The Sign of Jonah...HELP!!!

[guanophore]

Now, here [again] is the frank admission by an authority of your church on the unscriptural observance of Sunday and the clear command in the Bible to instead observe the Sabbath:

“Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify” (Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 89).

Except for your little insertion fo the word “unscriptural”…

Having no “clear command” in Scripture to observe the first day of the week does not equate to a lack of evidence, as the beginning of your post clearly notes. The Apostles were huddled together in fear…and He appeared to them.

And Cardinal Gibbons is not the only Catholic authority to admit that the Bible nowhere shows Sunday should be observed by Christians. Notice this from A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 ed., vol. 1, by John Laux: “If we consulted the Bible only, we should still have to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is, Saturday” (p. 51).

This is not a problem for Catholics, since ours is not a “bible based church”.

And here’s another from The Catholic Mirror on its Sept. 23, 1893 publication: “God’s written word enjoins His worship to be observed on Saturday, absolutely, repeatedly, and most emphatically, with a most positive threat of death to him who disobeys.”

These Catholic authorities did not see even a hint in the entire scriptures to suggest that Sunday was observed by the apostles. They all agree God’s Sabbath is clearly established in His Word. Only those desperate for scriptural support to justify their Sunday worship can “see” something that is clearly not there.

You are wrong, Mailman. You are reading into what is written. It is untrue that these Catholics did not even see a hint in the entire scriptures to suggest that Sunday was observed. The Sabbath commandments do not negate the Sunday observance. Both things happened. In fact, both days being observed separately by half the empire was one of Constantine’s main motivations for the council of NIcea. He did not want commerce to grind to a halt two days of the week. He wanted the Church to pick one.

And again, the CC has no need and especially no “desperation” to justify Sunday worship. The Church was meeting to worship in Sunday for centuries before the New Testament was even formed. Our faith comes entirely from Jesus, through the Apostles,and was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written.

The NT reflects the faith of the Church, but is not the Source of it. Jesus is the Source.

 

[Mailman]

I have no arguement with this, Mailman. It was Jesus, who appeared to them while they were huddled there on the first day of the week, that they continued to meet and expect on that day. He set the pattern by doing it again the following week. In five weeks, again, Pentecost.
You are creating a strawman.

What day was it when they met again the following week? Was it Sunday? “And after eight days again his disciples were within… and came Jesus…” (John 20:26). Now, what day would be after eight days from Sunday?

Jesus did not meet them on Pentecost. Or did I miss something?

The disciples met on Pentecost, not because they had made it a point to meet every Sunday, but because, as faithful Christians, they observed all of God’s holy days, and Pentecost was one of them! (BTW, Pentecost falls on a Monday, not Sunday… but that’s another story.)

Did you conveniently forget to mention the third recorded post-resurrection appearance of Jesus? It says: “After these things Jesus showed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias…” (John 20:26). What day was this? It does not say, right? But if your theory is true, then this must be a Sunday because Jesus set the pattern of meeting them on Sundays. But how could this be a Sunday when they were all out working! If this was a Sunday they would have been in a room again for a religious meeting. Remember your theory says that the disciples continued to meet on Sundays ever since Jesus first appeared to them. The fact that they were out working on this particular day tells us that it was just a normal working day for them. This clearly didn’t happen on a Sunday, yet Jesus appeared to them!

But let’s just say this did happen on a Sunday. What would that prove – that Sunday is some special day that God made holy because of the resurrection? Think again. If this happened on a Sunday then it would prove that Sunday was never made a solemn day by the Lord and the disciples never considered it a special day. They were doing a hard day’s work on that day, remember?

This is another strawman. No one is claiming that “Sunday had already been made the Christian holy day of worship”. Jesus sanctified the first day of the week by choosing to appear in resurrected form on that day. It was convenient for the early church to meet on this day, since the celebration of divine liturgy did not conflict with their custom of attending synagogue on Sabbath.

How did you know Jesus sanctified Sunday? Of the seventh day, the Holy Scriptures repeatedly say, “And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it…” (Gen. 2:3). But where is the Scripture that says Jesus sanctified Sunday? There’s none. And proof to that is the one making the claim cannot produce even one Scripture that says Jesus sanctified Sunday. Could it be that you were referring to Justin Martyr as the one who sanctified Sunday?

The Roman church sanctified Sunday, not Jesus Christ. Listen to this:

“The Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ” (The Catholic Universe Bulletin, The official newspaper of the Cleveland Diocese, Aug. 14, 1942, page 4).

And this “sanctification” by the Roman church happened more than 330 years after Jesus’ ascension to heaven (To appreciate how long is 330 years, think about the founding of the American republic; it’s longer than that).

“Ques. – Which is the Sabbath day?
“Ans. – Saturday is the Sabbath day.
“Ques. – Why do we observe Sunday?
“Ans. – We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 336), transferred the solemnity to Sunday.”
(The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, 1957, page 50, by Peter Geiermann. Geiermann received the “apostolic blessing” of Pope Pius X on his labors, on January 26, 1910)

 

[Mailman]

Except for your little insertion fo the word “unscriptural”…

Having no “clear command” in Scripture to observe the first day of the week does not equate to a lack of evidence, as the beginning of your post clearly notes. The Apostles were huddled together in fear…and He appeared to them.

