Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scardinoz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Scardinoz

Guest
Before I ask this question let me make it clear that I’m not looking for debate. These are sincere questions. I’m looking for answers in the form of someone pointing me in the direction of a source for me to learn more.

During the reformation, both Martin Luther and John Calvin believed that the bread and wine at the Eucharist were the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
  • When did the popular belief among protestants become that Jesus was speaking figuratively?
  • Was there someone in particular who promoted this belief? Who?
Links to sources are appreciated.
 
Before I ask this question let me make it clear that I’m not looking for debate. These are sincere questions. I’m looking for answers in the form of someone pointing me in the direction of a source for me to learn more.

During the reformation, both Martin Luther and John Calvin believed that the bread and wine at the Eucharist were the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
  • When did the popular belief among protestants become that Jesus was speaking figuratively?
  • Was there someone in particular who promoted this belief? Who?
Links to sources are appreciated.
It was Huldrych Zwingli who believed the bread and wine were only symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and he could not reach an agreement with Martin Luther about this even after Luther’s excommuniation… Here’s an account of the Marburg Colloquy where he met with Luther about the disagreement but was ultimately unable to reach an agreement, with sources. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_Colloquy
 
Before I ask this question let me make it clear that I’m not looking for debate. These are sincere questions. I’m looking for answers in the form of someone pointing me in the direction of a source for me to learn more.

During the reformation, both Martin Luther and John Calvin believed that the bread and wine at the Eucharist were the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
  • When did the popular belief among protestants become that Jesus was speaking figuratively?
  • Was there someone in particular who promoted this belief? Who?
Links to sources are appreciated.
SMM is basically correct. Zwingli promoted it, and Luther saved some of his harshest criticism for Zwingli because of it. Luther: "Before I drink mere wine with the Swiss I shall drink blood with the pope."
I’m not sure Calvin ever believed in the real presence. Do you have documentation that he did?

Jon
 
Upon further investigating, it seems Calvin believed that receiving the Eucharist meant you were receiving the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ but, before reception, that the bread and wine were not physically the Body and Blood but only in a spiritual sense. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The All-Knowing Wiki:
Reformed theology has taught that Jesus’ body is seated in heaven at the right hand of God and therefore is not present in the elements nor do the elements turn into his body. When the eucharist is received, however, not only the spirit, but also the true body and blood of Jesus Christ (hence “real”) are received in a pneumatic (ghostly) sense, but these are only received by those partakers who eat worthily (i.e., repentantly) with faith. The Holy Spirit unites the Christian with Jesus though they are separated by a great distance.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_theologies_contrasted#Calvinist_.28Presbyterian_and_Reformed.29
 
I think you may find that both Wycliffe and Huss rejected transubstantiation before the main thrust of the Reformation. As I understand Luther, he taught consubstantiation.
Code:
As a mainline Protestant I cannot believe in transubstantiation. Here are a few things I **do** believe regarding communion.    

 1. Christ in the person of the Holy Spirit is with us everywhere and always, as he promised, but no more at communion than any other time. "Lo, I am with you always...."

 2. However, communion provides us with a special opportunity to focus on this continuous presence of Christ.

 3. There is no change whatsoever in the physical elements. They remain bread and wine - well, grapejuice, 'the fruit of the vine', in many of our Protestant churches. Grapejuice is used so that people who wrestle with alcoholism are not endangered when they receive communion. And both the bread and the cup are distributed to all.

 4. Communion is a 'family feast...so to speak. We cannot gather everyone in our homes, as early Christians often did, so we celebrate together in church at the communion table.

 5. We remember Christ's crucifixion along with his resurrection as we observe communion. To focus only on his sacrifice is to omit the more important reason for the family feast. So, it is not a memorial service, though there is a memorial aspect. 

 6. In many of our Protestant churches, communion presents a particular time for a general confession and the assurance of forgiveness to all who truly repent. It is a time when we seek reconciliation with God but also reconciliation with one another. 

 7. Many Protestants, while regarding other faiths with respect and viewing communion as an important sacrament or ordinance, also recognize that it can easily become loaded down with superstition unless care is taken. This may have been understandable in medieval times, when people generally believed in ghosts and such, but not today. The idea that the elements are changed in any physical way whatsoever through priestly consecration is not embraced by Protestants. If a change occurs - and we hope it does - it is in the hearts, minds and/or souls of the faithful. 

 8. Protestants generally respect those who have different and/or additional interpretations of communion. As in other areas of theology, diversity of opinion is acceptable - well, with reasonable bounds, of course. None of us can claim to have the full truth about the endless mysterious of life and this mammoth and magnificent universe.  

