Although Israel is not central to Principles of Catholic Theology: Book 4, On the Church, Mary, Nature and Grace, a new collection of essays by prominent theologian Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP, the book offers two extended reflections that provide deeply needed clarity on Catholic conceptions of Israel.
The first essay, “On Good Supersessionism: Jews, Christians, and the Covenant That Binds and Divides Us,” presents refreshing guidance on this much debated theological topic, while the second essay, “The State of Israel and the Holy See: A Theological and Ethical Perspective,” helps Catholics navigate what Catholic teaching says (and doesn’t say) about Israel.
True and false supercessionism
Fr. White begins the first essay by observing that in contemporary Catholic theology, there are five prominent expressions of the notion of a Christian supersession of the people of Israel.
The first, called covenantal displacement, posits that the people of Israel and their descendants, though once in a covenant with God of supernatural origin, no longer enjoy an elective status, which has been transferred to the Church.
The second, divine reprobation, is the idea that the Jewish people were or are collectively responsible for the death of Christ and, accordingly, by divine decree, are historically and perpetually collectively alienated from God.
Another supersessionist thesis is the unique mediation of Christ, which posits that because the revelation of God given in Christ has an absolute and universal character, it supersedes all previous revelation given to Israel or subsequent claims to religious truth.
The fourth, Christological mediation theory as Judaic displacement, holds that if one affirms Christ is the unique, universal saving mediator, then this entails both covenantal replacement and reprobation, and thus Christological universalism is anti-Judaic.
Finally, sacramental fulfillment and sublimation is the affirmation that the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law have been abrogated by the sacraments of the New Law.
With this important context in place, White offers a surprising preface to this debate: biblical supercessionism is originally a creation of the ancient Hebraic prophets, relying on the Torah itself. This is because God’s covenant with Israel supersedes the covenants God made with Adam (and thus the human race) and later Noah (Gen. 3:14-19; 9:1-17). Moreover, the covenant with Abraham and Moses occurs within a broader context in that the grace given to Israel is intended to eventually extend to the entire human race, something the Old Testament prophets constantly reminded the people of Israel. Thus, both Jews and Christians are supersessionist, and both are so in relation to all preceding human religious traditions and practices.
Of course, the Christian perspective offers an additional sense of supersessionism, based on the fact that the revelation given to the ancient Jewish people is open to fulfillment, and that the New Testament claims to fulfill the Old. In light of the death and Resurrection of Christ, the covenant restricted to the practice of the Mosaic law realizes a genuine universality, since Christ’s atonement fulfills the law and opens up God’s covenant to the nations, as baptism fulfills and universalizes circumcision, continuing the dynamic of the Old Testament in a more perfect way, providing a medium by which the gentile nations may enter the covenant.
But while the New Testament replaces the ceremonial law of the Old Testament, it does not, strictly speaking, replace ancient biblical Judaism. As Jesus says: “Salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22)
Yet, White explains, the Church “superseding” current practitioners of post-Biblical Judaism is theologically unintelligible. For starters, Orthodox Judaism as it existed for the past two millennia is in many respects a post-Christian development, one that came into being in the wake of the destruction of the Temple and Israel as an ancient nation-state. Because of this, it cannot really be “superseded” in any unambiguous sense of the term, since it developed alongside the Church. Though the New Testament provides a qualified supersessionism regarding the revelation and mediation of Christ and his new sacramental economy, these claims cannot refer in a straightforward way to the Jewish people who came after Christ.
Moreover, St. Paul teaches in the Epistle to the Romans, in chapters 9 through 11, that after the coming of Christ, God remains faithful to his covenant with the Jewish people, including those who do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah and Lord. God does not abandon them, and their continued existence retains religious significance, since the Jews’ eventual reconciliation with the Church has eschatological meaning. Aquinas, among other Catholic thinkers, says that the continued existence of the Jewish people serves as a perpetual sign of the reality of the ancient covenant. And the Second Vatican Council’s Nostra Aetate explicitly rejects the idea that the Jewish people are collectively reprobate, and condemns any teaching that holds the Jews in contempt, instead favoring prerogatives of charity and human justice.
