"Why" is sola scriptura important?

[illuminator]

BEGINNING OF QUOTES:

“Sunday is a Catholic institution, and its claims to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles. From 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.”-- Catholic Press Sydney, Australia, August 1900.

"Is there no express commandment for the observance of the first day of the week as a Sabbath, instead of the seventh day?
“None whatever. Neither Christ nor His apostles nor the first Christians celebrated [observed] the first day of the week, instead of the seventh as the Sabbath.” --New York Weekly Tribune [Roman Catholic], May 24, 1900.

“Some non-Catholics object to Purgatory because there is no specific mention of it in Scripture. There is no specific mention of the word Sunday in Scripture [either]. The Sabbath is mentioned, but Sabbath means [a keeping of] Saturday. Yet the Christians of almost all denominations worship on Sunday not on Saturday. The Jews observe Saturday. Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday.”–Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics are Asked About, 1927, p. 236 [Scott (1865-1954) was a Jesuit theologian and one of the foremost Catholic defenders of his time].

“Protestantism, in discarding the authority of the church has no good reasons for its Sunday theory, and ought logically to keep Saturday as the Sabbath.” --John Gilmary Shea, “The Observance of Sunday and Civil Laws for its Enforcement,” in The American Catholic Quarterly Review, Jan. 1883, p. 152 [Shea (1824-1892), a Catholic priest, wrote an important history of American Catholicism].

"Ques. --Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept [command holidays]?
“Ans. --Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modem 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.”–Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism, 1846 edition, p. 176 [Keenan was a Scottish priest, whose catechism has been widely used in Roman Catholic schools and academies].

"Ques. --Which is the Sabbath day?
"Ans. --Saturday is the Sabbath day.
"Ques. --Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
“Ans. --We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church 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].

“Is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may search 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.”–James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, 92nd ed., rev., p. 89 [Cardinal Gibbons (1834-1921) was archbishop of Baltimore. This book was the most famous Catholic book in America a hundred years ago].

“It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.”–Priest Brady, in an address at Elizabeth, N.J. on March 17, 1903, reported in the Elizabeth, N.J. News of March 18, 1903.

“Reason and common sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible.”–The Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893 [The Mirror is a Baltimore Roman Catholic weekly newspaper].

“For ages all Christian nations looked to the Catholic Church, and, as we have seen, the various states enforced by law her ordinances as to worship and cessation of labor on Sunday. Protestantism, in discarding the authority of the Church, has no good reason for its Sunday theory, and ought logically, to keep Saturday as the Sabbath. The State in passing laws for the due Sanctification of Sunday, is unwittingly acknowledging the authority of the Catholic Church, and carrying out more or less faithfully its prescription. The Sunday as a day of the week set apart for the obligatory public worship of Almighty God is purely a creation of the Catholic Church.”–John Gilmary Shea, in The American Catholic Quarterly Review, January 1883, p. 139 [Shea (1824-1892) was an important Catholic historian, of his time].

 

[illuminator]

"Ques. --How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holy days?
“Ans. --By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of [by observing it]; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.”–Priest Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine, p. 58 [In 1833, Tuberville received a papal approbation–a special Vatican approval–on this book].

"1 - Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments?
"I answer yes.
"2. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day–Saturday --for Sunday, the first day?
"I answer yes.
"3. Did Christ change the day?
"I answer no! no!
“Faithfully yours, J. Cardinal Gibbons”–autographed letter photostat [Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore was the leading advocate of Catholicism in America at the end of the last century].
“Some theologians have held that God [in the Bible] likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His [Catholic] Church the power to set aside whatever day or days, she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days, as holy days.”–Vincent J. Kelly, Forbidden Sunday and Feast Day Occupations, 1943, p. 2 [Kelly, a Catholic priest, prepared this at Catholic University of America].

