Talk:Host desecration

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

Older postings[edit]

I just want to say, that's one of the most bizarre forms of prejudice I've ever heard of. erunciewynrjsdbfjdshfdhsjnfoivyuwtrecnwe89564375Quadell (talk) 18:03, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

shouldn't this be at host desecration libel? There is also the topic of actual host desecration, not by Jews, but typically by the medieval christian mystics movements, anabaptists, gnostics, pantheists and what have you. dab (ᛏ) 10:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the need for two seperate articles. But I do agree that aside from this anti-Semitic myth that there is such a thing as actual desecration of the Eucharist. The Catholic church considers it so offensive that desecration of the Eucharist is one of the few offenses that Catholics would automatically be excommunicated for.
JesseG 04:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Uhm I have never heard of pantheists "actually" desecrating hosts, as mentioned above. I would think this would tend to violate the ethics of most pantheists, as well as be irrelevant (most religions really are not practiced by attacking / affirming other religions' central tenets and practices; non-Christians are not anti-Christian, generally, and have no interest in hosts...

I have heard the libel applied (falsely, in case you wonder) to pagans and neo-pagans; I am not familiar enough to know about Satanists but I have heard the decribed as typical for them as well. 24.130.132.83 02:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this whole story sounds like a bit of contrived rubbish. Reformed Christians, that is, non-Catholics, are unlikely to get excited by messing with some little biscuits. And, come to think of it, Catholics wouldn't be excited by it either since the bread remains just bread until it is transformed by the participants. The whole thing becomes even more suspect when you see that the source (the first reference at the bottom of the page) for this nonsense is the Jewish Encyclopedia Hoserjoe 08:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the subject of this article?[edit]

If the subject of this article is really "Host descration", then it ought to deal with the desecration of hosts, which of course could include some examples of false accusations against Jews, but would be much broader than that. Over the centuries, many people who were not Jews have desecrated Hosts. It happened a few years ago in New York. A young man went up, ostensibly to receive Holy Communion, took the host in his hands (as is permitted nowadays), and said to the priest, "This is what I think of your God", then threw the host on the ground, and stamped on it. There have been other such instances. The recent offer of a consecrated host for sale on ebay could also be relevant to the article.

As I read it now, I get the impression that the article should be called something like False accusations by Christians against Jews. If it had that name, the balance of the article might be appropriate. Since it is called Host desecration, it's extremely unbalanced at the moment.

There's also a problem in that the article suggests that the doctrine on transubstantiation was first accepted by a Pope in the thirteenth century, and that as a result, Catholics began to worship the host. What was accepted by the Church around that time was the use of the term transubstantiation for something that the Church had taught from the beginning. You may not find that word in second-century Christian writings, but you will find that concept taught.

There's no source for the claim that "The accusation of desecration of the host was based on the hypothesis that the Jews, like the Christians, identify the host with the true body of Jesus; that by crucifying the host they imagine they are crucifying Jesus anew . . ." Who says it was based on that hypothesis?

