Page 2 of 2

Re: Covenant Confusion

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:24 pm
by TruthSeeker
Dear Athol: Thank you for that reply. It may have been put in because of that statement, but because the term "Old Covenant" has referred to the Mosaic Covenant at times, it caused tremendous confusion. We know JPII could not have meant that the Mosaic Covenant was not revoked, because he already stated it was superseded in his encyclical Redemptoris Mater. Also, it would have gone against the tremendous body of teaching of the Church. Again, if you hold the "not revoked" applies to any covenant other than the Abrahamic, which was made with Abraham prior to becoming a Jew and intended for all people, you are reading too much into that statement. JPII clarified what he meant in his Sydney speech of November 26, 1986, in which he said:

"It will continue to be an explicit and very important part of my mission to repeat and emphasize that our attitude to the Jewish religion should be one of the greatest respect, since the Catholic faith is rooted in the eternal truths contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, and in the irrevocable covenant made with Abraham…for it is the teaching of both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures that the Jews are beloved of God, who has called them with an irrevocable calling."

The irrevocable calling is what we have through Christ. Christ from the beginning and through to the end.

Re: Covenant Confusion

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:11 pm
by Athol
The term Old Covenant almost always refers to the Mosaic Covenant not the Abrahamic Covenant. That the Pope says that the Abrahamic covenant is irrevocable in one place doesn't mean that he is thus saying that the Mosaic Covenant or Old Covenant (which is the Covenant of Sinai) is thus revocable. None of God's covenant are revocable. Certainly one can break the conditions of the covenant (and Israel did this again and again) and come under certain punishments and one can then repent and keep the covenant and thus come under its blessings (which also happened in history). That all the covenants find their fulfilment in the New Covenant does not make the older covenants redundant or revoked. The term new means renewal not novelty in this regard. Before Vatican II it may have been permissible for a Catholic to follow a theological opinion such as you articulate but with Vatican II and the clarifications of the Magisterium since then make such an opinion more and more untenable. Such an interpretation has led to great anti-Jewish and anti-semitic attitudes which the Church has repented for and desires to cleanse. This is the opinion of the present Pope writing when he was head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

"...Down through the history of Christianity, already-strained relations deteriorated further, even giving birth in many cases to anti-Jewish attitudes, which throughout history have led to deplorable acts of violence. Even if the most recent, loathsome experience of the Shoah was perpetrated in the name of an anti-Christian ideology, which tried to strike the Christian faith at its Abrahamic roots in the people of Israel it cannot be denied that a certain insufficient resistance to its atrocity on the part of Christians can be explained by an inherited anti-Judaism present in the hearts of not a few Christians. Perhaps it is precisely because of this latest tragedy that a new vision of the relationship between the Church and Israel has been born: a sincere willingness to overcome every kind of anti-Judaism, and to initiate a constructive dialogue based on knowledge of each other, and on reconciliation. If such a dialogue is to be fruitful, it must begin with a prayer to our God, first of all that he might grant to us Christians a greater esteem and love for that people – the people of Israel – to whom belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; theirs are the patriarchs, and from them comes Christ according to the flesh, he who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen. And this not only in the past, but still today, for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. In the same way, let us pray that he may grant also to the children of Israel a deeper knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth, who is their son, and the gift they have made to us. Since we are both awaiting the final redemption, let us pray that the paths we follow may converge. It is evident that, as Christians, our dialogue with the Jews is situated on a different level than that in which we engage with other religions. The faith witnessed to by the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament for Christians) is not merely another religion to us, but is the foundation of our own faith..."

You will note that Ratzinger is not just referring to the Jews before the church was established but the Jews today.

