Methodists and the Real Presence

[EvangelCatholic]

I am told that it was Reginald Cardinal Pole, last Archbishop of Canterbury in communion with Rome, who made the use of tabernacles on the altar widespread in the Roman communion. There are one or two Lutheran churches in the UK, but they tend to be in coastal cities and were traditionally associated with visiting seamen from Germany and Scandinavia. I think the Lutheran church in my city is still German-language.

I’m curious about the Methodist churches in England. Is it incorrect to assume that these parishes would be more like Anglican in worship and sacramental practice? I have seen photos of Methodist clergy donning chasubles, for example.

 

[paperwight66]

There are one or two Lutheran churches in the UK, but they tend to be in coastal cities and were traditionally associated with visiting seamen from Germany and Scandinavia. I think the Lutheran church in my city is still German-language.

Ah, yes, that reminded me that there is a church in Liverpool called locally 'the ‘Swedish Church’ near the docks, which seems to be Swedish language, from the board outside, so presumably is for the Swedish seafarers.

I suppose that could be Lutheran.

 

[JonNC]

I’m sorry, I should have made it clear that I was talking of the UK context. I don’t think there are any Lutheran churches in the UK. Their place would be taken by the Church of England, I’d imagine, where reservation is not always practised. It wasn’t/isn’t automatic that a Tabernacle would be seen in an Anglican church, unlike in a (Roman) Catholic one.

Sorry I misunderstood the “such-and-such church” comment to be inclusive of other communions. There are indeed Lutheran churches in the UK.

I’d still like to know why you think that not having adoration outside the sacramental act means one holds that the real presence is dependent on the faith of the one receiving.
Jon

 

[Symphorian]

I am told that it was Reginald Cardinal Pole, last Archbishop of Canterbury in communion with Rome, who made the use of tabernacles on the altar widespread in the Roman communion. There are one or two Lutheran churches in the UK, but they tend to be in coastal cities and were traditionally associated with visiting seamen from Germany and Scandinavia. I think the Lutheran church in my city is still German-language.

MacCulloch in his book ‘Reformation - Europe’s House Divided’ says that Marian England was the first country to introduce the tabernacle.

Whilst I’m not aware of any Lutheran churches in my area, our Anglican Cathedral (Truro) recently hosted an International Lutheran Worship Day where an English translation of the Swedish Mass was celebrated.

 

[Symphorian]

I’m curious about the Methodist churches in England. Is it incorrect to assume that these parishes would be more like Anglican in worship and sacramental practice? I have seen photos of Methodist clergy donning chasubles, for example.

Not in my area in SW England where Methodism was a major force during the 19th century but much less so now. The manner in which the traditional Chapels are furnished means that the emphasis is on the word rather than sacrament. (Large centrally placed prominant pulpits, small unadorned Holy Tables).

The Methodist Chapel in my village has weekly services but HC is only celebrated monthly. The Minister wears a black gown. HC is celebrated at a small Holy Table without frontal, cross or candles. Leavened bread and grape juice are used with the consecrated ‘wine’ being distributed in wee cuppies. On occasions I’ve attended, the congregation distributes Communion to each other whilst they remain in their seats. (i.e. it’s passed around) although hey do have provision for kneeling reception.

Oddly, our local Methodist congregation aren’t squeamish about attending our CofE services and we have a good ecumenical relationship. We last hosted them on Maundy Thursday for Mass of the Last Supper, foot washing, stripping of the Altars and prayer watch in the Lady Chapel where the Blessed Sacrament was reposed.

In my Anglican Diocese we have a few Local Ecumenical Partnerships where Anglicans and Methodists share worship. We expect more to follow.

 

[SteveVH]

Sorry I misunderstood the “such-and-such church” comment to be inclusive of other communions. There are indeed Lutheran churches in the UK.

I’d still like to know why you think that not having adoration outside the sacramental act means one holds that the real presence is dependent on the faith of the one receiving.
Jon

Hi Jon.

I think the point may hinge more on what happens to the consecrated hosts if there are any left over; not consumed during the liturgy or taken to shut-ins. I have heard different versions which I thought were from Lutherans but I could very well be mistaken. What I understood was that they were simply disposed of as Christ was no longer present outside of the liturgy.

Again, don’t hold me to this. Is what I understood correct or do you keep them in a tabernacle, believing that once consecrated, the true presence never changes?

Thanks.

Steve

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Not in my area in SW England where Methodism was a major force during the 19th century but much less so now. The manner in which the traditional Chapels are furnished means that the emphasis is on the word rather than sacrament. (Large centrally placed prominant pulpits, small unadorned Holy Tables).

