THE first Australian priest to be sacked from his parish for being “not in communion” with Rome has defied the Catholic hierarchy by promising to conduct Mass as usual this weekend.
In a decision that is likely to reverberate throughout the Catholic community, the Archbishop of Brisbane yesterday fired Father Peter Kennedy for unorthodox practices.
Father Kennedy, of St Mary’s in South Brisbane, allows women to preach, blesses gay couples, denies the Virgin birth and claims the Church is dysfunctional.
At times I’ve accused Rome of “talking the talk” but not “walking the walk.” Apologies.
This guy seems to be the polar opposite of the other Father Kennedy.
“This decision brings me no satisfaction as division within the Church is contrary to all that Christ taught.” Well-said.
Amen.
The Episcopal Church welcomes you, ex-Fr. Kennedy.
[i]”I say this calls for action and now. Nip it in the bud. First sign of youngsters going wrong, you’ve got to nip it in the bud.”[/i] – Deputy Barney Fife
“…and claims the Church is dysfunctional.” Oh, the irony.
Wow, a bishop enforcing doctrine. Whoda thunk it?
[blockquote]We argue but we are very much within the Catholic tradition.[/blockquote]
Tradition dating ALLLLLLLLL the way back to 1969!
#4, robroy, actually the church IS dysfunctional, just not on the things they fired this man for. They did the right thing in doing this. However, they also need to do a very deep evaluation of ALL their doctrine. A lot of it is not Biblical. but of course they will never admit that. These unbiblical practices go way back to the times before Christ. A lot of it is paganistic stuff carried over from the early Roman church and the Greek paganistic practices. Unfortunately, when Luther attempted to reform the church he allowed many of these paganistic “traditions” to be carried over into the reformed group. That’s why a lot of the traditions in the protestant churches today are from a paganistic origin. However, nobody wants to admit it, or hear about it. I only learned of this when I started studying things for myself. I actually found some quotes in the “Catholic Encycopedia” of all places where leaders of the church have admitted to paganistic practices. They just didn’t want to do what was required to remove them from church practices.
Mugsie,
How about some examples of the “paganistic” practices, both Roman and Protestant?
Mugsie,
Please. What evan asked. Your anti-catholic gene is much too obvious. Do you read the patristics?
Okay, you asked. You can start with the Sabbath.
The Bible plainly states that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). Rome, supposing that Christ, in effect, delegated away His authority over the Church to the apostle Peter—who they proclaim was the first pope—speaks plainly of how it has used this “authority.†Just as God’s statements about the Sabbath were shocking to me, so should the following statements be shocking to you! (Many are included for emphasis.)
“For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible.â€
– Catholic Virginian, “To Tell You the Truth,†p. 9, Oct. 3, 1947
“From this same Catholic Church you have accepted your Sunday, and that Sunday, as the Lord’s day, she has handed down as a tradition; and the entire Protestant world has accepted it as tradition, for you have not an iota of Scripture to establish it. Therefore that which you have accepted as your rule of faith, inadequate as it of course is, as well as your Sunday, you have accepted on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.â€
– D.B. Ray, The Papal Controversy, p. 179, 1892
“I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says, ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.’ The Catholic Church says: ‘No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week.’ And lo! the entire civilized world bows down in a reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church.â€
– Bishop T. Enright, C.S.S.R., in a lecture at Hartford, Kansas, Feb. 18, 1884
“There is but one church on the face of the earth which has the power, or claims power, to make laws binding on the conscience, binding before God, binding under penalty of hell-fire. For instance, the institution of Sunday. What right has any other church to keep this day? You answer by virtue of the third commandment [the Papacy renamed the fourth commandment, calling it the third], which says, ‘Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.’ But Sunday is not the Sabbath. Any schoolboy knows that Sunday is the first day of the week. I have repeatedly offered one thousand dollars to anyone who will prove by the Bible alone that Sunday is the day we are bound to keep, and no one has called for the money. It was the holy Catholic Church that changed the day of rest from Saturday, the seventh day, to Sunday, the first day of the week.â€
– T. Enright, C.S.S.R., in a lecture delivered in 1893
“The Catholic Church … by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday.â€
– The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893
“Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day—Saturday—for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes. Did Christ change the day? I answer no!â€
– James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), signed letter
“Reason and sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either…the keeping holy of Saturday or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible.â€
– James Cardinal Gibbons, The Catholic Mirror, Dec. 23, 1893
“A rule of Faith, or a competent guide to heaven, must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday, and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.
