An Adventist at a Catholic Festival?
25 October 2008
An Adventist at a Catholic Festival?
image:
I stood in a rippling sea of colour, as people from 170 nations waved arms and flags to the stirring anthem, “Receive the Power”. It was the largest youth festival in the world, and this year was the largest local gathering of people in Australia’s history. Yet it was not a rock concert, a sporting event, nor a drunken binge; but a spiritual journey. Youth came “to explore their faith more deeply, to spend time in prayer and reflection with each other and with His Holiness, and to rediscover the love of God.” (Code of Ethics)
World Youth Day (WYD) is an international event organised by the Roman Catholic Church, and aimed at youth and young adults (age 16–35). Started by Pope John Paul II in 1986 and presently running every 3 years, this year it ran from July 15–20 in Sydney, Australia. It drew 110,000 international visitors, and perhaps 400,000 for the final Mass. There was a surprising level of Protestant and even Seventh-day Adventist involvement! Why go?
Why would an Adventist go to a Catholic festival? My main reason was to observe the events firsthand, and to interact with Catholic people face-to-face. I feel secure in my beliefs as a Protestant, evangelical, and Adventist, so am not afraid to step outside my comfort zone. Sceptical of past hostilities, I sought to discover whether young Catholics actually believed all the traditional Catholic beliefs; after all, my young Adventist friends reject the narrow-minded parts of their tradition. But of course an official source like the Catechism would not tell you this.
As the official Adventist statement on Catholicism states, “Adventists seek to be fair in dealing with others. Thus, while we remain aware of the historical record and continue to hold our views regarding end-time events, we recognize some positive changes in recent Catholicism, and stress the conviction that many Roman Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.” (1997) In that vein, I looked forward to actually enjoying the event, as it is a festival of youth and faith after all!
Lead up
The yearlong “Journey of the [WYD] Cross and Icon” around Australia promoted the event, a parallel of the Olympic Torch for the Olympics. As part of the signup process, I joined the “Hearts4Christ” youth group from a nearby Catholic church, recommended to me as “vibrant”. I met with their priest “Father Paul” twice, and joined the group for a hike up the local Mt. Dandenong with a replica of the WYD Cross, symbolically conquering Melbourne for Christ.
The pre-programs “Days in the Dioceses” ran from Thursday 10th July till Monday 14th in dozens of locations around Australia and New Zealand, “a cultural exchange in the context of faith.” Our group hosted delegates from the small African nations of Zambia and Réunion, whose trip was sponsored. The pinnacle of the Melbourne program was Mass at the Telstra Dome sports stadium on the Friday night. The service was ceremonial and surprisingly reverent for a stadium, yet shifted to celebration surprisingly quickly afterwards, due to the Zambians’ influence!
I paid $A395 for the week, not including transport from Melbourne. The package included accommodation, meals, public transport within Sydney, and a backpack which contained a bandanna, abbreviated Catechism, Luke and Acts, a book of photographs by (Protestant) Ken Duncan, and other goodies. The government contributed over $A160 million; mainly through services such as policing, transport, and compensation to the racing industry (the expected economic returns were similar). The Church was expected to spend a further $A115 million on the event, in addition to $A75 million from pilgrims.
Is this the mixing of church and state feared by Adventists? “World Youth Day does not compromise the separation of church and state” reassured Sydney Anglican leader Phillip Jensen (Sydney Morning Herald, May 27). His letter was broadly affirmed by Chester Stanley, the leader of the Adventist church in Australia (Record, June 28). While both leaders have concerns about Catholic theology, they affirmed their right to worship freely.
Sydney
On Monday, 300 buses convoyed Melbournians to Sydney, a record transport effort. Following many delays we arrived after midnight… without our luggage. However hardships should be expected on a “pilgrimage”, and “A Pilgrim’s Prayer” in the Pilgrim Journal was prophetic: “…If some things do not happen on schedule, as per the itinerary Lord, may I remember – I am a pilgrim not a tourist!” Our lodging was a Catholic primary school, where the principal, and some parents and teachers volunteered their time to accommodate us. With around 80 in our group, I was the only one without a Catholic upbringing or relatives.
I admired the group’s devotion to prayer, and happily recited “Our Father…” (Matthew 6:9–13) with them. We also shared the classic Apostles’ Creed, with a few subtle differences, for example the Roman church understands “Catholic” where Protestants use “catholic” (literally universal). However I could not in good conscience “Hail Mary”. Although partly based on Luke 1:28, 31, Protestants believe Jesus is the only mediator between God and people (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:5). In addition, Adventists believe she is presently “asleep” until the resurrection. But to the Catholics’ credit, more emphasis was placed on Jesus than Mary. Also I did not make the sign of the cross by touching four points on my chest – there was no biblical objection, but out of habit and culture I did not feel I had to compromise.
Breakfast on Tuesday revealed the first surprising Adventist involvement. Meals had an Australian theme – including meat pies, lamingtons and Australia’s most popular breakfast cereal – Weet-Bix! The latter is produced by the Sanitarium Health Food Company owned by the Adventist Church. Under a commercial agreement, it provided over 300,000 portions each of Weet-Bix Crunch and Granola Clusters, and up to a million D’vine snack bars. They stated to WYD organisers, “Sanitarium is pleased to be part of a positive youth event where youth are encouraged to celebrate and explore their faith”. Responding to concerned Adventists, the company clarified it was merely a "Provider" business to WYD, less than the "Supporter" or "Partner" categories.
We travelled to the city for the opening ceremony, streaming past the Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge to the “Barangaroo” site east of Darling Harbour. Our group’s large yellow and white flag helped to navigate the crowd, but that didn’t stop Father Paul from stirring me, “I always knew you were a Vatican man” when I assisted holding it!
At the opening Mass, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd went beyond the usual political wateriness in boldly affirming “Christianity”, asserting “You are a light in a world with much darkness.” Scripture was read in different languages, and after a message by Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, the Eucharist was held. (Catholics do not invite others to share with them; whereas Adventists, on the other hand, practice “open communion”. A central Catholic belief is that the bread and wine literally becomes the body and blood of Jesus. Hence that institution believes it alone “dispenses” the physical presence of Jesus.)
The music comprised a surprisingly broad selection of Catholic and Protestant songs: traditional hymns, Taizé, contemporary worship such as (Pentecostal) Hillsong, and even a millennium-old Gregorian chant! Most of the lyrics were fine. Services had the normal reverence and formality of a Catholic service, but mixed with the youthful energy of the crowd, creating an excellent balance. One of my favourite parts of the service is the “Sign of Peace” when the congregation turn to one another, shake hands and say “Peace be with you” (or “Peace ☮” for some teenagers trying to be cool, or a kiss on the cheek for some Italians I noticed)!
Catechesis
The general program from Wednesday to Friday was catechesis (teaching) in the morning, followed by festivals and other events later in the day. The WYD theme was, “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8). We attended catechesis (held in 29 languages over 235 local sites) on the first two mornings, but not on the last due to concern over the content.
After lunch on Wednesday, we enjoyed the entertainment at Hyde Park in the city. In the evening we visited the memorial of “Blessed” Mary McKillop, who looks set to become Australia’s first saint. On the train trip home, our group “clown” employed his small megaphone to lead our carriage in singing, laughing, and in greeting unsuspecting commuters with sporting chants and even a modified supermarket jingle! A middle-aged businessman said, “You guys have brought so much happiness here. I’ve realised how dull Sydney has become”! One newspaper described it as an “onslaught of exuberance”.
On Thursday an energetic “animation team” kicked off catechesis with singing and actions. On both days the instruction was excellent, and the sometimes provocative Question & Answer sessions afterwards suggested the environment was tolerant. One priest prayed, and surprised me by briefly “speaking in tongues”. (Charismatic Catholics form only a minority). Our group helped present the Mass, where the casual shorts, tracksuit pants and jeans of the youth contrasted with the ceremonial robes of the priests! I publicly read a short prayer.
After lunch we caught the train, where Father Paul addressed our carriage with some of his concerns over the teaching. Megaphone in hand, he calmly and precisely critiqued the two presenters’ theology, “…I don’t know the mind of archbishops, but I do know the mind of Jesus, and the Church”! His concern about the first session was the discussion about the feminine side of God, and in the second, the discussion about women in ministry.
While I didn’t agree, I sat back and admired his strong logic, knowledge, and verbal skills. It made me think very seriously about why people look to a decisive leader. Father Paul is conservative; yet has a good sense of humour, enjoyed sport, waving the flag, as well as singing, clapping and dancing to the songs! He wore a black robe with a vest over the top, and signs his emails thus, “With blessings in the Lord, through His Holy Mother, Fr. Paul.” Our self-described “orthodox” or conservative group felt they could rely on him to protect the flock, and teach a “good Catholic message”.
