(Deification in Christ) — In his July 2024 Homiletic and Pastoral Review [HPR] article, “Why Israel Matters: The Biblical Roots of Catholic Zionism,” André Villeneuve, the director of Catholics for Israel, argued in his reply to objections: “In the same vein, Catholic Zionism should support the right of the Jewish people to live in their ancestral homeland without necessarily taking any particular stand on related questions such as Israel’s borders, the political form of the modern nation-state of Israel, or how it should live in peace with its non-Jewish citizens and neighbors.”
The “Catholic Zionism” overall proposed in Villeneuve’s article is what motivated me to write what Crisis Magazine titled: “Against Catholic Zionism” in August of 2024. Nevertheless, my article was not specifically a refutation of Villeneuve’s earlier article (and why I never mentioned him in it or pretended to address his points). In fact, the original title I proposed was: “No Longer Your Grandfather’s Zionism.”
READ: UK government has been secretly supplying Israel’s genocide in Gaza for years: report
“Against Catholic Zionism” in August 2024 was written to refute Christians in general who were supporting the idea that Israel had a right to drive Palestinians from their lands in favor of Jewish claims based upon Old Testament prophecies and misreadings of Saint Paul and the Book of Revelation. The main point was to make sure Catholics in America were not imbibing fundamentalist Christian Zionist approaches to reading the Old Testament.
For this reason the article opened by highlighting Pope Benedict XVI’s 2018 Communio essay which explained that at the core of Christian doctrine concerning the state of Israel “is the conviction that a theologically-understood state – a Jewish faith-state [Glaubenstaat] that would view itself as the theological and political fulfillment of the promises [given to Abraham] – is unthinkable within history according to Christian faith and contrary to the Christian understanding of the promises [given to Abraham about the Land].”
Since then, I have been attacked similarly as was Pope Benedict XVI when he published his Communio essay. By various personalities, I have been falsely called an “antisemite,” an “arch-supersessionist,” an “anti-Zionist” (even though I support the right of the state of Israel to exist within legal boundaries).
People have written my employers to intimidate and silence me. It would be laughable if not for all the misrepresentations and the fact I’m an ardent supporter of the Second Vatican Council (as all my colleagues know). I’m also fond of ecumenical dialogue and have had strong episcopal support for my efforts.
Since André Villeneuve, director of Catholics for Israel, recently targeted me personally and my writings, I have decided to specifically refute a few key points of Villeneuve’s original HPR article from July 2024. I will give just three key criticisms of his original article to begin a series of articles refuting bad or erroneous ideas in his push for “Catholic Zionism.” I have no personal attacks to make and wish him well. My concern is doctrine.
First major criticism: Villeneuve’s presentation should not neglect law, history, and witness of Church Fathers
The “Catholic Zionism” of 2024 proposed by Villeneuve in his reply to objections seems to want to ignore history and the current illegal Jewish settler movements. Such settler movements are condemned by the U.N. and most countries throughout the world which also already recognize a Palestinian state, as does the Vatican since 2016. His advice of “not taking a particular stand” on “borders” or treatment of “non-Jewish citizens and neighbors” easily leads to ignoring: violations of property rights, violations of international law, and violations of the natural moral law [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] upon which civil law rests. Worse, it ignores Jesus’ own teaching and the Divine Law that the Jews would lose their rights to the Promised Land for killing the Son of God and trying to continue Israel without him, the Messiah.
Why am I supposed to pretend I can support illegal resettlement of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, or Gaza which belongs to the Palestinians and is in accord with natural, divine, and international law?
Forgive the politically-incorrect and blunt reminder. In Matthew 21:33-43, “The Parable of the Wicked Tenants,” it is rather clear that the Jews would lose the land and specifically Jerusalem for killing the Son of God: “[God] will put those wretches [who killed His Son] to a miserable death, and lease the vineyard to other tenants” (Mt 21:41). This is why Jerusalem would “be trampled under the feet of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). “Until” has been understood for over 1,600 years as a reference to the Second Coming, not Millenarianism which the Church condemns (cf. CCC #676).
READ: Radical Zionist Congressman Randy Fine calls for Gaza’s nuclear annihilation
And so, Jesus explained to the Jewish leadership of his time: “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it” (Mt 21:43). It’s obvious the new nation was founded on the 12 apostles (all Jews) to represent the “New Israel” as demonstrated in Revelation 21:14. The Book of Revelation depicts the mystery of the Church’s liturgical reign, especially after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. The Messiah’s reign is a kingdom not of this world even though this world can currently participate in it. Because it is a heavenly kingdom, the Messiah’s kingdom is “everlasting” in the truest sense of the word.
