Methodists believe in transubstantiation?

[Zooey]

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

That does make sense!!

:nerd:Note: For the benefit of people who wonder what on earth this is about: The elder joining body in the UMC was the Methodist Episcopal Church, whose roots go back directly to the Wesley family. (The Wesleys never left the Anglican Communion).
The other body, the Evangelical United Brethren, was the originally German-speaking Methodist body. And it was, indeed, a less liturgical church.
In many towns, there is now a “First” & a “Second” United Methodist Church. The “first” is most usually the former ME, though I dare say that, in areas once heavily settled by German speaking folk, that the former EUB building may have the distinction of being the actual first church.

 

[Roy5]

Actually, to be precise, the Methodist Episcopal Church did not join with the EUBs in 1968 to form the United Methodist Church. In 1939, the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the Methodist Protestant Church merged to become simply The Methodist Church.Then, in 1968, The Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church merged to become today’s United Methodist Church.

A few other details. The Methodist Episcopal Church which, as I recall, was organized in 1784, split off from the Anglican Church in the USA (Protestant Episcopal Church - its name at the time). There is a sense in which the Methodists were 'kicked out' as the Anglicans refused to ordain their Circuit Riders, preachers who spread Methodism by riding horseback everywhere, including frontier area. There used to be a saying when the weather was bad: "Only crows and Methodist preachers are out today." Then the Methodists split over slavery in 1845 - a long and complex story. John Wesley had been anti-slavery from the outset. Meanwhile, a smaller group, the Methodist Protestant church had emerged, protesting what it regarded as too much power with bishops, demanding more for laity. Anyway, they all merged in 1939.

 There also are three rather strong African-American Methodist denominations: African Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Zion, and the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. There may be, say, over 10,000 of their churches across the USA. The Methodists have been the second largest Christian group amonf African-Americans, the largest being the Baptists. People like Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, etc., were among noted Black Methodists.

 The term Episcopal can confuse people. It has nothing to do with the Episcopal Church. It simply means that these denominations came out of the old ME Church (as it was often called) and indicates the existence of the episcopacy, Bishops. Methodists in England and some other places do not have bishops. In Canada (and Australia, etc.) the Methodists have united with Congregationalists and Presbyterians - now known in Canada as the United Church of Canada.

 Too much detail? Probably. And there is much more. But we'll leave it at that.

 

[thistle]

Actually, to be precise, the Methodist Episcopal Church did not join with the EUBs in 1968 to form the United Methodist Church. In 1939, the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the Methodist Protestant Church merged to become simply The Methodist Church.Then, in 1968, The Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church merged to become today’s United Methodist Church.

A few other details. The Methodist Episcopal Church which, as I recall, was organized in 1784, split off from the Anglican Church in the USA (Protestant Episcopal Church - its name at the time). There is a sense in which the Methodists were 'kicked out' as the Anglicans refused to ordain their Circuit Riders, preachers who spread Methodism by riding horseback everywhere, including frontier area. There used to be a saying when the weather was bad: "Only crows and Methodist preachers are out today." Then the Methodists split over slavery in 1845 - a long and complex story. John Wesley had been anti-slavery from the outset. Meanwhile, a smaller group, the Methodist Protestant church had emerged, protesting what it regarded as too much power with bishops, demanding more for laity. Anyway, they all merged in 1939.

 There also are three rather strong African-American Methodist denominations: African Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Zion, and the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. There may be, say, over 10,000 of their churches across the USA. The Methodists have been the second largest Christian group amonf African-Americans, the largest being the Baptists. People like Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, etc., were among noted Black Methodists.

 The term Episcopal can confuse people. It has nothing to do with the Episcopal Church. It simply means that these denominations came out of the old ME Church (as it was often called) and indicates the existence of the episcopacy, Bishops. Methodists in England and some other places do not have bishops. In Canada (and Australia, etc.) the Methodists have united with Congregationalists and Presbyterians - now known in Canada as the United Church of Canada.

 Too much detail? Probably. And there is much more. But we'll leave it at that.

The bottom line remains the same. Methodists do not believe in transubstantiation.

 

[ChadS]

The bottom line remains the same. Methodists do not believe in transubstantiation.

No certainly not in transubstantiation, but as Roy5 has pointed out there is a group of a particularly Wesleyan bent that believes in some type of presence in Christ in the communion elements. This view however seems pretty small and not common among the vast majority of the members of the UMC.

ChadS

 

[O.S.Luke]

No, Methodists do not believe in Transubstantiation. We DO believe in the Real Presence at Eucharist - at least, officially. Some of course do not, just as some Roman Catholics don’t believe in transubstantiation or practice birth control in opposition to Catholic belief.

From This Holy Mystery, the official teaching on the Eucharist in the United Methodist Church (emphasis mine):

Christ’s presence in the sacrament is a promise to the church and is not dependent upon recognition of this presence by individual members of the congregation. Holy Communion always offers grace. We are reminded of what God has done for us in the past, experience what God is doing now as we partake, and anticipate what God will do in the future work of salvation. “We await the final moment of grace, when Christ comes in victory at the end of the age to bring all who are in Christ into the glory of that victory” (By Water and the Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding of Baptism, in BOR; page 816), and we join in feasting at the heavenly banquet table (Luke 22:14-18; Revelation 19:9).

The Christian church has struggled through the centuries to understand just how Christ is present in the Eucharist. Arguments and divisions have occurred over the matter. The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ’s presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully. John and Charles Wesley’s 166 Hymns on the Lord’s Supper are our richest resource for study in order to appreciate the Wesleyan understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. One of these hymns expresses well both the reality and the mystery: “O the Depth of Love Divine,” stanzas 1 and 4 (The United Methodist Hymnal, 627):

*O the depth of love divine, the unfathomable grace!
**Who shall say how bread and wine God into us conveys!
How the bread his flesh imparts, how the wine transmits his blood, ***
fills his faithful people’s hearts with all the life of God!

Sure and real is the grace, the manner be unknown;
only meet us in thy ways and perfect us in one.
Let us taste the heavenly powers, Lord, we ask for nothing more.
Thine to bless, ’tis only ours to wonder and adore.

–

This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion was adopted by the 2004 General Conference of The United Methodist Church. Copyright © 2003, 2004 The General Board of Discipleship of The United Methodist Church, PO Box 340003, Nashville TN 37203-0003. This paper may be printed, copied, distributed, or otherwise used for nonprofit education by individuals, local congregations, and agencies of The United Methodist Church with the inclusion of the copyright citation. It may not be used for profit or republication without prior permission.

 

[Windfish]

How is the Real Presence “conferred,” though, if you do not have apostolic succession? In other words, if your ministers cannot be traced back to Jesus Himself, who conferred His authority on His disciples, how do your ministers have any authority at all?

 

[O.S.Luke]

I can trace my ordination all the way back to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1600’s, but since Catholics don’t consider THAT ordination valid (Edwardian ordinal and all), it would be a moot point to most Catholics. Of course I consider my ordination valid - or I wouldn’t do what I do.

Of late, some evidence has turned up that John Wesley may have been ordained a bishop by an Orthodox bishop (Erasmus of Arcadia), and his ordination kept secret since the Praemunire Act was still in effect. But not everyone is agreeing on this point yet and the verdict is out, although I understand that one of the autocephalous Catholic Churches recognizes it as valid (I’m not sure which one). Of course, I can trace my ordination back that far.

I know it is a big deal to many. It’s been written about of late by many, but this article basically sums up the possible history and reasons.

I don’t lose a lot of sleep over it.

O+

 

[Windfish]

Interesting. I’ll have to research this more.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Interesting. I’ll have to research this more.

The problem with Anglican orders is that Edward VI changed the ritual for ordination. As a result, Anglicans could not pass on their orders from that point forward. Now, there are schismatic churches that may have valid orders (e.g., the Old Catholic Church) and which could theoretically pass on those orders to a Protestant minister. But that’s like Russian roulette. There is no way to know if the person conferring ordination actually has valid orders because there is lax or no enforcement of the ritual in a schismatic church. For example, if one of the “bishops” in the line of succession is a woman, all of her “ordinations” are void.

