Catholic thought on the Jewish people and replacement theology

[melissab1]

Hi,
I was received into the Catholic Church at Easter after coming from an Evangelical background. The Churches i have belonged to over the years have all had strong links (prayer groups, mission trips, etc) to Israel and the Jewish people; at one Church I belonged to for a number of years, we would even celebrate Passover.

Because of this I have always believed that the Jewish people are a chosen people with a covenant with God ( and all that goes with that line of thought)., and naively, I just presumed that this is what everyone believed, absolute truth. However, I have recently been made aware of replacement theology (I seriously had no clue that there was even an alternative line of thought:blush: )

I seem to be struggling finding out what the Catholic Church’s position (if any) is on this matter, and any help would be greatly appreciated

kind regards
Melissa

 

[Cassianus]

Hi,

Basically, the christian church believes it is the people of the covenant & the Israel spoken of in the Bible. It has been called “replacement theology” by the detractors of this idea, but this is how jews & muslims view themselves vis a vis eachother & christians as well.

Denying the Messiah place you outside the covenant of God & there was 2 competing narratives among the jewish people; the pharisees & the followers of Jesus. Many of the followers of Jesus came from the hellenic jewish community; living somewhere outside of Palestine, speaking the international language of the time which was greek & knowledgable of hellenic philosophy & roman law etc. But to the pharisees, the idea that people who were not “ethnically” jewish could belong to Israel was impossible for them to swallow.

The matter was settled in the minds of many when the Romans descended on Jerusalem & destroyed the 2nd Temple in AD70, thereby rendering it impossible to uphold the Mosaic Law & therefore nullifying the covenant.

This event was obviously foretold by Jesus:

“And Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way; and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. But he answered and said unto them, ‘You see all of these things, do you not? Truly I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down’” (Matthew 24:1-2).

& the Prophet Daniel foretold that the Temple would be destroyed after the advent of the Messiah.

Josephus: “Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them.”

At least, this is how the ancient church father’s saw it & since the temple was to be destroyed after the advent of Messiah, it confirmed the Messiahship of Jesus for many Bible believing jews who might have only heard of Jesus, but not dared to proclaim his Lordship.

That american evangelical protestants believe that the mosaic covenant is still in force & that the jewish people still have a claim to the Holy Land because of this covenant is seen by many as a denial of the Messiahship of Jesus, although I dont think evangelicals themselves see this.

Protestants in Europe also see “the Church” as the New Israel, so when one reads in the Holy Scriptures a passage referring to “Israel” it can be applied to the Church (as well as the individual soul depending on the context).

It’s possible that things have changed, as I’ve read statements from catholics saying other things, but I’m pretty sure this is still how this matter is viewed.

Holy Scriptures can not be used to claim that the jews are a “Chosen People” that has a right to temporal authority over the Holy Land.

The Chosen People is Humanity & any individual among humanity that gives his heart to & follows Christ.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Could you define Replacement Theology for us please?

My understanding of the Catholic position on Judaism is that they retain a special position with God by virtue of their covenant relationship with Him; but they also lack the fullness of the Truth as regards Jesus Christ, the son of God, our Savior and Messiah.

We also know from Revelations that, prior to the end of the world, there will likely be a mass conversion of the remaining Jews to Catholicism.

 

[twf]

The Jewish people still hold a special place in God’s heart, but the earthly nation of Israel and its covenant with God was a prefigurement of something greater now revealed: the Church. The Church is the new Israel- the fulfillment of Israel- and the New Testament sealed with the blood of Christ is the fulfilment of the old sealed with the blood of animals. Celebrating the Jewish Passover as Christians is sad, as it shows a lack of understanding of Christ’s Passover- the Eucharist- which Christ instituted during the Jewish Passover to show that His sacramental offering of Himself would fulfill and complete the old Passover. The Jewish Passover is a shadow that points to the concrete reality that is the Eucharist. The Passover Lamb is a shadow that points to Christ offered for us on the cross and made present in the Eucharist. Israel was a shadow that points to the Church as the new and eternal Israel. The Church’s liturgy is full of these images.
I don’t think “replacement” is the correct term. Christ Himself sums it up when He tells us that He came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Likewise the Church doesn’t abolish Israel but truly completes and fulfills all of God’s promises.

