Talk:Eucharist/Archive 5

Requires prior knowledge
One of the very worst articles regarding christian rituals in the entire Wiki. Not only does it require tons of prior knowledge to even be understandable--such as the out-of-the-freakin-blue mention of "any real change in the bread or wafer" without(!) even mentioning what the heck transsubstantiation means--it doesn't make much sense even with that required prior knowledge. I am so tempted to say that this is "typical for religious zealots", but that would be a) falling to temptation, and b) an ad hominem. I have read the entire article thrice, and I still haven't got a clue what the eucharist even is. I somehow gathered that it's a rite, but that's about it. Seriously, I haven't got a clue. This article is beyond the pale. Shape up, or delete it immediately. 128.214.133.2 12:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In essence it is a cracker that probably was unleavened bread which serves as part of the passover meal of bitter spices on roasted lamb, and unleavened bread. The meal was suppose to be a reminder to Israel of the haste of leaving Egypt after the plagues. The reminder in the New Testament is that the perfect sacrificial lamb is Christ, whose body and blood not only serve as a reminder of our redemption from slavery, but are the very essence of our salvation. As death came by Adam, so to in Christ the last Adam, Jesus has brought the congregation up out of sin into the promise of eternal rest by his body on the cross, his blood being the purchase of our souls. User:bwildasi Wed Apr 16 01:31:57 UTC 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.50.80 (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason for the WP:RS rule
I'm checking footnnotes and I find the primary sources routinely selectively quoted and not given proper sourcing.

I would propose rather than starting with bickering about content, start with makinig proper footnotes and eliminating all pontificating on the primary sources quoted. Give the translator and year of publilshing of all primary sources, and don't use anonymous sources.

Start there. Eschoir 06:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Bad sources are a good way to mess up a page. With good sources, even people who disagree with each other can work together. Leadwind (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested reapportionment of existing material
Eucharist (Theology) Contents 1.0 Names currently in use for Eucharist (partially new) 2.4 Some early sources on the Eucharist 2.4.1 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 2.4.2 Mark 14:22-25 2.4.3 Matthew 26:26-29 2.4.4 Luke 22:13-20 2.4.5 Didache 2.4.6 Ignatius of Antioch 2.4.7 Justin Martyr 4 Ritual and liturgy 4.2 Anglican 4.3 Baptist 4.4 Eastern Christianity 4.5 Jehovah's Witnesses 4.6 Latter Day Saint movement 4.7 Lutheran 4.8 Reformed/Presbyterian 4.9 Roman Catholicism 4.10 Open and closed communion 3 Christian theology concerning the Eucharist 3.1 Roman Catholic Church 3.2 Eastern Christianity: true sacrifice and objective presence but pious silence on the particulars 3.3 Anglicans/Episcopalians: Real Presence with opinion 3.4 Lutherans — the sacramental union: "in, with, and under the forms" 3.5 Methodism — Real Presence as "Holy Mystery" 3.6 Calvinist Reformed: spiritual feeding, "pneumatic" presence 3.7 Latter Day Saint movement 3.8 Zwinglian Reformed: no Real Presence 3.9 Summary of views 6 See also 7 References 8 Books 9 External links 9.1 Liturgical texts & services 9.2 History, theology, practice, etc. Eucharist (Origins) Contents [hide] 1 Histories and Derivations of Names used for Eucharist 2 History 2.05 Traditional view (words of institution) 2.75 Contemporary view (scholarship) 2.1 Jewish origins 4.0 Greek precursors (new) 5.2 Dionysus theory 5.25 Mithras theory (new) 5.3 Theophagy theory 5.4 Mushroom theory 4.1 The Agape feast 2.2 Allusions to the Eucharist in the New Testament 2.3 Early Christianity 5.1 Jesus Seminar 5.5 Survey of views on blood-drinking in the Eucharist

Eschoir 03:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Still gotta cut by half.
First to go, the quotations from primary sources that should be linked.Eschoir (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just one more of Eschoir's distractions, intended to dodge discussion. Clear up one problem before creating more.  Lima (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone stopping you from discussing? Eschoir (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

lead
Eschoir did a bang-up job on the lead, and I have high standards for leads. Lima reverted it without explanation. FTR, I'm for Exchoir's new, better lead. Leadwind (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for intervening, Leadwind. You are the answer to my oft-repeated pleas for someone to do so.  I have confidence that you will discuss matters rationally.  May I add that I agree fully with, I think, absolutely all the changes you have made to Eschoir's text.  Many more are needed.  I wish you joy in your work on this article, even if - or rather, especially if - Eschoir continues to employ the same tactics.  It was impossible to keep up with all his many changes; so I insisted that we discuss one section at a time, leaving to him the choice of section.  I could not accept his constantly shifting text as a basis for discussion, except, as I said, one section at a time.  Now that you have compared the latest introduction with the older, I have no difficulty in accepting that the older be replaced.   Lima (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I trust Leadwind will notice that Eschoir has once more put back a version of his own without deigning to discuss the differences between it and the text that existed before he made his personal changes. Even the older version has many elements of his, and it is good to see that Leadwind has begun dealing with them.  While some (by no means all) of Eschoir's edits are quite acceptable, others have appeared to be only means of distracting attention away from concrete discussion of any of them.  One excellent result (so far) of Leadwind's intervention is that Eschoir has ceased adding more of the changes that I refused to allow to distract from the topic(s) under discussion.  Lima (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "While some (by no means all) of Eschoir's edits are quite acceptable, others have appeared to be only means of distracting attention away from concrete discussion of any of them."

So you are reverting edits that are acceptable to you? Why?Eschoir (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To try to get you to discuss your changes, one section at a time, instead of continually inserting distractions. Lima (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima, stop reverting Eschoir just because you want him to edit slower, OK? If you don't have a reason to revert, don't revert. Plus, no editor gets to set the pace of editing. Now, is Eschoir doing something wrong that you'd like me to try to help you stop? Is there some biased, anti-RCC POV that he's pushing somewhere? Leadwind (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never accused Eschoir of bias, only of inexactitude, and of making Wikipedia state as fact what is only the opinion of some writer he likes. I am glad that you have started dealing with the problem. Please keep it up.


