Talk:Eucharistic adoration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

4,000 or 40,000?[edit]

Eucharistic_adoration#19th_and_20th_centuries can anyone verify this number and fix the typo? paul herrin (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

St. Martin's in Louisville[edit]

I've added a link to St. Martin of Tours parish in Louisville, Kentucky (Archdiocese of Louisville) which offers online perpetual adoration. However, online adoration is somewhat doctrinally unsound. The Church has determined that individuals who watch televised Masses have not fufilled the precept to attend Mass, and has even extended this decision to individuals who watch a real-time Mass on closed-circuit television from a separate location (i.e., from the church hall) because of space constraints. (This does not apply, however, to individuals who watch large indoor or outdoor Masses on closed-circuit television, such as the massive Pontifical Masses at St. Peter's Square.) The Church's default position on sacraments is that one must be physically present in order for the sacrament to be valid, thus the validity of internet adoration of the sacrament is unlikely to be upheld by Church authority. I felt the idea was novel enough to warrant inclusion in the article, even if the validity is uncertain. Essjay 07:55, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

I placed this under "external links," where I think it more properly belongs, and substantially extended and revised the article. Fishhead64 04:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Monograph website link[edit]

I removed the fisheaters link, it is to a monograph website, inserted in violation of wikipedia guidelines by the website owner. Dominick (TALK) 17:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Quit hounding me, Dominick. Used2BAnonymous 19:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope this isn't hounding this is an article I was editing. The original RFC I made before you made that one is here. Dominick (TALK) 00:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Which you made after I was encouraged by a mediator and an admin to make one against you. Used2BAnonymous 00:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Is there no earlier precedent for this practice than the case in Avignon? There was an emphasis on seeing the Sacrament without receiving it long before. The elevation of host and chalice during consecration developed from this idea that to set eyes on the body and blood was grace-giving in itself. So surely Adoration outside the Mass stemmed from an older medieval spirituality - even if only sanctioned by Rome fairly late? --ADMH 13:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


I've added som background in the historical part. Mostly based on Fr. Harno's book. Morlesg 23:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Added History[edit]

I added some historical background. Mostly based on Fr. Hardon's book. Morlesg 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Added several appropriate categories and project listings. Aafm 23:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure who has edited this page, but there is some serious need of help, especially in the section about criticism. Some of it is difficult to understand if not completely unintelligible; there are multiple unsourced and unsupported statements, such as "As reported by Roman Catholic priest, Al Kimel..."--Who is Al Kimel? What authority does he have? It is important to remember that just because someone is a priest, it doesn't mean that he necessarily correctly represents the teachings of the Church. That is a common tactic of the anti-Catholic: quoting Father So-And-So or Sister Whomever and presenting that as the teaching of the Church. Also, statements such as " Scripture makes clear..." are always suspect, because Scripture is open to so many interpretations, even the statements that would seem to allow nointerpretation (e.g. "This is my body"). InFairness 05:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


In the criticisms section, statements are made as though they are stating fact when it comes down to matters of faith dependent on the religion which one practices. Also, these statements, such as "Similarly the Eucharistic Blood and Body are elements proceeding from Christ, not the irreducible Person Himself", are made without proper citation. I altered them so as to make them less appearing as absolute fact.

Also, it doesn't make sense to quote a large section of text at the end of that section. I'll keep that in for now, but it should be chopped more with explanations rather than leaving as is.Honest informer (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Father Al Kimel[edit]

The 10 line quote from this obscure priest on a historian that no one ever heard of seems to be unnecessary. The quote needs explanation and doesn't accomplish much as is now. I am going to go ahead and delete just that extended quote. Honest informer (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Marian hour[edit]

There should maybe be a stub on the liturgical concept of marian hour, which is prominent in organized prayer groups. ADM (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening line[edit]

The opening line states that Eucharistic Adoration is held mainly in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church; while this may be true of Eastern Catholic churches stemming from Byzantine tradition, I am in India right now, and I can assure that Eucharistic Adoration is extremely popular among Syro-Malabar Catholics. Since that line is basically unfounded, I am going to change it. GrimmC (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

But what is adoration?[edit]

As a non-Catholic, having read the term "perpetual adoration" in a book, I thought I'd look it up. Unfortunately, I'm left none the wiser when the article defines Eucharistic Adoration as adoration of the eucharist by the faithful. That's pretty obvious from the name. What exactly is involved in "adoration" in this context, though? I surmise that the eucharist is venerated in some way, perhaps through prayer, but for all I know, by polishing with furniture polish and throwing it from person to person across the room, or by [colourful expression removed on request], or anything else you can think of.

