A
awantz
Guest
Some non-Catholics still believe that communion is the body and blood of Christ.
- Status
A
agiosotheos
Guest
Not really.
Luther believed that the Body and Blood of Christ were made present in, with, and under the bread and wine.
Calvin believed that there was no substantial conversion, but that the Holy Spirit was present in the bread and wine, and when conveyed to the believer the Holy Spirit united the believer to Christ.
Which is probably more similar to what you said than Memorialism, but a distinction is still clear.
This is not true, Paul, even from a Catholic POV.
Jon
EDIT: A quote from Cardinal Ratzinger
N
Newbie2
Guest
That’s true in a certain manner…but the point is accepting the truth, isn’t it?
One can accept a theological premise, while questioning its deeper meaning or struggling with it. I don’t see how this could possibly limit one’s curiosity.
As far as “intellectual freedom”, given your “big tent/anything goes” theology, I can see how that might cramp your style.
S
Scardinoz
Guest
So, regardless of what church presently teaches what doctrine, who was the first to suggest that Jesus is not present in the Eucharist, with the exception of a general, “Jesus is everywhere” belief? Is there any documentation or writings from this person?
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Ullrich Zwingli, at the Marburg Colloquy, in debate with Martin Luther.
C
ChadS
Guest
If the United Methodist Church, after talks with the Catholic Church and much reflection, adopted This Holy Mystery as their official statement and belief on their communion then I applaud them. Since the document is only five years old the various conferences of the church have a long road ahead of them in changing the beliefs of many of their local congregants.
In this situation I can only see the hand of the Holy Spirit at work. The UMC seems sincere in trying to recover their Wesleyan sacramental theology and to re-incorporate it into their belief system. Perhaps one day this document will serve as the foundation for refining and expanding their sacramental theology for both baptism and communion and perhaps elsewhere. I hope this is the first step towards full communion for the UMC and not just an interesting milepost that says “this is what we believe but don’t expect much more out of us.”
ChadS
In this situation I can only see the hand of the Holy Spirit at work. The UMC seems sincere in trying to recover their Wesleyan sacramental theology and to re-incorporate it into their belief system. Perhaps one day this document will serve as the foundation for refining and expanding their sacramental theology for both baptism and communion and perhaps elsewhere. I hope this is the first step towards full communion for the UMC and not just an interesting milepost that says “this is what we believe but don’t expect much more out of us.”
ChadS
R
Roy5
Guest
What many Catholics an d perhaps others don’t seem to understand or accept is that in most mainline Protestant denominations today there is enormous intellectual freedom in the arena of doctrine. This is based on several premises.
Code:
(1) There is an enormous area of mystery when it comes to the matter of faith. It is not necessary that we all accept one interpretation or one set of doctrines.
(2) We are endowed with reason. It is not expected that we 'leave our brains outside' when we attend church. If we disagree with this or that - fine. God has blessed us with the ability (and desire in most cases) to think for ourselves.
(3) We reject any form of fundamentalism, whether it is Biblical fundamentalism or the sort of fundamentalism that stems from an infallible Pontiff or magisterium. Both claim to embrace the one and only way to the essentials of truth. Most 'big tent' Protestants are not ready to subject themselves to any elaborate and closed set of doctrines because a church or a book may seem to advance them. To begin with, one can read the scriptures and come up with a variety of theological ideas - as people have for centuries. Anyone who claims that the Bible promotes one clear and premise theology is naive.
(4) We do not need precision when it comes to matters of doctrine and such. We are happy to walk by faith and not by knowledge, as the Bible suggests, and we agree with Paul that 'now we see through a glass darkly." We can live with a lots of 'ifs', trusting not in our own wisdom but in God's righteous will. We may view as arrogance the notion that our church alone is the one true church or that our interpretation of scripture alone is the one valid interpretation.
No, not anything goes. But there is a broad area in which Christians can disagree without being disagreeable. And as far as churches are concerned, we can have the spirit of unity and mutual respect without having union. Personally, I could never accept the concept of one church unless there is plenty of room for free discussion and broad dissent.
