On the Problem with "Online Communion"
Initially shaped by the work of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, a British high-church mission society, the Diocese of Singapore has since the 1970’s embraced the "charismatic renewal" and "evangelical theological vision". This is problematic since the Diocese also assents to the 39 Articles of Religion and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as agreeable to the Word of God and authoritative in defining the doctrine and liturgical expression of the Diocese. This unequally yolked marriage has caused the Diocese to avoid portions of the Articles which do actually affirm the orthodox catholic faith our Carolinian Fathers sought to preserve and deliver to successive generations.
The 1662 Book of Common Prayer which is upheld by the DoS defines a sacrament as an outward sign of an inward grace. Of relevance here is the assertion that a sacrament is an outward sign - which means it has an external and physical component, and is not just an internal, spiritual movement.
If we understand the catechism, then it is sufficiently obvious that since sacraments involve tangible matter, there is no way to celebrate them validly over the airwaves or the internet. The virtual reality of cyberspace cannot substitute for the incarnational reality of the sacraments and the liturgy.
The Incarnation sets the framework for the sacramental order. Sacraments by their very nature are signs that effect what they symbolize and symbolize what they effect. The faithful must be a part of that sign and reality to participate in the sacrament.
Furthermore, physical presence is absolutely necessary for the validity of the enactment of the sacrament because the sacrament is the action of Christ performed by the sacred minister. For that action to take place, the celebrant and the faithful must be in communion with one another - in a physical manner - since the sacraments flow from the Incarnation, and because of that, the bodily presence of the one who is enacting the sacrament, and the one who is receiving the sacrament is required.
The Incarnation is the lens through which we need to understand and appreciate the sacrament because the central event in salvation history is the Incarnation; “the Word made flesh”. In the Institution Narrative of the Eucharistic Prayer, the words of Jesus at the Last Supper envision a physical ritual, not a digital one. Hence, one could argue that ‘virtual consecration’ of the elements and private reception represents a type of Gnosticism that, even if unintentional, denies the reality of Christ’s body and his humanity.
For Christians in the apostolic tradition, to miss church is not just to miss a sermon or a song that can be listened to later, but it is to miss out on the sacramental grace of God present in the elements; the Real Presence.
Exceptional situations should NOT dictate theology or practice. This time of pandemic creates a painful loss to Catholic Christians (Anglicans, Orthodox, Roman Catholics) but it also makes Christian gathering an important expression of faith and hope. In fact, we read in St. Paul’s writings, his longing to “be with” the churches. Likewise St. John writes about his desire to be “face-to-face”. Along with the ‘incarnational lens’, these longings expressed by the sacred authors are evidence that physical presence is an essential both for a gathering to be a true church and for the practice of Holy Communion.
Finally, virtual consecration is a novel thing invented by modernists who have little or no affection for the canons of the apostolic church, the conciliar teaching of the Fathers, and rightly invalidates Anglican claims to ordinal validity and a serious blow to ecumenical dialogue with other branches of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. “…all Anglican formularies, practices, and beliefs properly are subject to evaluation and interpretation in the light of the central Tradition. If both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches reject something that some Anglicans believe, then that something probably is false, particularly if it concerns a matter of importance. Our security lies in the authority of Scripture as interpreted by the universal Tradition and by the living consensus of the great Churches, not in peculiarly Anglican notions…” Abp. Mark Haverland (Statement on the GAFCON, 2008)
Comments
Post a Comment