Why "progressives" beat the tar out of "traditonalists"

[Rob_s_Wife]

It is Pre-VATII*** - ***Well, yes it is - what’s that got to do with anything?! Vat2 didn’t delete everything before it - it re-stated those beliefs. Have you read anything from VAT2?!
**2. The SSPX uses it exclusively for children and catechumens. Therefore it must be schismatic also. ***That’s just not a logical conclusion. Especially as the BC has been around longer than SSPX and is not made by them. If a SSPX church used only Ford vans to bring shut-ins to church, would that make Ford cars wrong for us to drive? *
**3. It’s doesn’t leave enough “wiggle” room. **Heaven forbid! We might actually be told right from wrong! Oh, the nerve of anyone to teach these children what will aid them to the path to heaven or hell. Nope. Wouldn’t want to make anyone uncomfortable about making sinfull choices.
**4. It still thinks evangelizing means converting someone to the Catholic Church. **Again, heaven forbid we teach the truth: “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.” Or do you not believe that? That is what conversion means - and as a convert to the Catholic faith, I’m eteranlly gratefull!
**5. The answers don’t have enough exceptions. **Please refer to #3. Instead of trying to find a loophole, we should be teaching them how to find the way to Jesus.
6. It teaches unbaptized infants do not enter heaven as saints. AND, they have Original sin on their souls when they die and therefore have no sanctifying Grace! yep, I saw it.
It says that in the CCC! Article 1: The Sacrement of Baptism, Section IV Who Can Receive Baptism? - The Baptism of Infants (paragraph 1250) “Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by orginal sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particuliarly manifest in infant baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.” However, I will paraphrase the following section V! paragraph #1261 the CCC which does go futher to say that we entrust children who have died without baptism to the mercy of God in the hopes that their is a way of salvation for those children as yet unknown to us.
7. It condones the death penalty outright…prisons are more secure today vs the flimsy 20ft thick dungeons of yesteryear.
The CCC condones it outright too. (I’m beginning to think you haven’t ever looked at the CCC yourself?!) Article 5: the 5th Commandment - Legitmate Defence paragraph #2266
“…the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, NOT EXCLUDING, in cases of extreme gravity, THE DEATH PENALTY.”
8. It teaches that the True Church of Christ IS the Holy
**Catholic Church. vs it subsists in…like an egg subsists in a chicken. **refer to #4 again.
**9. most clearly stated material. **Yes, the BC is .
**10. Not a word about ecumenism or dialogue in a “positive” sense. **That is so vague as to mean anything, but be worth nothing.
**11. It keeps refering to the “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” instead of the “lord’s supper”. **It IS the “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”!!! It is not symbolic social dinner - the fact that you don’t know the difference speaks of your ignorance of what the Mass is.
**12. It doesn’t use the word “mystery” enough. **Why/where in particuliar do you need to see that word to understand a certain concept?
**13. How can you destroy the Catholic Church if people start teaching and believing that stuff? **Quote: To destroy a Religion, you must first sever its traditions.
Liberalism :A mental disorder wherein the Illogical becomes completely logical with no lasting effect on the conscience.
Okay, I’m going to have to assume you got really tired when you wrote that or you have come over the fence to MY side of the arguement… Everything written after #13 was just gibberish and for you to call ME liberal is just hilarious. The BC was there first, therefore the CCC would be an effort to sever that tradition. And, yes I believe your reasons for not wanting the BC used in CCD classes could destroy the Church - by simply allowing ignorance to lead the path to destruction.

The CCC and Bc are in complete agreement and every home should have them. But I can’t imagine anyone tossing a 800 page CCC at a elementary CCD class and expecting them to grasp it with enthusiasm. And for those new to the faith the BC can be a much less over-whelming start.

