A Conversation with Stephen Korsman about
Rome's Challenge
and the Biblical evidence for Sundaykeeping.


What follows is a discussion of  whether or not the Catholic Mirror actually published the series of articles later reprinted by Adventists in booklet form under the title of Rome's Challenge. Stephen Korsman, a Roman Catholic, posted the following inquiry on the internet, which precipitated the subsequent discussion.

Color code:
Green - Stephen Korsman
Blue - myself, Michael Scheifler

Subject: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:07:47 +0200
From: "Stephen Korsman" <skorsman@global.co.za>
Organization: The South African Internet Exchange
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

Hi !

I have an unusual request that I hope some of you may know the answer to. You may be familiar with the Adventist booklet called "Rome's Challenge - Why do Protestants keep Sunday?". It claims to be a collection of articles published in "The Catholic Mirror" of Baltimore, Maryland, on 2, 9, 16, and 23 Sept 1893, under the direction of Cardinal Gibbons. It claims that the newspaper was the official mouthpiece of the papacy in America, and therefore anything it contains is the expression of the papacy and the American Catholic Church.

The articles themselves, to summarise, state that Sunday observance has no biblical basis whatsoever, and it states that the Adventist church is the only Protestant church to fully follow the Bible in this regard, and challenges Sunday keeping Protestants to either follow the Bible alone and keep Saturday as the Sabbath, or to follow the Catholic Church completely, and not just in Sunday keeping.

I consider this all to be totally contrary to historical evidence, the Bible, and official Catholic teaching both in the most recent papal encyclical on the topic, Dies Domini, and in the past.

My first question is this: is it possible to determine whether these articles are indeed of Catholic origin, or are they (typical) Adventist forgeries designed to trap ignorant Protestants and Catholics into accepting the Sabbath instead of Sunday ? How can I go about finding out if these articles really WERE published in the Catholic Mirror on the dates the Adventist church claims they were published ?

My second question is this: the booklet I received is of dubious origin - it has no title page which states who the publisher is, and the Adventist who passed it on to me was unclear, as is the booklet itself. One possibility is that they are claiming it to be a reprint by the Catholic Mirror itself (in which case what possible reason is there for the Mirror to leave off its
credentials and have no title page) or by an organisation called the International Religious Liberty Association, called only "an ultra-Protestant organization" by the booklet.

I suspect that a) the articles are not of Catholic origin, and b) the IRLA is in fact an Adventist publishing house in disguise. The only available data on/in the book is the bar code and ISBN number, and what appears to be the crest of the publisher, perhaps the IRLA. Is there any way I can track this down, determine the publisher and origin using the bar code or ISBN number ?

The picture is attached for those interested.

Note from Michael Scheifler: I no longer have the image that was attached to Stephen's
post, but above is a scan of the covers of a booklet similar to what he was talking about.

Thanks for your help !

Could you please e-mail me privately as well as in the group (cc me a copy) as I am not sure if I will be able to get online for the next few days. Thanks !

God bless,
Stephen

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 09:39:37 -1000
From: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>
To: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>

Stephen,

I have facsimile copies of the original articles, and have included a scan of the Catholic Mirror's masthead in Rome's Challenge online: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/chalng.htm

See the Maryland State Archives link:
http://speccol.mdarchives.state.md.us/pages/newspaper/number.aspx?id=107
Listed is the Catholic Mirror which is archived on microfilm.

The article is genuine, and yes the Adventist Church republishes Rome's Challenge in booklet form. The red "R" on your image represents the Review and Herald Publishing Association, an Adventist publishing house.

I will be happy to discuss any other Adventist "forgeries" with you.

Michael Scheifler

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 22:12:28 +0200
From: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>
To: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>

Hi !

> I have facsimile copies of the original articles, and have included
> a scan of the Catholic Mirror's masthead in Rome's Challenge online:
> http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/chalng.htm
>
> See the Maryland State Archives link:
> http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/speccol/news/title/html/title_c.html
> Listed is the Catholic Mirror which is archived on microfilm.
>
> The article is genuine, and yes the Adventist Church republishes
> Rome's Challenge in booklet form. The red "R" on your image represents
> the Review and Herald Publishing Association, an Adventist publishing
> house.
>
> I will be happy to discuss any other Adventist "forgeries" with you.


Thanks for the information. I will check it out, and hear what HONEST people have to say. I have dealt with you before, and I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you. Your methods are typical of the deceit that Adventism is known for. But thanks for the reply.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 21:55:49 +0200
From: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>
To: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>

Hi !

