C
campeador
Guest
Thanks for the link. Just something I’d heard a while back and wanted clarification.
Sad to see a Catholic organization supporting abortion.
- Status
Sad to see a Catholic organization supporting abortion.
R
Roy5
Guest
**Let’s see now. A few quick points./**B]
** 1. My Lutheran friend (JonNC) must be Missouri Synod**. When I referred to Lutheran I had in mind the ELCA, the larger group, which ordains women, among other things.
** 2. The Methodists are free to form their own opinion on such issues as abortion**. Some believe it to be a private matter between God, the woman, her husband, and the doctor and not to be decided by the state. Others are generally opposed, but feel it permissible to save the life of the mother and perhaps in other cases (rape, incest). Then there are those who oppose abortion altogether. This is typical of mainline Protestantism. It is ‘big tent’ and makes allowances for different opinions.
** 3. No, it’s not required that we have to believe that our particular religious group is the one and only true church.** Think of all the persecution, oppression, burnings at the stake and other crimes that have resulted from such arrogance. Most mainline Protestants don’t assert that. Many of them see God and the universe as in large part mysterious and unknowable, beyond human understanding, They are likely to think that different faiths have pieces and parts of the truth, but that we all fall short. Therefore, they tend to respect other religions - Catholicism, but also Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. They respectfully disagree with them but don’t dismiss their wisdom and insights as heathen, pagan, etc.
** 4. I am not trying to elevate Methodism, but that is the topic of this thread**. I would say many of the same things about various other mainline Protestant denominations. Among some evangelicals (not all) you are more likely to hear the opinion expressed that there is ‘one correct way’ and it is their way - rather like the Catholic Church claims. My own view is that Christ is the way for me, but the Lord works in mysterious ways and I’ll leave the ultimate judging up to God.
** 5. Most mainline Protestants - and Catholics, too, of course - are not sola scriptura.** They look to the Bible for inspiration and much more, but reason, scholarly Biblical criticism, and basic ethics play a big role among them, too. For example, would a loving God repent that he had created humankind, then drown everybody (including tiny tots and babies in the womb), only saving Noah and his family? Does that sound moral to you? And what about when Jehovah ordered Joshua to murder all the inhabitants of Jericho except Rahab’s family, and when Saul was commanded to slaughter every living Amalekite? And what about killing all the males after winning a battle but keeping all the females and children as concubines, slaves, etc.? How moral is that? Not to mention Solomon, that wisest of all, who had - what was it? - 700 wives and 300 concubines. We could go on and on. Take a moment and compare verses like Ex. 22:18, 20 to the Sermon on the Mount. The Bible contains much that is powerful and true, but some heinous crimes in it are falsely attributed to the God who promised us his love, forgiveness and peace.
** 1. My Lutheran friend (JonNC) must be Missouri Synod**. When I referred to Lutheran I had in mind the ELCA, the larger group, which ordains women, among other things.
** 2. The Methodists are free to form their own opinion on such issues as abortion**. Some believe it to be a private matter between God, the woman, her husband, and the doctor and not to be decided by the state. Others are generally opposed, but feel it permissible to save the life of the mother and perhaps in other cases (rape, incest). Then there are those who oppose abortion altogether. This is typical of mainline Protestantism. It is ‘big tent’ and makes allowances for different opinions.
** 3. No, it’s not required that we have to believe that our particular religious group is the one and only true church.** Think of all the persecution, oppression, burnings at the stake and other crimes that have resulted from such arrogance. Most mainline Protestants don’t assert that. Many of them see God and the universe as in large part mysterious and unknowable, beyond human understanding, They are likely to think that different faiths have pieces and parts of the truth, but that we all fall short. Therefore, they tend to respect other religions - Catholicism, but also Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. They respectfully disagree with them but don’t dismiss their wisdom and insights as heathen, pagan, etc.
