Talk:Sacrament

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Order of Sacrements[edit]

I just changed the order in which the sacraments are listed. Part of the order change is indisputable. However, since modifying the order, I've learned that some Catholic churches have changed the previously established order in which the sacraments are received. I'm now researching this further, but if somebody has good reason to believe one of these orders is preferable, I'm open to it. Please do comment before (or after) reversing it, though, as I'm interested in your sources/reasoning. Jtrnp (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Born Again Christians[edit]

I submit that the section on Born Again Christians should be either deleted or greatly revised. A. There is no single "Born Again Christian Church", and, thus, no agreement upon the meaning of sacraments and ordinances. B. As previously noted, many Born Again groups (such as Baptists) would use the term ordinance rather than sacrament - thus rejecting the idea that performing the act imbues the participant with any saving grace. C. There is no agreement on the number of ordinances. D. Finally, and perhaps most critically, the passage is unsourced and seems to represent the ideas of the poster only. Thoughts? 

                                      Bonbga (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wider use of sacrament[edit]

Update: Need some help, this page keeps reverting back to Christian relevance only. I made the page from a NPOV only to have it changed back. Everyone seems to agree.

141.157.181.139 (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure sacrament should only refer to Christian rites? I was coming here to see if there was anything about the use of marijuana as a sacrament in the Rastafarian religion. Maybe Sacrament should be desimbiguated, and this aricle made into Sacrament (Christianity) and I could create a Sacrament (Rastafari) article. --SqueakBox 02:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Response: Like, go for it, dude. --Midnite Critic 6 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)

To do? —Viriditas | Talk 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also the use of Ayahuasca in the União do Vegetal is an example of sacraments used in other religions. __meco 17:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yes I completely agree. I had linked to sacrament from ethnomycology, describing entheogen use in the Eleusinian mysteries in ancient Greece and was quite shocked to find that this article is written purely from a Christian perspective. Perhaps you should link to entheogen instead of sacrament and we'd have the distinction between "entheogens" for those that really work and "sacrament" for religious placebos. :P --Tchoutoye 00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of Rastafarian religion: with its Coptic and Baptist background and its firm rootedness in the Old Testament, one could argue that it is still a (heterodox) Christian religion --Tchoutoye 23:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is that sacrament is synonymous with entheogen, and the catholic church has always suppressed this knowledge. 69.4.157.198 (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I took a very rough stab at this simply to have some general discussion here instead of the above comment. Not a bad idea to separate them, I suppose. Wesley

This looks pretty good, and I think it is necessary to have this, since non-Catholics use the term in such a different (symbolizing) way - I would add matter to action in the initial definition, because that's where Orthodox and Catholic theology go - in the Catholoic definition there has to be res ("thing") to have sacramenta -- the holy oil, the blessed water, the bread and wine, and the bodies of the people (in marriage). I've never quite understood what the res in confession is, in fact. --MichaelTinkler

Orthodox sacramental theology[edit]

Would a paragraph trying to explain triune Orthodoxy sacramental theology be appropriate ? I mean, discussing how the sacraments may be divided as to whether they flow from eucharistic grace, baptismal grace, or .. um .. chrismatic grace ?

