Papacy Stumbles but does not Fall

[GHansen]

Most SDA are familiar with the view that Sabbath observance was changed to Sunday by the Pope. SDA literature featured quotes from RC sources which plainly declared that Sunday became the day of worship by the Pope's authority. The RC position on sunday changed after Vatican 2. From the Vatican catechism:

The Sunday Eucharist

2177 The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life.

"Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."¹¹⁰

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7O.HTM

RC teaching is that the change to Sunday was indicated by the communion service on Sunday in the NT. Problem is that the communion service wasn't observed on the first day in the NT. The fractio panis [breaking of bread] is the key to exposing this falsehood. There are three types of texts in the NT which deal with the fractio panis. In some cases, it is clear that the breaking of bread refers to a common meal. In other cases, it is clear that the breaking of bread refers to the communion service, also known as  the Blessed Sacrament. The third group of texts appear ambiguous i.e., it is not clear whether a common meal or communion is being taken.

In all the clear cases of the communion service, the cup is also mentioned. They broke bread and drank wine in celebration of Christ's sacrifice for sin. In all clear cases of a common meal being eaten, the cup is not mentioned. In the ambiguous texts, the cup is never mentioned; consequently, we must conclude that the so called ambiguous passages are referring to a common meal, not to  communion. The Vatican assertion that the apostles celebrated the Blessed Sacrament on Sunday in NT times is false

[Gregory Matthews]

A point of clarification:

*  Seventh-day Adventists believe that the Sabbath occurs on the day commonly named Saturday in the English speaking world.  They do not believe that the Sabbath has been changed to another day.  

*  Current belief of Seventh-day Adventists, who understand the history of the event, believe that the claimed change of the Sabbath involves much more than either any Roman ruler or any Pope.  

 

[Gustave]

On 7/17/2019 at 4:15 AM, GHansen said:

Most SDA are familiar with the view that Sabbath observance was changed to Sunday by the Pope. SDA literature featured quotes from RC sources which plainly declared that Sunday became the day of worship by the Pope's authority. The RC position on sunday changed after Vatican 2. From the Vatican catechism:

The Sunday Eucharist

2177 The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life.

"Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."¹¹⁰

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7O.HTM

RC teaching is that the change to Sunday was indicated by the communion service on Sunday in the NT. Problem is that the communion service wasn't observed on the first day in the NT. The fractio panis [breaking of bread] is the key to exposing this falsehood. There are three types of texts in the NT which deal with the fractio panis. In some cases, it is clear that the breaking of bread refers to a common meal. In other cases, it is clear that the breaking of bread refers to the communion service, also known as  the Blessed Sacrament. The third group of texts appear ambiguous i.e., it is not clear whether a common meal or communion is being taken.

In all the clear cases of the communion service, the cup is also mentioned. They broke bread and drank wine in celebration of Christ's sacrifice for sin. In all clear cases of a common meal being eaten, the cup is not mentioned. In the ambiguous texts, the cup is never mentioned; consequently, we must conclude that the so called ambiguous passages are referring to a common meal, not to  communion. The Vatican assertion that the apostles celebrated the Blessed Sacrament on Sunday in NT times is false

The Tradition of the Apostles and contemporary (to the period) Secular Historians can't attune your assertion.

The Ethiopian Orthodox (Tewahedo) Church which still observes a Saturday Sabbath can't attune your assertion. 

Scripture itself doesn't attune your assertion in this case. 

 

[GHansen]

53 minutes ago, Gustave said:

The Tradition of the Apostles and contemporary (to the period) Secular Historians can't attune your assertion.

The Ethiopian Orthodox (Tewahedo) Church which still observes a Saturday Sabbath can't attune your assertion. 

Scripture itself doesn't attune your assertion in this case. 

 

Not sure what "attune your assertion" is  supposed to mean. I simply pointed  out that the Papal claim that communion being served on the first day either sanctifies Sunday or indicates that sanctification. The meals served on the first day  in the NT were common meals, not the Blessed Sacrament; consequently,  the following remark in the Vatican catechism is false:  "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."¹¹⁰  Scripture trumps secular historians and church tradition. Can you refute the fact that all NT references to the "paschal mystery" include both the cup and the bread? 

