Quote from: Recusant on May 11, 2011, 08:28:53 AM
All of the apostles celebrated the sabbath on Saturday. The Catholic church began celebrating the sabbath on Sunday many years after the death of the last apostle. Is that a faithful adherence to what is written in the Bible or the traditions of the apostles?
I didn't want to go too far off topic in the "Stand by your MAN" thread about women in the priesthood, so I brought this discussion to a new topic.
----
Yes, Sunday worship is in faithful adherence to what is written in Scripture and in the tradition of the apostles.
Early on, the apostles still felt very connected to their Jewish faith. They desired to celebrate the Sabbath according the Jewish custom, as well as to celebrate the Lord's Day, which is Sunday, the day of resurrection. Scripture does show the apostles and early Church worshiping on Sunday:
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart the next day... Acts 20:7 When Scripture uses the term "breaking bread" it refers to the celebration of the Eucharist, which is Christian worship.
On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come... 1 Corinthians 16:2 Here we see the offering of gifts, an aspect of Christian worship.
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food or drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. Colossians 2:16-17 The early Church argued about the dietary laws, and changed them. This verse seems to indicate that also changed was the requirement to participate in Jewish festivals and the Sabbath.
Slowly the early Church (including the apostles) recognized that Sabbath observance was no longer binding on Christians. So the apostles and early Church continued to gather on the first day, Sunday, the Lord's day, for their primary worship. This tradition continued on and slowly the Jewish Christians let go of their Sabbath worship and participated only in Christian worship.
"But every Lord's day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).
I would say your church disagrees with your reasoning to why YOU worship on Sunday and the proofs you promote.
According to this piece, there is no foundation in the whole of scripture that substanciates the keeping of any other day of worship, save for the Sabbath or Saturday. I am unaware of any change in stance by the Church. If there is, please let me know. I'd be most interested.
Rome's Challenge (http://www.romeschallenge.com/)
I posted this reply in the other thread where this started:
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 11, 2011, 04:29:26 PM
Quote from: Recusant on May 11, 2011, 08:28:53 AM
All of the apostles celebrated the sabbath on Saturday. The Catholic church began celebrating the sabbath on Sunday many years after the death of the last apostle. Is that a faithful adherence to what is written in the Bible or the traditions of the apostles?
As an Adventist myself, this comes up a lot and one of the most informative pieces is a "short" piece put together a few years ago. It's a piece put together from articles from an old Catholic publication, The Catholic Mirror, and called Rome's Challenge (http://www.romeschallenge.com/).
It's an interesting bit to most people quickly researching Sabbath vs. Sunday worship.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 11, 2011, 07:28:56 PM
I would say your church disagrees with your reasoning to why YOU worship on Sunday and the proofs you promote.
According to this piece, there is no foundation in the whole of scripture that substanciates the keeping of any other day of worship, save for the Sabbath or Saturday. I am unaware of any change in stance by the Church. If there is, please let me know. I'd be most interested.
Rome's Challenge (http://www.romeschallenge.com/)
I posted this reply in the other thread where this started:
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 11, 2011, 04:29:26 PM
Quote from: Recusant on May 11, 2011, 08:28:53 AM
All of the apostles celebrated the sabbath on Saturday. The Catholic church began celebrating the sabbath on Sunday many years after the death of the last apostle. Is that a faithful adherence to what is written in the Bible or the traditions of the apostles?
As an Adventist myself, this comes up a lot and one of the most informative pieces is a "short" piece put together a few years ago. It's a piece put together from articles from an old Catholic publication, The Catholic Mirror, and called Rome's Challenge (http://www.romeschallenge.com/).
It's an interesting bit to most people quickly researching Sabbath vs. Sunday worship.
My response indicated why, as a Catholic, we worship on Sunday. I don't particularly care why Protestants worship on one day or another. Nevertheless, I stand by my argument. It is compilation of Scripture and Tradition that supports why we worship on Sundays. I disagree with the article you provided that there is no support whatsoever in Scripture for the change. I agree that there is not
enough support, by itself, to make the change. But I do think that the verses I indicated above, along with Tradition show how and why the change occurred.
