A Response to “On administering Holy Communion in a Time of a Plague”

This was sent to me and deserves a read. You can read the Calivas article here.

---

We can all agree that we are living in unusual times. However, the nature and extent of the illness that we face, and the proper response of the Church, is a matter of much disagreement. We have seen various responses to the COVID-19 epidemic: calls to close our Churches as infectious vectors, and demands to open them as places of spiritual healing. Directives a) ordering the cessation of sacramental life as part of an effort to “flatten the curve,” and cries for access to the divine grace that flows forth from those very mysteries; b) calling for the restriction of “at-risk persons,” and serious questions about the validity of such controls, c) instructions to liturgists to wear personal protective equipment during the celebration of the divine services and the distribution of the holy Mysteries, and uncertainty about the fitness of such practices. Who has been championing what and on behalf of whom?

The martyric foundation of the holy Orthodox Church, built upon the courageous offerings of countless men and women in the fulfillment of their selfless and self-sacrificial service to Christ for the communication of the holy Gospel has seemingly been radically altered in the briefest of historical moments and without any serious theological thought or reflection. Now, it would seem that our highest goal is to preserve our earthly lives, for which we ought to thank hand-sanitizer, N95 masks, and nitrile gloves, rather than to fulfill our apostolic obligations—of which we will be accountable before God. Certainly, it cannot be argued with any degree of seriousness that “by the self-preservation of our mortal selves, religion has been defended, the faith spread, and the Church strengthened.”1 Yet this seems to be exactly what certain Orthodox hierarchs and “scholars” throughout the USA believe, and is an ideology they seem eager to promote to the faithful.

Now that the stay-at-home orders are expiring, and state and local authorities are again granting permission for public gatherings, lengthy directives for disinfecting our parish facilities have surfaced, as well as new guidelines for the celebration of Divine Service. In some cases, these ‘reopening’ guidelines include provisions for altering the method of distribution of the holy Eucharist. Specifically, this includes permission for the use of multiple spoons, disposable spoons, and even “family” spoons. Additionally, these guidelines include instructions for the celebration (or simple postponement) of other sacraments, such as Baptism, Marriage, as well as the Burial of the Dead, with various suggested alterations in practice.

Recently, a brief paper surfaced, “On administering Holy Communion in a Time of a Plague,”2 (hereafter OAHC) written by Fr A. Calivas on behalf of the “ad-hoc Liturgical Committee,” which included Fr. A. Vithoulkas, Archdiocesan Chancellor. The other member(s) are not named. Apparently this committee was “appointed by His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros,” and concerned itself with the celebration “of the Divine Liturgy in this time of crisis. In particular, the Committee focused on the traditional manner by which Holy Communion is distributed to the people, i.e., through the use of a common communion spoon.” (OAHC)

The quality of scholarship in this document is, at best, questionable.

1. It makes various undocumented claims:
   
   “For example, during the AIDS, Sars, and Ebola epidemics of the recent past and now when the coronavirus pandemic first emerged, before the churches were closed, fewer than the normal communicants approached the holy Chalice.” (OAHC) What is the actual basis for this information? Is the ad-hoc Liturgical Committee able to tell us more about this important study, apparently conducted by Fr. Calivas? What was its sample size? What were its parameters of investigation?3
   
   “During every recent epidemic, many people expressed concerns and fears about the use of the common spoon.” Perhaps influenced by this unsubstantiated claim, on the evening of May 26, in a webinar with presvyteres from across the United States, His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros informed his listeners that the younger generation “was never comfortable” with the single spoon. This is anecdotal nonsense, little better than hearsay, and yet it is being used to introduce sweeping changes into the life of the Church.
2. It makes an appeal to a single Father of the Church, St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, for the suggested practice of disinfecting the common spoon. The reference provided in OAHC is not particularly clear, the entire context of the quotation is not given, and it remains uncorroborated. Again, it seems slender evidence indeed for justifying such far-reaching changes in centuries-old liturgical practices.
3. The dating of the introduction of the spoon is vaguely cited, but whatever its origins, it has been in use, according to the author for roughly 900 years. The author does not provide a single piece of historical evidence of a) disease being transmitted through the distribution of the holy Eucharist, either to clergy or laity, or of b) any encyclical document, decree, or instruction to the clergy from a hierarch or synod warning them of the possibility of their contracting sickness or communicating disease through the common spoon during those intervening nine centuries they claim the common spoon has been used.
4. The author makes various dubious suggestions about the distribution of the holy Eucharist moving forwards:
   
