The Lord's Day

[Ka-Bella]

That explanation is helpful to me. I acknowledge I don't understand some things about the Catholic church. However, I do read some of their sources and they give me a good idea of where the church is coming from. Take this page for example.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
Excerpt: The Council of Elvira (300) decreed: "If anyone in the city neglects to come to church for three Sundays, let him be excommunicated for a short time so that he may be corrected" (xxi).

Howmany protestants are aware of such teachings?

Daily Bread, that is not a "teaching". That is a canon, yaani, a church law. Such things are mere regulations, they not only differ from church to church (you will find that eastern catholic canons are very different from the roman rite and other western and oriental rites) they also differ from time to time. For example, the present code of canon law for the Latin church does not have that regulation you cited at all, but you will find it still among many orthodox churches and Eastern Catholics who generally adhere to the ancient canons much more strictly than Latins. Instead, in the "West" (Church-speak for "the roman rite") which covers majority of catholics including in Kenya, the rule is that barring sickness or other such things, roman rite Catholics have an obligation to attend mass on Sundays (which includes Saturday evening) and a few other "holy days of obligation", and these days differ from church to church (the Kenyan days are different from the American ones, for example). These are not "teachings", they are what Catholics will call disciplines which is just a name for a church-imposed obligation/regulation/rule. Because they are imposed by the church's authority, they vary accordingly and are hardly ever universally binding. They also can be removed by the church unlike divine laws which the church has no authority to change (like your claim that the catholic church claims to be able to change divine law which the church denies she has any right to do).

The canons are very diverse and often reflect the different cultures that the church has been planted in. For example, in the Eastern cultures, kneeling and prostrating is a form of penance and signifies repentance for sin. But in the West, these acts only signify reverence, not necessarily penitential signs. Because of this, in the East, it is forbidden to kneel in church during Sunday liturgy because Sunday is supposed to be a celebration (Christ is risen!), but in lent or the days of fasting (Tuesday/Wednesday/Friday) they do them. You will not find such rules among Roman rite Catholics because for us, kneeling is a way of showing respect before God. So every mass on Sunday people will kneel, especially during the consecration when the words "this is my body/blood" are spoken and the long Eucharistic prayer to Christ/Trinity, the church kneels. I have actually seen loooooong debates that will put out nipate ones to shame in which Eastern Christians accuse Western/Latin rite Christians of poor form for behaving this way and yet Western rite Christians don't understand what is wrong with these Christians who have a problem with people showing reverence in prayer just because it is Sunday??? Similarly, in the bazungu countries, dancing in church is generally against the rules because those cultures associate silence and attention with reverence, but in Africa and Asian churches, there is liturgical dancing with drums and other traditional instruments because in these cultures, these acts were used religiously and not only in a "clubbing" sort of way: there was a song and dance for every occasion, sad or happy. Hence, the rules will differ depending on the cultural language in which the church is in, for the sake of order in that place.

So veeeery few aspects of all the church's canons over 2,000 years are truly universal. The bottom line is that Catholics should go to church Sundays unless they have a good reason not to go, but that's about it.

[Ka-Bella]

The suicidal argument has moved from trying to prove Sunday is not the Sabbath, to Sundaybeing a new Sabbath, to Sunday being an apostolic practice, to some people esteeming a day above the others.

With due respect, that is simply false. I find it telling when a debating partner starts telling outright falsehoods, so I will hope you simply slipped. Daily Bread, where has this "suicidal" argument that I have underlined above been made here? If anything, it was made by YOU on behalf of the "opposition" and has been consistently denied. You have been informed that the Jewish Sabbath is NOT Sunday and that Sunday is distinct from it, so why make such statements?

[Ka-Bella]

As to the moral vs ceremonial law...Well, I certainly cannot speak for Daily bread but for me, the moral laws come down to those basic rules necessary for a happy human life both individually and communally according to God's design for humanity right from the beginning, which have been summarized by Jesus in the Gospels: Love God first and fellow man like yourself. Or How to treat God, ourselves and fellow man.

They concern:
-our duty to place God first in every aspect of our lives,
-to respect human life and dignity (which includes respecting other people's property),
-to give ordinate obedience to rightful authority (like parents or the government, for example) for the sake of order in society,
-the rightful use of human sexuality which has the power to create another human being but also to make us debase and objectify others,
-and lack of interior malice even if it doesn't manifest in external actions.

