An Open Table?

spinningtutu · Sep 19, 2005

Out of curiosity... how many of us attend Churches with truly open communion tables...?

That is tables that are open to ALL (and the Church really means all)?

Open to all races, cultures, religions, creeds, sexual orientations, genders, etc. etc.

SpokenFor2005 · Sep 19, 2005

ottaia · Sep 19, 2005

We state that if you believe Jesus is your saviour you are welcome but I would never tell someone to sit down. (We do communion rail so people come up to the front.)

stumpjumper · Sep 19, 2005

My Church says that communion is open to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and savior. They do not specify that you must be baptised or any other requirements.

FLANDIDLYANDERS · Sep 19, 2005

stumpjumper said:
My Church says that communion is open to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and savior. They do not specify that you must be baptised or any other requirements.

But then it's more often eaten in houses or restaurants.

Joykins · Sep 19, 2005

stumpjumper said:
My Church says that communion is open to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and savior. They do not specify that you must be baptised or any other requirements.

Same here.

stumpjumper · Sep 19, 2005

FLANDIDLYANDERS said:
But then it's more often eaten in houses or restaurants.

I'm not sure if I follow. I used to attend Catholic mass when I was a child and as you know they have a closed Eucharist because of Transubstantiation. You must believe that it is actually the body and blood of Jesus Christ to accept.

I view it as symbolic and because of that I it could be given in the privacy of your home as a way of professing your faith. I think thats what you meant.

FLANDIDLYANDERS · Sep 19, 2005

Yeah, or in restaurants/bars.

FLANDIDLYANDERS · Sep 19, 2005

Didn't think transubstanciation was very Biblical...

stumpjumper · Sep 19, 2005

FLANDIDLYANDERS said:
Yeah, or in restaurants/bars.

Sure. Yes, transubstantiation is a way too literal interpretation of my "body and blood given for you." I can not view it as anything but symbolic.

traingosorry · Sep 19, 2005

stumpjumper said:
Sure. Yes, transubstantiation is a way too literal interpretation of my "body and blood given for you." I can not view it as anything but symbolic.

agreed. Imagine how weird that was as a kid partaking in Eucharist and looking at the elements in my hand thinking " Is this Canniblaism?" ok yeah thats a bit extreme but it did cross my mind.

My church, mennonite brethren/community welcomes all who accept Christ to partake in Communion, and we have all of the above mentioned in our congregation.

scraparcs · Sep 19, 2005

Communion is open to all in the parish that I belong to now, regardless of age or belief. I have seen infants as young as about a year old receiving communion.

I am grateful to be in a parish where we share Christ's body and blood (literal or not) with all who wish to come.

Im_A · Sep 19, 2005

:paxigoth: said:
Out of curiosity... how many of us attend Churches with truly open communion tables...?

That is tables that are open to ALL (and the Church really means all)?

Open to all races, cultures, religions, creeds, sexual orientations, genders, etc. etc.

i have never been to a church like that. i have only been to "Christians Only" Open Communion type of churches.

Rev. Smith · Sep 20, 2005

FLANDIDLYANDERS said:
Didn't think transubstanciation was very Biblical...

This is my body...This is my blood.

We believe in real presence, without bothering much over exactly how.

And we welcome all people, we ask them to profess nothing or believe nothing, we belive that the Eucharist is a transmission of Grace, and who could benefit more from Grace them someone who has doubts?

SpokenFor2005 · Sep 20, 2005

... but he also said "do this in remembrance of me," not in substitution of me, so I've always believed in the symbolic standpoint on it as well.

Rev. Smith · Sep 20, 2005

SpokenFor2005 said:
... but he also said "do this in remembrance of me," not in substitution of me, so I've always believed in the symbolic standpoint on it as well.

In rememberance only appears in some translations, and then only in Luke. (Douy Reims and New Jerusalem both translate it as a memorial in Luke).

Even in Luke the line about memorial is not inconsistant with real presence (the purpose of the sacrament versus the nature of the sacrament). As far as I know (only from an online survey of various searchable Bibles and a look through my own library so not an exhaustive search) - no Bible translates it as rememberance prior to the reformation, which makes dogmatic considerations a distinct possibility.

This points to one of my issues with sola scriptura theology- which Bible?

Fish and Bread · Sep 20, 2005

Christians seem to have believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist since the days of the Apostles. Granted, we don't have record of an actual Apostle discussing it, but I think there some records from the very next generation of Christians. I doubt they'd have screwed up Apostolic teaching on such a central issue of worship that quickly.

Now, one could make the case that the Apostles were mistaken in affirming a real presence and simply misinterpreted what Jesus did at the Last Supper, but that would rely on Jesus missing an important point of the very Jewish culture he was raised in. In biblical times, the holiest of holies, known as "the bread of the presence" was kept in a temple behind a curtain, where only the priest could partake of it. When Jesus spoke bread and said "This is my body." he must have known exactly how the Apostles would take it. So, if he wanted it to be taken as just a memorial and a memorial only, he would have said something to them to that affect. Now, that something may not have made the cut to make it into the bible, but the Apostles surely would have passed it on to the early Christians and they wouldn't have been saying the exact opposite within a generation or two.

So, based on what I know of history, tradition, and scripture; I really have to side with the "real presence" crowd on this one. Now, based on Jesus' use in other contexts of the term body as a metaphor and because of the evidence of our eyes and ears, I tend not to think that we're literally chewing on literal flesh and blood in the sense that we could spit out a bone or something, but I do think that Christ is present in a special way in the sacrament and did choose the words body and blood deliberately to make it clear that he was present there is a concrete and important way. Of course, there is also a very important symbolic meaning to the sacrament as well.

John

flautist · Sep 20, 2005

I'm getting confused here. Maybe we should define what we mean when we say "real presence." I see it simply as Christ being present at the table, not necessarily that the bread and juice really become Christ's flesh and blood.

I guess what I'm asking is this: Are we defining the "real presence" as a synonym for "substantiation" or are they two different things?

Rev. Smith · Sep 20, 2005

flautist said:
I'm getting confused here. Maybe we should define what we mean when we say "real presence." I see it simply as Christ being present at the table, not necessarily that the bread and juice really become Christ's flesh and blood.

The Roman church has very detailed theology on this issue, and I know a number of their priests are on CF, I'm sure they'd adress your question. For us it is more than "at the table" (we think that happens with the opening collect, "whenever two or more are gathered in my name....")

flautist said:
I guess what I'm asking is this: Are we defining the "real presence" as a synonym for "substantiation" or are they two different things?

We define real presence to mean that Jesus, acting as the Holy Spirit is present in the Eucharist, and that by taking communion of bread and wine (sorry, not juice {but thats for another thread}) we commune with the living God, that it is a sacramental transferance of real Grace to the people of God.

We do not believe that it is actual flesh and blood (that would be icky).

WiredSpirit · Sep 21, 2005

My favorite place to take communion is at one of the most fundamentalist churches I've ever been too. I love the way they do communion at the Vine. This is a alternative service at Southeast in Louisville, which if you live in the mid-west I'm sure you're familiar with. If you don't, think of Lakewood in Houston. They have tables set up around the worship center with candles and some form of artwork decorating it with a goblet of grape juice and a loaf of bread. After the sermon you the lights go low and the music is just right and you line up at a table and take by intiction. You're not dismissed by row and there is usually enough time that you don't have to get up immediately, you just partake when you're ready. There are plenty of tables, so you don't have to wait in a huge line.

An Open Table?

Well-Known Member

.... needs more Cowbell...

Blue Dragon Rider

Left the river, made it to the sea

When I am slain may my corpse lie facing the Enemy

free Crazy Liz!

Left the river, made it to the sea

When I am slain may my corpse lie facing the Enemy

When I am slain may my corpse lie facing the Enemy

Left the river, made it to the sea

I'm what Willis was talkin' bout.

aka Mayor McCheese

Legend

Old Catholic Priest

.... needs more Cowbell...

Old Catholic Priest

Dona nobis pacem

Little Princess

Old Catholic Priest

and all God's people said... meh

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency