I believe that I what I said has been the historic position of most if not all creedal Christians churches. The Church is the expansion and eschatological fulfillment of all the promises to ancient Israel by virtue of being in Christ, the Seed, to whom the promises were made. Thus Christ’s own are the true sons of Abraham. The "replacement" charge comes from dispensationalists and is made against all those who oppose their views.
In the time Paul speaks of, all of Israel will be converted, the glory of Israel shines forth, and all of Israel united in glory.
I read a touch of dispensationalism in this comment. What is the time of which Paul is speaking, and what actually is the definition of "all Israel"? Since Paul was writing these words to the Roman church, which presumably included many Jews of the Diaspora, I find the suggestion that he is trying to make some distinction between the inhabitants of Palestine and the Diaspora questionable.
So what is the fate of non-Christian Jews of the here and now?
Salvation comes by faith alone through Christ alone. "... if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom, 10:9) Any other position wrt the Jews smacks of double covenantalism, the ugly step-child of dispensationalism.
I’m not sure why you detect something wrong in your 2nd citation of my post. I’m not so much drawing the distinction between Jews based on where they live (Exilic v Palestinian), but on whether they became Christian (as most exilic Jews did) or not (like most Palestinian Jews).
As for the 3rd part you wrote, I believe I was abundantly clear in my statement that Jews need to come to Christ. Since that is so, I’m not sure where hope lies for the “perfidious Jews,” only that there seems to be some which is not yet revealed to us. I could speculate, such as to guess that there may be reserved for the Jews some time between now and the 2nd death some opportunity for recognizing Christ. But any such speculation would be highly problemmatic and non-biblical. More likely is that Christ may have something up his sleeve that we cannot fathom. Who, before Christ, would have asserted the harrowing of Hell?
I’m certainly uncomfortable with the presumptiveness expressed in the article Alex Murphy linked to. But is there no hope for the Jews? St. Paul consoles himself with a vision of the restoration of Israel, but if his soul is troubled that acceptance of Christ is merely found among those not of his native locality, is it much more solace for this particular concern that it is found among those not of his time? Does not his vision of the restoration of Israel, which seems to refer to the very object of his concern, suggest the restoration not only of some other olive branch, but of the very branches which were cut? Does “all Israel” exclude what was then present Israel?
Please understand that in these questions, I am not asserting Catholic doctrine, or making biblical assertions, but pondering what is *NOT* made clear.