 9. The Protestant denominations I identify with - such as Presbyterians, Methodists, UCC, etc. - have open communion. The worshiper decides whether or not to receive. If there is anything invalid about that person's communion, that is between God and him/her. The church is not in a position to judge a person's right to the sacrament.

 10. While communion is important, most mainline Protestants don't give it the extraordinary status that Catholicism does. The Eucharist is central to the Catholic faith and worship. It is important to most Protestants, but such 'good works' (speaking sacramentally) don't play as major a role as in Catholicism. One of the most commendable Protestant groups, the Society of Friends (Quakers), doesn't observe communion at all, and I would not criticize them for that. They certainly have a faith rich in reaching out for peace and justice, and I personally view that as important as communion.

  That's everything that comes to mind that is not of book-length. God bless Catholics, Protestants and people of every creed, color and country. May religion become a bridge rather than a barrier.
 
Thanks for presenting the information objectively. It’s helpful.

God bless you.
 
As a United Methodist, I DO place a high level of importance on the Sacrament of Holy Communion. I advocate weekly celebration of the Eucharist just as I advocate weekly proclamation of the Word. Can you imagine gathering for Sunday worship and not reading scripture or hearing a sermon? In the early years of Methodism in the US, there was a shortage of clergy, so the frequency of receiving Holy Communion suffered. And, as other Protestant groups sprang up with a bigger emphasis on proclaiming the Word than Sacraments, unfortunately that worked its way into Methodist History. But, Holy Communion within the United Methodist Church is certainly more than a meal we share at the altar rail because our homes are not large enough to accomodate. United Methodist also believe, as did John Wesley the Anglican priest, that Christ is really and truly present in the elements. If you would like a better understanding of a United Methodist understanding of Communion, please search online for a document titled: This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion. United Methodists are placing a higher level of importance on the Sacraments of Communion and Baptism and embracing the Holy History of the church these days.
 
As a United Methodist, I DO place a high level of importance on the Sacrament of Holy Communion. I advocate weekly celebration of the Eucharist just as I advocate weekly proclamation of the Word. Can you imagine gathering for Sunday worship and not reading scripture or hearing a sermon? In the early years of Methodism in the US, there was a shortage of clergy, so the frequency of receiving Holy Communion suffered. And, as other Protestant groups sprang up with a bigger emphasis on proclaiming the Word than Sacraments, unfortunately that worked its way into Methodist History. But, Holy Communion within the United Methodist Church is certainly more than a meal we share at the altar rail because our homes are not large enough to accomodate. United Methodist also believe, as did John Wesley the Anglican priest, that Christ is really and truly present in the elements. If you would like a better understanding of a United Methodist understanding of Communion, please search online for a document titled: This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion. United Methodists are placing a higher level of importance on the Sacraments of Communion and Baptism and embracing the Holy History of the church these days.
Thank you for presenting the UM view on communion. There are people out there who believe that the UM teaches that Christ is not truly present in Communion and that it is instead just a symbolic meal. Some people will even persist in this belief even after being told, and shown, the official UM teaching.

BTW, welcome to the forums.

God bless you
 
I must take issue with Brother Wade. I am well acquainted with Methodism and his view of Methodists and communion is a small minority view, peddled principally by a small group known as the Order of St. Luke. They are the ‘high-church’ faction with the United Methodist Church. Methodists have the Protestant perspective that different opinions are acceptable within that denomination - one reason it is one of my personal favorites (along with Presbyterians, UCC, Quakers, Disciples of Christ, etc.).
Code:
 The notion that anything happens to the actual elements distributed at communion is shared by very few Methodists. I have been deeply involved in Methodist churches over the years and I have a good sense of what the laity believes. It's interesting that in Canada - one of my ancestral grandmothers was grandmother of the first Archbishop of Quebec 200 years ago (Archbishop Plessis) - Methodists united with Congregationalists and Presbyterians to form the United Church of Canada. That makes sense.

 If one reads the 25 articles of faith of Methodism (and John Wesley), borrowed from Anglican's 39 articles, you will find a sharp condemnation of transubstantiation  as "repugnant to the plain words of Scripture...and hath given occasion to many superstitions."

 I believe my outline of beliefs re communion in my post yesterday would far better reflect what the vast majority of Methodists would accept as the meaning of communion.
 
