Talk:Eucharist/Archive 3

Alleged pre-Christian origins

Just for the record - - I don't have a problem with this section. First, it makes it quite clear that these theories are "alleged" and not "fact". Second, it's at an appropriate place in the article--after we've discussed the major theological takes, liturgical practices, etc. Finally, it belongs here, and not at Transubstantiation (where it began) or on another related article, and the move to this page shows, I think, good faith on the part of the author. If there's any controversy, I say we keep it. KHM03 16:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about it, and about the two versions that are reverting back and forth. I just went through and fixed links in the current version. One note, though: as mentioned in the article on cannibalism, ritual cannibalism is actually much rarer than claims of ritual cannibalism. It's much more common for a religious group to be "smeared" with claims of cannibalism by its enemies, or for one to claim to practice cannibalism without actually doing so. Claims that mystery cults actually practiced cannibalism or Omophagy should be treated skeptically here, and it might be better to avoid the issue by focusing more on "the idea of feeding on the life-force of a mystical entity". --Srleffler 05:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

True, actual cannibalism is a matter of controversy, but the mythology concerning the practice certaily real. Prof. Barry Powell,Ph.D (University of California-Berkeley), professor of classics, mythology, argues that "Christian notions of eating and drinking "the flesh" and "blood" of Jesus in order for individual followers to celebrate the ratification of the new covenant and to commemorate the sacrifice of the cross and His promise of return, was influenced by the cult of Dionysus. Certainly the Dionysus myth contains a great deal of cannibalism, in its links to Ino. Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers. In a less benign example of influence on Christianity, Dionysus' followers, as well as another god, Pan, are said to have had the most influence on the modern view of Satan as animal-like and horned." This is quoted from, Classical Myth Third Edition, a standard university text. Giovanni33 08:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Are there really many scholars who hold that the first Christians (Jews and people close to the Jewish religion) invented the Eucharist in imitation of Greek or Middle-East mystery religions? Was "feeding on the life-force of a mystical entity" really part of the ritual of, for instance, the Eleusinian Mysteries? Apart from the Dionysiac rites (at least as presented with poetic licence by Euripides), was promoting the eating of raw flesh common in mystery religions? Where did the mystery religions get leaders to conquer and kill so as to "promote the ritual eating of raw flesh and organs of conquered leaders to absorb their power"? Did the Council of Trent really teach that the Eucharist "conveyed in actuality the purported mystical benefits of flesh-eating and blood-drinking that were proclaimed by the proponents of cannibalism"? Lima 09:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, no one claims that this was invented in imitation. Rather only that the idea is not original but follows, like other ideas found in Christianity, from pre-Christian reglions, either adopted following the same tradition, or copied. Its hard to say. But, the idea is not original or unique. And, it is commonly accepted in secular academic circles that the Chistian shape of the sacred mysteries -- while developed out of creations of Jesus and his apostles -- is strongly influenced by the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and the Near East in which it developed. The reality here is that, if you go back and trace the history, you will see that this is quite frimly in the mainsteam of the historical and archeaological evidence.

The Catholic Encylopedia itself ties these non-Christian bloodly rituals. What the Christian Fathers did was invent a new language for the heathen practice of blood sacrifice. The Catholic Encyclopedia (CE) for exmaple us that the doctrine of Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, defines sacrifice as a way of attaining communion with God with a sacrificial blood offering, and goes on to associate Christian sacrifice with the various forms of blood sacrifice among pagan religions. It talks about the substition of humans to horses, for example, of drink concoction made of water and flesh which was believed to bring immortality, and ofcourse of animals like sheep, pigs and oxen, and that there is evidence that humans were once offered. The CE goes on to describe Jewish and Canaanite sacrifice. Then it boasts of its superiority because "Christianity knows but one sacrifice". Thus, Christians can continue the practice without experiencing the sight of blood.

"Christianity knows but one sacrifice, the sacrifice which was once offered by Christ in a bloody manner on the tree of the Cross. But in order to apply to individual men in sacrificial form though a constant sacrifice the merits of redemption definitively won by the sacrifice of the Cross, the Redeemer Himself instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be an unbloody continuation and representation of the bloody sacrifice of Calvary."

So, Christianity, like other religions, share these essential pagan features and functions, with the ritualized blood shedding practices of yore, adopted in a modern fashion. The doctrine of atonement is of heathen origin. It is based on the assumption that no sin can be expiated without the shedding of blood.

The American scholar Camille Paglia refers to herself as a 'disciple of the Cambridge School of Anthropology'. She writes succinctly about pagan mystery religion and Christianity. "Paganism," she states, "recognized, honored and feared nature's daemonism [i.e. its amalgam of both good and evil] and it limited sexual expression by ritual formulae. Christianity was a development of Dionysian mystery religion which paradoxically tried to suppress nature in favor of a transcendental other world." 13 Of the Greek god Dionysus, she writes: "Heir to the Great Mother of chthonian nature, he is, with Osiris, the greatest of the dying gods of mystery religion. Out of his worship came two rituals of enormous impact on western culture, tragic drama and Christian liturgy." 14

Paglia insists "that Christianity could not tolerate the pagan integration of sex, cruelty, and divinity." 15 In the passage below she explains how the worshippers of Dionysus integrated these three elements:

"The violent principle of Dionysian cult is sparagmos, which in Greek means "a rending, tearing, mangling" and secondly "a convulsion, spasm". The body of the god, or a human or animal substitute, is torn to pieces, which are eaten or scattered like seed. Omophagy, ritual eating of raw flesh, is the assimilation and internalization of godhead. Ancient mystery religion was posited on the worshipper's imitation of the god. Cannibalism was impersonation, a primitive theater. You are what you eat. The body parts of dismembered Osiris, scattered across the earth, were collected by Isis, who founded a shrine at each site. Before his arrest, Jesus tears the Passover bread for his disciples: "Take, eat: this is my body" (Mt.26:26). At every Christian service, wafers and wine are changed into Christ's body and blood, consumed by the worshipper. In Catholicism, this is not symbolic but literal. Transubstantiation is cannibalism. Dionysian sparagmos was an ecstasy of sexual excitation and superhuman strength...The scattering of sparagmos inseminated the earth. Hence swallowing the god's parts was an act of love. 16

Paglia buttresses her arguments with quotations from the Greek biographer and moralist Plutarch who lived near the time of Jesus: "Plutarch says dismemberment is a metaphor for Dionysus' metamorphoses "into winds and water, earth and stars, and into the generations of plants and animals". Dionysus, like Proteus, shifts through all forms of beings, high to low. Human, animal, plant, mineral: none has special status. All are equalized and sacralized in the continuum of natural energy...Plutarch says "riddles and fabulous tales" about Dionysus "construct destructions and disappearances, followed by returns to life and regenerations". Mystery religions offered initiates eternal life. Promise of resurrection was and is a major reason for Christianity's spread." 17

13. Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (New York: Random House, 1991) 25.

14. Paglia 88-89.

15. Paglia 138.

16. Paglia 95.

17. Paglia 95-96. 216.104.211.5 17:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Paglia might not be the best reference to show broad support. Her ideas in other areas have certainly been controversial and unconventional. There is some discussion of this issue at the article on Dionysus, however.--Srleffler 23:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I submit that my questions about the origin of the Eucharist have not been answered. What Giovanni33 says at length above would be pertinent if the Eucharist had first appeared in, say, the second century. But is it really believable that the very first Christians, of Jewish background, chose to institute a rite based on an "idea (that was) not original but (that) follow(ed), like other ideas found in Christianity, from pre-Christian reglions, either adopted following the same tradition, or copied"? It was clearly not "adopted following the same tradition", and it is highly unlikely that people of that background would have "copied" it from such a source as Giovanni33 indicates.

Talking about "getting off the relevant points of the section", is not this basic point about the time and ambience of the appearance of the Eucharistic rite decidedly relevant?

Lima 08:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You ask, "But is it really believable that the very first Christians, of Jewish background, chose to institute a rite based on an "idea (that was) not original but (that) follow(ed), like other ideas found in Christianity, from pre-Christian reglions, either adopted following the same tradition, or copied"? To answer your question, yes, althogh these connections may simply be religious archetypes.

Christianity adopted and absorbed--as it was bound to do--many world-wide doctrines found in older religious. This is true with most of the main doctrines of Christianity--namely, those of Sin and Sacrifice, the Eucharist, the Saviour, the Second Birth, and Transfiguration. They all show that they are by no means unique in for this religion, but were common to nearly all the religions of the ancient world. What we see is simply giving these older notions new fine spiritual significance, a redressing, while it often also narrowed the application and outlook of the doctrine down to a special case. The same happened with regard to other Pagan doctrine, the doctrine of transformations and metamorphoses; whereas the pagans believed in these things, as the common and possible heritage of every man, the Christians only allowed themselves to entertain the idea in the special and unique instance of the Transfiguration of Christ.

The basics of the Eucharist had a widespread celebration (under very various forms) among the pagans all over the world. By partaking of the sacramental meal, even in its wildest and crudest shapes, as in the mysteries of Dionysus, one was identified with and united to the god; in its milder and more spiritual aspects as in the Mithraic, Egyptian, Hindu and Christian cults, one passed behind the veil of maya and this ever-changing world, and entered into the region of divine peace and power.

