Why the Catholic Church changes the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday

[BobRyan]

exterminate is the CLOSEST word. .

I would hope so - otherwise our Jesuit friends over at Fordham would have something else to answer for.

 

[Meowzltov]

Sounds like a horrible idea.

But it was instituted by the Church and there just were not a lot of Protestant churches around in the 1400's - and burning people alive was not one of their key ways of evangelizing.

It was the Papacy and the LATERAN IV idea of "exterminating" people (no matter how nice a face you can imagine for 'exterminate'- was from 1215. After which came the inquisition and burning people alive.

Um, Bob, you do realize I hope that Protestants killed far more heretics than Catholics did in their entire history? Part of this was simply demographics. Europe grew in its population by the time of the Reformation. The Spanish Inquisition killed between 1200 and 5000 people, mostly conversos. Henry VIII killed up to 72000, mostly Catholics. Of course NO killings are excusable. Still, I'm concerned that you keep talking about it as if it were a Catholic problem.

 

[Erose]

Bob,

There are some issues with the translation you have offered. Here is the actual reading of the 3rd Constitution of Lateran 4:

We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated, if they are lay persons, and if clerics they are to be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends. Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person. Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction. If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics. Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, to take publicly an oath for the defence of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith. Thus whenever anyone is promoted to spiritual or temporal authority, he shall be obliged to confirm this article with an oath. If however a temporal lord, required and instructed by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be bound with the bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province. If he refuses to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be reported to the supreme pontiff so that he may then declare his vassals absolved from their fealty to him and make the land available for occupation by Catholics so that these may, after they have expelled the heretics, possess it unopposed and preserve it in the purity of the faith -- saving the right of the suzerain provided that he makes no difficulty in the matter and puts no impediment in the way. The same law is to be observed no less as regards those who do not have a suzerain.

As you may notice that the word is not exterminate, but expel from the territories; and when one has the full paragraph that the rest of it supports that.

 

[Erose]

Here is the document in question from Fordham university's website:

CANON 3
Text. We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element. Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all 1-intil they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics. Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

http://legacy.fordham.edu/Halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

As you can see the word exterminate is not used. So the question I have is Bob what are you trying to pull here? This is what I'm talking about the blatant attempt at deception. Why do the SDA feel the need to deceive?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

There are some issues with the translation you have offered. Here is the actual reading of the 3rd Constitution of Lateran 4:

I quoted the Jesuit Fordham translation of the document - but I did not translate it.

As for Catholic Digest -- well I did not write that article either.


Catholic Digest 11/1997 pg 100


============

The question:

A Baptist family who lives across the street gave me a book called the “Trail of Blood”, by J.M. Carroll. It attacks Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism, indulgences, purgatory, and so on. But I am writing to learn if there is anything in history that would justify the following quotation:


“The world has Never seen anything to compare with the persecution heaped upon the Baptists by the Catholic hierarchy of the Dark Ages. The Pope was the world’s dictator. This is why the Anabaptists before the Reformation called the Pope the Anti-Christ”. Then: “Fifty million died by persecution over a period of 1200 years because of the Catholic Church” =====================


The answer from Fr. Ken Ryan:

=====================

“There weren’t any Baptists until 1609, generally thought of as a year occurring after the Dark Ages. (that is why the article above includes Anabaptists) Anabaptists (means anti-baptism of infants – so they re-baptized them as adults) means “re-baptizers” and was a name given to groups existing in the 3rd, 4th, 11th and 12th centuries but they had no connection with the violent civil-religious (Catholic) reformers who appeared in 1521 at Zwickau in Saxony.


These 16th century Anabaptists rejected Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism and Lutheran justification by faith, among other things, and intended to substitute a new “Kingdom of God” for the social and civil order of their time. John Leyden was proclaimed King of New Sion at Munster where museums and libraries were destroyed and polygamy was introduced. This group AND Many others were Exterminated during the Peasants Wars by a Combination of civil and religious authority. Whether they were persecuted or punished depends on your point of view”



==============================================


In the article above – Fr. Ken Ryan makes the meaning of “extermination” of that group and “many other groups” clear for modern readers

 

[BobRyan]

Here is the document in question from Fordham university's website:

CANON 3
Text. We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element. Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all 1-intil they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics. Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

http://legacy.fordham.edu/Halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

As you can see the word exterminate is not used. So the question I have is Bob what are you trying to pull here? This is what I'm talking about the blatant attempt at deception. Why do the SDA feel the need to deceive?

