Why no communion for visiting Protestants?

[dessert]

Nonsense. The Methodist Church does, in fact, believe in the Real Presence.
I know that Catholics refuse to believe that we have it, but that doesn’t change what we believe. (It also doesn’t change the fact that, in fact, the UMC & most if not all other Wesleyan bodies] do, in fact, have the Real Body & Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ in our Holy Communion. I know you don’t agree. We must agree to disagree on this part).

Sorry, but He is indeed present. Actually, this is bordering on that heresy (the name of which escapes me just now) which claims that the nature & efficacy of the sacraments depends on the spiritual state of the officiant. You can, if you like, say that Luke, & my pastor, & the other UMC pastors don’t hold to Catholic doctrines, & are therefore in some sense heretical in your understanding. But that doesn’t change the facts in the case.

And when a Methodist pastor says the service of Holy Communion, Jesus is made present by the power of the Holy Spirit, Who “goeth where He listeth”, regardless of the lamentable breaks between various portions of Christendom.



Always has, too.
As I have said many times here: I don’t judge the Catholics I meet here by the antice of Andrew Greeley. Don’t any Catholics presume to judge the Methodists that you meet here, by a far-out lunatic fringe who don’t believe in much of anything. All that comes of that is: “Pot, meet Kettle; Kettle, meet Pot”.

God bless all here.

Zooey; getting to know you has been a blessing in itself.
I have a FIL that is a stanch UMC and I have known him for 40 years but never really understood how he understands his own Methodist faith.

I have had to learn my own Catholic faith in order to talk with him about the differences. I try not to judge him although he first judged me when I married his son years ago.

And he has many misunderstandings about the Catholic Church, of which he will also not agree to as being misunderstandings.

We now can agree to walk seperately as I never acknowledge the differences before.

This is OK because we can walk and talk seperately, afterall we are not receiving Holy Communion on this forum right now.

Dessert**
" Be Jesus … share Jesus "
Blessed Mother Teresa**

 

[Randy_Carson]

It just proves that your charity is lacking and your information is wrong.
a) I’ve never used little cubes of white bread (nor have I used wafers of styrofoam-tasting bread)
b) I’ve never used “thimbles” of grape juice

My apologies, OS.

It’s been a few years since I last received communion in the Methodist Church in which I was raised. While Protestant, I receive communion in the form of bread cubes, paper thin wafers, and large loaves that were passed from person to person who each broke off a piece to eat. The fact that crumbs (which according to you are the body of Christ) were falling all over the floor to be trampled underfoot didn’t seem to bother anyone at the time.

We received the grape juice in small glasses (I called them thimbles to reflect their small size - that was to avoid calling them “shot glasses”) that were distributed in circular metal trays that had lots of holes to hold each of these glasses and a metal top to cover it. The metal trays were stackable so that one person could carry many of the trays at one time.

After communion on these special Sundays, we kids would race back to the kitchen where we could down all the leftovers we wanted. So much for recognizing the Body and Blood of the Lord and receiving him in a worthy manner. The adults didn’t seem to mind this - they knew that there was no profanation going on - because Jesus is not really, truly and sacramentally present - body, blood, soul and divinity - in the Methodist communion.

Now, have I adequately described the circumstances that are all too common in small Protestant churches or not?

I hope other converts will express their own experiences, as well.

In our case, Jesus is present.

No, unfortunately, He is not. Apart from valid orders, no man (or woman!) can confect the elements. Since the Holy See has already spoken concerning the invalidity of Anglican orders, your own (descended from Wesley who was Anglican) are also invalid.

You’re tipping of the hat is disingenuous, I think. I think a discussion about the eucharust deserves more decorum.

Pax,

O+

I offer my thoughts in an effort to assist in every thread - not just this one.

And I do so with a tip o’ the chapeau out of courtesy.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[O.S.Luke]

The fact that crumbs (which according to you are the body of Christ) were falling all over the floor to be trampled underfoot didn’t seem to bother anyone at the time.

