Sabbath, Sunday, and Legalism

[piecrust]

Is this about the supposed Sunday law?

[Amo]

Is this about the supposed Sunday law?

There is no supposed Sunday law. There are presently many Sunday laws, and there has always been Sunday laws for about 1700 years now.

[piecrust]

There is no supposed Sunday law. There are presently many Sunday laws, and there has always been Sunday laws for about 1700 years now.

How do they affect your freedom to worship when you want to?

[Amo]

How do they affect your freedom to worship when you want to?

http://www.archive.org/stream/sundaylegislat00lewi#page/n19/mode/2up

This link was provided in the opening post of this thread. You are welcome to read the book provided there and learns some things. Plenty of people have been adversely effected by Sunday laws throughout history. True Christianity is not about simple self, and how self alone is effected by anything. To the contrary, it is all about concern for the well being and salvation of others. Deception destroys. Any "Christian" anywhere forcing their beliefs upon another through civil legislation is deceived and in danger of losing salvation.

[piecrust]

http://www.archive.org/stream/sundaylegislat00lewi#page/n19/mode/2up

This link was provided in the opening post of this thread. You are welcome to read the book provided there and learns some things. Plenty of people have been adversely effected by Sunday laws throughout history. True Christianity is not about simple self, and how self alone is effected by anything. To the contrary, it is all about concern for the well being and salvation of others. Deception destroys. Any "Christian" anywhere forcing their beliefs upon another through civil legislation is deceived and in danger of losing salvation.

Paranoid, Amo?

Do you watch the Xfiles?

I am not aware of anyone stopping you worshiping when you wish. 

[Amo]

Paranoid, Amo?

Do you watch the Xfiles?

I am not aware of anyone stopping you worshiping when you wish.

Ignorant scoffer, piecrust?

You are not aware of a lot of things. The does make any of them imaginary. You are ignorant of many realities of history, and of what I and SDA's actually believe in relation to Sunday laws and the why and when of forced worship. Some of this is no doubt willing ignorance. So be it.

[piecrust]

Ignorant scoffer, piecrust?

You are not aware of a lot of things. The does make any of them imaginary. You are ignorant of many realities of history, and of what I and SDA's actually believe in relation to Sunday laws and the why and when of forced worship. Some of this is no doubt willing ignorance. So be it.

I am still not aware of anyone stopping you worship when you wish.  Really.

[Amo]

I am still not aware of anyone stopping you worship when you wish.  Really.

You are not aware of a lot of things. Neither is this thread about people being prevented from worshiping when they wish, though many have tried to prevent the same, many times throughout history. It is about which of the two days of worship among "Christians" more rightly represents legalism, Sabbath, or Sunday.

https://orthodoxchurchfathers.com/fathers/npnf214/npnf2160.htm#P3294_592503

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXIX.

A Christian shall not stop work on the Sabbath, but on the Lords Day.

Balsamon.

Here the Fathers order that no one of the faithful shall stop work on the Sabbath as do the Jews, but that they should honour the Lord's Day; on account of the Lord's resurrection, and that on that day they should abstain from manual labour and go to church. But thus abstaining from work on Sunday they do not lay down as a necessity, but they add, "if they can." For if through need or any other necessity any one worked on the Lord's day this was not reckoned against him.

[piecrust]

Amo, which day do YOU go to church?  Do you have freedom to do so?  If not, who stops you?

[Amo]

Amo, which day do YOU go to church?  Do you have freedom to do so?  If not, who stops you?

Here is the opening post on this thread -

The following internet site contains a book concerning the very numerous Sunday laws throughout history.

http://www.archive.org/stream/sundaylegislat00lewi#page/n3/mode/2up

In light of the fact, that Sunday keepers have repeatedly throughout history appealed to the civil authorities to enforce their day of worship upon all, how is it that those who keep the fourth commandment by faith in the word of God, are the ones always accused of being legalistic?

We appeal to all to obey all the commandments of God by faith in His holy word, which admonishes us to do so from one end of the bible to the other.  We appeal to personal conviction and reason alone for this act of faith, and never to civil legislation which Sunday keepers habitually appeal to, and yet we are the ones accused of legalism.  This makes no sense at all.  How can appealing to others to believe and obey the word of God by faith in that word be considered legalism, while appealing to others to keep a day holy which the scriptures never even address as such, and then making laws to force everyone to do so, be considered faith?

While it is certainly possible to keep the seventh day Sabbath for the wrong reason, i.e. legalistically, it is just as certainly possible to keep the commandment by faith in the word of God, and out of love for the author of the same.  The same can not be said though about Sunday observance.  There is no command concerning it in the word of God, nor is it even addressed at all as a day of worship in the same.  Thus it is impossible to keep it by faith in the word of God, or out of love and respect for the authority of His word.  The writer contends that this is exactly why Sunday keepers have appealed to civil legislation to enforce their day upon all throughout history.  That is, because there is no command or authority from God and His scriptures to do so.  Thus the establishment of Sunday as a sacred day by civil law is in fact verily the establishment of legalism.

Yet it is those of us who keep the seventh day by faith alone in the word of God, that are continually accused of being the legalistic.  How unfortunate that child or reverse psychology is so successful among professing adults.

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17 (KJV)

If what you believe and preach is not to be found in the word of God, then it is not by faith.  If it is not by faith, then it is of works.  The latter alone is not acceptable to God.  The only works that are acceptable to God, are those performed by faith.  This is of course because they demonstrate ones willing submission to God, and therefore their faith and trust in His word, and trustworthy authority.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Romans 3:31 (KJV)

True faith does not make void the law of God, but rather establishes the same.

Please do address the issue of this thread if you wish. If you want to start another thread to address your question above, please do. I will gladly address the issue in that thread. I will not continue to address it in this thread and thereby support your hijacking of the same.

[piecrust]

Please try to answer the question Amo.   I see no point in rereading stuff.

[beam]

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Romans 3:31 (KJV)

Hi Amo, you use the text above to try to prove your point.  Yet you refuse to acknowledge all of the many texts that tell us that the old covenant laws are done away.  I agree that we are not lawless, but to what law are we subject is the conundrum.

Even the Israelite people (to whom the law was given initially—Deuteronomy 5:1-5) have been released from the Mosaic code. The following list reflects some of the terms used in the New Testament to signify that severance: "fulfilled" (Matthew 5:17), "dead to," (Romans 7:4), "discharged from" (Romans 7:6), "passing away" (2 Corinthians 3:7, 11, 13), "no longer under" (Galatians 3:25), "no longer bondservant" (Galatians 4:7), "set free" (Galatians 5:1), "called for freedom" (Galatians 5:13), "broke down" and "abolished" (Ephesians 2:14-15), "counted as loss" (Philippians 3:7), "taken away; nailed to the cross" (Colossians 2:14), "no longer judged by law" (Colossians 2:16), a "new, better covenant," with "better promises" than bestowed under the "old" covenant (Hebrews 8:6, 13).

Such expressions could be multiplied, but these should be sufficient to show that the Mosaic code, as a law system, is no longer in force.  Excerpts from The Meaning of Romans 3:31
By Wayne Jackson

[Amo]

Please try to answer the question Amo.   I see no point in rereading stuff.

No. Start another thread, stop trying to hijack this one.

[Amo]

Hi Amo, you use the text above to try to prove your point.  Yet you refuse to acknowledge all of the many texts that tell us that the old covenant laws are done away.  I agree that we are not lawless, but to what law are we subject is the conundrum.

Even the Israelite people (to whom the law was given initially—Deuteronomy 5:1-5) have been released from the Mosaic code. The following list reflects some of the terms used in the New Testament to signify that severance: "fulfilled" (Matthew 5:17), "dead to," (Romans 7:4), "discharged from" (Romans 7:6), "passing away" (2 Corinthians 3:7, 11, 13), "no longer under" (Galatians 3:25), "no longer bondservant" (Galatians 4:7), "set free" (Galatians 5:1), "called for freedom" (Galatians 5:13), "broke down" and "abolished" (Ephesians 2:14-15), "counted as loss" (Philippians 3:7), "taken away; nailed to the cross" (Colossians 2:14), "no longer judged by law" (Colossians 2:16), a "new, better covenant," with "better promises" than bestowed under the "old" covenant (Hebrews 8:6, 13).

Such expressions could be multiplied, but these should be sufficient to show that the Mosaic code, as a law system, is no longer in force.  Excerpts from The Meaning of Romans 3:31
By Wayne Jackson

Same issue. Start another thread. We have already discussed the above several times on other threads and even perhaps this one. This thread is about the legalism of either Sunday sacredness or the seventh day Sabbath. The ten commandments are not Mosaic code.

[beam]

Same issue. Start another thread. We have already discussed the above several times on other threads and even perhaps this one. This thread is about the legalism of either Sunday sacredness or the seventh-day Sabbath. The ten commandments are not Mosaic code.

On the contrary.  Proving that we are not under the laws of the old covenant clears up whether we are subject to the Sabbath of that covenant.  There is absolutely nothing about Sunday being sacred.  That is a delusion propagated by the SDA church.  The 10 commandments certainly were part of the code.  They were written in the book of the law.