A lot of this is just substantial amelioration of a more modern outlook with regard to these matters, but the same had begun already before the advent of Christianity and can by no means be ascribed to any miraculous influence of that religion. Abraham was prompted to slay a ram as a substitute for his son, long before the Christians were thought of; the rather savage Artemis of the old Greek rites was (according to Pausanias)1 honored by the yearly sacrifice of a perfect boy and girl, but later it was deemed sufficient to draw a knife across their throats as a symbol, with the result of spilling only a few drops of their blood, or to flog the boys (with the same result) upon her altar. Among the Khonds in old days many victims (meriahs) were sacrificed to the gods, "but in time the man was replaced by a horse, the horse by a bull, the bull by a ram, the ram by a kid, the kid by fowls, and the fowls by many flowers."[2]

[1] vii. 19, and iii. 8, 16.

[2] Primitive Folk, by Elie Reclus (Contemp. Science Series), p. 330.

In respect to these main religious ideas, and the matter underlying them (exclusive of the manner of their treatment), Christianity is of one piece with the earlier pagan creeds and is for the most part a re-statement and renewed expression of much wider and earlier doctrines.

64.121.40.153 19:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"But is it really believable that the very first Christians, of Jewish background, chose to institute a rite :based on an "idea (that was) not original but (that) follow(ed), like other ideas found in Christianity, from :pre-Christian reglions, either adopted following the same tradition, or copied"?"

Precisely so. The Virgin birth, sacrifice and resurrection and theophagy were so common in previous religions that they functioned as markers for people to recognize Jesus as a god, rather than that they were characteristics unique to Christianity. --Tchoutoye 11:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 wrote, The doctrine of atonement is of heathen origin. It is based on the assumption that no sin can be expiated without the shedding of blood. It's true that this idea is found in many heathen religions, but it is also found in the Hebrew religion, and undergirds the whole idea and practice of offering animal sacrifices to atone for sins. This idea is firmly grounded in the Tanakh. As Christianity has always claimed the Tanakh as its basis, adopted it as the Old Testament (mainly using the Septuagint at first), and quoting it extensively in the New Testament as authoritative, it is much more straightforward to suppose that Christianity borrowed this idea from the Hebrew religion rather than surrounding mystery cults. Wesley 17:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if User:64.121.40.153 (non-logged-in Giovanni33? or perhaps not) were to argue more convincingly that the Eucharist originated in the conscious or unconscious wish of the very first Christians to establish a rite such as User:64.121.40.153 pictures, that would be no reason to exclude from the article a contrary point of view.

There is no need for User:64.121.40.153 to state the obvious fact that Christianity, growing at first in a Jewish and philo-Jewish ambience, considered sacred the same writings that the Jews considered sacred, believed in God and in sin and expiation by animal sacrifices.

The Letter to the Hebrews seems to have been written for Christians who were discouraged at being excluded from Jewish worship and its animal sacrifices. It was written long after the Eucharist was established, but nowhere tells its addressees: "But you have in the Eucharist, a replacement - according to Giovanni33/User:64.121.40.153 - for animal and even human sacrifices."

The thesis of Giovanni33/User:64.121.40.153 about the origin of the Eucharist might be believable, if it referred to something that arose in Christianity of the fourth, fifth, and sixteenth centuries and whatever century the "Theses of Bonn" (whatever they are) belong to. That would give time to absorb non-Jewish influences. But there is written evidence from the year 57 that, even that early, the Eucharist was a long-established practice.

The reenactment by the first Christians of something - whatever it was - that Jesus did and said at his last supper is far more likely to be the origin of this practice than the learned (i.e. recherché) interpretations that some "scholars" have attached to it much later. People learned or unlearned repeatedly attach meanings inspired by imagination or superstition to many things that happen even my mere accident, but the archetypes that inspire those interpretations are not the origin of the things that happen. Are we or are we not discussing origins, not interpretations? Lima 08:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Remember, though, that the section is called "alleged", not "proven". Also, it makes clear that it is not a universal belief among historians, and it's relatively brief. Seems pretty fair to me. KHM03 12:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And to me, as long as it keeps more views than that of Giovanni33/User:64.121.40.153. Lima 13:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are content to leave it to the version worked out by Nrgdocadams, which I accept; its respects your content but does so accurately and with NPOV language. Giovanni33 01:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed this bit: (who are said to have promoted Omophagy, the ritual eating of raw flesh and organs of conquered leaders to absorb their power). I have asked several times on related Talk pages which groups in this region actually practiced this, and the only answer I recall seeing was that the various legends had cannibalistic elements in them. And incidentally, please don't assume that because I made a few edits to that paragraph, that I fully support everything else in that paragraph. All it means is that I'm tackling it in small pieces. Wesley 04:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A great improvement. When this section began, it claimed in its title to identify the origins of the Eucharist. I altered that to "alleged origins". At last, the section withdraws its claim to discern the origins. I hope Giovanni33 will be content to leave the section free of its previous presentation of only one interpretation of the Eucharistic rite. If, instead, he insists on presenting only his own interpretation, he should move the section up to where other individual interpretations are presented and place it, most likely, immediately after "Zwinglian Reformed: no Real Presence". It need not then be written in neutral-point-of-view form. Perhaps that will please him best. Lima 10:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"No" to that move, unless there is a non-negligible group of Christians who hold this belief. The section on Christian theology is for documenting the beliefs of groups of Christians. A scholarly theory about the origins of Christian doctrine is certainly notable and deserves inclusion in the article, but should not be placed as a subsection of "Christian theology", unless it is.--Srleffler 02:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back to the last version by Wesley. I take it that Lima is not happy with the compromised version by Nrgdoc, which was respectful to your POV but removed all the blatent POV language that your passage much too polemical. I was content with Nrgoc's version, even with the version by Wesley. But not with your latests change, which I consider pushing a POV in violation of NPOV policy, again. If we compare the verisons, we see you repeating your POV, again, unnessarily being redunant and changing the meanings to include somethting that was never a stated claim before, specifically, "proponents of the above interpretation suppose that these - and perhaps Paul himself, in spite of his very strict Jewish background - were attaching to the existing Christian rite notions connected with these cults.''

Lets look at both versions:

The compromised version:

Other scholars therefore argue that the reenactment by these very first Christians of something that Jesus did and said at his last — a unique form of Table fellowship — has precedence in the origin of the practice, rather than than the interpretations of Greco-Roman mystery religions that other writers might attach to it. By the time of the writing of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, however, Christianity was spreading among those who were former adherents of the Greco-Roman mystery cults.

Your version:

Other scholars therefore argue that the practice must originally have arisen as a reenactment by these very first Christians of something that Jesus did and said at his last supper, what has been called "a unique form of Table fellowship". However, by the time Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians, Christianity was spreading among people who may have had contact with Greek mystery cults, and proponents of the above interpretation suppose that these - and perhaps Paul himself, in spite of his very strict Jewish background - were attaching to the existing Christian rite notions connected with these cults.

Notice that your version simply restates the same idea aleady stated earlier in the same paragraph, and is evidence of POV pushing:

Christianity thus began among people who would reject any idea of eating actual human flesh and drinking blood of any kind, who avoided pagan mystery cults, and who would completely exclude a cannibalistic interpretation of their "eating this bread and drinking this cup."

Giovanni33 17:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, can you provide any evidence or reference for this sentence, especially the part in bold?

By the time of the writing of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, however, Christianity was spreading among those who were former adherents of the Greco-Roman mystery cults.

Thanks for your cooperation. Str1977 18:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the short time span we are talking about (circa 57 AD for 1Cor, circa 80 AD for Acts), "was spreading" and "who were former adherents" is a little strong. If we keep this sentence (i.e., if it can be substantiated and referenced), I'd suggest:

By the time of the writing of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, however, Christianity was beginning to spread among those who may have been former adherents of the Greco-Roman mystery cults.

JHCC (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

JHCC's wording is fine with me.Weren't all if not most of the gentile converts to Christianity formerly lifetime Pagans?64.121.40.153 20:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be careful about drawing an equivalence between pagans (which would have included practically any non-Jewish or non-Christian) and initiates (or adherents) of mystery religions. Simply put, all mystery-religionists were pagan, but not all pagans were mystery-religionists. JHCC (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I still consider the passage without foundation and without function in the paragraph. Str1977 23:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hence "If we keep this sentence (i.e., if it can be substantiated and referenced)..." That's still an open question, and I proposed no answer to it. JHCC (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, JHCC, I am asking Giovanni to substantiate and reference the passage. Otherwise it should go. 11:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the latest addition by Lima. I did not remove it but left it there, to get conensus here: " and may have attached to the rite meanings not originally associated with it." Seems to me this is POV with weasle wording. 64.121.40.153 17:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni/64, may I point you to my request above? Str1977 17:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Str1977. Yes, I saw your question but I wondered if you were serious. Before i go digging I think I can defend this on logical ground based on what we both already accept facts. That is, what reason would you give to suggest how such would not be the case, given that logically we can infer as much? How was it that Christianity became the professed faith of the Roman Empire, formally based on the mystery cults, and then began to spread beyond its borders? Christianity was very close and intimate with numerous mystery cults, such as Mitraism, as well as the closley associated Hermeticism and Gnosticism. We agree that gentile converts to Christianity were all formerly lifetime Pagans, and while its true that all mystery-religionists were pagan, but not all pagans were mystery-religionists, surely you would not doubt there is a subset of those who were members of mystery religious like Mitharism, which were almost identical to the Christians in so many ways, would not be absorbed by Christianity as one triumphed over the other? Is it not a fact that Christianity first established itself and grew in these very regions, detracting from the growth of its rival, Mithraism, and perhaps absorbing it, and erasing it? As a prime example was not the Emperor Constantine himself an adherent to a mystery cult, perhaps even after he was a self professed Christian? Prior to the accession of Constantine, Mithraism was more estabalished than Christianity. This religion was finally defeated because Christianity ascended the throne and became Caesarised. The transition, though, from Mithraism to Christianity, was not altogether abrupp, because the Christ-mystery, which replaced the Mithra-mystery, also dealt with the same themes, i.e. Perfecting of Man, etc. I don't think you will find anyone really doubting that former adherents to mystery cults would be attracted to the very similary mystery aspects that Christianity also embraced. 64.121.40.153 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Giovanni (assuming it is you, you could finally settle for your account),

Appearently you do not take my question seriously. The Roman Empire was not based on mystery cults at all. Pagans are not necessarily mystery cultists. And we are not talking about "woulds" and "ifs" and logical conclusions. There is no "logical" in history. There are countless logical things that didn't happen. And quite many illogical things do happen in history. According to Ranke, Historiography deals with what actually happened:

So the question remains in regard to the sentence:

By the time of the writing of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, however, Christianity was beginning to spread among people of whom some may have been former adherents of the Greco-Roman mystery cults and may have attached to the rite meanings not originally associated with it.