 

[StGerardMajella]

I seem to be struggling finding out what the Catholic Church’s position (if any) is on this matter, and any help would be greatly appreciated

It’s a great question, and one that requires a certain level of heightened sensitivity so as to not offend both parties. The root of your question relates to the changes in Jewish-Christian relations over many centuries. It’s a complicated question, and really would require many pages to cover, but I will provide a few general comments as food for thought.

Pre-Vatican II, if you even look at the old Latin Roman Missals, you will find evidence of replacement theology, where the Church views itself as the “New Israel”, in effect “replacing” the Jewish people. The Old Mosaic Covenant is viewed as void and nullified, and the New Covenant as now in force. Jews are rejected, and Gentile Christians embraced. For example, in the St. Andrew’s Daily Missal, you find this theme quite consistently in the commentaries for the various Masses said throughout the year.

After Vatican II, however, these views changed radically. The Church has taken steps to mend fences with Judaism, and has softened its tone and approach to both Judaism and other religions in general, including Islam. This, of course, irks more traditionalist Catholics, but the mainstream modern Church is much more conciliatory than it has been in the past.

If you really want to delve into this subject further, I would recommend reading the excellent book, “The Anguish of the Jews” by Fr. Flannery. It gives an excellent historic account of the relationship between the Jewish people and the Church over the ages.

Unfortunately, these animosities turn in both directions. For example, to this day, even in modern Jewish siddurs (prayer books), there are negative stereotypes towards the Church, and even veiled (sometimes blatant) negative references towards Christians and Christianity in general. Some (not all) strains within certain sects within Judaism still view Christianity as paganism and idol worship even in our modern times.

In total, we still have rather wide bridges to cross and fences to mend on both sides, but progress is being made, especially as information and education becomes more accessible.

 

[Lucretius]

Imagine if, after Moses, there were Jews who rejected the Law, but continued with the covenant with Abraham. Catholics believe this to be with some Jews today; they accept earlier parts of the covenant, but not the whole Revelation: Jesus Christ.

To put it simply, the Catholic Church doesn’t deny the covenant the Children of Abraham have, but points out that 1) it is completed by Christ, and 2) without Christ, the covenant isn’t salvatory.

A good book, although I disagree with some of his views on the political Israel, is Salvation is from the Jews by Hebrew Catholic Roy H. Schoeman: ignatius.com/Products/SFJ-P/salvation-is-from-the-jews.aspx

But to answer your question about “replacement theology:” the Church did not “replace” Israel; the Church is Israel, post-Messiah (the Church is Israel in the Messiah Age). Moses’ covenant didn’t replace Abraham’s, but just took it to the next step. In the same way, Christ simply finished the covenant that started with Abraham and was built up by Moses, then the other Prophets, all the way to St. John the Baptist. Christ is, in a sense, the “Seal” of the Covenant that started with Abraham (to use a Muslim phrase).

St. Paul says that the cultivated branch has fallen of the Tree of Life, while the wild ones have been added to it. Imagine what happens if the cultivated branch is reattached!
Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Cassianus]

Imagine if, after Moses, there were Jews who rejected the Law, but continued with the covenant with Abraham. Catholics believe this to be with some Jews today; they accept earlier parts of the covenant, but not the whole Revelation: Jesus Christ.

To put it simply, the Catholic Church doesn’t deny the covenant the Children of Abraham have, but points out that 1) it is completed by Christ, and 2) without Christ, the covenant isn’t salvatory.

A good book, although I disagree with some of his views on the political Israel, is Salvation is from the Jews by Hebrew Catholic Roy H. Schoeman: ignatius.com/Products/SFJ-P/salvation-is-from-the-jews.aspx

But to answer your question about “replacement theology:” the Church did not “replace” Israel; the Church is Israel, post-Messiah (the Church is Israel in the Messiah Age). Moses’ covenant didn’t replace Abraham’s, but just took it to the next step. In the same way, Christ simply finished the covenant that started with Abraham and was built up by Moses, then the other Prophets, all the way to St. John the Baptist. Christ is, in a sense, the “Seal” of the Covenant that started with Abraham (to use a Muslim phrase).

St. Paul says that the cultivated branch has fallen of the Tree of Life, while the wild ones have been added to it. Imagine what happens if the cultivated branch is reattached!
Christi pax,

Lucretius

Very well put!

The Church is descended from the Jewish synagogue’s of the Roman Empire & Christians have every right to claim the Jewish history before Pentecost as part of its own 'cuz that’s what the Holy Apostles did.

