The Church is the New Israel (Guest: Dr. Matthew Tsakanikas)

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign. Doctor Zakanikis, how are you doing today? [00:00:18] Speaker B: Really good. It's wonderful to be with you. Mr. Dr. Salmons. [00:00:21] Speaker A: Yes. I'm not a doctor. I'm just, I'm just a Mr. So yeah, we were practicing for those who weren't preview to our conversation before this, we were practicing how to say your last name. But no, I'm very glad to have you on the program again. I am ready to be called an anti Semite along with you for just simply stating church teaching. Especially though what we want to talk about. What we want to talk about today though is specifically Vatican 2 and the framework it lays out for understanding the Church as a new Israel. But of course, as good Catholics, we don't jump straight to Vatican ii. Let's lay some foundations for, for explaining what Vatican II meant by, when it comes to the Church and the new Israel, things like that. So first let's just go back to what I would say would be the beginning, which is the Bible and biblical typology in which the term, the new Israel, the term of Israel. And then like how in lots of different terms, the temple circumcision that, you know, is a type of baptism, there's a lot of biblical typology and I think this helps us to understand better what is meant by things like the new Israel. So could you explain for us just what biblical typology is and specifically how it applies to something like the Church as the new Israel. [00:01:43] Speaker B: So biblical typology being where there are foreshadowings at the beginning of God's pedagogy of the beginning of God trying to educate us into concepts so that he can reveal himself to us as he is through higher concepts. But to get to those higher concepts, we have to progress through some lower concepts. Just like you have to move from subtraction and addition before he can move into multiplication. So this kind of pedagogy of education and so you see these in the sense of there's a first man who is the representative head of the human race and we call him Adam. And of course all of us are belong to that first man, Adam. And then you find St. Paul at the end of Scripture discussing that Jesus Christ uses two terms. In Romans 5, the new man, and in Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 45, he'll call Christ the last Adam. So in other words, it's through the first Adam we begin to really grasp what an atom accomplishes. And so therefore we have Adam and Jesus. We call the new Adam. We, we look at Noah and How God saves all men and and. And animals through the ark. And therefore salvation comes through this ark. And there's safety in the ark. And therefore we see the Church as the new ark. That salvation is by getting on board the mystery of Christ's mystical body, by which Christ is our Savior. And so he extends this life through the Church. And therefore the Church is the new ark. And so you have the first ark of the covenant. And the the where God's presence comes down upon ark of the covenant and sits in the mercy seat. And so with that ark of the covenant contained the Word of God. And so we see the Virgin Mary that the presence of God through the Holy Spirit comes down upon her. The Word of God takes flesh, therefore she's the new ark of the covenant. And so likewise the very people of God in the old law are Israel. So through the promises being realized, we refer to the people of God as Israel. And now through the progression of God's covenants, we have come to the ultimate and final covenant that we call the new Covenant. Therefore, the people of God progressively in God's pedagogy have reached what God wanted as a people of God. And therefore we call that new Covenant that which makes the new people of God, which is the New Israel. Now, importantly, and then I'll stop on this, you'll find that in paragraph 877 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where just like the First Israel had 12 foundational heads, so Jesus took out of the old Israel 12 foundational heads for what becomes the foundations of the New Israel. Therefore, Israel continued through the Jews. He selected out of Old Israel to become foundational to the New Covenant by which he reforms Old Israel into the Israel God always desired and wanted. Therefore we call it the New Israel. But we also find that all typology is therefore based on what we call recapitulation. God's not just replacing, he's bringing the pre figurements and foreshadows to their fulfillment. So we're not talking simple replacement, we're talking recapitulation, which means he's re heading up re summarizing from the Greek word anikephaliasis sty of Ephesians 1:10. He's bringing all things to where they were meant to go of what was primary in God's intention and therefore last in his execution. And therefore we call that recapitulation theology based on St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians, chapter 1, verse 10. [00:05:49] Speaker A: So because obviously the the number one criticism, sometimes people throughout they'll just say, oh, you're believing in replacement theology, which is, you know, supposedly awful and debunked and all that stuff. But you're saying it's recapitulation. And what could you use? I, I've used the term fulfillment. Like more fulfillment is that also would [00:06:09] Speaker B: be showing the continuity. Yeah, that's great. That's, that's perfect. Maybe we'll have a chance to discuss. But people say, oh, you're teaching replacement theology and that's evil, or you're teaching substitution theology, or you're teaching supersessionism. Well, supersessionism on its own terms is a pejorative, but supersedes and supersession is at the heart of the doctrines of the Church. And so when we teach recapitulation, we're correcting a misunderstanding of replacement, saying God didn't throw away and start over. God renews and reforms, taking the old into where he meant it to always go. So it'd be wrong to think of replacement in that sense as simple throwing away and starting over. That's not what God does. God brings us to where we were meant to go through recapitulation. And that's why St. Paul, that's the whole theology behind all of St. Paul's plan in Christ that he discusses in Ephesians chapter one. So that's also why Benedict XVI in his 2018 essay, made very clear that whole. We'll go into it, hopefully, maybe, but the 2015 document from the Dicastery of Christian Unity talked about substitution theology, replacement theology, supersession. And he says, you know what, they were on the right track, but it's really imprecise the way they discussed it. And there then he corrects it. So anyone who wants to understand it right should just be reading that 2018 essay of, of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, who knows what he's talking about because he was in the CDF as the prefect and then the Pope, so he actually knows the history of it. [00:07:48] Speaker A: Now in general, and we're going to talk about the old Israel and the New Israel more in depth, but just in general for biblical typology, what is the role or is there a role for the things that came before? So, for example, circumcision is a type of baptism, as you mentioned, the Ark of the Covenant is a type of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Well, you know, the Church does not teach we. We should circumcise we for religious reasons. And it also, you know, we don't like, aren't going out looking for the Ark of the Old covenant. And of course, there's a lot of other ones. So what, in general, just generally speaking, what happens to the old, the. The type after it's been fulfilled, after it's been recapitulated, is it just kind of thrown away? Is it forgotten? Or does it depend on what type we're talking about? [00:08:39] Speaker B: Generally, I'd say we respect and honor it. What came before. We respect and honor it. It's a part of our heritage. Spiritually speaking, it's a part of our heritage. So we respect and we honor it. But part of the honoring means respecting what St. Paul teaches. In the Letter to the Hebrews, and at the very end of chapter 8, verse 13, he makes very clear that what was prefigurements now becomes obsolete. So in other words, we don't prefer what was a prefigurement over the reality that has now come. So to want to go back to a shadow and a prefigurement instead of adoring God and His reality would really lack wisdom. So we cherish and respect the purposes