H
Hypnotoad
Guest
[BIBLEDRB] John 1:41 [/BIBLEDRB]
Well Andrew was a jew and He called Christ the Messiah.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]
Looks like Christ is the Messiah for all of us.
- Status
Well Andrew was a jew and He called Christ the Messiah.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]
Looks like Christ is the Messiah for all of us.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
I don’t mean to side-track the thread, but YanniP (who seems to have joined CAF just to criticize this article) could not have actually read it before making such claims about what it says. Far from attempting “to slide in the recent heresy of claiming Jews as racial Jews have an eternal covenant that was not abrogated or fulfilled in Christ”, the article repeatedly rejects the dual-covenant heresy. Here are some quotes from the article:
The New Covenant in Christ has superseded the Mosaic (or “Old”) covenant.** The term ‘supersession,’** which was first used by an Anglican minister, has subsequently been used by some Catholics to describe this truth. It appears in no magisterial texts; yet, as originally used, it does accurately describe Catholic teaching.
The first, commonly known as the dual covenant theory, holds not only that the Jewish people retain a special relationship with God (which is true), but also that they have their own path to salvation through Judaism and therefore do not need to be—and should not be—presented with the Gospel and invited to expressly enter the Church (which is false).
While the Church continues to grapple with certain nuances in the relationship among Jews, Christians, and God, she has never taught the dual covenant theory…
the dual covenant theory…fundamentally compromises the Church’s Great Commission, given by Christ (cf. Mt. 28:18–20). Additionally, the public advocacy of this theory has created an unwarranted expectation among our Jewish brethren that in turn leads to their understandable frustration each time** the Church reaffirms that the Gospel and the Church are for all men**.
the dual covenant theory holds…that [the Jewish people] have their own path to salvation through Judaism and therefore do not need to be—and should not be—presented with the Gospel and invited to expressly enter the Church (which is false).
The Scriptures, the Fathers, and the Magisterium consistently testify that** the Good News of Jesus Christ and His Church is for all men—Jew and Gentile alike**.
God has given man one sure path to salvation, and that path is through** the definitive and universal covenant in Jesus Christ by means of His Church. It is a serious error to direct anyone away from that sure path, regardless of the intention.**
Since Vatican II, in continuity with magisterial teaching such as the Council of Florence (1439) and Mystici Corporis (1943), the Church has consistently reaffirmed the universality of the Gospel and the Church. [11] In Lumen Gentium (1964), the Church affirmed that God “chose the race of Israel as a people” and “set up a covenant” with them, instructing them and making them holy. However, “all these things . . . were done by way of preparation and as a figure of that new and perfect covenant” instituted by and ratified in Christ (no. 9). In Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism (1985), we read that the** “Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as two parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer of all.”**
The specific, external form of the Mosaic covenant—such as the legal prescriptions and the temple sacrifice of animals—was indeed abolished with the commencement of the New Covenant. But the underlying substance—from the moral precepts to the foundational principles of sacrifice and worship—is fulfilled and transformed by Christ. In and through Christ, the Mosaic covenant is thus actualized and subsumed into the New Covenant.
For those who might be interested, I have written another article which lays out additional evidence from Scripture and the Magisterium on this topic here.
But directly to the thread topic, as we said in the article, yes Jesus Christ is most certainly the Messiah for the Jews.
Y
YanniP
Guest
Mr. Palm, thank you for your reply. I have read your article, hence my comment and concern. Overall, you do a pretty good job in the article, but there is an underlying thread that simply pushes the envelope, into novelty or modernity. For starters, your first point in your reply is simply false and probably more important then it seems. Superseded is used in the Roman Catechism, very clearly in Part II “On the Sacraments.” - “Thus much will suffice in explanation of the word Sacrament: and indeed, what we have said applies equally to the Sacraments of the old law: but superseded, as they have been, by the gospel law and grace, instruction regarding them were superfluous.” and, in fact, by Pope John Paul II when he stated that the Mosaic Law was superseded, while also differentiating the part I think you are missing - that the fulfillment was of the Abrahamic Covenant, not any part of the Mosaic.(see Redemptoris Mater, Fn 2) For some reason, it appears you are attempting to retain something from the Mosaic Covenant to make Jews special as Jews, which theme runs through your paper, including your misuse of Romans 11:28 which misses that the eternal gifts and call are from the Gospel. Yes Jews are in the family of God, but not because of the lingering of an abrogated and superseded covenant, but because they are of the Imago Dei. Men, like us. But, instead of arguing points, let’s keep it simple for this forum. I came up with these points, which I believe are well supported in Catholic Truth. Do you agree or disagree with any?
- The Sinai/Mosaic Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ.
- The salvific dimension of the Abrahamic Covenant is eternal and is both founded and fulfilled in Christ.
- As superseeded and abrogated, the Mosaic Law and other non-Abrahamic Covenants are not Salvific.
- The salvific dimension of the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant in Christ are one in the same.
- Christ fulfills the divine promise to Abraham and supersedes the old Mosaic Law.
- The temporal Covenant promising the land of Canaan has been completely fulfilled.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Yanni, you write, “Overall, you do a pretty good job in the article.”
I appreciate that. So, I assume you retract this initial statement then?
There are significant errors in it, and conclusions that simply are not Catholic teaching. I’m amazed that they got it published. The authors attempt to slide in the recent heresy of claiming Jews as racial Jews have an eternal covenant that was not abrogated or fulfilled in Christ.
Charges that we “slide in” a heresy are not to be taken lightly. I showed above that we did no such thing. I would ask you please to retract your claim and apologize for making such a rash statement.
Your point about “supersessionism” is also incorrect. The Catholic Church has never used the term “supersessionism” in any magisterial document. Period. You missed that we mentioned footnote #2 of* Redemptoris Mater* (RM) in “All in the Family”, so we were already aware of the use of the English word “supersedes” there. But as we pointed out, there’s an important difference between the term “supersede” and the term “supersessionism”. “Supersessionism” is a loaded term that means different things to different people, like “proselytism”. See here and here for a discussion of that point. So what we stated is correct: “supersessionism” is a term of non-Catholic origin that has never been used in Catholic magisterial texts. It would be prudent to use more solidly Catholic terms when discussing this issue.
Your citation of the* Roman Catechism* doesn’t contradict anything we wrote, either. Again, the (English) word used in the translation of the Roman Catechism was “superseded”, not “supersessionism.”
But that’s English. That raises the point that we’ve previously mentioned: RM and the* Roman Catechism* were originally written in Latin, not English. And the Latin word used in RM is “excedat” from “excedere.” This is most commonly translated as “to exceed, leave or pass beyond”. We found no Latin/English dictionary that translates “excedere” specifically as “to supersede.” And the Latin text of the Roman Catechism is unambiguously speaking of the “sacraments” under the Mosaic Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant itself. Of course we would agree that the sacraments of the Mosaic Covenant are abolished (sublata sint) by the Sacraments of the New Covenant.
You write, “For some reason, it appears you are attempting to retain something from the Mosaic Covenant to make Jews special as Jews.”
That’s not what we were attempting to do. As we stated in the article, God’s love and concern for the Jewish people pre-dates the Mosaic covenant. It isn’t dependent upon the status of that covenant. St. Paul states that they are most dear for the sake of the Fathers of Israel. Lumen Gentium 16 says that, “in view of the divine choice electionem], they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom 11:28-29).” Or as Nostra Aetate 4 puts it: “As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading. Nevertheless, God holds [NB: present tense] the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers”.
For more on the Jewish people - non-Catholic Jews – being “family” in a certain sense, please read:
Are the Jewish People “Family”?
Regarding Romans 11:28, I invite you to review another article I wrote that goes into greater detail:
Sungenis on Romans 11: Theological Bias in Biblical Exegesis
Please pay particular attention to these two sections:
Are the Jewish People “Family”?
Sacred Scripture on the Jews in Salvation History
You write, “Yes Jews are in the family of God, but not because of the lingering of an abrogated and superseded covenant.”
Again, we didn’t write that. We never once made the connection with the Mosaic Covenant that you are inserting into this discussion.
I would also point out that when we used the phrase “Jews as Jews”, all we meant was that God has an abiding interest in His earthly “first-born” (Ex. 4:22), even those who haven’t yet converted. And His interest is because of the Fathers of Israel. Thus the phrase, “Jews as Jews”, as opposed to “only Jews who have become Catholic”. The person you seem to be getting your information from has made much ado about this phrase, but he simply misunderstood our meaning. You might also want to read this section for more on why what we wrote isn’t “spiritual racism”:
Sibling Jealousy and Racism?
~
I appreciate that. So, I assume you retract this initial statement then?
There are significant errors in it, and conclusions that simply are not Catholic teaching. I’m amazed that they got it published. The authors attempt to slide in the recent heresy of claiming Jews as racial Jews have an eternal covenant that was not abrogated or fulfilled in Christ.
Charges that we “slide in” a heresy are not to be taken lightly. I showed above that we did no such thing. I would ask you please to retract your claim and apologize for making such a rash statement.
Your point about “supersessionism” is also incorrect. The Catholic Church has never used the term “supersessionism” in any magisterial document. Period. You missed that we mentioned footnote #2 of* Redemptoris Mater* (RM) in “All in the Family”, so we were already aware of the use of the English word “supersedes” there. But as we pointed out, there’s an important difference between the term “supersede” and the term “supersessionism”. “Supersessionism” is a loaded term that means different things to different people, like “proselytism”. See here and here for a discussion of that point. So what we stated is correct: “supersessionism” is a term of non-Catholic origin that has never been used in Catholic magisterial texts. It would be prudent to use more solidly Catholic terms when discussing this issue.
Your citation of the* Roman Catechism* doesn’t contradict anything we wrote, either. Again, the (English) word used in the translation of the Roman Catechism was “superseded”, not “supersessionism.”
But that’s English. That raises the point that we’ve previously mentioned: RM and the* Roman Catechism* were originally written in Latin, not English. And the Latin word used in RM is “excedat” from “excedere.” This is most commonly translated as “to exceed, leave or pass beyond”. We found no Latin/English dictionary that translates “excedere” specifically as “to supersede.” And the Latin text of the Roman Catechism is unambiguously speaking of the “sacraments” under the Mosaic Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant itself. Of course we would agree that the sacraments of the Mosaic Covenant are abolished (sublata sint) by the Sacraments of the New Covenant.
You write, “For some reason, it appears you are attempting to retain something from the Mosaic Covenant to make Jews special as Jews.”
That’s not what we were attempting to do. As we stated in the article, God’s love and concern for the Jewish people pre-dates the Mosaic covenant. It isn’t dependent upon the status of that covenant. St. Paul states that they are most dear for the sake of the Fathers of Israel. Lumen Gentium 16 says that, “in view of the divine choice electionem], they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom 11:28-29).” Or as Nostra Aetate 4 puts it: “As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation, nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading. Nevertheless, God holds [NB: present tense] the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers”.
For more on the Jewish people - non-Catholic Jews – being “family” in a certain sense, please read:
Are the Jewish People “Family”?
Regarding Romans 11:28, I invite you to review another article I wrote that goes into greater detail:
Sungenis on Romans 11: Theological Bias in Biblical Exegesis
Please pay particular attention to these two sections:
Are the Jewish People “Family”?
Sacred Scripture on the Jews in Salvation History
You write, “Yes Jews are in the family of God, but not because of the lingering of an abrogated and superseded covenant.”
Again, we didn’t write that. We never once made the connection with the Mosaic Covenant that you are inserting into this discussion.
I would also point out that when we used the phrase “Jews as Jews”, all we meant was that God has an abiding interest in His earthly “first-born” (Ex. 4:22), even those who haven’t yet converted. And His interest is because of the Fathers of Israel. Thus the phrase, “Jews as Jews”, as opposed to “only Jews who have become Catholic”. The person you seem to be getting your information from has made much ado about this phrase, but he simply misunderstood our meaning. You might also want to read this section for more on why what we wrote isn’t “spiritual racism”:
Sibling Jealousy and Racism?
~
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Then you write, “and, in fact, by Pope John Paul II when he stated that the Mosaic Law was superseded, while also differentiating the part I think you are missing - that the fulfillment was of the Abrahamic Covenant, not any part of the Mosaic.”
You’re creating a false dichotomy. This is a both/and, not an either/or. The Mosaic covenant was superseded AND fulfilled by the New Covenant in Christ. Remember, Christ said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” And writing as head of the CDF, our current Holy Father wrote, “In this Torah, which is Jesus himself, the abiding essence of what was inscribed on the stone tablets at Sinai is now written in living flesh, namely, the twofold commandment of love. . . . To imitate him, to follow him in discipleship, is therefore to keep Torah, which has been fulfilled in him once and for all. Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded.”
Again - see “fulfilled” and “superseded” in the very same context about the “Sinai covenant”. Both/and. Not either/or.
You might want to pick up Many Religions, One Covenant by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. It gives some very helpful insights into the relationship between the covenants.
I would also recommending reading this article, especially the last comment underneath the article by Michael Forrest and me: On the Relationship Between the Jewish People and God.
Regarding your following points:
1. The Sinai/Mosaic Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ.
We already stated exactly this in “All in the Family” Here are our exact words: “the New Covenant in Christ superseded the Mosaic covenant (which is true)” (my emphasis). So, I agree, as long as one does not subscribe to what Cardinal Avery Dulles has described as a “crude” or extreme form of supersessionism. See also the second half of “All in the Family” that begins with “Israel: Irrelevant?”. And I would suggest reading the following for more on that issue: https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151556
**2. The salvific dimension of the Abrahamic Covenant is eternal and is both founded and fulfilled in Christ. **
Agreed.
3. As superseeded [sic] and abrogated, the Mosaic Law and other non-Abrahamic Covenants are not Salvific.
Agreed. But the Church seems to prefer words like “fulfilled” because terms like “abrogated” and “revoked” can imply a break in salvation history rather than maintaining organic continuity. For more on that, scroll down to “Revoked?”: sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151556
**4. The salvific dimension of the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant in Christ are one in the same. **
Agreed.
5. Christ fulfills the divine promise to Abraham and supersedes the old Mosaic Law.
Agreed. But again, the Church seems to prefer the language of “fulfillment” even in relation to the Mosaic Law. Christ also fulfilled the Mosaic Law. Remember, also, that there were various aspects to the Mosaic Covenant. The Law was one such aspect, but there were also the ceremonies, the sacrificial system, etc. No Catholic should be faulted for choosing to use the same emphases of language that the Church herself uses.
6. The temporal Covenant promising the land of Canaan has been completely fulfilled.
Unlike the other points, I see no evidence that the Church has ever taken an official position on this question. In fact, to the question, “In your opinion, what is the most explicit Magisterial pronouncement against Zionism?”, even Bob Sungenis himself said, “to my knowledge, there is none” (Ask Your Question About the Jews) But please don’t make the false assumption that this means I’m a Zionist. I’m not. I am at best agnostic on the matter. For more on that, read: Are You Anti-Semitic?.
I hope this helps.
~
You’re creating a false dichotomy. This is a both/and, not an either/or. The Mosaic covenant was superseded AND fulfilled by the New Covenant in Christ. Remember, Christ said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” And writing as head of the CDF, our current Holy Father wrote, “In this Torah, which is Jesus himself, the abiding essence of what was inscribed on the stone tablets at Sinai is now written in living flesh, namely, the twofold commandment of love. . . . To imitate him, to follow him in discipleship, is therefore to keep Torah, which has been fulfilled in him once and for all. Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded.”
Again - see “fulfilled” and “superseded” in the very same context about the “Sinai covenant”. Both/and. Not either/or.
You might want to pick up Many Religions, One Covenant by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. It gives some very helpful insights into the relationship between the covenants.
I would also recommending reading this article, especially the last comment underneath the article by Michael Forrest and me: On the Relationship Between the Jewish People and God.
Regarding your following points:
1. The Sinai/Mosaic Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ.
We already stated exactly this in “All in the Family” Here are our exact words: “the New Covenant in Christ superseded the Mosaic covenant (which is true)” (my emphasis). So, I agree, as long as one does not subscribe to what Cardinal Avery Dulles has described as a “crude” or extreme form of supersessionism. See also the second half of “All in the Family” that begins with “Israel: Irrelevant?”. And I would suggest reading the following for more on that issue: https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151556
**2. The salvific dimension of the Abrahamic Covenant is eternal and is both founded and fulfilled in Christ. **
Agreed.
3. As superseeded [sic] and abrogated, the Mosaic Law and other non-Abrahamic Covenants are not Salvific.
Agreed. But the Church seems to prefer words like “fulfilled” because terms like “abrogated” and “revoked” can imply a break in salvation history rather than maintaining organic continuity. For more on that, scroll down to “Revoked?”: sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151556
**4. The salvific dimension of the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant in Christ are one in the same. **
Agreed.
5. Christ fulfills the divine promise to Abraham and supersedes the old Mosaic Law.
Agreed. But again, the Church seems to prefer the language of “fulfillment” even in relation to the Mosaic Law. Christ also fulfilled the Mosaic Law. Remember, also, that there were various aspects to the Mosaic Covenant. The Law was one such aspect, but there were also the ceremonies, the sacrificial system, etc. No Catholic should be faulted for choosing to use the same emphases of language that the Church herself uses.
6. The temporal Covenant promising the land of Canaan has been completely fulfilled.
Unlike the other points, I see no evidence that the Church has ever taken an official position on this question. In fact, to the question, “In your opinion, what is the most explicit Magisterial pronouncement against Zionism?”, even Bob Sungenis himself said, “to my knowledge, there is none” (Ask Your Question About the Jews) But please don’t make the false assumption that this means I’m a Zionist. I’m not. I am at best agnostic on the matter. For more on that, read: Are You Anti-Semitic?.
I hope this helps.
~
R
Robert_Sungenis
Guest
Mr. Palm,
I was waiting for you to continue the discussion you started on my website (www.catholicintl.com) but since you didn’t come back, I thought I would continue the discussion with you here on the CA forum.
Would be so kind, in light of your above statements, to answer these questions for us so that we can have more clarification of what your precise position is and where it is supported?
If you would also be so kind as to provide concise answers (e.g., a couple of sentences for each question) since that will make the process easier and more productive. I will not be consulting any of your URLs, so you need not provide them. I’m really only interested in the root of your thesis.
#1: Does Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach that the Mosaic covenant is only partially revoked or fully revoked?
#2: You write: “the Church seems to prefer words like ‘fulfilled’ because terms like ‘abrogated’ and ‘revoked’ can imply a break in salvation history rather than maintaining organic continuity.” As such, do you not believe that the Mosaic covenant can be abrogated or superseded and yet still have “organic continuity” in the NT?
#3: If there is an “organic continuity” of the Mosaic covenant, are you suggesting that because this covenant was Jewish in origin it continues organically in the NT specifically to provide a “special relationship” between God and the Jews? If so, where does the Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach this?
#4: Where does the Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach that there is a difference between “supercede” and “supersessionism”?
#5: How do you interpret passages such as Hebrews 7:18; 8:13; 10:9 where Greek words much closer to “abrogate” and “supersede” are used rather than words like “fulfillment” used in Matthew 5:18?
#6: Where does the Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach that all Jews have a special relationship with God, just because they are Jews, and, more importantly, what do you mean by “special relationship”?
#7: Where does the Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach that, as you wrote, all “Jewish people - non-Catholic Jews – being “family” in a certain sense”? More importantly, what does “certain sense” mean?
#8: Since Lumen Gentium 16 and Nostra Aetate 4 are merely quoting Scripture, please tell us how you conclude from these two documents that all Jews still have a “special relationship” with God (after, of course, you define what you mean by “special relationship”). In other words, where does Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium confirm your interpretation of these Scripture quotes?
#9: What does it mean when you say: “God has an abiding interest in His earthly ‘first-born’ (Ex. 4:22), even those who haven’t yet converted,” in light of the fact that God has an abiding interest in all people who have not yet converted, e.g., John 3:16?
#10: Why is it that you never mention the distinction that Jesus, St. Paul and the other NT writers make between ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel, as for example in Romans 9:6 and Romans 11:5-11?
#11: How can you prove that “and His interest is because of the Fathers of Israel” means that only unconverted Jews have “God’s abiding interest” but that Gentiles do not have “God’s abiding interest,” especially in light of Galatians 3:8: “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” (RSV)
#12: To the issue about the land of Palestine you write: “I see no evidence that the Church has ever taken an official position on this question.” Before we research that issue, you have not dealt with the Scripture passages on this subject, and the Church holds Scripture as its authority. Those passages are Joshua 21:43-45; 1 Kings 8:56 and Nehemiah 9:7-8. Would you please interpret those passages for us (the same as you have ventured to interpret other Scriptures without any precise Church exegesis of “official position”)
Thank you for your time,
Robert Sungenis
I was waiting for you to continue the discussion you started on my website (www.catholicintl.com) but since you didn’t come back, I thought I would continue the discussion with you here on the CA forum.
Would be so kind, in light of your above statements, to answer these questions for us so that we can have more clarification of what your precise position is and where it is supported?
If you would also be so kind as to provide concise answers (e.g., a couple of sentences for each question) since that will make the process easier and more productive. I will not be consulting any of your URLs, so you need not provide them. I’m really only interested in the root of your thesis.
#1: Does Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach that the Mosaic covenant is only partially revoked or fully revoked?
#2: You write: “the Church seems to prefer words like ‘fulfilled’ because terms like ‘abrogated’ and ‘revoked’ can imply a break in salvation history rather than maintaining organic continuity.” As such, do you not believe that the Mosaic covenant can be abrogated or superseded and yet still have “organic continuity” in the NT?
#3: If there is an “organic continuity” of the Mosaic covenant, are you suggesting that because this covenant was Jewish in origin it continues organically in the NT specifically to provide a “special relationship” between God and the Jews? If so, where does the Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach this?
#4: Where does the Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach that there is a difference between “supercede” and “supersessionism”?
#5: How do you interpret passages such as Hebrews 7:18; 8:13; 10:9 where Greek words much closer to “abrogate” and “supersede” are used rather than words like “fulfillment” used in Matthew 5:18?
#6: Where does the Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach that all Jews have a special relationship with God, just because they are Jews, and, more importantly, what do you mean by “special relationship”?
#7: Where does the Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach that, as you wrote, all “Jewish people - non-Catholic Jews – being “family” in a certain sense”? More importantly, what does “certain sense” mean?
#8: Since Lumen Gentium 16 and Nostra Aetate 4 are merely quoting Scripture, please tell us how you conclude from these two documents that all Jews still have a “special relationship” with God (after, of course, you define what you mean by “special relationship”). In other words, where does Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium confirm your interpretation of these Scripture quotes?
#9: What does it mean when you say: “God has an abiding interest in His earthly ‘first-born’ (Ex. 4:22), even those who haven’t yet converted,” in light of the fact that God has an abiding interest in all people who have not yet converted, e.g., John 3:16?
#10: Why is it that you never mention the distinction that Jesus, St. Paul and the other NT writers make between ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel, as for example in Romans 9:6 and Romans 11:5-11?
