Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:Hats? HATS?
Originally posted by the long ranger:
And if we're taking weirdness as a measure I have one word to say - hats.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
How long is it since you've actually been to a RL church?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
)
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:I'm up for having a go.
Originally posted by Simon:
we thought we'd cut to the chase and do the thing they're all so nervous about – sacraments – and see what happens.
Ship of Fools is probably one of the best places to do this, since no institutional church has a stake in us.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Hey, are you an anglican?
Originally posted by Balaam:
Disagreeing about what a sacrament is does not prevent us from sharing it.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Dear oh dear....misread Simon's post....thought he said Church of fools.
Originally posted by Melon:
We're not planning to use Church of Fools for any experiments, although at least one of them may arouse a bit of CoF nostalgia.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:... Jesus was overheard saying to himself on a certain Thursday afternoon.
Originally posted by Melon:
The tricky bit is finding the appropriate thing to do ...
quote:I believe the LeRoc was making a reference to the common practice of early con-artist televangelists to have the viewer "come closer to your TV set and lay your hands on the screen so that we can heal you and pick your pockets at the same time" or something like that. Some may still do that stuff.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Why? What is wrong with that? what am I missing?
quote:I see no particular pitfalls in extending Protestant "sacraments" to the virtual sphere. In fact, I would be hard pressed to find a better symbol for their purely mental value than abstracting them further into bits and pixels. These "sacraments" have always been worth just whatever motivation to holiness they have provided to the observer, as now becomes obvious also in their very making.
Originally posted by Melon:
Online sacraments have been the subject of passionate debate since at least the Church of Fools experiment. It would be interesting to know what potential and pitfalls people see, and also what interest there would be in trying some experiments using various online technology.
quote:By a similar logic, the word was made flesh, not Hovis.
Originally posted by leo:
I'm sure it's Ok for making a spiritual communion but the word was made flesh, not digital.
quote:We have it on good Authority that bread and wine will do. Please demonstrate your "I Am Who Is"-ness, and we will take Your Word for what the pixels in question Are to us.
Originally posted by Simon:
quote:By a similar logic, the word was made flesh, not Hovis.
Originally posted by leo:
I'm sure it's Ok for making a spiritual communion but the word was made flesh, not digital.
quote:Yes, undoubtedly. What this reminds me of more than anything else is a thought experiment, and thought experiments have nasty ways of showing up gaping holes in reasoning.
Originally written by Melon:
This, I suggest, is the real reason why Twitter communion is such an inflammatory notion; why theologians hesitate to take a serious look at online church in general and online sacraments in particular. Today's sacramental edifice depends on no one asking too many questions
quote:How many people however do not go to church because they can't be bothered to dress up for it (or indeed can't dress 'respectably' due to mobility or money issues)?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Few people attend communion in their dressing gowns and slippers. Fewer still keep one eye on the goings-on while they relax with a coffee and a newspaper. Partly this is because of the peer pressure of the crowd: that pressure is absent online.
quote:Please demonstrate your definition of bread and wine (and, maybe, how a wafer of almost zero humidity can be both).
Originally posted by IngoB:
Please demonstrate your "I Am Who Is"-ness, and we will take Your Word for what the pixels in question Are to us.
quote:Totally! That way there would be no pretence. Heck, I would even join something like that.
Originally posted by hatless:
For instance, at a certain point everyone could post an appropriate photograph - of the room where they are sitting, say, or of their smile or hands or bible. Or everyone could download and play a piece of music. Or, at a certain point, pairs of people could speak on the phone, or exchange text messages. Not very good examples, I'm afraid, but does the point make sense?
quote:Well, you have read that into my post and dismissed it. So perhaps you could now read my post again to see that it was actually about embodiment...
Originally posted by the long ranger:
It seems to me this whole concept of proximity and human contact is humbug.
quote:Sure, here, with the limits of accommodation clarified here, as Divinely Authorized here, with future clarifications Divinely Authorized here and here (among other places).
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:Please demonstrate your definition of bread and wine (and, maybe, how a wafer of almost zero humidity can be both).
Originally posted by IngoB:
Please demonstrate your "I Am Who Is"-ness, and we will take Your Word for what the pixels in question Are to us.
quote:So is "with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed" from your link what the congregation at your church consumed yesterday? Or did they consume something simplified and abstracted to the point where it was quasi-two-dimensional?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sure, here
quote:What I ate came from wheat, and what I drank came from vines - living plants providing their fruits. I had this food and drink in my mouth and on my tongue, and consumed them as usual with (a little) chewing, salivating and swallowing, and part of this matter has now become part of my body (whereas other parts I have excreted).
Originally posted by Melon:
So is "with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed" from your link what the congregation at your church consumed yesterday? Or did they consume something simplified and abstracted to the point where it was quasi-two-dimensional?
quote:QED
Originally posted by Melon:
Personally, I don't think that some sort of "real presence" is excluded by different expressions of existing sacraments, or by different sacraments for that matter, unless "real presence" means that the rest of the universe is in some sense "real non-presence". This, to me, is a fundamental problem with all conservative sacramentalism - to have genuine "thin places" the rest of the world has to be a "thick place".
quote:And I would say I feel as if people who pray to Jesus in a certain way sound as if they have Jesus in his pocket. I sit in prayer meetings where God is told what to do, fighting the response "not our will, but Yours, Oh Lord"
God isn't with us because we summon him up like a gini (sp?). I don't think that God created vines and then inspired people to produce bread inherently just so Jesus could perform the Last Supper. It seems to me that Jesus takes a human culture and its products and says "You'll find me in the midst of this". And, in that case, insisting that God can only be present when we pretend we are in a 2000 year-old culture looks arbitrary going-on perverse to me.
quote:Isn't it up to God whether or not a sacrament is valid?
Originally posted by shamwari:
Beeswax Alter
On line sacraments are not valid. Period. Full stop.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I see no particular pitfalls in extending Protestant "sacraments" to the virtual sphere. In fact, I would be hard pressed to find a better symbol for their purely mental value than abstracting them further into bits and pixels.
Meanwhile, actual sacraments remain available at your nearest RC church.
quote:Monkeylizard answered it perfectly for me here.
the long ranger: Why? What is wrong with that? what am I missing?
quote:Now also showing at your local Ship's Quotes File.
Meanwhile, actual sacraments remain available at your nearest RC church. True, you will have to suffer the proximity of real human beings in order to access these Divine channels of grace. But then God always had this strange fetish for "embodiment". I mean here He is, pure Spirit in zero-lag communication with Himself and He does not only create nature, but actually incarnates into that mess as well, with human bandwidth. His first technical officer Lucifer had a right fit about that one. And I hear He plans to resurrect us in the body. I mean, come on, what better place for cloud computing than heaven? Yeah, OK, we are going to get an upgrade, but why don't we just abstract away from the bioware layer, like, all the way? Because when we Christians talk about meeting God face to face - what we mean is on Facebook!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Oh I see - the fact that some people abuse it means the whole idea is wrong. Or not.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Monkeylizard answered it perfectly for me here.
the long ranger: Why? What is wrong with that? what am I missing?
quote:Maybe it isn't. But if SOF would do a thing like that, getting the image of a priest on the computer asking people to bring their bread and water close to the screen so that (s)he can bless it, it would definitely push all the wrong buttons with me.
long ranger: Oh I see - the fact that some people abuse it means the whole idea is wrong. Or not.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:I think this an example of a "comparing the best of mine with the worst of yours" argument.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What will participating in these sacraments smell like?
quote:Hats? HATS?
Originally posted by the long ranger:
And if we're taking weirdness as a measure I have one word to say - hats.
quote:But of course there is in some sense a "real non-presence" of God. God is not the universe, and Christians are not pantheist. Panentheists they can be, but there is a necessary dividing line. The universe is a creature, God is the Creator. They are not aspects of the same thing. And the universe has its own real mode of existence. Yes, if God doesn't support this existence, then it will be nothing. But while He does, it is something. It is not merely some kind of projection screen for God.
Originally posted by Melon:
Personally, I don't think that some sort of "real presence" is excluded by different expressions of existing sacraments, or by different sacraments for that matter, unless "real presence" means that the rest of the universe is in some sense "real non-presence".
quote:The sacraments may be "thin places" in the sense of an "easier than normal" access to grace. The Father does provide for His children. But they are precisely not tied to a place, but to a person: that of a fellow Christian, and in particular, that of the priest. And since the priest is to act "in the Person of Christ", especially in the sacraments, it should be no surprise that God comes into the world there in a privileged manner. That's nothing but an outworking of the Incarnation and ministry of Christ Himself. Was the world "thin" around Jesus? Sure was, and still is.
Originally posted by Melon:
This, to me, is a fundamental problem with all conservative sacramentalism - to have genuine "thin places" the rest of the world has to be a "thick place".
quote:We ask, and it is given to us. We seek, and we find. We knock, and the door is opened to us.
Originally posted by Melon:
God isn't with us because we summon him up like a gini (sp?).
quote:No, God created bread and wine for our nourishment and enjoyment. So it is fitting that God chooses them as licit means for the ultimate bodily union, more intimate than even sex, the primary symbols for sustenance and bliss. For we eat Christ's flesh and drink Christ's blood so that we are unified into the Body of Christ. We assume Him into our body so that we are assumed into His Body. We absorb His life until not we live, but Christ lives within us. This is literally visceral religion. This is spiritual gene therapy. And in this comes the Holy Spirit not as a programme, but as Breath. He is the truth, and the way, and the life.
Originally posted by Melon:
I don't think that God created vines and then inspired people to produce bread inherently just so Jesus could perform the Last Supper.
quote:That to which the Eucharist speaks is much, much older than 2000 years. It is, in a way, older than we humans are, though we are, in a way, its representatives. This starts with the very first organism that forms: eat and drink, do this in anticipation of me.
Originally posted by Melon:
It seems to me that Jesus takes a human culture and its products and says "You'll find me in the midst of this". And, in that case, insisting that God can only be present when we pretend we are in a 2000 year-old culture looks arbitrary going-on perverse to me.
quote:These are good sentiments, but wrongly applied. For your spiritual communion was a communion in spirit with a real communion, thereby anchored in the real presence of the Lord. But this is a virtual communion anchored in nothing but whatever may be in the spirits of the participants.
Originally posted by Mary LA:
I felt that I was able to receive the fullness of communion and the Presence of Christ in that spiritual communion. Which is why I would be interested in joining a faith community celebrating online communion.
quote:Twice on Sunday. Are you saying hats are not a feature of religious life?
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:Hats? HATS?
Originally posted by the long ranger:
And if we're taking weirdness as a measure I have one word to say - hats.
How long is it since you've actually been to a RL church?
quote:Apart from some weddings and the odd special occasion, I haven't seen a hat in church for donkey's years (my experience is limited to Anglican, RC, most of the mainstream nonconformists (inlucding Quakers), and to churches in Wales, England, Italy, Germany, South Africa and Mozambique).
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:Twice on Sunday. Are you saying hats are not a feature of religious life?
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:Hats? HATS?
Originally posted by the long ranger:
And if we're taking weirdness as a measure I have one word to say - hats.
How long is it since you've actually been to a RL church?
quote:Because, for many Christians, sacraments are a part of their experience of church and part of their spirituality in general. So people who feel that an online church is in some sense their spiritual home often wonder why they cannot share sacramental experiences within that community.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Melon - please explain to me the necessity of an online sacrament. Even if it is possible, why would you want to?
quote:St Pixels is alive and well and living mainly inside a Facebook app. We've been around online communion many times. Every time, a significant minority of people say that they would really like to do it because St Pixels can't truly be their church without sacraments, and about the same number of people say that it would be scandalous to do it and they'd have to leave if anyone did it. So the less bad pastoral solution is not to do it. St Pixels does communion most times there's a meet, but of course they are not that frequent and not everyone attends.
Originally posted by shamwari:
I wonder whether on-line communion has been tried on any other sites.
St Pixels, which followed on from Church of Fools, used to have services on line. (and may still do). Was communion ever mooted as part of that service? Did it happen? If not why not?
Is the current proposal an alternative to something that didnt happen elsewhere?
quote:I don't.
Originally posted by Melon:
I expect computers to be able to stimulate all five senses within a few years.
quote:[Tangent]
Originally posted by Melon:
(The other problem with this kind of argument is that sooner or later the technology catches up. I expect computers to be able to stimulate all five senses within a few years. In other words, it's a sacrament-of-the-gaps explanation, where technology is forever reducing the "only offline" space.)
quote:OK, so if that is what you feel and you have access to the necessary levers to do it, then do it. What do you want - a slow hand-clap and a supportive tap on the shoulder?
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:Because, for many Christians, sacraments are a part of their experience of church and part of their spirituality in general. So people who feel that an online church is in some sense their spiritual home often wonder why they cannot share sacramental experiences within that community.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Melon - please explain to me the necessity of an online sacrament. Even if it is possible, why would you want to?
quote:I agree (and think I agreed about a page ago). I don't think that making imitation food and drink is the best way forward. My point was that sensorial experience isn't actually a great argument against online sacraments.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:I don't.
Originally posted by Melon:
I expect computers to be able to stimulate all five senses within a few years.
But even if that could be done, the obviious absurdity of making some kind of computer-simulated imitation of the sensations of eating and drinking and then calling it a meal just emphasises how much online sacraments would l miss the point.
quote:<checks> Yes, you're new in these parts
Originally posted by the long ranger:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Melon:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the long ranger:
[qb]OK, so if that is what you feel and you have access to the necessary levers to do it, then do it. What do you want - a slow hand-clap and a supportive tap on the shoulder?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I don't think my need for affirmation before acting is my most conspicuous character trait, although I do wonder whether shoulder taps could be construed as sacramental in the right circumstances.quote:Well, I assumed you wanted a discussion about it, given that you had posted here.
Originally posted by Melon:
[QUOTE]
We're going to try some experiments. Before doing that, it's useful to know who else is interested in the topic and what issues other people see. As has been pointed out, there is huge diversity in sacramental beliefs and practices among Christians, and in my view Purgatory is one of the best places in the world to get a snapshot of that diversity.
quote:Looks to me like we are having a discussion but YMMV.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well, I assumed you wanted a discussion about it, given that you had posted here.
I find it a tad inexplicable that you are so dismissive of those that disagree with you. If you're going to do it anyway, what is there to discuss?
quote:As you might expect I'd disagree with sacraments being tied to the person of the priest. They're (IMO) tied to the person of Christ, and by extension to his body on earth - the church. For purely practical reasons it is often necessary for an individual to take on a representative role and act on behalf of the whole church (or, at least a part of it), and it is right and proper that such people have a tested calling and are authorised to act in that capacity.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The sacraments may be "thin places" in the sense of an "easier than normal" access to grace. The Father does provide for His children. But they are precisely not tied to a place, but to a person: that of a fellow Christian, and in particular, that of the priest.
quote:You're begging the question. Of course online isn't the same as in person, but unless you can demonstrate that it's necessarily inferior, that's entirely irrelevant.
Originally posted by Psmith:
I don't like the idea of online Church, in large part because I don't consider an online gathering to be same as a real, in person gathering or a substitute for it.
quote:Thus in fact we do not disagree there, at least considering the big picture (i.e., considering all sacraments together). There are sacraments that can be provided by laity (baptism, distribution/exposition of Eucharist) or must be (marriage). My point was - explicitly - not about priests alone, but about persons.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As you might expect I'd disagree with sacraments being tied to the person of the priest. They're (IMO) tied to the person of Christ, and by extension to his body on earth - the church. For purely practical reasons it is often necessary for an individual to take on a representative role and act on behalf of the whole church (or, at least a part of it), and it is right and proper that such people have a tested calling and are authorised to act in that capacity.
quote:I do however consider sacraments to be tied to both specific matter and human embodiment, as well as actual personal contact. Hence essentially all virtualization is precluded. You can get the Eucharist in orbit around Alpha Centauri, but not as streaming video.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I find it interesting that you don't consider sacraments to be tied to a place. Because that would logically lead to there being no inherent problem to sacraments resulting in "thinness" in a dispersed space such as that created by people joining together across the internet.
quote:Because it is virtual, not real.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
For those of us who consider sacraments to be tied to the person of Christ, represented by the church which is his body, then why can't the sacraments be tied into the church gathered in a virtual space rather than a single room?
quote:Sure. If you are describing mass there, as it is celebrated in the RCC all over the world. If you are describing an "online Eucharist", then I will simply note that there is no bread sharing involved there at all. And attempts to fake this better, for example by an online command that would lead to synchronized munching of bread in front of the screens, will not really help. Even aside from the business of how one gets Christ into the bread, so to speak, it is one thing to "tune in globally" on your own and quite another to "tune in globally" as a community. Sticking to the body analogy, the proper constituents of a body are its organs, not its cells. Cells are rather proper constituents of the various tissues of the organs. Perhaps a muscle cell in the leg indeed communicates directly with a neuron in the brain. But that is still in the context of their respective organ functions, not just as cells. If we remove tissue from various parts of a body and put it in a blender, we do not get a new "body", much less do we get a "better" body just because a former liver cell now finds itself close to a former follicle cell.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If you believe, as I do, that we truly are one body sharing one loaf, despite our different locations and times of gathering, then sharing the sacrament in a way that spans geography is a very powerful symbol of that common Communion.
quote:I would certainly consider an online Eucharist to be fundamentally much, much less of a sacrament than the non-sacraments that you offer in your church services. I know this formally makes no sense, but I think my meaning is sufficiently clear?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Any more than Communion at our church, with Ribenna which I (and other non-clergy) preside, would affect your experience the sacrament.
quote:In the world of politics and government policy making its a stage called "public consultation".
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:Well, I assumed you wanted a discussion about it, given that you had posted here.
Originally posted by Melon:
[QUOTE]
We're going to try some experiments. Before doing that, it's useful to know who else is interested in the topic and what issues other people see. As has been pointed out, there is huge diversity in sacramental beliefs and practices among Christians, and in my view Purgatory is one of the best places in the world to get a snapshot of that diversity.
I find it a tad inexplicable that you are so dismissive of those that disagree with you. If you're going to do it anyway, what is there to discuss?
quote:Does it make any sense informally either? By your definition of sacrament above, where molecules of the divine somehow become part of your body, can something be 73% or 24% a sacrament? Would that only affect specific quanta?
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would certainly consider an online Eucharist to be fundamentally much, much less of a sacrament than the non-sacraments that you offer in your church services. I know this formally makes no sense, but I think my meaning is sufficiently clear?
quote:Sigh.
Originally posted by Melon:
Does it make any sense informally either? By your definition of sacrament above, where molecules of the divine somehow become part of your body, can something be 73% or 24% a sacrament? Would that only affect specific quanta?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
The intended meaning was: There are certain reasons why I think that some "sacraments" Alan's church provides are not sacraments. There are other reasons why I think online "sacraments" are not sacraments. However, the reasons against online "sacraments" are much more severe to my mind than the reasons against some of the "sacraments" of Alan's church.
quote:Makes sense to me. The symbolism is a real thing, like I said in my long post, not an image or picture or description of a thing.
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:Does it make any sense informally either?
Originally posted by IngoB:
I would certainly consider an online Eucharist to be fundamentally much, much less of a sacrament than the non-sacraments that you offer in your church services. I know this formally makes no sense, but I think my meaning is sufficiently clear?
quote:Your body already contains molecules or atoms that were once part of Jesus's natural body. Do does everyone else's. And of course it also contains particles of everyone else who lived more than a few decades ago (to give the atmosphere and oceans and rivers time to mix up) And all the animals and plants.
By your definition of sacrament above, where molecules of the divine somehow become part of your body, can something be 73% or 24% a sacrament? Would that only affect specific quanta?
quote:Does it follow from this, though, that if a person need not be physically present, nor need they be temporally present? Does following this logic get us to a scenario where the deceased could, virtually, "receive the eucharist" at his own requiem Mass (for example by recording his reception of the sacrament to be played alongside other digital images of absent people receiving the sacrament)?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
For those of us who consider sacraments to be tied to the person of Christ, represented by the church which is his body, then why can't the sacraments be tied into the church gathered in a virtual space rather than a single room?
It is not uncommon to consider the Church to be a community that spans space and time and into eternity.
quote:As I said above, it isn't really clear to me what he actually wants to discuss - given he seems to have already decided to do something. I think. I don't really understand what all the jargon means.
You may have noticed a Ship article by me about this. Online sacraments have been the subject of passionate debate since at least the Church of Fools experiment. It would be interesting to know what potential and pitfalls people see, and also what interest there would be in trying some experiments using various online technology.
quote:Is chatting a girl up in the ship cafe the same sort of experience as taking her out on a date at a real cafe?
What we want to find out in our online communion experiment is whether sharing communion might amount to the same sort of experience as sharing online prayer or communal worship.
quote:Dunno, you should ask my wife - we 'met' on an online chat thing (it was a long time ago though).
Originally posted by Zach82:
Is chatting a girl up in the ship cafe the same sort of experience as taking her out on a date at a real cafe?
quote:I am assuming, though, that you now live together, and furthermore would not find it just as well to live in different states and maintain the relationship through skype sessions.
Dunno, you should ask my wife - we 'met' on an online chat thing (it was a long time ago though).
quote:All true, but I don't think anyone is suggesting this online thingamejig would replace anything.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:I am assuming, though, that you now live together, and furthermore would not find it just as well to live in different states and maintain the relationship through skype sessions.
Dunno, you should ask my wife - we 'met' on an online chat thing (it was a long time ago though).
Maybe you would, but very few, I suspect, would find it just as well in their own relationships.
quote:The sacrament of communion is also offering, taking, remembering, giving thanks, breaking and sharing.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sacraments are physical things. Bread. Wine. Water. Oil. Hands. They are incarnational.
quote:That is the upshot of saying that it is real communion. But just like chatting on skype is not the same thing as being together with a loved one, watching a mass on an internet feed is not the same as actually being at a mass.
All true, but I don't think anyone is suggesting this online thingamejig would replace anything.
quote:That's likely correct, though I do for example accept the Eucharist of the Eastern Orthodox as valid. However, this side issue is simply a diversion. My argument has been principally about how embodiment, matter, reality, persons and relationships are necessary for a sacrament. Therefore online sacraments are not valid. Others have clearly understood this as what I was going on about. If some RC joint benightedly tried to virtualise RC sacraments, theirs would also cease to be sacraments.
Originally posted by Simon:
According to your argument, IngoB, I have never received communion in my life, even though I've been in thousands of services where Christians shared bread and wine and did so "in remembrance of me", as Jesus asked his followers to do. All of them were apparently fake because they were not, as you helpfully say, "actual sacraments... available at your nearest RC church".
quote:If you want to have a chat about where the "depth" in church may be found, then perhaps start a new thread? I don't see what that has to do with the question of whether bits and pixels can sufficiently "make real" communion in Christ.
Originally posted by Simon:
But then I'm a believer in "deep church" as CS Lewis talked about it, where there is a great broad tradition of our faith, going back to the first Christians, which is witnessed to by all the individual church traditions.
quote:At best you can claim that this gets you around the issue of real personal contact. Not that I believe that it does, as a simple holding of hands will demonstrate. Or just look at all those smilies you can use to decorate your posts, they are there for reason. Yet there is more to all this anyhow than just the question of authentic being together as persons.
Originally posted by Simon:
The experience gained of online church in St Pixels and Church of Fools (and in iChurch and in the Anglican Cathedral of Second Life) is that prayer, worship and preaching are entirely authentic, and that human contact is much deeper and richer than "mental proximity" (to quote Zach82).
quote:The beauty of experimentation is constrained by ethics. In allowing these experiments to happen, you are - hopefully - assuming that they cannot possibly hurt. But that claim already assumes a lot about the nature of the people, sacraments and God. What if you are wrong?
