Methodists

[RevNeal]

Rev Neal, when you say it goes too far to assert that the Real Presence is simply spiritual, do I understand you correctly then to say official UMC teaching would be that we do not know if His Real Presence is spiritual or physical or both, and you leave it to be a mystery?

Not quite. It’s the qualifiers that are the problem here: His Real Presence is certainly spiritual, but we would deny that it is simply spiritual. We would absolutely deny that His Real Presence is only figurative or only symbolic or only a memorial, even though there are figurative, symbolic, and memorial aspects within the Sacrament. To put this another way, apart from the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit, the official United Methodist position is to refuse to assert a mechanism for Jesus’ Real Presence; likewise, we refuse to define how Jesus is present other than to affirm that He is and that His Presence can be known and experienced by faith. We do not limit His Real Presence to the faith of the believer, however, even though we affirm that it is by faith that he is received.

This Holy Mystery contains the following statements on Real Presence:

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.

And,

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.

And,

Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord’s Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial. We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, though we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. We understand the divine presence in temporal and relational terms. In the Holy Meal of the church, the past, present, and future of the living Christ come together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we may receive and embody Jesus Christ as God’s saving gift for the whole world.

Sometimes Methodists misunderstand the Articles of Religion to be teaching that Jesus is present only in a Spiritual, symbolic, or figurative sense. The pertinent section of Article XVIII reads:

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.

This statement is thought to mean that Jesus’ presence isn’t real, but only symbolic, spiritual, or figurative. This is a total misunderstanding, however. The Article speaks to how the Real Presence is made Real, not to its nature. This Article is saying that it is the Holy Spirit who makes it possible for us to “eat His flesh and drink his blood.” We refuse to define how the Holy Spirit does this, although we do affirm that it is only through faith that the Sacrament brings sanctification. If eaten without faith, Article XVI warns us that the Sacrament brings condemnation.

For me, it’s enough to believe that Jesus said “This is my body” and “this is my blood.” It’s enough for me to believe that Jesus said: “I am the bread of life” and “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” It is enough for me to hear his promise, believe in him, and know that just as the Holy Spirit overshadowed the Blessed Virgin Mary and she conceived Jesus in her womb, so also the Holy Spirit overshadows the bread and the wine and, through the instrumentality of these elements of creation, God is conveyed into me when I eat and drink them. How is this possible? Humility calls me to confess that I cannot say; I simply know that it’s true because each and every time I stand and pray the Great Thanksgiving, break the bread, and commune my people and myself, I have known and experienced the Real, abiding, life transforming Presence of my Lord and Savior in and through the Sacrament. As this Holy Mystery States:

Jesus Christ, who “is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Hebrews 1:3), is truly present in Holy Communion. Through Jesus Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit, God meets us at the Table. God, who has given the sacraments to the church, acts in and through Holy Communion. Christ is present through the community gathered in Jesus’ name (Matthew 18:20), through the Word proclaimed and enacted, and through the elements of bread and wine shared (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The divine presence is a living reality and can be experienced by participants; it is not a remembrance of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion only.

 

[Roy5]

My own position, for what it’s worth, is that Christians should be free to interpret communion as they feel led. Those who want to engage in conversation as to just how Jesus is present - fine. Those who see communion as primarily a memorial - fine. Those who find strength in it as a reminder of God’s presence and grace - fine. Those who see it as a celebrative meal for brothers and sisters of the household of faith - fine. And there are other interpretations, also.

I strongly advocate 'big tent' Christianity. There are endless mysteries surrounding us with perhaps a million stars out there - or maybe a billion. I am always skeptical when we try to understand all this. We're called upon to live by faith.

Increasingly over the years I have been troubled by Catholicism and those evangelical Protestants (and some 'high church' Protestants, too) who pontificate on the meaning of such things. And those who disagree are dismissed as wrong! My own guess is that none of us comes close to comprehending all that much. This universe is so mammoth and magnificent and miraculous and mysterious.  We're called upon to love, be humble, and live by simple faith. All these complex doctrines are okay for those who are into them, and I don't knock them, but I don't find them very important. Reread, for example, the Parable of the good Samaritan. Not a word about doctrine, liturgy or church affiliation. Or, what about Matt. 25:31-46. Nothing about doctrine, liturgy or church affiliation there, either..

