Samuele Bacchiocchi has said that he will be posting scanned images of his certificates on his website as part of a statement against the allegations made by Gregorian University regarding his credentials and claims about his PhD and his dissertation.

We all hope to see that statement soon, but while we wait, here are a few scanned images he sent me a while back.

This is his certificate for his Doctoratus:

As you can see, it says Magna cum laude on it, underlined.  And it has his name, and the name Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana.

Who underlined the words magna cum laude?

As he states elsewhere, his certificate is not a standard Gregorian University certificate, but was handwritten specially for him because he didn't want one saying he agreed with the Catholic faith.


Hopefully we'll see more detail soon.  What he sent me was not a high quality scan.

The problem with this certificate for his Doctoratus:

This certificate can be shown online, and nobody can verify it.  If it's for real, he shot himself in the foot by having a non-standard certificate issued to him.    Now only a real expert on certificates who examines the original in person can verify that it is indeed an authentic certificate from Gregorian University signed by Gregorian University staff.

Until then, showing the scan of his certificates will remain only his word against that of Gregorian University.

These are images he sent of his gold medal:

It certainly looks gold, and it has the name of Pope Paul VI on the one side.  On the other side it has an image of a tortoise biting the top of a pile of sheep.  Pope Paul VI was seen as serious - maybe that was his sense of humour, or maybe it means something else - that isn't relevant to this discussion.

The problem with his gold medal:

Anyone could scan in such a medal if they got hold of one.  It doesn't have his name on it, and there is nothing to prove that he got it.  Maybe he'll provide indisputable proof in his statement.  Otherwise, with Gregorian saying he didn't get it, it's his word against the word of Gregorian University.

These are serious questions, amongst others, that still remain.  Scanned images posted online don't prove the authenticity of an item, when the University issuing it says it was never issued.  Maybe in his statement Bacchiocchi will provide more conclusive evidence than his own account of the events and unauthenticated images that the viewer cannot verify.  Maybe Gregorian will provide further statements, either with further specifics and evidence to support their statements to the USCCB and Bishop Murray, or with corrections, or a withdrawal of that statement, or provide a withdrawal of that statement in support of Bacchiocchi's claims.  Either way, that is what is needed to conclude this controversy.

Which chapter of his full dissertation did Samuele Bacchiocchi publish for the purposes of obtaining his PhD?  I.e. the Tesina, published in 1975.

He claims that one chapter was published.  He claims that three chapters were published.

He claims that the published chapter was chapter 5.  He claims that the published chapter was chapter 7.  He claims that the published chapter was in fact three chapters - the first three chapters.

He claims that the Tesina was 117 pages long.  He claims that the Tesina was 150 pages long, and was required to be at least 120 pages.

Is he getting derailed?  Is he now making mistakes?

Another discussion is taking place on the web - at Belief.net.  His e-mails are being posted in various places, and assuming he is indeed the author of these e-mails, and they are not being fabricated, he's becoming erratic in his statements about what happened.

Samuele Bacchiocchi is no longer [Belief.net]

A few quotes to demonstrate:

Here he refers (in 1997) to his unpublished doctoral dissertation ... but tells us elsewhere that it was published in 1977.

Bacchiocchi, S. Anti-Judaism and the Origin of Sunday. (Fifth chapter of the Italian dissertation). Rome: The Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1975.
_____. “Un esame dei testi Biblici e patristici allo scopo d’accertare il tempo e le cause del sorgere della domenica come giorno del Signore.� Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, 1974. [333 of the 1997 printing of From Sabbath to Sunday, under Secondary Sources; XCG blog]

The facts are that the Pontifical Gregorian Press printed both my TESINA (small dissertation for the LICENTIA) and my doctoral DISSERTATION.  The TESINA consists of 117 pages and there are no comments regarding any content problem. [Bacchiocchi, e-mail , July 2004]

The TESINA that was published for my LICENTIA was not a chapter but the first three chapters of my dissertation for a total of 150 pages. [Belief.net; XCG blog]

In order to receive the diploma of the DOCTORATUS, a student is required to publish a significant portion of the dissertation (at least 120 pages) and deposit 50 copies at the Academic Office. The TESINA must be published with the official IMPRIMATUR to be acceptable by the Academic Office. I submitted for publication 150 pages of my dissertation, mostly taken from chapter 7 of my dissertation. The manuscript was published in 1975 under the title ANTI-JUDAISM AND THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY. [Hobbes' blog]