Originally posted by Simon:
What we want to find out in our online communion experiment is whether sharing communion might amount to the same sort of experience as sharing online prayer or communal worship. For all we know, it will fall flat on its face. That's the beauty of doing an experiment: it gives you the freedom to try things and to not get them right.
quote:Are you considering yourself responsible for my spiritual welfare here? Not beyond the usual keeping of brothers, I reckon. My church, however, promises to lead me to eternal salvation. So why compare apples with oranges?
Originally posted by Simon:
I know that's inimical to the big old churches like the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches which have taken it on themselves to define what is right and wrong, but then this is Ship of Fools, a website which could not be run by either of those organisations.
quote:Isn't the same , and Isn't a substitute. An online gathering isn't a gathering at all, but a group of people who are each alone, communicating in a rather thin way. That said, while I would not be interested in it, I would not be prepared to say that an online communion positively is not valid, but just that I cannot conceive of how it could be. Moreover, I worry about the increasing isolation of our society, and the tendency to withdraw into our own bubbles, and this idea seems a rather egregious example of that trend.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:You're begging the question. Of course online isn't the same as in person, but unless you can demonstrate that it's necessarily inferior, that's entirely irrelevant.
Originally posted by Psmith:
I don't like the idea of online Church, in large part because I don't consider an online gathering to be same as a real, in person gathering or a substitute for it.
quote:We also inhabit an online world. What would an incarnational sacrament in an online world look like? Or, do you want to exclude the grace of God from the online world?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sacraments are physical things. Bread. Wine. Water. Oil. Hands. They are incarnational. They are given to us because we inhabit a physical world.
quote:But, regardless of whether or not that's true - where is Jesus' physical body today? - that isn't even close to the point IngoB was making above about how sacraments "work".
Originally posted by ken:
Your body already contains molecules or atoms that were once part of Jesus's natural body. Do does everyone else's. And of course it also contains particles of everyone else who lived more than a few decades ago (to give the atmosphere and oceans and rivers time to mix up) And all the animals and plants.
quote:But it's quite possible to be alone and communicate in a rather thin way when several people are in the same room, or even the same church, or even the same communion service. Happens all the time. One of the main points I tried to make in my article that there's a glaring false dichotomy here.
Originally posted by Psmith:
An online gathering isn't a gathering at all, but a group of people who are each alone, communicating in a rather thin way.
quote:And being with a loved one once a month thanks to a car journey is not the same as living in the same village as the loved one where you both grew up with all the rest of your family and walked, together, every day, to the fields, except when you walked, together, every Sunday to the church in the centre of the village that all your friends and family attended.
Originally posted by Zach82:
But just like chatting on skype is not the same thing as being together with a loved one, watching a mass on an internet feed is not the same as actually being at a mass.
quote:Melon, you referred upthread to comparing "the best of mine with the worst of yours", but I think that's what you've repeatedly done in this discussion, and notably in the post that I've just quoted. What you've done, paradoxically, is that in terms of "user experience", the best you can hope for from an online experience is about on a level with the worst you might expect from a real-life experience.
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:But it's quite possible to be alone and communicate in a rather thin way when several people are in the same room, or even the same church, or even the same communion service. Happens all the time. One of the main points I tried to make in my article that there's a glaring false dichotomy here.
Originally posted by Psmith:
An online gathering isn't a gathering at all, but a group of people who are each alone, communicating in a rather thin way.
quote:Sorry, there are some words missing there. I meant to say, "What you've done, paradoxically, is to demonstrate that in terms of user experience ..."
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What you've done, paradoxically, is that in terms of "user experience", the best you can hope for from an online experience is about on a level with the worst you might expect from a real-life experience.
quote:This is simply a false argument. Nobody has said anything about the general presence of grace online. This discussion is about the question whether a particular established channel of grace, the sacraments, can be put online. And the answer happens to be no, if you follow the arguments that I and others have made here. To be even more precise, it is entirely possible that grace is in fact provided by some online "sacraments" to some people. The point is simply that this then is accidental to these online "sacraments": the grace rather is for example in the pious intentions of the participants. The online "sacraments" may provide a focus point, but it is an interchangeable one.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What would an incarnational sacrament in an online world look like? Or, do you want to exclude the grace of God from the online world?
quote:It is not only possible, but certain, that grace flows through all sorts of people outside of the RCC, through non-standard Eucharists, etc. I assume that many celebrations of the Eucharist in the Anglican tradition, for example, cause an almost "institutionalized" grace flow. I'm also very confident that if I make it to heaven, I'll get the opportunity to chat with Siddhartha Gautama Buddha and Dogen Zenji, something I'm greatly looking forward to.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@IngoB - can you explain to me why God would constrain himself only to those who do the Eucharist in the 'right' (sorry to use the scare quotes, but I don't know how else to phrase it) way? If God can use Donkeys, Pharoahs, Samaritans, murderers, fishermen and sewage modellers, can he not also use people outside of the RC to do his will? Is it not then at least conceivably possible that God's grace flows through non-standard Eucharists even if you cannot understand and appreciate them?
quote:Indeed, read the first paragraph of my first post on this matter. However, the discussion whether sacraments can in principle be put online is bigger - and more interesting - than the "sectarian" discussion of whether this or that group of Christians has sacraments in the first place. Sacraments can become invalid in many ways. I'm interested here primarily in them becoming invalid by virtualization. This may well speak to other ways in which sacraments can become invalid, but deserves discussion for its own sake.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Also, if the actions of the non-RC world are not examples of the real Eucharist, why does it bother you that they're doing something unreal in another way? I don't understand the objection other than 'it isn't RC therefore it isn't Real'.
quote:I don't think so. If it's a false dichotomy, comparing the best, the worst, the mean, the median, the mode or any other aggregate measure isn't going to answer the question.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:Melon, you referred upthread to comparing "the best of mine with the worst of yours", but I think that's what you've repeatedly done in this discussion, and notably in the post that I've just quoted. What you've done, paradoxically, is that in terms of "user experience", the best you can hope for from an online experience is about on a level with the worst you might expect from a real-life experience.
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:But it's quite possible to be alone and communicate in a rather thin way when several people are in the same room, or even the same church, or even the same communion service. Happens all the time. One of the main points I tried to make in my article that there's a glaring false dichotomy here.
Originally posted by Psmith:
An online gathering isn't a gathering at all, but a group of people who are each alone, communicating in a rather thin way.
quote:I don't think I ever took my wife out on a date to a café before we were married. Does that mean that our relationship is a sham?
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Is chatting a girl up in the ship cafe the same sort of experience as taking her out on a date at a real cafe?
What we want to find out in our online communion experiment is whether sharing communion might amount to the same sort of experience as sharing online prayer or communal worship.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
quote:That's more or less what I understood the first time. And I don't think it makes any sense in the light of what you posted earlier. You said:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sigh.
quote:In which case why is Ribena blessed by a (by your definition) unordained person if at all "closer to" a sacrament than any other arbitrary rite? If "the liturgy is not the sacrament", how does liturgy that, superficially, looks more like your liturgy make any difference to whether or not it's a sacrament.
That sure is interesting, but the liturgy is not the sacrament in the end
quote:You are the second person on this thread to make precisely the same silly argument.
I don't think I ever took my wife out on a date to a café before we were married. Does that mean that our relationship is a sham?
quote:Somewhere in 2005, I was living in a country where I couldn't go to church easily. At the same time, my brother who was far away suffered a grave disease. Church of Fools, the events and rituals held there, and its community were an immense help for me in those days. It really helped to make me feel God's presence and support in a real way, at a very difficult moment. How is that not church?
Zach82: "doing church" online is not the same as actually going to church.
quote:For pete's sake- do you really think how you feel has anything to do with it?
Somewhere in 2005, I was living in a country where I couldn't go to church easily. At the same time, my brother who was far away suffered a grave disease. Church of Fools, the events and rituals held there, and its community were an immense help for me in those days. It really helped to make me feel God's presence and support in a real way, at a very difficult moment. How is that not church?
quote:I think we might be agreed that it makes no sense to put "RC sacraments" online. Which doesn't in the least way change the question of whether it makes sense to put proper sacraments, for example as celebrated in my church, online.
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, the more your conception of sacraments anyhow corresponds to focus points that are at least in principle interchangeable, the more sense it may make to put them online. RC sacraments do not match this idea at all, hence it really makes no sense to put them online.
quote:No one is arguing that. People are under the mistaken impression that "not church" means "not useful/a vehicle of grace."
On the other hand, just because it isn't church doesn't automatically make it totally useless.
quote:Has anyone here said that on-line Church (or on-line sacraments) is just about a feeling? If so, I've totally missed it. I've seen people talk about real community, real prayers, real fellowship, real spiritual nourishment and growth (or at least, retarded decline). What of that is just a feeling?
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Eucharist and corporate worship are both more than a feeling, and anyone mistaking them for that has, in my opinion, a very sorry spiritual life.
quote:Right. So if the Eucharist happens "at a specific place at a specific time with specific people", it should be simple to define exactly what constitutes Eucharist (in your view) in a few simple points. Why don't you do that so that we have something to start from?
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Eucharist and corporate worship are both more than a feeling, and anyone mistaking them for that has, in my opinion, a very sorry spiritual life. The Eucharist happens at a specific place at a specific time with specific people, and feelings have nothing to do with it. Christian corporate worship also has specific attributes, none of which involve being alone in your pajamas, watching cartoons cross themselves on a computer screen.
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sacraments are physical things. Bread. Wine. Water. Oil. Hands. They are incarnational. They are given to us because we inhabit a physical world. Angels, being noncorporeal, don't need or partake of them. Removing the physical removes the incarnation. It's Docetist. "Online sacrament" is an oxymoron.
quote:Scattered all over the world of course. And that is nothing at all to do with how sacraments work.
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:But, regardless of whether or not that's true - where is Jesus' physical body today? - that isn't even close to the point IngoB was making above about how sacraments "work".
Originally posted by ken:
Your body already contains molecules or atoms that were once part of Jesus's natural body. Do does everyone else's. And of course it also contains particles of everyone else who lived more than a few decades ago (to give the atmosphere and oceans and rivers time to mix up) And all the animals and plants.
quote:With the greatest respect, that is complete bollocks. You obviously don;t even believe it yourself, if you did you wouldn;t be taking part in this conversation.
Originally posted by Psmith:
An online gathering isn't a gathering at all, but a group of people who are each alone, communicating in a rather thin way.
quote:Yes I do, very strongly. To, me church isn't some kind of factory were Salvation is pumped into me. It also isn't a magic cabinet, where if they'll put the right attributes in the right places, something will happen.
Zach82: For pete's sake- do you really think how you feel has anything to do with it?
quote:Some vague sense of spiritual fulfillment is precisely a feeling, and what is left when actually being with others and actually doing things is removed?
Has anyone here said that on-line Church (or on-line sacraments) is just about a feeling?
quote:Of course it is. And its not just big-screen-and-worship-band low-church Protestant places either. At Good Friday and Easter the Roman Catholic church near where I live has crowds trailing into the street, with some people straining and stretchign to get a view of what's going on inside, others sitting around quietly or chatting to each other. I'm sure even IngoB would agree that they are participating oin a church that passes his filter of validity.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Is the crowd outside part of the corporate worship? I would say "yes". Would that still be true if the crowd outside was 2 or 3 people, I'd still say "yes". What about one person? Still I would say "yes".
quote:Of course we should. I'm not sure anyone posting here has said that we shouldn't, or denied that such things can be a means of grace, or of fellowship.
Why shouldn't we worship while sitting infront of our computer?
quote:Let me try to say very carefully that I resent your formulation as a 'vague sense of spiritual fulfillment' of what was an important moment in my faith journey. Your way of doing faith may be different from mine, and I respect that, but in return I also ask from you that you don't belittle mine.
Zach82: Some vague sense of spiritual fulfillment is precisely a feeling
quote:Frankly, I think you are simply ignoring my actual arguments. Instead of repeating myself, here's an analogy. Let's say that I need some condiment for my food and you declare that you will make some Béarnaise sauce for me. Hooray. And then you come back and serve me tomato sauce. I will consider this to be a culinary mistake, and perhaps I will reject using your tomato sauce (assuming that I find it incompatible taste-wise with my food). However, if instead you bring me a picture of Béarnaise sauce, then I will not consider that to be merely a culinary mistake, but ... well, either a joke or insanity. It is certainly totally pointless if you then protest that this is really quite beautiful Béarnaise sauce on that picture. I cannot eat a picture of Béarnaise sauce. What am I supposed to do with this picture, put it on top of my food and imagine the flavour? Ridiculous.
Originally posted by Melon:
In any case, I certainly do not see how something can be "closer to being a sacrament" than another by your definition so, even at an informal level, I maintain that your qualified appreciation of Alan's ribena makes no sense. (And it rots your teeth.)
quote:But this existing church practice is only acceptable in some churches. Catholic churches will just put on more masses in a day to accommodate the faithful - so you see busy RC churches with masses from Saturday evening through to Sunday lunchtime. The CofE, in a lot of places, you can't be dogmatic about the CofE
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
- It's corporate. That means it involves more than one person together. The point has been raised about existing church practice in some places where there are multiple venues with the worship relayed through from one venue to another <snip>.
, takes home communion to those who can't attend - in person, and taking that Eucharistic feast to the sick in person is seen as a very important form of outreach, whereas in other traditions it would be seen as more important to make the sermon available online or by delivering it.
quote:You know last night I was thinking of using as an example that scene in the movie Brazil when the main character was served a plate of pink mush with a picture of a steak on it?
However, if instead you bring me a picture of Béarnaise sauce, then I will not consider that to be merely a culinary mistake, but ... well, either a joke or insanity.
quote:I suspect you would feel a lot better about this discussion if you would come around to the fact that a denial of the validity of internet Eucharists it not in any way an indictment of people that legitimately cannot fulfill their obligation to hear services at church every Sunday.
Let me try to say very carefully that I resent your formulation as a 'vague sense of spiritual fulfillment' of what was an important moment in my faith journey. Your way of doing faith may be different from mine, and I respect that, but in return I also ask from you that you don't belittle mine.
quote:I think I understand what you're saying. But must everything that imparts grace be considered a sacrament? And is the only way for us to recognise the action of grace to structure the event as "like" a sacrament as we can make it?
Originally posted by tessaB:
What I am really saying is that there are people out there who could really benefit from this. Do not shelve it because there are those who cannot see the grace it could impart.
quote:No, but you definitely owe her a date.
Originally posted by Melon:
I don't think I ever took my wife out on a date to a café before we were married. Does that mean that our relationship is a sham?
quote:No, I don't. Partly, this is because I don't believe I have an obligation to hear services at church every Sunday. The other part I explained here.
Zach82: I suspect you would feel a lot better about this discussion if you would come around to the fact that a denial of the validity of internet Eucharists it not in any way an indictment of people that legitimately cannot fulfill their obligation to hear services at church every Sunday.
quote:Isn't one definition of a sacrament something like 'an outward and physical sign of an inward and spiritual grace'? If it is, then actually saying (well typing) the Lord's prayer with a community online became a sacrament for me at one time.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:I think I understand what you're saying. But must everything that imparts grace be considered a sacrament? And is the only way for us to recognise the action of grace to structure the event as "like" a sacrament as we can make it?
Originally posted by tessaB:
What I am really saying is that there are people out there who could really benefit from this. Do not shelve it because there are those who cannot see the grace it could impart.
quote:I think the eating and drinking together would be a lovely thing to do. In fact, we should definitely have a facility for people who are alone but in the same time zone and want to have their evening meal together to do so - maybe this is something that goes on in the cafe already?
Originally posted by tessaB:
Why should we not, as a church, gather together, maybe in the cafe if it could support that, and eat and drink our own version of the Lord's supper.
quote:When Jesus returns for a second time, it will surely be as a hologram. No?
Originally posted by leo:
I'm sure it's Ok for making a spiritual communion but the word was made flesh, not digital.
quote:We're not Tron. We may interact with people in the real world by means of an "online world." We don't inhabit it. It's 1's and 0's. We're carbon and hydrogen.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:We also inhabit an online world.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sacraments are physical things. Bread. Wine. Water. Oil. Hands. They are incarnational. They are given to us because we inhabit a physical world.
quote:A category error.
What would an incarnational sacrament in an online world look like?
quote:I don't see how what I want has to do with it at all. The "online world" is a metaphor. The people who are in need of grace are in the physical world. Can God impart grace to people through the internet? I have no doubt. Just as some people can receive grace from a phone call, or watching TV. But they are receiving grace from another human being, not from the "television world" or the "radio world" or the "telephone world."
Or, do you want to exclude the grace of God from the online world?
quote:The quoted comment wasn't specifically about Communion, but about the general question of corporate worship. It was to address a claim that what goes on with people using an online church could not be corporate worship. IMO, the events in the Church of Fools and elsewhere are valid examples of corporate worship. If people disagree with that then, quite clearly, there's no hope of them even considering the possibility of extending that to sacrament.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:But this existing church practice is only acceptable in some churches. Catholic churches will just put on more masses in a day to accommodate the faithful - so you see busy RC churches with masses from Saturday evening through to Sunday lunchtime. The CofE, in a lot of places, you can't be dogmatic about the CofE
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
- It's corporate. That means it involves more than one person together. The point has been raised about existing church practice in some places where there are multiple venues with the worship relayed through from one venue to another <snip>.
), so I didn't really need COF.quote:With all due respect (and this isn't aimed especially at Michael), speaking from "the other side" of the debate, this post sums up the problem here: that those who have a high view of the Sacraments feel able to decide (and, it's felt to me on this thread sometimes, dictate) what "is happening" and what "isn't happening", what will happen and what won't. Not as matters of belief or opinion, but as matters of fact, as objective (the word that's cropped up here and on LeRoc's Hell call to Zach) realities.
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Oh, look! The thread has gone in exactly the direction I expected it would. I saw this when it was a mere few posts long and I knew there was wisdom in not getting involved in what would develop into "the fray".
I think we just need to accept that there are people who, for whatever reason they think makes sense, are going to do this sort of thing. Personally, the fact that we have reached the point where the stimulation of the passions is taken as an indication of sacramental reality saddens me but it is unsurprising.
By all means, draw from these encounters on the internet what is good and beneficial but let us not think that it is something that it patently is not, and then get cross with the people who dare to point out when this is what is happening.
quote:This is more or less where I stand too. I'd like to add that to me there's an important aspect of community to it as well.
Golden Key: --My view of communion is MOTR and consubstantiational--I think something happens, but I'm not sure what. So I don't have a major obstacle there.
) a bit squeamish about the idea of doing a Holy Meal online. Depending on the ways you're doing it, it could become very daft. This is what I tried to express in my 'hold your bread close to the screen' argument. But I also have trust in Melon, Simon and the other people, in that they'll try to avoid the really daft things. quote:But this thread was discussing sacraments on-line, so I was answering in that context.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The quoted comment wasn't specifically about Communion, but about the general question of corporate worship. It was to address a claim that what goes on with people using an online church could not be corporate worship. IMO, the events in the Church of Fools and elsewhere are valid examples of corporate worship. If people disagree with that then, quite clearly, there's no hope of them even considering the possibility of extending that to sacrament.
quote:MT's case isn't high church- it's anthropological, and mine his ontological.
With all due respect (and this isn't aimed especially at Michael), speaking from "the other side" of the debate, this post sums up the problem here: that those who have a high view of the Sacraments feel able to decide (and, it's felt to me on this thread sometimes, dictate) what "is happening" and what "isn't happening", what will happen and what won't.
quote:I think that the two questions - regarding online sacraments, and online church - are very different. I can see why the only option for those with a high view of the sacraments say that the online version isn't good enough (though I'd disagree). But I think your argument about it not actually being 'church' is a lot weaker. Ekklesia just means 'assembly'. It's a gathering of people in the name of Christ. What is an online church apart from that? Virtual or not, it's still a gathering of people.
Originally posted by Zach82:
My point is that digital church and actual church are not ontologically the same sorts of things. One might feel that the he is in church while on a chat, but that is a case of feelings not corresponding to reality. Whatever the grace of internet church might be, it is not, therefore, the grace of actually going to church.
quote:Less of the time zone tyranny! I know people who typically eat their evening meal as early as 6pm and as late as midnight,
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
... we should definitely have a facility for people who are alone but in the same time zone and want to have their evening meal together to do so ...
quote:If Christian anthropology is true, one is not actually with other people unless one's body is with other human bodies. A person chatting about God in a chat room is alone because his body is alone. To say that he is actually with other people in a chat room is to make human being abstractable from the body, and furthermore transcendent from physical space. Which is, as MT rightfully points out, Docestism.
I think that the two questions - regarding online sacraments, and online church - are very different. I can see why the only option for those with a high view of the sacraments say that the online version isn't good enough (though I'd disagree). But I think your argument about it not actually being 'church' is a lot weaker. Ekklesia just means 'assembly'. It's a gathering of people in the name of Christ. What is an online church apart from that? Virtual or not, it's still a gathering of people.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
MT's case isn't high church- it's anthropological, and mine his ontological.
MT's point, if I might say so, is that Christian anthropology cannot abstract the human person from the human body. A human is not actually experiencing church or actually with other people unless his or her body is in a church or his or her body is with another person.
My point is that digital church and actual church are not ontologically the same sorts of things. One might feel that the he is in church while on a chat, but that is a case of feelings not corresponding to reality. Whatever the grace of internet church might be, it is not, therefore, the grace of actually going to church.
quote:But MT's point applies to your comments.
My point wasn't aimed at MT...
quote:Full marks for attempting to keep the thread on track. It was probably my mistake for trying to continue the tangent Zach started about whether an internet mediated event could be called "church".
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:But this thread was discussing sacraments on-line, so I was answering in that context.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The quoted comment wasn't specifically about Communion, but about the general question of corporate worship. It was to address a claim that what goes on with people using an online church could not be corporate worship. IMO, the events in the Church of Fools and elsewhere are valid examples of corporate worship. If people disagree with that then, quite clearly, there's no hope of them even considering the possibility of extending that to sacrament.
quote:You consider the fellowship of the Church a tangent from the nature of the Eucharist?
Full marks for attempting to keep the thread on track. It was probably my mistake for trying to continue the tangent Zach started about whether an internet mediated event could be called "church".
quote:What about them? The only thing I am not conceding is that watching church on a computer screen is the same thing as actually going to church. I am hardly calling praying alone, or online church chats bad or anything.
Zach, what about prayer groups, or morning and evening offices, or house groups? Are they not Christian Fellowship? And do they need everyone to be present to participate?
For the morning and evening offices, for example, many priests will read them alone, but have comfort in the worldwide praying of those offices.
quote:But you can have Christian fellowship without the Eucharist. We're doing it right now. Really.
Originally posted by Zach82:
But you can't have the Eucharist without Christian fellowship, so looking at the nature of Christian fellowship is not only entirely relevant, it is entirely necessary.
quote:I'm not questioning that. Whether there can be Christian fellowship without the Eucharist and whether there can be the Eucharist without Christian fellowship are two different questions.
But you can have Christian fellowship without the Eucharist. We're doing it right now. Really.
quote:Another thing I hardly deny. I am talking about why these things that look like sacraments actually aren't sacraments.