I must take issue with Brother Wade. I am well acquainted with Methodism and his view of Methodists and communion is a small minority view, peddled principally by a small group known as the Order of St. Luke. They are the ‘high-church’ faction with the United Methodist Church. Methodists have the Protestant perspective that different opinions are acceptable within that denomination - one reason it is one of my personal favorites (along with Presbyterians, UCC, Quakers, Disciples of Christ, etc.).
Code:
 The notion that anything happens to the actual elements distributed at communion is shared by very few Methodists. I have been deeply involved in Methodist churches over the years and I have a good sense of what the laity believes. It's interesting that in Canada - one of my ancestral grandmothers was grandmother of the first Archbishop of Quebec 200 years ago (Archbishop Plessis) - Methodists united with Congregationalists and Presbyterians to form the United Church of Canada. That makes sense.



 I believe my outline of beliefs re communion in my post yesterday would far better reflect what the vast majority of Methodists would accept as the meaning of communion.
Ahhh someone had burning ears… or would it be eyes 🤷
The notion that anything happens to the actual elements distributed at communion is shared by very few Methodists.
Yes, very few… it is only taught by the Church, but lets not get held up on a fact such as that.
I have been deeply involved in Methodist churches over the years and I have a good sense of what the laity believes.
Yes it appears so. You have so much sense of what they believe that you have a better sense of what they believe than Methodists do. Also you have a better sense of what the Church actually teaches than the Church itself does.
Code:
 If one reads the 25 articles of faith of Methodism (and John Wesley), borrowed from Anglican's 39 articles, you will find a sharp condemnation of transubstantiation  as "repugnant to the plain words of Scripture...and hath given occasion to many superstitions."
Roy5 still hasn’t realized that a person can deny Transubstantiation and yet still believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Wait till he finds out that Lutherans also deny Transub. and yet still affirm the Real Presence. Or even more shocking, wait until an Anglican tells him that the 39 Articles are not really binding and that there are Anglicans who affirm Transub. :eek:

Roy5 one more time:
  • Denial of Transub does not equate to denial of the Real Presence.
  • Affirming the Real Presence does not equate to affirming Transub.
Ask a Lutheran. Ask an Anglican… Ask a Methodist.
Code:
 I believe my outline of beliefs re communion in my post yesterday would far better reflect what the vast majority of Methodists would accept as the meaning of communion.
As I have told you on more than one occassion, I will take what the Methodist Church says it believes over what you “believe” the Methodist Church teaches. I really wish you would stop spreading false information about the Methodist Church.

God bless
 
As a United Methodist, I DO place a high level of importance on the Sacrament of Holy Communion. I advocate weekly celebration of the Eucharist just as I advocate weekly proclamation of the Word. Can you imagine gathering for Sunday worship and not reading scripture or hearing a sermon? In the early years of Methodism in the US, there was a shortage of clergy, so the frequency of receiving Holy Communion suffered. And, as other Protestant groups sprang up with a bigger emphasis on proclaiming the Word than Sacraments, unfortunately that worked its way into Methodist History. But, Holy Communion within the United Methodist Church is certainly more than a meal we share at the altar rail because our homes are not large enough to accomodate. United Methodist also believe, as did John Wesley the Anglican priest, that Christ is really and truly present in the elements. If you would like a better understanding of a United Methodist understanding of Communion, please search online for a document titled: This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion. United Methodists are placing a higher level of importance on the Sacraments of Communion and Baptism and embracing the Holy History of the church these days.
I was born and raised in the United Methodist Church and only left it to become Catholic. While what you say about Wesley is true, it can hardly be said about the UM today. None of the churches, except for one, I ever attended had communion weekly (the one that did it weekly was due to a merger of two separate congregations and was done only because our pastor mistakenly thought the other church had weekly communion, needless to say when the mistake was realized the weekly stuff was dropped very quickly). Communion was more likely than not monthly and even that was seen by some in the church as being “too Catholic.”

I have to whole-heartedly agree with Roy5, the UM church explicitly denies “transubstantiation.” I never in my experiece has any type of presence in communion ever been believed except for a spiritual presence of Christ. In fact after church was over the remaining bread and grape juice that was “consecrated” during the service was put back with the stuff left back in the kitchen or if a loaf of bread was used instead of bread cubes, it would go home with the minister for lunch. Hardly seems like a belief in the real presence or a belief in consubstantiation.

Sure, in the UM church both baptism and communion are sacraments but the word has hardly the same meaning or understanding that Catholics have it and both baptism and communion definitely do not mean the same thing that they do to Catholics.

