Sigforum Christians, have you been "saved"? (And ongoing Christian faith-based discussion)
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
quote:
Originally posted by KSGM: I am not eager to disprove anything.
And you have no obligation to disprove anything.*
It is a fundamental logical argument fallacy to claim that someone who doubts an unlikely occurrence (and by definition a miracle is extremely unlikely) must disprove the stories or other supposed evidence that support it in order to question whether it’s true. We may believe what we want on whatever bases we deem sufficient, but my believing something does not obligate anyone else to demonstrate that the reasons for my beliefs are wrong.
These discussions continue to be very enlightening, so thanks to everyone who has contributed to them.
* Pertaining to the subject being considered in this thread, of course. There are countless claims pertaining to our secular lives that must be disproved by the person who disputes them if they expect their counterclaim to be accepted. I am also not suggesting that KSGM doubts the miracle. I am only saying that no one is required to be able to disprove the story of the miracle in order to have a reasonable and legitimate doubt that it occurred as reported.
I'd agree that he is not obliged to disprove the miracle from a standpoint of the discussion. Belief in the real presence of Christ- Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, can be had without such miracles. You can look at Christ's words, you can look for context clues throughout the Old and New Testaments. They are there. You can have faith that is based upon your upbringing (you believe it because your parents and grandparents taught you), you can believe it for a myriad of reasons that have nothing to do with physical evidence.
For the skeptic, as I once was, there are physical miracles to soften our hard hearts. Physical evidence that we can examine (or have been examined by much more qualified people). Some of us are Thomas and need to put our hands in His wounds to know that it is really Him.
While there may not be an obligation to me or anyone who wants to discuss the matter to disprove such things, there is an obligation to Christ to know Him, to love Him, and to do what He tells you to do. I'd say that if Christ is really, physically present in the Eucharist, and you turn your nose up at it out of pride, you'd have some explaining to do.
Asking to disprove the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, or the Shroud of Turin, or the Miracle of the Sun in Fatima, Portugal aren't an exercise for me. They are for the one who is challenged. It is a challenge to grow in your faith. To know God like you didn't even know you could know Him! Its not a petty debate tactic, its a heartfelt invitation!
May 12, 2025, 11:28 AM
KSGM
I very-much appreciate all of you. Our ongoing conversations here in this thread, and recent conversation in the "new pope" thread, have been spiritually invigorating for me.
The topic of the eucharist and its presence in the early church have been very thought-provoking for me. I appreciate the Catholics providing feedback in these conversations. The fact that Christ didn't immediately leave behind a book, but rather a church, is a simple but powerful notion.
I have harbored a small personal beef with Catholicism lately. I have experienced such growth in my faith over the past year; as in the honest acceptance of the triune God in my life. I didn't experience this in my formative years in the Catholic church, and thought it was because they did things wrong. These ideas were bolstered by the inter-denominational negativity that can be experienced in Protestant churches, when considering Catholicism.
However, a recent coincidence has changed my outlook entirely. Our conversations in these various threads, combined with a conversation with my mother and a film that I watched, have given me a new perspective.
The general misconceptions about Catholicism were largely ironed-out by you fine gentlemen.
The film I watched is called "Courageous". It's a pretty darn good Christian film, and I recommend it. The central theme is a husband and father being a servant-leader of his household; a servant of God, and a leader for his family toward the very same.
The conversation with my mother happened to touch on the fact that my father didn't do that for my family. He's a good man, but I am definitely not sure of his relationship with Christ. Needless to say, he didn't go to church with us, and didn't lead our family with a Godly focus either. I am not looking for somewhere to place blame, necessarily, but I am eager to understand this stuff, as it helps iron the wrinkles in my way forward as a servant of God.
Figured I'd share with y'all. Thanks for the ongoing conversation. May God be with all of you.
May 12, 2025, 12:24 PM
Cous2492
quote:
Originally posted by KSGM: I very-much appreciate all of you. Our ongoing conversations here in this thread, and recent conversation in the "new pope" thread, have been spiritually invigorating for me.
The topic of the eucharist and its presence in the early church have been very thought-provoking for me. I appreciate the Catholics providing feedback in these conversations. The fact that Christ didn't immediately leave behind a book, but rather a church, is a simple but powerful notion.
