Talk:Eucharist/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lord's Supper and Communion

I merged the material from The Lord's Supper. There was no reason to have a separate page for that.--JW1805 22:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC) Shouldn't this page be at Communion, rather than Eucharist? Wouldn't that be a more non-denominational term? --JW1805 22:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

See the comments of Mkmcconn and KHM03 in the 'Main article for "Six contrasting views"' discussion above. I see no problem in having a summary of the information you've added, with links to the old The Lord's Supper and Communion articles, but it may be forcing it a bit to have EVERYTHING here. Or so it seems to me. Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I think there needs to be one article about the Christian ceremony of eating bread and wine in Church. Different denominations use different ceremonies, and attach different theological implications to it, but essentially it is all the same thing. The different variations are best described in one article. I think all the "Lord's Supper" material fits nicely in this article, but I do think maybe the opening paragraph should be reworded a bit. I realize that the term "Eucharist" would be unfamiliar to certain denominations. But, as in other Wikipedia situations when something is called different things by different groups, a decision has to be made about what to call the article (see Gasoline/Petrol, the subject of a heated discussion). That's why I suggest moving all this to Communion, since I think that word would be familiar to all denominations (am I right about that?)--JW1805 01:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hummmm...I see both points. Communion does have problems that it has other meanings, but Communion (Christian) wouldn't. Eucharist isn't a very well known term for some denominations, so some users might find it difficult to find. I think a move to Communion is in order, with the understanding that if any problems arise (i.e., a thousand "Other Uses" entries appear) then it will be returned to Eucharist. -- Essjay · Talk 09:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • We can easily put a disamb notice at the top, saying something like "This article is about the Christian ceremony involving bread and wine, for other uses see Communion (disambiguation)." --JW1805 18:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Individual pre-communion preparation

Eucharist#Individual_pre-communion_preparation seems out of place. Should it be merged with theologies or go elsewhere? Paul foord 07:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Format thoughts

Regarding the two questions above, I would suggest the following:

  • Our first priority is to settle the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion issue, especially as regards the article title. Personally, I favor keeping Eucharist, as it does not have the multiple meanings that "Communion" does, but that is something for further discussion.
  • Once we have decided whether or not to include the "Lord's Supper" material and how to name the article, I suggest that we reformat the article, so that we have:
  1. Historical roots
  2. Theology
  3. Celebration
  4. Open and closed communion
  5. Footnotes
  6. Resources
  7. See also
  8. External links
  • The "Historical roots" and "Theology" sections can be essentially the same as they are now.
  • The "Celebration" section can be divided by denomination/tradition (for example, "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Anglican/Episcopalian", "Lutheran", etc), with each of these sections further subdivided into "Individual preparation" (keeping the bulk of this material under Eucharistic discipline), "Setting", "Materials", "Participants", and "Ritual".

The current format is a relic from when the article was a lot shorter. With all the material that has been added, a reformatting is somewhat overdue.

Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Sound like a good plan to me. --JW1805 19:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for it, but don't take that as a commitment to actually do it! ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 08:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • HEADS UP! I'm going to move the page to Communion (Christianity). I will then rewrite the intro to discuss the different terms, change {{Template:Eucharist}} to {{Template:Communion}}, do a small reformat of that template, and finally (probably over the next week or two) reformat the entire Communion article as I outlined above. If anyone doesn't want me to do this, please let me know, and say why. JHCC (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro

First of all, a big THANK YOU! to everyone who jumped in to expand the introduction and terminology sections after my big edit. I guess everyone was just waiting for someone else to make the first move.

Second, before we proceed further, let's talk about the specific language of the intro. Mkmcconn did an excellent job expanding from my version, but I question some of the new language. In particular, "ordinance" strikes me as insufficiently universal or descriptive, especially since it is used below in contrast with "sacrament". I also think it is important to restore the section about the non-liturgical meaning of "communion", but it would be better in the intro. Something like this:

In Christianity, Communion is the celebration of and participation in a symbolic meal which commemorates Jesus Christ's death, resurrection, and future return. It is believed that Christ instituted this practice for his disciples at the Last Supper, prior to his crucifixion. According to the oldest continuous traditions, it is regarded as a sacrament and a means by which God grants salvation to the participants. Eucharist, a term preferred in some traditions, may refer either to the celebration of communion, or to the consecrated bread and wine of this sacrament.
Communion can also refer to the relationship between Christians and God or between different churches and denominations (see full communion).

Note that I'm not saying by whom it is believed that Christ instituted this practice, since many non-Christians believe that, historically speaking, Jesus did exist and did institute the Eucharist, even if they do not believe in it (or him) themselves. I've also added a comment within the text to future editors who might consider changing this to "Christians believe".

How does this sound? JHCC (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"Cracked" Communion?