In short, Christ without biblical Judaism is unintelligible, and without Christ the Gentile world could not receive the many truths revealed to the people of Israel (not to mention Mary, who in her long-suffering virtue embodies expectant, righteous Israel). When Christians in any way deny the covenantal dignity of the Jewish people, they not only supersede the Torah but also the Cross, which in turn undermines the core of the Christian Faith.
So, while the Church teaches that Christ is the culmination of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, the Jewish people are related to God by their original covenant through Christ.
The Catholic Church and Israel
Given the above, how should Catholic theology understand Israel today? Certainly, the Old Testament provides evidence of a divine promise to the land of Israel, originally pledged to Abraham, reinstantiated in the Torah, and reiterated in the prophetic literature and history of the ancient people of Israel. Because of this, it is tempting to make certain conclusions about the land of Israel today in light of its reestablishment in the mid-twentieth century, and especially as a response to the inhumanity of the Shoah.
Nevertheless, White believes this to be an error for four reasons.
First, there is little basis for such a claim in classical Catholic theological tradition, as the New Testament makes little or no pronouncement on the matter of Israel’s right to the land or any ongoing Christological and eschatological significance of the Jews living on the land after the coming of Christ.
Second, if Catholic theologians demonstrate respect for the political sovereignty of the state of Israel based on an insufficiently biblical and Catholic theology, their arguments will appear arbitrary. For Christians unsympathetic to the nation of Israel, such a position could provoke some to assess that recognition of the state of Israel is correlated to unwarranted theological innovation. They could presume by consequence, falsely, that a return to traditional theological sources and orthodoxy requires the repudiation of the diplomatic recognition of Israel.
Third, the territorial boundaries of Israel as they relate to ancient promises are historically obscure. How is the ancient notion of a promised land intended to translate into a concept of state sovereignty and diplomatic respect of territorial identity in the context of modern nation-states and in light of territorial expansion? “Catholics should be careful about imposing anachronistically their historical reconstructions of Israel upon a modern historical and political situation that is in many respects novel and alien to the biblical text,” writes White.
Fourth, there are new complicating theological conflicts and competitions. Many Jews are secular and do not appeal to a divine right to the land, while many religiously observant Jews do not affirm the divine right to the land in its current context. How is a Catholic theology of Israel to make sense of such persons? Binding Catholic theological conceptions of the Jewish people too tightly to the modern state of Israel would seem to define Judaism and Jews on relative adherence to the land promise.
There is a sounder basis for Catholic recognition of the modern state of Israel. Natural Law and the rights of states, for example, apply to any people sharing a common culture, history, legal tradition, and internal government system, as well as a territorial unity or continuous location in place and time. Natural law also acknowledges the place of nation-states within a larger international order bound by common justice and called to a collaboration of universal brotherhood or fraternity. And natural law acknowledges distinct nations and their roles in the divine economy and the larger universal order of all nations. Moreover, natural law demands a certain respect and tolerance for the religious freedom of others.
Of course, these principles would apply not only to Israel but to all people groups. And that would include the historic Christian population of the Levant, which was the majority in the fifth century and remained about ten percent of the population of Palestine into the middle of the 20th century.
Jews and Christians, White observes, share a common spiritual patrimony and potentially convergent mission. They share a common source of revelation. Nevertheless, the ongoing covenant of the people with God does not depend upon the modern state of Israel, even if the modern state may in some qualified ways embody or express the ongoing commitment to the pursuit of the covenant with God on the part of the Jewish people, and reflect a certain theological fittingness of the enactment of the covenant on the land of Israel.
In sum, Catholics should maintain reservations regarding a distinctly theological notion of the land-right, because such a perspective risks undermining any commitment to recognizing Israel by basing this recognition on a theological grounding that is “novel, untested, and not widely accepted.” Moreover, as Catholic teaching implies, reserve is warranted because all nations have just as legitimate a claim to the recognition of their natural rights.
White’s cogently argued position on Israel is thus ultimately grounded in Church teaching and tradition, holding in careful tension the validity of supersessionism, natural law, and the significance of the perduring covenant of God with the Jewish people. As with the rest of this excellent collection, we have come to expect nothing less from one of America’s best theologians.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I don’t have any reservations about God’s Chosen People living in the homeland He gave to them and their descendants.