I have harbored a small personal beef with Catholicism lately. I have experienced such growth in my faith over the past year; as in the honest acceptance of the triune God in my life. I didn't experience this in my formative years in the Catholic church, and thought it was because they did things wrong. These ideas were bolstered by the inter-denominational negativity that can be experienced in Protestant churches, when considering Catholicism.
However, a recent coincidence has changed my outlook entirely. Our conversations in these various threads, combined with a conversation with my mother and a film that I watched, have given me a new perspective.
The general misconceptions about Catholicism were largely ironed-out by you fine gentlemen.
The film I watched is called "Courageous". It's a pretty darn good Christian film, and I recommend it. The central theme is a husband and father being a servant-leader of his household; a servant of God, and a leader for his family toward the very same.
The conversation with my mother happened to touch on the fact that my father didn't do that for my family. He's a good man, but I am definitely not sure of his relationship with Christ. Needless to say, he didn't go to church with us, and didn't lead our family with a Godly focus either. I am not looking for somewhere to place blame, necessarily, but I am eager to understand this stuff, as it helps iron the wrinkles in my way forward as a servant of God.
Figured I'd share with y'all. Thanks for the ongoing conversation. May God be with all of you.
Thanks for that! Ongoing conversations like this typically start as a debate, morph into a discussion, and then open up into a deeper dive into how Christ works in our lives. That is, as long as there is maturity involved, which there is not shortness of here. I really appreciate you guys.
Courageous is a great film, and your analysis is spot on.
Just an interesting commentary on the Eucharist: Part of the Holy Rosary is spending time contemplating the mysteries of Christ's work here on earth. The second luminous mystery, said on Thursdays, is the Wedding Feast at Cana. Mary goes to Jesus and tells him that the Bride and Groom have run out of wine. He replies with something along the lines of, "Woman,what does this concern me? My hour has not yet come." Mary insists on mediating for the newlyweds with Jesus and tells the servants to, "Do whatever he tells you." Most people stop there with the analysis. Mary mediated the first miracle, water was turned to wine, and Jesus began his earthly mission. The Eucharist was kind of in the back of my head when saying the rosary and the issue of Transubstantiation was kind of bugging me. Not doubting it, just trying to have a deeper understanding of it. All at once, I remembered the next part of the story. Jesus has the servants fill the stone jugs with water, prays over them and they turn to wine. Buy not just any wine. The head servant said it was the "good wine." Your translation may vary, but the implications is that the Wine transformed by Jesus was much better than the wine the newlyweds served first. -A quick aside.... One great Catholic Theologian points out to keep an eye on that wine, Jesus is just getting started.- My point being that Jesus didn't make water that tasted like wine. Jesus didn't make a water-wine mix. Jesus made wine. The water's substance was transformed into good, pure, wine that was not to be confused with anything less. The details that John included were included for a reason, and I'd venture to say it wasn't just a compliment of Jesus' taste in wine.
Now is that alone proof of Transubstantiation? Probably not. But it is certainly a clue we can use to make our own conclusions.
A really really interesting topic if you are bored is biblical typology. The Bible is riddled with it and most protestants miss out on it. As an example, read the story of when King David is visited by the Ark. Then read the story of Mary visiting Elizabeth upon learning that she will give birth to Jesus. Those similarities are no coincidence and they have big implications. A simple 10 minute activity that anyone could do from their phone. 2 Samuel 6 and Luke 1.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Cous2492,
May 20, 2025, 11:45 AM
KSGM
The Pope, as a matter of salvation.
Whether something is "a matter of salvation" has been a recurring theme in this thread. When we debate a matter, it often boils down to whether belief or unbelief of the topic affects one's salvation. If it doesn't, then it's really not worth the potential ugliness brought-on by further debate.
Enter the Pope.
Who the Pope is and what we think of him doesn't stand to affect our salvation. However, who he is and what he prioritizes does have the potential to affect the salvation of (many) others. That's a big deal.This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,
May 21, 2025, 07:31 AM
Cous2492
quote:
Originally posted by KSGM: The Pope, as a matter of salvation.
Whether something is "a matter of salvation" has been a recurring theme in this thread. When we debate a matter, it often boils down to whether belief or unbelief of the topic affects one's salvation. If it doesn't, then it's really not worth the potential ugliness brought-on by further debate.
Enter the Pope.
Who the Pope is and what we think of him doesn't stand to affect our salvation. However, who he is and what he prioritizes does have the potential to affect the salvation of (many) others. That's a big deal.
