Methodists believe in transubstantiation?

[vwtaylorii]

Apparently, my own Mother, a staunch Methodist and anti-Catholic, does.

She just got done telling me that, in her Methodist church this morning, they took communion and when they read the appropriate Scripture of “This is My Body; this is My Blood”, she was all “SEE? It’s right there! We too believe in transubstantiation.”

So I asked her, “you mean ALL Methodists believe in transubstantiation, that it’s more than just a symbol?”

“Well, I don’t know about others, but yes, we Methodists believe in it. I mean, it’s what I read this morning and I know my heart believes it, so there,” she replied.

“You mean that if I asked your pastor point-blank if he and every other Methodist believes in transubstantiation, he would say yes?” I asked.

“Well, I don’t really care what anyone else believes, I believe it and I’m the one who has to answer to God,” she said.

“So why aren’t you Catholic then?” I asked her with all sincerity.

“Because I’m Methodist. Why aren’t Catholics Methodist? It doesn’t matter; if someone needs their little fifedom (yes, she actually said ‘fifedom’) then they can have it,” she said. “That is, if a certain group needs their little ‘kingdom’ on communion, well, so be it.”

I completely gave up and beandipped to another subject.

How do I answer that? If I even can, that is; my Mother’s one of those people who believes what she believes and if you don’t like it, you know where you can go.

Your help, please?

I’m taking some scripture classes with a Methodist minister as a teacher and he believes in transubstantiation. I’m about to ask him why he’s not Catholic because right after class he goes to the library so I’m hoping one of these days I’ll be able to talk to him about it.

Well, I just read the official document from the Methodist Church on Communion, and it clearly shows they don’t believe in the real presence. On page 32 of the document, it states:

As Article XVIII of The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church makes
clear, United Methodism rejects any suggestion that the bread and wine used in
Communion are transformed or transubstantiated into other substances:

Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the
Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the
plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath
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. (BOD;
page 64)

Don’t take this the wrong way, I think your mother twosweetgirls and your friend JeffersonD should not be taking communion at a Methodist Church and consider looking into the Catholic Church. When taking Communion, we are saying with our body that we believe what the church body believe. Therefore, when they go up to receive communion at a Methodist Church, they are saying with their body, “I believe that I am taking a symbolic body and symbolic blood,” when in reality they believe in the real presence.

Here is the PDF file if you want to read more about it.

kintera.org/atf/cf/%7B3482e846-598f-460a-b9a7-386734470eda%7D/THM-BYGC.PDF

 

[saveusfromhell]

"

Methodists do not believe that the bread and wine (grape juice) become the body and blood of Christ yet retain the appearance of bread and wine (grape juice)

.

third day you do know this isn’t what catholics believe either?

 

[saveusfromhell]

"

Methodists do not believe that the bread and wine (grape juice) become the body and blood of Christ yet retain the appearance of bread and wine (grape juice)

.

third day i see you are a catholic i take it you do know this isn’t what catholics believe either?

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

There is very little “doctrine” in the Methodist church. They pride themselves on being a non-creedal church. There is great variation in their beliefs. Some are near orthodox Christianity and some are neo-pagans. The current day UMC is far from the days of Wesley. But they do hold an anti-Catholic bias. (Probably since many are former Catholics themselves.)
In their view the Catholics (okay and the Baptists) have too many rules, exclude too many people from heaven, and they’re too strict on their beliefs.
But God love 'em they do know how to sing and create fellowship.

 

[Cat_Herder]

There is very little “doctrine” in the Methodist church. They pride themselves on being a non-creedal church. There is great variation in their beliefs. Some are near orthodox Christianity and some are neo-pagans. The current day UMC is far from the days of Wesley. But they do hold an anti-Catholic bias. (Probably since many are former Catholics themselves.)
In their view the Catholics (okay and the Baptists) have too many rules, exclude too many people from heaven, and they’re too strict on their beliefs.
But God love 'em they do know how to sing and create fellowship.

