Clicks698

(Archive) Libido Dominandi: Lust, Power, & Control

malemp
43
E Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars magazine, is interviewed on his book Libido Dominandi and its sequel Monsters from the Id. (2007)
Ultraviolet
"Eat that!" -eticacasanova --The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.-- "Declaration On The Relation Of The Church To Non-Christian Religions" Nostra Aetate. Proclamation By His Holiness Pope Paul VI.

Eat that. "Profesor" Fantico. :D When you are done choking on …More
"Eat that!" -eticacasanova --The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.-- "Declaration On The Relation Of The Church To Non-Christian Religions" Nostra Aetate. Proclamation By His Holiness Pope Paul VI.

Eat that. "Profesor" Fantico. :D When you are done choking on an official declaration of the Catholic Church, send your plate over to your friend E. Michael Jones whose teachings were publicly denounced by his own bishop.
Ultraviolet
Spelling much, Senor Profesor? :P

You are choking so badly you can not even type correctly. :D

Oh, you know very well "what that have to do with anything here."

E. Michael Jones discriminates and harasses Jews. He lies about them and blames all the world's problems on them.

He contradicts the official teachings of the Catholic Church. as explained by Pope Paul VI. Jones also contradicts …More
Spelling much, Senor Profesor? :P

You are choking so badly you can not even type correctly. :D

Oh, you know very well "what that have to do with anything here."

E. Michael Jones discriminates and harasses Jews. He lies about them and blames all the world's problems on them.

He contradicts the official teachings of the Catholic Church. as explained by Pope Paul VI. Jones also contradicts the teachings of Benedict XVI ... the man YOU insist is still Pope.

Jones also contradicts John Paul II and John XXIII.on the subject of how Catholics should treat Jews. That is practically every pope since the state of Israel was founded.

You can either follow the teachings of the Church or you can follow the teachings of Jones. You can not follow both. It is that simple. There is no middle ground.

Jones is a heretic because what he teaches contradicts The Church. All who follow him are also heretics -including you.
malemp
ULTRAVIOLET NOSTRA AETATE is a heretic document to open up the new global religion . is so simple oyure afraid of the Truth ...
Ultraviolet
No, malemp The heresy is yours. Your opinion does not define what is heresy, that is the prerogative of The Church.

Nostra Aetate is an official proclamation of the Catholic Church.

"a heretic document to open up the new global religion . is so simple oyure afraid of the Truth ..."

You are making an error in reasoning known as a slippery slope fallacy, which is concluding an outcome …More
No, malemp The heresy is yours. Your opinion does not define what is heresy, that is the prerogative of The Church.

Nostra Aetate is an official proclamation of the Catholic Church.

"a heretic document to open up the new global religion . is so simple oyure afraid of the Truth ..."

You are making an error in reasoning known as a slippery slope fallacy, which is concluding an outcome unsupported by the premises/ evidence.

In Nostra Aetate, The Church says, it "reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion."

That means The Church denounces discrimination and harassment of others based on the criteria listed as something Christ would not think of doing.

Meaning, in this context, Christ didn't discriminate against people based on their religion and Christ wouldn't do so now. Christ disapproves of it.

There's ample Gospel support for this position and it's extensively catalogued throughout Nostra Aetate.

Now here's where you're going wrong, probably on purppose:

Nostra Aetate does NOT say all religions are the same.

Nostra Aetate does NOT say all religions can or even should become one religion.

That is what YOU are saying Nostra Aetate says.

Nostra Aetate says The Church formally recognizes discrimination and harassment based on race/ color/ condition/ relgion is wrong.

It's a very formal way of saying, "don't be a bigot and don't be a jerk"

See the difference? ;-) I'm sure you do. You just don't want to accept that difference.

If you DID then you'd be forced to conclude that The Church contradicts E. Michael Jones. Oh noes! Can't have that.

Christ warned you of what happens when you try serving two masters. Jones and Jesus are on opposite sides,

You and the other Jones-Junkies are doing what you always do: bragging what devout Catholics you supposedly are and then deliberately ignoring what the Catholic Church teaches because The Church repudiates your anti-Semitic bigotry.

All you have is the "truth" from a failed academic who earns a living giving you bigots what you want to read and feeding you the manure you love to swallow. E. Michael Jones makes his money supporting your confirmation-bias. Nothing more.

His "Truth" is notorious for being one long series of unsupported claims, cherry-picked examples,already-debunked theology, and a relentless pathological fixation on blaming Jews for just about everything.

Scripture is on my side.
The teachings of The Church are on my side.
The Truth is on my side.

You accused me of being afraid of the Truth. Let's find out which of us fears the Truth, shall we? ;-)

Reconcile E. Michael Jones condemnation of Jews, his unrestrained gloating when they've been attacked and victimized with Christ.'s teachings.

Christ taught we should love our neighbors as ourselves.

Christ taugth we should forgive our enemies seventy times seven,

Christ taught we should treat others as we would be treated,

Christ taught that God will judge us as we judge others.

Now show how what Christ taught supports what E. Michael Jones taught: hate the jews, the jews are evil, the jews are the cause of all the problems in the world, the jews, the jews, the jews...

Let's see how your "Truth" lines up against the Truth in the Gospel. Your truth already fails against the formal teachings of the Church. You've conceded that much already.

Go ahead, Malemp. Yeah, I'm calling you out. Here's your big chance to lay down some Truth.

I've got my Scripture and apologetics ready, go get yours, punk..

Rummage through the pages of Gospel According To Jones, check your bookmarks in The New Testament For Bigots.

Show where Jesus blamed the Jews for all the world's problems the way Jones does.

I'm challenging you to reconcile your anti-Semitism, obviously the product of Jones' pernicious philosophy with... The Truth. The REAL Truth. Christ's Truth,

Put up or shut up :-)
AngelusMaria
Ahhh, now @Ultraviolent, now we get to the root of the rot. Your support of a junk document from a failed Council. You blast fellow Catholics who simply reinforce what the Church has always taught, while you continue your slide into apostasy through the conforming of your mind and heart to heretical teachings that have created a parallel anti-Church.

Elsewhere on this site you speak of the dange…More
Ahhh, now @Ultraviolent, now we get to the root of the rot. Your support of a junk document from a failed Council. You blast fellow Catholics who simply reinforce what the Church has always taught, while you continue your slide into apostasy through the conforming of your mind and heart to heretical teachings that have created a parallel anti-Church.

Elsewhere on this site you speak of the dangers of addressing someone of the "intellectual stature" of Archbishop Vigano. Just what did he have to say about Nostra Aetate (and we'll set aside for the moment the criticims BXVI and others have raised):

"Pope Bergoglio thus proceeds to further implement the apostasy of Abu Dhabi, the fruit of pantheistic and agnostic neo-modernism that tyrannizes the Roman Church, germinated by the conciliar document Nostra Aetate. We are compelled to recognize it: the poisoned fruits of the 'Conciliar springtime' are before the eyes of anyone who does not allow himself to be blinded by the dominant Lie.

Pius XI had alerted and warned us. But the teachings that preceded Vatican II have been thrown to the winds, as intolerant and obsolete. The comparison between the pre-conciliar Magisterium and the new teachings of Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae — to mention only those — manifest a terrible discontinuity, which must be acknowledged and which must be amended as soon as possible. Adjuvante Deo (“with God’s help”)."


So, @Ultraviolet, I don't know what your personal life is like, whether or not you have an honest job, what you do for a living or if you are a pensioner or what. Seeing that you obviously have a lot of time on your hands to be posting on almost every other article and their replies on GTV, and oftentimes you are wordy and unnecessarily lengthy in those posts....it would behoove you to actually just use some of that time to actually read EMJ. Not just cherry pick the passages you mistakenly believe support your calumny that he is an anti-semite, but actually read an entire book, namely The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, to se the whole picture of what he is teaching.

You will see that not only is he not an anti-Semite, but that he is motivated by a love for the Jews and seek their ultimate conversion for the blessing of the world.

But enough of this. Until you publically issue an abjuration of errors for your promulgation of Vatican II errors and their poisoned fruits, there's not much progress made on this issue.
Ultraviolet
"Your support of a junk document from a failed Council." -AngelusMaria

It's an official teaching of the Catholic Church. Your rot is picking which parts of the Catholic Church's teachings you choose to follow -and which you will casually ignore.

"You blast fellow Catholics who simply reinforce what the Church has always taught"

The Church began with Christ and Christ did not teach His follow…More
"Your support of a junk document from a failed Council." -AngelusMaria

It's an official teaching of the Catholic Church. Your rot is picking which parts of the Catholic Church's teachings you choose to follow -and which you will casually ignore.

"You blast fellow Catholics who simply reinforce what the Church has always taught"

The Church began with Christ and Christ did not teach His followers to be racists nor did He teach them to be anti-Semites. Neither did the rest of the New Testament.

"you continue your slide into apostasy through the conforming of your mind and heart to heretical teachings..."

The Church defines heresy in Canon Law 751 and refusing to accept The Church's teachings is part of that definition -which is what you're doing with Nostra Aetate.

You're throwing around "religious condemnation" that carries a very clear meaning in Catholicism, of which you are obviously entirely unaware, even when it directly applies to you..

Likewise apostasy, also covered in Canon Law 751, which denotes a total repudiation of the Christian faith. Even our current pontiff, regardless of his (I suspect) numerous doctrinal errors, has not done so.

Simply put, you don't know what you're talking about and it shows.

"Elsewhere on this site you speak of the dangers of addressing someone of the "intellectual stature" of Archbishop Vigano."

Ah! I see I have a fan who retains what I say and where I say it. I'm flattered!

Indeed, I spoke of the dangers of publicly criticizing someone of Archbishop Vigano's intellectual stature. I pointed out that if they bother to reply they're going to "they're going squash the writer flat."

...which is precisely what I'm doing at this moment by correcting your misuse of Catholic terminology that simply doesn't apply. :D

Your quote shows Archbishop Vigano is criticizing "the apostasy of Abu Dhabi". He's claiming that pantheism and neo-modernism germinated from Nostra Aetate. Perhaps it did. That's a fancy way of saying people have misinterpreted its doctrines into error.

and? E. Michael Jones has misinterpreted the New Testament into error in a like manner. One does not blame the document when others choose to misinterpret it, even deliberately, for their own ends.

...which brings us to Archbishop Vigano

He is criticizing what has been misinterpreted FROM The Church's teachings in Nostra Aetate.

You're trying, for obvious reasons, to conflate an agenda-driven misinterpretaton of Nostra Aetatae with the original document.

This way, you seek to discredit the original Church Proclamation. I can understand why... it flatly repudiates E. Michael Jones' discrimination and Jew-hating -including your own.

Since you're quoting Archbishop Vigano, please quote him directly where he supports "the discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion." condemned by Nostra Aetate.

Nostra Aetate teaches discriminating against race and religion is wrong.

You present quotes that imply Archbishop Vigano repudiates Nostra Aetate and its teachings

Therefore Archbishop Vigano must repudiate the Nostra Aetate teaching that religious and racial discrimination are wrong, i.e. he supports religious and racial discrimination.

Feel free to quote Archbishop Vigano directly ANYWHERE he does so -especially in regards to Jews which is E. Michael Jones' obsession -and yours..

Put up or shut up. Quote him, or your argument fails.

Piux XI notes "a terrible discontinuity", true. Does he mention which points, specifically? Feel free to quote him where he does.

What you're trying to apply is a fallacy of composition.

Also worth noting Pius XI said the discontinuity should be amended. Did he list racial or religious discrmination as one of those points to be amended? Yes or no.

If no, then your quote is irrelevant to the discussion here.

"So, @Ultraviolet, I don't know what your personal life is like, whether or not you have an honest job, what you do for a living or if you are a pensioner or what."

My personal life has no bearing on the points you've raised or errors you've made. You should confine yourself to addressing the subjects discussed instead of speculating on irrelevancies.

"Seeing that you obviously have a lot of time on your hands to be posting on almost every other article and their replies on GTV,"

Actually, I can type really, really, really fast.

You're making a conclusion about the amount of time I spend on GTV based on the time it takes for YOU to read and reply.

That's a false premise. Happily, I'm not constrained by your intellectual limitatios or your technical skillset. ;-)

"and oftentimes you are wordy and unnecessarily lengthy in those posts."

...irony since you just typed out an article-length critism while bringing up that point. Motes and beams, eh? Frankly, I'm not really interested in your literary criticism. I've seen this tactic before.

If I don't reply to a point, you'll POUNCE on that one point as proof my entire position is in error since I didn't address it.

If I do reply to every point, then I'm "wordy and unnecessarily lengthy".

Yet you can spend hours shovelling down the manure E. Michael Jones feeds you. page after page without ever complaining about his wordiness or his length.

"it would behoove you to actually just use some of that time to actually read EMJ."

This is the "you haven't tried it so you can't judge" argument every degenerate uses to justify their illness. It presupposes a person must consume filth in order to recognize it as filth.

A Catholic does not need to read every satanic blasphemous book in order to recognize they are satanic and blasphemous.

"Not just cherry pick the passages you mistakenly believe support your calumny that he is an anti-semite"

Now you're misusing debating terminology the same way you misused Catholic legalism.

Cherry picking implies choosing examples that do NOT reflect the group as a whole. For that to be true YOU must show, overwhelmingly, Jones -isn't- an anti-Semite.

In fact, your accusation of "cherry picking" already carries a concession.

You're acknowledging the quotes from Jones that I have presented DO show he's an anti-Semite.

By accusing me (falsely) of "cherry picking" you're arguing they don't represent his writing, even if those examples DO show anti-Semitism.

For that to be true YOU must show, overwhelmingly, Jones -isn't- an anti-Semite.

Yes, do that.

Quote all the many passages where E. Michael Jones praises the Jewish people and Judaism. :D
AngelusMaria
@Ultraviolet. Okay. Where to begin? First, thank you for your generous response and taking the time and effort to reply to most points. Hopefully you will have more motivation to go to the Root of the rot before your next response.

"It's an official teaching of the Catholic Church. Your rot is picking which parts of the Catholic Church's teachings you choose to follow -and which you will …More
@Ultraviolet. Okay. Where to begin? First, thank you for your generous response and taking the time and effort to reply to most points. Hopefully you will have more motivation to go to the Root of the rot before your next response.

"It's an official teaching of the Catholic Church. Your rot is picking which parts of the Catholic Church's teachings you choose to follow -and which you will casually ignore."

-Actually, many teachings of Vat. II depart radically from Church Teaching, therefore it must be rejected. Paul VI declared it to be a "pastoral" not a dogmatic Council, whatever that is supposed to mean. We are here getting into many other subjects than our original one, but it seems we must. I'm not going to dissect the Council as many, many much more qualified people have already done, but I do want to touch upon what Vigano has said, in the hopes that it may spark you to look deeper into the issue. Conservative and Neo-Conservative Catholics just need to come to terms with what most Traditionalists have already discovered, though they differ on the issue of Sedevacantism, which Vigano has not publicly espoused as of yet, nor by my referencing him am I implying that he currently holds that theological position.

You can't dismiss all the aberrations, heresies and errors that have flowed out of the Council as simply misapplication of its true meaning. The Council itself was fundamentally and intrinsically flawed, and does not represent the Magisterium, but a false counterfeit.

I hate to quote at length, but this will hit upon your other claims in your recent post. As Vigano has correctly observed, (June 9 2020, From Vatican II onward, a parallel church was built, reprinted in The Remnant, June 30,2020) [all of my own comments are in ( ) followed by my initials-A.M.]:

[Reviewing Bp. Schneider's recent critique of Vat. 2 in LifeSite News, June 1] "The merit of His Excellency's essay lies in its grasp of the causal link between the principles enunciated or implied by Vatican II and their logical consequent effect in the doctrinal, moral, liturgical and disciplinary deviations that have arisen and progressively developed to the present day. The monstrum generated in modernist circles could have at first been misleading, but it has grown and strengthened, so that today it shows itself for what it really is in its subversive and rebellious nature. The creature that was conceived at that time is always the same, and it would be naive to think that its perverse nature could change. Attempts to correct the conciliar excesses--invoking the hermeneutic of continuity--have proven unsuccessful: Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret [Drive nature out with a pitchfork; she will come right back] (Horace, Epist. I,10,24). The Abu Dhabi Declaration--and Bishop Schneider rightly observes, its first symptoms in the pantheon of Assisi (where JPII committed public acts of heresy/apostasy-A.M.)--'was conceived in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council' as Bergoglio proudly confirms.
" This 'spirit of the Council' is the license of legitimacy that the innovators use to oppose their critics, without realizing that it is precisely confessing that legacy that confirms not only the erroneousness of the present declarations but also the heretical matrix that supposedly justifies them. On closer inspection, never in the history of the Church has a Council presented itself as such a historic event that it was different from any other council: there was never talk of a 'spirit of the Council of Nicea' or the 'spirit of the Council of Ferrara-Florence,' even less the 'spirit of the Council of Trent,' just as we never had a 'post-conciliar' era after Lateran IV or Vatican I.
"The reason is obvious: those Councils were all, indiscriminately, the expression in unison of the voice of Holy Mother Church, and for this very reason the voice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Significantly, those who maintain the novelty of Vatican II also adhere to the heretical doctrine that places the God of the Old Testament in opposition to the God of the New Testament, as if there could be contradiction between the Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. Evidently this opposition that is almost gnostic or cabalistic (uh oh, is he now being anti-Semitic here? A.M.) is functional to the legitimization of a new subject that is voluntarily different and opposed to the Catholic Church.
"....There comes a moment in our life when, through the disposition of Providence, we are faced with a decisive choice for the Church and for our eternal salvation. I speak of the choice between understanding the error into which practically all of us have fallen, almost always without evil intentions, and wanting to continue to look the other way or justify ourselves....[F]rom the moment it was theorized in the conciliar commissions, ecumenism was configured in a way that was in direct opposition to the doctrine previously expressed by the Magisterium.
"We have thought that certain excesses were only an exaggeration of those who allowed themselves to be swept up in thew enthusiasm for novelty; we sincerely believed that seeing John Paul II surrounded by charmers-healers, buddhist monks, imams, rabbis (watch it Vigano, -might be called an anti-Semite-A.M.), protestant pastors and other heretics gave proof of the Church's ability to summon people together in order to ask God for peace, while authoritative example of this action initiated a deviant succession of pantheons that were more or less official, even to the point of seeing Bishops carrying the unclean idol of the pachamama on their shoulders, sacrilegiously concealed under the pretext of being a representation of sacred motherhood.
"....We know well that, invoking the saying in Scripture Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivificat [The letter brings death but the spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6)], the progressives and modernists astutely knew how to hide equivocal expressions in the conciliar texts, which at the time appeared harmless to most but that today are revealed in their subversive value. It is the method employed in the use of the phrase subsistit in: saying a half-truth not so much as not to offend the interlocutor (assuming that is licit to silence the truth of God out of respect for His creature), but with the intention of being able to able to use the half-error that would be instantly dispelled if the entire truth were proclaimed. Thus 'Ecclesia Christi subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica' does not specify the identity of the two, but the subsistence of one in the other and, for consistency, also in other churches: here is the opening to interconfessional celebrations, ecumenical prayers, and the inevitable end of any need for the Church in the order of salvation, in her unicity, and in her missionary nature.
"....What the world wants, at the instigation of Masonry and its infernal tentacles, is to create a universal religion that is humanitarian and ecumenical, from which the jealous God whom we adore is banished. And if this is what the world wants, any step in the same direction by the Church is an unfortunate choice which will turn against those who believe that they can jeer at God. The hopes of the Tower of Babel cannot be brought back to life by a globalist plan that has as its goal the cancellation of the Catholic Church, in order to replace it with a confederation of idolaters and heretics united by environmentalism and universal brotherhood. There can be no brotherhood except in Christ, and only in Christ: qui non est mecum, contra me est.
"It is disconcerting that few people are aware of this race towards the abyss, and that few realize the responsibility of the highest levels of the Church in supporting these anti-Christian ideologies, as if the Church's leaders want to guarantee that they have a place and a role on the bandwagon of aligned thought. And it is surprising that people persist in not wanting to investigate the root causes of the present crisis, limiting themselves to deploring the present excesses as if they were not the logical and inevitable consequence of a plan orchestrated decades ago. If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humane. If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized (yes, the 'Novus Bogus'-A.M.) and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms. If the Abu Dhabi Declaration was signed, we owe it to Nostra Aetate."
"....The Council was used to legitimize the most aberrant doctrinal deviations, the most daring liturgical innovations, and the most unscrupulous abuses, all while Authority remained silent. This Council was so exalted that it was presented as the only legitimate reference for Catholics, clergy and bishops, obscuring and connoting with a sense of contempt the doctrine that the Church had always authoritatively taught, and prohibiting the perennial liturgy (an act that since Trent incurs automatic excommunication, anathema on any pastor, which includes John XXIII Paul VI-A.M.) -that for millennia had nourished the faith of an uninterrupted line of faithful, martyrs and saints. Among other things, this Council has proven to be the only one that has caused so many interpretive problems and so many contradictions with respect to the preceding Magisterium, while there is not one other council--from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican I--that does not harmonize perfectly with the entire Magisterium or that needs so much interpretation.