I think that's a complicated issue, but I do think there is an answer to the question of whether or not the Pope (as an Office, and not an individual) has an affect on Salvation.
I am a firm believer in this; The New Covenant was a Sacrament before it was a document, according to the document. Meaning that the New Covenant isn't a book, it's the Eucharist. Christ's plan for salvation isn't as simple as believing. Even the devil believes in Christ.
Belief is a big part of it, but there is more. And I'm not speaking only of being a good person in your works. You must believe. You must do good works, which should be the fruit of your belief. But you must also keep to the commandments of Christ and to the Traditions He left with His Apostles.
Christ was explicit in His words in John 6. He also was explicit in His words at the Last Supper.
We, as 21st century Christians, often overlook the importance of the Jewish tradition of Passover, which is what Christ was celebrating in the upper room at the infamous Last Supper. Yeah, yeah, lamb, unleavened bread, all of that. But much like the Mass that is celebrated by modern Catholics, there were strict rubrics and prayers that were to be followed. Jesus made some pretty dramatic statements at the Last Supper that surely would have made his Apostles pause. "This is My Body?" This is the Cup of My Blood..." Do what in remembrance of Him?
Surely, the good Jewish men who heard this would have wondered these things and wondered what it all meant. One of the 12 rejected it big time, running off to the Sanhedrin to betray Him. The Last Supper wasn't just a meal. It wasn't just the Seder Supper celebrating the Passover. The Last Supper was the institution of the Holy Eucharist. The New Covenant. If the Last Supper on Thursday was just a meal, then Friday on Calvary was just a Roman execution! The eternal and perfect Sacrifice was made for the remission of sins and the salvation of man. Instructions were passed on to the Apostles. Jesus didn't add into the words of the Last Supper, "but all you have to do is believe in me" or "just read My book and figure it out for yourselves."
No, Jesus left a Church. Jesus left beautiful and meaningful Traditions. Jesus left His Church on the hands of the Apostles. Jesus left the Eucharist. There was no book... Not for another 300 years, anyway. Early Christians were Catholic Christians with real, liturgical worship. An altar. The recitation of the Word of God. The Sacrifice of the Mass. The Eucharist.
By modern, protestant standards, Christians couldn't even have existed until the 300s when, they must think, the Bible fell out of the sky in the form of a red-letter KJV that they could scour for proof texts, out of context, for their protestant pretexts. I mean no disrespect on this, but protestantism on its face is ridiculous for this very reason.
So to the question of the Pope, yes, the Papacy is necessary for salvation. Christ built His Church on the rock of St. Peter, gave him the Keys to the Kingdom, and gave him authority over the Church. The Church is the guardian of the Eucharist, the protector of the Tradition, and the refuge for sinners to find salvation. The Pope is the head of all of that. And there is a clear and unbroken line of successors from Simon bar Jonah to Robert Prevost; from Peter to Leo XIV. To do what Christ Commanded, you need the Church, and with the Church comes the Pope.
And thanks be to God, because I am not smart enough to figure this stuff out on my own.
May 21, 2025, 10:47 AM
Aglifter
How do you reconcile the salvation of the thief, with the requirement to do good works?
“By their works, you will know them.”
Most Protestants reject the bureaucracy of Rome, for that reason.
Heck, Luther didn’t intend to fracture Christendom. He wanted to get the thieves out of Rome.
May 21, 2025, 10:54 AM
KSGM
Mere belief is more without communion (The Eucharist) than communion is without belief.
I think the protestant perspective could be boiled down in such a way; regarding the Eucharist among myriad other Catholic traditions and doctrine.
I also mean no disrespect. I am actually gaining respect for (my fellow) Catholics in these discussions of ours.
The Protestant (Baptist) focus is on the comprehension and acknowledgement of the truth of the Triune God, and the resulting acceptance of the gift of salvation and the Holy Spirit into our lives that comes with it. Any other doctrine is almost completely neutered without the presence of this foundational aspect.
As previously mentioned, it is my (and likely others') belief that the Catholic focus on tradition, ritual, and execution of specific doctrine (Sacraments) distracts from the fundamental change in the heart that comes with belief and the presence of the Holy Spirit.
May 21, 2025, 11:23 AM
reloader-1
quote:
Originally posted by Aglifter: How do you reconcile the salvation of the thief, with the requirement to do good works?
