The Heresy of Dual-Covenant Theology

Catholicism.org ^ | January 28, 2008 | Brother André Marie

[Angelino97]

I have just finished reading “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?” by Dr. Robert Sungenis. It is a study debunking the notion, now regnant in liberal theological circles, that the Old Covenant still stands side-by-side with the New Covenant.

According to this novelty, in essence, God’s “A Plan” and God’s “B Plan” are both currently pleasing to Him and both fully in effect.

Opposed to this, the Catholic Faith teaches that the Old Law — itself good, holy, and of divine origin — was a preparation for the New, and that the New Law superceded and fulfilled the Old.

Indeed, as Dr. Sungenis shows, Pope John Paul II affirmed the traditional teaching in a not-much-quoted passage of Redemptoris Mater: “Christ fulfills the divine promise and supersedes the old law.”

Years ago, I made an effort at debunking this vogue theology in an article on the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Better Testament. Dr. Sungenis quotes from Hebrews, but he does not limit himself to this, as the pilfered quotations below adequately show.

The following is a series of scriptural, patristic, and magisterial citations from “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?“:

Hebrews 7:18: “On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness…”;

Hebrews 10:9: “Then he says, ‘Behold, I come to do your will.’ He takes away the first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant]…”;

2 Corinthians 3:14: “For to this day when they [the Jews] read the Old Covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away”;

Hebrews 8:7: “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another”;

Colossians 2:14: “Having canceled the written code, with its decrees, that was against us and stood opposed to us; He took it away nailing it to the cross”;

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para. 29: “…the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished…but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross”;

The Catechism of the Council of Trent: “…the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law…”;

Council of Florence: “that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law…although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began”;

Council of Trent: “but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom”;

Cardinal Ratzinger: “Thus the Sinai [Mosaic] Covenant is indeed superseded” (Many Religions – One Covenant, p. 70).

St. John Chrysostom: “Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law….And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace” (Homily on Romans, 6:12); “And so while no one annuls a man’s covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable” (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3);

St. Augustine: “Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. Jeremiah also prophesied thus in God’s name: ‘Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah…’ Observe what the prophet says, not to Gentiles, who had not been partakers in any former covenant, but to the Jewish nation. He who has given them the law by Moses, promises in place of it the New Covenant of the gospel, that they might no longer live in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit” (Letters, 74, 4);

Justin Martyr: Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ – has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy…Have you not read…by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…’” (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11).

[Philsworld]

I laugh sometimes when I consider that the Jesuits came up with TWO alternate theories as to why the Papacy isn’t the Little Horn/Antichrist power that the Reformers accused them of being.

Here’s something else I laugh about...

Linguistic vision in Daniel 9...Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

[MayflowerMadam]

“Brainwashed are those who reject Christs own words in John 6”

What are people who reject I Timothy 2:5? Exodus 20:4?

[Cronos]

Adventism’s Satanic Evils: A Cult of Lies

Your argument stems from Seventh-day Adventism’s demonic core, built on White’s lies:

Adventist Error	Details	Biblical Refutation
False Prophecies	White’s 1856, 1844, 1845 failures (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 131-132).	Deuteronomy 18:22
Investigative Judgment	Denies Christ’s atonement (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422).	Hebrews 9:12
Sabbath Idolatry	Salvific Sabbath lacks support (The Great Controversy, p. 605-612).	Colossians 2:16-17

[Cronos]

You cite 1 Timothy 2:5, “There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Catholics fully affirm this: Christ alone reconciles us to God through His sacrifice (Romans 5:10). However, Catholics believe others can participate in His mediation without replacing it. For example, Paul calls Christians to intercede (1 Timothy 2:1–2), and the priesthood is the ministerial servant for Christ’s work by administering sacraments (John 20:22–23).

Your error is assuming Catholic practices like praying to saints or the priesthood deny Christ’s unique mediatorship. This misreads Catholic theology, which sees such roles as extensions of Christ’s work, as the early Church Father Irenaeus noted (c. 180 AD, Against Heresies 4.8.3), rooted in Scripture’s call for mutual prayer (James 5:16).

