Since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, the world has witnessed a disturbing resurgence of vicious antisemitism. Regrettably, some Catholic pundits have joined the chorus—not in solidarity with the victims, but in launching attacks of their own against the Jewish State. Overlooking or downplaying the barbarity of the Hamas massacres and the decades-long jihadist war against Israel, some have even aligned themselves with far-left, pro-Hamas voices that accuse Israel of war crimes and genocide. Others have yielded instead a theological sword, challenging the biblical and theological legitimacy of Zionism and the modern State of Israel.
In a previous essay, I made a positive case for the biblical roots of Catholic Zionism. In this piece, I address the problem of Catholic anti-Zionism and its underlying cause: the enduring influence of Catholic supersessionism.
God Dwells in Zion
Sing praises to the Lord, who dwells in Zion! (Ps 9:11)
Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised in the city of our God!
… Mount Zion… the city of the great King. (Ps 48:2)
In Judah God is known, his name is great in Israel.
His abode has been established in Salem, his dwelling place in Zion. (Ps 76:1-2)
Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God shines forth. (Ps 50:2)
For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his habitation:
"This is my resting place for ever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it." (Ps 132:13)
Scripture affirms that God dwells uniquely in Zion—Jerusalem—and shines forth from there. The prophets call him the "Holy One of Israel," and the Lord loves his people with an everlasting love (Jer 31:3). Throughout the Bible, God promises to remain faithful to His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, granting their descendants the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession (Gen 17:7-8). The prophets consistently assure Israel that God will gather them from exile and restore them to the land (Ezek 36:24-28). At no point does the New Testament revoke this promise.
If God loves Zion as his eternal dwelling place; if he persistently promises to return the people of Israel to Zion; if he vows to dwell in their midst in the land of their forefathers—then God is, in this sense, a Zionist. Every Catholic, therefore, should be one too.
Catholic Zionism simply affirms that God remains faithful to these promises. To deny this is not only to risk antisemitism—it is to oppose the biblical witness itself. Anti-Zionism, then, is not merely anti-Jewish; it is also anti-biblical and anti-Catholic.
What is Zionism?
Before addressing objections, we must define our terms.
According to the Jewish Virtual Library, Zionism is "the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel."
Biblical, theological, or Catholic Zionism affirms this definition, while adding a crucial dimension: the return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel occurs in accordance with God's promises throughout Scripture. That's it. No eschatological hype, no political activism—just fidelity to God's Word.
To be clear, Catholic Zionism is not:
- an assertion that the modern State of Israel is a "Jewish faith-state" [Glaubenstaat] or possesses any Messianic significance in itself.
- an endorsement of rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple.
- an endorsement of injustice, violence, the dispossession of Palestinians, or ethnic cleansing.
- rooted in 19th century Protestant dispensationalism.
- an endorsement of a dual-covenant theology holding that Jews are saved by Torah observance while Christians are saved by Christ.
In short, Catholic Zionism affirms that God is still faithful to His covenant with Israel, and that the Jewish people's return to their ancestral land is consistent with biblical prophecy and divine providence—nothing more, and certainly nothing less.
Catholic Anti-Zionism: Straw Men, Dead Horses, and Other Fallacies
Catholic anti-Zionism, still deeply entangled in supersessionist theology, continues to resist the idea that God remains at work in restoring the Jewish people to their land—as affirmed time and again by the biblical prophets. In recent years, Dr. Matthew Tsakanikas has emerged as a leading Catholic anti-Zionist voice. [1]
His arguments, while expressed with academic rigor, are representative of the broader Catholic resistance to Zionism. They deserve careful scrutiny—not only to address his specific claims, but to expose the recurring patterns of misrepresentation, distortion, and fallacious reasoning that undergirds much of Catholic anti-Zionism today.
In short, the anti-Zionist position as espoused by Tsakanikas is almost entirely based in attacking straw men, beating dead horses, and other logical fallacies. Let us examine these in turn.
1) Straw Man: Zionists confuse the modern State of Israel with the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises.
Claim: Dr. Tsakanikas argues that "for orthodox Christians, in no way can the establishment of a modern State of Israel be confused with the fulfillment of the promises given to Abraham because Jesus is the true fulfillment of those promises." (ACZ)
Fact: Catholic Zionists make no such confusion. They affirm that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises—but this does not preclude other, intermediate fulfillments within salvation history.
