Absolutely FALSE.
RevNeal,
First off, I love the Methodists, in large part because it is a 'big tent' denomination that permits and even encouraging freedom of opinion and expression. I have found Bible class among Methodists exciting because of all the creative viewpoints expressed without any sense of 'heresy' to be condemned.
Now, you may interpret the liturgy to mean that Christ is present in some material way in the communion elements. I reject that. Sorry, with all due respect, it smacks of paganism to me. Like Mithraism and other mystery cults which taught that somehow we can be more like god if we ingest god.
It sounds as you may be a member of OSL, Order of St. Luke. I know of that group - a small group amid a large denomination - which is working to push Methodism closer to the 'high church' both in doctrine and liturgy. Methodism swept the country because committed circuit riders who didn't even wear robes crossed the nation preaching the saving grace of Christ. They were not interested in quibbling re theology. Faith and not theology leads us to the throne of grace and certainly not all manner of define, refined dogma and doctrine. I admire much about Catholicism as it does some outstanding work among the poor, through its hospitals and schools. However, I can't bring myself to believe the unbelievable. If I had thought that a Methodist had to believe that anything about the bread and cup changed during communion I would have left that denomination immediately. But I know that Methodists don't believe that except for perhaps a few senior ministers like yourself.
My paternal background, by the way, was Catholic. My paternal grandparents became Baptists in Quebec, then moved to a US town with no Baptist Church and joined the Methodists. Myself - I have been active in Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational churches, depending upon where we lived and what churches were in the area. I love them all. As you probably know, in Canada the three have merged into the United Church of Canada. I pray daily for Catholics, Protestants and all Christians, as well as Jews, Muslims and God's children of every creed, color, and country.It’s not just I who interpret the liturgy this way, it’s the General Conference of the United Methodist Church which published the Holy Communion Study Commission Report. The UMC is not Zwinglian in its theology of the sacraments; we don’t view them as simple remembrances – “badges” or “tokens” of a past event that has nothing to do with today and our reception of Christ in the here and now – but, rather, as true and effective Means of Grace, conveying to us the grace of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. While Methodists do not affirm Transubstantiation as the way in which Jesus is Really Present in and through the Eucharist, we do nevertheless believe that Jesus is Really Present “in a Holy and Mysterious manner which is beyond our comprehension.” Hence, rather than “Transubstantiation,” we assert that we affirm “Holy Mystery” as the way in which Jesus is Really Present. We cannot explain it, but Jesus said it (“this is my body … this is my blood”) and so we believe it.
DING DING DING DING DING! You win a prize!!!
I certainly agree … salvation isn’t by assent to doctrines, it’s by faith in Jesus Christ. And, indeed, the Eucharist is about faith … and the experience of knowing and receiving the Real Presence of Jesus through this glorious Means of Grace. While doctrinal arguments, etc., all get towed into the topic, in point of fact (for me, at least), what is important about the Lord’s Supper is that it is the Lord’s way of sharing his very self with me in order that I might be empowered share the Lord to others.
Do you believe in the Resurrection? How about the Virgin Birth? The Substitutionary Atonement? The Consubstantial Humanity and Divinity of Jesus? The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Do you believe any of these “unbelievable” things? I do. I’m “post-modern” in my approach. Miracles, mystery, and the unexplainable are not a problem for me.
And I know that a HUGE and growing number of Methodists DO, indeed, believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. For 12 years I have been active in the Emmaus Community (our version of the Roman Catholic Cursillo movement), have served as Spiritual Director on dozens of Walks and have been Community Spiritual Director for more than one Community. Means of Grace theology – including the Real Presence of Jesus in Holy Communion – is an important component of the Walk to Emmaus. Nearly a million have now gone on a Walk in the UMC. Are you SURE that Real Presence is only limited to “a few senior ministers” like me???
Nothing personal, but I believe that Methodism has been losing ground in large part because it has moved toward a more repetitious prayerbook liturgy, has put too much emphasis on proper vestments, and has cookie-cutter lectionary-limited preachers who rely heavily upon preprepared sermon materials instead of the Holy Spirit. The old moralistic legalism which it set aside over the years is being replaced by liturgical legalism - proper and prissy ritual that bores people to death and makes religion seem hollow and often effeminate. The church already has alienated too many men.
I attended just such a Methodist Church last Easter when visiting out of town. I could have been in an Anglo-Catholic Church. The minister surely meant well, but he must have come under OSL influence because he turned the Methodist enthusiasm I grew up with on its head. There was no spirit. Everything was by the book. The minister probably was If your viewpoint reigns in American Methodism I predict that it will continue to decline. I live in a Catholic area, and its churches have suffered enormously from falling attendance. Two decades ago this New England state was 47% Catholic. A recent poll indicated that it is now 38%, the same percentage as Protestants. How do you explain that? And why do you think the spirited, evangelical churches are growing so, certainly around here? It's in large part because they don't hold on to dead and repetitious liturgy.
