Virtual Communion
Lucia
Shipmate
In common with all Church of England parishes our village church is closed but our vicar is broadcasting a livestream of morning and evening prayer daily and this morning, parish communion. My other half and I set up a table in front of the television, with candles, a piece of bread each and a small glass with a little wine in for each of us. We joined in with communion and administered bread and wine to each other. It felt good and meaningful to us to participate in this way.
I was reflecting on the theology of what we are doing, which I think is only an issue if you see communion as sacramental rather than strictly memorial! Does consecration work at a distance?? For me the fact that we were doing this in real time, that our vicar was at that very moment pronouncing the words only a few streets away across the village from us was important and also that I could see that a number of others were watching online with us at the same moment so it was a shared moment. I don't think it would feel the same if I was watching the video of the livestream later in the day.
I don't believe that there is a 'blast radius' where all the bread and wine around the village was magically consecrated, So I'm thinking that the sense of validity comes from intentionality. That this bread and wine which we have set aside for this purpose and have presented before the priest as the words of consecration are spoken can 'be to us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ'.
We live in unprecedented circumstances and have technology available to us that former generations did not have when faced with similar challenges. So do we need some kind of theology of how 'virtual communion' might function?
I was reflecting on the theology of what we are doing, which I think is only an issue if you see communion as sacramental rather than strictly memorial! Does consecration work at a distance?? For me the fact that we were doing this in real time, that our vicar was at that very moment pronouncing the words only a few streets away across the village from us was important and also that I could see that a number of others were watching online with us at the same moment so it was a shared moment. I don't think it would feel the same if I was watching the video of the livestream later in the day.
I don't believe that there is a 'blast radius' where all the bread and wine around the village was magically consecrated, So I'm thinking that the sense of validity comes from intentionality. That this bread and wine which we have set aside for this purpose and have presented before the priest as the words of consecration are spoken can 'be to us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ'.
We live in unprecedented circumstances and have technology available to us that former generations did not have when faced with similar challenges. So do we need some kind of theology of how 'virtual communion' might function?
Comments
The two posts were these:
I very much like your idea that you administered the bread and wine to each other rather than simply taking your own piece of bread and glass of wine.
I think the intention of Lucia and partner would be honoured in a time of trial, and the Third Person would have no difficulty in arranging a quick fly-by epiclesis of all elements proffered for the purpose.
I believe that the anamnesis can never be merely memorial ("anamnesis" and "merely" do not belong in the same sacramental sentence) but that probably belongs in another thread - no doubt a well-dead horse. I believe that by the grace of God the full gamut of God's saving works were present in Lucia and other half's re-presentation for grace extends in strange and holy ways to troubled times
Basically, it's not mechanical, and it's not a game we're playing with a set of rules that must be followed. It's an action that takes place in a settled, ongoing relationship, where people x and y and z do this, and Person A says, "Why not?" and does that.
But even operating from that assumption, why can’t the clergy person’s intent be to consecrate all bread and wine of those watching? Does he or she need to know the exact number?
Well, not really, but you know somebody's trying it!
Given that for many of us it could be quite some time until we are able to celebrate communion with a priest present or with a congregation, would it be good for the churches to actually issue some guidelines on how this might be done? I appreciate there will be a range of views on the validity of doing this, but we have a range of views on many matters of practice. But I wonder if the churches could give some guidance along the lines of, 'If you choose to do this, this is how we recommend it is done.'
When I spoke of intentionality I was thinking not just of the priest's intention but also of our intention that the specific bread and wine that we have set before God here in our home should become the body and blood of Christ to us.
I'm interested in why some think consecration cannot work over the internet.
Jesus could clearly operate at a distance, for example the healing of the centurion's servant.
I appreciate this thread, Lucia. As I said, when this was discussed in our virtual Session meeting, I was one of those with reservations. This thread has eased some of my reservations, and for that I am grateful.
This.
Same here. I shall make sure I have bread and wine handy, when I go up to Scotland next Sunday!
This doesn't quite chime in, ISTM, with @BabyWombat's Bishop's ruling. Surely, if the Sacrament is consecrated, it should be consumed (perhaps after the service has ended), as Reservation for the Communion of the Sick is a tad difficult at the moment...
Even though the consumption of the Sacrament by somebody is an essential element of the rite? Maybe it's not seen that way by all. Don't know.
Yeah, I found the instruction for the priest not to consume the sacrament rather odd, on those grounds.
I’ve heard of numerous Episcopal churches using Morning or Evening Prayer, or what might be called ante-Communion (the Eucharistic liturgy up to the offertory). I also know of Episcopal churches using this rite of Spiritual Communion or something similar.