The return of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland 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.
The Prayer for the State of Israel, recited in many synagogues, captures this well: It does not proclaim the state as the fulfillment of prophecy, but rather as "the first flowering of our redemption." This careful nuance is consistently ignored by critics who conflate Christian Zionism with Protestant dispensationalist extremes.
2) Straw man: Zionism is a "rejection of Christ" because it sponsors a return to the Old Law.
Claim: Tsakanikas argues that Zionism represents a "rejection of Christ," claiming it encourages "a return to the Old Law which God brought to an end physically in A.D. 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple." He further asserts that Zionism "ignores two thousand years of advancement in law and worship" and "supplants Christian morals." (ACZ)
Fact: This is a textbook example of a multi-pronged straw man:
- First, Christian Zionists do not reject Christ. On the contrary, their entire framework affirms Him as the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets.
- Second, they do not promote a return to the Old Covenant as it was practiced before Christ.
- Third, the claim that God brought the "Old Law" to an end in A.D. 70 is directly contradicted by Jesus himself: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matt 5:17).
- Fourth, Catholic Zionists do not reject the development of Christian worship and theology, nor do they "supplant Christian morals" with another legal code.
What they reject is the false notion that the coming of Christ erases God's promises to Israel. Rather, they affirm that the Torah and Prophets—fulfilled in Christ—continue to play a role in salvation history. Catholic Zionists embrace the typological reading of Scripture: They see how Old Testament realities are fulfilled in Christ and the Church, yet without denying the literal layer of the promises—including those concerning the land and people of Israel. The coming of Christ transformed the Torah, but did not erase Israel's election. And the return of the Jewish people to the Land can be seen as a sign of covenantal continuity—not regression.
3) Straw Man: Catholic Zionists deny that Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets.
Claim: Tsakanikas charges that support for Israel's prophetic restoration amounts to "totally ignoring Jesus Christ." He accuses Zionists of "undermining the very doctrine of Jesus Christ as a fulfillment, the end or goal of the Torah." (CCBZ)
Fact: This is a classic straw man. Catholic Zionists do not deny that Jesus fulfills the Law and the Prophets. In fact, they affirm this as a central tenet of the Christian faith. What they reject is the false dilemma that pits Christ's fulfillment against the continuation of God's covenantal fidelity to Israel (see below).
Romans 10:4 (τέλος νόμου) is often translated as "Christ is the end of the law," when in fact many scholars argue that telos more accurately means "goal" or "climax"—not cessation (cf. Matt 5:17). Christ does not cancel the Law or the promises; he fulfills them, including God's enduring promises to Israel.
Christian Zionists maintain that the spiritual fulfillment of the Law in Christ does not preclude God's ongoing purposes for Israel in history. The two are not contradictory—they are complementary aspects of God's economy of salvation.
4) False Dilemma: Spiritual fulfillment in Christ excludes physical fulfillment in Israel.
Claim: Tsakanikas and other anti-Zionists argue that if the Abrahamic promises are spiritually fulfilled in Christ, they cannot be fulfilled physically in Israel. In their view, the two options are mutually exclusive.
Fact: This is a classic false dilemma. Catholic interpretation affirms a both/and approach, not an either/or. As the Catechism states, "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal" (CCC 116). A spiritual fulfillment does not erase the literal; it builds upon it.
The prophets often speak in layers. For example, Ezekiel 36-37 foretells a two-stage restoration of Israel:
- A physical return to the land;
- A spiritual renewal through cleansing, a new heart, and the indwelling Spirit.
Christians rightly see the spiritual elements fulfilled in Christ and the Church—but the text explicitly preserves a literal, territorial promise: "You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God" (Ezek 36:28).
Catholic Zionists affirm both: the Christological fulfillment and the ongoing fidelity of God to His promises to Israel—physical, national, and enduring. To collapse the literal into the spiritual is not faithful exegesis; it is theological reductionism.
5) Dead Horse: Insisting that God's promises are fulfilled in Christ—as if Zionists deny it.
Claim: Tsakanikas repeatedly argues that the Abrahamic promises are "only realized in the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth," citing St. Paul and St. John of the Cross to support the idea that these promises have no further relevance for ethnic Israel or the land (ACZ).