** 4. I am not trying to elevate Methodism, but that is the topic of this thread**. I would say many of the same things about various other mainline Protestant denominations. Among some evangelicals (not all) you are more likely to hear the opinion expressed that there is ‘one correct way’ and it is their way - rather like the Catholic Church claims. My own view is that Christ is the way for me, but the Lord works in mysterious ways and I’ll leave the ultimate judging up to God.
** 5. Most mainline Protestants - and Catholics, too, of course - are not sola scriptura.** They look to the Bible for inspiration and much more, but reason, scholarly Biblical criticism, and basic ethics play a big role among them, too. For example, would a loving God repent that he had created humankind, then drown everybody (including tiny tots and babies in the womb), only saving Noah and his family? Does that sound moral to you? And what about when Jehovah ordered Joshua to murder all the inhabitants of Jericho except Rahab’s family, and when Saul was commanded to slaughter every living Amalekite? And what about killing all the males after winning a battle but keeping all the females and children as concubines, slaves, etc.? How moral is that? Not to mention Solomon, that wisest of all, who had - what was it? - 700 wives and 300 concubines. We could go on and on. Take a moment and compare verses like Ex. 22:18, 20 to the Sermon on the Mount. The Bible contains much that is powerful and true, but some heinous crimes in it are falsely attributed to the God who promised us his love, forgiveness and peace.
Code:
** Many need a reasonable religion based on the moral teachings and example of Christ.** This emphasis on precise and correct doctrines and one true church and ancient, outdated, immutable traditions is dangerous. Millions have left Catholicism and Christianity because of such. We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore, and many of the old myths may teach us some spiritual truth and serve as very useful parables, but educated and moral people in our era have good telescopes and microscopes and demand facts and not pious fiction.
** God bless everybody.**
M
mark_a
Guest
Christ, a celebate man according to tradition and implicitly in Sacred Scripture, didn’t live in the middle ages either. He was a man with all knowledge, even more than todays “educated and moral people”, yet he reverted to God’s original intention about the major cause of society’s ills: divorce and the crumbling of the fundamental unit of society, the family.
Poorly formed conciences peering through telescopes and microscopes will yield errant information concerning faith and morals.
C
Contarini
Guest
It’s not true as stated. The statement on abortion currently in force is rather wishy-washy and speaks of “tragic conflicts of life with life” which may allow for abortion, but it certainly is not unambiguously prochoice. Methodists are sharply divided on this issue.
Edwin
E
Erich
Guest
As the Priests for Life site points out, “Catholics for a Free Choice ‘has no affiliation, formal or otherwise, with the Catholic Church,’ according to the Administrative Committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.”Sad to see a Catholic organization supporting abortion.
Instead of CFFC a more accurate moniker for that group is CCFC “Cafeteria Catholics for Choice”.
S
scoffron
Guest
I was raised a Catholic and maintain many Catholic beliefs. I tend to think of myself as Catholic, although I am officially no longer within the Church.
My wife is Methodist, and we married Methodist. My children attend Methodist services, but we maintain many of the teachings of the Church at home. I find myself “picking and choosing” so as not to cause conflict in the family and allow my children to think critically about their own faith. I have found in studying the Book of Discipline and the Catechism that many of the basic tenants of the two denominations are very similar, with a few cardinal differences of course, but in practice, very similar.
My question is this: Who is it that perpetuates these differences, God or humanity? Yes, I understand that the Church maintains that it is the true faith, but even before leaving the Church, I found myself concerned with this assertion. Is it possible to live by faith, although outside the official confines of the Church, and to live in union with Christ? How is it possible that something so powerful and so perfect as the Love of God and His relationship with us could be undermined by attending one church rather than another?
I am not on a mission, I am merely a brother seeking to understand. I have wrrestled with this for fifteen years, and have yet to find a clear answer. I have read the Old Fathers and the Saints, and I have searched the Encyclicals, and I have yet to find a satisfactory reason why one identified as a Protestant must return to the Church to be in full communion with the Almighty and His Son.
