Did the Catholic Church "Change the Sabbath"?
BY JIMMY AKIN Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:17 PM Comments (3)
Did the Catholic Church "Change the Sabbath"?
You sometimes encounter the charge that the Catholic Church wrongly "changed the sabbath" from Saturday to Sunday. This claim is often made by Seventh-Day Adventists, for example. But even if one isn't accusing the Church of wrongdoing, the question can still arise: Why do Catholics worship on Sunday rather than Saturday? Here's the story . . .
What Day the Sabbath Is
First, let's clear away a potential source of confusion. While it's true that people sometimes speak of Sunday as "the Christian sabbath," this is a loose way of speaking. Strictly speaking, the sabbath is the day it always was--Saturday--though it should be noted that traditionally Jewish people have celebrated the sabbath from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. Sunday is a distinct day, which follows the sabbath. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:
2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ.
Why We Celebrate Sunday
That same paragraph explains why we celebrate on Sunday. For Christians the ceremonial observance of Sunday replaces that of the sabbath. Properly speaking, we're not celebrating the sabbath on Sunday. We're celebrating something else, but it's something that the sabbath points toward. As the Catechism says, the Jewish sabbath announces man's eternal rest in God and prefigures some aspects of Christ. Sunday thus fulfills what the sabbath pointed toward.
The Lord's Day
What we are celebrating instead of the sabbath is "the Lord's day." That's something Christians have celebrated since the first century. In fact, in the very first chapter of Revelation, we read that John experienced the inaugural vision of the book on "the Lord's day." He writes:
I John, your brother, who share with you in Jesus the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.
I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet [Revelation 1:9-10].
And he goes on to describe the vision of Jesus Christ he received. For our purposes, the important thing to note is that he speaks of the Lord's day as an already-established thing. He expects his readers to know what it is. So, when is it?
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-the-catholic-church-change-the-sabbath#ixzz295mwrVDc
10 comments:
The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine:
"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, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 336, transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."
A Doctrinal Catechism:
"Ques.-Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?"
"Ans.- Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionist 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."
An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine:
"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; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church."
Arik: The Catholic Church believe it is the Church Christ instituted. He is the head and His sheep follow Him. They translate what Jesus tells His Body to do as the Church being given the authority to do.
So let me translate this to you (In Protestant vocabulary) :
Question: Why do we observe Sunday?
Catholic answer so that Protestants can understand:
"We observe Sunday because CHRIST instituted it through the Catholic Church--since the very beginning Christ taught His Apostles (as heads of His church) the mysteries of God's Kingdom (See Acts 1)
This Sunday observance was first noted in the Council of Laodicea) This reference in Catholic-speak is IN NO WAY saying that is when Sunday observance began. No Catholic priest or scholar would ever think that. It is a reference to when it was first WRITTEN--which does not mean the same to a Protestant as a Catholic. Written just means that the Catholic church records the paper trail as support for their position. It would be like citing the first time the Divinity of Christ was spoken about in a council. That by no means indicates that Christ's divinity was decided or established at that council. It is just saying that is the first written record of the church needing to discuss it. Some heresy was going around that needed to be dealt with formally.
The Catholic Church has always recognized that Sunday services were kept since the time of the Apostles (Acts 2:46). The early church worshipped every single day.
Let me also address another point.
You posted:
"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; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church."
This was written in response to the Protestants suggestion that ALL things needed to be proven from scripture alone.
They are NOT arguing that the church changed Sabbath to Sunday (they already said that the Sabbath was Saturday). They are arguing that the Church GUIDED by the Apostles as their leadership decided to give a special holiness to Sunday as the resurrection day of Christ.
The APOSTLES of the first century and the heads of the church (given that power BY CHRIST to bind and loose) declared by their authority that Sunday was a special holy celebration of Christ's resurrection.
I can give you reference after reference (and I did above) and tons more that all say Sunday ISN'T and never was the Sabbath. I can show you the actual official Vatican Dies Domini (Day of the Lord) for the explanation of this.
