Does anyone have bad stories from their Protestant days?

[SonofMonica]

You’re straining at gnats. Christ was pretty clear when he said, “This is my body… this is my blood.” No metaphorical language. Christ is really present. Real Presence.

I take those words literally. I simply don’t think Aristotelian philosophy is the right discipline in which to explain the supernatural.

Reverend, with all due respect, it is straining at gnats to say that because Methodists believe that Christ is present, they believe in the Real Presence. When Catholics say Real Presence, they mean that Jesus Christ (not just his body and blood) but his whole soul and divinity–the whole Christ–is physically, corporeally, and really present on the sacrificial altar of the Mass and that the sacredotal priest is re-presenting the offering of Calvary to God the Father–a true sacrifice.

Regardless of what you believe or how you take the words, Methodism does not teach, has never taught, and likely will never teach that Jesus Christ is truly being sacrificed on the altar at the celebration of the Eucharist, because Methodism does not have a sacredotal priesthood and does not believe that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Methodism doesn’t even pretend to have priests. You should know that better than anyone.

By your measure of believing in the Real Presence, I could say, “I may not believe in the Trinity the way you do, but I believe in Donald’s three nephews, Hewey, Lewie and Dewie. Ergo, I believe in the Trinity, too.”

While this is an extreme example of redefining terms and claiming you believe in them, this is actually what you’re doing when you say Methodists believe in the Real Presence with a capital R and capital P. This Holy Mystery says that Christ is present “in the Holy Meal” but that Methodists deny transubstantiation and merely “believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works.” Particularly:
This Holy Mystery:
We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, although we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. We understand the divine presence in temporal and relational terms. In the Holy Meal of the church, the past, present, and future of the living Christ come together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we may receive and embody Jesus Christ as God’s saving gift for the whole world.

Making the past, present and future Christ come together so that people can become like Christ is NOT the same as Christ placing himself upon a sacrificial altar and being offered up to the throne of heaven by the hands of a priest.

Reverend, to deny transubstantiation is not simply to call something a mystery. It is to deny that the elements change into the body and blood of Christ. That’s what transubstantiation means. To change substances. That’s true regardless of Thomstic notions of substance and accidents. Methodists (and certain Anglicans before them) have eliminated the Church’s explanation of the nature of the sacrament and replaced it with something else, because they believe that the elements are consecrated but that they do not change, they do not believe in a sacrificing priesthood, and they do not believe in the authority of the Church with regard to the nature of the sacraments, despite the Lord having empowered the Church with them.

With all due respect, if you believe differently, you do not believe the doctrine of the Methodist Church you swore to uphold.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Reverend, with all due respect, it is straining at gnats to say that because Methodists believe that Christ is present, they believe in the Real Presence. When Catholics say Real Presence, they mean that Jesus Christ (not just his body and blood) but his whole soul and divinity–the whole Christ–is physically, corporeally, and really present on the sacrificial altar of the Mass and that the sacredotal priest is re-presenting the offering of Calvary to God the Father–a true sacrifice.

I am not equating Catholicism’s understanding of Real Presence with anyone else. Never did. Never have. I am simply quoting official doctrine of the UMC regarding real presence.

Regardless of what you believe or how you take the words, Methodism does not teach, has never taught, and likely will never teach that Jesus Christ is truly being sacrificed on the altar at the celebration of the Eucharist, because Methodism does not have a sacredotal priesthood and does not believe that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Methodism doesn’t even pretend to have priests. You should know that better than anyone.

Again, respectfully, I never said that.

By your measure of believing in the Real Presence, I could say, “I may not believe in the Trinity the way you do, but I believe in Donald’s three nephews, Hewey, Lewie and Dewie. Ergo, I believe in the Trinity, too.”

Respectfully, that’s reductio ad absurdum.

While this is an extreme example of redefining terms and claiming you believe in them, this is actually what you’re doing when you say Methodists believe in the Real Presence with a capital R and capital P. This Holy Mystery says that Christ is present “in the Holy Meal” but that Methodists deny transubstantiation and merely “believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works.”