> I have facsimile copies of the original articles, and have included
> a scan of the Catholic Mirror's masthead in Rome's Challenge online:
> http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/chalng.htm

Would you please be so kind as to snail mail me a hard copy of the articles you claim to have, to the address listed below in my signature file ? This will help clear up the matter of whether this is Adventist dishonesty at work, and be a mark in favour of your integrity.

Am I being unfair to think you would not send such info ?

Please tell me if you can or can't fulfil this request ?

Thanks,
Stephen

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:04:11 +0200
From: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>
To: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>

Hi !

> See the Maryland State Archives link:
> http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/speccol/news/title/html/title_c.html
> Listed is the Catholic Mirror which is archived on microfilm.


Unfortunately their records show that their collection does not contain the articles and issues in question. Could you please direct me to a place where I can find the articles you claim to come from this source in archive ?

This is beginning to look VERY much like a dishonest Adventist scam.

God bless,
Stephen

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 23:20:09 +0200
From: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>
To: mikesch@aloha.net

Michael Scheifler wrote:

> Stephen,
>
> I have facsimile copies of the original articles, and have included
> a scan of the Catholic Mirror's masthead in Rome's Challenge online:
>
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/chalng.htm

I would very much like to get copies of what you have. Would it be possible for you to send me copies, or inform me where I might obtain copies for myself ?

I do not really see the relevance of putting this masthead on you website. It does nothing to prove that your articles are genuine and not Adventist forgeries. The only value is psychological ... something to make the reader think this is genuine. Nice trick. Not very honest.

> See the Maryland State Archives link:
> http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/speccol/news/title/html/title_c.html
> Listed is the Catholic Mirror which is archived on microfilm.

Your reference to this archive is useless to me, because according to their records, they do not have the issues of the Catholic Mirror in question on their archives of microfilm.

Could you please direct me to an archive which DOES contain the articles, and stop sending me on a wild goose chase ? It is beginning to look more and more like a cheap dishonest Adventist ploy to attack the Catholic Church.

> The article is genuine, and yes the Adventist Church republishes
> Rome's Challenge in booklet form. The red "R" on your image represents
> the Review and Herald Publishing Association, an Adventist publishing
> house.

Why does the Adventist Church hide it's name in these publications ? Is it ashamed of it's name ? Or is it trying to get this information out to people without letting them know where it is coming from - if they knew it was Adventist, they would know the sort of rubbish they were reading.

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 11:05:37 -1000
From: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>
To: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>

Stephen,

You already now know that the Catholic Mirror did exist, since the Maryland State Archives do hold microfilm archives of various issues, though perhaps not the ones you are looking for. Surely that is part of the Adventist plot in your mind!

Normally I would be more than happy to send someone documentation I have, but since you apparently consider me to be a dishonest liar, it would be useless to send you anything, since I could have concocted it myself, the low-life deceitful Adventist that I am.

I will do this much for you. Here is the web address of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, since Catholic Mirror was their paper, they just might be able to officially confirm the validity of Rome's Challenge for you, and may even be able to provide you with facsimile copies.

http://www.archbalt.com/ [now http://www.archbalt.org]

Michael

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 15:15:05 +0200
From: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>
To: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>

Hi !

> You already now know that the Catholic Mirror did exist, since the
> Maryland State Archives do hold microfilm archives of various issues,
> though perhaps not the ones you are looking for. Surely that is part
> of the Adventist plot in your mind!

I do believe that the Catholic Mirror exists. I just don't believe that they actually published the articles you claim they published. I believe this because the content of the articles is contrary to official Catholic teaching, contrary to the Bible, and contrary to all the historical evidence we have available to us.

> Normally I would be more than happy to send someone documentation
> I have, but since you apparently consider me to be a dishonest liar,
> it would be useless to send you anything, since I could have concocted
> it myself, the low-life deceitful Adventist that I am.

I guess you will not be sending the evidence, and I have to assume you do not have it available. If you had a chance to clear your name, you would. I DO consider your deceitful - I have seen your deceit both in personal dialogue with you in the past and from reading your website. You have a chance to undo that by supplying proof of truthfulness for a claim I consider deceitful. The ONLY reason one can have for refusing to defend one's honesty is the inability to do so. So be it. Your name continues in the disgrace it has had in the past.

> I will do this much for you. Here is the web address of the
> Archdiocese of Baltimore, since Catholic Mirror was their paper,
> they just might be able to officially confirm the validity of
> Rome's Challenge for you, and may even be able to provide you with
> facsimile copies.
> http://www.archbalt.com/

Thank you. I will be contacting them shortly.