And just a side note- a magazine article does not equate to "what the Church teaches". It is one argument amongst many. It bears no particular authority (just as my own argument bears no real authority). And,like I said, I don't completely disagree with it, either. Based off of
sola scriptura, the Protestants
do have a hard time proving why one should worship on Sunday. So I see that article more as discrediting Protestant's acceptance of
sola scriptura than it is an argument as to why Catholic's worship on Sunday.
I think that the articles
from a Catholic publication produced with the full backing of a Catholic Cardinal which were linked by
AnimatedDirt provide an excellent rebuttal to the ideas you've tried to use,
TeresaBenedicta.
I would like to also direct your attention to this blog (http://bwardpowers.blogspot.com/2008/12/meaning-of-breaking-of-bread.html), which examines the Biblical meaning of the term "breaking of bread," and comes to a strikingly different conclusion than the one you put forward.
QuoteThe "breaking of bread" is in fact a standard Jewish expression from pre-Christian times which refers specifically to the action of "breaking bread" at the commencement of a meal, and then, by extension, to the meal itself. The act of breaking the bread was performed by the head of a household or by the host presiding at the meal.
The form of blessing used by the Jews for the bread was: "Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who bringest forth bread from the earth."
The breaking of bread was thus associated with the prayer of thanksgiving, and had a religious significance of joint fellowship in sharing and enjoying the blessings of God. A.B. MacDonald, in his Christian Worship in the Primitive Church (125), points out:
Quote"The taking of food was accompanied, or rather, preceded, by a certain formal and conspicuous action, namely, the pronouncing of a blessing over the bread that was to be eaten, followed by the breaking of the loaf in two, preparatory to its distribution around the table. This was an old Jewish custom, corresponding to our grace before meals, but conveying far deeper suggestions of religious fellowship, and carried through with greater solemnity and ceremony, and reserved for certain meals of a pronouncedly religious character."
The blessing pronounced over the bread applied to the other food eaten in conjunction with the bread; A. Edersheim, in his The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Vol. II, 206, writes:
Quote"Bread was regarded as the mainstay of life, without which no entertainment was considered as a meal. For the blessing was spoken over the bread, and this was supposed to cover all the rest of the food which followed, such as the meat, fish or vegetables - in short, all that made up the dinner, but not the dessert."
Similarly we read, in the IVF Bible Dictionary, 750: "'To break bread' was a common Jewish expression for the sharing of a meal."
QuoteTo summarize:
The expression "the breaking of bread" found in Acts 2 was commonly used amongst the Jews to refer to the sharing of a meal in conscious religious fellowship, and this usage is found in the New Testament, not least in the Gospel by the same author as Acts and even elsewhere in the Acts.
The significance of the religious aspect of the breaking of bread would be greatly heightened for the disciples in the light of the Last Supper, but this is not the same as saying that they held a ritual meal deliberately re-enacting the Last Supper in conscious obedience to the command of Christ, commemorating his death through eating bread and drinking a cup; and these features would be necessary if we are to regard the "breaking of bread" as equating with the Lord's Supper.
Rather, the evidence indicates that in the New Testament the expression "the breaking of bread" or "broke bread" refers to the usual Jewish practice of prayer with which a hunger-satisfying meal commenced. When we recognize that references to the breaking of bread are not references to the Lord's Supper, we see the significance of what we learn from Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 11, 2011, 09:17:41 PM
My response indicated why, as a Catholic, we worship on Sunday. I don't particularly care why Protestants worship on one day or another. Nevertheless, I stand by my argument. It is compilation of Scripture and Tradition that supports why we worship on Sundays.
