Methodists and the Real Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I went back and looked at my post. No, it was not intended for you. Not sure what happened with adding your quotation, but I was responding the statement that “Jesus will be flushed down the toilet…” Sorry for the confusion. Again I’m not sure what happened but I have no issues at all with what you said. 🙂
 
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
Thanks a lot for this. So there seems to be quite a wide division of belief. I think the “receptionism” viewpoint suffers on several levels and the two links you provided addressed these issues quite well.

For all of the flack that the Catholic Church takes from various persons and faith traditions concerning the doctrine of Transubstantiation, this is exactly the reason that our doctrines are defined; to protect the one deposit of faith from erroneous notions. These are the types of issues that necessitated bishops coming together and forming councils for the purpose of defining doctrine in order that the faithful might know and understand the truth.

Abuses are inevitable under the receptionism viewpoint. Do you think it would be a good idea for Lutherans to sit down and hammer out a definitive doctrine on such an important matter? Is this even possible? If it is the true body and blood of our Lord, shouldn’t this issue be put to rest for the sake of the faithful?

Anyway I really appreciate all of the information you provided. Thanks again.

Steve
 
Thanks a lot for this. So there seems to be quite a wide division of belief. I think the “receptionism” viewpoint suffers on several levels and the two links you provided addressed these issues quite well.

For all of the flack that the Catholic Church takes from various persons and faith traditions concerning the doctrine of Transubstantiation, this is exactly the reason that our doctrines are defined; to protect the one deposit of faith from erroneous notions. These are the types of issues that necessitated bishops coming together and forming councils for the purpose of defining doctrine in order that the faithful might know and understand the truth.

Abuses are inevitable under the receptionism viewpoint. ** Do you think it would be a good idea for Lutherans to sit down and hammer out a definitive doctrine on such an important matter? Is this even possible? If it is the true body and blood of our Lord, shouldn’t this issue be put to rest for the sake of the faithful?**
Anyway I really appreciate all of the information you provided. Thanks again.

Steve
Yes, and the only way Lutherans can deal with doctrinal issues is restore bishops. All the resources I found, I posted since the rest were links advertising for a Lutheran church/ school receptionist :rolleyes:
 
Yes, and the only way Lutherans can deal with doctrinal issues is restore bishops. All the resources I found, I posted since the rest were links advertising for a Lutheran church/ school receptionist :rolleyes:
The information was quite helpful and presented both sides very well, I thought.

If you guys would just come on home you wouldn’t have to worry about restoring bishops. 😃
 
The information was quite helpful and presented both sides very well, I thought.

**If you guys would just come on home you wouldn’t have to worry about restoring bishops. ** 😃
Thats the goal that the ELCA proclaims and that the LCMS say in silence.
 
I went back and looked at my post. No, it was not intended for you. Not sure what happened with adding your quotation, but I was responding the statement that “Jesus will be flushed down the toilet…” Sorry for the confusion. Again I’m not sure what happened but I have no issues at all with what you said. 🙂
Ok, that makes a lot more sense. Computer glitches - gotta love em.
 
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 widow’s mite wasn’t made of gold but to Jesus it was thousands of times more valuable. All that is gold does not shine.

All the way through the Gospel Jesus uses those on the periphery as his heroes: the prodigal son, the good Samaritan, the zealot, the poor widow. Identifying those on the outside who are living examples of Jesus’ teaching (whether they know it or not), adopting their actions and breaking away from the majority is an integral part of the Good News and the cornerstone of His Church which is supposed to be ever changing, ever evolving, ever improving, ever becoming closer to Heaven. Jesus doesn’t want Miss Havisham for His Bride; He has Greater Expectations than that. He makes mention of virgins with full jars of oil, but that is another discussion.

My Grandmother was born Catholic and converted to Methodism in the 1920s at the time of the Great Depression. The Methodist Church rallied together to support each other in the face of adversity, helping as many as it could, Methodist or not. The Pope at the time, on the other hand said, “It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry.” “Fixed” and “Unchangeable” were not part of Jesus’ vocabulary so he changed the laws of physics to demonstrate that; Jesus fed the community of 5000 with the lunch of an individual boy and did not expect them to bring their own picnics.

Therefore, to answer the question about the “Real Presence”, Methodists on the periphery of Christianity are, in Jesus’ own words, statistically more likely to be recognised by Him than those who opt to be fixed and unchangeable in the majority. Most Methodists I know receive the Communion in awe, just like the 5000, and leave the physics and what is Real to Jesus. Communion is what it is and it is Universal. There are no exclusions or qualifications; Jesus had every opportunity to exclude Judas but He didn’t. We are not worthy to question or try to identify what Communion is or means; Jesus’ closest followers asked many questions, but when it came to the Communion they were tacit and ate.

Hope that helps.
 
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
Amen. Thank you, EvangelCatholic.

Steve, don’t feel bad. Non-Lutherans often notice that some Lutherans do not reserve the Sacrament, so they assume we must therefore be Receptionists. Of course, this could not be more false, as I have explained in other threads:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11100519&postcount=140
AND
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11102198&postcount=144
 
Amen. Thank you, EvangelCatholic.

Steve, don’t feel bad. Non-Lutherans often notice that some Lutherans do not reserve the Sacrament, so they assume we must therefore be Receptionists. Of course, this could not be more false, as I have explained in other threads:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11100519&postcount=140
AND
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11102198&postcount=144
I don’t feel bad. I’m just trying to figure out what you guys believe. 🙂
 
The widow’s mite wasn’t made of gold but to Jesus it was thousands of times more valuable. All that is gold does not shine.

