I appreciate that but I prefer to discuss in writing. I don’t do so well orally, I need time to organize my thoughts.

However, reception of this gift/meal/sacrifice must be done in a worthy manner.

That is why “many are invited, few are chosen.” (Mat 22:14)

I believe the focus on communion boundaries is somewhat wrongheaded. I am not saying there should not be any standards; but when standards and boundaries become more important than the Christ that makes Holy Communion possible, then we have a problem.

This may be a more fruitful discussion over the phone. Would you be up for a Skype call?

What I don’t get is, you said, ‘I believe communion is for all, invited by Christ.’ Do you mean, “Christ has invited all”? Or do you mean, “it’s for all whom Christ has invited”? If the former, then how do you restrict who can receive and on what terms? If the latter, how do you determine whom he has invited?

That is exactly why this particular celebration felt so empty to me – because it focused on us instead of Christ. It was made profane.

I believe Christ invites all people to his table, but on his terms. Like the parable of the wedding feast, we are unworthy but invited. But that does not mean we can enter the feast however we feel like. If you recall from the parable, the bridegroom threw out one of the invited guests because he did not have the correct garments on.

I anticipate your response may be something like:

“Well, if you should receive on Christ terms, you should join the Roman Catholic Church.”

The Roman Catholic church does not hold a monopoly on Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Christ will be present where he chooses to be. It is Christ’s table, not a particular church’s (perhaps the universal church, made manifest in local communities)

I don’t understand. If you open communion to all comers regardless, are you not inviting people to approach it on their own terms? If you put no restrictions on it, how is it even possible for people to approach it on any other than their own terms?