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 need to completely ignore huge chunks of Scripture to reject "Roman" Catholic theology, and then you need to be tone-deaf to the hypocrisy required to claim to be "sola scriptura".
Read 1 Cor 11:23-32 on the Eucharist, and follow it up with John chapter 6 in its entirety.
Funny, the pagans accused the early Christians of being exactly that: cannibals. Did you get it from them?
Cannibals kill someone in order to eat him. The Eucharist is precisely the reverse of cannibalism, because the Jesus we eat is alive, more alive than we are.
Adoration of the wafer (Host)…………………………… .. 1220 A.D.
For example, at one point in his writings, Augustine of Hippo says that we sin if we don't adore the sacred Host. Augustine of Hippo died in the mid-5th century. That's a long time before "1220 AD," isn't it?
Eating someone alive or dead - is cannibalism.
Fat fingers + autocorrect + small smart phone screen = mistakes
I am guessing you might have known what church council I referred to.
:-)
I do not disagree that error was present by the Nicea Council; indeed, a primary purpose of the council was to squelch the error of Arianism. From what I understand, though, all of the churches attending the council were in agreement that, during the Eucharistic celebration, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.
Do you know of any record that shows there was disagreement on this belief in the early church.
Yes. Here are three that show disagreement between the Apostles, NT Church and the later church, when they went off the rails and became an earthly religious institution.
The Biblical Record shows no Apostle claiming to turn bread into the physical body of Christ. Nor wine into real blood.
The Biblical Record shows no commands to do this.
The Biblical Record shows no church that taught this.
The Biblical Record shows no examples of this happening.If God's Inspired Word, delivered to the NT Church during the time of the Apostles doesn't command something that the later Church incorporated via syncretistic paganism, it was not a core teaching of the Apostles.
...............................
The contemporaneous Christian record of art, writings, music, etc., has no recorded example of this belief, nor practice before 100 ad.
...............................
The secular record of art, literature, music, poetry, history, etc., has no example of this belief, nor practice before 100 ad.
...............................
Each of these three records shows unanimity of the Church during the time of the Apostles, that the Lord's Supper was symbolic and a remembrance - not physical consumption of the actual body and blood of the Savior.
Nor is there a such thing as "Eucharistic Worship" in any of the three records before 100 ad.
An objective mind would receive these facts and question any teaching or practice that contradicts the inspired Word of God. Instead, many prefer to cling to a worldly religion that varies from God's revelation.
Kind regards and thank you for a good question.
**The folks in the House of Cornelius, have you read about them? I’m curious what you cite to explain their receiving the Holy Spirit even before Peter finished his sermon and before any were baptized.**
God made it clear that there would be no denying that the Gentiles were grafted in. Peter, seeing and hearing the gift of Holy Ghost given to the house of Cornelius had to follow God’s orders, and baptize them in the name of the Lord.
Back in Jerusalem, testifying of the events, he said:
“Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I that I could withstand God?”
Withstand God on what? (God had already given them the Holy Ghost, so there was no withstanding that from happening.) Not Peter, nor any man, could forbid water. It’s God’s ordained plan: to be buried with the Lord Jesus in baptism for the remission of sins. The household of Cornelius was baptized just like the command for baptism found in Acts 2:38. Which is obedience to the commissions given by the Lord following his resurrection:
Matt. 28:19,20
Mark 16:15-18
Luke 24:46-49
John 20:21-23
The disciples had to be converted before they could preach this new and living way, with the Lord telling Peter (before the crucifixion):
“But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen the brethren.” Luke 22:32
With baptism being so vital to ‘be born from above’ you would think GOD would have put the baptism of each of the Apostles into The Word of God Bible, eh?... A Pharisee by any other name ...
**With baptism being so vital to ‘be born from above’ you would think GOD would have put the baptism of each of the Apostles into The Word of God Bible, eh?...**
There was a LOT of baptizing on that day of Pentecost. Over 3,000 were added. Then there was Saul/Paul, who obviously believed and repented, and was then baptized by Ananias (who called him “Brother Saul’ in Acts 22:13):
“And why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord”. Acts 22:16
**Ethiopian Eunuch comes to mind.**
A great example of God’s provision. If someone is ready to be baptized, God provides a means for it to happen; even in the desert.
