Print
An Adventist at a Catholic Festival?
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.
User login
Recent
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Pagophilus Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Fred Eastman Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
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
David Hamstra
Memory, Meaning & Faith
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
Michael
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 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.
Michael
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
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 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
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 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
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"."
Michael
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.
Michael
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.
Michael
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.
Michael
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
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
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.
Michael
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: "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
B.W.!
You need to revise your list of "Bible based Truths restored by the Protestants" then embraced by Adventists.
1. The Bible as the basis for Faith: This is a pre-Reformation Catholic teaching, not something "restored" by Protestants, unless you think taking out some of the books is "restoring." In any case, most Protestants, including Adventists, used some extra-Biblical figure as an authority, just as Catholics do. Until recently, most Adventists called EG White a prophetess, or God's messenger.
2. Righteousness by Faith. For most of its history, Adventism has rejected Protestant Righteousness by Faith. It's only during my short lifetime that the current vogue for watered-down Calvinist salvation theory has become acceptable to Adventists, and then only after its proponents had been denounced and censured by the church, clergy and laymen alike. For over a century, Adventists, often basing themselves on one of EGW's early visions, taught that all of us, at least since the "investigative judgement" began, are to be judged by heavenly records of how well we keep the law, and particularly the Sabbath. They ridiculed the Protestant idea of Righteousness by Faith, calling it "cheap grace."
3. Baptism by Emersion [sic]. Not "restored" by Protestants. Most Reformation churches use infant baptism by sprinkling. Catholics still recognize baptism by immersion as valid baptism.
4. Gifts of the Spirit. Embraced by all, Catholics, Protestants, even Adventists. Not "restored" by Protestants.
5. Sabbath. The Sabbath was not "restored" by Reformation churches. Many of them even pretend that the seventh day of the ten commandments refers to Sunday. Of the major denominations, only Catholics concede that Saturday is still the Old Testament day of rest. They even recommend that believers who can't make it to Sunday Mass go on Saturday instead. This is one of many areas in which traditional Adventism is closer to Catholicism than to Reformation Protestantism. If an Adventist in any major center wants a change from their usual church, they can usually find a well-attended Mass in a Catholic Church on Saturday morning. (If you arrive early, you'll might be able to enjoy a self-complacent smile as you watch the misguided people lining up for confession.)
Lee
Perhaps you didnt read the part where I said I could have quoted modern University sources but felt that Jim would be more receptive to the current position his church holds on the issue, hence their quotes and their sources.
Your contention that Mithraism was "restricted" to soldiers is wrong. It was restricted to men. Perhaps thats the confusion.
The Roman army first encountered the cult of Mithras in Persia during the reign of the emperor Nero although its origins in India/Iran have been traced back to 1400 BC.
It was one of the many cults that the Romans soldiers brought back from the east. Mithraism first appealed to slaves and freedmen but with Mithras's title Invictus and the cult's emphasis on truth, honour, courage, and discipline, it soon led to Mithras becoming a god of soldiers.
The last half of your post must pertain to the conversation Tom and Elaine were having since it doesnt have anything to do with the conversation I was having with Jim concerning his assertion that, "The pagans did not worship on Sunday."
Michael
About the Love of Christ:
I read that Romans 8:3 says that Jesus condemned sin in the flesh, I thought that means he overcame sin as a human being, but I learned further that he condemned sin itself by his purpose "to make an end to sins," Daniel 9:24. This sin goes back to the beginning, sin by disobedience in the Knowledge of Good and Evil. All that God made was "very good," Genesis 1:31, and useful for mankind to be "filled with all the fullness of God," Ephesians 3:11; even the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This tree was as beautiful, salubrious and eternal as any other tree; it is a Knowledge of the Lord's Omniscience, but to eat its fruit is not the Way to being filled with the fullness of God. Sin by disobedience concerning this knowledge prevents it. To eat its fruit is tresspass and causes one, and the earth, to be lost in an abyss of good and evil that leads to decay and death. So you can have a good life, be lost and die an eternal death; or an inhuman life of suffering, be lost and die an eternal death; or a life in between, be lost and die an eternal death.
Isaiah 53:11 says that "...by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." Salvation and Deliverance according to the Will of God the Father is through the Knowledge of the Son of God. This knowledge is in his life, to live a righteous and sanctiified life by Faith and Truth, revealing the Nature of the Father's Kingdom by healing to wholeness and restoring to life from the dead. He fullfilled the prophesies concerning the Messiah by the Testimony of the Holy Spirit's Power and Truth. Jesus is LORD God who had the Nature of a human being in a weakened state, and attained to be the fullness of God, His rightful place. But, Israel was under Roman occupation and having power to save he did not deliver Israel from Roman rule, but also by the faith of a centurion He healed his servant, Matthew 8:5-12. The Jews feared for their Religious Economy based on the interests of Rome, and wanted to bring the people together; therefore, darkness began to set on the salutary good of Jesus Christ that divided the people, John 11:47-52. According to the book of Daniel, by prophesy, Rome ruled the world at that time in succession to previous nations, and the Life of Christ was factored accordingly. He was the ram caught in a thicket of circumstances. Genesis 22:1-2, 9-18
Before the leaders decided he should die, the people said of Him Hosanna to the son of David, Hosanna in the Highest, meaning that when we say "Save, we pray thee," we ascribe it to Jesus, the son of David, and that in the Highest sense, He is God; and when the chief priests and scribes said they were displeaded, he said, Scripture says that the Father perfected praise out of the mouth of infants, Matthew 21:1-16. He had told his disciples that he would be mocked, beaten, scurged, and crucified; and I believe here is his passion revealed. While in the garden to pray he fell from a weight of darkness, and prayed to the Father that if it be possible let this cup pass from me; neverthelesss, not my will, but your be done. This cup was more than just the torture and death by crucifixion, it was the experience of God's Judgment for sin, rejection and eternal death. He was innocent and was Sanctified in Truth by Love for God with the Power of God to do Good, and he experienced that good and love by God and the people. But, he was to suffer rejection, and furthermore, experience the alienation of God and eternal death. In judgment, the crowds of people chanted crucify him! crucify him!; they were saying, Impale to the cross! Impale him to the cross! Yet, he was Sanctified in Truth, John 17:17; therefore, he knew the prophesy of King David in Psalm 22:1 "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?..." He knew his Father was with him in the mysterious Darkness on the day of crucifixion, although, he experienced His alienation in the Judgment against sin.