“By their works, you will know them.”
The thief accepted his just punishment, admonished the other for his insults, and asked Jesus for his forgiveness.
Not sure how any of those don’t count as what Protestants refer to as “works”. In fact, we know of the good thief by his works, in that he spoke out, rather than have a private internal belief.
May 21, 2025, 11:27 AM
Cous2492
quote:
Originally posted by Aglifter: How do you reconcile the salvation of the thief, with the requirement to do good works?
“By their works, you will know them.”
Most Protestants reject the bureaucracy of Rome, for that reason.
Heck, Luther didn’t intend to fracture Christendom. He wanted to get the thieves out of Rome.
Did you know that the Catholic Church has made the "thief on the cross" a saint? He is St. Dismas. Protestants often cite the good thief as an argument for Sola Fide, or salvation through faith alone. St. Dismas faced circumstances that nobody before or since faced. He has Christ's promise that he will be with Him in Paradise. So that is compelling evidence of his salvation.
But to think of St. Dismas as not having any good works to go with his faith is false, especially given his circumstances.
Dismas first asks, "Have you no fear of the Lord?" which is a last minute recovery of one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit- Fear of the Lord. Second, Dismas makes a solemn and sincere confession. Third, and finally, Dismas performs the third spiritual work of mercy in admonishing the third man on the cross.
Dismas does more good works in a brief interaction with Christ on the Cross than many of us do in weeks. So his, albeit short, life as a Christian was full of good works.... As much as it could be given the circumstances.
Also, I'm not going to pretend to know how sincere Martin Luther's intent was and if it really was his intention to fracture Christ's Church. But that was the end result of his heretical ministry.
May 21, 2025, 11:33 AM
Cous2492
quote:
Originally posted by KSGM: Mere belief is more without communion (The Eucharist) than communion is without belief.
I think the protestant perspective could be boiled down in such a way; regarding the Eucharist among myriad other Catholic traditions and doctrine.
I also mean no disrespect. I am actually gaining respect for (my fellow) Catholics in these discussions of ours.
The Protestant (Baptist) focus is on the comprehension and acknowledgement of the truth of the Triune God, and the resulting acceptance of the gift of salvation and the Holy Spirit into our lives that comes with it. Any other doctrine is almost completely neutered without the presence of this foundational aspect.
As previously mentioned, it is my (and likely others') belief that the Catholic focus on tradition, ritual, and execution of specific doctrine (Sacraments) distracts from the fundamental change in the heart that comes with belief and the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Im not going to argue that many, if not most, Catholics don't "get" the sacraments. My biggest b**** with the church is MISERABLE catechesis. I experienced 13 years of nobody doing a good job of explaining the sacraments. The number of non-practicing or fallen away Catholics is proof of that. If one truly believed in the Eucharist, how could they leave?
The sacraments do not distract from the change of heart, they magnify it!
May 21, 2025, 11:48 AM
KSGM
quote:
they magnify it!
If, as you said, taught properly...
quote:
I experienced 13 years of nobody doing a good job of explaining the sacraments.
I agree with your feelings on the matter. As I have already expressed: I felt underserved by my Catholic education. I am now, through these conversations, since having been "saved" in the Baptist Church, seeing the potential value of the Sacraments that you believe-in.
May 21, 2025, 12:27 PM
Rey HRH
quote:
Originally posted by Cous2492:
Surely, the good Jewish men who heard this would have wondered these things and wondered what it all meant. One of the 12 rejected it big time, running off to the Sanhedrin to betray Him. The Last Supper wasn't just a meal. It wasn't just the Seder Supper celebrating the Passover. The Last Supper was the institution of the Holy Eucharist. The New Covenant. If the Last Supper on Thursday was just a meal, then Friday on Calvary was just a Roman execution! The eternal and perfect Sacrifice was made for the remission of sins and the salvation of man. Instructions were passed on to the Apostles. Jesus didn't add into the words of the Last Supper, "but all you have to do is believe in me" or "just read My book and figure it out for yourselves."
No, Jesus left a Church. Jesus left beautiful and meaningful Traditions. Jesus left His Church on the hands of the Apostles. Jesus left the Eucharist. There was no book... Not for another 300 years, anyway. Early Christians were Catholic Christians with real, liturgical worship. An altar. The recitation of the Word of God. The Sacrifice of the Mass. The Eucharist.
