Did the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday?

[Acts24Fourteen]

... Who do you think you are?...

One who loves you, and was sent to show you. I tell you the Truth, even as it is written.

 

[Acts24Fourteen]

Think that Catholicism is about the 'right to life'? Not when it comes to what they define as heretics:

John Paul II:

“...

Ioannes Paulus PP. II
Evangelium vitae
To the Bishops
Priests and Deacons
Men and Women religious
lay Faithful
and all People of Good Will
on the Value and Inviolability
of Human Life

1995.03.25 …

… 55. This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes. 43 There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself " (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.

Moreover, "legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State".44 Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason. 45

56. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence".46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".48

57. If such great care must be taken to respect every life, even that of criminals and unjust aggressors, the commandment "You shall not kill" has absolute value when it refers to the innocent person. And all the more so in the case of weak and defenceless human beings, who find their ultimate defence against the arrogance and caprice of others only in the absolute binding force of God's commandment.

In effect, the absolute inviolability of innocent human life is a moral truth clearly taught by Sacred Scripture, constantly upheld in the Church's Tradition and consistently proposed by her Magisterium. This consistent teaching is the evident result of that "supernatural sense of the faith" which, inspired and sustained by the Holy Spirit, safeguards the People of God from error when "it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals".49

Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 51

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. "Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action".52

As far as the right to life is concerned, every innocent human being is absolutely equal to all others. This equality is the basis of all authentic social relationships which, to be truly such, can only be founded on truth and justice, recognizing and protecting every man and woman as a person and not as an object to be used. Before the moral norm which prohibits the direct taking of the life of an innocent human being "there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the 'poorest of the poor' on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal".53

… In the Church the purpose of the penalty of excommunication is to make an individual fully aware of the gravity of a certain sin and then to foster genuine conversion and repentance. …

… It is true that history has known cases where crimes have been committed in the name of "truth". …

… Given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, on 25 March, the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, in the year 1995, the seventeenth of my Pontificate.

IOANNES PAULUS PP. II …



… 43 Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2263-2269; cf. also Catechism of the Council of Trent III, §§ 327-332.
44 Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2265.
45 Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 64, a. 7; Saint Alphonsus De' Liguori, Theologia Moralis, l. III, tr. 4, c. 1, dub.3.
46 Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2266.

47 Cf. ibid.
48 No. 2267.
49 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 12.
50 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 27.
51 Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 25.
52 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia Iura et Bona (5 May 1980), II: AAS 72 (1980), 546.
53 Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), 96: AAS 85 (1993), 1209. ...” [Evangelium Vitae; Ioannes Paulus PP. II] - http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...f_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

According to Rome, a heretic has no 'right to life', and is a spiritual murderer, thus not "innocent", and should be, if unable to be 'reformed', put to death as a rabid beast.

Documentation upon request.

Thus Acts 24:14, and the complete rejection of the 'pope' of Rome, and their false 'sunday'.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD, of the Holy [the] 7th Day, the Sabbath of the LORD thy God.

 

[Meowzltov]

There were a great many elders and presbyters - but only one apostolic successor in all of the NT - and he is found in Acts 1.

Can you stop beating around the bush and just say who you think it is, so that I can understand you, thanks.

 

[Meowzltov]

Not Roman Catholic

"Roman" Catholic is slang. It was a term that the Anglicans invented, and was originally derogatory, but over time lost its stigma (and in fact today most Catholics use it). But the correct and proper name is simply Catholic. If you go to the Vatican website, you will find it simply says the Catholic Church. It never uses the term Roman Catholic.

3. It is hardly likely that anyone writing in the early 2nd century meant to identify a single denomination within Christendom as "Catholic" the way we have it today.
4. of the 15 forged letters supposedly from Ignatius of Antioch - which one uses the term "Catholic"?

The Catholic Church is not a "denomination." A denomination is a religious sect that broke off from the Church or broke off from another denomination. The Catholic Church never broke off of anything. She goes back to Pentecost.

I'm of course referring to his letter to the Church in Smyrna in 108 AD. This is not considered one of the forged letters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch#Letters

The following seven letters preserved under the name of Ignatius are generally considered authentic:

• The Letter to the Ephesians,
• The Letter to the Magnesians,
• The Letter to the Trallians,
• The Letter to the Romans,
• The Letter to the Philadelphians,
• The Letter to the Smyrnaeans,
• The Letter to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna.

 

[Meowzltov]

Yes, I know, most in the slavery of catholicism, do not read their own materials

Catholicism has brought me closer to Jesus and made me a better Christian. If you really love our Lord and Savior, you will seek to be a part of His Church.