Yes, it's true. I am a 'big tent' Protestant who has little in the way of denominational preference. But I do want to attend a church where freedom of thought is respected and we are not expected to all be of one opinion. Frankly, I will not recite ancient creeds. Take the Apostles Creed, for example. It was not written by the apostles. It was written to brand others as heretics, then ostracized and often killed because of their 'heresies'. What sort of Christianity was that? Politics played a big role. Much of the terminology is antiquated. Jesus sitting on the right hand of the Father? That came from ancient three-tier thinking and sounds silly in our world today. Do you believe in the resurrection of our bodies as the closing words declare? I don't. Our resurrection, yes? Of the body? No. So how can I honestly declare "I believe" things I don't believe.
We could go on, but I have a busy day tomorrow and must get to bed. I wonder - in all honesty - if you don't belong in the Episcopal Church. I worry that your perspective has gained ground in Methodist seminaries and is increasingly damaging that denomination. It's a case of majoring in minors, as the expression goes.
But, God bless all humanity. I must confess that I don't believe that God prefers Christians above those who follow different paths to him. Jesus is my Lord, and I seek to serve him by loving God and others as he commanded and not fret about liturgical proprieties or conforming theologically. It seems to me that these sorts of legalism were what Christ opposed. Jesus gave us enough guidance to live by, and as for the ultimate questions my guess is that our piddling debates down here will seem silly once we get to heaven.
God bless you, but I hope you will rethink your position on such matters.
). As someone else has already said, I believe Christianity is Apostolic, and so I believe that the Bible is a fruit of that, not the other way around. Thus if Apostolic Christianity were utterly false and irrefutably proven so, and I’m talking undeniably to the point where even the Pope and every last rational bishop and patriarch would be forced to throw up their hands and sadly agree, then I would have to seriously rethink all my beliefs I have ever had about Christianity, not only Catholicism…which would really hurt, because I love Jesus and am very attached to Him.You must understand that, for Catholics (and indeed for some others, such as Orthodox), many of what you call non-essentials are in fact very much essential. Since Catholics believe the Church’s infallible teachings are equally the Word of God as what we read in the Bible, to compromise on a belief the Church teaches to be absolutely true would be just as grave as to compromise on a belief stated boldly, plainly, and of clear importance in the Bible. So it is not that we are “debating non-essentials”, it is that we are refusing to compromise what we truly believe to be the Word of God every bit as much as you believe in what you would call the essentials. That’s not to say we automatically condemn people who honestly just “get it wrong” to Hell, but we very much condemn ourselves if we should dare take what we truly believe to be God-given truth and say any part of it is somehow not essential. When it comes to what one believes God has firmly and clearly revealed, as Catholics believe He has revealed Catholic Doctrine and Ethics through the Church, God-given truth is God-given truth…there are no "essential"and “non-essential” categories. Protestants feel no different about this; they have a different definition of what those firmly God-given truths are, but they are no more willing to compromise on what they do define that way than Catholics are.
The Jews of Jesus’ day thought that it smacked of paganism to believe that God could literally have a flesh-and-blood Son born of a virgin. They thought the idea of a man dying to save us from our sins was very pagan, smacking of pagan human sacrifices. Saying that this Man was also Divine wouldn’t have helped matters, because the very possibility of the Incarnation would have absolutely reeked of paganism to them. Even on this very same topic, regarding ingesting Christ’s material presence, many Jewish followers left Him for the very same reason you cite–it seemed to conflict with what they thought of as monotheistic beliefs vs. Pagan beliefs. None of these things actually conflict with the identity of the Israelite’s (our) God, of course, but they seemed to in the mind of one who didn’t fully understand the difference between paganism and the true nature of God’s Monotheism as revealed by and through Christ and the Incarnation. Jesus Himself knew how these things seemed, but in no way did He try to change any of these truths to make them seem “less pagan” to His fellow Jews. In short, being accused of pagan appearances has been something Christianity has had to bear since before Christ even died and rose again. It is hardly disconcerting that people today make the same assumption about several of the Catholic Church’s beliefs, since it only demonstrates a pattern that has characterized the true Faith since the beginning.
except that Christ said that we only have life if we eat His Body and drink His Blood… and He didn’t say it was just symbolic when many of his disciples left Him over that statement
what is wrong with liturgy? the Church has always had liturgy, for 2000 years
Okay, that’s a bit extreme. You might want to think before you post a comment like this next time. As a Protestant, I’m very offended.
I used to be Anglican, and I really miss it. I have immense respect for Protestantism, which the absurd antics of US Fundamentalists cannot damage.
To pin one’s faith on anything so totally unreliable as a Church, Papal or not, is to build on sand.RevNeal,
It is no use trying to convince Roy of what Methodists believe. I have had this conversation with him more than once. He thinks that because Methodists deny Transubstantiation they must deny the Real Presence of Christ completely. I have shown him official Methodist teaching and he has even been corrected by a Methodist on these forums (twice now counting you). Because he taught a class once to a room full of Methodists Roy has named himself the know all of Methodist beliefs
God bless you and welcome to the forums.
You should be. It’s a wake-up call. To be protestant is to reject the church God started, by the person of Christ. To reject the origins of the bible (It’s a 4th century collection of the writings of the Bishops and Apostles of the 1st Century church, collated in Nicea by the collected bishops of the church, and promulgated as the “Approved for liturgical use list.”