#11: How can you prove that “and His interest is because of the Fathers of Israel” means that only unconverted Jews have “God’s abiding interest” but that Gentiles do not have “God’s abiding interest,” especially in light of Galatians 3:8: “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” (RSV)
#12: To the issue about the land of Palestine you write: “I see no evidence that the Church has ever taken an official position on this question.” Before we research that issue, you have not dealt with the Scripture passages on this subject, and the Church holds Scripture as its authority. Those passages are Joshua 21:43-45; 1 Kings 8:56 and Nehemiah 9:7-8. Would you please interpret those passages for us (the same as you have ventured to interpret other Scriptures without any precise Church exegesis of “official position”)
Thank you for your time,
Robert Sungenis
Y
YanniP
Guest
Dear Mr. Palm:* Wow, that was a detailed response.* I can’t respond to every statement in this forum, so let me crystallize what I believe you are trying to say and focus on your answer to points 3 and 5.
Instead of relying on terms like superseded, abolished, abrogated or even “died”(See, Redemptoris Mater, Roman Catechism Part III discussing the Third Commandement, Pope Bendict XIV’s Encyclical Ex Quo 63 and Mystici Corporis Christi 30),* which words the Church has used in discussing the annulment of the entirety of the Mosaic Covenant, you feel it is too harsh and can lead to misunderstanding?**
I see your position as causing confusion in understanding where the “organic continuity” comes from; Abraham not Moses.* If the Old Law is dead and abolished, we should not allude to any remaining continuity.* The continuity has nothing to do with the law through Moses.*** I think clear statements such as the below from Old Testament theologians Dr. Paul Heinisch and Rev.* William Heidt are much more helpful:
“When the Gospel began to be preached to all peoples, this “shadow of things to come” Col 2:17 had to pass away.* With Christ’s death the Law was abrogated.* No one insisted upon this truth more resolutely or stated it more clearly than St. Paul. Acts 9:15.* “Christ is the consummation of the Law unto justice for everyone who believes.” Rm 10:4* The “taskmaster” no longer has any right or power.
Israel resembled a fig tree with much foliage but no fruit. Lk 13:6-9.* When toward the end of His mission Jesus found no fruit upon this fig tree, He cursed it and it withered forever, withered to its very roots.* Mt 21:18-20; Mk 11:13-20.* This was the last miracle He worked, the only miracle which was not directed toward gaining souls or alleviating human suffering.* He wept over impenitent Jerusalem, Lk 19:41, and prophesized ruin to the city and its temple.* Mt 24:2, 25:22; Lk 19:42-44.* The Jews believed it sufficient to have Abraham as father; Mt 3:9* they forgot that God’s choice of Abraham was an act of pure grace and that Abraham’s children were obliged to fulfill the divine will even as their forefather did.* Jn 8:39; Mt 3:9 When Israel rejected Him on whose account she had been chosen, she spelt her own rejection;* she became stale salt, “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a people yielding its fruits.”* Mt 21:43
Through the centuries a good and merciful God struggled, so to speak, for the love of that people, Mt 16:4, punishing them only to shower greater blessings upon them. Mt 46:5* Yet despite all warnings and admonitions Israel “had a face harder than stone and refused to amend.” Jer 5:3; Ez 2:4-5* “Give up!* We want to follow our own evil plans, each one of us wishes to act according to his own stubborn, evil notions.” Jer 18:12* God did not need Israel to realize His work.* He willed to retain the imperishable religious intent of the OT for His new kingdom, but first He detached His new foundation from ancient moorings lest Israel continue to impede His plan.* Membership in the new kingdom of God is not dependent upon physical descent form Abraham, Lk 19:9 but upon faith in Jesus and obedience to His words.* We become God’s children through the grace conferred upon the world through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Again, thank you for your long reply and I will study it and reply if it would be fruitful to discuss.*
As for your request to retract my first statement, I do retract and apologize for stating “slide in the recent heresy”, I still hold that you create an ambiguity which can lead to error and to a false understanding of covenant theology.*
Instead of relying on terms like superseded, abolished, abrogated or even “died”(See, Redemptoris Mater, Roman Catechism Part III discussing the Third Commandement, Pope Bendict XIV’s Encyclical Ex Quo 63 and Mystici Corporis Christi 30),* which words the Church has used in discussing the annulment of the entirety of the Mosaic Covenant, you feel it is too harsh and can lead to misunderstanding?**
I see your position as causing confusion in understanding where the “organic continuity” comes from; Abraham not Moses.* If the Old Law is dead and abolished, we should not allude to any remaining continuity.* The continuity has nothing to do with the law through Moses.*** I think clear statements such as the below from Old Testament theologians Dr. Paul Heinisch and Rev.* William Heidt are much more helpful:
“When the Gospel began to be preached to all peoples, this “shadow of things to come” Col 2:17 had to pass away.* With Christ’s death the Law was abrogated.* No one insisted upon this truth more resolutely or stated it more clearly than St. Paul. Acts 9:15.* “Christ is the consummation of the Law unto justice for everyone who believes.” Rm 10:4* The “taskmaster” no longer has any right or power.
Israel resembled a fig tree with much foliage but no fruit. Lk 13:6-9.* When toward the end of His mission Jesus found no fruit upon this fig tree, He cursed it and it withered forever, withered to its very roots.* Mt 21:18-20; Mk 11:13-20.* This was the last miracle He worked, the only miracle which was not directed toward gaining souls or alleviating human suffering.* He wept over impenitent Jerusalem, Lk 19:41, and prophesized ruin to the city and its temple.* Mt 24:2, 25:22; Lk 19:42-44.* The Jews believed it sufficient to have Abraham as father; Mt 3:9* they forgot that God’s choice of Abraham was an act of pure grace and that Abraham’s children were obliged to fulfill the divine will even as their forefather did.* Jn 8:39; Mt 3:9 When Israel rejected Him on whose account she had been chosen, she spelt her own rejection;* she became stale salt, “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a people yielding its fruits.”* Mt 21:43
Through the centuries a good and merciful God struggled, so to speak, for the love of that people, Mt 16:4, punishing them only to shower greater blessings upon them. Mt 46:5* Yet despite all warnings and admonitions Israel “had a face harder than stone and refused to amend.” Jer 5:3; Ez 2:4-5* “Give up!* We want to follow our own evil plans, each one of us wishes to act according to his own stubborn, evil notions.” Jer 18:12* God did not need Israel to realize His work.* He willed to retain the imperishable religious intent of the OT for His new kingdom, but first He detached His new foundation from ancient moorings lest Israel continue to impede His plan.* Membership in the new kingdom of God is not dependent upon physical descent form Abraham, Lk 19:9 but upon faith in Jesus and obedience to His words.* We become God’s children through the grace conferred upon the world through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Again, thank you for your long reply and I will study it and reply if it would be fruitful to discuss.*
As for your request to retract my first statement, I do retract and apologize for stating “slide in the recent heresy”, I still hold that you create an ambiguity which can lead to error and to a false understanding of covenant theology.*
Z
Zundrah
Guest
News to me.
I thought the Gentiles were a “denomination/sect” (if that’s the right term to use) of Jews?
D
DavidPalm
Guest
I hope that this is all still sufficiently on-topic for this thread. I guess we’ll let the moderators decide that.
Bob Sungenis wrote:
Would you be inclined to continue under those circumstances were the roles reversed? 
You also wrote:
Here’s what I propose to both you and your friend, YanniP. Please read (or re-read, as the case may be) the following pieces charitably (including the footnotes):
All in the Family: Christians, Jews, and God
On the Relationship Between the Jewish People and God (please also read the last long comment for further clarifications)
A Response to Robert Sungenis’ Critique of our Lay Witness Article
There is also more detailed analysis of the biblical and magisterial aspects of these questions here and I will be referring to the arguments made in that article in any subsequent discussion we might have.
Finally, please review what Michael Forrest and I have written specifically about “supersessionism” :
sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151555
sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151556
sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations#SupersessionismAgain
Then, if you still have specific questions perhaps we can discuss them charitably here.
I actually think that we’re quite close in many respects on these issues. In fact, I noticed that you mentioned the same thing in one of your own recent comments at your website.
But at the very least I think it’s only fair that you actually read what we’ve already written before we discuss things further.
YanniP wrote:
Bob Sungenis wrote:
Bob, you were editing out the portions of my comments you didn’t want your readers to see, censored another comment wholesale, and limited me to 1000 characters per posting while permitting longer responses to yourself.
Would you be inclined to continue under those circumstances were the roles reversed? You also wrote:
I think this hits on the crux of the problem. You’ve said several times in the past that you don’t want to read what we’ve written. On those occasions when you change your mind and choose to read a particular piece, you do so selectively, in isolation and with your own pre-conceived notions about what we supposedly believe or who we are. For example, in a recent piece, it’s clear that you thought I was Zionist – which is false. In another recent piece at your website you went so far as to suggest, yet again, that Michael Forrest may actually be a Jew who is just hiding his identify. You also don’t read the links within the articles or related pieces that clarify our views. As a result of all these things, you end up frequently misrepresenting us and critiquing a straw man.
Here’s what I propose to both you and your friend, YanniP. Please read (or re-read, as the case may be) the following pieces charitably (including the footnotes):
All in the Family: Christians, Jews, and God
On the Relationship Between the Jewish People and God (please also read the last long comment for further clarifications)
A Response to Robert Sungenis’ Critique of our Lay Witness Article
There is also more detailed analysis of the biblical and magisterial aspects of these questions here and I will be referring to the arguments made in that article in any subsequent discussion we might have.
Finally, please review what Michael Forrest and I have written specifically about “supersessionism” :
sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151555
sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151556
sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations#SupersessionismAgain
Then, if you still have specific questions perhaps we can discuss them charitably here.
I actually think that we’re quite close in many respects on these issues. In fact, I noticed that you mentioned the same thing in one of your own recent comments at your website.
But at the very least I think it’s only fair that you actually read what we’ve already written before we discuss things further.
YanniP wrote:
I appreciate this. Thank you. I understand the potential for misunderstanding, although I think what we’ve written, taken all together, is clear. But please understand that it goes both ways–extremely anti-Jewish rhetoric can lead to serious misunderstandings as well. I think I’ll hold off for now commenting further until you and Mr. Sungenis have a chance to read in more detail. Hopefully the links I provided will address your questions, but if not, then we may be able to address them subsequently. Understand, of course, that I also have some questions of my own.
Y
YanniP
Guest
Dear Mr. Palm:
“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.” Pope Piux XII, Mystici Corporis Chrisiti, 30
I have read your referenced articles and commentaries identified above. I believe I understand your positions more clearly. I do see that we are saying much of the same thing, but you insinuate and imply much more.
Here is my summary: On the one hand, there are proponents of “supersessionism”, who hold to the Church’s defined, Magisterial, statements that the Mosaic Covenant is “superseded”, “abolished”, “abrogated” or has “died”. ”(See, Redemptoris Mater Ft 2; Roman Catechism, Part III, The Third Commandment; Pope Benedict XIV’s Encyclical Ex Quo, 63; and Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, 30). They submit that God desires all men to be saved, Jew or Greek, with no racial partiality. On the other hand, we have proponents of a new thought as described by you in the above articles, what I shall term “anti-supersessionism”, which holds that the Jewish people are still “chosen” and maintain a special relationship with God, although it is non-salvific. These proponents hold that by Divine choice, a racial group has a “special relationship” with God and play a special role in God’s design for man’s salvation, being that there are Scriptural promises and a special eschatological role for this racial group. These tenets of anti-supersessionism are not based upon any clear statements from the Church, either from Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium.