Is this term familiar to anyone else? I've never heard it before, a Yahoo search shows this page to be the only result, and Google doesn't appear to have any. -- Essjay · Talk 06:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I asked the same question of the anonymous editor who added the comment. Here is his/her response (copied from my talk page):
The term "cracked" is similar to a door open only partially. "Cracked communion" is somewhat of a middle ground between "closed communion" (i.e., members only can participate) or totally "open communion" (i.e., all professing Christians can participate regardless of church affiliation). It means that those holding similar Christian views can participate, but not all Christians can participate. (For example, some Baptist churches will let other Baptists from other groups participate, but would exclude Assemblies of God members.) My background is Baptist and this term has been used in our circles, though the churches I attend (and attend now) practice open communion.
For now, I'm going to add a bit to the article to emphasize the colloquial nature of the term. Personally, I'm thinking that the "Open and Closed Communion" section is getting REALLY BIG and should be merged with "Open Communion" and "Closed Communion" in its own article, with some brief notes here about individual church practices. JHCC (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I am also curious about this use of "cracked communion". I am familiar the concept, but not the terminology. Among Baptists in our area (eastern Texas), the terms are open (all believers), close (Baptists of like faith & order), and closed (members of one local church). But this terminology is not necessarily consistent from area to area. Our "close communion" would be the equivalent of "cracked communion". I would be interested to know in what area of the country that terminology is in use. - Rlvaughn 01:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
If "cracked" is not an official term endorsed by some denomination (by which I mean, if there isn't an official council or national assembly or something that endorses the term), then I think it should be omitted. Ot isn't particularly discriptive, as I wouldn't automatically assume "cracked" meant "other people like us." "Close" is a much better term for the simple reason that it is somewhat self-explanitory. There are a lot of colloquial terms for various practices, and we can't include them all, so no reason to include this somewhat confusing term that reveals no hits outside this article. -- Essjay · Talk 06:20, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Essjay, I think the term "cracked communion" is ok to be on the chopping block. But I wouldn't agree with it solely on the basis of it not being endorsed by some "official council or national assembly or something". There are too many Baptist churches that are completely independent of councils, conventions, associations, etc. to make their "proper terminology" require such a narrow stamp of approval. I doubt this has much range of usage, though. I've studied Baptist groups for over 25 years and have a fairly broad knowledge of Baptists across the USA. I also have an interest in the terms of communion in Baptist churches. I've never heard the term. - Rlvaughn 03:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, let me revise my standard: If it can't be shown that the term is 1) endorsed by a recognized denomination; or 2) in widespread use outside a specific geographical area (i.e. north-southwest-central Rhode Island); then it should be removed. That goes for any similar terms. Since it seems consensus is that the term does not belong, I've removed it. -- Essjay · Talk 03:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Looks good without it. The article is certainly none the worse without the term. As for the "official council or national assembly" standard, it may have been neither here nor there as far as "cracked communion" was concerned, but I didn't want that to become a precedent we look back to, considering the autonomy that often prevails in Baptist churches. - Rlvaughn 00:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Southern Baptist & Open communion

While on the subject, I think this statement probably goes too far: "Southern Baptists, General Baptists and non-denominational groups favor open communion, in which all professed believers are invited to participate." I believe stating that Southern Baptists as a group favor open communion is a little misleading. While possibly the majority of Southern Baptists now do practice open communion, a sizable minority practices either closed or close (same as "cracked") communion. The SBC's Baptist Faith and Message seems somewhat ambiguous (seemingly leaving room for interpretation), but states that baptism by immersion "is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper." I don't think that's open communion as most folks understand it. http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#vii - Rlvaughn 01:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I have several SB friends, and I know at least one goes to a SB church where not only do they practice closed commmunion (only to members of that physical church) once per quarter, but they do it on Sunday eveining rather than Sunday morning and announce it by word of mouth so that there won't be any chance that non-members might participate. Seems like a lot of trouble to go through to keep out the heathens. -- Essjay · Talk 06:13, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
This practice of going to the trouble to make sure no visitors are present at the communion service is probably on the extreme to the right and may not be that common. But it helps illustrate that there is a wide range of belief among SB's on this issue. I think enough so that Southern Baptists should not routinely be thought of as a group that favors open communion. - Rlvaughn 03:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Title and definition

“Communion (Christianity)”, is a strange title for an article that says it “is about a Christian sacrament”. “Communion (Christianity)” brings first to mind notions much wider than that of the sacrament. To direct thoughts immediately to the sacrament, the title would at least have to be changed to "Holy Communion".

Even "Holy Communion" is not the most suitable title. Only a minority of Christians use this as their primary designation for the sacrament. Nor does it seem to be the most ancient designation among Christians. When speaking of the sacrament, the great majority of Christians use the term "Eucharist", the former title of this article.

As far as I can see, Wikipedia articles that mention Christian sacraments speak of the Eucharist, rather than Holy Communion, as one of the sacraments. They never list "Communion (Christianity)" as one.

The present introductory definition claims that "Eucharist" is a wider term than "Communion": "Eucharist, a term preferred in some traditions, may refer either to the celebration of communion, or to the consecrated bread and wine of this sacrament." On the contrary, the word "communion" is more closely associated with the consecrated bread and wine than the word "Eucharist" is, for when people speak of receiving communion, they primarily mean receiving the consecrated bread and wine, and far fewer Christians speak of "celebrating communion" than of "celebrating the Eucharist".

Please restore the former title and introductory paragraph, or at least something like it. The present introduction/definition favours a "minimalist" interpretation: its terminology is strongly reminiscent of the paragraph that begins: "Most other Protestant Churches see ..."

Lima 14:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This has already been decided: Eucharist is not representative of all of Christianity, Communion is. There is not a single Christian group that does not understand what "Communion" means. Eucharist is a term used in some churches, communion is a term used in all churches. Even those churches that use a term other than "communion" to refer to the practice use "communion" as an alternate term. (Witness the Roman Catholic Church which insists that lay servers be called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. )
Communion has more than one meaning, thus a disambiguation and the (Christianity) addition. It is the clearest, most concise, and best recognized term. It is also the NPOV term, as it expresses no preference to any given group. There is absolutely no reason to rehash the discussion; it is consensus that the article should be left as Communion {Christianity) and there is absolutely no reason to change it back. I'm sure that the community would be happy to confirm this through the RfC process. -- Essjay · Talk 07:47, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

