Old Covenant Never Revoked By God? I'm Confused

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jaypeeto2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jaypeeto2

Guest
the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis 29-30:

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…but on the Gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood…30: On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers.

The Councils of Trent and Florence were clear about this as well: “that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law” (Trent, Session 6, ch 2); “If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done through his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law…let him be anathema” (Trent, Ses. 6, Canon 1). The Council of Florence said the same:

It 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…

It further warns that all those who practice the old law’s ceremonies in an effort to procure salvation (which is what takes place in Judaism today) are “not fit to participate in 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. (DS 712).

Can anyone help me out here? Our late Holy Father, the Catechism, and I believe our new Holy Father, all hold that the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses, has not been revoked by God.
In light of the above papal and conciliar statements, how can that possibly be so? (the above is from an article by, I think, Robert Sungenis, but the quotations are accurate).
Love, Jaypeeto2
 
This is the problem when some converted Protestants, who used to proof-text the Bible get hold of council documents and do that to those documents, too. They don’t know how to interpret them according the whole of Catholic teaching, but that doesn’t stop them from ripping statements out of context in a vain effort to prove some idea of theirs to the confusion of themselves and of others! :mad: And btw, I am a convert myself so I am not accusing all converts of using such methods.

The specific rites and rituals of Judaic Law have been fulfilled and taken up into the one sacrifice of Christ. This is why they are no longer necessary and why Christians are not to practice them. The statements in the council documents are directions for Catholics not for Jews practicing their faith as they have always understood it.

Christ has fulfilled the Law not abolished it, which is why the Ten Commandments are still in force for Christians. Anyone who asserts otherwise is to be avoided like the plague. I suggest you use the Catechism of the Catholic Church as your guide in these matters and let others who have agendas contrary to the understanding of the Church wallow in their own self-importance.
 
I think the recent comments have more to do with the fact that just because the Hebrew Covenant is no longer effective in its rituals and sacrifices, the Hebrew people are indeed set apart by God and for God according to Paul in Romans 11.

The point is that the Hebrew Covenant is not abolished in a true sense, but rather brought into fruition in the New Covenant. It’s obsolete, not destroyed, and God still has its people, those who refuse the New Covenant, in His plan. We don’t know the details of it, but this is spoken of directly by Paul.

:blessyou:
 
Hi Ghosty, your last reply makes some sense for me.

Cardinal Kasper goes further than Pope John Paul II and actually says that the Old law Covenant is “salvific” for the Jews. If I understand St. Paul correctly, the Law itself is not salvific for anyone but rather shows us our sinfulness and need of a redeemer. I guess what bothers my conscience is that based on statements like the Law has never been revoked, a committee of the US Catholic Bishops issued a document a couple of years back rejecting any attempts to convert Jewish people to Christ. The Apostles of Christ did not do this. They preached the gospel to the Jewish people throughout Israel.

Love, Jaypeeto2
 
Della gave a good answer in that some older Council proclamations are assumed to apply only to those under the authority of the Papacy. Every subsequent Pope also has authority to contradict previous statements made under the authority of the ordinary magisterium. Be that as it may, St. Paul was the first to recognize that if salvation indeed came through Jesus Christ then the Mosaic law by which the Jews had been being saved no longer applied to the converts to Christainity. It had become more than redundant and the new gentile converts did not have to become Jews before becoming Christians. Obviously the portions of the Mosiac Law that were derived from Natural Law still applied. Thus the continuation of the Ten Commandment.
 
Every subsequent Pope also has authority to contradict previous statements made under the authority of the ordinary magisterium.Regarding the statement above, if we are talking about DOCTRINE, then no he DOESN’T. Discipline, yes, future popes can revise DISCIPLINES. They CANNOT legitimately REVERSE Doctrine.
Love, Jaypeeto2
 
40.png
Jaypeeto2:
Hi Ghosty, your last reply makes some sense for me.

Cardinal Kasper goes further than Pope John Paul II and actually says that the Old law Covenant is “salvific” for the Jews. If I understand St. Paul correctly, the Law itself is not salvific for anyone but rather shows us our sinfulness and need of a redeemer. I guess what bothers my conscience is that based on statements like the Law has never been revoked, a committee of the US Catholic Bishops issued a document a couple of years back rejecting any attempts to convert Jewish people to Christ. The Apostles of Christ did not do this. They preached the gospel to the Jewish people throughout Israel.

Love, Jaypeeto2
Click to expand...
Well, any religious belief is “salvific” if that is all the person has to try to live a life pleasing to God. God’s grace is not reserved for Christians, but is active in all the world in all people. Christ’s redemption covered everyone who ever lived and ever will live, which is why salvation is through him alone. So, anyone who is saved is saved through Christ, even for those who may never have understood exactly who they were serving by living for God according to their lights.

I think you are confusing willful rejection of Christ with invincible ignorance of/insurmountable obstacles to faith in Christ. Of course we are to try to bring the message of salvation in Christ to the Jews and to everyone else, as well. But, it is not our job to convert them. That is the job of the Holy Spirit, and always has been.

Efforts at converting Jews haven’t always been as benign as those used by the Apostles. In some countries Jews have been forced to convert by governments wishing to keep everyone under the same laws. These attempts are still in the minds of many Jews who see any attempt to bring them to Christ as coercion, even if no such thing is intended. Therefore, we as a Church are not going to target them nor any other non-Catholic group for conversion. We are simply going to present the claims of Christ and his Church and let the Holy Spirit do the convincing.
 
Well, I don’t think “salvific” is the right way to regard the Hebrew Covenant apart from the New Covenant, as it is based on looking forward to salvation. There is no salvation in the Hebrew Covenant, but a longing for the salvation to come. To this day Jews still await the Messiah, and pray for him daily, so it is recognized that “the game isn’t finished”.

Salvation is only through Christ, this much we know, and we also know that everyone should be made aware of Christ, but this is very different from targeted conversion tactics, as Della points out. Jews have a special place in God’s heart and plan, and therefore they should have a special place in the heart and plan of Catholics, but it must be in charity and love.

After all, Jews are espescially the intended recipients of the Word, so we owe it to them to not write them off as “already saved in their own way”, but we must also treat them with respect and love, not proof-texting and condemnation.
 
The first quote from Pius XII is not directed specifically at anyone. It simply make’s a statement of fact – that the old law had been abolished.

The statements from the councils apply to anybody - Jew or Catholic. The wording of the texts say, “If anyone shall say…” and “All, therefore, who after that time observe etc…”; meaning, anyone who is culpable of denying, or doing, these things.

Jews are in need of Jesus Christ just as much as anybody else. If they’re saved without being visibly incorporated in the Church, it’s in spite of their denial of Christ and the old law, not because of it.

DC.
 
40.png
Jaypeeto2:
Every subsequent Pope also has authority to contradict previous statements made under the authority of the ordinary magisterium.Regarding the statement above, if we are talking about DOCTRINE, then no he DOESN’T. Discipline, yes, future popes can revise DISCIPLINES. They CANNOT legitimately REVERSE Doctrine.
Love, Jaypeeto2
Click to expand...
You are right, but doctrine is a higher use of infallibility then the ordinary magesterium. Many encyclicals, unless they reiterate previously infallible statements of doctrine, are reformable are they not?
 
You are right, but doctrine is a higher use of infallibility then the ordinary magesterium. Many encyclicals, unless they reiterate previously infallible statements of doctrine, are reformable are they not?
Click to expand...
Ordinary Magisterial teachings are infallible when held by the whole Church since the time of the Apostles, for example that Jesus is the Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top