Yes. It does - you quoted it exactly. Again, I stress - I have never said otherwise.

Making the past, present and future Christ come together so that people can become like Christ is NOT the same as Christ placing himself upon a sacrificial altar and being offered up to the throne of heaven by the hands of a priest.

I have never said otherwise.

Reverend, to deny transubstantiation is not simply to call something a mystery. It is to deny that the elements change into the body and blood of Christ. That’s what transubstantiation means. To change substances.

And transubstantiation uses the Thomistic definition of substance in a way that 99.6% do not define substance. Moreover, it puts the emphasis on explanation rather than experience. Sacraments are to be experienced, not explained. Can you really explain grace?

That’s true regardless of Thomstic notions of substance and accidents. Methodists (and certain Anglicans before them) have eliminated the Church’s explanation of the nature of the sacrament and replaced it with something else, because they believe that the elements are consecrated but that they do not change, they do not believe in a sacrificing priesthood, and they do not believe in the authority of the Church with regard to the nature of the sacraments, despite the Lord having empowered the Church with them.

It has nothing to do with any of that; case in point: the Orthodox have a valid priesthood but do not embrace transubstantiation. What gives there?

With all due respect, if you believe differently, you do not believe the doctrine of the Methodist Church you swore to uphold.

I do not believe differently. You have gone to great lengths to try and convince me otherwise. We obviously define Real Presence differently. Why would you worry anyway, since we’re not “validly ordained” in your eyes anyway?

And I didn’t “swear” to uphold doctrine; I vowed and was ordained to be obedient to it.

O+

 

[SonofMonica]

You have stated:

“All who embrace transubstantiation believe in the Real Presence. But not all who embrace the Real Presence believe in transubstantiation.”

What I am saying to you is that the Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharist as the Church has always defined it is the fact that the elements of communion change into the body blood soul and divinity of Christ to be offered up to heaven as a sacrifice. To come to a Catholic forum and insist that you believe in the Real Presence without believing these things is false ecumenism. Now that’s either because you don’t understand or you choose to use Catholic words to describe non-Catholic concepts. We’ve established that you understand Catholic doctrine, so therefore we are left with the conclusion that you deliberately choose to use the term Real Presence in a way that contradicts the teaching of the entire Church.

Why should I then accept your statement that,

“All who embrace transubstantiation believe in the Real Presence. But not all who embrace the Real Presence believe in transubstantiation.”

whenever those who embrace transubstantiation cannot and do not believe in the Real Presence the way you described it. To say that those who embrace substantiation believe in the Real Presence is a tautology to a Catholic. And to say that not all who embrace the Real Presence believe in transubstantiation is semantic nonsense to a Catholic. They are inseparable concepts.

There are necessary forms of consecration and words of institution in the liturgy for a reason. Before the consecration, only bread and wine are on the altar. After words, Jesus Christ is. To say that no change is effected is to excommunicate oneself from the Church, period.

Citing the Orthodox is of no avail, as they believe they are sacrificing Christ on the altar. They believe the transformation of the bread into the Paschal Lamb. Of course they don’t call it transubstantiation, because the Church coined the term after they split away. It doesn’t change the fact they believe in it.

If you come in here claiming to believe in the Real Presence, expect it to be analyzed on Catholic terms. If you’re looking for someone to agree with you that Methodists believe in the Real Presence, then with all the Christian charity I can muster, you’re in the wrong place. Methodists do not believe in the Real Presence any more than they believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church without changing the Church’s meaning of the term.

 

[O.S.Luke]

You have stated:

“All who embrace transubstantiation believe in the Real Presence. But not all who embrace the Real Presence believe in transubstantiation.”

What I am saying to you is that the Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharist as the Church has always defined it is the fact that the elements of communion change into the body blood soul and divinity of Christ to be offered up to heaven as a sacrifice. To come to a Catholic forum and insist that you believe in the Real Presence without believing these things is false ecumenism. Now that’s either because you don’t understand or you choose to use Catholic words to describe non-Catholic concepts. We’ve established that you understand Catholic doctrine, so therefore we are left with the conclusion that you deliberately choose to use the term Real Presence in a way that contradicts the teaching of the entire Church.

