The Sabbath Day

[tall73]

Sozomen (5th century) also noted that people in Rome and Alexandria stopped keeping the Sabbath for some unknown (my word) reason way in the past.

Yup. He seems to have relied heavily on Socrates in general.

The point being all three statements agree in this respect that Sylvester was upholding a practice that was already in place.

By the way, I don't want to downplay those statements OntheDL. I will see if I can examine them further, but the only source for them seems to be locked down by a fee base membership system.

I am looking for another one.

I think it is significant if we can trace this back to Sylvester, as to the decree. Yet he still was acting on current practice.

 

[tall73]

Now let's look at another part of the equation related to this.

Dan 7:25 He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.

The changing of times and laws is in close connection to the wearing out of the saints, and the given into his hand for 1260 days/years.

Yet this event, if in fact it did represent the official change, would be far earlier than our usual dating of the beginning of this period.

In fact, the council of Laodicea would as well, and it had no papal endorsement at the time.

 

[tall73]

Also, the Catholic mirror, etc. are not official sources of definitive Catholic teaching. When you debate Catholics in GT for instance they only accept official statements of theology from the pope, council etc.

Only certain statements Ex Cathedra, qualify as infallible under their definition of papal infalliblility.

Other sources can obviously still speak to the question. And I have seen some older catechisms that proport the same things. But then there is the question of whether they are the official Catechism, or just the stripped down basic version for training of laity, etc.

In other words, it becomes difficult to find sources all can agree are authoritative.

 

[Jimlarmore]

The pope never attended or approved the council of Laodicea, which is why the CC considers it a regional synod. It could not be a council in the proper sense without the pope's approval.

Why was the doctrine later signed into official Catholic practice if this was the case? The pope or some governing body of leaders in the CC had to push it thru some how to make it an official and legal practice of the church.

As to your assessment, I am leaving it open. Yes, some could refer to the system, some to the head. I am just waiting for more specific evidence if there is any to make the claim on this particular point.

Good idea and I agree we need to be certain of what we are saying before we go claiming such things. However, I don't think there is any doubt who the beast power is. That was very well established during the reformation by Luther and others. Later solidly confirmed by our churches forefathers. You are not doubting that aspect of it are you?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[djconklin]

However, I don't think there is any doubt who the beast power is.

Years ago I was reading somewhere (and I kick myself in the pants for not writing it down!) that even before that papacy came into being that the early Christians knew that the anti-Christ would arise in Rome. I was going to ask Dr. Bacchiocchi ab't it but forgot.

 

[tall73]

Why was the doctrine later signed into official Catholic practice if this was the case? The pope or some governing body of leaders in the CC had to push it thru some how to make it an official and legal practice of the church.

If you examine when popes have made things official dogma they generally go into long and detailed discussions of the long standing traditions regarding that dogma.

For instance, when decreeing the immaculate conception, assumption of Mary, etc. the popes drew up the reasons that they saw as being present from early times.

Therefore there is no doubt that someone makes it official. But in this case the council of Laodicea is seen as a part of the tradition, but not binding in the sense of the ecumenical counciles. council of Trent, etc.

The point is that the pope was acting on tradition from time past, which we have examples of in the Early Church fathers, not all of which were Roman.

Good idea and I agree we need to be certain of what we are saying before we go claiming such things. However, I don't think there is any doubt who the beast power is. That was very well established during the reformation by Luther and others. Later solidly confirmed by our churches forefathers. You are not doubting that aspect of it are you?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

I am currently looking through each of our beliefs to re-examine the details. It is not an issue of doubt, but of being thorough. I started this some time back with the Sabbath, which I am quite certain was an historical part of the church, as the evidence bears out, both in the ECF, and in Scripture.

I was debating constantly on the Sabbath issue in GT with those who do not just accept the party line. Therefore I needed solid answers from sources that all could accept. That is again what I am looking for here.

If it becomes clear during the course of investigation that there are problems, then I will look into them. If need be I will change my doctrinal stances when the evidence indicates, given sufficient research to bear it out.

 

[reddogs]

In the Islands we say "same dog puppy" which roughly translated is equivalent to "six or half dozen". It means it all comes from the same source and that source is not the Bible, it is from another source which has no divine or scriptural basis.