"....[O]n March 13, 2013, the mask fell from the conspirators...finally succeeded in promoting a Cardinal who embodied their ideals, their way of revolutionizing the Church, of making doctrine malleable, morals adaptable, liturgy adulterable, and discipline disposable. And all this was considered, by the protagonists of the conspiracy themselves, the logical consequence and obvious application of Vatican II, which according to them had been weakened by the critiques expressed by Benedict XVI. The greatest affront of that Pontificate was liberally permitting the celebration of the venerated Tridentine Liturgy, the legitimacy of which was finally recognized, disproving fifty years of illegitimate ostracization. It is no accident that Bergoglio's supporters are the same people who saw the Council as the first event of a new church, prior to which there was an old religion with an old liturgy.

"It was no accident: what these men affirm with impunity, scandalizing moderates, is what Catholics also believe, namely: that despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onward a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was first theorized by Masonry. Expressions like new humanism, universal fraternity, dignity of man, are the watchwords of philanthropic humanitarianism which denies the true God, of horizontal solidarity of vague spiritualist inspiration and of ecumenical irenism that the Church universally condemns.
"....If we do not recognize that the roots of these deviations are found in the principles laid down by the Council, it will be impossible to find a cure: if our diagnosis persists, against all the evidence, in excluding the initial pathology, we cannot prescribe a suitable therapy.
"This operation of intellectual honesty requires a great humility, first of all in recognizing that for decades we have been led into error, in good faith, by people who, established in authority, have not known how to watch over and guard the flock of Christ: some for the sake of living quietly, some because of having too many commitments, some out of convenience, and finally some in bad faith or even malicious intent....

"Just as I honestly and serenely obeyed questionable orders sixty years ago, believing that they represented the loving voice of the Church, so today with equal serenity and honesty I recognize that I have been deceived. Being coherent today by persevering in error would represent a wretched choice and would make me an accomplice in this fraud. Claiming a clarity of judgment from the beginning would not be honest: we all knew that the Council would be more or less a revolution, but we could not have imagined that it would prove to be so devastating, even for the work of those who should have prevented it. And if up until Benedict XVI we could still imagine that the coup d'etat of Vatican II (which Cardinal Suenens called 'the 1789 of the Church') had experienced a slowdown, in these last few years even the most ingenuous among us have understood that silence for fear of causing a schism, the effort to repair papal documents (how does an infallible Magisterium, a pope protected by infallibility in faith and morals teach heresy, error anyway? Hmmmm.....Either Church Teaching on infallibility is wrong....or....They were invalid popes---Conservative Catholics have to destroy Church teaching by contorting it beyond recognition in order to hold that the popes since Vatican II are valid---A.M.) in a Catholic sense in order to remedy their intended ambiguity, the appeals and dubia made to Francis that remained eloquently unanswered, are all a confirmation of the situation of the most serious apostasy to which the highest levels of the Hierarchy are exposed....

----------------
-Now, @Ultraviolet, Back to your accusations, we'll return to the lengthy citation in bit:

"The Church began with Christ and Christ did not teach His followers to be racists nor did He teach them to be anti-Semites. Neither did the rest of the New Testament".

-Agreed, 110%. You have constructed a strawman and can keep attacking him all day long. You have yet to define what is anti-Semitism, what, or who, is a Jew, and how opposing Jewish interests and revolution against Christ and His Church is racist, nor have you presented one shred of evidence that EMJ is a racist, a bigot, an anti-Semite. Have you tried to ever read Church documents prior to Vatican II regarding the Jews? Start with Lateran IV, let me know if you think the Church was anti-Semitic. In the Gospel of John, the use of the word "Jew" doesn't become pejorative until Chapter 8. The Jews are then defined in the negative, as those who have rejected Christ. Mind you, those who accepted Christ at this time were all Jews, but now they are known as Christians. In Christ there is no longer Jew nor Greek....etc. John relates how the early followers had to hide for fear of the Jews? Isn't he a Jew? You see, by the time we get to John Chapter 8, Jew no longer refers to a race, but a people who hold a theological position, namely, the rejection of Jesus Christ. You are going to have a very difficult time with the Church's relationship with the Jews through history if you fail to understand this distinction. EMJ's book, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit exposes anti-Semitism, and helps one better grasp the Church's relationship with the Jews throughout history, and the present state we are in today. I really encourage you to read it. I can understand how abrasive and shocking some things may sound to your ears that have been trained since birth to have an enormous blind spot to anything that doesn't praise the Jews...it's not your fault...it is by orchestrated design. But I am confident that once you begin to read his book, you will see that all your animosity and visceral reactions towards him have been very misguided, whatever good intentions may have existed.

"The Church defines heresy in Canon Law 751 and refusing to accept The Church's teachings is part of that definition -which is what you're doing with Nostra Aetate."

-Nostra Aetate is not Church teaching, the Church cannot err in her teaching authority. N.A. is a document of an illegitimate "Council." I suggest you ponder Vigano's words concerning it, and then do some research on your own on why someone would oppose Vatican II. Not hard to do, May I suggest start with John Vennari, several good talks he left behind? Or Romero Amerio's monumental tome on the subject, Iota Unum?

"You're throwing around "religious condemnation" that carries a very clear meaning in Catholicism, of which you are obviously entirely unaware, even when it directly applies to you..
Likewise apostasy, also covered in Canon Law 751, which denotes a total repudiation of the Christian faith. Even our current pontiff, regardless of his (I suspect) numerous doctrinal errors, has not done so.
"

-Really!? Are you kidding me? Have you been on a lunar kibbutz or in some hole at Camp X-Ray these past several years? How is what Bergoglio teaches the Catholic Faith? How is Abu Dhabi not apostasy? How does proclaiming that "I believe in God, not in a Catholic God. There is no Catholic God" (interview La Repubblica, Sept 24, 2013) not apostasy? Gimme a break, we could do this all day long....

How does an infallible Magisterium, a pope protected by infallibility in faith and morals teach heresy, error? Hmmmm.....Either Church Teaching on infallibility is wrong....or....They were invalid popes. You see, although Vigano hasn't arrived here yet, to my knowledge, Sedevacantism is the only way to preserve Church teaching on the Papacy. The religion of Vatican II is opposed to Eternal Rome, the Catholic Faith. Those espousing the Vatican II religion mostly have no clue that they have fallen into schism with the Faith, and are plunging headlong into Apostasy.

You say that the pope can have numerous doctrinal errors? That is heresy my friend. You must obey the pope. Pope Pius IX, (inter multiplices, 1853, #7) laid out what your response should be to your Pope:

"Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion have always waged a fierce war, but without success, against this Chair; they are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter and fall while this Chair remains intact, the Chair which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion. Therefore, because of your special faith in the Church and special piety toward the same Chair of Peter, We exhort you to direct your constant efforts so that the faithful people of France may avoid the crafty deceptions and errors of these plotters and develop a more filial affection and obedience to this Apostolic See. Be vigilant in act and word, so that the faithful may grow in love for this Holy See, venerate it, and accept it with complete obedience; they should execute whatever the See itself teaches, determines, and decrees. Here, however, We are hardly able to restrain Ourselves from telling you of the grief We experienced when, among other things, a recently published book reached Us; it was written in French with the title Sur la situation presente de l’Eglise Gallicane relativement au droit coutumier. Its author is totally opposed to all We so fervently commend, and so We have sent the book to Our Congregation of the Index to be disapproved and condemned."

So you are in disobedience, and you are teaching heresy by your position on Bergoglio. If a pope is teaching error, which this Bergoglio does almost daily (and I hope you will spare me the redundant task of citing ample examples as even this GTV site reports on often), then he must not be pope. It's pretty simple, and those who complicate it do so with grave violence to the teaching authority of the Church. The Conciliar church is, as Vigano has well stated, a parallel church. It is leading souls into apostasy, creating a religion that is no longer Catholic. It is an anti-Church opposed to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

"Simply put, you don't know what you're talking about and it shows."

-Dear person, you need to re-evaluate what you think you know. It's ok. I had to also. The truth shall set you free.

"Ah! I see I have a fan who retains what I say and where I say it. I'm flattered!
Indeed, I spoke of the dangers of publicly criticizing someone of Archbishop Vigano's intellectual stature. I pointed out that if they bother to reply they're going to "they're going squash the writer flat.
"

-I'm not sure that I am reading this above statement correctly, it appears to be a mistype. I am assuming you mean Vigano would crush them flat, and not that 'they're going squash [sic] the writer flat."

"...which is precisely what I'm doing at this moment by correcting your misuse of Catholic terminology that simply doesn't apply. :D"

-This statement of yours tempts me to retract my initial thanksgiving for your generous responses, as it seems to reveal a strong motivation of prideful accomplishment behind them.

"Your quote shows Archbishop Vigano is criticizing 'the apostasy of Abu Dhabi.' He's claiming that pantheism and neo-modernism germinated from Nostra Aetate. Perhaps it did. That's a fancy way of saying people have misinterpreted its doctrines into error."

-No, you are misrepresenting what he said. You are applying the same erroneous method that you and other Conservative Catholics use when viewing Vatican II. As I have clearly demonstrated at the beginning of this reply, he is not simply saying "people have misinterpreted its doctrines into error," but that the document, like the Council that produced it, is intrinsically erroneous. Any attempt to interpret Vigano in any other way is simply a result that, "simply put, you don't know what you're talking about and it shows," or you are practicing dishonesty just to make your point. I'll choose the former explanation. In either case, you are alone in understanding him this way, no one else is confused as to what he is clearly stating.

"and? E. Michael Jones has misinterpreted the New Testament into error in a like manner."

-No he doesn't. Surely you are familiar with the dictum: What can be freely asserted can be freely denied. Proof, Accuser, proof.

"One does not blame the document when others choose to misinterpret it, even deliberately, for their own ends."

-This Conservative claim is demolished. You need to let go before it drowns you. The problem is not with its interpretation, the problems are inherent to it.

"...which brings us to Archbishop Vigano
He is criticizing what has been misinterpreted FROM The Church's teachings in Nostra Aetate.
You're trying, for obvious reasons, to conflate an agenda-driven misinterpretaton of Nostra Aetatae with the original document.
"

-The only misrepresentation here is you of Vigano, as should be OBVIOUS by now. You conflated his very CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS statement on NA to fit your agenda-driven argument to try to rescue a heretical document and the spurious Council that produced it. This is why I quoted at length, because I knew that you would do to Vigano what you have done to NA and Vat II.

"This way, you seek to discredit the original Church Proclamation. I can understand why... it flatly repudiates E. Michael Jones' discrimination and Jew-hating -including your own."

Slander, Calumny. Again, you have yet to produce ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE of EMJ's supposed "jew-hating." Your reckless use of weaponized words like "anti-Semitism," "discrimination," reveal that you are informed more by demagoguery than actual facts and understanding. Again, NA is not a proclamation of the Church, but of an anti-Church, a parallel church and, as Vigano stated "despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onward, a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was first theorized by Masonry."

THAT is the religion born of Vatican II, and that is the Religion you are espousing, though I believe unwittingly. Your arguments hinge on believing V2 was a valid, authoritative Council. Take that away and you have nothing. Again, you would come unglued if you were to familiarize yourself with the Church's positions on the Jews through the ages. EMJ can help you wade through it and realize that the Church never promoted anti-Semitism in Her Teachings, and all the actions taken against the Jews were to protect them and the Church from Jewish subversion. Again, just start with Lateran IV and get back with me....there's plenty more where that came from.

"Since you're quoting Archbishop Vigano, please quote him directly where he supports 'the discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion' condemned by Nostra Aetate."

-Once again, you create a strawman. You still have yet to show ANY EVIDENCE that EMJ is a race hater or anti-Semite. And as far as religious discrimination.....uh, yeah, we better discriminate. Religious Liberty is not a Catholic teaching. It was condemned as a modernist error by several Popes, but I wouldn't expect you to know that or to agree with it, since your religion is different than mine, yours being the Conciliar Religion born out of Vatican II. It's ok, I was there too, but sooner or later your desire to be a member of the One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church will lead you out of that parallel church and into Holy Mother Church. The way to do that is to first reject the errors of Vatican II. For Popes condemning the error of religious liberty, you can start with Pius VI, Quod aliquantulum, Letter of March 10, 1791 to the French Bishops of the National Assembly; Pius VII, Post tam diuturnitas, Apostolic Letter to the Bishop of Troyes, France, Condemning the "Freedom of Cults and of Conscience," granted by the Constitution of 1814 (Louis XVIII); Gregory XVI, Mira vos, Encyclical of August 15, 1832; Pius IX, Quanta cura, Encyclical of December 8, 1864, Reiterating the Condemnation of His Predecessor; Pius IX, Syllabus, 77-79; Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, Encyclical of November 1, 1885 On the Christian Constitution of States..............among others.

"Nostra Aetate teaches discriminating against race and religion is wrong".

-Moot.

"You present quotes that imply Archbishop Vigano repudiates Nostra Aetate and its teachings.
Therefore Archbishop Vigano must repudiate the Nostra Aetate teaching that religious and racial discrimination are wrong, i.e. he supports religious and racial discrimination
."

-Moot.

"Feel free to quote Archbishop Vigano directly ANYWHERE he does so -especially in regards to Jews which is E. Michael Jones' obsession -and yours.."

-You still fail to demonstrate EMJ is what you accuse him to be, so how I can address a fiction?

"Put up or shut up. Quote him, or your argument fails".

-Irrelevant. You are the Accuser of your brothers here, You must prove your case. So far all we get are accusations and arguments against strawmen.

"Piux [sic] XI notes 'a terrible discontinuity,' true. Does he mention which points, specifically? Feel free to quote him where he does."

-That was Vigano, but I believe Pope Pius IX's Mortalium Animos, Encyclical on Religious Unity should suffice for our purposes here:
Quote:
2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians."

The entire Encyclical should be read, very short, will take you only 5 minutes. The above quotes are just to give you an introduction to much more that follows, little of which Nostra Aetate is in harmony with. May this little exercise help exorcise your faith of Conciliar error.

"What you're trying to apply is a fallacy of composition".

-No, the part must be understood in its whole, which is context, something you are refusing to afford poor Mr. Jones with your calumnies. Read his book, you will not be sorry.

"Also worth noting Pius XI said the discontinuity should be amended. Did he list racial or religious discrimination as one of those points to be amended? Yes or no."

-Again, moot. We are bound to religious discrimination. Perhaps you need to take a closer look. Vatican II is a departure from the faith. I have provided ample sources for you to research. And again, and perhaps this is my fault in original citation though I read over it and don't see any mistake in presentation, it was Vigano, not Pope Pius XI that said the discontinuity should be amended. Note the part that you left out, the prerequisite of any amendment, namely the discontinuity with previous Magisterial teaching "must be acknowledged." I point you back again to the many documents I have named in this response to you.

"My personal life has no bearing on the points you've raised or errors you've made. You should confine yourself to addressing the subjects discussed instead of speculating on irrelevancies."

-I'll give you that. I guess a more fair approach would simply be why are you so bent on defaming EMJ, on robbing him of his good name? You are attacking a good man whose contribution in this matter is beautiful, something I really believe you would see if you would just read what he has to say, to put it in context and see. It is a solution, a remedy for anti-Semitism, a strong argument against racism. You are the Accuser here, so you have to demonstrate how he is a racist or jew-hater. Spoiler alert: you won't be able to.

"Actually, I can type really, really, really fast.
You're making a conclusion about the amount of time I spend on GTV based on the time it takes for YOU to read and reply.
That's a false premise. Happily, I'm not constrained by your intellectual limitatios or your technical skillset. ;-)
"

-I retract. It's not hard to type out a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations and calumny. Any unscrupulous person can pump out a rather prolific amount of such hate-speech without backing any of it up with evidence of any kind.

"Frankly, I'm not really interested in your literary criticism. I've seen this tactic before".

-As when you often jump upon your targets for a misspelling or grammatical error (so far you haven't done that to me, but I've seen you do it to others)? You strain the gnat while swallowing the camel. The length of your posts are not a problem when you are not filling them with unscrupulous and unsubstantiated accusations against people like EMJ.

"If I don't reply to a point, you'll POUNCE on that one point as proof my entire position is in error since I didn't address it."

-Okay. I can understand that, and I am certain you are speaking from having experienced that a great bit. I don't recall doing that, but I would certainly retain the obligation to re-iterate a point if I think it was lost on someone.

"If I do reply to every point, then I'm 'wordy and unnecessarily lengthy'."

-The key word here is "unnecessarily." If all you are going to do is keep throwing accusations of racism and anti-Semitism around without demonstrating it, then yeah, even one syllable is unnecessarily lengthy and wordy, let alone several paragraphs.

"Yet you can spend hours shovelling down the manure E. Michael Jones feeds you. page after page without ever complaining about his wordiness or his length".

-It may be manure to you, but fertilizer for many others. But it's clear that in regards to EMJ at least, you don't know anti-Semitism from shinola. I'm not argue any longer with someone who just hurls accusations against someone he clearly doesn't understand and even more clearly doesn't want to understand. That's bigotry and prejudice. And its incurable until the afflicted person desires to be cured.

"This is the "you haven't tried it so you can't judge" argument every degenerate uses to justify their illness. It presupposes a person must consume filth in order to recognize it as filth.
A Catholic does not need to read every satanic blasphemous book in order to recognize they are satanic and blasphemous
."

-You have no idea what you are talking about in regards to EMJ, and you are all the more impoverished because of it. It's really unfortunate, you would abandon your EMJ-hating ideas if you really looked into what he is saying.

"Now you're misusing debating terminology the same way you misused Catholic legalism".

-No, I was dead on, but for one point, which I will explain in a moment.

"Cherry picking implies choosing examples that do NOT reflect the group as a whole. For that to be true YOU must show, overwhelmingly, Jones -isn't- an anti-Semite."

-Again, YOU are the Accuser, the burden of proof lies on YOU. My proof is his entire book, which I suggest you read.

"In fact, your accusation of "cherry picking" already carries a concession. You're acknowledging the quotes from Jones that I have presented DO show he's an anti-Semite".

-Ahh, that's the point of failure I wanted to get to. You actually have provided NO EVIDENCE whatsoever, so I was wrong to even argue from the point as if you had. But perhaps it is good that I did, because you now go on to claim that you have provided quotes from EMJ in our discussion, and I don't believe you have at all. Will you please refresh my memory as to what quotes you provided and where in our discussion that I can find them? Otherwise you have just lied, and I would hope that isn't the case. I'll give you a chance to show me that you actually did quote him at some point in our discussion.

"By accusing me (falsely) of 'cherry picking' you're arguing they don't represent his writing, even if those examples DO show anti-Semitism."

-Again, where, when, did you EVER quote him? I don't believe you did, so it is correct to point out that accusing you of cherry picking would be false, but with the irony of being a more charitable allowance (responding as if you ever presented evidence of your accusations against EMJ) than perhaps you deserved. If you can produce a quote, I certainly hope it's not the only one that you have produced up to this point, what with all your insults and accusations against EMJ.

"For that to be true YOU must show, overwhelmingly, Jones -isn't- an anti-Semite".

-Again, moot. The burden of proof is on the Accuser of his brethren. You have yet to do so. In defense of EMJ, I submit exhibit A: The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History, 2008, 7th Printing, 2019, Fidelity Press, South Bend, Indiana.

"Yes, do that".

-Done, been there, done that, and you refuse to look at the evidence, having prejudice against the defendant.

"Quote all the many passages where E. Michael Jones praises the Jewish people and Judaism."

-Firstly, Judaism is not praiseworthy, it is, by its nature an anti-Christ religion, one that rejects Jesus Christ and therefore leads people on a path to Hell, because outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation, and baptism is necessary for salvation. Church Teaching 101. Secondly, you still don't know what a Jew is, or how EMJ is using the term, and you don't even realize how you are boxing a phantom, and nothing is going to knock you out of that stupid ring until you actually give EMJ a chance to defend himself against your accusations. But you won't do that. You've already shown how you are prepared to rationalize your prejudice against him and his work, and you willfully choose to remain obstinate in your calumnies and ignorance. You know not of that which you speak against, and I've wasted too much time on this already. My only hope in trying to be a bit more thorough in my reply to you was that you might actually begin to reconsider some of your positions on various misunderstandings you have. I'm not entirely confident that I could even make a dent in something impossibly stubborn. But who knows?
Ultraviolet
@AngelusMaria

Shall we begin? ;-)

"-Actually, many teachings of Vat. II depart radically from Church Teaching, therefore it must be rejected."

Care to cite Canon Law where the laity can self-determine what teachings depart and which clause allows them to simply "reject" those teachings?

You're just trying to justify what's tantamount to heresy.

"but I do want to touch upon what Vigano …More
@AngelusMaria

Shall we begin? ;-)

"-Actually, many teachings of Vat. II depart radically from Church Teaching, therefore it must be rejected."

Care to cite Canon Law where the laity can self-determine what teachings depart and which clause allows them to simply "reject" those teachings?

You're just trying to justify what's tantamount to heresy.

"but I do want to touch upon what Vigano has said, in the hopes that it may spark you to look deeper into the issue."

The -issue- here is E. Michael Jones' anti-Semitism. If you have a quote from Archbishop Vigano supporting anti-Semites or Jones, sure, fire away.

"Conservative and Neo-Conservative Catholics just need to come to terms with what most Traditionalists have already discovered"

Last time I checked, you haven't been appointed the official spokes-being for what "most" Traditionalists have or have not discovered. I'm positive you don't have a survey showing they've made these discoveries, either.

"You can't dismiss all the aberrations, heresies and errors that have flowed out of the Council as simply misapplication of its true meaning."

I'm not. I'm addressing a specific proclamation, Nostra Aetate, not the entire Vatican Council II. More precisely, I am discussing a specific statement within Nostra Aetate. This one:

--The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.--

If you want to disprove that, fine. Show examples from Christ's teachings supporting the discrimination or harassment of other people based on their race, color, condition of life, or religion. Simple enough.

"The Council itself was fundamentally and intrinsically flawed, and does not represent the Magisterium, but a false counterfeit."

Once again, this line of argument is still just you trying to discredit Nostra Aetate through a fallacy of composition and -thereby- remove a direct contradiction BY the Church against E. Michael Jones' pernicious anti-Semitism which you've thoroughly embraced.

Sorry, no, there is no actual "parallel Church". Taking Abp Vigano literally leads abruptly into schism -and worse. It's also why the Lutherans have fragmented from one "parallel church" into dozens if not hundreds of them.

UV:
"The Church began with Christ and Christ did not teach His followers to be racists nor did He teach them to be anti-Semites. Neither did the rest of the New Testament".

AM:
-Agreed, 110%. "You have constructed a strawman and can keep attacking him all day long."


Actually, your accusation of a "strawman" is a non-sequitur since the comment you're quoting was in reply to this:

AM:
"You blast fellow Catholics who simply reinforce what the Church has always taught"

Since you are in agreement," 110% no less, ironically enough if is YOU who are building a strawman around your non-sequitur from there on in.

Neither statement was addressing "opposing Jewish interests and revolution against Christ and His Church." Or any of the other nonsens you raised. In fact, EMJ wasn't even mentioned.

Demanding me to define anti-Semitism or even what/ who is a Jew is a deflection. Why not also ask me to define "Christ" and "The Church". I've seen this tactic before, very popular among your kind. Derails the discussion into endless dictionary/ thesaurus citations instead of sticking to the issues we began with.

"Have you tried to ever read Church documents prior to Vatican II regarding the Jews?"

Yeah, I have. Sicut Judaeis, a doctrine which was re-affirmed repeatedly by well over a dozen Popes.

"In the Gospel of John, the use of the word "Jew" doesn't become pejorative until Chapter 8. The Jews are then defined in the negative, as those who have rejected Christ."

Factually unspported premise. Quotations and citations needed.

"Jew no longer refers to a race, but a people who hold a theological position, namely, the rejection of Jesus Christ. You are going to have a very difficult time with the Church's relationship with the Jews through history if you fail to understand this distinction."

Saint Edith Stein demonstrates that "Jew" then as now, still refers to a race. She was targeted by the Nazis for two particular reasons. First she was racially a Jew and second, she was religiously a Christian. Your claim (or whatever you're parroting from EMJ) just tanked.

" I can understand how abrasive and shocking some things may sound to your ears that have been trained since birth to have an enormous blind spot to anything that doesn't praise the Jews."

I'll thank you not to make such patronizingly asinine assumptions about my childhood or how I was trained. ;-) I understand what anti-Semitism is and I recognize its tenets when they're presented. That remains true even when it's masquerading itself behind a pretense of Catholic traditionalism.

"you will see that all your animosity and visceral reactions towards him have been very misguided, whatever good intentions may have existed."

Personally, I suspect I'll dislike the man even more. ;-)

"-Nostra Aetate is not Church teaching, the Church cannot err in her teaching authority."

It's a proclamation, not a "teaching". That was clever. However, what it contains ARE teachings.

So. Are you implying the following statement in Nostra Aetate is in error?

--The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.--

That requires either a yes or no answer and, no, that isn't a fallacy of a false dilemma.

The Church did present the statement, it's a direct quote from an official proclamation. You either believe the statement is in error or it is not. Yes or no.

If you do, show where, then "in the mind of Christ" (i.e. the Gospels) He promoted "discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion."

"Have you been on a lunar kibbutz or in some hole at Camp X-Ray these past several years? How is what Bergoglio teaches the Catholic Faith?"

In Canon Law 751 ot be exact,, apostasy is defined by what is epudiated, not what is taught. ;-)

"You say that the pope can have numerous doctrinal errors? That is heresy my friend."

Did I? No I did not.

I said "Even our current pontiff, regardless of his (I suspect) numerous doctrinal errors, has not done so."

A suspicion is not a formal accusation. Nice try. There's a strawman, since you need a lil' help identifying the one laid out on your work-bench

"How does an infallible Magisterium, a pope protected by infallibility in faith and morals teach heresy, error? Hmmmm.....Either Church Teaching on infallibility is wrong....or....They were invalid popes."

Part of your mistake is another (perhaps unwitting) fallacy of composition. Papal infallibility is subject to conditions.

Not everything a Pope teaches falls under them.

Otherwise, if you insist on the looser standards you appear to be suggesting, many critics have found numerous examples of what they claim are teachings that are contrary to the teachings of the Church from the last four Popes, Benedict XVI included.

That's leading you straight into sedevacantism or you're going to have to single-handedly show each and every one of those teachings WERE, in fact, in full accordance with Church Magisterium.

This liltte missive of yours won't even scratch the surface of what you'll be writing. :D

There is some irony, of course, in you trying to "trap" me into what you perceived as heresy by quoting this:

"You must obey the pope. Pope Pius IX, (inter multiplices, 1853, #7) laid out what your response should be to your Pope..."

When a few passages earlier you argued, "Sedevacantism is the only way to preserve Church teaching on the Papacy."

Reconcile those two, please. How do you obey a Pope while denying his validity as Pope?. :D The latter is a precondition to the former, meaning, the former is impossible to do if the latter isn't done first.

Sedevacantism turns the Papacy into a popularity contest. He's Pope only if a layman or a clique of laypeople say he is. The precursors of how that line of thought works in practice are already visible with the Benedict vs. Francis debates. When Benedict dies, then the only answer Francis' critics -will- have is open sedevacantism.

"So you are in disobedience, and you are teaching heresy by your position on Bergoglio."

False conclusion derived from a faulty premise. My position is Pope Francis may be teaching "(I suspect) numerous doctrinal errors". A suspicion is not a certainty.

"If a pope is teaching error, which this Bergoglio does almost daily... then he must not be pope."

See the link I helpfully supplied earlier regarding Papal Infallibility. Not everything "Bergoglio does almost daily" fall under that. In fact, most does not.. ;-)

"Dear person, you need to re-evaluate what you think you know. It's ok. I had to also."

A pity you came to such disastrous conclusions based on your reevaluation.

(cont.)
Ultraviolet
UV:
Indeed, I spoke of the dangers of publicly criticizing someone of Archbishop Vigano's intellectual stature. I pointed out that if they bother to reply they're going to "they're going squash the writer flat."

AM:
-I'm not sure that I am reading this above statement correctly, it appears to be a mistype. I am assuming you mean Vigano would crush them flat, and not that 'they're going squash […
More
UV:
Indeed, I spoke of the dangers of publicly criticizing someone of Archbishop Vigano's intellectual stature. I pointed out that if they bother to reply they're going to "they're going squash the writer flat."

AM:
-I'm not sure that I am reading this above statement correctly, it appears to be a mistype. I am assuming you mean Vigano would crush them flat, and not that 'they're going squash [sic] the writer flat."


That assumption is incorrect. I meant exactly what I said: "someone of Vigano's intellectual stature". That naturally includes Archbishop Vigano since he's the benchmark being used to measure the writers' intellectual stature. However other writers who also possess equal intellectual stature would also be included.

Not sure why you've added (sic) next to "squash". Spelling seems legit...

---
AM:
"No, you are misrepresenting what he said. You are applying the same erroneous method that you and other Conservative Catholics use when viewing Vatican II. As I have clearly demonstrated at the beginning of this reply,

"he is not simply saying "people have misinterpreted its doctrines into error," but that the document, like the Council that produced it, is intrinsically erroneous."


(emphasis, mine)

Archbishop Vigano -didn't- say that. That's you putting words in the man's mouth. That's what you're choosing to derive from those lengthy paragraphs simply because he -doesn't- support your claim.

Like so: Abp Vigano enthuses, "The merit of His Excellency's essay lies in its grasp of the causal link between the principles enunciated or implied by Vatican II and their logical consequent effect in the doctrinal, moral, liturgical and disciplinary deviations that have arisen and progressively developed to the present day."

"A causal link to principles enunciated or implied by Vatican II." Right there he's leavig himself an "out". Implications are subject to interpretations by others, which (wait for it) supports my statement of "people have misinterpreted its doctrines into error,"

A "consequent effect in the doctrinal, moral, liturgical and disciplinary deviations" requires interpretaton for that to occur. Over half a century's worth of it. Abp Vigano is mindful of his position not to directly denounce Vatican Council II the way you are claiming he does.

"Attempts to correct the conciliar excesses--invoking the hermeneutic of continuity--have proven unsuccessful:"

Conciliar excesses are not the Vatican Council in toto. That's the difference between what he writes and what you derived from it.

" This 'spirit of the Council' is the license of legitimacy that the innovators use to oppose their critics..."

However, it's a false license. ;-) The "spirit of the Council" is whatever they say it is, absent any direct factual citations from the Council itself. It's an ambiguous un-defined "theme", as opposed to a concrete citation.

Similarly, by quoting Abp Vigano's dipleasure at such contrivance, you create a "spirit of Vigano" whereby he supposedly claims, "the document, like the Council that produced it, is intrinsically erroneous."

...which he never did.

So, no, you haven't "clearly demonstrated" Archbishop Vigano is asserting "the document (Nostra Aetate), like the Council that produced it, is intrinsically erroneous. "

What you've done is fabricate a claim he didn't make.

"Proof, Accuser, proof."

No doubt in reference to my statement: "E. Michael Jones has misinterpreted the New Testament into error in a like manner."

Take your pick of his errors...
www.catholicleague.org/playing-fast-an…

Noteworthy since it contains a number of darling quotes from the man himself which DO support that EMJ is a bigot and an anti-Semite.

Like so: "The overwhelming majority of Jews didn’t just ignore Christ, they actively sought his death."

Does EMJ have, say, a Gallup Poll of Jews alive at the time of Christ? No.

He just made the claim up to malign a group of people. The only way his claim could be true is if the "overwhelming majority" of Jews were present where Christ was teaching -and- knew what He was teaching -and- wanted Him dead -and- Jones has evidence showing each of those "ands". He doesn't.

EMJ has no proof, yet he makes the claim showing a clear bias on his part, a bias against Jews.

Or his charming observations like he makes on Twitter:

"Abortion is a Jewish sacrament."

twitter.com/…/121578181829057…

...except that's a lie. There is no "sacrament" of abortion in Judaism. Again, malign, deliberate falsehood. If some radical posted, say, "Paedophilia is a Catholic sacrament" on Twitter, would you say that's anti-Catholic -and- untrue?

Yes or no? That isn't a rhetorical question. Would you assert the writers is anti-Catholic -and- the statement is untrue?

Let's continue with the Jones Show...

"Jewish behavior is the #1 cause of anti-Semitism."

twitter.com/…/121836673047872…

No proof supplied, to show it is -a- cause, much less the primary cause. It's an outright fabrication.

"Slander, Calumny. Again, you have yet to produce ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE of EMJ's supposed "jew-hating."

Happily, Mr. Jones supplies them himself. Nice to see you've picked up his vocabulary, though.

"Calumny is a sin. Falsely accusing fellow Catholics of Anti-Semitism is a sin against charity. Bearing false witness is a sin."

twitter.com/…/121762629875713…

...except in Mr. Jones' case the accusations are valid. Bearing false witness is indeed a sin which condemns describing a "Jewish sacrament" that does not exist, or the "overwhelming" opinions of Jews living at the time of Jesus without any supporting evidence.

You pointed out that "What can be freely asserted can be freely denied." aka. Hitchen's Razor, the burden of proof for truthfulness of a claim lies with the one making the claim.

Sadly you don't hold Mr. Jones to that keen standard or are these remarks all new to you? ;-)

Or other anti-Jewish gems from his dubious theology...

"Since in rejecting Christ, the Jews rejected Moses as well, they were in some sense of the word, no longer Jews, i.e., followers of Moses."

Again, fallacy of composition. I'm beginning to see where you picked this bad habit up. ;-) The Phariseess and Sadducees at the time took pride in their strict acherence to Mosaic law, something Jesus repeatedly criticized for their hypocrisy in the manner of following the letter and not the spirit. (Watch out, oh Lord, Archbishop Vigano might get mad at you for following the spirit of the law -UV) The scribes and Pharisees may have rejected Christ, but Moses was a different matter!

Jesus Himself contradicts Jones In Matthew 23: 1-3 "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice."

Jesus criticized the Pharisees for being hypocrites. When it came to following Mosaic law, He explicitly told His followers to obey them -with no proviso- even though such men clearly hadn't accepted Christ.

Direct endorsement of practcing Judaism by Jesus supporting the teaching authority of a priestly class that -had- rejected Him. A group He spends a good portion of the chapter excoriating for their hypocrisy. Jones is wrong.

Or Jones' infatuation with seeing "Jews" behind the Church's scandals.

"the current scandals are being orchestrated by the church’s traditional enemies - Protestants and Jews - in order to destroy traditional cultures and make the world safe for capitalism and the universal rule of mammon."

The current scandals are the result of lawsuits by victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests (and brothers), nearly all of those victims were Catholics. Without their lawsuits, there wouldn't be any "scandals" just as there hadn't been any for decades while that abuse occurred.

Jones blames "Jews" for things "Jews" did not and do not do. He does so to malign them. Ergo, he's anti-Jewish which in popular parlance is called "anti-Semitic". Yes, I'm aware of Jones' contrived definitions of these terms. There's no requirement for mainstream vocabulary to conform to his self-serving definitions. He's like any other lunatic re-defining the word "crazy" when it clearly labels him as such..

"This Conservative claim is demolished."

Argumentum Ad Nauseam.

"The only misrepresentation here is you of Vigano, as should be OBVIOUS by now. You conflated his very CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS statement on NA to fit your agenda-driven argument..."

Protip: CAP-LOCK isn't EVIDENCE.

I have shown -why- Abp Vigano is making the distinction he does. He condemns what people have derived from Vatican II. He condemns the excesses of Vatican II, notably those derived from its "spirit".

Archbishop Vigano does -not- claim that Nostra Aetate is invalid.

Archbishop Vigano does -not- claim its teachings do not apply or are invalid.

Archbishop Vigano does -not- claim that Catholics are exempt from it.

Archbishop Vigano does -not- condemn the following statement within Nostra Aetate:

--The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.--

All the paragraph after paragraph after paragraph you quoted do not refute those points for a simple reason: you're wrong. You're trying to infer a universal condemnation where none exists to suit your own "agenda-driven argument"

Summarized thusly:

Vatican Council II is invalid.
Everything it produced is invalid.
Nostra Aetate was produced by Vatican Council II.
Nostra Aetate is invalid, including its condemnaton against racial and religious discrimination.
Therefore the Church doesn't truly condemn the racial and religious discrimination of Jews by E. Michael Jones.

