View Single Post
  #32  
Old Feb 22, '12, 11:00 am
DavidPalm DavidPalm is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2006
Posts: 772
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Was Jesus also the Messiah for the Jews?

Yanni,

I read your post and some clarifications are needed regarding your whole approach to what we’ve written. You said,

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
The real debate is centered on what remains of the Mosaic Covenant.
In light of Bob’s questions that seems to be his supposition as well. I’d suggest that you're looking at this issue through "Bob-colored glasses". Bob sees everything through his extreme focus on the Mosaic Covenant being "revoked" and so he's just overly suspicious, as you appear to be. His fixation on this precise word is odd because, to the best of my knowledge, he’s been unable to produce a single example where Scripture, the Fathers or the Magisterium has ever used it to describe the status of the Mosaic Covenant. And he [i]has</i?> been asked to do so: http://liveweb.archive.org/http://be...filled-part-2/ How odd, then, to go so far as to name his definitive work on the topic, “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked”, don’t you think?

You said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by YanniP View Post
I believe I understand your positions more clearly. I do see that we are saying much of the same thing, but you insinuate and imply much more.
I hope you understand our positions “more” than you did originally, but you don’t understand them clearly yet. What’s clear is that you didn’t read very carefully. For example, at the beginning of your last post, you cited Mystici Corporis as though this was something we hadn’t considered. The problem is that we did quote at length from Mystici Corporis 29 (see below).

In fact, when I looked over “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked”, I noticed that he includes a supposedly comprehensive list of scriptural, patristic and magisterial evidence proving that the dual covenant theory is false. Notice anything?

Sungenis cites:
Hebrews 7:18, 8:7, 10:9

2 Cor 3:14

Col 2:14

Mystici Corporis 29

The Catechism of the Council of Trent

The Council of Florence

Cardinal Ratzinger (Many Religions, One Covenant)

St. John Chrysostom (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3)

St. Augustine (Letters 74,4)

Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 11)

And what do we cite in “All in the Family”?
Gal 2:21

Col 2:14

Hebrews 7:18

Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 11)

Tertullian (An Answer to the Jews, Ch. 3)

St. Augustine (Letter 75, 4 – Bob had a citation error)

The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (#42)

Redemptoris Mater (fn. #2)

Mystici Corporis 29

The Council of Florence

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 63)

http://www.cuf.org/laywitness/LWonli...forrestapp.asp
We cited almost all of the sources that he did and a few others to boot. So, we’re at least as well researched on this point as your trusted source, Bob Sungenis. And we obviously agree with these statements because we cited them ourselves! So exactly how is it that we’re supposedly ignoring or skirting the teaching of the Church on this issue?

Further, as you seem to have missed them somehow, I’ve listed some of the statements from our articles involving words like “abolish”, “supersede” and “abrogate’ in relation to the Mosaic Covenant:

The following are all from “All in the Family”:
"the New Covenant in Christ superseded the Mosaic covenant (which is true)"
St. Justin Martyr states in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 'We do not trust through Moses or through the law' . . . because there is 'a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe,' and 'law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one.'
We cited Hebrews 7:18:
Hebrews 7:18: “On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect).”
We quoted Mystici Corporis:
“And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; . . . but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross.” (no. 29)
We even cited the Council of Florence:
[The council] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments . . . although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming . . . ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally.
We quoted St. Augustine:
Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. (Letters, 75, 4)
We quoted the PBC document "The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (2001)"
Those institutions are now abrogated to make way for the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ (Heb 7:18–19; 10:9). For Christ has overcome all obstacles by his redemptive obedience (Heb 5:8–9; 10:9–10), and has opened access to God for all believers (Heb 4:14–16; 10:19–22). In this way, the covenant announced and prefigured in the Old Testament is fulfilled. (no. 42)