Fact: This argument is beating a dead horse. Catholic Zionists already affirm that Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. St. Paul's epistles are central to that conviction. And St. John of the Cross's mystical reading of the Promised Land as a symbol of union with God is entirely valid—within its genre.
But spiritual fulfillment does not erase the literal dimension. The Church has always recognized that Scripture often operates on multiple levels: literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical (CCC 116-118). Catholic Zionists acknowledge the typological meaning of the land as fulfilled in Christ, in the Church, and in heaven—but they also maintain that God's promises to Israel as a people, and to the land as part of that covenant, retain historical meaning.
The land of Israel, like many biblical realities, functions both historically and symbolically. Just as the Exodus was a real event and a type of baptism, the return to the land can be a sign of deeper spiritual realities without ceasing to be real history. To insist otherwise is to reduce the richness of biblical revelation to a single dimension.
6) Straw man/cherry picking: The promise of the Land was always inseparable from the Temple
Claim: Tsakanikas claims that "the promise of the Land was always inseparable from the Temple" (citing Deut 12:5) and concludes that since God no longer desires an earthly Temple—because Christ is now the true Temple—any religious or theological claim to the land is obsolete. (ACZ)
Fact: This argument is both a straw man and a cherry-picked reading of Scripture. From the moment God promised the land to Abram (Gen 12:7), the covenantal gift of the land stood independently of any Temple. In Genesis 15, for example, God solemnly pledges the land to Abram's descendants without any reference to a sanctuary or sacrificial system.
Tsakanikas cherry-picks a single verse (Deuteronomy 12:5), which speaks of the centralized place of worship under Mosaic law, to suggest that the land promise was always temple-bound. But Scripture repeatedly refutes this. The prophets speak again and again of Israel's return to the land as an expression of God's covenantal fidelity without any mention of the Temple. For example, in Ezekiel 36:24-28, God says:
"I will take you from among the nations… and bring you into your own land… I will put my Spirit within you… You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God."
This passage foretells a spiritual renewal alongside a national restoration—rooted in God's fidelity and explicitly tied to the land, but entirely silent on the Temple.
Catholic theology does affirm that Christ is the new and eternal Temple—"destroy this Temple, and I will raise it in three days" (John 2:19-21). But this fulfillment does not abrogate God's promises to the people or the Land. It means that Christ replaces the Temple's function—not the covenantal geography of Israel's inheritance.
This kind of argument confuses categories: Christ is the new Temple, yes—but that does not mean there is no longer a people, no longer a land, no longer a story unfolding in history. The Temple is typologically fulfilled in Christ. The land promise, on the other hand, continues to unfold historically-in ways that should inspire awe, not rejection.
If God's promise of the land predates the Temple and outlives it, then the Temple is not essential to the land promise—Zionism does not depend on a rebuilt shrine to be biblically grounded.
7) Straw man: Christian Zionists want to bring the Jews back to Israel to trigger the end times.
Claim: Tsakanikas accuses Christian Zionists of harboring apocalyptic motives, suggesting that their support for the return of the Jews to Israel is an attempt to "bring about the end times." (CCBZ)
Fact: This claim is a tired and lazy caricature—an unfounded stereotype that reflects more about the critics than the movement itself. It may reflect the theology of some fringe fundamentalist circles, but not the conviction of Catholic Zionists.
Catholic Zionists support the Jewish return to the land not to hasten the end times, but because of the biblical, covenantal, and historical bond between the Jewish people and Eretz Israel. Their position is rooted in divine fidelity, not millenarianism.
Accusing Zionists of harboring apocalyptic motives is a straw man—an attempt to discredit a biblical conviction by associating it with theological extremism. In reality, most Christian Zionists emphasize God's enduring faithfulness to Israel, not the timing of the end of days. Their motives are love for the Jewish people, reverence for God's Word, and faith in His providence—not the choreography of Armageddon.
8) Straw man: Christian Zionists neglect law, history, and the witness of the Church Fathers.
Claim: Tsakanikas charges that Christian Zionists "neglect law, history, and the witness of the Church Fathers" in their approach to modern Israel. (3MCCZ)
Fact: This is not only a misrepresentation—it's historically ironic. In reality, many Catholic Zionists—including this author—arrived at their position precisely because of a careful study of biblical law, the Fathers, and the long arc of Church history. It is the weight of that tradition, not ignorance of it, that has led them to recognize the theological errors of supersessionism and the enduring legitimacy of Israel's place in salvation history.
