Four of the seven chapters can be accessed by clicking their titles below: 

Pope John Paul II and he Sabbath 

The Sabbath and the New Covenant 

Paul and the Law 

Paul and the Sabbath

On May 31, 1998, Pope John Paul II promulgated a lengthy Pastoral Letter, Dies Domini, in which he makes a passionate plea for a revival of Sunday observance. He appeals to the moral imperative of the Sabbath commandment and to the need of civil legislation to facilitate Sunday observance. This document has enormous historical significance since it addresses the critical problem of the prevailing Sunday profanation at "the threshold of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000."1 This event has great significance for the Catholic Church, as over thirty million Catholics are expected to make their pilgrimage to Rome, seeking forgiveness for their own sins and a reduction of the temporal punishment for their loved ones in Purgatory. 

The Pope is keenly aware that the crisis of Sunday observance is a major obstacle to the spiritual renewal the Great Jubilee is designed to bring about. He believes that the prevailing profanation of Sunday reflects the spiritual crisis of the Catholic Church and of Christianity, in general. The "strikingly low" attendance to the Sunday Mass indicates, in the Pope’s view, that "faith is weak" and "diminishing."2 He believes that if this trend is not reversed it can threaten the future of the Catholic Church as it stands at the threshold of the third millennium. He states: "The Lord’s Day has structured the history of the Church through two thousand years: how could we think that it will not continue to shape the future?"3 

While reading the Pastoral Letter, I was reminded of a speech President Abraham Lincoln delivered on November 13, 1862. There he emphasized the vital function of the Sabbath in the survival of Christianity: "As we keep or break the Sabbath day, we nobly save or meanly loose the last and the best hope by which mankind arises."4 Obviously, for Abraham Lincoln, the Sabbath meant Sunday. This does not detract from the fact thatone of American’s outstanding presidents recognized in the principle of Sabbathkeeping the best hope to renew and elevate human beings. 

The Pastoral Letter, like all papal documents, has been skillfully crafted with an introduction; five chapters which examine the importance of Sunday observance from theological, historical, liturgical, and social perspectives; and a conclusion. Pope John Paul and his advisers must be commended for composing a well-balanced document that addresses major issues relating to Sunday observance within the space limitation of approximately thirty pages. 

The introduction sets the stage for the Pope’s pastoral concerns by identifying some of the contributory factors to the crisis of Sunday observance and the solution that must be sought. A major factor is the change that has occurred "in socioeconomic conditions [which] have often led to profound modifications of social behavior and hence of the character of Sunday."5 The Pope notes with regret that Sunday has become merely "a part of a weekend" when people are involved "in cultural, political or sporting activities" that cause the loss of awareness of "keeping the Lord’s Day holy."6 

Given the present situation, John Paul strongly believes that today it is "more necessary than ever to recover the deep doctrinal foundations underlying the Church’s precept, so that the abiding value of Sunday in the Christian life will be clear to all the faithful."7  

The Pastoral Letter reveals that the Pope firmly believes that the solution to the crisis of Sunday observance entails both doctrinal and legal aspects. Doctrinally, Christians need to rediscover the "biblical" foundations of Sunday observance in order to keep the day holy. Legally, Christians must "ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy."8  

Objectives of This Chapter. No attempt is made in this chapter to analyze all the aspects of Sunday observance discussed in the Pastoral Letter. In the light of the overall objective of this book to consider from a biblical perspective the recent attacks against the Sabbath, this chapter focuses especially on how Pope John Paul deals with the Sabbath in his attempt to justify and promote Sunday observance.  

The chapter divides into three major parts in accordance with the following three major issues addressed: 

(1) The theological connection between Sabbath and Sunday 

(2) The "biblical" support for Sunday observance 

(3) The call for Sunday legislation 

A surprising aspect of the Pastoral Letter is Pope John Paul’s defense of Sunday observance as the embodiment and "full expression" of the Sabbath. In some ways this view represents a significant departure from the traditional Catholic explanation that Sunday observance is an ecclesiastical institution different from the Sabbath. In the past, this explanation virtually has been regarded as an established fact by Catholic theologians and historians. Thomas of Aquinas, for instance, makes this unambiguous statement: "In the New Law the observance of the Lord’s day took the place of the observance of the Sabbath not by virtue of the precept [Sabbath commandment] but by the institution of the Church and the custom of Christian people."9 

In his dissertation presented to the Catholic University of America, Vincent J. Kelly similarly affirms: "Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days, as holy days." 10 

Even the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) emphasizes the discontinuity between Sabbath and Sunday observance: "Sunday is expressly distinguished from the Sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the Sabbath."11 

John Paul departs from the traditional distinction the Catholic Church has made between Sabbath and Sunday, presumably because he wants to make Sunday observance a moral imperative rooted in the Decalogue itself. By so doing, the Pope challenges Christians to respect Sunday, not merely as an ecclesiastical institution, but as a divine command. Furthermore, by rooting Sundaykeeping in the Sabbath commandment, the Pope offers the strongest moral reasons to urge Christians to "ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy." 

The Pope’s vew of Sunday as the embodiment and "full expression" of the Sabbath stands in stark contrast to the so-called "New Covenant" and Dispensational authors who emphasize the radical discontinuity between Sabbath and Sunday. The latter, as we shall see in the following chapters, is also the position of former sabbatarians who reduce the Sabbath to a Mosaic, Old Covenant institution that terminated at the Cross. The Pope rejects this position, defending instead the creational origin of the Sabbath in which he finds the theological foundation of Sunday observance. He writes: "In order to grasp fully the meaning of Sunday, therefore, we must re-read the great story of creation and deepen our understanding of the theology of the ‘Sabbath.’"12 

Creative and Redemptive Meanings of the Sabbath. The Pope’s reflections on the theological meaning of the Sabbath are most perceptive and should especially thrill Sabbatarians. For example, speaking of God’s rest on the seventh day of creation, John Paul says: "The divine rest of the seventh day does not allude to an inactive God, but emphasizes the fullness of what has been accomplished. It speaks, as it were, of God’s lingering before the ‘very good’ work (Gen 1:31) which his hand has wrought, in order to cast upon it a gaze full of joyous delight. This is a ‘contemplative’ gaze which does not look to new accomplishments but enjoys the beauty of what has already been achieved."13 

This profound theological insight into the meaning of the divine Shabbat as a rest of cessation in order to express the satisfaction over a complete, perfect creation, and to fellowship with His creation, is developed at some length in my book Divine Rest for Human Restlessness. There I wrote: "God’s cessation on the seventh day from doing expresses His desire for being with His creation, for giving to His creatures not only things but Himself."14 

John Paul speaks eloquently of the theological development of the Sabbath from the rest of creation (Gen 2:1-3; Ex 20:8-11) to the rest of redemption (Deut 5:12-15). He notes that in the Old Testament the Sabbath commandment is linked "not only with God’s mysterious ‘rest’ after the days of creation (cf. Ex 20:8-11), but also with the salvation which he offers to Israel in the liberation from the slavery of Egypt (cf. Deut 5:12-15). The God who rests on the seventh day, rejoicing in His creation, is the same God who reveals his glory in liberating his children from Pharaoh’s oppression."15 

Being a memorial of creation and redemption, "the ‘Sabbath’ has therefore been interpreted evocatively as a determining element in the kind of ‘sacred architecture’ of time which marks biblical revelation. It recalls that the universe and history belong to God; and without constant awareness of that truth, man cannot serve in the world as a co-worker of the Creator."16  

The Sabbath Defines Our Relationship with God. Contrary to Dispensational and so-called "New Covenant" writers who reduce the Sabbath to a Mosaic, ceremonial ordinance given exclusively to Jews, John Paul rightly recognizes that "the Sabbath precept . . . is rooted in the depths of God’s plan. This is why, unlike many other precepts, it is set not within the context of strictly cultic stipulations but within the Decalogue, the ‘ten words’ which represents the very pillars of the moral life inscribed on the human heart. In setting this commandment within the context of the basic structure of ethics, Israel and then the Church declare that they consider it not just a matter of community religious discipline but a defining and indelible expression of our relationship with God, announced and expounded by biblical revelation. This is the perspective within which Christians need to rediscover this precept today."17 

What a profound statement worth pondering! Sabbathkeeping is "not just a matter of community religious discipline but a defining and indelible expression of our relationship with God." To appreciate the truth of this statement, it is important to remember that our life is a measure of time, and the way we use our time is indicative of our priorities. Believers who give priority to God in their thinking and living on the Sabbath show in a tangible way that God really counts in their life. Thus, Sabbathkeeping is indeed "a defining and indelible expression of our relationship with God." 

John Paul develops this point eloquently saying: "Man’s relationship with God demands times of explicit prayer, in which the relationship becomes an intense dialogue, involving every dimension of the person. ‘The Lord’s Day’ is the day of this relationship par excellence when men and women raise their song to God and become the voice of all creation."18 

Sunday as the Fulfillment of the Sabbath. In the light of these profound theological insights into the Sabbath as being a kind of "sacred architecture" of time that marks the unfolding of God’s creative and redemptive activity, and as the defining expression of our relationship with God, one wonders how does the Pope succeed in developing a theological justification for Sunday observance? He does this by making Sunday the embodiment of the biblical Sabbath.  

For example, John Paul without hesitation applies to Sunday God’s blessing and sanctification of the Sabbath at creation. "Sunday is the day of rest because it is the day ‘blessed’ by God and ‘made holy’ by him, set apart from the other days to be, among them, ‘the Lord’s Day.’"19 

More importantly, the Pope makes Sunday the "full expression" of the Sabbath by arguing that Sunday, as the Lord’s Day, fulfills the creative and redemptive functions of the Sabbath. These two functions, the Pope claims, "reveal the meaning of the ‘Lord’s Day’ within a single theological vision which fuses creation and salvation."20  

"On the Lord’s Day," John Paul explains, "which the Old Testament [Sabbath] links to the work of creation (cf. Gen 2:1-3; Ex 20:8-11) and the Exodus (cf. Deut 5:12-15), the Christian is called to proclaim the new creation and the new covenant brought about in the Paschal Mystery of Christ. Far from being abolished, the celebration of creation becomes more profound within a Christocentric perspective . . . . The remembrance of the liberation of the Exodus also assumes its full meaning by Christ in his Death and Resurrection. More than a ‘replacement’ of the Sabbath, therefore, Sunday is its fulfillment, and in a certain sense its extension and full expression in the ordered unfolding of the history of salvation, which reaches its culmination in Christ."21  

The Pope maintains that New Testament Christians "made the first day after the Sabbath a festive day" because they discovered that the creative and redemptive accomplishments celebrated by the Sabbath, found their "fullest expression in Christ’s Death and Resurrection, though its definitive fulfillment will not come until the Parousia, when Christ returns in glory."22  

The Pope’s attempt to make Sunday the "extension and full expression" of the creative and redemptive meanings of the Sabbath is very ingenious, but it lacks biblical and historical support. There are no indications in the New Testament that Christians ever interpreted Sunday to be the embodiment of the creative and redemptive meanings of the Sabbath. From a biblical and historical perspective, Sunday is not the Sabbath because the two days differ in authority, meaning, and experience. 

