Why is it difficult for people to understand the importance of weekly Communion?

[FireDragon76]

Thank you for the additional information and clarification. For the sake of brevity I had omitted this. Without this knowledge, the heavy persecution of some Dissenters, especially Quakers, in the Massachusetts Colony is frequently understood as an irrational persecution of innocent people.

BTW, here's a link to the video I mentioned:

 

[bbbbbbb]

BTW, here's a link to the video I mentioned:

Thank you. I found his presentation to be really quite excellent.

 

[anetazo]

Because many people are programmed from early age, being taught traditions of men by some churches and denominations. The flocks are deprived of the meat of God's word. It's always milk. Zechariah chapter 11 to document. Some people chase after misguided preachers. These preachers water down God's word. Isaiah chapter 30 to document. Thier not doers of the word, but hearers only. Thier biblically illiterate. Ephesians chapter 6 is neglected by some churches. You need gospel armour on to stand against antichrist lies and deception. The congregation doesn't have the latter rain. You need both the former rain and latter rain.

 

[Dan Perez]

I've had discussions about this with a local Congregationalist pastor. I told her I otherwise liked her church, but I would miss weekly communion, and I am in need of a new church home. She said in their tradition, monthly communion is the norm, and she's never heard of a UCC or Congregationalist church that practices weekly communion.

However, it seems strange to me that it isn't weekly, especially as they have changed so much of their other practices from the historical norms (the Revised Common Lectionary, commemoration of days such as Ash Wednesday, etc.). I have been doing research on contemporary philosophy, and I find it strange that people think sentimental hymns, preaching, and prayers are adequate expressions of Christianity, when three Gospels and Paul all have explicit narratives of the Lord's Supper, and Acts references "the breaking of bread" as something that happened often in the early Christian community. The whole point of the Incarnation is that salvation occurs within bodies, it was the heretics that denied that Jesus was a fleshly being that abstained from the sacraments in the early Church.

All I've heard traditionally are responses like "It wouldn't be special anymore" or "it is too much trouble". All answers that seem to me to be impious and regard the sacrament as more of a formality. I know even John Calvin argued for weekly communion, but the Genevan elders overruled him.

Are you taking about MATT 26:28 --29 ?

Or are you speaking about 1 Cor 11:23-31 ?

dan p

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The historical evidence seems to be that the early Church celebrated Communion or the Eucharist weekly.

Most likely, daily.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Most likely, daily.

That is open to discussion. It seems to hinge on the interpretation of "breaking bread". It is evident that the church in Corinth didn't merely share in communion, but shared in a full meal, aka a potluck, in which some members were unable or unwilling to bring food and were excluded from eating. Thus, "breaking bread" together might have consisted of a communal meal with or without communion, although my opinion lies toward the former. The practice of communal meals seems to have fallen by the wayside later in the history of the church, although there remain sizeable banqueting rooms associated with early church buildings. It is thought (very reasonably IMO) that these were used for meals following funerals, as is the common practice to this day, as well as other shared meals. However, communion shifted into the church proper and was divorced from the meals.

The situation in the primitive church could have been sharing a meal (breaking bread) daily with or without communion in the one and only room available to the church, which may have been even in the home of a wealthier member such as Philemon. What, if any, form of liturgy was associated with this form of communion is highly debatable, but is not at all likely that it resembled much later developments in liturgical practices.

 

[RileyG]

Most likely, daily.

That’s my understanding, too.

 

[Carl Emerson]

That’s my understanding, too.

Does the transition not relate to the migration from family homes to larger buildings?

There is a thorough work on this issue by Harold Turner "From Temple to Meeting House."

 

[bbbbbbb]

Does the transition not relate to the migration from family homes to larger buildings?

There is a thorough work on this issue by Harold Turner "From Temple to Meeting House."

That is what I was alluding to in my previous post.

 

[Carl Emerson]

One frustration I have had to cope with is being called to an Anglican Church when my life has included breaking bread with friends and alone.

Such a practice is not permitted.

As a household head it was normal practice for me.

It seems institutionalisation has not only migrated away from the family locus and taken this important sacrament with it, but even banned anyone else from remembering Jesus in this way.

 

[RileyG]

Does the transition not relate to the migration from family homes to larger buildings?

There is a thorough work on this issue by Harold Turner "From Temple to Meeting House."

It’s my understanding, in the early Church, the faithful often took the Eucharist to home with them for daily consumption.

 

[RileyG]

One frustration I have had to cope with is being called to an Anglican Church when my life has included breaking bread with friends and alone.

Such a practice is not permitted.

As a household head it was normal practice for me.

It seems institutionalisation has not only migrated away from the family locus and taken this important sacrament with it, but even banned anyone else from remembering Jesus in this way.

Some Churches still do agape meals, such as the Protestant Moravian Church. It’s not Holy Communion- but it’s sharing a sacred meal together?