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.
Baloney! It's been done numerous times. The only "knee-jerk" reaction going on is by the refusal to acknowledge it has been, because to do so would show the utter stupidity of claiming it hasn't BEEN answered! You cite NO "facts" nor Scripture to prove against the truth that ONLY sacred Scripture, as the wholly and ONLY Divinely-inspired resource we have from God has intrinsic authority solely because of its nature and origin. Mere men did not "give" us sacred Scripture. It derives it's authority NOT because of some ephemeral "infallibility" of men to determine what is or is not from God, but from its very source - the Holy Spirit. It is why ALL the tenets that make up the rule of the Christian faith have their basis IN Scripture.
At one time even the Catholic church believed that but as they fell further away from the orthodox Christian faith and into the morass of cleverly concocted fables, godless myths, endless genealogies - which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith - and commandments of men who turn away from the truth, the need to give equal authority to those human "traditions" and their hierarchy to that of God's holy word became an imperative. That is the REAL reason why the doctrine of sola Scriptura is fought against so vociferously and those who DO hold to the authority of God's word are ridiculed, mocked, slandered and insulted. It's okay, though, because, for this reason we also suffer these things, but we are not ashamed; for we know whom we have believed and are convinced that He is able to guard what we have entrusted to Him until that day.
Without the Eucharist, everything else is useless.
That is false.
Without Jesus, everything else is useless. Jesus is not a man made wafer.
Mocking the leading of the Holy Spirit is just not a good idea.
I could share the scripture that describes blaspheming the Holy Spirit of God as the “unpardonable sin” but Catholics often take offense when Christians share God’s Word.
Without the Eucharist, Jesus is removed.
Its NOT false if that is what Peter and his successors believed in and practiced and was so written and confirmed by the early Church fathers who assembled together the books in the Bible in the order in which they are (the books in the Bible did not fall from the skies and self assemble themselves). That infallible Petrine authority did not evaporate some eleven centuries later with the heresy of the Reformation n 1517.
The risen Christ, the living Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity is found in the Holy Eucharist under the consecrated appearances of bread and wine. The Last Supper was not just any ordinary meal. It provided us a New Covenant.
Those wo don’t believe it are simply put, heretics. The early Church Fathers, saints, martyrs, theologians, Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict and many eminent Protestant theologians who after a lifetime of scholarly research, study and reflection and converted to Catholicism did not all get it wrong
Without Jesus there is no Eucharist!
Why do Catholics put the symbol above the Savior?
I guess you can't take Peter seriously, then?
The Greek word used for "again" is a little different than the one Jesus used in John 3:3. It is anagennaō (transliteration) and means:
II. metaph. to have one's mind changed so that he lives a new life and one conformed to the will of God
And that ol' Douay-Rheims can't be taken seriously either, I guess, right?
This has been explained before, but just so nobody can truthfully claim it hasn't been, the Greek word used in John 3:3 for "again" is anÅthen (transliteration) and means:
II. from the first, from the beginning, from the very first
III. anew, over again
It is why, depending on the version being used, the verse can say either, "born again" or "born from above" or "born anew". Either is true. We are, in truth, born again into the family of God. Maybe, once some FRoman Catholics get around to actually believing God's word, they will understand it through the illumination of the Holy Spirit and be saved. We continue to pray for this.
Natural response from shallow Bible Christians, its like the three proverbial monkeys who would neither hear, see, or speak the truth. So all theologians are “college idiots” (wow!) including the the early Church fathers who assembled the books in the Bible.
There perhaps is a warning in the shallow end of the theological pool. Don’t go beyond this point.
346 posted on 4/10/2015 8:28:49 PM by Steelfish
Proof required it was only and exclusively the ECFs who did what you claim.
So now it was Jerome who gave the world the Holy Bible??? It would sure be nice if you could stick with one version of your truth. You previously said on this thread:
The infallible Church that pored over and interpreted the hundreds of written texts at the time and cross referenced it with the oral tradition, and after centuries of checking and cross-checking gave us the authoritative canonical text of the Bible in the Synod of Rome in AD 382. That version has since never changed.
