Wait a second...Is this correct about Methodists? Did the founder really hate "Papists?"

[Harpazo]

DISCLAIMER I’m hoping this won’t spark animosity at all, and it is not my intent.

I was purusing an article on Sola Scriptura on a Wikipedia (not very reliable, I know) and I found a source from a book by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. I was always told by Methodists that Wesley was respectful and loving of all religions, including Catholics. Futhermore, I was told that none of Wesley’s doctrines were associated at all with the Reformation, but I’ve found contrary things.

Chiefly being, a collection of works by the founder of the group. In it, he demonstrates such animosity to Catholicism and the need to “convert the Papists.” I feel so misled by Methodists now. Wesley also discusses other matters regarding the “Papists” and how they are basically heretics (not his exact words, but he lends to the idea). I thought Wesley was a proponent of using reason, yet he seems to lack it when judging the whole Catholic Church by a few Catholics. Keep in mind, this was a time when Catholicism in England was illegal, and simply being Catholic could mean death.

This also leads me to believe if Methodism has some foundation in anti-Catholicism. Wesley hasn’t proven to me otherwise. I always disregarded anti-Catholic Methodists, but after reading what the chief authority on the sect had to say, I’m begining to think differently. Do modern day followers of Wesley take his words to go convert Catholics in other countries, such as Africa, the Philippines, Mesoamerica, Central and South America? Because that is what is happening. The website of Methodists boasts of the surge of members from the areas of Africa and the Philippines.

Works of John Wesley

Methodist view of Salvation

I was also told that Methodists don’t “buy into” Sola Fide, yet on the website (in the above link) it clearly says they do. Also from their site, it has conflicting things about their beliefs in the Eucharist. Some members have expressed that they believe in the Real Presence, yet this part of the UM website says otherwise.

The Lord’s Supper (Communion, Eucharist)

* The Lord's Supper is a holy meal of bread and wine that ***symbolizes*** the body and blood of Christ.
* The Lord's Supper recalls the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and celebrates the unity of all the members of God's family.
* By sharing this meal, we give thanks for Christ's sacrifice and are nourished and empowered to go into the world in mission and ministry.
* We practice "open Communion," welcoming all who love Christ, repent of their sin, and seek to live in peace with one another.

roots of Methodism **emphasis mine

So with that, I’d like to know what’s going on here. I have many, many more questions, but these alarmed me the most. I’ll ask more later. Please don’t tell me I’m attacking the Methodist community. That isn’t my intention whatsoever. I just what answers to these rather pressing questions. The proof is right there in Wesley’s collection of works, so I’m not sure if there is an explanation for it, but I’ll be waiting to hear it either way.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[Shike]

Technically, are not all Christian denominations in some way anti-Catholic when they split away from the Church?

Wesley being an “anti-papist” doesn’t surprise me.

$0.02

peace,
Michael

 

[lizaanne]

Technically, are not all Christian denominations in some way anti-Catholic when they split away from the Church?

Wesley being an “anti-papist” doesn’t surprise me.

$0.02

peace,
Michael

Says it all.

~Liza

 

[DDClark]

I’m curious - what were you taught about Methodism when you were still a Methodist?

I was raised Baptist, but am no longer practicing. I feel I still know quite a lot about what I was raised to believe, and thought you might as well.

ddc

 

[bengal_fan]

Technically, are not all Christian denominations in some way anti-Catholic when they split away from the Church?

Wesley being an “anti-papist” doesn’t surprise me.

$0.02

peace,
Michael

and anyone who believes protestants are heretics or wrong is anti-protestant. there are levels of “anti”. we can believe the other to be wrong but still love each other. technically, i am anti-muslim but i hope to love our muslim brothers and sisters.

anti-papist just meant (probably to wesley although i could be wrong) anti what he perceived catholics to believe.

 

[Harpazo]

I’m curious - what were you taught about Methodism when you were still a Methodist?

I was raised Baptist, but am no longer practicing. I feel I still know quite a lot about what I was raised to believe, and thought you might as well.

ddc

I was taught the most basic, evangelical form of Wesleyanism mixed with some Baptist beliefs. Still to this day, most (if not all) of the Methodist communities in my area teach one or more of the following:
-Sola Fide
-Sola Scriptura
-Once Saved Always Saved
-Symbolic Communion only

I know this isn’t standard Methodist belief, except Sola Fide apparently (from their website).

