1 2 3

Robert Sungenis responds

A person in this dialogue charged the Catholic Catechism with heresy based on the wording of Paragraph 121 regarding the Old Covenant.

Paragraph 121 reads: "The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanant value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked."

George: Friends, you may not have seen this before, but it's actually printed in the New Catechism:

Paragraph 121: "The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,[92] for ***the Old Covenant has never been revoked.***"

If that's not heresy, what is?

R. Sungenis: It's ambiguous, but it's not heresy. Para 121 is simply equating the Old Covenant with the Old Testament scriptures, not the legal system of Old Covenant law. It is Scripture that is "divinely inspired" and "retains a permanent value," since, as St. Paul says in 1 Cor 10:6, 11, the OT was written as an example to us not to fall into the same sins as did Israel.

Steve: No, it's heresy. Words mean things, and the CCC is clearly using heretical words: "the Old Covenant has never been revoked."

There's no equation here with the Old Testament, otherwise:

1) They would have used the same words ("The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,[92] for the Old TESTAMENT has never been revoked.")

2) They wouldn't have used the word "for" ("The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,[92] FOR [because, since, for the reason that] the Old TESTAMENT has never been revoked.")

3) They would be stating a truism. No one doubts that the Old Testament has been "revoked," and never has such a thing been suggested. What then is the value of saying, "Oh by the way the Old Testament books have never been revoked." Clearly, they are saying that the Old Testament books "retain a permanent value" PRECISELY BECAUSE ("for") "the Old Covenant has never been revoked."

Anyway you slice that, it's heresy.

Or else words have no meaning.

R. Sungenis: I understand what you are saying. Words do have meaning. But I think you are "reading into" the words a meaning that you have been preconditioned to see by some misusage of the clause by the pope and Cardinal Keeler. Let's look at what the words mean from the Catechism's perspective.

First, there is no elaboration in the Catechism of the idea that the Old Covenant has not been revoked. The Catechism simply makes an unqualified statement in Para 121, with no definition other than what is contained in Para 121. Without that definition, then the clause cannot mean anything other than that the Old Testament scriptures can still be used today, for that is the context of the Catechism's statements (regardless of how the pope has used the clause).

Moreover, since Para 121 is the only time the clause "for the Old Covenant has never been revoked" is used in the Catechism, thus, you are without support for the idea that it refers to anything other than the OT Scriptures. The Catechism must be the final context on the meaning of its own words.

Second, Para 122 confirms that the Catechism is focusing on the OT Scriptures and the valuable information they contain, since it says:

"Indeed, the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, remeemer of all men. Even though they contained matters imperfect and provisional, the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."

The focus here is on the WRITINGS of the Old Covenant, not on the Old Covenant as a legal entity to which we are bound.

Third, Para 123 also confirms that the Catechism is referring to OT Scripture, not to the Old Covenant as a binding legal entity. It says: "Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the new has rendered it void (Marcionism)."

It it clear from other parts of the Catechism it recognizes that the legal system of the Old Covenant is condemnatory and thus had to be superseded by the New Covenant, which alone is salvific (Para 1963, 66), but not the Old Testament itself, since the Old Testament contains valuable ethical principles and prophetic predictions that have not as yet been fulfilled or are presently being fulfilled (Para 1962, 1964; Daniel 10-12; Zechariah 14; Ezekiel 40-48). As St. Paul says in Romans 7:6-12, the Old Testament "law is holy and good," but it is also the very thing that condemns him in sin. We take what is holy and good from the Old Testament, but leave the rest. That is all the Catechism is saying.

George: I agree with Edward. There's no way out for them this time. It is plain and simple heresy. Besides, how much sense does it make to say that the Old Testament has not been revoked? How can one possibly "revoke" divinely inspired books?

R. Sungenis: That's exactly the point. There were people who were actually doing just that, that is, saying that the Old Testament Scriptures were irrelevant and void (e.g., Marcion). A whole heresy developed around Marcion because of his error.

George: There is simply no reason whatsoever to suppose that "Old Covenant" here means "Old Testament [canon]," esp. not since the very phrase "Old Testament" is used in that same paragraph.

R. Sungenis: "No reason whatsoever"? How about the SIX times the Catechism refers to nothing but the "Old Testament" in the very paragraphs under discussion, and give absolutely no other meaning to the clause "the Old Covenant has not been revoked" in the entire Catechism, other than what it says in Para 121-123? END

George: Secondly, the Catechism here provides no citation, no reference, no backup whatsoever for its statement, NOT EVEN Vatican II! If it meant that the Old Testament books are simply still considered inspired, then why not cite Trent or something?

R. Sungenis: It doesn't have to, because it is not teaching something different than what was taught before about the value of the Old Testament.

In fact, there is really no difference between the word "Testament" and "Covenant," since they come from the same Hebrew, Greek and Latin words (e.g., berith, diatheke, and testamentum, respectively). This may be a simple case of the English translation making a distinction where there is none in the French, and certainly none in the Hebrew, Greek and Latin.

Moreover, the Catechism was written long before the clause "the OT has not been revoked" has been misused by the pope and the cardinals. So don't be so ready to condemn it without proper justification. Granted, it might have been better for the English translators to avoid the word "covenant," but that doesn't mean you have to condemn them automatically for doing so. END

Steve: Now you're suggesting that the New CCC, in this section on Revelation through Scripture, is concerned with Marcion and his heresies?

That's a stretch.

R. Sungenis: Why is it a "stretch" when the Catechism itself, in Para 123, states that Marcionism is the issue it is addressing?

Steve: You wrote: "In fact, there is really no difference between the word "Testament" and "Covenant," since they come from the same Hebrew, Greek and Latin words. This may be a simple case of the English translation making a distinction where there is none in the French, and certainly none in the Hebrew, Greek and Latin."