 * The primary sources that you are working on now, who do you think put them in? Lima (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's just sad, Lima. Eschoir (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I applaud your quick work, Leadwind. I question the usefulnes of the Ignatius and Justin Martyr excerpts in the body, they are candidates for linking. Didache too, for that matter.  Trim those, review the sources (II would lean to a 'no sources from pre-Dead Sea Scrolls' rule)and links and the appropriateness of the Footnotes, and this article is about ready for prime time. Eschoir (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Two requests
Lima (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The references (footnotes) are in a mess.  Would the authors of this version please fix them.
 * 2) If the lead is supposed to summarize the article, something must be done about the affirmations in it about the origins and history of the Eucharist, since these questions are no longer dealt with in the article.
 * The article should address the origins and history of the E, as should the lead. Leadwind (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then would you please undo Eschoir's hiving off of all that matter and making it into a new separate article. I have given up trying to undo Eschoir's changes, now that someone else is doing the work much more effectively.  Thanks.  Lima (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Some idiot (me) had imbedded one reference in another. Weird. Fixed. Leadwind (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The origins was 'hived off' with your approval, Lima. At 78KB the article is still too long. Eschoir (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be easier to remove the history summary from the lead and leave the history matter elsewhere? Lima (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Have you decided whether you are pro- or anti-hive?Eschoir (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank God, I can now leave such matters to Leadwind, who is doing good work on the article and has yet more to do.


 * He will, I am sure, also do something about the "see below" in the introduction that refers to a section on names for the Eucharist that he has temporarily hidden. He may perhaps wish to restore the "Names" section to something like (of course, not exactly the same text as) how it was in September 2005, when it was called "Terminology".  It was considered important then, because of differences of view on what should be the title of the article.  Lima (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"No last supper in John"
I have not made the obvious correction to this evidently false statement, by changing the words "last supper", since Leadwind, who has attributed the statement to a source (not quoted exactly), doesn't want me to touch what he attributes to sources. So I can only put in a citation request, seeing that I cannot believe that Harris did made this statement. After all, Harris doesn't hold - or does he? - that Jesus had another supper after the one immediately before his arrest to which John devotes five chapters (13-17). And Leonardo's painting of the Last Supper is taken to represent the reactions of the disciples when, at the meal John writes of, Jesus told them: "One of you will betray me", as described in John 13:21-25, not in the other gospels. Lima (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad. There's a last supper, but no bread, wine, body, blood, or covenant. Leadwind (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! How could he have left all that out? Was it so unimportant that he just forgot it? 51kwad (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In John, the "bread of life" discourse in Chapter 6 takes the place of the Institution Narrative at the Last Supper. Virtually all scholars believe that John was the last Gospel written, so its first readers would have been familiar with at least one of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), not to mention the oral "tradition" of the Words of Institution, as recorded by Paul in I Corinthians 11:23-25 (Also, in all probability, I Corinthians was written before any of the Gospels were put in writing.)  --Midnite Critic (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Histories and Derivations of Names in use for Eucharist
This section is a giant pile of punishment for the reader. It might be worth saving as a separate page. Leadwind (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Or it might perhaps be reduced to what it was three months ago, when it was only "Names for the Eucharist". Lima (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and it was only 675 words long the day of my first post, in September. Now it's up to a bloated . . . erm. . . 525 words long.  Without footnotes.  Get your facts straight before you make accusations. Eschoir (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Anabaptist View
I noticed there is no mention of the Anabaptist tradition. Any reason why this should not be added? 66.191.19.217 (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Reason it should not be added: A true Baptist is not protestant or Catholic and therefore holds a view that is completley different than any given in the articles on the "Eucharist" in Wikepedia. We do not celebrate mass or Eucharist. I thank God that we are not mentioned in conjunction with these non biblical pagan rituals which are practised by the whore of Revelation, In Proverbs it says that by a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of Bread and also condemns fermented wine altogether, it says not to even look at it.
 * Reason it should not be added:
 * A true Baptist is not protestant or Catholic and therefore holds a view that is completley different than any given in the articles on the "Eucharist" in Wikepedia. We do not celebrate mass or Eucharist. I thank God that we are not mentioned in conjunction with these non biblical pagan rituals which are practised by the whore of Revelation, In Proverbs it says that by a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of Bread and also condemns fermented wine altogether, it says not to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.18.15 (talk • contribs)

Origins, elements, anthropological analysis and comparitive religion
I actually came to the Eucharist article when searching for "Holy Communion." What I was looking for was more information about the roots of the rite and its commonality with other rites, symbology and beliefs in other spiritual practices. While, 'Eucharist' is a christian topic, i was hoping that at least there would be mention as to such things such as parallels in other cultures and traditions.

Just throwing it out there. Maybe it was discussed before. But just curious. Thank you.

Lehel Kovach (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick Edit
Referring to the "Calvinist Reformed: spiritual feeding, "pneumatic" presence" part of this page, I felt that the wording of "Many Reformed Christians, who follow John Calvin hold that Christ's body..." is incorrect. Calvinists are Christians, we follow Christ, not John Calvin. I've decided to edit it to "Many Reformed Christians hold that Christ's body..." in order to be more correct. (Also hope I did this in the right =p) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorthac (talk • contribs) 23:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Using this article for discussion of the origin of the Eucharist
I propose or re-propose the removal from this again overlong article of anything having to do with the Origin of the Eucharist and relocation to that article. Opus Lima has seconded the motion. Eschoir (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Eschoir (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should eliminate all the changes made by both of us since 31 July. That means returning the article to Flex's version of 29 July, but preserving the later changes by Barrybennett on 31 July, and by 65.79.202.58 on 1 August.  Since this involves only the two of us, there is no need to wait for the opinions of others.  I have therefore removed all our post-29 July edits.  Lima (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I have removed from this again overlong article of anything having to do with the Origin of the Eucharist as discussed above Eschoir (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, claiming that the usual description of what the Eucharist is (which was already in the article before he began his recent interventions) was a statement of its origin, Eschoir withdrew his consent to the removal of the material belonging to Origin of the Eucharist.

Statement questioned by the editor who inserted it
The editor who inserted the statement that the Eucharist is "a vestige of the common meals of Jesus and his followers, which, since the Fourth Century, Catholics have related to the '(alleged) historical event' of Jesus' Last Supper by consecrating bread and a cup" has now questioned his own statement. As the statement does not have even that one editor's support, it has been removed, together with the irrelevant quotations with which he accompanied it. Lima (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I question your unsourced SOME and INSTEAD, and asked you t oclarify the run-on sentence you creataed.Eschoir (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Appeal for intervention
After Eschoir persistently attempted to impose his ideas there with support from none and opposition from several, the Origin of the Eucharist article was protected. Since then, not being able to insert his views on the origin of the Eucharist in the article that deals with that topic, he has been inserting them here, beginning with this edit and then extending his work to other sections, in particular the lead. This, I think, is not good Wikipedia practice.

My disfigurement of his "History of the Eucharist" section here with a multitude of citation and verification requests is, in the abstract, something I should not have done. I have had recourse to it only because he removed my generic request concerning the section as a whole.