1) What actually is the narrative function of this passage in the paragraph?

2) Do you have any evidence for Christianity spreading among mystery cultists on a large scale, or do you have any reference for someone arguing that this happend?

I'd appreciate if you'd take this seriously for once. Str1977 00:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still wondering about this passage, and wonder if its really making an accurate point that is relevant. I guess it is, in a sense to the point of a canabilisitic interpreation of some scholars, but it is missing (or glossing over) the fact that Jews did practice animal blood sacrafice, no? The passage:

The first Christians were either Jews themselves ...Christianity thus began among people who would reject any idea of ...and who would completely exclude a cannibalistic interpretation of their "eating this bread and drinking this cup" (1 Corinthians 11:28), a rite which they nevertheless believed brought them into true relationship with the body and blood of Christ.

I think it should include that "Athough it excluded a canabalistic interpreation, blood sacrafice was part of it's traditions nonetheless..." 64.121.40.153 23:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should it include this? We are not talking about blood sacrifice (with the exception that Jesus' death is seen as a sacrifice represented in the Eucharist). Str1977 00:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Gentile converts, some of them were likely already sympathetic to Judaism, but hadn't fully converted. Some were worshippers of the 'traditional' Roman or Greek gods; you wouldn't include these among the 'mystery cults' would you? Wesley 23:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Christianity thus began not among people who believed in or practised the rites of the mystery religions, but among people with a very negative attitude to any form of worship other than that of the Jewish religion." This claim is unsubstantiated and Christian POV. --Tchoutoye 11:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

More theophagy

This is a problem:

In a spiritual sense, Christianity promoted the idea that their "unbloody mysteries" [cf. Basil the Great (c. 329-379), John Chrysostom (c. 347-407), Council of Trent (1546-1563), Theses of Bonn (1874) conveyed in actuality the purported mystical benefits of flesh-eating and blood-drinking that were proclaimed by the proponents of animal sacrifices and of cannibalism among the mystery cults. Accordingly, the Christain writers argue that Christianity presents "true" Theophagy in an "unbloody" manner.

Question: are Basil, John, the Council, and the Theses cited (A) as references of the use of the phrase "unbloody mysteries" or (B) as promoters of the idea that the Eucharist "convey[s] in actuality the purported mystical benefits [...] that were proclaimed [...] among the mystery cults"? If (A), then their inclusion here is of limited relevance. If (B), then quotes and references are necessary to demonstrate that these people actually promoted this idea. "The Christain writers" is similarly vague and in need of citation and verification. JHCC (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Basil, Chrysostom, Trent, and the Old Catholics would surely have been horrified at the suggestion that they were promoting such an idea. Lima 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Basil, John, Trent, and the Old-Catholics all use terms along the lines of "unbloody mysteries" and propose that the Eucharist actually conveys the mystical benenfits of what the Mystery Cults and animal sacrifice could only approximate in bare (and some would argue, perverse) shadows. In other words, their position is that the Eucharist is true Theophagy, while the mystery cults and the animal sacrifices were only attempts (sometimes horrific attempts) at Theophagy. Nrgdocadams 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Nrgdocadams, since "Content [...] must be verifiable", could you please provide specific quotes to verify this assertion? I'm not saying that you are wrong, and I'm willing to grant the use of the term "unbloody mysteries" (which is well documented), but the further assertion needs to be substantiated (no pun intended). Specifically, where do Basil, John, Trent, & the O.C.s make this proposal? What exactly do they say? (Direct quotes would be useful here.) Do they make the specific comparison between the Eucharist and animal (and human) sacrifice? You say that "their position is that the Eucharist is true Theophagy" — however, we cannot ascribe this position to them unless they so state it themselves.

Your first statement, that they "propose that the Eucharist actually conveys the mystical benenfits of what the Mystery Cults and animal sacrifice could only approximate in bare (and some would argue, perverse) shadows" is, I think, quite accurate. However, since "theophagy" is not an ancient term (not in LSJ, originally appears in the OED as a nonce word), ascribing to ancient writers a position based on a modern scholarly term is at best shaky and at worst misleading. JHCC (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

JHCC, I think its clear that Basil, John, Trent, and the Old-Catholics are referenced on the use and idea "unbloody mysteries." The concept, though, that the Eucharist conveys the mystical benenfit, is also stated in the Catholic doctine. What other scholars do (and is the point of the passage) is to tie these ideas into the very same ideas of Mystery Cults and animal sacrifice, although in different and more direct form. At best you could argue that inclusion of these catholic fathers are not needed to reference these notions of the "unbloody mysteries," as it is well known, but it doesn't hurt to include them either. The fact that the term "unbloody" is used is a direct contrast to the historically "bloody" version, which all contain similiar suppositions of what is happening: sacrafice, killing, blood= mystical benefits. The point is that this is not original to Christianity, and are found in the mystery religions. The other point is that the Christians make a point that theirs are "unbloody." Giovanni33 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Council of Trent said that the same Christ who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the Cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner in the sacrifice accomplished in the Mass (Session XXII, chapter II). Only at this point did the Council use the word "unbloody". Nowhere did the Council use the phrase "unbloody mysteries". Nowhere did the Council "use the term 'unbloody' (mysteries) in direct contrast to the historically 'bloody' version." The Council quite obviously gave no thought whatever to "the purported mystical benefits of flesh-eating and blood-drinking that were proclaimed by the proponents of animal sacrifices and of cannibalism among the mystery cults." Attributing such an idea to the Council is - I do not know what word to use: "forgery" might be too strong. I presume that the passages in Basil and John Chrysostom, and in the Theses of Bonn, that Giovanni33 has still failed to identify - "Content ... must be verifiable" - also do not fit his picture (his caricature?) of their ideas, and that it is a complete distortion to say that "the Christian writers (those mentioned, or unidentified others?) argue that Christianity presents 'true' Theophagy in an 'unbloody' manner." Lima 19:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Be quiet and drink your blood. KHM03 19:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

They use the word "unbloody" AND the also use the word "mysteries" to describe the Eucharist, its purported benefits. So its perfectly clear that "unbloody mysteries" is well in keeping with the meaning of the Catholic Church. And, they did contrast this with the "bloody mysteries" of the pagans. Infact that was one of their arguments--they theirs is unbloody, while the heathens are "bloody mysteries." See: [1] "Demolition of the Idolatrous Temples at Alexandria, and the Consequent Conflict between the Pagans and Christians." Where it states, " Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt. And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries.

The important part is that these Christian self described mysteries of the Eucharist, which ofcourse is "unbloody" (hence unbloody mysteries) do purported the same mystery benefits as purported by the other religions, as mantained by scholars. See in the Catholic Encyclopedia: [2]

[3] [4]

Where you will find ample talk such as "the sacred mysteries in an unbloody manner, for the daily application of that one sacrifice of redemption to our souls. of Christ's Body and Blood or the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Lamb"... as the property constituted celebrants of the Eucharistic Mysteries, ...etc. etc. 64.121.40.153 21:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Unlogged-in Giovanni33, though prepared to reason more logically than KHM03, still has not responded to JHCC's challenge by citing even one passage of Basil, Chrysostom, Trent, or the Old Catholics that associates the Eucharist with the pagan bloody mysteries. Not even Theophilus is said to have made that association when he had the Mithraeum cleaned out. (I am unaware of any evidence that devotees of Mithraism, who were baptized in a bull's blood, thought they ate a god; but that is just by the way.) I do not know whether some authoritative Christian writers did associate the Eucharist with pagan mysteries. Perhaps they did, but Giovanni33 has certainly failed to substantiate his suggestion that they did so. When they speak of "bloody" and "unbloody" in connection with the Eucharist, it seems that they only contrast the sacramental re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ with its historical offering on Calvary, and that pagan mysteries are in no way part of the context. Do they even once mention "bloody" or "unbloody" when speaking, not about the sacrifice aspect of the Eucharist, but about the communion aspect, i.e. the eating and drinking? I do not believe they ever do. Lima 08:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding here. Basil, Trent, etc. are not referenced as saying they associate their unbloody mysteries with pagan practices. Other scholars do so, and the passages, simply states that their unbloody mysteries purported the mystical attributes that other religions also claim. No one claims that pagan practices are part of the context of the Eucharist. Only that they also claim bloody mysteries which are very similar to the Christian mysteries, bloody or unbloody. The refrence to Basil, Trent, etc is actually unneeded. It was an addition by Nrgdocadams, and he may want to substanciate it. From my readings, its clear they would embrace the doctrine of the unbloody mysteries, which is all that needs to be shown, as far as what the passage says. The association with other rituals, is an association made by other scholars, although Christians do emphasis their as "unbloody mysteries," and pagan ones as "bloody mysteries," as I've shown. The example in Mithranism, which you doubt about, is interesting to look at.