Difference in Authority. The difference in authority lies in the fact that while Sabbathkeeping rests upon an explicit biblical command (Gen 2:2-3; Ex 20:8-11; Mark 2:27-28; Heb 4:9), Sundaykeeping derives from an interplay of social, political, pagan, and religious factors. I have examined these factors at length in my dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday, published by the Pontifical Gregorian University, in Rome, Italy. The lack of a biblical authority for Sundaykeeping may well be a major contributing factor to the crisis of Sunday observance that John Paul rightly laments. 

The vast majority of Christians, especially in the Western world, view their Sunday as a holiday to seek personal pleasure and profit rather than a holy day to seek divine presence and peace. I submit that a major contributing factor to the secularization of Sunday is the prevailing perception that there is no divine, biblical command to keep Sunday as a holy day.  

The lack of a biblical conviction that Sunday should be observed as the holy Sabbath day may well explain why most Christians see nothing wrong in devoting their Sunday time to themselves rather than to the Lord. If there was a strong theological conviction that the principle of Sundaykeeping was divinely established at creation and later "inscribed" in the Decalogue, as the Pope attempts to prove, then Christians would feel compelled to act accordingly.  

Difference in Meaning. John Paul recognizes the need to make Sundaykeeping a moral imperative and he tries to accomplish this by rooting the day in the Sabbath commandment itself. But this cannot be done because Sunday is not the Sabbath. The two days have a different meaning and function. While in Scripture the Sabbath memorializes God’s perfect creation, complete redemption, and final restoration, Sunday is justified in the earliest Patristic literature as the commemoration of the creation of light on the first day of the week, the cosmic-eschatological symbol of the new eternal world typified by the eighth day, and the memorial of Christ’s Sunday Resurrection.23  

None of the historical meanings attributed to Sunday require per se the observance of the day by resting and worshipping the Lord. For example, nowhere does Scripture suggest that the creation of light on the first day ought to be celebrated through a weekly Sunday rest and worship. Even the Resurrection event, as we shall see, does not require per se a weekly or annual Sunday celebration. 

The attempt to transfer to Sunday the biblical authority and meaning of the Sabbath is doomed to fail because it is impossible to retain the same authority, meaning, and experience when the date of a festival is changed. For example, if a person or an organization should succeed in changing the date of the Declaration of Independence from the 4th to the 5th of July, the new date could hardly be viewed as the legitimate celebration of Independence Day. 

Similarly, if the festival of the Sabbath is changed from the seventh to the first day, the latter can hardly memorialize the divine acts of creation, redemption, and final restoration which are linked to the typology of the Sabbath. To invest Sunday with the theological meaning and function of the Sabbath means to adulterate a divine institution by making a holy day out of what God created to be a working day. 

Difference in Experience. Third, the difference between Sabbath and Sunday is one of experience. While Sundaykeeping began and has remained largely the hour of worship, Sabbathkeeping is presented in Scriptures as twenty-four hours consecrated to God. In spite of the efforts made by Constantine, church councils, and the Puritans to make Sunday a total day of rest and worship, the historical reality is that Sunday observance has been equated with church attendance. John Paul acknowledges this historical reality in chapter 3 of the Pastoral Letter entitled "The Day of the Church. The Eucharistic Assembly: The Heart of Sunday." The thrust of the chapter is that the heart of Sunday observance is the participation in the Mass. He cites the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says: "The Sunday celebration of the Lord’s Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church’s life."24 

The end of Sunday church services represents for many Christians also the termination of Sundaykeeping. After church, they go in good conscience to the shopping mall, a ball game, a dance hall, a theater, etc. It came as a surprise for me to discover that even in the "Bible Belt" many shops open for business as soon as the church services are over. The message is clear. The rest of Sunday is business as usual. 

The recognition of this historical reality has led Christopher Kiesling, a distinguished Catholic Liturgists, to argue for the abandonment of the notion of Sunday as a day of rest and for the retention of Sunday as the hour of worship.25 His reasoning is that since Sunday has never been a day of total rest and worship, there is no hope to make it so today when most people want holidays, not holy days. 

Celebrating the Sabbath, however, means not merely attending church services but consecrating its twenty-four hours to the Lord. The Sabbath commandment does not say, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy by attending Sabbath school and church services." What the commandment requires is to work six days and rest on the seventh day unto the Lord (Ex 20:8-10). This means that the essence of Sabbathkeeping is the consecration of time. The act of resting unto the Lord makes all the Sabbath activities, whether they be formal worship or informal fellowship and recreation, an act of worship because all of them spring out of a heart which has decided to honor God. 

The act of resting on the Sabbath unto the Lord becomes the means through which the believer enters into God’s rest (Heb 4:10) by experiencing more fully and freely the awareness of God’s presence, peace, and rest. This unique experience of Sabbathkeeping is foreign to Sundaykeeping because the essence of the latter is not the consecration of time but rather church attendance, generally followed by secular activities. 

In the light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that the Pope’s attempt to make Sunday the theological and existential embodiment of the Sabbath is doomed to fail because the two days differ radically in their authority, meaning, and experience. 

The second chapter of the Pastoral Letter entitled "Dies Christi—The Day of Christ" focuses on three major, biblical events that allegedly justify Sunday observance: (1) The Resurrection and appearances of Christ which took place on ‘the first day after the Sabbath’ (Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1);26 (2) the religious gatherings that occurred on the first day of the week (cf. 1 Cor 16:2; Acts 20:7-12);27 and (3) the outpouring of the Holy Spirit fifty days after the Resurrection which occurred on a Sunday (Acts 2:2-3).28 We examine these arguments in their respective order. 

The Pope maintains that the earliest Christians "made the first day after the Sabbath a festive day, for that was the day on which the Lord rose from the dead."29 He argues that though Sunday is rooted in the creative and redemptive meaning of the Sabbath, the day finds its full expression in the Resurrection of Christ. "Although the Lord’s Day is rooted in the very work of creation and even more in the mystery of the Biblical [Sabbath] ‘rest’ of God, it is nonetheless to the Resurrection of Christ that we must look in order to understand fully the Lord’s Day."30 

Importance Attributed to Resurrection. The Resurrection and Appearance of Christ on the first day of the week constitute, in the Pope’s view, the fundamental biblical justification for the origin of Sunday worship. He summarizes concisely the alleged Biblical evidences in the following paragraph: "According to the common witness of the Gospels, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead took place on ‘the first day after the Sabbath’ (Mark 16:2,9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). On the same day, the Risen Lord appeared to the two disciples of Emmaus (cf. Luke 24:13-35) and to the eleven Apostles gathered together (cf. Luke 24:36; John 20:19). A week later—as the Gospel of John recounts (cf. John 20:26)—the disciples were gathered together once again when Jesus appeared to them and made Himself known to Thomas by showing him the signs of His Passion. The day of Pentecost—the first day of the eighth week after the Jewish Passover (cf. Acts 2:1), when the promise made by Jesus to the Apostles after the Resurrection was fulfilled by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (cf. Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5)—also fell on a Sunday. This was the day of the first proclamation and the first baptisms: Peter announced to the assembled crowd that Christ was risen and ‘those who received his word were baptized’ (Acts 2:41). This was the epiphany of the Church, revealed as the people into which are gathered in unity, beyond all their differences, the scattered children of God."31 

Numerous Catholic and Protestant scholars concur with John Paul in attributing to Christ’s Resurrection and appearances on the first day of the week the fundamental reason for the choice of Sunday by the Apostolic church. In his doctoral dissertation on the origin of Sunday, Corrado Mosna, a Jesuit student at the Pontifical Gregorian University who worked under Vincenzo Monachino, S. J. (the same professor who monitored my dissertation), concludes: "Therefore we can conclude with certainty that the event of the Resurrection has determined the choice of Sunday as the day of worship of the first Christian community."32 

The same view is expressed by Cardinal Jean Daniélou: "The Lord’s Day is a purely Christian institution; its origin is to be found solely on the fact of the Resurrection of Christ on the day after the Sabbath."33 In a similar vein, Paul Jewett, a Protestant scholar, writes: "What, it might be asked, specifically motivated the primitive Jewish church to settle upon Sunday as a regular time of assembly? As we have observed before, it must have had something to do with the Resurrection which, according to the uniform witness of the Gospels, occurred on the first day of the week."34 

Evaluation of the Resurrection. In spite of its popularity, the alleged role of the Resurrection in the adoption of Sunday observance lacks biblical support. A careful study of all the references to the Resurrection reveals the incomparable importance of the event,35 but it does not provide any indication regarding a special day to commemorate it. In fact, as Harold Riesenfeld notes, "In the accounts of the Resurrection in the Gospels, there are no sayings which direct that the great event of Christ’s Resurrection should be commemorated on the particular day of the week on which it occurred."36  

Moreover, as the same author observes, "The first day of the week, in the writings of the New Testament, is never called ‘Day of the Resurrection’. This is a term which made its appearance later."37 Its usage first appears in the fourth century. Therefore, "to say that Sunday was observed because Jesus rose on that day," as S. V. McCasland cogently states, "is really a petitio principii [begging the question], for such a celebration might just as well be monthly or annually and still be an observance of that particular day.38 

The New Testament attributes no liturgical significance to the day of Christ’s Resurrection simply because the Resurrection was seen as an existential reality experienced by living victoriously by the power of the Risen Savior, and not a liturgical practice associated with Sunday worship. 