"Witness the Roman Catholic Church which insists that lay servers be called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion" and not Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist. You are right to point this out. It shows that for the Roman Catholic Church "Eucharist" is not synonymous with "Holy Communion", still less with "Communion". -- Lima 13:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that Lima has missed Essjay's point: that this is an example of the RCC using the two terms interchangeably. I would question, however, whether or not the RCC insists "that lay servers be called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion"; see the Roman Catholic Diocese of Youngstown's Diocesan Guidelines for Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. JHCC (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I submit that the choice of "Communion" as the title is not NPOV. Read the "Terminology" section. Lima 15:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Lima and wholeheartedly second Essjay's comment above. Eucharist is certainly the oldest term, but Communion has the advantage of widespread use in all Christian traditions. Furthermore, it has the addition meanings regarding relations between churches and open and closed communion. Finally, given that Eucharist redirects to this page, its meaning is defined, and its use is fully explained, is this big deal?
On the other hand, the current "Communion, more widely known as the Eucharist, is the rite that Christians perform..." is problematic. First of all, in the RC POV, "Communion [means] the actual reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist" [1]. Also, "more widely known" is at very least questionable and unsubstantiated. I would suggest:
Communion, also known as the Eucharist, is the Christian celebration of, and participation in, a ritual meal which commemorates the death, resurrection, and future return of Jesus.
This is broad enough to cover all different Christian traditions, while still allowing for further expansion in the various subsections. JHCC (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The Youngstown directives require updating. Use of the phrase "Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist" is one of the abuses in English-speaking countries that the Holy See's instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum of 25 March 2004 asked to be remedied: "The only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest. Hence the name minister of the Eucharist belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon ... If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated ... This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not 'special minister of Holy Communion' nor extraordinary minister of the Eucharist nor 'special minister of the Eucharist', by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened" (sections 154-156, bolding by me).

Redemptionis Sacramentum introduced no novelty. Official documents of the Catholic Church have long recommended the faithful, if they have the proper dispositions, to receive communion each time they participate in the Mass. An evident distinction is thus made: participation in the Eucharist in one sense is possible without participation in the other sense (the "meal" aspect).

"More widely known" is a matter of simple mathematics. Roman Catholics alone seem to be more than half the total of Christians. Add to them the Eastern Orthodox, which far outnumbers any Protestant Church you can think of, the Oriental Orthodox ...

"Rite" is a NPOV term that can be used with equal freedom by those who interpret the Eucharist minimally or maximally. People perform all sorts of rites, not all of them sacred or semi-sacred, such as blowing out the candles on a birthday cake. But to define the Eucharist as "communion" or "meal" is, some would think, to restrict its meaning and to exclude either implicitly or, as the "Terminology" section remarks, deliberately the further significance others do see in it. So these last two terms seem to me to be non-NPOV in this context and not really any more acceptable than would be the word "Mass".

The fact that "communion" has meanings quite distinct from the Eucharistic meaning (for instance in the phrase "full communion", or in 1 John 1:3) is a drawback, not an advantage.

"Eucharist" is an established term in ecumenical circles. It is used by the World Council of Churches, which many years ago brought out a document that had a very wide circulation. I no longer have the book with me, but I think it was called the BEM (Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry) document, giving maximalist and minimalist views on each. Indeed I think rather it was called the BEMA document, but I do not remember what the A stood for.

Lima 21:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I beg leave to suggest that the present title of this article really belongs to the article at present titled Communion, Christian meaning and that the title of this article should revert to Eucharist.

Lima 11:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I was unaware that the name of this article had changed. At the very least the two are not equivalent. One celebrates the Eucharist; one receives Holy Communion. There's an entire Eucharistic theology quite distinct among those churches that believe in something like the Real Presence, and IMO it's worth having an article devoted to discussing it. The article Lima suggests can be used for a more general discussion of Communion in the various Christian churches. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I would prefer "Eucharist". "Communion" does have several meanings in Christendom, whereas "Eucharist" generally only has one, and is Biblical as well (eucharisto="thanksgiving")...and I am part of a denomination which uses "communion" more often than not (unlike Lima's, which, I think gets it right!). I defer to the community, but my preference is "Eucharist". KHM03 20:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

User Michael Hardy's suggestion (at 20:18 yesterday) that the contents of Communion, Christian meaning be merged with this article is a further indication of how ambiguous the title "Communion (Christianity)" is. This title is, admittedly, followed by the statement,"This article is about a Christian sacrament", but very many (most?) people understand "Communion (Christianity)" to mean instead the bond that unites Christians always, even when not participating in the sacrament. This bond, a clearly distinct, even if somehow related, theme, is the topic of Communion, Christian meaning. Most users will have failed to notice the recent removal of the previous unambiguous title of the present article: the link Eucharist still points here, and the body of the article continues to use "Eucharist" and "Eucharistic" as the chief terms with which to refer to the sacrament or rite.

Lima 08:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"More widely known"

If we're talking about the rite itself and not the reception of the consecrated elements, then "Communion" is indeed more widely known as "Eucharist" based solely on the information given in the article. This being the preferred usage in Roman Catholic and Orthodox circles alone means that about 3/4 of all Christians use the terms in that way. What more reference is necessary? (That's an actual question, not rhetorical.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. I made the change in the text before seeing that a comment had been posted on the Talk page, accepting that the term "Eucharist" is in fact more common than "communion" for the rite described in the article.

Lima 07:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Eucharist certainly does appear to be the more common name. Under the naming policy, that is where the article should have stayed. When it was moved, only some of the redirects were fixed, leaving double redirects that didn't function. I have moved the page back to Eucharist and fixed all of the redirects. Jonathunder 23:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Anglican and Protestant

I would request that the references to the Anglican Church be placed under an entirely seperate heading, as opposed to being placed under the "Protestant" category. Anglicans are not technically Protestant. They consider themselves to be fully Catholic and fully reformed, and are therefore unique among groups. A more accurate grouping of Christian denominations would be "Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal, Protestant." The Anglican church, in all of her official documents, never identifies herself as protestant. -- Anonymous.