 

[dumspirospero]

You and your buddies sound like the kind of people that screw up parishes and cause deep divisions amongst the people…all I ever see you post are outlandish attacks and fallacies about people you call “traditionalist”…do you know how to say anything nice? People like you are the reason why I prefer to attend an Indult TLM…all of those people there are very holy, polite, staunchly pro-life, extremely against contraception, etc…where as I go to the Novus Ordo, and there are drums, guitars, people reading road maps, people chewing gum, and people talking…I am an Orthodox Catholic as well…but according to your attacks you levy against myself and my traditionalist buddies…it appears that you believe that in order for one to be an Orthodox Catholic, one must attend the Novus Ordo…and if one chooses to attend the TLM, they are trouble makers, heterodox, bad Catholics…maybe you should read Ecclesia Dei…and if you have a problem with what it says, I suggest you and your little group of complainers fly to Rome and visit the Holy Father and voice your concerns.
Nota Bene:

Actually we consider ourselves orthodox Catholics, not “traditionalists.”

The combat continues to ratchet-up. Once they found out it was us that are making the changes, they first told us to stop in a very high and mighty manner. To that we provided documentation from the Church to support what we were doing.

With that, they began to tell us in increasingly harsh terms to stop what we were doing. We are at a point where they now try to physically undo what we have done. Thankfully we have enough moles to telephone us within minutes if something is changed back. Many times other orthodox parishioners will now change things back on their own.

The process has yielded two interesting bits of information. First, these people become street-fighters when they are ignored. The key is to stay on course until they get tired of looking like bozos.

Second, they certainly don’t have the strong backing from the pastor or we would have heard from him long ago…

It takes guts and resolve to get to the point we are today…

 

[dumspirospero]

:bowdown: I am still laughing after reading this…good job

TNT:

Great rebuttal
A liberal chucks…not emotional.
A trad chucks…emotional
Rock solid!
BTW:
Horribly dated is newspeak for Trent-ian and Thomistic
Or, lack of immanentism.

And Horribly is not emotional…as of today.
Why? Because a liberal used it for sound argument.

Which brings me to my second favorite:
Liberalism : A mental disorder wherein the Illogical becomes completely logical with no lasting effect on the conscience.

 

[dumspirospero]

I guess your definition of horribly dated would be anything preventing you from liberalizing and protestantizing the Church…
Nota Bene:

Yes, there certainly is a great deal of garbage out there so one must be careful, but one need not resort to a horribly dated work like the BC.

QUOTE]

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I find the whole premise of the original post shrill, offensive and ill-informed. Why is it the Traditionalist’s responsibility to “save” every parish in America? Here’s an idea: save your own parish and let Traditionalists pursue their Faith as they see fit.

As a member of a 21st Century American Catholic parish, you have 3 very simple choices, as I see it:

1. Complain, long and loud. Hector your priest mercilessly to end liturgical abuses. Eventually, he might do it just to get you to stop harassing him. If that doesn’t work, go to your bishop. If that fails, write to Rome. I understand they are starting to take an increasingly dim view of such shenanigans. But Rome can’t do anything if they don’t know about it.
2. If the above fails, leave your parish and find another. It might take some time and travel, but I would hope even the worst dioceses have a few good parishes. I’ve found one here where the new Mass is said with reverence and dignity. Make it your mission to find one.
3. If you choose neither of the above, just deal with it! You’ve chosen not to take action and you’ve chosen to stick it out in your parish. Great. But no crying and whining. :crying:

Traditionalists aren’t superheroes who are going to swoop in and rescue your parish. Stop trying to shame them into saving you. It’s your parish. Fix it yourself.

And say a prayer for those poor Catholics in the Archdiocese of LA. They suffer terribly.