When you look at a map you can see it’s a very tiny bit of land- even after adding back Judea and Samaria.
A much-needed understanding. Thanks to the present author and to Fr White. Fundamentalists have an uncritical stance vis a vis the State of Israel and, in fact, argue for its divine institution. This is rather self-serving since they use the existence of the State of Israel to advance their eschatology. Catholics do not accept their eschatology and thus should not subscribe to what is, in reality, a political judgment. And Jews, be careful of how you are being used to promote a tenet which, ultimately, is not truly favorable to Jews and Judaism.
With respect, I don’t question God’s promises Father. It’s not just about Fundamentalist eschatology but about a great many of our separated Christian brethren who also take God at His word & trust in His promises.
May God bless & protect Israel .
I seem to recall I first read about Jews having rights to the land in modern times under natural law in a book called The Catholic Answer by Fr. Stravinskas.
Good times.
You post contains three giant leaps.
First, that the modern, secular nation state of Israel, created ex nihilo in 1949 is contiguous with the Israel of the OT, or is the rightful heir. This is dubious because there were no Westphalian nation states in antiquity.
Second, that opinions of foreigners matter to the people of the ME. We should have learned from out extraterritorial adventures that we can only impose our wishes and values through subterfuge and blood.
Third, that somehow, the affairs of that modern nation of Israel state are of primary important to Christians. I am not apostate Sean Hannity, Baptist Minister turn politician Mike Huckabee or Cross covering, yarmulke wearing Marco Rubio. (If you deny me before men..)
I hear constantly about Israel and Islam, while the ME Christian communities are slowly being eradicated. I hear almost nothing about the Nigerian Christians subjected to everything from harassment to martyrdom.
They are my first concern. If the Middle East is going to constantly be at war as it has for millennia-and it will-agreements not withstanding-then to the extent that we can do anything, let’s relieve the sufferings of Christian brothers and sisters. Enough ink and dollars have been spent on “foreign entanglements”.
What would be a problem when one wears a kippah to show respect?
It’s typically worn in places of prayer like the wall of the Temple in Jerusalem.
Good manners and respect are not a religious betrayal.
I’m very concerned about the direction some traditional Catholics are taking. And those on the other side are worrisome as well.
When a society or faith community starts looking for scapegoats we should be asking why.
“I’m very concerned about the direction some traditional Catholics are taking.”
As am I. There is one particular Traditional Catholic site that has gone so far as to take sides with muslim terrorists due to their hatred of all things Jew. I was banned from commenting on that site for pointing this out. Israel in not perfect, nor are we and nor is any other nation. But when you take the side of murderous barbarians, some looking internally is in order.
I stopped reading & commenting on a traditional Catholic site that went in that same direction, Augustus. When we comment we can increase the online traffic & revenue to some extent. I try to only comment on sites like CWR that I believe are fair-minded & orthodox.
“What would be a problem when one wears a kippah to show respect?”
The wearing of a Kippah wasn’t required in all traditions and it’s now a sign of ethnic pride.
Respect must be reciprocal. Christians don’t have an analogous form of distinctive clothing, but how many Jews do you think pray at St. Peter’s Basilica (at all), let alone adopting Catholic gestures or prayers?
Worse, why is it that it was reported that Rubio covered up his cross, if true, was this a specific demand or “preemptive surrender”?
“If you deny me…”
Sorry, I’m not a pseudo-Catholic dispensationalist.
But the deeper question is this respect or submission.
As a Catholic Zionist I note Anti-Zionist Catholics use the term “Dispensationalist” as a smear word to misrepresent our views and to uncharitably mock us.
Tis similar to how early Molinists called Banez Thomists “Calvinists” and Thomists reciprocated by calling them “Semi-Plagianists” till the Pope told both groups to cut it out.
One is tempted to reciprocate against anti-Zionists by calling them Neo-Marcionites. But visiting evil for evil is cringe so I will resist my own lower impulses…;-)
There is nothing “dispensationalist” in Catholic Zionism. Protestantism in all forms is false. The Pope wears a Kepha so why can’t I if I visit a Synagogue?
Also note. Muslims can, because of their religion, do some Catholic things (like pray to Mary) but WE cannot, because of Our Faith, reciprocate (like Honor or invoke Muhammed’s name). Why is “The Pitchfork Rebel” surprised? Catholicism comes from Judaism so some Jewish things WE CAN DO because it is compatible with our faith(pray the Psalms, wear a Kepha). They (the Jews) cannot reciprocate(do the sign of the Cross, bow to the Eucharist) because of their current incomplete faith till by Divine Grace we lead them to Messiah & His True Church and they become Completed Jews.
Which leads me to something else. Being contra Zionist is not anti-Semitic. But all anti-Semites are anti-Zionist and some of this vile evil bleeds into Catholic Anti-Zionism. Which in turn, turns off Jews to belief in Jesus as they see us as enemies.
Can we cut that out? I witnessed the Debate between Dr. André Villeneuve and Dr. Matthew Tsakanikas on Catholic Zionism. While I was rooting for Dr. V(Catholic Zionist) I was impressed by Dr.T (the anti-Zionist) because he was able to distance himself from the extremists on his “side” & affirm his love of the Jewish people. Also he admitted Jews do have a natural right to the Land even if he disavowed a supernatural one. Some of his political analysis I care not for but he did impress me even thought I disagree.
Let’s have more Tsakanikas and Less Candace Owens/Nick Fuentes here. That would be helpful.
Respect or submission?
Wrong question.
Catholics respect the truth and submit in humility to win souls.
Cheers Shalom and Pax Christi.
Courtesy isn’t a denial.
God speaking to Abraham:
I will give to you and to your descendants after you the land in which you are now staying, the whole land of Canaan, as a permanent possession. Genesis 17:8.
Some translations give “permanent” as forever or eternal.
So, my question is why do these words not mean what they seem to say? Just asking.
Sounds pretty clear to me Crusader.
Not being a theologian can have it’s advantages. I don’t have to overthink this.
🙂
And just exactly where -pre or post exile-are the boundaries of Canaan ?
I think there are some maps in the back of my mother’s Douay Rheims Bible.
Mrscracker – If I knew how to insert a thumbs emoji I would do so.
This is a very complex issue and not subject to simplistic answers. Like gas and water, politics and religion do not easily mix ;and when you add the third dimension of time and entitlement , the complexity only increases. Emotion, prejudice, and preconceptions further complicate the matter to the extent that finding a common ground of consensus is almost impossible. The irony of the matter is probably best expressed in the observation of some of New York’s most conservatives Jews protesting against the State of Israel on the streets with pro-Palestinian (not Hamas) signs. These Jews feel strongly that the Palestinians should have a free state. Try to get your head around that one!
What you see is partly paid orchestration, partly self hating Jews trying to assimilate.
Partly Jews on the extreme fringes.
There used to be a Jewish man like that in Jerusalem’s Old City. He had a photo of Hitler reserved in a special place. His rationale was that minus Hitler the modern state of Israel would never have become a reality. So that photo was a reminder to him to be grateful to Hitler for that.
Jews come in all sorts & sizes & sometimes extremes but the overwhelming majority of US Jews support Israel. And many understand that the 2 state solution has already been tried & found wanting.
“His rationale was that minus Hitler the modern state of Israel would never have become a reality.”
He may have been the village idiot, but you need to understand that a lot of people aren’t willing, to quote Rahm Emmanual, “let a good crisis go to waste”. That’s just utilitarianism on steroids. Many people, including Abraham Lincoln were and are willing to do “whatever it takes” to enshrine or preserve a political reality or to preserve or capture a piece of ground. That’s the bellicose nature of humanity.
Since I live in Pennsylvania, I’m acutely aware of Jewish support for Israel. The present Governor of this state, an odious leftist devoted to the slaughter of the unborn with a Napolean complex- Shapiro enlisted in the IDF. Not the United States Army, the IDF. He of course played it off as a “service project” when it became as issue for him.
A great many prominent Jews condition their political affiliation and activities on support for Israel, that is their right. But exercising that right entitles to question if they are “Israel First”? I am of course entitled to my view that at this point, Israel’s right to exist should include a responsibility to self-sufficiency.
Now as a practical matter, in my perfect world, service in a foreign military (unless specifical authorized by the United States chain of command as a military necessity) or government should result in automatic loss of citizenship.
And before anybody responds “what about PLXIV?” the answer is yes, he should no longer be a citizen of the United States, since he is now the head of the nation state of the Vatican. (Won’t happen, but it should). I would extend that for people like the actress who became Queen of Monaco, Grace Kelly, even though she wasn’t the head of state.
I think that man was an example of the village’s weirdest fringe element. But no less so than Jews chanting From The River to the Sea.
Sound more like typical Jewish humor? Mel Brooks’ philosophy was to depict Hitler and the Nazis as silly figurse to take away their power as grand demonic nightmare figures. It was a form of subtle but grand humiliation.
That is what it sounds like here. A Jewish man sporting a picture of Hitler to honor how his actions lead to the creation of a Jewish State seems to me like a subtle form of Mockery & rubbing it in.
One could picture (no pun intended) Hitler sitting in the fires of the Pit shaking his head over how all his efforts backfired big time.
Ah well then….:D
Cheers, Shalom and Pax Christi
Pitchfork Rebel said:
“And before anybody responds “what about PLXIV?” the answer is yes, he should no longer be a citizen of the United States, since he is now the head of the nation state of the Vatican.”
No. The U.S. recognizes dual citizenship as long as the non-American country does as well.
I may add, James, that they also deny the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. 😰
Sadly, that reflects some Catholics’ viewpoints also, Br. Jacques.
I’m looking forward to that article Sandra Meisel promised to share.
🙂
There are movements among some Christians to support the Jewish people in the rebuilding of the Temple and restoring animal sacrifice. I do not understand why Christians would encourage this.
As a former Quaker might say: Mrs Cracker speaks my mind :-))
Really? Thank you. That’s interesting Miss Mary. I believe some of my mother’s family were Quakers back in the UK long ago.
This article never mentioned “Apostle” even once. Judaism can add nothing further to the Redemption -Heb 4:13. Christ went to the Father already and sent the Spirit and the service of Christ is to His Kingdom.
The modern State of Israel is not the Israel of the Bible, and no amount of theological gymnastics can baptize ethnic cleansing as covenantal destiny. Fr. Thomas Joseph White’s attempt to offer a “qualified supersessionism” wrapped in Thomistic nuance may impress seminarians, but it dodges the moral catastrophe happening in front of us. When a state bombs hospitals, starves children, destroys churches, and turns refugee camps into mass graves, Catholics should not be reaching for footnotes—we should be reaching for the Gospel.
The land promises to Israel? Fulfilled already (Joshua 21:43–45, Nehemiah 9:23). The return from exile? Accomplished under Cyrus (Ezra 1). The covenant? Brought to fullness—not abolition—in Christ (Galatians 3:29). The true Israel? The Body of Christ, not a settler-colonial state founded in 1948 through the Nakba: the forced displacement of 700,000 Palestinians, including Christian communities with roots in the land older than the Vatican itself.
The Church does not owe theological legitimacy to apartheid or occupation. Natural law does not sanction home demolitions, indefinite detention, or the mass slaughter of civilians. To conflate a modern ethno-nationalist project with the people of God is not just theological error—it’s moral failure.
Jesus did not die to enshrine statehood. He died to break down “the dividing wall of hostility” (Ephesians 2:14). The kingdom of God is not founded on tanks and treaties, but on justice, mercy, and peace. To be Catholic is to stand with the crucified, not with those who crucify in His name.
If Catholics are to witness to the Gospel in a time of genocide, we must reject false prophecy, reject political Zionism masked as theology, and proclaim Christ’s new covenant—a covenant that includes all people, especially those under siege.
‘When a state bombs hospitals, starves children, destroys churches, and turns refugee camps into mass graves, Catholics should not be reaching for footnotes—we should be reaching for the Gospel.’
Amen
Except that Israel is doing none of those things, so your point is moot, and antisemitic.
Exactly Athanasius. Thank you.
‘Except that Israel is doing none of those things [ i.e. bombs hospitals, starves children, destroys churches, and turns refugee camps into mass graves]’
So you are trying to convince me that the IDF, which has the capacity, inter alia, to kill the likes of Saeed Izadi in the city of Qom (Iran) and also to kill Mohammad Reza Zahedi and 7 other prominent Iranians in the ambassador’s residence in Damascus nonetheless contrived to misfire on at very least 68,159 occasions with most unfortunate and quite unintended fatal results as well as mis-firing on a further 170,203 with ‘only’ non-fatal (but major life changing) consequences?
For myself, I’m far more likely to believe presidential hokum that drinking neat bleach is a safe and effective antidote to Covid!
My Fellow James Scott(cool name BTW)
I have no reason to believe Hamas’ self reported casualty reports anymore than I believe the President obvious joke was meant to be literal as the media claimed.
Also I think you might play too many video games(we have all been their).
Urban Warfare is Chaotic not easy like a video game. Locating a known high profile individual and eliminating them is in fact easier than unknown generic terrorists who engage in Gorilla warfare.
So this idea Israel or any advanced western country can magically kill a limited number of wicked individuals without civilian casualties is fantasy.
I hate to break it too you but Dave Smith is a mere comedian not a military expert…
So no Israel does not do these things.
Israel is not doing any of that. I agree with mrscracker and Athanasius.
BTW I am a different Jim/James Scott then this person so I will be posting as Jim the Scott or James the Scott or BenYachov. I am pro-Israel and Catholic.
For the record.
I’m going with God on this one Deacon Dom. It wasn’t called the Promised Land for nothing. God’s promises don’t have limited warranties. He is trustworthy.
As a Catholic Zionist I am no more required to reject Catholic Zionism than an English Catholic is compelled to disavow their loyalty to the English Crown to appease an Irish Catholic Republican.
I deny Israel is committing Genocide and it is not an apartheid State. You can hand out tracts in Israel & the worst that will happen is some extremist Frum Jews will spit on the ground in front of you.
Try converting Muslims in Gaza or the West back & see if you make it out alive with your head.
I dare you. Not I take that back. I won’t want you to do something stupid…
Thank you Jim the Scott.
The State of Israel Is Not the Israel of the Bible
A common and dangerous theological error is the belief that the modern State of Israel, established in 1948, is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy and a continuation of ancient Israel. This conflation of a modern political entity with the covenant people of God is both biblically unfounded and historically distorted.
The Land Promise Was Already Fulfilled
The promise of land to Abraham’s descendants was fulfilled in ancient times, as the Bible clearly states:
“Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their ancestors… Not one of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.”
— Joshua 21:43–45
“You brought them into the land that you told their ancestors to enter and possess.”
— Nehemiah 9:23
These are not future prophecies—they refer to historical events completed long before modern times.
The Return from Exile Already Happened
The return of the Jewish people from Babylonian exile also occurred centuries before the modern era:
“In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia… the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus… to proclaim: ‘The Lord… has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem… Any of his people among you may go up to Jerusalem.’”
— Ezra 1:1–3
This return, along with the rebuilding of the Temple and Jerusalem’s walls, was celebrated in Scripture and understood as the fulfillment of God’s promise.
The True Israel Is Not a Nation-State
The prophets spoke of a new covenant that would transcend land, ethnicity, and national borders:
“I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.”
— Jeremiah 31:33
This covenant was fulfilled in Christ. As the New Testament teaches:
“Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.”
— Romans 9:6
“If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.”
— Galatians 3:29
The Church is now the “chosen people, holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9)—not any modern geopolitical entity.
Catholic Teaching on Israel: Widely Ignored, Barely Known
Expounding and clarifying on what Scripture teaches (see above citations), the Catholic Church proclaims that the true fulfillment of Biblical Israel is the Church. The “chosen people” are now those who belong to Christ. Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 9, 14) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 781, 839-840, 877) affirm that the Church is the “new Israel.” It is faith in Christ, not ethnicity or territory, that defines Israel, the people of God.
Israel 1948: A Colonial Project, Not a Divine Restoration
The modern State of Israel was not established through divine election but through a settler-colonial process that involved the 1948 Nakba—the forced expulsion of over 750,000 Palestinians and the destruction of more than 400 villages. This was not the fulfillment of biblical prophecy but the displacement of one people to make way for another, modeled after European colonialism.
