Talk:History of Catholic eucharistic theology

message: This section provides an extremely impressive summary of the evidence for notions of Real Presence in the first centuries, but I wonder whether it should be presented differently?  It is a contentious issue because history is so definitive in the Catholic tradition, but these references to body and blood in early documents are interpreted by many (mostly Protestant) scholars as metaphorical.  As far as I am aware, it is very difficult to pin down a real concern for the eucharistic elements until the late third century at the earliest.  So should the early evidence be presented as 'A Catholic Interpretation'?
--ADMH 12:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article   overall is indeed a Catholic Point Of View, being often  written as an apologetic  for Catholic literalism on the Lord's supper, and with sparse references. Statements such as "The Scriptures, too, are testimony by the early Christians. In 1 Cor 10:16...." (which  text actually goes on to make communion with Christ analogous to how pagans have communion with their gods by taking part in their dedicatory feasts, not by eating their flesh) and  "then Paul states" (which he lifts out of context in which not recognizing the body was that of ignoring other members of the body of Christ while supposedly showing Christ's death for it) and later, "In this last example from the Summa one can observe," and   "For example, Jesus tells Simon," "All use the expression to 'eat flesh' and some 'drink blood' all uses are clearly negative," (ignoring metaphorical uses for such that are positive)   are presented more as an apologetically essay  rather than an encyclopedic article, but which is dignified by being listed as one. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Christian Documents - Catholic Point Of View?

message: In dealing (arguing against) linkage btwn  purported mystical benefits of flesh-eating and blood-drinking among mystery cults and that of Catholicism,  it is asserted: "This theory is rejected in Catholic Eucharistic theology. In fact, Christianity and the Eucharistic rite began not among people who believed in or practised the mystery religions, but within Judaism" and goes on to cite the apostle Paul's reference to the Lord's supper as part of a  apologetic against this linkage.  Which assumes that the Catholic  belief in the Eucharist,  including  that partaking of it provided spiritual benefits as per Catholic doctrine, was held by NT Christians,  anachronistically reading Catholic  theology into Biblical texts. While the Lord's supper did indeed begin  within Judaism (Jewish disciples of Christ) this simply does not  translate into belief in the Catholic Eucharist. The point here is that this section (and indeed the article overall) is too much that of a Catholic POV apologetic. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged origins in mystery religions: a POV apologetic

message: I've tried to give an encyclopedic tone to this whole article and to quote a selection of recent sources. I then removed the three tags. If you feel that a tag is still necessary please ping me when you add it and I will do my best to respond. Jzsj (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thorough editing 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Merging can be done by regular editing and discussion and no one other than the requester appears to be in favor of moving the page to the proposed title. (page mover nac)  Flooded with them hundreds 16:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: History of Catholic eucharistic theology →  – WP:CONCISE. Since there is in fact no such preexisting article (although that future one may well merit a history section). If you chech the contents of History of Catholic eucharistic theology, it does also touch upon present day. Inversely, a report on Catholic eucharistic theology is not really workable without a history section. At least so far, with regards to extent of content, let's just keep it all in one and the same article: Catholic eucharistic theology. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, good solution. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
,  I take it a merge with Eucharist in the Catholic Church is endorsed, then? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

text: This article is pretty large so it may not be merge-able with the other article; I don't know enough about the topic to be able to give a proper comment on the merits of doing so though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 September 2018