Some of my queries concern the use of tendentious terms such as (among others) "bread and cup course" instead of just "bread and cup". I question whether the sources on which he professes to base his text use such terms.

It was particularly out of place to add detailed discussion of the origin of the Eucharist to the lead section of this article. Lima (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

On two occasions it seemed that we could agree, but on both occasions the agreement fell through. So I am now appealing to others to intervene, while I leave untouched Eschoir's latest typical-style edits, including his change of the quotation from the ODCC, which he has altered to make it appear that, instead of saying that "the Eucharist ... is recorded as celebrated by the early Christian community", it said that "breaking of bread is recorded ..."

For my part, I think the article should be returned to how it was before this dispute began, adding only changes made by editors other than Eschoir and me. That was last done with this edit of 6 August. The only further edit by someone other than Eschoir and me is the one-word edit of Barrybennett on the same day.

If that is done, it will put an end to matters on which I am hard pressed to accept either Eschoir's sincerity or his understanding, such as the non sequitur on which he insists that, since the last Supper seems not to have been narrated in the earliest celebrations of the Eucharist, it follows logically (?) that there was then no belief in a relationship between the Eucharist and the Last Supper. (He ignores the evidence that the connection between the two was in fact explicitly made, even if not as part of the celebration, as early as 1 Corinthians.) Lima (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * MY Bible (St. Joseph's editon) says "breaking bread" in Acts 2:42 and 20:7. All the unsigned tertiary sources you can cite notwithstanding.

The two agreements fell through because Lima couldn't resist retaining the material covering the Origins of Eucharist in this article notwithstandng his agreement otherwise. This version was unacceptable to him/her. Working in the sandbox is also unacceptable.

I admit not comprehending lima's last point-It doesn't appear to be about the eucharist. Eschoir (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See I Corinthians 11:23-26. --Midnite Critic (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen it, thanks. Anything else to add? Eschoir (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Eschoir even minimally serious? Once again he questions what he himself has written.  Yesterday he altered the triply sourced statement "Paul the Apostle, writing to the Corinthian Christians about their celebration of 'the Lord's Supper', recalled to them the Last Supper" into the nonsensical claim: "Paul the Apostle, writing to the Corinthian Christians about the inappropriateness of their eating habits, recalled to them what he denominated 'the Lord's Supper'".  (Eating habits?!  What he recalled to them was the Last Supper, not "the Lord's Supper" that they celebrated and that they didn't need to have recalled to them.)  And today he questions his own statement by tacking a citation request to it!  Does the Wikipedia community think Eschoir's activity here is helpful to Wikipedia?  Lima (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Lima, I have asked for assistance on your behalf on the Administrator's noticeboard, and also contacted the admin who dealt with History of the Eucharist. I would try to help out myself, except that I think the right thing to do is to roll back at least the last 20 edits, and I don't have rollback privileges -- I would have to undo each of them individually.  As it is, perhaps the best approach would be to be patient a little longer, until some admin help shows up.  There's no sense in trying to improve the mess that Eschoir has created, all you can do that way is to make the situation more confusing. Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You asked for comments. Here's mine: normally in an article like this, you'd expect it to start with the common definition, not with a revisionist view that has little support. That would normally go in a later section. I think the results are bad enough to justify a rollback and precautions such as locking, if necessary. On the substance, I find it hard to see how you can say it wasn't connected with the Last Supper or words of institutions until the 4th Cent. Unfortunately the early history of liturgy isn't explicit as we'd like. But we have 1 Corinthians, which I think it pretty clear on this topic, and around 150-60 we have Justin Martyr. In 1 Apology 66 we see the words of institution, a reference to the last supper, and a reference to the Gospel accounts of it. To my knowledge, there are no descriptions between Paul and Justin sufficiently detailed to challenge the obvious assumption that there was a reasonable degree of continuity between 1 Cor and Justin. While the actual content of the History section is defensible, the wording tends to be more skeptical than I would normally expect. What one would normally expect in a section like this is a review of the early historical data that we have. There's little enough it's quite practical to summarize all the early accounts. One could then add interpretation if you like, but at least the reader would then be in a position to make a judgement. The impression of the current text is not helped by misspelling narrative in one of the headings. I'm reluctant to fix it, because I think a misspelled heading may be an appropriate introduction to the contents of the section. Hedrick (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's quite the speech for someone who has under 20 edits in almost three years. Eschoir (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You all miss the point. But you weren't here at the time December 6 last year. This article was way too long.  Sections on the Origin of the Eucharist were broken off into a separate article to make this article more manageable. Post hiving off, sections appeared here purporting to cover Origins and  History of the Eucharaist, from a traditional POV. I proposed deleting that duplicative and overlong content. This version was unacceptable to him/her.  That would have completely shut me up here.  I've got nothing to say on doctrine.  I offered to take administrator John Carter's advice, but working in the sandbox is also unacceptable to him/her.  Lima wants an edit war here. (S)He would prefer to promulgate conservative traditions often using sources over a hundred years old, or using anonymous tertiary sources. Lima's footnotes are a mess. (S)he admits to disfiguring the article (above). All I'm seeking is a NPOV.  Sorry that doesn't mean Opus Dei POV.  If it has to be here, then this is what the article will look like. McGowan, Bradshaw, Taft, Daly, these are all distinguished contemporary scholars that I quote verbatim, who came to my attention through footnote-following. Sorry to break the news to you, but Eucharist doesn't belong to one tradition. Eschoir (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What point should this article be taken back to? It looks like Eschoir first began making disruptive and disputed changes on July 29. Is there a later state of the article that is preferable to the state at that time? Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How about December 7, 2007, when history and origins were first hived off to Origin of the Eucharist article? Or how about this August 5thversion featuring no Eschoir edits at all?  Eschoir (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "No (recent) Eschoir edits at all" - except excision of all that the article said about the Eucharist in the Bible and in early Christian sources. I failed to notice this excision at the time, but it was restored when Eschoir again withdrew from his agreement.
 * The simplest roll-back, as I said above, would be to this version, changing one word so as to accept a later edit by Barrybennet. That would bring the article back to the 29 July 2008 situation but incorporating later edits by people other than Eschoir and me.  Lima (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted the page to that version, by a simple copy and paste. Not the ideal strategy, because it confuses the history, but without admin assistance it's the only way to do it. I suggest that the strategy now must be not to let Eschoir insert anything that hasn't been discussed and approved here. If he tries, just revert it. There are a sufficient number of people disgusted with his attacks that he is going to find it difficult to wreck the article without committing vandalism so blatant that it gets him blocked. Looie496 (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at this edit, which is not verifiable in its present form. Reads more like an editorial, highly POV. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

