The practice of receiving the Eucharist by intinction, dipping the bread into the wine, is believed to have originated in a sanatorium in Saranac Lake, New York, in the early 1940s, where it was intended to slow the spread of tuberculosis. A 2009 study of Communion practices by the Anglican Diocese of Toronto, cited frequently during the COVID pandemic, found that intinction poses a greater risk of spreading disease than the common cup.

Within the Anglican Communion, permission was first given to lay people to administer the Eucharistic chalice in 1922, in the Province of South Africa. After the defeat of a resolution allowing the practice in 1949, the subject was considered and rejected at every subsequent General Convention until 1967, when it was adopted without major controversy.

This news article and editorial were published in the October 16, 1949, issue of The Living Church.

Intinction Given Limited Approval

The administration of the Holy Communion by intinction was given limited approval by the General Convention at its San Francisco meeting, in a resolution based upon the findings of the [1948] Lambeth Conference. The practice is permitted only when authorized by the diocesan bishop, who is required to specify the manner in which it is to be done.

The Lambeth resolution, quoted in the action of General Convention, declares Communion in Both Kinds, with the common chalice, to be the normal method of administration.

The resolution was presented to the Bishops by the Special Committee on Intinction, appointed by the Presiding Bishop, through its secretary, Bishop [Stephen] Bayne of Olympia:

Whereas, the Lambeth Conference of 1948, to which had been referred from this Church the question of permitting the administration of the Holy Communion by the method of intinction, passed the following resolution, viz.,

The Conference affirms that the giving of Communion in both kinds is according to the example and precept of our Lord, was the practice of the whole Catholic Church for 12 centuries, has remained the practice of the Orthodox Churches, and has been universally upheld by the teaching and practice of the Anglican Communion since the Reformation,

The Conference holds that administration from a common chalice, being scriptural and having a symbolic meaning of great value, should continue to be the normal method of administration in the Anglican Communion; but is of opinion that there is no objection to administration of both kinds by the method of intinction where conditions require it, and that any part of the Anglican Communion by provincial regulation according to its own constitutional procedure has liberty to sanction administration by intinction as an optional alternative to the traditional method, and that the methods of intinction to be adopted or permitted should not be left to the discretion of individual priests.

Therefore, be it resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, that the above be affirmed as the teaching of this Church, and

Be it further resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, that a bishop having jurisdiction may authorize intinction as an alternate method of administration, provided, however, that the chalice shall in no case be withheld from any communicant of this Church who desires to receive in the manner now provided by the Prayer Book, and

Be it further resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, that the Standing Liturgical Commission be, and hereby is, directed to prepare and issue instructions concerning methods of intinction, and to report to the General Convention of 1952 on the practice of intinction.

House of Deputies

More lay delegations than clerical voted for administration of the Holy Communion by intinction as the House of Deputies on October 6th considered a joint resolution which will permit bishops to authorize that method within their dioceses. The vote by orders, asked for by the delegation from South Florida, was: clerical, 44 yea, 26 no, 10 divided; lay, 50 yea, 22¾ no, 4 divided …

In presenting the resolution of the House of Bishops, the Rev. T.O. Wedel of Washington reminded the Deputies that in two previous General Conventions they had passed resolutions favoring intinction, but that both times the Bishops had failed to concur, waiting for an opinion on the subject at Lambeth Conference. In the resolutions quoted in the preamble of the Bishops’ resolution are the Lambeth answers, implying disapproval of Communion in one kind and seeing no objection to intinction “where conditions require.” …

Dean John W. Suter of Washington cited Prayer Book rubrics and Scripture in support of his contention that intinction involves no more radical change from tradition than did the substitution of wafers for a whole loaf of bread in the service. An amendment offered by the Rev. David Yates of North Carolina, to insert the words “where conditions require” in the enabling resolution, was lost. Concurrence was voted by the House.

Deputies Reject Bishops’ Proposal for Lay Administration

Lay administration of the chalice in Holy Communion, defeated by the narrow margin of 8½ votes in the clerical order in the Convention of 1946, was decisively rejected by the House of Deputies at the 1949 Convention in San Francisco. Adopted by the House of Bishops by a two-to-one majority on September 30th, it was advocated by the Joint Commission on the Perpetual Diaconate and the Ministry of Laymen as a means of expediting the service on days when a large number of people receive Holy Communion.

It was the laymen who led the vote this year against concurrence with the House of Bishops’ amendment to Canon 50, which would permit a bishop to license a layreader to assist a priest by administering the chalice in Holy Communion. The question came before the Deputies on the last day of Convention and the men were tired and anxious to get home. Although debate was hurried, it was not at all acrimonious.

The Rev. Burke Rivers of Bethlehem pointed out that the amendment would provide assistance to clergy, and would release assistant priests for services in places now without their ministrations. The Rev. George L. Evans of Kansas declared that his parishioners are unalterably opposed to the proposition. The Rev. Robert A. Magill of Southwestern Virginia stated that the amendment is of greatest help to medium-size parishes. … The tally of clerical votes was: 18¼ yea, 52¾ no, 5 divided. Lay: 16 yea, 56¾ no, 5 divided.

Editorial: Administering the Holy Communion

For many years, each General Convention has had before it two measures in regard to the method of administering the Holy Communion — one that would authorize the method of intinction and another that would permit laymen, under certain circumstances, to administer the chalice. This year the Convention took decisive action in both matters. Intinction was authorized, when sanctioned by the bishop of any diocese or missionary district. But lay administration of the chalice, though passed by the House of Bishops, was decisively rejected by the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies.

The resolution authorizing intinction begins by citing the appropriate Lambeth resolution which, after stressing that the normal method of administration is that set forth in the Prayer Book, adds that “there is no objection to administration of both kinds by the method of intinction where conditions require it, and that any part of the Anglican communion by provincial regulation according to its own constitutional procedure has liberty to sanction administration by intinction as an optional alternative to the traditional method, and that the methods of intinction to be adopted or permitted should not be left to the discretion of individual priests.”

The Lambeth safeguards, stressing the abnormality of the practice, were explicitly adopted by General Convention. We hope that this will discourage the abuse of employing intinction in ordinary parish life.

On the lay administration of the chalice, the action of the House of Deputies was overwhelmingly negative. In the clerical order there were only 18¼ affirmative votes, with 52¾ negative and five divided, which count as negative. In the lay order the rejection was even more complete, with only sixteen dioceses voting affirmatively, with 56¼ negative votes and five divided. (The vote of a missionary district counts as ¼ in each order.)

It may be said, therefore, that the clergy and laity are definitely opposed to any blurring of the distinction between the ordained ministry and the general “priesthood of the laity,” the latter being non-sacramental in character. We rejoice that the House of Deputies made this quite clear, despite the generous but, we think, ill-considered effort of the House of Bishops to meet a problem of expediency by a solution that might be deemed to compromise the principle that the apostolic ministry is uniquely the agency through which the sacrament of Holy Communion is to be ministered.