For the above reasons, Villeneuve is wrong to argue: “There is nothing in the New Testament that warrants the abrogation of God’s promise of the land as an ‘everlasting possession’ to Israel (Gen 17:8), or the hundreds of prophecies announcing Israel’s future return to the same land (see Matt 5:17–18).” On the contrary, since the Church is the New Israel these words apply ultimately to the kingdom of the Messiah.
Consider again the clarifications of Pope Benedict XVI: “A Jewish faith-state [Glaubenstaat] that would view itself as the theological and political fulfillment of the promises [given to Abraham] – is unthinkable within history according to Christian faith.”
Additionally, Villeneuve should address what happened historically under the Emperor Julian the Apostate before appealing for “Catholic Zionism.” A few months after my original Crisis Magazine piece, I tried reminding Christians about the history of Julian the Apostate and his Zionism in an article LifeSiteNews reprinted from catholic460.substack.com:
In 363 A.D., the formerly Christian Roman Emperor, Julian the Apostate, sought to destroy Christianity worldwide. He believed he could overthrow Christianity by proving false the prophecy of Jesus Christ concerning the permanent destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Since Jesus prophesied: “Truly I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down” (Mt 24:2), then by Julian sending the Jews back to rebuild the earthly Temple of Solomon in defiance of Christ, Julian intended to prove Jesus was not the Son of God. Julian sought to re-establish a Jewish faith-state, rebuild the Temple, and restore Jewish animal sacrifices in order that the rest of the world could return to paganism. Heaven and earth revolted against the attempt.
The historian Warren H. Carroll, the founder of Christendom College and a Columbia University Ph.D., wrote about this: “In all the years since that apocalyptic 10th of August [meaning Tisha B’Av], 70 A.D., only one attempt has ever been made to rebuild [the earthly Temple], by the Emperor Julian the Apostate in 363, as a deliberate defiance of the prophecy of Christ. A sober classical historian, Ammianus Marcellinus – a pagan, not a Christian – tells of earthquakes, the landslides, and the balls of fire coming out of the ground, that prevented the completion of the work” [A History of Christendom, Vol. 1, The Founding of Christendom, p. 428].
READ: Couple employed at Israeli Embassy murdered outside DC diplomat event
The witness of contemporary and major Church Fathers like Gregory Nazianzen and Christian historians of that time are much more detailed on all the miracles that accompanied the stopping of Julian the Apostate. See, Joshua Charles’ documentation of the historical witness at: “Pagan Attempt to Rebuild the Jerusalem Temple Thwarted.”
Ever since the well-documented attempts of Julian’s Zionism, Christians have known that trying to move Jews back into Jerusalem before they have accepted Christ might not be a good idea. This might explain why Saint Pius X explained to Theodor Herzl at an audience in 1904 why the pope of 1904 was against Zionism:
We cannot give approval to this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem – but we could never sanction it. The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot tell you anything different. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.
Villeneuve gives only a footnote to this. It deserves more than a footnote when reversing Pope Saint Pius X’s strong opinion as Vicar of Christ. My position is Pope Saint Pius X’s position: I cannot prevent you, but I am not going to encourage you; especially if it involves ignoring the morals of Jesus Christ upon which the Geneva Conventions drew their force.
Coupled with the historical fact that God destroyed the First and Second Temple on the exact same day, which Jews commemorate as Tisha B’Av, and that the Second Temple was destroyed within 40 years after Christ’s specific warning that the Temple and Jerusalem would be destroyed for murdering Him (cf. Luke 11:49-51), then perhaps trying to rebuild “Israel” without Christ is not a good idea?
When attempts were made to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple in 363 A.D., fire came out of the ground, consumed workers, and left miraculous crosses imprinted on the clothes of other workers (who also converted to Christianity due to it).
Blowing off this testimony of Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, and multiple major Church Fathers is not wise. It is no wonder there has never been a “Catholic Zionism” since these events because Christians and pagans grew in respect for Christ’s words in Matthew 24:2 and Matthew 21:33-43.
Finally, the recent statement from the office of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem should not be contradicted by Catholics in America who could appear to be undermining his rightful authority.
In 2025, the Latin Patriarch’s representative “reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s rejection of any interpretation that seeks to claim the land of Palestine for the Jewish people based on the Torah, as promoted by Christian Zionism in the United States.” The link to this exact quote is on the Latin Patriarch’s official website HERE. The office of the Latin Patriarch was speaking in solidarity with the position of Pope Benedict XVI.
Second major criticism: Villeneuve’s claim ‘New Israel’ is foreign to the New Testament
More troublesome to me was Villeneuve’s seeming denial that the Catholic Church is the “New Israel” and so I will quote his original paragraph from 2024 in full:
The concept of a “New Israel” is not only foreign to the New Testament. It also does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If the Church is the “new Israel,” it is by virtue of being grafted into the original Israel and sharing in its promises, not by replacing Israel and appropriating its promises (Rom 11:17–18). Nevertheless, because the expression “new Israel” is so often misunderstood in a supersessionist way, implying that the Church has replaced the “old Israel,” perhaps it is best avoided altogether. As Nostra Aetate says, “although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures (NA 4). Gifts and Callings goes even further: If the Church is called the new people of God, this is “not in the sense that the people of God of Israel has ceased to exist”; nor does it mean that “Israel as the people of God has been repudiated or has lost its mission.” On the contrary, the covenant “remains valid on the basis of God’s unfailing faithfulness to his people”; Israel thus remains “God’s chosen and beloved people of the covenant which has never been repealed or revoked.”
READ: Western media, politicians are turning against Israel over genocide in Gaza
There are multiple problems in the above claims. I will limit myself to three. First, and most importantly, Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, is clear that the Church is the “new Israel” in paragraph 9.3:
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. [Emphasis added]
Arguments about what is in the Catechism do not take away from this. A Dogmatic Constitution is what guides bishops in understanding what they must uphold as the doctrine of the faith and the faith of the Church. It is superior to the Catechism.
Secondly, Nostra Aetate is a “declaration” and is meant to be read within a pastoral framework that remains absolutely subject to the Dogmatic Constitution. A Dogmatic Constitution has greater authority and precedence than a declaration. The Dogmatic Constitution re-establishes the actual faith of the Church. Nostra Aetate has no standing when read apart from the Dogmatic Constitution.
When read carefully, Nostra Aetate implicitly claims the Church is the New Israel when it says: “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God” (#4.6). The Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium #9.3 was promulgated one year earlier (1964) when it taught the Church is the “new Israel,” and so Nostra Aetate (1965) is reaffirming LG #9.3 as the foundation of its claim that the Church is “the new people of God.” Shouldn’t this end the debate?
Thirdly, Gifts and Callings, is only a commission document, much like the 1982 Notes document also used in Villeneuve’s essay. The commission documents attempt to continue the interfaith discussions exhorted by Nostra Aetate. It is for this reason that its value is stated in Gifts and Callings’ own preface:
The text is not a magisterial document or doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church, but is a reflection prepared by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews on current theological questions that have developed since the Second Vatican Council.
It is not a magisterial document!
In other words, the 2015 commission document [Gifts and Callings] is a reflection to foster dialogue and cannot be read in a manner that overrides a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church which made clear the Church is the New Israel.
Pope Bendict XVI in 2018 was clear that the commission document contained many imprecise statements. Ecumenical interfaith efforts are not the same as doctrinal pronouncements. Lesser documents of a pastoral nature must be read through Dogmatic Constitutions. Again, Nostra Aetate’s reference to the “new people of God” is a reference to the Church being the “New Israel.” Villeneuve’s assertion that “New Israel” is foreign to the New Testament makes me wonder what he thinks the New Testament formed?
READ: Pope Leo XIV appeals for end to Gaza ‘hostilities’ in first general audience
Just as serious, and contrary to Villeneuve’s assertion, Saint Paul does not say the Church was “grafted into Israel” in Romans 11. Instead, Paul says the Gentiles were grafted into Israel: “I am speaking to you Gentiles” (Rom 11:13). Jesus is the ultimate Israel and does not get grafted into anything. Rather, Israel gets grafted or taken into Him, the Alpha and the Omega, the telos of the Law (Romans 10:4). Jesus recapitulates all things according to Saint Paul in Ephesians 1:1-10. Therefore, Jesus recapitulates Israel in Himself and so makes the New Israel. From the throne, Jesus is clear: “Behold, I make all things new” (Rev 21:5).
