Sabbath, Sunday, and Legalism

[Ladonia]

Hey Amo, great posting of that Catholic stuff, have you entered the Holy Catholic Church?

[Amo]

Hey Amo, great posting of that Catholic stuff, have you entered the Holy Catholic Church?

That's not likely to ever happen Ladonia. I just want people to understand the issues, and know who stands where, and why. The Catholic church was a crucial element of establishing the first Sunday laws, maintaining them throughout history, is heavily involved in the process now, and will continue to support and spearhead the same all the way through to the end. They may choose to stay in the background at times, but they are the creator and sustainers of "Christian" Sunday laws and the illicit relationsip between church and state that fosters such.

Rev. 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration........................................................................................
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showsite.php?org_id=843

[Ladonia]

Hey Amo, great posting of that Catholic stuff, have you entered the Holy Catholic Church?

That's not likely to ever happen Ladonia. I just want people to understand the issues, and know who stands where, and why. The Catholic church was a crucial element of establishing the first Sunday laws, maintaining them throughout history, is heavily involved in the process now, and will continue to support and spearhead the same all the way through to the end. They may choose to stay in the background at times, but they are the creator and sustainers of "Christian" Sunday laws and the illicit relationsip between church and state that fosters such.

Rev. 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration........................................................................................
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showsite.php?org_id=843

Hey Amo, great posting of that Catholic stuff, have you entered the Holy Catholic Church?

That's not likely to ever happen Ladonia. I just want people to understand the issues, and know who stands where, and why. The Catholic church was a crucial element of establishing the first Sunday laws, maintaining them throughout history, is heavily involved in the process now, and will continue to support and spearhead the same all the way through to the end. They may choose to stay in the background at times, but they are the creator and sustainers of "Christian" Sunday laws and the illicit relationsip between church and state that fosters such.

Rev. 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration........................................................................................
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showsite.php?org_id=843

I see. And you are still standing by your erroneous interpretation of the Scriptures. How nice.

[Amo]

I see. And you are still standing by your erroneous interpretation of the Scriptures. How nice.

Perhaps you can point out another religion which has more political relations with the kings, politicians, and governments of this world, than the Roman Catholic church. I don't think so. As far as I know the papacy is the only religion that demands political status in this world, and is it's own sovereign state. What other religion entertains ambassadors from virtually every nation on earth, and has a permanent seat at the United Nations? Sorry my friend, the church of Rome is the only one that fits the details. Denial cannot change the facts.

[Amo]

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0705123.htm

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1102039.htm

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6592&repos=4&subrepos=2&searchid=1213732

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13557&repos=4&subrepos=2&searchid=1213732

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=9823&repos=4&subrepos=1&searchid=1213732

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=182&repos=4&subrepos=1&searchid=1213732

http://wwrn.org/articles/40332/

http://wwrn.org/articles/30349/?&place=france

http://townhall.com/news/business/2013/09/30/france-to-examine-laws-curbing-sunday-shopping-n1713078

http://townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/2013/12/11/the-disappearance-of-leisure-n1760684/page/full

[johnm]

It is interesting regarding France's Sunday Laws, considering only 5% of Frenchmen own a Bible. More on the Catholic Church; I don't hate Catholics; the following is intended to add to earlier comments as to why Catholic do not see anything wrong with their Church.

The Black pope: http://www.remnantofgod.org/blackpope.htm

The Current Pope is a Jesuit.

Below are extracts from this link http://remnantofgod.org/jes-oth.htm#oath

The Jesuit Oath of Induction is also recorded in the Congressional Record of the U.S.A. (House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, Feb. 15, 1913, pp. 3215-3216) It can also be found in the book entitled, "Subterranean Rome" by Charles Didier translated from the French and published in New York in 1843. Dr.
~~~~~~
. After reading this, ask yourself the question: Is this REALLY the church of Jesus Christ???

"When a Jesuit of the minor rank is to be elevated to command, he is conducted into the Chapel of the Convent of the Order, where there are only three others present, the principal or Superior standing in front of the altar. On either side stands a monk, one of whom holds a banner of yellow and white, which are the Papal colors, and the other a black banner with a dagger and red cross above a skull and crossbones, with the word INRI, and below them the words IUSTUM, NECAR, REGES, IMPIOUS. The meaning of which is: It is just to exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments, or Rulers. Upon the floor is a red cross at which the postulant or candidate kneels. The Superior hands him a small black crucifix, which he takes in his left hand and presses to his heart, and the Superior at the same time presents to him a dagger, which he grasps by the blade and holds the point against his heart, the Superior still holding it by the hilt, and thus addresses the postulant:"

Superior speaks:

My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant, and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope.

You have been taught to insidiously plant the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, provinces, states that were at peace, and incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and prosperous, cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace. To take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit, who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end, in the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies the means.

You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics, facts and information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself into the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer, among the schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures, and the judiciaries and councils of state, and to be all things to all men, for the Pope's sake, whose servants we are unto death.

You have received all your instructions heretofore as a novice, a neophyte, and have served as co-adjurer, confessor and priest, but you have not yet been invested with all that is necessary to command in the Army of Loyola in the service of the Pope. You must serve the proper time as the instrument and executioner as directed by your superiors; for none can command here who has not consecrated his labors with the blood of the heretic; for "without the shedding of blood no man can be saved." Therefore, to fit yourself for your work and make your own salvation sure, you will, in addition to your former oath of obedience to your order and allegiance to the Pope, repeat after me---

The Extreme Oath of the Jesuits:
~~~~~~~
I do now renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or state named Protestants or Liberals, or obedience to any of the laws, magistrates or officers.

I do further declare that the doctrine of the churches of England and Scotland, of the Calvinists, Huguenots and others of the name Protestants or Liberals to be damnable and they themselves damned who will not forsake the same.

I do further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of his Holiness' agents in any place wherever I shall be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, Ireland or America, or in any other Kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my uttermost to extirpate the heretical Protestants or Liberals' doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, regal or otherwise.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Superior speaks:

"You will now rise to your feet and I will instruct you in the Catechism necessary to make yourself known to any member of the Society of Jesus belonging to this rank.

In the first place, you, as a Brother Jesuit, will with another mutually make the ordinary sign of the cross as any ordinary Roman Catholic would; then one cross his wrists, the palms of his hands open, and the other in answer crosses his feet, one above the other; the first points with forefinger of the right hand to the center of the palm of the left, the other with the forefinger of the left hand points to the center of the palm of the right; the first then with his right hand makes a circle around his head, touching it; the other then with the forefinger of his left hand touches the left side of his body just below his heart; the first then with his right hand draws it across the throat of the other, and the latter then with a dagger down the stomach and abdomen of the first. The first then says Iustum; and the other answers Necar; the first Reges. The other answers Impious." (The meaning of which has already been explained.) "The first will then present a small piece of paper folded in a peculiar manner, four times, which the other will cut longitudinally and on opening the name Jesu will be found written upon the head and arms of a cross three times. You will then give and receive with him the following questions and answers:

Question —From whither do you come? Answer — The Holy faith.
Q. —Whom do you serve?
A. —The Holy Father at Rome, the Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church Universal throughout the world.
Q. —Who commands you?
A. —The Successor of St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus or the Soldiers of Jesus Christ.
Q. —Who received you? A. —A venerable man in white hair.
Q. —How?
A. —With a naked dagger, I kneeling upon the cross beneath the banners of the Pope and of our sacred order.
Q. —Did you take an oath?
A. —I did, to destroy heretics and their governments and rulers, and to spare neither age, sex nor condition. To be as a corpse without any opinion or will of my own, but to implicitly obey my Superiors in all things without hesitation of murmuring.
Q. —Will you do that? A. —I will.
Q. —How do you travel? A. —In the bark of Peter the fisherman.
Q. —Whither do you travel? A. —To the four quarters of the globe.
Q. —For what purpose?
A. —To obey the orders of my general and Superiors and execute the will of the Pope and faithfully fulfill the conditions of my oaths.
Q. —Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands in the name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus and his Vice-regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated."

[Amo]

It is interesting regarding France's Sunday Laws, considering only 5% of Frenchmen own a Bible. More on the Catholic Church; I don't hate Catholics; the following is intended to add to earlier comments as to why Catholic do not see anything wrong with their Church.

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=867&kb_header_id=826&order=kb_rank%20ASC&kb_id=1496

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?org_id=867&kb_header_id=849

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?org_id=867&kb_header_id=850

http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?org_id=867&kb_header_id=2181

[winsome]

It is interesting regarding France's Sunday Laws, considering only 5% of Frenchmen own a Bible. More on the Catholic Church; I don't hate Catholics; the following is intended to add to earlier comments as to why Catholic do not see anything wrong with their Church.

The Black pope: http://www.remnantofgod.org/blackpope.htm

The Current Pope is a Jesuit.

Below are extracts from this link http://remnantofgod.org/jes-oth.htm#oath

The Jesuit Oath of Induction is also recorded in the Congressional Record of the U.S.A. (House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, Feb. 15, 1913, pp. 3215-3216) It can also be found in the book entitled, "Subterranean Rome" by Charles Didier translated from the French and published in New York in 1843. Dr.
~~~~~~
. After reading this, ask yourself the question: Is this REALLY the church of Jesus Christ???

"When a Jesuit of the minor rank is to be elevated to command, he is conducted into the Chapel of the Convent of the Order, where there are only three others present, the principal or Superior standing in front of the altar. On either side stands a monk, one of whom holds a banner of yellow and white, which are the Papal colors, and the other a black banner with a dagger and red cross above a skull and crossbones, with the word INRI, and below them the words IUSTUM, NECAR, REGES, IMPIOUS. The meaning of which is: It is just to exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments, or Rulers. Upon the floor is a red cross at which the postulant or candidate kneels. The Superior hands him a small black crucifix, which he takes in his left hand and presses to his heart, and the Superior at the same time presents to him a dagger, which he grasps by the blade and holds the point against his heart, the Superior still holding it by the hilt, and thus addresses the postulant:"

Superior speaks:

My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant, and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope.

You have been taught to insidiously plant the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, provinces, states that were at peace, and incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and prosperous, cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace. To take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit, who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end, in the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies the means.

You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics, facts and information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself into the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer, among the schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures, and the judiciaries and councils of state, and to be all things to all men, for the Pope's sake, whose servants we are unto death.

You have received all your instructions heretofore as a novice, a neophyte, and have served as co-adjurer, confessor and priest, but you have not yet been invested with all that is necessary to command in the Army of Loyola in the service of the Pope. You must serve the proper time as the instrument and executioner as directed by your superiors; for none can command here who has not consecrated his labors with the blood of the heretic; for "without the shedding of blood no man can be saved." Therefore, to fit yourself for your work and make your own salvation sure, you will, in addition to your former oath of obedience to your order and allegiance to the Pope, repeat after me---

The Extreme Oath of the Jesuits:
~~~~~~~
I do now renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or state named Protestants or Liberals, or obedience to any of the laws, magistrates or officers.

I do further declare that the doctrine of the churches of England and Scotland, of the Calvinists, Huguenots and others of the name Protestants or Liberals to be damnable and they themselves damned who will not forsake the same.

I do further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of his Holiness' agents in any place wherever I shall be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, Ireland or America, or in any other Kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my uttermost to extirpate the heretical Protestants or Liberals' doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, regal or otherwise.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Superior speaks:

"You will now rise to your feet and I will instruct you in the Catechism necessary to make yourself known to any member of the Society of Jesus belonging to this rank.

