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.”

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?

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.