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.
**He is the titular head of Christianity....and he’s doing just fine....thanks for your consideration.**
Seems to be a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth about his blatherings among your fellow FRoman Catholics?
If you or I can’t interpret Scripture for ourselves, then no other human being is qualified to do so either so anyone else’s opinion, even those of the so called early church father, is either because they are just as human and fallible as you or I.
So what makes them any more qualified as human beings to tell us about God than anyone else?
He does lead me to where He wants me to be.
Different denominations have different ministry focuses and He will lead me where I can best work in whatever He has planned for me at the time.
These differences are so important that there has been no reconciliation in nearly a thousand years after the split. The Eastern Orthodox differ with Roman Catholicism on these issues:
The Holy Spirit (the filioque)
In EO - The third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father alone as in the original Nicene Creed. The Father sends the Spirit at the intercession of the Son. The Son is therefore an agent only in the procession of the Spirit.
In RC - 'When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is not separated from the Father, He is not separated from the Son'.
Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of
EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.
RC - Both are dogmas of the church. The church has not as yet decided whether Mary actually experienced Physical death. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary, was at conception 'preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin' and should not be confused with the virgin birth.
Pope - Authority of
EO - As the Bishop of Rome, he has a primacy of honour when Orthodox, not of jurisdiction. At present, his primacy is not effective as the papacy needs to be reformed in accordance with Orthodoxy. His authority is thus no greater or lesser than any of his fellow Bishops in the church.
RC - The Pope is the 'Vicar of Christ' i.e. the visible head of the church on earth and spiritual successor of St. Peter. He has supreme authority (including that over church councils) within Christendom (The Power of the keys).
Pope - Infallibility of
EO - Papal Infallibility is rejected. The Holy Spirit acts to guide the church into truth through (for example) ecumenical councils. This Orthodoxy recognises the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787) as being infallible.
RC - The Pope is infallible when, through the Holy Spirit, he defines a doctrine on faith and morals that is to be held by the whole church. This is a dogma and is therefore a required belief within Catholicism.
Purgatory
EO - An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.
RC - A place of cleansing and preparation for heaven. Also a place where the punishment due to unremitted venial sins may be expiated.
I'd say these were the "biggies", but other differences also exist. These are explained here.
The pope, ANY pope, is not the head over Christianity as a whole. He is the head of the ROMAN Catholic church. Even the EO don't recognize his authority over them, thus they have been condemned by past popes as schismatics.
The pope has NO authority over me. He has no say in my life and I absolutely reject any claims he or other Catholics make to that effect.
JESUS is the one who died for me and saved me and gave me new life. HE is the head of my church and his manifest presence is in me. He dwells in my heart through faith and THAT is the REAL presence of Christ.
How ironic that for all this pope has done and the way I hear Catholics talk about him and reject him as pope themselves, that you still claim that he's the head of Christianity.
That must mean that you support this pope and don't have any trouble with all that he has been spewing since he got elected into office.
Amen bro.
THIS.
Hoss
Which, as attested to by multiple articles here, is another opinion RCs differ on.
The Roman Catholic church, where you can believe whatever suits your fancy.
Another example of one of your brethren in the "true Christianity"/"one true church," Catholic Nun Applauds Activist Who Bragged About Her Abortion at Democrat Convention. In addition to false doctrines. Since no one else hre is promoting one particular organic church as the OTC, then invoking liberal Prots will not counter the reality that Catholicism is an amalgamation if variegated beliefs among those she treats as member in life and in death. He unity is limited and largely mere professions, while those who most strongly esteem Scripture are the most unified in basic beliefs.
That is a fair question - I would say that despite the post Vatican II trend, the Church has had people, Like Benedict XVI, and his allowance of the Traditional Latin Mass, and his influence, as well as John Paul II (although I think Benedict will surprisingly have a greater influence) on the young priests. But no, I don’t agree that calling yourself a Christian and thinking you are hearing Christ’s voice makes a church - I think the danger there is that we will take Christ on our own terms, no matter how sincere we are. Anyway, good luck to you and take a look at Benedict XVI’s book “Jesus of Nazareth” - all can appreciate it.
Nice summary of EO/RCC differences.
Dan’s work, not mine. I just copied and pasted it into my files.
Dan’s work, not mine. I just copied and pasted it into my files.
Not this Daniel. You may be thinking of this. Thank God for what is good.
Not about doctrine or morals...
--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail Mary!!)
oh... wait...
How many more times do you reckon this SAME information will have be posted to the SAME people correcting the SAME ignorant statements before they finally get it???
Is it ignorance, stubbornness or obliviousness that causes this convenient amnesia every time?
This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
Well, I think I found it thorough something you posted.
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.