Talk:Catholic Church

Category Christianity

IMHO, there is no need for this article to be included in the Category:Christianity. This is because it is already diffused to the Category:Christian denominations. This latter cat reports to the former. So there is no need to duplicate it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The Catholic Church does not regard itself (or any of the other apostolic churches) as a denomination, a term it only uses when referring to Protestant churches. Haldraper (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The same is true for every other religion: each regards itself as the sole repository of Truth. Wiki makes no judgements about them, it simply categorises them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That first bit isn't true at all, to my knowledge. There are non-denominational protestants, but no Baptist would deny that he or she is part of the Baptist denomination. Same for Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. When you get into more unique territory, such as Latter Day Saints, the Witnesses, etc., things may be different, but I don't know of any mainline protestants of any of the major churches who claim to not be part of a denomination. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of judging the Church's claims to truth but of maintaining a neutral point of view. Haldraper (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I left the cat. Laurel Lodged added Category:Christian denominations, though this sounds more like a Protestant term which they common use (Baptist etc.) and not really one that the Catholic church fits into. If anyone feels it should be removed then please do so, unless there is a valid reason it should remain? I am not sure on this one. Tyros1972 Talk 22:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about how categories are decided on but it does appear abundantly clear that as far as Wikipedia articles are concerned that the Roman Catholic Church is considered a "denomination" and that this is consistent with maintaining NPOV rather than making an exception. The following is from the category's page at Category:Christianity:

"This category contains articles about Christian denominations, (not denominational families). A Christian denomination is an identifiable Christian body that has an identifiable name, doctrine, and structure. Although not all Christian traditions are comfortable with being termed as denominations, it is nonetheless common usage." Anglicanus (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Anglicanus, this is getting a bit circular. Who wrote the Category: Christianity description of a denomination? Is it backed up by reliable sources? Why do people want to describe the Catholic Church as a denomination when it says that it isn't one? Haldraper (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are irrelevant and indicate your own non-neutral POV. Wikipedia doesn't make any judgements about the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to be "THE Church" or anything else. It was you who argued for "maintaining a neutral point of view" but you then let your own bias to get in the way of doing this yourself. Whatever the Roman Catholic Church believes about itself this doesn't determine the meaning of what constitutes a Christian denomination or whether it is appropriate to include it in a listing of Christian denominations on Wikipedia. It would be absurd to exclude it from such listings. Anglicanus (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

All I'm really asking is what the reliable sources are for it being a denomination. I'm sure I can find a few to back up my belief that it isn't. And again: why the desperate need to try to prove that it is? Haldraper (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a "desperate need" to try and prove or disprove anything on this matter. There are plenty of reliable third party sources which refer to the Roman Catholic Church as a "denomination" ~ as well as many reliable first party sources which do so as well regardless of what the "official" RCC view is. For what it's worth I have never liked the word "denomination" anyway and avoid using it. Unlike America, for instance, it is not so commonly used here in Australia where "Christian tradition" is the preferred term. Anglicanus (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is silly. What denomination says of itself "We think we got a lot of things right here but others may have gotten more things right than us. But please don't leave, 'cause we're not a denomination, we're the real thing, the others are just fakes"? You might as well say than man ought not to be categorised as genus homo sapiens sapiens because man is just different. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack and caricature the sincerely held beliefs of other editors. Elizium23 (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't an attack. It was a discussion of reality and common sense. Sensitivities over beliefs should never influence nor restrict discussion here, nor should it ever guide the content of our articles. We're here to publish well referenced facts. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Laurel Lodged, HiLo48, a discussion is two (or more) sides stating their position and stating what they see wrong in the other positions. When the sentence starts "This is silly" and when a caricature of one's position is used in an argument by itself, without stating the actual position, that is an indirect attack that has nothing to do with "reality" nor "common sense," nor does it help the discussion to progress.

2. [Please note the first use of the words "church" and "denomination" in apostrophe. I am not defining, but using the terms used by the groups themselves] The problem is not so much what Apostolic groups believe, that is the beliefs of those "churches" that do not consider themselves "denominations" (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Orientals, Assyrians), but actually in the practices and in the differences between the two groups: a. Most (Protestant) denominations accept as valid other denomination's baptisms; b. They share the same 5 fundamental beliefs (sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria); c. Conversion from one denomination to another is quite a simple process; d. Most denominations consider the other denomination also as Christians, etc... The Apostolic churches do not share any of these with the protestant brothers. Catholics (and other Apostolic churches) themselves are not considered Christians by many Christian denominations. You can say that within the two big groups (Apostolic and Non-Apostolic), although differing in doctrines and practices, the fundamentals are common, yet those same fundamentals are not the same between the two groups. i.e. The 5 solae are commons to most if not all denominations; the 5 solae unites them (better said the interpretation of the 5 solae, since Apostolic also share them, although with different interpretation). Practices "perceived" as contrary to the 5 solae are shared by all 5 groups that do not consider themselves denomination. You can also say that there are two big groups within Christianity with very different practices and beliefs: the Apostolic Christians (which have the role of bishops) and the Congregational Christians (which do not, instead having the role of councils or equivalent). I hope I was able to communicate my point effectively. I am quite in a hurry writing these.

3. The above being said, there is no NPOV in this point. The definitions for "church" and "denomination" are different for both groups. Whatever decision is made, it is already taking one or the other side. On one side, the 5 Apostolic groups consider themselves churches, while protestants are not churches but denominations. On the other side, most protestant groups consider themselves churches and consider Apostolic groups also as denominations (if they even consider them Christians, which is not always the case).-Coquidragon (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The rudeness, if that's what you think the problem is, didn't start with "This is silly". That was a response to "...why the desperate need to try to prove that it is?" from Haldraper. Language like that is hardly likely to "help the discussion to progress". As for denominations, where I come from (and it doesn't matter where that is) that word is commonly used to discuss every branch of Christianity. It's a simple, practical, convenient word. For some Christians to argue so determinedly against it further convinces me what a problem self-proclaimed Christians have. They love to tell us how many Christians there are, in the world and in various countries, based on highly inflated, nebulous figures from the most inaccurate sources, while ignoring the reality that most of them don't practice Christianity in their daily lives at all, and then argue that some other group of these Christians aren't proper Christians "cos they're not the same as us". The hypocrisy in the Christian push here is appalling. I doubt of Christ would have approved. For the purposes of this encyclopaedia, the most practical descriptions of Christianity are not going to come from within. They have to come from outsiders without an internal ideological and theological POV barrow to push. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not contributors. Elizium23 (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, HiLo's correct here, and this is basically the thrust of what WP:YESPOV is about. If neutral sources tend to consider the RCC a denomination, then we should too, published Catholic opinions to the contrary. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus? My sense of the above is that there is a consensus that there is no need for this article to be included in the Category:Christianity and that it should instead be diffused to Category:Christian denominational families. I propose to do same in 2 days. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that consensus has been achieved; there are too many conflicting opinions as to whether the "" is appropriate. Perhaps you could explain why you believe consensus was achieved? Personally, I'd recommend a category title such as "Branches of Christianity" or "Christian Churches and Denominations"? --Zfish118 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have taken up Zfish's suggestion and have created the Category:Branches of Christianity. Only the categories of the 10 principal branches are populated. I have left this category out, instead using the RC category. I trust that this solution is satisfactory. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this a reference to the branch theory of Anglicanism? It is discredited within Catholicism and considered a heresy. Catholicism is not a branch. Elizium23 (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