The real debate is centered on what remains of the Mosaic Covenant. Unknowingly, I believe I relayed the question at issue in quoting Dr. Paul Heinisch and Rev.William Heidt, who aptly stated: “God did not need Israel to realize His work. He willed to retain the imperishable religious content of the OT for His new kingdom, but first He detached His new foundation from ancient moorings lest Israel continue to impede His plan.”
It is this “religious content” that you believe exists from the Mosaic Covenant even though abrogated.
Before I go further, let me make one short point. Part of my concern is the unnecessary ambiguity which pervades your articles. This is not an ambiguity on a theological nuance, it is an ambiguity which is, I am afraid, leading people to contentment outside of Christ. It truly is a form of liberalism and relativism, and one which has reared its attack throughout the Church age.
This is precisely why clear and concise statements based upon Church teaching must be used. The terms, and therefore concepts, related to abrogation, supersession, abolishment and even the death of the Mosaic Covenant are what we are charged to profess. Yet, I see your usage of undefined, ambiguous language which could easily lead a reader of the NCR, and this forum, to simply concede as truth. Your play on “chosen”, “special relationship”, being in the family “in a certain sense”, all attempt to placate a very well known and active heresy. Instead of meeting it with direct and concise truths, you chose to placate sensibilities. “Yes, you are still chosen and in a special relationship with God! But, never mind that it’s not salvific.” How lukewarm and impotent. Where is the “dead and buried” truth of Pius XII? And, sadly, this all appears unnecessary because you really, if read carefully, are only making a point that God chooses to deal with nations and people temporally based upon His Providence, and that the underlying call to mankind specifically the promises of Christ, continue for the Jews. Of course! God can deal with nations for their sins, and does. Yes Romans 11 can have various eschatological interpretations, but, you have no support to say more than that, at least authoritatively. So why insinuate that you speak from authority?
Let me use as example your response to a Stephen Dalton who posted a comment to your “On the Relationship” article. Mr. Dalton simply calls your analysis “wrong”. Your response begins “Your personal interpretation of selective Scripture passages doesn’t comport with what the Church has taught, what the current Pope has written and what Pius IX and the Fathers of the First Vatican Council believed about the status of the relationship between the Jewish people and God.”
From your response, I would assume there was actual binding Magisterial support, or a patristic consensus on Scriptural exegesis supporting your claims in your article. That simply isn’t true. Your positions on a continuing group of “chosen” other than the Church, your interpretations of Romans 9, 11, and Nostra Aetate’s citing of Scripture, simply are that – your, and other individual’s, personal positions and interpretations. Pope Benedict XVI speaking as a theologian carries as much weight as your speculation, which is why Pope’s have historically refrained from giving personal theological opinions, given the likelihood of misplaced authoritativeness.
In addition, your entire argument about “supersessionism” vs “supersede” is specious. Those who believe the Mosaic Covenant is superseded believe in supersessionism. The Mosaic Covenant is either superseded, annulled, revoked, abrogated, abolished, dead or it is not. There is no half-way or both/and, no matter how many times you cite Romans 9:4-5 – this is not akin to the mystery of Free will and Predestination.
CONTINUED:
“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.” Pope Piux XII, Mystici Corporis Chrisiti, 30
I have read your referenced articles and commentaries identified above. I believe I understand your positions more clearly. I do see that we are saying much of the same thing, but you insinuate and imply much more.
Here is my summary: On the one hand, there are proponents of “supersessionism”, who hold to the Church’s defined, Magisterial, statements that the Mosaic Covenant is “superseded”, “abolished”, “abrogated” or has “died”. ”(See, Redemptoris Mater Ft 2; Roman Catechism, Part III, The Third Commandment; Pope Benedict XIV’s Encyclical Ex Quo, 63; and Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, 30). They submit that God desires all men to be saved, Jew or Greek, with no racial partiality. On the other hand, we have proponents of a new thought as described by you in the above articles, what I shall term “anti-supersessionism”, which holds that the Jewish people are still “chosen” and maintain a special relationship with God, although it is non-salvific. These proponents hold that by Divine choice, a racial group has a “special relationship” with God and play a special role in God’s design for man’s salvation, being that there are Scriptural promises and a special eschatological role for this racial group. These tenets of anti-supersessionism are not based upon any clear statements from the Church, either from Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium.
The real debate is centered on what remains of the Mosaic Covenant. Unknowingly, I believe I relayed the question at issue in quoting Dr. Paul Heinisch and Rev.William Heidt, who aptly stated: “God did not need Israel to realize His work. He willed to retain the imperishable religious content of the OT for His new kingdom, but first He detached His new foundation from ancient moorings lest Israel continue to impede His plan.”
It is this “religious content” that you believe exists from the Mosaic Covenant even though abrogated.
Before I go further, let me make one short point. Part of my concern is the unnecessary ambiguity which pervades your articles. This is not an ambiguity on a theological nuance, it is an ambiguity which is, I am afraid, leading people to contentment outside of Christ. It truly is a form of liberalism and relativism, and one which has reared its attack throughout the Church age.
This is precisely why clear and concise statements based upon Church teaching must be used. The terms, and therefore concepts, related to abrogation, supersession, abolishment and even the death of the Mosaic Covenant are what we are charged to profess. Yet, I see your usage of undefined, ambiguous language which could easily lead a reader of the NCR, and this forum, to simply concede as truth. Your play on “chosen”, “special relationship”, being in the family “in a certain sense”, all attempt to placate a very well known and active heresy. Instead of meeting it with direct and concise truths, you chose to placate sensibilities. “Yes, you are still chosen and in a special relationship with God! But, never mind that it’s not salvific.” How lukewarm and impotent. Where is the “dead and buried” truth of Pius XII? And, sadly, this all appears unnecessary because you really, if read carefully, are only making a point that God chooses to deal with nations and people temporally based upon His Providence, and that the underlying call to mankind specifically the promises of Christ, continue for the Jews. Of course! God can deal with nations for their sins, and does. Yes Romans 11 can have various eschatological interpretations, but, you have no support to say more than that, at least authoritatively. So why insinuate that you speak from authority?
Let me use as example your response to a Stephen Dalton who posted a comment to your “On the Relationship” article. Mr. Dalton simply calls your analysis “wrong”. Your response begins “Your personal interpretation of selective Scripture passages doesn’t comport with what the Church has taught, what the current Pope has written and what Pius IX and the Fathers of the First Vatican Council believed about the status of the relationship between the Jewish people and God.”
From your response, I would assume there was actual binding Magisterial support, or a patristic consensus on Scriptural exegesis supporting your claims in your article. That simply isn’t true. Your positions on a continuing group of “chosen” other than the Church, your interpretations of Romans 9, 11, and Nostra Aetate’s citing of Scripture, simply are that – your, and other individual’s, personal positions and interpretations. Pope Benedict XVI speaking as a theologian carries as much weight as your speculation, which is why Pope’s have historically refrained from giving personal theological opinions, given the likelihood of misplaced authoritativeness.
In addition, your entire argument about “supersessionism” vs “supersede” is specious. Those who believe the Mosaic Covenant is superseded believe in supersessionism. The Mosaic Covenant is either superseded, annulled, revoked, abrogated, abolished, dead or it is not. There is no half-way or both/and, no matter how many times you cite Romans 9:4-5 – this is not akin to the mystery of Free will and Predestination.
CONTINUED:
Y
YanniP
Guest
Now let’s look at our foundational disagreement. In summary, you are trying to pull forward the natural law basis, and universal promise to all men through Abraham, from the Mosaic Covenant. In effect, you are stating that what was eternal or irrevocable comes from the Mosaic Covenant itself. That is akin to claiming that the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness derive from our bill of rights. The taskmaster, intended to prepare for Christ and keep the acknowledgment of sin on the lips of Israel, was to be annulled. The underlying natural law, or the OT religious content as Heinish and Heidt call it, does not derive from the Mosaic Covenant itself – it preexisted. So, the Mosaic Covenant can be killed, buried and revoked, yet the underlying “religious content” be fulfilled. But it has nothing to do with the proclamation of the shadow of truth, or of law, contained in the Mosaic Covenant. It was Christ from the beginning. This is much different than your both/and position.
Your ambiguity misleads people to believe that there is a current chosen race outside of the Church and outside of Christ, even with your disclaiming pronouncements. That is the evil of ambiguity.
If you read the below, understanding that the law was a glimpse of Christ that preexisted, maybe it might enlighten you:
"Christ is the centre of the economy of salvation, the recapitulation of the Old and New Testaments, of the promises of the Law and of their fulfilment in the Gospel; he is the living and eternal link between the Old and the New Covenants. Commenting on Paul’s statement that “Christ is the end of the law” (Rom 10:4), Saint Ambrose writes: “end not in the sense of a deficiency, but in the sense of the fullness of the Law: a fullness which is achieved in Christ (“plenitudo legis in Christo est”), since he came not to abolish the Law but to bring it to fulfilment. In the same way that there is an Old Testament, but all truth is in the New Testament, so it is for the Law: what was given through Moses is a figure of the true law. Therefore, the Mosaic Law is an image of the truth”. Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor.
Instead of replying to my comment, I believe it would be most helpful if you answered Mr. Sungenis’ questions. I do believe they will help narrow down your positions, correct any disagreement you may have with the above post and clarify the ambiguities.
I’m hopeful we can come to more common ground, and again, thank you for discussing this very important issue.
Your ambiguity misleads people to believe that there is a current chosen race outside of the Church and outside of Christ, even with your disclaiming pronouncements. That is the evil of ambiguity.
If you read the below, understanding that the law was a glimpse of Christ that preexisted, maybe it might enlighten you:
"Christ is the centre of the economy of salvation, the recapitulation of the Old and New Testaments, of the promises of the Law and of their fulfilment in the Gospel; he is the living and eternal link between the Old and the New Covenants. Commenting on Paul’s statement that “Christ is the end of the law” (Rom 10:4), Saint Ambrose writes: “end not in the sense of a deficiency, but in the sense of the fullness of the Law: a fullness which is achieved in Christ (“plenitudo legis in Christo est”), since he came not to abolish the Law but to bring it to fulfilment. In the same way that there is an Old Testament, but all truth is in the New Testament, so it is for the Law: what was given through Moses is a figure of the true law. Therefore, the Mosaic Law is an image of the truth”. Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor.
Instead of replying to my comment, I believe it would be most helpful if you answered Mr. Sungenis’ questions. I do believe they will help narrow down your positions, correct any disagreement you may have with the above post and clarify the ambiguities.
I’m hopeful we can come to more common ground, and again, thank you for discussing this very important issue.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Yanni,
I read your post and some clarifications are needed regarding your whole approach to what we’ve written. You said,
You said:
I hope you understand our positions “more” than you did originally, but you don’t understand them clearly yet. What’s clear is that you didn’t read very carefully. For example, at the beginning of your last post, you cited Mystici Corporis as though this was something we hadn’t considered. The problem is that we did quote at length from Mystici Corporis 29 (see below).
In fact, when I looked over “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked”, I noticed that he includes a supposedly comprehensive list of scriptural, patristic and magisterial evidence proving that the dual covenant theory is false. Notice anything?
Sungenis cites:
Hebrews 7:18, 8:7, 10:9
2 Cor 3:14
Col 2:14
Mystici Corporis 29
The Catechism of the Council of Trent
The Council of Florence
Cardinal Ratzinger (Many Religions, One Covenant)
St. John Chrysostom (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3)
St. Augustine (Letters 74,4)
Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 11)
And what do we cite in “All in the Family”?
