XXXIX - 3(06)

“Watchman,

what of the night?”

"The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!"          Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)

Benedict XVI and the

 Catechism

Page 2

Prophecy Validated by Events

Page 6

Editor's Preface

L'Osservatore Romano noted that one of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's "many outstanding achievements" was the preparation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In 1986 John Paul II entrusted a commission of Cardinals and Bishops chaired by Ratzinger to prepare a draft of the Catechism as requested by the Synod Fathers. Prior to this date Fr. P. V. Monachino of the Pontifical Gregorian University had permitted two dissertations to be written on the Genesis of Sunday Observance. One by C. S. Mosna, Storia della Dominica, and the other by Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday. Both of these men noted a dilemma for the Catholic Church by "invoking the authority of the Sabbath Commandment to sustain Sunday observance." While Ratzinger would not take the position of previous catechisms by an outright admission that Rome changed the day, he tied it even tighter to the authority assumed by Rome in the magisterium. It leaves an interesting question open. Was Dies Domini written by John Paul II, or by Ratzinger for him? It should be noted how closely the new catechism ties the worship on Sunday with the blasphemous worship of the Eucharist.

The second article in this issue of WWN is the concluding section of an article adapted by Adventists Affirm from the working manuscript of Edwin de Kock's, to be, three volume insightful and well documented book, Christ and Antichrist in Prophecy and History.

Page 2

Benedict XVI and the Catechism

In L'Osservatore Romano (27 April, 2005), which reported the installation service of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, there was given a biographical summary of his life. Noted as one of "his many outstanding achievements" was the preparation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (p. 7).

The second edition, which was revised "in accordance with the official Latin text," contains two prefaces by John Paul II. The first is the Apostolic Letter, Laetamur Magnopere, in which the Latin Typical Edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is approved and promulgated. It contains some interesting data. The Catechism project was initiated at the request submitted in 1985 "by the Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops that a compendium of all Catholic doctrine regarding faith and morals be composed" (p. xiv). In 1986, John Paul entrusted a commission of Cardinals and Bishops chaired by Cardinal Ratzinger to prepare the draft of the catechism requested by the Synod Fathers. Six years later the second preface was written, Fidei Depositum, in which it is stated:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illuminated by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom (p. 5).

It should be observed that the doctrine set forth in this new Catechism is claimed to be based on three sources: 1) Sacred Scripture, 2) Apostolic Tradition, and 3) that which the pope proclaims ex cathedra. Further, this "catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences" (p. 6). It is given "that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms" (p. 5). In its arrangement of doctrinal matter it follows the traditional order followed by the Catechism of St. Pius V (1566-1572) presenting the material in four parts, one of which is the Christian way of life. This is outlined beginning with an explanation of the Ten Commandments (p. 4).

Article 3 - The Third (Fourth) Commandment is divided into two Sections, "I. The Sabbath Day" and "II. The Lord's Day."

The six paragraphs under the Sabbath day make the following assertions:

1. "The seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy unto the Lord".

2. In speaking of the Sabbath, Scripture recalls creation.

3. Scripture also reveals in the Lord's day a memorial of Israel's liberation from bondage in Egypt.

4. God entrusted the Sabbath to Israel to keep as a sign of the irrevocable covenant.

5. God's action is the model for the human race. If God "rested and was refreshed" on the seventh day, man too ought to "rest" and should let others ...

6. Jesus never fail(ed) to respect the holiness of this day. He gives this law its authentic and authoritative interpretation: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). With compassion, Christ declares the Sabbath for doing good rather than harm, for saving life rather than killing. The Sabbath is the day of the Lord of

Page 3

mercies and a day to honor God. "The Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28) (2168-2173).

The second section -"The Lord's Day" is divided into five subsections and prefaced by Psalm 118:24 - "This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it."

The first subsection - "The Day of the Resurrection: the new creation" - is defining. It reads:

Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week. Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the Sabbath, it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's day — Sunday (2174).

For authority, St. Justin Martyr is quoted:

We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish Sabbath, but also the first day] when God separating matter from darkness made the world; and on this day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead (ibid.).

The second subsection sets forth Sunday as the fulfilment of the Sabbath. It reads:

Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfils the spiritual truth of the Jewish Sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God (2175).

For authority St. Ignatius of Antioch is cited.

The third subsection - "The Sunday Eucharist" - is based in Canon Law. It reads:

The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church" (2177).

The fourth subsection - The Sunday obligation - is also founded in Canon Law and reads:

The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass" (2180).

The final subsection - "A day of grace and rest from work - carries an ominous overtone. It reads: "In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Churches holy days as legal holidays" (2188).

This discussion of the Third (Fourth) Commandment is followed by a section - "In Brief." The first four "summaries" read:

"Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Deut 5:12). "The seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord (Ex. 31:15).

[Note - no reference is cited from the Law of God as He spoke it from Mt Sinai or wrote it in stone]

The Sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ.

[No Biblical reference given]

The Church celebrates the day of Christ's Resurrection on the "eighth day," Sunday, which is rightly called the Lord's day.

[Vatican II Document cited]

"Sunday ... is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."

[Canon Law is referenced]

This position is in contrast to previous Catechisms published under the imprimatur and nihil obstat of papal authority. For example, The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine by Peter

Page 4

Geiermann C.SS.R. not only carried the official recognition, but also received the Apostolic blessing of the reigning Pope, Pius X.

It reads (p. 50):

Q. Which is the Sabbath day?

A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.

Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday.

A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.

Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?

A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday, and the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles on a Sunday.

Q. By what authority did the Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?

A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her.

Another catechism first published in Scotland, and then later republished in New York contains the following question and answer:

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

A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; - she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority (A Doctrinal Catechism, p. 174).

We need to keep in mind the date of authorization for work to begin on this Catechism - 1986. A decade prior Samuel Bacchiocchi finished his doctoral studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. His dissertation from Sabbath to Sunday was not only published by the University press in 1977, but also received the imprimatur of the rector of the university. In the dissertation Bacchiocchi drew the conclusion:

Paganism suggested to those Christians who had previously known the day and the cult of the sun, the possibility of adopting the venerable day of the sun as their new day of worship since its rich symbology was conducive to worship the True Sun of righteousness who on that day "divided light from darkness and on the day of the resurrection separated faith from infidelity." Christianity, lastly, gave theological justification to Sunday observance by teaching that the day commemorated important events such as the inauguration of creation, the resurrection of Christ and the eschatological hope of a new world to come. It appears therefore that Jewish, pagan and Christian factors, though of differing derivation, merged to give rise to an institution capable of satisfying the exigencies of many Jewish and pagan converts.

In the light of these conclusions we ought to consider now those questions raised at the outset regarding the theological legitimacy of Sunday observance and its relevancy for Christians today. Our study has shown (we hope persuasively) that the adoption of Sunday observance in place of the Sabbath did not occur in the primitive Church at Jerusalem by virtue of Christ or of the Apostles, but rather took place several decades later, seemingly in the Church of Rome, solicited by external circumstances. ... This means, to put it bluntly, that Sunday observance does not rest on a foundation of Biblical theology and/or apostolic authority, but on later contributory factors which we have endeavoured to identify in our present study (p. 309).

In his "Acknowledgments" Bacchiocchi gives special thanks to the most Reverend Professor P. V. Monochino for having allowed him "to reconsider the whole question of the genius of Sunday observance, especially after he had just directed the dissertation of C. S. Mosna on this very topic." In the end, the dilemma of both Catholics and Protestants for the basis of Sunday observance is noted by Bacchiocchi, who quotes Mosna, who in turn had recognized the same dilemma in his dissertation. Bacchiocchi concluded:

It is noteworthy ... that Sunday liturgy and rest were patterned only gradually after the Jewish Sabbath. In fact, the complete application of the Sabbath commandment of a bodily rest to Sunday was not accomplished before the fifth and sixth centuries. This corroborates our contention that Sunday became the day of rest

Page 5

and worship not by virtue of an apostolic precept but rather by ecclesiastical authority exercised particularly by the Church of Rome. In the past this explanation has been regarded virtually as an established fact by Catholic theologians and historians (p. 310). .. .