 

[TNT]

It is Pre-VATII*** - ****Well, yes it is - *
**…
**7. It condones the death penalty outright…prisons are more secure today vs the flimsy 20ft thick dungeons of yesteryear.
The CCC condones it outright too. (I’m beginning to think you haven’t ever looked at the CCC yourself?!) …paragraph #2266
*"…the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, NOT EXCLUDING, in cases of extreme gravity, THE DEATH PENALTY." ***(OLD VERSION? Too Traditional. New Vesion below.) **…

…
*Continued on my next Post…
*

 

[Mycroft]

i dont see why people cant just stand back and look. the catholic church, indeed our whole society, has gotten much worse since vatican II. heres a small part of it.
Who could possibly claim that there is not a terrible crisis of Faith in the Catholic Church when polls and surveys show that only 15% of Catholics believe they should always obey Church teaching, when nearly as many Catholics think abortion is permissible as non-Catholics, and when 75% of Catholics disagree with Church teaching forbidding divorce and contraception? Another study revealed that only 30% of Catholics now believe in the Real Presence and only 50% of the priests.

 

[Nota_Bene]

Dr. Bombay:

I find the whole premise of the original post shrill, offensive and ill-informed. Why is it the Traditionalist’s responsibility to “save” every parish in America? Here’s an idea: save your own parish and let Traditionalists pursue their Faith as they see fit.

As a member of a 21st Century American Catholic parish, you have 3 very simple choices, as I see it:

1. Complain, long and loud. Hector your priest mercilessly to end liturgical abuses. Eventually, he might do it just to get you to stop harassing him. If that doesn’t work, go to your bishop. If that fails, write to Rome. I understand they are starting to take an increasingly dim view of such shenanigans. But Rome can’t do anything if they don’t know about it.
2. If the above fails, leave your parish and find another. It might take some time and travel, but I would hope even the worst dioceses have a few good parishes. I’ve found one here where the new Mass is said with reverence and dignity. Make it your mission to find one.
3. If you choose neither of the above, just deal with it! You’ve chosen not to take action and you’ve chosen to stick it out in your parish. Great. But no crying and whining. :crying:

Traditionalists aren’t superheroes who are going to swoop in and rescue your parish. Stop trying to shame them into saving you. It’s your parish. Fix it yourself.

And say a prayer for those poor Catholics in the Archdiocese of LA. They suffer terribly.

1.) So?

2.) Who are you to limit the choices to 3? I’ll add at least a 4. Fix things yourself – for those with the ability and resolve.

3.) You need to develop some basic reading skills. The whole point of my posting is that we are taking action. LOL!

 

[TNT]

Continued from My Prev Post…2 posts above here…
From Martha, Rob’s Wife:

Okay, I’m going to have to assume you got really tired when you wrote that or you have come over the fence to MY side of the argument… …to call ME liberal is just hilarious. The BC was there first, therefore the CCC would be an effort to sever that tradition. EXACTLY*. And, yes I believe your reasons for not wanting the BC used in CCD classes could destroy the Church (EXACTLY my point in the parady*)…

The CCC and Bc are in complete agreement and every home should have them…

Dear Martha, Rob’s Wife, Tiger Lady
With all due respect and then some:

1. My whole list was a PARADY on those who would berate the BC.
2. Nevertheless you did a great job of refuting them.
3. My only regret is how you addressed one. Namely:

7. It condones the death penalty outright…prisons are more secure today vs the flimsy 20ft thick dungeons of yesteryear.
The CCC condones it outright too… paragraph #2266
*"…the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, NOT EXCLUDING, in cases of extreme gravity, THE DEATH PENALTY."
*

This is what I have in the latest “version” :

** 2266** The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
So far, not 1 mention of death penalty (they took it out. And put it in) :

** 2267**Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, (they giveth) if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
Now begins the taketh away:

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety (notice how the primary traditional purpose of the death penalty (above) is replaced) …in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Now they finish taking away:
THIS next is the ONLY part a Liberal will Preach:
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

Which takes us back to my parady:
**…prisons are more secure today vs the flimsy 20ft thick dungeons of yesteryear.
**

**In the whole post I was one of your knights you (accidently) shot…but not mortally.
**

**Finally:
**2. I teach from memory, the BC to children, including mine, and realtives, and church members.
3. My wife is SSPX, so you know where she stands.
4. No, the CCC does not teach the same truths as the BC. They both have “the wine”, but one has a great deal of water in it and a pinch of arsenic. That is the very reason some on this thread berate it as dated, horribly…because they are not the same.

