Why eucharist not in the creed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Porcupine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Spirithound said:
Would it help you to know that the Real Presence in the Eucharist is highly written about by the Early Church Fathers?
Click to expand...
Yes, I know they wrote on the subject–at least I’ve heard that they did; I’ve not read what they had to say myself. But if the fathers were so big on it, then that only compounds the mystery, right? --the mystery of why it didn’t make it into the creeds.

I’m not questioning the Real Presence, mind you, just the Eucharist’s curious (to me) absence from the creeds.
 
Porcupine said:
Yes, I know they wrote on the subject–at least I’ve heard that they did; I’ve not read what they had to say myself. But if the fathers were so big on it, then that only compounds the mystery, right? --the mystery of why it didn’t make it into the creeds.

I’m not questioning the Real Presence, mind you, just the Eucharist’s curious (to me) absence from the creeds.
Click to expand...
Me and my friend were talking about this, this morning. And well we have come to the conclusion that there is no answer. But we both thought this is a most interesting question and that got our tickers to thinking. Thanks to you, I am reading about the historical dogma developments relating to the Eucharist and am learning more about the Eucharist.

I do have a theory and will post it later. I believe that the Eucharist is implicitly stated in the Creed, but am doing more reading and research on this. I do not know if this will satisfy you as I think you want to know why it was not explicitly stated in the Creeds.

Little One0307
 
Little_One0307 said:
Me and my friend were talking about this, this morning. And well we have come to the conclusion that there is no answer. But we both thought this is a most interesting question and that got our tickers to thinking. Thanks to you, I am reading about the historical dogma developments relating to the Eucharist and am learning more about the Eucharist.

I do have a theory and will post it later. I believe that the Eucharist is implicitly stated in the Creed, but am doing more reading and research on this. I do not know if this will satisfy you as I think you want to know why it was not explicitly stated in the Creeds.

Little One0307
Click to expand...
You’re probably right about there not being one definitive answer to the question, Little One. It presented itself to me as a curiosity, and I thought it would be a good conversation starter. Learning more about the Eucharist is certainly a good side benefit from the conversation. Will be curious to hear what you’re reading–what sorts of source materials are you studying?
 
The creed is the councils response to arianism. If you read the canons of the council communion is not in question, therfore it is not in the creed.
Code: 
Let there be only four patriarchs in the whole world as there are four
writers of the Gospel, and four rivers, etc. And let there be a prince and
chief over them, the lord of the see of the Divine Peter at Rome, according
as the Apostles commanded. And after him the lord of the great Alexandria,
which is the see of Mark. And the third is the lord of Ephesus, which is
the see of John the Divine who speaks divine things. And the fourth and
last is my lord of Antioch, which is another see of Peter. And let all the
bishops be divided under the hands of these four patriarchs; and the
bishops of the little towns which are under the dominion of the great
cities let them be under the authority of these metropolitans. But let
every metropolitan of these great cities appoint the bishops of his
province, but let none of the bishops appoint him, for he is greater than
they. Therefore let every man know his own rank, and let him not usurp the
rank of another. And whosoever shall contradict this law which we have
established the Fathers of the Synod subject him to anathema.(2)

peace*
 
Spirithound said:
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.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I don’t think the question’s been fully answered yet. I don’t think he’s being obstinate.

My contribution is that, in addition to being formulated in response to theological controversies, the creeds were written for baptismal candidates. They would learn about the Mysteries, or Sacraments, during the period of mystagogia that followed baptism.
 
JaredR said:
To be fair, I don’t think the question’s been fully answered yet. I don’t think he’s being obstinate.

My contribution is that, in addition to being formulated in response to theological controversies, the creeds were written for baptismal candidates. They would learn about the Mysteries, or Sacraments, during the period of mystagogia that followed baptism.
Click to expand...
In 325 to settle a dispute about the Holy Trinity, the council promulgated a variation of an extant creed. its sole pupose to set apart those who taght differently than the majority. there was no question of Communion. If a later council used it for catechesis, I don,t know?

peace.
 
Porcupine said:
You’re probably right about there not being one definitive answer to the question, Little One. It presented itself to me as a curiosity, and I thought it would be a good conversation starter. Learning more about the Eucharist is certainly a good side benefit from the conversation. Will be curious to hear what you’re reading–what sorts of source materials are you studying?
Click to expand...
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Dr. Ludwib Ott
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Roman Catechism or the Catechism of the Council of Trenth
William H. Carrols 1st and 2nd volumes of A history of christendom
The sources of catholic Dogma by Denzinger

What I am trying to do is to trace the developments of the Eucharistic Dogmas in response to heresies.

So far Berengarius was the earliest person that I can find in that was heretical in repsonse to the Doctrine of the Eucharist. The Real Presence was accepted without question until this. I am seeing that this happened around 1079 A.D. about when Berengarius had to make an oath which apparently he renounced when he felt it safe to do. I am looking though early Church Fathers and documents for any trace of heresies if I can find them.

I am trying to start with the Church Fathers first in light with the CCC. I know that there are some good documents from popes in the last century dealing with the Eucharist. I wil try and locate these for ya.

This is a wonderful opportunity to learn more, thanks. I took Communion today and wow what a greater sense and reverence and love I have for it because of this study I am doing.

If you run into any sources please message me by all means. Perhaps we can learn about the Eucharist more together in this common foray into Truth and Sublimity. 👍

Jared thanks for your post. Nope no obstinancy in here. I am not sure if we can ever find the answer to this question. It will be a wonderful thing to ask if by the grace of God I get into heaven, I can go and ask the Council Fathers 😃

Little One0307

Have a great day.
 
Wow, thanks for all the (name removed by moderator)ut, folks. Little One, you’re a man (or woman–who knows?) on a mission! I like your fervor. 🙂 Sounds as though you have a lot of useful resources to draw on. I will continue to see what I can learn, and let’s see where it leads.

I appreciate the contributions about the creeds being used for baptismal candidates–maybe it’s the case, Jared, that they saved the teaching about the Eucharist for a later stage of initiation/education. Seems like an odd choice to me, leaving the Eucharist out of the main credal formulations, but it certainly could’ve happened that way.

Hazcompat, I know the creeds have addressed certain heresies, but I don’t think that’s ALL they’re meant to do. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the CCC says the creed conveys “the essential elements of the faith,” which is a broader, more all-encompassing mandate than just smacking down some heresies.
 
The Creeds (both the earlier Apostles’ and the more developed Nicene) spend most of their time on the Trinity and the Incarnation – the central Christian doctrines about God Himself – with a bit stuck on at the end quickly mentioning the Church, baptism, and resurrection.

Notably, there is essentially nothing in the Creeds about Christian worship, which I suspect is where the Eucharist would fall. That would presumably be communicated by other means (like the portion of the Didache that seems to be a liturgical manual).

It is interesting that Baptism makes it in there, while there is not even a vague, passing reference to the Eucharist – whether it would involve the Real Presence (perhaps a clause in the “Son section” along the lines of “We receive Him in His Holy Supper”) or just a simple mention alongside Baptism that “We share one Bread and one Cup.” For whatever reason, though, it’s not there.

It seems clear from other early writings that the Eucharist was a key part of Christian worship from the very beginning, and further that the consecrated elements were regarded as becoming in some sense Jesus (though the philosophical specifics of transubstantiation would not come along for a great while, and are still considered “overthinking it” by the Eastern Churches), so I wouldn’t take the omission in the Creed to mean that either the ceremony itself or the Real Presence was not considered important.

Like others who have responded, it is my understanding that there was a period in the early history of the Church when the details of what we now call the “liturgy of the Eucharist” were intended only for the initiated. Indeed, the two parts of the liturgy used to be referred to as the “Mass of the Catechumens” and the “Mass of the Faithful.” The current practice of sending catechumens out to study the Word during the latter part of the Mass is a revival of that tradition, albeit a largely symbolic one since anyone can now come in and sit through an entire Mass if he or she wants. I doubt anyone can say for sure, but if the Creeds were composed during that period, then that could very well be the reason that they mention Baptism but not the Eucharist.

Usagi
 
Very thoughtful post, Usagi. You’re right–there’s pretty much nothing in the creed about worship. I was thinking, too, about ways that the Eucharist could be smoothly incorporated into the creed. I like yours better than anything I’d thought of: “We receive Him in His Holy Supper.” Nicene-Usagian Creed, anyone? 🙂

I think the idea of the two-part division of the Mass having something to do with this is probably in the right ballpark.

thanks
P
 
Usagi said:
The Creeds (both the earlier Apostles’ and the more developed Nicene) spend most of their time on the Trinity and the Incarnation – the central Christian doctrines about God Himself – with a bit stuck on at the end quickly mentioning the Church, baptism, and resurrection.

Notably, there is essentially nothing in the Creeds about Christian worship, which I suspect is where the Eucharist would fall. That would presumably be communicated by other means (like the portion of the Didache that seems to be a liturgical manual).

It is interesting that Baptism makes it in there, while there is not even a vague, passing reference to the Eucharist – whether it would involve the Real Presence (perhaps a clause in the “Son section” along the lines of “We receive Him in His Holy Supper”) or just a simple mention alongside Baptism that “We share one Bread and one Cup.” For whatever reason, though, it’s not there.

It seems clear from other early writings that the Eucharist was a key part of Christian worship from the very beginning, and further that the consecrated elements were regarded as becoming in some sense Jesus (though the philosophical specifics of transubstantiation would not come along for a great while, and are still considered “overthinking it” by the Eastern Churches), so I wouldn’t take the omission in the Creed to mean that either the ceremony itself or the Real Presence was not considered important.

Like others who have responded, it is my understanding that there was a period in the early history of the Church when the details of what we now call the “liturgy of the Eucharist” were intended only for the initiated. Indeed, the two parts of the liturgy used to be referred to as the “Mass of the Catechumens” and the “Mass of the Faithful.” The current practice of sending catechumens out to study the Word during the latter part of the Mass is a revival of that tradition, albeit a largely symbolic one since anyone can now come in and sit through an entire Mass if he or she wants. I doubt anyone can say for sure, but if the Creeds were composed during that period, then that could very well be the reason that they mention Baptism but not the Eucharist.

Usagi
Click to expand...
Hi,

If I might conjecture as to why baptism made it in the Creed. Baptism is the gate to the Church and the Church to the Sacraments. Maybe they thought if they covered baptism then the rest of the Sacraments and the Church would be covered as well. I am going to have to do some research to uhhh support this conjecture. What do you think on this Usagi?

And thanks for the post. I found it to be most instructive.

And the two part division is correct. I went through RCIA and they made it into a big deal between the Liturgy of the Word or Catechumens and Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Little One0307
 
In order to understand why the Eucharist is not in the text of the Nicene Creed, we must take a look back at the history and intent of the creed itself.

As suggested by it’s title, the “creed,” it was developed as a succinct expression of faith for the early Christian community. Any creed, not just the Christian creed, is a statement of belief “in” something, and is why in the Christian creed we state explicitly, “I believe in the Father… Son… Holy Spirit… etc.” However, it is not intended as a laundry list of Christian beliefs. And here, I believe I will address your specific question as to why such an important element of the Catholic faith like the Eucharist is not included in the creed.

In its earliest days, even prior to the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, Christians were using some version of the creed to identify and distinguish themselves from a religiously diverse society. From the Greek and Roman gods to the God of the Israelites (Judaism) and some of the lesser known gods of the East, the heavens were quite crowded in those days. Christianity arrived on the scene with something radical to say. In a way, it can be said that the Christian creed was the earliest attempt of this budding religion to philosophize.

The creed was first and foremost a statement on the nature of God. One God in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was shocking not only to the polytheistic Greeks and Romans, but also to the monotheistic Jews. It was a statement that this unique belief makes me a Christian and helps me distinguish myself from the followers of imposter gods.

The creed then makes a second move. It takes the abstract Trinitarian formula, and grounds it in the economy of salvation. That is to say, it describes the role of these three persons in history. This is most explicit when we confess, “I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary.”

As integral as the Eucharist is to our faith, our salvation was not accomplished in the breaking of the bread, but in the actual sacrifice offered for us by Christ. That is why when the creed succinctly wishes to state the Son’s role in the economy of salvation it goes directly from his birth to the crucifixion, not stopping for any event in between. Remember the symbolic, sacramental sacrifice of the Eucharist has no meaning without the actual historical event of the crucifixion.

So to state this briefly, my answer to you would be this:

The Eucharist is not included in the Creed because it does not speak directly to the nature of God, or how this nature was manifested in salvation history.

I will try to pre-empt the argument that I perceive would follow this, which is, “The Eucharist is a part of salvation history and it reveals who Christ is (think road to Emmaeus). So why not include that in addition to the crucifixion?”

My answer would be this: The creed is attempting to be succinct and direct. The Eucharist is only a symbol (an efficacious symbol to be sure) of the sacrifice on the cross. By definition, a symbol is an indirect representation. Thus it does not speak directly to the nature of Christ and is therefore left out of the creed.

Finally, it was mentioned that Baptism found its way into the creed. This is true, but was only added at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. as a result of controversy over whether a Christian baptized into a heretical sect using the Trinitarian formula must be “re-baptized” into the Catholic faith. The answer was no, ergo the statement “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” The Eucharist did not face any such challenge, so no need to add any clarifications concerning it.

I hope this helps. Truly it comes down to an issue of “scope”. The scope of the creed is the Trinitarian nature of God. Although the Eucharist is important, it is not the purpose of the creed to express such a belief.
 
Hi ttM,

Good post. Welcome to the forum by the way. I do have a few questions though.

“The Eucharist is only a symbol (an efficacious symbol to be sure) of the sacrifice on the cross. By definition, a symbol is an indirect representation. Thus it does not speak directly to the nature of Christ”

The below is taken from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogmas
  1. In the Sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross is made present, its memory is celebrated, and its saving power is applied. [De fide]
Catechism of the Catholic Church
  1. Paragraph 1367 - The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are ONE SINGLE sacrifice. “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering if different.” "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is coontained and offered in an unbloody manner… this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.
My questions are these. Can a symbol do this? The Eucharist is more than a symbol of the sacrifice of the Cross, it makes PRESENT the sacrifice of the Cross. And how does the Eucharist not speak directly to the nature of Christ? The Eucharist is Christ, it is Jesus’s body and blood, soul and divinity?

God Bless.

Little One0307
 
Yep, so to answer your questions. First let’s talk about Sacrament/Symbol. In strict theological terms, the Sacrament is not a “symbol” which is why I clarified with: “an efficacious symbol” in my post. Really the Sacrament is what we call a “sign”. The difference being:

Symbol: A representation
Sign: That which makes present the reality it represents.

Essentially the Sacraments are signs or efficacious symbols, or in other words, a representation that actually makes present that which it represents. Thus the bread and wine once consecrated make present the body and blood of Christ which they represent.

To your second question:

Yes, you are correct that the bread and wine are one in the same as the body and blood, but we can’t deny that this is only done so in a veiled way. To the non-Christian, it’s just bread and wine. Through the eyes of faith we can see beyond the sign. I said in my earlier post to think Road to Emmaeus, and that’s exactly what you’re doing. So the scriptures tell us that they were able to recognize Christ in the breaking of the bread, so it must tell us something about Christ you would suppose.

This is exactly the question I knew would come up, which is why I did my best to pre-empt it. The bread and wine are indeed as much the sacrifice as the crucifixion was. We would never claim that the Last Supper was not sacramental because the crucifixion had not yet occurred. Nonetheless, we still cannot deny that it was veiled.

The creed goes right to the unveiled sacrifice on the cross. Maybe highlighting both would have been redundant. We can’t be sure. But let’s remember that the creed was supposed to be succinct. The cross is obvious. The Last Supper was subtle. If you have to decide which to put into the creed as a statement of belief in the saving work of Christ, which would you pick?
 
ttaM said:
Yep, so to answer your questions. First let’s talk about Sacrament/Symbol. In strict theological terms, the Sacrament is not a “symbol” which is why I clarified with: “an efficacious symbol” in my post. Really the Sacrament is what we call a “sign”. The difference being:

Symbol: A representation
Sign: That which makes present the reality it represents.

Essentially the Sacraments are signs or efficacious symbols, or in other words, a representation that actually makes present that which it represents. Thus the bread and wine once consecrated make present the body and blood of Christ which they represent.

To your second question:

Yes, you are correct that the bread and wine are one in the same as the body and blood, but we can’t deny that this is only done so in a veiled way. To the non-Christian, it’s just bread and wine. Through the eyes of faith we can see beyond the sign. I said in my earlier post to think Road to Emmaeus, and that’s exactly what you’re doing. So the scriptures tell us that they were able to recognize Christ in the breaking of the bread, so it must tell us something about Christ you would suppose.

This is exactly the question I knew would come up, which is why I did my best to pre-empt it. The bread and wine are indeed as much the sacrifice as the crucifixion was. We would never claim that the Last Supper was not sacramental because the crucifixion had not yet occurred. Nonetheless, we still cannot deny that it was veiled.

The creed goes right to the unveiled sacrifice on the cross. Maybe highlighting both would have been redundant. We can’t be sure. But let’s remember that the creed was supposed to be succinct. The cross is obvious. The Last Supper was subtle. If you have to decide which to put into the creed as a statement of belief in the saving work of Christ, which would you pick?
Click to expand...
Hi,

Thanks for responding. I had never heard of the Sacraments referred to as efficacious symbols. I guess it was my misunderstanding of the world symbol. Thanks for clearing that up.

Hmmm I would have to say I would take the obvious saving work of Christ. This particular thread has been most helpful.

God bless.

Little One0307
 
Thanks for your kindess about these posts which are admittedly late night ramblings. I tend towards not using the word “sign” when talking about the Sacraments in a non-academic setting like this because the strict theological meaning isn’t well understood by most. So instead, I just say “efficacious symbol” which although still not technically correct (we won’t get into that now) is really good enough to convey the idea.

Honestly, I try to avoid technical language until a conversation becomes so messy that finer distinctions need to be made.
 
Well done, ttaM. I follow your reasoning and your argument seems sound to me. I thought perhaps we had a priest or seminarian among us, but I see by your profile that you’re in insurance. Whatever line you’re in, you’re a clear thinker and writer. Thanks for your contribution.
 
ttaM said:
Essentially the Sacraments are signs or efficacious symbols, or in other words, a representation that actually makes present that which it represents. Thus the bread and wine once consecrated make present the body and blood of Christ which they represent.
QUOTE]

Morning,

Wow after a nice night of sleep lol. I can reply to this. First of all, I wish to thank you for your kindness in these late night posts too.

I wanted to address something you said above when you said “Essentially the Sacraments are signs or efficacious symbols.” I do not have a problem with the use of of the word symbols when it comes to the Sacraments provided that one does not say they are merely symbols, which in this case you know that they are more than merely symbols.

However I would like to quote this.

" 1. It is necessary to set forth the essential elements of a sacrament. These are a) a sensible sign [or efficacious symbol if you will since we are comfortable with this term, note this was my addition in the brackets] instituted by God, which gives sanctifiyings grace; b) both matter and form present with each sacrament; the matter is the material used, the form in the accompanying words and action; and c) a minister, someone authroized to give the sacraments with the intention of doing what the Church intends."

quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia by Broderick

The reason that I do this, is the Sacraments are essential more than what you stated. I can infer from what I quoted that you indeed know that the Sacraments are more than just essentially efficacious signs or symbols. Yet becuase there are people who heaven forbid would only take that the Sacraments are just only efficacious symbols or signs, I post the proceeding.

God Bless. I pray that your night has been most restul.

Little One0307
Click to expand...
 
One thing. Jesus chose this as His way of being with us until He comes in Glory.He is the burning bush, the parting sea, the water from a rock, manna,… ( i know i,m preaching to the choir). this post has me contemplating Our Lords choice out of a bazzillion choices. Bread and wine.

peace
 
Is it not beautiful and befitting to his Humility that he would come as bread? 🙂 And the choir likes that kinda of preaching I do think. So preach on.

Little One0307
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top