This traditional claim that the Church of Rome has been responsible for the institution of Sunday observance, though widely challenged by recent Catholic (and Protestant) scholarship, has been amply substantiated by our present investigation. How does this conclusion affect the theological legitimacy and relevancy of Sunday observance? For those Christians who define their beliefs and practices exclusively by the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura, to observe Sunday as the Lord's day not on the authority of Scripture but of the tradition of the Church, is a paradoxical predicament. As well stated by John Gilmary Shea, "Protestantism, in discarding the authority of the Church, has no good reasons for its Sunday theory, and ought logically to keep Saturday as the Sabbath."

A dilemma, however, exists also for the Roman Catholic Church, inasmuch as she has enjoined Sunday observance traditionally by invoking the authority of the Sabbath commandment (p. 311).

This justification of Sunday observance on the basis of the Sabbath commandment raises important theological questions: How is it possible to maintain that the Sabbath "has been fulfilled and abolished in Jesus" and yet at the same time enjoin Sunday observance by appealing to the same fourth commandment (third commandment according to Catholic reckoning) be legitimately applied to Sunday when it is the seventh and not the first day of the week that the commandment demands to be kept holy? C. S. Mosna, conscious of this dilemma, in the conclusive of his dissertation proposes that "it would be better to renounce seeking a foundation for Sunday rest in the ancient Sabbath precept."

On what ground then can Sunday rest be defended? Mosna finds a "fundamental reason" in the fact that the Church "influenced Constantine's decision to make Sunday a day of rest for the whole empire, and this undoubtedly in order to give the Lord's day a pre-eminent place above the other days. Therefore, Mosna argues that the Church "can claim the honor of having granted man a pause to his work every seven days." This explanation harmonizes well with the traditional claim that Sunday observance "is purely a creation of the Catholic Church." But if Sunday rest is an ecclesiastical-imperial institution, how can it be enjoined upon Christians as a divine precept? (p. 312).

When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger came to the place for discussion of the Fourth Commandment (Catholic Third) in the new Catechism, he too, had to face this dilemma. He and his appointed committee wrote that "the Lord's Day" was the day of the Resurrection: the new creation. They invoked what Bacchiocchi noted as "Biblical testimonia" drawn from the Old Testament references to the numbers eight and one [par. 2174], which Bacchiocchi declares was based on unwarranted criteria of Biblical hermeneutic and was in time abandoned (p. 309).

How then did Ratzinger obtain his authority? Either he had John Paul II write, or he wrote for him, the Apostolic Letter, Dies Domini which was dated May 31, 1998. Thus the authority for the worship on Sunday rests in the Roman Catholic Magisterium. While the bold assumption of previous Catechisms is not apparent, the source remains for the commanded celebration of the Eucharist on Sunday - the Church of Rome, not the Scriptures.

As a special issue of WWN, (#2, 1998) we discussed "The 'New' Theology of the Papacy regarding Sunday." It may be seen on our Web Site: CLICK HERE.

Page 6

Prophecy Validated by

Events
Edwin de Kock

(Continued from WWN XXXIX - 2(06), p. 6)

In the last part of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century, Ellen G. White, whom Seventh-day Adventists regard as an inspired writer, enlarged on the prophecy about the two horned beast. To the explanations of Andrews, Smith and others, she added startling predictions, which were oddly at variance with the facts of her time - though nowadays they are from a secular point of view, becoming perfectly credible.

As long ago as 1888, in The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, she declared: "The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of Spiritualism; they will reach across the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, this country will follow the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience. In those days, Protestants would as soon have shaken hands with the Devil.

Even more amazing for that day and age was the following prediction from the same book: "When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image to the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result."

In 1900, she made another remark that was quite astonishing. "As America, the land of religious liberty, shall unite with the papacy in forcing the conscience and compelling to honor the false Sabbath, the people of every country on the globe will be led to follow her example."

From the perspective of that date, this was simply ridiculous, for the United States was not, as it has since then become, a planet-wide superpower. Only five years earlier, as Barbara Tuchman points out, its navy had "exactly one battleship in commission," because America was still following George Washington's advice to mind its own business and avoid international adventures after the European pattern.

