Talk:Eucharist/Archive 1

I have put the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view first of all in order to make the first paragraph easier to understand. Also transubstantiation and consubstantiation are now at the end of the intro. Anyway, I think the article could do with a little polishing (only as regards to style, structure, etc...).

Hope the above helps. Pfortuny 20:07, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Eucharist and POV

 * Regretfully I have now no time enough contribute to the page, but from NPOV I recommend to add "and Eastern Orthodox" to the introduction of the article. The mass consist in two parts in the Eastern Orthodox: anamnesis("Take and eat, this is my body...") and eucharist. Now the article gives an impression this is only a Cathoric concept. I guess also Coptic Orthodox and others share this concept, including Protestant denominations, but I'm unfamiliar with them. KIZU 21:47, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is strongly POV from a Roman Catholic Scholastic understanding of the Eucharist, with other traditions (Orthodox and Protestant) lumped together under "Divergent theological stances." To say that the Orthodox really do "consecrate" even if they call it something else and that the Protestants' teaching is colored by their lack of apostolic succession, as if that were the only factor in theological difference, is extremely patronizing.JHCC 20:15, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the article is titled "Eucharist" and some Protestants wouldn't even know what "Eucharist" is. (I'm Baptist BTW.)  There is also a separate article on the Lord's Supper.  Any suggestions for reorganizing these articles?  Samw 01:21, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * That section was written by me. The difference between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox is only a theological difference. They have the same faith in the salvific bread and cup. With Protestants the theological diversity becomes more significant. This article touches upon Scholasticism rather briefly; there is a profound historical thread that is far more important. Scholasticism is just a refinement of the understanding that preceded it by centuries. Trc | [msg] 04:28, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

JHCC/TRC

 * I've added a link to Lord's Supper; thanks for the heads up, Samw.


 * Trc, first of all, you've done a great job putting in all that material; thank you. I've also added a short bit on the Words of Institution; feel free to put in chapter & verse links.


 * The problem with the article is that it reads more like a Roman Catholic theological manual than an encyclopedia article. There's a lot of work to be done sorting out what belongs specifically to the Roman Catholic tradition, what to the Orthodox, what to the Anglican, etc, as well as showing what is common to all the traditions.  For starters, I'd suggest adding "Roman" to "Catholic", just for clarity (Orthodox also consider their church Catholic).  It should be possible to make this a really great article that fairly describles all relevant traditions without making it seem like ONLY the Roman Catholic POV (or the Orthodox or the various Protestant, for that matter) is the only legitimate framework for understanding the Eucharist.


 * I'm going to make a couple of changes in the "Divergent theological stances" section (not least being a name change), just to show what I mean. JHCC 14:30, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It is important to make a historical presentation of this term. Note that the majority of the history of Eucharist pre-dates the East-West Schism. Also, "Roman" Catholic is inaccurate, as it obscures all the other Catholic Churches, and as the Orthodox Churches are of course called Orthodox by proper name. Don't mix proper name with theological intent. Trc | [msg] 14:43, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I did make the change to "Roman Catholic", since this is the commonly accepted term for both the Church and its theology. It seems to me that keeping simply "Catholic" does more to obscure than to clarify (which is, after all, our goal!), but I'm wide open to suggestions.


 * EXCELLENT point on pre-Schism theology. Perhaps we could have one section on "Early Christian Eucharistic Theology" and then show developments in theological exposition on a chronological "branching tree" model.  For example, the development of Protestant theologies is closely related to the degree of reform proposed.  Martin Luther, an earlier figure in the Reformation, had a much less radical approach to reform than, say, John Calvin, and this is reflected in the Eucharistic theologies of the Lutherans and the Presbyterians respectively.  Also, there is much that can be done with the historical study of the Anglican/Episcopal tradition, as there was much debate within that tradition of the nature of the Eucharist. ( JHCC 15:30, 28 May 2004 (UTC) )


 * There is a section about earlier theology. This Protestant content would be good, and could go into your new section. Trc | [msg] 15:44, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm also going to try to find some good (non-polemical) external links for an Orthodox viewpoint. JHCC 15:30, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Your edit of 'divergent theologies' inadvertently made it look like Catholic worship is not a union of earthly with heavenly liturgy, and that the Holy Ghost is not relevant to what happens at consecration. These are points the 'two' traditions have in common, because they ante-date the Schism by a millenium. Trc | [msg] 15:12, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Good point, perhaps this could be fixed by putting it into the proposed "Pre-Schism" section. JHCC 15:30, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

In thinking about this over the weekend, I've had the following thoughts, and I'd like some discussion before I start cutting. It seems that this is turning into an article about Transubstantiation, which already has a very good article of its own. Also, all the source material (while very good for providing a historical justification for the doctrine of Transubstantiation) tends to overwhelm, without, IMHO, providing clear information to someone coming to this with no theological or historical background. I'm wondering, is there a way to simplify? Can we have this article focus on the visible aspects of the Eucharist (comparing Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant practices) with links to separate theology pages? Perhaps a one or two sentence summary of each theology in its respective section would help as well. A descriptive approach could also make NPOV easier. JHCC 14:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear JHCC: You may be correct in thinking it possible to improve the presentation of this term ("eucharist") to encyclopedia users. I would say that two of my prime objectives are (1) to ensure a presentation of the historical use of the term, and (2) to avoid inadvertent suggestions that the Catholic Church is spiritually dead and purely legalistic. I am enthusiastic about a more complete exposition of modern theologies as well. I will watch your work with interest. Trc | [msg] 16:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Big edit by JHCC

 * Well, I did it. A LOT of material has been cut to make this more user-friendly.  I've tried to make this as descriptive and NPOV as possible, but I may have missed a few spots.  Is there anything that anyone can add to the "Catholic Eucharistic Theology" section to cover reservation, adoration, etc?
 * I'm sorry if my edits step on anyone's toes, but the devotional material, while very interesting and (hopefully) of spiritual benefit, really did get in the way of the rest of the article. JHCC 18:31, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Trc, could we please discuss this before you simply revert the article to the way it was? JHCC 19:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the deleted sections to pages of their own, with links from this. Best of both worlds. JHCC 19:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Hm, interesting. Please tell me one thing: Have you deleted anything, in the move from page to page? Do I have to check for every clause? There's no easy compare feature to use, to see what changes you may have made. Trc | [msg] 19:55, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) (That was kind of you, to go and add in those little wiki links. But everything else, is it all there, somewhere? Trc | [msg] 20:01, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) )