1) I agree that the Last Supper wasn't just a meal, but it was a Passover Seder, not just a Passover Seder.
The Passover Seder was commanded by God to the Israelites to celebrate it every 15th day of Nissan by the sacrifice and partaking of the Passover lamb that was selected on the 10th day and examined to ensure it was without blemish. By most accounts, what we call Palm Sunday which was Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem when the people greeted him occurred on the 10th day of Nissan, the same day the Passover lambs were being chosen. Over the next several days, Jesus cleansed the temple just in parallel with the Jewish households cleaning out their houses of leaven for the feast of unleavened bread which coincides with Passover. Jesus was also examined by various groups in the temple and none could find fault with him just like the Passover lambs were examined for any blemishes.
The Passover meal by then had evolved over the years to memorialize the first Passover night with the elements of the meal representing various aspects of slavery, their freedom, and God's sustenance through the Promised land.
It is said that Jesus took the bread that represented at the time the Passover lamb. That symbolism was necessitated by the times the first temple was destroyed or when they were in exile. So Jesus took that bread and was saying, "This bread which used to represent the Passover lamb which was sacrificed for your freedom from slavery to Egypt, now represents my body which will be sacrificed for your freedom from slavery to sin."
That bread is the last bread eaten and was the larger piece broken off from the middle bread of three pieces of bread earlier in the Passover meal. The larger piece was set aside until it was time to be eaten and symbolizes the future and final redemption foretold by Zechariah. The smaller piece of the middle bread is allowed to drop to the table as the three pieces of bread is held high. It represented the manna that God provided the Israelites in the dessert. Jesus earlier claimed He was the bread that was sent down from heaven.
The cup of wine spoken of in the gospels that Jesus took is the third cup of wine which is known as the Cup of Redemption, symbolizes the third promise of divine redemption in Exodus 6:6-7 "I will redeem you." It was this cup that Jesus then said, "This cup now symbolized my blood which is shed for the remission of sins."
Jesus took elements of an important meal commanded by God to memorialize freedom from slavery in Egypt and gave them new symbolisms for the New Testament age.
2) I have to point out early Christians were not "Catholic Christians with real, liturgical worship." Early Christians were persecuted and executed in the Colosseum of Rome. The early Christians were burned alive in the emperor's gardens in Rome. Nero blamed the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD on the Christians. Those were the early Christians starting from the first Christian martyr, Stephen. They weren't focused on tradition, they were focused on spreading the gospel and making disciples of all nations. The Apostle Paul who wrote most of the 27 books in the New Testament at 48% said his goal is to be all things to all people so that by all possible means some might be saved.
More recently, I've been focusing on St. Augustine's wisdom: "In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity." I'm exploring the how to do charity part and trying to figure out the line that divides the essentials from the non-essentials.
"It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life – daily and hourly. Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual." Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning, 1946.
May 21, 2025, 02:38 PM
Cous2492
quote:
Originally posted by Rey HRH:
quote:
Originally posted by Cous2492:
Surely, the good Jewish men who heard this would have wondered these things and wondered what it all meant. One of the 12 rejected it big time, running off to the Sanhedrin to betray Him. The Last Supper wasn't just a meal. It wasn't just the Seder Supper celebrating the Passover. The Last Supper was the institution of the Holy Eucharist. The New Covenant. If the Last Supper on Thursday was just a meal, then Friday on Calvary was just a Roman execution! The eternal and perfect Sacrifice was made for the remission of sins and the salvation of man. Instructions were passed on to the Apostles. Jesus didn't add into the words of the Last Supper, "but all you have to do is believe in me" or "just read My book and figure it out for yourselves."
No, Jesus left a Church. Jesus left beautiful and meaningful Traditions. Jesus left His Church on the hands of the Apostles. Jesus left the Eucharist. There was no book... Not for another 300 years, anyway. Early Christians were Catholic Christians with real, liturgical worship. An altar. The recitation of the Word of God. The Sacrifice of the Mass. The Eucharist.
1) I agree that the Last Supper wasn't just a meal, but it was a Passover Seder, not just a Passover Seder.
