The Lord's Day

[RJM]

I don't deny that the Catholic Church has been helping many poor and deprived people. They also have been one of the biggest bullies of the world. The Spanish Inquisition alone was hundreds of years of persecution. But maybe that is also the Catholic church carrying a Christian message.

The point is that for all the failings, it is the Catholic Church that has preserved Christianity all down the ages, and which still continues to do so. The inquisition was a bad phase, but it was not what popular opinion makes it out to be. No excuses, but it is far from representative of the Catholic Church which has given many martyrs and carried the light of Christ down through the thousands of years of kings and empires and earthly rulers -- just as Christ said it would, imo

A thread about the Inquisition here:

The Inquisition ...

Edited from the National Review: The Office of the Inquisition was instituted to give people a fair trial and put an end to widespread and often unjust executions for a theological office, by those who had little or no theological grounding, insight or understanding. The temporal authorities...

www.interfaith.org

And a video here:

Catholic Inquisition (The real truth about the Spanish Inquisition and the Catholic Church)

Am posting this 55 min podcast in Abrahamic section because it is not just for Christians or Catholics and although I don't think most people will take the time to listen to it, I believe it is important not as a whitewash but as a realistic explanation of what actually was going down at that...

www.interfaith.org

 

[Faithfulservant]

I didn't take my Christmas tree down until the end of January.

 

[juantoo3]

I have naturally assumed the breaking of bread in this context to mean the sacramental Eucharist, or communion, the body and blood of Christ -- not coffee and biscuits after the service? The Eucharistic sacrament has been practiced since the earliest times, and sometimes got Christians into trouble because of being associated with cannibalism.

Catholics can attend mass and take the Eucharist every day, not just on Sunday. At the Abbey close by there are two masses every day, quiet services without hymns and long sermons, and which centre around the receiving the Eucharist. Of course the Sunday mass is better attended, and is more elaborate with a choir and hymns

Let me see if I can try again...for one, Communion is not a "meal," and Jesus and the Apostles made it distinctly clear that it should not be treated that way. You don't guzzle the wine and ask the host to refill the cup.

Communion is affectionately referred to by some as "breaking bread," i.e. a meal, but it is not the only meal.

Kind of like hot tubs and Jacuzzis, all Jacuzzis are hot tubs, not all hot tubs are Jacuzzis. The Eucharist is a "meal," but not all meals are the Eucharist.

 

[juantoo3]

Agreed. Breaking bread has been a long time tradition and was never exclusive to Sunday. The only Sunday that I see for breaking bread would have been Pentecost. But in my opinion Pentecost should always be on Sunday seeing as it is 50 days counted from a Sabbath.

Which Sabbath?

Passover is called a Sabbath as well, yet can fall on any day of the week. Pentecost (count 50 <days>) occurs after the High Holy Sabbath of Passover.

I'm not certain, and can stand knowledgeable correction, but I think there are one or two other High Sabbaths as well, notably Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.

 

[Thomas]

1. The example you just gave! You even stated "the doctrine in question might not be spelled out in Scripture".

OK. Some points – concerning the Four Marian dogmas particularly:
1: The doctrines are certainly not contrary to Scripture, which was your assertion.
2: In nearly all cases doctrines are explicitly asserted by Scripture.
3: Those not explicitly asserted can be derived from Scripture.
4: All the doctrines an be defended from Scripture.

I stated the Marian particularly because that includes one – the Assumption – that has no direct Scriptural validation, and yet there are Scriptural references which do not rule it out.

But as to the right to declare doctrine not explicitly stated – Scripture endorses that too.

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)
And furthermore: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
Logically, Christ is authorising the Church to speak in His name on matters necessary, for "scandals must come" (Matthew 18:7). A Church that is not equipped to deal with the exigencies and contingencies of time is ill-left by its founder, and sure to fail.

And if it needs repeating: Christianity, like Judaism and like Islam, exercises the right to determine doctrine according to need and in response to the world with regard to the correct transmission of Faith. I would assume most religions do, although I stand to be corrected.

(I would argue, although it's not conclusive, that based on the text itself, Scripture is not self-explanatory, cf the exchange between Philip and the Ethiopian in Acts 8:26-39.)

3. You quoted two verses about the vision of Elijah and Moses with Jesus. You claimed that they were literally telling us to drown sinners. THAT is why I am so confused.

Oh! I see, I am so sorry ... the citation should have read Mark 9:41, not Mark 9:4 – mea culpa. I wondered why you were bringing the Transfiguration into it.

 

[juantoo3]

I didn't take my Christmas tree down until the end of January.

I wasn't much ahead of you, sometime mid-January.

Did you ever study Jeremiah 10:1-5?

 

[Thomas]

Sooooo Good Friday isn't scriptural? Just traditional? So that is one Catholic tradition that isn't scriptural. Thanks for proving that one for us.

That's all right, no problem ... but that doesn't add to your argument.

Is there anything biblical that specifically states, or even puts importance on, Sunday being the day Jesus rose?

Yes.
Mark 16:2 "very early in the morning, the first day of the week"
Matthew 28:1 "when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week"
Luke 24:1 "And on the first day of the week, very early in the morning"
John 20:1 "And on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark"
So your thesis doesn't fly.

You admit yourself that we don't know the day that He was crucified. So He very well may have been crucified and buried on Wednesday and rose on Saturday morning.

No.

Can you show me a scripture in the Bible that specifically states that 1. Jesus was risen on Sunday and 2. That Sunday therefore became the Lord's Day because of that same reason?

1: Yes – the Bible says so.
2: Tradition. Christians celebrate the Liturgy of the Mass detailing Christ's sacrifice on the day of the Resurrection.

It seems odd to me that you bang on so much about Scripture when it's clear you haven't read it.

 

[Faithfulservant]

I wasn't much ahead of you, sometime mid-January.

Did you ever study Jeremiah 10:1-5?

Perfect! I for one am grateful that the tree does not talk back when I'm grumbling at it for being crooked.

 

[Thomas]

1. In the opinion of many Catholics who have more authority than you on the matter.... so differ all you want.

Got any actual evidence, though? All of your points have been opinion so far.

2. Let's start with an easy example. Christmas. Chopping down a tree, putting it in your house and decorating it, and then claiming it's about Jesus's birth.... definitely not scriptural.

We don't claim it's about Jesus' birth. The crib, all that, that's about Jesus' birth.

Research the origin of the tradition. Pagan, yes, and to do with the Winter Solstice and the promise of New Life ... so the evergreen is a fitting symbol, but that's all it is.

"This therefore hath seemed good to me, that a man should eat and drink, and enjoy the fruit of his labour, wherewith he hath laboured under the sun, all the days of his life, which God hath given him: and this is his portion. And every man to whom God hath given riches, and substance, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to enjoy his portion, and to rejoice of his labour: this is the gift of God. 19 For he shall not much remember the days of his life, because God entertaineth his heart with delight." Ecclesiastes 5:17-19

So if a family delights in the Lord, and decorates the house with the symbols of renewal, of new birth, and new hope, then that is no offence to God as I understand God to be ... and yet if that tree should remind us of the tree in the midst of the garden, and bring to mind our sin, then all the betters, and if that tree should stand for the tree on which He was hung (cf 1 Peter 2:24], then better still ...

It really depends whether one can see past one's nose.

Feel free to show the verses that defend that Pagan tradition.

"For he that is not against you, is for you." (Mark 9:39, Luke 9:50).

I would ask you to read Matthew 8:5-13 and/or Luke 7:1-10 – the healing of the Centurion's daughter. The centurion is a pagan, and furthermore an oppressor, an enemy of Israel. Two points of note:
1: Jesus says: "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." (Luke 7:9)
2: The centurion's words: "I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed." (Luke 7:7)
These words are so profound they have found their way into the Catholic Liturgy, and rightly so – they sum up the expression of faith, hope and trust, and whoever displays such, is welcome in the House of the Lord, and the Lord will work wonders for him.

You already proved that Good Friday is not a scriptural Catholic custom, so that's one down.

Nope. I've suggested it's an open question. My word isn't proof of anything.

3. So many of these people, including Popes, have been wrong?

No-one's infallible ... not even popes.

But you're not? Makes perfect sense. Can't believe I disagreed with you.

Well that's not for me to say, but I can understand why.

My daughter was doing a degree in Philosophy. Her friend was doing a degree in Theology. She asked my daughter if I could answer some questions on Church doctrine. So I did.

Apparently, her friend said, "Is your dad God?"
To which my daughter replied, "No, but I think they talk a lot."

+++

On a general note, I supply Scriptural evidence in support of my arguments, what do you offer?

 

[Faithfulservant]

Let me see if I can try again...for one, communion is not a "meal," and Jesus and the Apostles made it distinctly clear that it should not be treated that way. You don't guzzle the wine and ask the host to refill the cup.

Communion is affectionately referred to by some as "breaking bread," i.e. a meal, but it is not the only meal.

Kind of like hot tubs and Jacuzzis, all Jacuzzis are hot tubs, not all hot tubs are Jacuzzis. The Eucharist is a "meal," but not all meals are the Eucharist.

This is so interesting a point. I seem to recall Paul in 1 Corinthians telling the people to eat at home. Communion is not a meal as it's more of a sacrifice of abstaining from the fleshly desire to eat the whole loaf of bread and drink the entire glass of wine.

 

[Thomas]

I have naturally assumed the breaking of bread in this context to mean the sacramental Eucharist, or communion, the body and blood of Christ -- not coffee and biscuits after the service?

My curiosity was picqued and I am looking at this ... The phrase is one of those that has taken on a range of meaning, so it's risky to assert it's the Eucharist, and equally as risky to assume it's just a simple meal. I know the sacred scribes weren't conscious of writing Scripture, but neither do they talk about the weather or the price of fish, if you see what I mean? So the Pharisees challenge Jesus about not washing one's hands (Matthew 15:25), the ritual purification, before breaking bread – the ritual itself. They're not arguing about eating a sandwich from the take-away.

Found this snippet:
"The bread of the presence” (literally, “the bread of the face”), which was set before the presence/face of Yahweh (Ex. 25:30) each Sabbath, were twelve loaves representing the twelve tribes of Israel. These loaves were a food offering to God that was to be perpetually carried out as “a covenant forever” (Lev. 24:8).

The table, the shared meal, in the Temple and in the home, highlights the intimate fellowship that exists between God and His people. Abraham’s meal with God in Genesis 18:1–9, for example. Exodus 24:9–11 tells us Moses and the elders went up the mountain to eat a meal with the Lord.

These element foreshadow the 'better realities' that have come in Jesus Christ (cf Hebrews 10:1). He is the tabernacle/temple, the presence of God among His people (Matthew 1:23; John 1:14; 2:19–21). Jesus, in His contentious Eucharistic discourse in John 6 declares Himself the 'bread of heaven', He is the bread of life (vv. 35, 48), the true heavenly manna (vv. 30–33), and everyone who eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life (vv. 51–58).

+++

So we have Pentacost in Acts 2:42, 46 "And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles (the 3,000 converted), and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers ... And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house"
I think we can reasonably assume that the 'breaking bread from house to house' might be more than simply popping round to see a neighbour, but sharing in the Christian liturgical practice they could not perform in the temple ...

... because without some self-identifying practice, how do they count themselves followers of Christ?

 

[juantoo3]

Public Service Announcement:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence-

However, can't be using this argument to support flying spaghetti monsters or invisible pink unicorns.

We now return to your regularly scheduled program...

 

[juantoo3]

something else to consider regarding breaking bread:

Sliced bread is a loaf of bread that has been sliced with a machine and packaged for convenience, as opposed to the consumer cutting it with a knife. It was first sold in 1928, advertised as "the greatest forward step in the baking industry since bread was wrapped".[1][2] By 1933, around 80% of bread sold in the US was pre-sliced, leading to the popular idiom "greatest thing since sliced bread".[3]

Sliced bread - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Prior to widespread adoption of bread slicing machines, all bread was either broken or hand sliced.

Even considering traditional Mediterranean flat breads, the bread is broken as you eat, no different than a tortilla in that respect.

Once again...breaking bread is a colloquialism for a meal. Nothing more. The phrase can be used towards other matters as a figure of speech, but that should not in any way imply that the figure of speech is automatic and mandatory.

 

[juantoo3]

So we have Pentacost in Acts 2:42, 46 "And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles (the 3,000 converted), and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers ... And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house"

I think we can reasonably assume that the 'breaking bread from house to house' might be more than simply popping round to see a neighbour, but sharing in the Christian liturgical practice they could not perform in the temple ...

... because without some self-identifying practice, how do they count themselves followers of Christ?

There is some validity to what you say here...but we've played this game before. You get me to agree to a minor point and then try to force that agreement onto a larger unrelated point.

Breaking bread from house to house *is* popping round to see a neighbor.

While enjoying each others' hospitality and company, these believers shared the message of G!d's Word among themselves.

I will not dispute this.

But this does not infer in any way any change in...I think you personally call it Liturgical Practice. The Sabbath was still sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. Nothing changed in that respect.

The "self-identifying practice" was sharing among themselves that Messiah had come as foretold in G!d's Word.

 

[Faithfulservant]

There is some validity to what you say here...but we've played this game before. You get me to agree to a minor point and then try to force that agreement onto a larger unrelated point.

Ha! This is classic giving an inch and taking a mile!

 

[juantoo3]

Found this snippet:
"The bread of the presence” (literally, “the bread of the face”), which was set before the presence/face of Yahweh (Ex. 25:30) each Sabbath, were twelve loaves representing the twelve tribes of Israel. These loaves were a food offering to God that was to be perpetually carried out as “a covenant forever” (Lev. 24:8).

Leviticus 23 makes a good study. For the subject at hand I will focus on 10-16

10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest:

11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.

12 And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the Lord.

13 And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the Lord for a sweet savour: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin.

14 And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:

16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the Lord.

The passage continues, so this is not absolutely definitive. Here what we call "bread" is being called "meat," the "bread of the presence" is the Meat Offering as I understand.

I also see some other significance that transfers, and I had long ago forgotten, but this passage I quoted points to bread and wine...and 50 days.

Some things never change, as Solomon reminds us. Stated another way: G!d is the same yesterday, today and forever.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Once again...breaking bread is a colloquialism for a meal. Nothing more...

I would agree, but 'man cannot live on bread alone'.

 

[juantoo3]

And if it needs repeating: Christianity, like Judaism and like Islam, exercises the right to determine doctrine according to need and in response to the world with regard to the correct transmission of Faith. I would assume most religions do, although I stand to be corrected.

I think Vajradhara might disagree.

Were I peripherally associated with Islam I would likely disagree, and I think my example with Judaism states emphatically that I disagree (evidenced by my dismissal by Judaism).

I respect the teaching of learned elders. But those elders cannot answer for me in front of G!d. That I must do for myself. The same is true for everybody.

Were the Nazi junior officers simply following the orders of their superiors in conducting the horrors of the Holocaust? I'm sure in their hearts and minds they were just following orders, but that excuse didn't get them out of being hung after the war crimes trials.

Every person has to decide for themselves whether to submit to authority or take the reigns of their soul into their own hands....irrespective of religion. (Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, render unto G!d what is G!d's)

If a person trusts another to lead them, go for it. If one doesn't trust another to lead them then either they fall away; or they seek the path with far more will, certainty and determination than any person that is led.

I will make my own way. If I fail, that is on me, I can blame no other.

If one fails for following another, what then? That is a spiritual vagary I don't wish to learn first hand, to be led down a primrose path possibly to my doom...and I only get one chance. And woe be to the leader that misleads others, the Word tells us such persons receive a greater condemnation for leading their fellows astray.

 

[RJM]

Once again...breaking bread is a colloquialism for a meal.

That's understood. But breaking bread in the context of the body and blood of Christ's last supper is clearly meant as more than just having a sandwich together?

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you"
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 22:19-20&version=NIV

But perhaps we're talking past each other?

 

[juantoo3]

@RJM I don't think we are talking past each other.

Communion is a sacred observance, and rightly needs to be done in a reverent and contrite attitude.

It initially was referred to - figure of speech - as breaking bread, though it is never to be treated as just another meal. Somehow the figure of speech became the thing in itself. This is a problem with symbology and iconography, and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole either. But breaking bread simply meant an ordinary meal and somehow that has been construed over the centuries as if those specific words - breaking bread - are sacred unto themselves. No different in form than worshiping the Pieta, or projecting the image of god* reclining on a cloud in the Sistine Chapel as reality. People know no different, and teachers either none the wiser or content to maintain ignorance never get around to explaining the difference.

Menus and Meals, as Vajradhara would say. The symbols are not the thing.

The way that can be named is not the actual way. We get hung up on words, verbiage, as if that is the form and substance. Words are symbols designed to point to the thing.

*deliberate spelling