These are perfect examples of asserting contested points of view or beliefs as truth claims. On Wikipedia the beliefs of any religious groups ~ including particular beliefs about themselves ~ can never be presented as "the truth". This principle also applies to what one religious group thinks about another group's beliefs. Whether the the Anglican "branch theory" is considered "heresy" by the Roman Catholic Church does not determine the truth or otherwise of the theory. Equally, the Roman Catholic Church's belief that it is not a "branch" or "denomination" also does not determine whether or not it ought to be categorised or described as such in Wikipedia articles. Anglicanus (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And yet a wide berth of latitude is given for self-identifcation. Consider Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, two clearly non-Christian religions, which are allowed to self-identify on Wikipedia as Christian. This is presented as "truth" in Wikipedia's voice. This controversy is addressed in Mormonism but appears to be totally absent from Jehovah's Witnesses. But in both articles these assertions are put forward as truth. So I would say that most organizations get to self-identify their classifications based on their own beliefs. Elizium23 (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your examples illustrate the difficulties with trying to be neutral when it comes to these kind of issues. Tough examples, however, don't obliterate the general principle of not presenting a body's beliefs as being the truth. The JW article also ought to address the issues around them being considered a Christian church or not. There are, however, some significant differences between them and Mormons concerning this question. Organisations and groups are rightly allowed to self-identify within certain limits. When there are significant differing points of view, however, we have to try to reach a wording which is as acceptable as possible. Not an easy task sometimes ~ as the protracted and ongoing debate about "Catholic Church" versus "Roman Catholic Church" keeps reminding us ~ but still necessary. Anglicanus (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Synonyms for Branches would be Groups, Clusters, Categories. There are others that use the term. See Branches of Botany. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Anglican "branch theory" is a different grouping, referring to "Catholicism" being divided into "branches". Calling the Catholic Church a different "branch of Christianity" from Orthodoxy or Protestantism is not problematical in the same way. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Would changing the category name from "Category:Christian denominations" to "Category:Christian churches or denominations" be acceptable to all sides? Esoglou (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but it also raises the question of whether some "denominations" are "churches" or not. If it is somehow implied, even innocently, that there is some kind of distinction to be made between a body being a denomination and an authentic Christian church then it becomes problematic. Anglicanus (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that "Christian churches or denominations" or, perhaps better, "Christian churches/denominations" necessarily implies a real distinction rather than a preference in terminology. Esoglou (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Punctuation, Restrictive vs Non-restrictive Clauses

The article says, "the Pope is the sole successor to Saint Peter who has apostolic primacy.[note 2][note 3][note 4]." If you know English grammar & punctuation, you should know that since the sentence does not refer to a certain Peter who has primacy as opposed to another, a comma is required after Peter (as the relative clause is making a comment on Peter not specifying some specific Peter). Now kindly do not edit war on this. If you don't know English 101 on commas, I suggest you go study it. Someone reverted my comma addition. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC))

Thanks for the attempted grammar lesson but you are really just continuing to create erroneous arguments for reasons best known to yourself. It should be obvious to just about anybody that in the context of the sentence that the "Saint Peter" being referred to was St Peter the Apostle and not any other "St Peter" in church history. But even if it had been referring to another St Peter it still was not a "non-restrictive clause" as it was obviously "specifying some specific Peter" even if it wasn't explicitly made clear which one. Part of the clear context of the sentence was that the bishops are considered the successors of the apostles. Another part of the context was the claim that the Pope is the only bishop with "apostolic primacy" in succession to St Peter and only one of the apostles was named "Peter". Therefore your addition of a comma and your claim that this was needed due to a "non-restrictive clause" were both clearly mistaken. I suspect that you already knew this anyway. Anglicanus (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

user:Anglicanus reverted your change because he argues that it is the Pope who is the successor possessing apostolic primacy; there are other successors, but only the Pope inherited the special privileges of office. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The provoker may have been right in this question. In any case, WP:DNR is a good policy. I have now removed the bone of contention together with the strange use of "apostolic primacy", which properly applies, not to the Pope, but to Peter, the holder of primacy among the apostles. Esoglou (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I liked Zfish118 edition, but I do find this last wording clearer than his. Nevertheless, it doesn't accurate reflect the idea of primacy. It is not only as "successor of Peter," but as "successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome." Look at the article you are linking Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Remember that the Bishops of Antioch and Syracuse are also successors to Peter, yet they didn't inherited his primacy. (I don't know if any other Church also claim Peter as its first Bishop.) I will go ahead and edit to reflect this. This was the original reason behind the debate of the restrictive vs. unrestrictive clause.--Coquidragon (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I just saw the edition by Afterwriting, and I don't know how to word it exactly, so I won't even try editing the article, but something is not clear. Leaving Primacy apologetics aside and looking at history and tradition, tradition assigns to Peter three Episcopal lines: Rome, Antioch and Syracuse. (I don't think there are others, but I don't know.) Why was Rome primus inter pares among the ancient Patriarchates? Only because Peter was head of the Apostles? What about Antioch or Syracuse? This doctrine has what Newman called a developmental history. Since many Orthodox theologians (and some Eastern Fathers of the Church) did not recognized Peter as head of the Apostles, how did they accepted the Primacy to start with? Do both Antioch and Syracuse also have Petrine ministry? Reading the article on Primacy would be very beneficial. At the end, Rome had position of honor, politically, for being the capital of the Empire and, from the Church, because BOTH Peter and Paul died in Rome. Now, since the wording in the article concerns what the Catholic Church teaches, what I just said does't apply. Nevertheless, technically, from a Catholic perspective, Primacy doesn't derive from Peter being head of the Apostles, but from Jesus naming him the "rock" over which He would built his Church. Peter as head of the Apostles is a posterior interpretation of the passage. So, why Peter? Because he is the rock. Why Rome? His and Paul's place of martyrdom, although its being capital of the Empire did had practical influence. How can these be reflected in the article?--Coquidragon (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if head of the "College of Bishops" sufficiently summarizes the role of the Pope for the lead. Linked to "Papal supremacy" instead, which may be of more general interest, and is more directly related to the Pope than "Apostolic primacy". Mentioned Saint Peter's martyrdom too; details of the succession might be better placed within the body. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have regretfully decided that it is necessary to revert the latest changes by Zfish. The statement is about what the Church teaches. The Church does not teach that St Peter was martyred in Rome. Still less does it teach that the martyrdom occurred in AD 67. Even the Annuario Pontificio indicates that this is not certain. The Church does teach what the CCC says about the Bishop of Rome, Peter's successor, being head of the Episcopal College. This Church teaching should not have been replaced by any unsourced statement of Church teaching. Other statements of Church teaching about the Pope may be added or perhaps may replace the Church teaching at present given, but only if properly sourced. Also, I think that changing "Pope" to "Bishop of Rome" in a context that speaks of "cardinals, patriarchs and diocesan bishops" is inappropriate. Sorry for being so drastic. Esoglou (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe you overlooked the additional source I provided for the material in question. (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/453832/Saint-Peter-the-Apostle/5632/Tradition-of-Peter-in-Rome) --Zfish118 (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What I missed was whatever it said about the martyrdom of Peter in Rome in 67 being a teaching of the Catholic Church. Is it there? Esoglou (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I failed to notice how Esoglou's two queries support the reversal of the whole edit. The Church, its tradition as attested by at least three Church Fathers (Clement of Rome, Tertulian and Origenes), does teach that Peter was martyred in Rome. St. Peter's Basilica is named after St. Peter, for being built at the place where tradition says Peter was martyred (or buried, I'm not sure). So, if the problem is the date, we can just take it out. Given that Esoglou's wording goes along CCC 880, Zfish's goes along CCC 882. Furthermore, since this is the lede of the Catholic Church article, are we talking about St. Peter or about the Pope, as head of the Church? Under Esoglou's wording, the subject is Peter, which then derives to the Pope. Under Zfish, the subject is the Pope, and derives from Peter. I think Zfish fits best the lede and will revert, taking into account Esoglou's comment. I'll come back to provide the sources for the Church's father on St. Peter's martydom.--Coquidragon (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the Hazhk version Perma-linked Here is adequate. The origins of the Pope's authority cannot be fully summarized in one sentence, yet there are sufficient links to find this information if desired. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Various versions floated around the past few days cited Saint Peter as "head" of the apostles. Is this an important point to include? --Zfish118 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ordained Priest

