Chapter 3: They Admit Everything
The Roman Catholic Church's Confession
What if I told you the Catholic Church openly admits (in their own official publications) that they changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday without any biblical authority whatsoever?
What if they're not just admitting it, but boasting about it as proof of their power?
You don't have to take my word for it. Let them speak for themselves.
Cardinal Gibbons: "Not a Single Line"
James Cardinal Gibbons was Archbishop of Baltimore and the most prominent Catholic spokesman in America during the late 1800s and early 1900s. His book The Faith of Our Fathers went through over 100 editions and was the authoritative explanation of Catholic doctrine for English-speaking Catholics.
On page 89 of the 110th edition (1917), Cardinal Gibbons writes:
"You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."1 James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, 110th ed. (New York: P.J. Kenedy, 1917), 89.
You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation (the entire Bible, cover to cover) "and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday."
A Catholic Cardinal admits there is zero biblical support for Sunday worship.
He's not alone.
The Catholic Mirror: Four-Part Series
In September 1893, the Catholic Mirror, the official organ of Cardinal Gibbons published in Baltimore, ran a four-part series titled "The Christian Sabbath." The explicit purpose was to challenge Protestants on their inconsistency.
The series appeared September 2, 9, 16, and 23, 1893:
September 2, 1893:
"The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."2 "The Christian Sabbath," Catholic Mirror (Baltimore), September 2, 9, 16, and 23, 1893, accessed November 19, 2025, https://archive.org/details/christian-sabbath-or-sunday.
September 9, 1893:
"The Christian Sabbath is therefore to this day the acknowledged offspring of the Catholic Church as spouse of the Holy Ghost, without a word of remonstrance from the Protestant world."
September 23, 1893 (final installment):
"We have shown in our previous numbers that the Bible contains no warrant either for the change of the Jewish Sabbath to Sunday, or for the observance of the first day of the week in place of the seventh. Sunday is a Catholic institution, and its claims to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles."
The Catholic Mirror runs for four weeks systematically proving that:
- The Bible commands Saturday, not Sunday
- The Catholic Church changed it by their own authority
- Protestants have no biblical basis for keeping Sunday
- Protestants who keep Sunday are confessing Catholic authority
This wasn't a rogue journalist. This was the official diocesan newspaper speaking for Cardinal Gibbons.
Interactive study archive: https://theremnantthread.com/studies/quote-wall
Evidence builder: https://theremnantthread.com/studies/evidence-chains
The Convert's Catechism: Teaching Children the Truth
The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine was an official instructional manual for converts and Catholic school children. Multiple editions existed throughout the 1900s:
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 (AD 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."4 Peter Geiermann, CSSR, The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, facsimile reprint of 1930 ed. (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1977), 50. Questions: "Which is the Sabbath day?" (Saturday) and "Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?" (The Catholic Church transferred the solemnity). Original 1910 2nd edition: B. Herder, St. Louis. Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/converts-catechism. Accessed November 19, 2025.
They don't say "because Jesus rose on Sunday" or "because the apostles changed it."
They say: "Because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity."
They're teaching children the honest answer: The church changed it, not God and not the Bible.
The Protestant Paradox
This is where it gets devastating for Protestant Christianity:
- Claim: "Bible alone!" | Reality: Following the Roman Catholic Church's change.
- Claim: "No Pope!" | Reality: Obeying his Sunday.
- Claim: "Reject tradition!" | Reality: Keeping the Roman Catholic Church's biggest one.
The Protestant Reformation was built on Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). No church tradition can override the Bible. No Pope can add to God's Word.
And yet...
Every Sunday-keeping Protestant church is obeying a Catholic tradition that directly contradicts Scripture. (See Chapter 20 for what this means.)
The Roman Catholic Church even mocks them for it. The Catholic Mirror series specifically targeted Protestant inconsistency. If you claim "Bible alone," but you keep a day that has zero biblical support, whose authority are you really following?
The Confession from Other Religions
The Roman Catholic Church isn't the only system admitting what they practice contradicts Scripture. Other religions don't even pretend to follow the Bible. Yet millions of seekers, including Christians, explore these paths thinking they'll find truth there.
I speak from experience, not speculation. I spent years in Hindu and Buddhist practices, Vedic astrology, mantra repetition, idol worship. The spiritual realm responded. That was the problem.
Real Spirits, Wrong Source
The setup was complete. There were two fourteen-inch brass idols: heavy, intricately detailed, and shipped from India in a custom mandir cabinet. Not decorative pieces. Objects of worship. I performed the full practice: chamar (the yak-hair tail used to honor the deity), peacock fan, brass bells, conch shell blown at specific times, incense, ghee lamps. Every ritual prescribed in the tradition.
My mother witnessed what I couldn't see clearly at the time.
When she visited, she felt things walk behind her in the house. Shadows moved where nothing physical stood. An oppressive presence she couldn't explain but couldn't ignore.
Then her Bible opened to Deuteronomy. She never underlines in red. Yet, there it was, highlighted in red: the passage warning about bringing cursed things into your house (Deuteronomy 7:26). She hadn't marked it. She didn't know how it got there. But the message was clear.
She began opening the mandir cabinet when I wasn't looking, praying against those idols and interceding for my soul without my knowledge. And when she prayed, she saw their faces move. Not imagination. Not tricks of light. The metal faces shifted. Eyes blinked. The presence she'd felt in the house had a source, and it was responding to her prayers.