Why should I then accept your statement that,

“All who embrace transubstantiation believe in the Real Presence. But not all who embrace the Real Presence believe in transubstantiation.”

whenever those who embrace transubstantiation cannot and do not believe in the Real Presence the way you described it. To say that those who embrace substantiation believe in the Real Presence is a tautology to a Catholic. And to say that not all who embrace the Real Presence believe in transubstantiation is semantic nonsense to a Catholic. They are inseparable concepts.

There are necessary forms of consecration and words of institution in the liturgy for a reason. Before the consecration, only bread and wine are on the altar. After words, Jesus Christ is. To say that no change is effected is to excommunicate oneself from the Church, period.

Citing the Orthodox is of no avail, as they believe they are sacrificing Christ on the altar. They believe the transformation of the bread into the Paschal Lamb. Of course they don’t call it transubstantiation, because the Church coined the term after they split away. It doesn’t change the fact they believe in it.

If you come in here claiming to believe in the Real Presence, expect it to be analyzed on Catholic terms. If you’re looking for someone to agree with you that Methodists believe in the Real Presence, then with all the Christian charity I can muster, you’re in the wrong place. Methodists do not believe in the Real Presence any more than they believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church without changing the Church’s meaning of the term.

All I will say is that your mistaken about the Orthodox’s understanding of the Real Presence (unless it’s own Patriarch and scholars are wrong). No matter.

I think you are now arguing for the sake of arguing. It really does not matter to me if you agree with me or not. I am confident in what I and my communion believes in - regardless of what you say. I was just stating our beliefs and defending them, as well as my own belief (as well as other Communions) regarding the flaws with using Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy to explain things sacramental and mysterious. You don’t have to agree with them. And you are free to defend yours.

Pax vobiscum.

 

[SonofMonica]

I think you are now arguing for the sake of arguing. It really does not matter to me if you agree with me or not. I am confident in what I and my communion believes in - regardless of what you say. I was just stating our beliefs and defending them. You don’t have to agree with them. And you are free to defend yours.

Pax vobiscum.

No, Reverend. I addressed each of the points that you raised, not because I like arguing, but because you raised them. I applaud you for standing up for your beliefs. But when you talk about Transubstantiation, Thomism, Real Presence and Catholic and/or Orthodox doctrine on a Catholic forum, you are going outside of Methodist doctrine and beliefs, and opening yourself up for reproof.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Ok, SonofMonica.

 

[SonofMonica]

Ok, SonofMonica.

Am I wrong? Do I not understand my own motivations for responding to your post? I, for one, hope you do not get mad and leave the forum again. Under another name (lost my password), I was one that was sad to see you go the first time. I don’t understand how you think that a Catholic apologetics site is not going to feature people who stand up for Catholic doctrine whenever a non-Catholic comes in and claims to believe in a Catholic doctrine but doesn’t define it the same way.

 

[SonofMonica]

By the way, I’m not sure if you realize that the Orthodox are not one church but many churches, but a few examples:

The Eastern Orthodox Church Synod of Jerusalem stated: “We believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, … but truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin Mary, was baptised in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sitteth at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which, as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world.”

The Orthodox Confession of 1640 reads –

"Christ is now in heaven only and not on earth after that manner of the flesh wherein He bore it and lived in it when He was on earth; but after the sacramental manner, whereby He is present in the Holy Eucharist, the same Son of God, God and Man, is also on earth by way of TRANSUBSTANTIATION [kata metousiosis]. For the SUBSTANCE of the bread is changed into the SUBSTANCE of His holy body, and the SUBSTANCE of the wine into the SUBSTANCE of His precious blood.

"Where it is fitting to WORSHIP and ADORE the Holy Eucharist even as our Savior Jesus Himself.

"The priest must know that at the moment when he consecrates the gifts the SUBSTANCE itself of the bread and the SUBSTANCE of the wine are changed into the SUBSTANCE of the real body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost, whom the priest invokes at that time, consecrating this mystery by praying and saying,

'Send down Thy Holy Ghost on us and on these gifts set before Thee, and make this bread the precious body of Thy Christ and that which is in this cup the precious blood of Thy Christ, changing them by Thy Holy Ghost.'

"For immediately after these words the TRANSUBSTANTIATION [metousiosis] takes place, and that bread is changed into the real body of Christ, and the wine into His real blood. ONLY THE SPECIES WHICH ARE SEEN REMAIN, and this by the ordinance of God, first, that we may not see the body of Christ, but may believe that it is there....

"The honor which it is fitting to give to these awful mysteries is of such a kind as that which is given to Christ Himself....This mystery is also OFFERED AS A SACRIFICE on behalf of all orthodox Christians, both the living AND THOSE WHO SLEEP in hope of a resurrection to eternal life; and the SACRIFICE shall never fail until the last Judgment.

"The fruits of this mystery are these: first, the commemoration of the sinless passion and death of Christ....secondly....this mystery is a PROPITIATION AND ATONEMENT WITH GOD FOR OUR SINS BOTH OF THE LIVING AND OF THE DEAD....thirdly....that each Christian who shall frequent this SACRIFICE and partake of this mystery may be delivered by means of it from the temptation and danger of the devil." (Stone, page 177f)

And in an article concerning the Eucharist in an exposition of faith by a council held at Constantinople in 1727:

"It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy Liturgy and BLOODLESS SACRIFICE, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed, the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord.

Just a few examples out there…

 

[kalt]

The Article is clear. No, we do not embrace transubstantiation (neither do the Orthodox or Anglicans), and This Holy Mystery makes that clear as well. We do embrace the Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharist. This is where I think Catholics stumble when dealing with other traditions that embrace the Real Presence. All who embrace transubstantiation believe in the Real Presence. But not all who embrace the Real Presence believe in transubstantiation.

I am in the Order of St. Luke. It would be more accurate to say that the Order is trying to reclaim the liturgical worship of early Methodism.

Catholics embrace the real presence in the Eucharist.

Some Protestants are fond of saying that they, too, beleive in the real presence, knowing full well that the beliefs are not identical.

Sonofmonica is right. If someone who knows the difference uses the term, implying that the real presence is the same thing, it’s dishonest. If the person doesn’t know the difference, the claim is made from ignorance.

Either way, when a Protestant claims that “I also believe iin the real pressence”, he’s wrong. They don’t also believe in it. They have a different understanding. To also believe in something you have to actually believe the same thing.

That the words have been borrowed from Catholicism is irrelevant. The term has a very different meaning in UMC understanding. You might as well you different words to describe the UMC Communion, because it is not the same as the Catholic Communion.

It’s the also’s and too’s in Protestant claims that make the claims false.

If a Protestant says he uses the term to mean something different, then he’s being honest. Saying he also believes in the real presence is dishonest. Real presence is a Catholic term. If someone else borrows it to use for a different doctrine, they can’t say that they also believe in it. They’ve merely borrowed the term.

I hope you understand this very simple concept. You’ve been arguing it with Sonofmonica for several posts, and I don’t see how you’re missing the point.

A borrow term doesn’t equal shared doctrine. You’ve demonstrated that you know that the doctrines are different, so you know that using the words also or too to compare the 2 beliefs is less than honest–at the very least it’s incorrect.

 

[SonofMonica]

Thanks, Kalt. Just to clarify, no one thinks Rev. Oliver is dishonest. But we do agree that the usage of the term Real Presence to mean anything but Catholic doctrine of Real Presence is, itself, intellectually dishonest on a Catholic forum.

 

[kalt]

Thanks, Kalt. Just to clarify, no one thinks Rev. Oliver is dishonest. But we do agree that the usage of the term Real Presence to mean anything but Catholic doctrine of Real Presence is, itself, intellectually dishonest on a Catholic forum.

I think it’s OK for them to use it, if it’s part of their doctrine.

