Why Weekly Communion? A Confessional Case for the Lord’s Supper

by on August 5, 2025 | Comment

How often should our churches celebrate the Lord’s Supper? Practices vary among Reformed congregations—some celebrate weekly, others monthly or quarterly. Yet when we turn to Scripture, church history, the Reformed confessions, and voices like John Calvin and Louis Berkhof, a compelling case emerges for weekly communion.

This case begins with Scripture itself—the pattern of worship we see in the earliest days of the church.

The Early Church Pattern: Breaking Bread Each Lord’s Day

Acts shows the early church centering worship on the breaking of bread (the Lord’s Supper):

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread [Lord’s Supper] and the prayers. (Acts 2:42)

Likewise:

On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread [Lord’s Supper]. . .” (Acts 20:7)

Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 assume the Supper was integral to worship:

“When you come together, it is . . . the Lord’s supper that you eat.”

Historical Witness: Early Testimony to Weekly Communion

An early Christian manual known as the Didache (A.D. 80–120) reflects weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper:

On the day which is the Day of the Lord, gather together for the breaking of the loaf [Lord’s Supper] and giving thanks.” (Didache 14.1)

Written within living memory of the apostles, the Didache shows that weekly communion was already part of early Christian worship.

Likewise, Justin Martyr (A.D. 100–165) describes the church’s Sunday gathering in his First Apology (chapter 67):

On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read . . . bread and wine [the Lord’s Supper] and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings.1

By the fourth century, church councils also assume this weekly practice. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363–64) instructs:

During Lent the Bread [the Lord’s Supper] must not be offered except on the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day.2

This implies weekly communion was the norm.

From High View to Weekly Practice: Drawing the Confessional Implication

While the Reformed confessions do not explicitly command weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, their high view of the Supper’s efficacy as a means of grace points strongly in that direction. By good and necessary consequence (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6), if the Supper is truly spiritual nourishment, sealing and strengthening believers in Christ, then weekly communion is the natural and fitting application of this teaching.

Belgic Confession: Spiritual Nourishment for Pilgrims

The Belgic Confession (Article 35) describes the Supper as ongoing sustenance for the Christian life:

We receive this holy sacrament in the assembly of the people of God with humility and reverence . . . making confession of our faith and of the Christian religion.

It also makes a striking statement about the reality of what believers receive in the Supper:

We do not go wrong when we say that what is eaten [in the Lord’s Supper] is Christ’s own natural body and what is drunk is his own blood—but the manner in which we eat it is not by the mouth but by the Spirit, through faith.

The Belgic’s high view of the Supper’s efficacy implies that it belongs at the heart of regular worship.

Heidelberg Catechism: Ongoing Nourishment in Christ

The Heidelberg Catechism (75) likewise presents the Supper as spiritual nourishment:

As surely as I receive from the hand of the minister and taste with the mouth the bread and the cup of the Lord . . . so surely does he himself nourish and refresh my soul to eternal life with his crucified body and shed blood.

If the Supper nourishes like food, it points to weekly participation.

Westminster Larger Catechism: Feeding on Christ for Spiritual Nourishment

The Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC) affirms this same reality. WLC 168 explicitly says that in the Lord’s Supper believers “feed upon his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace; [and] have their union and communion with him confirmed.” This high view of the Supper’s efficacy strongly suggests that it belongs in ordinary weekly worship.

Calvin: Weekly Communion as the Reformed Ideal

John Calvin famously urged weekly communion:

The Supper could have been administered most becomingly if it were set before the church very often, and at least once a week.3

Elsewhere he wrote:

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 (see 1 Cor. 11:20, where Paul notes that when they came together, they observed the Lord’s Supper).4

And in Geneva’s 1537 church order:

It would be well to require that the Communion of the Holy Supper of Jesus Christ be held every Sunday.5

Calvin’s vision places the Lord’s Supper alongside the preached Word in the church’s ordinary worship.

Berkhof: Spiritual Presence and Growth in Grace

Louis Berkhof affirms this same Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper:

[Calvin] denied the bodily presence of the Lord in the sacrament, but . . . he insisted on the real, though spiritual, presence of the Lord in the Supper . . . as a fountain of spiritual virtue and efficacy.6

He explains that the grace received in the Supper is

the grace of an ever closer fellowship with Christ, of spiritual nourishment and quickening, and of an ever increasing assurance of salvation.7

This spiritual presence—Christ feeding his people by faith—makes the Supper too significant to treat as an occasional memorial.

