# Why Is Eucharist Not Celebrated Weekly When It Is Such A Main Theme In Scripture?



## Saiph (Sep 23, 2005)

Genesis 3
Man falls by eating forbidden fruit.

Genesis 14:17-20 
Mysterious priest-king with bread and wine blesses Abraham. 

Exodus 12:1-28
Preparation and celebration of the first Passover.

Exodus 16:4-15
God feeds his people with bread from heaven.


Deuteronomy 12:7
Israel will eat in the presence of YHWH when they enter the promised land.

Isaiah 25:6-8
The promise of a sumptuous feast of joy when God destroys death.

Isaiah 55:1-3
Invitation for all to come to the table and eat rich fare freely.

Ezekiel 39:17-21
Universal judgment describes as a meal.

Mark 6:30-44
Jesus wondrously feeds the crowd of 5000 with bread and fish (parallels are found in Matthew14:13-21, Luke 9:10-17, John 6:1-15; the feeding of the 4000 appears in Matthew 15:32-39, Mark 8:1-10).

Luke 5:27-32
Jesus used shared meals to enact the kingdom of God (see also Luke 7:36-50, 14:7-24, 15:1-32; John 21:1-14).

Luke 24:28-35
The Risen Jesus is revealed in the breaking of the bread.

John 2:1-12
Jesus nourishes the joy of the wedding feast with a gift of wine.

John 6:22-59
Our Lord´s meditation on the meaning of his body and blood.

Acts 2:42-47
Breaking bread an essential part of the early Church´s worship.

Revelation 19:9, 17
The marriage supper of the Lamb


----------



## Scott (Sep 23, 2005)

You might find the historical section of the 1968 Report of the Christian Reformed Church´s Liturgical Committee interesting. Has overview of how reformed liturgies change over time, with a little direct discussion of your issue.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 23, 2005)

Amen. I believe the Lord's supper should be more central than what it is in many churches. In fact I would think the Church has always celebrated in God's presence at His table, thus technically the Church should gather weekely at the table.

I am not sure what this looks like practically with the large congregations and multiple services of today, but then again if, say the PCA, would actually appoint elders in EVERY city resulting in at least one church per town, then the churches would consequentially be smaller, but many.


----------



## doulosChristou (Sep 23, 2005)

It is observed weekly at my church.


----------



## AdamM (Sep 23, 2005)

I think it's important to point out that the early church celebrations of the Supper took place in the context of a meal, which I doubt most advocates of weekly communion practice today.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 23, 2005)

http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=8754


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 23, 2005)

I think the proper worship of God is a main theme in Scripture, not just the Lord's Supper on its own.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think the proper worship of God is a main theme in Scripture, not just the Lord's Supper on its own.



I would agree, and add that a "proper worship of God" includes a proper view of and administration of, His sacrament.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> I think it's important to point out that the early church celebrations of the Supper took place in the context of a meal, which I doubt most advocates of weekly communion practice today.



This is what I was getting at with my first post.

Why and when did this supper turn into a taste and a sip? No wonder no one gets in trouble anymore for eating without waiting for the rest of the church or getting drunk by celebrating too much. Instead we tend top be quite, somber, and not too celebrative over God´s promises.

If we had a physical marriage banquet to celebrate the union of Jesus and His Church today, I bet He would be turning grape juice into wine instead of water"¦ and maybe a "œLet´s get this party started" remark of some sort.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Why Is Eucharist Not Celebrated Weekly When It Is Such A Main Theme In Scripture?



