Perpetual- What does it mean?

[Daron]

Hi All

Perpetual-What does it mean?

Could all of you please tell me what Perpetual means?

Thank you!
Daron

 

[Daron]

Anybody?

 

[Philip]

You might try http://dictionary.reference.com/

Perpetual

1. Lasting for eternity.
2. Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time.
3. Instituted to be in effect or have tenure for an unlimited duration: a treaty of perpetual friendship.
4. Continuing without interruption. See Synonyms at continual.
5. Flowering throughout the growing season.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

For example, we believe the Blessed Virgin Mary, is a Perpetual Virgin. Meaning she never had sex, thus Christ was her only child.

 

[Daron]

You might try http://dictionary.reference.com/

Perpetual

1. Lasting for eternity.
2. Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time.
3. Instituted to be in effect or have tenure for an unlimited duration: a treaty of perpetual friendship.
4. Continuing without interruption. See Synonyms at continual.
5. Flowering throughout the growing season.

Thank you Philip

I am just trying to see if others understand perpetual as I do.

Anybody else agree with Philip?

Daron

 

[Daron]

For example, we believe the Blessed Virgin Mary, is a Perpetual Virgin. Meaning she never had sex, thus Christ was her only child.

Thank you for sharing your belief.

Why would it matter?

Daron

 

[lands21]

Perpetual

PERPET'UAL, a. [L. perpetuus, from perpes, perpetis; per and pes, from a root signifying to pass.]

1. Never ceasing; continuing forever in future time; destined to be eternal; as a perpetual covenant; a perpetual statute.

[Literally true with respect to the decrees of God]

2. Continuing or continued without intermission; uninterrupted; as a perpetual stream; the perpetual action of the heart and arteries.

3. Permanent; fixed; not temporary; as a perpetual law or edict; perpetual love or amity, perpetual incense. Exo 30.

4. Everlasting; endless.

Destructions are come to a perpetual end. Psa 9.

5. During the legal dispensation. Exo 29.

Perpetual curacy, is where all the tithes are appropriated and no vicarage is endowed.

Perpetual motion, motion that generates a power of continuing itself forever or indefinitely, by means of mechanism or some application of the force of gravity; not yet discovered,and probably impossible.

Perpetual screw, a screw that acts against the teeth of a wheel and continues its action without end.

 

[Daron]

For example, we believe the Blessed Virgin Mary, is a Perpetual Virgin. Meaning she never had sex, thus Christ was her only child.

Hello again,

So, Mary's virginity remained the same even long after the Church was established. Is this correct?

I guess if Mary's virginity was perpetual, then she would have a good understanding of what perpetual means too. Would this be correct?

Daron

 

[lands21]

But Mary had other children? The bible even speaks of Joesph not knowing Mary until after she had Jesus.

Mat 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: and he called his name JESUS.

 

[armothe]

For example, we believe the Blessed Virgin Mary, is a Perpetual Virgin. Meaning she never had sex, thus Christ was her only child.

Yeah...I'm pretty sure Joseph and Mary had other children.

Matthew 1:25
Matthew 12:46
Matthew 13:55
Mark 6:3
Acts 1:14

but alas.....someone will probably argue as to what the meaning of "brother" is.

-A

 

[Philip]

but alas.....someone will probably argue as to what the meaning of "brother" is.

Assuming the word translated as "brother" means the same as the English word "brother" is poor scholarship. Of course, I'm not sure that is the purpose of this thread.

 

[lands21]

So then how can we believe Mary was a perpetual virgin?

 

[armothe]

Assuming the word translated as "brother" means the same as the English word "brother" is poor scholarship. Of course, I'm not sure that is the purpose of this thread.

Who said anything about assuming?

Brother: adelphos {ad-el-foes}
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3) any fellow or man
4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5) an associate in employment or office
6) brethren in Christ
a) his brothers by blood
b) all men
c) apostles
d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

Sister: adelphe {ad-el-fay'}
1) a full, own sister
2) one connected by the tie of the Christian religion

And you are correct......we are getting off-topic.

-A

 

[armothe]

**

 

[Daron]

Yes, I would like to continue with the topic of the thread. I am waiting on JeffreyLloyd to answer my last post.

Daron

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

But Mary had other children? The bible even speaks of Joesph not knowing Mary until after she had Jesus.

Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove "not until" means "not up to the point that":

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel." Not John "was in the desert until after" his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, "take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool." Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - "up to the point that I come," attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing "until after" I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth "up to the point that" [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won't leave Jacob "up to the point that" he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but "up to the point of today" no one knows Moses' burial place. This does not mean that "they did not know place until today."

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul's daughter Micah was childless "up to the point" [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain "up to the point that" they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Yeah...I'm pretty sure Joseph and Mary had other children.

Matthew 1:25
Matthew 12:46
Matthew 13:55
Mark 6:3
Acts 1:14

but alas.....someone will probably argue as to what the meaning of "brother" is.

-A

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).


No Word for Cousin

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages used either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of the sister of my father." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews used "brother."

The writers of the New Testament were brought up to use the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint favored adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for "brother" and did not use adelphos in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what "brethren" or "brother" or "sister" means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.

Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask "how" she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the "normal" way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." The Greek expression implies he is her only son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Also, the attitude taken by the "brethren of the Lord" implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger never gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ "brethren" saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: "And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’" (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the "brethren" were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s "first-born" son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his "brethren": James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.


Fundamentalist Arguments

Fundamentalists insist that "brethren of the Lord" must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: "[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as "till") she brought forth her firstborn son." They first argue that the natural inference from "till" is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called "first-born"? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a "second-born," perhaps a "third-born," and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word "till" in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son" (New American Bible); "He had not known her when she bore a son" (Knox).

Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s "first-born" unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.


The Holy Family

Fundamentalists say it would have been repugnant for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and remain celibate. They call such marriages "unnatural" arrangements. Certainly they were unusual, but not as unusual as having the Son of God in one’s family, and not nearly as unusual as having a virgin give birth to a child! The Holy Family was neither an average family nor should we expect its members to act as would members of an average family.

The circumstances demanded sacrifice by Mary and Joseph. This was a special family, set aside for the nurturing of the Son of God. No greater dignity could be given to marriage than that.

Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is the testimony of the early Christian Church. Consider the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380. Helvidius first brought up the notion that the "brothers of the Lord" were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The great Scripture scholar Jerome at first declined to comment on Helvidius’ remarks because they were a "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world." At length, though, Jerome’s friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in disrepute and was unheard of until more recent times.

So, if it is established that the "brethren of the Lord" were not Jesus’ brothers or half-brothers through Mary, who were they?

Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ "brothers" who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One work, known as the Proto-evangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: "I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl" (4:8–9).

Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four "brethren" who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56); "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome" (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it’s probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

This identification of the "brethren of the Lord" as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question—they might even be relatives more distantly removed—but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it, in this case) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Hello again,

So, Mary's virginity remained the same even long after the Church was established. Is this correct?

I guess if Mary's virginity was perpetual, then she would have a good understanding of what perpetual means too. Would this be correct?

Daron

What do you mean?

 

[Daron]

You might try http://dictionary.reference.com/

Perpetual

1. Lasting for eternity.
2. Continuing or lasting for an indefinitely long time.
3. Instituted to be in effect or have tenure for an unlimited duration: a treaty of perpetual friendship.
4. Continuing without interruption. See Synonyms at continual.
5. Flowering throughout the growing season.

Perpetual

PERPET'UAL, a. [L. perpetuus, from perpes, perpetis; per and pes, from a root signifying to pass.]

1. Never ceasing; continuing forever in future time; destined to be eternal; as a perpetual covenant; a perpetual statute.

[Literally true with respect to the decrees of God]

2. Continuing or continued without intermission; uninterrupted; as a perpetual stream; the perpetual action of the heart and arteries.

3. Permanent; fixed; not temporary; as a perpetual law or edict; perpetual love or amity, perpetual incense. Exo 30.

4. Everlasting; endless.

Destructions are come to a perpetual end. Psa 9.

5. During the legal dispensation. Exo 29.

Perpetual curacy, is where all the tithes are appropriated and no vicarage is endowed.

Perpetual motion, motion that generates a power of continuing itself forever or indefinitely, by means of mechanism or some application of the force of gravity; not yet discovered, and probably impossible.

Perpetual screw, a screw that acts against the teeth of a wheel and continues its action without end.

Thank you for supplying answers for the meaning of perpetual. Now that we have established the true meaning of perpetual. I would like to move on.

There was a perpetual covenant given, "The Seventh Day Sabbath," but it is said to have vanished away and another day, "The First Day" is observed. But how can this be true? Yahuah said the seventh day Sabbath was forever.

Ex 31:16-17 Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days Yahuah made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.' "


OT:5769 `owlam (o-lawm'); or `olam (o-lawm'); from OT:5956; properly, concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always:

So Phillip and Jeffderuyter21, do you observe the perpetual covenant given, "The Seventh Day Sabbath"? Mary did, for she was a Jew and became a follower of Yahshuah and knew about the perpetual covenant of the seventh day Sabbath.

It is said that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and that Peter was the First Pope. So we have two Jews who became followers of Messiah, and knew about the perpetual covenant given, "The Seventh Day Sabbath," and observed it, for it is a perpetual covenant given to the children of Yisrael. Mary and Peter are the children of Yisrael. So understand this, how does the following decree truly apply?

----In about 365 A.D., a religious convention for ecclesiastical authorities was held in what is today the nation of Turkey. It was called the Council of Laodicea and it was convened to settle, among other matters, the Sabbath question. One of its most famous canons was the twenty-ninth:

"Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather, honoring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ" (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. XIV,p. 148).----

Other questions:

If Mary and Peter (First Pope?) had lived during the day the decree (above) was first given, they would have been found to be Judaizers, and then would not the Church cast judgment on them of, "let them be anathema from Messiah"?

Speaking of those who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and or believe Peter was the first Pope: Why do they not observe the perpetual covenant of the seventh day Sabbath as Mary and Peter (first Pope?) did?

With your answer, please consider that the seventh day Sabbath is a perpetual covenant, to which was given to the children of Yisrael, and consider Mary and Peter were also of the children of Yisrael.

Daron

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Thank you for supplying answers for the meaning of perpetual. Now that we have established the true meaning of perpetual. I would like to move on.

There was a perpetual covenant given, "The Seventh Day Sabbath," but it is said to have vanished away and another day, "The First Day" is observed. But how can this be true? Yahuah said the seventh day Sabbath was forever.

Ex 31:16-17 Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days Yahuah made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.' "


OT:5769 `owlam (o-lawm'); or `olam (o-lawm'); from OT:5956; properly, concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always:

So Phillip and Jeffderuyter21, do you observe the perpetual covenant given, "The Seventh Day Sabbath"?

Mary did, for she was a Jew and became a follower of Yahshuah and knew about the perpetual covenant of the seventh day Sabbath.

It is said that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and that Peter was the First Pope. So we have two Jews who became followers of Messiah, and knew about the perpetual covenant given, "The Seventh Day Sabbath," and observed it, for it is a perpetual covenant given to the children of Yisrael. Mary and Peter are the children of Yisrael. So understand this, how does the following decree truly apply?

----In about 365 A.D., a religious convention for ecclesiastical authorities was held in what is today the nation of Turkey. It was called the Council of Laodicea and it was convened to settle, among other matters, the Sabbath question. One of its most famous canons was the twenty-ninth:

"Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather, honoring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ" (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. XIV,p. 148).----

Isaiah 1:13 - God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.

Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus' resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.

Acts 20:7 - this texts shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the "first day of the week." Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches "on the first day of the week," which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says "let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath."

2 Thess. 2:15 - we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of "another day," which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord's resurrection, which was on Sunday.

Heb. 7:12 - when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.

Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord's day, the new day of rest in Christ.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.

Also, Catholic Churches have mass on Saturday and Sunday.

Other questions:

If Mary and Peter (First Pope?) had lived during the day the decree (above) was first given, they would have been found to be Judaizers, and then would not the Church cast judgment on them of, "let them be anathema from Messiah"?

Speaking of those who believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary and or believe Peter was the first Pope: Why do they not observe the perpetual covenant of the seventh day Sabbath as Mary and Peter (first Pope?) did?

With your answer, please consider that the seventh day Sabbath is a perpetual covenant, to which was given to the children of Yisrael, and consider Mary and Peter were also of the children of Yisrael.

Daron

As Catholics we do believe St. Peter is the first pope and the head of the Catholic Church. It was under the leadership of the church the day was moved to Sunday which the church has the authoirty to do.

Matt 16: 18-19 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."