The Heresy of Dual-Covenant Theology

I have just finished reading “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?” by Dr. Robert Sungenis. It is a study debunking the notion, now regnant in liberal theological circles, that the Old Covenant still stands side-by-side with the New Covenant.

According to this novelty, in essence, God’s “A Plan” and God’s “B Plan” are both currently pleasing to Him and both fully in effect.

Opposed to this, the Catholic Faith teaches that the Old Law — itself good, holy, and of divine origin — was a preparation for the New, and that the New Law superceded and fulfilled the Old.

Indeed, as Dr. Sungenis shows, Pope John Paul II affirmed the traditional teaching in a not-much-quoted passage of Redemptoris Mater: “Christ fulfills the divine promise and supersedes the old law.”

Years ago, I made an effort at debunking this vogue theology in an article on the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Better Testament. Dr. Sungenis quotes from Hebrews, but he does not limit himself to this, as the pilfered quotations below adequately show.

The following is a series of scriptural, patristic, and magisterial citations from “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?“:

Hebrews 7:18: “On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness…”;

Hebrews 10:9: “Then he says, ‘Behold, I come to do your will.’ He takes away the first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant]…”;

2 Corinthians 3:14: “For to this day when they [the Jews] read the Old Covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away”;

Hebrews 8:7: “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another”;

Colossians 2:14: “Having canceled the written code, with its decrees, that was against us and stood opposed to us; He took it away nailing it to the cross”;

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para. 29: “…the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished…but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross”;

The Catechism of the Council of Trent: “…the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law…”;

Council of Florence: “that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law…although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began”;

Council of Trent: “but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom”;

Cardinal Ratzinger: “Thus the Sinai [Mosaic] Covenant is indeed superseded” (Many Religions – One Covenant, p. 70).

St. John Chrysostom: “Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law….And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace” (Homily on Romans, 6:12); “And so while no one annuls a man’s covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable” (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3);

St. Augustine: “Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. Jeremiah also prophesied thus in God’s name: ‘Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah…’ Observe what the prophet says, not to Gentiles, who had not been partakers in any former covenant, but to the Jewish nation. He who has given them the law by Moses, promises in place of it the New Covenant of the gospel, that they might no longer live in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit” (Letters, 74, 4);

Justin Martyr: Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ – has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy…Have you not read…by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…’” (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11).

Phil, Prince of Dim Light, your Adventist outburst, branding Cardinal Gibbons a liar and clinging to a website to claim Catholics reject the seventh-day Sabbath, is a desperate flail rooted in Ellen G. White’s anti-Catholic venom. Let's break down your argument with Scripture, history, and theology, exposing Adventism’s satanic lies and urging you to repent.

Refutation of https://www.romeschallenge.com/downloads/RomesChallenge.pdf

Document’s Origin and Bias: The PDF, titled “Rome’s Challenge,” is an Adventist tract, likely derived from a 19th-century article attributed to Isaac H. Evans or similar, repurposed to echo White’s *The Great Controversy* (p. 447-448). It misquotes Catholic sources (e.g., Cardinal Gibbons’ *Faith of Our Fathers*) to allege the Church boasts of changing the Sabbath. This is propaganda, not an official admission—check the *Catechism* (CCC 2174-2176) for actual teaching.
No Sabbath Change: The tract claims the Church replaced the Sabbath with Sunday by papal authority, citing no Council of Trent decree or papal bull. Sunday worship began with the apostles (Acts 20:7: “On the first day… we came together”; 1 Corinthians 16:2), honoring Christ’s resurrection. Early Christians, like Ignatius (*Letter to the Magnesians*, c. 110 AD, Ch. 9), kept Sunday, predating any “change” myth. The Church, with Christ’s authority (Matthew 16:18-19), fulfills the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16-17, CCC 2174-2176), not alters it.
Misrepresentation of Authority: The document suggests the Church admits Sunday is a human command, quoting Gibbons out of context. Gibbons explains Sunday as a Christian adaptation, not a papal invention. Matthew 18:18 grants the Church power to bind and loose, regulating worship—Sunday reflects the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6-13), not defiance of God’s Law.
New Testament Silence: It demands a biblical command for Sunday, ignoring apostolic practice (Revelation 1:10, “Lord’s Day”). No verse mandates Saturday for Christians (Romans 14:5-6, Acts 15:28-29)—your Sabbath obsession is White’s fiction, not Scripture’s demand.