As for communion, the subject of this thread, I see that sacrament as open to various interpretations, too. And - back to the Methodists - I have never, never heard from any Methodist minister or layperson that Methodists believe that there is anything like the special presence of Christ in the physical elements of communion - the bread and cup. Believe me, I would never be a Methodist if that were one of its teachings. It is true, of course, that Methodists, like other Christians, certainly believe in the real presence of God - whether as Christ or the Holy Ghost or whatever - at communion. But God is with us all all of the time, as the Bible promises. It's this idea (some would label it medieval superstition) that somehow the physical bread and wine contain Christ in a special way that turns off people like me. Some of you will dismiss that as ego or rebellion or whatever on our part. That seems to be the ad hominum response that keeps cropping up.
However, if people can and/or do believe in transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or whatever be my guest. That's a 'big tent' atttitude which I embrace. I don't believe it's something to argue about. "Someday He'll make it plain to me...." as one of my favorite hymns says. I'm ready to wait.
God bless the whole world - no exceptions.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Well, wait a minute…your “big tent” is not all-inclusive? You can’t have it both ways; it’s intellectually dishonest.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
And what you are failing to understand is that the Methodist church in this case has established their teaching on this matter in that they affirm Christ is truly present through the elements of the bread and wine and that their communion is not a rememberance only. Methodist with in the church appear to be able to accept this teaching or deny it and still remain with in good standing in the church (I don’t know
) but there is no denying the Methodist Church’s teaching on this matter.Which means that no one has to accept this statement from you, and in fact, I don’t.
You are the one suggesting that Catholics have to “leave their brains outside” when we attend church which is one, very offensive, and two not true. I was, prior to my conversion, the king of kings of skepticism like yourself. I was the ultimate relativist like your self, however I was convinced of the claims of Christianity first and then Catholicism second. Since I was convinced it was not a matter of me being, “free” to rejecct what I had been convinced of being true any more than I am, today, free to deny that the sun is round or that there is no such thing as an elephant. You may call it “freedom” to reject the sun being round and that there are no elephants but I would call it insane. To each his own.
Who is ‘we’ and who gave you either the right or the authority to talk for anyone else? And your big tent theory is every bit as fundamental in nature as anything else. Anything which threatens your “intellect” or “freedom” is regarded as wrong an “superstitious” or “medieval”. Your relativism is as closed minded as anything that you condemn.
Our Lord did the same thing, *“I am the way, the truth and the life…” * so I am not going to apologize because there is ultimate truth which does not fit in with relative thinking.
Well how dare you steal someone’s “intellectual freedom” and put “strict doctrines” which burdon people by telling them that not anything goes. How can you condemn the Catholic Church for its dogmas and doctrines and then turn around and fire off your own dogmas and doctrines?
I showed you the links from official UMC documents which disagree with you and there have been told by Methodist believers who disagree with you, one being O.S. Luke.
Yep, the Methodist Church teaches that Christ is truly present through the elements of the bread and wine and that their communion is not a rememberance only. Not transubstantiation like you always try to turn this issue into, but they teach He is truly present.
Got to get at least one more shot in there right Roy? It is so nice how “accepting” relativism and “big tent” Christianity is to other beliefs that they don’t agree with.
Roy I don’t really care if truth turns you off. It turned people off during the Apostolic times (see the people who turned and left Christ in Jn 6) and it will continue to turn people off today (see your self). Truth has a way of doing that to people who refuse to accept it.
God bless
R
Roy5
Guest
What some posters either don’t understand or refuse to admit is that ‘big tent’ Protestants often have individual convictions, though ready to respect the views of those who may have other convictions. This is comparable to being a good American but differing from a neighbor when it comes to specific political opinions.
Code:
Believe me: Methodists are not going to say 'Amen' to whatever comes our of any of our church conferences. The very liberal Annual Conference in this area, for example, called for the impeachment of Reagan twenty or more years ago. Do you think I had to accept that? Of course not. In fact, I strongly protested it. People who belong to a church that requires doctrinal conformity often don't understand that mainline Protestant denominations include faithful members with a wide variety of beliefs - from fundamentalism to 'unitarian-ish' opinions. This applies to at least the Episcopahians, Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC, Disciples of Christ, and many ELCA churches. I have witnessed this over and over in Bible study groups over the years in Methodist, Congregationalist, and Presbyterian churches where I have been active after moving to different communities.
Actually, Catholicism has much the same situation. My guess is that as many as 50% of mass-attending Catholics are really cafeteria Catholics, perhaps more. I include many of such in my circle of good friends. They are cradle Catholics who remain with the church for a variety of reasons - cultural, family, friends, and.or familiarity ties - but who reject many Catholic teachings, both doctrines and practices. Some of them receive strong spiritual support from worship, retreats, etc., but they dismiss or have serious doubts in such areas as transubstantiation, Mariology, indulgences, the saints, 'one true church', papal infallibility in faith and morals, etc. The main difference is that Catholics are in theory required to assent to all doctrines. Among mainline Protestants a wide diversity of interpretation is permitted. That, after all, was a cornerstone of the Reformation - individual interpretation of the scriptures, priesthood of all believers, etc. When we practice this, those from more authoritarian versions of Christianity have a tendency to accuse of egotism, rebellion or whatever. No, we are simply living out our faith. It's actually rather humble to admit that we don't know the full truth or belong to the one and only true church.
God bless Catholics, Protestants and sincere people of every creed, color and country. May religion become a bridge rather than a barrier.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Actually, “some posters” see it as a cop out, not humility, whether it’s called "Cafeteria Catholicism or “Big tent” Protestantism. Humility is accepting authority. When we say we don’t know the full truth, that may be true to some extent as everything has not been revealed to us, but we do know the full revealed truth and where it resides.
Humility, that we each can decide for ourselves which doctrines and dogmas are the truth? I think it’s rather the opposite, to claim for oneself the authority to make such decisions. “Living out that faith” is fine, a worthy goal, as long as it’s acknowledged that it’s an incomplete one.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Roy you can address me directly. With the type of people I deal with on a daily basis I think I can handle someone on an internet chat forum speaking to me directly.
Calling someone’s most charished beliefs “medieval superstitions” and inferring that they infringe on someones “intellect” and “freedom” and denoting it as having to “leave your brain at the door” is not respectful. You may be, “ready” to respect other beliefs, but what you are prepared to do and what you do are two entirely different things. I have disagreements with other beliefs but I would never disrespect someone’s beliefs in the manner which you have done in this thread.
I stand by what I said earlier, your relativism and big tent theory is every bit as fundamental in nature and intolerant of “other beliefs” than the fundamentalist that you condemn. You are not free to use you “intellectual freedom” to accept absolute truths and if you do, it is considered “authoritarian” and a “medieval superstition”. You accuse people who step out side your relativistic box of “leaving their brains at the door.” Yes, I can see the arms wide open in your theology…
God bless
N
Newbie2
Guest
That’s actually a very good point. The “big tent” is inclusive…well, except for those theologies that the tent-setter-upper doesn’t agree with, and “authoritarian” theologies that necessitate “checking one’s brain at the door”. I guess it’s really not all that big of a tent, rather a “small-tent” mindset, no?
Like I posted previously, the notion of a “big tent” is a myth. One can suggest, as Roy has, that all faiths are welcome in the big tent…however, when one selects which parts of each faith gains admission to the tent, one cannot really say that a particular church or ecclesial community is welcome. e.g. Catholics are welcome, but really only ‘cafeteria Catholics’ who reject the authoritarian i.e. jugmental dogma of the Catholic Church.
Respecting other faiths or at least parts of other faiths is fine, but ultimately one cannot simply build one’s own faith as one would build a computer; a methodist hard drive, lutheran video card, Catholic processor, fundamentalist blue-ray and Episcopal RAM. Sure, it works for a while. In a few years, a better version comes along, and you’ll need to upgrade or change your configuration.
Such pick and choose theology is, contrary to Roy’s assertion, the height of egotism. We are not architects of our own theology (deliberate Matrix overtone here
).
R
Roy5
Guest
It’s difficult to carry on a discussion when those who disagree with the ‘big tent’ approach continue to misrepresent it. The ‘big tent’ approach is basically a confession that we must live by faith and not by knowledge, a Biblical suggestion, not my own. For example, I know Methodists who are quite ‘orthodox’ in their theology and Methodists who are quite ‘unorthodox’. When we have been together in Bible study groups various points of view are expressed, and there is respect for those views. We actually learn new perspectives from one another, often adding to our view that there is much in life and in the world around us that we cannot understand because of our human limitations. It was the famous preacher, Harry Emerson Fosdick, who said that “I can only believe in a God I do not understand.” That’s my sentiment. And I am satisfied to live with much that I do know know.
Code:
There are those who are ready to accept whatever a Pontiff or a magisterium or the Bible tells them. Fine. Sometimes I envy their certainly that I do not have. But I must be honest and say that I am unable, in good conscience, to accept such an approach. I have spent many years reading and meditating on such matters, reading this Church Father and that scholar, studying this OT book and that gospel, only to feel more and more that there is much in traditional Christianity that gives me pause. That doesn't mean, for even a moment, that I don't seek to follow Christ. But 'now we see through a glass darkly', and I am content to live with that. A basic faith in God, in my view, and certainly love for God and one's 'neighbor', take precedent over doctrinal specifics or being part of any church.
We neither claim to know the full truth nor do we claim to belong to the 'one true church'. How that makes us egotistic or whatever - the usual charge - is difficult to understand. What we do believe is that God is merciful, that this universe is mammoth and marvelous and beyond our comprehension, that this world is not our home, and that when we reach our eternal home God will not be concerned about either our doctrines or our church affiliation but whether love has been at the core of our lives. "Faith, hope and love, these three, and the greatest of these is love."
God bless people of all creeds, colors, and countries. May religion become a bridge instead of a barrier.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Misrepresent? You mean like it being a “medieval superstition”? Or having to, “leave your brain at the door” in order to believe it? Or it being “authoritative”? Or it being an offense against your, “intellectual freedom”? Is this what you are referring to as misrepresenting? Roy, you’re living in a glass house, you shouldn’t be throwing stones.
Roy I will never understand either especially since, in the discussion between you and I, the only one who has brought up egotism has been you. I have been discussing your ideas, not you personally. As much as you would like to make it seem like I am using ad hominem attacks against you, I haven’t been.
God bless
N
Newbie2
Guest
When we have been together in Bible study groups various points of view are expressed, and there is respect for those views. We actually learn new perspectives from one another, often adding to our view that there is much in life and in the world around us that we cannot understand because of our human limitations.
So how do you handle viewpoints that contradict each other?
Why should it take precedent?Code:A basic faith in God, in my view, and certainly love for God and one's 'neighbor', take precedent over doctrinal specifics or being part of any church.In the Catholic Church, at least, love for God and love for one’s neighbor are comptatable and complimentary doctrines.
Lemme try to explain it; your “big tent” theology rejects certain other theologies, correct, like the WBC loonies for example, and other theologies as well? You claim not to know the full truth, but you know “enough truth” to be able to reject certain theologies, and that knowledge comes to you outside the church (in a generic sense, since the ecclesial communities cannot seem to agree on one true theology). If that is the case, either you have some sort of special charism of discernment, and amen to that if you have it, or it’s a function of one’s ego, wanting to be able to pick and choose the truth. See how that works?Code:We neither claim to know the full truth nor do we claim to belong to the 'one true church'. How that makes us egotistic or whatever - the usual charge - is difficult to understand.
What we do believe is that God is merciful, that this universe is mammoth and marvelous and beyond our comprehension, that this world is not our home, and that when we reach our eternal home God will not be concerned about either our doctrines or our church affiliation but whether love has been at the core of our lives. “Faith, hope and love, these three, and the greatest of these is love.”
That’s a nice, generic platitude which few people could disagree with, no? Few, if any, true Christian Churches or ecclesial communities would argue with that.
P
PJM
Guest
The primary evidence is in the Bible and in it’s accepted, practiced [often at the cost of ones very life in the Early Church] understanding.
Mt. 26:26-28, Mk. 14:22-24, Lk. 22:19-21, John 6:40-68, Paul 1 Cor. 11: 23-29.
Then look at this: Acts Acts.2: [42] And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. [46] And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts," “Breaking the Bread” was the early term for the Eucharist.
CCC 1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families.** St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did: **
This was already standard practice in the universal Catholic Church
*On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. *
*When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.
Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.
When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.
Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. *
*He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.
When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: ‘Amen.’
When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the “eucharisted” bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent. *
It has been a Foundational and Dogmatic belief of the Catholic Church right from the time of the Last Supper! It continues so to the present day and until Christ Comes again.
Love and prayers,
C
ChadS
Guest
Roy your defense of the “big tent” of Protestantism attempts to turn Protestantism’s biggest vice into a virtue. You seem to implicitly realize this without wanting to admit it’s true. You mention being in Bible study groups with both “orthodox” and “unorthodox” Methodists and being able to gain something new and different from each one. How has heterodoxy ever increased anybody’s faith? Do you seriously turn to the woman next to you that said she believes Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and say “wow, that unorthodox opinion has really strenghtened my faith and I’m glad you shared that with us.” Probably not.
That leads to another problem with Protestantism and like you mentioned before it’s lack of certainty in some areas. What is “orthodox” Protestant belief? What must one believe to be a Christian? You can ask a dozen different people and you’ll get just as many different answers. Sure they may agree on a handful of things, but then soon enough you’ll find that they can’t agree on how exactly you need to believe each one or how much importance should be attached to it. Is this really a strength in Protestantism? Absolutely not, since a believer can get just as many answers from just as many people about what is needed for belief.
Does Jesus want to see his followers fight and argue over things here on earth? No, he wants us all united in one Church, with one belief and one creed. That can only be found completely in the Catholic Church. Before you point out that you know a Catholic that doesn’t believe x, y, and z, let me remind you there have always been examples of that and the point is that their unbelief stands out in contrast to the authentic teachings of the Church. If the same person mentioned earlier happened to be Protestant and didn’t believe x, y, and z, but instead followed a, b, and c they would just be one person with their equally valid set of beliefs and interpretations about what it meant to be Christian - nothing more, nothing less.
Contrary to what you may think or believe for Catholics it’s adherence and acceptance of one set of beliefs, rather than constraining us, that gives us the freedom to think and choose on our own. I like to think of this freedom in a sort of analogy to things like math and physics. In the last few centuries many great accomplishments have taken place due to advances in math and science and develpment of new ways of thinking. However, none of these things could’ve occurred if people didn’t at first accept that 2+2=4 was true. In the Catholic faith people for centuries prior to St. Thomas Aquinas accepted as true that during the Eucharistic prayers bread and wine were transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the real presence we’ve been talking about. This simple truth and belief, rather than constraining and limiting Aquinas’ thought, allowed him write some of the most beautiful prayers and hymns for Our Lord in the Eucharist for the Feast of Corpus Christi.
ChadS
That leads to another problem with Protestantism and like you mentioned before it’s lack of certainty in some areas. What is “orthodox” Protestant belief? What must one believe to be a Christian? You can ask a dozen different people and you’ll get just as many different answers. Sure they may agree on a handful of things, but then soon enough you’ll find that they can’t agree on how exactly you need to believe each one or how much importance should be attached to it. Is this really a strength in Protestantism? Absolutely not, since a believer can get just as many answers from just as many people about what is needed for belief.
Does Jesus want to see his followers fight and argue over things here on earth? No, he wants us all united in one Church, with one belief and one creed. That can only be found completely in the Catholic Church. Before you point out that you know a Catholic that doesn’t believe x, y, and z, let me remind you there have always been examples of that and the point is that their unbelief stands out in contrast to the authentic teachings of the Church. If the same person mentioned earlier happened to be Protestant and didn’t believe x, y, and z, but instead followed a, b, and c they would just be one person with their equally valid set of beliefs and interpretations about what it meant to be Christian - nothing more, nothing less.
Contrary to what you may think or believe for Catholics it’s adherence and acceptance of one set of beliefs, rather than constraining us, that gives us the freedom to think and choose on our own. I like to think of this freedom in a sort of analogy to things like math and physics. In the last few centuries many great accomplishments have taken place due to advances in math and science and develpment of new ways of thinking. However, none of these things could’ve occurred if people didn’t at first accept that 2+2=4 was true. In the Catholic faith people for centuries prior to St. Thomas Aquinas accepted as true that during the Eucharistic prayers bread and wine were transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the real presence we’ve been talking about. This simple truth and belief, rather than constraining and limiting Aquinas’ thought, allowed him write some of the most beautiful prayers and hymns for Our Lord in the Eucharist for the Feast of Corpus Christi.
ChadS
- Status