that the ceremonial law served. But of the parts of the old law, the civil, the ceremonial, the moral, we definitely no longer keep the ceremonial law. That's super clear. In St. Paul's whole, you are justified by faith, apart from works of law. He was specifically referring to what's now obsolete because they never communicated the Holy Spirit, because they were a foreshadowing, not the reality. [00:09:55] Speaker A: Right. This might be a terrible analogy, but maybe it works for some people. I'm kind of thinking like, so I grew up Protestant, and I. And I converted Catholicism, and I'm very appreciative of many of the things I learned as a Protestant. I mean, that's where I first met Jesus and I. And I came to want to follow him and to love Him. And so I don't like, just reject all that and say that's just completely nonsense. No, I'm like, no, those good things I'm still. I'm still appreciative of. But at the same time, I don't go back and practice Protestantism because I realize it's not the fullness of the faith. Is that. Is that an okay analogy for. I know it's not perfect, but is it kind of what you're saying? [00:10:35] Speaker B: And at the same time, there were elements of what is Catholic that had been stretched outside of the Catholic Church into that Protestant community. And so there were elements of what is Catholic that you were already practicing. So no harm in the sense that as a Catholic, you continue the Catholic parts And I have to respect and honor my Protestant friends. I've got to talk about my great friend Jeff, who was a First Baptist, I think, and he's now Baptist minister. Way back when I had a conversion experience at a secular college, it was him who really helped me realize what a Pelagian I was when I returned to practicing my Catholic faith. Thought it all depended on me instead of the priority of grace. So how wonderful they preserve the priority of grace, which is at the heart of our doctrine of grace and the Councils of Orange back in the sixth century. [00:11:21] Speaker A: Right. So let's. Let's stick to the Bible here for a bit, specifically St. Paul. So St. Paul, of course, writes a lot about Israel. He writes about, in Romans particularly, but also in Galatians, every place talks about the Israel of God. He talks about Israel. And I know, of course, I think it's in Romans 9 through 11 where it gets really in depth. There's a lot of controversy about what is meant, what Paul. St. Paul means by Israel. But how would you. I mean, and I know you could teach an entire course on this, but how would you kind of summarize St. Paul's view of what Israel is with the coming of. With the coming of Christ? [00:12:03] Speaker B: Israel is. Israel is God's firstborn son. What does it mean to be God's firstborn son? It really means entering into the maturity of the sonship that God always wanted us to have that was first offered to us on Mount Sinai. We're asked to enter into the presence of God. Ultimately, God was sanctifying us and purifying us, communicating His Word so that we would live off of his word and off of his will. And therefore the creature would become like God by the surrender of our will to God's will. We would be likened to God. So Israel is God's firstborn son. But to really be God's firstborn son, we needed the revelation of his eternal Son, who is his true firstborn. And only insofar as we enter that true firstborn do we enter into being God's firstborn son. And therefore Israel is entering into that fullness of sonship. And that sonship is only obtained through the new covenant. God pedagogically tried bringing us into it at Mount Sinai, but we broke that covenant. As it says in Jeremiah 31, 31, I wanted to be your father and husband in the sense of spousal relationship covenant. You were supposed to have enter into the sonship, but you broke my covenant. Therefore I had to play the master. And that begins to define the custodianship of Galatians 4, in which the law now becomes our custodian. It becomes a temporary placeholder until we can reach the promise of becoming Abraham's sons. That's the real theology behind St. Paul. How does God finish the promises to Abraham that through your seed, through your son, all the nations of the earth shall be restored to God's blessing and be restored to communion with God? So I think we can't separate that. Israel is about the sonship, and the sonship is only fully communicated through the new covenant and God's eternal and only begotten Son, who is head of the world as its creator and now head of the world as its Redeemer and his firstborn, according to. According to his humanity. Therefore, Israel is defined by Jesus Christ. [00:15:01] Speaker A: So obviously, you know, God has this. He knows all things. He knows what's going to happen, things like that. But isn't it kind of the case that, like, he tried. I want to make sure I express this correctly. I'm. If I express it heroically, I expect a theology professor to correct me. But the idea was that of course, Adam and Eve, if had they not sinned, that's, that's kind of one plan for how things would have worked out and would have been in communion with God. And then like you said, Mount Sinai, there was like another plan, like a. Almost like a. Okay, that one didn't work because of you people. So we'll, we'll try plan B or something to affect. But then that one didn't either because we have the golden calf incident. We basically just reject that idea. And so finally it's like, okay, I'm going to. And so would you say the law then was instituted at that point as a. Okay, you clearly, you're not ready, not prepared to be my sons, to treat me as a father. So I'm giving you basically rules until the fullness of time when my son will come and he will reconcile it. And because he's basically the only one who can do it, it obviously is him. Is that, is that kind of what we're. We're talking about here? [00:16:20] Speaker B: Overall, it's very interesting. So our foundation for Christ and understanding crisis Scripture in the tradition, in the tradition, presupposes apostolic succession and liturgy. So reading Scripture through the liturgies, which continue through the apostolic succession. And so the, the foundations of our faith are Christ himself, the revelation. But St. Paul's letters. And I would say the key of all St. Paul's letters is Ephesians, chapter one and Ephesians chapter one. He says God predestined us in Christ to be his sons in Christ before the foundation of the world. So therefore, that is doctrine. And so we can argue about how does. How does that God foreknew we would sin enter into that which is a whole nother different discussion. But none of us. And this entire world, this entire world didn't even begin to come into existence. And God didn't even say let there be light without there already being a plan in Christ that in him all things would be realized, that the whole plan would be realized. So we do have to read Scripture that way. And so we take into account that God also for new sin. And there's great writings about this that, you know, from the early church fathers, from Athanasius books against the Ha against the Aryans, where he discusses these issues into. It's interesting. You know, people say, well, well, Aquinas says in the third part of the summa. But we also have to remember that when Aquinas said that Christ wouldn't have come apart from sin, he's responding to the great doctor, the Church, his mentor, Albert the Great. And in Albert the Great Second Commentary on the Sentences, he holds that Christ would have come even independently of sin because of the great mystery. And so it's interesting that even Thomas Aquinas says, and it's in the second part of the second part, question two, Article seven, that even Adam foresaw the coming of Christ before he sinned. He just didn't know it would be because of his sin, but he was basing it on the great marriage mystery. So it's based on covenant itself. And then. And so I think this would have to bring us back into a discussion on all the way back to Athanasius and all the way back into Ephesians chapter one. I hope that gives a framework, a little bit of a framework for some of that discussion. [00:19:00] Speaker A: Is that a little bit the meaning of, you know, we just heard the Easter vigil necessary sin of Adam that brought about such a great redeemer. Like this idea of like obviously necessary sin is kind of a almost scandalous way to put it. But this idea that was the sin of Adam that brought