Methodists and the Real Presence

[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

Any Methodists who accept the definition of Trent, Session XIII, as to the nature of the Eucharist, would be accepting that Christ is really, truly and substantially present in the sacrament. That would mean not merely spiritually present, but body and blood together with soul and divinity; IOW Christ is truly present there on the altar. Only the accidents of the original unconsecrated elements remain.

But it is not a sacrifice of Christ. It is the sacrifice of Christ. It is a re-presentation of the One Sacrifice, not a repetition of it.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[GKC]

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

You misunderstand the terms, particularly substance.

GKC

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

Sure it does that is the definition of Transubstantiation.

Latin - transsubstantiatio = trans (change) and substantia (substance)

This term was incorporated into the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. However, its antiquity goes back to the early Greek Fathers of the Church who used the word meta-ousiosis. Literally, this means change of one ousia or being—that of bread and wine—into another ousia or being, that of Christ’s living body and blood.

As understood by the Catholic Church, transubstantiation means that the whole substance of bread and wine cease to exist at the consecration at Mass. What we must be very clear about is that it is the whole substance of bread and wine which becomes the whole humanity of Christ. It is not only that the substance of bread and wine becomes the substance of Christ’s body and blood. No. The substance of bread and wine becomes everything which makes Christ Christ.

Normally we speak of the substance of anything as that which makes a thing what it is. With transubstantiation, however, the substance of bread and wine becomes everything which Christ is. After transub-stantiation, the physical properties of bread and wine remain. But the “itness” or “thingness” of bread and wine ceases to exist. What had been the substance of bread and wine now becomes the whole Christ, in the words of the Council of Trent, the totus Christus.

Is Christ, therefore, present in the Holy Eucharist with everything that makes Him who He is? Yes. In other words, it is not just the substance of Christ’s humanity which becomes present on the altar through transubstantiation. It is Jesus Christ whole and entire.

Peace

 

[GKC]

Sure it does that is the definition of Transubstantiation.

Latin - transsubstantiatio = trans (change) and substantia (substance)

This term was incorporated into the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. However, its antiquity goes back to the early Greek Fathers of the Church who used the word meta-ousiosis. Literally, this means change of one ousia or being—that of bread and wine—into another ousia or being, that of Christ’s living body and blood.

As understood by the Catholic Church, transubstantiation means that the whole substance of bread and wine cease to exist at the consecration at Mass. What we must be very clear about is that it is the whole substance of bread and wine which becomes the whole humanity of Christ. It is not only that the substance of bread and wine becomes the substance of Christ’s body and blood. No. The substance of bread and wine becomes everything which makes Christ Christ.

Normally we speak of the substance of anything as that which makes a thing what it is. With transubstantiation, however, the substance of bread and wine becomes everything which Christ is. After transub-stantiation, the physical properties of bread and wine remain. But the “itness” or “thingness” of bread and wine ceases to exist. What had been the substance of bread and wine now becomes the whole Christ, in the words of the Council of Trent, the totus Christus.

Is Christ, therefore, present in the Holy Eucharist with everything that makes Him who He is? Yes. In other words, it is not just the substance of Christ’s humanity which becomes present on the altar through transubstantiation. It is Jesus Christ whole and entire.

Peace

I know where you’re coming from.

GKC

 

[submariner2]

Sure it does that is the definition of Transubstantiation.

Latin - transsubstantiatio = trans (change) and substantia (substance)

This term was incorporated into the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. However, its antiquity goes back to the early Greek Fathers of the Church who used the word meta-ousiosis. Literally, this means change of one ousia or being—that of bread and wine—into another ousia or being, that of Christ’s living body and blood.

As understood by the Catholic Church, transubstantiation means that the whole substance of bread and wine cease to exist at the consecration at Mass. What we must be very clear about is that it is the whole substance of bread and wine which becomes the whole humanity of Christ. It is not only that the substance of bread and wine becomes the substance of Christ’s body and blood. No. The substance of bread and wine becomes everything which makes Christ Christ.

Gary,

I do not find that in the CCC. I thought the CCC governed.

.