I was confirmed and baptized there and received the Lord’s Supper once a month. Little to no emphasis was put on catechising at all. Just “feel good” worship was what mattered…

However, I’ve been reading more about the history of Methodism and their apparent return to more traditional doctrines. It’s the history of the founder that saddens me.

Could a Methodist or Wesleyan explain this to us? Is there something we’re missing from Wesley’s writings? I’m honestly seeking an answer to these questions.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[DDClark]

I was taught the most basic, evangelical form of Wesleyanism mixed with some Baptist beliefs. Still to this day, most (if not all) of the Methodist communities in my area teach one or more of the following:
-Sola Fide
-Sola Scriptura
-Once Saved Always Saved
-Symbolic Communion only

I know this isn’t standard Methodist belief, except Sola Fide apparently (from their website).

I was confirmed and baptized there and received the Lord’s Supper once a month. Little to no emphasis was put on catechising at all. Just “feel good” worship was what mattered…

However, I’ve been reading more about the history of Methodism and their apparent return to more traditional doctrines. It’s the history of the founder that saddens me.

Could a Methodist or Wesleyan explain this to us? Is there something we’re missing from Wesley’s writings? I’m honestly seeking an answer to these questions.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

I see …

I’d think that I’d do a search here on Wesley if you haven’t already. I do that a lot regarding Catholic ideas and theology. There are also Methodists here that may have some thoughts to share.

I’d also continue to read Wesley’s work (in other words, not what other folks thought about what he wrote). If I’m not mistaken, he wrote quite a lot . I do believe that he was an Anglican, and I remember reading somewhere that he never left the Anglican church.

I know it is hard for some to understand the focus in many Protestant churches really does not seem to be on the “founder” of the denomination but instead the Bible and the theology of that particular church. I don’t think one can compare the study of the Church fathers/church history that one may do in the Catholic church with a Methodist studying Wesley or a Lutheran studying Luther. I know that my Baptist church had Calvinist beliefs, but I never studied Calvin until I studied philosophy in college and on my own later.

I’ve attended Methodist churches, and found each one to be different in style and structure. I’ve found none to be anti-Catholic, though.

I’ve also found none that I’ve attended to believe OSAS (a big difference from my Baptist upbringing, which I appreciate). I also don’t remember faith alone or scripture alone being part of the theology (good works seem to be very important to Methodist churches, and their definition of grace is, IMHO, much more complex than once saved, always saved allows).

ddc

 

[Harpazo]

I see …

I’d think that I’d do a search here on Wesley if you haven’t already. I do that a lot regarding Catholic ideas and theology. There are also Methodists here that may have some thoughts to share.

I’d also continue to read Wesley’s work (in other words, not what other folks thought about what he wrote). If I’m not mistaken, he wrote quite a lot . I do believe that he was an Anglican, and I remember reading somewhere that he never left the Anglican church.

I know it is hard for some to understand the focus in many Protestant churches really does not seem to be on the “founder” of the denomination but instead the Bible and the theology of that particular church. I don’t think one can compare the study of the Church fathers/church history that one may do in the Catholic church with a Methodist studying Wesley or a Lutheran studying Luther. I know that my Baptist church had Calvinist beliefs, but I never studied Calvin until I studied philosophy in college and on my own later.

I’ve attended Methodist churches, and found each one to be different in style and structure. I’ve found none to be anti-Catholic, though.

I’ve also found none that I’ve attended to believe OSAS (a big difference from my Baptist upbringing, which I appreciate). I also don’t remember faith alone or scripture alone being part of the theology (good works seem to be very important to Methodist churches, and their definition of grace is, IMHO, much more complex than once saved, always saved allows).

ddc

I appreciate your post DDClark.

The source I cited is a book by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. He says theses things himself about the Catholic Church. I find it horribly disheartening, because I see Methodists as brothers in Christ, apparently the founder does not wish to reciprocate. If it does, he’s not showed it well.

Also, Wesley did leave Anglicanism, although many Methodists won’t believe it. I didn’t believe it when I was Methodist. He broke away when he took it upon himself ordain Methodist Episcopal clergy, and in his Works discusses the reasons why they should leave Anglicanism. Check out the book, it fully chronicles Wesley’s writings. Some may surprise you, as they did me.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[DDClark]

I appreciate your post DDClark.