Gal 2:21
Col 2:14
Hebrews 7:18
Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 11)
Tertullian (An Answer to the Jews, Ch. 3)
St. Augustine (Letter 75, 4 – Bob had a citation error)
The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (#42)
Redemptoris Mater (fn. #2)
Mystici Corporis 29
The Council of Florence
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 63)
cuf.org/laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrestapp.asp
We cited almost all of the sources that he did and a few others to boot. So, we’re at least as well researched on this point as your trusted source, Bob Sungenis. And we obviously agree with these statements because we cited them ourselves! So exactly how is it that we’re supposedly ignoring or skirting the teaching of the Church on this issue?
Further, as you seem to have missed them somehow, I’ve listed some of the statements from our articles involving words like “abolish”, “supersede” and “abrogate’ in relation to the Mosaic Covenant:
The following are all from “All in the Family”:
“the New Covenant in Christ superseded the Mosaic covenant (which is true)”
St. Justin Martyr states in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ‘We do not trust through Moses or through the law’ . . . because there is ‘a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe,’ and ‘law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one.’
We cited Hebrews 7:18:
Hebrews 7:18: “On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect).”
We quoted Mystici Corporis:
“And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; . . . 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.” (no. 29)
We even cited the Council of Florence:
[The council] 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 . . . although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming . . . 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.
We quoted St. Augustine:
Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. (Letters, 75, 4)
We quoted the PBC document “The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (2001)”
Those institutions are now abrogated to make way for the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ (Heb 7:18–19; 10:9). For Christ has overcome all obstacles by his redemptive obedience (Heb 5:8–9; 10:9–10), and has opened access to God for all believers (Heb 4:14–16; 10:19–22). In this way, the covenant announced and prefigured in the Old Testament is fulfilled. (no. 42)*
I read your post and some clarifications are needed regarding your whole approach to what we’ve written. You said,
In light of Bob’s questions that seems to be his supposition as well. I’d suggest that you’re looking at this issue through “Bob-colored glasses”. Bob sees everything through his extreme focus on the Mosaic Covenant being “revoked” and so he’s just overly suspicious, as you appear to be. His fixation on this precise word is odd because, to the best of my knowledge, he’s been unable to produce a single example where Scripture, the Fathers or the Magisterium has ever used it to describe the status of the Mosaic Covenant. And he *has</i?> been asked to do so: liveweb.archive.org/http://bellarmineforum.xanga.com/722292584/question-231—is-the-old-covenant-revoked-or-just-fulfilled-part-2/ How odd, then, to go so far as to name his definitive work on the topic, “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked”, don’t you think?
You said:
.
I hope you understand our positions “more” than you did originally, but you don’t understand them clearly yet. What’s clear is that you didn’t read very carefully. For example, at the beginning of your last post, you cited Mystici Corporis as though this was something we hadn’t considered. The problem is that we did quote at length from Mystici Corporis 29 (see below).
In fact, when I looked over “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked”, I noticed that he includes a supposedly comprehensive list of scriptural, patristic and magisterial evidence proving that the dual covenant theory is false. Notice anything?
Sungenis cites:
Hebrews 7:18, 8:7, 10:9
2 Cor 3:14
Col 2:14
Mystici Corporis 29
The Catechism of the Council of Trent
The Council of Florence
Cardinal Ratzinger (Many Religions, One Covenant)
St. John Chrysostom (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3)
St. Augustine (Letters 74,4)
Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 11)
And what do we cite in “All in the Family”?
Gal 2:21
Col 2:14
Hebrews 7:18
Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 11)
Tertullian (An Answer to the Jews, Ch. 3)
St. Augustine (Letter 75, 4 – Bob had a citation error)
The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (#42)
Redemptoris Mater (fn. #2)
Mystici Corporis 29
The Council of Florence
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 63)
cuf.org/laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrestapp.asp
We cited almost all of the sources that he did and a few others to boot. So, we’re at least as well researched on this point as your trusted source, Bob Sungenis. And we obviously agree with these statements because we cited them ourselves! So exactly how is it that we’re supposedly ignoring or skirting the teaching of the Church on this issue?
Further, as you seem to have missed them somehow, I’ve listed some of the statements from our articles involving words like “abolish”, “supersede” and “abrogate’ in relation to the Mosaic Covenant:
The following are all from “All in the Family”:
“the New Covenant in Christ superseded the Mosaic covenant (which is true)”
St. Justin Martyr states in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, ‘We do not trust through Moses or through the law’ . . . because there is ‘a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe,’ and ‘law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one.’
We cited Hebrews 7:18:
Hebrews 7:18: “On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect).”
We quoted Mystici Corporis:
“And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; . . . 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.” (no. 29)
We even cited the Council of Florence:
[The council] 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 . . . although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming . . . 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.
We quoted St. Augustine:
Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. (Letters, 75, 4)
We quoted the PBC document “The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (2001)”
Those institutions are now abrogated to make way for the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ (Heb 7:18–19; 10:9). For Christ has overcome all obstacles by his redemptive obedience (Heb 5:8–9; 10:9–10), and has opened access to God for all believers (Heb 4:14–16; 10:19–22). In this way, the covenant announced and prefigured in the Old Testament is fulfilled. (no. 42)*
D
DavidPalm
Guest
We quoted Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Dulles:
God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken . . . . The conditional covenant, which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant in which God binds himself irrevocably.” (Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 63)
Avery Cardinal Dulles also echoed this view in ‘The Covenant with Israel’: We may say that the Old Covenant is in a sense abolished while being at the same time fulfilled. The law of Christ gives a definitive interpretation to the Torah of Moses.
And last:
Pope Benedict XVI wrote: . . . Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded.
Again, all of these statements appear in “All in the Family” (www.cuf.org/Laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp). How did you miss them?
Now, rather than being convinced that we “insinuate and imply much more”, “Yanni”, you might consider another possibility: you’re reading your own undue suspicions and the suspicions you’ve picked up from Bob Sungenis into what we’ve written.
You made more assertions in this same vein:
I see. It doesn’t matter that we’ve explicitly rejected and denounced the dual covenant error repeatedly and unequivocally, calling it a “heresy”. According to you, what we’re actually up to is trying to “placate” it. You have some secret knowledge of what we really intended to convey, regardless of direct statements to the contrary. Well, that’s certainly how a quasi-gnostic conspiracy theorist would approach the evidence, Yanni.
We affirm all that the Magisterium teaches about the status of the Mosaic Covenant. But that’s precisely the point—what I think you and Sungenis are missing is that the divine election of the people of Israel didn’t originate in that Covenant and, therefore, is not dependent upon its status. We emphasized several times that the election of the people of Israel took place prior to the Mosaic Covenant and therefore is not contingent on the status of that Covenant. For example:
God’s gracious choice of Israel - predates the Mosaic Covenant and is rooted in the calling of Abraham (see Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 49:1,3; Isaiah 51:1,2; Deuteronomy 7:7). The calling was not because of Israel’s righteousness in the first place; therefore, neither does Israel’s lack of righteousness nullify the call.
God’s love and concern for the Jewish people – the relationship – is also something that continues under and was not “revoked” by the commencement of the New Covenant. God chose Israel before the swearing of the Mosaic covenant; therefore, Israel’s election is not dependent upon the status of that covenant. The election or “chosen-ness” of Israel is rooted in the Abrahamic covenant. It continued on through the Mosaic covenant and finally into the New and eternal Covenant in Christ.
The important point to notice about the chronology of Israel’s calling is the fact that it took place before their deliverance from Egypt, which is to say, before the swearing of the Covenant at Sinai. Thus the calling and election of Israel by God is not based upon the Covenant made at Sinai; the calling and election of Israel came long before Sinai, and is based upon God’s gracious choice, as both St. Paul and Deuteronomy again affirm: “It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love upon you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples; but it is because the LORD loves you, and is keeping the oath which he swore to your fathers” (Dt. 7:7)
Therefore I can affirm all that the Magisterium affirms about the status of the Mosaic Covenant and I can affirm all that the Magisterium affirms about the election of the Jewish people and their ongoing role in salvation history. But I don’t think that Bob can, which is why he works so hard to deny that the Jews are in any way chosen or that there is any such thing as a future special conversion of the Jews. This despite significant support for these very things from Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium (which again, you seemed to have missed in our writings, preferring instead to claim that, “These proponents hold that by Divine choice, a racial group has a ‘special relationship’ with God and play a special role in God’s design for man’s salvation, being that there are Scriptural promises and a special eschatological role for this racial group. These tenets…are not based upon any clear statements from the Church, either from Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium.”)
Also, you keep saying that we leave the nature of this relationship totally nebulous and vague. Not true. In “All in the Family” we laid out six concrete ways in which this relationship is evident. I don’t know how you could have missed it.
Again, I suggest that you’re reading through a pair of “Bob-colored glasses” and you’re missing things that are right in front of your eyes. Now, please read my response to Bob Sungenis in light of what I have said here.
God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken . . . . The conditional covenant, which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant in which God binds himself irrevocably.” (Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 63)
Avery Cardinal Dulles also echoed this view in ‘The Covenant with Israel’: We may say that the Old Covenant is in a sense abolished while being at the same time fulfilled. The law of Christ gives a definitive interpretation to the Torah of Moses.
And last:
Pope Benedict XVI wrote: . . . Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded.
Again, all of these statements appear in “All in the Family” (www.cuf.org/Laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp). How did you miss them?
Now, rather than being convinced that we “insinuate and imply much more”, “Yanni”, you might consider another possibility: you’re reading your own undue suspicions and the suspicions you’ve picked up from Bob Sungenis into what we’ve written.
You made more assertions in this same vein:
And most blatant of all:
I see. It doesn’t matter that we’ve explicitly rejected and denounced the dual covenant error repeatedly and unequivocally, calling it a “heresy”. According to you, what we’re actually up to is trying to “placate” it. You have some secret knowledge of what we really intended to convey, regardless of direct statements to the contrary. Well, that’s certainly how a quasi-gnostic conspiracy theorist would approach the evidence, Yanni.We affirm all that the Magisterium teaches about the status of the Mosaic Covenant. But that’s precisely the point—what I think you and Sungenis are missing is that the divine election of the people of Israel didn’t originate in that Covenant and, therefore, is not dependent upon its status. We emphasized several times that the election of the people of Israel took place prior to the Mosaic Covenant and therefore is not contingent on the status of that Covenant. For example:
God’s gracious choice of Israel - predates the Mosaic Covenant and is rooted in the calling of Abraham (see Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 49:1,3; Isaiah 51:1,2; Deuteronomy 7:7). The calling was not because of Israel’s righteousness in the first place; therefore, neither does Israel’s lack of righteousness nullify the call.
God’s love and concern for the Jewish people – the relationship – is also something that continues under and was not “revoked” by the commencement of the New Covenant. God chose Israel before the swearing of the Mosaic covenant; therefore, Israel’s election is not dependent upon the status of that covenant. The election or “chosen-ness” of Israel is rooted in the Abrahamic covenant. It continued on through the Mosaic covenant and finally into the New and eternal Covenant in Christ.
The important point to notice about the chronology of Israel’s calling is the fact that it took place before their deliverance from Egypt, which is to say, before the swearing of the Covenant at Sinai. Thus the calling and election of Israel by God is not based upon the Covenant made at Sinai; the calling and election of Israel came long before Sinai, and is based upon God’s gracious choice, as both St. Paul and Deuteronomy again affirm: “It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love upon you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples; but it is because the LORD loves you, and is keeping the oath which he swore to your fathers” (Dt. 7:7)
Therefore I can affirm all that the Magisterium affirms about the status of the Mosaic Covenant and I can affirm all that the Magisterium affirms about the election of the Jewish people and their ongoing role in salvation history. But I don’t think that Bob can, which is why he works so hard to deny that the Jews are in any way chosen or that there is any such thing as a future special conversion of the Jews. This despite significant support for these very things from Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium (which again, you seemed to have missed in our writings, preferring instead to claim that, “These proponents hold that by Divine choice, a racial group has a ‘special relationship’ with God and play a special role in God’s design for man’s salvation, being that there are Scriptural promises and a special eschatological role for this racial group. These tenets…are not based upon any clear statements from the Church, either from Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium.”)
