Conclave frontrunner Cardinal Aveline's views on Judaism subvert Church teaching

(LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline is now considered a leading candidate to succeed Francis at the coming conclave. Vatican insiders have told LifeSiteNews that he “will be the next pope,” and Edward Pentin and Diana Montagna’s Cardinalium Collegii Recensio states that he is “allegedly Pope Francis’ ‘favorite’ cardinal to succeed him.”((https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/jean-marc-aveline/))

Thus, understanding Aveline’s theology has become an urgent task. In the first three parts of this series we examined how Aveline systematically reinterprets the Catholic religion.  

• Part I: He reimagines the role of false religions in salvation. 

• Part II: He redefines the universality of Christ’s mediation to include those outside the Church. 

• Part III: He reconfigures the Church’s mission around dialogue, rather than conversion. 

Each of these moves represents an inversion of Catholic doctrine. Taken together, they constitute a system of apostasy. In place of the true religion, Aveline installs a new model which retains some of the vocabulary of Catholicism, while emptying it of its content. It speaks of Christ, the Church, and salvation—but reinterprets each in the image of modernity, grounded not in revelation, but in sentiment and politics. 

These two final parts turn from theory to practice. We will examine how Aveline applies his synthesis to two concrete cases: Judaism and Islam. We will see that Aveline systematically exploits the Jewish people in a program of theological subversion, which follows these clear steps: 

• Misrepresent the Mosaic Covenant as being of ongoing validity 

• Misrepresent Judaism as the continuation of the Mosaic religion 

• Create a false understanding of the Church’s relationship with Rabbinic Judaism 

• Use this false understanding to “deepen” what he calls “the mystery of the differentiated unity of God’s work” 

• Use this “mystery of the differentiated unity” as the lens through which to understand other non-Christian religions, and thus explain how they retain “salvific or revelatory value.” 

The final step of Aveline’s program explains how he justifies saying that “[b]asically, religions are ways for men and women to seek answers to the great, simple questions of life”—which represents the collapse of his whole synthesis into naturalism, and apostasy from Christ. 

In this part, we will see how his treatment of Judaism becomes the camel’s nose beneath the tent: he quietly subverts the Church’s settled doctrine with regards to Judaism, only to extend this subversion to all religions through the synthesis we have been analyzing.  

After addressing his approach to Judaism—most of which will be drawn from his 2010 article “Les enjeux actuels des relations entre juifs et chrétiens” (The current issues in Jewish-Christian relations)—we will demonstrate the application of his method to Islam, which will stand in as a representative for the various other non-Christian religions. 

Aveline’s approach to Judaism, and subsequently to other religions, exposes the final logic of his vision: a Church that renounces her mission to convert all nations, and instead, takes her place sitting at the feet of Judaism and other non-Christian religions.

If the Church were to do this, she would deny her very identity as the Church of Jesus Christ. 

I. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ‘JUDAISM’? 

We begin, by considering the nature of Judaism—the keystone of Aveline’s religious vision, and the foundation of his new theological order. 

We must state plainly: Judaism, as we know it today, is not the true religion: it is a false religion. It cannot be treated as a form, variation or continuation of the true religion revealed by God to the patriarchs and prophets.  

As some readers may find this surprising, we must review the key points of doctrine and history. 

Has the Old Covenant been revoked? 

First: the Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled and brought to its end by Christ. From the moment of his Passion and Resurrection, salvation has been available only through faith in him and membership in his Church. As such, the Old Covenant no longer functions as a salvific path for anyone. It has been fulfilled, just as the caterpillar is fulfilled in the butterfly.  

There is no “dual covenant” or separate dispensation for Jews without Christ or the Gentiles; there is one Redeemer, one Church, one path to salvation and one Covenant for all men, regardless of race. To deny this is to contradict divine revelation and the solemn, unanimous voice of the Fathers, Popes, and Councils.  

We have explained this at greater length in an article accompanying this series. 

Is Judaism the Mosaic religion? 

Second: the religion known as “Judaism” today is not even a continuation of the Old Testament religion without Christ.  

Many Jews accepted Christ as the Messias. However, most Jews did not accept him, and continued to practice the Mosaic religion without regard for him.((It is true that, for several years, Jewish Christians (the Apostles, etc.) continued to observe certain rites of the Mosaic religion. St. Thomas Aquinas explains:  

Augustine (Epist. lxxxii) more fittingly distinguished three periods of time. One was the time that preceded the Passion of Christ, during which the legal ceremonies were neither deadly nor dead: another period was after the publication of the Gospel, during which the legal ceremonies are both dead and deadly. The third is a middle period, viz. from the Passion of Christ until the publication of the Gospel, during which the legal ceremonies were dead indeed, because they had neither effect nor binding force; but were not deadly, because it was lawful for the Jewish converts to Christianity to observe them, provided they did not put their trust in them so as to hold them to be necessary unto salvation, as though faith in Christ could not justify without the legal observances.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Ia IIae, Q. 103, Art. 4.)) However, this Mosaic religion—centered on the Temple, the Levitical priesthood, and animal sacrifice—ceased to exist in 70 AD with the prophesied destruction of the Temple and the Fall of Jerusalem.  

What remains today is a new religion, known as Rabbinic Judaism. This system was reconstituted, in great part in the ancient town of Yavne (Jamnia). This reconstitution was based not on the rites and sacrifices of Moses, but on the teaching of the rabbis and the “sages”—the religious teachers and respected rabbis who flourished roughly between 250 BC and 625 AD. 

