|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Magazine - Online sacraments
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
My point wasn't aimed at MT...
But MT's point applies to your comments.
Look, everyone involved has admitted the possibility that internet whatevers can be be vehicles of grace, and therefore be sacramental. But being sacramental is different from being a Sacrament. That second one is what is being denied- especially when applied to the Eucharist.
[ 15. June 2012, 14:04: 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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
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.
Full marks for attempting to keep the thread on track. It was probably my mistake for trying to continue the tangent Zach started about whether an internet mediated event could be called "church".
--------------------
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:
Full marks for attempting to keep the thread on track. It was probably my mistake for trying to continue the tangent Zach started about whether an internet mediated event could be called "church".
You consider the fellowship of the Church a tangent from the nature of the Eucharist?
--------------------
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
Not really. But like others here I consider them seperate questions. You can have Christian fellowship without Eucharist, I don't see how you can do that the other way around. Therefore, when the question is raised "can an internet mediatiated event be church?" it's relevant to address that even though the thread more or less started with an "assuming an internet mediated event can be church, could such a church include sacraments?". Because I saw an initial starting point that the reality of Christian fellowship online was a given (not unreasonable considering where we are, sharing our views online), it is a bit tangential to the main thread.
--------------------
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
But you can't have the Eucharist without Christian fellowship, so looking at the nature of Christian fellowship is not only entirely relevant, it is entirely necessary.
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Zach, what about prayer groups, or morning and evening offices, or house groups? Are they not Christian Fellowship? And do they need everyone to be present to participate?
For the morning and evening offices, for example, many priests will read them alone, but have comfort in the worldwide praying of those offices.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Zach, what about prayer groups, or morning and evening offices, or house groups? Are they not Christian Fellowship? And do they need everyone to be present to participate?
For the morning and evening offices, for example, many priests will read them alone, but have comfort in the worldwide praying of those offices.
What about them? The only thing I am not conceding is that watching church on a computer screen is the same thing as actually going to church. I am hardly calling praying alone, or online church chats bad or anything.
[ 15. June 2012, 15:00: 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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But you can't have the Eucharist without Christian fellowship, so looking at the nature of Christian fellowship is not only entirely relevant, it is entirely necessary.
But you can have Christian fellowship without the Eucharist. We're doing it right now. Really.
But there's no need to do things that look a little like sacraments but aren't in order to make that work.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
@Zach82 - you've obviously not attended some of the churches and meetings I've been to over the years.
--------------------
"..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:
But you can have Christian fellowship without the Eucharist. We're doing it right now. Really.
I'm not questioning that. Whether there can be Christian fellowship without the Eucharist and whether there can be the Eucharist without Christian fellowship are two different questions.
And if we are saying that this can be the same Christian fellowship necessary for the Eucharist, then we are using the same term for two different sorts of things. We are not actually together even if we call what we are doing Christian fellowship.
quote:
But there's no need to do things that look a little like sacraments but aren't in order to make that work.
Another thing I hardly deny. I am talking about why these things that look like sacraments actually aren't sacraments.
--------------------
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:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Zach82 - you've obviously not attended some of the churches and meetings I've been to over the years.
It seems terrifically unlikely I've attended any church or meeting you've been to ever.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Ekklesia just means 'assembly'. It's a gathering of people in the name of Christ. What is an online church apart from that? Virtual or not, it's still a gathering of people.
That's the one thing it most emphatically is not. They are not gathered. You might as well say people watching the same TV show while talking together on a party line are "gathered." Gathered means "together in the same place." Not together in spirit. Not together via the miracle of modern electronic communication. Together. As has been said, we are physical beings, bags of chemicals. To be together with someone means to be in proximity with their bag of chemicals. Anything else is metaphor.
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
My point was to argue that as an objective fact (as in "this is not a Sacrament") rather than a belief was to deny the wide range of understanding of the sacraments (or ordinances if that's how you understand them) among Christians of all traditions. What may not be "valid" for some may well be "valid" for others - and who are we to limit God in this way?
I think this is exactly analogous to saying that if you feel your brother's chapbook of bad poetry is a "valid" part of Scripture, and I say that it isn't, then I am "trying to limit God." Well, no. God can speak through whatever he pleases; I can't possibly limit Him. But that's not what "Bible" means.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's the one thing it most emphatically is not. They are not gathered. You might as well say people watching the same TV show while talking together on a party line are "gathered." Gathered means "together in the same place." Not together in spirit. Not together via the miracle of modern electronic communication.
And "together in one place" turns out to be a lot harder to tie down once you have miracles of modern electronic communication such as PA systems and repeater screens. People in your typical larger American church using both pass the common sense "in the same place" test. But they are watching proceedings on a screen and they are hearing words and music via electronics. And as for the old ladies in even small churches who hear via a hearing loop transmitting to their ears via radio... Unless the mechanism by which "in one place" works is gravitational pull between bodies, how exactly is screen plus electronics inside a big building different to screen plus electronics not in the same building?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
And "together in one place" turns out to be a lot harder to tie down once you have miracles of modern electronic communication such as PA systems and repeater screens.
Once we grasp the distinction between objective reality and subjective perception, it really doesn't.
--------------------
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 mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
My point was to argue that as an objective fact (as in "this is not a Sacrament") rather than a belief was to deny the wide range of understanding of the sacraments (or ordinances if that's how you understand them) among Christians of all traditions. What may not be "valid" for some may well be "valid" for others - and who are we to limit God in this way?
I think this is exactly analogous to saying that if you feel your brother's chapbook of bad poetry is a "valid" part of Scripture, and I say that it isn't, then I am "trying to limit God." Well, no. God can speak through whatever he pleases; I can't possibly limit Him. But that's not what "Bible" means.
Fair point and I'm not sure I made my point very well. I didn't mean that just anything in any context (like the Jaffa Cake and cup of blackurrant juice I've just given my daughter) could be sacrament just 'cos I might say so. What I meant was Christians, through study of Scripture, looking back through tradition, listening to the Spirit have accumulated (for want of a better word) a huge variety of understandings of Communion, from the highly Sacramental to the "mere memorialist". To suggest, as some seemed to be doing on this thread, that just one of those is objectively true and the only "correct" way to understand it seemed "incorrect" given:
a) This breadth of Christian understanding; and
b) The fact, as stated on the "parallel" Hell thread that even a high Sacramentalist view is a faith position and not one that can be shown to be objectively true.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Well surely if you're looking for "objective truth" then that's pretty thin on the ground in religion, although far more abundant in things that are of secondary importance. From my standpoint, the fact that the whole memorialist thing is an innovation after 1300+ years of solid real-presence teaching rather makes it a poorer cousin, and saying "there are all sorts of beliefs about it" doesn't really cut much ice.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Once we grasp the distinction between objective reality and subjective perception, it really doesn't.
That's a great faith position, but I don't see how it works in reality.
Let me tell you about the last "physical" communion service I attended, in this auditorium, at the very top.
I parked in a car park the size of my town. I walked in with a friend, walked around, rode escalators, browsed in bookshops, eventually took the stairs to the top floor, helped myself to a Bible, found a seat and sat down, all without any human interaction at all, and certainly without touching another human being.
From this position I had a great "physical" view of the stage. The choir and the preacher looked like ants. I'm certain I couldn't have understood anything said on the stage even if the person had been shouting. However, I watched both on one of several huge repeater screens which, I think, had exactly as many pixels as the screen I'm looking at right now. And the link above is to the site of the PA company who apparently enabled me to hear what was happening. (My friend assured me that this church had more technology making that room work than he has in the regional Fox TV studio where he works.) So, like everyone else, I watched the video feed and listened to the PA.
Communion was from "communion packs" (which, for those who haven't seen them, are like liquid coffee whitener capsules containing a wafer and some red liquid). In this case they were passed along in a silver tray. In another American churchs I've attended you grab one from a bin on the way in and can take a handful home afterwards if you like.
The only point of contact with anyone else was during what I would call the peace, when we shook hands with three other people. We didn't know those people.
We sang. But in buildings that size the PA is so loud that you can barely hear yourself sing, let alone hear the person next to you or the person five rows away.
The video feed for the communion moment was a multimedia, text-doing-clever-things studio production, like you can see a thousand times on YouTube only with better production values.
Now, if there had been a wall closing off the balcony where I was sitting with the video screen on it and a feed from the PA, exactly how would that have changed the "objective reality" of that event for me? (I'm struggling to construct sentences that discuss experience as "objective reality", but I'll continue to suspend my disbelief.) Now how about if the room that the balcony just became was on the other side of the building? How about it if it was in a different building? How about if the building was down the street? In a different town... at what point does the "objective reality" change, and exactly what changes?
Now for those thinking that I've just demonstrated why megachurches aren't churches, let's do it the other way. We arrived early and could have sat as close to the stage as we liked. If I had sat in the first row, would I have been "in the same place"? Second row? Tenth row? Fiftieth row? First balcony... How many metres from the stage do I need to be to not be in the same place?
What I do know, from attending communion at LifeChurch (where auditoria are a lot smaller than Willow Creek but still large by UK standards), is that you end up watching the video feed even if you are sitting in the fourth row. I was close enough to the preacher to see him clearly and to have been able to hear him without PA. But that turned out to be entirely irrelevant to my experience of that event. And, on that occasion, the only people I interacted with were the people who took me to the service. Opening our communion packs in front of a video feed of the service in their living room or my living room would have stimulated my senses in almost exactly the same way, and the amount of social interaction would have been identical.
I would argue that we can never be "in one place" with more than a quite small number of people". If I go to a packed football stadium, I don't experience 70,000 people. I experience the people I went with and maybe the people quite close to me, plus background noise and visuals. I don't think there's anything objective about "in one place" on a human level.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But that whole experience is not what I would see as a communion service. I wouldn't receive communion at that service and I wouldn't go back, ever. There is no community in that and it's not what many of us mean by communion or church. Little cuppies are also on my list of the unacceptable for communion.
I also hated the whole HTB experience and at least I chatted to people last time I was there. So much did I hate the HTB experience that when it was all I was offered at university I headed for the hills for 13 years. If we'd had a chaplain there were places I'd have been pointed at, possibly, but that's really truly not church to me.
But this is coming down to the same thing - some churches and denominations would not see that as church and never would accept that as communion. And you're not going to bridge that gap.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
From my standpoint, the fact that the whole memorialist thing is an innovation after 1300+ years of solid real-presence teaching rather makes it a poorer cousin, and saying "there are all sorts of beliefs about it" doesn't really cut much ice.
I think church history is a little less clear-cut than that. Early Christian Worship by Paul Bradshaw give a pithy summary of the history of Eucharistic practice. (His much thicker books are recognised as authoritive in the field.)
Bradshaw's sections have titles like "Yet another pattern." He sees diversity in both the practice and the theology of the shared meal within the New Testament. Far from the church rapidly agreeing on The One Right Way, as I have often heard Orthodox believers argue here, he says that things headed off in all sorts of directions all over the world and didn't really settle on a consensus until the 5th Century. His account of the history of baptism is even more diverse, with some sections of the church making water in baptism optional for a century or two.
Anamnesis (remembrance) and epiclesis (calling on God to continue his saving work) form the first understanding of communion that Bradshaw identifies. For him, this is the focus of Eucharistic prayers in early writings such as the Didache (putting to one side "Do this in remembrance of me... until I come" in the Synoptics).
The "Eucharistic prayers" in the Didache and the "Strasbourg Prayer" don't really focus on the meal at all. He dates the first prayers that do this as Fourth Century. The text of one of them is here. I could happily use that prayer verbatim in my reformed church. I don't think it would have upset Zwingli either.
There are certainly other strands. Bradshaw sees the first significant claim about "holy food" in the writings of Justin Martyr. Bradshaw says that this terminology was originally apologetic, "Our Jesus had real flesh and blood" over against those who rejected the incarnation, and later writers tend more towards "more cautious" language. He sees the first "conversion of the bread and wine" tendencies in the Fourth Century. He sees the first unequivocable "sacrificial meal" understanding in the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (late 4th Century).
So, to summarise and possibly abuse a careful account by a great scholar, it seems entirely reasonable to state that "mere memorialism" was a major - if not the major - way in which Eucharist was understood for several centuries after the resurrection. And, as a protestant, that's a lot more beyond the Canon of Scripture established by my Orthodox forerunners in the faith than I need.
Bradshaw's remaining chapter on Eucharist claims that the Fourth Century - when "orthodox" understandings of Eucharist seem to solidify for the first time - was also the period when Eucharist became something inspiring awe and fear, and when the meal itself was taken less by less people.
The Peace of Constantine filled churches with people who had no interest in being there and who, according to accounts written at the time, therefore messed about during the service. The response to this was to introduce "This is serious stuff, guys" content into the liturgy. John Chrysostom speaks of dreadful sacrifices and fearful moments.
"Unfortunately, as so often happens, the results were exactly the opposite to the intention of the preachers ... Contrary to Chrysostom's advice, they apparently stayed until the time of communion and then left the church." (p73). So, for most people in church, communion became a spectator sport. And, in response to this, "liturgical commentators began to interpret the rite in terms of a drama that unfolded before the eyes of the worshippers."
In other words, John Chrysostom unwittingly invented the practice found in some baptist churches of making communion an optional annex to the main service, and also invented "Church as theatre", now showing regularly in seeker-centred services ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But this is coming down to the same thing - some churches and denominations would not see that as church and never would accept that as communion. And you're not going to bridge that gap.
I have absolutely no expectation of "bridging that gap" given that the gap has never really been bridged between offline practices and theologies of sacraments. Crudely speaking, the higher the theology of the sacraments the more issues there are going to be with online sacraments.
And I understand why the sort of event I just described doesn't "work" for you. I wouldn't want that to be my normal experience of church. I think that's why at least some such churches offer communion in home groups (which of course is much easier to organise if your church doesn't require a priest to be present). Back in France, communion is typically 20 of us standing in a circle passing bread and wine to each other and that works well for me. (I do think, though, that the Mediterranean meal we often eat after the service is closer to what Jesus instituted than our communion service.)
My beef is really with soundbites that attempt to rule out sacraments on the basis of "we all know" claims that, on even cursory inspection, turn out to be anything but clinching. "We all know what community is" is one example of this. "We all know what counts as food for communion" is another. "We all know what Jesus instituted" is another - John the Evangelist seems to be hazy on this point since apparently he never got the memo to include it in his gospel at all!
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
That's a great faith position, but I don't see how it works in reality.
It's a sad day when the belief that perception and reality are different things is construed as a "faith position." You're not the only one to make that ridiculous accusation. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Your post shows some persistent belief that perception has anything to do with it. Most people are concerned that feeling like one is with other people must be the same as actually being with other people, while you seem to think that being with other people doesn't necessarily feel like being with other people.
I doubt we would have having this confusion if we were talking about cars or books. Either the car is in the garage or it isn't, either the book is on the side table in a stack of other books or it is alone on the coffee table. That would be all terribly simple.
Since humans are physical objects in space just like books and cars, it is equally simple. Either the body was in a church or it wasn't, either it is with other bodies or it isn't. Whether one goes to a church where he "feels spiritual" or makes an effort to have fellowship with other people is another issue.* The argument here is that a necessary part of corporate worship and of the Eucharist is actually being together, and that feeling like one is with other people is not the same as actually being with other people.
*They are important issues, which I apparently must say since people imagine not saying so repeatedly is some great insult, but not the issue at stake right now.
[ 16. June 2012, 12:11: 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
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
you seem to think that being with other people doesn't necessarily feel like being with other people.
That is, of course, true. quote:
I doubt we would have having this confusion if we were talking about cars or books. Either the car is in the garage or it isn't, either the book is on the side table in a stack of other books or it is alone on the coffee table. That would be all terribly simple.
Since humans are physical objects in space just like books and cars, it is equally simple. Either the body was in a church or it wasn't, either it is with other bodies or it isn't.
And either Christ is with people when they are "gathered together" in His name or He isn't. But what constitutes gathering? What determines whether the gathering is truly in His name? And what determines whether He is "there" or not? As a matter of principle, you think that Christ can or cannot be present at a virtual gathering? And if He's only virtually there, how is that different from a "real life" gathering?
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
But what constitutes gathering?
This is precisely the point that should not be at all confusing. It's not a religious point. In this regard church is a gathering like any other gathering. A gathering is being with other people- actually being with other people, and not being alone watching cartoon people be together on a computer screen.
quote:
What determines whether the gathering is truly in His name?
Right now we haven't even settled on what "gathering" means, and I can't conceive of moving on to "in his name" until we do.
quote:
And what determines whether He is "there" or not? As a matter of principle, you think that Christ can or cannot be present at a virtual gathering? And if He's only virtually there, how is that different from a "real life" gathering?
A virtual chat isn't a place Christ or anyone else can be because it isn't a place at all. It's a representation of place on a computer screen. It isn't a gathering either, since none of the people chatting are actually there- they are all in their living rooms or what have you, and since they are on their computers they are presumably alone.
--------------------
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
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
(I do think, though, that the Mediterranean meal we often eat after the service is closer to what Jesus instituted than our communion service.)
My beef is really
So why don't we start by sharing a meal together? We can all sit in our living rooms with a beef burger and share the experience online.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
So why don't we start by sharing a meal together? We can all sit in our living rooms with a beef burger and share the experience online.
Eating in the living room? What are we, savages?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Eating in the living room? What are we, savages?
No, we are moving with the times ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Eating in the living room? What are we, savages?
No, we are moving with the times
Eating in the living room!
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold...
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
--------------------
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
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Your post shows some persistent belief that perception has anything to do with it.
Most people are concerned that feeling like one is with other people must be the same as actually being with other people, while you seem to think that being with other people doesn't necessarily feel like being with other people.
I'm saying that, on all sorts of levels, it's not a black and white, either-or, binary choice.
quote:
I doubt we would have having this confusion if we were talking about cars or books. Either the car is in the garage or it isn't, either the book is on the side table in a stack of other books or it is alone on the coffee table. That would be all terribly simple.
I guess you haven't taken many philosophy lectures, where you'd typically spend half a year deciding on what basis we could say that the coffee table exists.
quote:
Since humans are physical objects in space just like books and cars
That's an interesting understanding of anthropology you have there
quote:
it is equally simple. Either the body was in a church or it wasn't, either it is with other bodies or it isn't.
Except that there is no New Testament notion of church as a building, full stop.
Except that Paul repeatedly claims to be in some sense truly present with congregations merely on the basis of writing them a letter, apparently following a common First Century concept along those lines. (I owe this point to Tom Wright, speaking to the topic of online church a few years back.)
Except that, eg, I have joined other tourists walking around a cathedral while mass is taking place. Since it's all really really simple, you'll agree that the Japanese guy taking photos of his girlfriend was gathered for the purposes of that rite? And that the woman who received communion by extension the next day wasn't, right?
quote:
feeling like one is with other people is not the same as actually being with other people.
Since this is objective and blindingly obvious, can you quantify it for me? How many centimetres counts as "being with other people"? Does the Holy Spirit appear and disappear as you cross that threshold?
Or, just tell me whether my description of communion at Willow Creek (which, while not typical, is an actual and non-unique church context) ticks your objective "being with other people" box. If so, how would constructing a wall to close off the balcony change this? If not, why not, since there were lots of people "in the same place"? (In your terms, it's the church equivalent of a multi-storey car park, so it must be simple.)
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
Or, going the other way...
When Paul writes to the Corinthian church, he says that they are not really celebrating the Lord's Supper because they are not truly gathered. Oh, wait, he doesn't say that. He recognises that they are gathered.
No, Paul says that they are not celebrating the Lord's Supper because they are not just eating bread and wine. Oh, wait, he doesn't say that either, and 1 Co 11.21 suggests that they brought full-blown meals, so maybe a beefburger, ha ha, and of course the Corinthian church almost certainly met in small groups in people's houses, so they could eat the beefburger in their living room, ha ha, but that isn't his beef, ha ha, either.
No, Paul says they are not celebrating communion because the leadership is not ordai... oh, wait, that can't be right because ordination hadn't been invented yet.
What he actually says in 1 Co 11:20ff is that the celebration is not valid because the way they eat betrays divisions in the church and lack of respect for other Christians.
v29 ("Who eat and drink without discerning the body") could be a warning to unbelievers. Or, as seems far more likely to me given the context described above, it's a warning to Christians who do not recognise other Christians as they eat and drink.
But, either way, "discern" isn't a "car is in the garage" sort of word, is it? Off the top of my head this is the only NT passage that sets limits for what constitutes a valid "sacrament", and those limits are manifestly subjective.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Whether there can be Christian fellowship without the Eucharist and whether there can be the Eucharist without Christian fellowship are two different questions.
And both irrelevant to the idea of an online Eucharist. The problem is not that you need Christian fellowship for Holy Communion, the problem is that the Holy Communion is people eating and drinking together.
(Same goes for a priest saying the liturgy on their own - its a bit pointless without a congregation)
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
What I meant was Christians, through study of Scripture, looking back through tradition, listening to the Spirit have accumulated (for want of a better word) a huge variety of understandings of Communion, from the highly Sacramental to the "mere memorialist". To suggest, as some seemed to be doing on this thread, that just one of those is objectively true and the only "correct" way to understand it seemed "incorrect" given:
a) This breadth of Christian understanding; and
b) The fact, as stated on the "parallel" Hell thread that even a high Sacramentalist view is a faith position and not one that can be shown to be objectively true.
Yes, but the objection to the idea of the networked Communion - that by forgetting about the real physical sharing of real material bread and wine - it bypasses the symbolism of the incarnation - holds for both a "high" and a "low" view of the sacrament. If its purely memorialist then what its remembering is the actual physical incarnation of God Almighty as Jesus, in a real human body, eating and drinking and sleeping and defaecating and getting ill or feeling tired or cold or hungry or being in pain. Even if we do not claim that the Eucharist somehow makes Jesus Christ physically present, the thing we are remembering or symbolising is that he really was physically present. So the objection holds both ways.
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Anamnesis (remembrance) and epiclesis (calling on God to continue his saving work) form the first understanding of communion that Bradshaw identifies.
[...]
Bradshaw sees the first significant claim about "holy food" in the writings of Justin Martyr. Bradshaw says that this terminology was originally apologetic, "Our Jesus had real flesh and blood" over against those who rejected the incarnation, and later writers tend more towards "more cautious" language.
A conclusive reason not to do online fake Communions! Couldn't have put it better myself ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Eating in the living room? What are we, savages?
When we were kids we usually ate in the kitchen. Would that be better for you?
--------------------
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:
And both irrelevant to the idea of an online Eucharist. The problem is not that you need Christian fellowship for Holy Communion, the problem is that the Holy Communion is people eating and drinking together.
Forgive me for saying this, but it seems we are having precisely the same argument for all your disagreement with me. For me, it's "together" that is at issue. People in a chat room are not actually together.
--------------------
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
@Zach82 - I'm sorry if you feel that you have answered this question, but I am taking someone's advice and seeking to understand presumptions to examine objectivity..
Imagine you had a family member who you rarely saw but wanted to be in good communication with. If you were to have friendly phone conversations on a regular (but not annoying to anyone) basis, would that be a 'real' conversation? Are you saying that there is something about cyberspace which means it is inherently unreal? Or is it because we're all hiding to some extent behind handles and coming together from different places and spaces and mindsets?
I've been to lots of churches where I felt entirely detached from what was going on. And I have also spent a lot of time online where I felt engaged in a very real sense. I don't think that was just feelings, I know that I learned more in some of the online things I've done than in similar offline things because the offline things were rubbish. I don't think all offline things are somehow automatically better than online things because of presence.
--------------------
"..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:
Imagine you had a family member who you rarely saw but wanted to be in good communication with. If you were to have friendly phone conversations on a regular (but not annoying to anyone) basis, would that be a 'real' conversation? Are you saying that there is something about cyberspace which means it is inherently unreal? Or is it because we're all hiding to some extent behind handles and coming together from different places and spaces and mindsets?
Yes, of course there can be real conversation over telephone, or in letters or even over the internet, and that conversation is as real as a conversation with a person standing right next to you.
But "with," when it is not a metaphor but actually with, is a statement of the position of concrete bodies in space. It has noting to do with feelings or conversation. A person can be with his friends, but have his minds on other matters. Or he can have his mind on his friends, but actually be in a different town from them.
Which isn't, of course, to dismiss the importance of mental presence in church or with friends. But actual location matters, because humans are not minds floating in the void. Human are their bodies, and therefore the presence posited in "online sacraments" abstracts the human person from the human body. If it is true that humans are their bodies, then this is unacceptable.
If one believes human are not their bodies, then one is a Docestist, and the sacraments such a person believes in are no the sacraments of the Catholic faith.
[ 16. June 2012, 15:30: 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
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Yes, of course there can be real conversation over telephone, or in letters or even over the internet, and that conversation is as real as a conversation with a person standing right next to you.
But "with," when it is not a metaphor but actually with, is a statement of the position of concrete bodies in space. It has noting to do with feelings or conversation. A person can be with his friends, but have his minds on other matters. Or he can have his mind on his friends, but actually be in a different town from them.
Which isn't, of course, to dismiss the importance of mental presence in church or with friends. But actual location matters, because humans are not minds floating in the void. Human are their bodies, and therefore the presence posited in "online sacraments" abstracts the human person from the human body. If it is true that humans are their bodies, then this is unacceptable.
If one believes human are not their bodies, then one is a Docestist, and the sacraments such a person believes in are no the sacraments of the Catholic faith.
I'm sorry you will have to unpack these thoughts for me - because your points do not seem to progress through your comment.
First you say that people can have real communication when they are not physically present. Then you say that being 'with' someone else is a statement of the physical (actually, I don't agree, but anyway). And then you say that location of the body matters.
But surely that only makes sense if the sacrament is physical - and as a wider point if church is exclusively understood as a meeting of bodies. I can't really comment on the former as I don't believe in sacraments, and as far as I see, the church is something that exists in many forms - of which a meeting of minds on the internet may be one. Not exactly the same as meeting in real life, but still real - just like the telephone conversation. Telephone conversations can be unreal, but then so can real life ones.
I'd agree that I am a person comprising of body mind and spirit, but also would assert that if you are only meeting my mind you are still meeting me (albeit not all of me). But then given most churches only see a superficial version of me that I project to others, I can't really see there is a major difference.
--------------------
"..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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
But surely that only makes sense if the sacrament is physical [...]
Which it is of course.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Well we assume it is.
Even if we assume the formulation that most of you use - ie that Jesus showed something at the last supper that you are all to replicate for the rest of time, that doesn't necessarily exclude online sacraments.
When he said this is my body and this is my blood he didn't add in parentheses 'but if any of you idiots in years to come invent the internet and make out that you could ever do this at a distance, forget it, that is totally out of order and impossible so don't even think it'.
Similarly tradition isn't a whole lot of use given the internet didn't exist during the time any of the time that the tradition was established. Real is a relative term, as I've shown above. If it is possible to have a real conversation on a telephone (which, perhaps, people might have doubted 100 years ago) maybe it is possible to have real presence (if that is even a thing) in an internet Eucharist. How can you tell?
--------------------
"..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
|
|
tessaB
Shipmate
# 8533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]
A virtual chat isn't a place Christ or anyone else can be because it isn't a place at all. It's a representation of place on a computer screen. It isn't a gathering either, since none of the people chatting are actually there- they are all in their living rooms or what have you, and since they are on their computers they are presumably alone.
So let me get this straight - you are saying that if a group of people 'meet' in a chat room with the express intention of praying to God, sharing fellowship and praising God, then God doesn't/can't actually turn up because they are not physically next to each other?
I'm so sorry that your god is so small. Mine is a lot bigger than that.
--------------------
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:
So let me get this straight - you are saying that if a group of people 'meet' in a chat room with the express intention of praying to God, sharing fellowship and praising God, then God doesn't/can't actually turn up because they are not physically next to each other?
I'm so sorry that your god is so small. Mine is a lot bigger than that.
Sigh.
--------------------
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 @Zach82, are we being too unfeeling and objective for you?
--------------------
"..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
|
|
tessaB
Shipmate
# 8533
|
Posted
Don't just sigh at me Zach, explain where I have misunderstood you please.
[ 16. June 2012, 16:59: Message edited by: tessaB ]
--------------------
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
Every thread about the sacraments is the same.
--------------------
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
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Never mind - we are all one in Christ...
... oh,except when we're not all together in the same place.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tessaB
Shipmate
# 8533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Every thread about the sacraments is the same.
But this point isn't about sacraments as such. It is about 'gathering together' and whether we can be said to gather when we are physically seperated but joined in communication through computers.
I may not be the brightest button on the ship's coat but I do not enjoy being sighed at like a child and seemingly deemed unworthy of a serious reply.
Feeling rather miffed now!
--------------------
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 may not be the brightest button on the ship's coat but I do not enjoy being sighed at like a child and seemingly deemed unworthy of a serious reply.
Feeling rather miffed now!
This coming from the woman that wrote "I'm so sorry that your god is so small. Mine is a lot bigger than that."
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
So why don't we start by sharing a meal together? We can all sit in our living rooms with a beef burger and share the experience online.
Actually, that's a common thing for people chatting online to do: discuss what they're eating, offer to share it, create a virtual buffet, etc.
--------------------
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
|
|
tessaB
Shipmate
# 8533
|
Posted
Fair enough. If I apologise for denigrating your view that God is constrained by geography will you please explain to me where I have misunderstood you. (If at all)
I am sorry if I have offended you.
Now can we sort this out?
--------------------
tessaB
eating chocolate to the glory of God
Holiday cottage near Rye
Posts: 1068 | From: U.K. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Eating in the living room? What are we, savages?
No, we are moving with the times
People have been eating in the living room for a long time. Ever hear of TV dinners?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
I get the impression that a TV dinner would be a prime example of savagery for Triple Tiara. I doubt if anything less couth would even be on his radar.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Fair enough. If I apologise for denigrating your view that God is constrained by geography will you please explain to me where I have misunderstood you. (If at all)
I am sorry if I have offended you.
Now can we sort this out?
I have to say, it's been explained several times now, and it gets mighty old repeating it again and again.
"Together" in the physical sense does not mean "able to communicate" or "feeling spiritual" or "eating meals at the same time" or "thinking about God." It means one physical body is near another physical body. There are, of course, other senses of the word "together," and they must be distinguished in this case, because only one sense really gives sufficient attention to the physical reality of human beings.
God is naturally everywhere, but one place He is not is in a chat room. Nothing can be in a chat room because chat room isn't a room at all. It's a representation of a room. People chatting might be thinking about God, or present to God, but it isn't in the chat room itself, and they aren't doing it together in the physical sense.
[ 16. June 2012, 17:56: 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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
