Did the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday?

[Meowzltov]

Even that post does not say all 15 are valid.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO. All it has to do is say that the document I used as a source is authentic.

 

[BobRyan]

In any case this thread is about testing all doctrine and tradition - "sola scriptura".

For many non-Catholics the conclusion on that point is that the RCC does not pass that test and therefore history is correct in showing that the RCC arises centuries after the Apostles as a group with divergent teaching from the Apostles.

Still the focus of this thread is not to debate the origins of the RCC as in just how it came to be - but rather the history of the man-made tradition to change one of the Ten Commandments.

 

[BobRyan]

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO. All it has to do is say that the document I used as a source is authentic.

Is there some point where the link you have for the document you used - proves that your document is not a fake made to look like Ignatius wrote it - or faked to add material to some prior letter? And do we really think Ignatius knew anything about the Pope - at all -- having made mention of none?

 

[Meowzltov]

For many non-Catholics the conclusion on that point is that the RCC does not pass that test and therefore history is correct in showing that the RCC arises centuries after the Apostles as a group with divergent teaching from the Apostles.

Not at all. Jesus and the Apostles were not sola scriptura, but used the oral Torah. Furthermore, the Apostles used many oral teachings of Jesus, as there was NO New Testament, remember. But that is SOOOO far off topic that we should just agree to disagree for now.

 

[Meowzltov]

Is there some point where the link you have for the document you used - proves that your document is not a fake made to look like Ignatius wrote it - or faked to add material to some prior letter? And do we really think Ignatius knew anything about the Pope - at all -- having made mention of none?

My source basically documents that it is the consensus of scholars that Ignatius letter to Smyrna is authentic. You can go to a zillion sites and read the same thing. To doubt it is to doubt the consensus of scholars.

I wasn't using Ignatius to say anything about the Pope. I was using Ignatius to point out that the church called the Catholic Church in 108 AD was the same church as that begun at pentecost and spread by the apostles. While believers had various names, Nozrim, Christians... the first name of the Church was the Catholic Church.

If you want to talk about the early Papacy, that's when I talk about Peter, and Clement's letter to the Corinthians. Yes, I think Ignatius knew who the Bishop of Rome was, and that he succeeded Peter. He probably would have been aware of Clement's letter to the Corinthians.

 

[BobRyan]

My source basically documents that it is the consensus of scholars that Ignatius letter to Smyrna is authentic. You can go to a zillion sites and read the same thing. To doubt it is to doubt the consensus of scholars.

They documented it? How? Where? Provide the quote please?

 

[BobRyan]

Not at all. Jesus and the Apostles were not sola scriptura,

That might be what the Jewish magisterium were thinking just before they got hammered in Mark 7 -- sola scriptura.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[BobRyan]

I wasn't using Ignatius to say anything about the Pope. I was using Ignatius to point out that the church called the Catholic Church in 108 AD was the same church as that begun at pentecost and spread by the apostles. .

Certainly we all expect the Christian church of 108 AD to be the same church that John belonged to in 90 A.D.

That is not the question - the question is whether the church of 108 had infant baptism, prayers to the dead, a pope, indulgences, the assumption of Mary, the idea of confecting the body soul and divinity of Christ, clergy with powers to do various things, votive candles and images in worship, observance of week-day-1 instead of the Bible Sabbath, persecution of the saints...

ETC.

In other words if the 108 A.D church held to the doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventists - you would have a hard time calling them "Roman Catholic" -- and I think we all know that.

Doctrine is what defines the church.

 

[BobRyan]

Which Is why I posted this - to show the difference between the sola scriptura model vs what they claim below as their model coming up with new ideas.

=========================================================================
Leo Trese in his book "The Faith Explained" -- commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II -

The Faith Explained (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that
====================begin short summary
changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".

page 243

"Nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

====================================== begin expanded quote
. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church
================================================

 

[Meowzltov]

They documented it? How? Where? Provide the quote please?

The article would have been written by any person who is a scholar of early church literature. It can of course be altered by someone with an axe to grind, but then wikipedea would have changed it right back. This information would also be known by any person who has taken a course in early church literature. It is not obscure. It is ALL OVER the net, easily verified.

Why is this such a problem for you??????????

 

[Meowzltov]

Certainly we all expect the Christian church of 108 AD to be the same church that John belonged to in 90 A.D.

That is not the question - the question is whether the church of 108 had infant baptism, prayers to the dead, a pope, indulgences, the assumption of Mary, the idea of confecting the body soul and divinity of Christ, clergy with powers to do various things, votive candles and images in worship, observance of week-day-1 instead of the Bible Sabbath, persecution of the saints...

Except it wasn't called the Christian church in 108 AD it was called the Catholic Church.

Yes, it had infant baptism, a pope, Real Presence in Eucharist, Clergy with the power to confer sacraments like ordination or anointing of the sick, worship on Sunday, persecution of the saints, and more. While other things may have evolved with time, it is obvious that it was a sapling of the grown tree that we know today as the Catholic Church. Any reading of early church literature would convince you, as it convinced me. The early church was Catholic.

 

[Meowzltov]

In other words if the 108 A.D church held to the doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventists

Pffft. In your dreams.

 

[BobRyan]

Pffft. In your dreams.

again you dodged the point in the post - are these points difficult??

 

[BobRyan]

Certainly we all expect the Christian church of 108 AD to be the same church that John belonged to in 90 A.D.

That is not the question - the question is whether the church of 108 had infant baptism, prayers to the dead, a pope, indulgences, the assumption of Mary, the idea of confecting the body soul and divinity of Christ, clergy with powers to do various things, votive candles and images in worship, observance of week-day-1 instead of the Bible Sabbath, persecution of the saints...

ETC.

In other words if the 108 A.D church held to the doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventists - you would have a hard time calling them "Roman Catholic" -- and I think we all know that.

Doctrine is what defines the church.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it had infant baptism, a pope, Real Presence in Eucharist, Clergy with the power to confer sacraments like ordination or anointing of the sick, worship on Sunday, persecution of the saints, and more. While other things may have evolved with time,

Infant baptism is not in the NT.

no pope mentioned in the NT.

No confecting "the body soul and divinity of Christ in the mass" in the NT.

And you seem to agree that indulgences, images, etc all came in later..

The point of this thread is that their change to the LAW of God also comes in "later" -- long after 108 A.D.

Without all of that - it looks a lot more like the SDA church.

 

[Meowzltov]

Bob I know you truly believe that the Early Church kept the Sabbath, but I believe I have proven otherwise. I am not going to bother looking up all the sources I gave you again, but here are the pertinent points:

• The earliest church began as Jew only and of course kept the Sabbath as it was a Jewish sect.
• As the Church became its own religion, the Christians being kicked out of the Synagogues, etc, and became predominantly Gentile in number and nature, only the Jewish believers in Jerusalem continued to keep the Sabbath. The rest of the Gentile Church switched to Sunday.
• By the middle of the second century, the Gentile Church was defining itself in CONTRAST to Judaism. It was important to Christians of this era NOT to engage in Jewish customs such as keeping the Sabbath.

 

[Acts24Fourteen]

Bob I know you truly believe that the Early Church kept the Sabbath...

Indeed, even from the earliest times, the church kept the Sabbath, for instance:

Acts 7:36 KJB - He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years.

Acts 7:37 KJB - This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

Acts 7:38 KJB - This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Exodus 31:16 KJB - Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant.

Numbers 15:32 KJB - And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

Acts 3:20 KJB - And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Acts 3:21 KJB - Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Acts 3:22 KJB - For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Acts 3:23 KJB - And it shall come to pass, [that] every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

1 Corinthians 10:4 KJB - And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Matthew 16:16 KJB - And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Matthew 16:17 KJB - And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 16:18 KJB - And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

1 Corinthians 10:5 KJB - But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

Hebrews 2:12 KJB - Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.​

The Sabbath was even made [created] for the man [Adam, thus all mankind in him], even for the church which is of Eden.

Mark 2:27 KJB- And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJB - And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:47 KJB - The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.

Deuteronomy 7:9 KJB - Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he [is] God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Hebrews 12:23 KJB - To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,​

 

[stray bullet]

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.

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.