The Passover Seder was commanded by God to the Israelites to celebrate it every 15th day of Nissan by the sacrifice and partaking of the Passover lamb that was selected on the 10th day and examined to ensure it was without blemish. By most accounts, what we call Palm Sunday which was Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem when the people greeted him occurred on the 10th day of Nissan, the same day the Passover lambs were being chosen. Over the next several days, Jesus cleansed the temple just in parallel with the Jewish households cleaning out their houses of leaven for the feast of unleavened bread which coincides with Passover. Jesus was also examined by various groups in the temple and none could find fault with him just like the Passover lambs were examined for any blemishes.
The Passover meal by then had evolved over the years to memorialize the first Passover night with the elements of the meal representing various aspects of slavery, their freedom, and God's sustenance through the Promised land.
It is said that Jesus took the bread that represented at the time the Passover lamb. That symbolism was necessitated by the times the first temple was destroyed or when they were in exile. So Jesus took that bread and was saying, "This bread which used to represent the Passover lamb which was sacrificed for your freedom from slavery to Egypt, now represents my body which will be sacrificed for your freedom from slavery to sin."
That bread is the last bread eaten and was the larger piece broken off from the middle bread of three pieces of bread earlier in the Passover meal. The larger piece was set aside until it was time to be eaten and symbolizes the future and final redemption foretold by Zechariah. The smaller piece of the middle bread is allowed to drop to the table as the three pieces of bread is held high. It represented the manna that God provided the Israelites in the dessert. Jesus earlier claimed He was the bread that was sent down from heaven.
The cup of wine spoken of in the gospels that Jesus took is the third cup of wine which is known as the Cup of Redemption, symbolizes the third promise of divine redemption in Exodus 6:6-7 "I will redeem you." It was this cup that Jesus then said, "This cup now symbolized my blood which is shed for the remission of sins."
Jesus took elements of an important meal commanded by God to memorialize freedom from slavery in Egypt and gave them new symbolisms for the New Testament age.
2) I have to point out early Christians were not "Catholic Christians with real, liturgical worship." Early Christians were persecuted and executed in the Colosseum of Rome. The early Christians were burned alive in the emperor's gardens in Rome. Nero blamed the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD on the Christians. Those were the early Christians starting from the first Christian martyr, Stephen. They weren't focused on tradition, they were focused on spreading the gospel and making disciples of all nations. The Apostle Paul who wrote most of the 27 books in the New Testament at 48% said his goal is to be all things to all people so that by all possible means some might be saved.
More recently, I've been focusing on St. Augustine's wisdom: "In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity." I'm exploring the how to do charity part and trying to figure out the line that divides the essentials from the non-essentials.
Wow, I was really taken back by your post; and not in a good way, I'm afraid. I'd like to point out some major errors in what you said. First, let's look at the "quote" you attributed to Christ at the Last Supper. You said that Jesus said, "This bread which used to represent the Passover lamb which was sacrificed for your freedom from slavery to Egypt, now represents my body which will be sacrificed for your freedom from slavery to sin." Jesus did NOT say any of that. No account from the Gospels gives that quote or anything even close to that quote. I copied and pasted it into google and found nothing but a link to your post. It is completely and totally fabricated. How can we have an open and honest discussion about the Eucharist if you are going to just make stuff up?
I stand by my statement about the New Covenant being a sacrament before it was a document, according to the document. Which leads me to addressing your second point. The early Christians were absolutely Catholic in their practices and were absolutely practicing liturgical worship. Its in the Bible, meaning that it predates the Bible. Here is a quick summary I put together.
Evidence for Liturgical Worship in Early Christianity:
1. New Testament Descriptions Acts 2:42 says the early Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers" — indicating a recognizable and repeatable form of worship.
1 Corinthians 11 and 14 refer to structured worship gatherings, including the Lord’s Supper and orderly use of spiritual gifts, suggesting an early liturgical rhythm.
2. Jewish Roots Early Christians were largely Jewish and continued to worship in synagogues and the Temple (Acts 3:1). Jewish worship was liturgical — including fixed prayers, psalms, and readings — and this influenced Christian worship deeply.
The Shema, Psalms, and other Jewish liturgical elements likely formed the backbone of early Christian prayer life.
3. Early Writings The Didache (1st century) gives instructions on prayers, fasting, and the Eucharist, showing an organized and repeated form of worship.
Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century) in his First Apology describes Christian worship with a set pattern: readings, a sermon, intercessions, the kiss of peace, the Eucharist — all clearly liturgical in structure.