God Bless your efforts with the children…carry on.
TNT

 

[Nota_Bene]

Mycroft:

i dont see why people cant just stand back and look. the catholic church, indeed our whole society, has gotten much worse since vatican II. heres a small part of it.
Who could possibly claim that there is not a terrible crisis of Faith in the Catholic Church when polls and surveys show that only 15% of Catholics believe they should always obey Church teaching, when nearly as many Catholics think abortion is permissible as non-Catholics, and when 75% of Catholics disagree with Church teaching forbidding divorce and contraception? Another study revealed that only 30% of Catholics now believe in the Real Presence and only 50% of the priests.

Oh yeah? I dare you to give concrete details on this “study.”

Like many, you’re simply regurgitating inaccuracies.

Ref: catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9910qq.asp

 

[katolik]

puzzleannie:

I did not say it was evil to find a latin Mass, I said that if you abandon your current parish because you don’t like what is going on, you are surrendering the field to those you disagree with. you can’t be part of the change and restoration if you are not part of the parish. If you are teaching the BC instead of the CCC you should be reminded that we are one, holy, Catholic and apostolic, we teach CCD ONLY under the authority of the bishop and have no right to teach our personal preferences. that is exactly the crime of the so-called progressives, who teach what they want instead of with the mind of the Church

So Catholics can’t pray in their parishes peacefully but must fight to the last limb and bone? Sheesh

Whoever said that the CCC is the only catechetical text that is allowed to be used? I have seen no decrees from Rome or from any bishops that says “Only use the CCC, to use other catechisms is evil and detrimental to the Faith”. Since when has the Baltimore Catechism been told to contain heresies? Since when?

 

[Nota_Bene]

katolik:

So Catholics can’t pray in their parishes peacefully but must fight to the last limb and bone? Sheesh

Whoever said that the CCC is the only catechetical text that is allowed to be used? I have seen no decrees from Rome or from any bishops that says “Only use the CCC, to use other catechisms is evil and detrimental to the Faith”. Since when has the Baltimore Catechism been told to contain heresies? Since when?

Who is suggesting that it does? Scroll back and you’ll find that no one is. Why are you making such an inflammatory suggestion? Just some attention?

The BC is indeed extremely dated and it’s certainly no substitute for the CCC.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Mycroft:

i dont see why people cant just stand back and look. the catholic church, indeed our whole society, has gotten much worse since vatican II. heres a small part of it.
Who could possibly claim that there is not a terrible crisis of Faith in the Catholic Church when polls and surveys show that only 15% of Catholics believe they should always obey Church teaching, when nearly as many Catholics think abortion is permissible as non-Catholics, and when 75% of Catholics disagree with Church teaching forbidding divorce and contraception? Another study revealed that only 30% of Catholics now believe in the Real Presence and only 50% of the priests.

I thought this article expressed it rather well:

"…In conclusion, it is all too apparent that the decline in key aspects of the Catholic Church in the U.S. were due, directly and indirectly, to the zeitgeist: specifically, the Cultural/Sexual Revolution of the 1960s, which had its roots in the Enlightenment. Essentially, the corrupt clergy and laity in the Church have been infected, to varying degrees, by the very worst elements of society. Of course, this is no way absolves their misbehavior and, in some cases, outright criminal activity. If anything, they should know better. Everything considered, however, it makes more sense to blame the crisis in the Church on the widespread cultural and moral decay instead of on Vatican II itself.

theconservativevoice. c…hp?storyid=3519

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=42595

 

[JKirkLVNV]

HagiaSophia:

Everything considered, however, it makes more sense to blame the crisis in the Church on the widespread cultural and moral decay instead of on Vatican II itself.

Hey, Hagia! You’re still the bomb! The above statement will, I believe, be someday acknowledged to be a generally good summation. The folks who want to blame the problems ***ON ***Vatican II always remind me of my sweet Granny, everlasting rest upon her soul, who laid all the blame for the problems of modern America on the doorstep of the Beatles.