"Ehrenberg . . . showed" isn't very neutral, as it implies that what he was "showing" was true. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann, your points make sense, but it is worth noting that this article was substantially taken from the 1909 Jewish Encyclopedia, which should explain some of the weirdness, including the Ehrenberg/Prussian Academy of Sciences thing. Feel free to seperate it into False Accusations against the Jews/Actual Cases, or whatever else works for you. You might want to see blood libel, which evolved similarly. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer, Goodoldpolonius2. I think the article is more balanced now in the distribution of information, with more about the Christian understanding of the Eucharist and sacrilege. Good job, Str1977. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to insert information on the magnitude of the impact on Jewish communities, which was considerable. Incidentally, I didn't include these numbers until I can verify them, but the Asia Times reported: "Host-desecration riots by Christians in 1298 led to an estimated 100,000 deaths in Germany and Austria, starting with the execution by fire of the entire Jewish community of Rottingen. Enraged Christians killed 3,000 Jews in Prague after a priest carrying a consecrated Host wafer was sprayed by sand. Other killings took place in Rome in 1021, Strasbourg in 1308, Posen in 1399, Silesia in 1451, and so forth." --Goodoldpolonius2 03:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Spengler at the Asia Times [1] is a blogger who uses the Wikipedia as a source. For us to use him as a source puts the universe into a infinte loop looking up references. I am suspicious that all of the deaths could be attributed to host desecration which is but one manifestation of the blood libel i.e. the murder of Christians to obtain blood for matzoh. There was also blasphemy, devil worship, and the accusation of Christ-killer. What source did Spengler use, other than us, of course?
The unique aspect of an accusation of host desecration was that it did not require the dead body of a Christian as evidence. The posession of a host would be sufficient evidence for the accusation to be made. patsw 04:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's why I didn't cite him in the article. I only mentioned it as the stats weren't from Wikipedia, which is why I am trying to trace them. I agree with you, also, that he seems to be refering to the full set of attacks on Jews during the crusades in Germany, which were certainly not only due to host desecration charges. My only disagreement is that dead bodies were not required as evidence, nor was possession of a host - missing people were often attributed to the blood libel, see the Kielce pogrom of (sadly) 1948. Similarly, I don't know if any host desceration case actually depended on the posession of a host by the Jews. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have time last night to look it up but I believe there's details of the 13th century attacks on European Jews in James Carroll Constantine's Sword and Max Dimont Jews, God, and History which might have better sources for the numbers. If someone finds the data in either of these, feel free to enter it. patsw 14:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old section currently being overshadowed by the "recent changes" debate below, but having just looked at this article for the first time, it strikes me as peculiarly (and in a very POV way) unbalanced. Elsewhere on this discussion page (I forget where) someone noted that blood libel is separated from blood libel against Jews, and I think that would be an appropriate treatment here. Certainly visitors to this article should be made aware of the use of "host desecration" as a pretext for killing Jewish people, but currently it overwhelms an article on a subject that is extremely important to those (Catholics, Orthodox, some Lutherans) who believe in the Real Presence doctrine. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, the article broadly reflects the historical weight of the allegations against Jews in the history of host desecration charges. It was against Jews that the charge was most frequently made and it was on Jews that it had the gravest consequences. Blood libel in its current shape is the opposite of what a balanced article should be. It gives undue weight to some blood libel-related controversies in the West, while barely covering blood libel against Jews. Beit Or 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Confessions[edit]

This edit [2] added "some" to "false confessions".

some false confessions were exacted by torture, and then the accused Jews were condemned and burned, sometimes with all the other Jews of the place...
  • Would the moral dimension of the act of killing Jews be any different if the confessions were true?
  • Given the quality of investigative and forensic techniques of the 13th century how could anyone have certainty beyond reasonable doubt that any confession was true? patsw 16:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magical hunter issue added to article[edit]

With the invention of telescopic gunsights these terrible practices are hopefully no longer repeated.

Recent disagreements over article introduction[edit]

To avoid an edit war, I invite discussion here about the topic sentence of this article.

I recently simplified the introduction for a few obvious reasons.

This article's title is "Host desecration," not "Host Desecration and Resultant Persecution of Jews in the Middle Ages" so the article's introduction (like all WP articles) should be an introduction, and nothing more. This is simply a matter of following WP format rules. I certainly do not dispute the fact that Jews suffered on account of accusations of Host desecration, but you must understand that there have been countless other examples of Host desecration that do not involve the Jewish people, a few of which are mentioned in this article. This article has more information about Jewish persecution than about other instances of alleged Host desecration, but that is only because the article is incomplete...not because it reflects the reality of Host abuse in other periods of time besides the Middle Ages.

You mentioned in your revert that the article's second sentence detailed the fact that makes Host desecration notable. This is a factual innacuracy-- I'm not sure what sources are employed to make that statement, but there have been numerous other examples of alleged desecration. In fact, Host desecration is as much a concern today as it has been in the past. You can take a look at several other WP articles detailing instances of modern-day, publicized instances of Host desecration.

