I want to return to a question that I began to raise a couple of weeks ago regarding liturgy online.
Let me concoct a scenario this time and ask a question.
Last year I went down to one of the glorious English Cathedrals to preach. Being robed and up at the sharp end of things, I was also asked to help in the distribution of the bread and wine. (I think I had bread). At the offertory, someone came round and gave me me a ciborium full of hosts and told me to stand next to the altar for the consecration.
Now, I was surprised by this as in the norms I know, the bread would need to be on the altar to be consecrated. However, in this house of God, there was just one host and one chalice on the altar. The rest of the bread and wine was presumed to be consecrated whilst being held in the hands of the Eucharistic assistants who gathered on either side of the altar holding up the elements during the consecration.
Now, firstly, do we think that is OK? (I know that some will think this is a dancing on the heads of pins question, but quite a lot hangs on it).
If it is OK, how far away might the bread and wine be and still be presumed to be consecrated? Is there a particular distance or does it depend on the intention of the consecrating priest, the intention of the gathered community or both. (As a curate I once baulked at celebrating the Eucharist on an altar on which a harvest loaf was perched for fear of having to eat the whole thing afterwards. My training rector at the time declared that it was not consecrated if I did not intend to consecrate it).
Now, suppose we have two congregations which are linked in fellowship and love but who live on adjacent islands. Their priest, Father Indulgent wants everyone to have communion each Sundayand they are devout and holy and desirous of weekly communion. However, the person who runs the ferry link between the two blessed islands belongs to the Free Church of God of the Sabbath (continuing) and consequently will not operate any boat on a Sunday, for fear of eternal damnation.
What would we think, if Father set up a system (either closed circuit TV or via the internet) whereby he could stand at the altar in St Anaglypta-of-the-Rocks on one island but be seen and heard in St Eucalyptus-by-the-Skerry on the other island and then proceeded to have one communion service? Could he be deemed to consecrate the elements in both churches whilst remaining in one of them?
We will presume that the devout communities in each, respond with a loud Amen at the end of the Eucharistic prayer.
Any thoughts?
And only one Table, too.
And every Bush is burning.
I have started podcasting the eucharist on my new worship blog. The services have no congregation other than those who tune in. I am careful not to claim anything regarding consecration and one of the main reasons for the project is to try and answer the questions Kelvin poses.
I am able to do this because I am, at this moment in time, outside of the Church. This makes me wonder if consecration is a political issue rather than a theological one. Perhaps the rules regarding consecration were imposed merely so that the elite could retain control. This certainly seemed to be the case with South American liberation theology.
This is in no way an angels and pins question! I can’t think that virtual consecration can work, otherwise why would you not just wave generally in my direction and I wouldn’t need to go to church at all but could sit at home with a scone and a Ribena? Or a banana and a cup of tea? (Takes temperature, suddenly agreeing with Kelvin?)
God is not dependant on his creation. Therefore, God does not need our worship. Therefore, God gave us worship for our own benefit, to help us be aware of God’s presence.
If something we do brings us closer to God and not away from God it is of God. You know, Satan rebelling against himself and all that jazz.
However, discernment, as always, is needed, and I believe we have been part of such a process regarding the blessing of the elements of the eucharist for at least 40 years. Hopefully, in my opinion, we will reach a situation where those who need to be in the locality of the eucharistic prayer and those who do not need such a fixed reminder of God’s presence with us will respect each other’s faith and will understand that God does what God does for us not vice versa.
As always, Fr K. lots to think about.
It would seem impossible for virtual consecration to be valid.
As for the English cathedral experience … perhaps we just need to leave it up to God to decide what’s valid in that case. It does sound, one has to say, rather odd, nonetheless.
On a similar theme, I have always wondered whether it is quite right for the words of institution to be spoken as a paten/ciborium or chalice is held above the altar. This seems to be usual practice in Australia, and often where one would expect elevations the Elements are put down again. In my salad days in NZ, the paten/ciborium or chalice was almost universally held on the altar as the words of institution were spoken (often with the more catholic clergy more or less bending and breathing the words over the bread/wine – I guess as a symbol of the infusion of the Holy Spirit, then the paten/ciborium or chalice would be elevated. I have only rarely seen priests here consecrate on an altar, rather than over one … they’ve generally been priests I’d consider well trained (eg at Staggers or in South Africa). How is it in Scotland and England?