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.

[BlueDragon]

Have to do with authorship of the Gospels?

Why no, it doesn't.

It has to do with origins of some particular aspects of what I understand encompasses what you referred to as "Sacred Tradition", as I explained.

[Legatus]

Er, I wasn’t advancing the position that Athanasius was anything other than the prime defender of orthodox Christology.

IF not for Athanasius... surely someone would have stepped up to the plate but I don’t know who it would have been.

[Legatus]

Do you think the Bible has ever been wrong?

No, but the people who claim to use it exclusively as a rule of faith have been all over the map.

There's no problem with believing the Bible, the problem is that I don't want to be an Arian.

[Mrs. Don-o]

What you wrote about the Didache is not a direct contradiction.

Didache /=/ dogma of the Church. The Church did not receive it as having the same always-and-everywhere authority as Scripture. It does constitute evidence of the concerns of the Church of that particular time and place.

We know (from Paul) that the Church in Jerusalem, as a result of a famine, and also persecutions which left some households needy because their breadwinner was in prison, needed help. Paul and Barnabas made an initial famine-relief visit to Jerusalem in A.D. 46 and delivered a monetary gift from the church at Antioch (Acts 11:29-30). At that time the Jerusalem church expressed the hope that the believers associated with Paul would continue to remember the Judean believers, which Paul was more than eager to do (Gal 2:10).

Possibly he church in Judea was also troubled by itinerant preachers who stretched their welcome in households which could not afford extended hospitality. The Didache says, "Cut that out." This is not expressed as a rule binding on the whole Church.

Same thing about accepting money: this is not presented as a doctrine or discipline of the universal Church.

As for prophets: you yourself noted that the author(s) of the Didache judged some people to be false prophets if they imposed on people excessively for money or lodging. Obviously they can't forbid judging prophets altogether: that's what they're doing!

Later on the Didache says not to judge "any prophet who speaks in the Spirit." So they would apparently agree with Paul that you have to check what the spirit says! and if it goes against the word it was a false prophet!

Do not get the universal authority of the Scripture confused with the possibly temporary, local, or lesser authority of other Apostolic-age writings, which --- although they are not universal --- still enable us to understand what the local Christians were concerned about.

[Iscool]

“[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it.” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

Well you stepped in it right there...People have been waiting for centuries for you religion to come up with some of this tradition that was handed down from the apostles...So far, it has been none, nein, nada, zero, not one, zip, nil, zilch

You talk a good talk but when it comes right down to it, all we can say is, 'where's the beef'???

[Mrs. Don-o]

Enough jabber. I’m gonna go out and walk!

[metmom]

No, but the people who claim to use it exclusively as a rule of faith have been all over the map.

There's no problem with believing the Bible, the problem is that I don't want to be an Arian.

I don't see that believing the Bible will by default lead to Arianism. If thy are all over the map, then it would be impossible to say where we'd all end up if we believed only the Bible.

FWIW, the church in Acts had nothing but the OT Scripture and what was being written by Paul and the others.

Seems like they were Bible believing Christians as there wasn't all that sacred tradition floating around that didn't get written until later.

Don't forget that Paul's admonition to Timothy was that Scripture was useful for correction. IOW, that's what to use to correct error.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You evidently missed the post, up-thread, where I explained to Elsie just what this "Sacred Tradition" consists of:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3275781/posts?page=331#331

The most important part of "Sacred Tradition" would be

• the Bible, and most especially, the canon of the Bible.

We all depend on the canon of the Bible, and we all can thank God for providing that the Church, through Sacred Tradition, would preserve it through the centuries. It would have been lost, as the vast majority of ancient manuscripts of all sorts were lost, unless it were handed on (which is what "tradition" means: to hand on, tra - ducere.)

The other very important parts of Sacred Tradition would be

• the first links of the Apostolic Succession,

• the basic forms of the Apostolic Hierarchy,

• the basic forms of the Seven Sacraments,

• the basic form of the Sacred Liturgy, and

• the teachings of the Magisterium which the contain and communicate the truths of faith and morals God intended to make known for mankind's salvation.

You call this "...none, nein, nada, zero, not one, zip, nil, zilch" when actually it's as plain as the nose on your face, and has not been shrouded in silence at all. There are libraries of scholarly books tracing the ancient origins of all these elements of Sacred Tradition.

None of these things are hidden, secret or esoteric. They are all in writing; they are all in the lived customs, heritage and legacy of living communities of Faith which have been out there "for all to see" since the first and second centuries AD.

Have you followed any of the investigations of Christian archaeology?

[Mrs. Don-o]

In #704, /=/ means "does NOT equal". Should be clear from the context.

[Iscool]

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

Are they spoken of in the scriptures??? No??? Then they are no one of significance...

[ealgeone]

What you wrote about the Didache is not a direct contradiction. Didache /=/ dogma of the Church. The Church did not receive it as having the same always-and-everywhere authority as Scripture. It does constitute evidence of the concerns of the Church of that particular time and place.

That's the whole objection to "sacred tradition"!! It was not received by the church as authoritative so it should be rejected. Just because there may be some truth in the document doesn't make it right. There's a lot that's false and contradictory in the Didache hence it was rejected by the church.

Possibly he church in Judea was also troubled by itinerant preachers who stretched their welcome in households which could not afford extended hospitality. The Didache says, "Cut that out." This is not expressed as a rule binding on the whole Church.

Now hold on....you can't appeal to "sacred tradition" when it fits the catholic need. It either applies to the whole church or not.

If we use your position, then some could say I agree with "X" or I disagree with "Y". It's not an either or.

Same thing about accepting money: this is not presented as a doctrine or discipline of the universal Church.

But the didache says: "If he asks for money, he is a false prophet."