Pianoman123 19:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my revert was only band aid. I'd thing the only real solution would be to split off Accusations of host desecration against Jews , just as we have Blood libel against Jews split off Blood libel.
I stand by my assertion about notability, if sharpened to notability in scholarly sources, as a simple test see http://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=host+desecration
Pjacobi 19:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I'm going to add in a few examples of Host desecration in modern times to balance things out. It's good that you've looked into some scholarly work on this topic, but, as you know, very little of it is actually in the article, so it's hard to vouch for it by WP standards...can you put some of what you've found in the article in the form of references? Thanks! Pianoman123 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The german parallel article has more specific examples, but in the common practive of de: no in-line cites, only the used reference books listed at the end. Anyway, I'd guess some editors would object to giving primarily German language sources. --Pjacobi 20:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I've asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history for help. --Pjacobi 20:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the references before inserting citation requests. All of the material about the Jews comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia. In addition, if you dispute the whole section, just place one tag at the top of it; it takes much effort to remove coutless citation requests. Beit Or 14:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes[edit]

Lance has introduced some changes that are unwarranted and push a certain POV..Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • He uses "libel" instead of "accusations" in the sentence "a common pretext for massacres and expulsions" - but (apart from the fact that libel is not a very neutral word) it was accusations that were the pretext and not the fact that it was a libel.Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The attribution to Jews that they, any one of them, had any interest in Christian "bread" worship; or even more peculiar, that they shared such an absurd superstition; and then, that "...the Jews were despoiled of their treasures, drowned, burnt, beheaded, eviscerated. Whole families were destroyed, including children in their cribs," because of the projection onto Jews of such strange superstitions, is, indeed, a libel. --Lance talk 09:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thus imputing to Jews Christian beliefs that Jews totally rejected" restates, in needelessly blunt words, what had been already included via the words "may have been based on the paradoxical belief that Jews considered the host the literal body of Jesus" - Lance also removed the downtoner "may" as this is a theory and not an undisputable fact.Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In The Devil and the Jews, Trachtenberg writes, p. 110: "The absurdity of atributing to Jews an acceptance and utilization of this most un-Jewish of dogmas never occurred to their accusers." And, p. 118: "These legends, of course, presuppose Jewish acquiescence in the crassest of Christian superstitions, for the ostensible purpose of the Jewish attacks was, as in the case of the host, to insult not alone Christianity but its representative figures. And not to insult them merely but actually to injure them, for the images suffered and bled and retaliated miraculously against their persecutors." The victims of these outrageous attrocities can no longer speak, but their killers, like their European-killer decendants in the Holocaust, have left a clear record. The factual record demands that these murderous death-cult superstitions be exposed; history demands no less. To write: "this is a theory and not an undisputable fact" puts Str1977 in the same class as Holocaust denial kooks.--Lance talk 09:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • however, these last words have been replaced and strangely twisted into the unproven nonsense "These accusations were based on Christian doubt that the host was the actual body of Jesus" - quite the opposite is true.Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again Trachtenberg writes in The Devil and the Jews, p. 110: "Orthodox theology insisted that Christ was bodily present in the wafer, and the masses believed as directed, though not without some naïve and fairly obvious qualms. Berthold of Regensburg, the great popular preacher of the thirteenth century, found it necessary, for instance, to explain why Christ, though present in the wafer, does not let himself be seen in it: 'Who would like to bite off the little head, or the little hands, or the little feet of a little child?' he parried, and his simple auditors were apparently content."--Lance talk 09:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that by consuming it, Christians imagined that they were engaging in canabalism" is also nonsenseStr1977 (smile back) 22:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin Langmuir has already posited that the host desecration myth grew out of Christian insecurities surrounding the elaboration of the Christian doctrine of transubstantiation, whereby the body and blood of Christ is truly, physically present in the guise of the consecrated sacramental bread and wine. (Gavin Langmuir, History, Religion and Antisemitism [London and New York, 1990], 300-1, and at greater length in his Toward a Definition of Antisemitism [Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1990]) . Christian theologians grappled with some of the obvious biological problems which attended this belief, such as the implications of digestion and excrement. (It is striking how often Jews were alleged to have disposed of the desecrated wafer on a dung-hill or in a latrine.)
--Lance talk 09:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Christians were told" by whom - it is easier to simply state that they (some) believed this.Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trachtenberg writes, op. cit, p. 119:
The medieval chronicles, which were thickly sprinkled with these accounts, were, it must be remembered, Tendenzschriften. Written by churchmen, they were intended, as Gregory of Tours expressly admitted, ad corroborandam fidem Catholicam, as propaganda for the Christian faith, and therefore they played up prominently the miraculous events that might strengthen the Christian in his faith. They are "narratives in which legend is rationalized and passes for authentic history, in which history is made the pendant of legend, or vice versa. One never knows where the one ends and the other begins." The legends of image mutilation by Jews, and their subsequent miraculous conversion to Christianity were grist for the chronicler's mill, and he did not fail to embroider them artistically into his tapestry version of his times. From the chronicles these tales graduated into the realm of folklore, literature, and drama, so that none could remain ignorant of them.
--Lance talk 10:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of "cookie" is offensive language clearly demonstrating that Lance's edits are not serious work but meant to insult.Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand why you are embarassed by these strange superstitions. If you prefer, I would change "cookie" to "bread."--Lance talk 10:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Lance, or at least, if you do, you'll be reverted. One of the major religions of the world teaches that after consecration, it is no longer bread, even though it looks, tastes, and feels like bread. The word "host" is completely neutral, as you can have an unconsecrated host, which nobody believes to be special in any way, or a consecrated one, which the Catholic Church teaches is truly the body and blood of Jesus. Calling it "bread" is the same as saying that the Catholic Church is wrong, and in fact, it's only bread. That would be as great a violation of NPOV as calling it the Sacred Body of Jesus Christ. The word "host" completely avoids this problem. AnnH ♫ 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Serratia marcescens" is not antisemitic in the least. However, I doubt that this passage has any justification for being in that article at all.Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Trachtenberg, op cit, p. 117, on this issue.--Lance talk 10:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could go on and on but I think this suffices for a total revert. However, I will not do this but retain some things:

