Hitler Was Anti-YHWH
Posted in History, Quickies on | 2 minutes | 40 Comments →
For some, the message of today’s short post doesn’t need restating. I apologize for wasting their time. However, I’m always amused when people trot out the “Hitler was a Christian,” or “Hitler was a Catholic” tropes. These are just as inaccurate as the “Hitler was an atheist” trope. Such canned statements show ignorance of history and naïveté in general. It behooves any powerful leader to pander to the religious ebb and flow of his day. Constantine did it, and the Roman Catholic Church was the result. Remember the photos of Bush 43 donning a Kipa and praying at the Wall? Hitler used religion. He tried to destroy mainstream churches. Jews weren’t the only ones consigned to concentration camps: priests, nuns and Jehovah’s Witness were, too. Hitler youth were indoctrinated in blasphemy from the ground up. Consider the following “children of Hitler” chant from the 1934 Nuremburg Party rally:
No evil priest can prevent us from feeling that we are the children of Hitler. We follow not Christ but Horst Wessel. Away with incense and holy water. The church can go hang for all we care. The swastika brings salvation on Earth. (Grunberger, The 12-Year Reich, p.442)
There was a Nazi rendition of “Silent Night” that was mandatory in state-run orphanages. The Nazis also had their own marriage and baptismal rites. This was anti-YHWH pagan occultism, plain and simple. Next time you hear somebody trot out the tropes, educate them.
BenYachov
says...>Constantine did it, and the Roman Catholic Church was the result.
The Catholic Church goes back to the first century my friend. Constantine wasn’t even a Christian till he was on his death bead & even then he was baptized by a Priest who was a known Arian Heretic.
But thank for pointing out the weakness in the “Hitler was Christian” trope.
BenYachov
says...Note the Priest who baptized Constantine was an Arian heretic not an Ayrian heretic.
People get that confused.
cl
says...Hi James. The email you use to comment with here… is it real? If so, I’d like drop you a line.
I realize that Roman Catholics claim the roots of their faith goes all the way back. We can’t even have a fruitful discussion about that matter unless you tell me what, precisely, you mean when you say, “Catholic Church.” Suffice it to say, today’s “Roman Catholic Church,” which is the term I used, is a marrying of Constantinian paganism and the apostolic faith of the Natsarim (this is also true of all the offshoot branches, to some degree or another, and this is why I object to your claim that I must be either Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant). Although certainly interesting for discussion, those are outside the point of the post (though I’m not one to whine about thread drift and I freely encourage discussion of any point in any thread). The point here is that leaders have bastardized religion for political causes throughout history. Therefore it doesn’t necessarily follow that “Hitler was a Christian” or whatever. But, I don’t get the impression you’re doubting that. Rather, I get the impression you disagree with some of my sentiments about the RCC. I’m more than happy to trade facts, just be specific and tell me what you disagree with.
:)
BenYachov
says...Briefly the phrase “Roman Catholic Church” was first used by Anglicans as a Dis against the Catholic Church. I refer to the Church as The Catholic Church & it shouldn’t be hard it’s the Church with the Pope as it’s head Pastor here on Earth.
FYI the e-mail is valid thought I rarely use it.
Both Hitler & Stalin where Christian in the minimal sense both where(like Caesar Constantine) validly baptized. But both Hitler & Stalin where apostates. Hitler because he stopped going to Mass since he was a teenager and Stalin for His Atheism.
>which is the term I used, is a marrying of Constantinian paganism and the apostolic faith of the Natsarim
Yeh I studied early Jewish Christianity. The early Nazarenes where Torah observant Jewish Catholics not Protestants.
Protestants & their peculiar novelties don’t come on the scene till Luther. I regard all forms of Protestantism as an A-Historical form of Christianity.
>I get the impression you disagree with some of my sentiments about the RCC. I’m more than happy to trade facts, just be specific and tell me what you disagree with.
I’ll check my e-mail & see what I can do.
cl
says...Since you didn’t say anything about it, do you accept the accusation of pagan marriage?
Why? The word “Catholic” didn’t exist until over 1,000 years later.
