The Methodists and The Real Presence

[RyanBlack]

That is the trick of Calvinism, the details are in the wording, they say the Real Presence but it is a spiritual eating. Their belief is that Christ’s physical Body ascended to Heaven and is confined there and only His Spirit can come to earth.

I understand the Calvinist conception of eucharist (I have two graduate degrees in theology). Also, having done some reading since joining this thread, I agree that Wesley was influenced-to an extent-by Calvinist notions concerning the eucharist. However, the same source I read also argues that there were Lutheran influences in Wesley’s thought. In short, I think it is a mistake to state that Wesley’s eucharistic theology is the same as that of Calvin. Wesley did not believe in transubstantiation, but it seems clear to me that he believed that the elements of bread and wine impart the actual body and blood of Christ. For him, in the sacrament, they remain bread and wine, but yet they are not merely bread and wine.

 

[hn160]

No Tricks. I am Methodist and have always been taught the REAL spritual presence of Christ in the elements of the Lords Supper. I am proud to say that all christians are welcome to the Lords Table.

Peace, JohnR

There is a difference Real physical Presence as with Lutherans and a spiritual presence in the elements. As a Lutheran, I believe that I receive Christ’s very Body and Blood when I receive the bread and wine, not his Spiritual Presence. I could not in clear conscience take Communion at a Methodist church.

 

[Lochias]

No Tricks. I am Methodist and have always been taught the REAL spritual presence of Christ in the elements of the Lords Supper. I am proud to say that all christians are welcome to the Lords Table.

Peace, JohnR

Please see my post on the first page of this thread. I am very curious about why Methodists believe this, and why I was not taught this when I was a member of the UMC. If you, or the people at the United Methodist church I used to go to, believe that the “real spiritual presence of Christ” is there during your Lord’s Supper, why were we allowed to take the leftover bread home? Did they somehow think that smearing peanut butter or honey onto the vehicle containing the Lord’s spiritual presence was a-ok, or do Methodists believe the presence is temporary, or what?

 

[highrigger1]

There is a difference Real physical Presence as with Lutherans and a spiritual presence in the elements. As a Lutheran, I believe that I receive Christ’s very Body and Blood when I receive the bread and wine, not his Spiritual Presence. I could not in clear conscience take Communion at a Methodist church.

ihn,

I dont see why not. The Lutheran view of Christs physical body is not the same as the Catholic view. Luther simply taught that God is physically present in all His creation hence His presence in the eucharist. Methodists do not deny this.

Cannot understand you view that Christ is not spiritually present.

I have taken Lutheran communion in the past with no qualms.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

Please see my post on the first page of this thread. I am very curious about why Methodists believe this, and why I was not taught this when I was a member of the UMC. If you, or the people at the United Methodist church I used to go to, believe that the “real spiritual presence of Christ” is there during your Lord’s Supper, why were we allowed to take the leftover bread home? Did they somehow think that smearing peanut butter or honey onto the vehicle containing the Lord’s spiritual presence was a-ok, or do Methodists believe the presence is temporary, or what?

Lochias,

I have no idea why the practice at an individual church. That is not done in my church.
Remember that the earliest participants ate the whole thing because originally it was a full meal - a thanksgiving meal - hence the term eucharist -Greek for thanksgiving.

But I have heard my pastor explain that the bread is the spritual body of Christ. In fact in every Methodist church when a person takes the bread it is recited to every person “this is my body, given for you.” Same for the wine (grape juice). Dont you remember that?

Peace, JohnR

 

[Lochias]

Lochias,

I have no idea why the practice at an individual church. That is not done in my church.
Remember that the earliest participants ate the whole thing because originally it was a full meal - a thanksgiving meal - hence the term eucharist -Greek for thanksgiving.

But I have heard my pastor explain that the bread is the spritual body of Christ. In fact in every Methodist church when a person takes the bread it is recited to every person “this is my body, given for you.” Same for the wine (grape juice).**** Dont you remember that?****

Peace, JohnR

Bolded mine. Yes, I remember it, more or less. That’s why there’s a disconnect for me in terms of then taking that bread home to be eaten however, whenever. I don’t think such Lord’s Supper’s are ever intended to be eaten as full meals these days, unless I am greatly mistaken about some teaching somewhere. For me, there’s a gaping hole between even bothering to acknowledge the “spiritual presence of the Lord” at a UMC Lord’s Supper, if at least some of the adherents somewhere are then going to just give the rest away in willy-nilly fashion.

Now, as you say, apparently not every UMC church does this. How do **you **feel about the actions at my old church? Do you think it’s wrong to give away the bread that’s played host to the Lord’s “spiritual presence” to whoever might do whatever with it, or is it just a higher form of symbolism for you?