Could someone add something to the article which actually explains what the article is about? Would be nice. (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Josh

Will not address this issue based on post by someone that is being so rude about a core belief (the Eucharist) of the Catholic church. The equivalent would be someone saying would you take a Bible/Koran/my father's picture etc. and do the same thing to it. Major violation of civility, the only problem is that those outside of the Catholic church would not see it as such so someone can get away with it with impunity. Maybe if the user edits to post and JUST ASKS THE QUESTION then they will get a response.Marauder40 (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually I had previously deleted the impolite portion of the edit by said IP, but didn ot want to do a 3rd revert, and I suggest that his edit should be modified to remove the "language of the gutter" that was used therein. I think his post is unbecoming of Wikipedia and should be edited by consensus to be polite. I had a version of it in the page history which still asks his question but without the undue use of the language of the gutter. If there is consensus, let us modify it to be polite. Does not cost anything to be polite. History2007 (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I saw what you did and all also saw your interaction with an admin about this issue so I felt that I shouldn't in affect override the admin so I figured it would be best to ask the person to have the civility to edit it themselves. I figure one of two things will happen either the person will come to their senses and edit it themselves or they will disappear and this entire section can disappear.Marauder40 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, we wait. The IP said he was going to edit it himself anyway. But my fundamental point is that Wikipedia should not include "words from the gutter" in any case. It should be a respectable encyclopedia, on all pages. The IP could have asked the same question by using words that are used on the CBS Evening News, not this way. This language is not prime time news language. It should have no place in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The only problem is that I see Wikipedia, like a project that I worked on for a major company that had to be used by the general population of adults. I was told I had to develop the words, technology, etc. in a way that your average 6th grader can understand since that was the typical mentality of the "general population". The word that you are complaining about is a typical word used by people with a 6th grade mentality in everyday dealings. The actual problem here is that the word is used in connection with doing that thing to something that the Catholic church holds with high regard. I have a tough time assuming good faith that the person asking the question doesn't realize that but it could always be the case. I find it even harder to believe that the same person would have an issue with editing the same sentence when called on the issue, but still assuming good faith.Marauder40 (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marauder. As I stated previously, I'm more than happy to remove pretty much anything if someone asks politely. I apologise if you felt my question was disrespectfully phrased - that certainly wasn't my intention. Writing as a non-Catholic, I have to say that I haven't the faintest idea what you actually do when it comes to adoration, and various of the things I know Catholics do as acts of veneration would be considered incredibly disrespectful by other religions. If you want to draw a serious point from what was just a throwaway comment, it's that the article is so vague that without knowing a bit about Catholics to start with, there's no way of knowing what they might think is disrespectful: there are religions who do all kinds of things, from burning sacrifices - would it be considered disrespectful to burn the Eucharist, or is that something Catholics do? - to those who believe that one can 'pray' for bowel health by defecating on an idol. All I was trying to say is that without a definition, the term 'adoration' could mean anything at all, disrespectful or otherwise. (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Dave