  • I will retain "libel" instead of "myth", because it is closer to the title.
  • I will retain the "disputed" note, as he may argue his case.
  • I will retain the addition to the literature.
  • I will replace "to execute" with "to kill" in some passages, but not in the disputed one, as this was a legal proceeding, as outrageous it might be.

Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Str1977, and would point out that massive changes need to be agreed on the talk page first. However, I'll make just a few points:
  • I'm not terribly comfortable with "libel" anywhere. In the places where it replaced "accusation", the word "accusation" is more neutral. In the place where it replaced "myth", I suppose neither word is terribly neutral, but the word "libel" traditionally refers to damaging someone's reputation in a published statement, i.e. in newspapers, books, etc. The Oxford English Dictionary allows an alternative meaning in informal use which would include spoken and not merely written defamation, but still, the word does carry associations with written false accusations. AnnH
  • No, I disagree. There are plenty instances where the word "libel" is appropriate, blood libel being probably the most notorious of them. Beit Or 19:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I imagine (but I'm just guessing) that when Lance wrote "Christian doubt", he actually meant "Christian belief". AnnH
  • See Langmuir, Toward a Definition of Antisemitism, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1990, Chapter 5., "Doubt in Christendom."--Lance talk 10:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not very helpful, Lance. Except that I don't want to violate WP:POINT, I could easily type "See Walker, p.13", "See Parry and Evans, Chapter 12", "See Carroll, p. 42", under all your posts. Your references might have been appropriate if I had asked has anyone really made such a claim, but in fact, I simply suggested that you might have used the wrong word. Could you state, without a "See Bathmaker, p. 69", whether it was your intention to state that these accusations against the Jews were made because Christians believed in the Real Presence, or because they did not believe in it (i.e. they "doubted" it)? AnnH ♫ 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AnnH ♫ is fraudulently inventing sources: "'See Walker, p.13,' 'See Parry and Evans, Chapter 12,' 'See Carroll, p. 42'," is pure nonsense. And in the article edit history, you admit your ignorance of the authorative sources I have cited. You have no credibility. --Lance talk 01:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Lance, you are assuming not good faith but bad faith. Though someone called Bathmaker might be writing a book, the term was clearly not an authentic source but a parody of your technique of simply posting a reference (expecting us to either go and get the book or shut up) - the occasions where you actually posted quotes indicates that the referenced parts are not making your case either. Finally, you could argue that ML should be replying tongue in cheek. However, in my book such a complaint would hypocritical coming from someone you claims that "cookie" and "cracker" are earnestly improvements to this article. Incredible indeed. Str1977 (smile back) 08:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Str1977 (smile back) is altering my comments herein: Stop forthwith.--Lance talk 11:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will stop. You have to live with the consequences of above posting being highlighted in its entirety. Good day, Str1977 (smile back) 11:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Lance changed the alleged host desecration . . . was said to have brought about an earthquake to the false accusation of host desecration . . . was said to have brought about an earthquake. That's not the same thing at all. In once case, the earthquake was supposed to be a result of the desecration: in the other, it was supposed to be because people had made false accusations.
  • See Trachtenberg, pp. 120-21.--Lance talk 10:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, not very helpful. I pointed out that there was a linguistic problem. The original wording stated that people were saying something like "God sent this earthquake because the Jews desecrated the host." You changed it to something that states that people were saying something like "God sent this earthquake because Christians made false accusations against Jews." Perhaps without a "See Wellington, p. 147", you could tell us whether the rumours at the time were that the earthquake was God's punishment on the Jews for their (alleged) desecration, or that the rumours were that the earthquake was God's punishment on the Christians for making false accusations. Trachtenberg is irrelevant to your change in meaning, unless of course Trachtenberg is saying that to state that X was punished for some wrongdoing is exactly the same as stating that Y was punished for making false accusations against X. AnnH ♫ 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "cookie", apart from being offensive to Catholics, is extremely unencyclopaedic, when used for "host". As an aside, I'll add that I have removed the Protestant term "wafer". The article is about a Catholic sacrament; Protestant terminology should not be used.
The article refers to "Christian", not "Catholic". Bread, biscuit, cookie, wafer are quite acceptable terms used by many Christians. For some Christians "donuts and coffee" are just as good as "bread and wine" because Jesus is with them in spirit when they share the food. If this is about Catholics only, then it should say so at the front gate. Hoserjoe
  • When people are wrongly executed, it is still more in keeping with NPOV to avoid the word "murder".
AnnH ♫ 00:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lance, most of your quotes do not address the issues raised by my objections. Also personal attacks will not help you. Scholarly reflections on what influenced the development of the libel are indeed that: scholarly reflections, and not undisputed fact. Hence your removal of "might" was out of order, I was right to criticize it and you wrong to label me a "holocaust denial kook" for that. Also WP doesn't work like a stock exchange where you can trade in an insulting (and not really accurate) term for your favourite supposedly neutral term. And simply posting references to Ann's postings is not suitable either. Finally, I think that Trachtenberg would hardly blame an earthquake on Christians falsely accusing Jews (which is what you have written, even if you don't understand it) ... and if he does his contribution becomes worthless. I have reported your vitriolic behaviour to the admins. Good day, Str1977 (smile back) 13:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Flinging around insults like "holocaust denial kook" is completely inappropriate. By the way, did you intend to change the spelling of "Transubstantiation" to "Transsubstantiation"? And did you intend to change "who would be hit by it" to "whom would be hit by it"? You're mixing up subjects and objects. Please don't make blind reverts, to reintroduce errors. If you find it simpler to go back to a particular version, you should reintroduce all subsequent useful edits manually. AnnH ♫ 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad revert[edit]

