-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Did the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday?
- Thread starter Cribstyl
- Start date
Meowzltov
Freylekher Yid
- Aug 3, 2014
- 18,602
- 4,463
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Others
And of course here they argue their case for "Ten Commandments NOT Abolished" -
2056 The word "Decalogue" means literally "ten words."11 God revealed these "ten words" to his people on the holy mountain. They were written "with the finger of God,"12 unlike the other commandments written by Moses.13 They are pre-eminently the words of God. They are handed on to us in the books of Exodus 14 and Deuteronomy.15 Beginning with the Old Testament, the sacred books refer to the "ten words,"16 but it is in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ that their full meaning will be revealed.
2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations.They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. the Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.
2063.... the words of the Decalogue remain likewise for us Christians. Far from being abolished, they have received amplification and development from the fact of the coming of the Lord in the flesh.26
2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christiansand that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 The Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."29
(Application in James 2)
2069 The Decalogue forms a coherent whole. Each "word" refers to each of the others and to all of them; they reciprocally condition one another. the two tables shed light on one another; they form an organic unity. To transgress one commandment is to infringe all the others.30 One cannot honor another person without blessing God his Creator. One cannot adore God without loving all men, his creatures. the Decalogue brings man's religious and social life into unity.
===========================
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Your quote from the *commentary* on the Baltimore Catechimism is basically an informed opinion, worth as much as my own informed opinion. And as little. It carries no weight. The author talks about the Lord's Day in the OT. I say there is no Lord's Day in the OT. I've backed up my claim with evidence. Basically we are both on the same level and I've documented my opinion. i win.
THANK YOU for at last rendering the quote from the Baltimore catechism. It basically states what I've already told you, that the solemnity was switched from the Sabbath to Sunday. No surprise there.
The rest of your quotes basically say that the Catholic church follows the ten commandments. SURE. We've already discussed this. What is your question?????? You already understand that the CC observes the sabbath commandment by honoring the Lord's Day on Sunday. You don't have to like that, but that's the facts.
I don't see anything new here at all. Everything has already been discussed. Unless you have a new point or some new question, the topic is exhausted.
Unless you want to discuss my Ignatius quote. You've never dealt with it.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,342
- 11,900
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Except for the tiny detail that your opinion is not held forth as an ideal RCIA text is it?
And of course the fact that John Paul II agrees with Leo Trese on this point about the Lord's Day being in the OT - the Sabbath Commandment of the OT - does not hurt Leo Trese as being a valid RC source.
Or... we could come here to this section of the board and just read what anybody happens to think on a given subject and "some" would argue that we are getting just as reliable info that way.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,342
- 11,900
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
I refer you to a number of my earlier posts where points are made -- and are apparently irrefutable.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,342
- 11,900
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Not a question - an observation in keeping with the title of this thread. The RCC changed the commandment - pointing it to week day 1 - and so now they still affirm all TEN of the TEN commandments - because they have edited/repointed the Sabbath Commandment.
And as both John Paul II and Leo Trese point out - this means they took the Lord's Day as given by God in the OT - in the TEN Commandments and repointed that Sabbath commandment to week-day-1.
Hence the title of this thread and the applicability of the facts so often quoted
Upvote
0
Meowzltov
Freylekher Yid
- Aug 3, 2014
- 18,602
- 4,463
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Others
I've replied to all your points. If you have any questions, i refer you to my previous posts. If you would like to address my ignatius post, I'm game for that. Otherwise, it would seem we have exhausted the subject.
Upvote
0
Meowzltov
Freylekher Yid
- Aug 3, 2014
- 18,602
- 4,463
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Others
I've replied to all your points on more than one occasion. If you want to reply to my Ignatius quote, that would be great. Otherwise, there is no reason for you to keep pounding the sand.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,342
- 11,900
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Ok but I think you would agree that if instead of quoting Pope John Paul II and Leo Trese - on the teaching about the Lord's Day in the OT - from an RC perspective - I simply posted "well here is what someone who has at some time taught an RCIA class says..." it would fall something short of Pope John Paul II for acceptability to readers in general.
Not saying you need to accept my sources.
