Intinction
- Thread starter Grant
- Start date
- Status
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
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
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
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.
For most of us in confessional reformed churches of any degree of strictness this would never occur. If it all the sudden started in my church I would protest and if unsuccessful in blocking the practice, then leave for along the lines Jason mentions. While errors of others do not make the sacrament not the sacrament, given the significance of the error I would consider abstaining while the courts considered it and advocate for suspending observance till it was resolved due to the scandal.
hammondjones
Puritan Board Junior
John Cotton, Christ the Fountain of Life
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
What good reason could there be to practice intinction?
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
Our family has been visiting.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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".
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
Brother, which part of Asia are you in? Curious
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
China.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
The 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.
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.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
I read something along the lines of your first paragraph in Robert Bruce's work
Aretha
Puritan Board Freshman
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?
What is the meaning? Is Jesus dipping the matzah in the wine or in the charoset?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
It has been done in Catholic masses but they generally don't do intinction.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
Rome2Geneva
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Sophomore
I believe the Orthodox (Greek and Russian) also practice intinction or something pretty close - the priest puts the bread in the wine and then he spoons it into the mouths of the recipients. Common spoon if you like. They also fully immerse infants 3 times when they baptize them which should leave everyone on PB unsure of whether to be happy or mad (I believe the infants are also spoon-fed the Eucharist immediately after being baptized).
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Grant, I would consider it irregular, a practice to try to correct when/if it becomes appropriate to say something, but not a reason to refuse to commune with my brothers and sisters in Christ. If you felt they were being superstitious or were intending to deny an important truth, that might be a different matter. But if they're otherwise sound and are just carrying on a tradition they haven't fully thought through, I would still commune. Refusing the fellowship of the Lord's Table is a serious indictment against a church, and not one I would wish to make hastily. I imagine myself explaining to Christ how I would not come to his table because his people in that church were doing it wrong and I knew better—and I'm not sure Christ would like that explanation.
So, I would choose to partake. But if you end up choosing to refrain, do a serious humility check on yourself so that you can refrain with a godly attitude that avoids being a judgmental know-it-all. Provided you do the self-examination and prayerwork necessary to avoid the error of arrogance (which may be a worse error than practicing intinction), either choice might be a godly one for you.
So, I would choose to partake. But if you end up choosing to refrain, do a serious humility check on yourself so that you can refrain with a godly attitude that avoids being a judgmental know-it-all. Provided you do the self-examination and prayerwork necessary to avoid the error of arrogance (which may be a worse error than practicing intinction), either choice might be a godly one for you.
- Status
