Is it heretical to pray that Jews continue to follow the Old Covenant?

[Through_Him]

Okay, so back onto the topic of the prayer for the Jews in the Novus Ordo liturgy. I have a question. Can we understand there to be one overarching covenant that God has made with man that began with the Old and was fulfilled with the New? If so, then when we have the vague wording of “his covenant,” then we could understand the Jews as growing into faithfulness in their part of the covenant into the fullness of God’s covenant that was fulfilled in the New. Is there any teaching from the Church regarding one overarching covenant of God?

To me it seems that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New and therefore God’s true Covenant and only valid and operational covenant of all time would be the New Covenant in His Blood. If that is the case, then I don’t see how the Jews could be considered to progress in faithfulness to this Covenant if they have not yet entered into it through Christ. Or can we understand there to be a different sense of God’s covenant that somehow the Jews are a part of or are currently growing in?

Do you believe that the Jews pray to the trinity in their own way?
I don’t think they only pray to one/third of the trinity as the God of Abraham. They pray to the Messiah but have not given him a name. They certainly believe in the Spirit.

 

[JReducation]

Okay, so back onto the topic of the prayer for the Jews in the Novus Ordo liturgy. I have a question. Can we understand there to be one overarching covenant that God has made with man that began with the Old and was fulfilled with the New? If so, then when we have the vague wording of “his covenant,” then we could understand the Jews as growing into faithfulness in their part of the covenant into the fullness of God’s covenant that was fulfilled in the New. Is there any teaching from the Church regarding one overarching covenant of God?

To me it seems that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New and therefore God’s true Covenant and only valid and operational covenant of all time would be the New Covenant in His Blood. If that is the case, then I don’t see how the Jews could be considered to progress in faithfulness to this Covenant if they have not yet entered into it through Christ. Or can we understand there to be a different sense of God’s covenant that somehow the Jews are a part of or are currently growing in?

When he was with the Sacred Congregation for the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the covenant with Israel is not abrogated, but as scripture says, it is fulfilled in Christ. There is a difference between abrogated and fulfilled.

Christ is the fulfillment of the covenant. We are fortunate enough to be part of the New Covenant, sealed by Christ’s blood. But as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote and as the Church teaches us today, the Jews are not exluded from the covenant. They are, in some myserious way, through the faith of Abraham, in communion with the covenant. However, it must be understood that this is an imperfect communion.

What makes it an imperfect communion? Until there is a recognition of Christ as Lord and Saviour, the communion is not perfected or brought to fruition. In a sense, as a people, they are still on the journey. It is the Church’s prayer that they will reach the fulfillment of that journey by accepting Christ as the fulfillment of the covenant to which they adhere.

Therefore, it is not heresy to pray either the older prayer used in the TLM or the newer prayer of the OF. Both pray for the same thing, that the people of Israel will come to the fulfillment of the covenant through a knowledge of Christ.

What we have to recall is that knowledge of Christ does not mean that they hear what Catholics and other Christians have to say about Christ. That is not knowledge. Knowledge, in the biblical sense, is the relationship that exists between spouses. It is a union between Christ and the person, as there is between loving spouses.

To reach this union, the individual needs two things: 1) the gift of grace and 2) the conviction that what they have seen and heard about Christ is true, not because someone said so, but because they experience it in their soul.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

To me it seems that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New

I think I understand what you’re saying but I don’t think “superseded” is a good word to use.

e.g. from the Catechism

839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the Word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”, “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”

 

[JReducation]

I think I understand what you’re saying but I don’t think “superseded” is a good word to use.

e.g. from the Catechism

839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the Word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”, "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."

Thank you for posting this. This piece was written by Cardinal Ratzinger. This is the statement to which I was referring in my previous post. Thanks again.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SemperFidelis]

I think I understand what you’re saying but I don’t think “superseded” is a good word to use.

Cardinal Ratzinger in Many Religions – One Covenant would seem to disagree:
Cardinal Ratzinger:

What strikes us first of all is that Paul makes a firm disjunction between the covenant in Christ and the Mosaic covenant; this is how we usually understand the difference between the “Old” and the “New” Covenant….In 2 Corinthians [3:4-18], Paul sets these two in diametrical opposition: the former is transitory; the latter abides perpetually. Transience is a characteristic of the Mosaic covenant. God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken….The conditional covenant [the Mosaic Covenant], which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant [the New Covenant] in which God binds himself irrevocably. The Old Covenant is conditional: since it depends on the keeping of the Law….By contrast, the covenant sealed in the Last Supper is not a contract with conditions [like the Old Covenant] but the gift of friendship, irrevocably bestowed. Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded.

 

[justin_sp]

In Denzingers Sources of Catholic Dogma 712,it states that observance of the old covenant rituals cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation.So I would say the wording in the 1970 prayer is very ambiguous as are many thing written in the documents of the second vatican council.

 

[diggerdomer]

Cardinal Ratzinger in Many Religions – One Covenant would seem to disagree:

Thanks for the quotation.

Please note, though, this was written as a Cardinal (not the Pope) and regardless is a personal opinion (not authoritative teaching).

Both of those conditions are important when reading, interpreting, and applying.

In short, it’s significant but not authoritative, Magisterial teaching. So my point stands.

 

[Through_Him]

Thanks for the quotation.

Please note, though, this was written as a Cardinal (not the Pope) and regardless is a personal opinion (not authoritative teaching).

Both of those conditions are important when reading, interpreting, and applying.

In short, it’s significant but not authoritative, Magisterial teaching. So my point stands.

Actually I am just reading the CCC and Ratzinger name is in the CCC as Imprimi Potest

So he wasn’t just a nobody, or the pope actually chose him for the task.
Look at #1967
"fullfills refines and surpasses not supercedes.

 

[JReducation]

Cardinal Ratzinger in Many Religions – One Covenant would seem to disagree:

Actually, both statements are written by Cardinal Ratzinger and they are not in conflict, because both point to the New Covenant. The difference between the two statement is that the first statement focuses on the place of the Jews in the New Covenant and their relationship to us through the patriarchs. The second statement is actually about the covemants themselves, not about the specific people. It’s like looking at a coin and describing the two sides in two separate statements. He has other statements that he has written on the covenants, the Jews and the Church. These are not the only ones. He makes several statements in his book, Jesus of Nazareth. Even though he warns the reader that it is not a doctrinal book, but open to discussion, it’s a must read for anyone who has the time. I say that in the kindest manner. Our Holy Father has a tendency to use very complicated grammar and sentence structure (must be the German mind) and you often lose your place and have to go back to see what he was talking about. LOL

The point that I’m making is that he writes a great deal about Israel and the covenants and he does not contradict himself. He simply takes different approaches to the same subject. That’s why the statement that he authored for the CC and the statement above can stand side by side withou conflict. They are on different aspects of the one subject.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually I am just reading the CCC and Ratzinger name is in the CCC as Imprimi Potest

So he wasn’t just a nobody, or the pope actually chose him for the task.
Look at #1967
"fullfills refines and surpasses not supercedes.

I never said he was just a nobody. Those are YOUR words.

I did look at 1967. I noted it did not use the word “supersedes” which is what I was pointing out. Thanks for confirming what I thought was accurate.

 

[diggerdomer]

In Denzingers Sources of Catholic Dogma 712,it states that observance of the old covenant rituals cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation.So I would say the wording in the 1970 prayer is very ambiguous as are many thing written in the documents of the second vatican council.

I’m not sure what specifically the reference you cite refers to. Can you provide us some more information? Thank you.

 

[JReducation]

In the same theological treatise, Cardinal Ratzinger also writes the following that would suggest that the covenant with Israel retains its moral validity and the promise of salvation. These to points have not been abrogated. The Commandments are stil law and God’s promise to save Israel has not been rescinded. The part of the covenant that is no longer in force is that part that no longer serves any purpose to Christians or Jews.

**In his Many Religions—One Covenant, Cardinal Ratzinger remarked: “In asking about the covenant, we are asking whether there can be a relationship between God and man, and what kind of relationship it might be.” At the heart of all the laws and promises is a loving relationship that the Scriptures do not hesitate to describe quite simply as a “marriage” (Hosea 2 and 11; Ezekiel 16). In this marriage God remains faithful to his partner even in the face of human infidelity.

