Bob's Specific Charges Against Schoeman
Heresy is a deliberate, calculated and unequivocal statement to circumvent established dogma. (Sungenis, "Does the Catechism Contain a Heresy?")
Now let's tackle Bob's specific charges against Schoeman. We have already seen that, according to Bob, Schoeman claims that "the New Covenant didn't replace the Old Covenant," (source). Bob contends that Schoeman believes, "that the Old Covenant is still in force, and that the Jews are going to take over Palestine under divine mandate and offer sacrifices in Jerusalem again, and all this in fulfillment, they claim, by the words of Jesus Christ" (source). Schoeman is alleged to claim that "anyone who is opposed to the national policies of Israel is 'of the antichrist.'" (source) And he insists that Schoeman teaches that "the Catholic Church has erred for 2000 years" (source), "since her teaching that the New Covenant superseded the Old Covenant is in error" (source).
Since Sungenis is the one advancing such serious charges, the burden of proof is squarely on him to show that Schoeman is saying exactly what Bob claims and that there is no other way for his words to be taken. Bob alleges that Schoeman has said numerous erroneous and even heretical things, so the burden is entirely on him to show us exactly where he said them. Here are his own standards, as expressed here when he (correctly) defended the Catechism of the Catholic Church against the charge of heresy:
It's ambiguous, but it's not heresy. . . . I'll grant you that your reasoning COULD be a possible interpretation, but the point is that you don't know it IS the interpretation, at least not well enough to levy the charge of heresy. Heresy does not deal with ambiguities. It sanctions direct and provable statements of error. . . . I really don't have to prove anything. George is the one who has to prove something, since he is the one charging the CCC with heresy. . . . Heresy is a deliberate, calculated and unequivocal statement to circumvent established dogma. . . . I simply would not use the word "heresy" at all, . . . "Proximate to heresy" is a juridical term, and when you get into canonical jurisprudence, then you're required to give substantial evidence for the accusation and conviction. If you can't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, you don't have a case. ("Does the Catechism Contain a Heresy?")
Throughout the remainder of this essay, the reader should keep in mind Bob's own standards. According to him:
- If there is an ambiguity that admits an orthodox interpretation, then it's not heresy.
- Heresy consists only in "direct and provable statements of error."
- The burden of proof is entirely on the accuser.
- Heresy is "deliberate, calculated and unequivocal statement to circumvent established dogma."
- The accuser is "required to give substantial evidence for the accusation and conviction."
- And finally, unless he can prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accuser has no case.
And let's anticipate his probable claim that the standards would be different for Schoeman, since Bob was defending an official ecclesiastical document. The answer, of course, is that if Bob actually brought these charges to someone with authority in the Church, rather than arrogating that authority for himself, Schoeman would be treated with exactly these same standards by the Church. From time immemorial she has always sought to put the best possible interpretation on the words of the accused (see, for example, the teaching of St. Ignatius of Loyola in the "Presupposition" to his Spiritual Exercises).
So what does Bob offer to back up his charges against Schoeman? Here is the quote from Schoeman that he provided to me to back up his assertion that Schoeman had said that "the New Covenant didn't replace the Old Covenant" and "the Catholic Church has erred for 2000 years".
We have seen how, at the very outset of Christianity, many held the mistaken belief that one must be a member of the Old Covenant (i.e., be a Jew) to be eligible for participation in the New. This error was quickly corrected, but was soon followed by another known as "supersessionism" - that the Old Covenant had been entirely replaced (or superseded, hence "supersessionism"), made null and void, by the New. This view dominated Christian theology for much of the past two thousand years. It has only recently been definitively rejected by the Church. (Schoeman, Salvation is From the Jews, 352)
Did you find the verbatim phrases "the New Covenant didn't replace the Old Covenant" and "the Catholic Church has erred for 2000 years" anywhere in that paragraph? No, because these are not the words of Roy Schoeman at all. Rather, they are Bob's paraphrase of Schoeman, put forward as Schoeman's own words. We shall see what a difference the paraphrase makes in a moment, but here let me note that this is a common device of Sungenis. Michael Forrest pointed this out in "Robert Sungenis and the Jews":
I believe Bob's primary mistake is that he repeatedly extrapolates to certain conclusions based on what Schoeman has written and treats these extrapolations as Schoeman's own express intentions, which Bob then promptly condemns. (RSATJ:4)
I agree with this assessment. It is seen nowhere more clearly than in Bob's propensity to take his interpretation of what Schoeman is saying and present this as the very ipsissima verba of Schoeman. Here are five examples:
Roy Schoeman can teach the heresy that the New Covenant did not replace the Old Covenant; and mix politics and religion to the point of saying that anyone who is opposed to the national policies of Israel is "of the antichrist," but we won't hear a word of criticism from either Mr. Michael or Mr. Forrest. (MMATJ, p. 1f.)