Am I wrong in thinking that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England takes a coronation oath "to uphold the Protestant Reformed religion"? – Lima 12:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
"Protestant" in what way? To equivocate "Protestant" in the same way each time is fallacious. "Protestant" can mean just about anything you want to define it as. Anglicanism has historically regarded itself not really as the "Church of England" but the "Church IN England." Henry VIII was truly Catholic, and a number of English monarchs were rather Catholic too. While Anglicanism is the "Via Media," that can be taken in many ways. The truth of the matter, however, is that Anglicanism traditionally and historically only rejected papacy and church corruption. Valer 18:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with Anglicanism being listed separately from Protestantism; I also have no problem with its inclusion. It seems to me a fine middle way between Roman Christianity and Protestant Christianity. I defer to community consensus. KHM03 13:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

We have to define 'protestant' in an Anglican way. For Anglicans, protestant just means that we deny the authority of the bishop of Rome. In light of this definition, you could also say that the Eastern Church is protestant (though I would not recommend that, for they are not!). We would personally prefer not to be set under the umbrella of Protestantism, because we are truly the Via Media. If we are the bridge between Roman Catholic and Protestant, then it is impossible that we are fully one or the other. I think it would just solve a lot of confusion to list Anglicanism as a separate entity from Protestantism. (After all, there are many Anglicans who detest the name 'protestant,' and would find it highly offensive to be labeled as such. Thanks!

We can list Anglicanism separately; however, there are also Anglicans who would find it highly offensive not to be listed as "Protestant". And, Anglicanism played an important role in the Reformation. Having grown up Episcopalian, I don't think that these despisers of the name "protestant" speak for everyone. Lutheranism took one track, the Reformed another, and Anglicanism yet another. Call that "via media" if you want; but to many of us, unless the Orthodox recognize them as part of their communion, or they are in communion with Rome, they are by themselves. So, to Protestants they are Protestant, to Catholics they are Protestants, to themselves they are not. As long as it's recognized that this separate listing accomodates the special preference and point of view of some Anglicans (and not of others), it's fine to list them that way. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

'status' of the 'accidents' post-trasnsubstantiation

While the article covers quite a lot of ground, it only hints at the 'status' of the 'accidents' of the transubstantiation. A mention is made that 'catholics (...) offer adoration to the Eucharist'. Yet, during the communion, we are only in contact with the 'bread' for a short ammount of time - and the ritual of receiving the bread in itself if quite varied. For example, I've seen people:

  • receiving it using both hands in a cup-like way, then using only one hand to pick and eat the bread
  • or raising both hands cupped to their mouth in order to eat it (that way bypassing the 'picking' stage)
  • opening their mouth only, and the priest depositing the bread straight in (that way not touching the bread altogether)

Does anyone know what's the appropriate way? Also, this morning my 10 year old daughter had the ingenious idea to break the bread in half (probably copying what she saw the priest do), drawing looks of horror from the rest of the congregation. I must say I was myself quite horrified, but not sure why. Does anyone know if 'breaking' the bread post-transubstantiation is blaphemous? And dare I say, what is someone walked out with the Eucharist out of the church? Would it stay transubstantiated? Adidas 13:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Catholic and Orthodox teaching is clear and straightforward. After consecration by a validly ordained priest, what remains for a while on the altar, what is distributed to those who receive Communion, what is taken out of the church to the sick at home or in hospital, what is kept even for days in the tabernacle, is not bread. It is the body of Christ and should therefore be treated with the utmost respect, indeed with adoration. In themselves, none of the actions you describe are necessarily disrespectful, unless a people's culture or traditions classify them as such. The reactions to what your daughter did may perhaps indicate that her action did fall under such a classification. (Protestant teaching, in general, differs from this; the article suggests that Anglican teaching allows everyone to pick whatever belief they please.) Lima 17:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to the above, Anglicans cannot just "pick and choose." There is a requirement as per the Articles of Religion that one must believe in the Real Presence of Christ. Difference in opinion arises on how much an Anglican chooses to not only interpret the Article in question, but also on the level of integration of Holy Tradition or Holy Reason. In addition, Anglicanism does hold to the belief that once consecrated, stays consecrated unless reverently disposed of. There is an established practice of bestowing the "Reserved Sacrament" in Anglicanism, and even, among many Anglicans, adoration. Valer 20:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Valer

Thanks for this useful information Lima. Adidas 23:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article has become messy, needs to be edited, with better referencing to related articles, some of which could be expanded with material from here. Also this could better summarise material in other articles - the material here compared to the Lutheran position on Real Presence is a good example. Paul foord 15:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions:
  1. THEOLOGIES - each "tradition" is given a paragpraph or two, with possible links to other artilces where further details can be explored
  2. FORMS - this section can be reduced drastically or eliminated altogether; there ought to be a section which mentions the articles of the sacrament (bread, chalice, etc.), and another which gives concise overviews of the major liturgical forms (Orthodox Divine Liturgy, Roman Mass, Anglican Book of Common Prayer).
  3. PREPARATION - a brife mention and a link to this article is sufficient coverage, I think.
  4. OPEN & CLOSED TABLE - brief mentions & links to articles.
KHM03 16:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I began to make some bold changes. I hope no one is offended or upset; feel free to say "Whoa, cowboy!" KHM03 18:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the approach you take is by group, rather than by practice. Volumes of books have been written on the Eucharist by Catholics, and it may be too unwieldy. The Catholic and Orthodox sections could be huge. Dominick 18:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I think we should try to keep each of the traditions fairly balanced in size. KHM03 19:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
That is the nature of my admonishment. I don't think you can, where the Baptist people only regard this as a ritual meal, it is the central part of Catholicism. The Baptist section may be hard pressed to fill three paragraphs, but to cover the nature of the Eucharist in the Eucharisticlly based Catholic Church, I could not imagine keeping it under three paragraphs. I am not offended, You are sitting down at the table with a roasted elephant in front of you, and I am asking "are you going to eat all of that?" Dominick 19:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with clean up, but I do not think it was fair to knock off the Anglican section like that. Perhaps that was an accident, and if so, no worries. I will readd it. Valer 23:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Valer - - your edits look fine to me. Thanks. KHM03 23:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wine

Can someone tell me which ones don't use it?--HistoricalPisces 18:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

