So maybe this is the wrong place and space, but have there been any further thoughts or discussions on Virtual Eucharist? I couldn’t find the folks to follow at GC, but think it’s a swell idea for the elderly, at risk, those in hospice, people doing eldercare, shift workers, etc… #MobilizeTheSacraments #VirtualEucharist #OnlineChurch #EqualAccessChurch #Episcopal #Eucharist
@japierce I hear the concern, but I think outside of a pandemic those you identify are better served by Eucharistic Visitors. Especially for people who struggle to attend church, personal contact with a physical person is one of the great gifts that our community can provide.
On the other hand, virtu spiritual formation and bible study seems like a real success.
@gatesong @antares I’m not sure how this is the conclusion I have after seeing services done well online. We’ve sat with a woman with 3 brain tumors and esophageal cancer and had her sing part of the hymn because she loved singing in church and participated with a clergy person in the last service she attended before she died. Church came to her when she was no longer able to go to church.
@japierce @antares Actually, let me make sure we're using the same terms. I understand "virtual Eucharist" to be the practice of a priest consecrating elements through a stream—so, someone can sit at home with bread and wine, participate in a service online, and have those be valid as the sacrament. I'm saying that I disagree that that is a valid way to consecrate the sacrament, and that I would prefer that a Eucharistic visitor bring the person elements from the service.
@gatesong @japierce @antares I'm not saying once and for all that none exist, but I have yet to see a serious (ie non-pop theology), responsible theologian that says that these sorts of "remote Eucharists" are anything like valid. And without a change in rubrics for Anglicans/Episcopalians, Roman and other Catholics, Lutherans, etc, they cannot be. Of course, changing rubrics isn't like changing socks. It requires a complete change in sacramental theology.
@stevenkincannon @japierce @antares Ok, I caught up.
I agree with everything Canon Spellers says there. I think she's spot-on about services like compline (which does not include Eucharist), and I agree with her 100% on releasing a bit of our attachment on buildings.
What I *disagree* with is that the Eucharist can be celebrated by a person alone in a room using their own elements after watching a priest consecrate *other* elements on a stream. And not because I don't think God can do it.
@stevenkincannon @japierce @antares I believe the Eucharist is a fundamentally communal act. Through it, Christ becomes a part of our bodies as we are part of the Body of Christ. The community of Christians is core to Christian faith and practice, and one way it is ratified is through the Eucharist.
To consider virtually-consecrated elements to be valid as the sacrament is to enable someone who makes no move to be part of the Body of Christ to *think that they* have received the sacrament 1/?
@stevenkincannon @japierce @antares when they are not engaging as part of the community. We are meant to act as members of the community as much as we can. It also lets clergy and church communities off the hook. They can *feel like* they're serving the homebound without ever having to sit with them or really put any effort toward them at all.
So, I think bringing homebound folks the sacrament is ideal. They can, and should, participate in the livestream, then be *truly included* by 2/?
@stevenkincannon @japierce @antares having the sacrament brought to them by members of their community (or even by their priest). In extreme situations where that is absolutely impossible then I think the prayers for Spiritual Communion are a lovely solution.
Basically, I think virtual Eucharist has the potential to be far more isolating than other options. 3/3
@stevenkincannon @japierce @antares It's so beautiful, right? :)
@stevenkincannon @japierce @antares Sewanee! You're at Bexley?
@stevenkincannon @japierce @antares Nice! I've got a couple weeks left in my first semester. Finals. :P
@gatesong @japierce @antares I think you bring up a really valid point which is that some sort of remote consecration is, as you hint, a crutch for clergy and LEM folks who don't want to go around to homes and hospitals and other care facilities. It all smacks too much of laziness in the service of God to me.
@gatesong @japierce @antares Rowan Williams talks about this, though he doesn't mean to. In discussing communion without baptism, he says that taking the eucharist without being baptized is accepting the gift without the giver. I believe the same is true with wanting to find some sort of "work around" to receive the eucharist without going to church and being in community.
@stevenkincannon @japierce @antares Pretty much, yeah (and I <3 Rowan Williams). I think the experience of church, remote or otherwise, should be a means of drawing people deeper into their relationship with Christ and his Church. I don't want anyone to feel like they're getting all the benefits without actually getting all the benefits!
@stevenkincannon @japierce @antares I totally get that some people straight-up CAN'T get to church, but in those cases I think their churches need to step up & care for them. And if, say, they're someone who discovered the church THROUGH the livestream and they haven't been part of it in person, maybe priests on streams should start inviting phone calls! I absolutely LOVE the idea of expanding our churches beyond those walls, but that means we need to actually include the people who are outside.
@antares @japierce This, 100%. Eucharistic visitors let the visited interface with their community. Plus, how cool is it to be visited in person by someone you just saw sent out on your church's livestream?
I worry that full virtual communion would enable an individualization of worship that's contrary to the spirit of the church.