It's quite ironic to see these men get so fixated on me when, in fact, they give people like Roy Schoeman a free pass to say just about any heretical thing he wants, including such things as "the New Covenant didn't replace the Old Covenant," and the "Catholic Church has erred for 2000 years" and many other ridiculous things about Catholicism and the Jews. ("Christopher Blosser and the Catholic ADL", p. 3)
Schoeman believes that "Salvation is from the Jews" because, as he says in his book, the Jews who become saved in the future will "fulfill the New Covenant" by a completion of the Old Covenant, not because Jesus was a Jew. (MFATJ, p. 63)
Mr. Schoeman's so-called seeking for a "Jewish corporate identity" is nothing but a smoke screen for a much larger agenda he has in mind. ("Theology")
None of the phrases attributed to Schoeman in quotes actually appear in Salvation is from the Jews. Bob objects to me pointing out this false attribution of words to Mr. Schoeman: "No, putting words in quotes is not always 'ipsissima verba,'" ("My Reply", p. 43). How strange to have to tell this self-styled Doctor of Religion that when you assert that somebody said something and you put the words in quotes, it represents a claim that those are the verbatim words of your source. After all, that's why they call them quotation marks, right?
Bob asserts that his opponents "give people like Roy Schoeman a free pass to say just about any heretical thing he wants . . ." ("Blosser ADL", p. 3). But it is more accurate to say that Bob feels free to attribute to Roy Schoeman "just about any heretical thing he wants."
Now if somebody had actually said what Bob has laid out above, I would be the first to agree that these are serious errors. The problem is, Roy Schoeman never said those things. If one reads Schoeman's book with even an ounce of fairness, rather than with the dark suspicion and presumption of guilt with which we have demonstrated Bob reads it, there is no way that reader will come away accusing Schoeman of those things of which Bob accuses him.
Before launching into the full-blown defense of Schoeman, I do want to introduce one witness whom I will call for several times in the defense, namely, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and his book Many Religions, One Covenant (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999.) Bob has given this book absolutely glowing accolades:
This is probably the best book I've read on the subject. As I stated when Cardinal Ratzinger became pope, he is one of the best theologians with which the Church has been blessed. He understands the issues and he seeks for solutions based on both his theological prowess and the tradition of the Church. He is the most balanced theologian I know of in the midst of the controversy since Vatican II.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand the covenants of the Bible. The Cardinal also does an excellent job of showing us deep insights into how God bound himself by covenant to die for the sake of the covenant. It is the best treatise I have ever seen written on this topic. The Cardinal really knows his Bible, and I am proud to have him as Pope Benedict XVI. (Q&A Question 45, Jan 2007)
Bob also uses this book to take yet another whack at Roy Schoeman, advancing the Cardinal's book as, "opposing the statements quoted above by Roy Schoeman in his book, Salvation is from the Jews" (ibid.) We shall see.
Which Covenant?
Let's tackle Bob's allegations one at a time, the most serious first. Bob has repeated again and again that Roy Schoeman believes that "the New Covenant didn't replace the Old Covenant." We have already seen that this is not what Schoeman said. Rather, Schoeman said that it is an error to believe, "that the Old Covenant had been entirely replaced . . . made null and void, by the New" (Salvation, p. 352). The key questions here, which Bob apparently did not think to ask, are: 1) Which covenant does Schoeman have in mind? and 2) what does Schoeman mean by "entirely replaced" and "made null and void"?
Of which covenant does Schoeman speak? Bob has based the very heart of his criticism of Schoeman on the assumption that Schoeman is speaking of the Mosaic covenant. All of the magisterial and scriptural ammunition Sungenis brings to bear pertains specifically to the abolition of the Mosaic covenant by the New Covenant (hence Bob's citation of Heb 8:13, 10:8-9, the Council of Florence, Pius XII's Mystici Corporis 29-30.) Bob says, "The contexts of these passages are referring exclusively to the Mosaic law, and thus it was that covenant which was abrogated, abolished, annulled" ("Judaizers").
But what does Schoeman mean by the "Old Covenant"? He makes this plain:
To understand the drive which the Jewish people had, and still have, to maintain their distinct identity separate from the Gentiles, it is necessary to consider the intrinsic difference between the Old Covenant, which God made with the Jews through Abraham, and the New Covenant which came through Jesus. (Salvation, p. 64)
So with respect to the Old Covenant Schoeman does not speak of the Mosaic, but of the Abrahamic covenant. And Bob has on several occasions admitted that a bare assertion that the New Covenant has abolished and rendered the Old Covenant null and void would not apply to the Abrahamic Covenant:
In regards to "revoking," a distinction must be made between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant. Scripture and Tradition are clear that the Mosaic covenant, which is also called the Old Covenant (2 Cor 3:14), was, indeed, revoked. . . . The Abrahamic covenant, however, is treated differently. It transitions into and becomes the New Covenant. ("Judaizers")
Having said that, we can give credit to Mr. Michael for recognizing that the Abrahamic covenant cannot be revoked, as long as Mr. Michael admits that the Abrahamic covenant is not the "Old Covenant." The reason it is not, nor ever can be, "old" is precisely because it never ceases to exist, since it is guaranteed by a divine oath. ("Review of Never Revoked", p. 6)
Elsewhere Bob has insisted that, "All that remains now is the spiritual element of the Abrahamic covenant . . ." ("Judaizers"). We will see later in this essay if that claim is true. But for now suffice it to say that, even according to Bob himself, if one is speaking of the Abrahamic Covenant it is perfectly correct and orthodox to say that the Old Covenant was not "entirely replaced" or "made null and void" by the New.
What is more, Bob has actually defended Pope John Paul II for using wording that is very similar to that of Schoeman. Commenting on John Paul II's statement about "the Old Covenant never revoked by God", Bob offers this defense:
In his 1980 Mainz speech . . . John Paul II did not specify what covenant he was referring to. It certainly can't be the Mosaic covenant, since Scripture, the Fathers, and the Councils have all said that the Mosaic covenant was abolished. Otherwise, you'll be accusing John Paul II of heresy. ("My Conversation", p. 5).
