Eucharist in the creed?

Question: The true presence of Christ in the Eucharist is central to our Catholic faith, and many converts say it was essential to their conversion. If this is so, why is the true presence not mentioned at all in the Nicene or Apostles Creeds? Should it not be added at the end where we state things like our belief in the Communion of Saints, the resurrection of the body and so forth? — Jerry Roventini, via email

Answer: There are many things that are not mentioned in the Nicene Creed. There is no mention of the Ten Commandments or grace; neither are we told what books belong to the New Testament or that we should care for the poor, etc. The creed is not a catechism; it is a statement of certain key doctrines that were disputed at the time of its composition in the fourth century.

The creed was composed in response to debates about the divinity of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. While there are a few concluding statements related to ecclesiology and eschatology, the Nicene Creed remains preeminently a statement of faith in the one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The belief in the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist was not widely disputed at the time. And to the degree it was, the need to definitively teach on the divinity of Christ was an important foundation in order to establish his true presence in the Eucharist.

In the Sacred Liturgy, many signs and words indicate the Real Presence. The words of the consecration, which are Jesus’ own words, say, “This is my body … my blood.” The priest later says, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” There are also signs of the Real Presence in our reverence of kneeling and genuflecting. And, as Communion is distributed, there is the simple creedal declaration and response: “The body of Christ. Amen.” Therefore, in the wider liturgy of the Mass and devotions such as adoration, the Church proclaims her belief in the True Presence.

While it would not intrinsically hurt to add to the Nicene Creed, one might wonder where it would stop. Further, since the creed is shared by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, adding to the ancient creed might harm attempts at unity.

Pope Paul VI wrote a longer “Credo of the People of God” which does speak to the Eucharistic presence, but it is too long to recite at Mass.

Which means the question in the OP should be, "The true presence of Christ in the Eucharist is central to our Catholic faith, and many converts say it was essential to their conversion. If this is so, why is the true presence not mentioned at all as being so in the life of the NT church?" Rather than the central focus being upon a ritual offering of a wafer of bread and sip of wine as a salvific food and sacrifice for sin by a distinctive sacerdotal priesthood, we simply have breaking bread from house to house, with gladness and singleness of heart. (Acts 2:46) And in the only manifest description of the Lord's supper it is focus on the church as the body of Christ, which is what is exhorted into being the closest thing to Christ in the flesh. (Eph. 4:7-13)

There is never a word about desecrating the Eucharist, nor any theological teaching on its nature, nor exhortations to partake of it in order to obtain spiritual life, but there is clear condemnation for persecuting the church, (Acts 9:4; 1Co. 15:9) and solemn warning against defiling it, (1Co. 3:17) which Christ purchased (not fed) with His own sinless shed blood. (Acts 20:28)

And instead of NT pastors being distinctively called "priests," and exhorted to perform the Eucharistic Catholic ritual, and thereby atone for sins and feed the flock, NT pastors are nowhere called "priests" in the life of the NT church, or seen or exhorted to perform the Eucharistic Catholic ritual, but they are charged with, and seen and exhorted to feed the flock by preaching the word, which is "milk," "meat" and what nourishes and build up souls, as shown.

You choose to believe what you want, I believe that there is no limit to what God can do.

Which is a terrible and invalid basis for doctrine, and a slippery slope that would sanction Mormonic magic underwear and dwelling on the planet Kolob. Etc.

If He says that He can transform bread into His body, I believe Him.

But which is simply begging the question, presuming the very thing that needs to be proved, but which is utterly absent in the life of the NT church, which is interpretive of the gospels. Only the symbolic position easily conflates with the totality of Scripture, while relying in a purely literal hermeneutic one can hold that David believed in transubstantiation, since he clearly said that water was the blood of men and poured it out unto the Lord, and thus the men who brought it would be priest.

And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Beth–lehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth–lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)

More by God's grace.

Believe what you want, but the fact is that during the first several centuries after Jesus was taken up into heaven, Christians overwhelmingly believed that the bread and wine were transformed into His the body and blood. And there is no record of anyone believing that what Christ did at the last supper was symbolic. It was not until the 9th century that the real presence was first questioned. My question is, if the Apostles did not teach the real presence, why did it take so long for the belief to be questioned? Actually there are those who contend with evidence that a symbolic was held by some, yet it is estimated that we have available only a relatively small amount of what so-called church "fathers" are estimated to have written. Nor is the Catholic Eucharist manifest as universally held, and neither is is wholly literally, for Catholics does not believe it actually becomes the bloody flesh of Christ, and would scientifically test as such (aside from claimed miracles). Regardless, it is clear that the post-apostlic church progressively adopted traditions of men such as praying to created beings in Heaven (zero examples) and many others, and thus this is simply another one.

Yet souls of a broken heart and contrite spirit who cast all their faith upon the risen Lord Jesus to save them on His merits (and thus overall follow Him) can be said, though they hold to certain errors, though for most the Catholic corruption of the Lord supper is effectually damnable.

The creed is not a catechism; it is a statement of certain key doctrines that were disputed at the time of its composition in the fourth century.

And Rome's present day catechism is NOT the simple stuff that was written in Acts chapter 15!

Acts 15

The Council at Jerusalem

¹ Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." ² This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ³ The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. ⁴ When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

⁵ Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses."

⁶ The apostles and elders met to consider this question. ⁷ After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. ⁸ God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ⁹ He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹ No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

¹² The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. ¹³ When they finished, James spoke up. "Brothers," he said, "listen to me. ¹⁴ Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. ¹⁵ The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

¹⁶ "'After this I will return
   and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
   and I will restore it,
¹⁷ that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
   even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
¹⁸ things known from long ago.

¹⁹ "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. ²⁰ Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. ²¹ For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers

²² Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. ²³ With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

²⁴ We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵ So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. ²⁸ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹ You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

³⁰ So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. ³¹ The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. ³² Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. ³³ After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. ^[34] ³⁵ But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.

Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas

³⁶ Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing." ³⁷ Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, ³⁸ but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. ³⁹ They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, ⁴⁰ but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. ⁴¹ He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

Transparency statement: I am a Gentile believer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Acts 15

The Council at Jerusalem

The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers

Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas

THIS