For the simple reason, that it has the potential to become sterile formalism and the solemnity of the occasion is lost. I won't go out on a limb and say it is necessarily wrong to do it weekly, but the medieval church and its modern heir the RCC-- practically replaced Gospel preaching with a slavish devotion to pomp and ritual. Frankly, that has the potential to deaden the significance of communion anyway. Communion's deeper meaning is more effectively conveyed when an applicable sermon is delivered for the occasion, which is why I do not think it should be a weekly feature of liturgy.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 23, 2005)

*1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith*



> Chapter 27: Of the Communion of Saints
> 1. All saints that are united to Jesus Christ, their head, by his Spirit, and faith, although they are not made thereby one person with him, have fellowship in his graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory; and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each others gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, in an orderly way, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.
> ( 1 John 1:3; John 1:16; Philippians 3:10; Romans 6:5, 6; Ephesians 4:15, 16; 1 Corinthians 12:7; 1 Corinthians 3:21-23; 1 Thessalonians 5:11, 14; Romans 1:12; 1 John 3:17, 18; Galatians 6:10 )
> 
> ...




*The Westminster Confession of Faith*


> Of the Communion of Saints
> I. All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by His Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with Him in His grace, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory: and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other's gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.
> 
> II. Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities. Which communion, as God offers opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 23, 2005)

Because the Sacraments are dependent upon the Word, and the Word is not dependent on the Sacraments.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Because the Sacraments are dependent upon the Word, and the Word is not dependent on the Sacraments.



A much more articulate and straightforward response than mine, but my sentiments exactly.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 23, 2005)

See The Westminster Standards and the Freqency of the Lord's Supper here. We do celebrate it weekly in the morning service. Note also, just because the Scottish and Irish Presbyterian churches individually may have had the Supper at local churches as infrequent as twice a year, the neighboring churches would time their observance so that folks often could observe the supper as often as twice a month or more. Livingstone says this was how the Irish churches in Ulster and Northern Ireland were practicing in the early half of the 17th century. As for the abuses of infrequent observance that have occurred in the past, see Mason's Letters on Frequent Communion. AA Alexander also had something to say on the abuses of the "communion season" as it had come to be practiced in his day; but I don't recall where (maybe an early Princeton Review).


----------



## Saiph (Sep 23, 2005)

> For the simple reason, that it has the potential to become sterile formalism and the solemnity of the occasion is lost.



That is kind of a trite answer. We are called to pray without ceasing. . .which also has the potential to become sterile formalism.

Abusus non tollit usum.

[Abuse is no argument against proper use.]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I do not think it should be a weekly feature of liturgy.



Then the early-early church must have really been sinning . . . in Acts 2 it looks to me like they partook daily.

And also look at Acts 20. Paul preached the Word twice in one day, so the bread was broken twice.


Every time the Word is preached, the bread is broken.



The church I attend partakes every week. The local PCA church is in agreement with this as well.


----------



## Saiph (Sep 23, 2005)

> Because the Sacraments are dependent upon the Word, and the Word is not dependent on the Sacraments.




Fred, while I agree with your statement wholeheartedly, it is no argument against weekly Eucharist. But, might, in some quasi-pharisaical sense be an argument for churches that do not have it weekly.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > Because the Sacraments are dependent upon the Word, and the Word is not dependent on the Sacraments.
> ...



It _is_, however, an argument against venerating and making high and mighty the Eucharist (if you wish to call it such) over all other worship.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > For the simple reason, that it has the potential to become sterile formalism and the solemnity of the occasion is lost.
> ...



Wrong use does not preclude proper use, huh? Well, we are not called to partake in the Eucharist _without ceasing_...

Faux Analogia
:bigsmile:


----------



## Saiph (Sep 23, 2005)

> Wrong use does not preclude proper use, huh? Well, we are not called to partake in the Eucharist without ceasing...



When we share in the Lord's supper we are proclaiming the Lord's death until He comes. So who are we proclaiming it to ?

We are proclaiming it to God.
We are proclaiming it to Satan and his demons.
We are proclaiming it to ourselves.
We are proclaiming it to each other.
We are proclaiming it to the world.

It is a holy proclamation in thought word and action. 

Paul's letter to the Corinthians also gives evidence that the Lord's Supper was being observed frequently. He corrected them for their behavior at meetings in which they ate and drank, and it sounds like this was frequent (verses 17, 20, 33). It was done when they came together "as a church" (verse 18). Paul told them that they should satisfy their hunger at home (verse 34) "” but they should nevertheless "come together to eat" (verse 33). What were they supposed to eat? The context shows that Paul was instructing them on their conduct when they ate the bread and wine in commemoration of Jesus' death. This is what the Corinthians had been doing, but in a poor manner. He corrected them on their manner, but said nothing about the frequency.

