Vatican position on Israel

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4203818,00.html

"In a special interview with Die Tagespost last week, Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem 
Fouad Twal, named by Pope Benedict to represent the Vatican in the Jewish State, 
declared that “Israel’s existence as such has nothing to do with the Bible.” He then 
compared Christians’ condition in today’s Jerusalem with Jesus’ Passion: “We 
Christians never forget that even our Lord himself suffered and was mocked in 
Jerusalem.”

Twal's position on Israel and the Bible has been embraced at the highest levels 

in the Catholic Church. The Vatican synod in 2010 declared that Israel cannot 

use the Biblical concept of a promised land or a chosen people. “We Christians 

cannot speak about the Promised Land for the Jewish people”, the synod’s 

document said. “There is no longer a chosen people. The concept of the 

promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews 

to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians.”

There is the concept "replacement theology," which holds that the Church or 

ekklesia, assembly, the Assembly of YHWH which originally was Israel, consists

properly of those who truly follow YHWH as did Abraham, to whom YHWH said

that ALL nations would be blessed through him, now consists solely therefore

of those who follow YHWH's Messiah Jesus (Joshua or Yahshua, Yah is 

Savior) "Christ" being Greek for Anointed One, which is the same thing Messiah

means in Hebrew. 

Indeed, if a Jewish rabbi were to deliver a sermon in a Greek synagogue about

the Messiah he would either have to use the word "Christos," or avoid this by 

using the Hebrew word for "Anointed One" only, the rest of the sermon being

in Greek, or use some Greek equivalent phrasing that uses several words

to express the concept of the Messiah, or weasle around the word by 

using some appropriate but weasle intended in useage in context word like

Son of David or something like that.

There is however, St. Paul's warning in Romans that the Christian should not

boast against the Jews or Israel after the flesh, because they are not cast

off and they are the domestic olive tree, into which we the branches cut 

from a wild olive tree are grafted, and they bear us not vice versa.

Also, contrary to some evangelical critics, support of zionism does not 

have to mean there are two tracks for salvation, Judaism for Jews and 

Christianity for the rest of us, rather, that what has to do with God's actions

in history, and making a situation that sets the stage for the Second Coming

when "they will look on Me [or Him depending on translation] Whom they

have pierced," is not about salvation which still depends on Jesus.

(one can argue that those who love God and do not actually hate Jesus

but have some kindness towards Him as an individual, might indeed meet

Him at death, recognize Him as the unknown influence in their lives, and

accept Him as Lord, or get fished out of hell later in response to prayers

for the dead, but still their salvation would depend on Jesus, Who said

"I am the way, the truth and the life, none comes to The Father except

through Me."]

Yes, there is legitimacy to replacement theology but it is more nuanced

that the typical Orthodox or Roman Catholic would see it. Meanwhile 

any curse that the Jews of the time brought down on themselves and

their children as they said, would have been fulfilled in AD 70, and 

mitigated by Christ/Messiah's prayer to The Father, "Father, forgive 

them, for they know not what they do."

Justina