I'm not familiar with these sorts of divisions... still only been Orthodox a few years, and have lots left to learn. I remember that John Wesley talked about different types of grace, so perhaps this idea would apply to more than just Orthodoxy? Wesley 16:54, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Catholics also practice foot-washing, but do not enumerate it on the list of seven sacraments. Does Catholicism hold that the foot-washing rite has some supernatural effect? And what about the Ash Wednesday rite? Michael Hardy 20:13, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Two questions in one:
  • a) Foot-washing is done in Maudy Thursday as a significant way to show that the Priest/Bishop is a servant as Christ was. It can only have a supernatural effect as any other liturgical act (say, a simple blessing, or blessing the meals, or...) though its importance is great as a symbol. However, it is not meant to have any effect on those whose feet are washed.
  • b) Ash in Ash Wednesday is similar (now the receiver is properly the receiver of the ashes). It is a showing of penance, and as such it shows the receiver's will to approach God. But there is no divine guarantee that it gives grace.
The matter is difficult. In practical terms, the Church (and hence each Christian) could live without Ash and without foot-washing, but it cannot live without the Sacraments, more or less. Also, the Seven sacraments come by Apostolic Tradition while the others are "newer". One could boldly say that God has committed himself to give grace through the Sacraments: i.e. if I properly receive a Sacrament, I receive the grace.
As you know, the above does not imply He cannot give it by other means. You are a Mathematician as well.
In any case, I wanted to say I like the new first sentence very much. Pfortuny 21:54, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Incidentally, I believe the Orthodox also practice foot washing on Holy Thursday, much as you describe it above. As you said, God can bless us in many many ways, but certain sacraments are (nearly?) essential. Wesley 16:54, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, many Christian denominations (including Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists) also practice foot washing. The catholic church reffers to ashes and such as "sacramentals" but not Sacraments. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'm a newcomer, an interested non-expert.

STYLE -- I am noticing spelling slips (e.g. anointing), sentence fragments and nonstandard end punctuation in these two paragraphs, and Greek and Hebrew words represented by Roman type.

REFERENCE -- Deuteronomy 30:23 regarding cinnamon/ calamus/ cannabis. Should that be Exodus 30:23?

CONTENT -- In Exodus 30:23, I am seeing the words "cinnamon" and "calamus" (or "sweet cane" or "aromatic cane") in several major committee translations (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV). If this is a mistranslation of cannabis, I would like to see some reliable verifiables. POSSIBLY CONTROVERSIAL -- The article gets us from Christ to cannabis pretty quickly. "The Greek word Christ meaning annointing...for medicinal and psychoactive effects. Cannabis being the most likely...." First, shouldn't Christ be translated "anointed" rather than "anointing"? Would some verification for the translations be appropriate? Second, the article's emphasis on medical/ psychoactive anointing may not represent the accepted understanding of anointings in scripture. This is not intended as a discussion of the historicity of that - merely an observation that it is probably not the majority view in Christian teaching.

An unusual claim needs a lot of support, eh?

SqueakBox's suggestion to split Sacrament (Christianity) and Sacrament (Rastafari) articles (16 Feb 2005) still seems like a great idea. Best wishes, and thanks for your work. Blugue (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominical sacraments[edit]

I've just created a redlink for dominical sacrament in this article and in article George Wishart. I have no idea whether there's enough to say about the topic to make a full-fledged article; if you think there is, please make an article there. If you're sure there's not, please make a redirect and do whatever fixing needs to be done in whatever target you pick (e.g., if you redirect Dominical sacrament to Sacrament, remember to bold the term, mention it near the top of the page, and remove the link from Sacrament to Dominical sacrament). Thanks. --Quuxplusone 20:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Intro[edit]

It seems a bit strange to begin with the protestant view of sacraments (the exception) and then move on to the rule. It's as bizarre as if the entry for cheese began "some people think cheese is soft, everyone else believes cheese is a dairy product made from milk". The overwhelming majority of xtians fall in to the "Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Christians, members of the Anglican, United Methodist, and Old Catholic traditions, the Independent Catholic Churches and Lutherans" category so it just seems bizarre to begin with the "among many protestants" line.

I would make the swap myself but I find wikipedians intimidating.

Well, most of us are actually pretty nice guys/girls. I am going to review the article now, it's history, etc., and then may proceed to make the change you suggest. Also, please, in the future, sign your entries on talk pages. If you don't have an account/user i.d., it will take about one minute to set one up. --Midnite Critic 22:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, review done. The very first sentence gives the traditional view held by the Christians you mention; then, the second sentence contrasts this with the view held by "many Protestants." THEN, we return to a more amplified statement regarding the first sentence. Thus, IMH (Oriental Orthodox) opinion, the first three paragraphs are quite balanced. --Midnite Critic 22:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A better definition[edit]