But there's no need to do things that look a little like sacraments but aren't in order to make that work.
quote:It seems terrifically unlikely I've attended any church or meeting you've been to ever.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Zach82 - you've obviously not attended some of the churches and meetings I've been to over the years.
quote:That's the one thing it most emphatically is not. They are not gathered. You might as well say people watching the same TV show while talking together on a party line are "gathered." Gathered means "together in the same place." Not together in spirit. Not together via the miracle of modern electronic communication. Together. As has been said, we are physical beings, bags of chemicals. To be together with someone means to be in proximity with their bag of chemicals. Anything else is metaphor.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Ekklesia just means 'assembly'. It's a gathering of people in the name of Christ. What is an online church apart from that? Virtual or not, it's still a gathering of people.
quote:I think this is exactly analogous to saying that if you feel your brother's chapbook of bad poetry is a "valid" part of Scripture, and I say that it isn't, then I am "trying to limit God." Well, no. God can speak through whatever he pleases; I can't possibly limit Him. But that's not what "Bible" means.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
My point was to argue that as an objective fact (as in "this is not a Sacrament") rather than a belief was to deny the wide range of understanding of the sacraments (or ordinances if that's how you understand them) among Christians of all traditions. What may not be "valid" for some may well be "valid" for others - and who are we to limit God in this way?
quote:And "together in one place" turns out to be a lot harder to tie down once you have miracles of modern electronic communication such as PA systems and repeater screens. People in your typical larger American church using both pass the common sense "in the same place" test. But they are watching proceedings on a screen and they are hearing words and music via electronics. And as for the old ladies in even small churches who hear via a hearing loop transmitting to their ears via radio... Unless the mechanism by which "in one place" works is gravitational pull between bodies, how exactly is screen plus electronics inside a big building different to screen plus electronics not in the same building?
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's the one thing it most emphatically is not. They are not gathered. You might as well say people watching the same TV show while talking together on a party line are "gathered." Gathered means "together in the same place." Not together in spirit. Not together via the miracle of modern electronic communication.
quote:Once we grasp the distinction between objective reality and subjective perception, it really doesn't.
And "together in one place" turns out to be a lot harder to tie down once you have miracles of modern electronic communication such as PA systems and repeater screens.
quote:Fair point and I'm not sure I made my point very well. I didn't mean that just anything in any context (like the Jaffa Cake and cup of blackurrant juice I've just given my daughter) could be sacrament just 'cos I might say so. What I meant was Christians, through study of Scripture, looking back through tradition, listening to the Spirit have accumulated (for want of a better word) a huge variety of understandings of Communion, from the highly Sacramental to the "mere memorialist". To suggest, as some seemed to be doing on this thread, that just one of those is objectively true and the only "correct" way to understand it seemed "incorrect" given:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I think this is exactly analogous to saying that if you feel your brother's chapbook of bad poetry is a "valid" part of Scripture, and I say that it isn't, then I am "trying to limit God." Well, no. God can speak through whatever he pleases; I can't possibly limit Him. But that's not what "Bible" means.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
My point was to argue that as an objective fact (as in "this is not a Sacrament") rather than a belief was to deny the wide range of understanding of the sacraments (or ordinances if that's how you understand them) among Christians of all traditions. What may not be "valid" for some may well be "valid" for others - and who are we to limit God in this way?
quote:That's a great faith position, but I don't see how it works in reality.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Once we grasp the distinction between objective reality and subjective perception, it really doesn't.
quote:I think church history is a little less clear-cut than that. Early Christian Worship by Paul Bradshaw give a pithy summary of the history of Eucharistic practice. (His much thicker books are recognised as authoritive in the field.)
Originally posted by mousethief:
From my standpoint, the fact that the whole memorialist thing is an innovation after 1300+ years of solid real-presence teaching rather makes it a poorer cousin, and saying "there are all sorts of beliefs about it" doesn't really cut much ice.
quote:I have absolutely no expectation of "bridging that gap" given that the gap has never really been bridged between offline practices and theologies of sacraments. Crudely speaking, the higher the theology of the sacraments the more issues there are going to be with online sacraments.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But this is coming down to the same thing - some churches and denominations would not see that as church and never would accept that as communion. And you're not going to bridge that gap.
quote:It's a sad day when the belief that perception and reality are different things is construed as a "faith position." You're not the only one to make that ridiculous accusation.
That's a great faith position, but I don't see how it works in reality.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:That is, of course, true.
Originally posted by Zach82:
you seem to think that being with other people doesn't necessarily feel like being with other people.
quote:And either Christ is with people when they are "gathered together" in His name or He isn't. But what constitutes gathering? What determines whether the gathering is truly in His name? And what determines whether He is "there" or not? As a matter of principle, you think that Christ can or cannot be present at a virtual gathering? And if He's only virtually there, how is that different from a "real life" gathering?
I doubt we would have having this confusion if we were talking about cars or books. Either the car is in the garage or it isn't, either the book is on the side table in a stack of other books or it is alone on the coffee table. That would be all terribly simple.
Since humans are physical objects in space just like books and cars, it is equally simple. Either the body was in a church or it wasn't, either it is with other bodies or it isn't.
quote:This is precisely the point that should not be at all confusing. It's not a religious point. In this regard church is a gathering like any other gathering. A gathering is being with other people- actually being with other people, and not being alone watching cartoon people be together on a computer screen.
But what constitutes gathering?
quote:Right now we haven't even settled on what "gathering" means, and I can't conceive of moving on to "in his name" until we do.
What determines whether the gathering is truly in His name?
quote:A virtual chat isn't a place Christ or anyone else can be because it isn't a place at all. It's a representation of place on a computer screen. It isn't a gathering either, since none of the people chatting are actually there- they are all in their living rooms or what have you, and since they are on their computers they are presumably alone.
And what determines whether He is "there" or not? As a matter of principle, you think that Christ can or cannot be present at a virtual gathering? And if He's only virtually there, how is that different from a "real life" gathering?
quote:So why don't we start by sharing a meal together? We can all sit in our living rooms with a beef burger and share the experience online.
Originally posted by Melon:
(I do think, though, that the Mediterranean meal we often eat after the service is closer to what Jesus instituted than our communion service.)
My beef is really
quote:Eating in the living room? What are we, savages?
So why don't we start by sharing a meal together? We can all sit in our living rooms with a beef burger and share the experience online.
quote:No, we are moving with the times
Originally posted by Zach82:
Eating in the living room? What are we, savages?
quote:Eating in the living room!
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:No, we are moving with the times
Originally posted by Zach82:
Eating in the living room? What are we, savages?
quote:I'm saying that, on all sorts of levels, it's not a black and white, either-or, binary choice.
quote:Most people are concerned that feeling like one is with other people must be the same as actually being with other people, while you seem to think that being with other people doesn't necessarily feel like being with other people.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Your post shows some persistent belief that perception has anything to do with it.
quote:I guess you haven't taken many philosophy lectures, where you'd typically spend half a year deciding on what basis we could say that the coffee table exists.
I doubt we would have having this confusion if we were talking about cars or books. Either the car is in the garage or it isn't, either the book is on the side table in a stack of other books or it is alone on the coffee table. That would be all terribly simple.
quote:That's an interesting understanding of anthropology you have there
Since humans are physical objects in space just like books and cars
quote:Except that there is no New Testament notion of church as a building, full stop.
it is equally simple. Either the body was in a church or it wasn't, either it is with other bodies or it isn't.
quote:Since this is objective and blindingly obvious, can you quantify it for me? How many centimetres counts as "being with other people"? Does the Holy Spirit appear and disappear as you cross that threshold?
feeling like one is with other people is not the same as actually being with other people.
quote:And both irrelevant to the idea of an online Eucharist. The problem is not that you need Christian fellowship for Holy Communion, the problem is that the Holy Communion is people eating and drinking together.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Whether there can be Christian fellowship without the Eucharist and whether there can be the Eucharist without Christian fellowship are two different questions.
quote:Yes, but the objection to the idea of the networked Communion - that by forgetting about the real physical sharing of real material bread and wine - it bypasses the symbolism of the incarnation - holds for both a "high" and a "low" view of the sacrament. If its purely memorialist then what its remembering is the actual physical incarnation of God Almighty as Jesus, in a real human body, eating and drinking and sleeping and defaecating and getting ill or feeling tired or cold or hungry or being in pain. Even if we do not claim that the Eucharist somehow makes Jesus Christ physically present, the thing we are remembering or symbolising is that he really was physically present. So the objection holds both ways.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
What I meant was Christians, through study of Scripture, looking back through tradition, listening to the Spirit have accumulated (for want of a better word) a huge variety of understandings of Communion, from the highly Sacramental to the "mere memorialist". To suggest, as some seemed to be doing on this thread, that just one of those is objectively true and the only "correct" way to understand it seemed "incorrect" given:
a) This breadth of Christian understanding; and
b) The fact, as stated on the "parallel" Hell thread that even a high Sacramentalist view is a faith position and not one that can be shown to be objectively true.
quote:A conclusive reason not to do online fake Communions! Couldn't have put it better myself
Originally posted by Melon:
Anamnesis (remembrance) and epiclesis (calling on God to continue his saving work) form the first understanding of communion that Bradshaw identifies.
[...]
Bradshaw sees the first significant claim about "holy food" in the writings of Justin Martyr. Bradshaw says that this terminology was originally apologetic, "Our Jesus had real flesh and blood" over against those who rejected the incarnation, and later writers tend more towards "more cautious" language.
quote:When we were kids we usually ate in the kitchen. Would that be better for you?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Eating in the living room? What are we, savages?
quote:Forgive me for saying this, but it seems we are having precisely the same argument for all your disagreement with me. For me, it's "together" that is at issue. People in a chat room are not actually together.
And both irrelevant to the idea of an online Eucharist. The problem is not that you need Christian fellowship for Holy Communion, the problem is that the Holy Communion is people eating and drinking together.
quote:Yes, of course there can be real conversation over telephone, or in letters or even over the internet, and that conversation is as real as a conversation with a person standing right next to you.
Imagine you had a family member who you rarely saw but wanted to be in good communication with. If you were to have friendly phone conversations on a regular (but not annoying to anyone) basis, would that be a 'real' conversation? Are you saying that there is something about cyberspace which means it is inherently unreal? Or is it because we're all hiding to some extent behind handles and coming together from different places and spaces and mindsets?
quote:I'm sorry you will have to unpack these thoughts for me - because your points do not seem to progress through your comment.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Yes, of course there can be real conversation over telephone, or in letters or even over the internet, and that conversation is as real as a conversation with a person standing right next to you.
But "with," when it is not a metaphor but actually with, is a statement of the position of concrete bodies in space. It has noting to do with feelings or conversation. A person can be with his friends, but have his minds on other matters. Or he can have his mind on his friends, but actually be in a different town from them.
Which isn't, of course, to dismiss the importance of mental presence in church or with friends. But actual location matters, because humans are not minds floating in the void. Human are their bodies, and therefore the presence posited in "online sacraments" abstracts the human person from the human body. If it is true that humans are their bodies, then this is unacceptable.
If one believes human are not their bodies, then one is a Docestist, and the sacraments such a person believes in are no the sacraments of the Catholic faith.
quote:Which it is of course.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
But surely that only makes sense if the sacrament is physical [...]
quote:So let me get this straight - you are saying that if a group of people 'meet' in a chat room with the express intention of praying to God, sharing fellowship and praising God, then God doesn't/can't actually turn up because they are not physically next to each other?
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]
A virtual chat isn't a place Christ or anyone else can be because it isn't a place at all. It's a representation of place on a computer screen. It isn't a gathering either, since none of the people chatting are actually there- they are all in their living rooms or what have you, and since they are on their computers they are presumably alone.
quote:Sigh.
So let me get this straight - you are saying that if a group of people 'meet' in a chat room with the express intention of praying to God, sharing fellowship and praising God, then God doesn't/can't actually turn up because they are not physically next to each other?
I'm so sorry that your god is so small. Mine is a lot bigger than that.
quote:But this point isn't about sacraments as such. It is about 'gathering together' and whether we can be said to gather when we are physically seperated but joined in communication through computers.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Every thread about the sacraments is the same.
quote:This coming from the woman that wrote "I'm so sorry that your god is so small. Mine is a lot bigger than that."
I may not be the brightest button on the ship's coat but I do not enjoy being sighed at like a child and seemingly deemed unworthy of a serious reply.
Feeling rather miffed now!
quote:Actually, that's a common thing for people chatting online to do: discuss what they're eating, offer to share it, create a virtual buffet, etc.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
So why don't we start by sharing a meal together? We can all sit in our living rooms with a beef burger and share the experience online.
quote:People have been eating in the living room for a long time. Ever hear of TV dinners?
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:No, we are moving with the times
Originally posted by Zach82:
Eating in the living room? What are we, savages?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:I have to say, it's been explained several times now, and it gets mighty old repeating it again and again.
Fair enough. If I apologise for denigrating your view that God is constrained by geography will you please explain to me where I have misunderstood you. (If at all)
I am sorry if I have offended you.
Now can we sort this out?
quote:But surely the question isn't whether the people are present to God but whether God is present to them.
I have to say, it's been explained several times now, and it gets mighty old repeating it again and again.
"Together" in the physical sense does not mean "able to communicate" or "feeling spiritual" or "eating meals at the same time" or "thinking about God." It means one physical body is near another physical body. There are, of course, other senses of the word "together," and they must be distinguished in this case, because only one sense really gives sufficient attention to the physical reality of human beings.
God is naturally everywhere, but one place He is not is in a chat room. Nothing can be in a chat room because chat room isn't a room at all. It's a representation of a room. People chatting might be thinking about God, or present to God, but it isn't in the chat room itself, and they aren't doing it together in the physical sense. [/QB]
quote:The presence of God to all people at all times is a given. The ability of God to be present to someone alone, or to someone chatting isn't being doubted. In fact, I am not talking about the presence or lack of presence of God at all. I am talking about whether people chatting on the internet are together or alone, and whether physically being together is essential to both corporate worship and the sacraments.
But surely the question isn't whether the people are present to God but whether God is present to them.
I don't think anyone ever said that God was 'in the chat room itself'. Rather that God would turn up. My understanding of this would be that God would be with every person who had 'met together' in the chat room in the same way as He would be if they had met physically.
quote:But you're begging the question - why does the interpretation of together have to be the one that is physically literal? When people say "If we stand together, we can beat this <insert evil of your choice here>, I don't think they usually mean that they literally have to stand next to each other. Together can also mean in association or jointly - it doesn't even have to mean doing the whatever-it-is at exactly the same time.
Originally posted by Zach82:
"Together" in the physical sense does not mean "able to communicate" or "feeling spiritual" or "eating meals at the same time" or "thinking about God." It means one physical body is near another physical body. There are, of course, other senses of the word "together," and they must be distinguished in this case, because only one sense really gives sufficient attention to the physical reality of human beings.
quote:It has to be physically together because we are physical beings. Any other sense of together in this case abstracts human beings from what they actually are. It's why two lovers talking on a phone say things like "I wish I was with you." They at least know that their communication and feelings for each other do not constitute actually being together.
But you're begging the question - why does the interpretation of together have to be the one that is physically literal? When people say "If we stand together, we can beat this <insert evil of your choice here>, I don't think they usually mean that they literally have to stand next to each other. Together can also mean in association or jointly - it doesn't even have to mean doing the whatever-it-is at exactly the same time.
quote:The key is that you understand that you are not actually with her. Your lack of a need to be actually with her is irrelevant to the case.
I love my sister and, though we live more than 100 miles apart, we often talk together on the telephone. I don't need to be with her physically.
quote:Of course he's not saying that. Neither is anyone else. We're saying that if one of them ate some bread and drank some wine while they were doing it that would not be the same thing as the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Originally posted by tessaB:
So let me get this straight - you are saying that if a group of people 'meet' in a chat room with the express intention of praying to God, sharing fellowship and praising God, then God doesn't/can't actually turn up because they are not physically next to each other?
quote:No need for the patronising cliches. Especially since they show you not understanding what the conversation was actually about, Maybe you would have had you been in the same room.
Originally posted by tessaB:
I'm so sorry that your god is so small. Mine is a lot bigger than that.
quote:But this topic is exactly about sacraments as such! That's what it says in the title, that's what the OP was about, that's what the argument is about.
Originally posted by tessaB:
But this point isn't about sacraments as such. It is about 'gathering together' and whether we can be said to gather when we are physically seperated but joined in communication through computers.
quote:It might not be as good, but it's good enough, at least in some circumstances - the communication is just as real. The sphere where my togetherness with my sister exists is the same sphere as the one you inhabit. It's a globe where, thanks to various wonderful bits of technology, people can work together and talk together without having to be in the same place.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Only if you see abstracted or spiritual existence, the sphere where your togetherness with your sister exists, as just as good as actual, physical togetherness. In fact, considering the limitations of physical existence, I suspect it would be ultimately impossible not to see spiritual existence as preferable in that view.
quote:I never doubted that spiritually real things happen when people aren't together physically. What I am questioning is whether this sort of "together" is where corporate worship or the Eucharist can occur.
Nobody is arguing that virtual meetings are inherently spiritual, just that spiritually real things can arise when people come together, even if they are not able to physically meet. After all, people can be together physically without anything spiritual going on.
quote:You're not strange in the sense that they obviously aren't the same! What is strange to me is that so many people think they should be.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Maybe I'm just strange in thinking that chatting online is not the same as actually being with someone, watching something on television is not the same as actually witnessing it, and therefore "doing church" online is not the same as actually going to church.
quote:Thank you Ken for the kind instruction in politeness. You might have saved yourself the trouble if you had noticed that I have already apologised for my 'patronising cliche'
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Of course he's not saying that. Neither is anyone else. We're saying that if one of them ate some bread and drank some wine while they were doing it that would not be the same thing as the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Originally posted by tessaB:
So let me get this straight - you are saying that if a group of people 'meet' in a chat room with the express intention of praying to God, sharing fellowship and praising God, then God doesn't/can't actually turn up because they are not physically next to each other?
quote:No need for the patronising cliches. Especially since they show you not understanding what the conversation was actually about, Maybe you would have had you been in the same room.
Originally posted by tessaB:
I'm so sorry that your god is so small. Mine is a lot bigger than that.
quote:But this topic is exactly about sacraments as such! That's what it says in the title, that's what the OP was about, that's what the argument is about.
Originally posted by tessaB:
But this point isn't about sacraments as such. It is about 'gathering together' and whether we can be said to gather when we are physically seperated but joined in communication through computers.
Personally I think that Zach's philosophical meanderings about presence and absence and gathering aren't a very helpful way of looking at it, but either way it doesn't really matter.
Its odd to be on the same side of an argument as IngoB. Even odder when all the Orthodox agree as well. One of the perils of being a Calvinist I guess
quote:That is only the same because you've said they are the same. Actually a better example might be saying that a video-link business meeting is unable to make decisions because everyone is scattered. This is clearly not the case.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I meant "church" in the sense of corporate worship. If you should imagine that a physical meeting of people is the same sort of thing as a virtual meeting of people, then one might ask you again about physical chicken dinners and virtual chicken dinners.
quote:As this and your other examples show, it's necessary but not sufficient that the people be assembled together. And that's all they show. Neither Zach nor I are saying it's sufficient. So arguing against that is completely beside the point. It is, how do you say, arguing against a straw man.
Originally posted by Melon:
When Paul writes to the Corinthian church, he says that they are not really celebrating the Lord's Supper because they are not truly gathered. Oh, wait, he doesn't say that. He recognises that they are gathered.
quote:But, again, nobody is saying people who are communicating by internet can't make mutual decisions, can't experience the presence of God or his grace, can't communicate. These are straw men. What Zach and I and I think ken are saying is that they're not together. They're not gathered. They're scattered, and communicating electronically.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Actually a better example might be saying that a video-link business meeting is unable to make decisions because everyone is scattered. This is clearly not the case.
quote:I'm sure this has nothing to do with the reality of togetherness in chatrooms. We are all one body, but that body is scattered across the globe.
I've been in a lot of Anglican services and I distinctly remember the phase 'though there are many, we are one body because we all share in one bread'.
quote:It's like talking to a wall. No, Zach doesn't believe this. That's not the gist of his (or my) argument. It's not even terribly relevant.
But according to you, unless we all happen to be in the same room, we're not sharing in one bread, and therefore cannot truly said to be 'in communion' with one another.
quote:Which word would that be? You don't seem interested in talking about the same ones that Zach or I are trying to defend the meanings of.
Being objective, of course, I'd say you were making things up to fit your pre-ordained understanding of the world.
quote:Oooh. If you did that on purpose that's really clever.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
OK, please lay out your argument in numbered points so I may attack the prepositions.
quote:There was a time when nobody thought that stories could not be adequately written down in a book. Your point is what? I am here, it is me writing this. I am a real person, this is a real reflection of a thought I am having.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Am I old because I can remember a time when "virtually" meant "not in fact?" I even remember a news cast trying to explain what a "virtual chat room" was and I recall thinking it was silly and never going to catch on.
quote:Not really, you wanted an argument based on logic and lacking in emotion and I am trying to give you one. But given that you do not accept the attacks I am making on the points you have asserted, there is no alternative to you laying out unambiguously the points you make and for me to try to attack those one by one.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Oooh. If you did that on purpose that's really clever.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
OK, please lay out your argument in numbered points so I may attack the prepositions.
quote:OK, how about just laying out your argument? Numbered points so they can be attacked and everyone knows what it is that is being referred to.
Originally posted by Zach82:
The point being that now the word connotes some unique mode of existence when once is meant something like the opposite.
Or is it denotes? I can never remember the difference.
quote:All true, so what? Of no relevance to the argument at hand.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Your point is what? I am here, it is me writing this. I am a real person, this is a real reflection of a thought I am having.
No more virtual than if I was having the same conversation with you face-to-face, in a newspaper article or on the telephone.
quote:Whereas, I would say it's a different sort of place. It still has physicality. Somewhere or other it is a bunch of electrons bouncing around bits of silicon, is that any less physical than neuro-transmitters bouncing around neurons? There are fingers hitting keys on a keyboard, eyes reading words on a screen (and taking in other visual information if provided), ears hearing sounds (if the chat room has sound), include microphones and webcams and the range of sensory i/o increases.
Originally posted by mousethief:
As Zach has said, a chatroom is not a place. It is a virtual representation of a place.
quote:I would again disagree. People can be in a chat room or similar place, as much as they can be in any other sort of place. It has been a long time since I've been able to spend time in the chat room here, I choose to spend my time in other places. But, people came and went and participated in conversation, even prayers and worship, in a manner that was very similar to people coming in and out of a gathering in any other place.
Nobody is "in" it in anything except a very metaphorical sense.
quote:That's one definition of 'virtual'. I would say that 'virtual' can be an extension of 'real' enabled by computer technology.
We are virtually there, but "virtually" means "not really."
quote:You and Mousethief and Zach82 are repeatedly making assertions and then are refusing to admit they are assertions rather than statements of fact. Every time I question them one of you deflects the criticism with a straw-man or attempts to say that my examples are different without giving any reasoning whatsoever as to why they are different.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:All true, so what? Of no relevance to the argument at hand.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Your point is what? I am here, it is me writing this. I am a real person, this is a real reflection of a thought I am having.
No more virtual than if I was having the same conversation with you face-to-face, in a newspaper article or on the telephone.
I've got some very nice bread in my kitchen. Organic, wholemeal, ideologically-sound, farmer's-market sort of bread. Does reading about it fill your stomach?
No.
QED.
quote:Because your reaction to hundreds of words of reasoned argument, if not thousands of words, was to ignore it and fall into "help, help, I'm being oppressed!" mode.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Every time I question them one of you deflects the criticism with a straw-man or attempts to say that my examples are different without giving any reasoning whatsoever as to why they are different.[...]
Instead, you resort to ridicule.
quote:I'm not sure that there is reasoned argument on either side - or, rather, the reasoning follows from certain assumptions (am I allowed to say a priori?) which can only be asserted. There's an awful lot of assertion: I believe this thing (which many find to be ridiculous) but I don't believe that thing because .... well, because that really is ridiculous.
Originally posted by ken:
...your reaction to hundreds of words of reasoned argument, if not thousands of words, was to ignore it and fall into "help, help, I'm being oppressed!" mode.
It would be very boring to repeat all that's been said already, and no-one has attempted to answer it from your side at all.
quote:I can only assume that you then need lessons in logic and comprehension.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Because your reaction to hundreds of words of reasoned argument, if not thousands of words, was to ignore it and fall into "help, help, I'm being oppressed!" mode.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Every time I question them one of you deflects the criticism with a straw-man or attempts to say that my examples are different without giving any reasoning whatsoever as to why they are different.[...]
Instead, you resort to ridicule.
It would be very boring to repeat all that's been said already, and no-one has attempted to answer it from your side at all.
)quote:That isn't the question though. The question is can you work out the difference between two different types of place? An online church isn't a picture of a real-life church. It's a place in it's own right, just a different sort of place. The world is bigger and more complex than a simple division into "place" and "not place" can describe. Even a single location can be different types of place, depending on time and who's there. Many people find particular places to be sacred, somewhere they find it easier to contact the divine; other people don't experience those places that way, or may only do so at particular times. All I'm saying is that the internet allows an extension of the range of places available to us.
Originally posted by Zach82:
If we can't work out the difference between a place and a picture of a place,
quote:The issue is about eating a meal and it's a valid issue whether you think it's a sacrificial meal, a memorial meal or whatever. Sure, you can argue that it's been reduced in its meal significance because of the ritualisation and minimisation of the physical elements of the meal, but it's never stopped being a meal.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Just a question to people of the 'It can only be Eucharist if the people are physically together' line. I'm asking this, not to slash your arguments, but out of genuine interest.
What is it about being physically together that makes the Eucharist valid to you?I would be interested in knowing your answer to this.
- Is it the fact that the people can see eachother? A photon from one person's body going to the other person's eye? (If this is the case, how would it be with the blind?)
- Is it the fact that people can touch eachother? (But usually they don't during Eucharist.)
- Is it the fact that people can feel eachother's presence? (In this case, I guess that feelings would be important
- Is it because the Bible (where?) or some church authority said that physical presence is required? (But in this case, I guess there would still need to be a reason.)
quote:I never tried to have a meal together with anyone over the internet, but I've done other things.
AberVicar: The issue is about eating a meal and it's a valid issue whether you think it's a sacrificial meal, a memorial meal or whatever.
quote:Your mistake is to imagine that technology makes a lick of difference. But in the end the church on your computer screen isn't any different from a church in a painting. You can't go there. You can't store your bottle cap collection there. It isn't a place.
That isn't the question though. The question is can you work out the difference between two different types of place? An online church isn't a picture of a real-life church. It's a place in it's own right, just a different sort of place.
quote:The same arguments again. "We feel like we're together, so we must be together." The thing is, you may not think physical location matters, but your body is a physical object. It has a location, and it DOES matter. And if you are saying otherwise, then you are treading the path of Docetism. You cannot be abstracted from your body, and therefore you cannot be free of space. There is a difference between talking on the phone with someone and actually being with them, even if you feel connected to them.
About once every week, I'm on Skype with my three year old nephew... Sometimes on Friday afternoon, I have a drink with a friend in the Netherlands, also over Skype...In both cases, the geographical distance and the fact that we see eachoter through an internet connection is quite irrelevant. It's the interhuman contact that counts.
quote:Yes, I guess that's what it basically comes down to.
Zach82: The same arguments again. "We feel like we're together, so we must be together."
quote:But how? In what way does the fact that our bodies are physically in the same place during Eucharist influence in its validity?
Zach82: The thing is, you may not think physical location matters, but your body is a physical object. It has a location, and it DOES matter.
quote:That's true. I don't believe in a separation of body and soul, Greek philosophy-style. But when I'm talking with my nephew or my friend, our body language is involved. (And in the latter case, sometimes the first effects of the alcohol are already visible
Zach82: You cannot be abstracted from your body, and therefore you cannot be free of space.
)quote:Of course there is. And I do prefer the latter. But that doesn't make a phone call worthless.
Zach82: There is a difference between talking on the phone with someone and actually being with them, even if you feel connected to them.
quote:Maybe not. But our play-sessions over Skype did have an effect. Last january, I saw my nephew again for the first time in 1,5 years. He immediately recognized me, and was familiar with me right away. "That's my uncle LeRoc who always played with me." A family bond was strengthened through these sessions. Surely this has some value?
Zach82: You were not with your nephew.
quote:But nobody is denying that their true nature includes a body. I am more than a voice, but that doesn't mean a telephone call is somehow 'not me' or makes it 'unreal'.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Docetist Jesus also taught a Gospel of freedom from the physical realm. You see, all Gnostic heresies were disgusted by physicality, and posited a humanity that was trapped in, but not defined by, physicality. Not only does the physical realm involve gross stuff like disease and defecation, it imposes on the human person limitations of time and space.
It is space, you see, which shows up all this talk about feeling connected and interhuman communication and what have you.
quote:There's an episode of the Big Bang Theory in which Leonard has a romantic dinner with his girl friend. Subdued lighting, candles, soft music. Except he's in California and she is in India, and the meal is shared with laptops across the table holding the candles etc. Of course, it's just fiction (and, hilarious comedy too), but for a lot of people that sort of long-distance communication is becoming a normal form of social interaction.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
While I'm open to correction on this, as I tend to function far more in RL than in virtual conversation, I don't believe anyone has yet found a way of sharing a meal online, of sitting (standing, kneeling) and being able to say we had a meal together.
If it becomes common parlance or practice that people share meals online, I'll have to change my view on this (or find a different argument...)
quote:Because that's what the Eucharist is. People gather together and share bread and wine. The internet lets up do some amazing things, but it doesn't free us as humans from space Therefore, you are not actually with the people in an internet church.
But how? In what way does the fact that our bodies are physically in the same place during Eucharist influence in its validity?
quote:Again, an example of how the internet is allowing a profounder level of communication over great distances. But the "great distance" is still a bald fact.
That's true. I don't believe in a separation of body and soul, Greek philosophy-style. But when I'm talking with my nephew or my friend, our body language is involved. (And in the latter case, sometimes the first effects of the alcohol are already visible [Biased] )... Of course there is. And I do prefer the latter. But that doesn't make a phone call worthless.
quote:People are saying that physical location is irrelevant. It's not irrelevant though- it is profoundly constitutive of human being.
But nobody is denying that their true nature includes a body. I am more than a voice, but that doesn't mean a telephone call is somehow 'not me' or makes it 'unreal'.
quote:Well I'm sorry, but I guess this is what your argument boils down to: "it just is". And if that works for you, I'm fine with that. But I'm afraid you aren't going to convince me very well with it.
Zach82: Because that's what the Eucharist is.
quote:Which people? Who is saying "physical location is irrelevant"?
Originally posted by Zach82:
People are saying that physical location is irrelevant.
quote:Are you really willing to stick by your own definition of the Eucharist? Is anything a Eucharist so long as one feels a connection to God and his fellow humans?
Well I'm sorry, but I guess this is what your argument boils down to: "it just is". And if that works for you, I'm fine with that. But I'm afraid you aren't going to convince me very well with it.
quote:That isn't the argument. The argument is that it isn't a meal at all. No one would call it a meal, because it isn't a meal. It would only start making sense as a meal if people started up the regular practice of eating in front of a camera and watching others do the same on the other end of the line.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, the argument that a meal over the internet isn't a real meal, holds little value to me. But I'm willing to accept that there are other arguments.
quote:No, that isn't my definition of Eucharist. Yes, a connection to God and to the community around me is a part of how I see Eucharist. But this isn't all there is. Another part is doing it in remembrance of Jesus' life and His sacrifice for us. And there's a third element that I can't describe very well, I prefer to refer to it as a Mystery that comes from God.
Zach82: Are you really willing to stick by your own definition of the Eucharist? Is anything a Eucharist so long as one feels a connection to God and his fellow humans?
quote:Definitions can change, as you've admitted yourself. "I talked to my friend yesterday" can very well refer to a telephone conversation.
AberVicar: The argument is that it isn't a meal at all.
quote:What would you think of this model? My parents' church already does something like this with the homebound. These people can already hear the church service through an internet connection, and I think in the close future they can see it as well. Afterwards, someone from church (I'm not sure if it has to be the preacher) then comes to their homes and administers Holy Supper to them.
AberVicar: Let's look at a different model. A RL Eucharist takes place in a location fitted with webcams and the opportunity (through Skype or some such) for people to participate remotely - not just as spectators. We understand that the Eucharistic Bread and Wine can't currently be directly transported from the centre to those participating remotely, but perhaps afterwards they can gather together for a shared meal of some sort. I can see a great value in this for people far from home, or housebound.
quote:I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just waiting to hear a good counter-argument.
AberVicar: YMMV, but I don't see anything here that convinces me of the feasibility of celebrating the Eucharist wholly online.
quote:Oh, it's there. Quite clearly in the remembrance part, and probably in the Mystery part as well.
Zach82: You might want to work bread and wine into your definition somewhere LeRoc.
quote:Don't see it.
Oh, it's there. Quite clearly in the remembrance part, and probably in the Mystery part as well.
quote:No problem, the important part is whether He sees it
Zach82: Don't see it.
quote:And your God is so amazing, he can see things that aren't even there?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:No problem, the important part is whether He sees it
Zach82: Don't see it.
quote:Well it seems reasonable to suppose he can see things you can't.
Originally posted by Zach82:
And your God is so amazing, he can see things that aren't even there?
quote:He knows the intentions of everyone when they write things. The fact that you did not pick up references to bread and wine has no bearing on the intentions of the writer nor whether God saw it.
Originally posted by Zach82:
The God of Scriptures can see all that is, but even He cannot see what is not.
quote:Oh yeah, that's the very least of it. He can see people coming together, trying to remember His son and to make a connection with Him. The fact that these photons are temporarily translated into electric signals isn't a barrier to Him. His blessings don't come with a limited range, but are unbounded geographically. And whatever it is He does when we take the Eucharist, I'm sure He can also do it when we're not physically together. Almighty Gods are like that.
Zach82: And your God is so amazing, he can see things that aren't even there?
quote:Alright, I'll try to be more clear. In the remembrance part, it's quite obvious: the red wine reminds me of His blood, and the pale brown bread reminds me of His body. Just like He said it would. I didn't spell this out because it's quite obvious to me.
Zach82: Perhaps I am very stupid for not seeing this supposedly very clear reference to bread and wine in LeRoc's definition.
quote:Do bread and wine have to be part of the Eucharist necessarily, or is it only important that one be reminded of Jesus' blood and body?
Alright, I'll try to be more clear. In the remembrance part, it's quite obvious: the red wine reminds me of His blood, and the pale brown bread reminds me of His body. Just like He said it would. I didn't spell this out because it's quite obvious to me.
quote:When the wine and bread are there, and we ingest them, then we're doing what Jesus asked of us. He didn't say that we all had to be in the same place, though.
Zach82: Do bread and wine have to be part of the Eucharist necessarily, or is it only important that one be reminded of Jesus' blood and body?
quote:Actually, the Roman Catholic Church has been adamant that watching mass on television does NOT fulfill one's obligation to hear mass every Sunday.
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
The OP has, as expected, generated a lot of discussion. I have not found any reference to the long standing tradition of the RC church in televising the Sunday mass. I would guess that their practice is to serve those who cannot attend in person and,therefore, have no problems about real presence (of parishioners). In the same vein, how about the regular broadcasts by the major networks of Christmas Eve services?
ISTM the issue has been settled long ago in practice.
quote:It depends. A lot of churches are using wafers and grape juice, and it's already a stretch to determine if this is still literal bread and wine.
Zach82: So you do believe there has to be literal bread and wine for there to be a Eucharist?
quote:Go ahead, I don't care much how you wish to call it.
Zach82: And I have not qualms with saying a LeRocarist is possible over the internet.
quote:And I'm waiting to hear a good argument why the coming together of God's people in a single place to share the Teaching of the Apostles, the Breaking of Bread, the Fellowship and the Prayers, can be extended in a real sense, using the plain meaning of words, to cover an 'event' taking place on the Internet. (not scare quotes, but to emphasise that it is not the plain meaning of the word).
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just waiting to hear a good counter-argument.
quote:People have investigated the possibilities of online interaction and have found that deep communication is possible. They are now wondering whether they can consider deeper forms of religious observance together.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
And I'm waiting to hear a good argument why the coming together of God's people in a single place to share the Teaching of the Apostles, the Breaking of Bread, the Fellowship and the Prayers, can be extended in a real sense, using the plain meaning of words, to cover an 'event' taking place on the Internet. (not scare quotes, but to emphasise that it is not the plain meaning of the word).
quote:Humbug. Things have only been going the way they have because this issue has not come up before because the tools (ie the internet) did not exist before.
The point is that to change something that has been going on for so long - quite apart from the divine ordinance aspect of it - you have, IM not very HO, to have a pretty good argument. The presumption is for the status quo.
quote:"Liking" and "How God works" is actually the argument of your side. We have been arguing that space is a geometric concept that has nothing to do with liking or not liking.
Ultimately the only thing you can come up with is 'because I don't like it' and/or 'because I don't think God works in that way'. Which is fine, but hardly the dazzling and winning argument that @Zach82 clearly seems to think it is.
quote:On the contrary, the fact that you think 'space is a geometric concept' is exactly the point we have been arguing and hence cannot be inarguable.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:"Liking" and "How God works" is actually the argument of your side. We have been arguing that space is a geometric concept that has nothing to do with liking or not liking.
Ultimately the only thing you can come up with is 'because I don't like it' and/or 'because I don't think God works in that way'. Which is fine, but hardly the dazzling and winning argument that @Zach82 clearly seems to think it is.
Which is, naturally, solid proof that you can't be bothered to read the thread to see what the argument actually is.
quote:Unfortunately I have offered neither of those arguments.
(The Long Ranger) Ultimately the only thing you can come up with is 'because I don't like it' and/or 'because I don't think God works in that way'. Which is fine, but hardly the dazzling and winning argument that @Zach82 clearly seems to think it is.
quote:I don't see how you can apply the concept of humbug in this context. We are talking about breaking bread and sharing wine, not breaking teeth on mint-flavoured sweets.
Humbug. Things have only been going the way they have because this issue has not come up before because the tools (ie the internet) did not exist before.
) if you could persuade me. But your only persuasion was to offer me a humbug.
quote:Well, I can't because I don't believe in sacraments. But I have also offered the suggestion that duely sanctified elements could be passed to online participants to eat together. And I have also offered that maybe your definition of what bread and wine actually are could be rather restrictive. Neither of which have been addressed.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I don't see how you can apply the concept of humbug in this context. We are talking about breaking bread and sharing wine, not breaking teeth on mint-flavoured sweets.
And just in case you didn't get it, my question is how you can break bread and drink wine online.
quote:
And your need is to convince people that what already exists should be reinterpreted or bent to suit a new or different outlook. You don't get to do that by saying here's my new concept, now tell me why I shouldn't consider it to be in continuity with concept 'X'. You have to argue it.
And just in case you didn't get my drift, I don't get how it is possible to break bread and share wine online. I said categorically that I would have to change my mind (or find another argument
Fair comment, I can't help you. I was asked to be objective and unemotional so I was attempting to by reducing the argument to it's posited assumptions - yours being that bread and wine of the Eucharist are - and can only ever be - physical objects.
quote:The fact that you are asking that question shows that you are approaching the issue with a certain paradigm. And you're expecting other people to share the same paradigm, and arguing within it.
Originally posted by Zach82:
So you do believe there has to be literal bread and wine for there to be a Eucharist?
quote:I don't think that those are the only two alternatives. I think we can accept that we differ on the issue, but still debate and discuss why we think those things (without any bludgeoning going on). Same as any other issue that we might differ on,
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Can't we just accept that some people and some churches will find an on-line sacrament acceptable, but others won't and that we have acknowledge that difference, rather trying to bludgeon each other into acceptance?
quote:But in dismissing online sacraments, you've gone beyond the objective meanings of those words. Let's say that a bunch of people all sit in front of their computers eating bread and drinking wine in the context of an online service. According to your above definition, ISTM that they're sharing the Eucharist. Your narrow definition of 'together' earlier in the thread (a certain level of physical proximity) is simply inadequate. People use the word 'together' in a broader sense all the time.
Originally posted by Zach82:
but "Eucharist" just means, in the very, very least, "sharing bread and wine together in Christ's memory."
quote:How did I know that's what it would be before I even clicked?
Originally posted by Zach82:
So, in response to your piquant argumentation, long ranger, I'll just post a link to this painting.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Of course there is. And I do prefer the latter. But that doesn't make a phone call worthless.
Zach82: There is a difference between talking on the phone with someone and actually being with them, even if you feel connected to them.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Nobody has said it makes it worthless.quote:But he wasn't discussing it with God. He was discussing it with Zach82. It's nice that God can see it, but if Zach can't, then it's not communicating what it was meant to be communicating (it was, I believe, in answer to a question put by Zach, not by God).
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:He knows the intentions of everyone when they write things. The fact that you did not pick up references to bread and wine has no bearing on the intentions of the writer nor whether God saw it.
Originally posted by Zach82:
The God of Scriptures can see all that is, but even He cannot see what is not.
What a stupid argument.
quote:
'...And I haven't sent the two Messengers, either. They're both gone to the town. Just look along the road, and tell me if you can see either of them.'
`I see nobody on the road,' said Alice.
`I only wish I had such eyes,' the King remarked in a fretful tone. `To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance, too! Why, it's as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!'
All this was lost on Alice, who was still looking intently along the road, shading her eyes with one hand.
quote:One other thought, sacraments already have an interesting track record here.
Originally posted by Zach82:
My "paradigm" is that words have an objective definition apart from how anyone feels about them.
quote:You are confusing definition and etymology.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The objective definition of 'baptiso' is 'immerse'. And that's what baptism was. But from very early on, Christians started 'baptising' people without immersing them. So maybe the 'objective definition' of words isn't as important as we might think when it comes to sacraments anyway?
quote:Beat me to it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are confusing definition and etymology.
quote:That's because I wasn't trying to convince you
AberVicar: And I'm waiting to hear a good argument why the coming together of God's people in a single place to share the Teaching of the Apostles, the Breaking of Bread, the Fellowship and the Prayers, can be extended in a real sense, using the plain meaning of words, to cover an 'event' taking place on the Internet. (not scare quotes, but to emphasise that it is not the plain meaning of the word).
I don't know if can be done either, I guess the Ship wants to try to find out.quote:Zach did.
mousethief:
quote:Fair point. But still, at some point the meaning of the word changed to encompass more than its original literal meaning. If that happened after the Christian adoption of Baptism as an initiation rite, it would be interesting to know how it happened (but sure, if it happened when baptiso was still only used in the context of dyeing cloth, then my point is moot).
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are confusing definition and etymology.
The etymology of βαπτίζω is 'to immerse.' That doesn't mean that's what the definition is.
quote:I only noticed this recently. Of course, he hasn't. But let's say that both Dave Lister and Marilyn Monroe (assuming they were both alive at the same time) logged into Better than Life, and kissed within the game. For me, that makes the question much more grey. Online church isn't populated by AI-controlled NPCs, but by real people, and they're not worshipping a computer-generated God, they're worshipping the same God that they would in a 'normal' church, so I think your example is slightly misleading.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Let's look at an example slightly removed from the discussion on sacraments. In the tv series Red Dwarf there is a virtual-reality game called Better than Life. Participants are hooked up to a total immersion virtual reality machine and are able to live out any fantasy they like. My question is this: if Dave Lister kisses Marilyn Monroe in a Better than Life scenario, has Dave Lister in fact kissed Marilyn Monroe?
quote:I get your frustration, and I don't think that either you or Zach have said it would be worthless - Zach even used the phrase 'sacramental'.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Ah. You feel I said it, so I must have, right?
Zach did.
quote:It's hard when your side of matters refuses to grant any objective meaning to anything. I feel internet church is not church. You feel it is. It must be simultaneously church and not church. Conversation over.
But I agree with the people who were saying that it doesn't make much sense trying to convince eachother. If this doesn't agree with your tradition's definition of Eucharist, you probably won't participate. Heck, I'm not even sure if I will participate, I'd like to know more about it first.
quote:Zach, just because your views get misrepresented, no need to misrepresent others.
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's hard when your side of matters refuses to grant any objective meaning to anything.
quote:But words like 'church' and 'Eucharist' do have a more or less well-defined meaning to me.
Zach82: It's hard when your side of matters refuses to grant any objective meaning to anything.
quote:I think people are letting technology needlessly complicate matters, and this furthermore signifies a disturbing turn in the general consciousness of the nature of reality. Being alone, staring at the screen is now going places and meeting people. Virtual now means actual- so long as we feel it's real it must be real.
I only noticed this recently. Of course, he hasn't. But let's say that both Dave Lister and Marilyn Monroe (assuming they were both alive at the same time) logged into Better than Life, and kissed within the game. For me, that makes the question much more grey. Online church isn't populated by AI-controlled NPCs, but by real people, and they're not worshipping a computer-generated God, they're worshipping the same God that they would in a 'normal' church, so I think your example is slightly misleading.
quote:I personally don't have a very exalted view of "online fellowship." I like chatting about God 'n politics online, but I don't feel much connection with you people- I never even met you people!
So yes, we're all fairly entrenched in the way we define Sacrament with a big 'S' - and perhaps Church with a big 'C' too. However, you've both said that it could be a useful vehicle of grace, and beneficial for people. So, I'd be interested to know how you think it could work within your understanding. You'd probably object to the phrases 'online Church' and 'online Sacraments', so what would you call them instead? If someone who was stuck at home wanted some kind of Christian fellowship online (beyond merely a discussion board like this one, perhaps because they are unable to physically get to a 'real' church), what do you think it should look like, and how should it present itself?
quote:Feelings are not objective criteria, and I can't see that there is room for anything else in your side of matters as is stands. Heck, just limiting our definition to what Jesus did at the Last Supper has gotten me endless accusations of limiting God and viciously denying the experience of grace of others.
Zach, just because your views get misrepresented, no need to misrepresent others.
quote:Like I said, I can't see that it has any meaning if it isn't to signify only some vague set of feelings and the even more ephemeral "Mystery."
But words like 'church' and 'Eucharist' do have a more or less well-defined meaning to me.
quote:A Catholic, Orthodox, and an Anglican can at least settle on the fact that we are to do what Jesus did at the Last Supper. You haven't even gone that far.
There's no way that a conservative Catholic, an Orthodox, an Anglican and alt.worshippy me will agree on an 'objective' definition of a word like 'Eucharist'. This isn't intrinsical to an internet church service, but just a reflection on the fact that that we come from different traditions.
quote:I don't think I've even mentioned feelings in any of my posts, and I've certainly not agreed with everything people on my 'side' have said (nor have they necessarily agreed with me!), so I'm not sure it's a simple as two sides of an argument; more exploring a topic.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Feelings are not objective criteria, and I can't see that there is room for anything else in your side of matters as is stands.
quote:But Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans all stray from that original template. They don't take the bread and wine following a meal - Jesus did. They don't eat the same type of bread or drink the same wine as he did. They don't eat from the same one loaf. Or drink all from one cup (as far as I remember from my Anglican days), or wash each others' feet afterwards. They all make judgement calls about which parts of the last supper are important to replicate, and which parts aren't. And that's why I think it's more helpful, and makes more sense, to see it as a template that we try to (imperfectly) copy, rather than a check-list of things that we have to replicate.
Originally posted by Zach82:
A Catholic, Orthodox, and an Anglican can at least settle on the fact that we are to do what Jesus did at the Last Supper. You haven't even gone that far.
quote:We can talk about what one must do in the Eucharist once we settle on the fact that it is actually doing something, and not just sitting alone in front of your computer watching it happen in a cartoon church.
But Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans all stray from that original template. They don't take the bread and wine following a meal - Jesus did. They don't eat the same type of bread or drink the same wine as he did. They don't eat from the same one loaf. Or drink all from one cup (as far as I remember from my Anglican days), or wash each others' feet afterwards. They all make judgement calls about which parts of the last supper are important to replicate, and which parts aren't. And that's why I think it's more helpful, and makes more sense, to see it as a template that we try to (imperfectly) copy, rather than a check-list of things that we have to replicate.
quote:Remembering the sacrifice of Jesus's blood and His body for us, like He asked us to? Trying to connect with God and with eachother? Those have a very real meaning to me. The fact that you can't see this doesn't change that.