In Catholic theology, all baptized men and women are priests. CCC 1546 states: "Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father." The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood." With this I'm not arguing por putting back the "ordained" clause in the lede, yet if the only reason for removal is, as the description said, that RCC has no ordained priests, then that reason was wrong. Another question is if this is appropriate or not for the lede.--Coquidragon (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The section you cited refers a priesthood concept not at all related to ordination. If you would read the next paragraph in CCC (§1547) "The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful...differ essentially." In §1549 it states "through the ordained ministry, especially that of the bishops and priests, the presence of Christ...is made visible." Go ahead and revert your edits. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm refering to the deletion of the lede: "The Church teaches that when consecrated by a ORDAINED priest the bread and wine used during the Mass become the body and blood of Christ through transubstantiation." The argument given to delete the "ordained" clause is "The Catholic Church has no non-ordained priests." This is false, as per my first comment, all baptized men and women are priests. Nevertheless, only validly ordained men can consecrate during the mass.--Coquidragon (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Although the expression of the argument to which Coquidragon referred is faulty, I don't think that the Catholic Church, which does speak of the priesthood of the faithful, and does speak of them, again collectively, as priests, ever uses "a priest" to speak of a baptized John or Mary Smith who has not been ordained to the ministerial priesthood. The same holds for common parlance, and this may be even more important for Wikipedia. So there appears to be no ambiguity in speaking of consecration of bread and wine by "a priest". Esoglou (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

1. First reason given for the deletion: "In the Catholic Church there are no non-ordained priests." Accepted as faulty, enough said. My own statement: "I'm not arguing por putting back the "ordained" clause in the lede, yet if the only reason for removal is, as the description said, that RCC has no ordained priests, then that reason was wrong. Another question is if this is appropriate or not for the lede." Should it be? I don't know.

2. New argument for keeping deletion: not needed for lack of ambiguity because "the Catholic Church,... (n)ever uses "a priest" to speak of a baptized John or Mary Smith who has not been ordained to the ministerial priesthood." This statement just kills the theology of the laity. I remember when I was a layman, how many times my Parish Priest reminded me "you are a priest of the Church and should take active participation in this community." He would say that to all laity, empowering them (us) to assume responsibilities in the Parish community.

3. Final argument: "The clause "ordained" is not needed because the context is clear." With this statement, I can't argue.

My purpose for all this going back and forth: it is not about agreement or disagreement with the action taken, but the reasoning needs to be clear.

By the way, thanks Esoglou, you are doing a great job with the page, always looking for opportunities of improvement and watching for vandalism.--Coquidragon (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have reverted User:Esoglou's deletion of "ordained." Both of you simultaneously agree that your logic is faulty and then claim that's why you made a change. I also find it odd Coquidragon makes the explanation for someone else's edit. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

My comments in response to the question Anglicanus raised were expressions of my poor view that "an ordained priest" is a pleonasm. If other editors prefer to keep it, especially if they have strong feelings about it, I will of course make no fuss. Esoglou (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Validly ordained priest

I am making a proposal here rather than editing the article directly, because of the commotion that followed my removal of the former presentation of the celebration of the Eucharist and the celebration of the Mass or Divine Liturgy as distinct celebrations. (The new text is ambiguous or pleonastic, but the articles that the wikilinks point to show that it is the same celebration.)

Both "consecrated by an ordained priest" and "consecrated by a priest" are unsourced phrases based on editors' preferences. I propose a change to "consecrated by a validly ordained priest" with a mention, as source, of canon 900 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: "The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone." Any objections?

There are two points in the article where the change would be made. Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to the edits of Pretty Pig (talk · contribs), this statement now misrepresents Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. The Catholic position is that a validly ordained priest can confect the Eucharist. The Catholic teaching does not specify that the priest must be Catholic. It does not require him to have faculties from a bishop and it does not require the Church in which he operates to be in communion with Rome. It only requires correct form, matter, and intent. All of these are present in other Churches (as an easy example we shall choose the Eastern Orthodox.) Please do not misrepresent Catholic teaching in this article. The word has to go. Elizium23 (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not think Catholic teaching has been misrepresented here. As Esoglou has mentioned above, Canon 900 states that "The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.". I think it is clear that the context deems that the term "validly ordained priest" refers to a Catholic priest. Otherwise, it would be possible for an Orthodox priest to say a Catholic Mass now wouldn't it?

I think it is an entirely different matter altogether that a Catholic may receive the Eucharist at an Orthodox Church as the Catholic Church recognises the sacraments in the Orthodox Church. However, Catholics are allowed to receive such sacraments only under exceptional cases, so it is most definitely not the norm.

Regarding the form of the Eucharist, the Orthodox Church uses leavened bread whilst the Catholic Church uses unleavened bread (although the Eastern Rite Churches do use leavened bread). According to Canon 926, "According to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread in the Eucharistic celebration whenever he offers it.". So I think it is clear that the Orthodox priest will never confect the Eucharist in the same way as the Catholic priest does.