All the way through the Gospel Jesus uses those on the periphery as his heroes: the prodigal son, the good Samaritan, the zealot, the poor widow. Identifying those on the outside who are living examples of Jesus’ teaching (whether they know it or not), adopting their actions and breaking away from the majority is an integral part of the Good News and the cornerstone of His Church which is supposed to be ever changing, ever evolving, ever improving, ever becoming closer to Heaven. Jesus doesn’t want Miss Havisham for His Bride; He has Greater Expectations than that. He makes mention of virgins with full jars of oil, but that is another discussion.

My Grandmother was born Catholic and converted to Methodism in the 1920s at the time of the Great Depression. The Methodist Church rallied together to support each other in the face of adversity, helping as many as it could, Methodist or not. The Pope at the time, on the other hand said, “It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry.” “Fixed” and “Unchangeable” were not part of Jesus’ vocabulary so he changed the laws of physics to demonstrate that; Jesus fed the community of 5000 with the lunch of an individual boy and did not expect them to bring their own picnics.

Therefore, to answer the question about the “Real Presence”, Methodists on the periphery of Christianity are, in Jesus’ own words, statistically more likely to be recognised by Him than those who opt to be fixed and unchangeable in the majority. Most Methodists I know receive the Communion in awe, just like the 5000, and leave the physics and what is Real to Jesus. Communion is what it is and it is Universal. There are no exclusions or qualifications; Jesus had every opportunity to exclude Judas but He didn’t. We are not worthy to question or try to identify what Communion is or means; Jesus’ closest followers asked many questions, but when it came to the Communion they were tacit and ate.

Hope that helps.
Welcome Michael42. A very thoughtful response 👍
 
I don’t feel bad. I’m just trying to figure out what you guys believe. 🙂
The best statement of what we believe is in the APology of the Augsburg Confession:
The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.
Tendered means offered, distributed, etc. Christ said, “This IS my body”, not This will be my body. There is no room in scripture or in the Confessions for receptionism.
I am reluctant to use the word heresy, but am very comfortable with the term “heterodox”.

Jon
 
Laying aside discussion of whether Methodist orders are valid or not.

Is it really possible to confect the body and blood of Christ when GRAPE JUICE is used?
 
The best statement of what we believe is in the APology of the Augsburg Confession:

Tendered means offered, distributed, etc. Christ said, “This IS my body”, not This will be my body. There is no room in scripture or in the Confessions for receptionism.
I am reluctant to use the word heresy, but am very comfortable with the term “heterodox”.

Jon
Thank you so much for this, Jon. What I found interesting were the words “truly and substantially present”. The basis for Transubstantiation.
 
Laying aside discussion of whether Methodist orders are valid or not.

Is it really possible to confect the body and blood of Christ when GRAPE JUICE is used?
Isn’t is the same as non-alcoholic wine?
 
Isn’t is the same as non-alcoholic wine?
No. “Non-alcoholic” really means “low-alcohol content.” Non-alcoholic wine is akin to something like an O’Doul’s near-beer ( 0.5% alcohol content, as opposed to the customary 6-12%).

Grape juice is, well… grape juice. Non-fermented sugar-water.

I like to homebrew.
 
Thank you so much for this, Jon. What I found interesting were the words "truly and substantially present".
The basis for Transubstantiation.

Indeed. And this is because both Lutherans and Catholics correctly profess the doctrine of the Real Presence. One of us simply doesn’t try to explain how a miracle happens. 😛 😃
 
Thanks a lot for this. So there seems to be quite a wide division of belief. I think the “receptionism” viewpoint suffers on several levels and the two links you provided addressed these issues quite well.

For all of the flack that the Catholic Church takes from various persons and faith traditions concerning the doctrine of Transubstantiation, this is exactly the reason that our doctrines are defined; to protect the one deposit of faith from erroneous notions. These are the types of issues that necessitated bishops coming together and forming councils for the purpose of defining doctrine in order that the faithful might know and understand the truth.

Abuses are inevitable under the receptionism viewpoint. Do you think it would be a good idea for Lutherans to sit down and hammer out a definitive doctrine on such an important matter? Is this even possible? If it is the true body and blood of our Lord, shouldn’t this issue be put to rest for the sake of the faithful?

Anyway I really appreciate all of the information you provided. Thanks again.

Steve
How can protestants define doctrine and dogma when they deny they have authority to do so? Sems to me that capability went out the window when sola scriptura came in. This is why protestantism has adopted the “big tent” concept whereby one denomination can not call another a heretic because their doctrine contradicts. Look at the great divide on Baptism for instance. Some say it is necessary for salvation others say it is not necessary. Yet they call each other “Brothers in the Lord”. How can that be?
 
Isn’t is the same as non-alcoholic wine?
Yes. Non alcoholic wine is not wine. It is grape juice and does not satisfy the requirement of valid matter. I believe that there is a minimal alcohol level required by the Church in order for it to be considered valid matter, and it is actually pretty high if I remember correctly. Grape juice does not suffice.
 
Isn’t is the same as non-alcoholic wine?
No, it is completely different. Grape juice is produced when the must is artificialy prevented from fermenting.

“non alcoholic wine” is normal wine that has most but not all of the alchohol removed, again by artificial means.

In nature all grape juice ferments unless it is stopped by freezing or pasteurisation.

The reason I brought this up is that the rubrics of the United Methodist Church states that pure juice of the grape is to be used.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top