In recent months, as a result of the USCCB's controversial document entitled "REFLECTIONS ON COVENANT AND MISSION", there has been much discussion about the role of the Old Covenant in light of the Church's constant witness that only through Jesus Christ can anyone have an objective means of salvation. This means that while non-Catholics may be saved, it cannot be through the errors of their religion but despite them. In short, it is because they responded to God's grace as best they could in their situation, and this, in the end, is how they will be judged (Cf. Romans 2:6-11).

 

Much of the impetus for the Reflections document is ultimately derived from comments made by the Holy Father when he spoke to representatives of the Jewish community in Mainz, Germany, on November 17, 1980. In part, he said:

 

And this is certainly not an isolated teaching that can be ignored or undermined in any way. Why? Because it is an official and authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church:

 

The Catechism goes on to explain the intrinsic and necessary role the Old Covenant has to play in economy of Salvation and that the Old Covenant is a necessary tool by God to prepare and announce the New Covenant, the source and summit of which is Jesus Christ Himself:

 

This is why, therefore, the Old Covenant cannot be revoked because it points the Jewish people to Christ. To revoke this Covenant would be to undermine and destroy the only path open to them as a people to encounter the Messiah who is Christ Jesus. The Catechism explicitly recognizes that for the Jew to meet Christ, he must do so through the Covenant of his fathers:

 

Indeed, the Church is careful to remind its faithful that there is no false dichotomy between the Old and New Testaments:

 

In my earlier article on the question of the necessity of evangelizing the Jewish people, I made it clear that all non-Catholic peoples are to be confronted with the Gospel. There is no exception to this rule. However, that does not mean to say that the Jewish people are not in a special position in salvation history given their Old Covenant heritage. In fact, in some respects, one may say that the Old Covenant is still salvific for the Jews precisely because the Old Covenant points to Jesus Christ. This is the purpose of the Old Covenant for the Jew: to point to Christ. Without this understanding, the Old Covenant is not salvific because it is not fulfilling its mission which is to draw the Jewish people to their Messiah. Without Jesus, there is no "Old Covenant" because Christ is the author and end of the Old Covenant:

 

Some time ago, Robert Sungenis had posted our discussion on his website and offered his comments to my first rebuttal of his original comments. Accordingly, this is now my second rebuttal in our discussion.

 

My comments are in standard text format (black). Robert Sungenis' comments are in red. Commentary by others will be in green.

 

---

 

JP1: How is the pigmee in Australia saved? Not by an any objective pagan means, but through the New Covenant. How is the "ignorant" Jew saved? Through the New Covenant. Yes. But he, like the pagan, does not recognize the New Covenant. (I am speaking here, of course, as a real invincible ignorance). So what is he left with? The Old Covenant which is nonetheless still God's Word. So how does God look at the ignorant and pious Jew who is trying to live by the Old Covenant? He applies the fruits of the New Covenant to the Old Covenant since the Old Covenant is not a repudiation of the New, but something which is simply incomplete.

 

RS1: Yes, but as I told Art, that principle can apply to anyone, Jew or Gentile. One could also argue that the Gentiles also obey the "Old Covenant," since the laws of the OC are written on their heart (Rom 2:14-15). The Jews don't fulfill any special category in this regard. The fact remains, however, that the OC could not save anyone, so it is superfluous for someone to claim that "the Jews have their own covenant and don't need to convert to Christianity."

 

JP2: Unlike Kasper, I am not advocating that. To me, to exempt anyone from the objective necessity to convert to the Catholic faith is nothing less than rank heresy. However, this issue is not a simple one. It is very nuanced and it operates on different levels. In fact, this, to me, is more of a timing issue. The holy ones of the Old Covenant were redeemed by Christ, but through the reigning covenant at that time which was the Old Covenant because they had not yet heard the Gospel. It is likewise the same here. It is only when the Jew is confronted with the Gospel that the Old Covenant is no longer salvific because he has met with new revelation. But if we could imagine an ignorant pious Jewish family trying to obey the word of God through the Old Covenant, how is it possible that he is not saved through this covenant (under the auspices of the New)?

 

RS2: Not true. Scripture NEVER says the Old Covenant saved the Jews. The NT says that the Jews of the OT heard the same "GOSPEL" that you and I heard. Hebrew 4:2, 6 says: "For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard...6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience." The whole book of Galatians is devoted to the fact that the Old Covenant could not save anyone, and that Abraham and his progeny are saved through the merits of Christ. In fact Galatians 3:8 says that God "preached the GOSPEL to Abraham." You claim that the Old Covenant saves Jews, but Scripture never calls God's dealing with Abraham "the Old Covenant." The phrase "Old Covenant" is reserved for the Mosaic covenant (See 2 Cor 3:14; Hebrews 7:18; 10:9). Your appealing to "nuances" is not going to change anything. If you can find one passage in Scripture, or in our Traditional Catholic teaching, that says the Old Covenant saved Jews, then you will have a point. But until then you are advocating an erroneous idea.

 

JP2: You have appealed to the Scriptures and so to the Scriptures we shall go....

 

Robert, when Our Lord is asked by the Lawyer what he must do to inherit eternal life, do you see what Our Lord does? He points to the Old Covenant and says "WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE LAW?" Later, Jesus either directly cites or affirms the Law's teachings from the Old Testament. Here they are:

 

These two passages from which Jesus quotes are directly within the context of the OLD COVENANT. You need only read the verses and chapters surrounding them to see it. Moreover, not only is Jesus citing the OLD COVENANT commands and "hanging all the Law and Prophets on these two commandments", but He also takes THESE OLD COVENANT COMMANDMENTS and tells the lawyer flat out to do these things if he wants eternal life. Therefore, the whole Law rests on two commandments of the Old Covenant which are brought forward from obscurity and made explicit in the New Covenant. Yet, in these two commandments of the OLD COVENANT, we see Jesus affirming that they are eternal life indeed!

 

Jesus' direct appeal to the Old Covenant and His connection of it to eternal life indicates to me that the Old Covenant is indeed salvific (at least in this respect). Notice too that Our Lord says to the Lawyer about the Law: "How do you read it?" In other words, there is a saving power to the Old Covenant and there is a "killing" power to it as well.

 

JP1: If the fruits of the death of Jesus on the cross can be applied retroactively to Moses and Elijah so that they are saved and appear with Christ at the Transfiguration and were saved through the Old Covenant under the fruits of the New Covenant, why then can we not say the same to the pious Jew today who has little to no contact with the Risen Lord? Is he not in the same position as Moses where God, according to Romans 11, might be preparing a time to reveal Himself to them once the fullness of Gentiles have entered? (Of course, if he is confronted with Christianity so that his culpability "takes", the graces of the New Covenant no longer flow to him.)

 

RS1:Again your premise and language are wrong ("were saved through the Old Covenant under the fruits of the New Covenant"). There is no such amalgamation in Scripture between the two covenants. You are mixing apples and oranges.

 

JP1: See Jesus' teaching about the Law above. There seems to be convergence there, in my opinion.

 

---

 

RS1: They were not saved "through" the OC. They were saved in OC times, but in spite of the OC, since all the OC could do was be a tutor to Christ (Galatians 3:23-29). It could not save anyone. The only thing it did in regard to eternity is condemn (Galatians 3:10-12).

 

JP1: Robert, this is what Galatians 3:23-29 says:

 

As you can see, "what could not save" and was used only as a "tutor to Christ" is not the Covenant but the Law. And the Law came well after the Covenant, 430 years according to St. Paul. They are distinct.

 

RS1: No, John. Look carefully at Galatians 3:17. It says "a covenant." There were various "covenants" in the OT. The one being spoken about in Gal 3:17 is the Abrahamic covenant, not the Mosaic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant, as Galatians 3:6-8, 29; 4:24 state, is a separate covenant, and IT IS NEVER called the "Old Covenant." 2 Cor 3:7, 14 specifically calls the Mosaic law "written in stone" the "Old Covenant." As for the Mosaic covenant being interchangeable with the Law, the following passages make that very clear (Ex 34:27-28; Deut 4:13; 9:9, 11, 15; 29:1; Lev 26:15).

 

JP2: OK. I grant you that there is a distinction between Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant. But my point above still stands. It is possible that St. Paul's condemnation is directed at those who seek to obligate God by abiding by the Law's prohibitions (thou shalt nots), instead of being proactive and loving "God and neighbour". I simply don't believe that the command of loving God and neighbour, made explicit in the Old Covenant, is not salvific. That is the heart of the Gospel message, is it not?

 

---

 

JP1:

 

Robert, does this not suggest that the problem is not with the Covenant but with the Jews' hardness of heart? What happens when the veil covering the Old Covenant is lifted? If there were no veil over the Old Covenant, Christ would be revealed as St. Paul says above: "It has not been removed because only in Christ is it taken away." This suggests that the problem is not with GOD AND HIS COVENANT but with the hardness of heart of Israel. This also ties in with a future removing of the veil as suggested in Romans 11.

 

RS1: No, it doesn't at all. Scripture is clear in that context that the Mosaic covenant of law was a "ministry of death," intrinsically. In Romans 7:6-10 Paul says that the Mosaic law is what condemns him in sin. Galatians 3:10-12 says the same. So does Romans 5:20. Hebrews 7:18 does, too. It's all over the Scripture, John. What Paul is talking about in 2 Cor 3:13-15 is that if the Jews had read the OT correctly and had been open to its truth, they would have seen it prophesying the coming of Christ (just as Zechariah did in Luke 1:68-79) to save them from the old covenant, not that the old covenant itself would be salvific for them. How could it be salvific for the OT Jews if Paul keeps telling us over and over again in the NT that the old covenant law could not save them?

