Elsewhere on this board mention was made of the brouhaha which ensued when the USCCB and various Cardinals in the Catholic Church put out the ill-fated Reflections on Covenant and Mission. The USCCB has since retracted the document and issued clarifications, but the message of the document was so warmly received in many sectors that quite a few Catholics cling to it and refuse to admit that it was not an authoritative statement.
Interestingly, perhaps of all people, the ones who were most incensed by the work were Jewish converts (such as Rosalind Moss or Martin Barrack). They are of the opinion that to claim that the old covenant is still salvific for the Jews negates the logic of the Christian claims about the new convenant (see the linked statements for greater elucidation of their line of argument). Knowing, as we do, that God does not break His promises, this leads to the question of how the new covenant might supercede the old without God abandoning the promises which He made to the Hebrew people.
Do you think that the old covenant can still be said to be operative for the people of Israel? If so, is it salvific (that is, do you think that those of Jewish lineage can be saved by observing the Law even if they do not believe in Christ)? If not, how does this affect our belief in God’s fidelity to His own promises?