Sunday observance is unscriptural, so says another Catholic authority:

“Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church (Catholic) has the power to institute festivals of precept?
“Answer: Had she not such power she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her - she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority” (A Doctrinal Catechism, 1846, p. 174, by Fr. Stephan Keenan).

Cardinal Gibbons did not say, or even allude, that there was no “clear command” in Scripture to observe Sunday. What he said was, “… you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday” in Scripture.” There is NO command – NONE – not even a hint – in the entire Scriptures to observe Sunday, according to Cardinal Gibbons.

To prove that he meant just that, Cardinal Gibbons, through Chancellor F.H. Thomas on Nov. 11, 1895 said: “Of course the Catholic Church claims the change [of the Sabbath to Sunday] was her act… and the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power.” The change did not come about because the Scriptures indicate there was something special about Sunday. The change was solely an act of the [Roman] Catholic Church.

The Catholic Press in its Aug. 25, 1900 publication echoed the conviction of Cardinal Gibbons when it stated that, “Sunday is a Catholic institution, and… can be defended only on Catholic principles…. From the beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first.”

These Catholic authorities would not agree with you that there is no clear command. To them, what is clear is that there is no command – not even an unclear one, not the slightest of hint – for Sunday observance. But what is crystal clear to them is this: “God’s written word enjoins His worship to be observed on Saturday, absolutely, repeatedly, and most emphatically, with a most positive threat of death to him who disobeys.” (The Catholic Mirror, Sept. 23, 1893).

This is not a problem for Catholics, since ours is not a “bible based church”.

Yes, yours is tradition-based – based on traditions of men. But Christ said: “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men…” (Mark 7:7).

This “commandment of God” is found in God’s sacred Word, the Holy Bible. It is unfortunate that the church which the world sees as representing Christianity is laying aside the Holy Bible to teach for doctrines the commandments of men and haughtily proclaiming to the world that it is above His Word [and by inference, God Himself] and have power to abrogate His Law.

“Sunday is the mark of authority. The church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance [to Sunday] is proof of that fact” (Catholic Record, London, Sept. 1, 1923).

 

[guanophore]

Jesus did not meet them on Pentecost. Or did I miss something?

Apparently you missed the outpouring of the HS, which came from Jesus. He is the baptizer. If you think He is not present when the HS is, then you are misinformed.

The disciples met on Pentecost, not because they had made it a point to meet every Sunday

Ok. It would not matter what day of the week it fell at that time. The Church moved the observance of Pentecost to the Lord’s Day, to make it a permanent part of the Liturgical Calendar on a Sunday. That is what all these objections are really about. You reject the authority of the church to do this.

Did you conveniently forget to mention the third recorded post-resurrection appearance of Jesus? It says: “After these things Jesus showed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias…” (John 20:26). What day was this? It does not say, right? But if your theory is true, then this must be a Sunday because Jesus set the pattern of meeting them on Sundays.

No, Mailman. I don’t have a “theory”. The Apostles gathered on the first day of the week because it did not conflict with their Sabbath observance. They were all observant Jews,and attended Sabbath. They were also frequenting the Temple in Jerusalem until they were thrown out, and it was destroyed.

But how could this be a Sunday when they were all out working! If this was a Sunday they would have been in a room again for a religious meeting.

Have we not already established that the Jewish Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday?

Remember your theory says that the disciples continued to meet on Sundays ever since Jesus first appeared to them. The fact that they were out working on this particular day tells us that it was just a normal working day for them. This clearly didn’t happen on a Sunday, yet Jesus appeared to them!

If I implied that I thought He ONLY appeared on Sundays, then I apologize.

Of course the first day of the week was a regular work day for them, they were Sabbatarians!

But let’s just say this did happen on a Sunday. What would that prove – that Sunday is some special day that God made holy because of the resurrection? Think again. If this happened on a Sunday then it would prove that Sunday was never made a solemn day by the Lord and the disciples never considered it a special day. They were doing a hard day’s work on that day, remember?

Well, we see it differently, Mailman. Catholics value the early morning of the first day of the week because the Resurected Lord appeared to them first at that time, on that day of the week. If you don’t consider that special, then I guess it is your perogative.

How did you know Jesus sanctified Sunday?

That is how we understand him rising on that day, and appearing. We also read in John’s revelation that he was at prayer on that day. We know from the Fathers that this was customary.

Of the seventh day, the Holy Scriptures repeatedly say, “And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it…” (Gen. 2:3).

Amen !

But where is the Scripture that says Jesus sanctified Sunday? There’s none.

Catholics are not “bible Christians”, mailman. Our faith is not extracted from the Scriptures. On the contrary, it was Catholic faith that produced the Scriptures. Our faith preceded the NT, and it comes from Jesus, through the Apostles. That is why our beliefs are not subject to “proofs” from it’s pages. Catholics know that the NT was never intended to be a complete compendium of the faith.

And proof to that is the one making the claim cannot produce even one Scripture that says Jesus sanctified Sunday.

Ok. If you don’t consider a day on which Jesus appears to you sanctified, that is also your perogative. He gave you free will. You don’t have to accept anything He does as sanctifying, if you don’t want.

Could it be that you were referring to Justin Martyr as the one who sanctified Sunday?

Even if Justin were resurrected, that would be immaterial. Jesus brough Lazarus from his tomb, but that day was not considered sanctified. It is only the risen Lord’s resurrection we hold in such regard.

 

[guanophore]

The Roman church sanctified Sunday, not Jesus Christ.

