Skip to main content

SUNDAY VENERATION CON'T


“Though agitation for the Roman 

innovation may have begun during the 
episcopates of the Roman bishops Sixtus I and Telephorus (in the reign of Hadrian, AD 117 to138), Roman Catholic tradition definitely points to Pius I as the bishop who instituted the holding of the Lord's Supper on Sunday in the yearly celebration of the ecclesiastical Pascha. A well-known, unabridged, modern English dictionary has stated that Pius I is traditionally believed to have instituted the observance of Sunday by Christians.” Ibid, p. 107.
Thus we see that it was Pius I that brought Sunday exaltation to the seventh day 
Sabbath keeping Christian churches in Rome. He did it by the use of a Sunday Passover. Again we are told.
“There is a tradition that he [Pius] 
first caused Sunday to be observed 
by Christians. Pius I was bishop of 
the Roman church from about AD 143 
to 158.... One notable happening listed 
by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, in his Chronicon is this: ‘It was commanded by 
Pius that the Lord's resurrection should 
be celebrated on the Lord's day [Sunday], which was confirmed by later pontiffs.” Ibid, p. 108.
Still later to Pius I, Victor I also decreed that the passover should be celebrated on 
a Sunday as decreed by Rome. Many churches in Asia and other places refused, at which Victor, disfellowshipped all 
these churches as if he had control of them. This shows that a Sunday Passover was being used by the bishop of Rome to seize control of these seventh day Sabbath keeping churches. We are told.
“In the last decade of the second century Victor I, bishop of Rome, persuaded a few other bishops to join him in drawing up an ecclesiastical decree that Sunday should be made the principal day in the observance of the annual ecclesiastical Pascha. This aroused a storm of controversy …” Ibid, p. 162.
“The Roman party had deviated from ‘the tradition of an ancient custom’ by taking away from it something and adding to it something else. That is, the Roman 
party was charged with alteration and 
innovation in the celebration of the 
ecclesiastical Pascha. On the other hand, the Roman Church and its partisans 
insisted that the holding of the Lord's 
Supper should be deferred until the 
Sunday following Nisan 14, and that 
then the fast should be terminated. 
Victor I and the bishops siding with him drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day [Sunday] and that we should 
observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only.” Ibid, p. 165.
30. Because the churches refused Victor I's command as erroneous, and that he did not have and authority to tell them what to do, he disfellowshipped all those churches.
“Thereupon Victor, who presided over 
the church at Rome, immediately 
attempted to cut off from the common 
unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as 
heterodox, and he wrote letters and 
declared all the brethren there wholly 
excommunicated.” Ibid, p. 164.
Although the bishops of other churches spoke to Victor and by this restrained him, yet he was able to capture many churches to his Sunday Passover. Here is what we are told.
“Hence, the geographical areas represented by Eusebius as being on the Roman side in the time of Victor I were (1) Rome, (2) Gaul, (3) Pontus, (4) Osrhoene, (5) Alexandria, and (6) part of Palestine, plus (7) a man in Corinth.” Ibid, p. 170.
32. However the battle between Sunday 
Passover churches in the orbit of Rome, and other churches that observe a 14th 
Nisan Passover continued and would not be settled until the advent of Emperor 
Constantine many years later. Here is what we are told.
“And so the Paschal dispute was to remain unsettled until the nominal conversion 
of the Emperor Constantine I, who would make an imperial decree, in AD 325, to 
enforce the observance of Sunday by 
Christians as the big day of Paschal 
festivities.” Ibid, p. 174.
33. As the second and third centuries ended and the fourth began this Passover 
Sunday that was celebrated only on one Sunday of the year (the Sunday after the 14th of Nisan and the full moon), was 
decreed to be followed as a practice every Sunday by the church of Rome in a Church Council. Here is what we are told.
“The regional church council held C.A.D. 
305 at Elvira, near Granada, Spain, is 
the earliest synod on record for that 
country. One of more than forty 
ecclesiastics attending it was Hosius, 
bishop of Cordova, who later served the 
Roman Emperor Constantine I as his 
adviser on church affairs. He did not, 
however, preside at this synod. This 
council's more than eighty decrees are 
severe. Canon 21 decreed: If anyone 
dwelling in a city should not attend 
church on three Lord's day [Sunday], let him abstain [from the communion] for a short period, so that he may appear to 
be reproved. That is the first recorded 
instance of a church council legislating 
in favor of weekly observance of Sunday, and it is the earliest record of penalty being imposed upon anybody for not attending church on that day.” Ibid, 
p. 236.
This statement shows quite a lot about 
the churches in the Roman Empire being 
captured into Sunday exaltation keeping away from the seventh day Sabbath. These points need to be carefully considered.
i. Sometime in the third century, the Sunday Passover began to become a regular festival not to be kept only once a year, but to be kept every Sunday.
ii. What indeed is Sunday keeping as 
kept by all Sunday exalting churches? It is a Sunday Passover made a 
regular observance on the first day of each week—Sunday.
iii. Thus by the third and fourth centuries, many of the churches were keeping 
the seventh day Sabbath and at the same time observing a weekly Sunday Passover.
However it was Emperor Constantine 
under the influence of Sunday exaltation 
bishops that then decreed a Sunday law in 321 A.C.B. A Sunday law is merely a weekly Sunday Passover required by the law for all citizens to keep.
“The first Sunday law known to have 
been issued by a civil government was 
that decreed by Constantine the Great on March 7, 321.” Ibid, p. 255.
“Thus Constantine issued at least six civil edicts concerning Sunday observance: (1) the law of March 7, 321, which ordered courts tradesmen and townspeople to rest on Sunday: (2) a law in June of the same year, which permitted emancipation of slaves on Sunday.” Ibid, p. 257.
36. Clearly, a Sunday law is indeed a weekly Sunday Passover being made to imitate the rest provision of the seventh day Sabbath as required by law for all to observe. 
Observe this explanation chart.
Then Constantine also passed a law 
enforcing a yearly Sunday Passover for 
all the churches in the Roman Empire to 
keep. This act would capture dissident 
churches to the church in Rome for fear of 
penalty.
“What was in effect a Sunday law for 
Easter was issued in 325 by Constantine 
in the form of a lengthy imperial letter in connection with the Council of Nicaea.” Ibid, p. 256.
“ ... a law in 325 which enjoined upon all Christians strict adherence to the decision of the council of Nicaea concerning the 
annual celebration of the ecclesiastical Pascha on Sunday.” Ibid, 257.
“The synodical letter sent out by the 
Nicene Council stated that all the brethren in the East who have heretofore kept the [Paschal] festival when the Jews did, will henceforth conform to the Roman and to us. Since the time of Victor I the Roman bishops have decreed and anathematized, but their verbal blasts could not compel the Quartodecimans and others to conform to their dictates. Now Sylvester I, the 
Roman bishop, had the backing of a decree by a major synod and an edict by a civil power willing and ready to use the law-enforcing agencies of the state to punish dissenters. The Quartodecimans and 
others who differed with the Roman 
church in teaching and practice concerning the observance of the ecclesiastical Pascha now had to face a new opponent—the 
imperial might of Rome. The emperor's edict could be used as a cudgel to 
oppressed and destroy Christians who 
followed their convictions in this religious matter.” Ibid, p. 278.
38. This decree from the government indeed marked a turning point for the church of Rome, it now had the aid of the state to 
capture the churches that refused to 
accept its Sunday Passover and thus exalt Sunday against the seventh day Sabbath. We are told.
“But when the emperor convened the Council of Nicaea and collaborated with 
it against Arius and his followers, and against those Christians who observed the ecclesiastical Pascha on a day other then Sunday, it marked a major turning point in Church history.… This is the first example of civil punishment of heresy; and it is the beginning of a long succession of civil 
persecutions for all departures from the catholic faith.” Ibid, p. 279.
We can now summarize the results of 
the history we have looked in the following important points.
a. Easter Sunday is not a Sunday that 
celebrates the resurrection of Christ. It is a relic of a vehicle that was used by the church of Rome to capture seventh day Sabbath keeping churches and turn them into Sunday exaltation churches like Rome and Alexandria.
b. By decrees, councils, and the aid of 
the Roman government the church 
of Rome was able to use its Sunday Passover to capture and change seventh day keeping churches into churches 
exalting Sunday thus giving the church authority over them.
c. The church of Rome replaced the 
seventh day Sabbath by use of its 
yearly Sunday Passover, when it was made a weekly first day event reviling 
the seventh day Sabbath.
d. Sunday, the first day of the week, crouched as a passover, meant a new world. And so the church of Rome used it to bring a new world in the Roman world, a world in which the bishop of Rome had the assumed authority of Christ; and the Church took over the empire.
e. The final capture of all religions in the world will be attempted when a global Sunday law is enforced. This is the new world that Sunday as the first day means. 