I have heard/read on several occasions that a sacrament is a ritual that uses the physical world to reveal something about the spiritual world. I can't lay my hands on a source for that at the moment. I have just always had that in my head as the generally accepted definition. After reading this article and the discussion, it seems like a very good definition to use both because it is more encompassing than the current one--it would even include the marijuana guy's use. Also, this is a general intro to a somewhat complicated subject. IMHO, the current first line does not state something understandable to someone who is not already familiar with theological terminology. Like the earlier poster, I am also too chicken to make the change, especially since there's a discussion going on. DaniU 20:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


External links[edit]

I removed the following per my understanding of WP:EL, they appear to be commentaries rather than authorities.

Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't the common Catholic names used if this is a Catholic list?[edit]

  • Roman Catholicism is used for the Roman Catholic Church.
  • The Eucharist is used for Holy Eucharist
  • Catholic Marriage is used for Matrimony
  • The Sacrament of Order is used for Holy Orders patsw 03:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, there's a paragraph under Catholicism that appears to start discussing the Latin words for the sacraments and then sort of loses the thread: "During the Middle Ages, sacraments were recorded in Latin ... the name Joseph would be rendered as Iosephus or Josephus." Currently there are no references to any Latin forms (e.g. Sacri Ordines) so this may be an orphan of an earlier draft. Domhnall (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage came later.[edit]

I think the following statement in the article is incorrect:

Generally, there are seven sacramental rites used since apostolic times in the Church, though not all of them are accepted as such by all groups. These are: Baptism, Chrismation (or Confirmation), the Eucharist (Communion), The Sacrament of Order (Ordination), Reconciliation of a Penitent, Anointing of the Sick, and Matrimony.

I believe marriage only became a sacrament sometime during the Middle Ages.--24.52.254.62 03:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I added the citation from the Council of Trent, that defined marriage as one of the seven sacraments. However, it is worth noting, that the "definition" didn't make Marriage a sacrament, but rather recognized its nature as a sacrament.DaveTroy 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquinas described marriage as a sacrament many years before the Council of Trent;; it was always a tradition of the Church to bless the marriage, I think the sacramental nature goes back to the early Church Fathers A E Francis 02:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum of 6 in a lifetime[edit]

I removed the claim about it only being possible to receive 6 of the sacraments in a lifetime, along with the subsequent conjectured (but presented as factual) story about Holy Orders being invented after the institution of priestly celibacy in order to compensate for the denial of one of the sacraments to the clergy.

I doubt many people share the "maximum of 6" misperception; but if it's widespread, perhaps the article should actually include a section debunking it. Ways to receive both Orders and Marriage in a lifetime, of course, abound:

--being widowed, then ordained a priest

--being ordained a priest, then receiving permission to forgo the priestly duties and marry

--marrying, then being ordained a deacon in the modern Latin Church

--marrying, then being ordained a priest in an Eastern Church (or an Orthodox Church; this article isn't just about Catholicism, after all, and even if it were Catholics still recognize Orthodox sacraments to be the very same as theirs)

While we're at it, we should even include "marrying, then receiving permission to be ordained a priest in the Latin Church." Such permission could certainly be given with no problem; there's just a (centuries-old) policy of not doing so.

an aside about names[edit]

I changed the name of the Reconiliation to Penance, since that is what the CIC 1983 and the Latin of the Rite is -- Penance, despite that it does include confession, and is popularly known by other names.DaveTroy 16:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change something on the page, but I don't know how to do it....it's about de seven sacraments. They are not in the right order. The right order is:

1- Baptism 2- Reconciliation/Penance/Confession 3- Holy Eucharist (1st communion) 4- Confirmation 5- Marriage (Holy Matrimony) 6- Holy Orders 7- Extreme Unction (Sacrament of the Sick or Anointing of the Sick)

Thank you to the person who will change it!

