"Jesus Christ’s Resurrection Is Probably The Best-Documented Historical Event Ever"

Amici,

A worthwhile article (a vignette from a book) at The Federalist is worth review. It is titled, "Jesus Christ’s Resurrection Is Probably The Best-Documented Historical Event Ever". (The 'ever' tacked on the end gives it a sort of adolescent quality, but still...)

Scott S. Powell is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, an Intelligent Design policy think tank in (what remains of burnt-out) Seattle, Washington. Non-Christian scientists call Intelligent Design "pseudo-science" but look what our "scientists" KNOW for certain, i.e. Covid, et al. Ask a "scientist" to please produce an actual virion of the Covid-19 virus and see what sort of reaction you get.

But whatever about that, Powell, probably a Protestant, details a concise review of the evidence here about the Resurrection being truly historical. So, at this Easter, while one can read a classically orthodox Catholic essay on Our Lord's Passion, as with Fr. Zuhlsdorf here at OnePeterFive, I think it is always interesting to read about certain Christian episodes from a Protestant perspective. It shows how close and how far, how familiar and unfamiliar, the difference Protestant denominations can be from Traditional Catholicism (Vatican II Catholicism is basically the Anglican Church speaking Italian, with lavender ruffles and flourishes).

For instance, this Powell article has some full-throated recognition of the significance of the report in First Corinthians about the witnesses to the Resurrection. I.e.:

The New Testament provides accounts from multiple sources who witnessed Jesus firsthand after the resurrection. In fact, Jesus made ten separate appearances to his disciples between the resurrection and his ascension into Heaven, over a period of 40 days. Some of those appearances were to individual disciples, some were to several disciples at the same time, and once even to 500 at one time.

Powell got this from First Corinthians, an epistle famous among Catholic apologists for defending the divine nature of the Most Holy Eucharist in the second-half of chapter 11.

It is from chapter 15 that Mr. Powell got his references above. I.e.:

³ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ⁶ Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. ⁸ Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. ⁹ For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

This reference to Our Risen Lord appearing to St. Peter (Cephas) and then the Twelve leaves out the women. Christ first appeared to Mary Magdalene (Mk.16:9, Jn. 20:15-17). He next appeared to: "Joanna and Mary, the mother of James, and the other women with them" (Mt. 28:9-10). But St. Paul doesn't mention that. Women's testimony had little worth in Semitic cultures. In the second chapter of the Quran, Al-Baqarah, verse 2:282 provides a basis for the rule that two women are the equivalent of one man in providing a witness testimony in financial situations. In some Muslim traditional cultures, even this is too much; they do not accept women's testimony at all, unless a man can testify along with them.

Alright, so aside from that, St. Paul, in this earliest written (spring of 56 A.D.; cool how they can know that) reference to the Resurrection (unless the "Hebrew" version of St. Matthew's gospel existed then) lists the men to whom Our Risen Lord appeared. St. Peter and the Apostles, naturally, but who were the 500? "A public appearance mentioned only here in the NT" is the note of a Catholic Study Bible I have. I've read other interesting commentaries in certain writers about who these 500 were and that they had been gathered for the purpose. The Catholic Study Bible's note (Curtis Mitch) only says: "For Paul, such a large group of eyewitnesses adds to the credibility of the Resurrection especially since some were still living and could verify the facts."

Yeah, but that's pretty basic. Mr Mitch is not a Classics scholar, alas. St. Paul was conversant with Classical Greek pagan literature. St. Paul would have known that in Athens, in the Periclean Age, the jury size for a man accused of a capital crime was 500. None of the writers recording Socrates trial detailed the jury size, probably because they assumed everyone would know. So, what St. Paul is saying is the he had enough witnesses to Christ's resurrection to satisfy the jury requirements of the Mediterranean world's famous city-state, Athens, in its heyday.

St. Paul, I believe, quotes from three pagan philosophers, Epimenides, Menander (who seems to have actually gotten the quote from the tragedy Aiolos by Euripides), and Aratus. St. Luke makes such quotes a couple of times in Acts. Whether these were direct quotes or just Shakespeare-like well-known commonly circulating phrases, they indicate some degree of familiarity with the Classics. St Paul in particular in his letters uses them to explain Christian teachings via the use of concepts from Greek philosophy. One scholar has noted that "1 Corinthians 12 may have been partly inspired by a similar image conjured up in Plato’s Protagoras 349c, in which Socrates uses the example of how the different parts of the face all perform very different functions from each other and from the function of the whole and yet, through the combination of all the different parts working together in harmony, they each contribute to the function of the whole." 

If true, wow. This would tie St. Paul's 500 witnesses even closer to my idea that St. Paul was thinking of a jury trial of Socrates (as well as referring to an otherwise unrecording meeting).

The Protestant historian and New Testament scholar, Gary Habermas, has "dedicated his professional life to the examination of the relevant historical, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus." 

I once listened to him explain on video how St. Paul stressed the importance of his testimony here in chapter 15 by using the phrase: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received...", as Mr Habermas says this was a sort ancient version of "I swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God." This is a great insight and heightens (if any heightening is needed) the importance of St. Paul's testimony here. But what Mr. Habermas didn't say is that in chapter 11, about the Holy Eucharist,  St. Paul says, "23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread...". This time St. Paul ups the ante. "For I received FROM THE LORD what I also delivered to you." Just amazing the power of this oath that St. Paul offers. And yet Protestant scholars – or at least Mr. Habermas – miss it.

In any case, Mr. Powell's contention that the historicity of the Resurrection is on very firm footing, to put it mildly. But let's up the ante in a Catholic way, something you probably won't hear from a Vatican II trained cleric.

The Mass, the Sacred Eucharistic Liturgy, is above all a miracle, our participation in the actual Incarnation of Christ, made present to us so that as God Incarnated Himself into man, so man, through partaking of the Eucharist, can be Incarnated into God. This is the basic Christian message. It's why God didn't just declare, Allah-like, that an individual is saved upon uttering the Shahada ("I bear witness that there is no deity but God, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God.")

There has never been a formal Christian Shahada. Romans 10:13/Acts 2:21 are often quoted as a type of Shahada. They consist of the verse, "For all those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved", and they constitute the most Protestant verses in Scripture. In context, the Romans verse is embedded in: …12For there is no difference between Jew and Greek: The same Lord is Lord of all, and gives richly to all who call on Him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14How then can they call on the One in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach." The context of the second is in St. Peter's famous sermon to the crowds on Pentecost.

To be "saved", one has to be "born again of the water and the spirit" (St. John's gospel: 3:5, following on verse 3 about being born again). St. John and St. Paul both stress one has to be a "new creation in Christ" St. Paul's writings are full of these. For example:

·   John 1:12 “But to all who received Him, who believed in His name, He gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Obviously, a new creation.)

•  2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (Again, a new creation.)
•  2 Peter 1:4 might well put it best;
• See also Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12.
  
  

St. John wrote his gospel last of the four (all scholars, whether believers, agnostics, atheists, agree on that, even if they vary wildly in just when it was composed) and he knew that he had to emphasize the profundity of this Incarnational new creation theology, so he wrote out, very carefully, the sixth chapter of his gospel in which he reports Our Lord clearly saying that one must eat His flesh and drink is blood if one is to have God's life within him. And St. John also emphasized that Christ was not being metaphorical, as He let many – if not most – of His followers walk away.

But the point I wish to particularly stress about the Holy Eucharist is in relation to St. Paul's formal oath-giving testimony to the Resurrection: for the Holy Eucharist is a sacrament, meaning an oath, in itself. It is a blood oath, the most profound kind, wherein Catholic bishops and priests from that scene in 1 Corinthians 15 down to this day swear, and swear on the very Body and Blood of God, that "for I received FROM THE LORD what I also delivered to you" that we saw the Risen Christ, met with Him, spoke with Him, and ate with Him.

The Most Holy Eucharist is not just the means of our salvation, but also a blood-oath we Historical Christians (Catholics, the 14 Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox) have been participating in for 2000 years. It is a witness of the most penetrating kind, with the most unfathomable consequences for our souls.

So, my friends, this might be worth a bit of reflection this Easter season, as we stand on the brink of horrible war, unprecedented global propaganda, and Deep State/Great Reset-generated civilizational collapse.

Christus vincit, 

Christus regnat, 

Christus imperat!

An Préachán

The Differences between Catholics and Protestants PART III Section 1

Catholics and Protestants Irreconcilable Differences

PART III How Salvation Works: The Irreconcilable Differences between Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) and Protestantism

In Commemoration of the 500th Anniversary of Protestantism

Section I

This third installment of Catholics and Protestants focuses on How Salvation Works. It involves Justification, how God “justifies” us, or “makes us right” with Him so that we can enter Heaven. Go here for a Part I of this series, the Introduction, for Part II, the Protestant issue with Church Authority (section 1; section 2 is here.)

• The essential question involved is: are our natures changed? Can we enter Heaven and be sinners? How’s it work?

Two Options
The Historical Church Option

• Catholicism and Orthodoxy (what I say for the Catholic position covers both) insists that one must be changed in one’s nature to enter Heaven. Sin cannot co-exist with God. So that’s why God became man and took on our Fallen Nature: He did so in order to transform it into a sinless perfect nature. N.B. Theosis the traditional term for this in Greek, and in Latin Divinization.
• For evidence of this in the New Testament, one simple option is to see the many New Testament refs to “a new creation in Christ”, such as 2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” 2 Peter 1:4 might well puts it best – but Protestants essentially only read St. Paul. So, see Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12. (Also John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

The Protestant Option

• Conversely, Luther answered no, Romans 3:28 shows that we’re all sinners and all of us “fall short of the glory of God. St. Paul then lists six Old Testament refs in Romans 3:10-18 to emphais this point. These are very important to look up in a minute, but they are: Psalms 14:3, 5:9, 140:3, 10:7, Isaiah 59:7-8 (the only non-Psalm) and 36:1. Therefore, Luther argued,  one is NOT changed in one’s nature. One can’t. The effects of Original Sin are irreversible. This is the “T” in the Dutch Calvinist “T.U.L.I.P”; i.e., “Total depravity.”
• Instead, Luther said, one enters Heaven like a manure pile covered with snow; i.e., God’s grace covering our wretched, sinful, fallen nature, which we are united to for eternity. Luther’s Latin tag for this was “Simul justus et peccator”, “simultaneously justified and a sinner”. (This slogan would have been incomprehensible to theologians before Luther, as it goes against the entire idea os Theosis, our necessary divinization, which was the reason God became man, to elevate human nature in himself to make Theosis possible.)
• Therefore, the Battle Cry of the Reformation was “Salvation by Faith Alone!” or “Sola Fide”.  Both meaning that only by having faith in God are we “saved” or “justified”. It’s a legal action God takes with us. God imputes or assigns righteousness to us because of His Son’s death on the Cross, rather causing a metaphysical change in our natures.
• The “verse that launched the Reformation” was Romans 3:28 “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (KJV, and for the “New Living Translation: “So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.” The Douay-Rheims Bible: “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.”

That’s it. One might say, “Hey, wait a minute! THAT’S it? Tens of thousands killed and maimed and the faith of millions wracked, if not destroyed, and Western culture and civilization torn to shreds (and if nothing else, an incalculable loss for art and our very idea of art) for this?

Yep.

A lot of blood has been spilt over it, and lot of loved ones forever estranged from each other over it. It’s one of the great tragedies of the human race that so much disaster should come from the misunderstandings of a few hot-shot, up-and-coming intellectuals about a few Biblical passages. For a misunderstanding it was, caused in part by something innocuous: the numbering of chapters and verses in the Bible and how that development resulted in a change in how the Bible was read. (Which I’ll explain in more detail in Section II.)

But the effect on the Christian Church seems to have been permanent.

Now, even today, this difference in how Catholics and Protestants see how Salvation works is elemental, foundational, and it takes up all the air in the room, all the inches in the column. If you’ve ever watched a debate between Catholics and Protestants, this is the true bone of contention, with endless quotes from St. Paul to bolster the Protestant position. (Martin Luther said of him that “St. Paul's voice is the voice of the divine majesty.” Yeah, and Christ’s wasn’t? No, because of Matthew 25:31-46.) However, it is not the most important difference between the two sides of Christianity, and once one understands where St. Paul is actually coming from, this most contentious of arguments evaporates into nothing.

It truly does.

That’s hard to believe, I know.

But let's see why this is so in Section 2.

An Préachán

Response to Rocks for Brains who posted a Comment August 21 and today is August 24

Thanks for writing R4B. You’ve raised some important points and I’ve been wanting to answer them in some depth, so I’m posting this as an essay in its own right. 

Rocks for Brains wrote on August 21, 2017 at 8:30 AM
What a bunch of useless handwringing!
When Christ said he had come not to abolish the Old Covenant but rather to Fulfill it, it wasn't as complicated a statement as we make it today.
If, by some act, I suddenly pay off my mortgage, have I abolished it? No. Can the bank come after me for money now that I no longer make monthly payments? No, it has been fulfilled.

Why do we allow ourselves to be dragged into questions about the Khazars on the one hand and arguments about matrilineal bloodlines on the other? Remember Our Lord's remarks to those who asserted privilege because they were Sperma (seed of) Abraham? I can make followers out of the Rocks!
Regardless of the ethnic background, once the waters of baptism are poured over your head, you are no longer a Jew. Since the Gospel of John and especially the destruction of the Temple, a jew is a religious construct; a denier of Christ. In temples around the world, you can believe in anything so long as you reject HE who stands neck deep in burning excrement.

The straight line in history is: Abraham-Moses-Jesus-The Church. Today's Jews are a detour. They didn't continue believing as they always had.. ignoring the Christ. They responded and became the first Protestants.

An Préachán:
My response: You mention "hand-wringing". Hand-wringing? As in “Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered you…”? (Matt 27:37) Or St Paul’s “For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh,” (Romans 9:3)

Now, that’s what I'd call hand-wringing!

If Our Lord was upset over the Jews, and Saul of Tarsus as well, we're allowed to be, too.

As for the mortgage bit you discuss, salvation as paying off a mortgage, that sounds quite Protestant: "Jesus paid for our sins so we have a free ticket to ride to Heaven and don’t have to do anything but accept it. Everything has been done and paid off for us." Historical Christianity teaches that the Gospel is about Transformation in Christ, Theosis, the divinization of the human race, for all those willing to “take on Christ”. 2 Peter 1:4 “By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.”

Consider also:

• St. Athanasius: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." (De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B) and [CCC 460]
• St. Thomas Aquinas: "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." (Opusc. 57, 1-4) [CCC 460]
• Also: This teaching is stated in many ways throughout the New Testament. Examples:
• John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Obviously, a new creation) 
• 2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (Again, a new creation)
• 2 Peter 1:4 might well puts it best – but Protestants essentially only read St. Paul: So, see Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12.
• Two Old Testament examples: Isaiah 65:17; Ezekiel 36:25-26
• Note: In general, Jesus seems to demand the impossible of “ordinary” humans. In Matthew 5, during the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives the Beatitudes, then says we are “salt of the earth” and “light of the world”, discusses how He has come not to do away with the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. He discusses elevated behavior regarding anger, adultery, divorce, making oaths and not retaliating (“turn the other cheek”) and love our enemies. He ends with "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect." (5:48) That is something manifestly impossible for “normal” human beings to do.

Theosis

Theosis, however, makes it possible. And something all true Catholics and Orthodox have to emphasize is that the Eucharist is the means by which we are saved, otherwise we will “have no life within us.” (St John’s famous chapter 6.)

As for allowing ourselves into be dragged into “arguments about matrilineal bloodlines on the other (hand)”, both St Matthew and St Luke let themselves get drawn into lines of family descent. Both the Jew St. Matthew (who may have composed his Gospel in either Hebrew or Aramaic) and St Luke, the “Greek physician” (Syrian Greek, that is, and quite possibly a physician), open their Gospels with genealogy.

Yes, it isn't matrilineal, but some scholars suggest Luke's version is just that. But whatever.

I mention the matrilineal bloodlines because most non-Jews don’t know about that, how important that is to who is considered a Jew, and why, and thus why the Blessed Virgin Mary is both a typos of Eve AND a typos of Sarah – who also had only one child, and whose child would carry the wood for his sacrifice to the top of the mount Jesus would later carry His Cross to. And also this is hugely important for understanding the Blessed Virgin Mary’s place as our Mother.

• (The Fathers at Vatican II — I should say the more orthodox ones — fully intended to issue a major proclamation on her as a formal Council constitution, but the Progressives derailed that. Something to remember in this 100th year of Fatima.)

That passage you mention about God being able to raise up the very rocks to be children of Abraham is a great one. It is St John the Baptist in St Matthew 3:9. St John is addressing the Pharisees and Sadducees, and saying In verse 7: “And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come?” But notice what he then says in verse 8: “Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance.” (Luke 3:8 mirrors this exactly, except he plurals "fruit", i.e., "fruits". Though disputed, this passage suggests he does not reject them completely, but tries to “cut them down to size” and tells them true repentance involves real spiritual work, not just acting the part. That's the point of verse 9: just being descendants of Abraham (and Sarah) does do it; they need to bring spiritual fruit (good works) worthy of penance (although as I say, scholars argue exactly how this is meant).

However, and this is important, God does indeed “raise up stones to be sons of Abraham” for God converts the Gentiles, people with stony hearts and who actually worship stone idols. Our ancestors, in fact. It’s an echo of Ezekiel 37 and the valley of dry bones. Or in Ezekiel 36:25ff: "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances...”.

The Christian reads this as referring not just to fallen-away Jews of Ezekiel’s day, but of us Christians, as well. And it fits wonderfully.

You write, “Regardless of the ethnic background, once the waters of baptism are poured over your head, you are no longer a Jew.” I would say you then become a true Jew, Jews as God planned them to be, and heirs of the Covenants, especially of course the New Covenant, which fulfills the all old Covenants.

• Or why does St. Paul write: “And whosoever shall follow this rule, peace on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” That’s a pretty famous passage, “the Israel of God”. (It’s Galatians 6:16.) 
• And in Romans 9:6: “It is not as though God's word has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” That whole chapter of Romans 9 is an extended essay on our very topic. It builds from St. Paul’s “hand-wringing” at Romans 9:3 and is a profound meditation. But rather than get involved in all that, I’ll just give two further quotes from Galatians:
• (Galatians 3:7): “Understand, then, that those who have faith are the sons of Abraham.” 
• And (Galatians 3:29): “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.” 

As for the other issue you raise, how Jews can believe anything, i.e., have ended up believing a wide variety of things no first century Pharisee would countenance, so long as they reject Christ, sure. Some of them believe in reincarnation, some that the Messiah has come in the person of the New York Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, who died in 1994. (He himself objected to that sort of allegation, and since he died, the movement that claims him as Messiah has declined). You can certainly say today’s Jews have not continued unbroken the belief systems of the Pharisees, that’s true. The religion is sort of like a capital “T”: it went straight and strong till Christ, then one group of Jews went one way, into Christianity, and the other group went in the opposite direction.

But so what? Christianity is not a radical break with its Jewish past, but its fulfillment. Judaism Fulfilled. Judaism Resplendent, as it was meant to be. Pius XI (or was it the XII?) said we are all spiritual Semites. So we are. Why deny it?

And most importantly, if we are to be the helpers and servants of God, agents of the Holy Spirit, it is necessary to understand all this because God wants the Jews converted. As St Paul says in Romans 12, “Now if the offence of them be the riches of the world, and the diminution of them, the riches of the Gentiles; how much more the fullness of them?” Perhaps a bit more clearly stated in the NIV’s: “But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!” In fact, the whole of Romans 12 is a long reflection on this aspect of what we’re discussing. (So we're talking about things St. Paul himself was intensely concerned with.)

We’re to work toward that. The conversion of Jews.

And finally, as for Jews being the first Protestants, sure, one can make that case. Though I’ve always thought these guys were: (Luke 9:49-50 / also Mark 9:38) “And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you.”

But God wants all these people converted, and we won’t get that done by being short with them, dismissing they "out of hand" and so on. We should, like the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, take St Francis de Sales' advice:

• "Cook the truth in charity until it tastes sweet"—this famous quotation of St. Francis de Sales is the principle of our apostolic work. Fruitless discussions or, worse, uncharitable polemics never help to attract souls to the Lord. Again, St. Francis de Sales said, "One drop of honey attracts more bees than a barrel of vinegar." The revealed truth of our Holy Catholic Faith is in itself attractive because of its depth, brilliance, and logic. Wherever it appears clothed in the beautiful garments of charity, it becomes ever more acceptable to those who might otherwise fear its inevitable consequences for our lives and the sharpness with which it cuts through our weaknesses and our excuses.

That's taken from the Institute's website at: http://www.institute-christ-king.org/institute/who-we-are/
 (It's under the Spirit section.)

Thanks again for writing!

An Préachán

The Seven Covenants, a Review

Recently, I had occasion to address the subject of the Seven Covenants God made in a blog posting at OnePeterFive, and I place it here for anyone interesting in the basic engine of salvation, how "salvation works" as understood in the Historical (East and West, pre-Protestant) Church.

The original comment was to the effect that the "Old Covenant" was cancelled with Christ's Death and the "New Covenant" was established. That "set me off". (The following is a bit fuller and slightly altered from the original.)

The essay:

Dear ______, the "Old Covenant" is actually FIVE Covenants God made in Salvation History. (Well, a perfect Seven altogether, including the first, the Covenant with Creation and the last, the New Covenant He made with Himself.) The Church has historically taught that the Fourth of these, the Covenant with Moses, was cancelled or superseded. Well, none of them can be cancelled but each one is "superseded" in the sense of not being removed, but rather transformed and fulfilled as the foundation of the Covenant built on top of it. Please let me explain.

Of all the traditional Church teachings I've ever studied, this is the one that is "misguided" slightly, or that needs clarified a bit. ALL the Seven Covenants are of a piece, from the very first one, the one God made when He created the world and "rested" or made holy on the Seventh Day, the Covenant with Creation, to the final Covenant, the one He made with Himself in the New Covenant (the Eucharist IS that Covenant, the means by which we are transformed in our nature (something Protestantism has always denied: i.e., Luther's "Simul Justus et Peccator.")1 wherein we "take on Christ" and "become new men in Christ", they all fit together in one structure, the tower of salvation, each one fulfilled and transformed by the one above it.