Does that make our pastors/priests false prophets if they ask for a salary or maybe a raise from the church??

The Didache also goes against the catholic hierarchy. No mention of the pope. Notice the plurality of the office.

Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers.

It also goes against transubstantiation also! But I don't cite the didache against this false belief.

The Didache also says to fast one or two days before being baptized. We see no evidence of that in the NT....anywhere.

This is why Christians reject "sacred tradition" outside of that found in Scripture.

[Legatus]

Are they spoken of in the scriptures??? No??? Then they are no one of significance...

Well that's just scary.

Athanasius was the greatest champion of Catholic belief on the subject of the Incarnation that the Church has ever known and in his lifetime earned the characteristic title of "Father of Orthodoxy", by which he has been distinguished ever since.

Arianism just about conquered the world.

From an historical perspective alone it's important to know about these men and their beliefs so that we don't fall into the same traps all over again by reinventing the heretical wheel.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You're refuting stuff I didn't say, and that the Catholic Church doesn't say!

We (you, I, and the Church) are in agreement that the Didache is NOT Scripture and is NOT authoritatively applicable to the whole Church. The fact that it is one source of some of the evidence contributing to "Sacred Tradition" does not mean that everything in it is sacred. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding here.

" Now hold on....you can't appeal to "sacred tradition" when it fits the catholic need. It either applies to the whole church or not... some could say I agree with "X" or I disagree with "Y". It's not an either or"

Here's how we use these sources: we look for converging lines of evidence.

There's a difference between "proof-texting" and "finding converging lines of evidence." The evidence (not "proof") found in early Apostolic-age sources gets real traction when it shows up again and again, indicating that the practice or belief was Church-wide. For instance, if there's something in the North African sources, the Syrian sources, the Anatolian sources and the Greek sources that's in agreement, that's evidence that doctrine X or practice Y was not just a local custom or opinion, but was part of a wider Church consensus. This takes scholarship.

In the words of the Vincentian Canon, we are loyal to "That Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all." [The Commonitory, ch. 2, by Vincent of Lérins.] Rather than go into a multi-paragraph explanation, I'll just direct you to an excellent source (and not even a Catholic one!) This is from the Orthodox blog, Orthodoxbridge.com, and explains (to a Reformed dialogue partner) the way we can be "sourced" by Tradition without considering any one non-Scriptural source as being equal to Scripture.

I may not get back to this until tomorrow, but meanwhile do go to the link. It's pretty clear, seems to me.

[verga]

Well that's just scary.

And he has reproduced, that is scarier.

[BlueDragon]

Er, I wasn’t advancing the position that Athanasius was anything other than the prime defender of orthodox Christology.

Yes, I accept that without reservation. My apologies for having taken what could be looked upon as more narrowly "Marion" considerations too much into account.

IF not for Athanasius... surely someone would have stepped up to the plate but I don’t know who it would have been.

I don't know, either.

History is what it is.

[Springfield Reformer]

Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

The verse does not say, but now once in the end of the world has he appeared to demonstrate how He had put away sin from the foundation of the world, but it says, but now once in the end of the world has He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself...

Indeed.  The atonement was foreordained to happen, it happened, and it has ongoing significance, ongoing consequences.  But it is a finished event.  Our participation in it is forensic.  By Christ's death our own sin was judged and punished.  All of this flows naturally from the Biblical text.

But the notion of a mystical transport into the event itself, escaping time to become part of an oblation that has no time value, is a theory that has no hook in Scripture on which to hang its hat.  God presents all of these things to us in a temporal framework. That is His chosen mode of revelation, an expression of His sovereign will for us.  The things He has not revealed to us belong to Him alone, and we are unwise to speculate where we are uninvited.  The things He has revealed are more than enough to keep our tiny minds occupied until the day of His return.  And He has told us, not that He would be corporeally with us disguised as bread and wine while we waited for that day, but that He would send us the Holy Spirit Himself as our Helper and Companion and Royal Seal of God's acceptance of us as His children, while we wait for our Savior to return.  I do not understand the desire to trade down from these glories to the misguided theories of medieval monks.  I truly do not.

BTW, I should note that I am glad to be with you this afternoon to share these thoughts.  A couple of hours ago, I was nearly run down in front of the state capitol here in sunny Springfield Illinois.  It was a surreal experience.  I am crossing the street, and a young woman comes careening out of a left turn right at me as though she didn't see me at all.  In a moment I realized there was no way to step back in time.  I felt, for a split second, totally helpless. But at the same time, totally at peace. She did see me, and stopped just in time. I resumed walking, and went on my way, pretty much as if nothing had happened.  Except that it had, and I wanted to mention it here to give praise to Jesus my Savior, Who creates worlds, calms the seas, and directs traffic in Springfield, Illinois, all with equal ease. :)  Praise His mighty name!  So be it.

Peace,

SR

[Legatus]

Well that's just scary.

And he has reproduced, that is scarier.

Who is "he"? Arius or Iscool?

Iscool are you "solo" Scripturist or a "sola" Scripturist? I'm having trouble keeping track of who's what.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Glad we still have you with us!

Praise God!

[af_vet_1981]

17 I will sacrifice a thank offering to you and call on the name of the Lord

Except what you call the mass is not a "thanksgiving sacrifice for a completed act.. it is the re-sacrifice of Christ over and oner for the forgiveness of sins..

Rome has no completed act to thank God for

It seems to me when you write "Rome," blinders come down. Try instead to imagine you are a Catholic who loves the LORD, has made a perfect act of contrition, fully believes everything in the Apostle's Creed, and has entered the assembly to offer a thanksgiving sacrifice by doing whatever Jesus said to do in memory of him. Just try.

[verga]

Prayers of Thanksgiving for your safety and continues well being..