These crucial passages are analyzed in my Italian dissertation, Un Esame dei testi biblici e patristici dei primi quattro secoli allo scopo d’accertare it tempo e le cause del sorgere della domenica come Giorno del Signore, Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1974, pp. 99-120; cf. also the fifth chapter of the dissertation, published under the title, Anti-Judaism and the Origin of Sunday, 1975, pp. 90-93. [p125 of the 1999 online edition of From Sabbath to Sunday, endnote no. 73; XCG blog]

Things are happening.  Comments open.

Two other blogs have taken up the topic of Samuele Bacchiocchi's credentials and the allegations that they are not what he says they are.  Gregorian University apparently denies that he got his PhD summa cum laude, that he received any medals, that his book was given an imprimatur, and that they printed it.

So, in total, there are now 5 blogs that are covering this topic.  Including the blog belonging to Spectrum Magazine, which is a well-known publication in Adventist circles.

The blog postings I've found so far are:

• Bacchiocchi's "Gregorian Controversy" [on the XCG blog]
• Bacchiocchi's thesis - the Gregorian Controversy [on my Sabbath Keepers blog]
• Bacchiocchi's Sabbath to Sunday [on the Hobbes' Place blog]
• Is Bacchiocchi Misrepresenting Himself? [on the Spectrum Magazine blog]
• National Enquirer: Adventist Edition [on Trevan Osborn's Divergence blog]
• Allegations regarding Bacchiocchi's dissertation [on my Sabbath Keepers blog]

I don't usually leave blog posts open for comment, as I don't have the time to keep watching for them, or continuing discussion.  For this topic, for now at least, I'll be leaving it open for comments in case people want to make any.

Adventists are true Protestants in the sense that they protest whatever is Catholic.  Catholics believe that the mother of Jesus, Mary, had no other children apart from Jesus.  Some Adventists, therefore, make it an article of faith, a doctrine, that Mary did indeed have other children.

Nowhere does the Bible state that she had other children.  Nowhere does the Bible state that she had sex with Joseph - ever.

The Adventist Review has an article by Angel Manuel Rodriguez from the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference entitled Jesus' Family Ties, which asks the question Were the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the Bible sons of Joseph and Mary?

The answer is a well-balanced look at the facts, and says that this is, for Adventists, a historical issue, not a theological one.

The problem is that Adventists have turned it into a theological one in order to dispute Catholic teaching.  Catholicism influences Adventism more than one would think.

One important criticism of the article is that it states "we are told that Joseph knew Mary, that is to say, had sexual intercourse with her, after the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:25)."

Matt 1:25 reads as follows in the King James Version:

And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.

So the article is not accurate there - it is not reporting what the Bible tells us, but rather it is interpreting the Bible according to the author's own tradition.  The Bible does not tell us that Joseph had sex with Mary after Jesus' birth.  It says that he did not have sex with her before his birth.  The specific use of the term "until" here does not imply what most of us understand by the term "until" when we commonly use it in our everyday English speech.  I say "I will wait here until I get fetched" and imply that after I have been fetched, I will no longer be waiting there.

But we can also use the word "until" this way: "They won't repossess my car until I stop making payments."  Nothing tells us that they (the bank, etc.) will repossess the car after I stop making payments.  I could stop making payments because I have paid everything, and I own the car fully.

The Bible often uses the word "until" in the same way.

(Gen 24:19 KJV)  And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking.

After they are done drinking, obviously she would stop drawing water for them.

(Act 23:1 KJV)  And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

I doubt Paul intended doing otherwise after that day, so it's an open-ended until.  Nothing changed when the time specified by "until" ended.

(Jdg 4:24 KJV)  And the hand of the children of Israel prospered, and prevailed against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan.

Did they stop prevailing against him after they killed him?  To say no would be a strange answer.

The same goes for Mary.  "Until" doesn't necessarily mean that things changed after the specified time.