Of course, Paul did not say that the Corinthians should partake of the Lord's Supper every time they met. But he certainly makes no restrictions on frequency, and the words Paul used allow for frequent participation. The Bible simply does not tell us how often to partake of the Lord's Supper. There is no command about how often we should commemorate the Lord's death, just as there is no command about how often we should fast.

If it is indeed a means of grace as the WCF states, then WHY NOT partake of it as often as we gather ??


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > Because the Sacraments are dependent upon the Word, and the Word is not dependent on the Sacraments.
> ...



It does mean that there is no _necessity_ for having the Lord's Supper, whereas there is a necessity for having the Word. Those who make the Supper a necessity (by denigrating all non-weekly observances) err and risk shipwrecking others' faith.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> If it is indeed a means of grace as the WCF states, then WHY NOT partake of it as often as we gather??



And what connotation of _grace_ do you think the WCF refers to here?

History demonstrated in the medieval church that the implied insistence on quantity eventually lead to sterile formalism, and the pomp, theater and ritual which were encrusted over the Gospel. Naturally, participation in the sacramental life of the church became the means of effectuating salvation in the eyes of Romanists. Ideas have consequences. 

Why beat this dead horse? What really motivates a such a rigid insistence upon weekly communion? What's your basis for it in Scripture or the creeds?


----------



## Peter (Sep 23, 2005)

I'm suspicious of any group which demands weekly communion, these people almost always have an Anglican or Popish view of worship.

Its rather unusual to say Acts 2 is normative for the NT church. If the reference to breaking bread is even the sacrament, and it may simply be a regular meal, it must be remembered the communistic society of the church in Jerusalem immediately after pentecost and their religious activities were extaordinary. 

Acts 20 merely says they celebrated the Supper on the Lord's Day, it doesn't comment on the frequency of it.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Saiph (Sep 23, 2005)

Ryan, I have posted enough to merit weekly observance. I think Fred has hit the rhizome of the issue perhaps.




> It does mean that there is no necessity for having the Lord's Supper, whereas there is a necessity for having the Word. Those who make the Supper a necessity (by denigrating all non-weekly observances) err and risk shipwrecking others' faith.



That is the strongest point yet.

I suppose the only argument at all for necessity would be at least once a year (ie. passover). However, a church that never celebrates the Lord's supper would no doubt be insalubrious in some measure.



Ryan, as to what grace in vouchesafed to us in the feast ?? 




> It is a mystery of Christ's secret union with the devout which is by nature incomprehensible. If anybody should ask me how this communion takes place, I am not ashamed to confess that that is a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare. And to speak more plainly, I rather experience than understand it.
> 
> --Calvin, Institutes, IV, 17, 32.






> We now enter the innermost Most Holy Place of the Christian temple. We approach the sacred altar on which lies quivering before our eyes the bleeding heart of Christ...Christ is present. If he is not present really and truly, then the sacrament can have no interest or real value to us.
> 
> It does not do to say that this presence is only spiritual, because that phrase is ambiguous. If it means that the presence of Christ is not something objective to us, but simply a mental apprehension or idea of him subjectively present to our consciousness, then the phrase is false. Christ as an objective fact is as really present and active in the sacrament as are the bread and wine, or the minister or our fellow-communicants by our side....It does not do to say that the divinity of Christ is present while his humanity is absent, because it is the entire indivisible divine-human Person of Christ which is present. When Christ promises to his disciples, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world-age," and, "Where two or three are met together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," he means, of course, that he, the God-man Mediator they loved, trusted, and obeyed, would be with them. His humanity is just as essential as his divinity, otherwise his incarnation would not have been a necessity...
> 
> ...



