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.
At least, that's what his legal genealogy was in Matthew 1:
2 Abraham became the father of Isaac, ... 5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab.... 6 Jesse the father of David the king...16Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah.
Now, if you regard the Matthew genealogy as a legal and not a genetic genealogy, you'd have to look to the presumably genetic genealogy, the genealogy of, presumably, Mary, found in Luke. And that genealogy (Luke 3) does not name Rahab; in fact it does not name any female ancestor.
Stay out of it.
Take a hike, troll.
You most certainly did write that term yourself, and you have used it before, where someone else wrote "spiritual mother" and you quoted him as writing "spirit mother." You should not write that term in a way to make it seem that someone else wrote it when he or she has not.
The Blessed VIRGIN?
So does Rahab.
So?
What difference is it when looked at in the light of 'mother of Jesus' and 'Mother of GOD'?
If the extra-sensitive want to mind-read and attribute motive and intent -- then too bad -- go correct yourselves FIRST and then I will have pity for the Crimea River.
Meanwhile, if you would care to deal with the actual issue rather than the WHOLE DEAL hinge upon whether or not someone uses capitalized letters or not, or else uses a suffix or not, then what am I to assume but that sort of thing is more of a dodge and avoidance of addressing that which I set a forefinger firmly upon, myself having said in effect;
Is the answer --- all about form of expression rather than the underlying and true substance?
Does the form make the substance? If so, then by all means let us be consistent with that across the board rather than turning that on and off like a light switch whenever it best suits one's preferred theological expressions & forum debate tactics.
Now, if you would care to deal with the actual substance of the discussion at the point at which you inserted yourself, and do so in straightforward manner rather than quibble over slight technicalities of form, then go ahead and give it a whirl.
'Meanwhile, if it will be just more of the same of what you just went after -- then AGAIN,
Take a hike, troll.
I don't have time for this sort of juvenile digression which I have already fully well enough addressed.
I think that is so cool.
The four eyebrow-raising women of Jesus' genealogy according to Matthew: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. Kind of like "born to be wild."
That should be the end of it.
Peace, brothers.
Tagline
Bingo! There you have it! We are not talking about Mary being our biological mother, after all...
:o)
There’s only one Mary who is the Mother of the Messiah.
That should be the end of it.
That should end it?
The boundary between Mary being a Goddess, perhaps not even lower case(?) goddess or semi- goddess, relies singularity upon usage of capitalization or not?
Oh, and the slight suffix composed of the letters "ual" caboose-d upon the word spirit.
Remove Mary from context of all those other offensive Spirit Mothers, place her more properly where Scripture would lead us to assume she would be (among the righteous, not among the earthly & sensual as I ALREADY readily agreed) and you would still demand she be referred to as spiritual mother even as at the same time she is upper case Our Lady, Queen of Heaven, Queen of us all --- but becomes shy and only small case spiritual mother instead of Titled Spirit Mother to go along with being Titled Queen of Heaven.
That simply must leave Mary to be spiritual mother merely conceptually speaking, poetically speaking, and not literally_ spiritually speaking, if I can use "literally spiritually" at the same instant, which I most certainly can, but at this juncture, in regard to this precise theological quandary, simply must.
So thank you for not be able to answer the question maybe?
Do you realize just how much of your own past efforts here on the religion forum have now gone up in flames?
I wonder when this thread got off the original topic. The Eucharist. How did it get on Mary, (as all these Catholic/anti-Catholic threads seem to eventually, no matter the starting topic)
Did I have a hand in this sidetracking? I hope not. Anyway...
Speaking of the original topic: anyone ever spend some significant time (an hour or so) in front of the Blessed Sacrament? Not worshipping or adoring or anything just sitting there in quiet contemplation?
If it’s just a “cracker” nothing to loose by doing so, other than an hour of your life. If it’s not though, might just experience something special.
Just a random thought.
There is a very good reason to make a distinction between "spiritual mother" and "Spirit Mother." And that is because they mean different things.
It was neither fair nor intellectually respectable for you to omit the substantive reason why I reject this entity called "Spirit Mother." I'll quote myself at #950:
I googled "Spirit Mother" and, as I suspected, the top hits by far were all about goddesses, shamans, embodied forces of nature, dream-totems, Shakti, Mormonism, pre-existence of souls, reincarnation, sexual consorts of gods, etc. This is repellent to me, and does not at all convey the Christian meaning.
Do words really mean the same thing if they are spelled nearly the same or touch on superficially similar themes? Does God = dog ("same letters")? Does First Lady = Eve? ("Eve was the First Lady, therefore Adam must have been President, hah!")? Does moral = amoral ("there's only one letter difference")?
As I said, it is not fair to refuse to make distinctions between distinctly different things, or to omit the explanation which was crucial to showing the difference.
I had thought better of you.
"For not being able to answer the question maybe?" What? What question?
Preach it, brother.
Who has an hour to waste if they think they're just sitting there contemplating a cracker?
They might as well be contemplating their navel.
OTOH, God has some cool promises about those who meditate on SCRIPTURE.
Psalm 1:1-3 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.
He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers.
Joshua 1:8 This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.
Unless the Mother has half of her genes in the gestating child, the child is related to the father by genes, not the mother, genetically. Once the amniotic sac closes (the water world), the new individual builds their own body. The Woman’s body builds none of the child gestating in her womb.
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.