The Old Covenant, The Jews, And The New Covenant

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Hello everyone,

Apparently for two thousand years the idea of Supersessionism rained supreme, but after vatican II some theologians decided it was wrong. I will start of the debate with some relevant quotations:


[quote]As we approach the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate - the ground-breaking declaration of the Second Vatican Council which repudiated the deicide charge against Jews, reaffirmed the Jewish roots of Christianity and rejected anti-Semitism - we take note of the many positive changes within the Catholic Church with respect to her relationship with the Jewish People. These past forty years of our fraternal dialogue stand in stark contrast to almost two millennia of a "teaching of contempt" and all its painful consequences. [b]We draw encouragement from the fruits of our collective strivings which include the recognition of the unique and unbroken covenantal relationship between God and the Jewish People[/b] and the total rejection of anti-Semitism in all its forms, including anti-Zionism as a more recent manifestation of anti-Semitism.[/quote]

THE 18th INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC-JEWISH
LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETINGf

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20040708_declaration-buenos-aires_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontific...s-aires_en.html[/url]

another example of this new idea that rejects supersessionism is the new adult catechism published by the USSCB

The United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, has a heretical statement on page 131:
[quote]“Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid
for them.” I have recently written to Cardinal Levada about this matter, and I am waiting for a
reply. The Church and Scripture are very clear, “Gerry”, that the Mosaic covenant has been
abrogated, and all that is left of it are its moral and religious principles that have already been
subsumed into the New Covenant.[/quote]here are some quotes from Catholic priests and Councils that contradict this:



The Council of Florence of the 15th century solemnly defined, that [b]"It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives" if they consciously and obstinately refuse to embrace the Catholic Christian Faith.[/b] The only logical explanation for this teaching then was, that Judaism of the Old Testament had been replaced by or rather transferred to the New Testament with its own law and sacred rites. In fact this is what Popes taught throughout all centuries. [b]Pope Pius XII also re-affirmed this doctrine in his encyclical Mystici Corporis (June 29, 1943), when he authoritatively taught, that "the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished" and that "on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[/b]

[b] 'To such an extent, then,' says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, 'was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.'"[/b]

[b]Pope Pius XII also clearly condemned the two-path approach dividing Gentile and Jew once again as in the Old Testament, when he taught, that "Christ, by His blood, made the Jews and Gentiles one 'breaking down the middle wall of partition...in His flesh' by which the two peoples were divided; and that He made the Old Law void 'that He might make the two in Himself into one new man,' that is, the Church, and might reconcile both to God in one Body by the Cross." Hereby Pope Pius XII doctrinally affirmed, that the Church was from the beginning established for the salvation of all people, both Jews and gentiles, thereby excluding the possibility of a two-path-approach for all Roman Catholics.[/b]


Not to mention the New Testament has something to say:


And Hebrews 10:9:
[quote]“then he added, ‘Lo, I have come to do thy will.’ He abolishes the first in order to
establish the second.[/quote]”

And 2 Cor 3:11,14:
[quote]“11 For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have
much more splendor….14 But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when
they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through
Christ is it taken away.”[/quote]


I would appreciate it someone could tell me what's up with all of the changes that have been going on here.

thanks

EENS

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i have more

Council of Trent: Session 6, Chapter 1: [quote]but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of
Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom, although free will was not extinguished in
them, however weakened and debased in its powers.[/quote](Denz 793).

The Roman Catechism, Pius V: [quote]But, lest the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic
Law….It is most certain that we are not bound to obey the Commandments because they were
delivered by Moses, but because they are implanted in the hearts of all, and have been explained
and confirmed by Christ our Lord.[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

WE are not going to debate Vatican documents. The end. If you wish a civil discussion I will transfer this to trans board.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Cmom,

please don't close the thread. im not looking for debate, im looking for someone to tell me what it all means.

[cmotherofpirl]

then its going to trans I am pleased you don't want it debated

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

thanks

sorry, i put it in the wrong area.

[cmotherofpirl]

no problem.
And think about development of doctrine, the church can further define and understand revelation as time passes.

[Resurrexi]

Pius XII was a recent Pope, so I'd go with him... and the Council of Flroence and the Catechism of the Council of Trent... and with the Bible.

[Aloysius]

I do believe there was a sort of "battle" between Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Kaspar (or at least between their respective congregations) over this issue... the CDF disagreeing with statements from the Congregation for Interreligious dialogue that may have gone too far in this direction.

