Communion before sermon?
- Thread starter earl40
- Start date
- Status
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Graduate
The Lord’s Supper cannot exist apart from the Word
I suppose if there is some sort of mini sermon maybe, but then that would not be "before a sermon" would it?
Calvin’s Institutes Book 4 Chapter 17 section 39.
The Lord’s Supper cannot exist apart from the Word
This very well confirms what I have said elsewhere: that the right administering of the Sacrament cannot stand apart from the Word. For whatever benefit may come to us from the Supper requires the Word: whether we are to be confirmed in faith, or exercised in confession, or aroused to duty, there is need of preaching. Therefore, nothing more preposterous could happen in the Supper than for it to be turned into a silent action, as has happened under the pope’s tyranny. For they wanted to have the whole force of the consecration depend upon the intention of the priest, as if it did not matter at all to the people, to whom the mystery ought most of all to have been explained. Hence, moreover, arose this error: they did not observe that those promises by which consecration is accomplished are directed not to the elements themselves but to those who receive them. Certainly Christ does not say to the bread that it shall become his body, but he commands his disciples to eat and promises them participation in his body and blood. Paul’s teaching takes the same form, that the promises are offered to believers along with the bread and the cup. Obviously, this is so. Here we should not imagine some magic incantation, supposing it enough to have mumbled the words, as if they were to be heard by the elements; but let us understand that these words are living preaching which edifies its hearers, penetrates into their very minds, impresses itself upon their hearts and settles there, and reveals its effectiveness in the fulfillment of what it promises.
By these reasons it clearly appears that the reservation of the Sacrament, which some urge, that in special circumstances it may be distributed to the sick, is useless. For either they will receive it without a recital of Christ’s institution, or the minister will join with the sign the true explanation of the mystery. Silence involves abuse and fault. If the promises are recited and the mystery declared, so that they who are about to receive it may receive it with benefit, there is no reason to doubt that this is a true consecration. What purpose, then, will that other consecration have, whose effect does not even reach the sick? But, it is said, they who do this have the example of the ancient church. I admit the statement, but in so great a matter, one in which error entails great peril, nothing is safer than to follow the truth itself.
Calvin, J. (2011). Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2. (F. L. Battles, Trans., J. T. McNeill, Ed.) (Vol. 1, pp. 1416–1417). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
I suppose if there is some sort of mini sermon maybe, but then that would not be "before a sermon" would it?
Calvin’s Institutes Book 4 Chapter 17 section 39.
The Lord’s Supper cannot exist apart from the Word
This very well confirms what I have said elsewhere: that the right administering of the Sacrament cannot stand apart from the Word. For whatever benefit may come to us from the Supper requires the Word: whether we are to be confirmed in faith, or exercised in confession, or aroused to duty, there is need of preaching. Therefore, nothing more preposterous could happen in the Supper than for it to be turned into a silent action, as has happened under the pope’s tyranny. For they wanted to have the whole force of the consecration depend upon the intention of the priest, as if it did not matter at all to the people, to whom the mystery ought most of all to have been explained. Hence, moreover, arose this error: they did not observe that those promises by which consecration is accomplished are directed not to the elements themselves but to those who receive them. Certainly Christ does not say to the bread that it shall become his body, but he commands his disciples to eat and promises them participation in his body and blood. Paul’s teaching takes the same form, that the promises are offered to believers along with the bread and the cup. Obviously, this is so. Here we should not imagine some magic incantation, supposing it enough to have mumbled the words, as if they were to be heard by the elements; but let us understand that these words are living preaching which edifies its hearers, penetrates into their very minds, impresses itself upon their hearts and settles there, and reveals its effectiveness in the fulfillment of what it promises.
By these reasons it clearly appears that the reservation of the Sacrament, which some urge, that in special circumstances it may be distributed to the sick, is useless. For either they will receive it without a recital of Christ’s institution, or the minister will join with the sign the true explanation of the mystery. Silence involves abuse and fault. If the promises are recited and the mystery declared, so that they who are about to receive it may receive it with benefit, there is no reason to doubt that this is a true consecration. What purpose, then, will that other consecration have, whose effect does not even reach the sick? But, it is said, they who do this have the example of the ancient church. I admit the statement, but in so great a matter, one in which error entails great peril, nothing is safer than to follow the truth itself.
Calvin, J. (2011). Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2. (F. L. Battles, Trans., J. T. McNeill, Ed.) (Vol. 1, pp. 1416–1417). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Thank you Ed though this supposes one is totally forgetful of last weeks sermon or all the previous sermons one hears in ones life. I can see the relevance of the RC sacrament that was applied to the vast majority of people back in Calvin's time who did not understand Latin partaking in a manner devoid of faith though this situation is not the same today.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
We do communion before the sermon for two reasons. 1. I feel that the preaching of the Word should always be the culmination of the service, and 2. Our children are dismissed to children's church just before the sermon and if we were to have communion after the sermon, that would require us to bring the children's workers and the children who are old enough to partake back into the service. We avoid all that confusion by having it prior to the sermon.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
From the Book of Acts the pattern appears to be the Ministry of the Word and then the breaking of bread. From the earliest church after the Apostles (that of the Apostolic Fathers), the unvarying liturgical pattern was "the Liturgy of the Word," the dismissal of all catechumens and those under sanction, followed by the "Liturgy of the Upper Room." Theologically, it appropriately follows the Word and even forms part of the response to the Word (replaced later in revivalistic contexts with the altar call).
Peace,
Alan
Peace,
Alan
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Probably needs its own thread.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Communion most naturally follows the sermon, but with care it might be done before the main preaching on occasion. The fact that it ought to be accompanied by the preaching of the Word does not necessarily mean one must listen to a monologue for a set amount of time before one is cleared to partake, nor that there must always be more spoken Word before the meal than after. So put away those stopwatches. What is generally the best pattern is not necessarily the only permissible pattern, nor is it without fail the best pattern every single time.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I believe in Eucharist after sermon, but someone arguing for before could say that they aren't divorcing the two. When the service is viewed in totality, Eucharist and Word are going together.
Of course, I wouldn't argue for such a position, since I don't think it has any precedent.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
It is not necessarily a bad thing if done right. Our children are currently going through The Pilgrim's Progress.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
If I understand you correctly, are you saying that you have children in your church who partake of the Lord's Supper, then leave the service where they do not hear the sermon but are studying Pilgrim's Progress instead?
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
In truth, very few of our children who have made a profession of faith and been baptized, and thus eligible to partake, actually go to children's church. There are a couple of parents who insist that their children get nothing out of the sermon and so they send them to children's church. This is a battle that I am working on slowly. The much more pressing issue relates to the adults who are working with the children who would have to be brought back in.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
A very important question, Tim.
I posted before seeing Bill's initial post. I regard what Bill describes with respect to the practice of his church as irregular.
Many of our Directories for Worship, as Edward intimates, are either explicit or implicit in maintaining that the ministry of the Word precedes the Lord's Supper. And the uniform witness of the Western and Eastern Churches is that the Liturgy of the Word is first and the Liturgy of the Upper Room follows.
Peace,
Alan
I posted before seeing Bill's initial post. I regard what Bill describes with respect to the practice of his church as irregular.
Many of our Directories for Worship, as Edward intimates, are either explicit or implicit in maintaining that the ministry of the Word precedes the Lord's Supper. And the uniform witness of the Western and Eastern Churches is that the Liturgy of the Word is first and the Liturgy of the Upper Room follows.
Peace,
Alan
- Status