Had Jesus wanted to memorialize the day of His Resurrection, He would have capitalized on the day of His Resurrection to make such a day the fitting memorial of that event. But none of the utterances of the risen Savior reveal an intent to memorialize the day of His Resurrection by making it the new Christian day of rest and worship. Biblical institutions such as the Sabbath, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper all trace their origin to a divine act that established them. But there is no such divine act for the institution of a weekly Sunday or an annual Easter Sunday memorial of the Resurrection.  

The silence of the New Testament on this matter is very important since most of its books were written many years after Christ’s death and Resurrection. If by the latter half of the first century Sunday had come to be viewed as the memorial of the Resurrection which fulfilled the creation/redemption functions of the Old Testament Sabbath, as the Pope claims, we would expect to find in the New Testament some allusions to the religious meaning and observance of the weekly Sunday and/or annual Easter-Sunday.  

The total absence of any such allusions indicates that such developments occurred in the post-apostolic period as a result of an interplay of political, social, and religious factors. These I have examined at length in my dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday. 

No Easter-Sunday in the New Testament. The Pope’s claim that the celebration of Christ’s Resurrection on a weekly Sunday and annual Easter-Sunday "evolved from the early years after the Lord’s Resurrection"39 cannot be substantiated Biblically or historically. There is nearly unanimous scholarly consensus that for at least a century after Jesus’ death, Passover was observed not on Easter-Sunday, as a celebration of the Resurrection, but on the date of Nisan 14 (irrespective of the day of the week) as a celebration of the sufferings, atoning sacrifice, and Resurrection of Christ. 

The repudiation of the Jewish reckoning of Passover and the adoption of Easter-Sunday instead is a post-apostolic development which is attributed, as Joachim Jeremias puts it, "to the inclination to break away from Judaism"40 and to avoid, as J. B. Lightfoot explains, "even the semblance of Judaism."41  

The introduction and promotion of Easter-Sunday by the Church of Rome in the second century caused the well-known Passover (Quartodeciman) controversy which eventually led Bishop Victor of Rome to excommunicate the Asian Christians (c. A. D. 191) for refusing to adopt Easter-Sunday.42 Indications such as these suffice to show that Christ’s Resurrection was not celebrated on a weekly Sunday and annual Easter-Sunday from the inception of Christianity. The social, political, and religious factors that contributed to the change from Sabbath to Sunday and Passover to Easter-Sunday are discussed at great length in my dissertation. 

Evaluation of the Appearances. John Paul attaches particular significance to the appearances of the Risen Lord on the first day of the week to "the two disciples of Emmaus (cf. Luke 24:13-35) and to the eleven Apostles gathered together (cf. Luke 24:36-49; John 20:19)."43 The fact that He also appeared to the disciples the following Sunday ("eight days later"—John 20:26) to make Himself known to Thomas, and that He fulfilled the promise of outpouring the Holy Spirit on a Sunday (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5) is seen as the beginning of a consistent pattern of Sunday observance.44 

The appearances of Christ do not follow any consistent pattern. The mention of Christ’s appearance "eight days later" (John 20:26), supposedly the Sunday following His Resurrection, can hardly suggest a regular pattern of Sunday observance since John himself explains its reason— namely, the absence of Thomas at the previous appearance (John 20:24). 

Moreover, on this occasion, John makes no reference to any cultic meal but simply to Christ’s tangible demonstration to Thomas of the reality of his bodily Resurrection (John 20:26-29). The fact that "eight days later" the disciples were again gathered together is not surprising, since we are told that before Pentecost "they were staying" (Acts 1:13) together in the upper room and there they met daily for mutual edification (Acts 1:14; 2:1). 

No consistent pattern can be derived from Christ’s appearances to justify the institution of a recurring eucharistic celebration on Sunday. The Lord appeared to individuals and to groups not only on Sunday but at different times, places, and circumstances. He appeared, in fact, to single persons such as Cephas and James (1 Cor 15:5,7), to the twelve (vv. 5, 7), and to a group of five hundred persons (v. 6). The meetings occurred, for instance, while the disciples were gathered within shut doors for fear of the Jews (John 20:19, 26), traveling on the Emmaus road (Luke 24:13-35), or fishing on the lake of Galilee (John 21:1-14).  

Only with two disciples at Emmaus, Christ "took the bread and blessed; and broke it, and gave it to them" (Luke 24:30). This last instance may sound like the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, but in reality it was an ordinary meal around an ordinary table to which Jesus was invited. Christ accepted the hospitality of the two disciples and sat "at the table with them" (Luke 24:30). According to prevailing custom, the Lord "took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them" (Luke 24:30). This act, as explained by J. Behm, was "simply a customary and necessary part of the preparation for eating together."45  

The Witness of Matthew and Mark. Another notable point is that, according to Matthew (28:10) and Mark (16:7), Christ’s appearances occurred not in Jerusalem (as mentioned by Luke and John) but in Galilee. This suggests that, as S. V. McCasland observes, "the appearance may have been as much as ten days later, after the feast of the unleavened bread, as indicated by the closing fragments of the Gospel of Peter. But if the appearance at this late date was on Sunday it would be scarcely possible to account for the observance of Sunday in such an accidental way."46 

While it may be difficult to explain the discrepancies in the Gospels’ narratives, the fact remains that both Matthew and Mark make no reference to any meal or meeting of Christ with his disciples on Easter-Sunday. This implies that no particular importance was attributed to the meal Christ shared with his disciples on the Sunday night of his Resurrection. 

In the light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that Christ’s appearances served to reassure the disheartened disciples of the reality of Christ’s Resurrection, but they could hardly have set the pattern for a recurring weekly commemoration of the Resurrection. They occurred at different times, places, and circumstances; and in those instances where Christ ate, He partook of ordinary food (like fish–John 21:13), not to institute a eucharistic Sunday worship but to demonstrate the reality of his bodily Resurrection. 

John Paul maintains that "the Old Testament vision of the Sabbath" inspired the earliest Christians to link the Resurrection with the first day of creation. He writes: "Christian thought spontaneously linked the Resurrection, which took place on ‘the first day of the week,’ with the first day of that cosmic week (cf. Gen 1:1–2:4) which shapes the creation story of the Book of Genesis: the day of the creation of light (cf. 1:3-5)."47  

The linkage between the Resurrection and the creation of light was not as "spontaneously" inspired by "the Old Testament vision of the Sabbath," as the Pope suggests. In my dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday, I submit compelling documents indicating that such linkage was inspired by the necessity which arose in the post-apostolic period to justify the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of the Day of the Sun.  

Hadrianic Anti-Sabbath Legislation. This development began during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian (A. D. 117-138) as a result of the repressive anti-Judaic legislation. In A. D. 135, Hadrian promulgated a legislation that categorically prohibited the practice of Judaism, in general, and of Sabbathkeeping, in particular. The aim of this legislation was to liquidate Judaism as a religion at a time when the Jews were experiencing resurgent Messianic expectations that exploded in violent uprisings in various parts of the empire, especially Palestine.48 

To avoid the repressive anti-Jewish and anti-Sabbath legislation, most Christians adopted the Day of the Sun as their new day of worship. This enabled them to show the Roman authorities their differentiations from the Jews and their identification and integration with the customs and cycles of the Roman empire.  

To develop a theological justification for worshipping on the Day of the Sun, Christians appealed to God’s creation of light on the first day and to the Resurrection of Christ as the Sun of Justice, since both events coincided with the Day of the Sun. The latter was connected to the first day of the creation-week, because the creation of light on the first day provided what appeared to many a providential biblical justification for observing the Day of the Sun, the generator of light. 

Sunday and the Creation of Light. The earliest example of this linkage is found in Justin Martyr’s Apology, addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius (about A. D. 150). Justin writes: "Sunday (dies solis) is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead."49 Christians, as Cardinal J. Danièlou points out, noticed early the coincidence between the creation of light on the first day and the veneration of the Sun which took place on the selfsame day.50  

Jerome (A. D. 342-420) makes the connection very explicit when he says: "If it is called the Day of the Sun by the pagans, we most willingly acknowledge it as such, since it is on this day that the light of the world appeared and on this day the Sun of Justice has risen."51 

These considerations suggest that Christians did not spontaneously come to view the day of Christ’s Resurrection as the fulfillment of the creative and redemptive accomplishments celebrated by the seventh-day Sabbath. The linkage to the creation week was made primarily by virtue of the fact that the creation of the light on the first day provided what to many Christians appeared to be a "biblical" justification for observing the Day of the Sun. 

Evangelistic Considerations. The christianization of the Day of the Sun was apparently designed also to facilitate the acceptance of Christianity by pagans who worshipped the Sun-god, especially on his day of the Sun. For them to adopt the Day of the Sun as their Christian day of worship was not a problem since that day already had special religious significance in their pagan religion.  

It is noteworthy that the growing popularity of Sun worship led to the advancement of the Day of the Sun from the position of second day of the week (following Saturn-day), to that of first and most important day of the week. The historical sources available indicate that this development occurred in the early part of the second century—that is, at the very time when Christians adopted the Day of the Sun for their weekly worship.52 

John Paul acknowledges the evangelistic intent of the adoption of the "day of the Sun." He writes: "Wise pastoral intuition suggested to the Church the christianization of the notion of Sunday as ‘the day of the Sun,’ which was the Roman name for the day and which is retained in some modern languages. This was in order to draw the faithful away from the seduction of cults which worshipped the sun, and to direct the celebration of the day to Christ, humanity's true ‘sun.’"53 

Unfortunately, this strategy backfired because Christians were often tempted to revert to the popular veneration of the Sun and other planetary gods. For example, Philaster, Bishop of Brescia (died ca. A. D. 397) condemns as heresy the prevailing belief that "the name of the days of the Sun, of the Moon . . . had been established by God at the creation of the world. . . . The pagans, that is, the Greeks have set up such names and with the names also the notion that mankind depends from the seven stars"54  

In a document attributed to Priscillian, a Spanish Bishop of Avila (ca. A.D. 340-385), anathema is pronounced against those Christians who "in their sacred ceremonies, venerate and acknowledge as gods the Sun, Moon . . . and all the heavenly host, which are detestable idols worthy of the Gehenna." 55 

The adoption and christianization of the day of the sun, instead of the biblical Sabbath, has not proven to be a "wise pastoral intuition" since it has tempted Christians in the past to revert to pagan worship, and it is tempting Christians today to treat Sunday as a pagan holiday rather than as a Biblical Holy Day. 

