Catholicism regarding the Sabbath

[AndrewK788]

I've come across quite a wealth of resources regarding different statements made by Catholic clergy regarding the Sabbath and it is quite interesting. I just want to hear some opinions on this. Here are some quotes with their sources:

"It was the Catholic church which...has transferred this rest to Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Therefore the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the (Catholic) church." Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk About Protestantism of Today, p. 213.

"Sunday is our mark of authority...the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact." Catholic Record of London, Ontario, September 1, 1923.

"Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. 'The day of the Lord' was chosen, not from any direction noted in the scriptures, but from the Catholic church's sense of its own power...People who think that the scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy." St. Catherine Church Sentinel, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

One thing you have to realize about a lot of Catholic's is that they can make many claims that they can only make if one accepts their traditions. It is rather like Peter was the first pope. It is a claim that has no historical backing but many centuries later someone created a list of the popes and after a while that non historical information is treated as if it is historical by many of the theologians of the Catholic church. Fortunately they do have some good scholarship like the New Catholic Encyclopedia which is capable of distinguishing between tradition and history. But many of the quotes you are referring to are made by people trying to support their tradition rather then dealing with real history.

 

[tall73]

Yes, that is the claim.

Pope John Paul II got a bit more sophisticated with the claim in his papal letter, which was half of the reason that Bacchiocchi wrote his "Sabbath in Crossfire" book.

The problem is there is no evidence that Sunday was ever the new Sabbath. There was no transfer in the Scriptures and it was not until later history that they talked about it.

 

[AndrewK788]

One thing you have to realize about a lot of Catholic's is that they can make many claims that they can only make if one accepts their traditions. It is rather like Peter was the first pope. It is a claim that has no historical backing but many centuries later someone created a list of the popes and after a while that non historical information is treated as if it is historical by many of the theologians of the Catholic church. Fortunately they do have some good scholarship like the New Catholic Encyclopedia which is capable of distinguishing between tradition and history. But many of the quotes you are referring to are made by people trying to support their tradition rather then dealing with real history.

Are you sure there's no historical backing? I'll need to look into that because I was pretty sure there was. Constantine was the first to implement Sunday as the day of worship for various reasons, but it wasn't too many years after that that the church officially changed the day. That has been my understanding at least.

I'll need to go do some research I guess.

 

[sentipente]

Constantine was the first to implement Sunday as the day of worship for various reasons, but it wasn't too many years after that that the church officially changed the day. That has been my understanding at least.

I'll need to go do some research I guess.

Christians were worshipping on the first day of the week long before Constantine was born.

 

[AndrewK788]

Christians were worshipping on the first day of the week long before Constantine was born.

How do you know that? I mean what source do you get that from?

 

[djconklin]

But many of the quotes you are referring to are made by people trying to support their tradition rather then dealing with real history.

Care to show the proof? It certainly seems like they made claims. I haven't seen anyone claim that these claims are only true if you "accept" their traditions. Either they said it or they didn't--rather cut and dried.

 

[djconklin]

Christians were worshipping on the first day of the week long before Constantine was born.

In fact, as two 5th century historians have noted most Christians (except those in Rome and Alexadria) still kept the Sabbath.

 

[AndrewK788]

Care to show the proof? It certainly seems like they made claims. I haven't seen anyone claim that these claims are only true if you "accept" their traditions. Either they said it or they didn't--rather cut and dried.

Indeed. And it isn't a select few who have said such things. I've discovered 37 different quotes (only ones that include sources) about the Catholic church changing the day of worship. One was even made by a cardinal in the Vatican in a letter that was sent in reply to a friend of mine who had quite pointedly asked them about the Sabbath issue. So that is even a primary source. So the question of if they did or did not say it I think isn't debatable.

 

[Sophia7]

Are you sure there's no historical backing? I'll need to look into that because I was pretty sure there was. Constantine was the first to implement Sunday as the day of worship for various reasons, but it wasn't too many years after that that the church officially changed the day. That has been my understanding at least.

