Dr. Sam Bacchiocchi


#1

What’s up with this guy?

I was arguing with a Seventh-day Adventist about the Sabbath (of course), and then this guy whips out a book called “From Sabbath to Sunday” and starts quoting pages from it It’s basically about how the Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday in A.D. 130.

The author, Dr. Sam Bacchiocchi, is apparently a Seventh-day Adventist who studied at the Gregorian Pontifical University in Rome. He was awarded a medal by Pope Pius VI for attaining summa cum laude for his dissertation “From Sabbath to Sunday.” The book even got an imprimatur!

biblicalperspectives.com/books/sabbath_to_sunday/

How did the change come about from Saturday to Sunday in early Christianity? To find an answer to this question Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi spent five years at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, examining the most ancient documents available.

The results of this investigation are presented in From Sabbath to Sunday, which is a translation and an adaptation of his Italian doctoral dissertation, presented at and published by the Pontifical Gregorian University Press.

The investigation establishes that the change from Saturday to Sunday began approximately one century after the death of Christ, as a result of an interplay of political, social, pagan and Christian factors. The change in the day of rest and worship was not merely a change of names or of numbers, but rather a change of meaning, authority and experience. Essentially it was a change from a Holy Day into a holiday.

From Sabbath to Sunday has the distinction of being the first book written by a non-Catholic ever to be published by a Pontifical press with the Catholic imprimatur (approval). The book has already been reprinted fourteen times in English and has been translated in several languages. Hundreds of scholars of different persuasions have praised this book as a definitive treatment of the early history of the Lord’s Day.

I was under the impression that the Sunday Lord’s Day was practiced by the Apostles. Can someone explain this whole ordeal here to me?


#2

Catholic Answers tract on Sabbath or Sunday:
catholic.com/library/Sabbath_or_Sunday.asp

Note that the first 3 references given (The Didache, Letter of Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch) are well before A.D. 130.


#3

Thanks, but I’ve already exhausted that tract. I know that the practice of Sunday worship was well before 130 A.D., however, it still doesn’t change how this guy’s book got an imprimatur! What’s up with that?


#4

i don’t have bible with me but i’m pretty sure that it says in the n.t. that the disciples met on the first day of the week for prayers and the breaking of the bread. the first day of the week is, as you know, sunday (yeah, it wasn’t originally the weekend)

secondly, the significance of sunday is well known; evev the CCC explains it- the day when jesus came back to life, the eighth day, or the day after the sabbath. obviously, in the post-christ, new scheme of things, that day would be more important
holding on to the sabbath for so long after christ died can be explained by the fact that there were lots of jews among new converts and christianity being a completion and not a contradiction of the jewish faith, it must have taken time to move from one set of practices to the next

i know that people say that pagan influences were present in choosing sunday for worship (the day of the sun) but i’m not ready to believe that as the real reason the church chose the day.

as for the imprimatur, read the book. perhaps it doesn’t have anything contradictory to the faith


#5

[quote=Archbishop 10-K]Thanks, but I’ve already exhausted that tract. I know that the practice of Sunday worship was well before 130 A.D., however, it still doesn’t change how this guy’s book got an imprimatur! What’s up with that?
[/quote]

Hi AB 10-k…
I am very familiar with Dr. Bachiocchi… I have heard him speak a couple of times and have several of his books. I also subscribe to his EndTimes Newsletter. I can honestly say from listening to him and talking to him once, that he is one of the most pompous men I have met.

I would suggest a book called "From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation"by D.A. Carson.

If I remember correctly, It was written in a large part in response to Dr. Bacchiocchi’s book, however, it is by protestants. Also, it seems that even Dr. Bacchiocchi himself admitted in one of his presentations, if I remember correctly, that the imprimatur hardly meant that the Vatican agreed with his conclusions or statements, but was more of a formality in the process of printing of the dissertation. It cracks me up that he uses the “Imprimatur” as a source of credibility or something, and then turns and tries to debunk the credibility of the Church he is using to bolster his own credibility… LOL

In fact, I think other than his dissertation printing, he had to buy the rights to the book from the pontifical press or something like that because they refused to continue to print it. Hence the reason it is self-published by “Biblical Perspectives”.

Brandon


#6

I remember looking up Sam Bacchiocchi’s book From Sabbath to Sunday (orig 1977) at the local university library. Its a scholarly book at least in appearance. The book mentioned above edited by D.A. Carson From Sabbath to Lord’s Day (orig 1979, repub 2000) is an evangelical response to Sam’s book. Sam was responding to earlier books such as Willy Rordorf Sunday (orig 1968) which can probably be found at your local library.

Sam argues of course the Sabbath to Sunday “change” was made sometime in the 2nd century, and doesn’t go back to the apostles. He has an appendix on Colossians 2 since its hard to deal with from a Christian “sabbath keeper” perspective.

And he says Rev 1:10 Lord’s day = “Day of the Lord” in judgment as in 1 Thess 5:2. I deal with that here in my article on the Wednesday Crucifixion idea (which Sam does not accept but some “sabbath keepers” do).

Phil P


#7

I got a chuckle out of your descripture of this man SDA2RC - by the way, my husband was brought up SDA and he and my whole family came into the Church this past Easter! :slight_smile:

Anyway, hi Archbishop 10K (are you having trouble with CF today also by the way?) . .regarding Dr. Bachiocchi . .

Is your friend saying anything at all about how this man changed the whole SDA position on when and how the Sabbath was changed to Sunday? Does he recognize that for the longest time it was held to be the result of the “corrupt Church of Rome” either at the time of Constantine or much, much later? That a Pope was singularily responsible for this?

He compeletely turned this whole concept in the SDA on its head, taking it back to just years after the last apostle died, the apostle John …

Now, he contends that this is when it started, however, what his evidence really shows is that this is when we first see it spoken of in SECULAR sources . … AND that it did not arise then, but was WELL ESTABLISHED by then.

We see it mentioned in the scriptures themselves as worshipping on the first day, not the 7th day.

I think if you point out to him the continual changing in the SDA church of WHEN this change supposedly happened, and how it continues to get closer and closer to the first century and Dr Bachiocchi just didn’t go far enough, that you might give him some food for thought.

Here is a somewhat in your face site refuting the SDA beliefs about the Sabbath . . it is not Catholic . .

bible.ca/7-history-sabbath.htm

And their 80 Questions Sabbath keepers don’t like asked:

bible.ca/7-sabbath-questions.htm.

Peace in Him!


#8

[quote=theresepio]I got a chuckle out of your descripture of this man SDA2RC - by the way, my husband was brought up SDA and he and my whole family came into the Church this past Easter! :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Congrats!!! My wife and I also came into the Church this past spring, on Pentecost Sunday!

You bring up a good point about SDA’s changing view on the cause of the Sabbath to Sunday Shift. Ellen G. White herself in one place says it is Constantine, and in another said it was the Pope, two different dates too. The fact is, they have no clue.

Bacchiocchi is parades himself around starting each lecture and introduction with his “credentials” of going to school in Rome under Jesuits, however, as if this somehow bolsters his credibility in the SDA Church. Then uses this new found credibility to attempt to destroy the very organization that he was pointing to for credibility…Its funny!

In addition, the last time I heard him speak, while I was still SDA, but studying the RC Church… his talks were so full of errors that I was able to identify several incorrect statements about the RC Church… and I was only just beginning in my knowledge.

Brandon

PS… it is also hilarious that many SDA’s believe him to be a Jesuit Spy who has infiltrated the SDA Church and thus despise him!


#9

Archbishop10k,

It must be noted that “Sabbath” is not the same as the “1st day.” So the argument that the “Sabbath” was moved to the “1st day” is misleading and erroneous.

God begins the creation on the “1st day” as recorded in Genesis. In Jesus time, the “new creation” was begun on the “1st day.” This is the time when the whole of humanity begun the dawn of salvation–Christ’s resurrection from the dead–on the “1st day”. So I couldn’t see any hint that Sabbath is really connected to the 1st day.

God bless!

Pio


#10

[quote=hlgomez]Archbishop10k,

It must be noted that “Sabbath” is not the same as the “1st day.” So the argument that the “Sabbath” was moved to the “1st day” is misleading and erroneous.

God begins the creation on the “1st day” as recorded in Genesis. In Jesus time, the “new creation” was begun on the “1st day.” This is the time when the whole of humanity begun the dawn of salvation–Christ’s resurrection from the dead–on the “1st day”. So I couldn’t see any hint that Sabbath is really connected to the 1st day.

God bless!

Pio
[/quote]

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath.

The point could easily be made that many Christians moved the Sabbath observance from Saturday to Sunday. While the above quote from the CCC says it is seperate, it then goes on to say that one replaces the other. There is definitely more than a hint of connection between the two :wink:

After all… the third commandment says to Keep the Sabbath day… We as Catholic Christians fulfill this obligation by keeping the Lords day, not the Sabbath day! That is only one example of a direct connection between the two.

Brandon


#11

Here is a range of blogs currently discussing Bacchiocchi’s claims for his credentials and book “From Sabbath to Sunday” which have been negated by Gregorian University.

xcg.kingary.net/2006/05/05/bacchiocchis-gregorian-controversy
theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/200/Bacchiocchis-thesis–the-Gregorian-Controversy
h0bbes.wordpress.com/2006/10/17/bacchiocchis-sabbath-to-sunday/
spectrummagazine.typepad.com/the_spectrum_blog/2006/10/is_bacchiocchi_.html
trevanosborn.blogspot.com/2006/10/national-enquirer-adventist-edition.html
theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/276/Allegations-regarding-Bacchiocchis-dissertation
theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/280/Bacchiocchis-current-crisis
belief.net/boards/message_list.asp?discussionID=510920


#12

it may have an imprimatur (official license to print or publish a book) but does it have a nihil obstat? That is the real question, is it not?