Was Sunday Needed? At this juncture I would like to pose respectfully to Pope John Paul some important questions: If the Sabbath had been divinely established to commemorate God’s creative and redemptive accomplishments on behalf of His people, what right had the Catholic Church to make Sunday the legitimate "fulfillment," "full expression," and "extension" of the Sabbath? Was the theology and typology of the Sabbath no longer adequate after the Cross to commemorate creation and redemption? Was not the Paschal Mystery fulfilled through the death, burial, and Resurrection of Christ which occurred respectively on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday?  

Why should Sunday be chosen to celebrate the atoning sacrifice of Christ when His redemptive mission was completed on a Friday afternoon when the Savior exclaimed "It is finished" (John 19:30), and then He rested in the tomb according to the Sabbath commandment? Does not this fact suggest that both God’s creation rest and Christ’s redemption rest in the tomb occurred on the Sabbath? How can Sunday be invested with the eschatological meaning of the final restoration rest that awaits the people of God when the New Testament attaches such a meaning to the Sabbath? "A Sabbath rest [literally, a ‘Sabbathkeeping’] has been left behind [apoleipetai] for the people of God" (Heb 4:9). Augustine himself recognizes the eschatological meaning of the Sabbath when he eloquently says that on that final Sabbath "we shall rest and see, see and love, love and praise."56  

May I respectfully suggest that the Pope’s attempt to invest Sunday with the theological meaning and eschatological function of the Sabbath by virtue of Christ’s Resurrection on the first day is well-meaning but misguided. It mistakenly makes Sunday the biblical Sabbath, when in reality the two days differ radically in their origin, meaning, authority, and experience. 

In his Pastoral Letter, Pope John Paul traces the origin of Sunday worship back to the Apostolic church. He claims that from Apostolic times the first day of the week shaped the religious life of Christ’s disciples.57 To support this claim, the Pope appeals to three commonly used texts: (1) 1 Corinthians 16:2, (2) Acts 20:7-12, and (3) Revelation 1:10. Each of these passages are examined at great length in my dissertation.58 In this context I limit myself to a few basic observations. 

1 Corinthians 16:2: Christian Sunday Gatherings? The first-day fund-rasing plan recommended by Paul in 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 is cited by John Paul as an indication that "from Apostolic times, ‘the first day after the Sabbath,’ the first day of the week, began to shape the rhythm of life for Christ’s disciples (cf. 1 Cor 16:2)."59 The Pope affirms that "ever since Apostolic times, the Sunday gathering has in fact been for Christians a moment of fraternal sharing with the poor. ‘On the first day of the week, each of you is to put aside and save whatever extra you earn’ (1 Cor 16:2), says Saint Paul in referring to the collection organized for the poor churches of Judaea."60 

John Paul sees in the first-day fund-raising plan recommended by Paul in this text a clear indication that the Christian Church gathered for worship on that day. This view is shared by numerous Catholic and Protestant scholars.61 For example, Corrado Mosna argues that since Paul designates the "offering" in 2 Corinthians 9 :12 as "service–leiturgia," the collection [of 1 Corinthians 16:2] must have been linked with the Sunday worship service of the Christian assembly."62 

The various attempts to extrapolate from Paul’s fund-raising plan a regular pattern of Sunday observance reveal inventiveness and originality, but they rest on construed arguments and not on the actual information the text provides. Observe, first of all, that there is nothing in the text to suggests public assemblies inasmuch as the setting aside of funds was to be done "by himself–par’heauto." The phrase suggests that the collection was to be done individually and in private. 

If the Christian community was worshiping together on Sunday, it appears paradoxical that Paul should recommend laying aside at home one’s gift. Why should Christians deposit their offering at home on Sunday if on such a day they were gathering for worship? Should not the money have been brought to the Sunday service?  

Purpose of the Fund-raising Plan. The purpose of the first-day fund-raising plan is clearly stated by the Apostle: "So that contributions need not be made when I come" (1 Cor 16:2). The plan then is proposed not to enhance Sunday worship by the offering of gifts, but to ensure a substantial and efficient collection upon his arrival. Four characteristics can be identified in the plan. The offering was to be laid aside periodically ("on the first day of every week"—v. 2), personally ("each of you"—v. 2), privately ("by himself in store"—v. 2), and proportionately ("as he may prosper"—v. 2).  

To the same community on another occasion, Paul thought it necessary to send brethren to "arrange in advance for the gift . . . promised, so that it may be ready not as an exaction but as a willing gift" (2 Cor 9:5). The Apostle desired to avoid embarrassing both to the givers and to the collectors when finding that they "were not ready" (2 Cor 9:4) for the offering. To avoid such problems in this instance, he recommends both a time—the first day of the week—and a place—one’s home. 

Paul’s mention of the first day could be motivated more by practical than theological reasons. To wait until the end of the week or of the month to set aside one’s contributions or savings is contrary to sound budgetary practices, since by then one finds empty pockets and empty hands. On the other hand, if, on the first day of the week before planning any expenditures, believers set aside what they plan to give, the remaining funds will be so distributed as to meet all the basic necessities. The text, therefore, proposes a valuable weekly plan to ensure a substantial and orderly contribution on behalf of the poor brethren of Jerusalem—to extract more meaning from the text would distort it. 

Acts 20:7-11: First-Day Troas Meeting. Fundamental importance is attributed to Acts 20:7-11 inasmuch as it contains the only explicit New Testament reference to a Christian gathering conducted "on the first day of the week . . . to break bread" (Acts 20:7). John Paul assumes that the meeting was a customary Sunday assembly "upon which the faithful of Troas were gathered ‘for the breaking of the bread [that is, the Eucharistic celebration].’"63 

Numerous scholars share the Pope’s view. F. F. Bruce, for example, affirms that this statement "is the earliest unambiguous evidence we have for the Christian practice of gathering together for worship on that day."64 Paul Jewett similarly declares that "here is the earliest clear witness to Christian assembly for purposes of worship on the first day of the week."65 Statements like these could be multiplied. 

These categorical conclusions rest mostly on the assumption that verse 7 represents "a fixed formula" which describes the habitual time ("On the first day of the week") and the nature ("to break bread") of the primitive Christian worship. Since, however, the meeting occurred in the evening and "the breaking of the bread" took place after midnight (vv. 7, 11) and Paul left the believers at dawn, we need to ask: Was the time and nature of the Troas gathering ordinary or extraordinary, occasioned perhaps by the departure of the Apostle? 

Special Farewell Gathering. The context clearly indicates that it was a special farewell gathering occasioned by the departure of Paul, and not a regular Sunday-worship custom. The meeting began on the evening of the first day, which, according to Jewish reckoning, was our Saturday night, and continued until early Sunday morning when Paul departed. Being a night meeting occasioned by the departure of the Apostle at dawn, it is hardly reflective of regular Sundaykeeping.  

Paul would have observed with the believers only the night of Sunday and traveled during the day time. This was not allowed on the Sabbath and would not have set the best example of Sundaykeeping either. The passage suggests, as noted by F. J. Foakes-Jackson, that "Paul and his friends could not, as good Jews, start on a journey on a Sabbath; they did so as soon after it as was possible (verse 12) at dawn on the ‘first day’—the Sabbath having ended at sunset."66 

The Breaking of the Bread. The expression "to break bread—klasai arton" deserves closer attention. What does it actually mean in the context of the passage? Does it mean that ‘the Christians came together for a fellowship meal or to celebrate the Lord’s Supper? It should be noted that the breaking of bread was simply a customary and necessary part of the preparation for eating together. The act of breaking in pieces a loaf of bread by the host marked the opening action of a meal. In most European cultures, the same function is fulfilled by the host wishing "Buon appetito—Good Appetite" to the guest. This ritual gives permission to all to begin eating.  

In the post-apostolic literature, the expression "breaking of bread" is used as a technical designation for the Lord’s Supper. But this is not the common meaning or usage in the New Testament. In fact, the verb "to break—klao" followed by the noun "bread—artos" occurs fifteen times in the New Testament. Nine times it refers to Christ’s act of breaking bread when feeding the multitude, when partaking of the Last Supper, and when eating with His disciples after His Resurrection (Matt 14:19; 15:36; 26:26; Mark 8:6; 9:19; 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30; 24:35); twice it describes Paul’s commencing and partaking of a meal (Acts 20:11; 27:35); twice it describes the actual breaking of the bread of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 10:16; 11:24); and twice it is used as a general reference to the disciples’ or believers’ "breaking bread" together (Acts 2:46; 20:7). It should be noticed that in none of these instances is the Lord’s Supper explicitly or technically designated as "the breaking of bread." An attempt could be made to see a reference to the Lord’s Supper in the two general references of Acts 2:46 and 20:7. As far as Acts 2:46 is concerned, the phrase "breaking bread in their homes" obviously refers to the daily table-fellowship of the earliest Christians, when, as the text says, "day by day . . . they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people" (Acts 2:46-47).  

Such daily table-fellowship, though it may have included the celebrations of the Lord’s Supper, can hardly be construed as exclusive liturgical celebrations of the Lord’s Supper. The equivalent statement found in Acts 20:7, "We were gathered together to break bread," similarly needs mean no more than "We were gathered to eat together." In fact, there is no mention of a cup, nor of any prayers or reading of a Scripture. It is Paul alone who broke bread and ate. No indication is given that he ever blessed the bread or the wine or that he distributed it to the believers. 

Furthermore, the breaking of bread was followed by a meal "having eaten—geusamenos" (v. 11). The same verb is used by Luke in three other instances with the explicit meaning of satisfying hunger (Acts 10:10; 23:14; Luke 14:24). Undoubtedly, Paul was hungry after his prolonged speech and needed some food before he could continue his exhortation and start his journey. However, if Paul partook of the Lord’s Supper together with a regular meal, he would have acted contrary to his recent instruction to the Corinthians to whom he strongly recommended satisfying their hunger by eating at home before gathering to celebrate the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:2, 22, 34).  

The New Testament does not offer any indication regarding a fixed day for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. While Paul recommends to the Corinthian believers a specific day on which to privately set aside their offerings, concerning the celebration of the Lord’s Supper he repeatedly says in the same epistle and to the same people, "When you come together" (1 Cor 11:18, 20, 33, 34), implying indeterminate times and days.  