I wouldn’t go so far in condemning all Methodists as being anti-Catholic. This too depends on the parish and pastor. Our local Methodist pastor has a very friendly relationship with the Catholic bishop and the bishop even speaks at the Methodist church sometimes.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

I wouldn’t go so far in condemning all Methodists as being anti-Catholic. This too depends on the parish and pastor. Our local Methodist pastor has a very friendly relationship with the Catholic bishop and the bishop even speaks at the Methodist church sometimes.

True… it’s nothing “official” nor something I would say is promoted by hierarchy. But something I encountered over and over at various adult sunday school classes.

I was a UMC’er for 7 years before I came back home to the church…

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

third day i see you are a catholic i take it you do know this isn’t what catholics believe either?

Could you explain? I understand him as saying that transubstantiation = bread and wine become body and blood and soul and divinity of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine

 

[tester]

There is very little “doctrine” in the Methodist church. They pride themselves on being a non-creedal church. There is great variation in their beliefs. …

in the spirit of truth :is anyone going to correct this statement?

 

[saveusfromhell]

sorry my bad i misread what was actually been said.

 

[thistle]

I wouldn’t go so far in condemning all Methodists as being anti-Catholic. This too depends on the parish and pastor. Our local Methodist pastor has a very friendly relationship with the Catholic bishop and the bishop even speaks at the Methodist church sometimes.

I agree. I was a Methodist for the first 44 years of my life and never heard any of our ministers say a bad word about the Catholic Church.

 

[StFrancisXavier]

Re Church Fathers

In my lifelong study of religion and search for truth, I read the Church Fathers such as St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian, Augustine, Tertuillian, Origen and various others. (It's been awhile back so I can't think of them all at the moment.) Then there were a variety of early Church Fathers who are not recognized as such because 'their side' did not win the early theological debates and they were banished as heretics of various kinds. 

 I concluded certain things about the Church Fathers. Let me list a few of them.

 1. For their time and age they were quite brilliant writers and thinkers.

 2. However, I was shocked and disappointed at how primitive so much of their thinking was. Some described God and heaven and hell in the most worldly terms. They clearly believed that the earth was the absolute center of the universe and that the rest of the celestial bodies were minor and small in comparison. They assumed, of course, that the sun revolved around the earth. Some traced disease to sin or to demons. Some imagined a literal devil with all the accountements of Satan - horns and the rest of it. Some were predicting that the Second Coming  and 'end times' were just around the corner (as certain evangelicals do today). Some had picked up miracles from extra-scriptural sources that have no basis in scripture - such as Jesus spoke as an infant in the cradle, he performed miracles as a child, he miraculously killed a boy because the other child had bumped against him.  Etc.

  3. I'm more interested in current theologians who have hundreds or thousands of times the knowledge that the Church Fathers had. I worry that too many Catholics seem determined to go back to a darker age when ignorance was rampant and few people were literate, and the world was bubbling over with superstition. I for one am not all that impressed by many of the bizarre teachings at that time.

Many of these Church Fathers came right after the twelve. These “ignorant” men were taught by the men who were taught by Christ Himself. Your argument is weak at best.

  4. There were, of course, competing schools of thought among early Christians. The Arians, the Modalists, the Monarchians, the Adoptionists, the Gnostics, the Monophysites, and on and on. If any of these or other 'heresies' had won out we would have been reading a whole different set of Church Fathers. None of these heresies lasted.  What did last was the Church Christ established.  Why is that?

  I was reading in the *US Catholic*, one of my favorite magazines, that one of their surveys showed that 43% of Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation. I'm not particularly interested in the debate. Christ promised to be with us, and that satisfies me. Whether he is somehow more in some bread and wine is less important than the assurance of his perpetual presence everywhere and 'always'. I'll settle for that.

Please know that it is not my intention to speak ill of you. There is much confusion regarding the Holy Catholic Church. If you truly open your heart to the Holy Spirit, the truth will set you free and the truth is the Kata Holos (καθόλου). May the peace of Christ be with you.