You are making the assumption that Jesus was not working through His Church when this was done. Also, I must point out that your disparagement of the Church by calling it “Roman” is inaccurate as well. This decision was made by an ecumenical council,including all parts of the Church, including those that today are no longer in communion with Rome. It is one of the aspects that makes your theory fall apart. It has nothing to do with Rome, or Roman. It is Catholic. That is why the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Churches observe Sunday. They don’t take direction from Rome.

Catholics believe what Jesus said when He told the church he would send the HS to guide them into “all Truth”. We believe that the powerful Jesus we see in Revelation who was able to correct and chastize the church still exists, and is active. We don’t believe, as you appear to, that he was too weak or disinterested to keep His promises.

When the Church chose to observe Sunday, we believe the HS was guiding this decision. You reject the authority of the Church to make such decisions, and that is your perogative.

And this “sanctification” by the Roman church happened more than 330 years after Jesus’ ascension to heaven (To appreciate how long is 330 years, think about the founding of the
“Ans. – We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 336), transferred the solemnity to Sunday.”

(The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, 1957, page 50, by Peter Geiermann. Geiermann received the “apostolic blessing” of Pope Pius X on his labors, on January 26, 1910)

You may not realize this, but the ratification of the NT did not occur until 382. If there is some passage of years that invalidates truth, then you have no reason to have confidence in your Bible, either, since it was formed by a group of people who ALL believed in the Sunday observance.

By the way, by quoting these passages, you have proven yourself wrong. You have clearly cited evidence that the decision on the Sunday observance is not “my theory”.

 

[CEM5]

Hi CEM,

It is true that God created all these things that we see around us – the rabbit, eggs, etc. But God also created all the angelic beings, including the archangel cherub, Lucifer, who later became Satan, the devil. They are all His creation and created of God. Would we also say that we can use Satan in our worship of God?

Yes, God created the angelic beings; nontheless, God did not create Satan or the demons. Those fallen angels choose to disobey God, thus they are no longer the holy creatures that God created. So, obviously, we who belong to God, do not worship those fallen angels (only worship God). However, there are those who do turn to the occult, rather than God. That is their choice. We who belong to God worship only God and use only His created matter for the good of mankind. In worship and also in remembering God, we use symbols of God’s creation in addition to worshipping God. Recall that in the OT, God commanded Moses to create a bronze serpent and place it upon a pole. Those that had been bitten by the fiery serpents in the dessert had to look upon this serpent on the pole in order to be healed.

Recall, too, that God commanded the veil of the tabernacle to have pictures of angels (cherubs) on it, as well as carved cherubs on the Ark of the Convenant. Also, pictures and carvings of nature: palm trees and open flowers. We Christians still incorporate images of God’s creation when worshipping our Creator, God.

Now, there are creeping creatures on earth which God also created. But He says that, “All that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten” (Lev. 11:41). Although God gave man dominion over all the creatures He created on earth (Gen. 1:26), He also gave His Law which defines how man should live. That Law of God is man’s standard for right and wrong. By it he determines evil and good – “that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Rom. 12:2) which man must choose if he wants to please God and walk the path to salvation.

You forget that Jesus gave us a new commandment, a New Covenant. All things are acceptable to God now. We were given permission to eat anything now (so long as it was not sacrificed to pagan dieties). All those “unclean” foods, God has made clean. Read
Acts 10 as well as Acts 11. Peter was told by God to eat those foods for all is now made clean by God.

It is God alone who determines for us what is right and what is wrong. We are admonished not to lean on our understanding (Prov. 3:5) because, “there is a way that seemeth right to a man: and the ends thereof lead to death” (Prov. 16:25).

It may seem right for us to take those pagan symbols of worship and use them in our worship of God, but as far as God is concerned these are “abominations which the Lord abhoreth” (Deut. 12:31). His command and warning to us is this:

“Beware lest thou imitate them [the pagans]… and lest thou seek after their ceremonies, saying: As these nations have worshipped their gods, so will I also worship” (Deut. 12:30).

When we take these pagan festivals and use their ceremonies in our worship of God, we “imitate them,” we “seek after their ceremonies,” and we worship God the way they “have worshipped their gods.” God says He does not want His people to do that.

We may reason that we celebrate Easter to honor the Lord’s resurrection, but God says, “Thou shalt not do in like manner to the Lord thy God” what they, the heathen “have done to their gods” (v. 31).

God does not want us to imitate the way pagans honor their gods. He gives us this clear and specific command on how we are to glorify Him: “What I command thee, THAT ONLY DO thou to the Lord: NEITHER ADD ANYTHING NOR DIMINISH” (v. 32).

God bless.

Now, as I explained above, God commanded us to use His creation as part of worshipping Him. All things are made clean through Him, and for Him. We do not do as the pagan/heathens/occultists do: they worship the created rather than the Creator. We Christians worship the Creator, and keep His created things in perspective: All things were created by Him for our (good) use. Just as He commanded ancient man to incorporate His created images in the use of worshipping Him, so too, do we continue this ancient tradition as established by God and continued through Jesus.

I feel that you give too much power and credit to the dark side by saying God’s images of His creation belong to the pagan rather than to God. I am quite clear as to who created what and to whom it all belongs to: God, creator of all good things.

Amen and God bless.

