Judaism: Is the Old Covenant still valid? - Apologetics Series - Episode 41 On today’s episode of the SSPX Podcast, we continue with the “Why Not” questions about what is reasonable to believe. In …More
Judaism: Is the Old Covenant still valid? - Apologetics Series - Episode 41
On today’s episode of the SSPX Podcast, we continue with the “Why Not” questions about what is reasonable to believe. In this episode, we turn our attention to Judaism. The Jewish people were the chosen people of God with whom He made a divine Covenant. Given this, is it true that this Covenant is still valid? Following the coming of Jesus Christ and the founding of the Church, is it right to practice Judaism today?
Subscribe to the SSPX YouTube channel here:
youtube.com/c/SSPXNewsEnglish?sub_confirmation=1
Stay Connected on Social Media:
Twitter: twitter.com/SSPXEN
Facebook: Log into Facebook | Facebook
Instagram: instagram.com/accounts/login/?next=https://www.instagram.com/ssp SSPX News Website:Home | FSSPX News Visit our website: District of the USA
On today’s episode of the SSPX Podcast, we continue with the “Why Not” questions about what is reasonable to believe. In this episode, we turn our attention to Judaism. The Jewish people were the chosen people of God with whom He made a divine Covenant. Given this, is it true that this Covenant is still valid? Following the coming of Jesus Christ and the founding of the Church, is it right to practice Judaism today?
Subscribe to the SSPX YouTube channel here:
youtube.com/c/SSPXNewsEnglish?sub_confirmation=1
Stay Connected on Social Media:
Twitter: twitter.com/SSPXEN
Facebook: Log into Facebook | Facebook
Instagram: instagram.com/accounts/login/?next=https://www.instagram.com/ssp SSPX News Website:Home | FSSPX News Visit our website: District of the USA
@occasnltrvlr
If it has been superseded - then, as logically follows, it is not valid.
Old Law/Covenant died on the Cross as Pius XII wrote in Mystici Corporis Christi and as the Catholic Tradition taught up to the Judeo-Masonic revolution of so-called Vatican II.
If it has been superseded - then, as logically follows, it is not valid.
Old Law/Covenant died on the Cross as Pius XII wrote in Mystici Corporis Christi and as the Catholic Tradition taught up to the Judeo-Masonic revolution of so-called Vatican II.
occasnltrvlr
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@V.R.S.
I don't understand your reasoning - superseding something makes it obsolete or perhaps useless, but doesn't invalidate it. A few Model T's still operate exactly as they were designed to, but I sure wouldn't want to drive one on the PA Turnpike.
If a covenant made by God has become invalid, that necessarily means that God has revoked something He promised He would uphold.
Scripture and …More
@V.R.S.
I don't understand your reasoning - superseding something makes it obsolete or perhaps useless, but doesn't invalidate it. A few Model T's still operate exactly as they were designed to, but I sure wouldn't want to drive one on the PA Turnpike.
If a covenant made by God has become invalid, that necessarily means that God has revoked something He promised He would uphold.
Scripture and Tradition make clear that the old covenant is fruitless to us as a means of obtaining justification, and it has, praise be to God, been superseded by a new and better covenant. But to claim that a covenant established by God is now invalid is a claim that God has lied.
I don't understand your reasoning - superseding something makes it obsolete or perhaps useless, but doesn't invalidate it. A few Model T's still operate exactly as they were designed to, but I sure wouldn't want to drive one on the PA Turnpike.
If a covenant made by God has become invalid, that necessarily means that God has revoked something He promised He would uphold.
Scripture and Tradition make clear that the old covenant is fruitless to us as a means of obtaining justification, and it has, praise be to God, been superseded by a new and better covenant. But to claim that a covenant established by God is now invalid is a claim that God has lied.
@occasnltrvlr
"I don't understand your reasoning"
---
You do not have to understand my reasoning (though as far as I see you do not understand what "to supersede" means when it comes to law/covenants) but better try to accept the teaching of the Church.
PS Saying that something gives now no fruits whatsoever ("is fruitless") but is still valid is a... peculiar kind of logic.
PPS
"And first of all,…More
@occasnltrvlr
"I don't understand your reasoning"
---
You do not have to understand my reasoning (though as far as I see you do not understand what "to supersede" means when it comes to law/covenants) but better try to accept the teaching of the Church.
PS Saying that something gives now no fruits whatsoever ("is fruitless") but is still valid is a... peculiar kind of logic.
PPS
"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. ... 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."
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"
(Pius XII - Mystici Corporis)
"I don't understand your reasoning"
---
You do not have to understand my reasoning (though as far as I see you do not understand what "to supersede" means when it comes to law/covenants) but better try to accept the teaching of the Church.
PS Saying that something gives now no fruits whatsoever ("is fruitless") but is still valid is a... peculiar kind of logic.
PPS
"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. ... 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."
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"
(Pius XII - Mystici Corporis)
occasnltrvlr
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The Church does not teach that God is a liar. Check your dictionary: "supersede" and "invalidate" are not synonyms.
Simon North
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@occasnltrvlr
A covenant involves two parties. The Lord said that the Covenant would remain with the Hebrews as long as they kept their part of their covenant and remained faithful. The Hebrews didn't. The destruction of the Temple was the visible sealing of the Old Covenant's death.More
@occasnltrvlr
A covenant involves two parties. The Lord said that the Covenant would remain with the Hebrews as long as they kept their part of their covenant and remained faithful. The Hebrews didn't. The destruction of the Temple was the visible sealing of the Old Covenant's death.
A covenant involves two parties. The Lord said that the Covenant would remain with the Hebrews as long as they kept their part of their covenant and remained faithful. The Hebrews didn't. The destruction of the Temple was the visible sealing of the Old Covenant's death.
@occasnltrvlr
No, God is not a liar. Both Jews and Greeks (non-Jews) are invited to the New Eternal Covenant (sealed with the Precious Blood of His Son) He proposed to the whole mankind.
There is no valid separate ("tribal") covenant for the Jews here (though new post-conciliar anthropology claims so).
No, God is not a liar. Both Jews and Greeks (non-Jews) are invited to the New Eternal Covenant (sealed with the Precious Blood of His Son) He proposed to the whole mankind.
There is no valid separate ("tribal") covenant for the Jews here (though new post-conciliar anthropology claims so).
occasnltrvlr
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I still don't understand how this is confusing to anyone because it is so simple. When God makes a covenant, it is forever, so yes, of course it is still valid, and that is for everyone.
But, as is made crystal-clear, no one can live up to it and hence be made righteous by following it. So it is an entirely moot question, and the old covenant, while still valid, is superseded by the new covenant …More
I still don't understand how this is confusing to anyone because it is so simple. When God makes a covenant, it is forever, so yes, of course it is still valid, and that is for everyone.
But, as is made crystal-clear, no one can live up to it and hence be made righteous by following it. So it is an entirely moot question, and the old covenant, while still valid, is superseded by the new covenant in Christ's blood.
But, as is made crystal-clear, no one can live up to it and hence be made righteous by following it. So it is an entirely moot question, and the old covenant, while still valid, is superseded by the new covenant in Christ's blood.