“The Catholic Church correctly teaches that our Lord and His Apostles inculcated certain important duties of religion which are not recorded by the inspired writers. For instance, most Christians pray to the Holy Ghost, a practice which nowhere is found in the Bible.
“We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of Faith, because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation.â€
– James Cardinal Gibbons, Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., p. 89
[Note: The apostle Paul, under inspiration by God, disagrees. Speaking of just the Old Testament books, which were available to him, he wrote this: “And that from a child you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God …†(2 Tim. 3:15-16).]
“The Bible everywhere enforces the sanctification of Saturday the seventh day of the week…. You Protestants have to admit the authority of the Roman Catholic Church that is branded on you when you observe Sunday because you have no other authority for Sunday but that of the Roman Catholic Church.â€
– James Cardinal Gibbons
“The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday.â€
– James Cardinal Gibbons, The Catholic Mirror, Sept. 23, 1893
“Question: What Bible authority is there for changing the Sabbath from the seventh to the first, day of the week? Who gave the pope the authority to change a command of God?
“Answer: If the Bible is the only guide for the Christian, then the Seventh-day Adventist is right in observing the Saturday with the Jew. But Catholics learn what to believe and do from the divine, infallible authority established by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church…. Is it not strange that those who make the Bible their only teacher should inconsistently follow in this matter the tradition of the Church?â€
– “Question Box,†Conway, 1903 ed., pp. 254, 255
“Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
“Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her—she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.â€
– Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism, p. 174
“Our Lord rose from the dead on the first day of the week,†said Father Hourigan of the Jesuit Seminary. “That is why the Church changed the day of obligation from the seventh day to the first day of the week. The Anglican and other Protestant denominations retained that tradition when the Reformation came along.â€
– Toronto Daily Star, Oct. 26, 1949
(more in next post)
(continued from #10)
“Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days.â€
– John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, vol. 1, p. 51, 1936
“Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday…. Now the Church … instituted, by God’s authority, Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for Sunday.â€
– Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About, p. 136, 1927
“Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts:
“1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.
“2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws.
“It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible.â€
– Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Society, 1975
“We move from the ‘Sabbath’ to the ‘first day after the Sabbath’, from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes the dies Christi!…. By contrast, the Sabbath’s position as the seventh day of the week suggests for the Lord’s Day a complimentary symbolism, much loved by the Fathers. Sunday is not only the first day, it is also ‘the eighth day’, set within the sevenfold succession of days …â€
– Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, Dies Domini, Vatican, May 31, 1998
“Only gradually did Christians begin to observe Sunday as a day of rest…. In the third century, as we learn from Tertullian, many Christians had begun to keep Sunday as a day of rest to some extent …
“The real need of Sunday as a day of rest as well as worship came much later …â€
– “Yes, I Condemned the Catholic Church,†p. 4 (Supreme Council, Knights of Columbus)
“Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
“Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.
“Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
“Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.â€
– Peter Gerermann, “The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine,†2nd ed., p. 50, 1910
[Note: At this same fourth century Council of Laodicea—in A.D. 363—the following edict was passed: “Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath.†The penalty for disobedience was death!]
This is only one example of paganism, but it’s probably the worst. God clearly commands us in the 4th commandment “REMEMBER the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” God doesn’t change. He didn’t change HIS Sabbath. Jesus and all of his followers kept the TRUE Sabbath. It was the Roman Catholic church that changed it to suit their own HUMAN desires. But I’m not going to argue with you. I gave you some evidence of paganism as you asked. Do with it what you like. Jesus judges everyone in the end, not me. He ultimately wants every human being to be saved. He has HIS plan, and is going about it in HIS way. All I can say is may he be merciful with us all.
I note that the complainants are characterized as “arch conservatives.” Tells me something about the reporter.
#9 – you should know better than to feed the trolls.
Back to the article. I’m one you all would consider to be a re-appraiser and I think this guy should be (whatever the equivalent of inhibited is – suspended?) if he denies the Virgin Birth. Maybe even eventually defrocked if he does not recant.
#!!: I am speechless.
Mugsie,
Perhaps it would help you to realize that the Protestant doctrine of [i]Sola Scriptura[/i] is itself not scriptural, cannot be proven by Scripture, and is a relatively ‘recent’ innovation in the life of the church, dating only back to around the 1400’s?
So why should we pretend to follow an unbiblical doctrine such as this?