 

[guanophore]

I feel that you give too much power and credit to the dark side by saying God’s images of His creation belong to the pagan rather than to God. I am quite clear as to who created what and to whom it all belongs to: God, creator of all good things.

Amen and God bless.

It is equally a mistake to think that God does not work through such images to do miracles and healing.

Num 21: 8The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.

The snake is one of the images that was worshipped in Egypt.

 

[catholic1seeks]

TO Mailer (or someone who knows)

IS it correct that you think that the foundation of the issue of Saturday vs. Sunday is whether Christ’s Resurrection occurred on Sunday or not? Did I read that correctly… or not? If you do think that is the issue, then we should probably focus on this aspect.

THen again, maybe I read it wrong… or even someone else said that. I skimmed through all of the posts…

 

[guanophore]

TO Mailer (or someone who knows)

IS it correct that you think that the foundation of the issue of Saturday vs. Sunday is whether Christ’s Resurrection occurred on Sunday or not? Did I read that correctly… or not? If you do think that is the issue, then we should probably focus on this aspect.

THen again, maybe I read it wrong… or even someone else said that. I skimmed through all of the posts…

No, the issue is that God commanded the Sabbath on the 7th day, and never rescinded it, and that the Catholic Church (or anyone for that matter) does not have the authority to change the Sabbath from Sat. to Sun.

 

[NotWorthy]

No, the issue is that God commanded the Sabbath on the 7th day, and never rescinded it, and that the Catholic Church (or anyone for that matter) does not have the authority to change the Sabbath from Sat. to Sun.

… and this has been done since the 1st century as indicated by the Didache. I know Mailer shows it was done in 360AD, but the Church simply made it an official declaration, similar to the Assumption (19th century?) and the Canon (1500’s?).

The answer is simple. Does the Church have the authority to Bind and Loose or doesn’t She. If She does, then Catholics could celebrate the Mass on any day of the week that is dictated.

 

[Mailman]

That is how we understand him rising on that day, and appearing. We also read in John’s revelation that he was at prayer on that day. We know from the Fathers that this was customary.

So, you do not agree with the apostles and the primitive Church that Jesus rose on the Sabbath and appeared only on Sunday morning. You would rather go with tradition from the fathers of your church – such men as Justin Marytr, Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, etc. But wouldn’t that be rejecting the faith “which was once delivered unto the saints”?

John’s use of the term “Lord’s day” in Revelation has nothing to do with Sunday, or any day of the week for that matter. The verse and its context make no reference to any day of the week; nor do they, in any manner, mention Sunday or the first day of the week. If you dispute that, show me where it says the Lord’s Day is Sunday – in the book of Revelation, or in any of the books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

Revelation is a PROPHECY of end-time events – “of things which must shortly come to pass” (Rev. 1:1). The “Lord’s Day” is the time period of prophecy mentioned in more than 30 prophecies in the Bible as “the day of the Lord,” or “day of the Lord Jesus Christ,” or “day of Christ.” Notice it. The day of the Lord; the Lord’s day. Same thing, right? It’s like saying “the Lord’s birthDAY.” But you can also say “the birthDAY of the Lord” and it would mean the same thing.

This “day of the Lord” or “Lord’s day” refers to the era of time when God is going to personally and directly intervene in the affairs of man. It refers to the end-time events surrounding the return of Jesus Christ to end this present time we are now in – this the day of man – and begin a new era [the age of Jesus Christ]. This is the theme of the book of Revelation and the “Lord’s Day” John saw in vision.

Catholics are not “bible Christians”, mailman. Our faith is not extracted from the Scriptures.

I know. I know that your faith is extracted from the traditions of the Catholic fathers – from traditions of men.

Tell me this. Why do you reject the authority of the Scriptures, yet attempt to establish your authority on the authority you reject and deny by quoting Mathew 16:18?

On the contrary, it was Catholic faith that produced the Scriptures.

Then you have disowned that which you have produced, and have made a fool of yourself by rejecting your very own writings.

But I do not think the fathers of your faith are lacking in judgment. They knew what they rejected – and knew this had nothing to do with Catholic writings.

Our faith preceded the NT, and it comes from Jesus, through the Apostles.

Are not Jesus and the apostles of the NT dispensation?

That is why our beliefs are not subject to “proofs” from it’s pages.

Then why do you use Matthew 16:18 as proof of your belief of papal succession and primacy of the Roman see?

And why do you use Matthew 16:19 as proof that you can abrogate God’s laws that are not to your liking, or 1 Titus 3:15 as proof that your church is above the Word of God?

Catholics know that the NT was never intended to be a complete compendium of the faith.

Not only do Catholics believe “the NT was never intended to be a complete compendium of the faith,” you also believe that the faith revealed in the OT and NT was never intended to be followed – that your church, being above God Himself, can abrogate any of His revealed laws and replace it with its own.

“Sunday is the mark of authority. The church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance [to Sunday] is proof of that fact” – so says one Catholic authority in admitting the preeminence of your church over God’s Word, and by inference, God Himself.

Ok. If you don’t consider a day on which Jesus appears to you sanctified, that is also your perogative. He gave you free will. You don’t have to accept anything He does as sanctifying, if you don’t want.

But the problem is, if I don’t believe Jesus sanctified Sunday then I will labor on that day and not attend mass. I would then be committing a mortal sin, the penalty for which is eternal torment in hell.

 

[Mailman]

You are making the assumption that Jesus was not working through His Church when this was done.