I’m trusting Villeneuve was ignorant of the Dogmatic Constitution’s use of “new Israel” when he wrote his HPR piece. For those who are not, rightly applied are the words of Saint Peter: “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20); and, “there are some things in Paul’s writings, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Pet 3:16). One has worked against the analogy of faith (cf. CCC #114) when one knowingly encourages Catholics to contradict a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.
Third major criticism: Villeneuve misrepresents Saint Paul in Galatians 6:16
Limiting the meaning of “New Israel,” leads to other misinterpretations when reading Saint Paul. Villeneuve implies the RSV’s translation of Galatians 6:16 is faulty. This claim is what built towards his trying to limit the meaning of “New Israel.”
Here is the full paragraph from Villeneuve:
“Israel” is also used in a special sense in Galatians 6:15–16, where Paul writes: “Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God” (RSV2CE). The RSV translation sounds as if all who walk by the rule of Christ (i.e., all Christians) are the “Israel of God.” But the RSV leaves out the crucial word “and” (Greek kai) from the original text, which the NABRE renders more accurately: “Peace and mercy be to all who follow this rule and to the Israel of God.” Thus, all those who follow Christ’s rule (all Christians) are not identical with the “Israel of God” (those Jews who believe in Christ) but distinct from them.
READ: Netanyahu’s ‘poison machine’ is targeting his critics, including families of released hostages
Villeneuve’s use of the NABRE translation – which does not necessarily support his theological interpretation of it – goes against Paul’s clear intention of Chapters 3 and 4 of Galatians as well as the analogy of faith which is clearly established in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #9.3 that the Church is the “New Israel.” The analogy of faith is one of three keys necessary for proper hermeneutics of the divine plan as the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum #12.3 established and Verbum Domini #34 clarified (see also CCC #114).
Using Greek scholars and standard Greek grammar books, my article of late December 2024 [“Biblical Catechesis: The Church is the ‘Israel of God’ (Gal 6:16)”] refuted Villeneuve’s argumentation without even realizing Villeneuve had been downplaying the RSV’s translation of the meaning. [I must have read Villeneuve too quickly a year ago.] Again, I originally wrote the Catechesis article [linked above] with the intent to correct an Anglican scholar and correspondent and not Villeneuve. However, the Catechesis article refutes Villeneuve as well:
Without sufficient knowledge of Greek grammar, some readers will argue that the translation into English should read “and upon the Israel of God.” After all, in the Greek there is clearly a kai (“and”) to which no word corresponds in the RSV translation. The problem with demanding that kai be translated by “and” is that kai can have senses in Greek that “and” cannot have in English. The word kai in Greek, like the word “namely” or the phrase “that is” in English, is often used to introduce a re-wording for the sake of clarity or amplification, but “and” is seldom used that way in English. In Galatians 6:16 the kai signifies that the phrase that follows, “upon the Israel of God,” rewords an earlier phrase, “upon those keeping the rule.” Its use here conveys that “the Israel of God” are one and the same people as those who keep the rule. The new rule, implicitly faith in Christ which causes “new creation,” is what now constitutes “the Israel of God.”
Standard Greek Grammar texts explain these cases: “kai often = namely, for example, and so where an antecedent statement is explained either by another word or by an example”; this is done “often to set forth a climax and not an alternative.” In other words, and contrary to Pre-Millennial Dispensationalists, Saint Paul is not establishing “the Israel of God” in 6:16 as an alternative to those who have become a “new creation” in Galatians 6:15. Rather, by including kai in the final clause of Galatians 6:16 he is emphatically stating that the circumcised and uncircumcised who have become a new creation because they accepted his new “rule [of faith]” are “namely” the “Israel of God.”
Anyone who would interpret the meaning as though the Israel of God is distinct from the new creation in Christ is simply reading the Greek wrongly. They are ignoring the clear and entire context of Galatians and all of Paul’s writings prior to Romans 11, namely/and that God’s people, God’s Israel are now justified by faith in Christ and not works of law [i.e. fleshly circumcision]. Otherwise, the Jews wouldn’t have bothered persecuting Paul for this very teaching that the Israel of God now includes the Gentiles.
Whether literally translating “and” or giving the better Greek understanding, the analogy of faith (cf. VD #34; CCC #114) makes clear how to understand Galatians 6:16.
André Villeneuve is scheduled to debate/dialogue with me on June 13. My understanding is that not all of it will be made public and is limited to the “meaningofcatholic.com” guild members for whom it is currently scheduled. This article helps to share the concerns I will be addressing as part of the debate and dialogue.
Reprinted with permission from Deification in Christ.