And ACTUALLY, I read the entire Catechism BEFORE I became a Catholic, as well as many other Catholic documents. I was a very well informed convert. It took a lot of convincing, as I had been very anti-Catholic in my Evangelical days.

 

[Meowzltov]

One who loves you, and was sent to show you. I tell you the Truth, even as it is written.

I would hope that everyone here is here in a spirit of love and desire to help others find the truth. But hopefully with a little less arrogance. I think that I'm right, but I always have an awareness that I'm fallible. I come into every debate with the idea that I can learn as well as teach.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm of course referring to his letter to the Church in Smyrna in 108 AD. This is not considered one of the forged letters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch#Letters

The following seven letters preserved under the name of Ignatius are generally considered authentic:

• The Letter to the Ephesians,
• The Letter to the Magnesians,
• The Letter to the Trallians,
• The Letter to the Romans,
• The Letter to the Philadelphians,
• The Letter to the Smyrnaeans,
• The Letter to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna.

I see so less than 50% of the 15 letters are hoped to be not fake - not forged - not manipulative.

If you were going to go to a deli for lunch and you learned that less than 50% of the food had no poison - would you go? Because that is the sort of deli you are recommending from a non-Catholic POV.

 

[BobRyan]

"Roman" Catholic is slang. It was a term that the Anglicans invented, and was originally derogatory, but over time lost its stigma (and in fact today most Catholics use it). But the correct and proper name is simply Catholic.

The Orthodox refer to themselves as "Catholic"
And as pointed out the "Westminster Confession of Faith" defines their own group as "Catholic"

The term "Roman Catholic" is not something you will ever find "confined to anti-Catholic" sources as we probably all know.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-Catholicism#toc257667

The fact that we disambiguate the term so as to distinguish between the Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, the Westminster Confession of Faith groups - is helpful for clarity - even though there might be some who would prefer to gloss over those divides as if they did not exist.

I see it being "specific" - so nobody thinks "oh you mean the Orthodox" or .. whoever.

Disciples of Christ were first called "Christians" in Antioch as a derogatory term as if "following Christ" or "Christ followers" would be a bad thing. Turns out "we like it". So fine non-Christians found it as a simple way to identify us - and why should Christians mind being associated with Christ? Turns out - there was no no real reason to mind that - rather we promote it.

I don't know the history of the Anglicans except that "they TOO" may view themselves as "Catholic" like the ACC -
Anglican Catholic Church -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Catholic_Church

The Orthodox-Catholic Church of America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox-Catholic_Church_of_America


To those not calling themselves Catholic - it is helpful to be specific.

But you bring up an interesting topic -- what if all the various flavors of "Catholic Church" object to their being called anything but "Catholic Church" and so -- confusion.

No matter because we also have this.


"... The "Oxford Dictionary" is probably right in assigning the recognition of "Roman Catholic" as the official style of the adherents of the Papacy in England to the negotiations for the Spanish Match (1618-24). In the various treaties etc., drafted in connection with this proposal, the religion of the Spanish princess is almost always spoken of as "Roman Catholic". Indeed in some few instances the word Catholic alone is used. This feature does not seem to occur in any of the negotiations of earlier date which touched upon religion,...it would appear that many Catholics themselves used the qualified form not only when addressing the outside public but in their domestic discussions. A short-lived association, organized in 1794 with the fullest approval of the vicars Apostolic, to counteract the unorthodox tendencies of the Cisalpine Club, was officially known as the "Roman Catholic Meeting" (Ward, "Dawn of Cath. Revival in England", II, 65). So, too, a meeting of the Irish bishops under the presidency of Dr. Troy at Dublin in 1821 passed resolutions approving of an Emancipation Bill then before a Parliament, in which they uniformly referred to members of their own communion as "Roman Catholics". Further, such a representative Catholic as Charles Butler in his "Historical Memoirs" (see e.g. vol. IV, 1821, pp. 185, 199, 225, etc., ) frequently uses the term "roman-catholic" [sic] and seems to find this expression as natural as the unqualified form. ..." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic Church is not a "denomination." A denomination is a religious sect that broke off from the Church or broke off from another denomination.

"A denomination in Christianity is a distinct religious body identified by traits such as a common name, structure, leadership and doctrine. Individual bodies, however, may use alternative terms to describe themselves, such as church or sometimes fellowship. Divisions between one group and another are defined by doctrine and church authority; issues such as the nature of Jesus, the authority of apostolic succession, eschatology, and papal primacy often separate one denomination from another. Groups of denominations often sharing broadly similar beliefs, practices, and historical ties are known as branches of Christianity.