about the Savior and God's foreknowledge, that was always known. But is that somewhat related to what we're talking about here? [00:19:25] Speaker B: I think so. We're talking foreknowledge and to some degree unavoidable. Somebody in the great family history of humanity was bound to misuse their freedom and need redemption, even if Adam in Adam and Eve hadn't sinned. [00:19:39] Speaker A: Right. [00:19:40] Speaker B: And so it's, it's about that all things work for good for those who love God. It's about which, which is a very misused passage that leads to all these problems with Zionism and Christian Zionism as well. When it, when in Romans 11, it says the calls and promises of God are irrevocable. Right? Yeah. He didn't say covenants are not reformable. He said, or don't get recapitulated. What he's referring to is God is always faithful, even when we're unfaithful. That's, that's a lot of what that was referencing. There's way more to it. But because God is always faithful, God is still going to accomplish his plan and continue to move us by grace to respond in a manner that we're actual cooperators with God and he's not overriding our freedom. So that would be another discussion. [00:20:38] Speaker A: Okay. Yes. So, so we see in scripture what St. Paul's talking about and how did the early church fathers kind of, what was their general view? View? I mean, we kind of hear. You often hear when someone ignorantly, often it's just like, oh, you know, St. John Chrysostom was anti Semitic and the church fathers and everybody's anti Semitic before 1962 or something like that. But how did the early church father see both the church as a new Israel, but also kind of the role of the old Israel after the time of Christ? [00:21:12] Speaker B: I think, really St. Augustine had a beautiful picture of this in which St. Augustine is very clear, following St. Paul. It's St. Paul in Philippians chapter 3, verse 3, and I'll use the RSV translation, and Philippians 3:3 says we are the true circumcision, because he's clearly referencing that we now are the Israel of God, as he does in Galatians 6:16. So some translations, they don't say true, even though it's implied. But he's saying now, in essence, we are Judaism as God intended it. That's what Philippians 3:3 is saying. And that's why he says in Galatians 6:16 that those who keep the new rule, that neither circumcision or uncircumcision matters, but a new creation. And so in verse 6:16, those who keep that rule are the Israel of God. He calls them the Israel of God. That's exactly what he's saying in Philippians 3:3 and elsewhere when he talks about that those, those who are descended of Israel are not really necessarily Israel because they're not necessarily children of Adam, Abraham, but only those who have faith in Christ and our children, the promise are the true children of Abraham. So it's those kinds of discussions that Augustine is both very clear and I can read the passages too, if you want, but first I'll just say that, then I'll say, But on the other hand, he recognizes there's still a providential role being played and some people downplay it to other just regulated to. They're a witness to the Old Testament covenants and how not to fall away from God, like, don't make the mistakes they made. I don't think it's just that because it. They also are still serving that God is faithful and still calls them. He's still calling all who hold to the promises given to the fathers so that even if they're still living in rejection of Jesus, they're still in potency, since they still have a breath in them. And they also know what's being promised and the hope of better witness from the church and less scandal from church members, they'll see more the light that they are still called by God and just like their first ancestors. What was the, you know, what was the response of Peter when he says the very first speech of Peter to his fellow Israelites? Fellow Israelites, and he says, you crucified the Messiah and then explains how he fulfilled it all. And at the end of his speech where he proves Jesus has risen from the dead according to the Psalms, they say, oh my gosh, what must we do? He doesn't say, well, God's rejected you forever. He says, repent and believe and the Lord will give you all of these gifts because that's what he wants to give you. And then on that day, 3,000 men, who knows how many women or children were baptized. So they're still called because the call and promises are irrevocable. It doesn't say the temporary law of Moses cannot be superseded. That's not what it says. So just as being a Jew living according to ceremonial law is not enough, and being a Greek trying to live by wisdom is not enough, Both need Jesus and that's the same teaching. And that's what Augustine's trying to say. And yet God's fidelity is still somehow being shown that he's still calling people who identify as Jewish. [00:24:59] Speaker A: So I want to make sure I understand this because I will admit I've heard various people talk about this and I don't always follow it. And this idea of like St. Augustine, I think St. Thomas Aquinas might as well. They talk about kind of the role of the Jews after the time of Christ, the fact that Israel, can the old Israel, the, the Jewish people continue to exist after, even after the destruction of the temple. And of course there's a lot of discussion about like how Judaism, the religion changed after destruction of temple and we don't have to go down that path, but just how did then so Augustine particularly, and even Aquinas, they see them as still having a role, not just as a witness of what not to do, in other words, what you're saying, but just that God is still, he didn't stop calling them after the time of Christ or even after destruction of the temple, he's still calling them. And so what I, I guess I'm not totally following then what their, what the purpose is of the Jewish people after, particularly after the destruction of the temple. I, I, I might be being dense, but I admit this is one I want to get into a little bit more because I don't completely follow it. [00:26:08] Speaker B: I'll have to admit I'd have to go back into the commentaries where he presents more a typological explanation of how to understand the current situation of the Jewish people who are living in a broken covenant. Their covenant is no, is not salvific because Christ has come. So it's already broken and tried to be repaired by Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and that's why God promises this new and everlasting covenant to come and which will pour the Spirit into our heart in this new covenant. And so, so the, the covenants by which they're attempting to live are broken and they're not even fulfilling the end that's called for. So they have to be very clear on that. There is no dual covenant theory that's acceptable in Catholic teaching. But I think to some degree we have to recognize that Augustine moved back and forth between Esau and Jacob and how Esau became a persecutor of Jacob. But in the end there was still a reconciliation between Jacob and Esau. So there's these kinds of patterns that Augustine does bring up and we shouldn't ignore them. And so that doesn't mean that everything people are doing or claiming as Jews or even more so contrary as Zionists, is in any way God's positive will. And yet all things work for the good of those who love God. And, and somehow the Jews are still serving providentially in God's plan, which is leading still to a time for the Gentiles to come into God's promises. So it's at the service of that. I wouldn't want to go into more detail than that because we start speculating on prophecy and then what does the end look like? And I think that's still a bit very foggy for a lot of people who attempt to say, I know exactly what it is and this is how you interpret it. Even at the time, the Second Vatican Council, they're very clear. We don't even want to touch on that. [00:28:09] Speaker A: Yeah, I just read an article by Scott Hahn talking about. It was Romans 9, 11, and he was talking about all Israel will be saved, which is of course, the famous verse. And what does that mean? And he takes kind of a. I don't want to mess up what Dr. Hahn said, so I probably shouldn't, you know, repeat too quick too much. But basically trying to takes, I think NT Wright and somebody else and he tries to say, okay, they're both right in some ways. But it's not just, it's not just it, you know, this idea that all of a sudden at the end everybody, all, all the Jews become saved. It has to do with through time as well, through the whole salvation history. So I thought it was interesting and I don't have any strong opinions because I, it's, it's a, it's above my pay grade. [00:28:50] Speaker B: And I think most people should admit it's above everyone's pay grade. [00:28:53] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:28:53] Speaker B: Right. Not a matter of anyone's personal interpretation. [00:28:56] Speaker A: Yes, right. Exactly. So, yeah. Okay. So this is a lot of this is leading up to this idea. So the church is Israel is the new Israel. And it's common among many commenters to say, both Catholic and non Catholic, to say, okay, the church had a view of Israel and the covenant and all that before Vatican II. That was one thing. [00:29:21] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:29:22] Speaker A: And then Vatican 2 changed everything. We no longer believe in this replacement theology. We no longer we, we now accept dual covenant. I mean, you'll hear the craziest things about how everything changed. And particularly they will quote Nostra Atate, of course, and they will Lou and Gencium, some other documents. And so you wrote an article for Crisis a while, but you've been a few months now, I think, in which you talk about how Vacant II lays a framework for understanding the church's new Israel. And I really enjoyed it because it really does kind of push back from the narrative, the dominant narrative, that Vacant two changed everything. And so I want you to, and I will link to that article so people can read it more in depth. But I want you to give just a overview of kind of how you can start with Lumen gentium, if you want, of how the documents of Vatican II actually can our continuity of this idea of the Church as a new Israel and don't really break the the tradition, so to speak. [00:30:24] Speaker B: There's a couple recommendations I'd like to give to people because I've seen so many people number one, misquote what Nostra Aetate actually says and, and, and not give the framework that that decree is ultimately and I have to go back, you know, between declarations, decrees. I mix up the terms between declarations and decrees, but they are both subject to dogmatic constitutions. And so you first have to understand what the Church dogmatically teaches to make sure you don't misrepresent what's being said in a decree or declaration. And so that's why it's so important to recognize. I'm going to read a little quote, if that's okay, from the 1985 extraordinary synod, which gave a final report on the proper implementation and promotion of Vatican ii. And this is what it said. It said the theological interpretation of the conciliar doctrine. So this is in basically number 5.2 of the extraordinary synod of 1985, the final report, that the theological interpretation of the insect of the conciliar doctrine must show attention to all the documents in themselves and in their close interrelationship in such a way that the integral meaning of the council's affirmations, often very complex, might be understood and expressed. And here's their key point. Now special attention must be paid to the four major constitutions of the Council, which contain the interpretive key for the other decrees and declarations. It's not listed to separate the pastoral character from the doctrinal vigor of the documents. And the Church was very clear in Lumen Gentium 9.3 that there is Israel according to the flesh, and now the Church is, quote, the new Israel. That's 9.3. That's not tribal and it's founded in the Church fathers. And this is the point I want to make ON Reading Vatican II's dogmatic constitution is to be read in total continuity with the doctrine of the faith that the Church is a new Israel. And if you the important thing to notice in a dogmatic constitution is all the footnoting of every chapter, and all the footnoting is of Church fathers and all the previous ecumenical councils, and even more so you'll notice that every chapter of the Dogmatic constitution on the Church Lumen gentium footnotes or contains footnotes to St. Augustine. And the only chapter that does not footnote St. Augustine actually has footnotes that footnote St. Thomas Aquinas discussing St. Augustine. So that's a good place to start. But then the framework gets even better when you read it from chapter one to two to three to four, and it's flow. [00:33:45] Speaker A: So just I want to make sure I summarize kind of what you're saying here. So if you want to understand Nostra aetate, you have to interpret it in light of Lumen gentium, one of the dogmatic constitutions. If you want to understand Lumen gentium, you have to understand in light of everything, it's footnoting, which is the tradition. So Augustine. So if your interpretation of let's go nostra Aetate contradicts St. Augustine, there's a good chance you're on the wrong path. Is that basically a good way to put it? [00:34:13] Speaker B: Where St. Augustine is being doctrinal and speaking on grace as the doctor of grace, because the Church is ultimately about the mystery of grace. [00:34:21] Speaker A: Right, right. Okay. [00:34:22] Speaker B: That you better not be contradicting St. Augustine on the doctrine of grace, which is what makes the Church by participation, the grace of Christ, the mystical Body of Christ. Certainly where Augustine might be being pastoral and have pastoral recommendations. [00:34:38] Speaker A: Right. [00:34:38] Speaker B: The pastoral Recommendations of Vatican 2 update that. [00:34:42] Speaker A: Right. [00:34:42] Speaker B: But it can't contradict the doctrinal and dogmatic. And so that, that would be an important key and key direct. And I know that's exactly what you meant. Yeah. [00:34:51] Speaker A: But I'm glad you clarified that. [00:34:52] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:34:53] Speaker A: We're not saying every single word that Augustine said is infallible and doctrinal, stuff like that. Absolutely. Yeah. I want to make sure. And I, I pulled up Lumen gentium here. I want to make sure it talks. I know it, I know it says that the Church is the new people of God. Does it? It does also. Does it also say New Israel as well? [00:35:12] Speaker B: Oh, definitely. 9.3. Let me see if I can. I'll read it out loud for you. And so I printed the article. [00:35:22] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:35:25] Speaker B: That's on your website. [00:35:27] Speaker A: Is that, Is it the paragraph that starts Israel according to the flesh, which wanders in exile in the desert, was already called the Church of God. So likewise, the new Israel, which while living in the present age, goes in search of a future and abiding city, is called the Church of Christ. Okay. Yes. I just wanted to make sure. For he has brought for himself with his blood, is bought for himself his blood. And then it talks about, it also talks about. I'm trying to get the other quote I wanted to kind of make sure about Christ instituting a new covenant, a new people. Okay, so so basically it says the, the new Israel, which while living in this present age, goes in search of a future and abiding city, is called the Church of Christ. So obviously that the Church of Christ is. And we, and we could get into the whole in Lumen Gentium, of course, the church Christ subsist in the Catholic Church. I don't, we don't have. I've talked about that on this podcast before. But you know, the point is though, is that the Church is the new Israel according to Lumen Gentium. [00:36:23] Speaker B: That's right. So if Nostra Aetate refers to the Church is the new people of God, that's subject to what's meant in the Dogmatic Constitution, which is always the right way of how do we reach church documents reverified in the 1985 extraordinary council, extraordinary Synod, that all decrees and declarations have as their interpretive key the constitutions. Therefore, when Nostra Aetate refer to the new people of God, it's referring to the new Israel. It's inseparable. You can't have another interpretation. But it gets even better actually. And, and the document does go into, I believe, where we quote. And it's hard for me because of my reading glasses here. But then the article moves forward and it also brings up within that framework which moves from there. Therefore there's only one Israel of God which is the Church, that makes it the prime and alligate, which means if you discuss any other Israels, you're only referring to them in some inferior and analogous manner. So if you refer to Israel according to the flesh, it's not the true Israel because it's not the prime analogate anymore when you're referring to Israel according to the flesh. And that's very clear, when you read number 16, it doesn't say that the people of God, it says they stand in relation to. And so that's where number 16 is very clear. It also footnotes St. Augustine. And that's where I get the language from. Therefore the Israel, the Israel according to the flesh is only in potency to being the people of God. It's not an act or actuality. Therefore the true Israel is the Church. Now how, even beyond that, the last time we talked, I want to say it was almost two years ago, in August or so was the last time we talked. Is that right? [00:38:14] Speaker A: Because my memory it sounds about right. Yes. I think it has been a couple years. [00:38:18] Speaker B: You kept making the really cool point because I was really new at. I was just upset at the doctrinal stuff of what's going on with these Catholic Zionists. This is bizarre. Like, right. They're totally contradicting the doctrine of the faith and by saying we shouldn't use the term New Israel. And it's, there's a mess of what it means with these people who call themselves Catholic Zionists. But you made that super important point that people keep making mistake like your Ted Cruz's and your Mike Huckabees, that somehow the state of Israel that was founded in 1948 is somehow the same as the biblical Israel. And he kept making that point. And I just, you know, so obviously there's been a lot since all of them. [00:39:00] Speaker A: Yes. [00:39:01] Speaker B: So. [00:39:01] Speaker A: Yes, there has. [00:39:02] Speaker B: So this is where we're saying, okay, look, we didn't realize because a lot of us didn't know what's going on with the Christian Zionists, what's going on with the justification of Christians in America acting like there's not a problem with the ethnic cleansing going on not only in Gaza, but, but also in the west bank that had nothing to do with Hamas [00:39:22] Speaker A: and seems to be now [00:39:23] Speaker B: moving to Lebanon defending this. [00:39:26] Speaker A: Right. [00:39:26] Speaker B: And so we've had to be like, wait a second, everyone's quoting Vatican 2. People are acting like what you just said. Nostra A Tate changed that. No, it didn't change a thing. It was a pastoral discussion. Because we're still trying to work out what's going on in the midst of the Cold War. Right. Because everyone's playing pawns and in the Middle east and not defining geographical boundaries in order to play the Cold War of, of the communists versus the capitalists inside the Middle East. And then people start interpreting wrongly what the Church's State Department position has always been, which is a two state solution, and that we don't accept Zionist claims in terms of any theological Zionist kinds of claims. So now you and I are here talking two years later like, you know what? We really need a right framework. Right. And that's why we're having this conversation. That's why I wrote the article a couple months ago and said Vatican II's framework for discussion of the Church's New Israel and said, let's, let's make sure people are playing the game fairly. And that's what we're trying to do here. [00:40:30] Speaker A: And it really is because there's so much confusion. It is kind of, I Mean, I know this is a. Other people have said this, but it's like if I had a, a son, I named him Jesus, and, and I expected you to worship him as God because, hey, he's got the name Jesus and the Bible says you need to worship Jesus as God. It's like you'd be like, you're crazy. And so likewise, just because you name the, the. The. The. The nation Israel 1948, doesn't mean all of a sudden it has all. Everything from. The funny thing is, is like even. It's crazy on two points. First of all, it's just it. It's just the name they gave it does not mean it's the same thing as the ancient Israel. But secondly, for Christians, we should realize that the ancient land of Israel was a type. So even if it was the same land, it doesn't mean it, it matters really to us as Catholics. I mean, actually, I was listening to Orthodox priest recently talking about, and he was quoting, I think, St. Gregory of Nyssa, saying that he was St. Gregory. I think it was St. Gregory and this. So, yeah, in Cappadocia, he was criticizing Catholics who were talking about, like, how you have to go to like, the Holy Land for pilgrimage. And he was saying. Not that he was saying you shouldn't do that. He was just simply saying, no, the Holy Land is where the church is. And so when you go to your parish, that's the Holy Land. And so when I go to mass on Sunday, I am in a very real sense, actually more real than if I go to, to the Middle East. I'm going to the Holy Land because Jesus is there, the Eucharist is there. I mean, that, that's actually the Holy Land. And I'm not saying you shouldn't. People shouldn't go on pilgrimage as the Holy Land. There's a lot of reasons to do that, but not as some idea that somehow this is the same, you know, that, that the type is still in effect, so to speak. And so that's, that's where it gets messed up. But okay, so I, I want to go back though. I want to give. I want people to understand, though, how is Nostra Atate used by, like, what are the passages there that are used to def. A. Either a dual Covenant or a Zionist or some idea that, that the, that the, the Old Covenant is still somehow in effect? Like what? You know, try to steel, man, maybe a little bit. What, you know, how is it used? You know, because some people might not be that familiar with Nostra Aetate and so what are the passages that are kind of misinterpreted to. To give that idea? [00:42:52] Speaker B: It's a passage is from Romans 11, somewhere around 26 to 8 or so, in which it says the. The promises and call of God are irrevocable. And then people think they're summarizing and they say the covenants are irrevocable. And the next thing you know, it's the covenant is irrevocable in reference to Moses. And so people are taking out of context, misquoting what's used in Nostra Aetate. And then they start looking at this 2015 document on the 50th anniversary of Nostra Aetate from the Dicaster of Christian Unity. And it's on the 50th anniversary. And it uses that very quote from Romans as the title of the document. And it says the call and the promises of God are irrevocable. But then inside that document, somewhere in like paragraphs 37 through 39 or so, there's this discussion on substitution and references to this ideas of supersessionism. And people start thinking that somehow the Second Vatican Council condemned discussion of supersession or condemned. And the council never condemned these things, and Nostra Aetate never condemned these things. And the 2015 document, when you read it from the Vatican website, and what the Vatican stuck at the front of the document, I'll read you the quote. Actually, it says this, the text quote. The text is not a magisterial document or doctrinal teaching. In other words, it was a preparation for dialogue with Jews trying to keep the door open with them. But it was also the springboard for the. The 2018 Communio essay, the last academic essay that Benedict XVI ever wrote. And when she brings up that document and says the language moved in this direction, rightly, but it's imprecise the way it's using the terms. And he therefore emphasizes that actually our worship does supersede the Old Testament worship, which is also implying clearly the New Covenant supersedes the Old Covenant because it was becoming obsolete, because it was only meant to be temporary, because what God was always trying to reach was the third promise. Through your seed, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. And so if you'll carefully read Galatians 3, where St. Paul makes that point and then makes clear the relationship of now those who will not accept the child of promise. And in Galatians 4, they will see that's what he's picking up on in Romans chapter nine. And so Israel is being used interchangeably between the Israel of God vers the Israel according to the flesh, which has not accepted Jesus and is not in covenant in any lifegiving salvific manner. Okay. And so the problem is probably in that 2015 document being so misrepresented and the fact that since Nostra Aetate, since the 1967 war that that occupied Gaza and the west bank in an attempt to take Jerusalem and incorporate it, and attempt to incorporate it into the State of Israel, which the UN has said remains in the west bank an illegal occupation. What we've seen since Nostra Aetate, so we're talking about 1965 and then that 1967 occupation. We have seen non stop lobbying by Jewish lobbies that are not the traditional Jews, but are the Zionist theological Zionists claiming some kind of biblical mandate that the promises have not been superseded. Even. Even St. Paul in Romans 4 says the promise to Abraham was that his descendants shall inherit the world cosmos, not specifically the boundaries given to him in Genesis 12 or in Genesis 17, the boundaries and references, by the way, by which God said I I give it to you as a perpetual covenant. And people say, see, it was perpetual right there it says perpetual and the word is olam in Hebrew. But again in Numbers 25, he gives to Phineas a perpetual priesthood and he makes it a covenant. So are you saying the Levitical priesthood is still in effect because God said it was? In the same way he promised the land, he also promised that priesthood. Or do you accept the Christian teaching that God gave us better promises? Hebrews chapter 8, verse 6. That God gave us better sacrifices. Hebrews chapter 9. Was it 16 that one up for you that. Hebrews chapter 9, verse 10. The Messiah brought about a time of reformation, which is a restoring us to the original promises to Abraham. Through his seed singular, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. Which means therefore the law was a was a pedagogue, it was a custodian. The whole point of Galatians 3 and 4, which are being expanded upon in Romans 9:11. So in other words, if you totally misunderstand grace as the mystery of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, making you a partaker of the Holy Spirit, Hebrews chapter six, verse four, which makes you a partaker of the divine nature, second Peter chapter one, verse four, which are the very great promises. In other words, God has been faithful to what was in that promise by giving us what he always intended, that through his seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. And then in Romans 4, and inherit the whole world, since now the promises belong to all who accept Jesus. It's about inheriting the whole world, not just one little piece of land. And Augustine's great about this. Hey look, book 16 of the city of God. If you're worried about. Well, didn't God promise the Jews the land? He says there's still Jews in the land and they always have been. Of course, they were a huge minority at the end of the 1800s, which is why the vast majority of rabbis were anti Zionists in the late 1800s. They saw it as a heresy. And it's not until the British with their Christian Zionism started pushing them into the land. They began to adopt and change their minds. And then of course, World War II and the Holocaust led to ultimately a change of mind from being a, being a minority position of religious Zionism to now, today a majority position, which means the whole definition of Zionist itself has changed. And Zionism, when it's used, is often an equivocal term and misused. So there's a whole lot there. I'm sorry, I meandered a bit. [00:50:52] Speaker A: Yeah, no, no, that's good. So like, just like talking about like the Old Testament priesthood, the Old Testament temple, the Old Testament land, all these things were promises made by God. And all of them in a very certain sense were perpetual promises, meaning they would never go away. You'd always have the priesthood, you'd always have the temple, you'd always have the land. Well, obviously we know that the temple was destroyed. The Levitical priesthood no longer exists. And the land, at least for a very long time, was not inhabited, was not controlled by, by Jews. It wasn't even at the time of Christ. And so what we're saying is, as Catholics is all those promises did actually, they did happen, but the priesthood was fulfilled in of course Christ's high priesthood, which is actually priesthood going back to Melchizedek. The temple is Christ's body. I mean, he makes that so clear too. I mean, it's like Jesus literally says, you know, he is, you know, he's the temple, basically, right? You know, destroy it. I will rise up in three days. I mean, what's he talking about? Obviously the temple of his body. I mean, St. John, I think, is the one who says explicitly that's what he's talking about. And then the land, this is where I feel like, I feel like most Christians, even Christian Zionists would accept the idea of the priesthood being fulfilled in Christ. Now. I mean, Protestants understand priesthood differently. But you know, generally though, even priests of all believers and then the, the temple being Christ, although I know a lot of the Christian Zionists now want a new, a temple, a third temple being created. But then the land, that's where it seems like we get, we become literal. Like okay, we have these boundaries and that's the land. But it's like no, Abraham was promised the whole world. And so that happens in, in what? The Catholic, I. E. Universal, the church, I mean the church that, that, that spans the whole world. And so all these things are perpetual promises. They have been fulfilled, they, they have been kept, so to speak. God is not, did not go against his promises, but they just weren't. They, they didn't, they didn't keep the exact same boundaries or they didn't keep the exact same form, so to speak. They, they were, they almost like the caterpillar becomes the butterfly. It's still the same entity being, so to speak, as it was a caterpillar, but now it has a new form. And so likewise with the priesthood, the temple and, and the land, why would you accept. [00:53:11] Speaker B: Yeah, so why, I mean you, you accept this word perpetual and everlasting, but when it comes to priesthood you're saying oh yeah, yeah, well that one doesn't matter. Yeah, only land one matters. And you're like, right, and part of it is this attachment to what's physical. And so it's. The people say well you know, the land was something physical. You've over spiritualized now making the promise of something over spiritual. And I haven't made it over spiritual. There's a physicality to what we call sacraments. But because you reject the sacramental principle, because you reject that what is physical can be a carrier, an instrument of what is spiritual and what is divine. Just like Christ. Christ's humanity, it's real and it's true. And yet it's also an instrument of his divinity. So he's fully God, he's fully man, completely human. And so that's why I refer to Christ as the primary sacrament that the flesh veils the divinity. And so similarly the bread and wine are transubstantiated. The accidents veil the divinity, the indestructible life. And so you see, Protestants reject the sacramental principle of that corporate Christ's coming is already present. Christ's kingdom is already present. The thousand year reign began with the Holy Spirit communicated our soul in an indwelling. But if you reject sanctifying grace, then you've rejected what St. Paul's talking about. And if you reject the sacramental principle that Christ is already coming to us in the eucharistic mystery before he comes to us unveiled in glory. And he comes to us veiled sacramentally. And therefore you're reading the book of Revelation wrong because you're not seeing that St. John already sees the first re. The first resurrection of the thousand year reign of Christ is about your soul in grace when you're baptized into his death and you arise again alive in Christ. And that's resurrection. Grace is the first action. Just read the City of God by St. Augustine, book 20. He makes very clear the thousand year reign of Christ begins with the Church, which is the mystery of Christ's communication of grace to the soul. And since the soul's in grace, then you'll receive the resurrected glorified body, because the soul and grace is the seed of the resurrection. So if you get rid of the intrinsicist position on grace, which is sanctifying grace, that it's an actual participation in the Holy Spirit, which is a participation the divine nature, which means you can be more deeply increased in this mystery. If you don't recognize that, you start looking for physical holy land as the answer. You start looking for something other than the sacramental principle, which is what we see happening. So they want a thousand year reign on earth and millenarianism. [00:56:20] Speaker A: Right. Okay, real quick, back to Nostra Atate. Obviously it, at least it's obvious. It seems obvious to me is after the release of that document and, and some other things that happened in that time, the way the church, I should say, the way church leaders talked about and to Jews really did change significantly in that it. And, and a lot of people did start to say things like, you know, the dual covenant started coming up and things like that. Now I know that Nostra Aetate does not teach the idea of a dual covenant, but could you say, I mean, would you say that perhaps because this is a common criticism of some of the documents Vatican ii, would you say, though potentially no certate, it was written in such a way that it allows some of these interpretations, these more ambiguously, or would you just say no, it really is just a misinterpretation of a clear teaching of Nostra Aetate. Like how, how, where would you fall on that? [00:57:26] Speaker B: Everybody after World War II and all of the atrocities that were committed. And granted there were many atrocities other than the 6 million killed in the Holocaust, there were other atrocities. Let's not forget all of the Christians who have been sacrificed and killed and other minority groups as well. All of us wanted to ensure that Christians could never be held accountable for the horror of the anti Semitism of the Nazi party, that if in any way we held a responsibility for not speaking more clearly against what the Nazi party did, we wanted to ensure that Christians knew, speak out, don't be a part of it, don't interpret anything of the church fathers in a manner that would lead to pretending it's okay to genocide anybody. That's certainly present. And the purpose, for sure. But when that purpose was first announced, it was very clear at the Biblicum in Rome and in other theological unions that the right way to interpret Galatians 16, 6, 16, through all of the circulating kind of, you know, when you sign a document, lots of signatures on a document, kind of things that were circulating, say we want these things. They're all very clear that Galatians 16 should be understood very specifically that the church is the Israel of God. So there's no compromise on these doctrinal points. The problem happened that, yes, we wanted to ensure that Catholics were speaking way more favorably about Jews because we hadn't spoken favorably enough. So I'd say that's correct to say. But the real problem that's been pointed out by many people is after this document came out, the vast majority of lobbying happening at the Vatican were Jewish Zionist groups. So all the Vatican's been hearing from are religious and theological Zionists, not the former secular agnostic Zionists, which means they're getting more a Western history of how Jews were treated in the west without any consideration. And I'm. I'm borrowing from a Father David Newhouse, I believe a Jesuit who's in Jerusalem. I saw a good talk that he gave on this without any acknowledgement that the situation of Jews under Christians in the west is way different than the situation of Jewish Christian relationships in the Middle east in which both are under Muslim governments. And so there's not a true respect for what the full picture is. And then you have the strength of the west at the Vatican now giving only a theological Zionist perspective, as though that speaks for Jews when many Jews are like, don't let those religious or theological Zionists speak for me in any way. And I would add to that. This is the problem that Kerry Pine Bowler faced at that one antisemitism hearing in which she tried bringing Jewish rabbis who are not Zionists to give their perspective. And she was denied. And then they turned, which I've been fighting. And you published the article January 1, a year and a half ago. So the first article really, on this topic with, with. With Crisis magazine was when we did the against Catholic Zionism, which ended me in endlessly having to address these, these topics. And as you said before, all of a sudden you start getting caught in antisemite when you were pro Israel in terms of protecting its existence. And now you're an anti Semite all of a sudden, which is what to some degree Charlie Kirk experienced in a much more magnified way. And so you saw even at that hearing now, which is what we tried fighting on December 31st, you published it, or January 1st in which they, which we fought and said, look, you can't say anti Zionism is anti Semitism because Catholics inherently are not theological or religious Zionists. We're against theological Zionist interpretations. We certainly can accept, but don't have to the claims that made the secular state of Israel. I for one have been very supportive as my forefathers fought in World War II against the Nazis. And so I had a very favorable towards protecting Jews in a homeland. Now that doesn't exclude the evils that happened and associated with the Nakba. That's just a reference to what happened in migrations under British mandated Palestine and international law. And so this is the point that you notice the lobbying in America is, is this idea now that if you are anti Zionist now you're an anti Semite based on the new International Holocaust remembrance association definition, which is a stretch because what Zionism used to be prior to 1945 has really shifted since 1967. And what was secular Zionist desire for a homeland based on international law has now turned into a Zionism post 1967 and under the extremist cabinet post 2020 of Netanyahu, of theological Zionists who believe they have a biblical mandate to take illegally, without an existing mandate from God anymore, since the New Covenant to take land from the Palestinians, Christian and Muslim, which is illegal, of which they have no divine right according to Catholic theology. And therefore to say being anti Zionist, if you use today's meaning of Zionism is anti Semitism is an absolute abuse of Catholic efforts to protect Jews from hatred based on their ethnicity or based on their religious practice. And so it's a change of definition of anti Semitism. And the bishops since Nostra Aetate have been duped in my opinion, that somehow what Nostra Aetate was supporting was somehow theological Zionism when it absolutely was not. And that's where the real error has entered in with Bishop's discussions on Nostra Aetate and Bishop discussions on anti Semitism. [01:04:22] Speaker A: I think the dominant problem among many Catholics, especially Catholic leaders, is this idea of conflating anti Zionism with anti Semitism. And this I, But I would also, I want to address, though, what I think is another problem, but I don't think it's. I definitely think it's as common, but it does exist, and that is actual anti. Semitism. So actually, people who are, you know, Catholics who might embrace a certain level of anti Semitism. Can you speak to how, first of all, how, like, how would you define actual anti Semitism today? And kind of where's the line between, okay, you're anti Zionist, maybe you're. You are accepting of the Catholic teaching that the, the promises made to the ancient Israel have been fulfilled and recapitulated in Christ. And so those promises are no longer to be taken as literal. Like, okay, they get a land, they get a, you know, the temple needs to be rebuilt, whatever. So is that. But then there's the other side of like, actual anti Semitism. So how would you like, define actual anti Semitism today? And where is that line that Catholics should make sure we don't cross, so to speak? [01:05:31] Speaker B: I'd certainly begin with an ethnic identity hatred, a racist approach to Jews. And so I would build from there in terms of making sure we're holding rightly what we mean by antisemitism. I would say anytime someone says the Jews, you are certainly entering into dangerous territory because there are a lot of Jews who are fighting Zionism, today's Zionism. And so some of them are the best fighters against Zionism because they will not embrace it and they reject it, and they do not believe the state of Israel has any right to claim to speak for all Jews. So I think you're falling into an anti Semitism. When you start saying that all Jews now somehow are responsible for what the state of Israel is doing, I would say that's anti Semitic. So there's a lot that could be discussed there. There was something else I wanted to say, but my mind went blank. That's okay. In terms of how you were asking the question, what's funny, because you kind of specifically. That's where we need to. [01:06:38] Speaker A: Yeah, I was gonna say you kind of define it very similar to how I have defined it. Whereas if you say this specific Jew, like, you know, Ben Shapiro is wrong about this, obviously that's not anti Semitic. If you say Israel, the modern state of Israel is wrong to do this, that's obviously shouldn't be considered anti Semitic. It's when, if you use the language of the Jews, I feel like you've definitely. Now you're, you're you cross a dangerous line. If nothing else, you're probably now falling in anti Semitism because what you're doing is you're ascribing to somebody. You're ascribing like what somebody like Ben Shapiro says or Benjamin Netanyahu or even the government of Israel to a rate a complete the whole race of the Jews. And I think that's where you get problematic. And I also see it in like you see, you see people, you know, the Jews control the world type of thing. And it's true there are Jewish people of great influence or people at least with Jewish descent of great influence who have done some terrible things, you know, in the world. And there's no question about that. But then again, are you saying the Jews did it? Are you saying this Jewish person, you know, Jeffrey Epstein or whoever, you know, did these terrible things? I think that's where, that's where I kind of feel like the line is. And so I thought that was good that you mentioned that. So if I could, I would add [01:07:59] Speaker B: the definition of, of Zionism has changed. So we're equivocating. Oftentimes when you use the term Zionism, I would call myself a post Zionist because because of that shift and that a homeland was established in 1948, that really what we're discussing now is let's stop pretending. So in other words, post Zionists are not allowing the change of Zionism into saying that Zionism and its theological Zionism is now acceptable because what we're really dealing with is the problem of theological Zionists. And so yes, there are Jewish Zionists like the Ellison family buying up Tik Tok and Netanyahu saying we have to take control of Tik Tok to, to stop people from not supporting Israel. So there's a problem there and paramount and CBS and, and these kinds of things going on. And so simultaneously we have to recall when it comes to theological Zionists, there are more Christian theological Zionists than there are Jewish Zionists. So there's a bigger problem of Christian theological Zionism which enabled the religious theological Zionism which has led to the shift in which Zionism under Herzl and its beginnings was rejected by most rabbis. Most rabbis rejected Zionism based on their theological understanding. And so they saw it as a heresy. So it was only after the push of the Christian Zionist for Zionism that the Jewish rabbis started adapting what was actually the dispensationalism of Christians which has fed now the theological Zionism which is leading to the injustices in which divine mandates are being claimed which run contrary to natural law upon which civil international law is based. [01:10:03] Speaker A: Yeah, I think those distinctions are very important because there is the political Zionism originally of, okay, the Jewish people want a homeland that, that, you know, wherever it may be even. I mean, at first, I know in the early discussion Zionism, there was talk about it this being established and I think in South America or Africa or something like that. But the idea is they have a homeland and then. And that's a political thing that a Catholic can support or does not have to support it. You know, it just depends. It's a, since it's a political issue, Catholics can disagree about that. They can say, that's a good idea, that's not a good idea, whatever. And then the theological Zionism then goes to, no, they have a biblical mandate and that to, to control a certain geographic region because there's a whole talk of Greater Israel, of, you know, expanding to the whole. Everything that's listed in the promises to Abraham, which we've already talked about that. And so I think that's, that's key is like as Catholics, you can support a political Zionism or not support it. That's just kind of your own political views and whether or not it's a good idea or not. But the theological Zionism, that's what has to be rejected by Catholics because it's, it just. We've talked about that for the past hour. Why. So, okay, so I want to, I want to kind of wrap it up there, but I, first of all, thank you. But also I wanted to mention, I know you have, I think, a booklet that just came out like this week or something like that recently. I know. And so could you could tell us about this and I'll link to it in the show notes. But could you tell us about the, the. This booklet that just can't. That was just published. [01:11:39] Speaker B: I really think people need to come to a deeper understanding of what it means to be a partaker of the divine nature. And that's what the luminous mysteries do. I think the cure for Christian Zionism is really in the mystery of the doctrine of deification to get right the better gifts, the better promises, the better sacrifices of Jesus Christ, the true Temple, our Savior, our Lord, our King. So I wrote a companion booklet that we just recollected the articles from my catholic460.substack.com on the luminous Mysteries. I I, since the, the year before publication on a catechesis on deification, transfiguration, the Luminous mysteries, I wrote a companion booklet that is more meditations, but goes even deeper into the biblical theology and deeper into the mystical theology in a more condensed, shorter version. And so I'd like our readership to know that it is available on Amazon. Anrap Books and Media was gracious to publish it and reprint and assist in the project just so we could get more parishes to carry it, so that people could enter more deeply into their meditations on the luminous mysteries, which. Which are really key to grasping the mystery of Christ's better promises, Christ's great promises, in which, second Peter 1:4, we are to be made partakers of the divine nature. So thank you for letting me mention that. That book and its companion booklet. The companion booklet just came out last weekend. [01:13:24] Speaker A: It's on now. What's. I saw the companion booklet. Now, the book itself. When was. Has that already been published? [01:13:31] Speaker B: That was published a year back. [01:13:33] Speaker A: Okay. What's the name of that book? [01:13:37] Speaker B: And the title of that book is A Catechesis on Deification, Transfiguration and the Luminous Mysteries. That book was even recommended by the equivalent of the Nobel Prize in Theology. That was Tracy Rowland, who got the. She got the Rat Singer Prize in Theology, and so she recommended it. Recommendations from Bishop Lavoir, recommendations from Tim. So it's got a lot of great recommendations. I didn't go through getting all the recommendations because this was the companion booklet to it, right? [01:14:09] Speaker A: Yeah. [01:14:09] Speaker B: But I think people will appreciate the booklet even more so than the book to which it's a companion. [01:14:17] Speaker A: I love the idea, though, that instead of just saying why, like, Zionism is wrong or why this idea of the old covenant promises still being in effect is wrong, it's like, no, we're kind of quibbling over the scraps here. Let's look at what really God has promised us and what, what through his son. And so the idea of deification, I think that's. That's a great way to do it because it reminds us that why would we care about any more like, like these, these. These kind of preliminary promises, we should be looking at the final goal, which is deification. So. So, yeah, I'll. I'll link to both the book and the booklet, though, as well for people to check it out. [01:15:02] Speaker B: So that'd be great. So my, that article. Maybe you have the article. I hope I sent it to you that will. Anyway, that might. Somewhere in there. Have both links. Somewhere in there. [01:15:10] Speaker A: Okay. Okay, perfect. Okay, well, thank you very much. I appreciate this has been a great discussion. I appreciate. Hopefully it will help a lot of people kind of understand something that's very applicable to today's world right now, so. [01:15:23] Speaker B: Awesome. [01:15:24] Speaker A: Okay, everybody. Until next time. God love you, [01:15:32] Speaker B: Sa.