I experienced it from the other side. The spiritual encounters were intense and undeniable. After certain meditations, I felt like Hanuman, like I could jump and hit my back to the ceiling. The energy was that real. I felt presence in Tirupati's inner sanctum. Even in dhoti and devotional markings, wearing rudraksha and sphatika crystal, I was a rare sight: a foreigner pulled from the line of 80,000 pilgrims, taken to a desk surrounded by government officials, and made to sign the declaration: "I have full devotion, faith and belief in Lord Venkateswara." The energy at these sites is real. Something manifests when thousands worship continuously.
But the more I practiced, the worse my life became. More mantra repetitions, more hours of puja, more devotion poured into the ritual. Not better. Worse. The opposite of what every teacher promised. Ten-hour sessions of 64 malas (6,912 repetitions of Sanskrit syllables in a single sitting), believing more effort meant more blessing. It didn't. The pattern was clear: intense experiences, yes, but diminishing returns on every other measure. Effort increased, life quality decreased. A logarithmic scale toward nothing good.
Eventually, my wife and I threw the idols into a lake.
Not because we stopped believing in the spiritual realm. Because we finally understood whose realm we'd entered. The practices worked: that was the problem. Power was flowing. Entities were present. Experiences were genuine. But Scripture had warned me all along, and I'd called the warning primitive.
Paul explains what:
"But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils."
Paul acknowledged the spiritual reality while forbidding participation. The presence I felt wasn't imaginary. But Scripture claimed it wasn't from God. The question I couldn't answer then, but Scripture answered: whose presence was it?
The spiritual realm is real. That's precisely what makes it dangerous.
This pattern isn't unique to Hinduism. Every system that leads away from the Creator's commandments (whether through mysticism, meditation, divination, or doctrinal compromise) opens doors Scripture explicitly warns us to keep closed. The Roman Catholic Church changed the Sabbath and admits it. Eastern religions never claimed to follow Scripture at all. Both lead to the same place: away from the Father's authority.
The Catholic Challenge to Protestants
In the September 9, 1893 Catholic Mirror installment, they issue this challenge to Protestants:
"You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! But by whom? Who has authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, 'Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day,' who shall dare to say, 'Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of business on the seventh day; but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead?' This is a most important question, which I know not how you can answer."
"You Protestants," The Roman Catholic Church says, "claim the Bible as your only authority. But you keep Sunday, which has no biblical command. You are living by our tradition while claiming to reject our authority."
And they're right.
The Erasure Is Real
The commandment wasn't just changed; it was systematically erased:
1. The Catechism Text Swap
Compare the original Scripture to what Catholic catechisms teach:
Original (Exodus 20:8) Catholic Catechism "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" "Remember to keep holy the Lord's day" They literally swapped "sabbath" for "Lord's day" (Sunday). The words of God, rewritten.5 Compare Exodus 20:8 (KJV) with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Third Commandment.
2. Commandment Renumbering
Catholic and Lutheran systems renumbered the Ten Commandments:
- Protestant numbering: Sabbath = 4th Commandment
- Catholic/Lutheran numbering: Sabbath = 3rd Commandment
How? They combined the first two commandments ("no other gods" + "no graven images") into one, then split the tenth commandment into two ("covet neighbor's wife" and "covet neighbor's goods"). The Sabbath commandment got buried in the shuffle, and "graven images" was absorbed (conveniently, given Rome's statues and icons).6 For Catholic numbering, see Catechism of the Catholic Church Ā§2051-2557; for Protestant numbering, see Westminster Shorter Catechism.
Augustine and the Sabbath's Transfer
Theologians like Augustine of Hippo (c. 400 AD) were pivotal in shifting the Church's view. While Augustine issued no direct decree, 19th-century historian Robert Cox accurately summarized the patristic view: that the "glory of the Jewish Sabbath is transferred to it [Sunday]."7 This summary of the patristic position is found in Robert Cox, Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties (1853), 284. It is often misattributed as a direct quote from Augustine.
The key admission remains: the Sabbath's solemnity was "transferred" by church authority, not by a command from Scripture.
4. Constantine's Sun-Day Law (321 AD)
The first legal enforcement came from pagan Rome, not Christian Scripture:
"On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest."
The phrase: "Day of the Sun", dies Solis, not "Lord's Day," not "Christian Sabbath." Sun worship codified as law.8 Codex Justinianus, lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; Constantine's Edict of March 7, 321 AD.
5. The "Eighth Day" Theology
Early Church Fathers didn't just change which day to observe. They developed a theology to justify escaping the seven-day cycle entirely.
The Epistle of Barnabas, written sometime between 70-132 AD, reveals the motivation:
"Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead."ā Epistle of Barnabas 15:9 (c. 70-132 AD). Available at Early Christian Writings: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lightfoot.html. Also New Advent Church Fathers: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0124.htm.
The "eighth day": a day outside the creation week.
God established a seven-day cycle at creation (Genesis 2:2-3). He commanded Israel to keep the seventh day holy (Exodus 20:10). But Sunday is the first day, not the seventh. Calling it the "eighth day" admitted the problem: it doesn't fit the commandment.
The solution? Transcend the seven-day pattern. Invent a day beyond creation's boundaries. Position Sunday as a day that escapes the material week, pointing to a "new creation" unbound by God's established order.
This reasoning carries traces of Gnostic influence, the belief that spiritual truth requires transcending God's physical creation rather than honoring it. The seventh-day Sabbath celebrates God's completed work (Genesis 2:2). The "eighth day" seeks to move beyond it.
The theology reveals the motive: Sunday observance wasn't about following a new commandment. It was about constructing a framework where the fourth commandment no longer applied.
6. Calendar Manipulation (1988)
Even the calendar was restructured to obscure the seventh day. In 1988, ISO 8601 made Monday the international "first day of the week," pushing Sunday to position 7. The change was framed as industrial standardization, but the effect was theological: Sunday now appears where the "seventh day" should be.
When industry replaced religion as society's organizing principle, the calendar followed.9 ISO 8601:1988, "Data elements and interchange formats--Information interchange--Representation of dates and times."
7. Generic Sunday School Teaching
Modern churches teach children the "fourth commandment" as a vague "day of rest" without specifying which day Scripture actually commands. Ask any Sunday school graduate: "What day is the Sabbath?" Most will say Sunday. This is because they were never taught to read Exodus 20:10 carefully: "the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God."
Even the Reformers Admitted It
The Protestant Reformation was built on Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). Yet even the Reformers confessed they had no biblical basis for Sunday:
Martin Luther (Large Catechism, 1529):
"In the Old Testament, God separated the seventh day, and appointed it for rest... As regards this external observance, this commandment was given to the Jews alone... This is not so restricted to any time, as with the Jews, that it must be just on this or that day; for in itself no one day is better than another."10 Martin Luther, Large Catechism (1529), "The Third Commandment."
Luther admitted the Bible commands the seventh day, then dismissed it as "Jewish." He kept Sunday by tradition, not Scripture.
The Augsburg Confession (1530): The official Protestant confession states that "the observation of the Lord's day" had been appointed by "the Church" only, but not by Scripture.11 Augsburg Confession, Article XXVIII.
Isaac Williams (Anglican):
"And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day... The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the church has enjoined it."12 Isaac Williams, Plain Sermons on the Catechism, Vol. 1, 334-336.
Timothy Dwight (Congregationalist, President of Yale):
"The Sabbath was founded on a specific Divine command. We can plead no such command for the obligation to observe Sunday... There is not a single sentence in the New Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed sanctity of Sunday."13 Timothy Dwight, Theology Explained and Defended (1823), Sermon 107.
The pattern is consistent: Protestants who claim "Bible alone" confess they keep Sunday by church tradition, not Scripture.
The Authority Question
The Roman Catholic Church claims authority to change God's law. They openly admit it. The question isn't whether they made the change; history proves they did. The question is whether they had the right to make it.
Jesus answered this centuries before the Roman Catholic Church tried:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Heaven is still here. Earth is still here. Not one jot or tittle has passed from the law. No church, no council, no pope has authority to change what God wrote in stone.
The Roman Catholic Church's claim to authority doesn't create actual authority. A thief can claim ownership of your car; the claim doesn't make it legitimate. The Roman Catholic Church changed the day. They had the power to enforce it. But power and authority are not the same thing.
The test: Does Scripture grant any human institution authority to alter the Ten Commandments? Show me the verse. You won't find it.
More Catholic Admissions
The evidence doesn't stop with Gibbons and the Catholic Mirror. Catholic authorities have been openly admitting this for centuries:
Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3rd ed., 1876):14 Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism, 3rd American ed. (New York: Edward Dunigan & Brother, 1876), 174.
"Question: Have you any other way of proving that the [Catholic] Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
Answer: 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."
Catholic priest Thomas Enright, CSSR, in a lecture at Hartford, Kansas (1889):15 Thomas Enright, CSSR, lecture delivered at Hartford, Kansas, February 18, 1884, transcription published in The American Sentinel, June 1893. Father Enright publicly offered $1,000 (never claimed) to anyone who could provide biblical proof for Sunday observance.
"I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' The Catholic Church says: 'No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week.' And lo! The entire civilized world bows down in a reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church."
John O'Brien, The Faith of Millions (1974):16 John A. O'Brien, The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion, rev. ed. (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1974), 400-401.
"Since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn't it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistent; but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away--like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair."
Why the Honesty?
You might wonder: Why are they so open about this? Why not hide it?
Because they're confident you won't care.
They know that 2.3 billion Christians have been keeping Sunday for so long that challenging it would cost too much. Fellowship. Family. Jobs. Church membership. Social acceptance.
So they openly boast: "We changed it. You follow our change. Therefore, you accept our authority (whether you admit it or not)."
And for 1,500+ years, they've been right.
How Sunday Became Established: The Historical Timeline
The change from Saturday to Sunday wasn't instantaneous. It was a gradual process spanning centuries, driven by Roman political power and church ambition.
AD 30-100: The Apostolic Period
All believers kept the seventh-day Sabbath. Jesus kept it (Luke 4:16). Paul kept it as his "custom" (Acts 17:2). The Gentile converts kept it (Acts 13:42-44). No controversy existed because no one challenged God's commandment.Interactive exposition of every verse: https://theremnantthread.com/studies/jesus-sabbath
AD 100-200: Early Compromise Begins
Some churches in Rome began meeting on Sunday (the first day) in addition to Sabbath, claiming to honor the resurrection. This was compromise, not commandment. The churches in Asia Minor, Jerusalem, and the East continued keeping only Sabbath.AD 321: Constantine's Sunday Law
Roman Emperor Constantine issued the first civil Sunday law on March 7, AD 321:"On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed."17 Constantine's Sunday law, AD 321: "On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits." Latin: "Die solis venerabili" (venerable day of the sun). Preserved in Codex Justinianus 3.12.2 (compiled 529 AD). Cited in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910), 380, note 1. Constantine continued minting coins honoring Sol Invictus (the unconquered sun god) through the 320s AD, demonstrating the edict's pagan origins. This was the first civil law making Sunday observance mandatory, enforced by state power rather than church authority (setting the precedent for church-state union in enforcing religious practice).
The phrase "Venerable Day of the Sun" comes from a pagan decree that made Sunday (the day of sun-worship) a civil rest day. With this, Constantine was merging Christianity with sun worship to unify his empire.
This wasn't a church decision. This was political power enforcing a day the Bible never commanded.