I went over the early church history and here is some of the texts relating to Sabbath from the early church by J.N Andrew:

"....The following are all the hints respecting the nature of first-day observance during the first
three centuries. The epistle falsely ascribed to Barnabas simply says: "We keep the eighth day
with joyfulness."1 Justin Martyr, in words already quoted at full length, describes the kind of
meeting which they held at Rome and in that vicinity on that day, and this is all that he
connects with its observance.2 Irenaeus taught that to commemorate the resurrection, the knee
must not be bent on that day, and mentions nothing else as essential to its honor. This act of
standing in prayer was a symbol of the resurrection, which was to be celebrated only on that
day, as he held.3 Bardesanes the Gnostic represents the Christians as everywhere meeting for
worship on that day, but he does not describe that worship, and he gives no other honor to the
day.4 Tertullian describes Sunday observance as follows: "We devote Sunday to rejoicing,"
and he adds, "We have some resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to
ease and luxury."5 In another work he gives us a further idea of the festive character of
Sunday. Thus he says to his brethren: "If any indulgence is to be granted to the flesh, you
have it. I will not say your own days, but more too; for to the heathens each festive day occurs
but once annually; you have a festive day every eighth day."6 Dr. Heylyn spoke the truth
when he said:

"Tertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly unto mirth and
recreation, not to devotion altogether; when in a hundred years after
Tertullian's time there was no law or constitution to restrain men from labor on
this day in the Christian church."7
The Sunday festival in Tertullian's time was not like the modern first-day Sabbath, but was
essentially the German festival of Sunday, a day for worship and for recreation, and one on
which labor was not sinful. But Tertullian speaks further respecting Sunday observance, and
the words now to be quoted have been used as proof that labor on that day was counted sinful.
This is the only statement that can be found prior to Constantine's Sunday law that has such
an appearance, and the proof is decisive that such was not its meaning. Here are his words:
"We, however (just as we have received), only on the day of the Lord's
resurrection, ought to guard, not only against kneeling, but every posture and
office of solicitude, deferring even our businesses, lest we give any place to the
devil. Similarly, too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we distinguish
by the same solemnity of exultation."8
He speaks of "deferring even our businesses;" but this does not necessarily imply anything
more than its postponement during the hours devoted to religious services. It falls very far
short of saying that labor on Sunday is a sin. But we will quote Tertullian's next mention of
Sunday observance before noticing further the words last quoted. Thus he says:
"We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful. We
rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday."9
These two things, fasting and kneeling, are the only acts which the fathers set down as
unlawful on Sunday, unless, indeed, mourning may be included by some in the list. It is
certain that labor is never thus mentioned. And observe that Tertullian repeats the important
statement of the previous quotation that the honor due to Sunday pertains also to the "period
of Pentecost," that is, to the fifty days between Easter and Passover and Whitsunday or
Pentecost. If, therefore, labor on Sunday was in Tertullian's estimation sinful, the same was
true for the period of Pentecost, a space of fifty days! But this is not possible. We can
conceive of the deferral of business for one religious assembly each day for fifty days, and
also that men should neither fast nor kneel during that time, which was precisely what the
religious celebration of Sunday actually was. But to make Tertullian assert that labor on
Sunday was a sin is to make him declare that such was the case for fifty days together, which
no one will venture to say was the doctrine of Tertullian...."

"....Justin Martyr has four reasons:
1. "It is the first day on which God having wrought a change in the darkness
and matter, made the world."19
2. "Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead."20
3. "It is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain
mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which was
promulgated by God through these rites,"21 i.e., through circumcision.
4. "The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise
the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which
we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the
dead on the first day after the Sabbath."22 ....."

"....Origen seems to have been of Tertullian's judgment as to the inconclusiveness of the
arguments adduced by his predecessors. He therefore coined an original argument which
seems to have been very conclusive in his estimation as he offers this alone. But he must have
forgotten that the manna fell on all the six working days, or he would have seen that while his
argument does not elevate Sunday above the other five working days, it does make the
Sabbath the least reputable day of the seven! And yet the miracle of the manna was expressly
designed to set forth the sacredness of the Sabbath and to establish its authority before the
people...."

