Belief in the real presence

[RileyG]

I believe the timeline was the Methodist Episcopal Church existed from its founding in 1784 until 1939. In 1939, it merged with the Methodist Protestant Church to form the Methodist Church. In 1969 the Methodist Church joined the Evangelical United Brethren Church to form the United Methodist Church.

My journey began with the Methodist iteration and then on to the United Methodists until I left decades later. I remember the merger of the Methodists and EUBs. It was not easy. My dad had been a Methodist pastor. In 1969 he was appointed by the Bishop to a town where his task was to join two congregations - a former Methodist one and a former EUB one - both having buildings and histories about 3 blocks from each other. Also, to close a small country church where he pastored as a seminarian when starting his career. It was ugly. He failed to unite the two congregations. I don't know how many pastors later it took to get the job done or if anyone every went willingly. For many years after the merger even into recent times, UMC congregations that came from the EUB stream harbored resentments of Methodists and didn't always make it easy for pastors assigned to them who were former Methodists.

Are your parents still living? Can you ask them any questions?

 

[seeking.IAM]

Are your parents still living? Can you ask them any questions?

Both are now deceased.

 

[RileyG]

Both are now deceased.

Oh. I’m sorry for your loss.

Blessings

 

[seeking.IAM]

Are your parents still living? Can you ask them any questions?

I am curious about what questions you would want to have asked?

 

[RileyG]

I am curious about what questions you would want to have asked?

About belief in the real presence and how it’s different from an episcopal church?

 

[seeking.IAM]

I am curious about what questions you would want to have asked?

About belief in the real presence and how it’s different from an episcopal church?

Yes, that would be a good question to ask. I would like to have had that conversation as well. Unfortunately, my dad had passed away before I became Episcopalian. My mother and I had some conversation later, but it was limited to preferred frequency of communion. Her experience growing up was having communion infrequently, no more often than quarterly as I recall. She could never quite get her head around celebrating the Eucharist every Sunday as Episcopalians do. She said she thought having it less frequently made it "more special," while I thought celebrating at every service heightened its importance making it more special. That was an interesting difference. She fully supported my departure from Methodism to become Episcopalian, by the way - and thought by dad would have, too.

 

[RileyG]

Yes, that would be a good question to ask. I would like to have had that conversation as well. Unfortunately, my dad had passed away before I became Episcopalian. My mother and I had some conversation later, but it was limited to preferred frequency of communion. Her experience growing up was having communion infrequently, no more often than quarterly as I recall. She could never quite get her head around celebrating the Eucharist every Sunday as Episcopalians do. She said she thought having it less frequently made it "more special," while I thought celebrating at every service heightened its importance making it more special. That was an interesting difference. She fully supported my departure from Methodism to become Episcopalian, by the way - and thought by dad would have, too.

Ah, interesting. Thanks for the response.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Protestants reject this idea as not taught by the New Testament. They consider the bread and wine to be no more than symbols of the flesh and blood of Jesus who is present in the Spirit of the hearts to all who take Communion sincerely.​

​

Well, by that definition we Confessional Lutherans are NOT protestants. LOL Photo below is my Pastor in my Church:

 

[RileyG]

Protestants reject this idea as not taught by the New Testament. They consider the bread and wine to be no more than symbols of the flesh and blood of Jesus who is present in the Spirit of the hearts to all who take Communion sincerely.​

​

Well, by that definition we Confessional Lutherans are NOT protestants. LOL Photo below is my Pastor in my Church:
View attachment 356777

What are those silver platters?

 

[Fervent]

Christ truly being present in the Eucharist and not just a mere symbol.

I don't know if it's fair to say that a symbolic view is necessarily a mere symbol, and much of the dispute is over squirrely metaphysics. While some do diminish the sacrament in calling it symbolic, it is possible to accept it as a symbol without denying that it accomplishes what it symbolizes. When we eat the bread and drink the wine, the physical substance of the bread and wine doesn't change. If we examined the chemistry of it, the same molecules of ordinary bread and wine remain. Whether or not there is some unobservable essence that makes bread bread that is transformed into flesh is a metaphysical question, and I don't believe the Bible addresses that question. However, just because it is a symbolic act that we are engaging in does not mean that there isn't a deeper reality we are participating in, where in consuming the bread and wine we are consuming the flesh and blood of our Lord and taking Him into our physical beings. Where that reality lies, I am not sure can be said. Is it in the elements, or is it in the act itself? I know Christ is present, and I know that many are satisfied with the traditions that place His presence in the elements themselves but such an understanding to me appears superstitious. So simply because some like myself view it as symbolic does not mean we view it as mere symbol. It is a symbol that accomplishes what is being symbolized.