Also, you keep saying that we leave the nature of this relationship totally nebulous and vague. Not true. In “All in the Family” we laid out six concrete ways in which this relationship is evident. I don’t know how you could have missed it.
Again, I suggest that you’re reading through a pair of “Bob-colored glasses” and you’re missing things that are right in front of your eyes. Now, please read my response to Bob Sungenis in light of what I have said here.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Bob, as you consider whether or not to respond here, I thought I should mention that we’ve read what you have written on this topic, including your “responses” and “critiques” of our articles. So, we’re not asking anything of you that we haven’t done ourselves. Actually, I had a few moments and reviewed some of what you’ve written in your articles again and have presented a few initial ideas and questions for you.
I would also ask you to please take note of what I wrote above to “Yanni”.
Now, to your own views:
The first thing to be said is that we have never characterized your position on the relationship among Jews, the Church and God as entirely wrong, let alone heretical. And we’ve never criticized you for merely opposing the dual covenant error (in fact, I don’t recall anyone ever going after you for simply opposing it and you’ve never given any evidence to the contrary). We do believe, however, that your treatment of this issue is unbalanced and confused at times (see for example: sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151556, including the section titled “Revoked?” and also Internal Contradictions in Sungenis’ Theology?). We do object to the way in which you’ve pursued it – creating false conspiracy theories and accusing people of the most nefarious motives (see: Debunking Another Conspiracy Theory and U.S. Catechism for Adults Revised). And we do object to your tendency to assume the role of the orthodoxy police, “finding” and “condemning” “heresy” where there is none—even violating your own publicly stated standards in the process (see here).
So, let me present in brief again the ecclesiastical texts which I believe mark out our position as being in line with Catholic thought and faith.
Let’s begin with the Postulatum Pro Hebraeis, a text drafted during the First Vatican Council and circulated for the signature of the Council Fathers. Fr. Denis Fahey, whom I think even you will admit is not a source biased in favor of “Jewish interests”, says about this statement that under “the kindly encouragement of Pius IX” the priest brothers Auguste and Joseph Lémann, “secured the signatures of 510 bishops, and all the bishops present at the Council would have willingly signed, only that the Fathers Lémann wished to leave the honour of the greatest number of signatures to the Postulatum for Papal Infallibility” (The Kingship of Christ the King). Here is what that text says:
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.
Here, the fathers of the First Vatican Council address the Jews of their day who are not yet in the Catholic Church. Alluding to Romans 11:28, they say of the Jews that “they are always very dear to God on account of their fathers”. In our article “On the Relationship Between the Jewish People and God” we wrote:
Here, even the Fathers of the First Vatican Council interpret St. Paul to have been referring to the very same group of people as “enemies” in respect to the Gospel yet “beloved” of God for the sake of the patriarchs of Israel (see Romans 11:28-29)." Obviously they were speaking of the Jews of their own day, whom they hoped would embrace Jesus Christ as their Messiah.
To this, you replied:
R. Sungenis: Certainly, but being “beloved” of God is not the same thing as being “the Chosen People” of God. The phrase “Chosen People” is a legal title with legal rights, but “beloved” is a personal and gratuitous relationship – two entirely different things.
First, I would point out that we never used the phrase “the Chosen People” ourselves. We have written that the Jewish people are still “chosen”, and we have made clear what we mean by that: the Jewish people remain dear to God for the sake of the Fathers of Israel. They retain a special relationship with Him that is not simply “in the past” and they still have a unique role to play in salvation history. They are not simply “done with” as a group (as you have contended). These things are all spelled out clearly and in some detail in last section of “All in the Family” (cuf.org/laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp). We wrote, “This abiding love for and special relationship with God’s earthly first-born, the Jewish people (cf. Ex. 4:22), is evidenced in several ways” and then we went on to list six specific examples. But we said nothing about any “legal” rights or legal titles that flow from the Mosaic Covenant.
I would also ask you to please take note of what I wrote above to “Yanni”.
Now, to your own views:
The first thing to be said is that we have never characterized your position on the relationship among Jews, the Church and God as entirely wrong, let alone heretical. And we’ve never criticized you for merely opposing the dual covenant error (in fact, I don’t recall anyone ever going after you for simply opposing it and you’ve never given any evidence to the contrary). We do believe, however, that your treatment of this issue is unbalanced and confused at times (see for example: sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151556, including the section titled “Revoked?” and also Internal Contradictions in Sungenis’ Theology?). We do object to the way in which you’ve pursued it – creating false conspiracy theories and accusing people of the most nefarious motives (see: Debunking Another Conspiracy Theory and U.S. Catechism for Adults Revised). And we do object to your tendency to assume the role of the orthodoxy police, “finding” and “condemning” “heresy” where there is none—even violating your own publicly stated standards in the process (see here).
So, let me present in brief again the ecclesiastical texts which I believe mark out our position as being in line with Catholic thought and faith.
Let’s begin with the Postulatum Pro Hebraeis, a text drafted during the First Vatican Council and circulated for the signature of the Council Fathers. Fr. Denis Fahey, whom I think even you will admit is not a source biased in favor of “Jewish interests”, says about this statement that under “the kindly encouragement of Pius IX” the priest brothers Auguste and Joseph Lémann, “secured the signatures of 510 bishops, and all the bishops present at the Council would have willingly signed, only that the Fathers Lémann wished to leave the honour of the greatest number of signatures to the Postulatum for Papal Infallibility” (The Kingship of Christ the King). Here is what that text says:
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.
Here, the fathers of the First Vatican Council address the Jews of their day who are not yet in the Catholic Church. Alluding to Romans 11:28, they say of the Jews that “they are always very dear to God on account of their fathers”. In our article “On the Relationship Between the Jewish People and God” we wrote:
Here, even the Fathers of the First Vatican Council interpret St. Paul to have been referring to the very same group of people as “enemies” in respect to the Gospel yet “beloved” of God for the sake of the patriarchs of Israel (see Romans 11:28-29)." Obviously they were speaking of the Jews of their own day, whom they hoped would embrace Jesus Christ as their Messiah.
To this, you replied:
R. Sungenis: Certainly, but being “beloved” of God is not the same thing as being “the Chosen People” of God. The phrase “Chosen People” is a legal title with legal rights, but “beloved” is a personal and gratuitous relationship – two entirely different things.
First, I would point out that we never used the phrase “the Chosen People” ourselves. We have written that the Jewish people are still “chosen”, and we have made clear what we mean by that: the Jewish people remain dear to God for the sake of the Fathers of Israel. They retain a special relationship with Him that is not simply “in the past” and they still have a unique role to play in salvation history. They are not simply “done with” as a group (as you have contended). These things are all spelled out clearly and in some detail in last section of “All in the Family” (cuf.org/laywitness/LWonline/ja09forrest.asp). We wrote, “This abiding love for and special relationship with God’s earthly first-born, the Jewish people (cf. Ex. 4:22), is evidenced in several ways” and then we went on to list six specific examples. But we said nothing about any “legal” rights or legal titles that flow from the Mosaic Covenant.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
This is important common ground. For the Apostle also says in Rom 11:28 says that the status of being “beloved” is according to “the election”, which means “chosen”. This also aligns with Deut 4:37: “Because He loved your fathers, therefore he chose their descendants after them.”
Indeed, you’ve implicitly acknowledged this distinction between the Jewish people as “chosen” in the full, “legal” sense vs. in a lesser, non-legal sense. You wrote:
R. Sungenis: I don’t know of one place in [Cardinal Ratzinger’s] self-authored and self-edited writings that shows he regards modern day Jews as “the Chosen People,” at least in the legal sense of the term.
catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/35-covenant/121-are-the-jews-still-the-chosen-people-a-response-to-palm-and-forrest
And with this we agree. Neither Cardinal Ratzinger nor we believe that the Jews are “the Chosen People” in some legal sense, derived from the Mosaic Covenant. Nevertheless, they remain “chosen” according to Romans 11:28.
This agrees with the fathers of the First Vatican Council and with great Catholic exegetes like Frs. Prat and Lagrange:
Fr. Fernand Prat, S. J. writes:
The subject of the phrase is clearly Israel [pas Israel], verse 26; auton], verse 27); the Israelites are therefore, at the same time, from two different points of view, enemies and friends, not of Paul, but of God, as the following verses (29-30) prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. . . . The motive and end which inspire God show it no less: it is “on account of the Gospel” not in itself, for the Gospel excludes no one, but inasmuch as it has been rejected by the Jews, and it is “with a view to the Gentiles” (di humas]) because the unbelief of the Jews, forseen by God, has had for its effect to hasten the evangelization of the pagans (verses 11, 15, 19).–However, from another point of view, Israel remains the favorite of Jehovah: it is “on account of the election” of which Israel was formerly the object (Deut. iv, 37) and which is not revoked (verses 2 and 29); and it is “on account of the patriarchs,” the sacred root (verse 16) which communicates to the branches something of its goodness. (The Theology of St. Paul, vol. 2, p. 216n3.)
And Père M. J. Lagrange states that Rom 11:28 references precisely, “L’élection du peuple juif comme peuple de Dieu était en elle-même irrévocable”, that is, “The election of the Jewish people as the people of God [which] was in itself irrevocable” (Saint Paul Epitre Aux Romains. Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1922, p. 287.)
This accords too with the magisterial texts we have presented:
Lumen Gentium 16:
There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom: 9:4-5): in view of the divine choice (electionem), they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom 11:28-29).
This magisterial text applies Rom 11:28-29 to the Jewish people in the present. It speaks explicitly of the electionem, the divine choice.
Nostra Aetate 4:
As holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize God’s moment when it came (see Lk 19:42). Jews for the most part did not accept the Gospel; on the contrary, many opposed the spreading of it (see Rom 11:28). Even so, the apostle Paul maintains that the Jews remain [NB: *manent, present tense] very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made.
John Paul II
And in a context obviously not as authoritative as the texts above, John Paul II stated: “it is the teaching of both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures that the Jews are beloved of God, who has called them with an irrevocable calling.” (November 26, 1986 in Sydney, Australia.)
Indeed, you’ve implicitly acknowledged this distinction between the Jewish people as “chosen” in the full, “legal” sense vs. in a lesser, non-legal sense. You wrote:
R. Sungenis: I don’t know of one place in [Cardinal Ratzinger’s] self-authored and self-edited writings that shows he regards modern day Jews as “the Chosen People,” at least in the legal sense of the term.
catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/35-covenant/121-are-the-jews-still-the-chosen-people-a-response-to-palm-and-forrest
And with this we agree. Neither Cardinal Ratzinger nor we believe that the Jews are “the Chosen People” in some legal sense, derived from the Mosaic Covenant. Nevertheless, they remain “chosen” according to Romans 11:28.
