WHO CHANGED THE SABBATH TO SUNDAY?

There can be no doubt that Christ, His disciples, and the first-century Christians kept Saturday, the seventh-day Sabbath. Yet, today, most of the Christian professing world keeps Sunday, the first day of the week, calling it the Sabbath. Who made this change, and how did it occur?

No serious student of the Scriptures can deny that God instituted the Sabbath at creation and designated the seventh day to be kept holy. “And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made” (Genesis 2:2–3). It was later codified as the Fourth Commandment (Exodus 20:8–11).

The Word of God makes it expressly clear that Sabbath observance is a special sign or “mark” between God and His people. There is also no uncertainty that Christ, His disciples, and the first-century Christians kept the seventh-day Sabbath as commanded—the day we now call “Saturday” (Mark 2:28;Luke 4:16).

Is There Any Biblical Support for Sunday Observance?

There is absolutely no New Testament text stating that God, Jesus, or the apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday—not a text, not a word, not even a hint or suggestion. If there were, those chapters and verses would be loudly heralded by Sabbath opposers. Had Paul or any other apostle taught a change from Sabbath to Sunday, the first day of the week, an absolute firestorm of protest would have arisen from conservative Jewish Christians. The Pharisees and scribes would have insisted that Paul or any other person even suggesting such a thing be stoned to death for the sin of Sabbath-breaking. This would have been a much larger issue than the controversy over circumcision!

The self-righteous Pharisees had already falsely accused Christ of breaking the Sabbath because He violated the added man-made rules and traditions they placed upon the Sabbath (Mark 2:24). The total absence of any such controversy over a change in the day of worship is one of the best evidences showing the apostles and other New Testament Christians did not change the day. On the contrary, we have a record of many Sabbaths that Paul and his traveling companions kept long after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Read of them in your own Bible in Acts 13:14, 27, 42–44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; and 18:4.Acts 13:42–44 is especially significant in that Paul and Barnabas, when speaking at a Jewish synagogue, were invited to speak again the next Sabbath. This would have been Paul’s golden opportunity to tell the people to meet with him the next day rather than waiting a whole week for the Sabbath. But, “on the next Sabbath almost the whole city [Jews and Gentiles alike] gathered to hear the word of the Lord.”

Yet today, most of the Christian professing world keeps Sunday, the first day of the week, calling it the Sabbath. The question arises then, who changed the Sabbath to Sunday, and how did it occur? The answer may amaze you!

Biblical Testimony

The New Testament plainly shows we are to continue keeping the commandments (Mathew 5:17–18; 19:17; 28:20)—all ten of them. Where, then, do men get the “authority” to change the Fourth Commandment by substituting Sunday for the original Sabbath Christ and the apostles kept?

The Bible prophesied many centuries earlier that the time would come when men would think to change times and laws (Daniel 7:25). Many Bible prophecies are “dual” in nature—that is, they have a type and antitype, an earlier and a later fulfillment. Though speaking specifically of the soon-coming antichrist, we can see the forerunner type documented in history.

The Watering Down of the Sabbath in the First 300 Years

The Christians during the apostolic era, from about 35 to 100 A.D., kept Sabbath on the designated seventh day of the week. For the first 300 years of Christian history, when the Roman emperors regarded themselves as gods, Christianity became an “illegal religion,” and God’s people were scattered abroad (Acts 8:1). Judaism, however, was regarded at that time as “legal,” as long as they obeyed Roman laws. Thus, during the apostolic era, Christians found it convenient to let the Roman authorities think of them as Jews, which gained them legitimacy with the Roman government. However, when the Jews rebelled against Rome, the Romans put down their rebellion by destroying Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and again in A.D. 135. Obviously, the Roman government’s suppression of the Jews made it increasingly uncomfortable for Christians to be thought of as Jewish. At that time, Sunday was the rest day of the Roman Empire, whose religion was Mithraism, a form of sun worship. Since Sabbath observance is visible to others, some Christians in the early second century sought to distance themselves from Judaism by observing a different day, thus “blending in” to the society around them.

During the Empire-wide Christian persecutions under Nero, Maximin, Diocletian, and Galerius, Sabbath-keeping Christians were hunted down, tortured, and, for sport, often used for entertainment in the Colisseum.

Constantine Made Sunday a Civil Rest Day

When Emperor Constantine I—a pagan sun-worshipper—came to power in A.D. 313, he legalized Christianity and made the first Sunday-keeping law. His infamous Sunday enforcement law of March 7, A.D. 321, reads as follows: “On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed.” (Codex Justinianus 3.12.3, trans. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 5th ed. (New York, 1902), 3:380, note 1.)

The Sunday law was officially confirmed by the Roman Papacy. The Council of Laodicea in A.D. 364 decreed, “Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honour, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ” (Strand, op. cit., citing Charles J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, 2 [Edinburgh, 1876] 316).

Cardinal Gibbons, in Faith of Our Fathers, 92nd ed., p. 89, freely admits, “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 [the Catholic Church] never sanctify.”

Again, “The Catholic Church, … by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday” (The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893).

“Protestants do not realize that by observing Sunday, they accept the authority of the spokesperson of the Church, the Pope” (Our Sunday Visitor, February 5, 1950).

“Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change [Saturday Sabbath to Sunday] was her act... And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things” (H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons).

“Sunday is our mark of authority… the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact” (Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1, 1923).

What a shocking admission!

A Prophecy Come to Pass!

At this point we need to note an amazing prophecy. Daniel 7:25 foretold, “And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws.” Quoting Daniel 7:25, Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible says:

“He shall speak great words against the Most High] Literally, Sermones quasi Deus loquetur; “He shall speak as if he were God.” So Jerome quotes from Symmachus. To none can this apply so well or so fully as to the popes of Rome. They have assumed infallibility, which belongs only to God. They profess to forgive sins, which belongs only to God. They profess to open and shut heaven, which belongs only to God. They profess to be higher than all the kings of the earth, which belongs only to God. And they gobeyond God in pretending to loose whole nations from their oath of allegiance to their kings, when such kings do not please them! And they go against God when they give indulgences for sin. This is the worst of all blasphemies!

And shall wear out the saints] By wars, crusades, massacres, inquisitions, and persecutions of all kinds. What in this way have they not done against all those who have protested against their innovations, and refused to submit to their idolatrous worship? Witness the exterminating crusades published against theWaldenses and Albigenses. Witness John Huss, and Jerome of Prague. Witness the Smithfield fires in England! Witness God and man against this bloody, persecuting, ruthless, and impure Church!

And think to change times and laws] Appointing fasts and feasts; canonizing persons whom he chooses to call saints; granting pardons and indulgences for sins; instituting new modes of worship utterly unknown to the Christian Church; new articles of faith; new rules of practice; and reversing, with pleasure, the laws both of God and man.–Dodd” (Emphasis his; Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Volume IV, p. 594).

Who Changed the Sabbath to Sunday?

Your Bible says, “But in vain [uselessness] they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7).

Further, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word [the Bible], it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).

“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 Catholic Church alone. The Catholic Church says, 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 reverent obedience to the command of the Holy Catholic Church” (Thomas Enright, CSSR, President, Redemptorist College [Roman Catholic], Kansas City, MO, Feb. 18, 1884).

“The Pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ. The Pope has authority and has often exercised it, to dispense with the command of Christ” (Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop).

It is a matter of Biblical and secular history that God never changed His holy Sabbath or transferred its solemnity to Sunday. Who did?

Rome, in concert with the Roman Catholic Church, changed Sabbath to Sunday!

What will you believe? Whom will you follow? The God of your Bible—or the traditions of men?

The choice, dear reader, is yours.

THE PAPACY'S ADMISSION TO
CHANGING GOD'S LAW

One day a man picked up Peter Geiermann's Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrineand read the following on page 50:

Q. Which is the Sabbath day?

A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.

Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?

A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.

The man was dumbfounded and supposed there must be some mistake so he wrote a letter to the then famous James Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore, and asked if the Catholic church did, indeed, change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. The Cardinal replied, "Of course, the Catholic church claims that the change was her act. And the act is a MARK of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters."

Notice, also, the following words from The Catholic Record of London, Ontario, Canada, September 1, 1923: "Sunday is our MARK of authority...the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact."

Notice this from A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan:

Q. Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?

A. 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.

The Papacy claims that it changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday and that Sunday or Sunday-keeping is its mark of authority and power. God's mark or sign of power, is Sabbath and Sabbath-keeping and the beast's sign or mark of power, is Sunday and Sunday-keeping.

THE PAPACY ASKS A QUESTION

Here is the famous question which the Papacy has repeatedly asked Protestants. And Protestants have remained strangely silent:

"You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! But by whom? Who has authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, 'Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day' who shall dare to say, nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day, but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead? This is a most important question which I know not how you can answer. You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet, in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that which He has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the ten commandments; you believe the other nine are still binding; who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principle, if you really follow the Bible and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered." Library of Christian Doctrine, Burns and Oates, pages 3-4, London.

But as we studied before virtually all churches admit in their official writings that there is no scripture for Sunday sacredness. Protestantism stands guilty before the Judgment bar of God of throwing out the Bible Sabbath! God, Himself, gave the Sabbath as a sign or mark of His power to create and His power to sanctify or save. Exodus 31:17; Ezekiel 20:12. Dare any man tamper with this sacred sign which represents the great God of Heaven and all that He stands for?

Click here to read the admission of virtually all Christian churches that there is no scripture basis for Sunday sacredness. Click to find out the orgin of Sunday observance.

Is the Catholic Church, the Vatican or the Pope above the law?

Wednesday, September 8, 2010 12:50 pm.

Comment

In response to protesters who are criticising Pope Benedict's visit to the UK, Barrister Neil Addison National Director Thomas More Legal Centre has given the following interview, which deals with many of the objections.

Q:      Is the Church, the Vatican or the Pope above the law?

A:       No All three are answerable to National or International law. However just as they are not above the Law they should not be treated as below the law or not deserving of the normal rules and protections of the law. Therefore critics who accuse the Church, the Pope or the Vatican of crimes should have to justify their criticisms by applying normal legal rules

Q:    Why is the visit of Pope Benedict a State visit paid for by the Taxpayer?

A:    Pope Benedict was invited to visit Britain by then Prime Minister Gordon Brown speaking on behalf of the Queen which is why it is an official State Visit. The visit to Britain by Pope John Paul 11 was at the invitation of the British Bishops and not the British Government which is why the financing of that visit was different to this visit. Had Pope Benedict refused the invitation from Gordon Brown that could have been regarded as an insult to Britain and to the Queen

Q:    But surely the Vatican is not a real State because

          (i) it was created by Mussolini?

A:        This is a rather simplistic view of a complicated history, the Holy See has had diplomatic relations with different countries for at least 1000 years and the Italian Government never occupied or ruled the territory of the Vatican State prior to the Lateran Pacts of 1929. In any event in legal terms it makes no difference how a State is formed. The USA for example was created when British Colonies in America declared their independence from Britain in 1776 whilst Canada by contrast was created by Act of the British Parliament in 1867, very different origins but both the USA and Canada are equally regarded as states in international law. Mussolini has been dead for 65 years and during those years the Italian Republic has always accepted the independence of the Vatican and the validity of the Lateran Treaties of 1929

       (ii) It is not a member of the United Nations?

A:        The Holy See has not joined the United Nations but does have permanent Observer Status however the fact that a State is or is not a member of the UN does not make it nor prevent it being a State in International Law. Switzerland, for example, was a permanent observer at the UN until 2002 but nobody has ever suggested that Switzerland was not a state before 2002 conversely prior to the break up of the USSR both Belorussia and Ukraine were members of the UN even though they were not regarded as States under International Law. The UN has 192 members and the Holy See has diplomatic relations with 176 of them.

         (iii) it's status could be challenged in the Courts

A:       Under UK Law when the UK Government gives diplomatic recognition to a state that decision is binding on the Courts. The UK maintains an Embassy with the Holy See and fully recognises the Vatican as a State and the Pope as Head of State. The Courts would be bound in law to accept that decision by the Government. In a recent case in the US the American Courts fully accepted that the Vatican was a State and the Pope a Head of State.

Q:        Does this mean Catholic Churches are Foreign Territory and Bishops foreigners?

A:        No, there is a distinction between the Holy See and National Churches. The Pope for example travels on a Vatican Passport but Archbishop Nichols travels on a British Passport. Once again this distinction was accepted in the recent case in the US where the Courts held that

            (I) the Holy See was a foreign state and therefore was not covered by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution which guarantees Freedom of Religion.

            (II) US Dioceses etc however were not Agencies of the Holy See and so were covered by the 1st Amendment

            the same principle would apply in Britain. The status of the Catholic Church in Britain, its property and its officials is governed by the same law as applies to other religions in Britain.

Q:         Does this mean that the Pope is Immune from the Law?

A:        Any Head of State or foreign diplomat enjoys certain exemptions from national law when visiting any other country however the Pope and the Vatican are still answerable for any alleged violations of international law

Q:       Can the Pope be arrested for Crimes against Humanity

A:        It would be legally unprecedented for a serving Head of State or head of government to be arrested in another country (NB Pinochet was not a serving head of state when he was arrested in Britain). It is theoretically possible but only if there is a charge contrary to what is known as The Rome Statute which created the International Criminal Court. This Court deals with crimes of Genocide, War Crimes, Crime of Aggression and Crimes Against Humanity. The legal definition of Crime Against Humanity includes sexual crimes such as rape but requires that those crimes be committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack   and even the worst allegations involving the child sex abuse scandal in the Church do not constitute a   widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population which clearly relates to military attacks therefore any attempt to arrest the Pope on the basis of alleged Crimes against Humanity would be a gross misrepresentation and misuse of International Law

Q:        Is the Government planning to change the law to prevent the Pope being arrested?

A:         If the government had any such plans then it has left it too late anyway since the legal changes required would need Parliamentary approval. The legal changes proposed are in fact principally designed to prevent arrest warrants being applied for against Israeli ministers and military officers when they are visiting Britain and were changes discussed well before the General Election. The proposals have nothing to do with the Pope

Q:      Are criminal Bishops or Priests being sheltered in the Vatican?

A:        This allegation is usually made in connection with Cardinal Bernard Law who was the former Archbishop of Boston 1984-2002 and who now works in Rome. However Cardinal Laws activities as Archbishop were fully investigated for 16 months by the Massachusetts State Attorney General and he appeared before 2 Grand Juries. Following this the Attorney General issued a report stating that Cardinal law had not broken any state laws. The Cardinal is not being sheltered in the Vatican because he not wanted for any crime in the US or anywhere else

Q:        Isn't it unfair on other religions for the Pope to have International Law Status

A:        Other religions have different structures and histories. The Papacy has maintained diplomatic relations with other countries for over a thousand years unlike other religious leaders. In addition other religions have other organisations for example Muslim Countries maintain the Organisation of the Islamic Conference which, like the Vatican, has observer status at the UN and which uses the votes of its 57 UN member states to advance Islamic objectives. All its officials have diplomatic status