of fact and fiction is definitely tough to sort through. An exact quote of the Galahad portion is, "A proliferation of grail stories, originally part of an oral tradition, hopelessly mixed fact and fiction... Some of the most popular stories were collected and blended with Celtic and German tales by Sir Thomas Malory. Published in 1485, they told romantic tales of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. As Malory told it, when the famed sword in the stone appeared, Sir Galahad, son of Sir Lancelot, was the only knight, besides Arthur himself, who was able to pull it out.  For this, he was chosen to undertake the quest for the Holy Grail.  He found it after years of struggle and travail, and then died, having reached his life's goal." If you need other quotes, let me know. --Elonka 21:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions of 2006-07 

message: It offends me, as a Christian, that the Holy Grail article begins with the words -  "In Christianity the Holy Grail is..."
This article, on the other hand began - "In Christian tradition the Holy Chalice is..."
So, what's the problem?
If you place the curser on Christian tradition, you'll see it's been linked to Christian mythology.
* It's not Christianty that says what the Holy Grail is. It is Christian mythology. 
* It's not Christian mythology that says that Christ used a cup at the Last Supper. And it's not even Christian tradition. It is Christianity that accepts this fact as it is presented in the Gospels.  
* Moreover, it is Christian tradition that says that Peter continued to use the cup for the Eucharist. There is nothing in the least strange or remarkable or improbable about this. Nor is there anything particularly strange about the suggestion that a Deacon of the church, Lawrence, might have regarded the cup as precious and sent it away for safe keeping. This stuff really ought not be regarded as mythology. Not unless..... 
* If, in fact, this tradition is a pure invention of the middle ages, a story created to give a particular vessel Provenance so that a church might, for example, compete with Santiago de Compostela in attracting pilgrims, then it's not mythology. It's blatant fraud. 
* Also- on another issue, Christian traditions and Catholic traditions are two very different things. Anglicans and members of Protestant churches do not hold to many of the customs, traditions and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. This is the whole reason for the Reformation. In cases where beliefs and traditions are specific to Roman Catholicism, Protestants can be a little sensitive about having things lumped together as Christian tradition. Could people be a little more sensitive to this!
Amandajm 08:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting the terms right 

message: The legend of the Grail is that it was the cup of the Last Supper and was then used to collect the blood of Christ, a Holy Relic, which it still contains.
The legend of the Holy Chalice is that it was the cup of the Last Supper which was subsequently used for Holy Communion by Saint Peter, then taken by him to Rome. This is compatible with the tradition of the Chalice of Valencia, but incompatible with the notion that it still contains a Holy Relic of the blood of Christ.
Amandajm (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Grail/the Holy Chalice 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Holy Chalice. 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/20050102192250/http://www.archden.org/dcr/archive/20020911/2002091121ln.htm to http://www.archden.org/dcr/archive/20020911/2002091121ln.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010135931/http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1999/oct1999p12_297.html to http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1999/oct1999p12_297.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) 20:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose the removal of:
"Bennett (2004) argues for the chalice's authenticity, tracing its history via Saint Peter's journey to Rome, Pope Sixtus II, Saint Lawrence, and finally to the Monastery of San Juan de la Peña whence it was acquired by King Martin I of Aragon in 1399. Bennett presents as historical evidence a 17th-century Spanish text entitled Life and Martyrdom of the Glorious Spaniard St. Laurence from a monastery in Valencia, which is supposed to be a translation of a 6th-century Latin Vita of Saint Laurence, written by Donato, an Augustinian monk who founded a monastery in the area of Valencia, which contains circumstantial details of the life and details surrounding the transfer of the Chalice to Spain.[9]"
This is all based on her self published books by Ignatius press (Catholic). None of it is peer reviewed. She herself is Catholic and not independent. see also:http://ignatiusinsight.com/features/jbennett_part1_oct04.asp and http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features/jbennett_part2_oct04.asp
I also propose the removal of but I am for now just putting a citation needed:
" but the red agate cup itself has been most likely produced in a Palestinian or Egyptian workshop between the 4th century BC and the 1st century AD.[7][8]"
this is based on those 2 sources:https://web.archive.org/web/20061010135931/http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1999/oct1999p12_297.html
http://www.archden.org/dcr/archive/20020911/2002091121ln.htm
but they (one is Bennett) both refer to Antonio Beltrán who is a spanish historian (he has a Spanish wikipedia article). This is everything that I find in google scholar (https://scholar.google.be/scholar?hl=nl&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Antonio+Beltr%C3%A1n%2C+%E2%80%9CEl+Santo+C%C3%A1liz+de+la+Catedral+de+Valencia%E2%80%9C&btnG=). I can't find what he has written about this anywhere. It is probably a non peer reviewed book. It gets cited 5 times (3 times by the same person).
--2A02:1810:BC04:4B00:50F3:D47B:F97F:C82A (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bennett: propose removal of selfpublished material