And elsewhere in the same document Sungenis says:
Scholars consistently distinguish between the Mosaic covenant issued in Exodus 20 from [sic] the Abrahamic covenant issued in Genesis 12-22. The former was Law covenant, the latter was a Promise covenant. Gal 3:19 makes this distinction very clear.
When you use the term "Old Covenant" you need to distinguish which covenant from the Old Testament Scriptures you are talking about. (ibid., p. 9)
So Bob works to vindicate John Paul II from the charge of heresy by arguing that the Holy Father was speaking of the Abrahamic covenant when he speaks of the "Old Covenant". On the other hand, Bob simply assumes that when Schoeman speaks of the "Old Covenant", he means the Mosaic covenant - on this basis he has accused Schoeman repeatedly of heresy. And this even though Schoeman explicitly distinguished what covenant he was talking about, while the Holy Father did not. While I applaud Bob's charity in seeking to harmonize the words of the late Holy Father with the larger Tradition, I wish he would extend that charity to the rest of the Catholic faithful.
What is more, in seemingly stark juxtaposition to Bob's assertions we have the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says that, "The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked" (CCC §121). Notice that when the Catechism says this, he (rightly) defends it. Notice too all that he says about heresy, its definition, and who bears the burden of proof when such an accusation is made:
It's ambiguous, but it's not heresy ... I'll grant you that your reasoning COULD be a possible interpretation, but the point is that you don't know it IS the interpretation, at least not well enough to levy the charge of heresy. Heresy does not deal with ambiguities. It sanctions direct and provable statements of error ... I really don't have to prove anything. George is the one who has to prove something, since he is the one charging the CCC with heresy ... Heresy is a deliberate, calculated and unequivocal statement to circumvent established dogma ... I simply would not use the word "heresy" at all, ... "Proximate to heresy" is a juridical term, and when you get into canonical jurisprudence, then you're required to give substantial evidence for the accusation and conviction. If you can't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, you don't have a case. ("Does the Catechism Contain a Heresy?").
But again, while his defense of the CCC is admirable, has he really applied his own standards to Schoeman and Salvation is From the Jews? Obviously not. For Sungenis it is always one standard for me and another for thee.
Again in seeming contrast to Sungenis, we have Card. Ratzinger's statement that: "With regard to the issue of the nature of the covenant, it is important to note that the Last Supper sees itself as making a covenant: it is the prolongation of the Sinai covenant which is not abrogated, but renewed" (Many Religions, p. 62). If that statement had come from Roy Schoeman, Bob Sungenis would be howling to high heaven about heresy (and damn the context!) But when Card. Ratzinger says it, Sungenis goes on to gush that it is "the best book I've read on the subject. . . . I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand the covenants of the Bible" (Q&A Question 45, Jan 2007). Certainly, Card. Ratzinger is saying that it is specifically in the institution of the central rite of the New Covenant that this renewal, not abrogation, of the Mosaic covenant occurs - he is not speaking about some kind of independent, ongoing validity of the Mosaic covenant. But then again, neither is Roy Schoeman. I think Card. Ratzinger's citation above makes it clear that he would agree with Schoeman....and not with Sungenis. I am sure he would agree that it is perfectly correct and orthodox to label as an "error" the proposition, "that the Old Covenant had been entirely replaced . . . made null and void, by the New".
In his response to Part 1 of this essay, Bob has pointed out that Schoeman uses the phrase "Old Covenant" in a different way on page 129:
With the destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70, the Jewish people lost the ability to perform sacrifices for the atonement of sins. Yet according to Christianity the efficacy of such sacrifices should already have ended at the time of the crucifixion, about forty years earlier. For it was then that the Old Covenant, with its animal sacrifices for the atonement for sins, was replaced by the New Covenant, in which Jesus shed His blood once for all for the atonement of sins. (Salvation, p. 129).
Bob himself notes that Schoeman, "then . . . quotes from Hebrews 9:1 - 10:14 from the American Standard Version, the same passages that I have used numerous times to show that the New Covenant has replace the Old Covenant" ("My Response, p. 43). This is extremely important. Bob has right there admitted seeing that Schoeman in no way contradicts the Church's magisterial teaching that the Mosaic covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant. It was on this point that his whole charge of heresy was based and he has now given the whole point away by acknowledging that Schoeman explicitly upholds the Catholic Church's teaching that the Mosaic covenant is superseded by the New Covenant. And Schoeman has upheld this in e-mail correspondence to me:
When I say that the "New Covenant will be brought to fruition by the Old" I am referring to the conversion of the Jews which is to precede the Second Coming (certainly not to the Old Testament sacramental system!). (private e-mail of 26 Jan 2007; emphasis his).
Bob points out, however, that Schoeman uses the phrase "Old Covenant" on page 352 in a way that might seem incompatible with his use on page 129. I have already stated, it is not my purpose here to declare Schoeman infallible. And Schoeman has always been open to responsible criticism of his book. Rather, it is my purpose to show that Bob Sungenis has been wildly reckless and unjust in publicly denouncing him as a heretic and hyper-Judaizer. So one could just conclude that Schoeman made a mistake here, was imprecise in his language, and this would leave Bob's charge of heresy just as dead in the water.