THIS END THE QUOTES:

But there’s more: (quoting editor of Mary Online)

It was upon this very point that the Reformation was condemned by the Council of Trent. The Reformers had constantly charged, as here stated, that the Catholic Church had “apostatized from the truth as contained in the written word. “The written word,” “The Bible and the Bible only,” “Thus saith the Lord,” these were their constant watchwords; and “the Scripture, as in the written word, the sole standard of appeal,” this was the proclaimed platform of the Reformation and of Protestantism. “The Scripture and tradition.” The Bible as interpreted by the Church and according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers,” this was the position and claim of the Catholic Church. This was the main issue in the Council of Trent, which was called especially to consider the questions that had been raised and forced upon the attention of Europe by the Reformers. The very first question concerning faith that was considered by the council was the question involved in this issue. There was a strong party even of the Catholics within the council who were in favor of abandoning tradition and adopting the Scriptures only, as the standard of authority. This view was so decidedly held in the debates in the council that the pope’s legates actually wrote to him that there was “a strong tendency to set aside tradition altogether and to make Scripture the sole standard of appeal.” But to do this would manifestly be to go a long way toward justifying the claims of the Protestants. By this crisis there was developed upon the ultra-Catholic portion of the council the task of convincing the others that “Scripture and tradition” were the only sure ground to stand upon. If this could be done, the council could be carried to issue a decree condemning the Reformation, otherwise not. The question was debated day after day, until the council was fairly brought to a standstill. Finally, after a long and intensive mental strain, the Archbishop of Reggio came into the council with substantially the following argument to the party who held for Scripture alone:

“The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestants claim, that they stand upon the written word only, is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false. PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of ‘Scripture alone as the standard,’ fails; and the doctrine of ‘Scripture and tradition’ as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges.”

 

[illuminator]

So my question is: Why does the Catholic church suddenly now in the 21 centruy have the urge to go “sola scriptura” on the Sabbth issue (i.e. Pope’s apostolic letter). Why not just continue saying as they have done in the past, “there is NO basis for the observance of Sunday other than tradition.” Instead points are made about texts in the New Testament and how they relate to the Sabbath changing to Sunday. And make no mistake about it, both view points are mutually exclusive to each other. This is a situation where two “traditions” are at odds with each other. How do you reconcile this? How can you say that at the Counsil of Trent that the reformation was properly rejected because the protestants were keeping Sunday and there was no Biblical basis and then turn around now and say that there is Biblical basis for Sunday. To do so would say that you wrongly rejected protestantism at the Counsil of Trent because this was the sole basis for their rejection.

Sorry for the long posts but I wanted to get all this in.

 

[DeFide]

illuminator:

I have read quite extensively about sola scriptura on this web site. What I have read can be summerized as follows:

1. The Catholic Faith is the author of the Holy Bible
2. The Holy BIble is not an inspired document and is not infalible
3. The protestant church couldn’t deal with authority and borke away and used the “sola scriptura” as an excuse to apostitize
4. Prostestants today are confused and probably wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.
   sub point: if so many churches claim to obey the Bible and only the Bible (i.e. protestants) - why are there so many churches?
5. Tradition has been handed down from Christ to Peter to Popes etc.
6. Traditiion is needed to properly interpret the Bible and without tradition - the world is hopeless to ascertain the truth.

:

You need to slow down and do some more investigating. You got some major basics wrong. The Catechism of the Catholic Church might be a good starting point regarding some issues:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#I

Your number 2 is very wrong in the first part and partly wrong in the second.

The Bible is divinely inspired and it is inerrant (only persons can be infallible, as only persons can make decisions).

Not just tradition is needed, otherwise any historian could be his own church, and we’d be right back to the Protestant problem of thousands of bickering churches.

The one true church must have its origin in Christ, not men.

‘If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).

"The Bible is very clear to me about what to do if we have a disagreement with one another over some issue pertaining to the Faith. And please remember: To lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21! The Bible tells us that the Church, not the Bible, is the final court of appeal.

source: geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplessolascriptura.html

 

[DeFide]

illuminator:

So my question is: Why does the Catholic church suddenly now in the 21 centruy have the urge to go “sola scriptura” on the Sabbth issue (i.e. Pope’s apostolic letter). Why not just continue saying as they have done in the past, “there is NO basis for the observance of Sunday other than tradition.” Instead points are made about texts in the New Testament and how they relate to the Sabbath changing to Sunday. And make no mistake about it, both view points are mutually exclusive to each other. This is a situation where two “traditions” are at odds with each other. How do you reconcile this? How can you say that at the Counsil of Trent that the reformation was properly rejected because the protestants were keeping Sunday and there was no Biblical basis and then turn around now and say that there is Biblical basis for Sunday. To do so would say that you wrongly rejected protestantism at the Counsil of Trent because this was the sole basis for their rejection.

