Covid-19,the Eucharist and spreading disease through Christianity’s holiest rite

Introduction

During the Covid-19 pandemic in the USA, churches were faced with a question of medical and metaphysical importance: can Christianity’s rite of Holy Communion spread Covid-19? Clergy of all denominations found themselves asking how seriously their church believes in the rite of communion and whether the performance of this sacred duty could cause harm to a recipient. Interpretations would often divide along the literal or symbolic understanding of Jesus’ phrase, ‘This is my body.’ ¹ With the care of body and soul hanging in the balance, church officials found themselves declaring theological facts about their faith that could have dire consequences for their communicants if wrong. This article examines Christian responses to Covid-19 through Christianity’s multifaceted Covid eucharistic policies, arguing that the responses of churches in times of crisis reflect a nuanced understanding of the metaphysical theories surrounding the Eucharist. The goal of this article is to serve as a primer on the relationships between beliefs of the Eucharist and Covid-19 in American churches, seeking to provide an overview into further inquiry into the longstanding concerns of Christianity’s holiest rite and the spread of disease.

The real presence of Christ: Roman Catholic, Anglican and Eastern Orthodox perspectives

The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches constitute the three largest bodies of Christianity in the world, each believing in a version of the Real Presence. ² Although the how and exact meaning of the partaking of Christ differs between these churches, a common thread between them is that they all believe in the literal partaking of Christ and that in doing so the recipient receives spiritual and physical benefits. ³ Due to the unique instance of the belief of literally eating Christ and the large number of adherents, there is much more accessible medical research concerning their belief in the properties of the Eucharist. ⁴ Accordingly, all three churches argue to a greater or lesser degree about the benefits of literally partaking of Christ in the sacrament. The official and parochial responses to Covid-19 and the Eucharist varied. The example of these three churches shows that, despite similar beliefs in the Real Presence, responses were far from homogeneous, reflecting a nuanced understanding of tradition, authority and history.

During the early days of the stay-at-home orders, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops sought to provide an alternative means to partake in Holy Communion. The lack of communion is potentially damaging to the believer, as the benefits, both spiritual and physical, abound for the partaker. The Roman Catholic Church explains that the Eucharist ‘augments our union with Christ[,] preserves, increases, and renews the life of grace received at Baptism[,] separates us from sin[,] strengthens our charity[,] wipes away venial sins [and] preserves us from mortal sins’, among other graces. ⁵ During Covid, the Vatican emphasized that those who could not partake of the Eucharist due to illness, such as Covid-19, should participate spiritually if they could not attend, with the granting of an indulgence to ‘the faithful suffering from Covid-19 disease … as well as to health care workers, family members and all those who in any capacity, including through prayer, care for them’. ⁶ The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops similarly emphasized what became known as a ‘spiritual communion’ to such an extent that they provided a social media infographic, ‘Rx for Body and Spirit’, instructing the faithful to ‘make an Act of Spiritual Communion. Pray the Rosary. Participate in a television or livestreamed Mass. Take time for family prayer. Practice lectio Divina. Don’t forget to help your parish with donations.’ ⁷ The act of spiritual communion echoes the belief of baptism of desire, in which those who cannot partake of baptism (often through martyrdom) are declared to have received baptism ‘by an implicit desire’. ⁸ As will be shown, in the Orthodox perspective, the modernist/traditionalist divide over communion reception impacted Roman Catholics; the Vatican upheld the decision to ban communion on the tongue in the diocese of Knoxville during Covid, and the ramifications of the restrictions are still in place today. ⁹ The stay-at-home measures have similarly raised questions about the efficacy of the sacraments and distance, especially in the modern era with telephones and televisions. Such metaphysical dilemmas arose as to whether the Eucharist can be adored via television or by hearing the sacrament of confession over the phone. ¹⁰ Responses to the fullness of the sacrament during times of pandemic remain to be seen.

In the USA, the Anglican churches are split along social divides but retain similar eucharistic beliefs based on a shared church history. The socially liberal Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion, and the largest conservative faction is the Anglican Church in North America, part of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) but not of the Anglican Communion. ¹¹ The contemporary Anglican Church holds to a multiplicity of viewpoints on the Eucharist, with positions ranging from the Real Presence to a form of Calvinistic spiritual benefits. Support for a range of these positions often comes from different versions of the Book of Common Prayer over the centuries. ¹² Officially, the Church of England believes in John Calvin’s spiritual partaking of Christ, as adopted in the 1571 Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. Historically, holding to that exact belief has often not been the case. ¹³ One prevailing explanation of Christ’s presence and effects in the Eucharist comes from the distribution of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. When receiving the Eucharist, the recipient is told the words ‘The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.’ ¹⁴ These two sentences have been interpreted as proving Christ’s Real Presence and corresponding benefits against Calvin’s purely spiritual interpretation. Today, the Anglican churches often hold to Christ providing spiritual benefits through the literal presence of his body, with differences of opinion invoking the exact meaning of the Real Presence.

