Supersessionism repudiated?

[fineca]

Dear all,
please have a look at the part dealing with the RCC in this Wikipedia article on supersessionism:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism

What do you think? I have read in a leaflet about the Bible (with an imprimatur and published by libreria editrice vaticana) that said that modern theologians prefer to call the Old Testament the First Covenant since it has never been revoked/become Old, and there was a sister I spoke to in Poland that said the same from some congregation with an emphasis on the Bible. On Bob Sungenis’ website there was a debate on a CCC passage saying that the Old Covenant has never been revoked, someone accusing the CCC of heresy while Sungenis trying to explain the word covenant referred to the Old Testament which wasn’t convincing in the context. I also know Sungenis has criticized Roy Schoeman for his views in Salvation is from the Jews, accusing him of saying the Church was wrong in teaching supersessionism, but anyway in the book Roy says that the Jews need to convert in order to be saved and not that the Mosaic law is a valid way to salvation.

I read some of Mystici Corporis by Pope Pius XII and he clearly teaches supersessionism, but this wikipedia article gives reason to think that JP2 and other Church leaders have repudiated it. Are there official church documents that reject supersessionism? I hope not. Anyway that’s what I’ve always thought is the faith of the Church and the Bible.

It seems the Bible teaches that Christ has fulfilled the Old law which is no longer in force (Eph. 2, Col. 2). But St.Paul also says about the Jews:
as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. (Rom. 11:29)

But just before this he says they’re enemies of God as regards the Gospel…so what then should we make of “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable”?

Btw Paul also calls the Jews Christ-killers in Thessalonians… why then do we nowadays say that it’s forbidden to call the Jews Christ-killers if the Holy Spirit did just that?

Thanks for your insights
E

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

I very much understand your confusion. Unfortunately, modernism has wiggled its way into the Church over the past 40 years (actually, long before that, but it used to be kept at bay by holy popes). Some Church leaders have given the impression that they believe the Jews still have a saving covenant with God, alongside the New Covenant. This, of course, is not only false, but it is complete apostacy to hold this view. It is an absolute basic teaching of the Church that Christ is the ONLY way to the Father, and that ALL men must be baptized and enter the Church in order to be saved. Of course, there are some exceptions such as invincible ignorance, but that is a different story. The fact is, the Church has never officially taught that the Jews still have a saving covenant. The opposite is true-- the Church has officially taught that the Old Covenant does not save, only the New Law under Christ saves. No exception for Jews. Anyone who teaches otherwise is an enemy of Christ.

 

[fineca]

Is Pope JP2 among these Church leaders? If so, in which document did he say something like that?

And again, what does St.Paul mean when he says the gift and call of God are irrevocable?

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Is Pope JP2 among these Church leaders? If so, in which document did he say something like that?

And again, what does St.Paul mean when he says the gift and call of God are irrevocable?

I would not put John Paul II in that category. It’s my understanding that he did, on a few occasions, say something to the effect of the Old Covenant not being revoked, but I’m not very clear on this issue. I believe Sungenis covers it in his article.

When I said “Church leaders” I was mainly thinking the people (and I don’t know who they are) who worked on the USCCB document (note: this was not an official document) called Reflections on the Covenant, which stated that “campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”

That idea is erroneous. The Jewish people need Christ like everyone else. To not preach Christ to them (in love, of course) would be the definition of uncharitable.

Here is an interesting excerpt from Roy Schoeman’s website:

At that council [Vatican One], they circulated a ‘Postulatum’ which was signed by almost all of the Fathers of the council, and which was heartily endorsed by Pope Pius IX. Only the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war, which prematurely terminated the council, prevented the official proclamation of the Postulatum. It consisted of a warm invitation to the Jews to join the Catholic Church; the text follows:

                     *The undersigned Fathers of the Council humbly yet urgently beseechingly pray that the Holy Ecumenical Council of the Vatican deign to come to the aid of the unfortunate nation of Israel with an entirely paternal invitation; that is, that it express the wish that, finally exhausted by a wait no less futile than long, the Israelites hasten to recognize the Messiah, our Savior Jesus Christ, truly promised to Abraham and announced by Moses; thus completing and crowning, not changing, the Mosaic religion.
          *
          *On one hand, the undersigned Fathers have the very firm confidence that the holy Council will have compassion on the Israelites, because they are always very dear to God on account of their fathers, and because it is from them that the Christ was born according to the flesh.*
          
          *On the other hand, the same Fathers share the sweet and intimate hope that this ardent desire of tenderness and honor will be, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, well received by many of the sons of Abraham, because the obstacles which have held them back until now appear to be disappearing more and more, the ancient wall of separation now having fallen.*
          
          *Would that they then speedily acclaim the Christ, saying 'Hosanna to the Son of David!  Blessed be He who comes in the name of the Lord!'*
          
          *Would that they hurl themselves into the arms of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, even now their sister according to the flesh, who wishes likewise to be their mother according to grace as she is ours!*

I think that prayer sheds some light on St. Paul’s words that God has not revoked His promises. It should be interpreted as meaning that God has not forsaken the Jewish people, that they are still very dear to Him, and for that reason, He longs for them to recognize His Son and come to salvation.