Sorry for the long posts but I wanted to get all this in.

All that text dump was unnecessary. The Church has not now, nor ever gone “sola scriptura”. Christian celebration on Christ’s day of resurrection is in both scripture and tradition.

catholic.com/library/Sabbath_or_Sunday.asp

I’ve never heard of anyone trying to assert that the the Council of Trent was condeming Protestantism because of Sunday worship.

Where are you getting this? Some half-baked Adventist “scare” literature?

 

[illuminator]

You must first read about the counsil of Trent. I’m not getting this from anywhere except from Catholic Literature. The Catholic Mirror out of Baltimore was the voice of American Catholisism for over a hundred years. You can read it for yourself:

amazingdiscoveries.org/research/maryonline.htm

Ths web site got i originally from Mary Online.

These are not my words. You can check out every one of these references above

Again, which one is it? Biblical basis or no Biblical basis for the Sabbath. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[dcdurel]

illuminator:

Again, which one is it? Biblical basis or no Biblical basis for the Sabbath. They are mutually exclusive.

You are not reading “Catholic literature”. Catholic liturature is that approved by the Pope. The Roman Catechism is approved by the Catholic Church and says:
"The Jewish Sabbath Changed To Sunday By The Apostles
The Apostles therefore resolved to consecrate the first day of the week to the divine worship, and called it the Lord’s day. St. John in the Apocalypse makes mention of the Lord’s day; and the Apostle commands collections to be made on the first day of the week, that is, according to the interpretation of St. Chrysostom, on the Lord’s day. From all this we learn that even then the Lord’s day was kept holy in the Church."
Thus, the bible does NOT contradict Church teachings. .
The Church does not obtain her teachings from the bible. The Church obtains her teachings from the apostles who handed them down to their successors, the Pope and bishops of the Church, through Tradition. The Church then uses the bible as a witness to these teachings, NOT as the basis for these teachings. The Church cannot use the bible as a basis for these teachings because the Church was teaching the whole complete Gospel before a word of the New Testament was written. The Church was worshipping on Sunday before the New Testament was written.
Thus, it is not “either the bible or not the bible”. It is Church teachings handed down in Tradition, and if the bible has
verses that refer to these teachings, then the Church uses the bible as a witness to these teachings and to illuminate the teachings. Since both the bible and Church teachings come from God, they will not contradict each other. But, since all Church teachings are NOT explicit in the bible and did not originate in the bible, then Church teachings handed down in Sacred Tradition will be more explicit and more complete than what is in the bible. That is why we interpret the bible to fit Sacred Tradition. Again, the Catholic faith comes to us from the apostles, not through the bible.

 

[jimmy]

illuminator:

You must first read about the counsil of Trent. I’m not getting this from anywhere except from Catholic Literature. The Catholic Mirror out of Baltimore was the voice of American Catholisism for over a hundred years. You can read it for yourself:

amazingdiscoveries.org/research/maryonline.htm

Ths web site got i originally from Mary Online.

These are not my words. You can check out every one of these references above

Again, which one is it? Biblical basis or no Biblical basis for the Sabbath. They are mutually exclusive.

Both. The Catholic Church certainly does teach that Scripture is inspired. But it also teaches that Tradition is inspired. Paul tells the people to hold to the traditions handed down to them. He tells the Corinthians he is happy that they have held to the traditions. Tradition has always been an essential part of Christianity. The Church teaches that all of scripture is true and is inerrant. There is no error in it. It also teaches that scripture does not contain all things as scripture testifies to in the last chapter of the gospel of John. If it did contain all Christs teachings it could not fit in all the books of the world according to John. It also teaches that Scripture and Tradition are 100% in agreement.

Sunday worship can definitely be supported by scripture. It is the celebration of Christs ressurection. It is a participation in the ressurection of Christ. I know that seventh day adventists(I assume that is what you are) claim that Christ rose on the last day of the week but that is not true. All four gospels say that Christ rose early in the morning on the first day of the week. If Christ did rise on the sabbath He would be breaking the sabbath and consequently sinning. The sabbath was a complete day of rest.

Tradition also shows that the earliest Christians celebrated on Sunday rather than on the sabbath. Take a look at the link DeFide gave, it shows the earliest sources of Christianity after the apostles.

