|
XXXII - 3(99)
“Watchman,
what of the night?” "The hour has come, the
hour is striking and striking at you,
The End-Time Crisis
The Scripture clearly indicates that the end-time crisis Involves
worship. The "image of the beast" is to cause all that would not
"worship
the image" of itself "should be killed" (Rev.13:15). God's message
of warning - the Third Angel's Message - declares that "If any man
worship
the beast and his image ... the same shall drink of the wine" of His
wrath (14:9-10). Interestingly, that in this announcement of things
to come, the "mark in his forehead, or in his hand" follows the
worship of the beast and the image (v. 9). The question arises -
Does the act of worship bring "the mark"? It is obvious, if the
order as given in Scripture has any meaning, "the mark" does not
precede the act of worship.
This concept and the factors involved are emotionally charged issues
in the Community of Adventism. It must be asked, If Sunday is the
"mark," then what is the nature of the worship which precedes it?
How does that "worship" place a "mark" on one? Further, is the
object of worship, a "what" or is it a "who"?
The issue of Sunday observance did not originate with Constantine.
A. Paiva, a Portuguese writer on the subject of Mithraism, stated
that "the first day of the week, Sunday, was consecrated to Mithra
since times remote, as several authors affirm. Because the sun was
god, the Lord
par
excellence, Sunday came to be called the Lord's day, as was later
done in Christianity."
(Sunday in Roman Paganism,
p. 149) The Sun god of Mithraism, as well as the chief god in all
pagan religions, was the fallen angel, Lucifer (I Cor. 10:20). The
issue in Old Testament times was
who
was to be worshipped. The Sabbath was the day for the worship of
Jehovah. It was not the day that was worshipped, but the God who
designated the day as His day. The line was clearly drawn. In
Ezekiel the apostates of Judah "turned their backs toward the temple
of the Lord, and their faces toward the east, and they worshipped
the sun toward the east" (8:16). The day is not mentioned, but the
symbol of
whom
was worshipped is! And his day was Sunday. You can have a Sunday
Law, but unless It is followed by a worship dictum, and that dictum
is heeded, no "mark" is received.
The crisis could come in one of two ways: 1) Forbidding worship on
the Sabbath, or 2) Mandating attendance at a Eucharistic service on
Sunday. The first in some form will occur. We have been warned of
Satan's intents. He plans:
"I will so control the minds under my power that God's Sabbath
shall be a special
object of
contempt. A sign? - I will make the observance of the seventh
day a sign
of
disloyalty
to
the authorities of earth. Human laws will be made so stringent
that men and women will not dare to observe the seventh-day
Sabbath."
(Prophets and Kings, p. 184)
This is exactly a part of the plan as outlined by Rome at the very
time when God raised up this Movement. Louis Veuiilot in his book,
The Liberal Illusion,
wrote:
When the time comes and men realize that the social edifice must
be rebuilt according to eternal standards, ... Catholics will
arrange things to suit said standards.... They will make obligatory
the religious observance of Sunday on behalf of the whole of
society, and for its own good, revoking the permit for free-thinkers
and Jews to celebrate, incognito. Monday or
Saturday on their own account.
(p. 63)
The second is envisioned In the Pope's recent Apostolic Letter,
Dies Domini.
The emphasis "to ensure that civil legislation respects" the
Christian's "duty to keep Sunday holy" is connected with the
celebration of the Roman Eucharist. The next sentence reads - "In
any case, they are obliged in conscience to arrange their Sunday
rest in a way which allows them to take part In the Eucharist."
(Par. 67) Why? "This mystery [the Eucharist] is the very center and
culmination of Christian life. It is the 'source and the summit of
all preaching of the Gospel...the center of the assembly of the
faithful."'
(Handbook for Today's Catholic,
p. 34) And what is worshipped? A "day"? No! A piece of bread, a
"what" declared to be a "who" - God incarnate by the word of the
priest. Blasphemy!
A further note on this point goes to the heart of Rome's objective.
In explaining "How to Receive Communion," today's Catholic is told:
Holy Communion may be received on the tongue or in the hand and
may be given under the form of bread alone or under both species.
When the minister
of
the Eucharist addresses the communicant with the words "The Body
of
Christ," "The Blood of Christ," the communicant responds,
"Amen." When
the
minister raises the eucharistic bread
or
wine, this is the invitation for the communicant to make an Act
of Faith, to express his or her belief in the Eucharist, to manifest
a need and desire for the Lord, to accept the good news of Jesus'
paschal mystery. A
clear
and meaningful "Amen" is your response to this invitation. In
this way you profess your belief in the presence
of
Christ in the eucharistic bread and wine as well as in his Body,
the Church. (ibid., p.
42)
Consider a point or two of what you have just read: 1) The celebrant
of the Mass is not designated as a "priest" but as a "minister," for
the new Catholic; 2) The wafer may be received in "the hand." Note,
that one of the "or's" in Rev. 14:9 is "or in his hand." 3) The
wafer also can be placed on the tongue. Is there any connection
between this and the fact that the fifth plague on "the seat of the
beast" caused those of "his kingdom" to gnaw their tongues because
of the pain? (Rev. 16:10) As stated above to Rome a simple "amen"
signifies not only one's acceptance of "Jesus' paschal mystery," but
also one's
- 3 -
"belief in" the Roman "Church," designated in the text just noted as
"his kingdom"?
In this same Handbook, It cites the Vatican II document,
Constitution on the
Sacred Liturgy, as stating that the Eucharist is a "sign of
unity" (p. 34). It needs be only recalled that at the 1991 seventh
Assembly of the WCC in Canberra, Australia, Cardinal Cassidy, then an
archbishop, forbade the Catholics present from joining in the Assembly's
communion service. As his reason, he stated that he "judged that sharing
the eucharist is the 'ultimate sign and seal' of church unity, and thus
a step with many and major doctrinal implications." (EPS 91.02.74)
Already at that time, there was in the "works" a program to find common
doctrinal grounds by which visible Christian unity might
In his Apostolic Letter,
Dies Domini, what the Pope did not say is as important to
consider as what he did say. Gone were the proud boasts and challenges
to Protestants. Nowhere did the Pope after setting forth the Sabbath as
given in the Decalogue (Par. 16), challenge - "Who gave you the
authority to tamper with the fourth?" - as was done in the Clifton
Tracts. Nowhere did the Pope claim that the change in the day of worship
was "a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious
matters" as did the Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons in 1895. Now the
voice of Cardinal Edward Cassidy, president of the Vatican Council for
Promoting Christian Unity, declares the Eucharist to be the "ultimate
sign and seal." Nowhere did the Pope declare as was done in
The Convert's Catechism of
Catholic Doctrine, that "the Catholic Church, in the Council
of Laodicea (A.D. 336) transferred the solemnity from Saturday to
Sunday" (p. 50). instead John Paul II sought to place the observance of
Sunday as close as possible to the Apostolic age (par. 23). He cited the
timing of the Resurrection and Pentecost to Sunday, along with various
"first day" references as evidence of its "apostolic" origin (Par.
19-21) He was but echoing the discussion on the Sabbath Commandment in
the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (pp. 581-582).
This new approach of the Roman Church to the Sabbath question dare not
be overlooked in our zeal to emphasize that John Paul II suggested Pope
Leo XIII's dictum that "Sunday rest" is "a worker's right which the
State must guarantee" (par. 66), and that "Christians will naturally
strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep
Sunday holy" (par. 67). But what does keeping Sunday "holy" mean to
John Paul II? "The Sunday assembly Is the privileged place of unity: it
is the setting for the celebration of the sacramentum unitatis which
profoundly marks the Church as a people gathered 'by' and 'In' the
"Sunday is coming," but let us not be so naive as to think that the
devil is going to seek to accomplish his agenda in a way that will be
openly obvious to the professed people of God. Christ has warned us that
the delusions of the final crisis will be such that, if possible, "they
shall deceive the very elect" (Matt. 24:24). Further, let it be
understood that a "Sunday Law" per
se, is not the "mark" or
"sign" of anything. We have had "Sunday closing laws" among the legal
statutes of various states and city ordinances regulating Sunday
commerce on the community level. This is not the aspect of Sunday laws
that should concern us. It is as Louis Veulliot defined such legislation
that we should be watching. His call was for the "religious observance"
of Sunday. This Involves the Eucharist in the end time crisis as has
been stated in the recent Papal Apostolic Letter. |