This agrees with the fathers of the First Vatican Council and with great Catholic exegetes like Frs. Prat and Lagrange:
Fr. Fernand Prat, S. J. writes:
The subject of the phrase is clearly Israel [pas Israel], verse 26; auton], verse 27); the Israelites are therefore, at the same time, from two different points of view, enemies and friends, not of Paul, but of God, as the following verses (29-30) prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. . . . The motive and end which inspire God show it no less: it is “on account of the Gospel” not in itself, for the Gospel excludes no one, but inasmuch as it has been rejected by the Jews, and it is “with a view to the Gentiles” (di humas]) because the unbelief of the Jews, forseen by God, has had for its effect to hasten the evangelization of the pagans (verses 11, 15, 19).–However, from another point of view, Israel remains the favorite of Jehovah: it is “on account of the election” of which Israel was formerly the object (Deut. iv, 37) and which is not revoked (verses 2 and 29); and it is “on account of the patriarchs,” the sacred root (verse 16) which communicates to the branches something of its goodness. (The Theology of St. Paul, vol. 2, p. 216n3.)
And Père M. J. Lagrange states that Rom 11:28 references precisely, “L’élection du peuple juif comme peuple de Dieu était en elle-même irrévocable”, that is, “The election of the Jewish people as the people of God [which] was in itself irrevocable” (Saint Paul Epitre Aux Romains. Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1922, p. 287.)
This accords too with the magisterial texts we have presented:
Lumen Gentium 16:
There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom: 9:4-5): in view of the divine choice (electionem), they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom 11:28-29).
This magisterial text applies Rom 11:28-29 to the Jewish people in the present. It speaks explicitly of the electionem, the divine choice.
Nostra Aetate 4:
As holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize God’s moment when it came (see Lk 19:42). Jews for the most part did not accept the Gospel; on the contrary, many opposed the spreading of it (see Rom 11:28). Even so, the apostle Paul maintains that the Jews remain [NB: *manent, present tense] very dear to God, for the sake of the patriarchs, since God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made.
John Paul II
And in a context obviously not as authoritative as the texts above, John Paul II stated: “it is the teaching of both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures that the Jews are beloved of God, who has called them with an irrevocable calling.” (November 26, 1986 in Sydney, Australia.)
D
DavidPalm
Guest
CCC 1963
As you’re reading, please notice that the following section of the Catechism explicitly speaks of the ”the chosen people” in the present tense as distinct from Christians:
According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good, yet still imperfect. Like a tutor it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a “law of concupiscence” in the human heart. However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.
Here, again, please note first that the Catechism refers to “the chosen people” as distinct from Christians; therefore, it is plain that it is referring the Jewish people by this phrase. This is also confirmed by the fact that on every occasion in which Catechism uses the phrase “the chosen people” it is referring to the Jewish people (see 60, 288, 441, 576, 751, 1081, 1150, 1539, 1716, and 1819.)
To this point, you responded: “Mr. Palm is making the simple mistake of thinking that the reference to “chosen people” refers to Jews today rather than Jews in the Old Testament. According to St. Paul in Gal 3-4, the law was a tutor for the Jews in the OT, when they were the “chosen people.” But Paul never refers to unbelieving Jews in the New Testament period as ‘the chosen people’.”
The problem is that you didn’t engage the fact that the Catechism treats “the chosen people” as distinct from Christians, and that both are referred to in the present tense. Note, the CCC states that the Law “prepares (present tense) and disposes (present tense) the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God.” The CCC does not state that the Law “prepared (past tense) and disposed (past tense) the chosen people….for conversion” and it wouldn’t make any sense if it did, because it also refers to Christians in the very same context. Christians did not exist in the Old Testament; therefore, it makes no sense that the CCC would have the Old Testament period in view here.
The Magisterium (and we, ourselves) have been careful to note that this “personal and gratuitous relationship” (to use your own phrase) that God has with the Jewish people, is not salvific. As we’ve written, "St. Paul and the Church have made clear that they do retain such a special relationship, yet that relationship is not salvific in and of itself. It is inferior (in the theological sense) to the relationship that any baptized Catholic (Jew or Gentile) has with God and, normatively speaking, it needs to be fulfilled through full incorporation into the New Covenant by baptism in order to be salvific.”
We’ve never connected this with the Mosaic Covenant and we’re not sure why you keep bringing that into this discussion.
We’ve also never made any connection between this and the land of Palestine nor to any matters of modern politics and we’re not sure why you keep dragging these things into the discussion, either.
I think your use of the term “supersessionism” needs discussion as well. Above, you asked: “Where does the Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach that there is a difference between “supercede” and “supersessionism”?”
I know that “supersessionism” is an important word for you because you’ve basically hung your entire “case” against Bishop Rhoades on it (see: “Bob’s Continued Misuse of Supersessionism” and “Supersessionism…Again”). But I’m not sure how we can make it any clearer for you: “supersessionism” isn’t a Catholic term. It’s never even been used, much less been defined, by the Magisterium. Period. The same even goes for “supersede”, frankly. We’ve presented this fact on multiple occasions, with a great deal of documentation. As such, your question is nonsensical. If the Church has never used or defined the term “supersessionism” at all, then how could it teach that there’s a difference between it and “supersede”?
Again, please review the information here:
sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations#SupersessionismAgain
sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151555
The point that Michael documented is that “supersessionism” and “supersede” mean different things to different people. There is no uniform definition in the Catholic Church, contrary to your belief. Unfortunately, like the word “proselytism”, it has taken on a decidedly pejorative nuance because some people – like you – have adopted and promoted what Cardinal Dulles has termed an extreme or “crude supersessionism”.
See: Is Robert Sungenis an Extreme Supersessionist? And also “Revoked?”
But, regardless, you’ve been accusing us of teaching a “heresy” in regard to the Jewish people still having a unique role in salvation history, still being having a special relationship with God, remaining “chosen”.
As you’re reading, please notice that the following section of the Catechism explicitly speaks of the ”the chosen people” in the present tense as distinct from Christians:
According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good, yet still imperfect. Like a tutor it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a “law of concupiscence” in the human heart. However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.
Here, again, please note first that the Catechism refers to “the chosen people” as distinct from Christians; therefore, it is plain that it is referring the Jewish people by this phrase. This is also confirmed by the fact that on every occasion in which Catechism uses the phrase “the chosen people” it is referring to the Jewish people (see 60, 288, 441, 576, 751, 1081, 1150, 1539, 1716, and 1819.)
To this point, you responded: “Mr. Palm is making the simple mistake of thinking that the reference to “chosen people” refers to Jews today rather than Jews in the Old Testament. According to St. Paul in Gal 3-4, the law was a tutor for the Jews in the OT, when they were the “chosen people.” But Paul never refers to unbelieving Jews in the New Testament period as ‘the chosen people’.”
The problem is that you didn’t engage the fact that the Catechism treats “the chosen people” as distinct from Christians, and that both are referred to in the present tense. Note, the CCC states that the Law “prepares (present tense) and disposes (present tense) the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God.” The CCC does not state that the Law “prepared (past tense) and disposed (past tense) the chosen people….for conversion” and it wouldn’t make any sense if it did, because it also refers to Christians in the very same context. Christians did not exist in the Old Testament; therefore, it makes no sense that the CCC would have the Old Testament period in view here.
The Magisterium (and we, ourselves) have been careful to note that this “personal and gratuitous relationship” (to use your own phrase) that God has with the Jewish people, is not salvific. As we’ve written, "St. Paul and the Church have made clear that they do retain such a special relationship, yet that relationship is not salvific in and of itself. It is inferior (in the theological sense) to the relationship that any baptized Catholic (Jew or Gentile) has with God and, normatively speaking, it needs to be fulfilled through full incorporation into the New Covenant by baptism in order to be salvific.”
We’ve never connected this with the Mosaic Covenant and we’re not sure why you keep bringing that into this discussion.
We’ve also never made any connection between this and the land of Palestine nor to any matters of modern politics and we’re not sure why you keep dragging these things into the discussion, either.
I think your use of the term “supersessionism” needs discussion as well. Above, you asked: “Where does the Tradition, Scripture or the Magisterium teach that there is a difference between “supercede” and “supersessionism”?”
I know that “supersessionism” is an important word for you because you’ve basically hung your entire “case” against Bishop Rhoades on it (see: “Bob’s Continued Misuse of Supersessionism” and “Supersessionism…Again”). But I’m not sure how we can make it any clearer for you: “supersessionism” isn’t a Catholic term. It’s never even been used, much less been defined, by the Magisterium. Period. The same even goes for “supersede”, frankly. We’ve presented this fact on multiple occasions, with a great deal of documentation. As such, your question is nonsensical. If the Church has never used or defined the term “supersessionism” at all, then how could it teach that there’s a difference between it and “supersede”?
Again, please review the information here:
sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations#SupersessionismAgain
sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151555
The point that Michael documented is that “supersessionism” and “supersede” mean different things to different people. There is no uniform definition in the Catholic Church, contrary to your belief. Unfortunately, like the word “proselytism”, it has taken on a decidedly pejorative nuance because some people – like you – have adopted and promoted what Cardinal Dulles has termed an extreme or “crude supersessionism”.
See: Is Robert Sungenis an Extreme Supersessionist? And also “Revoked?”
But, regardless, you’ve been accusing us of teaching a “heresy” in regard to the Jewish people still having a unique role in salvation history, still being having a special relationship with God, remaining “chosen”.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
I invite you to review your own standards for when it’s appropriate to call something a heresy. You have laid out standards elsewhere which may be summarized as follows:
• If there is an ambiguity that admits an orthodox interpretation, then it’s not heresy.
• Heresy consists only in “direct and provable statements of error.”
• The burden of proof is entirely on the accuser.
• Heresy is “deliberate, calculated and unequivocal statement to circumvent established dogma.”
• The accuser is “required to give substantial evidence for the accusation and conviction.”
• And finally, unless he can prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accuser has no case.
See Sungenis’ Own Standards of Heresy
You’ll notice that your condemnations against us here and elsewhere violate all of your own standards. Now, some questions for you:
Can you quote for us a clear teaching of the Magisterium that we have ever denied in what we’ve written?
Where has the Magisterium ever said that the Jewish people are not “chosen” in any way, so that there would be a contradiction with our understanding of the magisterial texts cited above?
Where has the Magisterium ever said that the Jewish people have no special relationship with God whatsoever, so that there would be a contradiction with our understanding of the magisterial texts cited above?
Since the answer is “nowhere”, how can anything we wrote in this regard be fairly be labeled “heresy”?
I may follow up with more, if I have time. I’ll also await your response.
• If there is an ambiguity that admits an orthodox interpretation, then it’s not heresy.
• Heresy consists only in “direct and provable statements of error.”
• The burden of proof is entirely on the accuser.
• Heresy is “deliberate, calculated and unequivocal statement to circumvent established dogma.”
• The accuser is “required to give substantial evidence for the accusation and conviction.”
• And finally, unless he can prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accuser has no case.
See Sungenis’ Own Standards of Heresy
You’ll notice that your condemnations against us here and elsewhere violate all of your own standards. Now, some questions for you:
Can you quote for us a clear teaching of the Magisterium that we have ever denied in what we’ve written?
Where has the Magisterium ever said that the Jewish people are not “chosen” in any way, so that there would be a contradiction with our understanding of the magisterial texts cited above?
Where has the Magisterium ever said that the Jewish people have no special relationship with God whatsoever, so that there would be a contradiction with our understanding of the magisterial texts cited above?
Since the answer is “nowhere”, how can anything we wrote in this regard be fairly be labeled “heresy”?
I may follow up with more, if I have time. I’ll also await your response.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Alas, I’ve done a bit of a cut-and-paste error.
On posting #35 above, just before the sentence “This is important common ground.” I intended to say:
However, we’re pleased to see that you at least agreed with us here that Romans 11:28-29 refers to the Jewish people as a whole, the very same group being described by the Apostle Paul as both “enemies” and yet as “beloved” of God for the sake of the patriarchs. We’re also pleased that you agreed that this amounts to a “personal and gratuitous relationship”.