Adventism’s Satanic Evils

Error	Details	Refutation
False Prophecies	White’s 1856, 1844, 1845 flops.	Deuteronomy 18:22
Investigative Judgment	Denies atonement (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422).	Hebrews 9:12
Sabbath Idolatry	Salvific Sabbath unsupported.	Colossians 2:16-17

Fiallyn

Phil, your Rome’s Challenge PDF is Adventist propaganda, misquoting Catholic sources to push White’s Sabbath lie. Sunday worship is apostolic (Acts 20:7), fulfilling the Sabbath (Hebrews 4:9-11), not a papal change. Adventism’s evils—White’s false prophecies, heretical judgment, and anti-Catholic venom—mark it as satanic. Produce one New Testament verse mandating Saturday worship or a Trent decree changing the Sabbath. You can’t. Repent, ditch White’s trash, and flee to Christ’s Church (Ephesians 2:8-9). Have a day of truth.

Detailed Refutation

Protestant Reformer “Trash Compactor”: You boast that Reformers like Luther and Calvin trashed the papacy as Antichrist, but their polemic (e.g., against indulgences) was contextual, not prophetic. They rejected Adventism’s Sabbath and 1844 judgment—Luther kept Sunday worship. Your “compactor” is a myth; the Church endured (Matthew 16:18-19), while your sect emerged from Miller’s 1844 flop.
Website Claim: Who-Is-the-Antichrist.org: This Adventist site, echoing White’s *The Great Controversy* (p. 50), misreads Daniel 7:25 and Revelation 13 to peg the papacy as Antichrist. No verse names the papacy—1 John 2:18 defines Antichrist as denying Christ’s incarnation, which Catholicism upholds (John 1:14, CCC 464-469). It cites historical slanders (e.g., Inquisition deaths, inflated to millions), but estimates range from 3,000-50,000 (*Catholic Answers*, 2024), dwarfed by context (e.g., Crusades’ mutual casualties).
Scriptural Refutation: Daniel 7:8’s Little Horn fits Antiochus (1 Maccabees 1:41-54) or Nero (Tacitus, *Annals*, 15.44), not the papacy. “Times and laws” (7:25) aligns with their persecutions, not Sunday worship, which is apostolic (Acts 20:7). Revelation 17:9’s “seven hills” points to Rome, not the Church.
Historical Refutation: The papacy preserved orthodoxy (e.g., Nicaea, 325 AD) against heresies, while Adventism’s 1844 doctrine (*Early Writings*, p. 54-56) is a post-disappointment invention. Reformers’ critiques faded as the Church reformed (e.g., Trent, 1545-1563).
Theological Refutation: The Church, Christ’s bride (Ephesians 5:25-27), worships Him via the Eucharist (John 6:53-56, CCC 1324-1327), fulfilling the Sabbath on Sunday (CCC 2174-2176). Your “trash compactor” is White’s fiction, not truth.

Adventism’s Satanic Evils

Error	Details	Refutation
False Prophecies	White’s 1856, 1844, 1845 flops.	Deuteronomy 18:22
Investigative Judgment	Denies atonement (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422).	Hebrews 9:12
Sabbath Idolatry	Salvific Sabbath unsupported.	Colossians 2:16-17

Phil, your Reformer “trash compactor” and website lie are shredded—the papacy isn’t Antichrist; Antiochus or Nero fit better. Adventism’s evils—White’s false prophecies, heretical judgment, and anti-Catholic venom—mark it as satanic. Produce one verse naming the papacy as Antichrist. You can’t. Repent, ditch White’s trash, and flee to Christ’s Church (Ephesians 2:8-9). Have a day of truth, not delusion.

