Talk:Eucharist in the Catholic Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Eucharist in the Catholic Church was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 10, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Top-importance).

Eucharistic Miracles[edit]

Should some of the information concerning Eucharistic miracles be placed here, with the appropriate link? (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Failing GA[edit]

User:PStrait has added this article into Good Article nomination page, see [1], but I saw there's no {{GA nominee}} tag here. So I assume that (s)he forgot to put it in this talk page.

However, I am making a speedy failing of this article to get Good Article status. This article is totally unsourced, thus it fails criterion 2 per WP:WIAGA. Please add your sources to conforms the three pillars of Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View, no original research and verifiable. Please read WP:CITE on how/when/where to put reliable citations. I've put {{unsourced}} template in the article page for editors to put sources in this article. Please do not consider it as discouraging. After all of these matters are resolved, you can this article back for GA status.

Note, if somehow this article was not yet finished and User:PStrait had mistakenly put this article for GA nomination, you can disregard my review above. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 09:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, was a mistake, although hopefully I will have time next week to turn this into a 'good article.' Sorry for the trouble of recommending it early-- I pasted the wrong article.PStrait 23:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

matter added[edit]

I added Matter to the sacrament. Do we need to add form, or does it appear to be clear without it?DaveTroy 20:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong move of article[edit]

Will someone who knows how to do it please undo Styrofoam1994's move of this article from "Eucharist (Catholic Church)" to "Eucharist (Catholic church)"? "Catholic Church" is a title and so should be capitalized. "Catholic church" is even illogical, in comparison to "catholic church". Lima (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This time it worked. Lima (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Are Catholics considered Cannibals[edit]

So the article states "But all the ancient Churches of the East ... believe, as the Catholic Church does, that in the Eucharist the bread and wine do become the body and blood of Christ." Doesn't this make them cannibals? Could someone please update the article to make this more obvious. Thanks ~~

No, they are not cannibals; the mode of Christ's presence, in Catholic theology, is supernatural, not natural, and this rules out any attribution of cannibalism. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Pope returns to old way of distributing Communion[edit]

I don't know if this is worth mentioning in the article. It seems to apply only to the Pope himself, not to something that applies to the whole Catholic Church. (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So far, Pope Benedict has done this exactly twice. It certainly does not apply to the whole Church: at both Masses the other priests distributed Communion to people who stood when receiving. Lima (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Nesting of topics for improved legibility in cross referencing[edit]

On the occasion of his renunciation of the privileges of the Sancta Sede, I was moved to update and expand the Perichoresis#Human body as icon of the communio personarum page on Pope BXVI's hermeneutic of continuity as a member the communio school of theologians and needed to link to a Eucharist page under liturgy (page had a very long and muddled structure making this rather difficult). I shuffled the table of contents by adjusting the subhead nesting seniority and forced two of the template TOC boxes to nearer the top of page in relation to the mainTOC. MrsKrishan (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Roman Catholic view on Lutheran Sacraments[edit]

The Lutheran-Roman Catholic talks suggested that validity is a graduated concept rather than a simple yes-or-no. The officials at the talks granted that Lutherans have the Real Presence in our Sacrament. It was published with Rome's stamp of approval. The current pope agrees with this historic concession on the part of Rome. Real Presence in the Sacrament means Real Presence in the Sacrament, and you can't simply say that is merely spiritual. You, I, and Martin Luther all know that forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are only given in a valid sacrament. So, while Rome does not believe that non-Swedish Lutheran sacraments are not fully valid--given that they lack ordinations accepted as valid by the Pope, Rome does in fact accept partial validity to Lutheran Sacraments, given all that is in common between Wittenburg & Rome. Please do not revert my edit until this has been been taken to consensus.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

