An Open Table?

spinningtutu · Sep 21, 2005

Believe it or not -
I have been to a church like that before, that does communion that way, and I agree - the experience can be very meaningful.

ottaia · Sep 21, 2005

I was at a Metropolitan Community Church and the thing that I found comforting there was that after you received the elements, the person giving communion then placed her arms around you and prayed for you. What was interesting is that it wasn't just single people but couples, friends, and family that prayed in groups.

progressivegal · Sep 21, 2005

ottaia said:
I was at a Metropolitan Community Church and the thing that I found comforting there was that after you received the elements, the person giving communion then placed her arms around you and prayed for you. What was interesting is that it wasn't just single people but couples, friends, and family that prayed in groups.

That's so beautiful! I'd like to visit an MCC someday (Those are the innitials of my church actually, but it's not a Metropolitan community church).

Dee235 · Sep 25, 2005

Our church says that all are welcome. You go up to the front and take some 'bread' and a cup of 'wine' (we have grape juice).

Try · Sep 26, 2005

Methodists have had a completely open table for quite a while now- at least for as long as the UMC has exsisted. I think we're the only denomination to have both an officially open table and an official belief in the Real Presence.

Unfortunately, some conservative UMCs have taken to inviting 'all who love the Lord Jesus and have invited Him into their hearts" to recieve communion. This doesn't exactly exclude the unbaptized but it does have the effect of indicating that there are some people who are unwelcome at the Lord's Table.

PastorJason · Sep 26, 2005

In my denomination, practice and theology of Eucharist varies according to community and pastoral leadership. For example, at my church we have two pastors, and the invitation to communion itself is very telling. While the senior pastor believes in an "open table," he invites all who call Christ Lord to partake. The associate pastor (me) invites everyone, and makes no distinctions, so it depends on who is at the table from week to week. I think the underlying discussion of presence is very interesting, as I am currently studying the evolution of Eucharistic form and theology in the church, and the movement away from the open commensality of Jesus toward a combination of memorial and vehicle of grace as sacrament. Fascinating to watch the development from the early church through the patristic era into the medieval, when transubstantiation really took hold, although not necessarily over against consubstantiation or even annhiliation ideas. Even the Council of Trent left the door open on that one.

PastorJason · Sep 27, 2005

PastorJason said:
In my denomination, practice and theology of Eucharist varies according to community and pastoral leadership. For example, at my church we have two pastors, and the invitation to communion itself is very telling. While the senior pastor believes in an "open table," he invites all who call Christ Lord to partake. The associate pastor (me) invites everyone, and makes no distinctions, so it depends on who is at the table from week to week. I think the underlying discussion of presence is very interesting, as I am currently studying the evolution of Eucharistic form and theology in the church, and the movement away from the open commensality of Jesus toward a combination of memorial and vehicle of grace as sacrament. Fascinating to watch the development from the early church through the patristic era into the medieval, when transubstantiation really took hold, although not necessarily over against consubstantiation or even annhiliation ideas. Even the Council of Trent left the door open on that one.

Heh. Now I'm replying to my own responses. But this one is with purpose. I was mistaken. It was the Fourth Lateran Council that didn't make the distinction. The Council of Trent totally did, toward the doctrine of transubstantiation. All others were anathema at that point, in 1551. Just for clarification's sake.

Rev. Smith · Sep 28, 2005

Try said:
Methodists have had a completely open table for quite a while now- at least for as long as the UMC has exsisted. I think we're the only denomination to have both an officially open table and an official belief in the Real Presence.

Old Catholics and Anglicans both practice Open Communion and believe in the Real Presence.

Try said:
Unfortunately, some conservative UMCs have taken to inviting 'all who love the Lord Jesus and have invited Him into their hearts" to recieve communion. This doesn't exactly exclude the unbaptized but it does have the effect of indicating that there are some people who are unwelcome at the Lord's Table.

That's sad - but it happens with us too. Why is it that a church founded on the teachings of a Master who welcomed everyone to repent and have a new life feels the need to exclude some folks? It must be a very human thing.

We're sure lucky he loves us.

seashale76 · Sep 28, 2005

WiredSpirit said:
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.

I've been to The Vine many a time. I agree. The communion service is lovely. We don't go so often though. My husband doesn't like the loud music.

WiredSpirit · Sep 28, 2005

You go to Southeast and you're posting in the liberal forum? That's got to be a first.

seashale76 · Sep 29, 2005

WiredSpirit said:
You go to Southeast and you're posting in the liberal forum? That's got to be a first.

Hardly a member. Hardly conservative. Hardly liberal. Hardly a true (regular) attendee. I hold beliefs that Bob Russell doesn't espouse, certainly. Theistic evolution amongst other things. Hardly a first for this forum, I'm sure.

WiredSpirit · Sep 30, 2005

Good, you're in the right place here.

seashale76 · Sep 30, 2005

WiredSpirit said:
Good, you're in the right place here.

Probably not. No hard feelings, but I think I'll be moving on. Life is too short for me to want to get involved in board issues that likely existed before I came on the scene.

Many blessings your way as you seek God's will in your life.

tecjr · Oct 3, 2005

for me, Communtion represents God's grace. It ought to be available to everyone who will come, without regard to baptism, church membership, age, race, gender, orientation, etc. We can't limit God's Grace, why should we limit communion?

I dunno, I'm new here, maybe this is normal thinking, maybe it'll get me banned

spinningtutu · Oct 14, 2009

Amen to truly open tables!
Whosoever is willing may come!

Dark_Lite · Oct 14, 2009

Why are you bumping all of these four year old threads?

seashale76 · Oct 14, 2009

Ha! This is certainly an old thread. I have since eschewed the Southeast Christian Church (they lost ever so many folks when Russell retired because it was a personality cult). I've never missed it, just like I never missed being Pentecostal or Baptist. Sporadic attendance at Southeast was a short lived attempt to give Christianity a last chance before ditching it. I had already ditched it, to be honest, and then I discovered Orthodoxy.

My views on the Eucharist are the polar opposite of what they were then. Communion is open to anyone who is baptized into Christ's Holy Church and has properly prepared by prayer, fasting, and confession. It's kind of a big deal.

It's no big deal to have open communion when you think it's only symbolic. I actually never looked forward to it and didn't care if I ever took it growing up. It really didn't mean anything to me.

spinningtutu · Oct 14, 2009

what about a truly open feast, for ALL people, not to a symbolic table, but to the actual body and blood of Christ sacrificed?

spinningtutu · Oct 14, 2009

Dark_Lite said:
Why are you bumping all of these four year old threads?

1) To illuminate the ways in which I've changed and
2) To sort out points of consistency over the years, and
3) As a final Paxifest so that people won't forget me so easily when I'm dead.

seashale76 · Oct 14, 2009

paxi1334 said:
what about a truly open feast, for ALL people, not to a symbolic table, but to the actual body and blood of Christ sacrificed?

Like I said. Communion is truly open to anyone who is baptized into Christ's Holy Church and has properly prepared by prayer, fasting, and confession. It's kind of a big deal. Unworthily communing can mean one's death and we guard the chalice for everyone's protection.

An Open Table?

Well-Known Member

Blue Dragon Rider

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Ordo Concentus Christos

Ordo Concentus Christos

Old Catholic Priest

Unapologetic Iconodule

and all God's people said... meh

Unapologetic Iconodule

and all God's people said... meh

Unapologetic Iconodule

tecjr

Guest

Well-Known Member

Chewbacha

Unapologetic Iconodule

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Unapologetic Iconodule

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency