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.
“The New Testament, as we know it, didn’t come into being until almost 300 years after Christ’s death.”
It may have not been put together as we read it today as one Bible, but the writings were alive and well from the 1st century. I won’t address your ramblings of the next few paragraphs as they have no merit or make no sense in the debate.
“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.”
And it wasn’t done by RC’s either it was given to us by the Jew and the Jew only.
“defrocked Father Martin Luther”
Praise God it probably saved his soul, but our God is good at making sweet lemonade out of the most sour lemons. When you RC’s are out of ammo you always can be counted on to bring up a dead man kind of like you like to pray to dead Biblical figures.
I personally never knew M.L. nor have I ever been Lutheran, so your dig or whatever you think it does has no merit or concern of mine. I study the Holy Word of God and the Holy Spirit of God leads me to His Truths.
“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).”
I love how you RC’s always bring up these guys as proof of the “Truth”, but you do know that liars and deceivers were there from the beginning like Judas Iscariot. If any of these disagree with Scripture then they are just another false Prophet.
“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.”
Jesus doesn’t need secretary’s and Peter wasn’t a secretary, but he was a faithful servant just as the other Apostles where. We know that Peter had the Spiritual Gift of Exhortation, but I don’t recall popeism being a Spiritual Gift.
Colossians 1:18 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
18 And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy:
Cloud if you where born again like Scripture says that you must be you wouldn’t need a pope to guide you on earth, but the vicar on earth would be the Holy Spiirt of God living inside you 24/7. The only reason you feel the need for a master pope is you don’t have that Holy Spirit guiding you and that is why you feel so lost and without guidance.
“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.”
Lets break this comment down... one Church in 33 A.D.
Well the book of Revelation says there were at least 7 Church’s, so right off we know that you are your assumptions are wrong. So we have a dilemma to work through.
One is that all seven Church’s were RC and only one was right, but six are doomed. With that being said so not all used the same doctrine because not all are equal. We know they didn’t use the same dogma or “mass” as some are so wrong that Jesus pukes/spits them out of his mouth. That can only mean that there were seven different independent Church’s of the time with one being possibly RC.
It’s pretty easy to figure which one is RC and which ones are Prot. There is only one that claims to be Christian and that church worships a female deity just like the Church of Thyatira.
“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.”
Next is you claim there is no split, but why are there different rites and a Eastern Orthodox if you are all on the same sheet of music? You are not are there wouldn’t be any split, nice try.
“changes bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.”
Poor Jesus he’s so tired of being crucified over and over. I think I remember Him saying “It is Finished” and He sat down.
FYI Satan doesn’t have denominations either and he’s united in destruction, so being one united religion isn’t and indication of being right.
“So SOME things can change in the rite, nothing else.”
24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council ……………… 1870 A.D
How is it that a Prot knows your religion better than you do? Your religion has changed so many times in the last 1700 years that you don’t have a clue what is real or fake.
The Church of Thyatira better known as the RCC is doomed to a bed of suffering read it for yourself and run. You have been warned of the coming wrath save yourself and your family while you can.
De profundis...
Would it help you if I pointed out each time you conflate the Ekkelsia Jesus established, translated ‘church’, with the man-made institution called ‘Mother’ ‘Church’? You do it so fluidly I thought it might help you to see the error if someone just cited it each time you do it.
“De profundis...”
Oh for the depths you have fallen Church of Thyatira
Revelation 2:24 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
24 And to the rest who are at Thyatira: Whosoever have not this doctrine, and who have not known the depths of Satan, as they say, I will not put upon you any other burthen.
John 6:35 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.
Was Jesus wheat or barley since you take it so literal?
John 6:26-27
Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.
But yet you think you can eat salvation through Communion and yet the Scripture you give as proof clearly says it’t not the literal bread and wine, but the spiritual sacrifice... WOW.
Food that perishes means you wheat or barley wafer that you do labor for because you think it saves.
John 6:64 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.
I had that list printed and give copies away in my Catholic bookstore.
How do you know that the Bible is correct?
And how can you be so dismissive of the Eucharist as just a symbol? Why would God be upset if we didn’t treat a symbol with respect?
“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.”
And that paragraph above is why I have absolutely no respect for you or your so-called church. Please try very hard to learn to read and get at least some education about what Catholicism really is. Try not to have your ignorance so clearly on display.
I am not dismissive of the Lord's Table. On the contrary, the reason I continue to expose the paganism of the Catholic Mass is because the thing JESUS instituted on the night before the Cross is in fact so spiritually significant that The Apostles cautioned those who would come to the Lord's Table to first confess to God their sins and be spiritually cleansed. If they came and participated unworthily, do you know what Paul wrote as the consequence? In Judaism, being guilty of the body and blood of someone was, well, being guilty of violating God's law against cannibalism and eating the blood of someone!
I have absolutely no respect for you or your so-called church.
That is almost amusing, since I have not posted any 'church' I belong in other than the Church, the Ekklesia of those faithing in Jesus as Savior and My Lord.