Any insight would be welcome. Again, not seeking debate, only possibilities.
My wife is Methodist, and we married Methodist. My children attend Methodist services, but we maintain many of the teachings of the Church at home. I find myself “picking and choosing” so as not to cause conflict in the family and allow my children to think critically about their own faith. I have found in studying the Book of Discipline and the Catechism that many of the basic tenants of the two denominations are very similar, with a few cardinal differences of course, but in practice, very similar.
My question is this: Who is it that perpetuates these differences, God or humanity? Yes, I understand that the Church maintains that it is the true faith, but even before leaving the Church, I found myself concerned with this assertion. Is it possible to live by faith, although outside the official confines of the Church, and to live in union with Christ? How is it possible that something so powerful and so perfect as the Love of God and His relationship with us could be undermined by attending one church rather than another?
I am not on a mission, I am merely a brother seeking to understand. I have wrrestled with this for fifteen years, and have yet to find a clear answer. I have read the Old Fathers and the Saints, and I have searched the Encyclicals, and I have yet to find a satisfactory reason why one identified as a Protestant must return to the Church to be in full communion with the Almighty and His Son.
Any insight would be welcome. Again, not seeking debate, only possibilities.
M
mark_a
Guest
If you study the moral theological differences between Catholicism and Methodism and Protestantism in general, you will see a moral clarity in the Catholic Church’s teachings that does not exist elsewhere. Note that this moral clarity is not reflected in any single Catholic person though.
imho, of course.
T
The_Old_Medic
Guest
Sadly, once again people have chosen to use a thread like this to attack the beliefs of others, to put them down, and to generally drive seekers away.
Trying to “prove” how unworthy other Christian religions are will rarely, if ever, help to bring others to the church.
There is a great deal of truth to the old saying that “you can draw more flies with honey, than you can with vinegar.”
But some people think that attacking is the ONLY way to go.
Trying to “prove” how unworthy other Christian religions are will rarely, if ever, help to bring others to the church.
There is a great deal of truth to the old saying that “you can draw more flies with honey, than you can with vinegar.”
But some people think that attacking is the ONLY way to go.
C
campeador
Guest
Thanks for the clarification. I couldn’t find a definitive statement at the link Mark provided.
C
campeador
Guest
Yes, however just using the word ‘Catholic’ in their title causes scandal.
M
mark_a
Guest
Yes, but the point is to cause confusion.
D
DarrenOglesby
Guest
I myself was baptised a United Methodist, Because my bio-father’s family are UMC’s.
Now I love the United Methodist Church and Lutheran Church. Love love love them, I love UMC hymns, and SOME of luther’s quotes are useful in Catholic Apologetics, my uncle is also a inactive Lutheran (Missouri Synod) pastor. From my expirence both are very Catholic friendly. My uncle’s pastor sends his kids to Catholic School’s he never preached anything bad about the catholics either. I heard him preach a sermon on the faith/grace alone and mentioned every group except Catholics.
United Methodist’s from my expierence are like liberal Lutherans. I love their services, I go to occasionaly.
Now the one that I am familiar with is an African American congregation. So they are holy rollers almost pentecostal’s. They have liturgical services. Meaning everything is in order, and much like mass.
They start with a procession, they have a greeting, they have scripture readings first, then the sermon, then they have offering, and if communion that comes last.
The only thing added is an altar call.
They also have infant baptistm, and confirmation. But they allow anyone and everyone to take communion.
There Confirmation class took a field trip to a Catholic Mass.
Now I love the United Methodist Church and Lutheran Church. Love love love them, I love UMC hymns, and SOME of luther’s quotes are useful in Catholic Apologetics, my uncle is also a inactive Lutheran (Missouri Synod) pastor. From my expirence both are very Catholic friendly. My uncle’s pastor sends his kids to Catholic School’s he never preached anything bad about the catholics either. I heard him preach a sermon on the faith/grace alone and mentioned every group except Catholics.