[GHansen]

Gustave, There are a number of issues regarding Sabbath in NT times that should be considered. I addressed one in my opening post.  No question that Sunday keeping has a very early origin. Rather than making a lot of spurious explanations regarding the Sabbath texts in the NT, it's likely better to simply admit that there was an existing Sabbath/Sunday controversy in NT times. The the Jews being expelled from Rome , leaving a largely Gentile congregation without a strong Sabbath tradition, certainly lends itself to a scenario with potential conflict when the Jews returned.

It is also very possible that Paul did not emphasize Sabbath observance in his ministry to the Gentiles. The big thing for him was Christ and him crucified, the resurrection, brotherly kindness, the making of one blood of all nations. The SDA apologetic regarding the Sabbath texts in the NT, mostly negative ones, does not really bear scrutiny. To suggest that Paul was only referencing Jewish Sabbaths beside the weekly Sabbath or that the observance of days didn't include the Sabbath, is largely unbelievable.

This doesn't mean that the Sabbath was changed by apostolic authority. The Sabbath was blessed in Creation and has never been "unblessed." Sunday was never blessed by God like the Sabbath. Even if the NT church met on Sunday for fellowship and teaching, it doesn't undue the sacredness of the 7th day Sabbath

[JoeMo]

I see very little in scripture that commands us to worship on Saturday.  The big injunction to me is that we are to refrain from work on Saturday.  When God "punished" people for breaking the Sabbath, it was almost always because they worked; not because they didn't go to synagogue.

While my usual habit is to worship on Sabbath, when I am around Sunday keepers, I worship on Sunday as well.  I actually still enjoy the liturgy of the Catholic Mass - so much reverence!

I do not worry about a law making Sunday worship mandatory.  I spend time in worship every day.  I worry (very little) about a law prohibiting Sabbath worship or making Saturday a mandatory work day.

[Gregory Matthews]

The Biblical Sabbath is much more than either worship or work.

Unfortunately we have often made is simply worship and work.  This is wrong and a failure to understand what the Sabbath is about.

 

[phkrause]

On 7/19/2019 at 12:35 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

The Biblical Sabbath is much more than either worship or work.

Unfortunately we have often made is simply worship and work.  This is wrong and a failure to understand what the Sabbath is about.

Here's an article in the December 2017 issue called "Sabbath as holy time," by Marvin Moore. Also I believe related to your post GM?

http://www.signstimes.com/?p=article&a=44153356129.692

[GHansen]

To illustrate my remark about the cup and bread always mentioned together when the Blessed Sacrament is being referenced:

1 Corinthians 10:16  The cup  of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

 For as often as ye eat this bread  and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.  Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 1 Cor. 11:26-28
 

19  And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20  Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Luke 22

 In these obvious communion references, both the cup and bread are mentioned.

Acts 20:7-12 mentions the breaking of bread on the first day, a reference to Saturday evening. The context alone indicates that the people came together for a fellowship meal, not Communion; additionally, there is no mention of the cup.

Acts 2: 42-46 also references the breaking of bread, as the apostles went from house to house; again, the cup is not mentioned. Since plain references to the Blessed Sacrament include both the cup and the bread and there is no reference to the cup in these passages in Acts, there is no connection between Sunday observance and the Blessed Sacrament in the NT.

[GHansen]

[GHansen]

Sabbath/ Sunday discussions often lead to the "mark of the beast."  The "mark " was an actual historical signifier, much like a seal in today's culture. In NT times, it referred to the imperial seal of the Roman government and was affixed to various documents. It is thus described in Deissman's Bible Studies pages 246, 247:

"To sum up: xaragma is the name of the imperial seal,  giving the year and the name of the reigning emperor  (possibly also his effigy), and found on bills of sale and  similar documents of the 1st and 2nd centuries.  It is not asserting too much to say that in this ascer- tained fact we have something to proceed upon. If the beast  be correctly interpreted as referring to a Roman emperor,  which the author does not doubt in the least, then, from  what we now know of the emperor's xa<ragma, we can very  well understand the xar<agma, of the beast.  The xar<agma of  the Apocalypse is not, of course, wholly identical with its  contemporary prototype. The seer acted with a free hand;  he has it that the mark is impressed on forehead or hand,1  and he gives the number a new meaning. It is in this point  that ancient (apocalyptic?) tradition may possibly have  made its influence felt.  But it has only modified; the  characteristic, not to say charagmatic, features of the proto- type can be recognized without difficulty."