Basically, the ideal of a peaceful human heart (interior) and a peaceful human society (others/exterior) and the necessary attitudes and behaviors that make it possible. This is because God did not make any of us "alone" in the garden but created us "male and female'' (a society) with a command to become many. He made us a social creature that needs not only its God but also its fellow creatures in order to be well.

In fact, most of the commandments are more or less present in many human societies because they represent the irreducible minimum for making human social life possible. In fact, you can pretty much decide whether or not a human society is "savage" depending on how well or poorly it adheres to these basic rules of human life. Hence, you find them operational even before the covenant and tablets in some form or another, like in the Noahide covenant, with Adam and his children and Abraham and his children. Of course, they were highly under-developed in human understanding at that point and even their manifestation in the Mosaic covenant was underdeveloped (Later, you find Christ saying that Moses' allowance of divorce was a concession to human sin but a deviation from God's original design). As Christians, we believe that this obscurity in our minds in telling right from wrong correctly is because of the fall.

But Christ makes them all very clear and tells us what was intended "in the beginning", putting Moses' laws in perspective and giving us the beatitudes, the summation of God's desire for the human life he made. You hear him say "You have heard it said...." referring to the law, "but say I to you..." he then gives us God's beautiful design for human life. So for me, the moral law is represented in all those imperatives given by Christ and the Apostles to the church on what kind of life human beings are to lead. Remember the 'Christic' covenant is the ultimate, intended for humanity as a whole. Yes, the church is given clearer instructions than the patriarchs (and this is part of revelation) because the church has the model of human life (Christ) and the grace he gives, which Abrahm did not have.

I find it telling that Christ did not bother with holding Moses' laws so strictly, even regarding the Sabbath which he was constantly getting in trouble for with the Pharisees. Then the Apostles do not tell any gentile they are to adhere to this and as a result, we have a history in which no gentile Christians (apart from the modern variety) ever bothered. I have to believe that the Holy Spirit would not be so careless as to permit the Apostles to fail so spectacularly in instructing former pagans of such an important rule as the Sabbath, this "failure" must've been deliberate on his part!

[GeeMail]

Ka-Bella, I

The suicidal argument has moved from trying to prove Sunday is not the Sabbath, to Sundaybeing a new Sabbath, to Sunday being an apostolic practice, to some people esteeming a day above the others.

With due respect, that is simply false. I find it telling when a debating partner starts telling outright falsehoods, so I will hope you simply slipped. Daily Bread, where has this "suicidal" argument that I have underlined above been made here? If anything, it was made by YOU on behalf of the "opposition" and has been consistently denied. You have been informed that the Jewish Sabbath is NOT Sunday and that Sunday is distinct from it, so why make such statements?

Ka-Bella, I see the mistake I made in the first line. It should have read "the suicidal argument has moved from trying to prove Saturday is not the New Testament Sabbath kept by the apostles, to Sunday being the new Sabbath...."
I welcome and appreciate your posts on this thread since they give us an understanding of the Catholic church from an insider's perspective. I must confess that for the first time I've heard a Catholic deny that the church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Most discussions I've had were with Catholics who readily accepted it and went on to say Sunday is the mark of the Catholic church's authority and protestantism is dead.
If you recall the initial post in this thread was Rome's challenge which stands to date. Rome has challenged Protestants to accept her authority or become seventh day adventist. We've had a long discussion and your contribution is welcome, but the core of that question was to protestants and the responses by Voke is suicidal (to borrow the Catholic Mirror's words). Note that Rome's challenge was issued in the late 19th century. It has been reissued several times again by other Catholic publications and from other forums (even if some Catholics question the authority of the persons to speak on behalf of the church). If you look in the link below, you will find the challenge issued and reissued over and over. In fact, some of the statements are stronger now (forgive the errors in some dates like 1983 instead of 1893 for Cardinal Gibbons' statements).
http://www.lightministries.com/id250.htm

[vooke]

The reason I aksd about moral vs ceremonial is because;
1. Such a distinction is totally strange to the scriptures, and
2. White insists Moral laws were kept inside the ark and ceremonial Laws outside. Nuff Sed is just paraphrasing or quoting her.

