L
lak611
Guest
John Hagee is not Methodist.
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
What does Hagee have to do with this?
Actually Methodist worship today (the official liturgy, that is–Methodists do not enforce it on the local level, I admit) is very closely modeled on early Christian descriptions.
Have you read the UMC document “This Holy Mystery”?
Just as you expect non-Catholics to judge Catholicism by official teaching and not by what people in the pews say, shouldn’t you extend the same courtesy to Methodists?
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I do not find your “either/or” attitude in the early Church. They held these things together.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Your information is incorrect. Both John and Charles were members of the Church of England to the day they died. The Methodist societies in England did not become a separate church until after the death of both Wesley brothers. (As you note, they didn’t entirely agree theologically, though why you think this is odd or discreditable I do not understand–Charles was much more insistent on the need to remain part of the C of E than John was, but in fact neither of them ever left.) John Wesley (to Charles’s dismay) did establish a separate Methodist Church in *America. *However, what you have to understand is that at that point (right after the Revolution) there was no organized Anglican Church in the new United States. There were individual Anglican parishes, but no bishops and no real organization. The Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. was not formed until three years after the Methodist Episcopal Church.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Lutherans are more anti-Catholic by and large, and they are of course the original Protestants with regard to justification by faith alone (a point on which Methodists are much closer to Catholicism). However, they have a much stauncher belief in the Real Presence than Methodists–it’s more universally held (indeed, the Lutherans may do a better job in catechizing their people on this point than Catholics, let alone Methodists) and the official position is much closer to the Catholic one (indeed, Luther’s own position was more literal than that of Aquinas, in my opinion).
Edwin
E
emeraldcoast
Guest
Interesting that you point out the “one cup”, but the “one cup” is NOT even offered at my children’s Catholic school during the week or at weekend Mass. I had never been to a Catholic Mass that did not offer both the body and blood of Christ before this church. Is this a common practice now in the Catholic Church?? Is the “tradition” of offering both the blood and host like Jesus did fading away in the Catholic Church??keithkelly posted:
Methodist’s believe in pretty much the same as us and the rest of Christendom.
They do not put emphasis on the Holy Eucharist. When they do, they receive from little individualised cups for reasons of hiyene, which I rather like except that it is not from the ‘one’ cup!
Their worship includes a lot of hymn singing which puts us Catholics to shame.
They make greater use of lay preachers, who tend to do some pretty punchy sermons.
In the town where I used to live, there was a very dynamic Methodists congregation. When their minister died, they elected the local Roman Catholic Deacon to be their Caretaker Ordained Minister. This he did for a whole year until they were able to elect a permanent replacement. I think that should tell you all you need to know about the differences. Apart from the fact they do not have a Mass or the sacrament of Reconciliationm there are very few differences
God Bless!
edited to add-- Our children are Episcopalians attending a Catholic School.
C
Contarini
Guest
It’s the other way round. Until Vatican II communion was almost always offered to the laity in one kind. After Vatican II it is permissible but not required to offer both. (Catholics believe that both Body and Blood are contained under each species.) It may be that communion in one kind is becoming more common as part of the conservative swing various people are reporting. But I’m not sure about that.
Edwin
K
KarenElissa
Guest
It is pretty common for weekday Masses I think. Both should always be consecrated, but often just the priest receives the cup. It isn’t a huge deal since both the Host and the Cup contain both the body and blood, it isn’t like you are only getting part of Jesus if you only receive one or the other.
And I believe the US is fairly unique in that many other countries almost always just offer the Host to the faithful.
E
emeraldcoast
Guest
Thanks Edwin!
God Bless!
God Bless!
K
KarenElissa
Guest
I have no idea if that is true or not, but I think since she is talking about weekday Masses, that is pretty normal. I think communion for the laity with only the Host is pretty normal in smaller Masses and those where it would be hard to guess how many people there are. The Hosts can be reserved in the Tabernacle so “leftovers” isn’t a big deal, but since all the Precious Blood must be consumed, having a whole ton left isn’t a good idea.
C
Contarini
Guest
E
emeraldcoast
Guest
Karen,
Thank you for your information! Can you please explain to me how they both contain the body and blood of Christ? This confuses me a bit. I am thinking of the words that Jesus said when he took the bread and then took the cup and offered them to the disciples.
