Seventh Day Adventists

[Maria1212]

Dear Illuminator,

The “Sunday versus Saturday” debate has been discussed at length in previous posts. I recommend you search “Seventh Day Adventist and Saturday” to see some of the previous threads. Some of the Posters illustrated that Sunday as “the Lords Day" is not mere tradition. In addition, most Catholics regard every day as "The Lords Day.”

Some of the following Scripture was cited, but this is by no means all of it.

Acts 20:7 - And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.

I Corinthians 16:2 - On the first day of the week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.

Moreover, please keep in mind the following:
Col 2:16-17
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day. These are the shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ.

I welcome your genuine and sincere replies, but would appreciate it if you could keep your sarcasm to yourself. Catholics do not put tradition above the Bible. Rather, Catholic tradition is derived from the Bible, and I find it unfortunate that you have such a misunderstanding of Catholicism. However, one of the blessings of this forum, is that we can correct such misunderstandings here.

 

[illuminator]

Well now I am confused. I know I run the risk of being accused of being sarcastic but I am really confused. I read some Catholic literature which tells me one thing and I talk to Catholics which are supposed to believe what their church writes and they will have none of it – they believe a different way. I don’t know which to believe?

A few examples of what I hear and then what I read.

1) “…most Catholics regard every day as “The Lord’s Day.”

Then I pick up the book, “A Catholic Catechism for the Parochial and Sunday Schools of the United States”, a book which was given an Imprimatur from the Archbishop of New York no less and it says:

**227. Which is the Lord’s Day?

The Lord’s day is Sunday.

The law of Keeping Sunday holy, instead of the Sabbath, was made by the Church, probably by the apostles.**

This is not a uncommon book. It is available in several places on the internet:

rc.net/philadelphia/pahrc/catechisms.html
catholicauthors.org/cgi-…b455/12768.html
biblio.com/books/32381131.html

So “The Lord’s Day” is Sunday. It is interesting that for the origin of “The Lord’s Day” that it gave was “probably the apostles.” Well this becomes more clear on the next example:

I also hear this:

2) “Sunday as “the Lord`s Day” is not mere tradition.”

I then check out the book “The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine” which was given an “apostolic blessing” from Pope Pius X in 1910. It says:

**"Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
"Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
"Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
“Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” **

–Peter Geiermann, The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, 1957 edition, p. 50 [Geiermann (1870-1929) received the “apostolic blessing” of pope Pius X on this book, January 26, 1910]. And IMPRIMATUR, September 16, 1957.

It’s not a “dust collector” either. See it can be found at several web sites:

aquinasandmore.com/index…3/imageSize/Lg/
lnfbooks.com/scripts/sea…ermann%2C+Peter
catholiccaravans.net/ind…ry/Category/92/

So, according to official church teaching, the institution of “The Lord’s Day” as Sunday was instituted about 333 years after Christ rose from the dead. The question I have is if the apostles were indeed keeping Sunday right after the death of Jesus, why did it take so long to get this into official Church Doctrine? But that is besides the point. Were the apostles really keeping Sunday after Jesus died? Well that brings me to the next Catholic teaching which just isn’t jiving with what I’m hearing:
(next post)

 

[illuminator]

1. *I hear several Bible texts showing that the apostles kept Sunday. Such as:
   
   a) Acts 20:7 - And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.*

Well then I read an article in the Catholic Mirror from Sept 2nd 1893 which reads:

“Once more, the Biblical apologists for the change of day call our attention to the Acts, chapter 20, verses 6 and 7: “and upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread,” etc. To all appearances, the above text should furnish some consolation to our disgruntled Biblical [protestant] friends, but being Marplot, we cannot allow them even this crumb of comfort. We reply by the axiom: “Quod probat nimis, probat nihil” – “What proves too much, proves nothing.” Let us call attention to the same Acts 2:46: “And they, continuing daily in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house,” etc. Who does not see at a glance that the text produced to prove the exclusive prerogative of Sunday, vanishes into thin air – an ignis fatuus – when placed in juxtaposition with the 46th verse of the same chapter? What Biblical Christian claims by this text for Sunday alone the same authority, St. Luke, informs us was common to every day of the week:
“And they continued daily in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house.”

