Why the Catholic Church changes the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday

[Bob S]

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

I am trying to be kind, but statements like that certainly do not leave me with great impressions. Has someone made you the purveyor of what is truth and what is not?

 

[Meowzltov]

Just not in real life.

Yes, in real life. And you know I disagree with your list -- goes without saying.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, in real life. And you know I disagree with your list -- goes without saying.

You have free will and can do that - I was responding to your post. But this thread is about the historic attempts to make the same change those guys in the video admit to.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

I am trying to be kind, but statements like that certainly do not leave me with great impressions. Has someone made you the purveyor of what is truth and what is not?

Well clearly the statements at that link were not "all true" (as I proved in the very post you quoted) but at least some were true - so I gave them that.

 

[Meowzltov]

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.

Dear Bob, I was not brought up Catholic. My family was fundamentalist, and we went to Evangelical churches. I became convinced of this by studying the Bible and Church history. I eventually became a Catholic.

 

[Meowzltov]

You have free will and can do that - I was responding to your post. But this thread is about the historic attempts to make the same change those guys in the video admit to.

You mean changing the DAY OF WORSHIP from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day (Sunday)? There is no argument about that.

 

[BobRyan]

Dear Bob, I was not brought up Catholic. My family was fundamentalist, and we went to Evangelical churches. I became convinced of this by studying the Bible and Church history. I eventually became a Catholic.

About the same time you came to believe the Bible was false and evolutionism was true when it came to the correct doctrine on origins?

 

[BobRyan]

You mean changing the DAY OF WORSHIP from the Sabbath to the Lord's Day (Sunday)? There is no argument about that.

Back to this -- then?

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

 

[Meowzltov]

About the same time you came to believe the Bible was false and evolutionism was true when it came to the correct doctrine on origins?

Actually yes. It was all part of becoming a young adult, becoming better educated, and maturing.

 

[Meowzltov]

Back to this -- then?

Old Stuff, Bob. The first reference to Sunday worship is Acts 20:7. The first reference to "The Lord's Day" is Revelation 1:10. We know the Lord's Day is Sunday because of Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians (considered NOT to be a forgery). After that, there are numerous references to the first day, the eighth day, the Lord's day... Clearly it began in the time of the Apostles and continued from there.

Your rehash posts are old and stale.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Old Stuff, Bob.

Indeed. -- facts don't vanish as soon as someone finds them 'inconvenient' - hence this entire thread and the matter of actual "history"

Old Stuff, Bob.

The first reference to Sunday worship is Acts 20:7. The first reference to "The Lord's Day" is Revelation 1:10.
[/quote]

Neither of which say that week-day-1 is the "Lord's day".
Neither of which say "they gathered every week-day-1 for worship".

Which is the irrefutable point already listed above.

Each time you fail to refute it -- it is shown again-and-again to be "irrefutable".

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"?

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

So then you resort to one of the most-forged most-fraud-ridden sources known to makind - the man-forged letters of Ignatius. Of 15 8 are know by all mankind to be forged and the other 7 -- debated.

Here then is the best "instead-of-the-Bible" source ...

We know the Lord's Day is Sunday because of Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians

Of all the ignatius forgeries this one is perhaps less well-known as a forgery - though Calvin condemned it. Ignatius' letters have many stories including being "Conveniently found" along with the other forged documents of Ignatius in the 19th century and of the ones supposedly more likely to be legit - well they are infested with convenient "interpolations".


you rehash these non-Bible forged-and-interpolated-sources repeatedly as if we are supposed to suddenly toss out the Bible and take such highly-forged sources as our "new Bible"? or "better-an-Bible"??

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

 

[BobRyan]

No doubt Ignatius existed and wrote letters - but unlike the NT text of Apostolic letters before his time - none of his work was retained. It was left to be "found" here and there by those looking for a more-ready source for interpolation.

