Communion and the State. Wyoming dictates how the faithful will receive and what that reveals about what people understand and don't understand.

St. Mary's Cathedral in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

We've been unusually active here in an unusual way, for this blog, since the COVID 19 Pandemic struck.  The reason is obvious.  Churches, like every other institution, have been greatly impacted by the Pandemic.

Well, not like every other institution.  While its seemingly easy for some to forget, including civil authorities, a church isn't like a restaurant or a bar or something, and particularly depending upon a person's faith, the closure of religious services, and services mean more than just a Sunday gathering, can not only be problematic, but traumatic, and even dire, in their consequences.

This is particularly so for the Apostolic Churches, those being, for those who might not be familiar with the term, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.  The Apostolic Churches have a relationship with their clergy that Protestant Christians do not.  Members of the Apostolic faiths depending upon the clergy for administration of the sacraments.  Nobody but an ordained cleric, and more specifically in terms of the Apostolic faiths, a cleric who can trace his ordination through a Bishop who was one of the Apostles, can deliver the sacraments.  We've gone into this elsewhere and will forgo doing so here, but we'd note that the closure of Catholic and Orthodox Churches during the pandemic is, therefore, uniquely problematic for Apostolic Christians.

Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church, Casper Wyoming.

Those closures are not, contrary to what has been repeatedly claimed during this crisis, fully unparallelled.  Churches were in fact closed during the 1918-1919 Influenza Pandemic, although I do not know for how long.  A review of period newspapers demonstrates this to be the case.  Therefore, those numerous, mostly heavily Traditional, voices that claim "Catholics have never been denied the sacraments" aren't fully correct when they mean that church doors have not been closed due to disease before.  Moreover, while I haven't researched it, I'm fairly confident, just from having run across references here and there, that churches of all types have been closed before due to local pandemics.  Indeed, something we've forgotten, as we always view our own times as fully analogous to the past, is that epidemics were once quite common.

While I don't know the situation in the Orthodox Churches, closures have been controversial, as noted, in some Catholic quarters and have resulted in petitions to Bishops to open things back up. At least for the most part those petitions have not resulted in changes, but churches are now actually beginning to open up.  Some Protestant churches that closed early on have actually reopened in slight defiance, as they're usually only a little bit ahead of changes in local orders, to state quarantine commands.  I think I've read of one Catholic one doing so, and I saw a reference, but didn't follow up on it, to at least one SSPX chapel doing so, although as Catholics know or should know the relationship between the SSPX and the Church is problematic.  At least one diocese in New Mexico did reopen public Masses, and while there was concern, it was not in defiance of a closure order.

Which brings us to Wyoming, which is providing an interesting example of how things may develop and how that could be really odd, if not problematic, for Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches recognize seven sacraments, those being baptism, Communion (receiving the Holy Eucharist), confirmation, reconciliation (confession of sins), anointing of the sick, marriage and holy orders. 

The Seven Sacraments, altarpiece, 1450.  Sacraments are depicted being administered, from left to right, are baptism, confirmation, confession, Communion (center panel), holy orders, marriage and anointing of the sick.

The way the sacraments are administered and received is fairly poorly understood by non Catholics as well as Catholics.  Baptism, for example, is a sacrament which the Catholic Church recognizes can be conferred by non Catholics upon non Catholics and which remains perfectly valid.*  A Christian baptized in another church is never "rebaptized" if the person later becomes Catholic and even laymen can validly baptize a person although the baptism is illicit unless done in a dire emergency.

Somewhat similarly, it requires a priest to perform a valid marriage if one of the parties being married is a Catholic, but due to Canon Law, not due to the nature of marriage. The Church didn't always routinely witness marriages but came to do so to protect the parties, particularly the female party.  Now all marriages involving Catholics, with some exceptions, must be performed by a priest, but not all marriages are sacramental, as both parties must be baptized Christians in order for that to occur.

Confirmation in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is normally performed by a Bishop, but for the Orthodox and the Eastern Rite its normally administered contemporaneously at baptism by the priest.  Confessions can only be heard by a priest.  Anointing of the sick can likewise only be done by a priest.  Holy Orders, i.e., ordaining of priests and deacons, can only be done by Bishops.

And consecration of the Eucharist can only be done by a priest in the Apostolic Churches.  The same position is taken by those churches closely based on the Apostolic Churches, such as the churches in the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran Church.

Communion in the desert during World War Two. This is likely an Anglican priest, give as these are British soldiers.

