• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Why the Catholic Church changes the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,410
11,947
Georgia
✟1,101,772.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
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

I can post it - but not from your source.

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

"As the news was circulated at Worms that Luther was to appear before the Diet, a general excitement was created. Aleander, the papal legate to whom the case had been specially entrusted, was alarmed and enraged. He saw that the result would be disastrous to the papal cause. To institute inquiry into a case in which the pope had already pronounced sentence of condemnation would be to cast contempt upon the authority of the sovereign pontiff. Furthermore, he was apprehensive that the eloquent and powerful arguments of this man might turn away many of the princes from the cause of the pope. He therefore, in the most

Page 147

urgent manner, remonstrated with Charles against Luther's appearance at Worms. About this time the bull declaring Luther's excommunication was published; and this, coupled with the representations of the legate, induced the emperor to yield. He wrote to the elector that if Luther would not retract, he must remain at Wittenberg.

Not content with this victory, Aleander labored with all the power and cunning at his command to secure Luther's condemnation. With a persistence worthy of a better cause, he urged the matter upon the attention of princes, prelates, and other members of the assembly, accusing the Reformer of "sedition, rebellion, impiety, and blasphemy." But the vehemence and passion manifested by the legate revealed too plainly the spirit by which he was actuated. "He is moved by hatred and vengeance," was the general remark, "much more than by zeal and piety."-- Ibid., b. 7, ch. 1. The majority of the Diet were more than ever inclined to regard Luther's cause with favor. "
http://www.preparingforeternity.com/gc/gc08.htm


"
The council now demanded the Reformer's appearance before them. Notwithstanding the entreaties, protests, and threats of Aleander, the emperor at last consented, and Luther was summoned to appear before the Diet. With the summons was issued a safe-conduct, ensuring his return to a place of security. These were borne to Wittenberg by a herald, who was commissioned to conduct him to Worms.

The friends of Luther were terrified and distressed. Knowing the prejudice and enmity against him, they feared that even his safe-conduct would not be respected, and they entreated him not to imperil his life. He replied: "The papists do not desire my coming to Worms, but my

Page 151

condemnation and my death. It matters not. Pray not for me, but for the word of God. . . . Christ will give me His Spirit to overcome these ministers of error. I despise them during my life; I shall triumph over them by my death. They are busy at Worms about compelling me to retract; and this shall be my retraction: I said formerly that the pope was Christ's vicar; now I assert that he is our Lord's adversary, and the devil's apostle."-- Ibid., b. 7, ch. 6.

Luther was not to make his perilous journey alone. Besides the imperial messenger, three of his firmest friends determined to accompany him. Melanchthon earnestly desired to join them. His heart was knit to Luther's, and he yearned to follow him, if need be, to prison or to death. But his entreaties were denied. Should Luther perish, the hopes of the Reformation must center upon his youthful colaborer. Said the Reformer as he parted from Melanchthon: "If I do not return, and my enemies put me to death, continue to teach, and stand fast in the truth. Labor in my stead. . . . If you survive, my death will be of little consequence."-- Ibid., b. 7, ch. 7.
...
The next day they learned that Luther's writings had been condemned at Worms. Imperial messengers were proclaiming the emperor's decree and calling upon the people to bring the proscribed works to the magistrates. The herald, fearing for Luther's safety at the council, and thinking that already his resolution might be shaken, asked if he still wished to go forward. He answered: "Although interdicted in every city, I shall go on."-- Ibid., b. 7, ch. 7.

Page 152

At Erfurt, Luther was received with honor. Surrounded by admiring crowds, he passed through the streets that he had often traversed with his beggar's wallet. He visited his convent cell, and thought upon the struggles through which the light now flooding Germany had been shed upon his soul. He was urged to preach. This he had been forbidden to do, but the herald granted him permission, and the friar who had once been made the drudge of the convent, now entered the pulpit.

