Bacchiocchi’s #94 / Others Speak
Up
— PART ONE
—
BACCHIOCCHI’S
END-TIME ISSUE #94
In Bacchiocchi’s
latest newsletter (#94), he makes several interesting comments:
First, he
quotes letters from Adventist readers who praise him because he openly
questions our historic beliefs.
One letter is from a layman in California.
" ‘Please
do not apologize for areas of your ministry that create controversy.
Many of us welcome a challenge in our thinking and are not afraid of
potential future change . . Please do not be concerned with those who
ask you not to turn on the light. Some may be made uncomfortable and
wake up from the brightness therein . . Carlos Martinez, Long Beach,
CA.’ "—#94, p. 2.
Another is
from a Michigan Conference evangelist, who says he deeply values
Bacchiocchi’s divergent views of the 1260-year prophecy and wants him
to continue presenting doctrinal alternatives.
" ‘Dear
Brother Sam: I cannot tell you how much my wife, Lisa, and myself
appreciate your newsletters. I especially appreciated the series on
Islam, [and] its comparisons with the papacy and the 1260 years. I do
wish that you would share the results of your findings. Some of us
have been thinking along the same line and wish that we could have
serious studies done by conservative scholars who strengthen our
faith. Thank you again for the studies . . My travels this year will
take me to the Kiev, Ukraine. Y.H. Ted Struntz, Speaker, Director
Prophecy Lectures, Michigan Conference Evangelist.’ "—#94,
p. 3.
As you can
see, there are those who, like Bacchiocchi, like open doctrinal
presentations of variant confusion.
They think that believers gain from having their thinking confused.
Immediately
after quoting Struntz’ letter, Bacchiocchi mourns that he will no
longer be able to continue his "fresh investigations" until
the General Conference has granted him approval to do so.
"I am
eager to meet the expectations of thinking Adventists like Pastor
Struntz, but I have been made forcefully aware that any fresh
investigation of the time prophecies of Daniel and Revelation stirs up
bitter and divisive controversies. Out of pastoral concerns I have
decided to suspend these studies until the General Conference appoints
a commission to conduct such an investigation. At that time, if
requested, I will be glad to resume my research."—#94, p. 3.
In a third
letter, which he quotes, a church member writes that Bacchiocchi’s
newsletters encourage him to continue questioning the church’s
beliefs.
" ‘I
have concluded that if you can question our traditional
interpretations in the spirit of true Adventism, then surely, I can
stick to the church and do the same. Your research has helped a great
deal toward dealing with the truths related to 1844. Much thanks to
you.’ Name withheld by request."
Commenting on
that letter, Bacchiocchi says:
"It is
heartwarming to see how some of the recent newsletters that have
troubled some concerned fellow believers, have brought reassurance and
encouragement to others. I wish that a way could be found to
encourage a fresh investigation of our prophetic interpretations
without alarming those who are committed to preserve traditional
positions."—#94, p. 3.
Bacchiocchi
wishes that a way could be found to introduce error, without arousing
opposition.
Trying to
forget the pain of not being able to flood the church with error as
quickly as he had planned, two pages later, Bacchiocchi returns to his
glorious victory of earlier years, when, as he claims, he succeeded
in convincing the Vatican that it had forgotten that, centuries earlier,
it had changed the Sabbath to Sunday! "Surprisingly," he
says, they accepted this startling new discovery, that he made and
published his doctoral thesis.
"The
Lord has granted me a unique opportunity [back in the 1970s] to enter,
study, research, and publish my dissertation, From Sabbath to
Sunday, at the prestigious Pontifical Gregorian University, in
Rome, Italy—which is the leading [and oldest] Jesuit university,
founded by Ignatius of Loyola in 1541. The dissertation compelling
[sic., compellingly] shows the continuity of the Sabbath and the role
of the Papacy in changing the Sabbath to Sunday.
"Surprisingly
the dissertation was published with the official imprimatur—approval—of
the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI awarded me a gold medal for earning
the academic distinction of summa cum laude. I view the gold
medal, not as a personal triumph, but as the triumph of truth."—#94,
p. 3.
According to
his preposterous claim, digging into dusty Catholic archives,
Bacchiocchi showed church leaders that, long centuries ago, the Catholic
Church really had changed the Sabbath to Sunday,
as their predecessors had earlier claimed.
"The
reason my dissertation was published with the official Catholic imprimatur—approval—is
simply because my research shows the correctness of the historical
Catholic claim to have been responsible for changing the Sabbath to
Sunday. Chapter 6 [of From Sabbath to Sunday] discusses the
theological, social, and litugical [sic., liturgical] measures used by
the papacy to lead Christians away from Sabbathkeeping into
Sundaykeeping."—#94, p. 5.
At this point,
Bacchiocchi makes the startling claim that, in the years since his
own graduation from the Gregoriana in the 1970s, the Vatican has
abandoned its claim to have changed the Sabbath to Sunday!
"The
reason From Sabbath to Sunday has now become controversial
among Catholics, is because of the recent Catholic Church attempts to
make Sunday observance no longer her own ecclesiastical institution,
but a Biblical ordinance, rooted in the Sabbath commandment
itself."—#94, p. 5.
Such a string
of reasoning is utterly astounding! The truth is that, century after
century, Rome has triumphantly claimed the change of the Sabbath to
Sunday as its own work.
Indeed, its claim to authority over the Bible is founded on Archbishop
Gaspar del Fosso’s speech on January 18, 1562, which convinced the
Council of Trent to declare Church Tradition greater than the statements
of Scripture (see Beyond Pitcairn, pp. 133-135). It was
that point, and that point alone, which gave Rome the power to oppose
the newly emerging Protestantism so successfully: Protestants only had
the Bible; but they, the priests, had Tradition (even though it
was nothing more than a confused babel of contradicting opinions and
edicts) as the higher authority.
Yet
Bacchiocchi now claims that the Vatican knew nothing about the doctrinal
foundation of its own church (the Catholic change of the Sabbath; that
Bacchiocchi kindly gave it back to them; and that, more recently, that
foundation has once again been abandoned by the Church).
"And let
it be remembered, it is the boast of Rome that she never changes."—Great
Controversy, 581.
Is Bacchiocchi
trying to convince Seventh-day Adventists that they can ignore the grave
warnings of Great Controversy, chapter 35, and need no longer
fear that Rome may try to reinstate Sunday laws
and renew their persecutions of the past? It surely appears that way.
Read the chapter again (563-581). Read every word! It warns of
just such impostures as Bacchiocchi is handing us now. Those warnings
will be fulfilled. On nearly every page, the chapter warns of the
deceitful manner in which Rome will deceive Protestants and the
world, and attain its objective: to regain power through the exaltation
of the false sabbath which is founded on its authority alone.
It is pure
fiction to claim that the modern papacy has forgotten its past, that it
has changed, or that it has repudiated the Sun Day as the mark of its
authority over those who worship on that common working day!
It is the fact
that the Sabbath is Biblical and Sunday sacredness is man-made that
gives Rome its power.
"Papists
themselves publicly confessed the divine authority of the Sabbath and
the human origin of the institution
by which it had been supplanted."—Great Controversy, 577.
The Vatican is
using Bacchiocchi as a willing accomplice to help deceive the nations as
to its soon-coming objectives.
"The
‘man of sin’ will continue until the second advent. 2
Thessalonians 2:3-8. To the very close of time he will carry
forward the work of deception."—Great Controversy, 579.
Here are
statements from the book which Bacchiocchi repeatedly tries to undermine
as unreliable—which reveal that objective!
"It is the
spirit of the papacy—the spirit of conformity to worldly customs, the
veneration for human traditions above the commandments of God—that
is permeating the Protestant churches and leading them on to do the same
work of Sunday exaltation which the papacy has done before them."—Great
Controversy, 573.
"Protestants
are . . opening the door for the papacy to regain in Protestant
America the supremacy which she has lost in the Old World. And that
which gives greater significance to this movement is the fact that the
principal object contemplated is the enforcement of Sunday observance—a
custom which originated with Rome, and which she claims as the sign of
her authority."—Great Controversy, 573.
"These
records of the past clearly reveal the enmity of Rome toward the true
Sabbath and its defenders, and the means which she employs to honor the
institution of her creating. The Word of God teaches that these
scenes are to be repeated as Roman Catholics and Protestants shall unite
for the exaltation of the Sunday."—Great Controversy, 578.
"This
prophecy [of Revelation 13] will be fulfilled when the United States
shall enforce Sunday observance, which Rome claims as the special
acknowledgment of her supremacy. But in this homage to the papacy
the United States will not be alone."—Great Controversy, 579.
"In both
the Old and the New World, the papacy will receive homage in the
honor paid to the Sunday institution, that rests solely upon the
authority of the Roman Church."—Great Controversy, 579.
"Marvelous
in her shrewdness and cunning is the Roman Church. She can read what is
to be. She bides her time, seeing that the Protestant churches are
paying her homage in their acceptance of the false sabbath and that
they are preparing to enforce it by the very means which she herself
employed in bygone days. Those who reject the light of truth will yet
seek the aid of this self-styled infallible power to exalt an
institution that originated with her."—Great Controversy,
580.
"Protestants
little know what they are doing when they propose to accept the aid of
Rome in the work of Sunday exaltation. While they are bent upon
the accomplishment of their purpose, Rome is aiming to re-establish
her power, to recover her lost supremacy."—Great
Controversy, 581.
"Stealthily
and unsuspectedly she is strengthening her forces to further her own
ends when the time shall come for her to strike."—Great
Controversy, 581.
— PART TWO
—
WHEN
BACCHIOCCHI
COMES TO YOUR
CHURCH
Bacchiocchi
repeatedly urges his newsletter readers to have him come to their area,
so he can regale them with marvelous tales of his victories at the
Vatican.
"With the
help of 100 PowerPoint slides, I am now able to take the audience in a
visual way through my pilgrimage of faith. People can see the Gregorian
University, the Vatican, the archives, some of the documents which I
found, my major professor who has suffered greatly for his helpfulness
to me, the Pope himself and the gold medal he awarded me. This testimony
has gripped capacity crowds everywhere around the world, and I would be
glad to share it."—#94, p. 5.
Bacchiocchi’s
thesis was essentially about how the Catholic Church originated Sunday
observance. He claims
that he made this startling discovery by searching old, long forgotten
records in the Vatican Library. What would the Vatican have done
without Bacchiocchi? They wouldn’t know Sunday sacredness in the
Christian church originated with themselves!
But, he says,
his major professor (Vincenzo Monachino, S.J.) has "suffered"
at the hands of Vatican leaders, because he agreed with Bacchiocchi’s
position, that the Catholic Church originated Sundaykeeping! Bacchiocchi
portrays Monachino and himself as martyrs for the cause (oddly enough,
the Catholic cause).
Bacchiocchi
not only turns early Catholic Church history on its head (as we
discovered in our previous tract studies); we now find him turning
modern Catholic Church history upside down!
Bacchiocchi is
desperately trying to get his message to the widest number of Adventists,
through the web and through lectures to our churches throughout the
world field. His message is that, contrary to the Council of Trent and Great
Controversy, chapter 35, Rome’s supremacy is no longer based on
Sunday sacredness; so we no longer need to fear a final Sunday law
crisis.
In view of all
this, do you want Bacchiocchi to come to your church? Read this email
which came to me a few days ago:
———————————
Dear sdadefend
[one of our websites]: I have taken a class by Sam Bacch. I held his
Pope’s Medal in my hand. I never for an instant thought that he
was anything but a real SDA after writing From Sabbath to Sunday.
I was not much of a strict Adventist during those Andrews’ years, but
I did respect him.
Later after
giving my heart back to the Lord in the mid-90s, we had him at our
church for a speaking engagement. Somehow, because of Pennsylvania
Conference rules regarding money, I was told that his airfare was not
paid for by the Conference as had been expected long before. We had no
budget for his flight from Michigan to Pennsylvania.
Well, did we
find out how indignant he was about it! He embarrassed our whole church,
and our visitors from
our pulpit, complaining that he couldn’t believe that we hadn’t paid
for his flight out.
We hastily
took up a freewill offering that Sabbath afternoon. My wife and I gave
$20. We were on a very tight budget. We collected $200, which he readily
accepted.
Another
unusual thing was that his lectures were supposed to be on certain
topics of Sabbath to Sunday. He spoke 3 times, each very long. But he
never spoke about his subject; only himself! It must have been over
9 hours total.
He had premade
[preprinted] flyers, discussing what the topics of the lectures would be
about, sent way ahead of time. Then, during his lectures, he simply
teased us about what was in his books. Then he bragged on and on about
his travels and famous people he met.
Saturday
night, after an exhaustingly long lecture, he
opened up tables in our gymnasium and sold many books. People
were coming out with lots of them for about $15 apiece, if I remember
right.
Most of us
felt really let down over all,
but he was an SDA VIP or celebrity. I was so glad that someone where I
worked, who I had invited, didn’t make it. There was simply no meat in
his talks.
———————————
Let us do a
little math: Bacchiocchi says he has 100 slides that he presents. The
three lectures total nine hours in length. According to that, you would
have to look at each Vatican slide over five minutes while the professor
initiated you into Catholic lore.
I will not
print the name or address of the church member who gave his name and
address for the above email, lest Bacchiocchi take reprisals on him.
People tell me he can be very mean.
The afternoon
I received the above note, a friend from Chicago phoned about our
ongoing efforts to translate some of our books into Spanish. In the
course of our conversation I mentioned the remarkable email I had just
received.
The caller
responded with a casual chuckle and said, "That is no surprise.
Bacchiocchi is like that. He gets angry a lot when he doesn’t get his
own way."
Apparently,
the experience in Pennsylvania is not at all unusual.
Are you sure you still want to invite Bacchiocchi to spend nine hours
bragging on himself and his books, and getting all the money he can out
of your little group?
— PART
THREE —
WHEN
BACCHIOCCHI IS CORRECTED
You will
recall that, in his recent newsletters, Bacchiocchi has been claiming
that all Christians kept Sunday by the second century A.D., when, in
fact (as I documented earlier), ancient records reveal that only at
Alexandria and Rome did a majority of Christians keep Sunday sacred
prior to the fifth century—a full hundred years after the time of
Constantine’s Sunday law.
Well, in a
statement made at some earlier time, Bacchiocchi put forth another
preposterous claim, and it is this: Prior to the time of Constantine, no
Christians—not even apostate ones—thought to link Sunday sacredness
with the day of Christ’s resurrection! However, ancient records
prove Bacchiocchi to be in error on that point also.
But what
happens when someone tries to correct this man who considers himself a
doctoral specialist in early church history?
The following
article, sent to me by a friend who took it off a website, was
written by a non-Adventist physician who tried to do just that:
correct Samuele Bacchiocchi. The web article was entitled, "Samuele
Bacchiocchi Turns Nasty When Confronted by the Truth." As you
will see, the author of this article is actually ridiculing the entire
Adventist denomination for having such an ignorant "church
historian" who cannot admit even the slightest error:
———————————
Samuele
Bacchiocchi Turns Nasty When Confronted by the Truth
Recently,
Prof. Samuele Bacchiocchi, a respected scholar of the Seventh Day
Adventist Church, contacted me by e-mail and attacked me with personal
insults after I had supplied him with certain facts and evidence which
he could not refute.
I would like
to present the details of this disgusting display of character by the
professor for the readers of my website to see. I offered him the
opportunity to refute my evidence, and to apologize for the insults, but
it would appear that he is not going to apologize, and is not able to
defend his church’s failed position.
In his
response to Dies Domini, the encyclical letter of His Holiness
Pope John Paul II on the keeping of the Lord’s Day, Bacchiocchi
claimed:
Moreover . .
"The first day of the week, in the writings of the New Testament,
is never called ‘Day of the Resurrection.’ This is a term which
made its appearance later." Its usage first appears in the fourth
century."
When I
discussed this with him, he confirmed not only that he believed this,
but that he considered this to mean that the very linking of the
1st/8th day of the week, Sunday, with the concept of the Resurrection of
Jesus, was a fourth century phenomenon and did not exist prior to the
fourth century, i.e. the year 300 AD.
In other
words, Bacchiocchi claims that no Christians prior to 300 AD linked
Sunday, as a day of the week, with the event of the resurrection.
I claim that
this is a very poorly researched statement and can easily be disproven.
Here are several quotations from early Christian writers that refute
this claim:
Ignatius of
Antioch, A.D. 107:
"Let
every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the
resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days of the week."—Epistle
to the Magnesians, chp 9. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, pg. 62-63.
Here it is
clear that Ignatius, long before 300 AD, calls a specific day of the
week "resurrection day." How can Bacchiocchi miss this?
The Epistle of
Barnabas, A.D. 70-120:
"Wherefore
we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose
from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven."—The
Epistle of Barnabas, section 15, A.D. 100, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1,
pg. 147.
[The writer of
this article places the letter of Pseudo-Barnabas variously at
"A.D. 70-120" and "A.D. 100." The date is probably
about A.D. 120.]
Here we see the
author of this epistle (probably not the Barnabas from the Bible,
but nonetheless an early Christian writer) linking the 8th day of
the week, the day after the Sabbath in the weekly cycle, every
week, with the resurrection of Jesus.
Justin Martyr,
150 AD:
"But
Sunday is the day on which we hold our common assembly, because it is
the first day of the week and Jesus our saviour on the same day rose
from the dead."—First apology of Justin, Ch 68.
Here we see Justin
clearly linking the concept of the resurrection to a specific day of the
week [Sunday]—not just an Easter Sunday once a year, but clearly a
weekly event.
What was
Bacchiocchi’s response to this evidence against him?
If there was a
rational explanation that Bacchiocchi could supply to show my error, one
would expect that he supply it, especially since he was the one who
initiated the e-mail discussion by mailing me. On the other hand, when
someone is cornered with evidence that he/she cannot cope with or admit
to be true, they often become aggressive and unpleasant.
Which is
exactly what Bacchiocchi did do. He informed me that I should take up
activities on my own intellectual level, and he suggested gardening as
an option. He did not do so politely either.
I have nothing
against gardening, but since I am a medical doctor, I doubt I am
intellectually so far beneath the almighty Professor that I could not
comprehend the quotes I was providing, or any evidence or argument he
could provide to show me where I was wrong. I hardly think that his was
a Christian response. I expect a Christian response to be to show a
fellow Christian where his errors are, not to be silenced and told one
is on the intellectual level of a gardener.
I have on
several occasions tried to ask the professor for both an apology and for
a defense of his claim in the light of this evidence. Not once has
Bacchiocchi been courteous or civil; not once has he apologised for his
pretty sickening behaviour, and not once has he been able to provide a
response to these quotations from the Church Fathers, which I think any
reader will agree proves him wrong.
My response is
to interpret this from a psychological viewpoint - if you wound an
animal and corner it, it will attack you. I think that Bacchiocchi
was faced with evidence that destroyed his argument, and he could not
respond, and attacked with personal insults instead. He has not yet
found the courage to apologize or admit error. This is a natural human
characteristic: never admit your error. I hope that by publishing a
truthful account of this matter, the professor might be encouraged to
submit an apology and rectify the impression he has created by supplying
evidence to refute or explain the evidence I provided. At least it will
shed some light on the true nature of Adventist scholarship for the
readers of my website, and alert them to the fact that Adventist leaders
will say anything, true or false, to make their unscriptural position
seem valid.
People who
wish to contact me can do so via e-mail at adventism@theotokos.co.za
———————————
That concludes
the above unsigned web article.
— PART FOUR
—
"THE
BACCHIOCCHI AGENDA"
It was while
preparing the previous tract set (Reply to Bacchiocchi’s #90-92
Attack—Part 1-3 [WM-1127-1129]), that I discovered
Bacchiocchi’s remarkable undercutting of our entire Sabbath message.
However, someone else had earlier encountered the same deceptive tactic.
Last week, a
friend sent me a web article, written by a non-Adventist named Brian
Hoeck.
Hoeck’s
position is that Bacchiocchi is pretending to be a faithful Adventist,
promoting the seventh-day Sabbath when, in reality, he is a Jesuit spy
promoting universal Sunday worship!
Apparently,
Hoeck, who is no friend of Adventists, is a defender of the Bible
Sabbath. For that reason, he is offended at what Bacchiocchi is trying
to do.
Here is the
article:
———————————
From Sabbath
to Sunday, The Bacchiocchi Agenda: Which "Sabbath" Does He
Truly Support?
From Sabbath
to Sunday, Divine Rest for Human Restlessness, The Sabbath in the New
Testament, The Sabbath Under Crossfire:
these are some of the many books authored by Samuele Bacchiocchi, the
purported Seventh Day Adventist scholar, which have received great
accolades from many "Church of God" organizations for their
apparent defense of the seventh-day Sabbath. A deeper examination of
his books though actually reveals his ecumenical concern—not
concern for the Scriptural Sabbath, but for a Sabbath—be
it the last or the first day of the week.
The following
quote is from Bacchiocchi, as posted on his website:
"I grew
up as a Seventh-day Adventist in Rome, Italy, a stone-throw from the
Vatican wall in the days when considerable hostility existed against
religious minorities . .
"These
painful experiences instilled within me the desire to know more about
which is God’s Holy Day and how should it be observed by Christians
today. As a teenager I would have never imagined that the Lord would one
day make it possible for me to research and publish my dissertation
at the most prestigious Jesuit University in the world, the Pontifical
Gregorian University, founded by Ignatius Loyola himself, over 450
years ago.
"The idea
of attending the Gregoriana was suggested to me by a beloved Catholic
priest, Father Ravasio, whom I came to know in Ethiopia where I was
serving as a missionary . .
"Truly I
can say that though I was accepted as a ‘Separated Brother,’ I was
treated as a real Christian brother. I treasure the pleasant memories
of the five years I spent at the Gregoriana. The professor who
directed my dissertation, Father Vincenzo Monachino, S.J., is
brilliant, godly and open minded. At first he was reluctant to allow
me to investigate the origin of Sundaykeeping, because he had worked
on the same subject for the previous two years with a Jesuit priest, C.S.
Mosna, who also wrote his dissertation on the history of Sunday during
the first four centuries (Storia della Domenica [History of
Sunday]). When he noticed my keen interest he graciously approved my
proposal and spent many hours with me reexamining the Biblical and
historical data. It takes a great scholar to be willing to reconsider
one’s conclusions. Prof. Monachino was such a scholar whom I will
respect for the rest of my life.
"My
dissertation, From Sabbath to Sunday, was first published in 1977
by the Pontifical Gregorian University Press with the official Catholic imprimatur
(approval). Since then it has been reprinted 13 times in English and
has been translated in a dozen of languages. The French translation
was done by two Belgian Benedictine monks as a labor of love and
published by a Catholic press in Paris."
The above
information is quite similar to that which Bacchiocchi included in the
book itself, on page 5.
"Since
Dr. Bacchiocchi seems intent on pushing his books based upon the fact
that he has an imprimatur on one of them [From Sabbath to
Sunday], it is important to know what the word imprimatur
means. Simply stated, it means that there is nothing in the
book that is contrary to the teaching of the [Catholic] Church."—Ed
Faulk, Usenet Catholic Newsgroup message, December 15, 1997.
Merriam
Webster’s dictionary defines imprimatur as follows:
"im*pri*ma*tur
(noun) [New Latin, let it be printed, from imprimere to print,
from Latin, to imprint, impress] First appeared 1640. (1a) a license
to print or publish, esp. by Roman Catholic episcopal authority; (b) approval
of a publication under circumstances of official censorship; (2a)
Sanction, approval. (b) imprint; (c) a mark of approval or
distinction."
One must ask
himself, if this book truly proves and advocates the Seventh Day
Sabbath, why would it receive this Catholic imprimatur, and
yet further, why would Sundaykeeping monks translate his work
"as a labor of love" if it disproved or went against what they
stand for? Recall the hatred that the Catholic Church has had for
the Seventh Day Sabbath throughout history.
Let us further
examine this book:
"How
can the pressing problem of the secularization of the Lord’s day
be resolved?"—Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday,
back cover.
How can the
"secularization" of a secular day (Sunday) be seen as a
"pressing problem" that needs be "resolved"—especially
by a professing Seventh Day Sabbath observer?
"Should Sunday
be viewed as the hour of worship rather than the holy day of rest to the
Lord?"—Ibid., p. 303.
Should it
[Sunday] be viewed by
anyone, especially one who claims to be a 7th day Sabbatarian, as
either one of these?
"To
find the answer to these questions, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi spent
five years at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, examining
the most ancient available documents. The results of this
investigation are presented in From Sabbath to Sunday."—Ibid.,
back cover.
Notice
carefully the reason for this book: "To find the answer to these
questions . ." Which questions? One of them is "How can the
pressing problem of the secularization of the Lord’s day be
resolved?"
This fact of
seeking a Sabbath basis for Sunday as being the purpose for his research
and writing of From Sabbath to Sunday
is bore out further in the following quote:
"To
accomplish a sound theological reappraisal of Sunday, it is
necessary to investigate its Biblical basis and its historical
genesis. On the other hand, the many studies on this topic, though
excellent, have not given a fully satisfactory answer because of the
lack of consideration of some of those factors which in the Church of
the first centuries contributed to the concrete genesis and
development of a day of worship different than the Jewish
Sabbath."
"On
account of this, the new work of Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi is to be
welcomed . .
"We
gladly mention that the thesis that Bacchiocchi defends regarding the
birth-place of Sunday worship: for him this arose not in the primitive
Church of Jerusalem, well-known for its profound attachment to the
Jewish religious traditions, but rather in the Church of Rome . .
"The
event of Christ’s resurrection on that day, had naturally
significant importance . .
"The
strict scientific orientation of the work does not prevent the author
from revealing his profound religious and ecumenic concern.
Conscious that the history of salvation knows not fractures but
continuity, he [Bacchiocchi] finds in the rediscovery of the
religious values of the Biblical Sabbath, a help to restore to the
Lord’s Day its ancient sacred character. This is in reality
the exhortation that already in the fourth century the bishops
addressed to the believers, namely to spend Sunday not in outings or
watching shows, but rather to sanctify it by assisting at the
eucharistic celebration and by doing acts of mercy (St. Ambrose,
Exam. III, 1, 1). Rome, June 29th, 1977, Vincenzo Monachino, S.J.,
Chairman of Church History Department, Pontifical Gregorian
University."—From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 7-8.
The above
statement was by the "brilliant, godly and open-minded" Jesuit
which directed Bacchiocchi’s study and writing of this subject.
Some more on
this, from Samuele himself:
"Many
well-meaning Christians view Sunday observance as the hour of worship
rather than as the holy day of the Lord. Having fulfilled their
worship obligations, many will in good conscience spend the rest of
their Sunday time engaged either in making money or in seeking
pleasure."—Ibid., p. 10.
"Some
people, concerned by this widespread profanation of the Lord’s day,
are urging for a civil legislation that would outlaw all activities
not compatible with the spirit of Sunday. To make such legislation
agreeable even to non-Christians, sometimes appeal is made to the
pressing need of preserving natural resources. One day of total
rest for man and machines would help safeguard both our power
resources and the precarious environment. Social or ecological
needs, however, while they may encourage resting on Sunday, can hardly
induce a worshipful attitude."—Ibid., p. 10.
As noted
above, Bacchiocchi is one of these very people who are
"concerned by this widespread profanation of the Lord’s
day." He therefore makes these very appeals himself in his
book, Divine Rest for Human Restlessness, chapter VI, part IV, The
Sabbath as Service to our Habitat, pp. 204-214 (ecological appeal),
and chapter VII Good News of Divine Rest for Human Restlessness,
pp. 217-226 (social appeal).
"Might
not more hopeful results be expected from educating our Christian
communities to understand both the Biblical meaning and experience of
God’s ‘holy day’?"—From Sabbath to Sunday, p. 11.
Is this not
exactly what the Jesuit Vincenzo Monachino (quoted above) stated was
Bacchiocchi’s purpose for this investigation?
To provide understanding for how to keep Sunday from being
"profaned" by looking into the Scriptural Sabbath, recall:
"He [Bacchiocchi] finds in the rediscovery of the religious
values of the Biblical Sabbath, a help to restore to the Lord’s Day
its ancient sacred character."
"In
introducing our study we posed several vital questions: What are
the Biblical and historical reasons for Sunday-keeping? Can Sunday be
regarded as the legitimate replacement of the Sabbath? Can the fourth
commandment be rightly invoked to enjoin Sunday observance? Should
Sunday be viewed as the hour of worship rather than the holy day of
rest to the Lord? We stated at the outset that to answer these
questions, and thereby to formulate valid theological criteria needed
to help solve the pressing problem of the widespread profanation of
Sunday, it is indispensable to ascertain both the Biblical basis
and the historical genesis of this festivity."—Ibid., p.
303.
"Our
study has shown (we hope persuasively) that the adoption of Sunday
observance in place of the Sabbath did not occur in the primitive
Church of Jerusalem by virtue of the authority of Christ or of the
Apostles, but rather took place several decades later, seemingly in
the Church of Rome, solicited by external circumstances."—Ibid.,
p. 309.
"On
what ground then can Sunday rest be defended? Mosna finds a ‘fundamental
reason’ in the fact that the Church ‘influenced Constantine’s
decision to make Sunday a day of rest for the whole empire, and
this undoubtedly in order to give to the Lord’s day a preeminent
place above the other days.’ Therefore, Mosna argues that the
Church ‘can claim the honor of having granted man a pause to his
work every seven days.’ This explanation harmonizes well with
the traditional claim that Sunday observance ‘is purely a creation
of the Catholic Church.’ But if Sunday rest is an
ecclesiastical-imperial institution, how can it be enjoined upon
Christians as a divine precept? What valid ground can this provide
to enable theologians to reassess the meaning and function of the Lord’s
day for Christians today? One can hardly hope to cope with the
widespread profanation of the Lord’s day, merely by invoking
ecclesiastical authority without providing an adequate theological
rationale."—Ibid., pp. 312-313.
Samuele
continues as such:
"Should
we then conclude that Sunday is to be regarded as the hour of worship
rather then the holy day of rest to the Lord? Apparently it is
toward this direction that some Christian churches are moving."—Ibid.,
p. 313.
"To say
the least, this interpretation not only reduces the obligation of
the Lord’s day to the attendance of a church service, but it
even advocates the possibility of anticipating it in order to
accommodate the social and recreational priorities of modern
Christians. Does this view of the Lord’s day as the hour of worship
reflect correctly the Biblical teaching of the sanctification of the
Sabbath, accomplished by renouncing the utilitarian use of its time?
Hardly so."—Ibid., pp. 315-316.
"Does
this proposal contribute to solving or to compounding the problems
associated with Sunday observance in our time? Does not this provide
Christians with a rational justification for spending most of their
Sunday time in either making money or in seeking pleasure? Is this
what Sunday observance is all about? To divorce worship from rest,
regarding the latter as non-essential to Sunday observance, it
means to misunderstand the meaning of the Biblical commandment which
ordains the consecration not of a weekly hour of worship but of a
whole day of interruption of work out of respect for God.
Undoubtedly for some Christians the reduction of Sunday observance to
an hour of worship is unacceptable, but our study has shown that both
the historical genesis and the thelogical basis of Sunday observance
offer little help to encourage the consecration of the total Sunday
time to the Lord."—Ibid., p. 317.
"Is
there a way out of this predicament? The proposal which we are about
to submit may at first appear radical to some, but if it were accepted
by Christians at large it could indeed revitalize both the worship and
the real content of the Lord’s day. Since our study has shown that
Sunday observance lacks the Biblical authority and the theological
basis necessary to justify the total consecration of its time to the
Lord, we believe that such an objective can be more readily
achieved by educating our Christian communities to understand the
Biblical and apostolic meaning and obligation of the seventh-day
Sabbath."—Ibid., p. 318.
Please note
that he is not suggesting that all "Christians" begin to keep
the seventh-day Sabbath, but rather, that they get educated as to the
meaning and obligation of it and apply it to Sunday.
"Sabbath
observance in this cosmic age can well be for modern man the fitting
expression of a cosmic faith . . a faith that would treat the Lord’s
Day as God’s holy day rather than as a holiday."—Ibid., p.
321.
Again, the
Sabbath observance he is speaking of is NOT to occur on the seventh day,
but rather on the "Lord’s Day" (i.e., Sunday).
The following
are some "scholars’ " comments on Samuele’s books. Please,
when you read their words, take notice that they are Catholics:
"The
warning has gone out, Sunday is in trouble . . In order to gain a
much needed perspective on this issue, a practical and worthwhile
reading of From Sabbath to Sunday is needed."—Thomas
G. Simmons, Director, Catholic Divine Worship Apostolate, [book]
review, Modern Liturgy Magazine.
"Divine
Rest for Human Restlessness invites every reader to a penetrating
and suggestive analysis of the tradition and significance of
Sabbath keeping."—Most Reverend Cardinal, Joseph L.
Bernardin, Archbishop of Chicago.
Richard
Nickels, of Giving and Sharing and the Bible Sabbath Association, gave
the following review of Bacchiocchi’s God’s Festivals in
Scripture and History:
"More
than one intelligent, well-educated Sabbath-keeper has mentioned to me
that they think Samuele Bacchiocchi is a Jesuit. They have
presented no proof for this assertion, and as a result, I place such
accusations in the category of malicious gossip . . Nevertheless,
there are a number of disturbing tendencies that have come to light
with the publication of Bacchiocchi’s books on the Holy Days.
"(1) He
is more of a salesman than a scholar. The shoddy work on his
first book on the Holy Days is ample proof that he rushed to make a
commercial deadline rather than carefully doing his research.
"(2)
Time and again, he says that the Bible alone doesn’t tell us
much of how to keep the Holy Days, and thus he turns to church
tradition. Although he stops short of saying that church
tradition is above the Bible, by citing and supporting
extra-Biblical customs, he elevates these traditions above the Bible.
"(3) He
lauds and honors Catholic "fathers," even
well-known enemies of the true faith, such Origen, Jerome, and
Augustine. He acts as if Patrick of Ireland, Columba, Vigilantius Leo,
and heroes of the Sabbath-keeping Church of the East did not exist. I
care little what Catholic fathers said, but I would be interested in
learning more of what Sabbath-keeping church leaders said about
the Holy Days.
"(4) He
liberally quotes from apocryphal sources, as authoritative guides,
that prescribe [dictate] our Christian practices of today, such as his
support for a Passover vigil and agape feast.
"(5) At
times he seems to be purposely ambiguous, even contradictory.
He sometimes takes stands on several sides of the same issue and
rarely speaks plainly.
[Nickels
notes many such instances, such as the following, quoting Nickels:
"On page 169, Bacchiocchi agrees with Alfred Edersheim, Josephus,
and Philo, on the Sivan 6 date for Pentecost. Yet later on, on page
233, he agrees with a Sunday Pentecost. He was either in a hurry to
publish his book or he purposely straddled the fence."]
"(6) He
ignores plain Bible commands, or minimizes them, and instead
concentrates on what men say about the Bible.
"What
is the common denominator of these tendencies of Bacchiocchi? They
are traits of the Jesuits! Jesuits believe and practice that the
end justifies the means. The Jesuit-led Council of Trent, the
touchstone for Catholic success over Protestantism, upheld the
Catholic dogma that tradition is above Scripture.
"Jesuit
techniques include the eradication of all history about ‘heretics,’
the ascendancy of the Apocrypha and translations such as the Vulgate
Bible, based on the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts, supported
by Origen and Jerome. The Catholic Church in general, and Jesuits in
particular, ignore plain Bible commands so as to uphold their
anti-Biblical traditions.
"Rene
Fulop-Miller says of the Jesuits, ‘In actual fact, the Jesuit
casuists [reasoners about what is right or wrong] deal with two forms
of permissible deception: that of ‘amphibology’ and that of reservatio
mentalis. ‘Amphibology’ is nothing else than the
employment of ambiguous terms calculated to mislead the questioner; ‘mental
reservation’ consists in answering a question, not with a direct
lie, but in such a way that the truth is partly suppressed,
certain words being formulated mentally but not expressed orally’ (cited
in Facts of Faith, page 281 [by Christian Edwardson]).
"Dr. Bacchiocchi
is so steeped in the study of the Catholic Church early fathers that
he cannot help himself from thinking like them. Truly, you become
what you read! . . I am not accusing him of being a Jesuit. But, I
am warning others to reject Bacchiocchi’s Jesuit tendencies.
After thoughtful consideration, we will not continue to recommend his
books on the Holy Days. We do, indeed, recommend books even if we
do not agree with the author on every point. But the tone of
Bacchiocchi’s books on the Holy Days is, in my opinion, Catholic
rather than Biblical, and that is something that I will not support."—Richard
Nickels, Giving and Sharing newsletter, review of Samuele Bacchiocchi’s
God’s Festivals in Scripture and History.
From Webster’s
New Collegiate Dictionary:
"Jesuit
. . (1) a member of the Roman Catholic Society of Jesus founded by St.
Ignatius Loyola in 1534 and devoted to missionary and educational
work; (2) one given to intrigue or equivocation."
"Intrigue
. . (1) a secret scheme."
"Equivocate
. . (1) to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive;
(2) to avoid committing oneself in what one says—synonym, see ‘lie.’
"
"Equivocal
. . (1a) subject to two or more interpretations and usually used to
mislead or confuse."
J.I. Rodale, The
Synonym Finder:
"Equivocate
. . double-talk . . talk out of both sides of one’s mouth."
William Lutz, Double-Speak:
"Double-speak
is not a slip of the tongue, or language used out of ignorance, but is
instead a very conscious use of language as a weapon or tool by those
in power to achieve their ends at our expense."—p. xii.
"Double-speak
enables speaker and listener, writer and reader, to hold two opposing
ideas in their minds at the same time and believe in both of
them."—p. 9.
"Andrews
University, the Seventh-Day Adventist world headquarters where Samuele
Bacchiocchi is a professor, has been so heavily infiltrated with
ecumenical theologians that its yearbook has used illustrations of
nuns, priests, and people giving the papal sign."—John
Osborne and Bob Trefz (independent Seventh-day Adventists), Jesuit
Agenda for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, video tape, 1992.
The above
cited SDA minister, Bob Trefz, reportedly wrote a letter to a Church of
God member which stated:
"I know
Bacchiocchi. He is doing the very work that one would expect from a
Jesuit. Of course he was trained at the highest Jesuit University in
the world . . Bacchiocchi is best friends with the leaders of the Lord’s
Day Alliance—the premier organization pushing for a National Sunday
Law. Bacchiocchi arranged for the Lord’s Day Alliance to come to
Andrews University where the SDA theological seminary is located. We
believe he is pushing the Jesuit Agenda."
Bacchiocchi
actually had the head of the Lord’s Day Alliance, Dr. James P.
Wesberry, write the foreword to his book, Rest For Human Restlessness.
This man,
Samuele Bacchiocchi, is supported by many "Church of God"
organizations and defended by (including against allegations that he is
a Jesuit) Ron Dart of Christian Educational Ministries. You have just
read the "fruits" of Bacchiocchi, whom Ron refers to as
"one of the strongest advocates of sincere Sabbath observance in
the world." (Understanding Deception, point 6, Ron Dart). Do
you agree with him? Just which "sabbath" is being advocated?
email: Brian Hoeck
———————————
That concludes
this lengthy article by a non-Adventist, who apparently is a faithful
Sabbathkeeper. Hoeck is deeply upset with Bacchiocchi’s duplicity.
Since 1977,
Bacchiocchi has been urging that everyone in the nation needs a weekly
rest day. His promotion of Sunday as the ideal day is based, by his own
statements, on the historical change by the papacy—and—on the
Biblical evidences of the Sabbath.
Bacchiocchi
thus takes what the Bible says about sanctifying the Bible Sabbath—and
applies it to Sundaykeeping.
By doing this,
he is preparing the way for a government-mandated National Sunday Law.
Significantly,
that part of Bacchiocchi’s message, which attempts to apply Bible
passages about Sabbathkeeping to Sunday worship, is almost identical
with the Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II, which said almost
exactly what Bacchiocchi said—plus taking that next step and calling
on all nations to enact National Sunday Laws!
Because it
expresses almost exactly the quotations you just read from Bacchiocchi’s
writings, the remainder of this study consists of portions of our
16-page report on that Apostolic Letter (Pope John Paul II Calls for
National Sunday Laws [WM–843-846]).
— PART FIVE
—
JOHN PAUL II’s
APOSTOLIC LETTER
On May 31,
1998, on the occasion of the Solemnity of Pentecost in St. Peter’s
Basilica in Rome, Pope John Paul II issued an Apostolic Letter, entitled
Dies Domini [The Lord’s Day], after the two words which open
the papal statement.
In this
official decree from the Vatican, the pope declared that the nations
should enact National Sunday Laws.
On pages 22 to
23 (sections 64 to 67), of the 37-page papal letter, will be found a
call for secular governments to enact—and strictly enforce—laws
which will guarantee that all their citizens will rest on Sundays, so
church worship services can be more easily attended. Here is the
heart of this very significant papal edict:
AS WE PREPARE FOR
THE THIRD MILLENNIUM, LET US RECALL TO MIND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUN
DAY. I WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE EFFORTS OF THE BISHOPS IN PROMOTING IT.
"The Lord’s
Day—as Sunday was called from Apostolic times—has always
been accorded special attention in the history of the Church."—Page
1, section 1.
"The
fundamental importance of Sunday has been recognized through two
thousand years of history and was emphatically restated by the Second
Vatican Council."—Page
2, section 3.
"The
coming of the Third Millennium,
which calls believers to reflect upon the course of history in the light
of Christ, also invites them to rediscover with new intensity the
meaning of Sunday: its ‘mystery,’ its celebration, its significance
for Christian and human life."—Page 2, section 3.
"I note
with pleasure that in the years since the [Vatican II] Council this
important theme [of strengthening Sunday sacredness] has prompted not
only many interventions by you, dear Brother Bishops, as teachers of the
faith, but also different pastoral strategies which—with the support
of your clergy—you have developed either individually or jointly.
On the threshold of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, it has been
my wish to offer you this Apostolic Letter in order to support your
pastoral efforts in this vital area."—Page 2, section 3.
"I
reflect with you on the meaning of Sunday and underline the reasons
for living Sunday as truly ‘the Lord’s Day,’ also in the
changing circumstances of our own times."—Page 2, section
3.
WE MUST RETURN TO
THE PATTERNS OF THE PAST: SUNDAY ENFORCEMENT IS AGAIN NEEDED.
"Until
quite recently, it was easier in traditionally Christian countries to
keep Sunday holy because it was an almost universal practice and
because, even in the organization of civil society, Sunday rest was
considered a fixed part of the work schedule.
Today, however, even in those countries which give legal sanction
to the festive character of Sunday, changes in socioeconomic
conditions have often led to the profound modifications of social
behavior and hence of the character of Sunday. The custom of the ‘weekend’
has become more widespread, a weekly period of respite, spent perhaps
far from home."—Page
2, section 4.
"Given
this array of new situations and the questions which they prompt, it
seems more necessary than ever to recover the deep doctrinal foundations
underlying the Church’s precept, so that the abiding value of Sunday
in the Christian life will be clear to all the faithful. In doing this,
we follow in the footsteps of the age-old tradition of the Church,
powerfully restated by the Second Vatican Council in its teaching that
on Sunday, ‘Christian believers should come together . . [to receive
the mass, etc.]’ "—Page 3, section 6.
KEEPING SUNDAY
HOLY IS A MORAL DUTY.
"The
duty to keep Sunday holy,
especially by sharing in the Eucharist and by relaxing in a spirit of
Christian joy and fraternity, is easily understood if we consider the
many different aspects of this day upon which the present Letter
will focus our attention."—Page
3, section 7.
"I would
strongly urge everyone to rediscover Sunday."—Page
3, section 7.
"The
Sabbath precept, which
in the first Covenant prepares for the Sunday of the new and eternal
Covenant, is therefore rooted in the depths of God’s plan. This
is why, unlike many other precepts, it is set not within the
context of strictly cultic stipulations but within the Decalogue,
the ‘ten words’ which represent the very pillars of the moral
life inscribed on the human heart. In setting this commandment
within the context of the basic structure of ethics, Israel and then the
Church declare that they consider it not just a matter of community
religious discipline but a defining and indelible expression of our
relationship with God, announced and expounded by biblical
revelation. This is the perspective within which Christians
need to rediscover this precept today."—Pages 5-6, section
13.
"Wise
pastoral intuition suggested to the Church the christianization of the
notion of Sunday as ‘the day of the sun,’ which was the Roman name
for the day and which
is retained in some modern languages. This was in order to draw the
faithful away from the seduction of cults which worshipped the sun, and
to direct the celebration of the day to Christ."—Page 10,
section 27.
"It is
clear then why, even in our own difficult times, the identity of this
day must be protected
and above all must be lived in all its depth."—Page 11,
section 30.
IN FORMER TIMES,
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE WAS REQUIRED BY LAW. WE NEED TO RETURN TO THAT
PRACTICE AS WE FACE INTO THE THIRD MILLENNIUM.
"What
began as a spontaneous practice later became a juridically sanctioned
norm [i.e.,
National Sunday laws were enacted and enforced]. The Lord’s Day
has structured the history of the Church through two thousand years:
how could we think that it will not continue to shape her future?"—Page
11, section 30.
"Given
its many meanings and aspects, and its link to the very foundations of
the faith, the celebration of the Christian Sunday remains, on the
threshold of the Third Millennium, an indispensable element of our
Christian identity."—Page 11, section 30.
THE CHURCH MUST
MAKE SURE IT IS REQUIRED TODAY, AS IN EARLIER TIMES.
"Even
if in the earliest times it was not judged necessary to be
prescriptive, the Church has not ceased to confirm this obligation of
conscience [the
urgency of requiring obedience to it], which rises from the inner need
felt so strongly by Christians of the first centuries. It was only
later, faced with the half-heartedness or negligence of some, that the
Church had to make explicit the duty to attend Sunday Mass; more often
than not, this was done in the form of exhortation, but at times the
Church had to resort to specific canonical precepts . .
These decrees of local Councils led to a universal practice, the
obligatory character of which was taken as something quite
normal."—Page
17, section 47.
"The Code
of Canon Law of 1917 for the first time gathered this tradition into a
universal law. The present Code reiterates this, saying that ‘on
Sundays and the other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to
attend Mass.’ This legislation has normally been understood as
entailing a grave obligation: This is the teaching of the Catechism
of the Catholic Church, and it is easy to understand why if we keep in
mind how vital Sunday is for the Christian life."—Page 17,
section 47.
"For
several centuries, Christians observed Sunday simply as a day of
worship, without being able to give it the specific meaning of the
Sabbath rest. Only in the fourth century did the civil law of the
Roman Empire recognize the weekly recurrence, determining that on ‘the
day of the sun’ the judges, the people of the cities and various trade
corporations would not work. Christians rejoiced to see thus removed the
obstacles which until then had sometimes made observance of the Lord’s
Day heroic [difficult]. They could now devote themselves to prayer in
common without hinderance.
"It would
therefore be wrong to see in this legislation of the rhythm of the week
a mere historical circumstance with no special significance for the
Church and which she could simply set aside. Even after the fall of the
Empire, the Councils did not cease to insist upon the arrangements
regarding Sunday rest.
In countries where Christians are in the minority and where the festive
days of the calender do not coincide with Sunday, it is still Sunday
which remains the Lord’s Day, the day on which the faithful come
together for the Eucharistic assembly. But this involves real
sacrifices. For Christians it is not normal that Sunday, the day of
joyful celebration, should not be a day of rest, it is difficult for
them to keep Sunday holy if they do not have enough free time.
EVEN
NON-CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO OBSERVE THIS DAY OF REST.
"By
contrast the link between the Lord’s Day and the day of rest in
civil society has a meaning and importance which go beyond the
distinctly Christian point of view. [The Sunday rest is needed by
everyone.] The alternation between work and rest, built into human
nature, is willed by God Himself, as appears in the creation
story in the Book of Genesis (cf. 2:2-3; Ex. 20:8-11): rest is
something "sacred," because it is man’s way of withdrawing
from the sometimes excessive demanding cycle of earthly tasks in order
to review his awareness that everything is the work of God."—Page
22, section 65.
"Finally,
it should not be forgotten that even in our own day work is
very oppressive for many people, either because of miserable working
conditions and long hours—especially in the poorer regions of the
world—or because of the persistence in economically more developed
societies of too many cases of injustice and exploitation of man by man.
[Everyone needs to stop work once a week.] When through the
centuries, she has made laws concerning Sunday rest, the Church has had
in mind above all the work of servants and workers, certainly not
because this work was any less worthy when compared to the spiritual
requirements of Sunday observance, but rather because it needed greater
regulation to lighten its burden and thus enable everyone to keep the
Lord’s Day holy. In this matter, my predecessor Pope Leo XIII in
his Encyclical Rerum Novarum spoke of Sunday rest as a worker’s
right which the State must guarantee."—Page 23, section
66.
AS WE NEAR THE
YEAR 2000, WE MUST WORK TO REINSTITUTE THIS ENFORCEMENT.
"Therefore,
also in the particular circumstances of our own time, Christians will
naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to
keep Sunday holy. In any case, they are obliged in conscience to
arrange their Sunday rest in a way which allows them to take part in the
Eucharist, refraining from work and activities which are incompatible
with the sanctification of the Lord’s Day, with its characteristic joy
and necessary rest for spirit and body."—Page
23, section 67.
"Dear
Brothers and Sisters, the imminence of the Jubilee invites us to a
deeper spiritual and pastoral commitment. Indeed, this is its true
purpose. In the Jubilee year, much will be done to give it the
particular stamp demanded by the end of the second Millennium and
the beginning of the Third since the Incarnation of the Word of
God. But this year and this special time will pass, as we look to other
jubilees and other solemn events. As the weekly ‘solemnity,’
however, Sunday will continue to shape the time of the Church’s
pilgrimage, until that Sunday which will know no evening."—Page
29, section 87.
AS WE LABOR
TIRELESSLY, OUR EFFORTS WILL HELP ALL MANKIND.
"Therefore,
dear Brother Bishops and Priests, I urge you to work tirelessly
with the faithful to ensure that the value of this sacred day is
understood and lived ever more deeply. This will bear rich fruit in
Christian communities, and will not fail to have a positive influence on
civil society as a whole.
"In
coming to know the Church, which every Sunday joyfully celebrates the
mystery from which she draws her life, may the men and women of the
Third Millennium come to know the Risen Christ. And constantly renewed
by the weekly commemoration of Easter, may Christ’s disciples be ever
more credible in proclaiming the Gospel of salvation and ever more
effective in building the civilization of love.
"My
blessing to you all!
"From the
Vatican, on 31 May, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1998, the
twentieth of my Pontificate."—Page 29, section 87.
————————————————————————
Important
publications, as we near the end:
—————————————
May 31, 1998,
APOSTOLIC LETTER
THE COMPLETE
37-PAGE DOCUMENT
In the tract
you have just completed, you have read most of the best portions. Yet
there is a special value in having a copy: You have been telling others
that the pope demands Sunday law enactment and strict enforcement; now
you will have the proof. Ask for it by name:
THE MAY
1998 PAPAL LETTER—37
pages, 8½ x
11, $3.25 + $2.50 p&h ($5.75). In Tennessee, add 9.25% tax.
—————————————
The Marian
Messages
Final Events
as Predicted by the Spirits
to Faithful
Roman Catholics
The only book
revealing their complete last-day event plan, in chronological format.
This is what Catholics are being taught to expect. 112 pages, 40
chapters, $5.50 + $2.50 p&h. In Tennessee, add 9.25% tax.
—————————————
THE
MAGNIFICAT
The only book
for Roman Catholic evangelism, which reaches the heart while containing
our message. 352 pp., 44 to case, 15 cents in box, $6.60 + $11.00
p&h = $17.60. Single, $5.00 ppd.
"In his letter, the pope goes
on to say a violator should be ‘punished as a heretic,’ said
McNally, who read an unofficial English translation of the letter on a
Vatican Website."—Detroit News, Tuesday,
July 7, 1998 [emphasis ours].
RETURN TO BOOKS
|