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.
On Peter; Right?
Rich, the body JESUS now occupies IN HEAVEN, does it have blood distributing The LIFE of His tissues throughout the body? The answer is in the Bible, and if you can answer that question you should comprehend why the Catholic Church Mass is a farce.
BTW, the Life is in the blood; the blood is not the life, it carries The Life in it while the creature is alive. Upon death the blood quickly loses the life carrying quality.
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.Sure different than what Augustine and many OTHER Early Church Fathers taught; isn't it!!882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”
The ‘blood’ is different in the dead. Rev 16 calls it ‘blood of the dead’ ... it is not life carrying blood because it changes immediately when the life is no longer being carried by it. It is not ‘lifeblood’ ...
I would like to add that it was forbidden to eat a LIVING animal (i.e., cut off a leg of a living sheep in order to eat it). This would be cruelty.
kerping
I would like to add that it was forbidden to eat a LIVING animal (i.e., cut off a leg of a living sheep in order to eat it). This would be cruelty.
This is true about the Noahide prohibition, but James’ reference to Moses indicates the Gentiles were to abstain from blood in accordance with the law of Moses. If this mandate for the Gentiles in Antioch was intended for the whole church, shouldn’t all Christians to this day be observing the Jewish dietary laws regarding blood?
The first church/Ekklesia council was convened to deal with the Judaisers and their insistence that new Christians be circumcised and follow the laws of Moses. The Elders sent a letter to explain what 'seemed good to the Holy Spirit'! The restriction on consuming blood was not from the law of Moses. The restrictions on blood date to before the Exodus!
what he said
Thanks, MGH.
What do you say?
Oh GREAT, now I have to retrain my children and we have to get rid of Fathers Day..........sigh.
of course
Yes; this is EXACTLY what you would do if you TRULY followed what the Bible says!
I already told you! Go back and read post 469. It is explained quite well.
48,000,002 now?
In that case, I withdraw the question.
Rich didn’t like the answer since it doesn’t comport with catholiciism dogma.
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.