Replies

* I found what I was looking for. Supercessionism is a form of the old Marcionite heresy

Mark Shea... A Jewish commenter makes the common mistake of confusing Marcionism with Catholic teaching. Not surprising since so many Catholics do too. Supersessionism and the idea that the Old Testament is somehow revoked by the New is a big no-no in Catholic teaching. "They are Israelites, and to them belong [note present tense] the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race according to the flesh, is the Christ" (Rom. 9:4-5). The New Covenant (a term the apostles get from the lips of Jesus himself, who in turn consciously borrows from Jeremiah 31:31-34) does not abolish but fulfills the Old. Yes, there are aspects of Old Testament ritual and ceremony which are, from the Catholic perspective, no longer necessary since the Reality who is Christ has come (a moot point for most Christians anyway since they are Gentiles). The epistle to the Hebrews (and Romans and Galatians) are about this. But it is Marcion, not Christianity, who took the term "Old Testament" to mean "obsolete testament". The Christian picture is found instead in the image of the wild olive branch grafted onto the cultivated tree. Paul's warning to supercessionists is grave: You do not support the root, the root supports you. (Romans 11)

I found what I was looking for. Supercessionism is a form of the old Marcionite heresy ~~ Mark Shea... A Jewish commenter makes the common mistake of confusing Marcionism with Catholic teaching. Not surprising since so many Catholics do too. Supersessionism and the idea that the Old Testament is somehow revoked by the New is a big no-no in Catholic teaching.

You're dead wrong, and "Mark Shea" (some amateur with a blog -- certainly not one of the front line of modern Roman Catholic apologists, whoever he is) doesn't have a fig-leaf of a clue what he's talking about.

Marcionism is the ancient and evil heresy which proposed "Two Gods", the "Predestinating God" of the Old Testament versus the "Free Will Jesus" of the New Testament ~~ "that the G-d of the New Testament was only only 'a God of love'; completely 'non-judgmental'; therefore totally different from the God of the Old Testament, which he called the god of the Jews.... He also completely rejected the early Assemblies teachings concerning the Doctrines of Predestination and Election as found in Ephesians 1:4-15; John 1:12,13; John 6:44; Acts 13:48. This was how Marcion ridded himself of the Doctrines of Election and Predestination which could not be denied from Old Testament Scripture.(http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/3511/marcion.html)

Personally, "bornacatholic", I would say that in your hatred for the doctrines of Absolute Predestination and your own willingness to allow for an Unbiblical division between the Old Testament Church (Israel) and the New Testament Church (God's Israel), you're far closer to the evil heresy of Marcionism than any Calvinist.

HERE IS THE TRUTH -- Courtesy of Robert A. Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International, a REAL Catholic Scholar, not some pissant with a blog (like most modern front-line Catholic Apologists, Sungenis is an ex-Presbyterian -- i.e., he's not stupid):

“The man who sets a Judaizing Christian straight, wins a victory over godlessness”

(Adversos Judaeos).

Regarding the Fathers and the conversion of the Jews, the following points about their beliefs need to be made:

(a) while there is evidence that a few Fathers anticipated a significant conversion of Jews in the distant future, none of these Fathers foresaw a physical restoration of the nation state of Israel;
(b) none of the Fathers specify that the future spiritual conversion of Jews is en masse;
(c) all of the Fathers interpreted the Old Testament prophecies about Israel as applicable exclusively to the Church, the new Israel; while those who anticipated a future conversion of Jews base it on one passage, Romans 11:25-26, although there never has been an official Catholic interpretation of that passage;
(d) of the over one hundred Fathers of note in the patristic era, only a little over half a dozen speak about an anticipated conversion of Jews, and half of them apply it exclusively to the salvation of a remnant during the Church age; another portion see both a remnant saved in the Church age and a more significant portion in the distant future;
(e) all of the Fathers emphasized the obstinate disbelief of the Jews and a hardness put upon them by God;
(f) all of the Fathers held to the fact that the Old Covenant is formally and legally null and void and that the New Covenant has totally SUPERSEDED the Old, except that the New often appeals for precedence to the moral, civil and religious principles of the Old.

Full Article here: Judaizers in the Catholic Church, http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/judaizers.htm, Robert A. Sungenis.

So... Let me repeat that:

all of the Fathers interpreted the Old Testament prophecies about Israel as applicable exclusively to the Church, the new Israel;
all of the Fathers emphasized the obstinate disbelief of the Jews and a hardness put upon them by God;
all of the Fathers held to the fact that the Old Covenant is formally and legally null and void and that the New Covenant has totally SUPERSEDED the Old, except that the New often appeals for precedence to the moral, civil and religious principles of the Old.

(Sigh). As usual, even "bornacatholic" Cradle Catholics are so woefully uneducated regarding the Faith Once For All Delivered To The Saints, you call it "worshipping a God of Hate" when a Calvinist simply defends the Traditional, Patristic Beliefs of the Universal Christian Church.

Oh, well. As Roman Catholics continue to drop the standards of Biblical, traditional, patristic Christian Belief and flee the battlefields, have no fear -- we Calvinists will take up the slack.

Of course, we're always expected to do so. But it's okay, we shan't complain.

Best, OP

The position of the Discipiles of Christ and the Churches of Christ is also that the OT has been superceded by the NT. This antinomianism is heresy. Christ Himself said that He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. He did that on the Cross, which is why we no longer have to bring a lamb to a priest in order to sacrifice it for our sins. There are sections of the Law that were designed to be temporary (Camping and Marching Regulations) or were meant to be specific to the administration of the community (Civil Law). The Ritual Law has been fulfilled in Christ. The Moral Law is yet in force.