 

Now, for the sake of argument, let's deal with your assertion that "the problem is not with GOD AND HIS COVENANT but with the hardness of heart of Israel." In one sense, I can agree. Paul says the same in Romans 7:12 that the "law is holy and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." There is nothing wrong with the Old Covenant, in itself. It's an inanimate object. It just has laws, lots of them, but they were good laws. The problem is that, after Adam, no man can ever obey those laws perfectly, and thus it makes the Old Covenant "weak and useless" (Hebrews 7:18). That is Paul's whole argument in Galatians 3:10-12. He says that if you are going to base your salvation on the Old Covenant law then you must do EVERYTHING in the law without fault. Who can do that? No one, of course. So in that sense, the old covenant law is automatically condemnatory. What must happen is a removal of that covenant in place of a covenant that shows mercy if we sin, the same "mercy" that Zechariah anticipated. That is what the New Covenant does. The Old Covenant contained no mercy. It was just a mere legal entity, like a traffic ticket.

 

JP2: OK. I agree with your view about St. Paul's interpretation of the Old Covenant. But is it not possible that St. Paul was condemning THAT PART of the Old Covenant (admittedly most of it) which was a kind of nominal moral legalism that could not save, yet leaving aside the obscured part of the Old Covenant which was salvific?

 

---

 

JP1: Hence, when the Holy Father speaks of the "Old Covenant being salvific", is he really not pointing to Christ as the end and fulfilment of the Old Covenant when that veil, which currently covers the Old Covenant for the Jews, is lifted from their eyes? Is this not a possible interpretation?

 

RS1: First of all, I'm glad to see you admit that John Paul II is saying or implying that the "old covenant is salvific." And I understand that all your effort here is to save face for him so that he is not accused of error. That is an admirable task, John, and I admire your loyalty. But in this case, I think it is misplaced loyalty. As I noted above, we must be very careful with our language. Scripture NEVER refers to the Abrahamic covenant as "the old covenant." There is only one place the NT uses the phrase "old covenant," and that is 2 Cor 3:14 in reference to the Mosaic law. (In Hebrews it calls it the "first covenant" but still with the same negative conclusion). Moreover, this is the way our Traditional exegesis has always used the term "old covenant." I don't know of any Catholic works that says otherwise. So if someone says "The Old Covenant has never been revoked," they are confusing the Scriptural and Traditional terminology. If he wants to say the Abrahamic covenant has never been revoked, that is all well and good, but that applies to Jews and Gentiles, as Romans 4 specifies. That covenant was made when Abraham was a Gentile.

 

The only other place where the covenant is called "old" is Hebrew 8:13. That passage, being a quote from the OT, states that in the time of the OT, the covenant was already "being made old," and that when the "new covenant" comes "he has made old the first." These two facets are very important because they show that the old covenant was already becoming old in the OT, and that when the new covenant finally came, the first covenant had indeed been made old. The Greek verb for "has been made old" is a perfect indicative, which means that the action was COMPLETED and remains that way in the present.

 

JP2: I am not disputing that the Old Covenant is "old" or that it is not clearly inferior to the New or that the New is the not the required covenant in evangelizing the Jews. I uphold that. However, we must keep in mind that Our Lord's intent was not to abolish or "revoke" but to fulfill. This is the paradigm I think we should operate under:

 

---

 

JP1:

 

Does not St. Paul distinguish between the law on the one hand and the covenant on the other? If he says the law cannot save throughout his Epistles, that is not the same as saying the covenant cannot save. It seems to me that he is separating the two. Moreover, notice how he says that the law does not set aside the covenant so that, in effect, it is indeed possible to do away with the law but not the covenant. Notice also in the passage above that St. Paul says that the law does not "set aside the covenant" because if it did, then the promise would be "done away with". He associates the Old Covenant with the inheritance and the promise. They all go together. Attack one of them and you attack all of them. Finally, if Jesus is the fulfilment of the Old Covenant; if He truly is the end of the Old Covenant; that is, the seed promised to Abraham, then how can we say that this covenant of which Jesus is the end is not salvific?

 

RS1: Again, Scripture does not refer to the covenant with Abraham as "the Old Covenant." It is the Mosaic covenant, which contains the law, which is abolished and is not salvific. Christ is the of the Mosaic Old Covenant, but the beginning of the Abrahamic covenant (cf., Luke 1:72-73).

 

JP1: No further comment. I agree with your distinction.

 

---

 

JP1: The Old Covenant itself, because it has the Messiah as its end MUST BE salvific. The fact that the Jews do not acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah is merely tangential to this question. And I think this is why everyone is getting so uptight, but it is a crucial distinction to be made. OBJECTIVELY speaking, from a Christian point of view (and the only one that really counts), the Old Covenant is salvific because Jesus is the Messiah and the FULFILMENT OF THIS COVENANT, the seed promised to Abraham. From a Jewish point of view, however, they have erred in identifying who that Messiah is. The question then becomes: does the Jews' failure to identify Christ as the Messiah override the Church's right to declare the Old Covenant to be salvific from a Christian perspective.? I say no. The Church is not beholden to the Jews' rejection of Christ as being the "authentic Old Covenant" understanding. On the contrary, it is rather the Church who can say who the seed of Abraham is, and thereby declare the Old Covenant salvific in Christ.

 

RS2: Again, John, the failure in using the right terminology has resulted in you making up ways of salvation that are not in Scripture or our Tradition. Moreover, the fact that Jews don't acknowledge the Messiah is not "merely tangential." The whole book of Acts says that because they rejected the Messiah, it is precisely why God is rejecting them (Act 13:45-48). And the Church has no "right" to declare anything that is not in Scripture or our Tradition. But this is precisely the problem with the Church today. They have used incorrect and ambiguous terminology (e.g., "the old covenant has never been revoked") and this has led to heretical doctrines (e.g., the RCM document saying "since the old covenant has never been revoked, campaigns that target the Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church").

 

JP2: The Church today has a "right" to do anything it pleases since it still teaches with the Authority of Christ. And the Church today is the Church of yesterday. Furthermore, the statement "the old covenant has never been revoked" comes right from the Catechism of the Catholic Church - which is a binding document on the Church's faithful.

 

JP1: Both Christians and Jews can say the OC is `salvific' because of the promised Messiah. This is a common understanding, is it not? Our common heritage begins and ends on this Messiah. The promised seed of Abraham is the Messiah for both Christians and Jews. There is a convergence and a divergence here at the same time. We both agree on the promise – we just disagree on who the seed is.

 

RS1: Again, it is the terminology that is the problem. The Old Covenant is NOT salvific. The covenant of Abraham is salvific, but not the Mosaic covenant, which is the "old covenant."

 

JP1:

 

We can look at it two ways:

 

#1 The Old Covenant = rejection of Jesus as the Messiah

 

#2 The Old Covenant = fullfilled in Jesus as the Messiah

 

The presupposition guiding our whole discussion on the Holy Father's very brief remarks (1 sentence?) has been on #1 instead of #2.

 

To say that "the Old Covenant is salvific", therefore, does not necessarily mean that the Holy Father endorses the Jews rejection of Christ as an objective means for their salvation. I am more disposed to think it quite the opposite, and if my simple (simpleton?) little paradigm above is the context of the Pope's remarks, where is the great difficulty? If the Pope is saying the OC is salvific, he must be tying it into a basis for salvation which did not previously exist for the Jews; namely, Christ. When the Pope says "the OC is salvific", you really have to wonder if he is not, in effect, pointing to Christ.

 

RS2: Again, John, I admire your effort to "defend" the Pope, but this is simply a case of the Pope using the wrong terminology. Whether he is doing it deliberately or accidentally, I don't know. He has a long history of saying things about the Jews that are opposed to our Tradition. According to Darcy O'Brien who wrote The Hidden Pope, and who accepts John Paul's ideas, the Pope is indeed teaching that Jews do not need to convert to Christianity since they have their own covenant of salvation.

 

But here is the clincher. Even if we granted the Pope the distinction that, when he says "old covenant" he is referring to the Abrahamic covenant, nevertheless, since the Pope maintains that the Jews "have their own covenant," then he would have to be saying that the Abrahamic covenant applies ONLY to the Jews, not Christians, otherwise there is no "own" distinction to speak of. But naturally, if the Abrahamic covenant saves Jews and Gentiles, then it can't be the Jews "own covenant." It is both our covenant. And that is precisely what Paul argues in Gal 3:6-8 and 3:28-29. So all the talk about the Jews having "their own covenant" is totally incorrect. Not only does it distort to whom the Abrahamic covenant applies, but as I argued earlier, it also fails to see that the phrase "Old Covenant" applied by Scripture only to the Mosaic covenant.

 

If you look back in Jeremiah 31:31-33, you will see that Jeremiah spoke about the coming of the New Covenant. Jeremiah was writing around 600 BC. The Hebrew writer then explains that, when Jeremiah wrote the words predicting the coming of the New Covenant, the Old Covenant was ALREADY "decaying" and "growing old." That means that, because the New Covenant was coming, the Old Covenant was already in a state of decay prior to the New Covenant. It did not start decaying when the New Covenant arrived.

 

JP2: No further comment since I accept the distinction you make.

 

---

 

Another person comments....