This arbitrarily distinction is at the heart of adventism. An Adventist reveres Saturday. To give their Sabbath doctrine some legs, they insist that the sabbath keeping is 'moral' and as such eternal cutting across covenants

Nuff Sed aka Daily Bread is not going to answer me on whether White was wrong on insisting that inside the ark was moral laws and outside ceremonial for obvious reasons; it does not make sense and attempting to answer it will expose this and she dreads contradicting her prophet knowing too well that one of the pillars of faith of an Adventist is faith in White as God's prophet of the same league as John the Baptist

As to the moral vs ceremonial law...Well, I certainly cannot speak for Daily bread but for me,

[GeeMail]

I had asked a few questions and it appears Jesus will return before they are answered

1. How do you biblically tell a 'moral' law from a 'ceremonial' law?

2. Are the Ten Commandments 'moral' laws?

3. What is a 'moral' Law? And what is a 'ceremonial' law?

Kadame,Nuff Sed,Daily Bread, you want to help me with these?

Ka-Bella has adequately answered the questions concerning the types of laws given by God. The help I can give is to ask you to read your Bible, see what Ka Bella has posted and my previous posts. You will see we've answered each of those questions more than once. The only thing I will add is that the Ten Commandments have never been abrogated anywhere in the Bible either by commission or omission. I've read a few websites where claims are made that the Sabbath was somehow a ceremonial law because Jesus downplayed it by "breaking the Sabbath" through healings on that day. However, the claims ignore other commandments that Jesus spoke about. For example, Jesus spoke about the seventh commandment (thou shalt not commit adultery) by saying lusting after a woman is adultery already. Did that amount to a new commandment? Not at all. Christ fulfilled the law by showing the essence or principle behind the commandments. Knowing some will think He has changed the law, He said He did not come to change the law or the prophets, and that not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the law. Had the Sabbath changed to Sunday, this is the place He would have spoken about it. But He didn't. On the contrary, He kept the Sabbath and that's on record in several places in the gospels (Mark and Luke record Jesus keeping the Sabbath many times).
The greatest suicidal move in this argument that Jesus broke the Sabbath is that He had been accused as such by Pharisees before the multitude. Jesus revealed the meaning of the Sabbath (healing, doing good, being kind to others). Had the Sabbath changed, He would have dismissed His accusers with the revelation that Sabbath was no longer Saturday but Sunday. Alas, no such thing!

[vooke]

You flap gums here about moral and ceremonial and you have no clue how to tell one from the other.
I was studying the Bible before .org and I will be studying long after .org but thank you for your advise

Ka-Bella has adequately answered the questions concerning the types of laws given by God. The help I can give is to ask you to read your Bible, see what Ka Bella has posted and my previous posts.

You will see we've answered each of those questions more than once.

You have not answered those questions. That's another tactic...pretend that you have already handled a difficult question

The only thing I will add is that the Ten Commandments have never been abrogated anywhere in the Bible either by commission or omission.

Romans 14:5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

If it matters not to Holy Spirit whether you esteem one day or not, that is effective abrogation of ANY holy day you may conjure at the back of your mind

I've read a few websites where claims are made that the Sabbath was somehow a ceremonial law because Jesus downplayed it by "breaking the Sabbath" through healings on that day. However, the claims ignore other commandments that Jesus spoke about. For example, Jesus spoke about the seventh commandment (thou shalt not commit adultery) by saying lusting after a woman is adultery already. Did that amount to a new commandment? Not at all. Christ fulfilled the law by showing the essence or principle behind the commandments. Knowing some will think He has changed the law, He said He did not come to change the law or the prophets, and that not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the law.

Knocking your own strawmen

Had the Sabbath changed to Sunday, this is the place He would have spoken about it. But He didn't.

Another strawman. sabbath remains sabbath and Sunday is not sabbath. You never disappoint in strawmen

On the contrary, He kept the Sabbath and that's on record in several places in the gospels (Mark and Luke record Jesus keeping the Sabbath many times).

Jesus kept the Law because he was born under the law. You notice he did more than observing sabbath don't you?
He even prescribed ANIMAL OFFERINGS because the law was effective until his own death

here is Jesus COMMANDING a man to offer a sacrifice

Luke 5:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Here is Paul reminding us that Christ was born UNDER the law

Galatians 4:4-5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
4 but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

And of course he observed the Feasts.
So an Adventist yapping about how Jesus kept the Law for her example is ignorance incarnate

The greatest suicidal move in this argument that Jesus broke the Sabbath is that He had been accused as such by Pharisees before the multitude. Jesus revealed the meaning of the Sabbath (healing, doing good, being kind to others). Had the Sabbath changed, He would have dismissed His accusers with the revelation that Sabbath was no longer Saturday but Sunday. Alas, no such thing!