From [2], The historical and theological reflections made above move us to doubt whether Roman Catholics should continue to question the eucharistic presence of the Lord in the midst of the Lutherans when they meet to celebrate the Lord's supper. And so we make the following statement...Furthermore, in our study we have found serious defects in the arguments customarily used against the validity of the eucharistic Ministry of the Lutheran churches. In fact, we see no persuasive reason to deny the possibility of the Roman Catholic church recognizing the validity of this Ministry. Accordingly we ask the authorities of the Roman Catholic church whether the ecumenical urgency flowing from Christ's will for unity may not dictate that the Roman Catholic church recognize the validity of the Lutheran Ministry and, correspondingly, the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic celebrations of the Lutheran churches.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The citation given justifies saying that the Roman Catholic theologians participating in the dialogue in question "doubt(ed) whether Roman Catholics should continue to question the eucharistic presence of the Lord in the midst of the Lutherans when they meet to celebrate the Lord's supper", and that the same theologians "ask(ed) the authorities of the Roman Catholic church whether the ecumenical urgency flowing from Christ's will for unity may not dictate that the Roman Catholic church recognize ... the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic celebrations of the Lutheran churches" (emphases added). It does not justify saying that "the Roman Catholics conceded that Lutherans possess the Real Presence in their Sacrament of the Altar" (the edit to the Wikipedia article). They expressed a doubt and raised a question, but did not state positively that, even in their personal opinion, Lutherans do indeed possess the Real Presence. They found the arguments used against Lutheran possession of the Real Presence inadequate, but indicated that the actual teaching of the Church does question Lutheran possession ("whether Roman Catholics should continue to question"). Lima (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Church does not consider Lutheran sacraments to be valid, because Lutherans have not maintained apostolic succession (according to the Catholic Church). Also, Lutheran ministers who convert to Catholicism have to be ordained as priests, indicating that the Church does not consider Lutherans as having sacramental validity. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


There should maybe be mention of related ecclesiology, per Ecclesia de Eucharistia of John Paul II. For instance, while many Lutherans may sometimes believe in Real Presence, they may not exactly share or comprehend the official magisterial view that the Eucharist is the Church.

Another interesting point would be to show the links between the Eucharist and the consistent life ethic commonly taught by the Church. ADM (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should also be metioned that the Catholic Church does not recognize the Protestant denominations' Eucharists as valid sacraments, because their lack of priesthood with apostolic succession.

The "consistent life ethic" is not universally accepted within the Church, nor is it magisterial teaching; there are Catholics who believe that this CLE is not really consistent at all, but compromises the Church's strong stances against abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. It is also not directly related to the topic, and should not be mentioned in this article IMHO. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


This article seems to me like neutrality was merely an afterthought and it was written from an obviously Catholic perspective, with little things like "according to the faith" inserted afterward as a half-hearted nod to WP:NPOV. The "Receiving the Eucharist" section has quotes that are cited but not attributed in the body of the article, for one, and the entire article seems to be weighted towards stating religious doctrine as fact with little to no regard for criticism of this particular ritual (rather significantly from the Protestant movement and Evangelicalism in particular). Pw33n (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The article's function is to present what the Eucharist is in the Catholic Church. It is not about the Eucharist in general, nor in Protestantism and Evangelicalism in particular. The recently inserted comments on Lutheran and Anglican viewpoints are out of place. They, and thus the ground for complaint about lack of neutrality, have now been removed. Lima (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


It seems to me that the history of receiving communion (along with confession, now called reconciliation) is missing. Communion can be received up to twice a day today. I think in, say, 1100, that believers might confess once in a lifetime and be given communion once. The idea being that you'd better not do anything wrong, there being no relief from hell if you did! Changes through the ages, communion for children, for example, should be presented IMO. Student7 (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be added to the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
No, confession and communion have always been ecouraged to be recieved as much as possible (confession once a year is a more common thing now-a-days). However, the history should be added. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Specific prayers & seasons, Advent, Mercy Sunday, etc.[edit]

I do not have a short list of specific prayers for specific periods such as Advent, etc. but I think it is needed. Instead of looking for it, I should ask: does anyone here have it read to go? We can dig it out of here etc. but if you guys already have it will be easier. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite of the Scriptural Foundations section[edit]