——>Phil, your Rome’s Challenge PDF is Adventist propaganda, misquoting Catholic sources

It’s from the CATHOLIC MIRROR, and “is a verbatim reprint of these editorials.”

https://www.romeschallenge.com/downloads/RomesChallenge.pdf

A number of years ago the Catholic Mirror ran a series of articles discussing the right of the Protestant churches to worship on Sunday. The articles stressed that unless one was willing to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to designate the day of worship, the Christian should observe Saturday. This is a reprint of those articles.

February 24, 1893, the General Conference of Seventh day Adventists adopted certain resolutions appealing to the government and people of the United States from the decision of the Supreme Court declaring this to be a Christian nation, and from the action of Congress in legislating upon the subject of religion, and the remonstrating against the principle and all the consequences of the same. In March, 1893, the International Religious Liberty Association printed these resolutions in a tract entitled Appeal and Remonstrance. On receipt of one of these, the editor of the Catholic Mirror of Baltimore, Maryland, published a series of four editorials, which appeared in that paper September 2, 9, 16, and 23, 1893. The Catholic Mirror was the official organ of Cardinal Gibbons and the Papacy in the United States. These articles, therefore, although not written by the Cardinal’s own hand, appeared under his official sanction, and as the expression of the Papacy on this subject, are the open challenge of the Papacy to Protestantism, and the demand of the Papacy that Protestants shall render to the Papacy an account of why they keep Sunday and also of how they keep it.

The following matter (excepting the footnotes, the editor’s note in brackets beginning on page 25 and ending on page 27, and the two Appendixes) is a verbatim reprint of these editorials, including the title on page 2.

Bawhahahahahahahahaha!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

That's just what your Adventist paper says and as we know, Adventists are taught to lie just as Ellen G White lied and plagiarized.

Origin and Veracity of the Document: You assert the PDF is a “verbatim reprint” of Catholic Mirror editorials from September 1893, sanctioned by Cardinal Gibbons. The document, responding to Seventh-day Adventist resolutions, does reprint four editorials, but its framing as an “open challenge” is Adventist spin. The Catholic Mirror was a Baltimore diocesan paper, not a papal organ, and Gibbons’ “official sanction” is unproven—likely an editorial stance, not a magisterial decree. The PDF’s narrative, amplified by Adventist sites, distorts this into a confession of Sabbath-changing, which it never states.
No Admission of Sabbath Change: The editorials argue that Sunday worship aligns with Catholic tradition, not that the Church arbitrarily changed the Sabbath. They note the Bible commands Saturday (Exodus 20:8-10) but highlight early Christian practice shifted to Sunday, attributing this to Church authority (Matthew 16:18-19). This reflects historical development, not a papal fiat. Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 show apostolic Sunday worship, predating any “change” myth.
Authority and Fulfillment: The document suggests Protestants keeping Sunday tacitly accept Catholic authority, but this is a rhetorical challenge, not a boast. The Church, with Christ’s mandate (Matthew 18:18), fulfills the Sabbath’s purpose in Sunday, honoring the resurrection (CCC 2174-2176). Colossians 2:16-17 calls Sabbaths “shadows” of Christ, fulfilled in Him (Hebrews 4:9-11), not abolished by men.
Adventist Bias: Your “Bawhahahahahahaha” mocks a supposed Catholic blunder, but the PDF’s Adventist slant (e.g., promoting Saturday) reveals its agenda. White’s *The Great Controversy* (p. 447-448) fuels this, claiming Sunday is the “mark of the beast”—a fiction with no New Testament support (Romans 14:5-6).

Adventism’s Satanic Evils

Error	Details	Refutation
False Prophecies	White’s 1856, 1844, 1845 flops.	Deuteronomy 18:22
Investigative Judgment	Denies atonement (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422).	Hebrews 9:12
Sabbath Idolatry	Salvific Sabbath unsupported.	Colossians 2:16-17

Summarizing

Phil, your “verbatim reprint” boast is shredded—it’s an Adventist twist, not a Church admission. Sunday worship is apostolic (Acts 20:7), fulfilling the Sabbath (Hebrews 4:9-11), not a papal change. Adventism’s evils—White’s false prophecies, heretical judgment, and anti-Catholic venom—mark it as satanic. Produce one New Testament verse mandating Saturday worship or a papal decree changing the Sabbath. You can’t. Repent, ditch White’s trash, and flee to Christ’s Church (Ephesians 2:8-9). Wipe that laugh off—face truth.