Zach82: Like I said, I can't see that it has any meaning if it isn't to signify only some vague set of feelings and the even more ephemeral "Mystery."
quote:I'm quite confident that whatever Melon et al are up to, it isn't (just?) going to be us watching cartoon puppets eat and drink.
Zach82: We can talk about what one must do in the Eucharist once we settle on the fact that it is actually doing something, and not just sitting alone in front of your computer watching it happen in a cartoon church.
quote:And I might end up agreeing with you, but not for the reasons you've been giving on this thread. FWIW, I'm not that comfortable with the idea of no bread and wine being involved (though others have expressed a preference for an online sacrament not to have those things). Bread and wine are easily obtainable - it's the getting to a church that is the obstacle for many people. I too don't like the idea of people holding their bread up to the screen to be 'blessed', but I think there could be a respectful and helpful way of a number of people taking the bread and wine online 'together'. As I've said a few times, for me, it's a case of trying to get as close to that blueprint as possible, and I think you can get close enough for it to be genuine. But maybe what Melon et al will end up with will be too far away from the blueprint to be genuine for the both of us. You already know the answer, I'll have to wait and see.
Originally posted by Zach82:
We can talk about what one must do in the Eucharist once we settle on the fact that it is actually doing something, and not just sitting alone in front of your computer watching it happen in a cartoon church.
quote:He actually said "Do this in memory of me." Which is not quite the same as "Remember me."
Remembering the sacrifice of Jesus's blood and His body for us, like He asked us to? Trying to connect with God and with eachother? Those have a very real meaning to me. The fact that you can't see this doesn't change that.
quote:"The next best thing" is a fine thing if the thing itself isn't possible. The point is that it isn't the thing itself.
And I might end up agreeing with you, but not for the reasons you've been giving on this thread. FWIW, I'm not that comfortable with the idea of no bread and wine being involved (though others have expressed a preference for an online sacrament not to have those things). Bread and wine are easily obtainable - it's the getting to a church that is the obstacle for many people. I too don't like the idea of people holding their bread up to the screen to be 'blessed', but I think there could be a respectful and helpful way of a number of people taking the bread and wine online 'together'. As I've said a few times, for me, it's a case of trying to get as close to that blueprint as possible, and I think you can get close enough for it to be genuine. But maybe what Melon et al will end up with will be too far away from the blueprint to be genuine for the both of us. You already know the answer, I'll have to wait and see.
quote:Now you're nitpicking. (In Dutch, we'd say "Now you're trying to fuck ants", which is funnier.)
Zach82: He actually said "Do this in memory of me." Which is not quite the same as "Remember me."
quote:Nitpicking? The difference between "Do this" and "Remember me" is nitpicking?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Now you're nitpicking. (In Dutch, we'd say "Now you're trying to fuck ants", which is funnier.)
Zach82: He actually said "Do this in memory of me." Which is not quite the same as "Remember me."
quote:The difference between "Do this in remembrance of Me" and doing it while remembering Him is.
Zach82: Nitpicking? The difference between "Do this" and "Remember me" is nitpicking?
quote:You have refused to make "Doing it" necessary at all.
The difference between "Do this in remembrance of Me" and doing it while remembering Him is.
quote:I guess that's the core of the disagreement between you and I. To go back again to the example from the Didache. There are a whole load of 'next best thing' contingencies, but the core fact - whether it's immersion in cold running water or sprinkling with warm stagnant water - is that a baptism has taken place. People sprinkled with warm stagnant water aren't second class Christians, and they don't need to get baptised again. The next best thing is still good enough, despite the ideal.
Originally posted by Zach82:
"The next best thing" is a fine thing if the thing itself isn't possible. The point is that it isn't the thing itself.
quote:Where?
Zach82: You have refused to make "Doing it" necessary at all.
quote:You've refused to do so again and again. Is this going to be like the time you insisted you said something that you actually didn't, and I was supposed to read your mind to know where you thought about it but didn't say it?
Where?
quote:You never asked
Zach82: You've finally started to come to a coherent definition, though why you should act like it's some absurd task is beyond me.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:Yes, master. Actually, I'm much less sure about that one. As I said, there are a lot of wafers, matzes and what-all counting as bread. I've seen a lot of grape juices. And to most of the wines used in Eucharist, the French would say: "This isn't wine!"
Zach82: Now, let's hear your definition of bread and wine.
quote:It wasn't clear you had one.
You never asked [Waterworks]
quote:I can just throw definitions out for you- bread is a baked good made from a paste of ground grain. Wine is the juice of a grape that has been allowed to ferment.
Yes, master. Actually, I'm much less sure about that one. As I said, there are a lot of wafers, matzes and what-all counting as bread. I've seen a lot of grape juices. And to most of the wines used in Eucharist, the French would say: "This isn't wine!"
My church usually celebrates with matzes and a choice between wine and grape juice. But as I said, when we have a service with the homeless, we let practicalities trump theological concerns, and we serve coffee and cheese sandwiches. I'm guessing that whatever God does with bread and wine, He'll understand it in this case, and is powerful enough to do it with coffee and cheese also.
quote:No, they don't. When we celebrate with coffee and cheese sandwiches, we are quite aware that it isn't bread and wine. We still consider it a valid Eucharist though.
Zach82: Do your definitions of bread and wine include coffee and cheese
quote:No, I think bread and wine are preferable, but there are practical situations that ask for other choices. And stop that, I do know what 'necessary' means.
Zach82: So we've confirmed that you do not actually know what "necessary" means. You think bread and wine is preferable, but not necessary.
quote:No, don't be silly. There's no practical situation that would warrant that.
Zach82: Now, can anything serve as "bread and wine?" I assume, for example, that sharing with a fellow Christian the activity of pushing old ladies down down the stairs is not the Eucharist, even if one feels totally connected to God and remembers Jesus while doing it, right?
quote:You think "bread and wine are necessary" and "well, you don't actually need bread and wine" are compatible statements, which is a plain absurdity.
No, I think bread and wine are preferable, but there are practical situations that ask for other choices. And stop that, I do know what 'necessary' means.
quote:That's why I said I assumed it didn't count. Reread that question and try to answer it, please.
No, don't be silly. There's no practical situation that would warrant that.
quote:If I may answer that too - I would say probably not, or if it has a definition, it's broad and not easy to pin down.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Do you think the Eucharist even has a coherent, objectively knowable definition?
quote:I think you'll find this was the point I was making on page 1.
Originally posted by Zach82:
The thing is, conversation is only even possible if there is an objectively knowable definition. Otherwise every conversation can only go thus-
"I think the Eucharist is this."
"I think it is this."
*the end*
Before you deny it, that is where is ends up once all objective criteria are taken away. LeRoc feels feels connected and totally with God when he does this thing. I do not when I do the same thing. The end. Nothing else to be said.
quote:No.
Originally posted by Zach82:
The thing is, conversation is only even possible if there is an objectively knowable definition. Otherwise every conversation can only go thus-
"I think the Eucharist is this."
"I think it is this."
*the end*
Before you deny it, that is where is ends up once all objective criteria are taken away. LeRoc feels feels connected and totally with God when he does this thing. I do not when I do the same thing. The end. Nothing else to be said.
quote:Don't worry, I won't! But both can be valid, in that they might be both coherent and reasonable. As to which is right, I guess we'll find out the other side of the grave.
Originally posted by Zach82:
And where does the conversation go when two subjective views are not compatible?
Don't say both can be right,
quote:and I'd still be interested in the answer, from you, mousethief, and from others.
So yes, we're all fairly entrenched in the way we define Sacrament with a big 'S' - and perhaps Church with a big 'C' too. However, you've both said that it could be a useful vehicle of grace, and beneficial for people. So, I'd be interested to know how you think it could work within your understanding. You'd probably object to the phrases 'online Church' and 'online Sacraments', so what would you call them instead? If someone who was stuck at home wanted some kind of Christian fellowship online (beyond merely a discussion board like this one, perhaps because they are unable to physically get to a 'real' church), what do you think it should look like, and how should it present itself?
quote:Just to answer this too - take my example of "define Red".
Originally posted by Zach82:
If it stayed where you put it, there is no way of saying Johnny Sicko has not participated in the Eucharist. After all, he feels it, so it can be the Eucharist for him, right?
quote:Actually, he explicitly denied that. No wonder this side of matters posts so many head banging emoticons.
For example, I think IngoB's view is valid. He condemns the concept of online sacraments for exactly the reasons that he condemns all protestant sacraments. And though I disagree with him, his view is consistent and makes sense.
quote:I get it. I just think it's a complete botch from the very start. It drowns in subjectivity and nothing objective is knowable. You said it yourself in that first sentence- we can't know it until we die.
I honestly don't think you understand my view, because you've failed to attempt to even 'talk' in my language, or engaged very little with the parts of my posts that I think are of the most importance.
quote:Well, I've just re-read his posts, and maybe I've misunderstood him, but to me he employed the same arguments against online sacraments as to protestant sacraments in general, just that the difference was more severe. Yes there were more reasons for him to dispute online sacraments, but his reasons to do seemed to me generally consistent. But I haven't been discussing with him, and maybe that would change in discussion.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Actually, he explicitly denied that.
quote:Well, that just confirms that you don't get it. For starters, just because we can't know for sure til we die, doesn't mean there isn't an objective truth. Come on Zach, you can do better than that. I can sum up one of the differences between our views quite concisely. When Jesus says "do this in remembrance of me", you think he means "replicate". I think he means "copy". A replication has to be exactly the same. A copy might look a bit different in places, but tries to be faithful to the original.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:I get it. I just think it's a complete botch from the very start. It drowns in subjectivity and nothing objective is knowable. You said it yourself in that first sentence- we can't know it until we die.
I honestly don't think you understand my view, because you've failed to attempt to even 'talk' in my language, or engaged very little with the parts of my posts that I think are of the most importance.
quote:Fair enough, I didn't take colourblindness into account. But that's because it was a metaphor for the fact that although some things are easily categorised, other things can be in-between, they are difficult to put into one box or another. I wasn't really wanting to discuss the nature of colour and perception itself. But rather than engage with the camel, you became fixated with the gnat.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Forget telling the difference between red and red-orange. You have absolutely no basis for asserting an objective difference between red and blue. You just wave the question off. "It won't happen!"
Well, my father was colorblind. It happened all the time.
quote:I didn't accuse of of denying objective truth, I accused of denying knowable objective truth.
Well, that just confirms that you don't get it.
quote:I'm talking about coherent definitions, of which you and LeRoc have worked up exactly zero when it comes to the Eucharist.
Fair enough, I didn't take colourblindness into account. But that's because it was a metaphor for the fact that although some things are easily categorised, other things can be in-between, they are difficult to put into one box or another. I wasn't really wanting to discuss the nature of colour and perception itself. But rather than engage with the camel, you became fixated with the gnat.
quote:Sorry my fault, but either way you're conflating things. When I said that we'd find out the other side of the grave, that was merely in the context of finding out who was 'right' in the end, not in the context of finding out whether a Eucharist was valid or not. So, once and for all, your accusation of my view making everything merely subjective is straw man rubbish stemming from you not understanding what I have been saying.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I didn't accuse of of denying objective truth, I accused of denying knowable objective truth.
quote:I have. You just don't like it because it leaves space for grey areas.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm talking about coherent definitions, of which you and LeRoc have worked up exactly zero when it comes to the Eucharist.
A definition that doesn't give us an idea of when something is not the thing signified is a completely incoherent definition.
quote:True. And more than just interesting, but pretty important to our understanding of what baptism is, and what it symbolizes/does.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:Fair point. But still, at some point the meaning of the word changed to encompass more than its original literal meaning. If that happened after the Christian adoption of Baptism as an initiation rite, it would be interesting to know how it happened
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are confusing definition and etymology.
The etymology of βαπτίζω is 'to immerse.' That doesn't mean that's what the definition is.
quote:But here's the thing -- you should use cold running water and full immersion, but if you only have something less, you can use the best you have. But it doesn't say that water itself is unnecessary, does it? It's a physical act that requires physical contact between baptizer, water, and baptisand. It doesn't go on to say, "But if you can't be there with water, send him a letter and let him pour the water on himself."
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think this paradigm of the sacraments is an ancient one. I linked to the didache in an earlier post, but it seemed to pass you by. In the section on baptism, it gives the template (cold, running water, full immersion), but allows for alternatives if this isn't available. Now although there is an ideal, it does not mean that not being able to carry out that ideal means that the baptism isn't valid. You're baptised or not, whether you're submerged in cold running water, or have warm water poured over your head. EVEN THOUGH, as many baptists will tell you, baptism means 'submerge'.
quote:Very true. Because, at some point the copy doesn't resemble the original template enough to be valid. I think a physical act is an important part of what happens, which is why I'm much more comfortable with online sacraments actually including bread and wine, and not solely reliant on pictures on the screen.
Originally posted by mousethief:
But here's the thing -- you should use cold running water and full immersion, but if you only have something less, you can use the best you have. But it doesn't say that water itself is unnecessary, does it? It's a physical act that requires physical contact between baptizer, water, and baptisand. It doesn't go on to say, "But if you can't be there with water, send him a letter and let him pour the water on himself."
quote:But how would you even know if it had 'worked'? What does 'worked' even mean in that context?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would say they're something you do, to the best of your ability, following the instruction of Christ to "do this". They're done trusting that they will 'work', although to be honest I'm not sure anyone can say what they're supposed to do let alone know if they've done it.
quote:I disagree, it's quite possible to do or to discuss something without defining it clearly. Besides the Ship, I'm also on a forum that discusses world music. In spite of having enjoyed, played and composed it for a long time, I wouldn't be able to give a consistent, objective definition of what 'world music' is, even if someone threatened to club me on the head. However, our discussions go far beyond "I think world music is this." "I think it is this."
Zach82: The thing is, conversation is only even possible if there is an objectively knowable definition. Otherwise every conversation can only go thus-
"I think the Eucharist is this."
"I think it is this."
*the end*
quote:Only if you have a view of "Either you have a conherent, objective definition of what Eucharist is, or anything goes." Like others have said, there's a big grey area in between.
Zach82: Don't say both can be right, because that's not what LeRoc believes. In saying Johnny Sicko is NOT participating in the Eucharist when he pushes old ladies down the stairs, even if he feels totally connected and with God when he does it, he is insisting that there are objective criteria for knowing what is and isn't a Eucharist.
quote:You should know by now that I come from a church history that's quite undogmatic (at times probably even anti-dogmatic), so I'm afraid I'm unable to give you a 'coherent', 'objective' definition of Eucharist.
Zach82: I'm talking about coherent definitions, of which you and LeRoc have worked up exactly zero when it comes to the Eucharist.
quote:I agree that this would be quite dodgy.
mousethief: It doesn't go on to say, "But if you can't be there with water, send him a letter and let him pour the water on himself."
quote:To a degree. To me, it isn't a case of 'anything goes'. You'd have to have some respect for the original meaning of the sacrament.
long ranger: I have edited the above to remove scare quotes.
quote:Like I said, the fact that I'm hesitant to define Eucharist very precisely doesn't mean that anything goes. A 'normal' meal with Christians wouldn't count as Eucharist to me. It has to be special, and you'd have to do it explicitly in remembrance of Jesus's body and blood. A meal where you'd do this for a few seconds, and then go on to discuss the football wouldn't count.
long ranger: Why not just go the whole hog and state that any meal you happen to be eating at any time with other Christians is the Eucharist?
quote:I guess the experiment of the Ship is exactly to try to find out what the limits of Eucharist are. So I don't know. If we would both be saying that this was a special meal, and that we were doing this explicitly in His memory, and if we'd have some kind of interaction while doing this, then maybe it might be.
long ranger: I'm eating a piece of toast. If you were also and we were discussing the memory of Jesus body and blood on these boards, would that be the Eucharist?
quote:Ah, I forgot to say. If we'd be going to do the thing you suggested, it would be good to have bread and wine instead of just toast.
long ranger: Well, for you, LeRoc, the critical thing is the act of memory, for others that bread and wine is used, for others that participants are in one place.
quote:Exactly. I don't think that the visions of Eucharist among the different traditions will ever be completely reconcilable. For example, there will always be a gap between the conservative Catholic vision of it, and the one espoused by my church. But that doesn't mean we can't respect eachother's ways of doing it.
long ranger: These things are not reconcilable.
quote:If one thing is true about my church, it's that we don't really believe in absolutes. So, unless it becomes really weird, no practice of Eucharist is 'absolutely against everything I stand for'. Staying with the same example, I have great respect for the Catholic practice of Eucharist.
long ranger: I don't think it is possible to respect something that others are doing which you believe is absolutely against everything you stand for.
quote:Yes. It's quite possible that Zach82 or others won't accept what we do in our church as being Eucharist. That doesn't bother me.
long ranger: Whether or not your understanding of the Eucharist is wide enough to include @Zach82's is irrelevant to the question of whether his is wide enough to include yours.
quote:I don't think you are conveying very well the reasons why I called Zach82 to Hell, but I'm going to leave it at that. I'm sorry, the Hell call had its place, and I don't want to do it here all over again.
long ranger: And as we have seen in a thread in another place, when @Zach82 suggests that your understanding is objectively wrong because you are being emotional, you get a bit annoyed.
quote:I didn't, and I completely agree. Whatever the Ship is going to do, there will be quite a lot of people that won't agree that this is Eucharist, and most of them will probably stay well away from it.
long ranger: But you are not entitled to suggest (not that you were individually doing so) that it ought to be possible for everyone to agree to a form of internet Eucharist. It isn't.
quote:I'm hoping that some middle-of-the-road Christians would like to try it as well.
the long ranger: At best, it will be a populated by the narrow subsection of Christianity which believe more-or-less the same things as you about the Eucharist.
quote:Yes, that would be a big, and quite obvious pitfall. But to me, it doesn't mean that the Ship shouldn't go through with it.
long ranger: The 'pitfalls' of an internet Eucharist as that the vast majority of Christianity would think this automatically impossible (for various reasons) and of those a high proportion would consider it sacrilege.
quote:I think that was my point. The word 'work' has no real meaning in relation to Communion (or, Baptism or probably anything else you want to define as a Sacrament).
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:But how would you even know if it had 'worked'? What does 'worked' even mean in that context?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would say they're something you do, to the best of your ability, following the instruction of Christ to "do this". They're done trusting that they will 'work', although to be honest I'm not sure anyone can say what they're supposed to do let alone know if they've done it.
quote:I know this isn't directed to me, but I feel like it may be thought by some here to apply to me. I think "absolutely against everything you stand for" is a strawman (since that seems to be a popular concept on this thread). Against "everything I stand for?" Somebody disagreeing with me about a sacrament? Good grief. You clearly have no idea what any of us "stand for."
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I don't think it is possible to respect something that others are doing which you believe is absolutely against everything you stand for. Believing that is even possible indicates a high level of naivety.
quote:Wow. I can't believe that is all you got out of Alan's post.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Here we are again at "I just feel it's the Eucharist and you can't question what's in my heart."
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:I did the same thing, but I meant to put two languages, so there's another. OliviaG
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Thank you. If you find an answer where someone both ticked the 'English' box and filled out the 'Other (please specify)' form, then that would be me
quote:Yes, and the only form he has given for the Eucharist is bread and wine (with water). I see no indication that he has changed that.
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:Isn't it up to God whether or not a sacrament is valid?
Originally posted by shamwari:
Beeswax Alter
On line sacraments are not valid. Period. Full stop.
quote:Or even believing that a man who walked on earth was God, and had the authority to institute sacraments.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I agree, it is a pretty strange thing to do - but to my mind no stranger than continuing with a 2000 year old ritual and/or believing that bread becomes human flesh.
quote:Yes, if that was the only argument made. But it’s not, many other arguments hav been made. You can’t send a piece of bread through twitter.
Originally posted by Melon:
(The other problem with this kind of argument is that sooner or later the technology catches up. I expect computers to be able to stimulate all five senses within a few years. In other words, it's a sacrament-of-the-gaps explanation, where technology is forever reducing the "only offline" space.)
quote:I gather that you don’t find that important. But I do. I’m not saying that you must, but I will not “put the idea of valid versus non-valid communion to one side.” (And btw, I’m not Catholic, I’m Lutheran.)
Originally posted by tessaB:
If however you put the idea of valid versus non-valid communion to one side,
quote:No, perhaps not. But it’s not necessarily the sacrament. But at least this is physical, real, concrete. When it comes to online ‘sacraments’ vs. real sacraments, René Magritte was right. A pixelated image of a piece of bread is not a piece of bread.
Originally posted by tessaB:
is there anything wrong with a group of people meeting, say in the cafe, joining together in bread and wine with the intent to remember Jesus' death and resurection?
quote:Why?
Originally posted by tessaB:
Surely that can not be a deal-breaker for anyone?
quote:Exactly. Worship is done best, I think, when it’s done in accordance with our nature. And I’m not a pure spirit. I’m not some disembodied super-cloud computing angel. I’m flesh and bones.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Even if he turns out to mean something different from what I think he does, I think IngoB has put his finger on a key issue by using the term "human bandwidth".
I think we have a tendency to underestimate the complexity of ritual. (I prefer thinking about "ritual" rather than "sacrament" because it avoids all that tedious messiness about what's valid or not.) There's a certain primitive quality about ritual, when it's properly conducted. A (spiritually) hungry crowd; basic food elements; speech, chant, gesture, movement.
quote:Why do you believe that? The facts are that Christ took a piece of bread, presumably the type of bread used in Israel at the time of Christ, either leavened or (as I believe) unleavened, and a cup of wine, probably mixed with water. That is the facts.
Originally posted by Melon:
I do think, though, that the Mediterranean meal we often eat after the service is closer to what Jesus instituted than our communion service.
quote:But none (or close to none) of these believe that you can do sacraments (or what term one chooses to use) without actually using physical things like bread, wine, water, etc. AFAICT, mousethief’s argument isn’t about the rituals per se, but about physicality. That is a part of what the word ‘sacrament’ mean.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
What I meant was Christians, through study of Scripture, looking back through tradition, listening to the Spirit have accumulated (for want of a better word) a huge variety of understandings of Communion, from the highly Sacramental to the "mere memorialist".
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
But surely that only makes sense if the sacrament is physical
quote:The word sacrament means a physical thing. Just as football (‘soccer’) without a round ball just isn’t football, or that taking a shower is not the same as drinking beer. Sacraments are by definition physical. As I’ve already pointed out, when it comes to the difference between a real sacrament and an image, pixelated or not, of a sacrament, René Magritte was right.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Even if we assume the formulation that most of you use - ie that Jesus showed something at the last supper that you are all to replicate for the rest of time, that doesn't necessarily exclude online sacraments.
quote:Let me guess. Have you ever taken a semester of philosophy?
Originally posted by the long ranger:
On the contrary, the fact that you think 'space is a geometric concept' is exactly the point we have been arguing and hence cannot be inarguable.
quote:Because it is physical, and to share it one needs to be physically present. I cannot share a meal with you, if we aren’t at the same place, at the same time.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But how? In what way does the fact that our bodies are physically in the same place during Eucharist influence in its validity?
quote:Yes, but “I sat down besides my friend, looked him in the eyes and talked to him” does not refer to a telephone conversation. This only shows that you haven’t been paying attention to what has actually been said.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Definitions can change, as you've admitted yourself. "I talked to my friend yesterday" can very well refer to a telephone conversation.
quote:No, it is not, please distinguish between etymology and definition. (If you cannot, the next time someone calls you nice, you should get angry.) And furthermore, could you please cite a greek lexicon which states, for a fact, that βαπτίζω necessarily means immersion?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The objective definition of 'baptiso' is 'immerse'.
quote:Yes, but when he did, he did a bunch of things with bread and wine. Therefore it is safe to assume that ‘doing this’ is to do the same bunch of things with bread and wine.
