|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Magazine - Online sacraments
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
long ranger: Well, for you, LeRoc, the critical thing is the act of memory, for others that bread and wine is used, for others that participants are in one place.
Ah, I forgot to say. If we'd be going to do the thing you suggested, it would be good to have bread and wine instead of just toast.
Like I said, bread and wine are important, but in my tradition they can be substituted by other things if practicalities require it. (And no, this isn't the same as "Bread and wine aren't necessary.")
quote:
long ranger: These things are not reconcilable.
Exactly. I don't think that the visions of Eucharist among the different traditions will ever be completely reconcilable. For example, there will always be a gap between the conservative Catholic vision of it, and the one espoused by my church. But that doesn't mean we can't respect eachother's ways of doing it.
--------------------
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 don't think it is possible to respect something that others are doing which you believe is absolutely against everything you stand for. Believing that is even possible indicates a high level of naivety.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
long ranger: I don't think it is possible to respect something that others are doing which you believe is absolutely against everything you stand for.
If one thing is true about my church, it's that we don't really believe in absolutes. So, unless it becomes really weird, no practice of Eucharist is 'absolutely against everything I stand for'. Staying with the same example, I have great respect for the Catholic practice of Eucharist.
I actually go to Mass quite often (mainly because I can't find a protestant church here in Mozambique where I can feel at home), but when I go I don't participate in the Eucharist, exactly because I respect the way Catholics think about it.
--------------------
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
LeRoc, the oxymoron implicit in any liberal belief is that one is tolerant of everyone - except the intolerant. Whether or not your understanding of the Eucharist is wide enough to include @Zach82's is irrelevant to the question of whether his is wide enough to include yours.
And as we have seen in a thread in another place, when @Zach82 suggests that your understanding is objectively wrong because you are being emotional, you get a bit annoyed.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
long ranger: Whether or not your understanding of the Eucharist is wide enough to include @Zach82's is irrelevant to the question of whether his is wide enough to include yours.
Yes. It's quite possible that Zach82 or others won't accept what we do in our church as being Eucharist. That doesn't bother me.
quote:
long ranger: And as we have seen in a thread in another place, when @Zach82 suggests that your understanding is objectively wrong because you are being emotional, you get a bit annoyed.
I don't think you are conveying very well the reasons why I called Zach82 to Hell, but I'm going to leave it at that. I'm sorry, the Hell call had its place, and I don't want to do it here all over again.
If there are people who think that there is one, objectively defined way of doing Eucharist, then I'll respect their opinion, but I'll disagree with them.
--------------------
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
And you are entitled to your disagreement. But you are not entitled to suggest (not that you were individually doing so) that it ought to be possible for everyone to agree to a form of internet Eucharist. It isn't. At best, it will be a populated by the narrow subsection of Christianity which believe more-or-less the same things as you about the Eucharist.
Which makes the whole premise of this discussion entirely moot. The 'pitfalls' of an internet Eucharist as that the vast majority of Christianity would think this automatically impossible (for various reasons) and of those a high proportion would consider it sacrilege.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
long ranger: But you are not entitled to suggest (not that you were individually doing so) that it ought to be possible for everyone to agree to a form of internet Eucharist. It isn't.
I didn't, and I completely agree. Whatever the Ship is going to do, there will be quite a lot of people that won't agree that this is Eucharist, and most of them will probably stay well away from it.
quote:
the long ranger: At best, it will be a populated by the narrow subsection of Christianity which believe more-or-less the same things as you about the Eucharist.
I'm hoping that some middle-of-the-road Christians would like to try it as well.
quote:
long ranger: The 'pitfalls' of an internet Eucharist as that the vast majority of Christianity would think this automatically impossible (for various reasons) and of those a high proportion would consider it sacrilege.
Yes, that would be a big, and quite obvious pitfall. But to me, it doesn't mean that the Ship shouldn't go through with it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would say they're something you do, to the best of your ability, following the instruction of Christ to "do this". They're done trusting that they will 'work', although to be honest I'm not sure anyone can say what they're supposed to do let alone know if they've done it.
But how would you even know if it had 'worked'? What does 'worked' even mean in that context?
I think that was my point. The word 'work' has no real meaning in relation to Communion (or, Baptism or probably anything else you want to define as a Sacrament).
