CATECHISM para 121

[fhansen]

Could someone enlighten me on this issue, which has raised some controversy? In the Catechism, paragraph 121, as well as other places, teaches that the Old Covenant has not been revoked. But traditionally its been understood and taught that the New Covenant supersedes and replaces the OC. And scripture backs this up for the most part. Has the OC been revoked for Christians only, but not for non-Christian Jews? I don’t quiteI understand this teaching.

 

[steve_b]

Could someone enlighten me on this issue, which has raised some controversy? In the Catechism, paragraph 121, as well as other places, teaches that the Old Covenant has not been revoked. But traditionally its been understood and taught that the New Covenant supersedes and replaces the OC. And scripture backs this up for the most part. Has the OC been revoked for Christians only, but not for non-Christian Jews? I don’t quiteI understand this teaching.

entering the catechism at this point gives the context
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#121 note paragraph 123. That should answer your question

 

[bzkoss236]

Being revoked is different than being superseded or fulfilled.

Revoked means that it is completely done away with, as if it has no correlation with what it is being replaced with. Meaning that it is not a continuation of the same faith, but an entirely new faith.

To the contrary, something the is superseded or fulfilled is still replaced, but it still has a correlation, as in the prior leads into the next. It is a progression of the same faith, or evolution, if you will.

The New Covenant is still part of the same one true faith, but has new laws that supersede the Old Covenant laws, because the Old Covenant has been fulfilled.

Think of a town that has some bad crime, so the governor institutes a curfew for the town. Then say after a time, a new officer comes to town with a plan that mostly wipes out, if not completely, the crime in the town. The curfew is then lifted, because the reason the curfew was put in place has been fulfilled (i.e. the fight against crime), but it is still the same town, led by the same governor.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The covenant that God made with the Hebrew people through Moses has been superseded (and abrogated) by the covenant through Christ. There is no legitimate Jewish church today.

The Old Testament (written during the time that the old covenant was in force) was and is the inspired Word of God.

 

[fhansen]

The covenant that God made with the Hebrew people through Moses has been superseded (and abrogated) by the covenant through Christ. There is no legitimate Jewish church today.

The Old Testament (written during the time that the old covenant was in force) was and is the inspired Word of God.

Does this mean that the OC is still in effect but simply fulfilled or obeyed via the new, better, covenant? Heb 8:13 states that the old was made obsolete. Can it still be unrevoked and obsolete?

 

[steve_b]

Does this mean that the OC is still in effect but simply fulfilled or obeyed via the new, better, covenant? Heb 8:13 states that the old was made obsolete. Can it still be unrevoked and obsolete?

Hebrews 8:13 if this meant the OT is obsolete, why are we even reading the OT at mass? “Void” and “obsolete”, are closely linked terms. Therefore refer to 123 in the CCC. The OT is neither obsolete nor void

 

[bzkoss236]

Does this mean that the OC is still in effect but simply fulfilled or obeyed via the new, better, covenant? Heb 8:13 states that the old was made obsolete. Can it still be unrevoked and obsolete?

Again, obsolete and revoked are different. Obsolete means no longer relevant. Revoked would mean it is thrown away because it was wrong.

The Old Law is obsolete, because the Old Covenant has been fulfilled.

 

[fhansen]

Hebrews 8:13 if this meant the OT is obsolete, why are we even reading the OT at mass? “Void” and “obsolete”, are closely linked terms. Therefore refer to 123 in the CCC. The OT is neither obsolete nor void

Well, I believe there’s a difference between the OT and the OC to begin with.

 

[fhansen]

Ok, so in my limited reading on this subject I 've ran across a few explanations, 1) the Old Covenant referred to by the Catechism was the Abrahamic covenant which would certainly be easy enough to reconcile with the NC, 2) the Old Covenant is the Mosaic covenant and is not revoked for Jews because it still serves to point to and lead to Christ, or 3), and this is seems to be the consensus here, I think, the Old Covenant isn’t revoked simply because, while inadequate to bring about salvation, it’s not wrong, and the NC is simply a greatly improved version of the Old rather than being opposed to it, and a version which really can effect righteousness/salvation in man. Any thoughts on this?

 

[fhansen]

entering the catechism at this point gives the context
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#121 note paragraph 123. That should answer your question

OK. So the Catholic position would be that the Old Covenant wasn’t revoked because it didn’t need to be-it was simply replaced-and kind of absorbed-by a better covenant? Many non-Catholics seem to practically view the OC as an enemy, the enemy of grace, I suppose, especially if they’re antinomian to begin with.