More strawmen. IF...IF Jesus changed the sabbath from saturday to Sunday, it would have occurred AFTER his death not before. So Jesus keeping sabbath is no proof of its relevance on Christians any more than his keeping Feast.
Nailing to the cross happened on Calvary not Nazareth..comprende?

[GeeMail]

It helps to note that in the ENTIRE NT, there are dire warnings against rebelling against God,against EACH of the Ten Commandments except one.

It's quite possible that nobody broke the sabbath and as such there was no need of reminding the church about it. But this is farfetched especially given the many other faults that afflicted the churches.

And finally you have zero instructions on sabbath in the NT. Paul goes as far as talking about sex but nothing on sabbath? Instead of leading the Gentile church to whom sabbath was totally strange,he tells them not to judge those who esteem some days above others or those who don't. And he'd have none of them condemned on the basis of nothing Jewish be it circumcision,weekly sabbath, monthly sacrifices and annual feasts

Let me be plain. The repetition of some laws does not nullify other existing laws. For example, if you get a ticket for jumping the lights today and tomorrow, that does not nullify speed limits.

"Zero instructions" on the Sabbath in NT? What was that Jesus was talking about healing on the Sabbath in Mark and Luke's gospels? How about Paul meeting the Gentiles over and over "as his manner was" in Acts 17 and 18? Do you want me to repost the verses?

[GeeMail]

The reason I aksd about moral vs ceremonial is because;
1. Such a distinction is totally strange to the scriptures, and
2. White insists Moral laws were kept inside the ark and ceremonial Laws outside. Nuff Sed is just paraphrasing or quoting her.

This arbitrarily distinction is at the heart of adventism. An Adventist reveres Saturday. To give their Sabbath doctrine some legs, they insist that the sabbath keeping is 'moral' and as such eternal cutting across covenants

Nuff Sed aka Daily Bread is not going to answer me on whether White was wrong on insisting that inside the ark was moral laws and outside ceremonial for obvious reasons; it does not make sense and attempting to answer it will expose this and she dreads contradicting her prophet knowing too well that one of the pillars of faith of an Adventist is faith in White as God's prophet of the same league as John the Baptist

As to the moral vs ceremonial law...Well, I certainly cannot speak for Daily bread but for me,

I see your usual obsession with White coming up again. Ka-Bella did not quote White when she gave the verses showing the distinction between the law of Moses and the Ten Commandments, neither did Billy Graham. I posted for you verses showing where the law of Moses was kept and where the Ten Commandments were kept as well as other distinctions, even the verse in Luke where the veil in the temple was torn apart at Christ's death.

I'll refresh your memory with arguments by Sunday keepers that the commandments were nailed to the cross. You made the shifting argument when you brought up Passover, feasts, circumcision, Rom 14:5 and Col 2:16. But because you insist on making a suicidal argument, I'll forgive you for going round in circles and tying yourself in a knot.

[vooke]

Let me be plain. The repetition of some laws does not nullify other existing laws. For example, if you get a ticket for jumping the lights today and tomorrow, that does not nullify speed limits.

There are no instructions on sabbath not even Paul can afford a single line to his Gentile churches. Was there ever sabbath breaking in the first century?

"Zero instructions" on the Sabbath in NT? What was that Jesus was talking about healing on the Sabbath in Mark and Luke's gospels? How about Paul meeting the Gentiles over and over "as his manner was" in Acts 17 and 18? Do you want me to repost the verses?

Jesus Christ was born UNDER the Law (Galatians 4:4), he was bound by the Law as any other Jew. So Jesus keeping the Law does not mean Nuff Sed should keep the Law. I just shared on how Jesus commanded a freshly healed leper to offer a sacrifice. Imagine that

[vooke]

Funny that an SDA thinks am obsessed with her deranged prophet...that's the height of irony

What's so difficult in answering my questions?

Is the location of the ten commandments the distinction between moral and ceremonial laws?

Once again, what is the difference between a moral law and a ceremonial law?