What is often neglected, in fact, is the ugly underside of the Christian tradition when it comes to the Jewish people. For centuries, supersessionism justified contempt, marginalization, persecution, and silence in the face of antisemitic violence. The long and tragic legacy of Catholic supersessionism, anti-Zionism, and antisemitism is not a mark of doctrinal fidelity, but of theological error. This history does not reflect Sacred Tradition as defined by the magisterium but "tradition" with a lower-case "t." It is, in fact, a counter-witness to the Gospel.
As Pope St. John-Paul II acknowledged , "In the Christian world… erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability have circulated for too long, engendering feelings of hostility towards this people." The Vatican's 1998 document We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah adds: "Such interpretations of the New Testament have been totally and definitively rejected by the Second Vatican Council."
To accuse Christian Zionists of ignoring tradition is to ignore the Church's own call to repentance, renewal, and fidelity in how Catholics understand the Jewish people—and Israel's enduring role in salvation history.
9) False Analogy: Christian Zionists follow in the footsteps of Julian the Apostate, who attempted to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple.
Claim: In a startling analogy, Tsakanikas compares Christian Zionists to Julian the Apostate, the fourth-century Roman emperor who tried to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple as a way of undermining Christianity. (3MCCZ)
Fact: This is not just a false analogy—it's a theologically reckless one. Julian the Apostate was a pagan emperor who publicly rejected Christianity and sought to restore Judaism in order to discredit the Gospel. His project to rebuild the Temple was motivated by apostasy, not fidelity. To compare Catholic Zionists—faithful sons and daughters of the Church who confess Christ as Lord, receive the sacraments, and honor the authority of Tradition-to Julian is nothing short of absurd.
Catholic Zionists do not advocate for rebuilding the Temple. They affirm with the Gospel that Jesus Christ is the new and eternal Temple (John 2:21; Rev 21:22). But they also affirm that the Jewish people, as a people, remain beloved for the sake of the patriarchs (Rom 11:28), and that their return to the land is consistent with the prophetic witness of Scripture—not a repudiation of Christ, but a vindication of God's faithfulness.
To equate this with apostasy is to confuse theological categories and to distort history for polemical effect.
10) Appeal to Authority: Popes and Patriarchs reject theological Zionism
Claim: Tsakanikas and others argue that Zionism has been rejected by high-ranking Catholic voices. They point to Pope Pius X's 1904 meeting with Theodor Herzl, when the pope refused to sanction the Zionist movement, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem's opposition to a theological interpretation of Israel, and Pope Benedict XVI's caution that "a Jewish faith-state [Glaubenstaat] that would view itself as the theological and political fulfillment of the promises" is contrary to Christian theology (ACZ, 3MCCZ ).
Fact: This is a classic appeal to authority, but it misrepresents the weight and nature of the sources cited.
Yes, Pius X rejected Herzl's plea, but his response came decades before the horrors of the Shoah, the rise of the State of Israel, or the reforms of Vatican II. His personal reaction—as reported by Herzl and marked by the theological supersessionism of his time—does not constitute binding magisterial teaching. As for the Latin Patriarchate, its statements reflect political prudence and pastoral positioning-not infallible doctrine.
Benedict XVI's critique of a Glaubenstaat—a theocratic state that merges divine promise with political absolutism—is entirely valid. Catholic Zionists agree: the modern State of Israel is not the Kingdom of God. It is not messianic. It is not the fulfillment of eschatological glory. But it can still be a providential unfolding of God's covenantal fidelity.
Catholic Zionism does not rest on private papal opinions or patriarchal statements. It rests on the Word of God and the interpretive lens of a post-supersessionist Church that now acknowledges: "The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God" (Nostra Aetate §4). Anything else is not fidelity—it is regression.
11) Straw man/loaded question: Zionists ignore violations of law and morality
Claim: Tsakanikas charges that Zionists "ignore violations of property rights, violations of international law, and violations of the natural moral law," and asks why Catholics should support "illegal resettlement of East Jerusalem, the West Bank or Gaza", claiming it contradicts "natural, divine, and international law." (3MCCZ).