[Amo]

On the contrary.  Proving that we are not under the laws of the old covenant clears up whether we are subject to the Sabbath of that covenant.  There is absolutely nothing about Sunday being sacred.  That is a delusion propagated by the SDA church.  The 10 commandments certainly were part of the code.  They were written in the book of the law.

Your prejudice against your former denomination has made your mind so very twisted. Now are you claiming that SDA's invented the idea of Sunday sacredness? Would you like me to bring forth many quotes from professed Christians around long before SDA's ever existed, about Sunday sacredness?

The ten commandments were spoken by the mouth of God to Israel, and written twice with the finger of God for Israel and all humanity. God did not allow Moses to rewrite the ten commandments after he smashed the first tables of stone, but had him traverse the mountain once again that God Himself could write them again. No man but the man Jesus Christ who is also God could ever change or do away with the ten commandments. You do reject the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior by rejecting His words regarding the law, and making the words of His chosen apostles contradict His own.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Joh 12:44  Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. 45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. 46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness  47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

You should concern yourself with lining the words of the apostles up with their own Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, rather than twisting them to contradict the same. Otherwise they might both condemn you at the judgment.

[piecrust]

No. Start another thread, stop trying to hijack this one.

Asking you to answer a question is hijacking the thread?

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihm5VxHFz_Y

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

Excerpts from -

DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, having received the opinion of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, has decided that it would be appropriate to publish the present Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life. This Note is directed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church and, in a particular way, to Catholic politicians and all lay members of the faithful called to participate in the political life of democratic societies.

(Quotes from the above are in black, my comments are in blue. For purposes of clarification, this repost was originally written during the Obama administration. Closing statement is not part of the same.)

I. A constant teaching

1. The commitment of Christians in the world has found a variety of expressions in the course of the past 2000 years. One such expression has been Christian involvement in political life: Christians, as one Early Church writer stated, play their full role as citizen. Among the saints, the Church venerates many men and women who served God through their generous commitment to politics and government. Among these, Saint Thomas More, who was proclaimed Patron of Statesmen and Politicians, gave witness by his martyrdom to the inalienable dignity of the human conscience.  Though subjected to various forms of psychological pressure, Saint Thomas More refused to compromise, never forsaking the constant fidelity to legitimate authority and institutions which distinguished him; he taught by his life and his death that «man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality.

Of course, as a Roman Catholic, the fidelity to legitimate authority and institutions spoken of above, would naturally be foremost the Roman Catholic Church itself.  "St" Thomas More died defending the supremacy of the Pope over the Church in England.  He fought against having the scriptures in English, beginning the process which caused William Tyndale to be burned at the stake for the same, and was responsible for others also being burned at the stake. Yet he is not only a saint of the Roman Catholic Church, but was made the Patron Saint of Politicians by the church, and is set forth at the beginning of this document as a fine, saintly example of Catholic participation in political life.  This in and of itself should send up many red flags and danger warnings.  It is certainly worthy of note that this man is chosen and set forth as an example of proper "Participation of Catholics in Political Life".

By fulfilling their civic duties, guided by a Christian conscience, in conformity with its values, the lay faithful exercise their proper task of infusing the temporal order with Christian values, all the while respecting the nature and rightful autonomy of that order, and cooperating with other citizens according to their particular competence and responsibility. The consequence of this fundamental teaching of the Second Vatican Council is that the lay faithful are never to relinquish their participation in 'public life', that is, in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good. This would include the promotion and defence of goods such as public order and peace, freedom and equality, respect for human life and for the environment, justice and solidarity.

Of course the "Christian values" promoted above, would be Roman Catholic values. The logical conclusion being the lay faithful implementing the political ideology, or social doctrine of the Church in government.  The concern for every thinking individual should be, how closely will that scenario align with the actual establishment of the same situation during the dark ages, and more recently the political alignments of the Church of Rome with Nazi Germany and Mussolini in Italy. 

The term common good in the above needs to be addressed, since the term is used so very  often by the Church of Rome.  All political aims and goals should work toward the common good.  This sounds great, but just exactly who is determining what the common good is?  Who will define what the common good is, that Rome intends the political structures of this world to dole out to the same?  She herself is continuously referring to, and defining the same.  Even claiming the role of the purifier of reason in relation to the common good.

II. Central points in the current cultural and political debate

The growth in the sense of responsibility towards countries still on the path of development is without doubt an important sign, illustrative of a greater sensitivity to the common good. At the same time, however, one cannot close one's eyes to the real dangers which certain tendencies in society are promoting through legislation, nor can one ignore the effects this will have on future generations.
A kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualization and defence of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the principles of the natural moral law. Furthermore, it is not unusual to hear the opinion expressed in the public sphere that such ethical pluralism is the very condition for democracy. As a result, citizens claim complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices, and lawmakers maintain that they are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends, as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value. At the same time, the value of tolerance is disingenuously invoked when a large number of citizens, Catholics among them, are asked not to base their contribution to society and political life – through the legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy – on their particular understanding of the human person and the common good. The history of the twentieth century demonstrates that those citizens were right who recognized the falsehood of relativism, and with it, the notion that there is no moral law rooted in the nature of the human person, which must govern our understanding of man, the common good and the state.

What is the above argument, but that the different outlooks upon life, and their political eventualities are not all equal.  While one can easily agree upon this point, the real point of the above is of course, that Roman Catholic reason and sense of the common good is superior to all others.  This to the point that we should be allowing them to be the main contributor or purifier of reason and the common good.  As I have already pointed out in a previous examination of DEUS CARITAS EST, the Catholic church believes "it is the place of the Church to determine more precisely "the just ordering of society", and to purify reason for the state in order for it to properly operate."

While there are many political ideologies with definite amoral leanings to be dealt with, it would be a serious mistake to politically align with, and submit to the church of Rome in combatting the same.  No political entity on earth has a longer, bloodier, and disreputable past from which to be warned against the dangers of allowing it once again to gain political power and control over nations and peoples.  There is a real danger in it's present course of mobilizing and rekindling the political ambitions of the large numbers of  politicians and citizens within democratic societies, under her direct guidance and supervision.

3. Such relativism, of course, has nothing to do with the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good. Political freedom is not – and cannot be – based upon the relativistic idea that all conceptions of the human person's good have the same value and truth, but rather, on the fact that politics are concerned with very concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural contexts. 

Of course, as already stated, the church of Rome itself reserves the right to rightly define common good, and purify reason in regards to the same.  As the above clearly states, Catholic citizens are to choose and thus also support those political opinions which are compatible with their faith and natural law, which themselves are defined for them by the church.  Once again we are informed that not all "conceptions of the human person's good have the same value and truth".  For the Catholic of course, the churches conception of the same, is superior.

The article then refers to politics concern with concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural contexts.  Again, who is defining these concrete realizations?  The Catholic church is in complete denial of the true extent of it's totally abusive history when kings and queens and governments of the past actually did submit to it's economic and political thought. Nor do the vast majority of the countless Catholic citizens it is calling into action to re-establish it's authority over the same once again, really know of this history.  Being raised with Roman Catholic revisionist history alone, as their teacher.  I have been repeatedly confronted by Roman Catholics on these boards that completely deny all historical facts presented to them by sources outside of their own church as false and lies.  This is what can be expected by these, who intend to take over democratic societies by their large numbers and vast political influence with the kings and governments of this world.

All of the concrete realities mentioned in the above, would be effected by the same.  Nothing is more clearly revealed by history in relation to the Roman Catholic church, that when she has the numbers or sheer political strength to do so, she will completely dominate all areas of life.

It is not the Church's task to set forth specific political solutions – and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one – to temporal questions that God has left to the free and responsible judgment of each person. It is, however, the Church's right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters when this is required by faith or the moral law. If Christians must recognize the legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization of worldly affairs, they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.

Where is this right, duty, or responsibility of the church defined or outlined for us in the Holy scriptures?  It is not.  Nor is it the right, duty, or moral obligation of Christ's church to purify reason and define the common good for the various political entities of this world, in this day or any other.  We have already seen in the pages of history, what this leads to.  The churches involvement in the politics of this world does not lead to the purification of the same, but rather to the complete corruption of the church.  This is the history that Roman Catholicism denies both in historical content, and present practice.  Which very thing itself completely disqualifies her as a purifying and competent reasoning entity upon the politics of this world.

On the level of concrete political action, there can generally be a plurality of political parties in which Catholics may exercise – especially through legislative assemblies – their right and duty to contribute to the public life of their country.

What is the purpose of legislative assemblies, but to create and pass laws? Does the following sound familiar -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Is it not obvious, that the above admonition from the Pope applies to all the Catholic members of the congress of the United States.  There are 156 Catholic members of the US congress.  All of whom, have been summoned by the Pope to implement "the Church's right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters".  This is not to mentioin the six out of nine Cathoilic Supreme Court Justices, and majority vote on any issue.  Or the Catholic Vice President, occupying the Executive branch of our government.  All have been called to help politically implement the purifying of reason, and establishment of the common good as defined by the church of Rome within this country.  Not to mention every other country in the world.

