Why is Real Presence not in Creed

[sinner]

If the Real and Substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is such a fundamental tenet of the Catholic faith, then why is the belief not mentioned in the Nicene or Apostle’s Creed? Such would seem to me to be a glaring omission.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

sinner:

If the Real and Substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is such a fundamental tenet of the Catholic faith, then why is the belief not mentioned in the Nicene or Apostle’s Creed? Such would seem to me to be a glaring omission.

Just the opposite is true. The Creeds were developed to defend teachings combat errors. If a belief was held by all and not challenged or presented in some form of error the Church would have ne reason to defend it.

 

[StCsDavid]

That is a good question. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it addressed. I would hazard a guess that at the time the creed was written, the issue of whether there was a real presence was not an area of concern as it was just accepted as fact. Until Luther did his thing, the acceptance of the real presence wasn’t an issue. You’ll notice that other sacraments are not mentioned in the creed either (i.e. confirmation, marriage, holy orders, annointing of the sick, confession.) Would it be your position that those also are glaring omissions because they aren’t mentioned in the creeds?

 

[allhers]

We say also…I believe in the Holy Catholic Church…and to me, that includes everything we believe and teach too.

 

[Church_Militant]

sinner:

If the Real and Substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is such a fundamental tenet of the Catholic faith, then why is the belief not mentioned in the Nicene or Apostle’s Creed? Such would seem to me to be a glaring omission.

Perhaps because it has never been in question?

Here’s what the old Catholic Encyclopedia says about The Apostle’s Creed. Most of which seems to have come after this letter to the Smyneans by St. Ignatius of Antioch (the close friend and disciple of St. John)

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. Epistle of Ignatius to Smyna was written less than 10 years after the death of the last apostle and so date to the very early 2nd century…which is predated by 1st Corinthians 11:23-30.

You might also look over this debate thread called The Eucharist IS Scriptural
Pax tecum,

 

[Orionthehunter]

Br. Rich SFO:

Just the opposite is true. The Creeds were developed to defend teachings combat errors. If a belief was held by all and not challenged or presented in some form of error the Church would have ne reason to defend it.

I would like to say what Br. Rich is saying just a little differently. The Creed is a summary of the teachings of the Church. It was written so that a generally uneducated and illiterate society could have a memorizable summary of the main teachings and give that person some ability to identify hereticical or otherwise confusing teachings.

Now direct to your question. The Creed was written in the 4th century. The Creed says “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”

This is a Church that that accepted Peter’s primacy among the Apostles even before Christ’s death, that began saying Mass in the upper room prior to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Masses where they consecrated bread and wine as Jesus taught them and after Pentesost came to understand the Real Presence), that went forth to make disciples for Christ, corrected and admonished those who taught heresy or false teachings and compiled the inspired Word of God into what is now the Bible.

However, note these facts:

Mass was being said and bread and wine consecrated before the writing of the Bible and the Creed.

The Church (subject to the Primacy of Peter) was excercising its exclusive authority to correct and admonish false teachings before the writing of the Bible and Creed.

The Church (subject to the Successor of Peter as Peter had been crucified) determined which Gospels and Letters were the inspired Word of God and which were not to compile the Bible.

And a few hundred years later they compiled the Creed. When they did so, they didn’t need to talk about the Primacy of Peter, the Real Presence, or that the Bible was the inspired Word of God. These are all together and inseparably the foundation to the Creed. Without the foundation, the Creed falls apart.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Br. Rich SFO:

Just the opposite is true. The Creeds were developed to defend teachings combat errors. If a belief was held by all and not challenged or presented in some form of error the Church would have ne reason to defend it.

Right on. My understanding is the Nicene was primarly a defense of the Trinity.

Scott

 

[TuckaMo]

Being age 13, I don’t know for sure, but I think this creed was for not ONLY Catholics, but it was created for all Christians alike, stating their beliefs, therefore making True Presence not in the Creed.
The APOSTLES creed the same way, we are all apostles, if we follow Christ.

tell me if I am wrong…

---

BEHOLD THE HANDMAID OF THE LORD…

“be it done unto me according to Thy Word…”

 

[sinner]

Great responses! I would submit that Confirmation and Holy Orders would be covered in the “one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” phraseology. Confession would be covered by the phrasing “forgiveness of sins”. Marriage, I’m not sure. Extreme unction might be implicit in our understanding of “resurrection of the dead”.
I originally was wondering why, after the Protestant Revolt, the Creed was not changed to clarify the erroneous understanding of the “reformers”. After all, there is nothing to say that the Creed can’t be changed, and it seems that the addition of the belief in the Real Presence would further refine the Church’s view of itself.

 

[steveandersen]

TuckaMo:

Being age 13, I don’t know for sure, but I think this creed was for not ONLY Catholics, but it was created for all Christians alike, stating their beliefs, therefore making True Presence not in the Creed.
The APOSTLES creed the same way, we are all apostles, if we follow Christ.

tell me if I am wrong…

---

BEHOLD THE HANDMAID OF THE LORD…

“be it done unto me according to Thy Word…”

the Creed was written in the 4th century
1100 years before there were Protestants

 

[Montie_Claunch]

steveandersen:

the Creed was written in the 4th century
1100 years before there were Protestants

Though your point is true I think what he was saying (and he will correct me if I am wrong) was that he didn’t know of the creeds has being exclusive to the Catholic Church. I know that the methodist (at least at the church my Fraternal faimly goes to) recietes the aposltes creed before taking communion on the 1st sunday of the month.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Montie Claunch:

Though your point is true I think what he was saying (and he will correct me if I am wrong) was that he didn’t know of the creeds has being exclusive to the Catholic Church. I know that the methodist (at least at the church my Fraternal faimly goes to) recietes the aposltes creed before taking communion on the 1st sunday of the month.

Since when the Creeds was written, there was only the “one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic” Church. When they separated, they ceased to be part of the “one”, “Catholic” or universal, and “Apostolic”.

The four marks of the Church include the Pope, Eucharist and Bible. This wasn’t intended to be a book that included everything but a summary. The four marks assume these critical components.

 

[sinner]

Great responses! I would submit that Confirmation and Holy Orders would be covered in the “one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic” phraseology. Confession would be covered by the phrasing “forgiveness of sins”. Marriage, I’m not sure. Extreme unction might be implicit in our understanding of “resurrection of the dead”.
I originally was wondering why, after the Protestant Revolt, the Creed was not changed to clarify the erroneous understanding of the “reformers”. After all, there is nothing to say that the Creed can’t be changed, and it seems that the addition of the belief in the Real Presence would further refine the Church’s view of itself.