A Tragic History: the Catholic Church and the Jewish People
The history of the Catholic Church's relationship with the Jews has been tragic across centuries. Jews were made second-class citizens, isolated into ghettos (e.g. Rome—since 1555), and forced into conversion and baptism. Baptized Jews were often treated like prisoners, subjected to the controlling system of the so-called "Holy Inquisition."
One revealing example comes from the 1997 catechism of the Society of Pope Pius X, an ultra-traditionalist group on the fringe of the Church. It states: "The Jews reject—as all of those false religions—the Savior Jesus Christ. If Judaism was the true religion before the coming of Christ, it is no longer so now, because it did not recognize its hour and has not accepted its redeemer. The true Jews have turned to Christ, with whose arrival the Jewish religion of the first covenant has lost its meaning and its right to exist".
Throughout history, there were isolated voices of protest within the Church against this antagonistic stance toward the Jews. Yet these were often drowned out. Nevertheless, such prophetic voices—even before the Second Vatican Council—challenged the Church to reconsider its posture. Examples include Jacques Maritain's "Le mystère d'Israël" (Israel's mystery) and Hans Urs von Balthasar's "Lonesome dialogue."
When Catholic theologians and Church leaders were confronted with the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust, a dramatic rethinking began. The breakthrough came with the Second Vatican Council and its landmark document on the Jews, Nostra Aetate, issued in 1965.
Pope John XXIII and the Breakthrough of Vatican II
Pope John XXIII played a decisive role in the fundamental shift that occurred during Vatican II. Archbishop Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli (1881-1963) had long been a friend of the Jewish people. As Papal Apostolic Delegate to Turkey and Greece (1935-1944), he organized refuge routes for Jews fleeing to Palestine via Turkey, saving approximately 24,000 lives.
Shortly after becoming Pope John XXIII in 1958, he began pressing for a pro-Jewish declaration to improve the Catholic Church's relationship with the Jewish people. He sought to eliminate anti-Jewish teachings from Church doctrine and liturgical texts, and to make it clear that the Jewish diaspora was not a punishment from God for the crucifixion of Jesus.
When the idea of a new Council was launched, Pope John gave a strategic directive: the document on the Jews should be placed within the realm of ecumenism, because the identity of the Church and the pursuit of Christian unity are deeply connected to the mystery of Israel. The first draft of the Council decree (Decretum de Iudaeis, 1961) was halted due to strong opposition from Arab bishops, who feared political repercussions for Christians living in Arab countries. This development is documented under the title "Wardi affair."
Nevertheless, Pope John persisted. His final intervention as Pope, just days before his death, was to affirm that this project must be completed. The declaration Nostra Aetate (In our Time) was finally passed on October 28, 1965, after long and difficult debates. It has often been called "the shortest but most significant document of the Council" (Cardinal Franz König)—a text that sought to overcome a tragic history of over 1800 years in just 500 words.
Within this document, only the fourth chapter addresses the Jewish people. Here, the Church declares that she is "spiritually connected" to Israel through their common ancestor, Abraham. The Patriarchs, Moses, and the Prophets are affiremd as a shared heritage—belonging to what might be called the "Church before the Church." The Church acknowledges that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the covenant with the people of Israel.
The document emphasizes the ongoing significance of the Jewish people in salvation history—not only in the past, but also in the future. It quotes Romans 11:17-24 "(The Church)… is nourished by the root of the good olive tree, onto which the branches of the wild olive tree of the Gentiles have been grafted." At least indirectly, Nostra Aetate implies: whoever declares Israel to be of no significance for salvation history denies himself the possibility of being grafted in as a wild shoot, and deprives himself of the strength that comes from the root.
In defending the theological value of the Old Testament—which was prominently challenged by the anti-Jewish paradigm of Marcion, the second-century heretic—the document makes clear that by opposing Marcion, the Church affirmed Israel's legacy and its lasting significance for the the Christian faith. Vatican II emphasized that God is the author of both Testaments, and thus Israel and the Church are joined in a shared covenantal relationship. Even though the vast majority of the Jews did not recognize Jesus as Messiah, Israel remains within the irrevocable covenant; her gifts and calling are "irrevocable" (Rom 11:28).
