Eucharist in the creed?

OSV.com ^ | 07-20-16 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[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.

[metmom]

I have no idea.

It’s kind of staggering the number of times we’ve clearly refuted some of this stuff already.

[metmom]

How does that answer his question?

[af_vet_1981]

Yeah, right!!!!, that's why there is only 1 protestant "denomination"......

Again, you touch on the core issue; there is one holy catholic apostolic Church from the days of the Apostles unto this day. Attempts to re-form or reconstruct Christianity argue by their very actions that they have lost, and do not possess, the genuine faith passed on by the Apostles to the next generation of bishops.

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet. These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Second Peter, Catholic chapter two, in its entirety
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[boatbums]

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.

Yes, that pesky Vatican II "trend". Do you mean the part that recognizes that there ARE genuine churches outside of Roman Catholicism like:

15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth. (Lumen Gentium)

Jesus clearly taught that where two or three are gathered together in His name, "there am I in the midst of them". (Matt. 18:20). Whether or not you accept that the true "church" is that spiritual house Peter spoke of which was made up of ALL believers in Jesus Christ doesn't change the truth that this IS what Scripture teaches us. Everyone, in some way or another, takes Christ on their own terms. God speaks to and teaches us through His revealed word and the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. I will continue to believe Jesus knows His own and we/they will know and follow Him. Where we choose to gather together to worship, grow, edify and evangelize in His name is secondary to knowing the truth. It would be wrong to presume just calling ones local assembly THE true church means it is.

Have a blessed week.

[boatbums]

Again, you touch on the core issue; there is one holy catholic apostolic Church from the days of the Apostles unto this day. Attempts to re-form or reconstruct Christianity argue by their very actions that they have lost, and do not possess, the genuine faith passed on by the Apostles to the next generation of bishops.

And how would someone KNOW for sure what that "genuine faith passed on by the Apostles" contained? Because some people claimed so over the centuries? What about the doctrines of Catholicism that are said to have developed with no evidence of being taught or handed down by the Apostles? Because your religion says so/viva voce? Who're the ones attempting to re-form or reconstruct Christianity here? Whose actions REALLY argue that they have lost and do not/or no longer possess that genuine faith? That finger pointing to others has three pointing back at yourselves.

[Burkianfrombrklyn]

Yes that trend! LOL. The problem is the Church has lost its zeal for conversions, although that V2 statement, in itself, is not much different than Trent - the Spirit of Vatican II moved beyond it.

[terycarl]

So all homosexual priests and preachers are right because they all agree that homosexuals are perfectly fine? Your standard of right and wrong based on agreement really needs redefining.

Actually, homosexuality is NOT a sin....homosexual behavior is....priests are celibate and do not involve themselves in sexual activity of and kind....thus no sin.....see???

[terycarl]

I disagree bro. He is not the head of Christianity. The RCC is NOT Christianity. I think you have been MIA on the threads bro. If he is doing just fine, why do so many catholics bash Frank, calling him evil? Either they are right, or you are, but not both. I don't bash the pope. The catholics do a good enough job of that. They don't need me to pile on.

sure he is, it doesn't matter whether you think so or not, and Catholicism is the ONLY true and complete form of Christianity on Earth....all others are either in error or , at best, incomplete. There have always been, and will always be, I guess, those who disagree with the Pope....oh well, he is still the titular head of Christianity and can never err in matters of faith and morals....believe it or not.....he is.

[terycarl]

Go to it, Bro. Teach the unteachable, so that he/they will be without excuse when his/their number comes up and they are found wanting. We continue to do that brother. There are so many here who need the truth, so we keep at it. I wish they would all see the righteousness of God, but most of them do a Romans 10:3, For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. The men of Ninevah will rise in judgment, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah. The Queen of Sheba will rise in judgment, for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth, to hear the wisdom of Solomom. What a terrifying moment for millions, when they hear the words, "I never knew you." It doesn't have to be that way.

Catholics had a personal relationship with Christ 1,600 years before there was a protestant.

[terycarl]

They convinced you that learned scholars of the Catholic church, over 2,000 year in the study of Christianity were wrong, and that the Navigators, since the 1930's knew better.... So what makes them any more qualified as human beings to tell us about God than anyone else?