It’s important to remember that the Jews of the ancient Roman Empire were divided into factions; the Pharisees, Sadducees & the ‘hellenized’ Jews. Both factions spoke Hebrew & Greek & today’s Judaism is descended almost solely from the Pharisees who merged with the Sadducees. That’s why you’ll see Jewish rabbis still interpreting every prophecy which we as Christians believe to be obvious allusions & types of Christ as referring the a Jewish People. Isaiah is one such book.

It was the Apostles who decided Gentiles didn’t have to adhere to the mosaic covenant but they placed other restrictions on us which resemble what rabbinic Jews call the noahide laws.

 

[Lucretius]

It was the Apostles who decided Gentiles didn’t have to adhere to the mosaic covenant but they placed other restrictions on us which resemble what rabbinic Jews call the noahide laws.

And so I give my voice for sparing the consciences of those Gentiles who have found their way to God; only writing to bid them abstain from what is contaminated by idolatry, from fornication, and from meat which has been strangled or has the blood in it (Acts 15:19-21).

The Noahide Laws:
Do not deny God.
Do not blaspheme God.
Do not murder.
Do not engage in incest, adultery, pederasty or bestiality, as well as homosexual relations.
Do not steal.
Do not eat of a live animal.
Establish courts/legal system to ensure law and obedience.

Notice the overlap?

Thank you for your kind comments. I always like to think that in the first century there was Second Temple Judaism, and afterwards the Pharasees and Christians “entered Schism,” with both being Successors to Second Temple Judaism.

When I read the New Testemant, I just noticed how it “ozzes with Jewry.” The Mass itself is in a sense a Seder meal. The three Clergical distinctions are very similar to second Temple Judaism: Rabbi=Deacon; Priest=presbytery; high priest=Bishop, with the the priest/presbyter or high priest/bishop performing sacrifices (the Sacrifice of the Mass). I can go on and on with this…

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[melissab1]

Thank you all for your incredibly concise responses

kind regards
Melissa

 

[Jeannie52]

Imagine if, after Moses, there were Jews who rejected the Law, but continued with the covenant with Abraham. Catholics believe this to be with some Jews today; they accept earlier parts of the covenant, but not the whole Revelation: Jesus Christ.

To put it simply, the Catholic Church doesn’t deny the covenant the Children of Abraham have, but points out that 1) it is completed by Christ, and 2) without Christ, the covenant isn’t salvatory.

A good book, although I disagree with some of his views on the political Israel, is Salvation is from the Jews by Hebrew Catholic Roy H. Schoeman: ignatius.com/Products/SFJ-P/salvation-is-from-the-jews.aspx

But to answer your question about “replacement theology:” the Church did not “replace” Israel; the Church is Israel, post-Messiah (the Church is Israel in the Messiah Age). Moses’ covenant didn’t replace Abraham’s, but just took it to the next step. In the same way, Christ simply finished the covenant that started with Abraham and was built up by Moses, then the other Prophets, all the way to St. John the Baptist. Christ is, in a sense, the “Seal” of the Covenant that started with Abraham (to use a Muslim phrase).

St. Paul says that the cultivated branch has fallen of the Tree of Life, while the wild ones have been added to it. Imagine what happens if the cultivated branch is reattached!
Christi pax,

Lucretius

This is so well stated.

 

[fred_conty]

The Jewish religion was the only true one for 2000 years, which may be summed up by saying that a messiah would come, and to look and wait for his comming. And the rite of cimcumcision was the acknowledgement of their belonging to that true messianic kingdom.

When the messiah came in Jesus Christ, he was the fullfillment of that Jewish messiahship. And on Pentecost, there were 3000 Jews who accepted him as their messiah by the preaching of Peter. But no longer is the right of circumcision necessary to make them part of God’s messianaic people, but the right of baptism making them a part of the messianic people.

However the church has said that there are others who may belong to this kingdom by accepting baptism in another way, which is to lengthy to explain in this post.

 

[teeboy]

Replacement isn’t the best word. It is more like a continuation which didn’t have a smooth transition.

The Jews at the time of Christ were looking for a militant religious leader like Moses who would “take revenge” or “show up” against the Romans. He actually did do that, but it didn’t all happen while he was alive.