Nostra Aetate finally rejects the concept of Jewish collective guilt for Jesus' death on the cross. The Council also "decries hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism." Jews "should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God," because such a description contradicts the Holy Bible. Consequently, the Church's teaching must be cleansed from all forms of anti-Judaism. Even though the document does not speak against mission in general, some theologians interpret its tone as a corrective to triumphalism or evangelistic arrogance in Christian witness to Jews.
Unfortunately, Nostra Aetate does not touch the subject of eschatology. It could have said that the Jewish end-time expectation of the Messiah and the Christian hope for His Parousia point toward a shared horizon of hope. Many theologians criticize the fact that in the main document of the Council, Lumen Gentium (Nr.16), the relationship of the Church with the Jews is described using the model of "gradual affiliation." This concept does not sufficiently value the fact that Israel is not at the fringe of the Church but rather belongs to its innermost identity.
Another issue that remained untouched was the question of the land. In Nostra Aetate, the Catholic Church was not able to make any positive statement about the independent Jewish State, even though the Council Fathers knew how deeply the land of promise is woven into Israel's identity. Unfortunately, it took the Vatican until 1993 to reach the Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel, where this acknowledgement was at last partly expressed. The pressure against such a treaty from the Arab (Christian) side has always been overwhelming. Many Jewish observers responded critically, suggesting that by omitting any mention of the Jewish State, Nostra Aetate extended a hand toward reconciliation but pulled it back halfway.
The Work of Post-Nostra Aetate Popes
In a creative continuation following Nostra Aetate, the post-Conciliar Popes—Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI—accepted its legacy as a sacred commission. Paul VI (1962–1978) was the first Pope in history to undertake a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1964. In acknowledgement of the foundational role of the Jews for the Church and Christian unity, he assigned the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews institutionally to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
In 1974, a profound statement appeared in a document of the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, written largely by Cardinal Johannes Willebrands (1909-2006), who played a central role in advancing ecumenism and reconciliation with the Jewish people in the second half of the twentieth century. "…The problem of Jewish-Christian relations concerns the Church as such… pondering her own mystery…she encounters the mystery of Israel. Therefore, even in areas where no Jewish communities exist, this remains important…The very return of Christians to the sources and origins of their faith, grafted onto the earlier covenant, helps the search for unity in Christ, the cornerstone." This document indirectly suggests that a healed relationship between the Church and the Jews may also contribute to healing the Church's own internal divisions across denominations.
John Paul II (1978-2005). Growing up as a Polish boy near Auschwitz, he developed strong personal relationships with Jews. During his first visit as a Pope to Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1979, he called the concentration camp "the Golgotha of our times," expressing the deep connection between the suffering of the Jewish people and the suffering of their Jewish Messiah. In 1980, during his encounter with the Central Council of Jews in Germany, he spoke of "the encounter between…the people of the Old covenant, which has never been revoked,and the people of the New Covenant." On another occasion, he said: "…the encounter between Catholics and Jews is not an encounter of two ancient religions, each going its own way. Rather, there is a proximity based on the mystical bond"— a bond that, "in Abraham, brings us close together and, through Abraham, to God, who elected Israel and made the Church emerge out of Israel".
Some theologians have referred to this statement by Pope John Paul II to promote their theory of a dual path to salvation. Behind this theory lies a valid question: how is the eternal validity of God's covenant with Israel to be reconciled with the conviction of the newness of the New Covenant brought by Jesus? Unfortunately, theologians on both sides have answered this question with the thesis of two parallel ways to salvation—often called the "Two Covenant Theology" (e.g., the writings of Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt and Paul Van Buren, A Christian Theology of the People of Israel, New York, 1983). This highly contested theory, in simplified terms, proposes: one way to salvation for the Jews—through their faith and life under Torah; another way for the nations—through their faith in Christ. That would imply that Israel is to be saved without needing Jesus Christ. This position contradicts the fact that the Messiah from Israel is also the Messiah for Israel, overlooking the Gospel's witness that Jesus said: "I have been sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel…".