Originally posted by uffda:
He simply says "Do this for the remembrance of me."
quote:As you've given that link twice, it raises (for me) some interesting questions relating to images. I would say that it is entirely appropriate to refer to the sacraments as images.
Originally posted by k-mann:
As I’ve already pointed out, when it comes to the difference between a real sacrament and an image, pixelated or not, of a sacrament, René Magritte was right.
quote:You're right, and others have pointed out (and I acknowledged) that I was clumsy with my language. But I fear that the wider point was lost. I was not saying (as I have heard said by others) that baptism should always therefore involve immersion. I was saying that the definition of baptism has changed, broadened, over the church's history.
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:No, it is not, please distinguish between etymology and definition. (If you cannot, the next time someone calls you nice, you should get angry.) And furthermore, could you please cite a greek lexicon which states, for a fact, that βαπτίζω necessarily means immersion?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The objective definition of 'baptiso' is 'immerse'.
quote:Are they only images? And furthermore, would an image of an image suffice? But again, the argument is about physicality.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As you've given that link twice, it raises (for me) some interesting questions relating to images. I would say that it is entirely appropriate to refer to the sacraments as images.
We say sacraments are 'signs' or 'symbols'. That is, they represent something else, they are an image.
quote:So I just thought I ate and drank the last time I celebrated the Eucharist?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Communion is a ritualised meal. It isn't a meal (the way most of us celebrate it, you're not going to be able to skip lunch because you had sufficient bread at the Communion service), it's a representation of a meal. It's an image.
quote:Well, I guess we disagree there. Well not quite. I believe it is the flesh and blood of Christ who is alive now.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In many cases, Communion is accompanied by words like "the body of Christ" and "the blood of Christ". The bread and wine isn't actually human flesh and blood, let alone the flesh and blood of someone alive 2000 years ago.
quote:Again, I disagree. But that is not my point, and not the point of most arguments from the ‘sacramentalists.’ The argument is that a sacrament is by definition a concrete, physical thing. Therefore it is not possible to have it online, just like an image of a pipe isn’t actually a pipe, and just like a woman cannot get pregnant by chatting in a forum.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's a representation of our Lords broken body and shed blood (and I accept that in some traditions something mysterious happens that makes the element more than just bread and wine, but as I understand it they still remain bread and wine). It's an image.
quote:Maybe not much. But that is not a sacrament. The word ‘sacrament’ means something objective, a concrete, physical thing. Just like ‘pipe’ means something concrete, and not an image.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, if as I believe, sacraments are an image of something else what fundamental difference would there be if they were a different sort of image? Providing they show the same reality as the images we already use?
quote:No, we have just pointed out that Christ sat did a bunch of things with bread and wine, and said “do this in remembrance of me.” Therefore it is safe to assume that ‘doing this’ is to do the same bunch of things with bread and wine. (Remember that the ‘doing this’ part, which is only found in Luke and 1. Corinthians, does not refer to eating or drinking, but to the blessings/thanksgivings done by Christ.)
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In particular, the way you and a few others have spoken about Jesus instituted the sacraments gives this kind of picture of Jesus sitting down with his disciples, giving them an instruction book of how to carry out each sacrament, in detail.
quote:Well, Christ did not say “do this in remembrance of me” after washing the feet of the disciples. But of course, we could do that. And many do, including the Catholic Church. As for the sacrament of marriage, I’m Lutheran.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But that is about as far from what happened as you can get. He didn't even say what was a sacrament or not, he gave very loose 'instructions' (if they can even be called that). Just reading scripture alone (which I know shouldn't be divorced from tradition), you could make as strong a case for foot washing as a sacrament as that of communion. Where did Jesus institute the sacrament of marriage?
quote:Yes, just like Christ never gave us a list of books that make up the New Testament. Do you reject the list as we have it?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In other words, it's the Church that has defined the sacraments, not Jesus.
quote:And as has been pointed out on numerous occasions here, that is not the point at issue. The questions are: Can you abstract away the physicaility of a sacrament? Have the historical disagreement on the sacraments ever been about their physicaility?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
To me that is a massively important point. Earlier in the thread, Marvin responded to "who gets to define the sacraments" with "all of us. Christians.". And since the start, the church has disagreed (as it usually does) about what those definitions are.
quote:It would be interesting to see if you could actually answer my post, and not some point I haven’t made. I haven’t said a thing about the rituals, but about the inherent physicality of sacraments. And how do you know how we perform the sacrament? Do you know where I go to church, or do you just assume that you know? Again this is not a discussion about rituals as such, but about the inherent physicality of sacraments.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So then, when you compare an online (or even a baptist?) Eucharist, and say "it's not like Jesus instituted it", how is that different to me looking at what you might do in your church and saying the same thing? It's not part of an actual meal, like when Jesus did it. You haven't got proper bread, just wafers. You're not sharing one loaf - there's too many of you... and so on. Your church has picked and chosen which parts of the 'original' Eucharist are important to copy, and which parts aren't. If another church picks and chooses different parts, then the argument shouldn't be "you're not copying Jesus", but "you've picked the wrong bits". Which is why, for me, the argument over physicality is a lot more important than the "Jesus said" route.
quote:I know perfectly well what your argument was. I’m asking you to back it up. Could you please cite a greek lexicon which states, for a fact, that βαπτίζω necessarily means immersion?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But I fear that the wider point was lost. I was not saying (as I have heard said by others) that baptism should always therefore involve immersion. I was saying that the definition of baptism has changed, broadened, over the church's history.
quote:Paul speaks, in Colossians, of Christ being an 'image' of God. 'Image' suggests something really powerful; more than some sort of token.
Originally posted by k-mann:
Again, I’m tossing a few replies together...
quote:Are they only images?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As you've given that link twice, it raises (for me) some interesting questions relating to images. I would say that it is entirely appropriate to refer to the sacraments as images.
We say sacraments are 'signs' or 'symbols'. That is, they represent something else, they are an image.
quote:I think Alan's point was that it isn't a meal, not that it wasn't eating.
Originally posted by k-mann:
So I just thought I ate and drank the last time I celebrated the Eucharist?
quote:Of course not, but that makes no difference to my point, that it's the church's job (still) to decide what sacraments are. And as usual, it's in a messy, discussion-filled way. My point was refuting the idea that Jesus spelt out exactly what all the sacraments are.
Originally posted by k-mann:
Yes, just like Christ never gave us a list of books that make up the New Testament. Do you reject the list as we have it?
quote:No, but there has never been a need to - the Internet was not around, and there was no other context in which that discussion would have occurred. There was no historical disagreement on contraception until it existed, at which point there was a lot of disagreement.
Originally posted by k-mann:
Have the historical disagreement on the sacraments ever been about their physicaility?
quote:Sorry, my wording was poor again. I wasn't making assumptions about your church (which is why I said "what you might do"). The examples were meant to be general, not specific to your church; I apologise if it came across that way.
Originally posted by k-mann:
I haven’t said a thing about the rituals, but about the inherent physicality of sacraments. And how do you know how we perform the sacrament? Do you know where I go to church, or do you just assume that you know? Again this is not a discussion about rituals as such, but about the inherent physicality of sacraments.
quote:Well, every concordance I've read gives the original meaning as "dip" or "immerse". If I've misunderstood, I'm very happy to be corrected. I have no problem with non-immersive baptism (it's how I was baptised myself), and it's not exactly an ultra-important part of what I've been saying on this thread.
Originally posted by k-mann:
I know perfectly well what your argument was. I’m asking you to back it up. Could you please cite a greek lexicon which states, for a fact, that βαπτίζω necessarily means immersion?
quote:Exactly, as we commonly celebrate Communion we eat, but don't share a meal. In fact, we've abstracted the original meal to such an extent that physical sustainance is now almost totally removed. Offering Communion to a starving man would make no difference at all to his physical needs. We've turned a meal into an image, and it's not even a good representation of a meal to the extent that the "having enough to prevent starvation" feature of a meal is absent, or rather spiritualised). Since we've already taken the community meal of the early church and turned it into a non-meal ritual, why shouldn't we explore option to go further and find ways of sharing a symbolic "meal" in other ways?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:I think Alan's point was that it isn't a meal, not that it wasn't eating.
Originally posted by k-mann:
So I just thought I ate and drank the last time I celebrated the Eucharist?
quote:You're repeating arguments that have been giving before on this thread. If "it's not real if it's not physical" is important for you, then I respect that. However, I happen to have other thoughts about it.
k-mann: Because it is physical, and to share it one needs to be physically present. I cannot share a meal with you, if we aren’t at the same place, at the same time.
Yes, but “I sat down besides my friend, looked him in the eyes and talked to him” does not refer to a telephone conversation. This only shows that you haven’t been paying attention to what has actually been said.
quote:If a thing is physical by definition, the of course it’s not real if it’s not physical. Just like an non-physical apple is absurd. The word Eucharist by definition denotes something physical. It’s inherent in the definition of the word. If you asked me to draw a circle, but I drawed a square, I bet you wouldn’t accept my excuse if I said “but I feel that cirles have four equal corners.” That is not what the word ‘circle’ means.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If "it's not real if it's not physical" is important for you, then I respect that. However, I happen to have other thoughts about it.
quote:It will ever be thus as far as this subject goes.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm sorry, but you're going around in circles, with or without corners. I've been over this a number of times on this thread already, and I'm not inclined to repeat it.
quote:So would you have a problem with an on-line service like the one Kelly described up-thread, with real, physical wine and bread, not just 'cartoons on a screen' (to use an earlier phrase)?
Originally posted by k-mann:
A non-phsyical Eucharist is absurd for the same reason that circular square is absurd.
quote:AIUI, 'Eucharist' is a word that basically means "thanksgiving". "Sacrament" is an outwards sign of grace. Neither denotes something necessarily physical, even if in practice (and, by practical necesity) they have involved physicality prior to the advent of the internet.
Originally posted by k-mann:
The word Eucharist by definition denotes something physical. It’s inherent in the definition of the word.
quote:The OP and thread title are about online sacraments. We've mainly discussed Communion mainly (ISTM) because it's an often repeated sacrament - most Christians would have issues with repeated baptisms, and there's a limit to how many times people are married or ordained (for those who consider these to be Sacraments).
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I wonder how this discussion would have panned out if Melon had started by saying "but all the churches have changed how they do baptism so much that we have to rethink that one and work out how we can baptise on-line."
quote:That anyone may baptise is covered in the BCP, p 313: " In case of emergency, any baptized person may adminisyer Baptism according to the following form..
Originally posted by Alan Creswell
But, imagine a scenario. Several people chatting in the Cafe one evening. As a result of the conversation one of them makes a commitment of faith, and wants to mark that by being baptised. And, like the Ethiopian Eunach, asks "what is to stop me from being baptised at this moment?" Would the absence of anyone else in his home be a necessary hinderance? Would he have to be baptised by a community that he had no prior contact to, and had no role in his conversion?
quote:Apologies if this has been addressed but IRL anyone disrupting a service can be managed... and we all are familiar with the type of aggressive poster who feels some need to inject himself into MANY forum conversations.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, I know that if someone was really desperate, they could easily log in on two computers, but that begs the question,"what would make someone that desperate?"
quote:Aaaaand yet another person falls into the etymology=meaning trap.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:AIUI, 'Eucharist' is a word that basically means "thanksgiving".
Originally posted by k-mann:
The word Eucharist by definition denotes something physical. It’s inherent in the definition of the word.
quote:No, but he would have to be baptised by SOMEONE, with water. And they'd have to be roughly adjacent, because that's what baptism is. Splashing (or even dunking) yourself with water while someone watches you over your webcam, whatever else it is, isn't baptism.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, imagine a scenario. Several people chatting in the Cafe one evening. As a result of the conversation one of them makes a commitment of faith, and wants to mark that by being baptised. And, like the Ethiopian Eunach, asks "what is to stop me from being baptised at this moment?" Would the absence of anyone else in his home be a necessary hinderance? Would he have to be baptised by a community that he had no prior contact to, and had no role in his conversion?
quote:Assuming a human being had to make the decision about whether someone was being disruptive enough to be silenced or chucked out by the software, it would then depend on how good your software was.
Originally posted by 205:
How could you prevent someone from disrupting online sacraments?
quote:Yes, that's true. But, I know of no other definition for 'Eucharist' other than a synonym for 'Communion' with a bit more emphasis on the sacrament being a thanksgiving for what Christ did for us, the things that we remember about him when we break and share bread and juice. Which still doesn't get anywhere in defining the word such that it has to be a physical act shared by people in the same room at the same time. "A ritual, symbolising and recalling the work of Christ, his body broken for us and his blood shed for us" (as, to me, a perfectly adequate definition) doesn't need there to be anything physical at all - although I'd recognise that the physical bread and juice is beneficial in making the rite closer to the last supper.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Aaaaand yet another person falls into the etymology=meaning trap.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:AIUI, 'Eucharist' is a word that basically means "thanksgiving".
Originally posted by k-mann:
The word Eucharist by definition denotes something physical. It’s inherent in the definition of the word.
quote:No, 'Eucharist' is a technical term which derives from a word that means ‘thanksgiving.’ Etymology ≠ definition.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:AIUI, 'Eucharist' is a word that basically means "thanksgiving". "Sacrament" is an outwards sign of grace. Neither denotes something necessarily physical, even if in practice (and, by practical necesity) they have involved physicality prior to the advent of the internet.
Originally posted by k-mann:
The word Eucharist by definition denotes something physical. It’s inherent in the definition of the word.
quote:But there were images around. Where there ever anyone who thought that he could partake of the Eucharist by considering or meditating on an image of the Eucharist?
[T]he Internet was not around, and there was no other context in which that discussion would have occurred. There was no historical disagreement on contraception until it existed, at which point there was a lot of disagreement.
quote:I asked for a greek lexicon, not a concordance. They hardly, if ever, give an exhaustive definition. As I’m moving, I’ll have to check my greek lexicon a little later. (It’s in a box.) But, IIRC, the word βαπτίζω can mean anything from ‘fully immerse’ to merely ‘wash.’
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Well, every concordance I've read gives the original meaning as "dip" or "immerse". If I've misunderstood, I'm very happy to be corrected. I have no problem with non-immersive baptism (it's how I was baptised myself), and it's not exactly an ultra-important part of what I've been saying on this thread.
quote:Yes, but for other reasons, and not one that I will use as an argument here. Number one being that the priest in question isn’t actually blessing the bread and wine I have, it’s just a recorded voice. If it did bless my bread, I see no reason to assume that every bread in the world weren’t blessed by the same action, which seems absurd.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:So would you have a problem with an on-line service like the one Kelly described up-thread, with real, physical wine and bread, not just 'cartoons on a screen' (to use an earlier phrase)?
Originally posted by k-mann:
A non-phsyical Eucharist is absurd for the same reason that circular square is absurd.
quote:You've asserted that three or four times now. Each time I've responded, but rather than respond to the response, you've just gone and asserted it again.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would think that the more universal definition of the Eucharist would be "The thing Jesus did at the Last Supper."
quote:I haven't, and I'm as convinced as you are that online sacraments are never going to work ecumenically - I'm here because I honestly want to understand what different people think and why, and because I'm not entirely decided what I think anyhow. And because I think that, just because they might not be possible ecumenically, doesn't mean they shouldn't happen.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
goperryrev - Have you ever tried to organise an ecumenical service? Have you ever worked out who would partake in communion if it was part of that ecumenical service?
quote:So, if a priest blessed the bread and wine, put them in an envelope and posted them to all the communicants, how about then? I'm not trying to be obtuse - just trying to get how you understand it. I too was a bit uncomfortable about the bit about the recorded voice bit - but then personally I see no theological reason for the consecration (according to the traditional understanding) in the first place.
Originally posted by k-mann:
Yes, but for other reasons, and not one that I will use as an argument here. Number one being that the priest in question isn’t actually blessing the bread and wine I have, it’s just a recorded voice. If it did bless my bread, I see no reason to assume that every bread in the world weren’t blessed by the same action, which seems absurd.
quote:I don't think I am explaining it well- the portal had a very structured built in- liturgy, with only a few places for people to insert comments. SO, there wasn't a whole lot of room for people to burst in and disrupt things.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:Apologies if this has been addressed but IRL anyone disrupting a service can be managed... and we all are familiar with the type of aggressive poster who feels some need to inject himself into MANY forum conversations.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, I know that if someone was really desperate, they could easily log in on two computers, but that begs the question,"what would make someone that desperate?"
How could you prevent someone from disrupting online sacraments?
quote:I'm pretty sure Luther would say "The water and the Word are present."
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, go run the bath. Take the laptop to the bathroom and turn on the webcam. Everyone log into Skype (or whatever). New Christian jumps in the bath and splashes water around while other people in the chat room watch and one person types (or says into their webcam) "Name I baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". All without anyone having to leave their home.
quote:No, for practical reasons, mostly. And for the lack of reverence for the Eucharist.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So, if a priest blessed the bread and wine, put them in an envelope and posted them to all the communicants, how about then? I'm not trying to be obtuse - just trying to get how you understand it. I too was a bit uncomfortable about the bit about the recorded voice bit - but then personally I see no theological reason for the consecration (according to the traditional understanding) in the first place.
quote:The Eucharist is a meal we share together. The Bible doesn't list the amount of food consumed, but it sure lists what was consumed, and how it was done.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You've asserted that three or four times now. Each time I've responded, but rather than respond to the response, you've just gone and asserted it again.
So again: when your church has The Eucharist, is it at the end of a meal that you all share together???
If not, then do you not concede that what you do is not the thing that Jesus did at the Last Supper? Because Jesus ate a meal, not a semi-snack at the last supper.
quote:So, an definition you invented accords with your understanding of the requirements of the Eucharist.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"A ritual, symbolising and recalling the work of Christ, his body broken for us and his blood shed for us" (as, to me, a perfectly adequate definition) doesn't need there to be anything physical at all - although I'd recognise that the physical bread and juice is beneficial in making the rite closer to the last supper.
And this adds WHAT to the conversation?
quote:Really?
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Bible doesn't list the amount of food consumed, but it sure lists what was consumed, and how it was done.
" in response to that happening.
quote:What a strange definition of a meal. But, regardless, the fact remains that Jesus ate some other stuff first (what the majority of people would actually call a meal), then broke the bread and shared the wine with his disciples afterwards. And that appears to be what at least some of the early church did too - 1 Cor 11:21 says that people were getting drunk during communion, and that whole passage suggests a full meal, not a sip of wine and a tiny mouthful of bread.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:The Eucharist is a meal we share together. The Bible doesn't list the amount of food consumed, but it sure lists what was consumed, and how it was done.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You've asserted that three or four times now. Each time I've responded, but rather than respond to the response, you've just gone and asserted it again.
So again: when your church has The Eucharist, is it at the end of a meal that you all share together???
If not, then do you not concede that what you do is not the thing that Jesus did at the Last Supper? Because Jesus ate a meal, not a semi-snack at the last supper.
quote:The text says supper had ended, not that what was about to occur was a continuation of supper. It really is quite the strain for me to imagine he is saying we must always "do this" after supper. It isn't an assumption I operate upon in everyday life, and I suspect you don't either, but imagining otherwise is convenient for your argument so here we are.
"Jesus ate the bread and wine as part of a larger meal, but we don't need to"
quote:The Bible doesn't actually say that he consumed it at all.
"Jesus consumed the bread, then the wine, but it's okay to dip the bread in the wine and have both together"
quote:The argument for grape juice is that Jesus would have called it wine himself. I disagree with them, but this debate is at least about what is actually in the text, which is a more than can be said of this thread.
"Jesus drank alcoholic wine, but grape juice is fine."
quote:Wafers are bread. Not all bread is like fluffy, white Wonderbread.
"Jesus ate bread, but wafers are okay"
quote:What's that thing the priest is standing at? You are REALLY straining to make the text mysterious.
"Jesus sat around a table, but we can sit in pews"
quote:Every denomination I know of requires a person to act in persona Christi. There is some debate about who can act in persona Christi, but not that it needs to be led by someone.
"Jesus (the Great High Priest) shared the bread and wine, but we don't need to have a priest to do so"
quote:The text doesn't say what he wore.
"Jesus wore Jewish clothing, but that's incidental, we don't need to"
quote:The text doesn't say that, just that he "took bread." You might have at least run your eyes over the text before going through the work of typing this post you know.
"Jesus shared one loaf, but sharing more than one loaf is okay"
quote:I'm not arguing that.
"Jesus consumed bread and wine, but doughnuts and cola are okay"
quote:You're conflating different texts.
"Jesus washed his disciples' feet after the meal, but we don't need to do that at communion"
quote:The point about memorialism was that k-mann suggested Alan's definition of Eucharist was one he'd "invented. I was just trying to point out that it wasn't, it's held by a lot of Christians.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Talk about memorialism is missing the point, since we are talking about merely the conditions necessary for any Eucharist at all to occur.
quote:According to k-mann upthread, the only thing Jesus commanded us to do is to bless and give thanks for the bread and wine - not eat and drink it. Which isn't an interpretation I'd heard before, but if it's true then we're all going way beyond what Jesus commanded us. Whereas I don't think there's anywhere that doesn't celebrate Eucharist without eating and drinking.
Jesus commanded the Church to do a specific thing, and we need to look to the Bible to find out what that is. Let's establish the observable evidence first, and then we can talk about the metaphysics of the matter elsewhere.
quote:Thing is, I'm not sure it's quite as straightforward as you're making out, either, otherwise there'd never have been any disagreements about it in church history.
And really, the text isn't as mysterious on this point as goperryrevs is trying to make out.
quote:Actually, that's not true; the
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:The text says supper had ended, not that what was about to occur was a continuation of supper. It really is quite the strain for me to imagine he is saying we must always "do this" after supper. It isn't an assumption I operate upon in everyday life, and I suspect you don't either, but imagining otherwise is convenient for your argument so here we are.
"Jesus ate the bread and wine as part of a larger meal, but we don't need to"
quote:Then k-mann is wrong.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
According to k-mann upthread, the only thing Jesus commanded us to do is to bless and give thanks for the bread and wine - not eat and drink it.
quote:Sure, and as I said, he also mentions people getting drunk, which could only really happen in the context of a meal.
Originally posted by mousethief:
St. Paul doesn't mention clothes. He does mention wine and bread.
quote:Actually no, I've been in Baptist/non-conformist circles for the last 15 years, and have only ever heard that argument once (in the Ukraine). IME most Baptists (and other Christian groups that use grape juice) would acknowledge that what Jesus drank was alcoholic, but choose to use non-alcoholic juice because of (usually) people being teetotal, or having problems with alcoholism. I.e. knowing what Jesus did, but consciously choosing to do something slightly different for what they see as a valid reason.
Originally posted by Zach82:
The argument for grape juice is that Jesus would have called it wine himself. I disagree with them, but this debate is at least about what is actually in the text, which is a more than can be said of this thread.
quote:The disciples were at the table too. Not in pews watching Jesus.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:What's that thing the priest is standing at?
"Jesus sat around a table, but we can sit in pews"
quote:I know. But the fact that you've gone through each of those statements, evaluating them individually shows my point. That it's not as simple as "We just do what Jesus do", but that we INTERPRET what Jesus did, in our trying to copy it. The examples like what Jesus wore (of course we don't know, but we can be pretty sure he didn't wear jeans and a t-shirt) were just to show how your definition was too simplistic. Otherwise, if it was simply "do what Jesus did", then there's a whole lot more in the text than just eating the bread and drinking the wine. I asked what the qualitative difference was between those statements, so again, what is the qualitative difference between you saying "It doesn't need to be part of a larger meal" and Alan saying "It doesn't need to be bread and wine"? Both happened in the text. One you keep as crucial, the other you discard as irrelevant.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:I'm not arguing that.