At the heart of the covenant lies the promise: “You shall be my people, and I will be your God” (Ezekiel 36:28, Leviticus 26:12, Jeremiah 7:23, etc.). Under Christianity, the Church understands herself to be the New People of God (1 Peter 2:9-10, Revelation 21:3). But this claim does not settle the status of the Old Israel, the People of the First Covenant. Does Israel cease to be the People of God?

For an answer to this question the key text would seem to be, for Christians, chapters nine through eleven of Romans. Paul’s thought in these chapters is exceedingly complex and has given rise to a variety of interpretations. Perhaps Paul himself intended to leave some questions open. He ends the section with an exclamation of awe-filled humility before the incomprehensible ways of God: “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable are his ways!”

Without any pretense of giving a final solution I shall try to indicate some elements of a tenable Catholic position. Paul in this passage clearly teaches that God has not rejected His People, for His gifts and call are irrevocable. As regards election, they are unceasingly beloved for the sake of their forefathers. “If they do not persist in their unbelief,” he says, the children of Israel “will be grafted in” to the olive tree from which they have been cut off. He predicts that in the end “all Israel will be saved” and that their reconciliation and full inclusion will mean life from the dead. God’s continuing love and fidelity to his promises indicate that the Old Covenant is still in force in one of its most important aspects—God’s gracious predilection for His Chosen People.**

firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel—42

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

In Denzingers Sources of Catholic Dogma 712,it states that observance of the old covenant rituals cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation.So I would say the wording in the 1970 prayer is very ambiguous as are many thing written in the documents of the second vatican council.

This position was argued and disgreed with by the Church itself. It was first argued at the Council of Florence. The Council wrote this. It was refuted by the bishops. It was not executed by the Church.

Later it was argued by biclical scholars and the conclusion of the Church has been that the observance of these rituals, even by Catholics who are converts from Judaism is good for both Jews and Catholics because they provide a historical continuity. In other words, they keep history alive. They help Christians see where we came from and where many of our own rituals came from.

The point that was preserved from the Council of Florence is that they have no salvific power. But the do not condemn either.

Read the following article by Cardinal Avery Dulles on this and other points. He gives a very good history of the question, how it developed and how it has been answered over the passing of time. Remember, this is not a doctrinal question. This is a question about rituals. Therefore, it becomes a biblical and disciplinary question.

firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel—42

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Through_Him]

I never said he was just a nobody. Those are YOUR words.

I did look at 1967. I noted it did not use the word “supersedes” which is what I was pointing out. Thanks for confirming what I thought was accurate.

That is OK it is very late I am getting testy. All of it is interesting reading and looking forward to reading the rest of the references. But tomorrow is another day.

 

[justin_sp]

If the 1970 prayer says that the Jews should continue following the old covenant,then I would say it contradicts what the church taught infallibly at the council of Florence.I hesitate to say this is so because the church cannot err.My personal opinion is that the prayer is ambiguous at best and not very clear.The prayer lacks precision as most of the post vatican 2 documents.

 

[justin_sp]

This position was argued and disgreed with by the Church itself. It was first argued at the Council of Florence. The Council wrote this. It was refuted by the bishops. It was not executed by the Church.

Later it was argued by biclical scholars and the conclusion of the Church has been that the observance of these rituals, even by Catholics who are converts from Judaism is good for both Jews and Catholics because they provide a historical continuity. In other words, they keep history alive. They help Christians see where we came from and where many of our own rituals came from.

The point that was preserved from the Council of Florence is that they have no salvific power. But the do not condemn either.

Read the following article by Cardinal Avery Dulles on this and other points. He gives a very good history of the question, how it developed and how it has been answered over the passing of time. Remember, this is not a doctrinal question. This is a question about rituals. Therefore, it becomes a biblical and disciplinary question.

firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel—42

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

How can they not bring salvation and not condemn at the same time?Are you talking about invincible ignorance?Most Jews know of Him,know what we believe about him,and still reject him.Why would St. Peter speak of saving themselves from this perverse generation if they were not in danger of damnation?If the matter we speak of is only disclipine,why did Eugene IV use language such as is used in defining dogma.