This is classic Protestant defense of Sunday worship. However, It is my understanding that the RCC claims, as the articles from
The Catholic Mirror seem to suggest, that the RCC claims it is by divine right...that IT changed the day. I'd be interested in finding what those of higher Catholic authority would say if you asked them the question. As a Catholic, to me it would seem more in line to your responses thus far in this and the Stand by your Man (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=7436.0) thread that you would welcome the tradition and claim that the RCC is ordained and kept holy by the Holy Spirit. (as the articles claim also)
Quote from: TeresaBenedictaI disagree with the article you provided that there is no support whatsoever in Scripture for the change. I agree that there is not enough support, by itself, to make the change. But I do think that the verses I indicated above, along with Tradition show how and why the change occurred.
Interesting position in light of the articles. Again, an interesting question to bring up to someone of higher Catholic/Church authority on your part. You may be believing in Sunday worship for all the wrong reasons if this article is the correct thinking.
Quote from: TeresaBenedictaAnd just a side note- a magazine article does not equate to "what the Church teaches". It is one argument amongst many. It bears no particular authority (just as my own argument bears no real authority). And,like I said, I don't completely disagree with it, either. Based off of sola scriptura, the Protestants do have a hard time proving why one should worship on Sunday. So I see that article more as discrediting Protestant's acceptance of sola scriptura than it is an argument as to why Catholic's worship on Sunday.
To me it is clear why Catholics worship on Sunday. It is because the Church has deeemed it so.
An exerpt from the conclusion of the article(s).
QuoteThe Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday. We say by virtue of her divine mission, because He who called Himself the "Lord of the Sabbath," endowed her with His own power to teach, "He that heareth you, heareth me;" commanded all who believe in Him to hear her, under penalty of being placed with the "heathen and publican;" and promised to be with her to the end of the world. She holds her charter as the teacher from him- a charter as infallible as perpetual. The Protestant world at its birth found the Christian Sabbath too strongly entrenched to run counter to its existence; it was therefore placed under the necessity of acquiescing in the arrangement, thus implying the Church's right to change the day, for over three hundred years. The Christian Sabbath is therefore to this day, the acknowledged offspring of the Catholic Church as spouse of the holy Ghost without a word of remonstrance from the Protestant world.
Quote from: Recusant on May 11, 2011, 09:21:49 PM
I think that the articles from a Catholic publication produced with the full backing of a Catholic Cardinal which were linked by AnimatedDirt provide an excellent rebuttal to the ideas you've tried to use, TeresaBenedicta.
I disagree. I've not said that the Church relies on Scripture alone to justify the change. But that there are
some references in Scripture to Christians keeping the Sabbath with the Jews while at the same time worshiping together as a Christian community on Sunday. Couple these references with Tradition and we see how and why the change occurred. Like I said, I don't completely disagree with the article. It is correct that the change is not founded solely in Scripture and therefore Protestants need to find a different a reason for worshiping on Sunday instead of the Sabbath.
So... I'm not exactly sure where the argument is here, concerning this source.
Quote
I would like to also direct your attention to this blog (http://bwardpowers.blogspot.com/2008/12/meaning-of-breaking-of-bread.html), which examines the Biblical meaning of the term "breaking of bread," and comes to a strikingly different conclusion than the one you put forward.
That's an interesting article. But to tell you the truth, I don't really have time to debate against it's ideas. I could refer you to just as many sources that say that 'breaking of the bread' referred to Sunday Eucharist.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 11, 2011, 09:43:24 PM
Interesting position in light of the articles. Again, an interesting question to bring up to someone of higher Catholic/Church authority on your part. You may be believing in Sunday worship for all the wrong reasons if this article is the correct thinking.
Here is the article I am referencing to back up my own claims: http://www.catholic.com/library/Sabbath_or_Sunday.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/Sabbath_or_Sunday.asp)
Notice the Impramatur and Nihil Obstat given by the Bishop stating that the article is free from doctrinal error.
Quote
To me it is clear why Catholics worship on Sunday. It is because the Church has deeemed it so.
