Friday, 02 October 2009

• Question 184 - Mark Shea and the Old Covenant

  Question 184 - Mark Shea and the Old Covenant

   

  Robert,

  Mark Shea is at it again. This time he is trying to defend his view of the Old Covenant in light of the recent change to the US adult catechism. He is also trying to bar you from taking any credit for the outcome. Do you have anything to say about it?

  John D.

   

  http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/09/reader-writes_29.html

  A reader writes

  Thought you might be interested in this since it was a bone of contention for you at one point. The Vatican has instructed that the following passage in the CCC page 131 be changed:
  
  "Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them."

  
  Shea: Yep (well, sort of, actually the change was to the American bishop's adult catechism, not the CCC). They changed the language to: “To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his Word, ‘belong 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.’ (Romans 9: 4-5; cf. CCC, no 839)

  
  My reader continues:

   

  I was referring to this post where you linked your Tale of Two Covenants series, and then you proffered the CCC passage in question as a succinct summary of a point in your position which had come under scrutiny. You then poked fun at Bob Sungenis for taking action to request that this passage be reexamined-a request that has apparently turned out to be a fruitful one. I appreciate you steering us away from some of his kookier ideas, but thought he deserved some credit on this one. What do you think?

  
  Shea: Bob's been taking credit for that revision, though as far as I know, nobody has ever really demonstrated that he is the one who caused it. He simply claims credit.

   

  R. Sungenis: Leave it to Mark Shea to twist the facts. I “simply claim credit” because I was the only Catholic apologist to actively and publically warn both the US bishops and the Vatican to the heretical sentence in the US catechism. Mr. Shea didn’t lift a finger to help, and neither did any other Catholic apologist, including Scott Hahn, Karl Keating, Steve Ray, Patrick Madrid, Tim Staples, Leon Suprenant, or any of the dozens that are traversing our landscape. Are any of them claiming to have written articles on their own blogs or magazines prior to the change in the catechism; did any of them write to Cardinal Levada at the Vatican or the USCCB? The answer is no. I was left all alone. But now that I have been proved right, the same apologists who were previously silent are all scurrying to find some excuse why they didn’t support me. The excuses range from Leon Suprenant’s ridiculous claim that “there were other reviewers of the catechism long before Bob Sungenis came along,” to Mr. Shea’s equally ludicrous excuse that we will see below. Fortunately, there are a good number of blog participants who are not so easily shoved aside. They recognize that it was through my hard work in making the matter a public and ecclesiastical issue that these reversals are coming about.  

  Shea: I could just as easily claim that, since I wrote the Tale of Two Covenants series, the American bishops must have read my pieces and decided to revise the Catechism. The causal connection is just as clear as it is for Sungenis' claim. However, I don't live in Bob's egocentric universe and so I don't claim credit.

  R. Sungenis: This is asinine. Mr. Shea couldn’t possibly take credit for the excision of the erroneous statement from the US catechism, first, because he made no direct appeal for such an excision, not one word. Additionally, his article make no claim to seeing an error in the US catechism. In fact, Mr. Shea previously used the statement on page 131 of the US catechism to bolster his present belief that the Mosaic covenant is still valid! When the US bishops voted to take out the sentence, Mr. Shea didn’t have anything to say, for his blog was silent about the issue for months on end. Only when he was prodded by some smart blogger did Mr. Shea venture an excuse as to what occurred. In fact, Mr. Shea wrote me an email just a few months ago accusing me of being a “supersessionist”! If he denies it, I’ll produce the email in my next QA.

  
  Shea: In fact, all the change does is eliminate the possibility of precisely the ambiguity I was concerned about: the notion that the Old Covenant is salvific. It does not, in the slightest, suggest that the Old Covenant is not still binding on unbaptized Jews.

  R. Sungenis: This statement just proves once again that Mr. Shea is an inept Catholic apologist. No matter how many times he is told about his illogic, he persists in it. Let’s reason this out once again, shall we?