In the first place, you, as a Brother Jesuit, will with another mutually make the ordinary sign of the cross as any ordinary Roman Catholic would; then one cross his wrists, the palms of his hands open, and the other in answer crosses his feet, one above the other; the first points with forefinger of the right hand to the center of the palm of the left, the other with the forefinger of the left hand points to the center of the palm of the right; the first then with his right hand makes a circle around his head, touching it; the other then with the forefinger of his left hand touches the left side of his body just below his heart; the first then with his right hand draws it across the throat of the other, and the latter then with a dagger down the stomach and abdomen of the first. The first then says Iustum; and the other answers Necar; the first Reges. The other answers Impious." (The meaning of which has already been explained.) "The first will then present a small piece of paper folded in a peculiar manner, four times, which the other will cut longitudinally and on opening the name Jesu will be found written upon the head and arms of a cross three times. You will then give and receive with him the following questions and answers:

Question —From whither do you come? Answer — The Holy faith.
Q. —Whom do you serve?
A. —The Holy Father at Rome, the Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church Universal throughout the world.
Q. —Who commands you?
A. —The Successor of St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus or the Soldiers of Jesus Christ.
Q. —Who received you? A. —A venerable man in white hair.
Q. —How?
A. —With a naked dagger, I kneeling upon the cross beneath the banners of the Pope and of our sacred order.
Q. —Did you take an oath?
A. —I did, to destroy heretics and their governments and rulers, and to spare neither age, sex nor condition. To be as a corpse without any opinion or will of my own, but to implicitly obey my Superiors in all things without hesitation of murmuring.
Q. —Will you do that? A. —I will.
Q. —How do you travel? A. —In the bark of Peter the fisherman.
Q. —Whither do you travel? A. —To the four quarters of the globe.
Q. —For what purpose?
A. —To obey the orders of my general and Superiors and execute the will of the Pope and faithfully fulfill the conditions of my oaths.
Q. —Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands in the name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus and his Vice-regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated."

I know this is a month old but I have only just come across it.

This is the kind of junk that circulates on the internet and is simply false.

The above is a bit of a mixture. Someone got their lies confused.

The Jesuit Oath of Induction is also recorded in the Congressional Record of the U.S.A. (House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, Feb. 15, 1913, pp. 3215-3216)

This is actually referring to the supposed "KOG oath" (Knights of St. Columbus) not the supposed "Jesuit Oath". The Jesuits were not mentioned

  It was in the Congressional record because it was part of the documents submitted during the hearing. It was in a document circulated anonymously during a heated election campaign.

Both sides repudiated its authenticity. It was included in a House Report summarizing an investigation of that election, because it was attached to a document submitted by one of the candidates.

The following statement was made by Thomas Butler on behalf of whose campaign someone circulated it.

I have no knowledge of "any man, set of men, political organization, or its representative, employing or procuring messengers to traverse this congressional district and to circulate on my account or on any account the publication which you characterize as a blasphemous and infamous libel, known as Knights of Columbus oath." That this paper was circulated through this congressional district during this campaign I both admit and regret. I deny that I had anything whatever to do, directly or indirectly, with either its publication or its circulation. It came into this district though the mails, I am informed, and as fast as it appeared those who took my advice destroyed it. I am advised by those who know, that the same article was circulated and distributed in other parts of Pennsylvania than this congressional district during the last campaign, and I am further informed that this same article has been circulated not only in Pennsylvania, but in other States during political campaigns for many years. I had no knowledge whatever of it until it appeared here during the last campaign, and from a source I know nothing about. Two or three of my political advocates showed me copies of this paper, which they had received through the mails. I requested them to ascertain where other copies of it had been received and to have all of them destroyed. I apprehended with alarm the use of such a document in a political campaign, or at any other time.

I do not believe in its truthfulness, and so stated my judgment concerning it on November 4, 1912 (as soon as complaint was made to me of its general circulation), through the columns of the West Chester Daily Local News . . .
No sane person could conclude that this constitutes any sort of "authentication" of this document by Congress.


As to the "Jesuit Oath" that is supposed to be in the Library of Congress, it is a fabrication with no factual basis. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia this oath was the product of the imagination of the forger Robert Ware (mid to late 1600's). 
Here's an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Impostors":

"Robert Ware the forger, the author of "Foxes and Firebrands", who has of late years been so thoroughly exposed by Father Bridgett, traded upon the same prejudices. His more public career began contemporaneously with that of Oates in 1678, and by sheltering himself behind the high reputation of his dead father, Sir James Ware, amongst whose manuscripts he pretended to discover all kinds of compromising papers, he obtained currency for his forgeries, remaining almost undetected until modern times. Many foul aspersions upon the character of individual popes, Jesuits, and other Catholics, and also upon some Puritans, which have found their way into the pages of respectable historians, are due to the fabrications of "this literary skunk", as Fr. Bridgett not unjustifiably calls him (see Bridgett, "Blunders and Forgeries", pp. 209-296).

As to its insertion into the Library of Congress, anyone can put any junk into library on completion  of Form TX and a $30 fee.

Form FL 109 explains:
COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION OF BOOKS, MANUSCRIPTS, AND SPEECHES
A published or unpublished book or manuscript may be submitted for registration in the Copyright Office. FormTX should be used to apply for copyright registration for textual works, with or without illustrations. FormTX is appropriate for registration of nondramatic literary works including: fiction, nonfiction, poetry, contributions to collective works, compilations, directories, catalogs, dissertations, theses, reports, speeches, bound or looseleaf volumes, pamphlets, brochures, and single pages containing text. There is no specific requirement as to the printing, binding, format, or paper size and quality of unpublished manuscript material. Typewritten, photocopied, and legibly handwritten manuscripts, preferably in ink, are all acceptable for deposit.

I think FormTX is being phased out and the registration fee has gone up since the web site I got this information from published it, but the point is any fictional junk can be registered in the Library of Congree on payment of a fee. It says nothing about its authenticity.

Unfortunately these things continue to circulate and are leapt upon by anti-Catholic bigots.

[johnm]

<<Unfortunately these things continue to circulate and are leapt upon by anti-Catholic bigots.>>

What does this make you; a pro-Catholic bigot. I don't know if the oath is authentic; I do know that the oath fiction or otherwise describes Satan and explains what has been going on in the world. Since the Reformation the Papacy has developed skills to defend itself; such as rewriting the history of the inquisitions and the reformation; creating Preterism which has Nero 68AD as the Antichrist and Futurism which puts the Antichrist at the end of time, the seventieth week after a perceived interval of silence; this silence not only erases the sins of the Papacy including the 400 year inquisition in Spain where the Jesuits were brought into existence and play but it also silences the seventieth week of Christ and his work in it. The main charge of the Spanish inquisition was Judaism; that is, the keeping the commandments of God and the Sabbath and were tortured until they accepted Papal authority and Sunday or until death. These are people slaughtered for Christ' name sake and Dispensationalism wants it silenced. Without referring to the people, Dispensationalism is the spearhead of Satan's lie; referring to the people, Dispensationalists are someone useful idiot. I distinguish between the Catholic church (laitan or laity) and the Papacy (nico's) secret societies within secret societies. Any bigotry I have is to the Priesthood and to the doctrine.

[winsome]

<<Unfortunately these things continue to circulate and are leapt upon by anti-Catholic bigots.>>

What does this make you; a pro-Catholic bigot. I don't know if the oath is authentic; I do know that the oath fiction or otherwise describes Satan and explains what has been going on in the world. Since the Reformation the Papacy has developed skills to defend itself; such as rewriting the history of the inquisitions and the reformation; creating Preterism which has Nero 68AD as the Antichrist and Futurism which puts the Antichrist at the end of time, the seventieth week after a perceived interval of silence; this silence not only erases the sins of the Papacy including the 400 year inquisition in Spain where the Jesuits were brought into existence and play but it also silences the seventieth week of Christ and his work in it. The main charge of the Spanish inquisition was Judaism; that is, the keeping the commandments of God and the Sabbath and were tortured until they accepted Papal authority and Sunday or until death. These are people slaughtered for Christ' name sake and Dispensationalism wants it silenced. Without referring to the people, Dispensationalism is the spearhead of Satan's lie; referring to the people, Dispensationalists are someone useful idiot. I distinguish between the Catholic church (laitan or laity) and the Papacy (nico's) secret societies within secret societies. Any bigotry I have is to the Priesthood and to the doctrine.

I'm someone who likes the truth to be known and not to promote lies.

You say "I don't know if the oath is authentic" but you circulate it. Jesus is the TRUTH. If you continue to circulate lies, not caring whether they are lies or not, what does that say about you?

You say "I do know that the oath fiction or otherwise describes Satan and explains what has been going on in the world." If the oath is fiction then what relevance has it to anything that is gouing on in the world?

You are trying to defend the indefensible - promoting evil lies about the Catholic Church. What does that about your character?

Incidentally I notice that in your diatribe you provide not one fact, no evidence of any kind, to support your opinions.

[Amo]

<<Unfortunately these things continue to circulate and are leapt upon by anti-Catholic bigots.>>

What does this make you; a pro-Catholic bigot. I don't know if the oath is authentic; I do know that the oath fiction or otherwise describes Satan and explains what has been going on in the world. Since the Reformation the Papacy has developed skills to defend itself; such as rewriting the history of the inquisitions and the reformation; creating Preterism which has Nero 68AD as the Antichrist and Futurism which puts the Antichrist at the end of time, the seventieth week after a perceived interval of silence; this silence not only erases the sins of the Papacy including the 400 year inquisition in Spain where the Jesuits were brought into existence and play but it also silences the seventieth week of Christ and his work in it. The main charge of the Spanish inquisition was Judaism; that is, the keeping the commandments of God and the Sabbath and were tortured until they accepted Papal authority and Sunday or until death. These are people slaughtered for Christ' name sake and Dispensationalism wants it silenced. Without referring to the people, Dispensationalism is the spearhead of Satan's lie; referring to the people, Dispensationalists are someone useful idiot. I distinguish between the Catholic church (laitan or laity) and the Papacy (nico's) secret societies within secret societies. Any bigotry I have is to the Priesthood and to the doctrine.

I'm someone who likes the truth to be known and not to promote lies.

You say "I don't know if the oath is authentic" but you circulate it. Jesus is the TRUTH. If you continue to circulate lies, not caring whether they are lies or not, what does that say about you?

You say "I do know that the oath fiction or otherwise describes Satan and explains what has been going on in the world." If the oath is fiction then what relevance has it to anything that is gouing on in the world?

You are trying to defend the indefensible - promoting evil lies about the Catholic Church. What does that about your character?

Incidentally I notice that in your diatribe you provide not one fact, no evidence of any kind, to support your opinions.

I think his point and theory is that, there is no telling if the info you provided refuting the Jesuit oath is not in fact Roman Catholic revisionist history, since the said church has proved itself to go to any lengths to destroy, manipulate, and revise all negative history about itself that it can. Deny the authenticity of the said oath if you wish, but you know as well as I do, that I could begin to give one testimony after another after another after another of the actual deeds of Jesuits throughout history which prove the truthfulness of the oath supplied regardless of your claims. There is a reason the Jesuits were banned from so many countries so many times, even predominantly Catholic countries.

[winsome]

<<Unfortunately these things continue to circulate and are leapt upon by anti-Catholic bigots.>>

What does this make you; a pro-Catholic bigot. I don't know if the oath is authentic; I do know that the oath fiction or otherwise describes Satan and explains what has been going on in the world. Since the Reformation the Papacy has developed skills to defend itself; such as rewriting the history of the inquisitions and the reformation; creating Preterism which has Nero 68AD as the Antichrist and Futurism which puts the Antichrist at the end of time, the seventieth week after a perceived interval of silence; this silence not only erases the sins of the Papacy including the 400 year inquisition in Spain where the Jesuits were brought into existence and play but it also silences the seventieth week of Christ and his work in it. The main charge of the Spanish inquisition was Judaism; that is, the keeping the commandments of God and the Sabbath and were tortured until they accepted Papal authority and Sunday or until death. These are people slaughtered for Christ' name sake and Dispensationalism wants it silenced. Without referring to the people, Dispensationalism is the spearhead of Satan's lie; referring to the people, Dispensationalists are someone useful idiot. I distinguish between the Catholic church (laitan or laity) and the Papacy (nico's) secret societies within secret societies. Any bigotry I have is to the Priesthood and to the doctrine.

I'm someone who likes the truth to be known and not to promote lies.

You say "I don't know if the oath is authentic" but you circulate it. Jesus is the TRUTH. If you continue to circulate lies, not caring whether they are lies or not, what does that say about you?

You say "I do know that the oath fiction or otherwise describes Satan and explains what has been going on in the world." If the oath is fiction then what relevance has it to anything that is gouing on in the world?

You are trying to defend the indefensible - promoting evil lies about the Catholic Church. What does that about your character?

Incidentally I notice that in your diatribe you provide not one fact, no evidence of any kind, to support your opinions.

I think his point and theory is that, there is no telling if the info you provided refuting the Jesuit oath is not in fact Roman Catholic revisionist history, since the said church has proved itself to go to any lengths to destroy, manipulate, and revise all negative history about itself that it can. Deny the authenticity of the said oath if you wish, but you know as well as I do, that I could begin to give one testimony after another after another after another of the actual deeds of Jesuits throughout history which prove the truthfulness of the oath supplied regardless of your claims. There is a reason the Jesuits were banned from so many countries so many times, even predominantly Catholic countries.

The citation is given by johnm:
The Jesuit Oath of Induction is also recorded in the Congressional Record of the U.S.A. (House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, Feb. 15, 1913, pp. 3215-3216)

You can look it up. Apparently it should be available in any law school library.

You can also look up, in the Congressional Record, this statement by the Committe of Elections:
This committee cannot condemn too strongly the publication of the false and libelous article referred to in the paper of Mr. Bonniwell, and which was the spurious Knights of Columbus oath, a copy of which is appended to the paper. (H.R. Rep. No. 62-1523 (1913), reprinted in the Congressional Record for February 15, 1913, at p. 3221)

[Amo]

The citation is given by johnm:
The Jesuit Oath of Induction is also recorded in the Congressional Record of the U.S.A. (House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, Feb. 15, 1913, pp. 3215-3216)

You can look it up. Apparently it should be available in any law school library.

You can also look up, in the Congressional Record, this statement by the Committe of Elections:
This committee cannot condemn too strongly the publication of the false and libelous article referred to in the paper of Mr. Bonniwell, and which was the spurious Knights of Columbus oath, a copy of which is appended to the paper. (H.R. Rep. No. 62-1523 (1913), reprinted in the Congressional Record for February 15, 1913, at p. 3221)

Time allowing, I will look into the matter. Apart from this though, the following testimonies are highly suggestive that even if the said oath is not authentic, the intent and liberties granted the Jesuits within the same concerning the end justifying the means, are certainly tenable and applicable. I will start a new topic concerning the following testimony also, since this subject is getting somewhat off topic for this thread.

Wherever the Jesuits have planted missions, opened seminaries, and established colleges, they have been careful to inculcate these principles in the minds of the youth; thus sowing the seeds of future tumults, revolutions, regicides, and wars. These evil fruits have appeared sometimes sooner, sometimes later, but they have never failed to show themselves, to the grief of nations and the dismay of kings. John Chatel, who attempted the life of Henry IV., had studied in the College of Clermont, in which the Jesuit Guignard was Professor of Divinity. In the chamber of the would-be regicide, a manuscript of Guignard was found, in which, besides other dangerous articles, that Father approved not only of the assassination of Henry III. by Clement, but also maintained that the same thing ought to be attempted against le Bearnois, as he called Henry IV., which occasioned the first banishment of the order out of France, as a society detestable and diabolical. The sentence of the Parliament, passed in 1594, ordained "that all the priests and scholars of the College of
Clermont, and others calling themselves the Society of Jesus, as being corrupters of youth, disturbers of the public peace, and enemies of the king and State, should depart in three days from their house and college, and in fifteen days out of the whole kingdom."

But why should we dwell on these written proofs of the disloyal and murderous principles of the Jesuits, when their acted deeds bear still more emphatic testimony to the true nature and effects of their principles? We have only to look around, and on every hand the melancholy monuments of these doctrines meet our afflicted sight. To what country of Europe shall we turn where we are not able to track the Jesuit by his bloody footprints? What page of modern history shall we open and not read fresh proofs that the Papal doctrine of killing excommunicated kings was not meant to slumber in forgotten tomes, but to be acted out in the living world?

We see Henry III. falling by their dagger. Henry IV. perishes by the same consecrated weapon. The King of Portugal dies by their order.
The great Prince of Orange is dispatched by their agent, shot down at the door of his own dining-room. How many assassins they sent to England to murder Elizabeth, history attests. That she escaped their machinations is one of the marvels of history. Nor is it only the palaces of monarchs into which they have crept with their doctrines of murder and assassination; the very sanctuary of their own Popes they have defiled with blood. We behold Clement XIV. signing the order for the banishment of the Jesuits, and soon thereafter he is overtaken by their vengeance, and dies by poison. In the Gunpowder Plot we see them deliberately planning to destroy at
one blow the nobility and gentry of England. To them we owe those civil wars which for so many years drenched with blood the fair provinces of France. They laid the train of that crowning horror, the St. Bartholomew massacre. Philip II. and the Jesuits share between them the guilt of the "Invincible Armada," which, instead of inflicting the measureless ruin and havoc which its authors intended, by a most merciful Providence became the means of exhausting the treasures and overthrowing the prestige of Spain. What a harvest of plots, tumults, seditions, revolutions, torturings, poisonings, assassinations, regicides, and massacres has Christendom reaped from the seed sown by the Jesuits! Nor can we be sure that we have yet seen the last and greatest of their crimes.(THE HISTORY OF
PROTESTANTISM,VOL. 2, by Rev. J. A. Wylie BOOK 15, THE JESUITS., CHAPTER 5 THE JESUIT TEACHING ON REGICIDE, MURDER, LYING, THEFT, ETC., pgs. 665&666)

[Amo]

THE HISTORY OF
PROTESTANTISM
VOL. 2 by Rev. J. A. Wylie

THE JESUITS.
CHAPTER 9.
COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES AND BANISHMENTS.
(Emphasis mine)

OF the entrance of the Jesuits into England, the arts they employed, the
disguises they wore, the seditions they sowed, the snares they laid for the
life of the sovereign, and the plots they concocted for the overthrow of the
Protestant Church, we shall have an opportunity of speaking when we
come to narrate the history of Protestantism in Great Britain. Meanwhiie,
we consider their career in Poland.

Cardinal Hosius opened the gates of this country to the Jesuits. Till then
Poland was a flourishing country, united at home and powerful abroad. Its
literature and science during the half-century preceding had risen to an
eminence that placed Poland on a par with the most enlightened countries
of Christendom. It enjoyed a measure of toleration which was then
unknown to most of the nations of Europe. Foreign Protestants fled to it
as a refuge from the persecution to which they were exposed in their
native land, bringing to their adopted country their skill, their wealth, and
their energy. Its trade increased, and its towns grew in population and
riches. Italian, German, French, and Scottish Protestant congregations
existed at Cracow, Vilna, and Posnania. Such was Poland before the foot
of Jesuit had touched its soil.

But from the hour that the disciples of Loyola entered the country Poland
began to decline. The Jesuits became supreme at court; the monarch
Sigismund III, gave himself entirely up to their guidance; no one could
hope to rise in the State who did not pay court to them; the education of
youth was wholly in their hands, and the effects became speedily visible
in the decay of literature,2 and the growing decrepitude of the national
mind. At home the popular liberties were attacked in the persons of the
Protestants, and abroad the nation was humiliated by a foreign policy
inspired by the Jesuits, which drew upon the country the contempt and
hostility of neighboring powers. These evil courses of intrigue and faction
within the country, and impotent and arrogant policy outside of it, were
persisted in till the natural issue was reached in the partition of Poland. It
is at the door of the Jesuits that the fall of that once-enlightened,
prosperous, and powerful nation is to be laid.

It concerns us less to follow the Jesuits into those countries which lie
beyond the boundaries of Christendom, unless in so far as their doings in
these regions may help to throw light on their principles and tactics. In
following their steps among heathen nations and savage races, it is alike
impossible to withhold our admiration of their burning zeal and intrepid
courage, or our wonder at their prodigiously rapid success. No sooner had
the Jesuit missionary set foot on a new shore, or preached, by an
interpreter it might be, his first sermon in a heathen city, than his converts
were to be counted in tens of thousands. Speaking of their missions in
India, Sacchinus, their historian, says that "ten thousand men were
baptized in the space of one year." When the Jesuit mission to the East
Indies was set on foot in 1559, Torrez procured royal letters to the
Portuguese viceroys and governors, empowering them to lend their
assistance to the missionaries for the conversion of the Indians. This
shortened the process wonderfully. All that had to be done was to
ascertain the place where the natives were assembled for some religious
festival, and surround them with a troop of soldiers, who, with leveled
muskets, offered them the alternative of baptism. The rite followed
immediately upon the acceptance of the alternative; and next day the
baptized were taught the sign of the cross. In this excellent and summary
way was the evangelization of the island of Goa effected!

By similar methods did they attempt to plant the Popish faith and
establish their own dominion in Abyssinia, and also at Mozambique
(1560) on the opposite coast of Africa. One of the pioneers, Oviedo, who
had entered Ethiopia, wrote thus to the Pope:—"He must be permitted to
inform his Holiness that, with the assistance of 500 or 600 Portuguese
soldiers, he could at any time reduce the Empire of Abyssinia to the
obedience of the Pontificate; and when he considered that it was a country
surrounded with territories abounding with the finest gold, and promising a
rich harvest of souls to the Church, he trusted his Holiness would give the
matter further consideration."5 The Emperor of Ethiopia was gained by
flatteries and miracles; a terrible persecution was raised against the native
Christians; thousands were massacred; but at last, the king having detected
the authors of these barbarities plotting against his own life and throne,
they were ignominiously expelled the country.

Having secured the territory of Paraguay, a Portuguese possession in
South America, the Jesuits founded a kingdom there, and became its
sovereigns. They treated the natives at first with kindness, and taught
them several useful arts, but by-and-by they changed their policy, and,
reducing them to slavery, compelled them to labor for their benefit.
Dealing out to the Paraguayan peasant from the produce of his own toil as
much as would suffice to feed and clothe him, the Fathers laid up the rest
in large storehouses, which they had erected for the purpose. They kept
carefully concealed from the knowledge of Europe this seemingly
exhaustless source of wealth, that no one else might share its sweets. They
continued all the while to draw from it those vast sums wherewith they
carried on their machinations in the Old World. With the gold wrung from
the Paraguayan peasants' toil they hired spies, bribed courtiers, opened
new missions, and maintained that pomp and splendor of their
establishments by which the populace were dazzled.

Their establishments in Brazil formed the basis of a great and enriching
trade, of which Santa Fe and Buenos Ayres were the chief depots. But the
most noted episode of this kind in their history is that of Father Lavalette
(1756). He was Visitor-General and Apostolic Prefect of their Missions in
the West Indies. "He organized offices in St. Domingo, Granada, St. Lucia,
St. Vincent, and other islands, and drew bills of exchange on Paris, London,
Bordeaux, Nantes, Lyons, Cadiz, Leghorn, and Amsterdam." His vessels,
loaded with riches, comprising, besides colonial produce, negro slaves,
"crossed the sea continually."7 Trading on credit, they professed to give
the property of the society as security. Their methods of business were
abnormal. Treaties obeyed by other merchants they disregarded.
Neutrality laws were nothing to them. They hired ships which were used
as traders or privateers, as suited them, and sailed under whatever flag was
convenient. At last, however, came trouble to these Fathers, who were
making, as the phrase is, "the best of both worlds." The Brothers Lioncy
and Gouffre, of Marseilles, had accepted their bills for a million and a half
of livres, to cover which two vessels had been dispatched for Martinique
with merchandise to the value of two millions, unfortunately for the
Fathers, the ships were captured at sea by the English.

The house of Lioncy and Gouffre asked the superior of the Jesuits in
Marseilles for four thousand livres, as part payment of their debt, to save
them from bankruptcy. The Father replied that the society was not
answerable, but he offered the Brothers Lioncy and Gouffre the aid of
their prayers, fortified by the masses which they were about to say for
them. The masses would not fill the coffers which the Jesuits had emptied,
and accordingly the merchants appealed to Parliament craving a decree for
payment of the debt. The appeal was allowed, and the Jesuits were
condemned to honor the bills drawn by their agent. At this critical moment
the General of the society died: delay was inevitable: the new General sent
all the funds he could raise; but before these supplies could reach
Marseilles, Lioncy and Gouffre had become bankrupt, involving in their
misfortune their connections in all parts of France.

Now that the ruin had come and publicity was inevitable, the Jesuits
refused to pay the debt, pleading that they were protected from the claims
of their creditors by their Constitutions. The cause now came to a public
hearing. After several pleas had been advanced and abandoned, the Jesuits
took their final stand on the argument which, in an evil hour for
themselves, they had put forth at first in their defense. Their rules, they
said, forbade them to trade; and the fault of individual members could not
be punished upon the Order: they were shielded by their Constitutions.
The Parliament ordered these documents to be produced. They had been
kept secret till now. They were laid before Parliament on the 16th of
April, 1761. The result was disastrous for the Jesuits. They lost their
cause, and became much more odious than before. The disclosure revealed
Jesuitism to men as an organization based on the most iniquitous maxims,
and armed with the most terrible weapons for the accomplishment of their
object, which was to plant their own supremacy on the ruin of society.
The Constitutions were one of the principal grounds of the decree for the
extinction of the order in France, in 1762.

That political kingdoms and civil communities should feel the Order a
burden too heavy to be borne, is not to be wondered at when we reflect
that even the Popes, of whose throne it was the pillar, have repeatedly
decreed its extinction. Strange as it may seem, the first bolt in later times
that fell on the Jesuits was launched by the hand of Rome. Benedict IV, by
a bull issued in 1741, prohibited them from engaging in trade and making
slaves of the Indians. In 1759, Portugal, finding itself on the brink of ruin
by their intrigues, shook them off. This example was soon followed in
France, as we have already narrated. Even in Spain, with all its devotion to
the Papal See, all the Jesuit establishments were surrounded, one night in
1767, with troops, and the whole fraternity, amounting to 7,000, were
caught and shipped off to Italy. Immediately thereafter a similar expulsion
befell them in South America. Naples, Malta, and Parma were the next to
drive them from their soil. The severest blow was yet to come. Clement
XIII, hitherto their firm friend, yielding at last to the unanimous demands
of all the Roman Catholic courts, summoned a secret conclave for the
suppression of the Order: "a step necessary," said the brief of his
successor, "in order to prevent Christians rising one against another, and
massacring one another in the very bosom of our common mother the
Holy Church." Clement died suddenly the very evening before the day
appointed for the conclave. Lorenzo Ganganelli was elevated to the vacant
chair under the title of Clement XIV. Ganganelli was studious, learned, of
pure morals, and of genuine piety. From the schoolmen he turned to the
Fathers, forsaking the Fathers he gave himself to the study of the Holy
Scriptures, where he learned on what Rock to fix the anchor of his faith.
Clement XIV strove for several years, with honest but mistaken zeal, to
reform the Order. His-efforts were fruitless. On the 21st of July, 1773, he
issued the famous bull, "Dominus ac Redemptor noster," By which he
"dissolved and for ever annihilated the Order as a corporate body," at a
moment when it counted 22,000 members.

The bull justifies itself by a long and formidable list of charges against the
Jesuits. Had this accusation proceeded from a Protestant pen it might have
been regarded as not free from exaggeration, but coming from the Papal
chair it must be accepted as the sober truth. The bull of Clement charged
them with raising various insurrections and rebellions, with plotting
against bishops, undermining the regnlar monastic orders, and invading
pious foundations and corporations of every sort, not only in Europe, but
in Asia and America, to the danger of souls and the astonishment of all
nations. It charged them with engaging in trade, and that, instead of seeking
to convert the heathen, they had shown themselves intent only on
gathering gold and silver and precious jewels. They had interpolated pagan
rites and manners with Christian beliefs and worship: they had set aside
the ordinances of the Church, and substituted opinions which the
apostolic chair had pronounced fundamentally erroneous and evidently
subversive of good morals. Tumults, disturbances, violences, had followed
them in all countries. In fine, they had broken the peace of the Church, and
so incurably that the Pontificates of his predecessors, Urban VIII,
Clements IX, X, XI, and XII, Alexanders VII and VIII, Innocents X, XI,
XII, and XIII, and Benedict XIV, had been passed in abortive attempts to
re-establish the harmony and concord which they had destroyed. It was
now seen that the peace of the Church would never be restored while the
Order existed, and hence the necessity of the bull which dispossessed the
Jesuits of "every office, service, and administration;" took away from
them "their houses, schools, hospitals, estates; " withdrew "all their
statutes, usuages, decrees, customs, and ordinances;" and pronounced "all
the power of the General, Provincial, Visitors, and every other head of the
same Order, whether spiritual or secular, to be for ever annulled and
suppressed." "The present ordinance," said the bull, in conclusion, "shall
remain in full force and operation from henceforth and for ever."

Nothing but the most tremendous necessity could have made Clement XIV
issue this bull. He knew well how unforgiving was the pride and how
deadly the vengeance of the Society, and he did not conceal from himself
the penalty he should have to pay for decreeing its suppression. On laying
down his pen, after having put his name to the bull, he said to those
around him that he had subscribed his death-warrant. The Pope was at
that time in robust health, and his vigorous constitution and temperate
habits promised a long life. But now dark rumors began to be whispered in
Italy that the Pontiff would die soon. In April of the following year he
began to decline without any apparent cause: his illness increased: no
medicine was of any avail: and after lingering in torture for months, he
died, September 22nd, 1774. "Several days before his death," says
Caraccioli, "his bones were exfoliated and withered like a tree which,
attacked at its roots, withers away and throws off its bark. The scientific
men who were called in to embalm his body found the features livid, the
lips black, the abdomen inflated, the limbs emaciated, and covered with
violet spots. The size of the head was diminished, and all the muscles were
shrunk up, and the spine was decomposed. They filled the body with
perfumed and aromatic substances, but nothing could dispel the mephitic
effluvia."

The suppression with which Clement XIV smote the Society of Jesus was
eternal; but the "forever" of the bull lasted only in actual deed during the
brief interval that elapsed between 1773 and 1814. That short period was
filled up with the awful tempest of the French Revolution—to the fallen
thrones and desecrated altars of which the Jesuits pointed as the
monuments of the Divine anger at the suppression of their Order. Despite
the bull of Clement, the Jesuits had neither ceased to exist nor ceased to
act. Amid the storms that shook the world they were energetically active.
In revolutionary conventions and clubs, in war-councils and committees,
on battle-fields they were present, guiding with unseen but powerful touch
the course of affairs. Their maxim is, if despotisms will not serve them, to
demoralize society and render government impossible, and from chaos to
remodel the world anew. Thus the Society of Jesus, which had gone out of
existence before the Revolution, as men believed, started up in full force
the moment after, prepared to enter on the work of moulding and ruling
the nations which had been chastised but not enlightened. Scarcely had
Pins VII returned to the Vatican, when, by a bull dated August 7th, 1814,
he restored the Order of Jesus. Thaddeus Borzodzowsky was placed at
their head. Once more the brotherhood stalked abroad in their black
birettas. In no long time their colleges, seminaries, and novitiates began to
flourish in all the countries of Europe, Ireland and England not excepted.
Their numbers, swelled by the sodalities of "St. Vincent de Paul,"
"Brothers of the Christian Doctrine," and other societies affiliated with the
order, became greater, perhaps, than they ever were at any former period.
And their importance was vastly enhanced by the fact that the contest
between the "Order" and the "Papal Chair" ended—temporarily, at any
rate—in the enslavement of the Popedom, of which they inspired the
policy, indited the decrees, and wielded the power.

[winsome]

Amo,

I'm not interested in your long cut and paste's about Jesuits.

The issue I was addressing was the fictititious "Jesuit Oath"

[Amo]

Amo,

I'm not interested in your long cut and paste's about Jesuits.

The issue I was addressing was the fictititious "Jesuit Oath"

Nor am I interested in whether or not you are interested in the truth about the Jesuit institution. While it would of course be in your interest to deny any truth to or about the oath, again, the facts of history paint a picture more in tune with supporting the authenticity of the oath, than denying the same.

[winsome]

Amo,

I'm not interested in your long cut and paste's about Jesuits.

The issue I was addressing was the fictititious "Jesuit Oath"

Nor am I interested in whether or not you are interested in the truth about the Jesuit institution. While it would of course be in your interest to deny any truth to or about the oath, again, the facts of history paint a picture more in tune with supporting the authenticity of the oath, than denying the same.

I think you are referring, not to the facts of history, but to the bigoted opinions of anti-Catholic Protestants.

[Amo]

Amo,

I'm not interested in your long cut and paste's about Jesuits.

The issue I was addressing was the fictititious "Jesuit Oath"

Nor am I interested in whether or not you are interested in the truth about the Jesuit institution. While it would of course be in your interest to deny any truth to or about the oath, again, the facts of history paint a picture more in tune with supporting the authenticity of the oath, than denying the same.

I think you are referring, not to the facts of history, but to the bigoted opinions of anti-Catholic Protestants.

What is all history that points out the negative facts of the same in relation to the Roman Catholic church to a Roman Catholic, but bigoted opinion?

[johnm]

<<I think you are referring, not to the facts of history, but to the bigoted opinions of anti-Catholic Protestants>>

To be fair most Catholics are born into their situation, as are most other people. A bigot isn't necessarily wrong but merely one eyed, lopsided, and gives his foe no quarter. Statistically most people are more wrong than they are more right.