So which is it? As you ought to know, Jerome was commissioned to TRANSLATE the Bible (the one that already existed) from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (the Vulgate a newer one, anyway) by Pope Damascus. It was not Jerome who "compiled" anything. But since you said he was responsible for doing so, are you implying he was infallible when doing so? I ask because Jerome rejected the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books as sacred Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The other odd idea you float around (a lot) - that the Roman Catholic church "pored over and interpreted the hundreds of written texts at the time and cross referenced it with the oral tradition, and after centuries of checking and cross-checking gave us the authoritative canonical text of the Bible in the Synod of Rome in AD 382. That version has since never changed." is a blatant and provable falsehood. The books of the Old Testament were recognized, kept together in scrolls, taught and obeyed long before Christ was incarnated. The books that made up the New Testament were recognized AS sacred Scripture as they were being written, copied and sent to the various local Christian communities based upon the Apostles who either wrote them or passed them on as authoritative as Divinely-inspired and binding upon the believer. Additionally, the Council of Rome was NOT convened for the purpose of deciding the canon. What was called the Decretum Gelasianum, where the contents of the Old and New Testaments were affirmed, is now believed to have been only first connected to this council of Rome in 1794 and NOT the purpose of the council at all. Some further study has even shown the decretal to have been a forgery, probably from a scholar of the 6th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome).
It did NOT take until three centuries later for some group of men to sort through a pile of writings trying to decide which ones were from God and which ones were not. Did not Peter call Paul's epistles "Scripture"? He did. Did not Paul order his writings be heeded and sent out to other churches? He did. Did not the four Gospels have recognition as authentic, eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life and teachings? They did as is evidenced by the early second century church fathers who listed the exact books we have today and which they quoted from extensively.
Now, you can continue to posit this mythical idea of how we came to have the Holy Bible and, by it, give the glory to your church along with the equally false idea that this somehow implies that what calls itself the Roman Catholic church today has retained that supposed authority to tell God which of His body of revelation is acceptable and which is not, and to decide what is the rule of the Christian faith, but knowledgeable people will know better. We have EXACTLY what God intended us to have - with or without the permission of men. What God tells us in His word is the truth - with or without the agreement of men.
Yeah, and this book the rcc "gave us"(well at least steelfish says so says) somehow neglected, or chose, to leave out the Protoevangelium of James which, if sources are right, is the earliest text on the false teaching that Mary remained a virgin.
That the rcc did not include this writing in their canon at Trent is telling.
Now, now...don’t go being a “Bible Christian”! ;o)
Amazing how some think that is a bad thing, isn’t it?
Well, then if the Church was “fallible” in leaving out this work “Protoevangelium of James” then it may well have been fallible in leaving out other works or including others. Hence by your lights it lacked the infallible authority given to Peter and his successors to truthfully “teach” the Word of God.
For nearly four centuries the early Church Fathers “conspired” to leave out this work before they assembled the canonical text in AD 382. A 400-year old conspiracy. So why not then throw out the entire Bible?
A 400-year old conspiracy by saints and martyrs and popes to leave out this Protoevangelium of James?
The short answer is that Protoevangelium of James is classified as an apocryphal Gospel.
To be sure, the Protoevangelium is not to be classed with the Gnostic writings of old, which were products of heretical groups, claiming secret knowledge. On the other hand, the early Church Fathers did not elevate this work to the level of Sacred Scripture, as it has no guarantee of inerrancy.
This early work reflects at least some ancient traditions.
As to the general preference for the view that the “brothers” of the Lord are likely kinfolk, and not step-siblings from a previous marriage by Joseph, the Church fathers were strongly infuenced by the existing traditions including Saint Jerome, who strongly dismissed the view that they were step-siblings. Saint Jerome had a great command of the ancient languages and customs,
You see the rut you get yourself into when you play internet theologian and pick up stuff from anti-Catholic garbage cans for their superficial reading?
I'll say it is telling! Even if the attendees at Trent had wanted to include it, they wouldn't have been able to claim an ancient witness nor an Apostolic handing down nor the unanimous consent of the ECFs. In fact, the doctrines of sinlessness (Immaculate Conception) and the bodily assumption of Mary were NOT officially held as dogma when Trent took place in the sixteenth century. It was three and four centuries later that they were declared de fide (of the faith). Mary's "perpetual virginity" never enjoyed a biblical basis and was based upon spurious works, myths, visions and the imaginings of those who had strange views towards sexual relations among married couples (monks, ascetics, celibates, etc.). If such doctrines were things all Christians should believe as essential to our faith, they would have been spoken of in Scripture. Far too often such "pious" devotions take away from the glory due to Christ and that makes them dangerous to spiritual health.
You quibble. St. Jerome directed the commissioning of the written Word of God. Of course as we all know too well it is not not just the product of one person but many of the early Church fathers (theologians) to sort out hundreds of fragments of scattered writings and cross-check them against the oral traditions- the unwritten word of God.
But you tie yourself in knots when you write: “What God tells us in His word is the truth - with or without the agreement of men.”
Just think of the sheer vapidity of this statement and you will now understand why Catholics think of Bible Christians as so shallow that it would be impossible to get a paper boat to float in the waters of theological discourse in which they swim.
God did not write down His words. Indeed much of what He said was unwritten. John 21:25 “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”
Therefore it was indeed left to the “agreement” of the early Church Fathers (”men”) to assemble the true written Word of God as the inspired work of the infallible authority of the Church, the “rock” against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.
So for 15 CENTURIES, until the heresy of Protestantism came by in 1517 and broke into a cluster of heresies now numbering in the several thousands, the oral tradition and Catholic Bible was the Bible of generations of the followers of Christ among whom were contemporaries of St. John, to say nothing of the many saints and martyrs of the Church.
Now if you don’t believe in the canonical texts established by the Church and the sacred oral tradition that informed its assembly (the books in the Bible did not fall from the skies and self assemble themselves in the order we find them) , then be free to “assemble” your own Bible as you so choose- indeed anyone should be able to do so by your lights since you don’t need the “agreement” of men and women.
Each person can have his/her own Bible? What a wonderful thing? Wait: you have that right now since every Protestant gets to crack open the pages of the Bible and offer us “his” or “her” interpretation.
Why, even the mainline Protestant denominations now interpret scripture as warrant for the ordination of married gay and lesbian pastors. We should listen to the “word” of Joel Osteen; Rev. Jeremiah Wright; Rev. Billy Graham; Rev. Creflo Dollar; Rev. Jim Jones; Rev. Swaggart, and David Koresh, and each tells us they are being guided by the Holy Spirit. Great stuff, isn’t it? A Protestant kumbaya.
It is curious that you quibble over the very true assertion that, "What God tells us in His word is the truth - with or without the agreement of men." That you call it "vapid" and "shallow" is a dead giveaway that you seem incapable of recognizing the curtain being pulled down over your eyes and the lying spirits sent to deceive you. God COMMANDED that His word be written and that what He revealed be believed and obeyed. Now maybe you want to argue with Him over that, but I'll advise you that you will lose. God will hold you responsible for knowing and understanding what He says. Trusting in men to tell you what you must believe without verifying if what they say is true is dangerous and has eternal consequences.
If the Apostles praised the noble Bereans for such looking into, then what makes us imagine - in a world where the Bible is translated into a large percentage of the languages in existence today and a much larger literacy rate than may have existed when Jesus was here - that we are somehow exempt from that same responsibility? Nobody has stated everyone has to read the Bible in order to know the gospel. Thankfully, there are many faithful believers who share the gospel with others and God is able to bring the truth to all those who diligently seek Him. But to really understand our faith, we should desire to study God's word because it is the truth, the sword of the Spirit, the light for our path, the lamp for our feet and God's love letter to us.
So, go ahead, swallow everything your church feeds you. Go on believing whatever they tell you about the past. Ignore the history, the facts, the truth, the Scriptures, if that helps you sleep at night. But just remember this, you HAVE been told the truth here. What you do with it is up to you. Your insults, mockery, petty repetitive snide remarks and unfounded boasting about things you had NOTHING to do with anyway will not deter those of us who KNOW we have eternal life because we have believed in and received Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
I am proud to be a "Bible Christian". I have a BA degree in Biblical Education and Theology I sacrificed and worked hard for. I see that as a badge of honor and laugh at those who would try to make it something wrong or undesirable. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was because of Scripture that God led me out of the false religion and accursed gospel of Roman Catholicism. I praise Him every day for His grace and mercy. I will continue to pray for you and every other person who reads these threads that the glorious gospel of the grace of God who saves us by faith and not by our works shines on their hearts and they can join the spiritual house of believers who are the body of Christ, His bride, clothed in fine, white linen washed in His precious blood and dwelling with Him for eternity.
By that I mean it is not (nor does it claim to be) an authority on the following items:
1) Human biology
2) Astronomy
3) Physics.
Maybe prots will feel better if I word the question like this:
What are the limits of the authority in the Bible and where in the Bible are these spelled out, making it the SOLE authority on those matters.
Congratulations! Seriously. as I pointed out in post 312 of this thread:The fifth word is Anagennao. This literally means to be born again and occurs exactly once in the Bible and that is in 1 Peter 12:23....
Concluding paragraph...There is a perfectly good word for "born again", Anagennao. Neither Nicodemus, nor Jesus use that word, instead Nicodemus uses Deuteron.
Thank you for so aptly demonstrating that I am indeed correct.
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.