Another question worth thinking about: When Gabriel told Mary she would have a child, she knew she would shortly get married, and so the obvious conclusion would be that she would have a child after she got married.  So why her response?  She said "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" (Luke 1:34, KJV.)  It makes sense only if her intent was to not know man, now or ever.  If she had not yet known man, but would once she was married - and clearly marriage was the intent at the time - there would have been no such confusion.

Why a bishop may not drink grape juice

Note to Adventist clergy: do you abstain from drinking grape juice?

The Seventh-day Adventist church teaches that the wine referred to in the Bible as permissible is unfermented grape juice.  They claim that the Bible condemns the use of fermented grape juice, and only permits the use of unfermented grape juice.  Many Adventists - pastors and laity alike - have questioned this, and gone to the Bible and discovered that this teaching is not found there.  Instead, the Bible permits drinking of alcoholic beverages in moderation.  But many Adventists, as well as other groups such as certain Baptists, continue this teaching.

From the Bible:

+ (Rom 14:6 KJV) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
+ (Rom 14:21 KJV) It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Clearly, Paul is telling is that we should not engage in activities that cause our brother to fall.  But just as eating meat was permitted by God in the Old Testament, and practised by Jesus in the New Testament, so it is with alcoholic wine.

If we accept the Adventist teaching on alcohol, we are left with a peculiar conclusion when we read certain biblical texts.

+ (1Ti 3:2-3 KJV) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
+ (Tit 1:7 KJV) For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

Paul is explaining how a bishop must be of good moral character.  I ask Adventists: why can a bishop not drink grape juice?  How does this make him of a lesser moral character, less able to lead his flock?

+ (1Ti 3:8 KJV) Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

Paul is explaining how a deacon must likewise be of good moral character.  But here he says that the deacon must not drink MUCH wine - obviously an amount that is not "much wine" is permitted.  So, if we are Adventists, this must be grape juice, because it is permitted.  But why can a deacon not drink a lot of grape juice?

+ (Tit 2:3 KJV) The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

Women who drank alcohol wine were quite scandalous in that time.  But a little is allowed - it is excess that is prohibited.  Adventists would have you believe that women who drank grape juice were causing scandals, and they were only permitted to drink a little grape juice.

+ (1Pe 4:3 KJV) For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:

Peter criticises the excess of wine.  Is he referring to grape juice?  I doubt it.  But he never condemns moderate alcohol use.

+ (Lev 23:13 KJV) And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the LORD for a sweet savor: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of a hin.

God even commanded that wine be offered as a sacrifice!

+ (Num 6:20 KJV) And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.

They MAY drink wine - they have permission to!

This word for wine from Strong's Concordance:

H3196
yayin
yah'-yin
From an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by implication intoxication: - banqueting, wine, wine [-bibber].

+ (Num 28:7 KJV) And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of a hin for the one lamb: in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the LORD for a drink offering.

This word for strong wine from Strong's Concordance:

H7941
she^ka^r
shay-kawr'
From H7937; an intoxicant, that is, intensely alcoholic liquor: - strong drink, + drunkard, strong wine.

+ (Deu 14:26 KJV) And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

God explicitly permits the drinking of "strong drink" - I have yet to see an Adventist answer this text.

+ (Pro 31:6-7 KJV) Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.

Once again, strong drink is permitted - and the context shows that this is alcoholic strong drink, not concentrated grape juice, because it allows him to forget his poverty and misery.

+ (Jdg 9:13 KJV) And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?

Adventists such as Prof Bacchiocchi argue that grape juice cheers one up. How many of you have ever had that experience?

+ (1Sa 1:14-15 KJV) And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy wine from thee. And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before the LORD.

Here BOTH words are used!  Eli says Hannah is drunk, and she denies this, saying she has not drunk wine or strong drink - obviously both are capable of making one drunk.

+ (Lev 10:9 KJV) Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations:

Finally, the condemnation of alcoholic beverages is limited to two instances - excessive use, and use in the ministry in cases where such use would make a mockery of God.

Let's follow the Bible's advice, and not Ellen White.

Adventism has historically condemned the use of wine as a beverage.  It has not allowed it - period.

There is a lot of biblical evidence that this is an extreme stance, and that wine is acceptable.  The biblical prohibition is not against wine, but against the excessive use of wine.

Is Adventism changing?  In the Adventist Review, there is an article entitled The search for a "Thou shalt not" - by Angel Manuel Rodriguez of the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference.

