Old Covenant and New Covenant

[Sylvansealy]

Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5.17). What is the Catholic response to Protestants who want to emphasize the New Testament and ignore or “write off” the parts of the Old Testament that make them squirm? This break between Law and Grace is maddening. Didn’t Pope Benedict when he was Cardinal Ratzinger make some valid points to this end.

How do we show the inseperable connection between Testaments? How do we show the connection (not the break) between Law and Grace?

“The New is in the Old concealed and the Old is in the New revealed.” -St. Augustine

 

[NotWorthy]

Ask them to read Romans 13:8-10, which happen to be today’s first reading.

*** Brothers and sisters:
Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another;
for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
The commandments, You shall not commit adultery;
you shall not kill;
you shall not steal;
you shall not covet,
and whatever other commandment there may be,
are summed up in this saying, namely,
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Love does no evil to the neighbor;
hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.***

If you follow Jesus’ commandment, and love one another, you will follow the Old Covenant Commandments.

 

[Teflon93]

I simply ask which of the Ten Commandments they are seeking to break.

Christ in Matthew 19 told the rich man to keep the commandments if he wanted to get to heaven; the Commandments were the heart of the Old Covenant. Did Christ contradict himself somehow? Christ was perfectly consistent when he said he desired not to scratch one jot or tittle of the Law, but to fulfill it and urged us to keep the Commandments.

Pope Benedict describes this beautifully in his book on the Catechism—the New Covenant made all of us God’s chosen people; it was put in place to save, not to damn. It should not be read as though the Resurrection were Judgment Day for righteous Jews.

This is another example of the “either/or” strain so prevalent in Protestant thinking, itself an echo of Pharisaic error.

 

[NotWorthy]

It’s incredible.

You are a slave to the one you are obedient to.

Take your pick.

Do you wish to be a slave to sin, or a slave to Grace?

 

[Teflon93]

Do you wish to be a slave to sin, or a slave to Grace?

We are slaves to neither. We possess free will, and can choose sin or sinlessness by exercising the sufficient grace granted us.

Were we slaves, there would be no need for judgment and certainly no repentance.

Were we slaves, there would be no human culpability in sin, which is what Erasmus tried to drill into Luther’s head to little avail.

 

[NotWorthy]

We are slaves to neither. We possess free will, and can choose sin or sinlessness by exercising the sufficient grace granted us.

Were we slaves, there would be no need for judgment and certainly no repentance.

Were we slaves, there would be no human culpability in sin, which is what Erasmus tried to drill into Luther’s head to little avail.

I was only echoing what Paul said in Romans:

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, although you were once slaves of sin, you have become obedient from the heart to the pattern of teaching to which you were entrusted. Freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness.

Yes, we have the free will to decide which slave we wish to be, but slaves we are nonetheless.

 

[richardeekw]

Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5.17). What is the Catholic response to Protestants who want to emphasize the New Testament and ignore or “write off” the parts of the Old Testament that make them squirm? This break between Law and Grace is maddening. Didn’t Pope Benedict when he was Cardinal Ratzinger make some valid points to this end.

How do we show the inseperable connection between Testaments? How do we show the connection (not the break) between Law and Grace?

“The New is in the Old concealed and the Old is in the New revealed.” -St. Augustine

Hi.
I recently listent to a series of teaching by Dr Scott Hahn regarding the “Gospel of Mt 5-7-The Beatitudes”
This interesting point comes into mind.

The Old Testament (Old Covenant) , if you study it, focuses in many areas the concept of “Retributive Theology” Thisis the idea that “when one does good ; he/she will be Blessed and rewarded” and when one does bad/evil, he will be punished. You will realize that this is "earthly related ".

Now with the New Testament (New Covenant) The teachings of Jesus reveals to us “The Gosel of Life-The Theology of Love”. The focus is no so much on “earthly” gifs by “everlasting” values.

**Love for Enemies (Unconditional Love)(Lk 6.27—28, 32—36)43 **“
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

To be happy… to be a Saint…LIVE the message of the heart of the Gospel message in Matthew ch. 5 to 7.

 

[Teflon93]

I was only echoing what Paul said in Romans:
Yes, we have the free will to decide which slave we wish to be, but slaves we are nonetheless.

I think Paul’s point is a bit more nuanced than that—i.e. that sinfulness and righteousness both narrow the options available to us, for ill and good.

The righteous have profoundly-tuned consciences which definitely inhibit action—I think we all know folks who seem consitutionally incapable of sin.

Those who wallow in sinfulness cannot seem to do any good—I think of those in the throes of drug addiction depicted on “Intervention” for example.

In that sense, both are slaves, but I think Paul would argue in the larger context of Romans and Hebrews that it is only the righteous who are truly free.

Certainly, contra Milton’s Satan, 'twould be far better to serve in Heaven than to reign in Hell.

 

[NotWorthy]

I think Paul’s point is a bit more nuanced than that—i.e. that sinfulness and righteousness both narrow the options available to us, for ill and good.

The righteous have profoundly-tuned consciences which definitely inhibit action—I think we all know folks who seem consitutionally incapable of sin.

Those who wallow in sinfulness cannot seem to do any good—I think of those in the throes of drug addiction depicted on “Intervention” for example.

In that sense, both are slaves, but I think Paul would argue in the larger context of Romans and Hebrews that it is only the righteous who are truly free.

Certainly, contra Milton’s Satan, 'twould be far better to serve in Heaven than to reign in Hell.

Be that as it may, I’ll still feel hopeful in calling myself a “slave of righteousness”.

 

[Teflon93]

Be that as it may, I’ll still feel hopeful in calling myself a “slave of righteousness”.

It does have a nice ring to it, although as a Gene Wolfe fan I prefer its Greek rendering: hierodule.

(although now that I look at it that might be Latin—“dulus” is Latin for “slave” if I recall.).