Posted on 07/23/2016 9:19:23 AM PDT by Salvation
Eucharist in the creed?
Msgr. Charles Pope
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.
So different than history!
Hmmmm..... this line of thought sounds so very familiar terycarl!
Oh yeah! This is the line of argument of the posts appearing under your screen name!
James’ reference to Moses indicates the Gentiles were to abstain from blood in accordance with the law of Moses.
After reading several commentaries, I have a better understanding of Acts 15:21, and realize that I was mistaken to make the above statement.
These commentaries are at the following link:
http://www.studylight.org/commentary/acts/15-21.html
Peace,
Rich
I am more than a little impressed that you consider the same arguments used against Catholicism are also used against me.....now I KNOW I'm right (although I never really doubted it.)
I disagree bro. I have never thought that you were right, and I ALWAYS doubt it. 😀
And peace be with you as well.
Well, God gave men meat for food and at the same time, told them not to eat the blood.
Genesis 9:3-4 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
So clearly eating meat does not violate God’s prohibition against eating blood.
What’s ended up happening here is the same kind of argument in dealing with the *Call no man “Father”* debate.
Catholics have a practice that is clearly prohibited by God in Scripture, and they they resort to all kinds of mental gymnastics and rationalizations as to why they should continue a practice that God clearly and plainly prohibits.
That's why I don't do dinuguan. I think it's revolting.
Never heard of it so I just looked it up online.
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!
GROSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This. Read it by the grace of God before you respond.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (Canon of the Old Testament) affirms, “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
Luther did not dissent from any indisputable canon, which did not exist for RCS until after the death of Luther, and who had substantial scholarly support for his doubts and rejections in his non-binding canon, and included the rejected books in his Bible, albeit in a separate section as before an ancient custom. But which smaller canon Protestantism did not wholly follow.
And theyvare very good at it, doing so since the Reformation!
Well...
...it just depends WHEN you do it!
D&C 49:18-19 18 And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; |
 |
D&C 89:12-13
12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; |
Mirror, mirror;
reflect my light.
Tell these folks
who's always right...
Just since the reformation? I thought it has gone on for a lot longer than that. 😀😃
“where in the Bible does it say Jesus went to hell first?”
Where in the Bible does it say everything is in the Bible?
What a weak argument to add stuff with no support.
If it’s not in Scripture, then you are in a position to validate the claim as truth using an indisputable source on par with God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture.
That’s just another Catholic-like rationalization to believe something that is not (or may not be) found in Scripture.
Gee, following Catholic thinking, I can claim that Peter owned the worlds first golf course because it doesn’t say in Scripture that he didn’t and then demand that you prove me wrong.
OK, so what is the seminal doctrine, or the initial catechesis that indicates that Jesus descended into hell? How else should I pose the question to be sensitive to your sensibilities?
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.