He admits that the Bible is not entirely clear on the subject, and admits that there are verses that are problematic for the Adventist view.  He still endorses the Adventist view that wine is harmful, and that abstinence is a better way.  Few will deny that there is potential harm, and there is nothing wrong with abstinence.  And yes, the Bible does use strong language against the abuse of wine.  But the Bible does allow for its use.

It looks like the controversy surrounding Adventist scholar Samuele Bacchiocchi's claims regarding his credentials and his thesis have once again sparked discussion.

As most people familiar with Bacchiocchi know, he claims the following for his degree and thesis:

• He claims to have obtained his PhD summa cum laude from the Gregorian University in Rome
• He claims that the Gregorian University Press printed the first edition of his thesis
• He claims to have been given an imprimatur for that printing
• He claims to have received a silver and gold medal from Pope Paul VI

These claims can be found on his website on the From Sabbath to Sunday page, and on the About Author page.

Not so many people familiar with Bacchiocchi know that the Gregorian University seems to deny this:

• No summa cum laude
• No printing of the full thesis, rather only one chapter - the minimum requirement
• No imprimatur
• No medals

Relevant discussion and quotes from Gregorian's letter can be found here, here, and now also on a blog called Hobbes' Place - An Exploration of Adventist History and Culture.

Bacchiocchi mentions this denial of his credentials in his Endtime Issues newsletters no. 124 and 146.

In the interview I mentioned the recent attempts of the Pontifical Gregorian University to discredit my academic achievements, because of the controversy sparked by From Sabbath to Sunday in Catholic circles. - Endtime Issues 124

Over a year ago I received a document issued by the Academic Dean office of the Gregoriana, which negates my academic achievements, such as the reception of the gold medal donated by Pope Paul VI for earning the summa cum laude distinction. - Endtime Issues 146

Now some further correspondence has been posted at Hobbes' blog:

Ever since the Academic office of the Pontifical Gregorian University attempted to discredit my academic achievements two years ago, it has been on my heart to prepare a formal refutation of their false allegations and place it in my website.

... At this point I feel that an official documented response is needed in order to silence the false accusations that are increasingly circulating against me. Today I plan to begin the process by going to Andrews University Architecture Department to scan my three diplomas, which are too big for my scanner. Their scanner scans up to 24 x 36'. I have on hand three magnificent diplomas, all in parchement, decorated and written by skilled Vatican scribes. They were hand-written for me because I refused to accept the standard diplomas which say that the student has subscribed to the Catholic profession of faith. - source: Hobbes

That makes it a bit harder to authenticate, if they are not standard Gregorian certificates.  Did he shoot himself in the foot by requesting that?

In order to receive the diploma of the DOCTORATUS, a student is required to publish a significant portion of the dissertation (at least 120 pages) and deposit 50 copies at the Academic Office. The TESINA must be published with the official IMPRIMATUR to be acceptable by the Academic Office. I submitted for publication 150 pages of my dissertation, mostly taken from chapter 7 of my dissertation. The manuscript was published in 1975 under the title ANTI-JUDAISM AND THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY. - source: Hobbes

This single chapter, now admitted to by Bacchiocchi, is what Gregorian calls "the minimum requirement to receive the doctoral degree at the Gregorian." [source]

Gregorian's letter states: "Due to extensive problems with the text, he was only allowed to publish one chapter of his work and this only after extensive revision." [source]

I would hardly call this the "approval" he claims to have from the Vatican for his dissertation.  Even an imprimatur from an individual bishop in no way indicates acceptance by the Church.  And considering the difficulty he had obtaining the imprimatur, it was not an easy job to find someone who would issue his personal approval.

My professor Vincenzo Monachino was responsible for obtaining the imprimatur, that is, the approval from the Rector of the Gregoriana and the Vicariate of Rome. - source: Hobbes

With some difficulty, he admits.  Obviously the text was not in agreement with Catholic teaching - one only has to read it to see that.  Choosing the chapter that conformed to Catholic thought the most would be the logical way to go.  Even then, it was a difficult task to obtain the imprimatur.