I guess you just run with a much looser definition than Scripture!
Who said they were Protestants? Surely not I. The truth is, they were neither Catholic nor Protestant. I suppose you could call them whatever you want, but the word “Catholic” was not even in usage until the 14th century or so. You got the “Torah observant” part correct, though.
That’s correct, too.
Crude
says...Cl,
I would, as a Catholic, dispute the charge about Catholics. But I’m also going to stay out of that fight.
I agree with your general thrust. In fact, I think you could have used a prime example in Jim Jones. You know he’s documented as an atheist, right?
cl
says...Which one? It doesn’t have to be a fight, let’s talk this out. Tell me exactly what you dispute.
No, I didn’t know that. Nice little factoid. This little ditty should put that whole “but atheists don’t do wrong because of their atheism” trope to rest as well. In particular, Jeffrey Dahmer:
Crude
says...I question whether Constantine’s ‘use of religion’ was as deep and cynical as Hitler’s. And I don’t believe the Catholic Church started with Constantine – I believe it started with Peter.
That said, I prefer to be ecumenical. Protestants and Catholics have quite a lot in common, across the board. Heck, I’m even semi-ecumenical towards Mormons. I believe disagreements, even extremely important disagreements, should not get in the way of recognizing common points and common cause.
cl
says...I don’t know who’s was deeper or more cynical, and quite frankly that strikes me as one of those fruitless discussions I don’t want to have. I believe Satan used them both. The reasoning? By their fruit we shall recognize them. By that metric, I suppose one could argue that Hitler was more evil, but again, it’s subjective, and not worth our time. Or, not worth mine at least :)
Why do you believe that? What, specifically, do you mean by “Catholic” church? When I use the term, I’m referring specifically to the entity Constantine set in motion. That’s when the marrying with Roman paganism—Mithraism in particular, and the worship of Tammuz—really came to fruition. You didn’t see Peter ordering decrees of death on those who worshipped the Sabbath as YHWH commanded. Constantine perverted the direct command of YHWH! You didn’t see any apostle claiming sacraments were essential to salvation. Messiah never told the apostles, “By this sign, conquer.” Etc.
I’m not saying this to provoke or start controversy. I’m saying this because Revelation calls true believers to come out of the delusion, and by “delusion” I’m not referring only to the RCC. Delusion is rampant in every denomination. Time is short and all I can offer us is this advice: that we would spend more time on our faces in prayer than fruitless, flesh-driven bantering online. I shudder to think of my own failures in this regard! Every one of us must be sure where we stand with Messiah. Sooner than later.
If we depend on anything other than or beyond pure repentance as described in Scripture, we won’t be able to stand what’s coming.
Crude
says...Cl,
Can I ask, what prompted this? You seem to have had a drastic change in tone recently. Now, if you meant ‘time is short’ in the sense that I can get hit by a car tomorrow, certainly I understand. I don’t think I’m deluded at all, but I do understand the importance of taking this seriously.
But I’m getting the impression off you that ‘time is short’ means ‘you suddenly think the world is ending within a certain frame of time’. You certainly didn’t have this attitude last week.
BenYachov
says...>Why? The word “Catholic” didn’t exist until over 1,000 years later.
Seriously? The word “Catholic” is found in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans.
QUOTE”Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”END QUOTE. It’s use is wide spread way way way before the 14th century. That is just a brute fact.
It’s is providence 107 AD by Protestant & Evengelical Scholars.
Also your take on Constantine is just historically wrong. His role was to foot the bill for the Council of Nicaea nothing more. He complained at the debates at Nicaea “They are arguing over one word” (i.e. homoeousios/same substance vs similar substance.).
>You didn’t see Peter ordering decrees of death on those who worshipped the Sabbath as YHWH commanded.
I don’t know where that comes from? Judaizing wasn’t formally condemned till the Second Council of Nicaea several centuries later & that was in reaction to the excesses of the remnant of Ebionites anti-Pauline Jewish Christians who denied the deity of Christ. Even still the eastern Church retained semi-Sabbath observance in that fasting was forbidden on both the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath. St Gregory of Nyssa observed both day with a primacy given too the Lord’s day. Observances mandated by the authority of the Rabbis where forbidden since Christians where expected to follow the Bishop’s Authority not the Rabbis.