The Sunday worship is much more supportable in scripture than sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is blatantly contradictory to scripture. Sunday worship is the worship of God on the day of the ressurection. That is the day we recieved our redemption and our participation with Christ in that ressurection is salvation. We are constantly participating in that ressurection with Him in the Mass.

The council of Trent condemned protestants for many things including sola scriptura, sola fide, their rejection of the sacraments, their rejection of purgatory, their rejection of free will, their rejection of the authority of the Church which was established by Christ, and etc. I don’t think there is a mention of protestants being condemned for worshiping on saturday. I am pretty sure all the deformers kept Sunday worship. Atleast all the main ones did.

 

[illuminator]

A couple of things need correction:

you said, "Sunday worship can definitely be supported by scripture. It is the celebration of Christs ressurection. It is a participation in the ressurection of Christ. I know that seventh day adventists(I assume that is what you are) claim that Christ rose on the last day of the week but that is not true. All four gospels say that Christ rose early in the morning on the first day of the week. If Christ did rise on the sabbath He would be breaking the sabbath and consequently sinning. The sabbath was a complete day of rest. "

You are absolutely correct about when Christ rose (Sunday). However, you are wrong about Seventh-day Adventists. They also believe that he rose from the dead on Sunday. You are quite right to state that he rested on Sabbath in the grave. This should not be a surprise because Seventh-day Adventists are the only religion in the world that practise Sola-Scriptura. But this is not my words. The Catholic Church has said this.

"Israelites and Adventists both appeal to the Bible for the divine command, persistently obliging the strict observance of Saturday. The Israelite respects the authority of the Old Testament only, but the Adventist, who is a Christian, accepts the New Testament on the same ground as the Old: viz., an inspired record also. He finds that the Bible, his teacher, is consistent in both parts, that the Redeemer, during His mortal life, never kept any other day than Saturday. The Gospels plainly evince to him this fact; whilst, in the pages of the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse, not the vestige of an act canceling the Saturday arrangement can be found. " Catholic Mirror Sept 2 1893

"The Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists are witnesses of their weekly desecration of the day named by God so repeatedly, and whilst [Protestant Bible Christians] have ignored and condemned their teacher, the Bible, they have adopted a day kept by the Catholic Church. What Protestant can, after perusing these articles, with a clear conscience, continue to disobey the command of God, enjoining Saturday to be kept, which command his teacher, the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, records as the will of God? "Catholic Mirror Sept 2 1893

Read this link: amazingdiscoveries.org/research/maryonline.htm

This is Catholic Literature. THe quotes above are Catholic Literature. If you still don’t beleive me and need the Stamp of the Pope, well: read my next post.

 

[illuminator]

Samuel Bacchiocchi graduated from the Pontifical Gregorian
University in Rome and wrote a thesis called “From Sunday
to Sabbath”. It was given the Pope’s seal of approval and published at the Vatican.

In it he states, “Difference in Authority. The difference in authority lies in the fact that while
Sabbathkeeping rests upon an explicit biblical command (Gen 2:2-3; Ex 20:8-11; Mark
2:27-28; Heb 4:9), Sundaykeeping derives from an interplay of social, political, pagan,
and religious factors. I have examined these factors at length in my dissertation From
Sabbath to Sunday, published by the Pontifical Gregorian University, in Rome, Italy.
The lack of a biblical authority for Sundaykeeping may well be a major contributing factor
to the crisis of Sunday observance that John Paul rightly laments.
The vast majority of Christians, especially in the Western world, view their
Sunday as a holiday to seek personal pleasure and profit rather than a holy day to seek
divine presence and peace. I submit that a major contributing factor to the secularization of
Sunday is the prevailing perception that there is no divine, biblical command to keep
Sunday as a holy day.
The lack of a biblical conviction that Sunday should be observed as the holy
Sabbath day may well explain why most Christians see nothing wrong in devoting their
Sunday time to themselves rather than to the Lord. If there was a strong theological
conviction that the principle of Sundaykeeping was divinely established at creation and
later “inscribed” in the Decalogue, as the Pope attempts to prove, then Christians would
feel compelled to act accordingly.”

THis was his thesis - it was accepted by the Pope (his seal) - it was published by the vatican!