I ask these questions not to be offensive, but out of a sincere desire to know what the norm be, at least for most UMC churches.

 

[highrigger1]

Bolded mine. Yes, I remember it, more or less. That’s why there’s a disconnect for me in terms of then taking that bread home to be eaten however, whenever. I don’t think such Lord’s Supper’s are ever intended to be eaten as full meals these days, unless I am greatly mistaken about some teaching somewhere. For me, there’s a gaping hole between even bothering to acknowledge the “spiritual presence of the Lord” at a UMC Lord’s Supper, if at least some of the adherents somewhere are then going to just give the rest away in willy-nilly fashion.

Now, as you say, apparently not every UMC church does this. How do **you **feel about the actions at my old church? Do you think it’s wrong to give away the bread that’s played host to the Lord’s “spiritual presence” to whoever might do whatever with it, or is it just a higher form of symbolism for you?

I ask these questions not to be offensive, but out of a sincere desire to know what the norm be, at least for most UMC churches.

lochias,

I am not the kind of person that would get upset by that. People do all sorts of things without intending anything disrespectful. The bread and grape juice are consecrated in the Methodist church beforehand so I think it best to save it and use it in a later communion.

I am not quite sure how my church handles it specifically. If it were wafers it would be no problem but we use full loafs of bread and the worshiper takes a pinch and dips it in the grape juice and eats it. No doubt there are parts left. I have never heard of bread given out at the end except for one incident I will tell you about which helps explain.

I work at the church to help out occasionally and they give us excess food left in the fridge. I remember someone saying there was some UNCONSECRATED bread left in the fridge and I could have it if I wanted. it. That happened only a month or two ago so I remember it distinctly. Sounds to me that our church treats consecrated and unconsecrated bread diffrerently. I have to admit I have never asked exactly how but I think the consecrated bread is handled in a special way. Hope this answers. At least it is all I know.

Obviously if consecration means anything there should be a difference in treatment. But I have to warn you I am not a superstitious person at all so all this consecration business does not mean a lot to me. I am happy to take part in communion to express my faith and my hope and prayer that all christians are united in the faith as Jesus asked of us. Communion expresses that most in christian tradition and I would think that any sincere christian would rethink it if he does not want to partake in a foreign church because of doctrinal matters. His greatest hope should be that we express our unity together whatever is done with the crumbs. Frankly I dont think Jesus cares about the crumbs.He just wants us all at his table whatever happens to the crumbs.

Peace,

 

[hn160]

ihn,

I dont see why not. The Lutheran view of Christs physical body is not the same as the Catholic view. Luther simply taught that God is physically present in all His creation hence His presence in the eucharist. Methodists do not deny this.

Cannot understand you view that Christ is not spiritually present.

I have taken Lutheran communion in the past with no qualms.

Peace, JohnR

You may have received communion in an ELCA church which has open communion but not in an LC-MS church which has closed communion.
That said, Lutheran belief is similar to the Catholic belief except Catholic try to explain what happens to the bread and wine in transubstantiation whereas we take Christ at His Word when He said “This Is …, to us it is a mystery how it happens. We do not believe in consubstantiation. Luther settled that matter with Zwingli at the Colloquy of Marburg when Zwingli tried to convince Luther that there was no difference between them on the Lord’s Supper. Luther draws a circle of chalk on the table and writes within it THIS IS MY BODY. His text is Mark 14:22, where Jesus says to the disciples ‘Take, eat, this is my body’. This must mean, insists Luther, that in some way, mysterious to us, the body and blood of Christ have a real presence in the bread and wine once they are consecrated.
Luther told Zwingli that Zwingli was of a different spirit. Luther would rather drink wine with the Pope.
If you really want to know what real Lutheran believe, read the Lutheran Confession at bookofconcord.org/ or the book by Charles Porterfield Krauth " The Conservative Reformation.”

 

[pablope]

No Tricks. I am Methodist and have always been taught the REAL spritual presence of Christ in the elements of the Lords Supper. I am proud to say that all christians are welcome to the Lords Table.
Peace, JohnR

Then you are not following the warning of St. paul in 1cor 11:

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

God bless…

 

[highrigger1]

If you really want to know what real Lutheran believe, read the Lutheran Confession at bookofconcord.org/ or the book by Charles Porterfield Krauth " The Conservative Reformation

hh160,

Thanks but I have read a lot about Luther. I think I prefer the Lutheran church other than yours. I believe in open communion for all christians. Peace, JohnR

 

[CopticChristian]

This is what the United Methodist Church site has to say about the Real Presence:
Article XVIII—Of the Lord’s Supper

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.

