(Deification in Christ) — “The state of Israel as such cannot be regarded theologically as the fulfillment of God’s promise of land.” — Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, 2018, in reply to Rabbi Folger.
From Truman to Vatican II
One can see and hear for himself what President Harry S. Truman believed about his role in the establishment of Israel in the below 1-minute televised documentary. Now digitized, this film was preserved by the Truman Presidential Library and National Archives of the U.S. government. Truman is clear that he established Israel’s borders despite protestations by Israelis and Palestinians at the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948:
READ: Trump announces Iran-Israel ceasefire
The Second Vatican Council ended in 1965. This was 17 years after the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. The state of Israel was established only one year after the announcement of the Truman Doctrine which marked the start of the Cold War in 1947 and pledged to stop the spread of communism. Truman and the U.S. were the first nation to recognize the newly declared state of Israel on May 14, 1948 (11 minutes after Israel’s announcement).
The Vatican withheld official and full recognition of the state of Israel from 1948 to1993 even though it maintained informal but sincere brotherly relations with the state of Israel during the timeframe. The lack of full and official recognition by the Vatican was due to all the theological and political complexities involved. Those complexities included Christians in the Holy Land whose properties had been confiscated under Zionism as well as the intensity of the Cold War in regional hot wars.
The closing of Vatican II in 1965 was also two years before the 1967 war that left Israel’s boundaries in dispute at the United Nations until today. According to international law and the United Nations, Gaza and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) are Palestinian territory. They have been occupied by the invading force of the state of Israel since 1967. So why couldn’t these boundaries and borders be addressed sooner through the will of the international community? Besides Christian Zionists in America working politically against the rights of Palestinians with all their false prophecies and ideology, the larger chess board of the Cold War was in play.
All of these events, including Vatican II and the establishment of the state of Israel, happened in the wider context of the Cold War when the Soviet Union had become strategically anti-Zionist soon after Israel was established in 1948.
We should recall that what became the Cold War was ideologically primed by Winston Churchill in 1920. He viewed the rising tensions between the East and the West as a contest in which “Zionism vs. Bolshevism” would play an important role. His essay by that title explains his strategy.
For Churchill and his Anglo-American alliance, to support Zionism and Israel was portrayed as strategically supporting Western civilization on the geopolitical chess board against the Soviets. The emerging American-Israeli alliance reset the post-WWII chess table in the Middle East against Stalin until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The role of an expansionist and religious Zionism after the collapse of the Soviets is an interesting question since the state of Israel was originally based on international law in the secular sense [see Pope Emeritus Benedict quote below].
In the 1960s, it is not clear what more the Vatican could have done to alleviate all the tensions between superpowers and proxies in the Middle East. Lacking the secular power it once had before the World Wars, it chose to witness to Christ and His presence among us in the Church, the light of the nations [in Latin, lumen gentium].
Post WWII, there were no more Catholic kingdoms playing on the world stage. Vatican II had opened at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. In a world gone mad with nuclear weapons that could annihilate it, the greatly humbled ministers of the Church needed to avoid undermining the Protestant [but also Masonic] West which was trying to stop the spread of communism while protecting freedom of religion.
READ: ‘Neocons and warmongers’: MAGA leaders reject Trump’s aggression against Iran
All the while and simultaneously, the Church needed to prevent the Cold War from re-defining the “Israel of God” due to British-American “Christian” Zionism establishing “Israel” in 1948. The Church always knew that the ideology of Freemasonry posed a serious threat to the Catholic Church and fair cooperation of Church and state, a.k.a., Christendom.
Without taking anything away from Jewish immigrants who formed a secular government and homeland for Jews after WWII (and during the British Mandated Palestine 1920-1948), the Church gave a clear theological reminder to the entire world of her claims as the true light to the nations: the Church is the Israel of God, “the New Israel” [cf. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium #9.3; cf. Gal 6:16].
Perhaps subconsciously or just divinely inspired, the Church knew that the new secular nation of Israel, created as an instrument of British-American foreign policy, would eventually go beyond her initial secular “homeland” aspirations? Only upon the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and after the Oslo Accords in 1993 – along with pledges of Israel and Palestinians of working toward a two-state solution – did the Vatican officially and fully recognize the state of Israel. In 2016 the Vatican officially recognized the state of Palestine along with over currently 146 members of the United Nations.
From Vatican II to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI
In 1964, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, was promulgated. As the Dogmatic Constitution through which all other decrees and declarations of Vatican II must be interpreted, it was clear that the Church had always known itself to be the New Israel:
Israel according to the flesh, which wandered as an exile in the desert, was already called the Church of God. So likewise the new Israel which while living in this present age goes in search of a future and abiding city is called the Church of Christ. — [Lumen Gentium #9.3]
This always-professed and dogmatic title, repeated in the CCC #877, leads to the difficulty of how to recognize the political state of Israel which by 1948 had coalesced into international secular recognition. If it bears the name “Israel,” what is it actually claiming since only in Christ is God’s Israel continued and realized?
After the trauma of the Nazi Holocaust and WWII, the Jewish people had re-established a homeland through and within the British control of Palestine. With great love and sympathy for the Jewish people as the witnesses of the ancient covenants, and wishing for their protection, the Catholic Church had to distinguish between the rights of a people to form a state [in accord with international law] and contrast that to the theological claims that the people or state of Israel tried to claim or would try to claim. Within this milieu of ex post facto issues, Pope Emeritus Benedict in 2018 explained:
After the establishment of Israel as a country in 1948, a theological doctrine emerged that eventually enabled the political recognition of the State of Israel by the Vatican. At its core is the conviction that a strictly theologically-understood state – a Jewish faith-state [Glaubenstaat] that would view itself as the theological and political fulfillment of the promises – is unthinkable within history according to Christian faith and contrary to the Christian understanding of the promises.
At the same time, however, it was made clear that the Jewish people, like every people, had a natural right to their own land. As already indicated, it made sense to find the place for it in the historical dwelling place of the Jewish people. In the political situation of the collapsing Ottoman Empire and the British protectorate, this could be found in a manner consistent with the standards of international law. In this sense, the Vatican has recognized the State of Israel as a modern constitutional state, and sees it as a legitimate home of the Jewish people, the rationale of which cannot be derived directly from Holy Scripture. Yet, in another sense, it expresses God’s faithfulness to the people of Israel.
READ: The real threat to peace in the Middle East and the US is a nuclear Israel, not Iran
By 1993, the Vatican officially recognized the political state of Israel, but not that it was the true Israel of God which only Jesus Christ had brought to fulfillment. The Church had to be faithful to the Gospel that the Church is “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16). Simultaneously, the Church continued to recognize that Israel according to the flesh remained part of the historical record of God’s promises (cf. Rom 9:4-5) alongside the bearer of the New Covenant, the Church – the true “Israel of God” (cf. Rom 9:6-8; Gal 6:16).
The New Covenant bears and takes up into it by recapitulation (Eph 1:10) all the former promises to Abraham and Israel but it does not allow for a dual-covenant understanding of the recapitulation in Christ. The Mosaic covenant has become “obsolete” (cf. Hebrews 8:13) and the New Covenant is superior and determinative of God’s Israel. The Mosaic covenant was “provisional” and “pedagogical” (cf. CCC #122) and “broken” (Jeremiah 31:32).
Rejection of Christ mars one’s standing as the claim to being the Israel of God. Nevertheless, Israel according to the flesh as a people, not an ongoing covenant representative of the true Israel, still plays a part in God’s mercy and providence. The existence of Israel according to the flesh somehow continues the incorporation of the Gentiles into the true Israel of God, the Church (cf. Rom 11:25-26).
Responding to rabbis who were critical of his statements in 2018 that the state of Israel is not about the fulfillment of God’s promises of the land, Pope Emeritus Benedict clearly re-affirmed:
A suitable interpretation of the promise of land, in the context of the formation of the state of Israel, is of vital importance to all sides today. Without repeating all that I say in my text [2018 essay], I would like to reiterate my thesis, which is important not only for Christians, that the state of Israel as such cannot be regarded theologically as the fulfillment of God’s promise of land … I think, furthermore, that in this way it is not difficult to see that in the formation of the state of Israel we can recognize in a mysterious way God’s fidelity to Israel. — Letter from Benedict XVI to Rabbi Arie Folger, August 23, 2018 in What is Christianity? The Last Writings.