The scholars are agreed, from a message scratched in a second century Mithraeum, that Mithras promised his worshippers immortality: And us, too, you saved by spilling the eternal blood.Mithras slayed the Cosmic Bull, and from this bull he obtained the “eternal blood” that was shed for the salvation of mankind.

He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and am I commingled with him, shall not be saved.

Mithraic Communion (M J Vermaseren, Mithras, The Secret God)

The literary and archaeological remains of the religion of Mithras suggest that the salvation of man, symbolized by the slaying of the Primaeval Bull, is ritualized in a communal holy meal with the brethren. Evidence that this divine supper came from Persian religion is the terminology. Professor Moghdam tells us the Persian for a “good meal” meaning a “sacred meal” is “hu-khoresht” where the meat is Persian “nushkhare”, the edible thing of immortality, and “nushabe” is the water of immortality. The Greek form of the “hu-khoresht” is “eucharist”. Moreover, two ancient Iranian words for the holy repast in the Gathas are “myazda” and “myastra”. Moghdam believes the first form transposed into the Persian “miz” and Latin “mass”, and the second form gives Greek “mysterion”, mystery.

This is evidence that the votaries of Mithras came to think of their holy suppers as theophagous, with the cannibalistic implications of the Christian eucharist. Their Last Suppers commemorated, and possibly imitated, the sacred meal at which Mithras and his assistants, celebrating their victory over the powers of evil, partook of bread and wine, the bread being made from the wheat that sprang from the spine of the slain bull, and the wine from the grapes that sprang from the bull’s blood. The Mithraic concept of redemption by blood appears in the taurobolia celebrated by the religious in the waning Roman Empire—in a lustrum, they were cleansed of their sins by the blood of a bull that was slain in imitation of Mithras’s slaying of the Primæval Bull. However, there is no way of inferring that a bull was actually sacrificed and eaten. Most mithraea seated less than 40 worshippers and the rooms were too small for bull sacrifices. Giovanni33 10:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Just commenting on the etymologies mentioned:

Eucharist" means "thanksgiving" in Greek, the syllable "eu-" indeed means good. However,does that Professor Moghdam relate that there was such a meal under the term “hu-khoresht” in any Persian religion?

Even if there were such a Persian rite, the connection remains conjectural and speculative. The argument presupposes that there was an actual connection, It also forgets that both Greek and Persian belong to one language family, hence remote linguistical similarities don't prove anything.

The argument in regard to "Mass" cannot be taken seriosly at all. The term "Mass" derives from Latin "Missa" which means "sent out". "Missa" is short for "Ite Missa est", which is the final part of the Latin Liturgy and the term was adopted as a name for the whole service (just as opening words were (are) often used as titles for books). This only applies to the Latin liturgy and not to the Greek and even in Latin it was adopted as a name quite late. Str1977 12:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 has written at length on what I mentioned merely "by the way", yet has produced no serious evidence that devotees of Mithraism thought that in their ritual meals they were eating their god, any more than the Jews thought that in eating the meat of sacrificed animals they were eating the LORD. Str1977 has shown how ridiculous are the alleged etymologies advanced as evidence. Much more important, leaving the "by the way" aside, Giovanni33 still has not quoted any apposite text of the Christian writers (whether included in the list of another imaginative contributor or not) who - according to the words Giovanni33 himself reinserted at 18:29 on 10 February 2006 - promoted the idea that the Eucharist conveys, not just "certain purported mystical benefits", but "the purported mystical benefits of flesh-eating and blood-drinking that were proclaimed by the proponents of animal sacrifices and of cannibalism among the mystery cults", and who allegedly "argue" - not just suppose or envisage or take for granted - "that Christianity presents 'true' Theophagy in an 'unbloody' manner." If Giovanni33 cannot substantiate this statement, will he now revert his reinsertion or otherwise correct his statement? Lima 10:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

While I think we can agree that Christianity did not develop in a vacuum, it still seems much more obvious that their idea of sacrifice derived primarily from Judaism and its system of animal sacrifice. Surely this similarity (and other similarities with Temple Judaism) should gain at least as much coverage as these mystery cult theories. Also, before my edit the paragraph in question did make it sound as though it were the early Christian writers themselves who were claiming a connection between the Eucharist and some cannibalistic practices; from reading this discussion I think this may not even be what Giovanni33 intended. Wesley 23:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for clarification, expansion

I put some comments into the article on editing it today where I saw that things appeared unclear or needed expansion. Looks good, though; I tried not to mess up all the extensive work that's clearly gone into it. I think it presents a quite balanced perspective, although the issue of whether to classify Anglicans as Protestants or not is problematic (however, this is a problem w/reference to the Anabaptists, as well - on the other side, so to speak). I agree w/the commenters below who say we should talk about Christian's arguments for the origins of the Eucharist as celebrated today, such as the early Christian practice of the agape (see the book of Acts, discussion in book by Dix that I added to the bibliography). The idea of propiation by blood sacrifice as taught in the OT should probably be referenced in this context, as well. Evan Donovan 20:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would really like to see someone present a synopsis of the meaning of the Lord's Supper as it was taught by Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. To date it remains the only teaching of this subject that ever made sense to me and which I could verify directly with Biblical references (i.e. 1 Corinthians 11:20-34) in the original Greek in the Strong's lexicon (available in http://www.blueletterbible.org .)TurtleofXanth 21:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Anglican

I rewrote the Anglican section at Eucharistic_theologies_contrasted since it was quite Anglo-Catholic in POV. I think we could improve the page here in a similar manner by outlining the various Anglican schools of thought but in a little more depth than was possible there, giving the background of what the BCP and 39 Articles say and how the various parties within Anglicanism differ over their attitude to those doctrinal statements. There's also the section on Anglicanism at Real Presence to consider. Some of that article is reproduced here under Eucharist (or vice versa). I left some comments on the talk page of Real Presence which would equally apply here. I think being as non-POV as possible (most of the articles still betray an Anglo-Catholic or general High Church bias) and trying to achieve some uniformity across these various pages would be a good idea. Could we write a general outline of the various approaches to Anglican Eucharistic theology here, linking to a more detailed analysis of the dispute over the Real Presence at Real Presence? What do people think? Apodeictic 11:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What would you want to add, without making the section too large and unwieldy? Given your interests, you might consider starting a new article on the Anglican views of the Eucharist. KHM03 (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that historically, Anglicans do believe the Eucharist to be a sacrifice. Saepius Officio is quite clear on that, to give just one example. We need to be careful to remember that being NPOV doesn't mean making everyone happy. For a further example, many "Roman" Catholics aren't transubstantiationists. Should we then have to change that entry in this article? Let's be careful to be factually honest as well as neutral. Valer 04:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

verse references containing breaking of bread

I removed the reference to Acts 2:46. The one before it in 2:42 is considered to refer to the Lord's Supper while 46 is considered a daily fellowship.

I added Acts 20:7 as another clear reference to breaking bread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Victoria h (talk • contribs) 05:22, 28 March 2006.

Different Eucharists?

I added a section that spoke of how the Eucharist was recorded differently between different people. Furthermore, I added the fact that the modern Eucharist with alleged pagan connections most probably began after Paul thought it was wise to do so after a vision. This is contrasted with what we commonly believe if we take the historical Jesus as fact--the eucharist was recorded (or remembered) by someone who knew the flesh and blood Jesus. Paul's testimony does not indicate this.66.66.178.153 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Craig truglia

Hello, Craig. I'm afraid I had to remove your edit, as it violates WP:NOR. It's like a personal essay, suddenly inserted into a Wikipedia article. Some of it could be incorporated into the article if you get sources, so that it's not just what you say (being made to seem like what Wikipedia says), but that it's Wikipedia reporting that Professor X, in his 1997 essay on the origin of the Eucharist argues that . . . while Professor Y contends that . . . . It has to be named, published sources, not weasel words. Also, in your first version, you actually included your signature in the article! There were also some inconsistencies in style, for example, spelling Eucharist with lower case e, spelling mistakes (diety instead of deity), and errors in wiki-linking. Finally, it's not appropriate to make such a huge addition without getting consensus on the talk page first. I suggest going through the edit you want to add, point by point, and seeing what people think at the talk page. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

. . . Thanks for your input. It is an issue not talked about enough, not even in scholarship...but that's why it has no place here. Thanks for correcting me.

"alleged" etc.

I do not see why the Graeco-Roman aspects of the ritual are treated as if they were controversial. They are obviously present, it is just a question of whether one thinks it useful to examine them. From the point of view of a practitioner, it is of course irrelevant how the ritual originated: that doesn't make for a controversy, just for lack of interest in the question. dab (ᛏ) 10:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is not Dbachmann's added phrase, "This transformation of cruder rituals", itself controversial, since it presents as fact the notion that the Eucharist was such a transformation? While the notion has been put forward by writers that Dbachmann seems to trust implicitly, it is not how everyone (dare I say, how the great majority of writers) understand the earliest texts about the Eucharist. These texts give no hint that the rite of the Eucharist was of Graeco-Roman origin, rather than Jewish. Are Dbachmann's writers any less imaginative and ill-founded in their interpretation of the evidence than Michael Cacoyannis in his interpretation of Euripides? If their notion is reported in objective terms in the article on the Eucharist, the opposing view should also be given in equally objective terms. There is an opposing view. The question is controversial. Presenting Dbachmann's notion as fact is POV. Lima 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Prasad

I, for one, do not understand Prasad as related to the Eucharist. But only if supported by others, will I remove it from "See also". Lima 09:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Already did it. As described in the article, prasad is not significantly different from Greco-Roman pagan sacrifices, where a portion of the animal was offered to the god and the remainder consumed by the worshipers as part of the rite. Christians have always drawn very sharp distinctions between this and the Eucharist, to the point where they are positively forbidden to consume anything offered in sacrifice to a pagan god. I would say rather that the editor insisting on the link doesn't properly understand the Eucharist. Perhaps this points to a shortcoming in the article, or perhaps the editor simply didn't read it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A little help for a related article

Could some of you from Catholic, Orthodox, and other traditions take a look at Christian views of alcohol to make it more inclusive, accurate, neutral, etc.? Many thanks! --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Both Bread and Wine?

