The Resurrection & The Eucharist

http://www.frksj.org/homily_ressurection_and_the_eucharist.htm ^

[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.

[af_vet_1981]

I am saying th apostles creed is not needed for salvation. There is no injunction to believe in the catholic church (roman catholic is what I sure is meant here)

Do you deny any other portion of the Apostles' Creed besides the "one Catholic Church" portion of I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. ?

We have to believe in Jesus. John 3:16 captures it nicely. .

Obedience is required.

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Luke, Catholic chapter six, Protestant verses forty six to forty nine,
Galatians, Catholic chapter six, Protestant verses seven to nine,
Revelation, Catholic chapter twenty two, Protestant verses ten to sixteen, as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[Zuriel]

**You and others in your group try telling us that the Eucharist is not the true body and blood of Christ without realizing for a moment the sheer absurdity of this assertion. This counters FIFTEEN CENTURIES of belief by the very same early Church fathers who with their infallible authority pronounced their selection of the canonical texts as God’s word with their labors inspired by the Holy Spirit and under Petrine authority.**

Worshipping a woman has gone on a LOT longer than fifteen centuries.

For the first thirty years of the Apostolic Church, the accounts recorded in the book of Acts show NO verbatim teaching of the Lord’s supper. Peter and the rest of the apostles must have been some real bad slackers when compared to your adamant claims about eucharist partaking. But, we find conversions throughout.

In Corinthians, Paul had to address the fact that celebrating the Lord’s supper was not to be treated like a regular sitdown dinner. AND, as I pointed out, and you conveniently ignored, Paul’s letter to the SAINTS in Rome mentioned nothing about the Lord’s supper, and he had yet to even travel to there.

Your ‘fifteen centuries’ of eating the wafer got off to an almost silent start for several decades. Seems to me, that some ‘successors’ decided to up the ante, and offer more ‘standard equipment’ in THEIR church. You call it ‘tradition’.

[Religion Moderator]

Post 585 has a source at the bottom.

[boatbums]

Re: Scripture is never wrong.

That's what Arius said too, and were it not for Athanasius we'd all be Bible Believing Arians today.

That is funny, but I seriously doubt that the "Bible Christians" know who either of those two men are.

Wrong AGAIN! Plenty of us know who those guys were. And I doubt we would be Arians today even IF Athanasius wasn't around. The truth doesn't change and God revealed the truth about the Deity of Jesus Christ all throughout the Bible. We also know that Athanasius had the BETTER Scriptural argument than Arius and was why Arius' ideas about the Deity of Jesus were eventually called heresy. It was because of Athanasius' thorough knowledge of the Old and New Testaments that he was able to prevail and the doctrine of the Trinity was established as a tenet of the Orthodox Christian faith.

What some may not know is that Arius' Christology was NOT a novel view. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria, we learn:

In about 319, when Athanasius was a deacon, a presbyter named Arius came into a direct conflict with Alexander of Alexandria. It appears that Arius reproached Alexander for what he felt were misguided or heretical teachings being taught by the bishop.[12] Arius’ theological views appear to have been firmly rooted in Alexandrian Christianity, and his Christological views were certainly not radical at all.[13] He embraced a subordinationist Christology (that Christ was the divine Son( Logos ) of God made not begotten ), heavily influenced by Alexandrian thinkers like Origen,[14] which was a common Christological view in Alexandria at the time.[15] Support for Arius from powerful bishops like Eusebius of Caesarea[16] and Eusebius of Nicomedia,[17] further illustrate how Arius' subordinationist Christology was shared by other Christians in the Empire. Arius was subsequently excommunicated by Alexander, and he would begin to elicit the support of many bishops who agreed with his position.

It sounds to me like Athanasius WAS a "Biblical Christian" which was how he proved the doctrine of the Trinity. He suffered persecution and numerous exiles because of it. It appears that there was no prevailing or "official" Roman Catholic dogma at that time on this subject and was why the First Council of Nicea was convened. So much for Rome's universal authority in those first centuries.

[boatbums]

I'm not making ANY deal out of it! If someone thinks I'm a he and doesn't read my profile, I let ‘em. No skin off my nose either way. What I think is a “not very good witness to Christ” is the constant any-ol’-excuse for nitpicking and gnat straining. Is this really how you want to spend your time here?