I see your usual obsession with White coming up again. Ka-Bella did not quote White when she gave the verses showing the distinction between the law of Moses and the Ten Commandments, neither did Billy Graham. I posted for you verses showing where the law of Moses was kept and where the Ten Commandments were kept as well as other distinctions, even the verse in Luke where the veil in the temple was torn apart at Christ's death.

sabbath was nailed to the cross just as other Feasts and here u can't even fire up microwave because Jews were not lighting fires on sabbath

I'll refresh your memory with arguments by Sunday keepers that the commandments were nailed to the cross. You made the shifting argument when you brought up Passover, feasts, circumcision, Rom 14:5 and Col 2:16. But because you insist on making a suicidal argument, I'll forgive you for going round in circles and tying yourself in a knot.

[Ka-Bella]

Daily Bread, what is it with all these citations of apologists plainly contradicting basic facts that they could have easily educated themselves on by picking up their catechism or even the encyclopedia on the church's reasons for Sunday? You are STILL speaking of ROME stating things yet up till now have not provided a SINGLE reference of ROME doing what you are insisting it has done, citing claims contrary to evidence spanning 2,000 years. Honestly, this is quite tiresome! Peter so and so fighting protestants in a magazine is NOT "Rome" or "the Catholic Church". Their own catechisms and authoritative council teachings contradict them and these apologists clearly don't expect their opponents to have read these (or maybe they themselves are simply ignorant). You say this is your first time hearing a catholic state BASIC Catholic teachings? Read around the internet alone, Daily Bread. Just google "catholic" "sunday" "Sabbath", I found enough refutations and not a single opinion agreeing with you, so I am guessing that catholics recognize on the whole that those apologists you cite were foolishly harping on Adventist battles with other protestants in order to make their point...totally not an honest or prudent thing to do on their part.

[GeeMail]

You must have been out making a sisal rope to hang your argument when I posted this:

God gave Moses His law, written with His own finger (see Ex 31:18 quoted above) a second time after Moses broke the first tablets.

Deut 10.
1 At that time the Lord said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood.
2 And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark.

Then Moses wrote other laws also given him by God in a book. This is the ceremonial law.

Exodus 24
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.
6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.

Was this distinction known to the congregation? Yes. Notice who wrote it and where it was kept (the law of god was kept in the ark of the covenant).
Deut 31
9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel....

24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

Three important distinctions.
1. God's (moral) law was written with His own finger; Moses' law (ceremonial) was writen by Moses (although also coming from God).
2. God's law was written on tablets of stone (first time and second time); Moses' law was given in a book (containing ceremonies, circumcision, sacrifices and feasts, some of which were called sabbaths and not sabbath days like what Paul referred to in Col 2:16).
3. God's moral law was kept in the ark of the covenant; Moses law was kept on the side of the ark.

[vooke]

Thank you for that.
And ceremonial law is what was nailed to the cross, right?

You must have been out making a sisal rope to hang your argument when I posted this:

God gave Moses His law, written with His own finger (see Ex 31:18 quoted above) a second time after Moses broke the first tablets.

Deut 10.
1 At that time the Lord said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood.
2 And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark.

Then Moses wrote other laws also given him by God in a book. This is the ceremonial law.

Exodus 24
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.
5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.
6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.

Was this distinction known to the congregation? Yes. Notice who wrote it and where it was kept (the law of god was kept in the ark of the covenant).
Deut 31
9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel....

24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

Three important distinctions.
1. God's (moral) law was written with His own finger; Moses' law (ceremonial) was writen by Moses (although also coming from God).
2. God's law was written on tablets of stone (first time and second time); Moses' law was given in a book (containing ceremonies, circumcision, sacrifices and feasts, some of which were called sabbaths and not sabbath days like what Paul referred to in Col 2:16).
3. God's moral law was kept in the ark of the covenant; Moses law was kept on the side of the ark.

[GeeMail]

Daily Bread, what is it with all these citations of apologists plainly contradicting basic facts that they could have easily educated themselves on by picking up their catechism or even the encyclopedia on the church's reasons for Sunday? You are STILL speaking of ROME stating things yet up till now have not provided a SINGLE reference of ROME doing what you are insisting it has done, citing claims contrary to evidence spanning 2,000 years. Honestly, this is quite tiresome! Peter so and so fighting protestants in a magazine is NOT "Rome" or "the Catholic Church". Their own catechisms and authoritative council teachings contradict them and these apologists clearly don't expect their opponents to have read these (or maybe they themselves are simply ignorant). You say this is your first time hearing a catholic state BASIC Catholic teachings? Read around the internet alone, Daily Bread. Just google "catholic" "sunday" "Sabbath", I found enough refutations and not a single opinion agreeing with you, so I am guessing that catholics recognize on the whole that those apologists you cite were foolishly harping on Adventist battles with other protestants in order to make their point...totally not an honest or prudent thing to do on their part.