Confusion between traditional Christianity and Catholicism[edit]

This is a predominantly Catholic article, and it shouldn't be. There's a great deal of difference between more "traditional" views, such as those held by the Protestants, Baptists, Pentecostalists (sp?), and Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the like. The differences are confused a lot here, neither are they presented in a clear, unbiased light. There's a lot of bias toward Catholicism here as the foundation for the definitions of the sacraments, but the idea of the sacraments originated with more more traditional, fundamentalist sects, like the Baptists. Long before the Seven Sacraments came around there were only the original two: Communion/Lord's Supper, and Baptism. That ought to be noted here.

In any case, this article needs to be more defined, more clear-cut, with greater clarity between the Protestant view and the Catholic view. Also, there's a lot of needless repetition between paragraphs about the Catholic view as opposed to other views - seriously, it gets quite redundant and could be organized better. I've tried to clear the major "difference" problems in the first few paragraphs, but there's a lot of grammatical stuff as well as quality issues that I haven't touched in the least. ---Randomdej (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church existed long before the Baptists. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea: shouldn't there be two separate places here? Instead of "the Catholic view", there should be Section:Sacrament and Section:Ordinance, because there is a great deal of difference between the two. Randomdej (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing irrelevant Egyptian material[edit]

I've reverted the addition made today by 77.160.68.32 claiming that the idea of a sacrament originated in Osiris worship. The material that he/she posted makes no demonstrable connection whatever with the subject of this article, which is clearly stated at the top: "This article is about sacraments within Christianity."

I don't enough to say whether the Christian rite was or was not influenced by pre-Christian practices; but without reputable, verifiable sources making the connection, that material belongs somewhere else. Textorus (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Disambiguation pages with links - Church[edit]

This sentence "As defined above, an example would be baptism in water, representing (and conveying) the grace of the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Forgiveness of Sins, and membership into the Church" ends with a wikilink to Church. Which would be a more appropriate wikilink: Church (building), Christian Church or Ecclesia (Church)? - DigitalC (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism?[edit]

Why is Mormonism included as a Christian tradition? The past Mormon literature, pretty much all, denies being Christian: in fact, it used to (and still does) offend Mormons to even suggest they might be "Christian", though not all. It's very recent that Mormons at all claim to be in a "Christian" tradition. In scholarly nomenclature Mormonism does not fall within the same definition of "Christian", neither in classical, nor in an offshoot, sense; they hold to none of the Creeds that scholars have used as standards to define a "Christian" tradition (explicitly repudiated by Smith); and they do not use the same definitions for Biblical terms, practically at all, so far as I can find, whereas though other groups might differ on "Sacrament", they don't typically, however, argue over Biblical terms, or a certain core set of terms, whereas Mormons define those completely otherwise or else do not even believe in them. Can someone enlighten me here? (That's not sarcastic, but sincere.)

