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.
It is Roman Catholic theology. That it is not Vatican originated is, again, non-sequitur since no Adventist ever claimed it was.
A catholic is a catholic. Roman or not. The internal distinctions 'you' (the peoples) make among yourselves is simply infighting over definitions, names, words, usages and personages. I can show (in another place, as it is not the purpose of this OP or thread) that so called 'Orthodoxy' and Roman Catholicism share a great deal of "theology" and "praxy" (even as you said, "although I agree with some of it"), and since the Jesuit counter-reformation, and the infiltration and destruction of the 'old 'orthodoxical' orders' by them (Russian Revolution, Greek revolutionary wars and various others, &c.) they are closer than the 'lay' will admit, but the upper echelon knows the facts.
Do you (following AI's 'regurgitation' (ie. 'barf')) actually think that 1 Cor. 16:2 has Christians meeting together ("gathering") to "break bread" on the "first day of the week"? I am just curious what 'you' actually think about the AI's wresting of that passage? Here it is in English and koine Greek:
Eusebius (b. about AD 260; d. before AD 341.) -CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Eusebius of Caesarea
Biographical article on the 'Father of Church History.'www.newadvent.org
Patrologiae, Cursus Completus ... Series Graeca ... J. P. Migne ... Tomus XXIII. Eusebius Pamphili Caesariensis Episcopus (1857), col. 1171A[Latin] “... in summa quot quot alia in Sabbato peragere sancitum erat, ea nos in Dominicam transtulimus, utpote quae magis idonea et propria, ac prima item sit et agmen ducat, et Judaico Sabbato pretiosior. ... Quare ut ea die conveniamus traditum nobis est, et ea quae in psalmo jubentur nobis exsequi praeceptum est; ...” - Patrologiae cursus completus, series graecaThe Christian sabbath, considered in its various aspects by Noel, Baptist Wriothesley, 1798-1873; Henderson, John, 1780-1867, page 264[English] “... Eusebius ... all things whatever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these we [the catholic bishops] have transferred to the Lord’s Day [Catholic meaning ‘Sunday’], as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence, and is first in rank [of the week], and more honourable [Latin: ‘more precious’] than the Jewish Sabbath. ... It is delivered to us [Latin: ‘traditionally handed down to us’] that we should meet together on this day, and it is ordered that we should do those things announced in this Psalm.” – Comment on Ps. xcii. ...” - The Christian sabbath, considered in its various aspects : Noel, Baptist Wriothesley, 1798-1873 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
This is apparently being held up as authoritative on the grounds that the newspaper was approved and recommended by a whole lot of bishops. I find it very unlikely that the bishops in question from these various dioceses actually looked carefully at and approved of every article prior to publication; such would have been extremely difficult in 1923 for what appears to have been a weekly newspaper, as they would have had to mail the pre-publication newspapers to all of the bishops, have them weigh in and send back any corrections, and then print it. In fact, time travel would have been involved for all to do so for this article, given that several individuals ("late Apostolic Delegations to Canada") were not even alive. So we can hardly say that any particular single article was looked at and approved by all of these bishops. At most the local bishop of the area did.
There have been billions of Catholics. Why go after the the expressions of individual Catholics, or even local parish publications, that because of human nature are going to occasionally misstate theology or flat out get it wrong, rather than the official Catholic theology?
So it is not a mistranslation as you incorrectly assert, and turn around and disprove yourself in the next portion. You just proved it is where the English word "modify" comes from (ie. the Latin, "modificare"), and in evidence of this:
Your issue is a confusion. Individuals, as cited, are properly stating catholic theology in their official offices, as catholic cardinals, bishops, etc. So, it is not as if the individual, themselves are the Magisterial authority, in and of themselves, but they are, in their positions, as "cardinal" (a direct part of the hierarchial Magisterium itself, the conclave of cardinals), "bishops", and 'doctors' of the Roman Church, etc., correctly stating the Magisterial position/s. Those statements are not ever repudiated by the Magisterium as error, yet support those statements on numerous occasions. That you simply assert, "occasionally misstate theology or flat out get it wrong" is simply yourself trying to equate an occasional wrongness of others to the statements cited. Apples to oranges. Those are two differing things. You have not demonstrated that those citations are misstatements of Magisterial teaching, or are wrong in their theological positions. You are simply, and incorrectly, trying to equate them to such, when you have not made that connection, evidentially, at all.
