By Father Toms
Many people believe that the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper is not taught in the Scriptures. Some think that the observance of the Holy Communion on a weekly basis is an invention of the Roman Catholic Church. Both of these assumptions are false. A study of Scripture and early Church history reveals that weekly Communion was the norm from the time of the New Testament until the Roman Catholic Church began to discourage the laity from receiving the sacrament on a weekly basis.
First, let us look at the testimony from Scripture. In Acts 2:42, we find this statement concerning the early church: “And they continued stedfastly in the apostle’s doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” This verse does not merely describe what people in the early church were doing. This verse describes the typical worship service. Each worship service contained doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. What was the practice of “breaking bread.” Some believe that this phrase refers to nothing more than having fellowship over a meal. In other words, the people in the early church were just eating together. But the phrase “breaking bread” is more significant than just a description of an ordinary meal. “Breaking bread” is a technical expression to describe Holy Communion. In the Greek text, there is a definite article before “bread” and “prayers.” Thus, they continued stedfastly in breaking the bread and in the prayers. The bread must refer to a specially designated bread, the bread of Holy Communion. Simon Kistemaker writes: “In the Greek, the definite article precedes the noun bread and thus specifies that the Christians partook of the bread set aside for the sacrament of communion (compare 20:11; I Cor. 10:16). Also, the act of breaking bread has its sequel in the act of offering prayers (presumably in the setting of public worship” (111). This verse is a description of the formal act of observing the Lord’s Supper. If “breaking bread” was merely fellowship over a meal, the previous phrase, “fellowship,” would have taken care of that concept. Breaking of bread refers to the ceremony of the Lord’s Supper. No doubt, the Lord’s Supper, at this point in time, may have been a part of a larger meal, but the breaking of bread mentioned here is Holy Communion. F. F. Bruce writes:
The ‘breaking of bread’ here denotes something more than the ordinary partaking of food together: the regular observance of the Lord’s Supper is no doubt indicated. While this observance appears to have formed part of an ordinary meal, the emphasis on the act of breaking bread, ‘a circumstance wholly trivial in itself,’ suggests that this was ‘the significant element of the celebration. … But it could only be significant when it was a ‘signum’, viz. of Christ’s being broken in death.’ (R. Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man [Eng.tr., Londone, 1943], p. 315). (79)
Thus, the breaking of bread is a term to describe how our Lord was broken in death. When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, he “took bread, and blessed it, and brake it…” (Matt. 26:26). No wonder, then, that the Lord’s Supper is referred to as “the breaking of bread.” I. Howard Marshall writes:
This [the breaking of bread] is Luke’s term for what Paul calls the Lord’s Supper. It refers to the act with which a Jewish meal opened, and which had gained peculiar significance for Christians in view of Jesus’ action at the Last Supper and also when he fed the multitudes (Lk. 9:16; 22:19; 24:30; Acts 20:7, 11). It has been claimed that the thought is simply of a fellowship meal, perhaps a continuation of the meals held with the risen Lord, without any specific relation to the Last Supper or the Pauline form of the Lord’s Supper which celebrated his death, but it is much more likely that Luke is simply using an early Palestinian name for the Lord’s Supper in the proper sense. (83)
The breaking of bread is also the term that the Apostle Paul used to describe the Lord’s Supper. In I Corinthians 10:16, he writes, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” Once one understands that the term “the breaking of bread” refers to the Lord’s Supper, we can see with what frequency the Lord’s Supper was observed in New Testament times.
In Acts 2:46, St. Luke tells us: “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Again, the definite article is before the word “bread.” They were breaking “the” bread from house to house. Again, as was common in New Testament times, the Lord’s Supper was part of a larger fellowship meal. But it is obvious that one of the key features of Christian gatherings was Holy Communion. They broke the bread from house to house, or “by households,” as the Greek could be translated. Therefore, in each of these household churches they are observing Communion on a regular basis.
In Acts 20, we get a picture of how regularly they were observing the Lord’s Supper. In Acts 20:7, St. Luke writes, “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” We can see that by this time the disciples are in the habit of meeting on the first day of the week (Sunday). When they meet, they meet specifically to break bread. F. F. Bruce writes, “The breaking of the bread probably denotes a fellowship meal in the course of which the Eucharist was celebrated” (408). In other words, they meet together on the first day of the week to observe Holy Communion. As one can see, the meetings of the early Christians were characterized by word and sacrament, preaching and Holy Communion. These two must never be divorced from one another.
We can see that when the early Christians met together, the purpose was to hear teaching and observe the Lord’s Supper. St. Paul takes this for granted when he rebukes the Corinthian Christians for the manner in which they observe the Lord’s Supper: “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken” (I Cor. 11:20-1). As one can see, St. Paul assumes that when Christians come together it is to observe the Lord’s Supper. Unfortunately, the Corinthians had so corrupted the practice that it could no longer be considered the Holy Supper of our Lord.
All of these verses of Scripture show that the normal practice of the New Testament church was that when they met together for worship, central to that worship was the breaking of the bread, Holy Communion. Therefore, even if we have no explicit command which says, “Observe Holy Communion each Sunday,” we do have an implicit command and the example of the early Church.
What was the practice of the Church after the death of the Apostles? How frequently did the church observe Holy Communion? The earliest descriptions we have of Christian worship outside the New Testament still feature Holy Communion as part of the normal worship of the church. The Didache, or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which comes from the second century, makes it evident that every Sunday the ancient church observed the Lord’s Supper. In the Didache 14:1-15:1, we read:
On Sunday, the Lord own day, come together, break bread and carry out the Eucharist, first confessing your sins so that your offering may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his friend join the meeting until they have been reconciled, so that your offering is not polluted. For this is the offering spoken of by the Lord: “Everywhere and all times offer me a pure sacrifice. For my kingdom is great, say the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”
Appoint for yourselves therefore bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord; men who are meek and not money-lovers, true and approved, for they all perform for you the ministry of prophets and teachers. So do not despise them; they are the honourable men among you, together with the prophets and teachers.” (Dowley, 129)
Another early description of Christian worship comes to us from Justin’s Apology I, 65-66, written around 150 A.D.:
At the end of the prayers, we greet one another with a kiss. Then the president of the brethren is brought bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and the he takes them, and offers up praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and gives thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at his hands. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their joyful assent by saying Amen. (‘Amen means “so be it” in Hebrew). . . Then those whom we call deacons give to each of those present the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and carry away a portion to those absent.
We call this food “Eucahrist”, which no one is allowed to share unless he or she believes that the things we teach are true, and has been washed with the washing that is for remission of sins and unto a second birth, and is living as Christ has commanded. For we do not receive them as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation; similarly we have been taught that the food which is blessed by the word of prayer transmitted from him, and by which our blood and flesh are changed and nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs called Gospels composed by them, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks said, “This do in remembrance of me, this is my body;” and that in a similar way, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, This is my blood,” and gave it to them alone. (Bowley 128)
It is evident from these early writing that Christians were observing communion each Sunday, and that Holy Communion was central to their worship.
People received the sacrament of communion on a weekly basis until Roman Catholicism took it away. Though the Roman Catholic Church said daily masses, the laity, by and large, did not partake. Only the priests took the Lord’s Supper. In the Medieval Church, the laity participated in the Lord’s Supper maybe once or twice a year. It was not until the time of the Reformation that the great magisterial Reformers wanted to increase the frequency of communion. Thus, weekly communion is not a “Romish” practice: it is a Protestant, reformed practice. John Calvin (certainly no Romanist! wanted to restore weekly Communion to the Church in Geneva, but his elders would not allow the practice, so he compromised for a monthly observance. We have to remember that the members of the new Protestant churches were coming out of Roman Catholicism. They were used to an infrequent participation in the sacrament. Calvin found it difficult to break the hold of centuries of Roman Catholic practice among his people in this area of worship. Calvin wrote:
“What we have so far said of the Sacrament abundantly shows that it was not ordained to be received only once a year—and that, too, perfunctorily, as now is the usual custom. Rather, it was ordained to be frequently used among all Christians in order that they might frequently return in memory to Christ’s Passion, by such remembrance to sustain and strengthen their faith, and urge themselves to sing thanksgiving to God and to proclaim his goodness; finally, by it to nourish mutual love, and among themselves give witness to this love, and discern its bond in the unity of Christ’s body. For as often as we partake of the symbol of the Lord’s body, as a token given and received, we reciprocally bind ourselves to all the duties of love in order that none of us may permit anything that can harm our brother, or overlook anything that can help him, where necessity demands and ability suffices. Luke relates in The Acts that this was the practice of the apostolic church, when he says that believers “. . . continued in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayers” [Acts 3:42, cf. Vg.]. Thus it became the unvarying rule that no meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper, and almsgiving. That this was the established order among the Corinthians also, we can safely infer from Paul [cf. I Cor. 11:20]. eAnd it remained in use for many centuries after.
Hence arose those ancient canons attributed by them to Anacletus and Calixtus, that, after consecration is finished, all who do not wish to be outside the precincts of the church should partake. And in those old canons which they [Roman Catholics] call “apostolic,” we read: “Those who do not stay until the end, and do not receive the sacred communion, should be corrected as disturbers of the church.” The Council at Antioch, also, it was decreed that those who enter the church and hear the Scriptures and abstain from communion should be removed from the church until they correct this fault. Although this was softened or at least set forth in milder language at the First Council of Toledo, still it was also decreed there that those who, having heard the sermon, have been found never to communicate are to be warned; if, after warning, they still abstain, they are to be excluded. (2, 1422-3)
As one can clearly see from Church history, not partaking of the Lord’s Supper weekly was the Roman Catholic practice, while participating weekly was the Protestant practice. As John T. McNeill writes, “Calvin was among the earliest to urge Communion as frequently as this; in general practice the Mass was frequently celebrated, but few received the elements. Communion received monthly was regarded as “frequent” in the Scholastic era, and the preachers tended to discourage people from frequent participation. In Roman Catholicism it was the Jansenists who began the reverse trend” (1421).
In regard to frequency of Communion, the Anglican church has had a checkered past. Though it seems obvious that the original Book of Common Prayer, both the 1549 and 1552 editions, was designed with weekly communion in mind. Though frequency of communion became less and less in Anglican bodies, it was not until the 1892 American edition of the Book of Common Prayer that actual wording was added to ensure that Holy Communion was not necessary every Sunday. Marion Hatchett writes:
The 1552 revision made even more explicit the relationship between Sunday and the Eucharist…. This principle, which emphasized the Eucharist as a regular part of the Sunday rite, was maintained until the American revision of 1892. Even in that edition the rubrics continue to assume the traditional Anglican pattern. But concern for the shortening of the Sunday service prompted the insertion of a statement in the Book: “The Order for Morning Prayer, the Litany, and the Order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion, are distinct services, and may be used either separately or together; Provided, that no one of these services be habitually disused.” (25)
Nevertheless, it is clear that our English Reformers intended that Holy Communion be observed every Sunday. As Peter Toon writes:
“There is no doubt that the English Protestant Reformers intended that the central service at the parish church each Lord’s Day should be the Lord’s Supper, the Holy Communion. This is confirmed by the content of the first Book of the Common Prayer of 1549. In this first complete English Prayer Book, the service of Mattins is so constructed as being more of a service for the clergy and especially devoted laity than for the parish as a whole. It begins, “O Lord open thou my lips.” But the Order for Holy Communion is so constructed as to be for parishioners and they were expected to come for the Litany, said after Mattins, and stay for the Holy Communion. It is also confirmed by the content of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer where not only is there expected to be the Order for Holy Communion on the Lord’s Day but that it will be prefaced by Morning Prayer (mattins) and the Litany…. So whether it was Litany and Holy Communion for the laity (1549) or Morning Prayer, Litany and Holy Communion for the laity (1552) it was certainly Holy Communion each Lord’s Day in intention. (Please see this entire article at the website of the Prayer Book Society).
Peter Toon also agrees that the reason weekly communion did not become part of English practice was because they had not participated frequently for centuries under the domination of Roman Catholicism.