The simplest way to explain the passage is that Luke mentions the day of the meeting not because it was Sunday, but most likely because (1) Paul was "ready to depart" (Acts 20:7), (2) the extraordinary miracle of Eutychus occurred that night, and (3) the time reference provides an additional, significant, chonological reference to describe the unfolding of Paul’s journey.  

Revelation 1:10: "The Lord’s Day." The third crucial New Testament passage used by John Paul to defend the apostolic origin of Sunday observance is found in the book of Revelation. John, exiled on the "island of Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (Rev 1 :9), writes: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day—en te kuriake hemera" (Rev 1:10).  

John Paul claims that this text "gives evidence of the practice of calling the first day of the week ‘the Lord’s Day’ (Rev 1:10). This would now be a characteristic distinguishing Christians from the world around them. . . . And when Christians spoke of the ‘Lord’s Day,’ they did so giving to this term the full sense of the Easter proclamation: ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ (Phil 2:11; cf. Acts 2:36; 1 Cor 12:3)."67  

The implication of the Pope’s statement is that New Testament Christians not only called Sunday "The Lord’s Day" but also expressed through such designation their faith in their Risen Savior. Numerous scholars share the same view. For example, Corrado Mosna emphatically writes: "By the phrase ‘Lord’s Day’ (Rev 1:10), John wishes to indicate specifically the day in which the community celebrates together the eucharistic liturgy."68 The phrase "eucharistic liturgy" is used by Catholics to describe the Lord’s Supper celebration in honor of the Risen Lord. 

A detailed analysis of this text would take us beyond the limited scope of this chapter. In my dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday I devoted twenty pages (pp. 111 to 131) to an examination of this verse. For the purpose of this chapter, I submit only two basic observations.  

First, the equation of Sunday with the expression "Lord’s day" is not based on internal evidences of the book of Revelation or of the rest of the New Testament, but on three second-century patristic testimonies, namely, Didache 14:1, Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians 9:1, and The Gospel of Peter 35; 50. Of the three, however, only in the Gospel of Peter, written toward the end of the second century, is Sunday unmistakably designated by the technical term "Lord’s—kuriake." In two different verses it reads: "Now in the night in which the Lord’s day (He kuriake) dawned . . . there rang out a loud voice in heaven" (v. 35); "Early in the morning of the Lord’s day (tes kuriakes) Mary Magdalene . . . came to the sepulchre" (v. 50, 51).  

It is noteworthy that while in the genuine Gospels Mary Magdalene and the other women went to the sepulchre "early on the first day of the week" (Mark 16:2; cf. Matt 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1), in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter it says that they went "early in the morning of the Lord’s day." The use of the new designation "Lord’s Day" instead of "first day of the week" clearly indicates that by the end of the second century Christians referred to Sunday as "the Lord’s Day." 

The latter usage, however, cannot be legitimately read back into Revelation 1:10. A major reason is that if Sunday had already received the new appellation "Lord’s day" by the end of the first century, when both the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation were written, we would expect this new name for Sunday to be used consistently in both works, especially since they were apparently produced by the same author at approximately the same time and in the same geographical area. 

If the new designation "Lord’s day" already existed by the end of the first century, and expressed the meaning and nature of Christian Sunday worship, John would not have had reasons to use the Jewish phrase "first day of the week" in his Gospel. Therefore, the fact that the expression "Lord’s day" occurs in John’s apocalyptic book but not in his Gospel—where the first day is explicitly mentioned in conjunction with the Resurrection (John 20:1) and the appearances of Jesus (John 20:19, 26)—suggests that the "Lord’s day" of Revelation 1:10 can hardly refer to Sunday.  

No Easter Sunday. A second important consideration that discredits the Pope’s claim that Sunday was called "Lord’s Day" in the "sense of the Easter proclamation" is the fact that the book of Revelation is addressed to the seven churches of Asia Minor who did not observe Easter-Sunday. Instead, they observed Passover by the biblical date of Nisan 14. Polycrates, who claims to be following the tradition of the Apostle John, convened a council of the church leaders of Asia Minor (about A. D. 191) to discuss the summon received from Bishop Victor of Rome to adopt Easter-Sunday. The unanimous decision of the Asian bishops was to reject Easter-Sunday and to retain the Biblical dating of Passover.69 

In the light of these facts, it would be paradoxical if the Apostle John, who kept Passover by the fixed date of Nisan 14 and who wrote to Christians in Asia Minor who like him did not observe Easter-Sunday, would have used the phrase "Lord’s Day" to express his Easter faith in the Risen Lord. Cardinal Jean Daniélou, a respected Catholic scholar, timidly acknowledges this fact when he writes: "In the Apocalypse (1:10), when Easter takes place on the 14 Nisan, the word [Lord’s Day] does not perhaps mean Sunday."70 

The only day that John knew as the "Lord’s Day" by the end of the first century when he wrote the book of Revelation is the Sabbath. This is the only day of which Christ proclaims Himself to be "Lord–kupios." "For the Son of man is lord of the Sabbath" (Matt 12:8).  

The immediate context that precedes and follows Revelation 1:10 contains unmistakable references to the eschatological day of the Lord. This suggests the possibility that the "Lord’s Day" on which John was transported in vision was a Sabbath day in which he saw the great day of Christ’s coming. What greater vision could have given courage to the aged 

Apostle in exile for his witness to Christ! Moreover, the Sabbath is closely linked eschatologically to the Second Advent. The meeting of the invisible Lord in time on the weekly Sabbath is a prelude to the meeting of the visible Lord in space on the final day of His coming. 

Summing up, the attempt of the Pastoral Letter to find biblical support for Sunday worship in the New Testament references to the Resurrection (Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1)—the first-day farewell night meeting at Troas (Acts 20:7-11), the first-day private deposit plan mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 16:1-3, and the reference to the "Lord’s Day" in Revelation 1:10—is not new. The same arguments have been used repeatedly in the past and found wanting.  

An important fact, often ignored, is that if Paul or any other apostle had attempted to promote the abandonment of the Sabbath (a millenarian institution deeply rooted in the religious consciousness of God’s people), and the adoption instead of Sunday observance, they would have stirred up considerable opposition on the part of Jewish-Christians, as was the case with reference to the circumcision.  

The absence of any echo of Sabbath/Sunday controversy in the New Testament is a most telling evidence that the introduction of Sunday observance is a post-apostolic phenomenon. In my dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday, I endeavored to identify the interplay of social, political, and religious factors that contributed to this historical change. In the light of these considerations, the attempt of Pope John Paul to give a biblical sanction to Sunday worship by tracing its origins to the Apostolic Church must be viewed as well-meaning but devoid of biblical support. 

In his Pastoral Letter Dies Domini, Pope John Paul devotes one of the five chapters (chapter 4) to emphasize the obligation of Sunday observance and the legislation needed to facilitate compliance with such obligation. The Pope’s call for civil legislation to facilitate Sunday observance stems from three major considerations which we need to briefly consider: 

(1) The moral obligation of Sunday observance 

(2) The ecclesiastical enforcement of Sunday observance 

(3) The call for civil Sunday legislation 

For the Pope, Sunday observance is not an option but a moral obligation which is well-defined both in the Catholic Catechism and the Catholic Canon Law. We have seen that John Paul roots such an obligation in the Sabbath commandment itself, because he believes that Sunday is "inscribed" in the Decalogue and is the fulfillment and full expression of the Sabbath. This means that Sunday must be observed according to the directives of the Sabbath commandment.  

John Paul writes: "It is the duty of Christians, therefore, to remember that, although the practices of the Jewish Sabbath are gone, surpassed as they are by the ‘fulfillment’ which Sunday brings, the underlying reasons for keeping ‘the Lord’s Day’ holy—inscribed solemnly in the Ten Commandments—remain valid, though they need to be reinterpreted in the light of the theology and spirituality of Sunday."71 The Pope continues quoting the Deuteronomic version of the Sabbath commandment (Deut 5:12-15). 

The moral obligation to observe Sunday for the Pope is "inscribed solemnly in the Ten Commandments" because, "more than a ‘replacement’ of the Sabbath, Sunday is its fulfillment, and in a certain sense its extension and full expression in the ordered unfolding of the history of salvation."72 "From this perspective," John Paul continues, "the biblical theology of the ‘Sabbath’ can be recovered in full, without compromising the Christian character of Sunday."73 

Evaluation. The Pope’s attempt to ground the moral obligation of Sunday observance in the Sabbath commandment is very ingenious, but, as shown earlier, it lacks biblical and historical support. From a biblical perspective, there are no indications in the New Testament that Sunday was ever viewed as the "extension and full expression" of the Sabbath. Similarly, from a historical perspective, the Fathers emphasize the difference and not the continuity between Sabbath and Sunday. 

The three major theological meanings of Sunday which I found in the writings of the Fathers areas follows: (1) the commemoration of the anniversary of creation, especially the creation of light on the first day which was suggested by its analogy to the Day of the Sun; (2) the commemoration of Christ’s Resurrection which eventually emerged as the fundamental reason for Sundaykeeping; and (3) the cosmic and eschatological speculations about the significance of the eighth day. An extensive discussion of these theological reasons is found in chapter 9 of my dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday. 

Speculations about the eighth day abound in the Patristic literature because they served to prove the superiority of Sunday—as the eighth day, symbol of the eternal world—in contrast to the Sabbath,—as the seventh day, symbol of the terrestial millennium. These speculations were repudiated in the fourth century when the necessity to prove the superiority of Sunday over the Sabbath subsided.74 

A careful study of early Christian literature suggests that Sunday arose, not as "the extension" of the Sabbath, but as its replacement. The necessity which arose to separate from the Jews and their Sabbath influenced Gentile Christians to adopt the venerable day of the Sun, since it provided an adequate time and symbolism to commemorate significant divine events which occurred on that day, such as the creation of light and the Resurrection of the Sun of Justice.  

The adoption of the Day of the Sun provoked a controversy with those who maintained the continuity and inviolability of the Sabbath. To silence such opposition, the symbolism of the first and eighth day were introduced and widely used by the Fathers, since they provided seemingly valuable apologetic arguments to defend the superiority of Sunday. As the first day, Sunday could allegedly claim superiority over the Sabbath, since it celebrated the anniversary of both the first and the second creation which was inaugurated by Christ’s Resurrection. The seventh day, on the other hand, could only claim to commemorate the completion of creation. As the eighth day, Sunday could claim to be the alleged continuation, and supplantation of the Sabbath, both temporally and eschatologically.75 

The polemic nature of the theological arguments developed by the Fathers to justify Sunday observance do not support the claim of the Pastoral Letter that Sunday was seen by the primitive Church as "the extension and full expression" of the Sabbath. The historical reality is that the Fathers emphasized the distinction between Sabbath and Sunday by making the Sabbath a Jewish institution terminated by Christ. 