   
   i. “...dip the common spoon in alcohol after each communicant.”
   ii. The priest “drop or pour the Eucharistic elements into the mouth,” that is the communicant should not touch the spoon with their mouth.
   iii. “...replace the common spoon with multiple individual spoons.”
   iv. “...allow each family to bring its own “family communion spoon...”
   
   
   
   This ‘anti-catechism’ teaches the faithful that receiving holy Communion from the spoon is dangerous, and includes the possibility of the “transmission of parasitic microbes.” (OAHC) It is worth noting that, if one accepts this position, he must conclude that up until the appearance of COVID-19 (for a period of time extending 900 years into the past), the faithful were receiving the holy Eucharist in an unsafe manner—a foolish and ignorant practice that made them susceptible to disease and death, apparently at the willful neglect of the Church itself! Furthermore these views deny the sanctifying nature of the contents of the chalice itself — the Body and Blood of our Savior, the Word of God made flesh. If the spoon is to be rejected for remaining outside the sanctifying power of the Body and Blood of Christ, then we must also reject the Cross. St. John of Damascus, speaking of the wood of the Cross, writes, “So, then, that honorable and most truly venerable tree upon which Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for us is itself to be adored, because it has been sanctified by contact with the sacred body and blood.”4 But not the spoon as well? That which can sanctify wood can most assuredly also sanctify not only the spoon but every faithful recipient of the Mystery.5 It should also be noted that if sacramental grace does not extend to the spoon in Holy Communion, which Fr. Calivas is clearly arguing, it also does not extend to the baptismal font, the anointing brush, indeed, it does not even extend to the hand of the celebrant.6
5. The author suggests that he is “very much aware of the growing concerns and fears of the people. I do not question their faith or their sincerity or their devotion to the Lord and the Church. Nor do I wish to belittle the hygienic sensibilities which are so heightened in the society in which we live.” (OAHC) But what faith or sincerity or devotion can exist without belief in God?7 Can a person come forward to participate in the great Sacrament, while at the very same time denying its true nature and efficacy? Is it proper to divide the mystery into parts, that which it heals and that which it does not sanctify? As for hygiene, it would seem wise to refer to Holy Scripture8, rather than “modern sensibilities,” which are founded upon a completely different worldview and telos. We would encourage Fr Calivas to read chapter 6 of the Gospel of John, in which the disciples express reluctance and concern about consuming the Body and Blood of the Lord. In response, the Lord did not tell them he was only speaking metaphorically, or engage in some other dismantling of his teaching in order to allay the fears of his disciples.
6. The paper concludes with the claim that such suggested modifications to the distribution of holy Communion “...will not affect or undermine the doctrines and teachings of the Church on the real presence Christ in the Eucharistic Gifts.” (OAHC) Perhaps the author has not fully digested his own argument. The new order of things, as proposed, is fear, parasites, and illness, in place of confidence, blessings and health. Not to mention the mistrust this creates in the Church, her ministers and rites, and the destructive descent from joyful participation in the sanctified and sanctifying offerings of our Savior into bedlamic confusion. Of course, it will undoubtedly undermine the doctrines and teachings of the Church, since it stands opposed to them. It does so by proposing a secular, reductively rationalistic view that undermines the Church’s teaching about the sanctification of matter. As such, it tacitly denies the reality of the Incarnation, specifically the hypostatic union and the exchange of properties (between he uncreated and the created), and unwittingly lapses into a type of Nestorianism, in which there is no bridge between God and the world, between grace and matter, but only utter separation.9 Therefore, it appears that the author wishes to claim that the transformative power of divine grace available in Holy Communion is powerless and incapable of sanctifying inanimate objects such as the spoon, the communion cloth, or the holy icons, which, he would have us believe, are all under the power of corruption, disease, and death.
7. However, the witness of Holy Scripture and the tradition of the Church says otherwise: the burning bush (Ex. 3:1-4:17), the mantles of Elias and Elissaios (4 Kingd. 2:8; 2:14), the fringe of the Lord’s garment (Mt. 9:20, 14:36); the shadow of Peter (Acts 5:15-16), the sash of the Mother of God, countless holy icons, etc. We are not concerned about the spoon, as such, but about a theological program that, in its facile scholasticism, seeks to negate the overflowing merciful loving-kindness of divine benefactions upon mankind through God’s creation and replace it with a kind of dualist ontology. And are we to be at peace with this sort of faithlessness—with those who seek to misconstrue and ruin the deposit of the faith, and whether unwittingly or not, bring an onslaught of spiritual disturbances upon the faithful?10