Try not to jump to such foolish conclusions based in conflating The Church, the Spiritual CHURCH / EKKLESIA / Body of Believers in Whom God has sent for our Deliverance / and the manufactured institution of catholiciism.
What Catholicism really is, well, sadly it is very obvious what catholiciism really is and what it is doing, as a works based / striving to obtain salvation religion. It is a twisted, satanic faux religion which at its heart is blasphemous toward the Truth of Whom JESUS is, what sort of Transformed body He occupies now, and the Promise of GOD to all who faithe in His Promises. There are two things at the heart of Catholicism which expose it as 'another religion': the paganized Mass, which has twisted the Lord's Table to resemble the Pagan practice of eating food sacrificed to idols; the 'veneration of the Mother of Jesus as a coredemtrix, mediator between God and man.
The insidiousness of catholiciism is that it convinces folks like you that you can work your way to what God ONLY gives by His Grace because of Faith in Whom He has sent for our salvation. Your pride at following the sacramental trail laid out by the 'other religion' ought to tell you the fate of your working your way to 'something'. When those not in the body of faithers in JESUS are come for judgement, their pleadings will include amazing results (casting out demons, healings, etc.) yet they will be found to be 'unknown' by JESUS.
See my profile page for an explanation of what I mean by faithe and faithers, and faithing. The Greek word translated several ways in the King James and DR Catholic Bibles is at its heart an action word, like using the word 'trusting' conveying an ongoing trust in.
There is no record of this belief before 100 AD. None. If this were a core truth of Christianity, one would expect to see commands and descriptions and examples. There are none. To say it happened is an argument from silence.
Nothing exists before 100 ad in the inspired Word of God. What people wrote hundreds of years later is irrelevant. Your argument attempts to make what was written much later - which is new to what appears in Scripture - equal as evidence of belief much earlier.
I disagree with your line of thought. By the time these “fathers” wrote, syncretic paganism had taken over by introducing many pagan ideas into church life - including the existence of a class of believers called “priests.”
The Catholic Church is expert at taking a later development and reading it back into Scripture, finding whatever hooks it can hang it on - a bit here and a bit there - to try to justify it. The authoritarian structure and mystical thinking leads to group-think.
What is the significance of the year 100 AD? Is that the year you think syncretic paganism took over all of the churches? The church in Jerusalem? The church in Antioch? The church in Alexandria? It is certainly centuries before the church in Rome had widespread influence.
While there may or may not have been writings before 100 AD, there were several writings shortly thereafter. For example, Justin wrote the following:
“For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” (”First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155)
And about 30 years after that, Iranaeus wrote:
“So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.”(”Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely Named Gnosis”. Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D.)
Dismiss them as irrelevant if you wish, but they cannot be dismissed as an argument from silence. And they certainly were not written centuries later.
By the same token, if the belief that the bread and wine are not transformed into the body and blood of Christ were a core truth of Christianity, one would expect to see evidence of this belief in the early church. One would also expect to see a contemporaneous refutation of the writings referenced above. The silence is deafening.
To restate my question, why are there no early church writings either expressing the belief that Christ’s actions at the Last Supper were merely symbolic or refuting the writings that say the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ?
All Apostles lived before 100 AD. If something was not taught before 100 AD, it is not part of the Apostle's teaching.
Dismiss them as irrelevant if you wish, but they cannot be dismissed as an argument from silence. And they certainly were not written centuries later.
These things were not written during the time of the Apostles. Nor do we know they were not tampered with - as was the Didache and other writings.By the same token, if the belief that the bread and wine are not transformed into the body and blood of Christ were a core truth of Christianity, one would expect to see evidence of this belief in the early church.
Yes. We do. It is referred to as a feast and as the Lord's Supper.One would also expect to see a contemporaneous refutation of the writings referenced above. The silence is deafening.
This is evidence of uniformity of submission to authoritarian structures. We were warned by multiple Apostles of the error that would creep into the Church. In Revelation, Christ condemns Churches that had already fallen into error and this was before 100 AD.
To restate my question, why are there no early church writings either expressing the belief that Christ’s actions at the Last Supper were merely symbolic or refuting the writings that say the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ?
There are Christian writings expressing the belief that Christ's presentation at Passover was symbolic. We call them the Bible.
Since the idea of transformation into the literal body and blood of Christ wasn't believed at that time, there was no reason to refute it.
Kind regards.
THINK! Is there blood distributing The LIFE of the real, physical body JESUS now occupies in Heaven? It was the influx of paganism into the Christian community, much centered in ROME that Polycarp went to Rome to oppose. The BODY JESUS now occupies in Heaven does not use blood to distribute the LIFE, so your paganized Mass is a farce! But you want to support this farce by citing Justin Martyr and others who were part of the influence of paganization of Christianity! THINK!
JESUS told you in His Upper Room Discourse that the bread and wine were symbolic. HE called the ritual a Remembrance, a replacement remembrance for the Passover, actually. You don’t want to believe JESUS because you would rather hold to your pride in following the sacramental trail through the broad gate.