 

Fr. Friedman, the founder of the AHC used two analogies to describe his understanding of the Old and New Covenants, one example of which he drew from John Henry Newman.

 

One was the example of the caterpillar, as analogous to the Old Covenant and the creature transformed into a butterfly as analagous to the New Covenant.

 

The other example was the child, again analogous to the Old and then transformed into the adult, analogous to the New.

 

In both analogies, the transformation produces new capabilities and new possibilities. Yet each transformation is that of the same creature.

 

Thus, the butterfly is the same creature as the caterpillar, just as the adult is the same creature as the child. But both are in a different or new stage of their development or life.

 

Fr. Friedman saw the moment of transformation, as we would expect, in the passion of Jesus - His death and resurrection. He wrote that the Old Covenant died on the Cross with Jesus and was resurrected or reborn as the New with Jesus' resurrection.

 

In this light, we can similarly talk about the seed being planted and dying and then coming to a rebirth as a tree. Or the caterpillar dying in its cacoon and coming to rebirth as a caterpillar.

 

The law or the Torah, on the other hand is the cultic observance of the Old Covenant, at certain stages of its existence. Obviously the Torah was not the observance of the People Israel prior to Sinai.

 

As Cardinal Newman observed, the reality (Covenant) that existed prior to Jesus continues though transformed into the reality that succeeds Jesus. The precepts remain, but their content and meaning is changed - new content, new meanings. So the cultic observance of the Old Covenant is also thereby transformed into the observances of the New.

 

---

 

This is, in part, why I have problems with the RCM and, despite a fine attempt, with John's analysis as well. The terms of our fidelity to God are spelled out in the reigning Covenant. In our case, this is the New Covenant and it's not possible to be faithful to God today without being faithful to the "terms" of the reigning Covenant.

 

No disagreement here, David. I also maintain that the NT covenant is the reigning one - no ands, ifs, or buts about it. But in reading David Moss' very enlightening post, one can see that a Jew in the middle of twentieth century Brooklyn, NY (never mind a pigmee in Australia) still was not confronted with the living Christ. While he is still objectively UNDER the New Covenant, he does not know it. Now then, what does God do with a pious Jew who is trying to live out his life in accordance with the Covenant of his Fathers? The question is: "Would God reject his covenant with SOME Jewish people of TODAY who have not been properly confronted with the true identity of the Messiah?" [ Remember, this is not a religion (like Islam or Buddhism) where there was never a reigning covenant or where the inspired Word of God was not revealed. This is a covenant that ONCE WAS OBJECTIVELY the reigning covenant, and contains the inspired Word of God.]

 

The bottom line for me is this: What does God do with a pious Jew who believes that the Covenant he holds to is still mandated by God? The Jew, let us not forget, is not in the same boat as a pagan because the pagan *never* has had any covenant with God. So if he is saved, it is not because of his incantations but despite them. However, the Jew has the OBJECTIVELY TRUE WORD OF GOD by which he is living, even if it is incomplete. That's a big difference, IMHO, since he is trying to live by God's true and inspired word. So if he is saved, on what basis is he saved?

 

Answer: Through Christ - objectively, speaking. But on an instrumental level, he is saved by obeying his conscience which is formed by both objective, revealed truth on the one hand and the natural law on the other. For the pagan, only the latter is possible. But for the Jew, both are applicable. And because of that, can we not say that the OC is salvific if the Jew has not been confronted with the truth of Jesus Christ?

 

Now here are some questions and points which, IMO, have gone unaddressed but need to if this discussion is going to bear fruit. Obviously I have some of my own answers to these, but I throw them out for general consumption.

 

1) Is there any evidence in Scripture of two Covenants being operative at the same time?

 

In my opinion, the New Testament does not address this issue. Now, it is more than obvious that St. Paul wanted to downplay the OC (understandably) since he was bringing the Jews the gospel (as well he should, as we should today, by the way). But this is more of a "theological backroom truth". If we started broadcasting this thing in the wrong way, then people could get the wrong idea about the mandate to evangelize the Jews - which I still insist on.

 

Bob's challenge stands unanswered: Is there any Father, Doctor, Pope, or Council that has ever said that the Old Covenant is still salvific or still in force?

 

I bet you that this issue has never been discussed before. I don't think it's fair to insist that the issue must have been discussed or ruled upon in our history for it to have merit. When did the Immaculate Conception start to heat up - the middle ages? I betcha there are dozens of these kind of examples...

 

If not then does that not make current proclamations to the contrary, from whatever source, prima facie problematic?

 

Not necessarily. It could be legitimate development of doctrine. Do we really believe that a legitimate development of doctrine is going to be painless? That is not what history shows us. We're all just "peachy" talking about "development of doctrine" when it comes to defending it in the abstract, looking down our noses at the Prots because they don't acknowledge it, but when it that sucker is bearing down on us with full force, what do we do? Do we face it or run and hide?

 

3) While there was considerably adolescent pouting and ranting about the citations Bob produced from Fathers and Popes concerning the Jews, nevertheless they are authentic and there are many more than that besides. Could not a case be made, given their ubiquity and repetition throughout Church history, that they represent the authentic and irreformable ordinary magisterium of the Church? And if the argument is made that these former statements represent mere capitulation to the ethos of former times and not the true teaching of the Church, what shields the present position from the same criticism?

 

One answer to that is that the present position, if you were a betting man, is likely going to be the right one because it likely represents legitimate development. If the magisterium turns out to be wrong, then you won't be culpable, and it will eventually be overturned. If it's right and you refuse assent, you are on the way to schism.

 

Another answer is to carefully look at the texts that were cited, and ask yourself this question: "Does this really represent SACRED TRADITION, the sacred tradition passed on by St. Paul:

 

How does this passage with the phrase "they are loved" (by God) square with the texts that Robert posted? Which is Sacred Tradition and which is not?

 

Could it not be argued that the present verbage about the ongoing nature of the OC is just an erroneous capitulation to the (liberal and permissive) ethos of our day and the former teaching represents the true teaching of the Church? Or is it just a matter that what comes latest is automatically correct?

 

Yes, it could be, David. But then again, it might not be. So, as a Catholic, what mechanism do you use to decide on a controversial topic, and how are you so sure that it is not a legitimate development of doctrine? The answer is that you cannot be. Even St. Thomas had problems with the IC. Last time I checked my phone messages, Rome was not calling me to pronounce me an "angelic doctor". :)

 

4)While the RCM says that the OC is salvific apart from conversion to Christ, as far as I know the Holy Father has not said this. Although the RCM cites John Paul II as an authority, it is not clear from any explicit statement from him that he would agree with its conclusions. On this score perhaps Bob is not making his case with sufficient clarity or corroborating evidence.

 

As it stands, the RCM is heretical, in my opinion. I think you will agree with me David that the Devil wants to push the envelope more than it should be opened when controversial issues are discussed.

 

5) Is the Jew who rejects Christ (in ignorance, for the sake of argument) and follows the Old Covenant (especially in its present day form with a Talmudic encrustation) in any better position vis-a-vis salvation than the Moslem or Hindu?

 

I can't say about the Talmud, but considering that the Jew has the inspired Word of God, then I cannot see how he is in any worse position. In fact, he is in a much better one:

 

Does following the Old Covenant vs. following the Koran make it easier for him to follow God's Law and cooperate with His grace in such a way that he might achieve eternal salvation?

 

Yes, since the Old Testament is inspired. The Koran is not. There was once a reigning covenant with the Jews; there was never one with Ishmael.

 

Is this all RCM means by the OC being salvific, or does it mean more than that (i.e. does it mean that God is pleased by the following of the OC in secret?)

 

Sadly, I think the RCM has their own agenda. They want us to leave the Jews alone. That is bullpucky. The Jews still need Jesus, and are, objectively speaking, in a much worse state than us. In fact, the distance is very very large.

 

That's one concern I have with this dang discussion. It's all fine and dandy to slice out nice little theological distinctions, it's quite another to present it to the Jews and the media without everyone getting the impression that it's "hands off the Jews". That's the dilemma we are facing. I would much prefer this discussion being an INTERNAL CHURCH MATTER rather than telling the Jews their covenant has never been revoked. It's giving them the wrong idea.

 

---

 

I want to make two short comments on the passages you cited, Donna. First off, the first few cause me no real difficulty and I will respond when I do my paper. However, please pay close attention to the last passage you cited from Hebrews:

 

Please explain to me why Paul (or the writer of Hebrews) says the Old is not "dead". Christ has died and inaugurated the New Covenant at this point in history so the Old one should be useless. Is that what Paul says? No. He says that the New Covenant is better:

 

...and he says the OC is dying and growing old, but he does not say it is dead. This makes no sense under the auspices of the New Covenant (which the writer of Hebrews was writing under) since the New should "kill" the Old. The only way Paul makes sense is to understand that the Old Covenant has some kind of saving power through the reality of the New, but Paul would rather not concede this point explicitly when he was writing.

 

Paul is caught, you see. Because he knows that

 

#1 - He cannot minimize the power of the New Covenant and the necessity to submit to it (no question!)

 

but also

 

#2 - He can't say that the OC is dead or revoked, because it is not.

 

Hence, you find the kind of language he uses in chapters 6-8 of Hebrews.

 

---

 

RS1: If you look back in Jeremiah 31:31-33, you will see that Jeremiah spoke about the coming of the New Covenant. Jeremiah was writing around 600 BC. The Hebrew writer then explains that, when Jeremiah wrote the words predicting the coming of the New Covenant, the Old Covenant was ALREADY "decaying" and "growing old." That means that, because the New Covenant was coming, the Old Covenant was already in a state of decay prior to the New Covenant. It did not start decaying when the New Covenant arrived.