 

[RileyG]

I don't know if it's fair to say that a symbolic view is necessarily a mere symbol, and much of the dispute is over squirrely metaphysics. While some do diminish the sacrament in calling it symbolic, it is possible to accept it as a symbol without denying that it accomplishes what it symbolizes. When we eat the bread and drink the wine, the physical substance of the bread and wine doesn't change. If we examined the chemistry of it, the same molecules of ordinary bread and wine remain. Whether or not there is some unobservable essence that makes bread bread that is transformed into flesh is a metaphysical question, and I don't believe the Bible addresses that question. However, just because it is a symbolic act that we are engaging in does not mean that there isn't a deeper reality we are participating in, where in consuming the bread and wine we are consuming the flesh and blood of our Lord and taking Him into our physical beings. Where that reality lies, I am not sure can be said. Is it in the elements, or is it in the act itself? I know Christ is present, and I know that many are satisfied with the traditions that place His presence in the elements themselves but such an understanding to me appears superstitious. So simply because some like myself view it as symbolic does not mean we view it as mere symbol. It is a symbol that accomplishes what is being symbolized.

What does holy communion do if it’s only a memorial view? A means of grace? A means of forgiveness of sins?

Thank you for your well detailed answer.

In my humble opinion, the real presence is a mystery we cannot fully comprehend. We just trust in God’s goodness in the gift he gives us.

Blessings

 

[Fervent]

What does holy communion do if it’s only a memorial view? A means of grace? A means of forgiveness of sins?

I don't hold a memorial view, though I do see it as a symbolic act. And yes to both of your questions, consuming the flesh and blood of Christ in symbol accomplishes uniting us with Christ bodily so that we may avail ourselves of the grace of God and the forgiveness of our sins, as well as uniting us with all those who have come before us and bringing us to the very foot of the cross. It brings together salvation past, present, and future and makes Christ's presence in our lives a reality. How it accomplishes all this, I don't know. But recognizing it as a symbol doesn't require we abandon Christ's real presence in the act. Though as I said, many do diminish the act by stressing its symbolic nature and robbing it of the mystery. But the error there is deeper than in their sacramental theology, because it stems from a view of theology that treats our justification as a completed act and not an ongoing reality we must avail ourselves of.

Thank you for your well detailed answer.

No problem, and I'm not sure if it belongs with any denomination as I borrow from the various traditions as they make sense not adhering to a single tradition. In this area, I think I've simply created a frankenstein's monster because I was brought up memorialist and have always viewed some of the more well defined positions as superstitious, but came to recognize the necessity of Christ's presence being truly in the act.

In my humble opinion, the real presence is a mystery we cannot fully comprehend. We just trust in God’s goodness in the gift he gives us.

I agree completely.

Blessings

Blessings to you as well.

 

[RileyG]

I don't hold a memorial view, though I do see it as a symbolic act. And yes to both of your questions, consuming the flesh and blood of Christ in symbol accomplishes uniting us with Christ bodily so that we may avail ourselves of the grace of God and the forgiveness of our sins, as well as uniting us with all those who have come before us and bringing us to the very foot of the cross. It brings together salvation past, present, and future and makes Christ's presence in our lives a reality. How it accomplishes all this, I don't know. But recognizing it as a symbol doesn't require we abandon Christ's real presence in the act. Though as I said, many do diminish the act by stressing its symbolic nature and robbing it of the mystery. But the error there is deeper than in their sacramental theology, because it stems from a view of theology that treats our justification as a completed act and not an ongoing reality we must avail ourselves of.

No problem, and I'm not sure if it belongs with any denomination as I borrow from the various traditions as they make sense not adhering to a single tradition. In this area, I think I've simply created a frankenstein's monster because I was brought up memorialist and have always viewed some of the more well defined positions as superstitious, but came to recognize the necessity of Christ's presence being truly in the act.

I agree completely.

Blessings to you as well.

Thank you for your very beautiful answer.

It reminds me of “The Lamb’s Supper” by theologian Scott Hahn, how the Eucharist is related to the second coming of Christ etc

God bless

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

What are those silver platters?