I take ablutions as seriously as anyone. However, the fact that Jesus used real bread (which will crumble, was meant to be sopped, etc.), I suspect some crumbled at the Last Supper. Can we always be sure we get every micron of bread up?

Now, have I adequately described the circumstances that are all too common in small Protestant churches or not?

Most United Methodist churches that I know of use a common cup and loaf.

No, unfortunately, He is not. Apart from valid orders, no man (or woman!) can confect the elements. Since the Holy See has already spoken concerning the invalidity of Anglican orders, your own (descended from Wesley who was Anglican) are also invalid.

I see no more purpose to this conversation. You are invalidating my faith, my life, and claim that we do not have Jesus. Peace be with you.

O+

 

[Randy_Carson]

I see no more purpose to this conversation. You are invalidating my faith, my life, and claim that we do not have Jesus. Peace be with you.

O+

Invalidating your faith and your life?

No, I am sure that you seek to serve the Lord as best you know how.

I’m just giving you the stuff that they probably didn’t teach you in seminary.

I hope you will research these things more deeply.

As a famous Anglican convert said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

Best of luck.

 

[jmcrae]

But Peter is. Our apostolic succession runs right back to the same place yours does.

Not in quite as straight a line, though.

Your line runs through quite a messy schism with King Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth who both cut all ties to Rome (King Henry for the first time, and Queen Elizabeth because older sister Mary had tried to re-establish them), as well as through King Edward VI, who thought it would be fun to mess with the words of the Ordination ceremony, thus making the rift even wider (which was actually his goal - he didn’t want to be in any kind of communion with Rome; not even through Apostolic Succession).

As you already know, of course - my point is merely that your line of Apostolic Succession has quite a few kinks in it. (I almost wrote “kings” there, which suits, as well. )

 

[mercygate]

I see no more purpose to this conversation. You are invalidating my faith, my life, and claim that we do not have Jesus. Peace be with you.

O+

Nobody claims you don’t have Jesus. All that has been said is that by the conditions set forth in the Church through her teaching authority, your offshoot denomination does not retain the faculties by which the Blessed Sacrament can be confected as the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present substantially under the forms of bread and wine.

From the Catholic perspective, Methodist sacramental theology on the Eucharist is limited. Well intended, but short of the fullness.

We can’t “invalidate” your faith. All we can do is state our position, which is that the Methodist Lord’s supper is not identical with the Catholic Eucharist.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

I see no more purpose to this conversation. You are invalidating my faith, my life, and claim that we do not have Jesus. Peace be with you.

O+

The problem that results in statements like this has nothing to do with the postings in this thread. The writer has adopted a postmodern approach, whereby pointing out errors seems to “invalidate” everything.

The conclusion is, additionally, at variance with the teaching of the Church. Unlike some Protestant sects, the Church does not teach that those separated from her have absolutely nothing, and no part of Jesus. And really, as long as proclaiming the truth is misrepresented as a process of “invalidating”, the pointlessness that the writer has pointed out is hard to dispute.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not in quite as straight a line, though.

Your line runs through quite a messy schism with King Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth who both cut all ties to Rome (King Henry for the first time, and Queen Elizabeth because older sister Mary had tried to re-establish them), as well as through King Edward VI, who thought it would be fun to mess with the words of the Ordination ceremony, thus making the rift even wider (which was actually his goal - he didn’t want to be in any kind of communion with Rome; not even through Apostolic Succession).

As you already know, of course - my point is merely that your line of Apostolic Succession has quite a few kinks in it. (I almost wrote “kings” there, which suits, as well. )

The problem, I believe, had to do with form.

The Anglican Church changed the rite of ordination in ways that the Catholic Church did not accept.

Invalid form, invalid ordination, loss of apostolic succession.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nobody claims you don’t have Jesus. All that has been said is that by the conditions set forth in the Church through her teaching authority, your offshoot denomination does not retain the faculties by which the Blessed Sacrament can be confected as the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present substantially under the forms of bread and wine.

From the Catholic perspective, Methodist sacramental theology on the Eucharist is limited. Well intended, but short of the fullness.

We can’t “invalidate” your faith. All we can do is state our position, which is that the Methodist Lord’s supper is not identical with the Catholic Eucharist.

Well said. :clapping:

 

[GKC]

Not in quite as straight a line, though.

Your line runs through quite a messy schism with King Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth who both cut all ties to Rome (King Henry for the first time, and Queen Elizabeth because older sister Mary had tried to re-establish them), as well as through King Edward VI, who thought it would be fun to mess with the words of the Ordination ceremony, thus making the rift even wider (which was actually his goal - he didn’t want to be in any kind of communion with Rome; not even through Apostolic Succession).

As you already know, of course - my point is merely that your line of Apostolic Succession has quite a few kinks in it. (I almost wrote “kings” there, which suits, as well. )

Yep, history is my hobby; I’m not 'mazed to learn these things (older half sister,* n. b*.). But don’t blame Edward too much. He was led by the nose.

Of course, the Lord can draw straight, with crooked lines. Even so, the line runs.

OTOH, one can rightly observe that the current world of Anglicanism is more than a little kinky, too.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[GKC]

The problem, I believe, had to do with form.

The Anglican Church changed the rite of ordination in ways that the Catholic Church did not accept.

Invalid form, invalid ordination, loss of apostolic succession.

No, it’s form and intention. Both have to be considered together. It’s easy to find 8-10 rites that have precisely the same defect of form that the Edwardine Ordinal has (according to *Apostlicae Curae, *), that the RCC considers as conveying valid orders. Intention must also be added. Clark (in the book I recommended, ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION), considers about 7 possible meanings for just where the defect lies, and concludes it was in the intention of those who consecrated Archbishop Parker in 1559. Parker is a sort of bottleneck in the Anglican episcopate. I recommend Clark’s book for a scholarly exposition of the RC position. As I also recommend Fr. John Jay Hughes’ two books, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD, for another side of the matter.

Did I mention that *Apostolicae Curae *is a sort of hobby of mine?

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Jubilatae]

Although we love our separated brethern, there can be no Holy Communion for them in the sacrifice of the Holy Mass.

It is a fact that they do NOT believe as we Catholics do that we receive the Body & Blood of Our Lord.

The Body & Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ & ALL THAT IS WITHIN.
Read John 6.

I can relate this incident, which to me, left me shaking to the core.

A very good friend of mine, a minister in a protestant church, asked me this, "If you truly believe that you eat the Body of Jesus & drink His blood, IS THIS NOT CANABALISM?, we are meant to do it as a symbol in His memory.

I said that I would pray for the right words, as I just did not have them at the time, and would telephone him later.

I prayed, and this is what I received.

“CANIBALISM IS EATING DEAD FLESH, I AM YOUR LIVING LORD”

Peace be with you.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

The topic title is itself predicated on an error. The practice did not arise with the reformation; it has ALWAYS been the practice of the Church. St. Justin Martyr recorded the practice circa 150 AD in his first Apology:

Chapter LXVI.—Of the Eucharist.
And this food is called among us [the Eucharist, written in Greek], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. [emphasis added]

It has simply always been that to receive the Holy Eucharist, one had to believe what the Church teaches. “Open communion”, so called, is a Protestant invention having nothing to do with the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. We seem to have lost sight of that.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[jmcrae]

The problem, I believe, had to do with form.

The Anglican Church changed the rite of ordination in ways that the Catholic Church did not accept.

Invalid form, invalid ordination, loss of apostolic succession.

