Rome's Challenge

[MarysRoses]

Though I appreciate the discussion, I still don’t understand the point of Rome’s Challenge. It’s supposed to be some “Catholic support” for the Sabbath worship of the SDA. Thus, why or how can I explain why this “Catholic Support” is misused or incorrect?

OK…

There’s more than one example but essentially it is this:

Late 1800’s was a time of rather high anti-catholic sentiment. The restoration movement, the ‘great awakening’ and other protestant evangelical movements were going strong. Strict sabbatarianism (Sunday Sabbath) was emphasized in some of these movements while at the same time they were extremely anti-catholic. Alexander Campbell (Campbellites later became the Church of Christ in Texas and the southwest) published in the American Baptist periodical an article praising the sabbath day (Sunday) and applying Old Testament restrictions (No work etc.) as well as worship as properly observing the day. This is only one example.

Some Catholic writers of the time, saw an opportunity to make a point to the protestants and published articles pointing out that there is no command in scripture for Sunday observance, that Sunday has long been the teaching and tradition of the Church.

…Prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.’ The Catholic Church says, No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week. And lo! The entire civilized world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the Holy Catholic Church. - Thomas Enright, CSSR, President, Redemptorist College (Roman Catholic), Kansas City, MO., February 18, 1884.

and…

…The observance of Sunday by the Protestants in an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the (Catholic) church. - Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today (1868), p. 213.

Theses are not dogmatic statements, they are commentary that should be taken in the context of the times in which they were written. They do sound challenging. There are many more than these two examples. The most recent of which I am aware was published in Our Sunday Visitor in 1950:

…Protestants… accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change… But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that… in observing the Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokeman for the church, the Pope. - Our Sunday Visitor, February 5, 1950.

While chiding Sunday keeping protestants for a seeming inconsistency, these statements play right into the mind set of Seventh-day Adventists that Sunday as a day of worship was an intentional act of rebellion against God’s law on the part of the Catholic Church.

Adventists are all to happy to quote these statements over and over again in their materials. The fact that many of them are over a hundred years old, and are simplistic statements made to point out an inconsistency in the bible only mindset and not explanations of theology is never pointed out. Usually, when quoted in an Adventist tract, you can only find the dates in footnotes - the quote is presented as if it were a recent statement. Sunday isn’t the only topic of this kind of quote. You can’t find the word “Trinity” in the bible either. Adventist fascination with these quotes, and their use of them to further their own ends goes to the extreme that they reprint a little booklet called the “Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine” (never widely used and long out of print) and sell it along with their other evangelism materials so that their bible study leaders will have a copy to trot out to bolster their presentations. And yes, I’m not making this up, I came into a copy of my own in just that way when I was an Adventist attending a “camp meeting” as a college student. Photocopied and then simply bound with colored cardstock and staples, There it was.

Cont. Next post

 

[MarysRoses]

Cont from previous post…

As I explained in my long (probably too long, but sometimes I feel like I could write a book on the topic!!) post before:

Adventists love to trot out statements that the Church “changed” the sabbath to Sunday. You can find them. They summarize the externals (The day of the week has changed) without delving into the deeper meanings and history. Adventists take these simple explanations, which were not meant to be in depth theological statements, and twist them to their own meanings.

In common English usage, ‘sabbath’ means any day of rest and worship. This is frequently and correctly used in the English language to designate the Sunday rest day as well as the Saturday Sabbath. The Church, did indeed change the day of worship. Christians no longer rest and worship on Saturday, they rest and worship on Sunday. So the Church did indeed “change” the sabbath… as the English word is commonly understood meaning a day of rest. If you look for specific clarification about the status of the biblical sabbath in regards to Sunday, the Church is very clear. Saturday is the biblical sabbath. Sunday is not the sabbath on another day… it is a day distinct from the Jewish sabbath. These documents and explanations are widely available. For Adventists to use these statements to bolster their own assertions without taking into account context and language… is in fact academic dishonesty.

