Online Communion in the First Century?

How Apostolic Ecclesiology Informs Sacramentology

Previously, we looked at a very narrow view of St. Ignatius' ecclesiology, namely the roles of bishop, presbyter, and deacon. However, our discussion had a massive hole in it regarding something Ignatius is most famous for: his sacramentology. While he is lauded as a champion of the threefold office view, even more often his words are wielded against the sacramentarians, those with a very low sacramentology. His most famous quotation comes from his letter to the Ephesians, in which he calls the eucharist the "medicine of immortality" (20.2), and he in a few places speaks very highly concerning Christ's presence in the supper. However, for our purposes, what is most interesting is his connection between the bishop (pastor) and the eucharist.

We can see vague hints of this in previous quotations, where Christ is only where the catholic church is, namely in the baptism and, especially for Ignatius, the Eucharist. An excellent example of this is in his very first letter:

"Let no one be misled: if anyone is not within the sanctuary, he lacks the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two has such power, how much more that of the bishop together with the whole church! Therefore whoever does not meet with the congregation thereby demonstrates his arrogance and has separated himself, for it is written: 'God opposes the arrogant.' Let us, therefore, be careful not to oppose the bishop, in order that we may be obedient to God." Ephesians 5:2-3

Here, he connects unity with one's bishop to reception of Christ's flesh in the Eucharist. What's more, this is not connected with the throne of the bishop, a much more common motif later on, but rather to the sanctuary. In addition, it also comes in the context of "meet[ing] with the congregation." All of these further suggest the point of last post, which is that for Ignatius, the bishop is a local congregational leader (a pastor) rather than a regional leader. However, I think we've successfully beaten that dead horse. Rather than only pointing at the specks in our Roman and Eastern brothers' eyes, we ought also to seek edification from Ignatius, and this passage is a major place for such.

During the Pandemic season a few years ago, many churches put much more effort into streaming their services, which is absolutely not a problem in itself. In fact, I would argue that is a good thing, as it gives homebound members the opportunity to participate in a vestige of the service, even when they cannot be present in person. However, like all technologies meant to guard our flesh from the thorns of this life, more thorns sprout as soon as we clear one bush. The same measure meant to give the homebound the Word and serve a temporarily closed congregation now has led to folks leaning on it like a crutch, with the common refrain of "I'll just watch it online." However, what they lose here is the core of the divine service: the Supper. This is where Christ comes to us, forgives our sins, and strengthens us with His very own flesh and blood, but all too often we're content hearing the Word rather than heed our Lord's invitation to "Do this." This breeds an arrogance as well. Luther chastises this well in the Large Catechism, where he says as follows:

"If you could see how many knives, darts, and arrows are every moment aimed at you, you would be glad to come to the Sacrament as often as possible. But there is no reason why we walk so securely and heedlessly, except that we neither think nor believe that we are in the flesh, and in this wicked world or in the kingdom of the devil." LC V.82

Our reticence to attend church and, in my own case, to attend to my prayers, is really a lack of faith--that is, a lack of belief that there really is a diabolical lion constantly seeking to devour us. Instead, I would rather spend time heedlessly scrolling away while Satan takes more and more territory in the war for our souls. The most painful part is that the very thing the devil keeps from us is what we need. When he "encourages" us with his half-truths and all-out lies, "You have important work to do, you can pray later," "You're already saved, you don't need more grace," or even "It'll be more special if I have to wait a bit longer for it anyway," that mentality ends up separating you from the Supper which bears God's own presence, that which keeps you safe from the foe. It's not unlike when the devil told Adam and Eve that through the knowledge of good and evil, they could become like God. What they needed was the maturity that would later come with fasting, prayer, and faith in the Lord's Word. Thus, when they ate without God, the "bishop of our souls" (1 Pet. 2:25), they were separated from that which would enable them to eat the fruit in righteousness and be blessed. Instead, all they received was the deadly confession of the Law that their goodness was insufficient and their wickedness beyond measure. In the same way, when the devil separates one from the church, either the Word through hardness of heart, the sacrament by distance, or both, then he is striving to cut us off from that which can actually help us. Thus, when we resist the devil, this often looks more like pursuing those virtuous things which further strengthen us against his wiles; thus, we can hold onto the promise of St. James, "Resist the devil and he will flee from you" (Jas. 4:7). This is because in our act of resisting the devil by partaking of the Supper according to the Lord's word, our God slips this "medicine of immortality" like a dog's pill hidden in a treat, and thus the devil is chased away.