One tag-along said it was the most devout group she’d ever been a part of. Our group admitted many Catholics are not committed to their faith, and that a strong youth group is rare. The core leaders were a bunch of friends in their twenties. They used to go drinking and clubbing every Saturday night, and while they still turned up bleary-eyed to Mass on Sunday, they weren’t really into God. They hadn’t known much about Catholic beliefs, until Fr. Paul taught them. Curiously, two sisters had a renewal of faith through a Baptist church! Another explained, “If we’d just wanted to take it easy, we would have gone with a different group. But we appreciate Fr. Paul”. They were friendly and had a great sense of humour.
Arriving at the harbour, we waited along with up to half a million others, for Pope Benedict XVI’s first public appearance at WYD. Eventually a flotilla of ships came into view, accompanied by small zippy black boats and helicopters flying overhead. Next we headed down to the roadway, and eventually he zoomed past in the Popemobile. I felt unenthusiastic about the man who upholds the traditional Catholic dogma that my denomination, being Protestant, can not properly be called a “church” but merely an “ecclesial commune”, because only Rome is the true Church! (Where have I heard that thinking before?) Others also found it less thrilling than expected. We ate dinner at a concert in Hyde Park. Some went to St. Mary’s Cathedral, to see the coffin housing an allegedly “incorruptible” (miraculously non-decaying) body.
On Friday, Father Paul led his own service at the school, stating it was to give us a rest and to save time. (He had also been warned about that day’s teacher, he told me earlier). He confronted us over how some people were treating one another. We split up into our small groups to discuss how we were really coping. Bravo! He is not afraid to give the “hard word” when needed.
We headed to Barangaroo for the “Stations of the Cross”, a Bible-based drama of Jesus’ last hours. To my surprise, a familiar face and voice appeared during stations 9 and 10 – “gospel singer” and Adventist Francine Bell! (Early this decade, she had been dining with friends when one, a priest and one of the main organisers for the drama, told her she’d be perfect for the upcoming event. He knew she was a Christian. Later, Francine prayed, “God, I won’t seek this opportunity. If you want me to do it, you’ll have to make it happen.” Sure enough, the offer came the very next day! She accepted it after much prayer.)
The Pope delivered a sermon in his thick German accent, but for the leader of one billion people, he is not a world class public speaker. However his content was solid, urging us to represent Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the world, through social action and so on. I had only occasional disagreement, such as when he asked the saints to “pray for us”. Afterwards we walked past the stage, where Hillsong musicians were now worshipping, to the “Vocations Expo” at Darling Harbour.
Pilgrims “high fived” the policemen we passed, who were smiling and laughing along with us. (After all, there was amazingly little trouble). Passing the chic revellers in the restaurants and bars, for once I did not feel envious of them, nor that I was missing out on something: we were singing and happy. It was a fantastic day, and marked the turning point of my experience. Just when I had felt frustrated with dogmatic Catholics and longed for the comforts of home, this day provided great conversations and lots of laughs. What had been an effort became enjoyable.
Finale
On Saturday we had a 5:30am start. Fr. Paul held Mass, and spoke about the self-imposed hardships some monks went through, and a man who suffered in jail for decades, saying we had it easy. We travelled to Randwick racecourse for the finale. Speaking of persecution, we missed the assembly of 2000 protesters reported by the media; in fact I encountered protesters only 4 times, mostly individuals handing out cards. They felt free to after the Federal government amended state on the Tuesday. Specifically, in the phrase warning of a fine for “conduct that causes annoyance or inconvenience to participants”, the imprecise word “annoyance” was removed.
We enjoyed performances and heard musicians such as (Protestant) Geoff Bullock. The Pope shared his intellectual journey in understanding the Holy Spirit. I didn’t feel compelled to join in the ensuing cheering of “Benedetto!…” Bands played after the service, then stillness set in as 200,000 pilgrims bunked down for the night, filling the arena with brightly coloured sleeping bags and an occasional tent.
On Sunday morning, people slowly packed up. Australian Idol stars (and Pentecostal Christians) Guy Sebastian and Paulini performed. Perhaps 400,000 people attended the final Mass, some at nearby Centennial Park. It was a traditional “High Mass”, with much in Latin, and an interesting cultural experience to share in something so ancient. Having grown up in a mainstream denomination, I have been sceptical of tradition, but being slightly older now, I recognise some value in it as long as the soul is there. Like the tradition of “law”, it must be used in the right way (1Timothy 1:8).
To my surprise, Francine Bell appeared again! She sang the communion hymn, “Taste and See” written by an African-American, and Francine’s heritage played a part in her selection. So at the pinnacle of the service, on the pinnacle day of the week, an Adventist performed! Surrounded by an array of priests, bishops and the Pope, she later exclaimed, “Only God could put a Sevvie [Adventist] there!” For her, it was an opportunity to share the gospel.
Young people were affirmed through representative Confirmation candidates, and the Pope gave a sermon. The lengthy service concluded with the theme song, “Receive the Power” (International Version) and a fireworks display. The end!
Adventists are alright
“So, do you think you’ll convert?” asked one friend. “Will you convert?” I asked in response. The reply, “I was just kidding… But seriously though…!” Actually, converting was never an option. This experience has actually increased my appreciation for the Adventist Church, despite positive experiences and new friends.
In particular, I was surprised how much my group believed traditional Catholic dogma. While I remain sceptical of the past vendetta, we should not overcompensate from it with some sort of extreme postmodern “everyone’s pretty much the same”. Crucially, Protestants believe we are saved not by being good enough (albeit by God’s power), but by Jesus being good enough instead of us. (Record, August 23)
While Catholicism rejects both contraception and abortion outrightly, official Adventist statements are very balanced in comparison. Adventists view abortion as “one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness” which “should be performed only for the most serious reasons… The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance.” Amen!
For Catholics, under certain conditions “the Church’s shepherds” have “infallibility in matters of faith and morals.” (Catechism, 235) Adventists, on the other hand, believe “God alone is infallible”. Amen! Catholics value church tradition, of which the Bible is only a part. If you disagree on the Bible, the answer is simple: ask the Church. Thus one may obtain a solid answer, yet that is no guarantee of its truth!
As we travelled home overnight I intermittedly chatted and dozed. Arriving in the morning, there was just enough time for a shower before work. After debriefing with a retired pastor, I slept for 16½ hours straight (sorry about that elders’ meeting), but could not stave off the cold/flu! Even so, one friend observed I was “buzzing” – no doubt with the warm glow of new friendships, and a spiritual blessing. As a committed Adventist Christian, I “stress the conviction that many Roman Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.”
Colin MacLaurin is a youth worker at Wantirna Seventh-day Adventist Church in Melbourne, Australia.
Comments
Colin, I commend you for taking the trip and sharing your experience with us.
There are as many different "brands" or "divisions" within Catholicism as there are in Adventism. For instance, you define yourself as an Evangelical. I do not. But we are both Adventists. And we are both Christians
The Catholic Priest who led your group was a very conservative believer. He probably relates well to the current Pope - and he probably has problems with Vatican II. What you "learned" from him is one brand Catholicism. While he is a Catholic he is also a Christian.
Fortunately we are not saved by belief systems but by a personal God who loves all his children. If the "Spirit" will lead into all truth - than we will have to trust the Spirit to work in other communions as well as ours.
Thanks again for a good report.
Donna
Colin, you sounded as though you really enjoyed the ecumenical spirit, and why not? Maybe we will begin to see that the Pope is not the anti-christ, and that their beliefs are not so foreign, after all.
Ah, lammingtons! A wonderful Aussie cuisine!
Colin:
Your post came at an interesting time for me as I'm currently reading Rome Sweet Home for a class. As you were outlining the reasons why you're not Catholic, I was formulating the Catholic responses in my mind. You should check that book out, if you haven't already.
I believe that Roman Catholic Church has played a diabolical role in church history as prophesied in scripture, and that the type of ecumenism it promotes will eventually lead to similar problems as it had in the past. But I had good working relationships with the Catholic priests in the district where I ministered and have also read scripture at a mass.
It was a funeral for the Catholic wife of one of my church members. Most of the people at the funeral mass were Adventists, and the priest was an ex-Baptist. He told about the Adventist friends he had growing up and went out of his way to explain the symbolism of what was happening in the mass for our benefit. It was very informative and helped break down that prejudices some of our people held. Many traditional Adventists oppose anything that looks "Catholic" just because it's "Catholic". Not only is that ignorant, it's also dangerous, as some of our people are again rejecting the trinity for such reasons.
I've enjoyed worshiping, as far as possible, with Catholics. I believe there are some things we can learn from them as well. I'm glad you enjoyed your experience at world youth day.
David Hamstra
apokalupto
Greetings! Having just listened to a great Adventist program on the Journey Home this week, I was very much intrigued by your story good jb.
>"Protestants believe Jesus is the only mediator between God and people (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:5)."
