Frequency of the Lord’s Supper and the Regulative Principle

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would refer you to Jerrod's post above - what is clear from the SL&C from which the Westminster Standards flowed is that the Assembly agreed that the Scots' practices should be followed: "That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us. (SL&C 1.). I do not believe the Assembly was "comfortable leaving different churches to make different choices" - their stated intention was quite the opposite (consider also the disproportionate sway the relatively few Scots commissioners had).
Then you have to explain why the Directory did not suggest a particular frequency (even as desirable) but explicitly said "how often, may be considered and determined by the ministers, and other church-governors of each congregation, as they shall find most convenient for the comfort and edification of the people committed to their charge."

It also recognized that some churches might not be able to celebrate it frequently, in which case special preparatory measures would be required:

Where this sacrament cannot with convenience be frequently administered, it is requisite that publick warning be given the sabbath-day before the administration thereof: and that either then, or on some day of that week, something concerning that ordinance, and the due preparation thereunto, and participation thereof, be taught; that, by the diligent use of all means sanctified of God to that end, both in publick and private, all may come better prepared to that heavenly feast.

It doesn't rebuke such churches and tell them to get their act together (nor does it commend them for the special way in which they reverence the Supper); it explicitly allows for the needs of different situations to be met. I think they understood that sometimes unity is best served by not imposing uniformity. Just as they allowed local pastors to pray for whatever the Lord laid on their hearts rather than following a set diet of prayers, as the Anglicans did, so also they trusted local Sessions to determine how often the Lord's Supper should be celebrated in their context.
 
If I told my daughter "As often as you change the oil in your car, you should change the filter," would she logically deduce from that how often to change the oil in her car?

I don't want to press the metaphor beyond what it should do, but this sounds a lot like the substance view of grace that Rome promotes. The metaphor breaks down, not only for that reason, but also the Supper functions differently than the oil in my car. It signs and seals the benefits of the covenant of grace.
 
Then you have to explain why the Directory did not suggest a particular frequency
Only if you divorce the Standards from the historical context. As the pretext for the Assembly held up the Scottish practices "in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government" as worthy of "preservation" along with "the best reformed Churches," (SL&C 1. - the latter likely referring to the Dutch and Genevans), then they did not have to suggest anything - they all knew at the time what the Scots considered "frequent."
 
I don't want to press the metaphor beyond what it should do, but this sounds a lot like the substance view of grace that Rome promotes. The metaphor breaks down, not only for that reason, but also the Supper functions differently than the oil in my car. It signs and seals the benefits of the covenant of grace.
I in no way meant to compare partaking of the Lord's Supper to changing a car's oil - I was comparing the use of the phrase "as often as" which is not synonymous with "frequently" though in these discussions this is always attempted. I believe "whenever" or "as many times as" would be synonymous for the Greek ὁσάκις which is translated "as often as" in the Biblical accounts of the Lord's Supper. The phrase functions the same whether you are talking about the Lord's Supper or the oil in a car.
 
I in no way meant to compare partaking of the Lord's Supper to changing a car's oil - I was comparing the use of the phrase "as often as" which is not synonymous with "frequently" though in these discussions this is always attempted. I believe "whenever" or "as many times as" would be synonymous for the Greek ὁσάκις which is translated "as often as" in the Biblical accounts of the Lord's Supper. The phrase functions the same whether you are talking about the Lord's Supper or the oil in a car.

Okay. I misunderstood what you were saying.
 
1 Corinthians 11:25-26

[25] In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” [26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

I believe that many churches interpret that Scripture as regulating monthly remembrance for the following practical reasons of application.

If done too often, it quickly becomes a mere, habitual ritual in which we forget what we are doing. It is easy to zone out and forget whom our faith is in and instead trust in the forms which become rote. Habit may lead to neglecting the real remembrance. Excessive practice may cheapen the observance.

If done too seldom, we may forget about Communion in the weeks we don’t observe. And without the prompt to search our hearts before sharing in it, we may even forget to confess some sins. Infrequent observance may cause the observance to be remote or almost irrelevant to our lives.

Applying “as often as you do it” to monthly observance may uphold the remembrance of faith without it becoming mere rote. Remembrance is a means of grace when our hearts are most engaged and sincere, while neither bored nor forgetful.
 
Last edited:
1 Corinthians 11:25-26

[25] In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” [26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

I believe that many churches interpret that Scripture as regulating monthly remembrance for the following practical reasons of application.