Fact: This is a loaded accusation built on several false assumptions. Catholic Zionists are not moral relativists. They do not ignore questions of justice, peace, or legality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But they also do not accept the narrative framing offered by those who treat Israel as a uniquely guilty party.
International law, particularly regarding borders and land claims in disputed territories, is deeply contested and often politicized. The claim that all Israeli presence in East Jerusalem or the West Bank is "illegal" is simply not a settled matter of law—much less of divine or natural law.
Moreover, Catholic Zionists reject the false binary that to support Israel is to condone every policy of its government. Just as Catholic social teaching allows for critical support of nations in moral complexity, so too one can affirm Israel's legitimacy, covenantal significance, and prophetic restoration while also advocating for peace, justice, and accountability.
To frame the issue as "Why should I pretend I support injustice?" is to shut down serious discussion with rhetorical smoke. Catholic Zionism isn't about pretending. It's about recognizing the hand of God in history—and the complexity of real-world politics in a fallen world.
12) Straw man: Zionists support herem warfare.
Claim: Tsakanikas argues that modern Zionism is reviving the biblical concept of herem—the Old Testament command under Moses and Joshua to annihilate enemy populations. He claims such appeals are "becoming mainstream in modern Israel" and being encouraged by "fundamentalist communities" in the US. He even goes so far as to say: "Unarmed women and children and innocent men are being murdered because of a false Zionist mentality." (ACZ)
Fact: This is not just a straw man—it is a dangerous and inflammatory accusation.
Tsakanikas claims that modern Israelis are invoking herem-style warfare to justify violence—but he offers no serious evidence. The idea that herem has become "mainstream in modern Israel" is not only historically inaccurate but verges on libel. Israeli military policy is based on secular legal frameworks, not ancient Israelite conquest narratives. Modern Israel is not attempting to reenact the Book of Joshua.
What's more, his assertion that innocent civilians are being murdered "because of a false Zionist mentality" crosses a moral line. It falsely implies that Zionism itself—a movement for Jewish self-determination in their ancestral homeland—is inherently violent or genocidal. That is not theology; it's theological defamation.
Catholic Zionists reject herem warfare as a normative model, just as they reject any distortion of Scripture used to justify injustice. They do not support theocratic militarism, nor do they turn a blind eye to real-world suffering. But to equate Zionism with herem, and then blame it for civilian deaths, is to collapse a complex conflict into a moral caricature that does more to inflame hatred than to clarify truth.
If the goal is justice and peace, then theological discourse must begin with accuracy—not weaponized typology.
13) Straw man: Zionism ignores Jesus' teaching that the Jews lost the land for rejecting Christ
Claim: Tsakanikas appeals to the Parable of the Tenants (Matt 21:33-43), arguing that Jesus Himself taught that the Jewish people lost their claim to the Land of Israel for rejecting the Son of God. He writes that Zionism "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." (3MCCZ)
Fact: This is not just a misreading of Scripture—it is a textbook example of punitive supersessionism.
In Matthew 21, Jesus tells a parable directed at the chief priests and Pharisees (Matt 21:45), condemning their corrupt leadership and their rejection of God's messengers—and ultimately, of the Son. The judgment he pronounces—"the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruit" (v. 43)—refers not to the land of Israel but to the stewardship of God's kingdom.
The parable does not revoke the Abrahamic covenant. It does not annul God's election of Israel. It does not even mention the land. In the parable, the landowner represents God; the vineyard is Israel (cf. Isa 5:1-7); and the tenants are the chief priests who will be removed from leadership over God's people. The fact that care of God's kingdom will be given to a new people—the Church—does not invalidate Israel's election or the Abrahamic promise of the land. The idea that the Jews "lost their rights to the Promised Land" is a theological inference, not a biblical assertion.
Moreover, Paul explicitly refutes this notion in Romans 11. Far from declaring Israel cast off, he insists: "Has God rejected His people? By no means!... For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:1, 29). The Church may inherit the spiritual blessings of Israel, but it does not replace her. The covenant is expanded, not erased.
To use this parable as a warrant for denying Jewish claims to the Land is not only exegetically flawed—it undermines the very mercy and faithfulness of God that the Gospel proclaims.