Sure. I don't disagree. But
why has the Church deemed it so? It wasn't an arbitrary choice. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:
Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death. -St. Ignatius of Antioch
The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship as a sign of his universal beneficence to all. Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people. CCC 2174-2176
This is the reasoning behind the change. The Church did not come up with this on her own, some 300 years after Christ. Rather, this reasoning developed, from the time of the apostles. And we see that development in both Scripture and Tradition.
Again, I'm not sure where the argument is in all of this. Yes, the Church has the authority to declare Sunday as the day of worship. And she has done so. But it was not an arbitrary decision, rather it is one based off of what has been handed down in the deposit of faith, of which Scripture and Tradition constitute.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 11, 2011, 10:10:06 PM
So... I'm not exactly sure where the argument is here, concerning this source.
My point is not to claim you are wrong...because in fact I would agree with the article and that of the RCC. I believe it is true that the Church changed the day
by virtue of her divine mission. The Church does not deny this, but states this fact. The only "argument" then is whether you believe this as a true RCC member or by your own interpretation (the points at the beginning of this thread), which incidently is scoffed at by the Church and Protestant in nature...according to
The Catholic Mirror.
If the RCC is going to employ Protestant arguments for proof of Sunday worship, it seems the RCC is no longer relying on her divine mission, but Protestant interpretation of scripture.
This is why I'm interested in the answers...even if it means going to the Pope...which I'm not able to do.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 11, 2011, 10:25:36 PM
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 11, 2011, 10:10:06 PM
So... I'm not exactly sure where the argument is here, concerning this source.
My point is not to claim you are wrong...because in fact I would agree with the article and that of the RCC. I believe it is true that the Church changed the day by virtue of her divine mission. The Church does not deny this, but states this fact. The only "argument" then is whether you believe this as a true RCC member or by your own interpretation (the points at the beginning of this thread), which incidently is scoffed at by the Church and Protestant in nature...according to The Catholic Mirror.
If the RCC is going to employ Protestant arguments for proof of Sunday worship, it seems the RCC is no longer relying on her divine mission, but Protestant interpretation of scripture.
This is why I'm interested in the answers...even if it means going to the Pope...which I'm not able to do.
Okay- at least now I know where the contention is.
Well, read the link I posted. My argument is based off of the information I found there, which is sealed with the Nihil Obstat and Impramatur.
There are areas where Catholics and theologians can legitimately disagree. And argue differently, even if they come to the same conclusion.
The difference between the argument I am providing and the Protestant argument is the fact that Protestants don't believe in Tradition. They can only go off of what is in Scripture alone. The Church has made her decision based off of
both Scripture and Tradition, although admittedly, leaning more heavily on Tradition than Scripture in this particular case.
So, again, I'm not seeing how what I've said is in direct contention with the article. They say there is absolutely no evidence in Scripture, I say there is some. Not enough to completely justify the change, but enough to point to it. Certainly nothing contrary to it, with the proper interpretation. They didn't tackle the verses that I provided. Too bad the authors are long dead, I'd bring it up to them. So yes, I disagree with a particular point in their argument, but not with their overall conclusion. And they don't speak authoritatively... And frankly, you're not going to find a place that says authoritatively "this is the correct argument as to why the Church changed to Sunday worship". Theologians provide different arguments. But point in fact is that the Church
does teach Sunday worship and that she declared this
for a particular reason that is rooted in both Scripture and Tradition.
Tradition, yes, as exemplified by the writings of the early church which you quoted. The dates you give for those writings are not as definite as you seem to believe however. For instance, the "Didache" has been dated in a range from late 1st to early 2nd century. Correct dates or not, those are not the writings of any apostles, but of those who came after them. So to say that this particular tradition is apostolic seems to be a stretch; at least some of the teachings which the Catholic church puts forward as "Tradition" are from the early church fathers and not from the apostles themselves. Of course one may decide to define "apostle" in a way which includes early church fathers, but I don't think that is the position of the Catholic church.
You stand by your (and "Catholic Answers") position regarding the interpretation of the Bible, but the fact is that those passages are not unequivocal.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 11, 2011, 10:51:42 PM
They didn't tackle the verses that I provided.
