Consecrating the Eucharist?

[elanor]

I keep forgetting to talk to my pastor about this yet, so I thought I'd throw out this question here in the hopes that someone 'in the know' can explain this to me.

I'm belong to a UMC congregation. We postponed our regular communion service for a week a while back because our pastor and several other leaders in the church had to be away one weekend, and there was no one on hand to "consecrate the eurcharist." Now I have been in several denominations in the 32 years I've been a Christian (Baptist--American and Southern, Nazarene, and Foursquare), but I've never run into this before. In fact, I've participated in communion many times in very informal settings, and I've served it to my Sunday School classes (with our pastor's blessing). So what is this consecrating the eucharist all about, and why do we think we need a designated someone to do this before we can share the bread and cup with our brothers and sisters in remembrance of Jesus. Normally, I'm cool with most of the UMC teachings, but I can't get my head around this one. :scratch:

[ClementofRome]

Bless you for this line of questioning. I await a response as well.

[elanor]

Yes, I'd also be curious if other denominations in the Wesleyan tradition follow this same practice. I don't remember it from the Nazarene church I attended, but we only celebrated communion quarterly, so I might not have noticed.

By the way, when I said I served communion to my Sunday School class with the pastor's blessing, I meant his approval. He didn't come into class or in anyway 'bless' the elements beforehand. My 5th and 6th graders actually asked me if we could do this :eek: , so I got approval and we shared communion together.

[kelco]

Here is a link to a pdf file which explains Holy Communion in the UM Church. Hope this answers some of your questions.

http://www.gbod.org/worship/default.asp?act=reader&item_id=12528&loc_id=9,10,39

[seeking.IAM]

The UMC recognizes two sacraments: communion and Baptism. I think both require an ordained clergy to officiate. Other faiths hold other sacraments such as marriage.

I wouldn't expect to consecrate/serve communion any more than I would expect them to allow me to Baptize someone or perform a marriage. You have to remember that John Wesley was an Anglican priest until he drew his last breath.

seeking.IAM
<><

[ClementofRome]

Yes, but "why" is it necessary for "ordained" clergy to consecrate/serve communion? Why is it necessary for the same to baptize?

Is it simply for control? Where is herev when you need him. Oh, I forgot, he is changing diapers.... BWWWWAAAAAAAHHAHAHHAHA! Better him that me! :)

just kidding herev...

[Try]

The reason that elders can celebrate Communion (which is not merely symbolic, btw) is because they have been marked by the Church as a whole as heirs to the apostles, and you haven't.

A layperson may baptize in emergencies- because baptisim is primarily between the person being baptized and God.

[ClementofRome]

The reason that elders can celebrate Communion (which is not merely symbolic, btw) is because they have been marked by the Church as a whole as heirs to the apostles, and you haven't.

A layperson may baptize in emergencies- because baptisim is primarily between the person being baptized and God.

Yes, I know the explanation, but it does not suffice. If we follow the reformation theology of the "priesthood of all believers" then this argument is flawed.

I was not suggesting that the celebration was symbolic. I am a believer that it is a form of grace and that Christ is spiritually present in the elements. However, this does not presuppose the necessity of an "ordained" consecration of the elements. "When two or more are gathered in my name, I am there."

[desert_island_1]

I have never heard of this either... At our church we have communion on the first Sunday of every month...

[daddave]

Howdy All!

Churches need rules to some extent. There's a careful line between legalism and order. I think a lot of what Paul preached was about order, but not legalism.
Having said that, there are acertain rules for becoming a pastor, deacon, etc. As such there are certain rules for consecrating the bread within the context of the church setting.
As a fromer RC, I've done a lot of searching on the whole communion issue.
Part of communion is for us (as a church body) to join together thru the celebration of this sacrament.
Also Paul has some curses for those who defile the communion. Part of keeping the pastor as the head of the scarament is to keep the sacrament in line so to speak.

I also (personnally) believe though that communion can be had at home with friends and family if done within the proper context and reverence.

[Cary.Melvin]

The reason that elders can celebrate Communion (which is not merely symbolic, btw) is because they have been marked by the Church as a whole as heirs to the apostles, and you haven't.

A layperson may baptize in emergencies- because baptisim is primarily between the person being baptized and God.

Do Methodist's believe that upon the words of consecration that the bread and wine transform into the body and blood of Christ?

Also, Do Methodist's view the Lord's Supper as a participation in the sacrifice of Christ?