History of the Eucharist
History of the Eucharist belongs in another article. That's the reason for the December 6th excision of all that the article said about the Eucharist in the Bible and in early Christian sources. Are you arguing that the Eucharist in the Bible and in early Christian sources isn't Origin of the Eucharist? Eschoir (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In most articles like this, the usual structure is that the top article (Eucharist) gives a brief overview of the history, and refers to the deeper article (History of the Eucharist) for details. So if you're saying that History of the Eucharist shouldn't be here at all, I don't think that's right -- but if you're saying that it contains too much detail, that might be reasonable. Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no article specifically on the History of Eucharist. There is an article on the origin of the Eucharist, to which a redirect inaccurately points from "History of the Eucharist".  The origin is only the point from which the history begins.  In Wikipedia the history of the Eucharist is largely dealt with here and, in its later developments, in Eucharistic theologies contrasted.
 * Apart from what the New Testament and the early Christian sources may or may not say was the origin of the Eucharist, they report that Christians did celebrate the Eucharist, they give some account of how it was then celebrated, and they indicate what importance and meaning Christians then attached to it. These are matters quite distinct from hypotheses about what was the origin of the Eucharist, hypotheses ranging from non-religious common meals to psychedelic mushrooms. A separate article exists for that field.  Lima (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you had those limits in mind when you recently unilaterally changed the title but you didn't say that back in December. Anyway it is obviously very controversial whether the sources today rather than in 1706 report that Christians did celebrate the Eucharist, whether they give some account of how it was then celebrated, and whether they indicate what importance and meaning Christians then attached to it.  And for an article that is TOO LONG for Wiki, I'm saying saying that it contains too much detail, and that is reasonable. Eschoir (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lima, I've searched here and never found where you have advanced that arguement before today. "There is no article specifically on the History of Eucharist. There is an article on the origin of the Eucharist, to which a redirect inaccurately points from "History of the Eucharist".  The origin is only the point from which the history begins.  In Wikipedia the history of the Eucharist is largely dealt with here and, in its later developments, in Eucharistic theologies contrasted." Have you made that arguement before today? Eschoir (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant lengthy remark
What is the relevancy of the remark, "Dr. Coffman's conservative interpretations affirm the inerrancy of the Bible and clearly point readers toward Scripture as the final basis for Christian belief and practice. He confidently and clearly refutes popular destructive criticisms that have crept into modern theology, never offering interpretations that are incompatible with Christian faith and with the acceptance of the Holy Bible as the word of God", to the statement that there are many who give (both recently and not so recently) a much less lurid description of the Corinthians' celebration of the Lord's Supper than Harris does? This they undeniably do. And Eschoir would be better employed in searching for any other source that agrees with his description, still based only on a single source, of the celebration as a "near brawl". If instead he prefers an edit war, that may happily bring further interventions here. So he may prefer to discuss.

By the way, I would consider it both wrong and undignified to add to the article Eschoir-like POV remarks about Harris's connection with the "controversial" (easily sourced adjective) Jesus Seminar. Lima (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My description? Eschoir (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly seems to be the one you want, since you attack anything that disagrees with it. But, to get back to the point, what is the relevancy of the remark that you did a triple revert yesterday in order to preserve it?  Lima (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

'' it certainly seems to be the one you want, since you attack anything that disagrees with it. '' wp:proveit Eschoir (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relevant or not, the Coffman passage violates Wikipedia rules of neutrality: it's a very strong pov-push. Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That passage is taken from here, a marketing point for the book, and indicates the pov-push of the source. Does that source qualify as a good wiki-source? Do sources from 1706, 1831 and 1871 prove that 'commentators generally' give something? If so, why do you then have to suppress their 1706, 1831 and 1871edness? Eschoir (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever their date and whatever their attitude, they, like those from the 1990s, are commentators. They all, old and new, disagree with the one solitary source who is quoted as expressing a different opinion and who thus cannot be said to represent the general opinion among commentators.  So, once again, why do you insist on the long but selective quotation that does not challenge this fact?  (I say "selective", because you chose to omit the description of the work as "modern" and "Written with the thorough care of a research scholar".  And this selectivity does seem to justify Looie's remark about your pushing your personal POV.)  What is the relevance of your doctored quotation?  Lima (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So you agree not to delete the other 5 footnote amplifications? Eschoir (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not stop at last your sidestepping of the question about how your POV-ly selective long quotation can be considered relevant to the common interpretation by commentators, old and new? Lima (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Quotation Doctor, it is considered bad form to doctor your own comments in talk.

''====Own comments==== It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.

Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change, consider taking one of the following steps:
 * Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text.
 * use strike-through or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
 * Strike-through is typed like this and ends up like this .''

So this should read:


