Why eucharist not in the creed?

[Porcupine]

I’ve been wondering: If the eucharist is so central to Catholic life—“the source and summit of the Christian life,” as the catechism puts it—why is it not mentioned in the creed?

Would appreciate any thoughts.

P

 

[Batfink]

Most of the creeds were created as statements of belief for a) converts at baptism and b) to ensure that someone held the orthodox position on given dogmas.

Many of the statements in the creeds were written as specific refutations of certain heresies. Most of the others were written to counteract ‘what if…’ or ‘if x then y…’ arguments.

In the early church, I do not know of any heresies concerning the Eucharist (I am, by training a Medievalist though, so not an expert on the subject). I tmay be that none existed, or none were sufficiently troubling to the Church to bother refuting them formally in a creed.

 

[japhy]

I would hazard a guess and say: at the time of the composition of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (AD 325-351), the councils in question were not resolving doctrinal issues concerning the Eucharist.

For a fuller Catholic perspective on the Creed, I suggest reading Pope Paul VI’s “Credo of the People of God”.

 

[Spirithound]

I would hazard a guess and say: at the time of the composition of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (AD 325-351), the councils in question were not resolving doctrinal issues concerning the Eucharist.

Good answer. The early councils were generally called to deal with Christological issues. The proper resolution of these issues logically led to the proper view of the Eucharist. It was not until the Protestant revolution that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was called into question on a large scale. Trent then reaffirmed the Catholic teaching.

 

[Porcupine]

Thanks for the answers. I see what you mean about how the creed(s) was/were largely shaped in response to doctrinal controversies. And it makes sense that it would evolve that way. Still, the catechism talks about how the Church constructed these professions of faith to convey “the essential elements of its faith” (CCC 186), so it would seem they clearly were meant to serve a fundamentally educative purpose aside from the controversy-settling purpose you’ve described. And in that light–if the creed is meant to convey the faith’s essential elements–it seems to me that the omission of the eucharist is odd.

 

[puzzleannie]

I’ve been wondering: If the eucharist is so central to Catholic life—“the source and summit of the Christian life,” as the catechism puts it—why is it not mentioned in the creed?

Would appreciate any thoughts.

P

it is, the entire section about Jesus Christ spells out what is commemorated and made present in the Eucharist.

 

[Porcupine]

it is, the entire section about Jesus Christ spells out what is commemorated and made present in the Eucharist.

hmm…not quite what I meant. If the Eucharist is important enough to be explicitly named in the CCC (as “source and summit,” etc.), it seems that an equally explicit mention would be called for in the creed. Another way to think about that: Anyone who didn’t know that Catholics understand the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ certainly wouldn’t learn anything about it in the creed.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

hmm…not quite what I meant. If the Eucharist is important enough to be explicitly named in the CCC (as “source and summit,” etc.), it seems that an equally explicit mention would be called for in the creed. Another way to think about that: Anyone who didn’t know that Catholics understand the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ certainly wouldn’t learn anything about it in the creed.

They would learn the main outline of what we believe about the nature of God and about salvation and the church. They would then go to the church to find out about the details of living the Christian life. The Eucharist is called the source and summit of the Christian life. But before learning about the Eucharist, it’s necessary to know about the Trinity, Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, the sending of the Holy Spirit, the existence of the Church which He guides, and the afterlife. The creeds set forth the most basic of the bases of Christianity.

 

[Little_One0307]

Hi,

If I may be so bold as to say this sentence. The line “We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” covers the Eucharist. It does not list it per say by naming it directly but it is contained. When we say this line we also are professing to believe in what the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church teaches and holds for the faithful to believe in.

Little One0307

 

[Porcupine]

Hi,

If I may be so bold as to say this sentence. The line “We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” covers the Eucharist. It does not list it per say by naming it directly but it is contained. When we say this line we also are professing to believe in what the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church teaches and holds for the faithful to believe in.

Little One0307

By that logic, there would be no need to say *anything *beyond the sentence you’ve quoted.

 

[Porcupine]

They would learn the main outline of what we believe about the nature of God and about salvation and the church. They would then go to the church to find out about the details of living the Christian life. The Eucharist is called the source and summit of the Christian life. But before learning about the Eucharist, it’s necessary to know about the Trinity, Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, the sending of the Holy Spirit, the existence of the Church which He guides, and the afterlife. The creeds set forth the most basic of the bases of Christianity.

Fair enough, I guess, but it still just seems to me that the Church gives such prominence to the Eucharist that one would think it would merit a mention, even in the “outline” of what we believe about salvation and the Church.