Remember, however, whether the Adventist sect is being deceitful in this instance does not affect the invalidity of the claims made in the article. I hope you realise this.

God bless,
Stephen

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 08:43:40 -1000
From: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>
To: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>

Stephen Korsman wrote:

> I do believe that the Catholic Mirror exists.

You did not know they existed until I gave you proof.

> I just don't believe that they actually published the articles you claim they published.

You will.

> I believe this because the content of the articles is contrary to
> official Catholic teaching, contrary to the Bible, and contrary
> to all the historical evidence we have available to us.


Well you [are] about to face something of a dilemma.

> I guess you will not be sending the evidence, and I have to assume
> you do not have it available.


Get a grip Stephen and face reality. You would not believe it even if I sent it to you.

> If you had a chance to clear your name, you would.

I don't need to clear my name. You need to face the reality of your paranoia. I am not being dishonest with you in the slightest.

> I DO consider your deceitful - I have seen your deceit both in personal
> dialogue with you in the past and from reading your website. You have a
> chance to undo that by supplying proof of truthfulness for a claim I
> consider deceitful. The ONLY reason one can have for refusing to defend
> one's honesty is the inability to do so. So be it. Your name continues in
> the disgrace it has had in the past.


And you want me to do you a favor with talk like that?

> Remember, however, whether the Adventist sect is being deceitful in this
> instance does not affect the invalidity of the claims made in the article.
> I hope you realise this.


Well when you accept that Rome's Challenge is genuine, and that your suspicions were unfounded, you will be faced with a big dilemma. When is the Catholic church telling the truth? When can you believe them? The writings of Cardinal Gibbons are still published today. In Faith of Our Fathers, originally published in 1876, Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore wrote:

"But, you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will [pg. 73] not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."

Source: Faith of Our Fathers, by James Cardinal Gibbons,
111th printing, Published by TAN Books and Publishers, INC.,
P.O. Box 424, Rockford, Illinois 61105, Copyright 1980, pages 72-73.
This book is still published and distributed today.
See Tan's web site at http://www.tanbooks.com/

Or how about this from another Catholic newspaper:

Now in the matter of Sabbath observance the Protestant rule of Faith is utterly unable to explain the substitution of the Christian Sunday for the Jewish Saturday. It has been changed. The Bible still teaches that the Sabbath or Saturday should be kept holy. There is no authority in the New Testament for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday. Surely it is an important matter. It stands there in the Bible as one of the Ten Commandments of God. There is no authority in the Bible for abrogating this Commandment, or for transferring its observance to another day of the week. For Catholics it is not the slightest difficulty. "All power is given Me in heaven and on earth; as the Father sent Me so I also send you,"  said our Divine Lord in giving His tremendous commission to His Apostles. "He that heareth you heareth Me." We have in the authoritative voice of the Church the voice of Christ Himself. The Church is above the Bible; and this transference of Sabbath observance to Sunday is proof positive of that fact. Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday in the Third - Protestant Fourth - Commandment of God.

Source: The Catholic Record, London, Ontario Canada, September 1, 1923.

The Catholic Mirror of 1893 and the Catholic Record of 1923 agree with each other, there is no biblical support for Sunday replacing Saturday as the day of worship. Were they both in error? (Do you think I am lying to you about the Catholic Mirror too?)

Michael

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 20:51:01 +0200
From: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>
To: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>

Hi !

> > I do believe that the Catholic Mirror exists.
>
> You did not know they existed until I gave you proof.

I did not doubt their existence.

> > I just don't believe that they actually published the articles you
> > claim they published.
>
> You will.

Prove it. He who asserts must prove, a basic rule which you apparently don't seem to live by.

> > I believe this because the content of the articles is contrary to
> > official Catholic teaching, contrary to the Bible, and contrary
> > to all the historical evidence we have available to us.
>
> Well you you about to face something of a dilemma.
>
> > I guess you will not be sending the evidence, and I have to assume
> > you do not have it available.
>
> Get a grip Stephen and face reality. You would not believe it even
> if I sent it to you.


If you don't send it, I will know you don't really have it. If you DO send it, at least I will have seem SOME evidence, and have more to go on to prove its existence. Trust me, if you can prove its existence I will accept it. In that case it will be merely a very uninformed article written by an uninformed Catholic whi[ch] didn't know much about the Bible, history, or church teaching.

> > If you had a chance to clear your name, you would.
>
> I don't need to clear my name. You need to face the reality of your
> paranoia. I am not being dishonest with you in the slightest.


I need to see something tangible to believe you.