 * Whatever their date and whatever their attitude, they, like those from the 1990s, are commentators. They all, old and new, disagree with the one solitary source who is quoted as expressing a different opinion and who thus cannot be said to represent the general opinion among commentators.  So, once again, why do you insist on the long but selective quotation that does not challenge this fact?  (I say "selective", because you chose to omit the description of the work as "modern" and "Written with the thorough care of a research scholar", descriptions much more relevant to the question in hand .  And this selectivity does seem to justify Looie's remark about your pushing your personal POV.)  What is the relevance of your doctored quotation?  Lima (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself! Eschoir (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A marketing point is not a good source. Advertisements are just about the worst possible source. Looie496 (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, but the passage was not used as a source for article content. It was useful for knowing ABOUT THE SOURCE relied upon for the article content, a relevant point acknowledged by lima before doctoring. Eschoir (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My remark above was for this Talk page. I rightly suspected that you would want to talk about it instead of answering the question of the relevancy to the article of the "amplification" you gave in the article.  Pages and pages of information could be added about almost any source, but such information is rarely relevant to the article.  Is your statement that "the passage was not used for article content" an admission that it was in fact irrelevant to the article?  Lima (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As Looie was so eager to point out, it's relevance was to the reliability of the POV-pushing source. you agreed to its relevance, then tried to doctor your response, clumsily. Eschoir (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not agree to its relevance to the article, only to our discussion here on the Talk page, in view of your attempt to present the writer as unreliable and perhaps antiquated, in spite of the two statements that you amputated from your quotation. Nor did Looie, who objected to your insertion as pushing your POV.  It was and is irrelevant to the article: the sources, the one who spoke of a near brawl no less than the others, may have had their personal points of view, but they did say what they said, which is all that the article states.  Lima (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we can consider this particular point closed, now that Eschoir has made an edit in which he withdraws this irrelevant POV-revealing remark. There remains the question of Eschoir's general attitude and activity, of which this edit, to which Ambrosius007 draws attention above, is an example.  Lima (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On second thought, don't you think your time would be better spent editing rather than leading a war against Eschoir? Eschoir (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "refutes" is not neutral language. The proper meaning of the word is "disproves", & WP mustn't take sides on whether any purported disproof is valid.
 * WP:RS says that any statement that most authorities hold a certain view must itself be sourced. It can't simply be based on a survey of those authorities WP happens to have come across. Peter jackson (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, there does seem to be a shortage of citations of secondary sources here. Peter jackson (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Christian and Catholic
Don't add in nonesense like "Christian and Catholic". Its like saying "a plane and an aeroplane". Catholics are Christians if you people did not realize, some of the first ones too to follow Christ. Labelling them seperately implies some sort of distinction. Otherwise, why not name every Orthodox, Monophysite, Nestorian etc.  Gabr-  el  05:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Leavened or Unleavened Bread?
Why is there not a section on this important dispute?Research Method (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does Breaking Bread redirect hear?
Just a brief look at a search for "breaking bread" shows other meanings besides the Christian ritual. So why does "breaking bread" redirect here?Raynethackery (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Article for use
Here's an article from the New York Times about how wafers are made if needed for some citations.
 * Baking the 'Bread of Life' --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cannibalism
Never mentioning cannibalism in an article on Eucharist sounds suspicious to me. The accusations of cannibalism was common for early critics of christianity and the similar argument were later held by Protestants againts Catholics. That's not to mention the (I agree, controversial) theory that the origin of the rite is the eating of real human flesh. 77.106.118.52 (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As ever, any proposed additions require reliable sources to back them up. I too have heard that early Christians were suspected by the Romans and Greeks of practicing cannibalism, but I don't have any hard sources to hand to consult. —Angr 11:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Balance and the Branch Davidian section
I fail to see why so much information is given on the Branch Davidians. At best, this is a fringe group, and at worst their position is irrelevant. For balance alone this section should be highly condensed by reducing to two or three sentences. Thoughts? -- Storm  Rider  02:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it's putting UNDUE weight on the views of a very small group. If the info is sourced, perhaps it could be moved out of this article into a separate article on Branch Davidian views of the Lord's Supper or the like. —Angr 11:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just removed the whole thing. I was going to shorten it, but after reading it, it gave me no idea of what they actually believe.  It seemed to be entirely about what they DON'T believe. Carlo (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is still a second section on Branch Davidians in the article. —Angr 13:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the Branch Davidian section after reading the comments from the three folks above. StormRider seems to be missing the fact that pretty much all of the world's major religious started off as what may be termed a "fringe group." This is certainly true of the many Christian denominations today. Martin Luther was considered on the fringe of things in his day. Yet a lot of people eventually embraced what he taught. Furthermore, his statement that "their position is irrelevant" is wholly POV. "Irrelevant" to whom? Those who want an overall view of the subject? The subject is too broad, and involves too many aspect to reduce it to a few sentences. The very fact that the article is termed the "Eucharist" rather then the "Lord's Supper" reveals a bias stemming from the POV that the later traditional terminology (Eucharist) is worthy of more weight than the language of the Bible (Lord's Supper). So it is not unexpected that those above have chosen to avoid the substance of issues of the subject and instead focused on the numbers of adherents (which they have no knowledge of) as both StormRider and Angr have done. Might and numbers do not make something right, any more than a lack of those things make something wrong.

Furthermore, considering that the section on the BD is quite clear in stating (in a number of different ways) that they see that the Bible is saying that the Lord's Supper refers to actual fellowship meals of the church, and nothing more, and considering that Carlo could not grasp that simple fact after reading it, even stating that he has "no idea of what they actually believe," then it would seem that he might be unfit to be editing this article, and that his blanket removal of the BD section is nothing more than vandalism. I realize that such is is bold statement, but the conclusion should be obvious to the candid reader.

Moreover, many of the things the BDs teach in this regards are held in part by many others. So the fact that they have brought together the many various aspects of what may be termed the fullness of the "Protestant" point of view on the subject, their position should not be discounted as either irrelevant or unneeded.

Therefore, if this vandalism occurs again, this matter will go to those who oversee these kinds of controversies.Anyone77 (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone support Anyone77? I don't.  Lima (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I think it would be fine to have a separate article on the Branch Davidians' view of the Eucharist, just as there are separate articles like Anglican Eucharistic theology. But I do think the BDs are simply too small a group to warrant such extensive coverage in the main Eucharist article. —Angr 05:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. The Branch Davidians are a very small group, as such their theology is not Notable enough to warrant such extensive detail in this article. I would suggest removing the section entirely to a separate article, with at most a brief 1-2 sentence summary in this article. Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if I am seeing the situation correctly. This article is based on something in the Bible that is called therein "the Lord's Supper." There are 3 major terms that link to this article, i.e., "Eucharist," "Communion," and "The Lord's Supper." The Bible term upon which the first two terms are purported to be based is pushed to the end of the list. Therefore, a reader is presented with the notion that the article is primarily about the term Eucharist, and secondarily (or, actually, third in importance) about the Lord's Supper. I am curious to know by which one of those 3 terms are most people directed to the article. I think that most people would be interested in the subject due to reading the term "Lord's Supper" in the Bible. Yet, when they get to the article it is titled by a different term that has its own unique definition within a certain, limited sphere.

The term Eucharist is used by the Catholic church to specify something which is, in their teaching, is unique to them. So unique that those who do not accept their theology and practices in the matter are not even considered real churches (as noted in the article). One of their own says, " 'But in no non-Catholic church (excepting the Eastern Orthodox) can you receive Jesus Christ himself, Body and Blood, Soul and divinity. Because of the lack of apostolic orders for their ministers, none of the non-Catholic communion services is the Eucharist. Therefore, in no non-Catholic church can you be literally united with Jesus Christ.' " Ray Ryland, quoted in Catholic Parish of the Net http://www.net-abbey.org/luthcomm.htm

Therefore, it appears that this article is primarily about the Catholic teaching and practice, and those who have broken a few steps away from them (though that point of interest was left pretty much out of it until fairly recently), with little substantive information on the actual facts in the Bible which underlie the subject, and which are at the root of the controversies between the different denominations over the matter.

Yet, when information that sheds an abundance of light on the matter is presented by a small group (which, circumstantially, tends to be embarrassing to the larger groups) it is shoved aside with the words, "their theology is not Notable enough to warrant such extensive detail in this article." Tonicthebrown. With all due respect, it appears that Tonicthebrown considers himself a good judge of what "theology" is "Notable" and what is not. The fact that he uses the "Noteable" rule to put the BD "theology" in a separate article, while at the same time saying that it is not "Noteable" enough for the main article is most curious due to the fact that something must be considered of such weight to become a separate article under the "Noteable" rule, but different enough from the original subject to warrant a separate article. But such is not the case with the BD information. That is, what is presented in the BD section is most relevant to the main article on the subject as it relates to the Bible and the theology of other churches, and not a secondary, but related, "Noteable." issue, as Tonicthebrown is trying to make it appear.