As a matter of fact, it does with exception to Colossians 2:16-17, which as you interpret is speaking of dietary laws (of which there is none in the 10) and the sabbaths (of which there are none in the 10. The Jews celebrated many sabbaths which were not the weekly Sabbath instituted at Creation, but countings of Sabbaths and days after Sabbaths as sabbaths).
Note that in vs 13-15 (Colossians) is speaking of circumcision, the written code, and regulations. Circumcision was not in the 10, nor were there dietary laws, or the keeping of sabbaths. Notice what is not kept any longer after the crucifixion...it is the written code, circumcision (not as a rule of faith) and the regulations of the Sanctuary, the sacrificing of animals for remission of sins...so it is clear, as Paul states in Romans 3:31, that
"Do we then nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." Which clearly is the 10. So we know the 10 were not nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14) and therefore it is not the Sabbath of Creation, the weekly Sabbath, but the sabbaths instituted through the written code and regulations apart from the 10.
One more note on this. I was giving this some more thought last night and re-read the Rome's Challenge (http://www.romeschallenge.com/) piece (I was irked by a few typos...that someone wouldn't have fixed them already) and one thing I was thinking about is the motivation of the writer(s) of these articles, and dare I say the Pope himself to some extent.
What I thought about was there was a reason there was such a hard edge from the writer(s) to disprove the evidence and really show the "suicidal" position of Protestantism on the subject of Saturday vs. Sunday worship. If the RCC was to find enough evidence of a change from Sabbath worship from Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath) to Sunday (the "Christian" Sabbath), then there would be no real show of "her divine mission" as the writer(s) were driving at. The original title alone brings this point to light, which is:
THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH
The Genuine Offspring of the Union of the Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church His Spouse. The claims of Protestantism to Any Part Therein Proved to Be Groundless, Self-Contradictory, and Suicidal.
In short, if the RCC now has come full circle and acknowledges any validity to the manner in which Protestantism defends their keeping of Sunday rather than Saturday, the RCC has diminished her claim to being The Genuine Offspring...and any claim that she has/was given the power to speak as God on earth.
In fact, the exact opposite would be the case...it would be suicidal for the RCC to acknowledge ANY reason in scripture, OT or NT as a reason for a change in God's Law.
Just thinking outloud...
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 12, 2011, 04:06:24 PM
One more note on this. I was giving this some more thought last night and re-read the Rome's Challenge (http://www.romeschallenge.com/) piece (I was irked by a few typos...that someone wouldn't have fixed them already) and one thing I was thinking about is the motivation of the writer(s) of these articles, and dare I say the Pope himself to some extent.
What I thought about was there was a reason there was such a hard edge from the writer(s) to disprove the evidence and really show the "suicidal" position of Protestantism on the subject of Saturday vs. Sunday worship. If the RCC was to find enough evidence of a change from Sabbath worship from Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath) to Sunday (the "Christian" Sabbath), then there would be no real show of "her divine mission" as the writer(s) were driving at. The original title alone brings this point to light, which is:
THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH
The Genuine Offspring of the Union of the Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church His Spouse. The claims of Protestantism to Any Part Therein Proved to Be Groundless, Self-Contradictory, and Suicidal.
In short, if the RCC now has come full circle and acknowledges any validity to the manner in which Protestantism defends their keeping of Sunday rather than Saturday, the RCC has diminished her claim to being The Genuine Offspring...and any claim that she has/was given the power to speak as God on earth.
In fact, the exact opposite would be the case...it would be suicidal for the RCC to acknowledge ANY reason in scripture, OT or NT as a reason for a change in God's Law.
Just thinking outloud...
Interesting thought...
But what I want to emphasize, once again, is that this piece that you've quote is not some end all or be all. It's a single person's interpretation about the issue. It was published in a diocesan magazine.