Realistically, we need to take long look at what is wrong with the Catholic Church, in respect to Sabbath, Sunday and Legalism. It is a legal matter changing the Sabbath to Sunday.

Changing the fourth commandment Sabbath to Sunday requires enormous authority; even Jesus could not change the Law; not without destroying everything that had been established by the Law including His own authority.  Even though people are keeping Sunday, even the Presbyterians, the Law, the fourth commandment is unchanged; Sunday law is the law of the Papacy not of God.
Daniel 7:25 (KJV)
25  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: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

The Catholic Church freely acknowledges there is no scriptural authority for Sunday only the authority of the Church.

The authority and identity of the Roman Church stems from the wrongful interpretation of Matt 16:18; Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built, not Peter, as the few earlier verses show.
Paul established the Roman Church and the only time Paul refers to Peter is in Galatians; no church has the authority to make decisions on behalf of God or in place of God.

Quote,


Below is an actual document given to Catholics to carry into the confessional as a guide to "repentance." It was forwarded to me by a friend of the ministry from the Catholic Dispatch Internet Apostolate. Notice how they have AGAIN re-written the Ten Commandments so as to glorify themselves as well as the flesh instead of the Lord Jesus Christ. My Biblical comments below are in Bold.

Before going further understand this. The Ten Commandments of the Bible total 295 words in length. However, the Roman Catholic ten commandments are a total of only 77 words. This is an open attempt to change the Law of God, regardless of the fact that Jesus Christ Himself declared in  Matthew 5:18, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law..." The Catholic church has removed 218 jots and tittles from the Law of God just as Daniel stated they would in Daniel 7:25


Here is an "examination of conscience" - a guide for CHILDREN to be used before receiving the Sacrament of Penance. It can be carried into Church; or the parish priest may decide to make copies and have them available for the parish children to be used when they go to Confession.
[You should have already received the "Examination of Conscience for Adults".]

EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE FOR CHILDREN

Prayer before Beginning

O MY SAVIOUR JESUS!  I COME TO CONFESS MY SINS AND TO BEG YOUR FORGIVENESS
IN THE HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. HELP ME TO REMEMBER MY SINS AND TO
CONFESS THEM CAREFULLY.  O MARY, MY HEAVENLY MOTHER, PRAY FOR ME THAT I MAY
MAKE A GOOD CONFESSION!  MY DEAR GUARDIAN ANGEL, HELP ME TO RECALL EVERY
SIN SINCE MY LAST WORTHY CONFESSION.

Examination of Conscience

- HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN SINCE MY LAST GOOD CONFESSION?
- DID I HIDE ANY SIN FROM THE PRIEST?
- DID I DO THE PENANCE THE PRIEST GAVE ME?

1st Commandment

- HAVE I REFUSED TO BELIEVE ANYTHING WHICH THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES?  WHAT WAS IT?
- HAVE I FAILED TO LEARN MY CATECHISM: THE APOSTLES CREED?  THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?  THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS? MY PRAYERS?
- HAVE I FAILED TO STUDY MY CATECHISM AS I SHOULD?


NOTICE: This commandment has been re-written in such a way that it has placed the glory of God Himself upon the Church of Rome instead. The first Commandment deals with our belief in God Almighty as our one and only God. It states plainly in Exodus 20:2-3, "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."


2nd Commandment

- HAVE I TAKEN THE HOLY NAME OF GOD IN VAIN?  HOW MANY TIMES?
- HAVE I SPOKEN DISRESPECTFULLY OF PRIEST?  OR HOLY THINGS?  HOW MANY TIMES?
- HAVE I USED OTHER BAD LANGUAGE?  HOW MANY TIMES?


NOTICE: This is NOT the "real" 2nd Commandment of the Christian God. For it is written in Exodus 20:4-6, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

They removed it simply because it is common practice to BOW DOWN before graven images in ALL Catholic churches. This is a Babylonian ritual of Sun worship that they refuse to remove simply because this church is in fact the WHORE OF BABYLON. It cannot go against its own grain.


3rd Commandment

- HAVE I MISSED MASS ON SUNDAY THROUGH MY OWN FAULT?  HOW MANY TIMES?
- HAVE I MISBEHAVED IN CHURCH?  HOW MANY TIMES?
- HAVE I PAID NO ATTENTION TO MY PRAYERS?


NOTICE: Not only is this and ALL the following commandments in the incorrect Biblical order due to the fact the Roman Catholic church REMOVED the 2nd Commandment. And besides the fact that Daniel told us in Daniel 7:25 that the BEAST would in fact "try" to change the Law of God as well as the "times." This commandment of the Roman Catholic church is placing the Biblical 7th day Sabbath on the Un-Biblical 1st day of the Pagan day of worship for the Babylonian Sun gOD Mithra.


4th Commandment

- HAVE I BEEN DISOBEDIENT OR DISRESPECTFUL TO MY PARENTS OR TEACHERS?  HOW
MANY TIMES?
- HAVE I TRIED TO PROVOKE THEM?  HOW MANY TIMES?


NOTICE:The real "5th" (they changed the order) commandment reads... Exodus 20:12, "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."

Do you see anything in there about TEACHERS? Why do you suppose they want you to OBEY TEACHERS? Have you been to the ungodlike Catholic schools as well as public schools lately? have you seen what they teach? Understand now?

NOTICE NO SABBATH COMMANDMENT.

Above Catholic documentation was supplied by:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Catholic Dispatch Internet Apostolate
Free articles delivered to your electronic doorstep!
http://www.catholic-dispatch.com
Original work and arrangements © 2000 CDIA
cdia@catholic-dispatch.com
Subscribe/Unsubscribe by e-mail or web site
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reprint our original work freely with above information

[winsome]

A few points

1.
We have not changed the order of the commandments, or left one out
There is no numbering in scripture. Numbering is a "tradition of men".
Catholics and Lutherans number them in one way.
Orthodox and Protestants (except Lutherans) number them in a different way.

2.
The Catholic Church has not moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. The Sabbath remains Saturday.

3.
When you give what you think is Catholic teaching can you quote from official Catholic sources. SDA's seem to love to quote from various unofficial periodicals, individuals etc.

If you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is an official source for Catholic teaching you will find all the Ten Commandments listed and discussed.

4.
Legally the Ten Commandments, along with the whole of the Jewish Law:
a)  was never applicable to Gentiles
b) was legally abrogated by Christ's death on the cross.

If you want to discuss any of these points I am happy to do that if you:
a) use official Catholic sources (where available)
b) leave off the negative and irrelevant side comments about the Catholic Church

[DaveW]

We have not changed the order of the commandments, or left one out
There is no numbering in scripture. Numbering is a "tradition of men".
Catholics and Lutherans number them in one way.
Orthodox and Protestants (except Lutherans) number them in a different way.

Here is a grid showing how the commands are broken down by number:

http://www.thetencommandmentslist.com/

[johnm]

Dave you are a skilled apologist, so skilled has apologetics become there should be a place for it in the Olympic Games; tuning a lie into a perceived truth, neutralising the truth by confusion; for the last ten years I have been watching politicians do this. What the Catholic teaches seems to variy from person to person and from time to time.

<<A few points
1.
We have not changed the order of the commandments, or left one out
There is no numbering in scripture. Numbering is a "tradition of men".
Catholics and Lutherans number them in one way.
Orthodox and Protestants (except Lutherans) number them in a different way.>>

The order may not be that important so long as the first four are kept together as well as the last six. But I am not going to be the one to suggest God ordered them in vain. The wording of the Ten Commandments was engraved on stone, but we do not know what that was; when Moses listed them three times the wording each time was different but the meaning and the order was unchanged.

<<2.
The Catholic Church has not moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. The Sabbath remains Saturday.>>

This reminds me of the old proverb, "You can have your cake and eat it also."This is both a truth and a lie. It is true the Law of God cannot be changed, but it is also true that Sunday is the day of rest for most people including Atheists and Muslims. Changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday is the Papacy's greatest claim to fame; it has been cited by the Papacy as proof of the Papacy's divine authority.

•The word of Rome says:
"The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ." "The Pope has the authority and often exercised it, to dispense with the command of Christ." -Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop. Cap. (The Pope can modify divine law.) Ferraris' Ecclesiastical Dictionary.



Letter from the Roman Catholic Church

We all like to receive mail. Here is a letter from the Roman Catholic Church, originally published in America in 1869. The message was written to Protestants and is forceful and to the point, with lots of Scriptural proofs for its position.

I am going to propose a very plain and serious question to those who follow "the Bible and the Bible only" to give their most earnest attention. It is this: Why do you not keep holy the Sabbath Day?

The command of Almighty God stands clearly written in the Bible in these words: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work" (Exodus xx. 8-10). And again, "Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day there shall be unto you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord; whosover doeth work therein shall be put to death" (Exodus xxxv. 2, 3).

How strict and precise is God's commandment upon this head! [in this matter!] No work whatever was to be done on the day which He had chosen to set apart for Himself and to make holy. And, accordingly, when the children of Israel "found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day," "the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp" (Numbers xv. 32, 35). Such being God's command, then I ask again: Why do you not obey it? Why do you not keep holy the Sabbath day?

You will answer me, perhaps, that you do keep holy the Sabbath day; for that you abstain from all worldly business and diligently go to church, and say your prayers, and read your Bible at home, every Sunday of your lives.

But Sunday is not the Sabbath day. Sunday is the first day of the week; the Sabbath day is the seventh day of the week. Almighty God did not give a commandment that men should keep holy one day in seven; but He named His own day, and said distinctly: 'Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day,' and He assigned a reason for choosing this day rather than any other—a reason which belongs only to the seventh day of the week, and cannot be applied to the rest. He says "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it" [Exodus xx. 11].

Almighty God ordered that all men should rest from their labor on the seventh day, because He too had rested on that day; He did not rest on Sunday, but on Saturday. On Sunday, which is the first day of the week, He began the work of creation, He did not finish it [then]; it was on Saturday that He "ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made" (Genesis ii. 2). Nothing can be more plain and easy to understand than all this; and there is nobody who attempts to deny it; it is acknowledged by everybody that the day which Almighty God appointed to be kept holy was Saturday, not Sunday. Why do you then keep holy the Sunday, and not Saturday?

You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath [God gave the Bible Sabbath to mankind 2,000 years before the first Jew existed], 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 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 day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the Ten Commandments. You believe that the other nine are still binding; but who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, 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.

Let us see whether any such passages can be found. I will look for them in the writings of your own [Protestant] champions, who have attempted to defend your practice in this matter.

1. The first text which I find quoted upon the subject is this: "Let no man judge you in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days" (Colossians ii. 16). [That refers to the ceremonial—sacrificial—yearly sabbaths of Leviticus 23, which were done away at the cross.] I could understand a Bible Christian imagining from this passage, that we ought to make no difference between Saturday, Sunday, and every other day of the week. But not one syllable does it say about the obligation of the Sabbath being transferred from one day to another.

2. Secondly, the words of St. John are quoted, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day (Apocalypse [Revelation] i. 10). Is it possible that anybody can for a moment imagine that here is a safe and clear rule for changing the weekly day of worship from the seventh to the first day? This passage is utterly silent upon such a subject; it only give Scriptural authority for calling some one day in particular (it does not even say which day) "the Lord's day."

3. Next we are reminded that St. Paul bade his Corinthian converts, "upon the first day of the week, lay by them in store, that there might be no gatherings" when he himself came (1 Corinthians xvi. 2). How is this supposed to affect the law of the Sabbath? It commands a certain act of almsgiving [doing one's finances at home] to be done on the first day of the week. It says absolutely nothing about not doing certain other acts of prayer and public worship on the seventh day.

4. But, you will say, it was "on the first day of the week" when the disciples were assembled within closed doors for fear of the Jews, and Jesus stood in the midst of them" (John xx. 19). What is there in these facts to do away with the obligation of keeping holy the seventh day? Our Lord rose from the dead on the first day of the week, and on the same day at evening He appears to many of His disciples. Let Protestants, if they will [in obedience to Catholic tradition], keep holy the first day of the week in grateful commemoration of that stupendous mystery, the Resurrection of Christ, and of the evidences which He vouchsafed to give of it to His doubting disciples; but this is no scriptural authority for ceasing to keep holy another day of the week which God had expressly commanded to be kept holy for another and altogether different reason.

5. But lastly, we have the example of the Apostles themselves. "Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight" (Acts xx. 7). Here we have clear proof that the disciples heard a sermon on a Sunday. But is that not proof they had done the same on the Saturdays also? [Acts xiii. 14, 42-44; xvi. 12-13; xvii. 1-2; xviiii. 1-4, 11]. [After the night meeting on the first day in Troas (Acts xx. 7), Paul held a meeting on Tuesday in Miletus (Acts xx. 17-38). But no one considers that meeting sacred.]

You will say, is it not expressly written concerning those early Christians, that they "continued daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house?" (Acts ii. 46). As a matter of fact, do we not know from other sources that, in many parts of the church, the ancient Christians were in the habit of meeting together for public worship, and to perform the other [religious] offices, on Saturdays? Again then, I say, [in obedience to our command] let Protestants keep holy, if they will their first day of the week; but let them remember that this cannot possible release them from the obligation of keeping holy another day which Almighty God has ordered to
be kept holy, because on that day He "rested from all His work." [The Troas meeting was held on Sunday in Acts 20:7, just prior to a Miletus meeting on Tuesday in Acts 20:17-38, although no one today keeps Tuesday sacred because of that meeting].

I do not know of any other passages of holy Scripture which Protestants are in the habit of quoting to defend their practice of keeping holy the first day of the week instead of the seventh; yet, surely those which I have quoted are not such as should satisfy any reasonable man, who looks upon the written word of God as they [the Protestants] profess to look upon it, namely, as the only appointed means of learning God's will, and who really desires to learn and to obey that will in all things with humbleness and simplicity of heart. For in spite of all that anyone might say to the contrary, it is fully and absolutely impossible that a reasonable and thoughtful person should be satisfied, by the texts that I have quoted, that Almighty God intended the obligation of Saturday to be transferred to Sunday. And yet Protestants do so transfer it, and never seem to have the slightest misgivings lest, in doing so, they should be guilty of breaking one of God's commandments.

Why is this? Because, although they talk so largely about following the Bible and Bible only, they are really guided in this matter by the voice of [Roman Catholic] tradition. Yes, much as they may hate and denounce the word [tradition], they have in fact no other authority to allege for this most important change.

The present generation of Protestants keep Sunday holy instead of Saturday, because they received it as part of the Christian religion from the last generation, and that generation received it from the generation before, and so on backwards from one generation to another, by a continual succession, until we come to the time of the so-called "Reformation," when it so happened that those who conducted the change of religion [from Catholicism to Protestantism] left this particular portion of Catholic faith and practice untouched.
.
.
.
.
.
We Catholics, then, have precisely the same authority for keeping Sunday holy instead of Saturday as we have for every other article of our creed, namely, the authority of "the Church of the living God, and ground of truth" (1 Timothy iii. 15); whereas you who are Protestants have really no authority for it [Sunday sacredness] whatever; for there is no authority for it in the Bible, and you will not allow that there can be authority for it anywhere else. Both you and we do, in fact, follow [Catholic] tradition in this matter; but we follow it, believing it to be a part of God's word, and the [Catholic] Church to be its divinely appointed guardian and interpreter. You follow it [Catholicism], denouncing it all the time as a fallible and treacherous guide which often "makes the commandment of God of none effect" (Matthew xv. 6).

—"Why Don't You Keep Holy the Sabbath Day?" pages 3-15, in The Clifton Tracts, Vol. 4, published by the Roman Catholic Church. Originally released in North America in 1869 through the T. W. Strong Publishing Company of New York City, so that those outside the papal fold might return to the not partial, but full, authority of the Mother Church of the Vatican.

<<3.
When you give what you think is Catholic teaching can you quote from official Catholic sources. SDA's seem to love to quote from various unofficial periodicals, individuals etc.
If you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is an official source for Catholic teaching you will find all the Ten Commandments listed and discussed.>>

The SDA may not always be right but they are as articulated as any theological group, most of their evidence that I have seen come from old Papal documents from the reformation when half of the Catholic Priesthood left the Church, taking their laity and documentation with them. If you knew anything about the SDA you would quickly realise I am not one.

<<4.
Legally the Ten Commandments, along with the whole of the Jewish Law:
a)  was never applicable to Gentiles
b) was legally abrogated by Christ's death on the cross.>>

You must live in fairyland; it is the Pope who abrogates illegally.
The Law of God has always existed. Cain is declared a murderer by the Law of God, all men ever judged are judged according to God's Law; as a Catholic you would be an amillenniumist and not have knowledge of the first and second resurrections or the millennium Sabbath in between; it is God and Is Law who judges those of the second resurrection to the second death and the principles of this resurrection are Gog and Magog; it is the Law that judges these gentiles; in as far as the Law did not apply to them neither was salvation offered.

The Ten Commandments are an abstract of God's Law; the essence of the law; Israel was used by God as a light to introduce Himself and His Law/Covenant to the world; the world has learned nothing from the light, but the world stands naked before God without excuse.     

[Gerhard Ebersöhn]

I think you are referring, not to the facts of history, but to the bigoted opinions of anti-Catholic Protestants.

Give the Catholics tenth a chance and make Protestants free game and within one month nine tenths of Protestants will have become Roman Catholics and one tenth will have been murdered by former Protestants and the Roman Catholics.

[chosenone]

I think you are referring, not to the facts of history, but to the bigoted opinions of anti-Catholic Protestants.

Give the Catholics tenth a chance and make Protestants free game and within one month nine tenths of Protestants will have become Roman Catholics and one tenth will have been murdered by former Protestants and the Roman Catholics.

....

you ARE kidding.................

[winsome]

 

Dave you are a skilled apologist, so skilled has apologetics become there should be a place for it in the Olympic Games; tuning a lie into a perceived truth, neutralising the truth by confusion; for the last ten years I have been watching politicians do this. What the Catholic teaches seems to variy from person to person and from time to time.

<<A few points
1.
We have not changed the order of the commandments, or left one out
There is no numbering in scripture. Numbering is a "tradition of men".
Catholics and Lutherans number them in one way.
Orthodox and Protestants (except Lutherans) number them in a different way.>>

The order may not be that important so long as the first four are kept together as well as the last six. But I am not going to be the one to suggest God ordered them in vain. The wording of the Ten Commandments was engraved on stone, but we do not know what that was; when Moses listed them three times the wording each time was different but the meaning and the order was unchanged.

Dave has already dealt with this.

In scripture there are 12 commandments listed. Therefore to arrive at 10 some are conflated. Dave's lists explains this well.

No, the order does not change. The Catholic Church has not changed the order. It just conflates them differently to you.

<<2.
The Catholic Church has not moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. The Sabbath remains Saturday.>>

This reminds me of the old proverb, "You can have your cake and eat it also."This is both a truth and a lie. It is true the Law of God cannot be changed, but it is also true that Sunday is the day of rest for most people including Atheists and Muslims. Changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday is the Papacy's greatest claim to fame; it has been cited by the Papacy as proof of the Papacy's divine authority.

•The word of Rome says:
"The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ." "The Pope has the authority and often exercised it, to dispense with the command of Christ." -Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop. Cap. (The Pope can modify divine law.) Ferraris' Ecclesiastical Dictionary.



Letter from the Roman Catholic Church

We all like to receive mail. Here is a letter from the Roman Catholic Church, originally published in America in 1869. The message was written to Protestants and is forceful and to the point, with lots of Scriptural proofs for its position.

I am going to propose a very plain and serious question to those who follow "the Bible and the Bible only" to give their most earnest attention. It is this: Why do you not keep holy the Sabbath Day?

The command of Almighty God stands clearly written in the Bible in these words: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work" (Exodus xx. 8-10). And again, "Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day there shall be unto you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord; whosover doeth work therein shall be put to death" (Exodus xxxv. 2, 3).

How strict and precise is God's commandment upon this head! [in this matter!] No work whatever was to be done on the day which He had chosen to set apart for Himself and to make holy. And, accordingly, when the children of Israel "found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day," "the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp" (Numbers xv. 32, 35). Such being God's command, then I ask again: Why do you not obey it? Why do you not keep holy the Sabbath day?

You will answer me, perhaps, that you do keep holy the Sabbath day; for that you abstain from all worldly business and diligently go to church, and say your prayers, and read your Bible at home, every Sunday of your lives.

But Sunday is not the Sabbath day. Sunday is the first day of the week; the Sabbath day is the seventh day of the week. Almighty God did not give a commandment that men should keep holy one day in seven; but He named His own day, and said distinctly: 'Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day,' and He assigned a reason for choosing this day rather than any other—a reason which belongs only to the seventh day of the week, and cannot be applied to the rest. He says "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it" [Exodus xx. 11].

Almighty God ordered that all men should rest from their labor on the seventh day, because He too had rested on that day; He did not rest on Sunday, but on Saturday. On Sunday, which is the first day of the week, He began the work of creation, He did not finish it [then]; it was on Saturday that He "ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made" (Genesis ii. 2). Nothing can be more plain and easy to understand than all this; and there is nobody who attempts to deny it; it is acknowledged by everybody that the day which Almighty God appointed to be kept holy was Saturday, not Sunday. Why do you then keep holy the Sunday, and not Saturday?

You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath [God gave the Bible Sabbath to mankind 2,000 years before the first Jew existed], 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 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 day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the Ten Commandments. You believe that the other nine are still binding; but who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, 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.

Let us see whether any such passages can be found. I will look for them in the writings of your own [Protestant] champions, who have attempted to defend your practice in this matter.

1. The first text which I find quoted upon the subject is this: "Let no man judge you in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days" (Colossians ii. 16). [That refers to the ceremonial—sacrificial—yearly sabbaths of Leviticus 23, which were done away at the cross.] I could understand a Bible Christian imagining from this passage, that we ought to make no difference between Saturday, Sunday, and every other day of the week. But not one syllable does it say about the obligation of the Sabbath being transferred from one day to another.

2. Secondly, the words of St. John are quoted, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day (Apocalypse [Revelation] i. 10). Is it possible that anybody can for a moment imagine that here is a safe and clear rule for changing the weekly day of worship from the seventh to the first day? This passage is utterly silent upon such a subject; it only give Scriptural authority for calling some one day in particular (it does not even say which day) "the Lord's day."

3. Next we are reminded that St. Paul bade his Corinthian converts, "upon the first day of the week, lay by them in store, that there might be no gatherings" when he himself came (1 Corinthians xvi. 2). How is this supposed to affect the law of the Sabbath? It commands a certain act of almsgiving [doing one's finances at home] to be done on the first day of the week. It says absolutely nothing about not doing certain other acts of prayer and public worship on the seventh day.

4. But, you will say, it was "on the first day of the week" when the disciples were assembled within closed doors for fear of the Jews, and Jesus stood in the midst of them" (John xx. 19). What is there in these facts to do away with the obligation of keeping holy the seventh day? Our Lord rose from the dead on the first day of the week, and on the same day at evening He appears to many of His disciples. Let Protestants, if they will [in obedience to Catholic tradition], keep holy the first day of the week in grateful commemoration of that stupendous mystery, the Resurrection of Christ, and of the evidences which He vouchsafed to give of it to His doubting disciples; but this is no scriptural authority for ceasing to keep holy another day of the week which God had expressly commanded to be kept holy for another and altogether different reason.

5. But lastly, we have the example of the Apostles themselves. "Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight" (Acts xx. 7). Here we have clear proof that the disciples heard a sermon on a Sunday. But is that not proof they had done the same on the Saturdays also? [Acts xiii. 14, 42-44; xvi. 12-13; xvii. 1-2; xviiii. 1-4, 11]. [After the night meeting on the first day in Troas (Acts xx. 7), Paul held a meeting on Tuesday in Miletus (Acts xx. 17-38). But no one considers that meeting sacred.]

You will say, is it not expressly written concerning those early Christians, that they "continued daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house?" (Acts ii. 46). As a matter of fact, do we not know from other sources that, in many parts of the church, the ancient Christians were in the habit of meeting together for public worship, and to perform the other [religious] offices, on Saturdays? Again then, I say, [in obedience to our command] let Protestants keep holy, if they will their first day of the week; but let them remember that this cannot possible release them from the obligation of keeping holy another day which Almighty God has ordered to
be kept holy, because on that day He "rested from all His work." [The Troas meeting was held on Sunday in Acts 20:7, just prior to a Miletus meeting on Tuesday in Acts 20:17-38, although no one today keeps Tuesday sacred because of that meeting].

I do not know of any other passages of holy Scripture which Protestants are in the habit of quoting to defend their practice of keeping holy the first day of the week instead of the seventh; yet, surely those which I have quoted are not such as should satisfy any reasonable man, who looks upon the written word of God as they [the Protestants] profess to look upon it, namely, as the only appointed means of learning God's will, and who really desires to learn and to obey that will in all things with humbleness and simplicity of heart. For in spite of all that anyone might say to the contrary, it is fully and absolutely impossible that a reasonable and thoughtful person should be satisfied, by the texts that I have quoted, that Almighty God intended the obligation of Saturday to be transferred to Sunday. And yet Protestants do so transfer it, and never seem to have the slightest misgivings lest, in doing so, they should be guilty of breaking one of God's commandments.

Why is this? Because, although they talk so largely about following the Bible and Bible only, they are really guided in this matter by the voice of [Roman Catholic] tradition. Yes, much as they may hate and denounce the word [tradition], they have in fact no other authority to allege for this most important change.

The present generation of Protestants keep Sunday holy instead of Saturday, because they received it as part of the Christian religion from the last generation, and that generation received it from the generation before, and so on backwards from one generation to another, by a continual succession, until we come to the time of the so-called "Reformation," when it so happened that those who conducted the change of religion [from Catholicism to Protestantism] left this particular portion of Catholic faith and practice untouched.
.
.
.
.
.
We Catholics, then, have precisely the same authority for keeping Sunday holy instead of Saturday as we have for every other article of our creed, namely, the authority of "the Church of the living God, and ground of truth" (1 Timothy iii. 15); whereas you who are Protestants have really no authority for it [Sunday sacredness] whatever; for there is no authority for it in the Bible, and you will not allow that there can be authority for it anywhere else. Both you and we do, in fact, follow [Catholic] tradition in this matter; but we follow it, believing it to be a part of God's word, and the [Catholic] Church to be its divinely appointed guardian and interpreter. You follow it [Catholicism], denouncing it all the time as a fallible and treacherous guide which often "makes the commandment of God of none effect" (Matthew xv. 6).

—"Why Don't You Keep Holy the Sabbath Day?" pages 3-15, in The Clifton Tracts, Vol. 4, published by the Roman Catholic Church. Originally released in North America in 1869 through the T. W. Strong Publishing Company of New York City, so that those outside the papal fold might return to the not partial, but full, authority of the Mother Church of the Vatican.

As I have already said you should be looking at official (authoritative) documents not some random publications.

Why do you keep quoting from this sort of stuff? "The Clifton Tracts" – whatever they are – are not official documents

Is it because you cannot find any official backing for your errors about the Catholic Church?

Here are a couple of authoritative quotes. Note my emboldening.

Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 2175)

We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath", from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes the dies Christi! (Apostolic Letter, Dies Domini, Pope John Paul II).

As a very crude guide: If you can find it on the Vatican web site (www.vatican.va) it is official/authoritative. If you can't it is not.

[ Added: I was thinking here of relatively recent documents (say last 100 years). Older official documents such as the decrees of past Ecumenical Councils (e.g. Trent)  and Papal decrees will not be on the Vatican web site]

<<3.
When you give what you think is Catholic teaching can you quote from official Catholic sources. SDA's seem to love to quote from various unofficial periodicals, individuals etc.
If you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is an official source for Catholic teaching you will find all the Ten Commandments listed and discussed.>>

The SDA may not always be right but they are as articulated as any theological group, most of their evidence that I have seen come from old Papal documents from the reformation when half of the Catholic Priesthood left the Church, taking their laity and documentation with them. If you knew anything about the SDA you would quickly realise I am not one.

Then why is a non-SDA attacking Catholics in the SDA forum?

But I think you will find that SDA's do NOT quote from official Catholic sources.

<<4.
Legally the Ten Commandments, along with the whole of the Jewish Law:
a)  was never applicable to Gentiles
b) was legally abrogated by Christ's death on the cross.>>

You must live in fairyland; it is the Pope who abrogates illegally.
The Law of God has always existed. Cain is declared a murderer by the Law of God, all men ever judged are judged according to God's Law; as a Catholic you would be an amillenniumist and not have knowledge of the first and second resurrections or the millennium Sabbath in between; it is God and Is Law who judges those of the second resurrection to the second death and the principles of this resurrection are Gog and Magog; it is the Law that judges these gentiles; in as far as the Law did not apply to them neither was salvation offered.

The Ten Commandments are an abstract of God's Law; the essence of the law; Israel was used by God as a light to introduce Himself and His Law/Covenant to the world; the world has learned nothing from the light, but the world stands naked before God without excuse.     

The Ten Commandments, along with the rest of the laws of the Sinai Covenant are an implementation of moral laws, ceremonial observances, statutes etc. for the Israelites.

As such they were never applicable to the Gentiles.

You need to distinguish between a moral law that is applicable to everyone and a legal expression of that law which is applicable to a particular group.

Yes, murder is morally wrong for everyone. I doubt there have ever been a civilisation without a law against murder. But the legal expression of that law for a particular country/civilisation is only applicable for those under that juridiction.
I live in England. If I commit a murder here I will be convicted under English Law. But if I go to France and commit a murder I will not be convicted under English law. It is not applicable to me in France.  I will be charged and convicted under French law.

Similarly I do not live under the Old Covenant but the New Covenant. Old Covenant Law has no legal jurisdiction over me.

Saturday Sabbath keeping is not a moral issue. It was given to the Israelites as a sign of the Sinai Covenant. (Ex 31:12-13, 16-17).

[Amo]

The following site contains what looks to be an interesting read concerning the topic of this thread.

https://archive.org/stream/sundayworldsrest00inte#page/n9/mode/2up

[Amo]

The following is an interesting Jewish perspective regarding the issue at hand.

http://strangeside.com/sunday-rest-laws/

[Amo]

An interesitng article concerning France.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/11/08/243952070/france-rethinks-the-sanctity-of-its-day-of-rest

[Amo]

http://www.jta.org/1929/03/29/archive/modification-of-sunday-rest-law-in-lithuania-awaited

http://mygospelworkers.org/mgwministry/deputies-gave-preliminary-approval-to-sunday-rest/

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/FRANCE/SUNDAYREST-FR.htm

http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=7488#.Uukln7S69co

http://www.theparisblog.com/sunday-rest-or-work/

[johnm]

<<As I have already said you should be looking at official (authoritative) documents not some random publications.
Why do you keep quoting from this sort of stuff? "The Clifton Tracts" – whatever they are – are not official documents
Is it because you cannot find any official backing for your errors about the Catholic Church?>>

<<[ Added: I was thinking here of relatively recent documents (say last 100 years). Older official documents such as the decrees of past Ecumenical Councils (e.g. Trent)  and Papal decrees will not be on the Vatican web site]>>

This seems to me to be an admission of guilt; it is amazing the way things get twisted around. You have missed the whole point; it is the authority of the Catholic Church that is accused and primarily Catholic documents older than 100 years are acceptable as evidence.

>>Then why is a non-SDA attacking Catholics in the SDA forum?>>

I'm sure I don't know what to make of this; can you quote a Bible verse or an official document?

<<But I think you will find that SDA's do NOT quote from official Catholic sources.>>

You may not be an official source but any Bishop or Cardinal is and the SDA and I are not limited to the 100 year time zone you suggest. We also accept evidence from victims as late as the 1940's.

The Roman Catholic Church is the Greatest Church the world has ever seen because God made it; but it is not the Bride of Christ, it is the goat pen. The Roman Church is the continuation of Babylon; the beast with the gold head, silver chest, bronze middle and iron legs; the fate of the Papacy is set in history and prophesy and these are unchangeable, regardless of ecumenicalism  and the success of apologising Futurism. So your attempt to exclude the evidence that condemns the Papacy won't work; the course of prophesy and history cannot ultimately be changed; people can change, most people still have the offer of salvation.

<<The Ten Commandments, along with the rest of the laws of the Sinai Covenant are an implementation of moral laws, ceremonial observances, statutes etc. for the Israelites. >>
True.

<<As such they were never applicable to the Gentiles.>>
Can you quote a verse for this or an official document?  This is not a literal interpretation; this is an assumption at best. The Ten Commandments are the Covenant:

Exodus 34:28 (KJV)
28  And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Of course there is more to the covenant than the Ten Commandments, such as the kingdom of God and the shedding of Christ's blood, yet God defines the covenant as the Ten Commandments.

The Jews were always converting Gentiles, sometimes at the point of a sword, and this involved circumcision and the Ten Commandments.

Matthew 23:15 (NIV2011)
15  "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

It is true that the Covenant (Ten Commandments) was not specifically or universally offered to gentiles until Pentecost but gentiles have never been specifically excluded; conversion into Israel was always an option for gentiles.

We have a recent document wherein Catholics no longer hate Jews. I suggest that hatred of Jews was never the real issue but hatred of the God of Israel and His Covenant with Israel was the issue; the recrucifying Christ each Mass and the abrogating the covenant to the cross proves this point.
 
<<Yes, murder is morally wrong for everyone. I doubt there have ever been a civilisation without a law against murder. But the legal expression of that law for a particular country/civilisation is only applicable for those under that juridiction.
I live in England. If I commit a murder here I will be convicted under English Law. But if I go to France and commit a murder I will not be convicted under English law. It is not applicable to me in France.  I will be charged and convicted under French law.>>

You do not distinguish between the Law of God and the Law of men. The Law of God is the covenant; the law of men is the antithesis of God's Law.

