Talk:Supersessionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction[edit]

The source quoted said that in Supersessionism, the Church replaces the Israelites as God's people. It does not specify that this is as the Chosen people, as all people in the world are now chosen to be part of the church. Jews and Gentiles are now both the Chosen peoples according to Supersessionism.

I took out the phrase ((From a supersessionist's "point of view, just by continuing to exist, the Jews dissent".[1])) This is because: 1. Carroll is anti-Supersessionist and so is not a good source to define Supersessionism. 2. His claim is incorrect - Supersessionists do not consider that Jews "dissent" just by existing. After all, if Jews accepted Christianity, they would still "exist" just like Greeks and Germans do, but they would not be dissenting.

So at best Carroll's quote would have to be reworded, like saying "just by continuing to exist outside the Church, nonChristian Jews dissent." But you can't just reword a writer's words for him like that.

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Carroll50 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Rakovsky (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Catholic Church's view of Old Covenant[edit]

this is related to the article making it seem as though the Church changed its position on the Old Covenant and whether we should change the articleIlikerabbits! (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought the article reflected that already—can you be more specific? Seraphim System (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The currently available catechism says:
  • 71 God made an everlasting covenant with Noah and with all living beings (cf. Gen 9:16). It will remain in force as long as the world lasts.
  • 72 God chose Abraham and made a covenant with him and his descendants. By the covenant God formed his people and revealed his law to them through Moses. Through the prophets, he prepared them to accept the salvation destined for all humanity.
  • 73 God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. The Son is his Father's definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.
  • God revealed the resurrection of the dead to his people progressively. Hope in the bodily resurrection of the dead established itself as a consequence intrinsic to faith in God as creator of the whole man, soul and body. The creator of heaven and earth is also the one who faithfully maintains his covenant with Abraham and his posterity. It was in this double perspective that faith in the resurrection came to be expressed. In their trials, the Maccabean martyrs confessed:

The King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws.540 One cannot but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by him.541

  • "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267
  • The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268

But I think the secondary sources mostly say they've changed their position? Seraphim System (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The current content is reliably sourced. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

My point is it makes it seem the Church changed its position but I dont this this represents it accurately also a lot of the secondary sources not being Catholic probably dont accurately represent what the Church actually saysIlikerabbits! (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

As always, what is your proposed content and what are the sources.Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

this explains the Church's position on whether the Old covenant has been revoked more https://www.firstthings.com/article/2005/11/the-covenant-with-israel. So the Old Covenant's Priesthood and Sacrifices and the ceremonial law have come to an end but the Moral law remains in force and is fulfilled in the New Covenant but God has not rejected IsraelIlikerabbits! (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

That source does not deal with your claim in your original post. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

My point is that I dont think this is anything different from what the Church taught in the past perhaps there is a re-emaphsis on different parts of the teaching but it seems the same. But the article makes it seem as if there was a changeIlikerabbits! (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is not here for you to make "points". If you want to change the content, please propose a change here on the talk page, with sources. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so my request is to change this Supersessionism is not the name of any official Roman Catholic doctrine and the word appears in no Church documents, but official Catholic teaching has reflected varying levels supersessionist thought throughout its history, especially prior to the mid-twentieth century. Supersessionist theology is extensive in Catholic liturgy and literature.[5] The Codex Justinianus (1:5:12) for example defines "everyone who is not devoted to the Catholic Church and to our Orthodox holy Faith" a heretic and Catholic liturgy contains echoes of supersessionist theology. The Second Vatican Council (1962–65) marked a shift in official Catholic teaching about Judaism, a shift which may be described as a move from “hard” to “soft” supersessionism, to use the terminology of David Novak (below).[27]


Pope Pius XII held supersessionist views. Prior to Vatican II, Catholic doctrine on the matter was characterized by “displacement” or “substitution” theologies, according to which the Church and its New Covenant took the place of Judaism and its “Old Covenant,” the latter being rendered void by the coming of Jesus.[28] The nullification of the Old Covenant was often explained in terms of the “deicide charge” that Jews forfeited their covenantal relationship with God by executing the divine Christ.[29] As recently as 1943, Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical “Mystici corporis Christi”:

By the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ… [O]n the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[30]

to

Supersessionism is not the name of any official Roman Catholic doctrine and the word appears in no Church documents. The Second Vatican Council (1962–65) marked a shift in common teaching about Judaism, a shift which may be described as a move from “hard” to “soft” supersessionism by David Novak to use the terminology of David Novak (below).[27]

Catholic teaching states that some aspects of the Old covenant were abolished but the moral law was fulfilled in the New covenant and Israel has a special relationsip with God even now. The nullification of the Old Covenant earlier was often explained in terms of the “deicide charge” that Jews forfeited their covenantal relationship with God by executing the divine Christ.[29] As recently as 1943, Pope Pius XII stated in his encyclical “Mystici corporis Christi”:

By the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ… [O]n the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[30]

The reason i took out some parts is because it didnt make sense to have them in the article like the Codex Justinianus was not a document on Theology but a collection of laws. And since it is not an official doctrine its hard to say the Church officially tuaght supersessionism.

References

Ilikerabbits! (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You are proposing removing sourced content and adding content that doesn't deal direct with the concept of whether view on supercessionism changed. This is not OK. And there is no "now" in WP - please see WP:RELTIME.Jytdog (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Jytdog this is OR, you are talking about the doctrine of salvation, "echoes of supersessionism"? I can take a closer look and see if sourcing can be improved in a bit. Seraphim System (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I was thinking that linking to this article would show the Position of the Church now is just like it was earlier but I understand your concern but I think we should some things in the article for example we should remove the references to Codex Justinianus since it wasnt ever a Church document but a collection of civil laws.Ilikerabbits! (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing source[edit]

I think we should remove the source from David Novak since the book is clearly opposed to the Church 'A history of Catholic antisemitism : the dark side of the church'.Ilikerabbits! (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree per Wikipedia:I just don't like it. --GHcool (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
But it doesn seem neutral and you dont really get any new info from itIlikerabbits! (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
You get plenty of useful info from it. Furthermore, "While Wikipedia is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral." --GHcool (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

change article[edit]

i know I already talked on this, but I feel that the article needs to make a distinction between the relationhip God has with Israel and for example the sacraments and laws with Israel which were abolished. Because the way the article is seems to set them up in contrast as if there has been a change in position bu thtere hasnt really been. That distinction needs to be made in the article to save it from confusion on the Church's position. So can I add it? Ilikerabbits! (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

No. We are not fighting the supercessionism debate here, we are describing it. See WP:Beware of tigers. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Jytdog. --GHcool (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I know but to accuratel describe it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikerabbits! (talkcontribs) 03:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)