PS: I think Schoeman has a great website (and a good book), despite what others may say. I would encourage you to read it over: www.salvationisfromthejews.com

God bless.

 

[Genesis315]

A professional apologist friend of mine wrote this up for me concerning an SSPX site’s attack on how the current catechism deals with the Jews. I will post it here (it will take a few posts–the blue is from the SSPX site):

CCC, 597: …we cannot lay responsibility for the trial [of Jesus] on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole…Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”

But Scripture says:

The Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and have persecuted us, do not please God, and they have become adversaries to all men, to fill up their sin always; for the wrath of God has come upon them to the end (I Thess. 2:14-16).>>>>

Shamelessly wrenched out of context. The human authors of 1 Thessalonians were Jews (that is, Paul, Silas, and Timothy: 1 Thess 1:1); they considered themselves to be Jews (Acts 22:3, Acts 15:19-32, Acts 16:1), they held the Jewish people and Judaism in high esteem (Romans 9:3-5), and they continued to observe Jewish customs and rituals (Acts 18:18-19, Acts 21:26, Acts 16:2-3, etc.). Also, a good number of the people being addressed in 1 Thessalonicans were themselves Jews (Acts 17:2-4). What 1 Thess is specifically referring to above are the anti-Christian Jews of Thessalonica itself, as recounted in Acts 17:1-10, who bitterly rejected the Gospel and drove Paul and Silas out of Thessalonica. And, in the VERY NEXT VERSE (Acts 17:11), these anti-Christian Jews of Thessalonica are contrasted with the Jews of Beroea, who are described as “noble-minded” because they did not dismiss the Gospel out of hand, but consulted the OT to see if what Paul was preaching matched the Messianic prophecies. Then (in v. 12), we are told that MANY (and so NOT ALL) of these “noble-minded” Jews of Beroea became believers. And so, even though some of them did not believe, they are STILL called “noble-minded,” compared to the anti-Christian Jews of Thessalonica. Ergo, the passage quoted above is not referring to ALL Jews, but to the type of anti-Christian Jews who directly opposed the Gospel (see Romans 9:6-7). The CCC above is not talking about anti-Christian Jews, but about Jews in general --about people who happen to subscribe to Judaism. Merely being a Jew does not make one especially responsible for the death of Christ.

contiued…

 

[Genesis315]

The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the dispersion of the Jews was due to their rejection of the Messiah, a rejection which continues to implicate them as a people unfaithful to God and therefore abandoned (cursed) by Him. >>>>>

Two things: The Jewish dispersion did not happen because of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. That is a common distortion of history. As a simple reading of the New Testament will show you, Jews were dispersed long before A.D. 70 (St. Paul was one of these Jews of the Diaspora --a native of Tarsus in modern-day Turkey). Before the coming of Christ, there were Jewish communities all over the known world (see Acts 2:5-11). Also, even after A.D. 70, Jews continued to live in Palestine, and even in Jerusalem itself, until about A.D. 130, when the SECOND Jewish war against Rome (the Bar-Kochba rebellion) led to their banishment from Mt. Zion itself. And, even after this time, there continued to be a very visible Jewish element in the Church itself, especially in Palestine. Both St. Hegessipus (c. A.D. 100) and St. Epiphanius (c. A.D. 350) bear witness to this. Both of these men were Jewish Christians from Palestine. As for the Temple, the Temple was destroyed because the Old Covenant ceased to be the reigning Covenant, and was succeeded by the New Covenant in Christ. It was not destroyed as a “punishment” to Jews per se, but as a sign, and to illustrate the fact that one can no longer properly observe the Old Covenant, since there is no Temple and no Levitical priesthood to offer the prescribed sacrifices. This does not make modern Jews “cursed,” but rather “disenfranchised.” In essence, it puts them in the same position as the Samaritans were in during the 1st Century. The Samaritans continued to worship as Israelites had always worshipped BEFORE God’s Covenant with David and the establishment of the Temple at Jerusalem (see John 4:20-22). But, once the Davidic Covenant was established, this older Israelite religion was no longer the reigning Covenant, and one could only offer sacrifices at the Jerusalem Temple itself. However, this did not mean that God “cursed” the Samaritans or considered them to be His enemies, even though they were technically heretics, as are modern-day Jews. Rather, Jesus treated the Samaritans with great love and respect. We owe the same love and respect to well-meaning, modern-day Jews, even though they do not subscribe to the reigning Covenant, but are “left behind” like the Samaritans before them.

St. Alphonsus Liguori writes: Poor Jews! You invoked a dreadful curse upon your own heads; and that curse miserable race, you carry upon you to this day, and to the End of Time you shall endure the chastisement of that innocent blood! (The Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, p.444).>>>>>

Again, taken out of context. St. Alphonsus is not referring to the guilt of sin, but to the EFFECTS of sin. Because of the sins of their ancestors (that is, of the leaders of Judaism --principally, the High Priest and the Sanhedrin), modern-day Jews suffer the damage of being excluded from the Covenant of Jesus Christ and of the many benefits (both spiritual and temporal …in St. Alphonsus’ day, social) that come with it. St. Alphonsus is NOT saying that modern-day Jews are PERSONALLY GUILTY of murdering Jesus. Rather, he is saying that they suffer from “the curse” (that is, the result) of their forefathers’ sins. Big difference. This is the difference between formal heresy (being guilty of the SIN of heresy) and material heresy (being a heretic by birth, or out of ignorance, but not personally guilty of the sin). The statement above can just as easily be applied to modern-day Protestants. However, Protestants living today are clearly not guilty of the same SIN (breaking faith with the Catholic Church) that the first Protestant reformers were guilty of. However, modern-day Protestants (e.g. cradle Lutherans or Presbyterians) still suffer from the RESULT of their forefathers sins (e.g. they lack the true Eucharist, etc.). Notice also how St. Aphonsus expresses charitable ***pity ***for the Jews (e.g. “Poor Jews.”). One does not express pity to one who is intentionally guilty of sin (and so personally deserves the punishment) but to one who is unfortunately damaged and deserving of pity. This alone gives the proper context of St. Alphonsius’ statement.

 

[Genesis315]

St. Basil the Great writes: "And such are the prayers of the Jews, for when they stretch forth their hands in prayer, they only remind God the Father of their sin against His Son. And at every stretching forth of their hands, they only make it obvious that they are stained with the blood of Christ. For they who persevere in their blindness inherit the blood-guilt of their fathers; for they cried out: “His blood be on us and on our children” [Mt. 27:25] (On Prayer, Sermon IX).>>>>

Again, taken out of context. St. Basil is referring to the validity of Liturgy --the public worship of the Church compared to the public worship of Judaism. What he is essentially saying is that all Jewish prayer is tied intrinsically to the Cross of Christ and “under its shadow,” so to speak. What this means is that Jewish prayer has no power on its own (this is Basil’s intended point), but Christ is the only Mediator between God and man (“No one comes to the Father except through me”) and so Christian Liturgical prayer is superior to Jewish liturgical prayer. What Basil is NOT saying, however, is that God refuses to hear the prayer of a Jew. This is a common mis-interpretation of Basil. Rather, his point is that Jewish prayer is inherently flawed because Judaism suffers from the RESULT of rejecting Christ —the damage created by the 1st Century forefathers of the Jews known to Basil (and to us today). And so, no prayer is heard based on the merits of post-Christic Judaism itself. However, God can still hear the prayer of a well-meaning Jewish INDIVIDUAL, based on the mercy of Christ and the merits of the Old Covenant which continues to exist WITHIN the New Covenant of the Church, and ONLY within the New Covenant of the Church, from which all graces flow. This is an all-important distinction, and it is often ignored by both orthodox Catholics who are faithful to Vatican II and by SSPX schismatics. This is the ancient Catholic principal of “ecclesia supplex” --“the Church supplies the grace.” While Catholics recognize that non-Catholic heretical Christians (e.g. Protestants) can validly Baptize, no Protestant has the power or authority to Baptize on his own. Rather, it is only when a Protestant does what the Catholic Church intends to do (when it Baptizes) that a valid Baptism is performed …because the grace of the Protestant Baptism flows from the Catholic Church. The same is true of modern-day Jewish worship of God. If a modern-day Jew keeps the Commandments and stives to live in a way that is pleasing to God, he cannot do this on his own or based on the merits of post-Christic Judaism.

Rather, if this Jew does anything pleasing to God, it is because he is doing what the Catholic Church intends to do; for it is WITHIN the New Covenant of the Catholic Church that the Old Covenant continues to exist and to manifest itself; and if a modern-day Jew lives in accord with this Old Covenant, then Divine grace comes, not from Judaism, but from the Catholic Church, with which this Jew is expressing a valid solidarity --that is, a solidarity with Christ Himself, Who is the Lord of both the New Covenant and the Old Covenant.

