Intinction is a method of serving Holy Communion by which the communicant dips the bread into the wine or juice and consumes it. This mode of administration has been around for quite some time, and is in general use in many mainline denominations. It appears to be an offshoot of an old Byzantine modality in which the priests first recieved the Eucharist, after which the bread fragments were tossed into the wine, and that was served to the congregation. The rational for this appears to have been a belief that Communion is a celebration of the Resurrection, and thus the "body and blood" should be mingled.
On the other hand, Scripture teaches (1 Corinthians 11) that as often as we receive Holy Communion we "show forth the Lord's death till he come." Under this view the "body and blood" should be separate because the rite brings Christ's death to remembrance. Indeed, Jesus gave the bread first, and then the cup (as shown in all three synoptic gospels and 1 Corinthians. In Luke 22 we're told that the cup (the Cup of Elijah in the Seder) was given after supper. By this it is clear that the bread was to be eaten, and then the cup was to bee drunk.
Thus Intinction is theologically inappropriate, first because it is contrary to the clear instructions in four major Bible passages, and additionally because it equates Communion with the sop given to Judas (John 13). In that passage we're told that when asked by John who it was that would betray him, he said, "The one to whom I give the sop when I have dipped it is he that shall betray me."
Historically speaking, I have never found any explanation of how intinction came into the western rite. Although several people have told me of its use in the Roman Catholic Church, a Sister Administrator once told me that intinction was not in any of their rubrics. Moreover, no United Methodist pastor with whom I've talked concerning this matter has ever been able to tell me how the practice got into the liturgy of the United Methodist Church. As a result I have personally come to the conclusion that intinction is popular with clergy and some laity because it is a quick means of conductiong the ritual, and it also saves cleaning or disposing of numerous small cups, to say nothing of saving the cost of purchasing the cups.
From the standpoint of good hygienic practice intinction is also a controversial matter. I know of at least one United Methodist pastor who refused to use the mode in his church because he considered it unhealthy. Certainly there is the potential for spreading pathogens by getting one's fingers into the juice when dipping the bread. Some clergy have attempted to deal with that problem by providing towelettes for sanitizing the hands prior to dipping the bread. I have no clear notion as to the effectiveness of that approach.
My final conclusion is that on theological, historical, and hygienic grounds it would be far wiser of all churches to discontinue the practice of intinction: on theological consideration because intinction runs contrary to all Biblical teaching on the subject; on historical consideration because there is no real historical base for intinction in the western rite, and because even if one points to the Byzantine origin, that is also contrary to Scripture regarding the purpose of Holy Communion; and on hygienic consideration because while the question of passing pathogens may be controversial, abandoning intinction would make the whole question moot.
On the other hand, Scripture teaches (1 Corinthians 11) that as often as we receive Holy Communion we "show forth the Lord's death till he come." Under this view the "body and blood" should be separate because the rite brings Christ's death to remembrance. Indeed, Jesus gave the bread first, and then the cup (as shown in all three synoptic gospels and 1 Corinthians. In Luke 22 we're told that the cup (the Cup of Elijah in the Seder) was given after supper. By this it is clear that the bread was to be eaten, and then the cup was to bee drunk.
Thus Intinction is theologically inappropriate, first because it is contrary to the clear instructions in four major Bible passages, and additionally because it equates Communion with the sop given to Judas (John 13). In that passage we're told that when asked by John who it was that would betray him, he said, "The one to whom I give the sop when I have dipped it is he that shall betray me."
Historically speaking, I have never found any explanation of how intinction came into the western rite. Although several people have told me of its use in the Roman Catholic Church, a Sister Administrator once told me that intinction was not in any of their rubrics. Moreover, no United Methodist pastor with whom I've talked concerning this matter has ever been able to tell me how the practice got into the liturgy of the United Methodist Church. As a result I have personally come to the conclusion that intinction is popular with clergy and some laity because it is a quick means of conductiong the ritual, and it also saves cleaning or disposing of numerous small cups, to say nothing of saving the cost of purchasing the cups.
From the standpoint of good hygienic practice intinction is also a controversial matter. I know of at least one United Methodist pastor who refused to use the mode in his church because he considered it unhealthy. Certainly there is the potential for spreading pathogens by getting one's fingers into the juice when dipping the bread. Some clergy have attempted to deal with that problem by providing towelettes for sanitizing the hands prior to dipping the bread. I have no clear notion as to the effectiveness of that approach.
My final conclusion is that on theological, historical, and hygienic grounds it would be far wiser of all churches to discontinue the practice of intinction: on theological consideration because intinction runs contrary to all Biblical teaching on the subject; on historical consideration because there is no real historical base for intinction in the western rite, and because even if one points to the Byzantine origin, that is also contrary to Scripture regarding the purpose of Holy Communion; and on hygienic consideration because while the question of passing pathogens may be controversial, abandoning intinction would make the whole question moot.
No comments:
Post a Comment