the Methodist view of communion

MOJS4545

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
28
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Methodist
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, and the Eucharist are all names for this sacrament celebrated by United Methodists. Each of these names highlights an aspect of this act of worship.

According to This Holy Mystery, The United Methodist Church’s official document on communion, “The Lord’s Supper reminds us that Jesus Christ is the host and that we participate at Christ’s invitation.” Jesus invites us to take part in the special meal he ate with his disciples the night before his crucifixion, and other meals he shared in homes and on hillsides.

“The term Holy Communion invites us to focus on the self-giving of the Holy God which makes the sacrament an occasion of grace, and on the holiness of our communion with God and one another,” This Holy Mystery continues.

Finally, “Eucharist, from the Greek word for thanksgiving, reminds us that the sacrament is thanksgiving to God for the gifts of creation and salvation.”

REGULAR COMMUNION
Due to a lack of ordained clergy in the early days of the church in the United States, a history of receiving the sacrament quarterly (four times per year) is the habit in some places. The vast majority of United Methodist congregations in the United States (97% in the most recent study) now celebrate the Lord’s Supper at least once per month. This Holy Mystery and The United Methodist Book of Worship encourage weekly communion.


http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/an-open-table-how-united-methodists-understand-communion
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Lutheran view...


Let's very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not.


Matthew 26:26-29

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."


First Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24. and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25. In the same way, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27. Therefore, 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.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.


Lutherans hold that all the words present mean what they do. And that doctrine should not be based on words deleted or substituted. So that "is" = is (real, present, exists), "Bread" = bread. "Wine/cup/fruit of the vine" = wine. "Body" = body. "Blood" = blood. "Forgiveness" = forgiveness.

Lutherans note that what comes after the "IS" is - body, blood, bread, wine and forgiveness. So Lutherans believe that is is body, blood, bread, wine and forgiveness.

This was the universal view of all Christians until the 16th Century when Zwingli invented the "can't be true so it's a metaphor" view and the RCC dogmatized the "is doesn't mean is but rather a very specific change has happen via the alchemic mechanism of a transubstantiation leaving behind an unknowable mixture of reality and Aristotelian accidents."


That what is said to be present really is present is know as REAL PRESENCE.


Real Presence is:

1. Real Presence accepts the words of Jesus and Paul. Nothing added, nothing substracted, nothing modified.

2. Real Presence accepts that the meaning of is is is. This means that we receive Christ - quite literally.


Real Presence is NOT..

1. Real Presence is not a dogmatic denial of the words "bread" and "wine" AFTER the consecration as if we must take a "half real/half symbolic" interpretation of the text. It simply regards such as irrelevant. The point of Real Presence is the presence of CHRIST. It's not called, "The Denial of What Paul Wrote" because that's not what it is, it is the AFFIRMATION of what he penned and what Christ said: the body is, the blood is, CHRIST is present.

2. Real Presence is not a theory about anything or explanation regarding anything. It simply embraces EXACTLY and LITERALLY what Jesus said and Paul penned. The HOW and the physics are left entirely alone.

3. Real Presence doesn't teach or deny any "change." The word "change" never appears in any Eucharistic text and thus Real Presence has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Rather, it embraces what it IS - because that does appear in the texts and seems significant. "IS" means is - it has to do be BEING. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn't imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. Accepting, "This is a Toyota" simply and only means this is a Toyota.

Now, without a doubt, the faith and conviction raises some questions. But Real Presence has always regarded all this to be MYSTERY. How it happens, Why it happens, exactly What happens - it doesn't matter. We believe because Jesus said and Paul so penned by inspiration. That's was good enough for all Christians for over 1500 years and it's good enough for Lutherans.


The Lutheran Confessions teach that Lutherans celebrate the Eucharistic weekly. But there is no mandate concerning this and some Lutheran congregations do so less often.





.
 
Last edited:

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,914
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Lutheran view...


Let's very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not.


Matthew 26:26-29

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."


First Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24. and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25. In the same way, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27. Therefore, 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.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.


Lutherans hold that all the words present mean what they do. And that doctrine should not be based on words deleted or substituted. So that "is" = is (real, present, exists), "Bread" = bread. "Wine/cup/fruit of the vine" = wine. "Body" = body. "Blood" = blood. "Forgiveness" = forgiveness.

Lutherans note that what comes after the "IS" is - body, blood, bread, wine and forgiveness. So Lutherans believe that is is body, blood, bread, wine and forgiveness.

This was the universal view of all Christians until the 16th Century when Zwingli invented the "can't be true so it's a metaphor" view and the RCC dogmatized the "is doesn't mean is but rather a very specific change has happen via the alchemic mechanism of a transubstantiation leaving behind an unknowable mixture of reality and Aristotelian accidents."


That what is said to be present really is present is know as REAL PRESENCE.


Real Presence is:

1. Real Presence accepts the words of Jesus and Paul. Nothing added, nothing substracted, nothing modified.

2. Real Presence accepts that the meaning of is is is. This means that we receive Christ - quite literally.


Real Presence is NOT..

1. Real Presence is not a dogmatic denial of the words "bread" and "wine" AFTER the consecration as if we must take a "half real/half symbolic" interpretation of the text. It simply regards such as irrelevant. The point of Real Presence is the presence of CHRIST. It's not called, "The Denial of What Paul Wrote" because that's not what it is, it is the AFFIRMATION of what he penned and what Christ said: the body is, the blood is, CHRIST is present.

2. Real Presence is not a theory about anything or explanation regarding anything. It simply embraces EXACTLY and LITERALLY what Jesus said and Paul penned. The HOW and the physics are left entirely alone.

3. Real Presence doesn't teach or deny any "change." The word "change" never appears in any Eucharistic text and thus Real Presence has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Rather, it embraces what it IS - because that does appear in the texts and seems significant. "IS" means is - it has to do be BEING. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn't imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. Accepting, "This is a Toyota" simply and only means this is a Toyota.

Now, without a doubt, the faith and conviction raises some questions. But Real Presence has always regarded all this to be MYSTERY. How it happens, Why it happens, exactly What happens - it doesn't matter. We believe because Jesus said and Paul so penned by inspiration. That's was good enough for all Christians for over 1500 years and it's good enough for Lutherans.


The Lutheran Confessions teach that Lutherans celebrate the Eucharistic weekly. But there is no mandate concerning this and some Lutheran congregations do

Sent from my SM-S907VL using Tapatalk
The thread is about the Methodist viewpoint not the Lutheran view
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The thread is about the Methodist viewpoint not the Lutheran view

?? Okay. Is someone going to describe the Methodist view?

It appears to me that "the Methodist viewpoint" (which Methodist churches would that be?) is similar to the Anglican viewpoint on the matter, although the incidental characteristics of the sacrament get talked about more and the average Methodist probably thinks of the sacrament completely in symbolic terms.
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,914
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
?? Okay. Is someone going to describe the Methodist view?

It appears to me that "the Methodist viewpoint" (which Methodist churches would that be?) is similar to the Anglican viewpoint on the matter, although the incidental characteristics of the sacrament get talked about more and the average Methodist probably thinks of the sacrament completely in symbolic terms.

It's in the link in the OP
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It's in the link in the OP

having read that, I found a lot of simplistic statements from a variety of sources that talked all around the subject we are dealing with. And when I found what looked like the real thing, that link came up broken or removed.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
having read that, I found a lot of simplistic statements from a variety of sources that talked all around the subject we are dealing with. And when I found what looked like the real thing, that link came up broken or removed.

So for me, the question remains open...and it may still depend on which Methodist body we are speaking of. I know, for instance, that although we'd probably expect the Free Methodist Church to be more on the symbolic end of the issue, the wording in their liturgy seems to affirm the Real Presence.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It's in the link in the OP


I read the website .... I couldn't find anything whatsoever about how "Methodists" (which?) believe about the Eucharist. Some things about attitudes and practices, but no theology.

I do have some questions about the PRACTICE (which would probably be cleared up if the site spoke of what is believed about it). It says "they" commune BAPTIZED infants. Okay.... is having been baptized always a requirement? Is faith a requirement? Is confession a requirement? Must they be a Christian? Are Mormons or Oneness Pentecostals welcomed?

Is there a link to what Methodist believe about it?
 