The source I cited is a book by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. He says theses things himself about the Catholic Church. I find it horribly disheartening, because I see Methodists as brothers in Christ, apparently the founder does not wish to reciprocate. If it does, he’s not showed it well.

Also, Wesley did leave Anglicanism, although many Methodists won’t believe it. I didn’t believe it when I was Methodist. He broke away when he took it upon himself ordain Methodist Episcopal clergy, and in his Works discusses the reasons why they should leave Anglicanism. Check out the book, it fully chronicles Wesley’s writings. Some may surprise you, as they did me.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

I wasn’t sure whether he left the Anglican church, but it is no surprise.

I understand that it can be disheartening to learn things that are disappointing in regards to past religious (and present) beliefs. I know from personal experience.

I’d still say that it’s important to do research to confirm and fully understand context and such. It sounds as though you are working on that.

Take care

ddc

 

[O.S.Luke]

I appreciate your post DDClark.

The source I cited is a book by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. He says theses things himself about the Catholic Church. I find it horribly disheartening, because I see Methodists as brothers in Christ, apparently the founder does not wish to reciprocate. If it does, he’s not showed it well.

Also, Wesley did leave Anglicanism, although many Methodists won’t believe it. I didn’t believe it when I was Methodist. He broke away when he took it upon himself ordain Methodist Episcopal clergy, and in his Works discusses the reasons why they should leave Anglicanism. Check out the book, it fully chronicles Wesley’s writings. Some may surprise you, as they did me.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

No argument to what you said about Wesley advocating leaving the Anglican Church. However, he still died an Anglican priest. That is historical fact.

I wrote this a few years ago on another post here about a year ago:

I’m not sanguine about the use of the word “papist,” however, that word hasn’t been used in common language in about 150 years, and in the day it was used (in the West), the words “papist” and “protestant” were commonly used right after the Reformation. Later Protestants were often divided in writings into “Churchmen” (Anglicans) and “Dissenters” (everyone else). “Catholic” was rarely used - and when the word WAS used, it more commonly referred to Roman rite Catholics AND Anglicans.

Even some Catholics used the word “Papist” to refer to themselves (see the writings of Father John Gother, in his work “A Papist Misrepresented and Represented, or a two-fold Character of Popery” - London, 1665). And lest you think I’m making this up, see this article at New Advent.

I can give you several positive instances of Wesley talking about Catholics. And, this positive sermon: HOMILY OF CARDINAL WALTER KASPER at Ponte Sant’Angelo Methodist Church, Rome, 22 June 2003. An excerpt from his sermon:

John Wesley was a complex figure, and his relationship with and view of the Catholic Church was complex. He was a priest of the Church of England, though decisions at the end of his life anticipated the separation of Methodism from Anglicanism. Methodist-Catholic relations today have been influenced by the fact that there is no history of formal separation between us, as Methodism grew out of the Anglican tradition; hence we have no difficult memories of separating. While John Wesley understood the Roman Catholic Church to be a part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and acknowledged that Roman Catholics could be saved through faith, his writings and sermons contain certain hostile references to ‘popery’ and ‘the errors of the Church of Rome’, which hopefully he would phrase differently if he were alive today. His commentary on the Book of Revelation reflects a rather ungracious view of the Papacy; so much so that it is somewhat daring of you to invite me here today, and perhaps equally daring of me to accept! The Catholic response to Wesley and early Methodists was, however, no better, and happily we have ceased to blame each other.

I am glad to cease blame, too.

O+

 

[Harpazo]

No argument to what you said about Wesley advocating leaving the Anglican Church. However, he still died an Anglican priest. That is historical fact.

I wrote this a few years ago on another post here about a year ago:

I can give you several positive instances of Wesley talking about Catholics. And, this positive sermon: HOMILY OF CARDINAL WALTER KASPER at Ponte Sant’Angelo Methodist Church, Rome, 22 June 2003. An excerpt from his sermon:

I am glad to cease blame, too.

O+

You didn’t touch upon my points about Sola Fide. I noticed you answered my question in another thread about Communion, but I’m seeing two different and conflicting things. The Methodist website states that Communion symbolizes Christ’s body and blood. You say different. Which is correct?

