Tetyana Derkach
Without doubts, the coronavirus turned not only the political and economic world schedules upside down, but also dogmas and practices of the Church. No one was ready either to close the temples without declaring a God-fighting war on the Church, or to ban the communion for believers. Logic dictated a natural way out – to use modern means of online communication. But it turned out that everyone has their own “pain threshold”, their own limits, which can not be crossed, so as not to fall into profanity or even blasphemy.
If online broadcasts of liturgies without laity in Churches with a squeak, but accepted (on the condition that it can in no way fully replace the living liturgy), even resigned to the sterilization of icons, crosses and – save me God – spoons for communion, the possibility of virtualization of the Eucharist and the communion itself caused scandals.
It happened that one of the centers of such a scandal was the OCU, whose clergyman Fr. Igor Savva, at his own risk, conducted an online communion for his community. The “technology” he shared on his Facebook page was a video conferencing program: “Each of the participants prepared bread, wine and water in front of the monitor. They served the liturgy of John Chrysostom, taking turns reading and singing parts of the sequence. The consecration of the Gifts took place in the same way as during the worship service in the temple. All participants took of communion, each in his own house. ”
We will not say what violence and hype it caused, especially in a conservative environment. But pro-Russian propaganda simply clung to this informational pretext in order to once again plunge the OCU into the swamp and prove to the whole world that the protege of Constantinople is not only schismatics, but also blasphemers. Well, what will you take from Russian propaganda? Even when the OCU prays Jesus’ prayer, the propagandists will shout that “the schismatics did not put a comma in the right way and did not take the right note.” Interestingly, these same people sincerely believe that the “world government” can control the minds of believers mechanically and remotely with implanted liquid or solid chips (ie, the human brain is just a device that can control not only the carrier of the skull, where the brain located, but also to other people’s uncles).
Therefore, it is a pity that the persecution organized by Moscow propagandists was joined by absolutely adequate believers (not to mention the inadequate reaction of the OCU episcopate, for whom is easier to forbid something or someone than to force themselves to think). But before accusing us of apostasy and blasphemy, we need to understand what we are dealing with. After all, by the same logic as conservatives or propagandists, atheists accuse Christians of spiritual cannibalism – they are tempted by Christ’s words about consuming His Body and Blood (Matthew 26: 26-28). For some it is temptation, for others it is madness.
Online communion has also tempted many to fear that “first we will hold virtual communions, then perform all the sacraments in absentia, then the faithful will stop going to temples, then we will rebuild unnecessary temples for restaurants, and throw priests out into the street.” This is very clumsy logic.
Let’s start with the fact that the history of the Church has many references to non-standard, non-linear situations faced by believers or bishops in antiquity or the Middle Ages. The Church never had quiet periods when it was possible to serve liturgies, baptize, ordain, and receive communion with full confidence in the future. The church was not a conveyor belt for performing the same rituals day in and day out. Certain external or internal circumstances changed – the Church changed both the practice of worship, and was forced to improve the doctrine of both God and himself. But there were also extraordinary situations when it was necessary to make unique decisions quickly. In juridic science this is called ad hoc – a way to solve a specific problem or task, which can not be adapted to solve other problems and which does not fit into the overall decision strategy (exception, nowhere else applicable). By the way, there were many such ad hoc in the Church, but for some reason they were used as precedents when it was profitable.
We are accustomed to God marching only there, and only as long as we march to Him. But the Church is not a battlefield. There were children nowhere, and sacramental actions in absentia – they just do not like to be mentioned in our Orthodox seminaries-academies. Thus, the famous Russian theologian and publicist Andrei Kuraev gave an example of how in the third century, Bishop Fedim in absentia dedicated St. Gregory the Wonderworker to the bishop. There were also sacraments performed by the wrong people – for example, the baptism of a dying Jew with sand in the desert by the laity.
And now, during the pandemic, we are dealing with such situations ad hoc. But the technical question becomes dogmatic: how does the Holy Spirit work in the sacraments, what is the ratio of material, human and supernatural (substance and accident) is divinely inspired, to what extent does the Holy Spirit breathe? What is the sacred role of the temple in church life and the salvation of people? Is the virus spread through a chalice, a spoon, or even the Holy Gifts themselves? If one of the sacraments of the Church – confession – has already received a virtual dimension, then what about the other sacraments? If the laity begin to take a direct part in the sacraments, will they become a full royal priesthood, or will they incur the wrath of the Lord on the church and be punished, like Oza, for touching the ark (1 Chron. 13: 9-10)?
As we can see, the scandal surrounding online communion is just an occasion for serious theological debate. It is probably some kind of God’s providence that the OCU came to the epicenter of such a discussion. For many years we have been ridiculed that we have no theologians, that Ukrainian “schismatics” are incapable of any fresh thought, they have nothing to interest the experienced intellectual environment of other local Churches. Like, all we can do is recklessly copy the liturgical and preaching mechanics of the Moscow Patriarchate. And for some time these accusations were fair. But you see – we still managed not only to surprise you all, but also to put on your ears. God has thus testified that the OCU is there, it is alive, it is looking for ways out of the situation, instead of whining, hysterical or panicking. Yes, we can be wrong and move with the creative, but those who see salvation and the Church only in the usual framework, are no less mistaken, because it reduces it to a museum of antiquities.
Believe me, the discussion of online communion is a beginning, compared to what 21st century theology will soon be dealing with. What seems unacceptable modernism today may turn out to be a kindergarten tomorrow. We will have to deal with the ethics of posthumanism, transhumanism and technohumanism, which will open the door to post-sacramental theology. Conventionally speaking, with the questions of growing the Body of Christ in a test tube and creating a family with a bioman printed on a 3-D printer (I’m not kidding). It is difficult to imagine how one can rely on the Holy Tradition and the teachings of the holy fathers. So, you have to think for yourself, apply your own ethical achievements and spiritual foundations. The ability to think broadly and unconventionally does not mean a lack of criticism or ethics. Honestly, while the theological level of pastors we have (who are often just used to burying their heads in the sand) does not give optimism that they are able to cope with these challenges and tasks without slipping into fundamentalism. Otherwise, the history of the Church, which began with catacomb Christianity, will end with cave Christianity.