Maybe I just didn't see it, but I didn't seem to see anything in here about whether some churches only allow the lay people to receive part of the sacrament, or both. I know Luther argued with Rome about this. I believe it is also an issue in the Eastern chruch. Anyone? Kevlar67 20:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to Kevla's request, I have put in the Roman Catholic Church section a statement of that Church's teaching on that matter. Lima 05:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In the Eastern Churches, Holy Communion is normally given to the laity by way of both species, i.e., both the consecrated bread and wine, normally by a form of intinction. In these Churches, the bread, usually leavened (the Armenian Church is an exception), is placed in the chalice, and the bread and wine are administered together by means of a spoon. --Midnite Critic 17:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thaks for the info. I'm wondering if the Protestant Roman and Eastern positions on this is shouldn't be summarized somewhere. Kevlar67 20:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Baptist

The Baptist section comments only on the Bible. It needs to say something about actual Baptist practice, I'd think. CaliforniaKid 04:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph states "Most Christians classify the Eucharist as a sacrament, but many Protestants avoid the term sacrament, preferring the term ordinance. In these traditions, the ceremony is seen not as a specific channel of divine grace but as an expression of faith and of obedience to Christ." Who are these many? Most mainliners would think of it as the two sacraments; the many is misleading. How about some? Reverend Mommy 21:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

Also, the opening paragraph refers to the Eucharist as ritualistic "Cannibalism". That word choice is an obvious attempt to defame the rite of communion. I'm not even a Catholic, and I take deep offense to that. This is one example of why Wikipedia will never be a legitimate encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.133.162 (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Related practices

"Christianity incorporates a synthesis of Semitic, Greek and possibly Indian thought." This is off topic, since the article is about the Eucharist, not Christianity in general. Yet we are supposed to conclude that the Eucharist is somehow dependent on American Indian ideas! Lima 18:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph has three reliable sources that support the comparison of Eucharist with similar practices among the Pueblos, so I don't see how you can remove it.--BMF81 00:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is some similarity (which the extracts I can read by no means make clear), isn't it more likely that the Pueblos Indians were inspired by the Eucharist, not the Eucharist by Pueblos Indians practices? I will gladly abide by whatever Wikipedia editors in general decide, even if they amaze me by supporting BMF81. Lima 04:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing discernible in the cited material that draws any parallel whatsoever between eating shit, smearing it all over your body, or similar activities with piss, and the Eucharist. We merely have a description of the practice. The comparison appears to be BMF81's own.

As for the first two works he cites, they date from 1910! Anthropology, like other scientific disciplines, has come a long way in the past 100 years. These are obsolete sources. A more recent citation is certainly in order here and should be easy to locate if the ideas are still considered valid.

I note in passing that "Indian" in the first sentence certainly must mean Asian Indian in his sources; i.e. from India, not American "Indians". To infer from them a connection to Pueblo tribes of Native Americans is bizarre, to say the least. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The sentence "Christianity incorporates a synthesis of Semitic, Greek and possibly Indian thought" violates WP:NPOV by asserting an opinion as a fact. The Henke cite makes it clear that this is the research of Magni:

"J. A. Magni has published an article on the 'Ethnological Background of the Eucharist' in which he takes the stand that Christianity is a marvelous synthesis of Semitic, Greek, and possibly Indian thought. It would be passing strange, he thinks, if the mystery cults in vogue when Christianity was born and characterized by the eucharistic act had not been at least in part adopted by the Christians."

Ames has a slightly different list in his article ("The Psychology of Religion IV", The Biblical World, v. 49, n. 6, June 1917, pp. 380-386 at p. 381):

"It is interesting to see how in the course of time 'the simple meal instituted by Jesus in commemoration of his death and celebrated as such by the early Christian church became an elaborate rite with Semitic, Greek, Mithraic, and doubtless other elements in it.'"

The various scholarly opinions need to be presented as such, and not as fact. -- Cat Whisperer 05:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The so-called Mithraic influence is just as likely the other way around. Although Mithraism got its start earlier, the rites we associate with it involving bread and wine are not attested before the end of the 1st Century, when Christianity had been around for almost 7 decades. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the material. Probably every culture that ever existed has had rituals involving eating and drinking. They don't all need to be enumerated here, much less described in detail. The editor said "reliable sources support a comparison..." but the body text did far more than make a comparison; it asserted origin. That is highly improbable and I doubt that the sources support it. And a mere "comparison" isn't noteworthy - anything can be "compared" to anything. The question is does the material help someone who wants to understand "Eucharist". The answer is no. Mrhsj 16:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Symbolism, quote marks, etc.

Lima, these changes are not for the best.

1. On "artos" referring specifically to leavened bread: I could provide many more references than I did, both Orthodox (e.g. the website of the Greek Archdiocese (see entry for "leavened bread") and non-Orthodox (e.g. the one I did cite in the article and this oddball one) that define "artos" as leavened bread. Even if we omit "many", it remains an established, cited fact that this definition is used, and there is no justification for cutting it. Doing so also leaves the reader wondering what the point of bringing up the "generic" word for bread might be.
2. On "human powerlessness" you are citing prosphora.org, which is giving this as an example of inappropriate symbolism! Inappropriate because the old Pascha was a human one; the Eucharist is the Passover of the Lord, where the power of God should be represented. You really need to find a citation where someone in favor of unleavened bread uses this symbolism the positive sense you evidently intend.
3. I always use angled quote marks with polytonic Greek for clarity because I think American quote marks can be confusing when there are breath marks initially, depending on the font. I avoid italics since many fonts do not render non-Latin alphabets very well in italics. I'm not insistent on this; I just think it looks better.

TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not at all wish to quarrel with Csernica, whom I respect highly. Perhaps we can agree on all these matters.

I do not think that "..." are American. I think that (apart from the single quotation marks variety, '...', that some, by no means all, prefer in Britain) they are the only quotation marks used in English. Even when quoting foreign words, I use «...», not "...", when writing in French or Italian, »...« when writing in German, but in English only "..." (except '...' for "inner" quotations). That is how I was taught, in the elementary school, to write English. I am not American.

The last source, a Protestant one, from which I quoted about the symbolism of unleavened bread (http://goodnewsiowacity.com/new_page_4.htm) is in favour of using leavened. I do not see that as a reason for not quoting what it says about the symbolism of unleavened bread. However, since Csernica dislikes an Orthodox site being quoted in that way, I will now remove the mention of the quotation from that site. I put it back in only because it seemed to me that the existence in it of a reference to the "powerlessness" symbolism was being denied. It is quite enough that the article makes clear that appropriate symbolism can be seen in both forms of bread.

I thought that the footnote reference to Grossman, Robert: Yeast in the Lord’s Supper? was sufficient. (Renewed apologies for inadvertently omitting it when I first retouched the text.) Csernica thinks that is not enough. I must therefore rewrite that part.

Perhaps more changes too will be required. Lima 04:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much that prosphora.org is Orthodox, but that as a citation it didn't support the statement. You're saying those who favor azymes see that symbolism there; and that furthermore they see that symbolism as appropriate. Yet to support this you cite a source that is against azymes, which indeed uses this symbolism but regards it as inappropriate. It therefore fails to establish that the pro-azymes side either uses this symbolism themselves or regards it as appropriate. All I'm really asking for is a source that supports the statement. I don't much care where it comes from, as long as its reliable.

I originally added the Grossman cite in support of the statement that the anti-azymes party claims "artos" without any other qualification means leavened bread. I do see that it can also be used to show the argument actually being made about "azymes" occurring in close proximity, thus proving the argument isn't OR on my part. So if you want to put the citation at the end where you had it I won't object.

I quite agree with you on the quote marks, and had I been quoting English-language text I never would have dreamed of using the continental variety. (Double quotes for outer quotations are mainly American as far as I know. I see single quotes used that way in British books more often than not. But maybe it's just me.) As long as we don't get any reader confusion between quote marks and diacritics I'm not worried about it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the use of '...' in British publications is of recent origin. Certainly, the two nineteenth-century London-printed Google-available books listed in Tridentine Mass, External links, Texts of Tridentine Ordinary of the Mass (post-1604) both have ‘‘...’’ for quotations. For fear that what I learned in school was also of the nineteenth rather than the twentieth century, I have looked at some of the books edited and printed in England that I have here, and found that '...' seems somewhat more common in the most recent ones, but "..." is found in over a dozen of them, the latest, admittedly, being of 1982. (I have extremely few England-produced books here that are later than that date.)

I think that Csernica was quite right in his judgement that the view of those who see ἄρτος as referring specifically to leavened bread should be explicitly mentioned in the body of the article, not just in a footnote. (Privately, I see this view as no more persuasive than the view that γένημα τῆς ἀμπέλου refers specifically to unfermented grape juice. But I have no wish to argue about this matter.)