Consider, briefly, the Apostles Creed. Do we really have to believe that our bodies will resurrect as the creed says at its conclusion? I'm not sure I do. And how useful is the image of Christ sitting on the right hand of God the Father. Ancient theologians, with their limited three-tier view of the world, found that credible. I find it antiquated and misleading.

 My main point, however, would be that Christians should imitate Methodists and others who place less emphasis on theological cookie-cutter conformity and liturgical legalism (worship must follow a specific ritual) and more emphasis on living for Jesus, loving God and serving one another, following Christ's example.

 God bless Catholics, Protestants, and people of every creed, color, culture, and country. Let's make religion less of a barrier and more of a bridge.

 

[CMatt25]

Not quite. It’s the qualifiers that are the problem here: His Real Presence is certainly spiritual, but we would deny that it is simply spiritual. We would absolutely deny that His Real Presence is only figurative or only symbolic or only a memorial, even though there are figurative, symbolic, and memorial aspects within the Sacrament. To put this another way, apart from the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit, the official United Methodist position is to refuse to assert a mechanism for Jesus’ Real Presence; likewise, we refuse to define how Jesus is present other than to affirm that He is and that His Presence can be known and experienced by faith. We do not limit His Real Presence to the faith of the believer, however, even though we affirm that it is by faith that he is received.

I am sorry if I am being difficult but I just want to be certain I am clear on what UMC officlal position is. So would I be correct to say this about official teaching:

Christ’s spiritual presence is a given. And He is present within those members of the Body of Christ who partake in faith. But whether or not He is present physically in Holy Communion as Catholics believe is not defined. But if He is, it is a mystery how.

 

[CMatt25]

My own position, for what it’s worth, is that Christians should be free to interpret communion as they feel led. Those who want to engage in conversation as to just how Jesus is present - fine. Those who see communion as primarily a memorial - fine. Those who find strength in it as a reminder of God’s presence and grace - fine. Those who see it as a celebrative meal for brothers and sisters of the household of faith - fine. And there are other interpretations, also.

I strongly advocate 'big tent' Christianity. There are endless mysteries surrounding us with perhaps a million stars out there - or maybe a billion. I am always skeptical when we try to understand all this. We're called upon to live by faith.

Increasingly over the years I have been troubled by Catholicism and those evangelical Protestants (and some 'high church' Protestants, too) who pontificate on the meaning of such things. And those who disagree are dismissed as wrong! My own guess is that none of us comes close to comprehending all that much. This universe is so mammoth and magnificent and miraculous and mysterious.  We're called upon to love, be humble, and live by simple faith. All these complex doctrines are okay for those who are into them, and I don't knock them, but I don't find them very important. Reread, for example, the Parable of the good Samaritan. Not a word about doctrine, liturgy or church affiliation. Or, what about Matt. 25:31-46. Nothing about doctrine, liturgy or church affiliation there, either..

Consider, briefly, the Apostles Creed. Do we really have to believe that our bodies will resurrect as the creed says at its conclusion? I'm not sure I do. And how useful is the image of Christ sitting on the right hand of God the Father. Ancient theologians, with their limited three-tier view of the world, found that credible. I find it antiquated and misleading.

 My main point, however, would be that Christians should imitate Methodists and others who place less emphasis on theological cookie-cutter conformity and liturgical legalism (worship must follow a specific ritual) and more emphasis on living for Jesus, loving God and serving one another, following Christ's example.

 God bless Catholics, Protestants, and people of every creed, color, culture, and country. Let's make religion less of a barrier and more of a bridge.

Roy, my screen name came about from the verses you share from Matt 25. But you state better what it is in my heart and what I have been attempting to explain far better than I ever have. Thank you for all you contribute to the forum. God bless you and indeed all His Creation. Peace.

 

[RevNeal]

I am sorry if I am being difficult but I just want to be certain I am clear on what UMC officlal position is. So would I be correct to say this about official teaching:

Christ’s spiritual presence is a given. And He is present within those members of the Body of Christ who partake in faith. But whether or not He is present physically in Holy Communion as Catholics believe is not defined. But if He is, it is a mystery how.

Not quite. That’s close, but it’s not quite there.