"It is extremely probable that the interpolation of the genuine, the addition of the spurious letters, and the union of both in the long recension was the work of an Apollinarist of Syria or Egypt, who wrote towards the beginning of the fifth century. Funk identifies him with the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions, which came out of Syria in the early part of the same century. Subsequently there was added to this collection a panegyric on St. Ignatius entitled, "Laus Heronis". Though in the original it was probably written in Greek, it is now extant only in Latin and Coptic texts. There is also a third recension, designated by Funk as the "mixed collection". The time of its origin can be only vaguely determined as being between that of the collection known to Eusebius and the long recension"

Still this is "the sort of stuff" that one "appeals to" when Bible support is lacking. (and they do so -- over-and-over)

 

[Meowzltov]

In "real life" we have this

None of this refutes what I said. You are are running like a hamster in a wheel.

 

[BobRyan]

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


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


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



Indeed. -- facts don't vanish as soon as someone finds them 'inconvenient' - hence this entire thread and the matter of actual "history"


The first reference to Sunday worship is Acts 20:7. The first reference to "The Lord's Day" is Revelation 1:10.
==========================================================================

Neither of which say that week-day-1 is the "Lord's day".
Neither of which say "they gathered every week-day-1 for worship".

Which is the irrefutable point already listed above.

Each time you fail to refute it -- it is shown again-and-again to be "irrefutable".

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"?

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

So then you resort to one of the most-forged most-fraud-ridden sources known to makind - the man-forged letters of Ignatius. Of 15 8 are know by all mankind to be forged and the other 7 -- debated.

Here then is the best "instead-of-the-Bible" source ...



Of all the ignatius forgeries this one is perhaps less well-known as a forgery - though Calvin condemned it. Ignatius' letters have many stories including being "Conveniently found" along with the other forged documents of Ignatius in the 19th century and of the ones supposedly more likely to be legit - well they are infested with convenient "interpolations".


you rehash these non-Bible forged-and-interpolated-sources repeatedly as if we are supposed to suddenly toss out the Bible and take such highly-forged sources as our "new Bible"? or "better-an-Bible"??

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

None of this refutes what I said.

Only if you ignore every single detail in the discussion so far.

Your failed and oft-repeated resort to a fraudulent and much-interpolated source "instead of the Bible" -- noted.

Still this is "the sort of stuff" that one "appeals to" when Bible support is lacking. (and they do so -- over-and-over)

Were we simply not supposed to notice??

 

[Bob S]

Dear Bob, I was not brought up Catholic. My family was fundamentalist, and we went to Evangelical churches. I became convinced of this by studying the Bible and Church history. I eventually became a Catholic.

So, then you were indoctrinated as an adult. Some of the nicest people I know are Catholic. Surely they must be doing something right. I just do not like pomp and ceremony. I have other reasons Catholicism would not be my choice. We live in a rural part of the country and our choices for fellowship are limited. I would have been nice if we could have found a new covenant evangelical based church to fellowship with. We are happy with fellow shipping with the Methodist folks. We find them to be very non judgemental and the Gospel is preached every week. Sunday School couldn't be better. The people are kind and loving. They are living the new covenant of love. I cannot wrap myself around a few of their doctrines, but they love and accept us in spite of of that.

We came out of the SDA Church which is a very legalistic and judgemental church. What a joy it is to now worship with a Grace filled group of people. At one time I was caught up in legalism and was very judgemental, I can tell you it is not a very pleasant way to live compared to freedom in Jesus.

 

[Meowzltov]

So, then you were indoctrinated as an adult. Some of the nicest people I know are Catholic. Surely they must be doing something right. I just do not like pomp and ceremony. I have other reasons Catholicism would not be my choice. We live in a rural part of the country and our choices for fellowship are limited. I would have been nice if we could have found a new covenant evangelical based church to fellowship with. We are happy with fellow shipping with the Methodist folks. We find them to be very non judgemental and the Gospel is preached every week. Sunday School couldn't be better. The people are kind and loving. They are living the new covenant of love. I cannot wrap myself around a few of their doctrines, but they love and accept us in spite of of that.

We came out of the SDA Church which is a very legalistic and judgemental church. What a joy it is to now worship with a Grace filled group of people. At one time I was caught up in legalism and was very judgemental, I can tell you it is not a very pleasant way to live compared to freedom in Jesus.

Most Christian churches teach the basic gospel of repent and be baptised, that Christ died for our sins, is risen, and will come again.

Personally, I think it is important to choose a Church based on whether we think they teach the truth. I disagree with the SDA doctrine that Gentiles need to keep a Saturday Sabbath. And SDA's are rabidly anti-Catholic as well as being highly judgmental against other Christian denominations in general.

I support many things that Methodists teach, such as the idea of free will and that one can lose one's salvation, so persevere (as scripture teaches). Also, I appreciate the fact that some Methodist denominations still preserve the doctrine of Real Presence, even though some pastors do not support it, sadly. I deeply appreciate Methodism's emphasis on Sanctification. But it bothers me that SOME Methodists have left basic Biblical morality and crossed the line between loving gays and condoning gay sex. I say SOME because Methodists are actually quite a few different denominations, all of which have their own different positions. My understanding is that the United Methodist Church still has a Biblical stand.

 

[Travis93]

But it bothers me that SOME Methodists have left basic Biblical morality and crossed the line between loving gays and condoning gay sex.

I agree, that is bothersome. How do they manage to condone that? God plainly says in his law that it is forbidden.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them.

 

[BobRyan]

Most Christian churches teach the basic gospel of repent and be baptised, that Christ died for our sins, is risen, and will come again.

Personally, I think it is important to choose a Church based on whether we think they teach the truth. I disagree with the SDA doctrine that Gentiles need to keep a Saturday Sabbath.

I prefer the actual Bible "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" Is 66:23 -- but I understand that your "preference" and your "agreement" may not be in line with that text.

In this thread we discuss the historicity of the RCC attempts to change that commandment as if it truly no longer matters if man "remembers the Sabbath day to keep it holy.. the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God..." Ex 20:8-11


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]

it bothers me that SOME Methodists have left basic Biblical morality and crossed the line between loving gays and condoning gay sex. I say SOME because Methodists are actually quite a few different denominations, all of which have their own different positions. My understanding is that the United Methodist Church still has a Biblical stand.

Are you also opposed to the gay priests that Pope Benedict was having to deal with - the various factions in the Vatican?

 

[BobRyan]

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

Old Stuff, Bob.

Indeed. -- facts don't vanish as soon as someone finds them 'inconvenient' - hence this entire thread and the matter of actual "history"

Old Stuff, Bob.

The first reference to Sunday worship is Acts 20:7. The first reference to "The Lord's Day" is Revelation 1:10.
[/quote]

Neither of which say that week-day-1 is the "Lord's day".
Neither of which say "they gathered every week-day-1 for worship".

Which is the irrefutable point already listed above.

Each time you fail to refute it -- it is shown again-and-again to be "irrefutable".

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"?

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

So then you resort to one of the most-forged most-fraud-ridden sources known to makind - the man-forged letters of Ignatius. Of 15 8 are know by all mankind to be forged and the other 7 -- debated.

Here then is the best "instead-of-the-Bible" source ...

We know the Lord's Day is Sunday because of Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians

Of all the ignatius forgeries this one is perhaps less well-known as a forgery - though Calvin condemned it. Ignatius' letters have many stories including being "Conveniently found" along with the other forged documents of Ignatius in the 19th century and of the ones supposedly more likely to be legit - well they are infested with convenient "interpolations".


you rehash these non-Bible forged-and-interpolated-sources repeatedly as if we are supposed to suddenly toss out the Bible and take such highly-forged sources as our "new Bible"? or "better-an-Bible"??

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

None of this refutes what I said. You are are running like a hamster in a wheel.

Your -- appeal to the fraudulent sources such as the pile of "Ignatius letters" -- noted.

Even though 8 of the 15 are confirmed frauds and the remainder are neither scripture nor free from interpolation.

hence our focus here - on the actual Bible.