That explains why you likely never pray for anyone because you too would be a mediator between God and people. People should pray for their own selves and not rely on others. Right?
>"Hence that institution believes it alone “dispenses” the physical presence of Jesus.)"
Um, no. All 22 Catholic Churches (Roman, Melkite, etc) and all Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches have a valid Eucharist. That's about 75% of Christianity and they all have a closed communion. Adventists do not have a valid Eucharist, thus is does not matter who receives the "symbolic" bread and wine.
>"One of my favourite parts of the service is the “Sign of Peace”"
You should find that in your Bible at Romans 16:16.
>"Crucially, Protestants believe we are saved not by being good enough (albeit by God’s power), but by Jesus being good enough instead of us."
Catholics believe that we are saved by God's freely given grace. We find that in the Bible.
>"Adventists, on the other hand, believe “God alone is infallible”"
So, you are never infallible and always in error? You have never once spoken or written the truth?
Infallibility has to do with truth. Truth by its nature is never in error and is always infallible. Anytime one tells the truth one is infallibile at that moment. Infallblity is much more common than you may think or believe.
Catholics do not think that the POpe or the Curch is 100% infallible in all things at all times. Catholics do take the scripture at its word that CHrist does provide the charisma of infallibility (without error) when speaking on matters of faith and morals. After 2,000, there is no evidence to the contrary.
You clearly hold many Adventist doctrines as infallible (without error). Likewise, you likely hold much of your minister's sermons as infallible (without error).
>"If you disagree on the Bible, the answer is simple: ask the Church. Thus one may obtain a solid answer, yet that is no guarantee of its truth!"
Um, yes, it is. The Bible itself says the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth at 1Timothy 3:15.
Again, I enjoyed your report on WYD.
God bless...
+Timthy
Colin, thanks for an interesting report!
Why, you ask, would an Adventist [or anybody} go to a Catholic festival? Here are just a few reasons:
1. Clear voice. The catholic church is the only institution I know of, religious or secular, that talks in a principled manner about most of the big concerns of modern life. Three quick examples: war and peace, labor and capital, sex and marriage. (Compare Adventism in this respect.)
2. Respectable leadership. Most high prelates are intelligent people who know their languages, their theology, and can put together a clear paragraph or two. (Compare Adventism.)
Aside: You say the pope is not a world-class speaker? Oh, yeah? Who is then? Shawn Boonstra? Barack Obama? Oprah?
3. The Bible. Catholics use it a lot, at practically every service, without a "preacher" intermediary to tell them what it really says. And they use the whole Bible, not just the Prostetant part. (Compare Adventism.)
4. The Eucharist. Catholics really believe it means something. Remember the Body of Christ? It's quite natural that those who are not part of the Body aren't invited. Calvinists and many other non-Catholics say the Lord's Supper is only symbolic. So why not invite anybody, since it doesn't amount to much anyway? (Compare Adventism.)
I'll stop there. But, may I comment on your statement, "For Catholics, under certain conditions the Church’s shepherds have infallibility in matters of faith and morals. Adventists, on the other hand, believe God alone is infallible." That's not quite so. Adventists don't use the word infallibility, but the General Conference policy on "new light" is close to Catholic teaching in this area. Ask Desmond Ford.
Colin
I want to thank your for a very though and interesting report. I also want to affirm your attitudes and actions. I have a feeling your are a great blessing to your local church.
Thanks
Colin made a few errors when it comes to the Eucharist and the Church, but overall did pretty well. I am pleased that he enjoyed the wyd and learned some things. I think if he considered it he would realize that it is no more odd for us to hold to our dogmas as it is for the Adventist to hold theirs. I see his experiences as a sign of hope. This is a good step in overcoming prejudice.
Btw, I went to wyd in Toronto. The only Adventists I saw were the ones handing out misleading pamphlets and holding vile signs. This is a great improvement. However, I was in Washington this year for Pope Benedict's visit and unfortunately encountered more Adventist protesters. They even tracted the shrine of the Immaculate Conception. All that does is create anger and converts no one.
Donna, I am a conservative and have no problem with Vatican II. Our dogmas transcend brands. It sounds like some of what we call dissenters were giving presentations.
Hi, Timothy:
Thanks for you comments. They hadn't shown up on my screen when I posted mine a couple of hours later, so I apologize where I merely repeated what you had already said, and said better.
It's hard for Adventists and Catholics to understand each other. Our basic concepts are so divergent, and we often use the same words to mean such different things, not to mention the insults we've thrown at each other, mostly, I confess, from our side. But I've tried do do my reading (The Catechism, along with Belloc, Newman, Chesterton, Muggeridge and others - you can tell from that list that I'm an amateur), and often I think I really "get it."
But I still find your explanation about infallibility a little strained, even contrived. Let me try a different angle. Isn't infallibility itself an area where popes have proved themselves most fallible? Haven't some popes adamantly declared, ex cathedra, that popes alone hold the charisma of infallibility, while now the position of the Church is that the pope has that gift only in council with the bishops, thereby holding those earlier popes to have been in error? (I know it's more complicated than that, but I'm trying to paraphrase.)
If I'm wrong, straighten me out. Thanks again.
Hi, Fr. Jim:
Thanks for your posting.
You say, "I am a conservative and have no problem with Vatican II."
Could you also say, "I am a conservative and have no problem with the way Vatican II decisions have been put into practice in the Catholic Church in the United States?"
I'm not RC, but I am nosy and would be interested in your views.
Father Jim,
A few years ago a pregnant woman who worked in our office was killed by a stalker in the parking lot. I attended her funeral at a Catholic church and was pleasantly surprised at the Adventist sermon delivered by the priest. He made a strong point that her death was not God’s will. He asserted that an enemy had done this. He then traced the activity and work of Satan using the book of Job and Revelation and then laid out the great controversy in a magnificent way.
For many years a local Catholic priest here in the Orlando area has conducted a TV mass on Sunday mornings. His homilies are always enlightening and a blessing. My husband and I have on occasion taped them and shown them to our Sabbath School classes when studying the same topics. Our members are often taken back to hear him pray for those “who sleep in Jesus awaiting the resurrection of the dead.” They seem surprised that Catholics think like that.
As a history major and a student of church history, I believe Vatican II was a watershed event. It was absolutely amazing in its breath and action. Pope John XXIII was a godly man and has my vote for sainthood. However the Catholic church here in American has been very divided in its reaction to and acceptance of Vatican II changes. Some Catholics in the US see it as evidence that that Holy Spirit is still active today while other Catholics believe that the devil himself was involved. Our own SDA church is largely ignorant as to what happened, its significance and its implications.
As a result of the acceptance of Vatican II’s document, Dei Verbum, Catholic scholarship in Biblical studies has blossomed. Some of the best and most in depth study of the Bible today is by Catholic scholars. Adventism, with its roots in late 19th century Protestant thinking regarding Catholics and the Roman Catholic church, has had difficulty in seeing past labels and names and appreciating our common roots and common faith in Christ.
Your sister in Christ,
Donna
I appreciate your reactions. I've redirected some family, friends and World Youth Day companions here also, so expect some more comments.
Hope you enjoyed the original research on the involvement of Adventists Francine Bell, Sanitarium Health Food Company, and myself!
I've posted related links on my website: http://GodInAll.org/Catholic/WYD08/
Colin MacLaurin God in All .org
Colin,
I see your article as valuable and a much needed contribution in the progressive discussion about traditional Adventist assertions of truth regarding Catholicism.
Adventists blacklisted the Roman Catholic church as a result of their responsibility in the acceptance of Constantine's move to make Sunday the day of worship. I think that the move from Saturday to Sunday was wrong, but I don't think it should vetoe the entire view of the Catholic church today.
I personally haven't had much to do with the Catholic church myself, although I know that I developed some systematic bias in my Adventist upbringing.
Thanks for putting such valuable insights out there.
Adrian
The Catholic Institution (NOT THE MEMBERS) is against the Bible... It is simple as that and its FACT! There is no opinion in Truth, Truth is just Fact! Rather me writing my opinion, lets just see what the Catholic Institution says from their own documents and how it compares to the BIble.
"The Pope is not only representative of Christ, but is Christ Himself."
Catholic National, July 1895.
John 14:6 (New King James Version)
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
1 John 2:22 (New King James Version)
22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
"The Pope can modify divine law."
- Prompta Bibliotheca, Papa, rt2.
Matthew 5:18 (New King James Version)
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
"Sunday is our mark of authority. The Church is above the Bible, and the transference of the Sabbath observance is proof of that fact."
- Catholic Record, September 1, 1923.
Luke4:16 (New King James Version)
So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read.
1 Peter 2:21 (New King James Version)
21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps
Matthew 28:19-20 (New King James Version) 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
ej,
You have made an accusation - not stated a fact. You say that the Catholic Institution is against the Bible. I would urge you to google and read Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum. These are both current official teachings by the Roman Catholic church on the bible.