But, how did he bear sin and condemn sin? He was condemned by sin, and by his Knowledge he had to make an end to sin by making disobedience in the Knowledge of Good and Evil condemnable. He condemned sin in the flesh. He lived a righteous and holy life of salutary good, until condemned by death unjustly. Sin that was from the beginning, by its motive ~ another good, proved to unjustly condemn the Life of God, and even its degree of Restoration by Salutary Good. He bore the iniquity of all for Deliverance unto Redemption in Salvation by the Truth concerning his life and purpose, and the judgment against him as a man having been born in sin and shaped in iniquity. Sin was condemned for the unjust judgment and death by crucifixion of Him. From his experience of the Judgment of God caused by sin unjustly, he was Resurrected being Innocent by fulfilling the Truth of Prophesy, by his Righteousness; thereby, the Christ, Jesus, Justified Eternal Life and Good that was in the Beginning for all condemned to Eternal death; who by hope believe on Him as the Son of God, although a human being, and in Him as the Son of God.
I believe this Knowledge in Salvation.
settembrini,
I will look at those sources again, but I heard it preached by the SDA. Joseph Bates was an Seventh-day Baptist that taught EGW about the Sabbath, and God confirmed it by vision. I heard Martin Luther knew about the Sabbath, whom they got Righteousness by Faith. The Baptist are not Protestant reformers who baptize by emersion? Only those who left the Roman Church are considered Protestants I think I remember reading.
Tom, lol more like Opus Dei. But Peter does mean "rock" not pebble.
Michael, others have answered you better then I could. Why is it that Adventists pick sources that are a hundred years out of date? The fact is that the pagans did not have a specific day of the week devoted to worship of the gods. Worship on Sunday was not a pagan notion adopted by Catholics. Did the Christians at times try to show the pagans that their customs pointed to a greater truth? Yes, just as Paul did when he spoke to the Athenians about the "unknown god". Was Paul wrong? I don't think you would want to say that.
Sorry Jim,
Those werent Adventist sources. They came from the currently published edition of the Catholic Encyclpedia.
And by the way John Paul II and Dies Domini are more than current enough.
Michael
Michael, if you think we somehow are pagans who worship the Sun then I can't help you. Some forms of bigotry are only driven out by prayer and fasting.
Thats where your confusion lies. The subject was never Catholics. It was never Adventists.
It was pagans. Pagans, more specifically the cults of Mithras worshipped the sun on Sundays. The Pope and the Catholic encylopedia say yes, you say no. I only agreed with the Pope and the Catholic encylopedia.
I dont know how many times or how many ways I have tried to get it through your head. I never said or implied Catholics worshipped on Sunday because of sun worship.
Go back and read all my comments, then perhaps you will be able to see how your assumptions sidetracked a simple conversation about sun worshippers meeting on sundays.
Just to be clear enough for you I will say again, sun worshippers meeting on sundays not Catholics. Do you get it yet?
Michael
Michael, as has been pointed out most pagans did not worship Mithras. He was a soldiers god. We do NOT worship Mithras. Most people don't even know anything about him. Often atheists use Mithras and claim that because he supposedly died and rose then Jesus is the same thing. They say Jesus is Mithras. Our worship on Sunday/Lord's Day has NOTHING to do with Mithras. We have been doing it since apostolic times. If you want to disagree that is fine, but do so honestly. Do NOT try to tar us with paganism in any form for you will find that you end up tarred with the same brush.
Dies Domini
21. It was for this reason that, from Apostolic times, "the first day after the Sabbath", the first day of the week, began to shape the rhythm of life for Christ's disciples (cf. 1 Cor 16:2). "The first day after the Sabbath" was also the day upon which the faithful of Troas were gathered "for the breaking of bread", when Paul bade them farewell and miraculously restored the young Eutychus to life (cf. Acts 20:7-12). The Book of Revelation gives evidence of the practice of calling the first day of the week "the Lord's Day" (1:10). This would now be a characteristic distinguishing Christians from the world around them. As early as the beginning of the second century, it was noted by Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, in his report on the Christian practice "of gathering together on a set day before sunrise and singing among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a god".(19) And when Christians spoke of the "Lord's Day", they did so giving to this term the full sense of the Easter proclamation: "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil 2:11; cf. Acts 2:36; 1 Cor 12:3). Thus Christ was given the same title which the Septuagint used to translate what in the revelation of the Old Testament was the unutterable name of God: YHWH.
22. In those early Christian times, the weekly rhythm of days was generally not part of life in the regions where the Gospel spread, and the festive days of the Greek and Roman calendars did not coincide with the Christian Sunday. For Christians, therefore, it was very difficult to observe the Lord's Day on a set day each week. This explains why the faithful had to gather before sunrise.(20) Yet fidelity to the weekly rhythm became the norm, since it was based upon the New Testament and was tied to Old Testament revelation. This is eagerly underscored by the Apologists and the Fathers of the Church in their writings and preaching where, in speaking of the Paschal Mystery, they use the same Scriptural texts which, according to the witness of Saint Luke (cf. 24:27, 44-47), the Risen Christ himself would have explained to the disciples. In the light of these texts, the celebration of the day of the Resurrection acquired a doctrinal and symbolic value capable of expressing the entire Christian mystery in all its newness.
