Intinction (i.e. receiving the Body and Blood of Christ together by dipping the Host in the Chalice) has a history of controversy in the Episcopal Church. Many Bishops and Priests strongly oppose it, and the Prayer Book rubrics specifically designate the Ordinary (diocesan bishop) of each diocese as the final authority in this matter and, under him, the Rector of each parish.Intinction is fully permitted in the Catholic Church, but it seems to me that, as the discussion above makes clear, it isn't really part of the "Anglican patrimony". Indeed, since it seems at least to require special liturgical vessels, I haven't seen it so far in any Catholic mass I've attended. Yet I'm told that compulsory intinction is the norm at both OLW and OLA, both now key parishes in the OCSP.In the Diocese of Chicago intinction was absolutely forbidden in 1941 by Bishop Conkling. In 1954 Bishop Burrill restated that total prohibition. In 1971 Bishop Montgomery forbade intinction except on single occasions in extraordinary situations but never as a normal or on-going practice. The most recent and thus the now-binding directive from the Bishop requires the clergy of this diocese “to do everything possible to discourage it.” (Under no circumstances whatsoever is a communicant ever permitted to dip a Host in the Chalice him/herself.)
Theologically and liturgically intinction makes no sense. The reason for receiving Holy Communion under both Species is to drink from the Chalice. As the eminent liturgical scholar, theologian, and C.T.U. professor Father Edward Foley, OFM.Cap. has said,“Christ commanded that we ‘drink this’ not dip it. ‘Are you able to drink the cup that I drink’ is the commitment Jesus asks of us. That is why we receive the Chalice: to drink from it. You don’t get any more Jesus by receiving the Precious Blood!” No one must receive the Chalice except the celebrating Priest or Bishop. If a communicant does not wish to receive the Chalice, Holy Communion may always be received under one Species, and when one receives the sacred Host one receives full Holy Communion: the full Body and Blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ (Doctrine of Concomitance).
The rationale, as best I can make out, is that it's intended to force communicants to take the host on the tongue, not in the hand. This is also not the usual Anglican or Episcopalian practice -- only in the highest Episcopalian parishes have I seen the host administered on the tongue, and this would almost certainly be a post-Oxford Movement affectation -- and in any case voluntary. Normally Episcopalians of any persuasion receive the host in the hand.
The General Instruction asks each country's Conference of Bishops to determine the posture to be used for the reception of Communion and the act of reverence to be made by each person as he or she receives Communion. In the United States, the body of Bishops determined that Communion should be received standing, and that a bow is the act of reverence made by those receiving. These norms may require some adjustment on the part of those who have been used to other practices, however the significance of unity in posture and gesture as a symbol of our unity as members of the one body of Christ should be the governing factor in our own actions.So, as far as I can see, intinction is not part of the precious Anglican spiritual patrimony that the ordinariates push. In the US, communion kneeling and on the tongue is not the posture endorsed by the USCCB. Use of intinction to compel communicants to receive the host on the tongue is in direct violation of USCCB policy. Anglican tradition doesn't justify the practice, either. Is the OCSP itself separate and not just unique?Those who receive Communion may receive either in the hand or on the tongue, and the decision should be that of the individual receiving, not of the person distributing Communion.