The evidence you cite will not hold water. They are not official teachings - and they are very dated. What if someone cited a Review & Herald article from the 1880's that maintained Christ was not the son from eternity? Would that be considered current official SDA belief and teaching?
One has to be very careful in one's reading and citing of authorities. There are within the Catholic church - many variants of belief and teaching - much as there is today within the SDA church. We as SDAs have members who hold to Christ having a sinful nature and those who hold that he was the first Adam and sinless. We have SDAs who believe that the Sanctuary in heaven is a literal place with literal furniture and those who believe the Sanctuary language is metaphorical. Those who say creation occurred 6,000 years ago and those who see creation as being much longer in the past.
And here in the USA we have a multitude of magazines and periodicals from various branches and organizations within our church that purport to speak with authority as to what SDAs believe and think. It is important to take into consideration the source of the document from which we quote.
Mis-information and biased thinking should not be the basis for forming opinions about an organization. I urge you, ej, to seriously restudy this issue.
Donna
Donna
Perhaps in your encouragement to restudy this issue you could show ej where the Roman Catholic church has recanted those previously held offical statements.
Klarc,
Please re-read my message.
Donna
Klarc:
Where have you ever found that Adventists
recanted their former teachings? Such as specific naming of countries based on their interpretation of Daniel and Revelation? Or their simply no longer preaching certain doctrines, letting them die a peaceful death?
The Roman Catholic Church has been in existence nearly 2700 years before Adventism, and given that amount of time, no doubt Adventists would have great changes in their doctrines also: time DOES change things. For one who has lived long enough it is very evident.
Adrian, you wrote:
"Adventists blacklisted the Roman Catholic church as a result of their responsibility in the acceptance of Constantine's move to make Sunday the day of worship. I think that the move from Saturday to Sunday was wrong, but I don't think it should veteo the entire view of the Catholic church today."
It seems a little anachronistic to "blacklist" an organization that not only predated Adventism by 2700 years, but to also erroneously state (as Adventists have been taught almost since its inception) of the fallacy of Constantine's changing a worship day. Historians have recognized that the beginning Christian church began celebating ealy Sunday mornings in honor of Christ's resurrection (without it there would have been no Christian church, merely marytr worship of a good man). Constantine simply recognized what had become a normal worship day, and in an attempt to unify his new empire, he decided to "go with the flow" and give all of his subjects a rest day, a day from work (excepting agricultural workers). In effect, he was one of the first to institute a 6-day work week which had previously not been in effect. No where in his edict was worship mentioned. Like a good leader, he saw where people were going and got in front of the parade to claim the honor.
Constantine was one of the first, if not first, to give an edict of tolerance of all religions worshiped in the Roman Empire. An astounding act, as there were many gods worshiped then, and it was introduced as creating tolerance for all of them. Quite revolutionary for that time.
Getting such information from old SDA historians and EGW is thoroughly outdated. Reflect: there was no Christian church for the first 1500 centuries after the Resurrection, so it is the mother of Christianity. Siblings came along later: the Eastern Branch and others, but there was only one officially recognized church for most of history.
EVERYONE - Please note: Elaine meant 2,100 years not 2,700 years - please do not get hung up on typo and miss her excellent comments!
Thanks, Donna. Haste makes----!
But, if only Christians really knew how much of pagan religions influenced Christianity!
settembrini, you are incorrect about infallibility. The Pope can act ex cathedra outside of a council. Vatican II is to be seen in the context of the whole history and faith of the Church. Many things done in the name of the council had nothing to do with what the council actually said. Call me a Vatican II fundamentalist lol.
Donna, I am positive about Vatican II. But I don't see the council advocating Masses where the priest dresses like Barney the dinosaur. However, I don't think the Church before the council was totally evil or wrong. There is and must be continuity. Vatican II was only one council, there will be others. Btw, we do not believe in soul sleep, but I did not hear what the priest said in his homily. I am glad to meet Adventists who do not have a 19th century additude towards the Catholic Church!
Fr. Jim,
Forgive those here who besmirch our mother church. Were it not for the one Christian church for most of Christendom, we who have separate denominations would not be here.
Getting such information from old SDA historians and EGW is thoroughly outdated. Reflect: there was no Christian church for the first 1500 centuries after the Resurrection, so it is the mother of Christianity. Siblings came along later: the Eastern Branch and others, but there was only one officially recognized church for most of history.
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 27 October 2008 at 3:34
Really Elaine?
1500 century's huh?
Also Elaine if you could tell us who the Official Recognizing body is for that time period, that would be helpful.
Klarc, the official recognizing body was the only game in town. In 107 AD St. Ignatius, ordained by St. John, said "where Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church."
Elaine, I think Judaism was most influential in Christianity. The pagans fully understood and acted as if Christianity was not just another pagan religion. Celsus certainly commented accordingly. Unfortunately some Adventists do besmirch us. They anchor their identity in despising Catholicism. It seems that some are moving away from that, bravo for them. You are correct that Constantine simply accepted what was already the Christian practices. He had no dog in the fight.
Adrian, It is well to note that worship on Sunday dates to apostolic times. Even Justin Martyr mentions this at about 135 AD.
ej, it is your canards, usually unverifiable or simply false, that create hatred and discord. We do not worship the Pope, he cannot modify divine law, but yes the Church came before the Bible and gave you the Bible that you misquote. Shall I give you some quotes from EG White that will astonish you?
Donna
I think your comments are great but your math needs some work!
And Klark
Elaine's comment lost the word "other" in "no other Christians church for 1500 years." If you point to what happened before the Reformation, you're talking about a church that you would have been a member of. There was only one Western church and its sins must be laid at the feet of that church. To blame today's RCC for the sins of Christendom prior to the Reformation is simply an exercise in anachronism.
And Father Jim
EGW's traditional role in the SDA church for a long time was modeled on the pope's magisterium: She was the inspired interpreter of Scripture. And Adventists went farther than Catholics, in that her infallibility was not limited to scriptural and dogmatic statements but to pre-history, history, science, diet--the list goes on and on. Today her fallibility is obvious to most but still you can't reject her interpretation of Scripture without risk of being fired from church employment.
Yes, Aage, I neglected to add "other" Christian church in that statement.
It's always amazing to read of so many complaining about "their mother" that was the only game in town until the Protestant Reformation. The one catholic church gave us our Bible, many of the doctrines, and neglecting to study Christian history results in all sorts of faulty assumptions--most of which have come from SDA sources--not exactly an unbiased or truthful story.
Elaine and Aage,
You both miss the boat. Elaine missed twice.
She said 1500 century's.
Selective amnesia aside there were other brands of Christaianity prior to the Catholic church. Gnosticism being one of the better known.
As to the official recognizing body. Thats rich. Did the gnostics and others get to vote on that or does one just slap a label on it like POPEYES "Worlds Best" chicken?
Elaine further compounds her historical misundertandings through the reformantion by forgetting about the waldenseans and others even in that timeframe.
There have always been dissidents in religion, even within Judaism there were a variety of sects. From the very beginning, even the earliest Christians disagreed (see the Jerusalem church where there was separation from the beginning).
However, while there have always been "heretics" (as all dissidents were called) there was the catholic (small c) church that had the power and numbers. Yes, there were Cathars, Waldensians, Albigensians and more, but until the Protestant Reformation, those who disagreed with the church were small groups that had little impact on the church unless they decided to hunt them down as heresy was always a crime, sometimes a capital one.
To infer that there were many other "churches" is to compare them to the official church when they were clearly called heretics or dissidents and often persecuted.
Yes, I said 1500 centuries when it should have been years. For those who have never made mistakes, congratulations!
Please answer me this... How can the Catholic institution be before the Bible? Did the Catholic forefathers say hello to Moses, John, King David, Matthew, Luke, Jesus Christ?... People seem to to be implying that I am using SDA sources...
I never knew that the Christian NKJV Bible was made by SDA's... How can I miss quote the Bible when I copied and pasted it straight from the Bible?
What Bible do you have then? The one that changed the Ten Commandments? Removed Commandment number 2 so the institution could benefit from having idols? And splitting number 10?
I don't know what you guys base your ideas on or theories on.
But I don't base my ideas or theories on MAN, but on the WORD OF GOD. The Bible.
I have found the Adventist Church to be grounded on what the Bible says. I am yet to meet someone that despises the Catholic Church in Adventist Circles. It must be a small minority.
When I look at MOST of the remarks above.. most peoples answers if not all are based on OPINON, they are non-cited and also they are based on TRADITION.
My post simply stated REAL sources from REAL documents and from the REAL Bible.
The Church is a human institution established by divine authority yet managed by human beings. Thus it is fallible--and every other fault and frailty of humanity--no exceptions denominationally or otherwise.
