Jump to content

Talk:Last Supper: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Larry_Sanger (talk)
No edit summary
(No difference)

Revision as of 20:20, 17 September 2001

If anyone cares, I have put the three variant names (Eucharist, Communion, and Lord's Supper) as

redirection links to this page because the Last Supper is the common root of their history, and they are best understood in that context.


As an attempt to support the Neutral Point of View, I didn't see that using any of the three names as the main document name would support neutrality. All traditions can agree that their observance meeting is from the Last Supper, but there are those who would be upset characterizing their observance as 'just another name' for another denomination's service.




Larry, so you disagree with my reasoning?


I personally don't see anything wrong with it...



well, I would disagree that people in the Catholic tradition would expect The Last Supper to be the main entry. The Eucharistic liturgy is part - the greater part, but still part - of the Mass. Communion as practiced in much of the Protestant tradition is at its most frequent weekly (the denomination called the 'Christian Churches') and often only quarterly (the Calvinist tradition). So, no, I don't think it's neutral. Certainly the highly developed Catholic *theology* of the Eucharist is going to get an entry of its own, at least. In the Catholic tradition "communion" has another, separate ecclesiological meaning of 'what bishops are in union with each other", sobornost in the Russian orthodox tradition. --MichaelTinkler

You know my name; it would be nice to know yours!


I guess I am disagreeing with your reasoning, although I apologize for failing to note why I made my changes. (I didn't read closely enough.) I think that each of these traditions has its own meaning and history. Why not put each on its own page? Wikipedia has lots of room to grow; there's no particularly good reason to want to condense everything onto one page. Certainly the roots of each of these traditions can be explored on the one The Last Supper page, insofar as the traditions have similar roots. Otherwise, why should someone go to a page called The Last Supper to learn what's idiosyncratic about the Eucharist, for example? The logical place to look would be a Eucharist page.


Besides, there doesn't have to be any one "main entry," for the same reason--we've got endless room to grow. So I think we should discuss widgets on pages about widgets.  :-) --Larry Sanger



Okay, I'll go with separating them, after all you have more experience in this than I do. I agree the theology of the different traditions will make a difference, I just thought that putting them all on the same page would make it easier to contrast and compare, rather than requiring a reader to go to four or more separate pages, with their necessary duplications (due to establishing context).


But it would certainly make sense to compare and contrast them on some page, perhaps The Last Supper. We can do both! This is Wikipedia! --LMS