4. The Eucharist The celebration of the Eucharist was the central act of early Christian worship and followed a pattern that was both Sacramental and Liturgical. The language used in Eucharistic prayers from early documents (e.g., the Apostolic Tradition attributed to Hippolytus) shows formal, repeated structures.
Spreading the Gospel is spreading the New Covenant. Not the Bible. The Bible is a wholly Catholic document, inspired by God and compiled by the Church in the fourth century. Four centuries of Christians followed the traditions passed on from Christ to the Apostles. They didn't pass on books. They said Mass. They knew Him in the Breaking of the Bread.
May 21, 2025, 03:24 PM
chellim1
quote:
Originally posted by Cous2492:
So to the question of the Pope, yes, the Papacy is necessary for salvation. Christ built His Church on the rock of St. Peter, gave him the Keys to the Kingdom, and gave him authority over the Church. The Church is the guardian of the Eucharist, the protector of the Tradition, and the refuge for sinners to find salvation. The Pope is the head of all of that. And there is a clear and unbroken line of successors from Simon bar Jonah to Robert Prevost; from Peter to Leo XIV. To do what Christ Commanded, you need the Church, and with the Church comes the Pope.
And thanks be to God, because I am not smart enough to figure this stuff out on my own.
Cous, I think I agree with much of what you have to say, however, I disagree with your conclusion. I don't think the Papacy is necessary for salvation. Salvation is personal, and individual. The Papacy may be necessary for the continuation of the Church but not for individual salvation. We've had good Popes and bad Popes through the years. The good ones may be helpful in leading many to faith through the Church but I don't believe the bad ones impede the salvation of anyone nor are they necessary to individual salvation.
"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown
"The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor
May 21, 2025, 04:01 PM
Cous2492
quote:
Originally posted by chellim1:
quote:
Originally posted by Cous2492:
So to the question of the Pope, yes, the Papacy is necessary for salvation. Christ built His Church on the rock of St. Peter, gave him the Keys to the Kingdom, and gave him authority over the Church. The Church is the guardian of the Eucharist, the protector of the Tradition, and the refuge for sinners to find salvation. The Pope is the head of all of that. And there is a clear and unbroken line of successors from Simon bar Jonah to Robert Prevost; from Peter to Leo XIV. To do what Christ Commanded, you need the Church, and with the Church comes the Pope.
And thanks be to God, because I am not smart enough to figure this stuff out on my own.
Cous, I think I agree with much of what you have to say, however, I disagree with your conclusion. I don't think the Papacy is necessary for salvation. Salvation is personal, and individual. The Papacy may be necessary for the continuation of the Church but not for individual salvation. We've had good Popes and bad Popes through the years. The good ones may be helpful in leading many to faith through the Church but I don't believe the bad ones impede the salvation of anyone nor are they necessary to individual salvation.
Thats the miracle of the Papacy! We have had many bad popes, Bergoglio (Francis) is near the top of that list. But in all of those bad Popes not one has changed the dogmas of the Catholic Church. There was plenty of heresy, plenty of scandal, plenty of very non-Catholic behavior. But not one of them changed the Church teaching.
Controversial, but honest, statement: I do not believe there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Therefore, I believe the papacy is a necessary part of salvation. Obviously there are some caveats to that, like the obscure scenario of a person becoming Catholic in a state of Sedevacantism due to the pope's passing and then that person dies before a new pope is elected. But thats an oddball and explainable situation. My belief is that one must practice the Catholic faith to truly live the Gospel. Part of the Catholic faith is the papacy, so it becomes a necessary part of salvation.
I know that statement may come off as rude or offensive, and that it may be a very contentious point for discussion. I hope that those who read it know that it comes from a place of brotherly love and not from an argumentative place. I hate when people arent honest with me, so I feel like i would not be honest if I didnt answer the question directly.
May 21, 2025, 04:26 PM
KSGM
quote:
Controversial, but honest, statement: I do not believe there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Therefore, I believe the papacy is a necessary part of salvation.
Controversial indeed. Especially considering my personal experience.
I undoubtedly owe my Catholic roots some credit for my current saved condition, but to think that it isn't "true salvation" unless I find myself back in the Catholic church is something I find very hard to believe at this time. I would be ignorant to declare it an impossibility, as I am still growing in my connection with the Triune God; I'll certainly keep the notion in contention, moving forward.