Already in 1985, the Notes on the Correct Way to Present Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church (No. I.7)— published by the Vatican— explicitly rejected this perspective: "Jesus affirms that there shall be 'one flock and one shepherd' (Jn 10:16). The Church and Judaism cannot then be seen as parallel ways of salvation and the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all, while maintaining the strictest respect for religious liberty, in line with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council declaration Dignitatis Humanae."
In 2000, the Vatican document Dominus Iesus rebuked even more strongly any attempt to diminish the redemptive role of Christ for any human society—including the Jews. Although God's covenant with Israel remains unrevoked, the universal role of Jesus Christ as Redeemer includes all Jewish men and women. This vision of salvific universality sustains the hope that, at the end of days, all Israel will recognize the Christ of the Parousia as their Messiah and will be saved through him.
During his visit to the Great Synagogue in Rome in 1986—the first such visit by a Pope—John Paul II made a powerful gesture of reconciliation. While he did not explicitly mention the Roman Ghetto or forced conversions, the visit was widely interpreted as a repudiation of past hostility between the Church and the Jewish people. Following this gesture, the Pope emphasized: "The Jewish religion is not something external, but belongs in a certain way to the center of our religion. You are our favored brothers, and one could even say, our older brothers." With these words the constitutive significance of Judaism for the Christian Church was unambiguously affirmed within Catholic teaching.
In a similar way, in 1988, John Paul II stated before a group of Jewish leaders: "…According to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, she (the Church) should better understand her bond with you (the Jews),…by meditating upon her own mystery. Now that mystery is rooted in the mystery of the person of Jesus Christ, a Jew, crucified and glorified" (John Paul II; Spiritual Pilgrimage, 126f.) This theological insight has since been further developed through the official Jewish–Catholic Dialogue.
In 2011,the Vatican's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews—closely associated with Pope Benedict XVI—published a new series of studies under the title: "Christ Jesus and the Jewish People Today: New Exploration of Theological Interrelationships." This volume proposes a Torah Christology, which leads to an Israel-Christology opening the path toward an Israel-Ecclesiology.
Torah Christology & Israel-Ecclesiology
The identity of the Church is rooted in Christ. The identity of Christ is rooted in his relationship with the Jewish people. Therefore, the identity of the Church is inseparable from Israel. The important question remains: how are they related? If the Jewish people and their faith are "intrinsic" to the very identity of the Church, then the Church's theological vision of herself—her ecclesiology—must reflect this truth. Such a perspective challenges and enriches multiple dimensions of Catholic theology—from Christology to eschatology, from liturgy to sacramental theology (see: Cardinal Willebrands, Church and Jewish People; p. 28).
In a certain way, by living under the Torah, Israel fulfills its priestly vocation. As Jesus is the fulfillment of the Torah in His person, He is also the embodiment of all that Israel was called to be and to become. Cardinal Aron Jean-Marie Lustiger (1926–2007), a Jew, Holocaust survivor, and Catholic Archbishop of Paris—articulated this truth even more clearly in his major work on Jewish identity (The Promise, pp. 33-39). For him, the incarnation of the Torah in Jesus is not merely a spiritual truth; it is the fruit of his integration into the lived reality of the Jewish people around him, and of their integration into the history of his people, to whom He was given by the Father as the eternal Son.
Out of this very concrete incarnation—in and through the flesh of the Jewish woman Miriam of Nazareth, Jesus becomes the perfect representative and individual embodiment of the Jewish people. As the Son of Israel, he is the Son of the Father. As the King of Israel, he is the Messiah and the Christ. The figure (sign) of Jesus is, at the same time, the figure (sign) of Israel and for Israel; and by that, the figure of the Church and for the Church. What is said of one can be applied to the other. Jesus can only be understood in his loyalty to His people, who are first of all Israel—and only secondarily the Church of the nations.