".....Next in order come the Apostolic Constitutions, which assert that the Sunday festival is a
memorial of the resurrection:
"But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord's day festival; because the former is a
memorial of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection."28
The writer, however, offers no proof that Sunday was set apart by divine authority in memory
of the resurrection....."

"....There is yet another of the fathers of the first three centuries who gives the reasons then used
in support of the Sunday festival.
This is the writer of the Syriac Documents concerning Edessa. He comes next in order and
closes the list. Here are four reasons:
1. "Because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the place of the
dead."30
2. "On the first day of the week he arose upon the world,"31 i.e., he was born
upon Sunday.
3. "On the first day of the week he ascended upon to Heaven."32
4. "On the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of
Heaven."33
The first of these reasons is as good a one as man can devise out of his own heart for doing
what God never commanded; the second and fourth are mere assertions of which mankind
know nothing; while the third is a positive untruth....."

 

[tall73]

Years ago I was reading somewhere (and I kick myself in the pants for not writing it down!) that even before that papacy came into being that the early Christians knew that the anti-Christ would arise in Rome. I was going to ask Dr. Bacchiocchi ab't it but forgot.

You might check the Seminary Studies report on Daniel. They traced historical interpretation of the passage. It would be a likely place to find such a reference from a church father.

Incidentally, I don't understand either why folks have a big axe to grind with Bacchiocchi. He was reporting what he found. And he certainly is not taking a Catholic position.

 

[tall73]

In the Islands we say "same dog puppy" which roughly translated is equivalent to "six or half dozen". It means it all comes from the same source and that source is not the Bible, it is from another source which has no divine or scriptural basis.

I went over the early church history and here is some of the texts relating to Sabbath from the early church by J.N Andrew:

"....The following are all the hints respecting the nature of first-day observance during the first
three centuries. The epistle falsely ascribed to Barnabas simply says: "We keep the eighth day
with joyfulness."1 Justin Martyr, in words already quoted at full length, describes the kind of
meeting which they held at Rome and in that vicinity on that day, and this is all that he
connects with its observance.2 Irenaeus taught that to commemorate the resurrection, the knee
must not be bent on that day, and mentions nothing else as essential to its honor. This act of
standing in prayer was a symbol of the resurrection, which was to be celebrated only on that
day, as he held.3 Bardesanes the Gnostic represents the Christians as everywhere meeting for
worship on that day, but he does not describe that worship, and he gives no other honor to the
day.4 Tertullian describes Sunday observance as follows: "We devote Sunday to rejoicing,"
and he adds, "We have some resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to
ease and luxury."5 In another work he gives us a further idea of the festive character of
Sunday. Thus he says to his brethren: "If any indulgence is to be granted to the flesh, you
have it. I will not say your own days, but more too; for to the heathens each festive day occurs
but once annually; you have a festive day every eighth day."6 Dr. Heylyn spoke the truth
when he said:

"Tertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly unto mirth and
recreation, not to devotion altogether; when in a hundred years after
Tertullian's time there was no law or constitution to restrain men from labor on
this day in the Christian church."7
The Sunday festival in Tertullian's time was not like the modern first-day Sabbath, but was
essentially the German festival of Sunday, a day for worship and for recreation, and one on
which labor was not sinful. But Tertullian speaks further respecting Sunday observance, and
the words now to be quoted have been used as proof that labor on that day was counted sinful.
This is the only statement that can be found prior to Constantine's Sunday law that has such
an appearance, and the proof is decisive that such was not its meaning. Here are his words:
"We, however (just as we have received), only on the day of the Lord's
resurrection, ought to guard, not only against kneeling, but every posture and
office of solicitude, deferring even our businesses, lest we give any place to the
devil. Similarly, too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we distinguish
by the same solemnity of exultation."8
He speaks of "deferring even our businesses;" but this does not necessarily imply anything
more than its postponement during the hours devoted to religious services. It falls very far
short of saying that labor on Sunday is a sin. But we will quote Tertullian's next mention of
Sunday observance before noticing further the words last quoted. Thus he says:
"We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful. We
rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday."9
These two things, fasting and kneeling, are the only acts which the fathers set down as
unlawful on Sunday, unless, indeed, mourning may be included by some in the list. It is
certain that labor is never thus mentioned. And observe that Tertullian repeats the important
statement of the previous quotation that the honor due to Sunday pertains also to the "period
of Pentecost," that is, to the fifty days between Easter and Passover and Whitsunday or
Pentecost. If, therefore, labor on Sunday was in Tertullian's estimation sinful, the same was
true for the period of Pentecost, a space of fifty days! But this is not possible. We can
conceive of the deferral of business for one religious assembly each day for fifty days, and
also that men should neither fast nor kneel during that time, which was precisely what the
religious celebration of Sunday actually was. But to make Tertullian assert that labor on
Sunday was a sin is to make him declare that such was the case for fifty days together, which
no one will venture to say was the doctrine of Tertullian...."