Re: Covenant Confusion

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:53 pm
by TruthSeeker

I'm sorry, but that position simply isn't Catholic teaching. Hence the Covenant Confusion.
Cardinal Ratzinger, speaking as a theologian, can make many propositions, but the Church has already spoken, clearly and repeatedly. See for example the words of the Church below:

Roman Catechism, Part II "On the Sacraments." - "Thus much will suffice in explanation of the word Sacrament: and indeed, what we have said applies equally to the Sacraments of the old law: but superseded, as they have been, by the gospel law and grace, instruction regarding them were superfluous."
Part III On the Decalogue: "The point of difference is evident: the other commandments of the Decalogue are precepts of the natural law, obligatory at all times and unalterable, and hence, after the abrogation of the Law of Moses, all the commandments contained in the two tables are observed by Christians, ... The Sabbath was kept holy form the time of the liberation of the people of Israel form the bondage of Pharaoh: the obligation was to cease with the abrogation of the Jewish worship, of which it formed a part . . .Having been, as it were, images which shadowed the light and the truth, these ceremonies were to disappear at the coming of that light and truth, which is Christ Jesus. "

Pope Pius XII Mystici Corporis Christi:
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. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] "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." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers;

One could go on and on, which is not my desire. It simply cannot be a constructive diaologue unless the truth is placed on the table. Only then can one decide whether he accepts it or rejects it. Yes, the gifts and calls still exhisit, through the promises to Abraham. You simply reject the statements, in an encyclical no less, by John Paul II: Abrahamic fulfilled, Mosaic superseded. You obviously can hold a different belief, just don't call it Catholic teaching.

Our purpose is not to alter or water-down the truth to accomodate sensibilities, but to proclaim it.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to be heard, I truly wish you all peace in Christ.

Re: Covenant Confusion

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:31 am
by Athol
Once again you are reading these statements according to a theological opinion that carries little value today in the light of the development of doctrine in which the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into a deeper penetration of the Mystery of Israel.

Once again you quote a document that mentions the abrogation (which is the Gentile Catholic dispensation of becoming Jews and observing the torah in a Jewish manner). The church is teaching that this abrogation does not include the ten words (commandments) and teachings on morality and immorality. when the church uses the terms old law and new law it is not talking about the Torah (as there is only one Torah) as confirmed by Cardinal Lustiger but it refers to the old way of outward observance and legalism as opposed to the way jesus taught in the beatitudes and elsewhere of the new or renewed way of heart observance in the Spirit.

We also need to know what the Church means by the Old Law and the New Law- with this Cardinal Lustiger helps us stating that there is only One Law of God but the newess is the deeper penetration of the Law in the Messiah. Thus the Old Law ( a term commonly used in Church documents) refers to the intention of observing the Law before the coming of the Messiah as Promise and the new Law refers to the deeper messianic interpretation and intention of observing the Law as reality of the Promise. Thus the old intention based on Promise alone passes away and is subsumed into its mystical fulfilment and reality. How one does this in the practical differs depending on whether one is a Jew or Gentile, male of female, child or adult, Roman or Byzantine,priest or lay. However in the realm of salvation there are no distinctions- we are all one in the Messiah and all saved by Grace working through Faith and manifesting in good works. Even Judaism teaches of the coming of a New Torah with the revelation of the Messiah. By this they do not mean a new novelty but a new way of understanding and relating to Torah that is revealed by the Messiah.