He established his Church in Rome, so it is kind of like a slap in the face to the Romans because Jesus was a Jew who had right to the kingship of the Jews via his foster father. He did it via his action and via the saints and martyrs who took up their cross and carried it all the way to Rome and planted it in the ground like a soldier would plant his nation’s flag in enemy territory and take claim to the ground over which the flag flies. There exists a modern Cathedral there today right next door to the ancient Colloseum. The Colloseum does not meet many of the newer building codes.

 

[jerome_ky]

Romans 11:1-2
I say then: Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people, which he foreknew.

St. Paul establishes that he is an Israelite by birth. He says Israel has stumbled so salvation would come to the Gentiles who would desire to be emulous of them. So does St. Paul imply that the Church has stumbled for the salvation of the Gentiles? That would be foolish.

Romans 11:13-14"
“For I say to you, Gentiles: as long indeed as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I will honour my ministry, If, by any means, I may provoke to emulation them who are my flesh, and may save some of them…”

It is very dangerous to get between God and His chosen people. They still have a purpose in salvation history. Jesus said, “You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times?” [Matt. 16:3] If you think Israel plays no further role, then you haven’t thought about the Holocaust and the rebirth of Israel. Jesus was the King of the Jews, the first to see and prophesy the coming diaspora.

 

[teeboy]

Romans 11:1-2
I say then: Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people, which he foreknew.

St. Paul establishes that he is an Israelite by birth. He says Israel has stumbled so salvation would come to the Gentiles who would desire to be emulous of them. So does St. Paul imply that the Church has stumbled for the salvation of the Gentiles? That would be foolish.

Romans 11:13-14"
“For I say to you, Gentiles: as long indeed as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I will honour my ministry, If, by any means, I may provoke to emulation them who are my flesh, and may save some of them…”

It is very dangerous to get between God and His chosen people. They still have a purpose in salvation history. Jesus said, “You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times?” [Matt. 16:3] If you think Israel plays no further role, then you haven’t thought about the Holocaust and the rebirth of Israel. Jesus was the King of the Jews, the first to see and prophesy the coming diaspora.

We are the New Israel. God performs miracles and gives signage through the New Israel because the new Israel is not a widow rather it is married to the Son of God. The same type stories played out in the OT continue on in the Catholic Church and aren’t detailed in the Bible.

 

[jerome_ky]

We are the New Israel. God performs miracles and gives signage through the New Israel because the new Israel is not a widow rather it is married to the Son of God. The same type stories played out in the OT continue on in the Catholic Church and aren’t detailed in the Bible.

I don’t find the phrase “new Israel” anywhere in Scripture. Please cite a Catholic source so I can look into this claim. Because I’m not aware of Israel being a widow or what that is supposed to mean. She is spoken of in the books of the Prophets as being the spouse of the Father.

 

[Lucretius]

I don’t find the phrase “new Israel” anywhere in Scripture. Please cite a Catholic source so I can look into this claim. Because I’m not aware of Israel being a widow or what that is supposed to mean. She is spoken of in the books of the Prophets as being the spouse of the Father.

I think the phrase “New Israel” is in the spirit of Johnanian Literature, as they tend to emphasis rebirth (I often think of the Gospel of John as the New Torah). St. Paul himself refers to Christ as the New Adam too. The poster is then simply saying that New Israel is Israel born again, the Church.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

His intention in employing the term, hitherto used of the Hebrew people viewed as a church, to denote the society He Himself was establishing cannot be mistaken. It implied the claim that this society now constituted the true people of God, that the Old Covenant was passing away, and that He, the promised Messias, was inaugurating a New Covenant with a New Israel.

Source: newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

Spare Your people, O Lord and give not Your heritage to reproach.’ Feed us O Lord that we become not as we were in the beginning when You did not rule over us nor was Your name invoked to help us. ‘We have become a reproach to our neighbours, a scorn and derision to them that are round about us,’ because wicked doctrines have come into Your inheritance. They have polluted Your holy temple in that the daughters of strangers have rejoiced over our troubles. A little while ago we were of one mind and one tongue and now are divided into many tongues. But, O Lord our God, give us Your peace which we have lost by setting Your commandments at naught. O Lord we know none other than You. We call You by Your name. ‘Make both one and break down the middle wall of the partition,’ namely the iniquity that has sprung up. Gather us one by one, Your new Israel, building up Jerusalem and gathering together the outcasts of Israel. Let us be made once more one flock and all be fed by You; for You are the good Shepherd 'Who gives His life for the sheep ’ ‘Awake, why sleepest Thou O Lord, arise, cast us not off forever.’ Rebuke the winds and the sea; give Your Church calm and safety from the waves.