We would say that the totality of Jesus’ Presence in and through the Eucharist is a Holy Mystery: this goes for spiritual as well as physical presence because I don’t believe we make a distinction between the two natures. Rather, we affirm that the entirety of Jesus’ Real Presence – body, soul, mind, and spirit – is a mysterious working of the Holy Spirit. We affirm that His Presence in the Eucharist isn’t dependent upon the Faith of the communicant but, rather, upon the Holy Spirit; our receiving Christ in and through the Eucharist does depend upon faith, however.

For me, there is no question that Jesus is bodily present in the Eucharist. How He is present is beyond my comprehension, just as His spiritual presence is beyond my comprehension. I simply know that He is there.

 

[Roy5]

Not quite. That’s close, but it’s not quite there.

We would say that the totality of Jesus’ Presence in and through the Eucharist is a Holy Mystery: this goes for spiritual as well as physical presence because I don’t believe we make a distinction between the two natures. Rather, we affirm that the entirety of Jesus’ Real Presence – body, soul, mind, and spirit – is a mysterious working of the Holy Spirit. We affirm that His Presence in the Eucharist isn’t dependent upon the Faith of the communicant but, rather, upon the Holy Spirit; our receiving Christ in and through the Eucharist does depend upon faith, however.

For me, there is no question that Jesus is bodily present in the Eucharist. How He is present is beyond my comprehension, just as His spiritual presence is beyond my comprehension. I simply know that He is there.

 With all due respect, this may be the position of the Order of St. Luke, a tiny lobby within Methodism, but it hardly reflects the position of Methodists generally. What makes Methodism (and others) attractive to me is that it doesn't have a whole set of precise doctrines and liturgies that are set in stone. Go to one Methodist church and you see the heavy influence of Anglicanism, the affiliation of John Wesley (an Anglican priest). Go to another Methodist church and you experience that informality that you would find among Baptists and even Pentecostalists. Most UM churches are somewhere in between. Methodism swept America in the 19th century in large part because it was not theologically or litugically rigid. Can you picture Circuit Riders carrying their vestments on horseback? Methodist preachers rarely wore robes in those days. The emphasis was upon the experiencing Christ in our daily lives, ernestly seeking to follow him, feeling the presence of the Holy Spirit, and not upon lock-step theology or ritual.

 I admire Methodism because of its freedom from conformity. That admiration will cease if and when it begins to require congruity and sameness. 

 As for communion, let me repeat my personal view that Christians should be free to interpret it in whatever way they find most meaningful. I see it as a combination of things: (1) a time to acknowledge the continuing and everlasting spiritual  presence of Christ, according to his promise; (2) a feast of Christians together in celebration of faith and family; (3) an opportunity to evaluate our lives, repent as needed, and resolve to live as positive and Christ-like lives as possible "in love and charity with our neighbors"; and (4) an occasion to remember the message and sacrifice of Christ. 

 No offense intended, but the notion that somehow Christ is in the elements in some special way is fine for those who can believe it - "think and let think" as Wesley said - but has always struck me as a relic of an earlier age when superstition, the mystery cults, etc., were a major influence upon early Christianity, too often putting more emphasis upon doctrine about Jesus than upon the actual teachings of Christ. Early Christianity got bogged down in bitter debates over the nature of Christ (and such) and developed the sad idea that 'heretics' must be put down, ostracized, condemned, often executed. Isn't it sad that Jesus told us to love one another, but instead Christians began to murder one another? "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"   

 Who was it who said: "Christianity hasn't failed. It's never been really tried." If we all were Quakers or Mennonites maybe we could have avoided all the nonsense that fills our headlines day after day. And the Quakers and Mennonites make very little out of ornate cathedrals and colorful vestments. 

 But, I shouldn't be judging. I repeat: "Thaink and let think!" God bless everybody.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Personally, I think Methodists have much more in common with Catholicism than other Protestants. Their emphasis on the process of salvation and sanctification is what sets them apart (and I had a “High Methodist” acquaintance once who received Communion kneeling . . .).

The Methodist religious Order of St Luke encourages its members to pray eight times daily and publishes their own liturgical texts for the purpose (including a sanctoral).

“Methodism” as such was a movement within High Church Anglicanism and their “Method” was the exact following of the Book of Common Prayer.

