|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Magazine - Online sacraments
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
long ranger: Oh I see - the fact that some people abuse it means the whole idea is wrong. Or not.
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.
I'm Dutch, and this would remind me a lot of Jomanda, a quack who would ask people to put bottles of water for their tv screens so that she could 'infuse' them with her power. If SOF would do something that looks like this, it would have me thinking not about Communion with the Lord, but about Jomanda. And that's definitely a bad thing.
Plus, you'll have to admit that it would look kind of weird. Just imagine it.
I'm not saying that SOF shouldn't do it, that's not my call to make. But it would definitely be enough to have me running away from the experiment.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
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.
And if we're taking weirdness as a measure I have one word to say - hats.
Nothing an online church could possibly do would look any weirder than what happens in a real-world church on any given Sunday.
[ 12. June 2012, 10:20: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
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.
In a sense, the long ranger is right: all sacraments are ultimately invalid, because we acknowledge a time "when sacraments shall cease". Nevertheless, here they are, allowances made by God for our attachment to this world, glimpses of transcendence given to creatures of blood and mud, gifts so basic and primitive that they are an admonitory reminder of that muddy bloodiness while at the same time bringing heaven to earth. Proofs that while we lie in the gutter, we can still look at the stars.
Can you do all that online? What will participating in these sacraments smell like?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
That seems like a very strange argument to me @Adeodatus. I can't see someone being refused bread and wine because they are unable to fully 'feel' it with all their senses.
[ 12. June 2012, 11:00: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Just to add, I'd have some theological problems as well if some physical proximity of the bread and the wine to the computer screen would be asked for. (Once again, I don't think that SOF is going to do that, it's just a train of thought I'm following through here.)
I would be perfectly fine with "Lord, we ask Your blessing for the bread that's on the table of everyone who is with us through the internet." No problem at all. But I would find "We ask everyone to hold their bread close to the computer screen (or webcam?) so that the priest can bless it" quite dodgy.
To me, this would convey the idea that somehow the proximity of an image of the priest to the bread is needed in order for it to be blessed. This would put way to much weight on the priest (or his/her image) in my view. It is God who does the blessing, and She can very well do that at a distance, thankyouverymuch.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Uh. I'm happy to give it a go (as I said before) but I must qualify with the fact that I haven't the faintest idea how it might work.
I'll leave that up to types like you melon. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tessaB
Shipmate
# 8533
|
Posted
I can understand that there are those who do/will not regard an on-line communion as a valid sacrament. Fair enough, if you need actual laying on of hands by someone properly set aside to do this sort of thing then no obviously it would not be valid in the sense that it would not fulfill your Sunday obligation.
If however you put the idea of valid versus non-valid communion to one side, 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?
Surely that can not be a deal-breaker for anyone?
--------------------
tessaB
eating chocolate to the glory of God
Holiday cottage near Rye
Posts: 1068 | From: U.K. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What will participating in these sacraments smell like?
I think this an example of a "comparing the best of mine with the worst of yours" argument.
Yes, physical communion has the potential to fully involve all five senses in the context of deep and spiritual sharing with brothers and sisters in Christ. But I honestly don't think that's the experience of most people most of the time.
For a start, many protestant churches today use non-alcoholic wine that, in my view, has a smell vaguely reminiscent of a chemical toilet. I can't speculate as to the taste of chemical toilets, but whatever baptists put in their glass cups certainly does not have the taste of heaven for me.
I've attended many communion services where there is no audible response from the congregation apart from the gag reflex when the grape juice hits the back of the throat. I've also been at services where everyone is apparently expected to try to hug as many random people as possible in a minute like a game of ecclesiastic touch rugby.
I've personally messed up presiding at communion many different ways - breaking off the cork in the wine bottle in the middle of a service was my latest. (We went for the bread only and pretended we were at IngoB's church.)
I've watched how people from different traditions - or even different congregations within the same denomination - panic as soon as someone passes the bread instead of breaking a piece off or says something unexpected or doesn't say something expected or wipes the chalice or doesn't wipe the chalice or...
I've attended plenty of services where other people's children, or my own children, or whatever I was doing ten minutes before walking into church occupies me more than any presence, real or otherwise.
A communion service service, at its best, can be incredibly moving. At its worse it can be as aesthetic as operating theatre decor. A communion service can, at its best, be a great time of fellowship - and, at its worst, a cruel reminder of how hollow and isolating rites can feel without a genuine community context.
