Methodists and the Real Presence

[submariner2]

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

Gary,

Methodists beieve in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. Of course when we say real we mean spritually real. The Catholic CCC does not say otherwise.

Peace Rob

 

[submariner2]

This is strictly my opinion, but no, I don’t think you can call this idolatry. After all, they don’t concern themselves with Holy Orders, therefore they believe they have the real presence (those that do hold the belief - not all Methodists do). It is the intent of their hearts to worship Christ, not the bread. The heart’s intentions are the foremost concern to God.

CoradCor,

Our pastors are ordianed but of course Holy Orders are not actually relevant for the christains life and belief. There were no Holy Orders in the NT or mentioned by the early ECFs.

Peace, Rob

 

[submariner2]

Though Christ is spiritually present in the community or the priest, he is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament.

ajpirc,

Even I know that your church never teaches such a thing. That is not in your CCC and never specifically taught by your church. Do I know more about your church than you do?

Peace, Rob

 

[GKC]

Clearly from Anglican roots.

Jon

It’s family.

GKC

 

[billt9]

It’s family.

GKC

John Wesley, remember, was an Anglican priest until he died. He never intended to start a new church, just to reform it. Hmm; sounds like someone else I have heard of

PS. The United Methodist Church does have “official” Articles of Religion (although I confess most Methodists have probably never read them, or even heard of them) which, not surprisingly (see above) look a lot like the 39 articles from the Church of England (leaving out those about the King; the Revolution, you know) The Articles affirm a real spiritual presence, received in faith, but not physical

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary,

Methodists beieve in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. Of course when we say real we mean spritually real. The Catholic CCC does not say otherwise.

Peace Rob

Rob not to sound condescending, but apparently this depends on whom your talking to in the Methodist circle which has become crystal clear from the posts here.

Second of all perhaps you could point us to this aspect of the CCC you are in fact referring to? I’m not familiar with this teaching.

I am familiar with this one.

therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_023.htm

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

CCC 1350 The Bread and Wine are offered to the Alter; they will be offered by the Priest in the name of Christ in the Eucharistic Sacrifice in which they will become His Body and Blood.

Peace

 

[GKC]

John Wesley, remember, was an Anglican priest until he died. He never intended to start a new church, just to reform it. Hmm; sounds like someone else I have heard of

PS. The United Methodist Church does have “official” Articles of Religion (although I confess most Methodists have probably never read them, or even heard of them) which, not surprisingly (see above) look a lot like the 39 articles from the Church of England (leaving out those about the King; the Revolution, you know) The Articles affirm a real spiritual presence, received in faith, but not physical

Yes, I know.

Keep in mind that the XXXIX Articles themselves are not normative on any Anglican, save only (and that technically) on ordinands of the Church of England, per the Subscription Act of 1571. The CoE, being an Erastian institution, gets to do things like that.

What is affirmed in transubstantiation is not simple physical presence (the appearances) in the Real Presence, but rather a substantial one.

GKC

 

[submariner2]

Rob not to sound condescending, but apparently this depends on whom your talking to in the Methodist circle which has become crystal clear from the posts here.

Second of all perhaps you could point us to this aspect of the CCC you are in fact referring to? I’m not familiar with this teaching.

I am familiar with this one.

therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_023.htm

Peace

Hi Gary,
Methodists believe in the real spritual presence of Christ at the Lords Supper (eucharist). Problem is that when some use the term real some others think it means physical or literal. It does nothave to mean that. Paul plainly describes a “spritual body” as opposed to a “physical body” in 1 Cor 15:42-51. I have read the RCC CCC and it does not say otherwise. It uses a number of adjectives but not literal or physical. Jesus said “God is Spirit” and God is real is He not?

Rob

 

[submariner2]

CCC 1350 The Bread and Wine are offered to the Alter; they will be offered by the Priest in the name of Christ in the Eucharistic Sacrifice in which they will become His Body and Blood.

Peace

Hi Gary,

The difference is that Methodists do not consider the eucharist a sacrifice of Christ. Neither the NT or the early ECFs mention such. In fact they speak of it as a sacrifice of praise. It was near the 3rd century when the idea of Christ sacrificed in the eucharist was introduced as well as priests. No christian clergy-type priests in the NT.

The eucharist is the real spiritual risen body of Christ and not his sacrificed body.
That is the NT presentation by Paul as I understand it.

Peace, JohnR

 

[submariner2]

Yes, I know.

Keep in mind that the XXXIX Articles themselves are not normative on any Anglican, save only (and that technically) on ordinands of the Church of England, per the Subscription Act of 1571. The CoE, being an Erastian institution, gets to do things like that.