There’s also been speculation about how Wesley’s writings sparked an anti-Catholic riot in 1780 in England. This is also disturbing.

And to your point about the term “papist.” It was used as a pejorative. Plain and simple. It can be compared to the “n-word” that was used by Southern white-men towards African Americans. The word “papist” was meant to incite hatred, and feelings of anger against Catholics. Now it still is, but Catholics also toss it around jokingly, or use it with pride.

I’m getting the impression that you’re trying to justify Wesley’s anti-Catholic beliefs, or you won’t condemn them outright. While the man was very eloquent, preached many good things, he was, what appears to me and other Catholics, a very prejudice and hateful man. He might have loved God, but he sure didn’t show that he loved Catholics.

This man almost went as far to assert that Catholics are not even Christians in some of his writings. I don’t understand how a man that ingrained anti-Catholicism into his movement is worthy of being followed. That’s my opinion on the matter.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[ralphinal]

Not to defend the man, but how much of it was cultural and how much of it was faith based? For example, some of the early reformers may have hated “papists” for reasons of faith or for political purposes. Later, it was just the way the people on an area thought.

In other words, did he “hate papists” because he was anti-Catholic or because it was common in England at that time to do so. There is a culpability issue here to me.

 

[O.S.Luke]

You didn’t touch upon my points about Sola Fide. I noticed you answered my question in another thread about Communion, but I’m seeing two different and conflicting things. The Methodist website states that Communion symbolizes Christ’s body and blood. You say different. Which is correct?

Did you read what I said? It is a symbol. And it is the Real Presence of Christ. And it’s not what I say… it’s what the United Methodist Church says. I’ve given you plenty of documentation. I think you’re just grousing now.

And to your point about the term “papist.” It was used as a pejorative. Plain and simple. It can be compared to the “n-word” that was used by Southern white-men towards African Americans. The word “papist” was meant to incite hatred, and feelings of anger against Catholics. Now it still is, but Catholics also toss it around jokingly, or use it with pride.

I’m getting the impression that you’re trying to justify Wesley’s anti-Catholic beliefs, or you won’t condemn them outright.

If you read what I wrote, you wouldn’t say that. I never justified ANYONE’s use of the word. You’re certainly entitled to your opinions, but I resent the implication, Andrew. Does your disclaimer entitles you that kind of license?

While the man was very eloquent, preached many good things, he was, what appears to me and other Catholics, a very prejudice and hateful man. He might have loved God, but he sure didn’t show that he loved Catholics.

You evidently didn’t like the cardinal’s sermon. I think the Cardinal Kasper correctly pointed out that Wesley was not always gracious, and neither were Catholics in their response. Does this mean we’ll just keep our grudges because of how people that are now dead acted in the past?

I don’t see what good blame does now. But you are entitled to your opinions, Andrew. Everyone has them, I suppose. I would prefer to have the mind of Christ, personally.

O+

 

[sterryfamily]

The problem you are experiencing today, with the seamingly conflicting views on Wesleyan doctrine, is due to that creeping crud called relativism. It has pervaded western Christianity so overwhelmingly since the dawn of nondemominationalism that one can hardly distinguish between the various Protestant creeds anymore. At least judging by the views of the members.

Of course, it can easily be said that many Catholics don’t have much of a hold on our own creed either.

 

[Harpazo]

Did you read what I said? It is a symbol. And it is the Real Presence of Christ. And it’s not what I say… it’s what the United Methodist Church says. I’ve given you plenty of documentation. I think you’re just grousing now.

How can something be a Symbol and the Real Presence of Christ? Either it is or it isn’t. You’re not making much sense to me in this regard, nor is Methodism. I still haven’t received an answer about Sola Fide. On many occasions, you told me Methodists don’t partake of it, yet on the website it says so. Which do I believe?

If you read what I wrote, you wouldn’t say that. I never justified ANYONE’s use of the word. You’re certainly entitled to your opinions, but I resent the implication, Andrew. Does your disclaimer entitles you that kind of license?

I apologize for that, but it appeared to me that you were downplaying the fact that Wesley was clearly using “papist” and “popery” as pejoratives. Going out of his way to be hateful, that’s why I and many others have gathered.

