Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think that's why I would not participate and likely would start looking for another church. If that type of practice starts coming in there are likely worse things on the way. This also assumes that all appeals to reform have failed.No. Because primarily it is based on superstition--that is, that one must never ever spill the wine.
At the request of Lane, I translated an old treatise written by a Roman Catholic scholar that pointed out numerous arguments against it. Lane included some of that in his well-researched paper on intinction located here:
https://theaquilareport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/IntinctionPaper.pdf
Hold close to the Ordinances, and by no means part with them if you can have them in any purity, and peace to your consciences, but rather part with Princes Palaces then with them, but while you enjoy them, trust not in them, nor think not to stand upon this, that you are blessed in regard of them; but look at them all as loss, and dross, and dung, that you may win Christ.
And as at all times we are to sit loose from the Ordinances in respect of our trust, and confidence, so sometimes we must be content to forego the Ordinances of God for Christ’s sake; if we cannot enjoy the liberty of the Ordinances, but with sin against our souls, in this case the Ordinances of God are to be neglected, and omitted, if he cannot have them with innocency and purity to his soul, he must let them go.
All the good Priests that were wont to minister before the Lord in the Synagogue, throughout the ten Tribes, when they could not enjoy their places, but worship the Calves, (though the Calves were very like the Cherubims) when they could not do their service to God, but they must serve such Images as God had not set up there, thereupon all the honest and true-hearted Priests left their places, and would no more minister there, rather then be compelled to minister at Dan and Bethel, 2 Chronicles 11:14. Jeroboam cast them out because they would not do so, and they were content to be cast out, and sold their Livings, and went up to Jerusalem; To show you, that sometimes when Christ cannot be had, but we must forgo the very Ordinances of God, because we cannot have the Ordinances without impure mixtures of human invention; then let them go, rather then defile our own hearts and hands with sin against God.
Then in this case give this price also for Christ, for we come not to the Ordinances for the Ordinance's sake, but for Christ’s sake to find him there, but rather then willingly put forth our hands to any sin; rather loose the Ordinances then loose Christ.
For me, it would depend on the session's reasoning for why they are administering in this way. If it was the regular practice and the reason(-s) were untenable, I would not abstain, I would leave for another congregation. Prolonged abstaining is essentially self-excommunication so you should not stay. Occasionally abstaining in the case of a visiting another congregation (or a visiting minister) administering a sacrament in a way that would cause you to betray or destroy your liberty of conscience is a different matter.
I do not see a good reason to practice intinction. But I also do not see a good reason to automatically abstain anymore than I do from other administrations that I do not see as completely or strictly Biblical. There are many variables. For example, if the wine was poured/shed/ἐκχυννόμενον from a pitcher into a cup and then communicants came forward to a table (or the cup and bread were passed), broke off a piece of the bread, dipped it in the cup, and then ate it, I would not have a problem partaking - it maintains the symbolic pouring out of the blood, the breaking of the body, and the unity of the cup. I don't personally like dipping because of John 13.26. But I also don't like the practice of individual shot glasses instead of drinking from the cup (I Corinthians 10.21 and 11.27) - the cup is the symbol in Scripture, not what's in it (I prefer wine because I believe that is most faithful to Scripture and my confessional standards, but I do not believe wine is symbolic of anything - in John's account [ch.22] it seems there are two separate references to the cup: the last Passover [vv.15-18] and the first Lord's Supper [vv.19-20] and the "fruit of the vine" reference is in the context of the first). In other words, I would rather dip into a common cup than drink from individual shot glasses. The latter is what the congregation does where I attend, and while I have raised the issue with the session (and not received a response), it is not yet enough for me to abstain/leave. In either situation I am not drinking from the cup which I believe is what was instituted in Scripture. In both situations I would partake but also seek to raise the issue with the elders.What good reason could there be to practice intinction?
So intinction is imposed on everyone? I didn't grasp that part. Then no, I would abstain until they changed or at least accomodated you. You "drink" the wine, and "eat" the bread. WLC 169: "who are, by the same appointment" [Christ's appointment], "to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine".Some more context. This is not a body that belongs to a denomination. This a Protestant gathering overseas that does have Elders. The church options are very few in the area. Intinction has been their norm and so far as I have gathered, from an Elder, put in place for practical reasons and not theological or superstitious ones.
Our family has been visiting.
China.Brother, which part of Asia are you in? Curious
I read something along the lines of your first paragraph in Robert Bruce's workThe basic theological problem with intinction is that it symbolizes life, not death. In my paper, the point about having two distinct sacramental actions is that blood removed from body equals death. Paul says that the LS proclaims Christ's death, not his life. Blood in body is life, which is what intinction would point to. Blood removed from body in two distinct sacramental actions points to violent death.
The practical reasons for doing intinction are not coherent. Dipping bread into a common cup means everyone's fingers get into the wine, and there are FAR more germs underneath one's fingernails than there are in the mouth. Common cup, if desired (and Luke's "distribute this" means divide it up, so common cup is not required) should be done distinct from the partaking of the bread.
I've never heard of this. Is it a Roman Catholic custom? I chose "no" because I don't celebrate the Catholic Mass.
For most of its history, it was not a Roman Catholic practice. It was an Eastern Orthodox practice for almost all of its history. Rome reintroduced it after the Lambeth Conference and Vatican II, as did anyone else who did it.I've never heard of this. Is it a Roman Catholic custom? I chose "no" because I don't celebrate the Catholic Mass. But now I have a question about a Bible verse: "Jesus answered: "He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon."
What is the meaning? Is Jesus dipping the matzah in the wine or in the charoset?
The Maronite Catholic church practices instinction. Although after Vatican II the cup was no longer withheld from the laity I've never seen communion distributed via instinction at a roman rite mass.I've never heard of this. Is it a Roman Catholic custom? I chose "no" because I don't celebrate the Catholic Mass. But now I have a question about a Bible verse: "Jesus answered: "He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon."
What is the meaning? Is Jesus dipping the matzah in the wine or in the charoset?