His Church are the called-out ones who “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:12).

Now, “He that saith, I know him, and KEEPETH NOT his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4).

Also, I must point out that your disparagement of the Church by calling it “Roman” is inaccurate as well. This decision was made by an ecumenical council,including all parts of the Church, including those that today are no longer in communion with Rome. It is one of the aspects that makes your theory fall apart. It has nothing to do with Rome, or Roman. It is Catholic. That is why the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Churches observe Sunday. They don’t take direction from Rome.

The Roman church is the mother church. She was the one who started Sunday observance. The rest of this world’s Sunday-keeping churches followed suit – the Eastern and Oriental churches, as well as all the Protestant churches which later came out her. They are all her daughters who have followed “mother Rome” in rejecting God’s Sabbath and replacing it with the “venerable day of the Sun.”

Martin Luther once said: “Indeed, if Carlstadt [one of the few that argued against Sunday observance] were to write further about the Sabbath, Sunday would have to give way, and the Sabbath – that is to say, Saturday – must be kept holy” (Against the Celestial Prophets).

But Luther wouldn’t change back to the right day, as he wrote in his *Larger Catechism *that, “to avoid the unnecessary disturbance which an innovation would occasion, [the worship day] should continue to be Sunday” (“Sunday,” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge). Luther, too, and his Protestant churches followed Rome in her rejection of the Lord’s Sabbath and observance of Sunday in its place.

Catholics believe what Jesus said when He told the church he would send the HS to guide them into “all Truth”. We believe that the powerful Jesus we see in Revelation who was able to correct and chastize the church still exists, and is active. We don’t believe, as you appear to, that he was too weak or disinterested to keep His promises.

When the Church chose to observe Sunday, we believe the HS was guiding this decision. You reject the authority of the Church to make such decisions, and that is your perogative.

Yes, Jesus sent the HS to guide His Church into all truth. But what is truth? John says, “…thy word is truth” (John 17:17). “Thy Word” – God’s Word, the Holy Scriptures – is the truth. As the prophet Daniel calls it, “the scripture of truth” (Dan. 10:21).

Jesus sent the HS to guide His Church in understanding this “scripture of truth.” He did not send the HS to guide His Church into abolishing or changing this Truth, but in UNDERSTANDING it. Jesus is “the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8); His Truth, likewise, is permanent and unchanging: “…his truth endures to all generations” (Ps. 100:5) “…the truth of the Lord endures forever” (Ps. 117:2).

And there is only one law Giver (James 4:12). He is the Eternal God.

 

[Mailman]

You may not realize this, but the ratification of the NT did not occur until 382. If there is some passage of years that invalidates truth, then you have no reason to have confidence in your Bible, either, since it was formed by a group of people who ALL believed in the Sunday observance.

By the way, by quoting these passages, you have proven yourself wrong. You have clearly cited evidence that the decision on the Sunday observance is not “my theory”.

In A.D. 397 the Synod of Carthage confirmed as canonical the 27 books of what is now our NT today. But it only recognized what had already been in use and read in the churches for some three centuries. They were not the canonizers of these books. The apostles Paul, Peter and John were the canonizers of the NT, and John, with the help from other believers, finished and distributed copies of the entire 27 books to the churches in Asia Minor and Jerusalem before his death. Even as early as A.D. 64, large portions of the NT were already regarded as inspired writings. Peter’s words in II Pet. 1:12 is a clear implication that Peter would be responsible for making the Truth of God available following his death – that he would be responsible for the preservation of the NT Scriptures.

John, who outlived all the other apostles, made the final selections of the writings that would be included as Scripture. In Rev. 22:18-19, in the final chapter of the final book of the Bible, John gives a warning that indicates that the Bible was then complete, with nothing more to be added or taken away. “If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy….”

Show me where [in the NT] Sunday is mentioned as being observed by the primitive Church and I can believe your WILD claim about the NT being written by people who are ALL Sunday worshippers.

Here is from Chamber’s Encyclopedia, 1882 ed., Vol. VIII, art: "Sabbath”: "By none of the Fathers before the FOURTH CENTURY is it [the first day] identified with the Sabbath; nor is the duty of observing it grounded by them either on the fourth commandment OR ON THE PRECEPT OR EXAMPLE OF CHRIST OR HIS APOSTLES.”

So, if not from the example of Christ or His apostles, who gave us Sunday? “Unquestionably,” continues the same source, “the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the Sabbatical observance of that day [Sunday] is known to have been ordained, is THE EDICT OF CONSTANTINE, 321 A.D., of which the following is a translation: ‘Let all judges, inhabitants of the cities, and artificers, REST ON THE VENERABLE DAY OF THE SUN. But in the country, husbandmen may freely and lawfully apply to the business of agriculture; since it often happens that the sowing of corn and the planting of vines cannot be so advantageously performed on any other day.’"

It was the Emperor Constantine the Great, a bona fide pagan sun-worshipper, who made the first law which actually began to force the world to keep Sunday, and to break the Sabbath of God. The Catholic church bowed to Constantine’s Sunday dictum and she later bequeathed this day to her protesting daughters.

The world-famous Encyclopedia Britannica agrees: “The earliest recognition of the OBSERVANCE OF SUNDAY as a legal duty is a constitution of Constantine in 321 A.D., enacting that all courts of justice, inhabitants of towns and workshops were to be AT REST ON SUNDAY (venerabili die solis), with an exception in favour of those engaged in agricultural labour.”

