Template Talk:Eucharist
Get Template Talk:Eucharist essential facts below. View Videos or join the Template Talk:Eucharist discussion. Add Template Talk:Eucharist to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Template Talk:Eucharist


This template originated because of discussion found at Talk:Eucharist#Template_creation_proposed. Feel free to edit, comment, critique, etc. KHM03 6 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)

Important People

I think the template looks good, and is definately needed. However, I think perhaps instead of "Important People" it might be beter to say "Important Theologians" or something. Alternatively, we should add Jesus & St. Paul to the list, as they definately qualify as "important people" in regard to the Eucharist. Otherwise, I think it looks good. -- Essjay · Talk July 6, 2005 01:49 (UTC)

That's fine with me. KHM03 6 July 2005 11:26 (UTC)
I added Jesus & Paul. They are first on the list...everyone else is alphabetical. KHM03 6 July 2005 11:29 (UTC)
Very nice. Having Jesus under "Important Theologians" strikes me as a little odd, especially on an equal basis with the others. Perhaps setting him apart under "Founder" or "Instituted by:" would be better. I'd also change "Theological views" to "Theology" and move "Theologies contrasted" up from "Related articles". JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)
I'm going to make these changes to see how it looks. Feel free to revert. JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

Done! Any other suggestions? KHM03 6 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)

If John Wesley wrote anything on the Eucharist, add him under "Theologians" (as well as anyone else relevant). JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

(Sorry, JHCC...didn't see that you were doing it as well...KHM03 6 July 2005 16:31 (UTC))

No problem. JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

New additions

I think the inclusion of Mass is fine, but would question the inclusion of Alexander Schmemann. The folks I listed all made essential contributions to sacramental theology. I did not even include John Wesley, founder of my own tradition, because while he wrote extensively on the Eucharist, he didn't make any invaluable contributions to the subject (he was Anglican via Orthodoxy, essentially). Alexander Schmemann, and others, have undoubtedly made wonderful contributions in more recent times, but the folks I think we should include should be foundational figures. What does everyone else think? KHM03 6 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)

I would rather go as wide as possible on this. Schmemann's writings, especially in For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy (1970) and The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom (1988), are a very clear articulation of the role of the Eucharist in Orthodox spirituality, as well as being instrumental in reviving the practice of frequent Communion. I'm sure that other writers, such as Wesley, are equally important in articulating their own traditions, even if they are not "foundational" as such. JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)

The problem is that we could end up with a huge template. For my money, no one articulated the beauty and importance of the Eucharist like the Wesley boys...but they made no significant contribution to Eucharistic theology. We could probably list a dozen or so Catholic theologians on there as well, but it would be nice to have a neat, relatively concise template. At least that's my vision. KHM03 6 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)

A huge template may be unavoidable. We still haven't added Eucharistic adoration, Blessed Sacrament, Corpus Christi, or Excommunication , let alone Chalice, Bread, or Wine. Yes, it may be a huge template, but it's an awefully huge subject. JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

One important theologian I see missing is Augustine; he's probably the most cited and most controversial figure in Eucharistic theology, since every side believes he supports thier position. (Arguments have been made that he professed transubstantiation, consubstantion, nosubstantiation, and a variety of positions in between.) -- Essjay · Talk July 6, 2005 19:07 (UTC)

I'm for adding Augustine, but are articles like Corpus Christi and Eucharistic adoration absolutely necessary? KHM03 6 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)

I'm against Corpus Christi (i's relevant as a celebration, but a bit obscure for a general template) but I think Eucharistic adoration is important, since 1) it's highly misunderstood, and 2) several of the articles with RC sections mention it. -- Essjay · Talk July 6, 2005 19:13 (UTC)

I reduced the size (too small?), added the adoration & Augustine, & removed Schmemann. Again, I'd love to keep this as simple as possible,so that folks can get an overview of the essentials, the most important points and figures. KHM03 6 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
Reordered & resized again. KHM03 6 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)

Where to put what

Does Sacrament belong under "Theology" or "Related articles"? I'd think that the "Theology" section should only have specifically Eucharistic theology, and everything else (e.g., Chalice) under "Related articles". JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)

That's OK with me. KHM03 6 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)
Done. JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Let's do it!

We could probably haggle endlessly about what else to add, but what we have now is, as KHM03 puts it so well, a very good "overview of the essentials, the most important points and figures." I'm going to plug it into the Eucharist article so we can see how it looks. JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)

I like it there, JHCC. It also looks very nice on Lord's Supper. Mkmcconn (Talk) 6 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

A little big for some key articles -- what to do?

I tried the template on the Consubstantiation article, and it hangs off the page by quite a bit. I wonder if this perhaps might be better as a horizontal template? I'm not sure what to do, but It doesn't look as nice on stubby articles such as Consubstantiation Mkmcconn (Talk) 6 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Simple: expand the Consubstantiation article! JHCC (talk) 7 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

Clean up

The link to Communion is unnecessary, since it is just a disamb page. Also, the The Lord's Supper article should just be merged with Eucharist. Then the "other terms" section of this template can be removed altogether.--JW1805 17:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Also, I think the "Instituted by Jesus Christ" is just a little bit POV.
  • I went ahead and made these changes.--JW1805 22:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the change re: Communion, at least as long as that remains a disamb page. However, The Lord's Supper is a specific, well established usage with different implications than Eucharist. As for "Instituted by" being POV, there may be different PsOV regarding the meaning of the Eucharist, but I don't believe there is any serious POV that anyone other than Jesus instituted it. Even those who maintain that it was not to be a perpetual observance do not challenge that. I will revert the changes until such time as we can have a more thorough discussion of this. JHCC (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Right, Communion is just a disamb page, so there really is no reason to have it linked in the template, I don't think that would be controversal to remove. Also note that I merged The Lord's Supper with Eucharist, so now that link is also unnecessary. Actually (see the talk page), I think Eucharist should be moved to Communion, since I think that is more of a non-denominational term. As far as "instituted by |Instituted by
    Jesus Christ
    ", my reasoning on that is that it's sort of POV, since of course people who don't believe Jesus Christ ever existed wouldn't agree that the Eucharist was instituted by him. --JW1805 01:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Having seen the changes you made to Eucharist, I've changed the template to "Eucharist, AKA Communion or The Lord's Supper". Still, let's talk. JHCC (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I like it, just remove the links. I'll do it, and see what it looks like, and then if the consensus is to bring back the "Lords Supper" article, we can change it back. --JW1805 01:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


I deleted "Instituted by Jesus Christ" due to its being clearly POV (biased). The communion was, according to the Bible, instituted after Jesus's death. Anyone who belives Jesus did not rise from the grave does not believe Jesus instituted communion. That's a majority of Mankind. WAS 4.250 00:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


We should just rename this Template:Eucharist. It would be consistent with the names of all the articles it links to. PhageRules1 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. "Communion" is an ambiguous term. Esoglou (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Biased image

Lord's cup and Bread.JPG

This image is not even "adequate." This image is highly POV because it shows the image of bread and chalice from one particular denomination-- the RCC. Do we have fight over who has the "best" denomination, or can we just use an image that can represent all Christianity?

Even if we did have an image that could be labled with those links (Sacramental bread, sacramental wine, paten, chalice), it would be much better to link to them elsewhere in the template. tahc chat 23:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think your newer image has any particular advantage over the old, long-standing photo. Unleavened wafers are used by various Christian groups, not just the Catholic Church, so I don't think the choice of image can be accused of "bias". A major problem with the newer image is that matzo is used vary rarely by Christian churches, so it's not at all an accurate representation of Communion elements; if your goal is to show an image that represents "all Christianity" then this isn't a good photo. I personally have no objection to your image per se - I moved it to the Eucharist article - I just don't think it should be used in this template --HazhkTalk 01:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
St Michael the Archangel, Findlay, OH - bread and wine crop 1.jpg
The old image bad in any number of ways. You cannot even tell what we are seeing. It just looks like a fancy silver bowl (with a hand). How about something more like this image (in stained glass)? tahc chat
The consecration of the elements is an important aspect of the Eucharist. I'm not completely against changing the current photo, but only if there's a clear advantage in a new image. -- HazhkTalk 14:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
While I agree that many aspects of the eucharist are important I do not know you mean by "consecration of the elements". Also note that there is no article by that name.
All the same, I find it hard to belive that "consecration of the elements" is more important (to whichever groups use this terminology), than what the elements are. Since consecration of the elements, like many activities, seems to be difficult show in a still image, I propose that we at least show what the elements are more clearly. tahc chat 16:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Since no one has objected I am going to use this much cleaner image. tahc chat 12:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Good choice. I'm fine with the new image, unless/until another one is proposed. By "consecration of the elements" I meant the act of signifying the special importance of the bread and wine (e.g. in the Catholic Church this would be transubstantiation); this is why the old image showed the priest's hands. Most Christians would understand the celebration of the Eucharist to be more than just the bread and wine alone. Also see this article. --HazhkTalk 14:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

New image

Discounting the black background, the new image is superior; the old image had a black background too-please just crop it. Also, the current image seems to show leavened bread so it biased, unlike the vague bread of the new image.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It really comes down to personal taste. I couldn't have told you that the image you selected depicted bread/wine. It is inferior. --Hazhk (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
That's really because you focused on the background instead of the bread and wine, like every reader would. That's your personal fault, and we're not reverting the template back because of that.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't believe I said anything about the background. Clearly that is your hang-up. It's simply an inferior depiction. More importantly, I see no good reason for replacing the existing image. --Hazhk (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Saying vague things like "I see no good reason" is not helping your case. Please provide an argument, like I did-but you ignored it of course.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Truth be told though, the reason you oppose the new image is because you don't understand what any of the symbols mean. Simply put, the new image depicts not just the bread and wine but also the Christian consuming Christ of the Cross.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
1. Most Christians would understand the Eucharist to not be about fish and rays of light and chi rho.
2. This image of bread, wine, Chi Rho, fish, and rays of light make the bread and wine too small to be seen.
3. Such and image for a template should (if possible) include only elements that all Christians agree are part of Communion. tahc chat 04:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Your aggressive stance isn't helping your cause. Again, it simply is not a very good image... It does not clearly depict bread and wine, which is an absolute standard for a representation of the Eucharist; it is not easily visible in a small size. Now it would help if you didn't continually make assumptions about other editors. No, I am not opposing the image because of the background. No, I am not confused by the Chi Rho. If you dislike the current image then find a better one.--Hazhk (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Very well.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Music Scenes