 

JP1: OK. But this does not in itself mean that the Old Covenant was not *still* decaying in Paul's time, does it? Does the text itself exclude this possibility? I don't think so. In point of fact, this would have been the time for St. Paul to point that out, but he does not. He uses the same situation that Jeremiah found himself in; namely, pointing to a decaying OC. There would be no point to simply repeating the same "dying" state of the OC, if it was in fact, and should be, already dead.

 

RS2: John, the point of Hebrews 8:13 is to show that, not only did the Old Covenant come to an end when the New Covenant came, but it was already dying of "old age" in the OT. This is a natural occurrence. If a New Covenant is being prophesied as coming in the future, what would this do to the longevity of the Old Covenant? It would naturally show that the Old Covenant was not meant to last forever, and as such, it started to die the day the New Covenant was prophesied. It was just a matter of time before the Old Covenant would finally expire. It's like a man being told he has six months to live. At that point he is already dying. It's just a matter of time before he finally keels over. What evidence from Scripture and Tradition do you have that places this expiration at some time other than the first advent of Christ?

 

JP2: Robert, the text does not say it is dead. "And that which decayeth and groweth old is near its end." This is what Scripture is teaching us. St. Paul should have said it was dead since the New Covenant had already been inaugurated. Why didn't he?

 

JP1:Furthermore, Hebrews 8:13 says "But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear" (NASB). This is very curious language. Jesus has already established the NC. It is over. The OC is not just ready to disappear but it has disappeared; that is, it has been revoked….But that is not what the text says. It says that it is ready to disappear, not that it has, in fact, disappeared. Well, if it's still around in St. Paul's day, it is likely still around today.

 

RS1: Thus, it makes perfect sense that, when the New Covenant finally arrived with the death and resurrection of Christ, the Old Covenant would be completely decayed and would have died of old age.

 

JP2: Thus, it makes perfect sense that, when the New Covenant finally arrived with the death and resurrection of Christ, the Old Covenant would be completely decayed and would have died of old age.

 

RS2: Are you trying to give me a lesson on Greek grammar, John? :) Here is what the verse literally says in the Greek: "He says in the new he has made old the first; and the thing being made old and growing aged is near vanishing." The first part is very clear in showing us that the New makes the first Old.

 

Here is what the Expositor's Greek Testament says: "In saying 'New' he has antiquated the first; and that which is antiquated and growing old is near extinction. That is to say, by speaking in the passage quoted, ver. 8, of a new covenant, God brands the former as old. Thus even in Jeremiah's time the Mosaic covenant was disparaged. The fact that a new was required showed that it was insufficient. It was condemned as antiquated. And that which is antiquated and aged has not much longer to live" He then says of the word "disappearance" (Greek: aphanismos) that it is "suggestive of utter destruction, abolition; thus in Polybius v. 11, 5 it is joined with apoleia." So, unlike your interpretation that seeks to put the Mosaic covenant on a respirator for the next two thousand years, the Greek sticks the knife into the Old Covenant. It was already bleeding in Jeremiah's time.

 

JP2: But Robert, the source you quote does not go any further than the biblical text: "In saying 'New' he has antiquated the first; and that which is antiquated and growing old is near extinction." Again, why not just come and say it? Why not just say IT IS EXTINCT!?!!?

 

RS2:The only thing that survives from the Old Covenant is its principles, which the New Covenant absorbs and enhances (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount is a good example).

 

JP2: But those principles are life affirming and salvific as Our Lord testified, and they come from and are found in the Old Covenant.

 

---

 

JP1: Why? If the Old Covenant is synonymous with the Law, then according to what you just said above, "it has to be removed, totally, if we want to be saved. If any smidgen of it remains, it will condemn us." If the Old Covenant principles lead a Jew to Christ, how can we say that the Old Covenant is not salvific? The principles have come from the Old Covenant.

 

RS1: John, you need to understand the difference between legality and ethical principles. For example, let's say you had a law in Canada that said the speed limit on the highway was 55mph, and it was put in place in order to help save lives, but a year later that law was changed to 65mph because, although Canada still desired to save lives, they found that 10mph more would not substantially jeopardize anyone's life. Two things happened here. The law was changed from 55 to 65. Thus anyone going over 55-65 would not get a ticket. But there is also something that didn't change. The principle of saving lives was the same whether the law was set at 55 or 65. In this way, the new law of 65mph used the ETHICAL PRINCIPLES of the old law of 55mph. But at the same time, it must also be said that the law of 55mph no longer exists as a LEGAL ENTITY, for it can no longer convict anyone who is going 55mph.

 

In the same way, it can be said that the Old Covenant has no power to save someone, but we can use its ethical principles in the New Covenant. So you see, if you now tell someone today that they can be saved by the Old Covenant, well, you've just condemned them to hell, because the Old Covenant can't save anyone. That is the whole reason we needed a New Covenant. All the Old Covenant could do is point us to the New Covenant, since that is the only place where salvation resides.

 

JP2: Robert, I think this distinction is superfluous. If I am not saved by the Law and I am saved by the principle behind that law instead, then how can I live by a salvific principle (Cf. Luke 10:28) and yet be condemned for following a covenant that teaches it to me? The Old Covenant is the instrument by which the Jews hear the salvific message of "loving God and neighbour" (Cf. Deut. 6:4-9, Lev.19:18). As such, it can be said to be salvific.

 

RS1: It's the same reason that 2 Corinthians 3:7-8 calls the Ten Commandments a "ministry of death."

 

JP1: Yes, that follows Paul's constant teaching against the Jews trying to obtain salvation by the Law. I grant you this. But the fault is with the people:

 

The Old Covenant reveals Jesus Christ. It is only their dull minds which keep the veil over the Old Covenant, behind which is the face of their Messiah!

 

RS1: Moroever, in verse 14 it says that the reason the Jews refuse to be saved is "until this very day at the reading of the OLD COVENANT the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ (the New Covenant).

 

JP1: But this actually helps me, not you. What happens when the veil IS lifted from the Old Covenant? Who will you see behind it? Jesus. Exactly. So the OC is salvific after all because God is its author and its end. The fact that the Jews do not acknowledge that it is Jesus behind that veil is IRRELEVANT to the question. The Pope is not going to say that the guy behind the veil is not Jesus. Read the passage carefully. The fault is not with the Old Covenant per se, it is with their *reading* of it i.e. they do not accept Christ as the Messiah.

 

RS1: It's the same reason that Romans 7:7-8-11 tells us that the commandment of the Old Covenant which said "Thou shalt not covet" is the very commandment that serves to condemn us in sin because that is the Law's primary job, to condemn.

 

JP1: No. The Law's primary job is to show how helpless man is in overcoming his sin without Christ. The ultimate purpose of the Law is to point to the redeemer who we know is Jesus of Nazareth.

 

RS1: So you see, if you now tell someone today that they can be saved by the Old Covenant, well, you've just condemned them to hell, because the Old Covenant can't save anyone. That is the whole reason we needed a New Covenant. All the Old Covenant could do is point us to the New Covenant, since that is the only place where salvation resides.

 

JP1: Was Moses saved? Yes he was. By what *instrumental means*? By the OC since that is the time in which he lived. The OC draws its power from the NC, and that is the ultimate reason Moses was saved, by the foreseen merits of Christ. Yet, it is possible that the OC operates under the same rubric for those Jews who have not been confronted with the NC. It's possible. If it was possible for Moses, it's possible for Joe Shmoe today. Why not?

 

RS2: It wasn't possible for Moses. There is no place that Scripture says Moses was saved by the Old Covenant. Also there is no place that says he was saved by the Old Covenant because "that was the time in which he lived." There is no place that says the Old Covenant draws its power to save from the New Covenant. If you want to base it on the "foreseen merits of Christ," then you are talking about the New Covenant as the saving force.

 

RS1: If someone today says Jews can be saved by the Old Covenant, then they are teaching the "Galatian heresy," the very heresy in which St. Paul condemned the Jews of his day. He says to them in Galatians 3:1-2:

 

Or in Galatians 5:2-3 he says:

 

JP1: But the Covenant is MORE than just getting your weeny clipped...

 

St. Paul is giving us a taste of a battle: the outward "legal" Jew who claims to be following the Covenant of "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (cf. John 8:39), and the inward Jew who is spiritual and walks by faith in the promise.

 

RS1: If someone relies on the Old Covenant for salvation, he must keep the whole law without fault, or he will be condemned. And thus, we would put the Jew in the most terrible predicament if we made him depend upon the Old Covenant for salvation, since we know that no one can obey the Law without fault.

 

JP1: Robert, did not Moses keep the Old Covenant for the most part? Yes he did. Was he saved? Yes he was. Why? Because God looked on him with love and mercy for his fidelity to that Covenant. This had nothing to do with law. Am I not right in making this distinction?

 

RS2: If you've already agreed that no man can keep the law with 100% accuracy (per the argument in Galatians 3:10-12), then in one sense even Moses was not really faithful to that Covenant. That covenant demanded 100% obedience with no mercy for his faults. It was a legal entity whose only ability was not to convict if the person was 100% compliant. It had no "mercy." When you begin to speak about "God looked on him with love and mercy" you are not talking about the Old Covenant. You are talking about the New Covenant (or the Abrahamic covenant, if you will). That was the only covenant that had "mercy" in it. That is precisely the argument in Hebrews 10:16-18: "This is the covenant that I will make with them... their sins and their lawless deed I will remember no more." How can God "remember them no more"? By the forgiveness granted by the grace of the New Covenant. The Old Covenant did not have any such grace. That's why it would condemn you for just one fault (James 2:10).