Ist there any specific reason, why this revert also delete items in the literature section:

Pjacobi 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pjacobi, when someone does a massive edit and you want to revert just part of it, it's sometimes simpler to do a straight revert and then to reintroduce the good (or at least inoffensive) changes manually in your next edit. As you'll see if you look at the history, that's exactly what I did in the very next edit. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've got confused while assessing the diffs. --Pjacobi 21:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie v. bread[edit]

Non-Christians do not know what a "host" is. "Cookie" seems to be the best description of what is being "desecrated." Stripped of its religious pretensions, this outrageous and murderous libel thereby becomes manifest.--Lance talk 00:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone does not know a specific term, then he can look it up via the wikilink. I guess many people do not know "desecration" either just as very many other specific technical terms. No one here is talking about "bread desecration" and never was any one, Gentile or Jew, accused of desecrating bread. If you think it's bread it is still not any kind of bread involved but only this specific "bread". Cookie is completely out of the question - it is not only intentionally offensive, it is also ridiculously wrong: compare a host with a cookie and you will immediately spot the difference. Str1977 (smile back) 00:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor John Klier refers to "the consecrated sacramental bread" that appears to me to be a fairly good description of what is going on. An explanation of what "consecrated sacramental" means would be helpful.--Lance talk 01:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only above you are arguing in favour of "cookie", now it is "bread" (and I have already explained why "host" is better - it does not take sides in the contentious issue of whether transubstantiation takes place, hence NPOV). Str1977 (smile back) 01:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Cookie" is a far better description, or perhaps "cracker"; I would accept "bread," but really its my third choice, after "cookie" and "cracker."--Lance talk 01:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a crash curse in a bakery before you return again. Str1977 (smile back) 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... and in WP:NPOV as well. Str1977 (smile back) 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as one who has a certificate in professional bakery from the Cordon Bleu School in Paris, I can state categorically that a cookie is not remotely like a host. The article Cookie states that ingredients include "sugars, spices, chocolate, butter, peanut butter, nuts or dried fruits". According to Catholic teaching, all of those ingredients would be forbidden for use in the liturgy, and most, perhaps even all, of those ingredients would make the host invalid for use, meaning that transubstantiation would not take place. A cracker is also not even remotely like a host. I have to feel some doubt as to the expertise of someone who claims that something that looks like this or something that looks like this is a good description of something that looks like this. In any case, the words "cookie" and "cracker" are never used for the host in Catholic liturgies, except by those who intend either to deny the Real Presence or simply to be offensive. For the benefit of anyone who mightn't know what it means, the word is wiki-linked on its first appearance, and the "Background" section makes it clear that we're talking about the Catholic Eucharist. AnnH ♫ 02:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stripping of the metaphysics, it is neither bread nor cookie, but Wafer (cooking). But as this is linked (now) from Host (Holy Communion), I'd say there will be no open questions even for non-catholics, if we use [[Host (Holy Communion)|host]] in the intro sentence. That's the joy of hypertext, folks. --Pjacobi 11:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste from blog[edit]

It appears that there was a cut and paste from an unreliable blog here.--Lance talk 00:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about. This blog cited this link: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=938&letter=HJ

Str1977 (smile back) 00:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reintroduction of spelling and grammatical errors[edit]

Lance, you've reverted to the "transsubstantiation" and "whom would be hit by it" mistakes again. Please don't keep doing that; it's very disruptive. I mentioned in my edit summary that I was correcting grammar and spelling, I mentioned it here, and another editor pointed out to you that one of your previous reverts had restored the wrong spelling. You're also very close to being in violation of the three-revert rule. Please try to get consensus for your edits rather than forcing them on us. Also, please note that you are the one who introduced massive changes, while complaining about the original article, so this edit summary is inappropriate. AnnH ♫ 01:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not acting in good faith. If spelling errors are a concern, not mine by the way, then correct them. What you are doing is removing CONTENT that you, by your own admission, are ignorant of. Such conduct is disruptive and constitutes vandalism. I'm asking an admin to intervene here to deal with this abuse.--Lance talk 01:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lance, read WP:AGF about what is required of WP editors. Then, you shouldn't be talking about ignorance, since you repeatedly reverted the "background" section to a version that contained inaccuracies (the EO do not believe in the concept of transubstantiation or adore the host, even though they agree in all other matters with Catholics). Also "your" version confused the issues of "real presence" with the concept of "transubstantiation", which is only an attempt to explain the former in philosophical terms (and attempt that was in the end defined as a dogma). Both have their place in this article but they are two distinct things. Str1977 (smile back) 01:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These absurd justifications are merely a pretext to wrongfully remove valid content from the article; nothing more.--Lance talk 01:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Address the issue or keep quiet. Str1977 (smile back) 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain Eastern Orthodox do believe in transubstaniation. -- Kendrick7talk 01:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I take that back. They believe in the "real presence" which is more or less the same thing. -- Kendrick7talk 01:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the doctrine was developed in the Western Church by St Thomas Aquinas two centuries after the Eastern Churches split from the West. It was also taught by the Council of Trent, later still. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the bread and wine really become the body and blood of Jesus, but they're not comfortable with philosophical explanations as to just how that happens. AnnH ♫ 02:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I know that is what is says here, but I wish it had a better ref than a "personal web site from Phil Porvaznik". Seems like the clerics are quibbling. -- Kendrick7talk 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to correct Ann on this. The concept of T. was developed not by Thomas (born 1225) but by earlier theologians and defined a dogma in 1215. However, she is correct about the difference between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches on this, which is not so much a difference in content but a different approach towards the use of philosophical means and their use in developing doctrine (later expounded by Gregory Palamas). The EOC is content not to delve into the technicalities of how come that Christ is present unter the species of bread and wine. Str1977 (smile back) 22:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I accept correction from the more knowledgeable ;-), though I'd still say that Thomas took the development further. AnnH ♫ 22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, he did. There is, I guess, no issue of theology on which Thomas has not done notable work. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't think it is accurate to say the Catholic Church even "delves into the technicalities". Some Catholic theologians have; that's not quite the same thing. From the Catechism here, the main points I am taking away as to the how, is that it is by the priest's consecration and thru the power of God. Perhaps they don't teach this in Constantinople, which would strike me as odd, but I can't imagine them teaching any thing particularly different. -- Kendrick7talk 02:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick, I agree. I was voicing the common criticism by Eastern Orthodox Christians with which I disagree, because a) I don't think you can stop short of such reflections, b) trinitarian theology and christology have developed over the first years as well by making use of philosophical tools and I can't see why it should have to stop. Finally I agree that the EOs agree with your quotes from the catechism. I was exclusively referring to the concept of transubstantiation. Str1977 (smile back) 09:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folk belief[edit]