To a crowded assembly he spoke from the words of Christ, "Peace be unto you." "Philosophers, doctors, and writers," he said, "have endeavored to teach men the way to obtain everlasting life, and they have not succeeded. I will now tell it to you: . . . God has raised one Man from the dead, the Lord Jesus Christ, that He might destroy death, extirpate sin, and shut the gates of hell. This is the work of salvation. . . . Christ has vanquished! this is the joyful news; and we are saved by His work, and not by our own. . . . Our Lord Jesus Christ said, 'Peace be unto you; behold My hands;' that is to say, Behold, O man! it is I, I alone, who have taken away thy sin, and ransomed thee; and now thou hast peace, saith the Lord."

He continued, showing that true faith will be manifested by a holy life. "Since God has saved us, let us so order our works that they may be acceptable to Him. Art thou rich? let thy goods administer to the necessities of the poor. Art thou poor? let thy services be acceptable to the rich. If thy labor is useful to thyself alone, the service that thou pretendest to render unto God is a lie."-- Ibid., b. 7, ch. 7.

The people listened as if spellbound. The bread of life was broken to those starving souls. Christ was lifted up before them as above popes, legates, emperors, and kings. Luther made no reference to his own perilous position. He did not seek to make himself the object of thought or sympathy. In the contemplation of Christ he had lost sight of self. He hid behind the Man of Calvary, seeking only to present Jesus as the sinner's Redeemer.

Page 153

As the Reformer proceeded on his journey, he was everywhere regarded with great interest. An eager multitude thronged about him, and friendly voices warned him of the purpose of the Romanists. "They will burn you," said some, "and reduce your body to ashes, as they did with John Huss." Luther answered, "Though they should kindle a fire all the way from Worms to Wittenberg, the flames of which reached to heaven, I would walk through it in the name of the Lord; I would appear before them; I would enter the jaws of this behemoth, and break his teeth, confessing the Lord Jesus Christ."-- Ibid., b. 7, ch. 7.

...

The papists had not believed that Luther would really venture to appear at Worms, and his arrival filled them with consternation. The emperor immediately summoned his councilors to consider what course should be pursued. One of the bishops, a rigid papist, declared: "We have long consulted on this matter. Let your imperial majesty get rid of this man at once. Did not Sigismund cause John Huss to be burnt? We are not bound either to give or to

Page 154

observe the safe-conduct of a heretic." "No," said the emperor, "we must keep our promise."-- Ibid., b. 7, ch. 8. It was therefore decided that the Reformer should be heard."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,410
11,947
Georgia
✟1,101,772.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
"Luther was ordained a priest and was called from the cloister to a professorship in the University of Wittenberg. Here he applied himself to the study of the Scriptures in the original tongues. He began to lecture upon the Bible; and the book of Psalms, the Gospels, and the Epistles were opened to the understanding of crowds of delighted listeners. Staupitz, his friend and superior, urged him to ascend the pulpit and preach the word of God. Luther hesitated, feeling himself unworthy to speak to the people in Christ's stead. It was only after a long struggle that he yielded to the solicitations of his friends. Already he was mighty in the Scriptures, and the grace of God rested upon him. His eloquence captivated his hearers, the clearness and power with which he presented the truth convinced their understanding, and his fervor touched their hearts.

Luther was still a true son of the papal church and had no thought that he would ever be anything else. In the providence of God he was led to visit Rome. He pursued his journey on foot, lodging at the monasteries on the way. At a convent in Italy he was filled with wonder at the wealth, magnificence, and luxury that he witnessed. Endowed with a princely revenue, the monks dwelt in splendid apartments, attired themselves in the richest and most costly robes, and feasted at a sumptuous table. With painful misgivings Luther contrasted this scene with the self-denial and hardship of his own life. His mind was becoming perplexed.

At last he beheld in the distance the seven-hilled city.

