Lest we over-react
Zwingli seems to have been a bit of a reactionary -- being so adamant in his opposition to Rome that he preached a mere symbolic presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, becoming an arch rival of both Rome and Luther. A lesser known fact is his influence on frequency of celebration. One can only assume that it was his passion for the centrality of preaching in worship that led him to endorse a quarterly observation. Zwingli, according to some, even wanted to cease using the word "sacrament," sensing that the popular meaning was too subservient to Roman Catholic convention.
Is it possible to say, perhaps, that Zwingli's influence was physically cut short by his tendency to over-react? He did, after all, die in battle against am army of Roman Catholic soldiers in a fight he was partly responsible for provoking.
Calvin's legacy has probably done more than anyone to create a cohesive and balanced view of the supper, not the least of which, on the issue of frequency of administration. But, correct me if I'm wrong, it has taken an awfully long time to take hold. The American evangelical tradition didn't do anything to help, neither did the Scottish Presbyterians, who's annual-at-the-most model of frequency may have been, as some speculate, an over-reaction against and an attempt to distinguish themselves from the Church of England.
One a side note:
The Dutch Reformed tradition (within which I now commune) seems to, by and large, be dealing with a Zwinglian tendency when it comes its implicit ideas about the supper. On the one hand, this tradition tends to fence the supper better than most, leading one to think it has a "high view" of the supper. But on the other hand, it also tends to celebrate the supper with might-as-well-be-never frequency, leaving the impression that it doesn't understand the supper's value.
So history is littered with errors and various erroneous reactions to error. And while I've personally been longing to see a greater and fuller understanding and of the supper among my brothers and sisters, I've been a little hard-pressed to identify with various concerns among those who justify the infrequent model. There are some arguments I won't ever understand, such as the one which bemoans a careless and trivial attitude that MIGHT accompany great frequency.
However, there was finally one anecdote given me recently by my pastor that did encourage me to be watchful of how I treat this topic (it is, after all, a subject that is not dealt with explicitly in scripture). It involved a young man who, although not a member, sometimes visited our church. After every morning service, he would rebuke my pastor to his face for not including the Lord's supper in the liturgy. The man treated the supper as a mandated part of regular worship. Now, I won't deny that I would like it to be possible for our church to be that frequent, but this man treated it as a matter of sin to not include the supper.
Over-reaction anyone? Should that sacrament have parity with the preaching as a primary means of grace? No.
There was also a glaring inconsistency in the young man's reasoning which pastor pointed out to me: While he thought weekly observance was mandatory, declaring worship incomplete without the supper, he didn't seem to endorse celebrating twice each Sunday, a must if his view were to be consistent.
I'm hopeful that the reformed churches as a collective will continue to "reform," in the sense of restoring the supper to its rightful place in our church life. It is, after all, intended for the benefit of the believer in pointing, in a physical sense, to Christ. In this way, we do indeed spiritually feed on Christ.