Islam before and after V2

[diggerdomer]

The USCCB does not have the charism of infallibility, as the previous posts have proven. Therefore they can make mistakes. However a Bishop in his diocese does have the charism of the Magisterium, so should be attended to. You fail to see the distinction.

I’ve never suggested the USCCB has the charism of infallibility. Of course they can make mistakes. So can the Pope. So can individual Bishops in their diocese. So I’m not clear what distinction I’m missing (unless there’s a distinction of which Bishops teachings or statements I should listen to and which I shouldn’t…I have always thought they should all be listened to whether it’s the Pope, a Council, a Conference, a Synod, individual Bishop, etc.).

And I suppose it’s in the eye of the beholder whether the USCCB is “correcting” or “clarifying” the prior Reflection. As I understand it, they are “clarifying” but I can understand how others could see it as correcting a mistake.

BTW, I never said I reject the USCCB or any other Bishop.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.

 

[PaulF2]

Here’s the change from the link you cited:

"The change, which must be confirmed by the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, would remove from the catechism a sentence that reads: “Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.”

Replacing it would be this sentence: “To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his word, ‘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’” (Rom 9:4-5; cf. CCC, No. 839)."

I don’t see this as contradicting or superseding the Covenant God made with our ancestors in faith or with contemporary Jews. If you read it differently, let us know.

Do you see the words ‘eternally valid’ in the first quote but not the second? Obviously the two quotes are very substantially different in meaning. The second quote says nothing but positive things about the Jewish people - which is great - but it doesn’t say one word about the existence of their covenant after the institution of the New Covenant, made with ALL MEN.

Some link to some web blog. Right? So we’re free to accept or reject or consider or not. Unless this is something that has relevant Catholic authority?

Since you have evidently decided to ignore the evidence, I’ll quote it here. Yes, you are correct that John Salsa is a layman, but his opinion here is as infallible as the document (now being corrected!) you’re quoting from - neither are. He’s also someone considered quite mainstream, incidentally.

"According to Fr. Massa, the Jewish people “are in a real relationship with God based on a covenant that has never been revoked” (If that is true, then why change the Catechism at all, for that is what it currently says!?) What covenant do the Jews have with God that has not been revoked? If Fr. Massa is referring to the Abrahamic covenant which has been transformed into the New Covenant of Jesus Christ, then the adherents to this covenant are no longer “Jews,” but Christians (albeit with Jewish ethnicity). If, however, Fr. Massa is referring to the Mosaic covenant, then his view is heretical, for the Mosaic covenant has been abolished by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ (Rom 7:4; 2Cor 3:14; Gal 3:10-12; Eph 2:15; Col 2:14; Heb 7:12,18; 8:13; 10:9). And what else are we supposed to believe, when Fr. Massa says that the current wording of the Catechism – that the Mosaic law is “eternally valid” for the Jew – is not “flat-out wrong” but only “ambiguous” and needed to be “qualified”?

Evidently, this “qualification” is effected by inserting the word “belong” into Romans 9:4, even though the word is not in the original Greek, and no Church Father, medieval theologian, council or pope ever said that the Old Covenant still “belongs” to the Jews as the basis of an ongoing covenantal relationship they would have with God, or that the New Covenant belongs to the Jews as non-baptized Jews who persist in their unbelief. At most, Paul in Romans 9:4 is saying that the Jews were the first to receive “adoption, glory, covenants, and the law,” but these promises have all come to fulfillment through faith in Jesus Christ “who is over all, God blessed forever” (Rom 9:5). Nevertheless, according to Father Massa, the unbelieving Jew is still somehow incorporated – although not fully – into “the saving Covenant of Christ,” evidently on the basis of his exegesis of Romans 9:4.

It will be a shame if the U.S. Bishops’ Catechism for Adults continues to obscure the fundamental theological issue that it should, instead, be teaching clearly and succinctly – that the Old Covenant has been revoked and has no salvific value for the Jews, and that the Jews, like the rest of humanity, can be saved only through the New Covenant of Jesus Christ."

In fact he is critical even of the correction. But it is much better.

You are completely correct in that his personal opinion is irrelevant but the Church teaching he bases it on isn’t.

If you are not swayed by this to look into the Church teaching on the matter yourself I will post it.

 

[PaulF2]

Of course! I never suggested otherwise. The Bishops are. That’s what I’m claiming.

It’s not my opinion, it’s what the Bishops teach.