AD 364: The Council of Laodicea
About 40-60 years after Constantine's law, the Council of Laodicea made it official church policy. Canon 29 decreed:"Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."18 Council of Laodicea, Canon 29 (AD 364), in Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Volume 14: The Seven Ecumenical Councils (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1900). Canon 29 makes Sabbath observance "anathema from Christ," meaning excommunication and, in later periods, subject to Inquisition prosecution.
The decree:
- "Must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath": Sabbath-keeping is now forbidden
- "Must work on that day": Saturday labor becomes mandatory
- "If any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema": Sabbath-keepers are cursed, excommunicated
"Anathema from Christ" meant:
- Excommunication from the church
- Denial of sacraments
- Social ostracism
- In later centuries: property confiscation, imprisonment, torture, death
Keeping God's commandment (the one He wrote with His own finger) became a crime punishable by the church.
AD 400-1500: The Dark Ages
For over 1,000 years, the Roman Catholic Church dominated Europe. Sabbath-keeping went underground. Those who kept the seventh day (like the Waldensians in the Alps, the Paulicians in Armenia, and the Bohemian Sabbatarians in Central Europe) faced systematic persecution.The Inquisition (the Roman Catholic Church's centuries-long campaign to identify and eliminate "heresy") hunted them. Burned them. Drowned them. Imprisoned them. Tortured them until they recanted or died.
Sunday became so entrenched that most people forgot Saturday was ever the Sabbath.
AD 1517-Present: Protestant Reformation... Keeps Catholic Sunday
Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses in 1517, launching the Protestant Reformation. The battle cry: Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone)!But when it came to the Sabbath? Protestants kept the Roman Catholic Church's Sunday.
Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wesley (all brilliant theologians, all champions of biblical authority) all kept the Catholic tradition they claimed to reject.
Why?
Because by 1517, Sunday had been enforced for 1,200 years. Challenging it would have cost everything. So they kept it, rationalized it, defended it, and passed it on to the 2.3 billion Christians who follow them today.
What the Reformers Knew (But Wouldn't Change)
The Protestant Reformers were brilliant men. They read Scripture in the original languages. They debated Catholic theologians publicly. They risked their lives for biblical truth.
They knew Saturday was the biblical Sabbath.
But they didn't change it. Let's see what they said:
Martin Luther (1483-1546): Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation, admitted Sunday had no biblical command. In his Large Catechism, he acknowledged the Fourth Commandment requires the seventh day.19 Martin Luther, Large Catechism (1529), Fourth Commandment (Third in Lutheran numbering). Luther acknowledged: "Now, in the Old Testament, God separated the seventh day, and appointed it for rest." However, he argued this was ceremonial law binding only on Jews: "This, I say, is not so restricted to any time, as with the Jews, that it must be just on this or that day." Luther maintained Christians were free to keep any day as long as one day per week was observed for worship and rest. Available at Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) and Project Wittenberg. Luther's position: the principle of rest was moral and perpetual, but the specific day (Saturday) was ceremonial and abolished. This became standard Protestant doctrine despite lacking biblical support. But he argued Christians could keep any day, as long as one day per week was observed.
This was pure rationalization. God didn't say "one day in seven." He said "the seventh day." Luther knew it, but he wouldn't change it.
John Calvin (1509-1564): Calvin, the great systematic theologian, was even more blunt. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, he wrote:
"The ancients did not substitute the Lord's Day (as we call it) for the Sabbath without carefully discriminating between them... The Lord's Day is not now kept on the ground of a rigid precept, as the Sabbath was by the Jews."20 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), Book 2, Chapter 8, Section 34 (2.8.34). Full context: "The ancients did not substitute the Lord's Day (as we call it) for the Sabbath without careful discrimination. The purpose of that day of rest having been to keep the people from being distracted by their daily tasks, a stated day was set aside for them, lest religion decay or grow cold among them... The Lord's Day is not now kept on the ground of a rigid precept, as the Sabbath was by the Jews." Calvin explicitly stated: (1) Sunday is not the biblical Sabbath, (2) there is no divine command requiring Sunday observance, (3) the early church made this substitution based on expediency, not Scripture. Despite this admission, Calvin kept Sunday while arguing the Sabbath commandment was abrogated at Christ's resurrection. Available via Gospel Coalition and public domain editions of the Institutes.
Calvin admitted:
- Sunday is not the Sabbath
- There is no "rigid precept" (command) for Sunday
- The early church made the substitution, not God
But did he change back to Saturday? No. He kept the Roman Catholic Church's day while admitting it had no biblical foundation.
John Wesley (1703-1791): Wesley, founder of Methodism, wrote extensively about Christian perfection and holy living. But on the Sabbath question, he followed Anglican tradition.
In his Works, Wesley acknowledged that the Fourth Commandment commands the seventh day. He argued the commandment was "moral" (still binding) but that the "particular day" was not specified.
This is dishonest exegesis. Exodus 20:8-11 doesn't say "a day." It says "THE seventh day." Specificity is the entire point.
The Pattern: Admit the Truth, Keep the Tradition
The consistent pattern among Protestant Reformers:
- They read Scripture carefully and saw Saturday is commanded
- They admitted Sunday has no biblical command
- They kept Sunday anyway
- They invented theological arguments to justify the change
Why didn't they change back?
Answer: It would have cost too much.
By the 1500s, Sunday had been enforced for over 1,200 years. Every church kept it. Every government enforced it. Challenging Sunday would have:
- Isolated them from other Protestants
- Divided their own movements
- Cost political support from Sunday-keeping rulers
- Made them targets of both Catholic and Protestant persecution
The Reformers chose their battles. They challenged indulgences, purgatory, papal authority, salvation by works. These were battles they could win with enough support.
But the Sabbath? That would have alienated everyone. So they kept the Roman Catholic Church's Sunday and found ways to defend it.
The Modern Evasions
Today's Protestant theologians use the same evasions the Reformers used. When confronted with the biblical command for Saturday, they respond:
Evasion 1: "The Sabbath was part of the ceremonial law, not the moral law."
False. The Sabbath was established at Creation (Genesis 2:2-3) before sin, before Jews, before any law was given. It's written in the Ten Commandments, the moral law, not in the ceremonial laws of Leviticus.
The ceremonial sabbaths (feast days) were shadows. The seventh-day Sabbath memorializes Creation (it can't be a shadow of something that already happened).
Evasion 2: "Jesus is our Sabbath rest, so we don't need a day."
This confuses spiritual rest (salvation) with the commanded day of physical rest. Yes, Jesus gives us spiritual rest (Matthew 11:28-30). But that doesn't void the Fourth Commandment any more than spiritual "light" (John 8:12) voids the need for physical light.
If "Jesus is our Sabbath" means you don't keep Saturday, does "Jesus is the bread of life" (John 6:35) mean you stop eating physical bread? The spiritual reality doesn't eliminate the physical command.
Evasion 3: "We're not under law, we're under grace."
Romans 6:14-15: "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."
Paul explicitly says being "under grace" doesn't give permission to sin. And 1 John 3:4 defines sin: "sin is the transgression of the law."
Breaking the Fourth Commandment is sin. Grace doesn't make sin acceptable; it provides forgiveness when we repent and obey.
Evasion 4: "Sabbath-keeping is legalism."
This is the nuclear option: call obedience "legalism" to avoid obeying.
Is keeping "Thou shalt not steal" legalism? Is "Thou shalt not commit adultery" legalism? Why is the Fourth Commandment suddenly legalism while the other nine are holy?
Legalism is attempting to earn salvation by works. Obedience is responding to God's command because you love Him.
Jesus said: "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). That's not legalism. That's love.
Peter Warned You About This
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction."
"Wrest" means twist, distort, wrench out of context.
Peter (the apostle who walked with Jesus) warned that people would twist Paul's writings to their own destruction. This is evident in the verses used to "prove" Sunday worship or abolish the Sabbath:
Verse Author Romans 14:5 Paul Galatians 4:10 Paul 1 Corinthians 16:2 Paul 2 Corinthians 3:7 Paul Hebrews 4:9, 8:13 Traditionally attributed to Paul Acts 15 Luke recording Paul's missionary work Every single anti-Sabbath "proof text" comes from Paul or Paul-adjacent sources.
Not one comes from:
- Jesus directly
- The Ten Commandments
- The prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Jeremiah
- James or John
- Peter himself
Peter saw this coming 2,000 years ago. Let's examine what Paul actually wrote. Let's examine this in context.
Interactive quote explorer: https://theremnantthread.com/studies/interactive-quotes
Need every citation in one place? See Appendix E for a consolidated collection of these Catholic admissions.
Misused Verse 1: Romans 14:5
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
What they claim: "See? You can pick whatever day you want! Sabbath is personal choice!"
What Paul was actually discussing: Romans 14 is about food; some early Christians were vegetarians (v.2), some ate meat. Some fasted on certain days, others didn't. Paul is telling them to stop judging each other over diet and fasting schedules.
The word "Sabbath" never appears in Romans 14. Not once. They ripped one verse out of a food argument and pretended it was about worship days.
If Paul meant "pick any worship day," he would contradict himself; he kept Sabbath throughout Acts (13:14, 13:42, 13:44, 16:13, 17:2, 18:4). Was Paul confused about his own teaching?
Misused Verse 2: Galatians 4:10
"Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."
What they claim: "Paul condemned observing special days! Sabbath included!"
What Paul was actually discussing: The Galatians were former pagans who were returning to pagan astrology and calendar worship; not Jews returning to God's Sabbath.
The context: Galatians 4:8-9: "Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now... how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?"
"Again" and "turn ye again," which meant they were going back to something they did before knowing God. These Gentiles never kept the biblical Sabbath before conversion. Paul is condemning their return to pagan astrology, not obedience to the Fourth Commandment.
The Greek words Paul uses here are different from the words he uses in Colossians 2:16 when discussing biblical holy days. Different vocabulary. Different context. Different meaning.
Misused Verse 3: 1 Corinthians 16:2
"Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."
What they claim: "The early church took offerings on Sunday! Proof they worshiped on Sunday!"
What Paul actually said: "lay by him in store"; that's at home, not at a church collection plate.
The Greek phrase par' heauto literally means "by oneself" or "at one's own home." Paul wasn't describing a Sunday worship service. He was telling each person to set aside famine relief money at home, on the first day of the week (after Sabbath rest), so it would be ready and waiting when he arrived.
This was a one-time emergency collection for starving Christians in Jerusalem (Romans 15:25-26). Not a weekly worship pattern. Not a Sunday service. Home savings for disaster relief.
If this proves Sunday worship, then setting your alarm on Monday morning proves you worship on Mondays.
Misused Verse 4: Acts 15 (Jerusalem Council)
What they claim: "The apostles met and only gave Gentiles 4 rules. Sabbath wasn't one of them. Proof the Sabbath isn't required for Christians!"
The four requirements: abstain from idolatry, sexual immorality, strangled meat, and blood.
What they conveniently skip: Verse 21.
"For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."
Why didn't the apostles list Sabbath-keeping? Because they assumed the Gentile converts would be at the synagogue every Sabbath learning the rest of Moses's teaching.
The four rules were the bare minimum for immediate fellowship (things that would prevent Gentiles from defiling the assembly). They weren't the complete list of Christian ethics. James was saying: "Give them these basics now. They'll learn the rest at synagogue every Saturday."
The Sabbath wasn't listed because attendance was assumed.
Misused Verse 5: 2 Corinthians 3:7
"But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away..."
What they claim: "The Ten Commandments are called the 'ministry of death'! They're abolished!"
What Paul actually said: What "was to be done away"? It was the glory on Moses' face, rather than the law itself.
- Verse 7: "...the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away"
- Verse 11: "For if that which is done away was glorious..."
- Verse 13: "Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished"
Moses covered his face so they wouldn't see the glory fading. Paul is contrasting the fading glory of the old covenant administration with the permanent glory of the Spirit's ministry. The administration changed. The glory faded. The law gets written on hearts (Hebrews 8:10, 10:16); it doesn't disappear.
If the Ten Commandments were abolished, you could murder, steal, commit adultery, and worship idols. No one believes that. So why do they single out only the Fourth Commandment as "abolished"?
Misused Verse 6: Hebrews 4:9 and 8:13
"There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God." (4:9)
"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (8:13)
What they claim: "The old covenant is obsolete! Sabbath was part of the old covenant, so it's gone. And Hebrews 4 says our rest is spiritual, so we don't need a literal day."
What Hebrews actually says:
First, the Greek word in Hebrews 4:9 is sabbatismos, the only time it appears in the entire New Testament. It doesn't mean "spiritual rest." It literally means "sabbath-keeping." Every Greek lexicon confirms this. The author of Hebrews, in the very book discussing what's obsolete, specifically says sabbath-keeping remains for God's people.
Second, what's obsolete in Hebrews 8? The animal sacrifice system. The Levitical priesthood. The earthly tabernacle rituals. Read Hebrews 7-10. It's all about Jesus replacing animal sacrifices, not abolishing the moral law.
Third, the Sabbath existed before Sinai (Genesis 2:2-3). God rested on the seventh day at Creation, long before Moses, before Israel, before any covenant was made with anyone. The Sabbath can't be "part of the old covenant" when it predates the old covenant by millennia.
Misused Verse 7: Colossians 2:14-16
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross... Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."
What they claim: "The Sabbath was nailed to the cross. Paul says let no one judge you about sabbath days, meaning we don't have to keep them anymore."
What Colossians actually says:
First, the "handwriting of ordinances" (Greek: cheirographon) means a certificate of debt; a record of what we owed.21 Greek cheirographon (ĻĪµĪ¹ĻĻĪ³ĻĪ±ĻĪæĪ½): BDAG lexicon defines as "a certificate of indebtedness, account, record of debts." Friberg's Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament states this "refers not to the law itself, but to the record of charges." Note: The interpretation of verse 16 is debated among scholars; some read it as defending Sabbath-keepers from outside critics, others as declaring these observances optional in Christ. It's the record of our sins that was nailed to the cross, not the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were written by God's finger on stone (Exodus 31:18), not handwritten on paper.
Second, read verse 16 in context. One interpretation: Paul is telling Gentile converts don't let anyone judge you for keeping these things. The Colossian s were being criticized by pagan neighbors for observing Jewish practices. Paul says ignore the critics.
Third, "sabbath days" here (Greek: sabbaton) in context with "holyday" and "new moon" refers to the ceremonial sabbaths of the feast calendar (Leviticus 23), but not the weekly seventh-day Sabbath. The annual feast sabbaths were shadows pointing to Christ. The weekly Sabbath predates all ceremonies and memorializes Creation itself.
Misused Verse 8: Romans 13:8-10 ("Love Fulfills the Law")
"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law... Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
What they claim: "If I love God and neighbor, I've fulfilled the whole law. I don't need specific commandments anymore because love replaces them."
What Romans actually says:
"Fulfills" doesn't mean "replaces" or "eliminates." Love is the motive for keeping commandments, not the substitute for them.
John clarifies this directly:
"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous."
Love OF God means keeping His commandments. Not "love replaces commandments." And Jesus Himself:
"If ye love me, keep my commandments."
Love doesn't abolish commandments; it motivates obedience to them. You can't claim to love God while breaking the fourth commandment He wrote with His own finger.
Common Objection: "The Sabbath Was Only for Jews"
This one doesn't come from Paul; it comes from people who haven't read Genesis.
The Sabbath was established at Creation (Genesis 2:2-3), a time predating Abraham, Israel, and any covenant with Jews. God rested on the seventh day, blessed it, and sanctified it for humanity, not for a nation that didn't exist yet.
Jesus clarified this directly:
"The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath."
The Greek word is anthropos; humanity, mankind. Not "Jews." Not "Israel." Man. The Sabbath was made for the human race.
And what about Gentiles? The original command includes them:
"But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work... nor thy stranger that is within thy gates."
The "stranger" (Gentile) was included from the beginning. And Isaiah prophesied about Gentile Sabbath-keeping:
"Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD... every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it... even them will I bring to my holy mountain."
The Sabbath isn't Jewish. It's human. It predates Jews by millennia and includes Gentiles by explicit command.
Common Objection: "Jesus Broke the Sabbath" (John 5:18)
John 5:18 records: "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath..."
The objection: Jesus violated the Sabbath, proving He had authority to abolish it.
The problem with this reasoning: If Jesus actually broke the Sabbath, God's moral law, He sinned. And if He sinned, He couldn't be the sinless Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."
What Jesus broke wasn't God's Sabbath law. He broke the Pharisees' additions to the law; their rabbinical rules that went far beyond Scripture.
The disciples plucked grain on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-8). The Pharisees accused them of harvesting (a prohibition they invented, not found in the Fourth Commandment). Jesus healed on the Sabbath. The Pharisees forbade it, another human addition. Scripture never prohibited acts of mercy.
Jesus asked them directly:
"Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill?"
The answer is obvious. Of course it's lawful to do good. Jesus demonstrated how to keep the Sabbath properly (free from Pharisaic burdens), not how to abolish it. John 5:18 records the Pharisees' accusation, not God's verdict.
Common Objection: "The Early Church Fathers Worshiped on Sunday"
Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD), the Didache, and Ignatius of Antioch mention Sunday gatherings. The argument: this proves Sunday worship began with the apostles.
The timeline tells a different story.
Justin Martyr wrote his First Apology around 150 AD, six generations after Christ, 120 years of potential drift. And his stated reason for Sunday worship? To make Christianity palatable to Romans. He calls it "the day of the Sun," using pagan terminology.
The Didache's dating is disputed (estimates range from 50-150 AD), and scholars debate which day its "Lord's Day" references. Ignatius's letters contain documented interpolations, later additions by copyists.
The earliest reliable evidence of Sunday worship comes from 2nd-century city of Rome, the same institution that would later formalize the change under Constantine. The evidence points to institutional drift, not apostolic authority.
Scripture is the standard. Not what the Roman Catholic Church was doing 120 years later.
Common Objection: "The Ten Commandments Are Old Covenant"
The claim: The Ten Commandments were part of the old covenant made with Israel. Christians are under the new covenant, so the commandments are abolished.
Hebrews describes the new covenant:
"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts."
The new covenant doesn't abolish God's law; it relocates it. From tablets of stone to tablets of flesh. The law is now written on the heart instead of being external. This is transformation, not elimination.
Jeremiah's original prophecy (31:33) specifies "my law," the same law. If the law were abolished under the new covenant, what would be written on hearts? Nothing?
And consider: the Sabbath existed before Sinai. God rested on the seventh day at Creation (Genesis 2:2-3). Murder was wrong before Moses; ask Cain. These principles are eternal, not contractual.
If the Ten Commandments are abolished because they're "old covenant," then all ten are abolished. Including prohibitions on murder, adultery, theft, and lying. No one argues for this consistently.
The old covenant's administration changed. The animal sacrifices ended when Christ fulfilled them. The ceremonial system completed its purpose. But the moral law revealed at Sinai, and existing before it, stands as eternal as God's character.
The Architecture of God's Law
God didn't just speak the distinction between moral and ceremonial law. He built it into the Tabernacle's architecture.
Inside the Ark of the Covenant:
"And he took and put the testimony into the ark."
"There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb."
The Ten Commandments, written by God's own finger on stone (Exodus 31:18), were placed inside the Ark, in the Holy of Holies, in God's direct presence. Nothing else was permitted inside. Only the moral law.
Beside the Ark (outside):
"Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee."
The Book of the Law (the ceremonial regulations written by Moses on a scroll) was placed beside the Ark. The Hebrew word is mitstsad: "at the side of," not inside. Outside God's direct presence. "As a witness against thee": conditional, temporary, pointing forward to fulfillment.
This isn't coincidental furniture arrangement. This is theological architecture. God physically separated the permanent moral law (inside, in His presence) from the temporary ceremonial system (outside, conditional).
When Paul says certain things were "nailed to the cross" (Colossians 2:14), he's describing what was positioned outside the Ark: the ceremonial ordinances that pointed to Christ's sacrifice. The moral law inside the Ark was never posted on the cross. It was written on hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).
If the Sabbath were merely ceremonial, why did God place it inside the Ark with "Thou shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt not steal"? Why was it written by God's finger instead of Moses's pen? Why was it housed in the Holy of Holies instead of the outer court where ceremonies were performed?
God made the distinction. The architecture proves it.
The Ark of the Covenant: God's Architectural Theology
Godās sanctuary layout preaches the same distinction this chapter defends.
Inside the Ark (Holy of Holies):
- The Ten Commandments, written by Godās own finger on stone (Exodus 31:18; Exodus 40:20).
- Every principle in the Decalogue (including the seventh-day Sabbath) guarded in the most sacred space.
Beside the Ark:
- Mosesā handwritten Book of the Law was placed āin the side of the arkā¦ for a witness against theeā (Deuteronomy 31:26).
- That scroll contained circumcision, feast observances, dietary rules, and the sacrificial instructions that pointed to Christ.
In the outer court:
- The altar of burnt offering, the bronze laver, and the ceremonies enacted during Israelās feast days (all shadows fulfilled at the cross).
Summary: Moral law belongs inside the Ark because it is permanent and universal. Ceremonial ordinances stand outside because they were temporary witnesses. Godās own furniture arrangement answers the āSabbath is ceremonialā argument before it is even raised.
Common Objection: "You're Just Repeating Seventh-day Adventist Propaganda"
The dismissal: This is Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) doctrine. You're following Ellen White, not the Bible.
The seventh-day Sabbath existed for millennia before Ellen White was born in 1827.
- Sabbath-keepers in Europe kept it through the Dark Ages (documented by Inquisition records)
- Ethiopian Christians observed it before European missionaries arrived
- Seventh Day Baptists organized in England in the 1650s, almost two centuries before Adventism
- Jewish communities have maintained Saturday Sabbath continuously for 3,000+ years
The Catholic Church's admissions about changing the day predate Ellen White by centuries. Cardinal Gibbons, the Catholic Mirror articles, the Convert's Catechism: these are Catholic sources making Catholic claims.
Evaluate the evidence, not the messenger who restated it. If the argument is from Scripture and primary sources, the religious affiliation of whoever compiled it is irrelevant.