To answer your question in a way that is just answering the question and not intended for in the article since it is without sources and such. Catholics believe that the Eucharist IS God/Jesus. That it is the Body and Blood of Jesus. Thus when it is displayed in a monstrance they are looking on the glorified Body of Jesus. What they do when it is exposed varies person to person, they may sit there and meditate, pray, sing to themselves, etc. It is a personal thing. Whatever they do it has to be respectful as if the item IS your saviour/king. So no, there is no burning of the Eucharist. The Eucharist after it has been "changed" by the priest is to be treated with utmost respect so there is no "farting" on it or anything else that would be disrespectful. Catholics also do not believe in defecating on an idol. By the way, just a simple lookup in the dictionary will find "adoration" 1. the act of paying honor, as to a divine being, worship 2. reverent homage, 3. fervent and devoted love. All valid things to what a person may be doing while they are adoring the Eucharist. The article already has a section titled "The practice of adoration" that with its sub-articles is pretty good at explaining this.Marauder40 (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I would note that the dictionary definition doesn't actually help, because I was asking about how the veneration is carried out - I wasn't sure if it was just a general focus of prayer etc, or if there was some specific rite, specific prayers to be said, perhaps certain types of prayer that might be more commonly associated with the act, etc.
To be clear on the respect issue, I don't think you've quite understood my point: it's obvious that Catholics would respect the Eucharist (at least once one has read the article on it, which is linked in the lead), but it's not obvious to a non-Catholic what Catholics would and wouldn't consider respectful. In other cultures, the Catholic practice of keeping saints' relics in various churches and cathedrals would be considered about the most disrespectful thing you could do to a body; similarly, the practice of eating the Eucharist is no more or less obviously disrespectful, to one without prior knowledge, than putting it in other bodily orifices. Even within the Catholic church, I believe, there are differences of opinion: (I saw on tv that...) in parts of the world where food is scarce, and the communion bread takes the form of a special loaf shared by the congregation which comprises their main meal for the day or week, they consider the Western practice of using tiny wafers to be somewhat disrespectful - and I assume there are some Western Catholics who would feel that filling your belly with communion bread is disrespectful. (Apologies if any of those terms are normally capitalised; I don't normally read or write about these things.)
Anyway, as interesting as this debate is, it's rather by-the-by as far as Wikipedia goes. My point with respect to the article is that it needs to define adoration in terms that one with no prior knowledge can understand. (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Dave
Oh, you added a bit - the section on "The Practice of Adoration" didn't actually help: I did read it before originally asking. All I was able to take from it was that "the host is displayed" and that prayer happens. (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Dave
This will be the last time I respond on this page since the talk page is intended for improving the article and your point about more clarification about what adoration is should be added has already been made. Feel free to ask me detailed questions on my talk page. Whether the communion bread used for the Eucharist is a small wafer or a large piece hasn't really been defined by the church. It does have to be made with only flour and water (and yeast if Eastern rite.) It also should be made in a way where pieces don't crumble off, fall on the floor etc. As to whether a person in these 3rd world areas has a problem with a small piece vs. a large piece or a person from the west has the opposite problem, that isn't what matters what matters is what the Church thinks and it would have no problem with either as long as both were treated with the utmost respect. One of the reasons why the Church only allows members of the church to receive the Eucharist and not anyone that wants to is part of the process is training in what is and isn't appropriate. Anyone who has had the appropriate training knows that once the person receives the Eucharist the only appropriate thing to do is consume it immediately. Eucharist adoration only happens within a Church environment and we would presume the people exposing the Eucharist would know what they are doing also.Marauder40 (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I would find it interesting to continue the discussion on your talk page if you would like to - I'm not quite sure we've understood as much of each other's points as would be desirable. Do you want to create a section and copy the last few edits over? I'll probably make a horrible mess of your page if I try :) (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Dave
Just saw this reponse in the middle of the other responses. Just created section on my talk page, feel free to use.Marauder40 (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Put it this way IP, you have so much class and elegance, that it leaves little to be said. Long live elegance and class. Leave it there Mr elegance. History2007 (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Look, for the good of Wikipedia, I'll try and explain this to you: your sensitivity is right at one end of the bell-curve (to the extent that it might even be regarded as somewhat eccentric), and you don't act accordingly. You have to accept that most people are not as sensitive as you are to 'gutter' language - which is not to say that you're wrong, purely that it's subjective. As such, you need to be extremely polite and non-aggressive in letting someone know that you have found something to be offensive, if for no other reason than pragmatism. (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Dave
The good of Wikipedia part was really touching. Let me wipe away my tears, then will think of something to say. In the meantime, the least you can do for the "good of Wikipedia" is remove the other "gutter words" above for they are irrelevant to this page, have no bearing on improvements to this page, and are just rambling observations, and hence may be removed by anyone anyway. History2007 (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, can we wrap all this up by agreeing a change? I would suggest adding a third paragraph to the section on practice of adoration along these lines: "The practice of adoration itself has no set form, and is personal in nature, but typically consists of: personal meditation or prayer focussed on the Host; [other things - can you add more detail here, please?]. There are set prayers for this act, which are [set prayers if they exist, I got the impression they don't]/There are no set prayers, although congregants(? - Adorants? Worshippers?) will commonly [whatever is common]." How does that sound? Obviously still needs some work ;) (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Dave

Yes, something can be worked out. The problem is, that it is one of those things that has to be precise. Although there is no formal thing that has to be said after Adoration starts there is a rite that is typically used when the Eucharist is exposed and another when returned. The rite can change depending on whether a priest/deacon does the procedure or a lay person does it. The hard thing is finding all the references on this and honestly History2007 is usually the expert at that. There are also a couple "formal" prayers that can be said during adoration but the use of them is totally optional. So the problem becomes one of percision in what you are saying vs. extreme length. Marauder40 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps if you can tell me what to put in, I can find an acceptable way to phrase it, and History2007 can add references where required - and then we can have a productive partnership despite getting off on the wrong foot. It should be possible to retain a reasonable degree of brevity whilst providing enough information to enlighten the casually curious and provide a starting point for those with a deeper interest.
For example, might we say: "The practice of adoration begins and ends with prescribed rites, bracketing a period for personal prayer and meditation focused on the host. The prescribed rites vary depending on circumstances including whether the celebrant(?) is ordained, [other broad categories]. The personal prayer may take any form, although there are also formal prayers which may be said by worshippers [is that the right term?] at this time, which are [prayer names(?)]."
I think we can strike a balance between too much detail and not enough. A broad outline of the possibilities and general nature is fine, in my opinion. (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Dave
Change "focused on the host" to "focused on the Eucharist". The following is a list of people that may expose the Eucharist "In the absence of a priest or deacon or if they are lawfully impeded, an acolyte, another special minister of communion, or another person appointed by the local Ordinary may publicly expose and later repose the eucharist for the adoration of the faithful." (The Rites Volume One, Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-8146-6015-0, page 673).", change "worshippers" to "adorers". As for the official prayers I have to look them up. You could just end the sentence at "adorers".Marauder40 (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm starting to get a little confused here - too much terminology which I couldn't define accurately. What's the difference between Eucharist and host, just out of interest? Is 'level of ordination' right to describe the order of preferred celebrants you provided? Also, would the formal prayers be of a certain type - e.g. certain choices from the psalms - or something unique? Depending on which it is, we might be able to provide slightly more information without necessarily naming the specific prayers.
Anyway, we now have: "The practice of adoration begins and ends with prescribed rites, bracketing a period for personal prayer and meditation focused on the Eucharist. The prescribed rites vary depending on circumstances including the level of ordination of the celebrant. The personal prayer may take any form, although there are also formal prayers which may be said by adorers." (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Dave
Eucharist vs. host. Eucharist is the better term. Usually you use host to specifically refer to the bread the becomes the body of Christ. If you use the term host in this context it sounds like you mean the person is focusing on the "bread" in reality they are focusing on the glorified body of Christ in the form of the Eucharist. As for level of ordination I don't think that is correct. You are either ordained or lay. A person can be ordained as an acolyte, lector, deacon, priest. Right this second I can't remember what they call "the levels". A priest actually goes through all those stages to become a priest. Maybe change it to "circumstance including who exposes/reposes the Eucharist." As for the formal prayers, they take certain forms I don't think there is one specific formal prayer, there are just different ones that different Saints, Popes, etc. have suggested to use. But use of them is optional. Other forms of formal prayer could include things like the Rosary, the Liturgy of the Hours, etc. as opposed to personal prayers that people may use. Like I said it isn't really easy to nail down the specifics. I sure don't have the writting skills to easily nail it down ;) I will look up more exact definitions of the states of ordination. The Ordination Roman Catholic section has a good description. They use the term level in quotes.Marauder40 (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Google suggests that the term 'clerical hierarchy' is in reasonably common use. Is that what we're talking about here? I wasn't quite clear from the passage you quoted whether there is a preferred order - so a priest is best, then a deacon, then an acolyte? Or is any of those three permissible, but then the others are only acceptable in the absence of one of the first three?
WRT the prayers, there doesn't seem to be a need to nail down specifics - I just want to be able to generalise accurately - which I think I can now do thanks to your help :)
"The personal prayer may take any form, although there is also a wide range of formal prayers which have been suggested to be suitable for adorers to recite at this time." -- Er, I wanted to say 'suggested by...' - is there a suitable general term encompassing Saints, Popes, and other types with religious authority? (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Dave
The priest and deacon are preferred for exposing/reposing the Eucharist. They are both what is called the "Ordinary" ministers of Communion. In most cases all the other people are called Extra-ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. It is always prefered that the Ordinary ministers be the person dealing with the Eucharist. The Church recognizes that others may be needed to do things like this due to the fact that priests and deacons are not always available so the church train and appoints people to do certain things with the Eucharist like exposing it for adoration, handing out Communion at Mass, taking it to homebound and hospital bound people, etc. However, the priest is the only person that can validly perform the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Acolytes (and lectors) in the formal sense aren't seen that often in the church anymore other then as seminarians. Sometimes you will see altar servers called acolytes but they aren't "really" acolytes. Acolytes and lectors are minor degrees of ordination. No reason to include acolytes in the article unless you are including the entire quote about who is allowed to do it. Marauder40 (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The questions about the terms Host vs Eucharist are not pertinent to this page (which is about adoration), but to the Eucharist page. 17:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This question was just in reference to which term to use in describing what is being adored. It is better to use the term Eucharist then Host.Marauder40 (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Probably so. I think the idea is that a Host becomes the Eucharist after consecration, i.e. Consecrated Host = Eucharist. The issue is that the specific teaching is that the act of consecration achieves a transformation. And that is the key to the theological basis for the adoration. I think this should however be clarified, also in the Eucharist page itself. But I have not checked there. History2007 (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to complicate things a little. Sometimes you will hear people talk about the host in reference to the consecrated Eucharist, especially when refering to the accidents vs. the glorified portions. If you look at the Catholic Encyclopedia definition of Host you will see they talk about Host in reference to before it is consecrated and use "consecrated Host" or "Body of Christ" to refer to it after it is consecrated. As I said before Eucharist is clearer in the case in which the IP editor was using the term.Marauder40 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I will stop, else I may just get excommunicated for these errors... just kidding, but you are right. History2007 (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You are much better at Catholic history, getting reliable sources, and writting then me. But I do know the current state of the church pretty well, both theologically and in practice. ;) Although I am no expert. Marauder40 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Page clean up[edit]