This is important common ground…
On posting #35 above, just before the sentence “This is important common ground.” I intended to say:
However, we’re pleased to see that you at least agreed with us here that Romans 11:28-29 refers to the Jewish people as a whole, the very same group being described by the Apostle Paul as both “enemies” and yet as “beloved” of God for the sake of the patriarchs. We’re also pleased that you agreed that this amounts to a “personal and gratuitous relationship”.
This is important common ground…
R
Robert_Sungenis
Guest
R. Sungenis: Bob-colored glasses? I can always tell when Mr. Palm senses his arguments are weak. He starts making caricatures of his opponent. What’s the real problem here? It’s simple. Mr. Palm was educated to believe that the Jews are special people, just because they are Jews. As a result, he is forced to approach the Scriptural and Ecclesiastical data like a Pharisee in order to escape their clear teaching. The Pharisees would parse words ad infinitum trying to find some loophole out of obeying the law. That is what Mr. Palm is doing with the words commonly employed to describe the cessation of the Mosaic covenant. I’m going to call it Palmistry, after his name, since he has the dubious distinction of inventing a whole new hermeneutic when it comes to the status of the Mosaic covenant.
His new boast is that the word “revoked” isn’t used in “Scripture, the Fathers or the Magisterium.” He made a similar boast about the word “supersessionism,” making a big deal of the fact that he “can’t find it in an official Catholic document.” He even tried to make a distinction between “supersede” and “supersessionism,” as specious as that is. The temptation when one hears these Pharisaical-type arguments is to just leave the conversation. But for the sake of the people on this forum, I’m going to set the record straight.
It is very clear from Catholic authoritative sources that words very similar to “revoked” and “supersede” are used in regards to the cessation of the Mosaic Covenant. Words such as “annul, abolish, set aside, do away with, cancel, withdraw, terminate, rescind, invalidate, dissolve, eliminate, cease, eradicate” are commonly used in official and unofficial literature when dealing with the termination of the Mosaic covenant. These are all synonyms of “revoked” or “supersede.” So Mr. Palm’s boast that “revoked” or “supersede” are not used is nothing but a Pharisaical canard.
The reason “supersede” has become a more precise word in recent times on this particular topic is that it not only means to annul or abolish but to replace what was abolished with something new. This fits perfectly with what the New Covenant did to the Mosaic covenant – it legally annulled it and then put itself in place of it.
Let’s take Scripture first. It uses similar words to “supersede.” Hebrews 7:18, in context of the Mosaic law, says that it was “annulled,” which is the Greek word athetesis.
The Friberg Analytical Lexicon says this means: “as a legal technical term annulment, setting aside as being no longer in force.”
The Louw-Nida Greek English Lexicon says: “to refuse to recognize the validity of something; to reject; to regard as invalid; annulment.”
Thayer’s Greek English lexicon says: “abolition.”
Moulton-Milligan’s Vocabulary of the New Testament says: “The force of athetesis in Heb 7:18; 9:26 is well brought out by Deismann’s reference (BS p. 228f.) to the technical legal formula in the papyri…”
Gingrich’s Greek NT lexicon says “annulment technical legal term Hb 7:18; removal 9:26.”
Bauer’s Greek-English lexicon says “1. Annulment legal…a former commandment is annulled Hb 7:18.
Schaff then points out that Chrysostom, a Greek father who knew Greek very well, used “athetesis” in his commentary on Heb 7:18.
Hebrews 10:9 says the same as Heb 7:18, but with a different Greek word, a synonym. Imagine that, Mr. Palm, a synonym for “revoked” or “superseded”!
With the Mosaic covenant in context, Paul says “the first was TAKEN AWAY in order that the second may be set up.” The words “taken away” are the Greek “anairei.” So let’s go through the Greek lexicons again.
The Friberg Analytical Lexicon says: “take away; do away with; destroy; of persons kill, murder, usually in a violent way.
The Louw-Nida Greek English Lexicon says: “to kill; do away with; to remove or withdraw the validation of something; to abolish; to invalidate; to do away with.”
Thayer’s Greek English lexicon says: “to take away; abolish.”
Moulton-Milligan’s Vocabulary of the New Testament says: “kill; destroy.”
Gingrich’s Greek NT lexicon says “take away; abolish; do away with; kill.”
Bauer’s Greek-English lexicon says “take away, do away with, destroy.”
Hebrews 8:13, quoting from the time of Jeremiah when the Mosaic covenant was still in force but slowly waning due to the Jews going off into captivity, says: “When he says New, he has made old the first, and that which is made old and growing aged is near vanishing away.” This coincides perfectly with Hebrews 7:18 and 10:9 who state that when Christ came the annulment of the Mosaic covenant was complete.
I’ll be back to answer the rest of Mr. Palm’s specious arguments.
R. Sungenis
His new boast is that the word “revoked” isn’t used in “Scripture, the Fathers or the Magisterium.” He made a similar boast about the word “supersessionism,” making a big deal of the fact that he “can’t find it in an official Catholic document.” He even tried to make a distinction between “supersede” and “supersessionism,” as specious as that is. The temptation when one hears these Pharisaical-type arguments is to just leave the conversation. But for the sake of the people on this forum, I’m going to set the record straight.
It is very clear from Catholic authoritative sources that words very similar to “revoked” and “supersede” are used in regards to the cessation of the Mosaic Covenant. Words such as “annul, abolish, set aside, do away with, cancel, withdraw, terminate, rescind, invalidate, dissolve, eliminate, cease, eradicate” are commonly used in official and unofficial literature when dealing with the termination of the Mosaic covenant. These are all synonyms of “revoked” or “supersede.” So Mr. Palm’s boast that “revoked” or “supersede” are not used is nothing but a Pharisaical canard.
The reason “supersede” has become a more precise word in recent times on this particular topic is that it not only means to annul or abolish but to replace what was abolished with something new. This fits perfectly with what the New Covenant did to the Mosaic covenant – it legally annulled it and then put itself in place of it.
Let’s take Scripture first. It uses similar words to “supersede.” Hebrews 7:18, in context of the Mosaic law, says that it was “annulled,” which is the Greek word athetesis.
The Friberg Analytical Lexicon says this means: “as a legal technical term annulment, setting aside as being no longer in force.”
The Louw-Nida Greek English Lexicon says: “to refuse to recognize the validity of something; to reject; to regard as invalid; annulment.”
Thayer’s Greek English lexicon says: “abolition.”
Moulton-Milligan’s Vocabulary of the New Testament says: “The force of athetesis in Heb 7:18; 9:26 is well brought out by Deismann’s reference (BS p. 228f.) to the technical legal formula in the papyri…”
Gingrich’s Greek NT lexicon says “annulment technical legal term Hb 7:18; removal 9:26.”
Bauer’s Greek-English lexicon says “1. Annulment legal…a former commandment is annulled Hb 7:18.
Schaff then points out that Chrysostom, a Greek father who knew Greek very well, used “athetesis” in his commentary on Heb 7:18.
Hebrews 10:9 says the same as Heb 7:18, but with a different Greek word, a synonym. Imagine that, Mr. Palm, a synonym for “revoked” or “superseded”!
With the Mosaic covenant in context, Paul says “the first was TAKEN AWAY in order that the second may be set up.” The words “taken away” are the Greek “anairei.” So let’s go through the Greek lexicons again.
The Friberg Analytical Lexicon says: “take away; do away with; destroy; of persons kill, murder, usually in a violent way.
The Louw-Nida Greek English Lexicon says: “to kill; do away with; to remove or withdraw the validation of something; to abolish; to invalidate; to do away with.”
Thayer’s Greek English lexicon says: “to take away; abolish.”
Moulton-Milligan’s Vocabulary of the New Testament says: “kill; destroy.”
Gingrich’s Greek NT lexicon says “take away; abolish; do away with; kill.”
Bauer’s Greek-English lexicon says “take away, do away with, destroy.”
Hebrews 8:13, quoting from the time of Jeremiah when the Mosaic covenant was still in force but slowly waning due to the Jews going off into captivity, says: “When he says New, he has made old the first, and that which is made old and growing aged is near vanishing away.” This coincides perfectly with Hebrews 7:18 and 10:9 who state that when Christ came the annulment of the Mosaic covenant was complete.
I’ll be back to answer the rest of Mr. Palm’s specious arguments.
R. Sungenis
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Bob, when you reply please at least be sure to factor in that I explicitly said that I agree with all that the Magisterium teaches on the status of the Mosaic Covenant and that we already explicitly cited almost every single quote you cited, as well as a few others. You seem to keep missing that fact.
I think it’s worth pointing out that, with all of those words at your disposal, you specifically chose one, “revoked”, that isn’t used in any scriptural text or magisterial document to describe the status of the Mosaic Covenant and then use that as a veritable litmus test of orthodoxy. And it’s even worse with supersessionism. The word is not even of Catholic origin, has never been used in any magisterial text and therefore has no official definition, and has a wide range of meanings.
For instance:
google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theologicalstudies.citymax.com%2Ff%2FVariations_within_supersessionism_for_ETS.doc&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzeQ3kGHBAocYr8V1gT4Exj08Li57A
wordiq.com/definition/Supersessionism
triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/05/supersessionism.html
presbyterian.ca/webfm_send/5040
shema.com/Combating%20Replacement%20Theology/crt-004.php
All of these are cited, along with a broader explanation of your errors in this area, here:
sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations#SupersessionismAgain
And yet you fixate on this word and use it to condemn others–including a Catholic bishop!–of heresy.
If you’re going to publicly condemn people of “heresy”, you don’t get to use words “similar to” what the Church has said as a litmus test. And you most certainly don’t get to use words that the Church has never used, much less defined. What is so hard to understand about this?
This is exactly the kind of stunt you pulled with Bishop Rhoades, demanding that he sign off on several statements you personally composed before you would stop accusing him of heresy. (See the documentation here.) Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?
The point here is to remind you that you are not the Magisterium and you don’t have the authority to judge anybody based on your own vocabulary. At the very least, you should stick to actual magisterial language when judging others and the discussion will at least be easier.
I think it’s worth pointing out that, with all of those words at your disposal, you specifically chose one, “revoked”, that isn’t used in any scriptural text or magisterial document to describe the status of the Mosaic Covenant and then use that as a veritable litmus test of orthodoxy. And it’s even worse with supersessionism. The word is not even of Catholic origin, has never been used in any magisterial text and therefore has no official definition, and has a wide range of meanings.
For instance:
google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theologicalstudies.citymax.com%2Ff%2FVariations_within_supersessionism_for_ETS.doc&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzeQ3kGHBAocYr8V1gT4Exj08Li57A
wordiq.com/definition/Supersessionism
triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/05/supersessionism.html
presbyterian.ca/webfm_send/5040
shema.com/Combating%20Replacement%20Theology/crt-004.php
All of these are cited, along with a broader explanation of your errors in this area, here:
sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/defense-of-bishop-rhoades-from-false-accusations#SupersessionismAgain
And yet you fixate on this word and use it to condemn others–including a Catholic bishop!–of heresy.
If you’re going to publicly condemn people of “heresy”, you don’t get to use words “similar to” what the Church has said as a litmus test. And you most certainly don’t get to use words that the Church has never used, much less defined. What is so hard to understand about this?
This is exactly the kind of stunt you pulled with Bishop Rhoades, demanding that he sign off on several statements you personally composed before you would stop accusing him of heresy. (See the documentation here.) Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?
The point here is to remind you that you are not the Magisterium and you don’t have the authority to judge anybody based on your own vocabulary. At the very least, you should stick to actual magisterial language when judging others and the discussion will at least be easier.
- Status