Jesus took bread, broke it, gave it to his disciples and said "do this in remembrance of me". And, then something similar with a cup of wine. We could say that whatever "this" is that we're doing has "worked" if we remember Jesus through it. But, that seems totally inadequate to me. The whole question "does it work?" seems to be pushing the Sacraments into the realm of magic - God does "his thing" if, and only if, we get the incantation just right.
Does Communion cause in an objective effect? If so, is that an effect we can measure? If so then "did it work?" is a valid question, although if we can't measure the effect an unanswerable one.
If Communion is a memorial of what Christ has done then it doesn't, necessarily, do anything. It's already been done, regardless of whether or not we subsequently remember that at Communion.
I believe Communion does do something. Although I believe that it is just a memorial - there's no "magic" involved. What I believe happens relates to the "do this" part of the Last Supper narrative. We share together, and come closer together. We remember Christ and what he has done, and our appreciation and gratitude for that deepens. We serve each other, and are served. We open the table to sinners who want to follow Christ more fully, and they come. I don't know how one would measure whether that has happened or not, beyond the subjective "it felt like it did" - but such (IMO perfectly valid) criteria for assessing a church service have been ruled out by some people on this thread.
I don't believe that for that to happen we have to get the incantation just right, or even necessarily particularly close. In Communion we're together, no matter how far apart. We share together, in Communion that is a meal - and I'd be as happy with it being a real meal as with the purely symbolic nibble of bread and sip of juice. Remembering Christ can be done in so many ways, the readings, hymns, prayers and the rest of the service that includes Communion does that; we can sit in silence and remember. Service of others at a distance is more difficult, but I don't believe it needs to be passing the bread and wine around - indeed if that is all we do to serve each other it's an empty symbol. We should be there to hear others problems, and pray for them (and, if appropriate offer advice or other practical assistance); we should be there to receive from the wisdom of others, and offer what insights we have. The community sharing Communion should be one that serves each other everyday, as opportunity permits - and distance might change the opportunities, but serving each other is still possible.
--------------------
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
Here we are again at "I just feel it's the Eucharist and you can't question what's in my heart." Except now we have to do the loop while trying to shout over the long ranger's angry nonsense. 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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I don't think it is possible to respect something that others are doing which you believe is absolutely against everything you stand for. Believing that is even possible indicates a high level of naivety.
I know this isn't directed to me, but I feel like it may be thought by some here to apply to me. I think "absolutely against everything you stand for" is a strawman (since that seems to be a popular concept on this thread). Against "everything I stand for?" Somebody disagreeing with me about a sacrament? Good grief. You clearly have no idea what any of us "stand for."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Not directed at anyone in particular, Mousethief. Some people have the Eucharist at the very centre of their belief, if that is not you, fair enough.
--------------------
"..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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I have Jesus Christ at the very center of my belief. I'm willing to bet that is true of virtually everybody on this thread who calls himself/herself a Christian.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Amen
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Here we are again at "I just feel it's the Eucharist and you can't question what's in my heart."
Wow. I can't believe that is all you got out of Alan's post.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Ancient Mariner, the form doesn't allow you to continue if you don't tick 'English' as the language you speak most fluently. So I've ticked this answer, but have filled in the right answer under 'Other (please specify)'. I'm using Firefix 12.0.
--------------------
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
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
Oops. Sorry about that - I've fixed it now.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Thank you. If you find an answer where someone both ticked the 'English' box and filled out the 'Other (please specify)' form, then that would be me ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I took the survey, AM, and for the record I am ready like Freddy when you kick this off. Pray for my soul, y'all.
Something that came out of the survey that might reflect why I believe some of the things I do-- one question asked if I thought that communion was a sacrifice I gave to God. I started to answer yes, then realized that was the exact opposite of what I do believe. I believe that communion is an offering, yes, but we are not the ones doing the offering-- it is Christ. And to God? Well, the way Jesus phrased it was "given and shed for you"
So, there is nothing-- nothing, not even convoluted doctrinal purity-- that we can offer God, except our acceptance of what he is offering us.
To use the Jesusical method of applying a parable to the situation, God is like a fourteen-year-old boy on a date-- he has a single minded imperative, a clearly focused goal, a heat-seeking missile of intent. Unlike the fourteen-year- old, his intent is not getting laid, but getting into our hearts, our souls, our essence.