Benedict XIV states: "...the ceremonial rites of the old Law could be observed under the new Law if only they were not done as obligations of the old Law, which was abrogated, but as a custom, or lawful tradition, or as a new precept issued by one enjoying the recognized and competent authority to make laws and to enforce them..." What does the word 'abrogate' refer to here. It is not the abrogation of the Law but the abrogation of the need for Gentiles who enter the Church to be obligated to observe the Law as Jews. This is the abrogation for Gentiles discussed in Acts 15. We can be assured that Pope Benedict XIV was not speaking of the abrogation of the Sinai Covenant but of the need for Gentiles to be obligated to the specifically Jewish observances by the words of Benedict XVI when he was the Cardinal in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He wrote: “With regard to the issue of the nature of the covenant, it is important to note that the Last Supper sees itself as making a covenant: it is the prolongation of the Sinai covenant, which is not abrogated, but renewed” (Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 62). Even for the Jewish Catholic one is not obligated to the old way but observes the customs and ceremonies in the light of the New Covenant with a Messianic, Eucharistic and Marian intention. We do this to more fully adhere to the Will of God and to grow in intimacy with God according to our Election and calling as physical Israelites in the Mystical Body of Christ. Many Hebrew Catholics are drawn to observe as Our Lady and the Apostles and all the first Jewish Catholics of Jerusalem did after Penecost with zealousness for the Torah (see Acts 21) which we wish to pass to our children and grandchildren.

There is some theological discussion about exactly what the term used in the Church of Old Law refers to. Some say it means the Law or Covenant of Moses others the Covenant with Abraham and others that includes all the covenants made with Israel. It would seem the term is usually not actually referring to the Torah as such but the terms Old Law and New Law may be the equivalent to the terms Old Covenant and New Covenant according to others. Once again some believe the term Old Covenant refers to the one made at Sinai and others that it refers to all the covenants made with Abraham and the Patriarchs. Pope John Paul II taught that the Old Covenant is irrevocable so the question of what exactly the term Old Covenant refers to becomes a question of debate. Eventhough most in the past assumed the Old Covenant referred to the one made at Sinai, now some try to see it as the Covenant with Abraham that is irrevocable. This is because many Catholics have assumed that the Covenant at Sinai was revoked or abolished but now a Pope was saying that it is irrevocable. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (121) also teaches this: "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."

Re: Covenant Confusion

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:40 am
by Athol
According to St Thomas Aquinas it would also seem that the use of the terms Old Law and New Law are referring to St Paul's references to those who live at the level of the letter of the law and those who live at the level of the spirit of the law and is not really directly referring to the Old and New Covenants as such. In the Summa he writes: "Nevertheless there were some in the state of the Old Testament who, having charity and the grace of the Holy Ghost, looked chiefly to spiritual and eternal promises: and in this respect they belonged to the New Law. In like manner in the New Testament there are some carnal men who have not yet attained to the perfection of the New Law; and these it was necessary, even under the New Testament, to lead to virtuous action by the fear of punishment and by temporal promises."

The level of Old Law which is based on fear, reward and punishment can be appropriate for preparation and children but those who move on to the deeper way of love are those of the level of New Law revealed by Jesus in the Beatitudes and in his Life and Passion. Thus those such as Abraham and Moses who lived at the level of love in their obedience to God's Will can be said, in a mystical sense, to have lived the New Law. Just as many Catholics who respond to God out of fear of punishment live in the Old Law, so many Jews live at the level of doing the Will of God out of love. They are thus mystically living in the New Law in the Messiah.

St Thomas opposes those who see the levels of Old Law and the New Law as two totally separate entities. He writes: "Now things may be distinguished in two ways. First, as those things that are altogether specifically different, e.g., a horse and an ox. Secondly, as perfect and imperfect in the same species, e.g., a boy and a man: and in this way the Divine law is divided into Old and New. Hence the Apostle (Gal. 3:24,25) compares the state of man under the Old Law to that of a child "under a pedagogue"; but the state under the New Law, to that of a full grown man, who is "no longer under a pedagogue."..." Thomas associates Old Law with the literal observance of the Ten Commandments for a earthly reward whereas the New Law is the the law of the Gospel which is the inner heart response to the Divine Law (Torah). The level of Old Law is thus essential (not something that is abrogated)and the level of New Law in a sense encompasses the Old Law just as the adult encompasses the child.