Individual Christian groups vary widely in the degree to which they recognize one another. Several groups claim to be the direct and sole authentic successor of the church founded by Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD. Others, however, believe in denominationalism, where some or all Christian groups are legitimate churches of the same religion regardless of their distinguishing labels, beliefs, and practices. Because of this concept, some Christian bodies reject the term "denomination" to describe themselves, to avoid implying equivalency with other churches or denominations.

The Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination with over 1.2 billion members"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination

In the case of Lutherans - they were indeed made up of scholars, priests, theologians that broke off of the Papacy in Rome. So "I suppose" you could use "your definition" on them. But the denomination I am part of was not started by Catholic priests and theologians finding errors in the papacy. Neither did the Albigenses and Waldenses, Huguenot etc start that way.

 

[Meowzltov]

I see so less than 50% of the 15 letters are hoped to be not fake - not forged - not manipulative.

Irrelevant. The point is that the letter I referenced is not a fraud.

 

[Meowzltov]

The Orthodox refer to themselves as "Catholic"
And as pointed out the "Westminster Confession of Faith" defines their own group as "Catholic"

The term "Roman Catholic" is not something you will ever find "confined to anti-Catholic" sources as we probably all know.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Roman-Catholicism#toc257667

The fact that we disambiguate the term so as to distinguish between the Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, the Westminster Confession of Faith groups - is helpful for clarity - even though there might be some who would prefer to gloss over those divides as if they did not exist.

I see it being "specific" - so nobody thinks "oh you mean the Orthodox" or .. whoever.

Disciples of Christ were first called "Christians" in Antioch as a derogatory term as if "following Christ" or "Christ followers" would be a bad thing. Turns out "we like it". So fine non-Christians found it as a simple way to identify us - and why should Christians mind being associated with Christ? Turns out - there was no no real reason to mind that - rather we promote it.

I don't know the history of the Anglicans except that "they TOO" may view themselves as "Catholic" like the ACC -
Anglican Catholic Church -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Catholic_Church

The Orthodox-Catholic Church of America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox-Catholic_Church_of_America


To those not calling themselves Catholic - it is helpful to be specific.

But you bring up an interesting topic -- what if all the various flavors of "Catholic Church" object to their being called anything but "Catholic Church" and so -- confusion.

The fact that others call themselves catholic doesn't diminish the fact that the correct name of my church is the Catholic Church or that we can trace ourselves back to Pentecost. We usually deal with this semantical jumble by using a small case c when using catholic as universal as when the Orthodox, Anglicans, or Lutherans call themselves catholic, and a Capital C when referring to the Catholic Church centered in Rome under the Pope. Sometimes you get someone who gets in snit an wants to inapproprately use a capital C and cause problems, but in general it usually works out okay.

The Church did not originally have any name at all. It was considered a sect of Judaism. They called themselves the way, and later Nazarenes (literally Notzrim, from the rootword natsar which means to guard or watch, not to be confused with those from Nazareth). Later, the pagans called the believers Chrisitans, and the term stuck, but still the church was not called the Christian church. The first known name of the church was the Catholic Church, as per the document I referenced.

BTW the Orthodox Catholic Church in America is neither Orthodox nor Catholic. These folks ordain practicing homosexuals. It seems to me for a casual scan of the the wiki that they started out as orthodox but broke.

I remember trying to attend an Orthodox church when I lived in Pasadena. I was just trying to be ecumenical. It turned out to be a wierd cult, where the priest had begun receiving visions and written them down in a book that the church now accepted as on par with scripture. They had totally been kicked out of Orthodoxy. These things happen. Wierd.

 

[Meowzltov]

The Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination with over 1.2 billion members"

I disagree, even if Wikipedia says so. I grew up attending various denominations. I was anti-Catholic. I read Church history. It was obvious to me that Catholicism was not a denomination but stretched back to the original church. That blew me away. I had some serious rethinking to do. I took me a decade to think it through and it wasn't easy, especially given my strong prejudices.

 

[Meowzltov]

But the denomination I am part of was not started by Catholic priests and theologians finding errors in the papacy.

No, your denomination was started in the 1800s by a self styled prophet named Ellen White who was trying to fix Protestantism...a split off of the split offs. (I know its more complicated, but I'm cutting to the chase). You cannot trace the Seventh Day Adventists back 2000 years to Pentecost.

 

[BobRyan]

No, your denomination was started in the 1800s by a self styled prophet named Ellen White who was trying to fix Protestantism...a split off of the split offs. (I know its more complicated, but I'm cutting to the chase). You cannot trace the Seventh Day Adventists back 2000 years to Pentecost.