 * Any deletions are purely accidental (but not essential!); I copied the entire sections straight over without making any changes. We lost the wikification that you'd done to popes & councils, but I've tried to fix that.  Sorry if I missed anything.  JHCC
 * You'll notice that some of the moved material remains in the "Catholic Eucharistic Theology" section. JHCC 20:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear JHCC: You've worked pretty hard on this, and in theory I don't object to the outcome. The Eucharist is the most important thing on earth, and I thought it might deserve a contiguous treatment, but as long as critical content is available in a way that does not appear to minimize or dismiss it, it is acceptable. So I accept your changes, under the condition that this is not simply a prelude to eventual elimination of the necessary content, or its dilution by other means. I want a clear accounting of the historical meaning of "Eucharist". I will now proceed to work with you on your edits, making a few helpful changes here and there; don't panic if you see me edit Eucharist, it won't be a revert unless a larger strategy becomes apparent down the road. Trc | [msg] 20:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I do not intend to eliminate the content, although I do think that the new pages could use some editing and NPOV work.  It's especially important for those of us with strong beliefs to be especially careful when we describe (as opposed to advocate) them.  Remember, Wikipedia is not our own personal soapbox(es); it's a neutral knowledge base and resource.  JHCC 20:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think your admonition is warranted. I presented a valuable historical background for the signification of the term "Eucharist". As for your edits, they blur distinctions that betray a lack of key knowledge here and there, and on another entry, Closed communion, you deleted a fact that turned out to be true. I had to restore it. So please be careful about issuing warnings regarding the nature and purpose of Wikipedia. Trc | [msg] 20:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Closed Communion edit, it was correct: see my note on the Talk page for that article. As far as my edits on this page are concerned, I'm doing my level best to make this article as clear and informative as possible without favoring any particular viewpoint.  In your commendable enthusiasm, you present Catholic material as the norm, without qualification.  So, for example, your sentence in the intro "To varying degrees, according to different branches of theology, it represents the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary, for which Christians are thankful", while perfectly true, is strongly Catholic POV.  An Orthodox, asked for a one-sentence explanation of the eucharist, might say "It represents the fulfillment of the Divine Economy, of the Incarnation, the Resurrection (of which the Crucifixion is an essential part), and the restoration of fallen humanity."
 * What you describe as my "blurring of distinctions" is an attempt to be as neutral as possible, to account for the (unfortunately) great variety in Eucharistic theologies and practices. The only time that we can say "The Eucharist is thus" is when that view is common to all traditions.  Otherwise, we have to qualify.
 * This is not to say that your material is bad or does not necessarily belong in this article. It is to say that it should not be presented as the norm.  If you are going to have a description of the vestments and objects of the Mass, for example, specify that this is the Catholic form, otherwise it gives the impression that this is true for other forms as well.  The words "In the Catholic practice,..." or "In Orthodox theology,..." or "In the Anglican form,..." will serve us well.
 * I admire your commitment to making this article as thorough as possible. Between your enthusiasm and knowledge and my editorial pickiness (along with anyone else's contributions, of course), we're going to going to make a great article.  JHCC 14:03, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no problem at all discovering that I have a lacuna here or there. I would be all too pleased to have the introduction more completely emphasize the "fulfillment of the Divine Economy", an idea found in the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church and eminently apostolic. What I would propose is: Try to focus on contextualizing, rather than on omitting. As for catholicism being the norm, in terms of the history of the Eucharist, the norm is pre-Schism with a bit of disagreement over how to describe it. The historical presentation was intended to show common points. Later theologies are of course divergent, and gladly so. Anyway, I am never opposed to facts. What I am opposed to is the wholesale elimination of facts. Facts are good. Context is good. Truth is good. Trc | [msg] 14:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Trc, thanks for organizing this discussion page. I have added a section at the beginning of "Eucharistic Theology" to cover common ground between traditions (the Calvary reference is moved to here). More work to be done, perhaps contrasting views of sacrifice? There's good material over in "Sin" and "Salvation"; perhaps we could flesh out (pardon the pun) the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican sections with some of this material. JHCC 17:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Names
There seems to be an obvious omission in the names, i.e. "Mass". In fact it's so obvious that I feel I may have missed something. Is there a technical reason to exclude "Mass" from the list of names? DJ Clayworth 18:21, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I distinguished Mass from Eucharist in the names section. Samw 03:10, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My Greek phrasebook gives &epsilon;&upsilon;&chi;&alpha;&rho;&iota;&sigma;&tau;&omicron; for "thanks," is there some connection? --&#9829; «Charles A. L.» 14:53, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. I referenced Webster's explanation under the names section.  Feel free to elaborate. Samw 03:10, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Afaik, Eucharist (Eucaristía in Spain) is meant to mean "thanksgiving" -the act of giving thanks-, but my greek is nothing to call home about. Pfortuny 07:45, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Articles
I'm going revert the "derive from Articles" back to "codify in Articles"; Protestants maintain that they derive their theology from Scripture and codify it in Articles. Saying that they derive it from Articles would be like saying that Catholics derive their theology from canon law.