14) Cherry picking: Galatians 6:16 proves the Church is the "Israel of God"
"And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and (καί) upon the Israel of God." (Gal 6:16)
Claim: Tsakanikas argues that "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16 refers to the Church—and only the Church—thereby proving that the Church is the "new and true Israel," and that ethnic Israel no longer has any ongoing theological role. To support this, he appeals to an alternate translation of the Greek conjunction kai (καί), insisting it should be rendered not as the usual "and," but as "namely" or "even"—suggesting that Paul equates all who follow Christ with the "Israel of God." (CIOG, 3MCCZ )
Fact: This reading is both textually questionable and theologically overextended. It relies on a rare and contextually unsupported usage of kai, amounting to a form of exegetical cherry-picking.
To begin with, Galatians 6:16 is the only place in the New Testament where the phrase "Israel of God" appears—and building a sweeping replacement theology on one ambiguous phrase is a classic example of cherry-picking. In contrast, the terms "Israel" and "Israelite" appear nearly 2,800 times in Scripture (including 77 times in the New Testament)-and always refer to the ethnic descendants of Jacob, the Jewish people, or their land. The overwhelming biblical witness presents Israel as a distinct people, loved by God, called by God, and tied to a specific land through covenant.
Catholic Zionists do not deny that the Church is the new people of God, formed by union with Christ and filled with the Spirit. But the phrase "new Israel"—once common in theological shorthand (cf. LG 9, AG 5, CCC 877)—has rightly fallen into disuse in magisterial teaching-not because it's wholly false, but because it has so often been used to promote supersessionist error, erasing or replacing the Jewish people.
Now, on the textual level: the Greek text of Galatians 6:16 reads, "εἰρήνη ἐπ' αὐτούς καὶ ἔλεος, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ" — "Peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God." The key word kai (καί) is almost always translated "and" in the New Testament—over 95% of the time. While it can occasionally mean "even" or "namely," that is grammatically rare and contextually unwarranted here.
Translations like the NABRE rightly preserve the natural reading:
"Peace and mercy be to all who follow this rule and to the Israel of God."
This makes the most sense contextually. Paul is offering a blessing to two distinct but related groups:
- All who follow this rule—that is, Gentile and Jewish Christians who live by the gospel of grace;
- The Israel of God—likely referring specifically to believing Jews who are faithful to the gospel and remain part of the ethnic people of Israel.
To reinterpret kai as "namely" flattens Paul's subtle pastoral tone and forces the text into a supersessionist frame it doesn't require. It is a move that reveals more about the interpreter's theology than about Paul's intent.
In sum, Catholic Zionists affirm the Church's identity as God's people—but not at the expense of Israel's. Galatians 6:16, far from erasing Israel, may well be Paul's way of ensuring that believing Jews are not forgotten in the new creation he proclaims.
15) Straw man/dead horse: Catholic Zionists disregard the analogy of faith.
Claim: Tsakanikas suggests that a reluctance to use terms like "new Israel" or "true Israel" indicates that Catholic Zionists disregard the analogy of faith—the interconnectedness of doctrines within the whole of revelation. (3MCCZ)
Fact: This is another straw man resulting in Tsakanikas beating a dead horse. Catholic Zionists do not deny the analogy of faith. They affirm that the Church is the fulfillment of Israel in Christ— the body of the Messiah, grafted into the root of Abrahamic promise (Rom 11). But they also affirm that the analogy of faith does not give license to collapse all biblical meanings into the Church alone.
The Church has been called "the new people of God"—a legitimate theological development. But the phrase "new Israel" has often been used to imply rejection and replacement—that the Church supersedes Israel not just in function, but in identity. That is precisely what Nostra Aetate corrects when it says: "The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures."
Avoiding terms like "true Israel" or "new Israel" is not a rejection of doctrinal coherence—it is an act of theological caution, grounded in recent magisterial insight and a long-overdue reckoning with a history of misinterpretation.
Insisting on terminology that has often been used to justify supersessionism is not a defense of orthodoxy. It's a reluctance to grow in fidelity to the fullness of revelation—one that includes both Israel and the Church, both the root and the grafted branches, in God's saving plan.
In summary, Tsakanikas' entire argument consists in fighting straw men by beating dead horses, misrepresenting the Zionist movement while insisting on the obvious—that God's promises to Abraham are fulfilled spiritually in Christ.