125

With deep emotion he prostrated himself upon the earth, exclaiming: "Holy Rome, I salute thee!"--Ibid., b. 2, ch. 6. He entered the city, visited the churches, listened to the marvelous tales repeated by priests and monks, and performed all the ceremonies required. Everywhere he looked upon scenes that filled him with astonishment and horror. He saw that iniquity existed among all classes of the clergy. He heard indecent jokes from prelates, and was filled with horror at their awful profanity, even during mass. As he mingled with the monks and citizens he met dissipation, debauchery. Turn where he would, in the place of sanctity he found profanation. "No one can imagine," he wrote, "what sins and infamous actions are committed in Rome; they must be seen and heard to be believed. Thus they are in the habit of saying, 'If there is a hell, Rome is built over it: it is an abyss whence issues every kind of sin.'"--Ibid., b. 2, ch. 6.

By a recent decretal an indulgence had been promised by the pope to all who should ascend upon their knees "Pilate's staircase," said to have been descended by our Saviour on leaving the Roman judgment hall and to have been miraculously conveyed from Jerusalem to Rome. Luther was one day devoutly climbing these steps, when suddenly a voice like thunder seemed to say to him: "The just shall live by faith." Romans 1:17. He sprang to his feet and hastened from the place in shame and horror. That text never lost its power upon his soul. From that time he saw more clearly than ever before the fallacy of trusting to human works for salvation, and the necessity of constant faith in the merits of Christ. His eyes had been opened, and were never again to be closed, to the delusions of the papacy. When he turned his face from Rome he had turned away also in heart, and from that time the separation grew wider, until he severed all connection with the papal church.

After his return from Rome, Luther received at the University of Wittenberg the degree of doctor of divinity. Now he was at liberty to devote himself, as never before, to the

126

Scriptures that he loved. He had taken a solemn vow to study carefully and to preach with fidelity the word of God, not the sayings and doctrines of the popes, all the days of his life. He was no longer the mere monk or professor, but the authorized herald of the Bible. He had been called as a shepherd to feed the flock of God, that were hungering and thirsting for the truth. He firmly declared that Christians should receive no other doctrines than those which rest on the authority of the Sacred Scriptures. These words struck at the very foundation of papal supremacy. They contained the vital principle of the Reformation.

Luther saw the danger of exalting human theories above the word of God. He fearlessly attacked the speculative infidelity of the schoolmen and opposed the philosophy and theology which had so long held a controlling influence upon the people. He denounced such studies as not only worthless but pernicious, and sought to turn the minds of his hearers from the sophistries of philosophers and theologians to the eternal truths set forth by prophets and apostles.

Precious was the message which he bore to the eager crowds that hung upon his words. Never before had such teachings fallen upon their ears. The glad tidings of a Saviour's love, the assurance of pardon and peace through His atoning blood, rejoiced their hearts and inspired within them an immortal hope. At Wittenberg a light was kindled whose rays should extend to the uttermost parts of the earth, and which was to increase in brightness to the close of time.

But light and darkness cannot harmonize. Between truth and error there is an irrepressible conflict. To uphold and defend the one is to attack and overthrow the other. Our Saviour Himself declared: "I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34. Said Luther, a few years after the opening of the Reformation: "God does not guide me, He pushes me forward. He carries me away. I am not master of myself. I desire to live in repose; but I am thrown into

127

the midst of tumults and revolutions."--D'Aubigne, b. 5, ch. 2. He was now about to be urged into the contest.

The Roman Church had made merchandise of the grace of God.

...

The doctrine of indulgences had been opposed by men of learning and piety in the Roman Church, and there were many who had no faith in pretensions so contrary to both reason and revelation. No prelate dared lift his voice against this iniquitous traffic; but the minds of men were becoming disturbed and uneasy, and many eagerly inquired if God would not work through some instrumentality for the purification of His church.

Luther, though still a papist of the straitest sort, was filled with horror at the blasphemous assumptions of the indulgence mongers. Many of his own congregation had purchased certificates of pardon, and they soon began to come to their pastor, confessing their various sins, and expecting absolution, not because they were penitent and wished to reform, but on the ground of the indulgence. Luther refused them absolution, and warned them that unless they should

...

His propositions attracted universal attention. They were read and reread, and repeated in every direction. Great excitement was created in the university and in the whole city. By these theses it was shown that the power to grant the pardon of sin, and to remit its penalty, had never been committed to the pope or to any other man. The whole scheme was a farce,--an artifice to extort money by playing upon the superstitions of the people,--a device of Satan to destroy the souls of all who should trust to its lying pretensions. It was also clearly shown that the gospel of Christ is the most valuable treasure of the church, and that the grace of God, therein revealed, is freely bestowed upon all who seek it by repentance and faith.

Luther's theses challenged discussion; but no one dared accept the challenge. The questions which he proposed had in a few days spread through all Germany, and in a few weeks they had sounded throughout Christendom. Many devoted Romanists, who had seen and lamented the terrible iniquity prevailing in the church, but had not known how to arrest its progress, read the propositions with great joy, recognizing in them the voice of God. They felt that the Lord had graciously set His hand to arrest the rapidly swelling tide of corruption that was issuing from the see of Rome. Princes and magistrates secretly rejoiced that a check was to be put upon the arrogant power which denied the right of appeal from its decisions.

But the sin-loving and superstitious multitudes were terrified as the sophistries that had soothed their fears were swept away. Crafty ecclesiastics, interrupted in their work of sanctioning crime, and seeing their gains endangered, were enraged, and rallied to uphold their pretensions. The Reformer had bitter accusers to meet. Some charged him with acting hastily and from impulse. Others accused him of presumption, declaring that he was not directed of God, but was acting from pride and forwardness. "Who does not

131

know," he responded, "that a man rarely puts forth any new idea without having some appearance of pride, and without being accused of exciting quarrels? . . . Why were Christ and all the martyrs put to death? Because they seemed to be proud contemners of the wisdom of the time, and because they advanced novelties without having first humbly taken counsel of the oracles of the ancient opinions."

Again he declared: "Whatever I do will be done, not by the prudence of men, but by the counsel of God. If the work be of God, who shall stop it? if it be not, who can forward it? Not my will, nor theirs, nor ours; but Thy will, O holy Father, which art in heaven."--Ibid., b. 3, ch. 6.

Though Luther had been moved by the Spirit of God to begin his work, he was not to carry it forward without severe conflicts. The reproaches of his enemies, their misrepresentation of his purposes, and their unjust and malicious reflections upon his character and motives, came in upon him like an overwhelming flood; and they were not without effect. He had felt confident that the leaders of the people, both in the church and in the schools, would gladly unite with him in efforts for reform. Words of encouragement from those in high position had inspired him with joy and hope. Already in anticipation he had seen a brighter day dawning for the church. But encouragement had changed to reproach and condemnation. Many dignitaries, of both church and state, were convicted of the truthfulness of his theses; but they soon saw that the acceptance of these truths would involve great changes. To enlighten and reform the people would be virtually to undermine the authority of Rome, to stop thousands of streams now flowing into her treasury, and thus greatly to curtail the extravagance and luxury of the papal leaders. Furthermore, to teach the people to think and act as responsible beings, looking to Christ alone for salvation, would overthrow the pontiff's throne and eventually destroy their own authority. For this reason they refused the knowledge tendered them of God and arrayed

132

themselves against Christ and the truth by their opposition to the man whom He had sent to enlighten them.

Luther trembled as he looked upon himself--one man opposed to the mightiest powers of earth. He sometimes doubted whether he had indeed been led of God to set himself against the authority of the church. "Who was I," he writes, "to oppose the majesty of the pope, before whom ... the kings of the earth and the whole world trembled? ... No one can know what my heart suffered during these first two years, and into what despondency, I may say into what despair, I was sunk."--Ibid., b. 3, ch. 6. But he was not left to become utterly disheartened. When human support failed, he looked to God alone and learned that he could lean in perfect safety upon that all-powerful arm.

