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.
Mrs. Don-o, since you are posting about Passover, would you tell me if the RCC teaches that the New Covenant was instituted at Passover? And that the atonement was made on Passover when Christ spoke of His Body and His Blood?
Where is Sola Scriptura defined in the Bible?
Yes, assuredly, some priests are honorable, others are profane. That, in itself, doesn’t change what happens at the Consecration, because they are not “doing” it. It is Christ who acts, who consecrates, who comes.
No mere human person could do that by his own power or piety.
How many times did God punish the community when a leader (or simply a member) disobeyed? Read Joshua 7. Good intentions aren’t enough. We’re called to be crafty as serpents yet gentle as doves.
NO! I don’t!!!!! I am not pentecostally aligned to say the least. I’ve made that very clear on this forum.
Go back to that thread I pinged you to a bit ago, “Don’t Make a Savior of Your Morality”.
That’s a pretty fair summary of where I’m coming from, in spite of all the accusations that some people can’t figure out where I stand because I don’t name a denomination.
You don’t need a denomination to hold to that view of what being saved is.
Matthew 4:4 But he answered, “It is written,“‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
From what I've seen of your posts, you don't know any bible other than the talking point verses your religion provides for you...
The substance of the wheaten host is entirely gone, zot, not there;
I'd like to see a Catholic take a consecrated host down to a local lab and have it analyzed...
But the accidents remain, it's the substance that has changed (hence trans-substant-iation)
Since I doubt the thing became a wafer by accident, perhaps you'd give us the Catholic version of accident and substance...
What do you think a definition is?
I am asking a serious question; what do you think a definition is?
I wish Theology for Beginners (Not that you're a beginner but it's a very simple explanation) was online somewhere... hang on... FOUND IT! or at least parts of it.
Transubstantiation
by Frank J. Sheed
Besides the Real Presence which faith accepts and delights in, there is the doctrine of transubstantiation, from which we may at least get a glimpse of what happens when the priest consecrates bread and wine, so that they become Christ's body and Christ's blood.
At this stage, we must be content with only the simplest statement of the meaning of, and distinction between substance and accidents, without which we should make nothing at all of transubstantiation. We shall concentrate upon bread, reminding ourselves once again that what is said applies in principle to wine as well.
We look at the bread the priest uses in the Sacrament. It is white, round, soft. The whiteness is not the bread, it is simply a quality that the bread has; the same is true of the roundness and the softness. There is something there that has these and other properties, qualities, attributes- the philosophers call all of them accidents. Whiteness and roundness we see; softness brings in the sense of touch. We might smell bread, and the smell of new bread is wonderful, but once again the smell is not the bread, but simply a property. The something which has the whiteness, the softness, the roundness, has the smell; and if we try another sense, the sense of taste, the same something has that special effect upon our palate.
In other words, whatever the senses perceive-even with the aid of those instruments men are forever inventing to increase the reach of the senses- is always of this same sort, a quality, a property, an attribute; no sense perceives the something which has all these qualities, which is the thing itself. This something is what the philosophers call substance; the rest are accidents which it possesses. Our senses perceive accidents; only the mind knows the substance. This is true of bread, it is true of every created thing. Left to itself, the mind assumes that the substance is that which, in all its past experience, has been found to have that particular group of accidents. But in these two instances, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the mind is not left to itself. By the revelation of Christ it knows that the substance has been changed, in the one case into the substance of his body, in the other into the substance of his blood.
The senses can no more perceive the new substance resulting from the consecration than they could have perceived the substance there before. We cannot repeat too often that senses can perceive only accidents, and consecration changes only the substance. The accidents remain in their totality-for example, that which was wine and is now Christ's blood still has the smell of wine, the intoxicating power of wine. One is occasionally startled to find some scientist claiming to have put all the resources of his laboratory into testing the consecrated bread; he announces triumphantly that there is no change whatever, no difference between this and any other bread. We could have told him that, without the aid of any instrument. For all that instruments can do is to make contact with the accidents, and it is part of the doctrine of transubstantiation that the accidents undergo no change whatever. If our scientist had announced that he had found a change, that would be really startling and upsetting.
The accidents, then, remain; but not, of course, as accidents of Christ's body. It is not his body which has the whiteness and the roundness and the softness. The accidents once held in existence by the substance of bread, and those others once held in existence by the substance of wine, are now held in existence solely by God's will to maintain them.
What of Christ's body, now sacramentally present? We must leave the philosophy of this for a later stage in our study. All we shall say here is that his body is wholly present, though not (so St. Thomas among others tells us) extended in space. One further element in the doctrine of the Real Presence needs to be stated: Christ's body remains in the communicant as long as the accidents remain themselves. Where, in the normal action of our bodily processes, they are so changed as to be no longer accidents of bread or accidents of wine, the Real Presence in us of Christ's own individual body ceases. But we live on in his Mystical Body.
This very sketchy outline of the doctrine of transubstantiation is almost pathetic. But like so much in this book, what is here is only a beginning; you have the rest of life before you.
Don't pull your shoulder out of its socket patting yourself on the back just yet, you are NOT correct!
The Greek word used in John 3:3 and John 3:7 is "anothen" and I already showed you that it can be translated as born again, anew or from above. What Nicodemus used in John 3:4 is "deuteros" (NOT "deuteron") and it quite clearly shows he was asking about being born "a second time"...hence, the use of the Greek word "deuteros" (deu - two).
You are also incorrect in your assertion that I Peter 1:23 is the only place "anagennao" (to produce again, be born again, born anew) is used. Perhaps you are not familiar with I Peter 1:3, which also uses the same Greek word as in verse 23:
It's odd the seeming squeamishness some have about the very Biblical term of "born again" and why they have to insist it couldn't have meant that when it so clearly did - even the Douay-Rheims translators used it. I think either is correct as it means the same thing - we are reborn into the family of God by His grace through faith. Stop straining at gnats, why doncha?
Kinda thought that's what the cross was all about. Hence, do this in remembrance of Me.
Perfectly good word that would have completely clarified it and left no doubt, instead He used a word that in every other instance means "from above."
Best explanation of substance and accidents I’ve ever read.
Once again nobody has claimed sola Scriptura means the Scriptures are the sole source of truth regarding everything that exists, just that it is the authority for truth claims regarding the rule of the Christian faith. This was a belief held and defended by the early Christians and was the method they used to test the orthodoxy of doctrine.
Why are you now bringing in the straw men of biology, astronomy and physics? What IS true, though, is that when Scripture speaks about biology, astronomy or physics, it is accurate - even on things that men didn't and couldn't have known back then (i.e., the differences of the DNA of humans vs. animals; the stars being as numberless as the sands of the sea; the earth being a sphere hung upon nothing, etc.) proving the Divine origin of sacred Scripture.
Seeing as you want to now modify your challenge to:
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.
Can we assume your previous question WAS answered? This new question, BTW, has already been answered, though you may have missed or simply ignored it. Here again are a few of the many places where Scripture spells out the purpose of divine revelation:
I wasn't the one who made the "absurd" statement. Your good buddy Steelfish did:
Did the early Christians have the Bible as we know it? No. The Bible as a whole was not compiled until the late 4th century and then it was compiled by a Catholic saint (St. Jerome) at the request of a Catholic pope (St. Damasus I).
I do agree with you. It was absurd to make such a claim.
I often get the impression that passage was particularly aimed at the RCs.
Thank you, dear one. I appreciate that.
IIRC correctly you showed 2 definitions from two protestant sources and I provided one that metmom said was acceptable from James White of Alpha Omega ministries.
I asked any of you to show me one of those definitions in the Bible. NONE of you did. Several of you pulled out the same tired verse as proof texts of SS but NONE of them matched any of those definitions.
Next I offered to let any of you offer a DEFINITION after someone claimed that the "exact words are not in the Bible.
Currently I have provided the definition of the word DEFINITION, because none of you seem to understand that word.
I have changed nothing except my approach to hope fully make one of you understand what the word DEFINITION means.
Can you tell me what the word DEFINITION means to you?
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.