Romans 14:5-8

[sleeping_gecko]

5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

Romans 14:5-8 (NKJV)

At a Bible study at our church this evening, we finished going through Romans. We talked about this passage for a bit, but mostly in relation to neo-Judaizers (there’s a movement in our town to do Sabbath worship instead of Sunday worship).

I was thinking about Holy Days of Obligation. Does this passage apply to this? I could see how it could just apply to the Christians of mixed backgrounds in general, like Paul is sort of saying some keep their traditional gatherings to a certain extent, others don’t, and either is OK, as long as one keeps with his conscience.

Anyway, what’s the Catholic teaching on this? Does it apply? Or is my (Protestant-trained) brain trying to stretch things to keep me from crossing the Tiber? (LOL)

 

[Nita]

Here is commentary on that passage from a couple of Catholic Bibles that have good footnotes:

Fromn the Haydock Bible: haydock1859.tripod.com/id158.html
Ver. 5. Between day, &c. Still observing the sabbaths and festivals of the law. (Challoner.) — And another judgeth every day. That is, thinks every day to be taken away, that was to be kept, merely because ordered under the Jewish law. And now since both they who keep days, or do not keep them; and they who eat, or who abstain, do these things which a regard to God, and according to their conscience, let no one judge, or condemn the one party, nor the other; in these things, let every man abound in his own sense. It is without grounds that some would pretend from hence, that Christians cannot be bound to fast, or abstain from flesh on certain days. The apostle speaks only of the distinction of meats, called clean and unclean, and of fasts or feasts peculiar to the law of Moses. It does not follow from hence, that the Catholic Church hath not power to command days of fasting, and abstaining, for self-denial or humiliation. (Witham) — The apostle here treats only of the subject in hand, viz. the Mosaic distinctions of clean and unclean meats: and in this he allows, for that present time, each one to follow his own private judgment. St. Chrysostom observes that St. Paul did not wish the weak to be left to their own judgment in this, as in a point of no consequence; but that they should wait for a time. The converts were not immediately prohibited their accustomed practices, but they were tolerated in them for a while, till fully instructed. This we see in many of the converts at Jerusalem, who were still observers of the Mosaic ordinances; this was tolerated, that the synagogue might be buried with honour. (Estius)

From the Navarre Bible:
These ideas and counsels addressed to the faithful at Rome provide the basis of the motto traditional in the Church, “unity in essentials, freedom in doubtful matters, and in all things charity” …. They mark the limits within which Christians should exercise their freedom - at one extreme, what is laid down by lawful authority; at the other, the need to practise charity towards all. The freedom of the “strong” ends where the demands of charity begin; therefore, they should not scandalize the weak; and the mistake the weak make is to regard as obligatory something which is not, something a person can do or not as he pleases.

 

[Nita]

Romans 14:5-8 (NKJV)

At a Bible study at our church this evening, we finished going through Romans. We talked about this passage for a bit, but mostly in relation to neo-Judaizers (there’s a movement in our town to do Sabbath worship instead of Sunday worship).

I’m wondering why they would want to put aside the New Covenant day of worship and return to the Old Covenant one. From the earliest days it was the practice to gather in order to fulfill Our Lord’s command to “Do this in memory of Me”. The day on which they gathered was called the “Lord’s Day”; it was Sunday, the first day of the week.
Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, (see also 1 Cor 11:17-33 in connection with practice of gathering for the “Lord’s supper”.)
1 Cor 16:2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, …
Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s DaySome of the early Jewish converts kept both days – but they didn’t give up gathering on the Lord’s Day to gather only on the Sabbath. Paul is allowing both days to be kept; but he is not allowing abandonment of the Lord’s Day in favor of the Sabbath.

was thinking about Holy Days of Obligation. Does this passage apply to this? I could see how it could just apply to the Christians of mixed backgrounds in general, like Paul is sort of saying some keep their traditional gatherings to a certain extent, others don’t, and either is OK, as long as one keeps with his conscience.

I’m not sure in what sense you’re connecting Holy Days with the passage. Could you explain a little.
(eg. Does Church have a right to establish them? or, Can we follow our own conscience about keeping them?)

Or is my (Protestant-trained) brain trying to stretch things to keep me from crossing the Tiber? (LOL)

Oh, the water is fine! And there is treasure on the other side just waiting to be shared. If no one has yet extended the invitation, then I gladly say, “Come join us”.

 

[po18guy]

The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath. Look what Jesus did: He was gone, in both Body and Spirit on the Sabbath immediately following His burial. He did not rise on the Sabbath. He did not appear to the Apostles on the Sabbath. He did not ascend on the Sabbath. He did not send the Holy Spirit on the Sabbath.

He rose on Sunday, the day following. He appeared on Sunday to the Apostles who were gathered in worship. He was crucified, in part, for violating the Jewish Sabbath. But, Jesus is the new and everlasting covenant. He gave total authority to bind and loose “whatever” to the Apostles, and they gathered in worship and praise on the Lord’s day, Sunday.

Think of this: The Jews worshipped on the last day of the week, after their work was done and the money was made. Jesus’ actions taught the world to worship on the first day of the week.

Consider also what Saint Paul taught: Colossians 2:16 (King James Version)

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days”

 

[Todd_Easton]

As a matter of Church doctrine, all days are alike, none is intrinsically more sacred than another. However, as a matter of Church discipline, Catholics should observe the holy days of obligation prudentially established by their church leaders for their spiritual growth.

Similarly, as a matter of Church doctrine, all foods are clean, none is intrinsically unclean. However, as a matter of Church discipline, Catholics should observe the days of fasting and the days of abstinence prudentially established by their church leaders for their spritual growth.