There are those in our congregation that are uncomfortable receiving the Lord's blood from the common Chalice so we provide individual cups so that we can accommodate them. The little cups we use are glass; any remaining at the end of the service are poured in with the remaining wine in the Chalice and consumed by the Pastor. These cups are purified by the altar guild members following the service in the same manner that the Chalice is purified.

This is not ideal, it is a lot of extra work for the guild, but for those who might forsake the sacrament otherwise, we continue this practice.

Interesting to note that there are more and more people returning to the chalice and less using the individual cups. This is a good thing. As Sacristan, my altar guild people are getting older; two have died in the last two years, and despite or efforts, no new members are coming forward. I see the day coming when we will be putting away the individual cups for the last time but not for the right reason, but for the lack of help to prepare and clean up. If they are still with us, I know of three members who would reject the sacrament when this comes about. Sad, but true.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thank you for your very beautiful answer.

It reminds me of “The Lamb’s Supper” by theologian Scott Hahn, how the Eucharist is related to the second coming of Christ etc

God bless

There is a great Lutheran book on the Eucharist in the context of the Divine Service (Mass) by Rev. Arthur Just: Heaven on Earth: The Gifts of Christ in the Divine Service - Concordia Publishing House

 

[RileyG]

There are those in our congregation that are uncomfortable receiving the Lord's blood from the common Chalice so we provide individual cups so that we can accommodate them. The little cups we use are glass; any remaining at the end of the service are poured in with the remaining wine in the Chalice and consumed by the Pastor. These cups are purified by the altar guild members following the service in the same manner that the Chalice is purified.

This is not ideal, it is a lot of extra work for the guild, but for those who might forsake the sacrament otherwise, we continue this practice.

Interesting to note that there are more and more people returning to the chalice and less using the individual cups. This is a good thing. As Sacristan, my altar guild people are getting older; two have died in the last two years, and despite or efforts, no new members are coming forward. I see the day coming when we will be putting away the individual cups for the last time but not for the right reason, but for the lack of help to prepare and clean up. If they are still with us, I know of three members who would reject the sacrament when this comes about. Sad, but true.

Is there anyone who doesn't receive the Lord's Blood at all? Only the host?

 

[RileyG]

There is a great Lutheran book on the Eucharist in the context of the Divine Service (Mass) by Rev. Arthur Just: Heaven on Earth: The Gifts of Christ in the Divine Service - Concordia Publishing House

If I didn't have so many books to begin with, I might order that! My To-be-read list is very, very LONG.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Is there anyone who doesn't receive the Lord's Blood at all? Only the host?

Not in our Parish, there are a few parishes where some might desire to only receive the Host only out of concerns for alcohol addiction, but it is greatly discouraged. We do have a few members that take the host and dip the edge barely in the consecrated wine. As such they are honoring our Lord's command to consume both His body and His blood.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

If I didn't have so many books to begin with, I might order that! My To-be-read list is very, very LONG.

See if you can bump this a bit closer to the top. Besides the Eucharist, there is lots in there regarding our Liturgies. Beneficial for Lutherans, Catholics and Anglicans alike.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is a great Lutheran book on the Eucharist in the context of the Divine Service (Mass) by Rev. Arthur Just: Heaven on Earth: The Gifts of Christ in the Divine Service - Concordia Publishing House

I will look into that. I have many books edited by or with contributions from the liberal Lutheran liturgiologist Maxwell E. Johnson, including The Church in Act: Lutheran Liturgical Theology in Ecumenical Conversation which I have not yet read. It would be nice to have a confessional perspective. That being said, Maxwell Johnson and his frequent collaborator Paul F. Bradshaw, despite their liberalism, are very reliable when it comes to documenting the established history of the Christian liturgy, and at including multiple points of view where the historical account becomes uncertain.

Where their work tends to break down concerns works about the worship of the very early church, before we had manuscript attestation other than the Didache, although their views, while I believe them to be erroneous, are not offensive, and likewise in their preference for certain modern liturgies such as contemporary Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran liturgical texts, but I have never come across any material of theirs which I found to be actually offensive, and there are several liturgiologists who are much less tolerant of liturgical traditionalism than they are.

Indeed the Oxford Handbook of Christian Worship which one would expect would be neutral is highly biased in the direction of contemporary worship, which is a problem given its supposed scholarly credentials. The same is true to the Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer. Compared to those works, which in the latter include particularly harsh and unwarranted criticism of Anglicans who prefer the traditional versions of the Book of Common Prayer, and also ventures into other disagreeable territory, Max Johnson is a pillar of orthodoxy.