And the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge also concurs: “(dies solis, of the Roman calendar, ‘day of the sun’, because dedicated to the sun), the first day of the week, was ADOPTED by the early Christians as a day of worship … it was called the ‘Lord’s Day’… NO REGULATIONS FOR ITS OBSERVANCE ARE LAID DOWN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, NOR INDEED, IS ITS OBSERVANCE EVEN ENJOINED."

 

[Mailman]

Yes, God created the angelic beings; nontheless, God did not create Satan or the demons. Those fallen angels choose to disobey God, thus they are no longer the holy creatures that God created. So, obviously, we who belong to God, do not worship those fallen angels (only worship God)… In worship and also in remembering God, we use symbols of God’s creation in addition to worshipping God. Recall that in the OT, God commanded Moses to create a bronze serpent and place it upon a pole. Those that had been bitten by the fiery serpents in the dessert had to look upon this serpent on the pole in order to be healed.

Did God command that we use the egg and the rabbit – or any of His creatures – in our worship of Him? As for the bronze serpent, did God command that the image be used by the people in their worship of God? If that bronze serpent had been used as part of their worship of God, why has your church not erected a similar image as part of its worship of God?

Recall, too, that God commanded the veil of the tabernacle to have pictures of angels (cherubs) on it, as well as carved cherubs on the Ark of the Convenant. Also, pictures and carvings of nature: palm trees and open flowers. We Christians still incorporate images of God’s creation when worshipping our Creator, God.

Did God command that those images be used in religious worship like what Catholics are doing to the egg and the rabbit during its Easter festivities? Or did God command that the Israelites bow down to these images like what Catholics do to their religious images?

You forget that Jesus gave us a new commandment, a New Covenant. All things are acceptable to God now. We were given permission to eat anything now (so long as it was not sacrificed to pagan dieties). All those “unclean” foods, God has made clean. Read Acts 10 as well as Acts 11. Peter was told by God to eat those foods for all is now made clean by God.

God’s new covenant was “established upon better PROMISES” (Heb. 8:6), not better laws. It promised God’s Holy Spirit and the attainment of eternal life, which were not promised under the old covenant.

If all things are acceptable to God now, why did God forbid certain meats to be eaten before?

You got it wrong even with regards to food offered to idols. For as long as these foods are not of the “unclean” kind, the Christian may eat of them. See 1 Cor. 8.

As for Peter’s vision in Acts 10, it has nothing to do with the eating of unclean foods. Peter at first thought the vision meant he should eat unclean animals, so he quickly responded: “Not so, Lord! For I have NEVER eaten anything common or unclean” (v. 14). However, unlike most of us, Peter did not hastily conclude that he can now eat unclean foods. We read that Peter still “doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean” (v. 17) even after being told to eat of them three times.

Peter later realized the significance of the revelation. Notice it. This is what Peter himself said was what God was showing him in the vision: “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean” (v. 28).

The vision did not concern food at all. Rather, it concerned people. Because the Jewish religious leaders at the time had erroneously considered gentiles to be unclean, Peter’s vision righted a common misconception that had come to affect Peter and other members of the Church. Recognizing the real intent of the vision, Peter baptized the first gentiles God called into the Church (v. 45-48).

Peter explained his action to the Jerusalem brethren in Acts 11. He told them of the vision and how, as he “began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them [gentiles]…” (v. 15) – that “God gave them [gentiles] the like gift [the Holy Spirit] as he did unto us…” (v. 17). The Jerusalem brethren “when they heard these things…held their peace, and glorified God, saying,” – and here is their conclusion of the matter – “THEN hath God also granted the gentiles repentance unto life” (v. 18). These Jerusalem Christians, like Peter, did not conclude that the vision showed they were now free to eat anything, but that it demonstrated that God was beginning to offer salvation to any race.

Now, as I explained above, God commanded us to use His creation as part of worshipping Him. All things are made clean through Him, and for Him. We do not do as the pagan/heathens/occultists do: they worship the created rather than the Creator. We Christians worship the Creator, and keep His created things in perspective: All things were created by Him for our (good) use. Just as He commanded ancient man to incorporate His created images in the use of worshipping Him, so too, do we continue this ancient tradition as established by God and continued through Jesus.

No, God NEVER commanded us to use His creation as part of worshipping Him. Why, He even forbids us from using His own image [if such an image can be made] in our worship of Him! He says in His second Commandment: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above… Thou shalt not bow down to them…” (Exo. 20:4).

I feel that you give too much power and credit to the dark side by saying God’s images of His creation belong to the pagan rather than to God. I am quite clear as to who created what and to whom it all belongs to: God, creator of all good things.

Amen and God bless.

So, how would you apply His command to you that, “Ye shall not do… whatsoever is right in his own eyes” (Deut. 12:8); that “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (v. 32). Remember, this command is given in relation to our proper worship of Him.

God bless.

 

[guanophore]

So, you do not agree with the apostles and the primitive Church that Jesus rose on the Sabbath and appeared only on Sunday morning.

Sure I do.

You would rather go with tradition from the fathers of your church – such men as Justin Marytr, Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, etc. But wouldn’t that be rejecting the faith “which was once delivered unto the saints”?

No, Mailman. These Fathers held Catholic faith, the One Faith that was delivered once for all to the Saints.

