A Response to "The Catholic Liturgy and Supersessionism" by Fr. Brian Harrison

Dear Fr. Harrison,

Thank you for bringing your article “The Catholic Liturgy and Supersessionism” to our attention, in response to our recent newsletter (November 2010) which commented on the recent Synod of Bishops for the Middle East.

Despite a busy schedule, I have decided that your well-written article is worthy of a serious response, because it explains in an articulate way a theological position that we encounter frequently. This position is one that is well-motivated and makes an important point, yet it is also one which I believe has some very serious weaknesses and implications that I’m afraid might do more damage than good to the mission of the Church.

First, a summary of your article as I understand it:

1. Although you do not state it in this way, it seems to me that the main objective of your article is really to refute dual-covenant theology, namely the idea that Jews could be saved by faithfully observing the Mosaic Law, while Christians are saved by the New Covenant instituted by Christ and perpetuated in the Church. We at Catholics for Israel fully agree with you in this regard.  Dual-covenant theology contradicts the faith of the Church. As you demonstrate quite well from the Catholic liturgical texts, the Church's faith clearly expresses that Jews are indeed invited to "enter into the New Covenant by means of baptism and faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah."
2. However, instead of building your argument upon a refutation of dual-covenant theology, you present it rather as an affirmation of supersessionism, which you define as the belief that "the covenant between God and the People of Israel, established through the mediation of Moses at Mount Sinai, has been replaced or superseded by the ‘New Covenant’ of Jesus Christ. This implies that the Mosaic covenant, with its ritual and dietary requirements, Sabbath observance, etc., is no longer valid for the Jewish people." In other words, you appear to spend more time and energy denying the ongoing validity of the Mosaic covenant rather than affirming the message of salvation of the New Covenant.  This, as I will argue below, is not only an unfortunate emphasis, but also a disastrous one.
3. Throughout your article, you affirm supersessionism by emphasizing an exaggerated dichotomy between Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant, using statements like the following:
1. Reception of baptism and living according to the faith, worship and discipline of the New Covenant is allegedly "incompatible with the continuing observance of the Mosaic covenant."
   
2. The conversion of Jews who come to believe in Christ would allegedly involve "replacing observance of the Mosaic covenant by the reception of baptism and participation in the Christian New Covenant."
3. Baptism has "replaced" circumcision, and the first day of the week has "replaced" the seventh.
4. "The subsidiary and specific covenant of Sinai under Moses has now been replaced or superseded definitively by the specifically Christian covenant."

Before I try to respond to your position, I invite you to read a new "parable" that I just wrote.  It was inspired by your article and by other expressions of supersessionism that I continually encounter.  It is called The Father and the Two Sons: A New Parable on Replacement Theology

Now my response.  I would argue that your methodology is not only unnecessary but also most regrettable and damaging for the following reasons:

1. Your supersessionist position goes way beyond the position of Jesus and the New Testament authors, who are much more positive towards the Mosaic Covenant than you are.  True, the NT constantly reaffirms the superiority of the New over the Old; some passages seem to support the view that the time of the Mosaic Covenant has come to an end (e.g. the Epistle to the Hebrews); and Paul is adamant that observing the commandments of the Torah is not sufficient to be saved, but that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation (esp. Gal and Rom).  However:
1. Jesus himself said that He did not come to abolish but rather to fulfill the Torah (Mat 5:17)
2. At the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) the fact that the apostles decided that Gentile Christians are not obligated to be circumcised and keep the Torah presupposes that these customs were still practiced by the early Jewish-Christian community. Had this not been so, there would never had been the very debate about what to do with Gentiles who enter the Church.
3. To illustrate this point, Paul has Timothy circumcised in the very next chapter (Acts 16:30).
4. In Acts 21:20, the believers in Jerusalem are overjoyed that "many myriads of Jews" have believed, and they are "all zealous for the law" (the Torah).
5. At the same time, Paul joins himself to men who have made a vow  to prove wrong his accusers who falsely claim that he is teaching "all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs."  On the contrary, Paul is purified with these men so that "all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law" (Act 21:24).
6. I invite you to read more about the relationship of the first believers with the Law in our section on Torah and Gospel.
2. Second, many important Church authorities today have a much more positive view of the Torah and Mosaic covenant than you do. To give you only one example, see the recent interview with Archbishop Raymond Burke, now prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest judicial office in the Church. I hope you will have an open ear to hear what he says about the legitimacy of observing Jewish customs in the light of Christ for Jewish believers.  
3. Third, your position essentially advocates a form of supersessionism that constitutes an almost insurmountable barrier to salvation for our Jewish friends. If supersessionism were true, it would mean that in order to accept the Gospel, the Jews would have to reject everything that they hold most dear. It would mean rejecting their own culture and customs which were not only given to them by God but also are the foundation of their very identity. This attitude, of course, flies in the face of everything the Church teaches about inculturation and evangelization: when missionaries evangelize new nations, the most foolish and counter-productive thing they could do is start uprooting the local people from their ancient customs and traditions as they try to make them Christians. Yet this is exactly what the supersessionist position does as it rejects any legitimacy for Jews to have the freedom to continue observing their customs.  This takes on even more disastrous proportions when one considers that many of these customs were divinely instituted! 
4. Incidentally, the Code of Canon Law (23-28) affirms that local customs prevailing in a culture more than 30 years obtain force of law; and that centenary or immemorial customs can even prevail against some canonical laws.  "Unless it makes express mention of them, a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs" (CIC 28).  How much more for the immemorial customs of Israel, instituted by God Himself!
5. In short, if your position begins out of a good intention (affirming that Jesus Christ is indeed the way to salvation for our Jewish brethren), it really ends up having the opposite, catastrophic effect, of namely blocking their way to salvation. 