Refutation of Your Links

Christian-Sabbath.pdf (Alleged Verbatim Reprint): This document, likely a rehash of the 1893 Catholic Mirror editorials, claims the Church admits changing the Sabbath to Sunday by papal authority. Nonsense. The original editorials, from a Baltimore diocesan paper under Cardinal Gibbons, argue Sunday aligns with tradition, not that it replaced the Sabbath by fiat. Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 show apostolic Sunday worship, predating any “change” (Ignatius, *Letter to the Magnesians*, c. 110 AD, Ch. 9). The *Catechism* (CCC 2174-2176) fulfills the Sabbath in Sunday, honoring Christ’s resurrection—not a papal invention. Your “verbatim” boast is Adventist spin, not truth.
O’Keefe.htm (You Lose Again): This page, likely by Michael Scheffler, pushes anti-Catholic tropes, alleging the Church boasts of Sabbath-changing. It misquotes sources (e.g., Butler’s Catechism) and ignores early Christian Sunday practice (Didache, c. 70-100 AD, Ch. 14). Colossians 2:16-17 calls Sabbaths “shadows” of Christ, fulfilled in Sunday (Hebrews 4:9-11). No New Testament verse mandates Saturday for Christians (Romans 14:5-6). Your “loss” claim is your own defeat, Phil, clinging to White’s fiction.

Adventism’s Satanic Evils

Error	Details	Refutation
False Prophecies	White’s 1856, 1844, 1845 flops.	Deuteronomy 18:22
Investigative Judgment	Denies atonement (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422).	Hebrews 9:12
Sabbath Idolatry	Salvific Sabbath unsupported.	Colossians 2:16-17

your links are proven as lies again. The Adventist non Christian religion teaches its adherents lies

Phil, your “verbatim” and “you lose” boasts are shredded—your PDFs are Adventist distortions, not Church admissions. Sunday worship is apostolic (Acts 20:7), fulfilling the Sabbath (Hebrews 4:9-11), not a papal change. Adventism’s evils—White’s false prophecies, heretical judgment, and anti-Catholic venom—mark it as satanic. Produce one New Testament verse mandating Saturday worship or a papal decree changing the Sabbath. You can’t. Repent, ditch White’s trash, and flee to Christ’s Church (Ephesians 2:8-9). Face truth, not delusion.

Phil, Prince of Dim Light, your Adventist obsession with the Investigative Judgment—a cornerstone of Ellen G. White’s demonic theology—rests on a shaky foundation of false prophecy, biblical distortion, and historical revisionism. This doctrine, claiming Christ began judging believers’ works in the heavenly sanctuary on October 22, 1844, to determine their salvation, is a heretical fabrication born from White’s failed 1844 prediction

1. Biblical Refutation of Seventh Day Adventism's false teaching of Investigative Judgement

The Investigative Judgment contradicts Scripture’s clear teaching on Christ’s completed atonement and judgment:

Hebrews 9:12: “He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.” This states Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary (c. 33 AD) fully atoned for sins, entering the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension, not 1844. White’s claim that Christ began this work in 1844 (*The Great Controversy*, p. 421-422) denies His finished work (John 19:30: “It is finished”), a satanic lie.
Hebrews 10:10-14: “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all… by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” This refutes a 1844 investigative process, affirming Christ’s single, perfect sacrifice. White’s ongoing judgment undermines this, suggesting His work was incomplete.
John 5:24: “Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged.” Believers are judged at conversion, not in a 1844 review. Adventism’s delay contradicts Christ’s promise.
1 John 2:1-2: “If anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One… He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” Christ’s advocacy is immediate, not contingent on a 1844 investigation. White’s doctrine adds a human works element, violating Galatians 2:16.
Daniel 8:14 Misuse: White ties the Investigative Judgment to Daniel 8:14’s “2300 evenings and mornings,” interpreted as 2300 years ending in 1844. This is baseless. The text refers to Antiochus IV’s Temple desecration (167-164 BC, 1 Maccabees 1:41-54, 4:52-56), a literal 2300 days, not years. Ezekiel 4:6’s day-for-year principle is symbolic, not universal, and Daniel 8:26 calls it a “vision,” not a prophetic timeline.