"Jesus consumed bread and wine, but doughnuts and cola are okay"
quote:That's exactly it. I'm not really trying to argue that it's totally mysterious, just that from scripture alone, it's not as clear-cut and obvious what we're meant to do at the Eucharist as Zach seems to think. And Sola Scriptura, would you even come up with the concept of a Sacrament anyhow?
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:Thing is, I'm not sure it's quite as straightforward as you're making out, either, otherwise there'd never have been any disagreements about it in church history.
And really, the text isn't as mysterious on this point as goperryrevs is trying to make out.
quote:Where on earth did you get the idea that I said no one cared? I was speaking against a particular line of argument that I think is irrelevant.
Zach, where on earth do you get the idea that no-one cares what the Bible says?
quote:Well, I for one, care very much about what the Bible says. I think it's very clear, for example, that the Bible says Jesus took a cup of wine (and, he knew it was wine) and a loaf of unleavened bread (it was a Passover meal, so would be unleavened). What I also believe the Bible says is that the symbolism of the sacrament is primarily in the sharing together of the bread and wine - and, therefore there is no necessity for them to be unleavened bread and wine as long as it is something we can share. So, if you have recovering alcoholics or people who are gluten intolerant it is necessary to have something other than wine or bread so that they can share in the sacrament. The invitation from Christ for all to follow him, and the invitation of the table for all to partake, trumps literalistic legalism that puts a barrier in the way of anyone coming to Christ and sharing in the community meal of his followers. And, if the internet can be used to extend that invitation and open the table to more people then that is a wonderful thing to be celebrated.
Originally posted by Zach82:
On one hand you have people that do not particularly care what the Bible says. For example, Baptists who do not care whether or not Jesus thought grape juice was wine, or people who feel in their hearts that moon-pies and pepsi is communion no matter what the Bible says Jesus used.
quote:Well, I hope you realise that whether you think it's irrelevant does not make it so to anyone else.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Where on earth did you get the idea that I said no one cared? I was speaking against a particular line of argument that I think is irrelevant.
Zach, where on earth do you get the idea that no-one cares what the Bible says?
quote:Flicking back through the thread, and I couldn't let this one pass, because there's a gigantic implicit assumption about what "it" is.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:You have refused to make "Doing it" necessary at all.
The difference between "Do this in remembrance of Me" and doing it while remembering Him is.
quote:Which is why I said we can respect each other, but we really have nothing to argue about. I am not interested in what people feel, I am interested in what the Bible says. Talk about it all you like, it's a free thread, but don't address such arguments to me and get frustrated when I don't answer to such arguments.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Well, I hope you realise that whether you think it's irrelevant does not make it so to anyone else.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Where on earth did you get the idea that I said no one cared? I was speaking against a particular line of argument that I think is irrelevant.
Zach, where on earth do you get the idea that no-one cares what the Bible says?
quote:I would imagine it's not so clear when one deliberately reads the text in as obscurantist manner as possible. Yet, Christians were able to read it and settle on basically the same ceremony for thousands of years somehow.
EDIT: And in a wonderful piece of timing, Zach, you've just got back there again. "Do this in remembrance of me". I'm glad you're so amazingly clear in your head as to what precisely "this" IS. But it's clear to me that goperryrevs is trying desperately hard to convey to you it's not nearly as self-evident as you suppose.
quote:And when the Bible says "do this in remembrance of me", it regrettably does not come armed with a footnote explaining precisely what the word "this" is referring to.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am not interested in what people feel, I am interested in what the Bible says.
quote:Ooh. How I love that first word, it papers over the cracks in the logic of your argument so superbly.
Originally posted by Zach82:
basically the same ceremony
quote:The text says exactly what "this" refers to. It's not complicated, and outside of attempting to show how illiterate I am you probably wouldn't find it so mysterious either. But that last part is just speculation.
And when the Bible says "do this in remembrance of me", it regrettably does not come armed with a footnote explaining precisely what the word "this" is referring to.
quote:When concrete actions are dismissed as not necessary, what is left?
The fact that you reduce the other side to 'feelings' is precisely what I'm taking issue with.
quote:1. As a legislative drafter, I'm of the view that the word 'this' isn't particularly good at the kind of precision that you claim for it. I spend my working life reading instructions which were 'perfectly clear' to the writer but which are capable of 2 different interpretations, and usually the reason is because they've engaged in the kind of shorthand that a word like 'this' represents!
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:The text says exactly what "this" refers to. It's not complicated, and outside of attempting to show how illiterate I am you probably wouldn't find it so mysterious either. But that last part is just speculation.
And when the Bible says "do this in remembrance of me", it regrettably does not come armed with a footnote explaining precisely what the word "this" is referring to.
quote:When concrete actions are dismissed as not necessary, what is left?
The fact that you reduce the other side to 'feelings' is precisely what I'm taking issue with.
quote:The New Testament is not a legislative document.
1. As a legislative drafter, I'm of the view that the word 'this' isn't particularly good at the kind of precision that you claim for it.
quote:Then tell me what specific, concrete actions are left in online sacraments.
2. WHICH concrete actions? You are confusing the dismissal of particular concrete actions with the dismissal of action altogether.
quote:Then you shouldn't try to read it as setting down precise rules!!
Originally posted by Zach82:
The New Testament is not a legislative document.
quote:Off the top of my head, it is perfectly possible for someone sitting in front of a computer screen to pick up and drink from a cup of wine at the same time as other people elsewhere in the world are also picking up and drinking from their own cups of wine.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Then tell me what specific, concrete actions are left in online sacraments.
quote:From that remark, you clearly have NO idea whatsoever what my job involves. The only "clients" I have are people trying to set the rules, not people trying to wriggle out of them. I produce the material that other lawyers try to exploit. My role is so fundamentally different from theirs that it isn't funny.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I add, with sincere respect, that you may be reading the text like a lawyer trying to see what a client can get away with under the law, than as a Christian hearing the commandments of God.
quote:I agree. I would guess most people on this thread agree. Trouble is, on this matter at least, you are treating it in this way, at least in the sense of it having some form of legislative power or force for the church.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:The New Testament is not a legislative document.
1. As a legislative drafter, I'm of the view that the word 'this' isn't particularly good at the kind of precision that you claim for it.
quote:It's not me who's making assumptions as to meaning...
Originally posted by Zach82:
I really don't, but it sure sounds like your assumptions about the text are much the same as those lawyers, and they have to be in order to defend against their wiles.
quote:But it's not that they don't care what the bible says. It's that they interpret it differently to you.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Where on earth did you get the idea that I said no one cared? I was speaking against a particular line of argument that I think is irrelevant.
Zach, where on earth do you get the idea that no-one cares what the Bible says?
quote:No, what I said was not that memorialism was Alan’s invention, but that his insistence on the validity of a completely non-physical Eucharist is his invention, or at least completely foreign even to most ‘memorialists.’ I don't believe they believe that you could go up to the altar or table, look at a picture of bread and wine, and leave. They all eat bread and drink wine.* I haven’t argued for the metaphysics, only the discernable stuff.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The point about memorialism was that k-mann suggested Alan's definition of Eucharist was one he'd "invented. I was just trying to point out that it wasn't, it's held by a lot of Christians.
quote:I never said that. I said that the only thing Christ commanded us to do when he said ‘do this in remembrance of me’ was to do what Christ did: take bread and wine, bless it and give thanks over it. The command to eat and drink is separate, but he also commanded that. Which doesn’t actually lessen our case. You cannot eat or drink a pixelated picture on a computer screen.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
According to k-mann upthread, the only thing Jesus commanded us to do is to bless and give thanks for the bread and wine - not eat and drink it. Which isn't an interpretation I'd heard before, but if it's true then we're all going way beyond what Jesus commanded us. Whereas I don't think there's anywhere that doesn't celebrate Eucharist without eating and drinking.
quote:Which is our point. There aren’t any serious disagreement on whether or not the Eucharist is physical.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Thing is, I'm not sure it's quite as straightforward as you're making out, either, otherwise there'd never have been any disagreements about it in church history.
quote:The greek text (Luk 22:19) we read that Christ took bread, and said Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. Translated rather direcly, it goes: “This is my body, which for you is given; this (you) do in/for my remembrance.” The two key phrases here are Τοῦτό ἐστι (“this is”) and τοῦτο ποιεῖτε (“this do”/“do this”). The text is pretty clear: You are to do the bread. And since there are no command to eat or drink in Luk 22, we must see what Christ did with the bread and the wine in that context. And what he did was to take bread and wine, bless it and give thanks over it. The text is pretty clear on what Christ meant when he said “do this in remembrance of me.” No need for any explanatory footnotes.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And when the Bible says "do this in remembrance of me", it regrettably does not come armed with a footnote explaining precisely what the word "this" is referring to.
quote:While I very much appreciate your explanation and translation, the first thing that struck me about this is that it sounds like a command to remember Jesus when having a meal. Quite possibly WHENEVER having a meal.
Originally posted by k-mann:
The greek text (Luk 22:19) we read that Christ took bread, and said Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. Translated rather direcly, it goes: “This is my body, which for you is given; this (you) do in/for my remembrance.” The two key phrases here are Τοῦτό ἐστι (“this is”) and τοῦτο ποιεῖτε (“this do”/“do this”). The text is pretty clear: You are to do the bread. And since there are no command to eat or drink in Luk 22, we must see what Christ did with the bread and the wine in that context. And what he did was to take bread and wine, bless it and give thanks over it. The text is pretty clear on what Christ meant when he said “do this in remembrance of me.” No need for any explanatory footnotes.
quote:Sorry, I can't decide with what tone of voice you typed that...
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
I just read the article and was amused/annoyed by the idea of all Christians uniting around hating Anabaptists! I am an Anabaptist and we try to unite around loving not hating people...
quote:Apologies, I got mixed up in my original post - I was referring to Mousethief's post where he said Alan had invented his definition, not yours. My bad!
Originally posted by k-mann:
No, what I said was not that memorialism was Alan’s invention, but that his insistence on the validity of a completely non-physical Eucharist is his invention, or at least completely foreign even to most ‘memorialists.’ I don't believe they believe that you could go up to the altar or table, look at a picture of bread and wine, and leave. They all eat bread and drink wine.* I haven’t argued for the metaphysics, only the discernable stuff.
quote:Apologies again for not getting what you were referring to. I'd still read the "do this in remembrance of me" as referring to the whole action, including the eating and drinking; it just doesn't seem logical to separate the blessing and thanksgiving from the eating/drinking.
I never said that. I said that the only thing Christ commanded us to do when he said ‘do this in remembrance of me’ was to do what Christ did: take bread and wine, bless it and give thanks over it. The command to eat and drink is separate, but he also commanded that. Which doesn’t actually lessen our case. You cannot eat or drink a pixelated picture on a computer screen.
quote:But, as was pointed out before, that's because there was never any way we could communicate/gather/whatever except in the same place and haven't been until the last 150-200 years with the advent of telecommunications and the internet. It would've sounded daft to the disciples to suggest they could communicate with someone in another place - in another country! - and hold a near-instantaneous conversation with them the same way they would with each other.
Which is our point. There aren’t any serious disagreement on whether or not the Eucharist is physical.
quote:It doesn't need the internet to address that. The same question already arises in large Communion services. For example, I used to attend Greenbelt every year where there was a Communion for 10,000+ people. The practice there was for people to sit in groups of about 20, one person from each group collected a cup of wine and a bread roll from tables distributed around the field and then the bread and wine distributed around the group at the same time as every other group shared. I know that would be unacceptable to some people, but for those of us who have no problem with that arrangement then spreading those groups out around the world connected by the internet doesn't present a fundamental difference.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The problem, for me, comes with the sharing one loaf and one cup (says he, who ministers in a church which uses wee cuppies! Though we do use one loaf of bread, not little cubes...) - how do you do that, or recreate that? I'd be interested to see how this experiment addresses that.
quote:I was at a eucharist today in which what was distributed was bread (in the form of wafers). No wine. No grape juice. No sort of drink at all. I think the priest may have had his own private stash - but he wasn't sharing.
Originally posted by Zach82:
On one hand you have people that do not particularly care what the Bible says. For example, Baptists who do not care whether or not Jesus thought grape juice was wine
quote:I thought the point of grape juice was that Jesus would never had touched alcohol, which is the decaying juice of a fruit. Jesus was about life, not decay. That's not my belief, just what I've been told by an abstaining Chirstian.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Who cares more about what the Bible says - the Baptists who know that Jesus drank and shared wine, but for pastoral reasons hand out grape juice,
quote:Different Jesus, I think. I'm talking about the one in the NT.
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
I thought the point of grape juice was that Jesus would never had touched alcohol, which is the decaying juice of a fruit.
quote:There's a slightly complex history to the discussion about alcohol in Scripture.
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:I thought the point of grape juice was that Jesus would never had touched alcohol, which is the decaying juice of a fruit. Jesus was about life, not decay. That's not my belief, just what I've been told by an abstaining Chirstian.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Who cares more about what the Bible says - the Baptists who know that Jesus drank and shared wine, but for pastoral reasons hand out grape juice,
quote:They are both important of course, but one (the blessing and thanksgiving) is the basis for the other (the eating/drinking). And the specific command to to this in remembrance of Christ doesn’t refer to the eating/drinking, but to the blessing and thanksgiving. That’s all the text says. In my opinion, the remembrance lies in doing what Christ did, and ‘making’ him present. The eating/drinking is a participation in that.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:Apologies again for not getting what you were referring to. I'd still read the "do this in remembrance of me" as referring to the whole action, including the eating and drinking; it just doesn't seem logical to separate the blessing and thanksgiving from the eating/drinking.
Originally posted by k-mann:
I never said that. I said that the only thing Christ commanded us to do when he said ‘do this in remembrance of me’ was to do what Christ did: take bread and wine, bless it and give thanks over it. The command to eat and drink is separate, but he also commanded that. Which doesn’t actually lessen our case. You cannot eat or drink a pixelated picture on a computer screen.
quote:But they did have images. Was there anyone who though that one could just take a look at an image og the Eucharist to participate, for example this icon?
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:But, as was pointed out before, that's because there was never any way we could communicate/gather/whatever except in the same place and haven't been until the last 150-200 years with the advent of telecommunications and the internet.
Originally posted by k-mann:
Which is our point. There aren’t any serious disagreement on whether or not the Eucharist is physical.
quote:And again, that is NOT the argument. Communication is a red herring. The question isn’t wheter or not one can communicate, but whether or not the Eucharist can be non-physical.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
It would've sounded daft to the disciples to suggest they could communicate with someone in another place - in another country! - and hold a near-instantaneous conversation with them the same way they would with each other.
quote:It’s quite clear. Since the Eucharist is physical, an online Eucharist makes as much sense as an online handshake or an online massage.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
How that relates to this aspect of Eucharist, the bread and wine element, is not clear.
quote:But then it’s not online, and you are not ‘sharing’ anything, except the feelings or the (online) connection (no pun intended). That can be a good thing, God can perhaps even grant grace because of it, but it’s not a sacrament.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Clearly people can eat and drink at the same time "on cue", assuming there's no problems with time delays on the line.
quote:You can’t.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
The problem, for me, comes with the sharing one loaf and one cup (says he, who ministers in a church which uses wee cuppies! Though we do use one loaf of bread, not little cubes...) - how do you do that, or recreate that?
quote:It hasn’t. It just seems to assume that it can be done.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I'd be interested to see how this experiment addresses that.
quote:That depends on how you read the text. Did Christ command each Christian to drink, or only the Apostles? That is a quite different argument from whether or not we can have non-physical bread and wine. (Or triangular squares or married bachelors.)
Originally posted by Eliab:
Who cares more about what the Bible says - the Baptists who know that Jesus drank and shared wine, but for pastoral reasons hand out grape juice, or Catholics who know that Jesus drank and shared wine, but for traditional reasons share no drink at all?
quote:One of the unexpected joys of this adventure is discovering how many people know more about what is being planned than the people who are still in the process of planning it :-) We're hoping to announce some more specifics soon but, re the current discussion:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:It hasn’t. It just seems to assume that it can be done.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I'd be interested to see how this experiment addresses that.
quote:FWIW, my personal view is that both Catholics and Baptists celebrate a valid eucharist. Since Zach82 seems to think that the Baptists at least do not, I was pointing out that if he is going to say that if the Baptist isn't receiving communion because his wine contains no alcohol, then it necessarily follows that the Catholic isn't either, since his wine too contains no alcohol. Also, no wine.
Originally posted by k-mann:
That depends on how you read the text. Did Christ command each Christian to drink, or only the Apostles? That is a quite different argument from whether or not we can have non-physical bread and wine. (Or triangular squares or married bachelors.)
quote:That’s like a Jew at the time of Christ saying, “Hey, Passover is just a participation in the Original Passover in Egypt. Why not just drop this eating lamb thing and merely draw a picture of a lamb in the sand and look at it while we pray and meditate?” Or, to use a more ‘pedestrian’ metaphor: For many people, eating in front of the TV has become a substitute for the meal they used to share with their family. Since this eating could be seen as an ‘image’ of a meal, couldn’t we just then drop it, and watch the cooking channel instead? It’s just ‘taking it a little further,’ isn’t it?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
That's exactly how it comes across to me, Orfeo. And Alan made the point that communion as we practice it is already an image of a meal as a result. So online sacraments are just taking that a little further.
quote:Yes, if the text says that every participant has to partake of both species. But the Catholic Church believes that the command to eat and drink was only given to the Apostles and their successors (Matt 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24), while Christians in general can take the Eucharist by participating in either the host or the chalice (or both), cf. 1Cor 11:27: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or (gr. ἢ) drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and (gr. καὶ) blood of the Lord.”
Originally posted by Eliab:
FWIW, my personal view is that both Catholics and Baptists celebrate a valid eucharist. Since Zach82 seems to think that the Baptists at least do not, I was pointing out that if he is going to say that if the Baptist isn't receiving communion because his wine contains no alcohol, then it necessarily follows that the Catholic isn't either, since his wine too contains no alcohol. Also, no wine.
quote:Or we could (1) interpret St. Paul’s assertion in 1Cor 11:27 — that you profane the body and blood of Christ by partaking in either the host or the chalice — as a verification that you don’t have to participate in both, and (2) interpret Christ’s command in Matt 26:26-28 and Mark 14:22-24 as a verification that the one presiding (as successor to the Apostles) has to partake of both. This is a perfectly coherent interpretation. You don’t have to agree with it, but I don’t see the ‘problem’ you do. (And btw, I’m not Catholic, I’m Lutheran.)
Originally posted by Eliab:
There is one way that you can salvage Catholic validity on that analysis. Although the individual communicant isn't getting any of the wine that proper practice required, he is nevertheless participating in a ceremony in which there is something going on elsewhere which involves some other person getting actual wine, which somehow results in the full grace of the sacrament being administered. That is, you could postulate that even without physically drinking, the Catholic communicant benefits from the sacrament of bread and wine by some sort of remote access, that he has, well, we might call it a 'virtual presence' at the altar because the priest is physically doing something on his behalf in which he is involved. That would work.
quote:Yes, I know the argument. But since the Baptist is definitely partaking of bread, that's irrelevant to the contention I was responding to. Zach82 wants to say invalidate Baptist communion on the grounds that their 'wine' isn't up to scratch - so he is necessarily arguing that the eucharist cannot live on bread alone. If it could, the fact that it is served with an inferior beverage would no more invalidate it than serving it with no drink at all.
Originally posted by k-mann:
Yes, if the text says that every participant has to partake of both species.
quote:But you've ALREADY dropped the eating the lamb thing. I think that's the difficulty. You've turned an after-supper cup of wine into a cup of wine that can be taken on a Sunday morning with a little piece of bread that doesn't remotely qualify as 'supper'.
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:That’s like a Jew at the time of Christ saying, “Hey, Passover is just a participation in the Original Passover in Egypt. Why not just drop this eating lamb thing and merely draw a picture of a lamb in the sand and look at it while we pray and meditate?” Or, to use a more ‘pedestrian’ metaphor: For many people, eating in front of the TV has become a substitute for the meal they used to share with their family. Since this eating could be seen as an ‘image’ of a meal, couldn’t we just then drop it, and watch the cooking channel instead? It’s just ‘taking it a little further,’ isn’t it?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
That's exactly how it comes across to me, Orfeo. And Alan made the point that communion as we practice it is already an image of a meal as a result. So online sacraments are just taking that a little further.
quote:Because eating and meeting are physical activities.
Originally posted by orfeo:
How exactly do you justify dropping one part of the context while insisting that another part is absolutely vital? How do you justify saying that one "image of a meal" is fine, but that some other "image of a meal" isn't?
quote:Then you need to articulate why physicality is important. No, not just important, but essential.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because eating and meeting are physical activities.
Originally posted by orfeo:
How exactly do you justify dropping one part of the context while insisting that another part is absolutely vital? How do you justify saying that one "image of a meal" is fine, but that some other "image of a meal" isn't?
quote:I think I've said a few times that I'm much more comfortable with an online communion that still involves eating bread and drinking wine. And that's my problem with this "online sacraments aren't physical" line. If it involves eating and drinking, it's still physical. I see quite a distinction between a Skype-style shared communion and a minecraft-style avatar eating bread and drinking buckets of milk / red health potions.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because eating and meeting are physical activities.
Originally posted by orfeo:
How exactly do you justify dropping one part of the context while insisting that another part is absolutely vital? How do you justify saying that one "image of a meal" is fine, but that some other "image of a meal" isn't?
quote:Same here, actually.
I think I've said a few times that I'm much more comfortable with an online communion that still involves eating bread and drinking wine. And that's my problem with this "online sacraments aren't physical" line. If it involves eating and drinking, it's still physical. I see quite a distinction between a Skype-style shared communion and a minecraft-style avatar eating bread and drinking buckets of milk / red health potions.
quote:Excellent. Well put.
In other words, eating is a physical activity. Meeting isn't, IMHO. You ask some of my (married) friends how they met, and they'd answer "online". They wouldn't say "well, we met in a cafe, having previously communicated over the internet in a non-real way for a few months."
That's what I meant by "a little further", k-mann. To me, someone sitting in a pew eating a mouthful of bread and having a sip of drink isn't a having a meal. Doing the same in front of a computer isn't having a meal either. The little further is on the scale of human interaction (which isn't a binary "together or not", but a variable, IMO, as was explored earlier on the thread). [/QB]
quote:Have you ever seen non-physical bread or non-physical wine?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Then you need to articulate why physicality is important. No, not just important, but essential.
quote:But you don't share it. You might share some common experience, but you aren't sharing a meal. And again, I disagree with you in your assessment that communion isn't a meal. People get together. People eat and drink.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think I've said a few times that I'm much more comfortable with an online communion that still involves eating bread and drinking wine. And that's my problem with this "online sacraments aren't physical" line. If it involves eating and drinking, it's still physical.
quote:Yes, it's only one aspect. But it's an aspect that cannot be abstracted away, just as any other aspects.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
IMHO, the physicality is only one aspect of it
quote:I wasn't trying to, at least in terms of the "being together" part - I was trying to say that "being together", say, online, is (or can be) as real and concrete and non-abstract as being together in the same place.
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:Yes, it's only one aspect. But it's an aspect that cannot be abstracted away, just as any other aspects.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
IMHO, the physicality is only one aspect of it
quote:When I was a student, we'd quite regularly go down the bar (who'd have thought it, eh?). As well as drinks, someone would quite often get a packet of crisps or two, open the bag and place them in the middle of the table we were sat round for us to share. We were drinking, we were eating together, even sharing the same packet of crisps. But I don't think any of us thought we were having a meal.