As the son of Israel, Yeshua is also—and inseparably—the Son of God. Even though He fulfills Israel's commission to live in obedience to God through His life, death, and resurrection, He is not a substitute for Israel, but rather the embodiment and fulfillment of Israel's vocation to be God's Son as a whole people. He fulfills the Law—in its divine intent—completely and perfectly, and thus acts as the true Israel should act. This total identification with Israel, as He embodies His people, affects not only the Jews of His day but also all members of Israel across past and future generations. This means that all the sufferings of Israel—even those inflicted by the Church—are part of Christ's passion, part of the mystery of the Cross. This includes the killing of the children of Bethlehem, and also the Holocaust (see: Cardinal Lustiger, The Promise; p. 50)
For Christians, salvation comes through the blood of Jesus—not through Torah observance—but as a fruit of that salvation, they are called to imitate Jesus as the embodiment of the Torah and to follow him in discipleship. This entails a spiritual observance of the Torah’s ethical heart. In doing so, Christians—even without being fully aware—enter into a life-giving relationship with the Jewish people.
For Jews, this means that whenever they obey the Torah as Jews, they strive toward the goal of becoming an incarnation of the Torah—a vocation perfectly embodied in Jesus. Living according to the Torah does not itself bring redemption, which can only be received through the grace of atonement offered by the Lamb. Yet any Jew who reaches out to live according to the Torah is already, in some way—perhaps even unknowingly—orienting himself toward a life-giving and salvific communion with Christ, in whom this incarnation of the Torah finds its completion and fulfillment.
For both Jews and Christians, this longing finds its completion and full fruition when their direct or indirect relationship with the Torah is brought to fulfillment through active conversion and faith in Jesus the Messiah.
The realization of this theological truth by no means takes place easily or automatically. "The Church of the Circumcision," the Jewish part of the Church, is meant to be a mediator between the two groups, helping each group to understand this mystery and to live according to the Torah as the fruit of a salvific relationship with Yeshua. It would be much easier for both sides to perceive and grasp this mystery if there truly existed "the Church of the Circumcision" as a bridge between the two. The Son of God, incarnated within the Jewish people, made the two peoples one in his flesh on the Cross (Eph 2: 14-17). The Jewish part of the Church (ecclesia ex Judaeis) is thespiritual and natural bond between the Church of the nations and Rabbinic Judaism, as this Jewish part of the Church lives out the Sinai covenant through their explicit confession and discipleship to Yeshua, the risen Messiah, as the fulfillment of the Torah.
Encounter in the Vatican
In 1998, a group of three Messianic Jewish leaders, Msgr. Peter Hocken—a priest from England—and I, a Catholic deacon from Austria, went to meet with Cardinal Josef Ratzinger in the Vatican, then still the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, later to become Pope Benedict XVI. When the Messianic representatives shared their personal testimonies of how they came to accept Jesus as their Messiah, the Cardinal listened carefully. After a long pause of thoughtful silence, he finally said: "The Church will not be complete unless it consists of both—the Church from the Jews and the Church from the Gentiles (ecclesia ex Judaeis & ecclesia ex Gentibus)." He continued with another important statement: "We theologians always knew that one day you" (referring to the Messianic brothers) "would need to appear. None of us could imagine how this would happen." He mentioned that, as he listened to their witness, an important question had to be raised: Is this Messianic witness an authentic experience? If this phenomenon is proved authentic, does that mean that this movement is an eschatological sign? All present in the room were astounded. Who could have expected such words—especially considering who was speaking. In essence, what the Cardinal was indirectly saying was that, even though the Holy Spirit has preserved the Church throughout the centuries, enabling her to continue as the Church of Jesus Christ until today, the Church is still incomplete because she lacks her Jewish component.
For many centuries before the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), it was Catholic consensus that the Church, as such, is a perfect society. But then Josef Ratzinger, the chief theologian of the Church, was indirectly saying to the three Messianic leaders: the Church is complete only when the Jewish part of the Church is restored. It seemed that, in the Cardinal's understanding, this restoration would require that at least a portion of Israel recognize Jesus as their Messiah. This raised a question for the Cardinal: Is this movement the first fruit of Israel's recognition of her Messiah? Does this movement have the potential to begin the restoration of the Jewish part of the Church, which was lost in the fourth century? The Cardinal in referring to the "eschatological sign" was suggesting that this movement may be a sign that the Second Coming of Jesus is drawing near.
Another important figure in the Vatican had an eye-opening encounter with two prominent Israeli Messianic leaders: the theologian of the papal household, later Cardinal Georges Cottier OP. Shortly after this meeting with Cottier, another meeting took place between them and Pope John Paul II. This meeting so inspired all of them that the Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger and Georges Cottier decided to begin a non-public dialogue between Catholics and Messianic Jews, starting in the year 2000. Ten Messianic theologians and ten Catholic theologians began engaging in annual theological dialogue over the next 14 years, each time for nearly a week, meeting alternatively in Rome and in Israel. Cardinal Cottier reported directly to Pope John Paul, and afterwards to Benedict, about the positive developments within this dialogue-group.
The main goal of the dialogue was to clarify one question: Is this Messianic Jewish movement a serious phenomenon prompted by the Holy Spirit, or is it inauthentic—a kind of disguised evangelical church with Jewish elements? If it turns out this movement is truly a work of God, then it has to be taken seriously; and there will be many consequences for the Catholic Church. I have personally been part of this dialogue since its inception. The first seven years (2000-2007) helped both sides develop mutual theological understanding. It was the encounter of Messianic Jews with the Catholics and their tradition that challenged them to relate to each other in a constructive way and begin working toward a consensus. The Catholic team recognized during this period that the Messianic movement is indeed an eschatological sign.
The second phase (2008–2014) began with a decisive breakthrough. One of the Messianic theologians confronted the whole group with an evaluation of the most important document of Vatican II, Lumen Gentium. While he pointed out the richness and comprehensiveness of the Council's teaching, he argued that it lacked a clear word about the election of Israel and the ongoing place of the Jewish people in the history of salvation, including the future; the continuing significance of the biblical distinction between Israel and the nations; and the mystery of Israel and its relationship with the Church composed of Jew and Gentile. The discussion that followed led to a degree of agreement that the original constitution of the Church was the unity of the ecclesia ex Judaeis and the ecclesia ex Gentibus. This common ground provided the framework for the subsequent meetings, built on the rootedness of the earliest Christian tradition in the Jewish heritage: ecclesiology (2008); baptism (2009); eucharist (2011); issues concerning sacramentality (2012), and priesthood and apostolic succession (2013).
The major theological work of the dialogue had been achieved in this second phase. The extent of agreement expressed and the narrowing of points of opposition, particularly in the later years, surprised many of the participants. The history of the dialogue has been one of deeper penetration of the Church's own mystery (see: CCC, par. 839). The Catholics became aware that a lack of constant interaction with the Jewish heritage leads to a weakened understanding of the constitutive elements of the Church and of the fullness of the Catholic faith. As the Catholic team, we saw how the Messianic Jews present endorsed the fundamental Christian and Catholic convictions concerning Christology, the Trinity, and soteriology—though not always using traditional terminology. We could see, in some way, what Jewish practice and tradition might look like in the light of faith in the Messiah. Many important subjects recurred during these 14 years but were not addressed as they should have been. One of the most challenging among them is the understanding of eschatology: how can we, as Catholics, integrate the distinct eschatological perspective that the Messianic Jews are presenting to us?
In 2015, after Cardinal Christoph Schönborn from Vienna, Austria, formally took over chairmanship from the aging Cardinal Cottier, a report was presented to Pope Francis by some of the members of the group summarizing 14 years of intensive theological investigation. The conclusion was clear: this Messianic phenomenon is a work of the Holy Spirit! Because of this positive result, the dialogue was set to continue in a more official form. The appropriate place for this process of theological discernment remains to be identified within the Vatican structures, so as to ensure the greatest chance of producing practical outcomes. What has become clear to some key leaders in the Vatican—although certainly not to all—must also become evident to other leaders of the Christian Churches.
