The Methodists and The Real Presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter HailHolyQueen90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Today? I don’t know, but John Wesley was a firm believer in the Real Presence.
No, communion is a “memorial” not the real presence. John Wesley was an Anglican priest until the Revolutionary War. He saw the need for an American form of Anglicanism so, based on the Oxford Movement and his orders as a priest, he began to ordain and founded the Methodist faith. He never believed in the actual presence.
 
There is another paragraph that uses the phrase “real presence” but clearly they don’t believe in the elements actually becoming the body and blood. At least, this woulda seem to indicate the belief in a symbolic presence to them.

This is correct. Methodists do not believe in transubstantiation.
 
pablope,

You are saying I am unworthy? What is your point?
It’s actually saying that if you do not believe in transubstantiation you are not “in communion” with what is required to take the Eucharist.

I was a Methodist clergy for 5 years (ordained Elder). I could not stand not having the actual body and blood of Jesus and knew all along that the Catholics had the “real presence” Jesus in John 15 makes this clear. He said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood…when given a chance to recant or clarify He doesn’t say, "Oh you misunderstood I meant that it was a symbol or it was just bread and grape juice/wine, He doesn’t. He reiterates that it is ACTUALLY His body and blood.

Those who do not believe that cannot join in Catholic Eucharist but the Church longs for the day when all Christians will be united as one.
 
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
You can’t understand why I would rather have the actual body and blood of Jesus than bread and grape juice? Really?
 
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?
Early Christians did NOT practice open communion. You had to study for 2 years to be admitted to the faith and then on the Easter Vigil you could become a member of the faith. You could always worship but only those who were admitted to the Eucharist stayed for communion. “open communion” was a recent development. The Apostles did not.
 
No, communion is a “memorial” not the real presence. John Wesley was an Anglican priest until the Revolutionary War. He saw the need for an American form of Anglicanism so, based on the Oxford Movement and his orders as a priest, he began to ordain and founded the Methodist faith. He never believed in the actual presence.
John Wesley remained an Anglican priest until the end of his life. Furthermore, a reading of some of the eucharistic hymns composed by him and/or his brother Charles show that they clearly believed in the real presence. They certainly denied transubstantation, but they held to more than a spiritual presense. They believed that the elements of bread and wine impart the body and blood of Christ.
 
There is another paragraph that uses the phrase “real presence” but clearly they don’t believe in the elements actually becoming the body and blood. At least, this woulda seem to indicate the belief in a symbolic presence to them.

This is correct. Methodists do not believe in transubstantiation.
Generally speaking, Methodist do not believe in transubstantiation, but some do. Really, they’re all over the place. You get positions ranging from Zwinglian, to Calvinist, to consubstantiation, to transubstantiation.
 
Early Christians did NOT practice open communion. You had to study for 2 years to be admitted to the faith and then on the Easter Vigil you could become a member of the faith. You could always worship but only those who were admitted to the Eucharist stayed for communion. “open communion” was a recent development. The Apostles did not.
I agree, open communion seems to be a liberal American idea, they seem to say that we are all equal and no one should excluded. All beliefs whether it is the Real Presence, spiritual presence or a memorial should commune together. it use to be in the in the liberal Churches the only requirement was baptism, now there is a movement that the un-baptized should be allowed to commune because they do not want to exclude anyone. These liberal Churches are hardly Christian anymore.
 
pablope,

You are saying I am unworthy? What is your point?
I do not know if you are unworthy or not. All I said is to heed the warning of St. Paul…I think it is self explanatory… 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.

What do you not understand by the passage?
 
It’s actually saying that if you do not believe in transubstantiation you are not “in communion” with what is required to take the Eucharist.

I was a Methodist clergy for 5 years (ordained Elder). I could not stand not having the actual body and blood of Jesus and knew all along that the Catholics had the “real presence” Jesus in John 15 makes this clear. He said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood…when given a chance to recant or clarify He doesn’t say, "Oh you misunderstood I meant that it was a symbol or it was just bread and grape juice/wine, He doesn’t. He reiterates that it is ACTUALLY His body and blood.

Those who do not believe that cannot join in Catholic Eucharist but the Church longs for the day when all Christians will be united as one.
Irishgal,

Gosh, I cant find that in there at all. Seems to me it is saying we should examine ourself as per verse 31. In other words be serious. You are seeing things I think.