Apostolic confession is done through the ordination of bishops (elders) who ordain priests (presbyters). So yes, the bible shows it.

I can't believe your argument is that Acts is short. What?
We also know from the writings of the early apostles and all ancient Churches of this practice.

1. The original question was about apostolic succession - and there not one example of it outside of Jude 1. Simply appointing leaders at each local church - was not the same as appointing an Apostle to succeed Judas as we see in Acts 1. I think that point is pretty clear to all of us.[/qote]

Ordaining a bishop is how apostolic succession is conferred.
Apostolic succession is another term for apostles ordaining bishops who ordained bishops.
You, on the other hand, have ZERO evidence of scripture of men ordaining themselves to the local level.

2. The "appoint myself your pastor" scenario you include in your post is unknown to me and almost everyone else here.

I don't think you even know what you are arguing because I don't think you know what apostolic succession means.

Paul received the laying on of hands in Damascus by Ananias
in Acts 9.

Then Paul has appointed by the church in Acts 13 via fasting and prayer and laying on of hands.

2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Paul then went on to battle the Gnostics who appointed themselves.

The idea of individuals calling themselves is unknown to all of us.

The idea that someone evangelizes his friends and neighbors - is known to all of us because God has called all of us to do that. See Matt 28. See 1 Thess 1.

6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.
7 So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia.
8 For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing.

Sola Scriptura

Bible details matter.
And it is not at all condemned in the bible

Quoting scripture is not an argument. Quoting scripture is used in your argument when you explain how it supports you. Yes, the self appointed were a problem in the bible.

Apostolic successions means an apostle ordains a bishop who ordains other bishops and deacons and presbyters. Such that every bishop is ordained by someone going back to the apostles. Being ordained is being put in authority. Christ gave that authority to bishops and then bishops to other bishops. That's the model we see in the bible.

Creating your own congregations and making yourself pastor is found NO WHERE in the bible. No one declared themselves bishop, priest or deacon.

 

[stray bullet]

Turns out - Mark 7 is indeed in the Bible

It is the Bible that debunks those false teachings.

Mark 7 is in the bible. It does not support you.
Quoting a verse and acting like it supports you is not an argument. The only argument it makes is that you can't be taken seriously.

Now if you want to explain how Mark 7 supports your claim, go ahead and do that. Otherwise you are saying nothing.

 

[stray bullet]

All "details matter" - even the RCC's own Catholic Digest documents how "infant baptism evolved" over time within the RCC.

Even the RCC's own Thomas Bokenkotter's "Concise History of the Catholic Church" documents how RC priest's 'evolved over time' from the more biblical church "elders" and pastors.[/quote]

It's hard to take you seriously right now. Before pointing out where you are wrong, let's point out how you completely started off wrong: When you say the "RCC's own Thomas Bokenkotters" - Thomas Bokenkotters is not the Catholic Church or say the "RCC's own Catholic Digest." You do realize these are publications. It would be like me using every word you say as being the word of the SDAs.

Next, you are wrong for not saying anything. You didn't quote anything or make an argument. You mentioned two random things, didn't quote what they said, or even how it supports your argument.

There is NO first century - NT teaching about purgatory, indulgences, praying to the dead, confecting the body soul and divinity of Christ, extermination of the saints by church leaders, inquisition style torture... you name it. I think we can all see that point.

You aren't saying anything. You pointed to a specific year and a specific century as changing points.

How many of the Protestant saints were burned alive by the RCC vs how many people did the NT first century church burn alive?

This is another pretty easy fact of history that all can see clearly.

When was it that the Pagan Roman Empire vacated the city of Rome? was it in the first century?? I don't think so. Constantinople would not be established for 3 centuries after the time of Paul.

So far, you have done everything to avoid supporting your claims. What you are doing right now is calling a red herring.

You made a claim that the Roman Catholic Church began is 1000. What is your proof? Making references to protestants being killed has nothing to do with that. You said the "Catholic Church" began in the 4th Century. What is your evidence of that?

 

[stray bullet]

Well, we could begin with 1054 AD, as a starting point, and work backwards.

Okay, go for it. You are welcome to defend his claim if you want.