 

[rcn]

dumspirospero:

You and your buddies sound like the kind of people that screw up parishes and cause deep divisions amongst the people…all I ever see you post are outlandish attacks and fallacies about people you call “traditionalist”…do you know how to say anything nice?

I was wondering when a comment like that would be made. Can’t you all see how ridiculous this name-calling is? Nota perceives himself a “traditionalist” doing battle against the nasty liberals in his parish. But dumsprospero says no… no, he really carries the “traditionalist” flag against nasties like Nota.

Where I will agree, is that Nota has one screwed up parish. And it’s not “his” right (nor any other lay person’s) to change things while the priest sits in the shadows.

People like you are the reason why I prefer to attend an Indult TLM…all of those people there are very holy, polite, staunchly pro-life, extremely against contraception, etc…where as I go to the Novus Ordo, and there are drums, guitars, people reading road maps, people chewing gum, and people talking…

Uh huh. Right. Reading road maps? That’s a new one.

You know what’s funny about your post? It was the first one in the thread to mention the TLM in any way. This thread simply hasn’t been a TLM/NO bash-fest. So please don’t hijack it.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

TNT: Heaven help us all, my dear fellow catholic, I actually thought you were serious and posted accordingly - please forgive the stray “bullet”. As for the death penalty, well I won’t argue your honest point, if for no other reason than that I don’t agree with the death penalty for other reasons anyhow.

from katolik:

Whoever said that the CCC is the only catechetical text that is allowed to be used? I have seen no decrees from Rome or from any bishops that says “Only use the CCC, to use other catechisms is evil and detrimental to the Faith”. Since when has the Baltimore Catechism been told to contain heresies? Since when?

from Nota Bene:

Who is suggesting that it does? Scroll back and you’ll find that no one is. Why are you making such an inflammatory suggestion? Just some attention? The BC is indeed extremely dated and it’s certainly no substitute for the CCC.

:banghead: With complete frustration at your repeated yapping without saying anything of import, I will ask yet again: WHAT EXACTLY ABOUT THE BC IS IT THAT MAKES IT HORRIBLY AND EXTREMELY DATED?! What do you mean by “dated”? And why couldn’t it be used instead of the CCC? It was enough for quite some time without a problem for several generations of Catholic children. My own children enjoy our lessons from it and we have had amazing conversations about the church and our faith through this series.

I can agree your parish has issues (big, ugly, needs seen to right this minute issues), but honestly, if you are always this difficult and combative to get to answer a simple question for them - it’s no wonder they aren’t giving too warm a reception!

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Nota Bene:

The Baltimore Catechism is horribly dated. Here’s what Fr. Robert Levis, PhD (a priest who specializes in catechetics)had to say about its use today:

Adult Catechism?
Question from Chistopher Topston on 07-18-2001:

Dear Fr. Levis;

I’m a member of a rather “liberal” parish. There are however a few more orthodox members and I was wondering if it would be OK to form an “Adult Catechetics” group using the Baltimore Catechism as a text?

Do you think we would face a lot of resistance, like no mention in the bulletin, tough to get a meeting room, etc?

I don’t want to offend others, but my nightly reading of the Baltimore Cathecism has been a very positive experience.

Finally; is there a version/edition that you would recommend? I know there are quite a few re-prints out there. Would it make sense to use something like Fr. Hardon’s Catechism? Thanks; Chistopher

Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 07-19-2001:

Dear Christopher,

Tremendous idea, but caution!!! A few suggestions. Don’t use the Baltimore Catechism since it doesn’t contain the insights of Vatican 2 and thus can be legitimately debunked. I would suggest, without a doubt, that the final text shoule be the Catechism of the Cath. Church, the big 800 page text. There are condensations of it ( I have one available) and I suggest you begin with that. Many of the major commentaries on this Catechism debunked it severely so one must be very careful here. Actually I doubt much whether or not this Catechism is accepted fairly by the American Catechetical Establishment. I fear it has been shelved in very many places. So even to choose this text will bring the wrath of many catechists upon your shoulders. You are one of the few Catholics who see the need of basic catechetics, how mistakes here lead to interminable mistakes in morals and worship. So I want to encourage you, but be ready for a fight, a big fight. God bless you. Fr. Bob Levis

(P.S. Learn some HTML or leave the tags alone…)

So the Baltimore Catechism is horribly dated because it’s the personal opinion of a priest or because you continue to put horribly dated in italics?