There's just one embarrassing problem with all the time and effort you've spent trying to nullify Nostra Aetate's condemnation of racial and religious discrimination.

It's a tacit admission of guilt.

Why go through such efforts if the Church's condemnation of racial and religious discrimination doesn't, in fact, apply to E. Michael Jones? ;-)

It would, be far easier for you to show how such condemnaton by the Church doesn't apply, if that were the case.

You're taking the hard approach for a reason. You need to nullify the Church's condemnation of racial and religious discrimination because you do know it applies to E. Michael Jones just as well as I do.

He's a Jew-hater so the best you can do is argue that Church hasn't condemned discrimination and harassment based on race or religion due to the statement's provenance in Nostra Aetate.

"Your reckless use of weaponized words like "anti-Semitism," "discrimination," reveal that you are informed more by demagoguery"

There's nothing "weaponized" about those terms or reckless in their use. They carry clear, well-recognized definitions and I used them because they apply to E. Michael Jones.

The problem arises that such words also carry a negative connotation because most people (the Church included, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not) also recognize such actions are inherently wrong and those doing so are, basically, world-class jerks.

Characters like you and Jones don't like that characterization much. Too bad. :D

Instead, you try to control the nature of the debate by attacking the language. This isn't the first time I've discussed E. Michael Jones. I've quoted him before. Since you, youself, have demonstrated that you're reading my other posts -and- you have such a consuming dedication to defending Jones (witness the enormity of your reply), you should know that.

So a claim like "you have yet to produce ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE of EMJ's supposed "jew-hating." is an outright falsehood.

All the same, examples have been cited here, just to finally hammer the last nails into that particular coffin lid.

"Again, NA is not a proclamation of the Church, but of an anti-Church."

...said the bigot's groupie whilst trying to white-wash a clear condemnation for what E. Michael Jones does because they know it applies to him.

You're trying read a support for YOUR politically motivated errors in statements Abp Vigano made that do not apply. Like this one you quoted:

"from Vatican II onward, a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ."

Did Abp Vigano say Vatican II -caused- this "parallel church"? No. He said "from Vatican II onward" that's a temporal locus. People's misinterpretation (perhaps even deliberate) resulted in what he metaphorically describes as a "parallel Church".

All your efforts to discredit Nostra Aetate are based on similar such misreadings. You badly, desperately need to discredit that official proclamation by The Church. Otherwise, it directly contradicts what Jones is doing -and you know it.

"THAT is the religion born of Vatican II, and that is the Religion you are espousing, though I believe unwittingly..."

THAT is a "religion" that has been born out of error and, perhaps, even malice from enemies within The Church.

If they misused Vatican Council II, no suprise. They've done the same with Covid. Anything, regardless of its intent, can be misused by the maliciously inclined. Just look at the way Jones butchers even recent Church history.

Church administrators, bureaucrats really, spent decades covering up a serious problem within The Church, a problem of chastity, a problem of accountability. Finally, a few courageous victims came forward and then the dam burst with thousands more following.

Who does E. Michael Jones blame? "the church’s traditional enemies - Protestants and Jews -".

Yes,that's where an anti-Semite places the blame, the same place he places the blame for everything from modern pornography to the Russian Revolution, The Jews, da jewz. always da jooooooz.

Even the Holocaust was (and I quote) just "a reaction to Jewish Messianism." Reaction, gotta love that. Blaming the victim for the assault is a popular tactic among the morally bankrupt. Rape victims endured it for years. So have Jews.

"Again, you would come unglued if you were to familiarize yourself with the Church's positions on the Jews through the ages."

Don't flatter yourself with such presumptions. I'm aware the Church's history. Ironic that you would accuse Vatican Council II of deviating from the Church's Magisterium, when I accuse anti-Semitism as deviating from the Christ's own explicitly stated teachings.

All the blame and hate and fixation with Jews that Jones has filled your skull with doesn't have Scriptural support. I've posed this question to other anti-Semites on GTV, I will pose it to you. Quote Him.

Quote Christ directly where He publicly condemns "the Jews" either as a race or as a religion.

That doesn't mean one of His testy debates with this bunch of Sadducees or a bunch of Pharissees. He was speaking to specific people about specific issues. Show where Christ condemns the entire group. The race of Jews, the religion of Judaism... "the Jews".

You know, the way E. Michael Jones does, just so you have some basis for comparison.

"EMJ can help you wade through it and realize that the Church never promoted anti-Semitism in Her Teachings"

I don't need EMJ to help me realize a given.

"and all the actions taken against the Jews were to protect them and the Church from Jewish subversion. "

:D :D :D

OMG... oh wow. That's... wow.

So every ugly massacre, every pogrom, every discrimination against the Jews was actually "to protect them". This is why I love GTV. This right here.

Using that kind of logic, every Church arson and statue toppling today was actually to protect Catholics, too! No that isn't a stawman, it's a parody of easily the most grotesque premise I've seen advanced seriously all year.

Every attack on the Church today, then, is designed to protect everybody "from Catholic subversion". Jones is doing what he's always doing, warping history so he can blame "the Jews" for what was done to them.

Your statement also betrays Jones' own obvious affinity for those "actions taken against the Jews", the ones back in the 1940s that made for such interesting reading, eh?

Buchenwald was for their protection. Auschwitz was all about saving "the Church from Jewish subversion". I know I shouldn't take pleasure at the mental illness of others, the twisted reasoning, but you're comedy-gold!

I'd find you a whole lot more funny if you weren't promoting such anti-Semitic insanity as a self-identified Catholic, but that's another matter.

(cont.)
4 more comments from Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet
AM:
"-Once again, you create a strawman. You still have yet to show ANY EVIDENCE that EMJ is a race hater or anti-Semite. "


By now, we're re-hashing old ground. I've quoted Jones repeatedly already, here and before. Also, again, if Jones wasn't a race-hater or an anti-Semite, you'd gleefully contradict the claim with abundant direct quotes of his adulations and praise of the Jewish people and …More
AM:
"-Once again, you create a strawman. You still have yet to show ANY EVIDENCE that EMJ is a race hater or anti-Semite. "


By now, we're re-hashing old ground. I've quoted Jones repeatedly already, here and before. Also, again, if Jones wasn't a race-hater or an anti-Semite, you'd gleefully contradict the claim with abundant direct quotes of his adulations and praise of the Jewish people and Judaism.

You'd nail every quote I've given from the man with five of your own showing how his heart overflows with such love for Jews. :D

You -have- been deafeningly silent on that point and don't think I haven't noticed.

In fact, you still haven't supported your accusation that MY earlier quotes were "cherry picking" to show Jones is an anti-Semite.

I said...
-----
"By accusing me (falsely) of "cherry picking" you're arguing they (Jones' quotes) don't represent his writing, even if those examples DO show anti-Semitism.

For that to be true YOU must show, overwhelmingly, Jones -isn't- an anti-Semite. Yes, do that. Quote all the many passages where E. Michael Jones praises the Jewish people and Judaism. :D"
-----

Accusing me of cherry-picking quotes also shows that quotes were supplied, you're acknowledging the point, you're just arguing if the quotes are representative. ;-)

But even that accusation disproves your often-repeated claim that no evidence for an accusation of anti-Semitism was supplied at all. ...and that's been a recurring theme of yours.

For someone who can cut-'n-paste endless paragraphs of Apb Vigano's obvious unhappiness with the "spirit of Vatican II" and the many ways the council was since misused, you're mighty quiet about ole' Jonesy, even when the obligation is on you to prove your claim with plenty of quotes to the contrary.

Funny thing about that.

"Religious Liberty is not a Catholic teaching. It was condemned as a modernist error by several Popes"

[citation needed, like so:]

Anti-Semitism is not a Catholic teaching. It was condemned by Pope XI. Specifically he said, "Anti-Semitism is inadmissible; spiritually, we are all Semites".

www.bc.edu/…/church_Racism.h…

Likewise... "Pope Pius XI clearly condemned Nazi doctrines in his Encyclical, Mit brennender Sorge, stating in particular: `Whosoever takes race, or the people or the State... or any other basic value of the human community in order to withdraw them form (their) scale of values... and deify them through an idolatrous cult, overturns and falsifies the order of things created and established by God'

ibid.

There. Direct quotes, links, more than just your say-so with parenthetical references to documents. Heck, I've seen how you've butchered Archbishop Vigano even when you WERE quoting him. The last thing I'm going to humour is you expanding that tactic even further.

Since the Nazi doctrines were typified by their racism and virulent anti-Semitism, the Church's criticism of it is explicit. Also worth noting the Church's condemnation of such errors was decades before Vatican Council II, Nostra Aetate and yet fully concurrent with the latter's condemnation.

AM:
"But I wouldn't expect you to know that or to agree with it, since your religion is different than mine, yours being the Conciliar Religion born out of Vatican II."

*UV stifles laughter, while looking at the date of Pope Pius XI's Encyclical*


Better shelve that patronizing for a better time, this ain't it. :D "Conciliar Religion born out of Vatican II." Nope. :P

But I'm glad to see this appear, all the same. Every time someone is on the ropes, they flail away with some variation of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Some variation of you're not a real Catholic.

In this case, your comment about our respective religions are correct. I follow Jesus and The Church. You follow Jones, first and foremost, and the Church only when it's an accordance with him. Otherwise, anything contrary to Jones has to be discredited in some manner, and thus discarded.

We do follow different religions.

Incidentally, America wasn't founded by Catholics, Catholics are not a majority in America, and Catholicism survives in America largely in part because of religious liberty for all.

Bigots who fancy themselves Catholic should remember that. Even E. Michael Jones calls Protestants the enemies of the Church. Don't hand your enemies your only safe-guards.

Jones' hatred has blinded him into some misguided hope Jonestown will be able to (once again, somewhere else again) legally victimize Jews with the state's blessing.

(cont.)
Ultraviolet
UV:
"Nostra Aetate teaches discriminating against race and religion is wrong".

AM:
-Moot.


Get out. The Proclamation explicitly said --The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.--

There's nothing "moot" about it. It's a direct contradiction of such actions.

UV:
"…
More
UV:
"Nostra Aetate teaches discriminating against race and religion is wrong".

AM:
-Moot.


Get out. The Proclamation explicitly said --The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.--

There's nothing "moot" about it. It's a direct contradiction of such actions.

UV:
"You present quotes that imply Archbishop Vigano repudiates Nostra Aetate and its teachings.
Therefore Archbishop Vigano must repudiate the Nostra Aetate teaching that religious and racial discrimination are wrong, i.e. he supports religious and racial discrimination."

AM:
-Moot.


No, that's called reason. Your major argument has been based around on trying to tear down Nostra Aetate through Abp Vigano.

So why not continue the practice now that it really matters? You're obviously into quoting Abp Vigano -at length- when the fancy suits you. Here's your big chance!

You're not going to because Abp Vigano didn't give you anything to work with, not even by making a tenuous inference.

For someone who's screamed IN ALL CAPS repeatedly for proof of E. Michael Jones' views, it's high time you lead by example and supply some quotes from Archbishop Vigano when it comes to discrimination, notably racial and religious.

UV:
"Feel free to quote Archbishop Vigano directly ANYWHERE he does so -especially in regards to Jews which is E. Michael Jones' obsession -and yours.."

AM:
-You still fail to demonstrate EMJ is what you accuse him to be, so how I can address a fiction?


Short answer: because at this point we're discussing Nostra Aetate and Archbishop Vigano. That has no bearing on whom it applies to, supposed "fiction" or not.

You've been trying very hard to infer that Archbishop Vigano's disapproval of the implementation of Vatican II indirectly

a.) invalidates the Council outright (something Abp Vigano has -not- said) and
b.) therefore invalidates Nostra Aetate as well (something Abp Vigano has -not- said, either)

Including that... "moot" point where it explicitly says --The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.--

All of -that- has nothing to do with E. Michael Jones or whether I show proof of his anti-Semitism or not. Nostra Aetate's condemnation applies to all who discriminate based on race or religion, Jones included, regardless of whether or not I show proof it applies to Jones.

Protip: something isn't a "fiction" simply because you feel it hasn't been proven true, either. Unsupported and untrue (i.e. fiction) are two different things. ;-)

So. Since you've been citing Archbishop Vigano in your arguments extensively, please continue! :D

Quote him. I've been generous in allowing you the scope of the Archbishop's entire literary output. Quote Archbishop Vigano where he supports religious and racial discrimination. That would be the clearest repudiaton of the point we're discussing in Nostra Aetate.

As for Jones' anti-Semitism being a fiction, you're going to bitterly regret that claim. But let's keep you in suspense for a bit. I want this to be special. ;-)

"The way to do that is to first reject the errors of Vatican II."

Quote Archbishop Vigano where he called Vatican II an error, outright.

Then you can move to the Popes.
Francis, our current pontiff we can safely discount on that point. So... move back a couple! Benedic XVI, Saint John Paul II. Or are you in the "Cafeteria Catholic" Luncheonette wolfing down another plateful of the Post-Conciliar Sedevacantist Special?

So sorry, that leads only into schism, heresy, and a perverse sort of Catholic "Sola Scriptura" which casually tosses every document at variance with E. Michael Jones.

Right now I've got a pre-Conciliar Pope who effused, "Anti-Semitism is inadmissible; spiritually, we are all Semites". That's in-line with what the Church teaches post-Coniciliar, so there's a clear and non-contradictory chain of support.

"Pope Pius IX's Mortalium Animos, Encyclical on Religious Unity should suffice for our purposes here:"

Thank you for the correction, btw.

...and you're back to doing the same thing you did with Abp Vigano: an endless passage that doesn't address the point.

Mortalium Animos does not in any way approve of the racial or religious discrimination condemned by Nostra Aetate. It condemns the "false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all"

That's a condemnation of religious indifferentism, not discrimination or harassment based on race/ religion. Meaning, it's one gigantic Red-Herring stinking up your reply.

" The above quotes are just to give you an introduction to much more that follows, little of which Nostra Aetate is in harmony with."

Rubbish. If you had anything more applicable you would have supplied it. :D With your propensity for epic quotes? For certain. Mortalium Animos isn't the smoking gun you hoped for.

UV:
"What you're trying to apply is a fallacy of composition".

AM:
-No, the part must be understood in its whole, which is context, something you are refusing to afford poor Mr. Jones with your calumnies...


...and suddenly our master of endless quotes falls silent. Claiming the "context" changes the meaning of a passage is baseless without showing that it does so, and you haven't. You've claimed that it does, with no evidence supplied.

UV:
"Also worth noting Pius XI said the discontinuity should be amended. Did he list racial or religious discrimination as one of those points to be amended? Yes or no."
AM:
-Again, moot.


There's nothing "moot" about the question. Was racial or religious discrimination listed as one of those points to be amended? That's not "moot" It's a question, that requires a yes or no answer. Answer the question please.

"We are bound to religious discrimination. "

Nostra Aetate explicitly says otherwise and it's an Official Proclamation of The Catholic Church.

"Vatican II is a departure from the faith."

Argumentum ad Nauseam.

"I have provided ample sources for you to research."

...presupposing two people reading the same research will reach the same conclusion, amirite? :P

Just look at our inability to agree on Archbishop Vigano's words! Supplying "ample sources" and showing how they apply are not the same.

What you don't have in your "ample sources" is a direct condemnation of Nostra Aetate by Archbishop Vigano or a quote by that man showing any direct support for the racial and religious discrimination condemned by that proclamation.

That's where your "ample" ends up bone-dry and empty.

By contrast, even allowing for your dismissal of all things "Pre-Conciliar", I have a Papal Encyclical condemning racism and a direct quote from a pre-Conciliar Pope condemning anti-Semitism.

There's nothing "moot" about the statements, they're explicit and require no contrived derivations as to what subjects are being addressed -or the view regarding them.

The Church's teachings are explicit and they're opposed to E. Michael Jones' propensity for blaming "the Jews" for history's problems or the persecution they've suffered.

The very bishop in whose parish E. Michael Jones resides pointedly condemned the substance of Jones' teachings in no uncertain terms.

todayscatholic.org/friendship-with…

AM:
"Note the part that you left out, the prerequisite of any amendment, namely the discontinuity with previous Magisterial teaching "must be acknowledged."

Again, nowhere have you shown a.) Nostra Aetate is part of that discontinuity or b.) Nostra Aetate's condemnation of racial/ religious discrimination is part of that discontinuity, either.

Conversely, both the statements and encyclicals of Pope XI (and XII) show there IS no "discontinuity" in rejecting anti-Semitism, since it's already been rejected as early as 1120 in Sicut Judaeis by Pope Calixtus II and the doctrines reaffirmed by over a dozen subsequent -also pre-Conciliar- Popes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicut_Judaeis

Nostra Aetate simply condemned something The Church has condemned before, both in the "pre-Conciliar" 20th century and repeatedly for centuries before that. E. Michael Jones isn't the first rabble-rouser to pick this scape-goat and he won't be the last, I'm sure.

"I guess a more fair approach would simply be why are you so bent on defaming EMJ, on robbing him of his good name?"

A bit of a loaded question fallacy there. ;-) Presupposing the motive "bent on defaming/ robbing him of his good name".

What I'm "bent" on doing is preventing others from being gulled by Jones and by his passionate evangelists.

I'll ignore the implicit conclusion you made that Jones still has a good name to rob, or the implication that condemning the man on the basis of direct quotes constitutes "defamation". It doesn't.

Borrowing a quote from Pilate, Jones as written what he has written. I've quoted him, and those quotes brand him a bigot and an anti-Semite. He's lambasted the "the Jewish/Bolshevist takeover of Russia" and that carries a racial critism, since the Bolsheviks were atheists.

The only kind of "Jews" atheists could be at that point are racial Jews, making Jones a racist as well. That remains regardless of his own entirely unscientific denials of race.

"You are the Accuser here, so you have to demonstrate how he is a racist or jew-hater. Spoiler alert: you won't be able to."

Too bad I already did, just by quoting him directly. His twitter was a treat and I'm sure his book is MUCH worse.

"Any unscrupulous person can pump out a rather prolific amount of such hate-speech without backing any of it up with evidence of any kind."

The irony of how you just unwittingly described Jones' book so perfectly, eh?

The better irony is YOU complaining about pumping out "a rather prolific amount of" of anything. Your reply beats anything I've ever seen in one place. But let's get back to the specifics.

In my case, I've quoted the Church, I've quoted Canon Law, I've referenced the applicable teachings of Jesus -all before this reply- so your claim "without backing any of it up with evidence of any kind" fails.

Whether you happen to agree with the evidence supplied is irrelevant to the fact it -has- been supplied just the same.

Jones' own comments label him a bigot and an anti-Semite and what he advances is directly contradicted by the Church and by Christ Himself. Accusing him of bigotry and anti-Semitism, then, isn't "hate-speech", not under American law which has always held the truth to be a defense against accusations of libel.

"-As when you often jump upon your targets for a misspelling or grammatical error (so far you haven't done that to me, but I've seen you do it to others)?"