I can recall a period in the Brinsmead era when senior SDA church leaders not only had Christian men dismissed from Church employ but went, at least in one instance, so far as to notifiy the FBI that such a person was a national threat in an attempt to prevent any employment in any other institution of higher learning. Thankfully their efforts were unsuccessful. The blame game is unchristian at its core--It started with Adam and man has been refining it ever since.
There are four hospitals in the Augusta area. I have been a patient in all four over the past 42 years. By far, the most effective and compassionate treatment I received was at St Joseph's Hospital, a Roman Catholic institution that employed a number of Seventh-day Adventist staff. We can work together! Tom
I believe that all humans are fallible... the question is whether we would hold any human institution or religion or belief system above the Bible if they are proved to have gone against the Word of God.
The unaltered Bible should always be the one source of faith in Jesus Christ because it is God's Word. Nothing else should matter.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
It seems to me as though many people on who have commented here have their own agendas and ideas... I urge you all to search the Bible for what you believe before making judgements that have no basis on the Bible.
Hi, I'm Rachael and i was in the Hearts4Christ group Colin joined for WYD08.
Colin- I loved your article. It was truthful and heartfelt.
"Co-lin! Ev-er-y day! Come in and say G'day...G'day!" Lol.
I realise that this is a space made available for comment but for heaven's sake!
You're all getting so hung up on doctrine and tradition that I think you're forgeting the most important thing- Jesus Christ is Lord! Will it matter in the end who is right or wrong?
I believe my Catholic faith/traditions bring me into a closer relationship with my Lord and Saviour each new day. Others have different methods of renewing that relationshp, but isn't the main point that we have the relationship in the first place? What is life's purpose if not to enter into eternal life with our King?
Traditions for traditions sake are useless. Traditions with sincerity and meaning guide us into a fuller understanding of who God is.
Anyway, that's my 2-cents worth.
God Bless, Rach
As someone who was raised an Adventist, is doing her PhD on the Catholic Church and Quaker communities, and who loves worshipping with Baptists - I think there is so much we can learn about our awesome God from other people, no matter what denomination they are from.
John 13:35 says "Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples". We recognise Jesus' followers by their love. In Romans 10:9 it says "For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved". That's all the criteria needed! Believe, and love. That's all the evidence I need in recognising my brothers and sisters in Christ...no matter what label they wear or which church they go to!
Thanks, Colin, for an awesome Christ-centred message!
Nici
To find good in the work ethic and/or life style of an institution and its employees is not an endorsement of their belief system, exigesis, mission statement, or agenda. It is possible to differ without being difficult. More than likely we are all wrong. That is why Jesus Christ is Lord (Israel) and we are His Children (The Children of Israel) Therefore, let us treat each other as kin as we search the Scriptures for a clearer understanding of ourselves and God, not to find something to blame another. Tom
I'm so glad to see how much good you can see in the Catholic Church. I'm also glad to see how much good there NOW is in the Adventist church. I was raised in Battle Creek from Adventist ancestors; graduated from Cedar Lake Academy (now Great Lakes Academy) and Emmanuel Missionary College (now Andrews University). I taught church school. I never experienced the Love of God; only "try harder" and "not good enough." In the Episcopal Church first; and now in the Roman Catholic Church I've experienced the Love of God and am learning to forgive all the bad teaching and hurtful experiences I experienced as a child.
Yes, there was only one church before the Reformation, and all of us would have been part of it, my Avondale College lecturer informed us. Yes, there were the dissenting groups Adventists and others love to emphasize, but they really were few and far between. And as my lecturer pointed out, they were not perfect - for instance, the Waldensians and the Albigenses hated each-other!
I have studied theology at two institutions Avondale College (Adventist), and the Bible College of Victoria (evangelical). At both, church history lecturers affirmed the Catholic Reformation as a good thing, for instance.
Thanks to my friends Ado, Rachael and Steph for commenting.
Colin MacLaurin God in All .org
ej, you might find it interesting to read how the Bible was canonized. The question is: who decided which books were scripture and which ones were not? The answer may surprise you. I will give you a hint, think Pope, Bishops, and Councils.
Rachel
I'm no longer a believer, but I agree totally with you. If you do believe in Jesus, why be so concerned about theological perfectionism. Christianity is a fellowship around a person, not a graduate seminar in theology.
And EJ
At least you made me smile when your professed not to know any dispisers of Catholicism in the SDA church. I think I can provide you with a name that should be familiar to you.
And Father Jim
Protestants can't easily concede what is really irrefutable history because they view the early church anachronistically as a denominational branch of Christendom, opposed to their own brand. Martin Luther inveighed against some of the canonization choices made by the early church, notably the Epistle of James, which he called an "epistle of straw." But the Reformation ended up sanctioning the choices made by the early church. Protestants would like to believe that the Bible was delivered on a silver platter from God himself. And Adventists, more than others, find it hard to concede that the Bible arose from the councils and communions of an early church they long have considered "apostate."
And the RCC, I would argue, hasn't made it any easier on them by focusing so strongly on the Roman component of a pluralistic early church, with important episcopates also located in Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople and Alexandria.
Fr. Jim,
Thanks for correcting me on infallibility. A quick check of the catechims would have put me right in the first place. My only defense (and it's a weak one) is that I was misled by my American Catholic friends.
On the Sabbath question, Adventists have traditionally blamed Constantine, but for decades now even Adventist scholarship agrees that Sunday keeping goes back to Apostolic times. The only question now is which day is referred to as the "Lord's Day" in the New Testament. Most Christians would say it is Sunday, but it is quite plausible that a Jewish Christian would have used that language to refer to the Jewish Sabbath. Or do you need to straighten me out here too?
Thanks.
settembrini, I don't blame you for mistaking infallibility. Religious education in the Church is not what it used to be. It is clear from the Fathers that the Lord's Day was the Day of Resurrection, the first day of the week. Therefore, I don't think Christians of Jewish origin would have used it for Saturday. However, my response was primarily to point out that worship on the Lord's Day did not begin with Constantine.
Isn't it true that "Lord's Day" (Greek) is the first time it was used in the NT?
Adventists have long assured members that it was referring to Sabbath as in: Jesus is "Lord" of the Sabbath. However, as history has shown, after the resurrection, followers were meeting on the first day of the week in honor of that, and it gradually became a day of worship for the Gentile Christians who had not previous held the seventh day sacred.
The questions to be asked are:
Whom to worship and why?
With whom to worship and why?
Where to worship and why?
When to worship and why?
How to worship and why?
There is only one clear and unequivcal answer to the first question: Jesus Christ for His creative power and His redemptive Love. The rest are open to any number of reasonable answers. Praise God from whom all blessing flow. Tom
Regarding the biblical canon, evangelicals see the process as being led by the Holy Spirit. Yes, it took centuries, was very "human", and was finalised by church councils, but that doesn't mean an institution can claim responsibility. There is an excellent article by Roger Nicole. He sees it as the Holy Spirit working collectively through the community.
Colin MacLaurin God in All .org
Colin,
Jesus did promise his Spirit to his Church. The Holy Spirit works through the Church in history. The Catholic Church is more then an institution, it is the Body of Christ. But to say that the "institution" canonized the Bible, but is not responsible for it is not logical. Really, there is no way that we would have the Bible without the Catholic Church. That certainly is a challenge for Protestant ecclesiology, but it is one that must be dealt with. It is precisely the kind of fact that led me to become Catholic.
Fr Jim
It is unfair of Protestants to blame the Inquisition and the Crusades on the Roman Catholic Church, since these abuses took place at a time when there was only one Western Christian church. But similarly, it's also wrong for today's RCC to take sole credit for the creation of the Canon and orthodox dogma. Today's Protestants were as much a part of that historical process as today's RCC.
Church history witnessed a bad divorce in the 16th century, as as sometimes happens in such break-ups, one of the parents will try to deny the other custody of their offspring.
Bible and dogma emerged from the Christian community, but this was a community that went well beyond the Roman component of the Christian church. Nicea and Chalcedon, for instance, are not Italian cities. Athanasius and Augustine worked out of Africa.
You describe yourself as a convert to Catholicism, as as most converts to any creed, you come across as being needlessly partisan.
Question: Elaine, if one of your kids had gone to a Catholic school and been abused by one of the priests, would you be so quick to forgive and forget that tragedy. What of recidivism rates? Would you still want that priest passed around to other assignments, due to compassion for such a predator???
Now another question, does a Pope asking for forgiveness for the Inquistion, negate Protestantism? Should we all "Just get along"? Forgive the Catholics for that part of their history the way Reform Chruches have forgiven Calvin and Luther for their part in evil parts of history?
One can forgive, but History is still there, emotional scars are worth something, liability to an organization that allowed the travesty, don't you think????