> > I DO consider your deceitful - I have seen your deceit both in personal
> > dialogue with you in the past and from reading your website. You have a
> > chance to undo that by supplying proof of truthfulness for a claim I
> > consider deceitful. The ONLY reason one can have for refusing to defend
> > one's honesty is the inability to do so. So be it. Your name continues in
> > the disgrace it has had in the past.
>
> And you want me to do you a favor with talk like that?

You need to defend your false church against being exposed as a liar. I am merely being honest with you. If you don't like that, send me nothing and I will publish a page on my website stating outright that you were not able to provide proof for any of your claims - a statement which will be perfectly true.

> The Catholic Mirror of 1893 and the Catholic Record of 1923 agree
> with each other, there is no biblical support for Sunday replacing
> Saturday as the day of worship. Were they both in error?
> (Do you think I am lying to you about the Catholic Mirror too?)

Quite frankly, I wouldn't trust an Adventist to sit the right way on a toilet seat. I do not know if you are lying or not, or if your church is lying and you are just deceived and think you are telling the truth. And yes, statements like that, if authentic, go contrary to the Bible, contrary to history, and contrary to Catholic teaching. Therefore it is dishonest of Adventists like yourself to portray this as Catholic teaching.

God bless,
Stephen

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 09:06:01 -1000
From: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>
To: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>

Stephen,

Surely you know who Karl Keating is? Note what he says:

After all, fundamentalists meet for worship on Sunday, yet there is no evidence in the Bible that corporate worship was to be made on Sundays. The Jewish Sabbath, or day of rest, was, of course, Saturday. It was the Catholic Church that decided Sunday should be the day of worship for Christians, in honor of the Resurrection.

Source: Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating, copyright 1988 by Ignatius Press, San Francisco, bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Catholic Church, page 38.

Now are you going to tell me that Keating is in error?
What value is there to a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur?

Michael

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 21:10:20 +0200
From: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>
To: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>

Hi !

> Surely you know who Karl Keating is? Note what he says:
>
> After all, fundamentalists meet for worship on Sunday, yet there is
> no evidence in the Bible that corporate worship was to be made on
> Sundays. The Jewish Sabbath, or day of rest, was, of course,
> Saturday. It was the Catholic Church that decided Sunday should be
> the day of worship for Christians, in honor of the Resurrection.
>
> Source: Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating, copyright
> 1988 by Ignatius Press, San Francisco, bearing the Nihil Obstat
> and Imprimatur of the Catholic Church, page 38.
>
> Now are you going to tell me that Keating is in error?
> What value is there to a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur?

He is not in error, you are in error. You are taking him way out of context. Do you not realise that EVERYTHING the Apostles did, from preaching to changing various laws that God had given before, was done without biblical authority ? There is no biblical authority for the changing of the circumcision law, yet the Apostles went ahead with that. If the Church can, without biblical authority, change one law of God, surely it can change another ?

My point is that there IS biblical evidence for the changing of the Sabbath to Sunday. The Bible is clear that the Sabbath was nailed to the Cross, and we need not keep it any more. Unlike you, I choose to follow the Bible.

Now are you going to prove your honesty, or do I have to publicise your
dishonesty ?

God bless,
Stephen

Click on an image to view it full size.

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 09:23:57 -1000
From: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>
To: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>

Stephen,

Attached is part of the front page of the the September 2nd, 1893 issue of Catholic Mirror, which I have just scanned for you. In order to keep file size down I have greatly compressed it, but you should still be able to read most of it.


Do you believe it?

Michael

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:28:15 -1000
From: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>
To: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>

Stephen,

Here is the bottom half of page 8 of the September 2nd, 1893 issue of Catholic Mirror, which includes part of the first article of Rome's Challenge, which is readable.

Do you believe it now?

Michael

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 15:03:04 +0200
From: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>
To: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>

Hi !

> Here is the bottom half of page 8 of the September 2nd, 1893
> issue of Catholic Mirror, which includes part of the first
> article of Rome's Challenge, which is readable.
>
> Do you believe it now?

It makes it a lot more believable. But I still want to find out from a trustworthy source that what you sent me was not a fake.

And as I said, even if this article IS the genuine thing, and WAS published in the Catholic Mirror (the existence of which I never doubted for one second), all it means is that the author was writing something contrary to the Bible, contrary to historical evidence, and contrary to official Catholic teaching. If you think this is a GOOD argument to use to defend
your cause, you have obviously had little exposure to Protestant Bible studies.

Anyway, thanks for the scan. I will try to verify it. You have sent sufficient for me to start thinking your claim for the authenticity of this article to be credible. I thank you for that. It doesn't change my opinion on the honesty of using an argument formed by Catholics who were clearly ignorant of Scripture AND official Catholic teaching.

God bless,
Stephen

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 09:32:32 -1000
From: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>
To: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>

Stephen Korsman wrote:

> And as I said, even if this article IS the genuine thing, and WAS published
> in the Catholic Mirror (the existence of which I never doubted for one
> second), all it means is that the author was writing something contrary to
> the Bible, contrary to historical evidence, and contrary to official
> Catholic teaching. If you think this is a GOOD argument to use to defend
> your cause, you have obviously had little exposure to Protestant Bible
> studies.


Here is a quote on the same topic from a Catholic Catechism:

If we would consult the Bible only, without Tradition, we ought, for instance, still to keep holy the Saturday with the Jews, instead of Sunday ...

Source: Deharbe's Catechism, translated by Rev. John Fander, published by Schwartz, Kirwin & Fauss, 53 Park Place, New York, Sixth American Edition, Copyright 1912, 1919, 1924, page 81.

This Catholic Catechism was published for many years, has the Imprimatur of the Archbishop of New York, and is not difficult to find today. It agrees with the Catholic Mirror, the Catholic Record, and Karl Keating. Am I to believe that this Catechism was going contrary to Catholic teaching too? When can I trust sanctioned Catholic publications to be accurately reflecting Catholic teaching?

Michael

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:11:17 +0200
From: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>
To: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>

Hi !

> Here is a quote on the same topic from a Catholic Catechism:
>
> If we would consult the Bible only, without Tradition, we ought, for
> instance, still to keep holy the Saturday with the Jews, instead of
> Sunday ...
>
> Source: Deharbe's Catechism, translated by Rev. John Fander,
> published by Schwartz, Kirwin & Fauss, 53 Park Place, New York,
> Sixth American Edition, Copyright 1912, 1919, 1924, page 81.
>
> This Catholic Catechism was published for many years, has the
> Imprimatur of the Archbishop of New York, and is not
> difficult to find today. It agrees with the Catholic Mirror, the
> Catholic Record, and Karl Keating. Am I to believe that this
> Catechism was going contrary to Catholic teaching too? When can I
> trust sanctioned Catholic publications to be accurately reflecting
> Catholic teaching?


I disagree with that book, and so does the current Pope. Remember that the Imprimatur only means that the bishop gives permission to print the book, NOT that it agrees with Catholic doctrine. Even Prof Samuele Bacchiocchi's doctrinal thesis, "From Sabbath to Sunday", which is as heretical as they come, has an imprimatur. The key label is the "Nihil Obstat." And then that is only the opinion of the guy giving permission, and is NOT infallible.

God bless,
Stephen

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 08:05:25 -1000
From: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>
To: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>

Stephen,

Here is another Catholic Catechism that agrees the change from Saturday to Sunday has no scriptural authority:

Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute 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.

[pg. 181]
Q. In what manner can we show a Protestant, that he speaks unreasonably against fasts and abstinences?
A. Ask him why he keeps Sunday, and not Saturday, as his day of rest, since he is unwilling either to fast or to abstain. If he reply, that the Scripture orders him to keep the Sunday, but says nothing as to fasting and abstinence, tell him the Scripture speaks of Saturday or the Sabbath, but gives no command anywhere regarding Sunday or the first day of the week. If, then, he neglects Saturday as a day of rest and holiness, and substitutes Sunday in its place, and this merely because such was the usage of the ancient Church, should he not, if he wishes to act consistently, observe fasting and abstinence, because the ancient Church so ordained?

Source: A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan, Imprimatur by John Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Published by P. J. Kenedy and Sons, New York, Copyright 1876 by T. W. Strong, pages 174, 181.

Now this catechism was also published for many years. Are you telling me I cannot trust Catholic Catechisms with Imprimaturs from respected Catholic Cardinals and Archbishops to tell the truth? How do I know when they are telling the truth? When can I trust them?

Michael

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 21:44:12 +0200
From: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>
To: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>

Hi !

Again, I repeat so that you might UNDERSTAND, if you care to - without a Nihil Obstat, a book is not officially considered to be orthodox, and even when it does that is no guarantee.

Just because this catechism contains this claim, does not mean that it is correct. Furthermore, a catechism can be doctrinally correct and at the same time be historically incorrect.

You are obviously very inexperienced with both Catholicism and Protestant Bible studies if you want to follow these ignorant claims. Why do you accept the one member of the Catholic Church's claim that Sunday is unscriptural when Protestants and Catholics all over the world, INCLUDING His Holiness Pope John Paul II can take the Bible and show you the opposite ? Is it because Adventists only believe what is CONVENIENT and NOT what is true ?

