Is what Fr. Harrison says about the Mosaic covenant in this commentary theologically sound?
I wonder if this might have more people interested if this was in the Liturgy discussion area.
He’s a very respected theologian, the publication (Homiletic and Pastoral Review) is very reputable, and his assertion is held by many faithful Catholics. I see no problem with the article.
Another point to consider: When the Temple was destroyed, many early Christians saw it as a judgement of God on the ending of the old covenant. Why? Because after the destruction of the Temple it was impossible to practice Judaism. There could no longer be Temple sacrifices to fulfill the ceremonial laws. Rabbinic Judaism is a compromised religion. Its adherents are unable to keep the covenant because their Temple is gone, their priesthood dissolved, and the Glory Cloud of God has departed. Everything that confirmed God’s blessings on the Old Covenant are obliterated precisely to show the Jews that a new covenant calls to them: the covenant of Christ the Messiah.
One way to look at it is this: For millennia, God was preparing the hearts of Israel and the whole world to recognize Christ. If Christ was the Gift, the Mosaic Law was the wrapping paper. It pointed to the Gift inside, even though the Gift was not fully revealed. When Christ came, the Gift was opened.
God wants us to embrace the Gift of Christ, not go back and glory in the wrapping paper of the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic ceremonial law may have been **good **in as far as it pointed towards the Messiah, but the coming of Christ is the best. If we want the good as opposed to the best, the good becomes the enemy of the best.
What exactly do you think is theologically questionable?