You evidently didn’t like the cardinal’s sermon. I think the Cardinal Kasper correctly pointed out that Wesley was not always gracious, and neither were Catholics in their response. Does this mean we’ll just keep our grudges because of how people that are now dead acted in the past?

I certainly thought his homily was good, but I don’t think it’s saying what you want it to say. Catholics had every reason to be upset with how things were in England. Wesley’s remarks and anti-Catholic rhetoric towards them did not make it any easier. He told them to convert Catholics, and how everyone else is superior to them (the Catholics). He almost went as far to say they were not Christians. Can you understand in the least why Catholics would be upset? It was illegal to be a Catholic in England, and even up until the early 19th century I believe. Wesley only added fuel to the fire.

I don’t see what good blame does now. But you are entitled to your opinions, Andrew. Everyone has them, I suppose. I would prefer to have the mind of Christ, personally.

I don’t see what this really has to do with anything. I’m not blaming you at all. I’m upset and disappointed because you paint such a picture of Methodism, and claim it not to be anti-Catholic. That may not be the truth to day, but it was founded in anti-Catholicism, which is obviously a type of hatred. There’s no argument about that. Was the Catholic Church founded in hatred? No. But it was founded by Christ, in Christ and for Christ.

I found that last bit insulting. Of course I don’t have the mind of Christ, because I’m not of your persuasion? If you have the mind of Christ, why aren’t you in His Church? He’s calling you home my friend. Christ Our Lord, is not the author of confusion, which is sadly prevelent in Protestantism. You try so hard to portray Methodism as Catholic Lite, but it rejects Christ’s Church. The reason for this, is to ask you to take a step back, and ask yourself if you want to be a part of a religion that was founded by a man, or one that was founded by your God. The choice is ultimately yours. May God guide you home.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[O.S.Luke]

How can something be a Symbol and the Real Presence of Christ? Either it is or it isn’t.

Logic doesn’t apply to the sacraments, Andrew. Symbols point to realities that they represent. In the case of the bread and wine, they point to Christ AND they are Christ. Those are not my words, by the way, but the words of Fr. Louis Bouyer - Catholic liturgical scholar. It’s a both/and, Andrew, not an either/or. By the way… the same thought is present where transubstantiation is concerned. You cannot have Aristotelian physics if you don’t have a both/and approach. That is the basis for the dogma of transubstantiation.

I still haven’t received an answer about Sola Fide. On many occasions, you told me Methodists don’t partake of it, yet on the website it says so. Which do I believe?

Anglicans, for the most part, did not use the solas - they used the 3-legged stool of tradition, reason, and scripture. Methodists added experience. Where justification by faith came into play - you are correct (I never said you weren’t). However, as you should know, the peace on justification by faith was passed a while back between Lutherans and Catholics in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (the Vatican document can be found here).

I certainly thought his homily was good, but I don’t think it’s saying what you want it to say. Catholics had every reason to be upset with how things were in England. Wesley’s remarks and anti-Catholic rhetoric towards them did not make it any easier. He told them to convert Catholics, and how everyone else is superior to them (the Catholics). He almost went as far to say they were not Christians. Can you understand in the least why Catholics would be upset? It was illegal to be a Catholic in England, and even up until the early 19th century I believe. Wesley only added fuel to the fire.

I didn’t want the cardinal’s sermon to say anything other than what it said. As far as what I did say about it, I took a very large quote so that the context would be present. Wesley was wrong to use the word. It was hurtful. As the cardinal said, Catholics were wrong in their response. That was hurtful. Everyone was wrong. Why can’t we get over it - it’s the 21st century?

I’m upset and disappointed because you paint such a picture of Methodism, and claim it not to be anti-Catholic. That may not be the truth to day, but it was founded in anti-Catholicism, which is obviously a type of hatred.

It was founded in response to a complacent Anglican Church that was neglecting the sacraments and the poor. The cardinal noted that fact.

I found that last bit insulting. Of course I don’t have the mind of Christ, because I’m not of your persuasion? If you have the mind of Christ, why aren’t you in His Church?

I am in His Church. Baptized and claimed. Even the Catholic catechism claims that. “Imperfectly” I believe is the word.