They are, indeed, qualified to tell us about God...as long as they don't deviate from Catholicism....which is the ONLY truthful path.

[terycarl]

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.

Sure he does, it matters not whether or not you agree with it...the president is ours even if we didn't vote for him, and the pope is the head of Christianity....all of it. The pope led all Christians for 1,600 years and then a handful decided that he wasn't their leader......too bad, he still is and ALWAYS will be...accept it.

[terycarl]

The Roman Catholic church, where you can believe whatever suits your fancy.

that statement from a member of one of the thousands of different "denominations"

[terycarl]

I have no idea. It’s kind of staggering the number of times we’ve clearly refuted some of this stuff already.

refuted?????.......or maybe just denied fact.

[Mark17]

Catholics had a personal relationship with Christ 1,600 years before there was a protestant.

I disagree bro. You are just giving your opinion, and you know I never agree with your opinion.
I think you would love to commit the sin of presumption, and be secure in your salvation, and have assurance of salvation. My opinion is, you have NO assurance of salvation at all, not even a tiny little bit. Maybe you are so scared of leaving the RCC, even though it's a false religion. I left it long ago. It was the best thing that ever happened to me. Come on out of it. My opinion is, you don't want any assurance of salvation. I can't imagine why, but that's on you bro.
I don't know where you plan to spend eternity, but that's on you bro.

[Mark17]

It’s kind of staggering the number of times we’ve clearly refuted some of this stuff already.

MM, you could refute all that stuff 47,000,004 times, and some people, will regurgitate the same stuff 47,000,005 times. The guilty parties will remain unnamed, but they know who they are. 😄

[boatbums]

The pope led all Christians for 1,600 years and then a handful decided that he wasn't their leader......too bad, he still is and ALWAYS will be...accept it.

Dude...you seriously need some study of the history of your "Popes". Do the Eastern Orthodox accept the Pope as THEIR leader? No, they don't and it was one of the main reasons there was a split a thousand years ago. It's almost like you think you can state anything that comes into your head and no one can be the wiser. Here's a little link to help you get some of that much-needed history lesson:

Thirteen Things You Didn't Know About the Papacy. Two of special interest in this list for you especially apply against your faulty opinion:

7. There was no “papacy” for the first three centuries, and when Roman “bishops” tried to exert “authority” based on some connection to Peter, they were severely reprimanded by other bishops.

Cyprian, in his Letter 73, he wrote of Stephen, who was claiming to be a “successor of Peter”, that “more and more observe his error”. Further, Cyprian accused Stephen of “bitter obstinacy” (letter 73).

His fellow bishop Firmilian said of Stephen (Letter 74) that he “has not done anything deserving of kindness and thanks” In the next sentence he compares Stephen with Judas, guilty of “perfidy” and “treachery” having “wickedly dealt concerning the Saviour” – as Stephen himself claimed that he “had been the cause of such great advantages, that through him the world and the people of the Gentiles were delivered by the Lord’s passion”. Those were bold claims, and they were swiftly rebuked.

8. A Regional Council openly stated that there was “no bishop of bishops”: This is from The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian:

“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.”

[Mark17]

.priests are celibate and do not involve themselves in sexual activity of and kind....thus no sin.....see???

This is a joke, right bro? Naturally, I disagree, as usual. MANY of them are anything but celibate, but what do I know? I am just a happy, contented, permanent ex Catholic. I also have assurance of salvation. I seriously doubt that you do, but that's on you bro.

[knarf]

That's the most conclusive proof to back up my statement/suspicion I made a couple of months ago ....

Terrycarl is really a fundamentalist, Baptist Sunday School teacher and all these threads are nothing more than an ongoing test to see if you "got" biblical instruction in sound doctrine 101.

What I DON'T understand is .... when will he grade your papers and pass out the A pluses ?

[Elsie]

Is it ignorance, stubbornness or obliviousness that causes this convenient amnesia every time?

Well...

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12

The Man of Lawlessness …10 and with every wicked deception directed against those who are perishing, because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. 11 For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie, 12 in order that judgment will come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness.…

[Elsie]

How does that answer his question?

By adding MORE hay to the stack?