Decades of Apartheid and Genocide
For over 76 years, Israel has maintained a regime of military occupation, racial apartheid, and systematic oppression. On September 16, 2025, the United Nations officially recognized Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide. These policies are not acts of divine favor, but violations of justice and human dignity.
Conclusion
The modern State of Israel is not the Israel of the Bible. Biblical promises were fulfilled long ago, and the covenant now resides in Christ, not in any nation-state. To equate the political State of Israel with the people of God is to reject the teachings of Scripture and to ignore a long history of colonial violence. True faith calls us to stand not with empires, but with the oppressed.
Dear Deacon,
So what?
I can in theory accept everything you said and still concede Catholic teaching that the Jewish People have a right to the land under natural law alone.
Also since politics is a matter of prudent judgement I can prudently judge it is in America’s interest to support Israel a Secular Jewish State over a Jidadist Muslim one.
Also by any rational definition I poltically and practically judge any charge of Genocide to be comical (Palestinian population as increased. Clearly Jews suck at Genocide). The death in Gaza are a result of Hamas using human shields.
The UN are corrupt and anti-American as well as anti-Israel and they lie.
Christians in every Muslim dominated Country are oppressed. In Israel they are free.
Really the worst a Christian Missionary will endure in Israel is a Frum Jew might spit on the ground if they try to Evangelize them.
Do that in a Muslim country you peril your life.
Facts Deacon.
I reject your politics which is my right as a Catholic according to my Prudent judgement.
I will let others answer your other political charges…
Additional comments:
The Jewish People who follow the Old Covenant are in fact Old Israel.
That the Church is the New Israel is not open to dispute or rejected by Catholic Zionists.
Paul refers to believers in Christ, Jew & Gentile, as Israel and by implication True Israel in Her Fullness. But he still calls unbelieving Jews by the term “Israel” as well. So, the non-Christian Jewish People are in some lesser imperfect Sense “Israel”. God has made promises to them and has not revoked His Covenant with them in spite of their non-belief in their Messiah. How is this manifested? Well Paul foretells the future mass conversion of the Jews and the Church Fathers unanimously teach before the End the Jews will convert in mass to the Faith of Jesus and His Church.
If there is any prophesy associated with the return of Jews to their ancestral Land it
” is seen not as the final fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, but as part of God’s providential unfolding—a historical step consistent with His promises. The modern State of Israel, while a secular and imperfect institution, is understood as a political framework necessary for Jewish life in the land. It is not a messianic utopia or the Kingdom of God, and Christian Zionists do not pretend that it is. They simply believe that the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948 is a sign of God’s faithfulness to His promises.”-André Villeneuve.
The Jews reject Christ as a nation now they regather in the Levant and can accept Christ as a nation. Support for the Jewish People need not mean political support for the Israeli State(thought it does not preclude it) or any political party in their government.
St Pius X who rejected Zionism nevertheless said if the Jews go settle in the Levant then He will send Priests to convert them. Well, where are we seeing that among the Anti-Israel/Pro Palestinian crowed? They seem more interested in deifying Palestinian Nationalism then leading Muslims and Jews to Christ?
Also note when Israel stopped the War Hamas turned around and started executing Palestinians who did not support their war effort against Israel.
Further more speaking personally according to my own prudent political judgement.
I would support a two state solution if it was truly a secular Palestinian Democracy or a Christian State but let’s be real. Any Palestinian State formed will be a Muslim Confessional State. We already have too many of those.
So with all due respect to the Holy Father’s political aspirations I think a two state solution is at this time a very very bad Idea.
Cheers and Shalom and Pax Christi.
additional additional.
I forgot to mention there are now about 22,000 Protestant Messianic Jews in Israel and about 1000 Hebrew Catholic in 5 Hebrew Speaking Catholic Churches.
That is a bit pathetic. The Protestants are outshining the True Church!
We need to get off our butts and start sharing. I am convinced God allows Protestantism to shame us Catholics into doing our Job…
Cheer etc…
Protestants have been doing that for awhile Mr. Jim. But there’s always hope for us.
🙂
The land promise was fulfilled yes, & it never was revoked Deacon Dom.