“He also argues that Sunday observance of the Sabbath was an invention of the
early church, not a biblically mandated day of worship, as he believes the pope
suggests. It’s a position Bacchiocchi chronicled in his doctoral dissertation, From Sunday
to Sabbath,
which he wrote when he was the first non-Catholic student at the Pontifical Gregorian
University in Rome and which was later published by the Vatican. And it is a position
generally accepted by Catholic historians, he said.”
Washington Post January 1999

One more thing I must correct. THe protestant church was rejected at the counsil of Trent not because they worshiped on Saturday - but because they worshiped on Sunday - and being there no biblical evidence of this (they believed in sola scriptura) they were found to be internally inconsistant - and thus rejected.

If you state that the catechism does find biblical evidence (and thus lists it) then the protestant church was falsely rejected at the counsil of Trent. Again read the link I provided. These are not my words. These are those of Catholics.

 

[Lazerlike42]

If the thesis was accepted by the pope, it is because there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholicism. His point seems to be that Sunday observance of the Sabbath was not divinely ordained and was instituted by the Church’s authority. Catholics believe in this authority, so there’s nothing problematic there.

I would criticize his thesis, however. Is there no divine and Biblical ordination against fornication? Did God not Biblically forbid divorce? Don’t the Scriptures clearly teach against judging others? Yet everyone does these things anyways. To say that people don’t go to church on Sunday because its not explicitly in the Bible is a ridiculous, empty thesis which is proved false by the very fact that Christians do things the Bible forbids all the time.

 

[jim1130]

illuminator:

You must first read about the counsil of Trent. I’m not getting this from anywhere except from Catholic Literature. The Catholic Mirror out of Baltimore was the voice of American Catholisism for over a hundred years. You can read it for yourself:

amazingdiscoveries.org/research/maryonline.htm

Ths web site got i originally from Mary Online.

These are not my words. You can check out every one of these references above

Again, which one is it? Biblical basis or no Biblical basis for the Sabbath. They are mutually exclusive.

Peace.

Here is what the last section stated and clearly shows the origin:

"Credit for this article’s appearance here must go, in a case of delicious irony, to the Bible Light Home Page and to Michael Scheifler, a Seventh Day Adventist, who, in an act of Christian “charity”, awarded The Immaculate Heart of Mary with his ominous sounding “666 Dangerous Site” designation, a reference, apparently, to the SDA’s long held belief that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the instrument of the Anti-Christ. Laughable, yes, but it is not the intent here to engage in that debate. We give Mr. Scheifler credit simply because he did all the work on getting it typed in and on the ‘net in the first place, and graciously gave us permission to use his work.

"The SDA now actually publishes this article in booklet form, to use in it’s propaganda to lull people from the True Faith. Unaware that using an article, published by a Catholic Cardinal, in a Catholic newspaper, to convert people to their sect, is a bit like using an advertisement for Coke to get people to buy Pepsi, the article nevertheless makes a valid point.

"The challenge issued by Rome over 100 years ago remains: Either the Catholic Church is right, or the Seventh Day Adventists are right. There can be no other choice. And if one choose neither, then the whole doctrine of Sola Scriptura collapses, and with it, the pillar upon which all of Protestantism stands.

"What one has left is an invented religion, an invented God, and an invented set of beliefs that suits man’s purpose, and not the Creator’s. Like Satan and Luther before them, Protestants have spoken the creed, in action and in thought, if not in word, “I Will Not Serve.”

“The challenge remains – yet you will find no response, not from any Evangelical, Fundamentalist, or mainline Protestant denomination anywhere. Ultimately, it is the clear authority of the Catholic Church as vested in Her by God Himself, that rules the day. That the SDA is at least principled enough to follow Sola Scriptura to the ends of its ridiculous claims, is hardly an argument in their favor – to be completely and wholly wrong, is no better than being partly wrong, especially when the eternal salvation of souls is concerned.”

 

[jimmy]

You are absolutely correct about when Christ rose (Sunday). However, you are wrong about Seventh-day Adventists. They also believe that he rose from the dead on Sunday. You are quite right to state that he rested on Sabbath in the grave. This should not be a surprise because Seventh-day Adventists are the only religion in the world that practise Sola-Scriptura. But this is not my words. The Catholic Church has said this.

The seventh day adventists may have different teachings but I know some of them believe that the Lord rose on the sabbath. I find your statement amazing that you think you are the only ones that actually practice sola scriptura. All protestants claim sola scriptura but you guys are the only ones that got it right? Come on now. They can’t even trace themselves back before the 19th century.

