E
- Status
K
Kathryn_Ann
Guest
That’s correct. I was a Methodist for many years. Although they have a respect for the Eucharist, and are some of the finest, respectful people we may meet, I never heard of The Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament until I was a Catholic. Also, “Communion” in the Methodist Church is open to any baptized adult who comes forward to receive whether in a state of grace or not. And the pastor does not have valid Holy Orders…and so on…
Further, Communion was so rare, about once a month, and not handled at all as we are taught. The tiny plastic glasses holding the grape juice that are passed around on trays, etc., are not understood to undergo any transformation* as we speak of it.* The pastor does say “Make this for us The Body and Blood of Christ,” but there is not the same belief in trans-substantiation as we have. There is of course no Eucharistic Adoration during the year either, nor the idea of any need to confess anything if one is not in a state of grace before receiving.
God works with each of us according to our understanding, and so we pray for a day when real unity and mutual understanding is achieved. Unfortunately, Protestants have many hundreds of denominations, few of which agree on much at all. “That all may be One” is Christ’s prayer and ours. I thank God for Christ’s loving sacrifice for us all, for the Divine Unity of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, all Her teachings, Magisterium, all the clergy and parishioners who were so patient with me as I attended RCIA in 2003. To come to the understanding of The Real Presence is truly awe inspiring.
I’m sure many have an kind of symbolic understanding of the meaning behind Communion, but it is definitely not the same as within The Catholic Church.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Right I understood your thinking. I’m not sure how this breaks down in different aspects such as United or Evangelical etc. Or how much this theology has changed since John Wesley till today, I suppose much from reading.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
What I’m talking about is belief in the substantial presence of Christ under the signs of bread and wine, not merely “in a spiritual sense.” Again, as I said previously, I have little doubt that this group is in the minority, but there are some Methodists who believe in the real, substantial presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements.
N
nightranger
Guest
Hmmm. So indeed I am mistaken.
What would you say then, to my contention that they are not practicing idolatry, but simply acting out of ignorance?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I am not Ryan Black, but I thought I’d give my two cents. This is maybe more of a complicated issue than it appears at first glance to be. I am reminded of St. John of Damascus’ response to those who in their anti-Chalcedonian polemics asserted that one who confesses Christ to be known in two natures must either worship a created nature or give worship only to the divine nature of Christ (wicch is Nestorianism). He writes:Along with the Father and the Holy Spirit we worship the Son of God, Who was incorporeal before He took on humanity, and now in His own person is incarnate and has become man though still being also God. His flesh, then, in its own nature, if one were to make subtle mental distinctions between what is seen and what is thought, is not deserving of worship since it is created. But as it is united with God the Word, it is worshipped on account of Him and in Him. For just as the king deserves homage alike when un-robed and when robed, and just as the purple robe, considered simply as a purple robe, is trampled upon and tossed about, but after becoming the royal dress receives all honour and glory, and whoever dishonours it is generally condemned to death: and again, just as wood in itself is not of such a nature that it cannot be touched, but becomes so when fire is applied to it, and it becomes charcoal, and yet this is not because of its own nature, but because of the fire united to it, and the nature of the wood is not such as cannot be touched, but rather the charcoal or burning wood: so also the flesh, in its own nature, is not to be worshipped, but is worshipped in the incarnate God the Word, not because of itself, but because of its union in subsistence with God the Word. And we do not say that we worship mere flesh, but God’s flesh, that is, God incarnate.Essentially, the question being answered is ‘what is the object of worship?’ We do not worship the flesh of Christ alone (if we are to make the subtle mental distinction, as he writes, between what is seen, the flesh, and what is thought, the person of the Son of God), but we worship it by virtue of the hypostatic union, because the flesh of Christ is now the very flesh of the incarnate God. It is doubtful that the Methodists are worshipping the bread and wine by itself, but it is rather likely that the object of worship is the very person of Christ. But what if we take it for granted that Christ is not present in the bread and wine? Still they are not guilty of worshipping that which is not God, for their intention is not to worship the very matter of the bread, but to worship the person of God the Word, even though he is physically not present.
The very same argument made for the veneration of images also applies here. When one bows down before an icon of Christ, he does not worship the physical matter of image depicted, not the wood nor the paint, but he worships the prototype, the very person of God the Word. Even with the assumption that their eucharist is without grace, unless their intention is to worship the matter of the bread, and not to worship the person of Christ, I don’t think that they can properly be said to be idolaters.
N
nightranger
Guest
It certainly does appear that way to me now as well. Very insightful info in your post. thank you.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Right Ryan, there always has been, the work of John Wesley and his brother is still being published. Their thinking is clear on this. I can’t imagine well read Methodists not being aware of this.
Now as to who actually follows this today? I have no idea, seems from reading a minority. Kinda sad actually. Wesley had a strong belief in the RP, I know he struggled with many areas and his theology changed. Seems its continued. Your probably more up on this than I as you have had a closer view in this period.