Methodists also believe in the real spritual presence and not a mere symbol. Seems they would have taught you that at seminary. Perhaps you were a little slow to catch on and that is why you failed at the clergy? Also I cannot find where either Jesus or the Catholic CCC says “actual.” It seems the same as the Methodist viewpoint to me.

Perhaps you are seeing things again. Good thing you got out of the clergy. Peace, JohnR
 
I do not know if you are unworthy or not. All I said is to heed the warning of St. Paul…I think it is self explanatory… 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.

What do you not understand by the passage?
pablope,

I thought I did but since you did not explain it sounded as if you thought I was unworthy.
Dont you think we should consider verse 31 also? Peace, JohnR
 
Irishgal,

Gosh, I cant find that in there at all. Seems to me it is saying we should examine ourself as per verse 31. In other words be serious. You are seeing things I think.

Methodists also believe in the real spritual presence and not a mere symbol. Seems they would have taught you that at seminary. Perhaps you were a little slow to catch on and that is why you failed at the clergy? Also I cannot find where either Jesus or the Catholic CCC says “actual.” It seems the same as the Methodist viewpoint to me.

Perhaps you are seeing things again. Good thing you got out of the clergy. Peace, JohnR
Do you really find it necessary to resort to insults?
 
It’s actually saying that if you do not believe in transubstantiation you are not “in communion” with what is required to take the Eucharist.

I was a Methodist clergy for 5 years (ordained Elder). I could not stand not having the actual body and blood of Jesus and knew all along that the Catholics had the “real presence” Jesus in John 15 makes this clear. He said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood…when given a chance to recant or clarify He doesn’t say, "Oh you misunderstood I meant that it was a symbol or it was just bread and grape juice/wine, He doesn’t. He reiterates that it is ACTUALLY His body and blood.

Those who do not believe that cannot join in Catholic Eucharist but the Church longs for the day when all Christians will be united as one.
Paul is not saying one needs to believe in transubstantiation. He is saying that one needs to be a Christian which means to believe the Lord is our Saviour and he died and rose from the dead for us, and is repentive of their sins before receiving. My goodness they didn’t believe anything changed in the bread and wine in Pauls day, it was a meal and they took leftovers to the people who couldn’t make it to the meeting. Transubstantiation isn’t a term that was was used for centuries later.
 
St Paul 1 Cor 10:16-17 and 1 Cor 11:23-27

Ignatius of Antioch

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

“I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.” “Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

“Who belongs to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.” “Epistle to the Philadelphians”, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

Justyn Martyr

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” “First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

Irenaeus of Lyons

“So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.” Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely

“For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.” Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.

Clement of Alexandria

“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”, “The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

Ephraim of the Syrian Church

"Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit.,

And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: ‘Take, all of you eat of this; which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.’ But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.", “Homilies” 4,4 ca… 350 A.D., [therealpresence.org]
 
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.
WELS also believe the Pope is the Antichrist 😦

“Luther and the Lutheran Confessions identified the Roman Catholic papacy as the Antichrist for three main reasons: First, the papacy claimed to speak with an authority—even infallibility—that was equal to or surpassing the Word of God itself. By doing so, it put itself in a position of being “anti” or “in place of” Christ. Second, the papacy claimed that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church, making membership in a human organization a condition for salvation; finally, in emphasizing that faith and obedience are necessary for salvation, the papacy undermined the very heart and center of the biblical teaching that salvation is by God’s grace alone and comes to individuals through faith in Christ alone. In holding to each of these teachings, the Roman Catholic papacy placed itself in clear opposition to the foundation of the Christian faith, and therefore in opposition to Christ himself.”
 
Early Christians did NOT practice open communion. You had to study for 2 years to be admitted to the faith and then on the Easter Vigil you could become a member of the faith. You could always worship but only those who were admitted to the Eucharist stayed for communion. “open communion” was a recent development. The Apostles did not.
Could you tell me the dates of the early Christians you are talking about?
thank you.
 
Explain to me exactly how an divorcee without an annulment would be unwelcome in the Church.
O they can be welcomed as much anyone who wants to welcome them want to; we can give them their very own welcome parade, but a divorcee won’t be “received” as a Catholic til an annulment comes through therefore no sacraments before then obviously.

Say the Tribunal is unable to find grounds to annul, boom, so, no, not “everyone” is free to become Catholic & therefore receive communion.

It is what it is.

There are situations out there that are just real head scratchers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top