John Wesley’s exhortations to prayer “one to three hours morning and evening” with the “observance of the Apostolic Hours during the day” with fasting, reading of the Scriptures and frequent Holy Communion - if Catholics followed these recommendations, we would have a very vibrant Church indeed!

I once came across a book written by a Catholic on Wesley and the author said that he had come to see the Wesleys as saints and invoked their intercession privately and regularly.

Alex

 

[RevNeal]

With all due respect, this may be the position of the Order of St. Luke, a tiny lobby within Methodism, but it hardly reflects the position of Methodists generally.

It also reflects the teaching of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church in it’s official publication: “This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion.” The document makes no reference to “bodily presence,” but neither does it make a reference to “spiritual presence.” It simply references Jesus’ Real Presence, for example, in this way:

In the Holy Meal of the church, the past, present, and future of the living Christ come together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we may receive and embody Jesus Christ…

This statement clearly makes room for what is usually understood as “bodily presence” even though it deliberately is not spelled out as such.

What makes Methodism (and others) attractive to me is that it doesn’t have a whole set of precise doctrines and liturgies that are set in stone. Go to one Methodist church and you see the heavy influence of Anglicanism, the affiliation of John Wesley (an Anglican priest). Go to another Methodist church and you experience that informality that you would find among Baptists and even Pentecostalists. Most UM churches are somewhere in between. Methodism swept America in the 19th century in large part because it was not theologically or litugically rigid. Can you picture Circuit Riders carrying their vestments on horseback? Methodist preachers rarely wore robes in those days. The emphasis was upon the experiencing Christ in our daily lives, ernestly seeking to follow him, feeling the presence of the Holy Spirit, and not upon lock-step theology or ritual.

I don’t disagree. Quite the contrary, I also believe that our diversity and freedom of thought and faith is a great strength. And, within that spectrum, what I have described does find a place. The United Methodist Church’s formal statement on Holy Communion has room in it for what I stated.

I admire Methodism because of its freedom from conformity. That admiration will cease if and when it begins to require congruity and sameness.

One of the reasons why I stay within Methodism is precisely this quality – it has room for the likes of me.

As for communion, let me repeat my personal view that Christians should be free to interpret it in whatever way they find most meaningful. I see it as a combination of things: (1) a time to acknowledge the continuing and everlasting spiritual presence of Christ, according to his promise; (2) a feast of Christians together in celebration of faith and family; (3) an opportunity to evaluate our lives, repent as needed, and resolve to live as positive and Christ-like lives as possible “in love and charity with our neighbors”; and (4) an occasion to remember the message and sacrifice of Christ.

 No offense intended, but the notion that somehow Christ is in the elements in some special way is fine for those who can believe it - "think and let think" as Wesley said - but has always struck me as a relic of an earlier age when superstition, the mystery cults, etc., were a major influence upon early Christianity, too often putting more emphasis upon doctrine about Jesus than upon the actual teachings of Christ. Early Christianity got bogged down in bitter debates over the nature of Christ (and such) and developed the sad idea that 'heretics' must be put down, ostracized, condemned, often executed. Isn't it sad that Jesus told us to love one another, but instead Christians began to murder one another? "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"   

 Who was it who said: "Christianity hasn't failed. It's never been really tried." If we all were Quakers or Mennonites maybe we could have avoided all the nonsense that fills our headlines day after day. And the Quakers and Mennonites make very little out of ornate cathedrals and colorful vestments. 

 But, I shouldn't be judging. I repeat: "Thaink and let think!" God bless everybody.

I understand. In leading the study on “This Holy Mystery” around the Connection over the last 6 years I have encountered this kind of thought, repeatedly, among many – not most, but many. The reaction to the UMC’s officially approved Understanding of Holy Communion tends to be positive in its breadth and depth, even when and where there are a those which struggle with its Sacramental nature – with the whole idea of Means of Grace Theology. You appear to be one who struggles with it and, in the end, comes out on the Zwinglian end of of the equation. And there is, indeed, an element of modernists within the UMC which views anything metaphysical, spiritual, or in any way “miraculous” to be “superstitious” and “cultish.” I tend to be more of a post-modernist. I have no problem accepting the miraculous, the metaphysical, and that which I cannot explain but can only experience.

When teaching “This Holy Mystery,” I have approached individuals who come with your perspective with the Wesleyan Quadralateral.