In the light of these considerations, the Pope’s attempt to ground the moral obligation of Sunday observance on the Sabbath commandment must be viewed as a well-meaning but misinformed endeavor, because theologically, historically, and existentially, Sunday has never been the Sabbath. 

In his Pastoral Letter, Pope John Paul emphasizes not only the moral obligation of Sunday observance, but also the responsibility of the Catholic Church to ensure that her members respect such an obligation. This concept is foreign to most Protestants who view going to church on Sunday as a good practice, but not as a church law. Protestant churches do not condemn the failure to attend Sunday services as a serious sin. By contrast, the Catholic Church views the deliberate failure to attend Sunday Mass as a grave sin.  

It is important to understand the Catholic view of the obligatory nature of attending Sunday Mass in order to comprehend why the Catholic Church enforces such practice within the church by means of Canon Law, and why it also urges civil governments to pass civil Sunday legislation that respects the duty of Catholics to fulfill their worship obligations. The connection between the two is discussed below. 

Historically, enforcement of Sunday worship within the Catholic Church began in the fourth century. The protection provided by the Constantinian Sunday Law (A. D. 321) tempted many Christians to become negligent about attending Sunday Mass.  

To remedy this problem, as John Paul explains, "The Church had to make explicit the duty to attend Sunday Mass: more often than not, this was done in the form of exhortation, but at times the Church had to resort to specific canonical precepts. This was the case in a number of local Councils from the fourth century onwards (as at the Council of Elvira of 300, which speaks not of an obligation but of penalties after three absences) and most especially from the sixth century onwards (as at the Council of Agde in 506). These decrees of local Councils led to a universal practice, the obligatory character of which was taken as something quite normal."76 

The obligation to attend Sunday Mass was eventually made "into a universal law" in 1917. Such law was incorporated into the Catholic "Canon Law," that is, the law that governs the Catholic religious life. The Pope notes that "this legislation has normally been understood as entailing a grave obligation: this is the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it is easy to understand why if we keep in mind how vital Sunday is for the Christian life."77 

Indeed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is most emphatic about the obligation to attend Sunday Mass, saying that "the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."78 While Protestant churches encourage their members to attend Sunday services, the Catholic Church obliges their members to attend Sunday Mass. The reason is that for Catholics "The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation . . . . Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin."79 

John Paul explains that "because the faithful are obliged to attend Mass unless there is a grave impediment, Pastors have the corresponding duty to offer to everyone the real possibility of fulfilling the [Mass] precept."80 To meet this need, Catholic Church law has made provision for the celebration of several Masses on Sunday as well as special Masses on Saturday evening for those who cannot make it to church on Sunday.81 

Is the Lord’s Supper a Sacrifice? The fundamental problem with the obligatory nature of Sunday Mass which the Pope reiterates in his Pastoral Letter is that it stems not from the Sabbath Commandment nor from the New Testament teaching regarding the Lord’s Supper. It is rather from the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation which views the Lord’s Supper as a reenactment of Christ’s sacrifice. 

Pope John Paul clearly states: "The Mass in fact truly makes present the sacrifice of the Cross. Under the species of the bread and wine, . . . Christ offers himself to the Father in the same act of sacrifice by which He offered Himself on the Cross."82 This dogmatic teaching is affirmed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of the offering is different. In the divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."83 

It is this view of the Mass as a re-enactment of Christ’s atoning sacrifice before God and on behalf of the faithful that makes attendance to the Sunday Mass "a grave obligation." By participating in the Mass, Catholics are promised the immediate benefits of Christ’s sacrifice which is re-enacted on their behalf before their eyes.84 

Sacrifices and the Sabbath Commandment. This sacrificial and sacramental view of the Lord’s Supper is foreign to the New Testament and to the intent of the Sabbath commandment. In ancient Israel sacrificial offerings took place at the Temple on the Sabbath (Num 28:9-10), but Sabbath observance did not entail participating in the sacrificial rituals of the Tabernacle or of the Temple.  

Pope John Paul and the Catholic dogma ignore that the essence of the Sabbath commandment is not participating in a sacrificial liturgy but is consecrating the Sabbath time to God. The Sabbath commandment invites us to offer to God not sacrifices, but our time, which for many is the most precious commodity to sacrifice. By giving priority to God in our thinking and living on the Sabbath, we show in a tangible way that God really counts in our lives.  

Jesus or His followers did not go to the Temple on the Sabbath to watch the priestly sacrificial liturgy. Instead, they went to the synagogue to participate in the study of Scripture, to pray, and to sing praises to God. 

By making the Eucharistic (Lord’s Supper) celebration the core of Sunday observance, the Catholic Church has facilitated the secularization of Sunday. The reason is that many sincere Catholics believe that once they have fulfilled "the Mass precept," they are free to spend the rest of their Sunday time as they wish. For the Pope to reverse this trend at this time is a monumental task, especially since people today want holidays rather than Holy Days. 

The Nature and Time of the Lord’s Supper. The Catholic "sacrificial" view of the Lord’s Supper as a re-enactment of Christ’s sacrifice is foreign to the teaching of the New Testament. There is no need to repeat Christ’s atoning sacrifice because "he always lives to make intercession" for us (Heb 7:25). "Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf (Heb 9:24). Hebrews continues noting that Christ does not need "to offer himself repeatedly" (Heb 9:25), as the Catholic Mass attempts to do, because He has "offered [Himself] once to bear the sins of many" (Heb 9:28). 

Paul understood the Lord’s Supper to be a "proclamation," not a re-enactment of Christ’s death. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (1 Cor 11:26). The verb "proclaim—katangellein" is used in the New Testament for heralding the Gospel (1 Cor 9:14) and for making known one’s faith (Rom 1:8). This suggests that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a proclamation of the Gospel directed manward, not a re-enactment of Christ’s sacrifice directed Godward, as taught by the Catholic church.  

The Pope’s contention that "the Eucharist is the heart of Sunday"85 cannot be supported by the witness of the New Testament. Paul, who claims to transmit what he "received from the Lord" (1 Cor 11:23) regarding the Lord’s Supper, nowhere suggests that it should be celebrated on Sunday as the core of the Sunday worship. The Apostle takes pains to instruct the Corinthians concerning the manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, but on the question of the time of the assembly no less than four times he repeats in the same chapter, "when you come together—sunerkomenon" (1 Cor 11:18, 20, 33, 34), thus implying indeterminate times and days.  

If the Lord’s Supper was indeed celebrated on Sunday, Paul could hardly have failed to mention it at least once, since four times he refers to the coming together for its celebration. Furthermore, if Sunday was already regarded as the "Lord’s day," Paul could have strengthened his plea for a more worshipful attitude during the partaking of the Lord’s Supper by reminding the Corinthians of the sacred nature of the Lord’s Day in which they met. But, though Paul was familiar with the adjective "Lord’s—kuriakos" (since he uses it in v. 20 to designate the nature of the supper), he did not apply it to Sunday, which in the same epistle he calls by the Jewish designation "first day of the week" (1 Cor 16:2). 

The preceding observations have served to highlight three major flaws in the arguments of the Pastoral Letter regarding the enforcement of Sunday worship. First, John Paul wants to ground Sunday observance in the Sabbath commandment in spite of the fact that the essence of Sabbathkeeping is not participation in sacrificial rituals but the consecration of time to God.  

Second, John Paul contends that the Eucharistic (Lord’s Supper) celebration is the heart of Sunday worship in spite of the fact that the Lord’s Supper was not associated with Sunday or Sabbath worship in the Apostolic Church. 

Third, John Paul maintains that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice in which Christ offers Himself anew to the Father on behalf of the faithful in spite of the fact that the New Testament describes it as a "proclamation," not a re-enactment of Christ’s death. 

What this means is that the authority of the Catholic Church to enforce the obligation to attend Sunday Mass derives not from biblical precepts or examples but from ecclesiastical traditions. The questionable and inconsistent nature of church traditions hardly provides compelling moral reasons for persuading Christians today to observe Sunday as the biblical Holy Sabbath Day. 

In his Pastoral Letter, Pope John Paul call upon Christians to "strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy."86 Such a call stems from the belief that participation in the Sunday Mass is not an option, but a grave obligation that can only be freely fulfilled if the State guarantees to all the right to rest on Sunday. 

Importance of Civil Sunday Legislation. John Paul rightly notes that prior to the Sunday Law promulgated by Constantine in A. D. 321, Sunday observance was not protected by civil legislation.87 This meant that "Christians observed Sunday simply as a day of worship, without being able to give it the specific meaning of Sabbath rest."88 In many cases, Christians would attend an early Sunday morning service and then spend the rest of the day working at their various occupations.  

The Constantinian Sunday Law changed the situation dramatically. As the Pope points out, "Christians rejoiced to see thus removed the obstacles which until then had sometimes made the observance of the Lord’s Day heroic."89 What Constantine did in making Sunday a legal holiday for the empire was not "a mere historical circumstance with no special significance for the church," but a providential intervention that made it possible for Christians to observe Sunday "without hinderance."90  

To highlight the importance of civil legislation that guarantees Sunday rest, the Pope points to the fact that "even after the fall of the Empire, the Councils did not cease to insist upon arrangements [civil legislation] regarding Sunday rest."91 In the light of the fact that in the past most countries have maintained Sunday laws to permit Christians to observe Sunday, the Pope call for civil legislation that respects the Christian "duty to keep Sunday holy."92 

To emphasize the need for civil legislation that guarantees Sunday rest, the Pope points to the Encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891) where Pope Leo XII speaks of "Sunday rest as a worker’s right which the State must guarantee."93 The Pontiff notes that Sunday legislation is especially needed today, in view of the physical, social, and ecological problems created by technological and industrial advancements. "Therefore," the Pope concludes, "in the particular circumstances of our time, Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty tokeep Sunday holy."94  

The same view is explicitly expressed in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church: "In spite of economic constraints, public authorities should ensure citizens a time intended for rest and divine worship. . . . In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sunday and the Church’s holy days as legal holidays."95 It is evident that the Catholic Church is committed to ensure that civil legislation protects their rights to observe Sunday and the holy days. 