There are other mistakes to be corrected but I will take of them later.
cl
says...Crude,
I gave it my best shot, here.
cl
says...BenYachov,
Then I was wrong about that technicality, but don’t let the technicality obscure the message.
This is an empty criticism. I’m definitely not claiming everything I say is correct, that’s why I invite others, especially Catholics, to trade facts! As we just saw, you apparently found one thing I got wrong. However, it’s just a semantic technicality. As far as what I said about Constantine, you haven’t shown anything factually wrong yet. Your comments about what RCC or the Eastern Church did later have no bearing on what I said about Constantine. That Gregory of Nyssa observed both days is irrelevant to what I claim. Your remarks about “homoeousios” are also pure non-sequitur. Same for your remarks about “Judaizing.” Since you’ve left a barrage of irrelevancy, I suspect something besides cold pursuit of truth is driving. I suspect you just don’t like what I’m saying about Constantine and the Church you hold dear.
Far as I know, the facts of what I said are correct. For example,
The question I pose is direct, plain and simple, affording a “yes” or “no” answer: Is that not directly opposed to the original Sabbath YHWH declared in the Fourth Commandment? Let your “yes” be “yes” and your “no” be “no” else I have to shake the dust.
BenYachov
says...cl,
Where does that law you cite mandate the death penalty for observing the Sabbath?
Also you cited a code from Eastern Emperor Justinian who came after Constantine, was often in conflict with the Pope and made Christianity the State religion and outlawed Paganism. Justinian was more harsh & strict then ever Constantine was and He interfered with the Church when he thought he could get away with it.
>I suspect you just don’t like what I’m saying about Constantine and the Church you hold dear.
I’ve heard it all before it standard American fundamentalist trope.
BenYachov
says...The pre-Constantine Christian witnesses are rather clear.
There simply was no ancient Protestant/Evangelical Church.
They where Catholic.
Pope Clement I
“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
Hermas
“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).
Dionysius of Corinth
“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).
“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).
The Martyrs of Lyons
“And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches” (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])
“And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1–2).
Irenaeus
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom” (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).
“Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches” (ibid., 24:18).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).
“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1).
“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men … when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (ibid., 55[52]:8).
“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).
Firmilian
“[Pope] Stephen … boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. … Stephen … announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).
BenYachov
says...As for ancient Jewish Christians being Catholic from The Acts of Thaddaeus, One of the Twelve.
“Thaddæus went to Abgarus; and having found him in health, he gave him an account of the incarnation of Christ, and baptized him, with all his house. And having instructed great multitudes, both of Hebrews and Greeks, Syrians and Armenians, he baptized them in the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, having anointed them with the holy perfume; and he communicated to them of the undefiled mysteries of the sacred body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and delivered to them to keep and observe the law of Moses, and to give close heed to the things that had been said by the apostles in Jerusalem. For year by year they came together to the passover, and again he imparted to them the Holy Spirit.”END QUOTE
The author of this 3rd century history was clearly a Jewish Christian who writes down the oral history of Thaddaeus the Apostle.
He clearly believes in the Real Presence of Yeshua in the Eucharist & not the human traditions of Urlic Zwingli the so called 16th century “reformer” who made up the “symbolic Eucharist” doctrine Evengelicals believe today.
As Newman said a knowledge of History is the death of Protestantism.
cl
says...BenYachov,
You’re still letting technicalities and irrelevancies obscure the key question. For example, your entire comment at 12:53 PM is a complete non-sequitur. I would quickly agree that there was no such thing as a “Protestant” or “Evangelical” movement in apostolic times. Have you mistakenly believed that I argue or imply otherwise? I’ve already told you I don’t identify with those movements, so if that’s what’s motivating you, let it go!
That particular citation doesn’t. If I can find the one that did, I’ll fact-check it, then post it. For the sake of argument, for now let’s just assume I’m totally wrong there. Even if Constantine *DIDN’T* enact any such decree, this is another technicality that distracts from the central question I asked.