God bless,
Stephen

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:13:53 -1000
From: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>
To: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>

Stephen,

> Again, I repeat so that you might UNDERSTAND, if you care to - without a
> Nihil Obstat, a book is not officially considered to be orthodox, and even
> when it does that is no guarantee.
> Just because this catechism contains this claim, does not mean that it is
> correct. Furthermore, a catechism can be doctrinally correct and at the
> same time be historically incorrect.

So even a Nihil Obstat is really worthless, in your view, and guarantees nothing. You have just condemned the vast majority of Catholic publications, including many catechisms, as untrustworthy. So how do I a non-Catholic know when a Catholic Publication of any kind is telling me the absolute truth regarding Catholic teachings? What Catholic publications, if any, would be 100% accurate and trustworthy, in your view?

> You are obviously very inexperienced with both Catholicism and
> Protestant Bible studies if you want to follow these ignorant claims.

Actually, I have studied this matter very intently, and can find no warrant at all in scripture for the substitution of Sunday for the seventh-day sabbath, Saturday. Neither can I find any Protestant or Catholic studies that are able to *prove* from the Bible that such a change was commanded by God, or that the Apostles taught this change, or that Sunday was ever to be instituted as a weekly holy day.

Since you apparently have vast experience in this area, perhaps you can recommend a Protestant Bible study that you believe proves beyond doubt that Sunday is a sacred day, commanded by the Apostles to supersede the keeping of the Sabbath. Give it your best shot.

> Why do you accept the one member of the Catholic Church's claim that
> Sunday is unscriptural when Protestants and Catholics all over the
> world, INCLUDING His Holiness Pope John Paul II can take the Bible
> and show you the opposite?

I maintain that they cannot show any such thing, and I have a number of Catholic publications that completely agree, not just one.

> Is it because Adventists only believe what is CONVENIENT and NOT
> what is true ?

No, it is because the Adventists actually follow the principle of Sola Scriptura, and can find no warrant in the Bible for abolishing the seventh-day Sabbath and keeping Sunday in its place. The Catholic publications I have cited completely agree. Here is another:

Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. "The Day of the Lord" (dies Dominica) was chosen, not from any directions noted in the Scriptures, but from the Church's sense of its own power. The day of resurrection, the day of Pentecost, fifty days later, came on the first day of the week. So this would be the new Sabbath. People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy.

Source: The Pastor's page of the Sentinel, Saint Catherine Catholic Church, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995.

The burden is on you to provide proof that Sunday sacredness is commanded or practiced by the Apostles in the Bible.

Michael

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:11:41 +0200
From: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>
To: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>

Hi !

> So even a Nihil Obstat is really worthless, in your view, and
> guarantees nothing. You have just condemned the vast majority of
> Catholic publications, including many catechisms, as untrustworthy.

You are twisting things.

> So how do I a non-Catholic know when a Catholic Publication of any kind
> is telling me the absolute truth regarding Catholic teachings? What
> Catholic publications, if any, would be 100% accurate and trustworthy,
> in your view?

Only ex cathedra statements by the Pope or a Council, and the Bible, are 100% reliable. And only statements from a collection of bishops, and in agreement with the Magisterium, are considered official Catholic teaching. A single Catholic book is not considered official Catholic teaching.

> > You are obviously very inexperienced with both Catholicism and
> > Protestant Bible studies if you want to follow these ignorant claims.

> Actually, I have studied this matter very intently, and can find no
> warrant at all in scripture for the substitution of Sunday for the
> seventh-day sabbath, Saturday.

As I said, you are obviously inexperienced.

> Neither can I find any Protestant or Catholic studies that are able to
> *prove* from the Bible that such a change was commanded by God,
> or that the Apostles taught this change, or that Sunday was ever to
> be instituted as a weekly holy day.

You are quite right that Sunday was never commanded in the Bible. It was commanded by the Church, which means the command comes from the Holy Spirit. Protestants just reject the Holy Spirit working through the Church.

> Since you apparently have vast experience in this area, perhaps you
> can recommend a Protestant Bible study that you believe proves beyond
> doubt that Sunday is a sacred day, commanded by the Apostles to
> supersede the keeping of the Sabbath. Give it your best shot.

I doubt you are sincere enough to listen. I will not be wasting my time on this. Jesus says not to throw pearls to the swine. My time is better spent teaching someone who will learn and understand, not with someone whose objective is NOT to be objective, but rather to attack and insult God's Church.