ChadS
 
I have to whole-heartedly agree with Roy5, the UM church explicitly denies “transubstantiation.”
You are free to agree with Roy5 of course, just don’t fall into the same error that he does. Transub. is not the only belief on the Real Presence. See the Lutheran Church, which denies Transub. yet affirms the Real Presence. Also you and Roy5 are setting up a strawman; Brother Wade said nothing about Transub. You are arguing agaisnt something he never said he believed. He said that he believe in the Real Presence.
I never in my experiece has any type of presence in communion ever been believed except for a spiritual presence of Christ.
Perhaps Methodist Catechesis is as poor as the Catholic Church’s in that there are people running around not knowing what their Church actually teaches:shrug:

Here is the Methodist Church in her own words:
Jesus Christ, who “is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Hebrews 1:3),** is truly present in Holy Communion**. Through Jesus Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit, God meets us at the Table. God, who has given the sacraments to the church, acts in and through Holy Communion.** Christ is present **through the community gathered in Jesus’ name (Matthew 18:20), through the Word proclaimed and enacted, **and through the elements of bread and wine shared **(1 Corinthians 11:23-26). **The divine presence is a living reality and can be experienced by participants; it is not a remembrance of the Last Supper **and the Crucifixion only.
Here is what one may hear at a Methodist service:
Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here,
and on these gifts of bread and wine.
Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ,
that we may be for the world the body of Christ,
redeemed by his blood.
revneal.org/communionlit1.html

Here was something written by Charles Wesley:
Come and partake the gospel feast,
be saved from sin, in Jesus rest;
O taste the goodness of our God,
and eat his flesh and drink his blood.
You tell me what they are saying.

God bless you
 
ChadS, a former Methodist, is right. As I mentioned, Methodists permit a far wider variation in belief than Catholicism does, and I’m sure that a representative panel of Methodists would offer somewhat different interpretations of communion. Fine. This latitude is permitted, and it’s a primary reason why I admire Methodism and other mainline Protestant churches which allow and even encourage individual thinking. This freedom is a cornerstone of Protestantism.
Code:
Frankly, I tire of those few Methodists who keep trying to make their denomination into a lock-step, prayerbook-mentality, top-down church and lose the Holy Spirit which was so pronounced and treasured in original Methodism. This increase in shallow ritual, alienating to most laity, is one reason many Methodists have left for independent churches with their praise and worship teams. Sad, because so many of those independent churches are fundamentalist, which resemble in so many ways traditional Catholicism. Both promote the 'only one way' mentality. I for one will never belong to any church that limits my freedom to explore, think, weight, accept or reject, etc. I reserve that right - the right to believe what I find believable and not what some church or preacher tells me I must believe to remain in the fold. At the same time, I respect those who need and.or accept an authoratiative religion.   

  Like many others, I am one of those who enjoys reading and reflecting on various theologies, etc., never concerned about whether or not they are 'heretical,'. Two of my favorite Church Fathers are Origen and Tertullian whom have been judged to be heretics by the Catholic Church. I regard individual freedom of conviction as I regard national freedom of religion - indispensible in my life and in our society. As for Church Fathers, by the way, they have much to teach us, but - let's face it - they lived long before modern telescopes and microscopes and much of what they wrote is archaic, contradicted by knowledge learned since their eras. So this notion of going back to the Church Fathers to gain spiritual insight has some merit, but should not be over-rated,

  As ChadS points out the elements may be treated casually in Methodist churches once worship is over. I know some pastors who feed the bread left over to the birds. That strikes me as a pretty good idea. Some simply toss it out, making the point that in no sense are the elements inhabited by some special divine presence. The divine presence is there, of course, as it always is, hopefully entering into the hearts and minds and souls of communicants.   

  God bless people of all creeds, colors, and countries. To those who are ready to accept obediently what a church or a preacher tells them to accept, God bless you, too. Different people have different needs, and I accept that. I have both Catholic and fundamentalist Protestant family members and friends, and I love them just the same.
 
I have enjoyed reading the posts today on this subject. Guess what? I am indeed a member of the Order of Saint Luke. But, I held these beliefs and understandings of the Lord’s Supper BEFORE becoming a member of the Order. They were rooted in my study of scripture and church teaching. It’s true that the United Methodist Church rejects the teaching of transubstantiation as well as consubstantiation. It rejects it in as much as it rejects any human explanation of HOW Jesus is present. It most certainly affirms that Jesus Christ is truly present in the elements.

And, as far as what most Methodists believe… I don’t deny that Methodists have not done an adequate job of explaining and administering the Sacraments. Especially to those that have joined and visited Methodist churches from other denominations or that have had no prior church going experiences. But, whether the people that attend Methodist churches understand the doctrine of real presence or not does not make Christ any less present. It just amplifies the need for Sacramental teaching within the church.
 