But let's look a little deeper. The Mosaic covenant is not a separate covenant unto itself; it exists in relation to the already ratified covenant with Abraham. It is a kind of "overlay" to the Abrahamic covenant, if you will. As St. Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians:
This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made . . . (Gal 3:17-19).
The Mosaic Law (covenant) was indeed temporary. And so Schoeman was correct to say on p. 129 that it was replaced by the New Covenant; the "overlay" of the Law was removed. On the other hand, as Sungenis says, the Abrahamic covenant was not "replaced" by the New Covenant but "transitions into and becomes the New Covenant." And so Schoeman is correct to say on p. 352 that the Old Covenant = Abrahamic Covenant had not "been entirely replaced . . . made null and void, by the New". As Sungenis himself admits, scholars refer to both as the "Old Covenant" and so there is nothing wrong with Schoeman doing so.
At most we can say that Mr. Schoeman could been more precise in his use of the phrase "Old Covenant", an observation with which I don't think he would disagree. But let us temper this observation with the fact that even John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church use the phrase with various meanings, though as yet Bob has not leveled charges of heresy against them. Let us also insist that the charitable interpretation of its use on page 352 - an interpretation backed up entirely by the context and by subsequent clarifications from Schoeman himself - is that he speaks there broadly of the Abrahamic covenant and that it is perfectly compatible with Catholic teaching (not to mention Bob's own admissions) to say that the Abrahamic covenant was not "entirely replaced" or "made null and void" by the New Covenant. And let us remember, as we have seen throughout this study, that if imprecision and lapses in accuracy amount to heresy, then Bob Sungenis is an archheretic.
The bottom line is that there are elements of the Old Covenant - and this is actually true whether one speaks of the Abrahamic or the Mosaic - that are taken up into and renewed in the New Covenant. Bob would be right to question the bare phrase that, "the New Covenant didn't replace the Old Covenant", if that is what Schoeman had said. But this is a mere caricature of Schoeman's view, which Bob has wrongly attributed to him. On the other hand, it is perfectly legitimate to say, as Schoeman has, that the New Covenant does not "entirely replace" the Old Covenant and that it does not simply render it "null and void". And this renders Bob's core complaint against Schoeman null and void.
Supersessionism: What is it?
A second major charge against Schoeman is Bob's contention that he says that, "Catholic Church has erred for 2000 years". Now again, these words are found nowhere in Schoeman's book - they are a distorted paraphrase provided by Bob. What Schoeman actually said is this:
We have seen how, at the very outset of Christianity, many held the mistaken belief that one must be a member of the Old Covenant (i.e., be a Jew) to be eligible for participation in the New. This error was quickly corrected, but was soon followed by another known as "supersessionism" - that the Old Covenant had been entirely replaced (or superseded, hence "supersessionism"), made null and void, by the New. This view dominated Christian theology for much of the past two thousand years. It has only recently been definitively rejected by the Church. (Salvation , 352).
He does not say that the "Catholic Church" erred for 2000 years, as Bob alleges. He says this was an error which "dominated Christian theology". This is not, for Schoeman, a matter of a contradicted magisterial teaching. But we must ask what is meant by supersessionism. Let's first establish that supersessionism is not a Catholic word - it appears nowhere in any magisterial documents or in authoritative Catholic theological texts. It is also a word lacking a precise definition (see this article for many of the nuances of the term.) Therefore, it is only fair and reasonable that we determine what Schoeman (not Bob) means by supersessionism before we condemn his rejection of it as heretical.
Schoeman has defined supersessionism as the proposition that "the Old Covenant had been entirely replaced . . . made null and void, by the New." Schoeman calls that position an error; Bob has said that it is heresy to say so. Thus I can only conclude that Bob believes that with respect to ethnic Israel the Old Covenant has been entirely replaced, superseded, made null and void, by the New (even though elsewhere he argues differently.) The practical upshot is that, for him, it is an "illusion" to believe "that the Jews are still 'God’s chosen people.'" (source) He expands on this:
The Jews were once God’s chosen people but those days are over. They were over when Jesus died on the cross, and they have been over for the last 2000 years. The Jews have no special covenant with God; they will receive no special protection from God as they did in the Old Testament; . . . The Jews and Israel are just like any other people or nation today. (Q&A Question 45, Jan 2007)
Bob makes it clear that he rejects that notion that God is going to have anything to do with Jews as an ethnically distinctive people in the future. As such, I think this is a clear statement of what would be deemed, as Card. Avery Dulles has put it, a "crude supersessionism" ("The Covenant With Israel", First Things 157 (November 2005), 16-21; available on-line here) That being said, Sungenis does end that paragraph with a correct statement: "We will all come to God or be judged by God on the same terms - the New Covenant in Jesus Christ." And that is something with which neither I nor Roy Schoeman would disagree. Rather, as he has clarified:
Regarding Supersession, I am not saying that the Church has in no way replaced Israel. All I am saying is that it has not replaced Israel in every way -- that it is an error to claim that the role of the Jews in Salvation History is completely over now, that there is no longer any special role, or quality, to "fleshly" Israel. The Church never taught this, or any other error -- of course the Church cannot err in its official teaching -- but this erroneous view was quite common among many of the members of the Church over a long period. (private e-mail of 26 Jan 2007).
I personally disagree with Schoeman that such a "crude supersessionism" actually dominated Christian theology for the first 19 centuries of Church history. Certainly in Lutheran and Reformed Protestant circles that position has had many proponents. And he is correct to say that, for much of the history of the Catholic Church, commentary by Catholic theologians has tended to emphasize negative aspects of God's relations with the Jews, viz. their hardening (Rom 11:7ff.), rather than focusing on more positive aspects, viz. God's ongoing care for them on account of the patriarchs (Rom 11:25ff.) We both agree, however, that "crude supersessionism" has now been rejected through a reappropriation and reemphasis of those positive elements of God's revelation by the Catholic Church (cf. Nostra Aetate 4, CCC §755 and §839, and locutions of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI.)
That Schoeman means to oppose just such an extreme view is made clear in the context, since he juxtaposes this (crude) supersessionism with the likewise extreme and problematic position of the RCM document, which extrapolates two separate and equally valid covenants, one for Jews and one for Christians. This opposite extreme Schoeman rejects in even stronger terms:
With its rejection, however, a new and perhaps even more pernicious error has emerged - that the Old and New Covenants are two "separate but equal" parallel paths to salvation, the one intended for Jews, the other for Gentiles. This has been presented as though it were the only logical alternative to supersessionism, despite the fact that it is utterly irreconcilable with both the core beliefs of Christianity and with the words of Jesus himself in the New Testament. (Salvation, p. 352f.)
Rejecting these two extremes, Schoeman opts for a via media which I believe harmonizes with the constant stream of Catholic Tradition. Laying aside the technical term "supersessionism", at the heart of this is this fundamental question: Is there some specific aspect of the Old Covenant vis-à-vis ethnic Jews that is subsumed into the New Covenant? Schoeman asks it this way: "Do the Jews continue to have a role to play in salvation history following Christ; that is, between the first and the second coming?" (Salvation, p. 68). Schoeman answers that question in the affirmative. Card. Ratzinger, in the "best book . . . on the subject" according to Bob, also answers that question affirmatively:
The mission of Jesus consists in bringing together the histories of the nations in the community of the history of Abraham, the history of Israel ... This course of events has two aspects to it: the nations can enter into the community of the promises of Israel in entering into the community of the one God, who now becomes and must become the way of all because there is only one God and because his will is therefore truth for all. Conversely, this means that all nations, without the abolishment of the special mission of Israel, become brothers and receivers of the promises of the Chosen People. (Many Religions, p. 27)
And:
even if Christians look for the day when Israel will recognize Christ as the Son of God and the rift that separates them will be healed, they should also acknowledge God's providence, which has obviously given Israel a particular mission in this "time of the Gentiles". (Many Religions, p. 104)
In this same book, Card. Ratzinger goes on to explain in more concrete terms what he means by Israel's "mission," contrary to Bob's claim that "Cardinal Ratzinger doesn’t specify what the "particular mission" is except to say in the remaining pages that the Christian faith is the hope of man," and "Scripture knows of only one "particular mission" given to Israel today, and that is that their unbelief has resulted in the Gospel being given to the Gentiles, and that the salvation of the Gentiles will hopefully make some Jews jealous so that they will come to Christ" (Second Look at Palm's Website, p.1):
It is even less possible, in the present compass, to tackle the large question of the common mission of Jews and Christians in the modern world. But I think, the basic task has nevertheless become clearer without my having to do this. Jews and Christians should accept each other in profound inner reconciliation, neither in disregard of their faith nor in denying it, but out of the depth of faith itself. In their mutual reconciliation they should become a force for peace in and for the world. Through their witness to the one God, who cannot be adored apart from unity of love of God and neighbor, they should open the door into the world for this God so that his will may be done and that it may become on earth "as it is in heaven": so that "his kingdom come". (Many Religions, pp. 45-46)
So does Pope John Paul II: "This extraordinary people continues to bear signs of its divine election" (Crossing the Threshold of Hope, cited in Dulles, "Covenant")
So does the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The Church is a cultivated field, the tillage of God. On that land the ancient olive tree grows whose holy roots were the prophets and in which the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles has been brought about and will be brought about again. That land, like a choice vineyard, has been planted by the heavenly cultivator. Yet the true vine is Christ who gives life and fruitfulness to the branches, that is, to us, who through the Church remain in Christ, without whom we can do nothing (CCC §755; emphasis in CCC.)
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, "the first to hear the Word of God." The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "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", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." (CCC §839)
Bob Sungenis, on the other hand, says No:
Sungenis: I have further stated in a reply to Mr. Blosser that people like Roy Schoeman teach such things because, I believe, they basically suffer from the illusion that the Jews are still "God's chosen people." As a result, they twist and turn Scripture and Church teaching to make it appear as if the Jews still have some special covenantal relationship with God over and above the rest of the world. Mr. Schoeman's book, Salvation is from the Jews, is little more than a special pleading of divine favoritism toward the Jews, and I will be writing another major critique of his book in the coming weeks. But it is all a fallacy. The Jews were once God's chosen people but those days are over. . . . The Jews and Israel are just like any other people or nation today. We will all come to God or be judged by God on the same terms - the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. Any other teaching is heresy. (Q&A Question 45, Jan 2007)
Well ... he usually answers No. Consistency, we have seen, is not one of Bob's strong suits. In an e-mail exchange with Michael Forrest in 2004 Bob admits that God does indeed continue to work with the Jews as a distinct ethnic people:
----Original Message-----
From: Sungenis@aol.com [mailto:Sungenis@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 3:26 PM
To: mwforrest@ifriendly.com
Subject: Answers to your Questions about Romans 11
MF1) Notice, the quote speaks of removing wickedness from Jacob......then right after this he says that they (the Jews) are dear to him "for the sake of the Patriarchs". In other words, he has a continuing concern for the Jews, even when they do not believe.....ergo, "for the sake of the Patriarchs".....which is a genetic identification, not dependent upon their "faith", which relates to the "remnant"/spiritual sonship theme Paul touched upon earlier.
[Sungenis]: I would flatly disagree with you about a so-called "genetic identification not dependent upon their faith" as having any significance. It was Paul who said in Romans 9:6: "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." The mention of "for the sake of the Patriarchs" is in answer to the question in Romans 11:1-2 as to whether God was going to ENTIRELY cut off the Jews. The answer is, no, "for the sake of the Patriarchs." For their sake, God will still move among the Jews, but that does not mean that there is going to be some explosive revival. 2000 years of "for the sake of the Patriarchs" has only given us a "remnant" of Jews who have been recipients of God's kindness to the Patriarchs.END
MF2: How can you flatly disagree that St. Paul indicated in vs. 28 that God still cares for the Jews as a genetic people by the phrase "for the sake of the Patriarchs"? What else does this passage mean?...."As concerning the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake: but are touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers." What else can this mean, other than that God has a particular and continuing affection for them because they descend from the patriarchs?
[Sungenis]: I'm sorry. I think I was confused by your use of the word "genetic," as if there was something about being Jewish that attracted God. I think you mean to say "ethnic," not genetic. I do agree that there is an "ethnic" issue, and that God intends on saving Jews as an ethnic race of people. END
But wait a second. In 2004 Bob said that "God intends on saving Jews as an ethnic race of people". But now in 2007 Bob says that, "The Jews are no different than any other group of people on the face of the earth. There are no 'special relationships' with God based on one's ethnic background or heritage." Now let's tease this out a bit. Where would we find any evidence of God making a statement proving that He intends to save Italians as an ethnic race of people? How about the Irish? Ethiopians? The Chinese? It seems that the only ethnic race of people that God has ever singled out for special mention with regard to election is the Jews. And thus Bob's (correct) agreement that "there is an 'ethnic' issue, and that God intends on saving Jews as an ethnic race of people" is flatly contrary to Bob's (incorrect) assertion that "The Jews are no different than any other group of people on the face of the earth. There are no 'special relationships' with God based on one's ethnic background or heritage." Which Bob are you going to believe?
Does Schoeman Support the Practice of Jewish Rituals?
Another big part of Bob's vendetta against Schoeman has been to lump him in with certain other Jewish converts who (he claims) demand to revive various Jewish ritual practices:
Schoeman, Moss, Miesel and others have demanded that they be allowed to practice Jewish rituals of their choosing while at the same time remaining Catholic. Whether this will include a direct promotion of temple sacrifice remains to be seen. Schoeman strongly suggests that it will be so." (MFATJ, p. 24)
Bob alleges that this is all laid out in Schoeman's book plainly and that it's all in the service of the ultimate Judaizing:
Here, the goal of Schoeman’s book is laid out quite plainly for us. It is now very obvious why Schoeman was promoting Jewish rituals. It wasn’t for the purpose of making Jewish converts feel more comfortable when converting to Christianity. It was for the purpose of legitimizing the rebuilding of the Temple where Jewish sacrifices originally took place in the ancient past. Schoeman’s ultimate dream is to have Jewish rituals practiced in Jerusalem the same as they were practiced in the Old Covenant, only this time he wants these practices sanctioned by Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. ("Theology")
In Bob's mind, it's all part of a bigger conspiracy:
Mr. Schoeman's so-called seeking for a "Jewish corporate identity" is nothing but a smoke screen for a much larger agenda he has in mind. ("Theology")
But has Schoeman anywhere "demanded" such a thing? No. Did Schoeman promote Jewish rituals, "for the purpose of making Jewish converts feel more comfortable"? No. Did Schoeman ever give even a hint that it is his "ultimate dream" that Jewish rituals be practiced in Jerusalem with the sanction of our Lord and the Church? No. Has Schoeman ever used the phrase "Jewish corporate identity", let alone promoted such an idea? No again. This is all pure fabrication from Sungenis. In fact, Bob fails to tell his readers that Schoeman explicitly distances himself from this notion of Jewish converts being "allowed to practice Jewish rituals of their choosing while at the same time remaining Catholic":
The first reason for Jews [to wish] to continue as a distinct community within the Church is the belief that God still wishes Jews to follow the Jewish laws and festivals, even after they become Christian. This view, however, must be rejected by Jews who enter the Catholic Church as inconsistent with Church doctrine as well as with a number of passages in the New Testament, including Mark 7:19, Acts 10:15, Corinthians 10:27, and Galatians 5:6. (Salvation, 69)
The fact that the Jews have a special role to play until the Second Coming does not necessarily imply that Jews who convert should avoid "disappearing" into the Church. It is useful to consider the parallel with yeast and bread. For yeast to do any good in making bread, it must be kept separate from the other ingredients until it is time to use it. But at that point in the process one must take some of the yeast away from where it has been kept separate and mix it in with the other ingredients until it becomes indistinguishable from the rest of the dough. Perhaps that is the case with the Jews. God gave them unique qualities which have a needed leavening effect on the entire Church. But for those qualities to have their effect, when God grants the grace of conversion to the Jew, He separates him from the rest of the "yeast" and mixes him in with the "dough"; that is, removes him from the Jewish community and mixes him into the Church. Just as the yeast does not lose its importance in disappearing into the dough but rather achieves it, so might the Jewish charism realize its unique importance in "disappearing" into the Church. (Salvation, 71).