 

[Roy5]

A couple quick points

** 1. John Wesley is quoted as saying “think and let think”** and, also. 'if your heart is right, if you love God as I love God, let us join hands…" (or words to that effect). This is one reason Methodism is a ‘big tent’ church. And, by the way, Methodists don’t necessarily go along with Wesley on everything. Catholicism often seems to make the words of this or that ancient Church Father or Doctor of the Church authoritative. That is less likely, it appears, among Protestants. They emphasize individual freedom of thought, one of their strengths and weaknesses - both.

** 2. Did anyone see the latest Our Sunday Visitor? **I found two letters-to-the-editor especially thought-provoking.

** 3. Methodists are very ecumenical**, probably as much than any denomination, in part because they are not dogmatic. In their Bible classes, for example, different views are expressed with no one accusing anyone of ‘heresy’. In Canada and in Australia and elsewhere Methodists have joined with Congregationalists and Presbyterians to form a united church - etc. Methodists may strongly disagree with Catholicism but are not anti-Catholic. In my home village, for example, the Catholic Church works hanf-in-glove with mainline Protestant churches on several local projects and has joint observances at Christmas time and on Good Friday.

** 4. Some Catholics don’t realize and/or fail to understand that Methodists, as well as other Protestants, don’t poke fun at Catholic doctrines, such as transubstantiation**. They simply can’t bring themselves to believe them. They have high regard for communion as a special memorial, as a time for fellow Christians to feast together in the house of the Lord, as a time to reflect upon our Christ’s sacrifice and upon our own lives and weaknesses, a time for confession and recommitment and renewal, etc. Different Methodists (and Protestants generally) may interpret communion on different ways perhaps, but they cannot believe that they are receiving the literal body and blood of Jesus in the bread and wine (grapejuice). Methodists, like many Protestants, use grapejuice, in large part so as to make it available to everyone, and even a little wine can be a threat to an alcohol.
**
5. As for giving left-over bread to the birds,** that is a fairly common practice. Many would see this as compatible with Christian teaching, much in line with that of St. Francis of Assisi, that to feed birds is a positive thing. This may offend Catholics, but remember that Protestants generally don’t believe that the consecrated bread is other than bread. Giving it to the poor would certainly be another option, but rarely is there that kind of quantity left over.

** I know these things because I have followed different religions **throughout my life and try to have respect for all people who have a sincere faith. I suspect that Christ would urge us to do that. After all, he made Samaritans into heroes and they were despised by the chosen people. And read that little letter of I John 4:20-21. A warning there.

** God bless all of his children of every creed, color and country.** Let us work togther to make religion a bridge instead of a barrier and put aside our religious tribalism that can make us so judgmental and arrogant when it comes to viewing the faith of others.

 

[Cat_Herder]

A couple quick points

** 1. John Wesley is quoted as saying “think and let think”** and, also. 'if your heart is right, if you love God as I love God, let us join hands…" (or words to that effect). This is one reason Methodism is a ‘big tent’ church. And, by the way, Methodists don’t necessarily go along with Wesley on everything. Catholicism often seems to make the words of this or that ancient Church Father or Doctor of the Church authoritative. That is less likely, it appears, among Protestants. They emphasize individual freedom of thought, one of their strengths and weaknesses - both.

[BIBLEDRB]Phil 2:2[/BIBLEDRB]

** 3. Methodists are very ecumenical**, probably as much than any denomination, in part because they are not dogmatic.

[BIBLEDRB]Jude 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]

** 4. Some Catholics don’t realize and/or fail to understand that Methodists, as well as other Protestants, don’t poke fun at Catholic doctrines, such as transubstantiation**. They simply can’t bring themselves to believe them.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 11:24-30[/BIBLEDRB]

5. As for giving left-over bread to the birds,

that is a fairly common practice. Many would see this as compatible with Christian teaching, much in line with that of St. Francis of Assisi, that to feed birds is a positive thing. This may offend Catholics, but remember that Protestants generally don’t believe that the consecrated bread is other than bread. Giving it to the poor would certainly be another option, but rarely is there that kind of quantity left over.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 7:6[/BIBLEDRB]
Don’t get me wrong. I am all for ecumenism. But what God has said He has said.