Samuel Bacchiocchi graduated from the Pontifical Gregorian
University in Rome and wrote a thesis called “From Sunday
to Sabbath”. It was given the Pope’s seal of approval and published at the Vatican.

If it was published by the Vatican it should be on the Vatican website. Please provide a link so I can read it. What is this Catholic mirror stuff? I have never heard of the Catholic mirror. Is it a small knews paper in some small town?

The guys contention that links sunday worship to the lack of peoples humility on sunday is poor thinking. Sunday has been the day of worship for 2000 years and the Christians have been perfectly fine with it. Many of them have actually been extremely humble. People not observing sunday as a day of worship is a temporal and a spatial thing. It can not be found in a widespread thing in all times of the Church and it will not be found in the future. The day of worship being sunday haa been for every time of the Church. The connection he makes just does not work.

THis was his thesis - it was accepted by the Pope (his seal) - it was published by the vatican!

I have seen the quotes from this guy before and I think they were from another seventh day adventist. Plese provide the link to their site.

 

[Nicene]

Very neat, that article is a keeper, thanks illuminator.

While I appreciate you pulling out a paragraph out of context of the rhetoric of the article, you are assuming that it somehow gives validity to the SDA church.

A couple of questions:

Do you and/or the SDA still consider michael the archangel to be Jesus Christ?
Do you and/or the SDA still believe Christ was created?
Do you and/or the SDA still believe Christ was not origianlly equal to God but given that honor later?
Do the you and/or the SDA still maintain that Satan was envious of Christ and and and gradually assumed command which devolved on Christ alone?

These are just a few issues. If you no longer believe these views, when did the SDA apostasize from Ellen Whites visions?

Joseph Bates and James White were opponents of the trinity and the deity of Christ in “The Doctrine of the Trinity Among Adventists” when did the adventists apostasize from this belief? After EW’s 1905 vision? Or was it later in 1919?

Regarding the article: they were written in 1893. What was the belief of the SDA in 1893 and when did it change?

If you no longer hold the beliefs of the original SDA can you still claim the truth of that church?

Regarding the Sabbath, thanks for upholding tradition as upholding equality with scripture. (From a catholic point of view) i.e. whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

For the sola scripturists this certainly does present a problem even today.

neither was SDA sola scriptura as the article assumes (however for purposes of rhetoric) but were instead of “Bible and Tradition”, “bible and visions” each given equal weight.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Another thought. If SDA is strictly sola scriptura, why did they need a bible conference to determine certain teachings? The existance of the conference immediately and implicity states a tradition. Is that tradition binding on SDA’s? (this would be a heresy from Sola scriptura) If binding does that not void the idea of Sola scriptura? After all it develops something new that wasn’t in the original teachings and visions.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[illuminator]

Nice try guys. I didn’t come to this web site to indoctrinate you with Seventh-day Adventist Ideas - by the way - your ideas of Seventh-day adventism is WAY off. I think you are confusing them with Jehovah’s Wittnesses because they DO believe in the trinity, they DON’T believe that Christ was created (he was the Creator) etc.

The reason why I came to a Catholic web site was to get some answers about Catholics not to defend Seventh-day Adventism. Did you think I was trying to get tyou to go to church on Saturday… lol.

Back to my question. Only you can answer it because you are Catholic (not me).

I have shown you literature that gives bible texts that support the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

I ahve also shown you catholic literature stating that there absolutely is no evidence for the change from Saturday to Sunday. The web site that I showed you in my previous posts:

1. Categorically denies ANY biblical text for the support of the change from Saturday to Sunday.
2. Makes this an important distinction to this end because it is the major reason why Protestantism was rejected by the Catholic church at the Council of Trent

wwco.com/religion/believe/believe_104.html
biblelight.net/bssb-1443-1444.htm

I quote from nothing but the best: The Modern History Sourcebook:
Council of Trent: Catechism for Parish Priests. Here is the online documentation: fordham.edu/halsall/mod/romancat.html

"The Sabbath, Why Changed To Sunday

But the Church of God has thought it well to transfer the celebration and observance of the Sabbath to Sunday."

Notice that is says “the Church of God.” This is also consistent with The Mirror article. I read in a previous post that someone thought that The Mirror was some small city publication. Wrong. It was the major publication for the city of Baltimore (second only to St Louis as far as the vatican of the west).