Please define exactly what you mean by “Catholic” there, along with exactly who you are referring to. WHO do you allege was Catholic, and WHAT do you allege distinctly made them so?
Is that “American fundamentalism” too? Notice how you didn’t squarely answer my simple question about whether the change of the Sabbath was in direct violation of the Fourth Commandment? If you want to nitpick along the lines of, “Oh, well… it wasn’t Constantine, it was actually Sylvester I who put the decree into official Roman law,” you can go that route, but that still sidesteps the question. Your citation of Thaddaeus is interesting, for it seems to support my point:
Speaking of Moses, do you agree or disagree that the RCC’s changing of the Sabbath to Sunday—which is the day the pagans worshipped their god on—is a direct violation of the Fourth Commandment and Deuteronomy 12:32 which says, “You must not add anything to them or subtract anything from them,” where “them” refers to the Ten Commandments?
Yes? Or no?
BenYachov
says...>Speaking of Moses, do you agree or disagree that the RCC’s changing of the Sabbath to Sunday—
It didn’t change the Sabbath to the Lord’s Day. They are two different days. They merely emphasized one over the other or as in later history in reaction to heretics who denied the deity of Christ and the Authority of Paul restricted the practice of the later among the baptized.
If you read Ignatius of Antioch of course Christians where instructed to live according to the LORD DAY over the Sabbath. Ignatius condemned Judaizing for gentile Christians but also said it is better to learn Christianity from one who is circumcised then Judaism from one who is not.
Later in history the Lord’s Day was identified as the Christian Sabbath but in the beginning they where two different things.
>Please define exactly what you mean by “Catholic” there, along with exactly who you are referring to.
I don’t understand your question?
cl when people talk about The Mormon Church for the most part they mean the Church based in Utah with that guy Thomas Spencer Monson as the head “Prophet”.
If you want to play games & ignore the fact when I talk about the Catholic Church I mean the Church based in Rome that inherits it’s authority from Peter the Apostle & can trace itself all the way back to Peter I don’t know what I need to do?
>Fourth Commandment and Deuteronomy 12:32 which says, “You must not add anything to them or subtract anything from them,” where “them” refers to the Ten Commandments?
Could not the Pharisees have cited the above to say Jesus could not give a New Law and a New Convenient?
BenYachov
says...“If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord’s day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny — a mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this cause we endure patiently, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher”-Ignatius of antioch 107 AD.Letter to the Magnesians
Granted I identify the Apostles with the core of the “Roman” Catholic Church but the evidence is if the Sabbath was changed then they changed it. Of course early Gentile Christians observed the Lord’s Day & orthodox Jewish Christians observed both the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath.
This neo-Seventh Day Adventist idea is charming but does violence to the facts of history.
BenYachov
says...Of course I prefer the translations that render the above “live according to the Sabbath” because I don’t think Ignatius was against worship on Saturday per say as much as he wanted people to know the rites of New Covenant held a primacy over the old.
cl
says...That’s false. Again, this time with emphasis:
Are you really going to tell me that “transferring” the rest of the Sabbath to Sunday is not a change from the original Fourth Commandment day of Saturday? C’mon man!
BenYachov
says...BTW cl Sabbathtarianism is unheard of in Christianity till the Reformation & the Rise of the Seventh Day Baptists whose practice was later adopted by Millerites & Ellen Gould White.
In ancient times the only Sabbath only “Christians” where the Ebionites who denied the Apostleship of Paul, the Virgin Birth and the deity of Christ.
All orthodox Christians who believed in the Deity of Christ and the Trinity observed the Lord’s Day. Some who where Jewish Christian non-Ebonites observed both the 7th and 1st/8th day. But exclusive Sabbath observance among Christians was unheard of till the Reformation.
BenYachov
says...>De Clericorum Institutione
You realize that is an 9th century text not a first, second, third or fourth? I had already said it was a later idea the Lord’s Day was the Christian Sabbath? The early Church regarded them as different.
BenYachov
says...>Are you really going to tell me that “transferring” the rest of the Sabbath to Sunday is not a change from the original Fourth Commandment day of Saturday? C’mon man!
No it’s a late development since all Christians Jewish or Gentile who confessed the authority of Paul, the Trinity and Deity of Christ since the first century had to observe the Lord’s day. The Sabbath was optional and not necessary since we are no longer under the ceremonial aspects of the law.
These days we do have Hebrew Catholics and the Order of the Beatitudes who like the ancients worship on both Saturday and Sunday. In the 50’s with the founding of the State of Israel the first Masses said in thee Hebrew language by Israel Jewish converts where done on FRIDAY EVENINGS. Of course everyone still has to go to Mass on Sunday. Israelite Catholic or Arab.
BenYachov
says...cl
Please don’t think I am trying to overwhelm you or beat you down with posts
I just know a lot. I’ve been around.
I’ll let you catch your breath.
cl
says...What about you, personally? Do you take Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday?
I don’t need a breather. Less is more.
You’ve misunderstood. Rabanus Maurus (776-856) is an eighth / ninth century theologian, speaking of Pope Sylvester I (314-335 A.D.). Consider another source, circa 364 A.D., which states:
This is a direct pronouncement stating that anyone who didn’t violate the original Fourth Commandment was cursed by the Roman Catholic Church! Now that we’ve established that these decrees were not 9th century, what will you say? Not only did 4th century Catholics officially change—oops, I mean transfer—the Sabbath to the day of worship for a pagan sun god, but they also pronounced a curse on those who—like Messiah and the disciples—held to the original commandment of YHWH. Right?
BenYachov
says...>You’ve misunderstood. Rabanus Maurus (776-856) is an eighth / ninth century theologian, speaking of Pope Sylvester I (314-335 A.D.).
I know who wrote it & I don’t agree with his analysis anymore then I agree with Aquinas on the Immaculate Conception. I don’t have too.
>Consider another source, circa 364 A.D., which states.
If you must continue to move the goal posts then so be it.
>Canon XXIX: “Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath.
Yes the Synod of Laodicea which was a regonal council in Asia minor. It wasn’t an eccumenical council nor where it’s canons endorced by the Pope. It’s canon of Scripture was incomplete omiting the book of Revelation & include the Hebrew Canon of the OT plus Baruch without the other six books the Prots threw out during the Reformation.
>This is a direct pronouncement stating that anyone who didn’t violate the original Fourth Commandment was cursed by the Roman Catholic Church!
Well it is interesting you consider a local Synod in the Eastern Church “Roman” whose canons where never confirmed by the Bishop of Rome. It is also weird you don’t look up Second Nicea which has more authoritative anti-judaism legistation & of course was confirmed by the Pope.
>his is a direct pronouncement stating that anyone who didn’t violate the original Fourth Commandment was cursed by the Roman Catholic Church!
Let’s pretend you brought up Nicea II which is an Eccumenical Council not a mere local synod whose canons where never confirmed by the Pope so my brain doesn’t melt.
Christians where not required to observe the Sabbath under the Law of the New Covenent. They are no longer under the Law of Moses but the Law of Christ. The New Covenent is a better covenent as foretold by the OT. Thus the Church has a right to make Pastoral descisions in this area & retrict this practice.
Matt 16:18 and Matt 18 teach the Church Authority has the power to bind & lose.
Nicea II bound Christians not to follow any Jewish Traditions Pius XII loosed it during the 50’s allowing Jewish Catholics in Israel to celebrate Hebrew Mass on Friday Evening.
The Church can change ceremonial Law but the moral Law and doctrine are Forever.
Do you claim that’s not a valid interpretation of the NT or OT? OK but who are the Seventh Day Baptists or Ellen Gould White that I should listen to them? Can you trace the existence of their churches back to the Apostles straight threw history? I’d like to see that.
>Not only did 4th century Catholics officially change—oops, I mean transfer—the Sabbath to the day of worship for a pagan sun god.
The book of Revelations says John was filled with the spirit on the Lord’s day.
So you are accusing an Apostle of pagan sun worship unless you reject the Book of Revelation. Also you didn’t show the 4th century Catholics transfired anything. You merely cited the opinion of a 9th century theologican on the 4th century Pope’s actions.
>but they also pronounced a curse on those who—like Messiah and the disciples—held to the original commandment of YHWH. Right?
No Anathema means to Cut off excommunicate not curse. That is a bad translation of the term. Paul cut off Judaizers extremists so how is it wrong for the Church to do it? Paul tolerated reasonable Jewish Christians & observed the Law himself at Peter’s direction.
Anyway as I pointed out. No ancient Trinitarian Christians failed to follow the Lord’s Day.
“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight (Acts 20:7).
The first meeting of the church took place on a Sunday the formal birth of the NT Church. This was on the day of Pentecost. That feast took place 50 days after the seventh Sabbath of the Feast of Firstfruits (Leviticus 23:16). This means that the Feast of Pentecost ALWAYS took place upon the first day of the week.
The resurrection took place on a Sunday that is pretty hard to deny.
BenYachov
says...>What about you, personally? Do you take Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday?
I am a Gentile who has learned at the feet of many a Hebrew Catholic & some Messianic Jews. I’m still trying to live as a Catholic but I know some Hebrew Catholics who go to church on Saturday and Sunday or lay Tefflin on Sat & go to Mass on Sunday.
BenYachov
says...cl I’ve seen stupid Catholics with anti-Semitic tendencies try to cite the Talmud to “prove” Judaism teaches it’s moral to have sex with 3 year old children. Of course I have enough of a Layman knowledge of Halacha to see they are misunderstanding what they read.
Well that is how I am with another religion. I know my own like the back of my hand. The ancient Christians saw the Sabbath and Lord’s day as two different things. Later Christian identified the Sabbath with the Lord’s day but that is not how it was in the beginning. Also in the beginning everyone who confessed the Trinity observed the Lord’s Day.
cl
says...James, please… please try to stay on topic. I’m giving you my time, and you’re giving me yours. I assume yours is as important to you as mine is to me. So, let’s save time, be concise and stay on topic. Otherwise, you have to waste time typing irrelevant replies, and I have to waste time addressing them. Well, technically I guess I don’t, but then I run the risk of being misunderstood. These are just a few of the irrelevancies taken from your last barrage of comments:
They are mere men and women. I’m not telling you to listen to them. I don’t listen to them. This is irrelevant.
I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with going to church on Sunday, or otherwise observing that day as believers feel led. I’m not talking about the Feast of Firstfruits, or Pentecost. I’m not denying that Resurrection took place on a Sunday. All of that is irrelevant.
Terrible, but again, irrelevant.
False. I accept Revelation. That John was filled on a Sunday is irrelevant to what I’m saying.
cl
says...Now, having dispensed with diversions and distractions, we can address the central issues. In an earlier comment, you wrote:
More recently, you wrote:
Yes, I claim that’s an invalid interpretation. That we are no longer justified by observance to Mosaic law does not mean the Ten Commandments are to be disregarded or otherwise tampered with! If that were true, why did Messiah and the disciples keep them?
Sh’aul—whom you are indirectly appealing to—observed the original Sabbath in line with the Commandment. You speak much of “heresy,” and in fact you rudely called me a “heretic” in another thread after falsely labeling me an “evangelical,” yet, here you are, unwittingly endorsing a form of Protestant Dispensationalism you rally so loudly against.
False. That you deny facts does not entail that I have not presented them, but let’s hold the 4th century on hold and go straight to Nicea II which you seem to esteem highly. Note this is from a Catholic source, so the accusations of “American fundamentalism” are simply not an option. From Canon 8, emphasis mine:
Is that, or is that not, a direct pronouncement against those who—like Messiah, Sh’aul and the disciples—kept to the original Commandment? Yes? Or no?
You—on behalf of the proclamations of mere men—are telling me that following the original Sabbath is now “optional,” but the plain fact is that Messiah and the disciples followed it, and the clear words of Messiah were, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law.” (Matthew 5:18)
Have heaven and Earth disappeared? Then on what grounds do you defend your church’s endorsement of the disappearance of the Law pertaining to Sabbath?
BenYachov
says...cl
>James, please… please try to stay on topic.
Excuse me but I am not the one making mistakes about History & the development of Dogma.
As a Catholic I already have my dogmas spelled out for me with 2,000 years of Tradition & Bible interpretation & I am unlike you reasonably familiar with them.
I don’t really know what you are on the denominational spectrum. I have to make educated guesses since you have not come out supporting a specific Christian Faith tradition.
To date you sound like your beliefs are a combination of Sabbatherian Christianity & or Messianic Judaism. So stop your bellyaking it’s unbecoming.
BenYachov
says...>They are mere men and women. I’m not telling you to listen to them. I don’t listen to them. This is irrelevant.
Yes it is since my obvious Catholic Theme is the Bible is not clear & requires in interpreter & that only a Church that traces itself back to the Apostles even remotely qualifies to do this. These sect came 1600 years after the fact they are not qualified.
>I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with going to church on Sunday,
Yet you equated it with pagan sun god worship. No it’s Jewish Christian worship. I hate to point it out too you but even Jewish OT festivals sometimes fell on days Pagans worshiped their false gods.
>or otherwise observing that day as believers feel led. I’m not talking about the Feast of Firstfruits, or Pentecost. I’m not denying that Resurrection took place on a Sunday. All of that is irrelevant.
No you are claiming the Seventh Day Adventist, Seventh Day Baptist, Sabbatherian Christian Trope that all Christians are required to worship on the Sabbath. I’m telling you based on the historic and ancient interpretation of said Scripture that is false.
BenYachov
says...>Yes, I claim that’s an invalid interpretation.
I’ve shown it’s the historical interpretation & only judaizers who denied the deity of Christ, the Apostleship of Paul and the Virgin birth upheld it. Orthodox Christian Jewish or Gentile did not hold it.
>That we are no longer justified by observance to Mosaic law does not mean the Ten Commandments are to be disregarded or otherwise tampered with! If that were true, why did Messiah and the disciples keep them?
You are confusing a different issue. One which I have a great deal of sympathy for.
You are not required to observe the Sabbath under the Law of Christ and the Church has the Authority from Christ to restrict any possible observance if in Her prudent (& I should say Fallible by Catholic Standards) judgment She feels it might threaten Faith. Certainly Ebionites who denied the Virgin birth and Deity of Christ qualify.
Now orthodox Jewish Christian might get caught in the crossfire & unfairly lumped in with them & unjustly forbidden to practice in an orthodox manner what they have always done.
Stupid Crap like that has always happened! I’m not going to pretend it’s not there. I know better. Even today Traditionalist Catholics who simply like the Old Latin Mass & are denied it by an overly suspicious bishop because of Radtrad jerks who claim it’s the only valid way to say Mass.,/b>
Many Jewish practices are retained accord the board in all Rites of Christianity. Some have been unjustly suppressed.
We must obey the Church since Jesus said of the Authority of the Church “He who hears you hears Me. He who rejects you rejects Me and Him who sent Me.” even when the Church is run by the stupid.
Do you think I am on Pope St Victor’s side for supressing Passover on the 14 of Nisen? No I side with St Polycrates who opposed Victor.
Do I think Paul VI’s suppression of the Mass of St Pius V was stupid. Heck yeh!
Do I think the Supression of Jewish Christians incorporating Jewish Rites under the NT was stupid? Yes I do but fortunatly the Church can correct Herself when She makes a mistake Pastorially.
BenYachov
says...Now for some loose ends.
>Sh’aul—whom you are indirectly appealing to—observed the original Sabbath in line with the Commandment.
So did St Gregory of Nyssa. But Paul became a Jew to the Jews & lived under the Law even thought he said he was not under the Law.
Observance of the Sabbath is not required by God of NT believers. The Church has the authority to regulate or suppress it. Now does that mean She is infallible when She does so? No since it is Pastoral policy not Faith and Morals. Could at times She have been unjust or imprudent? Of course!
But my point remains the Sabbath is no longer required. But today with the proper teaching we can incorperate it & even the Catholic Church has a religous order that observes it.
>You speak much of “heresy,” and in fact you rudely called me a “heretic” in another thread after falsely labeling me an “evangelical,” yet, here you are, unwittingly endorsing a form of Protestant Dispensationalism you rally so loudly against.
cl all non-Catholics are at best material heretics in my eyes and the eyes of the Catholic Church. You are not a Catholic believer in communion with Pope Benedict XVI therefore you are a material heretic.
It’s no more rude than non-Catholic believers calling the Catholic Church’s correct Biblical doctrines “unbiblical”.
It’s not rude it’s realistic.
Now to correct your mistakes in History.
BenYachov
says...>False. That you deny facts does not entail that I have not presented them,
I reject your interpretation of the evidence. You gave me a 9th century Theologian’s intepretation of the actions of the fourth century Pope & you cited a local council not confirmed by the Pope.
Those facts remain your argument is non-existent.
>but let’s hold the 4th century on hold and go straight to Nicea II which you seem to esteem highly.
Smart move since the 4th Century church was more chaotic and local churches often did what they wanted unless they did something grievous to attract the Pope attention and censor.
>From Canon 8, emphasis mine:
I know it well and hate it as much as I do Paul VI’s suppression of the Old Mass. But I obey and offer up to God my displeasure & work and pray for more sane pastoral policies when I can without promoting disobedience.
>Since certain, erring in the superstitions of the Hebrews, have thought to mock at Christ our God, and feigning to be converted to the religion of Christ do deny him, and in private and secretly keep the Sabbath and observe other Jewish customs,
Of course historically Nicaea II was about the time remnants of the Ebionites where still skulking around. The Ebonites as I said denied the Virgin Birth & the Deity of Christ. They mucked it up much like the SSPX ruined it for many Traditionalist Catholics with their extremist neo-Protestant rebellion.
BenYachov
says...>Is that, or is that not, a direct pronouncement against those who—like Messiah, Sh’aul and the disciples—kept to the original Commandment? Yes? Or no?
No because the Church can’t change the Past. She can only institute Pastoral policies and disciplines in the present to Her present Children and revoke past Church Laws to that effect.
>You—on behalf of the proclamations of mere men—are telling me that following the original Sabbath is now “optional,”
It is optional for the Church to suppress or incorporate it. Protestant or neo-Protestant individualism is un-biblical. We must obey or we reject Christ. Even to the point of obeying the stupid.
Again we must obey the Church. That is the teaching of Scripture. Following the Sabbath is not a required doctrine under the NT. Otherwise Paul would not have suppressed the Judaizers who tried to force everyone to observed it.
>but the plain fact is that Messiah and the disciples followed it, and the clear words of Messiah were, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law.” (Matthew 5:18)
The Law cannot be changed but your relationship to it can change. Paul uses the metaphor of how a wife can’t sleep with another man but if her husband dies she may remarry. Christ died to the Old Law and Rose to give us the perfect Torah of the Brit Hadeshah.
We are not under the Old Law.
>Have heaven and Earth disappeared? Then on what grounds do you defend your church’s endorsement of the disappearance of the Law pertaining to Sabbath?
But it hasn’t disappeared now has it? Sabbathterian practices of the Oriental Church are retained in some rites (like the Ethiopian) and we have a religious orders and Hebrew Catholics who observe them.
And we have Latin Masses lawfully authorized so the SSPX can take a flying leap.
Canon 8 was a pastoral Law not a doctrinal pronouncement.
The current code of Cannon Law binds me. You can no more cite Canon 8 to a modern Hebrew Catholic then I can cite the 3r century Apostolic Constitutions (which authorized Sabbath worship BTW) to allow modern Bishops and Priests in the Church to be married.
BenYachov
says...cl
There is a difference between moral and theological dogma which cannot change vs Rites which are mandated by the command of God vs rites allowed or regulated by the Church vs Pastoral disciplines.
I know this is confusing to you. But I spent my whole life up until this point studying it.
cl
says...I’ve shaken the dust, James. Good luck trying these arguments on Him.
BenYachov
says...This is a childish answer son.