Thank you for clearing up the grape juice issue.
And most of them tend to be Biblical literalists, are they not? 
I think the damning those who commit or attempt suicide is waning anyways, as we understand more and more about mental illness.
I have to disagree with this, in what I honestly don’t think are nitpicks.
“Open table,” at least in the UMC (U.S. United Methodist Church), means communion is available to everyone, baptized or not, in whatever denomination or no denomination, regardless of state of sin or forgiveness. There is an expectation that those taking it are doing so for sincere reasons – that they are seeking a relationship with God through Jesus Christ – but there are no bars to partaking and no questions asked.
This emphatically does NOT mean that Methodists attach no “special significance” to the Eucharist. While the UMC specifically rejects transubstantiation (the belief that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ), they still believe that Jesus Christ is present in the taking of communion – that one is literally “in communion” with Christ by accepting the Eucharist.
So the fact that all are welcome to join certainly does not transform the experience into only a symbolic common meal. The Eucharist is a sacrament in the Methodist church.
The United Congregational Church (UCC) believes similarly: Open Table, yes; but Holy Communion is still a sacrament. In fact, both the UCC (in which I was raised) and the UMC (of which I am now a member) recognize only two sacraments: Baptism and Holy Communion.
It’s my fault for dividing Christian theology of the Eucharist into three broad categories – it’s far more nuanced than that. In my defense, however, there are denominations who follow the belief of Zwingli that the communion service is a simple commemoration of the Last Supper, and that the bread and wine do not undergo a spiritual transformation.
Wikipedia goes into far more detail about this.
Jacqueline Onassis raised some eyebrows for taking communion at mass for a 70s Kennedy funeral, as she’d converted to Orthodoxy upon her remarriage. No particular penalty is attached to the offense, though, and Church commentators brushed it off as an honest mistake.
Jodi’s post also applies to a lot of current Anglican approach to the Eucharist - open table does not mean it’s a mere commemoration. Communion is a sacrament in the Anglican tradition, although not based on transubstantiation, but the Anglican church I attend makes Communion open to all. Other Anglican churches may take a different view.
In the Catholic churches, the deal is that the bread and wine is supposedly transsubstantiated into the blood and body, and so it becomes a holy item - due proper respect and disposal. Handing it out to someone who would use it to play frisbee would be a bad thing.
You must be in a state of grace (recent confession) and have had certain education and gone through your “first comunion”.
In the orthodox church it is more exclusive and more inclusive at the same time. There is bread that is transformed and then there is some extra bread that is merely blessed. The priest will refuse communion to anyone he doesn’t recognize, or knows to not be in a state of grace. All others are welcome to come forward and get a blessing (in the form of the blessed, but non-transsubstantiated bread).
The priest was probably just trying to discourage those that were not properly prepared. On Easter the attendance is generally many times the normal turnout, and so the priest(s) cannot oversee everything personally. I’ve gone to friends’ weddings in other places, and gotten the evil eye from the local priest when I went up for communion. I was never refused, but several times, immediately after serving me, the priest paused, gestured at me, and said a prayer.
I have never been to a Catholic church that used grape juice instead of wine. This is pretty much a Protestant thing in my experience. They also mostly believe that the transsubstantiation is merely symbolic (instead of actual) thus their more lenient policies on who gets to have some.
IIRC, though, doesn’t the Catholic church consider the Orthodox rites valid-so it’s considered, acceptable for Orthodox Christians to partake in communion.
Or am I wrong? 
You’re right, from the point of view of the RCC.
But Orthodox canon law allows Communion only to Orthodox Christians, and Roman Catholics are thus urged to respect the discipline of an Orthdox church. But from a dogmatic viewpoint, there is no real barrier to a Roman Catholic receiving communion from an Orthodox priest – that priest’s orders are valid; his consecration as a priest was by a bishop with valid apostolic succession, and he believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Host.
Again, I wonder just how many of those people that go up to receive communion every week have been to confession recently.
Probably very few. But how many of them have been committing mortal sins? As **Bricker **pointed out above:
But it doesn’t have to be recent. The way I was taught it involves not receiving Communion if you’re in mortal sin, but you’re not supposed to be calling your Father Confessor every time you argue with the hubby either (in that example, the hubby and you forgiving each other and learning to discuss without arguing is more improtant that any amount of Hail Marys).
An American priest once told me that I needed an appointment in order to receive Confession. I asked him “even if I happened to be in mortal sin?”. Apparently, based on my physical appearance only, it is not possible for me to be in mortal sin 
(Yeah, I do think that guy was a git, why do you ask?)
Yeah, but the Catholic Church has a pretty definition of what a mortal sin is. It can be having impure thoughts. Well, that can be a pretty easy one to slip up on, especially if you’re a guy.
really? that doesn’t seem to match the wiki article on Mortal Sin:
I mean to say “pretty BROAD definition…”
I’m meaning that from the definition, it doesn’t sound easy to “slip into” a mortal sin.
I saw a priest on TV speaking on the nature of sin and giving three examples of motal sins: murder, abortion, sexual fantasy.
I hope I’m not slipping into BBQ territory here, but I’ve always had a quiet division in my mind between the “Chistians” and the “Paulists”.
I read this as “remember me in the day-to-day action of breaking bread.” I think the ceremony, rarity (one day out of seven) and authoritarianism of most modern communion rituals is exactly what he was trying to avoid. The common family tradition of praying before a meal is much closer, in my mind, to his intent.
And I think that the ritualized consumption of human flesh would have disgusted him.
I’m not sure Paul always did a good job of representing the Nazarene’s views.
It can be very enlightening to check out the different translations we humans have made of the biblical texts. [BibleGateway.com - 232 online Bibles in 74 languages, in text and audio format.]
I understand your point, but I’m just curious why you attribute the development of the last supper into a sacramental theology to Paul. Is there any evidence that Paul was particularly responsible for that aspect of the church’s development?
And you won’t. Roman Catholic teaching says that the wine must in fact be wine. No substitutions allowed. The bread must be wheaten. Again, no substitutions. It should be unleavened (I believe the Orthodox churches use leavened bread, but I could be wrong).