The legitimate plurality of temporal options is at the origin of the commitment of Catholics to politics and relates directly to Christian moral and social teaching. It is in the light of this teaching that lay Catholics must assess their participation in political life so as to be sure that it is marked by a coherent responsibility for temporal reality.
The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent.

What a mouthful.  Isn't it wonderful how simple and to the point papal documents are?  Forgive my sarcasm.  Nothing could be more obvious from their documents, it seems to me, that the Popes are far more the politician, than religious leaders that wish to simplify and declare religious truth.

Of course the correct understanding of the human person mentioned above, which dictates a Catholics "involvement in political life" is defined by the church of Rome. Which of course again, is nothing but to say that Rome is in charge of the political life of its members, and its members should seek to establish that political life in whatever government or nation they find themselves in.  Which of course simply means that Rome should be running that government, and all governments in which Catholics are a majority, or simply capable of making such take place.  Nothing new here, Rome intends to rule the world through vast numbers or political intrigue.

What is new in the above statement, is the assertion that without Catholic involvement in political life directed by the churches understanding of the human person, "the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent."  Wow! This is basically admitting, that without its involvement in the politics of this world, the Roman Catholic church would not exist.  That is very significant, since there is no admonition in new covenant scripture to be involved in the politics of this world.  To the contrary, they testify to the exact opposite state of being for the truly faithful.

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Matt 22:21 (KJV)

The two are to be kept separate always.  This for the most obvious of reasons.  I will simply state the word POLITICIAN, and ask you to think of the first thing that enters your mind, and we will leave it at that.

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church's social doctrine does not exhaust one's responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

This is actually getting boring.  More of the same.  Catholics are to support the church fully, without deviating from her proscribed course, concerning political action in democratic societies.  They are most certainly to put their faith, that is the mandates of the church into political action.

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person.

One must ask, what exactly is an inalienable ethical demand?  Is this not an oxymoron?  While we all have no doubt heard of inalienable rights, what on earth is an inalienable demand.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"(The Declaration of Independence)

Inalienable : incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred  *inalienable rights*



As pointed out in the beginning of linked video, Catholic politicians have taken it upon themselves to redefine and implement their version of unalienable rights as set forth in The Declaration of Independence of these United States. This they do as minions of the papacy, not by the will or consent of the people being governed as the Declaration points out, but by the dictates of the unelected self appointed ruler of this and all nations, the Pope of Rome. This is the repudiation of the Protestant influenced form of government for the people and by the people established by our founding fathers, to be replaced by Roman Catholic influenced government for the Pope and by the Pope. So Anti-Christ and BABYLON THE GREAT, continue mounting the final beast of biblical prophecy that they may ride it and all who follow straight into the lake of fire. So be it.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFzK5LzZwws

The following quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church may be viewed at the link provided above it.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6U.HTM

Catechism of the Catholic Church

IntraText - Text
PART THREE: LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION ONE MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
CHAPTER THREE GOD'S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE
Article 1 THE MORAL LAW
I. The Natural Moral Law
Previous - Next
Click here to show the links to concordance
I. The Natural Moral Law

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good.

The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5

1955 The "divine and natural" law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. the natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one's equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7

The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense .... To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9

1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. the rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11

1959 The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

The papacy of course defines natural law, while the bible of course defines God's law. Natural law is for all humanity as defined by the Pope and Catholocism, God's law is for those in Christ Jesus alone. Natural law is part of the church of Rome's common good to be enforced upon all for the same. God's law is to be obeyed by faith in Christ Jesus.

THE CHURCH OF ROME, AND THE COMMON GOOD
(All emphasis mine)

Excerpts from -
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life


Indeed, all can contribute, by voting in elections for lawmakers and government officials, and in other ways as well, to the development of political solutions and legislative choices which, in their opinion, will benefit the common good.

The consequence of this fundamental teaching of the Second Vatican Council is that «the lay faithful are never to relinquish their participation in 'public life', that is, in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good

2. Civil society today is undergoing a complex cultural process as the end of an era brings with it a time of uncertainty in the face of something new. The great strides made in our time give evidence of humanity's progress in attaining conditions of life which are more in keeping with human dignity.  The growth in the sense of responsibility towards countries still on the path of development is without doubt an important sign, illustrative of a greater sensitivity to the common good. 

At the same time, the value of tolerance is disingenuously invoked when a large number of citizens, Catholics among them, are asked not to base their contribution to society and political life – through the legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy – on their particular understanding of the human person and the common good. The history of the twentieth century demonstrates that those citizens were right who recognized the falsehood of relativism, and with it, the notion that there is no moral law rooted in the nature of the human person, which must govern our understanding of man, the common good and the state. 

3. Such relativism, of course, has nothing to do with the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good. 

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church's social doctrine does not exhaust one's responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

In addition, there is the right to religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good, with respect for social justice, the principles of human solidarity and subsidiarity, according to which «the rights of all individuals, families, and organizations and their practical implementation must be acknowledged

5. While a plurality of methodologies reflective of different sensibilities and cultures can be legitimate in approaching such questions, no Catholic can appeal to the principle of pluralism or to the autonomy of lay involvement in political life to support policies affecting the common good which compromise or undermine fundamental ethical requirements. 

They do not require from those who defend them the profession of the Christian faith, although the Church's teaching confirms and defends them always and everywhere as part of her service to the truth about man and about the common good of civil society. Moreover, it cannot be denied that politics must refer to principles of absolute value precisely because these are at the service of the dignity of the human person and of true human progress.

6. The appeal often made to «the rightful autonomy of the participation of lay Catholics» in politics needs to be clarified. Promoting the common good of society, according to one's conscience, has nothing to do with confessionalism or religious intolerance. 

Those who, on the basis of respect for individual conscience, would view the moral duty of Christians to act according to their conscience as something that disqualifies them from political life, denying the legitimacy of their political involvement following from their convictions about the common good, would be guilty of a form of intolerant secularism. 


Excerpts from -
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
CARITAS IN VERITATE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS
PRIESTS AND DEACONS
MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS
THE LAY FAITHFUL
AND ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL
ON INTEGRAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
IN CHARITY AND TRUTH

6. "Caritas in veritate" is the principle around which the Church's social doctrine turns, a principle that takes on practical form in the criteria that govern moral action. I would like to consider two of these in particular, of special relevance to the commitment to development in an increasingly globalized society: justice and the common good.

7. Another important consideration is the common good. To love someone is to desire that person's good and to take effective steps to secure it. Besides the good of the individual, there is a good that is linked to living in society: the common good. It is the good of "all of us", made up of individuals, families and intermediate groups who together constitute society[4]. It is a good that is sought not for its own sake, but for the people who belong to the social community and who can only really and effectively pursue their good within it. To desire the common good and strive towards it is a requirement of justice and charity. To take a stand for the common good is on the one hand to be solicitous for, and on the other hand to avail oneself of, that complex of institutions that give structure to the life of society, juridically, civilly, politically and culturally, making it the pólis, or "city". The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them.

In an increasingly globalized society, the common good and the effort to obtain it cannot fail to assume the dimensions of the whole human family, that is to say, the community of peoples and nations[5], in such a way as to shape the earthly city in unity and peace, rendering it to some degree an anticipation and a prefiguration of the undivided city of God.

Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.

36. Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility.

. In the global era, economic activity cannot prescind from gratuitousness, which fosters and disseminates solidarity and responsibility for justice and the common good among the different economic players.

Duties thereby reinforce rights and call for their defence and promotion as a task to be undertaken in the service of the common good. Otherwise, if the only basis of human rights is to be found in the deliberations of an assembly of citizens, those rights can be changed at any time, and so the duty to respect and pursue them fades from the common consciousness.

Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal[133]. Discernment is needed regarding the contribution of cultures and religions, especially on the part of those who wield political power, if the social community is to be built up in a spirit of respect for the common good.

Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued.

67. In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect[146] and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights[148]. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization[149]. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.

Development is impossible without upright men and women, without financiers and politicians whose consciences are finely attuned to the requirements of the common good. Both professional competence and moral consistency are necessary.

Mirroring what is required for an ethical approach to globalization and development, so too the meaning and purpose of the media must be sought within an anthropological perspective. This means that they can have a civilizing effect not only when, thanks to technological development, they increase the possibilities of communicating information, but above all when they are geared towards a vision of the person and the common good that reflects truly universal values.


CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

2188 In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church's holy days as legal holidays. They have to give everyone a public example of prayer, respect, and joy and defend their traditions as a precious contribution to the spiritual life of society. If a country's legislation or other reasons require work on Sunday, the day should nevertheless be lived as the day of our deliverance which lets us share in this "festal gathering," this "assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven."[125]


As the above quotes reveal, the church of Rome intends to implement its own natural law and common good universally on a global scale. This will include of course Sunday sacredness laws which are themselves for the common good as defined by the church of Rome. Such will represent nothing less than the universal rejection of God's law by fallen humanity, in favor of man made law, in direct rebellion against the authority of God in Christ Jesus our Savior.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[beam]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihm5VxHFz_Y

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

Excerpts from -

DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding
The Participation of Catholics in Political Life
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, having received the opinion of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, has decided that it would be appropriate to publish the present Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life. This Note is directed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church and, in a particular way, to Catholic politicians and all lay members of the faithful called to participate in the political life of democratic societies.

(Quotes from the above are in black, my comments are in blue. For purposes of clarification, this repost was originally written during the Obama administration. Closing statement is not part of the same.)

I. A constant teaching

1. The commitment of Christians in the world has found a variety of expressions in the course of the past 2000 years. One such expression has been Christian involvement in political life: Christians, as one Early Church writer stated, play their full role as citizen. Among the saints, the Church venerates many men and women who served God through their generous commitment to politics and government. Among these, Saint Thomas More, who was proclaimed Patron of Statesmen and Politicians, gave witness by his martyrdom to the inalienable dignity of the human conscience.  Though subjected to various forms of psychological pressure, Saint Thomas More refused to compromise, never forsaking the constant fidelity to legitimate authority and institutions which distinguished him; he taught by his life and his death that «man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality.

Of course, as a Roman Catholic, the fidelity to legitimate authority and institutions spoken of above, would naturally be foremost the Roman Catholic Church itself.  "St" Thomas More died defending the supremacy of the Pope over the Church in England.  He fought against having the scriptures in English, beginning the process which caused William Tyndale to be burned at the stake for the same, and was responsible for others also being burned at the stake. Yet he is not only a saint of the Roman Catholic Church, but was made the Patron Saint of Politicians by the church, and is set forth at the beginning of this document as a fine, saintly example of Catholic participation in political life.  This in and of itself should send up many red flags and danger warnings.  It is certainly worthy of note that this man is chosen and set forth as an example of proper "Participation of Catholics in Political Life".

By fulfilling their civic duties, guided by a Christian conscience, in conformity with its values, the lay faithful exercise their proper task of infusing the temporal order with Christian values, all the while respecting the nature and rightful autonomy of that order, and cooperating with other citizens according to their particular competence and responsibility. The consequence of this fundamental teaching of the Second Vatican Council is that the lay faithful are never to relinquish their participation in 'public life', that is, in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good. This would include the promotion and defence of goods such as public order and peace, freedom and equality, respect for human life and for the environment, justice and solidarity.

Of course the "Christian values" promoted above, would be Roman Catholic values. The logical conclusion being the lay faithful implementing the political ideology, or social doctrine of the Church in government.  The concern for every thinking individual should be, how closely will that scenario align with the actual establishment of the same situation during the dark ages, and more recently the political alignments of the Church of Rome with Nazi Germany and Mussolini in Italy. 

The term common good in the above needs to be addressed, since the term is used so very  often by the Church of Rome.  All political aims and goals should work toward the common good.  This sounds great, but just exactly who is determining what the common good is?  Who will define what the common good is, that Rome intends the political structures of this world to dole out to the same?  She herself is continuously referring to, and defining the same.  Even claiming the role of the purifier of reason in relation to the common good.

II. Central points in the current cultural and political debate

The growth in the sense of responsibility towards countries still on the path of development is without doubt an important sign, illustrative of a greater sensitivity to the common good. At the same time, however, one cannot close one's eyes to the real dangers which certain tendencies in society are promoting through legislation, nor can one ignore the effects this will have on future generations.
A kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualization and defence of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the principles of the natural moral law. Furthermore, it is not unusual to hear the opinion expressed in the public sphere that such ethical pluralism is the very condition for democracy. As a result, citizens claim complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices, and lawmakers maintain that they are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends, as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value. At the same time, the value of tolerance is disingenuously invoked when a large number of citizens, Catholics among them, are asked not to base their contribution to society and political life – through the legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy – on their particular understanding of the human person and the common good. The history of the twentieth century demonstrates that those citizens were right who recognized the falsehood of relativism, and with it, the notion that there is no moral law rooted in the nature of the human person, which must govern our understanding of man, the common good and the state.

What is the above argument, but that the different outlooks upon life, and their political eventualities are not all equal.  While one can easily agree upon this point, the real point of the above is of course, that Roman Catholic reason and sense of the common good is superior to all others.  This to the point that we should be allowing them to be the main contributor or purifier of reason and the common good.  As I have already pointed out in a previous examination of DEUS CARITAS EST, the Catholic church believes "it is the place of the Church to determine more precisely "the just ordering of society", and to purify reason for the state in order for it to properly operate."

While there are many political ideologies with definite amoral leanings to be dealt with, it would be a serious mistake to politically align with, and submit to the church of Rome in combatting the same.  No political entity on earth has a longer, bloodier, and disreputable past from which to be warned against the dangers of allowing it once again to gain political power and control over nations and peoples.  There is a real danger in it's present course of mobilizing and rekindling the political ambitions of the large numbers of  politicians and citizens within democratic societies, under her direct guidance and supervision.

3. Such relativism, of course, has nothing to do with the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good. Political freedom is not – and cannot be – based upon the relativistic idea that all conceptions of the human person's good have the same value and truth, but rather, on the fact that politics are concerned with very concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural contexts. 

Of course, as already stated, the church of Rome itself reserves the right to rightly define common good, and purify reason in regards to the same.  As the above clearly states, Catholic citizens are to choose and thus also support those political opinions which are compatible with their faith and natural law, which themselves are defined for them by the church.  Once again we are informed that not all "conceptions of the human person's good have the same value and truth".  For the Catholic of course, the churches conception of the same, is superior.

The article then refers to politics concern with concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural contexts.  Again, who is defining these concrete realizations?  The Catholic church is in complete denial of the true extent of it's totally abusive history when kings and queens and governments of the past actually did submit to it's economic and political thought. Nor do the vast majority of the countless Catholic citizens it is calling into action to re-establish it's authority over the same once again, really know of this history.  Being raised with Roman Catholic revisionist history alone, as their teacher.  I have been repeatedly confronted by Roman Catholics on these boards that completely deny all historical facts presented to them by sources outside of their own church as false and lies.  This is what can be expected by these, who intend to take over democratic societies by their large numbers and vast political influence with the kings and governments of this world.

All of the concrete realities mentioned in the above, would be effected by the same.  Nothing is more clearly revealed by history in relation to the Roman Catholic church, that when she has the numbers or sheer political strength to do so, she will completely dominate all areas of life.

It is not the Church's task to set forth specific political solutions – and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one – to temporal questions that God has left to the free and responsible judgment of each person. It is, however, the Church's right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters when this is required by faith or the moral law. If Christians must recognize the legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization of worldly affairs, they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.

Where is this right, duty, or responsibility of the church defined or outlined for us in the Holy scriptures?  It is not.  Nor is it the right, duty, or moral obligation of Christ's church to purify reason and define the common good for the various political entities of this world, in this day or any other.  We have already seen in the pages of history, what this leads to.  The churches involvement in the politics of this world does not lead to the purification of the same, but rather to the complete corruption of the church.  This is the history that Roman Catholicism denies both in historical content, and present practice.  Which very thing itself completely disqualifies her as a purifying and competent reasoning entity upon the politics of this world.

On the level of concrete political action, there can generally be a plurality of political parties in which Catholics may exercise – especially through legislative assemblies – their right and duty to contribute to the public life of their country.

What is the purpose of legislative assemblies, but to create and pass laws? Does the following sound familiar -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Is it not obvious, that the above admonition from the Pope applies to all the Catholic members of the congress of the United States.  There are 156 Catholic members of the US congress.  All of whom, have been summoned by the Pope to implement "the Church's right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters".  This is not to mentioin the six out of nine Cathoilic Supreme Court Justices, and majority vote on any issue.  Or the Catholic Vice President, occupying the Executive branch of our government.  All have been called to help politically implement the purifying of reason, and establishment of the common good as defined by the church of Rome within this country.  Not to mention every other country in the world.

The legitimate plurality of temporal options is at the origin of the commitment of Catholics to politics and relates directly to Christian moral and social teaching. It is in the light of this teaching that lay Catholics must assess their participation in political life so as to be sure that it is marked by a coherent responsibility for temporal reality.
The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent.

What a mouthful.  Isn't it wonderful how simple and to the point papal documents are?  Forgive my sarcasm.  Nothing could be more obvious from their documents, it seems to me, that the Popes are far more the politician, than religious leaders that wish to simplify and declare religious truth.

Of course the correct understanding of the human person mentioned above, which dictates a Catholics "involvement in political life" is defined by the church of Rome. Which of course again, is nothing but to say that Rome is in charge of the political life of its members, and its members should seek to establish that political life in whatever government or nation they find themselves in.  Which of course simply means that Rome should be running that government, and all governments in which Catholics are a majority, or simply capable of making such take place.  Nothing new here, Rome intends to rule the world through vast numbers or political intrigue.

What is new in the above statement, is the assertion that without Catholic involvement in political life directed by the churches understanding of the human person, "the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent."  Wow! This is basically admitting, that without its involvement in the politics of this world, the Roman Catholic church would not exist.  That is very significant, since there is no admonition in new covenant scripture to be involved in the politics of this world.  To the contrary, they testify to the exact opposite state of being for the truly faithful.

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Matt 22:21 (KJV)

The two are to be kept separate always.  This for the most obvious of reasons.  I will simply state the word POLITICIAN, and ask you to think of the first thing that enters your mind, and we will leave it at that.

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church's social doctrine does not exhaust one's responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

This is actually getting boring.  More of the same.  Catholics are to support the church fully, without deviating from her proscribed course, concerning political action in democratic societies.  They are most certainly to put their faith, that is the mandates of the church into political action.

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person.

One must ask, what exactly is an inalienable ethical demand?  Is this not an oxymoron?  While we all have no doubt heard of inalienable rights, what on earth is an inalienable demand.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"(The Declaration of Independence)

Inalienable : incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred  *inalienable rights*



As pointed out in the beginning of linked video, Catholic politicians have taken it upon themselves to redefine and implement their version of unalienable rights as set forth in The Declaration of Independence of these United States. This they do as minions of the papacy, not by the will or consent of the people being governed as the Declaration points out, but by the dictates of the unelected self appointed ruler of this and all nations, the Pope of Rome. This is the repudiation of the Protestant influenced form of government for the people and by the people established by our founding fathers, to be replaced by Roman Catholic influenced government for the Pope and by the Pope. So Anti-Christ and BABYLON THE GREAT, continue mounting the final beast of biblical prophecy that they may ride it and all who follow straight into the lake of fire. So be it.

Do you think for one moment that anyone would read all that garbage?  And ditto for your next post.  You are free to read all the stuff and then give us a synopsis of it all.

[Amo]

Do you think for one moment that anyone would read all that garbage?  And ditto for your next post.  You are free to read all the stuff and then give us a synopsis of it all.

Yes I am free to do so for now, but thats for your permission anyway. I feel no responsibility to make anyone read the simple facts of what BABYLON THE GREAT has, is, and continues to be up to. Just to provide the opportunity to those who might wish to know. Go to, find some more accusations against EGW, while BABYLON mounts the final beast of biblical prophecy. You serve her well.

[Amo]

https://codacons.it/making-sunday-sacred-again/

3 Maggio 2019
Making Sunday Sacred Again
   fonte: Bloomberg

 

Chiara Albanese and Jerrold Colten, with Maciej Martewicz Since forming an uncomfortable coalition government a year ago, Italy' s conservative League and anti-establishment Five Star Movement have found themselves at odds on everything from infrastructure and immigration to regulations on prostitution. There' s one thing, though, they agree on: shuttering stores on Sundays. In April, Parliament began debating a law aimed at "returning the weekend to families." Five Star has advocated shutting stores some 45 days a year. The League is proposing a milder version, easing restrictions in the runup to Christmas and other holiday periods. But they both say the laws would reinforce long-standing traditions such as Sunday lunch at home while giving retail workers a needed break and letting would-be shoppers go to Mass. "Town centers are deserted as families spend their day of rest at the mall," says Andrea Dara, a League lawmaker working to find a compromise. The two parties rode to power by tapping into constituencies with little in common: pro-business northerners and young, often unemployed southerners. One thing the two groups share? They' d both be hurt by restrictions on Sunday shopping, according to Istituto Cattaneo, an economic research group in Bologna. The Five Star proposal would shrink gross domestic product by 0.5 percent-9.4 billion ($10.6 billion)-and cost almost 150,000 jobs, the institute said in an April report. That would reduce tax revenue by as much as 2 billion, undercutting government efforts to reboot an economy that' s predicted to see virtually no growth this year, with unemployment stuck at almost 11 percent. "It' s obvious that the plan under discussion isn' t the right way to save commerce," says Carlo Rienzi, chairman of Codacons, a consumer-rights group. "I hope these proposals will be abandoned." Other than in Germany, which requires the bulk of stores to shut their doors on Sunday, most Europeans can shop every day of the week. But blue laws have considerable resonance among the Continent' s new right wing, and two other countries ruled by populists have sought to reinstitute bans. Hungary tried it in 2015 but backed down a year later after consumers balked and an opposition party called for a referendum on the issue. Poland a year ago ordered that stores be shuttered two Sundays a month. Next year the ban is scheduled to be extended to almost every Sunday, but it' s under review after grousing by businesses. Tesco Plc and Biedronka, the country' s biggest retailer, have said they' ve been hurt by the rule. "Keeping shops closed on Sunday is like squeezing toothpaste back into the tube," says Davide Rossi, an attorney in Milan and a director of Aires, a trade group of retailers. The idea "goes against free trade, kills competition, and contradicts constitutional values." Italy long followed the Christian custom of largely shutting down on the Sabbath, but in 2011 the government loosened the rules with a law dubbed Salva Italia (Save Italy) aimed at bolstering retailers in the wake of the financial crisis. Proponents at the time said opening stores on Sunday makes it easier for working people to get their shopping done. But some left-leaning labor groups and far-right conservatives called it a burden on workers and families. "Parents can' t spend even a single day with their kids anymore because they work in a shop all week," Five Star leader Luigi Di Maio said last September when introducing the idea of a ban. "Keeping shops closed on Sunday is like squeezing toothpaste back into the tube" In Rome a parliamentary commission is holding hearings on the issue. The proposal getting the most traction would require stores to close on 26 Sundays a year, plus holidays. But many questions remain: Will the ban apply even to smaller stores? Sunday shopping is likely to be allowed in historic city centers, but should those privileges be extended to malls on the periphery? Will beach destinations be exempted in the summer? Ski resorts in winter? Working out the details is likely to take months, which is fine with opponents-and even the many Italians who remain undecided on the issue. "As an employee, I' d be totally in favor of closures," says Sharon Farina, a clerk in a Rome perfume shop. "But as a consumer, I' m happy to see stores open." THE BOTTOM LINE Most Europeans can shop every day of the week, but blue laws are gaining traction among right-wing parties, with some populist governments reinstituting bans

[Amo]

https://corechristianity.com/resource-library/articles/why-sunday-should-be-a-day-of-rest

Why Sunday Should be a Day of Rest

The fourth commandment teaches us to set aside one day out of seven to rest from our work and to worship God:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Exod. 20:8–11; cf. Deut. 5:12–15)

We Are Hardwired for One Special Day Every Week

We were created for work, but we were also made to rest. It's interesting that even secular studies have embraced the idea that we need to take a break and relax regularly (see these pieces in the New York Times,  The Economist, and Scientific American). Rest is a creational principle—it is embedded in the molecules of our DNA.

We were made not only to rest but also to worship, and what better day to do so than the first day of the week, Sunday—the very day of the week on which Jesus was raised from the dead? God gave us permission to take a break once a week by modeling rest for himself. Take advantage of this special day!

At first, it appears that Jesus was the ultimate Sabbath breaker. The Jewish religious leaders were furious with him for continually healing people on Saturday, which was known to the Jewish people as the "Sabbath" (a sacred or holy day). But if we look closer at the passages where Jesus performed acts of healing on the Sabbath, we'll notice that, far from being a Sabbath breaker, Jesus was a Sabbath keeper. The religious leaders in Jesus' day misunderstood the true purpose of the Sabbath, so they distorted it and added new rules on how to keep it. Jesus exposed the truth: if a man can be circumcised on the Sabbath in order to keep the law of Moses, certainly the healing of a man is acceptable according to the same law (John 7:22–23).

There is one significant difference between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sabbath (or Lord's Day) that is important to note. The Jewish Sabbath mirrors the creation account in Genesis 1–2, where God worked for six days and rested on the seventh. Interestingly though, the Lord's Day reverses this pattern entirely.

According to the Law, we are to work first, and then we are granted rest. Jesus reversed this pattern for us when he perfectly obeyed all of the Ten Commandments and kept the law on our behalf. By living the perfect life, Jesus has met God's perfect standard.

According to the gospel, we are gifted with rest; and then out of gratitude, we actually want to work. Now, we don't have to try to earn God's favor—he is already favorable toward us in his Son. Because of Jesus' work, we start each week with rest—mirroring that eternal Sabbath rest that is already our inheritance in the new creation (Heb. 4:9–10).

Giving thanks to God, we return to our workweek refreshed and thankful for what God has done for us in Christ. Although the day of the week has changed from Saturday to Sunday for Christians, the principle itself remains the same. We are to work for six days and rest for one, according to God's design for us.

The Lord's Day Shows the World We Belong to Him

One of the most popular catechisms of the Reformation was the Heidelberg Catechism, which opens with a beautiful statement: I am not my own, but belong both body and soul to my faithful savior Jesus Christ. Do we view Sunday as our own time, or is it God's time? By attending church on Sunday, we show that we really belong to Christ. The question Christians ask should never be "who am I?" Instead, it should be "whose am I?"

Since we belong to God, our time—and even a portion of the day—is not our own but instead belongs to another (God) and to others (our neighbors). Our culture celebrates Sunday as an extra free day—as "Sunday Fun Day"—but, for Christians, the first day of the week is to be set aside as a day for rest and worship, and for works of necessity and mercy. We may also have the opportunity to tell our neighbors about the gospel or to invite them to come to church with us the next week.

The Lord Blesses His People on the Lord's Day

In the public service each week, God pours out his rich blessings upon us. Through the preached Word, the Lord's Supper, and baptism, God gives to his people generously what we are most in need of receiving. Just as we need physical food in order to be healthy and survive, we also need spiritual food to preserve our souls and nourish ourselves unto eternal life.

We are also encouraged through the fellowship of the saints; and unlike weekdays, we have more time on Sunday to spend opening up our homes to others (hospitality), reading the Word (or other edifying books), and praying. On this special sacred day, the Lord blesses us in ways we are not blessed any other day of the week.

Gen 4:1  And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. 2  And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3  And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4  And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5  But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. 6  And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7  If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Cain and Abel both worshipped God and brought an offering to Him. Cain though, thought he could bring an offering of his own creation, the works of his own hands. His offering was rejected by God because it did not typify the only offering acceptable to Him, the LAMB OF GOD representing Jesus Christ. Sunday sacredness proponents think they can create their own Sabbath day of rest in place of the one created by Christ Jesus Himself, and kept by Him by way of example when here as one of us. His life, His righteousness, and His death, are the only acceptable offering to God the Father. There is no other name in heaven or on earth whereby all must be saved. Abandoning the Sabbath Christ created, kept, and is Lord of, and replacing it with one of humanities own creation which He never kept, created, or even acknowledged, cannot be spiritually healthy.

1Jn 2:1  My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2  And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 3  And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4  He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6  He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

2Jn 1:4  I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father. 5  And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. 6  And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. 7  For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8  Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9  Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11  For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Jesus Christ created this world and the seventh day Sabbath. He gave the seventh day Sabbath to Israel as well when He formed the nation to preserve a knowledge of Himself in this world, speaking the command verbally to the entire nation and writing it with His own finger in tables of stone twice. He kept the seventh day sabbath and taught its proper observance when here on earth as one of us for our salvation. He also declared that He did not come to abolish the commandments but rather to establish them. Those who are His, ought to walk as He walked, and live by His doctrine. Sunday sacredness has nothing to do with either. It replaces that established by God, with that created by fallen humanity. Christians of today would do well not to follow the example of those Jews who rejected Jesus when here as one of us.

Mat 15:3  But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4  For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5  But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6  And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7  Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8  This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9  But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mar 7:6  He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7  Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8  For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9  And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10  For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11  But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12  And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13  Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Should the commandment of God concerning the seventh day Sabbath be played aside, that the tradition of Sunday sacredness might take its place?

[Amo]

https://catholicherald.co.uk/issues/may-25th-2018/how-europeans-are-fighting-back-against-sunday-trading/

All emphasis in following quote from link above is mine.

How Europeans are fighting back against Sunday trading
Matthew Schmitz  24 May, 2018

For the past year, the Castel Romano Designer Outlet 12 miles south of Rome has been the site of a battle over the Sabbath. Its owner, the McArthur Glen Group, operates outlet malls in nine nations and prides itself on its "long-established heritage of drawing inspiration from regional architecture, building materials and traditions" – which explains why the mall looks like a pasteboard Italian village. There is a grandiose cheapness to the place, as if Italy itself were being sold at 70 per cent off an inflated price.

Valeria Ferrara had asked her boss at the Calvin Klein outlet for an occasional Sunday off to spend with her husband and two-year-old son. Rather than grant her request, the company transferred her to a location 30 miles away. Ferrara protested against the decision by chaining herself outside the store. Earlier this month, faced with negative publicity and pressure from a local union, Calvin Klein abandoned its plan to tear mother from son.

We should be cheered by Valeria's triumph and sobered by how rare it is. Once conceived as a universal right, Sabbath rest is increasingly the privilege of the wealthy few. According to the European Observatory of Working Life, labour on Sunday is becoming more common, with 30 per cent of Europeans working at least one Sunday a month. People in the poorer nations of the European periphery (Greece, Italy, etc) are much likelier to work several Sundays a month than those in wealthier countries. Germans work fewer Sundays than anyone else – even as their political and financial leaders press Sunday labour on other nations.

Ferrara's case only occurred because Italy liberalised Sunday labour in 2011 at the urging of Prime Minister Mario Monti, a technocrat installed to please German bankers. Monti's premiership showed how thoroughly the European Union now embodies that principle attributed to Emperor Joseph II of Austria: "Everything for the people, nothing by the people." One of the things instituted for but not by the Italian people was a provision that compelled 4.7 million of them to work on Sunday.

Populist movements across Europe have begun to push back. Earlier this year, Poland restricted almost all Sunday shopping with a law backed by the Catholic Church and the Solidarity trade union. Hungary banned Sunday shopping in 2015 but repealed the measure a year later, while retaining 12 public holidays and the right of workers to take Sundays off.

The Five Star Movement and the League, which have just formed a joint government in Italy, both campaigned against Monti's reform. As Alessandra Bocchi has reported, in 2013 Five Star introduced a law that would bring back Sunday closing. "Let's once again put the person at the centre of public policy, not these unsuccessful market theories," said Luigi di Maio, Five Star's leader. His party's proposal was denounced by the Council of Europe.

Campaigning against Sunday shopping allows populists to combine an economic message with a cultural one, standing in defence simultaneously of workers' rights and a Christian command. It is no coincidence that the two are connected. Only by recognising the authority of God can we be freed from the worldly powers that enslave and oppress us – including those found in the market.

In the case of sabbath laws, refusal to acknowledge Christ's reign has directly led to the economisation of everyday life. The EU's 1993 Working Time Directive stated that the minimum weekly rest period "shall, in principle, include Sunday."

But in 1996, the European Court of Justice annulled this rule, saying that "the Council has failed to explain why Sunday, as a weekly rest day, is more closely connected with the health and safety of workers than any other day of the week." In the name of a shallow secularism, the Court opened the door to the exploitation of millions of Valeria Ferraras.

Only those who recognise that the common good concerns a man's soul can explain why we should legislate rest on Sunday: to honour the God who on that day rose. This is why we call Sunday the Lord's Day – domenica, domingo, dimanche.

We first hear the term in the Book of Revelation, where John reports that it was "on the Lord's Day" that he had his great vision. Ever since it has been the day on which we glimpse paradise, enjoying freedom in communion with God. As Benedict XVI put it, "On the Sabbath there are no masters and no servants; there is only the freedom of all the children of God ... For this reason the Sabbath is the heart of all social legislation."

Christians down the centuries have defended the day we now neglect. When the 4th-century Martyrs of Abitinae were asked why they had defied Diocletian's decree forbidding Sunday worship, they said, "Sine dominico non possumus", which means "We cannot live without Sunday. We cannot give up this thing of the Lord."

It is striking how many Catholics have given up this thing of the Lord. Even those who can afford Sunday rest do nothing to guarantee it for others. As Benedict XVI saw, Christian politics begins with the Sabbath. Our task is to secure it in law – not as a privilege for the powerful, but as a right enjoyed by all.

Matthew Schmitz is senior editor at First Things

God never commanded anything about Sunday rest. No one is forcing people to work on Sundays. I have past up many a job because they wanted me to work on the Sabbath. Why will people continue to reject the notion that Sunday laws will one day be forced upon all, when so much proof exists that millions and powerful religious and political leaders most obviously intend to make it so?

[beam]

That is only wishful thinking Amo, propaganda started by your false prophet.  If you are really concerned about a day you should start worrying about the Muslim's Fridays.

[Amo]

That is only wishful thinking Amo, propaganda started by your false prophet.  If you are really concerned about a day you should start worrying about the Muslim's Fridays.

Close your eyes, and stop your ears if you wish. This will not make what is actually transpiring in front of all, go away.

[Amo]

https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1084&context=shlj

Intersting link with article addressing the Sunday Rest Bill of 1888. Quote below from link above emphasis mine.