A sacrament is God's way of accomplishing that, to His satisfaction and ours. Re-read the last sentence. A sacrament works because it works on us in such a way that we can be more receptive to what God is doing all the time. It's for us.It's not a booby-trap, it's FOR US.
Coming from that point of view-- do I think it's important for actual, physical communion to happen? Of course I do. We are mammals, we are humans, we need the physical, that is still our primary interface. Do I think that God can use the internet to act on his imperative? Hell, yes! The idea excites me to my toes, and I am eager to see how this will happen.
--------------------
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
|
|
uffda
Shipmate
# 14310
|
Posted
Within the Lutheran theological tradition, we tend to see the "words of institution" in terms of promise. Christ has promised to give himself to us in, with, and under the bread and wine.
How this is so is less relevant than whether we can trust Christ's promises. If we always have to wonder whether his promise is effective, all is lost. But if he is faithful to his promises, ISTM an online celebration of the sacrament is no barrier to the effectiveness of his promise to give himself to us. He simply says "Do this for the remembrance of me."
--------------------
Invincibly ignorant and planning to stay that way!
Posts: 1031 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
AM--
Re survey:
--It would be helpful to have answer categories of "Don't Know" and "Other", and maybe "Neutral".
--If you don't answer a question, you get a tiny notice up top to remind you to answer--but it doesn't mark the question. Can it be set to mark the question, and can the notice be in a larger font?
Thanks!
--------------------
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
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
I spent ages answering the survey because I had so many qualifications and reservations that couldn't be set down. But that is the nature of such surveys --
Looking forward to the online communion adventure.
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Thank you. If you find an answer where someone both ticked the 'English' box and filled out the 'Other (please specify)' form, then that would be me
I did the same thing, but I meant to put two languages, so there's another. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
(Teacher's pet face)
Y'know, it might be better to discuss technical glitches in the survey in the Styx. Just a thought.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
There was one question which made me go, "What exactly does that mean?" I ticked "Disagree" but would have liked to tick "Neither agree nor disagree."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
I’m tossing a few replies together...
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Beeswax Alter
On line sacraments are not valid. Period. Full stop.
Isn't it up to God whether or not a sacrament is valid?
Yes, and the only form he has given for the Eucharist is bread and wine (with water). I see no indication that he has changed that.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I agree, it is a pretty strange thing to do - but to my mind no stranger than continuing with a 2000 year old ritual and/or believing that bread becomes human flesh.
Or even believing that a man who walked on earth was God, and had the authority to institute sacraments.
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
(The other problem with this kind of argument is that sooner or later the technology catches up. I expect computers to be able to stimulate all five senses within a few years. In other words, it's a sacrament-of-the-gaps explanation, where technology is forever reducing the "only offline" space.)
Yes, if that was the only argument made. But it’s not, many other arguments hav been made. You can’t send a piece of bread through twitter.
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
If however you put the idea of valid versus non-valid communion to one side,
I gather that you don’t find that important. But I do. I’m not saying that you must, but I will not “put the idea of valid versus non-valid communion to one side.” (And btw, I’m not Catholic, I’m Lutheran.)
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
is there anything wrong with a group of people meeting, say in the cafe, joining together in bread and wine with the intent to remember Jesus' death and resurection?
No, perhaps not. But it’s not necessarily the sacrament. But at least this is physical, real, concrete. When it comes to online ‘sacraments’ vs. real sacraments, René Magritte was right. A pixelated image of a piece of bread is not a piece of bread.
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Surely that can not be a deal-breaker for anyone?
Why?
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Even if he turns out to mean something different from what I think he does, I think IngoB has put his finger on a key issue by using the term "human bandwidth".
I think we have a tendency to underestimate the complexity of ritual. (I prefer thinking about "ritual" rather than "sacrament" because it avoids all that tedious messiness about what's valid or not.) There's a certain primitive quality about ritual, when it's properly conducted. A (spiritually) hungry crowd; basic food elements; speech, chant, gesture, movement.