By this logic, reject every doctrine shared by any group you distrust. The Trinity came through Roman Catholic councils. Does that make it false? Guilt by association isn't an argument.
The question remains: Did the Roman Catholic Church change the day, and does it matter? The sources say yes. What the sources' compilers believed about other topics changes nothing.
The Pattern Is Clear
Every verse used to abolish the Sabbath:
- Comes from Paul (whose writings Peter warned would be twisted)
- Is ripped out of context
- Contradicts Jesus's own example (Luke 4:16, where He kept Sabbath "as his custom was")
- Contradicts Paul's own practice (Acts 17:2, where he reasoned in synagogues "as his manner was")
- Requires ignoring the plain reading of the Fourth Commandment
Meanwhile, the verses that clearly command the Sabbath:
- Genesis 2:2-3 (Creation)
- Exodus 20:8-11 (Ten Commandments)
- Isaiah 58:13-14 (Blessing promised)
- Isaiah 66:22-23 (Sabbath in the new earth)
- Mark 2:27-28 (Jesus declares it made for man)
- Luke 4:16 (Jesus kept it)
- Hebrews 4:9 (Sabbath-keeping remains)
They twist Paul. They ignore Jesus. They skip the prophets. They pretend the Ten Commandments have an asterisk.
Peter warned you. Now you know.
Why They Fight So Hard to Defend Sunday
If Sunday has zero biblical support, why do theologians work so hard to defend it?
Because admitting they're wrong would cost everything.
Imagine a Baptist pastor standing before his congregation and saying:
"I've studied Scripture. God commands the seventh day, Saturday. We've been keeping Sunday based on Catholic tradition, not biblical command. Starting next week, we're switching to Saturday worship."
What happens?
- Half the congregation leaves immediately
- The denomination removes him
- Other pastors condemn him publicly
- His family faces social ostracism
- His career ends
And for what? To obey a commandment God wrote in stone?
Yes. Exactly that.
But most pastors won't pay the price. So they defend Sunday with increasingly creative arguments, knowing deep down they're defending Catholic tradition over biblical truth.
The Cost of Truth
Cardinal Gibbons knew Protestants wouldn't change. The Catholic Mirror knew it. The Roman Catholic Church has known it for 1,500 years.
They openly mock Protestant inconsistency because they know Sunday worship is the one Catholic tradition Protestants will never surrender.
Why?
Because surrendering Sunday means admitting:
- The Catholic Church was right: they DO have authority that Protestants follow
- Sola Scriptura is compromised: Protestants don't actually follow "Scripture alone"
- 1,500 years of tradition was wrong: billions of Christians were deceived
- Personal cost is required: following truth means losing fellowship, jobs, and reputation
Most Christians (Catholic and Protestant alike) will not pay that price.
So the Roman Catholic Church laughs.
They changed God's commandment. Protestants know they changed it. Protestants admit it has no biblical support. And Protestants keep it anyway.
Sunday is the Roman Catholic Church's mark of authority, and 2.3 billion Christians wear it proudly.
What This Means for You
If you're a Protestant Christian keeping Sunday, you have three options:
Option 1: Deny the Evidence
Claim Cardinal Gibbons lied. Claim the Catholic Mirror fabricated quotes. Claim every Catholic authority who admitted this was mistaken.
Good luck with that. These are primary sources. Published documents. Official church positions.
Option 2: Accept Catholic Authority
Admit that if you're keeping Sunday, you're following Catholic tradition over biblical command. Accept that the church has authority to change God's law.
At least this is honest. The Roman Catholic Church respects this position; it's their position.
Option 3: Return to the Commandment
Acknowledge that God wrote "the seventh day is the Sabbath" in stone, that Saturday is the seventh day, and that no church has authority to change it.
Keep Saturday. Honor God's commandment. Reject the mark of the Roman Catholic Church's authority.
The Question You Can't Escape
Cardinal Gibbons says you won't find "a single line" in the entire Bible authorizing Sunday worship.
Is he lying?
If yes, show me the verse. Book, chapter, number. Prove the Cardinal wrong.
If no (if he's telling the truth), then every Sunday you worship is a confession that you follow Catholic authority over Scripture.
Common objections answered interactively: https://theremnantthread.com/studies/objection-handler
Questions to Answer
If the Catholic Church openly admits changing the Sabbath without biblical authority, and Protestant churches keep Sunday while claiming "Bible alone," who is being consistent?
The Roman Catholic Church says, "We changed it by our authority." Protestants say, "Bible alone!" Then they keep the Church's day. Who's living their stated principle? Rome at least admits what they're doing. Protestants claim Scripture alone while following Catholic tradition.
What does it mean that the Roman Catholic Church calls Sunday "our mark of authority" and "proof" the church is above the Bible?
They're not hiding it. They're declaring it. Sunday is the signature of their power to change God's law. Every Sunday service is a confession that church tradition trumps Scripture. When someone explicitly tells you their mark of authority, why doubt them?
Cardinal Gibbons stated you won't find "a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday" in the entire Bible. If he's lying, it would be beneficial to show the supporting verse. If he's telling the truth, it prompts one to consider why Sunday is still observed.
A Catholic Cardinal, writing in an official doctrinal textbook that went through 100+ editions, admits there is zero biblical support for Sunday worship. Either prove him wrong (book, chapter, verse) or admit he's right. If he's right, and you still keep Sunday, whose authority are you following?
When Daniel prophesied a power would "think to change times and laws" (Daniel 7:25), and the Roman Catholic Church openly admits they changed the day from Saturday to Sunday, why do Protestants defend the change?
The prophecy warned. The church admits it. They're proud of it. They call it their "mark of authority." The Bible condemns it. The evidence speaks for itself.