What @Baptist Trainfan says makes logical sense, on reflection, and I found that the last solo Eucharist I watched didn't really allow enough time for the viewer to consume elements at home, anyway.
I'm OK with watching the service, Consecration and all, and making a 'spiritual communion' the while.
If 'virtual communion' works for others, though, I can't think that Our Lord and His Blessed Mother will mind too much...
I would assume (always risky when it is a bishop's thinking one assumes!) she means that if celebrating on line one essentially and appropriatly disposes of the consecrated elements without consuming them. My own short hand verison of this: No online Eucharists in this diocese, just a service of word and prayer, which could be MP or EP or some other non-Eucharistic service.
I read both articles, and I think in the Baptist context this makes sense - though I think you'd have to give thought to how the strictures in 1 Cor 11 apply -- which his treatment of somatic presence doesn't quite address.
I also think these two sentences taken together:
"Signals in fibre optic cables and electromagnetic waves are physical realities; our shared presence together in an online—virtual—meeting is therefore a mediated physical presence"
"This granted, could we imagine a different distinction, between mediated presence and unmediated presence? Possibly, but: (a) it will not make much difference; (b) it is probably again nonsense;"
Lead to consequences that I suspect he'd actually be uncomfortable with (aka the cable can be very long indeed, and the second applies equally to time shifting).
I would understand her comments as meaning "no celebration of the Eucharist" at this time; on line 'gatherings' for services of the word and prayer, with sermon are preferred.
This is his own personal stance, but he makes it plain that, if other clergy do wish to celebrate privately, he's happy with that, and gives them his blessing - even if they live-stream their solo services.
Personally, I find the former more convincing than the latter. Aside from questions of denominational discipline, both seem to revolve around whether a virtual gathering can be a Eucharistic assembly. I am unconvinced by what appear to me to be mere assertions that it cannot be, and obviously Paul could not have envisaged the kind of ‘virtual’ gatherings which are now possible.
I also find that the emphasis in the second on one bread and one cup unduly literalistic and going beyond what the text says, and the heavy reliance on 1 Cor 10.16-17 does what respected commentators (Barrett, Fee) say should not be done - i.e. makes firm pronouncements about Eucharistic practice.
By the way, Stephen Holmes is an excellent theologian. Now at ST Andrew's, he used to be at King's, London and, following his own mentor Colin Gunton, taught me a great deal about the Trinity!
For what it's worth, my Parish has recently started Zoom communions, which I have found very helpful. The priest consecrates, and we watch her receive, but no one watching does so. Indeed, until reading this thread, the thought had never entered my mind. As far as I know the Church of England hasn't offered any guidance on this.
As for it never having arisen before, I think there's a scene in "Shogun" where one of the characters receives "imaginary" communion from a Jesuit on the ground where a new cathedral is going to be built. Can anyone remember the details?
One random thought occurs to me: that this crisis is making Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament de facto mainstream among Protestants ...
Or am I misunderstanding what you mean?
Our minister, who is Korean, is a mixture of high and low church that is new to me. He has people stand for the reading of the Gospel -- an innovation to this Methodist -- but introduced a very low-church form of communion over Zoom. People were encouraged to get whatever they wished for communion, with one example suggestion being chocolate milk and a cookie. I confess to being rather shocked by this. It seemed downright disrespectful. But I may just be a dinosaur. I don't think most of the congregation was disconcerted by the idea in the slightest.
We got notice of the need for elements days in advance, so that people could prepare. We were encouraged to have bread—and were provided with an easy recipe for bread that folks looking for something to do (or for their kids to do) could use—and wine or juice, or if those weren’t possible, water. (The story of Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana was cited.) Then we were encouraged to place “a special napkin or piece of cloth that reminds you of a holy dinner with friends” on a table where we were going to watch the stream, and then to place the bread (on a special plate or in a special basket) and cup on that napkin or cloth.
It may indeed not be an acceptable practice (I'm C of E), and some sort of spiritual communion is being encouraged, but it works for me. I accept that it may be anathema to others, of course.
This would then presuppose that Protestants attending a 'live' and not 'virtual' Communion service would recognise the Presence of Jesus in the 'consecrated' elements. I don't think that this is the case. I have known of several fellow Christians who have attended services where the religious community,(might be Catholic or Orthodox or even Lutheran or Anglican) teach the Real Presence and yet would not accept that while being physically present. This is one of the reasons why certain Christian bodies only allow those who share to the full their understandings to communicate.
I just learned today that Jehovah's Witnesses ( who may or may not be counted as Christians and who do not believe in the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation )celebrate the Lord's Evening Meal once a year on the date corresponding to the Jewish Nisan14. However 'only those with the hope of reigning with Christ in his heavenly Kingdom are allowed to partake of the emblems.