What Aege Rendalen is correct. Today's RCC cannot take sole ownership of the definition of the canon. There have always been many trends in the Christian church and these trends have always (of often) manifested themselves through history in the same way as today there are may trends in many denominations, including in the RCC. Often these different trends coexist without creating a split within a denomination, sometimes they don't. For example, Luther had no intentions to leave the Catholic Church. He was kicked out (in the same manner, many people who formed the SDA church at the beginning were kicked out from the respective denominations). Luther was not criticizing all of the christian doctrines, just those church practices and teachings which were, according to him, at odd with the Bible.
All of this to say that the definition of the canon was not based just on the Roman Catholic doctrine as if there were not different trends or directions in the Church. Before being excommunicated, Luther always consider himself a catholic, even when he was dissenting.
The fact that we have so many denominations today shows what went wrong with Christianity. Differences of opinions should not be a problem, above all among followers of Christ. It is something that God tolerates because He wants us to ask questions, to study and to search. After all, God could have created Eve at the same time He created Adam. But no, He waited for Adam to notice there was nobody else like himself before creating his better half. In the same manner, God could have given us all the answers in a definitive manner ("Don't worry about the meaning of this, here is the answer. And as for the meaning of the mark of the beast, no sweat: it is that"... And by the way, even if He had done just, would we be satisfy with that? After all, God definitely said not to touch the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, the only explicit and precise order. And Adam and Eve disobeyed anyway). But no, because God wants to be desired and He doesn't want to impose Himself. The problem is that we, humans, don't like when people disagree with us. We feel threatened. So, when we have the power, we try to suppress the opposition. This has been seen either in the Catholic church or the Protestant churches. But the end result is that everybody loses.
Paul said to retain what is good. There are many things good in the RCC. And some of these good things are missing from other denominations. And there are also many good things in the Protestant denominations missing in the RCC. This is the problem when people split. They take with them their treasures and they deprive the others of them. This is the strategy of the archenemy of our souls to create divisions. And again, everybody loses.
If we really want to turn things around, we will have to:
- look for Jesus Christ
- hold to the truth and follow God rather than men (even if it is difficult)
- be honest about ourselves (even if it is difficult)
- accept the forgiveness offered through Christ (even if it is difficult)
- extend this forgiveness to others (even if it is difficult)
- adopt a spirit of service and estimate others as being above ourselves (even if it is difficult).
Still.
Aage, the Church was Catholic. As you note that included those in the East. However, they were in communion with the See of Rome. All of them were Catholics. "Roman" Catholic only came into vogue after the Reformation. There are 23 churches that are part of the Catholic Church. At that time however there were no Protestants. There was much debate over which books were to be included as scripture. Some in the East didn't believe the book of Revelation was canon. It was the Roman church that insisted on its inclusion. A bit of irony eh? It is not partisan to point out historical facts. The Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I listed the first NT canon in 382 for the whole Church, although Athanasius listed the same canon in 367 for his own diocese. When Protestantism arose it deleted some of the books from the canon arbitrarily. History is messy, but not partisan. If you want partisan look at the next paragraph.
NCTer, I can post stories of horrific abuse in the Adventist church and subsequent cover ups. Does that mean the Adventist church is untrue and that you will leave it? I have yet to see Protestants asking forgiveness for anti-Catholic persecution and discrimination right here in the USA. I think you should examine the log in your own eye. History is still there indeed.
Fr. Jim
I was raised as a Seventh-day Adventist. During the great depression, our family returned to my mother's home town, where my father managed the family general store. The family were all Roman Catholic. The Catholic Church was right across the tracks from the family compound. The church got their "holy water" from our well.
The other churches in town, included a very small SDA church.
A large Luthern, a large Methodist, and a homeless pentacostal church--now the largest church in town.
Yet it was on the front yard of the Catholic church that the KKK burned their crosses. We could see them clearly from our back yard. Having moved from Northern Indiana to Upper Wisconsin we thought we were beyond the reach of the KKK. I was a second grader at the time. My mother, brave as she was would tremble at the sight of those burning crosses.
I agree with you,there is more than enought hate and bile to go around among the "churched" and then some.
Of my family heroes was my aunt Sister Mary Leonard, Uncle Harry, a Methodist, and my dad a Seventh-day Adventist with a strong independant streak. (Of course there was always Father Mac) It is great to be a Christian first and enjoy fellowship among other Christians regardless of affiliation. Tom
Fr Jim
I agree with that, although I believe we're talking past each other with regard to Protestants being part of the pre-16th century church. After a divorce, new entities or constructs appear, such as ex-wife and ex-husband. Originally they were one flesh. It's in that sense I was arguing that Protestants and Catholics were one before the 16th century, that Protestants took as much part in the development of the Canon and Orthodoxy as the Roman branch of the common Catholic church. That also explains why Protestants by and large held on to so much of the common tradition.
NCTer, your comment was more statement than question:
" Elaine, if one of your kids had gone to a Catholic school and been abused by one of the priests, would you be so quick to forgive and forget that tragedy. What of recidivism rates? Would you still want that priest passed around to other assignments, due to compassion for such a predator???
If you felt that I was forgiving of any predator, you are badly mistaken. For a parent, it makes absolutely no difference the particular background. As Fr. Jim knows, and many here, Adventists have also passed along such predators to another parish and such actions have usually been swept under the rug.
If you aren't a parent, you wouldn't know; if you are, you would have no need to ask such a question.
My younger sister attended an Adventist college and lived in the girl dorm. One day she needed to ask the hall monitor a question. She went to the monitor's room. She knocked, the door was slightly ajar. She thought she heard: "Yes, come in." So she pushed the door open and found the dean of women and the hall monitor in bed together. She immediately backed out and closed the door and said nothing. However, the dean recognized my sister.
After a few days, when the dean felt that my sister was not going to rat on her, my sister began to get "written up" for tiny infactions, her teachers began to give her a "hard time".
So much so that my dad, a former classmate of the College President made a call on the President. My sister had told her father the story that preceded the "write-ups". Dad, of course, told the President. The President said: "Yes John, I know. The dean has submitted her retirement resignation and I have accepted it. He added, I didn't know about the heat your daughter was getting but I will put a stop to it right now.
He added, John, we think it best just to let her go guietly!
Dad, of course, added it will be just as quiet as the pressure on my daughter is reduced. One more write-up and the media gets the story. My sister graduated in a breeze.
During my tenure as Vice President, the President got a long detailed letter from a peanut farmer in South Georgia. He had been a patient in our teaching hospital. He alleged that the x-ray technician had fondled him during an extensive diagnostic x-ray procedure. The President gave the problem to me. I contacted the dean of the school in which the technician held faculty appointment. The dean formed a committee to research the issue. The dean reported back to me, that the patient had been heavily sedated and that such
erotic dreams were expected. The President and I accepted the committee's report and the President wrote the patient that he, the president, was assured that medication and not the technician was the cause. Two years later, the Chair of the findings committee and the x-ray technician both died of AIDS. Now I'll be tagged as a homophobe--no I am a rational
adult who believes that humanity was given a precious gift that is not to be abused, perverted, condoned, or accommodated. Tom
The Bible says that the Ten Commandments are the LORD's "Testimony," the Testimony of the Covenant, Exodus 35:28-29. The first says that no other gods should be before Him. The fourth says, the LORD God literally created heaven, earth, and the sea. This appears relevant to earth, which existed sometime during the creation process, as being made habitable for man in six days. It is to be remembered to be kept holy. A day together with Adam and Eve in the beginning that was blessed and hallowed, who were made to be "filled with all the fulness of God." Ephesians 3:19 The Catholic Church's authority is placed above the Bible, notwithstanding its encouragement to read Holy Scriptures, but this is in accordance "with the mind of the Catholic Church," DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU, paragraph 6. In reading EGW's writings, I found that her visions were progressive, where in one writing she counsels against flesh-meat for it was deseased by producers' handling; in another writing she had no issue with eating pork or sea-life without fins and scales. From the 4th century until the 6th century the Sabbath was transferred to Sunday, expressly its whole glory was transferred. Within that time the commandments were changed. In the Council of Orleans in 538 C.E. it was held as a reprobate tendancy to transfer the whole glory to Sunday, and Sunday was made a separate and distinguished day of worship in place of the 7th day Sabbath. The Catholic Encyclopedia on-line: Sunday. And for all to worship on that day is part of the Church's Sign of Unity. The Catholic Encyclopedia on-line: Unity (As a Mark of the Church)
In 70 C.E. the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by fire. This was unintended by Titus. Its destruction was according to prophesy. The Israelis were under Roman occupation. Rome ruled the world. They were pagans and without doubt they honored their gods for victory against the famed God of Israel. Furthermore, they had contempt for Israel and little regard for Christians. When Emperor Constantine ruled and had an experience concerning Christianity, pagan festivals on Sunday existed with Saturday worship. It is obvious that the pagans had an influence in Judeo-Christianity and merged with Christianity, and were converted on that basis. In the Church's historical writings, it has contempt for Judaism and its Laws. And it's reasonable to say that pagan influence was involved, those who praised their gods for the destruction of the manifiestation of the Jewish Religious Economy. If it is destoryed why not the beliefs. Jesus Christ fullfilled the symbolic ordinances as the Lamb of God and obedience to the Ten Commandments based on Love for God and his neighbor. But, I think that the absolute power and influence of paganism held sway, and the Jews, Judeo-Christians, and the Biblical Truth of the Old and New Testaments were under contempt as what has existed with racism in America for hundreds of years. It was 251 years since the Temple was destroyed that Emperor Constantine began to give Temporal Sovereignty to the Bishop of Rome in 321 C.E., and from that time the glory of the co-existing Sabbath began to be transferred; beginning only 9 years after the account of the vision of the cross 312 C.E..
How does it respond about the aspect of pagan influence that favored its rise to power?
Aage's logic concerning history is strong. No one group has sole claim to apostolic Christianity, not Catholics alone, nor Adventists (who desire to be "Restorationist").
Colin MacLaurin God in All .org
See my updated links for YouTube videos of Francine Bell - one is her singing at the final mass!
Colin MacLaurin God in All .org
Colin, I am afraid I must disagree. For us, and the Orthodox, Apostolic succession is vital. I believe that history and the church fathers bear this out. There is continuity and that is because Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church.
BW, an utter mishmash of errors and pseudo-history. The pagans for example did not worship on Sunday. They had no specific day of the week upon which to worship. You obviously read the Bible "in accord with the mind of the Adventist church."
Tom, that is a good example of how sin is no respecter of persons.
Jim,
For goodness sake dont expect anyone to believe you when you say, "The pagans for example did not worship on Sunday."
It was Rome itself that had different Gods for different days. That is how the days of the week were even named!
"...pastoral intuition suggested to the Church the christianization of the notion of Sunday as "the day of the sun", which was the Roman name for the day and which is retained in some modern languages.(29) This was in order to draw the faithful away from the seduction of cults which worshipped the sun, and to direct the celebration of the day to Christ, humanity's true "sun"." John Paul II, Dies Domini, 27.
I worry when a person makes comments according to the minds of a different denomination when they dont know there own it seems.
Michael
Good comments but as early as the apostle Paul, the day became a burden rather than the reason for worship. The path from Sabbath to Sunday is not as simple and clear as E. G. White would have us believe. Let us be absolutely clear that who we worship and why takes prority over time, place, and manner.
The protestant order of worship is more attractive to me than one in which the priest faces away from me more often than towards me. Thus I believe in the priesthood of all believers--even beyond the concept of the General Confernce of SDA.
I don't need a man interceding for me. I already have Jesus Christ as my advocate. I have full confidence in Him, now and forever more. Tom
JP II's comment does not indicate that there was weekly sunday worship among the pagan romans. It notes there was worship of the sun, that's all. sun worship in the late empire was centered around the feast of sol invictus around the winter solstice. The seven day week itself was hte invention of the jews, the roman calender didn't operate that way. the remaning days of the week (save saturn) come from norse, not roman mythology, obviously 700 years afterwards.
I once read in Bacchiochi's email newletter that he wanted the sda church to change eg white's text to read in accord with history; this from the leading sda scholar of the sabbath!
There was only one Sabbath given: the 7th day, which was not given until Sinai and to the Israelites exclusively. To no other nation was it ever given. There is absolutely no record prior to that of God ever commanding rest on the 7th day, only the record that HE rested from his work then. And this record was not written until approximately 1,000 B.C. When the 7th day is mentioned, it says only God rested, as man had done no work, and the first command to man was "Be fruitful and multiply."
For centuries the Israelites were supposed to rest from work on the 7th day as a reminder of their deliverance from Egypt. The Bible record says that it was NOT given to their forefathers, nor the other nations, but to them only.
The new Gentile Christians began meeting on the 1st day of the week, celebrating Christ's resurrection, and it gradually became a special day for Christians; to the extent that when Constantine saw that Christians were a force to be reckoned with in his empire, and endeavoring to unite them, he first issued an edict declaring tolerance for all, regardless of worship: pagans, Jews and Christians. The report of his vision before battle, seeing the cross, was told as making such an impression upon him that he was said to have been converted to Christianity and issued an order that the first day of the week should be a rest day free from work.
It would not have been possible to suddenly issue a new day of rest that had never before been recognized, but history shows that it had been a special celebratory day for Christians and he legalized it. He did not, nor could he change the Jewish Sabbath, nor was there any evidence that it was his intention to do so. The Jews continued to worship on that day as they had always done, and still to this day. By that time, there were far more Christians than Jews in the Roman empire and he recognized them as the most representative.
JP II's comment does not indicate that there was weekly sunday worship among the pagan romans. It notes there was worship of the sun, that's all. sun worship in the late empire was centered around the feast of sol invictus around the winter solstice. The seven day week itself was hte invention of the jews, the roman calender didn't operate that way. the remaning days of the week (save saturn) come from norse, not roman mythology, obviously 700 years afterwards.
Posted by: lee faber (not verified) | 02 November 2008 at 4:31
Lee
700 years afterwards is more or less correct but completely off the mark since we are not talking of that time but the time of Christ and the origins of Christianity and Roman Catholcism.
Therefore modern english is not apropos nor is 700 years later. The Julian calendar, a reform of the Roman calendar, was introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 BC, and came into force in 45 BC (709 ab urbe condita). It was chosen after consultation with the astronomer Sosigenes of Alexandria.
If you studied the week history you would see that the latin derivations tell the story since they are the roots of our modern languages today. The Julian Calander IS Roman.
The Romans were among the most tech savy people of their day and as methods and mathmatics improved they were very good at adopting new things.
In fact Latin-based languages connect each day of the week with one of the seven "planets" of the ancient times: Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.
French, for example, uses:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
English French "Planet"
Monday lundi Moon
Tuesday mardi Mars
Wednesday mercredi Mercury
Thursday jeudi Jupiter
Friday vendredi Venus
Saturday samedi Saturn
Sunday dimanche (Sun)
--------------------------------------------------------------John Paul II also said,
"...pastoral intuition suggested to the Church the christianization of the notion of Sunday as "the day of the sun", which was the Roman name for the day and which is retained in some modern languages.)
Do you know what christianization means? It is to convert something that exists to a different purpose.
Also if you had studied sun worship you would have known that worship of the sun was done daily (as Christaians would do morning worship too) but had weekly a special day too, hence the Latin, Roman and early Catholic references to Sunday.
If you read John Paul II comments in Dies Domini you will see the entire context of the quote was to give the pagans the excuse to worship on the same day they had been, but get them to worship the SON instead or the SUN. That is part and parcel of his play on words when we wrote: "This was in order to draw the faithful away from the seduction of cults which worshipped the sun, and to direct the celebration of the day to Christ, humanity's true "sun"."
There is so much to be debated about in our history as Christ's church, and I don't believe we will ever reach total agreement on the past. We each see the world through our own perspective. No matter our spiritual background, though, isn't it wonderful that we are all united in Jesus?
Having just spent a weekend in discussions on a long-standing doctrine, I've learned a few valuable lessons. Within churches (whichever denomination) there are vastly different views. I think churches need to be careful that they don't allow doctrines to become more important than nurtuting people in their relationship with Jesus. A person's relationship with Jesus is what's most important. Jesus is the centre of everything we believe, but often we humans like to dump a whole lot of extras on top of the gospel.
One thing that was made so totally clear to me this weekend - is that salvation is simple. The gospel is simple, and that's why grace is so amazing!
Michael, I may be misunderstanding some of this, but when we start probing things like "but get them to worship the SON instead or the SUN" aren't we just looking at word similarities of only a slelcted language which may or may not have anything to do with Latin?
Yes Dick
I think Elaine makes the better case. Tom
Thats a good point Dick
But, in the context of this discussion I only use that verbage because Pope John Paul II did in the salient quote in Dies Domini, 27.
Tom
Elaine makes no case at all. She is the one who brought up Sabbath.
That was not the discussion and has no relevance at all to Jims assertion that pagans didnt worship on Sunday.
Refrences to Constantine (over 300 years later) also have nothing to do with what day pagans worshipped on during the time of Christ.
For the Catholic research on Sun worship see their encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm
Quote:Three times a day prayer was offered the sun toward the east, south, or west according to the hour. Sunday was kept holy in honour of Mithra, and the sixteenth of each month was sacred to him as mediator. The 25 December was observed as his birthday, the natalis invicti, the rebirth of the winter-sun, unconquered by the rigours of the season."
The Dec. 25 being a further example of the christianization of pagan holidays that John Paul II speaks of in Dies Domini 27.