 

JP2: Let's take a look at this passage:

 

Robert, above you stated the following: "When you begin to speak about 'God looked on him with love and mercy' you are not talking about the Old Covenant." Would you explain to me why, then, the Old Covenant is described as a "covenant of love" in the above passage?

 

---

 

RS1: You're begging the question, John. You're the one who is proposing that the Old Covenant is still in force, not St. Paul. If we use your logic, then you could argue that since St. Paul does not exclude the possibility of three or four covenants then we can entertain that possibility, too.

 

JP1: Firstly, I am not begging the question because the onus is on you to prove that the Old Covenant (not the Law, mind you) has been revoked. We know for certain that the Old Covenant was at one time the reigning covenant. What we do not know is what its status is before God in light of the New Covenant of Christ.

 

RS2: The onus is on me? I don't think so, since no one in our Catholic history has ever said "the Old Covenant has not been revoked."

 

JP2: Yes, the onus is on you, Robert. You are the one going against Magisterial teaching as expressed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Find me one papal (magisterial) teaching which explicitly says that the Old Covenant has been revoked.

 

RS2: Second, you have seen in my previous paragraphs that you have failed to recognize that the "old covenant" was the same as the law, the ten commandments (cf., 2 Cor 3:14; Ex 34:27-28). Third, we already know the status of the Old Covenant Law, since Paul tells us that in painstaking detail in Gal 3:10-12 and many other places.

 

JP2: I am willing to grant that some parts of the Old Covenant were indeed condemnatory but not all of it. The Old Covenant includes the Law but it is not identical with it.

 

RS1:There are many things one could say that St. Paul doesn't "exclude," but that can't be the basis of your argument.

 

JP1: It is not. I am going strictly by what the text says. It says that the OC is "decaying". But if it is decaying, then it can't be already dead. I am not basing my appeal on other possibilities, but directing my comments squarely on what St. Paul has repeated about the OC.

 

RS2: The only thing you know from the verse is that the Old Covenant was already decaying in the sixth century BC. Thus, I have answered your original argument, i.e., that the "decaying" only applied to the present time. According to Hebrews 8:13, it applies to past time.

 

JP2: Robert, "decaying" is a process that is ongoing. If it is ongoing, it cannot be dead. St. Paul could have put a nail right through the coffin by saying it was dead. He did not. As such, you have no proof that the Old Covenant is dead.

 

RS1: The only thing you know from the verse is that the Old Covenant was already decaying in the sixth century BC. Thus, I have answered your original argument, i.e., that the "decaying" only applied to the present time. According to Hebrews 8:13, it applies to past time.

 

JP1: Not so fast, compadre. I did not say that the "decaying" ONLY applies to the present time. I said that the "decaying" applies to both Jeremiah's text and St. Paul's text, and that is precisely why St. Paul uses it. Furthermore, while St. Paul does quote from Jeremiah, Hebrews 8:13 is OUTSIDE of the text of Jeremiah, which means that he is not simply quoting Jeremiah and we are to infer that the decay only applied back then.

 

RS2: As I said in a previous paragraph, the Greek verbs simply will not allow your interpretation. In fact, the "first" covenant is then described in Hebrews 9:1ff as consisting of the tabernacle and its accessories. Obviously, those things don't exist anymore, since they have been replaced by Christ in a new tabernacle (Hebrews 9:11). In addition, Hebrews 9:15 speaks of Christ as the mediator of a "new covenant" precisely for those who are classed as sinners under the "first covenant." Again, we have the same truth as in Hebrews 8:13 – the new replaces the old

 

JP1: See below.

 

Also, notice that St. Paul is doing his OWN exegesis of the covenant (i.e. he says "by calling the covenant 'new'") which means that his description of the OC is as accurate in his day as it was in Jeremiah's. Furthermore, you still have not explained why St. Paul has used the adverb "soon". Why is he holding back? And why not cite Jeremiah ONLY and leave it at that? What's the point of telling us that the OC has soon disappeared? And mark you, Robert, he is not simply citing Jeremiah in using "soon". This is his own writing. If the Pope stood up and said: "The OC will soon disappear" would you not honestly infer that it was still in existence?

 

RS2: No, Paul is not doing an exegesis in the phrase "by calling the covenant new." He is quoting Jeremiah who is saying that God called the covenant "new." Paul's exegesis comes in the second part of the verse in which he says that "he has made old the first." And again, Paul is speaking about the "aging" of the covenant in JEREMIAH's day, since he is commenting on Jeremiah's statement in Jer 31. If you think otherwise, show one place in the NT where Paul says that the Old Covenant still exists in his day or is still salvific today. As I've already shown above, Hebrews 9 says that the "first" covenant has been replaced by the "new."

 

JP2: Robert, I don't want to downplay the difficulty I am under in this question. I admit readily that there is an apparent contradiction, at least some respects. St. Paul does make it clear that salvation does not come through the law in a CERTAIN RESPECT:

 

On the other hand, St. Paul makes it clear that there is a fulfillment and purpose to the law which is indeed life affirming:

 

The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[Lev. 19:18] (Galatians 5:14)

 

So if the entire law can be summed up in this single command, and Our Lord, commenting on this commandment said to the Lawyer: "You have answered correctly...Do this and you will live." (Luke 10:26-28), how can you say categorically that there is no salvific power to the law?

 

Here, therefore, is my challenge to you:

 

The ten commandments were the central part of the Mosaic covenant. They were legal, moral prescriptions which pointed to one primary law ---> loving God and neighbour, as St. Paul clearly reveals. Now, notice that St. Paul says the entire Mosaic law is summed up in this single commandment. But what is a "commandment"? Is it not a law? Of course it is. St. Paul admits as much:

 

It has always been my understanding of Catholic teaching that WITH GOD'S GRACE, I still need to fulfill Christ's law and His commandments to be saved. These are the laws of the New Covenant. If I do not fulfill the law of loving my neighbour; if I turn away from the law of mercy and forgiveness; if I refuse Christ's commandment to humility and charity, then I will be lose my salvation. Now, you will say that these laws do indeed need to be fulfilled because they are the same as doing good works, but that the Old Covenant was not concerned with, as you mentioned previously, "mercy". Yet, we have seen that the Old Covenant was a covenant of love (Cf. Deut 7:9) and that the entire law is summed up in the single command of love (Cf. Gal. 5:14). Moreover, we have seen Our Lord appeal to the Law as a means of salvation (Cf. Luke 10:28) and tell us that He came NOT to abolish it but to fulfill it (Cf. Matt. 5:17).

 

St. Paul's condemnation of the Law was directed at its misapplication and perversion. I cannot see how he could condemn a faithful Jew who accepted God's grace and tried to live the law of Christ - the same law which was the sum of all Old Covenant laws.

 

RS1: Moreover, how was the Old Covenant decaying? Well, the 10 northern tribes had already been judged and sent into captivity in 722 BC. In Jeremiah's day, there was only Judah and Benjamin left in the southern tribes. But they were going off into captivity in 586 BC. They would be there for 70 years. They went into captivity because they abused the Old Covenant.

 

JP1: No, Robert. I must disagree with you here. The question is not "how was the OC decaying" but "why was the OC decaying". It was decaying *because* of the corruption of the Jews. There was/is nothing wrong with the Covenant itself. The Covenant that God made with Abraham continued with Moses:

 

How could this Covenant be faulty from the beginning? Unless you want to say that the law AND the covenant were added because of sins, I cannot see how you can escape my point. Just because the Jews cannot keep the Covenant, does not mean that the Covenant itself is truly faulty. Granted, God can make another covenant which will help us with even greater graces, but that is an entirely different issue.

 

RS2: You are again failing to distinguish the covenants. The covenant God is remembering in Exodus 6:5 is the Abrahamic covenant. That is not called the "old covenant" in Scripture.

 

JP2: Robert, under what pretext was the Old Covenant added?

 

How can you say that this command, which is intrinsic to the Old Covenant, is not salvific? The Old Covenant is salvific because the FULFILMENT of this command (realized in the New Covenant) is salvific. You simply can't divorce the two. If you are going to say that the above command is not salvific simply because it is in the Old Covenant, then neither is the SAME command salvific in the New because it is the same command!

 

RS1: In fact, Ezekiel 20:25 says that because of their abuse God even added more laws to the covenant, laws that they could not keep!

 

JP1: Again, if we keep in mind the purpose of the Old Covenant, all of these objections become superfluous. Think of it this way. If the Old Covenant is not revoked, then its message is the same to the Jews as it has always been: Jesus Christ is the end of the Old Covenant. It serves as a constant reminder to them, and the Church can use the Old Covenant's message to evangelize them.

 

RS2: No, that is a perversion of the gospel. Paul did not tell the Jews that the Old Covenant was not revoked, and then use such an assertion to convince them of Christ. He said that the Old Covenant pointed to Christ and the New Covenant, and when it came it replaced the Old Covenant.

 

JP2: If it is a perversion of the Gospel to say that the Old Covenant's summary command of loving your neighbour (Cf. Gal. 5:14) can be used to evangelize a people, then you end up indicting the New Covenant as well. That is why the Old Covenant was called a "covenant of love".