However, from reading here you would think we were speaking a completely different language.
Peace
S
SparkleFly
Guest
Ehhh? I’ve been United Methodist all my life (well, 5 years if you start counting at membership) and we never thought of it as God’s actual blood and body, nor that the pastor has the power to convert it to such. It’s simply been symbolic of the blood God shed for you and his body. Accepting it is just another way of accepting and honoring what he did for you through dying for our sin.
We all know the bread probably came from the local supermarket and the grape juice from the same place, but using it in communion allows us to remember and keep in our conscious mind all God has given us/done for us. If a pastor said he could actually turn it to blood and body, I’d probably wonder if he had a little too much of the fermented grape juice. Only God would be able to do something like converting juice to blood.
We all know the bread probably came from the local supermarket and the grape juice from the same place, but using it in communion allows us to remember and keep in our conscious mind all God has given us/done for us. If a pastor said he could actually turn it to blood and body, I’d probably wonder if he had a little too much of the fermented grape juice.
Only God would be able to do something like converting juice to blood.
F
FrKimel
Guest
Several years ago I proposed the following Law regarding who truly belives in the eucharistic real presence:
It doesn’t matter how vigorously you protest your belief in the eucharistic real presence: if you are not willing and eager to prostrate yourself before the Holy Gifts and adore, worship, and pray to the glorified Lord Jesus Christ, present under the forms of bread and wine, you really do not believe in it.
Methodists don’t believe it … not really.
It doesn’t matter how vigorously you protest your belief in the eucharistic real presence: if you are not willing and eager to prostrate yourself before the Holy Gifts and adore, worship, and pray to the glorified Lord Jesus Christ, present under the forms of bread and wine, you really do not believe in it.
Methodists don’t believe it … not really.
G
GKC
Guest
P
Porknpie
Guest
My question for any Methodist is why don’t they believe Jesus own words? Where does the theology come from the it was figurative? He didn’t correct himself and many of his followers left him because of it. And, the church from the beginning believed in his words, both in that he told them so directly and the the heavenly food from the old testament, the manna, prefigured the new testament fulfillment in Christs body and blood, resurrected. They understood this as well. Thoughts?
S
SparkleFly
Guest
I can’t give you any literary examples, etc. to support it, but I do know that some people (not just Methodists) question the accuracy of translation of the bible. Like, did Jesus say exactly that, or how do we know they mixed up words or mistranslated something. When people read deeply into it, it may be misinterpreted, I guess? I know that the difference in language during the biblical and current age have caused some difficulties in comprehension of the meanings behind the scriptures (especially for people that aren’t big on linguistics.) Shakespeare’s works were translated multiple ways because no one could decide what was correct. Since the bible is even older and some pieces have recently been found, it leaves you to wonder. I always run it through God just like when you have one of those test questions that’s written in a way that leaves gaps you need to address with the instructor (a lot of students probably experienced this.) The way something is written can be interpreted many ways, but when you go to the person ultimately in charge of right and wrong (in the case of the classroom, the instructor–in life, God), you can clarify any misinterpretations.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Sparklefly, thank you for your response. The problem with this theory is that the early church fathers spoke orally of the real presence in the breaking of the bread and wine and they were the ones who accepted the biblical canon. They clearly understood of the consistency between what was orally passed on for 350+ years (and in writings) and the books that they accepted into the canon. The unified belief of the real presence continued up to the reformation although Luther created an altered theology to transsubstantiation. I know Lutherans debate whether he taught consubstantiation. Sorry, I simply dont know about the Methodist theology on where and how they departed from transsubstantiation. Seems to me that the Methodist theology must be that the disciples did not understand Christ’s words because the early church, immediately believed in the real presence and the writings of gospels which came later reflected this. If true, what interests me is the “how” did this theology come about?
God Bless
God Bless
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Some do. I know this as a matter of absolute fact because I’ve met Methodists who do. I once was a Methodist who believed in the real presence. I spent five years at Duke Divinity School, which is majority Methodist (in terms of faculty and students). Methodist beliefs range from Zwinglian mere memorial meal, to Calvinist spiritual presence, to transubstantiation. I have little doubt that those who embrace a real, substantial presence represent the minority (probably a rather small minority), but I assure you, they exist.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
This Methodist does.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Thats why I digress to you here. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around such a complete break from Wesley.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
This I’m in total agreement with. Seems everything must be understood on the level of modern intellect today. I’m convinced that Faith doesn’t dwell in this realm, this only adds insight to it. And often not as well as we would like.
Few would state in any Christian Church that the Lord cannot in fact do this. Yet then statements such as, “Well if I take the Eucharist amd Wine to the lab its till Bread and Wine” follow.
Interesting Father.
G
GKC
Guest
- Status