And in a private e-mail to me Schoeman says:
If you permit me, allow me to point out, at least to you, that where [Sungenis] says "Mr. Schoeman’s so-called seeking for a "Jewish corporate identity"", despite the quotes, I don't think I've ever used such a term -- I'm not very enthusiastic about the idea of seeking one. It is one of the areas in which I do not, in fact, agree with all the theology espoused by the AHC and its founder Fr. Friedman. (private e-mail of 5 Feb 2007.)
We will see even more on this in the section on the rebuilding of the Temple. But yet again, Sungenis has attributed thoughts and intentions to Schoeman which are not only false, but are explicitly contradicted by the text of Salvation is From the Jews.
Schoeman Rejects the Reflections on Covenant and Mission Thesis
As we saw in Section 1 of this essay, Bob has accused Schoeman of supporting the thesis of the RCM document, viz. that the Old Covenant and New Covenant remain independently valid, so that salvation for Christians comes through Jesus Christ but salvation for the Jews comes through their participation in the Old Covenant. Bob, in his reply to Section 1 protests that he has acknowledged in at least one place that Schoeman does not hold the RCM thesis. But this is just more one more contradiction that we have see from Sungenis. For he has accused both Roy Schoeman and David Moss of holding that the Old Covenant is still in force, the first of the major problems with the RCM document:
We even have Jewish converts to Catholicism today, like Roy Schoeman and David Moss, who propagate these same sentiments by claiming that the Old Covenant is still in force, and that the Jews are going to take over Palestine under divine mandate and offer sacrifices in Jerusalem again, and all this in fulfillment, they claim, by the words of Jesus Christ. This is total nonsense, and it is one of the most pernicious and nefarious heresies the Church has ever faced. (Q&A Question 18, March 2006)
And elsewhere, as I cited in Section 1, Sungenis has lumped Schoeman and Moss right in with the RCM document with regard to the need for Jews to convert to Christ, the second major flaw in that document:
R. Sungenis: CAI has consistently taught the Church’s traditional teaching: (a) that the Old Covenant has been abolished and there is only one covenant of salvation today, the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, and (b) that the Jews must convert to Christianity in order to be saved.
Below you will see that both these teachings have been confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI in his Wednesday morning address of March 16, 2006. In one of his paragraphs the pope states:
"By their mere existence, the twelve - called from different backgrounds - have become a summons to all Israel to conversion and to allow themselves to be reunited in a new covenant, full and perfect accomplishment of the old."
As we would expect for a message that disagrees with the current consensus among 2002 "Covenant and Missions" authors (e.g., Cardinal Keeler and Jewish rabbis) and various Jewish converts (e.g., Roy Schoeman and David Moss), the only place this address was publicized was L’Osservatore Romano. ("Pope Benedict XVI Says Jews Must Convert to Christianity")
Those are the two main RCM theses that are so problematic and Bob clearly accuses Schoeman of holding both of them. So his complaint that elsewhere he says that Schoeman doesn't support RCM is only evidence of one more contradiction on his part.
The fact is that throughout the book Schoeman states categorically that Jews today are called explicitly to faith in Jesus Christ under the auspices of the New Covenant, which is contrary to both of the RCM's most problematic positions:
There can be no question about whether Jesus "intended" Christianity to be adopted by Jews in place of Judaism; the fact that he did is continually explicit throughout the New Testament. That God wished for the Jews to accept Christ is evident - remember Jesus' weeping over the tragedy that they, by and large, failed to (Matthew 23:37-39): "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" What arrangements God makes to bring Jews to heaven despite their failure to accept Jesus we leave to His mercy, and the understanding of the Church is that such arrangements exist. But that His intention was that they follow Jesus is certain. (Salvation, p. 68)
And he repeats this several times throughout the book:
[I]t is nonsense to maintain that somehow Judaism is right for Jews, and Christianity is right for Christians, and that the truth is dependent on what group one belongs to. (Ibid., 10).
It might seem odd to refer to the entry of Jews into the Catholic Church as "the return of the Jews." It is, however, the natural image for one who sees the Catholic Church as simply the continuation (and fulfillment) of Judaism after the first coming of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. In such a case, it is the Jews who accepted Him and became the first Christians who stayed within the core of Judaism, while those who rejected Him left the mainstream, the fullness of the truth of the religion. This concept is shared, and most beautifully expressed, by St. Paul in his image of the "ingrafting". (Ibid., 317)
[A] new and perhaps even more pernicious error has emerged - that the Old and New Covenants are two "separate but equal" parallel paths to salvation, the one intended for Jews, the other for Gentiles. This has been presented as though it were the only logical alternative to supersessionism, despite the fact that it is utterly irreconcilable with both the core beliefs of Christianity and with the words of Jesus himself in the New Testament. (Ibid., 352-3.)
Evangelization efforts aimed at Jews are most frequently seen by Jews as a threat to their religion and their people, and even compared to the Nazis' attempt to exterminate them. Yet the words of Jesus and the Scriptures themselves make it abundantly clear that God Himself, and certainly Jesus himself, very much wish the Jews to come to him. It was one of his greatest sorrows just before his crucifixion, when he exclaimed, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem... How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Matthew 23:37) Not only does God seem to very much want the conversion of the Jews, but his adversary seems to very much want to prevent it (Ibid., 354.)