Perhaps the foundation for this damaging position stems from a confusion between the particular role of Israel and universal role of the Church.  I have noticed this in a statement you made in your email.  You wrote that it is a "fundamental part of our Catholic faith"

to hold that the secondary covenant with Moses established at Sinai has been superseded and replaced by the New Covenant. If that were not so, we would all still  be bound to Sabbath rather than Sunday observance, to observe all the dietary and ritual prescriptions of Leviticus, practise circumcision, etc.  (emphasis added)

The problem with this statement, Fr. Harrison, is that it is simply not true - or at least not for Gentile Catholics. We Gentiles were never bound by Sabbath observance, dietary and ritual prescriptions and circumcision. These were never given to Gentiles or to Christians, but only to Israel. To the first Jewish believers (as we see from the passages in Acts cited above) it was clear that the New Covenant did not abolish the covenant with Israel (including these observances), but rather universalized this covenant and extended its universal precepts to include all the nations. From the very beginning, Gentile Christians were not bound by the Torah because it was not given to them.  But just as the New Covenant never intended to judaize gentiles and make them Jews, the same New Covenant never intended to "gentilize" Jews and make the Gentiles.

True, there is "neither Jew nor Greek" - both are equal before God as regarding salvation. But just as the fact that there is "neither male nor female" never abolished the particular differences, complementarity and callings of man and woman, why should it not be the same with Jews and Gentiles - who each retain their particular calling in the One Church of Christ?

And so why should the invitation to baptism to Jews and their entrance into the new, universal covenant, imply the rejection, abrogation, or dismissal of circumcision, the sign of their particular covenant with God (which in this case is Abrahamic, by the way, and not Mosaic)? What makes them mutually exclusive?

Why should the celebration of the Lord's Day and new creation imply a rejection of the Sabbath day, divinely given to Israel, commemorating the first creation, whose importance is ceaselessly recalled in the OT as sign of Israel's faithfulness of God? Should the celebration of the new creation by the universal Church on the eigth day (to which Israel is of course invited) not reaffirm rather than dismiss the celebration of the first creation on the seventh day for Israel?

Do you not see why your view creates an almost insurmountable stumbling block to the salvation of the Jewish people?

Does Catholicism not usually embrace an attitude of both/and rather than either/or?  Why the false dichotomy between God's covenants - and why not adopt a more integrative approach?

In summary: God gave the Torah and its ordinances as the everlasting sign and guarantee of His covenant to Israel. It was never intended for their salvation, but its precepts constituted the grateful and loving response of Israel to their Creator who delivered them from Egyptian slavery and adopted them as His first-born son.  God gave the Torah to Israel, and not to Gentiles or to the Church. The universal New Covenant established by Jesus never abrogated the particular Mosaic covenant given to Israel, yet it was its perfect fulfillment.  Without the Gospel, the Torah remained and still remains incomplete, unfulfilled, for the Torah points to Jesus as the new prophet, Messiah and Savior of Israel.

But the Gospel was not only given to the Jews. It was intended for all men. It quickly became evident that the New Covenant did not require Gentiles to go first through the Old - to become circumcised and become Jews as a prerequisite to be members of the Church. At the same time, the universal covenant with the Church never required Jews to forsake the particular covenant of the Law of Moses - as long as it was clear that this particular covenant was not a final destination but rather a step - a very important one - on the way to the fullness of God's revelation and salvation revealed in Christ.

May we Gentile Christians learn to see the ancient covenant with Israel with greater humility, respect and appreciation, and may our own transformed attitude towards Israel and their heritage facilitate their encounter with Grace that Moses foretold long ago but has now been suspended for all too long.