Exactly. Worship is done best, I think, when it’s done in accordance with our nature. And I’m not a pure spirit. I’m not some disembodied super-cloud computing angel. I’m flesh and bones.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
OK, I have been poking around and haven't been able to find it, but I did, during a spiritual dry spell, play around with an online communion portal. Her's what I remember about it:
1. It was run by people from a specific tradition that taught specific things about communion. (I am thinking that it was Presbyterian, but am not sure.Something Protestant.)
2. In their mind, the dilemma was not so much one of elements-- they asked participants to gather their own elements, and gave strong suggestions what should be used (Bread, wine, grape juice if you must)
3.The dilemma they seemed to want to address most directly was that of consecration. They justified their practice this way-- the recorded dialogue they used was that of an ordained minister, in the process of an actual physical consecration. Since, they reasoned, it was God's word that consecrated the element, the recorded word of an ordained priest should be acceptable.
4. The portal would not open until at least two people were queued to use it. Again, their concern was that of ensuring that some sort of respect to the idea of "two or more" and the actual "people together" aspects of communion were honored. Yeah, I know that if someone was really desperate, they could easily log in on two computers, but that begs the question,"what would make someone that desperate?"
--------------------
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
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
Again, I’m tossing a few replies together...
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.
Why do you believe that? The facts are that Christ took a piece of bread, presumably the type of bread used in Israel at the time of Christ, either leavened or (as I believe) unleavened, and a cup of wine, probably mixed with water. That is the facts.
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".
But none (or close to none) of these believe that you can do sacraments (or what term one chooses to use) without actually using physical things like bread, wine, water, etc. AFAICT, mousethief’s argument isn’t about the rituals per se, but about physicality. That is a part of what the word ‘sacrament’ mean.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
But surely that only makes sense if the sacrament is physical
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Even if we assume the formulation that most of you use - ie that Jesus showed something at the last supper that you are all to replicate for the rest of time, that doesn't necessarily exclude online sacraments.
The word sacrament means a physical thing. Just as football (‘soccer’) without a round ball just isn’t football, or that taking a shower is not the same as drinking beer. Sacraments are by definition physical. As I’ve already pointed out, when it comes to the difference between a real sacrament and an image, pixelated or not, of a sacrament, René Magritte was right.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
On the contrary, the fact that you think 'space is a geometric concept' is exactly the point we have been arguing and hence cannot be inarguable.
Let me guess. Have you ever taken a semester of philosophy?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But how? In what way does the fact that our bodies are physically in the same place during Eucharist influence in its validity?
Because it is physical, and to share it one needs to be physically present. I cannot share a meal with you, if we aren’t at the same place, at the same time.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Definitions can change, as you've admitted yourself. "I talked to my friend yesterday" can very well refer to a telephone conversation.
Yes, but “I sat down besides my friend, looked him in the eyes and talked to him” does not refer to a telephone conversation. This only shows that you haven’t been paying attention to what has actually been said.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The objective definition of 'baptiso' is 'immerse'.
No, it is not, please distinguish between etymology and definition. (If you cannot, the next time someone calls you nice, you should get angry.) And furthermore, could you please cite a greek lexicon which states, for a fact, that βαπτίζω necessarily means immersion?
quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
He simply says "Do this for the remembrance of me."
Yes, but when he did, he did a bunch of things with bread and wine. Therefore it is safe to assume that ‘doing this’ is to do the same bunch of things with bread and wine.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
As I’ve already pointed out, when it comes to the difference between a real sacrament and an image, pixelated or not, of a sacrament, René Magritte was right.
As you've given that link twice, it raises (for me) some interesting questions relating to images. I would say that it is entirely appropriate to refer to the sacraments as images.
We say sacraments are 'signs' or 'symbols'. That is, they represent something else, they are an image.
Communion is a ritualised meal. It isn't a meal (the way most of us celebrate it, you're not going to be able to skip lunch because you had sufficient bread at the Communion service), it's a representation of a meal. It's an image.
In many cases, Communion is accompanied by words like "the body of Christ" and "the blood of Christ". The bread and wine isn't actually human flesh and blood, let alone the flesh and blood of someone alive 2000 years ago. It's a representation of our Lords broken body and shed blood (and I accept that in some traditions something mysterious happens that makes the element more than just bread and wine, but as I understand it they still remain bread and wine). It's an image.
So, if as I believe, sacraments are an image of something else what fundamental difference would there be if they were a different sort of image? Providing they show the same reality as the images we already use?
--------------------
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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
K-Mann, thanks for your responses. A lot of the points you've made have already been made by others, and responded to - it is a long thread, but there haven't always been responses to those responses.
In particular, the way you and a few others have spoken about Jesus instituted the sacraments gives this kind of picture of Jesus sitting down with his disciples, giving them an instruction book of how to carry out each sacrament, in detail.
But that is about as far from what happened as you can get. He didn't even say what was a sacrament or not, he gave very loose 'instructions' (if they can even be called that). Just reading scripture alone (which I know shouldn't be divorced from tradition), you could make as strong a case for foot washing as a sacrament as that of communion. Where did Jesus institute the sacrament of marriage?
In other words, it's the Church that has defined the sacraments, not Jesus. To me that is a massively important point. Earlier in the thread, Marvin responded to "who gets to define the sacraments" with "all of us. Christians.". And since the start, the church has disagreed (as it usually does) about what those definitions are.
So then, when you compare an online (or even a baptist?) Eucharist, and say "it's not like Jesus instituted it", how is that different to me looking at what you might do in your church and saying the same thing? It's not part of an actual meal, like when Jesus did it. You haven't got proper bread, just wafers. You're not sharing one loaf - there's too many of you... and so on. Your church has picked and chosen which parts of the 'original' Eucharist are important to copy, and which parts aren't. If another church picks and chooses different parts, then the argument shouldn't be "you're not copying Jesus", but "you've picked the wrong bits". Which is why, for me, the argument over physicality is a lot more important than the "Jesus said" route.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The objective definition of 'baptiso' is 'immerse'.
No, it is not, please distinguish between etymology and definition. (If you cannot, the next time someone calls you nice, you should get angry.) And furthermore, could you please cite a greek lexicon which states, for a fact, that βαπτίζω necessarily means immersion?
You're right, and others have pointed out (and I acknowledged) that I was clumsy with my language. But I fear that the wider point was lost. I was not saying (as I have heard said by others) that baptism should always therefore involve immersion. I was saying that the definition of baptism has changed, broadened, over the church's history.
The same has happened with other sacraments. Baptism's definition perhaps broadened because of the availability of water for those not near a river. Marriage has also changed, from an unequal relationship to equal partnership. It may change further soon, to encompass same-sex relationships.This all goes to suggest that the sacraments are not defined in some easily recognisable objective way, but in a loose, changeable way that adapts as societies and cultures change, and the church responds to that.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
Again, I’m tossing a few replies together...
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As you've given that link twice, it raises (for me) some interesting questions relating to images. I would say that it is entirely appropriate to refer to the sacraments as images.
We say sacraments are 'signs' or 'symbols'. That is, they represent something else, they are an image.
Are they only images? And furthermore, would an image of an image suffice? But again, the argument is about physicality.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Communion is a ritualised meal. It isn't a meal (the way most of us celebrate it, you're not going to be able to skip lunch because you had sufficient bread at the Communion service), it's a representation of a meal. It's an image.
So I just thought I ate and drank the last time I celebrated the Eucharist?
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In many cases, Communion is accompanied by words like "the body of Christ" and "the blood of Christ". The bread and wine isn't actually human flesh and blood, let alone the flesh and blood of someone alive 2000 years ago.
Well, I guess we disagree there. Well not quite. I believe it is the flesh and blood of Christ who is alive now.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's a representation of our Lords broken body and shed blood (and I accept that in some traditions something mysterious happens that makes the element more than just bread and wine, but as I understand it they still remain bread and wine). It's an image.
Again, I disagree. But that is not my point, and not the point of most arguments from the ‘sacramentalists.’ The argument is that a sacrament is by definition a concrete, physical thing. Therefore it is not possible to have it online, just like an image of a pipe isn’t actually a pipe, and just like a woman cannot get pregnant by chatting in a forum.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, if as I believe, sacraments are an image of something else what fundamental difference would there be if they were a different sort of image? Providing they show the same reality as the images we already use?