I liked the edit that Tom harrison did on Premeditated Chaos's edit. Like Tom, I have no idea if the actual claims are true. However, I didn't feel that "folk belief" was quite right. To me, a folk belief is something like sleeping with a piece of wedding cake under your pillow and thinking that you'll then dream of your future husband — in other words, something superstitious and related to people of a particular culture. However, the belief that Satanists desecrate the host at a Black Mass may be erroneous. I'm not convinced that it is, though it may be true that "mainstream" Satanists (if there is such a thing) don't do that. But I wouldn't call it a folk belief: it would simply be an mistaken belief, like thinking that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus. I'm open to discussion on the wording. AnnH ♫ 19:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tags[edit]

Lance has been adding a lot of tags. First, I'll say that although when I reverted him, I removed some "citation needed" tags, I am not particularly opposed to them. While I do think it's bad manners to do a full page revert and make no effort to restore things like spelling corrections which were wiped out by the revert, I think when someone makes such massive changes without seeking consensus, he shouldn't be too surprised to find his edits reverted. If Lance wishes to restore some of the citation needed tags, without filling the whole article with POV language about libel (every second word!) and being cruelly murdered, and cookies, and with inaccuracies about EO adoring the host, and false accusations being said to have caused an earthquake, I will not remove them.

With regard to the more recently-added (and removed) templates, the article does not at all read like a sermon. It would seem that Lance is not familiar with sermons. I await an explanation on the talk page for the "disputed" tag. Lance, could you state, one by one, which statements you dispute? Thanks. AnnH ♫ 19:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations against hunters[edit]

Isn't it time to remove this section from the article given that no references for it have been provided since an "original research" tag was placed there? Beit Or 21:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Done.
And what is the "factually accuray disputed"-tag doing in the "Accusations against Jews"-section?
Pjacobi 22:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You got my support. Should we consolidate or replace the first image with the last one: they seem to show the same 1477 woodcut? ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed tag[edit]

Anonymous writes, "Trachtenberg and Langmuir are the authorities on this issue, as set out on the talk page, but these sources have been supressed in the article."

As far as I can see, Trachtenberg and Langmuir are in agreement with what is written in the article. For example, I did not see anywhere where they refered to the execution of Jews accused of host desecration as "murder". But I didn't read a lot of those sources, so I might have missed that part. However, if some explanation of the problem is not forthcoming, I will delete the disputed tag again. Certainly, those sources are listed in the references, so the accusation that they have been supressed seems to me to be hyperbole. -- Cat Whisperer 06:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's guess why Anonymous is still disputing. I don't belief he holds the POV, that there were real host desecrations by the Jews or that the processes against the Jews were fair and just. I would guess, Anonymous want to stress that the accusations are somehat correlated with the problems of the doctrine of transsubstantiation and real presence. This is an interesting speculation, but is at odds with the timing and the fact that all sort of other desecrations were common accusations against the Jews in those times. Anyway, we must evaluate the sources. --Pjacobi 18:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Descreationofhost.gif[edit]

I updated the caption by copying it's description from wikicommons. The official description describes the woodcut more precicely and with less error: in the first panel the hosts are already stolen, the Jews are depicted with distinguishing badges etc.... Elephx4 (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current instances of persecution[edit]

Should mention be made of current events?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php#more
http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=6932236&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1
Belgianatheist (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should think so.VatoFirme (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added it, it is my first edit so if it is wrong please correct or remove, also (after I saved) I have seen that on the Pharyngula (blog) page there already is a paragraph with pretty much the same thing, don't know what the procedures are for that.Belgianatheist (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic cults[edit]

There is a widespread belief among Church leaders that satanic cults have contributed to the phenomenon of host desecration. One liturgist, Guido Marini, has even opposed communion in the hand on the grounds that it makes it much easier for these cults to steal and desecrate hosts. [3] ADM (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the subcategory "Black Mass," it says "A Black mass is a Satanic ritual designed to satirize or invert a traditional Catholic mass."

