Why is communion not mentioned in the Nicene Creed?

Answer 1

The Nicene Creed is a profession (symbol) of the orthodox Christian faith. Borrowing from the basic form of the Apostle's Creed which has its origins in the 1st/2nd century as a formula against various gnostic and docetic heresies and as a profession of faith for those being baptized. The Nicene creed was formulated at the Council of Nicea in 325 and then modifed into, essentially, its current form at the First Council of Constantanople in 381. The evolution of the creed expresses not an evolution of the Christian faith, but instead an evolution of the Christian Church's understanding and articulation of, mainly, the doctrine surrounding the person of Jesus Christ, who is True God, True Man, and co-eternal with the Father. So why would something as important as the Sacraments (Holy Communion, in particular, as this question asks), or for that matter the role of The Bible or Christian morality or other doctrinal matters not be addressed in the Nicene Creed? Several reasons can be proposed: * Eucharistic faith is already presumed. The scriptures themselves presume a cult of the Eucharist in the time of Paul and the apostles. This is where we get the Pauline institution narrative (1 Cor 11: 23ff), the experience of the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24), and the narratives of Jesus at the Last Supper. Indeed, the Gospel of John itself does not talk much about Jesus institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, but rather interprets them in the context of John 6 and in the washing of the feet which takes place at the supper. Silence on this matter need not be considered denial of the event. John didn't feel the need to give yet another narrative of something that was well-known by Christians. * Other ancient sources teach about the centrality of the Eucharist in Christian life, and this is not in dispute at the council. Debates which caused the definition of Eucharistic doctrine, such as the doctrine of transubstantiation, for instance, was not formally articulated until a thousand years later. This does not show that the Church did not belive in this doctrine, simply that it did not feel the need or have the language to explain it until challenged. Nicea did not feel the need to explain the doctrinal aspects of the Eucharist any further- they simply celebrated it. Several other ancient sources for Eucharistic faith include: the Didache, Justin Martyr, and the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, all writings before the Nicean Council which probably the council fathers had access to or knowledge of. * Indeed, the Council of Nicea does directly teach about the Eucharist in a presumptive manner, but without resorting to creedal formulas. (Canon XIII, for instance teaches about Holy Communion given as Viaticum.) These teachings on the Eucharist are simply presumed by the Council of Nicea, and the 'standard' of faith in the context of Nicea was tested by one's profession of the anti-Arian articles proposed by the Council in the creed. Later councils would propose other articles of faith, no less important than those in the Nicene Creed, in other formulations and in other contexts... the canon of Scripture was set in stages, finding only dogmatic finality at the Council of Trent (mid-1500's)... the word "transubstantiation" appeared at the Fourth Lateran Council in its profession of faith... Looking ahead into the next few centuries, other subjects like the final doctrinal disposition of the dispute over the reservation of the priesthood to baptized men will. no doubt, be taken care of in a council yet to come. (This issue had never been a serious question in the Church until about the 20th century, and as such, the resolution of this debate is only now receiving the proper language and understanding to be solemnly and permanently defined in terms of the Church's tradition.) Again, such protracted evolution and history of these items does not betray a disbelief or fundamental disunity in these matters of faith within the Church or among the Fathers, but instead shows that the process of formally defining and declaring doctine is an ad-hoc procedure as the questions are raised and answered. So why no Eucharistic theology in the Creed? The entire Christian Church was in visible unity on the importance, cetrality, and essential necessity of faith in the Eucharist.

Answer 2

The Council of Niceae meant to explicate certain doctrines in opposition to various heresies at that time, resulting in the Creed commonly called the Nicene. The doctrine of angels was not one of them.