A Catholic Sabbath, Sunday.

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,352
10,607
Georgia
✟912,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
How do you think authority works in Presbyterian churches? I don't recall DJ Kennedy being on the throne at the top.
I don't recall making any such claim.

What I did claim is that it does not bother me if you choose to differ with everyone all up and down the street. That is fine. You have free will - do it as you please.
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,450
1,449
East Coast
✟232,356.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
IF you are looking for a back door "out" - you won't find it. WYSIWYG as they say.

What are you even talking about? A back door out of what? DJ Kennedyism? It loosks like you're more familiar with him than me - so you can state his positions and reasons if you want and we can discuss.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,352
10,607
Georgia
✟912,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
What are you even talking about? A back door out of what? DJ Kennedyism?
So I think we can keep having these "wow! What are you talking about? " posts - but maybe that is best left for another thread.

I have already provided enough full quotes - to make the points I wanted for details on the topic.

Back to the topic
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,352
10,607
Georgia
✟912,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You were referencing him as if he were a definitive authority figure
I never made any claim about his position in his denomination - only the church he was pastor of - and his denomination.

His online material is pretty easy for people to find - and I included some links.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,352
10,607
Georgia
✟912,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
It can be quite hard to pin down a Catholic perspective if one relies on non-official sources.
If the Catholic "Imprimatur" is an indicator that something is not approved by the Catholic church - this is the first time I have heard of it.
If having the "imprimatur" means that "this is not a Catholic perspective" -- then this is the first time I have heard of it.

Is it John Paul II's official Encyclical that you call "non-official"
Is it the "reference for every catholic home and teaching institution - with the Catholic imprimatur" -- that you call "non-official"?

If you want to oppose your own Catholic sources - that is fine with me --- I think we all know I also oppose some of the POV expressed in Catholic sources - so I certainly allow that others would have their own objections to them.

In any case - I think it is easy for readers here - to read those quotes and see "a catholic perspective" on the Sabbath commandment that they will find interesting.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,352
10,607
Georgia
✟912,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
what do you think it indicates, what does the word mean?
From Latin "let it be printed" -

"In the Catholic Church an imprimatur is an official declaration by a Church authority that a book or other printed work may be published;[2][3] it is usually only applied for and granted to books on religious topics from a Catholic perspective. Approval is given in accordance with canons 822 to 832 of the Code of Canon Law, which do not require the use of the word "imprimatur".[4]
The grant of imprimatur is normally preceded by a favourable declaration (known as a nihil obstat)[5] by a person who has the knowledge, orthodoxy, and prudence necessary for passing a judgement about the absence from the publication of anything that would "harm correct faith or good morals."[4] In canon law such a person is known as a censor[4] or sometimes as a censor librorum (Latin for "censor of books")."​

"The Faith Explained" has both "imprimatur" and "nihil obstat"

In this case we are not even talking about a statement on church doctrine in the "Faith Explained" comment about their rejection of sola scriptura , and their complaint about groups that do affirm "sola scriptura". (the very debate you and I have had in the past). We are simply talking about the book making a valid comment about the logical flaw in the claim for sola scriptura testing by non-Catholic groups that only have the Catholic church as source for their claims about change/edit in the Sabbath commandment.
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,450
1,449
East Coast
✟232,356.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
2. A day of holy convocation Lev 23:3

Yes, back to the topic. So the Sabbaths are to be "holy assemblies" according to Lev 23, with possibly a supposed implication that this amounts to "going to church." There are problems with this view of Lev 23 though. For one, Lev 23:1 indicates that the following list in Lev 23 is a list of many prescribed "holy assemblies," and indeed, it doesn't just list one holy assembly, it lists several. It's not clear to me why we would observe 1 and only 1 of these prescribed holy assemblies, but not any of the others. And it's equally as unclear why all but one of the prescribed holy assemblies would be interpreted and applied in light of Jesus' death and resurrection. Why the special pleading? This is simply reading in context. One cannot look and consider only Lev 23:3 without considering the passage in which it occurs. The problem of the Sabbath in Lev 23 is actually more difficult, given that there are other Sabbaths mentioned, not just other holy assemblies mentioned.