I'll need to go do some research I guess.

Christians were worshipping on the first day of the week long before Constantine was born.

How do you know that? I mean what source do you get that from?

Andrew, read Bacchiocchi's book From Sabbath to Sunday. You can read it free online at this site:
http://english.sdaglobal.org/dnl/bacchi/books/index.html

His research shows that Christian worship on Sunday (but not as a replacement for the seventh-day Sabbath) began long before Constantine. Although I disagree with many of the conclusions that he draws from the historical evidence, he is very thorough in presenting it. Historic Adventists don't like him because he contradicts EGW's version of history on several points.

 

[tall73]

Care to show the proof? It certainly seems like they made claims. I haven't seen anyone claim that these claims are only true if you "accept" their traditions. Either they said it or they didn't--rather cut and dried.

So you are saying that Peter was the first pope as they allege?

Alright.

 

[djconklin]

Historic Adventists don't like him because he contradicts EGW's version of history on several points.

Where and how so? I've read Bacchiocchi's books on the Sabbath and there was nothing that contradicted what EGW wrote--fine-tuned it in places, but that's fine.

 

[tall73]

In fact, as two 5th century historians have noted most Christians (except those in Rome and Alexadria) still kept the Sabbath.

I think you are referring to Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen.

a. They indicate that the church recognized both days as festal days. Of course, that tends to argue against the idea of a transfer.

b. They mention that the eucharist was kept on Sabbath. They also mention assembly.

c. They don't mention Sabbath as being kept as a holy day per the commandment. Though I am sure some were doing that even then from other statements. The apostolic constitutions for instance do seem to suggest that there were Sabbath keepers, per the commandment, for some time.

 

[djconklin]

So you are saying that Peter was the first pope as they allege?

The question was asked in the context of the Catholic claims about the Sabbath and the subsequent claim that these quotes only "work" if you accept their traditions (supposedly relating to the quotes).

 

[tall73]

The question was asked in the context of the Catholic claims about the Sabbath and the subsequent claim that these quotes only "work" if you accept their traditions (supposedly relating to the quotes).

Yeah, and his corresponding example was that of the establishment of the papacy.

I think you need to address the point that some things can be proven and some can't. Or to put it another way, we know there was a papacy, we just don't know when it developed.

Most SDA folks do not think it did with Peter.

We also know eventually the church took the position that it transferred. But this did not happen right away either.

 

[djconklin]

I think you are referring to Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen.

That is correct--this computer (a Mac) is very slow, so I didn't do a search to find the exact spelling of their names or they interenet source for their writings.

a. They indicate that the church recognized both days as festal days. Of course, that tends to argue against the idea of a transfer.

Who has argued that there was a transfer? Hasn't Odom showed in his book that this was a rather recent invention, while Christians throughout the ages said "The Bible says ..."?

b. They mention that the eucharist was kept on Sabbath.

I fail to see the relevance for this claim.

c. They don't mention Sabbath as being kept as a holy day per the commandment. Though I am sure some were doing that even then from other statements. The apostolic constitutions for instance do seem to suggest that there were Sabbath keepers, per the commandment, for some time.

This implies that they kept it for other reasons--where is the evidence?

 

[tall73]

And on the day called
Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place,
and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as
long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president
verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then
we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is
ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like
manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the
people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a
participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who
are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do,
and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited
with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who,
342
through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in
bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of
all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our
common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having
wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus
Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was
crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after
that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His
apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have
submitted to you also for your consideration.

Here is a statement from somewhere between 138-161--considerably before Constantine.