But a departure from this philosophy was already under way, with Theodore Roosevelt - first the Rough Rider in the war over Cuba during 1898, and afterwards United States President - leading the charge. In the late 19th century he was being strongly influenced by two men, an historian [Brooks Adams] and a naval strategist [A. T. Mahan]. ...

In 1901, on the threshold of the 20th century, after McKinley's assassination, Theodore Roosevelt became president and vigorously espoused imperialism as a basis for America's greatness. "Brooks became the president's confidential advisor, consulted almost daily on all manner of affairs. Behind the Square Deal was Brooks Adams, reiterating to Roosevelt the need for the control of capital, the control of labor, in preparation for expansion and war. His influence is traceable in Roosevelt's seizure of the Panama Canal Zone, his response to Russia's threat to Manchuria, his mediation in the Russo-Japanese War, and much else that is otherwise puzzling in the Roosevelt foreign policies."

But even so, at that time the United States was still far from being an actual superpower. The greatest political entity on earth continued to be the British Empire, with the Germans in second place. The command centers of the world, in military as in cultural matters, lay along the North Sea which separates England from France and Germany - not west of the Atlantic.

It is true that already in 1898 America had made a dramatic entry onto the international stage, laying the groundwork for a greater possible role in the coming century. ... In that crucial year, the United States demolished the western remnants of the Spanish Empire. Supporting the ill-treated Cuban people and the rebels in their desire for independence, she defeated Spain and

Page 7

sank its entire fleet. In the aftermath, America acquired Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. She also finally made up her mind to annex Hawaii.

Nonetheless, she was not then nor would she for many more years be in a position to command, much less compel, the entire planet to follow her lead in anything. She certainly was not yet involving herself in the affairs of Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Therefore, as Graham Ross points out, until the outbreak of World War I, the great powers were generally still considered to be Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Austro-Hungary, and Italy.

As for the United States, the Europeans "tended to underestimate her potential as a world power. She had a navy but only a small volunteer army that could have no influence on a short European war. In coal and steel production she was far ahead of the European powers and her exports were increasing in a faster rate; but her economic expansion owed much to European investment and she was still on balance a debtor to Europe. Only in a lengthy war would her latent strength come into play."

The power shift that endowed America with a brand-new status in global affairs took place as it entered into and determined the outcome of World War I. "Only with the help of the United States were Britain, France and Italy able to defeat the central powers."

Ellen White had died almost two years before, on July 16, 1915. She could therefore not have witnessed in her lifetime how America broke the deadlock of the Great War, enabling the Allies to defeat the mighty Germans, and how World War II would virtually bring a repeat performance. Afterwards, for more than forty years, the United States would prevent the Soviet Union from overwhelming Western Europe as well as the planet.

Like others in those days, Ellen White could not from her own experience have known that her country was, at least in human terms, to become the arbiter of destiny or even hear people talk about "the American Century." For her and her contemporaries, the stature and might of the United States as a global super power did not yet exist, and neither did the ecumenical re-approachment between Protestants and Catholics as a major force in contemporary politics.

In those days, it was all a matter of faith in Bible prophecy. For us, it hardly requires imagination (Adventists Affirm, Fall 2005, pp. 25-27).

Note: The author of the above article, Edwin de Kock, MA., Theo. Dip. is a writer, editor, poet and professional educator. He taught as a college teacher for more than 35 years in South Africa, South Korea and the United States. He is the author of the insightful and well-documented book, Christ and Antichrist in Prophecy and History. When completed, it will comprise at least three volumes. The above article was adapted from the working manuscript.

Page 8

"Like his predecessor John Paul II, Benedict XVI was present at all four sessions of the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. Whereas Karol Wojtyla took part as a bishop, the young Joseph Ratzinger did so as a theological expert. During and after the council he taught successively at the universities of Bonn (1959-1963), Munster (1963-1966), Tubingen (1966-1969), and Regensburg, until he was appointed Archbishop of Munich in 1977. In 1981 he became prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a post he held until the death of John Paul II in April 2005.

First Things, Feb., 2006, p. 24