(How) can we celebrate Holy Communion as ‘online’ church?
Last weekend there was some anxiety, a few woes, just much elation at the kickoff experience of being 'online church'. In that location was about anxiety about technical challenges, simply many reported a positive experience—and college numbers attracted to online participation than usually attended in person. The situation this weekend offers new challenges: with the 'lockdown' measures appear concluding Monday evening, the small groups working together in church buildings, whether pre-recording or dissemination live, will no longer be able to work in the same way.
Just the biggest ministerial-liturgical challenge is what to practice almost the commemoration of Holy Communion together. Churches of a range of traditions decided to live stream the minister conducting a service of Communion in the church building building, so that those watching at dwelling could encounter it happen, and possibly do something to imitate what was going on. There was, in about cases, a small grouping in the building, then there was a sharing of the bread and vino actually going on; in this sense, it was no different from watching a service of Holy Communion on television.
Some, however, conducted the service alone. Giles Fraser spoke in slightly ecstatic tones:
Withal, I loved it. I tin can imagine that when nosotros are dorsum to normal — if, indeed, there will be a normal to return to — the thought that the sick and the housebound will be able to join in our Dominicus service from domicile is something we will want to continue. But information technology nonetheless felt odd giving the Eucharist out to nobody but myself. Even odder to invite the e-congregation to say along with me the words of the post-Eucharistic prayer: "we thank y'all for feeding us with the body and blood …". Can we get bread and vino and concord it upwardly almost the reckoner screen, someone asked, that way you can consecrate ours at home? That felt like a clear no to me, only I'm not sure Eucharistic theologians had ever considered anything like that. And then many questions, so few answers.
During the service, it was to Masterchef that my heed wandered. Why are nutrient programmes so popular when no one at home gets to taste or fifty-fifty aroma the food? And is this what church is to become, a kind of simulacrum of itself, a digital re-presentation of live-giving bread that is obviously offered, merely cannot be eaten? All the same nourishment there was. People at home appreciated the service, however amateurish it was as a first go. They say around their kitchen tables and on their sofas and they joined with me and each other singing words similar "Assistance of the helpless, O bide with me". For all the clunkiness of the presentation, it felt and then important and bonding to be with my congregation like this.
As information technology happened, I watched Masterchef final night. It was entertaining—but I did not eat the food! I did not feel the gustation and the smell, I did not meet the chefs (except in that very thin and managed way in which we 'meet' anyone on the screen), and my body was not nourished. Of course, this is a limited illustration, since the benefits of Communion (within Anglican theology) exercise non come from 'pressing with the teeth' the elements, but in receiving the person and work of Jesus past faith every bit we share the elements.
The consideration of what might exist possible raises ii questions: what is the nature of Communion? and what is the nature of virtual communication and virtual presence? Both need some careful reflection.
Within some Christian traditions, almost notably the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, the focus in Communion or Eucharist is the activity of the priest and the consecration of the elements. I remember quite clearly, having been raised as a Cosmic, the sense that the congregation were in some sense spectators of the actually important business that was going on in the sanctuary, and reciting:
May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for our sake and the sake of all his church.
There is a sense that, within this tradition, the enervating for spatial distance offers no threat to this, in the sense that the important business concern of the priest offering the Eucharist could indeed continue (as in many places it did last week)—but the existent loss now is the closure of the edifice, whose consecrated space has some illustration to the temple within the Old Testament, the only authorised place where the sacrifices might be offered.
But none of this can apply in Protestant churches like the Church building of England. The Book of Common Prayer and the Articles at every point set their face confronting this kind of agreement of what the Lord's Supper is about. It is not a ritual offering of sacrifice (hence the only real offering, that of praise in the Gloria) is postponed to the very end of the BCP Communion service, to make information technology very clear: what matters here is not what we offer to God, but what God offers to us, his whole people, gathered together, to receive both Christ and 'all the benefits of his Passion' every bit we remember him in bread and vino. This accent on reception is clear in Article XXVIII:
THE Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the dearest that Christians ought to have among themselves 1 to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such equally rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Loving cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Vino) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; only is repugnant to the obviously words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Torso of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, just afterwards an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Organized religion.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried almost, lifted up, or worshipped.
Some years ago Colin Buchanan, formerly Bishop of Woolwich and for many decades a member of both the Liturgical Committee and General Synod, wrote a careful report ofEucharistic Consecration (Grove Worship booklet W148, however available as a PDF) in which he explores what consecration furnishings and what effects consecration. His chief focus is on whether in that location are, in Anglican theological understanding, special words or deportment that 'effect' consecration, and what that means, rather than because issues of social space and context, since this latter question has non ordinarily been the main business! (See also his other important report What Did Cranmer Remember He Was Doing?) But the issues he highlights do have a begetting on our question.
Get-go, he highlights the cardinal place of a 'receptionist' theology that was strongly articulated in Cranmer's 1552 Prayer Book, which was retained (despite other alterations) in 1662.