But the Latin runs thus: Vetus Testamentum [Old Testament] inamissibilis est pars sacrae Scripturae. Eius libri divinitus sunt inspirati et valorem servant permanentem, 119 quia Foedus Vetus [Old Covenant] nunquam est retractatum.

So even in the Latin, they've deliberately used two different words. The onus is on you to show that this deliberate word-shift is insignificant.

R. Sungenis: No difference, since in Latin the words are interchangeable. Foedus was the normal word used in the OT Scriptures, whereas testamentum was the normal word used in the NT Scriptures. This is verified by the fact that Jerome never uses foedus in the NT, but always used testamentum in the NT. Jerome further shows us the similarity when he translates Jer 31:31 with foedus, but its quote in Hebrews 8:10 with testamentum.

Steve: You wrote: "Moreover, the Catechism was written long before the clause "the OT has not been revoked" has been misused by the pope and the cardinals."

Nonetheless, the same pope who said "the OC has never been revoked" AFTER the CCC was released, is the same pope who (with all of his decades-old ideas about the OC, ideas he's harbored since the 50s and 60s) who said this CCC was a "sure norm" for teaching the faith.

No wonder.

R. Sungenis: We're not talking that issue. We're only talking about whether you can prove that Para 121 is teaching heresy.

Steve: Now, the problem you have is that, according to your interpretation of the CCC, what they're saying is this:

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

That makes no sense. "The old testament writings are valuable because they have never been revoked." No, that's hardly intellectually honest.

R. Sungenis: Not if you pay attention to the context the Catechism is putting the words. There is absolutely no mention in Para 121-123, nor any other part of the Catechism, that the Catechism desires to teach what you are saying it means by "the OC has never been revoked." If you can find such a statement in the Catechism, then you have a case, but until then, one can easily say you're just reading into the passage what you want to see.

Steve: What does make sense is to say "The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value," Why? "for the Old Covenant (which the Old Testament describes in detail) has never been revoked."

That's the only interpretation that makes sense. The Old Writings retain their value because their subject matter is still valid.

R. Sungenis: Sorry, it's not the "only" interpretation that makes sense, especially since foedus and testamentum are interchangeable terms, and especially since there is no teaching in the Catechism that supports your interpretation of its own words.

George: Wait a minute... the Pope's statement "the old Covenant has never been revoked" was made about a decade BEFORE the New Catechism came out!

R. Sungenis: Not that I know of. I'm referring to his most recent statement, given about a year ago.

George: Interestingly, in his previous encyclicals, John Paul II says very clearly that the Old Covenant has been revoked and that the Eternal Covenant has been established in its place. I have the quotes if you would like to see them.

So at best, he is giving us a confusing picture of the issue.

Robert, can you provide one piece of evidence in the New Catechism that says the Old Covenant is over and done with? All I found was "refined, fulfilled," etc. but not that it is no longer in force.

R. Sungenis: It doesn't use the words "over and done with" but it does say that the New Covenant replaced the Old, and that the Old Covenant had its purpose in condemning men in sin, but that grace came by the New Covenant. The paragraphs that teach these concepts are 522, 762, 1963-1964 (and quote 1828 on 1964).

On the other hand, I no of no place where the Catechism says the Old Covenant is still in legal force as it was in Old Testament times.

George: Robert, why in the world does it use two different terms to describe the same concept? If it uses "Old Testament" [Vetus Testamentum] throughout, why all of a sudden "Old Covenant" [Foedus Vetus] in that one phrase, if it means the same as "Old Testament"?

R. Sungenis: As I wrote to Steve, they are not really "two different terms," since the words are completely interchangeable.

George: You wrote: "It doesn't have to, because it is not teaching something different than what was taught before about the value of the Old Testament."

Robert, you're missing the point. Of course it doesn't HAVE to, but why wouldn't it? Why wouldn't they provide a citation to Trent or some other council if they were just trying to say that the Old Testament books were still valid? Why not say "Old Testament" if you mean "Old Testament", esp. if that's what you say throughout?

R. Sungenis: It wouldn't for the simple fact that is not saying that the legal entity of the Mosaic dispensation is still in force. Conversely, when the Catechism DOES refer to Trent in on this topic, it says: "The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them (DS 1569-1570). Para 2068.

George: You wrote: "This may be a simple case of the English translation making a distinction."

Nope, the Latin edition uses two terms as well.

R. Sungenis: As I said, it does because the words are interchangeable in Latin.

George: I've yet have to see a single example where a priest or other cleric in good standing uses the term "Old Covenant" in reference to the books of the Old Testament.

R. Sungenis: That's because today we normally don't use the word "covenant" but "testament," but it someone does use "covenant," the burden of proof is on you to show that they are saying that the Old Covenant, as the legal and condemnatory entity it was in the OT, is still the same today. The Catechism certainly doesn't say that, and therefore your charges of heresy are misplaced.

Steve: You wrote: "Why is it a "stretch" when the Catechism itself, in Para 123, states that Marcionism is the issue it is addressing?"

Point conceded.

However, 123 proves what I'm saying about 121, and their use of the word "for."

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

Thus, the Chuch rejects the idea that the New Testament voids out the Old Testament.

Why would anyone get that idea? Perhaps because the New Covenant voided out the Old Covenant? Might that be what leads to the confusion that, since the NC voided the OC, thus the NT voids the OT?

And so again, the response in 121 is very telling. Why is the OT still valid?

"for the Old Covenant has never been revoked."

If the OC has never been revoked, then this would serve as a proof for the CCC that the OT, which describes the OC and its operation, is still a valid corpus of writings.

1 2 3