"....Justin Martyr has four reasons:
1. "It is the first day on which God having wrought a change in the darkness
and matter, made the world."19
2. "Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead."20
3. "It is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain
mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which was
promulgated by God through these rites,"21 i.e., through circumcision.
4. "The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise
the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which
we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the
dead on the first day after the Sabbath."22 ....."

"....Origen seems to have been of Tertullian's judgment as to the inconclusiveness of the
arguments adduced by his predecessors. He therefore coined an original argument which
seems to have been very conclusive in his estimation as he offers this alone. But he must have
forgotten that the manna fell on all the six working days, or he would have seen that while his
argument does not elevate Sunday above the other five working days, it does make the
Sabbath the least reputable day of the seven! And yet the miracle of the manna was expressly
designed to set forth the sacredness of the Sabbath and to establish its authority before the
people...."

".....Next in order come the Apostolic Constitutions, which assert that the Sunday festival is a
memorial of the resurrection:
"But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord's day festival; because the former is a
memorial of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection."28
The writer, however, offers no proof that Sunday was set apart by divine authority in memory
of the resurrection....."

"....There is yet another of the fathers of the first three centuries who gives the reasons then used
in support of the Sunday festival.
This is the writer of the Syriac Documents concerning Edessa. He comes next in order and
closes the list. Here are four reasons:
1. "Because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the place of the
dead."30
2. "On the first day of the week he arose upon the world,"31 i.e., he was born
upon Sunday.
3. "On the first day of the week he ascended upon to Heaven."32
4. "On the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of
Heaven."33
The first of these reasons is as good a one as man can devise out of his own heart for doing
what God never commanded; the second and fourth are mere assertions of which mankind
know nothing; while the third is a positive untruth....."

I found Andrew's work helpful in identifying some of the texts. I think Bacchiocchi was in some respects more thorough. But this was partly due to greater access to documents.

And as is noted here there were a number of fairly early proponents of the Sunday, but their reasons, and sometimes reasoning are less than united or clear.

 

[OntheDL]

I have highlighted the key portion. How old does a custom have to be to be old in the 4th century? ​

As already noted more than once the pope was recognizing what was already present in Rome and Alexandria. If he in fact changed the day so completely in his day, why was it still not being practiced in the next centuy when Scholasticus wrote?​

But this raises another issue. When do Adventists see the rise of papal power taking place?​

Was everyone that in retrospect was called pope a "pope" ? (Ie, even Peter, Clement, Linus, etc. were called pope in later times, though we would likely dispute the notion that the papacy was an original institution.)​

You wanted a specific historic proof, I provided a couple of them.

We both know sunday observence did not start with the papal decree. So how does that statement change the fact the papacy made it official and later enforced?

You are arguing on a point that the Catholic church proudly admits it. You sound like a Catholic apologetic.

Are these following quotes authoritative enough?

"The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians." ---The Catholic Encyclopedia, Commandments of God, Volume IV, 1908

"... Princes and magistrates are to be admonished and exhorted to lend the sanction and support of their authority to the pastors of the Church, particularly in upholding and extending the worship of God on Sunday, and in commanding obedience to the spiritual injunctions of the pastor. With regard to the exposition of this Commandment, the faithful are to be carefully taught in what it accords with, and in what it differs from the others, in order that they may understand why Christians observe not the Sabbath but the Lord's day."---The Cathechism of the council of Trent, Issued by order of Pope Pius V

"#66 ... In this matter, my predecessor Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Rerum Novarum spoke of Sunday rest as a worker's right which the State must guarantee.
#67 ... Therefore, also in the particular circumstances of our own time, Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy. ---Apostolic Letter Dies Domini, Pope John Paul II, 31 May, 1998

 

[OntheDL]

I have highlighted the key portion. How old does a custom have to be to be old in the 4th century? ​

As already noted more than once the pope was recognizing what was already present in Rome and Alexandria. If he in fact changed the day so completely in his day, why was it still not being practiced in the next centuy when Scholasticus wrote?​

But this raises another issue. When do Adventists see the rise of papal power taking place?​

Was everyone that in retrospect was called pope a "pope" ? (Ie, even Peter, Clement, Linus, etc. were called pope in later times, though we would likely dispute the notion that the papacy was an original institution.)​

You might check the Seminary Studies report on Daniel. They traced historical interpretation of the passage. It would be a likely place to find such a reference from a church father.

Incidentally, I don't understand either why folks have a big axe to grind with Bacchiocchi. He was reporting what he found. And he certainly is not taking a Catholic position.

Not taking the catholic position? Then why did his book 'from saturday to sunday' receive the papal imprimatur: the pope's seal of approval?

An Imprimatur is an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is free from error in matters of Roman Catholic doctrine and morals, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Roman Catholics.
It is of greatest significance in works directly addressing Roman Catholic theology and doctrine, and was introduced as a measure to reduce exposure, particularly of the laity, to heresy. ---Wikipedia

 

[tall73]

You wanted a specific historic proof, I provided a couple of them.

We both know sunday observence did not start with the papal decree. So how does that statement change the fact the papacy made it official and later enforced?

A. Because of the nature of tradition and how things are "made official." The church recognizes it as a practice since the beginning.

I don't know much about the source you gave ,as it is a translation of a work I don't have any access to. It also seems to date sometime after the actual events. But we do have access to a number of documents showing that the change was already in effect and he recognized it.


B. If he made it official then why was it not...official? The practice stayed regional for a while.

C. How do you reconcile the dating issue for the 1260 day/years

D. As I said, I am not discounting the statements. But there is a lot left to discover about them before I could use them in GT for instance in any discussion, or in evangelistic meetings.

You are arguing on a point that the Catholic church proudly admits it. You sound like a Catholic apologetic.

If you like I can look up any number of threads on GT on the Sabbath etc. and I am pretty sure you will not find me to be a Catholic apologist.

Throwing around that kind of language may win you points, but it is hardly honest.

I am stating that you cannot argue on weak evidence. The evidence is that the practice was quite early. Ignoring that, and blaming it on the pope doesn't fly.

Instead we have to try to discern exactly how early it was, and why it came into place. The recognition of a practice is in the long term of little consequence. The question is what was original. That is always the question in these issues, and it is debated all the time in GT.

Are these following quotes authoritative enough?

"The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians." ---The Catholic Encyclopedia, Commandments of God, Volume IV, 1908

Indeed they are official. But you will note

A. The late date of the council of Trent.

B. The fact that it was a COUNCIL and recognized the practice of the church for some time.


Again, I agree that the church made it official. But saying that it was the pope that was responsible for the change which occured earlier is not accurate. He recognized what was in place.

The transition from Sabbath to Sunday was not an event but a process. The church takes credit for the process, as an example of their authority.

 

[tall73]

We both know sunday observence did not start with the papal decree. So how does that statement change the fact the papacy made it official and later enforced?

Because

A. It is not clear that it was the papacy and not the church that did it. While the pope took the lead in the passover controversy for instance, it was a council that eventually settled the issue. Again, it was a process, not an event.

B. We have the OO, the EO, the Assyrian Church of the East ,etc. all accepting it, though they don't accept papal authority.

C. If he made it official that there was a transferrence, then why were churches keeping both a century later? For that matter, some kept it to nearly modern times.



Moreover you have still not stated why you think Bacchiocchi to be revisionist.

