Posted on 04/04/2015 1:59:27 PM PDT by Steelfish
The Resurrection & The Eucharist by Fr. Rodney Kissinger S.J. (Former Missouri Synod Lutheran) http://www.frksj.org/homily_ressurection_and_the_eucharist.htm There is an important connection between the Resurrection and the Eucharist. The Eucharist IS the Risen Jesus.
Therefore, the Eucharist makes the Resurrection present and active in our lives and enables us to experience the joy and the power of the Resurrection. The Resurrection is the reason for the observance of Sunday instead of the Sabbath. According to the Gospel it was early in the morning on the first day of the week that the Risen Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.
It was also on the evening of that first day of the week that the Risen Jesus appeared to the Apostles when Thomas was not present. Then a week later, on the first day of the week, he appeared again when Thomas was present.
So the Apostles began to celebrate the first day of the week, Sunday, as the beginning of the re-creation of the world just as they had celebrated the Sabbath as the end of the creation of the world. Originally the Liturgical Year was simply fifty-two Sundays, fifty-two celebrations of the Eucharist, fifty-two celebrations of the Resurrection. Today the Eucharist is still the principal way of celebrating the Resurrection and proclaiming the Mystery of Faith: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.”
As we have seen the joy and the power of the Resurrection is not found in the empty tomb or in the witness of some one else it is found only in a personal encounter with the Risen Jesus. The Eucharist, the Risen Jesus, gives us an opportunity for this personal encounter. Will all who receive the Eucharist have a personal encounter with the Risen Jesus? Yes they will. Unfortunately, not all will recognize the Risen Jesus. Mary Magdalene had a personal encounter with the Risen Jesus but did not recognize him. She thought it was the gardener. It was not until she recognized Jesus that she experienced the joy and the power of the Resurrection. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus had a personal encounter with the Risen Jesus and thought that it was a stranger. It was not until they recognized him in the “breaking of the bread” that they experienced the joy and the power of the Resurrection.
The Eucharist is also a pledge of our own resurrection. “I am the living bread come down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The Eucharist tells us that in death life is changed not ended. It is not so much life after death but life through death. Death is the door to life. This takes away the fear of death and gives us consolation at the death of a loved one.
The Eucharist also continues the two fold effect of the Resurrection which is to confirm the faith of the Apostles and to create the Christian Community. These are two sides of the same coin. To believe is to belong. Community was an integral part of the life of the first Christians. They were of one mind and one heart. When the Apostles asked the Lord to teach them how to pray, he taught them the “OUR Father.” In the Creed we say, “WE believe.” It is a personal commitment made in the community of believers.
The Eucharist also confirms the faith of the recipient and is the principle of unity and community. Without the Christian Community we lose our roots and our identity and our ability to survive in our culture which is diametrically opposed to Christ.
Through the Eucharist the Risen Jesus continues his two fold mission of proclaiming the Good News and healing the sick. Every celebration of the Eucharist proclaims the Good News and heals the sick. The Liturgy of the Word proclaims the Good News and the Liturgy of the Eucharist heals the sick. If people were healed simply by touching the hem of His garment how much more healing must come from receiving His Body and Blood?
How ridiculous it is then when people ask, “Do I have an obligation to go to Mass on Sunday?” If obligation is going to determine whether or not you go to Mass forget the obligation. You have a greater problem than that. Your problem is faith, you don’t believe. You don’t believe that the Eucharist IS the Risen Christ.
You just don’t realize the connection between the Resurrection and the Eucharist. In just a few moments we will receive the Eucharist and once again have an opportunity for a personal encounter with the Risen Jesus.
Let us ask for the faith to recognize him in the “breaking of the bread” so that we are able to say with Thomas, “My Lord and my God,” and in so doing experience the joy and the power of the Resurrection.
Pardon my clarification “demand” , but I’ve been away a lot over the last months, and as far as I know, the RCC has changed some of its prior opinions/traditions. It wasn’t that long ago that we were told there was “no salvation outside the Catholic Church” AND “a person CAN be saved and NOT be Catholic”.