From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2008. Copyright 2008 by The United Methodist Publishing House. Used by permission.were

The Wesley’s were influenced by John Calvin and belonged to the Low Church Branch of the Church of England. What you believe about The Person of Christ influences how you believe in the Lord’s Supper and if that is wrong, then you will fall into the Zwingli camp where it is nothing more than a memorial meal or into John Calvin’s camp where Christ’s physical Body is confined to Heaven and can’t be everywhere at the same time. When the Calvinist partake of the Lord’s Supper, it is a spiritual eating and their souls ascend to Heaven to eat and drink Christ’s Body and Blood.

The earliest use of the term Transubstantiation as noted.

The earliest known use of the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ that was believed to occur in the Eucharist was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133), in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use.

This describes what had been done for 1100 years. It was a name given to something that was done.

Methodists appeared in the 1800’s. It is amusing that based on what you say…

The year 1857 might well be described as the first attempt at union, and fifty years on, three of the divided groups came together - the United Methodist Free Churches, the Methodist New Connexion, and the Bible Christians to form the United Methodist Church (1907). In 1932 the final union was consumated by the coming together of the United Methodist Church, the Primitive Methodist Church, and the Wesleyan Methodist Church.

state the word that is applied to the process that was already not named is regpugnant…

Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

Yet I would argue that they would have a problem explaining this repugnancy prior to the naming as it regards what was happening in the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church East and West based on Scripture and Tradition.

This is repugnant to claim repugnancy.

 

[ConsciousCoward]

The idea that “all Christians are welcome at the Lord’s Table” is that we as Christians are called to be in communion with one another and that no man has the authority to turn another from something of the Lord. But keep in mind, it says all Christians, not all humans. Paul’s warning is still accounted for, it’s just that we emphasize that the Lord’s Table belongs to the Lord and not to the UMC.

I was taught the real presence as it is taught in the Catholic Church. My church was incredibly Wesleyan, with the Eucharistic liturgy being almost exactly that of the Anglican church. Every Eucharistic hymn we sing supports it. Regardless of what the overall UMC says, that is what I was taught.

 

[CopticChristian]

The idea that “all Christians are welcome at the Lord’s Table” is that we as Christians are called to be in communion with one another and that no man has the authority to turn another from something of the Lord. But keep in mind, it says all Christians, not all humans. Paul’s warning is still accounted for, it’s just that we emphasize that the Lord’s Table belongs to the Lord and not to the UMC.

I was taught the real presence as it is taught in the Catholic Church. My church was incredibly Wesleyan, with the Eucharistic liturgy being almost exactly that of the Anglican church. Every Eucharistic hymn we sing supports it. Regardless of what the overall UMC says, that is what I was taught.

Coward,

You confuse me.

All Christians are welcome at the Lords table. This means to you that we as Christians, however you define that, are called to be in communion with one another. So since we are called to be in communion with one another we don’t need a church or a table. No man has the authority to turn another from something of the Lord. No human can stop you from being in communion with one another.

What says all Christians?

What warning of Paul?

I am not clear on what you were taught or believe?

 

[hn160]

hh160,

Thanks but I have read a lot about Luther. I think I prefer the Lutheran church other than yours. I believe in open communion for all christians. Peace, JohnR

The other Lutheran Church (ELCA) is hardly Lutheran. They ordain women and homosexuals, practice open communion ( which you like ). The ELCA pastors subscribe to the Lutheran Confession only in so far as, whereas LC-MS, WELS and ELS pastors and congregations fully subscribe to the Confessions. The ELCA is in full communion with non-Lutheran Churches, meaning that the ELCA clergy can serve in those Churches and vise versa. There is a saying Lutheran Pulpits for Lutheran Pastors and Lutheran Altars for Lutherans only, this is the stance of LC-MS, WELS and ELS. This stance is the same as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
According to your view of the Lord’s Supper, it is perfectly alright for ones who believe in the Real Presence, spiritual presence, and memorial to commune together, it doesn’t matter what you believe. There would be doubt in orthodox Lutheran circles if you really have the Lord’s Supper.

 

[highrigger1]

The other Lutheran Church (ELCA) is hardly Lutheran. They ordain women and homosexuals, practice open communion ( which you like ). The ELCA pastors subscribe to the Lutheran Confession only in so far as, whereas LC-MS, WELS and ELS pastors and congregations fully subscribe to the Confessions. The ELCA is in full communion with non-Lutheran Churches, meaning that the ELCA clergy can serve in those Churches and vise versa. There is a saying Lutheran Pulpits for Lutheran Pastors and Lutheran Altars for Lutherans only, this is the stance of LC-MS, WELS and ELS. This stance is the same as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
According to your view of the Lord’s Supper, it is perfectly alright for ones who believe in the Real Presence, spiritual presence, and memorial to commune together, it doesn’t matter what you believe. There would be doubt in orthodox Lutheran circles if you really have the Lord’s Supper.