 

[tall73]

Not taking the catholic position? Then why did his book 'from saturday to sunday' receive the papal imprimatur: the pope's seal of approval?

Because of the place he was working on his degree, and those who read it approving of it.

But then you would need to explain why they have since stopped publishing it, ruled out any contact with his teacher, stopped putting it in any bookstores, etc. and supposedly are trying to revoke his degree due to what he has done with the information in the book since.

They clearly don't regard him as a Catholic apologist.

 

[Jimlarmore]

We know Constantine made an official ruling and law that commanded the observance of the Sunday. Wasn't he considered to be one of the early popes?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[tall73]

We know Constantine made an official ruling and law that commanded the observance of the Sunday. Wasn't he considered to be one of the early popes?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

No. He was considered to be the emporer in the east. He was not a pope. The pope is the bishop of Rome. And his law, as was pointed out, was a civil law and made reference to the "day of the sun".

But strangely the notion of Constantine being a pope is one I hear occassionally from Adventists. Certainly not all of them though.

 

[tall73]

Let's for a moment assume that the Sylvester documents say all that they appear to and Sylvester, by his own authority, made the day official.

Why is that significant to Adventists?

We have usually stated that it is significant because of an authority issue. It shows that the papacy elevates its authority over the authority of God.

However, that misses the issue a bit.

The real question is was Sunday part of the original deposit of faith with the apostles? If it was not, and if it came in at a later date, then that would mean it was a foreign element in the faith, and should be gotten rid of.

If it were original then it should be embraced.

Let's use an example.

The Scriptures were not made official until hundreds of years after they were written.

But does this matter? Were they not original? Were they not part of the real faith?

That is the question. They recognized the Scriptures as already being original and important. And of course in this case we agree with them.

In the same way the church CLAIMS that Sunday was original and important. So the real task is to see if indeed it was original.

It was in both cases an issue of authority when officially making official recognition. But the authority is recognizing, not inventing. The only question is whether what they are recognizing really was original. If it was then we should follow it. If not then we shouldn't . And if the pope recognized what was original, then he is not changing anything, but is recognizing the authority of the apostles and Christ. But if it was not original, then he clearly is changing something. .

Therefore the focus needs to be on the earliest statements and factors, not the later ones. The real question is whether the practice was original. This is what Bacchiocchi has been trying to address. When did Sunday ORIGINATE?

 

[Sophia7]

Years ago I was reading somewhere (and I kick myself in the pants for not writing it down!) that even before that papacy came into being that the early Christians knew that the anti-Christ would arise in Rome. I was going to ask Dr. Bacchiocchi ab't it but forgot.

One of the Daniel and Revelation Committee books addressed this. They quoted a few things from ECF who connected Daniel 2 and 7 to Rome. I'll see if I can look up the quotes.

 

[OntheDL]

Because

A. It is not clear that it was the papacy and not the church that did it. While the pope took the lead in the passover controversy for instance, it was a council that eventually settled the issue. Again, it was a process, not an event.

Sounds to me you are in denial. Many times have you seen the official documents claiming the pope changed it? The papacy and RCC is the same, being the papacy is the head. Some of the early christians did keep both days to begin and then later on kept only sunday. And church of Judea and Antioch kep the true sabbath until they were eradicated and driven out by the papal power.

B. We have the OO, the EO, the Assyrian Church of the East ,etc. all accepting it, though they don't accept papal authority.

Not entirely true. EO church split from RCC.

C. If he made it official that there was a transferrence, then why were churches keeping both a century later? For that matter, some kept it to nearly modern times.

Because the papacy did not receive its political arm until over a century later when it could enforce it.

Moreover you have still not stated why you think Bacchiocchi to be revisionist.

Because the revisionist' view deviates from our traditional view on the issue that the papacy changed the day.

Your argument implies that the pope merely stamped it for formality since it was already practiced.

But the truth is that the papacy made an official decree and since the Church claims to have the power to correct heretics, it persecuted those who did not recognize the Church's authority.

 

[OntheDL]

We know Constantine made an official ruling and law that commanded the observance of the Sunday. Wasn't he considered to be one of the early popes?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

No. He made it a civil observence. Not religious.