Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Perhaps we are confusing issues as well. There are several:
1. When did Sunday originate. Was it original?
2. When did Sabbath cease to be observed?
3. When was the view that the solemnity was transferred started?
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.
Not entirely true. EO church split from RCC.
Because the papacy did not receive its political arm until over a century later when it could enforce it.
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.
Have you any of you read the book... ¨Ten commandments twice removed¨?
Its really good, the authors are Danny Shelton and Shelly Quinn
That's not much of an argument, is it?
The church never changes her doctrine and the Pope never makes a mistake: the claim of infallability. So the Pope didn't make a mistake when he approved Bacchiocchi's book with an papal Imprimatur.
So even if what you said is true that they tried to remove the book which I'm skeptical, it does not make any difference. The church constantly employs such tactics to clear herself from suspicion.
All these questions become irrelevant or less significant when the church claims the responsibility for the change.
No. He made it a civil observence. Not religious.
A clear jesuit tactic is to mud the water, introduce too many unknowns: confusions. So without directly questioning, the integraty of original issue was compromised.
I understand that but wasn't he considered to be an early pope? We are trying to find the origin of this tradition aren't we? Certainly, this can be considered as a legal start for this even if it wasn't religious per se'.
God Bless
Jim Larmore
I am not in denial. I am stating that there is a a differnece between officially recognizing something and establishing something to start with. The church instituted Sunday. There is no doubt about that. It was not recorded in Scripture. There is no doubt about that either.
Where the real issue comes in is whether the practice was ORIGINAL to the apostles, but not recorded in Scripture. If it was then the church instituted it, but it was not wrong. If it was not original to the apostles then the church instituted it and it WAS wrong.
When discussing the issue with Catholics you have to at least try to deal with their view of tradition. They believe that the apostles did things that were not recorded in Scripture which are preserved in tradition. That is what Bacchiocchi is addressing. He is saying that the tradition is old, but not as old as the apostles. For that he must look at the earliest statements.
You also have another issue. You say that the papacy IS the church as its head. But if the head of the church being the pope is ALSO original then we have a BIG problem beyond just the Sabbath.
So when do you see the papacy coming to this prominence? This too must also be established.
They both split from each other, but that makes my point. They continue the practice, though the don't necessarily hold that the solemnity was transferred.
The other churches though split off much earlier.
But this doesn't fly with history. We see by the 190's Victor 1 called a synod to settle the easter dispute and excommunicated all who didn't accept the western position even then. It was only through the beseeching of Irenaeus, etc. that he was persuaded not to take such a harsh measure.
So when exactly do you see the papacy forming?
A. It was already practiced. And the council of Laodicea also tried to stamp it officially. The point was the practice was already there. The real question was for how long?
B. You have not said how Bacchiocchi's view is revisionist. Those documents exist. The day was practiced. People did denounce Sabbath. It is not revising anything. It is pointing out that some of these things existed earlier than Adventists generally liked to admit.
We won't convince any hardened Catholics of our views if we make poor characterizations of theirs. That is my issue.
You are still ignoring the most important fact of the whole matter: the church claims the change was her act and has proof. Not even the lousiest lawyer in the world will defend a person who admits his guilt.
I have already addressed most of the points you again brought up. I'll just have to leave it here to avoid further irritation.
Perhaps we are confusing issues as well. There are several:
1. When did Sunday originate. Was it original?
2. When did Sabbath cease to be observed?
3. When was the view that the solemnity was transferred started?
You can justify anyway you like. In the end, Bacchiocchi and other revisionists marginalize our traditional teaching and the Spirit of Prophecy and thus absolves the Papacy as the beast of the Revelation or at least cloud the water.
So your argument boils down to the fact that he disagrees with EGW on interpretation of history.My two last quotes on this...
'I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws'. ---(Early Writings, p. 32).
'I differ from Ellen White, for example, on the origin of Sunday. She teaches that in the first centuries all Christians observed the Sabbath and it was largely through the efforts of Constantine that Sundaykeeping was adopted by many Christians in the fourth century. My research shows otherwise. If you read my essay HOW DID SUNDAYKEEPING BEGIN? which summarizes my dissertation, you will notice that I place the origin of Sundaykeeping by the time of the Emperor Hadrian, in A.D. 135.' ---"Fee Catholic Mailing List", Bacchiochi, Feb 8, 1997.
The attack on Ellen White's writing runs deep. It is for goal of silencing the voice of seperation and to achieve the goal of the great ecumenical movement.
(And hey, let's be honest, he wants to sell a book or two!).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?