So, sure, let's talk about smells and hugs and so on. But, if we're going to make comparisons with the potential of online sacraments, let's not fall for our own offline sacramental propaganda. If a sublime olfactory experience is really a necessary requirement for sacraments, I really think most of the church is stuffed regardless of what happens online.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
(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.)
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
@Melon - please explain to me the necessity of an online sacrament. Even if it is possible, why would you want to?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
And if we're taking weirdness as a measure I have one word to say - hats.
Hats? HATS? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
How long is it since you've actually been to a RL church? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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".
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.
quote:
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".
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
God isn't with us because we summon him up like a gini (sp?).
We ask, and it is given to us. We seek, and we find. We knock, and the door is opened to us.
Jesus is Immanuel, God-with-us. You want to go all sophisticated and abstract on that. But God didn't come to be with us in terms of a philosophical theorem or inspirational poem. He came to be with us in flesh and blood. And till He comes again visible to the eyes of the world, He comes again visible to the eyes of faith, still in flesh and blood.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
[ 12. June 2012, 15:32: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
And if we're taking weirdness as a measure I have one word to say - hats.
Hats? HATS?
How long is it since you've actually been to a RL church?
Twice on Sunday. Are you saying hats are not a feature of religious life?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
And if we're taking weirdness as a measure I have one word to say - hats.
Hats? HATS?
How long is it since you've actually been to a RL church?
Twice on Sunday. Are you saying hats are not a feature of religious life?
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).
I have seen an odd colleague wearing a biretta, but they've not appealed to me since as a teenager I read Erich von Daniken's suggestion that priests were dressed up as phallic symbols. I have occasionally been called a prick, but I'm not all that keen on looking like one...
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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. quote:
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?
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.
It's a similar story on at least some other online Christian communities. There are examples of people trying online sacraments via websites etc, and we plan to take a look at some of them in our experiment.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
I expect computers to be able to stimulate all five senses within a few years.
I don't.
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. Even ignoring our arguments about Real Presence or whatever (us Anglicans have to live with both sides of that) and even ignoring that all-too-frequent Catholic bigotry about validity and the Pope's magic juice (we get that too, but not as much as the Roman Catholics do) there is still something obviosuly missing from it. That is the actual sharing of actual bread and wine.
And that's important. In sacraments and other rituals in church we use ordinary things to symbolise the Incarnation and the grace of God. Easting and drinking, bread and wine. Water, fire, light. The point of the ritual resides in the reality. Both for both those who believe in the Real Presence and those who insist on the Eucharist being entirely symbolic. The symbols - the bread and wine - are real things, ordinary things, representing, remembering, Jesus incarnate, embodied. God with us as an ordinary man very much like everyone else. They are not pictures or ikons of Jesus, nor are they specially weirdly holy things (That's why I wish we didn't use wafers but stuck to real bread but that's another problem) they are ordinary physical things, bits of stuff, dead and partly rotted vegetable matter (what else is fermentation but the start of rotting?)
Doing it online seems to miss that. A virtual, imaginary, nonexistent bread is a bad symbol for a real, living, Jesus.
If you can get what you want out of it by sitting on your own and eating bread and wine - and ifd nothing else the institution of the Eucharist seems to be a command to remember Jesus whenever we do that - why add the extra layer of indirection? Why not just do it?
Do you think you get some spiritual benefit from seeing pictures of the Eucharist? From reading about it? How is this different?
I mean, if you thought that the Eucharist does good in itself, that it actualises the presence of Jesus in the world and brings benefit even to those who do not partake that the world is a better place for the Eucharist happening (I'm not saying you do, think that, but if you did - at least some Christians have, and one of them might be the current Archbishop of Canterbury) if you thought that, then it hardly matters whether or not you know its going on next door or if its going on a hundred miles away. Its always happening somewhere. It would make more sense to pray for those people performing the Eucharist now, wherever they are, than to do a sort of online pretend one.
On the other hand if you think the benefits of the Eucharist are mostly in communion, in communication, in fellowship between believers, then isn't the thing to do to find someone to share bread and wine with?
And if you are not able to do that, if genuinely isolated and alone, or if you wanted to spread those benefits of Communion online, why not do what onlne is good at? All this online stuff is good for some things and bad for others. Its really quite good for some kinds of discussion or argument (as we continually prove here). Its good for keeping in touch with people a long way away. Its an inherently text-based style of communication (even when its done in pictures because those pictures so often take on further symbolic meaning).
Its a good medium for sharing text (because most literate people can read words faster than most other people can speak them). Its a good way to share pictures. Its a good way to share music. Its a very bad medium for sharing food and drink. Tables and plates and cups are better at that. So why not use the Internet for what its good at - text, pictures, music - all very much part of Christian worship after all - and not what it can't do?
(I also hate plastic flowers in church, electric "candles", non-alcoholic wine, little dry wafers instead of real bread, recorded music, and video recordings of famous preachers instead of real sermons)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
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.)
[Tangent]
All 5 senses in worship.
[/tangent]
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
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?
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.
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?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Full Circle
Shipmate
# 15398
|
Posted
Hallo Melon
Regarding an online communion - I'm willing to participate in an 'experimental online communion, or possibly two'.
Reasons:
1)I'm a memorialist: do this in remembrance of me, so I have no issues with the nature of the bread wine/body blood.
2) Community: I do think that communion should be taken together (minimum two or three): although not necessarily simultaneously. Although I am very much on the perifery of the ship, I do think that SOF's is a community & I have taken communion in churches where I have had less involvement than I have on SOFs. I think community could be a shared thread,
3) I think that the boundaries between 'real life' and online are very thin. I am not a different me when I type than when I talk
4)Learning: I have learnt alot about myself and my faith from SOFs. I mostly lurk as I find online discussion difficult (much harder than anticipated & the SOFs has shown me how much I enjoy my emotions & the human interaction in debate and arguement,nevertheless I have learnt alot from my lurking). I can see that this could continue via this experience
5)Potential to give: I'm lucky - I can easily walk/run/drive to a fair selection of churches. I cannot see an online community replacing a F2F one for me, but I know that there are many geographically isolated/travelling/lonely/ housebound folk with many fewer options than me. If online communion is going to be piloted I would much rather it was with people like myself who had a full and free chioce
--------------------
Beware the monocausal fallacy (Anon)
Posts: 232 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
I expect computers to be able to stimulate all five senses within a few years.
I don't.
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.
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.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
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?
<checks> Yes, you're new in these parts ![[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.
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.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
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?
Looks to me like we are having a discussion but YMMV.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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. 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. It is not uncommon to consider that Christians are united in Communion even though that Communion is celebrated in very many places and times, a phrase like "we are one body, because we all share in the one loaf" isn't unusual and applicable in situations where there is more than one loaf such as large worship gatherings that need the output of a small bakery, as well (IMO) as occasions where Communion is shared in different buildings across the world. Because the "one loaf" isn't the bread we eat but Christ himself.
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.
There are, of course, issues relating to those who for various reasons (that are valid for them, even though not shared by all) can't share Communion with other Christians. But, those issues are the same whether it's an ecumenical service in a single church in a town or an online sacrament. We've space in Dead Horses to discuss those, and I don't see an experiment in online Communion changing that discussion in any way. Any more than Communion at our church, with Ribenna which I (and other non-clergy) preside, would affect your experience the sacrament.
There are also practical issues of how we can manage to share sacraments with the limitations and advantages of the medium of the internet. This thread seems to me to be a space where both the theology of sacraments, for example whether there's a theological requirement for the actual physical presence of an ordained minister, and the practical issues.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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?
Because it is virtual, not real.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
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.
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?
In the world of politics and government policy making its a stage called "public consultation".
You get the vibe of the ppl. Listen to their suggestions and take some on board if it fits your agenda.
Standard practise dear boy.
[so sayeth Evensong that attempted a minor in politics before dying of boredom ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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?
Sigh. ![[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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
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?
Does it make any sense informally either?
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.
quote:
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?
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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)?
If the Church exists in a way that goes beyond the confines of space and time, he would be no less present by receiving the eucharist at a different (earlier, in our terms) time, than others by receiving it in a different place.
And if this were possible, would the etiquette be for the deceased to shout "Surprise!" and wave at the bereaved?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I'll agree with the people on this thread that see online "sacraments" as irrelevent abstractions. Sacraments are meant to make the offer of God's grace concrete. Doing it online destroys the whole point. We are concrete creatures, and the sort of mental proximity occurring in online communities is not actual proximity.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I'm sorry for being a dumb-ass, but the Melon originally said
quote:
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.
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.
Amyway, respondees have generally responded predictably given their understanding of the nature of the sacrament.
And then we've got into a bit of an argument about what a sacrament is or isn't and whether it could possibly be replicated online.
What confuses me is what this discussion is supposed to achieve. Are we trying to establish a straw poll which Melon will use to decide whether to continue with his Church of Fools experiment?
He wants to establish what some of the pitfalls are. Well, an obvious one is that some people a) don't believe it is possible and b) think the very suggestion is offensive and perhaps blasphemous.
How is this helping? What is it that you actually want to discuss and for what purpose, Melon?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Simon
Editor
# 1
|
Posted
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".
I've been fortunate enough to be present at communion services in Baptist, Pentecostal, Russian Orthodox, Nestorian, Catholic, Presbyterian and Brethren churches (plus others) and experience and theology both tell me that these are genuinely "communion", and that people receive God's grace in a special, indefinable way in these services, regardless of the doctrine which underlies them. 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.
The online communion experiment is being run in that spirit. 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).
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. 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.
[ 13. June 2012, 19:27: Message edited by: Simon ]
--------------------
Eternal memory
Posts: 3787 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
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?
Dunno, you should ask my wife - we 'met' on an online chat thing (it was a long time ago though).
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Dunno, you should ask my wife - we 'met' on an online chat thing (it was a long time ago though).
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.
Maybe you would, but very few, I suspect, would find it just as well in their own relationships.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
Here's a related question, but one that I think takes into account the incarnationality of the sacraments: If we perfect matter transfer, can blessed bread and wine be "beamed" to a shut-in, and still count as the Eucharist?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
uffda
Shipmate
# 14310
|
Posted
I've enjoyed the discussion so far and I have a few random thoughts to share.
1. Whether an on-line communion is a sacrament or
not is a bit like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. The Last Supper was communion
but no one had yet defined a what a sacrament was. It existed in a real way before it was ever called a sacrament. In a similar way, we are searching for new language to describe communion in an entirely new setting.
2. The Last Supper of Jesus underwent radical development over the centuries, and I would simply submit that if the Last Supper could survive the transition from communal meal to private Mass, it may be able to survive the transition from a church service to an on-line community service.
3. The on-line communion will be as divisive among Christians as the Eucharist itself is, as the various commentators here have shown. But that should not put a stop to the experimentation. No less than the fragmentation at the time of the Reformation did not prevent experimentation with the Eucharist.
4. I have regularly paricipated in the on-line Communion service offered by Jonathan Haggar on his blog. Although I look at them as moments of spiritual communion, I find them deeply meaningful on a personal level,and an important way to reach out to people mistrustful of institutional Christianity. Jonathan reports that those downloading his podcast sometimes reaches 1500 or more.
5. Where is Jesus in all this and what kind of presence does he offer? I don't think we will arrive at a satisfactory answer by trying to jam this on-line experience into the language or categories of the past. Give it time to find it's own language.
Just some random thoughts. Carry on.
--------------------
Invincibly ignorant and planning to stay that way!
Posts: 1031 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Dunno, you should ask my wife - we 'met' on an online chat thing (it was a long time ago though).
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.
Maybe you would, but very few, I suspect, would find it just as well in their own relationships.
All true, but I don't think anyone is suggesting this online thingamejig would replace anything.
[ 13. June 2012, 21:00: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sacraments are physical things. Bread. Wine. Water. Oil. Hands. They are incarnational.
The sacrament of communion is also offering, taking, remembering, giving thanks, breaking and sharing.
You could have the physical things you've listed and not have communion, but it's hard to have the actions I've listed apart from communion.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
All true, but I don't think anyone is suggesting this online thingamejig would replace anything.
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.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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".
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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).
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.
quote:
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.
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?
quote:
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.
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?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psmith
Shipmate
# 15311
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 81 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
@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?
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'.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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".
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
That sounds like a ridiculous straw man, but it's actually more or less the clinching argument made 100 or so years ago as to why the automobile would destroy social life in America. There were similar arguments about how the telephone would do this. What we now all recognise is that cars and telephones don't spell the end of community. They change, enhance and maybe sometimes detract from community.
And they also make possible community that could not otherwise exist. I live in a different country to the rest of my family. Without cars, trains, planes, telephones and, now, Skype - all technologies that have been described as destroying community - I'd probably swap a letter a quarter with my family and see them maybe once a decade.
I'm pretty sure that the life of a modern Catholic parish would be severely damaged if cars and telephones were suddenly removed. In my own rural reformed parish, there would be no meetings with more than half a dozen parishioners without cars. 100 years on, we know cars actually make modern rural community life viable by enabling people to learn and work elsewhere and to bring back some of that wealth to the villages.
So you're right - it's not the same. That's self-evidently true, but in my view it's only self-evidently true in a vacuous sense.
[ 14. June 2012, 08:59: Message edited by: Melon ]
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