Besides being relevant for encouraging frequent communion participation (and hopefully a return the the historic practice of offering it weekly or more often), it is also relevant to the titular issue of online communion. The aforementioned aching of the conscience for the supper led to many attempting to try and host the supper online. This could take a variety of forms. In the more common example, a pastor would get on some kind of streaming platform (or a prerecorded YouTube video) and tell his congregants to bring bread and wine near the speakers. From there, he would consecrate them via the electronic medium. The second is a pastor authorizing congregants to perform there own sacraments at home, both of which I have heard advocated for. Besides the insane contradiction with the Confessions (especially the second one, see AC 14), for Ignatius, it all is absolutely abhorrent for multiple reasons. Strangely enough, the second one actually is, for Ignatius, less problematic than the first, so we will address that one first.

The relevant passage comes from his epistle to the Smyrnaeans, part of which we have already seen in a previous post:

"Let no one do anything that has to do with the church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist which is under the authority of the bishop (or whoever he himself designates) is to be considered valid. Wherever the bishop is, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the church catholic. It is not permissible either to baptize or to hold a love feast [the eucharist] without the bishop. But whatever he approves is also pleasing to God, in order that everything you do may be trustworthy and valid." Smyrnaeans 8:1c-2

A major part of Ignatius' project is to encourage the churches to rally around their bishop, since the devil is constantly working to crate division. One major part of this is in terms of the supper. As seen above, suppers lacking one's bishop are said to lack "the bread of God," and in this passage, only those under the authority of the bishop are valid. The parenthetical, however, is very odd here, as it would seem to kneecap his entire argument. The bishop doesn't need to be over the eucharist, someone else can? What, then, does it matter that we submit to our bishop? However, it actually ends up only strengthening his point. If different areas have different organizational structures, this could include presbyters or even deacons (though unlikely) consecrating the elements. Perhaps other places don't even require celebrants to be ordained. For Ignatius, however, all of these folks must nonetheless be acting under the authority of the bishop, lest their sacrament be invalid.

With that said, this passage does seem to allow for the second kind of "online" communion, in which the head of the household consecrates the elements for his family during the time in the stream when the pastor normally would. Because this system was authorized by the "bishop" (in this case, the pastor), is is likely licit. I will note, though this is the plain reading, there are two other possibilities. The first is that men that the bishop designates are assumed to be other ordained folks, those of the presbyters or deacons. Rather than assuming it, it's also possible that the appointment Ignatius refers to is ordination, in which case he is obliquely referencing deacons and presbyters. This also isn't mere conjecture, but there is textual warrant for it:

"Take care, therefore, to participate in one Eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup that leads to unity through his blood; there is one altar, just as there is one bishop, together with the council of presbyters and the deacons, my fellow servants), in order that whatever you do, you do in accordance with God." Philadelphians 4

Notice that he compares the unity of Christ's own flesh/blood to the singular altar as well as the unity of the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, all called his "fellow servants." Their unity as well as the necessity of their physical presence does point towards the deacons and presbyters being those "designated" to celebrate the sacrament. This also makes sense historically, as when places became more dominantly christian, it would make sense that a singular bishop would instead have members of his council of presbyters to watch over each congregation under his authority while he managed the area under his jurisdiction.

In any case, regardless of what form of online communion one performs, Ignatius still would find it problematic for one simple reason: it is disconnected from Christian fellowship. In the first passage I quoted, Ignatius required one to be "in the sanctuary," and in the last passage, he connects the unity of the body of Christ to the "one altar" and the unity of the bishop, presbyters, and deacons. On the contrary, online communion specifically happens outside the context of the sanctuary, altar, and the stewards of the sacrament. A likely response would be "Ignatius is from before computers, we're in a different historical context than he is," but I think his different historical context is exactly the value of his testimony. He doesn't say that it's impossible to have something like the sacrament except in a church. Instead, he ties sacramental validity with the sanctuary and the assembly of all the saints together under their bishop, meaning that it would be invalid, if even possible, to perform either rite. In the modern day, we are often desensitized to the isolating nature of technology, but Ignatius' perspective should encourage us to stop and think about the importance of our neighbor's presence when we commune with our God. If we embrace the trend of online communion, what are we doing but further encouraging Christians to isolate themeselves from one another, contrary to our Lord's will for us. How can iron sharpen iron if the two never meet? Just as members of a body cannot be separated, lest the body die, so too must we join together rather than separate ourselves from one another. In this way, our physical presence together gives way to a spiritual presence with Christ and our nieghbor, even with those who went before us like the martyred St. Ignatius.