ROMAN CATHOLICS VERSUS THE COMMANDMENTS

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 24, 1901

ROMAN CATHOLICS VERSUS THE COMMANDMENTS.

A correspondent thinks we do not treat the Roman Catholics fairly in attributing the change they make in the enumeration of the Commandments to their purpose to carry out some points of their faith; as, for instance, running the First and Second Commandments together to pave the way for the worship of images, and then dividing the Ninth Commandment, making two of it, to make good the number ten, which the Scriptures themselves attribute to the whole code. It is claimed that the Jews, the Lutherans, and the Greek Church enumerate them in the same manner; therefore the Catholics cannot be charged with having any sinister motive in taking this course, which has been handed down to them by instruction.

We do not deny that there are other classes besides the Catholics who enumerate the Commandments in a different order from that given in King James’ Version. But with the Catholic, from what book is instruction generally conveyed to the children? Not from the Bible, but from the catechism, and the uniform way in which the matter is presented in the catechisms reveals the object they have in view. In “Daniel and the Revelation,” page 554, this point is spoken of as follows:—

“If now the reader will compare the Ten Commandments as found in Roman Catholic catechisms with those Commandments as found in the Bible, he will see in the catechisms — we mean those portions specially devoted to instruction — that the Second Commandment is left out; that the Tenth is divided into two, to make up the lack caused by leaving out the Second, and keep good the number ten; and that the Fourth Commandment (called the Third in their enumeration) is made to enjoin the observation of Sunday as the Sabbath, and prescribe that the day shall be spent in hearing mass devoutly, attending vespers, and reading moral and pious books. Here are several variations from the Decalogue as found in the Bible. Which of them, if any, constitutes the change of the law intended in the prophecy? or are they all included in that change? Let it be borne in mind that, according to the prophecy, he [the little horn] was to think to change times and laws. This plainly conveys the idea of intention and design, and makes these qualities essential to the change in question. But respecting the omission of the Second Commandment, Catholics argue that it is included in the First, and hence should not be numbered as a separate commandment; and on the Tenth they claim that there is so plain a distinction of ideas as to require two commandments; so they make the coveting of a neighbor’s wife the Ninth Commandment, and the coveting of his goods the Tenth. In all this they claim that they are giving the Commandments exactly as God intended to have them understood; so, while we may regard them as errors in their interpretation of the Commandments, we cannot set them down as intentional changes. Not so, however, with the Fourth Commandment. Respecting this Commandment, they do not claim that their version is like that given by God. They expressly claim a change here, and also that the change has been made by the Church.”

This, we think, gives a fair representation of the matter. Mention is made of others besides the Catholics who change the enumeration of the Commandments. Catholics make the change in their catechisms, from which the young are instructed. If the omission of the Second Commandment did not originate with the Catholics, they have certainly made prominent use of it, though that is not the change by which they fulfill the prophecy of Dan. 7:25. We would not intentionally misrepresent any one.