Conclusion: Anti-Zionism and Supersessionism
At its core, Catholic anti-Zionism is not a stand-alone position—it is the direct outgrowth of supersessionist theology. It flows from the conviction that the Church has replaced Israel in God's plan, and that the Jewish people no longer have any ongoing covenantal identity, vocation, or claim to the Land of Israel.
Dr. Tsakanikas insists that he is not a supersessionist. But his own writings contradict that claim. In his interpretation of the Parable of the Tenants (Matt 21), he argues that the Jews lost their right to the Land of Israel for rejecting Christ, and that the land now belongs to those who produce its fruit—the Church. This is not subtle. It is a classic example of punitive supersessionism: Israel lost its promises through unbelief, and those promises have been reassigned.
Elsewhere, Tsakanikas writes that "The Catholic Church has always understood itself as the reconstitution of Israel open to all Jews and non-Jews, not replacing anybody, but fulfilling that Jesus was always the end of the law, the Torah" (CCBZ). This is also a textbook example of supersessionism. To claim that Israel is not replaced but merely "reconstituted" in the Church is a semantic sleight of hand.
Suppose a Muslim apologist said, "the Islamic Ummah is not a replacement of the Church—it is the reconstitution of the true Church." Would the shift in language change the theological reality? Of course not. Whether one calls it replacement or reconstitution, the result is the same: one community displaces another, even if it claims continuity. This is effectively what Tsakanikas does when he claims that Israel is "reconstituted" in the Church: ethnic Israel—the people, nation, and its religion—is effectively dissolved into the Body of Christ.
As theologian R. Kendall Soulen has shown, supersessionism comes in three forms:
- Punitive supersessionism holds that God revoked his covenant with Israel as punishment for rejecting Christ. This is the most explicit and historically dangerous form—and it is exactly what Tsakanikas defends in his reading of Matthew 21.
- Economic supersessionism claims that Israel's role was always meant to be temporary—a preparatory stage rendered obsolete by the coming of Christ.
- Structural supersessionism is the most pervasive and subtle form: it does not openly reject Israel but simply ignores post-Christic Israel altogether. It never explicitly denies Israel's ongoing role—it just leaves the Jewish people out of theological reflection after Pentecost.
Tsakanikas's writings engage in all three forms. While he denies replacement with his words, his theology affirms it in substance. Israel's covenant is over. Her identity has been absorbed. Her promises have been reassigned. The result is not inclusion—it is dissolution and erasure.
But that is not the teaching of Scripture. St. Paul says otherwise. "Has God rejected His people? By no means!" (Rom 11:1). "They are beloved for the sake of the patriarchs. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom 11:28-29). God's fidelity is not revoked by human failure. His covenant with Israel does not end with Christ—it is a living promise that expands through Him.
Indeed, Jesus hints at Israel's future reconstitution as a nation. Before his Passion, he announces that "Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (Luke 21:24)—implying that the time of the Gentiles would one day come to an end and Jewish sovereignty would be restored over Jerusalem. And just before his Ascension, when the disciples ask him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" he does not dismiss the question as now irrelevant or spiritually and exclusively fulfilled in the Church. On the contrary, he says, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority"—implying that the Father would indeed restore the kingdom to Israel at some time in the future.
Catholic Zionism affirms this truth. It sees the return of the Jewish people to their land not as a political accident, historical curiosity, or threat to the Church, but as a sign of God's faithfulness. Supersessionism blinds Catholics to this unfolding miracle, urging them to explain it away—or worse, to oppose it.
The time has come to leave behind theological frameworks that have pitted Israel and the Church as rivals in salvation history. The Church is not less herself for recognizing Israel's ongoing election. She is more herself—more attuned to the mystery of God's faithfulness, more rooted in the promises she inherited, and more prepared to witness to the day when "all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26). To reject this possibility is not fidelity to Catholic tradition. It is a refusal to see what God may be doing in our time.
[1] Tsakanikas presents his views in the following articles:
ACZ: Against Catholic Zionism (Crisis Magazine, August 2024);
CCBZ: Can Catholics be Zionists? (Crisis Magazine, August 2024);
3MCCZ: Three Major Criticisms of 'Catholic' Zionism (catholic460.substack.com, May 2025);
CIOG: Biblical Catechesis: The Church is the "Israel of God" (catholic460.substack.com, Feb 2025)
