| RE: BIBLE TRUTHS | THE POPE CHANGED SABBATH TO SUNDAY Satan's policy in this final conflict with God's people is the same that he employed in the opening of the great controversy in heaven. He professed to be seeking to promote the stability of the divine government, while secretly bending every effort to secure its overthrow. And the very work which he was thus endeavoring to accomplish he charged upon the loyal angels. The same policy of deception has marked the history of the Roman Church. It has professed to act as the vicegerent of Heaven, while seeking to exalt itself above God and to change His law. (Great Controversy, 591)
Below is Question 50 (L) of Summa regarding the Third Commandment ( TERTII PRAECEPTI ) from the 1582 edition: 
The first point on the 3rd commandment asks: Primo, Utrum Papa possit dispensare, quòd dies Sabbati servetur secundum sensum spiritualem, non litteralem.
First, whether the Pope is able to override it, that the Sabbath day be observed according to a spiritual sense, not literally. Note the second point on the 3rd commandment, which reads: Secundo, Utrum Papa possit dispensare, quòd dies Sabbati in diem Dominicam sit mutata.
Second, whether the Pope is able to override it, that the Sabbath day be changed to the Lord's day. The subsequent points read: Tertio, Utrum Papa possit dispensare, quòd dies Dominica fiant servilia opera.
Third, whether the Pope is able to override it, that he may permit servile work on the Lord's day. Quarto, Utrum Papa debeat prohibere strictius opera servilia fieri in die Dominica, quàm fuerint prohibita in die Sabbati.
Fourth, whether the Pope may strictly prohibit servile work on the Lord's day, as it was prohibited on the Sabbath. Quinto, Utrum Papa possit dispensare, quòd in dies Dominica fiat forum rerum emptionis, & venditionis.
Fifth, whether the Pope is able to override it, and may permit market buying and selling on the Lord's day. Sexto, Utrum Papa possit dispensare, quòd in dies Dominica committatur bellum.
Sixth, whether the Pope is able to override it, so that war may be waged on the Lord's day. 
The resolution of the point under Article 2 (shown above) reads: Dies Sabbati, in Diem Dominicam iure à Papa mutata est, propter significatorum preeminentiam, factorum excellentiam, temporumque convenientiam.
The Pope has changed the law of the Sabbath day to the Lord's day, due to its significant preeminence, its excellent maker, and its convenient time. So, the same document that applies Vicarius Filii Dei to the Pope, credits the papacy with changing God's Commandment from the seventh-day Sabbath to the first day of the week, Sunday! The full Third Commandment pages (Question 50) from the 1582 edition of Summa:
Pages are reduced 50% to only 200k for dialup users. History identifies the Pope that decreed the change from the Sabbath to Sunday as Sylvester I.
Augustinus Triumphus is also described as "a major canon lawyer of the 13th century, and a simply rabid defender of extreme papal supremacy." See also Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages entry on Augustine of Ancona. Here is some additional information regarding him: The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages: The Papal Monarchy with Augustinus Triumphus and the Publicists
By Michael Wilks
Published by Cambridge University Press, 2008
ISBN 052107018X, 9780521070188 p. 2 The Summa de potestate ecclesiastica of Augustinus Triumphus has been described as 'one of the half dozen most influential and most important books ever written' on the nature of the papal supremacy in the Middle ages, 1... 1 C. H. McIlwain, The Growth of Political Thought in the West (London, 1932), p. 278. p. 272 Est enim ipse papa Dei Filii vicarius. — Augustinus Triumphus, (Agostino Trionfo of Ancona, 1243-1328) Summa de potestate ecclesiastica (The Power of the Church), lxi. I, p. 321. p. 543 ... quem Constantinus vicarium esse dei filii firmiter confessus est ... — Augustinus Triumphus, Summa de potestate ecclesiastica (The Power of the Church), xxxvii, 5, p. 222. p. 545 Constantinus huiusmodi translationem fecit auctoritate summi pontificis, qui tamquam vicarius Dei Filii [filius] coelestis imperatoris iurisdictionem habet universalem super omnia regna et imperia —Augustinus Triumphus, Summa de potestate ecclesiastica (The Power of the Church) xxxvii. 3 and 3 ad I, p. 221.
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
By PHILIP SCHAFF
VOLUME V. PART II
THE MIDDLE AGES
FROM BONIFACE VIII, 1294, TO THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION, 1517
BY
DAVID S. SCHAFF, D.D. PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE WESTERN
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, PITTSBURG NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1910 p. 80 Triumphus, an Italian, born in Ancona, 1243, made archbishop of Nazareth and died at Naples, 1328, was a zealous advocate of Boniface VIII. His leading treatise, The Power of the Church,—Summa de potestate ecclesiastica, — vindicates John XXII. for his decision on the question of evangelical poverty and for his opposition to the emperor’s dominion in Italy.155 The pope has unrestricted power on the earth. It is so vast that even he himself cannot know fully what he is able to do.156 His judgment is the judgment of God. Their tribunals are one.157 His power of granting indulgences is so great that, if he so wished, he could empty purgatory of its denizens provided that conditions were complied with.158 155 For edd. of Triumphus’ tract, see Potthast, Bibl. Hist. under Triumphus. Riezler, p. 286, dates the tract 1324-1328, Haller, p. 83, 1322, Scholz, p. 172, 1320. See Poole, 252 sq.