Oh, getting tired now hearing what your own fellow Catholics preach?

I'll repeat myself. There are numerous documents detailing the change of the Sabbath by the Catholic church. I deliberately avoided them because you questioned their motives. That's why my quotes are from the horses mouth. But you question them too at too old in some cases. I even quoted two recent popes. You now want me to restrict myself to catechisms and encyclopedia. Let me comply with the quotes below.

  "Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code (ten commandments) was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai...Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity--love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5)....The (Catholic) Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day....He (God) claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy..." The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 4, "The Ten Commandments", 1908 edition by Robert Appleton Company; and 1999 On-line edition by Kevin Knight, Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04153a.htm

"Question: How prove you that the church had power to command feasts and holydays?
     "Answer: 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.
     "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?
     "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not a done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; -she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day of the week, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism On the Obedience Due to the Church, 3rd edition, Chapter 2, p. 174 (Imprimatur, John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York).

"Question - Which is the Sabbath day?
     "Answer - Saturday is the Sabbath day.
     "Question - Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
     "Answer - We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50, 3rd edition, 1957.

"Some theologians have held that God 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 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." John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 edition, vol. 1, p. 51.

{Allow me to throw this in because you have extensively educated us about canons}
"The authority of the church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the Church had changed...the Sabbath into Sunday, not by command of Christ, but by its own authority." Canon and Tradition, p. 263.



"It was the Catholic church which...has transferred this rest to Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord.  Therefore the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the (Catholic) church." Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today, p. 213.

All these quotes are hidden in the link. We'd have a problem if they came from non-Catholic sources and if they weren't so remarkably consistent on whodunnit, why, when and how.
 

[Ka-Bella]

As to the moral law vs ceremonial law, I think we are getting lost in terms but we may mean the same thing. Personally, I say "moral law" to signify universally binding, no body can say that they don't have a duty not to kill, for example. So let us use, universal vs limited to avoid getting lost in terms. Certainly there are universal laws and limited laws in the Bible. The question is, how do we tell which is which?

I gather Daily Bread tells by "Ten commandments vs The rest", but I do not agree with this myself. Think about this, for example. The law against incest and homosexuality and bestiality and fornication....certainly nowhere on those two tablets. But shall we say that they were not universal? Why then did Judah try to kill his daughter in law for getting pregnant? Why did God punish Sodom and Gomorrah? Shall we say that bestiality is ok in the New Testament just because we cannot find a verse that teaches it directly? Well then, if it is only "ceremonial" or limited to the Jews, how can we say it is wrong when it is not in the ten commandments or directly mentioned in the New but only in the old? Similarly, murder is mentioned in the ten, but God punished Cain for it (and Cain knew of his guilt) and the New testament tells us that our conscience can come to knowledge of God's laws.

For me, there is distinction between universal laws (for all mankind) and limited laws (for certain covenants or certain times or certain persons only). I know which laws are universal by using both reason and looking at the New Testament and the instruction it gives me. I don't see how worshipping on ANY particular day...even if Sunday or Saturday...could possibly belong to the timeless law of God, so I will say that this represents a "covenant-specific" aspect of the New covenant or just a Christian custom, but the universal law is to make time for public worship of God as a community of believers which requires that we are uniform in the day we do this (or we wont come together) and this day was made Sunday by the apostles because it was the resurrection.

[vooke]

kadame,
sabbath was given to Israel

Exodus 31:12-13 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
12 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.

Leviticus 23 mentions it TOGETHER with the Feasts meaning it MUST be part of the feast.

My point is there is zero basis for calling it moral nor ceremonial though these two verses point to its temporal nature.
Look at how it closely resembles this
Genesis 17:11-12 English Standard Version (ESV)
11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,

 Leviticus 23:41English Standard Version (ESV)
41 You shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord for seven days in the year. It is a statute forever throughout your generations; you shall celebrate it in the seventh month.

And we both know about the fate of the feasts. You are not having a universal law restricted to a people.

Nuff Sed's theory of moral-inside-and-ceremonial-outside as you can readily tell is clearly boneheaded.