THE SUNDAY REST BILL AND THE BATTLE TO KEEP THE CIVIL SABBATH


Both the SDBC and the SDAC continued to oppose the bill in the months following the hearing, particularly in regard to exposing the "frauds" under which the bill was perpetuated.144 The churches were determined to show that the bill was not for the workingmen, but rather only for Christians.145 They wrote numerous articles describing the history of national Sunday laws, beginning with Constantine in 321 A.D. and explaining that every Sunday law since then had a religious basis.146 Therefore, they reasoned Christian lobbyists could not claim that this Sunday law was based on civil motivations, rather than on religious motivations.147 Crafts himself, when speaking to the Knights of Labor in November of 1888, stated, "[a] weekly day of rest has never been secured in any land except on the basis of a religious obligation. Take the religion out and you take the rest out."148

Further, as questioned by SDAC leader E.J. Waggoner, if the workingmen were "clamoring for" the Sunday Rest Bill, why were none of them at the hearing, and why did Crafts believe it was necessary to travel to speak with them?149 Crafts' own recording of his meeting with the Knights of Labor showed that the workingmen needed to be convinced of the benefits of the bill, at least at first, as they were worried about losing a day's worth of pay.150 A local newspaper described another such meeting with the National Council of Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers in October of 1888, a "victory" for Crafts, as if he had convinced the workingmen of his cause, rather than the other way around.151 Additionally, at least some workingmen were not convinced. A labor reform paper titled Ideas of Reform, which was dedicated to the interests of workingmen, advocated against the passage of the Sunday Rest Bill in January of 1889, stating that the bill was "an attempt to unite Church and State," and that, "14 million petitioners should not be allowed to dictate how 60 million [would] worship."152

Besides the "workingmen fraud," E.J. Waggoner also sought to expose the "petition fraud," claiming that the petitions originally submitted to the Senate on behalf of a national Sunday law did not amass fourteen million signatures, but rather only an eighth of that number.153 Many organizations and groups signed on behalf of their members.154 For example, although only around 200 representatives from the Knights of Labor signed the petitions, their signatures were counted as 200,000, or the entire number of the members of the organization.155 Additionally, Christian lobbyists confirmed that the signature of one man––Cardinal James Gibbons––was counted as 7,300,000 or the entire number of Catholics in the nation.156 Thus, Waggoner argued the bill did not have as much widespread support as the Christian lobbyists claimed.157

The very same arguments are put forth today by the Catholic Church and other Christians lobbying for Sunday rest laws abroad. They have been successful in several European nations.

FACTS OF FAITH
by Christian Edwardson

A MESSAGE FOR OUR TIMES

205

We shall here refer to one other similar denial. In the Roman Catholic paper, Shepherd of the Valley, there appeared an article by the editor, in which he stated: "If Catholics ever attain, which they surely will, though at a distant day, the immense numerical majority in the United States, religious liberty, as at present understood, will be at an end." A Protestant lecturer, who made use of this quotation, was bitterly arraigned in a double-column front-page article in the Catholic Standard and Times for his false statements regarding Catholics; for, it pointed out, if he had finished the quotation with the words which followed, "so say our enemies," it would have reversed its meaning. The incident would have passed off at the expense of the Protestant lecturer, had not the Western Watchman of July 24, 1913, continued the quotation still further, declaring:

"The whole quotation should read: 'If Catholics ever attain, which they surely will, though at a distant day, the immense numerical majority in the United States, religious liberty, as at present understood, will be at an end. So say our enemies; so say we.' "- Quoted in "Protestant Magazine," October, 1913, p. 474.

Why those who tried to deny their former statements should leave out the words, "so say we," is very evident. But what can we think of those who publicly deny facts to screen their church from unfavorable public opinions, unless they act from the motive that "the end justifies the means," and that "heretics" have no moral right to facts which they would misuse. (See also pages 64 and 65 of this book.)

Of course if or when other Christians, lefty progressives and or secularists can be convinced to join such efforts, such a majority would no longer be needed. Nevertheless, the papacies policy of continually supporting and even facilitating mass illegal immigration of predominantly Catholic migrants from the failing nations to our south, is a big plus toward this goal.

[Amo]

https://www.total-croatia-news.com/politics/39829-work-free-sunday

President Supports Initiative for Work-Free Sunday

ZAGREB, November 25, 2019 - President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović said on Monday that she supported an initiative to for non-working Sunday, announcing that she would ask the relevant ministry to consider the proposal to adopt legislation that would protect workers and assist families.

After the president receives representatives of the Creation Sunday Alliance in her office, one of the representatives for the alliance and former MEP, Marijana Petir underscored that Sunday was family time.

She presented findings of a survey showing citizens see Sunday as family time which is why they ask for non-working Sundays. The survey conducted earlier this year show that 82 percent of Croatians support the introduction of a work-free Sunday in all stores in Croatia. The survey covered 1,000 respondents.

The biggest problem, she added, was seen in the retail sector where the majority of workers are women who work non-stop and sometimes for several weeks without one day of rest and earn a minimum wage even though most retail chains owned by foreigners are closed on Sundays in their countries of origin.

The alliance president, Friar Božo Vuleta, says that not only do stores that are open on Sundays fail to contribute to the economy, employers themselves have realised that due to the drain of the labour force, staying open on Sundays is not worth it and many of them are hopeful that legislation will be adopted banning work in the retail sector on Sunday. Some have even decided of their own accord not to work on Sundays.

"A new law would just reflect real needs and the will of almost two-thirds of Croatian citizens, Vuleta said.

The leader of the retail segment in the SSSH trade union federation, Zlatica Štulić, confirmed that there was no need for stores to remain open 0 to 24 hours, 365 days of the year because the social damage of that work were far greater than economic benefit with regard to deterioration of workers' health.

[Amo]

https://www.antiguaobserver.com/lower-house-passes-the-public-holiday-amendment-bill-2019/

Lower House passes the Public Holiday (Amendment) Bill 2019

Sunday is one step closer to being concretised as the 12th public holiday recognised by the laws of Antigua and Barbuda.

Yesterday, the Public Holiday (Amendment) Bill 2019 was passed in the Lower House of Parliament at which time the Minister of Legal Affairs Steadroy "Cutie" Benjamin stated that a decision was made to uphold the recommendations made by stakeholders in the recent consultations.

"Antigua is over 80 percent or more Christian and what came through this discussion Mr Speaker, is the fact that we understood the significance of maintaining Sunday as a common law holiday.

"But we went further Mr Speaker, and...this government is very happy to endorse the recommendations of those persons who got together. And we will make Sunday, for the first time in Antigua and Barbuda, a recognised public holiday," he said

Benjamin, however, highlighted that provisions have been made in the Bill to bar individuals from seeking the premium rate for working on a Sunday (150 percent) and from withholding their labour.

The Attorney General said: "Whereas on Good Friday and Christmas Day employees required to work are compensated at the rate set up in the Labour Code, this is not given to employees working on Sundays.

"The law does say that if it's a holiday, nobody can force you to work but that doesn't apply in this case. You see, we must understand that Antigua and Barbuda is a service society. The hotel industry, LIAT, hospital, the police, the pharmacies, the supermarkets, the dry cleaners, the small businesses — they require work on a Sunday."

On the other hand, the amendment was met with slight resistance by some members of government, such as Minister of Health Molwyn Joseph, who questioned the significance of referring to Sunday as a holiday and suggested it be called a rest and worship day.

"We should, as a country, decide that if we accept both Sunday and Saturday as religious rest days for worship, we should so say in the law and it does not attract overtime if anyone works," Joseph remarked.

Prime Minister Gaston Browne then acceded to that recommendation saying: "They are really rest and worship days; that's how it should be reflected. We don't have to continue that archaic tradition of a holiday. Sunday is not a holiday. It is really a rest and worship day and, as you said, we captured both the Adventists and the Sunday worshipers."

However, Minister of Social Transformation, Samantha Marshall stated that the amendment should remain as agreed upon by the stakeholders.

"Based on the Bill that was presented, we had consultations with all the necessary stakeholders and the necessary stakeholders have all agreed to what is presented here. If we want to recognise further an actual worship or rest day, I think that requires us having a more holistic consultation on a number of other aspects.

"So, I believe at this stage, let us not go against what those stakeholders agreed on. Let us proceed with this but agree that this cannot be the end," Marshall said.

The Bill was therefore passed without amendments.

Meanwhile, it was noted that a few other amendments will be made to the law.

The Public Holiday (Amendment) Bill 2019 states that "when Christmas falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the following Monday and Tuesday shall be public holidays" and "when Boxing Day falls on a Sunday, the following Monday and Tuesday shall be public holidays."

[Amo]

https://www.facebook.com/FOX5NY/posts/should-all-stores-close-on-sunday-to-allow-staff-a-day-off-to-recuperate/10158780758051320/

Take the FOX news poll. Should all stores close on Sundays?

[Amo]

https://twitter.com/CamGuthrie/status/1241586949879730176

Mayor suggesting Sunday closings after coronavirus threat ends.

[Cobalt1959]

This link was provided in the opening post of this thread. You are welcome to read the book provided there and learns some things. Plenty of people have been adversely effected by Sunday laws throughout history. True Christianity is not about simple self, and how self alone is effected by anything. To the contrary, it is all about concern for the well being and salvation of others. Deception destroys. Any "Christian" anywhere forcing their beliefs upon another through civil legislation is deceived and in danger of losing salvation.

I am amused to see people saying this when they are busily and actively spreading deception themselves.  There is nothing about SDA doctrine that is even remotely biblical.  SDA's actually ignore large parts of the Bible that don't agree with their theology.  Do you think Christ will just give you a pass in the future when you have to give an account and He asks you why you forwarded a doctrine that is easily discerned as completely wrong?  I know you believe that yours is the only one, true church, and I know you believe that only SDA's will go to heaven, but you couldn't be more wrong.  Your works aren't buying you salvation.  They are buying you alienation.

[Amo]

I am amused to see people saying this when they are busily and actively spreading deception themselves.  There is nothing about SDA doctrine that is even remotely biblical.  SDA's actually ignore large parts of the Bible that don't agree with their theology.  Do you think Christ will just give you a pass in the future when you have to give an account and He asks you why you forwarded a doctrine that is easily discerned as completely wrong?  I know you believe that yours is the only one, true church, and I know you believe that only SDA's will go to heaven, but you couldn't be more wrong.  Your works aren't buying you salvation.  They are buying you alienation.

AS is obvious from your above statement, you are ignorant about what I believe and why, and what SDA's believe and why. You have a right to be so though, so please do ramble on. You know of course that the historical facts I share on this thread as well as the majority of the articles concerning the issue on hand, are not SDA doctrine or information. You are just denying historical facts, and news articles addressing what is taking place in relation to Sunday sacredness and or laws.

[Amo]

https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/is-the-coronavirus-pandemic-a-judgment-from-god

Article quoted below from link above, emphasis is mine.

Is the Coronavirus Pandemic a Judgment From God?

COMMENTARY: The key to interpreting rightly the biblical passages on divine chastisement is to read them in light of the distinction between God's positive will and his permissive will.

Mary Healy
Is the coronavirus pandemic a judgment from God? It is a question being debated by many Christians — even bishops and cardinals.

Pope Francis, in the extraordinary prayer service broadcast live from an empty St. Peter's Square on March 27, prayed:

"Lord, you are calling to us, calling us to faith. ... It is not the time of your judgment, but of our judgment: a time to choose what matters and what passes away, a time to separate what is necessary from what is not."

On the other hand, some theologians and ordinary people have noted that many passages in Scripture speak of calamities, including pestilence (deadly infectious disease), as God's judgment on human sin.

God warns his people, for instance, that if they rebel against him, "I will send pestilence among you, and you shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy" (Leviticus 26:25). Even in the New Testament, the Book of Revelation depicts a rider on a pale horse who was "given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth" (Revelation 6:8).

These perspectives are not as contradictory as they may seem. The key to interpreting rightly the biblical passages on divine chastisement is to read them in light of a distinction that has become traditional in Catholic theology: the distinction between God's positive will and his permissive will.

God is infinitely good — "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5) — and therefore he cannot directly will evil. Rather, he permits evil because in his infinite wisdom he is able to bring a greater good out of it.

Thus, where Scripture speaks of God "sending" a calamity, it does not mean that God directly causes it. Rather, out of his great love for us, he allows human beings to experience the consequences of our choices. When society deliberately turns away from God, choosing to worship idols of its own making, as our own global culture has done, it removes itself from God's blessing and protection and therefore exposes itself to various kinds of evil.

God takes our freedom seriously — far more seriously than we do. And his judgment on sin is to allow us to experience the wages of our sin. But that judgment is with a remedial purpose. God's desire is always that his children turn back to him and be healed and restored. "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live" (Ezekiel 18:32).

Scripture also makes clear that we are not to judge the culpability of any individual. Because human beings are so interconnected, the innocent often suffer along with the guilty.

Jesus explained this in regard to two disasters of his own time: a political massacre in which some Galilean Jews were killed and a construction accident:

"Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those 18 on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: Do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:1-5).

A large-scale disaster is therefore not a warrant to condemn others. It is a call to examine our own lives and get right with God, aware that none of us knows how much time we have left on earth.

Clearly, the virus that causes COVID-19 is evil. It is bringing sickness, death, havoc and destruction — all contrary to God's plan for the fullness of life for the human beings he created in his image. Jesus said, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly" (John 10:10). Moreover, the evil one is seeking to exploit this disease to bring further evils: fear and panic, selfishness and greed, tension and division in families, acrimony and blame among government leaders.

So we ought to pray — indeed, to pray and fast fervently, with great confidence in God — for an end to the virus.

One of the mercies of God is that the pandemic took off during Lent. The first reading at Mass on Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent, gives us a clue about how to pray. The reading is from the prophet Joel, who prophesied at a time when Judah was experiencing a natural disaster, a plague of locusts that had destroyed all the crops and was threatening to bring mass starvation (not unlike this year's devastating locust plague in East Africa).

In the face of this calamity, God calls out to his people:

Even now, says the LORD,
return to me with your whole heart,
with fasting, and weeping, and mourning;
Rend your hearts, not your garments,
and return to the LORD, your God.
For gracious and merciful is he. ....

Blow the trumpet in Zion!
Proclaim a fast;
call an assembly;
Gather the people,
notify the congregation. ...

Between the porch and the altar
let the priests, the ministers of the LORD, weep,
And say, "Spare, O LORD, your people,
and make not your heritage a reproach,
with the nations ruling over them!
Why should they say among the peoples,
'Where is their God?'"

The prophet then succinctly records God's merciful response:

Then the LORD was stirred to concern for his land
and took pity on his people (2:12-18).

The Lord restored an abundant food supply, but he did even more than that: He promised an extraordinary outpouring of his Holy Spirit, not only on his own people but on the whole world, bringing salvation and the knowledge of God (Joel 2:28-32).

So today, we are summoned to pray, fast and repent, for our own sake and the sake of the world. The prayer of Daniel during another national calamity provides a great model of such humble, contrite intercessory prayer (Daniel 9).

Here are a few specific ways Catholics might examine our consciences, especially during this Holy Week as we enter into the mystery of Christ's passion.

We've been robbed of the ability to attend Mass and receive the Eucharist. Have we sometimes taken the Eucharist for granted? Have we been lax and lukewarm in our practice of the faith, squeezing in Mass (if at all) around all our other priorities, instead of making the Lord the first priority of our lives?

Just as a time of abstinence for a married couple can deepen their love by spurring them to express their affection in other ways, so this involuntary Eucharistic fast can be an opportunity to renew our intimacy with the Lord, especially through prayer and the reading of Scripture, so that, when we are finally able to receive Holy Communion again, we may partake with greater fervor than ever before.

Half the human race is under some form of lockdown, as if suddenly consigned to an involuntary retreat. Have we sometimes failed to honor the Lord by keeping the Lord's Day? Have we treated Sundays just like any other day, as a time to go shopping, get work done and pursue our own agenda, instead of taking time to deepen our relationship with Jesus and relax with family and friends? In the Old Testament, God decreed that Judah would go into exile for a time corresponding to all the sabbaths they had broken, "until the land has retrieved its lost sabbaths" (2 Chronicles 36:21). So now, perhaps our frenetic society is retrieving its lost sabbaths.

Millions of people are being constrained to spend more time in close quarters with family members than ever before. Have we sometimes taken for granted our spouse, children, siblings or parents? Have we placed them far down on our list of priorities? Have we sometimes dealt with our own sense of helplessness, fear or frustration by taking it out on them?

This week is an opportune time to ask forgiveness not only of God, but also of those closest to us, and to express our love for them. Parents especially can model this for their children.

Sports events and other forms of entertainment have ground to a halt. Have we made an idol of sports or entertainment?

The economy is tanking. Have we made an idol of money and possessions? Have we been trying to worship both God and mammon?

If Christians humble themselves before the Lord in prayer, fasting and repentance, then, and only then, will we be able to credibly call the whole world to repentance and faith in Christ. In this time of crisis, as people come face-to-face with human limitations and the reality of death, we may be given an unprecedented opportunity to bear witness to Christ.

As in the time of Joel, God's plan is for more than simply an end to the calamity: He desires to bring all nations to the saving knowledge of his Son, who is victorious over sin, sickness, Satan and death.

Mary Healy, S.T.D., is professor of Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit.

The problem with the above testimony in relation to what the article terms the Lord's day, is of course that scripture never refers to Sunday or the first day of the week as such, or commands or even suggests it as a day of worship. No one will ever be punished by God, or left to suffer the effects of calamities because they sinned against God by not  keeping a day holy, that He never said to keep holy. To the contrary, humanity making up their own holy day apart from any instruction from God or His prophets and apostles to do so, is in fact creating one of the idols this article itself addresses. According to the Catholic church, this day is to be exalted by civil legislation apart from the word of God. This idol has been, and is being established by civil legislation as this thread has noted, notes, and will continue to note. Nevertheless, the majority and many on these boards remain in denial. So be it.

[Amo]

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Tiruchirapalli/total-lockdown/article31339448.ece

Total lockdown on Sundays in Thanjavur district

The district administration has announced that a total lockdown will be imposed in the district on Sundays during the extended lockdown period.

All shops, excluding pharmacies and health-related services, would remain shut on all Sundays.

It has been decided to issue colour cards to each household to regulate movement of people on roads during the extended lockdown period. The cards would be issued in three colours: green card-holders would be allowed to go out for purchase of essentials on Mondays and Thursdays from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m.; blue cardholders on Tuesdays and Fridays and rose cardholders on Wednesdays and Saturdays.....................................