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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.46.
- Articles concerning the Organization of the Church and of Worship at Geneva (1537).
- Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 646.
- Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 654.
- URCNA Church Order (2023), Article 45.
- Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Directory for Worship, Chapter III, Section C.3; Presbyterian Church in America, Book of Church Order, 58-1.
- 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
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Anthony Faggiano
Anthony Faggiano is an elder in a URCNA congregation 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 ›
I must give my sincere compliments to Rev. Anthony for this well written article in support of weekly communion. Riddlebarger has an excellent contribution to the cause in the festschrift for Godfrey as well. The convergence of Scripture, early church practice along with Calvin and other Reformed theologians on its theology should be completely persuasive. It puzzles me why more Reformed pastors are not zealous for this practice.
Have the Supper weekly and eventually people will complain it’s too often and that they miss the mystical, special and occasional quality of it. Some churches like non-denom denoms never even have it.
I have been a part of a congregation practicing weekly communion, and I have not seen this problem.
This is the outcome that people often predict, but it does not seem to be true.
We have a sermon every week and people don’t say, “let us have fewer sermons.”
I don’t see too many people voluntarily skipping meals in America. The Lord supper is spiritual food for the soul.
I think the opposite is true: we do not know how spiritually hungry we really are.
Maybe more supper and less singing.
Less instruments (no instruments) so people have to sing.
The supper is often the most encouraging part of our service. We take it weekly, and I am grateful. J.V. Fesko’s book “Word Water and Spirit” really drilled into me the concept of sacrament as “visible word”, and since that sunk in, I’ve cherished our weekly communion.
If weekly observation were truly superior, shouldn’t we find it not only hinted at but actually taught in scripture – so that we may be furnished unto every good work? God commanded quite a few annual and less frequent rites in the old testament for grace and for edification of his people, and one of those annual rites was both a prefigurement of the Supper and was actually united with the Supper by Christ, who said of its frequency only “as often as ye drink it”. Would any of those rites have served their purpose better if the people optionally observed them more frequently?
As a circumstance of worship, the frequency is properly decided by elders with regard to practicality and perhaps even to specific spiritual needs of the congregation, but it might be going too far to suggest that weekly observance better fulfills the sacramental purpose in general.
Evan,
The early church certainly believed that the Lord and his apostles instructed the church to observe the Lord’s Supper weekly. Is it an inference? Yes. Lots of things are inferences. Where has God said: “I am one in three persons”? Where has Scripture said, “Christ is one person with two distinct natures”? These are inferences. The question is whether weekly communion is a good and necessary inference. Not only did the early church think it was but so did Calvin.
The Supper is not a circumstance. It is an element. It is an administration of the gospel.
By definition a circumstance is something determined “by the light of nature” (WCF) e.g., time, place, and language. Scripture doesn’t determine these.
Thanks for the reply, Dr. Clark.
I meant to say that the frequency of administration is the circumstance as it seems not to be determined by scripture, not that the sacrament is a circumstance.
What do you think about the contrast with old testament sacraments? Was the quantity or degree of grace administered through them limited by their infrequency? Did Israel miss out on potentially greater grace by observing Passover but once a year as opposed to our practice of quarterly, monthly, or weekly celebration of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God?
Evan,
Whether frequency of administration is a circumstance is to be determined. It shouldn’t be assumed. Is the frequency of the preaching of the gospel a circumstance? We need to answer this question very carefully. If we say yes, might the elders be free to decide to administer the gospel only monthly?
The same grace administered under the New Covenant was administered under the types and shadows. The difference between the two administrations is that under the New Covenant the sacraments are administered in light of the fulfillment of the promises. God the Son has come! Christ has died and he has been raised and he is ascended. The bloody shadows are fulfilled.
I expect to work on the question of frequency in the current podcast series on the Supper. My case is that the Supper is the culmination of all the feasts and that we look the typological calendar, they had the Supper, as it were frequently. They certainly had it every time they met as a covenant assembly and further, they had it daily in the wilderness according to Paul in 1 Cor 10:1–4.
Weekly administration of holy communion is the appropriate response by those upon whom God had lavished such favor. God the Son has come! He wishes to commune with us, to feed us with the “substance” of his “life-giving flesh,” as Calvin says, with his “proper and natural body and proper blood” as we say in the Belgic.
When we think of the Supper as feast, it’s hard to understand why we hesitate.
I was once affiliated (briefly) with a congregation many years ago where the Lord’s Supper was celebrated within the context of a larger supper. To be fair, the pastor would pause the general meal and then lead the ceremony of the Lord’s Supper with due reverence, so it wasn’t just a free-for-all. I did not remain long at that church because of concerns about the teaching of the Gospel, but I have often wondered if this unorthodox approach was also in violation of Scripture.
Jason,
One question would be whether communion is being outside a worship service and why? I suppose they’re trying to imitate what scholars suppose to have been the Corinthian practice, to have communion in the context of a love feast.
People neglect Paul’s admonition, “have you not houses in which to eat and drink?”
Here’s a question: If we do promote two services on the Lord’s Day, (as we should) then why wouldn’t we serve the Lord’s Supper in the evening as well? If the idea is that we are benefited from a frequent communion with Christ; why wouldn’t we serve the elements in the evening? It seems like the only way to stay consistent with the case for weekly communion is to have it in the evening service as well. And I am not convicted by either side at the moment, just trying to understand some apparent inconsistencies.
Christopher,
You’re right. It is an inconsistency but it is one born of struggle. The reason that advocates do not usually ask for communion at every service is mostly pragmatic. The low view of the Supper as a funeral and a test is so widespread and opposition to more frequent communion (let alone weekly) can be so intense that advocates sense that to ask for it at every service would be something that Americans just won’t accept.
It wouldn’t have anything to do with the assumption that the same people at the first service are at the second service? And therefore, one single observance on the Lord’s Day is practiced?
Paul,
It might but we preach two sermons on the Lord’s Day, right?
I am surprised by the pragmatism of this response.
Terry,
Calvin told the English to be patient with episcopacy and not to upset the status quo. Was he a pragmatist too?
I’m not a pragmatist. I am a pastor and historian and I know that Reformation takes time and have it in stages.
I might also say I’m not Anabaptist radical, ready to blow up the church to get my way.
I appreciate the pastoral sensibility. I do have to say, though, that it seems a willingness to do weekly Communion is the bigger step. Once you’ve decided on that, Communion at every Service shouldn’t be a difficult step.
Calvin’s patience with episcopacy seems to have been misguided (to this Presbyterian).
Love this. Thank you!