If done too often, it quickly becomes a mere, habitual ritual in which we forget what we are doing. It is easy to zone out and forget whom our faith is in and instead trust in the forms which become rote. Habit may lead to neglecting the real remembrance. Excessive practice may cheapen the observance.

If done too seldom, we may forget about Communion in the weeks we don’t observe. And without the prompt to search our hearts before sharing in it, we may even forget to confess some sins. Infrequent observance may cause the observance to be remote or almost irrelevant to our lives.

Applying “as often as you do it” to monthly observance may uphold the remembrance of faith without it becoming mere rote. Remembrance is a means of grace when our hearts are most engaged and sincere, while neither bored nor forgetful.

That's a very subjective analysis though. Why monthly? For some, quarterly observance would fit those criteria even better than monthly. For some, monthly might be too often.
 
My church does it monthly for reasons of practical application. I don't find the argument that too frequent might make it merely habitual very persuasive. Nobody applies the same reasoning to taking the offering.
 
That's a very subjective analysis though. Why monthly? For some, quarterly observance would fit those criteria even better than monthly. For some, monthly might be too often.
That’s what I have found on both coasts. I think the elders make good choices. Four times a year could imply that Communion is not important. Every week, it could become just another routine. When not every week, there may be a sense of excitement. That seems to be the reasoning, at least. It has never been my decision, but I understand and respect it.
 
Last edited:
In terms of frequency I probably agree with Peter. It should be stressed, though, that communion isn't designed to give me a subjective experience; rather, it is to sign and seal God's promises.
 
Is this what you believe personally, Peter?
I believe communion is an important commandment to follow. It is a means of grace. One purpose is further conversion and an increasing true and lively faith in Jesus Christ alone, of the whole heart, mind, and strength, in thankful submission with the body of Christ. That requires frequent, but fresh memorial of the Object of faith, never perfunctory. It is life-changing, world-shattering and thus both objective and subjective. I do not believe communion only four times a year can be always a faithful expression of obedience. But sometimes, that may be the right decision. Personally, I have not witnessed a quarterly observance since the 1970s.

In the past, I have found a cycle of corporately directed, personal examination and preparation in one week, followed by communion in the next week to be advantageous sometimes. Monthly also keeps the memorial of Christ’s work high. I respect what others decide which better fulfills the regulating “as often as you do it.” I cannot fault quarterly in someone‘s church, but I might be mildly disappointed. Not my decision, though.
 
Last edited:
In terms of frequency I probably agree with Peter. It should be stressed, though, that communion isn't designed to give me a subjective experience; rather, it is to sign and seal God's promises.
There seems to be a lot of talk about the objectivity of the sacrament/covenant, almost as if we ought to pit the objective aspect of the sacrament against the experimental aspect of it. As Peter noted in his above post, the means of grace have both objective and subjective aspects to them.

Do you think increasing frequency is something that will automatically strengthen the believers faith? (I presume no) – Do you view a quarterly observance of the sacrament to be insufficient? If so, how come?

I believe communion is an important commandment to follow. It is a means of grace. One purpose is further conversion and an increasing true and lively faith in Jesus Christ alone, of the whole heart, mind, and strength, in thankful submission with the body of Christ. That requires frequent, but fresh memorial of the Object of faith, never perfunctory. It is life-changing, world-shattering and thus both objective and subjective. I do not believe communion only four times a year can be always a faithful expression of obedience. Personally, I have not witnessed a quarterly observance since the 1970s.
It is a means of grace yes, but again increasing frequency =/= more grace. I would view post #20 and #25 if you haven't already; your original statement conveyed that the Westminster Assembly didn't view the sacrament as important because they viewed quarterly observance to be "frequent" (post #20).
 
I compare frequency with “memorial.” The more, the more memorial. But not just memorial. The covenant is with people. We don’t live the covenant as individuals; we share/commune with our brethren. Faith is a response to God. It’s not something we do that saves us, it’s our response to a commandment. “Means of grace” stresses the importance of the memorial; it also stresses that we are a body, not individuals looking for a personal benefit. The memorial is a covenant response of people functioning as a whole.
 
A well-rounded grasp of the history of the diversity of the church's practice will guard one from an undue rigidity on the frequency of the Supper. On such questions, this apostolic principle must be kept at the forefront of our minds, "Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand." (Phil. 4:5)
 
A well-rounded grasp of the history of the diversity of the church's practice will guard one from an undue rigidity on the frequency of the Supper. On such questions, this apostolic principle must be kept at the forefront of our minds, "Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand." (Phil. 4:5)
Was it really that diverse in the area of frequency? The most faithful churches that emerged during the Reformation were fairly unified and fairly specific in their practice of how often they observed the Lord's Supper:

"Four times in the year we think sufficient to the administration of the Lord’s Table, which we desire to be distinct, that the superstition of times may be avoided so far as may be. Your honours are not ignorant how superstitiously the people run to that action at Pasche, even as [if] the time gave virtue to the sacrament; and how the rest of the whole year they are careless and negligent, as that it appertains not unto them but at that time only. We think therefore most expedient, that the first Sunday of March be appointed for one [time]; the first Sunday of June for another; the first Sunday of September for the third; and the first Sunday of December for the fourth. We do not deny but that any several church, for reasonable causes, may change the time, and may minister ofter; but we study to suppress superstition. All ministers must be admonished to be more careful to instruct the ignorant than ready to satisfy their appetites; and more sharp in examination than indulgent, in admitting to that great mystery such as are ignorant of the use and virtue of the same. And therefore we think that the administration of the Table ought never to be without that examination pass before, especially of those whose knowledge is suspect. We think that none are apt to be admitted to that mystery who cannot formally say the Lord’s Prayer, the articles of the belief, and declare the sum of the law" (Scots First Book of Discipline, Ninth Head)

"Every Church shall administer the Lord’s Supper in such a manner as it shall judge most conducive to edification; provided, however, that the outward ceremonies as prescribed in God’s Word be not changed and all superstition be avoided, and that at the conclusion of the sermon and the usual prayers on the pulpit, the Form for the administration of the Lord’s Supper, together with the prayer for that purpose, shall be read at the Table. The Lordly Supper shall be administered once every two months, wherever possible, and it will be edifying that it take place at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas where the circumstances of the Church permit. However, in those places where the Church has not yet been instituted, first of all Elders and Deacons shall be provided." (Church Order of Dort, Articles 62&63).

It is worth noting they both allowed some level of diversity, and yet they both expressed fear of "superstition" creeping in. The former requires "reasonable causes" to partake more frequently, the latter includes the caveat "wherever possible."

The question remains, where and when did monthly or weekly observance become acceptable, and what reasoning was given for this innovation since the Reformation era?
 
Was it really that diverse in the area of frequency? The most faithful churches that emerged during the Reformation were fairly unified and fairly specific in their practice of how often they observed the Lord's Supper:

"Four times in the year we think sufficient to the administration of the Lord’s Table, which we desire to be distinct, that the superstition of times may be avoided so far as may be. Your honours are not ignorant how superstitiously the people run to that action at Pasche, even as [if] the time gave virtue to the sacrament; and how the rest of the whole year they are careless and negligent, as that it appertains not unto them but at that time only. We think therefore most expedient, that the first Sunday of March be appointed for one [time]; the first Sunday of June for another; the first Sunday of September for the third; and the first Sunday of December for the fourth. We do not deny but that any several church, for reasonable causes, may change the time, and may minister ofter; but we study to suppress superstition. All ministers must be admonished to be more careful to instruct the ignorant than ready to satisfy their appetites; and more sharp in examination than indulgent, in admitting to that great mystery such as are ignorant of the use and virtue of the same. And therefore we think that the administration of the Table ought never to be without that examination pass before, especially of those whose knowledge is suspect. We think that none are apt to be admitted to that mystery who cannot formally say the Lord’s Prayer, the articles of the belief, and declare the sum of the law" (Scots First Book of Discipline, Ninth Head)

"Every Church shall administer the Lord’s Supper in such a manner as it shall judge most conducive to edification; provided, however, that the outward ceremonies as prescribed in God’s Word be not changed and all superstition be avoided, and that at the conclusion of the sermon and the usual prayers on the pulpit, the Form for the administration of the Lord’s Supper, together with the prayer for that purpose, shall be read at the Table. The Lordly Supper shall be administered once every two months, wherever possible, and it will be edifying that it take place at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas where the circumstances of the Church permit. However, in those places where the Church has not yet been instituted, first of all Elders and Deacons shall be provided." (Church Order of Dort, Articles 62&63).

It is worth noting they both allowed some level of diversity, and yet they both expressed fear of "superstition" creeping in. The former requires "reasonable causes" to partake more frequently, the latter includes the caveat "wherever possible."

The question remains, where and when did monthly or weekly observance become acceptable, and what reasoning was given for this innovation since the Reformation era?
I'm pretty sure he was speaking moreso of the church catholic, including within that scope the immediately post-apostolic age (ECF) – apparently there is a strong witness with them for high frequency; but I hope nobody is deriving their sacramentology from that era, especially with the sign and the thing signified being conflated at such a high rate.
 
Last edited:
Thesis: Including communion in the Weekly Lord's Day worship is the best practice.

There are at least the following four reasons to support this practice.

1. Because of the pattern set down in scripture (Acts, 1 Cor).
2. Because of the pattern of the early church (didache)
3. Because of the nature of the sacrament (to strengthen faith and 'more fully declare and seal to us'- HC qa61)
4. Because of the liturgy (what is the liturgical reason to excise a means of grace from the Lord's Day liturgy? Why have a 'letter' without the sign/seal)
 
I'm pretty sure he was speaking moreso of the church catholic, including within that scope the immediately post-apostolic age (ECF) – apparently there is a strong witness with them for high frequency; but I hope nobody is deriving their sacramentology from that era, especially with the sign and the thing signified being conflated at such a high rate.
Jerrod, I think I know what you intend by this, but you might want to read Hughes Oliphint Old's book The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship. Calvin and the other Reformers were deeply rooted in the Early Church Fathers as they rethought the topic of worship (including Baptism and the Lord's Supper). At the very least, they were not as dismissive as you are of what we might learn from this period. You don't have to have a faulty sacramentology to think that it might be a blessing to receive the means of grace oftener than once a quarter (while leaving room for those who are not able to accomplish that, for whatever reasons they deem fitting.)

One piece of the discussion that hasn't perhaps received enough attention is the Westminster Directory's counsel that:
"Where this sacrament cannot with convenience be frequently administered, it is requisite that publick warning be given the sabbath-day before the administration thereof: : and that either then, or on some day of that week, something concerning that ordinance, and the due preparation thereunto, and participation thereof, be taught; that, by the diligent use of all means sanctified of God to that end, both in publick and private, all may come better prepared to that heavenly feast".

In other words, it is only when (for whatever good reasons) the Lord's Supper cannot be administered frequently - as the Directory earlier stated was desirable - that we need preparatory instruction and services. The implication is that if the Lord's Supper is being celebrated suitably frequently, such instruction would not be required. Why not? I would suggest it is because coming to the Lord's Table becomes so much part of the congregation's rhythm of worship and there are so many opportunities during the worship for the pastor to exhort and explain that special instruction becomes unnecessary. This surely make most sense if by "frequently" they meant "weekly", since that's the obvious circumstance under which you don't need to tell people that next Sunday is Communion Sunday and so they should prepare their hearts. If every Sunday is Communion Sunday, we know to come prepared every Sunday. Perhaps monthly communion is frequent enough that people don't need any special forewarning, but I doubt quarterly fits that description.

Again, this is not a Biblical argument for a particular frequency, but it seems to me to shed light on what the Westminster Divines meant by "frequently" - remembering also that they were not opposed to infrequent communion when the Session of the local church decided that under their specific circumstances that was best "for the comfort and edification of the people committed to their charge" (an intriguingly subjective assessment of the purpose of the Lord's Supper!).
 
Jerrod, I think I know what you intend by this, but you might want to read Hughes Oliphint Old's book The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship. Calvin and the other Reformers were deeply rooted in the Early Church Fathers as they rethought the topic of worship (including Baptism and the Lord's Supper). At the very least, they were not as dismissive as you are of what we might learn from this period.
If clarification helps you any, my intention is not to be so much dismissive of the sacramentology of the immediate post-apostolic age, as much as cautious. I do not think it's unreasonable to say (comparably that is) that the second generation Reformers had a much understanding of the Sacraments than the ECF did. For example, Fesko (which I would recommend someone else) has a work on Baptism and Covenant in the early church, showing the connection of covenant theology in all church history; that simply because there is development in clarity and the crystalization of a doctrine, does not mean those doctrines have no connection to the past. I believe precisely the same about the ECF; I do not disregard them, but I would have to be intellectually dishonest to say they had a better understanding of the sacraments than the Westminster Divines did, and that is not arguable.

Edit: another matter is that despite the so common appeal to Calvin, the church of Scotland, the Netherlands, nor the churches of Europe ever implemented weekly observance, even as Andrew shows in post #46. Calvin and the other Reformers did indeed look to men of the past, but none of those churches I mentioned above ever established weekly observance.