 

The New Covenant is based on the same law of love that the Old Covenant was, except that the New Covenant fulfills this command of love which is found and personified in Christ Jesus. So while the Old Covenant is deficient in many respects and is condemnatory without Christ, God's eternal calling of love through this Covenant is indeed irrevocable (Cf. Romans 11:29).

 

RS2: Do you really think God would use a "decaying" covenant, and one that is increasing its decaying, to provide salvation? If so, show me where? Name one place in all of Scripture that God says the "Old Covenant" can provide salvation. Not "covenant," mind you, but "Old Covenant."

 

JP2: "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" [And Jesus said] "What is written in the Law?...Do this and you will live." (Luke 10:26-27)

 

---

 

JP1: "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith." (Galatians 3:24)

 

RS2: If this is the only passage to which you appeal, it shows the bankruptcy of the position you are holding. Gal 3:24 does not say the Old Covenant provides salvation. It LEADS us to salvation, not PROVIDES salvation. You are becoming very sloppy in your use of terminology, John, and it's a sure sign that you're on the wrong track. At other times you try to be so precise with the language, but when it is to your advantage you start confusing the terms.

 

Second, and more important, is what Gal 3:21 says: "For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law." This again shows the intrinsic weakness of Law to provide salvation.

 

(By the way, by quoting a passage about "Law" to a question about the "Old Covenant," you've just admitted that the Old Covenant was the Law. And if that is the case, they you have to answer every passage in which Paul uses the word "Law," including all those places in which he says that the Law cannot justify a man, and they are legion).

 

JP2: Robert, you have accused me of "sloppy language", and yes, at times in this dialogue I have been rather sloppy. I plead guilty to this. In fact, in other cases (like equating the Abrahamic Covenant with the Mosaic Covenant) I have been just plain wrong about it. So I thank you for your corrections and I accept them gladly.

 

But if you will just stop for a moment and reflect on your comment above about the Old Covenant:

 

As you are reading your remark, please pray over it and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into understanding the truth of this statement. If the Old Covenant LEADS the Jews to salvation, as you say, why do you suppose that God would want to revoke it? Moreover, your comment above seems to be consistent with my earlier comment: "Jesus Christ is the end of the Old Covenant. It serves as a constant reminder to them, and the Church can use the Old Covenant's message to evangelize them."

 

RS1: If it was the epitome of salvation you are claiming, why did God want to replace it with a New Covenant?

 

JP1: "But God found fault with the people..." (Hebrews 8:8)

 

RS2: Yes, and what was the "fault" of the people? Their "fault" was that they "broke" the covenant. And because they broke the covenant, the covenant could not be used as a means of salvation. (That is why a New covenant has to be created. If we break it we can still be forgiven and get back into the New Covenant). I find it amazing how you can quote from Gal 3:24 and yet miss the whole context of Gal 3:15-23 prior to that (which says that the Old Covenant law cannot save). I also find it amazing how you attribute such salvific power to a covenant that was already expiring in Jeremiah's time in anticipation of a New covenant, which the Hebrew writer says is specifically FOR salvation.

 

JP2:

 

Robert, just because the people broke the first covenant does not mean that it has been revoked by God:

 

RS1: Why does God say in Jeremiah 31:28 that the old ways were "plucked up," "broken down," "overthrown," and "destroyed," so that God could bring the new "building" and "planting"?

 

JP1: To show the Jews that they need Christ, and that the Old Covenant was not the end but only a means to an end.

 

RS2: If it was not the "end" then it was not salvific, John. It did not provide salvation, pure and simple. Once it was broken, there was no going back to repair it. It had to be replaced, not repaired.

 

JP2: Just like the Church's teaching on a whole myriad of doctrines, the seed form is present in the Old Covenant.

 

---

 

RS2: He's not speaking "OUTSIDE" the text of Jeremiah. Paul's comments are based on what was happening in Jeremiah's day. If you believe otherwise, show a reference point where Paul is talking outside of Jeremiah. By "reference point" I mean some statement here or elsewhere in which Paul says that the Old Covenant still exists in his day and will not disappear until the distant future. You have no such reference point, John.

 

JP2: But He is speaking outside of Jeremiah's text. He just finished citing Jeremiah and THEN he goes on to say...

 

St. Paul is not simply citing Jeremiah in verse 13. He is speaking in the present time, and since the New Covenant had already come, it would make no sense for him to say the first one will soon disappear.

 

---

 

JP1: Precisely, then why does St. Paul, speaking OUTSIDE of the text of Jeremiah, re-state that very point when the New Covenant has already arrived? You've only strengthened my point even more so since by Paul's writing, the NC had already been formally inaugurated.

 

RS1: Moreover, the very words "disappear" prove my argument, since that means there would come a definite time in which the Old Covenant would actually disappear, not work side-by-side with another covenant.

 

JP2: Well, if you agree there would come a "definite time in which the Old Covenant would actually disappear" then why don't you accept the adverb which tells us that it has not come yet.

 

JP1: I agree, Robert. There will come a time when the OC will disappear. The Scripture is clear about that. But it appears that St. Paul thinks it has not come *yet* and he even says so (i.e. his use of "soon"). The working of both Covenants is another matter, and whether one takes precedence over the other without revoking the older one. I don't know how exactly that would work, but there is no sin in that. That's why we have a teaching office in our Church. But let me remind you that "Jesus is also coming soon". Yet, for us, "soon" is not as soon as we would like :)

 

RS2: As I have stated earlier, John, your confusion rests principally in failing to distinguish the Abrahamic covenant from the Mosaic covenant. The latter is the one that has expired, as Hebrews 9 goes on to describe in great detail. It is quite unfortunate that today's prelates have also failed to make that needed distinction, but instead have confused the issue by referring only to the "Old Covenant." If they had adhered to Scripture's terminology (2 Cor 3:14; Hebrews 8:13-9:15) they would have been more careful with their language. As it stands, they have confused many people, and in some cases (e.g., Kasper, Keller, Cassidy, Willebrands, et al) I think the confusion has been done on purpose. How can one think otherwise when they conclude that the Jews no longer need to convert to Christianity based on the phrase "the Old Covenant has not been revoked," with no papal disapproval whatsoever?

 

JP2: Because the teaching "the Old Covenant has not been revoked" does not mean that the Jews have the option of refusing Christ. There can be no debate on that point.

 

RS1: Do you know of anytime, other than the inauguration of the New Covenant, that Scripture says the Old Covenant would disappear? No, you don't, because there aren't any such passages.

 

JP1: Not sure if that helps me or you :)

 

RS1: How could it help you, John, if the New Covenant is the terminus for the Old Covenant??

 

JP2: Simply because, Robert, the Scripture does not actually say that the Old Covenant has disappeared :) - only that it will soon disappear. This is what Hebrews 8:13 says.

 

RS1: But there are passages which say the Old Covenant was taken away when the New Covenant came. I've already given you some. Let me give you a few more. Hebrews 10, the very chapter that mentions the New Covenant, says 10:9 says: "Then he said, ˜Behold, I have come to do thy will.' He TAKES AWAY the first in order to establish the second."

 

JP1: Of course. Once the New Covenant comes, then the Old Covenant is subsumed into it. That's not the question. We know, objectively speaking, the New Covenant is the only means of salvation. But the Old Covenant was and is a necessary foundation to the New Covenant. By taking away the first covenant as the reigning covenant, you are not revoking it, you are simply placing it under the second and better Covenant.

 

RS2: John, you are becoming an ambiguity child. You use all kinds of words to keep softening the blow of the reality. You think by tossing in more general words that somehow you can avoid the inevitable. But here is the reality. Hebrews 10:9 does not speak about "subsuming" or "foundations" or "placing it under." It says in bold print "Takes away." The Greek word is "anaphero", which also means "to kill, destroy, condemn to death, annul, abolish," a very similar word to that used in Hebrews 8:13. There couldn't be a stronger word in the Greek language to tell us that the first covenant was removed (not subsumed, not placed under) when the second covenant came.

 

JP2: I am not disputing the strength of "anaphero". I just wonder whether St. Paul is speaking about ALL of the Old Covenant or just some parts of it which are not salvific...like the animal sacrifices in the immediately preceding and subsequent verses.

 

JP1: And before anyone starts claiming that there cannot be two covenants, let me draw your attention to these passages:

 

"For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hangar. Now Hangar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother." (Galatians 4:22-26)

 

As the highlighted parts above clearly demonstrate, there were two covenants operative in Old Testament times: The Abrahamic and the Mosaic. And As St. Paul clearly says in verse 17:

 

And if there were two covenant operating at that time, there is nothing to say that the same rubric is not a work here also. But the of the relationship between both covenants is clearly revealed by St. Paul: one is from Mount Sinai and is the slave while the other is from Jerusalem and is free.

 

RS2: Well, it looks like you've come half way to the truth, John. The only thing you need to do is understand that the Mosaic covenant is the "Old Covenant" (as Paul clearly states in 2 Cor 3:7-14) and that when Paul says in Hebrews 10:9 that he "takes away the first covenant" he is speaking about the Mosaic covenant. Second, when I said there cannot be two covenants working or existing at the same time, I was referring to salvific covenants, not just any covenant. There were many covenants existing in the Old Testament, but none of them were salvific, except the Abrahamic covenant, given to him when he was not a Jew. You cannot claim that the "Old Covenant" provides salvation at the same time you claim that the New Covenant provides salvation. You must make the proper distinctions. Moses is out.