The modern Anglican churches’ eucharistic reaction to Covid-19 was most like the Roman Catholic response. Leaders in the Episcopal Church argued for the partaking of spiritual communion, invoking the language of Thomas Aquinas and a rubric for spiritual communion in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. ¹⁵ Anglican churches often provided different ways to receive the Eucharist, depending on comfort level and belief. In one instance, in an official response from 2022, the episcopal diocese of Los Angeles announced that four options were available for receiving communion: receiving just the bread, individual cups, intinction (dipping the bread in wine), or the traditional practice of the common cup. ¹⁶ The Anglican Church in North America offered a multiplicity of viewpoints, such as guidelines for spiritual communion in addition to a home liturgy for the pandemic. ¹⁷ The different options for the Eucharist were not without their challengers. Ben Jefferies lamented the eucharistic theologies that ‘have been asserted and circulated across the province that have been received without theological analysis’, refuting the idea that spiritual communion ‘is an identical act with actually receiving the sacrament, an identification the prayerbook and articles do not make’. ¹⁸ Jefferies rejected the view that the Eucharist could be administered in one kind, arguing that withholding the cup goes against Article 30 of the Thirty-Nine Articles. ¹⁹ Julia E. Heard similarly noted the concerns of virtual worship and the physical participation of communion. ²⁰ Both Jefferies’ and Heard’s arguments draw from the history of the Book of Common Prayer, citing concerns about how the changing doctrines of the Church of England during the early modern era reflect uncertainty among clerics and the laity about proper forms of modern eucharistic practice and belief.

Opinions within the Eastern Orthodox Church have largely varied according to traditional and modernist divides. The Eastern Orthodox Church often prefers to refer to the Eucharist, and all sacraments, as mysteries, placing less emphasis on defining the nature of the Eucharist. For the Orthodox Church, the Eucharist ‘defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms’. ²¹ An attempt at an explanation of the benefit of the Eucharist is that it ‘brings us into a communion union with God, with each other, and with God’s people throughout the ages’. ²² During Covid-19, there were initial concerns over using the same communion spoon from the same chalice. ²³ Regarding what some may call a modernist perspective, Archdeacon John Chryssavgis noted that, regarding the continuation of communion during Covid-19, ‘at least some hierarchs and priests encouraged their people to ignore sensible medical precautions in the name of “faith”’. ²⁴ Similarly, Father Christopher C. Knight noted the concerns regarding the role of tradition, metaphysics and modern medical science. Knight noted that the communion spoon, a staple of the current liturgy, was not universally used by the church until the late medieval period. ²⁵ Metaphysically, the Very Reverend Dr Cyril Hovorun went as far as calling those who believe that the consecrated bread cannot spread disease in the Eucharist ‘dualists’. ²⁶ The Orthodox hierarchs have seemingly officially adopted the traditionalist stance. With reference to the ‘Directives to be followed by the Clergy dealing with Covid-19 (Coronavirus)’, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America simply stated: ‘The Eucharist will be distributed as usual.’ ²⁷ On 13 March 2020, the Orthodox Church in America’s Holy Synod encouraged the frequent washing of hands and cleansing of other objects in the church, yet, on communion, stated: ‘We nevertheless do not permit changes to the practice of giving Holy Communion.’ ²⁸ The Orthodox Church in America further elucidates its unchanging practice of the Eucharist, condemning any viewpoint doubting its power by stating: ‘All measures that undermine faith and hope in God, anything that doubts the efficacy of Holy Communion and the mysteries is to be rejected.’ ²⁹ Succinctly put by Eugenia Constantinou, the view that ‘[w]hether it is received on a common spoon or not, the most sacred Mystery of the Church can never be the vehicle of illness’ has and will continue to be a matter of contention in the Orthodox Church. ³⁰ Debates concerning the shared eucharistic spoon and the spread of disease will certainly only increase with epidemiological advancements and pastoral concerns.

The spiritual presence of Christ: Presbyterianism

Denominationally, the American Presbyterian Church is divided among theologically liberal and conservative factions, with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PC(USA)) making up the largest denominations. ³¹ These churches all share the same heritage of John Calvin’s belief in spiritually eating Jesus Christ. In communion, the partaker eats bread and drinks wine, and they simultaneously spiritually feed on Christ’s body and blood. ³² In the partaking of the metaphysically unchanged bread and wine, the participant unites themselves with Christ. ³³ In this uniting with Christ, the faith of the believer is strengthened; they are moved to proclaim their praise of Christ and to become of one body with Christ. ³⁴ The blessings of the Eucharist are, to the Calvinists, spiritual benefits of the spiritual partaking of Christ.