I never said Eusebius was a Roman, and I never directly said Eusebius was a "Romanist adherent". However, now that you brought this up, I will say that a person (such as Eusebius) can be of another city / country and still be a "romanist", as many are today, which live completely apart from "Rome", "Vatican", "Italy" or even "Europe". Being a "Romanist" is not to be of the city / country, but of the ideology originating from such. You are simply picking at nits and words to attempt to try to invalidate the citations, but are miserably failing.
So? Plutarch's life of Alexander III the Great was written some 400 years post mortem. It is taken as standard history, practically unquestioned. Who is the one claiming its authenticity? Rome. I am simply citing it as such under their assumption.
"Catechism also says ...", please do not make me laugh too hard, as I am still recovering. That is a circular argument. Of course Rome needs a justification (never found in scripture, "The Apostles therefore resoved to consecrate the first day of the week to the divine worship, and called it the Lord's day") to justify its practices and statements regarding the 'first day of the week as the Lord's day'. It had to come up with an origin somewhere for it, so it made one up, put it into a Catechism (which changes over the years, and which, by the way, is not anywhere near the weight of the determinate Council of Trent itself in terms of Magisterial authority).
You just used the method you said had no Magisterial weight, contradicting not my position, but your own. You cited a single, isolated, individual (though granted a "cardinal") and assume it has Magisterial weight, in contradistinction to the other citation by the same individual. I am not saying he is contradictory in either statement. He is consistent in Romanist ideology.
Try using the WayBack Machine, since websites come and go (and the book was printed before it became defunct). Really, it is not that hard - Sunday as a Mark of Christian Unity
No, it is being used as an additional evidence of the position of the Romanists. It doesn't need, of itself, any Magisterial approval. It simply has to be in harmony with already existing Magisterial teaching as the other citations also already demonstrate.
"Magisterium" has several meanings, teaching authority and teaching and as to the hierachy you speak of, the pope and the bishops. The pope and the bishops are not perfect teachers, and you seem to have a misconception that they are constantly monitoring all Catholics looking to "repudiate" any teaching that is not perfectly said. That is even an impossible task today, let alone back when communications took a long time. Their job is to teach to the best of their ability. My point was only that Catholic theology will on occasion be misstated by Catholics who put out publications or have some authority. As to my question as to why you go after individual Catholics instead of official Catholic teaching (such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church) the answer is obvious.
Yes, it was / is a "proper teaching", in the polemic in which the editors of the Catholic paper stated it. Do not misunderstand the editors, and you will not misunderstand the polemic in which the statement was given. By the way, who are you, and in what authoritative capacity within the Roman hierarchy, over that of those editors (Editors - Rev. James T. Foley, D. D. and Thomas Coffey, LL. D.), with the sanction of the Archbishops (Falconio and Sbaretti, late Apostolic Delegates to Canada, the Archbishops of Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, and St. Boniface, the Bishops of London, Hamilton, Peterborough and Odgensburg, N. Y., and the clergy throughout the Dominion.) can you say it isn't? They said what they said in their official capacity, with sanctions, in a Catholic paper, referring to "proper teaching" thereof. They were arguing against another position and meant what they said in their actual knowledge of proper Catholic teaching. That you simply say otherwise, years later and after the fact, and in no official authoritative capacity, doesn't mean much. You are assuming you are correct, and they incorrect. You didn't demonstrate either position, just assumed it and tried to justify yourself over them, your own theologians and religious leaders of their respective domains.
Ooops ... that goes against the very Catholic Canon Law. You invoked "teachers", and as such the teaching capacity itself.
I think your zeal for anti-Catholicism had led to your error in characterization of my comment. You are misapplying the trial system, where for example, a bishop may be judged on a specific offense, to the the Christian understanding of the nature of man. The pope is a man, a sinner, who by nature is imperfect.