With all due respect, I think "satirize" is an understatement, regarding the Host Desecration during a satanic black mass. It is outright blasphemous, to steal a Sacred Host (which is Christ Himself), and use Him as a sacrifice to the devil. --Splashen (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broken reference link[edit]

The link with the title Student Who Took Religious Icon Getting Death Threats no longer works - the Fox server redirects browsers to the home page for that site.Autarch (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is a Catholic topic, not a antisemitism topic.[edit]

What is wrong with you? Host desecration is an article under "antisemitism"? You know, it's getting a little nuts that almost every Christian article on wiki is overwhelmed by Jews sob stories about how mean Christians are. And now you take a topic called "Host Desecration" and have it as part of series on antisemitism? This is completely out of line and this article needs to be fixed. Host desecration is not antisemitism, Jews are not the Eucharist, Jesus is. Host desecration is not antisemitism against Jews, it's desecration of the Eucharist, a Christian sacrament.

I'm so bored and fed up with Jews sob stories and chutzpah, the amount of gall one must have to put this article under "antisemitism" makes me believe Jews probably were desecrating hosts and insulting Christians at every opportunity that presented itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.55.43 (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, you may have something of a point, but your own hateful comments about Jews destroy your credibility.Sorry.--Benfergy (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hateful or not, the point stands. My jaw about hit the floor when I saw the "Part of a series on Antisemitism" banner.. it's almost as if some editor is intentionally trying to be provocative by evoking the "It's always all about them (Jews)" stereotype. If I can remove it, I will. Drlegendre (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This comment inadvertently points to a problem with the article. While the theological and dogmatic issues of transubstantiation of the host is a Christian matter, when it comes to history an practice the accusations of host desecration were a part of the anti-Semitic persecutions in Europe. With few exceptions, the allegations probably had no more merit than charges of sorcery or consorting with the devil. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:181B:D992:4624:3963 (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Text from Jewish Museum in Berlin[edit]

I copied the following text from the Jewish Museum in Berlin, I noticed that it mentions some places and events that aren't in the Wikipedia article. Hopefully it will be useful to someone in completing the article.

188.223.5.83 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Issues[edit]

" 'Catholics were being told' that they were consuming flesh and blood. "

This statement makes no sense in light of the fact that Christian doctrine has always taught that the Eucharist is transubstantiated at consecration, even though the rigid terminology developed over time (ante-Nicene writings well attest to this). The Catholic Church did not arbitrarily decide one day that a host is now going to be the body and blood of the incarnate God. So, I ask, where are the citations? Much of this article is spurious. For instance, a section (which I removed, which will, no doubt, be put back) describes the blood libel allegation "absurd" on the grounds that the accused Jews did not believe in the divine properties of the Host. The obviously false, and tragic, allegations against Jewish people aside, one does not have to believe anything to show purposeful disrespect (for instance, out of respect for my Muslim friends, I would not commission a portrait of Mohammad, but this does not mean that I fear the wrath of Allah or believe that such a commission is necessarily wrong in and of itself). Hierosolimitanum (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of balance[edit]

There are two particular faults with this article. First, it us hard to find the definition of the term. In the third section, fifth sentence, we finally learn: " Theft, sale, or use of the host for a profane purpose is considered a grave sin and sacrilege..." And I don't think that's even a complete description. Second, the two recent incidents are so minor compared to the numerous massacres in history that the space given to them is grossly undue. Overall, it needs a rewrite. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:181B:D992:4624:3963 (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Host desecration. 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) 06:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Host desecration. 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) 01:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category Mistake[edit]

It's a common subject for History of Christianity, but "Anti-Semitism" is given as reason. A bit less ideological balance and less conspiracy theory would be appreciated --105.4.2.242 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Host_desecration&oldid=1217253370"