The following is from The Book of Common Prayer
"On the night before he died for us, our Lord Jesus Christ took
bread; and when he had given thanks to you, he broke it, and
gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat: This is my Body,
which is given for you. Do this for the remembrance of me.”
After supper he took the cup of wine; and when he had given
thanks, he gave it to them, and said, “Drink this, all of you:
This is my Blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for you
and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Whenever you drink
it, do this for the remembrance of me.”
God Bless!
Thank you for your information! Can you please explain to me how they both contain the body and blood of Christ? This confuses me a bit. I am thinking of the words that Jesus said when he took the bread and then took the cup and offered them to the disciples.
The following is from The Book of Common Prayer
"On the night before he died for us, our Lord Jesus Christ took
bread; and when he had given thanks to you, he broke it, and
gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat: This is my Body,
which is given for you. Do this for the remembrance of me.”
After supper he took the cup of wine; and when he had given
thanks, he gave it to them, and said, “Drink this, all of you:
This is my Blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for you
and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Whenever you drink
it, do this for the remembrance of me.”
God Bless!
R
rr1213
Guest
Yes, the differences and similarities between Methodists and Catholics are interesting. I spent 25 years in the Methodist Church before converting to the Episcopal Church (which I have since left). My parents are still Methodists and I occassionally join them for worship. My experience has primarily been in the Mid-Atlantic States (Pa, Md, Va.), so I suppose it might be different elsewhere.
From what I’ve seen though, the free-will emphasis of the Methodist Church, while not identical to the Catholic approach, is certainly much closer than the Lutheran or Reformed viewpoints.
On the Eucharist, my experience has been that most Methodists treat it as being symbolic, not embodying the Real Presence. I’m sure there are exceptions, but I feel pretty confident that that is the predominant approach.
Methodists and Catholics share a common emphasis on the social responsibilities of the Gospel–helping our neighbor. Both Churches seem to emphasize Christ’s teachings there more than I see in some other Protestant Churches.
As for liturgy, the Methodists have a liturgy but it is much simpler than the Catholic or Anglican liturgies from which it came. I will say, however, that there seems to be more of a movement towards a liturgical worship in the Methodist Church than what I saw in my youth.
Their various views of homosexual behavior seems to be converging. It appears that the Methodist Church has (at least for now) beat off some of the worst aspects of theological revisionism that has affected the Episcopal Church and the UCC in that regard.
Womens’ ordinations seems to remain a significant difference between the Catholic and Methodist Churches. John Paul II fairly recently reiterated the Catholic Church’s position against the practice while it seems to be both common and quite accepted in the Methodist Church.
From what I’ve seen though, the free-will emphasis of the Methodist Church, while not identical to the Catholic approach, is certainly much closer than the Lutheran or Reformed viewpoints.
On the Eucharist, my experience has been that most Methodists treat it as being symbolic, not embodying the Real Presence. I’m sure there are exceptions, but I feel pretty confident that that is the predominant approach.
Methodists and Catholics share a common emphasis on the social responsibilities of the Gospel–helping our neighbor. Both Churches seem to emphasize Christ’s teachings there more than I see in some other Protestant Churches.
As for liturgy, the Methodists have a liturgy but it is much simpler than the Catholic or Anglican liturgies from which it came. I will say, however, that there seems to be more of a movement towards a liturgical worship in the Methodist Church than what I saw in my youth.
Their various views of homosexual behavior seems to be converging. It appears that the Methodist Church has (at least for now) beat off some of the worst aspects of theological revisionism that has affected the Episcopal Church and the UCC in that regard.
Womens’ ordinations seems to remain a significant difference between the Catholic and Methodist Churches. John Paul II fairly recently reiterated the Catholic Church’s position against the practice while it seems to be both common and quite accepted in the Methodist Church.
A
anamchara
Guest
I grew up in the United Methodist Church. It was not a huge leap for me to convert to Catholicism although in some respects I struggle as a Catholic especially in spending time on CAF. I would say this is not a good place for Methodists converts. I grew up accepting diversity of opinions and I think these words sums it up perfectly. “The phrase “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity” has also become a maxim among Methodists, who have always maintained a great diversity of opinion on many matters within the Church.”