 

JP2: The Old Covenant does not provide salvation in the same way as the New Covenant does. But we know that the "sum of the Old Covenant" (Cf. Gal. 5:14) being a "covenant of love" (Cf. Deut. 7:8-13, Exodus 34:4-7, Numbers 14:18-19), being expressed in the maxim of "love of God and neighbor", does indeed provide salvation, as Our Lord clearly teaches (Cf. Luke 10:28). So Moses is not out. He's in.

 

Notice how there is a mystery behind the Old covenant? How the veil over the Old Covenant is taken away by Christ. In other words, when Jesus lifts the veil over the Old Covenant, the Jews will see the truth. So it's NOT the Covenant that's the problem, but the hardness of heart and blindness of the Jews who do not accept Jesus. Once the veil is lifted, there is a convergence of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant since the Old Covenant points to the New and the New has little meaning without the Old.

 

This passage is surely reminiscent of Romans 11:

 

RS1: Then Hebrews 10:14-17 goes on to show us to what the "establishing the second" refers. It refers to the New Covenant:

 

Moreover, Hebrews 7:18, in the context of the change from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant ministry, says: "For, on the one hand, there is a SETTING ASIDE of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness, (for the Law made nothing perfect)..."

 

JP2: Yes, and as I have said previously, I am not disputing that some elements of the Law have been revoked and set aside like the Levitical priesthood which is the context of this particular Law:

 

Loving God and neighbour, which is the sum of the entire Law, can scarcely be considered "weak and useless".

 

---

 

JP1: Precisely, the Old Covenant because of its weakness and uselessness can only point to Christ. This does not say that the OC has been revoked; only that God found fault in the Old Covenant. But there can really be no "fault" in the Covenant ITSELF but with the people, since God is, of course, perfect. He cannot find fault in himself or His Covenant, but only with the other party. So all that means is that a *better* covenant now exists, but it does not necessarily go beyond that and say the Old one is now revoked. Again, this is your imposition on the text.

 

RS2: My imposition?? In Hebrews 10:9 you saw the words "take away" and you tried to change them to "subsume" and "placed under." Now in Hebrews 7:18 you see the words "setting aside" (Greek: aphetesis = annulling, removal) and you still claim the Old Covenant is not revoked. What will it take to convince you otherwise, John? Obviously, you're not paying attention to the Scripture, but continue to twist it in favor of some "teaching" you think John Paul II is establishing. But he didn't give any "teaching," he only gave his personal opinion.

 

JP2: Robert, a "personal opinion" does not find its way into the Catechism of the Catholic Church, one of the most definitive and authoritative documents we have to teach. Sorry, that is the stark reality you must face. And, as a Catholic Apologist (and one of the best if not the best one around, I might add), your job is to, as you once wrote, "dig deep into an issue and uncover things that the average person simply cannot do. The Catholic apologist is like a detective, always on the lookout for clues and evidence that will allow him to valiantly defend his faith and expose the weaknesses of his opponent." You must conform your theology to that of the Church and not ask that the reigning Pontiff conform his views to yours. The Keys are in Rome, not in Alexandria :) The Catechism is teaching the Old Covenant has not been revoked. You are contradicting it. Why should I listen to you? And by what authority do you claim my allegiance? Ask yourself this question. Since your entry into the Catholic Church in 1992, have you let the Magisterium correct your understanding of any teaching that you consider "essential" to your theology?

 

RS2:If you had paid as much attention to parsing John Paul II's words and showing where he did not make the proper distinctions as you do in trying to redefine Scripture's clear terminology, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But since it seems that you have elevated anything John Paul II says as equal to the gospel, then you will continue to have this dilemma, one in which you give a free pass to his words, but try your best to redefine Scripture's words. I find that very disturbing.

 

JP2: You mentioned "the gospel". The Gospel According to Whom? The Pope or you? That's what it really comes down to, is not, Robert? What is the probability here - that you are right and the Pope is wrong? On a numbers basis, how many heretics have there been compared to erroneous Popes? Are you a betting man, Robert? Do you like long shots?

 

RS2: I expect better of you. You weren't this way when you were at CAI. What happened?

 

JP2: I discovered that it was impossible for me to remain authentically faithful to LG 25 and remain at CAI.

 

How do you reconcile this teaching with your new approach to Apologetics?

 

Moreover, I found it difficult to follow the maxim proposed by St. Ignatius of Loyola to always to assign a positive and charitable understanding to another Catholic's statements. How is this principle active in your camp's attitude and disposition towards the Vatican in general and the Holy Father in particular? And, if you believe that you are following this maxim, then I challenge you to submit your new approach to a few friends who are not Catholic, and ask them their honest opinion to see if you are conforming your ministry to this rule.

 

RS2:Also, you are also avoiding the plain teaching of Hebrews 7:18 which, at this juncture, is not basing its conclusion on the fault of the people but on the covenant itself. It clearly says that the "Law" cannot make anything perfect. It's the same thing Galatians 3:21 said ("For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would have been by the law"). But the law cannot impart life. In other words, it is not salvific.

 

JP2: Love God and love your neighbour as yourself. So you are telling me that this Law does not impart life?

 

RS1: The problem here is the "either/or" you've imposed on the text. Hebrews 8:6-7 is referring to the Old Covenant, but Hebrews 8:2 is referring to the people. So it was both the Old Covenant and the people who were at fault. How do we know this? Not only because of Hebrews 8:6-7, but also because of Hebrews 9:1-10:18. It shows clearly that the Old Covenant could only forgive sins temporarily. The high priest had to go "in and out" of the temple every year making atonement for sins, which could never satisfy the divine requirements for complete pardon. Only Christ's sacrifice could satisfy the divine demands. It also tells us that all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant were instituted for one purpose - to point to the one sacrifice of Christ from which salvation only came.

 

JP1: Agreed.

 

RS1: It's the same reason that Galatians 3:10-13 tells us that the Old Covenant had no power to save anyone, since after the sin of man, all it could do is condemn us.

 

JP1: Again, this only shows that we are misunderstanding the purpose of the Covenant which was not to save but to lead the Jews to Christ. And that is still its mission today, to lead them to Christ. How then can it be revoked? If you revoke the OC, you would be cutting off the only path they have to Jesus who is "under the veil".

 

RS2: This is another crucial point in our discussion, John. The word "revoked" carries with it legal implications. If, for example, your license is revoked, that means, legally speaking, you cannot drive any longer. It doesn't mean you have lost the ability to drive, but only that you have lost the right to drive. No one can revoke your ABILITY to drive. Our English translations use "revoked" in the same way (NASB, RSV: Est 8:8; Daniel 6:8, 12; NAB: Est 8:8; 1Mac 11:36). In place of "revoke" Hebrews 7:18 and 10:9 uses "take away" or "set aside," but it's the same meaning. The legal aspects of the Old Covenant are annulled. They no longer exist as legal entities. However, this is not to say that the PRINCIPLES of the Old Covenant do not remain. The ethical principles are not revoked, only the legal status of the Old Covenant is revoked. No one can revoke ethical principles, since they are things of the heart. Hence, any Jew or Gentile can read the Mosaic law today and get much spiritual benefit out of it. But there is one thing he can't do, and that is base his salvation, or anything having to do with God, on the legal system of the Old Covenant. For if he does, then he will be required to obey the Old Covenant with 100% compliance, which is impossible to do (cf., Gal 3:10-12; 5:1-4). I hope now that you can see the danger in making an unqualified and naked statement such as "the Old Covenant has not been revoked" without explaining the necessary distinctions that are required by Scripture and our Tradition in order to keep everything orthodox.

 

JP2: Robert, if the Old Covenant is revoked, THEN EVERY LAW IN IT IS REVOKED. Yet, we know that the Law which Jesus refers to in Luke 10:28 is not revoked since He refers to it as a means of salvation. Indeed it has been ratified in Our Lord's blood. So if this Law has never been revoked, then the Old Covenant has not been either.

 

JP1: If I recall correctly, Robert told us earlier that the Old Covenant was never salvific in and by itself. I don't think there would be too much disagreement here on that. Robert, you went on to say that the *purpose* of the Old Covenant was to lead the Jews to Christ and accept his New Covenant. If it is true that the *purpose* of the Old Covenant was to lead us to Jesus and into the New Covenant, please explain to me how it is *not* "salvific"? Indeed, I would find it very difficult to understand how ANYTHING that leads us to Jesus is NOT salvific - at least in an indirect way. Not as an end in itself, granted, but certainly an instrumental cause.

 

RS2: Because you don't understand the implications of the word "salvific." Salvation comes by a legal and binding covenant only. That is the whole argument Paul gives in Hebrews 9-10. He says that in order to bring salvation the first covenant had to be set aside. If it is set aside to bring salvation, then obviously it can't be salvific, for that would be a contradiction in terms. The problem is that you are using "salvific" as a descriptive term rather than a legal/covenant term. On a legal/covenantal basis, a covenant is salvific only when it actually gives salvation, not lead to the giving. If you don't make this distinction, then one can say that practically anything in the world is "salvific," since all things lead to God. One could say the stars are "salvific" because they lead to Christ (Rom 15:18). But that's not the way Scripture or Tradition has used the term.

 

JP2: Robert, if the Old Covenant was never salvific in the first place, as you say, then why are you objecting to the idea that it was never revoked? What's the big deal in saying that a non-salvific covenant has never been revoked? The Catechism does not go so far as to say the Old Covenant was salvific -- only that it was never revoked. My whole contention in this dialogue has been to afford the Old Covenant's enduring salvific message of love of God and neighbour its due place. I do not dispute that the Old sacrifices are not salvific.