Greetings. I have performed a major edit of the "Scriptual Foundations" section of this article. My complements to those who contributed prevously; your work was very good. However, the previous version mentioned without elaboration that Old Testament figures of the Eucharist supported the doctrine of the real presence and left out a number of significant Eucharistic accounts (the road to Emmaus account, for example). I have tired to address these gaps. I believe that all the information that was there previously is still there with the exception of the following text:

Many, but not all, Protestants tend to interpret this symbolically rather than literally, especially those of Calvinist theological views. They see "This is my body" as parallel with "I am the true vine" (John 15:1) or "I am the door of the sheepfold" (John 10:9), whose meaning is symbolic. The doctrine of a symbolic Eucharist was more expressly propounded by the 16th-century Swiss reformer Huldrych Zwingli. However, a literal belief of the presence of Christ in the sacrament is found universally in all the writings of the Church Fathers of the Catholic Church since apostolic times.

Since this is an article about the Catholic Understanding of the Eucharist, and there are other aritcles that address the views of other denominations, this whole text seemed out of place. Perhaps it should move to one of the other articles. I look forward to your edits and to working with you on this page. Peace, Domichael (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I see no major factual problems in your edit. But there is probably too much OT there and the statement about the Last Supper in the 1st Melchizedek paragraph etc. is just an interpretation. And the comparison with Passover is of course disputed by other sources - as in the Last Supper page. So a lot of Exodus and Leviticus upfront is distracting from the issue in my view. And I would like to see what Esoglou thinks, given that he knows teh topic better than myself. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that there are major problems with the claim about "Major figures in the Old Testament which the New Testament authors relate to the Eucharist". I must get around to doing something about it, but for the moment I will just make a very few remarks. The Letter to the Hebrews, which says much about Melchizedek and the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, says nothing directly about the Last Supper or the Eucharist. St Paul does not say "Christ is the new lamb, and the Eucharist is the new bread of the Passover". And so on. These can be put as foreshadowings discerned by Catholic theologians, not the New Testament writers. Even then, since this is Wikipedia, the statements need to attributed to reliable sources and not based only on what one or more Wikipedia editors say. Esoglou (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, then when you have time, please make fixes. I will appreciate your help. History2007 (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look over the edits. I have added additional references to show that the Old Testament items I mention reflect mainstream Catholic thought.
This article is a bit strange to me as it is by definition a POV (the Catholic POV), so I was not sure how to state things like "the New Testament authors relate to the Eucharist". Clearly this is the Catholic POV, but need it be stated that way in the article given that the page clearly advertises itself as a POV? I started out by inserting "According to Catholic Theology..." in front of almost every sentence, but this made the article awkward and is not done elsewhere in the article so I abondoned this approach and relied on the title of the article to give the POV disclaimer. This looks like what the community has done before, and if I am reading the discussion page right it was already discussed in a seperate discussion topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domichael (talkcontribs) 15:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't feel like tackling a full revision of the section immediately. However, as an indication of my intention to do so, I have written something about Melchizedek and the Eucharist. Note that the statements I make are not just on Melchizedek and Christ, or Melchizedek and the priesthood of Christ, but are all on Melchizedek and the Eucharist, since this article is precisely about the Eucharist, not about Christ in general, nor about the priesthood of Christ in general. Note too that the statements are not mine but are those of cited reliable sources.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1544, which new editor Domichael cited, says: "Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the 'one mediator between God and men'. The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, 'priest of God Most High', as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique 'high priest after the order of Melchizedek'; 'holy, blameless, unstained', 'by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified', that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross." It says nothing of the Eucharist. Domichael is very welcome, and I am confident that he will make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, taking into account the need to provide citations for the apposite additions he will kindly make. It might be helpful for him to know that, to insert his name and the date and hour at the end of his comments, all he has to do is to type a tilde (~) four times in succession, like this ~~~~. Esoglou (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I have not done complte research on this, but have started to look into it and I am beginning to see Esoglou's reasoning. In an case, the other problem I saw was that teh OT items were "getting in the way of the Eucharist". The article needs to tell the reader about the Eucharist without getting Melchizedek distract them upfront. So I moved the section to teh end, until teh discussions clarify things. And I still see way too much OT in this without specific NT references in those OT discussions which are by and large "conjectures with references". I think we should focus on the Eucharist first, because that is the focus of the article and a key element of Catholicism - if not the key element. History2007 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I will wait a few days before responding with changes to the article so other editors get a chance to weigh in. I personally belive that the interplay between Old and New Testament figures of the Euchrist strenghtens the article and is on topic. In response to Esoglou's comments:
When Catechism 1544 says "everthing" in the old testment priesthood finds fullfilment in Christ "everthing" includes the priestly actions of Melchizedek in offering bread and wine. In this way 1544 does delibertly include the Eurcharist in its discussion of Melchizdek and is an authoratative reference.
The assertion that the bread and wine offered by Melchizdek is a "secondary" pre-figuring of Christ's priesthood is simply not true in Catholic thinking. The ability to find a source that believes this does not invalidate the authoritative source of the Catechism (1544 and 1333 as referenced) nor the writing of Scott Hahn, who is the top lay voice for Catholic Theology today. See Hahn's "The Lamb's Supper" p16-17: "[Melchizedek is a foreshadowing of Christ because...] Melchizedek's sacrifice was extrordinary in that it involved no animals. He offered bread and wine, as Jesus would at the Last Supper, when He instituted the Eucharist."
Furthermore, in Catholic thought the Eucharist is a percise, essential defining action of the priesthood. While the total scope of Christ's priesthood is out of scope of the article attempts to seperate the Priesthood of Christ from the Eurcharist is artifical. Cheers, Domichael (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am sorry, but I do not see it that way, as I read ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA. Hahn ma say X and another person may say Y, but the general framework presented in ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA does not seem to have a lot of the OT items you suggest. Instead it is laden with NT references. If I have to choose, I will go with JP-II, any day of the week. History2007 (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Domichael, for discussing the matter. Please read WP:SYNTH and indeed the whole of the article of which that is a section. Arguing that, because CCC 1544 says everything in the Old Testment priesthood finds fullfilment in Christ, it includes Melchizedek's "bringing out" bread and wine is synthesis: adding something to what is explicitly stated in the cited source. That is something we cannot do in Wikipedia.
As for what the Dominican priest Barden said, I don't think the general reader of this Wikipedia article would really get much advantage from it. I quoted it only because of the unsourced contrary statements here. If Domichael can cite authors who say the opposite (not just whom a Wikipedia editor interprets as meaning that, which would be synthesis), please put their statements into the article and we can have both points of view in the article. Or if Domichael prefers (and if History2007 and others do not object), we can simply omit that paragraph. I will postpone touching the rest of the section, until the Melchizedek question is settled. But of course Domichael (and others) are free to edit the section in line with Wikipedia rules about No Original Research and Verifiability. Perhaps Domichael would now like to recast the whole section in line with those rules. Esoglou (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Not sure about how much sourcing is still required, but everything that Domichael wrote is attuned to Catholic thought. Melchizedek, Manna, and everything. It may be too long and maybe there's a way to introduce it later, but the entire NT is foreshadowed by the OT in Christian minds. None of this relieves Domichael (or anyone else) of providing proper citations!
The method of relating it may seem "in-universe" to some and therefore pov. As the editor has said, saying "The RC teaches/perceives that.." before everything seems awkward and unreadable on an article totally dedicated to RC perception and explained as such in the lead. Student7 (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry but "foreshadowed in Christian minds" does not a scriptural basis make. In many cases the NT has specific OT references there and then. Here it does not. Here is after the fact conjecture. I have been looking into this more, again, and it seems that if one wants to create hypotheses of that type one can - and various people do. But to claim that upfront as the "basis" for the Eucharist is in effect ignoring the Last Supper in favor of Back to the Future. I think one can say that various people have had that type of hypothesis, but solid theology it is not, and I am getting more and more convinced of that. History2007 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You may have a point. The OT priest foreshadows priesthood, not the Eucharist. The old Catholic Encyclopedia appears to directly addresses this "omission." A strict reading of the last lines of Melchizedek_priesthood#In_Christianity seems to confirm that bread and wine were "symbolic" but not necessarily a "foreshadowing." Student7 (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, we may be converging towards an agreement. As you said, priesthood is one thing, the Eucharist is another. And again, the institution of the Eucharist was a "Last Supper event" as stated in Corinthians (11:23-26. I guess Paul could have said it was in imitation of Melchizdek, but he did not say that. He referred to the Last Supper only. History2007 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Please take a moment to re-read the Catechism citation: "the Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who 'brought out bread and wine', a prefiguring of her own offering" (in the Eucharist).[47] It could not be stated any more clearly that official Catholic Theology holds the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek is a pre-figuring specifically of the Eucharist, and not just of a generic priesthood of Christ. This catechism was presented to the world by JPII after being edited/compiled by Joseph Ratzinger, the current Pope Benedict 16. You and others may disagree with their position, apparently Esoglou has found a priest who published disagreement with it, but that is not the point: this article is not about dissident views - it is about the connoncial views held by the Catholic Church on the Eucharist. Does anyone really disagree that JPII and Benedict 16 as expressed in the Catechism are authoritative voices of those views? Barden's quote and realted text in the article should be removed. Domichael (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, I have read that Catechism section. But I do not see what you see in it and this is beginning to get circular. I think that section has other problems too. So let us discuss them one by one until the fog clears. The last paragraph about Moses and animal sacrifice is by no means a generally accepted issue and the Hahn reference by itself is not enough to establish it as the final word. So my immediate suggestion is to get rid of the Moses animal sacrifice claim because that relies on a single theologian's interpretation, unless you can find a big and serious name like Karl Rahner or von Balthasar to stamp that. FYI: The Encyclopedia of Catholicism by Frank K. Flinn and J. Gordon Melton provides no such claims.

