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.
Since it was posted without reference; I ASSUMED (I know...) that it was merely more Catholic babbling, and I could mock it at will.
It was NOT some Scripture that I had stored away in my memory bank.
Dang... if I have to chase down EVERYTHING a Catholic posts...
You mean you HAVEN'T been reading the stuff I've been posting for YEARS???
Then my sneakery has NOT been in vain.
Jesus was crucified and died, once, and that's it. On a particular day, at a particular hour of the day, He died commending his spirit into the hands of the Father, as a once-and-only-once expiatory sacrifice to take away the sins of the world.
The "Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world" is obviously Christ; but that doesn't mean that Jesus was crucified before the world even began, or that He is crucified over and over. It does mean, though, that His entire oblation to the Father has an aspect which is beyond Time and rooted in Eternity.
Could you tell me more about the general apostasy to which you refer? I mean historic facts or a least strong inferences about the time, the place, the people involved: names and so forth. Anything that could count has historic evidence. You say "first or second century," but that is a little vague: the last of the Apostles didn't even die until AD 100 (St. John). So if it happened in the 1st century, then the Church disappeared before the Apostles did.
It's interesting to me that the Mormons, the Muslims, and the exponents of the Radical Reformation all agreed that Christ's (original) Church failed.
Actually, no.
There's a larger sense which would include the Apostolic Fathers, that is, the first-generation disciples of the Apostles, those who learned from the Apostles personally. That would extend the time-frame by a generation: AD 33 - AD 160 or so.
This list shows the span:
There's a problem with believing the Bible?
Do you think the Bible has ever been wrong?
Difference is Jesus did not pray to Moses or Elijah. He did not appeal to them. People in the OT and NT did have conversations with angels, but they did not initiate those as prayers to Mary are initiated.
Bottom line pray to someone is a form of worship. When catholics pray to Mary, and please don't say they don't, they are engaging in one aspect of worship.
• Appeal, place confidence in: not synonymous with "worship." My husband appealed to the cop not to give him a speeding ticket when he was hurrying to see me in the ICU. He placed confidence in the cop's common sense, and rightly so: the cop let him off with a warning.
That's a bit of a stretch. Catholics are doing more than hoping a police officer is using "common sense". When they appeal to Mary they are asking her, in some cases, for things that go against what Jesus would grant. I can get that reference for you later.
• Hope for their salvation: not synonymous with "worship." When applied to Mary or other saints or angels, it would mean having confidence in their intercession. If in fact people were regarding Mary, rather than Jesus, as the source of their salvation this would be a serious error. But that's not what the Catholic Church teaches us to do.
It has been shown many times that many catholic writers have made this very point....they are relying upon Mary for their salvation: they have said there is no salvation outside of Mary, they have pledged all their heart to her, rely totally upon her, etc.
•Assign false attributes or titles: three points. First, none of the titles or attributes used in accordance with the dogmas of the Church, are false. (I know you would dispute this, but your opinion is not the point here.)
You're right, my opinion doesn't matter. However, the facts are there. The rcc has assigned titles/attributes to Mary not found in Scripture nor found in the earliest writings/teachings of the Apostolic Age(The original apostles). These titles/attributes continue to grow indicating they were not part of the original teachings of the Apostles. At lot of the titles have come about through interpreting the scriptures from an analogy aspect. EX: If there's a king, there must be a queen. The text does not suggest that. That is human reasoning not based on proper hermeneutics. Mary is Queen of the Apostles.....really? This is suggested where in the texts? I can go on, but you get the idea.
Third, some of the over-the-top invocations of Mary, especially, are in the category of mystical/devotional hyperbole or courtly poetry, which I've been discussing HERE (and follow the links)
This is neither doctrine nor dogma, and some of it would need to be squinted at for quite some time, and then heavily footnoted, to limit its application to a context where Mary=lowly handmaid (subject) and Jesus=King of Kings (sovereign and unique in every sense.) A lot of it is simply undefined.
Then the catholic church needs to come out and define which of these writings are ok and which ones are not. They need to be clear.
Individually these may not take on the form of worship. Combined however, as catholicism has done with Mary, elevates it to a form of worship.
Catholics can’t because Scripture doesn’t support the majority of their doctrine.
That’s why they HAVE TO depend so heavily on the early church fathers and “tradition”.
Me, too.
I've seen that argument before, but it has serious flaws.
The "our acceptance" of what you refer to as "Sacred Tradition", as that could be conceptualized or understood to be includes more than a few considerations which cannot be found in, as you otherwise mentioned;
that would be old enough to make them undeniably "Apostolically" sourced, which in ending result leaves this same Sacred Tradition (which I assume you are referring to) not required by anyone really, to be taken as Gospel (good news & truth) in it's present-day entirety.
There are portions --- which are the New Testament texts themselves. What was that you just said about "no verbatim"?
Then say goodbye to prayers to departed saints, which seek the intercession of those.
Singular papacy for whomever it is who may gain office of bishop of Rome --- is even further away from "Apostolic times", fully including the first few centuries (at least), wherein there is also enough converging lines of evidence to fully dispute that so-called Apostolic succession included anything approaching concept of Peter's own most primary successors would by dint of geographical considerations be most chiefly (as in higher ranked over all others) to whomever it was at any one time who happened to be bishop of Rome. Scripture itself refutes the notion also -- which is most likely why the concept (singular "primacy", in effect equaling Supremacy for 'Rome') took so long to develop.