Believe what you want, but the fact is that during the first several centuries after Jesus was taken up into heaven, Christians overwhelmingly believed that the bread and wine were transformed into His the body and blood. And there is no record of anyone believing that what Christ did at the last supper was symbolic. It was not until the 9th century that the real presence was first questioned.
My question is, if the Apostles did not teach the real presence, why did it take so long for the belief to be questioned?
FACTS:And there is no record of anyone believing that what Christ did at the last supper was symbolic. It was not until the 9th century that the real presence was first questioned.There is no evidence from before 100 AD that any Apostle taught the "real presence".
No Extra-Biblical sources taught it before 100 AD.
No Biblical books taught it.
No secular sources wrote about it before 100 ADIf it were important at all to Christianity, it would appear in God's Inspired Word. It does not.
Why??
Nowhere in Scripture is transubstantiation taught. You will have to deal with that. If it were important at all to Christianity, it would be there. Apostles would have taught it. It is not. Why??
My question is, if the Apostles did not teach the real presence, why did it take so long for the belief to be questioned?
That is an interesting question, but it is not the important question.
The Apostles warned that error would creep into the Church. By 95 AD, it had already infected 7 churches mentioned in Revelation.
A better question, which you have not dealt with FRiend, is why isn't it taught, commanded, examples put forth, etc. in the Inspired Words of God.
That it was questioned during the Reformation is not unusual at all. For the first time in centuries, people had freedom to examine the Word of God and did not find it. The game was up.
"There is not even one instance in the life of the NT church of an apostle or pastor being distinctively called a priest, or engaging in a unique sacerdotal function, let alone even officiating at the Lord's supper and offering up the elements as a sacrifice for sins, nor are they ever charged with doing so in the life of the NT church. For instead the primary charge and active function of pastors is that of preaching the word. (Acts 6:4; 2Tim. 4:2; Col. 1:28) And which, unlike the Lord's supper, we are told in Acts and onward (which is interpretive of the gospels), is said to be spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) and to nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up. (Acts 20:32)
Nor is there is any theological discourse on what Catholicism erroneously believes the gospels teach, that of transubstantiation, which certainly Paul (for one) would have majored on as a salvific doctrine. Instead Paul only reiterates the simply words of Christ, "take eat.." which Catholicism construes into a form of endocannibalism, but Paul explains this meal by which they remember/"show/proclaim" the Lord's death for the church by their charitable inclusive sharing of food in this communal meal, treating each other as blood-bought members of the body of Christ, which some were hypocritically not doing by eating independently, even to the full, while ignoring others. (1Co. 11:17-34)
Moreover, rather than being the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished," as the central sacrament around which all else in church life revolved, the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in just one epistle to the church (besides the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12), that of 1 Corinthians. And in which it is the church as the body of Christ that is the focus, not the nature of the elements, and thus they are censored for not actually coming together to eat the Lord's supper, as they failed to effectually recognize other believers as members of the blood-bought body of Christ, by eating independently in what was to be a communal feast and ignoring others, even to the full and to the shame of them that have not. As explained here by the grace of God.
Nowhere is the Lord's supper set forth as a supreme source of spiritual nourishment versus simply communal fellowship with Christ and each others, like as pagans do with their dedicatory feast have fellowship with devils, but which was not by consuming their flesh and blood. (1Co. 10:15-21)
If the mere mention of breaking of bread in Acts is speaking about the Lord's supper then it is simply "breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," (Acts 2:46) with no priests or even focus on pastoral ritual. Of course, this is only one aspect of Catholicism that is not seen in the life of the NT church in Scripture.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3444900/posts?page=55#55 - post by daniel1212
Oops Daniel! Forgot to ping you to the post above. I copied some of your previous post. Sorry.
Catholic apologists conflate the body of believers, the TRUE CGURCH / EKKLESIA of Jesus The Christ, with the manufactured over centuries institution of catholiciism. Mother church indeed! May God have mercy upon those so thoroughly deluded by catholiciism.
Another example of this specious conflating is the use of 'the real Presence' -which JESUS spoke of as Him in the midst of ANY two or more gathered in His name, with the demonic claim that the catholic priest can command 'the real presence of Jesus' to come to the sacrificial Mass where it is claimed His body, blood, soul and divinity are served up in a wafer for Catholics to eat so they can feed on the jesus of Catholiciism, that 'other religion' Paul alluded to.
This blasohemous claim that the priests of Catholicism can command the real presence of Jesus at their paganized altars is just another of the specious conflatings which mock The Lord CHRIST. When two or more faithers in Him are gathered in His name, by HIS will of HIS SPIRIT He is in the midst of them. Never by the blasphemous command of a catholic priesthood.
No He didn't...read the Bible...Symbolic is nonsense!!!
Can you answer whether the Body Jesus The Christ now has IN HEAVEN has blood distributing The Life throughout it?
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.