If you want a better reference. here you go:

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/TenCommandments-third.shtml

It says:

The Sabbath, Why Changed To Sunday
But the Church of God has thought it well to transfer the celebration and observance of the Sabbath to Sunday.

For, as on that day light first shone on the world, so by the Resurrection of our Redeemer on the same day, by whom was thrown open to us the gate to eternal life, we were called out of darkness into light; and hence the Apostles would have it called the Lord’s day.

We also learn from the Sacred Scriptures that the first day of the week was held sacred because on that day the work of creation commenced, and on that day the Holy Ghost was given to the Apostles.

I think you can understand my bewilderment.

Some catholic literature states that there can be no Biblical basis for the change from Sunday to Saturday. Yet when I ask many Catholics why they worship on Sunday - All I get is Bible texts! If the bible texts are valid, then the rejection of the protestants at the Council of Trent was false and then they do have a foot to stand on when they clain that they (Protestants) follow sola scriptura and also worship on Sunday.

Is what I’m saying confusing or not? Am I not making myself clear? Which is it

I can’t answer this question (I’m not Catholic). Only you can.

BTW, non of what I’ve quoted is from any Seventh-day Adventist book. In fact the only place that I brought them up was in refernce to sola scriptura and that they are the only ones that truely follow this idea - and I didn’t even make that up. It came from, again, Catholic literature:

“who think that the scripture should be the sole authority, should logically become Seventh-day Adventists and keep Saturday holy.” Saint Catherine’s Catholic Church Sentinel, May 21, 1995 parish paper.

It’s all from Catholic literature. So the answer to this question can’t involve Seveth-day Adventists.

 

[illuminator]

Here’s more of the quote from about lest anyone think I was taking it “out of context” again.

“Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the church
ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath was
changed from Saturday to Sunday, not from any directions noted in scripture.
but from the church’s sense of its own power. People who think that the
scripture should be the sole authority should logically become Seventh-day
Adventists and keep Saturday holy.”

The Saint Catherine’s Catholic Church Sentinel, May 21, 1995, parish paper

I hope none of this is “news” to anyone!

 

[jimmy]

1. Makes this an important distinction to this end because it is the major reason why Protestantism was rejected by the Catholic church at the Council of Trent

Please read the documents of the council of Trent. This is a completely false statement. Trent condemned protestants for many things but Saturday worship was not one of them. Protestants did not worship on saturday at the time of Trent. Your article is wrong, it obviously hasn’t checked its sources.

 

[DeFide]

illuminator:

The reason why I came to a Catholic web site was to get some answers about Catholics …

.

I think you can understand my bewilderment.

Some catholic literature states that there can be no Biblical basis for the change from Sunday to Saturday. Yet when I ask many Catholics why they worship on Sunday - All I get is Bible texts! If the bible texts are valid, then the rejection of the protestants at the Council of Trent was false …

Is what I’m saying confusing or not? Am I not making myself clear? Which is it

.

I cannot understand your bewilderment. We keep explaining it to you and you keep ignoring what we say.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that a Catholic thought that Christ’s divinity was not indicated in scripture. This means nothing other than he didn’t do his homework very well. He is not the Pope, and it has no reflection on authentic Catholic teaching. All it indicates is sloppy apologetics.

If you are trying to show that some apologists are sloppy, I don’t see the point of your trying.

And, once again, the Council of Trent did not condemn Protestantism on the basis of Sunday worship. Condemnation of Sola Scriptura is quite another issue, entirely.

 

[DeFide]

illuminator:

Here’s more of the quote from about lest anyone think I was taking it “out of context” again.

“Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the church
ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath was
changed from Saturday to Sunday, not from any directions noted in scripture.
but from the church’s sense of its own power. People who think that the
scripture should be the sole authority should logically become Seventh-day
Adventists and keep Saturday holy.”

The Saint Catherine’s Catholic Church Sentinel, May 21, 1995, parish paper

I hope none of this is “news” to anyone!

When the first Christians, on the divinely-given authority of the Church, worshipped on Sunday, guess what “The Scriptures” were.

Hint: Its initials are The Old Testament. So, Sunday worship is indicated in the NT, but not the OT. This is to be expected. The Church didn’t resort to Sola Scriptura then, and it doesn’t now.

Are you saying we should go by the Old Testament alone?