If the article is primarily about the Catholic, or Catholic-light theology and practice of the Eucharist, then there should be a separate article on the Bible doctrine of the Lord's Supper, because, apparently, the discussion of that aspect of the subject (as contained in the BD section) is considered to be insignificant for inclusion here. The BD section contains many references from numerous other denominations and Bible scholars. So, those who oppose the BD section are also attempting to push the information contained in those diverse references out of the ready reach of the reader.

History has shown us that this particular issue (Eucharist/Lord's Supper) has led to a lot of blood shed among those professing Christianity. It is obvious that it is the Catholic Church's claim to fame (so to speak), even going so far as to boast that those who do not participate with them in it cannot "be literally united with Jesus Christ," and have harshly treated any who opposed their authority and assumptions. In 1560, John Knox and other Scottish reformers, along with the Scottish rulers, passed a law forbidding the practice of the Mass (celebration of the Eucharist) under the penalty of death for a third offense. I would be quite naive to think that said antagonisms have vanished, and do not underlie the attempt to push the BD view of the subject off into a corner, or out of the picture altogether.

The very fact that the article starts out with a description from the Encyclopedia Britannica (which certainly expresses a POV slanted towards the Anglican [Catholic-light] Church and their theology, which it would dare not openly challenge), reveals a clearly prejudicial tone, which, when challenged by information such as contained in the BD section, is not willing to be fair and allow people who come to the article to be readily exposed to opposing points of view. Furthermore, that whole situation and current controversy is diametrically opposed to the founding principles of Wikipedia, which, to my understanding, is dedicated to a fair presentation of information on its subjects. From what I have read, the diminutive size of a group is not a disqualifying factor that can be used against the inclusion of their information on Wikipedia.

Therefore, unless someone has a better argument for removing or moving the BD section other than the supposed size of the BDs, or their personal opinion of what is 'Noteable" "theology," I will restore the section to the main article. I will wait a little while for others to respond before doing so.Anyone77 (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My, my, my, we do think highly of oneself and one's religion. First of all, there is no evidence that any religious groups is "embarrassed" by the doctrines of a fringe religion. Second, it does not matter that you "think" the Branch Davidians will one day turn into a major religion. We do not write articles today while guessing about what will happen in the future. We write articles today about today and the past period. The article is completely out of balance with the amount of verbiage paid to the beliefs and practices of the Branch Davidians. Third, this is not a soapbox for you and your religion. It is an article about the Eucharist. It should include and explanation of who, what, when, where, and why as dictated by major Christian religious groups, denominations, churches, etc. Fourth, Wikipedia does not value the opinion of any editor; we value reputable references by experts in the respective scholarly field. Fifth, we cover the majority position first and foremost...ALWAYS. I am not a Catholic, but I recognize they make up the vast majority of Christianity. The article should begin by stating the majority position and work out from there where appropriate. Fringe positions are simply seldom covered. Why do you think the Branch Davidians are so vitally important that they be covered so much? In case you were not aware, all Christian religions base their beliefs of the Bible, specifically this sacrament of the Eucharist. The BD is just one view among 36,000 Christian denominations and a very small one at that. -- Storm  Rider  17:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for major tidy up
Hi everyone, I've been looking through and tidying up this article a little bit. I have a couple of concerns I'd like to raise. Firstly, this article is massive and unwieldy. It attempts to cover every major eucharistic theology of all the churches, followed by every eucharistic practice of all the churches. My second concern is that there seems to be a lot of content forking going on with eucharistic articles. There is an article on Eucharistic theology, Eucharistic theologies contrasted, Real Presence, etc. etc. which all seem to cover similar ground.

I would propose the following. This article should be considerably shortened. The material under eucharistic theology, dealing with all the churches' views, should be transferred to Eucharistic theology, with just a brief summary here. An article on Eucharistic liturgy and practice should be created to contain the material in the section "Ritual and liturgy".

So then, this article would function as a reasonably concise overview of the history, theologies and practices/liturgies of the Eucharist, with detailed content found in the sub articles:
 * Origin of the Eucharist
 * Eucharistic theology
 * Eucharistic liturgy and practice

Tonicthebrown (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The very fact that you want to blanket everything related to this article under different sections with the Word "Eucharist" in them reveals a prejudice which is not within the spirit of Wikipedia. This is not a Catholic encyclopedia. The very fact that you want to greatly shorten the article is nothing more than an a attempt to stifle true investigations of the subject because most people dislike jumping around from page to page even more than they dislike scrolling down one page. There are some articles that need to be long due to the nature of their subjects, and this is one of them.Anyone77 (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Anyone77, the word "eucharist" is not a Catholic term. It is a term used by many Christian churches, Catholic and non-Catholic, and is in fact found in the Bible as the article explains here. (With all due respect it seems to me that you have a heavily anti-Catholic bias which colours your view of the entire topic.) Secondly, my suggested revision is not an attempt at a cover up. It is fully in line with WP:SS, and an attempt to resolve issues of WP:CFORK and WP:SIZE. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Tonicthebrown's suggestions are well worth taking into consideration, and I think Anyone77's biases are revealed also by his dismissal of Anglicanism as "Catholic light" (not even original; didn't Robin Williams make that joke years ago?) and his assertion that the Branch Davidians (of whom no one would ever have heard if it hadn't been for David Koresh) have "shed an abundance of light on the matter". More heat than light, I'd say. —Angr 12:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The outline could be a little more fleshed out. I agree that this article does not need to address every groups view/practice of this sacrament. However, I do think we can cover the more common practices then with some of the minor differences. I would do away with the diverse sections and cover most of the material in narrative format under just a few sections. For example, transubstantiation is the norm, but then who believes differently; it goes from actual body and blood of Christ to symbolic and so on. Is that what you were thinking?-- Storm  Rider  17:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

From what you all have said it is clear that you may not understand my primary point, or don't want to acknowledge it, so I will state it as simply as I can. Is this article about what the Bible calls the Lord's Supper, or about the Catholic interpretation of the word and practice, that is, the Eucharist? Tonicthebrown states that the word "Eucharist" is not a Catholic term, and is in the Bible. As the link he directed me/us to states, it is used in reference to the Lord's Supper as a "verb," not as a noun as the Catholic Church does. There is a big difference. He, and that Etymology section fail to mention that the word, as a noun, is never used in the Bible as descriptive of a "rite," and especially not in conjunction with the bread and wine. Again, when it is used in regards to Jesus' when he "gave thanks," it is only a verb. It is the Catholic's claim to fame that the word "Eucharist" is applied as a noun to a priestly "rite," and not the simple "act" of giving thanks. Therefore, the Bible doctrine of the Lord's Supper and the Catholic "rite" of the celebration of the Eucharist (which they most certainly do claim is a fresh atonement/sacrifice), are two separate things. That is why many other major non-Catholic churches do not use the term Eucharist. He also says that Euchrist is a "term used by many Christian churches, Catholic and non-Catholic." We have been told that there are 36,000 Christian denominations. Please name the major "many Christian churches" that use the term. There are really only a few. So, I ask again, which of the two is this article about? If it is about the Bible term "the Lord's Supper," and Jesus giving "thanks" that is one thing. But if it is about the Catholic "rite" they have called "the Eucharist" that is another. It seems like there should be two separate articles on those subject rather than starting from the Catholic view and then maybe working back to the Bible view.

As stated in the BD section, the Bible never speaks of Jesus blessing the bread or wine, or any other food. That is, their section points out that when the Bible speaks of when Jesus "blessed" with the bread or wine in His hands that the word "it" or "them" is not in the text, unless it is supplied in italics (meaning that it is not in the text). This fact is not uniquely related by the BDs (as many others point out that fact), but they have the most solid, and reliable sources and references in one package relating to the "Protestant" view. If you know of another, please tell me.

Moreover, Stormrider says that "transubstantiation is the norm." It is the "norm" for those who believe the Catholic teaching on the matter, but as that 1992 Gallup poll quote relates, 70% of Catholics do not even believe in it. None of the Protestant churches (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists,Baptists,etc.) believe it. The reason those bodies are called Protestant is because they are protesting against the Catholic Church's doctrines and practices, one of the foremost being their teaching and practice of the Eucharist. That is a simple fact of life. One may say that the Catholics are the largest body of Christians, but that is not really an accurate facts due to the fact that the Catholic Church counts anybody they have ever baptized, regardless of whether or not that person even believes in God, goes to church, lives as a Christian, or has even left the church and joined another one. Most people are not aware that even if one baptized as a Catholic personally renounces the church and joins a Protestant one, that the Catholic Church still counts them on their roles because they have a certain set of rules and steps one must take to have their name taken of their roles, and very few do that. So, their numbers are skewed, to put it mildly.

So Stormrider thinks that we should start from "transubstantiation"and then go to opposing views. Isn't that a bias towards Catholics? The BDs have an in depth opposition to "transubstantiation," but you all want to push it out of sight, supposedly being of little import. Angr says that the BDs would not even be known of were it not for the Koresh incident. I guess that depends on what circles one runs in. They won an award from Religion in the Media (the Academy Awards of religious broadcasting) in late 1982, and another from another large international religious group (The Dove Awards) around the same time. A few month later Koresh (then named Vernon Howell) burned down their publishing house. During the few years before than, and for a while thereafter, their leader was interviewed by numerous newspapers, on a NBC religious discussion program, and radio talk shows, and elsewhere. They were also written up in reports of some major meeting of different Christian denominations by those non-BDs who attended them.

My statement regarding the Anglican Church being "Catholic-light" was not intended to be original, nor any kind of derogatory statement, and I have also heard Robin Williams use the phrase. But it was in use for some time before he used it. It just means that they are less Catholic than are the Roman or Orthodox Catholics. I am certainly biased against the Catholic Church for a number of very sound reasons. I am not ashamed to say that, nor should I be. Catholic individuals are one thing, the organization and their teachings and practices are another.

Even though someone has moved most of the substance of the "Eucharistic theology" section to a separate page, and it includes in depth descriptions of many denominations, the BD portion is pushed off of that page to even another one. Why? That section states that "Eucharistic theology is a branch of Christian theology which treats doctrines concerning the Holy Eucharist." "Holy Eucharist" is a Catholic notion (which is where some of the few Protestant churches who use the term [those that are fundamentally Catholic-lite] get it from). So even that section is focused on the Catholic view of the Lord's Supper, rather than the central, underlying subject itself - that being the Bible doctrine of the Lord's Supper. None of you have addressed my point that the Bible term, "the Lord's Supper" is given last place in the list of terms, and the term "Eucharist" given the first. The whole thing is backwards. It should start out with what the majority of Bible historians (including Catholic ones) admit. That being that the Lord's Supper was originally the Christian fellowship meals (the Agape) which the taking of the bread and wine according to Jesus' injunction was an integral part, and later evolved (or devolved) into a priestly sacrifice called the Eucharist. But the real facts that support that view are not even mentioned in the article, and one may only find the sources that sustain that truth by going to the "Eucharistic theology" section, then to the BD separate section. The fact that the "Agape" and notable Christian historians and commentators who show its relationship to the Lord's Supper are not even mentioned in the main article (though they are in the BD section), is unfair to the readers, and shows a bias on the part of the writers and editors in favor of the Catholic Eucharistic rite concept. So, again, what is the article really about?Anyone77 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your argument about Catholicism not being the largest church is without merit. It is acknowledged by numerous sources as being the largest Christian church on the earth. As a rule, I do not argue with experts. Again, I am not Catholic and have no axe to grind, but I will state the facts. In fact, if you take the Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism there is no other group of Christian churches that comes close in size...and all of them use the term Eucharist. You seem to place a high degree of significance to the term. The Lord's Supper and Eucharist can be used interchangeably. I prefer the term Sacrament, but when another Christian speaks of Holy Communion, Eucharist, Lord's Supper, Holy Sacrament, etc., I know immediately what they are talking about. I think most Christians also know what is being discussed. This article does a good job of providing the different names that are used. If you want to change the name of the article to Lord's Supper, I don't really have a problem, but that is an issue for consensus; Eucharist works fine for me because it is the term used most in Christianity.
 * Your personal views of Roman Catholicism are irrelevant to this article and you are encouraged to keep those opinions to yourself. Suffice it to say that each of those 36,000 Christian denominations use the same book of scripture, but each interprets sufficiently different to cause them to have their own church. Each claims to teach the truth based upon their interpretation. Wikipedia does not care about what is true, we care about what experts, reliable references, say about what is taught.
 * My main issue is the the BDs amount to a few thousand (hundred) believers; they are insignificant in the scheme of world Christianity. I have no problem with enlarging the history section and quoting how the Lord's supper was practiced during the first few hundred years after Christ. However, Wikipedia is most concerned with how the Lord's Supper, the Eucharist, is practiced today. It is a living sacrament that is very much of value in today's churches.
 * Please do not think we do not "get you"; we do. The problem is that you are coming from the position of wanting to proclaim what is "true". We don't do that; that is best for a personal blog, but not for writing articles. -- Storm  Rider  06:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Stormrider,you say,"Wikipedia does not care about what is true, we care about what experts, reliable references, say about what is taught." I have heard the founder of Wikipedia state its purpose, and I do not recall him ever saying that he did "not care about what is true." Are you saying that an expert liar finds a good home at Wikipedia? You must not consider Moshiem, Hastings, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, New Catholic Encyclopedia, and many others to be reliable because they are quoted in the BD section. The term "expert" seems to be subjective. A lot of people thought Bernie Madoff was a reliable expert. Well, he was. But at what?


 * The only reason I stated my "personal views about Roman Catholicism" is becuase Tonicthebrown said that I seem to "have a heavily anti-Catholic bias which colours your view of the entire topic."


 * You all have managed to avoid most of the issues I raised about focus, content, and nature of the article, instead choosing to focus on side issues such as church numbers. For example, if the 1992 Gallup poll is accurate when it reports that 70% of Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation, then what does that do to the claim that the Catholic view is the most widely held, and therefore due a preeminence in the article?Anyone77 (talk) 04:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a review of reliable sources would help you understand by what is meant by reliable references or an expert.
 * The reason Wikipedia does not care about truth is because there are so many different groups that claim to be "true". The Catholics have the One, Holy and Apostolic Church, the LDS (Mormons) have the one true, restored Church of Jesus Christ, Islam has the one, true and last prophet, Muhammad with the last revelation, the Qur'an. That doesn't begin to cover the vast numbers of other religions, churches that claim to be true. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth, but we report about what reliable sources say is true; there is a big difference.
 * In the case of this specific topic, Wikipedia must first address the who, what, when, where, and how of the largest groups, which would be the orthodox churches. We then begin to cover those beliefs in the smaller groups and so forth. It is impossible to cover every possible doctrine, or fringe in these articles so Wikipedia directs editors to draw lines at fringe concepts.
 * Please understand that as individuals we care very much about what we believe is true, but we restrict the expression of that truth on Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia and not a personal blog or soapbox. I have added several links to policies, you might want to spend some time becoming familiar with them. The reason we have not responded directly to your questions is because they do not matter to the article. Good editors will seldom engage in those types of conversations; they don't go anywhere! Why would a Catholic and a LDS argue on Wikipedia about what is true? It serves no purpose. We work together to produce great articles and make no attempt to proselytize, convert, teach, etc. Does this help? -- Storm  Rider  16:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Controversies" section
The question of Eucharist, which is all that the first paragraph speaks of, is dealt with in its own section.

The second paragraph falsely says a 2007 document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "reasserted its contention that its teaching and practice in regards to the sacrament are the true ones": the document was not speaking of its teaching and practice in regards to the Eucharist, but was instead giving its view on the necessity of apostolic succession and the consequent genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery for constituting a Church in the proper sense. The document certainly did not "conclude that through a toning down of their rhetoric towards their "separated brethren," ... "all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church".

The rest too is merely Original-Research personal comment.

I think the whole section should be deleted. Lima (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What else is "giving its view on the necessity of apostolic succession and the consequent genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery for constituting a Church in the proper sense," except a reassertion that their own teachings and practice on those points are the only the true ones? They weren't speaking of anyone else's succession, teachings or practices. Nor are they making just a general statement about the matter. Their statement is wholly self-serving in that they were truly reasserting their opinion that they are right in those things, and everyone else is wrong. Thus the statement is not false.


 * You also say,"The document certainly did not 'conclude that through a toning down of their rhetoric towards their 'separated brethren,' ... 'all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church'. The last part after the "..." is a direct quote from the document. Their words that brought forth the statement about them toning down their rhetoric are these: "The term ecumenical movement' indicates the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity. These are: first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult" Isn't their saying that they should "avoid expressions, judgments," etc., simply mean "tone down such things in our artistic use of speech," for that is what the word "rhetoric" means. Look it up. That aspect was the very first thing they listed, which would imply that it was important enough to take seriously.


 * All those things you call "Original-Research personal comment" are simply commonly known facts. What you seemingly object to is that they are stated at all.Anyone77 (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your paragraph 1: The 2007 document takes for granted that the Catholic Church's teaching and practice concerning the Eucharist are the true ones. It does not "reassert" this.  What it "reasserts" is that certain groups are not Churches in the proper sense.  Other documents (re)assert that the Catholic Church's teaching and practice concerning the Eucharist are the true ones, but that is not what this document sets out to do.  It is the other documents that should be cited, not this one.
 * Your paragraph 2: The last part is a quote not from "the document" (the 2007 document), but instead from a 1964 document. Even the 1964 document does not speak of "toning down of their rhetoric". This phrase is your Original-Research interpretation.  Neither the 2007 nor the 1964 document speaks of "artistic use of speech". Lima (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read through this "controversies" section, and in my honest opinion it is a rambling mess of WP:OR and WP:POV which does not benefit this article, and should go. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency?
In Passover (Christian holiday), the claim made that unleavened bread representing Christ's body is marked as "original research?" yet the claim made on this page that the bread of the Lord's Supper was "almost certainly unleavened" is not marked such or even as needing citation. Now, I'm not a regular Wikipedian, so I ask is 2 + 2 = 4 original research? What I mean is assuming that the bread broken at the Lord's Supper was "almost cetainly unleavened" (which is not marked original research), then it follows that: 1) the bread broken at the Lord's Supper was during the Passover celebration, and was thus unleavened (source: Bible and "almost certainly" statement of this article), 2) the bread broken represented Christ's body (source: Bible), therefore 4) Christ's body is represented (at least "almost certainly") by unleavened bread -- which is the statement made on "Passover (Christian holiday)". I was planning on editing that article, but as it has been the matter of some controversy I thought instead I would point out what seems like inconsistency between the two articles: It would seem either a) the "almost certainly" of this article be marked "original research" (which I don't want to do myself since it is probably a fairly visible article) or b) the "original research" on the other article should be removed. If instead it's c) that the conclusion drawn from 1-4 above is acceptable, then it would be permissible for me to edit the article to state this, correct? 71.102.231.120 (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These are two distinct questions. What is stated here (and, unquestioned, in the other article) is that unleavened bread was/is used at a Passover meal (whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal is a different question). What is questioned in the other article is the apparently original research argument ("therefore") leading to the conclusion that unleavened bread represents Christ's body. I presume that the objector saw this as a case of non-permitted original synthesis and requested a reliable published source that proposed the same argument.  The arguments you mention above would also be cases of original synthesis.  Lima (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would remove it since I don't think "almost certainly" is true. The Eastern Orthodox use leavened bread, and they do so because they say that the word for "bread" in Greek is the word for leavened bread.  And Greek is their language. Carlo (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)