The Catholic Church does not see its beginning as anything other than Christ Himself. They see themselves as the Body of Christ and His official Bride. All they do, they do in obedience to Him. When they say THEY did something they are actually saying that Christ and His Apostles did something and they are passing it down. They are arguing that Protestants themselves acknowledge that God's church is Catholic, because the Catholic Church (Apostles) never explicitly wrote in scripture that Sunday is the Lord's Day. The Protestants obey Christ through the Catholic church without acknowledging its authority to make that decision.
So when you take that passage out of the worldview of Catholics it is easily misunderstood. You have to understand how Catholics are meaning what they write. Indeed the Apostles (the Catholic Church ) was given the right to make Sunday a holy day of obligation.
But Catholics (Christians) have ALWAYS ALWAYS worshipped on Sunday since the resurrection. That is historical fact backed up by scripture and history.
"The APOSTLES of the first century and the heads of the church (given that power BY CHRIST to bind and loose) declared by their authority that Sunday was a special holy celebration of Christ's resurrection. "
Simply put this is an untrue statement. In no way is there any declaration from any Apostle that Sunday is a holy day!
"can give you reference after reference (and I did above) and tons more that all say Sunday ISN'T and never was the Sabbath. I can show you the actual official Vatican Dies Domini (Day of the Lord) for the explanation of this."
I am not arguing that Sunday is or ever was the Sabbath, I am saying that the Catholic Church thinks to replace the Sabbath with Sunday (which is exactly what your own church admits by the quotes i provided) If you can be honest and put together the Catechism and Dies Domini you can see that Sunday is claimed to have all the characteristics of the true Sabbath except for the fact that God rested, blessed and sanctified it and included in His law.
"When they say THEY did something they are actually saying that Christ and His Apostles did something and they are passing it down."
"...substituted the observance of Sunday....for the Seventh Day, a change FOR WHICH THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY."
"The APOSTLES of the first century and the heads of the church (given that power BY CHRIST to bind and loose) declared by their authority that Sunday was a special holy celebration of Christ's resurrection."
The New Testament gives no liturgical significance to the day of Christ's resurrection. The reality of His resurrection is experienced by living victoriously by the power of the risen Savior. This is how His resurrection is memorialized, it is not by creating a new day of rest and worship at the expense of denying His law.
The development of Sunday worship came in the post Apostolic age due to political, religious and social issues. Sunday was never seen as a "fulfillment of the creative and redemptive function of the Sabbath" until well into the 4th Century.
"It is a reference to when it was first WRITTEN--which does not mean the same to a Protestant as a Catholic."
And this proves that Sunday is not WRITTEN in Scripture as a holy day. If it was it would not need to be "first written" by any council of man. Jesus never told His body to separate itself from the Him, the head of the Church. The church cannot go rogue by creating a false holy day, claim it has the power to do so, and then claim it is following Christ. If it was following Christ than it wouldn't need to assert "her" authority when questioned about her doctrines.
Arik,
Now you are arguing a different topic. You are arguing that scripture is the sole and final authority for Christians. Catholics have never taught that. They teach that Christ said MANY more things than were written in scripture. (John's gospel tells us that as well as Acts 1 where Christ spend 40 days telling the Apostles of the Kingdom of Heaven.)
The things that God spoke (even though not written down) for a Catholic carry the same weight as what was written. They go back to the words of Christ not only through scripture but through the memory of His church. They obey WHAT HE SPOKE and some of that got written down.
Catholics have always taught for 2000 years that the day of Resurrection was the Lord's Day. Sunday was always celebrated as such. The Apostles taught that and we faithfully pass it down.
So we don't feel the need to go to scripture for a prooftext, we go to the history of the church since the beginning.
I don't write to convince you, but to explain to you how Catholics think. You cannot understand Catholic teachings within a Protestant worldview, they just won't work or make sense. To be fair and honest with Catholics you have to understand their beliefs with their worldview.
For example: Today we see as demeaning our President bowing to monarchies. We live in a worldview that sees bowing as a type of worshipful honor and groveling. But not so in the distant past. So when you read of someone bowing to another human in the Bible, you cannot look at it through American 21st century eyes. They were not worshipping nor groveling. You have to put things in context to understand it.