 

[RND]

One thing you have to realize about a lot of Catholic's is that they can make many claims that they can only make if one accepts their traditions. It is rather like Peter was the first pope. It is a claim that has no historical backing but many centuries later someone created a list of the popes and after a while that non historical information is treated as if it is historical by many of the theologians of the Catholic church. Fortunately they do have some good scholarship like the New Catholic Encyclopedia which is capable of distinguishing between tradition and history. But many of the quotes you are referring to are made by people trying to support their tradition rather then dealing with real history.

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

 

[Sophia7]

Where and how so? I've read Bacchiocchi's books on the Sabbath and there was nothing that contradicted what EGW wrote--fine-tuned it in places, but that's fine.

See these threads for the reasons that they don't like him:
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=40578603#post40578603
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=40769842#post40769842

Now, keep in mind that many of their arguments against him show a lack of understanding of what he actually says, but they do think that he contradicts EGW, which is their major problem with him and part of the reason that they think he's a Jesuit infiltrator.

Here are a couple of quotes from those threads:

I disagree. Have you followed the thread on this? Dr. B has challenged the inspired interpretation of the mark of the beast. He said this traditional interpretation the most adventists "prefer to hold on to" is lacking in both historic and exegetic records.

His theory is utterly false. If it's an area like you said that's lacking in evidence, I would not mind discussing the possibilities. But on the MOB, Ellen White who Dr. B apparently accepts as a prophet of God had given clear understanding. A bible scholar has to follow biblical principles. No prophecy is for any private interpretations.

Red, please follow the thread and exam the arguments carefully.

The way to destruction is paved with good intentions. The bible says there is a way that seems right to man, but the end is the way of death, Prov 14:12.

If Dr. B is a faith adventist like you said and if he truly believes EGW was a prophet, why would he introduce a new theory that undermines a fundemental endtime issue?

Do you believe the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus? SOP only confirms what the bible teaches. There is nothing that SOP stands on its own without the support of the scriptures. If the bible says there was a great flood, I don't need the scientific evidence to believe it. By the same token, SOP does not come under the scrutiny of historic evidence. Besides, there are abundant (even himself admits in ETI 139) proves that Vicarius Filii Dei was indeed used for papacy.

Red, an enemy who does not come to you with knives and guns is the most dangerous. We are in a battle of the mind. We are either for or against Him. There is no in-between. We can't rely on our own feelings but inspired revelation. Dr. B's 'new' theory discredits the specific message God commissioned His endtime people to proclaim: the Three Angels Message.

 

[tall73]

That is correct--this computer (a Mac) is very slow, so I didn't do a search to find the exact spelling of their names or they interenet source for their writings.

I can post them if you prefer to save you the trouble.

Who has argued that there was a transfer? Hasn't Odom showed in his book that this was a rather recent invention, while Christians throughout the ages said "The Bible says ..."?

Oh I much agree. That was the point that was being made by RC but you seemed to miss it.

There is indication that after some time they began to see Sunday as a replacement day. But not early on with the possible exception of the epistle of Barnabas, and frankly I think he was a bit on the odd side in a lot of ways.

I fail to see the relevance for this claim.

Well first off I added the element of assembly by editing before your reply. But the relevance is that is what the texts you are referring to say. I thought you would want them to know that.

This implies that they kept it for other reasons--where is the evidence?

No, it implies exactly what the statements say. They say they assembled and had eucharist. It doesn't say anything about them resting etc. as other documents do.

[FONT=&quot]
Sozomen, 5th century http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26027.htm

The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria.

Socrates Scholasticus, History book 5, 5th century http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26015.htm

For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.

[/FONT]The text shows them assembling and taking the eucharist.

Another lesser known passage calls them both festal days and again speaks of assembly:

[FONT=&quot] Socrates again, book 6 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.htm

The Arians, as we have said, held their meetings without the city. As often therefore as the festal days occurred—I mean Saturday[1] and Lord’s day—in each week, on which assemblies are usually held in the churches, they congregated within the city gates about the public squares, and sang responsive verses adapted to the Arian heresy (Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, Book 6, Chapter 8, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3, p. 144)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]