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.
You don't seem to understand....if the Catholic church declares it a dogma, it doesn't mean that from now on you will believe what it says, it means that it was the truth FROM THE BEGINNING...and it still is.
Like the assumption....declared not too long ago, but true from its existence.
Of course He cannot lie, whatever He says is automatically the truth....The president cannot disclose state secrets because the moment he discloses them, they are no longer official state secrets.....when you make the rules, you cannot violate them....
O.K. by me, after 1,600 years of the truth, you, Calvin, Luther, Zwingley, Wesley et al decided that you knew better that thousands of learned leaders of Christianity over the centuries.....I guess you can do whatever you want, but I sure don't understand why you want it......either you are right or they are.....I'll stick with them.
are you saying that the protestant version of the Bible is EXACTLY the same as the Catholic version????????????????
No, TC, AGAIN it is you who doesn’t understand.
Answer me this...if the Council of Trent FORMALLY declared the dogma of “transubstantiation” it meant that UP TILL THEN, there was not full agreement. Just as the previous link I provided to you about Duns Scotus. He acknowledged that disagreement and discussion was ongoing. It’s the same reason the “canon” of the Bible could be proved to have been in dispute within the RCC and not settled because the Council made a formal declaration in the sixteenth century.
What you claim is the “truth” is only from the narrow view of Roman Catholics and is not necessarily a belief held by all Christians from all time. The Assumption of Mary isn’t a “fact” - facts have proof. It is a belief of some and cannot even be shown to have been believed by the Apostles or the first Christians.
I heard a great come back the other day that applies to you - you need to start working on a bridge...the one that helps you get over yourself!
I knew the exact total at 6:00PM CST, but by 6:15 it had changed and by 6:23 it had changed twice more and by 6:30 some had come and others had gone...keep us posted, it is your field, not mine.
That God cannot lie is because of HIS CHARACTER, not because He created the Universe! Your twisted soul has twisted that Truth around to essentially support the idiocy of 'there is nothing God cannot do'! Really, fellow old man (I'm 70, dontchaknow), take up the Bible and Learn of Him Who took flesh and dwelt among us. The Ten Commandments are an excellent starting point in 'seeing' the character of God our Savior. Don't mistake His power over His creation with His righteous character. That borders on blasphemy.
So, you are backtracking now? As the science states, that "blood" you think you are eating isn't, but is only a component of hemoglobin (blood) called "myoglobin" - a protein mixed with water.
In your zeal to try to get someone to admit they eat blood, in disobedience to the New Testament command to abstain from blood, you have yet again failed to prove your point. Besides, haven't you gone on record here admitting that the bread and wine are NOT literally changed into physical flesh and blood? I seem to remember you saying that - which would be the truth. Even your Catechism states the "accidents" of bread and wine remain unchanged.
You seem to REALLY like your tangents.
I read both a Catholic and edited protestant Bible and they both described, at the last supper, the exact thing that I see at every Catholic mass I've ever attended...close enough for me!!.
Yeah....right......sigh!
That is exactly what the Catholic church teaches...Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.....under the appearance of bread and wine.....no confusion whatsoever!
well.....yeah...His glorified boy is indeed in Heaven, so what, no one denies that.....do you suppose, even for a moment, that He is incapable of being bodily present in the Catholic Eucharist????
I didn't think so!
you become more entertaining as the conversation continues....chuckle...chuckle
I disagree bro. Mary's body lies a mouldering in the grave. The RCC needs this assumption thing, in order promote her to demigoddess status. I disagree with that too bro. Mary has no power to do anything, except reside in Heaven, with all the other saints.
BTW, only saints (Christians) go to Heaven. All others go to Hell. Someone must become a saint (Christian) here on earth, not centuries after their death.
That makes no difference whatsoever....if the Catholic church declares something a dogma, a truth to be believed, it does not mean tha from now on it is a truth, it means that they declare that it ALWAYS was the truth maybe not recognized by all, but nevertheless the truth....and yes, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are now and always were the truth.....oh ye of little faith.
Oh please....you take yourself far too seriously....we are talking here in human terms, about realistic and responsible trains of thought....the Catholic church has been here for 2,016 years.....the protestant revolution took place about 400 years ago....we have buildings older that that, and while I believe that most Prottys are indeed Christians, I believe that ALL of them are either in error or at best, incomplete.
Oh good grief...myoglobin is so close to hemoglobin that there is basically no difference.
Did you ever bite your tongue or cheek???....did you spit out EVERY bit of blood??....did you ever have a tooth pulled??????.....did you spit out every drop of blood that was in your mouth?????
I disagree bro. The RCC was in grievous error, which is why the reformers came on, to tell the truth.
Praise God for the great reformers, who told the truth, and helped us real true Christians, become our own popes.
I believe this has been explained to you about 47 million times. I have no intention of making it 47 million and one.
Try being your own pope for a change, you will like it.
why are you confused about that?????
Don't you think it might be easier to build a working time machine? 😀😃😎
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.