Question on Communion

[circuitrider]

It has given me food for thought. Comments?

I don't get any sense that "real presence" exactly implies eating Jesus. Though I see how John's passage uses that image. We believe that Christ is really and truly present with us in the sacrament. I think Jesus was also being metaphorical that we were taking Jesus into us in communion. Eating is one way to get something into yourself physically. So I see communion as another way to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in getting the spirit of Christ within us. The eating Jesus body and drinking Jesus blood is a very physical way of trying to describe what is a spiritual reality, that Christ dwells in us.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I've found in my own ministry that many United Methodists confuse their own beliefs with that of the church. In other words; they think that what they believe is what the church believes. We're not dogmatic; you're free to dissent from the denomination. But as we are connectional and bound by The Book of Discipline, This Holy Mystery, and other documents; I can say with certainty that the United Methodist Church affirms a Real Presence Doctrine. This is not necessarily a view shared by all United Methodists, but I would venture most; and most clergy. Most Board of Ordained Ministry (essentially, the 'credentialing body' of the UMC's various conferences) and District Committee on Ministries are pretty stringent when it comes to the sacraments; as it's such an essential part of our role. I doubt very much that someone who believe communion to be mere symbolism would be ordained in the Missouri Conference; and I suspect most, if not all, other conferences.

Also, I don't know that I personally make the connection between Real Presence and Cannibalism; even if that is an arguable challenge to transubstantiation. I think the two get confused sometimes. We don't believe the bread is anything but bread; nor the wine anything but wine. Frankly, my biggest challenge to transubstantiation is that, if true; it seems like one big 'trick'. Why would got transform something totally into something else but make it taste, smell, look, and feel exactly the same? Paul says God is capable of transforming us totally; so why not the bread? It's clear to me that transforming the bread into something else is not what God intends to happen or what happens at the table. I welcome those who believe differently, but that's what resonates with me. That said; I still do believe that Christ is present in a unique way when the gathered body and authorized presider come together for Holy Communion. Christ's presence in these elements is something more than just a symbol; but I don't believe is akin to "eating Jesus".

 

[circuitrider]

Well said Romans Five Eight.

Jesus does call himself the "bread of life" in the Gospel of John. Jesus does indeed compare himself to holy food. The reason I believe he does so is that like food, Jesus is absolutely necessary for our life. His grace is an absolute necessity for our existence. You do without food you die. Christ is necessary for our spiritual life as much as food is necessary to our physical life.

Unfortunately modern Christians have become so oriented towards the material that we have forgotten the the life of the spirit is the real life and not just the physical alone which is passing and will pass away.


51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever, and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” John 6:51

 

[Dave-W]

Frankly, my biggest challenge to transubstantiation is that, if true; it seems like one big 'trick'. Why would got transform something totally into something else but make it taste, smell, look, and feel exactly the same?

Is that not one of the reasons that Martin Luther established the doctrine of CONsubstantiation? Instead of changing the whole of the elements, a minute amount of actual flesh and blood was added to the bread and wine.

 

[circuitrider]

Is that not one of the reasons that Martin Luther established the doctrine of CONsubstantiation? Instead of changing the whole of the elements, a minute amount of actual flesh and blood was added to the bread and wine.

I'm not a Lutheran. But I don't think that is quite how I would describe the doctrine of consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is actually so close to "real presence" that the UMC and the ELCA have been able to enact a full communion agreement. Some of this gets into hair splitting.

 

[Albion]

Is that not one of the reasons that Martin Luther established the doctrine of CONsubstantiation? Instead of changing the whole of the elements, a minute amount of actual flesh and blood was added to the bread and wine.

Circuitrider's correct to say what he did about this. Luther didn't think along the lines of "minute amount of actual flesh and blood was added."

Luther essentially agreed with the Catholic Church on Transubstantiation EXCEPT that he thought the idea of the bread and wind ceasing to exist was wrong (so, of course, this makes it not "Trans" at all). To a Lutheran, the communicant gets all of it--bread, wine, body, blood.

IMO, this is understandable of him to think, but makes it one of the least convincing of all the various theories on the nature of the sacrament.

 

[circuitrider]

Circuitrider's correct to say what he did about this. Luther didn't think along the lines of "minute amount of actual flesh and blood was added."

Luther essentially agreed with the Catholic Church on Transubstantiation EXCEPT that he thought the idea of the bread and wind ceasing to exist was wrong (so, of course, this makes it not "Trans" at all). To a Lutheran, the communicant gets all of it--bread, wine, body, blood.

IMO, this is understandable of him to think, but makes it one of the least convincing of all the various theories on the nature of the sacrament.

Yes, I think it is getting to hung up on the physicality of Christ's presence rather than the spiritual nature of Christ's presence.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Is that not one of the reasons that Martin Luther established the doctrine of CONsubstantiation? Instead of changing the whole of the elements, a minute amount of actual flesh and blood was added to the bread and wine.

