1 2 3

Kenneth: For what it's worth...it may be theologically convenient to say that the Old Covenant was "revoked" in order to wield it against Kasperites et al., but that simply isn't the case. It's almost as if one is saying that coupons are revoked the moment they are cashed in. It's ludicrous to approach this from a legalistic perspective.

It is much more reasonable to say that the Old Covenant no longer exists by becoming the New Covenant by virtue of Christ's fulfillment of the Old. But can that be construed into "revoked"? I'm not convinced.

 

R. Sungenis: Scripture never uses such language in regard to the Old Covenant, and I don't know any Church teaching that does either, including Augustine and Aquinas. It says only that the Old Covenant was set aside and the New Covenant took its place. If you want to say that the principles of the Old Covenant are subsumed into the New Covenant, that is perfectly fine.

Alfred: No Robert, a Covenant cuts both ways. It includes the Laws that Man is supposed to follow as well as the promises God gives those who obey his Law. That is why to say a Covenant is revoked is to say that God cancled his promises.

R. Sungenis: You are still confusing the covenants, Alfred. There is the Abrahamic covenant that had promises, and the Mosaic covenant that had Law. That is the whole argument in Galatains 3:16-18, since it opposes the Abrahamic Covenant over against the Mosaic Law that came 430 years later. If you want to say that the Abrahamic covenant was not revoked, I won't have a problem with that. But if you confuse the covenants and don't allow the proper distinctions you're going to cause confusion. Hebrews 7-10 and 2 Cor 3:7-14 is clear that the Mosaic covenant is the Old Covenant, and it has been annuled.

Alfred: But yes, I agree, the cerimonial laws peculiar to the Old Covenant are not longer in effect.

R. Sungenis: But it's not just the ceremonial laws that were set aside. 2 Cor 3:7-14 says it was the laws written on stone, the Ten Commandments, that were also part of the Old Covenant. Romans 7:7-8 specifically says that the Ninth and Tenth Commandments were the very laws that condemned Paul in sin, from which he needed to be released. Gal 3:10-12 says that if you put yourself under the law of the Old Covenant, they you are required to obey all its provision without fault, otherwise the Law will condemn you.

It is the whole Law, as an active covenant, that is set aside, because as a legal entity the Law's first action was to condemn men in sin. The Catechism says as much (Para 1963, 780, 580). The legal status of the Law had to be removed so that it would not condemn us in sin, but its ethical provisions, that is, the "good and holy" laws is contained, were then transferred to the New Covenant and made even better than they were before.

Arnold: 4) The Pope said:

"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 second part of her Bible." (Mainz, Germany, on November 17, 1980)

is more consistent with:

"The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked. "

R. Sungenis: The problem with the Pope's statement, however, is that he is supposed to be quoting Romans 11:29, but Romans 11:29 does not say "the Old Covenant, never revoked by God."

It says, "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

I can assure you that the "gifts and the calling of God" are never associated with the Old Covenant, whether in Scripture or in Church teaching. The "gifts and the calling of God" refer to the gospel of salvation, as the rest of Romans 11 makes clear, and that only comes in the New Covenant.

God has never taken away the opportunity to receive salvation for the Jew. He wants them to be saved just like Abraham was saved, but its going to be in the New Covenant not the Old Covenant.

Here are some official statements by popes and councils regarding the Old Covenant Law. Notice how each of them states that it has passed away:

Pius XII: Mystici Corporis, 29: "And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ...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, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom."

30: "On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers"

Council of Trent, ch 1, 793: "but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom"

Council of Trent, Session 6, ch 2: "that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law"

Council of Trent, Canon 1: "If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done through his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law...let him be anathema."

Council of Florence, DS 695: "There are seven sacraments of the new Law: namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, which differ a great deal from the sacraments of the Old Law. For those of the Old Law did not effect grace, but only pronounced that it should be given through the passion of Christ; these sacraments of ours contain grace, and confer it upon those who receive them worthily."

Council of Florence, DS 712: "It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosiac law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, 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."

"All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism' to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation."

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum, #59: "However they are not attempting to observe the precepts of the old Law, which as everyone knows have been revoked by the coming of Christ."

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum, #61: "The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel."

Pius VI, DS 1519-1520 (condemned the following): "Likewise, the doctrine which adds that under the Law man 'became a prevaricator, since he was powerless to observe it, not indeed by the fault of the Law, which was most sacred, but by the guilt of man, who, under the Law, without grace, became more and more a prevaricator'; and it further adds, 'that the Law, if it did not heal the heart of man, brought it about that he would recognize his evil, and, being convinced of his weakness, would desire the grace of a mediator'; in this part it generally intimates that man became a prevaricator through the nonobservance of the Law which he was powerless to observe, as if 'He who is just could command something impossible, or He who is pious would be likely to condemn man for that which he could not avoid' (from St. Caesarius Serm. 73, in append., St. Augustine, Serm. 273, edit. Maurin; from St. August., De nat, et "rat., e. 43; De "rat. et lib. arb., e. 16, Enarr. in psalm. 56, n. I),-- false scandalous, impious, condemned in Baius (see n. 1504).

1520 20. "In that part in which it is to be understood that man, while under the Law and without grace, could conceive a desire for the grace of a Mediator related to the salvation promised through Christ, as if 'grace itself does not effect that He be invoked by us' (from Conc. Araus. II, can. 3 [v.n. 176]),-- the proposition as it stands, deceitful, suspect, favorable to the Semipelagian heresy.

Robert Sungenis, et al
Catholic Apologetics International
April 22, 2003

1 2 3