 

[JReducation]

If the 1970 prayer says that the Jews should continue following the old covenant,then I would say it contradicts what the church taught infallibly at the council of Florence.I hesitate to say this is so because the church cannot err.My personal opinion is that the prayer is ambiguous at best and not very clear.The prayer lacks precision as most of the post vatican 2 documents.

There are two inetersting points here. First, if we read what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, the part of the covenant with the Jews that is no longer in force is the part that entails all of the legal observances. We are no longer bound by those. The Commandments, which is also part of the covenant, also referred to by theologians as the moral part of the covenant, is have never been abrograted. Then you have the covenant that God made with the patriarchs. This part is not revoked either. In fact, the Church continues to say that the Jews remain an important part of the covenant, because of their forefathers.

We have to be very careful when we say that the prayer of 1970 is wrong. It is not wrong for the Jews to follow the moral covenant. All of us are bound by the moral covenant. It is not wrong for the Jews to continue to honor the patriarchs. We too honor them as our forefathers as well. The point of the prayer is that there is a hope that if the Jewish people honor the moral law and the covenant made by God and the patriarchs, in which God promises them that he will always be their God, he will lead them to salvation through Jesus Christ. God does not promise to be their God and then withdraw that promise. That’s not the way that he works. He keeps his promises. God continues to be their God and they continue to be his people. But the term people is expanded by Christ to include the Gentiles. Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant that God made with Abraham, Noah and Moses. The old covenant is now a new covenant, since the law and the prophecies have been fulfilled. But the moral part of it, is still binding and is included in the new covenant.

Now there is a second point. There is a tendency on CAF to throw the mantle of infalibility over the Council of Florence. The Council of Florence was really several councils that were started and stopped. The goal of the Council of Florence was reunion between Rome and the Orthodox. The points that were in dispute between the Eastern and Western Churches were stated as infallible truths. These included, but are not limited to: the primacy of the pope, purgatory, the words of consecration, the filioque, the doctrine concerning sacred annointing, the annointing of the sick, and the unity of the Church. The anathemas against the Jews and others were not part of the infallible decreees of the Council. If you go to the Vatican website and search the Council of Florence, you will find a list of articles about the points of the Council of Florence that of concern to the Church. The anathemas are not included. In fact, there is a statement by Pope John Paul II about his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, where he makes reference to the Council’s desire to unity of all people and how this has not been acheived for many reasons. He goes as far as to refer to those who died for the Orthodox faith as martyrs for the faith.

My take on this is that the Holy Fathers are not reading the Council of Florence the way that we may be reading it. They are reading each topic and each debate and selecting what is a matter of faith and separating that from matters of discipline and penalties. That actually makes sense. All three are important to the Church, but to different degrees and in different modalities.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[justin_sp]

There are two inetersting points here. First, if we read what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, the part of the covenant with the Jews that is no longer in force is the part that entails all of the legal observances. We are no longer bound by those. The Commandments, which is also part of the covenant, also referred to by theologians as the moral part of the covenant, is have never been abrograted. Then you have the covenant that God made with the patriarchs. This part is not revoked either. In fact, the Church continues to say that the Jews remain an important part of the covenant, because of their forefathers.

We have to be very careful when we say that the prayer of 1970 is wrong. It is not wrong for the Jews to follow the moral covenant. All of us are bound by the moral covenant. It is not wrong for the Jews to continue to honor the patriarchs. We too honor them as our forefathers as well. The point of the prayer is that there is a hope that if the Jewish people honor the moral law and the covenant made by God and the patriarchs, in which God promises them that he will always be their God, he will lead them to salvation through Jesus Christ. God does not promise to be their God and then withdraw that promise. That’s not the way that he works. He keeps his promises. God continues to be their God and they continue to be his people. But the term people is expanded by Christ to include the Gentiles. Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenant that God made with Abraham, Noah and Moses. The old covenant is now a new covenant, since the law and the prophecies have been fulfilled. But the moral part of it, is still binding and is included in the new covenant.