Sorry, that last was from me. JHCC 13:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see what you mean. I emphasized "derive from" because the different groups have differing sub-sets of the original articles, but "codify in" works equally well; my term emphasizes the historical progression of the use made of the articles, but "codify in" refers perhaps to the actual articles. Trc | [msg] 14:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Bingo. JHCC 14:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a Wikipedia article "Articles of Faith" that contains only the Mormon "Articles". Is anyone up to adding Anglican, Methodist, etc?  JHCC 14:30, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lutherans
An anonymous edit has corrected the views of Lutherans to include belief in the Real Presence. Is that all Lutherans, or just one synod? Luther himself held Real Presence at the moment of communion, but not afterwards -- any experts there? I'm afraid that my sources on this might be biased. Mpolo 07:11, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Anglicans and Lutherans
I don't think Anglicans and Lutherans necessarily believe the same thing. Anyway, most Anglicans I know DO believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. They call it the Real Presence rather than strictly defining it in terms of accidents and substance and so on. But the bread and wine really are transformed. I don't think this article makes this clear.

Re: Anglicans and Lutherans
Many of the Englsih Anglicans do not believe in the Real Presce, however those who do are known as Anglo-Catholics, as far as I know they either believe in consubstantiation, or that the bread just becomes blessed bread.


 * It is actually a requirement for Anglicans to believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist according to an implied reading from the Articles of Religion. There is certainly however a range of Anglican views however, from transubstantiation (almost always Anglo-Catholics) to spiritual presence only (Reformed theology-following Anglicans). Most likely however, most would agree with both a bodily and spiritual presence of Christ. Valer 13:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Valer

worship offered to the Eucharist
In the section of this article devoted to Roman Catholicism, I wrote that "Catholics worship the Eucharist." Some individual changed this and wrote "Catholics offer particular respect to the Eucharist", but this is not true. The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is Christ Himself, and therefore, It is worshipped. This has been reaffirmed by the present Pope and previous Popes. "Particular respect" may be offered to statues and to symbols, but such a phrase is inappropriate when describing the Eucharist.


 * Worship is a little tricky and open to misinterpretation. I've changed it to adore and linked it to Eucharistic adoration, but I'm open to suggestions. JHCC (talk) 04:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While, "worship" is an acceptable term (the Catechism does say "worship") I made the original change because I was concerned that a non-Catholic might not understand the theology behind the term and would get the wrong idea. I agree the term is tricky and open to misinterpretation. Adoration is reserved for God, so I think that's an also an appropriate term, particularly since there is an article on Eucharistic adoration. I would not oppose returning "worship" to the article as long as there is an explaination of why worship is an acceptable term for the Eucharist. -- Essjay ·  Talk 06:42, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * To explain why "worship" is an acceptable term for the Eucharist, it would have to be restated that the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is really, truly, and substantially the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. Eucharistic adoration is not idolatry, as the adoration is directed towards what Catholics truly believe is Christ Himself, not a mere commemoration or representation of Him.

I understand the theology; my concern is that the passing non-Catholic might not understand the theology. My view is that "worship" can effectively be used in the article, but it just needs to be plainly stated that the Church teaches the Eucharist is Jesus, that that is why it is worshipped. It is the job of an encyclopedia to be a source of information, and as such, "worship" should be included, because it is correct information. However, it is also the job of an encyclopedia to be a source of education, and as such, the term should be explained for what it is. To the average Christian from a denomination that does not belive in Real Presence, the idea of "worshiping" communion is unthinkable. Since most denominations don't do a very good job of explaining what other denominations believe, it is unlikely that the average non-Catholic would understand the theological background.

I've seen the revision as it stands, and I'm going to do a little tweaking. -- Essjay ·  Talk 21:52, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

RC Eucharistic Theology & disbelieving Protestants
To "Since any Catholic can receive the Eucharist in the "fullness of the sacrament" (Catechism, Section 1390) simply in a sip of consecrated wine (even an approved low-alcohol wine), even those who cannot safely consume wheat can safely partake of the Eucharist", User:24.220.248.36 added "Many Protestants view this as proof that the Eucharist is not really Christ Himself, but the Church acknowledges that at the moment of Consecration, the accidents of the bread and wine remain, including all the effects of those accidents. Nevertheless, it is still Jesus Christ."