Israel according to the flesh never lost its calling and election for the sake of the Patriarchs (cf. Rom 11:28b and Nostra Aetate #4), “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29). Nevertheless, Israel according to the flesh currently lives as “enemies of God as regards the Gospel” (Romans 11:28a). The Church has always forbidden hatred of Jews for not accepting Christ and has taught that the sins of the Gentiles are just as much responsible for the passion and sacrifice of Christ as the Jews.
St. Augustine maintained Pauline distinctions: ‘According to the flesh’ vs. true Israel
Beyond the obvious basis in Galatians chapters 3-4 and 6:16, repeated in Romans 9-11, that the Church is the New Israel [see Biblical Catechesis: The Church Is the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16)], Saint Augustine’s Commentary on Psalm 76 [75 in the Latin Vulgate] succinctly captures the orthodox Christian tradition:
- “[those who have rejected Christ] are not worthy to be called Jews, except only in the flesh” [ch 1]
- “The true Judea, then is the Church of Christ, believing in that King, who hath come out of the tribe of Judah through the Virgin Mary” [ch 1]
- “Concerning Israel also we ought so to take it as we have concerning Judaea: as they were not the true Jews [those rejecting Jesus], so neither was that the true Israel … the true Sion is the Church of Christians” [ch 2]
READ: America must learn from the decline of previous empires before it’s too late
Hearing St. Augustine, it is understood that some Zionists might feel the need to clutch their pearl necklaces and declare “supersessionism!” as though there is some kind of error and he is teaching “revocation” of the covenant or something antisemitic. Any negative assertions are completely false. Many are too quick to paint Augustine in a false and negative light without proper consideration of the traditional and orthodox biblical exegeses and contexts. Pope Emeritus Benedict in the same and previously mentioned 2018 Communio essay warned about misrepresentations of the Church’s teachings on page 168:
It should be noted there was no “theory of substitution” [or “supersesssionism”] as such before the council [as the 2015 dialog with Jews commission imprecisely presented supersessionism] … Just as a “theory of substitution” did not exist as such, neither was a uniform view elaborated of Israel’s position in salvation history after Christ.
Discussion of how the New Covenant supersedes the Sinai covenant is not necessarily a negative form of “supersessionism.”
We must not deny foundations in Saint Paul that the Church is the new Israel:
But it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants (Rom 9:6-8; cf. Gal 4:26-31).
Paul is clearly referring to the true Israel of God! Here we find distinctions between Israel according to the flesh and Israel according to the Spirit or “promises” as Paul does in Galatians 4 and what Augustine did in his commentary on Psalm 76 and what the Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium #9.3 does. Thus, the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 is clearly the Church which is composed of Jews and Gentiles who have accepted Jesus Christ.
Refusing to consider Lumen Gentium 9.3 more deeply and making false claims about the Catechism of the Catholic Church, some “Catholic Zionists” elevate a declaration over a Constitution. They misread Augustine and say we must not present the Jews as “rejected” or God’s covenant as revoked. O.K. Checkmark. Never said it. Never did it and there is no antisemitic intent. God never “revoked” his covenant, he brought it to fulfillment in Christ, the telos of the law (Rom 10:4). This is why CCC #122 explains “never revoked” of CCC #121 in these terms:
Indeed, “the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men.” “Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,” the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love.
READ: Ted Cruz tries to use Scripture to justify war with Iran. Tucker Carlson isn’t buying it
Pay attention to “provisional” and “pedagogy” as key to the relation of some aspects of Sinai to the New Covenant, particularly ceremonial law and temple law.
In other words, the Old Covenant has not been revoked, it has been brought to fulfillment in Christ and what was pedagogical must give way to the truth and reality that was foreshadowed and promised. Jesus Christ brings Israel to fulfillment by recapitulation [cf. Ephesians 1:10] and not revocation.
“New Israel” is a reference to recapitulation and not revocation. While prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger published his essay which became the book, Many Religions, One Covenant in 1999. He showed the right way to understand any claim that the Old Covenant had never been revoked when discussing how the New Covenant supersedes the Old.
