Methodists and the Real Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kmfioc said:
…**“Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of a sacrament, and has given occasion to many superstitions. **”…

If I understand some of you correctly, the Methodist church does not state that a Methodist must believe one way or the other. However, after reading this, it seems to me to be saying that you dont have to believe one way or the other necessarily, but that it is dangerous to believe in transubstantiation. Am I completely misinterpreting this?
Click to expand...
The first statement appears by its wording and the nature of it to be strictly differentiating itself from the Catholic Church.

I interpret it the same as you do. This is very much protestantism …interpret for yourselves and whatever you interpret is ok. If its not in line with a particular denomination, simply create your own and become one of the thousands of different denominations.

According to Scripture Jesus didn’t say - Take this as a symbol …or Think of this bread as my body and try to remember me.
 
Kmfioc said:
More detail from the Book of Discipline:

Article XVIII, The Articles of Religion, The Book of Discipline: "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. **"Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of a sacrament, and has given occasion to many superstitions. **
Click to expand...
“Proved by scripture”? What does that mean?

Transubstantiation is simply a term used to describe as best we can what we think is happening at the consecration.

Can the Trinity be “proved by scripture”? Yes, if you allow for some interpretation, but there is no verse containing the word, “trinity,” which is a technical term used to describe as best we can what we think is happening in the inner life of God.

“Repugnant to the plain words of Scripture”? Are you Methodists kidding me?

“This is my body…this is my blood”…THOSE are the plain words of scripture. All the rest of your theological gymnastics are designed to obfuscate those plain words.
 
Convert2013 said:
I suppose if we really wanted to know we could just ask a former or current Methodist. 👍
Click to expand...
Not meaning to get off into a tangent, but I’m always reluctant to get into “So-and-so used to be _______ , so we know we can trust him/her to tell us what the _______ teaching is.”
 
Symphorian said:
The Wesley’s themselves seemed to have some concept of Real Presence and Sacrifice.
Click to expand...
Alright, but I’m not sure how helpful that is for answering the question. After all, they were both Anglican till the end of their lives, whereas no modern Methodists are Anglican.
 
Kmfioc said:
More detail from the Book of Discipline:

Article XVIII, The Articles of Religion, The Book of Discipline: " **"Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of a sacrament, and has given occasion to many superstitions. **"The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. “The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.”
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that this statement reflects Methodism going back several centuries and would likely not be articulated in the same way today. I’d hate to resurrect some of Luther’s harsh comments on the Roman Catholic understanding of the Mass since they were made in reaction to abuses at that time [1500’s].
 
40.png
EvangelCatholic:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kmfioc

More detail from the Book of Discipline:

Article XVIII, The Articles of Religion, The Book of Discipline: " "Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of a sacrament, and has given occasion to many superstitions. "The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. “The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.”

Keep in mind that this statement reflects Methodism going back several centuries and would likely not be articulated in the same way today. I’d hate to resurrect some of Luther’s harsh comments on the Roman Catholic understanding of the Mass since they were made in reaction to abuses at that time [1500’s].
Click to expand...
go ahead…I love fiction novels 🙂

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
anruari said:
I can believe the yellow coins in my pocket are real gold all I want but that does not make it true.
The real presence requires a validly ordained priesthood which is not present in the Methodist Communion. Anglicanism. Lutheranism or any Protestant denomination.
Click to expand...
EvangelCatholic said:
So you are saying Christ is not present in the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
Ohana said:
No, he is saying that even if a protestant church division actually believes the wine and bread has been transubstantiated in to the Body and Blood of Christ, that it is not true because a validly ordained priest has not confected the sacrament. That being said, I am sure the Christ is present spiritually in other churches communion ceremonies. He said, where two or more are gathered in my name . . .

It is more than a semantic difference however. A priest is required for the Real Presence according to our belief substantiated by the scriptures.
Click to expand...
I was away from the computer.
Thank you Ohana. You said what I needed to. Sorry EvangelCatholic… I see my post did leave room for misinterpretation.
 