To a friend of the Reformation Luther wrote: "We cannot attain to the understanding of Scripture either by study or by the intellect. Your first duty is to begin by prayer. Entreat the Lord to grant you, of His great mercy, the true understanding of His word. There is no other interpreter of the word of God than the Author of this word, as He Himself has said, 'They shall be all taught of God.' Hope for nothing from your own labors, from your own understanding: trust solely in God, and in the influence of His Spirit. Believe this on the word of a man who has had experience."--Ibid., b. 3, ch. 7. Here is a lesson of vital importance to those who feel that God has called them to present to others the solemn truths for this time. These truths will stir the enmity of Satan and of men who love the fables that he has devised. In the conflict with the powers of evil there is need of something more than strength of intellect and human wisdom.

When enemies appealed to custom and tradition, or to the assertions and authority of the pope, Luther met them with the Bible and the Bible only. Here were arguments which they could not answer; therefore the slaves of formalism and superstition clamored for his blood, as the Jews had clamored for the blood of Christ. "He is a heretic,"

133

cried the Roman zealots. "It is high treason against the church to allow so horrible a heretic to live one hour longer. Let the scaffold be instantly erected for him!"--Ibid., b. 3, ch. 9. But Luther did not fall a prey to their fury. God had a work for him to do, and angels of heaven were sent to protect him. Many, however, who had received from Luther the precious light were made the objects of Satan's wrath and for the truth's sake fearlessly suffered torture and death.

Luther's teachings attracted the attention of thoughtful minds throughout all Germany. From his sermons and writings issued beams of light which awakened and illuminated thousands. A living faith was taking the place of the dead formalism in which the church had so long been held. The people were daily losing confidence in the superstitions of Romanism. The barriers of prejudice were giving way. The word of God, by which Luther tested every doctrine and every claim, was like a two-edged sword, cutting its way to the hearts of the people. Everywhere there was awakening a desire for spiritual progress. Everywhere was such a hungering and thirsting after righteousness as had not been known for ages. The eyes of the people, so long directed to human rites and earthly mediators, were now turning in penitence and faith to Christ and Him crucified.

This widespread interest aroused still further the fears of the papal authorities. Luther received a summons to appear at Rome to answer to the charge of heresy. The command filled his friends with terror. They knew full well the danger that threatened him in that corrupt city, already drunk with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. They protested against his going to Rome and requested that he receive his examination in Germany.

This arrangement was finally effected, and the pope's legate was appointed to hear the case. In the instructions communicated by the pontiff to this official, it was stated that Luther had already been declared a heretic. The legate was therefore charged "to prosecute and constrain without

134

any delay." If he should remain steadfast, and the legate should fail to gain possession of his person, he was empowered "to proscribe him in every part of Germany; to banish, curse, and excommunicate all those who are attached to him."--Ibid., b. 4, ch. 2. And, further, the pope directed his legate, in order entirely to root out the pestilent heresy, to excommunicate all, of whatever dignity in church or state, except the emperor, who should neglect to seize Luther and his adherents, and deliver them up to the vengeance of Rome.

Here is displayed the true spirit of popery. Not a trace of Christian principle, or even of common justice, is to be seen in the whole document. Luther was at a great distance from Rome; he had had no opportunity to explain or defend his position; yet before his case had been investigated, he was summarily pronounced a heretic, and in the same day, exhorted, accused, judged, and condemned; and all this by the self-styled holy father, the only supreme, infallible authority in church or state!
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc7.html
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,410
11,947
Georgia
✟1,101,772.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Since "Every thread" cannot be about Catholics vs Protestants or how the Protestant Reformation begin within the RCC -- we return to the subject title.

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

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."