But let’s say that you have a Methodist church where they buy a loaf of bread from the grocery store and use it for Communion. Let’s say that the minister was ordained by someone from the Church of Sweden who had valid orders, so this minister does have valid orders. He consecrates the bread and you have yourself a valid Eucharist. After Communion, the Body of Christ is not stored in a tabernacle as Methodists have no such thing; instead, the Body of Christ is knifed in the kitchen and slices are given to hungry children who have no clue that it is in fact the Body of Christ. The remaining Body of Christ is then taken out to the backyard and torn to bits and thrown to the sparrows.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 11:20-30[/BIBLEDRB]

Participating in such a ritual may be hazardous to your health. So be careful what you wish for; it is for the Protestants’ own good that their communion is symbolic only.

 

[O.S.Luke]

It’s not symbolic to me or my tradition, Cat Herder. Of course, what you think on the matter doesn’t worry me too much.

 

[Cat_Herder]

It’s not symbolic to me or my tradition, Cat Herder. Of course, what you think on the matter doesn’t worry me too much.

Away put your weapon, I mean you no harm.

I think you’re well aware that you don’t speak for your tradition. No one speaks for United Methodism just like no one speaks for any Protestant tradition. Yes, there is a General Board of Discipleship, who can promulgate This Holy Mystery. But they can’t make individual elders accept the Real Presence. Accordingly, the number of Methodists (laity or elders) who accept the GBOD’s ruling on the Real Presence is somewhere between a minority and an infinitesimal fraction.

Conclusion: the GBOD doesn’t speak for United Methodism either; and it is just as symbolic as the majority view of communion.

 

[Roy5]

Cat Herder

I'm not sure we agree on all that much, but - true - there are only a relative handful of Methodists who believe in the Real Presence in any quantitative or qualitative way. Most believe in Christ's presence while we commune but no more than when we don't commune. However, we may be led by communion to feel a special closeness to Christ and acknowledge his presence.

 The Order of St; Luke keeps pushing Methodists toward higher liturgy and narrower doctrine, but they are like a grain of sand on a big beach.

On the other hand, Methodism is a 'big tent' which permits a wide range of belief. There are fundamentalists among them as well was crypto-Unitarians. Most Methodists are 'moderates' who follow a middle road with ready allowances for wide variation.

 Sadly, today US Protestantism has experienced a burst of evangelical enthusiasm, not in itself a bad thing, but leading in too many instances to a narrower intepretation of Christianity. That has led to massive mega-churches and independent and ultra-conservative congregations and such. In one sense some of this recaptures the zeal of early Methodism. But along with it has come more Biblical literalism and more powerful and dogmatic preachers. I see that as a step backward.

  I trace much of this to the desire of many people to be entertained by fiery ministers and mass choirs with catchy praise music. Ironically, this recaptures some of the original Methodist emphasis on personal religious experience. 

 My guess is that this phase will end and we will enter another phase. I worry that it may be the roar of secularism that has raced across most of western Europe and over into Canada. I was in Canada this past summer and the large Catholic Church in the hometown of my French-Canadian grandmother has a big 'for sale' sign (in French) on its front lawn! The churches there (mainly Catholic, of course) seem almost empty. Years ago I recall how French-Canadians were very devout, reliable attenders at Sunday mass. No more. A backlash? Not sure.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Away put your weapon, I mean you no harm.

I think you’re well aware that you don’t speak for your tradition. No one speaks for United Methodism just like no one speaks for any Protestant tradition. Yes, there is a General Board of Discipleship, who can promulgate This Holy Mystery. But they can’t make individual elders accept the Real Presence. Accordingly, the number of Methodists (laity or elders) who accept the GBOD’s ruling on the Real Presence is somewhere between a minority and an infinitesimal fraction.

Conclusion: the GBOD doesn’t speak for United Methodism either; and it is just as symbolic as the majority view of communion.

The General Conference approved This Holy Mystery - not the GBOD. General Conference action made it the official teaching of the denomination in 2004. As you may or may not know, the General Conference is the ONLY body that can officially speak for United Methodism. It is not a GBOD “ruling” - there is no such thing as a GBOD ruling.

By church law, any elder or deacon teaching something contrary to church law and teaching can be brought up on church law charges, since such is a chargeable offense. The General Conference, and the Book of Discipline, DOES speak for United Methodism.