John’s use of the term “Lord’s day” in Revelation has nothing to do with Sunday, or any day of the week for that matter.

Mailman, honestly, so much work to maintain your Sabbatarian view!

I will stipulate as to other meanings of the term “Day of the Lord”. However, John was at prayer on the first day of the week when he received the revelation.

If you dispute that, show me where it says the Lord’s Day is Sunday – in the book of Revelation, or in any of the books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

It is right next to the list of books that belong in the Bible, and the definition of the word “Trinity”.

The day of the Lord; the Lord’s day. Same thing, right?

Not every time, no. IN the case of Revelation, John refers to the Lord’s Day as the day of the week he was at prayer when he received the Revelation.

This “day of the Lord” or “Lord’s day” refers to the era of time when God is going to personally and directly intervene in the affairs of man.

I have no arguement about this either.

I know. I know that your faith is extracted from the traditions of the Catholic fathers – from traditions of men.

No, Mailman. We receive it through paradosis.

Tell me this. Why do you reject the authority of the Scriptures, yet attempt to establish your authority on the authority you reject and deny by quoting Mathew 16:18?

Authority is a quality of persons, not books, however Holy. Authority requires the exercise of acts fo the will, discernment, accountability, and many other qualities that belong to persons, not books. Thiis is why Jesus left PEOPLE in authority, rather than writing a book to teach His Church.

I have no authority, nor do I attempt to establish any for myself.

Authority that belongs to the Church comes from Christ, not from the bible verses. The church was established prior to the NT being written. the authority was given to the Apostles by Christ.

 

[guanophore]

Then you have disowned that which you have produced, and have made a fool of yourself by rejecting your very own writings.

No doubt it seems that way to you.

But I do not think the fathers of your faith are lacking in judgment. They knew what they rejected – and knew this had nothing to do with Catholic writings.

It seems to you that the Catholic faith contradicts the Scriptures because you read them in separation from the faith that produced them.

Are not Jesus and the apostles of the NT dispensation?

Not sure what you mean by that. There are several dispensationalist views. Which one do you espouse?

The fact that the Teaching of Jesus and the Apostles preceeded the NT is not a reflection of dispensationalism. The faith did not change after the NT was written.

Then why do you use Matthew 16:18 as proof of your belief of papal succession and primacy of the Roman see?

I don’t.

Catholics don’t need to “prove” any part of their faith by using “proof texts” from the NT. Since our faith preceeded the NT, and produced the NT, we can be confident that nothing in our faith contradicts what is in the NT.

And why do you use Matthew 16:19 as proof that you can abrogate God’s laws that are not to your liking, or 1 Titus 3:15 as proof that your church is above the Word of God?

Once again, Mailman, Catholics don’t need to use scripture as “proof”. This is a Protestant practice that developed because the Protestant communities were separated from the Apostolie faith during the Reformaiton.

The establishment of the first day of the week as customary to celebrate the Lord’s Day had nothing to do with “liking” or disliking.

The Catholic Church does not believe or teach that she is “above the Word of God”. We have received the Word in two forms, oral (Sacred Tradition) and written (Sacred Scripture).
These are two equal strands of God’s revelation.

Not only do Catholics believe “the NT was never intended to be a complete compendium of the faith,” you also believe that the faith revealed in the OT and NT was never intended to be followed – that your church, being above God Himself, can abrogate any of His revealed laws and replace it with its own.

Mailman, you are sounding pretty angry. It does not behoove you to come onto these threads and tell Catholics what they believe. CAF is here to provide Catholic answers. If you are not here to get them, then you are probably in the wrong place. If you are angry that the Catholic Church believes they have the authority to choose a day of worship, then you probably need a place to vent other than CAF.

“Sunday is the mark of authority. The church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance [to Sunday] is proof of that fact” – so says one Catholic authority in admitting the preeminence of your church over God’s Word, and by inference, God Himself.

I am sure it seems that way to you. However, the Sabbath cannot be “transferred” anywhere, and the fact that the Church chose the first day of the week to gather is more a reflection of the authority given to her. The authority given to the Church resides in Holy Orders, not in “Sunday”.

If you wish to keep posting here, then I recommend that you refrain from making baseless accusations about the Catholic faith. You are free to believe that the CC is “above the bible” but when you are posting here, you are required to respect our faith, and since this is not part of our faith, it puts you in a position of bearing false witness against the Church. This is a violation of the forum rules.

But the problem is, if I don’t believe Jesus sanctified Sunday then I will labor on that day and not attend mass. I would then be committing a mortal sin, the penalty for which is eternal torment in hell.

No, Mailman. The canon law of the Church applies to Catholics. Those who reject the Catholic faith will be judged according to what has been revealed to them.

Besides, I thought you didn’t believe in “mortal” sins?

 

[guanophore]

His Church are the called-out ones who “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:12).

Now, “He that saith, I know him, and KEEPETH NOT his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4).

I know, I know. You think the CC is apostate because we are not Sabbatarians.

The Roman church is the mother church.

Actually, the Church was Mother for several centuries before the Latin Rite emerged.

She was the one who started Sunday observance. The rest of this world’s Sunday-keeping churches followed suit – the Eastern and Oriental churches, as well as all the Protestant churches which later came out her. They are all her daughters who have followed “mother Rome” in rejecting God’s Sabbath and replacing it with the “venerable day of the Sun.”