 

[PJM]

=sleeping_gecko;6689118]Romans 14:5-8 (NKJV)

At a Bible study at our church this evening, we finished going through Romans. We talked about this passage for a bit, but mostly in relation to neo-Judaizers (there’s a movement in our town to do Sabbath worship instead of Sunday worship).

I was thinking about Holy Days of Obligation. Does this passage apply to this? I could see how it could just apply to the Christians of mixed backgrounds in general, like Paul is sort of saying some keep their traditional gatherings to a certain extent, others don’t, and either is OK, as long as one keeps with his conscience.

Anyway, what’s the Catholic teaching on this? Does it apply? Or is my (Protestant-trained) brain trying to stretch things to keep me from crossing the Tiber? (LOL)

**Rom.14 Verses 5 to 8 **“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. He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.
[8] If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.”

In Matt. 16:15-19 especially v. 19 and again in Matt. 18:18 Peter wo represents “the Church” is given the power of unlimited and COMPLETE GOVERNANCE of the CC, and answerable ONLY to God.

The Church has selected Sundays in commenoration of teh Day Chrsit Rose from the Dead; and later, both becaue of OT Tradition of the Sabbath [Saturday] permitted Saturday evening Mass to also fulfill ones “Sunday” Obligation. Also factored in was a desire to make it “easier” for Catholics to fulfill there GRAVE Moral Obligatons.

Holy day’s are still obligatory under the penalty of Mortal sin; but some can be moved to Sunday’s; [with the Bishops approval], again to make it easier for the laity.

At the base of this is the fact that in 1970 nearly 75% of self-professed Catholics were regullarly fulfilling there Obligation. By 208 that number had dropped to less than 25%…

Coninvience is neither the problem or the solutation.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Danno2281]

Even under the Old Law there are “holy days of obligation”: Pentecost (Shavuot), Passover, Tabernacles (Sukkat), etc. in addition to the Sabbath.

 

[sleeping_gecko]

Re: Nita: I’ve been honestly studying Catholicism since December (with a bit of a break here and there), mostly from Catholic sources. I figure I’ve heard about it from non-Catholic sources for 23 years, so don’t have a problem with looking at it from “the other side” (or “the horse’s mouth”, as Kimberly Hahn said to Scott Hahn). I’ve still looked at a couple non-Catholic sources here and there, but they all seem so biased (of course, the Catholic ones might have a slightly pro-Rome bias ) now. For example, a renowned religious encyclopedia (borrowed from my father, a pastor) mentioned the lack of intellectual weight in Catholicism. I guess he forgot about Aquinas. And Augustine. ad infinitum. I tried to list out remaining holdouts I had, issues where I couldn’t see any way to believe what the Church teaches. Based on my (limited, human) knowledge of Scripture and my (limited, human) knowledge of Catholicism, I couldn’t come up with a single issue that I could honestly say is contrary to Scripture.

Of course, this is not the same as being at that point where I can cross the Tiber yet. Sort of somewhere between the intellectual realization that it certainly could be, that I can believe it, that it is completely defensible from Scripture and tradition (not to mention logic, for the most part) and the point where I can embrace it. Between the head and heart. But I believe the Holy Spirit is moving me towards both.

Re: Original Topic:

I suppose I should clarify my original question (though I believe it’s been thoroughly answered!). I have no issue with Sunday worship vs. Saturday worship. I simply pointed to that as a common application of this passage in our area. There’s one rather charismatic fellow in our town who is a sort of neo-Judaizer type.

My original question was whether or not this passage could be applied to days when Catholics are obligated to go to Mass. I’m sure if many non-Catholics I know learned about these days, they would apply this passage, making it into a “You’re trying to put us under the Law” type thing.

To re-state my original question:

In Catholic doctrine, could this passage apply also to the days established by the Church? Couldn’t one argue that, if all days are equal, wouldn’t it be a matter of personal conviction?

To answer my original question (from what I understand based on replies):

Paul was writing to a mixed audience, telling them that, if they want to celebrate their traditional celebration days, feasts, etc, that’s OK. If some don’t feel like they can, then they must not (need to follow conscience). Those people with weak consciences mustn’t impose that on everyone, but those with strong consciences that won’t stumble shouldn’t cause others to stumble.

Todd Easton, your comment is especially helpful. Many of my mindsets have shifted (surprising to me!) to a more Catholic position than Protestant. I understand the idea of matters of discipline, but I guess it just didn’t come to mind.

Thanks everyone, for your replies!

 

[DPMartin]

As a matter of Church doctrine, all days are alike, none is intrinsically more sacred than another. However, as a matter of Church discipline, Catholics should observe the holy days of obligation prudentially established by their church leaders for their spiritual growth.

Similarly, as a matter of Church doctrine, all foods are clean, none is intrinsically unclean. However, as a matter of Church discipline, Catholics should observe the days of fasting and the days of abstinence prudentially established by their church leaders for their spritual growth.

I agree, what is to be held sacred is one’s presence with the Lord our God through His Word, and His Presence with you. All else that is given into one’s hand if it be unto the Lord, it’s sufficient.

 

[po18guy]

A relationship with God both requires and specifies discipline. God, through His Son, established a Church, which is the earthly Body of Christ. Obedience to God requires obedience to the Church which Christ established. Jesus Himself gave all Church authority to Peter. He gave the twelve power over sin. He told them “He who hears you hears me”. Thus, out of obedience to God, we defer to those whom Jesus sent forth: the Apostles and their hand-chosen successors.

We know that the Priests and Bishops are successors to the Apostles, because each Priest can trace his hands-on ordination back to one of the Apostles. Of all Christian communities, only the Catholic and Orthodox can make that claim.