Micahel
Then Paul made no case at all either. Tom
Michael, but then if JPII used the clever play on language but out of historical context it still isn't much of an example, right?
Dick
Read the Catholic encycolpedia. Dont dwell on JPII's play on words. The facts arent in JPII's Analogies.
Tom
I wasnt aware Paul had much if any input on if/how pagans worshipped on sunday during the time of Christ or any take on the Julian Calender and naming the days for Roman Gods.
Point me in the right direction.
Thanks
Michael
I don't think that the Julian Calender and the naming of days was Elaine point. I have no direction to point to on Greek or Roman ethos.
I can point you to Hebrews 4:
Please note that while the seventh-day is referenced the emphasis is upon "His Rest".
The writer, claims that the Hebrews did not enter into "His Rest". Boy did they ever enter into the Seventh-day. So what gives? Is it the day or is it the rest? Or what combination thereof. Certainly the SDA Church has the same emphasis upon time as did the Hebrews. Could it be that E.G.White in her references to 1888 wanted to give balance to time and divine rest? If so she certainly failed.
Paul in Col. 2: 16 makes it clear that time is not the issue it is Whom to worship and why.
I think that was the point I was commenting on in Elaine's post.
It seems clear to me from Christ's interview with the woman at the well that time, place, are much less important that who and why. The when and how remain a cultural entity.
If a person finds peace perfect peace in a Seventh-day rest,that person is blessed. There is little in either Hebrew or SDA history that such an experience is common.
I must note that I have very fond memories of some outstanding Sabbath rests. I must also note, of similar memories of Sunday worships have been food for the soul.
Let us remember than the Gospel is Christ centered not time
centered. I think that was the salient point that Elaine was making and I was agreeing to. Thanks for the opportunity of expanding on my view of a person's response to the gospel call. Tom
Thanks for explaining Tom
I see we had 2 different conversations going on unless I am mistaken again
Michael, the pagans had no sabbath. Naming a month after a god didn't mean they worshiped that god during that month. The same goes with days. They did not go to pagan "church" on Sunday. You worship on Saturday, therefore you worship the pagan god Saturn. Right? No? Then neither do we, or the early Christians, worship pagan gods.
The pagans knew we did not that is why they persecuted us. December 25th was chosen because it is 9 months after March 25th, the Annunciation. Actually the nativity was celebrated first also on the 25th or April 6th, but 9 months made more sense then 1 year. This is why Catholics have Christmas Dec. 25th and the Orthodox on Jan. 6th. It is a matter of biology. If you want to claim we worship the Sun then I claim you worship Saturn.
Take a look at what a baptist says:
http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/articles/sunday-worship.pdf
Fr. Jim
Just love your posts. You must be a Jeusit. Tom
Jim, Dispite your straw man claim I never once said or implied Catholics worshipped the sun. Were you trying to be obtuse? Perhaps the quote from John Paul II with its play on words confused you somehow.
You stated "The pagans for example did not worship on Sunday. They had no specific day of the week upon which to worship.
Posted by: Fr. Jim (not verified) | 01 November 2008 at 1:10
2 quotes from your own Church show you to be in error on your assertion.
I could have quoted University sources but felt you would be more receptive if I supplied ones you had confidence in since they were from your own Church.
For the record, if you have problems with the documented fact that Sun worshippers did meet weekly on Sunday (as well as other days) then take your Arguments to John Paul II and the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Or perhaps you want to check the Catholic Encyclopedias sources. THey list these to start with.
CUMONT, "Notes sur un temple Mithraique d'Ostie" (Ghent, 1891); IDEM, "Textes et Monuments figures relat. Aux Mysteres de Mithra" (2 vols., Brussels, 1896-1899); IDEM, "Les Mysteres de Mithra" (2nd., Paris, 1902), tr. McCormack (London, 1903); IDEM, "Religions Orientales dans le Paganisme Romain" (Paris, 1906); MARTINDALE, "The Religion of Mithra" in "The Month" (1908, Oct., Nov., Dec.); IDEM, "The Religion of Mithra" in "Lectures on the Hist. Of Religions", II (C.T.S., London, 1910); DILL, "Roman Society from Nero to M. Aurelius" (London, 1904); ST.-CLAIR-TISDALL, "Mythic Christs and the True"; DIETERICH, Eine Mithrasliturgie (Leipzig, 1903); RAMSAY, "The Greek of the early Church and the Pagan Ritual" (Edinburgh, 1898-9); BLOTZER, "Das hedn. Mysterienwesen und die Hellenisierung des Christenthums" in "Stimmen aus Maria-Laach" (1906-7); ALES, "Mithraicisme et Christianisme" in "Revue Pratique d'Apologétique" (Pris, 1906-7); WEILAND, "Anklange der christl. Tauflehre an die Mithraischen Mystagogie" (Munich, 1907); GASQUET, "Essai sur le culte et les mysteres de Mithra" (Paris, 1890.
Thanks for your responses, beliefs and insights about the two days. I may have meandered somewhat and was misunderstood. I will try to be direct here. I read about Vatican II Council, that it made reforms concerning continued blame against the Jews for Christ's death, religious freedom, and persecution of heretics or any persons. These judgments were by the Church's councils, and what I had wondered about is this: upon examination of the history of the Church at some point based on past Councils, if it were even possible for the Church to reconsider the progression towards its weekly day for Worship, based on Vatican II reforms. In Romans 11, apostle Paul talks about the fall of Israel as branches broken off the good olive tree, and about a prophesy that a deliverer will come for the nation of Israel when the time of the Gentiles is complete: "...For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins..." Romans 11:25-27
Even that the Church that Jesus and the apostles established, that became a diverse Christendom whether Jew or Gentile, is Israel's, although having many branches, by saying to the Gentiles "...And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. 20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. 24For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?..."
The TRUTH will set you free. Rachael the truth does matter. God wants us to seek the truth - to seek Truth Himself and to find love and fulfillment in Him. Although we have many things in common, there are many things we do not hold in common and I don't think we can ignore this. I believe beyond a shadow of doubt that the Catholic faith has the FULLNESS of Truth, not just some truths and some half-truths. When I sit before Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and receive Him in Holy Communion I am filled with a joy and a peace, but my heart aches for my protestant brothers and sisters who love Christ so much but do not eat the Lamb. I cannot say that it doesn't matter - that I do not want them all to be Catholic and to share in this physical communion with the Lord. I want them more than anything to share in this because I know my life would not be the same without it. How He loves me He has become a piece of flimsy bread for me. How He longs to have this meal with them. It is a great tragedy that we are not all one. Let us pray for Christian unity.
Claire
Michael,
Look up some research that's been done in the hundred years since the sources you quoted. yes, even the catholic encyclopedia can be out of date. Even the popular histories at Borders are better than what you quoted. see my various posts on its discussions of scholasticism for evidence. Mithraism was not some common cult of the roman empire. it was restricted to roman army officers, who for some reason liked to dress up like animals. the only official cult in the roman empire was that of the emperor (just in its infancy in the time of christ). christianity's only ancient rival was the mystery religion of isis. The name the pagan game goes both ways: SDA's wear ties (pagan phallic symbol), their churches have steeple's (pagan phallic symbol), to say nothing of all the ancient pagan "trinities" floating around, or gods that die and are reborn(tammuz, osiris, dionysus), or religions speaking of a "path" to salvation thru a "path" that is also living (Taosim) It's a pointless exercise to distract from the obvious: SDa's came along 1844 years too late to be an apostolic Church. But if you want to make Christ a liar, who did after all say that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church founded on Peter, be my guest.
Also, to point out the obvious, catholics celebrate mass every day of the year, including saturday. So all of this sabbath/sunday hysteria is a bit misguided in the end.
The SDA teach that they are the remnant of early Christianity, Jesus and the apostles established, although, they became a Church in the mid 19th century. They embraced all the Bible based Truths restored by the Protestants. The Bible as the basis for Faith; Righteousness by Faith; Baptism by Emersion; Gifts of the Spirit; Sabbath, etc. This claim is based on Revelation 12. The history and state of the Church through all other Faiths including the SDA are under Revelation 2-3.
Lee
Great job until your last sentence in your first entry.
Correctly translated, Jesus told Peter was wasn't going to build his Church on a pebble but on the Rock of Age, the rejected corner stone. Recall Paul had to rebuke Peter on his narrowness. The clearest source is Eph. 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church."
The writer of Hebrews concurs: "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the bood of Jesus. By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say his flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God." Heb. 10: 19,20
Jesus Christ is the high priest over the Church, nothing less
will do or is implied. Tom
Lee
Great job until your last sentence in your first entry.
Correctly translated, Jesus told Peter was wasn't going to build his Church on a pebble but on the Rock of Age, the rejected corner stone. Recall Paul had to rebuke Peter on his narrowness. The clearest source is Eph. 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church."
The writer of Hebrews concurs: "Havin