Circuitrider's correct to say what he did about this. Luther didn't think along the lines of "minute amount of actual flesh and blood was added."

Luther essentially agreed with the Catholic Church on Transubstantiation EXCEPT that he thought the idea of the bread and wind ceasing to exist was wrong (so, of course, this makes it not "Trans" at all). To a Lutheran, the communicant gets all of it--bread, wine, body, blood.

IMO, this is understandable of him to think, but makes it one of the least convincing of all the various theories on the nature of the sacrament.

Well, I can't quote Luther, but I can tell you in my years serving among the Lutherans (ELCA) that I never heard of the sacramental elements spoken of as "actual flesh and blood" at all, minute or otherwise. Actual presence of Christ, YES - "in, with and under" the forms of the consecrated bread and wine - but specifically stated in our confirmation classes that any molecular analysis of the elements would produce bread and wine, not flesh and blood.

 

[Albion]

Well, I can't quote Luther, but I can tell you in my years serving among the Lutherans (ELCA) that I never heard of the sacramental elements spoken of as "actual flesh and blood" at all, minute or otherwise.

Probably not, but that's Luther's belief. Perhaps you recall hearing of his famous 'poker in the furnace' analogy that IS cited in Lutheran circles

 

[circuitrider]

Probably not, but that's Luther's belief. Perhaps you recall hearing of his famous 'poker in the furnace' analogy that IS cited in Lutheran circles

That is a reminder that Lutherans do not always follow Luther any more than Methodists always follow Wesley.

 

[Albion]

That is a reminder that Lutherans do not always follow Luther any more than Methodists always follow Wesley.

We all want to represent denominations correctly here, but as I always say, "If you poll the people in the pews on what they believe, there's no telling what you'll hear!" And that's true for almost every church.

 

[circuitrider]

We all want to represent denominations correctly here, but as I always say, "If you poll the people in the pews on what they believe, there's no telling what you'll hear!" And that's true for almost every church.

Even the UMC officially doesn't follow all of Welsey's ideas. He never intended us to have Bishops but instead wanted us to have "General Superindendents" as the British Methodists have always done. But the Methodist Episcopal Church in the US headed in a more ecclesial direction because we were out here on our own.

 

[Albion]

FWIW, I too find that Methodists generally take the approach towards Wesley that you've described. Lutherans are much more inclined to lionize Luther in sermons, by referring doctrinal matters back to his own personal writings and opinions, and through visuals such as statuary, quotes, and the use of Luther's own emblem, the "Luther rose."

 

[circuitrider]

FWIW, I too find that Methodists generally take the approach towards Wesley that you've described. Lutherans are much more inclined to lionize Luther in sermons, by referring doctrinal matters back to his own personal writings and opinions, and through visuals such as statuary, quotes, and the use of Luther's own emblem, the "Luther rose."

I'm prone to refer to and quote Wesley. But Wesley's approach to doctrine (practical divinity) was quite a bit different than Luther's approach. I think that shapes the way Methodists use Wesley. We didn't leave Anglicanism over doctrine as much as over holiness of heart and life.

It is only in recent years that I've hung out with Lutherans much. I see the ELCA crowd to be very similar to Methodists in many ways though their polity is more congregational in some ways than ours.

I was at an installation of a new minister in a Lutheran church and the Bishop asked the congregation's search committee to give him permission to install the pastor. A young Methodist turned to me and said, "Since when does the Bishop ask a congregation's permission to place a pastor?" My response, "Remember these folks aren't Methodists."

 

[Albion]

I'm prone to refer to and quote Wesley. But Wesley's approach to doctrine (practical divinity) was quite a bit different than Luther's approach. I think that shapes the way Methodists use Wesley. We didn't leave Anglicanism over doctrine as much as over holiness of heart and life.

Sure. But I still think they (you) are more restrained in this regard, compared to some other denominations.

I was at an installation of a new minister in a Lutheran church and the Bishop asked the congregation's search committee to give him permission to install the pastor. A young Methodist turned to me and said, "Since when does the Bishop ask a congregation's permission to place a pastor?" My response, "Remember these folks aren't Methodists."

Yep, although the Lutherans in that case seem more like Anglicans than the Methodists do. We require some sort of approval for both the placement and installation of a rector or consecration of a diocesan bishop.

 

[circuitrider]

Yep, although the Lutherans in that case seem more like Anglicans than the Methodists do. We require some sort of approval for both the placement and installation of a rector or consecration of a diocesan bishop.

Is this also true of Anglican churches in the Church of England? I was under the impression that their priests are appointed.

 

[Albion]

Is this also true of Anglican churches in the Church of England? I was under the impression that their priests are appointed.

Well, you've now launched me into an investigation because I don't know how things work in England, and you probably are correct to think that the American perspective on democratic institutions has something to do with the way things work here. However, I do know that it is considered a theological matter that the people are supposed to give consent in some fashion or another.