These statements do not imply “anti-Semitism,” a term which denotes race-hatred; still less did such statements cause the Holocaust, a ritual of human sacrifice which included Catholics such as St. Maximilian Kolbe, carried out by the Masonic-Occult SS members under Hitler, who tried to eliminate Catholicism as well. >>>>>

The Nazis were occultist, but they were not Masons. It is all-too-common for SSPX members to ascribe all evil in the world to the Masons. They are the traditional “boogie-men” of the SSPX.

 

[Genesis315]

But to use the Holocaust as a pretext for overturning truths essential to salvation (and the Jews must return to their Messiah to be saved) is worse than the Holocaust, >>>>>

No true Catholic is saying that Jews (or anyone else) can be saved apart from Jesus Christ. The issue here is whether or not some Jews are Christ’s disciples without knowing that they are. See Matt 25:31-40. Here, Jesus is clearly speaking to non-Christians who, in manifesting sincere charity toward His “brothers” (that is, to Christians), possess a charitable relationship with Christ Himself. Many Jews are in this position. See also Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan …again, keeping in mind that the 1st Century Samaritans were in the same position (in relation to the reigning Covenant) as modern-day Jews.

for the first event merely kills the body (admittedly a great evil), while robbing the Jews of the means of salvation consigns their souls to hell (an infinite evil). Hence this seemingly charitable passage about the Jews in the Catechism is in reality an abandonment of all charity for the Jews and a true act of anti-Semitism. >>>>>

Wrong. That is a rash assumption and a profound mischaracterization of what the CCC is addressing.

THE OLD COVENANT STILL EXISTS!

CCC, 840: “And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah.” Extending the above error, this passage is a misleading absurdity, since the Old Covenant no longer exists due to the Jews’ rejection of the Messiah, who has already come! >>>>>

Wrong. The Old Covenant DOES still exist. It is contained within the New Covenant. Scripture and Sacred Tradition are VERY clear about this, and Rome has ALWAYS preserved this Apostolic truth, yet the SSPX consistently ignores it. See, for example, Matt 5:17-20. There is no way to reconcile this passage with the SSPX view the the Old Covenant “no longer exists.” However, it fits very well with the orthodox Catholic understanding that the Old Covenant continues to exist within the New Covenant.

St. Vincent Ferrer writes: Since His spouse, the Synagogue, refused to receive Him, Christ answered, “This is a harlot!” and gave her a bill of divorce (Sermons). >>>>

Needless to say, St. Vincent is not referring to the notion that “the Old Covenant no longer exists.” Rather, his reference is to apostate, anti-Christian Judaism, which is something distinct and different from the faith of a well-meaning Jew who harbors no animosity toward Christianity, but is merely prevented from accepting Christ because of social and cultural obstacles. The SSPX makes no provision for this difficulty. It does not address substantive reality (with all its challenges), but seeks to reduce everything to some “Jew vs. Christian” melodrama. God is bigger than this, however, and He calls us to greater maturity.

 

[Genesis315]

Scripture declares: "Christ annuls the First Covenant to establish the Second…For, if that First Covenant had been faultless, then there would be no place for the Second. They did not persevere in My Covenant, saith the Lord, and I disregarded them (Heb. 10:9; 8:7-9).>>>>

An oldie but a goodie. This verse is often used by anti-Jewish supersessionists (as opposed to true supersessionists …that is, orthodox Catholics) to argue for the end of the Old Covenant. However, a comprehensive reading of Scripture (and of Hebrews itself) does not allow for this. What the author of Hebrews is referring to above is not the notion that the Old Covenant has ceased to exist or lacks any value before God, etc. Rather, what is being referring to is the idea that the Old Covenant is no longer ACTIVE or REIGNING --that Jewish worship and offering Temple sacrifices are no longer the way to please God, but this has all been replaced by Christ’s Sacrifice. Ergo, the Old Covenant is no longer*** the reigning*** Covenant and has no power or benefit in and of itself. However, the Old Covenant DOES still continue to exist **within **the New Covenant (the reigining Covenant), and can still be accessed in and through this reigning Covenant. The Old Covenant is the Word of God, and the Word of God will “NEVER pass away.” …for that Word is Christ Himself. So, as far as God is concerned, the Old Covenant remains. However, it remains within the New Covenant, which clarifies it and fulfills it. And so, if a modern-day Jew sincerely holds to the Old Covenant, he is (in a mysterious way) exhibiting some kind of relationship with Jesus Christ …even though he does not realize it. However, as I already said, the Old Covenant has no value or worth apart from Jesus Christ (it never did); and so the Jew who pits the Old Covenant against Christ cannot be saved. But the Jew who sincerely holds to the Old Covenant without intentionally pitting it against Christ, CAN be saved …that is, BY Jesus Christ, Who is the Lord of the Old Covenant, and Who continues to honor and preserve the Old Covenant within the righteousness of His New Covenant. …and so He can, and does, honor the sincere (albeit flawed) intention of the Jew to “do what the Church intends to do,” thus establishing some kind of solidarity with Christ Himself. Christ is not looking to throw people into hell. He is looking for contrite hearts that He can call to and communicate with. Jews, who through no fault of their own, were born outside of the New Covenant and have all sorts of social and cultural barriers which do not allow them to seek membership in the Catholic Church, often possess such contrite hearts; and Christ can work with this and build upon this, as can we.

 

[Genesis315]

Finally, to compare the “similarities” of expecting the Messiah’s first and second coming, when one act implies a rejection of Him, is as ridiculous as comparing the acts of worship of a Satanist and a Catholic, since both are similar in that they are undeniably acts of worship. The obvious rejoinder is that the differences far outweigh the similarities.>>>>

This is simply a thoughtless and illogical thing to say. A Satanist is defined by his rejection of Jesus Christ. A Jew is not defined in such a way. A Jew is merely someone who seeks to remain faithful to the customs, traditions, and beliefs of his Israelite ancestors. It does not necessarily follow that one rejects Christ because of this. There were a great many ancient Jewish Christians who continued to practice Judaism even after their acceptance of Christ (see Acts 21:20). Being a Jew does not mean that one rejects Christ, whether formally or implicitly. A great many modern-day Jews have respect and reverence for the Name of Christ, even though they do not formally believe that He is the Messiah. This does not put them in the same category as Satantist, I’m sorry.

The CCC recognizes that both Christians and Jews await the Messiah in order to acknowledge the fact that we share a central tenet of the Old Covenant faith in common. There are many things wrong with modern, post-Christic Judaism. But, their expectation of a Messiah is not one of them. The Jews RIGHTLY expect the coming of a Messiah Who will reconcile the fallen universe with the God of Israel. Their only shortcoming in this is their failure to appreciate Who this Messiah is --that He is Jesus Christ. That’s going to be a little suprise for them on the Last Day. But, the quality of their faith as well-meaning Jews will be tested and proven at this time. If, seeing that Christ is the promised Messiah, they can bow in sincere love and submission to Him (to the Messiah they were faithfully waiting for, now finally revealed), then these well-meaning Jews will be saved and will find a place in the flock of Christ, to which they justly belong (see: Matt 25:31-40). But, if an anti-Christian Jew continues to be anti-Christian in his heart when the Lord returns, then he of course will not be able to fool anyone, and his unyielding opposition to Christ will condemn him. Again, it is anti-Christian Judaism that is condemned by Scripture and Tradition. A Jew who is outside of the Church because of ignorance or some other such obstacle is not under condemnation.

I hope that helps!

 

[Augustine22]

Genesis-

A lot of good information there. Thank you. I would not go to Robert Sungenis for anything about Jews. He is very prejudiced against them.

www.sungenisandthejews.com

and

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=273

 

[Struggling]

Hmm…I think the whole question “has the old covenant been revoked?” is flawed.

Jesus is THE covenant between God and Man. Jesus IS the Old Covenant, Jesus IS the New Covenant.

Jesus Christ is what is forshadowed and promised in the Old, and He is what is Revealed and saves in the New.

Therefore, as many Catholics rightly say, the Old Covenant was Fullfilled, not revoked or abolished.

Is it salvific? It never really was until it’s fullfillment in Jesus Christ, which is why Jesus had to descend to the dead. It was a promise of a future thing which has now occured.

It is true that knowledge of the symbols and belief in the prophecies of the Old Covenant may lead Jews to accept Christ more easily than Gentiles who are completely out of that paradigm…and the sayings of the recent popes can be interpretted in that light…but I would hardly call it “salvific” without Jesus Christ.

However, “supersessionism” is an interesting term. I would say the Catholic teaching is more like “secessionism” NOT “supersessionism” as we still see a concern for Jews even after Jesus in the prophecy of the Conversion of the Jews at the end of time. Though the Church is the proper continuation of Israel…there is still one loose end to tie up with the Hebrew people (and that loose end IS Jesus Christ, just as the Old Covenant IS Jesus Christ, and the New Covenant IS Jesus Christ)