This Holy Mystery is the official teaching of the UMC. It would be accurate to say that (officially) UM’s believe in the Real Presence, but not in Transubstantiation (similar to Eastern and Anglican beliefs on the Real Presence). GKC can elaborate on that far better than I can… and I have posted similar posts for years on this forum as well. It’s not a new subject.

Of course some UM’s don’t embrace this belief, anymore than some RC’s embrace all Catholic doctrine and dogma. But that’s the official teaching of the UMC.
 
Have we ever had a thread to discuss the possibility of a “Methodist Ordinariate” within the Roman Communion? If not, maybe we should. 🙂
 
I can believe the yellow coins in my pocket are real gold all I want but that does not make it true.
The real presence requires a validly ordained priesthood which is not present in the Methodist Communion. Anglicanism. Lutheranism or any Protestant denomination

The above statement ends any real debate and is unfortunate-it is an appeal to Authority-a standard debating or logician’s maneuver

what is does is end discussion-Please realize that we non catholics do not automatically accept as true all the teachings of the Pope and Magisterium-so for us we appreciate your point of view but feel that the Authority is not valid-sorry:mad:
 
cmodrmac said:
I can believe the yellow coins in my pocket are real gold all I want but that does not make it true.
The real presence requires a validly ordained priesthood which is not present in the Methodist Communion. Anglicanism. Lutheranism or any Protestant denomination

The above statement ends any real debate and is unfortunate-it is an appeal to Authority-a standard debating or logician’s maneuver

what is does is end discussion-Please realize that we non catholics do not automatically accept as true all the teachings of the Pope and Magisterium-so for us we appreciate your point of view but feel that the Authority is not valid-sorry:mad:
Click to expand...
I’ve noticed that many Catholic laity are much bolder, with regard to declaring that such-and-such group’s orders are invalid, than is the Catholic magisterium, which rarely does so. (I say rarely because there are of course exceptions, most obviously Apostolicae Curae.)
 
Peter_J said:
I’ve noticed that many Catholic laity are much bolder, with regard to declaring that such-and-such group’s orders are invalid, than is the Catholic magisterium, which rarely does so. (I say rarely because there are of course exceptions, most obviously Apostolicae Curae.)
Click to expand...
Indeed. To my knowledge, the CC has never made a statement regarding those Lutheran synods that did maintain AS. Then there is the statement by Cardinal Ratzinger which allows that “the salvation-granting presence” of Christ is in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.
OTOH, I can’t imagine the CC stating that Lutheran presbyter ordinations are valid, except perhaps at a time when unity was imminent.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Indeed. To my knowledge, the CC has never made a statement regarding those Lutheran synods that did maintain AS. Then there is the statement by Cardinal Ratzinger which allows that “the salvation-granting presence” of Christ is in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.
OTOH, I can’t imagine the CC stating that Lutheran presbyter ordinations are valid, except perhaps at a time when unity was imminent.

Jon
Click to expand...
Notice, however, that the statement does not say “the real presence of Christ”. The Church has recognized a spiritual communion among non-Catholic faith traditions for some time. This is different than a one-flesh communion. I have not read his words in context so I’m pretty much speaking off the cuff. I will say that “the salvation-granting presence” is a strong statement.
 
Peter_J said:
I’ve noticed that many Catholic laity are much bolder, with regard to declaring that such-and-such group’s orders are invalid, than is the Catholic magisterium, which rarely does so. (I say rarely because there are of course exceptions, most obviously Apostolicae Curae.)
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is because the Magisterium lays down the principles for validity, and lay people apply them to the people they know and meet.
 
This is a thread on Methodists, who by the way, are in full communion with the ELCA; which means that they accept Real Presence. 👍
 
SteveVH said:
Notice, however, that the statement does not say “the real presence of Christ”.
Click to expand...
Just speaking for myself, not JonNC, I honestly don’t think I would have noticed that the phrase “the salvation-granting presence of Christ” doesn’t contain the word “real”, if you hadn’t pointed it out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top