This article in the Church Times has prompted me to return to an earlier train of thought about Zoom (other platforms are available!) and communion. In this case the presenting issue is using the postal service to send consecrated wafers to church members. Some principles are mentioned in the article that are applicable, I think, to the issue of communion services mediated by video-conferencing technology or the inclusion of remote participants in a communion service. Patterson says this:
In every eucharistic prayer, the petition for consecration says something to the effect that the bread and wine may be “for us” the body and blood of Christ. The words “for us” have triple significance. First, they remind us that consecration involves the faith of the participants (“us”) as well as the performance of a rite; ... the eucharist flows not from ordination, but from the Body of Christ. That is why the Prayer Book requires that a minimum of “four (or three at the least) communicate with the Priest”.
I made a similar point in a previous post questioning what we think we might be doing if priests are physically on their own and going through a Communion liturgy.
Patterson's third point is helpful, I think
And, third, whenever that exception is used, “for us” reminds us that a personal link between the source-eucharist and the recipients is vital
I do think that this is an important corollary of rooting the celebration of communion in a local congregation rather than in ordained persons. It seems fairly vital to me that we take note of the words 'personal link' there too. A lot of discussion about remote communion (for want of a better term), seems presuppose a basis in physical link and proximity as definitive. My earlier post was in large part about questioning and problematising that physical proximity supposition.
What I think is that it is theologically coherent by the lights of Anglican thinking to suppose that people might 'validly' receive the Eucharist when participating remotely. The reasons for thinking this are as follows.
The four actions are performed and the lack of physical proximity is not significant at the level of concerns of 'validity' since it is the personal link that is important; the physical proximity in 'normal' usage is accidentally predominant (because normally we would be in the same room) but not a matter to be mandated when circumstances mean it may not be that everyone can be in the same space. This latter point is clear when we consider communion by extension and the actual administration of Eucharists in massive-crowd conditions (as noted in my previous post linked earlier). In these circumstances, the physical proximity considerations are all modified in various ways which can give us analogues to the remote communion scenario.
That said, I think that there are some desirable practicalities which should be put in place. These would be to help make the points about what is happening and how the corporate nature of the event is reinforced.
I think it would be desirable if it is done regularly, to break the bread prior to the event and distribute it to the remote participants*. This would be to emphasise the 'one loaf' dimension calling attention to the one body symbolised. If this could not be managed, then I would suggest that each remote participant would hold their own piece of bread close to the camera at the offertory such that it could be seen by the president and/or participants at the priest's physical location as well as other remote participants. It could then be re-placed on a plate for the Eucharistic prayer. This would allow the breads to be symbolically held together for the consecration.
I think that this approach would be supported by recognising that God, by the Spirit, is everywhere present and that it is the undivided Christ who we are feeding upon spiritually. "The Lord is here -God's Spirit is with us", said by all those participating, near and far, names a truth and, in a sense, creates/reinforces the community gathered round the actions in memory of Jesus. That enacts verbally the community of that particular Eucharist. The true and crucial proximity one to another is that the "Spirit is with us".
It is also supported by recognising that human relating is not only constituted by physical proximity but by the interaction of embodied mind/souls (or en-souled body/minds). The 'we' in "We are the body of Christ" or "...we all share in one bread" is a "we" that can articulate, describe and recognise an "us", and love 'us' into being. This is the 'we' spoken by Christ and enabled by the Spirit to be expressed in human lives and to be fed by the Bread of Life. None of this is dependent upon physical proximity, although it may be aided by it. All is dependent on the work of the Spirit who is not constrained by physical proximity. The body of Christ lives in human hearts and minds in living-relation to one another. It is not bread alone but bread (and wine) blessed and consumed in community and in memory of Christ.
