Issue with Evangelii Gaudium
"We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked"

I'm not sure how I can reconcile that with Jeremiah:

"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord."

I'm sure it's been brought up before, so how is this answered?
I think saying that the covenant was never revoked isn't the same as saying the old covenant is salvific.  The old covenant was fulfilled.  Perfected. 

He is saying that the root of the New Testament is found in the Old Testament.

God didn't revoke it; the Jews of the time broke it. But God fulfilled it anyway, keeping His promises.

IIRC, there is a pertinent story in the Old Testament that deals with the status of Jews vs Catholics.  It 's the story of the time when David was warring with Saul.  David and his men crept into Saul's camp one night and find Saul sleeping.  David's men urge David to kill Saul.  David says that he can't because Saul is annointed by God, and even though God has now annointed David, and has told David to take over leadership, God never reneges on previous promises.  I quickly found this passage.  So, the Jews are to be respected.  They are our "older brothers".  They will eventually convert, in the end days.”/
The Jeremiah passage refers to the covenant made when taking them out of Egypt--that is, the Mosaic covenant, the covenant of Sinai. 

GE's quote is citing Romans 11, which discusses the permanent aspect of God's covenant with Israel, the aspect that Gentiles are grafted into and through which all Israel will ultimately be saved.  This is generally understood as the covenant made with Abraham. 

Here are a couple articles I think are helpful.  The first summarizes how this topic is treated in the works of Ratzinger, but it provides a good rundown of which covenants are permanent, which were provisional and have been revoked, and the implications of these things.

This one, by Cardinal Dulles, discusses all the aspects of this question and goes more in depth into the various Biblical passages and Church documents on the topic:

Just to add, the Church does not seem to hold the Mosaic covenant as valid--a US catechism erroneously said so, and it was subsequently corrected.
(06-25-2014, 05:22 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: God didn't revoke it; the Jews of the time broke it. But God fulfilled it anyway, keeping His promises.

I think technically you are correct, but the prima-facie meaning, and certainly the way that the Jews themselves read it, is that they can get to heaven through their religion. On the face of it, I don't see how else it can be interpreted without more complicated arguments. Indeed if one wants to say what you say it means, one wouldn't phrase it in the way Pope Francis has... I don't think in the history of the Church anyone has said that about the Jewish religion until after VII.

They basically want to say that Jews don't need Christ to be saved, why else would they talk like this and also abandon all work towards converting Jews?

One can only weep at what this new orientation has made of the life’s work of the famed 19th Century Jewish brothers Alphonse-Marie and Theodore Ratisbonne . They converted, became priests and eventually founded a religious order dedicated to the conversion of the Jews. Yet a cursory review of the Fathers of Our Lady of Sion’s website (the congregation they founded), reveals quite explicitly this stark change in understanding regarding the Jews:
“Today, the Church has given new orientations concerning our relations with the Jewish people in its declaration Nostra Aetate and in other documents that followed. Because of this, and in obedience to the directives of the Church, we no longer seek to convert the Jews, but rather a better understanding of the place and role of the people of Israel in salvation history as well as their relationship with the Church.
I guess I can understand how it can be interpreted to not be heresy, but wow is it made to sound just like it. It makes it sound as though Jews can be saved through their religion, even though this would mean a denial of Jesus and engaging in Pharasaic practices. I know that it did't explain much about this, but a cursory reading of the text makes it sound as though modern Jews can be saved through their religion. Really, it seems like it should read that their covenant was fulfilled in Jesus, and that our origins in authentic Judaism cannot be ignored. But wow, the document is totally blind to the fact that modern Judaism is not the same Judaism of Jesus and that denial of Jesus is denial of God. This ecumenical tip-toeing is doing no one any favors. It scandalizes the faithful and it deludes non-Catholics.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)