But why are they using words like also and too to compare it to the Catholic Eucharitst? They’re saying things like, “We also believe in the real presence.”

They’ve rejected the CC and the Catholic understanding of the real presence. So why use words like also and too when comparing the two doctrines. You would think they would want to make it very clear that they don’t believe in the same thing Catholics do.

I think they must believe that using words like too and also gives validity to their doctrine. It’s as if they’re saying they haven’t changed the doctrine that the apostles accepted. When they say, “We also believe in the real pressence.”, knowing that the beliefs are not the same, do they think it validates their version of the doctrine?

Is it just their way of saying, “You don’t have anything I don’t have, nya-nya-nya-ny-nya-nya.”, even though the two things aren’t the same? If this is the case, why do they need to believe that they have everything the CC has. Didn’t they reject the CC and its doctrine on the Eucharist? Why would you want people to think that you **also **have something you don’t believe in? Wouldn’t you want people to know that you most certainly to not also have the doctrine?

Why would someone want to equate their beliefs with a belief they’ve rejected ?

 

[Hisalone]

I think it’s OK for them to use it, if it’s part of their doctrine.

But why are they using words like also and too to compare it to the Catholic Eucharitst? They’re saying things like, “We also believe in the real presence.”

They’ve rejected the CC and the Catholic understanding of the real presence. So why use words like also and too when comparing the two doctrines. You would think they would want to make it very clear that they don’t believe in the same thing Catholic’s do.

I think they must believe that using words like too and also gives validity to their doctrine. It’s as if they’re saying they haven’t changed the doctrine that the apostles accepted, by saying, “We also believe in the real pressence.”, when they know full well that the beliefs are not the same.

Why would someone want to equate their beliefs with a belief they’ve rejected ?

So Catholics have exclusive right to the term real presence?
So nonCatholics have a not real presence? Or a presence that is not real?
Me thinks the objection to nonCatholics using the term is the Catholic insistance that they alone have the real eucharist.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Thanks, Kalt. Just to clarify, no one thinks Rev. Oliver is dishonest. But we do agree that the usage of the term Real Presence to mean anything but Catholic doctrine of Real Presence is, itself, intellectually dishonest on a Catholic forum.

As was pointed out earlier, but I feel bears repeating: most Orthodox would deny usage of the word “transubstantiation,” but they do believe EVERYTHING ELSE about the Eucharist that Catholics do, they just do not use a $12 word to define it when “mystery” works just fine. I don’t know a well-formed Catholic who would deny that the Orthodox have the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist, because we acknowledge their Apostolic Succession. OS Luke says that he believes that Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist, but he doesn’t use the term “transubstantiation” so we all say that he doesn’t really believe in it, because we don’t believe that he, as a Methodist, has Apostolic Authority. I think that’s really what’s driving this rather circular argument.

For that matter, there are a LOT of terms that Christians use that mean different things to Catholics than they do non-Catholics. Part of why CAF is here is so we can discuss our different definitions and come to understand one another, even if we never agree. There’ll be plenty of time for that in Heaven.

 

[kalt]

So Catholics have exclusive right to the term real presence?
So nonCatholics have a not real presence? Or a presence that is not real?
Me thinks the objection to nonCatholics using the term is the Catholic insistance that they alone have the real eucharist.

Methinks you need to read the first line of the post you quoted and responded to.

Non-Catholics who hold a different belief about the Eucharist have a different belief about the real presence. They say that themselves. It’s not a radical statement.

If you reread my posts, you will see that I don’t object to non-Catholics claiming that they have a belief in a real presence. I do object to their saying that they** also **believe in the real presence, as if the two doctrines are the same.

BTW, this goes two ways. If I were to compare my beliefs to the UMC’s beliefs about the real presence, it would be wrong to say that I also believe. I don’t also believe in the UMC understanding of the real presence. I have a different believe about the Eucharist and the real presence.

If you call a tulip a tulip, and I deny that tulips exist, and then borrow the term (tulip) to name the rose, does it make sense for me to say that I **also **believe in tulips?

Also and too are words we use equate things.

Johnny also wears shorts. Cindy is a veterinarian, too. I also believe in fair play. I’m also a Christian.

If the other people didn’t wear shorts, weren’t veterinariasn, didn’t believe in fair play, and weren’t Christians, the sentences above would make no sense.

You don’t say to a Pilot, I’m a pharmacist, too. It’s nonsense.

For a Protestant to say to a Catholic, I believe in the real presence, too, is the same kind of nonsense. A pilot isn’t a pharmacist, and the UMC’s real presence isn’t the CC’s real presence.

 

[kalt]

As was pointed out earlier, but I feel bears repeating: most Orthodox would deny usage of the word “transubstantiation,” but they do believe EVERYTHING ELSE about the Eucharist that Catholics do, they just do not use a $12 word to define it when “mystery” works just fine. I don’t know a well-formed Catholic who would deny that the Orthodox have the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist, because we acknowledge their Apostolic Succession. OS Luke says that he believes that Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist,but he doesn’t use the term “transubstantiation” so we all say that he doesn’t really believe in it, because we don’t believe that he, as a Methodist, has Apostolic Authority. I think that’s really what’s driving this rather circular argument.

For that matter, there are a LOT of terms that Christians use that mean different things to Catholics than they do non-Catholics. Part of why CAF is here is so we can discuss our different definitions and come to understand one another, even if we never agree. There’ll be plenty of time for that in Heaven.

And that is exactly why you can’t say “also”. You don’t also believe in the real presence, if the two doctrines are different. As I said in an earlier post, this goes two ways. Catholic can’t say that they also believe in the UMCs real presence, because they don’t. It’s so simple, really. Why are so many having a hard time understanding that you don’t believe in something you don’t believe in. Saying that you also believe in the real presence, when you define it differently is not honest.

He said that he believes that Christ is present at the Eucharist.

 

[Peter_J]

As was pointed out earlier, but I feel bears repeating: most Orthodox would deny usage of the word “transubstantiation,” but they do believe EVERYTHING ELSE about the Eucharist that Catholics do, they just do not use a $12 word to define it when “mystery” works just fine. I don’t know a well-formed Catholic who would deny that the Orthodox have the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist, because we acknowledge their Apostolic Succession. OS Luke says that he believes that Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist, but he doesn’t use the term “transubstantiation” so we all say that he doesn’t really believe in it, because we don’t believe that he, as a Methodist, has Apostolic Authority. I think that’s really what’s driving this rather circular argument.

For that matter, there are a LOT of terms that Christians use that mean different things to Catholics than they do non-Catholics. Part of why CAF is here is so we can discuss our different definitions and come to understand one another, even if we never agree. There’ll be plenty of time for that in Heaven.

 

[Peter_J]

SonofMonica:
Dear SonofMonica,

It seems to me that your posts in the last couple days have been slightly (but increasingly) over-the-top, in terms of attacking what others believe; and #221 (the last, for me – I haven’t read what you’ve posted since then) was really “out there”. I don’t think I’m going to participate in this particular discussion any further.

Sincerely,

 

[Pixie_Dust]

And that is exactly why you can’t say “also”. You don’t also believe in the real presence, if the two doctrines are different. As I said in an earlier post, this goes two ways. Catholic can’t say that they also believe in the UMCs real presence, because they don’t. It’s so simple, really. Why are so many having a hard time understanding that you don’t believe in something you don’t believe in. Saying that you also believe in the real presence, when you define it differently is not honest.

He said that he believes that Christ is present at the Eucharist.

I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. They, like our Orthodox brethren, to not utilize the term “transubstantiation” in reference to it. At any rate, what we believe about the Eucharist in the Methodist church doesn’t matter much to the Methodists. It’s not a matter of being dishonest, it’s a matter of taking a leaf out of Blessed Mother Teresa’s notebook and saying, “God Bless You, serve God by being the best _____________ you can!” God will sort things out when we meet Him.

All Christians believe in the Grace of God. We define it differently, but that doesn’t mean that God’s Grace is not available or non-existent to non-Catholics.