As to the moral law vs ceremonial law, I think we are getting lost in terms but we may mean the same thing. Personally, I say "moral law" to signify universally binding, no body can say that they don't have a duty not to kill, for example. So let us use, universal vs limited to avoid getting lost in terms. Certainly there are universal laws and limited laws in the Bible. The question is, how do we tell which is which?

I gather Daily Bread tells by "Ten commandments vs The rest", but I do not agree with this myself. Think about this, for example. The law against incest and homosexuality and bestiality and fornication....certainly nowhere on those two tablets. But shall we say that they were not universal? Why then did Judah try to kill his daughter in law for getting pregnant? Why did God punish Sodom and Gomorrah? Shall we say that bestiality is ok in the New Testament just because we cannot find a verse that teaches it directly? Well then, if it is only "ceremonial" or limited to the Jews, how can we say it is wrong when it is not in the ten commandments or directly mentioned in the New but only in the old? Similarly, murder is mentioned in the ten, but God punished Cain for it (and Cain knew of his guilt) and the New testament tells us that our conscience can come to knowledge of God's laws.

For me, there is distinction between universal laws (for all mankind) and limited laws (for certain covenants or certain times or certain persons only). I know which laws are universal by using both reason and looking at the New Testament and the instruction it gives me. I don't see how worshipping on ANY particular day...even if Sunday or Saturday...could possibly belong to the timeless law of God, so I will say that this represents a "covenant-specific" aspect of the New covenant or just a Christian custom, but the universal law is to make time for public worship of God as a community of believers which requires that we are uniform (or we wont come together) and this day was made Sunday by the apostles because it was the resurrection.

[Ka-Bella]

Ka-Bella, I

The suicidal argument has moved from trying to prove Sunday is not the Sabbath, to Sundaybeing a new Sabbath, to Sunday being an apostolic practice, to some people esteeming a day above the others.

With due respect, that is simply false. I find it telling when a debating partner starts telling outright falsehoods, so I will hope you simply slipped. Daily Bread, where has this "suicidal" argument that I have underlined above been made here? If anything, it was made by YOU on behalf of the "opposition" and has been consistently denied. You have been informed that the Jewish Sabbath is NOT Sunday and that Sunday is distinct from it, so why make such statements?

Ka-Bella, I see the mistake I made in the first line. It should have read "the suicidal argument has moved from trying to prove Saturday is not the New Testament Sabbath kept by the apostles, to Sunday being the new Sabbath...."
I welcome and appreciate your posts on this thread since they give us an understanding of the Catholic church from an insider's perspective. I must confess that for the first time I've heard a Catholic deny that the church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Most discussions I've had were with Catholics who readily accepted it and went on to say Sunday is the mark of the Catholic church's authority and protestantism is dead.
If you recall the initial post in this thread was Rome's challenge which stands to date. Rome has challenged Protestants to accept her authority or become seventh day adventist. We've had a long discussion and your contribution is welcome, but the core of that question was to protestants and the responses by Voke is suicidal (to borrow the Catholic Mirror's words). Note that Rome's challenge was issued in the late 19th century. It has been reissued several times again by other Catholic publications and from other forums (even if some Catholics question the authority of the persons to speak on behalf of the church). If you look in the link below, you will find the challenge issued and reissued over and over. In fact, some of the statements are stronger now (forgive the errors in some dates like 1983 instead of 1893 for Cardinal Gibbons' statements).
http://www.lightministries.com/id250.htm

This is all well and good as long as you understand that by the "CHURCH", Catholics are talking of the Apostles too and not a 4th century creature as you'd like to believe. Also, that encyclopedia is supplemented by two others specifically on the Sabbath and sunday, so quotations taken out of context will not do. It's like the JP II quotations earlier that ignore the bit where he teaches that the Jewish Sabbath is distinct and non-binding and then focuss on the parts he refers to Sunday in similar terms as the Sabbath. But since you instist, I will start to paste other Catholic works here too, just for balance.

[vooke]

Nuff Sed aka Daily Bread,


Colossians 2:16 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:


Hosea 2:11 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease,
her feast days, her new moons,
and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

You may want to ponder on why God's judgment would include stopping the sabbath. Sounds like God suspending morality.
Search your conscience and see if there is ANY reason why Col 2:16 is talking about nothing but your beloved sabbath. Search further and prayerfully assure yourself that Romans 14:5 is talking about all but sabbath

[GeeMail]

As to the moral law vs ceremonial law, I think we are getting lost in terms but we may mean the same thing. Personally, I say "moral law" to signify universally binding, no body can say that they don't have a duty not to kill, for example. So let us use, universal vs limited to avoid getting lost in terms. Certainly there are universal laws and limited laws in the Bible. The question is, how do we tell which is which?