I feel like someone is trying out a mythical Jedi mind trick.

First you quote.

"they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land."

Then you insist "As you can see the word exterminate is not used."

adding -- "So the question I have is Bob what are you trying to pull here? This is what I'm talking about the blatant attempt at deception. Why do the SDA feel the need to deceive?"

Who goes for such nonsense without any questions at all???

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't understand the fuss...

Since Genesis 2 the sabbath is the sanctified day of rest, it became a Law in Exodus 20.
We all agree that the 10 Laws are still to be believed and upheld.
I see no reason to make an exception for the 4th Commandment.
As non-Jews the Torah is written in our hearts.

And so, what is the problem?
Worldwide people say: "Thank God it's friday!"
Because at the end of friday the sabbath starts, and we enjoy our freedom and rest from our works.
On the sunday Christians go to church, which is not resting, but it can be seen as a celebration of the resurrection of our Lord on the first day.
And it's still weekend, so we have time to go to church on sunday.

Where's the problem?
The problems lie in the creeds and traditions of certain denominations.
SDAs go to church on the day of rest, Catholics go to church on their day of rest.

 

[Meowzltov]

“The world has Never seen anything to compare with the persecution heaped upon the Baptists by the Catholic hierarchy of the Dark Ages.

There were no Baptists in the Dark Ages 500-1000 AD. The Baptists in England were persecuted by the Church of England. No one persecuted the Baptists in America.

“Fifty million died by persecution over a period of 1200 years because of the Catholic Church”

There simply weren't that many Baptists. The population was much smaller in those days. You should realize your source is unreasonable at face value.

1609 was the Renaissance, not the Dark Ages, not even the High Middle Ages.

the Peasant Revolt was led by the Anabaptists, not the Baptists. Except for the stance against infant baptism, there were no distinguishing beliefs in common. The Anabaptists were what today would be called communists, who fought to take wealth and land away from the rich and give it to the poor. Everyone in normal society fought against these Anabaptists, especially the Lutherans. Can you see where converts to Anabaptism might have come over for political reasons rather than because of religious reasons?

 

[BobRyan]

There were no Baptists in the Dark Ages 500-1000 AD. The Baptists in England were persecuted by the Church of England. No one persecuted the Baptists in America.

Until you read the history of the anabaptists and Waldenses.

As for the 1260 years of the dark ages - well ... plenty of persecution of those who believed in the Bible and believers baptism

 

[BobRyan]

Um, Bob, you do realize I hope that Protestants killed far more heretics than Catholics did in their entire history? Part of this was simply demographics. Europe grew in its population by the time of the Reformation. The Spanish Inquisition killed between 1200 and 5000 people, mostly conversos. Henry VIII killed up to 72000, mostly Catholics. Of course NO killings are excusable. Still, I'm concerned that you keep talking about it as if it were a Catholic problem.

England - specifically Henry VIII and the Church of England was not Protestant. Tyndale had to go to Germany to publish the English translation of the Bible -- (an improvement over Wycliff's English translation) - so that he could do it without being Killed.

England under King Henry was simply an RCC split - a sister church behaving much the same as the RCC itself.

By contrast the actual Protestant reformers like Wycliffe, Jerome, Huss, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli.. were Catholics reforming their own church and being expelled from it. It cannot be argued that they killed more than the 50 million or so killed by the RCC during that 1260 year period of the dark ages.

The Lateran IV command to "exterminate" was accepted by the "Holy Roman Empire" and covered all of Europe -- not just 'England".

 

[BobRyan]

Where's the problem?
The problems lie in the creeds and traditions of certain denominations.
SDAs go to church on the day of rest, Catholics go to church on their day of rest.

Pope John Paul II illustrated the problem well in his Papal Encyclical "Dies Domini" where not only does he admit to the historic fact of civil penalties applied against any Christian that failed to keep the Catholic week-day-1 as the day of worship - but also argued that this system of penalties should be brought back.

Notice this on page one of this thread - where even catholic sources admit the reason that a Protestant might not want to follow the Catholic lead on this point.


=============================================

The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II - argues the SAME two points.

1965 -- first published 1959

(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

========================================

Some would argue that such catholic documents should be ignored as if they express protestant views not catholic ones.