You may be interested to know that US Catholic authorities at the Ave Maria Press of Notre Dame University, refused to grant me the imprimatur to publish the dissertation.  The publication of the dissertation was a requirement to obtain the diploma. So finally I was forced to go back to Rome and work with the authorities of the Gregoriana.  It took a lot of efforts, especially on the part of my Jesuit  Professor Vincenzo Monachino, S.I., to obtain the imprimatur. - source: e-mail from Bacchiocchi

Anyone who wants a description of the original 1977 edition can find it there as well, posted by someone who thinks he may have a copy of that edition.

I also have what appears to be an original 1977 hard-cover copy of Dr. Bacchiocchi’s book, with cloth cover printed in gold lettering on a black background. - source: Hobbes

Bacchiocchi describes the first edition this way:

The cover of the original dissertation printed by the Gregorian Press is light blue and it was typset manually with a linotype. This can be readily recognized because of the pressure of the letters which left  some fine marks, known as "beard." - source: e-mail from Bacchiocchi

The dissertation was published in 1977 with the imprimatur that Prof. Monachino had already obtained in 1975 for the research. - source: Hobbes

That sounds like he used the imprimatur for the original one-chapter printing as if it applied to the whole dissertation.  That is not a valid use of an imprimatur, which needs to be re-issued with each edition.

Ever since the Academic office of the Pontifical Gregorian University attempted to discredit my academic achievements two years ago, it has been on my heart to prepare a formal refutation of their false allegations and place it in my website.

... At this point I feel that an official documented response is needed ...   - source: Hobbes

So, finally, after more than 2 years, Bacchiocchi is going to make a formal statement.  It will certainly be interesting.  Will he be able to provide verification for any claims he makes in his statement, any images he produces?  Will the authenticity of any documentation he produces remain in question, or be resolved?  Will Gregorian respond, or will they relegate him to the long list of thorns in their side that they simply ignore ... which, amusingly, includes a dozen or so people claiming to be the real pope.

Will it remain his word against that of an internationally recognised university?

A question I look forward to having answered.

Richard Kissell's previous e-mail from about 2 years ago:

Pretty flimsly evidence which you offer considering the myriad proof texts the Professor has offered in his lenghty books and articles.

Better get out the shovel and hoe, and stop whining.

RVK 
Watertown, NY

Apparently he had the same attitude then as he has now.  No evidence or argument provided.  Just bitchiness.  Apparently he thinks, like Bacchiocchi does, that I have only the mentality for gardening.  Sad that that is from a supposed Christian, but enlightening.  That is what many of the Saturday lot do when confronted with evidence they don't like.  Again, Bacchiocchi's Gregorian Controversy.  And here's a lengthy debate with Bacchiocchi that shows up a lot of his theological problems.  More here.

Richard Kissell of Watertown, New York, wrote the following to me:

Your argument is based on three spurious accounts, while Dr. Bacchiocci's book lists dozens of examples from the Vatican Archives, and others. (re. "From Sabbath To Sunday")

It's a good time of year to plant some mums doc.

Richard Kissell
Watertown,N.Y.

P.S.  I am not a member of the Adventist Church.  Just a long time student of the Bible.

No, they are not spurious accounts.  They are quite genuine, according to historians.  Bacchiocchi's interpretation is flawed, as has been pointed out by plenty of others.  Where he cannot claim they are spurious, he plays them down, interpreting them the way he must in order to promote his point.  The Vatican has even brought his credentials into question.

As for snide remarks, Kissell and Bacchiocchi seem to have much in common.  Not the same denomination, but birds of a feather.

Anima Christi

Soul of Christ, make me holy.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, make me strong.
O good Jesus, hear me.
Hide me within Your wounds.
Let me never be separated from You.
Deliver me from the wicked enemy.
Call me at the hour of my death,
And tell me to come to You,
That with Your saints I may praise you
Forever. Amen.

Anima Christi, sanctifica me.
Corpus Christi, salva me.
Sanguis Christi, inebria me.
Aqua lateris Christi, lava me.
Passio Christi, conforta me.
O bone Iesu, exaudi me.
Intra tua vulnera absconde me.
Ne permittas me separari a te.
Ab hoste maligno defende me.
In hora mortis meae voca me.
Et iube me venire ad te,
ut cum Sanctis tuis laudem te
in saecula saeculorum.
Amen.

---