Well, Mailman, I know it reinforces your position to believe this, but it is simply false. If you ever become willing to study history, you will find that the Sunday observance began in Palestine, not in Rome. You will also find that the Eastern, Oriental, and Coptic communions have never been “subject” to Rome on such matters.

All of the Apostolic Sees agreed to observe Sunday at the Council of Nicea.

From the time of the Council of Jerusalem recorded in the book of Acts, Gentiles have been exempted from observing the Sabbath as the Jews did. This did not come from “Rome”.

Martin Luther once said: “Indeed, if Carlstadt [one of the few that argued against Sunday observance] were to write further about the Sabbath, Sunday would have to give way, and the Sabbath – that is to say, Saturday – must be kept holy” (*Against the Celestial Prophets*).

Certainly a good case can be made for observing the Sabbath.

But Luther wouldn’t change back to the right day, as he wrote in his *Larger Catechism *that, “to avoid the unnecessary disturbance which an innovation would occasion, [the worship day] should continue to be Sunday” (“Sunday,” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge). Luther, too, and his Protestant churches followed Rome in her rejection of the Lord’s Sabbath and observance of Sunday in its place.

Luther did have a hard time realizing that being in Christ is the fulfillment of the Sabbath. He suffered from scrupulosity all his life.

Yes, Jesus sent the HS to guide His Church into all truth. But what is truth? John says, “…thy word is truth” (John 17:17). “Thy Word” – God’s Word, the Holy Scriptures – is the truth. As the prophet Daniel calls it, “the scripture of truth” (Dan. 10:21).

The Word of God has never been limited to the Holy Scriptures.

Jesus sent the HS to guide His Church in understanding this “scripture of truth.” He did not send the HS to guide His Church into abolishing or changing this Truth, but in UNDERSTANDING it. J

Yes. This is what Sacred Tradition is. It is the Teaching of the Apostles that functions like a lens through which we read the Scriptures, and by which we can understand the truth of the faith by which they were written…

And there is only one law Giver (James 4:12). He is the Eternal God.

I think you are trying to say that the power Christ gave to the Church to bind and loose did not mean the making of laws, is that right?

 

[guanophore]

And the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge also concurs: “(dies solis, of the Roman calendar, ‘day of the sun’, because dedicated to the sun), the first day of the week, was ADOPTED by the early Christians as a day of worship … it was called the ‘Lord’s Day’… NO REGULATIONS FOR ITS OBSERVANCE ARE LAID DOWN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, NOR INDEED, IS ITS OBSERVANCE EVEN ENJOINED."

So, are you now changing your position? Are you finally ready to concede that the early Christians actaully DID adopt Sunday, the first day of the week as The Lord’s Day?

Did God command that we use the egg and the rabbit – or any of His creatures – in our worship of Him?

No, but what does that have to do with the Catholic faith?

As for the bronze serpent, did God command that the image be used by the people in their worship of God? If that bronze serpent had been used as part of their worship of God, why has your church not erected a similar image as part of its worship of God?

The image of the bronze serpent was provided as a means of healing. God uses inanimate objects to convey the grace of healing. He used mud to heal eyes, and taught the Apostles to use oil for annointing the sick.

Did God command that those images be used in religious worship like what Catholics are doing to the egg and the rabbit during its Easter festivities?

Mailman, you are very confused or misled. There is no place in Catholic worship for an egg and a bunny.

Some Catholics, along with non-Catholics, have Easter “festivities” that have these objects. They are a cultural (tradition of men) phenomenon, not part of the teaching or practice of the Church. They are not part of our faith, but they don’t detract from it, either.

Or did God command that the Israelites bow down to these images like what Catholics do to their religious images?

Catholics do not bow down to images, Mailman. Catholics use images to remind us of the intangible, the Unseen, to whom only is due worship.

God’s new covenant was “established upon better PROMISES” (Heb. 8:6), not better laws. It promised God’s Holy Spirit and the attainment of eternal life, which were not promised under the old covenant.

Well, we read it differently, dont’ we?

If all things are acceptable to God now, why did God forbid certain meats to be eaten before?

He was givng HIs people instructions so they would be health, happy, and whole. He also wanted them to be distinguished from the peoples around them by their dress, eating habits, and other lifestyle elements. In the NT, we are distinguished by our love.

The vision did not concern food at all. Rather, it concerned people. Because the Jewish religious leaders at the time had erroneously considered gentiles to be unclean, Peter’s vision righted a common misconception that had come to affect Peter and other members of the Church. Recognizing the real intent of the vision, Peter baptized the first gentiles God called into the Church (v. 45-48).

And later, instructed that they not be held to the Mosaic law.

No, God NEVER commanded us to use His creation as part of worshipping Him.

Sometime it would be instructive for you to go back and read the elements of the temple. When you do this, I think you will find that a great many elements of His creation were included in the instruction for worship.

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above… Thou shalt not bow down to them…” (Exo. 20:4).

And this is a critical disntinction. CAtholics only use images made unto God in worship. Nothing created through art that is involved in the liturgy is there for ourselves.

So, how would you apply His command to you that, “Ye shall not do… whatsoever is right in his own eyes” (Deut. 12:8); that “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (v. 32). Remember, this command is given in relation to our proper worship of Him.

We apply it precisely as Jesus taught the Apostles, and they to the Church.

We observe the anamnesis exactly as it was handed down to us.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)