FIN.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

WHAT OUR INQUIRY ABOUT OURSELVES SHOULD BE?

WHAT OUR INQUIRY ABOUT OURSELVES  SHOULD BE? We are in the very last days, we are told that the last controversy will be very short. “We are standing on the threshold of great and solemn events. Prophecies are fulfilling. The last great conflict will be short, but terrible. Old controversies will be revived. New controversies will arise. We have a great work to do. Our ministerial work must not cease. The last warning must be given to the world. There is a special power in the presentation of the truth at the present time. How long will it last? Only a little while.” Ellen G. White, Selected Messages bk. 3, pg. 419. And in view of the lateness of time, what should be the inquiry of everyone? We are told: “The inquiry of everyone should be ‘whose am I? To whom do I owe allegiance? Is my heart renewed? Is my soul reformed? Are my sins forgiven? Will they be blotted out when the time of refreshing shall come?” Ibid, pg. 419. We must needs examine ourselves to see if we are

DID ELLEN G. WHITE EVER CALL THE S.D.A. CHURCH BABYLON IN ANY WAY? BY NYRON MEDINA

In the Bible is brought to view the following statement: “And after these things I  saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was  lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying,  Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all  nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the  earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are  waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice  from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her  sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Revelation 18:1-4. Of this Scripture  we are told that it speaks about the Church, fallen because of sins. “In amazement  they [the people] hear the testimony that Babylon is the church,

IMPUTED AND IMPARTED RIGHTEOUSNESS EXPLAINED By Nyron Medina

IMPUTED AND IMPARTED RIGHTEOUSNESS  EXPLAINED By Nyron Medina Statement of the case 1. Imputed and imparted righteousness are usually seen as different things in apostate  theology; they are presented as happening either successively or at the very same time,  but they are presented as two different salvific functions.  “In this most illuminating paragraph, the writer traces two distinct phases in the process  of our salvation—two complementary aspects of the plan of redemption—which are in a  certain sense successive, but at the same time simultaneous; two different operations of  the same righteousness of Christ, which alone can satisfy the demands of divine justice  and make saints of us. Let us analyze in outline form these two phases:  A. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST BY WHICH WE ARE JUSTIFIED.  1. It is imputed to us, which is, credited, granted freely without our earning it.  2. It provides our right to heaven. It is the only merit we can claim.