United Methodist’s from my expierence are like liberal Lutherans. I love their services, I go to occasionaly.
Now the one that I am familiar with is an African American congregation. So they are holy rollers almost pentecostal’s. They have liturgical services. Meaning everything is in order, and much like mass.
They start with a procession, they have a greeting, they have scripture readings first, then the sermon, then they have offering, and if communion that comes last.
The only thing added is an altar call.
They also have infant baptistm, and confirmation. But they allow anyone and everyone to take communion.
There Confirmation class took a field trip to a Catholic Mass.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Hello Roy, I have read Methodists pray during the Communion service, “May these gifts be for us the body and blood of Christ, that we may be for the world the body of Christ”.
en.allexperts.com/q/Methodists-957/Methodists-only-2-Sacraments.htm
But my local UMC pastor has told me as you suggest that they believe in the spiritual real presence but not in an actual physical presence.
To your knowledge is the above prayer said? And if so, I understand the part about the Communion service calling us to serve the world as the Body of Christ. But what is meant then about the gifts being the body and blood, if they are not literally?
God bless in your faith walk and peace.
R
Roy5
Guest
Code:
Okay. Yes, it's true that those words come from the latest ritual. Methodists I know generally differ in their views, an attitude and atmosphere that pervades the United Methodist Church. Some treasure communion. Others take it very casually. There are those who make sure to attend communion services, usually the first Sunday of the month.
Then there are those who may even skip those services because it smacks too much (in their view) of what they view as paganism. Some I know even question the teaching that God had to give his only begotten Son to be murdered in order for us to be saved (as one Methodist I know phrased it). The Christianity of these liberal Methodists is centered more on love of God and love of one another, which is what they think constitutes the core of the message of Jesus. They regard the emphasis upon the shedding of blood as influenced both by mystery religions and by animal sacrifices in ancient Judaism, both of which also emphasized 'blood sacrifice'.
I would suggest that the vast majority of United Methodists, over 95% or more, don't take those words in their ritual to mean anything resembling transubstantiation or consubstantiation. They would interpret them symbolically, as most Protestants do. They regard the Christian Church as the body of Christ - no one denomination, but the larger church - and they are asking that God make the church more like Christ in its service to the world.
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.
Therefore, as in Catholicism, you will find liberal Methodists and conservative Methodists. I read Fr. McBrien's column each week, and also *Commonweal* magazine. I also watch EWTN and read *Our Sunday Visitor*. Plus I follow CAF more-or-less. In doing so, I am very aware that within Catholicism there is a wide variety of attitudes however much it may boast about being united under under the leadership of the Papacy and the Magisterium. Methodism seems less afraid to permit and even expose differences within the denomination.
God bless all of his children - of every creed, color, culture and country, May religion become more of a bridge and less of a barrier between all people of faith.
R
Rochester
Guest
What an amazing thread, and with great thoughts and discussion!
I was baptized and confirmed in the Methodist Church, and was converted/confirmed in the Catholic Church in 2007/2008.
I still feel close to Methodist tradition, I am a Wesleyan-Catholic christian in many ways, whatever that may mean exactly, After a long struggle with OCD and scrupluism I’ve found Wesley’s views to be comforting, and a reminder of what I loved about church as a kid. I’ve always been open minded in my Christianity.
I was baptized and confirmed in the Methodist Church, and was converted/confirmed in the Catholic Church in 2007/2008.
I still feel close to Methodist tradition, I am a Wesleyan-Catholic christian in many ways, whatever that may mean exactly, After a long struggle with OCD and scrupluism I’ve found Wesley’s views to be comforting, and a reminder of what I loved about church as a kid. I’ve always been open minded in my Christianity.
R
RevNeal
Guest
I suppose this is a matter of differing experience and opinion, however as an Ordained United Methodist Elder who has been under appointment by Untied Methodist Bishops for 20 years, I would say that UM Bishops still exercise considerable power over the lives of their clergy and congregations.
Firstly, while there is a consultation process with the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee (PPRC) and the Pastor prior to appointments being made, in the end the final decision on all appointments rests with the Bishop. A congregation’s PPRC may request that a pastor be moved but, if the Bishop says “no,” it’s no. Likewise, even if the PPRC and the Pastor request that no change in appointment be made, if a Bishop decides to make a change there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to be done about it. Oh, the Pastor under appointment can file a written request for “reconsideration,” however the Bishop does not have to abide by the request.
Secondly, there is NO “interview.” As I’ve already stated, I’ve been under appointment for 20 years and I have NEVER been for an “interview” prior to an appointment. In the past I have been informed of where my appointment will be and I have gone for an “INTRODUCTORY MEETING” (usually called a “seating”) with the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee, but this is an INTRODUCTION, not an INTERVIEW. Indeed, some Bishops are adamant that the PPRC realize that this is NOT an interview and that the meeting is taking place with the assumption that the Appointment has been made. IF serious problems are identified in the process of the Introductory Meeting a reconsideration may be requested, but there is nothing that requires the Bishop to listen to objections from either the PPRC or the Pastor under appointment. Indeed, I have been part of an Appointment in which we all knew it was a VERY BAD match going in, but the Bishop’s decision was that the appointment was to go forward as made. I stayed there one very horrible year, and then I moved again (we had a change of Bishops during that “year from hell.”).
And, thirdly, it is true that, during the 1960s and 70s UM Bshops were less likely to exercise certain powers, however this appears to have changed. I’m sure some Bishops are far more democratic than those I have served under, and I don’t mean to say in any of the above that UM Bishops are unreasonable in their exercising of authority. However, I would disagree with any hint that UM Bishops wield less power than they used to. Yes, there are consultation processes in place, but these hardly serve as a check on the authority of the Bishop to appoint.
R
RevNeal
Guest
The epeclesis within the United Methodist Liturgy for Holy Communion – “Word and Table I” – reads as follows:
The words follow the “Mysterium Fidei,” which follows the Words of Institution:
Here’s a link to the Liturgy as found on my website: revneal.org/communionlit1.html
As for how these words are to be understood: if a United Methodist Elder is teaching that they are only figurative or spiritual (and I admit that it does happen), they are violating the church’s teaching as found articulated in “This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion.” The UMC’s formal teaching on this subject is one of “Mysterious Real Presence.” Essentially, to assert that the Presence of Jesus is less than Real, or simply spiritual, is to go too far in attempting to define it; rather, humble silence is called for when it comes to defining “how” Jesus is understood as Present. Indeed, it is probably best to say that any attempt at defining “how” Jesus is Present constitutes a violation of the UMC’s teaching. It is far better to simply believe and experience HIs Real Presence, partaking by faith in His Word and His promise that He is there. The Eucharist is understood as being an effective Means of Grace through which the Sanctifying Presence of our Lord’s Divine Life are received.
I know I am probably unusual among UM clergy when I say this, but I have no problem in proclaiming that when Christians partake of the Eucharist, receiving the Real Presence of Jesus, we are transubstantiated into the Body of Christ. We may still look, smell, and even taste like ourselves, but in an ontological sense beyond our comprehension we become the hands, feet, eyes, ears, and lips of Christ.
R
Roy5
Guest
RevNeal
Code:
I think you are quite unique among Methodist clergy. Are you a member of the Order of St. Luke? I know this small group is much more liturgically-oriented than most Methodist pastors and laymen - and wants the wider church to follow its lead.
There is the 'real presence' in that Jesus promised to be with us always. But that a piece of bread and a thimble of grapejuice are somehow transubstantiated into his body and blood is alien to Methodist as well as most Protestant thinking. To them this smacks of paganism, or of superstition.