156Nec credo, quod papa possit scire totum quod potest facere per potentiam suam, 32. 3, quoted by Döllinger, Papstthum, p. 433.
157 This famous passage runs sententia papae sententia Dei una sententia est, quia unum consistorium est ipsius papal et ipsius Dei ... cujus consistorii claviger et ostiarius est ipse papa. See Schwab, Gerson, p. 24.
158Totum purgatorium evacuare potest, 3. 28. Döllinger, p. 451, says of Triumphus’ tract that on almost every page the Church is represented as a dwarf with the head of a giant, that is, the pope.
Saint Antoninus (Antoninus Florentinus 1389-1459), Archbishop of Florence, in his Summae Sacrae Theologiae, Iuris Pontificij, & Caesarei, Tertia Pars (1581), cited the Donation of Constantine, including Vicarius Filii Dei, in Titulus Vigesimus Secundus (Title 22), Cap 5: De Potestate Papae ... (The Power of the Pope), §.16. The beginning of the same section refers to question 43 (Ad 3) of Aug. de Ancho. (Augustinus Triumphus' Summa de potestate ecclesiastica), which also cites the Donation (see above).
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary for Revelation 13:18 states: 18. Here is wisdom. Compare the phrase, “here is the mind which hath wisdom” (ch. 17:9). The wisdom here commended is doubtless that to which Paul refers in Eph. 1:17. Only by divine enlightenment will men understand the mysteries of the Word of God (see on 1 Cor. 2:14).
Understanding. Or, “intelligence.” Those who wish to know the meaning of the cryptic number may understand.
Count. Or, “calculate.”
Number of the beast. It should be noted that the beast has already been conclusively identified (see on vs. 1–10). The number provides confirmatory evidence of this.
Since the early days of Christianity there has been much discussion as to the significance of 666. One of the earliest to write on the subject was Irenaeus (c. a.d. 130–c. 202). He identified the beast as the Antichrist, and believed that the numerical values of the letters of his name would add up to 666. He suggested the name Teitan, a name sometimes accounted divine, as having great probability. He also suggested, but as much less probable, the name Lateinos, this being the name of the last kingdom of the four seen by Daniel. At the same time he warned that “it is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfillment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned” (Against Heresies v. 30. 3; ANF, vol. 1, p. 559). Since Irenaeus’ day 666 has been applied to many names. The number alone cannot identify the beast since numerous names can add up to 666. However, inasmuch as the beast has already been identified, the number 666 must have a relationship to this power. Otherwise there would be no valid reason for the angel giving John the information contained in v. 18, at this point in the prophetic narrative. An interpretation that gained currency in the period following the Reformation was that 666 stood for Vicarius Filii Dei, meaning “vicar of the Son of God,” one of the titles for the pope of Rome. The numerical value of the component letters of this title totals 666 as follows:
| V | | 5 | | I | | 1 | | C | | 100 | | A | | ..... | | R | | ..... | | I | | 1 | | V | (U=V) | 5 | | S | | ..... | | | | | F | | ..... | | I | | 1 | | L | | 50 | | I | | 1 | | I | | 1 | | | | | D | | 500 | | E | | ..... | | I | | 1 | | | ___ | | | 666 |
This interpretation was based on the identification of the pope as Antichrist, the historic Reformation concept. The principal exponent of this interpretation was Andreas Helwig (c. 1572–1643; see L. E. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 605–608). Many since his day have adopted this interpretation. Inasmuch as this commentary identifies the beast as the papacy, it also accepts this view as being the beast thus far presented, though recognizing that there may be more implied in the cryptogram than this interpretation provides.
Regarding the title Vicarius Filii Dei, the Catholic journal Our Sunday Visitor, of April 18, 1915, reported in answer to a query, “What are the letters supposed to be in the Pope’s crown, and what do they signify, if anything?” “The letters inscribed in the Pope’s mitre are these: Vicarius Filii Dei, which is the Latin for Vicar of the Son of God. Catholics hold that the Church which is a visible society must have a visible head” (p. 3). The issue of November 15, 1914, admitted that the Latin numerals added together total 666, but went on to declare that many other names also yield this total. In the issue of August 3, 1941, page 7, the subject of Vicarius Filii Dei again came up for discussion, and the statement was made that this title is not inscribed on the pope’s tiara. The tiara, it averred, bears no inscription whatsoever (p. 7). The Catholic Encyclopedia distinguishes between the mitre and the tiara by describing the tiara as a non-liturgical ornament and the mitre as one worn for liturgical functions. Whether the inscription Vicarius Filii Dei appears on the tiara or the mitre is really beside the point. The title is admittedly applied to the pope, and that is sufficient for the purposes of prophecy. Nichol, Francis D., Commentary on Daniel and Revelation, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association), 2008, ISBN: 9780828011709, pgs. 823-824 (from Vol. 7, Philippians to Revelation).