Now there is a second point. There is a tendency on CAF to throw the mantle of infalibility over the Council of Florence. The Council of Florence was really several councils that were started and stopped. The goal of the Council of Florence was reunion between Rome and the Orthodox. The points that were in dispute between the Eastern and Western Churches were stated as infallible truths. These included, but are not limited to: the primacy of the pope, purgatory, the words of consecration, the filioque, the doctrine concerning sacred annointing, the annointing of the sick, and the unity of the Church. The anathemas against the Jews and others were not part of the infallible decreees of the Council. If you go to the Vatican website and search the Council of Florence, you will find a list of articles about the points of the Council of Florence that of concern to the Church. The anathemas are not included. In fact, there is a statement by Pope John Paul II about his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, where he makes reference to the Council’s desire to unity of all people and how this has not been acheived for many reasons. He goes as far as to refer to those who died for the Orthodox faith as martyrs for the faith.

My take on this is that the Holy Fathers are not reading the Council of Florence the way that we may be reading it. They are reading each topic and each debate and selecting what is a matter of faith and separating that from matters of discipline and penalties. That actually makes sense. All three are important to the Church, but to different degrees and in different modalities.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I would agree that to say the prayer is wrong would not be good.I did not say this. I said it is ambiguous and not clear and i specified what i personally thought.I also agree that i could be wrong in thinking that the part of the council of florence that i quoted is infallible.I just dont understand how it couldnt be if they used the language of" believes,professes, and teaches"…

 

[JReducation]

I would agree that to say the prayer is wrong would not be good.I did not say this. I said it is ambiguous and not clear and i specified what i personally thought.I also agree that i could be wrong in thinking that the part of the council of florence that i quoted is infallible.I just dont understand how it couldnt be if they used the language of" believes,professes, and teaches"…

That’s a fair question. The language of which you speak is often used for disciplinary pronouncements, as well as anathemas. What the Church of the time pronounced against all of those whom it considered to be its enemies, including the Orthodox, were anathemas. As we have seen, beginning with Bl. John XXIII and through to Benedict XVI, all the anathemas against the Orthodox have been lifted, even though they were stated in such language. The reason that a pope can do this, is because a pope is not bound by discipinary actions imposed by a previoius one. Just as Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops, any pope can lift any anathema. This is what has happened. Those anathemas were lifted.

However, let us be clear, that even when the anathemas are lifted, the doctrines remain in place. The doctrines are still required of anyone who is looking to profess the Catholic faith.

I also wanted to comment on something that you said in one of your posts. When the Church speaks of ignorance, she does not mean literally not having heard about Christ. There is a deeper meaning to the word “know”. It’s the biblical meaning. It is this meaning that the Church uses. To know Christ or to know the Truth means to have an experience of Christ or to have an experience of the Truth. To have an experience of Christ/Truth and to reject it is deserving of condemnation. The Church has never expected people of other faiths to accept that Christ is God and savior just because we say so. If it were that simple, why wouldn’t we accept the gods of Hinduism? People of faith, Muslims, Jews and Protestants, in this case, would not risk their eternal salvation, because Catholics say so. That would be irresponsible behavior. There has to be an outpouring of grace. That’s why we say that faith is gift. The person has to be aware of that grace and respond or reject it.

Therefore, a person can listen to what Catholics have to say, the same way that I listen to what the Jehovah Witnesses who knock at my door do, but that does not mean that I am moved by grace. That is God’s part. Our part is to keep telling the Truth.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SemperFidelis]

Supersessionism is Catholic teaching and it has been for 2000 years. Even “Dual-Covenant Theologians” such as Roy Schoeman agree. You can try to mince words all you want but Dogma is Dogma. The fact that Supersessionism has been downplayed and watered-down in the last 50 years (something that in and of itself should set-off your “sensus Catholicus”) in no way abrogates it as Dogma. Just go check out Dr. Ludwig Ott, Denzinger, Church Councils, writings by several Popes, Church Fathers, etc. and you will discover Supersessionism and all the wonders of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and even the Extraordinary Magisterium. JReducation: I have to give it to you. Arguing that Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence was making a disciplinary statement is one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard.