Why Real Presence is not in the Creeds

  • Thread starter Thread starter PaxTibi2020
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PaxTibi2020

Guest
Hello,

I’ve been watching a lot of Bishop Barron’s videos and bought a number of books.

One video that has stayed with me is his video on the real presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist and how a large percentage of Catholics don’t believe that Jesus is actually present - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

That Bishops, priests, teachers, RCIA and families are not emphasizing this core Catholic tenet or are not teaching it properly.

My question is, “Why isn’t it a part of the Creeds of the Church.” Wasn’t it a formal teaching at the time the Creeds were formulated?

That would certainly help facilitate any teaching and emphatically emphasize the distinction of the Catholic Church from other forms of Christianity.
And it would be the single most effective form of evangelization.

Can Creeds be amended? They were adopted by Bishops centuries ago.
Today’s Bishops are cetainly more educated and could revise or update.
Couldn’t they?
Thanks,
PaxTibi2020
 
There is a lot that’s not in the Creed. I have wondered why.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know how you can assert that…
Of course it is in the Creeds.
I confess that I believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord.
He said, “This is my body…, this is the chalice of the new covenant in my blood…”
If I believe in him, then of course I believe in ALL he commanded, and I believe the ones he sent to me with this official statement of what is the Eucharist, the Mass.

Now to some the Creeds are just words, and “believing in Jesus” is some “feeling.”
But to Catholics, when we say we believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord, we mean all he did and all he revealed, not just in “his reality as a being”. We are obedient to his every word, his servants.
 
Last edited:
I cannot recall the exact history of the Apostle’s Creed right now so I will limit my response to the Nicene Creed, which we recite every week at Mass.

The Nicene Creed was promulgated by the Church at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 in the midst of the Arian controversy. At this time, there was a growing faction within the Church that claimed that Jesus was human but not divine. In response to this, the Council was called and the belief in the divinity of Jesus was asserted by the Church. The Council Fathers did this by enshrining several lines into the Church’s Creed regarding the divinity of Jesus (i.e., I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father).

Thus, the Nicene Creed was only established in order to assert correct Christian teaching over the heresies/misinterpretations of others and in the midst of the controversies of the time. Belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was not the center of controversy at this time, and therefore it was not necessary to enshrine any beliefs about it in the Creed.

I hope this helps! May God bless you all! 🙂
 
Most of the things in the creeds were statements in response to heresies in the early Christian communities. For the most part all early Christian’s accepted that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ. Because of that there was no need at that time to include that truth in the creeds.

Could it be changed? Yes… but it requires an ecumenical council and the last time the Creed was changed it was one of the reasons behind the East/West split.
 
PaxTibi2020 said:
My question is, “Why isn’t it a part of the Creeds of the Church.” Wasn’t it a formal teaching at the time the Creeds were formulated?
Click to expand...
The Real Presence was not doctrinally declared by the Church until the Council of Trent in 1563–although it was widely believed and accepted since the early Church.
 
Last edited:
The Nicene Creed was a response to Arian and other heresies and defended the doctrine of the Trinity and Christ’s true humanity and divinity. It was never intended to be an exhaustive exposition of every aspect of the faith. Actually, it is a testimony to the fact that Christians always believed in the Eucharist that the Creed didn’t need to include it.
 
Everything necessary to the Catholic Faith is either explicitly or implicitly in the Creed.

(Sarcasm on)

If everything was explicitly mentioned in the Creed, people would probably leave before the Creed because it was much longer! 😬

(Sarcasm off)
 
Margaret_Ann said:
If everything was explicitly mentioned in the Creed, people would probably leave before the Creed because it was much longer! 😬
Click to expand...
“descended into boredom, and on the third day they rose again, as they had finally finished the creed”

🤣 :roll_eyes: 😝
 
PaxTibi2020 said:
Can Creeds be amended? They were adopted by Bishops centuries ago.
Today’s Bishops are cetainly more educated and could revise or update.
Click to expand...
This was addressed in another thread a few months ago: Adding words to the Creed (POSSIBLY) - #6 by Bithynian

Copying and pasting my response here:
Usually via an ecumenical council. For example, the Council of Constantinople amended the Nicene Creed. However, there is enduring controversy regarding the Western Church’s addition of the “filioque” clause to the Nicene Creed. The resultant friction is one reason why it is not done any longer.

But it is not the only reason. Creeds are also, very importantly, historical texts that are often identified as a tangible sign of continuity of the present Church with the Church at a given time in the past. They are, in effect, demonstrations of orthodoxy and catholicity (that is, universality) within the Church. Because of this, the Church has been historically very conservative with regard to changing creeds, especially where the creeds are particularly ancient and in widespread use.

And as Genesis315 mentioned, Creeds tend to be particular: they address theological debates that prevailed when a creed was written. They are not - and we should not regard them as - completely comprehensive of the faith.
Click to expand...
 