Is Christ, therefore, present in the Holy Eucharist with everything that makes Him who He is? Yes. In other words, it is not just the substance of Christ’s humanity which becomes present on the altar through transubstantiation. It is Jesus Christ whole and entire

.

We simply say it is the real spiritual body of Christ. Also, I thought a priest was necessary for your transubstatiation? Of course we do not have priests nor were there any in the NT.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Any Methodists who accept the definition of Trent, Session XIII, as to the nature of the Eucharist, would be accepting that Christ is really, truly and substantially present in the sacrament.

GKC,

Of course we accept that. Christ is really spritually present.

That would mean not merely spiritually present, but body and blood together with soul and divinity; IOW Christ is truly present there on the altar. Only the accidents of the original unconsecrated elements remain.

Greek to me. We just take the words of Jesus.

But it is not a sacrifice of Christ. It is the sacrifice of Christ. It is a re-presentation of the One Sacrifice, not a repetition of it.

We of course see the Lords Supper as a remembrance (Jesus) and a proclamation (Paul) of Christs sacrifice and not a presentation of a sacrifice itself at all. Hard to see the difference between a presentation of something and the something itself. Does the re-presentation mean it is not really a sacrifice or an offering? If it is not a sacrifice or an offering of Christs sacrifice I can buy it.

To us it is the presence of the risen Christ and not the sacrificed Christ which was offered once and for all on Calvary, an offering not to be repeated according to Hebrews 7:27-28.

Neither do we see that view presented in scripture or even by the ECFs before the 3rd century. In the 3rd century Cyprian speaks of a sacrifice of Christ in the eucharist. Earlier than this the ECFs appear to present the protestant view of the Lords Supper it seems to me - ie, no priest, no transubstantiation, no presentation of a sacrifice of Christ in the eucharist,

We try to stick to the description in scripture and not to add more than what is presented there.
Rob

 

[GKC]

GKC,

Of course we accept that. Christ is really spritually present.

Greek to me. We just take the words of Jesus.

We of course see the Lords Supper as a remembrance (Jesus) and a proclamation (Paul) of Christs sacrifice and not a presentation of a sacrifice itself at all. Hard to see the difference between a presentation of something and the something itself. Does the re-presentation mean it is not really a sacrifice or an offering? If it is not a sacrifice or an offering of Christs sacrifice I can buy it.

To us it is the presence of the risen Christ and not the sacrificed Christ which was offered once and for all on Calvary, an offering not to be repeated according to Hebrews 7:27-28.

Neither do we see that view presented in scripture or even by the ECFs before the 3rd century. In the 3rd century Cyprian speaks of a sacrifice of Christ in the eucharist. Earlier than this the ECFs appear to present the protestant view of the Lords Supper it seems to me - ie, no priest, no transubstantiation, no presentation of a sacrifice of Christ in the eucharist,

We try to stick to the description in scripture and not to add more than what is presented there.
Rob

No, your first comment shows you do not understand what the dogma is.

As to what most Methodists believe, yes, I know.

GKC

 

[submariner2]

No, your first comment shows you do not understand what the dogma is.

As to what most Methodists believe, yes, I know.

GKC

Hi GKC,

Where am I going wrong?

Rob

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC,

Where am I going wrong?

Rob

You do not understand what the term substance/substantial means. You, not understanding it, said that you (Methodists) agreed with the definition I gave, from Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1. And then you said that you accepted that (Trent) and that Christ was really spiritually present, which appears to be what you think the terms from Trent were saying. No. Trent says that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ. Which is the definition given in Canon 1, Session XIII.

As to what is meant by substance, in this sacramental context (the Eucharist), Gary gave an overview.

I am not interested in trying to convince you to accept what RCs, and many others, believe as to the Real Presence. I’m not overly concerned with what you believe on the subject. I do put a certain (limited) amount of effort into demonstrating that you don’t understand what that belief says. Particularly as to substance.

GKC

 

[submariner2]

You do not understand what the term substance/substantial means. You, not understanding it, said that you (Methodists) agreed with the definition I gave, from Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1. And then you said that you accepted that (Trent) and that Christ was really spiritually present, which appears to be what you think the terms from Trent were saying. No. Trent says that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ. Which is the definition given in Canon 1, Session XIII.

As to what is meant by substance, in this sacramental context (the Eucharist), Gary gave an overview.