What is needed today is not a confused and theologically vacuous quick slide into mindless liturgical revisionism, based on dubious facts and a weak grasp of the current epidemic, but an exhortation to faithfulness, courage, holiness, and an abiding trust in God’s promises that extend beyond this life. Certainly, it is not right for our scholars and leaders to encourage the faithful towards a fear of sickness and death. In the first place, the Lord encouraged His disciples against fear.11 In the second place, death is an unavoidable reality that must be faced, so much so that the Apostle experienced it daily12 as a proof of his willingness to endure it, and understood it as gain and not loss.13 We too, as Christians, must be willing to endure it, and especially so in the worship and service of God. In the third place, our Lord Himself endured it, and by enduring it, He swallowed it up, since it was not able to devour Him.14 Therefore, He has made us victors in spite of the death that we will die. It is not a common spoon that will infect and kill us, since it is filled, as it were, with Life itself. Rather, it is an empty heart, faithless and fearful, a fallen and worldly mind, moved here and there by every suggestion of the devil, blown about by every breeze of secular thinking, so that by a thousand cuts we will have already died long before our own death.

“Our remedy is the grace of Christ, and the body of death is our body. Let us, therefore, be exiled from the body lest we be exiles from Christ. Even if we are in the body, let us not follow what is of the body. Let us not neglect the rights of nature, but let us desire rather the gifts of grace.”15

--

1 “By the death of the martyrs, religion has been defended, the faith spread, and the Church strengthened.” (St. Ambrose, “The Christian Funeral Oration,” in Funeral Orations, vol. 22, The Fathers of the Church, p. 215)

2 This article, with Fr. Calivas as signatory, has appeared in more than one form. Because Fr Calivas is presenting himself as an “authority,” it should be noted that when he was appointed Dean of Holy Cross by Archbishop Iakovos, he did not have a doctoral degree. In response to faculty protests, he was sent to Greece where he was fast-tracked for a token PhD. His lack of serious scholarly training is evident throughout the essay in question and in all his written work, nearly all of it published through Holy Cross Orthodox Press, serving as his personal “Vanity Press.”

3 Incidentally, the author makes no effort to explain why this situation merits these changes today. Why is this pandemic is so radically different than the many that went before, even though previous plagues had far higher death rates, as to merit this hasty response? Smallpox is reported to have had a death rate of 30% in the 18th century. The Plague of Justinian is estimated to have had a death rate as high as 40%. Though we do not yet have an accurate measure of the COVID-19 death rate, it is far less deadly, with estimate below one percent to 1.3%.