That's why I think the word "Catholic" should be included. The term "Catholic" does not imply that the Eucharist is different from that of the Orthodox Church. On the contrary, we all know that they are mutually recognised. Rather, it is to indicate the Eucharist found in the Catholic Church, that can only be confected by a validly ordained Catholic priest. From the context, I think it is pretty self-explanatory that only a Catholic priest can confect the Eucharist in the form expected in the Catholic Church. Rather than misrepresentation, I think the omission is an underrepresentation instead. Pretty Pig (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The sacrament is the same. The Catholic Church simply recognizes the validity of apostolic succession, ordination of priests, bishops and deacons, and confection of the sacraments by the Orthodox as well as others. The question of leavened and unleavened is a red herring, because that only affects liceity, not validity. It is not enough to rely on Canon Law because these issues are doctrinal and not disciplinary. The Catechism also agrees in wording that a "validly ordained priest" confects the Eucharist. Why must you insist on adding words that are not found in the sources? This is WP:OR and as we can see it is leading to unwanted conclusions. Elizium23 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As you know, Pretty Pig, what counts in Wikipedia is what reliable published sources "clearly and directly" (WP:V) say. This edit of yours was illegitimate in that it distorted what the Code of Canon Law (surely a reliable source on the matter) said. You can argue as much as you like about what "should" be included, but until you find a reliable source that "clearly and directly" says what you want to put in Wikipedia, you can't put it in. Esoglou (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever considered the fact that the Code of Canon Law is directed to and is applicable only to Catholics? It is very clear that in the original context, it was referring to someone bound by Canon Law, that is a Catholic. In this case, it is a Catholic who also happens to be a validly ordained priest.

Even then, what does validly ordained mean? Canon 1033 - 1039 states the prerequisites clearly. Clearly in this case, only a Catholic can become a validly ordained Catholic priest as according to Canon Law, unless of course special permission has been granted, even though the sacraments are mutually recognised across both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. My point being, as mentioned earlier, that while the Eucharist is the same, the article is about the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, which can only be confected by a validly ordained priest, who is also required to be a Catholic.

"clearly and directly" also has an element of inference to it, otherwise all the works on Wikipedia would just be a collection of plagiarisms and quotes now wouldn't they? But then again, it is also clear that your minds have been made up already. Pretty Pig (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and at this point, WP:IDHT applies. Elizium23 (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, let me just say that if you want to take Canon Law as your point of reference, you should take the whole Canon Law into context and not just what suits you. There must be some sort of consistency here don't you think? Pretty Pig (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The Eucharist

I am sorry that editor Dominus Vobisdu was offended by my questioning his revert (on grounds that "the eucharist is only one part of the liturgy") from "the Eucharist (the Mass or Divine Liturgy)" to "the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the Eucharist is celebrated". He reacted by deleting my comment on this Talk page that his view disagrees with the statement in sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1332 and Virgilio T. J. Suerte Felipe that "the Eucharist" and "the Mass" are names for the same reality. I expected not a deletion of a Talk page remark but a citation in support of Dominus Vobisdu's view that they are instead distinct realities. Esoglou (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have asked Dominus Vobisdu to stop deleting other editor's comments. This is not permitted except in exceptional circumstances such as gross offensiveness which Esoglou's comments haven't been. Anglicanus (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

(Going back to the article) I believe this problem at hand is due to different uses of the word "liturgy." Both editors are partially correct.

"Liturgy" could be:

1. Mass or "Divine" Liturgy. [The name "Divine Liturgy" is mainly used in the Easter Churches, while in the West, Mass and Celebration of the Eucharist are normally used, although Liturgy is also used.]

2. Parts of the Mass: Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist.

3. Rites: Roman liturgy, Byzantine liturgy, etc...

4. Liturgical celebrations, which include the Divine Office and the administration of the sacraments outside of Mass. These are official services and prayers of the Church, as opposed to personal devotions. The Compline is liturgy, the Rosary is not. Giving the Eucharist to an ill person outside of mass is a Liturgical celebration, a procession of the Way of the Cross is not.

CCC 1136 defines "liturgy" as "an action of the whole Christ (Christus totus)." CCC 1163-1178 "WHEN IS THE LITURGY CELEBRATED?" is divided into 5 sections: 1. Daily Mass, 2. Sunday Mass, 3. Liturgical year, 4. Sanctoral, and 5. Liturgy of the Hours. So, both the Mass (1 & 2) and the Divine Office (5) are part of the Liturgy, and they both have different prayers for ordinary times, liturgical times (3) and celebrations of saints (4). Moreover, in some Eastern Churches traditions, the "not-equal, but somehow equivalent" divine office (Divine Office has a completely different understanding in the West and in the East) is incorporated inside the Mass.

As per the 4th use of liturgy, and as understood in the CCC, Liturgy is not necessarily equivalent to Mass; although by adding "divine" to "divine" liturgy, is this equivalent to Mass now? Should the wording reflect this? I don't know. Was this Dominus Vobisdu's intention? I also don't know.

Leaving the deletion of the Esoglou's comment aside, I think this is a good discussion to have.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping that Dominus Vobisdu would respond to the invitation to discuss the edit by which he maintained that the "Eucharist" (not "the Liturgy of the Eucharist", which is a different thing, as "the Mass of the faithful" is not the same as "the Mass") is only a part of the Mass. As I said in my first comment here, I was presuming that, in line with the edit he made, what Dominus Vobisdu meant by "the liturgy" is the Mass/Divine Liturgy. If by "the liturgy" is meant all (and more) that Coquidragon mentions, it is the Mass that is part of the liturgy (which includes celebration of all the sacraments, the liturgy of the hours and much more), and not the other way round, as Dominus Vobisdu claimed. The Eucharist is not part of, but is the Mass/Holy and Divine Liturgy/Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection/Holy Sacrifice/Most Blessed Sacrament/Eucharistic Assembly/Holy Communion. "The inexhaustible richness of this [one and the same] sacrament is expressed in the different names we give it" (cf. CCC 1328).

The edit in question was not about "the Mass" versus "the liturgy", as Dominus Vobisdu's comment might mislead into thinking, but a change from "the Eucharist (the Mass or Divine Liturgy)" - all names for the same thing - to "the Mass or Divine Liturgy, during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated" - making the Eucharist out to be distinct from the Mass. Esoglou (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring your rudeness, this is what I was talking about [[1]]. And the argument I am using is exactly the argument you yourself used in the previous section, where you also argued against the CCC vs common usage. Eucharist in normal parlance refers to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, a part of the Mass. Or to the consecrated host itself. If you hadn't been such a WP:DICK, you would have gotten an answer sooner. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Dominus, it is not smart to enclose your reply in a personal attack or two. Your decision to remove Esoglou's comments was in fact ruder than his actual statements in the first place. Please comment on content, not contributors and much progress can be made. Elizium23 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's not focus on the fact that a comment on another editor, as you have done just now, is in fact also a comment on a contributor. I think this edit [2] puts the emphasis in the correct place. Not sure why it is being argued over. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Eucharist |ˈyoōkərist|
noun
the Christian ceremony commemorating the Last.  Supper, in which bread and wine are consecrated and consumed.
• the consecrated elements, esp. the bread.
(Apple Dictionary)

Mass |mas|
noun
the Christian Eucharist or Holy Communion, esp. in the Roman Catholic Church : we went to Mass | the Latin Mass.
• a celebration of this : there was a Mass and the whole family was supposed to go.
• a musical setting of parts of the liturgy used in the Mass.
(Apple Dictionary)

It seems to me that the sentence uses "Mass" in a correct sense to describe the act of celebration as a whole, and "Eucharist" to describe the "consecrated elements" in particular. Perhaps rearranging the sentence, to say "Catholic worship focuses on the Eucharist, celebrated in the Mass or Divine Liturgy."? --Zfish118 (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The document Dominus Vobisdu cites does not say "the Eucharist" is a part of "the Mass". It says "the Liturgy of the Eucharist" is part of "the Mass", and Church documents say that "the Mass" and "the Eucharist" are synonyms. "The Liturgy of the Eucharist" and "the Eucharist" are not synonyms. "The Liturgy of the Word" and "the Liturgy of the Eucharist" are simply names now used for what used to be called "the Mass of the Catechumens" and "the Mass of the Faithful".

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that "the Eucharist" and "the Mass" are used as synonyms. Of course, each of these two names is used in other senses too. "The Eucharist" is used not only of what Apple Dictionary calls "the Christian ceremony" but also of the consecrated elements; and the Catechism of the Catholic Church says the same thing, when, speaking of the name "the Most Blessed Sacrament" (used for what it also calls "the Eucharist", "the Eucharistic assembly", "the Holy Sacrifice", "the Mass", etc.), it states that "the Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by this same name". And "the Mass" is used not only of what Apple Dictionary calls a celebration of "the Christian Eucharist" ("the Mass" and "the Christian Eucharist" are here given as synonyms) but also of a musical composition.

The phrase "the Eucharist (Mass or Divine Liturgy)" is exact and is based on reliable sources. No source has been put forward here for saying that in this context "the Eucharist" means anything different from "the Mass".

I would have thought that the Catechism of the Catholic Church's saying that the two terms are names for the same reality was quite enough as a reliable source for discussion of the Church's teaching. For good measure I also cited a book that says the same thing. And Zfish has cited Apple Dictionary, which says that both terms are used of celebration of the Christian ceremony. I could have added others, such as:

• "Mass. The common name for the Eucharistic liturgy of the Catholic Church. Synonyms: Eucharist, Eucharistic celebration" (source)
• "Mass: The common name for the Eucharistic liturgy of the Catholic Church. Synonyms: Eucharist, Celebration of the Liturgy, Eucharistic celebration, Sacrifice of the Mass, Lord's Supper." (source)
• "Eucharist. the Christian service, ceremony, or sacrament commemorating the Last Supper ... The service of worship is also called Holy Communion or (chiefly in the Protestant tradition) the Lord’s Supper or (chiefly in the Catholic tradition) the Mass" (source)
• "The Mass is the complex of prayers and ceremonies that make up the service of the Eucharist" (source)
• "Mass. Definition: (Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Churches) the celebration of the Eucharist"(source)
• "Any reality that is so rich will naturally end up with many names and synonyms, each emphasizing a different quality. The Mass has gathered many titles throughout the ages. ... The Eucharist ... " (source)
• "Mass. 1. the Christian service of the Eucharist ..." (source) Esoglou (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't now dispute that the two are synonyms in most instances, although this subtly is not something I was previously familiar with. At some point though, I probably wrote or edited that sentence, and my intent was to link to the separate articles regarding Mass (Catholic Church) and Eucharist in the Catholic Church, which focus on the liturgical structure and theology respectively, both of which may be of specific interest to a reader. I have no particular attachment to any particular phrasing, but do wish to keep or clarify the wikilinks to the separate articles. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The wikilinks Zfish118 speaks of are in the text that Dominus Vobisdu removed: "the Eucharist (the Mass or Divine Liturgy)".

While many side-comments have been made, no reliable source has been presented in support of the idea that, in Catholic teaching, the Eucharist is a distinct celebration occurring during the Mass, as in Dominus Vobisdu's text, now in the article: "the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated". Esoglou (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, another argument due to differences in the use of one word. Eucharist (which by itself means thanksgiving) has three main uses: 1. Eucharist = Mass (Esoglou); 2. Liturgy of the Eucharist as part of the Mass (Dominus Vobisdu in last comment in this talk page); 3. Sacrament of the Eucharist (current text in the article). You are comparing oranges and apples, and this way, no consensus will be reached.

Esoglou, the Eucharist is distinct from the Mass in uses 2 & 3. If you look at the current wording, it says that the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated during the Mass. This statement is 100% correct. The sacrament, the moment when we received the Body and Blood of Christ, is a specific moment during the Mass. The celebration of the Mass, is not a sacrament. Dominus Vobisdu is not saying that the Eucharist is celebrated during the Mass (which is also partially correct in its 2nd use), but that the sacrament is celebrated during the Mass. There is no ambiguity in his use of Eucharist, since he explicitly says "sacrament," he is speaking of the sacrament also called Communion. Now, consensus needs to be reached about which use of "Eucharist" will be reflected in the article, and agree on the wording.--Coquidragon (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No, Coquidragon. The part of the Mass/Eucharist known as the Liturgy of the Eucharist is, on its own, no more the Eucharist than the Mass of the Catechumens (or the Mass of the Faithful) is, on its own, the Mass. What reliable source says that your number 2 is a meaning of "the Eucharist"? This says that the Mass and the Eucharist are the same thing and that rather than "Mass", Catholics today use "the term 'Eucharist', which emphasizes the Liturgy of the Eucharist and our active participation in both the Word and the Lord's Supper" - it emphasizes a part, but doesn't mean that part, in fact it emphasizes active participation in both parts of the Eucharist/Mass. Liam G. Walsh says that your idea is mistaken, and he corrects it, saying: "In fact, the whole celebration, from the assembling of the community right through to its dismissal, is a unified action of word and rite, which in its totality is called Eucharist" (read more of what he says here). Your number 3 notion, that the sacrament of the Eucharist is "the moment when we receive the Body and Blood of Christ", sounds like Protestant teaching, not Catholic. Catholic teaching is that the sacrament of the Eucharist is far more than that. See this and this and this (which I have cited already); the "sacrament of the Eucharist" is not just consumed; it is "confected" by a validly ordained priest (see here). But enough of that. Dominus Vobisdu's text speaks of the sacrament of the Eucharist being "celebrated", not "consumed"; that in itself is enough to exclude your number 3. The main problem with Dominus Vobisdu's text is that it excludes what you call meaning number 1, it excludes the idea that the Eucharist is the Mass. Even if some think may think that the Eucharist and the Mass are not the same thing, no reliable source whatever says they are not. On the contrary, the sources that have been cited here in this discussion all say that, in Catholic teaching, the Eucharist and the Mass are the same thing. Esoglou (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Eucharist = Mass is not the only use of the word Eucharist. You can present many sources for Eucharist = Mass. This is true. Nobody is arguing this. But within the Church, Eucharist is not only used for the Mass. It is because of these other uses that we can say, not only that the Eucharist is the Mass, but that the Eucharist is part of the Mass, occurs in the Mass, is celebrated in the Mass, is partaken at Mass, etc... Please read the section on the Sacrament of the Eucharist from the CCC for all the uses.

For one instance, the problem at hand:

-Dominus Vobisdu wrote: the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated.