United Methodists do not use wine. Instead, we use "the unfermented juice of the grape". KHM03 18:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
In the United States, many Protestant denominations do not use fermented wine in communion. Probably most U.S. Protestants do not, including both mainline and Evangelicals. I don't know about the practice elsewhere. It would be interesting to compare. Jonathunder 02:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
ELCA and ELCIC Lutherans do typically use wine, although grape juice is often offered as an option for those who are avoiding alcohol. I had thought that most mainline churches were similar, but perhaps I was mistaken. I'm pretty certain that at least some Anglican churches use wine.--Srleffler 06:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I live in Minnesota where we have a lot of Lutherans. I asked a couple of Lutheran friends; in their experience unfermented juice is much more common. In Episcopal churches, however, I've never seen anything but wine. All of this is original research, of course. Maybe someone can find something citable for this or another article. Could be interesting. Jonathunder 03:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess I should have anticipated that there would be regional variations.--Srleffler 18:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I am Anglican and while wine is the norm, some Anglican churches do offer grape juice in addition to wine (as an alternative for those who don't want alcoholic wine). Admittedly these are Anglican churches of the "low" or "evangelical" variety which might not be too common in the USA. I have read that both the USA and Canada lack a radically low-church Anglican tradition that is present pretty much everywhere else in the Anglican world. I suspect most middle to high (and ultra-high) Anglican/Episcopal churches (whether in North America or elsewhere) offer only wine. Apodeictic 02:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic section

Lima, I really think this should be briefer. ISTM the place for a discussion this detailed is in Eucharistic theology, which obviously should be expanded to cover the whole range of theologies in more detail anyway. Here there should be nothing more than a brief summary for a "gross" comparison. If all the sections were to be as long as this, we'd have a very lengthy article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. KHM03 08:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have looked at the Real Presence article for the first time, and I see that the false account of Catholic theology recently inserted in the Eucharist article was simply lifted from there, as was the description of Lutheran theology. I think the movement should be in opposite direction. Much of the Eucharist article should be moved to the Real Presence article. There is no point in having an article on the Real Presence, if its content is to be repeated in the Eucharist article.

The Eucharist article was/is a mess precisely because of treating of so many marginal things: minimal ritual questions such as explaining "piscina" and giving its synonyms(!); details of preparation for receiving the Eucharist/Holy Communion/communion etc. Questions of open/closed communion also have absolutely no place here. There is an ample article on each of them. (Indeed I do not see why there should be two articles on that single question, which would more suitably be dealt with in a single article.)

The essential function of an article on the Eucharist is to explain what the Eucharist is understood to be. In other words, it should give the theology of the Eucharist - why on earth has someone just started a needless duplicating article on the same matter? - leaving derivative and marginal matters for other articles. For Catholic theology, the Eucharist is much more than the Real Presence or Holy Communion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church devotes its sections 1322-1405 (84 sections) to the Eucharist; it treats of the Real Presence only in sections 1373-1381 (9 sections). Instead of distorting the Catholic idea of the Eucharist by limiting it to one aspect, it would be better to expand what others hold about the Eucharist as a whole. And, if they have little or no theology of the Eucharist (after all, Jews and Moslems have none), is that any reason why we should pretend that the Catholic Church has little or no theology of the Eucharist?

If I remember right, the article Mass (liturgy) refers the reader to the Eucharist article for the theology of the Eucharist. Do we direct the reader to an article that says absolutely nothing about what Catholics see as the sacrifice aspect of the Eucharist and instead speaks, as this one did for a while, of the Roman Catholic idea of the Eucharist as "transformation of the 'elements' through the work of the Holy Spirit at the time of consecration into 'gifts'"?! How come then the Roman-rite Mass has a "Prayer over the Gifts" before the Consecration? And don't we all transform all sorts of things into gifts when we present them to others?

I should perhaps apologize for that last paragraph. It is as marginal as many parts of the Eucharist article are. Nevertheless, I mention one more marginal matter: I did shorten the Roman Catholic section, omitting two paragraphs.

Lima 13:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a Communion article for non-transubstatiation or non-consubstatiation communion, and the Eucharist should be reserved only for Real Presence meaning. The section on open and close communion doesnt really belong here at all! Dominick 14:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Its an absolutely fair criticism that this article has lost its focus. I suspect editors got too interested in the details, particular details at that, and forgot the big picture. My gut feeling is that there should be in this place a general outline of the practice with perhaps one-line summaries of the various theologies behind it, a very brief description of the rites surrounding it in the different traditions, all with links to other articles with more detailed information. There will then be sufficient space to give due emphasis where it belongs. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Oct 05

I think the article is looking better, more concise. Still some more trimming to do. I think we cover the Roman Catholic view adequately, incidentally (at least in terms of length of the section)...there is a link provided to Transubstantiation for further particulars. Perhaps the "Summary" section can be cut in favor of a link to Eucharistic theologies contrasted, which covers pretty much the same thing. Also, a paragraph or two under the Roman Catholic liturgy section & the Protestant liturgy section (focusing on, I would assume, the BCP & the Lutherans) are needed. I personally think it really is looking more "cleaned up", less rambling and "all over the place", and more concise. KHM03 14:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Communion/Community article

Communion, Christian meaning article was created recently, I moved to Community (Christian) based on statement that it relates to koinonia κοινωνία maybe merge with Communion of Saints? Has cleanup and merge notices --> needs work. Paul foord 14:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Communion, Community and the Communion of Saints all mean very very different things in CAtholicism. Dominick 18:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


The name of the article that Paul foord renamed "Community (Christian)" has, long since, been corrected to "Communion (Christian)", a concept distinct from that of "Eucharist". Why does this article on the Eucharist carry an indication that it is part of a series denominated by the ambiguous word "Communion", when the articles in the series, and the symbols used to refer to the series, cover no meaning whatever of "Communion" other than that for which there exists the clear precise term "Eucharist", used in the title of this central article of the series?

Lima 10:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Partly because some Christian traditions do not use the word Eucharist at all. Communion is a much more familiar term to some Christians. See above for more discussion of this.--Srleffler 06:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

As said above, the interpretation of Christian communion is that one day all Christians will celebrate their faith in unity with God. While the Eucharist is the partaking of the Holy Feast: The Body and Blood of Christ. (I am trying to not let my Catholic roots inject to many opinions.) To properly express the sacrament that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Churches, etc. partake, the article title must be Eucharist. (THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN TAGGED FOREVER! PLEASE LETS GET PEOPLE BACK ON THE PROJECT). Trevor 17:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


Transubstantiation/Accident

The use of the word accident in dicussing transubstantiation troubles me. While the Catholic Catechism uses the term in dicussing The Real Presence, I feel that the artice gives the term an unattained meaning; in which the transubstantiation is in itself an accident, or unattended. I propose that if the term, accident is to be kept, it must not refer to accident (philosophy). A possible redirect to a small article specificly dealing with the term in its Christian context? Trevor 18:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I was not aware that "accident" had a different sense in the Aristotelian and Christian contexts. How are they different? TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The "accidents" here do not refer to the transubstantiation itself, but to the aspects of the bread and wine which do not "matter"—their taste, smell, texture, appearance, etc. The idea is that the essence of the bread and wine are gone, replaced with the body and blood of Christ, but the superficial properties remain. I am not a philosopher, but I think that the link to accident (philosophy) is probably correct, but perhaps the concept needs to be explained better on that page, and introduced better in the text of this page. Take a look at the use of "accident" in the "Summary of views" section. Does that seem clearer than the first appearance, under "Roman Catholic: Sacrifice; Transubstantiation"?--Srleffler 02:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
This was precisely my understanding, but Trevor seemed to be saying something else. Both sections seem equally clear to me, although the "Summary" explanation is (oddly) a bit more thorough. If there's a problem with the accident (philosophy) link, it's perhaps that it's written in highly technical language not likely to be understood by someone not already familiar with the subject. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I just took a quick look at some philosophy pages, and I wonder if "accident" is used differently in Aristotelian substance theory than it is in essence theories. The accident page seems to relate to the latter, rather than the former (if there is a difference). I put out some calls for help. Hopefully someone who knows something will take a look at the page.--Srleffler 02:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
My understanding is that "essence" and "substance" mean exactly the same thing; both are used to translate the Greek "ousia". Substance theory seems to discuss the subject beyond the point to which it had developed at the time Roman Catholic eucharistic theology was formulated, but I have to confess I'm not familiar with (for instance) Cartesian thought on the subject and I can't say how it might differ from the Aristotelian. Having said that, Substance (philosophy), Essence and Ousia should probably be merged, but I'm the wrong person for such an undertaking. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing Problems

Somehow, in the process of moving one section to another or some other editing process, I seem to have deleted a big chunk of this article. For this, I apologize. Right now, I am too tired to figure out exactly what I did. If someone who is more of a nite owl than I can do so, please correct what I have done without simply reverting, since the latter would remove most, if not all, of my other edits, which are useful and appropriate. If not, I will take care of this sometime on Sunday. Again, I apologize. It was not my intention to do this. --Midnite Critic 05:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad that's cleared up. Good edit overall. I disagree, though, with an idea that appears in a couple places in your text: you seem to see disbelief in Eucharistic adoration as inherently incompatible with the Real Presence doctrine. This is POV. There are some traditions (notably Lutheranism) which hold a doctrine of Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist while rejecting "adoration" of the consecrated elements. I deleted the comment about Calvin in this regard as POV. I left the Anglican one for the moment although I do think that also needs to be edited.--Srleffler 06:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it. On the question of Real Presence and Eucharistic Adoration, you are right. (However, I don't see my position as being POV; I see it as being TRUE <g>.) However, I am open to hearing how one might believe in a doctrine of the Real Presence which, as in the case of Lutheranism, is tied to the elements themselves, and yet reject eucharistic adoration itself. This is, I would think, somehow tied to the notion that the Real Presence is not permanent in the bread and wine, but again, I am not clear on that; it seems to me that such a Presence would have to be permanent. Further, I am also interested in understanding the difference between "in, with, and under" vs. "consubstantiation." I know that conventionally, the latter term is associated with Lutheranism, but I also read, here and elsewhere, that Lutherans frequently reject the term. Can you help me out here, either by e-mail or on my talk page? Thanks. --Midnite Critic 16:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I think this is always a struggle on pages like this one. It is often difficult to even know what is and is not POV, because something that is clear in one theology may be equally clear but contradictory in another. Even with the best of intentions, we all make the mistake of writing things that are clearly true in our theology, but may not be in others (even sometimes within the same denomination). I'm not a theologian, so I can't explain how we have Real Presence without "adoration". It probably differs between denominations anyway. Some may feel that the change is temporary--that the Presence leaves the bread and wine at the end of the service. In consubstantiation, Christ is present with the bread and wine. In this point of view, it might not seem relevant to worship the consecrated bread and wine, since while Christ is present there he is also present elsewhere. If nothing else, "adoring" the consecrated bread and wine might lead one into the error of worshiping the bread and wine themselves, as objects, rather than the presence of Christ within them. I think that even the staunchest Catholic theologians would consider that an error. (But perhaps this too is POV.)
I don't know the answer to the question about "in, with, and under" vs "consubstantiation". To me, they are the same, but there are Lutherans here who feel they are different. We all seem to agree on "in, with, and under" regardless of whether we consider this to be "consubstantiation" or something different.--Srleffler 16:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Christian events

Do we really need this new category Category:Christian events, and if so, does Eucharist actually belong in it?--Srleffler 23:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The category is certainly needed for uncategorized, Christian events such as music festivals, crusades, awards, etc. However, the question should probably be, "Should the Eucharist be listed as a Christian event?" As it's obviously one, I don't see why not. What is it hurting? --Jason Gastrich 23:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's keep the new category for special events like music festivals, crusades, awards, etc. Otherwise, almost anything can be counted as an "event" and you'll end up with a category with a hundred entries that is completely useless. The categories are a great tool for finding interesting or relevant articles, when they are well organized. Note that there is already a category Category:Christian festivals. This seems to have been created specifically for events related to the liturgical calendar, not for events of the type you mentioned. I added a note to that category explaining this, and a link to Category:Christian events.--Srleffler 07:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

This article seems to have many more links than my reading of WP:WEB indicates it should. I removed these ones as apparently being homepages, but I'm not sure how much need there is for any of them given the completeness of the article. I left in things like Emerson and Wesley's articles, but even they should arguably be moved to the articles on those people unless they are sources for this article.