In any case you have agreed that the RCC continues to accept TEN Commandments and that the Sabbath Commandment authority is transferred to week-day-1 by the RCC which seems to be the point related to the title of this thread that I was also making.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,342
- 11,900
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,342
- 11,900
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
I did ask you how a quote that makes no reference to the Lord's Day at all is supposed to refute the point John Paul II makes about the Lord's Day in the OT. Did you respond to that?
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,342
- 11,900
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes but what good does it do since he makes no reference to the Lord's day in that text? We were talking about the Lord's day in the OT - and you brought up Ignatius - as if he had said "The Lord's Day did not exist in the OT times".
Upvote
0
Meowzltov
Freylekher Yid
- Aug 3, 2014
- 18,602
- 4,463
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Others
What I'm trying to explain to you, if you would LISTEN, is that the person who wrote the commentary has NO AUTHORITY, just like I have no authority. I'm completely free to disregard him, and I do in fact disregard him. He is an idiot.
Upvote
0
Meowzltov
Freylekher Yid
- Aug 3, 2014
- 18,602
- 4,463
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Others
Yes, I did respond. I requoted the text, and highlighted in bold red where he mentions the Lord's Day. You said Ignatius did not mention the Lord's Day. Clearly you were wrong.
Upvote
0
Meowzltov
Freylekher Yid
- Aug 3, 2014
- 18,602
- 4,463
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Others
I posted you the quote a second time with "the Lord's day" highlighted in red to refute you. Here it is a
THIRD time:::
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,342
- 11,900
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
1. As with all the Ignatius "fakes" / forged and fake letters, there are interpolations and inserts "added" (details made up) in the Magnesian letter giving us a blatant mistranslation "Lord's Day"
2. And you never show how this quote - even if the added/inserted "Lord's Day" text is accepted - proves that the Lord's Day was not given by God in the OT just as even Pope John Paul II and Leo Trese's "The Faith Explained" both admit.
======================================================
The discussion concerning this passage in Kitto's Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature (article Lord's-day) is so full that it is here quoted somewhat at length as follows:
"But we must here notice one other passage of earlier date than any of these, which has often been referred to as bearing on the subject of the Lord's-day, though it certainly contains no mention of it. It occurs in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (about A.D. 100). The whole passage is confessedly obscure, and the text may be corrupt. It has, however, been understood in a totally different sense, and as referring to a distinct subject; and such we confess appears to us to be the most obvious and natural construction of it.
Then follows an analysis of the Greek text, showing that interpolating (adding) the word "day" does violence to the Grammatical construction, and to the obvious meaning of the passage. After such an analysis the Encyclopedia adds the following translation of the passage:
"If those who lived under the old dispensation have come to the newness of hope, no longer keeping Sabbaths, but living according to our Lord's life, (in which, as it were, our life has risen again, through him, and his death, [which some deny], through whom we have received the mystery, etc., . . . ) how shall we be able to live without him?" etc.
In this way (allowing for the involved style of the whole) the meaning seems to us simple, consistent, and grammatical, without any gratuitous introduction of words understood; and this view has been followed by many, though it is a subject on which considerable controversy has existed. On this view, the passage does not refer at all to the Lord's-day; but even on the opposite supposition, it cannot be regarded as affording any positive evidence to the early use of the term "Lord’s-day" (for which it is often cited) since the material word it hemera – day - is purely conjectural.It however offers an instance of that species of contrast, which the Early Fathers were so fond of drawing between the Christian and Jewish dispensations, and between the new life of the Christian and the ceremonial spirit of the law, to which the Lord's-day (if it be imagined to be referred to) is represented as opposed."
The foregoing rendering and interpretation are fully sustained by a late writer of high authority concerning Sunday, James Augustus Hessey, D. C. L. Relative to the passage under consideration he says:
"Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, is the first writer whom I shall quote. Here is a passage from his Epistle to the Magnesians, containing, as you will observe, a contrast between Judaism and Christianity, and, as an exemplification of it, an opposition between sabbatizing and living the life of the Lord …. If they, then, who were concerned in old things, arrived at a newness of hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord's life, by which our life sprung up by him, and by his death, (whom certain persons deny,) . . . how can we live without him, whose disciples even the prophets were, and in spirit waited for Him as their teacher? Wherefore, He whom they justly waited for, when He came, raised them up from the dead. . . . We have been made His disciples, let us live according to Christianity. (Bampton Lectures, preached before the University of Oxford, in the year 1860, p. 41.)
