Just curious: are you referring to salvationist supersessionism or restoration supersessionism? Do you really believe that supersessionism is a heresy?

'Supersessionism' is literally Catholic doctrine on Judaism. Fisher - is just another devotee of the conciliar church sadly!

@Simon North
1. I never said Supersessionism was a heresy.
2. I did say the Double Covenant theory was wrong.
3a. Salvation is used differently in the Old testament vs the New. In the OT it generally means saving Jews from their human enemies. In the Nt it refers to saving soul(s) from the fires of hell for punishment of sin.
3b. This is a reason why St Thomas says that Old Law refers to temporal matters, relations between people. and the New Law refers to eternal matters, relations between human soul(s) and God.
3c. It is also a reason why I say the two Covenants are of a different quality.
3d. Thus, the Old Law is the antetype of the New Law.

I would very much enjoy a clarifying discussion about this topic with you - but in my experience comboxes are frustratingly limited for such a discussion. You said that you agreed with the Bishop (about whom the article was about) - and he said that supersessionism was a heresy - ergo my conclusion that you agreed with him.

Sorry for the delay. If I received a notification that someone responded, I missed it.
I know the bishop referred to heresy. Generally, I would not use that word to described something as complex as supersessioism. I would, however, described the Double Covenant theory as heretical, simply because it implicitly denies the universality of the Christ's Life and Death.
If I might finish thoughts on supersessionism:
a. An essential part of the Old Law are the moral precepts (10 Commandments). If those are superseded, what is left but antinomianism and some flabby “spirituality” that denies human nature. In that sense, supersessionism can be considered heresy.
b. What members of the hierarchy say about Jews is just the lardy language of politics, informed (or perhaps more accurate, deformed) by theological illiteracy. In fact, in the past 50+ years the Church has seemed more concerned with making friends than making converts.
It is necessary to keep in mind that in the 9th Chapter of Romans the distinction is made between those who are just physical descendants of Abraham and those who are children of the promise, which of course is Messianic.
A few years ago I heard a Catholic intellectual, highly regarded for many years, speak who was a convert from Judaism: I was surprised to hear that 90% of American Jews are atheists. Obviously, that 90% does not refer to Jews who are children of the promise.

I agree with you 100% about the Dual Covenant theory being heretical. Our Lord Himself, however, solves the non-dilemma regarding the precepts of the Old Law: He says blatantly that He came to perfect them, not abolish them (thereby excluding any notion of antinomianism). As regard your point (b) above: I think you're being a bit optimistic. It isn't a matter of politics when theologians such as Ratzinger outright say that that Church has no mission of proselytism to Judaism - only a dialogical one. That is outrageous - and generally reflective of the universal salvationism of post-Nostra Aetate ecclesiology and missiology.

@Dr Bobus Please see my response to your most recent comment.

This theological question preceded the existence of Mossad by several hundred years.

And, even if they did, divorcing ourselves from our affiliation with our Savior is not the act any committed Catholic should do. Christ commanded us to spread His message to all the world whether it made us, or others, 'comfortable' or not.

Yes, perhaps certain Christian religious organization feel politically compelled to publicly deny their affiliation with Jesus Christ, and this example of a Conciliar bishop doing just that is almost expected.
But one can rest assured that a faithful Catholic bishop, especially an FSSPX bishop, would sooner offer their life than to deny Christ.

He looks well fed though.

He is ostensibly 'pro-life' and not pro-gay although he supported the toxic gene-serum.