 

[Roy5]

**REAL PRESENCE, PRESENCE, METHODISTS AND NONSENSE
**

Okay. Methodists believe in the 'real presence' of Christ in communion just as they believe in the real presence of Christ everywhere. "Lo, I am with you always...."  But the effort of O. S. Luke somehow to hitch this up to the Roman Catholic dogma is quite far-fetched.

 I am a Protestant very interested in ecumenism. I am a Protestant mainly because I insist upon and enjoy the freedom to think independently of any church. I listen to pastors preach and may agree or disagree with their particular interpretation of scripture. In recent years I have worshiped in over 175 churches (and temples) of every variety, Christian and non-Christian, eager to learn different ways of worship and varying belief systems. 

 **My basic position is that religion should serve as a bridge** between people and not as a barrier. This is my main objection to any faith - Roman Catholicism, certain Protestants, Muslims, etc. - which claims to have a monopoly of the truth. I might be called a 'Christian agnostic', which I define as one who accepts the Christian view of the world generally but also knows that no religion even begins to understand the fundamental nature of God, of creation, etc. I don't even know what's going on at this moment in the house across the street; how can I begin to know about the full reality of maybe a million or even a billion solar systems? We are like ants trying to explain a piano. It takes plenty of pride to think that I comprehend or belong to the only group which alone has complete access to spiritual truth. So, we need to live by symbols and such, and I'm content to do that. Meanwhile, I have plenty of faith in an eternal, loving God who wants us to live in mutual respect and doesn't care very much whether we believe in the 'real presence' as defined my way or the Roman Catholic way. This sort of dogmatism has led to so much evil over the centuries and promotes insufferable pride as well as bigotry even today (though we have progressed since Vatican II, thanks to blessed John XXIII).

 **As for the Order of St. Luke** - forgive me O. S. Luke - but this trend toward routine prayerbook (and boring) religion within Methodism is part of the explanation that Methodism has lost its zeal in recent decades. Methodism flourished when Circuit Riders rode across the country, caring very little about the "niceities' (sp?) of worship, far more interested in spiritual vitality than whether ministers wore certain vestments and bowed this way or that. This, in my view, is superficial religion, of absolutely no concern to Jesus. It puts the emphasis on form rather than substance. It is a negative influence within Methodism. Sorry, but that's how this ecumeniac feels. That helps explain why evangelicals with their enthusiasm (and too often closed minds, sadly) have made so much progress in recent years. They continue the old Methodist emphasis upon 'warm hearts' rather than sterile formality.

** I would like to see an ecumenical trend toward:** (1) big tent faith with tolerance for varying views re doctrine so that the mind can feel free to explore all sorts of ideas; (2) a return to more spontaneity and less regimentation, lectionary compliance, fancy robes, and other formalities in worship; and (3) less partisan politics but plenty of ‘social concern’ when it comes to such issues as peace and equal justice for all. I like it when preachers preach what is on their hearts and not be restricted by specified readings ‘of the day’ from scripture. That’s what was true when I was much younger. Now if I attend a Catholic Church on Saturday and most mainline Protestant churches on a Sunday I hear the same scriptures and often even the same sermon and/or sermon illustrations. It may be easier for clergy but it is far less creative and more often dull as dishwater.

 Sorry to be so long. I know that traditionalist Catholics will scold me for pride - in putting my own views ahead of those revealed through the one true church, and many evangelical Protestants will say that I must submit my mind to every word in the Bible. No, I couldn't believe - for example - that God commanded King Saul to murder every last Amalekite. My God would never order such an atrocity. 

  God bless the whole world. No exceptions.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

But the effort of O. S. Luke somehow to hitch this up to the Roman Catholic dogma is quite far-fetched.

That’s just it, though - he’s NOT trying to do any such thing.

And, it’s not “Roman Catholic” dogma. It’s “Catholic” dogma. The Byzantine Catholics and the Ruthenian Catholics and 20 other rites of Catholicism all adhere to the same teachings.