The Methodist Chapel in my village has weekly services but HC is only celebrated monthly. The Minister wears a black gown. HC is celebrated at a small Holy Table without frontal, cross or candles. Leavened bread and grape juice are used with the consecrated ‘wine’ being distributed in wee cuppies. On occasions I’ve attended, the congregation distributes Communion to each other whilst they remain in their seats. (i.e. it’s passed around) although hey do have provision for kneeling reception.

Oddly, our local Methodist congregation aren’t squeamish about attending our CofE services and we have a good ecumenical relationship. We last hosted them on Maundy Thursday for Mass of the Last Supper, foot washing, stripping of the Altars and prayer watch in the Lady Chapel where the Blessed Sacrament was reposed.

In my Anglican Diocese we have a few Local Ecumenical Partnerships where Anglicans and Methodists share worship. We expect more to follow.

Thanks for the thorough response

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi Jon.

I think the point may hinge more on what happens to the consecrated hosts if there are any left over; not consumed during the liturgy or taken to shut-ins. I have heard different versions which I thought were from Lutherans but I could very well be mistaken. What I understood was that they were simply disposed of as Christ was no longer present outside of the liturgy.

Again, don’t hold me to this. Is what I understood correct or do you keep them in a tabernacle, believing that once consecrated, the true presence never changes?

Thanks.

Steve

If I may jump in. Your understanding of Lutheran practice is correct. Some Lutheran churches have tabernacles . On the other hand, “receptionism” is also practiced by some misguided Lutherans who think the Real Presence is only during the actual Mass and any consecreted host left over can be put back with unconsecreted for the next Mass. I think this practice is limited to Lutherans in the U.S. who have been influenced by Protestantism or are just lazy. The pastor of a congregation is responsible to set correct handling of the Sacrament.

 

[SteveVH]

If I may jump in. Your understanding of Lutheran practice is correct. Some Lutheran churches have tabernacles . On the other hand, “receptionism” is also practiced by some misguided Lutherans who think the Real Presence is only during the actual Mass and any consecreted host left over can be put back with unconsecreted for the next Mass. I think this practice is limited to Lutherans in the U.S. who have been influenced by Protestantism or are just lazy. The pastor of a congregation is responsible to set correct handling of the Sacrament.

Thanks for this. I think this is why some believe what is being stated concerning the notion that at least some Lutherans believe that the real presence is dependent upon the faith of the one receiving. If one believes that the consecrated host can be treated as mere bread after the Mass, it is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw, it seems to me.

What I understand from you, however, is that you believe that this is a misguided understanding among some Lutherans. Is there a definitive statement from the Lutheran Church concerning this issue?

Thanks.

Steve

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Thanks for this. I think this is why some believe what is being stated concerning the notion that at least some Lutherans believe that the real presence is dependent upon the faith of the one receiving. If one believes that the consecrated host can be treated as mere bread after the Mass, it is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw, it seems to me.

What I understand from you, however, is that you believe that this is a misguided understanding among some Lutherans. Is there a definitive statement from the Lutheran Church concerning this issue?

Thanks.

Steve

Receptionism theology of the Sacrament is better explained by those in the LCMS. I found an article on the internet produced by a Commission on Theology refering to it as “consecrationist-receptionist” but it won’t open for me. Maybe our Missouri Synod friends can help.

 

[SteveVH]

Receptionism theology of the Sacrament is better explained by those in the LCMS. I found an article on the internet produced by a Commission on Theology refering to it as “consecrationist-receptionist” but it won’t open for me. Maybe our Missouri Synod friends can help.

Thank you. But is there any official stance by the Lutheran Church?

 

[Peter_J]

This seems like a non sequitur to me, so please explain how one is related to the other. While Lutherans generally do not practice Eucharistic adoration outside the sacramental act, we do not believe that His presence is dependent on the faith of either the celebrant or the communicant. If it were, then Paul’s admonition in Corinthians would be hollow.

I’m sorry, I should have made it clear that I was talking of the UK context. I don’t think there are any Lutheran churches in the UK. Their place would be taken by the Church of England, I’d imagine, where reservation is not always practised. It wasn’t/isn’t automatic that a Tabernacle would be seen in an Anglican church, unlike in a (Roman) Catholic one.

You might explain this better, but I’m guessing that when you said you would have a problem with any Church that didn’t “adore the Blessed Sacrament outside of the Eucharist service”, what you actually meant was any Church that saved some of the Blessed Sacrament but didn’t adore it outside of the Eucharist service.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Thank you. But is there any official stance by the Lutheran Church?