Few Christians today realize that these rabbis and sages were decisively influenced by the great opponents of Christ himself—the sect of the Pharisees. The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) is clear on this link between the Pharisees and the Jews. 

[W]ith the destruction of the Temple the Sadducees disappeared altogether, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands of the Pharisees. 

Henceforth Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of view [...] 

Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all the future.((Kohler, Kaufmann, ‘Pharisees,’ in Jewish Encyclopedia (1906), available at https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees))

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (1941–43) confirms the same: 

The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees.((The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, ‘Pharisee’, pp 473-5. Ed. Isaac Landman, 1969, KTAV Publishing House Inc. Available at Internet Archive.))

While not all the “Sages” were Pharisees in the strict sense, the dominant stream of Rabbinic thought, and the interpretive framework and assumptions of post-Temple Judaism, were deeply and self-consciously shaped by the Pharisaic traditions, and continued the Pharisee’s opposition to Jesus of Nazareth and the Christian Church.  

We have explained the Pharisaic roots of Rabbinic Judaism at greater length and with greater nuance in another accompanying piece.  

In short: Rabbinic Judaism is a man-made religion, formed after Christ, against Christ, outside of the fulfilled Mosaic Covenant and in rejection of the New Covenant.  

Does Rabbinic Judaism have a divine vocation in the world? 

Given this Pharisaic heritage, it is not surprising that the Church Fathers, Popes, and Doctors did not speak of an ongoing supernatural vocation or mission for the unconverted Jewish people. The closest that Catholic authorities have come to such an idea is recognizing that, by being scattered among the nations, Rabbinic Jews have served as an unintended witness to the truth of Christian prophecy. As St. Augustine writes: 

[The Jews] are thus by their own Scriptures a testimony to us that we have not forged the prophecies about Christ. (City of God XVIII.46)

This is also addressed at greater length elsewhere. 

With this essential background, we can now explore Cardinal Aveline’s claims, and expose the blasphemous inversion at the heart of his religious vision. 

II. AVELINE’S APPROACH TO JUDAISM  

When Francis visited Marseille, Aveline arranged the trip around the schedule of the Jewish leaders.((During this visit, he said: 

“But above all, I'd like to highlight the presence of the leaders of all the religions present in this city, and I'd like to wish a happy holiday to our friends of the Jewish faith, for whom we've arranged the timetable, as befits the Sabbath.” 

« Mais je voudrais surtout souligner la présence des responsables de toutes les religions présentes dans cette ville et je voudrais souhaiter une bonne fête en ces jours à nos amis de confession juive, pour qui nous avons aménagé l’horaire, comme il convient, car c’est shabbat. » 

https://www.lavie.fr/christianisme/cardinal-aveline-cest-un-crime-90521.php)) But there is much more to Aveline’s relationship with Judaism than diplomacy or logistics.   

As in his approach to Islam and other religions, Aveline employs a method of problematization: he casts suspicion on tradition, dissolves doctrinal certainties, and inverts the presumed positions of truth and error. 

Is the relationship between the Church and the Jewish people a doctrinal blank canvas? 

Aveline begins with a bold claim: 

No document from the Catholic magisterium has expressed a doctrinal judgment on the relationship between the Church and the Jewish people.((Aveline 2010:  

« Aucun document du magistère catholique n’a exprimé de jugement doctrinal sur la relation de l’Eglise avec le peuple juif. ?))

This is false. There have been doctrinal judgments on matters pertaining to this relationship; and while they may not explicitly address the post-Christian Jewish people as a sociological collective, the Church’s magisterium has clearly judged matters which determine their theological standing: fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant, the abrogation of the Old Law, and the non-salvific character of Rabbinic Judaism.((It may be objected that Aveline’s claim pertains to the Jewish people, rather than Judaism.This is an important objection, because it reveals a terminological sleight of hand typical of Aveline’s method.   

Aveline reframes the issue: rather than addressing the Church’s teaching on a religion, he speaks instead of a people—an essentially sociological or ethnic category. Yet this distinction is illusory. “The Jewish people” are relevant here only insofar as there is a theological reality at stake. This becomes obvious if we substitute another group, such as “the French people,” and ask whether the Church’s relationship with France as a nation demands a doctrinal definition. It plainly does not. 

Through this rhetorical sleight of hand, Aveline attempts to sidestep the Church’s clear teaching regarding Judaism, claiming that the Church has never pronounced on the so-called "relationship" with the Jewish people. His ultimate aim, however, is plain: he seeks to establish certain claims about the Jewish people, which he will then apply retroactively to Rabbinic Judaism—and then to all other religions, as we shall discuss in the next part. 

Even apart from this artifice, his method fails on more fundamental grounds. Historically and theologically, the identity of the Jewish people is closely linked to their religion. "Jew" is not a mere ethnic label. From the Church’s perspective, “the Jewish people” are understood in theological terms: 

• In the beginning, as the people chosen by God to prepare for the coming of the Messias. 

• After the Incarnation, as a people who, by and large, rejected Christ and the New Covenant, and whose descendants remain principally attached to the new religion of Rabbinic Judaism, which explicitly denies him. 

• In the future, as a people who will convert as a people to Christ. 

Thus, when the Church addresses “the Jewish people” today, she does not address a nation or ethnic group in the same manner as she would the English or the French. She addresses a people marked by their collective religious separation from Jesus Christ. For this reason, addressing Judaism as a religion necessarily involves addressing the Jewish people as a people.  

While there may not be a single formal treatise devoted solely to this question, the Church has, in fact, rendered definitive doctrinal judgments regarding Judaism—judgments which, by their very nature, apply directly to the Jewish people. These teachings are clear, binding, and sufficient to resolve the essential points at issue, as detailed in this study. 

Accordingly, Aveline’s attempted distinction between “Judaism” and “the Jewish people” is no more than a rhetorical device. It serves to obscure the doctrinal judgments already rendered, to evade the theological reality of the Jewish people’s identity, and to prepare the way for a new theological synthesis to replace the Catholic Church’s enduring teaching. 

In reality, the Church has judged the relationship—repeatedly, implicitly, explicitly, and definitively.  

See above for comments on the vocation of the Jewish people to the Catholic Church, and why conversion does not necessitate assimilation.)) 

The Church’s theological understanding of this relationship has always followed from these points.  

Second, Aveline’s tactic—treating a lack of solemn declarations on a sociological concept as a license for innovation—is based on a flawed methodology.  

It is a condemned error to claim that Catholics are bound only to doctrinal judgments—by which we understand Aveline to mean specific acts and decrees—as if the Church’s magisterium was not also exercised in a “universal and ordinary” way, through the continuous witness in the Fathers, the doctors, her liturgy and her disciplinary tradition.((The Syllabus of Errors condemns the following idea:  

“22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, ‘Tuas libenter,’ Dec. 21, 1863.”  

In short, Catholics are also bound by a) what is proposed as of faith by the universal ordinary magisterium, and b) what is proposed in an authoritative way by either the extraordinary or ordinary magisterium at a lower theological note. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm))

The Church’s judgment regarding the Jewish people has also been adequately expressed in this way, including in the consistent orientation of the Sicut Judaeis bulls. 

Aveline’s presentation of the Church

However, Aveline ignores the significance of this witness, and instead presents it as part of a sweeping narrative of ecclesial guilt and irrational hatred.   

In the supposed absence of doctrinal clarity which he alleges, he claims that the Church cultivated a “grassroots” hostility to the Jews. In keeping with his apparent rejection of a “Church of Anathemas” (discussed previously) Aveline casts the Church in a very negative light, portraying her as fostering an irrational and unprovoked contempt for Jews. He writes: 

For centuries, Christian apologetics had lent its approval to recurring movements, whether pagan in origin, of hatred and persecution towards the Jewish people.((Aveline 2010. 

« Pendant des siècles, une apologétique chrétienne avait apporté sa caution aux mouvements récurrents, fussent-ils d’origine païenne, de haine et de persécution à l’égard du peuple juif. »))

Elsewhere, he characterizes the Church’s attitude as one of contempt and pathological ambivalence: 

Regarding Judaism, the Church seems to have been inhabited by two contradictory feelings: triumphalism on the one hand, in the sense that the abasement, servitude, and humiliation of the Jewish people were seen as proof of its victory; and anxiety on the other hand, with regard to a difference perceived as persistent, irreducible, and ultimately dangerous. Many writings of the Church Fathers betray this ambivalence.((Aveline 2010.  

« A l’égard du judaïsme, l’Eglise semble avoir été habitée par deux sentiments contradictoires : le triomphalisme d’une part, au sens où l’abaissement, la servitude et l’humiliation du peuple juif étaient considérés comme une preuve de sa victoire ; l’inquiétude d’autre part, vis-à-vis d’une différence perçue comme tenace, irréductible et finalement dangereuse. Bien des écrits des Pères de l’Eglise trahissent cette ambivalence. »))

Aveline accuses the Fathers—St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine—as well as the popes of the Counter-Reformation, of sustaining a “teaching of contempt.”((Aveline 2010. He writes: 

“We are familiar with the harsh and violent words of Saint John Chrysostom and the more or less dubious theories of Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine towards the Jewish community. And it would be even worse under the pen of Luther and in many measures taken by the papacy during the Counter-Reformation!” 

« On connaît les propos durs et violents de saint Jean Chrysostome et les théories plus ou moins scabreuses de saint Ambroise et de saint Augustin à l’égard de la communauté juive. Et ce sera pire encore sous la plume de Luther et dans maintes mesures prises par la papauté à l’époque de la Contre-Réforme ! »)) He claims that Christendom was, until recently, “regularly tempted” to eradicate the Jewish people.((Aveline 2010. He states: 

“Not only was [the Jewish nation] one of the few peoples whose God could not be assimilated into the Roman pantheon, but it remained, in a Christendom regularly tempted to eliminate it radically, the only internal witness to a religious otherness.” 

« Non seulement il fut l’un des seuls peuples dont le Dieu ne pouvait être assimilé dans le panthéon romain, mais il demeura ensuite, dans une chrétienté régulièrement tentée de l’éliminer radicalement, le seul témoin intérieur d’une altérité religieuse. »)) He accuses a “significant portion of Catholic opinion” in the late nineteenth century of embracing and encouraging anti-Semitism.((Aveline 2010.  

“At the end of the 19th century, a significant portion of Catholic opinion shared, and even encouraged, the prevailing anti-Semitism during the Dreyfus Affair.”  

« A la fin du xixe siècle, une partie non négligeable de l’opinion catholique a partagé, voire encouragé, l’antisémitisme ambiant au moment de l’affaire Dreyfus. »)) Aveline also expressed critical views of twentieth century popes, for failing to teach his ideas about the Church’s supposed links with Jewish people—without pausing to consider whether this reflects badly on those popes, or Aveline himself.((Aveline 2010. 

“However, it should be noted, in contrast to the type of reflection pursued by de Lubac or Charles Journet, that neither Pius XI (who was quickly alerted by a letter from Edith Stein in April 1933) nor Pius XII (even during the thirteen years of his pontificate after 1945), although both took a clear position, repeatedly, against Nazism and anti-Semitism, expressed themselves clearly on the fundamental link that ‘spiritually connects the people of the New Testament with the lineage of Abraham.’” 

« On remarquera toutefois, par contraste avec le type de réflexion mené par de Lubac ou par Charles Journet, que ni Pie XI (pourtant très vite alerté par une lettre d’Edith Stein en avril 1933) ni Pie XII (même pendant les treize années de son pontificat après 1945), bien qu’ils aient tous deux pris nettement position, et à plusieurs reprises, contre le nazisme et l’antisémitisme, ne se sont clairement exprimés sur le lien fondamental qui ‘relie spirituellement le peuple du Nouveau Testament avec la lignée d’Abraham.’ »))

In short: Aveline judges the Fathers and Catholic authorities with severity, suggesting that it was this theological contempt that was adopted and “pushed to the extreme” by Nazi ideology. His implication is clear: the Church is responsible, whether by act or by omission, for genocide.  

His contrasting treatment of Rabbinic Judaism 

Aveline’s treatment of Jewish authorities is starkly different.   

While condemning the Fathers and Catholic authorities for their writings about the Jewish people, he praises “the Sages of Israel”—for the supposed “spiritual vitality” of Rabbinic Judaism and its Talmudic tradition. In so doing, he glosses over the profound theological rupture between the Church and post-Christian Judaism—an opposition recognized not only by both Fathers and the Sages themselves, but also by Christ. He writes: 

The first [area of future study] concerns the relationship between the Church Fathers and the Sages of Israel, that is, between, on the one hand, the considerable work of biblical hermeneutics undertaken by early Christian patristic literature and, on the other hand, the incredible spiritual vitality with which the Jewish people managed to transform the catastrophes of the first century (with its two fateful dates of 70 and 135) into the foundation of a new hermeneutical construction, the Talmud, capable of maintaining Jewish identity and bearing fruit, even in the worst situations of exile, dispersion, and persecution.((Aveline 2010. 

“The first concerns the relationship between the Church Fathers and the Sages of Israel, that is, between, on the one hand, the considerable work of biblical hermeneutics undertaken by early Christian patristic literature and, on the other hand, the incredible spiritual vitality with which the Jewish people managed to transform the catastrophes of the first century (with its two fateful dates of 70 and 135) into the foundation of a new hermeneutical construction, the Talmud, capable of maintaining Jewish identity and bearing fruit, even in the worst situations of exile, dispersion, and persecution.”))

At first glance, this may seem harmless, and such comparative study might even yield useful academic insights.  

But to present the Rabbinic Sages as bearers of “spiritual vitality,” while castigating the Fathers for their “triumphalism” or even implicating them in genocide, is a profound theological inversion.  

This is simply to elevate the heirs of the Pharisees, while denouncing the heirs of the Apostles—a betrayal not only of the Fathers, but of Christ himself. 

The Mosaic Covenant as the ‘fundamental link’ 

How is such an inversion possible? At the root of Aveline’s approach is the claim that the Old Covenant “has never been denounced” (viz. abrogated), and his presumption that Rabbinic Judaism is simply the continuation of the Mosaic religion, without Christ.((Aveline 2010. 

“The famous speech of John Paul II in Mainz in 1980 distinguishes two dimensions in the dialogue between Jews and Christians: 

“‘The first dimension of this dialogue, that is to say, the encounter between the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been denounced (cf. Rm 11, 29), and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time an internal dialogue within our Church, as it were between the first and second parts of its Bible.’” 

« Le célèbre discours de Jean Paul II à Mayence en 1980 distingue deux dimensions dans le dialogue entre juifs et chrétiens : 

« ‘La première dimension de ce dialogue, à savoir la rencontre entre le peuple de Dieu de l’Ancienne Alliance, qui n’a jamais été dénoncée (cf. Rm 11, 29), et celui de la Nouvelle Alliance, est en même temps un dialogue interne à notre Eglise, pour ainsi dire entre la première et la deuxième partie de sa Bible.’ »))

As we have already discussed elsewhere, this claim is contrary to the Church’s magisterial tradition and to history. However, Aveline presents these false ideas as being vital for understanding the true relationship between the Church and Judaism.   

He writes that the supposed validity of the Mosaic Covenant means that Christian theology must move beyond what he calls “the categories of ‘substitution’ or ‘fulfillment’ [as] the only ways of expressing the relationship between the Church and the Synagogue.”((Aveline 2010. 

« Redoutables questions, que se doit cependant d’affronter une théologie qui renonce à considérer la permanence d’Israël comme une anomalie dérangeante de l’histoire et qui ne cherche plus dans les catégories de « substitution » ou d’« accomplissement » les seules façons d’exprimer le rapport entre l’Eglise et la Synagogue. »)) 

Based on this, he countenances the following questions:

• Did the Old Testament necessarily lead to the recognition of Jesus as the Christ? 

• Could one remain faithful to the Old Covenant without becoming Christian?((Aveline 2010 “Does this mean that the Old Testament does not necessarily lead to the recognition of Jesus as the Christ and that one can remain faithful to the Covenant without becoming a disciple of Christ?”  « Est-ce à dire que le Premier Testament ne conduit pas nécessairement à la reconnaissance de Jésus comme le Christ et que l’on peut être fidèle à l’Alliance sans devenir disciple du Christ ? »)) 

This prepares the way for a pivotal (and misleading) claim, which he has voiced on more than one occasion: 

If the Christian faith confesses that Christ is the fulfillment of the Scriptures, it cannot deduce from this that Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism!((Aveline 2010.  

« Si la foi chrétienne confesse que le Christ est l’accomplissement des Ecritures, elle ne saurait en déduire que le christianisme est l’accomplissement du judaïsme ! Car ce qui nous unit, juifs et chrétiens, ce que nous vivons dans le secret des cœurs ou dans l’expression de nos liturgies, est radicalement plus important que ce qui nous sépare. » 

He repeated precisely the same idea in his 2023 book, Jean-Marc Aveline, Dieu a tant aimé le monde—Petite théologie de la mission, p 40. Les éditions du cerf, Paris, 2023.))

However, Catholic teaching certainly does not claim that Christianity fulfills Rabbinic Judaism—a religious system erected after Christ, in explicit rejection of him, by the heirs of those whom he opposed during his ministry.   

On the contrary, Catholic teaching does hold that the Church fulfills the pre-Christian religion of the patriarchs and prophets—a distinction masked by Aveline’s formulations.   

By separating Christ’s fulfillment of the Scriptures from his misleading concept of the “fulfillment of Judaism,” Aveline shields Rabbinic Judaism from the judgment that it is a false, man-made system which has departed from divine revelation. He thus opens the way for the so-called “dual-covenant theology,” in which Aveline can claim that Judaism retains a valid, ongoing role in salvation history apart from the Church—even if such an idea is made palatable to the unsuspecting through the vague and universalizing notion of “christic mediation.”  

In this way, Aveline’s reinterpretation does not merely nuance the Church teaching: it denies its foundational claims to represent “the New and Eternal Covenant," and attributes salvific value and ongoing validity to a system that explicitly rejects Christ.  

Aveline thus replaces the Church which fulfills the Old Covenant, with one which coexists alongside it and dialogues with it—no longer missionary, no longer definitive, no longer claiming to possess the one truth to which all men must submit. 

In light of his commitment to such ideas, we can see why Aveline referred to the thrice-defined dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation” as an “ancient Patristic adage” which has been subject to “a hardened, and thus distorted, interpretation.”((Aveline 2006. 

“The Catholic Church first recognizes the possibility of a positive role for other religions, as socio-cultural realities, in the general economy of salvation. This excludes an exclusivist position, which, on the basis of a narrow ecclesiocentrism, would deny non-Christian religions any salvific or revelatory value, relying on a hardened, and thus distorted, interpretation of the ancient Patristic adage: ‘Outside the Church, no salvation.’”   

« L’Église catholique reconnaît tout d’abord la possibilité d’un rôle positif des autres religions, en tant que réalités socio-culturelles, dans l’économie générale du salut. Par làse trouve écartée une position exclusiviste qui, au nom d’un ecclésiocentrisme étroit, refuserait aux religions nonchrétiennes toute valeur salvatrice et révélatrice, en s’appuyant sur une interprétation durcie, et donc faussée, de l’antique adage patristique : « hors de l’Église, point de salut »)) One cannot hold both this dogma and Aveline’s ideas. 

Aveline’s view of the links between Jews and Christians 

He describes “the irreducible uniqueness of the Jewish-Christian relationship,” and writes: 

From the perspective of the Christian faith, Judaism will never be a religion like any other.((Aveline 2010. 

« Aux yeux de la foi chrétienne, le judaïsme ne sera jamais une religion comme les autres. »))

Aveline invests this truism with a theological weight that far exceeds the facts. He claims, based on his misrepresentations discussed, that the Church has retained deep spiritual bonds with Judaism and the Jewish people—bonds so deep that misunderstanding her relationship with Rabbinic Judaism prevents the Church from truly understanding herself.((Aveline 2010. 

“Thus, despite the burdens of the past, the 20th century opened up new paths, even though it is true that an asymmetry seems to remain: the Church needs to think theologically about its relationship with Judaism in order to understand itself, which is not the case for Judaism.” 

« Ainsi, malgré les lourdeurs du passé, le xxe siècle a ouvert des chemins inédits, même s’il est vrai que semble demeurer une asymétrie : l’Eglise a besoin de penser théologiquement son lien avec le judaïsme pour se comprendre elle-même, ce qui n’est pas le cas du judaïsme. »))

Aveline affirms that dialogue between Christians and Rabbinic Jews was intended “to make more solid the bonds that unite us and continue walking together the path of reconciliation and fraternity.”((Aveline 2010, quoting Benedict XVI:  

« [R]endre plus solides les liens qui nous unissent et continuer à parcourir ensemble le chemin de la réconciliation et de la fraternité ».))

As mentioned above, he criticized Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII for having failed to articulate what he sees as the Church’s “true” relationship with the Jews. He describes these bonds as:  

[T]he fundamental link that spiritually connects the people of the New Testament with the lineage of Abraham.((Aveline 2010.  

« On remarquera toutefois, par contraste avec le type de réflexion mené par de Lubac ou par Charles Journet, que ni Pie XI (pourtant très vite alerté par une lettre d’Edith Stein en avril 1933) ni Pie XII (même pendant les treize années de son pontificat après 1945), bien qu’ils aient tous deux pris nettement position, et à plusieurs reprises, contre le nazisme et l’antisémitisme, ne se sont clairement exprimés sur le lien fondamental qui « relie spirituellement le peuple du Nouveau Testament avec la lignée d’Abraham »))

More revealingly still, he writes: 

For what unites us, Jews and Christians, what we live in the secrecy of our hearts or in the expression of our liturgies, is radically more important than what separates us.((Aveline 2010  

« Car ce qui nous unit, juifs et chrétiens, ce que nous vivons dans le secret des cœurs ou dans l’expression de nos liturgies, est radicalement plus important que ce qui nous sépare. »))

Such a statement would be firmly rejected by many religious Jews. However, far from being a meaningless platitude, this reveals Aveline’s presuppositions. It presumes a kind of mystical convergence between the Church and Rabbinic Judaism—one that places shared religious experience above revealed truth.   

In this framework, the person of Jesus Christ fades into the background—dissolved into the “christic mediation” discussed previously—and replaces dogmatic claims with “spiritual links.”  

The implication is that both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism are positively willed by God; that the adherents of both religions have supernatural faith; and that both religions continue to have a divine purpose in the world today. In effect, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism are both “true religions.”  

What does this paradigm mean for the Church and the idea that the pre-Christian religion of the Jewish people has already been fulfilled in Christ and perpetuated in the Church? 

Aveline’s attribution of a ‘vocation’ and ‘mission’ to Rabbinic Judaism 

Aveline is explicit: Rabbinic Judaism does have a purpose: indeed, he argues that it has a vocation and a mission, and that it is the Church’s responsibility to affirm both. He tacitly excludes the traditional understanding of non-Christian religions, namely that God permits their existence for the sake of higher goods.  

Instead, Aveline evidently considers Rabbinic Judaism to be positively willed by God. He speaks of the “vocations” of Christianity and of Judaism—treating these vocations as comparable—and claims that interreligious dialogue has led to the following, desirable result: 

[E]ach community's perception of the vocation that is theirs and that each discovers gradually can only be understood by accepting that it was received in shared communion with the other, not in an exclusive manner.((Aveline 2010.  

« Cette évolution tend à montrer que le véritable enjeu, qui concerne tout autant les juifs que les chrétiens, n’est pas seulement celui d’une meilleure connaissance mutuelle : il s’agit de la perception par chaque communauté de la vocation qui est la sienne et dont chacune découvre peu à peu qu’elle ne peut la comprendre qu’en acceptant de ne l’avoir reçue qu’en partage avec l’autre et non de manière exclusive. »))

In light of what we have already seen, the notion that the Church received her “vocation” in “shared communion” with Rabbinic Judaism, and that she can only understand this vocation gradually by accepting this alleged fact, is absurd.  

Further, a vocation is a calling to a particular purpose, usually noble or even spiritual. We must therefore also ask: Who exactly has called Rabbinic Judaism—and to what purpose or vocation, exactly?  

Aveline cites Cardinal Ratzinger, who poses a question that assumes the same ideas he expresses: 

Is the Christian faith, if we allow it its inner requirement and dignity, capable not only of tolerating Judaism but, more importantly, of accepting it in its historical mission?((Aveline 2010. This is a quote from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. 

« La foi chrétienne, si on lui laisse son exigence intérieure et sa dignité, est-elle apte, non seulement à tolérer le judaïsme mais, bien plus, à l’accepter dans sa mission historique ? »))

But again, what “historical mission” could Rabbinic Judaism, the legacy of the Pharisees, possibly have after the coming of Christ, the fulfillment of the Covenant and the abrogation of the Mosaic Law?  

It is clear what “historical mission” Aveline does not have in mind—he is not referring to the role which St. Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic authorities ascribe to the Jews, namely that of bearing witness to the truth of Christ in spite of themselves.((For example: 

“[F]rom the fact that the Jews observe their rites, which, of old, foreshadowed the truth of the faith which we hold, there follows this good—that our very enemies bear witness to our faith, and that our faith is represented in a figure, so to speak. For this reason they are tolerated in the observance of their rites.”  

The saint continues, distinguishing Jewish rites from those of other false religions, whilst making clear the principles applied to both: 

“On the other hand, the rites of other unbelievers, which are neither truthful nor profitable are by no means to be tolerated, except perchance in order to avoid an evil, e.g. the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith. For this reason the Church, at times, has tolerated the rites even of heretics and pagans, when unbelievers were very numerous.”  

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica IIa IIae Q. 10, A. 11. ))  

In fact, Aveline takes such ideas and distorts them. Instead of being the unintentional witnesses to the Gospel that they deny, he claims something very different: that Rabbinic Judaism has a divine vocation to help the Church understand herself. 

Aveline and the ‘purification’ of the Church by Rabbinic Judaism 

Aveline urges that the Church must begin by “looking at Judaism differently’ and “receiving it as it understands itself”—including its understanding of its history and “vocation.”((Aveline 2010.  

“On the eschatological horizon of the Promise, all peoples share in the mission that the Father entrusted to the Son and to the Spirit. In the experience of interreligious encounter, despite its difficulties and sometimes its ambiguities, the Church today finds an unprecedented and demanding opportunity to test that the exodus towards the other, far from diverting it from the Kingdom, makes it discover both the indispensable place of these "others" in salvation history and the importance of its own vocation, as the sacramental expression of a Promise that both surpasses and requires it. 

“Thus, this experience can help Christians to look at Judaism differently, first by trying to receive it as it understands itself today, through the rereading it makes of its history and its vocation. It can also invite them to seek, from this better understanding of what Judaism is in its own eyes, the spiritual links that unite them to it.”

« Sur l’horizon eschatologique de la Promesse, tous les peuples ont part à la mission que le Père a confiée au Fils et à l’Esprit. Dans l’expérience de la rencontre interreligieuse, malgré ses difficultés et parfois ses ambiguïtés, l’Eglise trouve aujourd’hui une occasion inédite et exigeante d’éprouver que l’exode vers l’autre, loin de la détourner du Royaume, lui fait découvrir à la fois la place indispensable de ces « autres » dans l’histoire du salut et l’importance de sa propre vocation, comme expression sacramentelle d’une Promesse qui tout à la fois la dépasse et la requiert.   

« Dès lors, cette expérience peut aider les chrétiens à regarder le judaïsme autrement, en essayant d’abord de le recevoir tel qu’il se comprend lui-même aujourd’hui, à travers la relecture qu’il fait de son histoire et de sa vocation. Elle peut aussi les inviter à chercher, à partir de cette meilleure connaissance de ce que le judaïsme est à leurs propres yeux, quels sont les liens spirituels qui les unissent à lui. »)) For this greater understanding, he says, the Church “can invite [Christians] to seek […] the spiritual links that unite them to [Rabbinic Judaism].”((Aveline 2010.  

« Elle peut aussi les inviter à chercher, à partir de cette meilleure connaissance de ce que le judaïsme est à leurs propres yeux, quels sont les liens spirituels qui les unissent à lui. »))

Because Aveline treats Rabbinic Judaism as the continuation of the Old Testament religion, and as an enduring Covenant with God, its relationship with the Church becomes “asymmetrical”: 

[A]n asymmetry seems to remain: the Church needs to think theologically about its relationship with Judaism in order to understand itself, which is not the case for Judaism.((Aveline 2010. 

“[T]he Church needs to think theologically about its relationship with Judaism in order to understand itself, which is not the case for Judaism.” 

« L’Eglise a besoin de penser théologiquement son lien avec le judaïsme pour se comprendre elle-même, ce qui n’est pas le cas du judaïsme. »))

He continues, insisting that Christians must reflect on the relationship “as it exists today,” specifically as informed by two thousand years of “Talmudic work,” independent from and opposed to Jesus Christ:

[W]hat is required is a theological reflection on the relationship between Christianity and Judaism as it exists today, carrying with it a long mystical and theological reflection developed over two millennia based on the Talmudic work.((Aveline 2010.  

« [C]e qui est requis, c’est une réflexion théologique sur la relation entre le christianisme et le judaïsme tel que celui-ci existe aujourd’hui, porteur d’une longue réflexion mystique et théologique, élaborée depuis deux millénaires sur la base de l’œuvre talmudique. »))

The idea that the Church must revise her self-understanding to accommodate modern Jewish perspectives about Rabbinic Judaism is, to say the least, highly suspect.   

This asymmetry is a form of dependence: the Church needs Judaism—both to know the Jews, and to know herself; but Judaism does not need the Church.   

This has radical implications for the Church and her doctrine. The enormous extent of what Aveline is attempting becomes clear in his citation of Cardinal Ratzinger’s claim about other religions in general:  

The world’s religions have become a question addressed to Christianity, which must, in their presence, reconsider its claim and thus receive from them, at the very least, a service of purification.((Quoted in Jean-Marc Aveline, ‘Évolution des problématiques en théologie des religions’, in Recherches de Science Religieuse, 2006/4 Tome 94, pp. 496-522.   

“The experience of the relativity of all human data and of all historical formations is one of the most striking spiritual characteristics of our time. […]  

“This is why the question of the relationship between Christianity and the religions of the world is absolutely pressing for today’s faith: it is not the result of vain curiosity that seeks to construct a theory on the destiny of others—this destiny is decided by God, who does not need our theories; if it were only that, our search would be futile and even misplaced.  

“The world’s religions have become a question addressed to Christianity, which must, in their presence, reconsider its claim and thus receive from them, at the very least, a service of purification.   

“As soon as this question is approached, it suggests how the Christian can also understand the necessary place of these religions in the history of salvation.” 

« L’expérience de la relativité de toutes les données humaines et de toutes les formations historiques fait partie des caractéristiques spirituelles marquantes de notre époque. […]  

« C’est pourquoi la question de la relation du christianisme avec les religions du monde s’impose absolument à la foi d’aujourd’hui : elle n’est pas le fait d’une vaine curiosité qui voudrait construire une théorie sur le destin des autres—ce destin, c’est Dieu qui le décide, lui qui n’a pas besoin de nos théories ; s’il ne s’agissait que de cela, notre recherche serait vaine et même déplacée. […]  

« Les religions du monde sont devenues une question adressée au christianisme qui doit, devant elles, repenser sa prétention et par là reçoit d’elles à tout le moins un service de purification.  

« Dès qu’il est abordé, l’examen de cette question fait deviner combien le chrétien lui aussi peut comprendre la place nécessaire de ces religions dans l’histoire du salut. » 

Cardinal Ratzinger, The New People of God, originally published as Das neue Volk Gottes: Entwürfe zur Ekklesiologie in 1969. This work does not seem to have been published in English.))

This is the supposed vocation and mission of Rabbinic Judaism: to purify the Church, by revealing and teaching her a greater understanding of herself. 

Conclusion 

Thus we arrive at the final perversion at the heart of Aveline’s theology. His vision strips the Church of her divine mission and enthrones Rabbinic Judaism as her tutor and judge. 

Despite the “asymmetry” mentioned, Aveline claims that there is also an increasing reciprocity on the side of Rabbinic Judaism. He then adds this ode to religious indifferentism: 

The patient and demanding dialogue that we are called to build from our respective fidelities to different faith standards is itself part of what we confess as the 'history of salvation.'

It makes us, in a sense, responsible for the quality of the other’s response to the call of God that he or she has received in his or her own way. 

The differences remain, but they are shared, in a mutual call that is an emulation in the sense that Saint Paul already envisioned between Jews and Gentiles in the Epistle to the Romans.((Aveline 2010. 

« Le dialogue patient et exigeant que nous sommes appelés à édifier à partir de nos fidélités respectives à des normes de foi différentes fait lui-même partie de ce que nous confessons comme « histoire du salut ». Il nous rend en quelque sorte responsables de la qualité de la réponse de l’autre à l’appel de Dieu qu’il a reçu en propre. Les différences demeurent, mais elles sont mises en partage, dans une interpellation réciproque qui est une émulation au sens où l’entrevoyait déjà saint Paul entre les juifs et les païens dans l’Epître aux Romains. »))

However, as we can see in the text above, the Christian’s duty (in Aveline’s view) is not to convert the Jewish person—but to be co-responsible for helping him be more faithfully Jewish. In return, the Jewish person is to help the Christian be more fully Christian.  

Thus the Church of Christ is to become not merely a fellow traveler, but even a disciple of Rabbinic Judaism, seeking a wisdom beyond “the faith once delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1.3)  

Where will this end? With Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh’s kindly plan to reform Christianity along rabbinic lines, by purifying it of the “new mythology” of the Trinity and the “the problematic personage of Jesus” himself?((Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh longed for a “reform” of Christian doctrine in light of the presuppositions of Judaism and the adoption of the naturalistic Noahide Laws. He writes of the “inevitable” alliance which will arrive between Christianity and Judaism:  

“[T]hey will know at the proper moment how to join their energies of spirit and intelligence, so that in serene contemplation of the truths of history and doctrine, they will recognize their original kinship, and through an appropriate alliance resume their common work for the accomplishment of their great destinies.   

“Why should this hope not be realized? Why should Judaism and Christianity not unite their efforts with a view to the religious future of mankind? Why should Christianity find it difficult to collaborate with this religion from which it came, whose fundamental truth it recognizes, and which possesses, to a higher degree even than itself, all the qualities of which it is so proud: antiquity, historical continuity, authority, vitality?    

“And if from these deliberations with the Jewish mother-religion could emerge a Christianity which preserved its character of divine authority – a Christianity, may we venture to suggest, all the more orthodox as it would have strengthened itself by drawing on an orthodoxy older than itself, but which, as we firmly believe, would satisfy the needs of men better than the present Christian churches can do, and which would be better prepared to provide against the perils of the future – can one imagine a happier portent for mankind, or a more admirable solution to the great religious problems of our day? 

Benamozegh adds that this will require a reconsideration of the Holy Trinity, and the problematic personage of Jesus” (329-330), and also writes: 

[I]t is Christianity, reformed to be sure on its first model, which will always be the religion of the Gentile peoples.    

And this will come about through Judaism itself. […] This will be the reconciliation of Hebraism and the religions which were born of it. 

Elijah Benamozegh, Israel and Humanity, p 51, 59. Paulist Press, New York, 1995. https://archive.org/details/israelhumanity0000bena/)) In some ways, Aveline has already achieved this “dissolution of Jesus” (1 John 4) through his subversion of Christ’s role as mediator.  

In itself, Aveline’s approach to Judaism is an appalling theological inversion. However, he does not stop at subjecting the Church to Rabbinic Judaism: he takes this method of inversion and extends it to all religions, erecting a universal apostasy.  

He specifically claims that his treatment of Judaism can “help” the Church by serving as the model for his wider theology of religious pluralism. By adopting his account of the relationship between the Church and Rabbinic Judaism, Aveline introduces a method that can then be applied to Islam, Hinduism, and every other religion.  

[T]he experience of interreligious encounter can enable a theology of the Jewish-Christian relationship to deepen the mystery of the differentiated unity of God's work, in the form of a call to share the gifts that each (Jew, Christian, and “other”) has received in service of the Promise made in Abraham to all the human family.((Aveline 2010.  

« D’un autre côté, l’expérience de la rencontre interreligieuse peut permettre à une théologie de la relation judéo-chrétienne d’approfondir le mystère de l’unité différenciée de l’œuvre de Dieu, sous la forme d’un appel à mettre en partage les dons que chacun (juif, chrétien et « autre ») a reçus en propre au service de la Promesse faite en Abraham à toute la famille humaine. »))

In fact, he not only assumes that his erroneous method can be applied to Judaism and other religions: he even suggests that this is obligatory:

[R]eligious pluralism compels each religion to rethink the relevance of its claim to universality.((Aveline 2010: 

“Today, as religious pluralism compels each religion to rethink the relevance of its claim to universality, and as a certain ideology of tolerance emerges that risks confusing consensus with uniformity, the Jewish experience of the dialectic between emancipation and assimilation remains highly relevant.”  

« Aujourd’hui, alors que la pluralité religieuse impose à chaque religion d’avoir à repenser la pertinence de sa prétention à l’universalité et que se fait jour une certaine idéologie de la tolérance qui risque de confondre consensus et uniformité, l’expérience juive de la dialectique entre émancipation et assimilation reste d’une grande actualité. »))

It is to this final catastrophe—the application to Islam and every false religion of what Aveline has “learnt” from Rabbinic Judaism, culminating in the dissolution of the Church into a naturalistic religion of man disguised under the name of Christ—that we now turn.

Join Bishop Strickland's novena for a holy pope – To catch up with the previous days, click here