You try so hard to portray Methodism as Catholic Lite, but it rejects Christ’s Church.

I’ve never once tried to call it Catholic-lite; those are your words, not mine. However, I have brought to your attention that the way you were raised in the Methodist faith was with poor catechesis; I am slowly learning that Methodists do not have a monopoly on poor catechesis! However, I am glad you have found a home in the Catholic Church. I would never talk someone out of their faith; but I won’t have mine disparaged or non-factual information disseminated. I would be neglecting by membership and ordination vows if I did. I know my ordination doesn’t count in your eyes, but it means a whole lot to me. Reject the Church? Never. I’m sure you’ll disagree. You are entitled to your opinion.

I don’t take my faith lightly, Andrew. I don’t expect you to take yours lightly either. But that doesn’t mean disparaging mine. I respect your faith - can you respect mine?

That’s all I’m asking.

O+

 

[Harpazo]

Logic doesn’t apply to the sacraments, Andrew. Symbols point to realities that they represent. In the case of the bread and wine, they point to Christ AND they are Christ. Those are not my words, by the way, but the words of Fr. Louis Bouyer - Catholic liturgical scholar. It’s a both/and, Andrew, not an either/or.

So, then you believe Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist? As Catholics we don’t believe the Eucharist to be a symbol. It IS Christ, not a symbol of him. I think you’re taking his words slightly out of context.

Anglicans, for the most part, did not use the solas - they used the 3-legged stool of tradition, reason, and scripture. Methodists added experience. Where justification by faith came into play - you are correct (I never said you weren’t). However, as you should know, the peace on justification by faith was passed a while back between Lutherans and Catholics in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (the Vatican document can be found here).

I didn’t want the cardinal’s sermon to say anything other than what it said. As far as what I did say about it, I took a very large quote so that the context would be present. Wesley was wrong to use the word. It was hurtful. As the cardinal said, Catholics were wrong in their response. That was hurtful. Everyone was wrong. Why can’t we get over it - it’s the 21st century?

To me, Wesley promulgated anti-Catholicism. That hurts. And it hurts even more, because I’m still seeing the products of it to this day. I forgive him for it, but the purpose of the thread was mainly to see why he said it, and what Methodists thought of it. I personally could not be a part of an institution where the founder knowingly and purposefully exacerbated hatred. Christ never did that, and for that reason I am a part of His Church.

It was founded in response to a complacent Anglican Church that was neglecting the sacraments and the poor. The cardinal noted that fact.

That may have been, but at the expense of nearly lowering Catholics to a heathen status? Why did Wesley take it upon himself to further divide an already dividing church? I can certainly understand why he would want to renew a Sacramental life and aid the poor, but at the expense of schism? I know he didn’t formally separate and remained an Anglican, but still he did not reform from within. He took it upon himself, and that can be very, very dangerous. Those that have founded denominations, did the same thing beginning with Luther. The result? Further schism and divisions.

I am in His Church. Baptized and claimed.

In your creed you might be. In ours, you are imperfectly joined. Why not perfectly join His Body? Your denomination wasn’t founded by Christ, nor ordained by him. I’m not saying this to sound rude, or superior, but the historicity of it is there. Wesley taught many orthodox things, but he’s outside of the Church. You have the ability to change it for yourself.

I’ve never once tried to call it Catholic-lite; those are your words, not mine. However, I have brought to your attention that the way you were raised in the Methodist faith was with poor catechesis. However, I am glad you have found a home in the Catholic Church. I would never talk someone out of their faith; but I won’t have mine disparaged or non-factual information disseminated. I would be neglecting by membership and ordination vows if I did. I know my ordination doesn’t count in your eyes, but it means a whole lot to me.

In almost every way possible, you tried to compare your sect with Catholicism in such a fashion that it sounded like a Catholic-lite. You seemed to pride yourself in that. I’m not saying you did, but it came off that way to me, and possibly others as well. Not to sound harsh, but didn’t you talk about how you brought your Catholic wife into Methodism?

I don’t take my faith lightly, Andrew. I don’t expect you to take yours lightly either. But that doesn’t mean disparaging mine. I respect your faith - can you respect mine?

That’s all I’m asking.

