P
Peter_J
Guest
Alright … and then will you point out statements in my post (post #114 I mean) that are not factual?
- Status
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
Thanks. I have the 2000 BoD. I’ll pick up a 2008 this summer.
S
SonofMonica
Guest
As a person from numerous and varying religious experiences in my background, including much experience as a United Methodist, I offer this contribution to the conversation–especially to the Order of St. Luke types and other sacramental-minded United Methodists.
Yes, it is true that the national denomination of the UMC, general conference and such, attempts to define Holy Communion in a more substantial way than a memorial or remembrance. I’ve read This Holy Mystery many times. However, I think that this is done more at the ecumenical relations-level. It certainly is not reflected in the majority of UMC churches in the South (where I am and where UMC thrives, so to speak). At the parish level, communion is something spiritual that happens once or twice a month, with bread or crackers and grape juice.
And it makes sense, when you take the Methodist movement out of the Anglican Church, you necessarily take out the Eucharist as central, as even John Wesley (as an Anglican priest himself) believed it was necessary for a priest to celebrate at the Eucharist. More serious Methodist scholars are now realizing the gaps in theology and logic that have resulted from the breakaway of Methodism and Anglicanism and are attempting to shore up these gaps by issuing studies and trying to be ecumenical. But the fact that OSL and certain ministers want to make the UMC more sacramental-minded does not mean that they have a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.
When it comes to Methodist-Catholic relations, and conversations like these, we must understand, my dear brothers and sisters in Christ, that at the end of the day, Catholics believe that the consecrated elements are Jesus Christ and to be worshipped as such. Catholics believe that the Real Presence does not refer to Christ’s presence in the celebration of the Eucharist, but that the Real Presence of Christ is the fact that Christ is the sacrificial lamb upon the altar. You cannot separate the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence from the concept of a sacrificing priesthood, because Catholics believe that Jesus Christ himself is on the altar and that to participate in Communion is to eat the Paschal Lamb.
Catholics don’t just believe that Christ is uniquely present in the celebration of the Eucharist, or “when” the celebration of the Eucharist takes place. Catholics believe that the Eucharist is God, for lack of a more precise way of putting it. There is no Methodist church that believes that, not even Rev. Neal, the online Holy Communion guy.
I say all that to say this, O.S. Luke at first seems to suggest that Methodists are every bit as much believers in the Real Presence as Catholics, but then later backtracks and says, well it’s more like an Anglican belief in the Real Presence. Well, it’s not the same, then, is it? It’s not as if Methodists believe Catholic doctrine about the Eucharist, but just can’t go along with Popery, and therefore are being unjustly denied Communion on the basis of politics. The belief in the Eucharist is not the same. Methodists have no sacredotal priesthood and do not believe in the sacrifice of the Mass.
I predict that, like myself, most sacramentally minded Methodists will either (1) give it up in the face of a very-Baptist-like denomination in practice or (2) make it at least as far as Canterbury or (3) go to Rome where (in my opinion) the only complete and coherent concept of sacramental economy exists. My journey has made it through 1 and 2 and I’m now almost done with #3.
Of course you’re free to disagree with me, just thought I could bring a unique perspective to the table.
Yes, it is true that the national denomination of the UMC, general conference and such, attempts to define Holy Communion in a more substantial way than a memorial or remembrance. I’ve read This Holy Mystery many times. However, I think that this is done more at the ecumenical relations-level. It certainly is not reflected in the majority of UMC churches in the South (where I am and where UMC thrives, so to speak). At the parish level, communion is something spiritual that happens once or twice a month, with bread or crackers and grape juice.
And it makes sense, when you take the Methodist movement out of the Anglican Church, you necessarily take out the Eucharist as central, as even John Wesley (as an Anglican priest himself) believed it was necessary for a priest to celebrate at the Eucharist. More serious Methodist scholars are now realizing the gaps in theology and logic that have resulted from the breakaway of Methodism and Anglicanism and are attempting to shore up these gaps by issuing studies and trying to be ecumenical. But the fact that OSL and certain ministers want to make the UMC more sacramental-minded does not mean that they have a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.