---

The only reason given by the priest is that it doesn’t contain “insights” into Vatican II and can easily be debunked. How can it be debunked? Did Vatican II do away with the Holy Trinity? Did it do away with sin? Did it do away with the seven sacraments? Did it do away with the Ten Commandments? Did it do away with the Six Precepts of the Church? Did it do away with heaven, hell and purgatory? Did it do away with indulgences?

---

Because the Baltimore Catechism doesn’t have Vatican II’s “insights” on these matters it should be scrapped? I suppose we should do away with anything before 1965 because it wouldn’t contain the “insights” of Vatican II. The few seminaries that teach Summa Theologica and works by St. Augustine should throw them away because St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine didn’t have the “insights” of Vatican II. Summa Theologica is obviously horribly dated!

---

I was first taught the Catholic faith from the Baltimore Catechism and I still use it as a reference today. I also bought the Catechism of the Council of Trent which is, of course, horribly dated. Yet, I find I learn much about the Catholic faith from reading these catechisms. I also read the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as Fr. Hardon’s catechism that he put out in the 1970s. All these catechisms are very useful to learn more about the faith.

---

I suggest you pick up a copy of the horribly dated Baltimore Catechism and look over it before calling it horribly dated again. If you have an open mind, you might be surprised at what you will learn.

---

There were two priests in a religious order, one was a modernist and one was traditional. The modernist priest accused the traditional priest of being “Pre-Vatican II.” The traditional priest responded, “So is God.” True story. Please keep it in mind the next time you throw out accusations like horribly dated. I’m still waiting to know why the Baltimore Catechism is horribly dated since you never gave a reason.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

In this debate on the BC vs. the CCC, I seem to remember that the Holy Father’s hope or goal was that the CCC would be used as the reference for the preparation of national catechisms, presumably under the auspices of each nation’s bishop’s conference. The BC’s format of question and answer would seem more appropriate for children’s instruction and for quick reference…except most adults do know how to use an index, which the CCC has. I love the CCC and use it for Lectio Divina as well as for information. Have our bishops begun a catechism for children as yet?

 

[Fogny]

JKirkLVNV:

Hey, Hagia! You’re still the bomb! The above statement will, I believe, be someday acknowledged to be a generally good summation. The folks who want to blame the problems ***ON ***Vatican II always remind me of my sweet Granny, everlasting rest upon her soul, who laid all the blame for the problems of modern America on the doorstep of the Beatles.

To think that the generalised moral decay absolves Vatican II of the many problems that the Church faces today is to be simplistic and a failure to see the new direction of the Church that Vatican II set in place. To set a new goal of greater liberty of thought and wider norms of practice was a dangerous path to embark on without a strong foundation of faith and leadership that was not in control of a rebellious and misguided council. The Church succumbed to the new age and has yet cannot realise that it must again gain control of those who by cunning and deception try to weaken her. In politics you can have dimplomacy but not in matters of faith.

Fogny

 

[TNT]

JKirkLVNV:

Have our bishops begun a catechism for children as yet?

God Help Us. “Let the littles ones come to Me, DO NOT HINDER THEM!”
They can’t even keep track of their pediphile files!

I can see it now:
Q. When did God Resurrect the Old Covenant?
A. God Resurrected the Old Covenant in 2000 CE. 2000 years after its death.
Q. What is God doing with the Old Covenant?
A. God is saving the Jews with it.

Q. Why is God saving the Jews with the Old Covenant?
A. Because the Jews didn’t accept the New one.