This page has been on my clean up list for a while now. Given the recent brouhaha, I may as well start that any way. People such as Therese etc. are not even mentioned, etc. And there is much unrefernced material. But then those of us who have seen these pages know the pattern, as in Hymns to Mary, etc. A discussion starts, an Afd and a brouhaha ensues and 2 weeks later the page gets improvements. So let that process begin. I need a few days to gather my notes on that and wrap up some computer articles, then will start it. History2007 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this page going down the AfD path yet. But it is always interesting working in the contraversial sections of WP. ;) I hadn't been following the Hymns discussion since songs are definitly not my strong point. Anyone standing around me at Mass can tell you that ;) Marauder40 (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No this page is not Afd material, but whenever these incidents happen, pages get improved. The Hymns page was effectively rewritten after that and became much better. This page can probably change by 30-40% and get better. Give me a week or two. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What of the in-situ adoration?[edit]

Does the tokenistic "adoration" immediately following consecration, when the priest elevates the Eucharist and the bells are rung, qualify under this? Or does it have another name in that context? (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This page is mostly about adoration "outside of Mass" where significant time is spent in meditative reflection. The priest elevates the Eucharist for just a few seconds, hardly providing time for reflection. However, the Council of Trent statement on latria specifically refers to both during Mass and outside of Mass. History2007 (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what made you use quotation marks on "adoration" and why you called it "tokenistic". This really shouldn't be tokenistic and, in fact, isn't for most people I've seen at mass; and yes, this is definitely adoration. Another example -- and this time there may admittedly be an element of tokenism -- is when we kneel down upon entering and leaving the presence of the Eucharist. Now, the point is that these forms of adoration should be mentioned in the article, and that "Eucharistic adoration" stricto sensu should be distinguished from them.

File:BASIL.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:BASIL.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge Visit to the Blessed Sacrament[edit]

According to a post at WP:CATHOLICISM, I found the article Visit to the Blessed Sacrament to be redundant and unnecessary compared to this one. If it has any valuable information that can be merged, we should do so, and delete the redundant article. Elizium23 (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Totally support Good catch. The other one is low quality and redundant. It just gives partial and less than reliable info. History2007 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
On a further read, I see the alleged distinction here. The other article is only about worship of the Eucharist reserved in the tabernacle; this here article is about both that and the liturgical practice of Eucharistic adoration with the Blessed Sacrament exposed in a monstrance. So it won't be hard to condense down. Elizium23 (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, that was easier than I thought, and I judge it to be complete. Regrettably there were no reference citations that I could copy over, but the material is uncontroversial and quite verifiable in my opinion. I believe that I am done with the merge. If anyone has more to add then feel free. I will check back and request deletion, probably via WP:PROD in a few days. Elizium23 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Just do it. PROD is not necessary, a redirect will be enough. History2007 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Dioceses of Rome?[edit]

At the conclusion of the opening pargraph of this article it says that Pope Benedict "instituted perpetual adoration for the laity in each of the five dioceses of Rome." Rome is one diocese, not several. And the source listed states that Pope Benedict did this "in each one of the five sectors of the Diocese of Rome." I don't want to change it myself, since I'm not a registered user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Elizium23 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eucharistic adoration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)