Of course all disrespect for the freedom of the individual is entirely wrong, as is any disrespect for the religion of Judaism, all the more so since Christians know that Judaism was God's own religion, given to the Jews by Him and followed by Him during His life as a man. Yet at the same time fear of God - that is, the desire to do His will - must always take precedence over fear of human respect, and the greatest service that anyone can do for God, or for an individual, is to bring that individual into deeper knowledge of and fuller communion with God. Jesus himself said that he will not come again "until you [the Jews] say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'"(Matthew 23:39). It is incumbent on us, as his disciples and servants, to do everything we can to hurry that day, when both Jew and Gentile together say the words with which the "Christian" scriptures close: "Come Lord Jesus." (Ibid., 355-6).
Michael Forrest notes that Bob's charge is especially unjust when applied to Schoeman, since Salvation is From the Jews was actually written in part as a critical and negative response to the RCM thesis:
All of this is especially ironic in Schoeman’s case as he wrote his book largely as a refutation of the unfortunate "Reflections on Covenenant [sic] Mission" document that was supportive of the two covenant theory (a document strongly criticized by Moss as well). While Bob seems to almost acknowledge this fact on one occasion, in others he errantly condemns Schoeman (and Moss) as though he is in agreement with RCM (documented above). (RSATJ:4).
So again, the central question raised by Schoeman's book is not whether the Jews have an independent and separate covenant with God. He explicitly rejects that idea. Rather, he asks this: "Do the Jews continue to have a role to play in salvation history following Christ; that is, between the first and the second coming?" (Salvation, p. 68). He answers yes. So does Card. Ratzinger:
Israel still has some way to go. As Christians, we believe that they will in the end be together with us in Christ. But they are not simply done with and left out of God's plans; rather, they still stand within the faithful covenant of God. (God and the World [San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000], pp. 148-150; cited here)
Precisely on account of the dramatic nature of this final tragedy, perhaps, a new vision of the relationship between the Church and Israel has arisen, a sincere intention of overcoming every kind of anti-Jewish attitude and of beginning a constructive dialogue in pursuit of knowledge of one another and of reconciliation. Such a dialogue, in order to be fruitful, has to start with a prayer to our God that he should above all grant to us Christians a greater esteem for this people, the Israelites, a greater love for them, for "to them 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 who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen" (Rom 9:4-5). And this is true not only with regard to the past; it is also true in the present, "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:29). We will also pray that he may vouchsafe to the sons of Israel a greater knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth, their son, the gift they have made to us. (Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion. Ignatius, 2005, pp. 272-3; bold emphasis his, italics mine.)
Note well that the Cardinal explicitly supports the idea that the Jews, as a distinct ethnic people, continue to possess a unique relationship with God as conveyed by St. Paul in Rom 9:4-5. Sungenis, on the other hand, has totally rejected any such claim, minimizing Rom 11:29 to mean nothing more than that Jews can still be saved by Christ:
R. Sungenis: Again, we see the same problem. Shawn has failed to see the difference between the Old Covenant as a legal entity and the Old Covenant as a spiritual foundation for the New Covenant. Moreover, Romans 11:29 merely says that the "gifts and calling of God" are "irrevocable," not that the Old Covenant is irrevocable. In fact, there is no statement in the Old or New Testament that says the Old Covenant is irrevocable. The "gifts and calling of God" are irrevocable because "gifts and calling" refer to God’s gift of salvation with which he calls each and every man. The whole context of Romans 11, especially Rm 11:1-2, is about whether God will still give the Jew the opportunity to be saved. The answer comes back: "Yes, they can still be saved, because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable." ("Dialogue on Old Covenant")
If Bob is going to throw charges of heresy at Roy Schoeman for claiming that the Jews as an ethnic people still have a special place in God's plan of salvation by virtue of God's covenant, then let him extend that charge to Card. Ratzinger as well. Granted, he's already called the Cardinal, "one of the best theologians with which the Church has been blessed" (Q&A Question 45, Jan 2007). But it would not be the first time that he has completely reversed himself if he has found it useful to do so.
To recap, it is entirely the burden of Bob Sungenis to prove his charges against Roy Schoeman according to his own standards:
- If there is an ambiguity that admits an orthodox interpretation, then it's not heresy.
- Heresy consists only in "direct and provable statements of error."
- The burden of proof is entirely on the accuser.
- Heresy is "deliberate, calculated and unequivocal statement to circumvent established dogma."
- The accuser is "required to give substantial evidence for the accusation and conviction."
- And finally, unless he can prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accuser has no case.
Sungenis has failed to meet every one of his own standards. He has fabricated quotes, taken material out context, ignored material in the book that runs directly contrary to his accusations, failed to make even the least effort to resolve any apparent ambiguities, interpreted every apparent weakness in the worst possible light, and arrogated to himself authority he does not possess. I consider it laughable that Bob would actually assert that he is going to bring any of this material before eccesiastical authority. But for my part, I would like to see Sungenis answer to the Church for such behavior. So Bob, please provide me with the parish in which you're registered, your pastor's name, and the name and address of your bishop. Thank you.
In my next section, I will highlight one of the main events Schoeman points to in support of God's ongoing care of and concern for the Jews, the Catholic belief that before the Second Coming of Christ there will be a significant conversion of the Jewish people to Christ.
