Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Joy Siawala

denominations

13 posts in this topic

Hello I wanted to ask if one can name the church one goes to, why they go to the Church and your opinion on why there are many churches.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I go to a Catholic church. One reason why I go to this church is because I believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist (to Catholics this is explained by the term Transubstantiation);although other Christian groups also believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist (e.g., East Orthodox and Lutherans). In addition, I can go to any Catholic church in the world and feel that I am home. For example, when I went to church in Tokyo, Japan, I can follow the order of the mass (the format was the same back home) even though Japanese was the vernacular language spoken in that church. 

I think there are many churches because different groups hold differing opinions on things. For example, one group may believe in papal authority and another group may disagree. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Slayerofdragon said:

 I go to a Catholic church. One reason why I go to this church is because I believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist (to Catholics this is explained by the term Transubstantiation);although other Christian groups also believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist 

This is interesting. I am glad you believe in Jesus we totally are on the same page there but am left with questions on   Jesus being present in the Eucharist. Christians must base their doctrines and practices from the Bible. So does your  belief on this have any scriptural basis because Christ affirmed scripture in His discourses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Joy Siawala said:

This is interesting. I am glad you believe in Jesus we totally are on the same page there but am left with questions on   Jesus being present in the Eucharist. Christians must base their doctrines and practices from the Bible. So does your  belief on this have any scriptural basis because Christ affirmed scripture in His discourses. 

Yes, there is scriptural evidence for the belief that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. 

Here are some of the passages:

1) John 6 51:68

    In Jegsy Scaar's Ask the Catholic Thread she explains this bible passage. The question given to her was 

Why do Catholics believe bread and wine is the literal body and blood of Christ?

Here is her response:

Great question! I reckon that's probably one of the most commonly asked questions about Catholicism, so I'm glad I can get it answered.

Why do we believe it's really His body and blood? Because He said so. If you look at John 6, at about 6:51 is when Jesus tells the Jewish multitudes that the bread and wine is really His body and blood (It's pretty long, but I'll give you it all):

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”\

If you look at that passage, there is absolutely nothing there to suggest that Jesus is speaking symbolically. In fact, He doesn't just say, "This bread is my flesh", He emphasises it several times: "My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them".

Now some argue, "Well, in the New Testament, Jesus also says that He's a "door" and a "vine", and he's clearly speaking symbolically there, so why not when He calls the bread and wine His flesh and blood?" Well, there's a huge difference. When Jesus says, "I am the vine", there's no one in the crowd who misunderstands Him and says, "Oh, how can this man be a plant?" They get that He's talking symbolically. And if Jesus was talking symbolically, and the people misunderstood Him, then why does He not correct them? In John 4:32, Jesus says: “I have food to eat that you know nothing about,” which the disciples misunderstand to mean that He has literal food with Him, but He corrects them: “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work." So if He corrects them there, then why would He not correct a misunderstanding about His body and blood? Clearly, there's no misunderstanding.

With that in mind, there's really only two possibilities. Either, Jesus was talking symbolically. The Jews all took it literally, were horrified because what He said sounded so shocking, and refused to believe Him. Rather than correct an honest misunderstanding, Jesus instead allowed them to leave Him, even thought that meant they'd miss out on the message of Eternal Life, and go back to their families and friends and spread this misunderstanding to them. That all seems rather unlikely.

The other option: Jesus was talking literally. The Jews took it exactly as they were supposed to, did not want to accept His teaching, and left Him. Jesus then tells the Twelve that if they don't want to accept what He's taught them, they can leave too. (Clearly, it's really important to Him that everyone believes Him about this) 

That's why we believe that it's Christ's literal body and blood. Because He told us so.

To add here, throughout this passage, Jesus doesn't soften his stance or make no attempt to correct "misunderstandings".  In John 6:60 we read that many disciples of Jesus left him because they believe it was a hard saying. If what Jesus said was a misunderstanding  if he had erred in someway, you would think he would call his disciples back and correct it. Instead, Jesus would repeat himself (e.g., four times Jesus said they would have to "eat my flesh and drink my blood') in the passage. 

2)1 Corinthians 10:16

The verse reads: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"  For a Catholic this means that when he receives Communion, he participates in the Body and Blood of Christ and not just see the bread and wine as symbols.

3) Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:17-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

In these passages, Catholics believe Jesus is saying that when you eat the bread and drink the cup, you are consuming his body and blood. For example, in Matthew 26:26-28 we read:"Take and eat, this is my body". Then he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

Hope my post answers your question. 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I see thanks for sharing. I see these quotes around as a member of the church do you agree with the picture quote

13882217_622631801231349_2556696842317798444_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, I don't know what to make of the quote because I don't know the context of which it was written. Was it written to address a specific audience or a general topic? Why did Fr. Brady make the address? I don't have those answers. What I do know is this: Historically, Catholics were the first Christians and Sunday had a special place of honor within the early Christian community.  For example, in the Acts of the Apostles (Act 20:7) we read: "On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread". "Breaking bread" refers to the celebration of the Eucharist (see Matthew 26:26 and Mark 14:22). Furthermore, Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday (John 20: 1-18) and appeared to his disciples that evening (John 20:19). and Paul ordered the Corinthians to gather their offertory collection on a Sunday (1 Corinthians 16:2) and this set the scriptural precedents Catholics follow today of gathering our offerings on Sunday during Mass. This is some scriptural evidence why Catholics observe Sunday. 

You don't trouble me with your questions. Thanks for asking them. Feel free to PM me with your questions. I am glad we can share and discuss these things too. I just hope my answers suffice. 

What church do you go to?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Seventh Day Adventist and I am very interested in hearing other's beliefs it's very interesting for me. I have learnt alot so far from you. I am impressed with your Bible reading culture most Christians don't read it any more. May God lead you in more truth. You can ask me if you have any questions

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As interesting as these discussions on Eucharist, Saturday vs Sunday etc are, I think it would be best to keep their discussion to dedicated threads as it is derailing this thread and allows for a better focus and discussion if these things are discussed separately. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right am New though still getting my way around. Still figuring out how things are done

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello,

I attend a baptist christian Church even if I can also often find myself in a charismatic or penticostal church. I was born in a baptist community, even if I see its flaws, I keep believing that every religion has its good and its bad sides.

I am persuaded that if church-gojng  people would stop arguing and spending most of their time upon subjects that are causing division among them, we would end up with less religions and denominations. Salvation is strctly personnal, whereas "RELIGION" is forcing people to have the same life style. In other words, a different interpretation of the bible  creates another denomination,...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I attend a Lutheran church, and have spent a lot of time in Catholic churches, although to me which denomination you go to is generally less important so long as you find one where you can worship God.

As for why there are different denominations, I'm going to go into full on academic mode here. ;) It seems to me that denominations largely stem from the two primary ways of understanding how we learn about God and the Bible:

It's up to the church to understand the Bible, and they guide individuals in the right teachings: While we continue to refer to the Bible, we recognize that there are different ways to interpret it. In the event of a conflict, we defer to the historical tradition within the worldwide church. Additionally, we trust that the church as a whole will guide its members to make the right decisions for any issues of the day that come. This is the main view of Catholics, and to a lesser extent Anglicans and Methodists. The main criticism of this view is that the church is still led by fallible humans and sometimes has made decisions that, in retrospect, were not in line with what we feel matches God's will (sale of indulgences, Crusades, etc.). The centralized authority of these denominations tends to make them fewer in number (with only a handful of major ones), but they are much larger in size.

It's up to the individual to understand the Bible, and they should decide for themselves the right teachings: The technical term for this is sola scriptura (Latin for "scripture alone"). Basically, the only infallible teaching is the Bible, and traditions, even those held by the larger church, can be a hindrance to that understanding. Lutherans, Baptists, and the vast majority of denominations (including "non-denominational" churches) fall into this category. The main criticism of this view is that without an authority to weigh in on the correct interpretation of scripture, there will be a lot of divisions as people will read a Bible passage and come to two (or more) contradicting interpretations, both of which they feel is correct. For instance, should a Christian be baptized by immersion or is pouring water on them enough? There's also disagreements on how much of the Bible applies to today and how much was only relevant to the culture at the time it was written. Because of these differing interpretations, there are thousands and thousands of such denominations worldwide of varying sizes.

A lot of divisive issues for Christians, particularly with what is or isn't a sin and how we should live our life as Christians, tend to come back to these two differing views. I recognize that some of these differences can seem very divisive (early Christianity were divided over whether or not Christians should follow Jewish dietary laws. Today, a major division is over homosexuality). There aren't a lot of easy answers, especially when the stakes feel very big.

There's of course the question of "why can't we stop arguing and making divisions?". My personal observation is that the former group tends to respond by saying "Let's unify together as we take our journey of faith, with the guidance of those who know best." The latter tends to respond by saying "I don't trust others telling me how to live out my faith. Let's each just focus on our own journey." Is one better or worse? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that it's not an easy problem to solve.

Despite all of those big debates, one thing that the vast majority of Christians do agree on is our understanding of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, as well as how we are saved. You may have heard the Nicene Creed in your church. Those words have been repeated by Christians worldwide for nearly 1700 years to show our unified understanding of all of these fundamental beliefs, the ones that we feel are the most important. 

TL/DR: Denominations happen because we have disagreements over how we learn from God, and in response to that, how we understand how to live our lives. But we do have several beliefs that we are united in, and that's what's important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0