The way I see it that animal sacrifice item is being given undue importance, and is not what the basic Catholic teachings on the Eucharist teach. So overall, the more I look into it, I see the material you added as not a valid and representative depiction of Catholic teachings. History2007 (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that prefiguring in animal sacrifice is not the core of Eucharist teaching and it should not be a major focus of the article. IMO it warrants a quick mention. To try to find a middle ground I have shortened the section. As for the legitimacy of the info, I have added a reference to Catechism 613. The verses mentioned in the article, Ex 24:8 and Mt 26:28, are simultanously citied by this section as biblical references referring to the "blood of the covenant", the same way they are linked in the article. If you find this compelling but don't buy into Scott Hahn as a source we could remove the Scott Hahn reference, which would further shorten the section. I don't think we need a Cathechism reference for every item in the article, but where we have one it is probubly cleanest source to use. Thoughts?
side note - We need to be cautious with Rahner as a source as some of his work on the Eucharist was denounced as heresy by Pope Paul IV. Domichael (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Rahner has had his share of criticism - and his Wiki article mentions that, but the article needs clean up some day. However, if a view is significant enough one of the big names like Rahner, von Balthasar, etc. will say something about it. On this issue they did not.
Now, let us look at these bulleted items one by one: The last item that begins "Among the many proscription of the Old Testament..." has nothing except WP:Primary references. As is it is WP:OR unless you can find major theological backing for it. As is, it is a collection of Bible verses related together without meeting WP:V. As is, that item needs to be deleted unless it is shown to be a teaching by various serious theologians. History2007 (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair comment. I have added shortened that bullet and added three sources which independanly support it. (1) Origen of Alexandria (185-254 AD) to show that association of these bible verses in a Eurcharistic context is >1700 years old and not my OR. To show that the idea remains present in Catholic thought, I reference (2) Mike Aquilina's book "Mass of the Early Christians" which, in addition to providing the relavent section of Origen, proposes a connection between showbread, other Jewish bread based rituals, and the Eurcharist and (3) John Salza's "The Biblical Basis of the Eucharist" which connects these passages and others based linguisitc arguements centered on the greek word anamnesis. I have provided page numbers to aid you in fact checking me. Does this address your concerns on that bullet? Cheers, Domichael (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. But I do not see the need to repeat Luke - given that Wikisource has it, but that was minor. But is there another reference beside Salza, given that he is no von Balthasar and has never had any official training in theology?
Now how about the paragraph above that, the one that starts: Scott Hahn states that the ratification and affirmation. Does anyone apart from Hahn say that? Or is he the only one. History2007 (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Keeping on the "Many proscription..." bullet for a moment, I noticed the edit "Since the time of Origen..." Do you have a reference for the statement that this idea only dates back to Origen? Origen being the earliest voice you are aware of does not mean the idea originated with him. Lacking something authoritative I think the article should be silent on the age of this linkage.
Regarding the question about Salza, I believe I have a similar analysis performed by someone else but I'll have dig for it. However, this article is about "Eucharist in the Catholic Church" not "Theology of the Eucharist," so while I concur that Salza is not a trained theologian I don't see that disqualifing him as a reference, particualarly since he does not employ theological arguements.
The "Scott Hahn states..." section is better referenced to Catechism Paragraph 613 and footnote 440 to that section. Please review and see if you concur.
FYI, I will be offline for about a week and will catch up once I get back. Have a wonderful week! Cheers, Domichael (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
"Since the time of Origen..." was not my writing, and I actually deleted it until Esoglou hinted that it was needed, so I put it back. Either way makes no difference to me, but it is hard to know who did what around 150 AD anyway, and makes no big difference anyway.
Salza is a very shaky reference, and he is making a theological deduction. Sorry, I can not agree on that one at all.
But Catechism 613, with footnote 440 is no reference at all. It is not a sentence about that assertion, but a conjecture on what a footnote might mean. That one is pure WP:OR unless you have a theologian writing that out and explaining it as a sentence or two. And the assertion is made in the article as if it were a certainty. It is not. History2007 (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