Yes, that’s also my recollection as well. They restored the form 200 years later, but they had to go through a very circutuous process to re-establish the actual succession, by using Bishops from various different Orthodox churches and also from something called the Old Catholic Church - sometimes they were willing to do it, and sometimes not, so some Anglican Bishops have Apostolic Succession via the Orthodox and/or Old Catholics, and others do not - I have no idea how they know, or even whether they care, which is which.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, it’s form and intention. Both have to be considered together. It’s easy to find 8-10 rites that have precisely the same defect of form that the Edwardine Ordinal has (according to *Apostlicae Curae, *), that the RCC considers as conveying valid orders. Intention must also be added. Clark (in the book I recommended, ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION), considers about 7 possible meanings for just where the defect lies, and concludes it was in the intention of those who consecrated Archbishop Parker in 1559. Parker is a sort of bottleneck in the Anglican episcopate. I recommend Clark’s book for a scholarly exposition of the RC position. As I also recommend Fr. John Jay Hughes’ two books, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD, for another side of the matter.

Did I mention that *Apostolicae Curae *is a sort of hobby of mine?

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

I was hesitant to put intention into my post because it would seem obvious that the Anglicans intended to ordain bishops and priests…I had read elsewhere that they changed the rite (form).

However, can you give us the short version of why the "intent’ was defective?

Thanks.

 

[mercygate]

Yes, that’s also my recollection as well. They restored the form 200 years later, but they had to go through a very circutuous process to re-establish the actual succession, by using Bishops from various different Orthodox churches and also from something called the Old Catholic Church - sometimes they were willing to do it, and sometimes not, so some Anglican Bishops have Apostolic Succession via the Orthodox and/or Old Catholics, and others do not - I have no idea how they know, or even whether they care, which is which.

They know because they keep track (just as Catholics and Orthodox do) and yes: they care!

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Be civil, Gregory. The official statement on the Eucharist is This Holy Mystery. A quote:

You can disagree, say “our” Eucharist is invalid (it is Christ’s eucharist, not ours). You have that right. And I celebrate your “coming home.” Just don’t be a homewrecker in the midst of your own homecoming to those who are already home.

Pax,

O+

Who wrote that book? The formula does not go far enough but even the Church were to agree that it does is this really an official statement from the General Rules or simply one theologian’s opinion?

CDL

BTW It would be nice is Zooey would back up his claims

 

[GKC]

I was hesitant to put intention into my post because it would seem obvious that the Anglicans intended to ordain bishops and priests…

Yes. Anglicans agree with that. But that was not the judgement of AC, or the RCC. The judgement was that, in spite of the statement of intent in the Preface of the Edwardine Ordinal, that is, that the intention was to continue the orders of Deacons, Priests and Bishops, the true intent was to mean something else by these words than the Church had done historically. The defect of form that was pointed to, to support this contention, was the omission, or surpression, of the mention of the sacerdotal function of the clergy, (celebration of the Eucharist) in the ordiantion Rite. This defect in form is no different in itself from a number of Rites the RCC does not take exception to, but the deliberate omission, as compared to the then current Roman Pontical, was taken as evidence of the defective intent. See AC, sections 7, 8, and 9. But intent and form had to be faulted together.

As I said, the story of* AC* is quite complicated, and has more to it than just the theological details.

I had read elsewhere that they changed the rite (form).

However, can you give us the short version of why the "intent’ was defective?

Thanks.

I’ve tried, above.

And an interesting discussion on the subject can be found here,

www.accipepotestatem.com

a site run by the most knowledgeable layman I have ever met, on AC and Anglicans. He’s RC, traditional, and very good at it. I particularly recommend the comparison between the Edwardine Ordinal, the 16th Century Pontifical, and the current one. Eye-opening. As also the discussion of Continuing Anglicans.

GKC

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I don’t think anyone owns Christ. We are His. He is not ours.

That’s why He created the Church He wished to exist. He created one upon the Rock St. Peter. We have no right to create something else and call it His Church when He created the one He wished to exist.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

From the UMC Official Web site.

United Methodists share basic affirmations in common with all Christian communities

.

Thi

This is as I remember it to be. It is a mere symbol to the United Methodists. I wonder if Zooey has found his support for the Real Presence of Christ yet. Since I’m not a Gnostic I do believe in the real presence and not in mere symbol.

CDL