1 2 3

R. Sungenis: I'll grant you that your reasoning COULD be a possible interpretation, but the point is that you don't know it IS the interpretation, at least not well enough to levy the charge of heresy. Heresy does not deal with ambiguities. It sanctions direct and provable statements of error.

Steve: You wrote: "This is verified by the fact that Jerome never uses foedus in the NT, but always used testamentum in the NT. Jerome further shows us the similarity when he translates Jer 31:31 with foedus, but its quote in Hebrews 8:10 with testamentum.

Now you've trapped yourself, because you've proven that at least one of the fathers maintained a strict distinction between the two terms.

The CCC has it reversed, then, because they use testamentum (apparently a NT term) for the OT.

R. Sungenis: Trapped myself? I didn't say that Jerome made a distinction between the two words, I said he interchanged them between Jer 31:31 and Hebrews 8:10. The fact that he interchanges them means that he does not see the all-inclusive distinction you are trying to make.

But, as George said, you have to find a convincing argument for why the CCC, after using Testamentum repeatedly, suddenly (and uniquely) switches to the word Foedus when it wants to say that the Foedus "has never been revoked." Why does the CCC not maintain this strict distinction that Jerome maintains?

R. Sungenis: I really don't have to prove anything. George is the one who has to prove something, since he is the one charging the CCC with heresy. The doubt is in my favor, not his, since we don't normally go around saying that Church documents are heretical. And considering that Para 121 can be read in more than one way, George's job is quite difficult, if not impossible.

Steve: And George is correct: the pope first said that the OC was "never revoked by God" on 11/17/80, years before the CCC came out.

What's really interesting is the context in which he himself used this phrase. I could use all of your arguments that you've presented against me to defend the pope's use of this phrase:

"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 the second part of her Bible***."

So I could say, as you are saying about the CCC, "See? The pope is speaking about the 'first and second part' of the 'Bible.'"

But we both know that won't wash. We both know what he meant by that phrase. And we know what the liberal Cardinals meant when they based their "salvific Old Covenant" teachings on this statement by the pope.

R. Sungenis: Yes, you might be able to say that about the pope, but then again, you might not, since the paragraph is not definitive enough. That is precisely the problem with the pope's comments on these issues. He stops short of heresy on many occassions, but has his cardinals say things in a little more detail that we know is heresy (e.g., Keeler and the RCM document).

In fact, the pope has misquoted Romans 11:29, since St. Paul does not say that the Old Covenant has not been revoked, but only the "gifts and calling of God."

Moreover, if we consider all the times the pope has said in his encyclicals that the Old Covenant has been replaced by the New (and there are about a half dozen places), then we really need more evidence.

Steve: Considering that it was the pope who commissioned and approved the new CCC, I think you have to be consistent. The "context" here is not par. 120-125, the "context" is John Paul II. The "context" is his relations with the Jews.

R. Sungenis: Granted, but charging the CCC with heresy is the issue at stake. I don't make any excuses for John Paul II.

Steve: Either he (and the CCC) meant, literally, that the "Old Covenant has never been revoked," or he (and the CCC) were only talking about the Old Testament writings.

R. Sungenis: Can't do that, Steve, since the CCC is not speaking about Jewish relations, but only about Scripture, as it says very clearly in three paragraphs (121-123). You simply have no evidence that the CCC is speaking about anything other than Scripture, at least not enough to levy the charge of heresy. John Paul II is another story altogether.

George: None of the cited paragraphs come even close to suggesting that the Old Covenant is over. It says there is now a New Covenant, and that the New Covenant is better than the Old, etc., but it really does not say the Old Covenant is no longer in force. You read that into the text because you know that's what the Church teaches. But it really doesn't say it. One can easily say in the face of these paragraphs that the Newchurch in this Catechism does not teach the Old Covenant is over, and, in fact, seems to be saying otherwise (par. 121).

R. Sungenis: I'll admit it's not the most direct language, but perhaps the author of the Catechism doesn't think it's a contest.

The point remains that Para 121 falls short of the being accused of "heresy" that you were using today. Heresy is a deliberate, calculated and unequivocal statement to circumvent established dogma. Since Para 121 does not elaborate on the meaning of "the OC has not been revoked," except to put it in a context of the OT Scriptures, you have absolutely no basis for your claims.