List of prefigurations[edit]

I think it would be good to give first the Summa Theologica's (perhaps incomplete) list of prefigurings, and then to fill in information about each of the listed prefigurings in turn, with a paragraph about each. I think therefore that it was not a good move to reduce the typology of Melchizedek from a paragraph to an extremely generic one-sentence remark that the CCC refers in some unspecified way to Melchizedek in that regard, a remark that furthermore gives no hint that the idea that associates Melchizedek with the Eucharist is far older than the CCC and even Aquinas. I leave this observation entirely to the consideration of others, and will not follow it up if disagreed with. I have no wish to get really involved at present, especially not in any arguments. Esoglou (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think if you want to re-org it, go for it. But please do add refs as you did to Aquinas. The other bullets there are mostly WP:Primary types. I think this section is beginning to eat time liek Pac-man now, and is probably far too long given that there are no major refs. History2007 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph that you reduced to a generic sentence provided information based entirely on Horton and CCC, scarcely primary sources. That paragraph was all I was talking about here, not about any reorganizing of the whole section by me. So, in spite of what I said, I have again discussed the matter of that paragraph. I shouldn't have. Esoglou (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I added the pre-Aquinas item, so all refs are there now, I think. Time to move on to the rest and wrap this up. History2007 (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have returned to this matter, continuing consideration of each in turn of the prefigurings in Aquinas's list. I would do more, but I fear that my revision may again be undone. So I have left the last two paragraphs untouched for now.

The preceding version of the paragraph on the manna was unsourced. It cited John 6:51, 53-54, but its statement that these verses were about the Eucharist was left unsupported, something that cannot be done in Wikipedia. CCC 1336, which it cited, does not unequivocally say that the verses were about the Eucharist. CCC 613, which the previous version cited for another statement, is about Christ's death: its heading is "Christ's death is the unique and definitive sacrifice"; it says nothing directly about the Eucharist. Esoglou (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Have no fear, go for it. I wish you would fix this once and for all and let us be done with it given that you know the topic well. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)