tooMuchData

07:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That is where you are wrong. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints considers themselves to be Christian. Mormons believe they are the original form of Christianity. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mhm, and that is where they are wrong. Anyway, the Mormons themselves say (I could quote that from WP, but I don't want to spend the time now) that "in the sense 'Christian' is used by the major Churches calling themselves Christian, we are not Christian". Hence they are not Christian - being newrevelation-adherent polytheists.--77.4.69.221 (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the Mormons are wrong or not to call themselves Christians is not the issue being addressed by tooMuchData. He asserts that Mormons do not typically identify themselves as Christian, which is, as Willthacheerleader18 points out is false. Mormonism, from its inception, has claimed to be a Christian religion, so it is not "very recent" that Mormons claim to be in a "'Christian' tradition." I would challenge the assertion that past Mormon literature denies being Christian; evidence of that literature would need to be presented to make it a valid claim. 77.4.69.221 misrepresents the official stance of the Mormon church on their Christianity; the following quote is taken from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints website:
"As evidenced by its name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) identifies itself as devoutly Christian. Though the label “Christian” is often associated with particular creedal claims which the Church does not adopt, Mormons use it to express their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ."
True, the Mormon church does not adopt the creeds that many Christian denominations accept as the definition of Christianity, but they (the Mormons) affirm belief in Jesus Christ as Savior, Redeemer, and God. (See http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/christian)
With regard to the final assertion that they are newrevelation-adherent polytheists, I think that is a conversation for another day, and has probably been covered extensively elsewhere within Wikipedia. El piel (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I (once called 77.4.) agree that it is - to my knowledge - true that the Mormons identify themselves as Christian. Anyway, if Mormons say that they are not "Christians in the sense the word Christian is used" (which you did not repudiate), that does say something doesn't it? "Language usage is a tyrant", as the proverb goes. A collection of letters or sounds is, as such, void for discussion; the meaning of a word depends on the definition attached.
With the thing about "newrevelation-adherent polytheists", I'm sorry if that was offensive - yet it did serve a purpose: I wanted to point out the reason why Christians regularly (as I've seen to be the case) don't classify them as "Christians but in error" (i.e. heretics), but, as it were, one step further: "non-Christian". This is, at any rate, an interesting difference, all the more so as, other than the rather simply question of teachings being heretical, it is not easy to make out. (Hilaire Belloc called even Islam a Christian heresy.) As for "new revelation", that is the obvious case; as for polytheism, I know that Mormons deny the charge; note, in any case, that I'm using the word "polytheist" not in the sense of a sneer but merely as objective description. Does not Mormonism reject the Trinity dogma? We are not, as the Muslims accuse us, polytheists - and that precisely because we believe the Trinity dogma. Rejecting it while still paying the Three Persons divine honors does amount, in the plain sense of the word, to polytheism - unless the one who does so makes clear that with the word "god" he means, when the rubber hits the pavement, not really God at all (as the Arians did, who said that "god", applied to Christ, was a mere honorific for the most godlike creature existing). Also, according to information available to me, Mormons are unclear as to where creatures actually come from, as well (out of nothing?). Suggesting that creatures could have an existence (even unformed) in an origin independent of God (i.e. without ex nihilo creation) seems to be intrinsically deviant from monotheism, as well.--131.159.0.47 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my reply on talk. 00:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalized[edit]

It looks like this page was vandalized by someone who has a history of it. It was done by an anonymous IP, but the talk page is filled with vandalism warnings. It looks like he has just been warned, but no one has blocked him for a bit. Any admin who can help me here, please leave me a message on my talk page; it would be greatly appreciated. Shanem201 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entheogenic Sacraments[edit]

At this time, approximately 1/3 of the text of this article is based upon information submitted by a single anonymous user, with not a single footnote or citation.

I recommend (a) deleting it pending the addition of some footnotes. and (b) when and if restored, it should be limited in volume. The current amount of material on this topic far exceeds its importance. if the mater is sufficiently subject-worthy, it should have its own article with a very short paragraph in this article.

Bonbga (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone objects, I hereby announce an intention to delete the entire section on "Entheogenic Sacraments" in one week. REASON: It is totally unsourced. If someone provides sources for it in the interim, I will not delete it.

Bonbga (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did it. I deleted the unsourced material about "entheogenic sacraments". I did it in compliance with the WIKI policy on unsourced material. And in compliance with the header at the top of the "Sacraments" article that says " "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

What happened? Cluebot immediately restored the material. And I got a warning about vandalism. Bonbga (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican section horribly verbose[edit]

(and not exactly neutral in tone), esp. in the first paragraph. —Wegesrand (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican Section Rewrites[edit]

Second Paragraph: I have removed the "Most anglicans ... seven sacraments" because it is unsourced and in part because as far as I know all such affirmations of this type even when sourced are based on evidence which is statistically inadequate. I have also reworked the rest of the paragraph and provided references.
Third Paragraph: The first sentence contains an apparent non sequitur: how can sacerdotal functions be assigned to a deacon who, by definition, is not a priest? Made the 'ex opere operato' more precise and given sources before balancing it with references to the articles on the reception and use of the sacrament.Jpacobb (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of this article[edit]