Secondly, these "holy assemblies" in Lev 23 are quite apparently Temple oriented. They involved specific rites and liturgy that occurred in the Temple. At least some of this is listed in Num 28-29 (in addition to Lev 23) where it involved specific sacrifices and priestly duties in the Temple. Regardless of what one makes of what it means to "rest" on the Sabbath (Ex 20//Ex 34:21//Lev 23:3//Dt5), the "holy assemblies"have to do with Temple activity and its associated rites, which centrally were sacrifices. The point I'm emphasizing is that the holy assemblies on the Sabbath were, at least originally, prescribing priestly activities in the Temple and dealing primarily with sacrifice and Temple liturgy, not commanding the general populace to assemble in a local synagogue or church.

The third point here is that the Sabbath itself was originally Temple oriented. It wasn't originally simply a day for people to rest, though prohibited activity and rest was certainly a rule. It was originally a day to commemorate God's rest - really, God's enthronement - after his creation and involved specific liturgy and sacrifices. In fact, if the Mishnah is indicative, we have an idea of what this looked like over the course of a week culminating in the weekly commemoration of God's enthronement (Mishnah Ta'anit 4:3). Originally, the Temple was viewed as a microcosm, a miniature scale, of the created order itself. It was where heaven and earth intersected and where God dwelt among his creation. The purpose of Temple liturgy and rites (esp the sacrificial system) was to maintain the created order, keep chaos and evil at bay, and maintain the balance between earth and heaven. This proceeded on recurring weekly, monthly, annual, and special occasional (ie feasts) cadences. The weekly ritual and liturgical cadence in the Temple was one of the mechanisms by which humans, though the priestly hierarchy, participated in the continual maintenance of the created order though a continual reenactment of God's creation activity culminating in God's enthronement and his dwelling in his creation with his people. Gen 1-2 is itself describing creation in terms of God constructing his Tabernacle (ref's here can be provided if wanted) and is constructed in a liturgical-like format culminating in his enthronement.

Though many would like to, it's not so easy to separate the Torah from itself and divide the Sabbath commands into arbitrarily small slices. If a Christian needed a theological reason why a "holy assembly" on the Sabbath (Saturday) is not required, then one need look no further than the Temple itself. First, there is no physical Temple at this point in time in the first place and second, the Temple has been relocated to the body of Christ, the Church, and is being extended to all creation through the proclaiming of the gospel. What God began in Jesus was a new creation that is still in progress until he returns. We celebrate Jesus' enthronement and the inauguration of the New Temple which began with Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection. Just as the Sabbath cadence in the Temple commemorated God's creation and enthronement, so the body of Christ, the New/Final/Eschatological Temple, commemorates the inauguration of the New Creation and Christ's enthronement by observing his resurrection in a continual weekly cadence.

That being said, if someone felt compelled to hold church on Saturday, I don't think there's anything that prohibits it, and I really wouldn't argue against it. Do what your conscience requires on this, by all means. On my view we are living in the "already-but-not-yet," so I don't see any problem with observing the Sabbath if someone desires to do so.

Someone said I was going against scholarship, which was weird since reading commentaries and journals is about all I do on these matters (and basically none of my opinions are original to me), so I have a sufficient amout of scholarly references (whcih oddly doesn't include DJ Kennedy, God rest his soul) if interested. Here's one book with a good summary: Cult and Cosmos: Tilting Toward a Temple-Centered Theology (Biblical Tools and Studies): Morales, LM: 9789042930254: Amazon.com: Books . And sorry, I don't price these things - it's expensive. Could also check out Greg Beale's "the Temple and the Church's Mission" for a good overview or Beale's "New Testament Biblical Theology" (esp. ch 23), or LM Morales' "Who Shall Ascend the Mountain fhe Lord" or some of John Walton's works.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,352
10,607
Georgia
✟912,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Yes, back to the topic. So the Sabbaths are to be "holy assemblies" according to Lev 23, with possibly a supposed implication that this amounts to "going to church." There are problems with this view of Lev 23 though. For one, Lev 23:1 indicates that the following list in Lev 23 is a list of many prescribed "holy assemblies," and indeed, it doesn't just list one holy assembly, it lists several. It's not clear to me why we would observe 1 and only 1 of these prescribed holy assemblies,
No doubt annual feast days were also days of solemn assembly - but that does not delete the weekly Sabbath obligation as even the Catholic Catechism and Dies Domini also firm.

