As to your last question about ‘How He is present’, finally we are at the crux of the matter. Its all about the Christology. We all believe that God is omnipresent. We all ( the Christians among us) believe that Jesus is God (The Incarnation)and is therefore omnipresent. The Lutherans, Catholics, et al, believe that Christ is omnipresent according to both the human nature and the divine nature, ESPECIALLY where He has promised to be in the LS for the forgiveness of sins. (Yeah, I know that this drives the Reformed nuts) The Reformed and many evangelicals believe that Jesus’ human nature is sitting on a throne at God’s right hand, and that only His divine Nature is the “fullness that fills all things.” (Other traditions view God’s right Hand as a position of authority, not necessarily a physical location.)
So ultimately this discussion revolves around Christ and how He comes to us.
It is not my wish to keep hashing this out in the hopes that we will solve this centuries old debate in a comment section on a blog. There were some serious questions raised about the practice of closed communion and it was my intent to answer some of these objections.
I had a discussion with my Pastor about this stuff, and he was talking about the church being in a ‘post congregational’ era, at least in some parts of the country,and what this means for communion practice in particular, and pastoral practice in general. (By ‘post congregational’ he’s talking about the advent of commuter congregations like ours, the internet, the demise of church membership etc.) We didn’t come up with any answers but I think it will be a fruitful line of inquiry in the future in regards to church fellowship issues.

As a Catholic e-pologist answering a non-Catholic, who was insisting that he could receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass, I had the parable of the King and the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14) cited as a scriptural basis for the Eucharist being open to any and all. The Mass and the Eucharist is, after all, the wedding feast of the Lamb (Rev 19:7-9).

The non-Catholic rightly noticed that the wedding banquet was filled with any and every one, Jew and Gentile. Thus, our non-Catholic friend asserted his right to not only attend Mass, but to receive the Eucharist as well.

I pointed out that that he had conveniently stopped at verse 10, which up to that point made his case. However, reading past verse 10 we read that the king cast out someone not wearing wedding garments. In other words, all were invited, but not everyone was able to feast. I encouraged the non-Catholic to attend Mass, but to refrain from the Eucharist until he was “properly attired.”

While personal interpretations on the meaning and applicability of Matthew 22 may vary, the Catholic Church does have a scriptural basis for restricting reception of the Eucharist.

Now I’m sure that there is plenty of discussion as to what “wedding garments” consist: belief, baptism, denomination, etc. Personally, I’d go back into history and the early Church writings to find out what was practiced. Communion was closed from the earliest days of the Church:

“And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done.” (Justin Martyr)

God bless, one and all…

I didn’t say I had a “willingness to trample on and violate what other Christians find sacred.” I did say that I have no qualms about receiving communion from a church who understands it differently than the rest of us do. I didn’t say I was advocating barging in and forcing myself on them, but that there was no issue from my side.

Now, something I thought of today: Are y’all are really *only* interested in our welfare and saving us from hell for partaking of communion when we trample and violate its sacredness by misunderstanding its true nature? I.e., for eating and drinking damnation onto ourselves by not discerning the body of Christ? (Why not the blood, too? Hmmm… Perhaps Paul really was talking about the church, there. But I digress.)

If so, if this is merely out of concern for us, then you should be just as adamant that we not take communion in *any* church. Not even our own! Because it doesn’t matter where we commit this grave sin. We’re damning ourselves just as surely if we do it back home in a Methodist or Baptist church as we would when we did it in a Lutheran or Catholic church.

Now, possibly it’s only a sense of meekness and politeness that stops y’all from giving us this warning. It might seem rude, no? But it could surely be worded in a polite and brotherly manner, and presented in a way that makes clear it’s for our own good. And if we’re eating damnation onto ourselves, shouldn’t your care for our souls outweigh these minor qualms?

Incidentally, as to your references to 1 Cor. and John 6, I’m already familiar with everything you’ve written, including the interpretation of the Greek on the “grinding with the teeth.” And I still believe it’s a metaphor. In fact, John 6 especially convinces me of this.

You’re welcome to disagree. We’re still fellow Christians, and you’re welcome in my church and at our communion table any time, brother.

Fair enough comment, and even though I do not want to promote this centuries old debate again, your comment is there intact because it makes a valid point.

But here’s the other point: When someone tells me that I don’t believe Christ is really present, I’m offended, and I feel I’m getting the “nah nah nah nah nah I believe that Christ is really present and you do-ooon’t” treatment. There could even be a trace of pride in the statement.

If Christ isn’t really present- and I believe he is really present- then how is he more really present to some Christians than to others. Jesus said that it was better for us if he went away physically so that the Holy Spirit would come. He promised that in this way he would be REALLY PRESENT with us. OK. I believe that. He’s present, and he’s really present, and I really believe he’s really present.

Now are we going to argue about HOW he’s really present?

If you had a situation in your church where a visitor thought that the Deity of Christ doctrine was the result of reading some metaphorical passages too literally, would you feel happy if that visitor went up for baptism if in his mind all he was doing was going through the motions of a first century ritual to see what it felt like? This is about what it seems like from our end.

As to the retort that it *should* be a problem from the point of view of us who hold to open communion:
I have gone to other denominations’ churches, and I have no qualms about receiving communion there, even if they believe in transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or any other doctrine for what I take as Jesus’ metaphorical language. Why should I have qualms about receiving communion when I disagree with their interpretation of it, any more than I should have qualms about listening to their preaching when I disagree with some of their doctrines? *They* might have qualms about giving it to me, but I should have no qualms about taking it.

The *only* remotely-Biblically-based excuse I can see for closed communion is the “discerning the body of Christ” phrase Paul uses, but I don’t see that excuse used very often. More often, I see these extrabiblical reasons given, which don’t seem very logically sound to me.

And furthermore, since Paul is quite explicit (and runs on at length) elsewhere in 1 Cor. about the “body of Christ” being the church and its members, most of us don’t see this phrase in 1 Cor. 11 as having anything to do with a doctrine of trans- or con-substantiation. (Rather, we see it being a scolding about behaving onesself at church and not forming cliques. Rather like closed communion forms cliques, on a larger scale.) So the reasoning given for closed communion depend on one already accepting one of these specific doctrines about what the Lord’s Supper means, and it therefore is generally not persuasive to people who don’t hold to that.

Funny way to put it. It suggests that there is something about your personality that they find objectionable. That they would not commune you under any circumstances. They would be happy to commune you. They fear, however, that you are not properly “discerning the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 11: 29). For those who believe in the Real Presence, it is not difficult to think that “discerning the body of Christ” means recognizing that what you receiving is not mere bread and wine, but the true body and blood of Christ. Now, I could conceive the idea that their exegesis of this verse might be wrong even if the Real Presence is a true doctrine. But even if that were the case, they are not being antisocial. They are being careful for you.

That was how it looked to me when I was a Zwinglian before I accepted their doctrine. That outlook made sense to me long before the Real Presence was something I was committed to.