<<Similarly I do not live under the Old Covenant but the New Covenant. Old Covenant Law has no legal jurisdiction over me.>>

You have disavowed God, He has no jurisdiction over you, little you know; the heart of both covenants is the Ten Commandments.

<<Saturday Sabbath keeping is not a moral issue. It was given to the Israelites as a sign of the Sinai Covenant. (Ex 31:12-13, 16-17). >>

The keeping of the Sabbath was and still is a sign of having entered into the Covenant. The Sabbath was sanctified and defined on the seventh day of creation presumably for the benefit of Adam and Eve and their descendants, and is called the Sabbath of the Lord. The fourth commandment is the greatest of the ten; it defines the God being worshiped.

The New Covenant is where one has the Law on one's forehead and no longer needs to learn the Law. It has never been the case that one could earn one's salvation by keeping the Law with either old or new; it has always the case that keeping the Law not in the spirit is to mock God; the difference between the old and the new: the old was where it was natural to not keep the Law and one had to deliberately keep the Law: the new is where it is natural for those who are called and chosen to keep the Law and to not keep the Law one has to deliberately resist keeping the Law of God. A test for whether one is Born again is does one have a desire to keep the commandments of God. Today people are taught that when saved it is offensive to God to keep His commandments; how many times has Christ said, "Keep my commandments", has anyone counted?

Hebrews 4:1-9 (ASV)
1  Let us fear therefore, lest haply, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it.
2  For indeed we have had good tidings preached unto us, even as also they: but the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith with them that heard.
3  For we who have believed do enter into that rest; even as he hath said, As I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4  For he hath said somewhere of the seventh day on this wise, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works;
5  and in this place again, They shall not enter into my rest.
6  Seeing therefore it remaineth that some should enter thereinto, and they to whom the good tidings were before preached failed to enter in because of disobedience,
7  he again defineth a certain day, To-day, saying in David so long a time afterward (even as hath been said before), To-day if ye shall hear his voice, Harden not your hearts.
8  For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day.
9  There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God.

[winsome]

<<As I have already said you should be looking at official (authoritative) documents not some random publications.
Why do you keep quoting from this sort of stuff? "The Clifton Tracts" – whatever they are – are not official documents
Is it because you cannot find any official backing for your errors about the Catholic Church?>>

<<[ Added: I was thinking here of relatively recent documents (say last 100 years). Older official documents such as the decrees of past Ecumenical Councils (e.g. Trent)  and Papal decrees will not be on the Vatican web site]>>

This seems to me to be an admission of guilt; it is amazing the way things get twisted around. You have missed the whole point; it is the authority of the Catholic Church that is accused and primarily Catholic documents older than 100 years are acceptable as evidence.

An admission of guilt of what?

And why do you think it is an admission of guilt?

I'm pointing out that if you want to know what the Catholic Church actually teaches then you should be using official/authoritative sources.  Quoting from some random non authoritative source is not evidence of that the Catholic Church actually teaches.

I have given you two quotations  from good official/authoritative sources that show that the Church does not teach that it changed the Sabbath to Sunday.

>>Then why is a non-SDA attacking Catholics in the SDA forum?>>

I'm sure I don't know what to make of this; can you quote a Bible verse or an official document?

What?

<<But I think you will find that SDA's do NOT quote from official Catholic sources.>>

You may not be an official source but any Bishop or Cardinal is and the SDA and I are not limited to the 100 year time zone you suggest. We also accept evidence from victims as late as the 1940's.

A Bishop or Cardinal is more of an official sources than some random publication but it is still just his opinion. It does not carry the same weight as something like the decrees of an Ecumenical Coluncil, the Catechism of the Catholic Church or major Papal statements. They should always be consulted first.

I didn't suggest you keep only to documents in the last 100 years. I suggested that a crude guide for authoritativeness was whether it was on the Vatican web site - but that only applies to documents within the last 100 years. Prior to that you need to go to other sources. But you need to go to authoritative sources not random publications.

The Roman Catholic Church is the Greatest Church the world has ever seen because God made it; but it is not the Bride of Christ, it is the goat pen. The Roman Church is the continuation of Babylon; the beast with the gold head, silver chest, bronze middle and iron legs; the fate of the Papacy is set in history and prophesy and these are unchangeable, regardless of ecumenicalism  and the success of apologising Futurism. So your attempt to exclude the evidence that condemns the Papacy won't work; the course of prophesy and history cannot ultimately be changed; people can change, most people still have the offer of salvation.

Totally off topic.

It's typical of Catholic Bashers than when cornered they try and divert into some rant against the Catholic Church that has nothing to do with the topic.

Do you want a sensible discussion or just to sound off your anti-Catholic bigotry?

<<The Ten Commandments, along with the rest of the laws of the Sinai Covenant are an implementation of moral laws, ceremonial observances, statutes etc. for the Israelites. >>
True.

<<As such they were never applicable to the Gentiles.>>
Can you quote a verse for this or an official document?  This is not a literal interpretation; this is an assumption at best. The Ten Commandments are the Covenant:

Exodus 34:28 (KJV)
28  And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Of course there is more to the covenant than the Ten Commandments, such as the kingdom of God and the shedding of Christ's blood, yet God defines the covenant as the Ten Commandments.

The Jews were always converting Gentiles, sometimes at the point of a sword, and this involved circumcision and the Ten Commandments.

Matthew 23:15 (NIV2011)
15  "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

It is true that the Covenant (Ten Commandments) was not specifically or universally offered to gentiles until Pentecost but gentiles have never been specifically excluded; conversion into Israel was always an option for gentiles.

Gentiles that converted to Judaism became Jews and entered into the Sinai Covenant.

Do you consider yourself a Jew and bound by the Jewish laws?

We have a recent document wherein Catholics no longer hate Jews. I suggest that hatred of Jews was never the real issue but hatred of the God of Israel and His Covenant with Israel was the issue; the recrucifying Christ each Mass and the abrogating the covenant to the cross proves this point.

This is another attempt to divert away from the topic. 

<<Yes, murder is morally wrong for everyone. I doubt there have ever been a civilisation without a law against murder. But the legal expression of that law for a particular country/civilisation is only applicable for those under that juridiction.
I live in England. If I commit a murder here I will be convicted under English Law. But if I go to France and commit a murder I will not be convicted under English law. It is not applicable to me in France.  I will be charged and convicted under French law.>>

You do not distinguish between the Law of God and the Law of men. The Law of God is the covenant; the law of men is the antithesis of God's Law.

All the Laws that God gave to the Israelites at Sinai are God's Law forthe Israelites not just the Ten Commandments. The Law is indivisible.

<<Similarly I do not live under the Old Covenant but the New Covenant. Old Covenant Law has no legal jurisdiction over me.>>

You have disavowed God, He has no jurisdiction over you, little you know; the heart of both covenants is the Ten Commandments.

I have done no such thing. The heart of both Covenants are God's moral laws. They are more than the Ten Commandments and not all the Ten Commandments are eternal moral laws. I live under the New Covenant not the Old Covenant.

<<Saturday Sabbath keeping is not a moral issue. It was given to the Israelites as a sign of the Sinai Covenant. (Ex 31:12-13, 16-17). >>

The keeping of the Sabbath was and still is a sign of having entered into the Covenant. The Sabbath was sanctified and defined on the seventh day of creation presumably for the benefit of Adam and Eve and their descendants, and is called the Sabbath of the Lord. The fourth commandment is the greatest of the ten; it defines the God being worshiped.

No it is not the sign of both Covenants. It was the sign of the Old Sinai Covenant. The one that was legally abrogated.

The New Covenant is where one has the Law on one's forehead and no longer needs to learn the Law. It has never been the case that one could earn one's salvation by keeping the Law with either old or new; it has always the case that keeping the Law not in the spirit is to mock God; the difference between the old and the new: the old was where it was natural to not keep the Law and one had to deliberately keep the Law: the new is where it is natural for those who are called and chosen to keep the Law and to not keep the Law one has to deliberately resist keeping the Law of God. A test for whether one is Born again is does one have a desire to keep the commandments of God. Today people are taught that when saved it is offensive to God to keep His commandments; how many times has Christ said, "Keep my commandments", has anyone counted?

Hebrews 4:1-9 (ASV)
1  Let us fear therefore, lest haply, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it.
2  For indeed we have had good tidings preached unto us, even as also they: but the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith with them that heard.
3  For we who have believed do enter into that rest; even as he hath said, As I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4  For he hath said somewhere of the seventh day on this wise, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works;
5  and in this place again, They shall not enter into my rest.
6  Seeing therefore it remaineth that some should enter thereinto, and they to whom the good tidings were before preached failed to enter in because of disobedience,
7  he again defineth a certain day, To-day, saying in David so long a time afterward (even as hath been said before), To-day if ye shall hear his voice, Harden not your hearts.
8  For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day.
9  There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God.

More off topic stuff /I shall ignore it.

[DaveW]

Dave you are a skilled apologist, so skilled has apologetics become there should be a place for it in the Olympic Games; tuning a lie into a perceived truth, neutralising the truth by confusion; for the last ten years I have been watching politicians do this. What the Catholic teaches seems to variy from person to person and from time to time.

Interesting.  I am "apologist" for the Catholic Church?  Since when?

I will submit that to TRUE catholics Winsome and Catholica:  When have I ever spoken on behalf of or been an apologist for the RCC?

[Amo]

A few more sites if interest concerning the topic at hand.

http://www.free-sunday.eu/en

http://www.europeansundayalliance.eu/site/euelections2014thepledge

http://csc.ceceurope.org/fileadmin/filer/csc/SundayAlliance/European_Sunday_Alliance_Programme_Jan2014.pdf

http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/church-sunday/

http://spectator.sme.sk/articles/view/52757/10/work_free_sunday_supported_by_tens_of_thousands.html

http://www.florencedailynews.com/news/european-day-for-a-work-free-sunday-demonstrations-in-florence/

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120304/local/leave-sunday-work-free-bishop-grech.409645#.UursZ7S69co

[johnm]

<<[ Added: I was thinking here of relatively recent documents (say last 100 years). Older official documents such as the decrees of past Ecumenical Councils (e.g. Trent)  and Papal decrees will not be on the Vatican web site]>>

This seems to me to be an admission of guilt; it is amazing the way things get twisted around. You have missed the whole point; it is the authority of the Catholic Church that is accused and primarily Catholic documents older than 100 years are acceptable as evidence.

<<An admission of guilt of what?
And why do you think it is an admission of guilt?>>

<<I'm pointing out that if you want to know what the Catholic Church actually teaches then you should be using official/authoritative sources.  Quoting from some random non authoritative source is not evidence of that the Catholic Church actually teaches.>>

Now it is you who is off topic; what the Catholic Church teaches has never been on topic; changing the Sabbath to Sunday is on topic, as is the false Authority of the Papacy in making the Changes, on topic. The fact that you tried to limit the evidence to the last 100 years, and then only official Papal documents, on a SDA forum makes you a comedian.

[johnm]

<<Dave you are a skilled apologist, so skilled has apologetics become there should be a place for it in the Olympic Games; tuning a lie into a perceived truth, neutralising the truth by confusion; for the last ten years I have been watching politicians do this. What the Catholic teaches seems to variy from person to person and from time to time.

Interesting.  I am "apologist" for the Catholic Church?  Since when?

I will submit that to TRUE catholics Winsome and Catholica:  When have I ever spoken on behalf of or been an apologist for the RCC?>>

I humbly apologise; from the rest of my post you should have realised that I was referring to winsome/lose some.