> > Why do you accept the one member of the Catholic Church's claim that
> > Sunday is unscriptural when Protestants and Catholics all over the
> > world, INCLUDING His Holiness Pope John Paul II can take the Bible
> > and show you the opposite?
>
> I maintain that they cannot show any such thing, and I have a number
> of Catholic publications that completely agree, not just one.

Well, you have taken them out of context.

> > Is it because Adventists only believe what is CONVENIENT and NOT
> > what is true ?

> No, it is because the Adventists actually follow the principle of
> Sola Scriptura, and can find no warrant in the Bible for abolishing
> the seventh-day Sabbath and keeping Sunday in its place. The Catholic
> publications I have cited completely agree. Here is another:


Well, since Sola Scriptura is NOT a biblical principle in the first place, I can safely say you are going down the wrong road.

> The burden is on you to provide proof that Sunday sacredness is
> commanded or practiced by the Apostles in the Bible.

No, the burden is on YOU to disprove US, the vast majority of Christians, who keep Sunday. Your little sect has failed to do this, and in its attempts to do so has shown that it is nothing more than a lying, deceptive tool of the devil.

God bless,
Stephen

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:03:48 -1000
From: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>
To: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>

Stephen,

> > So even a Nihil Obstat is really worthless, in your view, and
> > guarantees nothing. You have just condemned the vast majority of
> > Catholic publications, including many catechisms, as untrustworthy.
>
> You are twisting things.

Let me quote you. You said "without a Nihil Obstat, a book is not officially considered to be orthodox, and even when it does that is no guarantee". So in your opinion a book with a Nihil Obstat cannot be trusted to faithfully represent Catholic teaching. That is not twisting anything.

> > So how do I a non-Catholic know when a Catholic Publication of any kind
> > is telling me the absolute truth regarding Catholic teachings? What
> > Catholic publications, if any, would be 100% accurate and trustworthy,
> > in your view?
>
> Only ex cathedra statements by the Pope or a Council, and the Bible, are
> 100% reliable. And only statements from a collection of bishops, and in
> agreement with the Magisterium, are considered official Catholic teaching.
> A single Catholic book is not considered official Catholic teaching.

Then most Catholic catechisms ever printed are not considered official Catholic teaching by you, since they are not magisterial documents, and not issued by a group of bishops. Is this correct or not? Of what value is a catechism that cannot be considered official Catholic teaching?

> > Neither can I find any Protestant or
> > Catholic studies that are able to *prove* from the Bible that such a
> > change was commanded by God, or that the Apostles taught this change,
> > or that Sunday was ever to be instituted as a weekly holy day.
>
> You are quite right that Sunday was never commanded in the Bible. It was
> commanded by the Church, which means the command comes from the Holy Spirit.
> Protestants just reject the Holy Spirit working through the Church.

Then Stephen, you yourself on that point are in total agreement with the Catholic Mirror, the Catholic Record, Karl Keating, the Sentinel, Stephen Keenan's Doctrinal Catechism, Deharbe's Catechism, etc., that the Bible does not command Sunday sacredness. Then what exactly do you disagree with them on? That is the whole point at issue.

> > Since you apparently have vast experience in this area, perhaps you
> > can recommend a Protestant Bible study that you believe proves beyond
> > doubt that Sunday is a sacred day, commanded by the Apostles to
> > supersede the keeping of the Sabbath. Give it your best shot.

> I doubt you are sincere enough to listen. I will not be wasting my time on
> this. Jesus says not to throw pearls to the swine. My time is better spent
> teaching someone who will learn and understand, not with someone whose
> objective is NOT to be objective, but rather to attack and insult God's
> Church.

I presume then, that you cannot provide the proof that you represent yourself as having.

> > The burden is on you to provide proof that Sunday sacredness is
> > commanded or practiced by the Apostles in the Bible.
>
> No, the burden is on YOU to disprove US, the vast majority of Christians,
> who keep Sunday. Your little sect has failed to do this, and in its
> attempts to do so has shown that it is nothing more than a lying, deceptive
> tool of the devil.

Stephen, you say I am the inexperienced one, and suggest that you can prove Sunday sacredness from both Protestant and Catholic Bible studies that use the Bible only. You wanted the proof of Rome's Challenge, and I provided it to you. I am simply asking you to do the same for me regarding Sunday sacredness from a Protestant Bible study. Are you unwilling to do this?

Michael

 

Subject: Re: Rome's challenge - help please ?!
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:02:12 +0200
From: Stephen Korsman <skorsman@global.co.za>
To: Michael Scheifler <mikesch@aloha.net>

Hi !