Similar to the Anglican Church, despite differences of opinion in social matters, the Presbyterian churches’ official responses were quite similar, reflecting their shared eucharistic heritage. In an advisory opinion issued by the PC(USA), the guideline focused on the ‘extension of the table’ to persons ‘who might not be able to participate in the worship service in person’. ³⁵ The Administrative Committee of the PCA offered similar guidelines for livestreaming options to its congregants; however, the PCA did not include any instructions on how to handle matters of the Eucharist, seemingly leaving the question of communion up to individual congregations. ³⁶ Similarly, the OPC offered similar advice in shifting to online worship services, in that ‘online worship is not the same as public worship … However, the desire to attend public worship on the Lord’s Day, though providentially hindered, counts as an acceptable act of worship on the part of the would-be worshipper.’ ³⁷ Leslie Scanlon, writing in 2022 for the Presbyterian Outlook, a media outlet related to the PC(USA), wrote about the continued impact of Covid-19 and parish ministry. ³⁸ Scanlon records the PC(USA)’s advisory opinion, allowing the virtual celebration of communion in the early days of Covid-19. Due to a lack of ministers, training for elders to offer communion, previously offered in person, was extended virtually in the West Virginia presbytery. Scanlon records how other presbyteries put similar programmes in place to extend communion to the elderly and to those who could not attend due to illness. Despite Covid-19’s impact on the ability to frequently partake in communion, Scanlon notes how its impact has increased the desire for more frequent communion: what was once a bi-yearly celebration has become a regular practice in some churches. ³⁹ In spite of the unified expression to return to church services, little was officially said about the eucharistic properties; instead, the focus was on the communal aspect of gathering together rather than on the detriment of being denied Christ in the sacrament or the benefits of partaking therein.

The memory of Christ: the Southern Baptist Convention

The Baptist theology of communion and the Lord’s Supper emphasize the symbolic nature of the ordinance, focusing on the gathering of believers rather than an imbued spiritual power of communion. Their Covid-19 policies similarly eschewed any benefits of the elements of communion, emphasizing the spiritual benefits of gathering to worship. As a denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention traces its institutional origins to an 1845 separation from the Triennial Convention over the endorsement of slavery. ⁴⁰ From their tumultuous origins, the Baptist Church would become the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. ⁴¹ Individual churches are free to associate with the collection of churches known as the Southern Baptist Convention. ⁴² Heralding a eucharistic tradition from Huldrych Zwingli, the modern Southern Baptist Convention views the Lord’s Supper as ‘a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming’. ⁴³ Further, the position is referred to as an ordinance, reflecting the command of Jesus without an imbued spiritual power. ⁴⁴ Officially, the eucharistic theology of the Southern Baptist Convention culminates with this position, with more time spent in the Baptist Faith and Message on the importance of the gathering of believers as a church on the Lord’s Day than on the benefits of receiving Holy Communion on the Lord’s Day.

As a convention of voluntary membership, individual churches were free to operate during Covid-19 as they saw fit. Southern Baptist churches offered online services and livestreams for small groups in homes, while other churches continued unabated in-person services. ⁴⁵ Opinions on whether to offer the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper were equally varied. Published in early 2020, pastors Bobby Jamieson and Bill Riedel provided two differing perspectives on the matter in a set of complementary articles. ⁴⁶ Jamieson emphasizes that gathering together is essential to the ordinance, focusing on the community gathering rather than the properties of communion. ⁴⁷ Jamieson continues that ‘a virtually mediated, physically dispersed Lord’s Supper is less than optimal: it’s simply not the Lord’s Supper’, concluding that the absence of a Lord’s Supper should ‘make you hunger even more for that future meal’. ⁴⁸ Conversely, Riedel argued that believers are spiritually together but explicitly rejects the idea that ‘the elements themselves gain no special power from my hands because I’m a pastor’. ⁴⁹ The Southern Baptists’ de-emphasis of the Lord’s Supper due to its symbolism was reflected instead in the focus on returning to an in-person gathering of Christians.

Conclusion

Covid-19 has revealed modern churches’ reactions to disease and the power of the Eucharist/Holy Communion; perceptions of the role and meaning of the Eucharist affected churches’ responses in markedly different ways. As technology continues to advance, so too has theology developed, addressing concerns of remaining united as a community while unable to be in one central location. The legal and theological responses to Covid-19 in the United States are still ongoing. Evangelical pastor John MacArthur received a legal settlement for defying Los Angeles County’s closure of churches in the early months of 2020. ⁵⁰ Followers of Kenneth Copeland’s ministries were encouraged to purchase their own communion kits online, consecrating the bread and the cup, believing that ‘[t]he power of the blood of Jesus broke the curse of Covid-19 more than 2,000 years ago’! ⁵¹ While expressions of the meaning, power and efficaciousness of the Eucharist will likely always be a matter of debate among Christians, the Covid-19 pandemic has shown that the centrality of the gathering of Christians on Sunday to partake of the Eucharist (or Holy Communion or the Lord’s Supper) in person, by prayer or now virtually will not stop any time soon.