Another reason for observing Holy Communion every Sunday is to emphasize the central act of history. Our worship is centered around one thought: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life” (St. John 3:16). The central theme of the Holy Scriptures is that God gave his Son to die on the cross in our place. It is only right that we should make this redemptive act the central theme of our worship. Every Sunday, during Holy Communion, we offer praise and thanksgiving for the death of Christ on the cross. The Book of Common Prayer tells us: “The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was ordained for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby” (293). It is true that we could simply remember his death in our minds, but the Lord gave us an outward and visible sign of his death, Holy Communion, so that this important act might always be a potent reminder. During Holy Communion we touch, taste, feel, and smell the elements of Communion. We hear the words which explain the meaning of the elements. Therefore, every Sunday, we have the most powerful reminder of the central event in history, the one that has the most meaning in our lives.
Finally, we observe Holy Communion every Sunday because of the benefits we receive from participation. Think of what we receive during Communion. In the “Offices of Instruction” of the Book of Common Prayer, the question is asked, “What are the benefits whereof we are partakers in the Lord’s Supper?” The answer given is: “The benefits whereof we are partakers in the Lord’s Supper are the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ, as our bodies are strengthened and refreshed by the Bread and Wine” (293). Why would anyone resist having Holy Communion when we receive so much by it? At the beginning of each week, we need our souls strengthened and refreshed by the body and blood of Christ. We need every help we can get to grow in grace, to overcome temptation, and to draw nearer to God through Christ. The Book of Common Prayer tells us that the Sacraments were given “as a means whereby we receive this grace, and a pledge to assure us thereof” (292). There are benefits that we receive by participating in Holy Communion that we can receive no other way. There is a Gnostic tendency in the church to spiritualize everything, to make all of worship a strictly mental act, but Christ ordained the sacraments of his church, because he saw that we needed these physical, tangible things to assure us of his grace toward us. We need this pledge to assure us of his grace. God has seen fit that we should have this pledge on a weekly basis. In the Prayer of Invocation during Communion, we pray that we “may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him” (81). Who would not want these benefits on a weekly basis? There is something that happens to us during Communion which happens at no other time. We need the fullness of his indwelling. God has given us no other means by which these things may be experienced in their fullness. We should be thrilled that we have the opportunity each Sunday to enjoy these benefits.
Realizing what benefits we receive by Holy Communion saves us from the common argument against weekly Communion, that it becomes routine. The argument is that Holy Communion is more special if we observe it less frequently. How absurd! Should we sing hymns less frequently? Should we pray less frequently so that prayer will be really special? Should we confess our faith less frequently? Should we read the Bible once a month so that reading the Scriptures will become special? Should we come to Church once a year so that our worship experience will be special? God forbid! If Holy Communion becomes routine to you, it is not because of the frequency of observation, but because of the coldness of your own heart. Remind yourself of what you are receiving during Holy Communion, and it will never grow old.
This trend toward less frequent communion is being reversed, and the ancient practice of the New Testament and the early Church of weekly communion is being restored to the Episcopal Church. Therefore, at St. Paul’s, in effort to be in harmony with the writings of the New Testament, the history of the early Church, the Protestant Reformation, and the origins of Anglicanism, we observe Holy Communion every Sunday. When we consider the teachings of the New Testament, the testimony of Church history, the importance of the death of Christ, and the benefits we receive from Holy Communion, surely anyone could understand why we practice its weekly observance.
Notes
The Book of Common Prayer. New York: Oxford UP, 1928.
Bruce, F. F. Commentary on the Book of Acts: The English Text with Introduction,
Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983.
Calvin, John. The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. John T. McNeill. Trans.
Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Westminster P, 1960.
Dowley, Tim. Introduction to the History of Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress P, 1995.
Hatchett, Marion J. Commentary on the American Prayer Book. San Francisco: Harper,
1995.
Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1990.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary.
1980. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994.
McNeill, John T. Calvin: The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. Ford Lewis
Battles. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Westminster P, 1960.
Toon, Peter. “A Morning Marathon of Prayer, Bible-Reading & Praise, with a Sermon.”
The Prayer Book Society of the USA. 15 October 2001.
http://www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928/Articles/AMorningMarathonOfPrayer.htm.
Copyright c 2004 by Stephan R. Toms
[...] Why Does St. Paul’s Observe Holy Communion Each Sunday? Hence arose those ancient canons attributed by them to Anacletus and Calixtus, that, after consecration is finished, all who do not wish to be outside the precincts of the church should partake. And in those old canons which they [Roman … [...]
[...] Vote Why Does St. Paul’s Observe Holy Communion Each Sunday? [...]