(that quote was also from the same link as posted above)

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

===============================================
 
Upvote 0

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,635
4,478
64
Southern California
✟67,798.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
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.
Nonsense. Trent WAS the Catholic Reformation.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,410
11,947
Georgia
✟1,101,772.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
EWTN video added -- go to the 19min:30sec point of the video for about 5 minutes of on-topic commentary.



there they freely admit to their efforts to change the Sabbath Commandment.

Pretty hard to miss it.

Pretty hard to blame Martin Luther for what the RCC did before Luther.
 
Upvote 0

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,635
4,478
64
Southern California
✟67,798.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
there they freely admit to their efforts to change the Sabbath Commandment.

Pretty hard to miss it.

Pretty hard to blame Martin Luther for what the RCC did before Luther.
I already answered this. They admit they changed the day of worship from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day (Sunday). They never say they switched the Sabbath to Sunday.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,410
11,947
Georgia
✟1,101,772.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I already answered this. They admit they changed the day of worship from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day (Sunday). They never say they switched the Sabbath to Sunday.



Notice what we see them saying in the actual example given.

The questioner asks "they say we changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday" the answer was "yes - basically you could say yes"...

he concludes by answering the question about how it is that the RCC would even claim to have the authority to change the Sabbath commandment to week-day-1. And the RCC's own CCC claims that the binding obligation - solemnity - God placed on the 7th day "the seventh day is the SABBATH of the Lord your God in it you shall not do any work" -- is CHANGED according to that answer - to week-day-1 by the authority of the RCC.

that it is what we see them say in 'real life' when we go to that 19min:30sec point.

in essence - "they" already answered this.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,635
4,478
64
Southern California
✟67,798.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
A distinction without a difference.

And not even what we see them saying in the example given.

The questioner asks "they say we changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday" the answer was "yes - basically you could say yes"...
It is clarified, and yes, it makes a tremendous difference.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,410
11,947
Georgia
✟1,101,772.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
It was clarified as "yes we changed it to week-day-1" -- for Christians

then when the specific question was addressed as to why they think they have the right/authority to change the LAW of God - the Sabbath from the 7th day to week-day-1 for Christians - the answer was that they feel it was some authority they got from Peter.

But God never gave Peter the right to change the LAW of God.

When the Jews claimed THEY had such a right in Mark 7:6-13 Christ hammered them on that point - sola scriptura!
 
Upvote 0

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,635
4,478
64
Southern California
✟67,798.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
It was clarified as "yes we changed it to week-day-1" -- for Christians
Not "it." The "day of worship." Just so you don't try to say they switched the Sabbath.
 
Upvote 0

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,635
4,478
64
Southern California
✟67,798.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
But God never gave Peter the right to change the LAW of God.
The CHURCH is the "pillar and foundation of truth."

God says "who listens to you listens to me."

I know you don't want to acknowledge the authority of the Church, but it's right there in scripture for anyone willing to see it.

The "LAW of Sabbath" never applied to Gentiles, so the Church never "changed it." They simply developed something similar for the Church.
 
Upvote 0

Bob S

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 5, 2015
4,947
2,355
90
Union County, TN
✟834,411.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Before y'all blame the Pope and Constantine for the change of worship days it would do you well to read https://www.gci.org/law/sabbath/hanson This person has done some real study on the issue. Worship is well known to have started in the first century and by the time the Pope arrived on the scene Sunday worship was the norm for most of Christianity. For y'all to bicker back and forth about the Catholic Church changing the day of worship is ludicrous in light of all the historical facts.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,410
11,947
Georgia
✟1,101,772.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Notice this - 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


Before y'all blame the Pope and Constantine for the change of worship days it would do you well to read https://www.gci.org/law/sabbath/hanson This person has done some real study on the issue. Worship is well known to have started in the first century

Just not in real life. Which is why there is not one ounce of support for it in the actual NT text. (As we saw here)

Another opportunity to evaluate the subject "sola scriptura" -

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


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)


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
 
Upvote 0

Meowzltov

Freylekher Yid
Aug 3, 2014
18,635
4,478
64
Southern California
✟67,798.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
Before y'all blame the Pope and Constantine for the change of worship days it would do you well to read https://www.gci.org/law/sabbath/hanson This person has done some real study on the issue. Worship is well known to have started in the first century and by the time the Pope arrived on the scene Sunday worship was the norm for most of Christianity. For y'all to bicker back and forth about the Catholic Church changing the day of worship is ludicrous in light of all the historical facts.
Bob, I'd sure like to take advantage of your help. The problem is that the Catholic Church and the Pope existed from the time of Peter.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,410
11,947
Georgia
✟1,101,772.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Bob, I'd sure like to take advantage of your help. The problem is that the Catholic Church and the Pope existed from the time of Peter.

Just not in real life.

In real life NT -
- no sunday worship week after week or "every first day" worship service.
- no praying to the dead
- no "Mary sinless like Christ"
- no Pope Peter passing final judgment in Acts 15.
- no Peter ruling the church from the city of Rome.
- no confecting the body blood soul and divinity of Christ
- no indulgences for those in purgatory
- no purgatory
- no infant baptism
- no priest standing as the head of the local church
- no priestly absolution of sin in a "confessional" booth
- no Bible burning
- no burning people alive that did not agree with a certain doctrine
- no war against the Bible doctrine of "sola scriptura testing" of all doctrine and tradition.

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

So then ... if you remove all that from the catholic church - what do you have left?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,410
11,947
Georgia
✟1,101,772.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In "real life" we have this



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


=========================And this --


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
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,410
11,947
Georgia
✟1,101,772.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Before y'all blame the Pope and Constantine for the change of worship days it would do you well to read https://www.gci.org/law/sabbath/hanson This person has done some real study on the issue. .

From your link - we have at least one point that is actually true.

The apostolic faith took on many forms of expression in the first decades of its life as it responded to cultural, social, political and religious pressures.1 We see in Luke’s writing of Acts that the first Christians were Jews, and the earliest church is classifiable as a messianic sect within Judaism. The disciples are frequently found in the temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1-3; 5:21, 25, 42), and since they were held in high regard by the people (Acts 2:47; 5:13), it can be assumed that they continued to observe the law, circumcision, sabbath worship and the food laws.2

Those who met in Jerusalem for Pentecost were Jews and proselytes (Acts 2:10). Those Jews and proselytes who became believers were firmly attached to the temple, attending the daily hours of prayer (Acts 2:46; 3:1). Luke’s account of the earliest period of the life of the new community ends with them not having stirred from Jerusalem and still largely focused on the temple (Acts 5:42).

In Acts 21:20 the Jewish Christian members, led by James, tell Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law.” Paul’s act of fulfilling the vow in the temple shows the continuing role of the temple in the lives of the conservative Jerusalem Christians.

So then no RCC in the NT and no Apostolic Jerusalem teaching of "every week-day-1 worship service".

What your link misses is Romans 14 affirming that ALL the Lev 23 annual Bible holy were being protected rather than condemned in Romans 14 - while in Galatians 4 all pagan days of worship were condemned.
 
Upvote 0

Bob S

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 5, 2015
4,947
2,355
90
Union County, TN
✟834,411.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Bob, I'd sure like to take advantage of your help. The problem is that the Catholic Church and the Pope existed from the time of Peter.
I would suppose that if I were brought up or even indoctrinated as an adult to believe a certain thing it would be very hard to change my mind. There is not any historical facts that Peter was a pope or that the Roman Catholic church had its beginning at Calvary. Just because the Roman Catholic church claims such a thing does not make it true. The Catholic church went through much corruption for centuries, so it is hard to decipher what is truth and what is not. The early writers give us many hints concerning the progression of the church. Most people fix the beginning to the first man to accept the title of Pope: Boniface III in A.D. 606, but many things happened that led up to that event. And many changes have taken place since then.
 
Upvote 0