[boatbums]

Pretty much the whole Book of Mormon puts a person on the right path, however here's some essentials.

That's if the "path" you want to follow is the one that leads to hell. Ironic that you got that post number!

[boatbums]

Shoulda read ahead. Thanks.

[metmom]

Prayers said to someone else are prayers not said to God, our Father.

Worship, adoration, exaltation of, whatever you want to call it offered to anyone else is that not done to God.

Bowing before any other entity or image of entity is bowing not done to God.

Time spent focusing on others is time not spent focusing on God.

We are not worshiping God THROUGH Mary, the saints, angels, whatever. We are not praying to God by praying through mary, saints, angels, whatever....

[metmom]

I usually just copy and paste it and put it in a word document someone else on my computer.

And then notify the author that I’m stealing it for future use, if they don’t mind, thankyouverymuch.

[metmom]

There are no doubt many bible teachers whom I respect who also agree with Anthanasius in some or even much of what he says...But he is not my champion...My champion is Jesus Christ...And outside of Jesus Christ, there is no champion of his church...

Preach it, brother.

[metmom]

BlueDragon’s reference that Prof. Francis J. Beckwith reverted to Catholicism makes for a far stronger case of Catholic belief.

Catholics would have more success in convincing people of the validity of Catholicism if they could claim and prove that SCRIPTURE makes a far stronger case for Catholic belief than appealing to *crossing the Tiber* testimonies.

[metmom]

That Apostle’s Creed is a decent summary of Christian belief but Scripture it ain’t.

[boatbums]

PTL for the great unseen hand that rescued you! Your presence here would be sorely missed.

I have several like experiences that can only be explained as God’s special sent angel assigned to me for that very moment in time. It’s pretty humbling, and awesome, that He is in control and nothing happens to us but that which is in His perfect will.

[boatbums]

Boatbums having cut and pasted a random blogger’s comment on the Eucharist now invites us to dispute the blogger’s interpretations despite having assailed this before. And this is how serious discussion is to be conducted by one with a B.A. degree in Divinity?

I COPIED and pasted an article that cited Early Church Fathers on the subject of the "real presence". Do you deny that these were the translated words of those men or not? Instead of trying to poison the well by discrediting any and everyone that disagrees with you, why not address the actual meat of what is said? Try some serious discussion for a change instead of swiping at everyone who dared address your comments. At least earning a degree in Theology teaches one to research, study, investigate and THINK about what is being taught instead of swallowing whatever is in the milk bottle.

All you have EVER offered is the same discredited propaganda and the repetitive nonsense about those whom you seem to believe are smarter than you, which MUST mean they are right about everything. You offer NO "in depth analysis" of your own and must imagine we should all be in thrall of those who revert or convert to Roman Catholicism. I'm not and I won't be because they are each on their own path just as we all are and we each must choose who we will follow - Christ or man. So, who do you follow, Steelfish? Do you have the assurance of your faith so that you can say with St. John that you KNOW you have eternal life? If not, then keep looking. As long as you have breath you can still find the truth. I hope and pray you will.

[BlueDragon]

I see you never answered the question ---

What do you mean by "body and blood".

Is it as our own flesh is? Yes, or no?

Was it too tough for you?

The question I mean....not the cracker -- which is in reality -- much like a steak made of human flesh?

Or is it not?

The rest of the discourse you sent as reply is just so much more bombast and repetition including assertions which have been proved false on this very thread.

As for those things which have been brought here which much refute your statements if not overall positions, yourself having attempted to wipe it all away with brief ad hominem side-swipes directed towards individuals both here and not present on this forum further betrays the underlying poverty of your own arguments.

Now deal with the question --- which I have presented to you in many slightly differing ways, all of those circling around a central point.

Or again go on record (again) that you cannot provide anything approaching direct answer to that question.

RC gobbledygook boiler-plate double-talk doesn't answer the question either --- for the way that is most often worded, one can come away with either a corporeal flesh sort of view --- OR come away from those descriptions with things internally conceptualized more along lines of spiritual "presence" which must be spiritually (notice I am not saying here "intellectually") discerned.

The rest of what you say concerning "protestant theology" is elsewhere refuted to a large degree by your own witness, Beckwith.