This strikes me as problematic for a couple of reasons: A note under the appropriate Protestant theology section to the effect that Group X does not accept the Aristotelian distinction between essence and accidents or that the bread and wine do not become the Body and Blood (whether individually or dually) would be a lot more helpful than this business.
 * 1) It implies that, if the RC church did not hold that the bread and wine both individually become both Body and Blood, then Protestants would accept that the Eucharist is Christ himself.
 * 2) The "Nevertheless, it is still Jesus Christ", unqualified, crosses the line into RC POV.
 * 3) It's off topic. The point about accidents of both remaining can be incorporated into the previous section, but this paragraph is not about refuting Protestant objections.

Keep in mind that an Orthodox Christian would consider the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood (c.f. the Prayers before Communion: "...I believe also that this is truly thine own most pure Body and that this is truly thine own most precious Blood...") and would also be able to partake of the sacrament fully in only one element (as is often done with reserved sacrament for the ill), but would nonetheless consider this idea (that the bread and wine each become both Body and Blood) at best an unnecessary mental exercise and at worst a sinfully presumptive attempt to impose human reasoning on the mysteries of God. In other words, rejecting this idea is not the same as rejecting the reality of the change; it is a rejection either of this explanation of how the change happens or even of the idea that the change can be explained.

So unless someone has a better idea, I'm going to move the relevant bits to better places and remove the unnecessary bits. JHCC (talk) 28 June 2005 13:47 (UTC)


 * I am United Methodist, and I believe wholeheartedly that the bread & wine (or juice) consecrated in the sacrament are the body and blood of Christ, not merely representatives of Christ. But...Methodist sacramental theology has never tried to precisely define what happens or how it happens, preferring to allow the mystery to remain a mystery...not something to be explained, but a gift of God to be enjoyed.  That said, I would favor your edits to remove the unnecessary (and possibly inaccurate) lines.  KHM03 28 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)

Main article for "Six contrasting views"
I'm not sure that Real Presence is the best choice for a main article for this section (or even that there is currently one best choice). Real Presence is a useful concept, but it forces the discussion into a Protestant framework. This section needs some re-working anyway. Any thoughts? JHCC (talk) 4 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)


 * Actually, I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right that it does impose Protestant terminology on the issue - and that wasn't my intention. On the other hand, there is no controversy in the Catholic church.  To speak of "contrasting views" implies Protestantism.  I'm not sure which approach would be best. This is complicated a bit by the fact that the other article uses less conventional terminology to designate the various views, than this one does.  Mkmcconn (Talk)  4 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)


 * Here is a page which may be a starting point to what you're looking for. KHM03 4 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)


 * Oh, you mean that article I created a year ago by moving a large table out of the main Eucharist article? (grins sheepishly)  Not a bad idea.


 * Part of our problem here is that there is not always a common language or terminology for the different categories of theology. For example, the Orthodox and the Methodist would (as far as I can tell) cleave to the "Pious Silence" model, but I don't know that either would use that term, descriptive and accurate though it may be.  JHCC (talk) 5 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)


 * It might be fairly said that, all except the Roman Catholics and the Zwinglians cleave to a "Pious Silence" model. Mkmcconn (Talk)  5 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)

Here's a thought. What if we expand the introductory paragraph of the Eucharistic Theology section with a note about the variety of views on the bread and wine themselves, something like:
 * Different churches also have different beliefs about what (if any) change occurs in the bread and wine during the celebration of the Eucharist, ranging from mere symbolism to a literal change from bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. See Eucharistic theologies contrasted.