Exodus 20:4 prohibits making idols for worship, which Catholics also reject.

Your misinterpretation misapplies this to Catholic use of icons or statues, ignoring context. God Himself commanded images for worship settings, like the cherubim on the Ark (Exodus 25:18–20) or the bronze serpent (Numbers 21:8–9), which prefigure Christ (John 3:14).

Catholics venerate (honor) images as reminders of Christ and the saints, not as objects of worship, a practice rooted in early Christianity (e.g., 2nd-century catacomb art).

Your error is equating Catholic veneration with idolatry, overlooking Scripture’s approval of sacred images

Your rejection of the Eucharist’s Real Presence, apostolic tradition, and sacramental structure ignores the oral tradition Paul upheld (2 Thessalonians 2:15). This leads to errors like:

Dismissing John 6’s literal meaning, despite apostolic witness (e.g., Justin Martyr, First Apology 66, c. 150 AD).

Rejecting the priesthood, despite apostolic appointment of elders and overseers (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5–7).

Misinterpreting Catholic practices (e.g., icons, intercession) as unbiblical, ignoring their roots in Scripture and early Christian life.

---

You need to read John 6, where Jesus says, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven… the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51). His insistence that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53) led many disciples to leave (John 6:66), showing He meant it literally, not symbolically. Paul reinforces this in 1 Corinthians 11:23–25, stating the bread is Christ’s body, and warns that unworthy reception profanes His Body and Blood (1 Corinthians 11:27–29). The early Church, including Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2), universally understood this as the Eucharist’s Real Presence.

A Baptist error here is interpreting John 6 as purely symbolic, despite Jesus’ clear language and the apostolic tradition (e.g., Didache 14, c. 90 AD), which risks diminishing Christ’s explicit teachin

[MayflowerMadam]

“Exodus 20:4 prohibits making idols for worship, which Catholics also reject.”

Hail Mary....

[Cronos]

The Hail Mary, rooted in Scripture (Luke 1:28, 42), honors Mary as the Mother of Jesus, asking her to “pray for us sinners” as we seek her Son, the one mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). This mirrors Christians praying for each other (James 5:16).

Below are the scriptural references for each part:
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee
Luke 1:28: The angel Gabriel greets Mary, saying, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” (RSV-CE). The Greek kecharitomene (“full of grace”) indicates Mary’s unique favor with God.

Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus
Luke 1:42: Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, declares, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” (RSV-CE), affirming Mary’s role as the mother of Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God
Luke 1:43: Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord,” acknowledging her as the Mother of God (Theotokos), a title affirmed by early Christians (e.g., Council of Ephesus, 431 AD).
Implicitly, Galatians 4:4: “God sent forth his Son, born of a woman,” supports Mary’s role as Jesus’ mother.

Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death
James 5:16: “Pray for one another,” reflects the Christian practice of intercessory prayer, which Catholics extend to Mary, asking her to pray to her Son, the one mediator (1 Timothy 2:5).

John 6, where Jesus says, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven… the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51). His insistence that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53) led many disciples to leave (John 6:66), showing He meant it literally, not symbolically. Paul reinforces this in 1 Corinthians 11:23–25, stating the bread is Christ’s body, and warns that unworthy reception profanes His Body and Blood (1 Corinthians 11:27–29).

The early Church, including Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2), universally understood this as the Eucharist’s Real Presence. A Baptist error here is interpreting John 6 as purely symbolic, despite Jesus’ clear language

[Philsworld]

Catholics worship idols and pray to dead people. Many of their priests are also open homosexuals. The Papacy also claims that their priests can forgive sins or not, and God must obey their decision.

[MayflowerMadam]

“Catholics worship idols and pray to dead people.”

I guess they don’t know that necromancy is strictly forbidden in the Bible (Deuteronomy). It’s clear that anyone who consults with the dead is detestable to God. Saul’s death was punishment for having a medium try to contact Samuel. (Of course, since it’s in the Bible they ignore it. They elevate the teachings of pedophiles and charlatans over the Bible.)

And they have so many idols! I had to play organ for a funeral in a Catholic Church once. Super creepy.