The Didache is a compelling piece of evidence for the Eucharist and liturgy in the early, arguably pre-bible, church. I don't think much of New Testament mentions of "breaking bread", as that could (and does) refer to merely sharing a meal; even if it is in the context of a worship gathering.
On the papal influence: If the Pope did affect a change in the catechism, he would be in a position to either enhance or impede progress toward salvation. I think the Pope can affect a change in attitudes of church teachers without affecting a literal change in the curriculum, thereby potentially impeding (or enhancing) salvation progress.
I appreciate the ongoing conversation, and the return of previous regular contributors.
quote:
I hope that those who read it know that it comes from a place of brotherly love and not from an argumentative place.
I do believe you, when you say this, and this is how I receive all of your contributions.
May 21, 2025, 04:33 PM
Gustofer
quote:
Originally posted by KSGM:
quote:
Controversial, but honest, statement: I do not believe there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Therefore, I believe the papacy is a necessary part of salvation.
Controversial indeed. Especially considering my personal experience.
I undoubtedly owe my Catholic roots some credit for my current saved condition, but to think that it isn't "true salvation" unless I find myself back in the Catholic church is something I find very hard to believe at this time. I would be ignorant to declare it an impossibility, as I am still growing in my connection with the Triune God; I'll certainly keep the notion in contention, moving forward.
It is, in a general sense, what the Church teaches. However, as Cous2492 points out, there are caveats to that position. I would encourage you to pick up a copy of the Catechism (or Google it - Catholic Answers is a decent site) for a fuller explanation. It is not quite as simple as you must be a card carrying Catholic or you'll burn in hell for all eternity.
________________________________________________________ "Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil." Doug Patton.
May 21, 2025, 04:51 PM
Cous2492
quote:
Originally posted by KSGM:
quote:
Controversial, but honest, statement: I do not believe there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Therefore, I believe the papacy is a necessary part of salvation.
Controversial indeed. Especially considering my personal experience.
I undoubtedly owe my Catholic roots some credit for my current saved condition, but to think that it isn't "true salvation" unless I find myself back in the Catholic church is something I find very hard to believe at this time. I would be ignorant to declare it an impossibility, as I am still growing in my connection with the Triune God; I'll certainly keep the notion in contention, moving forward.
The Didache is a compelling piece of evidence for the Eucharist and liturgy in the early, arguably pre-bible, church. I don't think much of New Testament mentions of "breaking bread", as that could (and does) refer to merely sharing a meal; even if it is in the context of a worship gathering.
On the papal influence: If the Pope did affect a change in the catechism, he would be in a position to either enhance or impede progress toward salvation. I think the Pope can affect a change in attitudes of church teachers without affecting a literal change in the curriculum, thereby potentially impeding (or enhancing) salvation progress.
I appreciate the ongoing conversation, and the return of previous regular contributors.
quote:
I hope that those who read it know that it comes from a place of brotherly love and not from an argumentative place.
I do believe you, when you say this, and this is how I receive all of your contributions.
I read your posts and admire the way you think. I can tell that this isn't a debate for you, its a quest for the truth. It's genuine. I like that a lot.
I think you'd really like Dr. Scott Hahn. Here is a short video in a series he has on the papacy.
Originally posted by Cous2492: I think you'd really like Dr. Scott Hahn.
His Rome Sweet Home is a good read. His autobiography, if you will.
________________________________________________________ "Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil." Doug Patton.
May 21, 2025, 08:18 PM
KSGM
I asked the Pastor of the church I attend about communion specifically. What he said surprised me, in that it is not entirely dissimilar from Catholic tradition.
He said communion is an ordinance that serves to memorialize Jesus' actions during the Last Supper.
He said that someone must be saved and thoroughly repentant in order to (properly) participate. This seems to parallel the Catholic requirement that communion participants be in a "state of grace". All of this is made clear to the congregation during the moments preceding the communion.
He referred me to 1 Corinthians 11, as a scriptural reference. This scripture in itself is more evidence that Churches were performing something akin to a Eucharistic Sacrament in the early church.
Our church performs communion roughly quarterly. I say roughly because he said he doesn't adhere to strict schedule, when it comes to communion.
He gave me the impression that he takes it quite seriously, and that is part of why he chooses to make it more infrequent than some other churches.
I look forward to my first communion as an honest believer. Though I have taken communion many times in my youth, this will be the first time that it'll come with the weight of it's intended meaning, as motivated by The Spirit now residing in me.