Your “conclusion”, as well as your understanding of the polity and Discipline of the UMC, is incorrect in this matter.

 

[O.S.Luke]

The Order of St; Luke keeps pushing Methodists toward higher liturgy and narrower doctrine, but they are like a grain of sand on a big beach.

I don’t know what you have got against the Order of St. Luke, but like you say - we are a grain of sand on a big beach. You give us FAR too much credit to have single-handedly changed the sacramental theology of United Methodism! And if you think that the bulk of Order members are pushing toward narrowing doctrine, I would simply invite you to a retreat or annual meeting and then tell me what you think after meeting those folks.

The push towards reclaiming a Wesleyan sacramental theology came from a variety of sources - most of them historians and theologians who saw that Methodism had lost the very sacramental and evangelical nature that birthed it; people like Ed Phillips, Karen Westerfield Tucker, Geoffrey Wainwright, Don Saliers, Gayle Felton, Lawrence Stookey - none of them Order of St. Luke members. John Wesley’s sacramental theology was as high as his evangelical bent - and the hymns and liturgies of early Methodism prove it.

Sorry Roy, but history is not on your side.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The General Conference approved This Holy Mystery - not the GBOD. General Conference action made it the official teaching of the denomination in 2004. As you may or may not know, the General Conference is the ONLY body that can officially speak for United Methodism. It is not a GBOD “ruling” - there is no such thing as a GBOD ruling.

By church law, any elder or deacon teaching something contrary to church law and teaching can be brought up on church law charges, since such is a chargeable offense. The General Conference, and the Book of Discipline, DOES speak for United Methodism.

Your “conclusion”, as well as your understanding of the polity and Discipline of the UMC, is incorrect in this matter.

All of that is theoretical unless and until This Holy Mystery is actually enforced. Which will probably never happen because indicting the majority of elders is not realistic–but also because the Book of Discipline as a whole is not enforced. That’s not my conclusion, that’s reality. I know you want to change it but you’re going to have an easier time becoming Catholic and bringing like minded Methodists with you than getting the UMC to change.

P.S. General Conferences have no jurisdiction or authority except when they meet. They are not permanent organs. GBOD is one of several permanent organs that actually implement GC decisions. Correct?

 

[O.S.Luke]

All of that is theoretical unless and until This Holy Mystery is actually enforced. Which will probably never happen because indicting the majority of elders is not realistic–but also because the Book of Discipline as a whole is not enforced. That’s not my conclusion, that’s reality. I know you want to change it but you’re going to have an easier time becoming Catholic and bringing like minded Methodists with you than getting the UMC to change.

The liturgy in the present Hymnal is congruent to the theology of the UMC on the matter. So it is more than theoretical - it is ecclesial and it is practical. As far as “indicting” anyone: how many laity do you know have been excommunicated for practicing birth control, or not believing in transubstantiation? How many priests have been excommunicated for transgressions against canon law? A few I am sure… but not many.

P.S. General Conferences have no jurisdiction or authority except when they meet. They are not permanent organs. GBOD is one of several permanent organs that actually implement GC decisions. Correct?

Incorrect. The General Conference has jurisdiction from the day it begins until the last day of the quadrennium before the next General Conference. It’s makeup may change every four years, but its authority and jurisdiction is permanent. A General Conference can be convened at anytime.

GBOD is one of many general agencies (in this case, the discipleship branch) of the denomination that acts (or I should say, is SUPPOSED to act) under the direction of the General Conference and the Book of Discipline. In the language of government, the episcopacy is the executive branch, the general conference is the legislative branch, and the judicial council is the judicial branch. The only authority of the UMC is the General Conference, and it and its decisions present and past is the only authority that can speak for the UMC. All other entities in the church answer to, and fall under, its authority and jurisdiction.

That doesn’t mean it’s always followed, anymore than the Vatican and canon law is always followed by all Catholcis. But that is how it OFFICIALLY works.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The liturgy in the present Hymnal is congruent to the theology of the UMC on the matter. So it is more than theoretical - it is ecclesial and it is practical. As far as “indicting” anyone: how many laity do you know have been excommunicated for practicing birth control, or not believing in transubstantiation? How many priests have been excommunicated for transgressions against canon law? A few I am sure… but not many.

100% of Catholic priests accept transubstantiation. The ones that don’t are promptly laicized.

Incorrect. The General Conference has jurisdiction from the day it begins until the last day of the quadrennium before the next General Conference. It’s makeup may change every four years, but its authority and jurisdiction is permanent. A General Conference can be convened at anytime.

General Conference 2008 was permanently adjourned on May 7,2008.

GBOD is one of many general agencies (in this case, the discipleship branch) of the denomination that acts (or I should say, is SUPPOSED to act) under the direction of the General Conference and the Book of Discipline. In the language of government, the episcopacy is the executive branch, the general conference is the legislative branch, and the judicial council is the judicial branch. The only authority of the UMC is the General Conference, and it and its decisions present and past is the only authority that can speak for the UMC. All other entities in the church answer to, and fall under, its authority and jurisdiction.

United Methodist bishops have no authority apart from the GC? Then they aren’t bishops. And the church would be crypto-Presbyterian.

Has the Judicial Council EVER held an Elder to account for denying transubstantiation?

For that matter, when did they last adjudicate ANY case involving a matter of faith or doctrine?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Has the Judicial Council EVER held an Elder to account for denying transubstantiation?

For that matter, when did they last adjudicate ANY case involving a matter of faith or doctrine?

Scratch “transubstantiation”, sub “Real Presence.”

It’s getting too late.

 

[O.S.Luke]

General Conference 2008 was permanently adjourned on May 7,2008.

“Conference” is used in two ways in Methodism: (1) the two-week gathering, and (2) akin to “diocese.” The General Conference (some call it “Connection”) is divided into Jurisdictions, which are divided into Annual Conferences.

United Methodist bishops have no authority apart from the GC? Then they aren’t bishops. And the church would be crypto-Presbyterian.

Bishops are amenable to to the Book of Discipline, which is under the jurisdiction and and authority of the General Conference. Just like a Catholic bishop is under the authority of His Holiness, Canon Law, the Catechism, etc. If I am not mistaken, a Catholic Bishop’s authority extends only as far as Canon Law or the Magisterium allows. Bishops in any communion are not lone rangers. In the UMC, as in Catholicism, bishops appoint pastors, they are not hired as in a presbyterian system.

Has the Judicial Council EVER held an Elder to account for denying the Real Presence?

Not to my knowledge. There have been several cases regarding baptism, church membership, and ordination.

For that matter, when did they last adjudicate ANY case involving a matter of faith or doctrine?

That list would be too long to list here. The judicial council cases are a matter of public record, however. I’m sure they are on the NET somewhere.

If you’d like to continue to ask questions, feel free to do so my PM. We are straying off topic. I will also be out of town for a week beginning tomorrow.

O+

 

[Cat_Herder]

“Conference” is used in two ways in Methodism: (1) the two-week gathering, and (2) akin to “diocese.” The General Conference (some call it “Connection”) is divided into Jurisdictions, which are divided into Annual Conferences.

Bishops are amenable to to the Book of Discipline, which is under the jurisdiction and and authority of the General Conference. Just like a Catholic bishop is under the authority of His Holiness, Canon Law, the Catechism, etc. If I am not mistaken, a Catholic Bishop’s authority extends only as far as Canon Law or the Magisterium allows. Bishops in any communion are not lone rangers. In the UMC, as in Catholicism, bishops appoint pastors, they are not hired as in a presbyterian system.

In the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Churches) a bishop has “ordinary authority” in his diocese or eparchy. In the UMC the bishop only has that authority established by the GC, i.e. what is provided for in the BOD. That’s very different and more Presbyterian even though the model for assigning clergy is connectional.

Not to my knowledge. There have been several cases regarding baptism, church membership, and ordination.

It would be great to see the UMC stand up for the Real Presence, but I think we agree that this is not happening for complicated reasons.

That list would be too long to list here. The judicial council cases are a matter of public record, however. I’m sure they are on the NET somewhere.

Found them. The docket is pretty Spartan. So far I’ve yet to find a case having to do with faith or morals (other than defrocking of elders).

If you’d like to continue to ask questions, feel free to do so my PM. We are straying off topic. I will also be out of town for a week beginning tomorrow.

Have a good and safe trip, God bless.