THAT sort of idea was entirely of later development -- with converging lines of evidence indicating that when that concept first began to be asserted (by those of Rome, alone) it was rebuked by many within the Church, although those of Rome were not regarded as having "no" perceived authority whatsoever. Quite the contrary (more particularly as centuries continued to pass) for that bishopric, being in the city having been once seat of Empire of Rome, and having enjoyed what came to be referred to among the wider church (only centuries after true apostolic age) as having double apostolicity for reason that church traditions placed both Paul & Peter there, leaving it be important for sake of unity to have that church's agreement, but not so important that early Roman church 'popes' were themselves beyond the correction of others, or could themselves unilaterally 'lay down the law'.
Otherwise, the Church at Antioch and at Jerusalem could be seen as "center" ---BUT--- when both of those churches were still flourishing (so to speak?) in the earliest centuries, there was no one particular church or bishopric regarded as center of all the Church.
This part ---> Tradition holds it to be inspired Scripture because it was regarded as suitable for use in the Liturgy in ancient churches comes across as rather convoluted, being that the primary, most fundamental reason that any of the writings which were "regarded as suitable for use in liturgy" in the first place was that the writings had been widely enough received & accepted as coming from Apostolic sources, although not all had to be written by the original 12 (and the first replacement?) to have been from the first generation of Church, ie., the Apostles themselves, and those most close to them from the most primitive beginnings...(not others whom never themselves witnessed Christ, or were not present among and under the direct tutelage of the undisputed, genuine Apostles in the first, most primitive decades).
That such writings as the book of Hebrews did eventually gain fullest acceptance a bit later than most all of the rest (I won't go into the details of other, late to be fully known of, and "accepted" texts) although bearing witness of the strength of early oral tradition in regards to such fundamental matters, does not equal that those who accept NT Scripture must then also unquestionably accept all which it can be reasonably enough shown --- arose and further developed only in centuries after those first few centuries.
I'm still waiting for clear evidences of "prayers TO departed saints" (rather than for, or about them) imploring them for their own intercession to be sourced from earlier than the 4th century.
Citing Paul requesting others still living upon earth pray for himself (as I have seen be part of RC apologetic) simply does not equal that earliest church traditions included PTDS.
So save the whales the breath?
There are also writings on the catacomb walls, monuments, ossuary inscriptions, and --- importantly --- music (meaning songs, hymns, chants) which for many communities was important in the transmission of the truths of the Faith.
I wrote a little about that HERE (LINK) a few years ago here at FR
.
In the Apostolic Age there were few books, but many communities where psalms, hymns and inspired songs (very often containing verbatim Scripture) facilitated the memorization and internalization of the basics of the Christian Faith which the previous generations had learned from the Apostles.
Maybe I am thud-headed from my allergy, but this is the second sentence (one long sentence) of your reply, and I don't quite get what it means:
The "our acceptance" of what you refer to as "Sacred Tradition", as that could be conceptualized or understood to be includes more than a few considerations which cannot be found in, as you otherwise mentioned;
manuscripts, hymns, old lists, monuments and inscriptions, and above all, the actual customs and practices of the churches, and make reasonable inferences, usually from converging lines of evidence.that would be old enough to make them undeniably "Apostolically" sourced, which in ending result leaves this same Sacred Tradition (which I assume you are referring to) not required by anyone really, to be taken as Gospel (good news & truth) in it's present-day entirety.
|
Could you break that sentence down a little for a thud-headed, ignorant woman? Does this have something to do with the authorship of the Gospels? |
There are two senses of the phrase "Apostolic Times." The first, central meaning would be 33AD-100AD, the time period between Pentecost and the death of the last Apostle (John, in either Patmos or Anatolia.) There's a larger sense which would include the Apostolic Fathers, that is, the first-generation disciples of the Apostles, those who learned from the Apostles personally. That would extend the time-frame by a generation: AD 33 - AD 160 or so.
This list shows the span:
•Clement of Rome (ca. AD 15 - AD 99) was consecrated by St. Peter
• the author(s) of the Didache (written sometime between AD 50 and AD 110)
•Ignatius of Antioch (ca. AD 35 - AD 110) early bishop of Antioch, was taught by St. John)
•Polycarp of Smyrna(ca. 69-155) also a disciple of John
• the author of The Shepherd of Hermas (written between 140 -155)
The problem with including these as "tradition" is that the teachings in some of these contradict what the apostles and Luke wrote.
For example, in the Didache, which was not accepted by the church as canon, it teaches the following:
Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet.
Paul stayed in many places more than three days.
And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet.
Paul said it was ok to be paid. He also accepted gifts from the churches.
And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.
Paul told us to check what the spirit says and if it goes against the word it was a false prophet.
If this is the case then Paul was a false prophet!!!!
Example like this are why Christians are very dubious of catholic "sacred tradition". So much of it contradicts Scripture when it is closely examined.
Beware the Jabberwocky, Mrs. Don-o!
LOL
Leni
Thank you, I thought I was the only one that was confused by that.
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.