The Resurrection & The Eucharist

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.

What is this "fullness of the Faith" that non-Catholics often lack? To summarize: Sacred Tradition; as generally found here:

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

Although you did, as I presume, read this when I posted it to you two days ago, I will list the items for your convenience: 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

Apostolic Succession,
the basic forms of the Apostolic Hierarchy,
the Seven Sacraments,
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.

None of these things are hidden, secret or esoteric. Thy 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 times of the Apostles.

Where would a Catholic be without a fast held misunderstanding of what sola Scriptura means no matter how many times they've been corrected?

STRAWM ARGUEMENT FALLACY.

Same challenge to any and all of you.

Pick a definition of Sola Scriptura, any definition and show it to me in the Bible.

And just so we are all clear on the meaning of the word DEFINITIONnoun

1. the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear: We need a better definition of her responsibilities.

2. the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries. An online dictionary resource, such as Dictionary.com, can give users direct, immediate access to the definitions of a term, allowing them to compare definitions from various dictionaries and stay up to date with an ever-expanding vocabulary.

3. the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined:

Just we are all clear I am looking for you to provide me with the definition of your choice of Sola Scriptura and then show me that exact same definition in the Bible.

Given that you all spend so much time in the word it should be no trouble at all.

This looks like a variation on the etymological fallacy. One cannot jump from the dictionary ranking to a statistical conclusion about a word's use in a given passage, i.e., "Because it can be seen as tertiary generally, it must be tertiary here" would be a non sequitur.

Furthermore, one of the most widely respected modern lexicons, that goes beyond bare-bones etymology and investigates localized syntactic and idiomatic influence, suggests a reasonable basis for the preference for "born again." From Louw-Nida:

41.53 γεννάω ἄνωθεν (an idiom, literally ‘to be born again’); παλιγγενεσίαa, ας f: to experience a complete change in one’s way of life to what it should be, with the implication of return to a former state or relation—‘to be born again, to experience new birth, rebirth.’
γεννάω ἄνωθεν: ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν ‘unless a person is born again’ Jn 3:3. It is also possible to understand ἄνωθεν in Jn 3:3 as meaning ‘from above’ or ‘from God’ (see 84.13), a literary parallel to the phrase ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν in Jn 1:13. In Jn 3:3, however, Nicodemus understood ἄνωθεν as meaning ‘again’ (see 67.55) and γεννάω as ‘physical birth’ (see 23.52).
παλιγγενεσίαa: διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως ‘new birth and new life by washing’ Tt 3:5. The metaphor of ‘new birth’ is so important in the NT that it should be retained if at all possible. In some languages ‘new birth’ can be expressed as ‘to cause to be born all over again’ or ‘to have a new life as though one were born a second time.’ See also 13.55.

However, it is true the expression can refer to some kind of "above-ness." But which one? Place, or Time. From the Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (IGEL):

ἄνωθεν, -θε, (ἄνω) Adv. of Place, from above, from on high, Hdt., Trag., etc.; ὕδατος ἄνωθεν γενομένου, i.e. rain, Thuc.: from the upper country, from inland, Id.
2. = ἄνω, above, on high, Trag.; οἱ ἄν. the living, opp. to οἱ κάτω, Aesch.:—c. gen., Hdt.

II. of Time, from the beginning, Plat., Dem.:—by descent, Theocr.; τὰ ἄν. first principles, Plat.
2. over again, anew, N.T.

This is something one has to respect when dealing with the Greek. They have a very flexible way of reusing parts of speech in both temporal and spatial settings, and within those categories there can be a wide range between the concrete and the abstract. In this case, as the IGEL entry demonstrates, "anothen" can be either spatial above-ness (simple "above"), or temporal above-ness, i.e., going back to Time Zero and starting over, from which we get the simplified "again."

In John 3, the conversational dynamic cannot be ignored in sorting this out. Whatever Jesus meant by anothen (or its Hebrew or Aramaic spoken equivalent), Nicodemas didn't pick up on the spatial meaning "above" at all. He is clearly thinking of a temporal reset, but it is degenerate from what is meant by "born again," because, as an idiom, and especially among evangelicals, it implies both the temporal and spatial aspects, i.e., being born again is both from above and a second birth event. Therefore it seems likely it was something of a double meaning, where Nicodemas got derailed by taking it as strictly temporal, and strictly concrete, and Jesus had to rebuke Him for his lack of insight into the Old Testament teaching on the spiritual aspects of the new birth, which Jesus unfolds as birth by water and by "pneuma" (spirit or wind), as these passages testify:

Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring: And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses.
(Isaiah 44:2-4)

And

Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.
(Ezekiel 37:9-10)

Whether Jesus was thinking of these specific passages I cannot say, but clearly whatever Nicodemas missed, it was something Jesus considered obvious teaching of the OT, something no true teacher of Israel should have missed, concerning the new birth.

Bottom line, all this is rather difficult to render in the English. We don't have a perfect replica of the dual-use "above/again" construct (at least that I can think of). So we have to pick one or the other and let the potential dual use come out in teaching the passage. As the English idiom "born again" carries both meanings quite well, it is probably a superior translation choice in this case.

I will have to leave it at that for now. Other duties call.

Peace,

SR

Your religion gets this idea of tradition (specifically ORAL tradition) from an idea pilfered from the scriptures...

2Th_2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

In the history of your religion, who first speaks of this oral tradition that was handed down from the apostles and when and to whom was was it given...And when and where is this tradition first recorded in writing as acknowledged to have been handed down by oral tradition???

Seems to be a big blank there as if this stuff just showed up without any explanation...Like someone invented it...

Your religion continues to invent its tradition...If a new dogma shows up tomorrow, by the next day it's Catholic tradition...

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.