Maybe not much. But that is not a sacrament. The word ‘sacrament’ means something objective, a concrete, physical thing. Just like ‘pipe’ means something concrete, and not an image.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In particular, the way you and a few others have spoken about Jesus instituted the sacraments gives this kind of picture of Jesus sitting down with his disciples, giving them an instruction book of how to carry out each sacrament, in detail.
No, we have just pointed out that Christ sat did a bunch of things with bread and wine, and said “do this in remembrance of me.” Therefore it is safe to assume that ‘doing this’ is to do the same bunch of things with bread and wine. (Remember that the ‘doing this’ part, which is only found in Luke and 1. Corinthians, does not refer to eating or drinking, but to the blessings/thanksgivings done by Christ.)
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But that is about as far from what happened as you can get. He didn't even say what was a sacrament or not, he gave very loose 'instructions' (if they can even be called that). Just reading scripture alone (which I know shouldn't be divorced from tradition), you could make as strong a case for foot washing as a sacrament as that of communion. Where did Jesus institute the sacrament of marriage?
Well, Christ did not say “do this in remembrance of me” after washing the feet of the disciples. But of course, we could do that. And many do, including the Catholic Church. As for the sacrament of marriage, I’m Lutheran.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In other words, it's the Church that has defined the sacraments, not Jesus.
Yes, just like Christ never gave us a list of books that make up the New Testament. Do you reject the list as we have it?
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
To me that is a massively important point. Earlier in the thread, Marvin responded to "who gets to define the sacraments" with "all of us. Christians.". And since the start, the church has disagreed (as it usually does) about what those definitions are.
And as has been pointed out on numerous occasions here, that is not the point at issue. The questions are: Can you abstract away the physicaility of a sacrament? Have the historical disagreement on the sacraments ever been about their physicaility?
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So then, when you compare an online (or even a baptist?) Eucharist, and say "it's not like Jesus instituted it", how is that different to me looking at what you might do in your church and saying the same thing? It's not part of an actual meal, like when Jesus did it. You haven't got proper bread, just wafers. You're not sharing one loaf - there's too many of you... and so on. Your church has picked and chosen which parts of the 'original' Eucharist are important to copy, and which parts aren't. If another church picks and chooses different parts, then the argument shouldn't be "you're not copying Jesus", but "you've picked the wrong bits". Which is why, for me, the argument over physicality is a lot more important than the "Jesus said" route.
It would be interesting to see if you could actually answer my post, and not some point I haven’t made. I haven’t said a thing about the rituals, but about the inherent physicality of sacraments. And how do you know how we perform the sacrament? Do you know where I go to church, or do you just assume that you know? Again this is not a discussion about rituals as such, but about the inherent physicality of sacraments.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But I fear that the wider point was lost. I was not saying (as I have heard said by others) that baptism should always therefore involve immersion. I was saying that the definition of baptism has changed, broadened, over the church's history.
I know perfectly well what your argument was. I’m asking you to back it up. Could you please cite a greek lexicon which states, for a fact, that βαπτίζω necessarily means immersion?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Again, I’m tossing a few replies together...
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As you've given that link twice, it raises (for me) some interesting questions relating to images. I would say that it is entirely appropriate to refer to the sacraments as images.
We say sacraments are 'signs' or 'symbols'. That is, they represent something else, they are an image.
Are they only images?
Paul speaks, in Colossians, of Christ being an 'image' of God. 'Image' suggests something really powerful; more than some sort of token.
[ 01. July 2012, 14:50: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
So I just thought I ate and drank the last time I celebrated the Eucharist?
I think Alan's point was that it isn't a meal, not that it wasn't eating.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Yes, just like Christ never gave us a list of books that make up the New Testament. Do you reject the list as we have it?
Of course not, but that makes no difference to my point, that it's the church's job (still) to decide what sacraments are. And as usual, it's in a messy, discussion-filled way. My point was refuting the idea that Jesus spelt out exactly what all the sacraments are.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Have the historical disagreement on the sacraments ever been about their physicaility?
No, but there has never been a need to - the Internet was not around, and there was no other context in which that discussion would have occurred. There was no historical disagreement on contraception until it existed, at which point there was a lot of disagreement.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I haven’t said a thing about the rituals, but about the inherent physicality of sacraments. And how do you know how we perform the sacrament? Do you know where I go to church, or do you just assume that you know? Again this is not a discussion about rituals as such, but about the inherent physicality of sacraments.
Sorry, my wording was poor again. I wasn't making assumptions about your church (which is why I said "what you might do"). The examples were meant to be general, not specific to your church; I apologise if it came across that way.
On the physicality of sacraments, I'm much more in agreement than you might think - which is why if I was involved in the idea of online sacraments it would probably me very similar to the description Kelly gave. But I'm willing to see how it might work in another way - my opinion is still undecided on whether a minecraft communion service would be worth it or not. But I'll give it a go.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I know perfectly well what your argument was. I’m asking you to back it up. Could you please cite a greek lexicon which states, for a fact, that βαπτίζω necessarily means immersion?
Well, every concordance I've read gives the original meaning as "dip" or "immerse". If I've misunderstood, I'm very happy to be corrected. I have no problem with non-immersive baptism (it's how I was baptised myself), and it's not exactly an ultra-important part of what I've been saying on this thread.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
So I just thought I ate and drank the last time I celebrated the Eucharist?
I think Alan's point was that it isn't a meal, not that it wasn't eating.
Exactly, as we commonly celebrate Communion we eat, but don't share a meal. In fact, we've abstracted the original meal to such an extent that physical sustainance is now almost totally removed. Offering Communion to a starving man would make no difference at all to his physical needs. We've turned a meal into an image, and it's not even a good representation of a meal to the extent that the "having enough to prevent starvation" feature of a meal is absent, or rather spiritualised). Since we've already taken the community meal of the early church and turned it into a non-meal ritual, why shouldn't we explore option to go further and find ways of sharing a symbolic "meal" in other ways?
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
k-mann: Because it is physical, and to share it one needs to be physically present. I cannot share a meal with you, if we aren’t at the same place, at the same time.
Yes, but “I sat down besides my friend, looked him in the eyes and talked to him” does not refer to a telephone conversation. This only shows that you haven’t been paying attention to what has actually been said.
You're repeating arguments that have been giving before on this thread. If "it's not real if it's not physical" is important for you, then I respect that. However, I happen to have other thoughts about it.
--------------------
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
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If "it's not real if it's not physical" is important for you, then I respect that. However, I happen to have other thoughts about it.
If a thing is physical by definition, the of course it’s not real if it’s not physical. Just like an non-physical apple is absurd. The word Eucharist by definition denotes something physical. It’s inherent in the definition of the word. If you asked me to draw a circle, but I drawed a square, I bet you wouldn’t accept my excuse if I said “but I feel that cirles have four equal corners.” That is not what the word ‘circle’ means.
A non-phsyical Eucharist is absurd for the same reason that circular square is absurd.
For the record, there are many real non-physical things. There are, however, no real non-phsyical physical things.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm sorry, but you're going around in circles, with or without corners. I've been over this a number of times on this thread already, and I'm not inclined to repeat it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm sorry, but you're going around in circles, with or without corners. I've been over this a number of times on this thread already, and I'm not inclined to repeat it.
It will ever be thus as far as this subject goes.
I would love to see the Ship host online services. I miss the old CofF and early St Pixels. We have lots of ministers here who are more than capable, and retired ministers who would enjoy the challenge.
I don't see the need for Eucharist to be part of it 'tho.
If it is so divisive, leave it out.
Personally I suspect that the hidden agenda behind the idea of online eucharist is to draw attention, to be 'controversial' as online Church is no longer big news.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
A non-phsyical Eucharist is absurd for the same reason that circular square is absurd.
So would you have a problem with an on-line service like the one Kelly described up-thread, with real, physical wine and bread, not just 'cartoons on a screen' (to use an earlier phrase)?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
goperryrev - Have you ever tried to organise an ecumenical service? Have you ever worked out who would partake in communion if it was part of that ecumenical service?
I've been part of the discussions and when I thought it through, virtually nobody from the Catholic church would take part and quite a number from the different Anglican congregations would not participate either. At which point the whole issue has become divisive and I suggested that it's better not to offer communion as a part of an ecumenical service. Particularly as the aim from those discussions was to get the local churches working and praying together; ensuring the largest local churches would not attend was a bit self-defeating. I then had to persuade the others, non-conformists, in the room.
I wonder how this discussion would have panned out if Melon had started by saying "but all the churches have changed how they do baptism so much that we have to rethink that one and work out how we can baptise on-line."
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I understand the people who are saying that trying a form of unline communion would be potentialle divisive among Ship members. What I'm not sure about, is why that would be a bad thing.
I mean, it's not that the Ship is one church, nor is it striving to be. Between us, we are already divided about a range of subjects. Just read the discussions in Purg, or even better, Dead Horses.
So maybe I'm just curious: why would this divisiveness be a bad thing?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The word Eucharist by definition denotes something physical. It’s inherent in the definition of the word.
AIUI, 'Eucharist' is a word that basically means "thanksgiving". "Sacrament" is an outwards sign of grace. Neither denotes something necessarily physical, even if in practice (and, by practical necesity) they have involved physicality prior to the advent of the internet.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I wonder how this discussion would have panned out if Melon had started by saying "but all the churches have changed how they do baptism so much that we have to rethink that one and work out how we can baptise on-line."
The OP and thread title are about online sacraments. We've mainly discussed Communion mainly (ISTM) because it's an often repeated sacrament - most Christians would have issues with repeated baptisms, and there's a limit to how many times people are married or ordained (for those who consider these to be Sacraments).
But, imagine a scenario. Several people chatting in the Cafe one evening. As a result of the conversation one of them makes a commitment of faith, and wants to mark that by being baptised. And, like the Ethiopian Eunach, asks "what is to stop me from being baptised at this moment?" Would the absence of anyone else in his home be a necessary hinderance? Would he have to be baptised by a community that he had no prior contact to, and had no role in his conversion?
--------------------
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
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Creswell
But, imagine a scenario. Several people chatting in the Cafe one evening. As a result of the conversation one of them makes a commitment of faith, and wants to mark that by being baptised. And, like the Ethiopian Eunach, asks "what is to stop me from being baptised at this moment?" Would the absence of anyone else in his home be a necessary hinderance? Would he have to be baptised by a community that he had no prior contact to, and had no role in his conversion?
That anyone may baptise is covered in the BCP, p 313: " In case of emergency, any baptized person may adminisyer Baptism according to the following form..
This would seem to answer the question.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
So, go run the bath. Take the laptop to the bathroom and turn on the webcam. Everyone log into Skype (or whatever). New Christian jumps in the bath and splashes water around while other people in the chat room watch and one person types (or says into their webcam) "Name I baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". All without anyone having to leave their home.
--------------------
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
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yeah, I know that if someone was really desperate, they could easily log in on two computers, but that begs the question,"what would make someone that desperate?"
Apologies if this has been addressed but IRL anyone disrupting a service can be managed... and we all are familiar with the type of aggressive poster who feels some need to inject himself into MANY forum conversations.
How could you prevent someone from disrupting online sacraments?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
The word Eucharist by definition denotes something physical. It’s inherent in the definition of the word.
AIUI, 'Eucharist' is a word that basically means "thanksgiving".
Aaaaand yet another person falls into the etymology=meaning trap.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, imagine a scenario. Several people chatting in the Cafe one evening. As a result of the conversation one of them makes a commitment of faith, and wants to mark that by being baptised. And, like the Ethiopian Eunach, asks "what is to stop me from being baptised at this moment?" Would the absence of anyone else in his home be a necessary hinderance? Would he have to be baptised by a community that he had no prior contact to, and had no role in his conversion?
No, but he would have to be baptised by SOMEONE, with water. And they'd have to be roughly adjacent, because that's what baptism is. Splashing (or even dunking) yourself with water while someone watches you over your webcam, whatever else it is, isn't baptism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
How could you prevent someone from disrupting online sacraments?
Assuming a human being had to make the decision about whether someone was being disruptive enough to be silenced or chucked out by the software, it would then depend on how good your software was.
Along with others who are still around SoF, I was a 'warden' on the Church of Fools.
I have vague memories of an ever increasingly complicated 'warden console' to deal with a range of behaviours that had never been dreamed of at design stage. We had many discussions about whether we should be throwing people out to maintain the 'church' atmosphere for the benefit of those who were coming for a spiritual experience, or engaging with the trouble makers as the people that we were really there to reach out to. I think we also put in places an appeals procedure for the many people who felt they had been smited/smitten/smote unfairly.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