If you choose to reject what the USCCB teaches, or what any other Bishop(s) teach(es), good for you. Aren’t you the one rejecting Bishops’ teaching (e.g. the USCCB as you note)? It makes no difference to me about what you think I think; it does make a difference to me if you reject what Bishops teach.

There are plenty of bishops who right now DON’T teach what you’re stating.

If we look at all the bishops in the history of the Church, you’re probably down 1000:1 or better.

Your appeal to authority doesn’t have teeth. You can’t make a statement like “you must listen to the bishops” when these very bishops will tell you this teaching is not binding.

Support your assertion with what the Church herself says is binding on the faithful - doctrine and dogma. You will find it says the opposite of what you are saying.

Furthermore, I’m afraid that it’s simply really obvious from the most basic Christian theology that it cannot be true that the old covenant is still valid.

 

[diggerdomer]

There are plenty of bishops who right now DON’T teach what you’re stating.

Please help me understand: (1) what do you claim I am stating, specifically, and (2) where do Bishops not teach it? I really don’t want to be claiming something is taught by the Magisterium if it’s not. Thanks. Sorry if I’m being dense.

Your appeal to authority doesn’t have teeth. You can’t make a statement like “you must listen to the bishops” when these very bishops will tell you this teaching is not binding.

Um…no…actually I think you agree with my point. If you listen to the Bishops, and they say such-and-such is not binding, then you should follow that.

However…something being “taught” by the Bishops deserves our adherence and respect appropriate to the context of the teaching (i.e. it’s authority and manner of teaching). We are not free to pick and choose what teachings we “listen” to. Are we?

I guess once concern I have in discussions such as these is that people often claim “it wasn’t taught infallibly” and so, therefore, it’s “optional.” Or…“the bishops taught it” and therefore all Catholics have to believe it. Those are the two extremes I disagree with.

You will find it says the opposite of what you are saying.

Again, sorry if I’m being dense, but what exactly is the opposite of what I’m saying? If I misstated something I would be happy to clarify my thought.

Furthermore, I’m afraid that it’s simply really obvious from the most basic Christian theology that it cannot be true that the old covenant is still valid.

So…the Jews’ covenant with God no longer exists?

 

[PaulF2]

The Catholic Church has always taught - as the New Testament does clearly - that God’s Mosaic Covenant with the Jews was perfected in and superseded by the New Covenant, and that that Old Covenant is no longer extant as a means to eternal salvation. This is a very basic Church teaching, core to Christianity, for, if there is another covenant other than Christ’s universal Covenant with all men, then Christ is not necessary for salvation and He is not truly the Savior.

However, it is important to define exactly what we mean in saying the Old Covenant was “abrogated”. It means that it is no salvific - that’s all. The statement does not, of course, mean to imply all practicing Jews are not saved - some may be, but if they are, it is implicitly or explicitly via the only possible mechanism for salvation: Jesus Christ and His New Covenant.

Let’s look at the historical teachings of the Church on this matter. (I’m leaving out what the New Testament has to say for now - I’ll refer to those passages later in letting Avery Cardinal Dulles comment on them.)

From the Counil of Florence:

“It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”

Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo:

"The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel. "

Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis:

"29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” [35]

1. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "

Since some Catholics seem to be prepared to discard or discount all teachings of the first 1930 years of the Church or so, let’s look at what Paul VI had to say, as well as some commentary on the New Testament from a current cardinal.

From the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate:

“Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham’s sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)”

Note the clear teaching that the Mosaic Covenant was “concluded”.

 

[PaulF2]

Concerning the New Testament, let’s look at what Avery Cardinal Dulles, writing in First Things, August 2008, had to say: "The New Testament, in certain passages, indicates that the Old Law or the Old Covenant has come to an end and been replaced. Paul in Second Corinthians draws a contrast between the Old Covenant, carved on stone, which has lost its previous splendor, and the New Covenant, written on human hearts by the Spirit, which is permanent and shines brightly. In the third and fourth chapters of Galatians he draws a sharp contrast between the covenant promises given to Abraham and the law subsequently given through Moses. The two covenants, in this passage, are represented by the two sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac. The law, he says, was our custodian until Christ came, but it was incapable of giving justification, and loses its force once Christ has come. Fulfilling the promises given to Abraham, Christ brings an end to the Old Law.

In Second Corinthians Paul refers to the “old covenant” as the “dispensation of death,” which has “faded away.” In Romans he speaks of Christ as “the end of the Law,” apparently meaning its termination, its goal, or both. The Mosaic Law ceases to bind once its objective has been attained. The new dispensation may be called the “law of Christ” (1 Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2) or the “law of the Spirit” (Romans 8:2). The Letter to the Hebrews contains in chapters seven to ten a lengthy discussion of the two covenants based on the two priesthoods, that of Levi and that of Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant. The Old Law, with its priesthood and Temple sacrifices, has been superseded and abolished by the coming of the New."

The Cardinal does acknowledge there are nuances to this general question in this in-depth and though-provoking article.

I personally think that sometimes there has been too much simplicity in interpreting the Church’s teachings on this matter, and sometimes, unfortunately, they have been used to justify some kind of discrimination against Jews.

So, in conclusion, the status of the Jews as a people special to God does not change; it’s just part of history. Paul, furthermore, taught that they will one day be “grafted on to the tree”; i.e., they will accept Christ as a people and come into communion with the Church.

However, to teach that the Mosaic Covenant is still binding, and still offers through it salvation, is clearly contrary to the constant teachings of the Church. It would be no different than stating their are paths to salvation in other religions apart from Christ. (Again, if practitioners of other religions are saved, it is still via Christ.)

 

[DebChris]

What are the covenants which God has made with the people of the world? I started to say “with His people,” but I wanted to minimize confusion if possible.

1. There is the covenant made with Noah that God would never again destroy the world as He did with the Flood. The sign of this covenant is the rainbow, a reminder of God’s promise.
2. The covenant mentioned in Genesis 5:18 is the physical land upon which the descendants of Abraham would live.
3. What we generally think of when we think of the Old Covenant, God’s covenant with the Israelites, "I will be your God and you will be my people.
   It is this third covenant that is fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ, the promise of a savior extended to anybody who accepts the redeeming power of the cross.
   PaulF2–I agree that “the old has passed away and all things made new” has often been used to justify discrimination against the Jews. After all, did they not say “May His blood be upon us and our descendants”? While this Passion quote has been interpreted in the past to infer blame upon the Jews for the crucifixion, we also know that it is by the Blood of Christ that we are saved. By His cross and resurrection we have been brought to new life.
   Jesus said, “I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.” Again, the fulfillment of the promise is Calvary. It was not enough that Christ should die according to a death commonly used on criminals by the Romans, but that death was abolished by His rising to new life. “Oh death, where is thy sting?” Those of us who walk in the fulfillment of this promise has been strengthened by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as on Pentecost.
   It is easy to quibble about specifics, something that I want to avoid. You are right in contrasting the Old Covenant written on stone and the New Covenant written on the hearts of men. References are made in the O.T. of how God will remove the stony hearts and replace them with hearts of flesh, how He would write His law upon our hearts.
   It is not that the Old Law has been abolished, not a single letter nor part of a letter, but rather we are called to live in spirit and truth. The difference can be seen in the Commandments, the “shall nots” and the Beattitudes which more fully expound on the spirit of the law.
   I am starting to transgress. Yes, we have “been grafted onto the tree.”
   Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Nobody comes to the Father except through me.” We likewise agree that if a person of a different religion is saved, even if they do not profess faith in Jesus Christ, it is still because Jesus has drawn them to the Father.
   The cross has become the sign of a “new and everlasting covenant.”

 

[diggerdomer]

The Catholic Church has always taught - as the New Testament does clearly - that God’s Mosaic Covenant with the Jews was perfected in and superseded by the New Covenant, and that that Old Covenant is no longer extant as a means to eternal salvation.

So what does Jesus mean in Matt 5 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.”

He really means he supersedes the law (Mosaic Covenant)…right? Despite what the Gospel says?

Help?
PaulF2;5514089:

From the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate:

Note the clear teaching that the Mosaic Covenant was “concluded”.

Yes. Absolutely. Which is entirely different from “superseded” or “abrogated.”

See the Catechism para 781 and 839 ff.

 

[eric3141]

As descendants of Abraham, Muslims have always worshiped the one true God.
The “darkness” is in not accepting the truth of the Resurrection. It is in not accepting Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God. It is in not accepting the Trinity of Persons.

So by this reasoning could not anyone descended from Abraham claim to worship the one true God regardless of how whacky his religious beliefs? If a witch doctor can claim direct lineage from Abraham then he is worshipping the one true God? But if the witch doctor next to him cannot then he isn’t? (even if they both have the same beliefs). The argument that just because one is descended from Abraham then one is automatically worshipping the one true God does not seem to hold up. I mean there are no doubt Satanists in the world who are actually descended from Abraham.

Perhaps I did not understand the point you were trying to make. Please explain.