It does not speak for the Church. It would be a different story if we were talking about an actual document written and published via the Magisterium (the teaching body of the Church). But it's not. It's a magazine article. It makes some interesting points... but it certainly isn't the only argument out there. Nor do I think it's the best one. The fact that it is titled "Rome's Challenge" does not mean it somehow comes from Rome. It doesn't. It's merely a clever title.
So I wouldn't be making any assumptions about the Catholic Church by reading this article. It does not speak authoritatively. In fact, I'd imagine that many in the higher-ups would disagree with the article concerning certain points. I can't really tell you because there is not official document that talks about this issue.
I wish you two could see the ridiculousness of arguing this point from an atheist's perspective.
Having said that, it's quite funny watching two people who are supposed to believe in the same god arguing about which day of the weekend they get to take off.
Quote from: Ihateyoumike on May 12, 2011, 06:36:28 PM
I wish you two could see the ridiculousness of arguing this point from an atheist's perspective.
Having said that, it's quite funny watching two people who are supposed to believe in the same god arguing about which day of the weekend they get to take off.
And for further ridiculousness... I don't think that we even disagree about which day... :o
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 12, 2011, 06:46:45 PM
Quote from: Ihateyoumike on May 12, 2011, 06:36:28 PM
I wish you two could see the ridiculousness of arguing this point from an atheist's perspective.
Having said that, it's quite funny watching two people who are supposed to believe in the same god arguing about which day of the weekend they get to take off.
And for further ridiculousness... I don't think that we even disagree about which day... :o
Actually...you do disagree....AD is a seventh day Adventist; they worship on Saturday because they believe it is the true sabbath.
Quote from: Ihateyoumike on May 12, 2011, 06:36:28 PM
I wish you two could see the ridiculousness of arguing this point from an atheist's perspective.
Having said that, it's quite funny watching two people who are supposed to believe in the same god arguing about which day of the weekend they get to take off.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Do you think we can get iSoK to join in? He's Muslim for those that don't know.
Quote from: Ihateyoumike on May 12, 2011, 06:36:28 PM
I wish you two could see the ridiculousness of arguing this point from an atheist's perspective.
I'm sure it is important to them
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 12, 2011, 06:29:32 PM
But what I want to emphasize, once again, is that this piece that you've quote is not some end all or be all. It's a single person's interpretation about the issue. It was published in a diocesan magazine. It does not speak for the Church. It would be a different story if we were talking about an actual document written and published via the Magisterium (the teaching body of the Church). But it's not. It's a magazine article. It makes some interesting points... but it certainly isn't the only argument out there. Nor do I think it's the best one. The fact that it is titled "Rome's Challenge" does not mean it somehow comes from Rome. It doesn't. It's merely a clever title.
I understand. I'm not attempting to argue the worship days. In fact, I stand with you on the RCC grounds that she has openly changed the day (while I think it's important concerning Scriptural backing which I agree with the article, there is none.) What I'm trying to figure out with some sort of certainty is whether this stance is firm or if the RCC is now (or always has) stood on there being scriptural evidence of a change or a thinking TO change. As I mentioned, it is my belief that the RCC claims of being "God" on earth would make such a stance easily and readily stated. What fear would the RCC have if it truely has God's permission to do as "He wishes" and speaks for Him here on earth? None.
Now, the title, "Rome's Challenge" is not the original title. It is the title given after the fact. Way after. The original title is as I posted just prior to this post.
Quote from: TeresaBenedictaSo I wouldn't be making any assumptions about the Catholic Church by reading this article. It does not speak authoritatively. In fact, I'd imagine that many in the higher-ups would disagree with the article concerning certain points. I can't really tell you because there is not official document that talks about this issue.
Basically what I'm hoping to figure out. Why wouldn't there be?
Quote from: IhateyoumikeI wish you two could see the ridiculousness of arguing this point from an atheist's perspective.
Having said that, it's quite funny watching two people who are supposed to believe in the same god arguing about which day of the weekend they get to take off.
It's hardly an argument...or at least I'm not taking it that way. The argument, IMHO, would better be with a Protestant.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 12, 2011, 09:04:44 PM
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 12, 2011, 06:29:32 PM
But what I want to emphasize, once again, is that this piece that you've quote is not some end all or be all. It's a single person's interpretation about the issue. It was published in a diocesan magazine. It does not speak for the Church. It would be a different story if we were talking about an actual document written and published via the Magisterium (the teaching body of the Church). But it's not. It's a magazine article. It makes some interesting points... but it certainly isn't the only argument out there. Nor do I think it's the best one. The fact that it is titled "Rome's Challenge" does not mean it somehow comes from Rome. It doesn't. It's merely a clever title.
I understand. I'm not attempting to argue the worship days. In fact, I stand with you on the RCC grounds that she has openly changed the day (while I think it's important concerning Scriptural backing which I agree with the article, there is none.) What I'm trying to figure out with some sort of certainty is whether this stance is firm or if the RCC is now (or always has) stood on there being scriptural evidence of a change or a thinking TO change. As I mentioned, it is my belief that the RCC claims of being "God" on earth would make such a stance easily and readily stated. What fear would the RCC have if it truely has God's permission to do as "He wishes" and speaks for Him here on earth? None.
Now, the title, "Rome's Challenge" is not the original title. It is the title given after the fact. Way after. The original title is as I posted just prior to this post.
Quote from: TeresaBenedictaSo I wouldn't be making any assumptions about the Catholic Church by reading this article. It does not speak authoritatively. In fact, I'd imagine that many in the higher-ups would disagree with the article concerning certain points. I can't really tell you because there is not official document that talks about this issue.
Basically what I'm hoping to figure out. Why wouldn't there be?
Quote from: IhateyoumikeI wish you two could see the ridiculousness of arguing this point from an atheist's perspective.
Having said that, it's quite funny watching two people who are supposed to believe in the same god arguing about which day of the weekend they get to take off.
It's hardly an argument...or at least I'm not taking it that way. The argument, IMHO, would better be with a Protestant.
Gotchya.
Let me do a little more research and get back to you.
While you are doing research:
Scan of --pages 49 and 50-- (http://biblelight.net/Sources/converts-catechism.gif) of the book entitled: --The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine-- (http://biblelight.net/Sources/Converts-Catechism-cover-640x480.jpg)
by Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.SS.R., copyright 1910 by Joseph Gummersbach, published by B. Herder, St. Louis Mo., and Freiburg (Baden).
If the links get lost or do not work, the first is a scan of pages 49 and 50.
and the link for the book is a scan of the book cover and title page.
On page 50 it reads (in part);
Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why do we observes Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We Observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodecia (A.D. 336) transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.
Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on Sunday, and the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles on a Sunday.
Q. By what authority did the Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plentitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 13, 2011, 11:07:34 PM
Q. By what authority did the Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plentitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her.
OK, now I'm starting to get interested.
Quote from: TeresaBenedicta on May 12, 2011, 09:09:16 PM
Let me do a little more research and get back to you.
I'm still interested in your findings. :)
Quote from: Tank on May 12, 2011, 08:43:59 PM
Quote from: Ihateyoumike on May 12, 2011, 06:36:28 PM
I wish you two could see the ridiculousness of arguing this point from an atheist's perspective.
Having said that, it's quite funny watching two people who are supposed to believe in the same god arguing about which day of the weekend they get to take off.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Do you think we can get iSoK to join in? He's Muslim for those that don't know.
I could not agree more. It's odd that this is not striking any of these poster as wholly ironic, posting a debate on an atheist forum about not being able to agree on your own faith. Give them enough rope....
Quote from: Twentythree on May 25, 2011, 06:01:26 PM
I could not agree more. It's odd that this is not striking any of these poster as wholly ironic, posting a debate on an atheist forum about not being able to agree on your own faith. Give them enough rope....
Maybe if you would actually read the thread or pay attention to the thread, you'd see that it is hardly a debate. Rather it is an inquiry to a stance on the matter.
Thanks for your useless input though.