I also hear texts like
b) I Corinthians 16:2 - On the first day of the week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.

Again from the Catholic Mirror article:

“One text more presents itself, apparently leaning toward a substitution of Sunday for Saturday. It is taken from St. Paul, 1 Cor. 16:1,2: “Now concerning the collection for the saints,” “On the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store,” etc. Presuming that the request of St. Paul had been strictly attended to, let us call attention to what had been done each Saturday during the Saviour’s life and continued for thirty years after, as the book of Acts informs us.
The followers of the Master met “every Sabbath” to hear the word of God; the Scriptures were read “every Sabbath day.” “And Paul, as his manner was to reason in the synagogue every Sabbath, interposing the same of the Lord Jesus Christ,” etc. Acts 18:4. What more absurd conclusion that to infer that reading of the Scriptures, prayer, exhortation, and preaching, which formed the routine duties of every Saturday, as had been abundantly proved, were overslaughed by a request to take up a collection on another day of the week?
In order to appreciate fully the value of this text now under consideration, it is only needful to recall the action of the apostles and holy women on Good Friday before sundown. They brought spices and ointments after He was taken down from the cross; they suspended all action until the Sabbath “holy to the Lord” had passed, and then took steps on Sunday morning to complete the process of embalming the sacred body of Jesus.
Why, may we ask, did they not proceed to complete the work of embalming on Saturday? – Because they knew well that the embalming of the sacred body of their Master would interfere with the strict observance of the Sabbath, the keeping of which was paramount; and until it can be shown that the Sabbath day immediately preceding the Sunday of our text had not been kept (which would be false, inasmuch as every Sabbath had been kept), the request of St. Paul to make the collection on Sunday remains to be classified with the work of the embalming of Christ’s body, which could not be effected on the Sabbath, and was consequently deferred to the next convenient day; viz., Sunday, or the first day of the week.”

The entire article can be found at: amazingdiscoveries.org/research/maryonline.htm

Notice that none of this am** I ** saying. It is all Catholic teaching.

I must confess that I was a little taken back with some of the responses that I have received. I mean, I was told to read about the Catholic church first before engaging in conversation – so I did. I went to only the highest sources. The Catholic Mirror article was printed by Cardinal Gibbon’s official organ of his archdiocese in Baltimore. The other two books you might just have a copy of and be able to look this up yourselves – they are widely distributed. When I presented this to you, who called me sarcastic, uneducated, and ignorant. Please tell me which then to believe - What you say or what your church seems to teach?

 

[jaz1976]

Illuminator,

You keep saying that you are sola scriptura, and I believe that you are. However, I think that this is where the problem lies. Once again, it comes down to history. Ask yourself, where did we get the Bible, from whom, when did we get it? The answers to these questions are very CATHOLIC. You see, Catholics are not sola scriptura because these traditions that we hold to, such as Worshiping on the Lords Day, go back to before we have a canon of Holy Scripture. Catholics do not look at the Bible and try to pattern ourselves after the Church described in the Bible. WE ARE the Church described in the Bible. History bears this out.

I wish you luck and may the Lord be with you.

Josh

 

[jaz1976]

illuminator:

So, according to official church teaching, the institution of “The Lord’s Day” as Sunday was instituted about 333 years after Christ rose from the dead. The question I have is if the apostles were indeed keeping Sunday right after the death of Jesus, why did it take so long to get this into official Church Doctrine? But that is besides the point. Were the apostles really keeping Sunday after Jesus died? Well that brings me to the next Catholic teaching which just isn’t jiving with what I’m hearing:
(next post)

Illuminator,

You misunderstand the purpose of Church Councils. They do not change things, they only lock in definitions. The practice of Worship on the Lords Day (Sunday) had been long practiced. It was due to some controversy or herasy that the dogma was definded, as is the reason most councils are called.