Now, as to the power of Bishops, perhaps they exercise more authority in Texas than here in the northeast. True, they technically have that authority here, too, but the situations I know suggest that the lay committee exercises considerable influence, and especially in the larger churches. When a pastor is starting out he/she is more likely to have little say in his/her appointment, and since he/she usually begins in a small church the congregation also has less say. I know of no situation - and I follow churches closely in this area - you might say a hobby/interest of mine - in which the prospective minister was not interviewed prior to the appointment.
The United Methodist Church, with its 35,000 parishes, quite a number more than Catholic churches, is very diverse. In this area I think it has been somewhat influenced by the Congregational Church (UCC), which is extremely democratic (and the strongest Protestant group in New England). I'm aware that Congregationalists (the church of the Pilgrims/Puritans) are rare in Texas and many parts of the USA, while Methodists are everywhere.
In addition to the UMC, of course, there must be 10-000-12,000 other Methodist churches in the USA, mainly AME, AMEZion and CME.
Keep smiling.
R
RevNeal
Guest
Yes, I am a member of the Order of St. Luke. I’m also an Associate of the Anglican Society of St. John the Evangelist (an Anglican Monastic Order). My sacramental theology, however, flows in line with my Anglican-Wesleyan roots and is defined by the Emmaus Community’s Means of Grace emphasis. I can celebrate the Eucharist in street clothing, if I must, and as I do on Emmaus Walks and at Candlelight Services, however the THEOLOGY of the Eucharist that I hold is very much in-line with Wesleyan Anglo-Catholic Sacramentology.
Firstly, I don’t believe in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation of the Eucharistic Elements. Quite the contrary, I stated clearly that ANY attempt to define the means of Real Presence – the “how” of Jesus’ presence in and through the Eucharist – goes beyond the scope of Methodist Sacramental Theology. We are called to simply believe that He is present and then to experience His Real Presence through partaking of the Sacrament.
Secondly, where I believe we have a transformation of theological and ontological substance is in the communicant him/herself. It is Biblical and it is Theologically sound to affirm that we become – and grow as – the Body of Christ when we partake of any of the Means of Grace, but especially when we partake of the Eucharist. It’s in our liturgy, as well as in our Hymns and in the sermons of John Wesley: “Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ, that we may be for the world the Body of Christ redeemed by his blood.”
I can think of several huge churches in the Dallas area – churches with more than 5000 members – where the PPRC didn’t know who it was that was coming to be their pastor until he walked in through the door with the District Superintendent for the Seating. The PPRC had provided an extensive profile to the DS, and that profile was taken into account as part of the consultation process, however there was no “interview” of multiple pastors prior to an appointment being made. There was an appointment made, the Pastor went for the Introduction, and that was that. I can name a couple of instances where the PPRC and/or the pastor both said “no!” and the Bishop reconsidered; that does happen. However, it doesn’t HAVE to happen. And it doesn’t always happen.
After 20 years in the ministry I have been through this process 5 times. My longest pastorate has been 7 years, my shortest a half-year. I’m probably going to go through through the moving process again this year after 5 wonderful years in my current appointment. I’m about half-way up the Conference ladder in terms of salary and I pastor a not inconsequential congregation. I will not be “interviewed” by a PPRC prior to an appointment being made. I will be phoned in a week or two and told where I’m going and when to show up for the Seating. I’ll go to the seating with the expectation that this is where I’m going to be serving for the next several years (at least). The church I’m going to will almost certainly have the same thinking in mind. IF problems comes to light in the Introductory meeting either I or the congregation might file for a reconsideration. Given what I know about our current Bishop, it is unlikely that such a request would be honored unless the issues are determined to be extreme and come from both the congregation and myself. My Bishop isn’t unreasonable, but he also believes that he knows best.
C
CMatt25
Guest
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?
- Status