|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Magazine - Online sacraments
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
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.
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.
But I think with a few exceptions, this thread has missed an important point. It's all been about experience - basically, "if I feel the same way I do when I take part in a RL sacrament, have I taken part in a sacrament?" But actually, is it really about the subjective experience, or is the issue (as IngoB has consistently argued) about what might clumsily be called an objective reality?
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?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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 ..."
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
Is there harm done by this though? That is a good question. As a general principle, I think religion should avoid making claims that are known to be untrue, even if no immediate harm appears to follow from such claims. The law of unintended consequences has a habit of sneaking up on you. 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:
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?
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.
That said, the "proper" sacraments are something special, granted to the Church by the Lord Himself. Unlike for anything else, we know there that if we do certain things, we will receive certain graces, by the unfailing promise of God. That's a great and unique treasure, which needs to be guarded with the utmost vigilance.
quote:
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'.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
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.
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.
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.
I argued in the original article that some forms of online church are actually more embodied and involve richer interaction than some forms of physical church. That point always seems to need unpacking, whereas the "actually, a lot of physical church stuff sucks" doesn't, so I used the latter as shorthand. But I don't concede your claim that the best of one cannot beat the worst of another. I think it's possible to do very good and very bad things online and offline.
I think stating otherwise without justification beyond "all reasonable people know this to be true" would be simple intellectual laziness. We need to actually do the work and unpick why that might or might not be the case.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
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?
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? ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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.
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:
quote:
That sure is interesting, but the liturgy is not the sacrament in the end
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.
If, as high sacramentalists claim, a sacrament is a given, and a place where God does something he does not promise to do elsewhere (to put it more weakly than I think you might put it), then the only thing that makes a sacrament a sacrament is (informally) that "God does his stuff". He does it or he doesn't. The bread and wine become the very body and blood of Christ or they don't. The meal feeds us or it doesn't. We're within the scope of where God promised to act or we aren't. Ribena conveys real presence or it doesn't.
So when you say "much closer to", the only possible meaning I can ascribe to this is that "The theatrics at Alan's church remind me somewhat of the theatrics at my church", and that, on some disturbing level, this impression carries more weight informally than official doctrine about what makes a sacrament a sacrament.
And my claim is that, in practice, the entire ecumenical endeavour regarding sacraments depends on what you say makes no sense formally, at least at a "bums on pews" level. The only sense in which Catholics and Baptists are doing the same thing is that white chewy stuff and red sloshy stuff get moved around and consumed within the context of "a church service" by "someone who we allow to do it". As soon as you try to demonstrate that equivalence formally in terms of expectations or boundaries it becomes clear that we're talking about completely different things.
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.)
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tessaB
Shipmate
# 8533
|
Posted
A few years ago I was very involved in St Pixels. My husband was a church warden at our local church as so had to be at all the services. Our autistic son was living at home and so I had to stay at home to care for him while husband was at church.
The community, friendship and grace I got from attending services at St Pixels was amazing. I do not know if my faith would have survived without it. If there had been the possibility of eating bread and drinking wine with brothers and sisters in Christ to remember Him I would have jumped at it and called it a sacrament. I know that it would have been a channel of God's Grace just as praying the Lord's prayer together was for me at that time.
The only reason I am not involved in St Pixels these days is that, being a bit more free with time, I want to serve my church. Being completely illiterate when it comes to computers I need to serve bodily. So I am a Sunday School teacher, occasional preacher and outreach worker, giving me very little time to really give St P's the dedication I would like.
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.
--------------------
tessaB
eating chocolate to the glory of God
Holiday cottage near Rye
Posts: 1068 | From: U.K. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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?
You are the second person on this thread to make precisely the same silly argument.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Zach82: "doing church" online is not the same as actually going to church.
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?
[ 14. June 2012, 11:26: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
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 suppose I see two sides of this. On the one hand, no it isn't church, for all the reasons people have said above.
On the other hand, just because it isn't church doesn't automatically make it totally useless. I was just thinking of my youth pre-internet when newsletters from missionaries would be read out. These people clearly did not think that a letter was exactly like church, but then maybe sending and receiving a letter is a) useful b) the only available option c) better than nothing.