The other Covenants post-Creation could NOT be "cancelled" any more than the original Creation one (or the created world would cease): we are STILL working out the Covenant made with Adam and Eve, (though Our Lord fulfilled it in the sense that He did, indeed, crush the serpent's head, and the serpent bit His heel, i.e., crucified Him) and no one expects the world to perish in a flood (the Covenant with Noah) and of course Abraham must always be "our father in faith" because we need to be Jews, i.e., inheritors by blood of the promises made to Abraham that all the world would be blessed through his descendants, descendants who would come via Sarah, his true wife. This is why St. Paul writes throughout his copious volumes about "taking on Christ" and "becoming new men" and being grafted onto the true vine, and so on, and why he calls the Church the new Israel or synagogue of God: because through the Most Holy Eucharist, we receive not only Our Lord Christ's divine nature, beginning what the Orthodox call Theosis, the Divinization of us, our "transformation in Christ" ("We have received the spirit of Sonship to cry 'Abba', Father!" in Romans 8), but also Jesus' human blood too (because the Dual Nature of Christ cannot be separated; the Blessed Mother is not the mother of a nature, but of a Person) which He inherited through His Mother (who, thus, through the Most Holy Eucharist, becomes OUR Mother too, quite literally). 2

We ARE Jews, spiritual Jews, but also by blood via the Holy Eucharist, grafted on to the vine. THAT'S the New Covenant, the fulfillment of ALL the "Old" Covenants (even the First, because via Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, we begin to restore nature as God made it in the beginning). As noted, each Covenant is like a layer of bricks, fulfilled and expanded by the new Covenant brick layer built on top. For example, the Fifth (post-Creation) Covenant was the one God made with David, that the kingship of Israel would never pass from David's descendants. Jesus Christ IS that Descendant and He is King Forever. No Churchman in 2000 years would dream of saying THAT Covenant was cancelled. But cancel the Fourth Mosaic Covenant and the Fifth has to fall, just as a tower would if you would took out one layer of bricks. (Which of course couldn't be done anyway, not without knocking the whole to thing to pieces).




So, Covenants are never cancelled or even "superseded" but transformed, elevated, and given their true natures, just as our human nature is, through Christ, transformed, elevated, and give our eternal and true natures.

An Préachán

PS: It is my understanding the JPII knew this very well and wrote about it but I've not the references at hand. The Modernist Church has well and truly buried him, but at least it waited till he died; it has buried Josef Ratzinger alive.

1. C.S. Lewis, somewhere in his Letter to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer, says of this basic Protestant idea: that we are not "transformed" in our nature but are like manure piles covered with the pure snow of God's saving grace (Luther's image), that it would be like coming in from the fields, or from the garage, all dirty, sweaty, soil or grease covered, etc., and finding a big party was going on in the house. And the people there immediately tried to put a rich, glorious, sumptuous, robe on you — before you had a chance to clean up. Wouldn't it be quite natural, "Jack" wrote, to want to say, "Here, wait a minute, let me wash up! Get the dirt off! Put on some clean undergarments!" Of course it would. Everyone has experienced being very sweaty in one's undergarments and definitely NOT wanting to put on clean outer garments. Why would you? It would feel awful, and MOST uncomfortable, sticky, and miserable. How in creation could you possibly enjoy the party?

2. With this idea, the foundational idea of Historical Christianity, one can see the essence of the fight between Christians and Jews. Jews quite naturally claim to be the "True" Jews, inheriting the status by blood via their mothers because all Jews are Jews from their mothers, as it was from Sarah that Isaac is bestowed with the Abrahamic Covenant (Abraham was also the father of Ishmael, of course, who didn't inherit that Covenant, a teaching Islam exists, in part, to forcefully deny); with of course exceptions for conversions in general and those whose fathers were Jews and whose mothers were not). But in any event, it is quite insulting for Jews to have someone not remotely related to them physically or interested in any way in following the kosher laws, etc., to come up and say, "I'm just as Jewish as you are, because I actually have the blood of Abraham in my veins through the Holy Eucharist!". Now, clearly, sacramental Christians cannot give up their basic teaching, and clearly, Jews cannot (readily) accept it (w/o converting themselves, something quite contentious and a cause to start fighting). So, charity and circumspection are required when Christians discuss the Sacramental Faith with our "Elder Brothers".

There's no easy way around it though. And prayer is definitely required.