Church Order: Frequency and Freedom in Reformed Polity

While Reformed church orders reflect this theology, they do not prescribe the exact frequency. The United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) require the Supper “at least every three months”—a minimum, not a maximum.8 The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) likewise commend frequent observance while leaving exact scheduling to local sessions.9 None prohibit weekly communion, but their theology encourages it.

Pastoral Benefits: Why Weekly Communion Matters

Weekly communion is not merely about frequency; it is about benefits. As a means of grace, the Lord’s Supper provides believers with:

  • Nourishment: The Supper feeds faith as physical food sustains the body (John 6:55).
  • Communion with Christ: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation [communion, KJV] in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation [communion, KJV] in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16)
  • Unity: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor 10:17).
  • Assurance: “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’” (Luke 22:19)

The collective weight of these benefits compels a higher frequency.

A High View Demands Frequent Communion

Michael Horton observes:

One’s view of the nature of the Supper plays no small part in determining frequency.10

A low view (mere memorial) yields infrequent observance; a high view (means of grace) makes weekly observance compelling. If Christ himself feeds his people in the Lord’s Supper, why would we withhold this gift from our congregations?

Conclusion: Recovery, Not Novelty

Weekly communion best reflects the pattern of Scripture, the witness of church history, the teaching of the Reformed confessions, and the vision of Calvin himself.

The Lord’s Supper is much more than a memorial: it is Christ himself nourishing his weary pilgrim people on their way to glory. As Berkhof beautifully summarized, it is “the grace of an ever closer fellowship with Christ.”

It is worth noting that the church orders of the Reformation period, which prescribed communion “at least quarterly,” likely reflected practical conditions rather than theological uncertainty. In times of famine or economic hardship, food and wine were scarce. During plague outbreaks, gathering safely and consistently was difficult. Moreover, early Reformed churches often lacked qualified ministers and elders, making weekly communion difficult.

Today, however, these limitations no longer constrain most churches. We have abundant resources, easy access to the elements, and well-trained pastors and elders. If we truly believe the Supper is “food for our souls”—a means of grace nourishing and strengthening believers in Christ—there is no reason to withhold this gift from God’s people each Lord’s Day.

And here is a searching question: If we make two worship services a priority (which is an excellent way to promote the fourth Commandment)—even though such services are not explicitly commanded in the New Testament—should we not make weekly communion an even greater priority, since Christ explicitly commands, “Do this [the Lord’s Supper] . . . in remembrance of me”? (1 Cor 11:25).

If the Westminster Larger Catechism teaches that in the Lord’s Supper, we “feed upon his body and blood, to [our] spiritual nourishment and growth in grace” (WLC 168), is it not fitting that we do this every Lord’s Day? Why would we withhold so rich a means of grace from the people of God when they gather weekly in his presence? After all, as Calvin himself declared, the Supper “could have been administered most becomingly . . . at least once a week”—a vision we would do well to recover.

Notes

  1. Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., and Coxe, A. C., eds., The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Company, 1885), ch. 67, p. i.
  2. R. Percival, trans., “The Canons of the Synod Held in the City of Laodicea, in Phrygia Pacatiana,” The Seven Ecumenical Councils, in Schaff, P., and Wace, H., eds. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 14 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900), 155.
  3. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), 4.17.43.
  4. Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.46.
  5. Articles concerning the Organization of the Church and of Worship at Geneva (1537).
  6. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 646.
  7. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 654.
  8. URCNA Church Order (2023), Article 45.
  9. Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Directory for Worship, Chapter III, Section C.3; Presbyterian Church in America, Book of Church Order, 58-1.
  10. Keith A. Mathison, Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2002), 293.

©Anthony Faggiano. All Rights Reserved.

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • Anthony Faggiano
    Author Image

    Anthony Faggiano is an elder in the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) and holds a BA in Theology from The Master’s University. He writes for the Reformed Dogmatika blog, focusing on Scripture, the Reformed confessions, and the solas of the Reformation. He is married and has two adult children.

    More by Anthony Faggiano ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.