Scripture, Tradition, and Experience teach us, demonstrate to us, promise us, reveal to us that Jesus is Really Present … even though His presence is beyond our Reason … beyond our rational faculties to explicate. We simply know it is true.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

As I mentioned earlier, Methodism is a ‘big tent’ denomination, which I admire. In other words, you can be a Methodist in good standing and disagree with the Methodist in the pew beside you, in front of you, behind you, etc. There is considerable emphasis upon a freedom to believe as you feel led without judging harshly those who may believe otherwise. I doubt if there is a more ecumenically-minded church than the UMC, though the Presbyterian USA, the United Church of Christ, and the Disciples of Christ are among those similarly oriented.

This is my biggest issue with protestantism.

How can you be in communion with your brother if you believe differently? Part of communion is a shared belief.

That is part of what drove me away and fully into the Catholic communion.

 

[CMatt25]

This is my biggest issue with protestantism.

How can you be in communion with your brother if you believe differently? Part of communion is a shared belief.

Right a shared belief as Christians in Christ. It is this unity and He Who are greater than any differences in understanding we mere humans on earth might have. God bless and peace to all His children who walk the earth.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Right a shared belief as Christians in Christ.

Yes, that is the beginning but there is more to being a Christian than just a belief in Christ.

 

[CMatt25]

Yes, that is the beginning but there is more to being a Christian than just a belief in Christ.

I know. Things Christ actually mentioned include peacemakers being blessed. And in Matt 25 He spoke of how those serving the hungry, the homeless, who take care of the sick, serve Him, and obtain eternal life. And His main theme was love. Not extensive rules. With love being the most important thing of all. Peace.

 

[Roy5]

This is my biggest issue with protestantism.

How can you be in communion with your brother if you believe differently? Part of communion is a shared belief.

That is part of what drove me away and fully into the Catholic communion.

Fair question. For me it’s simple. I respect the opinion of others and trust they respect my opinion. The *US Catholic *magazine. a favorite of mine, found in a poll that roughly 50% of Catholics reject ‘transubstantiation’ , the very heart of Catholic theology. I suspect that you share communion with such Catholics at mass on a regular basis.

My own observation is that some people need a dogmatic faith which closely guides their thinking when it comes to a large number of theological details. Fine. Then  there are many who enjoy scouting the 'theological field', maybe finding this dogma reasonable and another questionable. The former group are apt to feel that they have the truth and everyone else is wrong, and fret that the souls of such 'heretics' may even be in peril. The latter group, to which I apparently belong, loves to chat about this or that religious opinion, without assailing those whose views differ from my own. Such Bible classes - free-wheeling classes - are inspiring, thought-provoking, and productive of many intense but amiable discussions.  

 If people need a dogmatic faith, no problem. Traditional Catholicism, fundamentalist Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy provide this, along with traditional Islam, etc. For those who want a faith less dependent upon ancient tradition, sola scriptura, a Pope or a preacher, and more engaged in exploring matters of faith, these may not suffice. I myself don't think we know enough about this amazing universe, so we need to be humble and respect other opinions, often as valid (maybe more so) than our own. I'm always interested in thoughtful opinions of others.

Rev. Neal.

The General Conference may have published such a statement re communion. The GC doesn’t pretend to be infallible, nor do many Methodists take their statements seriously or even know what they are. The UMC ‘hierarchy’ is not authoritative when it comes to liturgy or theology. Thank God for that.

One other thing, with all due respect. Those who are hyped up about liturgy and theology are the ones who rush to serve on committees that work on such statements. They rarely are representative of the rank-and-file.

 If the Methodists ever become 'top down' - issue fatwas that Methodists must follow - my admiration for them will quickly disappear. It is their willingness to accommodate so many opinions that makes me think so highly of them. They have allowed plenty of room for the Holy Spirit to operate freely. Personally, I worry that some churches are moving toward more liturgy, one of the reasons its communicants have dropped off. Too dull.  It used to be that ministers - for example - preached to what they felt led to preach on. Now this is largely determined by the uniform lectionary. That has advantages for the minister. S/he can find all sorts of sermon aids for this or that Sunday. Ministers now get together to discuss the scriptural selections. Etc. But something is lost when such uniformity is achieved. I could go into detail but need to focus on other projects. Anibg other things, many preachers deliver their messages like lectures rather than with a sense of excitement and commitment. No wonder. The topic was not chosen by them but by some committee elsewhere.