Your doctrine is unbiblical, Phil, denying Christ’s completed redemption for White’s 1844 fantasy.

2. Historical Refutation of Seventh Day Adventism's false teaching of Investigative Judgement

The Investigative Judgment’s origins expose its fraudulent roots:

1844 Great Disappointment: White’s doctrine emerged after William Miller’s failed prediction of Christ’s return on October 22, 1844. To salvage this flop, Hiram Edson claimed a vision of Christ entering the heavenly sanctuary, which White later adopted (*Early Writings*, p. 54-56). This is a post-hoc invention, not divine revelation, born of human error.
Early Christian Silence: No early Church Father (e.g., Augustine, Chrysostom) or Reformation theologian (e.g., Luther, Calvin) taught a 1844 investigative judgment. The concept is absent from Christian tradition until Adventism’s 19th-century desperation, contrasting with the Church’s consistent view of Christ’s immediate intercession (Hebrews 7:25).
Adventist Revisionism: White’s writings, revered as divine (SDA Belief #18), contradict historical Christian eschatology. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and later councils focused on Christ’s divinity and resurrection, not a 1844 judgment. Your doctrine is a modern cultic aberration, Phil, not apostolic truth.

Your historical claim is a lie, forged to prop up White’s failed prophecy, not God’s Word.

3. Linguistic Refutation of Seventh Day Adventism's false teaching of Investigative Judgement

The linguistic basis for the Investigative Judgment collapses under scrutiny:

“2300 Evenings and Mornings” (Daniel 8:14): The Hebrew term *ereb boqer* (“evenings and mornings”) typically denotes literal days (e.g., Genesis 1:5). The Septuagint and Theodotion translate it as “days,” aligning with Antiochus’ 2300-day Temple desecration (167-164 BC). Adventism’s day-for-year interpretation, based on Ezekiel 4:6, is a forced analogy, not a linguistic norm. Daniel 8:26’s “vision” (Hebrew: *chazon*) suggests a symbolic timeframe, not a prophetic era.
“Cleansing of the Sanctuary”: The Hebrew *taher* (“to cleanse”) in Daniel 8:14 refers to the Temple’s purification after Antiochus’ defilement (1 Maccabees 4:36-59). Adventism reinterprets this as a heavenly judgment, but no linguistic evidence in Daniel supports a shift from earthly to celestial context. The Greek *katharismos* in the Septuagint reinforces a physical cleansing, not a 1844 audit.
Daniel 9:24-27 Link: You imply the 70 weeks (490 years) connect to the 2300 days, but Daniel 9:23 specifies Gabriel’s message as “insight and understanding” for the 70 weeks, not an explanation of Daniel 8. The Aramaic and Hebrew lack any textual bridge, making your 1844 timeline a linguistic fabrication.

Your linguistic gymnastics, Phil, are a desperate stretch to justify White’s 1844 lie, not biblical exegesis.

4. Logical Refutation of Seventh Day Adventism's false teaching of Investigative Judgement

The Investigative Judgment’s logic is riddled with contradictions and absurdities:

Redundant Judgment: If Christ judges believers’ works from 1844 to determine salvation, why judge again at the Second Coming (Matthew 25:31-46, Revelation 20:11-15)? This duplicates judgment, implying God’s omniscience is flawed—logically absurd.
Delayed Atonement: White’s claim that Christ’s atonement began in 1844 contradicts His immediate intercession (Hebrews 7:25). If sins weren’t atoned until 1844, how were Old Testament saints saved (Hebrews 9:15)? Your doctrine delays redemption, defying Christ’s finished work (John 19:30).
1844 Date Fabrication: The 2300-year timeline (457 BC to 1844 AD) relies on Artaxerxes’ decree (Ezra 7:11-26), but historical dates vary (e.g., 458 or 445 BC). Adjusting for zero-year transition, 1844 lacks precision, exposing White’s post-hoc adjustment after the Great Disappointment as a logical fudge.
Human Works Salvation: The Investigative Judgment bases salvation on post-1844 obedience, adding works to faith (Galatians 2:16). This contradicts Scripture’s grace-alone doctrine (Ephesians 2:8-9), making God’s judgment arbitrary and human effort decisive—logically incoherent.