  First, whether the Mosaic covenant is considered salvific or not is superfluous. The bottom line is: if the Mosaic covenant is no longer valid, then it is no longer valid for either salvation or condemnation. Covenants cannot be split into two. They are either wholly valid or wholly invalid. This is basic Theology 101, but Mr. Shea never had exposure to such course work, since he has never attended a theological institution.

  Second, neither we nor the Jews need the Old Covenant to condemn anyone in sin. The job of condemnation is now done by the New Covenant. In fact, the condemnation is even stricter in the New Covenant than it was in the Old, which is the whole basis for why Jesus says “you have heard it was said…but I say unto you” in the Sermon on the Mount. It is the very reason that Hebrews 10:26-31 says there will be “severer punishment” for those who fall away from the New Covenant than there was under the Old Covenant when one was stoned by two or three witnesses. Today, the witnesses are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit through the Church (Matthew 16:18-19). In other words, in the New Covenant we have provision for both salvation and condemnation. The Old Covenant does not serve in either capacity, for it has been revoked (cf., Hebrews 7:18; 8:1-13; 10:9; 2 Corinthians 3:6-14). The only thing the Mosaic covenant can provide is principles by which the New Covenant judgment is made. But it is the New Covenant only that provides the legal basis for the judgment.

  
  Shea: Weirdly, Bob goes on insisting that I believe in a "dual covenant theory" when, in fact, I continue to say what I've always said: that Jews are bound by the covenant with Moses until they are baptized, precisely because the point of the Mosaic covenant is to point them to Christ.

  R. Sungenis: As long as Mr. Shea says that the Old Covenant continues to condemn the Jews, then it must be a valid covenant, for it could not condemn, at least formally and legally, unless it was valid. Invalid covenants don’t condemn; only valid ones do. If the Old Covenant is valid, that means it stands alongside of the New Covenant as another valid covenant. Logically, if there are two covenants, then we have a “dual-covenant.” Hence, despite how Mr. Shea attempts to cover over his beliefs, he believes in the dual-covenant theory, albeit with an innovation not heard of until he introduced it in the third millennium.

  Once again, the problem with Mr. Shea’s theology is that he is under the mistaken belief that the Old Covenant condemns while the New Covenant saves. Wrong. The Old Covenant doesn’t do anything except provide principles for the New Covenant. It is the New Covenant alone that either saves or condemns, for both Jew and Gentile.

   

  Shea: Nothing I say contradicts the revised catechism, any more than it contradicts the previous text. The covenant with Moses cannot save and I have never said it could. Bob goes on maintaining that I believe it can. I don't know why.

  R. Sungenis: Either Mr. Shea is a liar or he is losing his wits. I have NEVER said that he believes the Old Covenant has the power to save. I have made it very clear in my critiques of his articles that he believes that the Mosaic covenant is valid to condemn the Jews, not save them. This was made clear in my essay on the subject that was published in Culture Wars. See my section on Shea’s views at:

  http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/The%20Old%20Covenant%20Revoked%20or%20Not%20Revoked%20for%20Culture%20Wars.pdf

  As a matter of fact, I challenged Mr. Shea to show us any Father, medieval, pope, council, saint or doctor who taught that the Old Covenant is still valid to condemn people, not save them. Of course, he never answered the challenge, but it is easy to see why – no one held to Mr. Shea’s novel position.

  
  Shea: My opinion is, of course, merely my opinion. It is acceptable within orthodox Catholi circles, but not the only acceptable opinion. Just to be clear lest anybody think I somehow demand everybody agree with me.

  R. Sungenis: Yes, his view is an “opinion,” but it is not an accepted opinion. I don’t know anyone in the Catholic scholarly world who holds to it. It is Mr. Shea’s own invention. If Mr. Shea wants to disprove my charge, then he should cite some authorities who agree with his view instead of merely saying that they do.

  • 5:52 PM
  • 860 Views
  • 4 eProps
  • 2 Comments