He was clear that we actually speak of “covenants” and must address which covenants experience change and development. He demonstrated that what began at Mount Sinai was brought to fulfillment and completion at Calvary. He is very clear: “The Sinai covenant is indeed superseded” on page 70 [bold mine]. Supersessionism does not intrinsically include forms of antisemitism or claims of rejection by God even though some forms can. As Pope Emeritus, Benedict repeated the same thought from 1999 when he wrote in his 2018 Communio essay:
Thus for Christians it is clear that all previous worship finds its meaning and fulfillment only in the fact that it moves toward the sacrifice of Christ … In reality therefore there is no “substitution,” strictly speaking, but a journey that eventually becomes one reality. And yet this entails the necessary disappearance of animal sacrifices, in place of which the Eucharist takes over (“substitutes”).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church #877 already reaffirmed Lumen Gentium 9.3, “It belongs to the sacramental nature of ecclesial ministry that it have a collegial character … Jesus instituted the Twelve as the ‘seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy.’” [bold mine and saw CCC reference by Shane Schaetzel on X]
The Biblicum and Galatians 6:16 the Church is the new ‘Israel of God’
Having already demonstrated in the previous “Biblical Catechesis article” that the correct understanding and translation of Galatians 6:16 is that the Church is the “Israel of God,” it should be noted that pretty much the entire Biblicum of 1960 [the Pope’s Biblical Institute in Rome] agreed that Galatians 6:16 was testimony to the doctrine that the Church is the “New Israel.” If the CCC and Dogmatic Constitution is not enough, recognized biblical experts and advisors who were at Vatican II can shed light.
Writing on the history of Nostra Aetate’s development [Vatican II’s “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions”], John Oesterreicher, a peritus and ghost writer of Nostra Aetate, summarized a petition from Rome’s Biblicum, signed by Rector Ernest Vogt, S.J., on behalf of 18 other Jesuit professors on April 24, 1960. The Biblicum petition wanted a declaration about ecumenism with the Jews and to oppose antisemitism. In 1967, Oesterreicher summarized their petition:
Christians are without doubt the true successors of the spiritual Israel, the authentic heirs of the faith of Abraham “our Patriarch” and of the blessing of Jacob, “the Israel of God,” as the Apostle says (Galatians 6:16). And therefore the Christian profession of faith can fittingly and rightly be called the “dignity of Israel,” as in the liturgy of Holy Saturday. [pp. 8-9 Vol. 3 of Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, edited by Vorgrimler in 1967; bold added].
READ: Trump rebukes Israel, Iran over hostilities after ceasefire announced
Christians are the successors and heirs of the Israel of God.
The Biblicum professors signed the petition as the prelude to what would become the declaration Nostra Aetate, so it should be obvious that the doctrine that the Church is the “Israel of God” never had “antisemitic” intent or a “supersessionism” that included such intent.
Denying the meaning of Ephesians 6:16 does not reduce antisemitism, but if anything fosters it by misrepresenting the sincerity of those defending St. Paul’s clear teaching in Galatians and Romans.
Months after the Biblicum petition of 1960, a similar request and petition came from the Institute of Judaeo-Christian Studies, U.S. The same John Oesterreicher, who was appointed by Cardinal Bea to work on Nostra Aetate, was an original signatory of the petition that followed the Biblicum’s. He summarized it for us:
If the Council were to enquire into the nature of the Church in the course of its deliberations, it should proclaim that the call of Abraham and the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt were part of the genesis of the Church, so that she can fittingly and rightly be called the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16), the Israel renewed and exalted by Christ’s word and blood.” [p.10-11 Vorgrimler ed.].
Notice that what began at Sinai is completed at Christ’s sacrifice as Ratzinger always showed. This is the clear teaching of Sts. Peter and Paul and continues into the Second Vatican Council and beyond.
As suggested in the 1960s petitions, the council enquired into the nature of the Church. It immediately called it a mystery, sacrament, and sign in the opening of Chapter One of Lumen Gentium. At the very opening of Chapter Two, which was titled: “People of God,” the first thing which the Dogmatic Constitution called the “People of God” was the title “the new Israel” #9.3 applied to the Church of Christ.
Reprinted with permission from Deification in Christ.