It is unclear to me why on that one point - the CCC and Dies Domini statements appear to be incorrect as they affirm not only the sanctity of the Sabbath commandment but the obligation for solemn assembly -- (at least to some Catholics).
One cannot look and consider only Lev 23:3 without considering the passage in which it occurs. The problem of the Sabbath in Lev 23 is actually more difficult, given that there are other Sabbaths mentioned
Then you will need to explain that in some detail since having an annual holy assembly on a given day would not seem to delete the weekly Sabbath obligation .. not even from the documented Catholic position.
The point I'm emphasizing is that the holy assemblies on the Sabbath were, at least originally, prescribing priestly activities
My guess is that even in a Catholic POV - there are some priests officiating on what they call their Christian Sabbath - assemblies.

I don't see how this even gets to the level of "objection" from a Catholic POV
The third point here is that the Sabbath itself was originally Temple oriented.
In Ex 16 and Ex 20 where Sabbath observance is clearly enforced - there was no temple.
What is more the claim of Pope John Paul II in his "Dies Domini" document is that the Sabbath was a binding command for mankind and not limited to Jews.
It wasn't originally simply a day for people to rest, though prohibited activity and rest was certainly a rule. It was originally a day to commemorate God's rest - really, God's enthronement - after his creation
True it was a day to worship God specifically "as creator"
"worship Him who CREATED the heavens, the earth, the seas and the springs of waters" Rev 14:7.

Again - I don't see how this is in the least objectionable from a Catholic POV
If a Christian needed a theological reason why a "holy assembly" on the Sabbath (Saturday) is not required, then one need look no further than the Temple itself.
Here again you argue against the "holy assembly" requirement for what you admit is the Sabbath - I don't see that in any of the official Catholic documents.
First, there is no physical Temple at this point in time in the first place and second, the Temple has been relocated to the body of Christ
Solemn assembly is had every week - in all sorts of Christian denominations -- as it turns out. Your idea that no one but Jews an have a solemn assembly and they themselves can only have it after they build their temple is not endorsed by scholarship in general - so far as I know.

On my view we are living in the "already-but-not-yet," so I don't see any problem with observing the Sabbath if someone desires to do so.
The question I put to you - is still going unanswered. I asked if you would consider the "Sabbath obligation" to be satisfied by one who keeps the Bible Sabbath un-edited from Friday at sunset to Saturday at Sunset (for example in winter as we have it today in North America) - as "fulfilling the Sabbath obligation" or does that amount to "Sabbath breaking" in the Catholic POV?
Someone said I was going against scholarship, which was weird since reading commentaries and journals is about all I do on these matters (and basically none of my opinions are original to me), so I have a sufficient amout of scholarly references (whcih oddly doesn't include DJ Kennedy, God rest his soul) if interested.
Kennedy is for those interested in "a Presbyterian" POV.
The Baptist Confession of Faith Section 19 is for those interested in "a Baptist POV"
Dies Domini and my quotes from the CCC and from "The Faith Explained" is for those interested in an example of "a Catholic POV"
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,450
1,449
East Coast
✟232,356.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No doubt annual feast days were also days of solemn assembly - but that does not delete the weekly Sabbath obligation as even the Catholic Catechism and Dies Domini also firm
Fair enough. I can't speak to their view (nor would they want me to).
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,450
1,449
East Coast
✟232,356.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Kennedy is for those interested in "a Presbyterian" POV.

Funny enough, Beale and Morales (previously referenced) are both Presbyterian, if I'm not mistaken, and I personally rely more on those two than DJ Kennedy (in fact, to repeat, I've never read or consulted DJ Kennedy on anything at all). So if you wanted to argue against my position based on the position of other Presbyterians, it would be interesting to know if and where I differed from Beale or Morales. I might even retract positions, depending on the arguments provided. I also think I know just about exactly where, to what degree, and the theological impact (none) of where I would disagree with Beale or Morales.

And keeping in line with the OP, their view (and my view) probably isnt' that much differnet form the OP's view, though there may need to be further specifications in definitions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,167
1,382
Perth
✟127,270.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
From Latin "let it be printed" -

"In the Catholic Church an imprimatur is an official declaration by a Church authority that a book or other printed work may be published;[2][3] it is usually only applied for and granted to books on religious topics from a Catholic perspective. Approval is given in accordance with canons 822 to 832 of the Code of Canon Law, which do not require the use of the word "imprimatur".[4]
The grant of imprimatur is normally preceded by a favourable declaration (known as a nihil obstat)[5] by a person who has the knowledge, orthodoxy, and prudence necessary for passing a judgement about the absence from the publication of anything that would "harm correct faith or good morals."[4] In canon law such a person is known as a censor[4] or sometimes as a censor librorum (Latin for "censor of books")."​

"The Faith Explained" has both "imprimatur" and "nihil obstat"

In this case we are not even talking about a statement on church doctrine in the "Faith Explained" comment about their rejection of sola scriptura , and their complaint about groups that do affirm "sola scriptura". (the very debate you and I have had in the past). We are simply talking about the book making a valid comment about the logical flaw in the claim for sola scriptura testing by non-Catholic groups that only have the Catholic church as source for their claims about change/edit in the Sabbath commandment.
The Faith Explained, a printed copy of which I have, is an older catechism written by one man. It's fine on the whole. It is useful. It is not, however, official Catholic doctrine despite offering a presentation of Catholic doctrine and practise as understood by its author.

Your posts have concentrated on specific words in "The Faith Explained" and small details in the book. Those words and small details are easily misconstrued so, I recommend the official documents where specific words and small details are paid much more attention.
 
Upvote 0

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,459
3,771
Eretz
✟317,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
In Romans 14:5, the Apostle Paul writes, "One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind."

From a Catholic perspective, this passage is understood to mean that there is no commandment in the New Testament that obligates Christians to observe a particular day as holy, such as the Sabbath. Paul is stating that each person should be fully convinced in his own mind about the observance of days.

The Catholic Church teaches that the importance of Sunday observance has been passed down from the early church, and Sunday is the day of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is the day that the Lord has made and it is the day on which we celebrate the Eucharist. It is a day of rest and worship, and it is also a time for reflection and for growing in faith.

Mark 2:27 states, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." This verse is often understood by the Catholic Church as a statement about the purpose of the Sabbath.

From a Catholic perspective, this passage is understood to mean that the Sabbath is not an end in itself, but rather it was established for the benefit and well-being of humanity. The Sabbath was given as a gift to the Israelites, to provide them with a regular day of rest and worship, and also to remind them of their deliverance from slavery in Egypt.

The Catholic Church teaches that the purpose of the Sabbath was fulfilled by Jesus Christ, and that the Sabbath was a ceremonial law given to the Israelites in the Old Testament. Therefore, Christians are not bound to keep the Sabbath in the same way that the Israelites were.

The Catholic Church teaches that the importance of Sunday observance has been passed down from the early church, and Sunday is the day of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is the day that the Lord has made and it is the day on which we celebrate the Eucharist. It is a day of rest and worship, and it is also a time for reflection and for growing in faith.

This passage is also understood to mean that the Sabbath is not a burden, but a gift, and that it should bring rest and refreshment to the people of God. It is a reminder of God's love and grace, and it is a time to celebrate and give thanks for all that God has done for us.
The weekly sabbath is not even mentioned in that verse in Romans...but EATING IS. It is regarding fasting or not fasting. Yes Sunday has been historically a day commemorated for the resurrection, but it is not The Sabbath. Yeshua did not say it was given to the Jews, He said it was given to MAN...ADAM in Hebrew. The Sabbath originated in Genesis not at Sinai. When you say "the Catholic Church" teaches, please use "The RCC or Roman Catholic church" because the Orthodox ARE Catholic and do NOT teach all the same things.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,167
1,382
Perth
✟127,270.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The weekly sabbath is not even mentioned in that verse in Romans...but EATING IS. It is regarding fasting or not fasting. Yes Sunday has been historically a day commemorated for the resurrection, but it is not The Sabbath. Yeshua did not say it was given to the Jews, He said it was given to MAN...ADAM in Hebrew. The Sabbath originated in Genesis not at Sinai. When you say "the Catholic Church" teaches, please use "The RCC or Roman Catholic church" because the Orthodox ARE Catholic and do NOT teach all the same things.
Catholics are Orthodox too, yet who complained when you wrote "Orthodox"? It seems a little one sided to complain if I write "Catholic" while you write "Orthodox".

Romans 14 is about eating, not fasting.

In the Catholic Church, Romans 14 is interpreted as a passage about how Christians should handle disagreements about matters of conscience, such as dietary laws and observance of certain holy days. The passage encourages Christians to respect the consciences of others and not to pass judgment on them, even if they do not agree with their choices. It also stresses the importance of loving one's neighbor and not causing them to stumble or be offended by one's actions. In this way, Romans 14 is seen as promoting unity and charity within the community of believers.
 
Upvote 0

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,459
3,771
Eretz
✟317,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Catholics are Orthodox too, yet who complained when you wrote "Orthodox"? It seems a little one sided to complain if I write "Catholic" while you write "Orthodox".

Romans 14 is about eating, not fasting.
To eat or not eat is fasting and not fasting. It is quite obvious. Again, there is NO mention of the Weekly Sabbath. The Eastern Orthodox would debate that the RCC is "Orthodox" at this point. You can not argue that we are not Catholic is its original meaning...
 
Upvote 0

Xeno.of.athens

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.
May 18, 2022
5,167
1,382
Perth
✟127,270.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
To eat or not eat is fasting and not fasting. It is quite obvious. Again, there is NO mention of the Weekly Sabbath. The Eastern Orthodox would debate that the RCC is "Orthodox" at this point. You can not argue that we are not Catholic is its original meaning...
To not eat meat sacrificed to idols is not fasting when one can eat meat that is not sacrificed. However if one is a guest and one's scruples restrict your eating then one could call it a fast. But this misses the point, which I reiterate below.

In the Catholic Church, Romans 14 is interpreted as a passage about how Christians should handle disagreements about matters of conscience, such as dietary laws and observance of certain holy days. The passage encourages Christians to respect the consciences of others and not to pass judgment on them, even if they do not agree with their choices. It also stresses the importance of loving one's neighbor and not causing them to stumble or be offended by one's actions. In this way, Romans 14 is seen as promoting unity and charity within the community of believers.
 
Upvote 0

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,459
3,771
Eretz
✟317,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
To not eat meat sacrificed to idols is not fasting when one can eat meat that is not sacrificed. However if one is a guest and one's scruples restrict your eating then one could call it a fast. But this misses the point, which I reiterate below.

In the Catholic Church, Romans 14 is interpreted as a passage about how Christians should handle disagreements about matters of conscience, such as dietary laws and observance of certain holy days. The passage encourages Christians to respect the consciences of others and not to pass judgment on them, even if they do not agree with their choices. It also stresses the importance of loving one's neighbor and not causing them to stumble or be offended by one's actions. In this way, Romans 14 is seen as promoting unity and charity within the community of believers.
There is nothing regarding eating meat sacrificed to idols in that chapter. Again, none of that has anything to do with the weekly Sabbath. That was my point.

:"Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. " FASTING...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,352
10,607
Georgia
✟912,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The Faith Explained, a printed copy of which I have, is an older catechism written by one man. It's fine on the whole. It is useful.
As you know I am not a Catholic - I was just using the document as a reasonable example of a Catholic perspective and I quoted a section where it makes logical argument regarding sola scriptura. I find it helpful.
It is not, however, official Catholic doctrine
Making a lotical argument against a specific sola scriptura claim of non-Catholics is not expected to be "official catholic doctrine".

I assume we agree that is not the way doctrine is stated.

For example in my denomination we do not say "This doctrine is defined as: the Catholic church being wrong on a given POV because they are not being logical".
despite offering a presentation of Catholic doctrine and practise as understood by its author.
Offering explanations of Catholic doctrine and promoted as a good reference "for every Catholic home and teaching institution" is at the very least - making the claim to "a Catholic POV".
Your posts have concentrated on specific words in "The Faith Explained" and small details in the book.
Because those "words" in the "Faith Explained" document - are specific to the argument that the non-Catholic position on sola scriptura is flawed in a way that exposes a logical argument in that non-Catholic POV.
 
Upvote 0