The teaching of the Church has not changed (it is, indeed, the direct teaching of Christ; a clear instance not only of infallible doctrine, but of dogma essential to the understanding of the nature of the Church and of salvation history...every bit as important as the dogmas of the Blessed Virgin or the dogma of the Incarnation): the old covenant was fulfilled in the new. therefore, the old covenant has been abrogated.

The CDF has made this clear. All statements to the contrary by sources of lesser authority are wrong. The final word on the matter is Dominus Iesus.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1200261' date='Feb 19 2007, 04:38 AM']I do believe there was a sort of "battle" between Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Kaspar (or at least between their respective congregations) over this issue... the CDF disagreeing with statements from the Congregation for Interreligious dialogue that may have gone too far in this direction.

The teaching of the Church has not changed (it is, indeed, the direct teaching of Christ; a clear instance not only of infallible doctrine, but of dogma essential to the understanding of the nature of the Church and of salvation history...every bit as important as the dogmas of the Blessed Virgin or the dogma of the Incarnation): the old covenant was fulfilled in the new. therefore, the old covenant has been abrogated.

The CDF has made this clear. All statements to the contrary by sources of lesser authority are wrong. The final word on the matter is Dominus Iesus.[/quote]

Ok, this is what i figured. Thank you for confirming that. if this is indeed that case, why is the "THE 18th INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC-JEWISH LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING" document still on the vatican website? it contains heresy. Shouldn't it be removed?

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontific...s-aires_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontific...s-aires_en.html[/url]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='1200344' date='Feb 19 2007, 11:11 AM'][url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontific...s-aires_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontific...s-aires_en.html[/url][/quote]
All I get when I click on that is the main page at the Vatican.

[Mr.Cat]

The Old Law was fulfilled in the New Law, thus the Jewish people must find salvation in the New Law. We know also that the Jewish People in the Scriptures rejected the Old Covenant when they rejected the one whom was promised to them, the redeemer, which is symbolic in the temple veils being ripped in half. But still God is faithful to them through Christ and they are still the chosen people, a people set apart, and they are to have the primacy or the first right of conversion to the Church for the promise of the redeemer was first given to the Jews and then secondly to the world.

But we could ponder why our Blessed Lord established a New Covenant; to prefect, sanctify, and fulfill the old. In the establishment of the New Covenant we see that our Blessed Lord saw that the old was not enough otherwise He would have not created a new covenant of which we know He did. Also the Apostles would have not preached unto the Jews of their need of being converted unto the Church and our Blessed Lord would of not founded a New Religion, the only Universal Religion of God.

Moreover when we look at the Old Law and the Old Covenant no where is there the “hope of salvation” but only the hope of He that was to come. So even if the Old Covenant did still exist as it did before the time of Christ it could not be enough for the salvation of souls for even before Christ it was not enough. We know from the Scriptures and from the teachings of the Church that there is no salvation outside of Christ or His Bride the Church. So all salvation is authored by Christ and is dispensed in, through, by, with, and connected to His Bride.

So even the Jews can attain salvation but in the end it is not by the Old Covenant but rather by the New Covenant, the Catholic Church, that they obtain eternal salvation... But how God will judge the Jewish People, we do not know but what we do know is that that there are certain requirements for salvation that are defined in the Dogmatic Laws of the Church of which they must not be ignored in this subject. We hope for the salvation of all mankind, Jew and non-Jew alike...

Edited February 19, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

"But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people"

1 Peter 2:8.

Peter was obviously NOT talking to the Jews when he said this. In fact sometimes we sing this at mass, there again it is not directed towards the jews. They are not god's chosen people.

[quote]the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord...As slaves [size=4]rejected by God[/size], in whose death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ's death set free...[/quote]

-Pope Innocent III

The Catholic church is the Nation set apart, the Jews are not longer the chosen people.


Raphael: this should work

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20040708_declaration-buenos-aires_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontific...s-aires_en.html[/url]

Edited February 19, 2007 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[Laudate_Dominum]

I voted "other" because the first two options are confused.

[Aloysius]

How so? it would seem that the second option is technically correct... it uses the present tense saying the old covenant does not now exist.

perhaps, because the new replaced the old, the new covenant can be considered the heir to the old covenant, and in that sense the new covenant being the fulfillment of the old, the old one still exists as the new in a continuity...

but I'm not sure I see a problem with the wording "the old covenant does not exist"