> Let me quote you. You said "without a Nihil Obstat, a book is not
> officially considered to be orthodox, and even when it does that is
> no guarantee". So in your opinion a book with a Nihil Obstat cannot
> be trusted to faithfully represent Catholic teaching. That is not
> twisting anything.

An Adventist will go to any lengths to discredit the Church. This is a prime example.

> > You are quite right that Sunday was never commanded in the Bible. It was
> > commanded by the Church, which means the command comes from the Holy Spirit.
> > Protestants just reject the Holy Spirit working through the Church.

> Then Stephen, you yourself on that point are in total agreement with
> the Catholic Mirror, the Catholic Record, Karl Keating, the Sentinel,
> Stephen Keenan's Doctrinal Catechism, Deharbe's Catechism, etc., that
> the Bible does not command Sunday sacredness. Then what exactly do you
> disagree with them on? That is the whole point at issue.

I believe that the observance of Sunday is biblical and inspired by God, and well within the biblical rights of the Church to teach.

> > I doubt you are sincere enough to listen. I will not be wasting my time on
> > this. Jesus says not to throw pearls to the swine. My time is better spent
> > teaching someone who will learn and understand, not with someone whose
> > objective is NOT to be objective, but rather to attack and insult God's
> > Church.

> I presume then, that you cannot provide the proof that you represent
> yourself as having.

No, just that a dialogue with someone who is not interested in the truth, but only in achieving his own sect's agenda, is not a dialogue worth having.

> > > The burden is on you to provide proof that Sunday sacredness is
> > > commanded or practiced by the Apostles in the Bible.

> >
> > No, the burden is on YOU to disprove US, the vast majority of Christians,
> > who keep Sunday. Your little sect has failed to do this, and in its
> > attempts to do so has shown that it is nothing more than a lying, deceptive
> > tool of the devil.
>
> Stephen, you say I am the inexperienced one, and suggest that you can
> prove Sunday sacredness from both Protestant and Catholic Bible
> studies that use the Bible only. You wanted the proof of Rome's
> Challenge, and I provided it to you. I am simply asking you to do
> the same for me regarding Sunday sacredness from a Protestant Bible
> study. Are you unwilling to do this?

Yes, because you are not a person who is going to receive the truth with an open mind and heart. Your agenda is to attack Catholicism, regardless of whether you do so with lies or truth. Why should I waste my time ? If you have never come across Protestants who give biblical evidence for Sunday observance, you are seriously lacking in your experience as an Adventist apologist. It is not up to me to remedy that deficit.

God bless,
Stephen

   This is where the conversation ended. I would like to point out to the reader that Stephen Korsman was unwilling, or unable, to provide any proof what-so-ever of his assertion that Sunday sacredness is actually proved in Catholic or Protestant Bibles studies, indeed, he himself completely agrees that no command for Sundaykeeping can be found in the Bible!
   The Bible simply does not teach Sunday sacredness, as Rome's Challenge (a Seventh-day Adventist reprint of a quite genuine editorial series appearing in the Catholic Mirror of 1893) quite exhaustively proves beyond any shadow of a doubt.

The following, published over one hundred and fifty years ago, applies to the approach Stephen Korsman uses in the above discussion:

We cannot allow that every private Priest or member of the Church of Rome should give his own opinions merely as the standard of doctrine. We will have recourse to the oracular response of the Church, and insist that they be represented by themselvesnot, however, by private individuals, but by their legal representatives. But, then, there is nothing which they dread so much as the testimony of their own Church. It is like the conscience of the wicked, which is their own worst enemy.

2. It is a principle aim of all their [Roman Catholic] controvertists to employ every mode of evasion in order to disconcert their opposers. There is even a marked difference between the tone of these Romish Divines who speak dogmatically for the instruction of their own members and that of those who attempt to answer the objections of their antagonists. With the former, all is matter of downright certainty; with the latter, all is doubt, difficulty, subterfuge, and evasion. When the faithful are to be instructed, every Priest becomes the sure depositary of the infallible decisions of an infallible Church; but when Protestants are to be confuted, the declarations of their most illustrious men are of no authority. Councils are discovered to have been but partly approved; Popes did not speak ex cathedra; Cardinals and Bishops are but private Doc- [pg. 38] tors; and who cares for the opinion of an obscure Priest or Friar? Thus nothing is so difficult as to know what the belief of Roman Catholics really is; and when a Protestant adduces their own writers as witnesses, he is frequently told that he is a misrepresenter of their church.

Source: Rev. Charles Elliott, D. D., Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Volume I, published in New York by G. Lane and P.P. Sandford, 1842, pp. 37-38.

For those who are interested, here is Stephen Korsman's web page.



http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/