For example the Torah forbids Adultery- at the level of Old Law this means that one cannot have intercourse with anothers wife and there are physical penalties for such an action and one must take care of his wife financially. At the level of New Law one is forbidden to even think of his neigbour's wife in a lustful manner and he must not only care for his wife but love her as the Messiah loves his bride the Church. One does this out of love for the Messiah. The level of Old Law is not abolished but the one who lives at the level of the New Law will already be obedient to the demands of the outward level of the Old Law. One can keep the level of the Old Law with his own effort and will power, whereas the level of the new Law can only be achieved and received as a grace of God.

Re: Covenant Confusion

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:59 am
by Athol
i also wonder why you don't use the Douay -Rheims Bible for your quotation of Hebrews 8:13 "Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old is near its end". Other translations that use the word Covenant and obsolete are an interpretation of this verse not a translation. This like all of Hebrews is talking of the prieshood ministry and sacrifices not the Old Covenant or the Torah-by the renewal of the Covenant as proclaimed to jeremiah in 31:31 will lead to the old and wearing out priesthood of Levi and Aaron to disappear and be transformed into the priesthood and sacrifice of the renewed covenant. there has been changes in the priesthood before. the original priesthood is associated as the priesthood of Abel, then Melchizedek instituted another form with Abraham and then with the levites and then at sinai the Aronite priesthood and finally with the fulfilment and renewal of all these forms of the priesthhod in Jesus and his sacrifice. this is why Ratzinger says “With regard to the issue of the nature of the covenant, it is important to note that the Last Supper sees itself as making a covenant: it is the prolongation of the Sinai covenant, which is not abrogated, but renewed” (Many Religions, One Covenant, p. 62).

According to you Cardinals Dulles, Lustiger and Burke have all got it wrong about what is Catholic teaching as well as Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Re: Covenant Confusion

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:31 am
by Athol
“the period marked by the promise made to Abraham and by the Law mediated by Moses has now reached its climax, in the sense that Christ fulfils the divine promise and supersedes the old law.” Redemptoris Mater, ft. 2.

Firstly this is only a footnote in Redemptoris Mater not part of the main text. As you can see if you have read what I wrote above, this footnote is not talking about the mosaic covenant or Torah but the old law (the old outward level of observing Torah).

this is the full footnote: The expression "fullness of time" (pleroma tou chronou) is parallel with similar expressions of Judaism, both Biblical (cf. Gen. 29:21; 1 Sam. 7:12; Tob. 14:5) and extra-Biblical, and especially of the New Testament (cf. Mk. 1:15; Lk. 21:24; Jn. 7:8; Eph. 1:10). From the point of view of form, it means not only the conclusion of a chronological process but also and especially the coming to maturity or completion of a particularly important period, one directed towards the fulfillment of an expectation, a coming to completion which thus takes on an eschatological dimension. According to Gal. 4:4 and its context, it is the coming of the Son of God that reveals that time has, so to speak, reached its limit. That is to say, the period marked by the promise made to Abraham and by the Law mediated by Moses has now reached its climax, in the sense that Christ fulfills the divine promise and supersedes the old law.

We see that we are dealing with deep mystical or eshchatological mysteries in which the word supersedes is refering to the ascending to the level of "spirit of the law" which doesn't break the outward boundaries of the Torah but goes beyond the outward law by going deeper into its internal messianic mystery. This level had been hidden but is now unveiled with the Incarnation and life etc of the Messiah Jesus.

One must be careful to not confuse the meaning of a word such as supersedes as it means one thing in ordinary ontological theology and another in mystical theology- this is common in that certain people see a term used by a mystic and they interpret it with its ordinary meaning rather than its mystical and fall into great errors. This is very much the case with the writings of Paul who was a great mystic

Re: Covenant Confusion

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:40 pm
by TruthSeeker
Athol: I believe we are at an impasse, but as I thank you for your thoughts, i will contemplate them. I am trying to take the Church at her word, as well as Scripture.

When she uses terms like superseded, abolished, abrogated or even “died”(See, Redemptoris Mater, Roman Catechism Part III discussing the Third Commandement, Pope Bendict XIV’s Encyclical Ex Quo 63 and Mystici Corporis Christi 30),  which words the Church has used in discussing the annulment of the entirety of the Mosaic Covenant, I simply can't find the lingering aspect that you pull forward. If the Old Law is dead and abolished, we should not allude to any remaining continuity.  The continuity has nothing to do with the law through Moses.   I think clear statements such as the below from Old Testament theologians Dr. Paul Heinisch and Rev.  William Heidt are most helpful:

“When the Gospel began to be preached to all peoples, this “shadow of things to come” Col 2:17 had to pass away.  With Christ’s death the Law was abrogated.  No one insisted upon this truth more resolutely or stated it more clearly than St. Paul. Acts 9:15.  “Christ is the consummation of the Law unto justice for everyone who believes.” Rm 10:4  The “taskmaster” no longer has any right or power.

 Israel resembled a fig tree with much foliage but no fruit.  Lk 13:6-9.  When toward the end of His mission Jesus found no fruit upon this fig tree, He cursed it and it withered forever, withered to its very roots.  Mt 21:18-20; Mk 11:13-20.  This was the last miracle He worked, the only miracle which was not directed toward gaining souls or alleviating human suffering.  He wept over impenitent Jerusalem, Lk 19:41, and prophesized ruin to the city and its temple.  Mt 24:2, 25:22; Lk 19:42-44.  The Jews believed it sufficient to have Abraham as father; Mt 3:9  they forgot that God’s choice of Abraham was an act of pure grace and that Abraham’s children were obliged to fulfill the divine will even as their forefather did.  Jn 8:39; Mt 3:9 When Israel rejected Him on whose account she had been chosen, she spelt her own rejection;  she became stale salt, “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a people yielding its fruits.”  Mt 21:43

Through the centuries a good and merciful God struggled, so to speak, for the love of that people, Mt 16:4, punishing them only to shower greater blessings upon them. Mt 46:5  Yet despite all warnings and admonitions Israel “had a face harder than stone and refused to amend.” Jer 5:3; Ez 2:4-5  “Give up!  We want to follow our own evil plans, each one of us wishes to act according to his own stubborn, evil notions.” Jer 18:12  God did not need Israel to realize His work.  He willed to retain the imperishable religious intent of the OT for His new kingdom, but first He detached His new foundation from ancient moorings lest Israel continue to impede His plan.  Membership in the new kingdom of God is not dependent upon physical descent form Abraham, Lk 19:9 but upon faith in Jesus and obedience to His words.  We become God’s children through the grace conferred upon the world through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

We should preach that detachment from ancient moorings,

Thank you for your time, and God bless you, and I will leave you with my gratitude.

Re: Covenant Confusion

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:22 pm
by Athol
Well that's where I think we disagree. God has never given up hope for Israel and the Catholic Church has never given up hope for Israel trusting in God's faithfulness to his covenants even if man is not. This is why the church has always taught that the Jewish people (who didn't accept Jesus at his first coming)will be fully grafted into the mystical Olive Tree which is Israel.

"The glorious advent of Christ, the hope of Israel

673 Since the Ascension Christ's coming in glory has been imminent, even though "it is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority." This eschatological coming could be accomplished at any moment, even if both it and the final trial that will precede it are "delayed".

674 The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus. St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old." St. Paul echoes him: "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles", will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all".

This is the time and event which I and many other Catholics both Jews and Gentiles are praying and working towards under the inspiration of Our Lady, Mother of Israel's Hope. Even you should be able to see that when the Church refers to Israel here it is speaking of the physical Israel-the Jewish people of our time and the future-and not the Church as the new Israel who has superseded any claim of the Jews to the name Israel.

You are clinging to old formulations and theological opinions rather than moving with the Church in its journey to go deeper in its understanding of the deposit of the faith through the development of doctrine in the Church. Just as after 1854 we must leave behind the theological opinions of St Thomas Aquinas and others on whether Mary was immaculately conceived so in the light of further magisterial teaching and in light of the Shoah we leave behind all those theological opinions of even saints and fathers that were based on anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish polemics.

Re: Covenant Confusion

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:47 pm
by Athol
Dear Truth seeker keep seeking the Truth. St Peter warns us that St Paul is not easy to understand and that many even in his time got him wrong. To read him without understanding that he is a Jewish rabbi and a Jewish mystic has caused great misunderstandings. Paul thinks in Jewish ways and categories which is very different to the Greek and Roman based thinking of later writers who seek to understand his writings. There are many new writers and theologians who are discovering Paul in his Jewish context which is an exciting development in theological circles. There are many people who think or have thought along your lines so it is good to thrash these things out with someone who holds a different understanding. I think there is some confusion with the terminology of old law and new law but it is clear from the St Thomas quote above that new law is not the same as New Testament (or Covenant) just as Old law and Old Testament are not the same. The same is found when studying Paul as his use of the word law does not always refer to the Torah (Law). All the best in your further search for truth.

Re: Covenant Confusion

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:02 pm
by Athol
Just found this excellent article on this topic on the National Catholic Register website. ... e-and-god/

cheers Athol

Re: Covenant Confusion

Posted: Thu May 17, 2012 1:10 pm
by Chaim
Athol wrote:Just found this excellent article on this topic on the National Catholic Register website. ... e-and-god/

cheers Athol
Very enlightening article indeed... Although im not sure about the facts they show there, with
all the respect to the vatican, most of the religions would say that they have the true

With that i think that there are a lot of familiar traditions in both of the religions, take a look
at the Jewish traditions and tell me if they ring the bell... ... ry&cs=3015

Re: Covenant Confusion

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 1:09 pm
by Athol
Thanks Chaim what a nice website on Jewish traditions around the world.

Both Israel and the Catholic Church are under attack at the moment from many quarters so it is good that we become closer.

cheers Br. Gilbert (Athol)

Re: Covenant Confusion

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 2:09 pm
by TruthSeeker
Dear Athol -
I just noticed your linking to the article at NCR. I debated whether to respond, but feel I must given that I believe there are significant problems with that article, and other articles by David Palm and Michael Forrest. They go far beyond what the Church teaches and represent their musings as magisterial. For starters, their implication that there is an existing “chosen” status outside of the Church is specious. Although they maintain that it is not salvific, their claim of a Godly “special relationship” because of racial identity is incorrect and misleading.

When addressing this very issue, St. Augustine clearly stated the truth –“ For are those enemies who perished in their enmity and those of the same people who still perish in their opposition to Christ—are those chosen and beloved? Away with the thought! Who is so utterly foolish as to say this? But both expressions, although contrary to one another— that is, enemies and beloved— are appropriate, though not to the same men, yet to the same Jewish people, and to the same carnal seed of lsrael, of whom some belonged to the falling away, and some to the blessing of Israel himself.” On the Predestination of Saints, Book I, para. 33

The love and mercy God shows the Jews for the sake of the Patriarchs is the continuing offer of salvation through Christ Jesus. Any other embellishment creates a racial pride inapposite of the humility of Christianity.

May God be with you.

Re: Covenant Confusion

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 7:11 pm
by Athol
Dear Truthseeker,

I think I will go with David Palm and Michael Forrest rather than you. They are thinking with the mind of the Church as it has been developing a deeper understanding of the Jews in God's plan of salvation. That the only person you quoted lived such a long time ago says alot. Of course St Augustine was a great saint and his opinions are understandable in the context of his time but it doesn't make them correct or magisterial. I am sure if Augustine would speak on this now with 1700 more years of the development of doctrine and the guidance of the Holy Spirit he would speak very differently. Tradition is not static but alive and living and growing in depth.

cheers Brother Gilbert