4 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, 11 (vol. 37, The Fathers of the Church, p. 350-351). See also, the 3rd Stichera from the Vespers of the Exaltation of the Cross, “...ὅθεν σε καρδίᾳ καὶ χείλεσι, πιστῶς περιπτυσσόμενοι, τὸν ἁγιασμὸν ἀρυόμεθα...,” which explains that the faithful are imparted with sanctification through physical contact with the venerable Cross. What sanctification? Indeed, “Christ, who is our sanctification,” as the Apostle teaches (1 Corinthian 1:30).

5 The entire Service of Preparation of Holy Communion is replete with references to the sanctification of the human person. A representative example: “Cleanse me of all defilement of flesh and spirit; teach meto achieve perfect holiness by fear of you, so that receiving a share of your holy gifts with the witness of my conscience clean, I may be united to your holy Body and Blood and have you dwelling and abiding in me...” (Prayer 2, Service of Preparation for Holy Communion). Are we to conclude that Holy Communion can sanctify a human being but not a spoon?

6 “...when you see the bath of water and the hand of the priest touching your head, you may not think that this is merely water, nor that only the hand of the bishop lies upon your head. For it is not a man who does what is done, but it is the grace of the Spirit which sanctifies the nature of the water and touches your head together with the hand of the priest.” (St. John Chrysostom, 10th Instruction, Baptismal Instructions, vol. 31, Ancient Christian Writers p. 47.)

7 “Without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever comes to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” (Heb 11:6.) “In matters that surpass the weakness of our reasoning we must turn to the teaching of faith.” (St. John Chrysostom, 11th Instruction, Baptismal Instructions, vol. 31, Ancient Christian Writers p. 166.) See also the Instruction 12: 6, “You are called ‘faithful’ both because you believe in God and have as a trust from Him justification, sanctity, purity of soul, filial adoption, and the kingdom of heaven.” p. 174–175.

8 “To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.” (Tit 1:15), See also Heb 13:14.

9 St. Maximos the Confessor explains how it is that created matter participates in “magnificent signs and wonders” by the principle of innovation, while a thing’s principle nature remains intact. It is worth quoting the Saint at length: “Every innovation, generally speaking, takes place in relation to the mode of whatever is being innovated, not in relation to its principle of nature, because when a principle is innovated it effectively results in the destruction of nature, since the nature in question no longer possesses inviolate the principle according to which it exists. When, however, the mode is innovated—so that the principle of nature is preserved inviolate—it manifests a wondrous power, for it displays nature being acted on and acting outside the limits of its own laws. Now the principle of human nature is that it consists of soul and body, and this nature consists of a rational soul and body, whereas its mode is the order whereby it naturally acts and is acted upon, frequently alternating and changing, without however in any way changing nature along with it. And this is exactly what happens in the case of every other thing, whenever God—in His providence for all that is subject to His care, and to demonstrate His power that is over all and through all things—wishes to manifest something new in His creation. Indeed this is exactly what He did from the very beginning, when, in the course of bringing about the unexpected, he wrought magnificent signs and wonders, all by this principle of innovation.” (Ambigua 42, On the Difficulties in the Church Fathers, vol. 1, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library)

10 “It is not true peace when adulterers seem to be peaceable toward each other, or when robbers and drunkards, slanderous and proud men appear to be mutually agreeable. This should not be called peace,...if a man desires true peace, he should first strive to possess it with God.” (St. Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 166, Sermons (1–238), vol. 2, The Fathers of the Church, p. 399)

11 Matthew 8:26

12 1 Corinthians 15: 31. See St. John Chrysostom, Against the Judaizers, Disc. 8, 3.

13 Philippians 1:21

14 “Divinity disguised itself in humanity and approached (death), which killed, then was killed: death killed natural life, but supernatural Life killed death.” (St. Ephrem the Syrian, vol. 91, The Fathers of the Church, The Homily of our Lord, 3, 1).

15 St. Ambrose, “The Christian Funeral Oration,” in Funeral Orations, vol. 22, The Fathers of the Church, p. 214.