We can then move the six contrasting views over to "Eucharistic theologies contrasted" as an introduction to that article and as a framework for cleaning it up. We can also add links to that article on the pages for Transubstantiation, Real Presence, etc. JHCC (talk) 5 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)


 * This seems like an orderly idea. There is a bit of a problem, sometimes, with Essay titles becoming ghettoized to the periphery of the topic.  As a result of this, the Main article loses its well-roundedness, even if the series of mutually-referring articles are well-rounded when taken together (which will not necessarily happen).  Mkmcconn (Talk)  5 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)


 * Additionally, some (such as the Baptists), may consider "Eucaharist" to have nothing to do with their practice of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. Eucharist, to them, sounds to some of them like the Holy Mass - which they reject.  So, in order to avoid having a central discussion lost due to incompatible terminology, we have to carefully choose an appropriate title for the main article, and for the redirects that take readers there. Mkmcconn (Talk)  5 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)


 * I like JHCC's proposed change.  As far as folks who don't like the term "Eucharist", they may not object to it as strongly as we may think.  It is a Biblical word, and, if we include links to things like "Lord's Supper", and make it clear that not everyone likes the term "Eucharist", that will satisy most folks, I think, and keep things NPOV. KHM03 5 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)

Template creation proposed
Another approach that we might consider, is to create a section template, which would be inserted in all of the articles that treat this topic. Then, all of the articles would be completely uniform in their wording, and would all point to the same article for the main topic. Mkmcconn (Talk) 5 July 2005 18:13 (UTC)
 * I like that idea! KHM03 5 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)
 * Here is a proposal, or at least a starting point. KHM03 5 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)

Orthodox liturgical practice
I reverted Wesley's edit about Orthodox kneeling practice for two reasons: So let's think about how we can improve the section as whole.
 * 1) It's inaccurate. Kneeling at certain specified points in the liturgy is common practice in the Carpatho-Russian tradition (and other related traditions as well).  Wesley's edit was much too broad.
 * 2) This entire section needs a lot of work. It appears to have been originally written from a strongly RC POV and still retains a flavor (with perhaps a subtle hint of condescension?) of "The Orthodox are kind of like the Catholics, except in this way that they are different" (i.e., this is how the Orthodox depart from the RC norm) rather than "This is what the Orthodox believe."

Finally, and somewhat off topic, has it struck anyone else as ironic that KHM03 is a Wesleyan, but that Wesley is Orthodox? JHCC (talk) 8 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)


 * Well, Wesley was significantly influenced by Orthodoxy, but was still very Protestant. He was kind of what you get if you cross Protestantism with Orthodoxy and Catholicism.  Best of all worlds, if you ask me!  Right where we need to be!  KHM03 8 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
 * Take a look at that link again. That's User:Wesley, not John Wesley. Csernica 19:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It was not inaccurate at all. Those Orthodox who only attend the Liturgy on Sunday may get the impression that there's never any kneeling, but the truth is that on weekday Liturgies kneeling is traditional at certain points.  See the "How to pray in church" section in the back of the Jordanville Prayerbook. There's nothing particularly Carpatho-Russian about it.  I agree, however, that it was a stylistically awkward insertion. Csernica 19:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm not saying that kneeling at a weekday Liturgy is only a C-R tradition.  Rather, I am saying that (in addition to the weekday kneeling) there is also, in the C-R practice, kneeling at Sunday Liturgies.  Wesley's addition clearly implied that there is never kneeling on Sundays, which is, as I said, too broad.  JHCC (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I had it backward. It's really questionable as to whether the C-R practice is at all Orthodox though.  As far as I know, it stems from American Uniate parishes with RC-style pews and kneelers, and isn't found anywhere else. Csernica 04:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be surprised if the practice did originate in the Uniate tradition, but (having never actually been to a Uniate liturgy) I've only personally encountered it in Orthodox churches. I'm also not sure that this is only an American custom; I recall having heard people telling me of encountering such practice in churches abroad.  JHCC (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a former Uniate, and I've never experienced this in an Orthodox church including heavily C-R parishes on the east coast of the US. Is it perhaps a rare practice, which you've experienced from time to time just by chance? I don't actually know. Csernica 22:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My own personal experience is this: in one OCA parish I visited in PA, EVERYONE kneeled at during the Anaphora. In my old parish in OH, several people (but not everyone) kneeled at approximately the same point.  I'm not sure about the origins of the PA parish, but they may have originally been Uniate and come in with St Alexis.  The OH parish had always been Orthodox (founded 1905-ish), but may have had some people bringing the kneeling with them when they moved into the parish.  Someone told me that this is a C-R practice, but they may have been mistaken or I may have misheard.  I'll try to do some more research: ask some old knowledgeable priests and such.  JHCC (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Just so I'm clear: The Uniates have the points at which they're supposed to kneel, stand, sit, and so on actually printed in their "pew books", and no distinction is made for Sundays or anything else. (It's been 20 years so I could be misremembering. They may not have knelt during Pentecost.) These points correspond closely to those points where the people are to kneel, sit and stand in the Latin rite, so after becoming Orthodox (in a parish with no pews at all as is typical in the OCA-DOW) and learning what the traditional Eastern practice was, I had come to assume that the Uniates had gotten it from the Latins.  Even after St. Alexis there was considerable fluidity in the C-R community, and it was not uncommon for individuals and families to cross over between Uniatism and Orthodoxy and back again.  This happened in my own family as well, on one occasion over the calendar if you can believe it.  There was therefore much opportunity for a certain amount of "cross-fertilization" in popular ligurgical practice.  It might seem characteristically C-R, but that could just be an artifact of how it came to be. Csernica 01:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That all sounds about right to me. Both the OH & PA parishes had pews (ugh) with kneelers (double ugh), but nothing written in the "pew books".  Your "cross-fertilization" model makes a lot of sense to me.


 * BTW, your family history reminds me of something a Galician friend said to me once about where his family went to church: "It depended on whether anyone was fighting with either the Orthodox or the Uniate priest. Blood was thicker than chrism." JHCC (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Csernica, you said above, "I've never experienced this [kneeling during the Liturgy] in an Orthodox church." After Liturgy at the AAC, are you prepared to revise that statement? JHCC (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Had a chat with Father Paul Lazor of St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary about the whole kneeling thing. To quickly summarize, he confirmed the "cross-fertilization" idea, as well as adding some historical detail about many of these liturgical practices being imported from Roman Catholicism in response to Catholic criticism of Orthodox liturgical sloppiness.  Additionally, as the Eucharist itself became less and less for public consumption (and more reserved for the clergy only), you saw more and more physical expressions of popular devotion: kneeling at various times, touching the priest's phelonion during the Great Entrance, standing next to particular icons, the multiplication of prostrations at specific times (especially in Old Believer practice), etc, etc.  JHCC (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologize; I must have been distracted before and didn't see these posts. I'm actually a little surprised an expert confirmed what was nothing more than a guess on my part becuase it generally goes the other way for me.  I'm therefore not disappointed to learn there was a little more to it than that.  As for Liturgy at the AAC, all those I attended were on weekdays, not Sundays, when kneeling is perfectly appropriate. (That is, I think the pronoun got a little misplaced. I said I never experienced "this", where "this" referred to Sunday kneeling.) Although I personally prefer "kneeling" in the sense of the head to the ground rather than standing on the knees, I concede that this is not always practical. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

New section, maybe even new article
I propose a new article on Eucharistic discipline, in which we describe the various practices of preparation for the reception of Communion. I know that the Catholics and Orthodox have different regulations for the length and type of fasting, frequency of confession, etc, but I'm not sure about Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, or other Protestants. A short summary in this article would be good, and then in the main article, we could have quotations from Canon law, the Church Fathers, important writers, etc. JHCC (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That could be a fine article; just make sure it links to Open communion and Closed communion. KHM03 13:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Article created. Calling all Eucharist article expanders!  JHCC (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)