 

[Roy5]

Cat Herder

If you can herd cats, congratulations!

Christ did speak of drinking his blood and eating his flesh, a strong argument used by Catholics.

 Protestants in general see these words as rather typical of the symbolic speech often used by Christ. For example, he claimed to be a door, a gate, the good Shepherd, etc. Thes were metaphors, not to be taken literally.

 There were mystery religions at that time, and some of them, such as Mithraism, a major competitor of Christianity, focused a lot on shedding blood. Various cults over the years have also.

 Now I know this is heresy, both from the viewpoint of Catholicism and of many Protestants, but this whole emphasis upon the necessity of blood sacrifice always has troubled me. Lots of reasons. It simply sounds pagan. A loving, merciful, just God demanding, as it were, his 'pound of flesh'? And from his only son? 

  Besides - and here we come to near blasphemy, so forgive if I offend - Christ underwent some hours of extreme pain but knew that he would rise in three days, redeem the world, and reign eternal in heaven forever. I mean - again, forgive - definitely a promising future. Compare with the millions over the centuries who have endured decades, even entire lives, of persecution, famine, pillage, gulags, oppression, and other forms of torture and atrocity. 

  So, I see Christ mainly as a guide to a holy life, whose death is an urgent call to that holy life, whose sacrifice calls us to sacrifice, whose pain echoes the pain of millions around the world, whose love tells us of the love of God our Father, etc. The idea that bread and wine become his flesh and blood for us to consume - um, I hesitate - but that strikes me as a relic of primitive times. I do celebrate, however, his devotion to righteousness, the courage of his message against the 'established church' of that time, his valor as he was led to Golgotha and nailed to the cross, his powerful words while on that cross, and through all this his victory over death. Herod and Pilate and other foes are gone while the wonderful words and indominable spirit of Jesus live on.

  Transubstantiation? I respect it as a belief of millions. But I've read that only about half of self-indentified US Catholics believe in it. I read recently this interesting comment, a sharp criticism made by a devout Catholic: "An awful lot of protestants go to mass." He meant, of course, that Catholic churches have millions of the cafeteria variety. They attend church but pick and choose what they believe, like Protestants are inclined to.

  But God bless Catholics, Protestants, and all His children of every creed, color and country. I'm quite convinced that he loves us all and wants us to live in peace and mutual respect. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[Cat_Herder]

 There were mystery religions at that time, and some of them, such as Mithraism, a major competitor of Christianity, focused a lot on shedding blood. Various cults over the years have also.

Was Judaism one of them?

Beware of hasty generalizations.

 Now I know this is heresy, both from the viewpoint of Catholicism and of many Protestants, but this whole emphasis upon the necessity of blood sacrifice always has troubled me. Lots of reasons. It simply sounds pagan. A loving, merciful, just God demanding, as it were, his 'pound of flesh'? And from his only son?

God was entirely entitled to demand that every sinner die.

But then there was Calvary. There, God’s Son drank the cup of wrath down to the dregs.

Now there is no more wrath, but we must be in Christ Jesus to avail ourselves of His sacrifice. That is accomplished by Baptism. Jesus demanded in no uncertain terms that His disciples be baptized.
[BIBLEDRB]Mark 16:16[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Romans 6:4[/BIBLEDRB]

Yet many people reject baptism as something pagan using language similar to yours. That begs the question below.

Besides - and here we come to near blasphemy, so forgive if I offend -

None taken.

Christ underwent some hours of extreme pain but knew that he would rise in three days, redeem the world, and reign eternal in heaven forever. I mean - again, forgive - definitely a promising future. Compare with the millions over the centuries who have endured decades, even entire lives, of persecution, famine, pillage, gulags, oppression, and other forms of torture and atrocity.

  So, I see Christ mainly as a guide to a holy life, whose death is an urgent call to that holy life, whose sacrifice calls us to sacrifice, whose pain echoes the pain of millions around the world, whose love tells us of the love of God our Father, etc.