When it comes to Methodist-Catholic relations, and conversations like these, we must understand, my dear brothers and sisters in Christ, that at the end of the day, Catholics believe that the consecrated elements are Jesus Christ and to be worshipped as such. Catholics believe that the Real Presence does not refer to Christ’s presence in the celebration of the Eucharist, but that the Real Presence of Christ is the fact that Christ is the sacrificial lamb upon the altar. You cannot separate the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence from the concept of a sacrificing priesthood, because Catholics believe that Jesus Christ himself is on the altar and that to participate in Communion is to eat the Paschal Lamb.
Catholics don’t just believe that Christ is uniquely present in the celebration of the Eucharist, or “when” the celebration of the Eucharist takes place. Catholics believe that the Eucharist is God, for lack of a more precise way of putting it. There is no Methodist church that believes that, not even Rev. Neal, the online Holy Communion guy.
I say all that to say this, O.S. Luke at first seems to suggest that Methodists are every bit as much believers in the Real Presence as Catholics, but then later backtracks and says, well it’s more like an Anglican belief in the Real Presence. Well, it’s not the same, then, is it? It’s not as if Methodists believe Catholic doctrine about the Eucharist, but just can’t go along with Popery, and therefore are being unjustly denied Communion on the basis of politics. The belief in the Eucharist is not the same. Methodists have no sacredotal priesthood and do not believe in the sacrifice of the Mass.
I predict that, like myself, most sacramentally minded Methodists will either (1) give it up in the face of a very-Baptist-like denomination in practice or (2) make it at least as far as Canterbury or (3) go to Rome where (in my opinion) the only complete and coherent concept of sacramental economy exists. My journey has made it through 1 and 2 and I’m now almost done with #3.
Of course you’re free to disagree with me, just thought I could bring a unique perspective to the table.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
All This Holy Mystery did was reaffirm what has been the understanding of the Eucharist since the birthing of Methodism (which was an unintended birthing). I don’t think any Methodist I know, Order of St. Luke member or otherwise, is trying to equate (or even indeed place) ourselves on the “Catholic” level or understanding of the Eucharist, but rather put it as high as possible, as any means of grace/sacrament should be placed. If there were any “model” to be emulated, it would be the Eastern model of Real Presence, which seeks not to explain, but simply to embrace, the Real Presence of Christ. Sacraments are by definition mysterious (mysterion).
More than just “Order of St. Luke” types hold these beliefs dear, although I am used to the guilt-by-association of being an “OSL Type.”
I represented the Order of St. Luke as an observer on the Holy Communion Study Committee that resulted in This Holy Mystery, and ecumenism was never the goal of the document; a historical and theological return to the essence of Christian thought and practice was the goal. All you have to do is look at the Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley to gain a quick understanding of how they embraced the presence of Christ at the Table. They, along with the liturgy of Justin Martyr, were the boilerplates for much of the work.
If you look at ANY of my posts at CAF, I have never once intimated that our understanding of Real Presence was “just like” Catholicism; indeed, I have been clear that it is more like an E.O. and Anglican understanding. If I came across otherwise, it was certainly unintentional. Quite frankly, I took enough Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy to come to the conclusion that philosophy was the wrong discipline to address sacramental theology.
I am sure a lot of my bias is in the fact that my tradition, along with others, does not see the Eucharist as a sign of adherence to a communion or denomination, but communion with Christ and the Body of Christ. I am well aware that Catholicism narrows that understanding to unity of belief and practice.
It is clear that Wesley’s emphasis was a balance of the evangelical AND the sacramental. That balance was quickly lost in the Great Awakening movement in the U.S. However, it is clear that the shift back to the sacramental is on the move, especially when you look at renewal movements such as the Walk to Emmaus (which was based on the Cursillo movement) - in which the Eucharist is a focus and celebrated daily.
I think Methodism will be the via media for a lot of Christians in light of Anglican squabbles and the (now admitted) decline in the Southern Baptist Church. And maybe you’re right, Son of Monica, maybe people will cross the Tiber or the Bosphorus.
If I had a “beef” with Catholicism, it would be this: as worldwide a church as the Catholic Church is, and as central a belief as is the fact that Catholicism is the One True Church… why aren’t y’all doing evangelism? Isn’t making disciples the Great Commission?
Just curious.
O+
S
SonofMonica
Guest
Why not the whole Church?
The meaning of the latin word sacramentum is “oath.” You should check out a book by Scott Hahn called “Swear to God.” It’s quite incredible, and should provide interesting perspective on the nature of the sacraments, even to one with as much training as yourself.
My point was that nary a Methodist believes anything close to Catholic doctrine, or even Orthodox or “Anglican doctrine” (whatever that is, check your watch grin).
I never meant to imply that the purpose of it was ecumenism, but that only ecumenical types pay attention to it. You seem to imply that Methodists are coming around to true sacramental orthodoxy as evidence by THM. But in practice, this is not so. The majority of UMC churches have the same sacramental praxis as baptists.
I have much love for their hymns, and I for one am glad that we sing them in my Catholic parish. I never heard them in the UMC.
But it isn’t like E.O. or Anglican understanding, with the exception of low-church Anglicans. E.O. priests confect a valid Eucharist and correctly understand Mass as a sacrifice.
I think the concept of the New Covenant and provides a great understanding. I’ll plug “Swear to God” again for this. Pick up the book, and you’ll read it straight thru in an evening.
The Catholic Church sees itself as the Body of Christ. To commune along with it, is to be in communion with it, and with Christ as Husband–and not just symbolically. The concepts are inseparable.
I don’t doubt the sincerity of your movement or OSL or anyone else. But it’s a pretty small movement compared to those who complain when “Communion Sunday” comes around once a month and talk about how frequent Communion would cause it to lose its meaning. This Holy Mystery talks about patristic sources, then just decides arbitrarily that “as Methodists” we do things this other way, because of our tradition. Who is John Wesley or the General Conference to say “yeah, the Didache says not to give communion to the unbaptized, but you know what WE are Methodists, and WE think open communion is a good thing.”?
With the Episcopal Church going the way of Buddhist bishops, you could be right. However, the decline in ASA and aging of the membership doesn’t sound a good bell for Methodism, either…
If you don’t see Catholic mission work, you’re not looking for it. I think you’re just making a spurious claim. My wife and I would not be entering the Church soon if it were not for someone reaching out to us. Multiple people. Part of what you may be perceiving is the fact that, after Vatican II there is not much of an emphasis on “converting” people who are already Christians but have been baptized into, say, the Methodist church. Since America is by and large Christian, you’re not going to see a lot of Catholics evangelizing, so to speak, to you as a Methodist. I would encourage you to take a look at what’s going on in Africa, as one example of the evangelism taking place.
H
hosemonkey
Guest
My post is quite clear. If you have difficulty understanding, I will repeat. Only a priest in the valid line of Apostolic Succession, Catholic, (but including Orthodox) have the power to confect the Holy Eucharist. There are others (Old Catholics, Thuc line “catholics” etc.) who have dubious credentials, who claim valid Apostolic Succession, but who are in doubt. Protestants do not possess valid Apostolic Succession, by virtue of their rebellion and the radical changing of the sacrament of Holy Orders. This is the unchanging determination of the Church. Do you regard the teaching of your Church as inflammatory or incorrect? If you claim Catholicism, you should know what the Church teaches with regard to protestant ordinations or Holy Orders. As only one example: If an Episcopal or Lutheran clergyman seeks membership in the Catholic Church and desires to remain a priest, he must be re-ordained. Why do you suppose that is? It is because protestant Holy Orders are to no effect. That’s about as classy as I can get.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Giving the benefit of the doubt here:
Possibly a typo? W and E are right next to each other on my keyboard, and I think it’s standard.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
We are clear that your church conveniently teaches that only it can confect the Eucharist, and also declares that only it can make this determination in the first place. We are clear about what you believe.
In your wildest ideas, you cannot possibly think that anyone else who is not RC cares about the conclusions of your church, as it applies to other denominations. Given that, we consider our priests valid, and our Eucharist valid.
Your constant nasty remarks about other faiths is not condusive to discussion, but I suspect you know that. Sadly, I suspect your church doesn’t look kindly on this type of thing either, since it reflects quite poorly back on them. They after all are desireous of appealing to non-RC’s, not showing why one should not investigate it as a possible faith community.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Yes, I assume so. I assume you interpret it to mean that it was meant to be symbolic?Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Thanks for answering my question though.
That is certainly possible, and many do hold to that interpretation. The wonder is that God no doubt blesses all who sincerely attempt to discern truth. We can have different beliefs yet still respect one another as Christians.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Yes, that’s what Catholics believe. Lutherans and Episcopalians and Methodists do not agree with that, for some reason.
No amount of telling them, “Your ordinations aren’t valid like ours, so your Eucharist isn’t either” is going to make them believe the Catholic stance, and does absolutely nothing to bridge the ever-widening gap between Catholics and Protestants.If they believe that their orders and their Eucharist are valid, then God Bless them!
B
BRIT72
Guest
What does eucharist mean?Yes, that’s what Catholics believe. Lutherans and Episcopalians and Methodists do not agree with that, for some reason.
If they believe that their orders and their Eucharist are valid, then God Bless them!
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
It is interesting to note that the majority of the original Protestant churches DO hold to a belief in the Real Presence. Luther and Zwingli went round and round (and nearly came to blows, it seems) about that. Saying that the bread and wine merely symbolize His Body and Blood is a much, MUCH newer doctrine than that of the Real Presence, which came to us from the Apostles.
It was when I got my brain wrapped around the Scriptures that teach the Real Presence that I knew I could no longer be Baptist.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
From Wikipedia
We call the bread and wine that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, become the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ the Holy Eucharist, or Holy Communion.
B
BRIT72
Guest
The is always a real presence of God with believers every second of the day.It is interesting to note that the majority of the original Protestant churches DO hold to a belief in the Real Presence. Luther and Zwingli went round and round (and nearly came to blows, it seems) about that. Saying that the bread and wine merely symbolize His Body and Blood is a much, MUCH newer doctrine than that of the Real Presence, which came to us from the Apostles.
It was when I got my brain wrapped around the Scriptures that teach the Real Presence that I knew I could no longer be Baptist.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Yes, a real SPIRITUAL presence. Absolutely! However, the Eucharist is a Real, TANGIBLE Presence that keeps the command of Jesus in John 6 to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.
B
BRIT72
Guest
Ok, we call it the breaking of bread.
B
BRIT72
Guest
Well, it’s bread and wine, anyway.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
It starts out that way, yes. At the words of consecration, it is His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. We believe that Jesus meant His words in John 6 to be taken literally, as evidenced by St Paul’s writings about it to the Corinthians, and in many other early Christians’ writings.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I didn’t realize that Pixie. I was more than pleased to discover than many Protestant denominations considered the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ as do RCs. Frankly I can see how others interpret the same scripture differently. It is and perhaps should be a matter of faith, and as I said to another, I suspect and believe that God blesses us all who are faithful believers no matter our faulty understanding of things.It is interesting to note that the majority of the original Protestant churches DO hold to a belief in the Real Presence. Luther and Zwingli went round and round (and nearly came to blows, it seems) about that. Saying that the bread and wine merely symbolize His Body and Blood is a much, MUCH newer doctrine than that of the Real Presence, which came to us from the Apostles.
It was when I got my brain wrapped around the Scriptures that teach the Real Presence that I knew I could no longer be Baptist.
In the end, we rely on the best interpretation that we can find. Each faith tradition does its honest best I believe to do this. That doesn’t mean I agree that all are equally valid but I suspect God isn’t much impressed with our legalisms about form and definition. He tends to judge us on a much different scale, so I believe.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I think what some find difficult here, and frankly I agree that the word is troubling, is that Jesus after saying that “this is my body, …” also says do this in “REMEMBRANCE” of me.
We think of the Eucharist as real spiritual food that nourishes us in a real way. Yet, the word remembrance can be thought of as the actions being a way to recall the events and the meaning we attach to them.
I think some denominations focus on the remembrance word and thus see it as symbolic recall of the crucifixion an sacrifice made for all humanity.
Perhaps in the end, we are all talking about the same thing, God comes especially close to us at such a time as we participate as did those at Golgotha that day.
- Status