In the Chapel of St. Sylvester (part of the Basilica of Santi Quattro Coronati, located in Rome on Coelian hill, between St. John Lateran and the Coliseum), a series of frescoes commissioned by Pope Innocent IV, and completed in 1246, depict various events in the life of Pope Sylvester I. 
The Donation of Constantine, Santi Quattro Coronati, Rome.
In one of the fresco panels, shown above, Emperor Constantine is offering his crown to the Pope, illustrating the Donation of Constantine. In the following panel, the triumphal Pope, riding on horseback and wearing Constantine's tiara, is led through Rome by the humbled Emperor, who is on foot. Another painting representing the  Donation of Constantine, shown below, is in the Vatican, in the Sala di Costantino. It was painted by Raphael and his workshop from 1519 to 1525, along with depictions of Constantine's baptism, his vision of the cross, and his victory at the battle at Milvian bridge, so at the time it would seem the Donation of Constantine was still considered to be genuine. Detail of the Donation of Constantine as depicted in a painting by
Gianfrancesco Penni, in the Sala di Costantino, the Vatican. |  | For the whole painting, see The Art of Renaissance Rome, by Loren Partridge,
published by Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York, A Times Mirror Company,
Copyright 1996 by Calmann & King, Ltd., ISBN 0-8109-2718-7, page 158. |
The kneeling Constantine is handing Pope Sylvester I a statuette of Roma Aeterna (eternal Rome) symbolizing the transfer of power from the emperor to the papacy. On February 23, 1520, about four years before the Raphael's painting of the Donation was completed, Martin Luther, in a letter to Spalatin, wrote: I have at hand Lorenzo Valla's proof that the Donation of Constantine is a forgery. Good heavens, what darkness and wickedness is at Rome. You wonder at the judgment of God that such unauthentic, crass, imprudent lies not only lived, but prevailed for so many centuries, that they were incorporated in the canon law ... and became as articles of faith. I am in such a passion that I scarcely doubt that the pope is the Antichrist expected by the world, so closely do their acts, lives, sayings, and laws agree.
Source: The Art of Renaissance Rome, by Loren Partridge, published by Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York, A Times Mirror Company, Copyright 1996 by Calmann & King, Ltd., ISBN 0-8109-2718-7, page 159. 9. ... All these excessive, over-presumptuous, and most wicked claims of the Pope are the invention of the devil, with the object of bringing in antichrist in due course and of raising the Pope above God, as indeed many have done and are now doing. It is not meet that the Pope should exalt himself above temporal authority, except in spiritual matters, such as preaching and absolution; in other matters he should be subject to it, according to the teaching of St. Paul (Rom. xiii.) and St. Peter (I Peter iii.), as I have said above. He is not the vicar of Christ in heaven, but only of Christ upon earth. For Christ in heaven, in the form of a ruler, requires no vicar, but there sits, sees, does, knows, and commands all things. But He requires him "in the form of a servant" to represent Him as He walked upon earth, working, preaching, suffering, and dying. But they reverse this: they take from Christ His power as a heavenly Ruler, and give it to the Pope, and allow "the form of a servant" to be entirely forgotten (Phil. ii. 7). He should properly be called the counter-Christ, whom the Scriptures call antichrist; for his whole existence, work, and proceedings are directed against Christ, to ruin and destroy the existence and will of Christ. It is also absurd and puerile for the Pope to boast for such blind, foolish reasons, in his decretal Pastoralis, that he is the rightful heir to the empire, if the throne be vacant. Who gave it to him? Did Christ do so when He said, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, but ye shall not do so" (Luke xxii. 25, 26)? Did St. Peter bequeath it to him? It disgusts me that we have to read and teach such impudent, clumsy, foolish lies in the canon law, and, moreover, to take them for Christian doctrine, while in reality they are mere devilish lies. Of this kind also is the unheard-of lie touching the "donation of Constantine." It must have been a plague sent by God that induced so many wise people to accept such lies, though they are so gross and clumsy that one would think a drunken boor could lie more skillfully. How could preaching, prayer, study, and the care of the poor consist with the government of the empire? These are the true offices of the Pope, which Christ imposed with such insistence that He forbade them to take either coat or scrip (Matt. x. 10), for he that has to govern a single house can hardly perform these duties. Yet the Pope wishes to rule an empire and to remain a pope. This is the invention of the knaves that would fain become lords of the world in the Pope's name, and set up again the old Roman empire, as it was formerly, by means of the Pope and name of Christ, in its former condition.
|
|
