Around this time of year we often hear about “re-claiming” Christmas; often with very little effect. However, this piece by Religion & Ethics Newsweekly on a move to re-claim St. Nicholas is I think a very thoughtful and possibly one of the more effective places to start.

If you’re wondering where I’ve been (and will be at least for another week) – I’ve been swamped with a french course. I’ve got sloshy sounds, and funky verb forms swirling about in the mind making me want to drink, and drink HARD!

Normal service will resume shortly – that is in about five more days.

Making my rounds this morning I found this over at Emergent Village. Not only very timely, but in our OC/IC context I think it is also rather relevant. Once you’ve read it – be sure to come back here and post your thoughts. I’ll just sit here and listen for a while.

I’ve been doing some sketches for an ikon I’ve got it narrowed down to two – Ignatius of Antioch (one I’ve always wanted to do and never have), and a Theotokos.

Who knows, I might do both.

We see “the poor” all around us – sometimes in surprising ways and places (thus my use in quotes) – Here’s an interesting link and vid produced by the  . . . decidedly “conservative” Acton Institute – while I’m not 100% behind some of the conclusions presented in the video it is thought provoking, and worth consideration.

Lord Acton – you might recal was a very close friend of Döllinger’s in the 19th century, and both were important figures in the period surrounding Vatican I.

Here in the UK I’ve been noticing more news items covering issues relating to assisted suicide and euthenasia. I sat down this morning and did a quick survey of the official positions of a number of denomonations to see if they differed, and what was characteristic about each posistion. It then struck me that I’ve not seen much comment in OC/IC forums on the topic. I know that when I lived in the states in the 80s and 90s assisted suicide and euthenasia were hot topics, looking back, I’m not sure I can remember it being discussed then (in OC/IC forums) either.

Why is that then?

Part of me wonders if it is due to the fact that our liberal/progressive attitudes don’t see this as an issue worth investigating in our communities. But then, there is a compelling argument to be made that suggests that on the contrary – this is a topic worthy of exploration – it affects a number of ethical issues, as well as issues surrounding the local community, relationships with others, and even a sense of our OC/IC identity.

On the other hand – I have noticed over the years that the issues that “matter” in OC/IC forums are frequently not issues considered relevant beyond the boundaries of a small group of OC/IC clergy. This inward looking positioning (conscious and unconscious) is I think detrimental to the community as a whole. In this light then it is not entirely surprising that – in a search of OC/IC sites this morning no mention is made of assisted suicide, euthenasia, or end of life issues.

But curiously enough – I’ve seen on more than one occasion mention of support for a woman’s right to choose. So it would appear that in addition to exploring (arguing) about matters that are only of interest to a small clique of clergy, making sure to hit those “hot button” issues that might attract bums on seats is important . . . . This leads to a rather uncomfortable thread of thinking though.

What I’m interested in at the moment, however, is not necessarily the why’s and why nots of this being discussed in OC/IC forums – but what people within the community think about assisted suicide and euthenasia: how do OC/IC folk resopnd to them, how does it fit within our theology, our tradition?

1. What translation of the Bible do you like best?

In English? That would have to be NJB or NAB all others pale in comparison.

2. Old or New Testament?

New Testament – all the way. We ARE Chrstians afterall (grin).

3. Favorite Book of the Bible?

Um, erm, ahhhh . . . bugger! Well . . . . I guess if pressed I’d have to say its a toss up between . . . Luke-Acts (yes I’m cheating!) and Romans though John is pretty close there too.

4. Favorite Chapter?

Chapter of . . . . (3) or just any “chapter”? I’m afraid I’m at a disadvantage here – I’m not a “chapter & verse” kinda guy. But I am rather partial to Psalm 8.

5. Favorite Verse? (feel free to explain yourself if you have to)

See (4) above

6. Bible character you think you’re most like?

never thought of it. I’ll get back to you.

7. One thing from the Bible that confuses you?

Hebrews – it just seems so . . . .out of sync in so many ways.

8. Moses or Paul?

Paul.

9. A teaching from the Bible that you struggle with or don’t get?

I guess I struggle with most of it – if it were “easy” then there would be no need to remind ourselves that the teaching has to be borne out in praxis.

10. Coolest name in the Bible?

Malchus

I was looking for something else when I found . . . .

82. Nothing pains the soul more than slander, whether directed against one’s faith or one’s manner of life. No one can be indifferent to it except those who like Susanna have their eyes firmly fixed on God (Sus. vs 35). For only God has the power to rescue from peril, as he rescued her, to convince men of the truth, as he did in her case, and to encourage the soul with hope.

83. To the extent that you pray with all your soul for the person who slanders you, Godd will make the truth known to those who have been scandalized by the slander.

About four months ago a few people suggested to me that we should celebrate the Eucharist via video-link. The idea was, that individuals and groups who do not yet have an ordained minister could set out the elements and via video-link with myself, or another priest, celebrate the Liturgy and have the elements “consecrated” in real time, through the web-ether.

In my last post I mentioned the idea of how we have ceased to conceptualise technologies like the phone, the car, printing, and the wheel as alien thus and thus we no longer perceive them as a barrier or middle medium. I wondered how, using some of the neo-tech we now have available, our conceptualisation of the mechanics and the efficacy of certain sacraments might change. The idea of celebrating the Liturgy at a distance is, I think, a good example.

First it begs the question of what is sacrament? What constitutes a sacrament? Then, you are faced with neo-tech like SKYPE and the possibility of real time, real presence, video link. How much “wiggle-room” is there within our understanding of what a sacrament “is,” what makes it happen, before a certain mode of conducting that particular sacrament crosses the “boundary of efficacy” and becomes little more than theatre, or a farce?