MOJS4545

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
28
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Methodist
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I read the website .... I couldn't find anything whatsoever about how "Methodists" (which?) believe about the Eucharist. Some things about attitudes and practices, but no theology.

I do have some questions about the PRACTICE (which would probably be cleared up if the site spoke of what is believed about it). It says "they" commune BAPTIZED infants. Okay.... is having been baptized always a requirement? Is faith a requirement? Is confession a requirement? Must they be a Christian? Are Mormons or Oneness Pentecostals welcomed?

Is there a link to what Methodist believe about it?

Regarding your question about who can participate in the communion. The United Methodist web site says this

"The table of Holy Communion is Christ's table, not the table of The United Methodist Church or of the local congregation. The table is open to anyone who seeks to respond to Christ's love and to lead a new life of peace and love, as the invitation to the table says.

Our Book of Worship says, "All who intend to lead a Christian life, together with their children, are invited to receive the bread and cup. We have no tradition of refusing any who present themselves desiring to receive" (page 29). This statement means that in practice there are few, if any, circumstances in which a United Methodist pastor would refuse to serve the elements of Holy Communion to a person who comes forward to receive.

By Water and the Spirit affirms: "Because the table at which we gather belongs to the Lord, it should be open to all who respond to Christ's love, regardless of age or church membership. The Wesleyan tradition has always recognized that Holy Communion may be an occasion for the reception of converting, justifying, and sanctifying grace.""

here is the link to the web site
http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/i-am-not-a-member-can-i-still-receive-communion

Methodist doctrine would allow people who are not baptized to participate in communion and children. It would include those who are of other faiths including Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses as I understand it. Parents are encouraged to talk to their children about the elements and what they mean.
 
Last edited:

MOJS4545

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
28
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Methodist
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Regarding whether or not Methodist believe that the elements become the body and blood of Christ.

"This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion, the official statement on communion, says, “The Christian church has struggled through the centuries to understand just how Christ is present in the Eucharist. Arguments and divisions have occurred over the matter. The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ's presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully.”
This Holy Mystery later continues, “United Methodists, along with other Christian traditions, have tried to provide clear and faithful interpretations of Christ's presence in the Holy Meal. Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord's Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial. We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, though we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. We understand the divine presence in temporal and relational terms. In the Holy Meal of the church, the past, present, and future of the living Christ come together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we may receive and embody Jesus Christ as God's saving gift for the whole world.”"

http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/do-united-methodists-believe-the-communion-elements
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Regarding whether or not Methodist believe that the elements become the body and blood of Christ.

"This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion, the official statement on communion, says, “The Christian church has struggled through the centuries to understand just how Christ is present in the Eucharist. Arguments and divisions have occurred over the matter. The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ's presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully.”
This Holy Mystery later continues, “United Methodists, along with other Christian traditions, have tried to provide clear and faithful interpretations of Christ's presence in the Holy Meal. Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord's Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial. We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, though we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. We understand the divine presence in temporal and relational terms. In the Holy Meal of the church, the past, present, and future of the living Christ come together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we may receive and embody Jesus Christ as God's saving gift for the whole world.”"

Honestly, that statement seems to be working hard to satisfy both believers in the doctrine of the Real Presence and also those who do not believe it.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The thread is about the Methodist viewpoint not the Lutheran view


I'm just TRYING to understand "the" Methodist view.... since the link provided says nothing about that.

Some years ago, at "the website that shall not be named" I had quite a conversation with an active Methodist who insisted the Methodist and Lutheran views are identical, and quoted much from Methodist stuff to reveal this. Certainly, THAT Methodist had a solidly Lutheran view. I put up the Lutheran view just to see if the opening poster said "yup" or "nope." And maybe to get the conversation on the Methodist view rather than Methodist praxis (attempting to get to the issue of the thread rather than away from it).

MY experience (ain't saying that's saying much) is that Methodistism seems to go to enormous lengths to say much without saying much..... that statements are purposely written so that anyone can see their view in iit... so that no matter what someone believes, they can conclude "that's the Methodist view." But that's just MY current 'take' and I'm be glad to learn it's wrong.





.
 
Top Bottom