Thanks,

[herev]

I keep forgetting to talk to my pastor about this yet, so I thought I'd throw out this question here in the hopes that someone 'in the know' can explain this to me.

I'm belong to a UMC congregation. We postponed our regular communion service for a week a while back because our pastor and several other leaders in the church had to be away one weekend, and there was no one on hand to "consecrate the eurcharist." Now I have been in several denominations in the 32 years I've been a Christian (Baptist--American and Southern, Nazarene, and Foursquare), but I've never run into this before. In fact, I've participated in communion many times in very informal settings, and I've served it to my Sunday School classes (with our pastor's blessing). So what is this consecrating the eucharist all about, and why do we think we need a designated someone to do this before we can share the bread and cup with our brothers and sisters in remembrance of Jesus. Normally, I'm cool with most of the UMC teachings, but I can't get my head around this one. :scratch:

sorry, been busy last couple of days. Let me try my best to answer this in a way that makes sense. This is not to elicit your agreement, but your understanding of the reasoning.

As has been said, the position is rooted in Wesley's Anglican past, but the reasoning is primarily this:
Communion is a sacrament
Sacrament is something done by God--period. IT is something we receive in faith, lest we belittle this act of God.
A sacrament is a means of grace, whereby participants receive (through the actions of the HOly Spirit) or find evidence of: Prevenient Grace, Justifying Grace, and Sanctifying Grace.
Communion is an ongoing action in that we continually return to the table to allow Christ to participate in our life and death and we in his resurrection.
The pastor DOES NOTHING in the actual act of the sacrament--God alone is the actor.
The pastor is responsible for seeing to it that the "proper" atmosphere is maintained throughout, that the invitation is properly given, and that the sacraments are properly consecrated. It's not to suggest that the pastor does anything special to make it "acceptable" in terms of the bread and juice, but rather that the entire worship service is acceptable in light of the proper attitude and understanding of what we are, in fact, doing.
I have not much to offer beyond that as to the explanation--sorry

[herev]

Do Methodist's believe that upon the words of consecration that the bread and wine transform into the body and blood of Christ?
no--we do not believe nor accept transubstantiation as an explanation of what takes place during the consecration. We believe the elements to still be bread and juice--nothing more. However, it is more than simply symbolic, too. We believe that when we come to table, we participate in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, present at table with us, present in the elements for us, present in the church for and through us.

Also, Do Methodist's view the Lord's Supper as a participation in the sacrifice of Christ?

Thanks,
To an extent, yes. We remember at Communion that we are able to participate with Christ in his resurrection. However, as a sacrament is an act of God, not of humanity, then we would say Christ particpates in our death, and therefore, we particpate with him in resurrection

[herev]

Bless you for this line of questioning. I await a response as well.

I'll just bet you are waiting, too:D

[herev]

The UMC recognizes two sacraments: communion and Baptism. I think both require an ordained clergy to officiate. Other faiths hold other sacraments such as marriage.

I wouldn't expect to consecrate/serve communion any more than I would expect them to allow me to Baptize someone or perform a marriage. You have to remember that John Wesley was an Anglican priest until he drew his last breath.

seeking.IAM
<><

technically, I am not ordained, but licensed. I am permitted to consecrate the elements and baptize, but ONLY within the confines of my congregation. I am not allowed to do that anywhere else. Anywhere else I would serve communion, I would need an elder to do the consecration.

[herev]

Yes, but "why" is it necessary for "ordained" clergy to consecrate/serve communion? Why is it necessary for the same to baptize?

Is it simply for control? Where is herev when you need him. Oh, I forgot, he is changing diapers.... BWWWWAAAAAAAHHAHAHHAHA! Better him that me! :)

just kidding herev...

lol

[Strong in Him]

Hi there, :wave: I don't know much about this, so haven't commented up till now. I think having an ordained minister to consecreate the elements is the norm, but here in the UK we do have lay presidency, in theory. I gather it involves either an application either to district or to conference, is hard to get, and rarely granted, but if the circumstances demanded it, the possibility is there. Not all Merthodists agree with it, and if it was the only thing that stood in the way of unity with the anglicans, I've no doubt the church would ditch it.

Rather a shame really. Our minister is not only very busy, but fighting cancer. It would lessen her load, and be so much nicer for our housebound members if a local preacher could take communion to them

Gill

[Cary.Melvin]

no--we do not believe nor accept transubstantiation as an explanation of what takes place during the consecration. We believe the elements to still be bread and juice--nothing more. However, it is more than simply symbolic, too. We believe that when we come to table, we participate in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, present at table with us, present in the elements for us, present in the church for and through us.


Did John Wesley hold to that position? I have heard that John Wesly beleived in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Is this correct? He was an Anglican Priest so I imagine he would.

Thanks,

[ClementofRome]

I'll just bet you are waiting, too:D

I my best Napolean Dynamite voice, "MAN!...I hate being called out!";)

herev, your explanation above of the UMC position is excellent...thank you.

On an aside, given the latitude within the UMC....would it be considered anathema to either celebrate Holy Communion or Baptism without the benefit of a member of the ordained clergy?

[herev]

Did John Wesley hold to that position? I have heard that John Wesly beleived in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Is this correct? He was an Anglican Priest so I imagine he would.

Thanks,

yes, he did

[herev]

I my best Napolean Dynamite voice, "MAN!...I hate being called out!";)
yes, herev has been thinking about this, remembering that CoR not only has a PHD, but it seems I remember he has a M.Div. From a Methodist School, not to mention a father AND mother who are ordained elders in the UMC...


herev, your explanation above of the UMC position is excellent...thank you.
no problem, I just finished the boards, it's all fresh on my mind...;)
On an aside, given the latitude within the UMC....would it be considered anathema to either celebrate Holy Communion or Baptism without the benefit of a member of the ordained clergy?
not really, no, but if an elder or other clergy were to approve such an action, then that would not be pretty, if you know what I mean

[ClementofRome]

not really, no, but if an elder or other clergy were to approve such an action, then that would not be pretty, if you know what I mean

oh, I certainly do understand. :cool:

I am just pressing, as usual. I have very strong feelings/beliefs about some of our hierarchical traditions (just ask my parents...they are agast at the fact that i call myself a Whitefield Methodist! :) ) and love playing the fire-brand from time to time.

[daddave]

As far as the "sacrifice" of the communion meal...

We believe that Jesus was crucified one time, once and for all. The communion is a memorial in that aspect. We give thanks that He did that for us.

[herev]

oh, I certainly do understand. :cool:

I am just pressing, as usual. I have very strong feelings/beliefs about some of our hierarchical traditions (just ask my parents...they are agast at the fact that i call myself a Whitefield Methodist! :) ) and love playing the fire-brand from time to time.

all of us should at times, cause our parents to stop and scratch their heads

[ClementofRome]

all of us should at times, cause our parents to stop and scratch their heads

I will be reminding you of that a few years down the road my friend! :)

My daughters are 13 and 16 and I am scratching my head already~

[Celticflower]

I will be reminding you of that a few years down the road my friend! :)

My daughters are 13 and 16 and I am scratching my head already~


My kids are 10 and 12 and I've been scratching my head over stuff for years! :scratch:

[herev]

you guys sure are encouraging to those of us who have children 2 and under:(

[Strong in Him]

Well I'm only an auntie, so at least I have the option of saying "ask your father". :D I suspect it might not always work though.

[ClementofRome]

you guys sure are encouraging to those of us who have children 2 and under:(

My quiver may not be full.....but these 2 sure are a blessing, even with the head scratching. :clap:

[Celticflower]

you guys sure are encouraging to those of us who have children 2 and under:(


Look at it as a great adventure and a wonderful learning experience.

Celtie:wave:

[Cjwinnit]

Not all Merthodists agree with it, and if it was the only thing that stood in the way of unity with the anglicans, I've no doubt the church would ditch it.

Fear my sig.

On a point of information, what is holding the Anglicans and Methodists apart today? I know there has been talk recently..

[Strong in Him]

On a point of information, what is holding the Anglicans and Methodists apart today? I know there has been talk recently..

Hi Cjwinnit, :wave:

I think it's mainly the role of women in the church. The anglicans haven't yet got women bishops - being a vicar is the highest an anglican woman can go. Whereas we can have female superintendants and Chairs of districts, and the president or vice president of the conference (equivalent of archbishop of Canterbury) can also be a woman. If we were to merge with the anglicans before they have women bishops, then women who currently hold these posts would have to resign them.
I gather that lay presidency is also an issue, as no lay person in the anglican church can celebrate communion, whereas they can in our church, albeit in exceptional circumstances.
There's also something about the apostolic succession that seems to be an issue, but I don't really understand that. :scratch:

If all these were sorted out, there'd still be some organisational problems, I think - eg joint buildings? Circuits or parishes? But no doubt they'd deal with that when they came to it.

I'm not an expert, but I think they're the main obstacles.