A thread.

Virtual consecration is both possible, and would represent a genuine development of doctrine, were it to be adopted in the church today. There are sound reasons orthodox Christians can accept for thinking so.

My scriptural and patristic basis for thinking this is 4th century theologies of consecration. We tend to assume physical proximity is necessary for consecration because we prioritise Greek accounts (e.g. Cyril of Jerusalem) as the (local) work of the Spirit on particular matter.

But other theologies of consecration are available, the most important one of which is Ambrose' account of consecration effected by the priest's words which participate in the Word of God's creative work, and which make the host a new creation.

And Ambrose is explicit that this is 'grace beyond nature': "If a human blessing was so powerful that it could alter nature, what shall we say of that divine consecration in which the very words of the Lord, the Saviour, are at work."

It is right and good that we see the Eucharist as tied to our physicality and need for symbols, that the sacraments are at the heart of what makes the church the church, and they are how we are usually saved in this life.

But the sacraments have always been used by the church in a way which navigates through difficult human situations. The obvious examples from the early church are the development of the reserved sacrament and the theology of 'baptism by blood' for unbaptised Christian martyrs.

Just as the church has developed its doctrine to accommodate those who cannot be present in the assembly and those who participate in Christ's passion by martyrdom, it would not be unrealistic for it to do so for those who are present visually and verbally, but not physically.

I shall now attempt to demonstrate how this is a genuine development of doctrine, not a corruption of the gospel using J H Newman's 7 'Notes' that characterise a genuine development of doctrine:

1) Continuity of Type: there is an obvious type in participation in televised liturgies; while these are not meeting an obligation to go to mass, live masses 'count' as joining the prayer of the worshipping community (and pre-recorded ones don't): http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/frequently-asked-questions/guidelines-for-televising-the-liturgy.cfm

2) Continuity of Principles: we have always considered (and debated) particular words and formulae as essential for consecration or as constituting the Eucharist. While the physical shape of the Eucharist changes in virtual consecration, an important principal is the same.

3) Power of Assimilation: this is the big one, both for Newman and for me. Christianity as a system of belief can assimilate other ideas and cultural practices - e.g. Roman imperial ceremony. Doing so is a sign of healthy and incarnational faith. The internet is a new(ish)...

... phenomenon. Virtual consecration would not even have been a possibility even 20 years ago. Accepting the power of a new medium to accommodate the practices of the faith in extremis is a sign of Christianity's vitality in the modern world.

4) Logical Sequence: the idea that the priest is in persona Christi, so his words effect a new creation as they are Christ's words is possibly an overly logical way of thinking! But that means this note checks out.

5) Anticipation of the future: the idea that the sacrament can still be shared when the bread and wine have left the assembly goes back to Justin Martyr - but it was a equally radical step in terms of dissociating the elements of bread and wine from the Eucharist.

6) Conservative action on the past: in some ways virtual consecration is a reactionary idea; it reaches back to before De Lubac's notion of active participation to pre-Vatican II accounts of the priest in persona Christi. It makes the priest's words even more crucial than usual.

7) Constant vigour: virtual consecration is a sign of Christianity responding to the age we live in during a time of pandemic. It is not a substitute for the eucharist - but it is a sign the eucharist can fit a pandemic shape.

So there you are. I look forward to you all dumping on this thread (in good humour, I hope).

The only post-script to add is that virtual consecration would ABSOLUTELY need to be authorised by authority. I am making a case for the possibility, not a suggestion any church community should do it without synodical approval (and maybe the Pope's too!).