A recent IP edit removed the section Hinduism on the grounds that this article deals with the Christian sacraments. This may be historically true and on June 1 2008 a section on Egyptian was removed on the same grounds with the comment that the article states that this is about Christian sacraments. This statement has disappeared but is still implicit in the start of the General definitions section. I suggest we need a policy decision and should either rename the page as Sacraments (Christian) with the appropriate redirects and disambiguations or restore the deleted section and do a certain amount of copy editing to bring the first section into line. I personally incline to rename and leave it to interested editors to produce a general "Sacraments" page since the contents of the present one are almost all orientated to Christianity balancing them would be a major task. Jpacobb (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm surprised we don't have many separate Sacrament articles. I would say, produce a general Sacrament article here that serves as brief summaries of the world's traditions on sacraments (if possible to summarize) or at a minimum as a disambiguation page. The current system at Sacrament (disambiguation) is a little too focused on Christian sacraments at the neglect of others. By putting up redlinks (if there aren't already articles, then, eventually there will be a Sacraments (Christianity) (which this should become, which I hope would not end up being a summary/disambig for Catholic/Orthodoxy/protestant sects, etc. and duplicate Sacrament (disambiguation) but actually have better organized content), and additionally Sacraments (Judaism), Sacraments (Hinduism), etc., etc. To boldly delete material without their being an alternative place to put it or to go and put it someplace else, just doesn't seem right. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My old standby source, the Encyclopedia of Religion, has two articles in the "Sacraments" mega-article: "An Overview," and "Christian Sacraments." That being the case, I guess I'm not surprised that Christianity might get the biggest percentage of content. That being the case, I can agree that having a main article on Sacraments in the broader sense is reasonable, with Christian sacraments as a perhaps very important spinout. Hinduism as per that article has 18 sacraments, so it should be possible to make at least a reasonably substantive article there. The other faiths given reasonable coverage in that article are Hellenistic religion, Gnosticism, and Hinduism. It also differentiates between repeatable sacraments and "transitional" sacraments, which could probably be included in articles on rites of passage per the various relevant religions. I do note that source has several articles on that last topic, and reviews have indicated that even more would perhaps have been expected. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Southern Baptists Do Not Use "Ordinance"[edit]

I've never heard the term "Ordinance" to describe the Southern Baptists' versions of the Eucharist. Traditionally, we refer to it as "The Lord's Supper", and the actual bread (little wafers) and wine (grape juice) is, collectively, "The Sacraments". Like all Baptists, the Southern Baptist denomination recognizes but two Sacraments: adult baptism and the Eucharist/Lord's Supper. --99.157.108.186 (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge templates[edit]

On 5th October 2016, an anonymous IP proposed merging Sacrament and Ordinance (Christianity) by inserting the appropriate templates at the head of the articles, but failed to open a new section giving reasons for the suggestion. Since it seems to have aroused no interest for more than 90 days, I intend to remove the templates unless objections are lodged here before the end of January 2017. For my own part, I would oppose the suggestion mainly on the grounds that the stub Ordinance (Christianity) states there is a clear difference between the meaning of the two terms and the better policy would therefore be to expand the stub rather than mix two different but overlapping concepts in a single article. — Jpacobb (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any objections, I have removed the templates. — Jpacobb (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Sacrament. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding ref from a blog[edit]

I tried adding the below but was told by the bot that it was unacceptable as it linked to a blog. The blog is directly quoting a secondary source, and I only mention it in order to be accurate in my own source. Anyone suggest a way forward? Thanks. Eteb3 (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

References

  1. ^ 'Sidney Lucas affirms this in his book The Quaker Message when he quotes the 1941 Philadelphia Yearly Meeting Epistle: “We are called with a high calling to make every day of our lives a sacrament, that we may constantly live in that virtue and power that takes away the occasion, not only of war, but of the spirit of dissention and strife in every walk and area of life.” (Lucas The Quaker Message 1948 26)' Extroverted Quaker (blog), "Quakers and Sacraments" at https://extrovertedquaker.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/quakers-and-sacrament/ Retrieved 2020-11-27
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sacrament&oldid=1218651223"