Two reasons that the Real Presence of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist is not in the Creed that we recite during Holy Mass.
  1. Every clause in the Nicene Creed is something that some group (heretics) believed and taught the exact opposite. From one God, to the Son consubstantial with the Father, to One Baptism (never a need to re-do it) etc. As local churches who had fallen into a heresy “came back”, they were required to recite the Creed in Liturgy as a statement of Unity with the Holy Church.
    There is a story that Emperor Charlemagne, when visiting Rome, asked Pope Leo III why the Creed wasn’t recited at Holy Mass in Rome? Because the Church of Rome never fell away from any of those beliefs. Later, the Church thought it a good idea for everybody.
    Why no Real Presence clause? Because even the heretics understood and accepted the doctrine of the Most Holy Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
  2. No need to add it, because we have a SECOND “Creed” at Holy Mass, at least in the Ordinary Form, Mass of St. Paul VI. When the minister holds up your Sacrament, after you reverence it in an individual moment of profound adoration, the minister says “the Body (Blood) of Christ”. You reply to that statement : AMEN. Amen = Credo. “I believe”. The root of he Hebrew word Amen comes from the word for pounding a tent stake into the ground. Amen, I believe so strongly that it is the foundation of the shelter of my soul.
 
Hi,
It wasn’t disputed at the time of the creeds. Agree.
Creeds were put into place to counteract false teachings. To realign people to the true teachings.
According to Bishop Robert Barron up to two thirds
of Sunday going to Mass , Eucharist receiving Catholics ,don’t believe in the Real Presence !!!
What better reason could there be to revisit the creeds and to re- emphasize the true teaching of the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Jesus, Body, Blood , Soul and Divinity??
That’s what we believe as Catholics. I thought!
Bishop Barron posits that Bishops, Priests, Seminaries, Catholic Schools, RCIA programs and Catholic families are all to blame in not emphasizing
proper teaching about the Eucharist.
What could be more important than including the Real Presence in our creeds?
What better way to make that a teaching moment across the board?
What a perfect Evangelization tool to say that the Catholic Church has the real presence of Jesus, Body, Blood ,Soul and Divinity within it. ???
Thanks,
PaxTibi2020
 
St Jerome’s Vulgate translation of the Bible brings out the doctrine of the Real Presence contained in the Lord’s Prayer much better than the version used in the Missal.
We usually say “give us this day our daily bread” but St Jerome has”give us this day our supersubstantial bread” which is literally what the original Greek says.
 
Last edited:
PaxTibi2020 said:
What better reason could there be to revisit the creeds
Click to expand...
The purpose of the creeds was to assert the orthodox teaching of the Trinity: who God is, who Jesus is, and who the Holy Spirit is.

So, if the suggestion is that there be an analogous “loyalty oath” regarding the Eucharist, in the context of the Mass, then that’s an interesting suggestion. Nevertheless, it’s not likely to be adopted, if for no other reason than that it would be a novel interpolation into the Liturgy.
PaxTibi2020 said:
What could be more important than including the Real Presence in our creeds?
Click to expand...
Umm… maybe keeping their integrity as they’ve existed for the past 1600 years? 🤔
PaxTibi2020 said:
What better way to make that a teaching moment across the board?
Click to expand...
You don’t “teach” by forcing a person to recite a formula. You teach by… teaching. 😉
Maximian said:
We usually say “give us this day our daily bread” but St Jerome has”give us this day our supersubstantial bread” which is literally what the original Greek says.
Click to expand...
Actually, “supersubstantial” is the Latin translation of the Greek ἐπιούσιος (“epiousios”). Interestingly, the only place that this Greek word shows up in the Bible is in the Lord’s Prayer. So, it’s quite the task to decide what it means. One approach is to note a cognate (“epiousa”), which means “the next day”, which is how we get “daily” in translations. (This word shows up five times, all in the Acts of the Apostles.)

If we break down ἐπιούσιος into its parts – “epi” and “ousia” – we see “upon” and “substance” (or “being”). The Latin translation, then, translates “epi” as “super”, which is interesting, because it tends to be misunderstood as “above and beyond”, which would seem to fit the Greek “hupo” more closely, especially when we as English speakers look at “super” through the lens of our own language.

So, what could “bread upon the substance” mean? It’s a good question. To call it “supersubstantial” in English, though, kind of misreads the Latin, by pushing the word directly into English without considering what the Latin itself means.

(That being said, it is an attractive thought that this is a reference to the Eucharist. I’m just not sure that this is what’s being asserted here, though.)
 
So the creeds were to solely to establish the belief in the Holy Trinity?
Why or when was I believe in the Holy Spirit,

“The Holy Catholic Church,
The forgiveness of sins,
The resurrection of the body
And life everlasting “

Included?

Couldnt “ I believe in the Real Presence. Body, Blood , Soul and Divinity of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist” be inserted in this section?

Thanks,
PaxTibi2020
 
Sorry about last post.
Wrote it in a hurry.
Both the last paragraph of the Nicene creed and the Apostles Creed differ from each other.
But both contain statements that as Catholics we believe but aren’t included in both creeds.
I think that
“I believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ Body , Blood , Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist “
Might be a serious addition to either or both Creeds.

The last paragraphs of each relates to serious teachings of the Church. This is a serious teaching and should be included.
Thanks,
PaxTibi2020
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top