The elements alter theirsignification but not their essence. In broad terms that makes the consecration of eucharistic elements comparable to the consecration of a building (due east.chiliad. for purposes of worship) or the consecration of a man (or woman, come to that) equally a bishop. In each instance the consecration indicates and initiates a change of use, but not a alter of nature. The same is true of the consecration of baptismal waters. Consecration is then a setting apart for a specific (and God-given) purpose, and the elements are 'trans-signified' simply not transubstantiated…
The staff of life and vino are still bread and vino. We are still receiving 'these thy creatures'. The outward sign is intact. But the signification—the inner reality 'signified'—is the death of Christ and the benefits conveyed to us thereby. We practice not take to juggle questions that suggest localization. The elements 'convey' the reality to the truthful recipient… (pp xv–sixteen)
Buchanan goes on to reflect on some of the key biblical texts which have influenced this Protestant understanding of what Communion is all virtually—Jesus' meals with his disciples, including the feeding of the five g, the gospel accounts of the Last Supper itself, the episode on the Emmaus Road in Luke 24, the soapbox on Jesus every bit breadstuff of life in John 6, and Paul's discussion of the Lord's supper in ane Cor eleven. He observes:
These 5 considerations points strongly to a doctrine of the living Christ binding u.s. to himself (and thus to each other) by the sacrament in which he, present as the giver at the meal as well as present among his people, mediates afresh to the states the benefits and claims of his honey. These benefits and claims jump from his decease which is primal to the bulletin he conveyed; he is risen with the power of his redeeming death within him to convey to the states; merely he does not dissever, and we must not dissever, between his person and his work. (p eighteen).
Although Buchanan is here quite narrowly focussing on 'what effects consecration', he incidentally draws out a key Protestant theological emphasis: this is about the gathering of the whole people of God physically together, remembering together, and sharing together in a meal. That is not to say that those who are cut off from the physical gathering of God'due south people are automatically excluded—simply their state of affairs should be seen equally a hard exception, and not ane that can exist normalised.
This essential communal nature of the event is made clear in this difficult situation in the rubric relating to Communion of the Sick.
Simply if the sick person exist not able to come to the Church, and nonetheless is desirous to receive the Communion in his business firm; then he must give timely notice to the Curate, signifying likewise how many in that location are to communicate with him, (which shall exist 3, or two at the to the lowest degree,) and having a user-friendly place in the sick man's firm, with all things necessary and then prepared, that the Curate may reverently minister, he shall there gloat the holy Communion, commencement with the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel hither post-obit.
There is a correlation here with the biblical mandate (plant in Deut 17) that requires in that location to exist 2 witnesses for a testimony to be reliable. But the main point here is that the sick person, in receiving Communion, does non receive individual from the priest, but is participating in a communal human action of the people of God. (There is a provision that, in times of plague when no others can be plant, then the priest and sick person alone might communicate—but this is an exceptionin extremis.)
In his further word on what effects induction, Buchanan notes that Cranmer'southward 1552 rite shifted the whole notion of consecration away from a particular moment, and even a item prayer, to include right reception. Though 1662 included the 'manual acts' and appeared to emphasise consecratory words (to be repeated when the elements were exhausted and needed replenishing), this emphasis on reception remained. We tin withal see this in theepiclesis, the calling downwardly of the Spirit within the Eucharistic Prayer. It takes a range of dissimilar forms in the eight authorised prayers in Common Worship:
A: as we eat and drink these holy gifts in the presence of your divine majesty, renew us by your Spirit…
B: grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit, and according to your holy will, these gifts of staff of life and vino may be to us the torso and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…Send the Holy Spirit on your people..
C: grant that, by the power of your Holy Spirit, nosotros receiving these gifts of your creation, this staff of life and this wine, according to your Son our Saviour Jesus Christ'south holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood…
D: Send your Spirit on us now that by these gifts nosotros may feed on Christ with opened eyes and hearts on fire…
Due east: ship your Holy Spirit, that cleaved bread and wine outpoured may be for u.s. the body and blood of your dear Son
F: by your Holy Spirit let these gifts of your cosmos exist to u.s.a. the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…
G: Pour out your Holy Spirit as we bring before you these gifts of your creation; may they exist for us the trunk and blood of your love Son
H: send your Holy Spirit that this bread and this wine may be to us the body and blood of your beloved Son
Although some are more explicit and other more implicit, nosotros must read them together assuming that they express the same theology, and nosotros must read that theology as expressing (rather than changing) the theology of the BCP, since that remains the expression of the doctrine of the Church of England, and Common Worship is legally an acceptable alternative to information technology. The Spirit is invoked on the people, non the elements, and works to affect our reception ('may beto the states').
What does all this hateful for 'online church'? That the whole event of celebrating the Lord's Supper is something that tin only be done at the gathering of the whole people of God, since the reception by them of the elements is integral to the meaning of the whole consequence.