[Cronos]

Phil, Prince of Dim Light, your Adventist rant is pretty easy to prove wrong, like your and Mayflowermadam belief that Jesus is the angel Michael.

going into the details of your errors and proving them wrong

• Idol Worship and Prayer to the Dead: Your “idols” and “necromancy” charge is a distortion. Catholics don’t worship statues (Exodus 20:4-5 forbids it, CCC 2112-2114) but venerate them as reminders of saints, like photos of loved ones. Prayer to saints (e.g., Mary, Revelation 5:8) is intercession, not necromancy—James 5:16 encourages asking others to pray. Deuteronomy 18:11 condemns consulting the dead for divination, not seeking saintly intercession. Saul’s sin (1 Samuel 28:7-19) was occult practice, not Christian prayer. Your funeral organ gig was “creepy” due to your bias, not Catholic truth.
• Homosexual Priests: Your claim of “many open homosexuals” lacks evidence. The Vatican’s 2005 *Instruction* bans men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from seminaries (CCC 1579), and 2025 Italian guidelines require chastity for all candidates (*Reuters*, July 2025). Allegations (e.g., Martel’s unproven 80% claim, *In the Closet of the Vatican*, 2019) are anecdotal, not policy. Adventist pastors face scandals too—check your own house.
• Priests Forgiving Sins: Your sneer that priests “forgive sins or not, and God must obey” misrepresents John 20:22-23: “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven”—Christ delegates this authority to His Church (Matthew 16:19, CCC 1441-1442), not priests acting independently. God’s will prevails, not human whim. Your distortion is White’s lie.
• Elevating Pedophiles and Charlatans: Your “pedophiles and charlatans” jab is a baseless smear. The Church condemns abuse, laicizing offenders (e.g., under Pope Francis). White, your prophetess, fits “charlatan” with failed prophecies (1856, 1844, 1845; *Testimonies*, Vol. 1, p. 131-132) and plagiarism (*The White Lie* by Walter Rea). You elevate her over Scripture—hypocrisy at its finest.

Adventism’s Satanic Evils

Your accusations stem from Seventh-day Adventism’s demonic core, built on White’s lies:

Error	Details	Refutation
False Prophecies	White’s 1856, 1844, 1845 failures.	Deuteronomy 18:22
Investigative Judgment	Denies Christ’s atonement (*The Great Controversy*, p. 421-422).	Hebrews 9:12
Sabbath Idolatry	Salvific Sabbath lacks support (*The Great Controversy*, p. 605-612).	Colossians 2:16-17

[Cronos]

Your Adventist claim hinges on a narrow interpretation that Sunday worship equals the “Mark of the Beast” and aligns with the papacy, while only the seventh-day Sabbath is biblical. That’s a bold leap, but it doesn’t hold up. Colossians 2:16-17 clearly states that Sabbaths are shadows fulfilled in Christ, our true rest. Romans 14:5-6 allows believers freedom in choosing worship days—no mandate for Saturday only. The “Mark of the Beast” in Revelation 13 is about loyalty to anti-God systems, not a specific day.

Your Daniel 6:5 reference? It’s about Daniel’s faithfulness, not a prophecy of Sunday laws. Forcing a Saturday-or-papacy binary ignores Scripture’s broader context and Christ’s unifying work.

If you’re set on this, let’s dig into the texts—where’s your evidence tying Sunday directly to the Beast?

[Cronos]

Your claim that “no law = no sin” oversimplifies and distorts biblical truth. Yes, 1 John 3:4 says sin is lawlessness, and Romans 7:7 shows the law reveals sin. But your fixation on the Law—presumably the Ten Commandments, with the Sabbath as the centerpiece—misses the bigger picture. The Law condemns, as you admit, but it’s not the eternal yardstick you make it out to be. Galatians 3:19-25 says the Law was temporary, a guardian until Christ, who fulfills it (Matthew 5:17). Sin isn’t defined solely by the Mosaic code; it’s rebellion against God’s will, exposed by the Spirit and Scripture (John 16:8-9, Romans 2:14-15).