The Constitutionality of Sunday Laws. The Pope is well aware that in many countries, like the United States, there is a separation between Church and State. This means that if Sunday Laws are perceived to be "advancing religion," they would be declared to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Thus, the Pope’s strategy is to downplay the religious aspect of Sunday Laws, highlighting instead the social, cultural, and family values. For example, John Paul says: "Through Sunday rest, daily concerns and tasks can find their proper perspectives: the material things about which we worry give way to spiritual values; in a moment of encounter and less pressured exchange, we see the face of the people with whom we live. Even the beauties of nature—too often marred by the desire to exploit, which turns against man himself—can be rediscovered and enjoyed to the full."96 

By emphasizing the human and "secular" benefits and values of Sunday Laws, John Paul knows that he can gain greater international acceptance for such legislation. It is worth noting in this regard the U. S. Supreme Court decision in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420 (1961) that upheld Maryland’s Sunday Closing Laws as not violative of the Federal Constitution. The reason the Court justified the state’s interest in protecting a common day of Sunday rest is that Sunday has become secularized in the American society. The Court said: "We believe that the air of the day is one of relaxation rather than religion."97 

The recognition of this reality leads Attorney Michael Woodruff to write as follows in Sunday magazine of the Lord’s Day Alliance: "If we must justify the retention of the Lord’s Day as a secular day of rest, we must find compelling secular grounds to make it so. . . . If Courts view Sunday laws as having the direct effect of ‘advancing religion,’ then under current First Amendment doctrine, such laws must be unconstitutional. However, if the laws are generally applicable and have a religion-neutral purpose, then the effect is likely to be seen incidental. To this end, the distinction between religious practice and the form of laws is important."98  

The Pope is well aware of the need to maintain this distinction. Thus in his Pastoral Letter, he appeals to the social and human values that Sunday Laws guarantee and promote. He writes: " In our historical context there remains the obligation [of the state] to ensure that everyone can enjoy the freedom, rest and relaxation which human dignity requires, together with the associated religious, family, cultural and interpersonal needs which are difficult to meet if there is no guarantee of at least one day a week on which people can both rest and celebrate."99 

The Influence of the Pastoral Letter. At this juncture, we may ask: How much influence will the Pastoral Letter exercise in the international community of nations in promoting Sunday civil legislation? The answer to this question largely depends upon the Pope’s determination to pursue the enforcement of Sunday observance inside and outside the Catholic Church.  

At this point, the indications are that John Paul is deeply committed to bringing about a renewal and revival of Sunday observance by ensuring that civil legislation facilitates the obligation to keep Sunday holy. While in Rome last October (1998), I contacted the "Sala Stampa—the Press Office" of the Vatican to learn if the Pope has been pursuing further the call of his Pastoral Letter for a revival of Sundaykeeping. The Office informed me that there is no doubt that the Pope is serious about it. One indication is that during the three months following the release of the Pastoral Letter, in his Sunday address before reciting the "Angelus," John Paul has consistently appealed to the faithful "to rediscover the importance of Sunday."100  

The influence of the Holy See on the international community must not be underestimated. It is reported that when confronted by Pope Pious XII’s opposition, Stalin smirked, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" If Stalin were to come out of his grave, he would be shocked to discover that the communist regime that he established with so much bloodshed has collapsed due, in no small degree, to the influence of the man who commands no military divisions. 

In evaluating John Paul’s role in helping to bring about the fall of totalitarian regimes, Gorbachev said in 1992: "Everything that happened in Eastern Europe during these past few years would have been impossible without the Pope, without the political role he was able to play."101 

A major goal of John Paul’s global vision is to protect and defend the rights of the Catholic Church to carry out her mission unhindered. In a speech entitled "The Vatican’s Role in World Affairs: The Diplomacy of Pope John Paul II," J. Michael Miller, CSB, President of the University of St. Thomas and former employee of the Secretariat of State of the Holy See (1992-1997), stated: "The driving force behind John Paul’s diplomatic initiatives is the defense of human rights, especially religious freedom, which allows the Church to carry out its mission in peace. . . . John Paul does have what we might call an ‘agenda’ for world affairs which he works systematically to promote through his preaching, his speeches to political leaders, his major writings, his endless globetrotting—which does not avoid trouble spots."102 

The influence of the Pope in the international arena is far greater than many realize. It is important to clarify that it is not the Vatican as a State that participates in international affairs, but the Holy See. The latter is not a territorial State, but a moral and juridical society, governed by the Pope, and representative of the Catholic Church in the community of nations. At present the Holy See maintains full diplomatic relations with over 160 nations. It receives and sends ambassadors all over the world. It has signed formal agreements with sovereign nations. It participates in dozens of international organizations concerned with moral, social, humanitarian, and cultural affairs. 

The goals of John Paul, as Michael Miller rightly points out, "are, admittedly, a mixture of the religious and the more narrowly political. John Paul, however, is not constrained by American ideas of the separation of church and State, but pursues what he regards as the common good of all humanity."103 

This mixture of religious and political goals can be detected in reading the Pastoral Letter where John Paul calls for Sunday rest as a religious and social necessity. For example, he writes: "The link between the Lord’s Day and the day of rest in civil society has meaning and importance which go beyond the distinctly Christian point of view."104 By calling for a civil Sunday legislation on the basis of the common good of all humanity, John Paul can gain considerable support for his agenda from the international community of nations. 

Pluralistic Society. In evaluating John Paul’s call for a Sunday Rest legislation, one must distinguish between his legitimate concern for the social, cultural, ecological, and religious well-being of our society, and the hardship such legislation causes to minorities who for religious or personal reasons choose to rest and worship on Saturday or on other days of the week. 

To call upon Christians to "strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy"105 means to ignore that we live today in a pluralistic society where there are, for example, Christians and Jews who observe the seventh-day Sabbath as their Holy Day, and Moslims who may wish to observe their Friday.  

If Sundaykeepers expect the State to make Sunday a legal holiday to facilitate their Sunday rest and worship, then Sabbatarians have an equal right to expect the State to make Saturday a legal holiday to protect their Sabbath rest and worship. To be fair to the various religious and nonreligious groups, the State would then have to pass legislation guaranteeing special days of rest and worship to different groups of people. The implementation of such a plan is inconceivable because it would disrupt our socio-economic structure.  

Sunday Laws Not Needed. Sunday Laws, known as "Blue Laws," are still in the books of some American States and represent an unpleasant legacy of an intolerant past. Such laws have proven to be a failure, especially because their hidden intent was religious, namely, to foster Sunday observance. People resent any attempt by the State to force religious practices upon them. This is a fundamental principle of the First Amendment to the American Constitution, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." 

Sunday legislation is superfluous today because the short-work week, with a long weekend of two or even three days, already makes it possible for most people to observe their Sabbath or Sunday. However, problems still do exist, especially when an employer is unwilling to accommodate the religious convictions of a worker. The solution to such problems is not to be sought in Sunday or Saturday Laws, but in such legislation as the pending Religious Freedom in the Workplace Act. This bill is designed to encourage employers to accommodate the religious convictions of their workers when these do not cause undue hardship to their company. 

The Pope’s call for Sunday Rest legislation ignores the fact that Sunday Laws have not resolved the crisis of diminishing church attendance. In most European countries, Sunday Laws have been in effect for many years. On Sunday most of the business establishments are shut down. Even most gasoline stations are closed on Sunday—a fact that can be costly to uninformed American tourists. But, have Sunday Laws facilitated church attendance? Absolutely not! The truth of the matter is that church attendance in Western Europe is considerably lower than that in the United States, running at less than 10% of the Christian population. In Italy, where I come from, it is estimated that 95% of the Catholics go to church three times in their lives, when they are "hatched, matched, and dispatched." 

The moral and religious decline in our society is not due to lack of legislation but to lack of moral convictions to compel people to live according to the principles God has revealed. The Church should not seek to solve the crisis of diminishing church attendance by external legislation but by the internal moral and spiritual renovation of its members.  

What many Christians need to discover today is that Christianity is not a cultural heritage that entails going to church from time to time but a commitment to Christ. This commitment——s expressed in a special way on the Sabbath day when we stop our work in order to allow our Savior to work more fully and freely in our lives. 

Pope John Paul has legitimate reasons for making a passionate plea for a revival of Sunday observance at a time when church attendance is dwindling at an alarming rate. He understands that if Christians ignore the Lord on the day they call the "Lord’s Day," ultimately they will ignore God every day of their lives. This trend, if not reversed, can spell doom to Christianity. 

The solution to the crisis of declining church attendance must be sought, however, not by calling upon the international community of nations to make Sunday and the Catholic Holy Days civil holidays, but by summoning Christians to live according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.  

The Fourth Commandment specifically calls upon believers to "Remember" what many have forgotten, namely, that the seventh day is holy unto the Lord our God (Ex 20:8-11). John Paul rightly acknowledges that "The Sabbath precept . . . is rooted in the depths of God’s plan"106 and is "a kind of ‘sacred architecture’ of time which marks biblical revelation."107 He notes also that "When the divine commandment declares: ‘Remember the Sabbath day in order to keep it holy’ (Ex 20:8), the rest decreed in order to honor the day dedicated to God is not all a burden imposed upon man, but rather an aid to help him recognize his life-giving and liberating dependence upon the Creator, and at the same time his calling to cooperate in the Creator’s work and to receive his grace."108 

My appeal to Pope John Paul is to use the far-reaching influence of his office to help Christians everywhere rediscover the Sabbath, as he puts it, not as a burden, but as an "aid" designed to help them recognize their "life-giving and liberating dependence upon the[ir] Creator."109 This vital function of the Sabbath has long been forgotten by most Christians who have been taught through the centuries that the Sabbath is Jewish, fulfilled by Christ, and no longer binding upon Christians. This heresy has deprived a countless number of Christians of the physical, moral, and spiritual renewal provided by a proper observance of the Sabbath.  

Our tension-filled and restless society needs to rediscover the Sabbath as that "sacred architecture of time," which can give structure and stability to our lives and relationship with God. At a time when many are seeking for inner peace and rest through magic pills or fabulous places, the Sabbath invites us to find such inner rest and renewal, not through pills or places, but through the Person of our Saviour who says: "Come unto me, and I will give you rest" (Matt 11:28). It invites us to stop our work on the Sabbath in order to allow our Savior to work more freely and fully in our lives and thus experience the awareness of His presence, peace, and rest. 