"Now you are arguing a different topic. You are arguing that scripture is the sole and final authority for Christians. Catholics have never taught that. They teach that Christ said MANY more things than were written in scripture. (John's gospel tells us that as well as Acts 1 where Christ spend 40 days telling the Apostles of the Kingdom of Heaven.)"
You do not seem to know your'e history as well as you think. According to the Apostolic fathers Ignatius,Polycarp,Clement, Diadache, and Barnabus they appeal to Scripture alone for the positive teaching of doctrine and defense against heresy.
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom
the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later
period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of
our faith”.Irenaeus
For the church fathers Scripture and tradition were never mutually exclusive. All tradition was grounded in Scripture! Tradition, when referring to oral proclamation such as preaching or teaching, was viewed primarily as the oral presentation of Scriptural truth, or the codifying of biblical truth into creedal expression. There is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to a tradition on issues of doctrine that is not found in Scripture.
It was the Gnostics who first claimed to an Apostolic oral tradition independant from Scripture. The early Fathers rejected such notion.
Have you not read Cyril of Jerusalem and his Catechetical Lectures? There is in fact not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures
to an oral apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture. He states in explicit terms that if
he were to present any teaching to these catechumens which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it.
“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee
these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the
Holy Scriptures”.
The early church opperated on the basis of sola Scriptura! There are two main "pillars" that Catholics always and must appeal to when confronted with Scriptural truth. One is the aithority of the church and the other is the authority of tradition. Take these two "pillars" away and the doctrines of Catholicism crumble with just a glancing study of Scripture.
This is not a different topic at all. Appeal to Scripture alone and the Lord's Day is the Sabbath. Appeal to tradition and the so called church's authority and Scripture becomes clay in the hands of mere men, shaping it into whatever teaching they wish.
Arik,
You misunderstand these early Catholic Fathers. Remember that during these Fathers day--such as Polycarp, Ignatius, Tertullian, etc, the canon of New Testament scripture had not been codified. They were not appealing exclusively to scripture but to ALL God's word.
Scripture to them was quite different than it is today and at that point many of them understood scripture to be the Old Testament alone and often they referred to the gospels as the "testimonies of the Apostles" or the Apostle's memoirs".
You are wrong when you suggest that the early church believed in Sola Scriptura. Please read the letters of Ignatius. Any, even cursory reading, would show that he held the bishops verbal word as God's.
Clement of Rome made it clear that the Corinthians must listen and obey their bishops. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, also wrote with authority and the assumption was that HE was the final authority, not scripture.
Jesus didn't had us a book to lead us but a church. I have spent a decade studying the early church fathers and read them all the time. You are gravely misrepresenting them.
Like I said all tradition was grounded in Scripture. The NT Scriptures were certainly known and quoted from many of the fathers long before they were codified. So appealing to Scripture was not hinged on the Scripture being codified at all.
Clement of Rome appealing to the authority of the bishops is a tradition grounded in Scripture, it is not a blank check for the bishops to have their flock follow them blindly, their teachings must still be grounded in Scripture. And I'd really like to see where Clement makes the statement that he was the final authority over Scripture.
By now you should realize the utter nonesense of appealing to historical tradition as equal to the inspired word of God Himself as found in Scripture. Historical events can be manipulated and interpreted in so many different ways. I gave you numerous qoutes and all you have done is reinterpret them to suit your'e own agenda.
The Truth is without a doubt that Sunday sacredness came in the post apostolic age motivated by politics, culture and social issues. The need to appeal to tradition and church's authority prove to everyone that the change is NOT Scriptural! So please just have some integrity and just admit what so many in youre'e church have done, that the commandment to keep Sunday as a holy day came from the tradition and the authority of the Catholic church only. Then people can judge for themselves if it is correct to follow a church based on "because I said so."
Arik,
Your response to me indicates to me that you have never really read the early Fathers.
Post a Comment