Your summary is quite true - the SDA church is based on the Bible - and the Bible tells us what Christians are supposed to do when God sends messages through His prophets.

But you are not correct to claim that the 17 year old Ellen Harmon (later Ellen White) was leading the church. She had her first vision in Dec of 1844 at age 17 and was virtually unknown to the group in 1844.

So while I find error in your account - I also find some of the things the RCC teaches are not true either.

I can trace the Christian church back to Pentecost - and I am a New Covenant Christian.

I can trace the 66 books of the Bible upon which our church is founded - back for 1000's of years.

I can trace the RCC back to about 1000 A.D. and the Catholic church back to around the 4th century A.D.

And as noted not everyone is an example of the RCC splitting

But for the purposes of this thread - we look to the source for changing the Law of God.

(Back to the topic)

 

[BobRyan]

"A denomination in Christianity is a distinct religious body identified by traits such as a common name, structure, leadership and doctrine. Individual bodies, however, may use alternative terms to describe themselves, such as church or sometimes fellowship. Divisions between one group and another are defined by doctrine and church authority; issues such as the nature of Jesus, the authority of apostolic succession, eschatology, and papal primacy often separate one denomination from another. Groups of denominations often sharing broadly similar beliefs, practices, and historical ties are known as branches of Christianity.

Individual Christian groups vary widely in the degree to which they recognize one another. Several groups claim to be the direct and sole authentic successor of the church founded by Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD. Others, however, believe in denominationalism, where some or all Christian groups are legitimate churches of the same religion regardless of their distinguishing labels, beliefs, and practices. Because of this concept, some Christian bodies reject the term "denomination" to describe themselves, to avoid implying equivalency with other churches or denominations.

The Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination with over 1.2 billion members"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination

In the case of Lutherans - they were indeed made up of scholars, priests, theologians that broke off of the Papacy in Rome. So "I suppose" you could use "your definition" on them. But the denomination I am part of was not started by Catholic priests and theologians finding errors in the papacy. Neither did the Albigenses and Waldenses, Huguenot etc start that way.

I disagree, even if Wikipedia says so. I grew up attending various denominations. I was anti-Catholic. I read Church history.

You are free to differ.

It was obvious to me that Catholicism was not a denomination but stretched back to the original church. That blew me away. I had some serious rethinking to do. I took me a decade to think it through and it wasn't easy, especially given my strong prejudices.

Well I am not Catholic - and part of the reason for that is that I read Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" - He is a Catholic -- and a Catholic Historian.

And I also read "The Faith Explained" by Leo Trese. A Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II.

Two good sources - to know the RCC perspective on what went on - and to know that some problems were apparent even by RC standards.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
There were a great many elders and presbyters - but only one apostolic successor in all of the NT - and he is found in Acts 1.

Can you stop beating around the bush and just say who you think it is, so that I can understand you, thanks.

1. In all of that - you came up with no example of apostolic succession from the Bible.
2. I point to Acts 1 - and it is not that long a chapter. But it does show Apostolic succession for one Apostle.

Judas.

 

[Meowzltov]

I can trace the Christian church back to Pentecost - and I am a New Covenant Christian.

There isn't any kind of Christian EXCEPT New Covenant Christians. I'm not sure why you use this odd turn of phrase.

 

[Meowzltov]

I can trace the RCC back to about 1000 A.D. and the Catholic church back to around the 4th century A.D.

We know for certain that the first name for the Church of the Bible was the Catholic church, per Ignatius 108 AD.

 

[BobRyan]

I see so less than 50% of the 15 letters are hoped to be not fake - not forged - not manipulative.

If you were going to go to a deli for lunch and you learned that less than 50% of the food had no poison - would you go? Because that is the sort of deli you are recommending from a non-Catholic POV.

Irrelevant. The point is that the letter I referenced is not a fraud.

The point is that more than 50% of the supposed "letters" of Ignatius are frauds and the rest are highly suspect. We have "proof' that the RCC was creating fraud in the name of Ignatius and your entire case is based on "trusting them to stop at some point". I have no way of knowing where they stopped doing it.

Another great reason for trusting Christ in Mark 7 as He proves that all claims, all doctrine, all tradition must be tested "sola scriptura"

 

[Meowzltov]

The point is that more than 50% of the supposed "letters" of Ignatius are frauds and the rest are highly suspect. We have "proof' that the RCC was creating fraud in the name of Ignatius and your entire case is based on "trusting them to stop at some point". I have no way of knowing where they stopped doing it.

No, the point is that the SPECIFIC letter I reference is not a fraud.