What is affirmed in transubstantiation is not simple physical presence (the appearances) in the Real Presence, but rather a substantial one.

GKC

Hi GKC,

No reason to say the eucharist is physically Christs body. I do not see that even in the CCC. The term substantial even does not have to mean a substance. I think you substantially get what I mean.

Not sure where you get your viewpoint on that.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

No because the intent to worship the Lord is there.Even though they don’t recieve the Real Presence and therefore missing the grace which comes from recieving the Sacrament the Lord would still honor the adoration if it was done out of ignorance.

Hi Valentino,

I think it is unfair to say we dont recieve the real presence. We accept the real spritual presence of Christ. Your CCC does not specify a physical presence. In fact I accept the CCC description of the eucharist except it is not a sacrifice of Christ but rather the real spiritual presence of the risen Christ. The eucharist as a sacrifice of Christ is not taught in the NT.

You misinterpret what we think and also what your own CCC teaches it seems to me.

Rob.

 

[submariner2]

Rob not to sound condescending, but apparently this depends on whom your talking to in the Methodist circle which has become crystal clear from the posts here.

Second of all perhaps you could point us to this aspect of the CCC you are in fact referring to? I’m not familiar with this teaching.

I am familiar with this one.

therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_023.htm

Peace

Hi Gary,

Dont worry about condescending. We are speaking of facts here.

I am talking about Methodist teaching of my pastor. The eucharist is the spritual body of Christ. That means real. Methodists also use symbolic language as almost all the ECFs did. That may cause you misunderstanding from other Methodists.

Regarding the CCC, I have read it and cannot find that it says the eucharist is physically Christs body. It appears to agree with us as a matter of fact as I read it. Whats the problem?

Rob

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Hi Gary,

Dont worry about condescending. We are speaking of facts here.

I am talking about Methodist teaching of my pastor. The eucharist is the spritual body of Christ. That means real. Methodists also use symbolic language as almost all the ECFs did. That may cause you misunderstanding from other Methodists.

Regarding the CCC, I have read it and cannot find that it says the eucharist is physically Christs body. It appears to agree with us as a matter of fact as I read it. Whats the problem?

Rob

The Lord’s Supper.
26

• j While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”* k
  27
  Then he took a cup, gave thanks,* and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,
  28
  l for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

I don’t see where Christ said the bread and wine are symbols!
Is as plain as day what Christ stated at the Last Supper!

Matthew

 

[Porknpie]

Here’s a catechism reference, paragraph 1376.

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

 

[GKC]

Here’s a catechism reference, paragraph 1376.

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

See Trent, Session XIII.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC,

No reason to say the eucharist is physically Christs body. I do not see that even in the CCC. The term substantial even does not have to mean a substance. I think you substantially get what I mean.

Not sure where you get your viewpoint on that.

Rob

No one says the Presence is physical.

Try reading Trent, Session XIII, esp. the Canons. For all who affirm the Real Presence, in the sense that Canon 1 defines it (truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ), what is present is the whole Christ. But not physically.

GKC

 

[submariner2]

The Lord’s Supper.
26

• j While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”* k
  27
  Then he took a cup, gave thanks,* and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,
  28
  l for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

I don’t see where Christ said the bread and wine are symbols!
Is as plain as day what Christ stated at the Last Supper!

Matthew

Matt,

I agree. But of course the ECFs used symbolic language for the Lords Supper and so do we.

We see the bread and wine (unfermented for us) as the spritual body of Christ and as each person partakes the exact words of Jesus are cited.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

No one says the Presence is physical.

Try reading Trent, Session XIII, esp. the Canons. For all who affirm the Real Presence, in the sense that Canon 1 defines it (truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ), what is present is the whole Christ. But not physically.

GKC

GKC,

Methodists accept the body of Christ at that Lords Supper in that manner. We see it as the spiritual body of Christ. We do not use all the adjectives you do and stick to the actual words of Christ. However we do not see it as a sacrifice of Christ but rather as a remembrance and proclamation of a once and for all sacrifice. We believe that is what the NT teaches.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Here’s a catechism reference, paragraph 1376.

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

Porkpie,

Naturally Methodists do not accept transubstantiation because that requires a priest. We of course realize that there is a change from mere bread to the spiritual body of Christ but that derives from faith and not from a priest. We do not see any christian clergy priests in the NT at all.

I note that your CCC does not use the same words as Trent. It does not say that Christs body is a substance. That would be a physical description it seems to me and we do not see it that way. Seems that the description has changed since Trent?

Peace, JohnR