1. Dies Domini, paragraph 3. 

2. Dies Domini, paragraph 5. 

3. Dies Domini, paragraph 30. 

4. Quoted by R. H. Martin, The Day: A Manual on the Christian Sabbath (New York, 1933), p. 184. 

5. Dies Domini, paragraph 4. 

6. Dies Domini, paragraph 4. 

7. Dies Domini, paragraph 6. 

8. Dies Domini, paragraph 67. 

9. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (New York, 1947), II, 0, 122 Art. 4, p. 1702. 

10. Vincent J. Kelly, Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations, (Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1943), p. 2; Pope John XXIII, Mater et Magistra, trans. William J. Gibbons, (New York, 1961), p. 76, notes: "The Catholic Church has decreed for many centuries that Christians observe this day of rest on Sunday, and that they be present on the same day at the Eucharist Sacrifice." John Gilmary Shea, "The Observance of Sunday and Civil Laws for Its Enforcement," The American Catholic Quarterly Review 8 (Jan. 1883), p. 139, writes: "The Sunday, as a day of the week set apart for obligatory public worship of Almighty God, to be sanctified by a suspension of all servile labor, trade, and worldly avocations and by exercises of devotion, is purely a creation of the Catholic Church." Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About (New York, 1927), p. 136, adds: "Now the Church . . . instituted, by God’s authority, Sunday as the day of worship." 

11. Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City, 1994), p. 524. 

12. Dies Domini, paragraph 8. 

13. Dies Domini, paragraph 11. 

14. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Divine Rest for Human Restlessness (Rome, Italy, 1980), p. 67. 

15. Dies Domini, paragraph 12. 

16. Dies Domini, paragraph 15. 

17. Dies Domini, paragraph 13. 

18. Dies Domini, paragraph 15. 

19. Dies Domini, paragraph 14. 

20. Dies Domini, paragraph 17. 

21. Dies Domini, paragraph 59. 

22. Dies Domini, paragraph 18. 

23. For a discussion of the theology of Sunday as developed in the early Christian literature, see Chapter 9 "The Theology of Sunday" of my dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday. A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome, Italy, 1977), pp. 270-302. 

24. Dies Domini, paragraph 32. Cited from Catechism of the Catholic Church (note 11), p. 525, paragraph 2177. On paragraph 46 of Dies Domini, John Paul states: "Since the Eucharist is the very heart of Sunday, it is clear why, from the earliest centuries, the Pastors of the church have not ceased to remind the faithful of the need to take part in the liturgical assembly." 

25. Christopher Kiesling expresses this view in his book The Future of the Christian Sunday (New York, 1970). 

26. Dies Domini, paragraph 20. 

27. Dies Domini, paragraph 21. 

28. Dies Domini, paragraph 28. 

29. Dies Domini, paragraph 18. 

30. Dies Domini, paragraph 19. 

31. Dies Domini, paragraph 20. 

32. Corrado S. Mosna, Storia della Domenica dalle origini fino agli Inizi del V Secolo (Rome, Italy, 1969), p. 44. 

33. Jean Daniélou, The Bible and Liturgy (South Bend, Indiana, 1956), p. 242. 

34. Paul K. Jewett, The Lord’s Day: A Theological Guide to the Christian Day of Worship (Grand Rapids, 1972), p. 57. Pacifico Massi states categorically: "The Resurrection is the only plausible explanation for the origin of Sunday" (La Domenica nella Storia della Salvezza [Napoli, 1967], p. 43). F. A. Regan affirms: "From the study of the above texts one may reasonably conclude that during the earliest days of the Church there was only one liturgical feast and this feast was the weekly commemoration of the Resurrection of Christ" ("Dies Dominica and Dies Solis: The Beginning of the Lord’s Day in Christian Antiquity," Doctoral dissertation, The Catholic University of America [Washington, DC, 1961], p. 191). See also Josef A. Jungmann, The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great (South Bend, Indiana, 1959), pp. 19-21; also The Mass of the Roman Rite, Its Origin and Development (New York, 1951), vol. 1, p. 15; Y. B. Tremel, "Du Sabbat au Jour du Seigneur," Lumière et Vie (1962), p. 441. 

35. The Resurrection of Christ is presented in the New Testament as the essence of the apostolic proclamation, faith, and hope. See, for example, Acts 1:22; 2:31; 3:75; 4:2,10,33; 5:30; 10:40; 13:33-37; 17:18,32; 24:15,21; 26:8; 1 Cor 15:11-21; Rom 10:9; 1:1-4; 8:31-34; 14:9; 1 Thess 1:9-10. 

36. Harold Riesenfeld, "The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day," The Gospel Tradition: Essays by H. Riesenfeld (Oxford, 1970), p. 124. 

37. Harold Riesenfeld, "Sabbat et Jour du Seigneur," in A. J. B. Higgins, ed., N.T. Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson (Manchester, 1959), p. 212. For examples of the use of the phrase "Day of the Resurrection" for sunday, see, Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentary on Psalm 91, Patrologia Graeca 23, 1168; Apostolic Constitutions 2, 59, 3.  

38. S. V. McCasland, "The Origin of the Lord’s Day," Journal of Biblical Literature 49 (1930), p. 69. Similarly, Paul Cotton affirms: "There is nothing in the idea of the Resurrection that would necessarily produce the observance of Sunday as a Day of Worship" (From Sabbath to Sunday [Bethlehem, PA, 1933], p. 79). 

39. Dies Domini, paragraph 19. 

40. Joachim Jeremias, "Pasha," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Friedrich, ed., (Grand Rapids, 1968), vol. 5, p. 903, note 64. 

41. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (London, 1885), vol. 2, p. 88. 

42. For a discussion of the Passover controversy and its implications for the origin of Sunday observance, see my dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday (note 23), pp. 198-207. 

43. Dies Domini, paragraph 20. 

44. Ibid.  

45. Johannes Behm, "Klao," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, ed., (Grand Rapids, 1974), vol. 3, p. 728.  

46. S. V. McCasland (note 38), p. 69. 

47. Dies Domini, paragraph 24. 

48. See From Sabbath to Sunday (note 23), pp. 178-182. 

49. Justin Martyr, Apology 67, 7, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. (Grand Rapids, 1973), vol. 1, p. 186. 

50. Jean Daniélou (note 33), pp. 253, 255. 

51. Jerome, In die dominica Paschae homilia, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 78, 550, 1, 52. 

52. For a discussion of the development of Sun-worship and of the advancement of "the Day of Sun" in ancient Rome, see my dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday (note 23), pp. 238-262. 

53. Dies Domini, paragraph 27. 

54. Philaster, Liber de haeresibus 113, PL 12, 1257.  

55. Priscillian, Tractatus undecim, CSEL 18, p.14. See also, Martin of Braga, De correctione rusticorum ed. C. W. Barlow (New York, 1950), p. 189; Augustin, In Psalmos 61, 23, CCL 39, p. 792. 

56. Augustine, City of God 22, 30, Vernon J. Bourke, ed., (New York, 1958), p. 544. 

57. Dies Domini, paragraph 21.  

58. See From Sabbath to Sunday (note 23), pp. 90-94. 

59. Dies Domini, paragraph 21. 

60. Dies Domini, paragraph 70. 

61. See From Sabbath to Sunday (note 23), pp. 90-94. 

62. Corrado S. Mosna (note 32), p. 7. 

63. Dies Domini, paragraph 21.  

64. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts (Grand Rapids, 1954), pp. 407-408. 

65. P. K. Jewett (note 34), p. 61. 

66. F. J. Foakes-Jackson, The Acts of the Apostles (New York, 1945), p. 187. 

67. Dies Domini, paragraph 21. 

68. Corrado S. Mosna (note 32), p. 21.  

69. For texts and discussion of the Easter controversy, see From Sabbath to Sunday (note 23), pp.198-207. 

70. Jean Daniélou, The First Six Hundred Years (New York, 1964), vol. 1, p. 74. 

71. Dies Domini, paragraph 62. 

72. Dies Domini, paragraph 59. 

73. Dies Domini, paragraph 60. 

74. For texts and discussion, see From Sabbath to Sunday (note 23), pp. 278-301.  

75. For texts and discussion of the controversy surrounding the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday, see From Sabbath to Sunday (note 23), pp. 213-269. 

76. Dies Domini, paragraph 47. 

77. Ibid., emphasis supplied. 

78. Catechism of the Catholic Church (note 11), p. 526, paragraph 2180. Emphasis supplied. 

79. Ibid., p. 527, paragraph 2181. Emphasis supplied. 

80. Dies Domini, paragraph 49. Emphasis supplied. 

81. Ibid. 

82. Dies Domini, paragraph 43. 

83. Catechism of the Catholic Church (note 11), p. 344, paragraph 1367. Emphasis supplied. 

84. Ibid., paragraph 1366. 

85. Dies Domini, paragraph 52. 

86. Dies Domini, paragraph 67. 

87. Dies Domini, paragraph 64. 

88. Ibid. 

89. Ibid. 

90. Ibid. 

91. Ibid. 

92. Dies Domini, paragraph 67. 

93. IDies Domini, paragraph 66. 

94. Dies Domini, paragraph 67. 

95. Catechism of the Catholic Church (note 11), p. 528, paragraphs 2187-2188. 

96. Dies Domini, paragraph 67. 

97. Cited by Michael J. Woodruff, "The Constitutionality of Sunday Laws," Sunday 79 (January-April 1991), p. 9. 

98. Ibid., pp. 21-22. 

99. Dies Domini, paragraph 66. 

100. "Sunday Is Christ’s Day, Commemorating His Resurrection," New release, Vatican City, July 26, 1998. 

101. Cited in Jonathan Kwitny, Man of the Century (New York, 1997), p. 592. 

102. J. Michael Miller, "The Vatican’s Role in World Affairs. The Diplomacy of Pope John Paul II," Speech delivered in the Fall of 1997 at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas. 

103. Ibid. 

104. Dies Domini, paragraph 65. 

105. Dies Domini, paragraph 67. 

106. Dies Domini, paragraph 13. 

107. Dies Domini, paragraph 15. 

108. Dies Domini, paragraph 61. 

109. Ibid.

Home | About Author | Books | Order Online | Print Order Form | Scholars comments