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

[Saiph]

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]

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]

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]

It is observed weekly at my church.

 

[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.

 

[Me Died Blue]

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

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

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

 

[ChristopherPaul]

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]

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]

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]

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 )

2. 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, according to the rule of the gospel, though especially to be exercised by them, in the relation wherein they stand, whether in families, or churches, yet, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended to all the household of faith, even all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus; nevertheless their communion one with another as saints, doth not take away or infringe the title or propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions.
( Hebrews 10:24, 25; Hebrews 3:12, 13; Acts 11:29, 30; Ephesians 6:4; 1 Corinthians 12:14-27; Acts 5:4; Ephesians 4:28 )

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.

III. This communion which the saints have with Christ, does not make them in any wise partakers of the substance of His Godhead; or to be equal with Christ in any respect: either of which to affirm is impious and blasphemous. Nor does their communion one with another, as saints, take away, or infringe the title or propriety which each man has in his goods and possessions.

 

[fredtgreco]

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

 

[Puritanhead]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Saiph

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

Faux Analogia
:bigsmile:

 

[Saiph]

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]

Originally posted by Saiph

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.

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]

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]

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]

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...

"Presence," therefore, is not a question of space; it is a relation... So we need not speculate how it is that Christ, the whole God-man, body, soul, and divinity, is present in the sacrament, but we are absolutely certain of the fact. He has promised it.

--A. A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology: Lectureson Doctrine (Banner of Truth, 1990), 355-7.

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by Saiph]

 

[Puritanhead]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Puritanhead

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.

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]

You be careful Fred...

 

[Peter]

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.