Does anything else in this section need adjusting? Lima 10:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WRT "artos" I'm really not qualified to have an opinion, but that doesn't matter for the purposes of the article. (However, I once looked through the LXX out of curiosity, and the only time "artos" meant unleavened bread was when it was immediately followed by the adjective, and where it was part of a list of various baked goods that needed to be distinguished. (cf Ex 29:2) And it seems to me that γένημα τῆς ἀμπέλου must cannot mean anything but wine. Even the "sweet wine" of Acts 2:13 was supposed to be intoxicating.)

The quotes must be a typographical convention that was settled in the US long before it was in the UK. Perhaps my perception is biased by my exposure. I don't have any books that were printed in the UK prior to the 1950s, and they all use the single quotes. But I think it's arguable that now the convention is single quotes in the UK and double in the US. My newer examples are quite recent: I confess to a weakness for Harry Potter and always buy the UK editions since the "translation" procedure offends me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Eschoir, 3 September 2007

I am sorry, I have had to revert these changes. The New Testament quotation in the opening paragraph gave what was common to all the sources indicated; his addition may make the quotation correspond to only one of the sources given. It is people, not doctrines, that classify and recognize something. There is no justification for suppressing the easily verifiable fact that the majority of Christians (Catholics and Eastern Orthodox alone form an evident majority) classify the Eucharist as a sacrament. A statement that "The purely symbolic meal of modern Christianity, restricted to a bit of bread and a sip of wine or juice, tacitly presupposed for the early church, an assumption so preposterous that it is never articulated or acknowledged" is somehow supposed to indicate how the Agape meal was in fact celebrated. I could say more, but that is enough. Lima 07:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be easy for you to verify that a majority of Christians classify the Eucharist as a sacrament, or it may be easier for you to verify that a majority of Christian denominations classify the Eucharist as a sacrament, so perhaps you should do it, and source it, instead of relying on Original Research.Eschoir 01:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and is it ok to make up quotes in your world? NONE of the translations of Corinthians contains the quote "this is my blood." None.Eschoir 01:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

On point 2, I think Eschoir has a good point. How can we fix the text? On point 1, I think that the number of Christians is far more significant than the number of (fragmented) denominations. Lima 04:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you SURE Semele the virgin goddess is not in your quote? Eschoir 19:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, Eschoir is right - at least in part. The text does mention Semele, who wasn't a virgin, having had repeated sexual relations with Zeus, nor a goddess. Apologies for my mistake. Lima 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I challenge your unsourced translation of the Bacchae. specifically the lines

Apart from wine,

there is no cure for human hardship.

He, being a god, is poured out to the gods,

so human beings receive fine benefits

as gifts from him. Translation by Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, BC, 2003 with permission.

"He is poured out to the gods" is ceertainly suggestive of blood, more suggestive than your "it."

And Semele's virginity is distinguishable from Mary's how? Because Semele was thunderbolted by Zeus more than once, while Mary only got a single dosing? And Semele BECAME a goddess, much like Mary became . . . erm . . what she became.

If you can't source your translation, I propose it be eliminated.Eschoir 02:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The text in the article is a literal, practically word-for-word, translation of what Euripides wrote. Just ask anyone who knows Greek. The translation by Ian Johnston is very good, though less literal. In the passage here quoted, he translates "ἄλλο", which literally means "other", as "apart from wine", which is an excellent translation, even if less literal. Johnston's "being a god" also is admittedly less accurate than "having become a god" as a translation of "[θεὸς γεγώς] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)". Johnston is also less literal in translating "ἔχειν", which literally means "to have", as "receive as gifts". He also adds the adjective "fine", when translating as "fine benefits" "τἀγαθά", which literally means "the good things".

Perhaps it would be better, in the context of the contrast with Cacoyannis's poetry, to use a more literal translation than Johnston's; but, if it makes Eschoir happy, I have no objection to using Johnston's translation to demonstrate how any good translation of what Euripides actually wrote, even if not 100% literal, clearly shows up Cacoyannis's "translation" as an independent original poem, not really a translation.

Perhaps we should put Euripides's actual words in the body of the article and a good translation (Johnston's or a yet more literal translation) in the footnote.

"Thunderbolting" is to me a novel euphemism for sexual penetration and physical insemination of a female by a male. :-) In line 3 of his Bacchae, Euripides instead uses "ἀστραπηφόρῳ πυρί" of the thunderbolt that killed Semele and made her "bring forth" (λοχευθεῖσα) the foetus Dionysus.

I am unaware of any practice in ancient Greece of pouring blood as a libation. Lima 07:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"The text in the article is a literal, practically word-for-word, translation of what Euripides wrote. Just ask anyone who knows Greek." Like . . . erm . . you? I respect learning, and have no Latin and less Greek personally. But the point is, what is the source of this literal word-for-word translation?Eschoir 14:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Do this in remembrance

Original research is prohibited. You cannot use primary sources, like the Bible (or Euripides), to argue against secondary sources. You cannot advance your own position or form your own interpretation. You must cite reliable sources to put forward such arguments and discussions. This has been repeatedly explained to you. Please take the time to read and understand our content policies.Eschoir 05:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So we may not quote the actual text of Euripides to counter false statements about what he said?!! Lima 06:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You cannot use primary sources, like the Bible (or Euripides), to argue against secondary sources. You cannot advance your own position or form your own interpretation. You must cite reliable sources, not yourself, to put forward such arguments and discussions. Eschoir 16:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Eschoir forces me to say directly that he is mistaken. There is no prohibition against using primary sources.

In any case, what is the secondary source that he imagines contradicts the text of Euripides? Lima 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please help

I think it is time for others to intervene. Just compare these changes and make up your own minds. I strongly dislike just reverting another editor's work, which I think is the only practical way to undo what Eschoir has done to the article, and so I am withdrawing. I have done enough work on the article for now. If nobody else takes the trouble to intervene, I give up. Lima 15:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course the undated citation requests that have been corrected were corrected by a bot, not by Eschoir. It was he who put them in. Lima 15:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I must say, I agree with some of Eschoir's many changes. All the more reason, I think, for me to withdraw from editing this article. I am now removing it from my watchlist. Lima 19:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Three weeks later

Since nobody has come to give the help I desired, and a new month begins in a few hours time, I am returning to work on this article. I gave up trying to deal with Eschoir's multiple alterations all over the article, so I will now work, at intervals, on one paragraph at a time, beginning with the first, in which Eschoir claimed for some reason that the Eucharist "traces its origins to the meals (plural) Jesus Christ participated in during his ministry" (all of them? that in the house of Simon the Pharisee, for example?). I have thought it best to split this paragraph into three. Lima 19:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all of them. Open commensality. Eschoir 04:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There are abundant sources that say Christians celebrate the Eucharist to commemorate what Jesus did at his Last Supper. I have put in just one non-religious source as an example. What sources say the Eucharist commemorates indiscriminately all the meals that Jesus participated in during his ministry? Please indicate sources before putting this claim back into the article.

Besides, the opening should say what the Eucharist is, what is meant by the rite as actually practised. The place for speculation about its origins is later in the article.

I see no possible grounds for saying that the Eucharist is, in any sense, "open commensality". Lima 09:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You have not read the next to last section on scholarship, have you? Eschoir 04:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please re-word: Cannibalism vs. Symbolism

I believe the parenthetical expressions in the following paragraph should be reversed:

Though the Church sees this change as occurring "in a way surpassing understanding"[32] and so as something that can never be fully explained or understood, the Catholic Church considers that the term "transubstantiation", with its accompanying unambiguous distinction between "substance" or underlying reality, and "accidents" or humanly perceptible appearances, still best safeguards against the opposite extremes of a cannibalistic interpretation (the accidents remain real, not an illusion) or of a merely symbolic interpretation (the substance is changed from that of bread and wine to that of the body and blood of Christ) of the Eucharist.

A cannibalistic interpretation would be one in which the substance is changed to the body & blood of Christ, and thus the communicant is eating human flesh and drinking human blood.

A symbolic interpretation would be one in which the accidents remain real, and thus the communicant is eating bread and drinking wine.

--Sbroadwe 14:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose?

Questions to Eschoir.

What is the purpose of putting a link to a non-existent article entitled "Words of Instruction" in place of the relatively simple word "instruction"? Does "instruction" need explaining? Or does it require replacement with a shorter word such as "request"?

What is the purpose of saying that the First Letter to the Corinthians is composed of ten thousand words, when the number of words is irrelevant to the question whether the letter says or does not say what is attributed to it? (My computer counted the words as 6750, but Eschoir was doubtless referring to the number of words in some English translation.)

What is the purpose of saying that what Paul wrote was written in a passing way? He still wrote it, didn't he?

(I could add that it was in no passing way that Paul wrote it, since he mentioned it precisely to tell the Corinthians they were acting wrongly; but whether he wrote it in a passing or in an emphatic way is irrelevant: he did write it.) Lima 12:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of saying Paul does not use the word "Eucharist"? He recounts what Jesus did at his Last Supper and the instruction to do the same in his remembrance. That is all that is stated. He didn't need to use the word εὐχαριστία to say that; but in fact he did use the word εὐχαριστήσας ("having given thanks")!