Agreed. I understand that you’re following Christ the best way you know how, and I love your zeal for it. It’s admirable and should be imitated. Although you may not think so, I respect you a lot and hope to see the best for you as a Christian. I believe 100% that I found the fullness of Truth in the Catholic Church, and for that I desire to help others find it, too. I apologize for being rash about it. It was unacceptable and I humbly ask your forgiveness.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[O.S.Luke]

So, then you believe Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist? As Catholics we don’t believe the Eucharist to be a symbol. It IS Christ, not a symbol of him. I think you’re taking his words slightly out of context.

Andrew… I said that we believe Christ is present in the Eucharist. I pointed to an official church document that stated our beliefs about the presence of Christ at the Eucharist. What more do you need?

I studied under Bouyer… who once told us all that most Protestants misunderstand transubstantiation… as do most Catholics. Took me two philosophy classes and a sacramental theology class before I got it. Kind of. This is why I think the Easterners have it right: it’s the Body and Blood of Christ. Period.

To me, Wesley promulgated anti-Catholicism. That hurts. And it hurts even more, because I’m still seeing the products of it to this day. I forgive him for it, but the purpose of the thread was mainly to see why he said it, and what Methodists thought of it. I personally could not be a part of an institution where the founder knowingly and purposefully exacerbated hatred. Christ never did that, and for that reason I am a part of His Church.

No, Christ never did that, but Catholics as well as Protestants have. You’re not going to have anywhere to attend, Andrew, if you can’t get over some things and find some redemption. God’s not finished with any of us yet.

Why did Wesley take it upon himself to further divide an already dividing church? I can certainly understand why he would want to renew a Sacramental life and aid the poor, but at the expense of schism? I know he didn’t formally separate and remained an Anglican, but still he did not reform from within. He took it upon himself, and that can be very, very dangerous. Those that have founded denominations, did the same thing beginning with Luther. The result? Further schism and divisions.

Anglicans and Methodists are already in a union agreement in England. It is a matter of time before they are one communion again. God runs on kairos, not chronos.

In your creed you might be. In ours, you are imperfectly joined. Why not perfectly join His Body? Your denomination wasn’t founded by Christ, nor ordained by him. I’m not saying this to sound rude, or superior, but the historicity of it is there. Wesley taught many orthodox things, but he’s outside of the Church. You have the ability to change it for yourself.

I am perfectly joined to Christ’s Body. If I thought otherwise, I obviously wouldn’t be Methodist. I think you are perfectly joined to Christ’s Body as well, Andrew.

In almost every way possible, you tried to compare your sect with Catholicism in such a fashion that it sounded like a Catholic-lite. You seemed to pride yourself in that. I’m not saying you did, but it came off that way to me, and possibly others as well. Not to sound harsh, but didn’t you talk about how you brought your Catholic wife into Methodism?

I didn’t compare - I told you what our beliefs are. I am glad that there are similarities, but there are also differences. I take no pride in disharmony, but I am proud to be a professing Christian who boasts in Christ.

I didn’t bring my wife into Methodism. That was her choice. I never once asked her to or encouraged her to.

Agreed. I understand that you’re following Christ the best way you know how, and I love your zeal for it. It’s admirable and should be imitated. Although you may not think so, I respect you a lot and hope to see the best for you as a Christian. I believe 100% that I found the fullness of Truth in the Catholic Church, and for that I desire to help others find it, too. I apologize for being rash about it. It was unacceptable and I humbly ask your forgiveness.

Thank you for your words, Andrew. I have never meant you any ill will. And I have no doubts that you have found your home and the fullness of faith in Christ in the Catholic Church. I rejoice with you and for you.

I am sure that “the best way * know how” falls short of what you want for me. But I too believe 100% that I have found the fullness of Christ not only in my Church, but also in the Church Catholic/Universal. One of my spiritual directors was Catholic - a true friend and brother to this day. I have had several Catholic mentors in my extended studies in liturgical and sacrament theology that have greatly increased and enhanced my faith. What I have found is that our differences from each other are often our gifts to each other.

May that continue to be a blessing for us both.

O+*

 

[O.S.Luke]

Andrew (and others):

You might enjoy reading an article by Catholic apologist Mark Brumley: Why Catholicism Makes Protestantism Tick.

I do miss Father Bouyer. I am glad to have him on all of our sides in the Communion of the Saints.

O+