Administration of the Lord's Supper

[NaphtaliPress]

Shouldn't we be careful of adding anything to the biblical institution without some reason? I cannot think of any that fit the prescription of decency and orderliness, particularly when clearly such a practice contravenes most Presbyterian constitutions (someone cited the LC above).
As an aside, the great RCC apologist Roberto Bellarmino sought to defend all of that churches ceremonies and idolatry on the basis of 1 Cor. 14:40.

 

[MW]

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ," 1 Corinthians 10:16. Again, "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup," 1 Corinthians 11:28. There are two distinct sacramental elements and two distinct sacramental actions which are essential to the Lord's supper. The removal of one of these elements and actions destroys the symbolic nature of the sacrament and thereby renders it useless as a sign.

 

[jwithnell]

I realize that history itself doesn't make or break an argument. However, I understood the RC practice to have been to forbid the cup to the laity because, in transubstantiation, it is the actual blood of Christ and the church couldn't take that risk. As someone else has mentioned, intinction was used so the laity could receive the wine, but the priest could still protect the blood of Christ. This practice is so rooted in transubstantiation that it seems quite foreign to a reformed perspective.

 

[toddpedlar]

Suffice it to say that I haven't found arguments that say that intinction is invalid or even contrary to the command of Christ to be convincing.

So you take the command to 'drink' to be symbolic?

Nope.

So how is it, with intinction, your congregation recognizes "drink from it, all of you"?

 

[Edward]

Shouldn't we be careful of adding anything to the biblical institution without some reason? I cannot think of any that fit the prescription of decency and orderliness, particularly when clearly such a practice contravenes most Presbyterian constitutions (someone cited the LC above).
As an aside, the great RCC apologist Roberto Bellarmino sought to defend all of that churches ceremonies and idolatry on the basis of 1 Cor. 14:40.

I'm not sure what point you are addressing here.

---------- Post added at 08:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 PM ----------

So how is it, with intinction, your congregation recognizes "drink from it, all of you"?

Thanks for your post. I'm trying to play nice on this thread but my thoughts ran along the same line (if not so gently put).

 

[NaphtaliPress]

From this standpoint the scandal and offense of aping such a practice alone should give pause to any defense from 1 Cor. 14:40. How can it be decent or orderly if an offense?

I realize that history itself doesn't make or break an argument. However, I understood the RC practice to have been to forbid the cup to the laity because, in transubstantiation, it is the actual blood of Christ and the church couldn't take that risk. As someone else has mentioned, intinction was used so the laity could receive the wine, but the priest could still protect the blood of Christ. This practice is so rooted in transubstantiation that it seems quite foreign to a reformed perspective.

 

[Andres]

Michael and Rae,
You both say you haven't heard/found any arguments against intinction to be convincing, but I'd be curious as to what the arguments are for intinction. In other words, why do you practice it? Is there something benefical to it?

The same benefit that's derived from any other logistical decision regarding the mode of administration (eg: individual cups vs. a single cup) -- decency and order.

I still don't understand your explanation here. It's not as if drinking from a cup or cups is indecent or out of order, so there must be more of a reason why your church practices intinction than just that. If you're arguing that it's simply preference, then I guess I'm asking why you all prefer it.

 

[raekwon]

Suffice it to say that I haven't found arguments that say that intinction is invalid or even contrary to the command of Christ to be convincing.

So you take the command to 'drink' to be symbolic?

Nope.

So how is it, with intinction, your congregation recognizes "drink from it, all of you"?

Todd,

The hermeneutic that says that the intent of Christ's command is that the wine go straight from cup to lips also must say that he commands that we all drink from the same cup ("Drink of it, all of you"). I don't know of any anti-intinctionists who are equally opposed to using individual cups (though there might be some).

I simply have a difficult time believing that somehow cup --> bread --> mouth is any less faithful to Christ's command than cup --> mouth and bread --> mouth separately. I understand that there are plenty who disagree, but I think that it's a hard case to make consistently.

---------- Post added at 01:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

Michael and Rae,
You both say you haven't heard/found any arguments against intinction to be convincing, but I'd be curious as to what the arguments are for intinction. In other words, why do you practice it? Is there something benefical to it?

The same benefit that's derived from any other logistical decision regarding the mode of administration (eg: individual cups vs. a single cup) -- decency and order.

I still don't understand your explanation here. It's not as if drinking from a cup or cups is indecent or out of order, so there must be more of a reason why your church practices intinction than just that. If you're arguing that it's simply preference, then I guess I'm asking why you all prefer it.

I'm not saying that drinking from a cup or cups is necessarily indecent or out of order (but I guess I wasn't clear). We were growing to a point where the individual cups & wafers was getting unwieldy, so in an effort to maintain decency and order, we gave intinction a try, and it worked. Simple as that. Some might want to call it "preference," but I believe the biblical principle of decency and order was at work in the decision.

 

[interalia]

Andres-

Rae essentially beat me to all my points. I want to underscore, though, that I think intinction is FAR closer to the Scriptural mandate of sharing the cup than individual cups...which defies logic, if you ask me, between the two options. If some are hung up on "drink" as modus v. absorbing liquid via bread, then you/your church should adopt a method closer to Rome or the Anglican approach to satisfy your conscience. This is an issue where many of you are reading law into an area of grace and good faith. The hall monitor mindset against those who seek "decency and order" while attempting to be faithful to Scripture is disturbing.

For the record, I concur with what has been said already, but also believe that that intinction fulfills the idea of (often in a better way, esp compared to those blasted plastic cups) "sharing" better. And as far as preference, I do think it is legitimate (and there is grace and levity to allow) to consider health and hygeine
with the Lord's Table. If the options to fully appreciate the sharing of the same cup are intinction or drinking from the same chalice, then yes, the faculties we have as imago Dei can reason the preference for intinction. Full disclosure, I am a professor of public health law. Many falsely associate the "oddity" or "weirdness" of intinction with Rome, which is incorrect and a failure of rationality in this situation.

By the way, Andres, I should have PM'd you a while back, but I greatly enjoy reading your posts on all topics. Thanks for your insight!

 

[VictorBravo]

If some are hung up on "drink" as modus v. absorbing liquid via bread, then you/your church should adopt a method closer to Rome or the Anglican approach to satisfy your conscience.

Michael, you might not realize it, but this is an extraordinarily loaded statement.

Let it be made clear: for the reasons articulated by Matthew above, the administrators believe that intinction is not a confessional or appropriate means of taking the Lord's Supper. It is contrary to the plain statements found in the confessions we have adopted as governing.

Promotion of the practice will be considered contra-confessional.

Discussion of the origin and reasons for this innovation are allowed, but not promotion of it.

Closing thread.