I’m mostly a lurker and only jump into these threads every once in a while, but I wanted to tell you that I am very glad that you are back and doing well. As a result of your story, I also am trying to learn to forgive more and especially to ask God to forgive people for me. I find that to be so much easier than doing it myself, and it seems to move me closer to that goal.
Anyway, I have a question about the discussion on confession/reconciliation. I thought that when you go to formal confession, as long as you are sincere and repentant, your confession/contrition does not have to be perfect. Contrition outside of confession must be perfect in order to be assured of complete forgiveness, which is why we are encouraged to go to confession as soon as possible after we have confessed a sin to God directly in an ‘emergency’ situation.
I’d appreciate your thoughts on this.
Love,
O2
Dear small, I think the truth went more like this:
“The Roman Catholic Church ‘assembled’ the Bible.”
When one must rephrase and toss salad with truth and accuracy to compete for substance, you can see why so many get bored.
See you too. :)
Have it your way. I have run out of pointy hats for the uninformed.
whoa....now you're back to claiming this....even though we just went through the proofs that neither baptism nor communion can save you unless you have faith in Jesus....to which you admitted.
I want this point clearly understood by anyone reading this thread.
If you're baptized without faith in Christ, you're still a wet sinner.
If you participate in communion without faith in Christ, you are still a sinner.
A soul in mortal sin cannot receive grace.
Let's clarify this false teaching of the roman catholic church.
First, every soul, before faith in Jesus, is in "mortal" sin. You have already been judged according to John 3:19. This means you do not go to Heaven when you die....you go to Hell. At this point, Momma can't help you, grandma can't help you, your friends can't pray you into Heaven. It's a done deal.
He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:19 NASB).
Roman catholicism teaches you can commit a sin that causes you to lose your salvation. Really?? There is a sin you can commit that cannot be forgiven by Christ or has not already been forgiven by Christ? Or that somehow undoes what Christ did on the cross?
And to be clear the roman catholic church teaches that if you died in what they call "mortal sin", you do not gain Heaven. You go to Hell. Unless....you make it to the priest on time and he "forgives" you.
If you get "forgiveness" from the priest, the Roman Catholic church teaches you must do penance to "pay" or "atone" for your sin. Really?
What "work" or how many "hail Mary's" come close to what Christ did on the cross for us?
If there was something we could do to atone for our sins then Christ died needlessly. Paul wrote about this in Galatians 2:21.....I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness come through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
We should be thankful that there is another way that is based on the Word.
For a believer in Christ, a Christian, there is not a sin that cannot be covered by the blood of Jesus' death on the cross.
Colossians 2:8-14 makes this clear.
8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;
11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
All of this comes about through faith/belief in Jesus. Nothing. Nothing else can save you.
Romans 1:16...for I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and to the Greek.
Hebrews 11:6....And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
“The Catholic church is not even consistent within itself as far as doctrine and teaching.”
I find it very interesting that the insipient posters here who are waving the Vatican flag and who are telling us that the Church, keeper of the Holy Scriptures, assembler of those Holy Scriptures, is superior in an inerrant way to what is contained in those Holy Scriptures. Today we call it the Bible. 66 books, or more when the deuterocanonical books are included.
The interesting thing is that for maybe 1500 years or more that same Catholic Church keep the ‘Bible’ out of the hands of the ‘lay people’. The lay people were not allowed to read it. It was not until Martin Luther, in Germany, King James in England, and a few others in that time made the Bible available to the masses. In German, in English. And in the Catholic Church, until recent times, the Mass and the readings from the Bible were all in Latin. And to this day, a few RC churches still stick to the Latin mass. And how many of those Catholics knew Latin? Slim to none.
And why was this? I believe it was to keep the sheeple fully dependent on the ‘inerrant teachings’ from Rome. Can’t read the Bible? Guess the Church and the papacy is speaking for God. This makes it easy for the RC church to get away with all those inconsistencies.
And now, when we have discussions such as those on this thread, the ‘Protestant beaters’ have little to offer except what their dogma has taught them. They dredge up the writings of the Early Church Fathers (not read by the lay people). Then they dredge up some of the ‘protestant’s’ who are ‘bad examples’, like David Koresh, Jim Jones, Jeramiah Wright to throw at us to lump ALL dissenters with them. We could have a field day if we used their imbecilic tactics and dredged up all the immorality, evil and gross negligence that is part of RC church history. But why do they do what they do? I think it is because they would still like to see the inspired Word of God of negligible importance. That of course then makes those of us who read and understand, with the inspirational teaching help of the Holy Spirit, or no consequence.
God will not be mocked.
Well, that's true,. The Catholic Church has never claimed to be a Sola Scriptura "TOTALLY interpret-your-own" church.
You have to understand that there's a difference between dogma, doctrine, and opinion. Contrary to what a lot of people suppose, there's a lot of liberty of opinion in the Catholic Church about things that aren't defined doctrines.
For instance: Do angels actually exist? Yes: that's a dogma. Does every person have an individual Guardian Angel? Maybe, maybe not.
What is the eternal destiny of babies who die without Baptism? We don't know --- except that at their funeral services we commend them to the mercy of God.
Did Original Sin damage and deform the human nature which is passed down to everyone, so that we're all in some sense inherently messed up? Yes, that is a dogma. Did Original Sin screw things up for the whole entire Universe, or just for our planet? I don't think we know even that one.
Do we have a line-by-line interpretation of the Revelation of St. John? Not at all: there's a range of opinion, and I would say rather little of the Book of Revelation is "defined."
THANKS for giving me the opportunity to clarify that.
A good motto:
In essentials, unity.
In non-essentials, liberty.
In all things, charity.
The phrase is very old and of disputed origin, but in its current form is found in Pope John XXIII's encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram of 29 June 1959, where he uses it favorably.
There is no sin that Christ cannot forgive.
However it is possible to reject forgiveness and refuse mercy.
This is why Our Lord says the "sin against the Holy Spirit" cannot be forgiven.
Mark 3:28-30: "Truly I tell you, all sins and blasphemes will be forgiven for the sons of men. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin. |
You must realize that Jesus Himself is telling us this. And the ultimate sin against the Holy Spirit is the final rejection of mercy and forgiveness.
On that I agree and thought I had illustrated that with John 3:19, but thank you for clarifying.
“truth and accuracy and substance” are all relative, aren’t they? Your church has one truth, God’s Word has another. They are not the same. And THIS is why so many get LOST, not bored. They have no ultimate TRUTH to go to for salvation assurance. Because they refuse to believe that the Bible is the ultimate truth, not a group of “holy” men gathered around making tossed salad with chopped scriptures and sliced “tradition”.
Of course! It's obvious with all of the questions posed here. Of course there's no answer. Either you agree with The Lord, or you agree with the Catholic Church... and ne'er the twain shall meet.
Hoss
I agree with you. I have watched a few minutes of masses on tv and wondered how anyone got anything out of them. It is little wonder that most seem to be taking a nap.
Amen.
Affirmative sir.
Didn't someone already try that? Ah, how many different languages are out there?
Mighty bold statement for a one-eyed fat man!
Why didn't any of the NT writers...
...tell us that the early disciples celebrated the Mss of the Eucharist. ?
SURELY Doctor Luke would have mentioned it in Acts chapter 15.
I'm sure St. Paul agrees with the church he left behind...
1 Corinthians 15:12-14
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
Thanks; Paul; for mentioning the Eucharist.
Thanks for the kind introduction!
(This is for you; Terycarl)
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
Hey!
It's YOUR claim that the seven churches in Asia were Catholic ones!
Were they off-track or not?
Gonna blame Luther and Osteen for THAT; too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.