-CCC 1367 says: The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

Please, pay attention to the underlined sentence. The Mass is normally called Eucharist (there are many references to this as you have shown), because is in it where we celebrate the sacrament, but they are not always the same thing. In the section of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the CCC, you'll find not only the three uses mentioned by me, but others as well, but this one section 1367 is clear enough for what I wanted to convey.--Coquidragon (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Just in case, for other uses within CCC, please see:

1323 - At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. - This is the most important use of the word, not the Mass. Jesus did not say Mass that day. The sacrifice in the cross = The sacrifice of the Eucharist. He offered his body and blood on the cross. He left us his Body and Blood, consecrated in the Bread and the Wine.

1324 - For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch. - Is Christ contained in the Mass?

1328 - 1332 - WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED? - The inexhaustible richness of this sacrament is expressed in the different names we give it. Each name evokes certain aspects of it. It is called:... It has many names, each evoking different aspects.

1332 - Esoglou's use - Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God's will in their daily lives. One of the names. This is the current teaching of the Church as to why the Sacrament of the Eucharist is also called Mass.

1334 - When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of the bread and the cup.

1335 - this unique bread of his Eucharist. Can you say Bread of the Mass?

1336 - The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples,... The first announcement of the Mass divided the disciples?

1346 - The liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist together form "one single act of worship"; the Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord. Eucharist = Body of the Lord

1351 - From the very beginning Christians have brought, along with the bread and wine for the Eucharist, gifts to share with those in need.

1355 - Because this bread and wine have been made Eucharist ("eucharisted," according to an ancient expression), "we call this food Eucharist, and no one may take part in it unless he believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught. Food = Eucharist

An so on and on. --Coquidragon (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Conquidragon, which of all these quotations says the Mass is not the Eucharist or the Eucharist is not the Mass. The citations I gave are explicit about the identity of the Mass and the Eucharist. "This divine sacrifice" (Christ's one sacrifice on the cross) "is celebrated in the Mass" does not mean that the Mass and the Eucharist are different things: it could just as truly be said that "this divine sacrifice is celebrated in the Eucharist". The Catechism of the Catholic explains the origin of the name "Mass" for the one reality - so what? The Catechism of the Catholic Church also explains the origin of the name "Eucharist" and of other names for the same reality. Of course, some names for a single reality, names that differ because of concentrating on different aspects of the same reality, are inappropriate in certain contexts - but again so what? Is there any source that actually says the Eucharist and the Mass are different realities?

It is inappropriate to speak of "the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated". Reliable sources state explicitly that the Mass is "the sacrament of the Eucharist". Esoglou (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, read what I just wrote. You say "the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated" is inappropriate, but CCC 1367 says: "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice... and since in this divine sacrifice (you read the cross, I read Eucharist) which is celebrated in the Mass..." You have Is celebrated in the Mass and the Mass during which is celebrated, two expression that convey the same idea. Are you saying the wording in the CCC is inappropriate? Your request for sources as to Eucharist not equal to Mass only goes to show you don't accept other uses of "Eucharist." I have given official uses, by the Church, where Eucharist is used for other realities, like you say. I think, right now, references supporting the current wording has been provided and you cannot ask for anything more official than the CCC, as to the teachings of the Church. Teaching of the Church: 1) Why is the Sacrament of the Eucharist called Holy Mass? CCC 1332 responds: because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God's will in their daily lives. 2. CCC 1367 says: The Sacrifice of the Eucharist... is celebrated in the Mass. Can you show me a source that explicitly says that the Eucharist IS NOT celebrated at Mass? I'm not asking for sources that say Eucharist = Mass, for sources that EXPLICITLY say the Eucharist IS NOT celebrated in Mass. Since this seems to go nowhere, you have three editors reading the sources and reaching one conclusion (Zfish, Dominus Vobisdu, and myself) and one editor (you) reading the sources and reaching a different conclusion. Do you want me to ask for an external opinion on the matter?--Coquidragon (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

To your question "Is there any source that actually says the Eucharist and the Mass are different realities?" here is a quote, straight from the Official Compendium of the CCC at www.vatican.va [3]: #86. "What kind of worship is due to the sacrament of the Eucharist? The worship due to the sacrament of the Eucharist, whether during the celebration of the Mass or outside it, is..." Please pay attention to the underlined. The sacrament of the Eucharist can be celebrated outside of Mass.--Coquidragon (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

CCC 1328-1332 lists various different names (of which Mass and Eucharist are two) in which "the inexhaustible richness of this sacrament is expressed". "The divine sacrifice" (which is the Mass/Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection/Holy Sacrifice/Holy and Divine Liturgy/... and which, the Council of Trent, citing Hebrews 9:27, links to the one sacrifice that Christ offered once for all on the cross) is celebrated in the Mass/Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection/Holy Sacrifice/... There is no need to posit (synthesis) a celebration distinct from the Mass/Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/... "The whole celebration, from the assembling of the community right through to its dismissal, is a unified action of word and rite, which in its totality is called Eucharist." So, of course, I don't say that the Eucharist is not celebrated in Mass, nor that the Mass is not celebrated in the Eucharist. They are the same celebration.

Names such as "Eucharist" and "Most Blessed Sacrament" (though not all names for the sacrament of the Eucharist - names such as Mass, Divine Liturgy, Eucharistic assembly, Breaking of Bread ...) are applied both to "the celebration of this sacrament" (that of the Eucharist) and also to "the Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle", as CCC 1330 rightly and authoritatively states. You can worship the sacrament of the Eucharist (the species) both during the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist/Mass/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/... and outside that celebration; but in spite of what Dominus Vobisdu attributes to you below, you can't celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist (the rite) outside the celebration of Mass/Eucharist/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/... And so it is inappropriate to speak of "the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated", instead of "the Mass or Divine Liturgy, which is the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist". "The Eucharist" never means the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" or "Mass of the Faithful". Esoglou (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

When this text refers to the worship due to the Eucharist "outside" of the Mass then it means the sacrament of the Eucharist when it is "reserved" and the focus of prayer and worship either in the tabernacle or a monstrance or in liturgical celebrations such as Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. It isn't suggesting that the Eucharist as such can be "celebrated outside of Mass" (at least not in the usual sense of what "is meant when referring to the celebration of the Eucharist). Of course it is possible to consecrate the elements in certain circumstances without celebrating a complete Mass but that is obviously not what the text is referring to. Anglicanus (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict as a result of which I have inserted ahead of the comment by Anglicanus the reply I had tried to save. I must therefore specify that the text Anglicanus is referring to is that concerning "The worship due to the sacrament of the Eucharist, whether during the celebration of the Mass or outside it". Anglicanus is, of course, right. I would add that, in spite of what is often said, some theologians doubt that the words of consecration pronounced outside of the context of a celebration of the Eucharist/Mass/Divine Liturgy/... would be effective. In any case, Anglicanus spoke of an abbreviated Mass/Eucharist/Divine Liturgy, not of something that could in no sense be called a Divine Liturgy/Eucharist/Mass. Esoglou (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Historically, the Liturgy is a cobbled-together collection of different rituals, prayers and practices that included the Eucharistic ritual. Orignally, the word "missa" refered exclusively to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and excluded the preparatory and penitential rites and the Liturgy of the Word. That is no longer the case, as the word "Mass" now refers to the whole service, including the non-Eucharistic elements. As Coquidragon rightly points out, the Eucharist can be celebrated outside of Mass. Even after the Liturgy became a cohesive whole, catechumens were required to leave before the Eucharistic portion of the service began (although no longer part of the Latin Mass, the words commanding them to depart are still part of the Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy, though they are no longer considered as an actual dismissal). I have no problem with the wording that the Eucharist takes place in the Mass, and I doubt that any source will be found to contradict this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dominus Vobisdu, for discussing the question. I think several of your statements are unfounded, such as your claim that the word missa originally referred exclusively to what is now called the Liturgy of the Eucharist and that used to be called instead the Mass of the Faithful (missa fidelium), as distinct from the Mass of the Catechumens (missa catechumenorum). Note the use of the word missa for both parts of the Mass (missa). Similarly, although the Byzantine Divine Liturgy still marks the change from one part to the other by pronouncing an instruction to catechumens to leave, it is the whole rite that is called Divine Liturgy or Eucharist.

Coquidragon did not say that the Eucharist can be celebrated outside of Mass. It can't. Outside of Mass/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/..., the Eucharist (the Eucharistic species) is worshipped, but not celebrated. Every celebration of the Eucharist is a celebration of the Mass/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/... "The whole celebration, from the assembling of the community right through to its dismissal, is a unified action of word and rite, which in its totality is called Eucharist" - and is also called Mass/Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread/Eucharistic assembly/... The Eucharist can be said to take place in the Mass in the same way as it can be said to take place in the Breaking of Bread, the Lord's Supper, the memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection, the Holy and Divine Liturgy, the Sacred Mysteries ... and vice versa. In short, "the Eucharist" never means the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" or "Mass of the Faithful". Esoglou (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The first mention of the word "missa" is in a letter by Ambrose, where he very clearly uses "missa" to refer to the Liturgy of the Faithful only:

"The day after, which was Sunday, after the lessons and the sermon, when the Catechumens were dismissed, I was teaching the creed to certain candidates in the baptistery of the basilica. There it was reported to me that they had sent decani from the palace, and were putting up hangings, and that part of the people were going there. I, however, remained at my ministrations, and began to celebrate mass."

He uses it consistently, or at least not inconsistently, with the same meaning elsewhere in his writings. Of course, the ORIGINAL meaning of "missa" was almost certainly limited solely to the Dismissal of the Faithful, but we have no surviving examples of that usage before Ambrose. The word thus creeped in meaning from the dismissal, to the Liturgy of the Faithful, and especially the Anaphora, to the whole Liturgy including the Liturgy of the Catechumens (preparation, penetential rite and Liturgy of the Word), which was probably appended to the Liturgy of the Faithful some time after Ambrose.

As for Eucharist, it referred orginally only to the words of institution or consecration proper(Didache), and later only to the Anaphora (Didascalia and Apostolic Constitutions, see also Basil and John Chrysostom). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting comments. You may well be right.

However, to get back to today, does "Eucharist", as a celebration, now mean for the Catholic Church the Liturgy of the Eucharist or Mass of the Faithful? Or does it mean the whole celebration? Esoglou (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Given. It means the whole celebration. Nevertheless, it also means the sacrifice of Christ; it also means the consecrated host. So, if we use "Eucharist" to mean the Sacrifice of the Eucharist (instead of the Mass), then, we can celebrate the Eucharist during the Mass. It all depends what you mean when you say "Eucharist." You cannot eat the Mass, yet you can eat the Eucharist. The order of the Mass has four parts, the thir of which is the Liturgy of the Eucharist, you'll never say the Liturgy of the Mass; etc...--Coquidragon (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's try one more time. I cannot hide my frustration. CCC 1278: "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it." The only thing I want to convey is how in this one sentence, the Sacrament of the Eucharist is a distinct "reality" than the mass. "Offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist... not only during Mass, but also outside of it." If I can adore the sacrament of the Eucharist during Mass, then you have one object (sacrament of the Eucharist) which is adore during the time of a second object (the Mass). Nobody is denying that the Mass is also the Eucharist. The whole purpose of this long and pointless discussion is that the word Eucharist is used for different objects, or realities: the sacrament, the Mass, the consecrated host, etc... Once again, yes, the Mass is also called Eucharist. Once again, the consecrated host is also called Eucharist. Once again, the third part in the order of the Mass is the Liturgy of the Eucharist. If you use "Eucharist" meaning sacrament, which I have shown is a different "reality" than the Mass, then we have that we celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass. This is my last intervention. If this is not solved, I'll asked for a third opinion. This is 3 editors with one idea vs. 1 editor with another, with different interpretations of the same texts.--Coquidragon (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that the phrase being insisted on is "the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the Eucharist is celebrated". The trouble is speaking of the Eucharist as a celebration and at the same time applying to the word meanings that are not about an action (a celebration) but about something static ("the consecrated host"). Why insist on "is celebrated"? Esoglou (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The full sentence is "Catholic worship is highly liturgical, focusing on the Mass or Divine Liturgy during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated." The subject of the sentence is "Catholic worship," the predicative is "highly liturgical," relative sentence to subject "focusing on the Mass or Divine Office." This sentence looks at the Mass from the standpoint of the worship. Now, why does the Catholic worship focuses on the Mass? Because it is during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated. A very well redacted sentences that allows the reader to differentiate between Mass, Liturgy and Eucharist, each of which has more than one use, that might or might not be the same, depending on the use and the context. If we also consider the possibility that the sacrament of the Eucharist is a distinct reality to the Mass, you can also celebrate the Eucharist during the mass. This does not look at the Sacrament from the static reference of the consecrated host, but from the standpoint of Christ' sacrifice in the cross, which is indeed an action. It all depends how you read "Eucharist."--Coquidragon (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem about the use of "liturgy", "Mass" or "Divine Liturgy"; and there is no question that "the sacrament of the Eucharist" in the sense of an object that you can receive and touch and venerate and worship is different from "Mass" and "Divine Liturgy". Sources cited by both you and me say so. The problem is the insistence that "the sacrament of the Eucharist" in its sense as a celebration, an action, has a meaning different from that of "Mass" and "Divine Liturgy". No reliable source says that the sacrament of the Eucharist in this sense is anything other than the Mass or Divine Liturgy.

You say: "You can also celebrate the Eucharist during the Mass." In what sense do you mean "celebrate the Eucharist"? Do you mean "worship, praise, etc."? In that case there is no difficulty, requiring only clarification. Or do you mean, if I may use a technical term, "confect"? In this case you would seem to posit an action within the celebration as a whole that can be at least mentally separated from the celebration as a whole. Would that be the "Liturgy of the Eucharist" or "Mass of the Faithful" part, for which (unlike the consecrated elements) we have found no source that explicitly calls it the Eucharist, while there are sources that say it is wrong to call it the Eucharist? If not this, what is it? Esoglou (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It means "confect", to utter the words of institution and effect transubstantation. See the Didache and the other sources I mentioned above and read up on the history of the Liturgy. And the history of the terms "Mass" and "Eucharist", which I've already explained to you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Esoglou. I'm not seeing the problem with it that you apparently are seeing. The primary and essential meaning of the word "Eucharist" refers to the sacrificial sacrament, which is the words of institution or the consecration proper. All other meanings are derived from this, including the "consecrated host" meaning, the "distribution and reception of communion" meaning, and any other parts of the Liturgy of the Faithful or the Mass as a whole. The sentence as it now stands seems fine to me. Equating the terms "Mass or Divine Liturgy" and "Eucharist" as exact synonyms does not. What alternative to "celebration would you suggest? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

So, Dominus Vobisdu, for you, celebrating the Eucharist means confecting it, and you seem to identify celebration of the Eucharist as the consecration (unlike Coquidragon, who at least earlier, but perhaps no longer, seemed to identify it as the act of receiving). What sources can we cite to say that the Catholic Church (now) calls the consecration the Eucharist, rather than trsating it as part of the Eucharist? Esoglou (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Eucharist is defined very neatly and succinctly in CCC 1358 and explained at length in the subsequent sections. All other usages of the term are derived from this, specifically the words "he gave thanks" in the words of institution. None of the other meanings exclude the consecration. No consecration, no Eucharist. And you'll never find a source that says otherwise. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

In other words, the sources see the consecration only as an essential part of the Eucharist understood in CCC 1328 as what goes also by names such as the Lord's Supper and the Mass: none of them calls the consecration on its own the Eucharist. There isn't any source that speaks of "the Eucharist" as something celebrated during the Eucharist as understood in CCC 1328. "The Eucharistic celebration always includes: the proclamation of the Word of God; thanksgiving to God the Father for all his benefits, above all the gift of his Son; the consecration of bread and wine; and participation in the liturgical banquet by receiving the Lord's body and blood. These elements constitute one single act of worship" (CCC 1408). Esoglou (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm changing "during" to "in" per CCC 1367. It's ambiguous enough to accommodate all definitions, including yours. I've said all that there is to say, and I'm not interested in discussing the matter further. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we playing scrabble? First, use of Liturgy, then, use of Eucharist, now, use of "celebrate". Oxford dictionary: 1. to publicly acknowledge (a significant or happy day or event) with a social gathering or enjoyable activity (let's celebrate the redeeming sacrifice of Christ in the Cross who stayed with us in the Sacrament of the Eucharist); 2. to perform (a religious ceremony), in particular officiate at (the Eucharist) (It is very interesting that the Eucharist is mentioned by name, but if "officiate" means "to preside," then this might be correct English, but it is wrong Catholic theology, since in our theology since 2nd VC, all laity also celebrate, only the Bishop/Priest presides.) (Let's celebrate in our Lord, let's remember and make present his eternal sacrifice in the Sacrament of the Eucharist); 3. to honour or praise publicly (let's celebrate our all loving God in the sacrament of the Eucharist). We can also say: let's celebrate the sacrament of Baptism at Mass (receive a new member in the Church), let's celebrate the sacrament of Matrimony at Mass (union of love in the presence of God and his Church), let's celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist at Mass (a God that gave his life for us, that gave his life to us in the sacrament of the Eucharist), etc... Signing out!--Coquidragon (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Coquidragon, a citation is needed for the assertion that "post-Vatican II, all laity celebrate the Mass." In Canon Law, the term "celebrate" refers to a priest only. Witness Canon 916: Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession This clearly refers to a priest celebrating, otherwise it would mean that the laity should not attend Mass unless in a state of grace. So clearly "celebrating Mass" isn't for everyone according to the Church's legislation, so I would be interested to see the Vatican II document that says otherwise. Yes, it is true that the priest "presiding" is new terminology that is officially used, but other priests are still referred to as "concelebrants" so I am not sure the term has slipped down as you say it has. Elizium23 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Many theologians speak today of the idea of 'concelebrating from the pews,' that is "the whole community" gathered for Eucharist "celebrates"... the priest is the presider, leading the assembly in prayer, but the entire community "celebrates" the Eucharist." Before Vatican II, our theology emphasized the priest's role: he was "celebrating Mass" and the people in the pews were "assisting at Mass". With the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the emphasis changed. Is this reflected anywhere? Yes, in the spirit and letter of the document. Nevertheless, to your question, I don't think this has reached Canon Law or the Roman Missal yet. For some things, our beloved Church (like a priest friend of mine use to say) "moves like a Dinosaur on a skateboard while theology (and society) drives cars in the highway." Regardless, let's not open another Pandora's box. This is not important since it was my comment on the definition of "celebration" from the Oxford dictionary. It doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand. If anything, I'm using "celebrate" under the first and third definition. Nevertheless, I'll need to check up on my sources, thanks Elizium23.--Coquidragon (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a quote attributed (I haven't been able to confirm it) to Pope St. Pius X: "The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. It is the Sacrifice, dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the altar. If you wish to hear Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart and mouth all that happens at the altar. Further, you must pray with the priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the altar. When acting in this way, you have prayed Holy Mass." I think it reflects what I'm talking about. Here is another quote that I found in the internet, "The Eucharist is the expression of all the people offering the whole of their lives together to God our friend and lover. The presider is merely the conveyer of that offering. The less he is noticed, the better. The presider must decrease while Jesus must increase." (Well, I guess I kept Padora's box open, without bringing real sources to the table, jeje)--Coquidragon (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I am grateful to Dominus Vobisdu for changing the text. Surely nobody objects to the revised text. May we end the discussion on a text that no longer exists in the article? Esoglou (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Church = she or it?

Is it against MOS guidelines to refer to the Church as "she"? This is how she refers to herself but I am unsure if it would comply with Wikipedia standards. I reverted a recent edit by Hazhk in this regard, he changed "she" (referring to the Church) to "the papacy" but should it actually read "it" instead? Elizium23 (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that there is something in the the MOS specfically about this and other "inhouse" style conventions such as referring to God as "He" (against the MOS except in direct quotations) instead of "he". Anglicanus (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the following: Pronouns for figures of veneration are not capitalized, even if capitalized in a religion's scriptures. but I can't find even an allusion to a rule against my proposition. Can you? Elizium23 (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As I recall I once saw it some time ago but finding it again is another matter. Anglicanus (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It can certainly be argued that consistency and current consensus play a large role in the status quo as "it". However, I am slightly offended by this usage, as it reflects a poor understanding of the Church's theology of herself, often held by outsiders, but recently held by even many Catholics due to the faulty English translation of the Mass which was circulated for 40 years. By the provisions of Liturgiam Authenticam the accurate representation of the Church as female was restored in the liturgy, and I feel that this understanding of the Church as Bride of Christ deserves a prominent mention in this particular article, and I am especially dismayed that neither the terms "bride" nor "groom" appear anywhere within it! I would be bold and add it myself but I am essentially a vandalism fighter and not much of a content writer. But this is my plea to content contributors here: if the Church cannot be referred to as "she" in articles then some articles should at least explain how she understands herself in relation to Christ the Bridegroom. Elizium23 (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I fear that referring to the Church in Wikipedia articles as "she" would stir up more controversy (about alleged POV) than it is worth. Esoglou (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)