It strikes me as odd that, to my knowledge, there is as yet no scholarly, theological literature exploring these issues. And because until recently I’d never considered the possibility, I’ve not really thought it out myself. Moreover, because I am unaware of any known precedents, or scholarly explorations of the topic, I have nothing aside from my own reflection to begin a discernment process or make a reasoned, responsible judgement. To date, therefore, I have refused to even experiment with the proposal of celebrating the Eucharist over a video link with individuals or a community that does not have an ordained minister (while it might be awkward, if they do have a priest then there is a substantial body of precedent and simultaneously celebrating in order to bring two communities together for a special occasion is I think, fine).

I’ve not yet, in my own mind, been able to clearly articulate why the idea does not seem “right”. So, in no particular order, I present my ramblings to you, to play with, with me.

First is the only point I can raise in favour of the proposal. Jesus said: For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them (Mt. 18.20). Is gathering restricted by mode? If we pray together, over the phone, via video link, is this not efficacious? Is Christ somehow not present in that moment? I would suggest that he is, and that this is a sacramental moment.

You could reasonably argue that both the English as well as the Greek text here explicitly imply that “gathering together” means a physical, face-to-face meeting. It was after all the only possible meaning of the word at the time. Indeed, the context of the teaching is about order and decision making within the local community.

If I’m willing to accept that praying together over the phone, or via video link, is both sacramental and efficacious, why not the Eucharist? What’s different about these situations? (One point just raised to me is that praying alone is sacramental – you need not gather with others to pray in order for it to be sacramental).

My next thoughts on this are all arguments against the proposition. Again they are in no particular order, and I’m not convinced that I’ve worked out all the consequences of each point.

If we are willing to accept celebrating the Eucharist via the net – what then is to stop us from ordaining, baptising, marrying, or chrismating over the net? There is something physical, tangible about sacrament. The threshold of this physical quality is higher with some sacramental moments than with others. Thus, for two, three or eight people to pray together via a conference call, is fine because the basic physical qualities of voice and communion are easily met. Prayer is sacramental but it is not exclusively a part of the Christian cult (that is to say it is more fluid than some of the other sacraments – like the Eucharist, or Baptism). Prayer does not require a “sanctioned” cult official, in our case a priest.

The Eucharist does require a sanctioned official, an ordained celebrant, and unlike prayer it is not as fluid, because there are characteristics of celebrating the Eucharist that, according to our tradition, “make it real” – or perhaps more accurately “make it happen.” The question then becomes, what are these and what does each contribute such that when combined with the others they “make” the sacrament happen?

In my community, we hold that because the Eucharist is a banquet, a feast, a celebration, an individual or sole celebration of the liturgy would be “out of character” for the sacrament, and we don’t allow it. The rationale of course is that you cannot reasonably have a party with only one attendee – the host!

I know that many respected members of our OC/IC community accept the traditional Roman Catholic argument that the priest, when celebrating is surrounded by the angels etc., and so is not alone. Although it is traditional, in my community we reject this understanding because we believe that sacrament is meant as a gift for the Body of Christ in the World.

Building on this idea, I would argue that it is not possible to host a banquet when the attendees are not sitting at the same table as the host(ess). This is one of the most important qualities a priest brings to the celebration of the Eucharist; he/she is the host(ess) of the banquet, bringing the community together, ensuring that the invited guests each receive the gifts of the patron (grace – via the Eucharist and other means). This, I think, requires that the community physically enjoy the same table, the same food, made by the same hands. In our community we have a saying: one bread, one cup, one body, which I think applies rather well here.

If we think about the symbolism of the Eucharist it is all about the gathered “community” – its unity and its statement of identity as the body of Christ. In order for a body to function, its various members necessarily must each enjoy a physical link with the whole, otherwise the body dies from a massive haemorrhage!

Finally, there is the more mystical/esoteric argument. Is the charism of the ordained state not effective in real time regardless of distance? To argue strictly on this esoteric basis in favour of celebrating the Eucharist via the net, would, I believe bring us perilously close to practicing magic – a position which, even in my most mystical of moods, I would never want to find myself in.

Consider for a moment two examples which I think, tie my two principal objections together. The telephone has been a familiar piece of kit in many households for close to a century now, and yet, to my knowledge, none of the historic sacramental churches have promoted the idea that the elements ought to be consecrated over the phone. In the USA, the Roman Catholics have a programme for shut-ins, whereby people from the diocese visit the sick and the elderly who cannot go to church carrying pre-consecrated host, they watch a live televised mass together and at the appropriate moment, partake of pre-consecrated host.

Thinking about this practice, why not merely have people lay out some good bread and a nice glass of wine, watch the televised mass, and as the canon begins, have the priest look up to Camera no. 3, wink and says “now” – and everyone at home uncovers their own assembled elements, and hey presto – through the power of television Fr. Joe has simultaneously made Eucharist in 1500 homes in downtown Pittsburgh?

At this point, I suspect, you are giggling out loud, or at least grinning. And you have just proven my partner’s point – what he has dubbed the “giggle test” – even in describing it, you could not take it seriously – the idea no doubt conjured all sorts of fun images for you. This is a perfectly valid argument. Regardless of any possible well-developed theological argument in favour, if participants cannot take seriously a particular liturgical action, they will not believe that the sacrament has been made.

There is an expectation – a very unconscious expectation, demonstrated in our little test case – that the elements themselves must be in physical proximity to both the celebrating community (thus fulfilling the “two or more” test), and the host – the priest in order to “avoid” the dreadful precipice of magic and ridicule.