But you don't share it. You might share some common experience, but you aren't sharing a meal. And again, I disagree with you in your assessment that communion isn't a meal. People get together. People eat and drink.
quote:Well, I've seen graphics of them, yes...and PHOTOS. I can find you lots of photos of bread and wine.
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:Have you ever seen non-physical bread or non-physical wine?
Originally posted by orfeo:
Then you need to articulate why physicality is important. No, not just important, but essential.
quote:What happens in every church I have attended isn't a meal either. I think there are more calories in the sugar lump you used to get to help swallow medicine at the doctor's. You might get something more meal-like by cycling with your mouth open.
Originally posted by k-mann:
You might share some common experience, but you aren't sharing a meal.
quote:So we're agreed now that anyone's call on this is an assessment, and that the claim that 5cc of red liquid and a minute wafer is a meal is therefore up for discussion?
And again, I disagree with you in your assessment that communion isn't a meal. People get together. People eat and drink.
quote:I missed this before.
Originally posted by k-mann:
And again, I disagree with you in your assessment that communion isn't a meal. People get together. People eat and drink.
quote:We already have, but I'll spell it out again.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Then you need to articulate why physicality is important. No, not just important, but essential.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because eating and meeting are physical activities.
Originally posted by orfeo:
How exactly do you justify dropping one part of the context while insisting that another part is absolutely vital? How do you justify saying that one "image of a meal" is fine, but that some other "image of a meal" isn't?
quote:That’s not bread and wine, it’s photos of bread and wine. Just like this is not a pipe.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, I've seen graphics of them, yes...and PHOTOS. I can find you lots of photos of bread and wine.
quote:That’s not wine. And remember, ‘see’ is not just used about eyes. ‘See’ can also be used metaphorically, as ‘find,’ ‘understand,’ etc.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've also seen grape juice that looks like wine, obviously.
quote:I fail to see how this refutes my arguments.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I've imagined meals without having them.
Heck, I've visualised the Last Supper without being there. But right now I'm picturing the bottle of wine I shared a couple of nights ago.
quote:No, because you aren’t eating the football. If, however, you ate together between each half of a footbal game, that would be a meal. But anyway. A shared meal needs to: (1) be physical, since you cannot eat your dreams or your mental images; and (2) be done by people who are actually gathered.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I missed this before.
Originally posted by k-mann:
And again, I disagree with you in your assessment that communion isn't a meal. People get together. People eat and drink.
I'm not liking your definition any more than Melon does, and for the same reasons. Also, it suggests that football games are "meals". As are intervals at the theatre, and boxes of popcorn at the movies.
quote:Absolutely! God did not become a human in abstract. He became a specific man in a specific culture at a specific time, spoke specific languages and employed culturally-relevant symbols and analogies throughout his life. He submitted himself to the human-made specificity of that culture in order to critique and transform that culture.
Originally posted by mousethief:
T-H-E I-N-C-A-R-N-A-T-I-O-N.
quote:And I find it strange as well. Because I wouldn't call a box of popcorn at the cinema a 'meal', and frankly it's more substantial than Communion on a Sunday morning.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
K-Mann, you're using the word 'meal' in a way no one uses it in real life. If I have a cup of tea and a biscuit, then told someone I'd just had a meal, they'd laugh at me. And you eat and drink way more with a cup of tea and a biscuit than you do at communion in most churches. To call the Eucharist (as we have it now) a meal is such a huge stretch that I find it strange you're still insisting it.
quote:NEWFLASH!!! 'Correct' understanding of the Eucharist reduces obesity!
Originally posted by Zach82:
Maybe obesity would be less of an issue if people realized that a box of popcorn at the cinema actually counted.
quote:Er... citation definitely needed!
Originally posted by Zach82:
You just didn't think those benefits were worth having.
quote:Hmm. You know, the fact that you've brought up a source that isn't written in anything resembling modern English doesn't help your argument.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I have been very open about the benefits of Holy Communion, here and in that stupid hell call. You just didn't think those benefits were worth having. Here, I'll state in full what I think it's about, with emphasis against online communion added:
"And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee that we, and all other who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him.
And although we are unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service, not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offenses, through Jesus Christ our Lord."
quote:See? It all just HAS to be a strange joke.
Hmm. You know, the fact that you've brought up a source that isn't written in anything resembling modern English doesn't help your argument.
quote:No, it rests on there being a difference between bread and a picture of bread, just as there is a difference between (barely) a snack and a meal. If you can't even describe what <we> (used loosely) think, then how do you expect to refute it?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Your argument rests on there being no real difference between bread and a picture of bread, but a stark, irrevocable difference between a snack and a meal.
quote:Let me ask a different question: Where, exactly, does it say that communion is to be a meal as you understand it? That is, a meal like dinner, supper, etc?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:No, it rests on there being a difference between bread and a picture of bread, just as there is a difference between (barely) a snack and a meal. If you can't even describe what <we> (used loosely) think, then how do you expect to refute it?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Your argument rests on there being no real difference between bread and a picture of bread, but a stark, irrevocable difference between a snack and a meal.
quote:But then it’s not online. It is different people sitting in different rooms with different pieces of bread and/or wine. They aren’t gathered.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
And I'm getting tired of saying that I think physical, real, bread and wine are important anyhow. And that I think that it vastly preferable that online sacraments actually include real bread and wine/juice.
quote:Seconded. I only had to scroll down briefly to find the correct response to Zach once again assuming that a person who disagrees with his argument must believe in the EXACT OPPOSITE argument. Which isn't the case at all.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:No, it rests on there being a difference between bread and a picture of bread, just as there is a difference between (barely) a snack and a meal. If you can't even describe what <we> (used loosely) think, then how do you expect to refute it?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Your argument rests on there being no real difference between bread and a picture of bread, but a stark, irrevocable difference between a snack and a meal.
quote:All 3 gospel accounts of the Last Supper indicate Jesus and the disciples were eating a meal ("while they were eating... after the supper..."). Not that it was the meal in itself. Zach argued that Communion was doing what Jesus did; so if Jesus and the disciples were eating a meal when they took Communion, couldn't it be argued that we should be, too?
Originally posted by k-mann:
Let me ask a different question: Where, exactly, does it say that communion is to be a meal as you understand it? That is, a meal like dinner, supper, etc?
quote:But, for the reasons I've suggested above, I think people can gather online - if we accept that people don't have to be physically in the same place to be together.
But then it’s not online. It is different people sitting in different rooms with different pieces of bread and/or wine. They aren’t gathered.
quote:As was pointed out above, not every theology of Communion requires the bread to be consecrated, so this wouldn't necessarily be a problem for those who subscribe to theologies and traditions like that.
And no one has answered this question yet: Since the (ordained?) minister presiding cannot intend to consecrate every particular piece of bread that happens to be used in services where his recorded voice is used (since he doesn’t know how many they are, where they are, etc.), wouldn’t you have to assume, then, that he actually has to intend to consecrate every piece of bread in the whole world, just to ‘cover his bases’?
quote:As has already pointed out, it was a meal. But if you think that's not good enough, and it should say somewhere that our communions should also be meals, well that would make sense under a bible as a textbook type of understanding of scripture. I just don't see the bible like that. It's not a textbook, and shouldn't be read as such.
Originally posted by k-mann:
Where, exactly, does it say that communion is to be a meal as you understand it? That is, a meal like dinner, supper, etc?
quote:As I said, I don't have that theology, so it's hard to put myself into that mindset, but I guess it would be the difference between seeing consecration as a kind of magical spell, or as an act of dedication to God. If its the latter (which I think is much more reasonable), then, knowing that God is omniscient, they can trust that they can dedicate to God the different bread that will be eaten by the different people that will take part in that communion.
Originally posted by k-mann:
And no one has answered this question yet: Since the (ordained?) minister presiding cannot intend to consecrate every particular piece of bread that happens to be used in services where his recorded voice is used (since he doesn’t know how many they are, where they are, etc.), wouldn’t you have to assume, then, that he actually has to intend to consecrate every piece of bread in the whole world, just to ‘cover his bases’?
quote:So, if we ever find ourselves together on a sinking ship, I'll take the wooden lifeboat and you'll take the tooth pick, since the difference between them is only a matter of degree?
Originally posted by Zach82:
You are both confusing the sort of difference involved here. The difference between a snack and a meal is one of degree.
quote:That's another interesting question. There's certainly Passover imagery in some of the accounts. But many scholars suggest that the wider "table fellowship" context seen throughout the gospels and the rest of the NT is at least as significant.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Don't our communion celebrations reflect back to the ceremonial, formal part of a the Passover meal? That which Jesus was eating with his disciples? Does not this sharing of the bread and wine look back to the way the matzoh bread and cup are shared in the Jewish tradition?
quote:I approve of? Do I really need to point out again that the Bible lists what was used, but not how much?
How nice of you to clarify that the kinds of differences you approve of are okay, but the kinds of differences you don't approve of aren't.
quote:Here we are again, in the argument that will loop around again and again unto eternity. You cut "Do this in remembrance of me" to just "Remember me." The Orfeo Version of the Bible. I'll pass, thank you.
If Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me", surely the MAIN purpose is the remembrance, rather than the doing? Surely?
quote:Maybe. But no one is denying that the first Christians did share a larger meal with eachother. We see that in 1Cor 11, which is also the biblical basis for the separation of the two. But we need to ask: What is the essence of communion? What did Christ command?
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:All 3 gospel accounts of the Last Supper indicate Jesus and the disciples were eating a meal ("while they were eating... after the supper..."). Not that it was the meal in itself. Zach argued that Communion was doing what Jesus did; so if Jesus and the disciples were eating a meal when they took Communion, couldn't it be argued that we should be, too?
Originally posted by k-mann:
Let me ask a different question: Where, exactly, does it say that communion is to be a meal as you understand it? That is, a meal like dinner, supper, etc?
quote:But since this was one of the argument given in favour of this by the ones who wanted to start it, it is highly relevant.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:As was pointed out above, not every theology of Communion requires the bread to be consecrated, so this wouldn't necessarily be a problem for those who subscribe to theologies and traditions like that.
Originally posted by k-mann:
And no one has answered this question yet: Since the (ordained?) minister presiding cannot intend to consecrate every particular piece of bread that happens to be used in services where his recorded voice is used (since he doesn’t know how many they are, where they are, etc.), wouldn’t you have to assume, then, that he actually has to intend to consecrate every piece of bread in the whole world, just to ‘cover his bases’?
quote:Right! So now we just have to agree what he meant by "this". Some of the options are
Originally posted by mousethief:
Whichever one Jesus meant, they both involve two parts, remembering and doing this. If you leave out either, you're not following his instruction.
quote:Really? Off the top of my head I don't think the gospels record Jesus telling anyone, explicitly and in direct speech, to do any of those things. The narrator describes quite a complex scene involving upper rooms, all-male company, sometimes proximity to the Passover, proximity to Christ's death... And then, after that quite complex picture has been painted, Jesus says "do this".
Originally posted by k-mann:
The only thing Christ commanded was that one should take bread, bless/give thanks over the bread, break the bread, distribute the bread, take wine, bless/give thanks over the wine, distribute the wine, eat the bread and drink the wine.
quote:Exactly. However, it appears that if I arrive at an answer different to Zach's it means I'm rewriting the Bible. Whereas he, presumably, is reading it just as it was intended.
Originally posted by k-mann:
But we need to ask: What is the essence of communion? What did Christ command?
quote:I'm not entirely sure it is about what Christ 'commanded'. I think that Jesus was pretty reticent about giving out lots of commandments (that seems to be more the OT style). There's a difference between saying "do this" and saying "I command you to do this".
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by k-mann:
But we need to ask: What is the essence of communion? What did Christ command?
quote:The greek text is actually quite clear. In Luk 22:19, Christ says “this is my body,” and “do this.” Now, ‘this is’ (τοῦτό ἐστιν) is gramatically linked to ‘do this’ (τοῦτο ποιεῖτε). What Christ is indeed saying is “do the bread.” Now, what did he do with the bread? He took it, he gave thanks over it, he broke it and distributed it. That is what the text says. It’s not complicated at all.
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:Really? Off the top of my head I don't think the gospels record Jesus telling anyone, explicitly and in direct speech, to do any of those things. The narrator describes quite a complex scene involving upper rooms, all-male company, sometimes proximity to the Passover, proximity to Christ's death... And then, after that quite complex picture has been painted, Jesus says "do this".
Originally posted by k-mann:
The only thing Christ commanded was that one should take bread, bless/give thanks over the bread, break the bread, distribute the bread, take wine, bless/give thanks over the wine, distribute the wine, eat the bread and drink the wine.
quote:If we can just stop there for a moment... Jesus says those words, incarnate, in the room. He has a body with arms and legs and everything. Everyone in the room can see this. So, whatever else is going on here, Jesus' "This IS my body" in the present tense, cannot be referring, literally, in the present tense, to the bread in his body's hands, unless at that point Jesus had two bodies - the flesh and blood one and the bready one. Although I'm thinking we could create a really weird sect by pursuing that possibility.
Originally posted by k-mann:
The greek text is actually quite clear. In Luk 22:19, Christ says “this is my body,”
quote:Jesus was God incarnate. If you are saying that God could not be present in the bread and wine, a position you seem to be ridiculing with the two bodies straw man, then God could not have been present in the dove what came down on Jesus at his baptism, or in the voice, or in the voice on the transfiguration. Yhe beleif is that Jesus is present by the power of the spirit in the elements of communion, as he was at the Last Supper.
Originally posted by Melon:
If we can just stop there for a moment... Jesus says those words, incarnate, in the room. He has a body with arms and legs and everything. Everyone in the room can see this. So, whatever else is going on here, Jesus' "This IS my body" in the present tense, cannot be referring, literally, in the present tense, to the bread in his body's hands, unless at that point Jesus had two bodies - the flesh and blood one and the bready one. Although I'm thinking we could create a really weird sect by pursuing that possibility.
quote:Why shouldn't Jesus command/invite us to do something physical to help us remember? Surely the breaking of the bread acts as a powerful picture/acted-out metaphor of what would happen to Jesus on the cross - simple, yet sticks in the memory. There's no reason in the world why you can't use something physical as a means of remembering.
Originally posted by Balaam:
If it was simply to remember then why the command to do something physical? If all the communion is about is remembering then why the command to do something physical. "Do this in remembrance of me." So whatever this is it isn't simply about rememrance alone. If it was there would have been no need to do something, simply remembering would be enough.
quote:Jesus wasn't actually too great at spelling things out. there are lots of occasions where his disciples misunderstand, or say his teaching is 'hard'.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
And if Jesus meant something more than that, why didn't He spell it out as clearly as He did the "in remembrance of me"? Why leave us guessing about other, more "deeper" results/actions resulting from the Supper and pick out the remembrance one if that wasn't the main point of it?
quote:It may, however, mean something simple which could potentially be achieved online like that. "This" clearly doesn't include a PC, but it doesn't necessarily exclude it either. If Jesus had commanded his followers not to fall into debt, it would be ludicrous to say that it wasn't acceptable to use a spreadsheet to manage your finances, because Jesus didn't have a computer. It wouldn't be right to say you must use a spreadsheet either, but no one's saying that.
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Rather typically, though, Jesus has left what we have to do open to a certain amount of interpretation. But if I was going to be as literal minded about it as Melon is being, I would say whatever 'this' is, it certainly can't mean 'log onto your computer at the same time as a lot of other people', because they didn't have any computers.
quote:Which, of course, would be equally silly. I would suggest that, when a statement cannot mean what it would mean if taken literally, the normal solution is to look for a less literal meaning that allows more space for interpretation - and for cultures that do not share the table etiquette of First Century Palestine.
Originally posted by Arrietty:
But if I was going to be as literal minded about it as Melon is being, I would say whatever 'this' is, it certainly can't mean 'log onto your computer at the same time as a lot of other people', because they didn't have any computers.
quote:Gosh, did I say any of that? My only point was that any attempt to build The One Correct Rite on "do this" (as several people above have attempted) is doomed because the scriptural statements are under-defined (compared, say, to chapter after chapter of detail on exactly how to conduct sacrifices, decorate temples etc in the OT.)
Originally posted by Arrietty:
As I understand Melon's post, because Jesus said 'This is my body' when he had a physical body. neither then nor at any time in the future can 'this is my body' refer in any real way to the bread in communion - it must always mean it is just a reminder of the last supper? Or Jesus' sacrifice?
quote:With respect, I think you are confusing syntax with deep semantics.
Originally posted by k-mann:
The greek text is actually quite clear. In Luk 22:19, Christ says “this is my body,” and “do this.” Now, ‘this is’ (τοῦτό ἐστιν) is gramatically linked to ‘do this’ (τοῦτο ποιεῖτε). What Christ is indeed saying is “do the bread.” Now, what did he do with the bread? He took it, he gave thanks over it, he broke it and distributed it. That is what the text says. It’s not complicated at all.
quote:I think this explanation is brilliant, and worth my de-lurking to say so! I'd tend to agree with you in going for your option 2, but I can certainly see why many people prefer option 3.
Originally posted by Melon:
Analysing the syntax isn't going to tell us whether Jesus is giving new meaning to existing cultural practice or creating something new. There are surely at least three options:
- Do the Passover in remembrance of me from now on
- Remember me whenever you break bread and give thanks during a typical First Century Jewish meal (as on the Road to Emmaus when, once again, Jesus was present with arms and legs)
- Create some sort of rite to repeat what happened in the Upper Room - but in that case there is clearly a huge amount of flexibility in the rite since the NT provides such sketchy details
quote:What is puzzling me is that you appear to think there is anything novel in that approach, or that it leads logically to what you are proposing or acts as a rationale for it.
Originally posted by Melon:
I would suggest that, when a statement cannot mean what it would mean if taken literally, the normal solution is to look for a less literal meaning that allows more space for interpretation - and for cultures that do not share the table etiquette of First Century Palestine.
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
So maybe it all boils down to asking 'Did you take communion from that woman?'
quote:I know Melon's already commented on this, but I didn't think he'she (sorry!
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Jesus wasn't actually too great at spelling things out. there are lots of occasions where his disciples misunderstand, or say his teaching is 'hard'.
I don't see how 'in remembrance of me' on its own is particularly clear. At the risk of sounding like a grammar nerd, it's a fragment, not a sentence, so it doesn't have a complete meaning. 'Do this in remembrance of me' is a sentence because it tells us what to do - 'this'.
Rather typically, though, Jesus has left what we have to do open to a certain amount of interpretation. But if I was going to be as literal minded about it as Melon is being, I would say whatever 'this' is, it certainly can't mean 'log onto your computer at the same time as a lot of other people', because they didn't have any computers.
) was being literalist about this. The point (as I understood it) was that some posters had claimed that Jesus, by saying "do this in remembrance of me" had made it very clear what Communion was and the way in which we were to celebrate. As you point out, that's not necessarily the case - there's a whole raft of possible interpretations for Jesus' words (some plausible, some less so), which Melon (and others, including me to a lesser extent) were pointing out.
quote:Thanks for your reply
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I know Melon's already commented on this, but I didn't think he'she (sorry!
quote:Yes, it irritates me to - not necessarily about accuracy. But it does look to me like the need to be 'sensational', controversial and newsworthy rather than the need to build community and online Church.
Originally posted by Arrietty:
To be perfectly honest I do get the feeling this has been presented to be as controversial as possible, and with the completely unjustifiable and unnecessary claim that nobody has ever tried it before - and that does irritate me, just on the grounds of accuracy.
quote:Surely as churches we should try to maintain face to face interactions in this more and more electronically isolating world. On-line church services as outreach means that there's even less reason to go and visit people who can't get to church.
[a]ll of these studies suggest that computer-mediated communication, and especially electronic mail, is less valuable for building and sustaining close social relationships than other means, such as face-to-face contact and telephone conversations.
quote:That certainly isn't what I've once said on this thread, or what I believe. It feels to me like you are still arguing with Paul Fiddes, whose shoes I would not pretend to fill (and whose proposal about avatar communion was, in my view, very odd.)
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Similarly, this thread seems to have wound up saying that actions online can mean whatever we want them to mean.
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
What surprises me is that Melon is very keen on on line communion for shipmates but he himself takes little or no part in any ship discussion apart from this single issue.
Why does someone so out of communion with the Ship want to celebrate communion as a new initiative on the Ship?
quote:It's actually very simple... I wrote an article for Ship of Fools and then started a thread, at Simon's request, so people could respond to that article. I thought that was relatively clear in the OP.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Because the Ship is not just the discussion boards, but also St Pixels and the magazine too. And people are involved in different areas. And as we've had pointed out to us before, the bulletin boards are a very small part of the whole thing.
quote:So, say, a telephone conversation via Skype would be ok? With, maybe several people, and video? Or Google Hangouts? Or any number of computer-based media that do everything a telephone does and more?
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
[a]ll of these studies suggest that computer-mediated communication, and especially electronic mail, is less valuable for building and sustaining close social relationships than other means, such as face-to-face contact and telephone conversations.
quote:Well whatever you 'feel' I'm doing, I can tell you quite categorically that I'm not arguing with Paul Fiddes. I engaged with the discussion of his paper when he wrote it was on the various blogs that took him up on it such as litugy.co.nz - who I see are also having currently a discussion about your article - and Mark Brown's blog, The Brown Blog, which unfortunately seems to have gone offline.
Originally posted by Melon:
It feels to me like you are still arguing with Paul Fiddes, whose shoes I would not pretend to fill (and whose proposal about avatar communion was, in my view, very odd.)
quote:Amen to that. All shamwari's post really meant is, "I haven't come across him before ...". Which is fair enough, but you can't make assumptions about someone based on that.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And on that note, everything CK just said applies to Melon in spades. Describing him as "out of communion" with the Ship is just screamingly inaccurate.
quote:I don't think there's anything to negotiate is there? The Ship isn't a church, so neither the issue of being denominationally authorised or being in or out of communion with other churches has any bearing at all.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
My very cynical take is that it's being used as a way for the PTB to marshal their arguments before negotiating this with churches.
quote:And although Mark Brown's blog is gone, there's a blog and discussion about it (from the time it was written) on Bosco Peters' blog.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Just for reference, I wanted to read the Fiddes article ('cos I'm a bit of a fan of his, normally). You can get it via the Internet Archive, through this link.
quote:Sure... although that is absolutely not what I've once argued. There's a huge space between "anything you want it to mean" and "precisely one narrow meaning". Being able to navigate that space without tipping to one extreme or the other seems to me to be one of the most important guidelines in exegesis. Eg, from Daniel Marguerat:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
In fact I think you can defend that idea in exactly the same way you can defend any of the ideas here if you make the terms of your discussion wide enough and make it axiomatic that nobody really knows what is happening at communion, or how.
quote:The NT texts that we take as the institution can't be taken to mean "anything I want them to mean". They can't be taken to rubber stamp what my church does and only what my church does either. The legitimate range of interpretation has to lie somewhere in the middle. There's nowhere sensible to go IMO by framing the discussion in terms of "which of the two extremes do you want to embrace"?
What, then, is the role of exegesis? It is not simply to to list the variety of interpretations given to a text over the years. The primary role of exegesis is to impose limits of interpretation. Not all readings are legitimate ... To be more explicit, rather than declaring a single meaning as canonical, the exegete establishes the boundaries of the plurality of senses of a text.
("Le Protestantisme et son avenir", p57, my translation)
quote:Amen. Although, eg, it's useful to have a feel for what issues people see before getting on with it so you can take those concerns into account, ask to what extent those concerns were addressed, etc.
Which is why I'm saying get on with it and then report back. It then moves out of the realms of speculation to an experience based discussion. As I've said, from my point of view that doesn't move the total discussion on a lot, but it does have the merits of being focussed and practical.
quote:Only if you have a webcam, so that we can check if you have a beard.
leo: If someone extends their hands towards me via Skype , I can become the next archbishop of Canterbury.