It is worth briefly also considering the nature of virtual reality. Curiously, this was contend some time ago, at the advent of virtual reality and the question of the place of religion in the virtual world Second Life. Professor Paul S. Fiddes, a Baptist government minister and Professor of Systematic Theology at the Academy of Oxford, wrote a paper arguing that virtual consecration in a virtual world was possible, and that in some sense if a person's avatar received the virtually consecrated elements, then the person themselves had in some sense shared in Communion. Just Bosco Peters offered a robust critique of his argument:
Baptism, immersion into the Christian community, the body of Christ, and hence into the nature of God the Holy Trinity may accept some internet equivalents – for instance, being welcomed into a moderated group. But my own current position would be to shy away from, for example, having a virtual baptism of a second life avatar. Nor would I celebrate Eucharist and other sacraments in the virtual earth. Sacraments are outward and visible signs – the virtual world is nevertheless very much at the inner and invisible level. Similarly, in my stance, placing unconsecrated bread and wine before a calculator or television screen and understanding this to upshot in consecration tends away from the liturgical understanding of the Eucharist (liturgy = work of the people/ something washed by a community) towards a magical agreement of the Eucharist (magic = something washed to or foran private or community)…
Following Fiddes' approach one would logically hold that God gives grace to a cartoon character like Mickey Mouse with whom an observer (or cartoonist) identifies – and that Mickey Mouse passes this grace on to the observer or cartoonist. Similarly God, co-ordinate to Fiddes', would give grace to a graphic symbol in a computer/video game and that grace is then passed on to the person playing that graphic symbol…
In that location is no denying Fiddes' statement "There is a mysterious and complex interaction between the person and the persona projected (avatar)." This human relationship is, in my opinion, akin to identifying with a character in a novel, play, or movie, or with a string boob one is decision-making in a puppet theatre. A baptism, marriage, or celebration of communion in such a novel, pic, or puppet evidence may securely movement the person identifying with the graphic symbol. Such a person may very well be graced and transformed by God at such a fourth dimension. But in that location is no sense in which the person identifying with the character is thereby baptised, married, or receiving the Eucharist.
Our state of affairs is different from the one being considered here, in that we are talking about remote communication betwixt real people, rather than virtual representations. But his arguments almost the importance of real, rather than virtual, contact and the substance of the material earth are well made.
What, and then, might we practise? Anglican theology and liturgyexercise permit an authorised ministry to preside at a celebration of Holy Communion, provided that is not done as an individual, but every bit part of a community of believers of at least three. It does allow that to exist live streamed or pre-recorded and broadcast. It does also let that those watching, in their own homes, might eat breadstuff and drink wine (on their ain) or share it with others in their household, whilst they witness the service of Holy Communion being broadcast from elsewhere. This does non propose that, in any 'magical' sense, the breadstuff and wine in the individual homes, are in any sense 'consecrated' in the terms of authorised liturgical use of that term.
Simply Protestant Christians have always maintained that 'where two or three are gathered, [Jesus] is with them' (Matt 18.20), that when nosotros invite the Spirit to come on the states, the Spirit truly comes, and that when nosotros recall Jesus as nosotros consume bread and drink wine, that nosotros are strengthened and encouraged. That is why, until the Oxford Movement in the nineteenth century and and so the Sunday Communion Movement in the twentieth, the reception of Communion by the laity has ofttimes been relatively infrequent in the Church of England.
If sharing such 'fellowship meals' in the home feels like something that falls short of the full sharing of Communion together in a church building, well in many respects it is. A Roman Catholic research newspaper on 'virtual Eucharist Mass' from 2022 makes the following interesting ascertainment:
Ultimately, I suggest that it is doctrinally possible to promote participation in the virtual Mass as a sign of solidarity with marginalized Christians as long every bit it is in view of making existent the fully embodied communal Eucharist.
In other words, 'virtual Communion' derives from something in the by (the bodily sharing of Communion that we previously experienced) and looks forrard to something in the future (the restoration of this do once the present constraints are relaxed). This should remind us that our usual practices accept exactly the same condition!
Our rather liturgically rarefied celebrations of Communion really derive from a real meal that Jesus held with his disciples. I, for ane, would love it if we could recover that fully-orbed context of shared community. And they expect forward to something much greater—a feast in the kingdom of heaven, where our sharing is not only a morsel, but a fully satisfying feast on God and all his unmediated goodness with all of cosmos. Whether in our homes, or restored back to our church building buildings, we experience a mere foretaste of a much fuller reality.
If y'all plant this commodity helpful, share information technology on social media, possibly using the buttons on the left.Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance basis. If yous take valued this post, would you considerdonating £ane.twenty a month to support the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, practise share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance ground. If y'all have valued this mail service, y'all can make a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Skilful comments that appoint with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Make the near charitable construal of the views of others and seek to acquire from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/how-can-we-celebrate-holy-communion-as-online-church/
0 Response to "(How) can we celebrate Holy Communion as ‘online’ church?"
Post a Comment