Your logic, Phil, is a house of cards, built on White’s desperation, not divine reason.

5. Adventism’s Satanic Evils: A Cult of Lies

Phil, your Investigative Judgment obsession stems from Seventh-day Adventism’s demonic core, built on Ellen G. White’s lies. Let’s expose your cult’s evils:

Adventist Error	Details	Biblical Refutation
False Prophecies	White’s 1856, 1844, 1845 failures (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 131-132).	Deuteronomy 18:22
Investigative Judgment	Denies Christ’s atonement (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422).	Hebrews 9:12
Sabbath Idolatry	Salvific Sabbath lacks support (The Great Controversy, p. 605-612).	Colossians 2:16-17
Plagiarism	White stole from authors (The White Lie by Walter Rea).	Revelation 22:18-19

Adventism is a satanic cult, chaining you to White’s lies and a works-based gospel.

Phil, your Investigative Judgment is a demonic lie, born of White’s 1844 failure. Biblical evidence (Hebrews 9:12, John 5:24) refutes a 1844 judgment; historical context (Great Disappointment) exposes its fraud; linguistic analysis (Daniel 8:14) debunks the 2300-year timeline; and logic (redundant judgment) reveals its absurdity. Adventism’s evils—White’s false prophecies, Investigative Judgment heresy, Sabbath idolatry, and anti-Catholic venom—mark it as a satanic cult. Produce one verse mandating a 1844 judgment or tying it to Daniel 8:14. You can’t, because your theology is White’s trash.

Phil, Prince of Dim Light, your Adventist doubling down with https://www.biblelightinfo.com/Sources/Christian-Sabbath.pdf and https://www.biblelightinfo.com/okeefe.htm, crowing “verbatim” and “you lose again,” is a pitiful grasp at Ellen G. White’s anti-Catholic venom.

Refutation of Your Links

Christian-Sabbath.pdf (Alleged Verbatim Reprint): This document, likely a rehash of the 1893 Catholic Mirror editorials, claims the Church admits changing the Sabbath to Sunday by papal authority. Nonsense. The original editorials, from a Baltimore diocesan paper under Cardinal Gibbons, argue Sunday aligns with tradition, not that it replaced the Sabbath by fiat. Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 show apostolic Sunday worship, predating any “change” (Ignatius, *Letter to the Magnesians*, c. 110 AD, Ch. 9). The *Catechism* (CCC 2174-2176) fulfills the Sabbath in Sunday, honoring Christ’s resurrection—not a papal invention. Your “verbatim” boast is Adventist spin, not truth.
O’Keefe.htm (You Lose Again): This page, likely by Michael Scheffler, pushes anti-Catholic tropes, alleging the Church boasts of Sabbath-changing. It misquotes sources (e.g., Butler’s Catechism) and ignores early Christian Sunday practice (Didache, c. 70-100 AD, Ch. 14). Colossians 2:16-17 calls Sabbaths “shadows” of Christ, fulfilled in Sunday (Hebrews 4:9-11). No New Testament verse mandates Saturday for Christians (Romans 14:5-6). Your “loss” claim is your own defeat, Phil, clinging to White’s fiction.

Adventism’s Satanic Evils

Error	Details	Refutation
False Prophecies	White’s 1856, 1844, 1845 flops.	Deuteronomy 18:22
Investigative Judgment	Denies atonement (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422).	Hebrews 9:12
Sabbath Idolatry	Salvific Sabbath unsupported.	Colossians 2:16-17

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.