 

[twf]

Porcupine:
I can see your point, but I agree with others that the early Councils were attempting to combat particular heresies, and that the basic dogmas outlined in the Creed are absolutely essential as a foundation of faith before one can even begin to discuss the Eucharist. The Eucharist was an ever present component of the life of the Church - a casual reading of the early Fathers (not to mention the New Testament) will demonstrate that it was always the central expression of Christian worship and believed to be much more than mere bread and wine…it was the life of the Church, something lived and breathed, more than something defined or promulgated theologically (until, as other posters have pointed out, it became a major issue of dispute during the Protestant Reformation). It was also see as something private, between the baptized faithful and the Lord…in the very early Church, the catechumens were dismissed before the celebration of the Eucharist, because only those who had “put on Christ” in baptism could partake of this most intimate mystery of the Christian life. Once a convert had accepted the theological foundation of the Creed, including belief in the “one holy Church”, the Church would introduce the convert to the fulness of the Christian life.

 

[puzzleannie]

The Creed is not the Catechism.
The Catechism explains each element of the Creed in part I
Read carefully the into to the CCC and Part I and your question will be answered.

 

[Porcupine]

The Creed is not the Catechism.
The Catechism explains each element of the Creed in part I
Read carefully the into to the CCC and Part I and your question will be answered.

Right, the Creed is not the Catechism. The Creed is meant to convey “the essential elements of the faith” in a nutshell, as it were. The Catechism is a somewhat more expansive treatment. I’ve read the CCC and I don’t find that it specifically addresses the question I posed. If you have particular paragraphs in mind, please let me know and I’ll check 'em out. Thanks.

 

[Porcupine]

Porcupine:
I can see your point, but I agree with others that the early Councils were attempting to combat particular heresies, and that the basic dogmas outlined in the Creed are absolutely essential as a foundation of faith before one can even begin to discuss the Eucharist. The Eucharist was an ever present component of the life of the Church - a casual reading of the early Fathers (not to mention the New Testament) will demonstrate that it was always the central expression of Christian worship and believed to be much more than mere bread and wine…it was the life of the Church, something lived and breathed, more than something defined or promulgated theologically (until, as other posters have pointed out, it became a major issue of dispute during the Protestant Reformation). It was also see as something private, between the baptized faithful and the Lord…in the very early Church, the catechumens were dismissed before the celebration of the Eucharist, because only those who had “put on Christ” in baptism could partake of this most intimate mystery of the Christian life. Once a convert had accepted the theological foundation of the Creed, including belief in the “one holy Church”, the Church would introduce the convert to the fulness of the Christian life.

twf, I think I see what you mean, but still, if the Eucharist was " an ever-present component" and “the central expression” of Christian worship, I still think it’s odd that it didn’t make it into the Creed.

Are you saying, in the second part of your post, that the facts about the Eucharist were kept *secret *from the uninitiated, and for that reason it was left out of the Creed?

 

[Spirithound]

Fair enough, I guess, but it still just seems to me that the Church gives such prominence to the Eucharist that one would think it would merit a mention, even in the “outline” of what we believe about salvation and the Church.

Sorry, but if you meet every response with “it just seems to me…”, or “I still think it’s odd…”, nobody will be able to satisfy you. The creeds are what they are.

 

[Porcupine]

Sorry, but if you meet every response with “it just seems to me…”, or “I still think it’s odd…”, nobody will be able to satisfy you. The creeds are what they are.

Sorry, but I don’t know any other way to put it. I guess if my question were answered I wouldn’t be saying things like “it still seems to me…” I appreciate all the opinions and conjectures, but I’ve heard no definitive answer yet. And “the creeds are what they are” isn’t winning any prizes.

 

[Little_One0307]

Hi,

I was discussing this thread with a friend of mine. We spent about 20 minutes on it. I am going to do some more research and some reading on this to see if I can find out any more. This has been one of the most interesting threads that I have been following. Thanks for posting this thread.

Little One0307

 

[Porcupine]

Hi,

I was discussing this thread with a friend of mine. We spent about 20 minutes on it. I am going to do some more research and some reading on this to see if I can find out any more. This has been one of the most interesting threads that I have been following. Thanks for posting this thread.

Little One0307

Thanks, Little One. Will be curious to hear what you learn from your research.

 

[Spirithound]

Would it help you to know that the Real Presence in the Eucharist is highly written about by the Early Church Fathers?