I am not interested in trying to convince you to accept what RCs, and many others, believe as to the Real Presence. I’m not overly concerned with what you believe on the subject. I do put a certain (limited) amount of effort into demonstrating that you don’t understand what that belief says. Particularly as to substance.

GKC

GKC,
I dont understand why you think my church does not teach what I explained. We believe that Chirst is present in the sacrment and it is a real spritual presence. We may not use all the adjectives you use but I dont see them changing the description since none of them deny a spiritual presence. Of course we do not believe in a physical presence.

I notice that the CCC does not mention a substance but rather the adjective “substantial.” That does not have to be a substance which implies a physical substance.

But as I explained we use the simple words of Jesus “This is my body” and each person is told this as they take the elements of the sacrament.

Hope this explains adequately.

Rob

 

[GKC]

We are not communicating.

I do not say your church does not teach what you say it teaches. I say it does not teach what Trent teaches. A real spiritual presence is not the same as a real substantial presence. Your unfamiliarity with the terms used in the definition of Trent is both obvious and the essence of the communication problem.

Substance and substantial are referring to the same Thomistic concept: what makes a thing what it is, as opposed to its accidents/appearance; that is, its substance (a technical philosophical term). Which, according to Trent, means that the change in the substance (transubstantiation) at the consecration, meaning the substance of the unconsecrated elements (what make them what they are) is gone; no longer there, replaced by the substance of Our Lord. Hence the Blessed Body and Precious Blood (following the change in the substance) are Our Lord, in all ways, not merely in a spiritual sense. Hence the worship and adoration of the Body and Blood, the entirety of Christ, present on the altar, as found among RCs and many Anglicans.

Your dismissal of all the “adjectives” is a demonstration that you do not understand what they are doing there.They define in what sense Christ is present, and the unconsecrated elements are changed and in what way.

As to what you are doing and saying, and believing, trust me, I know. And it is not what Trent says.

GKC

GKC,
I dont understand why you think my church does not teach what I explained. We believe that Chirst is present in the sacrment and it is a real spritual presence. We may not use all the adjectives you use but I dont see them changing the description since none of them deny a spiritual presence. Of course we do not believe in a physical presence.

I notice that the CCC does not mention a substance but rather the adjective “substantial.” That does not have to be a substance which implies a physical substance.

But as I explained we use the simple words of Jesus “This is my body” and each person is told this as they take the elements of the sacrament.

Hope this explains adequately.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

We are not communicating.

I do not say your church does not teach what you say it teaches. I say it does not teach what Trent teaches. A real spiritual presence is not the same as a real substantial presence. Your unfamiliarity with the terms used in the definition of Trent is both obvious and the essence of the communication problem.

Hi GKC,

So how is it that substantial presence cannot be spritual presence? Seems to me those adjectives are not mutually exclusive at all.

Substance and substantial are referring to the same Thomistic concept: what makes a thing what it is, as opposed to its accidents/appearance; that is, its substance (a technical philosophical term). Which, according to Trent, means that the change in the substance (transubstantiation) at the consecration, meaning the substance of the unconsecrated elements (what make them what they are) is gone; no longer there, replaced by the substance of Our Lord. Hence the Blessed Body and Precious Blood (following the change in the substance) are Our Lord, in all ways, not merely in a spiritual sense. Hence the worship and adoration of the Body and Blood, the entirety of Christ, present on the altar, as found among RCs and many Anglicans.

I generally go by the word itself. Substantial does not have to mean a substance as any dictionary can attest. If they intended another word or if it needed clarification, why did they not do that? I understand that this is your opinion but others may hold other reasonable opinions also.

Your dismissal of all the “adjectives” is a demonstration that you do not understand what they are doing there.They define in what sense Christ is present, and the unconsecrated elements are changed and in what way.

I did not dismiss the adjectives. I just said we do not use them. Since Paul did not use all those adjectives I dont think it means he did not understand.

As to what you are doing and saying, and believing, trust me, I know. And it is not what Trent says.

I trust but verify. I see nowhere that the Catholic church teaches a physical or literal presence. Paul describes two alternatives in 1 Cor 15:42-51. Animal body (physical) or spritual body. Seems you are trying to describe another which I cannot make sense of.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Perhaps this issue will always be cloudy. But at any rate my church teahes a real spritual presence and I cannot tell the difference from what your CCC describes. Your response is I just do not understand. Maybe so, but I agree with the words of explanation as best as I can understand them.

Rob

 

[GKC]

There is no conflict between the concepts of a spiritual presence, and a substantial presence. It is both, in the Trent definition; it is all that makes Christ what Christ is (or, mutatis mutandis, what makes anything what it is), saving only the accidents/ appearances. But it is not a spiritual presence only. A substantial presence is a real presence, and not a real spiritual presence only. The substance is present; Holy Body and Blood, really, substantially there. It is why those who believe in the Real Presence in this form, can say precisely what Thomas said’

I am not overly concerned that you do not understand the definition as given by Trent; lots of folks post here who think they understand RC dogma/doctrine and don’t. It comes, in this case, from not understanding the Thomistic/Aristotelian metaphysics that underlie the definition, and trying to use a dictionary definition of the common use of such a term. But given that you don’t understand that, it is not surprising that you misunderstand what Trent is saying, and incorrectly assume that you are in agreement with it by saying “real spiritual presence”. You aren’t. Which, in the end, is fine with me.

GKC

Hi GKC,

So how is it that substantial presence cannot be spritual presence? Seems to me those adjectives are not mutually exclusive at all.

I generally go by the word itself. Substantial does not have to mean a substance as any dictionary can attest. If they intended another word or if it needed clarification, why did they not do that? I understand that this is your opinion but others may hold other reasonable opinions also.

I did not dismiss the adjectives. I just said we do not use them. Since Paul did not use all those adjectives I dont think it means he did not understand.

I trust but verify. I see nowhere that the Catholic church teaches a physical or literal presence. Paul describes two alternatives in 1 Cor 15:42-51. Animal body (physical) or spritual body. Seems you are trying to describe another which I cannot make sense of.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Perhaps this issue will always be cloudy. But at any rate my church teahes a real spritual presence and I cannot tell the difference from what your CCC describes. Your response is I just do not understand. Maybe so, but I agree with the words of explanation as best as I can understand them.

Rob

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here is Trent.

google.com/url?q=http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html&sa=U&ei=FMPMT_maN4qo8QTC9YSTCQ&ved=0CCkQFjAG&sig2=NdDxLJHW3sHoxJx2dp4qlQ&usg=AFQjCNE4Mblu4eTopZtgifD4SzAgDaljkA

The CCC confirms Trent, and Pope Paul VI/Thomas Aquinas, the difference being that the CCC is not as in-depth as Trent and Thomas Aquinas or Paul VI. Thus the CCC Footnotess 199, 200, 201, 204, 205, 206, 210, and 211. From 1362-1374…also…1413 all address Trans.which all refer back to Trent, Paul VI or Thomas Aquinas.

CCC-1413-By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

St Thomas Aquinas is documented here…

google.com/url?q=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm&sa=U&ei=z8fMT8OBOIiY8gTyuPmTCQ&ved=0CBEQFjAA&sig2=kBt8SpZ28JWDbD61PIaKUg&usg=AFQjCNE1v-Oe-y_Z6wEbDSNLrbZ0RRdi4A

When you state “spiritual” that is not what the Saint, Trent, or the CCC refers to with the real presense.

Nevertheless Spiritual Presence denies Physical presence and is the stance Calvin took not Wesley. Calivin meant this when he spoke of Spiritual…

[W]e must establish such a presence of Christ in the Supper as may neither fasten him to the element of bread, nor enclose him in the bread, nor circumscribe him in any way, [nor] parcel him out to many places at once, [nor] invest him with boundless magnitude to be spread through heaven and earth. For these things are plainly in conflict with a nature truly human.

Christ is locally and physically in heaven. Nevertheless,

There is no ground…for any individual to charge us with holding that he is absent from us, and thus separating the head from the members…but, dwelling in us by his Spirit he raises us to heaven to himself, transfusing into us the vivifying vigour of his flesh.

However…

The OP is about the “Methodist” congregation in relation the Eucharist. Do you have this Doctrine which explains your understanding of “Spiritual” in relation to Bread and Wine? Do you use Bread[what manner] and Wine? Who consecrates the Bread and Wine and by what Authority? How often is this done…Daily? Weekly? Monthly? If you believe what John Calvin believe obviously we believe two very different realities. Who is speaking for you congregation on this matter, by what authority, and where is it documented. Then we can compare the two.

The CC believes one must be in a State of Grace before receiving the Eucharist. How does you congregation obtain a state of grace with an individual? How does one Confess their Sins?

Peace

 

[submariner2]

The OP is about the “Methodist” congregation in relation the Eucharist. Do you have this Doctrine which explains your understanding of “Spiritual” in relation to Bread and Wine? Do you use Bread[what manner] and Wine? Who consecrates the Bread and Wine and by what Authority? How often is this done…Daily? Weekly? Monthly? If you believe what John Calvin believe obviously we believe two very different realities. Who is speaking for you congregation on this matter, by what authority, and where is it documented. Then we can compare the two.

Gary,

We use actual loves of bread and each person takes a pinch and dips it into the wine (grapejuice). The words of Jesus are cited to each person for the bread and then the wine. I think that is called the tinction method.By the way the apostles used “new wine” which is lightly fermented or unfermented grape juice as we use. The bread is consecrated beforehand. I dont know the process. This is done at church service at least once per month and offered once per week for those who desire it.

The CC believes one must be in a State of Grace before receiving the Eucharist. How does you congregation obtain a state of grace with an individual? How does one Confess their Sins?

We all confess to God every sunday and every day, maybe several times per day. In fact we believe that the most proper confession is a life of repentance as Martin Luther taught in #1 of his 95 theses. That is to continually repent, always in the understanding of our need for Gods forgiveness at all times in our life. This is to live in a State of Grace.

Peace, JohnR

 

[submariner2]

I am not overly concerned that you do not understand the definition as given by Trent; lots of folks post here who think they understand RC dogma/doctrine and don’t. It comes, in this case, from not understanding the Thomistic/Aristotelian metaphysics that underlie the definition, and trying to use a dictionary definition of the common use of such a term. But given that you don’t understand that, it is not surprising that you misunderstand what Trent is saying, and incorrectly assume that you are in agreement with it by saying “real spiritual presence”. You aren’t. Which, in the end, is fine with me.

GKC,

I find it interesting that Catholics seem to not even want me to understand. I say I agree and they cannot accept it. Go figure. Anyway, i read the words and I think I agree. At least I see nothing I disagree with.
Rob

 

[GKC]

I am not overly concerned that you do not understand the definition as given by Trent; lots of folks post here who think they understand RC dogma/doctrine and don’t. It comes, in this case, from not understanding the Thomistic/Aristotelian metaphysics that underlie the definition, and trying to use a dictionary definition of the common use of such a term. But given that you don’t understand that, it is not surprising that you misunderstand what Trent is saying, and incorrectly assume that you are in agreement with it by saying “real spiritual presence”. You aren’t. Which, in the end, is fine with me.

GKC,

I find it interesting that Catholics seem to not even want me to understand. I say I agree and they cannot accept it. Go figure. Anyway, i read the words and I think I agree. At least I see nothing I disagree with.
Rob

You assume you understand the dogma. You don’t.

As you appear to make other incorrect assumptions in this post.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

Gary,

We use actual loves of bread and each person takes a pinch and dips it into the wine (grapejuice). The words of Jesus are cited to each person for the bread and then the wine. I think that is called the tinction method.By the way the apostles used “new wine” which is lightly fermented or unfermented grape juice as we use. The bread is consecrated beforehand. I dont know the process. This is done at church service at least once per month and offered once per week for those who desire it.

We all confess to God every sunday and every day, maybe several times per day. In fact we believe that the most proper confession is a life of repentance as Martin Luther taught in #1 of his 95 theses. That is to continually repent, always in the understanding of our need for Gods forgiveness at all times in our life. This is to live in a State of Grace.

Peace, JohnR

It is called* intinction*.
Jon

 

[submariner2]

It is called* intinction*.
Jon

Jon,

Thanks. Shows how much I know, but I like it.

Rob