When you find a statement in the Catechism that says the OC, as a binding legal entity, still operates today as it did in the OT, then you have something. Until then, all you have is an opinion based on wording that is at best ambiguous.

As for Para 762, not only does it say that Israel broke the old covenant and that Christ established a new one in its place, but it cites the very passages in Scripture that we use to teach that the Old Covenant has been revoked, that is, Jeremiah 31:31-34, which would also include the book of Hebrews 8:10 and 10:17-18, and the rest of the context of Hebrews.

This is confirmed by the statement in 1964: "In any case, even though the Old Law prescribed charity, it did not give the Holy Spirit, through through whom God's charity has been poured into our hearts."

Thus it is clear that the Catechism sees no salvific value to the Old Covenant Law, even when it operated in the OT.

Also, there is Para 580: "In Jesus, the Law no longer appears engraved on tables of stone but upon the heart of the Servant who becomes a covenant to the people...Jesus fulfills the Law to the point of taking upon himself the curse of the Law incurred by those who do not abide by the things written in the book of the law, and do them, for his death took place to redeem them from the transgressions under the first covenant."

Then the Catechism cites Hebrews 9:15, which says: "For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."

This is significant, since this passage, and the rest of the book of Hebrews, is clear that the Old Covenant is no longer an active covenant. If it is not active, then it is revoked.

For example, Hebrews 7:18-19 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), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

And Hebrews 10:9 says: then He said, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

Now, since the Catechism quotes from the book of Hebrews 140 times, do you think if you asked the author of the Catechism whether he, in quoting from Hebrews, intended to circumvent both Hebrews 7:18-19 and 10:9, that he would say "yes, that was my intention, because the Old Covenant has not been revoked, despite what those verses say"?

I don't think so, George. If you want to say Para 121 is ambiguous or lends itself to misinterpretation or is on the surface confusing, I can easily side with you. But when you start using the word "heresy" then you've overstepped your bounds.

George: Robert, I honestly don't think you're making much sense here. Yes, "covenant" and "testament" are interchangeable, but you have to read between the lines here.

R. Sungenis: No, that is precisely what you can't do, George. You keep reading everything "between the lines" and then you charge heresy to the very lines you are reading between, but the reality is that those lines are NOT there.

George: If throughout several paragraphs, only the phrase "Old Testament" is used to refer to the first 46 books of the Bible, and then all of a sudden they use "Old Covenant" to refer to those books, don't you see that it's obvious that here we're NOT talking about the books but the actual Covenant?

R. Sungenis: You don't know that, George, since the paragraphs surrounding the statement don't refer to anything other than the OT Scripture. The Catechism may be referring to something as simple as the fact that the Ten Commandments appear in the Old Covenant, and the Ten Commandments have not been revoked, at least on an ethical level. Since the Catechism (Para 2068) quotes the Council of Trent as saying that the "Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians," then the reference to the Old Covenant in Para 121 has no other referent than what the Catechism has said of Old Covenant laws as being obligatory.

Unless you can find a statement in the Catechism in which "the Old Covenant has not been revoked" refers to something other than what is described above in Para 2068, then you really don't have a case. All you have is a phrase that has been misused by some people, but we are not judging some people, rather, we are determining, as you tested this morning, whether the CATECHISM has committed heresy. You haven't proven that by any stretch of the imagination.

George: ESPECIALLY when considering that JPII himself before the publication of this Catechism said to the Jews that their Covenant had not been revoked.

R. Sungenis: It doesn't matter what John Paul II thinks or says. We are not talking about him. We are talking only about the Catechism and whether it has committed heresy.

George: If the Catechism were an infallible document, then I could understand the dance you're engaging in here, but given that it's a pure Novus Ordo mouthpiece, I don't understand why you're even trying to deny the obvious.

R. Sungenis: There is no "dance," George, and I certainly resent the implication you are making. Your reference to "Novus Ordo mouthpiece" and your attempt to "read between the lines," are simply the extra baggage you bring to a passage that invariably makes you see things in it that are NOT there.

Again, if you want to say that Para 121 is ambiguous or confusing, fine. I have no problem with that. But when you start using the word "heresy" you are definitely out of your range. That is my chief contention with you.