People quote Acts 16:31, and stop there, not telling the rest of the story:
Paul and Silas “spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” vs 31
(Okay, they are IN the house at that point)
(then they leave the house)
“And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” vs 33
(then they come back into the house)
“And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” vs 34
Despite the pain and discomfort of having been beaten and whipped many times, Paul and Silas still made sure that these folks got baptized.
Thank you for your response. However, what you presented doesn’t really respond to the question. As you indicated, very little was written about this belief during Apostolic times, either for or against. In fact, there is nothing in the written record that shows what the Apostles believed or taught about the Eucharist.
What I am asking is whether there is any contemporaneous record that shows disagreement with the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, and others who proclaim that the bread and wine do become the physical body and blood of Christ. Because if the Apostles taught that the Lord’s Supper was symbolic, these writings surely would have caused a great controversy, prompting others to strongly condemn these beliefs. The lack of any disagreement would indicate that these writings were in accord with the teachings of the Apostles.
My gracious, what a jumble! The BIBLE clearly relates Paul instructing believers on the Lord’s Table, the use of the bread and wine in remembrance, such that if they take THE BREAD AND WINE without confessing their sins to God for cleansing and trusting in JESUS then they are guiklty of the flesh and blood of Jesus! But I’m sure you have been taught some way to dismiss that passage, just as you have been or are being instructed on how to twist so mucvh more of scripture to fit your chosen religion of catholiciism. Catholicism is not Christianity. It is a fabrication over centuries, by men (and a few women) bent on empower themselves with the masses, using religion as their box of manipulation.
Catholic simply means “universal.”
LOL ... so we can say you are a ‘universal’ then!
The New Testament, as we know it, didn't come into being until almost 300 years after Christ's death.
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church.
Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized.
**Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7).
**Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).
Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27).
Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115).
Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108).
Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235).
*The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
========================================
https://discovercatholic.wordpress.com/11-2/where-did-we-get-the-bible/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
There are many, many more sites regarding the writing of the New Testament. It sure wasn't done by defrocked Father Martin Luther in the 16th century. The New Testament had been around for 1500 years+ before Protestantism arrived.
==============================
My Protestant friend in Texas (Baptist turned Presbyterian) and I compared Bibles. There ARE some differences, not many, but they do exist. Neither of us thought that the differences were insurmountable to the New Testament or to Jesus' command to us: Love God and love each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
The above is a site which has the plethora of different Christian denominations, outside of Catholicism. I thought it was a most interesting read. I've done it before...and it's still interesting.
F.Y.I.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism
==========================
http://www.askacatholic.com/_WebPostings/Answers/2012_08AUG/2012Aug
Are there "Catholic" denominations?
Before ascending into Heaven, Jesus only founded one Church and said to St. Peter that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church with Peter and his successors overseeing it.
There was one Church back in 33 A.D.; and there is one Church today.
They are not denominations as the Catholic Church has no denominations. We are the one Church that Jesus founded on St. Peter and His successors.
There are many rites within the Catholic Church (ways of worshiping), and many churches sui iuris (according to the law) — such as:
*Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
*Melkite Greek-Catholic Church
*Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
*Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
*Chaldean Catholic Church
*Coptic Catholic Church, and
*Armenian Catholic Church
Their theology is exactly the same. All the priests of those different RITES still have the authority to say the words where God changes bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.
==========================
We had a slight "change" in the Mass just last month.
After the Consecration there is a prayer said:
"Remember our brothers sisters who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection, and all who have died in your mercy;
welcome them into the light of your face,
Have mercy on us all, we pray, that with the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, [ADDED: with St. Joseph her blessed spouse], with the blessed Apostles, and all the Saints who have...".and so on.
So SOME things can change in the rite, nothing else.
I am not "a universal."
The Catholic Church is not "a universal." The Catholic Church IS universal, "catholic" being an adjective.
You are giving me way too much credit, MHG. But, thanks anyway.
Salvation is based upon the Promise of God, not the behaviors of men and women. Jesus revealed the simplicity in John 3, regarding the brass snake. Have you read that passage before? Interestingly, when Nicodemus of the Sanhedrin visited JESUS by night, he was given an explanation hidden for a very long time, that just as the snake was raised up to be THE object of faithing and any, that's ANY, who believed they would be cured of the poison was cured based upon the Promise of God, so JESUS, GOD with us, would be lifted up and ANY who call upon Him for Salvation will be saved.
It is also revealing that hundreds of years later, Israelites were making little idol snakes and praying to them. The new King had to clean house over that blasphemy.
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.