Then you write, “and, in fact, by Pope John Paul II when he stated that the Mosaic Law was superseded, while also differentiating the part I think you are missing - that the fulfillment was of the Abrahamic Covenant, not any part of the Mosaic.”
You’re creating a false dichotomy. This is a both/and, not an either/or. The Mosaic covenant was superseded AND fulfilled by the New Covenant in Christ. Remember, Christ said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” And writing as head of the CDF, our current Holy Father wrote, “In this Torah, which is Jesus himself, the abiding essence of what was inscribed on the stone tablets at Sinai is now written in living flesh, namely, the twofold commandment of love. . . . To imitate him, to follow him in discipleship, is therefore to keep Torah, which has been fulfilled in him once and for all. Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded.”
Again - see “fulfilled” and “superseded” in the very same context about the "Sinai covenant". Both/and. Not either/or.
You might want to pick up Many Religions, One Covenant
by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. It gives some very helpful insights into the relationship between the covenants.
I would also recommending reading this article, especially the last comment underneath the article by Michael Forrest and me: On the Relationship Between the Jewish People and God.
Regarding your following points:
1. The Sinai/Mosaic Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant in Christ.
We already stated exactly this in “All in the Family”
Here are our exact words: “the New Covenant in Christ superseded
the Mosaic covenant (which is true
)” (my emphasis). So, I agree, as long as one does not subscribe to what Cardinal Avery Dulles has described as a “crude” or extreme form of supersessionism
. See also the second half of “All in the Family”
that begins with “Israel: Irrelevant?”. And I would suggest reading the following for more on that issue: https://sites.google.com/site/sungenisandthejews/critique-of-all-in-the-family#_Toc255151556
2. The salvific dimension of the Abrahamic Covenant is eternal and is both founded and fulfilled in Christ.
3. As superseeded [sic] and abrogated, the Mosaic Law and other non-Abrahamic Covenants are not Salvific.
Agreed. But the Church seems to prefer words like “fulfilled” because terms like “abrogated” and “revoked” can imply a break in salvation history rather than maintaining organic continuity. For more on that, scroll down to “Revoked?”: https://sites.google.com/site/sungen...#_Toc255151556
4. The salvific dimension of the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant in Christ are one in the same.
5. Christ fulfills the divine promise to Abraham and supersedes the old Mosaic Law.
Agreed. But again, the Church seems to prefer the language of “fulfillment” even in relation to the Mosaic Law. Christ also fulfilled the Mosaic Law. Remember, also, that there were various aspects to the Mosaic Covenant. The Law was one such aspect, but there were also the ceremonies, the sacrificial system, etc. No Catholic should be faulted for choosing to use the same emphases of language that the Church herself uses.
6. The temporal Covenant promising the land of Canaan has been completely fulfilled.
Unlike the other points, I see no evidence that the Church has ever taken an official position on this question. In fact, to the question, "In your opinion, what is the most explicit Magisterial pronouncement against Zionism?", even Bob Sungenis himself said, "to my knowledge, there is none" (Ask Your Question About the Jews
) But please don’t make the false assumption that this means I’m a Zionist. I’m not. I am at best
agnostic on the matter. For more on that, read: Are You Anti-Semitic?
I hope this helps.