 God bless the whole world.

 

[Roy5]

Dr. Neal

This is a reponse I planned earlier, then lost it! My inapptitude when it comes to computers - plus having a new program installed recently. Some of this repeats what I have said in my most recent posting since I thought this was lost - forever!

 Am happy that we agree on so much. As for the 'approved Understanding' - well, I know what happens. Those who are 'high church' get on the committees that prepare such statements because they are so hyped up on such matters as communion. 

 To begin with, I reject the whole idea of 'approved Understanding' because it seems to rule out 'unapproved Understanding'. Besides, it reflects only a tiny minority of Methodists, mostly ministers, who want to reshape Methodists into Episcopalians and/or Lutherans. Most Methodists, in my view, feel closer to Presbyterians and the UCC. 

  I am quite well-acquainted with Canada, since my paternal family is of French-Canadian origin. There, as you know, Methodists, Congregationalists and the majority of Presbyterians have merged to become the United Church of Canada. A similar merger is happening in Australia. Since British Methodists don't have bishop this is not a stumbling block in those countries as it could be here.

  One of my problems with Catholicism, the faith on my paternal side, is that it is so permeated by miracles, apparitions, relics, saints,and the like. I believe this is one of the reasons so many have left Catholicism in Europe and here in the USA.  Most Catholics I know remain Catholic because of emotional, family, or other practical considerations, not because they accept such traditions. In a survey I read in the US Catholic about half of Catholics surveyed rejected transubstantiation, a central pillar of Catholic faith and liturgy.

 That's all for now.

 Keep smiling though.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I know. Things Christ actually mentioned include peacemakers being blessed. And in Matt 25 He spoke of how those serving the hungry, the homeless, who take care of the sick, serve Him, and obtain eternal life. And His main theme was love. Not extensive rules. With love being the most important thing of all. Peace.

This is where we disagree. Christ started the Chruch, He gave the keys to St Peter and gave him the power to bind and loose.

I am glad that you agree that belief in Christ is not enough because I know Satanists that believe in Christ as well as Muslims state they believe in Christ.

This goes to my reply to Roy below. Those two I listed, Satanists and Muslims, who state a belief in Christ have a distorted view of what Christ is or just do not understand it as we Christians do.

Fair question. For me it’s simple. I respect the opinion of others and trust they respect my opinion. The *US Catholic *magazine. a favorite of mine, found in a poll that roughly 50% of Catholics reject ‘transubstantiation’ , the very heart of Catholic theology. I suspect that you share communion with such Catholics at mass on a regular basis.

First off, if you have read much of what I have posted you will know what I think of opinion polls. They are trash. My educated guess is that these 50% you speak of either do not understand what transubstantitation actually is or the question in the poll is very bad.

I share communion with a lot of people who make the claim that they are Catholic but if they do not adhere to Catholic Teaching then they are just claiming to be Catholic while not being actually Catholic. I can not see into their hearts but I know them when I talk with them.

Let me ask you this Roy. What do you do when the Methodist sitting next to you has views that are dismetrically opposed to your views. Where both can not be right. What happens then?

 

[CMatt25]

This is where we disagree. Christ started the Chruch, He gave the keys to St Peter and gave him the power to bind and loose.

I am glad that you agree that belief in Christ is not enough because I know Satanists that believe in Christ as well as Muslims state they believe in Christ.

This goes to my reply to Roy below. Those two I listed, Satanists and Muslims, who state a belief in Christ have a distorted view of what Christ is or just do not understand it as we Christians do.

First off, if you have read much of what I have posted you will know what I think of opinion polls. They are trash. My educated guess is that these 50% you speak of either do not understand what transubstantitation actually is or the question in the poll is very bad.

I share communion with a lot of people who make the claim that they are Catholic but if they do not adhere to Catholic Teaching then they are just claiming to be Catholic while not being actually Catholic. I can not see into their hearts but I know them when I talk with them.

Let me ask you this Roy. What do you do when the Methodist sitting next to you has views that are dismetrically opposed to your views. Where both can not be right. What happens then?