Michael, as you can tell my contact with Adventists has been mixed at best. I react quickly against the canards that often are used against us. Frankly I still don't trust most Adventists. I find myself waiting for the other shoe to drop when they will start to claim secret codes on the papal crown. When an Adventist brings up paganism I immediately bristle and wait for the inevitable "Catholics got it from the pagans" line. If that is not what you are claiming then fine I will drop it.
Jim
All your other posts said NO pagans worshipped on Sunday. Now you say, "Most" did not. We seem to be making some progress.
Michael
Fr. Jim
I am just a simple one language guy with 8 translations of the New Testament. But I find that Jesus' interview with the woman at the well instructive on worship. It seem obvious from that discussion that time and place are not relevant but Who, why, and with whom are. Theodore Hesburgh's autobiography is one of my favorite reads. I especially noted that he said Mass every morning regardless of his busy schedule. As an academic, I find his thought pattern and his problem solving skills most helpful. The Mass cannot be a vain exercise. Paul later addresses the How in his letter to the Church at Corinth.
However having said that, I think we differ on the substance of the Eucharist. On the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, I think we are in harmony. On that note, I believe we are brothers. Tom
Fr. Jim has furnished us with the true history of the early church.
In addition, the early Gentile Christians were eager to separate from the Jews, and the Jews were similarly dismissing them. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, wrote in many of letters such sentiments when speaking of the Jews: "You have no right to make the pagans (which was their term for all non-Jews) copy Jewish ways." And "When Christ freed us, he mean us to remain free." But "he has overriden the Law and cancelled every record of the debt that we had to pay; he has done away with it by nailing it to the cross....From now onwards, never let anyone else decide what you should eat or drink or whether you are to observe annual festivals, New Moons or sabbaths. These were only pale reflections of what was coming: the reality is Christ."
It is always somewhat amusing to see the endeavors some SDAs will attempt in order to
emphasize the true raison d'etre for their beliefs: the day is worshiped, rather than the Creator, and often parrot what has been told them without studying an unbiased history of the early Christian church.
One fact, impossible to ignore: there has never been but one Sabbath given by God and it was given to no one but the Israelites. In truth, it is their Sabbath and they are rightly jealous of Christians who claim it is also theirs. It was never given to Christians as a worship day and cannot be shown either from the NT or history.
Michael, pagans including Mithrans worshiped on many days of the week. We don't know a lot about Mithras since very little was put into writing. Sunday was not necessarily special. We did get somewhere though, thanks for confirming that I am correct. You ARE trying to make the connection and falsely accuse Catholicism of being pagan. That makes you a bigot in my book. Why do you conceal your intentions? Why do I need to tease it out of you? We had a huge discussion over Adventists not being upfront about their beliefs earlier. If I am wrong about you then simply deny it in a straightforward way. Don't pussyfoot around. If you think we are pagans then say so.
Tom, I also note where we disagree. However, I have no problem being brothers with those who do not attack us as pagans.
Jim
You could not be more wrong.
I agree with your staement that most pagans did not worship on Sunday. The ones I and the Catholic encyclopedia and JPII refered to did.
Out of pure curiosity if nothing else, please tell me how you think I was trying to make the connection and falsely accuse Catholicism of being pagan, when no less tha 4 times I specifically said that Catholics had no part in what I was discussing.
You may have had some experiences in the past but in the couple of threads you have participated in here, you always made pretty wild assertions about peoples motives.
If you really wish to participate here, you are most welcome, but please learn how to do it giving people the greatest benefit of the doubt. It would seem your position in the church would at least demand that.
Michael
Michael, thus far my experiences with Adventists has shown that many of them think were are some brand of Satanic paganism. Therefore, when an Adventist starts talking about Sunday worship and paganism what am I supposed to think he is getting at? Are you denying that some Adventists do try to make that linkage?
I began to post here precisely on the issue of Adventists who do not say clearly who and what they are. Some are deceptive. Amazing Facts being a good example. I have had encounters with Adventists who believe we are the anti-Christ, but conceal that in order to lull suspicions. I find it difficult to determine who is on the side of the angels. Therefore, I can be rather demanding that Adventists be clear and upfront about where they are going with such ideas. In other words I am not overly trusting. Some Adventists here realize that this is a result of a long history of anti-Catholicism and are working to change that. I hope you are one of them.
It does not seem beyond the realm of possibility that with your history of jumping to conclusions here at Spectrum that part of the problem is a hypersensitivity on your part.
I dont deny you your positions. I would only hope that you could at least hold back on counter attacking until you are actually accused.
I am unfamiliar with Catholic Priests but in our faith we expect Pastors to show some decorum, tact and emotional restraint when attempting to make their points.
People admired for their ability to do just that are Tim Mitchell and Dave Larson on this site for example.
Your hair trigger does not serve you well and if fact tends to exaserbate your interatcion with Adventists.
I have a funny video clip that may serve to make the point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA
Michael
Fr. Jim:
God has his people in all denominations. That is a truth that Christ spoke.
"Don't pussyfoot around. If you think we are pagans then say so."
The Roman Catholic Church system is indeed pagan; however, this does not mean that it does not have the facade of Biblical Christianity, not does it mean that there are not sincere Christians within The Roman Catholic Church.
It would do well for Protestant Christians to remember why there was a reformation in the first place. The Roman Catholic Church has not changed in that respect, perhaps in its tactics, but not in goals.
I merely state all this because I for one will not "pussyfoot" around with what I believe the Bible says in regard to the role of the Catholic church in the end times.
I do not look down on any Catholic, but the system is almost entirely of pagan origin.
Michael, therefore I can assume that you do not agree with Shane? Read what he wrote. I am not being hypersensitive.
Shane, your words are simply false and come from the Father of Lies. They are not based on the Bible, which we gave you btw, but on a false interpretation of it. I am a Christian, but I do not have fellowship with anyone who claims my church is somehow pagan or satanic. I strongly suggest you study church history, as Newman said "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
Now I am starting to get a vague feeling that I have been watching roosters.
Fr.Jim, I appreciate very much your participation here in spite of the accusations made from some, usually based on ignorance of Christian history. Their attacks belie their Christianity in accepting anyone who has difference in doctrines or practice are outside the pale.
Please keep informing us and do not be dissuaded by such unChristian accusations. As a former SDA
I am ashamed of many Christians who are so unethical and unkind.
Fr. Jim
Thanks, You state your case well. Indeed--Adventist evangelism "proslytizing" is done in the negative/fear mode with lots of finger pointing without Scriptural basis. Martin Luther, of course, saw/felt Rome pushed the negative/fear factor in his day. Erasmus had the better take of the era.
I still think that the high point in the Catholic Church in my lifetime was during the short term of John XXIII: a great Christian leader in my mind. Not necessarily a scholar but what a humanitarian.
Adventism has had few of his caliber. I guess that hold true for the entire world. Tom
Michael, therefore I can assume that you do not agree with Shane? Read what he wrote. I am not being hypersensitive.
Posted by: Fr. Jim (not verified) | 06 November 2008 at 11:11
To the extent that you do not wait for a problem before you attack and judge, yes, you are hypersensitive.
What does it hurt you to be gracious and wait for accusations to actually be made before you make knee jerk assumptions and counter attack?
I know I have bent over backwards to have any kind of a non reactionary conversation with you. Indeed your response to Shane was much more civil than your responses to me. No name calling, no assumptions and no jumping to conclusions.
Your admissions of, "I find myself waiting for the other shoe to drop when they will start to claim secret codes on the papal crown. When an Adventist brings up paganism I immediately bristle and wait for the inevitable "Catholics got it from the pagans" line."
do not give you liscense to name call or behave as hostile as you have demonstrated. From an average Christian I would perhaps expect no more but from a Priest who holds they have the ability to forgive sins I do expect alot. Can you honestly say you have lived up to the high standards of Christ likeness in your time here, no matter what resistance you may encounter?
The saying, turn the other cheek comes to mind and I feel really bad that it has come to the point where I even refer to it.
As to Shane.
He is by definition mistaken.
pa·gan
Pronunciation: \ˈpā-gən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin paganus, from Latin, civilian, country dweller, from pagus country district; akin to Latin pangere to fix — more at pact
Date: 14th century
1: heathen 1 ; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person
3: neo-pagan
— pagan adjective
— pa·gan·ish \-gə-nish\ adjective
No Catholic of good concience could be discribed as above.
I believe the Catholic church of today to be much more mainstream and focused on Christian living and the care of others compared to the church of the middle ages. I know even that micro reference to the middle ages will cause you to bristle. None the less it is a fact.
What once was less than admirable is I believe much much better today with certain individuals we very much admire.
Still I no more hold you accountable for the actions of previous Popes than you should hold others, for the actions of some.
Michael
Fr. Jim
To call the Romon Catholic Church pagan is wrong, mean spirited, and underhanded. However, having said that, having worked in several third world countries in Latin American, I can say that the Indians have encorporated a number of pagan rites into their worship--knowingly or unknowingly by either the priesthood or the parishoners.
I don't believe that is what these so called evangelists were referring to--I, with you, believe they where just outright sheep stealing by false represention. However, I also believe that both sides play the numbers game. To what end, I have no idea. I think God does the counting. He knows who are His!
Far better if each soul seeker would preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Tom
I could have sworn I posted a comment last night. It was going to be my last one, because I see it would be unproductive to initiate an argument on this subject. Perhaps it was deleted, which I hope was not the case, because I merely quoted a Catholic source that said:
"The church took the pagan philosophy and made it the buckler of faith against the heathen. She took the pagan Roman Pantheon, temple of all gods, and made it sacred to all the martyrs; so it stands to this day. She took the pagan Sunday and made it the Christian Sunday. She took the pagan Easter and made it the feast we celebrate during this season...
"The sun was a foremost god with heathendom... There is, in truth, something royal, kingly, about the sun, making it a fit emblem of JESUS, the Sun of justice. Hence the church in these countries would seem to have said, 'Keep that old pagan name. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder [the god of light and peace], became the Christian Sunday, sacred to JESUS." (Vol. 58, # 348, March 1894, p.809)
I show evidence for my earlier claim and it gets deleted, or maybe I didn't post it at all. This is just one of many examples anyone could give to show how paganism has been adopted by the Catholic church.
Ignorantly denying what the Catholic Church claims is just showing ignorance of their own literature.
You can dislike me for what I am saying, but don't get angry with me, my words were just a mere reflection of their words.
If people are truly interested I can show more, directly from the Catholic church, that shows incorporation of paganism.
My Dear,
just some remarks inbetween :
I feel very sorry to read arguments about abuse and molestation in accusing the "other side" : That is unfair, that is to be refuted in any discussion, that is mean, that is bashful, vulgar, primitive - - and whatelse (sorry that I am so harsh in judging this very phenomenon; I take it as a serious matter in serious compassionate discussions about the serious matter alone - and not in controversies)
I am a Fifth Generation Adventist in the middle of Europe; I have experienced hostilities from here and from there; I was in a strongly Catholic - oriented public school - with Sabbath illegally off for me by courtesy of the principal. I was confronted literally every day with discussions Catholic - Marxist (yes !) - SDA
In spite of historically determinated strong tensions, having lead to a Civil War in the Thirties - our discussions then and until today were guided by the attempts to reach a mutual respectful understanding.
Please Fr.Jim (excuse me for now addressing you first) dont use the speech of Controversial Catechisms, speak out of your personal spiritual experience, of your holy life. Please some SDA, accept that the "Great Controversy" is a quite questionable source for gaining a historical overview; lesser even for controversies; that we must be aware of the Canon question and of Sabbath / Sunday and of the myths about mediaeval times.
Are you aware of Constantine ? ("Omnes judices urbanesque plebes requiescant venerabili dies Solis - -") and how the response of Christan officials was ? Are you aware of the weekdays named (Sunday) kiriaki - domenica - dimache - around the Mediterreanean, (Friday) praraskefi - ; (Saturday) sabbato - sbati - samedi - samstag -
(sorry b = m - soundshift ! the English "Saturday" is really pagan, the other names are derived from "Sabbath" !) How come this "Sabbath" as "Samstag" is still in our contemporary German calendars ?
On the other side in Greek Rev 1 : 10 reads : " - - en th kuriakh hmera " - yes, and I find this again in "Kiriaki" and "Domenica". The "Day of the Lord" should read "hmera tou kuriou-".
It really was not "THE POPE !!" of Ellen G. White who caused the obviously longtime shift from Sabbath to Sabbath + Kuriakh to Sunday.
Do all you Protestants keep in mind how the understanding and the interpretation of the Bible was shaped for all of us by the first "authorized" translation of Jerome, who in order of Pope Damasus created the Vulgata ? "Pium opus sed periculosa praesumptio - " his letter to the Pope - he had to equalize the Vetus latinae with all their faulty versions to one standard Latin Bible all the Reformers were obliged to even if taking the Hebrew - Aramaic - Greek texts.
Nothing quite new, but remarkable : The Andrews University Seminary Studies Autumn 2007 gave a book review on "Evangelicals an Tradition, The Formative Influence of the Early Church" by H.D Williams.
A landmark ?
Greetings, blessings, happy Sabbath ! GSS
Shane
How many former theaters became evangelistic centers, including the one in New York during the time of the New York World's Fair that became a much touted SDA Center?
How many mega churches were once sports arenas?
I think the issue is motive--was it adoption or adaptation?
Why not take issue with doctrinal points such as some of the formulations of the Council of Trent etc. Making blanket accusations should be band from the pulpit and from the mouth or pen of those who are commissioned to spread the Gospel.
If one were to list institutional sins--the SDA list would be as significant as any other given its short time span.
Adoration of a self proclaimed prophetess would be high on the list. The organized vilification of dissidents close by.
One thing is for sure: As weak and defective as the church is, it remains the object of God's highest regard.
Let us not dwell on the past, let us find our kinship in Jesus Christ our Elder Brother.
By far the greatest threat to reason and hope are Cable Evangelists spouting some form of eschatological triumphalism.
I do not exclude Amazing Facts from that list.
Tom
Tom:
My original statement: "The Roman Catholic Church system is indeed pagan."
>How many former theaters became evangelistic centers, including the one in New York during the time of the New York World's Fair that became a much touted SDA Center?
>How many mega churches were once sports arenas?
Would you not agree that using builds such as theaters and sports arenas are different than a church taking a pagan day of worship to the Sun and labeling it holy?
I make no judgement against individual Catholics, but the stystem itself is fraut with pagan origins.
I will not deny that the SDA church may have some practices that are pagan in origin. I don't know of any, but if we do, we would do well to purge them.
Michael, if you think I have treated you unfairly then you have an inkling of how I feel in many of the conversations I have had with Adventists. You could have simply stated that you don't think Catholicism is pagan. Btw, the middle ages were not that bad. Visit the Cathedral of Chartres. You will notice that Tom and I seem to get along. We have differences, but I do not see him as an attacker. Your own view is still somewhat vague, but time will tell.
Shane, I have been in former mosques that are now churches. Are we Muslims now too? If Adventists use a former Catholic church does that make them pagan Catholics? You use the Bible we gave you, does that make you Catholic? I notice, again, that you quote an unnamed source from the 19th century. Is it an official document? Why is it that Adventists hunt for obscure sources and rarely give full citations? Shall I give you some quotes from EG White on amalgamation of races?
All, I think this thread has gotten off the topic of the original post. It is not accomplishing much at this point. Finis.
Fr. Jim:
I'm not arguing whether buildings govern whether something is pagan or not. I'm arguing that the Catholic church changed God's Sabbath to Sunday, a pagan worship day. In other words Sunday as a day of worship does not have it's roots in Christianity, but in paganism.
Do you deny that the Catholic Church takes the credit for this transformation?
Michael, if you think I have treated you unfairly then you have an inkling of how I feel in many of the conversations I have had with Adventists.
>>>So its all about you then? You felt treated unfairly sometime before so that means you can act as you have? Give yourself some penance.>>>
You could have simply stated that you don't think Catholicism is pagan.
>>>Why should I have to say that when I never said the opposite to begin with? You jumped to that conclusion out of your own reactionary personality.>>>
You will notice that Tom and I seem to get along. We have differences, but I do not see him as an attacker.
Your own view is still somewhat vague, but time will tell.
Posted by: Fr. Jim (not verified) | 07 November 2008 at 3:58
>>>If my view is still vague to you then you are in the wrong profession. I would have hoped that a lawyer and Priest combination would have been Priest first and lawyer second. Unfortuantely, I find the opposite to be true.>>>
Michael
Shane
I think that basically the Adventist mind-set and the Roman
Catholic mind-set are the same. Each claims to be the one true church. It is just in the past two centuries it has been the Adventist theology that has been in an attack mode.
There are only seven days in a week. It is bound that groups/institutions may share a common day of celebration--that does not mean they are joined at the hip.
Adventists share the 7th day with Hebrews and at least two other religious groups--yet nobody claims 100% congruity with each other.
I simply agree with Fr. Jim that Adventist evangelism uses
a negative approach to recruitment--which is hurtful to the sum of Christianity.
Jesus call is to "Come" not to condemn or to question one's heritage--As sinners we are all bastards not just those who differ from us.
How often has an Adventist "call" been "come or be damnned"?
I read Fr. Jim as bringing that mind-set to our attention and rightly so. Tom
Ignorance of early church history is demonstrated in the repeated accusations of Catholics changing the day of worship.
Where are you sources rooted in the first few centuries? There was only ONE Christian church then, and for centuries afterward. Anyone knowledgeable about church history should recognize that all religions do not emerge in a vacuum, but are often a melding of earlier practices. Even the Hebrew sacrificial system was not at all unique to them but was also a ritual in many other religions contemporarily.
To make the claim that the "Church" had the power and did make a change in a worship day is totally erroneous. Long before Constantine, ruler of the Roman Empire, and not of the Church, ordered a rest day (in the early fourth
century), Christians had been meeting on that day to celebrate Christ's resurrection.
Ignatius (ca. 115) warned Christians to reject those who "preach the Jewish Law" and praised those who were "no longer observing the Sabbath," and praised those who were "living in the observance of the Lord's Day" (which is the term used in John's Revelation). Justin Martyr (ca 150) said:
"On the day called Sunday, all who live in citiers or in the country gather together in one place...Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkenss and matter, made the world' and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead."
Even Adventist: C. Mervyn Maxwell, P. Gerard Damsteegt, Kenneth A. Strand and Lawrence T. Geraty agree with this. In fact, Maxwell states:
"Many Christians were already honoring Sunday near the beginning of the second century....Evidence is very strong...that many if not most Christians had given up the Sabbath as early as AD 130. Just as Sunday observance came into practice by early in the second century, so among Gentile Christians Sabbath observance went out of practice by early in the second century." (It should also be remembered that we have no second century history of the Jewish-Christians.)
Rather than arguing with the Catholic church, one should be informed of the historians within the Adventist church who also agree with the early emergence of Sunday as a special day of celebration.
The Jews celebrated Sabbath as a reminder of the Exodus; Christians celebrate Sunday as a reminder of Christ's resurrection; without the resurrection, there would be no Christian church.
Elaine:
>To make the claim that the "Church" had the power and did make a change in a worship day is totally erroneous.
I agree. But they do claim.
_________________
The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine
By Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R.B.
Herder Book Co.
Saint Louis, Mo. 1946
48
3. THE THIRD COMMANDMENT.
Q. What is the Third Commandment?
A. The Third Commandment is: Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.
Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday and the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles on a Sunday.
Q. By what authority did the church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her.
Q. What does the Third Commandment command?
A. The Third Commandment commands, us to sanctify Sunday as the Lord's Day.
Shane
It seems clear to me that you just don't get it. Time and place are not the issue. The issue was, is, and always will be: Who and Why? Please read Rev. 4, and 5. Worship in eternity will be constant, never ceasing---Jesus Christ for His creative power and His redemptive love. The war in heaven never was about time, it was about who! It still is. Tom
Tom
Your talking big picture and Shane is talking history.
You cant tell him he doesnt get it just because he is not talking about the same thing you are.
Fair enough?
Michael
Anyone can, and make claims. The evidence is what is proof. Someone can claim to be the "smartest person in the world" and if anyone is fool enough to believe it, he's got at least one "true believer." If anyone watches the TV commercials and believes all the claims that are made for a particular product, that's the height of gullibility.
What are you saying Elaine?
You dispute the The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrines claims?
Or, that such a document exists?
Michael
Orissa State
India
I thought it a good example of Catholics and us working in the same fields. You will notice the Catholic orphanage was singled out by the ones who sent me the email as staying with the children in their care and paying the ultimate price.
The other orphanage Director/Denomination is not named.
"....The fanatics are circling outside waiting for a chance
To kill. Others were not so fortunate. In a nearby
Catholic orphanage, the mob allowed the kids to leave and locked up a Priest and a computer teacher in house and burned them to death. Many believers have been killed and hacked into pieces and left on the road.... Even
Women and children. At another orphanage run by another
Organization, when this began, the Director and his wife jumped on their motorbike and simply fled, leaving all the children and staff behind.
Every one of our GNI directors that I have spoken to said: 'We stay with our kids.... We live together or die together, but we will never abandon what God has called us to do.' More than 5000 Christian families have had their homes burned or destroyed. They have fled into the jungles and are living in great fear waiting for the
authorities to bring about peace."
I received this from a SDA missionary in India today.
Pray for these dear souls and all Christians in India!!
Michael
I was going to quit, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the book you should refer too. It is online. We claim that Christians have worshiped on the Lord's Day starting in Apostolic times. We find indications of that in scripture and the church fathers. When Adventists use Catholic documents they should use the ones that are official and current. A brief converts catechism from 1946 is a bit dated. It is not going to give an exhaustive treatise on why we worship on the Lord's Day. It is disingenuous to use it as if it were an Apostolic Constitution from an Ecumenical Council. Why do Adventists always do that? It was not the pagans or Constantine that changed the day of worship. It was the Apostles. Shane is not talking history, he is talking propaganda.
From the CCC (and it is not an exhaustive treatise either):
2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."104 Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath,105 it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:
We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.106
Sunday - fulfillment of the sabbath
2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107
Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.108
2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.
104 Cf. Mt 28:1; Mk 16:2; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1.
105 Cf. Mk 16:1; Mt 28:1.
106 St. Justin, I Apol. 67:PG 6,429 and 432.
107 Cf. 1 Cor 10:11.
108 St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Magn. 9,1:SCh 10,88.
109 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,122,4.
Michael
Fair enough, if he were talking history in context. But he appears, to this reader, as blaming the acts of history on today's adherents. I certainly didn't lay any blame on my Aunt Sister Mary Leonard. I think the fairest contemporary critique of Rome was written by Hans Kung. Tom
"blaming the acts of history on today's adherents"
I agree Tomas. That shouldnt be done. You may have noticed I said the same thing myself a few posts up. Until I know for sure, I am not prepared to think that was what Shane was suggesting. He can clarify that for us if he would.
Jim,
It's a bit of a stretch to say a quote from a 1946 copy is propaganda. Your Church embraced it for quite a number of yesrs.
I notice you dont dispute it's veracity.
Can you tell me why the newer version changed? What year did the change happen?
Does it represent a difference in the claims of the Catholic church?
Just curious about the why's and wherefore's.
Any insights?
Thanks
Michael
Michael
Thanks--Always a comment, or a suggestion, or a question--never a scold--a great Christian mind and spirit--enjoy your views and comments. You often make my day.
A final observation on this thread--It began as a story about a Christian celebration down under and turned into a debate.
Luther and Calvin got almost all the way back to Paul but kept a lot of Caiphas in them.
In my work with the Augusta United Way I met a number of clerics. The top five were an Lutherian Priest, a Episcopel Priest, a Presbyterian Pastor, a Methodist Pastor and President of the local black college, and a Rabbi.
I just mention the above to observe no denomination has a hold on Christian love and charity.
I think that is where this thread began. Tom
"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."
You are so right, EJ. And so much pandering and misinformation apparently. Stay with it, EJ.
Michael, we certainly believe that the Apostles worshiped on the Lord's Day. I don't deny that at all. Do you believe that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship due to pagan influence? I notice that you have not really answer that directly.
A brief catechism only gives a one line answer. It does not give the whole story. The full catechism offers more as to why we believe something. The propaganda I refer too is his erroneous idea that we worship on Sunday because the pagans mandated it. Our claims have not changed, but the way we present the faith does.
Shane, In her book The Flood EG White says: "Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the Flood. Since the Flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.--Page 75." Uriah Smith stated this explained the Africans. "Adventist leader Uriah Smith, who at that time still professed belief in Ellen White as a prophet, published his defense of Ellen White. In that book he conjectured that the union of man with beast had created races such as the "wild Bushmen of Africa". (See The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White, p.1030)." The book was approved by James White.
Fr. Jim
Thanks for the quote and reference. I had read it many years ago and then lost my photocopy.
Certainly underlines that she was a "child of her time". Just think of the harm and hurt those few lines have caused. Some actually believed that!
Tom
Tom, the reason I used it was to show Shane that he is living in a glass house while throwing stones. Hopefully he will get the point.
Jim
You might of noticed that this is a place of denominational introspection. You cant play here without taking the same risks.
One glass house is not the antidote to another glass house.
Each glass house has to rise or fall on their own merits.
Catholic issues arent resolved by pointing out SDA issues and visa versa.
Each issue can be discussed on its own without muddying the playing field.
Tom can attest to the fact that there is no shortage of EGW threads here.
PS thanks for the kind words Tom.
Michael
Michael, so I guess hypocrisy is not a concern? In fact Shane is posting things that are simply untrue. On the other hand you do not deny that the quote I posted is in fact true. Again I must point out that you have not yet said whether you agree with Shane or not. It would truly be interesting if after chastising me for being too sensitive it turned out that you also believe Catholicism to be of pagan origin.
Jim
We have passed the point of dimishing returns. If my previous attempts at being clear are not enough for you what can I say?
You must enjoy being in suspense.
Michael
If one can't acknowledge the errors in his own group, why does he think it somehow superior to point out discrepancies in other groups? I agree
that "those in glass houses shouldn't cast stones."
Attempting to ridicule anyone's religion is the refuge of scoundrels (to paraphrase another). Every institution has its own internal problems, but we much later Protestants should beware of calling our mother bad names, it is not only unkind, but rejects all the benefits that she brought us: the NT scriptures; the doctrine of the Trinity; human-divine nature of Christ; and much more, without which there would be nothing to protest!
Michael, as I pointed out before my introduction here was due to an Adventist who concealed his beliefs and affiliation. He was deceptive. He also btw refused to use the title "Father." I am not in suspense at all. I was right. You won't answer a simple yes or no question. You were just trying to put me on the defensive and deflect my questions. I wish that Adventists would be more upfront. At least Shane is honest about his beliefs. He is bigoted and wrong, but honest. Please do not try to cast me as being overly sensitive when I am in fact correct. And in the future please don't try to play these games. Just say what you mean and mean what you say. I don't enjoy people deceiving me.
Michael and Fr. Jim
We have a problem here. Each believes sincerely that theirs is the one true church. Each believes human errors of the past negates that claim. Both see the first three centuries of the Church as theirs. Each draws a straight vertical line from that base as representing their church and draws a skewed line as representing the other. I was first impressed with that view when I took "lessons" prior to joining the Presbyterian Church. An early flip chart showed Presbyterians as a straight vertical arrow and all others as deviate branches.
I had the nerve to ask--does that root represent Christ? If so are we not all related? Which son or daughter does our Father love best is a very self centered question.
I just love Thomas Cahill's books, particularly his Hinges of History series: The Gifts of the Jews and How the Irish Saved Civilization.
Michael if Takoma Park had a history as long as Rome, I think it would look much the same a Rome.
Fr. Jim if Takoma Park had a history as long as Rome, I think it would behave today with the forebearance you have demonstrated when confronted with a few impertinant zealous Adventists. I don't think Michael fits that mould.
I count among my friends some of the finest Christians in both Adventism and Catholicism equally gracious, forebearing, and genuinely sincere in their views of Christianity. I think you both fit that pattern--dispite the present tension. Tom
The Lord's day is mention in an Apocryphal
Acts of John (Apocryphal) About His Exile and Departure.
"...And on the seventh day, it being the Lord's day, he said to them..."
"...For He also knows insult from you, He knows also dishonour, He knows also treachery, He knows also punishment from those that disobey His commandments..."
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia Online
This was written after apostle John was on the Isle of Patmos and his life until the account of his supposed ascension to heaven. The commonly held account is that he was on the Isle of Patmos in 96 A.D., and therefore, may have lived into the next century. So as of the 2nd century the Lord's Day was the 7th day, which is called Saturday according to Isaiah 58:13. There, the LORD says the 7th day Sabbath is "My holy day."
Tom, my beef with Michael was not that he thinks the SDA is the one true church. It is that he was not being honest about what he believes about my church. He does believe we are a pagan religion and simply won't say that. Instead he attacked me for criticizing that position. In fact I was right all along. All he had to do was be upfront about what he really believes. We can then go from there. I believe that baptized Protestants are Christians, although their churches do not have apostolic succession. I believe that some of their doctrines are in error, but I do not believe they are pagans. I believe they can be saved and go to heaven. If I can make my position clear then why can't Michael?
Lawyer Jim,
You are familiar with the concept of proof?
Please go back and quote the parts where I said the Catholic church was pagan.
Tom,
For your peace of mind I will tell you, I dont believe human errors of the past negates any current condition.
PROOF:I said it more than 3 days ago.
"Still I no more hold you accountable for the actions of previous Popes than you should hold others, for the actions of some."
Posted by: Michael | 07 November 2008 at 4:28
Michael
Tom, I loved your last post above. We are only "separated brethren" when we wish to make a case for it. It seems so childish to nitpick over small things, when, if we believe all good people will be saved, let God decide who is "good."
BTW, I also love Thomas Cahill's books and am I am currently reading Jim Webb's book on the Scots-Irish which is a good read on the origin of many of the settlers of the Appalachians and South.
Michael, I have looked in vain for where you have clarified that you do not believe Catholicism is pagan. You and Steve DeLong would get along well. Neither of you is honest. Deception only honors the Father of Lies. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. It is unfortunate that you make Adventism look bad by your bigotry. It reinforces the negative view so many have of your religion.
Hi i am a recent convert to christianity, particularly adventist. i have been greatly dissapointed with all christians in general (not just catholics) because so many just dont follow their religion.
i dont care about beleifs or doctrines, God will work that our for us in time, but when our particular denomination says to avoid something, or promotes something else, many just dont follow. why?
i should leave christianity, - shouldnt have joined organised reliion in the first place!
i still like the teachings of Jesus though.
Religion wont save us. As an Adventist i mostly spend my time on other sectors and sharing my own belief together with them which i find very informative.
Anon - Just to comment briefly on your remarks about disappointment with Christians who don't follow their religions... I think many see "church" as a place (and events) to come together with others to share in worship, seeking God, learning, and often enjoying a shared "culture." A wide variety of churches accomplish this, including those discussed on this thread. It is true that some people cling very tightly to the teachings of their particular church to help them navigate the twists and turns of life and faith. And for all of us (as you can see by the existence of this website!), these do affect our lives and conversations. But many navigate the specifics more individually, relying on their personal relationship with God to determine the details of how they live and how they sort things out. For such people, the "church" is more a gathering of seeking hearts than a leader telling us how we should live.
And please note that Christians are just like any other group of people striving to live a certain way - nobody does it perfectly, and everybody does it a little different!
My grandmother was dying. She was surrounded by all of her children. The older children were Methodists, My dad and his younger sister and grandma were Seventh-day Adventists. Grandma converting while dad was 15 or 16. Each child asked:
"Mom is there anything we could do to make you more comfortable?" Grandma replied: "Oh yes! I would love some nice crisp bacon." The older children looked at dad and his sister, they both said, "Yes, of course, get her some nice crisp bacon." The girls all went down to the kitchen and fried up some bacon and brought it to grandma. She smelled it, and said thank you girls, but I can't meet my Lord with bacon on my breath!" She died with sweet breath. Dad and his sister still believe they did the Christian thing to attempt to provide grandma a old time favorite breakfast food--health reform or no. Bacon wouldn't have shortened nor lengthened her life. It certainly was no barrier to the love of God.
I never met my grandma. I am looking forward to that day.
My dad missed her ever day of his life. He loved and admired her that much. I was blessed with wonderful parents so much so that parenting became my profession. We all need a Church like that! Tom
Colin,
I am with you. I do not understand what the concerned brother is up to-has he made any break through to reach out to all denomination in the like and mind of Christ to understand and learn of them without criticism and harsh anti chritian attitude.
when we have the time and opportunity, i am convinced we go out there and meet them were they are rather than beeing skeptical without good reason. May the Lord has the last say, your are his true ambassador, Colin. Well done.
Cherket Jerry
hermes leather
tote leather bag
overnight bag women
Louis Vuitton Keychain
louis vuitton replica wallet
Bvlgari Pendants
fake damier
Juicy Ring
Gucci Necklace
knock off cartier
Add your comment