When I chatted to my wife online, I'd have been rather speaking to her in person (though sometimes I do wonder - at times we seem to communicate better electronically than we do in person), but that wasn't an option. The fact that I could spend hours talking to her online (effectively - it was an enclosed university system.. but that isn't important) was of benefit to us and our future relationship.
--------------------
"..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:
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?
For pete's sake- do you really think how you feel has anything to do with it?
Perhaps "internet church" can be a vehicle of grace, but that is not what this is about. Neither is this is a question of how much it helped you, or whether you or your brother had access to anything more. It's whether it is ontologically the same thing as actual church, and whether "internet Eucharist" is the same thing as an actual Eucharist.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
On the other hand, just because it isn't church doesn't automatically make it totally useless.
No one is arguing that. People are under the mistaken impression that "not church" means "not useful/a vehicle of grace."
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
I could produce a list of marks of corporate worship, but ultimately there are only two that (too me) really count:
- 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. I've been to services where the buildng is packed and there's a crowd outside with the service relayed by big-screen TV. 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". At a previous church I used to regularly take the kids to a back room where they could play, with a speaker relaying the service. Because I was also watching kids I wasn't able to concentrate on the service in the way I'd have done inside the church itself, but I would still say I participated in a corporate event, even with a wall between myself and the rest of the congregation.
Now, stretch that distance from a big screen just outside the venue or room at the back of the church to somewhere more distant. Replace the cables with an internet connection. Has anything fundamentally changed? No, of course not. I therefore conclude that "corporate" can be more inclusive than just people in one room. Just as people beig in one room does not make something corporate. - It's worship. The focus is on God, on his great love and mercy, his power and glory, and on Jesus Christ who shows us the Father. God is not confined to a building, nor to a particular time. We are called to worship him with our very lives, at all times and places. Why should one time and place be more special than another? Why shouldn't we worship while sitting infront of our computer?
--------------------
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 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.
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?
I'd ask for evidence as well, but that would be excessively optimistic.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
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. Angels, being noncorporeal, don't need or partake of them. Removing the physical removes the incarnation. It's Docetist. "Online sacrament" is an oxymoron.
Exactly.
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
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".
Scattered all over the world of course. And that is nothing at all to do with how sacraments work.
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.
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.
Christian fellowship mediated by way of the Net is still Christian fellowship. Internet-style communication is really good for some things, not so good for others. The hard job Simon and Melon and others have set themselves is trying to find a way of worship and a scarmental expression of communion trhat works well online.
I don't think that sitting on your own eating bread and drinking wine at the same time as people miles away on their own, just after someone miles away in another direction has said some prayers, is going to be it. Table fellowship is not one of the things online is good at. That doens;t mean its good for nothing - we just have to find out or invent what it can do well.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Zach82: For pete's sake- do you really think how you feel has anything to do with it?
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.
It's about community, about feeling God's presence, about strengthening eachother. All of these things have --among other things-- to do with feeling. And as I have experienced, all of them can be perfectly present in an online setting.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Has anyone here said that on-line Church (or on-line sacraments) is just about a feeling?
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?
I am not doubting the feelings of internet worship, though for myself I hardly feel anything watching a cartoon kneel in a cartoon church on my computer screen. Feeling is a grace, that no one is doubting. Whether it is the same as the grace of doing is very dubious to me.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
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".
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.
quote:
Why shouldn't we worship while sitting infront of our computer?
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.
All I'm saying - and I suspect that most of the other anti-online-Communion people would agree - is that the best way to do that might be to develop something other than an imitation of what we do in a traditional church service; and that the symbolism inherent in sharing bread and wine and water and oil and so on depends on the physicality of those elements and the people sharing them. (That is regardless of the truth of the Real Presence and so on)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Zach82: Some vague sense of spiritual fulfillment is precisely a feeling
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.)
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.
In neither case did I get Béarnaise sauce. Nevertheless, tomato sauce is more like Béarnaise sauce than a picture of Béarnaise sauce - if we are asking for Béarnaise sauce as condiment for our food. Perhaps in a different context the picture would beat the tomato sauce, but not when we are engaged in the physical act of consuming food. I hope the analogy is clear. (It's not about how flavourful the host may be. Just saying...)
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
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>.
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 ![[Biased]](wink.gif) , 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.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There are other ways of handling it - an agape meal may be another way of participating in fellowship through an online service, although IngoB's views would be interesting.
The other question is, churches are counter-cultural. A lot of what churches are commanded to do, I'm thinking of loving God and loving our neighbour as ourselves would not be the norm in, certainly, teenage Britain. Should we be hoping looking to the on-line teenage world as a model for our churches? or should we continue to be counter-cultural in our insistence on actual meeting and actual communion?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
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?
No, but you definitely owe her a date.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
tessaB
Shipmate
# 8533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
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.
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?
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.
I think in terms of making it accesible to people, a physicality is helpfull. As someone before mentioned we are physical people and stuff we can touch, taste, smell and see is helpful to us to anchor the experience.
The church is God's people gathered together. We are told enough times that the church is not a building but a community. In some very real way SoF is a church as it is a gathered community of God's people (plus some seekers and interested others of course.) The fact that we are an online community does not take away from that.
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.
The only issue I can see is who would pronounce the blessing. I suspect some of our dog-collared ship-mates might forsee problems with their conscience or bishops if they did it.
--------------------
tessaB
eating chocolate to the glory of God
Holiday cottage near Rye
Posts: 1068 | From: U.K. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
In the rubrics of the (US) 1928 BCP, the priest is directed to lay his hands on the bread while he says "This is my Body," etc. And later, at the words "This is my Blood," etc., he is to lay his hands on all the vessels containing wine which is to be consecrated.
My understanding is that for the sacrament to be valid, the rubrics must be followed. If the bread and chalice cannot physically be touched by the celebrant, then it is not the sacrament of Holy Communion as I understand it.
Otherwise, what's to prevent me "consecrating" every bit of bread and wine ever to have existed or ever to exist in the world--hell, the Universe!--so that everyone who eats or drinks it receives Communion? Which seems, to me, a bit silly and beside the point of Communion in the first place, which I suppose means I get to stand in the stocks with Ingo and Zach.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
For me though, this would be a shared communal meal - and not the sacrament of the Eucharist.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
The problem with real time church is that, however it is presented, most people don't actually turn up. Part of this may be due to a lack of chance to 'practise' first. Liken it, if you will, to a shopping or holiday experience. People who are not sure if they wish to buy a product or go on a holiday may visit several websites first to test the water (with no commitments made) before booking a holiday or buying something for real. I can see a case for having online Eucharists that people who normally wouldn't have the courage to enter a church might visit, take part virtually and then, when familiar with the whole process, turn up at church for real and partake in the real physical Eucharistic service, feeling much more familiar with the whole process.
There have already been places where you can light a candle for a loved one online - I wonder if those who have done so have eventually gone into a real church to do the same. Maybe the whole Eucharistic thing is an extension of the same process?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'm sure it's Ok for making a spiritual communion but the word was made flesh, not digital.
When Jesus returns for a second time, it will surely be as a hologram. No?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Jesus H. Christ, Sine, I think you're onto something....
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Questions
Would doing this mean an extra layer of programming?
And who would be responsible for the cost?
And who would the programmer be?
Any vested interests?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
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.
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.
quote:
What would an incarnational sacrament in an online world look like?
A category error.
quote:
Or, do you want to exclude the grace of God from the online world?
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."
Now if you want to call it a "sacrament" nobody's going to stop you. The canonical Sacraments (Mysteries) of the Church are not the only ways in which God imparts grace. They're not, if you want to go this route, the only small-s sacraments. But nothing done over the internet, or the television, or the radio, or the telephone, or by reading a newspaper or book, is one of the capital-S Sacraments.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
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>.
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 , 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.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Some random thoughts:
--I did try COF, but it really wasn't the right venue for me. (Plus I had tech problems in accessing it, and there were some rather nasty newbies there.)
I don't think I'm mentally wired for that kind of reality. Now, if I'd found COF before the Ship, and really needed fellowship, it might well have been a good place for me, despite my wiring--I needed community, wasn't able to get it in the offline world (due to health problems), and virtual community can fill that need. However, the Ship filled that need (after I broke it in a bit! ), so I didn't really need COF.
--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.
--Online communion/Eucharist can fill a felt need for a lot of people: folks like me who can't get out much; those who don't have a church nearby; those who aren't comfortable with church; those who are seeking, reaching out for something, or in a moment of despair.
ISTM that this may be a corollary to "the sabbath was made for people, and not the other way around".
--Writer Ann Kiemel mentioned, in one of her early books about her passion to live Christ in the world, that once she felt a need for communion, but she was home and it was late. So she improvised with whatever she had on hand. (Maybe juice and some kind of cracker, IIRC. She was Protestant, and maybe fundie/evo, so that would even have been a fairly normal way to receive.) And she talked to God, and they had a little communion service together.
I know, from long-ago discussions, that the following idea won't fly with folks who believe communion has to follow many rules...but ISTM that a person could faithfully prepare whatever they have on hand, and ask God to do the blessing. Surely, God is the one who is ultimately doing the blessing and real presence in a Real Presence church?
So why not ask online worshipers to use what they have available (or nothing, if they have nothing they feel appropriate), and the worshipers can simply ask God to bless the communion, each other, and themselves?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Golden Key-- just for the record, St Pixels is not like COF anymore. It's more like a structured chat room. You might want to give it a try.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
But as has been pointed out on the the other recent Eucharist thread, there are many different ways Christians understand Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper. Whether Sacramentalists like it or not, their's is only way of doing so (however much they believe it's the "right" way). So to say that something isn't happening just because it doesn't correspond with your beliefs about what is right and proper at Eucharist seems at odds with the breadth of Christian understanding, traditions and experience of this event.
I'd also like to ask what are the "indication[s] of sacramental reality", if not "passion", spiritual experience etc. I'm not saying it should be limited to those things, but if the Sacramentalist view of Eucharist is an objective reality, in the way it has been discussed here, if something happens in a "proper" Eucharist, then what is it? How do we know when this happens? And why can't God do this in some way in an online experience and those of us who want to join it label it "Communion"? Why does the Sacramentalist position get to be held to be the one that determines what happens?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
I have to admit that also I feel ( ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) 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.
Because of this, I also find Curiosity killed ...'s idea of an agape meal interesting. Reading some Bible texts / meditation / poetry together online (like we did in CoF), listening to the same music (I'm sure that can be done technically) and then everyone eating something in their own house seems like a good way to start. I'd definitely go along with that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
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.
But this thread was discussing sacraments on-line, so I was answering in that context.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
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.
[ 15. June 2012, 12:21: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Now, one can get all hot under the collar about what that gathering should entail - whether there should be sacraments present, whether a priest or someone needs to be there, whether hymns should be sung or scripture read out. But ISTM that the arguments someone with a high view of the sacraments has about virtual church not really being church are only equivalent to the arguments they might have about a real-life non-conformist church not being 'real' church.
So what's the difference between a traditionalist looking at a non-conformist house-church and saying "well, they're not doing it right, but it's still church" and looking at online church and saying "well, they're not doing it right, so it's not church"? ISTM that whether you like it or not, if you have to allow one to define itself as 'Church', then you have to allow the other.
Mousethief's anthropological arguments about the online world make sense with regards to sacraments. But you've extended that to apply to 'Church' in general. I don't think you can legitimately do that.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
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 ...
Less of the time zone tyranny! I know people who typically eat their evening meal as early as 6pm and as late as midnight,
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
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.
If actual fellowship is central to the experience of church, then it seems dubious that the lonely activity of chatting about God in the ship cafe can be classified as Christian fellowship in anything but the thinnest sense.
[ 15. June 2012, 13:19: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
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.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
My point wasn't aimed at MT, who I recognise was making an anthropoligal case. I also wasn't talking about whether or not this could be considered church. I was specifically talking about the Sacraments issue (since that's what this thread was specifically started about) and the statements of some here that they could not consider an online sacrament to be truly Sacramental, because it could not be "done" (sorry, can't think of a better word!) in line with their understanding of a "valid" Sacrament. 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?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