 

[jaz1976]

Illuminator,

As to the Mirror articles that you produced, I think that you are misrepresenting what the article is trying to say. It is not saying that there is not a shread of evidence for Sunday Worship. What it is saying is that by using the Bible Alone (which is an un-Biblical notion itself) you can not arrive at Sunday Worship. However, with Scripture and Tradition (which is quite a Biblical notion) we do get Sunday Worship.

God Bless,

Josh

 

[pfoos]

illuminator:

So, according to official church teaching, the institution of “The Lord’s Day” as Sunday was instituted about 333 years after Christ rose from the dead. The question I have is if the apostles were indeed keeping Sunday right after the death of Jesus, why did it take so long to get this into official Church Doctrine? But that is besides the point. Were the apostles really keeping Sunday after Jesus died? Well that brings me to the next Catholic teaching which just isn’t jiving with what I’m hearing:
(next post)

The practice of assembling together on the first day of the week began the week after Christ’s resurrection had taken place (John 20:26). The practice of gathering together on the first day of the week is also mentioned in Acts 20:7 and I Corinthians 16:2.
Our Lord rose from the dead on the first day of the week.
Pliny the Younger was governor of Pontus and Bithynia from 111-113 AD and we have his letters from his observing christians who he said gathered in the early hours of the first day of the week and partake in bread and wine.

Besides numerous early christian writings regarding Sunday worship, we have this in 160 AD from Justin:

“On the day named after the sun, all who live in the city or in the countryside assemble. The memoirs of the apostles or the writing of the prophets are read as long as time allows. When the lector has finished, the president addresses us and exhorts us to imitate the splendid things we have heard. Then we all stand and pray. As we said earlier, when we have finished praying, bread, wine, and water are brought up. The president then prays and gives thanks according to his ability, and the people give their assent with an Amen! Next, the gifts over which the thanksgiving has been spoken and distributed, and everyone shares in them, while they are also sent via the deacons to the absent brethren.”

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Really, what part is? (specifically)

To ape a famous quote from St. Thomas Moore concerning heretical bibles-looking for errors in The Great Controversy is like looking for water in the sea.

As an example, the Waldenses-they were NOT “Sabbath keepers”, not now, not ever. They even said so themselves. History bears this out.

Nor did they spread the Scriptures to a truth-starved Catholic Europe-we have Catholic monks and religious to thank for that. Even secular history bears this out.

If you want more examples, I’d be glad to go more in depth.

Now, a question for you-was this book supposed to be an “inspired” writing from the “prophetess” or just general reading?

What I am saying is there is no Biblical evidence for Sunday as the Lord’s day. Which is important if Protestants are going to follow sola scriptura. For Catholics, it’s no big deal because you don’t follow Sola scriptura. You follow Tradition above the Bible. (right?)]

and

The Catholic Mirror article was printed by Cardinal Gibbon’s official organ of his archdiocese in Baltimore. The other two books you might just have a copy of and be able to look this up yourselves – they are widely distributed. When I presented this to you, who called me sarcastic, uneducated, and ignorant. Please tell me which then to believe - What you say or what your church seems to teach?

Anyway, did you actually read these articles or just look for ammo against the Church? What the articles are saying is that the Bible alone is not sufficient to say why we worship on Sunday because the Bible alone can be used to justify about anything (from Rastafarianism, to Methodism, to Adventism, to Mormonism etc. ad naseaum) and thus the protestant world owes the Catholic Church big time for most of the doctrines they hold dear.

So, what it all comes down to (every time) is-what is your authority? You will claim the Bible-so does every other protestant and practically every other protestant from Martin Luther on retains Sunday worship and other “Catholic inventions” but then of course add on or subtract according to their interpretation of the Scriptures-which they have no authority to do.

If Sola Scriptura falls-so does every form of protestantism, every single one from High Church Anglicanism to cultic expressions of “Christianity” spawned from the mainline protestants. Thus also to Adventism. They claim the Bible “clearly” teaches that we must worship on the Jewish Sabbath. Other Protestants claim that the Bible “clearly” teaches that we worship on Sunday. Who’s right?

It would seem that if Sola Scriptura is right, then it could be judged on its own rule-and it fails. Where in the Bible does it “clearly” teach that the Bible is the sole rule of Faith? It doesn’t. Where does the Bible “clearly” teach what the Bible consists of? It doesn’t. Where does the Bible “clearly” teach that the Bible is sufficient alone without Tradition? It doesn’t.

Sola Scriptura only works with Protestant “tradition”, i.e. the private interpretation of the Bible by their sect or pastor or the individual.

As a personal sidenote, I’ve ran up against this style of argument before (Lincoln does have one of your main colleges, Union College)-quote old and out of print books or articles out of context and then plead ignorance because they seemingly “contradict” each other and then hope and pray that we just take your word for it. Nope, isn’t going to happen.

It is also funny that the books you quote from are not available online for us to easily read (or your link takes you to a site that you can buy a book from-and some are antiques! not common in print works).

Also, as to the Convert’s Catechism, I found this online version (at a protestant site, nonetheless)truthorfables.com/NL_Sept22_03.htm

Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday and the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles on a Sunday.

There is nothing about the Council of Laodicea (which is a common Adventist ploy to bring that in), so what version is right? I also notice that some of the Adventist online bookstores have their own version of the Convert’s Catechism as a “reprint” ((reprint, with benefits?!). Since it is a cheap book, I might just have to buy both of them and see if they are faithful to each other.

Were exactly did you quote your version from?

 

[illuminator]

OK, so I’ve gotten alot of sincere replies and then I’ve gotten others that seem to dance around the bush and accuse me of actually not reading the books I’ve quoted (when I’ve actually looked at the physical page and read the book) or they say that it is on a web site that is Protestant, or they say that sola scriptura is not right…All these things which I haven’t even brought up!

Again my question was, why do these books teach one thing and I hear a total different set of things from Catholics.

Surely it is not unreasonable to ask such a question?

I mean there is no shortage of texts that I can now find (now that I’ve started looking) that all say the same thing. For instance:

**Quote #2: from Advanced Catechism Of Catholic Faith And Practice, based upon the Third Plenary Council Catechism

356: Are the Sabbath day and Sunday the same?

The Sabbath day and Sunday are not the same. The Sabbath is the seventh day of the week, and is the day which was kept holy in the old law; the Sunday is the first day of the week, and is the day which is kept holy in the new law.

Who made the change from Saturday to Sunday?

The change from Saturday to Sunday was made by the Apostles, though the Bible does not clearly teach Sunday observance**

Advanced Catechism Of Catholic Faith And Practice, based upon the Third Plenary Council Catechism for use in the higher grades of Catholic Schools, compiled by Rev. Thomas J. O’brien, inspector of Parochial Schools, Diocese of Brooklyn, published by John B. Oink, Chicago Ill., copyright 1929. page 180-182

Sorry to those poeple who have already replied to me regarding why this is. I had to add this in because some poeple think less of my sources.

By the way this book that I took quote #2 from is listed as being in the Library of the Philadelphia Archdiocesan Historical Research Center At this web site:

rc.net/philadelphia/pahrc/catechisms.html

So, again, why if the Catholic Church Teaches that there is no clear teaching of Sunday in the Bible do you give Bible verses to support this? I am confused.

Regarding John 20:26: Again, The Catholic Mirror:

“The second reference to Sunday is to be found in St. John’s Gospel, 20th chapter, 26th to 29th verses: And after eight days, the disciples were again within, and Thomas with them.” The resurrected Redeemer availed Himself of this meeting of all the apostles to confound the incredulity of Thomas, who had been absent from the gathering on Easter Sunday evening. This would have furnished a golden opportunity to the Redeemer to change the day in the presence of all His apostles, but we state the simple fact that, on this occasion, as on Easter day, not a word is said of prayer, praise, or reading of the Scriptures. "

Again my apologies to those who think the is redundant but some people don’t beleive that this is in the literature.

 

[jim1130]

Illuminator - No offense, but are all SDAs as long-winded? From what I have learned of Samuele Bacchiocchi, he certainly is.

From the Cathechism of the Cahtolic Church:

1167 Sunday is the pre-eminent day for the liturgical assembly, when the faithful gather “to listen to the word of God and take part in the Eucharist, thus calling to mind the Passion, Resurrection, and glory of the Lord Jesus, and giving thanks to God who ‘has begotten them again, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead’ unto a living hope”:

When we ponder, O Christ, the marvels accomplished on this day, the Sunday of your holy resurrection, we say: "Blessed is Sunday, for on it began creation . . . the world’s salvation . . . the renewal of the human race. . . . On Sunday heaven and earth rejoiced and the whole universe was filled with light. Blessed is Sunday, for on it were opened the gates of paradise so that Adam and all the exiles might enter it without fear.

1193 Sunday, the “Lord’s Day,” is the principal day for the celebration of the Eucharist because it is the day of the Resurrection. It is the pre-eminent day of the liturgical assembly, the day of the Christian family, and the day of joy and rest from work. Sunday is “the foundation and kernel of the whole liturgical year” (SC 106).

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man’s eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:

Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord’s Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.

2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship “as a sign of his universal beneficence to all.” Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

etc. etc. etc.

You have been shown that the early Catholics gathered and worshipped on Sunday.

All you want is a verse in the Bible that says: “And Jesus ordered that the day of worship of God be moved from Saturday to Sunday” right? That is what you are looking for, right? Why is it difficult to understand that these early followers wanted to assing the Lord’s Day as to the day He rose, not when He was still in the tomb?

geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/Sabath.htm#One: "Further many of the writings of the early Christians attest the fact that Sunday was the Day of Worship for the Christians e.g. The Didache (14:22); St. Ignatius of Antioch (around 110 AD); St. Justin of Neapolis (Holy Land, around 150), Dionysius of Corinth (around 170 AD): St. Clement of Alexandria (around 194); Melito of Sardes (beginning of the second century); Hieronymus (Jerome), Tertullian, Eusebius of Caesarea and many others. "

 

[jim1130]

Illuminator - Visit these CA threads since this topic has been addressed before:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=81256&highlight=Seventh+Adventism

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=42882&highlight=Seventh+Adventism

Here is more on the CCC: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a3.htm

 

[illuminator]

Great - I have no problem with the Catholic church writing that you show. I have no doubt that at least some early Christians worshipped on Sunday as you have shown.

There are no texts changing the Holy day from Saturday to Sunday in the Bible. You are right. My point is simply say that form the start. Simply say that “we worhip on Sunday because [whatever - Tradition, History, Extrabiblical evidence] - just don’t say that it is in the Bible.” - if you want to be honest with what is said elsewhere in the Catholic Literature anyway. This is my point.

 

[pfoos]

Illuminator,

God has put this question into your heart for a reason. You must pray to the HOLY SPIRIT for Him to give you a clear and confirmed answer. HE will give it to you if you promise HIM you will accept the answer no matter what it is. You will not find your answer battling on a forum.

God Bless You and I will keep you in my family prayers.

 

[illuminator]

Thanks for the prayers. Not trying to convince anybody but just wanted clarification on what Catholics actually beleive. In my heart I beleive Sola Scriptura. I have answers to all the questions you have raised regarding sola scriptura but I hesitate to give them to you as it would look like I was trying to convince you of what I hold to be true. You are right - batteling out on a thread is not the way.

 

[jim1130]

illuminator:

Thanks for the prayers. Not trying to convince anybody but just wanted clarification on what Catholics actually beleive. In my heart I beleive Sola Scriptura. I have answers to all the questions you have raised regarding sola scriptura but I hesitate to give them to you as it would look like I was trying to convince you of what I hold to be true. You are right - batteling out on a thread is not the way.

Here are SS sites: geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html?200617 and cathinsight.com/apologetics/demar.htm

And this has SS as well as other Catholic information: chantcd.com/doct/scripture_alone.htm

Peruse at your leisure.

Peace.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Again my apologies to those who think the is redundant but some people don’t beleive that this is in the literature.

It is not that I don’t believe you (I checked out the site), it is just that you don’t understand what it is saying and that it does not hold up your point. The Mirror is saying that protestants cannot prove Sunday worship from the Bible alone and thus either have to ditch Sola Scriptura (and thus protestantism) or side with the Seventh Day Adventists or various Judaizing sects (which presents other theological problems for them).

The Bible provides some “evidence” but nothing conclusive that you could use to say that it proves Sunday worship without Catholic Tradition.

As to your other books, I don’t see an online version for this Catechism you post (and the Archdiocese of Philadelphia site only lists what they have, and they are not for borrowing or sale, unless you have some sort of special access to it) so I will ask this simple question-where is an online text that we can see for ourselves (if this is your source) and if you did not read it from an online source then where did you get it? Do you yourself have a hard copy of that catechism? Or, is it quoted in some of your Adventist material?

There are no texts changing the Holy day from Saturday to Sunday in the Bible. You are right. My point is simply say that form the start. Simply say that “we worhip on Sunday because [whatever - Tradition, History, Extrabiblical evidence] - just don’t say that it is in the Bible.” - if you want to be honest with what is said elsewhere in the Catholic Literature anyway. This is my point.

We are being totally honest with past literature-we do not think we can prove Sunday worship from the Bible alone-only that there is some Biblical evidence. The emphasis on older Catechisms may be on Tradition “only” but it doesn’t leave the Bible out of it. Furthermore, what you post isn’t infallible and if it was those author’s opinions that the Bible doesn’t prove Sunday worship at all, so be it. Private interpretation of Tradition or various catechisms and other literature doesn’t hold up either.

 

[illuminator]

ComradeAndrei:

It is not that I don’t believe you (I checked out the site), it is just that you don’t understand what it is saying and that it does not hold up your point. The Mirror is saying that protestants cannot prove Sunday worship from the Bible alone /QUOTE]

No, it is saying that Protestants can prove Sunday worship from the Bible AT ALL.

What difference does it make whether I got the books from an Adventist site or not - not to say that I did.

Invalidating a Catholic book because it is on an Adventist Web site is like saying that Since a copy of the Constitutiion of the US is in the former USSR - it must invalidate it. Or that if I posted the Cathechism of the Catholic Church on my web site (if I had one), that would invalidate it.

Tell you what,

I’ll have the pages of the book scanned on to a web site that I’ll create just for you. You can log on to it (after I create it - which will take some time) and see the book cover and see the words written on the page for yourself just like I have.

Unfortunetly, there is no text anywhere on the internet of these books so I can’t have you go to them.

Is that good enough for you? Will you believe then? I mean with anything online there is a bit of trust involved. You can blow my case out of the water by just getting that book and seeing if I am wrong. Anyone can. I run a big risk here - and it’s so easy to prove me wrong. Why would I do that!?

 

[ComradeAndrei]

No, it is saying that Protestants can prove Sunday worship from the Bible AT ALL.

That is saying the same thing. Protestants can’t prove Sunday worship from the Bible at all because they would really have to appeal to Tradition-thus sinking the Sola Scriptura boat. There is no way to prove anything out of the Bible without using Tradition and the teaching authority of the Magisterium because who has the authority to interpret it?

But it seems that the old Catholic Encyclopedia (1917 edition) points to the idea that Sunday worship is at least not at variance with Holy Scriptures, rightly interpreted-

newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm

Another thing to keep in mind, it is not suprising that Catholic catechisms meant for teaching the Flock from ~100 yrs. ago found it good enough to say “because the Church says so” because that was enough reason for your average Catholic.

What difference does it make whether I got the books from an Adventist site or not - not to say that I did.

The reason I ask is because in my experience, Catholic documents are quoted out of context or misquoted or in other means badly handled by Adventist literature. Old lies and falsehoods are still circulated by Adventist literature (like the infamous “Knights of Columbus Oath” that came out of the supposed “Jesuit Oath” or the Vicarius Filii Dei=666 stuff) and I just don’t trust it.

Is that good enough for you? Will you believe then? I mean with anything online there is a bit of trust involved. You can blow my case out of the water by just getting that book and seeing if I am wrong.

Just answering the question is good enough. Do you have an actual copy of the catechism in question or did you quote that passage out of Adventist literature? If you did quote it out of Adventist literature, which book or pamphlet? There’s an Adventist bookstore in town, so I will be glad to go and check it out.

 

[Beeline]

illuminator:

Oh, and by the way. I must say that some of the information about SDAs on this site are really not true. For instance, we don’t hate Catholics - we never have. We just don’t like the system of the Catholic church. Some of our best preachers such as Mark Finley and Walter Veith are former Catholics. And, also, it’s not like we invented the “whore of Babylon” thing either. That goes all the way back to Luther etc and the Reformation. It just so happens that we are the only ones left who are still “protesting.” If you will recall that Luther has now been made a Saint of the Catholic Church and the Lutherian Chruch has now apologized for the Reformation.

I am a Catholic and have studied SDA’s along with other denominations.

So many times, people pick an expert, someone
they trust , and after a while stop questioning whether they are being fed truth or not.
Being a mathematician, in a University atmosphere
we are always required to provide a ‘proof’.

I can say that some hash has been slung at Illuminator concering the SDA’s.
They are presently ‘Sola Scriptura’ and they are not a cult.However, these things have not always been
true about the SDA’s. Their organization has been
trending away from reliance on Ellen White writings since
the 60’s and 70’s and this has caused a seam to
show in their membership. Currently with more modern topics they disagree over their theology in
areas where Ellen White was ‘silent’ or did not write about. This is epitomized in their ‘understanding’ towards abortion.
They currently have ‘sympathy and understanding’ towards those who are faced with the decision of abortion. In effect, it is not wrong to have an abortion within the guidelines of the SDA organization and they perfrom them in their Church
Hospitals.

Proof:??
adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html

1. The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church. Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman’s life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation. She should be aided in her decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, these decisions are best made within the context of healthy family relationships.

//***************************************************

Definetly a Churh that explicitly states that they
do not serve as a ‘as conscience for individuals’
or really serve as a strict moral compass.

and

** Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church. Women** …
leaves quite a bit of wiggle room for reason of
another nature.

Illuminator writes:

For instance, we don’t hate Catholics - we never have.

Excuse Me!!! This is totally false, as the SDA’s have
been in the past the most egregious practioneers of
anti-catholicism. Currently its not true, however a minor remnant of the pro Ellen White contingency of SDA’s still toss the mud of half-truths, innuedo and lies. The SDA past is glaring on this if you care to a gander into the past and investigate this! Currently the organization has held meetings with the Pope (70,80’s or present).

The SDA organization is very ‘Sola Scriptura’, however they are also heavily influenced by Ellen White. An example might be the belief that the Wine
being consumed at the ‘Wedding of Cana’ was non-alcoholic acc. to SDA theology. To buttress their claim, they do cite some evidence that some people did or were capable of storing Grape Juice
in clay pots and sinking them to the bottom of a lake
in order to preserve it for a number of months.
However, the Bible speaks very loudly on this issue,
in accordance with Catholic Tradition.
Catholic Tradition: the things we know because they were verbablly handed down as knowledge.
The things we know are that the Wine was alcoholic
and the man at the wedding saying ‘You’ve saved the best for last’.

Aside for children in our culture and through time,
this is not a statement that would be made in a 3 day
wedding feast concering non-alcoholic grape juice.

 

[Beeline]

As to Illuminator saying that
the Catholic Church is in the long term considering
Martin Luther as a Saint??

Well Illuminator, I can say that you have no working
understanding of the Catholic religion ,its internal
workings and the requirements to be a Saint.
Moreover, it seems that the sources of analysis that
you use , (I didn’t go to the websites) are very bad
at what they do and are part of the half-truth , lies,
and mudslinging crowd. Things that on the surface
seem plausible or true, but dont hold up to investigation.

Martin Luther wasnt a saintly person, in fact its common knowledge that he cussed
like an Old Sailor. Look it up!

tanbooks.com/doct/facts_luther.htm
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt