| Author | Message | ||
| Lynn W |
Sounds interesting. When you put up a web-site, it's easier for me to find if you print it in the form of an actual link (underlined in blue) so we can just click on it. Sometimes I have a hard time finding the site by typing in the given address. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to put http://www. or whatever before it. If you print it as a link, I'll go there. Thanks, Lynn | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Lynn W., Try clicking on http://senac.com/forums/1974/ and see if that works for you. Jude | ||
| Lynn W |
Jude Dude Thanks, that worked. Looking forward to spending time there. Lynn | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Lynn, About "Sunday sacredness" (SS), I though it would be better to continue on this thread, since SS is off the subject of that one. At any rate, mea culpa. EGW was right about the Roman Catholic claim to Sunday Sacredness. I looked for and found the Pope's 1889 encyclical on the Lord's Day, called Dies Domini. Here is the relevant portion: ************************************ BEGIN QUOTE FROM 1998 PAPAL ENCYCLICAL ************************************ The day of rest 64. For several centuries, Christians observed Sunday simply as a day of worship, without being able to give it the specific meaning of Sabbath rest. Only in the fourth century did the civil law of the Roman Empire recognize the weekly recurrence, determining that on "the day of the sun" the judges, the people of the cities and the various trade corporations would not work. (107) Christians rejoiced to see thus removed the obstacles which until then had sometimes made observance of the Lord's Day heroic. They could now devote themselves to prayer in common without hindrance. (108) It would therefore be wrong to see in this legislation of the rhythm of the week a mere historical circumstance with no special significance for the Church and which she could simply set aside. Even after the fall of the Empire, the Councils did not cease to insist upon the arrangements regarding Sunday rest. In countries where Christians are in the minority and where the festive days of the calendar do not coincide with Sunday, it is still Sunday which remains the Lord's Day, the day on which the faithful come together for the Eucharistic assembly. But this involves real sacrifices. For Christians it is not normal that Sunday, the day of joyful celebration, should not also be a day of rest, and it is difficult for them to keep Sunday holy if they do not have enough free time. 65. By contrast, the link between the Lord's Day and the day of rest in civil society has a meaning and importance which go beyond the distinctly Christian point of view. The alternation between work and rest, built into human nature, is willed by God himself, as appears in the creation story in the Book of Genesis (cf. 2:2-3; Ex 20:8-11): rest is something "sacred", because it is man's way of withdrawing from the sometimes excessively demanding cycle of earthly tasks in order to renew his awareness that everything is the work of God. There is a risk that the prodigious power over creation which God gives to man can lead him to forget that God is the Creator upon whom everything depends. It is all the more urgent to recognize this dependence in our own time, when science and technology have so incredibly increased the power which man exercises through his work. 66. Finally, it should not be forgotten that even in our own day work is very oppressive for many people, either because of miserable working conditions and long hours ó especially in the poorer regions of the world ó or because of the persistence in economically more developed societies of too many cases of injustice and exploitation of man by man. When, through the centuries, she has made laws concerning Sunday rest, (109) the Church has had in mind above all the work of servants and workers, certainly not because this work was any less worthy when compared to the spiritual requirements of Sunday observance, but rather because it needed greater regulation to lighten its burden and thus enable everyone to keep the Lord's Day holy. In this matter, my predecessor Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Rerum Novarum spoke of Sunday rest as a worker's right which the State must guarantee. (110) In our own historical context there remains the obligation to ensure that everyone can enjoy the freedom, rest and relaxation which human dignity requires, together with the associated religious, family, cultural and interpersonal needs which are difficult to meet if there is no guarantee of at least one day of the week on which people can both rest and celebrate. Naturally, this right of workers to rest presupposes their right to work and, as we reflect on the question of the Christian understanding of Sunday, we cannot but recall with a deep sense of solidarity the hardship of countless men and women who, because of the lack of jobs, are forced to remain inactive on workdays as well. 67. Through Sunday rest, daily concerns and tasks can find their proper perspective: the material things about which we worry give way to spiritual values; in a moment of encounter and less pressured exchange, we see the true face of the people with whom we live. Even the beauties of nature ó too often marred by the desire to exploit, which turns against man himself ó can be rediscovered and enjoyed to the full. As the day on which man is at peace with God, with himself and with others, Sunday becomes a moment when people can look anew upon the wonders of nature, allowing themselves to be caught up in that marvellous and mysterious harmony which, in the words of Saint Ambrose, weds the many elements of the cosmos in a "bond of communion and peace" by "an inviolable law of concord and love". (111) Men and women then come to a deeper sense, as the Apostle says, that "everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer" (1 Tim 4:4-5). If after six days of work ó reduced in fact to five for many people ó people look for time to relax and to pay more attention to other aspects of their lives, this corresponds to an authentic need which is in full harmony with the vision of the Gospel message. Believers are therefore called to satisfy this need in a way consistent with the manifestation of their personal and community faith, as expressed in the celebration and sanctification of the Lord's Day. Therefore, also in the particular circumstances of our own time, Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy. In any case, they are obliged in conscience to arrange their Sunday rest in a way which allows them to take part in the Eucharist, refraining from work and activities which are incompatible with the sanctification of the Lord's Day, with its characteristic joy and necessary rest for spirit and body. (112) 68. In order that rest may not degenerate into emptiness or boredom, it must offer spiritual enrichment, greater freedom, opportunities for contemplation and fraternal communion. Therefore, among the forms of culture and entertainment which society offers, the faithful should choose those which are most in keeping with a life lived in obedience to the precepts of the Gospel. Sunday rest then becomes "prophetic", affirming not only the absolute primacy of God, but also the primacy and dignity of the person with respect to the demands of social and economic life, and anticipating in a certain sense the "new heavens" and the "new earth", in which liberation from slavery to needs will be final and complete. In short, the Lord's Day thus becomes in the truest sense the day of man as well. ********************************** END QUOTE FROM 1998 PAPAL ENCYCLICAL ********************************** I do think this is something we "formers" need to consider and discuss. What do you think? Jude | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Lynn, Here's the way the apostolic letter begins: *************** APOSTOLIC LETTER DIES DOMINI OF THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY AND FAITHFUL OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON KEEPING THE LORD'S DAY HOLY My esteemed Brothers in the Episcopate and the Priesthood, Dear Brothers and Sisters! *************** full text may be found click here: http://www.tagnet.org/fremont/dd_jp-ii.html | ||
| Lynn W |
Another reason to "protest." Just because Catholics think it's sacred, doesn't mean I or my church does. Just because we meet on Sunday morn. (as well as Sat. eve), doesn't mean we treat it as sacred. | ||
| Sondra |
I am putting my two cents in on this sacred thing because there is no such thing as a building or a day being "sacred". We can show reverance in a house or a church being used as a place of worship but what is the church? It is the body of Christ and that is you, me and all the other "believers" who congregate at a certain time and place which makes the place "sacred". Christ dwells within us and when you multiply that by a few people or a few hundred people, then it becomes sacred. We are referred to as "saints" in the Bible and from the moment we accept Christ into our hearts, we live eternally with Him. We honor Him by meeting together, because we encourage and lift each other up. We do this regularly because that is the cycle of our lives. We celebrate His resurrection on Sunday because it did not occur on Saturday. I serve a living Christ and that is what I celebrate! But I would do it every day of the week if I could and that would be "sacred" to me and to my God because He lives within the believer. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Thanks for the answers so far. You make good points. Now, in order to be more specific, I'm pulling out a smaller quote from within the larger quote above. Here it is: ********************** When, through the centuries, she [the Roman Catholic Church] has made laws concerning Sunday rest, (109) the Church has had in mind above all the work of servants and workers, certainly not because this work was any less worthy when compared to the spiritual requirements of Sunday observance, but rather because it needed greater regulation to lighten its burden and thus enable everyone to keep the Lord's Day holy. In this matter, my predecessor Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Rerum Novarum spoke of Sunday rest as a worker's right which the State must guarantee. (110) ********************** Obviously, the Pope is here talking about Sunday laws and insisting on the right of the Roman Catholic Church, in the name of God, to order "the State" to "guarantee" the worker's right to their benefits. Again, what do you think? | ||
| Lynn W |
You make a good point. It sounds as if the fulfillment of the prophecy of Sunday Laws (if that's what is meant by the prophecy) has come and gone. The further time goes on, the more lax "Sunday laws" are. Rome has far less power than she once did. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Sondra, I agree completely, and I believe that the RCC -- in doing such things as getting legislation passed forcing Sabbath-keepers to keep their businesses closed on Sunday -- is violating Romans 14. Grace and peace, Jude | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Yes, Lynn, The world of EGW has changed so much that she wouldn't recognize it today. That's the reason, in my opinion at least, that the SDA church's many and multifold attempts to "stay relevant" are doomed in the long run. I truly wish them no harm. I see the "Advent movement" as a tree metaphor. Its seed was sown by the likes of William Miller and James and Ellen. It grew, it blossomed, it bore fruit year after year after year -- I'm thinking of its world-wide medical work, for example -- and now it seems to have reached senility, in North America, at least. Let's let it continue to die naturally. And then, perhaps, just perhaps, we can build houses and sailing ships from its lumber. You see, God wastes nothing and redeems everything (apologies to Colleen). Jude | ||
| Lynn W |
Speaking of irrelevance, it amazes me they still hold onto the Lisbon earthquake, dark day, etc. as the sign of the end. There have been much larger & more devastating earthquakes since then & the end has not come. Most of that stuff is a small entry in an encyclopedia if you can find it at all. And on the subject of irrelevance, I've read so many statements like "she is considered to be the greatest religious author of all time" etc. But they never say "considered" by whom. Have you ever tried to find Ellen White in the encyclopedia? You can always find J. Smith, MB Eddy & the others. Mention Joseph Smith in your SS class & everyone nods in recognition. Mention EGW & everyone says, "who?" | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Many years ago when I was colporteuring (selling SDA books door to door), I had a list of quotations provided by HHES in my prospectus. Among them was a quote from a "Library of Congress" spokesman saying EGW's books were among the greatest literary works of all time. Come to find out, the "library of Congress" spokesman turned out to be an employee of clerk level who turned out to be an SDA layperson and who had made the statement in a Wednesday night prayer meeting or similar situation. But, true to its heritage, the SDA colporteur ministry picked that up and published it abroad in order to sell the books intended to finish the work of God on earth! | ||
| Cas |
Lynn, A few years back I asked our pastor of the SDA church, about the prophecies of the Earthquake, falling stars and dark day. I told him I believed these happenings were immediately preceding the 2nd coming, and you know what he said..., he said some prophecies have dual applications!!! Now isn't that convienient,if you predict something and it doesn't come to pass just claim dual applications! | ||
| Henry Randolph |
Sunday Laws? I am just pondering this expression..., and as I do I grow more positive that while the Roman Catholic Church has had many "Church" laws, these laws had no effect on me and others outside of Catholicism. The laws of the Roman Church were applicable to members of that denomination, not to those who were not Roman Catholics. I live in Texas. The majority of Texans are Protestants. Our State Legislature relieved the people of many of the so-called "Blue Laws" that once governed the citizens of Texas. I cannot ascertain that the Roman Church influenced the State in any matters regarding Sunday. What I am saying is that while the Catholic Church has its own set of "laws" for its members, those laws are not applicable to all citizens of an area. I just don't see any change in that status in the foreseeable future. Henry | ||
| Lori |
There is a difference between a law that allows you the option to worship on Sunday "if" (maybe you will, maybe you won't) you chose to, as opposed to what Adventism teaches that the Catholic church mandated Sunday worship. There is a vast difference in Sunday worship (which most Sunday churches do) and Sunday Holiness (which the SDA "say"other churches observe). | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
When the Roman Catholic Church says, "Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Rerum Novarum spoke of Sunday rest as a worker's right which the State must guarantee," it means exactly that. These laws were never "for Catholics only." There is simply no support whatsoever in either history or juris prudence for that view. While it is true that in the U.S. many "blue laws" were enacted by Protestant, and not Roman Catholic, legislators, these were never "you must worship" laws. There are no examples of "you must go to church on Sunday" laws. ALL Sunday "blue laws," whether enacted due to the influence of Roman Catholics or Protestants, were REST laws. Primarily, "you can't open your business on Sunday" laws. "Everything else," as they say, "is just toothpate." | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
A word about the theology of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), which I studied at the graduate level and did research at the Roman Catholic Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana. I also hold an advanced degree in systematic theology. RCC theology is quite different from -- not to say "better than" or "worse than" -- Protestant (P) theology in some very important respects. Certainly one of the most important has to do with the question: What is the "true church"? SHOCKING DIFFERENCE NUMBER ONE: RCC does not consider their own parishioners to be members of the church. If you have studied Reformation history sufficiently you wouldn't be shocked. RCC considers the priests who mediate the mass (from God to you) to be "the church," not the people who sit in the pew and hear the mass. These people, approaching a billion of them (depending on how you do the stats) in the whole world, are considered "faithful" to the church, NOT part of the church. SHOCKING DIFFERENCE NUMBER TWO: Everyone else -- including the clergy of all other churches, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox (EO), so-called "free floating" individual Christians (like yours truly), non-denominational churches, etc. -- are NOT part of the "true church" either. Want to be a member of the "true church"? Become a priest. Otherwise, you're out of luck. Sorry. You can "be faithful" to the "true church" by being baptized BY A PRIEST ONLY and recognizing Peter as the first Pope, and the present-day Pope, whoever he happens to be, as the only living "deputy" of Jesus Christ on earth. But that's all. The only way to become an actual member of "the true church" is to become a Roman Catholic priest! As far as the RCC is concerned, this argument was settled centuries ago, and "you ain't gonna change it now, so just forget about it." This is the primary reason the "ecumenical movement" of the 60s and 70s failed, at least on the Catholic side. I wrote a thesis on this very subject, doing my research at Notre Dame, and I came away realizing that Vatican II, which addressed this issue, changed nothing basic. Here is the only real change brought about by Vatican II: It decided to no longer call Protestants and other non-Catholics, non-Christian "apostates," but to call them "separated bretheren" instead. And this is exactly where the issue stands today in February 2000. It hasn't budged an inch since then, and there are no realistic prospects for it to change further. To the contrary, ever since Vatican II, RCC has been "calling separated bretheren" back into the fold. What this means is nothing less than a reversal of the Reformation of Luther, Calvin, etc. No more Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, or anyone else! Period! End of story! Thus was stalled out the ecumenical movement. At least on the Catholic side. On the Protestant side, the more conservative denominations, such as the Southern Baptists in the U.S., put up a terrible howl against the "liberal" ecumenical movement. That had its effect too, for it convinced many Protestants that they had no business "playing footsie" with Rome. You must recognize that there are liberal and conservative theologians in all three traditions: RCC, P, and Eastern Orthodox (EO). Basically, the ecumenical movement was an attempt by liberal theologians in all three traditions (RCC, P and EO) to come together and hammer out a way to "mend the broken body of Christ." But conservative theologians in all three traditions scotched it. The Pope of Vatican II, ONLY SIDED WITH HIS OWN RCC CONSERVATIVE THEOLOGIANS AND AGAINST HIS OWN RCC LIBERAL THEOLOGIANS. In all three traditions, with the possible exception of the Episcopalian church, the most liberal of mainline Protestant churches, the conservatives won and the liberals lost. The ball game is over, folks! You can go home now. SHOCKING DIFFERENCE NUMBER THREE: Since the RCC doesn't recognize any other group of people calling itself "church" or even "Christian," it considers all interactions between church and state (ANY state from ANY time period -- the Roman Empire, Nazi Germany, Comunist China, the thirteen original American colonies or the present-day USA) to be an interaction between Caesar (any state of any time) and Christ (at all times represented on earth by the Pope and the Pope alone). Thus, as far as RCC is concerned, when ANY LAW -- such as a Sunday law, for example -- is passed ANYWHERE in the world at ANY TIME in history, past present or future, that law concerns Caesar (the country involved) and Christ (RCC, those "faithful" to it, and to a lesser extent, "separated bretheren"). Of course, Protestants still object to this whole schema, and have, as in the case of Sunday "blue laws" in the U.S., in times past succeeded in passing their own Sunday "blue laws." But this changes nothing basic. Bottom line: SDAs are correct when they charge that Rome claims to have changed Sunday sacredness from the 7th to the 1st day. But SDAs are incorrect when they claim that they, SDAs, are "the true church," just as are RCCs when they claim to be "the true church." No mainline Protestant church CLAIMS TO BE "THE TRUE CHURCH" in the same sense that RCCs and SDAs do. This is one huge reason why the RCC and the SDA are so much alike! Bet you didn't know that! Is anybody reading this out there? Does anybody care? -Jude | ||
| Bruce H |
Henry Randolph Are you new on this form, could you tell us a little bit about yourself | ||
| Timo. K. |
Jude, it was interesting thoughts about Sunday laws. Are there anywhere copies of your theses at Notre Dame available to buy? Personally i have for years had hard time believing in World-wide Sunday laws. In the forseeable future, I cannot see how the whole world would be forced to keep Sunday (Moslems, Jews, etc.) I am almost sure You don't hold the Traditional Adventist view either, so this is only generally speaking. There must really be very big changes in the world for World-wide laws of religious kind to be a reality. With the Blood of Christ as our security, we are ready to face the future whatever it might bring. timo |