All of these churches have a very distinct view of what the Eucharist is, and they believe it is the real body and blood of Christ, not a symbol. They don't all agree on what exactly the nature of Host is, as there's at least a difference in understanding between the Apostolic Churches and the Lutheran Church, and determining what various churches in the Anglican Communion believe is a bit difficult at times, but by and large they all agree that only a priest or pastor can consecrate a Host.

What various Protestant dominions, outside the ones we just mentioned, believe about their communions, and most of them have one, varies, but quite a few simply view it as a symbol.  Many of these have communion only occasionally as a result, with a much different understanding of what is occuring. And, for that matter, the Apostolic Churches and those closely based on it would regard those other churches as unable to validly consecrate a Host in any event, and therefore likewise agree that in those churches, as opposed to in their church, it is a symbol.

Depiction of a Protestant Communion.

Which brings us to the recent order by the Governor of the State of Wyoming.

Wyoming is opening up its churches, with restrictions.  Those provisions are here:

Those are, of course, all the provisions.  The one that brings in our post here is 4(g), which states:

Communion shall be served in individual containers.

The really remarkable thing here is that a state order purports to direct how Communion will be received. 

I'm not a Canon Lawyer, but this provision strikes me as impossible for the Apostolic Churches to comply with.

Indeed, as should be evident by the discussion set out above, Communion, while it happens in every Mass, is a major matter for Apostolic Churches.  Apostolic Churches that aren't in communion with each other have rules about the reception of Communion by members of the other churches.  I.e., Catholic Churches will allow Orthodox Christians to receive Communion in a Catholic Church, but in most places its discouraged so as to not offend the Orthodox. The Orthodox, in contrast, are very reluctant to allow Catholics to receive Communion in their churches and in some cases simply won't allow it.  Neither the Catholic Churches or the Orthodox will allow those outside of the Catholic and Orthodox churches to receive Communion except under specific circumstances.  

Recipients of Communion must not be bearing unforgiven mortal sins.  

At least Catholics are obligated to receive Communion at least once a year, although most receive it much more frequently than that, and some daily.  Most adherent Orthodox are like most Catholics and receive it weekly.

The method of reception of the Holy Eucharist is very prescribed and actually subject to debate among Catholics.  For most of recent history Latin Rite Catholics, and those Protestants whose faiths are closely based on the Latin Rite, received Communion on the tongue, delivered by the priest.  Up until the 1960s, this usually meant that they received it kneeling at an alter rail with a Communion Plate held below the receiving person to catch the consecrated Host if it was dropped.  Following Vatican II, this was changed as alter rails came out of many churches, a sad development in that many were beautiful works of art, and the communicants then received on the tongue by going up to the priest, receiving standing as a rule.  Starting at some time in the 70s or 80s, actually as an act of odd disobedience to the rubics, Catholics in many places, including the United States, started receiving in the hand, which has become a matter or heated Trad debate.  It is perfectly valid, and as its defenders will note, was the method often used in the early Church, something Trads typically ignore.

Also in the 80s the Latin Rite in North America reintroduced the reception by the parishioners of the consecrated wine, the Precious Blood, although a Catholic is not obligated to receive both forms.  Most do.

In the Eastern Rite and the Orthodox the consecrated bread and wine are mixed and then served, with a tiny spoon that is turned to provide the reception, on the communicants tongue.

There's no earthly way to do this with individual containers.

Indeed, individual containers will strike members of Apostolic Churches as the oddest thought.  It even suggest that the reception  might be taken home, which the Apostolic Churches strictly forbid except in rare specific circumstances.  

So effectively, the Governor of Wyoming has forbid Communion.

I don't know what religion Governor Gordon is.  He want to an Episcopal boarding school while young, but that may mean less than it at first seems. The assumption that a person going to a denomination's school means they are members is a common one, but its never a completely safe assumption.  He and his first wife were married in a Congregationalist Church, which is a church with substantially different theology than the Episcopal Church.  I don't know if that means that he became a member of that church, or if he's a non defined Protestant, something that's very common these days, or if he was and remains an Episcopalian.  

If he is an Episcopalian, his order certainly creates a problem for the traditional branch of his co-religious.  Maybe that doesn't matter to Gordon, who might figure that safety first dictates this approach.  Or maybe he doesn't grasp the religious nature of the topic the way that Catholics and Orthodox will.  Or maybe he's just signing an order, one of a seemingly endless series these days, that come across his desk addressing a lot of topics in a time of crisis.

In any event, it presents an interesting example of how various Christians don't understand each others faiths, and beyond that, it makes Communion impossible for a body of Christians that takes its Sunday obligation extremely seriously.