A Catholic understands “Church” to mean the one Church, which has existed from the day of Pentecost. The authority which is referred to in the statements… is the authority Jesus gave his Apostles to teach and establish His Church. Not something that came along long after the apostles. This is indeed “the Church” and the Church did change the day of assembly. These statements were not made with an idea in mind that the “church” came about hundreds of years after Jesus. They are not statements verifying that the day of worship was changed hundreds of years after Jesus. Yet adventists will tack them on after asserting that Sunday became the day of worship under Constantine in the fourth century… as if they confirm their statements. This is another form of academic dishonesty. Catholic statements have to be understood with Catholic definitions of the terms… not Adventist definitions. This is simple fairness.

I mentioned Alexander Campbell’s sabbath article in the American Baptist periodical. That sticks in my mind as it was a real turning point in my thinking about the sabbath/sunday issue. At the time, I was a very active Adventist, intending to become an Adventist missionary. I took some classes at my local public university as the private denominational schools are very expensive. My professor that taught New Testament Greek had a wonderful research library full of rare materials. This was back in the day (I’m an old lady now, lol) when you did research out of published indexes and hoped that you could find materials through inter library loan. I also had this same professor for an interesting class on the “Restoration movement” of the 1800’s. The professor, being a pastor of a local Church of Christ, focused a lot on Alexander Campbell. I recognized the name from Adventist bible study materials. Quotes from Campbell’s sabbath article often pepper them in a way that seems to support Saturday sabbath observance. I mentioned this to the professor, as that seemed inconsistent with what I was learning about Alexander Campbell in class. The professor had bound copies of the American Baptist periodical in this library! They are very rare, it was an amazing find for me. He let me have use of them. I eagerly looked up his sabbath article and found it and more. What I found was he had been sorely misrepresented by the Adventists. They never explained that when he said “sabbath”, he was talking about Sunday! As I was in graduate school by that time, and used to doing research, and being held to certain standards and ethics for my papers, I was deeply offended at the academic dishonesty that was plainly apparent.

Even more interestingly, Mr. Campbell laid out a theology for Sunday that I had never been exposed to before. A serious crack in my Adventist shell had been made. Over the next couple of years I began researching Catholic sources and quotes on the topic and found that, as with Mr. Campbell, the quotes were often taken out of context and not explained. Even the early Church Fathers get quoted in Adventist literature. I first looked them up to find sabbath quotes, and of course, got exposed to the fact that not only were they being misquoted, they were VERY Catholic, and long before Constantine!

MarysRoses

 

[CopticChristian]

Though I appreciate the discussion, I still don’t understand the point of Rome’s Challenge. It’s supposed to be some “Catholic support” for the Sabbath worship of the SDA. Thus, why or how can I explain why this “Catholic Support” is misused or incorrect?

It was my impression that the question was how to have the necessary tools to perform Apologetics with SDA and it appears that what has happened is that the dialogue has been reformulated towards the sabbath. What I have learned is that SDA should be approached with the same objection to Sola Scriptura in Apologetics.

 

[pablope]

Cont from previous post…

As I explained in my long (probably too long, but sometimes I feel like I could write a book on the topic!!) post before:

What I found was he had been sorely misrepresented by the Adventists. They never explained that when he said “sabbath”, he was talking about Sunday! As I was in graduate school by that time, and used to doing research, and being held to certain standards and ethics for my papers, I was deeply offended at the academic dishonesty that was plainly apparent.

Even more interestingly, Mr. Campbell laid out a theology for Sunday that I had never been exposed to before. A serious crack in my Adventist shell had been made. Over the next couple of years I began researching Catholic sources and quotes on the topic and found that, as with Mr. Campbell, the quotes were often taken out of context and not explained. Even the early Church Fathers get quoted in Adventist literature. I first looked them up to find sabbath quotes, and of course, got exposed to the fact that not only were they being misquoted, they were VERY Catholic, and long before Constantine!

MarysRoses

I just want to thank you, Marysroses…your posts were very helpful.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Though I appreciate the discussion, I still don’t understand the point of Rome’s Challenge. It’s supposed to be some “Catholic support” for the Sabbath worship of the SDA. Thus, why or how can I explain why this “Catholic Support” is misused or incorrect?

The point of it is that there was a 18th century “prophet” named Ellen G White. Mrs. White was the big spur behind Adventism. She wrote a screed called “The Great Controversy” which is all about “Rome”. Rome is a euphamism for anything Catholic. Rome’s Challenge is to prove that Sabbath worship has been replaced by Sunday worship as the required day to “keep holy”.

There is no point in it as the moment one proves that the early Christians worshiped on Sunday the SDA adherent will go on to point 2, generally the great satan (hint, the great satan wears white and lives on the seven hills of Rome).

Of all the semi-formalized American fundamentalist communities the SDA is by far the most anti-Catholic.

 

[JRRTFAN]

The point of it is that there was a 18th century “prophet” named Ellen G White. .

I meant 19th century! Sorry

 

[JHow]

…I mentioned Alexander Campbell’s sabbath article in the American Baptist periodical. … They never explained that when he said “sabbath”, he was talking about Sunday! …

I came out of a Campbellite church, and, of course, they meet on Sunday, the first day of the week.

They don’t give the Catholic Church credit for this - rather, the “early church”.

 

[Protector]

Originally Posted by Protector
“Which means that the Worship Service in the wintertime would probably be after sundown on Saturday (depending on the latitude), which means that the Service is really being held on the Sunday (Sabbath runs from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday). Just a thought pablope.”

I ask…so what? Which is more important…to get the opportunity to worship and receive the Lord…with you whole heart and sincerity? Or to worry about the time?

By that statement you seem to be saying that YOUR time, is more important than God’s time. The Commandment says, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.” (Ex.20:11 D-R). In other words, the Blessing is attached to the Seventh Day , so the answer to your question is, whilst you can worship on any and every day, the day that the Lord has sanctified is the Seventh Day, and it is this Day that is to be kept Holy according to the Commandment.

Nowhere in Scripture do we find a statement from God that the Seventh Day is no longer Holy, and that it is no longer “Sanctified”.

The Sabbath is not about the Eucharist pablope, it is about quality time with the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Hence the Commandment not to work.

Originally Posted by CopticChristian (addressed to “TheSeventhDay”)
You may want to reconsider that Luther does not hold any weight since he left. The other thing is that presently the OHCAC has services on Saturday and Sunday. The Saturday service at 5pm satisfies the Sunday obligation. So as far as I am concerned you are correct. We keep the Sabbath Saturday and Sunday. It is like that in the OHCAC, it is not either or it is both and. So Rome has provided a way to keep the Sabbath on Saturday and Sunday. If all of the 7th day Adventists convert to Roman Catholicism they can keep their worship on Saturday. Perhaps Rome is just looking ahead. (so), It would not matter what you cited outside of the Catholic Church. Rome has declared that worship can take place on Saturday and Sunday. If you choose to be Catholic you can continue to worship on Saturday.

On the face of it the quote above would seem to indicate that the Church is making a genuine effort to accommodate the “unorthodox” beliefs of her wayward “daughters”, but then the following conflicting statements would tend to confuse the issue:-

: “We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church in the Council of Laodicea, transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” (The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine Third Edition.)

The statement is made, that the Church recognizes the solemnity of the Saturday Sabbath, but then the inference in the following quote is that those Christians who recognise the “solemnity” of the Sabbath and abide by its’ dictates are heretics :-

“Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, resting rather on Sunday. But, if any be found to be judaizing [keeping God’s Sabbath], let them be declared anathema from Christ” (A History of the Councils of the Church, p. 316). Council of Laodicea

Originally Posted by CopticChristian: Rome has declared that worship can take place on Saturday and Sunday. If you choose to be Catholic you can continue to worship on Saturday.

It needs to be noted here that the Sabbath is not the only issue between Catholics and Sabbatarians that needs to be addressed, but it is the main one.
Perhaps, if the Church would give the subject more thought regarding the times of Worship Services, together with consultation with the various interested parties (notably the mainstream Sabbatarian churches), then I feel sure that the statement from Rome regarding Saturday (Sabbath) and Sunday worship would be given a hearing.

Protector.