Liturgical texts & services

History, theology, etc.

[Unsigned comment by User:Just zis Guy, you know?

Hi again Guy. Why do you keep bringing up WP:WEB? That guideline is clearly not the standard for external links. WP:WEB defines whether a website is notable. Websites must be notable for there to be an entire Wikipedia article about that website. There is AFAIK no requirement anywhere that websites need be notable in order to be linked to in an "External links" section. If you know of such a requirement or recommendation, please post it.

Looking through the links, I agree that most of them are not useful enough to merit inclusion. Three of the links you deleted seem like they might be worth keeping, at a glance:

  • Fordham: Looks useful: medieval mass with translation into English. Good for those interested in the history of the Eucharistic liturgy.
  • Catholic.com: Provides historical quotes (citations/sources) on catholic theology and the Real Presence.
  • www.geocities.com/pastorkeith/...: provides a good bibliography.

This is a complicated page, since it deals with the discrepant beliefs and practices of many different Christian sects, and attempts to document and compare those of each while maintaining NPOV. It seems useful to me on a page like this to have a large selection of external links and futher reading to provide more information relevant to each sect, as well as material comparing them. Links that themselves provide bibiographies for further research or material of historical interest seem useful.--Srleffler 04:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

--Srleffler 04:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Protestant

I have reverted the attempt to move Anglicans out of the "Protestant" category, based on the dictionary definition and WP:NPOV. My copy of Concise Oxford defines Protestant as:

n. 1 a member or follower of any of the western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation. [...]
adj. 1 of or relating to any of the Protestant Churches or their members etc.

I would be fine with a note somewhere (perhaps on the Christianity page?), to the effect that some Anglicans (all Anglo-Catholics? Only some?) object to this. NPOV says that we document disagreements like this. We don't attempt to settle them here, and it is never acceptable to attempt to edit a point of view into Wikipedia as if it were the Truth. Protestant has a clear dictionary definition. Any attempt to implicitly redefine the meaning of the word here is POV. --Srleffler 06:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

But placing them in the Protestant category does settle the disagreement, no? As a matter of history they separated from Rome over issues quite distinct from those of the Reformers even though certain Reformation principles were adopted along the way as Anglicanism developed as a distinct tradition. This appears to contradict your definition 1, and definition 2 could only be taken as applicable to Anglicanism via circular logic. Whatever side of the issue one comes down on, the tradition has a number of features that distinguish it from the Protestant mainstream, such as claims of Apostolic succession, a hierarchical church structure, and "high church" liturgical customs -- that last admittedly alongside numerous "low church" non-liturgical congregations. I think we could be justified in listing it as sui generis with a brief note to consult Anglicanism as to why. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Anglicans are Protestants, pure and simple. Yes, their particular brand of Christianity arose from the English Reformation rather than the Continental Reformation, but it arose during the Reformation Era. They're Protestant. KHM03 11:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
To state that Anglicans are Protestants, pure and simple, is, IMO, too simplistic, and even smacks of a certain POV of its own. Nevertheless, I agree that for the purpose of an encyclopedia article, and considering the common usage of the term, Anglicans are Protestants. Anything beyond that is a church history/taxonomy debate that remains unsettled. - Rlvaughn 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The Anglicanism article begs to differ. It seems not so much a debate as a conundrum. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Anglicans reject a number of theologies that make Protestantism, Protestantism. Protestants reject the necessity of Apostolic Succession whereas Anglicans make it a necessity. Protestants also reject the episcopalian and autocephalous structures of the church whereas Anglicans are agreed with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Our Eucharistic theology, officially, doesn't agree with Protestantism as well. Officially, we recognize the "other five rites commonly called sacraments" as at least sacramental; that is reject also by Protestants. However, it is historical and also originally traditional that Anglicans accepted all seven as Sacraments. We accept icons and statues, accepting the Seventh Ecumenical Council. We have an Anglican rosary, modeled after the Marian Rosary and the Eastern Orthodox prayer rope, a recent invention but widely used and accepted nonetheless. Just these things along, and believe me there is more I could mention, should be proof positive that to simply group Anglicanism with Protestants is a mistake
Using a dictionary to define something as unique as Anglicanism does Anglicanism no justice, especially when such a dictionary is so absurdly generalized (as I've shown) in its definiton. My edit included a note reflecting the fact that many do consider Anglicans to be Protestants, so I do not believe it was a POV entry.
To solidly put in Anglicanism seperately without such a note is POV. That is why I added the sidenote. To put them among Protestants however is also just as much a POV entry! It should be noted that both the Eastern Orthodox as well as the "Roman" Catholic Churches recognize Anglicanism to be, officially, different from Protestants.
I will not edit that part of the Eucharist section anymore, but I ask everyone to seriously consider this argument. Valer 01:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, not all Protestants reject the episcopalian structure of the church (see Methodism). Also, Methodist Eucharistic theology is very close to Anglican Eucharistic theology (in fact, because of the Articles, they are close in most areas). There are other examples, of course. the point is that Methodism is Protestant. What defines Anglicanism as Protestant isn't its similarities to Roman Catholicism, but its history. It arose as a "protest" to Rome. It's a Protestant denomination...nothing wrong with that. To call it such is simply to agree with history (see English Reformation). KHM03 01:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As I posted above many months ago in the "Anglican and Protestant" part of this page, what sense of "Protestant?" Anglicanism is too complex and too varied to say we are "Protestant" and that's that. Henry VIII was a staunch Catholic. Edward VI's reign brought in a Protestant flavor, which was tempered by Elizabeth and James I, which was made more Catholic again by Charles I, and staid Catholic after the Restoration. Much of this rebirth in the Catholicity of Anglicanism survived the Glorious Revolution, which is witnessed in the Oxford Movement and the widespread then-Anglo-Catholicism in the EUCSA after American independence. In addition, with all due respect, your denomination's "episcopalian" structure is not the same as the Anglican. The article you linked to says that specifically. Your understanding of the Eucharist is also different from the historic Anglican understanding as well.
Our theology is contrary to much of classical Protestant thought. Every single honest religious scholar will tell you that it is not possible to truly classify Anglicans anywhere really. The NRSV Bible, in the "To The Reader, signifies this by mentioning Anglicanism as seperate from Protestantism (pg xxv in the HarperCollins Study Bible w/Deuterocanon). To place it solely as Protestant is POV. To place it as non-Protestant without a comment that many do think it Protestant is also POV.
Valer 01:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I must generally agree with Valer. Anglicans protest the Ultramontanism of Rome, but -- as a general theological system -- do not hold to the standard theology of the Continental Protestant Reformation. That's why Anglicans prize themselves on presenting a "via media" betwween Rome and Geneva. Anglicans say that they are one of the anceint churches, holding a valid and traceable apostolic succession, and hold to the Catholic and Apostolic Faith while being protestant of Rome. In this sense, they are not much different than the Orthodox, although Anglicanism evolved with a more Western flavor and has been theologically tolerant of a wide spectrum of views. Nrgdocadams 01:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams
Actually, I think he has phrased it very well. Given the history, and especially given the fact that there are clearly Anglicans who feel both ways, it is clearly POV (as Wikipedia defines it) to either classify Anglicanism as Protestant or non-Protestant. This is a bit of a problem for an encyclopedia, though. It's useful to be able to categorize things. It's not clear to me what the best way to deal with this is. One thing I'm not clear on: exactly which Anglicans do and do not consider themselves to be "Protestant"? Is it as simple as "Anglo-Catholics generally do not and low-church Anglicans generally do"? About what fraction of the membership of the church feels each way? If there are significant numbers in both camps, we should work out a way to acknowledge both points of view.--Srleffler 03:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

We can't ever settle this debate. Ever since the break from Rome there have been vastly different opinions held within Anglicanism as to its nature. Now if Anglicans themselves can't agree as to what Anglicanism is, how do we expect non-Anglicans to have any idea of what Anglicanism is?

We Anglicans all have "our" vision of Anglicanism and believe it to be the one true vision. This rift has grown even greater since the Oxford movement shattered the (loosely) protestant (yes protestant!) Anglican settlement. There are, quite simply put, mutually exclusive -- contradictory and irreconcilable -- visions of Anglicanism. You can't get a tractarian and an evangelical to agree on much except a vague agreement in a few doctrinal essentials and a shared dislike for theological liberalism. For the record I'm Anglican, fiercely Protestant (Reformed/Calvinist) and deeply offended NOT to be counted as protestant. I really don't care if papists think Anglicanism to be different from protestant. Having rejected the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome at the Reformation, we no longer have to bow to his (and his "ecclesial community's") opinion on whether we are protestant or not. In fact from a protestant point of view, the Roman evaluation is flawed but not far off the mark. Romanists emphasise ecclesiology over soteriology. Because Romanists like to see things in terms of ecclesiology of course they note a distinction between Anglicanism and other (continental) protestant churches. But it doesn't take a genius to realise that. You can be protestant and have no bishops or you can be protestant and have bishops -- supposed apostolic succession or not. So I have no scruples in defining Anglicanism as protestant. That is because soteriology is prior to ecclesiology for a Protestant; and Anglicanism teaches Reformed soteriology.

I have no scruples in defining Anglicanism as Protestant Reformed (not Lutheran, not Armninian -- but Reformed) in theology (the theology of the Westminster Confession is thoroughly Anglican); it is in its church structure that it is somewhere between Geneva and Rome. But for a true Protestant, this is adiaphora. As an evangelical Anglican I'm easy-going on episcopacy and Apostolic Succession. We have them as historical accidents (well I'm not sure that anyone can actually be 100% confident we have apostolic succession) but neither is essential to Christianity or indeed Anglicanism. Being a Geneva man I have a lot more in common with likeminded Christians in other denominations (eg Presbyterians) than I do with liberals or Romeward-leaning tractarians in my own denomination. In fact I think that Anglo-Catholics (if not blatantly disregarding them) twist the 39 Articles and the BCP beyond all recognition in trying to uphold their tractarian distinctives. But I'm sure they would beg to differ :-) So we have to do justice here on Wikipedia to the major views. Let the tractarians present their view of Anglicanism; let the evangelicals present theirs and let the liberals present theirs.

Who is to say that Newman's (in his pre-papist stage), Pusey's, Laud's or indeed Hooker's vision of Anglicanism is authentic? Why not Latimer, Ridley or Cranmer's? Or indeed the Puritans' and Westminster Divines'? They were Anglicans too.

Most of the articles referring to Anglicanism on Wikipedia (including the ones on the Lord's Supper andthe Real Presence) are very much Anglo-Catholic in POV and need to be revised to accommodate other visions of Anglicanism. You can't push tractarianism as Anglicanism and maintain a neutral POV. All the different POVs within Anglicanism deserve a fair hearing. Apodeictic 01:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eucharist/Archive_2&oldid=565674837"