 

JP1: We are not beholden to the Jews to tell us what the purpose of the OC is. In other words, the fact that they disagree that the OC's purpose was to lead us to Christ doesn't mean a hill of beans to us. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has the authority to tell us what the purpose of the OC is. The Jews might think it is salvific by itself, but the Catholic Church says it is to lead us to Christ. In so doing however, how can we unequivocally say that this one line statement from the Pope "The Old Covenant is salvific" does not mean what I have just stated?

 

RS2: No, he can't say that, at least not without qualifying his statement. John, I'm not the only one who has been bothered by his cavalier use of language. He has been known to say things very ambiguously and vaguely. And this is quite puzzling, since for one who has written more encyclicals than many popes put together, he seems unable to find the time to avoid such loaded words, which he must know from how they were used in Scripture and Tradition they are going to cause problems if not defined properly! Doctors, saints, councils and popes of the past would be appalled at such careless use of two-thousand year old terms. John Paul II becomes even more troubling in this matter, since his quest for ecumenism has resulted in teachings that the Orthodox, the Protestants, and now the Jews have no real necessity to convert in order to be saved. We are also suspicious when documents such as the RCM, which was headed up by a cardinal appointed by JP, used JP's the "Old Covenant is not revoked" statement as a basis for saying that Jews are not required to convert to Christianity because they have their OWN covenant with God. You, out of loyalty, may be able to swallow all this, but I cannot. I think in this case it is a matter of misplaced loyalty on your part. You can be loyal to the pope, John, without taking as gospel everything he says or does.

 

JP2: Well, to be truthful, I do not think it's kosher to blame the Pope for every comment made by a committee of any particular national conference. After all, Robert, the Pope did not say that the Old Covenant was salvific - only that it has never been revoked. I think presuming on what the Holy Father means is very dangerous.

 

JP1: It seems to me that we are getting all too excited about this one simple "one liner" without reflecting carefully on what we are condemning. Let me spin this issue another way: was the OC salvific for St. Paul and the Jews of his time? In other words, did not St. Paul USE the Covenant and the Law against his compatriots to point to Christ?

 

If the simpleton idea I put forward above is the case, then what the Holy Father is really doing is exercising his office rather shrewdly. Instead of talking about Jesus Christ FIRST, he is speaking to them first through their OWN language, the language of the Old Testament, not unlike, St. Paul did with his audience. "The OC is salvific" can mean a lot of different things, folks. The booby prize goes to the person who can say HOW it is so. If it goes under my simpleton rubric, then I believe it is pretty orthodox.

 

RS2: As the saying goes, John, "the devil is in the details." It's one thing to use the Old Testament to help the Jews see Christ, but it is quite another to tell them that the Old Covenant is salvific. Moreover, the pope has never given the explanation you have given for the phrase. If he had, we could give him a little grace. Rather, he says such things in very volatile contexts, as I described above. If anything, he should be striving for more precision in his statements so that people don't accuse him of erroneous ideas. No one in all of our history has ever said "The Old Covenant has not been revoked" or "the Old Covenant is salvific." Neither does Scripture. That should serve as ample warning to anyone delving into this matter.

 

JP2: Robert, in my opinion, you are faced with a very difficult situation, indeed. You must admit that the Catechism is in error. Is that your profession? The alternative is to delve more deeply into what the Church is teaching in regards to what the Old Covenant really was, and how that fits into St. Paul's teaching. We are simply being confronted with a teaching which is undergoing development - not unlike a whole myriad of teachings in our Tradition which were "impossible to reconcile" i.e. Predestination vs. Free Will, Mary's Immaculate conception and Original Sin, the Trinitarian formula, etc. Are you suggesting that the debates surrounding these issues were any less difficult for the Church? I doubt it. Schisms happen over issues when the Church begins to teach an apparent contradiction. That's God's way of weeding out those who are obedient to the Church and those who are not. He seeks to test His servant's faithfulness to see if he is relying on his own exegetical abilities to contradict the Church, or if he is using them to learn from His mother. The children do not correct the Mother.

 

JP1: Much of the impetus for the Reflections document is ultimately derived from comments made by the Holy Father when he spoke to representatives of the Jewish community in Mainz, Germany, on November 17, 1980. In part, he said: "The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God[cf. Rom. 11:29], and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and second part of her Bible."

 

RS2: As I've pointed out in other essays, the reference to Romans 11:29 is taken out of context. The passage says "the GIFTS and CALLING or God are irrevocable," not "the Old Covenant is irrevocable." The words "gifts and calling" do not cause theological problems, but "Old Covenant" does since it is scripturally and traditionally associated with the Mosaic law. Obviously, this is another case where the pope's language is imprecise and confusing, since he is not following the Scriptural or Traditional language. Unfortunately, it appears as if he might be doing this deliberately, since he is opposing "Old Covenant" to the "New Covenant" in his paragraph. Since he uses "Covenant," he is automatically referring passages like 2 Cor 3:6-14; Hebrews 7-10 where these issues are addressed. In those passages, the "Old Covenant" is identified with the Mosaic Law, and in those contexts it says that the Old Covenant has been "set aside" and "taken away." Unless this distinction is made, then the pope's assertion becomes just another ambiguous and confusing statement that creates more problems.

 

JP2: How do you think development happens? With or without problems? Of course, there will be problems. Your job as an exegete is to work through them and dig deeper. I am not discounting the problems, but without them, no real development or deeper understanding can occur. It's an oximoron, but it's true. No pain, no gain.

 

JP1: And this is certainly not an isolated teaching that can be ignored or undermined in any way. Why? Because it is an official and authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church: The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 121)

 

RS2: The Catechism is not using "Old Covenant" in the same way John Paul II and the RCM are using it, and this creates even more confusion. As the paragraph 121 shows, the Catechism is using "Old Covenant" in the sense of the written word of Scripture that we commonly call "the Old Testament." Paragraph 121 specifically refers to "part of Sacred Scripture" and "its books." It does not refer to the "Old Covenant" as an active legal entity that provides salvation for those who put themselves under it. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that the Catechism, although correct in its assertion about the permanent value of the Old Testament Scriptures, used the confusing and ambiguous clause, "for the Old Covenant has never been revoked." If by this clause the Catechism merely means that the Old Testament Scriptures have value, then the clause is innocuous. If they mean something else by the clause, there is no way to tell, since they don't explain it any other way than as referring to Old Testament Scripture. You will notice in any case that the Catechism doesn't place a footnote after "for the Old Covenant has never been revoked," which shows that the clause is not used in Scripture or Tradition, or even Vatican II.

 

JP2: Here is the text again:

 

The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked. (CCC, 121)

 

And here is the comment made by the Holy Father when he spoke to representatives of the Jewish community in Mainz, Germany, on November 17, 1980. In part, he said:

 

If you are honest, I think that if you put these two comments together, you would be inclined to take the Catechism's use of covenant at face value.

 

JP1: The Catechism goes on to explain the intrinsic and necessary role the Old Covenant has to play in economy of Salvation. That the Old Covenant is a necessary tool by God to prepare and announce the New Covenant, the source and summit of which is Jesus Christ Himself: Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men." "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,"the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way." (CCC, 122) This is why, therefore, that the Old Covenant cannot be revoked because it points the Jewish people to Christ. To revoke this Covenant would be to undermine and destroy the only path open to them as a people to encounter the Messiah who is Christ Jesus.

 

The Catechism explicitly recognizes that for the Jew to meet Christ, he must do so through the Covenant of his fathers: "The coming of God's Son to earth is an event of such immensity that God willed to prepare for it over centuries. He makes everything converge on Christ: all the rituals and sacrifices, figures and symbols of the "First Covenant". He announces him through the mouths of the prophets who succeeded one another in Israel. Moreover, he awakens in the hearts of the pagans a dim expectation of this coming. (CCC, 522)

 

RS2: Para 522 says nothing about "Jews," nor that the Jew must come to Christ by the "Covenant of his fathers." The Old Testament was written for everyone, and especially for Christians (1 Cor 10:6, 11).

 

JP2: Huh? It says that all the rituals, sacrifices, figures, and symbols of the FIRST COVENANT converge on Christ. That is a reference to the Old Covenant - given only to the Jews.

 

JP1: Indeed, the Church is careful to remind its faithful that there is no false dichotomy between the Old and New Testaments:

 

RS2: That's right, there is no dichotomy. But you will create a dichotomy if you fail to distinguish between the Mosaic Old Covenant and the New Covenant. You will create a dichotomy if you use the word "revoke" in the wrong way. You will create a dichotomy if you claim that the Catechism means anything more than the Old Testament Scriptures when it refers to the "Old Covenant." You will create a dichotomy if you imply that the Jews have their own covenant with God and that the covenant is the "Old Covenant" that provides salvation for the Jews. Unfortunately, all these "dichotomies" have come out from the pope's statement that "the Old Covenant has not been revoked," whether he meant it to be the case or not.

 

JP2: The statement "the Old Covenant has never been revoked" does indeed mean the Covenant. We know this because it actually says "covenant" and not "testament". And it says "revoked" which, as you say, has legal connotations. You cannot really revoke a "testament" but you can revoke a covenant.

 

RS2: Thank you for this opportunity to have this dialogue with you.

 

JP2: Your welcome. May God shed His inexhaustible wisdom on you. Peace of Jesus. Shalom.