This is why I have such trouble accepting and frankly stomaching the hard line stand of dogma in the Church. I still can’t come to terms with the concept of “we have the fullness of the truth” That seems so wrong to me on so many levels.
I wanted to correct a few things I saw posted. Most of the UM Churches do not take communion using little cups any longer and it was not due to hygiene as someone wrongly pointed out. I’m not sure where they got that information. UMC normally distributes communion by intinction as this is how they were doing it when I left. It also may depend on what “conference” you live in. A “conference” is an area equivalent to a diocese run by a bishop. I live in the California/Nevada conference for example.
As far as homosexuality a poster said UMC encourages the act. That is wrong. Please read the following:
And also going to their own website is a good idea.
This is why I have such trouble accepting and frankly stomaching the hard line stand of dogma in the Church. I still can’t come to terms with the concept of “we have the fullness of the truth” That seems so wrong to me on so many levels.
I wanted to correct a few things I saw posted. Most of the UM Churches do not take communion using little cups any longer and it was not due to hygiene as someone wrongly pointed out. I’m not sure where they got that information. UMC normally distributes communion by intinction as this is how they were doing it when I left. It also may depend on what “conference” you live in. A “conference” is an area equivalent to a diocese run by a bishop. I live in the California/Nevada conference for example.
As far as homosexuality a poster said UMC encourages the act. That is wrong. Please read the following:
You can get true facts here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Methodist_Church
And also going to their own website is a good idea.
C
Contarini
Guest
Actually hygiene did have something to do with it. Advocates of the introduction of the little cups in the late 19th century played on people’s fears of infection, both physical and spiritual. My wife has a chapter on this in her dissertation.
Edwin
A
anamchara
Guest
Ok, now that I think about it, this does make perfect sense. I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. I’ll have to ask a Methodists pastor friend of mine. He knows his history well.
K
KarenElissa
Guest
The idea is that you can’t really separate body and blood. If you have flesh, there is still a bit of blood in it, and if there is blood there is still flesh. Here is what the catechism says about all this:
1390Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites. [they mix the body and blood together and then use a tiny spoon to drop a bit on your tongue]
And our Eucharistic prayer is fairly similar:
Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks, He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and eat it;
this is my body which will be given up for you.
When the supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it;
this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.
C
Contarini
Guest
I would question that. Isn’t the idea rather that in the Eucharist Christ’s *glorified *Body and Blood are present? The Christ received in the Eucharist is not a dead carcass (which is rather implied by your imagery and which would in fact be cannibalism), but the living, glorified Christ. Furthermore, what is present is not the “accidents” or “natural dimensions” of Christ’s Body and Blood but the *substance. *It’s not that there are bits of flesh floating around in blood (a truly gross thought), but that the glorified substance of both Body and Blood are present, and since there is one glorified Christ you can’t have one without the other. You aren’t getting one bit of Jesus here and another bit there. The whole Christ is in every atom.
Edwin
P
pinoyjones
Guest
Hi Keith,
something does not sound right when you say that a ordained Catholic deacon was elected to be the minister of the Methodist church. There are huge differences in the two churches that there is no possible way the deacon could serve both churches. I cannot think of a way that the Bishop would allow this. I agree that many of the basic beliefs are the same(trinity, jesus truly man and God), but the prochoice and homosexual clergy, as well as the denial of the eucharist and authority of the Pope would make this deed very strange.??!!
something does not sound right when you say that a ordained Catholic deacon was elected to be the minister of the Methodist church. There are huge differences in the two churches that there is no possible way the deacon could serve both churches. I cannot think of a way that the Bishop would allow this. I agree that many of the basic beliefs are the same(trinity, jesus truly man and God), but the prochoice and homosexual clergy, as well as the denial of the eucharist and authority of the Pope would make this deed very strange.??!!
A
anamchara
Guest
They are not necessarily “pro-choice” in the way many think in here:
If you want to read more, I found the info here nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL07/stalls.html
You are wrong on homosexual clergy. I already posted this but here it is again:
Catholics really need to careful about stated what our separate brethren believe.
- Status