I gather Daily Bread tells by "Ten commandments vs The rest", but I do not agree with this myself. Think about this, for example. The law against incest and homosexuality and bestiality and fornication....certainly nowhere on those two tablets. But shall we say that they were not universal? Why then did Judah try to kill his daughter in law for getting pregnant? Why did God punish Sodom and Gomorrah? Shall we say that bestiality is ok in the New Testament just because we cannot find a verse that teaches it directly? Well then, if it is only "ceremonial" or limited to the Jews, how can we say it is wrong when it is not in the ten commandments or directly mentioned in the New but only in the old? Similarly, murder is mentioned in the ten, but God punished Cain for it (and Cain knew of his guilt) and the New testament tells us that our conscience can come to knowledge of God's laws.

I've given in my response to Voke some Bible verses showing there was a distinction. The Bible does not use the word ceremonial or moral, but that is not the argument (the Bible does not have the word "Bible" either). In my posts, you will see I repeated that both all those laws were given by God Himself, just that He instructed Moses to write the ceremonial laws in a book (rather than by His own finger on tablets of stone) and to put His law IN the ark, and Moses' law on the side of the ark. Complementarity is implied here like the Rome statutes and Kenyan law. So, both coming from God makes them "moral" laws if we take the meaning of good and right. All of God's laws ar right, holy and good.
Universality is implied too. Many of the laws were about health, hygiene, justice and simple common sense (like the laws on the jubilee year, bestiality or homosexuality). Israel was a nation chosen by God to demonstrate His love for mankind. People like Rahab (non-Jew) and Ruth are in Christ's lineage because they were grafted in by marriage and still inherited God's promises to Israel. That demonstrates universality of the ceremonial law.
However, the ceremonial laws (to do with ceremonies and feasts mostly) pointed to the coming Messiah. Sanctuary laws to be specific (Passover, sacrifice of animals, day of atonement etc) pointed directly at Christ's birth, death and resurrection. Once Christ fulfilled them, they became obsolete (OBE). That is the reason why God practically demonstrated it when the veil separating the Holy Place from the Most Holy place was rent in two (Luke 23:45). Paul talks about it in several places (Galatians 5 being one).
It's contradictory to quote Paul on circumcision but to play dead when it comes to his statements distinguishing the law of Moses and the Ten commandments.

For me, there is distinction between universal laws (for all mankind) and limited laws (for certain covenants or certain times or certain persons only). I know which laws are universal by using both reason and looking at the New Testament and the instruction it gives me. I don't see how worshipping on ANY particular day...even if Sunday or Saturday...could possibly belong to the timeless law of God, so I will say that this represents a "covenant-specific" aspect of the New covenant or just a Christian custom, but the universal law is to make time for public worship of God as a community of believers which requires that we are uniform (or we wont come together) and this day was made Sunday by the apostles because it was the resurrection.

The Sabbath is timeless and universal, for when it reminds us of God's creatorship, it tells us He did not just create Jews but all people, all things visible and invisible.

Exodus 31
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Let nobody ask again why this applies to modern Israel grafted into the covenant.

"We do not keep any particular day" is one of the suicidal arguments by Sunday keeping protestants. A Catholic making the argument is preposterous because Rome has demonstrated time and again that it has chosen a particular day (Sunday). Rome keeps this particular day and boasts about it to assert her authority to make religious laws. To confuse her daughters, she pretends that "any particular day" is not important, and her daughters quote her in ignorance. A Catholic making those remarks is understandable because of Rome's open apostasy. But coming from a protestant!

Three quotes.

"Sunday is founded, not of scripture, but on tradition, and is distinctly a Catholic institution.  As there is no scripture for the transfer of the day of rest from the last to the first day of the week, Protestants ought to keep their Sabbath on Saturday and thus leave Catholics in full possession of Sunday." Catholic Record, September 17, 1893.

  "Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday....Now the Church...instituted, by God's authority, Sunday as the day of worship.  This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made.  We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday." Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About, 1927 edition, p. 136.

"Some theologians have held that God 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 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." John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 edition, vol. 1, p. 51.

When we modify God's laws, they are no longer His laws but our own. In reality, it makes us gods or something greater than God.