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod/web/sup-03.html
“Martin Chemnitz’s reply to the question of whether the body and blood of Christ are present in the consecrated elements if they are laid up, enclosed, or carried about, and not used and distributed, is most appropriate: “Christ did not institute this Sacrament in such a way that, even if no one uses it, or if it is changed into something else than He Himself commanded, it nevertheless is His body and blood, but in the very words of institution He prescribed the form of that which was commanded, how it is to be observer and used, and that not only for a time but to the end of the world, 1 Cor. 11:26. And use surely does not make a Sacrament, but the Word, ordinance, and institution of Christ. And there is a difference between the essence of a Sacrament and its use. But Christ so ordered and arranged the words of institution in the form of a testament, as He wanted the Sacrament to be an act in which bread and wine are taken, blessed, or consecrated, as they say, then offered, received, eaten, and drunk. And Christ says of that which is blessed, which is offered, received, eaten and drunk: This is My body; this is My blood. Therefore when the bread is indeed blessed but neither distributed nor received, but enclosed, shown, and carried about, it is surely clear that the whole word of institution is not added to the element, for this part is lacking: He gave [it] to them and said, Take and eat. And when the word of institution is incomplete there can be no complete Sacrament. In the same way it is also no true Baptism if the Word is indeed spoken over the water, but if there is no one who is baptized” (Ministry, Word, and Sacraments, trans. Luther Poellot [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1981], p. 121).”

Here’s a comment on the issue by a LCMS pastor from the Society of St Polycarp
abideinmyword.blogspot.com/2011/03/receptionism-and-lords-supper.html

Another LCMS pastor weighs in:
pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2010/11/consubstantiation-receptionism-and.html

 

[JonNC]

Here’s a comment on the issue by a LCMS pastor from the Society of St Polycarp
abideinmyword.blogspot.com/2011/03/receptionism-and-lords-supper.html

Another LCMS pastor weighs in:
pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2010/11/consubstantiation-receptionism-and.html

EvangelCatholic,
I am grateful to you for not only defending the real presence as Lutherans understand it, but also by siting LCMS pastors in your defense. Receptionism, in my view, has no supporting evidence in scripture, the Confessions, or the early Church. It is, at best, a heterodox teaching, that has lead to hideous practices in the past, regarding reverence to the reliquae. It is good to see the foolishness of receptionism put to rest.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

EvangelCatholic,
I am grateful to you for not only defending the real presence as Lutherans understand it, but also by siting LCMS pastors in your defense. Receptionism, in my view, has no supporting evidence in scripture, the Confessions, or the early Church. It is, at best, a heterodox teaching, that has lead to hideous practices in the past, regarding reverence to the reliquae. It is good to see the foolishness of receptionism put to rest.

Jon

You’re welcome, Jon

It is difficult finding much info on “receptionism” but the response among Missouri Synod Lutherans has been swift and strongly condemnatory. I looked at the webpages of these two LCMS priests and was not surprised that their parishes have tabernacles.

 

[pablope]

EvangelCatholic,
I am grateful to you for not only defending the real presence as Lutherans understand it, but also by siting LCMS pastors in your defense. Receptionism, in my view, has no supporting evidence in scripture, the Confessions, or the early Church. It is, at best, a heterodox teaching, that has lead to hideous practices in the past, regarding reverence to the reliquae. It is good to see the foolishness of receptionism put to rest.

Jon

Hmmm…first time I heard this term…so what is “Receptionism”?

 

[JonNC]

Hmmm…first time I heard this term…so what is “Receptionism”?

It is the belief that the body and blood are only present when the host and cup are received into the mouth.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Here’s an up to date discussion by Lutherans and Catholics

1. To the question of the real presence of Jesus Christ and its theological
   understanding is joined the question of the duration of this presence
   and with it the question of the adoration of Christ present in the sacrament
   also after the celebration. »Differences related to the duration of
   the eucharistic presence appear also in liturgical practice. Catholic and
   Lutheran Christians together confess that the eucharistic presence of
   the Lord Jesus Christ is directed toward believing reception, that it ne -
   vertheless is not confined only to the moment of reception, and that it
   does not depend on the faith of the receiver, however closely related to
   it this might be« (Eucharist 52).

lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/From%20Conflict%20to%20Communion.pdf

 

[elizaveta01]

I think I know where you are trying to take this and I would caution you that you are very close to being very offensive.

I’m sorry, but in what way is this “very close to being very offensive”. I stated facts from my life growing up as a Methodist, the fact that I found a specific Methodist writing to be vague, and the Catholic church’s teaching about Apostolic succession.

And actually I wasn’t “trying to take this” anywhere, as evidenced by the length of time it took me to even read the postings after mine.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m sorry, but in what way is this “very close to being very offensive”.

I’m not even sure SteveVH was addressing that to you.