Roman_Catholic you are correct that the UM church denies tansub., but other types of “real” presence can also be meant. However, in my experiences a belief in any sort of “real” presence among UM members simply cannot be found.

So at UMC.org we learn this:
Question: Do United Methodists believe the communion elements actually become the body and blood of Christ?
Answer: “No, we believe that the change is spiritual. They signify the body and blood of Christ for us, helping us to be Christ’s body in the world today, redeemed by Christ’s blood. We pray over the bread and cup that they may make us one with Christ, “one with each other, and one in service to all the world.” (United Methodists and Communion brochure)
What sort of real presence is being taught here? All I can see is what I mentioned earlier as a spiritual presence.

They go on further to say:
We understand the divine presence in temporal and relational terms.
Nothing about any “real” presence there, no matter how you’d like to term it.

You can trot out all the sacramental and “real” language you would like from any Methodist hymnal or Wesleyan writing but that does not mean that today’s Methodist’s believe in anything similar to a Catholic or even Lutheran and perhaps Anglican understandings of real presence.

There was nothing wrong with my UM catechisis, I’m just stating what I was taught to believe and what my parents believe and everybody else at every other UM church I’ve gone to believes.

ChadS
 
ChadS, a former Methodist, is right.
I say this with all due respect to Chad and you; as far as the Methodist Church is concered; you’re both wrong. See my previous post.

Do you care to comment on what the Methodist Church teaches that I posted above? You have never, in all the times I have shown you what I posted above, commented on it.

God bless
 
Roman_Catholic you are correct that the UM church denies tansub., but other types of “real” presence can also be meant. However, in my experiences a belief in any sort of “real” presence among UM members simply cannot be found.
So at UMC.org we learn this:

What sort of real presence is being taught here? All I can see is what I mentioned earlier as a spiritual presence.

They go on further to say:

Nothing about any “real” presence there, no matter how you’d like to term it.
And yet we have this from the * This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion*:
Jesus Christ, who “is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Hebrews 1:3), is truly present in Holy Communion. Through Jesus Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit, God meets us at the Table. God, who has given the sacraments to the church, acts in and through Holy Communion. Christ is present through the community gathered in Jesus’ name (Matthew 18:20), through the Word proclaimed and enacted, and through the elements of bread and wine shared (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The divine presence is a living reality and can be experienced by participants; it is not a remembrance of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion only.
Fine, I won’t take a position on what the Methodist church teaches, but will you tell me what they are saying they believe above? How should I understand it?
You can trot out all the sacramental and “real” language you would like from any Methodist hymnal or Wesleyan writing but that does not mean that today’s Methodist’s believe in anything similar to a Catholic or even Lutheran and perhaps Anglican understandings of real presence.
In this thread I have only mentioned the Methodist belief. It was Roy5 who brought up the Anglican belief.

God bless you
 
I must take issue with Brother Wade. I am well acquainted with Methodism and his view of Methodists and communion is a small minority view, peddled principally by a small group known as the Order of St. Luke. They are the ‘high-church’ faction with the United Methodist Church. Methodists have the Protestant perspective that different opinions are acceptable within that denomination - one reason it is one of my personal favorites (along with Presbyterians, UCC, Quakers, Disciples of Christ, etc.).
Code:
 The notion that anything happens to the actual elements distributed at communion is shared by very few Methodists. I have been deeply involved in Methodist churches over the years and I have a good sense of what the laity believes. It's interesting that in Canada - one of my ancestral grandmothers was grandmother of the first Archbishop of Quebec 200 years ago (Archbishop Plessis) - Methodists united with Congregationalists and Presbyterians to form the United Church of Canada. That makes sense.

 If one reads the 25 articles of faith of Methodism (and John Wesley), borrowed from Anglican's 39 articles, you will find a sharp condemnation of transubstantiation  as "repugnant to the plain words of Scripture...and hath given occasion to many superstitions."

 I believe my outline of beliefs re communion in my post yesterday would far better reflect what the vast majority of Methodists would accept as the meaning of communion.
Roy, Roy, Roy…

What I find repugnant is the facility with which you throw around terms and phrases and believe that it’s just like the catholics!

What is done in a Catholic Mass is Consecration. Only a catholic priest does this. And when he does - the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

The only part you had correct in one of your previous threads is that the bread and wine remain as bread and wine to our natural perception. In the supernatural order it is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Not you or any other protestant is going to ever make that fact disappear.

It is not a superstition. And I’m going to stop here for charity’s sake.
 
I’m a little upset that neither Roy or ChadS has taken me to task in my latest post… #15 (I think)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top