Question: Did He acutually rise? Or is that another figurative symbolism? How do you know the difference?

The idea that bread and wine become his flesh and blood for us to consume - um, I hesitate - but that strikes me as a relic of primitive times.

Well, it’s in the Bible.

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:51-53[/BIBLEDRB]

Is the Bible also a relic of primitive times? Or the written Word of the eternal God?

   But God bless Catholics, Protestants, and all His children of every creed, color and country. I'm quite convinced that he loves us all and wants us to live in peace and mutual respect. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all of these things will be added onto you.

 

[Redbaron998]

I grew up Methodist and I can saw pretty confidently noone at any of the 3 UMC i attended believed the lil bread and grapejuice was the real Body and Blood.

I guess some individuals may but I have never meet one in all my Methodist years, there really isnt a united belief set held by most Methodists in my experince, they just all kinda like Wesley.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

I guess some individuals may but I have never meet one in all my Methodist years, there really isnt a united belief set held by most Methodists in my experince, they just all kinda like Wesley.

Agreed. Although most modern Methodists know absolutely nothing about JW nor have actually read or heard any of his writings or sermons. The only reason I stayed Methodist during my wandering away from the Catholic church is because of what the Wesely’s taught 200 years ago… however, almost none of it is taught today or is greatly misunderstood

Here’s a great piece on Wesley on the anniversary of his 300th birthday
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/meth-council-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20030622_methodist-church_en.html

 

[ChadS]

I grew up in the United Methodist Church and we were certainly never taught that the bread and grape juice was never anything else other than symbolic.

However, there was another thread here on CAF about the UMC and transubstantiation and they seemed to make a pretty convincing case that the “official” position now is that they believe Christ is truly present in the sacrament, even if they don’t like the word transubstantiation.

I spoke to my cousin about this, who is an ordained minister in the UMC, and she says there is a group within the church attempting to bring the UMC back to a more Wesleyan and Anglican understanding of liturgy and sacraments, stressing Wesley’s teachings and hymns more. She thinks this is where the idea that Christ is present in communion is strongest and best reflected.

Then there is the other strain in the church trying to keep the patrimony of the Evangelical United Brethern alive and well. These people are more likely than not going to believe that communion is purely symbolic.

So I wonder if the different opinions on communion are stronger depending on which denomination was the stronger body when the UMC was formed back in the late 1960s? For example my mother’s family was EUB when she was younger and so were all of her aunts, uncles and cousins. Many of the families in my old congregation traced their roots back to the EUB, so our theology on communion would more likely reflect that.

ChadS

 

[Roy5]

Yes, there is a small group within Methodism, primarily the Order of St. Luke, that is more liturgically oriented, and pushes for a ‘high church’ interpretation of communion. Not transubstantiation, but some sense of a special presence of Christ in/with the elements.

 Actually, don't all Christians believe that Christ is with us everywhere, as he promised. "Lo, I am with you always..."?  I guess I don't understand that if Christ is with us everywhere how can he be more in one place than another. Is Christ divided into a less-present presence and a more-present presence.

 A few Methodists I know bend toward the Episcopal and Lutheran traditions. Others are more like the UCC and Presbyterian traditions. Some resemb le moderate Baptists. There's an old saying that if you take an Episcopalian and a Baptist, get them into a burlap bag, and shake vigorously, they will come out as two Methodists. The problem: getting that Episcopalian and Baptist into that burlap bag!

 

[Cat_Herder]

Yes, there is a small group within Methodism, primarily the Order of St. Luke, that is more liturgically oriented, and pushes for a ‘high church’ interpretation of communion. Not transubstantiation, but some sense of a special presence of Christ in/with the elements.

 Actually, don't all Christians believe that Christ is with us everywhere, as he promised. "Lo, I am with you always..."?  I guess I don't understand that if Christ is with us everywhere how can he be more in one place than another. Is Christ divided into a less-present presence and a more-present presence.

Obviously Christ was more present at, say, Calvary than He was at any time prior to the Incarnation.

Beware of hasty generalizations. All of those escape hatches are booby-trapped, and not by me.