[Cronos]

Your claim that Seventh-day Adventists alone worship on God’s designated day—because it’s the Sabbath Jesus kept and supposedly the eternal heavenly standard—doesn’t hold water from a Catholic perspective. Let’s set the record straight.

Yes, Genesis 2:2-3 shows God rested on the seventh day, and Jesus, as a Jew under the Mosaic Law, observed the Sabbath (Luke 4:16)

. But you’re ignoring the bigger picture. The Sabbath was part of the Old Covenant, fulfilled by Christ (Matthew 5:17).

The New Testament never commands Christians to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

Instead, Colossians 2:16-17 calls Sabbaths shadows pointing to Christ, our true rest (Hebrews 4:9-11). Romans 14:5-6 grants freedom in choosing worship days.

Where’s your clear apostolic mandate for Saturday worship?
.
Catholics worship on Sunday, the Lord’s Day, to honor Christ’s resurrection, the cornerstone of our faith (Mark 16:9, Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2).

This isn’t paganism or a papal conspiracy—it’s rooted in the early Church’s practice, guided by the apostles and their successors. The Catholic Church, established by Christ (Matthew 16:18), has the authority to regulate liturgical practices (Matthew 18:18).

Sunday worship reflects the new creation in Christ, not a rejection of God’s will.

Your idea that the seventh-day Sabbath will be observed in heaven for eternity is pure speculation.

Isaiah 66:23, often cited by Adventists, speaks of new moons and Sabbaths in a prophetic context, not a literal eternal Saturday service. Revelation describes ceaseless worship of God (Revelation 7:15), not a weekly calendar.
Why assume heaven’s worship is bound to one Old Covenant day?

You ask if I’d want to “miss out” on your version of worship. I’m not missing anything—Catholics worship God daily, especially in the Eucharist, the source and summit of our faith (John 6:53-56, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25).

If you think Saturday worship is the ticket to eternity, show me where the New Testament demands it for Christians.

Until then, your argument’s just Adventist dogma, not divine decree

[af_vet_1981]

Saul’s death was punishment for having a medium try to contact Samuel.

False

[Philsworld]

——>while only the seventh-day Sabbath is biblical.

That’s what your own church says

ROME’S CHALLENGE
Why do Protestants keep Sunday?
https://www.romeschallenge.com/downloads/RomesChallenge.pdf

Were the pronouncements of the Council of Trent FAKE???
Is Cardinal Gibbons a LIAR???

[Philsworld]

Thanks for joining the party. Would you validate the Claim of Cronos that in chapter 9, Daniel has ANOTHER, and SEPARATE vision of the 70 weeks, a “linguistic vision” as Cronos puts it, and that Gabriel doesn’t come back as an answer to prayer to give him insight and to understand the previous vision in chapter 8 that confounded him and was without understanding (8:27)?

[Philsworld]

I should have said validate or deny...

I ask the same question from post 355 to MayflowerMadam

[af_vet_1981]

I’m sad that the SDA hates both the Catholic Church and Israel. I knew some nice SDA folks but the religion is wrong.

[Philsworld]

The fact that I believe the Papacy is the Little Horn/Antichrist of Prophecy and that the literal nation of Israel is no longer the chosen of God, has nothing to do with hate. I only asked you a question. If you refuse to answer, no hard feelings. Have a great day.

[Seven_0]

You reject the Catholic view that the “first resurrection” is spiritual, tied to baptism

1 Cor 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

I’m missing pieces to the puzzle but here is one piece you might ponder. The order, natural then spiritual is quite common in scripture. You have the natural man, Adam, and after that, the spiritual man Christ. There are many examples, Cain then Able, Ishmael then Isaac, Esau then Jacob, Jacob then Israel, Israel then the Church and so on.

Many examples are obvious, some not so much, like the nearer kinsman in Ruth, or the treasure then the pearl in Matthew 13, or the New Testament giving the Spiritual Man. Look at Birth, Death, and Resurrection. The order is set. I suggest that the first of each of these is physical. I don’t know if there is a second resurrection, scripture doesn’t mention one, but wouldn’t it have to be after the second death?

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

If you don’t die the spiritual death, you won’t nee the spiritual resurrection. What would the physical or the spiritual resurrection be?

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.