Replies

I found some interesting material among Rome's religious art starting in the eleventh century.

Ecclesia, Synagoga, and the Fallen Crown

Ecclesia and Synagoga were the names given to the symbolic personification in medieval Christian art of Christianity's triumph over Judaism. This early type of anti-Jewish propaganda, which first appeared in the 11th century, was common decoration in the sculptures, paintings and stained-glass windows of churches and cathedrals, and in the decorations and bindings of Bibles and prayer books.

A pair of female statues decorated many Gothic cathedrals and churches (usually outside the building) in Europe, especially in France, England and Germany. Ecclesia, representing the victorious, triumphant Church, takes the form of a proud, erect maiden, crowned and holding the cross. Synagoga, symbolizing the defeated Synagogue, is blindfolded (symbolizing blindness to the truth of the New Testament) and dejected, and her characteristic appurtenances are a broken staff, [1] broken tablets of the Law (symbolizing the Old Testament), and a fallen crown.

The best known statues of this type are on the exterior of the cathedrals of Strasbourg and Bamberg. They are also found in Rheims, Paris and Bordeaux. In England, they figure (generally in mutilated condition) in churches in Rochester, Lincoln, Salisbury and Winchester.

Ecclesia

Synagoga

You'll find additional references to the same or similar sculptures at Freiberg, Magdeburg, and at Notre Dame in Paris. The statues shown above are the ones in Bordeaux.

Book review: Confronting Supersessionism by Mary Boys

Given that Mary Boys is a Catholic woman (not a group of priests as some Prots might suspect) and writing for Catholics about Catholicism and Judaism, it seems she has written an entire book about Catholic supersessionism which you claim does not exist and has never existed. Strange, eh? Maybe you should write to her and tell her to withdraw her strange and anti-Catholic book from the market.

And you should travel to all those Catholic churches in Europe and destroy those statues that depict exactly that which you say Rome has never taught.

Statues are not Doctrine.

Is it really too much to ask you gentleman to learn what the Church actually teaches so you won't continue to make false accusations based upon your errors about what you think we believe?

I have concluded it is too much to ask.

There is a schismatic paper called Catholic Family News. Its editor, John Vennari wrote this ...

There is little doubt that the Vatican's new Guardian of the Faith at the CDF is permeated with the error that the Old Covenant was not superseded by the New Covenant. This theological bankruptcy, sadly, also extends to Pope Benedict XVI, who announced he will perform a Wojtylian-like visit to a synagogue when he travels to Cologne for World Youth Day

Here is the response from Catholic Answers

He's not describing supercessionism at all. Supercessionism would be saying that Catholics are NOT Jews, but rather replace Jews. He is saying that Catholics are the inclusion of Gentile blood in Jewish practice and belief, a view expounded upon by Paul himself. The Church IS the real continuation of Ancient Judaism, and this has been and continues to be the teaching of the Church. It does NOT replace Judaism, but rather completes it; that is entirely different from supercessionism.

+++++++++++end of quotes+++++++++++

*Mr. Vennari referred to the CDF. That is the Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith. Its Prefect is Cardinal Levada.

You gentleman appear to lack the capacity for any fruitful dialogue because you repeatedly refuse to take the time to learn what the Catholic Church teaches.

Even when corrected you do not cease the false accusations.

Exactly what sort of Christiantiy is it you practice?

An excellent post and I appreciate you pinging me to it.

There is no greater example today of how the Roman Catholic Church revises history to suit their doctrine than with supersessionism. They would like to put all of this behind them but, as OP pointed out, ALL the early church fathers wrote how the church has replaced Israel. To put this in perspective, there is more support on the early church belief of supersessionism than for the Eucharist.

I suppose that if one keeps denying it long enough, someone will buy it.