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/2707151.htm

However, the phrase “New Jerusalem” is more Scriptural/Patristic, like the Prophet says:

Shine, shine, O thou new Jerusalem; for your light has come (Isaiah 69:1).

Ezekiel also has a vision of the New Jerusalem (read the Book of Ezekiel), and St. John in the book of Revelation speaks of it as well.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[jerome_ky]

Thank you, these are interesting. I do think the New Covenant of Christ is that spoken of by Jeremiah, and that His Body and Blood are our Salvation. I am not suggesting at all that Judaism as a religion can bring salvation, it most assuredly cannot. And while the Church may be in some ways the “new Israel,” I do not believe she is a replacement. It does not ring true that God threw over His people of the Old Covenant, or that He forgot His promises regarding the Holy Land. This, too, is in Jeremiah, when the prophet is told to purchase a field on the eve of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest and the exile of the Jews to Babylon. As full as the Tanakh is with Christologies, so is it also filled with prophecies of the return of the Jews following exile. This is in keeping with Nosta aetate:

The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: “theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary.

Following a litany of punishments promised the Jews if they turn from the Lord, they are promised to be gathered again out of “all the nations,” something that didn’t happen following the Babylonian exile.

Now when all these things shall be come upon thee, the blessing or the curse, which I have set forth before thee, and thou shalt be touched with repentance of thy heart among all the nations, into which the Lord thy God shall have scattered thee, And shalt return to him, and obey his commandments, as I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul: The Lord thy God will bring back again thy captivity, and will have mercy on thee, and gather thee again out of all the nations, into which he scattered thee before. If thou be driven as far as the poles of heaven, the Lord thy God will fetch thee back from thence, And will take thee to himself, and bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it: and blessing thee, he will make thee more numerous than were thy fathers. Deut. 30:1-5

Again, my point is not that the Jewish people don’t need Christ for Salvation, only that they have a part in Christ already by virtue of the Old Covenant entered into by God. It is not for their sake that God keeps His promises, but for His sake.

I know for many Catholics this smacks of Evangelical Protestantism. I disagree with a lot of their eschatology, particularly the “rapture” and the end times timelines that go with it. But something happened to cause the ingathering of the Jews to the Promised Land after 1900+ years and I think it is blind to fail to see the hand of God in it. The Catechism (para. 674) says that Christ’s Second Advent will be preceded by His recognition by “all Israel,” clearly referring to the Jews here and not the Church, and for this to happen, it is most likely the Jews would need to be gathered in one place, actually in the very spot where Jesus will return:

The glorious Messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by “all Israel,” for “a hardening has come upon part of Israel” in their “unbelief” toward Jesus. St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old.”St. Paul echoes him: “For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?” The “full inclusion” of the Jews in the Messiah’s salvation, in the wake of “the full number of the Gentiles,” will enable the People of God to achieve “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,” in which “God may be all in all.

 

[Solus_Christus]

He established his Church in Rome, so it is kind of like a slap in the face to the Romans because Jesus was a Jew who had right to the kingship of the Jews via his foster father. He did it via his action and via the saints and martyrs who took up their cross and carried it all the way to Rome and planted it in the ground like a soldier would plant his nation’s flag in enemy territory and take claim to the ground over which the flag flies.

Then what did Jesus mean when He told Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)?

 

[Lucretius]

Then what did Jesus mean when He told Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)?

If Jesus’s kingdom was not of this world in the sense they you seem to imply, than Christianity is a Gnostic religion, where the material world is excluded from the kingdom, the pure spiritual world. Or more simply, how could the Apostles be of the kingdom of God if they are preaching in the world? We are called to be in the world, but not of it.

Furthermore, it is simply a fact of history that St. Peter died in Rome (as did St. Paul around the same time), and if you accept Apostolic Succession and Petrine Primacy, than it follows that the Bishops of Rome are the Successors of St. Peter, and possess the authority that he had.

Remember that the Catholic position is clear that the Papacy is only connected to Rome by coincidence, and that if St. Peter died in say Antioch, the Bishop of Antioch would possess the Petrine office. The poster you are responding to is saying that the head of the Church residing in Rome is fitting, reflecting the power of God over his enemy., but not necessary.

But, this is off topic: you can start another thread, and I will be happy to participate

Christi pax,

Lucretius