He does not share the same low opinion of generally Protestant theologians as you seem to, but instead recommends that Roman Catholics avail themselves of the work of (many of) those "Protestant" theologians whom oftentimes can get to the same locations of final result (in regards to theological positions) which are not uncommon within Catholicism, but doing so by working using Scripture and reasoning in such ways that today's Roman Catholics could better understand how their own church, in past centuries, had come to many of the same conclusions.

There is yet another point also -- Beckwith did not step down from a position he once held as "president" of a Seminary primarily because he was intending to REVERT back to Roman Catholicism, but instead was opposed by some of those at that same Seminary for yet other positions which he held. Which considerations, once understood (I suggest you do your own research on this matter) leaves this statement of yours;

He was prepared to leave this prestigious pedestal and with humility go back to the truth.

to be erroneous/false representation of the hows and why behind Beckwith having resigned that "prestigious position", as you put it.

Yet if freepers here are as representative of theologians of their own perspective faith groups, then by the same measures and methodology employed to be dismissive of others, if those same exact reasonings and methods were to be equally applied towards your own direction --- would leave Roman Catholicism (which is rhetorically alleged by yourself to be but "one" belief) in awfully awkward positions.

I'm sorry that you seem to be unable to see that, but I can see both sides of things clearly enough ----and have something of a direct relationship with the living God also, and that ongoing relationship having never been in any way singularly reliant upon the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical organization or institution, perhaps other than as living witness that yes, even in remote areas of what could be referred to as Congregationalism, the Lord Himself can be found present among and within those church assemblies ---in great fullness--- as that relates to an individual (my own cup having overflowed, many times over).

Persons such as Ratzinger (whom you have termed a theological "Einstein") has himself acknowledged the validity of not only baptism outside of the narrower confines of Roman Catholicism (which itself is no news at all) but also has confirmed the validity of ordination for many who are not visibly part of Roman Catholicism.

It is in that last portion which he could be possibly seen by über-traditionalist Romanists as something of a heretic, and logically so, since in centuries past that sort of open pronunciation of the validity of orders (of ordination within the Christian Church) outside the visible confines of the RCC, was considered fundamental doctrinal error.

Of course that change was provided legalistic, canon-lawyer type of cover during Vatican II and afterwards by saying as much as that all Christians everywhere were still under singular RCC "authority", regardless of whether they knew it or not.

That's good work if you can get it? ;^')

Such a pipe dream, but then again papacy itself (as Rome claims that as her own prerogative) was a grotesque distortion and misrepresentation of what 'authority' was afforded to that particular portion of the wider Church -- from the very first moments those of the Church of Rome, alone, began to declare that to be proper ecclesiology, or church "polity" (to borrow another yet older English language term which speaks of church governance & administrative philosophical outlook).

[verga]

We have to believe in Jesus. John 3:16 captures it nicely. .

John 3:16 is the "once upon a time" (No I am not calling the Bible a fairy tale, follow the analogy). You still need the rest of the story until you get to the "happily ever after" (heaven).

The creed(s) is what leads to that. They are the defense against Arius etal.

[verga]

I'm sorry, "Mea Scriptura" christians are not allowed to Wikipedia for two reasons: 1) It is not the Bible and is not found in there.

2) Metmom has stated on several occasions, word to the effect; That is the one that can be edited on line.

I personally have no problem with Wikipedia, it is some of your non-Catholic cohorts that take exception with it.

[verga]

Well of course you missed the point of my comment, the question is “Was it intentional?”

[verga]

I COPIED and pasted an article that cited Early Church Fathers on the subject of the "real presence".....

All you have EVER offered is the same discredited propaganda and the repetitive nonsense about those whom you seem to believe are smarter than you, which MUST mean they are right about everything. You offer NO "in depth analysis" of your own and must imagine we should all be in thrall of those who revert or convert to Roman Catholicism.

Tsk Tsk Tsk.... Sounds like someone is making a personal attack.

At least earning a degree in Theology teaches one to research, study, investigate and THINK about what is being taught instead of swallowing whatever is in the milk bottle.

Hmmmm I think there are some here that might disagree with that.

[metmom]

Praise God that He allowed you more time on this planet.

You’d be sorely missed.