George: Robert, would you then at least say the statement on the Old Covenant having never been revoked is at least proximate to heresy?

R. Sungenis: George, I simply would not use the word "heresy" at all, otherwise you're going to be just as confusing as we claim Para 121 might be. "Proximate to heresy" is a juridical term, and when you get into canonical jurisprudence, then you're required to give substantial evidence for the accusation and conviction. If you can't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, you don't have a case. I think I've given you sufficient doubt about how you are interpreting Para 121.You simply don't have enough evidence, at least as far as the Catechism's own witness and the interpretation of its own words.

The Catechism is an official Church document, and thus, to charge it with heresy directly assaults the Church. Ambiguous, yes, in several places (cf., Para 841); heretical, absolutely not.

Now, would I say that Cardinal Keeler is "proximate to heresy" or teaching "heresy" for saying that "the Old Covenant has not been revoked and it is no longer theologically necessary for the Jews to be targeted with conversion to Christiantity"? You bet your sweet life. Would I do the same if John Paul II had said the same (and probably has come very close to doing so)? Certainly. But their opinions are not official Catholic teaching. The Catechism is. That is the difference.

Alfred: No, even in a legal sense the Old Covenant was never revoked. Revoke means "to annul by recalling or taking back" (Webster's Online) God never annulled or recalled the promises of the Old Covenant. He fullfilled them with the New Covenant. The rules and regulations peculiar to the Old Covenant are no longer binding because their purpose, preparing the way for the New Covenant, has been fullfilled. I seem to remember that the Catechism is quite explicit about this point.

R. Sungenis: No, Alfred, you are confusing the issue. The legal force of the Old Covenant has been totally abrogated, as represented by the Mosaic code. That's what the whole book of Hebrews is about. One covenant replaced another (Hebrew 7:18; 8:13; 10:9, 16-18). Unless you make this distinction, you're going to put everyone back under the law, and condemn us all (Gal 3:10-12; 5:3-4). And that is the same thing the Council of Florence says. END

Alfred: The analogy to the drivers' liscense does not apply. When your driver's liscence is revoked, It is taken away from you. God did not take away the promises of the Old Covenant. He fullfilled them.

R. Sungenis: We're not talking about "promises." We are talking about the whole Mosaic legal system and its condemnation of the sinner (Rom 3:20; 7:6-10; Gal 3:19). THAT is what has been revoked. The "promises" are not part of the Mosaic legal code, since as Gal 3:18 says:

"For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise."

The other important thing to know is that the term "Old Covenant" is associated with the Mosic legal code (2 Cor 3:7, 14) but it is not associated with the "promises."

Those who use the word "Old Covenant" without making the proper distinction between law and promise are confusing the issue, including today's prelates.

There is the Abrahamic covenant and there is the Mosaic covenant, and only the Mosaic covenant is called "the old covenant" (2 Cor 3:7,14; Hebrews 7:18; 8:13; 10:9), and that is the way the Council of Florence used the terms.

The Abrahamic covenant is never called "the Old Covenant," since it is not old, it is still new, and it is now part of the New Covenant (Gal 3:6-9).

Kenneth: If Aquinas is any indicator, Alfred is right on this.

I went to New Advent to see what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on Hebrews. Aquinas uses the terms "superiority" and "setting aside", but at no point does he indicate that the Old Covenant was revoked. Rather, he emphasizes its weakness and its subsequent fulfillment in the New Covenant.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm

R. Sungenis: When Thomas uses "setting aside" he means the same as revoked. For example, Hebrews 7:18-19 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), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God." (NASB). The Greek word behind "setting aside" is athetesis, which is the common word for a disannulment or putting away.

The same is true of Hebrews 10:9: "then He said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will.' He takes away the first in order to establish the second." The verb "takes away" is the Greek anaireoo. This is an even stronger word, since its normal meaning is "to kill" (cf., Mt 2:16; Ac 2:23; 26:10, et al).

When Thomas uses "superiority," he is also following the Scriptural language. Above, Hebrews 7:19 says that the New Covenant is a "better hope."

The same is true in Hebrews 8:6-7: "But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second."

Hence, Thomas can say both that the New Covenant was "superior" and that the Old Covenant was "set aside," since both are true.

1 2 3