Judging from Casey Chalk’s summary, it seems that Fr. White continues to promote a catastrophic supersessionism that has impoverished the Church for far too long. Therefore, far from providing “refreshing guidance” on this question, he is contributing to the problem. His four reasons for rejecting a theological meaning of the Jewish return to the land of Israel are extraordinarily weak and will have to be refuted in another context.
Catholic blindness to Israel is the primary reason for Israel’s blindness to Christ.
Minor disagreement with you Dr Villeneue.
Fr. White’s view in practicum concedes the Jews do have a right to the Land.
Wither by theological divine right or natural right they have a right to the Land even if only on natural law grounds.
Two Hindus have a natural marriage vs two Catholics who have a Sacramental one but in both cases the couples have conjugal rights before God with their own spouses.
FR White’s view is orders of magnitude better than the extremist view Jews have no rights to the land whatsoever and it seem have a perminate loss of the land by divine decree.
Thus I don’t know that it is true Supercessionalism.
Thought I tend to lean more toward your view there is some type of supernatural right for the Jewish people to the land (which in practicum does not negate the natural rights of Christian Palestinians to live in the land as well). I might concede it is possible they only have a mere natural right however their return to the land to reclaim this natural right is still part of Prophecy and Divine Providence.
There are alway nuances to any theology. Augustinianism is closer to Thomism but ver different from Molinism. But there is still a slight difference between the two former views…
Anyway cheers love your work.
‘ Moreover, St. Paul teaches in the Epistle to the Romans, in chapters 9 through 11, that after the coming of Christ, God remains faithful to his covenant with the Jewish people, including those who do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah and Lord. ‘
I think Casey Chalk has misinterpreted Romans there. Christ’s purpose and mission are not the re-elevation or re-purposing of the original Promise. Christ is its fulfillment and something entirely new came upon Creation and subsequent to it.
Understanding that as it requires does not “deny the covenantal dignity of the Jewish people”.
This applies to all non-Jews as well; hence we can see how the focus by Francis and others on for eg., indigenous things Pachamama etc., is a total skewing of the meaning of Redemption. Christ puts down Pachamama just as Quetzalcoatl.
What we have through Guadalupe is not Tonantzin and Santa Muerte/San La Muerte, but the Virgin of Tepeyac.
Grace bestows these and they are not found through logic.
‘ Moreover, St. Paul teaches in the Epistle to the Romans, in chapters 9 through 11, that after the coming of Christ, God remains faithful to his covenant with the Jewish people, including those who do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah and Lord. God does not abandon them, and their continued existence retains religious significance, since the Jews’ eventual reconciliation with the Church has eschatological meaning. Aquinas, among other Catholic thinkers, says that the continued existence of the Jewish people serves as a perpetual sign of the reality of the ancient covenant. And the Second Vatican Council’s Nostra Aetate explicitly rejects the idea that the Jewish people are collectively reprobate, and condemns any teaching that holds the Jews in contempt, instead favoring prerogatives of charity and human justice. ‘
I say ths is not explored properly, at least muddled in Chalk’s article. And worse than vague. How can Jews HAVE to collectively convert when they are not collectively reprobate. How is that Scriptural. Where does it arise in Tradition. Who is relying on it or would propose to.
There is the added sense, the Messias that the Jews expect and the Second Coming are not one and the same.
For in addition to what I relate earlier on about it, it is also misleading faith and Aquinas: Jews left by God continually testifying to the reality of the ancient covenant a) is not testifying Christ and the true Promise and b) is contained in Christ and the Redemption “Salvation is from the Jews”.
Nostra Aetate can be seen as signifying a part-prophetic role of VATICAN II protecting the Church and all creation from artifice now and later.
The prophecy is not singular, Jews would break their covenant to lose the land. In fact not merely lose the land. From a long time ago Jews were/are no longer an absolute fixity; everyone knows it and some Jews continue their slide of always knowing better about that than anyone else.
Very peculiar, more than one person here suggesting that Catholics would have to uphold Jews having to get a new temple to consecrate everything and/or have the land of whatever extents no matter how many times they broke the covenant -whether from natural law or supernatural right or practicum or genocide or whimsicality or what have you. Not in my combox though.