[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 23, 2005)

Well, heck Mark I readily concede that amongst many Christians these days, observance of the ordinances or sacraments as you call them is not even taken seriously. There are mainline evangelical and charismatic denominations that _seldom if ever_ observe the ordinances. One of the downsides to the mega church phenemenon. Though, I doubt this is really a problem amongst Reformed circles whether Congregationalist, Baptist or Presbyterian.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 23, 2005)

Mark,

I think that you are correct. We need to navigate between (1) the danger of denigrating the Sacrament (making it all but useless) which is clearly bad, and (2) the danger of venerating it (consciously or subconsciously).

It is clear that the Sacraments are means of grace, and should not be despised. But it is also clear that the grace of the Sacraments is dependent upon the Word - the Sacraments being efficacious by faith, and _"faith coming by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."_


Ryan,

Be careful not to denigrate the Supper. There is a reason it was given to us.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Ryan,
> 
> Be careful not to denigrate the Supper. There is a reason it was given to us.



Sheesh! How I am denigrating it? I affimed the appropriate LBC and WCF sections on Communion, and before you just posted, I affirmed that neglect of the Lord's Supper is a problem amongst evangelicals.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



That is why I said be careful. I was posting at the same time as you, and did not see your last post. I was happy to see it.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 23, 2005)

You be careful Fred...


----------



## Peter (Sep 23, 2005)

Episcopalian communion, in attempting to venerate the supper by celebrating it weekly often has the opposite effect. The presbyterian practice of quarterly, or bi-annual communion makes the supper into a huge ordeal, with communion sermons, and thorough examinations of communicants before the session whereas weekly communion may have the tendency to become rote.


----------



## Scott (Sep 23, 2005)

Mark: From a practical perspective (and sadly), many in the reformed churches today do not see the sacrament as a means of grace. Some have suggested that the PCA, for example, despite its Confession is essentially a Zwinglian denomination. Like many evangelical and Baptist churches, sermons on the sacraments often spend more time explaining what they don't do than what they do.

You might appreciate Dr. Clark's The Evangelical Fall from the Means of Grace.

Scott


----------



## Scott (Sep 23, 2005)

Peter: On the other hand, people who receive the sacrament weekly feed on Christ's body weekly. That's a good thing. It seems you are viewing the value of the sacrament in exclusively psychological categories. It conveys sanctifying grace, in addition to the psychological benefits it conveys (which are substantial).


----------



## Saiph (Sep 23, 2005)

I will read the article Scott. Thank You.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Peter: On the other hand, people who receive the sacrament weekly feed on Christ's body weekly. That's a good thing. It seems you are viewing the value of the sacrament in exclusively psychological categories. It conveys sanctifying grace, in addition to the psychological benefits it conveys (which are substantial).



But here is the issue: the Christian who has the Word and not the Sacrament is not lacking; but the Christian who has the Sacrament and not the Word has nothing.


----------



## Peter (Sep 23, 2005)

Scott: Isn't it true that the grace which the sacrament conveys is dependent on the recipients frame of mind (faith in its promises)? If the sacrament bcomes ritual then we are weekly feeding on Christ to damnation.


----------



## Saiph (Sep 23, 2005)

> But here is the issue: the Christian who has the Word and not the Sacrament is not lacking; but the Christian who has the Sacrament and not the Word has nothing.



That is harsh. I need to think about it. I do not know that I would say he has "nothing" because he is after all a Christian, and the word indwells him. We feed on Christ in our hearts by faith as the liturgy says. So, I agree that the word is necessary, but do not know if I would go so far as your statement Fred.


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 23, 2005)

The Lord's Supper offers a perfect time for reflection and dealing with the Word preached each week. I've been in churches that partake weekly, others monthly, others quarterly. Most of my life has been in weekly. I've never, never met a Christian who had the supper became meaningless or trivialised by taking weekly. I've met pretenders, but never Christians. How could the memorial of our saving gift via the Sacrifice of Christ ever become 'old hat.'


----------



## S-Seidler (Sep 23, 2005)

Was there ever a time since the fall where the word was not going forth? How about the sacraments? Indeed, the contrast is evident when this question is pontificated. From Adam to Abraham no sacrament but God yet nurtured his own ( Enoch, Noah, Seth, Shem and Abel were all built up in holiness and faith). Weekly worship including the sacraments is always edifying and if it is not it the hardness of heart that makes it nill. However, the done the nose atttitude of the weekly attenders of the sacrament towrds the non-weekly attenders to the sacrament need be aware that God is able to function through the word alone without its sensible sign in all his fullness and glory.


----------



## Peter (Sep 23, 2005)

In the Romish church communion is elevated beyond even episocopalian or 'anglicised' presbyteryian levels. Theoretically, the mass is the re-sacrifice of Christ and the consecrated elements his very body and blood, yet in practice the participants, even the most zealous papists, seem aloof. Compare this with the presbyterian practice where, though they have less interest invested, for weeks they have been preparing to come to the table.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 25, 2005)

Not only would it be great to have it weekly, but we need to do something about the thimbles. Granted, full mugs of wine, while great, might not be practical as of yet for a worship service, let's at least progress, and I mean this reverently, to shot glasses. Now, I am not saying that we need to take shots of communion wine. No, I used the term in reference to the size of the cup. Even that, while too small, is much better than a thimble.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Not only would it be great to have it weekly, but we need to do something about the thimbles. Granted, full mugs of wine, while great, might not be practical as of yet for a worship service, let's at least progress, and I mean this reverently, to shot glasses. Now, I am not saying that we need to take shots of communion wine. No, I used the term in reference to the size of the cup. Even that, while too small, is much better than a thimble.



Zechariah 9:15, "The Lord of hosts will protect them,
and they shall devour, and tread down the sling stones,
and they shall drink and roar as if drunk with wine, 
and be full like a bowl,
drenched like the corners of the altar.


"But the passage pictures Israel drunk with another kind of wine: filled with the wine of Yahweh's Spirit, Israel would be bold, wild, untamed, boisterous in battle. This suggests one dimension of the symbolism of *wine* in the Lord's Supper: *it loosens our inhibitions so that we wil fight the Lord's battles in a kind of drunken frenzy*. If this sounds impious, how much more Psalm 78:65, where the Divine Warrior himself is described as a mighty man overcome with wine? Yahweh fights like Samson, but far more ferociously than Samson: He fights like a drunken Samson!"


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 25, 2005)

One note: I am not suggesting that we ought to impose my views now; just challenging thoughts (and fun ones, too) to dwell on.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 25, 2005)

Sounds like a plan to me, Jacob. I'm all for some nice Shiraz or Chianti.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Sep 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> It is observed weekly at my church.



Mine too. Along with a recitation of the Nicene Creed and a responsive reading affirming the five solas of the reformation.:bigsmile:


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 26, 2005)

Yesterday we celbrated the Lord's Supper as in integral part of our fellowship meal. It was very interesting to hear the conversations as people would eat the unleaved bread and drink the wine as part of their meal. Several said that it made the meanings of the emblems much more profound to them.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 26, 2005)

Back in 1991 I bought our church dozens of 3 ounce jigger glasses and we've been using them ever since. They are stable to use and you get more than a thimble full to be sure if not really 3 ounces which would be too full to pass around the table. Which is another thing, we have used the old Presbyterian practice of having communion at a table rather than in the pews since that time as well.
Something similar to what we use for glasses is shown here:



> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Not only would it be great to have it weekly, but we need to do something about the thimbles. Granted, full mugs of wine, while great, might not be practical as of yet for a worship service, let's at least progress, and I mean this reverently, to shot glasses. Now, I am not saying that we need to take shots of communion wine. No, I used the term in reference to the size of the cup. Even that, while too small, is much better than a thimble.


----------



## AdamM (Sep 26, 2005)

> Which is another thing, we have used the old Presbyterian practice of having communion at a table rather than in the pews since that time as well.



We serve communion this way once a year and I always appreciate it and afterwards wish we could do it more often.


----------



## yeutter (Sep 26, 2005)

Does anyone believe that the early Church celebrated the Lord's Supper quarterly or monthly?


----------