No problem Bro. One of my mottos is sometimes as in other aspects of life, in faith we simply have to agree to disagree. And leave it and as far as that goes, any differences in the pews, up to God. Peace.

 

[RevNeal]

Let me ask you this Roy. What do you do when the Methodist sitting next to you has views that are dismetrically opposed to your views. Where both can not be right. What happens then?

Based upon what he’s done with me, he scolds them, pontificates upon how they’re wrong, why they’re wrong, and that they’re obviously among a tiny minority that is lost in narrow-minded superstition and top-down authoritarianism. He then proceeds to tell them what most Methodists actually believe, how the General Conference’s published positions are irrelevant, and that the only people who care about things like liturgy and the sacraments are those over-educated yet superstitious clergy, like myself, who want to turn Methodists into Episcopalians or Lutherans.

Oh, well … Time to get ready for tonight’s Ash Wednesday service.
Oops … I’m sure Roy will now bust me for doing yet another awful Catholic thing!
I hope he never finds out that I preach (no, “lecture”) boring Lectionary Sermons, too.

 

[CMatt25]

Based upon what he’s done with me, he scolds them, pontificates upon how they’re wrong, why they’re wrong, and that they’re obviously among a tiny minority that is lost in narrow-minded superstition and top-down authoritarianism. He then proceeds to tell them what most Methodists actually believe, how the General Conference’s published positions are irrelevant, and that the only people who care about things like liturgy and the sacraments are those over-educated yet superstitious clergy, like myself, who want to turn Methodists into Episcopalians or Lutherans.

Oh, well … Time to get ready for tonight’s Ash Wednesday service.
Oops … I’m sure Roy will now bust me for doing yet another awful Catholic thing!
I hope he never finds out that I preach (no, “lecture”) boring Lectionary Sermons, too.

Hmm. I might be wrong. But when I read this I had the impression you might have been referring to Roy’s comments in yours and his discussions about the UMC. And you might have been, I have to assume, tongue in cheek in making it sound as if Roy came across to you as God. But I just have to say I find Roy to be one of the most humble posters on CAF. From what I have gathered from many of his posts, he certainly does not proclaim himself to be infallible, let alone to be God. Which is a good thing. I hope you had a blessed Ash Wed service. Peace.

 

[waxwing]

Hmm. I might be wrong. But when I read this I had the impression you might have been referring to Roy’s comments in yours and his discussions about the UMC. And you might have been, I have to assume, tongue in cheek in making it sound as if Roy came across to you as God. But I just have to say I find Roy to be one of the most humble posters on CAF. From what I have gathered from many of his posts, he certainly does not proclaim himself to be infallible, let alone to be God. Which is a good thing. I hope you had a blessed Ash Wed service. Peace.

Had to add my 2 cents here, I haven’t posted in this thread but have been following it and must agree with you. Roy is one of the posters that I have found to be engaging, entertaining at times but never mean spirited. I may not agree with everything he says but he is one of posters I read because of the above qualities

 

[RevNeal]

Hmm. I might be wrong. But when I read this I had the impression you might have been referring to Roy’s comments in yours and his discussions about the UMC. And you might have been, I have to assume, tongue in cheek in making it sound as if Roy came across to you as God. But I just have to say I find Roy to be one of the most humble posters on CAF. From what I have gathered from many of his posts, he certainly does not proclaim himself to be infallible, let alone to be God. Which is a good thing. I hope you had a blessed Ash Wed service. Peace.

I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, yes.
Roy is a voice from a branch of the UMC for which I am VERY thankful, even though I disagree with him – and he with me – on many issues. That both he and I are United Methodists is illustrative of the degree of diversity within our denomination. There are many ways in which that is a good thing; there are also many ways in which that is a frustrating thing. I’d rather live with the frustration, and with church members like Roy, than not. It’s voices, such as his, that help maintain the spiritual balance within the UMC for which John Wesley was well known. Wesley was both catholic and protestant at the same time, and maintained the theological and spiritual tension in his theology and spirituality to his dying day. I swing far to the catholic side of the spectrum, Roy to the Protestant. And, that’s a good thing.

The Ash Wednesday service was a powerful one. My Associate preached a heartfelt message on the challenge of habitual sin and there were many tears in the eyes of those who came forward for the imposition of ashes. It is always, for me, a very meaningful way to begin Lent.