Sir William Domville makes the following just criticism:
"It seems not a little strange that the Archbishop should so widely depart from the literal translation, which is this: "No longer observing Sabbaths, but living according to the Lord's life, in which also our life is sprung up." For there is no phrase or word in the original which corresponds to the phrase, "the Lord's-day," or to the word "keeping." In a note referring to this word, the Archbishop says: "Or living according to;" so that he acknowledges this translation would be correct, but the consequence of his throwing it into a note is to lead the reader to suppose that, though the original may be so translated, the preferable translation is that which is given in the text, when in truth, so far from being a preferable translation it is no translation at all. (Sabbath, etc., p. 242.)
This examination of the passage has been made thus full in order to show that there is no reference to Sunday-keeping except by a fraudulent and unscholarly translation, and by interpolation. The examination has also proceeded upon the supposition that the Epistle is genuine. That it is not genuine will fully appear from the following testimony:
Dr. Killen gives the following history of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius:
"In the sixteenth century, fifteen letters were brought out from beneath the hoary mantle of antiquity, and offered to the world as the productions of the pastor of Antioch. Scholars refused to receive them on the terms required, and forthwith eight of them were admitted to be forgeries. In the seventeenth century, the seven remaining letters, in a somewhat altered form, again came forth from obscurity, and claimed to be the works of Ignatius. Again discerning critics refused to acknowledge their pretensions; but curiosity was aroused by this second apparition, and many expressed an earnest desire to obtain a sight of the real Epistles. Greece, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt were ransacked in search of them, and at length three letters are found. The discovery creates general gratulation; it is confessed that four of the Epistles, so lately asserted to be genuine, are apocryphal, and it is boldly said that the three now forthcoming are above challenge. But truth still refuses to be compromised, and sternly disowns these claimants for her approbation. The internal evidence of these three Epistles abundantly attests that, like the last three books of the Sibyl, they are only the last shifts of a grave imposture. (Ancient Church, sec. 2, chap. 3.)
In a note, Doctor Killen adds that "Bunsen rather reluctantly admits that the highest literary authority of the last century, the late Dr. Neander, declined to recognize even the Syriac version of the Ignatian Epistles."
Rev. Lyman Coleman testifies in the following words:
"Certain it is that these Epistles, if not an entire forgery, are so filled with interpolations and forgeries as to be of no historical value with reference to the primitive Christians and the apostolic churches. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. 1, see. 2, p. 48.)
John Calvin says:
"Nothing can be more absurd than the impertinences which have been published under the name of Ignatius. (Institutes, Book 1, chap. 13.)
Rev. Roswell D. Hitchcock, D. D., late Professor of Church History in Union Theological Seminary, in an article on the "Origin and Growth of Episcopacy," sums up the case as follows:
"1. Killen, the Irish Presbyterian, thinks these Ignatian Epistles all spurious, but is of the opinion that the Syriac three were the first to be forged in the time of Origen [185 - 254 A. D.], soon after which they were translated into Greek, and others were added before the time of Eusebius, who is admitted to have had the seven.
2. Baur and Hilgenfeld think them all spurious, but are of the opinion that the seven of the shorter Greek recensions were the first to be forged after 150 A.D., and that the Syriac three are simply fragmentary translations from the Greek.
3. Cureton, Bunsen, Ritschel, and Lipsius contend for the Genuineness of the Syriac three. This as the matter now stands, appears to be the weakest position of all.
4. A strong array of the ablest and soundest critics, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, such is Moehler and Gieseler, Hefele and Uhlhorn, may still be found on the side of the shorter Greek recension." (American Presbyterian and Theological Review, January, 1867.)
=============================================
Whether or not you accept that the work is forged - the fact is that the term "Lord's Day" is only to be read in the document by ADDING the word "Day" to it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Meowzltov
Freylekher Yid
- Aug 3, 2014
- 18,602
- 4,463
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Others
You have supplied at least some evidence (thank you) that the ignatius quote is fraudulant but it is not convincing. I would have to examine who it is that is making these claims. For example, how do I know that your sources are not simply men who are like you, driven to deem that the Lord's day is the sabbath and unwilling to admit a text that divides the lord's day from the sabbath?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