And perhaps if you actually read reasons for the above comments instead of merely parroting or cutting and pasting you would UNDERSTAND the reasons?
Gong back to not feeding the trolls now.
Peace in Christ
Jim Elliott <><
Mugsie, You’ve presented a strong case that Sunday is not the Biblical Sabbath. In my church we celebrate Sunday as the weekly anniversary of the Resurrection on the first day, the foundational event of Christianity. We don’t do any temple sacrifices on the Sabbath for lack of a temple, amongst other reasons. I hope I’m not overlooking your point. Bill
At the risk of feeding the troll, I see that mugsie was asked to produce examples of “paganistic” practices. I was previously unaware that keeping the Sabbath (on either Saturday or Sunday) was a pagan practice. I guess you learn something new every day.
libraryj, the Bible DOES tell us we are to live by “every word of God”. We are also to test all things against the Word of God to see which master they are coming from (Jesus or Satan). Here are the instructions from Scripture:
Luke 4:4 But Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
1 Thess 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
In other words, in order to “test all things” and to learn “what is good” we must check them against Scripture. So I respectfully disagree with you.
#17, the pagans were the ones who built the Roman Church. They came out of the Roman Empire. They originated from the Assyrians and and the Babylonians and before that in the land of Canaan (the area given to the Israelite nations after they came out of the wilderness). They were instructed by God to drive them out of Canaan and to NOT take on their ways. However, they did take on their ways. These ways have been passed on through the centuries to us today. Scripture warns us NOT to follow these ways. Jesus spoke of these ways as “traditions of MEN” in His teachings while on earth. Jesus, himself, modeled the way of life were are to live. He celebrated HIS Sabbath on Saturday (the 7th day) as the 4th commandment says. He NEVER gave instruction anywhere for this to be changed. No human being has any authority to do this. It was a change made by pagans to suit their own personal desires so they could continue to honor their OTHER paganistic practices as well.
The words are the words of “mugsie,” but the voice is the voice of Alexander Hislop (Google him up).
#20,I’m speechless! The “words” I gave are directly from Scripture and directly quoted from well known church figures. The sources were given for each so you can check them for yourself. I gave those quotes to prove a point; that the RCC is not the true church of God, and has taken authority upon itself to institute as “doctrine” pagan practices which Jesus NEVER approved of.
Like I said above, they were right to remove this man who has accepted such anti-Christian beliefs. However, it’s important to not be fooled by the RCC in general. It’s OTHER doctrines which they hold true that concern me.
The Bible states clearly that satan will deceive the WHOLE WORLD.
See Rev 12:9. I, also, have been deceived for a very long time. I’m sure I’m still being deceived in some areas. However, I have learned one very important lesson while I was struggling with the changes in the Anglican church before I left it for good. I learned to check ALL things against Scripture. It’s cleared up a lot of things for me. I know many don’t agree, but that’s okay. The majority didn’t agree with Jesus’ teachings either. They condemned Him to be a lunatic. (HIS OWN FAMILY DID THIS!) Now, here as I proclaim my faith in Scripture to be the TRUTH, and profess my disagreement with the paganistic practices of the RCC, I’m condemned to be a troll. Interesting similarity there.
I have to ask you; if Jesus was to come in person today, would you recognize him? Would you accept him? I can assure you what HE would teach would look very contradictory to what most churches teach today. I can only pray that I would recognize Him by his teachings going directly along with Scripture.
If memory serves, the Book of Acts records that the apostolic Church gathered on Sunday in commemoration of the Lord’s Resurrection. This practice supplanted the Sabbath, so that virtually all Christians worship and observe a “sabbath” on the first day of the week. Moreover, the “Council of Jerusalem” of Acts 15 doesn’t enjoin sabbath observance on the gentiles coming into the Church, so that should, I would think, settle it.
Mugsie’s comments clearly imply that the “Roman Church” is identical with the apostolic Church of Acts. While I agree with that as a matter of history, I recognize that my Anglican brethren do not, yet still worship on Sunday.
Mugsie,
The Bible says:
Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God!
Note that it does not say “every word of God written down”. You could also argue that bread is needed as well.
All that is in the Bible is what God has said, but not everything that God has said is in the Bible. That is the teaching held from Moses to the present. After the Bible was completed, there was still some 400 years before a definitive canon of the Scriptures was defined.
Even Hooker recognized that not all teachings were included in the Bible:
(paraphrasing) Where the Bible speaks plainly, nothing further is needed. Where the Bible is silent or unclear, then spirit-guided reason is needed. Where both are incomplete, then the teaching of the Church must be heeded.
because the Bible does not speak of the death of the Apostles, are we to assume they did not die? Of course not! We rely on Holy Tradition to fill in the blanks.
Paul himself commanded his readers to ‘hold fast to all I have taught you, whether in writing [b]or in person[/b]. Jesus said “It is written …. but I say to you …” Oral teaching was present from the beginning, and is just as valid as written teaching.
Does that mean that I disagree that the Bible is our prime measure of divine revelation? No, it does not. I place Scripture as “Prime” or “Superior” to other methods of revelation, but that does not negate the others.
As I said, ‘Sola Scriptura’ is unBiblical. “Prima Scriptura” or “Supra Scriptura” is closer to what the Bible teaches.
And Words Matter is correct. The Apostles gathered on “The Lord’s Day”, Sunday, the first day of the week, since that was the day Jesus hallowed by his resurrection. An example we follow to this day.
By the way, if your ‘sabbath does not start at sunset Friday and last until sunset Saturday, you are not following the Biblical Sabbath. 😉
But this thread is not on the Sabbath vs the Lord’s Day, it is on the glorious example of one church that holds teaching and truth above unity, and doesn’t mind disciplining those who hold positions of authority who do not hold to the proper doctrine. Bravo for them! I wish the Episcopal Club had done this all along, starting with James Pike!
In the peace of the Risen Lord
Jim Elliott <>< Florida
#22, the book of Acts says no such thing. It was on the day of the Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit was given) that a crowd gathered. There was a loud noise when the Holy Spirit was given and many signs came from Heaven during this event. It says NOTHING about this being on Sunday, or to “commemorate the Lord’s resurrection”. Chapter 2 of Acts explains it all. Here is the whole chapter from the NLT version. It explains the event very well, and also shows how several in the crowd thought those who believed all this were “drunk”. Peter gave his first major sermon on the spot and refuted that assumption.
Here it is:
This comment really concerns me as well.
In no way, shape or form would I EVER equate the “apostolic” church “Roman” church, and I just can’t understand how you came up with that idea. The Roman church was around long before Christ’s time on earth. The “apostolic” church began with the Pentencost. The problem is that there is mass confusion between what is the “Roman” church, and what is the “apostolic” church (the TRUE apostolic church) as was started by the apostles after the giving of the Holy Spirit.
It’s your confusion here that is a perfect example of what has happened in the world. The TRUE church of God would never allow this type of confusion to reign in its church. Jesus is the head of HIS church. He said the gates of hell would never prevail against it. However, he also refers to it in Scripture as a “little flock”. The RCC is hardly a little flock. There are many questions I’ve had to get answered too, and this was one of them (regarding the little flock). I’m not confused on that point any more, but I used to be. Here’s the reference from Scripture:
and
I used to just blurt out stuff I was told too. I don’t do that anymore. I prefer to check things against Scripture now. It has made a very big difference for me regarding confusion.
#21 Mugsie,
Off-topic though the thread you launched happens to be, I do think a response is called for precisely b/c your interjections indeed tend to stray from the point at hand. So in an effort to clarify why your position seems not to find a sympathetic audience on this blog, may I offer the following for your consideration?
Your reliance on Scripture alone places you in a dilemma. For there is no authority in Scripture itself that tells us what writings will and what writings will not be considered authoritative. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles left an authoritative collection of writings. By what authority were The Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache or St. Ignatius’s Epistle to the Romans, for instance, not included in the canon? Martin Luther thought the Epistle of St. James as well as the Book of Revelation should be jettisoned. So standing alone on the word of God begs the question “which words are the words of God?”
Libraryjim, I completely understand that what you say is what you believe. However, that is NOT what the Bible says actually happened. There are many interpretations of what happened that day. I’ve heard a few. However, when I went back and studied the Bible very carefully, and did my research and did my math it actually reveals that Jesus was not even resurrected on a Sunday. He was resurrected on a Saturday. There is reference to another sabbath that took place right around the time of his death and resurrection. It was on a Thursday.
Here’s how it went:
Establishing the Time of the Resurrection
The following fact should be clear. The exact moment and time of day when Christ was placed in the tomb had to coincide with the exact time of day of His resurrection. We must establish precisely when Christ was placed in the tomb. We will then know precisely when He left the tomb. Plainly, any time of day or night—morning, noon, afternoon, evening, midnight, etc.—that Christ would have entered the tomb would have to be the very same time He would depart it by His resurrection!
While on the stake, after “the ninth hour†(three o’clock in the afternoon), Jesus “cried out†(Matt. 27:46-50; Mark 15:34-37; Luke 23:44-46) and died. Luke 23:44 also makes a reference to “the sixth hour, and there was darkness in all the earth until the ninth hour.†The sixth hour is six hours after sunrise—or noon! This would make the ninth hour three o’clock.
These events occurred on the day before “the Sabbathâ€â€”the day called “the preparation†(Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54). We should recognize that the Bible counts days as the period from evening to evening (Lev. 23:32) or sunset to sunset. Recall Genesis 1: “…the evening [night or darkness] and the morning [day or light]…â€
John 19:42 explains, “There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews’ preparation day.†Jewish burial law (vs. 31) forbade the bodies of the dead remaining unburied at the outset of any Sabbath day or feast day. Remember, Luke 23:46 explained that Christ died at, or shortly after, three o’clock in the afternoon. He would have been buried soon thereafter—prior to sunset.
We have not yet established the day of the week that the crucifixion occurred. However, our previous computation and comparison of related scriptures reveals that Christ must have risen sometime after three o’clock in the afternoon—on whatever would have been the day that was three days later.
A brief summary is in order at this point. Again, Christ’s Messiahship is at stake. Based on when He was buried (sometime between three and six o’clock on the day of His crucifixion), His sign as our Messiah was that He must—I repeat He must—rise at the same time 72 hours later. Otherwise, He is an impostor and a fraud, and we have no Savior. Unless we wish to make “the word of God of none effect through [our] tradition,†we must now admit that a popular, great tradition has crashed in a heap of rubble. Some honest questions remain.
The Crucifixion Preceded a Sabbath—But Which Sabbath?
We have now reached the important issue of when to start counting the 72-hour period of Christ’s sign. It involves the Sabbath. But which Sabbath? Could this question lie at the heart of why people assume a Friday crucifixion? We have already proven from all four Gospels that the day of Christ’s crucifixion was called “the preparation.†John 19:14 explains “it was the preparation of the Passover.†However, verse 31 goes further by stating, “for that sabbath day was an high day.†What does this mean?
What is a Sabbath that is a high day?
Any Jew will tell you that a “high day†is a feast day or an annual holy day! Leviticus 23 describes seven of these days that the nation of ancient Israel was commanded to keep year by year. A simple review of this chapter (verses 24, 26-32 and 39) reveals that God considered these days to be Sabbaths. Notice that Leviticus 23:2 refers to all of these Sabbaths as “the feasts of the Lord†and “even these are my feasts.†This same verse also calls them “holy convocationsâ€â€”meaning commanded assemblies. These days do not fall on the same day, year after year, any more than do the common pagan holidays that most people observe today.
Matthew 26:2 states, “You know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.†(Leviticus 23 shows that the Passover was the one feast that was not also a Sabbath, wherein work was prohibited.) There is no doubt that Christ was crucified on the Passover. (Read our free booklet How Often Should the Lord’s Supper Be Taken?)
The original Passover is described in Exodus 12. A lamb was slain and the blood of this lamb was struck over the doorposts of all the Israelite houses. It was this blood that caused the death angel to pass over any particular house, thus saving the firstborn of that house from death! Hence, the term “passover.â€
The Old Testament Passover always preceded the annual Sabbath called the first Day of Unleavened Bread. This day was a high day or a feast day to be celebrated each year, again, on the day immediately following the Passover. Notice Numbers 28:16-17: “And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast.†This feast was the first Day of Unleavened Bread.
Jesus Christ was slain by crucifixion on the exact same day that the Passover lamb had been slain every year. While the above referenced booklet will take the reader into greater detail on this point, suffice to say that I Corinthians 5:7 plainly states, “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.†John the Baptist called Christ “the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world†(John 1:29). Christ was crucified on the Passover and this day then would automatically be a preparation day for the feast day, or annual high day Sabbath—which was to begin almost immediately after His burial.
As mentioned, annual Sabbaths could occur on any day of the week. Tuesday and Thursday are more common than any other day for the first Day of Unleavened Bread, following the Passover. Thursday is probably the most common of all. For instance, in the thirty-six years (counting inclusively) between 1998 and 2033, the first Day of Unleavened Bread occurs on a Thursday 12 times, and on a Tuesday 10 times. All other days are less often during this period. In the year of Christ’s crucifixion, according to the Hebrew calendar, the Passover occurred on a Wednesday! This means that the annual Sabbath had to be one day later—or Thursday! It was, in fact, this sabbath that was approaching, thus requiring the swift burial of Jesus’ body prior to its arrival. The weekly Sabbath, or Saturday, was to occur two days after that.
Which Was the Day of the Resurrection?
If Christ’s Resurrection was not on Sunday, then when was it? The world commonly believes that it was Sunday morning. Does the Bible say this, or have millions made an assumption?
John 20:1 says, “The first day of the week comes Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and sees the stone taken away from the sepulchre.†Compare this verse with Mark 16:2 and Luke 24:1.
It is now very early Sunday morning (it is still dark) and the tomb is open. Do these verses supply the supposed proof for the Sunday resurrection tradition? Do they support “Easter sunrise services� A problem already presents itself. Christ is gone from the tomb before sunrise!
Now notice Luke 24:6. Mary Magdalene, and the others with her, are described as finding two angels standing before them. These angels stated plainly to these women, “He is not here, but is risen.†Also see Mark 16:6 and Matthew 28:5-Â6.
Christ was gone—He was already risen! Notice the past tense of the two angels’ statement.
We can now establish the day of Christ’s resurrection. We have already established the time of day of His death and the burial soon thereafter and, therefore, also the time of His resurrection. It was late afternoon, between 3 and 6 p.m. Obviously, Christ was already risen, by this time, in the darkness of Sunday morning—because He had been gone from the grave since late afternoon on saturday! Let us state this plainly. Christ died on the late afternoon of a Wednesday Passover and was resurrected three days later on the late afternoon of the very next Saturday.
Thus, the resurrection did not even occur on Sunday—period!
Again, everyone, why are you feeding the trolls? This discussion is so far off topic. I’m surprised that the Elves have not shut it down.
Acts 2.7
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Actually, we know from Acts that the Church gathered daily for prayers (she still does), but it’s clear that Sunday gained pre-eminence at an early date, as born out by testimony from the first and early second centuries. That has nothing to do with Pentecost, which was a Jewish festival independent of the weekly cycle (as is Christmas for Christians).
I just can’t understand how you came up with that idea.
From what you said, although since you are ignorant of Acts 20.7, the confusion is understandable.
As to the “small flock” thing, well, in the first century it was. Jesus also said that he would draw all men to Himself. How that would happen and the flock remain small is an interesting conumdrum.
The Roman church was around long before Christ’s time on earth.
That is one of the most bizarre comments I have ever encountered. Like Dr. Tighe’s comment on sola scriptura, this has no factual (historical or scriptural) basis.
Mugsie, talking to you is clearly a waste of time, since your comments aren’t rooted in scripture, history, or reason. I will comment to correct mis-statements of fact. Otherwise, best wishes.
Charles, you are so right… mea maxima culpa.
The article is deeply biased and highly offensive. It isn’t “Rome” this man is rebelling against, but the Faith of the Catholic Church. Interesting that having rejected the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, he will now appeal to that same authority. What a hypocrite!
Mugsie, since I started this. Are you sure that throughout the Babylonian exile that Saturday was actually kept to be Saturday. Would my life fall apart if it wasn’t? No, but apparently your life would. And if I was stranded on a desert island, in a stupor but recovered and I wasn’t sure of when the Sabbath was, so I simply made an arbitrary decision, would the Lord hold it against me? The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.
That being said, I fall so very short of “making the Sabbath holy” (regardless of whether it is Saturday or Sunday) that is utterly shameful.
#29, I’m not a “man”. I’m a woman. I just wanted to make that point clear. As to the rest, this is why I keep telling myself not to get involved in the blogs. I kick myself every time I do.
I know a lot of you don’t agree with my position. However, that doesn’t give any of you the right to call me a troll or anything else as a person. To do so reveals a lot about a person’s character. A lot of you might want to think about that. I did back up my statements with sources and full explanations. If you don’t agree, just say so. End of story. I firmly stand on what I believe. I’m still learning new things every day too. I’m not God. However, I also don’t believe I have the authority to question or rewrite his revealed word in the Bible. Jesus gave us those words. He is our chief priest who is now working on our behalf at the right hand of the Father in heaven. I honor Him and obey HIS commands to the best of my ability. That’s all I can do. The rest is up to Him in the end.
I choose not to argue with any of you or to resort to name calling. With that, I’m signing off now. May the Lord bless you all as He sees fit.
Mugsie,
I wasn’t referring to Acts 2, but other verses in Acts that indicate that the Apostles met on “the Lord’s Day” “the first day of the week” for the breaking of bread (Eucharist) and prayers.
You still have a lot of studying to do, and unfortunately have fallen into following some pretty questionable sources. Most, if not 99.999% of Biblical Scholars accept the Friday death, Sabbath rest, and First Day (Sunday) resurrection (when the women came to the tomb and found the stone rolled away). Jesus said he would be raised “On the third day”, Friday is counted as day one, Sabbath day two (the women could not anoint his body because of the SABBATH) and Sunday day three, according to Jewish counting.
Back to the books for you, my friend! 🙂
Yours in Jesus
Jim Elliott <><
“allows women to preach, blesses gay couples, denies the Virgin birth”
Apparently he is also a congregationalist since he does not see the need to adhere to RC theology and rubrics. My guess is this is just the tip of the iceberg with Fr. Kennedy. His views are toxic.
I was wondering about the women allowed to preach… In Orthodox churches, on rare occasions, women do preach. The preaching office is not exclusive to the priest. I guess that isn’t the case in Roman Catholicism. Or is it that Rome has stepped back from this because of the abuses and corruptions that Fr. Kennedy demonstrates?
#34 Alice Linsley,
“Or is it that Rome has stepped back from this because of the abuses and corruptions that Fr. Kennedy demonstrates?”
Alice, do you mean to say Fr. Kennedy alleges?
I’m fairly certain that no lay person can preach at a Mass. I have heard a layman give a “reflection” but that was at a Communion Service when we didn’t have a priest available. There may be other exceptions.
Many years, I was a lay reader in an Episcopal mission and led Morning Prayer alternate Sundays when the priest wasn’t there. I had to read a prepared sermon rather than preach. They were wretched drivel and I would go around after service to disown what I had just read. Anyway, are lay people allowed to preach in Episcopal services today?
This is what I found out:
“The Homily should ordinarily be given by the priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to the deacon, but never to a lay person. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate.†(General Instruction of the Roman Missal — GIRM — 66)
From John Paul II’s [i]Redemptionis Sacramentum [/i] (selections):
“It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the Eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon [law]. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.†(RS 65)
“If the need arises for the gathered faithful to be given instruction or testimony by a layperson in a Church concerning the Christian life, it is altogether preferable that this be done outside Mass. Nevertheless, for serious reasons it is permissible that this type of instruction or testimony be given after the Priest has proclaimed the Prayer after Communion. This should not become a regular practice, however. Furthermore, these instructions and testimony should not be of such a nature that they could be confused with the homily, nor is it permissible to dispense with the homily on their account.†(RS 74)
“As was already noted above, the homily on account of its importance and its nature is reserved to the Priest or Deacon during Mass. As regards other forms of preaching, if necessity demands it in particular circumstances, or if usefulness suggests it in special cases, lay members of Christ’s faithful may be allowed to preach in a church or in an oratory outside Mass in accordance with the norm of law. This may be done only on account of a scarcity of sacred ministers in certain places, in order to meet the need, and it may not be transformed from an exceptional measure into an ordinary practice, nor may it be understood as an authentic form of the advancement of the laity. All must remember besides that the faculty for giving such permission belongs to the local Ordinary, and this as regards individual instances; this permission is not the competence of anyone else, even if they are Priests or Deacons.†(RS 161)
You beat me to it, libraryjim. As soon as I posted, I knew there was more to it, because we have seminarians, not yet ordained, who do preach the homily at Mass sometimes during their year spent in the parish.
Here are the relevant canons:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2J.HTM
And here’s an article on the application of those canons in the U.S.:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/lay_preaching_at_mass.htm
mugsie (if you are still reading), you seem to have found little peace or assurance of your salvation in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Instead, you fixate on precisely which day we should worship and “keep Sabbath rest”, when Jesus Himself is our Sabbath rest, in Himself. He and His Gospel are the new wine and the new wineskins into which the old wine of the old covenant of works and sacrifices as types and shadows only pointing to the final all-sufficient sacrifice could not be poured without “losing” both, by trying to force grace and mercy into conformity with the Law which Paul said had only been a child tutor training us to maturity and Peter admitted neither they nor their fathers had been able to keep.
The chains of “reasoning” used by the sources to “prove” that Jesus died on Thursday, rose on Saturday and of necessity exactly 72 hours after giving up His spirit and on the origins of the Roman church are missing some links, to be charitable, and would be demolished handily by a first-year, no, first-month student of logic.
You follow Jesus’ words, and that is commendable, and what I am confident we who comment here also do to the best He graces us to do. You no doubt know, then that Jesus was constantly “breaking” the Sabbath to do work – healing lepers, giving sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb, straightening up women bent over double 18 years, making mud to open eyes blind from birth, healing withered hands, curing congestive heart failure (dropsy), etc., for which the ultra Sabbath-keepers, the Pharisees, condemned Him and plotted to kill Him, which they ultimately did by the hands of Pilate by the will of the Father.
Paul, who by his own words surpassed all his brother Pharisees in zeal, did not hold to the seventh-day Sabbath.
Romans 14:4-6a (and the entire chapter does not contradict this, no cherry-picking here) “Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, fo the Lord is able to make him stand. One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord…”
The point of the passage is that rituals and abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols, and even the idols themselves, were meaningless in themselves, the idols being dead, inanimate, and nothing, and the rituals and dietary restrictions of the Law likewise.
By the way, Mugsie, you are not “the man” to which #29 is referring, but rather he refers to the Aussie Catholic priest who is the subject of the article who is rebelling against Rome by his heterodox liturgies and teaching. #29 has not mistaken you for a man at all.
Sister, I pray that you find the true freedom and peace in Jesus that He gave me when He saved me in spite of my awful self, and gives me fresh every day in His lovingkindness. “He who the Son sets free, he is free indeed.”
#36 Words Matter,
“Anyway, are lay people allowed to preach in Episcopal services today?” Yes, but they need to have a license to preach granted by the Bishop. These folks are generally in the ordination track.
Actually, there are very few things that bishops and presbyters can do that lay people can’t be authorized to do. And lets distinguish between that which is ontologically present in the office and that which is a matter of Church governance. And let’s not forget that there are different understandings of ordination and the sacraments depending on your tradition.
In the Anglican tradition Bishops ordain presbyters, consecrate new bishops, absolve in the name of the Church and consecrate the sacramental elements. Presbyters consecrate the sacramental elements, absolve in the name of the Church and that’s it. In fact, sorry deacons, there is nothing that a deacon can do that a layperson can’t. Now, of course, the governing rules of the Church to which you may belong may have certain things set aside that only the Church’s officers may do and by this I mean that it is the Deacon’s prerogative to read the Gospel, preach, and pronounce the dismissal and do other things, but a properly licensed or authorized lay person can do the same things.
For example, say that you are on retreat and have communion. The priest may ask the retreat leader to preach the sermon. Someone else to read the Gospel and each person in the group may give communion in both kinds to each other. However only the priest will preside at the table, consecrate the bread and wine and pronounce absolution (lay persons and deacons may pronounce forgiveness, but not absolve). And note that the rules may change depending on the formality of the service. What you might do in a retreat or other informal setting would not be allowed by Church rule in a principle Sunday service.
Br. Michael –
Good analysis – Catholics make the distinction between “doctrine” and “discipline”. The latter is mutable and may have exceptions and permutations such as you describe in Anglican terms.
Are Anglican priests now allowed to confirm? Catholics priests can when authorized by the bishop but I thought Anglicans still reserved that to bishops. Is that doctrinal or disciplinary (if that Catholic distinction applies)?
#42 – in the US, Episcopal priests may not be given permission to confirm. I’m not sure about outside the US. And I’m not sure if it’s a matter of doctrine or discipline.
Not only has confirmation had a muddled history as to its theological necessity the the current BCP has further muddled the theology of confirmation. Only a Bishop may confirm, but there is no real need to. Any baptized person may recieve communion. Prior to the 1979 BCP you had to be confirmed to recieve communion. Now the canons still require that a person be baptized to hold certain Church offices (ordination for example) and to be a full member, but the canons are hardly a fount of theological reasoning. See Canon I.17 and Canons III 4, 5-9 (2003)(I didn’t look up the latest Canons, but I don’t think that there are any material changes.)
Sorry. That’s “Now the canons still require that a person be [b]confirmed[/b] to hold certain Church offices (ordination for example) and to be a full member, but the canons are hardly a fount of theological reasoning.
Br. Michael,
Nor are the canons strictly held to in TEc (e.g., “only baptized Christians may receive communion”) or are re-interpreted on the whim of the interpreter.