What is the purpose of refusing to accept the fact that 1 Cor is a document? Lima 19:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV. Eschoir 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Is The Odyssey a "document"? Is "The Acharnians" a document? No, they are literature. They exist within many documents, and editions. Such is the Bible, at least here in Neutral POV wiki-land.Eschoir 20:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of your understanding of "document". In view of it, the word "document" must certainly be avoided in this context. Irrelevancies such as the remark about the absence of the word "εὐχαριστία" (or, for that matter, "Communion", "liturgy", etc.) in 1 Cor 11:23-25 remain undefended. Perhaps they belong elsewhere in the article. Lima 03:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Brief Synopsis Needed

After spending several minutes scanning this lengthy article, I was still unable to learn just what exactly the eucharist is supposed to do. Why go to the effort of writing a detailed, several page article, but fail to address the most basic questions that anyone might have concerning the subject??!!!! What does the participant receive? Is he supposed to become infused with the "holy spirit"? the "essence of Christ" How is it a sacrament? Why is it a sacrament? --24.17.56.169 14:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Table

I have made a little comparison table derived from Chapter 14 of Crossan's Historical Jesus that I propose to include:

Five Preliminary stages to "2000 years of eucharistic theology" and "Last Supper iconography"

1. Graeco-Roman formal meal	2. Jesus' practice	3a. Didache 10	3b. Didache 9	4. 1 Corinthians	5. Mark (copied by Matthew & Luke)
deipnon, then symposion	a last supper	Give thanks, with no hint of Passover, Last Supper, or Death of Jesus	Eucharist, with no hint of Passover, Last Supper, or Death of Jesus	Lord's Supper	Passover Meal
	No ritual programming	No mention of the death of Jesus	No mention of the death of Jesus	Passion Remembrance in both cup and bread	No command for repetition and remembrance

Eschoir 15:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

IF I could shrink the font, I'd put in John like

John
Day after loaves and fishes
Anti-meal
Eat my flesh, drink my blood

Eschoir 04:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's misleading. The salient point about the timing of the Last Supper in John is that it was the day before the Passover -- but John also doesn't describe the institution of the Eucharist at all, saying virtually nothing about the supper. I have no idea where you get the idea that it was the day after the Feeding of the Multitude. In John that happens in Chapter 6, and not anywhere near Jerusalem but "over the Sea of Galilee". This is a revisionist chronology to say the least, and if this is really what Crossan says then he can in no way be taken as representative of any significant Christian group. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You might get better layout if you made the table vertical instead of horizontal. Bytebear 04:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Csernica is clearly right. In the long work of correcting the persistent Eschoir distortions of the article, I have not yet got to this part. Lima 07:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I included the John column because THIS ARTICLE says John 6 is a eucharist reference. Crossan mentions it but does not analyse it. I'd be happy to say that John makes no mention of eucharistia, and blank out the column, but this article says he does, and I respect the NPOV ethic enough to include it in the table. By the way, alla ëlthen ploiaria ek Tiberiados eggus tou topou hopou ephagon ton arton eucharistësantos tou kuriou. Eschoir 00:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

John 6:48 et seq plainly allude to it, but it's incorrect to label it here as you do a "stage in development". John is the last Gospel to have been written, dating in both tradition and scholarship to the end of the 1st century. By then the Eucharist was certainly a well-established practice. No Christian tradition has ever claimed, and you present no cites to say that Crossan claimed either, that John 6 was a record of the institution of the Eucharist or was a "preliminary stage". John 6:23 in particular is not referring to the rite; it's clearly talking about 6:11. The fact that the Church has chosen to call the rite by the name of "Thanksgiving" does not exclude its use in the ordinary sense elsewhere. Nor are there any cites to say it does. All this is your own idea.

I question the usefulness of this table regardless. What does it purport to show that is unclear -- or cannot be expressed clearly -- in the text? TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent table. Tables are way nicer than text for comparing things side-by-side. Nice and clear. When you say, it's derived from Crossan, does Crossan have anything like this? There's jargon in here I don't get, and language that seems to be making a point. I see it's been pushed off to (origins). Too bad. Leadwind (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"It's redundant"

"Redundant with Eucharist in New Testament essay below," says Eschoir. Would Eschoir please explain why he considers the paragraph redundant when it deals with something not dealt with below, something moreover that is necessary in the introduction.

• The account below of 1 Cor 11:17-34 speaks of how Christians in the 50s of the first century celebrated what Paul the Apostle called the Lord's supper; it does not describe what Jesus did at his Last Supper. The paragraph that Eschoir calls redundant says nothing of what Christians in the 50s of the first century did; it describes instead what Jesus is reported to have done and said at his Last Supper.
• The introduction needs an indication of what Christians actually do in the rite or act of worship that most of them perform. An indication of why they do it, though not strictly necessary, is useful.

The paragraph that Eschoir for some reason calls redundant fulfils both these functions. Lima 15:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Eucharist in the New Testament

I have excised and refactored what seem to be the main threads of the discussion taking place in the article comments. Let's not do that please; that's what the talk pages are for.

Paul didn't claim to be a witness to Jesus final meal, he says he "received [the story] from the Lord". (Paul). This remark might perhaps be relevant in an article discussing the historicity of the Last Supper accounts, but it is irrelevant here. Paul did associate the Christian rite with his account of the Last Supper. (Lima).

The heading on this section looks like "History" to me (Eschoir).

Yes, it is "History", and the subsection is headed "The Eucharist in the New Testament". If Eschoir wants to treat Jesus' Last Supper as a celebration of the Eucharist, let him put in a new paragraph to that effect, with sources. What the existing paragraph is about is instead the function that the Christians at Corinth celebrated some thirty years later. Paul associated with that function a description that he gave of the Last Supper of Jesus. Even if Paul had been a witness of that Last Supper (there, you agree the fact that he was not is uncontested), we would know no better whether his description was merely his own invention (you've got to be kidding me! Paul a liar theory?) than we know when he says he received the account of it (perhaps indirectly) (he says he got it from the Lord. Again you suggest a willingness to entertain the thought that Paul is a liar or equivocator. Interesting) from the Lord. But whether his description is accurate or not is irrelevant to the fact that he made the association between the Christian function and a particular description of the Last Supper. We could, of course, argue, (you like to argue, I just want facts) on the basis of the criterion of multiple attestation, that Paul's description is indeed an accurate account of the Last Supper, but to do so would be irrelevant here, where we are discussing a different matter. (Lima).

TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have re-written some of this section with references. I'm afraid that a modern standard Biblical commentary based on recent source criticism will have to trump entries from obsolete editions of general-interest encyclopedias, and so I have edited and cited accordingly. It is simply false that the United Bible Societies put out "critical editions" in the usual sense of the term. My own extensively annotated Greek Interlinear NT (based largely on the Majority Text) includes Lk 22:19b-20 without comment, and the cited source is clear that the command is found in all the most reliable Greek mss. (The TR is not particularly reliable, and we don't need it to establish this passage.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that a modern standard Biblical commentary based on recent source criticism will have to trump entries from obsolete editions of general-interest encyclopedias, and so I have edited and cited accordingly. Until this point I was unaware of the existance of "trump" in the editing process. Could you source that for me? Eschoir 13:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can. See WP:RS. If you wanted to cite a modern commentary to support your point instead of an old encyclopedia, that would be one thing, but in terms of critical scholarship your source is at least 50 years out of date. This is just not a controversial issue anymore, but we're having to make it look like one at your insistence on taking into account obsolete scholarship.

"Shame on me" indeed, when you went and cut out a ref in that very same edit! We cite sources rather than refer to other Wikipedia articles when possible. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, you seem to be relying rather heavily on the 1944 Britannica. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, and since they're updated on a regular basis this old edition is actually less useful than you seem to think. You really can't expect to carry any points with it when modern sources contradict it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem: "You really can't expect to carry any points with it when modern sources contradict it." I'm not trying to carry any points. This is not an arguement, much as you play it as one.

And I looked at WP:RS. It seems to carry no prohibition against quoting 1944 encyclopedias, especially when published by a university, especially in contrast with contemporary anonymous Catholic websites. And you have made no similar objection to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) as a source, which was published complete in 1939 Eschoir 04:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is an argument. You're insisting on your own version of the article and trying to carry the point that your ideas are a POV that can be supported by scholarship. Lima and I disagree with your preferred content because we believe, based on positive knowledge of the current state of scholarship, that it's factually incorrect. There is nothing distinctively Roman Catholic about it. (Yes, given that there's a main article the Roman Catholic section should certainly be briefer, but that's not what we're about here, is it?)

Now, we can include anything that can be supported by citations. When references conflict, what we have to do is to evaluate their relative reliability. Sometimes that's easy -- there are always whack-job websites out there making all kinds of claims, but I wouldn't seriously try to use any of them to prove (for instance) that the world was actually flat.

Cases like this one are more nuanced. Old sources are of varying reliability. On subjects where the scholarly consensus doesn't change much, that's not a problem. There's no objection to But in areas where new discoveries are constantly being made, or better analyses are possible as time goes by, scholarship has to take those new discoveries into consideration. Where that consideration forces a change in the consensus, old sources reflecting the old consensus need to be disregarded.

Here's another example. Have a look at the entry for Septuagint in that 1944 encyclopedia. It may well talk about how errors in the translation are reflected in variant readings from the Hebrew. At the time, that was correct as far as anyone knew, although it was not a settled issue by any means. In the meantime the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered, and we now know that what we think of as the Hebrew canon represents only one of several textual traditions circulating toward the end of the old era, and we are now virtually certain that the LXX represents a valid alternative tradition, available in Hebrew in the 1st century and earlier, but now surviving only in the Greek -- and in the few fragments of ms preserved in the caves at Qumran. Any earlier source talking about possible systematic translation errors needs to be totally disregarded if we're going to have a correct article on that subject.

We have an analogous situation here. Very few modern scholars now believe that the text in question is a later redaction of Luke, based on new manuscript discoveries and analysis. (I'd say "no modern scholars", but you never know.) As I said, if you can find a modern source saying this it's something that might be included -- although it might go better at Last Supper -- but in the face of newer scholarship saying something else we have to disregard the old.