hn160,

You are welcome to your view. I just think it is a shame when some churches consider others as unfaithful to Chirst on major issues. I am thankful my church invites all christians to the Lords Table. I think if someone wants to commune with Jesus they should not be turned away. I prefer the other Lutheran church. Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

The idea that “all Christians are welcome at the Lord’s Table” is that we as Christians are called to be in communion with one another and that no man has the authority to turn another from something of the Lord. But keep in mind, it says all Christians, not all humans. Paul’s warning is still accounted for, it’s just that we emphasize that the Lord’s Table belongs to the Lord and not to the UMC.

I was taught the real presence as it is taught in the Catholic Church. My church was incredibly Wesleyan, with the Eucharistic liturgy being almost exactly that of the Anglican church. Every Eucharistic hymn we sing supports it. Regardless of what the overall UMC says, that is what I was taught.

Conscious,

Fine. Communion is not for fun or playing around. It is for a sincere christian who wants to commune with Jesus. The Catholic church does not practice that openess and that is the worst failing of the Catholic church in my opinion. I am thankful that Methodists practice open communion. I cannot understand why you would prefer anything else.

Peace, JohnR

 

[Lochias]

lochias,

I am not the kind of person that would get upset by that. People do all sorts of things without intending anything disrespectful. The bread and grape juice are consecrated in the Methodist church beforehand so I think it best to save it and use it in a later communion.

I am not quite sure how my church handles it specifically. If it were wafers it would be no problem but we use full loafs of bread and the worshiper takes a pinch and dips it in the grape juice and eats it. No doubt there are parts left. I have never heard of bread given out at the end except for one incident I will tell you about which helps explain.

I work at the church to help out occasionally and they give us excess food left in the fridge. I remember someone saying there was some UNCONSECRATED bread left in the fridge and I could have it if I wanted. it. That happened only a month or two ago so I remember it distinctly. Sounds to me that our church treats consecrated and unconsecrated bread diffrerently. I have to admit I have never asked exactly how but I think the consecrated bread is handled in a special way. Hope this answers. At least it is all I know.

Obviously if consecration means anything there should be a difference in treatment. But I have to warn you I am not a superstitious person at all so all this consecration business does not mean a lot to me. I am happy to take part in communion to express my faith and my hope and prayer that all christians are united in the faith as Jesus asked of us. Communion expresses that most in christian tradition and I would think that any sincere christian would rethink it if he does not want to partake in a foreign church because of doctrinal matters. His greatest hope should be that we express our unity together whatever is done with the crumbs. Frankly I dont think Jesus cares about the crumbs.He just wants us all at his table whatever happens to the crumbs.

Peace,

Highrigger,

Thanks for your reply. The unconsecrated bread your church gives away makes a lot of sense. In the church I used to attend, it was the leftovers of the loaf that was broken during the service. I suppose mileage may vary across the Methodist churches.

Insofar as your comments about allowing all to the table regardless of doctrinal issues, it is exactly because I am a sincere Christian that I partake of the Eucharist only in the Catholic Church. Indeed, as you say that things like consecration mean little to you, they mean very much to me, and it is in my historical and religious research that I have found that the Catholic Church is the one being “most sincere.” Hence, I choose to give my love and respect to the Lord by honoring His wishes concerning the institution of the Eucharist, rather than pay homage to what I and other Catholics see as a mere symbol. To do otherwise would be to lessen the importance of the Eucharist. I hope that makes sense. If our Eucharist were only mere “crumbs”, I couldn’t agree more with you.

I too hope that all Christians are once again united someday, and in the meantime have found much joy and places of camaraderie and unity in those areas in which both of our churches possess full Truth. I will always be grateful to the UMC church I attended for being a place of love and graciousness in Christ while I dealt with difficult issues, and in particular the associate pastor who enjoyed learning about history and theology. It was his example that led me to study deeper about my Catholic upbringing, and thus realize what it was I had given up.

Pax et Bonum.

 

[billt9]

As a life long Methodist (but not presuming to speak for every single one), no, not in the Catholic sense

 

[highrigger1]

Then you are not following the warning of St. paul in 1cor 11:

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

God bless…

pablope,

You are saying I am unworthy? What is your point?

 

[Lochias]

Conscious,

Fine. Communion is not for fun or playing around. It is for a sincere christian who wants to commune with Jesus. The Catholic church does not practice that openess and that is the worst failing of the Catholic church in my opinion. I am thankful that Methodists practice open communion. I cannot understand why you would prefer anything else.

Peace, JohnR

Certainly, the Church practices that openness; anyone is free to become Catholic.