The question-and-answer appears in Rev. Peter Geiermann's The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine:
The quote itself is not an SDA fabrication.
I pointed out it was found there. However, I then gave reasons as to why I don't think it makes much sense to try to draw on.
Long before Seventh-day Adventists existed, Catholic writers openly argued that Sunday observance rests on Church authority rather than on an explicit biblical command. Similar statements can be found in:
- A Doctrinal Catechism
- The Faith of Our Fathers
- various Catholic apologetic works from the 19th and early 20th centuries
- These works commonly argue that the Church changed the day of public worship from Saturday to Sunday and that this demonstrates the Church's authority.
All which are apologetic works, not doctrinal ones. "A Doctrinal Catechism" looks doctrinal from the title, but if one opens it up you quickly find out it's an apologetic work--and for the most part not all that great of one, if you ask me--written in the
style of a catechism (the question-and-answer style of catechism was very popular at that point). Though it was also distributed under the name "A Controversial Catechism" which is more a more accurate of its contents (back then, the term "controversial" was often used to refer to Protestant or Catholic works arguing for their position). "Faith of Our Fathers" was also largely apologetic, in which the author tried to argue for apostolic basis for Catholicism.
So, again, all you've been demonstrating is that some Catholics used a particular apologetic argument. That's why the actual major doctrinal texts (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Catechism of the Catholic Church) are skipped over, instead mostly just grabbing quotes from apologetic works, some of which are just random magazine articles.
You also are conflating two separate ideas that you can find in some Catholic documents. The first is that the sanctification of Sunday isn't found in scripture and Protestants are inconsistent in practicing it. This is not doctrine... this is an argument. As I've said, I don't think it's a good argument. It is to again be noted that some Catholics disagree with this argument.
The second is the assertion that the Catholic Church changed the day. This is sometimes used in conjunction with the first. Now, this one actually is more of a doctrine. But, as I have pointed out before and
as noted here (not by a Catholic and thus without bias towards Catholicism) the whole basis for the Catholic Church's assertion of this is that: (1) the Apostles made this change, and (2) the Roman Catholic Church is the church of the apostles. In that sense, the Catholic Church says it made the change. That's the whole rationale, and some of the quotes you tossed out came from sources that note this fact. If someone disagrees with one or both of these premises, as you clearly do, then they must logically disagree with the Catholic claim of making any such change.
- The SDA argument does not stand or fall on that one catechism.
Even if The Convert's Catechismhad never existed, Adventists would still point to:
- The absence of a biblical command changing the Sabbath to Sunday.
I leave the arguing on this topic to others.
Historical evidence that Sunday observance became dominant gradually in the early centuries of Christianity.
Which wasn't the point you were arguing.
Catholic claims that Church authority played a role in establishing Sunday observance.
This was already addressed earlier in this post. But to make an additional point, I should note what Dudley Canright (discussed in the link earlier in this post) pointed out in Chapter 3 of his book "The Lord's Day from Neither Catholics nor Pagans: An Answer to Seventh-day Adventism on this Subject":
No class of people denounces the Roman Church more strongly than Adventists do. They pronounce them deceivers, false teachers, perverters of history, and their boastful claims they repudiate as worthless, all except on the change of the Sabbath. Here they hold up, and publish to the world, her mere assertion as settling the question beyond dispute. The Catholics offer no proof of their claim that they changed the day. They assert that they did and leave it there. Adventists gladly accept this without any proof. Consider now: The Roman Catholic Church makes all the following boastful claims:
- The Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church.
- St. Peter was the first Pope of the Holy Catholic Church.
- The present Pope of Rome is the lineal divinely appointed successor of St. Peter.
- The Pope of Rome is the Vicar of Jesus Christ upon earth.
- The Pope is infallible.
- The Pope holds the keys to heaven.
- All, including Adventists, outside of the Catholic Church are heretics.
- Protestants are indebted to Catholics for the Holy Scriptures as it is given to them.
- Catholic priests have authority to forgive sins.
- The Roman Catholic Church changed the Sabbath from the seventh day to Sunday, the first day.
The Catholic Church strongly claims all these ten items. What do Seventh-Day Adventists say to these assertions? They quickly deny all the first nine, say they are all lies, without any foundation in fact. But when you come to the tenth one, the change of the Sabbath, then Adventists fall over each other to accept every word of this as the infallible truth. It settles the question beyond dispute. "The Catholic Church just owns it right up" that it did really do the job!!
To illustrate: Adventists bring their chief witness into court. But when he is sworn they acknowledge that nine-tenths of his testimony is a lie, is perjury, but one-tenth of what he swears to is true. On this they claim they have won their case! Sela!
Any judge would quickly throw out of court such testimony as worthless, yet this is the witness, and the only witness, Adventists can produce saying that the Roman Church changed the Sabbath. See any of their publications on this point.
Despite some arguable exaggerations on his part in this excerpt, his core point here seems valid.
- The WorldCat point is largely irrelevant.
Whether a book is widely held today does not determine whether its contents accurately represented a Catholic position at the time. Many older catechisms have few surviving copies. The important question is whether the teaching expressed was an isolated opinion or reflected a broader Catholic understanding.
My larger point was that the same author gave a more clear statement as to his views in another work of his, and one that was much more widely used. That other work of his ("Manual of Theology for the Laity") asserted that Sunday observance was from the apostolic period, was found in the Bible, and the later Council of Laodicea decree was just confirmation of this apostolic practice. So any statements of his elsewhere, such as those in Covert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine should be read in the context he explains in his other, much more widely distributed and folleod work. My point of the Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine being very minor was to point out that even if someone were to argue "but someone might read the Convert's Catechism and not have access to the fuller description" I would point out that the evidence is that someone would have been significantly more likely to come across his more clear statements in "Manual of Theology for the Laity" than they would have ever come across "The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine."
This is just one quote of many...
The reason I discussed that one quote was because it was the one being discussed. Though as for the others,
I discussed them in general back here.