#13

it may have an imprimatur (official license to print or publish a book) but does it have a nihil obstat? That is the real question, is it not?

What’s the difference? Is one more important then the other?


#14

Imprimatur has a broader and a narrower meaning. The broader meaning encompasses the imprimi potest, the nihil obstat, and the imprimatur, and the three together endorse the book quite strongly, although it remains the endorsement of the bishop, not the Catholic Church speaking as a whole, as some Adventists will tell you. It’s this sort of approval that Bacchiocchi is claiming for his text.

In the narrower sense, forming part of the broader imprimatur, the actual text in the front of the book saying “Imprimatur” is simply approval for printing. Without the nihil obstat, it doesn’t pack the same punch, but one would expect it to be given only when the contents are suitable.

I’ve seen several books with a nihil obstat, but no imprimatur. Bacchiocchi’s is the only one I’ve seen with an imprimatur and no nihil obstat.

Even that imprimatur is incorrect - if it existed at all as a favour organised by his PhD supervisor, it applied to the single chapter printed in 1975, not to the full book, and certainly not to subsequent editions. Bacchiocchi admits to using the 1975 imprimatur for the 1977 printing, so clearly his book has never had an imprimatur, and he is using it inappropriately.


#15

Thank you for the explanation. I see these used in several different ways have been wondering about the differences.


#16

This site has GREAT information on SDAs. give it a visita; angelfire.com/ms/seanie/adventism/aindex.html


#17

Dear brothers and sisters,

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

I don’t know how we can trust anyone who claims to be a Christian or a Roman Catholic if he or she can’t tell the truth.

Please find the truth regarding Dr. Bacchiocchi by visiting the following link which proves that false accusations were made by leaders of Roman Catholic Church who should be honest in their dealings with their fellow men as we stand in the presence of God!

biblicalperspectives.com/Gregoriana/

God bless you my brothers and sisters!

Love in Christ,

Pastor Moon


#18

The verdict is still out on this one. The accusations were not made by leaders of the Catholic Church, but by the secretary of the Gregorian University. Bacchiocchi’s images remain unverified, and Gregorian still needs to respond.

theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/302/Bacchiocchis-response-to-the-Gregorian-debate

It could go either way.

God bless,
Stephen


#19

Greetings in Christ!

I hope you are not suggesting that the documents, the proofs provided by Dr. Bacchiocchi are fabricated.

You are not suggesting that are you?

The Roman Catholic Church changed the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) by omitting the 3rd commandment and dividing the 10th commandment into two commandments.

Shouldn’t we be questioning why would anyone change the Word of God, the Scripture?

No wonder someone said, “Sola Scriptura!”

Shouldn’t we be investigating and questioning when, where, who, what, why, and how the Roman Catholic Church changed the very Word of God?

Well, I hope at the end of all the efforts to defame and degrade the respectable academic and historic work of Dr. Bacchiocchi would not be proven as just that, insecure people trying to hide the truth by misrepresenting the facts!

What is sad in this story is that the document sent by the university was sent to one of the highest leaders of the Catholic Church to be falsely used to defame someone’s credibility when all he did was to reveal the truth.

Nothing is new to me after learning about how we Christians, in the name of God did injustice over and over again in the history of early Christian history.

We must admitted the fact that the church had to apologize because of the injustice done by the church in the past.

Let’s not repeat the history!

God have mercy on us…

Love in Christ,

Pastor Moon


#20

The Roman Catholic Church changed the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) by omitting the 3rd commandment and dividing the 10th commandment into two commandments.

Shouldn’t we be questioning why would anyone change the Word of God, the Scripture?

Pastor Moon,

Please consider reading the source document of the 10 commandments - the Catholic Bible. This is the official listing of the 10 commandments that the Catholic Church uses. First you will find that the 10 commandments are not numbered in the bible. Second you will find that they are totally intact.

Please also consider looking at the 10 commandments as defined in the official catechism of the Catholic Church. Again you will find the 10 commandments fully intact.

Please do not go to unofficial sources and come to incorrect conclusions. You need to review the official sources to find out what the Catholic Church teaches. You might find it helpful to look at the Vatican website for the official sources. Look at these very carefully in context before you start making false accusations.

Unfortunately, because of your comment above you have lost all credibility with me and probably all Catholics who might read your posting. In our humanity we have sinned greiviously but please if you want to criticize then do so with truth - not lies.

Stephen indicated that there was evidence to question the credentials of Dr. Bacchiocci - he has clarified that to say there has been no verdict. It is possible the Dr. Bacchiocchi lied. But we do know that you lied in the above comment - so do you wonder why we question… However, I do think you lied in ignorance so I will not fault you but please do not do so in the future.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.