You don't have to have a faulty sacramentology to think that it might be a blessing to receive the means of grace oftener than once a quarter (while leaving room for those who are not able to accomplish that, for whatever reasons they deem fitting.)
Say one's congregation has daily worship services (consider that age we now speak of), and they desire to have the sacrament culminated at the appendix of every service – that then prompts the question, why is it that they desire to have it so? The answer that then comes out of their mouth is going to reveal a lot about what they believe about the sacrament and how it is a means of grace, whether increasing frequency entails more grace. I don't see any artificial dichotomy between the two, because when we ask about the frequency of the sacrament, we are already engaging in a discussion about sacramentology, the two are connected.

One piece of the discussion that hasn't perhaps received enough attention is the Westminster Directory's counsel that:
"Where this sacrament cannot with convenience be frequently administered, it is requisite that publick warning be given the sabbath-day before the administration thereof: : and that either then, or on some day of that week, something concerning that ordinance, and the due preparation thereunto, and participation thereof, be taught; that, by the diligent use of all means sanctified of God to that end, both in publick and private, all may come better prepared to that heavenly feast".

In other words, it is only when (for whatever good reasons) the Lord's Supper cannot be administered frequently - as the Directory earlier stated was desirable - that we need preparatory instruction and services. The implication is that if the Lord's Supper is being celebrated suitably frequently, such instruction would not be required. Why not? I would suggest it is because coming to the Lord's Table becomes so much part of the congregation's rhythm of worship and there are so many opportunities during the worship for the pastor to exhort and explain that special instruction becomes unnecessary.
Great point that made me research, I will have to ask my session more about those things. In going to the immediate sources I find a couple quotes interesting:

“…this sacrament requiring a self-examination going before (1 Cor. 11:28). Therefore a sermon of preparation is preached the day before, even as Christ prepared and dieted his guests with heavenly sermons preceding the action (as is clear, Luke 22:14,15; Mark 14:18-20; Matt 26:21-23; John 13:13-16)
– Samuel Rutherford (Scottish Westminster Divine), A Peaceable and Temperate Plea.. 1642

and again, the church of Scotland which was the cornerstone of the 3-fold kingdom, of which England and Ireland were to conform to:

“That there be one sermon of preparation delivered in the ordinary place of public worship upon the day immediately preceding.”
– Acts of General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1645

So in interpreting what is unclear in light of what is clear (that faithful rule of WCF 1.9) – It appears to me that preparatory sermons were the normal practice, regardless of frequent administration, or no. But I do appreciate you giving me something to chew on and consider.

This surely make most sense if by "frequently" they meant "weekly"
Which is wishful thinking at best, considering what I formerly laid out in post #20. The only advocate for weekly observance was from an Independent (the custom of his tribe) – whereas the Assembly found quarterly observance to be a fulfillment of "frequently" – we really need to stop interpreting "frequently" in a vacuum and in accordance with our preferences, and rather in accordance with the immediate historical and relevant documents, because those reveal the intent of the authors; this is a basic rule in all real research. You are correct however, that they do not prescribe a frequency in the Standards. Thank you again for your reply to my post, and hopefully my clarification helps.
 
Last edited:
Edit: another matter is that despite the so common appeal to Calvin, the church of Scotland, the Netherlands, nor the churches of Europe ever implemented weekly observance, even as Andrew shows in post #46. Calvin and the other Reformers did indeed look to men of the past, but none of those churches I mentioned above ever established weekly observance.
The reason Calvin and others couldn't 'have their way' in their respective churches is that the traditions and patterns of the medieval church are difficult to overcome. The practice of infrequent communion had been practiced for dozens of generations... It was gonna be difficult to change that, even with a reformation.
 
The reason Calvin and others couldn't 'have their way' in their respective churches is that the traditions and patterns of the medieval church are difficult to overcome. The practice of infrequent communion had been practiced for dozens of generations... It was gonna be difficult to change that, even with a reformation.
Brother, do you happen to have any Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed authors of the 17th century that advocated for their Provinces to implement weekly observance of the sacrament? I'm genuinely curious. I do not speak of Calvin or Independents.
 
Brother, do you happen to have any Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed authors of the 17th century that advocated for their Provinces to implement weekly observance of the sacrament? I'm genuinely curious. I do not speak of Calvin or Independents.
Oh, I have no idea who else has advocated for it. Taking Calvin/Geneva as a microcosm I presume the same could be said of the macrocosm: that there is very little appetite for more frequent communion because of the prevailing century long-tradition
 
Here is an interesting read re: the medieval traditions of communion frequency being continued in the reformed churches.

"We understand now that the dates on which the 'Gemeindekommunion' was held, were the fruits of another slight revival. Since the Reformation broke even more radically with the domination of the clergy, and was partly resting upon the 'Gemeindekommunion' and the 'Pronaus', it is not strange that in several cities and regions the same dates, those of the Christian feasts, were maintained for the celebration of the (restored) Lord's Supper.

This is how the medieval dates arrived in Geneva.

That they partly ran parallel with the dates which had been adopted by Zwingli's Zurich, can be explained by the fact that, as far as this sacrament is concerned, the Reformation in that city returned to the dates maintained in the medieval church, before the time when taking part in the Communion of the mass was virtually reduced to once a year.

Returning to a still earlier era, a weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper would have required the abolition of, in a sense, a centuries-long tradition. And some traditions are rather stubborn. This is exactly what John Calvin experienced.

To make the picture a little more complete, we must make mention of the remarkable fact that in the Southern Netherlands no fixed dates were set. The only agreement made was that the Lord's Supper would be administered 'at least four times a year'.

In the Northern part of The Netherlands the first synods recommended a frequency of six times a year, but at a later stage an alternative was added, that of four times a year. Whereas in this process initially no fixed dates were mentioned, later on the medieval feast days were re-introduced. This happened at the National Synod of The Hague 1586. We will not be surprised to hear that in this brief series the 'Paesdach' (Easter) took the first and prominent place. The well known Synod of Dordrecht 1618/19 repeated this.

However, since the General Synod of Utrecht 1905 the binding to these medieval dates has been lifted. The respective versions of the Dutch Church Order speak of 'at least every two or three months', or simply of 'once every three months as a minimum'.

Another remarkable thing is that celebrating the Lord's Supper on the Christian feast days, at least on Good Friday, is maintained in churches that at vital points have left the Reformed path, but stick to certain old traditions. As for our Dutch sister churches, it is not known to me whether any of them still maintains these dates."

https://spindleworks.com/library/vanrongen/supper01.htm#18


What is interesting to note is that the celebration of communion was disconnected from the medieval liturgical days eventually. But the frequency of communion was not.
 
It was gonna be difficult to change that, even with a reformation.
Considering all that rapidly changed (iconoclasm, marriage of clergy, etc.) - and the outspoken reliance of many Reformers work of the Spirit for which nothing is impossible - this comment is hard to for me to agree with to any degree.
 
Thesis: Including communion in the Weekly Lord's Day worship is the best practice.

There are at least the following four reasons to support this practice.

1. Because of the pattern set down in scripture (Acts, 1 Cor).
2. Because of the pattern of the early church (didache)
3. Because of the nature of the sacrament (to strengthen faith and 'more fully declare and seal to us'- HC qa61)
4. Because of the liturgy (what is the liturgical reason to excise a means of grace from the Lord's Day liturgy? Why have a 'letter' without the sign/seal)
1. See the OP notes for daily/weekly regarding Acts - there is no consensus which passages refer to the Lord's Supper when "breaking bread" is mentioned;
2. The Didache is a helpful look into the early Church from the perspective of Judaic converts, and while it is quoted by many early churchmen, it is anonymous and not part of any council. If this commentary is to be followed on how the Lord's Supper should be observed, then we must reverse the Biblical order of bread-then-cup at the end of a an entire shared meal (amongst other things);
3. The frequency of the sacraments is not part of their nature;
4. The (relatively modern?) idea that you cannot have the Word without the sign ignores the many times in Scripture where this is not evidenced
 
Considering all that rapidly changed (iconoclasm, marriage of clergy, etc.) - and the outspoken reliance of many Reformers work of the Spirit for which nothing is impossible - this comment is hard to for me to agree with to any degree.
There may be many reasons why Calvin's desire for more frequent communion was not taken up. We should not assume that because they threw off one bad tradition means others did not remain. But I've read a couple of accounts that sayit has partly to do with the medieval traditions that left a lasting impression upon the people. For instance, a 'fear/reverence' that still remained of partaking oneself. For instance, there was still widespread ignorance and controversy over the LS (they needed a lot of teaching just in preparation for every participation bc of this ).
 
Here is an interesting read re: the medieval traditions of communion frequency being continued in the reformed churches.



https://spindleworks.com/library/vanrongen/supper01.htm#18


What is interesting to note is that the celebration of communion was disconnected from the medieval liturgical days eventually. But the frequency of communion was not.
Have you read Lee's thesis that this link is dealing with (there is a link within the link to it)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top