This is not the case with information from the ISBE. Ideas about the nature of the ancient agape feast have not changed. If you look up its entry on the Septuagint you can get a sense of what I was talking about above. Although it's fairly liberal on the idea of its accuracy, it retains a disdainful view of the Greek OT translation quoted in portions of the NT. Based on the DSS, modern scholars are much more likely to see these as reflecting still other textual traditions apart from both the LXX and the Hebrew, as we have now seen examples of that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I should add that, where conflicting sources are evidently of equal reliability -- that is, where the state of a question is actually unsettled -- then we mention both. But that's not the case here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I should add that, where conflicting sources are evidently of equal reliability -- that is, where the state of a question is actually unsettled -- then we mention both. To reference an old joke, "What you mean, 'we,' Kemosabe?" Eschoir 22:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Eucharist"

In the process of untangling this conversation, I noticed that Eschoir had placed text that had formerly been in comments into the visible article text. This was no doubt inadvertent. I undid Eschoir's "weasel wording" as he evidently mistook part of a comment for visible article text and understandably (if erroneously) wanted to excise his name. The possibility of getting confused like this and ending up with a totally incoherent conversation is one reason why we do this in talk pages and not in the article. This was rather confused, so I may have made a mistake or two. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The rite is not identified by this name in the New Testament. (Eschoir)

A comment equally applicable to most of the other names used for the Eucharist. (Lima)

Is there any disagreement? This isn't analysis, it;s only counting citations (eschoir)

Eschoir has questioned whether even the three that arguably were used in the New Testament (the Lord's Supper, Breaking of Bread, Agape) referred to the rite. (Lima)

Don't you think this issue is important enough to include in a NPOV article in an encyclopedia. (Eschoir)

Maybe, but inserting it as a comment on only one of the words would seem not to be in perfect harmony with the NPOV rule. (Lima)

But it's already in those other three entries (Eschoir)

Having now made some sense of this, I want to say it seems to me that it's a tad disingenuous to say that "Eucharist" is not used in the NT, when "ευχαριστησας" is used in all three Synoptics, either of the cup alone (Mt 26, Mk 14) of of the bread and the cup both (Lk 22). Obviously it's not the "name of the rite" here because the Evangelists are not describing a "rite", but the act that serves as the antetype for the rite. Thanksgiving is one of the central acts performed by Jesus here, along with distributing the cup, breaking the bread, and declaring them to be his blood and body. There's nothing odd or sinister, and it doesn't damage the rite's integrity, to use one salient feature of it as shorthand for the whole, as the "It's not used in the Bible!" line implies. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

==Reformed/Presbyterian==

In my experience, this has been about the same as the Minimalist practice, described below, although there are "High Church" Reformed whose liturgy is much more similar to that of an Anglican or Lutheran Church. Should we talk about current Reformed practice, historic Reformed practice (i.e., Calvin's Geneva, Covenanters, Puritans, Southern Presbyterians of the 1800s — not that all those are the same (they're actually quite different), or both?

We can also talk about the Church of Scotland Book of Common Order and the Westminster Directory for Public Worship — these are 'how to' manuals of Eucharistic liturgy that formed a high point of agreement amongst Presbyterians and Congregationalists — and it should be possible to find sources that can guide us in summarizing the ritual and liturgy elements from them.

TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Sorry Eschoir, but merely contending over and over again in the face of contrary citations that this article slants toward a Catholic POV establishes nothing. Yes, there's a dispute. No, it has nothing to do with Catholicism per se. No, I'm not Catholic, I just know my history and my sources.

I'm prepared to cut that table, since you haven't seen fit to discuss it any further. It misleads and I'd be very surprised if it was supported by the cited source. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you contend that, besidess doubting a source you haven't read or bothered to look up, something in the table is not true?

I'm prepared to cut A LOT of the article, too, my Orthodox brother. Shall we sharpen our knives, or try to create a neutral sourced article?Eschoir 03:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

IF I were Orthodox, I wouldn't let this patronizing heading stand anotheer minute:

"Eastern Christianity: true sacrifice and objective presence but pious silence on the particulars"

Eschoir 04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

YOu say the table "misleads." That implies that you think this article should "lead" the reader in the first place. I think that a truly NPOV doesn't lead anyone. It places sources, correctly identified, in the information stream, and the reader leads himself. Your and Lima's edits seem designed to lead to a certain conclusion. That's not NPOV. It may be religious, but this is not the religious Eucharist article. You have them already. Leave this one unled/Eschoir 04:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever conclusion the article leads us to, it should reflect the current state of knowledge on the subject. The edits you're pushing for here don't do that. Your table doesn't do that. I don't need to look up the source when you yourself admitted that it doesn't actually reflect what it says: "Crossan mentions it but does not analyse it." He might not, but you do. That can't be justified.

It appears to be showing that the Eucharist per se -- the ritual of the bread and wine -- developed from Hellenic dining customs. It can certainly be shown that it took place in that context, but as a development of it? Perhaps someone has said that, but to put it into a table like that as if it were really the consensus opinion is plain inaccurate.

As far as "not bothering" to look up the source: I don't own the book, and have a busier life than you can possibly conceive. Special trips to the library are a luxury I can't just rush off and enjoy whenever I feel like it. If this wasn't such an oddball opinion, and if you hadn't already admitted to including information not in the source, there wouldn't be anything for me to look up.

I'm not clear on why you think that section heading is patronizing. It's perfectly correct. We believe the bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood of Christ. In it he becomes physically, hypostatically present. When it comes to theologizing on how this happens (other than by the action of the Holy Spirit), or how it can be true when the elements retain all the characteristics of bread and wine (which the Roman Catholics discuss as transubstantiation), we just don't go there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever conclusion the article leads us to,

The article shouldn't lead us to a conclusion. It should be NPOV. Your intellect might drive you to a non-dogmatic conclusion ifi given enoough facts. But I'm for facts, not conclusions.

it should reflect the current state of knowledge on the subject.

OK, we'll eliminate all content from all sources before 1990? Glad to. You first, or me?

The edits you're pushing for here don't do that. Your table doesn't do that.

The table is a frickin' book report. It's Crossan's work in a matrix. He says "John 6:51-58 is actually a sixth stage, but that would lead the arguement farther afield than is necessary to show that 16 Supper and Eucharist [1/4] does not derive from the historical Jesus." The word "anti-meal" is mine. Youo may insert something you feel more appropriate, or you may eliminate the John column, or add another for the Chapter 13 Last Supper.

I don't need to look up the source when you yourself admitted that it doesn't actually reflect what it says: "Crossan mentions it but does not analyse it." He might not, but you do. That can't be justified.

That's the John column. I just report what is in John, NPOV. That can be justified. Is there an inaccuracy you claim to have found in the table? Eschoir 18:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out the matrices here: [5] Eschoir 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked for a sensible and nuanced evaluation of sources, and to avoid using obsolete ones. It's a just a cheap shot to say "we'll eliminate all content from all sources before 1990?" Do try to keep your head on.

The article should indeed lead to a conclusion, as should any informative article. It should lead the readers to a correct conclusion about what the current state of knowledge is on a subject, and not distract them with irrelevancies or mislead them with discredited theories.

No, as you only reinforce here, you have gone beyond your source. Crossan may identify John 6:51-58 as a "sixth stage" -- and it seems he is strongly arguing against the Last Supper as anything Jesus actually did, a POV he is well-known for. In these cases he cannot be cited as a neutral source, but only as representing one side of a controversy. Anything from the Jesus Seminar group is going to be highly controversial. They may have a good press department, but they do not represent the broad consensus of Biblical scholarship. [Note: I see it's been moved to a more appropriate location no longer implying neutrality. But see below.]

But you go beyond him anyway by identifying that part of John with -- well, with what? Whatever point you're trying to make is utterly opaque. It appears to be saying that John 6:51-58 is a Eucharistic celebration, not merely an allusion to one, and Crossan plainly doesn't say that. That it reflects Eucharistic practice by one community or another is available (and stated) from neutral sources, but how it stands as a "stage of development" is not only as obscure as the details of the rite, it's not even theorized by your source.

"Anti-meal" is meaningless. It conveys no information.

So out the table goes. Not only is your little editorial note at the top inappropriate, but your subhead is perfectly clear. This is the pet theory of one writer. There's no reason to give it such prominence.

The source you pointed to is a good one for at least your re-writing of your section regarding the qiddush, which you again based on your obsolete source. It's a red herring to talk about how birkat does not translate to "thanksgiving". Of course it doesn't. It's the content, not the name, that's significant: the qiddush begins with a series of three thanksgiving prayers. You seem to be fixating on the name for some reason. I think you need to explain why you find it so offensive. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"The article should indeed lead to a conclusion, as should any informative article. It should lead the readers to a correct conclusion about what the current state of knowledge is on a subject, and not distract them with irrelevancies or mislead them with discredited theories"

Thank you, Savonarola. You need say no more. You know nothing of NPOV .Eschoir 01:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep citing obsolete sources as if they were current, and Crossan as a neutral source, and I don't understand NPOV? Methinks you're a tad out of touch. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1] All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

Methinks you are a tad full of yourself Eschoir 15:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Believers think they are neutral

as they ban books and burn believers who don't believe what they believe.Eschoir 01:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a point, or are you just being nasty? It would be better to explain yourself. You have been curiously reluctant to do so. Had you been more forthcoming, there would be less friction. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Now this article is of manageable size

And fits in more with Wiki size guidelines. Eschoir 02:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV. Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1] All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. Edits are neutral, not sources.

Eschoir 15:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a stupid question

As the article stands, there is no "First Eucharist" as there is a Last Supper. It's a rite performed by Chrisitians, not by Christ. Is that what y'all wanted to say? Eschoir 01:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)