But the flaw in logic in such desperate efforts - is more than a little transparent.

 

[Meowzltov]

Until you read the history of the anabaptists and Waldenses.

As for the 1260 years of the dark ages - well ... plenty of persecution of those who believed in the Bible and believers baptism

Although they no longer use the phrase Dark Ages (It is simply the Middle Ages), it is reckoned from 500-1000. 1000-1300 is considered the High Middle Ages.

Anabaptists are NOT Baptists. The only distinctive doctrine they have in common is resistance to infant baptism. For example, Anabaptists (after the Peasant revolt) became pacifists and Baptists are not. Anabaptists believe you can lose your salvation, while Baptists are OSAS, Anabaptists will baptize by pouring as well as immersing, Baptists are very strict about immersion only, etc.

 

[Meowzltov]

England under King Henry was simply an RCC split - a sister church behaving much the same as the RCC itself.

Henry the VIII was protesting the Catholic Church, thus the Church of England was by its very nature Protestant.

 

[BobRyan]

Henry the VIII was protesting the Catholic Church, thus the Church of England was by its very nature Protestant.

Not true - Henry the VIII made no effort at all to get the Catholic church to reform to adhere more closely to the Bible text. The "reformation" is about protesting Catholics trying to reform their own church.

By contrast King Henry VIII was simply trying to divorce the Queen.
"There is no certainty that Henry wanted the events that occurred to develop in the way that they did. Henry was reasonably well known for his inability to sustain any interest in most things and his vacillation. Much of the work done with regards to Henry’s clash with Rome was carried out by advisors and government officials. Though the final say always rested with Henry, the advice that he received was formulated by others. This advice became more and more anti-church as the Pope continued with his reluctance to grant Henry his annulment. When it became obvious that the Pope was not going to be persuaded to do as Henry wished, the next step was for the king to remove the Pope’s authority within his kingdom. Henry used Parliament to give an air of legitimacy to all that was done but the end result was as he wanted – a divorce from Catherine and marriage to Anne Boleyn."
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tudor-england/the-break-with-rome/

Luther states at the Papal diet of Worms that he would be the first to burn his books if it could be shown from scripture that they were teaching error.

That is a Catholic trying to reform his own church.

King Henry is a King trying to get a divorce and more then happy to continue to use RCC methods in his new "Church of England" with "himself" as the new head of the church

 

[BobRyan]

Which brings us to the subject of "This" thread.

Catholic answers - address this question

"Seventh-day Adventists insist that the Catholic Church has no scriptural warrant for changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Is this true?"
http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...im-that-the-sabbath-shouldnt-have-been-change

Catholic Answers sets the record straight?

"While it is true that there is no New Testament record of a voice from the heavens instructing the infant Church, "Thou shalt change the day of thy worship and rest from Saturday to Sunday," Adventists are mistaken in their belief that there is no New Testament evidence that supports such a change by the Catholic Church. Quite apart from the biblical proof of the apostolic Church’s authority to teach in God’s name (Mt 16:18–19, 18:17–18, Lk 10:16) and of God’s guarantee that this teaching would never fall into error (Mt 28:19–20, Lk 22:32, Jn 16:13), there is an impressive amount of evidence from Scripture that Christ and the apostles changed their day of corporate worship from Saturday to Sunday."
http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...im-that-the-sabbath-shouldnt-have-been-change

So the basic argument is that while there is no actual Bible text calling week-day-1 Sabbath, or the Lord's Day - or stating that Sabbath was abolished and weekly week-day-1 worship services took it's place -- still there is some hope of finding a hint that maybe weekly week-day-1 worship services happened at all even if nothing to say they replace Sabbath. The search is on at that site to find such evidence!

The fact that they did claim to make such a change is not only supported by the "Catholic Answers" article - but also discussed on this thread starting here --
Apr 8, 2015 #1

With proof posted many places on that other thread -- including
Oct 3, 2015 #387

 

[BobRyan]

Making their case - vs "sola scriptura" testing of this same point.

1. There is not one NT or OT text saying "week day 1 is the Holy Day of the LORD" but we DO have that for Sabbath in Is 58:13. (AND we do not have ONE text in the NT or OT that says "week day 1 is the LORD's Day)

2. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT that says that "they met EVERY week-day-1 for gospel teaching" for both Jews AND gentiles but we DO have that for Sabbath in Acts 18:4-6.

3. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT that says "they met week-day-1 after week-day-1 " for anything - but we DO have that in Acts 13 and Acts 17 regarding Sabbath for both Jews AND Gentiles.

4. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT saying "from week day 1 to week day 1 shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" - but we DO have that in Is 66:23 for the Sabbath.

5. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT saying "the Son of man is LORD of week day 1" but we DO have that in the NT for the Sabbath in Mark 2:28.

6. There is not ONE text in the NT saying "there REMAINS therefore a week-day 1 rest for the people of God" but we DO have that for Sabbath in Heb 4.

7. There is not ONE text in NT or OT saying "remember week-day-1 to keep it holy" but we DO have that in Ex 20:8 for the Sabbath.

8. There is NOT ONE text in NT or OT saying it is ok by God if we bend/edit/break/ignore one of the TEN Commandments - but we DO have condemnation for doing such a thing in the NT -- by the Words of Christ Himself! Mark 7:6-13


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.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it's traditions and "doctrines of men" are at odds with scripture.


============================= btw -

The elders consisting of scribes and pharisees are in fact the "magisterium" even Paul admits to this. And Jesus shows how they claim to "sit in the chair of Moses" as church magisterium .


Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat in the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. (Matthew 23:1-3)

 

[Meowzltov]

Not true - Henry the VIII made no effort at all to get the Catholic church to reform to adhere more closely to the Bible text. The "reformation" is about protesting Catholics trying to reform their own church.

Of course he was protesting. He protested the entire annulment/divorce process, and most importantly, he protested the authority of the Pope, which was the very basis of the Reformation.

 

[BobRyan]

Of course he was protesting. He protested the entire annulment/divorce process, and most importantly, he protested the authority of the Pope, which was the very basis of the Reformation.

The basis of the reformation -- was an attempt to reform the RCC from within - it became opposition to the Pope when it became apparent that the Popes would not tolerate reform. As Luther said "Show me from scripture alone that I am in err - and I will be the first to burn my books".

By contrast Henry had no case at all from the Bible. Very unlike Wycliffe, Huss, Jerome, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin ...

Thus the Church of England was foremost in mimicking her sister church.

 

[Meowzltov]

The basis of the reformation -- was an attempt to reform the RCC from within - it became opposition to the Pope when it became apparent that the Popes would not tolerate reform. As Luther said "Show me from scripture alone that I am in err - and I will be the first to burn my books".

By contrast Henry had no case at all from the Bible. Very unlike Wycliffe, Huss, Jerome, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin ...

Thus the Church of England was foremost in mimicking her sister church.

It BEGAN as an attempt to reform. But that is not why the schism took place. The Catholic Church reforms from within throughout history. The schism took place as a revolt against the Pope's authority--even going so far as to call the Pope the anti-Christ. That' exactly what Henry did: revolt against the Pope.

I can't post the stuff Martin Luther said about the Pope, it is too vulgar for this forum. But you can read it here:
http://jmgarciaiii.blogspot.com/2013/11/here-we-go-again-or-lousy-english.html

 

[BobRyan]

Of course he was protesting. He protested the entire annulment/divorce process, and most importantly, he protested the authority of the Pope, which was the very basis of the Reformation.

The basis of the reformation -- was an attempt to reform the RCC from within - it became opposition to the Pope when it became apparent that the Popes would not tolerate reform. As Luther said "Show me from scripture alone that I am in err - and I will be the first to burn my books".

By contrast Henry had no case at all from the Bible. Very unlike Wycliffe, Huss, Jerome, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin ...

Thus the Church of England was foremost in mimicking her sister church.

It BEGAN as an attempt to reform. But that is not why the schism took place. The Catholic Church reforms from within throughout history.

That was Wycliff's premise, Jerome's premise. Huss' premise, Luther's premise ... but they soon found that their attempts to "reform from within" were getting them excommunicated from "within". They soon found that instead of the Pope welcoming the reform he was at the heart of the cause of the problem.

The schism took place as a revolt against the Pope's authority

Only at the point where it was shown that the Pope opposed the Bible - and so even you would admit that the Pope had people burned alive for daring to have in their possession a Bible in their own language.

Luther went so far as to call the Pope the anti-Christ - JUST LIKE the Popes were already doing with each other BEFORE Luther!

in Christ,

Bob