Did Vatican II Change the Doctrine of Supersessionism?

I stand with the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and with the Angelic Doctor. Christ and Christ ALONE is the way, the truth, and the life.

From Catholic Stand

By Rory Fox

Supersessionism is the view that Christianity has “superseded,” or “replaced,” Judaism as the (single) path to salvation.

In 2015 the Vatican said:

Supersessionism steadily gained favour until in the Middle Ages it represented the standard theological foundation of the relationship with Judaism. (“The Gift and Calling of God are Irrevocable,” 17)

In 1965 Vatican II said that God had not repented of the original covenant with Judaism (Lumen Gentium, 16).

This raises the question of whether the Church changed its mind in 1965, and rejected the medieval doctrine of Supersessionism.

1. A Theology of Judaism

There are two main (Christian) ways of viewing the relationship between Christianity and Judaism.

1. Supersessionism
2. Dual Covenantism

Supersessionism (also called “Substitution Theory” or “Replacement Theory”) is the view that Judaism has been replaced by Christianity. Abrogationist Supersessionism views Judaism as completely ended. Thus, Christianity is an entirely new faith, with no continuity between the two.

Fulfillment Supersessionism views Christianity as supplementing Judaism. It has replaced some aspects of Mosaic Judaism, such as animal sacrifice. But there is nevertheless a valued continuity between the faiths, such as the shared Revelation of the Old Testament.

Dual Covenantism is the opposite to Supersessionism. It is the view that the Jewish covenant remains salvific for Jews. It claims that there are two routes to salvation: Old Covenant Judaism for Jewish peoples and New Covenant Christianity for others.

Supersessionism and Dual Covenantism are mutually exclusive. Either there is a single (Christian) faith path to salvation, as Supersessionism claims; or there are multiple paths, as Dual Covenantism states.

2. Pre-Vatican II Theology

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) provided the classic medieval summary of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. He stated:

The… redemption of the human race was fulfilled in Christ’s passion… Consequently the prescriptions of the (Jewish) Law must have ceased, as their reality was fulfilled… Before Christ’s passion… the law and the gospel were concurrent, as the mystery of Christ had begun, but was not yet consummated (on the cross). (Summa Theologiae, 1-2, Q.103, a.3 ad.2)

Aquinas makes two points. Firstly, Dual Covenantism occurred during the life of Jesus, when the “law and the gospel were concurrent.” But, once Jesus died, his death superseded and replaced the ritual sacrifices of Judaism. Now, people can only be saved by the single salvific path of faith in Jesus, and baptism (Commentary on Romans, Ch. 11, #920).

This view of Aquinas was repeated by the Church for centuries. It can be seen reiterated in Pope Pius XII’s 1943 Encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi (#29).

Aquinas’ view is a model of (Fulfilment) Supersessionism. Judaism’s heritage is valued so Aquinas quotes the Old Testament and refers to its authority. But Judaism is no longer salvific without the fulfillment of Christianity, which has modified the original covenant. So Jews must convert to Christianity in order to be saved.

This theological model underlies the comments of the Council of Florence (1442) when it stated that:

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews…, cannot share in eternal life… unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives. (Cum Cantate, Session 11)

3. Vatican II: God Remains Faithful to the Original Covenant

Vatican II spoke positively about Judaism. Drawing upon St. Paul’s words in Romans 11:27–29 it stated:

On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. (Lumen Gentium, 16)

Some modern commentators have claimed that if God remains faithful to the original covenant with Judaism, then Judaism must still be salvific for Jews.

In 2001 Cardinal Walter Kasper said:

Therefore, the Church believes that the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises. (The Jewish Christian Dialogue, 6)

This is a rejection of Supersesionism and a claim of Dual Covanentism.

Some 800 years earlier, Thomas Aquinas reflected on the same Biblical text which Lumen Gentium cited. He noted that an immutable God can remain faithful to the Sinai covenant, whilst historical circumstances nevertheless change it (Commentary on Romans, Ch. 11, #926). So, according to Aquinas, there is no (logical) necessity to read the Scriptures in a way that promotes Dual Covenantism.

So why would Walter Kasper interpret the Biblical texts as he does, especially as it entails a change of the Church’s doctrine from Supersessionism to Dual Covenantism?

4. Vatican II on Antisemitism

A possible reason for the Kasper interpretation is that Vatican II’s position on Antisemitism entails a rejection of Supersessionism.

Vatican II stated:

The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God… The Church… deplores all hatred, persecution and other manifestations of antisemitism. (Nostra Aetate, 4)

This statement rejects all theological claims which are Antisemitic. If the doctrine of Supersessionism is Antisemitic, then Vatican II’s words would indeed entail that the doctrine can no longer be part of Catholic doctrine.

This kind of thinking may underpin the Kasper interpretation. It may also underlie similar views which are to be found in Jewish theologians such as Rabbi David Rosen (Address at Washington National Cathedral, 2002). It may even explain why some US Catholic bishops positively cited Kasper’s interpretation and seemed to endorse Dual Covenantism (see the 2002 Reflections on Covenant and Mission).

But is Supersessionism necessarily Antisemitic? Arguably, there are ways in which it can be expressed which are not forms of Antisemitism. (See: “Is the Doctrine of Supersessionism Antisemitic?”) If that is so, then it would be a potential misreading of Vatican II to assume that its rejection of Antisemitism is also a rejection of Supersessionism, and to assume that it has replaced the doctrine of Supersessionism with a new doctrine of Dual Covenantism.

One way to try to clarify the interpretation of Vatican II is to look at whether Post-Vatican II popes have expressed themselves in ways that are closer to Supersessionism or to Dual Covenantism.

5. Pope John Paul II

Pope John Paul II seems to have interpreted Vatican II as not rejecting Supersessionism.

He spoke warmly of Judaism and he was praised by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League for his work in combatting Antisemitism. He said to a Jewish audience:

You are our dearly beloved brothers, and in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers. (Address, 1986)

He also stressed that God’s covenant with Judaism had “never been revoked” (Meeting with Jewish Representatives, 1980, #3). He ensured that that phrase was even placed in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 121).

But he also explicitly rejected Dual Covenantism, when he authorized the 1985 “Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism.” The document states:

[The] Church and Judaism cannot… be seen as two parallel ways of salvation,… the Church must witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all.  (#1.7)

And he reaffirmed the underlying ideas of Supersessionism when he authorized the 2001 publication, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible. It states:

‘There is an ‘insufficiency of the legal covenant of Sinai…’ (#41) ‘… (so there is a) radical replacement in the New Testament…’ (#64) ‘… Jews who do not believe in Christ are in an unsatisfactory situation from a religious point of view’ (#82).

It is difficult to interpret these claims as a version of Dual Covenantism. Instead, they are consistent with the Church’s (medieval) doctrine of (Fulfillment) Supersessionism.

6. Pope Benedict XVI

Writing as Cardinal Ratzinger in his 1999 Many Religions, One Covenant, Pope Benedict XVI states that aspects of Judaism have been “superseded” by Christianity. However, the word “Supersessionism” is clearly problematic for him, due to sensitivities about its potential for Antisemitic misuse. So he finds himself with a “virtually unsolvable paradox,” affirming the ideas of Supersessionism, whilst denying the suitability of the word itself.

Whatever Pope Benedict XVI was trying to say, it cannot have been an affirmation of Dual Covenantism, as he instructed the US bishops to amend their language to explicitly rule out any implications of Dual Covenantism (USCCB Press Release 27 Aug 2009).

In his 2018 essay, “Grace and Vocation without Remorse,” Pope Benedict XVI once again affirmed some elements of “supersession.” He explicitly rejected Abrogationist Supersessionism and even took issue with the very appropriateness of the word “supersession,” as a description of Christian thought. That was misunderstood by some commentators as an “ahistorical revisionist” denial that the Church ever taught Supersessionism (see Chief Rabbi of Vienna takes Pope Emeritus to task, 2018).

What is clear from Pope Benedict XVI’s position is that he rejected Dual Covenantism, and he rejected some aspects of Supersessionism, whilst affirming others. But he is also nervous of using the word “supersession.” It is not entirely clear why, but it may be due to the fact that the word is at risk of becoming politicized, due to its links with accusations of Antisemitism. If so, then it could indeed make sense to try to move theological discussion away from the word. However, that leaves a difficult theological problem. How can an idea be affirmed, whilst rejecting the word that describes it?

7. Pope Francis

Pope Francis has made a number of comments about Judaism. This includes a criticism of Christian triumphalism (see On Heaven and Earth, 2013, p.188) and a reference to the Church’s need to continue proclaiming Jesus as Lord (Evangelii Gaudium, 249).

Two years into his Pontificate Francis authorized the 2015 publication of “The Gifts and Calling of God Are Irrevocable.” It states:

A replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a Church… and the rejected synagogue… is deprived of its foundations…’, (#17) ‘…the New Testament writings have not superseded the older writings and nullified them. (#28)

This is a clear rejection of Abrogationist Supersessionism. It also rejects Dual Covenantism.

There cannot be different paths… to God’s salvation. The theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the Jewish path without Christ and the path with the Christ, … would in fact endanger the foundations of Christian faith (“The Gifts and Calling of God Are Irrevocable,” 35)

If both Abrogationist Supersessionism and Dual Covenantism are both rejected, then that would seem to mean that the Church’s position must (still) be a version of the Fulfillment Supersessionism which it has always been (?).

This impression is reinforced by Pope Francis’ 2021 Homilies on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. In the first talk he said:

These opponents of Paul… went back to the previous observances, those that had been superseded by the Gospel. (Homilies on Galatians, Ch. 1, 23 June 2021)

In later talks he went on to deny the sufficiency of the Torah, stressing the need to encounter Jesus Christ (General Audience, 11 Aug 2021).

These views are consistent with a doctrine of Supersessionism. Pope Francis’ utterance of them led to Rabbi Arousi accusing him of reviving the (Antisemitic) “teaching of contempt” (see The Times of Israel, 25 Aug 2021).

Writing a response on Pope Francis’ behalf, Cardinal Koch said:

This does not mean that the Torah is diminished or no longer recognized as the “way of salvation for Jews.” (Letter to Rabbi Sandmel, 3 Sep 2021)

This response is a statement of the Dual Covenantism expressed by Walter Kasper. It is difficult to know how to interpret it, as it is inconsistent with the Supersessionism which preceded it. Is it an announcement of a 2021 change of doctrine rejecting Supersessionism? Or is it just a politically convenient case of different messages to different audiences in order to avoid politically undesirable accusations?

All that is clear, is that Pope Francis’ position is too unclear to be capable of interpretation.

8. Conclusion

The Traditional teaching of the Church involved a commitment to Supersessionism (Section 2). Some people seem to think that Vatican II’s rejection of Antisemitism requires a change of Church doctrine from Supersessionism to Dual Covenantism (Section 3 and 4).

That view does not seem to be shared by Post-Vatican II popes. A rejection of Dual Covenantism and an endorsement of aspects of Supersessionist ideas was authorized by Pope John Paul II (Section 5) and can also be seen in writings of Pope Benedict XVI (Section 6).

Pope Francis’ views are too unclear to be interpreted (Section 8). But his engagement with the issues of Supersessionism are particularly interesting, as they show how politically delicate the question has become. Merely citing aspects of the traditional doctrine of Supersessionism is enough to lead to an immediate accusation of Antisemitism.

What does this all mean? It is clear that Vatican II cannot have consciously or deliberately changed the Church’s doctrine of Supersessionism, otherwise the position of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are inexplicable.

However, it is also clear that some people think that Vatican II implicitly changed the Church’s position (i.e., without Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI noticing). So the Church has (or should have) renounced Supersessionism in favor of a new doctrine of Dual Covenantism.

Is the Church “now” committed to Dual Covenantism, and its implication that there must therefore be salvation outside the Church? Or is the Church still committed to its medieval doctrine of Supersessionism, albeit with some “politically creative” forms of expression to avoid (mistaken) allegations of Antisemitism?

Perhaps the Church needs to clarify its position?