Your fallacy is: Tu quoque

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

"The length of your posts are not a problem when you are not filling them with unscrupulous and unsubstantiated accusations against people like EMJ."

Then don't employ a double-standard. You're judging "wordy and unnecessarily lengthy" on the grounds of whether you agree with the content. That's further hypocrisy.

"If all you are going to do is keep throwing accusations of racism and anti-Semitism around without demonstrating it, then yeah, even one syllable is unnecessarily lengthy and wordy, let alone several paragraphs."

Because I have addressed the Church's teachings on anti-semitism, I have done more than the "all" you stipulated for a "wordy and unnecessarily lengthy" reply. As in "If all you are going to do is keep throwing accusations of racism and anti-Semitism around without demonstrating it"

Discussing other subjects, notably the Church's views on the subjects of racial and religious discrimination, surpasses the limit you set. "if all you are going to do.... then..."

Therefore, your accusation fails according to the metric you established and you had no business making it. :D

At this point... I think ya'll just better step awaaay from criticizing anyone about lengthy, amigo. Just a thought. ;-)

(cont.)
Ultraviolet
Now for the good part, AngelusMaria

"Again, where, when, did you EVER quote him? I don't believe you did..."

I'm surprised you have to ask. ;-) I did so in two replies to you just over a week ago. ;-)

E Michael Jones finally banished

Interestingly, you made the same factually incorrect claims you're making here, both against me and while exhonerating Jones.
-----
AM:
"His own writings …
More
Now for the good part, AngelusMaria

"Again, where, when, did you EVER quote him? I don't believe you did..."

I'm surprised you have to ask. ;-) I did so in two replies to you just over a week ago. ;-)

E Michael Jones finally banished

Interestingly, you made the same factually incorrect claims you're making here, both against me and while exhonerating Jones.
-----
AM:
"His own writings do not support the claim that he is antisemite."
UV
Ah. Now we are getting somewhere. ;-) Easily disproven.

"Abortion is a Jewish sacrament."
-E. Michael Jones


twitter.com/…/121578181829057…

That is, of course, a factual untruth. There is no "sacrament" of abortion in Judaism.

Consequently, it is a defamation of the Jewish religion.

Ergo, he is an anti-Semite. See? THAT is how you prove a claim. Or disprove someone else's, in this case yours. You said Jones' writing doesn't support the claim he is an antisemite

I quoted Jones' writing directly and then showed why that writing is anti-semitic.


-----

Also in this passage:

UV:

It's impossible to tarnish the reputation of a man who's spent decades blackening it himself.

"Bolshevik Jews assisted in the murdering of many millions of Russians, in the first half of the 20th century." -E. Michael Jones

Sure. That's why the leaders of the Russian Revolution were Russians. Idiot. You're not even trying.


---

So yes, I HAVE quoted Jones before, verbatim, as part of a reply to you, no less than twice and you simply forgot... there's a pity. ;-)

The very top-most reply on that page contains a link to a site quoting Jones as well, as self-supporting evidence for my claim "Jones is a bigot"... leading to:

jrnyquist.blog/…/the-antisemitis…

Where we read charming quotes like...

"If you turn away from the Catholic Church, you will end up a slave - a slave to the Jews either through their pornography or their usury."

Again, demonstrably false on numerous points. Simplest example, a man becomes an apostate, joins an order of Tibetan monks and spends the rest of his days worshipping some foul multi-limbed idol.

He's turned away from the Catholic Church, undeniable, but he hasn't become a "a slave to the Jews either through their pornography or their usury."

Goes without saying many Catholics DO have problems with porn and find themselves in debt. E. Michael Jones blaming "the Jews" as a group for both evils stands as ipso facto evidence of anti-Semitism.

There may be -some- Jews who are usurers and -some- Jews who are pornographers. But not ALL Jews "the Jews" as he describes them.

Therefore, I've referenced Jones' own words at least twice before, once directly to you, and you simply ignored them while repeating endless permutations of "nor have you presented one shred of evidence that EMJ is a racist, a bigot, an anti-Semite."

As it turns out, I've presented more than one "shred" of evidence, I've directly quoted him twice already. :D

UV:
"For that (an accusation of cherry-picking) to be true YOU must show, overwhelmingly, Jones -isn't- an anti-Semite".

AM;
-Again, moot. The burden of proof is on the Accuser of his brethren.


...and -you- accused me of cherry-picking. Therefore the burden of proof is on you, as I noted. There's nothing "moot" about that. "Moot" seems to be your version of a quiet verbal side-step absent directly addressing the point.

I've noticed. ;-)

"In defense of EMJ, I submit exhibit A: The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History, 2008, 7th Printing, 2019, Fidelity Press, South Bend, Indiana."

That's a bibliographic reference to a book.

It isn't a quote from the book or the necessary series of quotes you would need to demonstrate an ideological theme that counters the anti-Semitic viewpoint evidenced in Jones own writing quoted by me.

Your bibliography citation is a bad-faith reply since you undeniably know the difference between the two.

If you can quote Abp Vigano, you can quote E. Michael Jones. You haven't. You made an accusation of cherry-picking, no back it up with facts or retract it.

This isn't the first time we've had a variation on this interchange, either.
-----

AM:
"I'm not going to waste time trying to disprove your slander of this man."

UV:
Mainly because you can't and we both know it. Spare me your false concerns about wasting your time.

...because you'll gladly waste it slandering me.


----

And you're choking out at the same point you did before: quotes from E. Michael Jones, all the many passages where E. Michael Jones praises the Jewish people and Judaism thus disproving the anti-Semitism his writing displays.

That's the only way you can prove your accusation -against me- of supposedly "cherry-picking" quotes from Jones that present him as an anti-Semite.

You need to supply evidence to the contrary, overwhelming evidence. What you've supplied, is nothing. Again.

The first time you weren't going to "waste your time", the second time I asked (earlier in the comments sections, you didn't again.

Yet you have the nerve to call me the Accuser wringing your hands in outrage over and over about how I'd supposedly not supplied any evidence, not a shred of proof, for my claims. -even when I already did -to you- just over a week ago.

Yet here you accuse and then duck out the proving of your accusations with claims you don't want to waste your time, flippant bibliography citations, a fallaciously applied the burden of proof standard, and -nothing- else.

Well done, you sanctimonious prattling hypocrite.

"So far all we get are accusations and arguments against strawmen."

Rubbish. You've gotten direct quotes from the man you simply didn't read because you were too busy claiming none were supplied.

(cont.)
Ultraviolet
AM:
"-Firstly, Judaism is not praiseworthy, it is, by its nature an anti-Christ religion, one that rejects Jesus Christ and therefore leads people on a path to Hell, because outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation, and baptism is necessary for salvation. Church Teaching 101.


"Church Teaching 101" isn't a citation from the Catechism of The Catholic Church about Judaism. Maybe it's …More
AM:
"-Firstly, Judaism is not praiseworthy, it is, by its nature an anti-Christ religion, one that rejects Jesus Christ and therefore leads people on a path to Hell, because outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation, and baptism is necessary for salvation. Church Teaching 101.


"Church Teaching 101" isn't a citation from the Catechism of The Catholic Church about Judaism. Maybe it's E. Michael Jones' draft for a revision, or your draft, but it isn't "Church Teaching 101"

Feel free to cite that lovely CCC numbah (link it to, if you please) that quotes your first sentence. Yeah, that one, the one beginning, "Firstly..." :D

That's a gloss of Jones Teaching 101, not the Church's.

"Secondly, you still don't know what a Jew is, or how EMJ is using the term, and you don't even realize how you are boxing a phantom,"

I know what a "Jew" is perfectly, thank you. If deluded anti-Semites choose to re-define the word to justify their errors, that has no relevance here. Autists are notorious for idiosyncratic word usage. This might explain much of Jones' underlying pathology.

Anti-Semites tend to introduce these claims as last-ditch deflections from addressing what they should. In this case, you need to show Jones' overwhelming positive view of Jews and Judaism to justify I "cherry picked" examples showing the opposite.

...and you just can't do that.

Meeeeaning... your accusation I was cherry-picking Jones' quotes fails annnnnd... (wait for it) my accusation that Jones is a bigot and an anti-Semite based on -his- quotes, stands.

Jones indicted himself and you, Counselor, can't defend your own client... least of all using his own writing as the basis for his defense.

"nothing is going to knock you out of that stupid ring until you actually give EMJ a chance to defend himself against your accusations."

I'm going to let the insult slide in the face of the sheer silliness of the second half of your statement...

"until you actually give EMJ a chance to defend himself against your accusations."

Well I've got some good news for you, bunky! That's what I've been asking. Two? Three? times already now. Quote Jones.

Show us all the love E. Michael Jones has for the Jewish people. You've got his book, here's a chance for you to bolster your claim that "all the actions taken against the Jews were to protect them ..."

I love that one. That was good. So I -am- giving EMJ a chance to defend himself. I've asked you several times not to do just that on his behalf using his words. Which dovetails -wonderfully- with your next comment.

"But you won't do that. You've already shown how you are prepared to rationalize your prejudice...,"

Prejudice implies pre-judging, a preconceived judgment or opinion.

I've quoted the man and built a factually-supported opinion based on his own words, reviews of his work, my own observation that what he promotes is in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching (even "Pre-Conciliar" teachings).

Therefore it isn't prejudice and your accusation, like so many you've made before it, fails again.

"and you willfully choose to remain obstinate in your calumnies and ignorance"

Now you're just being a sore loser and royally butt-hurt.

Your "good Catholic" mask is slipping. :D

It's those cheap rubber bands, y'know?. Now if you'd gotten the good kind with the webbing harness based on an Israeli gas-mask you wouldn't have that problem. You could go on for another fifty or sixty paragraphs feigning your false allegiance to The Church while despising the very race from which Christ springs, the ancestry of the Blessed Mother, Joseph her spouse, and the prophets.

"You know not of that which you speak against, and I've wasted too much time on this already. "

This again? Your so-valuable time? After -this- ? Now you're worried? C'mon, AngelusMaria, get off of it.

I've gotta tell you... you're talking to someone who's been online since the mid-90s, back when everything was entirely command-lines and text-based. I go back as far as remembering when a bunch of guys at U. Illinois (I think). were playing around with a "brower" program called Mosaic on Unix. I predate just about everything we see today.

In all that time, you have typed out the longest single reply I have EVER received regarding anything, anywhere, at one time. You make an enraged Star Trek nerd defending Mr. Spock seem downright taciturn by comparison. Muslims have never been so passionate about defending The Prophet as you are with Jonesy.

Time is obviously yours to spend with a lavish hand and you've clearly indulged yourself.

You lay that BS about your time thicker than sandwich spread.

"My only hope in trying to be a bit more thorough in my reply to you was that you might actually begin to reconsider some of your positions on various misunderstandings you have."

None that you've been able to show.. Well, that isn't entirely correct. You -did- rightly point out I'd mis-attributed one statement of Piux [sic] XI to Vigano -and- you corrected my spelling there Be proud of yourself, sweetheart. That's the best you could manage when it came to the facts.

Now. then... I'll bet you worked up an appetite. :D
AngelusMaria
Somehow I missed the your response of July 8th on the E Michael Jones finally banished thread. I will be including my rebuttals to it in our discussion on the Libido Dominandi post. I plan on addressing all of your attempts at rebuttal that you include in your latest installments in both threads, but I am only going to do so on this thread-simply just to keep things together, if that’s ok with …More
Somehow I missed the your response of July 8th on the E Michael Jones finally banished thread. I will be including my rebuttals to it in our discussion on the Libido Dominandi post. I plan on addressing all of your attempts at rebuttal that you include in your latest installments in both threads, but I am only going to do so on this thread-simply just to keep things together, if that’s ok with you. Also, I am limiting myself in this reply to just a few of your points and by not addressing all the others at this time I am not intending to ignore the rest of your points, only that I don’t have time right now to get to all of them due to other obligations, but plan on dealing with them when I get the chance. I am sure you can understand.

The points of yours that I want to address in this post are a few that other arguments of mine, and your rebuttals were contingent upon, but your initial points had escaped my attention so it is important to deal with them now before addressing the others later.

1. “As I've told others, one does not need to consume error in order to recognize it IS error. Here's an example... Have you read the Satanic Bible and Satanic Rituals by Anton Szandor LaVey? How about the Teachings Of Baphomet or The Stgyian Spiral? Either in translation or the original Latin? Yes or no? No? Then using YOUR logic, you can't criticize those books or denounce them as filled with Satanic blasphemy since you haven't read them”.

I understand your argument, but here is how I think it doesn’t work. EMJ is a man. He wrote a book that exhaustively explains, contextualizes his theses regarding the Jews and their role in history and the way the Church has responded to them since the time Jesus began His earthly ministry and those Jews who believed were no longer known as Jews but as Christians, while those Jews who defined themselves by their rejection of Jesus as Logos, as the Messiah, became what would classify one as a Jew. So as a man with belief system, he is being labeled with a derogatory term because of his belief system. Therefore, it would be incumbent upon the person accusing him to actually know his belief system, and one can only do that if one understood that belief system, and to do that requires familiarizing oneself with the writings that best express the object of one’s scorn.

To put it another way, say a person, Johnny B. Rotten, hates America, believes it was founded on racism, slavery, white supremacy, toxic masculinity (there aren’t any people like that are there?). Johnny B. points to all the evils that have occurred in America from even before its founding. Yet not once does he ever read America’s founding documents. He doesn’t care that none of his criticisms are what America was founded upon, he is only attacking evils that existed in the society, not what existed in the American vision, as expressed in its documents.

Now this analogy limps a bit, because EMJ hasn’t committed the evils being accused of him in relation to our discussion here, while in America many evils have been committed. But it works in that, if someone wants to blast America, they have better at least read her founding documents, the ones that lay out her purpose and reason for being. Otherwise, they are just blowhards.

Now, as far as whether I have ever read any the books you listed, yes, I have, not all, but also others likewise meant for the fires. I have read LaVey’s Satanic Bible, and by doing so, was able to demonstrate how he plagiarized, oftentimes lifted entire paragraphs, from Nietzsche (another abominable author, yet worth reading to understand your enemy) and from a little known (yet was previously known to me through unlikely events) polemic called Might Is Right, written by an extreme Social Darwinist writing under the pseudonym Ragnar Redbeard. And by reading Aleister Crowley’s Liber Null, I was able to demonstrate that the premise of Satanism is exactly that of Nietzsche’s “Will to Power”, Crowley’s “Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law,” and Redbeard’s “Might is Right.” It is extreme selfishness, dominance over others, making your interests and desires, your passions, the sole governor of your actions. You become your own god. Having read these things and others like them, only has served to better see the diabolical nature of current trends in society.

You are making very strong accusations against EMJ, ones that do not hold up when his positions are understood within the framework that he is using. Jesus said call no man your father. He said that He would turn son against father. He said that unless a man hate his father and mother He cannot be my disciple. Are we to think then that Jesus is promoting anti-patriarchy, or that He is a father-hating, anti-family demagogue who’s ideas can only lead to persecution of fathers, even patricide? Of course not, that would be silly, if we read Him in the context of His whole message. But we would forbid ourselves from reading His message that provides the proper context for these statements if we had from the outset prejudiced ourselves against the best writing that expresses that message by equating the Gospels with “hate-speech,” or placing it on the level of Satanic/occult literature.

2. “You are right about my behavior, though. I'm taking an enormous amount of pleasure in mocking you and exposing your errors in reasoning and your ignorance of the Church. It's not a good thing to do, but in your case it's entirely well deserved”.

This comment of yours speaks for itself. I understand getting carried away with one’s words, I do that too sometimes, but to recognize it and be unrepentant and glory in it, that’s actually another thing altogether.

“How long, O naive ones, will you love being naive?
How long will mockers delight in their mocking
and fools hate knowledge?” -Prov. 1:22

3. “when I say E. Michael Jones' theology is in serious error, I can show factual proof of that. Like so: www.catholicleague.org/playing-fast-an… ….. it's a point-by-point deconstruction of his errors.”

The article cited doesn’t offer factual proof, nor does it provide “a point-by-point deconstruction” of his supposed errors. It does what you are doing, just makes claims and posits opinions about what the commentator thinks of EMJ, but doesn’t bother to place anything EMJ says into the framework upon which he is standing. It’s knee-jerk reaction to subjects with more depth and scope than usual motley sort of drive-by analyses allow. It is a 37-sentence hit piece, hardly capable of deconstructing a PB&J sandwich, let alone the deeply insightful and well-formulated positions of an EMJ scholar. Jesus said, “unless you hate your father”….See! See! Dad-hater! Anti-Paternalist!

4. “"Abortion is a Jewish sacrament." -E. Michael Jones twitter.com/…/121578181829057… That is, of course, a factual untruth. There is no "sacrament" of abortion in Judaism. Consequently, it is a defamation of the Jewish religion. Ergo, he is an anti-Semite. See? THAT is how you prove a claim. Or disprove someone else's, in this case yours.”

Again, drive-by research and analysis, but Twitter lends itself to this by its very nature, and people who want to make a cheap point are all too willing to exploit it. Twitter? Really? But yeah, let’s look into what is being said here.

His comment wasn’t made in a vacuum, his analogous use of the term “sacrament” in regards to the pro-abortion position. EMJ knows what a Sacrament is. He knows they were instituted by Jesus Christ. EMJ here uses “sacrament” with a lower case, as in, a parody of the sacramental (as Satan is the “ape of God,” he too loves to mock, he is the Great Mocker, who cannot create Sacraments, or anything for that matter, only makes parody of them) and he is making two important points here. Let’s take the last one, that of “sacrament.”

FIRST.
It’s very important to understand his use of the word “sacrament” in regards to abortion, and something tells me that had anyone else used it, no questions would be asked. In fact, he provides some context, in briefly mentioning the Jewish identity of some of the top players in the Abortion movement in America. Had he been claiming to mean by the word “sacrament” what you are suggesting, he obviously would have been referencing some Talmudic or other religious work. His use of the word is very appropriate and did not originate with him, and has been used or implied often by others to reveal something about abortion, both by its opponents and by its supporters, such as when Nancy Pelosi called it “Sacred Ground” [Pelosi’s Sacrament of Choice-Abortion, A.L.L. (www.all.org/pelosis-sacrame…].
Two years ago, Conservative commentator, and yes, Orthodox Jew, Ben Shapiro, published an article in Jewish World Review, July 11, 2018 titled, “When Abortion Becomes a Sacrament.” Some pro-abortion comments from “comedienne” Michele Wolf sparked his commentary. It in he wrote,

“Democrats have finally come around: They're now "shouting" their abortions, proclaiming them from the rooftops, suggesting that there is a moral good achieved by abortion…. Gloria Steinem once remarked, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." But modern-day feminists have determined that abortion is a sacrament specifically because women can get pregnant: Showing that control over your body even extends to the killing of your unborn child is a way of standing up against patriarchal concerns with women as the source of future generations.

For Michelle Wolf, abortion isn't just another decision. It's a giant middle finger to the moral establishment. And those who would fight abortion are desacralizing the mysterious holiness of a ritual that reinforces women's control. No wonder Wolf thinks God blesses abortion; abortion is her god.”

8 months ago, and closer to home, in the lay Catholic journal, Crisis Magazine, Nov. 14, 2019, Sean Fitzpatrick, senior contributor, graduate of Thomas Aquinas College and the Headmaster of Gregory the Great Academy, wrote a piece, complete with huge picture of the demon-idol Moloch, titled, “In the Culture of Death, Abortion Is a Sacrament.” In it he writes:

“Abortion has become a kind of “sacrament” because women can get pregnant. Abortion has morphed from a taboo tragedy to a constitutional right: a sine qua non of the Democratic Party, who fight for it religiously. Abortion is a deathly lifeline for progressives, a central column supporting the political platform of narcissistic relativism. It is the unholy sacrament.

Liberals assign a pseudo-sacramental significance inherent in the “right” to kill an unwanted child which causes, like a sacrament, an existential attitude through its symbolic reality. A sacrament is not just a religious idea or holy practice; it is something far more than its external nature suggests. The Sacraments of the Church are institutions of Jesus Christ to give mystical gifts to those of proper disposition. They are efficacious signs of grace, which contain, cause, and confer the thing signified. The word “sacrament” might be applied analogously to those things that both characterize and cause a human condition, and abortion is a dark participant in that analogy.”

He goes on to quote Archbishop Charles Chaput as stating:

“The unborn child means exactly zero in the calculus of power for Democratic Party leaders, and the right to an abortion, once described as a tragic necessity, is now a perverse kind of “sacrament most holy.” It will have a candidate’s allegiance and full- throated reverence… or else.”

Later on Fitzpatrick clarifies:

“…abortion bolsters a cultural concept of egotistical control and license that is essential for life as the left would have it. In this way, abortion bears a sacred importance that parodies the sacramental. While a sacrament relieves people from the burden of death through Life, abortion relieves people from the so-called burden of life through death, and, as such, it is the very antithesis of a sacrament.”

Well known author, scholar, theologian, liturgist, etc., Dr. Peter Kwasniewski sheds further light on what is meant when one uses the term “sacrament” in regards to abortion in his Feb. 6th, 2018 article for LifeSite News, titled, “Abortion is an anti-sacrament, concocted by Satan to serve his counter-church.” I’ll leave you to read that on your own, I think I have provided enough context for EMJ’s use of the word “sacrament” in regards to abortion. Now we must move on to the second point EMJ was bringing to people’s attention in his brief tweet (I know, redundancy, “Tweet” implies “brief.” Which is why it is kinda ridiculous to have to explain to someone familiar with current events of concern to Catholics, the use of the word “sacrament” in this context).

SECOND.
EMJ’s direct implication of Jews in promoting abortion. No secret there, and nothing Jews themselves haven’t bragged about. You see, when seen as a civil rights issue, you will find Jews taking credit for all kinds of abominations, but in this case Abortion. So when it comes to receiving praise for an act, all is good. But what happens when others disagree with that act, then they think what you did was evil. And to say that Jews did something evil, well, that’s just anti-Semitism. Such a double standard, but that is what that terrible, weaponized word is meant to do. And you have bought into it hook-line-and-sinker.

Is EMJ saying all Jews are complicit in Abortion? No. We know there are Jews who oppose abortion, such as the Rabbi who founded Operation Rescue. But to deny a Jewish presence and dominance of the abortion movement is simply a willful ignorance, as it is plain as day. What EMJ does in his book is show why this is, and when one understands the why, then anti-Semitism disappears because you understand what, in the Jewish experience, has made this so.

The American Life League’s Prolife Encyclopedia, available on the website of that bastion of anti-Semitism, EWTN, has an entry Chapter 44, The Position of the Jewish Faith on Abortion.
After going to some length in showing that there are in fact pro-life Jews, (and that Jewish Talmudic law, while allowing abortion and not considering embryo human life until 50 days after conception, doesn’t reflect the belief of those Jews who would identify as pro-life), goes on to discuss a topic that requires loads of the obligatory prerequisite praise for pro-life Jews because otherwise knee-jerk reactionaries who have been systematically conditioned by Jewish revolutionary elements will attack anything that criticizes the protected status class of Jews as “anti-Semitic.” Hmmmm…that never happens does it? Seems like I have witnessed that somewhere recently.

The article explains:

"The 'Victim Status' At Work.

As described in Chapter 9 of Volume I, "The Anti-Life Victim Status," it is now socially unacceptable to criticize the actions of any member of a certified "victim group," regardless of his actions. These groups include women, Blacks, sodomites, and Neoliberal Jews.

Even the most casual examination of social trends reveals that individuals from these "victim groups" have a much greater latitude to commit unethical and illegal acts and to say outrageous things than do those persons who are not members of these classes of people.

Whenever some brave person raises objections to even the most flagrant abuses committed by "certified victims," he or she is inevitably labeled "misogynist," "racist," "homophobic," or "anti-Semitic," depending upon the "victim's" background.

The mere fact that the perpetrator of some heinous act is a member of one of these groups must not stop pro-lifers from proclaiming the truth. If activists allow a person to use his gender, race, religious upbringing, or history of sexual perversions as a blanket excuse to commit atrocities, then there is simply no way to effectively oppose these atrocities….

There is no doubt that people who identify themselves as 'Jews' have led and do lead the abortion movement, not only in the United States, but all over the world….

In the late 1960s, pro-life activists observed that the abortion 'rights' movement was primarily motivated and led by people who called themselves Jews. About half of all abortionists and abortion clinic owners identified themselves as Jewish, which was far out of proportion with the Jewish population, which made up less than five percent of the United States population.

Dr. Kenneth Mitzner, a California aerospace engineer who founded the pro-life League Against Neo-Hitlerism, wrote in 1973 that "It is tragic but demonstrably true that most of the leaders of the pro-abortion movement are of Jewish extraction."

Dr. Mitzner, who is himself Jewish, said in a 1987 statement that; "Jews must decide whether we condemn Hitler and his followers because mass murder is intrinsically evil or whether our quarrel is just with their choice of us as victims. If our concern is only with the killing of Jews, we have no claim on the sympathies of the rest of humanity. Some Jews ask the world to weep with us for the Jewish victims of Nazism, and at the same time they promote the murder of innocent babies by abortion. Such Jews are the most contemptible of hypocrites."

Many self-described 'Jews' continue to lead the abortion movement and, most pitiable of all, 'rabbis,' properly cloaked in all of the correct trappings, proclaim that abortion is not only a necessity, it is a Good Thing for America (sacrament?-A.M.).

'Jews' Perpetrating Another Holocaust.

The American pro-abortion movement has always been led by those who claim to be Jewish. Just a few examples of the extraordinary range of activities by pro-abortionists who identify themselves as Jews are listed in Figure 44-1.

• All four original organizers of the most influential group of abortion pushers in the United States the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) were of Jewish birth, including now pro-life Dr. Bernard Nathanson.

• Dr. Christopher Tietze worked for the Population Institute and International Planned Parenthood Federation, and did more to promote the worldwide slaughter of innocent unborn children than any other person.

• Dr. Alan Guttmacher was president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for more than a decade, founded Planned Parenthood Physicians, and did more than any other doctor to promote abortion in this country. He also advocated mandatory abortion and sterilization for certain groups in the United States.

• Dr. Etienne-Emile Baulieu, inventor of the RU-486 abortion pill, was born in 1926 to a physician named Leon Blum. He changed his name in 1942 to escape the Nazi's Zyklon-B gas, manufactured by the same company he works for today Roussel-Uclaf!

• Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich is the 'father' of the overpopulation myth. His 'work,' The Population Bomb, was the 'spark' that ignited the anti-natalist movement, even though his assumptions and research have been thoroughly debunked and discredited by scholars and leading demographers (this book predicted widespread famine in North America by 1990, with more than 40 million people dying of starvation. Instead, diet books crowd store shelves). The book, sloppily written in just two weeks , was simply the spark that the disorganized anti-population people were waiting for, and it was eagerly seized upon and used for propaganda. Like Guttmacher, he advocated forced abortions and sterilizations in the United States.

• Lawrence Lader, king of the abortion propagandists, has written several books crammed with fabrications and outright lies that have helped advance abortion all around the world.

Examples of these books are Abortion and Abortion II. Lader was quoted 11 times in Roe v. Wade, because he had a message that the Justices wanted to hear. (In the same decision, testimony from the world's leading fetologist, Dr. A. W. Liley, was totally ignored because it decisively undercut the Court's decision). Lader also hints (screams?) at his attitude towards population control in another book entitled Breeding Ourselves to Death.

Lader alsofounded Abortion Rights Mobilization (ARM), which sued the Internal Revenue Service in court in a failed attempt to get the tax-exempt status of the Catholic Church revoked for opposing abortion too effectively. He also was one of the leading proponents of the abortion pill RU-486.

• Henry Morgentaler of Canada opened illegal abortion clinics in the city of Toronto and performed thousands of abortions with the complicity of the city police. The court cases arising from his activism led directly to the overturning of protective abortion laws in Canada and abortion on demand.

• California and New York state legislators led the drive for legalized abortion in the United States. Legislators who constantly emphasized their Jewishness led the pro-abortion movement in both states; those leaders included state senators Anthony Bielenson in California and Albert Blumenthal in New York.

• Pro-abortion 'Jews' dominate such anti-life groups as the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way.

• Of the 41 Jewish-born members of the U.S. Senate over the last 20 years, 32 (or 80 percent) have been stridently pro-abortion.

• Numerous liberal Jewish groups openly support and advocate abortion, including the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the National Council of Jewish Women, Hadassah Women, the Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations, the Jewish Labor Committee, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, B'nai B'rith Women, Na'amat USA, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Federation of Temple Sisterhood, the New Jewish Agenda, North American Temple Youth, the United Synagogues of America, and the Women's League for Conservative Judaism. Many of these groups were founded for the express purpose of pushing abortion.

• Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem were both born Jewish. So was France's health minister Simone Weil, who established abortion on demand in that country despite surviving Auschwitz. At a Paris news conference, she said "We are out to destroy the family. The best way to do that is to begin by attacking its weakest member, the unborn child."

• The officially suppressed Lichter-Rothman studies revealed the following fascinating information about the 'movers and shakers' of the media (both researchers, by the way, are Jewish): Leaders of the motion picture industry: 95% pro-abortion, 62% Jewish: Leaders of the television industry: 97% pro-abortion, 59% Jewish: Leaders of the news media industry: 90% pro-abortion, 23% Jewish.

• Jewish groups are in the forefront as desperate pro-abortion groups spend tens of millions of dollars in a nationwide advertising campaign to keep abortion legal. For example, the American Jewish Congress ran a ridiculous $30,000 full-page ad in the February 28, 1989 New York Times entitled "Abortion and the Sacredness of Life." This statement, renamed "An open letter to those who would ban abortion," and run in the March 13-19 issue of Roll Call, includes the amazing lead-in question, "Did you know that abortion can be a religious requirement? Not just permitted, but required?" The statement goes on to make the point that it is far better to kill a baby than to endanger or even mildly depress the mother.

Naturally, the press gives pro-abortion 'Jews' great play, and excuses them from actions that it would vigorously condemn pro-lifers for. Imagine what the press would do to a pro-life activist who attacked and seriously injured a Jewish abortionist with a baseball bat! Yet, when Jewish abortionist Barnett Slepian beat a pro-life activist in the head with a baseball bat and seriously injured him, the press and abortophiles whined that pro-lifers were anti-Semitic for picketing his home!

Abortuary owner Marilynn Buckham told the Buffalo News "I think it's [picketing] religious persecution. These 'good Christians' don't respect anyone else's religion."

At Slepian's trial, Amherst Town Justice Sherwood Bestry said to him "The Court feels you have suffered a great deal on account of this." Following this "trial," the Amherst Town Board immediately banned the picketing of homes by pro-lifers. Violators of this ordinance face a $500 fine and six months in jail."

EMJ mentions two Jews by name, Bernard Nathanson and Lawrence Lader, both of whom I am sure you have heard of, Nathanson at least. Some have said Lawrence Lader was the lover of Margaret Sanger….yuk, uggh, that is not a pretty picture. That’s something I think we both can agree on.

Anyways. Nathanson, being a Jew, was raised with the same Jewish Revolutionary Spirit as most Jews, being interwoven, not in their DNA as anti-Semites and racists would have it, but by a cultural milieu informed by 2000 years of rejecting Jesus Christ, who is Logos, the Word, the Order, of God. Logos contains order, reason, logic, the mind of God. To reject order is to embrace chaos, or disorder. That is what a revolutionary spirit is, it is a rejection or a rebellion against the established order. That meant Christendom, and that achieved, being a Progressive disease, it is a rebellion against the natural order as well. There are Divine and metaphysical consequences for being of Israelite extraction and rejecting your Messiah. You have now apostatized from your faith, because He is the fulfillment of your faith. There are consequences for rejecting your Inheritance because it didn’t come the way that you wanted, namely, revolution which leads to a Utopia on Earth, and earthly kingdom. Those Jews who chose Christ, were baptized, they became known as Christians, and are in fact Christians. To reject Christ is to reject original Judaism, because it was destined to become the Church, the New Jerusalem. But those Jews who chose Barabbas the revolutionary over Christ the Logos/Messiah, well, they have persisted in those errors through the centuries with devastating effect for the world. All things with God are double edged. If we should be blessed through the Jews, is it not also possible to be cursed through them? Their acceptance of Christ is blessing for the world. Their rejection of Him is curses for the world. And this plays out through history as the Jews’ role in revolutionary activity through the centuries into today. The cure for the revolutionary spirit is baptism. Hence, we are not dealing with race here. Ethnicity has other factors independent of race, and there are more nuances regarding the Jews, which is why you should read EMJ’s book, because you are really in the dark here, but its understandable, the narrative you give is omnipresent, that’s why I don’t have to know your background or how you grew up, your very words give you away. No worries, its what almost everyone everywhere in the West is born into.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s book Aborting America (w/Richard N. Ostling, Toronto: Life Cycle Books,1979) speaks of his own revolutionary spirit when he describes it as another word for “chutzpah” (p.35):

“I come to my rebelliousnous honestly. As a physician, I doubt that this is a quality passed on by any recognized Mendelian (i.e., racial-A.M.) mechanism. But my father had it in abundance, except that in his generation and in the community in which he was brought up they called it chutzpah.”

Thing to keep in mind, which our friends at American Life League (cited earlier) stress, is that the abortion war in America was very ethnically and religiously demarcated. The Jews and United Methodists vs. the Catholics. It was clear to both sides. This fact is what drove NARAL’s policy. Nathanson relates his impression as Lader laid out to him his plan to legalize abortion by attacking Catholics: “bring the Catholic hierarchy out where we can fight them. That’s the real enemy. The biggest single obstacle to peace and decency throughout all of history,” (p.33). Even though Nathanson opposed the Catholic Church, he was shocked by the aggression of Lader’s vitriol, saying Lader (p.33):

“held forth on that theme through most of the drive home. It was a comprehensive and chilling indictment of the poisonous influence of Catholicism in secular affairs from its inception until the day before yesterday. I was far from an admirer of the church’s role in the world chronicle, but his insistent, uncompromising recitation brought to mind the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It passed through my mind that if one had substituted “Jewish” for “Catholic,” it would have been the most vicious anti-Semitic tirade imaginable.”

But Nathanson went on to employ just those tactics that Lader suggested. After another Jew, Betty Friedan, the trained Marxist-Feminist, was brought on to NARAL, they went to work against the Catholic hierarchy. He stated that “there has been…no social change in American history as sweeping, as potent in American family life, or as heavily dependent upon an anti-religious bias for its success as the abortion movement” (Nathanson, The Abortion Papers: Inside the Abortion Mentality, NY, Frederick Fell Publ., 1983, p.187).

By the time Nathanson wrote his book Aborting America in the late 1970s, he was “heartily ashamed of the use of the anti-Catholic ploy” (Papers, p. 200). He implicated the Jews in this “anti-Catholic ploy” by calling it a “Shandeh fah yidden” (“scandal for the Jews”).

Nathanson wrote that, given the predominantly Jewish media’s liberal bias, “it was easy to portray the church as an insensitive, authoritarian war-monger, and association with it or any of its causes as unendurably reactionary, fascistic, and ignorant” (Papers, 189). Nathanson felt that Catholics should have pointed out the bigoted double standard of the media and that the pro-abortion side was overwhelmingly Jewish and un-American because:

“In the public mind Protestant America is America, and had Protestant opposition been organized and vociferous early on, permissive abortion might have been perceived as somehow anti-American, the spawn of a cadre of wild-eyed Jewish radicals in New York City” (Papers, 189). “The media discreetly ignored the carefully crafted bigotry we (NARAL) were peddling. Many media people were young college-educated liberal Catholics, just the kind we had succeeded in splitting off from the faithful flock, and they were not about to disgrace their newly-won spurs as intelligentsia by embarrassing the liberals with anything as crass as an accusation of prejudice. Prejudice was something evil directed at Jews and blacks, not Catholics. But had our fulminations been anti-Semitic or anti-black there would have been the most powerful keening in the media—strong enough to have destroyed NARAL” (Papers, 191).

After Nathanson left the abortion industry and began to testify against it, he came up against the power of the Jewish media, no longer his partner in crime as in his NARAL days, but now his enemy:

“One in four is Jewish. In the general population 24 in every thousand persons are Jewish, but in the mega press 230 out of every thousand are Jewish (citing a survey of journalists by two Jews, Lichter and Rothman, which also showed 90% of journalists were pro-abortion) a representation far out of proportion to their numbers in the census. This is clearly the source of the fulsome accusation from identifiably anti-Semitic sources that the media is dominated by Jews” (Papers, 46).

Another interesting source is Human Life International. The founder, Fr. Paul Marx, made the leading Jewish role in the abortion industry well-known. And for this, Bishop Harry Flynn in 1997 denounced him for it, citing, get this, Nostra Aetate! Instead of following through with saying a Mass for HLI as promised, the Bishop held a prayer service with rabbis and the pro-abortion AJC. Then he allowed Fight the Right, militant homosexual teenagers who planned to stage a “kiss-in,” to desecrate church property (“Human Life International on defensive in controversy,” Clark Morphew, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 4/15/97, B3). Instead of celebrating the promised Mass for HLI, Bishop Flynn excused himself saying:

“my participation would set back the wonderful dialogue which has taken place among Christians and Jews in this Archdiocese. In the 1965 Vatican II document “Nostra Aetate,” the Church states clearly that “spiritual bonds and historical links binding the Church and Judaism condemn (as opposed to the very spirit of Christianity) all forms of anti-Semitism and discrimination, which in any case the dignity of the human person alone would suffice to condemn” (Statement by Archbishop Harry Flynn Regarding Human Life International, issued by Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, April 2, 1997).

Looks like you would have found a perfect Bishop buddy in Flynn @Ultraviolet ! Throws around “anti-Semitism,” loves Vatican II and especially Nostra Aetate, doesn’t care if something is true, if it criticizes anything Jewish, must be anti-Semitic and the claims deserve no further investigation. All that matters is that something other than praise is being directed towards Jews. This is nothing new however.

Hilaire Belloc encountered it in 1920s England, noting that when anyone “exposed a financial swindler who happened to be a Jew, he was an anti-Semite. If he exposed a group of Parliamentarians taking money from the Jews, he was an anti-Semite. If he did no more than call a Jew a Jew, he was an anti-Semite” (Belloc, Jews, p. 148-9, Omni Publ. 3rd ed., 1983).

So what did Fr. Marx, founder of Human Life International, uncover that was such a serious sin as to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass withheld? In his autobiography, Fr. Marx, O.S.B., wrote that:
“In 1987, HLI made a careful study of involvement with the world-wide abortion movement. The undisputed conclusion of this study was that a disproportionately large number of Jews who are to disloyal to Jewish teachings have led and are leading the campaign for legalized abortion. We then consulted with Orthodox Jews who confirmed these findings” (Faithful for Life: The Autobiography of Father Paul Marx, OSB, Front Royal, VA: HLI, 1997, p.288).

What is with this caveat, “disloyal Jews, Apostate Jews” when it comes to predominantly Jewish role in promoting abortion? We see that happen in the A.L.L. article on EWTN also. The Talmud and Judaism as whole have several allowances for abortion, even among the strictest sects. Really, it’s more of a device to elude the “anti-Semitism” trump card, that quickly wearing-out canard, that everyone in Western Civilization has been conditioned to cower and kneel under.

Now as EMJ points out, (TJRS, 1008-9):

“By focusing on public relations rather than Jewish involvement in the abortion industry, Marx responded ineptly. In his autobiography, Marx claimed ‘The Jewish people…have a great pro-life heritage’. Marx repeatedly claimed ‘Jews who are disloyal to Jewish teaching have led and are leading the campaign for legalized abortion.’ But he never explained what he meant by ‘Jewish teaching.’ The Torah implicitly condemns abortion, but the Talmud permits what the Torah forbids, at least with regard to a child who has not yet left (or partially left) its mother’s body. In later commentary on the Talmud, the concept of ‘pursuer’ (‘rodef’) is used to nullify the Fifth Commandment’s prohibition against murder. ‘Rodef’ lowers the loophole threshold of danger to the mother to the point of non-existence, making it no bar to abortion at all.” (Personal communication to EMJ by Dr. Edgar Suter, MD).

In his endnotes, EMJ goes on to cite and quote numerous Talmudic, Rabbinic and Medical sources to support this claim. I am not going to reproduce them here, even a cursory google search can discover a plethora of supporting information from impeccable sources, impeccable at least in regards to our discussion.

Well, Fr. Marx may have been abandoned by his Bishop, but he was not abandoned by fellow conservative Catholics. Thomas A. Drolesky denounced Flynn

“who sent a toady in April of 1997 to denounce the founder of Human Life International, the courageous Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., as a (sic) anti-Semite during a Mass at the Cathedral of Saint Paul. His Excellency lacked the courage to do so himself. Ah, but he has shown ‘compassion’ for those wearing the ‘Rainbow Sash’ at the Cathedral of Saint Paul. Monstrous liturgical abuses abound throughout the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. Nothing is done to stop these abuses” (christorchaos.com).

When Dr. Bernard Nathanson was asked about the charges of anti-Semitism hurled at HLI and Fr. Marx, Nathanson replied that it was “correct” to say Jews dominated the abortion industry (Marx, 288). “For some reason Jewish Doctors seem to be attracted to abortion work” (ibid, 288).

So much for EMJ’s tweet. “See? THAT is how you prove a claim. Or disprove someone else's, in this case yours.”

One final point I want to address in this reply, but as I have said in the beginning, I will be addressing your other claims when I have time to do so. That is proving that EMJ is not an ant-Semite. You are asking me to prove a negative. Nothing you have shown reveals him to be an anti-Semite. Your abuse is a double one: the term itself is designed as a weapon of abuse, and then you abuse EMJ with it. I feel compelled to Dr. Henry Makow, a Jewish reviewer of Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, once more before we proceed, because it seems like you just can’t grasp its point:

The Talmud influences Jewish leadership but I doubt if 10% of ordinary Jews have read it. Indeed I wonder if a religion that holds the Talmud supreme can call itself a religion. True religion is otherworldly, eschewing power, wealth and sex. The Talmud seems to embrace these things. It's as though Christians chose the "after world," and Jews said "we'll take this one, thank you very much."

In the Talmudic perspective, anyone who resists Jewish hegemony is an anti-Semite; as is anyone who points this out. Like the boy who cried "wolf" too many times, the term "anti Semite" has lost its power. People are realizing that it is a Pavlovian control mechanism, and that very few "anti Semites" dislike all Jews. If it describes resistance to the out-sized Jewish role in the New World Order, "anti-Semite" could become a badge of honor worn with pride.

A healthy individual will listen to criticism courteously, acknowledge if it is valid, and mend his ways accordingly. This is the way a man makes friends of his enemies. This is how he corrects his course and grows. (See my "How to Reduce Anti-Semitism

"www.savethemales.ca/000199.html)

He does not accuse them of harboring an irrational hate. That's how a child or someone suffering from arrested development reacts. The only explanation for the conventional response is that Jewish leadership knows it is at fault, but that does not deter it. It will turn the world-upside-down so that fault becomes virtue, and victim becomes aggressor.”

@Ultraviolet, I would like to bring to your attention the Jewish scholar, Norman G. Finkelstein, who dedicated an entire book to the subject: Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse if Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (University of California Press 2005). Also, in case you still wish to persist in your unwitting agency as a proxy warrior for judaizers through your perpetuation of the false narrative of “anti-Semitism”, perhaps the work of Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair (eds.) The Politics of Anti-Semitism (AK Press 2003) can help supplement your dearth of understanding regarding the term. It is a term.

EMJ gives a concise explanation of the strategic use of the term when he writes (p.17 TJRS):

“Since the term Jew actually gets used with some frequency, its use is determined by the political advantage of those who use it. Thus, it is permissible in some circles to use the group designation when Jews are victims of some attack, but any reference to Jews as the perpetrators of some attack is, again, ipso facto evidence of anti-Semitism and also a sign of conspiracy mania as well. It’s heads I win, tails you lose. So, again, according to another variation of the canons of contemporary discourse, it is permissible to say that Jews played a large role in the civil rights movement, but it would be anti-Semitic to say that they played a large role in the abortion rights movement.”

Defining the term “Jew” is a debate that is never ending. After quoting St. John Chrysostom’s commentary on Romans 11:16, (A Saint that you no doubt would accuse of anti-Semitism, along with St. John Capistrano, St. John the Evangelist/Apostle, and an encyclopedia’s worth of Catholic Saints through the centuries) EMJ [17-18] explains:

“The Christian then holds then that the Jewish people have a perduring role and are at least in part defined by their refusal of the New Covenant and by their relationship to Abraham and his ‘seed.’ In order to discuss who counts as a Jew, it might be helpful to offer a working definition. We might say that there is a disjunctive positive component: A person who is related by birth or conversion to those similarly related by birth or conversion to Abraham— and a negative component: A person who has not renounced Judaism by embracing another faith (especially Christianity).”

"The renowned Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner makes a clear distinction between Judaists and Jews, when he says:

The ethnic group does not define the religious system…. All Judaists—those who practice the religion, Judaism—are Jews, but not all Jews are Judaists. That is to say, all those who practice the religion, Judaism, by definition fall into the ethnic group, the Jews, but not all members of the ethnic group practice Judaism’ (“Defining Judaism,” p. 5, in The Blackwell Companion to Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner & Alan J. Avery-Peck, Blackwell Publ. 2003)."

In an endnote, EMJ relates that it is of note that in some branches of Judaism ‘converts’ are regarded as having inferior position to cradle Jews (Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy Ch. 4 and references therein. Praeger 1994). For proof, simply observe how Ethiopian Jews are treated in the Zionist State that chooses to call itself “Israel”. EMJ continues:

“However, Neusner adds, tellingly, that Christianity plays a special role in defining who counts as a Jew either ethnically or religiously: ‘The ethnic community opens its doors not by reason of outsiders’ adopting the markers of ethnicity…but by reason of adopting what is not ethnic but religious…. While not all Jews practice Judaism, in the iron-clad consensus among contemporary Jews, Jews who practice Christianity cease to be part of the ethnic Jewish community, while those who practice Buddhism remain within.’(Neusner, p.6).

"Without knowing it, Neusner is simply restating the thesis of this book (TJRS): when Judaism rejected Christ it rejected Logos as well. In rejecting Christ, Judaism took on a negative identity, something that many Jews have realized at one time or another. The recent Jewish convert to Catholicism, Roy Schoeman, writes (Salvation is from the Jews,p. 360, Ignatius 2003): ‘I remember praying, “Let me know your name—I don’t mind if you are Buddha, and I have to become a Buddhist; I don’t mind if you are Apollo, and I have to become a Roman pagan; I don’t mind if you are Krishna, and I have to become a Hindu; as long as you are not Christ and I have to become a Christian!”’ Schoeman presumably recognizes this perverse and deep-seated enmity to Logos as having come from a perversion of what was handed down by Moses.

"Such enmity to Logos as represented in the person of Jesus Christ is present in the Talmud. Princeton Jewish scholar Peter Schaefer notes that Talmudic stories mock claims of Jesus’s birth from the Virgin Mary, challenge His claim to be the Messiah and state that He was rightly executed for blasphemy and idolatry, and that He resides in Hell, where His followers will go. Schaefer (Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton University Press 2007) makes the startling claim that, rather than being ill-informed and ephemeral, parts of the Babylonian Talmud betray a remarkably high level of familiarity with the Gospels—especially Matthew and John — and represent a deliberate and sophisticated anti-Christian polemic. And while many Jews may never read such passages there can be little doubt that they arose from the defining rejection of Christ by many Jews of His time, a rejection that finds echoes in present day attitudes to Christian converts from Judaism….

"(p. 20): Anyone can choose to reject Logos—all of us do this or are tempted to reject the lower logos every day. But to have the rejection of the Higher Logos at the unavoidable core of one’s religion, or even as a determining factor of who is to count as a member of one’s community, means that a revolutionary spirit is entwined with that community.”

EMJ’s book follows this revolutionary spirit from Gospel times to today, and its impact on world history.

St. John Henry Newman (no doubt another anti-Semite in your estimation) went at length to explain the role of the Jews in promoting heresy in the 4th century with their alliance with the Arians (The Arians of the Fourth Century, WIPF & Stock, 1996, p. 13-15, 16):

“In the Epistle addressed to them, the Judaizers are described as men laboring under an irrational fascination, fallen from grace, and self-excluded from the Christian privileges….If we turn to the history of the Church, we seem to see the evils in actual existence, which the Apostle anticipated in prophecy; that is, we see, that in the obsolete furniture of the Jewish ceremonial, there was in fact retained the pestilence of Jewish unbelief, tending (whether directly or not, at least eventually) to introduce fundamental error respecting the Person of Christ….In popular risings which took place in Antioch and Alexandria in favor of Arianism, the Jews sided with the heretical party, evincing thereby, not indeed any definite interest in the subject of dispute, but a sort of spontaneous feeling, that the side of heresy was their natural position; and further, that its spirit, and the character which it created, were congenial to their own.”

According to the Jewish anarchist, Bernard Lazare, Karl Marx, while being an atheist, was also “a clear and lucid Talmudist, full of that old Hebrew materialism which ever dreams of a paradise on earth and always rejects the far-distant and problematical hope of a garden of Eden after death” (quoted in Fr. Denis Fahey, CSSp, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, Palmdale, CA: Christian Book Club of America, 1993. P. 98-99).

Baruch Levy, a correspondent of Marx also brought his Jewish revolutionary spirit to the modern era, when he wrote:

“the Jewish people taken collectively shall be its own Messias…. In this new organization of humanity, the sons of Israel now scattered over the whole surface of the globe… shall everywhere become the ruling element without opposition….The governments of the nations forming the Universal or World-Republic shall all thus pass, without any effort, into Jewish hands to the victory of the proletariat…. Thus shall the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, that, when the Messianic epoch shall have arrived, the Jews will control the wealth of all the nations of the earth” (Fahey, 100).

EMJ provides a detailed account of the Church and her Popes’ protection of Jews from anti-Semitic attacks and at the same time protecting her Catholic flock from Jewish subversion and exploitation. By providing a scholarly approach to the Jewish role in world history and their relation to the Church, EMJ helps the honest reader to understand and navigate these complex issues. Oversimplification is what leads to anti-Semitism, whether by those who attack the Jews directly, or those who deny them justice and charity by deflecting honest and needed attention to revolutionary spirit endemic to their people. He writes (1043):

“The Jews cannot find the sacred among the dead, only among the living. The Church can save the world from a nuclear Masada only if it reasserts its traditional position,’Sicut Judaeis non’ (The Church’s policy towards the Jews through centuries as expounded by many Popes, upon which EMJ expounds throughout his book). No one may harm Jews or disturb their worship, but Christians have a duty to prevent Jewish subversion of faith and morals. The Church should condemn anti-Semitism, ‘hatred of the Jews as a race,’ but should not allow the Jews to define the term, because the Jews, in Denis Fahey’s words, will use ‘the word to designate any form of opposition to themselves’ or the cultural subversion in which they may be engaged. According to the Jewish definition, ‘anyone who opposes Jewish pretensions is more or less mentally deranged.’

“The Church has never been anti-Semitic. Traditional Catholic teaching has always involved a delicate balancing:

(Quoting Fr. Fahey, 80):

‘On the one hand, the Church has spoken for the Jews to protect their persons and their worship against unjust attacks…. On the other hand, the Church has spoken against Jews, when they wanted to impose their yoke on the faithful and provoke apostasy. She has always striven to protect the faithful from contamination by them. As experience in past centuries showed, if the Jews succeeded in attaining to high offices of State they would abuse their powers to the detriment of Catholics, the Church always strove to prevent Catholics from coming under their yoke. They were forbidden to proselytize and were not allowed to have Christians as slaves or servants.’

“At the darkest hour of Nazi persecution during the ‘30s, Pope Pius XI defended the Jews, proclaiming ‘anti-Semitism is admissible. We are spiritually Semites.’ Less well known is the rest of what he said. After affirming it was ‘impossible for Christians to be Anti-Semites,’ Pope Pius XI went on to say ‘we acknowledge that everyone has the right to defend himself, in other words to take the necessary precautions for his protection against everything that threatens his legitimate interests.’

“In his gloss on Pius XI’s speech, Denis Fahey reiterates what the Church has always proclaimed (p.83):

‘On the other hand, the Sovereign Pontiffs strive the Jews from physical violence and to secure respect for their family life and their worship, as the life and worship of human persons. On the other hand, they aim unceasingly at protecting Christians from the contamination of Jewish Naturalism (an avoidable ideology once one has rejected a Messiah such as Jesus is, one must seek to build a utopia in the here and now, an earthly focus-A.M.) and try to prevent Jews from obtaining control over Christians. The existence of the second needs to be strongly stressed because to some extent it has been lost sight of in recent times. Catholics need to be made familiar, not only with the repeated Papal condemnations of the Talmud, but with the measures taken by the Sovereign Pontiffs to preserve society from the inroads of Jewish naturalism. Otherwise they will be exposed to the risk of speaking of Pope St. Pius V and Pope Benedict XIV, for example, as Anti-Semites.’

“Opposition to Jewish ambition is not anti-Semitism, even if Jews portray it that way. The Christian must oppose anti-Semitism, defined as hatred of the Jewish race, but he must also oppose the Jewish agenda of opposition to Logos. The Catholic must oppose the agenda of the revolutionary Jew, not least when he has adopted, however sincerely, the tropes of conservatism to disguise his aims.”

EMJ’s book ends with an Epilogue: The Conversion of the Revolutionary Jew, which is the aim of the entire book. To seek someone’s conversion, an entire people, is to seek their greatest good. And if they happen to be Jews, then this is hardly anti-Semitic. Conversion necessarily implies something to turn away from, and something, in this case Someone, to turn towards. We turn from our sins and errors and turn to Jesus. The first step in turning away from sin and error is to recognize what those sins and errors are. But so long as people such as yourself seek to undermine efforts to bring to light the sins and errors of the Jews and the revolutionary spirit that keeps them in that bondage-- you prevent them from attaining their highest and ultimate good: Salvation. And THAT, @Ultraviolet, is what makes YOU a rabid and vicious anti-Semite.
Ultraviolet
"I plan on addressing all of your attempts at rebuttal..." -AngelusMaria

Attempts. Oh boy, you're one of THOSE jokers.

Protip: a rebuttal thus presented stands as such, regardless of its ultimate validity. Even if you managed to disprove every point in every one, that would make them failed rebuttals. But so long as they were tendered as contradictions to your position they ARE rebuttals.

More
"I plan on addressing all of your attempts at rebuttal..." -AngelusMaria

Attempts. Oh boy, you're one of THOSE jokers.

Protip: a rebuttal thus presented stands as such, regardless of its ultimate validity. Even if you managed to disprove every point in every one, that would make them failed rebuttals. But so long as they were tendered as contradictions to your position they ARE rebuttals.

Right outta the gate and your horse already stumbled. This gonna be fun. :D

"Also, I am limiting myself in this reply to just a few of your points and by not addressing all the others at this time I am not intending to ignore the rest of your points, only that I don’t have time right now to get to all of them due to other obligations, but plan on dealing with them when I get the chance. I am sure you can understand.

Of course. I'd be horrified to think this well-nigh insulting brief reply covered everything, eh? ;-)

"The points of yours that I want to address in this post are a few that other arguments of mine, and your rebuttals were contingent upon, but your initial points had escaped my attention so it is important to deal with them now before addressing the others later."

Oh goodie. :D

UV:
1. "As I've told others, one does not need to consume error in order to recognize it IS error. Here's an example... Have you read the Satanic Bible and Satanic Rituals by Anton Szandor LaVey? How about the Teachings Of Baphomet or The Stgyian Spiral? Either in translation or the original Latin? Yes or no? No? Then using YOUR logic, you can't criticize those books or denounce them as filled with Satanic blasphemy since you haven't read them".

AM:
I understand your argument, but here is how I think it doesn’t work. EMJ is a man."


So was Anton Szandor LaVey. So was Aliester Crowley. So is Sam Chupp.

"He wrote a book that exhaustively explains, contextualizes his theses..."

So did they.

"So as a man with belief system, he is being labeled with a derogatory term because of his belief system."

If I call those authors blasphemers I'm labelling them with a derogatory term based on their belief systems as well. No. My argument works perfectly well, thanks. That "derogatory term" applies, it's self-evident, and that remains true regardless of whether one reads the books or not.

"Therefore, it would be incumbent upon the person accusing him to actually know his belief system, and one can only do that if one understood that belief system..."

The validity of an accusation is not dependent upon the accuser's familiarity with the content they accuse. The validity depends on the accuracy of the evidence they show for their accusation, regardless where or how they acquired it.

Again, this is the old "you haven't tried it so you can't complain" argument and it still fails. Up next, aw gee... you haven't also read his magazine and his blog... :P

"Yet not once does he ever read America’s founding documents."

I quoted Jones directly while accusing him of anti-Semitism. I cited an article that quoted him directly while criticizing his theological errors.

So your analogy doesn't just "limp a bit" if fails outright.

"You are making very strong accusations against EMJ, ones that do not hold up when his positions are understood within the framework that he is using."

This is a variation of an argument popular with many who've been caught red-handed. "My comments were taken outta context!" i.e. "the context (somehow) changes the meaning statement"

The obligation is on YOU to show that. Jones' hatred of the Jews doesn't magically change into something else thanks to "the framework he's using".

Unspoken yet present in this argument is the concession the statement Jones made prima facie is utterly damning.

I'm -pleased- to see you adopting this approach because by doing so, you're making the same tacit concession -whether you admit to it or not.

"Of course not, that would be silly, if we read Him in the context of His whole message."

Actually, in the example you just gave, it is necessary to understand Jesus' use of rhetoric, rather than his "framework". We must also remember we're dealing with translation issues that are only exacerbated by a two thousand year gap.

None of those problems exist with E. Michael Jones' bald accusations, meaning your comparison and consequently argument fails.

"This comment of yours speaks for itself. I understand getting carried away with one’s words, I do that too sometimes, but to recognize it and be unrepentant and glory in it, that’s actually another thing altogether."

Skip the moralizing. You're GTV's number-one fan-boy apologist for an anti-Semite. I'm well aware of my failings. Motes and beams, buddy.

"The article cited doesn’t offer factual proof, nor does it provide "a point-by-point deconstruction" of his supposed errors"

It quotes Jones directly which is a "point", then it cites Scripture, then itexplains why that Scripture constradicts that point. That's factual proof.

It quotes Jones again, which is another "point" and shows why Catholic doctrine contradicts that point. That's more factual proof. That is how a point-by-point deconstruction works.

Jones' "framework" isn't going to change directly contradicting either Scripture or the Church.

In a word, you're telling a falsehood unsupported by the content of the article. It's a rhetorical trick of a "false summary".

"It is a 37-sentence hit piece, hardly capable of deconstructing a PB&J sandwich, let alone the deeply insightful and well-formulated positions of an EMJ scholar."

Cute hyperbole yet it's factually wrong and so is Jones.

"Jesus said, "unless you hate your father'.See! See! Dad-hater! Anti-Paternalist!"

That's a fallacy of an inductive hyperbole, btw. Whoops. Your satire is built around that and an implied strawman against Christ, no less. Even for the purposes of making a point, it's indicative of the Jones-Junky's true reverence for "Christ the Logos". :P

"Again, drive-by research and analysis, but Twitter lends itself to this by its very nature..."

It's a direct quote from the man. For a guy who bleats about "weaponizing language", you're certainly only too eager to do so yourself.

Doesn't matter if it's "drive-by research" or not. It's a clear and unambiguous example of very sort of anti-Semitism you im Jones never made and the very quotes from him you also claimed I never supplied.

He said what he said. It's ugly, it's untrue, it maligns Jews and -only- Jews, which makes E. Michael Jones an anti-Semite. Simple as that.

"His comment wasn’t made in a vacuum, his analogous use of the term "sacrament" in regards to the pro-abortion position."

He made an explicit statement that a religious rite (sacrament) was part of a religion, (Jewish). The statement stands on its own merits, as "tweets" do.

"EMJ knows what a Sacrament is. He knows they were instituted by Jesus Christ."

...begging the question what John the Baptist was doing before Christ began His ministry, baptism being a sacrament and all. But that's another issue. ;-)
Ultraviolet
"EMJ here uses "sacrament" with a lower case, as in, a parody of the sacramental..."

Sacraments and sacramentals are two different things. Even allowing your "parody" premise, he's making a parody of Jewish beliefs, a malign parody, a parody intended to mock and deride the religion and that, again, is anti-Semitism.

Your lengthy deflection into discussing the nature of the term "sacrament" …More
"EMJ here uses "sacrament" with a lower case, as in, a parody of the sacramental..."

Sacraments and sacramentals are two different things. Even allowing your "parody" premise, he's making a parody of Jewish beliefs, a malign parody, a parody intended to mock and deride the religion and that, again, is anti-Semitism.

Your lengthy deflection into discussing the nature of the term "sacrament" doesn't change that.

"and something tells me that had anyone else used it, no questions would be asked."

Something tells me if someone else other than EMJ had been criticized, his fan-boy wouldn't be bending over backwards trying to justify such bigotry.

Case in point: You never answered my question. If some radical posted, say, "Paedophilia is a Catholic sacrament" on Twitter, would you claim the statement is anti-Catholic -and- untrue?

Yes or no? That isn't a rhetorical question.

"In fact, he provides some context, in briefly mentioning the Jewish identity of some of the top players in the Abortion movement in America."

Actually, he named only two. Then, like anti-Semites love doing, he makes a fallacy of composition. Those Jews did something therefore all Jews are condemned.

"If it weren’t for Jews like Bernard Nathanson and Lawrence Lader, abortion would not be legal in America." -EMJ

Notice, EMJ ties the Jewishness of two men and to their political beliefs leading to a false conclusion that "Abortion is a Jewish sacrament."

He conveniently forgets that other Jews are very pro-life. So if it weren't for -these- Jews, abortion might have made further gains already.

jewishprolifefoundation.org

...but EMJ doesn't care about pro-life Jews because they contract his anti-Semitic tweet. EMJ is blaming an entire race/ religion for the political beliefs of two men. Like every bigot, he simply chooses to ignore any information that contradicts his claim.

The rest of your saturation bombing of passages discussing abortion doesn't change that either. :D
8 more comments from Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet
"His use of the word is very appropriate and did not originate with him..."

No one claim that his usage originated with him so pointing this out is unecessary, also.... Tacit strawman.

"EMJ’s direct implication of Jews in promoting abortion. No secret there, and nothing Jews themselves haven’t bragged about."

...and, unsurprisingly, you're making the same mistake Jones is.

Not all Jews are …More
"His use of the word is very appropriate and did not originate with him..."

No one claim that his usage originated with him so pointing this out is unecessary, also.... Tacit strawman.

"EMJ’s direct implication of Jews in promoting abortion. No secret there, and nothing Jews themselves haven’t bragged about."

...and, unsurprisingly, you're making the same mistake Jones is.

Not all Jews are pro-abortion. Some are, some aren't. Other Jews strenuously dispute the notion that Judaism is pro-abortion.

www.newsweek.com/judaism-emphati…

"you will find Jews taking credit for all kinds of abominations, but in this case Abortion."

Many egotistical people take the lion's share of credit for things they didn't do or had ,at best, only tangential involvement with.

Their claims don't become true simply because they made them. Jones, however, takes them at their word because it suits his anti-Semitic campaign of blaming the Jews. Lookie! The Jews are responsible for (whatever) because THIS Jew said so. The proof for the statement's factual validity? He's Jewish. :D

Stupid. Stupid and wrong.

I can find Catholic clerics who actively promote "all kinds of abominations". However, blaming "Catholics" or "the Catholics", to borrow EMJ's way of putting it, for the beliefs of those men is equally wrong and false.

People's social views or their political beliefs may be influenced by their religious beliefs or they may not. Many choose to strengthen the legitimacy of their social views or their political beliefs by -citing- their relgious beliefs. Again, there are Catholics who do this today for "all kinds of abominations" as well. However, their doing so is by no means a condmenation of the religion as a whole

Nor should it indict others following that religion who do not share their views, particularly on religious grounds. The same applies for race. A White racist does not speak for all whites. A Black Panther does not speak for all blacks.

"Is EMJ saying all Jews are complicit in Abortion? No."

He labels abortion as a Jewish sacrament and blames "Jews like..." mentioning two men to support his claim.

He makes NO qualifications to the contrary. Your claim has zero support in Jones' statement.

You posted a long scrolling series of passages supporting a position Jones didn't once refer to.

Jones didn't qualify his statement and your spin-control isn't going to change what he DID say.

"goes on to discuss a topic that requires loads of the obligatory prerequisite praise for pro-life Jews because otherwise knee-jerk reactionaries who have been systematically conditioned by Jewish revolutionary elements will attack anything that criticizes the protected status class of Jews as 'anti-Semitic." Hmmmm- that never happens does it?

Satire fails miserably when it's based on a flawed analogy, an equally bad paraphrase and served up in the mother of all run-on sentences. Just so you know. Gotta keep those verbal jabs fast and snappy if you have any hope of landing one. :D

Your endless cite from "The 'Victim Status' At Work." is built around a fallacy of composition, i.e. because some claims of racial or religious bias may be politically motivated and untrue, therefore all/ most are.

"Whenever some brave person raises objections to even the most flagrant abuses committed by "certified victims," he or she is inevitably labeled "misogynist," "racist," "homophobic," or "anti-Semitic," depending upon the "victim's" background."

...and in some cases, the label is a factually accurate description of that "brave person"'

The "brave person" is blaming someone's gender or their race or their sexual orientation or their Jewishness for something entirely unrelated to those "flagrant abuses".

E. Michael Jones for example, is blaming "Jews" for abortion.

No distinction, none of the qualifications his passionate fan-boy would interject. No. "Abortion is a Jewish sacrament" and it would not be legal in America if not "Jews like" two guys.

There is a direct condmentation of Jewish religious practices, a false one, and a direct laying of the blame for abortion laws on Jews.

In the "framework," as you're so fond of discussing is clear, Jones is blaming the Jewish religion since he referenced a sacrament. ;-)

Since that claim is false, and Jones blames "Jews like (x & y)" as the cause for abortion's legality, then an accusation of anti-Semitism against "some brave person" like Jones is true.

This conclusion uninentionally uncerscores my earlier point about using clerical status to support a political view. In a word, it's a fallacious appeal to authority.

"Many self-described 'Jews' continue to lead the abortion movement and, most pitiable of all, 'rabbis,' properly cloaked in all of the correct trappings, proclaim that abortion is not only a necessity, it is a Good Thing for America."

Many self-described 'Catholics" continue to lead the LGBT movement and, most pitiable of all, 'priests,' properly cloaked in all of the correct trappings, proclaim homosexuality is not only a necessity, it is a Good Thing for America. ;-)

Does Father James Martin, SJ reperesent all Catholics concerning homosexuality?

No.

Consequently, your wall of text citations just face-planted.
Ultraviolet
The rest of your examples support the same essential fallacy.

"All four original organizers of the most influential group of abortion pushers... were of Jewish birth,"

...which implies political views are racially inherited, also contradicted by its own mention of a founder who changed his political views.

This is the selective "on and off" focus of Jew-haters in a nutshell and the next …More
The rest of your examples support the same essential fallacy.

"All four original organizers of the most influential group of abortion pushers... were of Jewish birth,"

...which implies political views are racially inherited, also contradicted by its own mention of a founder who changed his political views.

This is the selective "on and off" focus of Jew-haters in a nutshell and the next umpteen "examples" make similar mistakes of fixating on only the "Jews" within abortion groups having overwhelmingly non-Jewish membership

This example is wortth discussion.

"Yet, when Jewish abortionist Barnett Slepian beat a pro-life activist in the head with a baseball bat and seriously injured him, the press and abortophiles whined that pro-lifers were anti-Semitic for picketing his home!"

...and what was the content of the picket? You fail to mention that. If the chants and signs criticized him for being Jewish, the criticism against the picketers would be true.

"the press and abortophiles whined that pro-lifers were anti-Semitic for picketing his home"

Linked example needed.

Worth noting a sniper splattered Barnett Slepians brains all over the inside of his home in front of his son

Continuing...

"At Slepian's trial, Amherst Town Justice Sherwood Bestry said to him "The Court feels you have suffered a great deal on account of this." Following this "trial," the Amherst Town Board immediately banned the picketing of homes by pro-lifers. Violators of this ordinance face a $500 fine and six months in jail."

...showing an obvious pro-abortion bias by the court. Yet nowhere have you shown that judgement was motivated by Slepian's race or his religion.

Again, you're doing what Jew-haters routinely do, conflating numerous causes affecting purely political issues and then raising it as examples connected to the Jewishness of those involved -absent any evidence.

"Nathanson, being a Jew, was raised with the same Jewish Revolutionary Spirit as most Jews."

ZERO evidence supplied supporting that "most Jews" are raised in any kind of spirit. You've gotten wound up and it shows. Your own anti-Semitism is in full display, it's icky. Tuck it back in and zip up.

"being interwoven, not in their DNA as anti-Semites and racists would have it, but by a cultural milieu informed by 2000 years of rejecting Jesus Christ"

...which is again an anti-Semitic claim based on a vague "cultural milieu" which fails to account for and is readily contradicted by the existence of politically conservative Jews -both racial and religious.

Go on, be moar of an anti-Semite. You're on a roll. :D

"If we should be blessed through the Jews, is it not also possible to be cursed through them?...Their rejection of Him is curses for the world."

Contradicted directly by Catholic Catechism. (CCC 402)

--"All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's (emphasis mine) disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."--

I love it, you just just got BTFO'd by (wait for it) a Jew. :D

The Church contradicts you: "one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men" The Jews are not that one man.

Adam, arguably, wasn't Jewish either since he predates the Covenant with Abraham by quite some time.

"The cure for the revolutionary spirit is baptism."

The cure for Jones' fan-boys is to change their reading material. Try the CCC for a change instead of EMJ.
Ultraviolet
"Hence, we are not dealing with race here. "

Or so anti-Semites would have us believe, exept when your kind wish us to believe just the opposite.

"All four original organizers of the most influential group of abortion pushers in the United States the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) were of Jewish birth..."

"Of Jewish birth" is as racial as it gets. Saint Edith Stein was "of …More
"Hence, we are not dealing with race here. "

Or so anti-Semites would have us believe, exept when your kind wish us to believe just the opposite.

"All four original organizers of the most influential group of abortion pushers in the United States the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) were of Jewish birth..."

"Of Jewish birth" is as racial as it gets. Saint Edith Stein was "of Jewish birth" and she died for it.

"You have now apostatized from your faith, because He is the fulfillment of your faith."

Get out, you silly nut-job. You're off you bloody flippin' rocker, you silly clown. Seriously, learn to use the darn "enter" key every now 'n again when you're spewing out this stream-of-conciousness nonsense.

What's the matter @AngelusMaria ? Sounds like you got bad case of the Heebie-Jeebies. :D :D

Renouncing Jones is not renouncing the Church The Gospel of Jones has already been repudiated, most recently the bishop of his diocese.

"Ethnicity has other factors independent of race, and there are more nuances regarding the Jews, which is why you should read EMJ’s book, because you are really in the dark here,"

...none of which you've listed, none of which you've discussed, none of which have any bearing on the fact your claim ,quoted directly, was contradicted by the Church also quoted directly.

It is YOU who are in the dark here and if this the clarity you've drawn from EMJ then, unwittingly, you've just vindicated my arguments against reading him.

Namely, E Michael Jones has led you into demonstrable error, contradictory to the official teachings of the Catholic Church.

"your very words give you away."

...as they does for anti-Semites like you and Jones.

"But my father had it in abundance, except that in his generation and in the community in which he was brought up they called it chutzpah."

Great. He had it. Not all Jews have "chutzpah" (shameless audacity; impudence) Many non-Jews have shameless audacity; impudence, aka "chutzpah" showing the concept isn't "Jewish" at all, only the word is.

"the abortion war in America was very ethnically and religiously demarcated. The Jews and United Methodists vs. the Catholics."

No examples shown. Your quote, "Nathanson opposed the Catholic Church, he was shocked by the aggression of Lader’s vitriol, saying Lader (p.33)" shows shock at the quality of the language, no reference to the writer's race.

"I was far from an admirer of the church’s role in the world chronicle, but his insistent, uncompromising recitation brought to mind the Protocols of the Elders of Zion..."

...which have been debunked as a literary forgery

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_o…,_1921

"After another Jew, Betty Friedan, the trained Marxist-Feminist, was brought on to NARAL...

...and you've just contradicted

"Hence, we are not dealing with race here. "

She was raised in a Jewish family, but was an agnostic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Friedan

But it doesn't matter, this is how you Jew-haters think: all you ever fixate on is "another Jew". That's all you ever see.

The Marxism...
the feminism...
any of the multitudinous -isms that are the real cause of the world's problems all get lumped into your warped world-view in one word "Jew".

You don't see a Marxist, you don't see a feminist, you see "another Jew". It's tunnel-vision..

"He implicated the Jews in this "anti-Catholic ploy" by calling it a "Shandeh fah yidden" ("scandal for the Jews").

....something that no doubt sat very badly with pro-life Jews.

But again, here you are, like your buddy EMJ... picking only the quotes from only those Jews that fit your narrative and allowing them to speak for all Jews, because that also fits your narrative.

The rest of the Jews who exist in the real world with the rest of us simply don't exist for you and Jones.

"Nathanson wrote that, given the predominantly Jewish media’s liberal bias.

The media's liberal bias is a political one. So it is the liberal media not the "Jewish media", you silly pratt. A supposedly "Jewish media" routinely criticizes Israel for its treatment of the Palestians.

Nathanson refers to abortion as "perceived as somehow anti-American, the spawn of a cadre of wild-eyed Jewish radicals in New York City"

Not all Jews in New York City, but radicals. The noun is radicals, not Jews. As we know, perceptions aren't always correct, either.

Again, it's the same old fallacy a a cadre of wild-eyed Jewish radicals in New York City" suddenly gets conflated with all Jews everywhere.

"he came up against the power of the Jewish media..."

He came up against the power of the pro-abortion liberal media.

Worth remembering "we are not dealing with race here." and the media is consistently anti-religious. More of your Jew-bashing.

"but in the mega press 230 out of every thousand are Jewish (citing a survey of journalists by two Jews, Lichter and Rothman, which also showed 90% of journalists were pro-abortion) a representation far out of proportion to their numbers in the census. This is clearly the source of the fulsome accusation from identifiably anti-Semitic sources that the media is dominated by Jews" (Papers, 46).

They're also visibly Caucasian. Using your reasoning, "white people" are the real problem and there are equally stupid radicals out there who claim exactly that.

Also contradicted by your own author, Nathanson.

"Many media people were young college-educated liberal Catholics, just the kind we had succeeded in splitting off from the faithful flock,"

So much for the "Jewish media" Oooh, dem jooz.... turns out they're really jus' "young college-educated liberal Catholics:",

I can't describe how much I love it when this happens to you.. It's fun-ee! :D
Ultraviolet
"Another interesting source is Human Life International. The founder, Fr. Paul Marx, made the leading Jewish role in the abortion industry well-known. And for this, Bishop Harry Flynn in 1997 denounced him for it, citing, get this, Nostra Aetate!"

...with good reason. Simply because -a- Jew ascribes "credit" for political invovlement onto his fellows doesn't make it true. -especially when the …More
"Another interesting source is Human Life International. The founder, Fr. Paul Marx, made the leading Jewish role in the abortion industry well-known. And for this, Bishop Harry Flynn in 1997 denounced him for it, citing, get this, Nostra Aetate!"

...with good reason. Simply because -a- Jew ascribes "credit" for political invovlement onto his fellows doesn't make it true. -especially when the involvement he's assigning is a controversial one.

Anti-Semites like you and Jones have build your case with endless permuations of the "blood guilt" those few Jewish leaders took on themselves while calling for the death of Christ.

They spoke for themselves, not all Jews. Bigots like yourself however, are only too happy to take them at their word when it suits your fancy.

Self-flattering claims by Jews for positive things are, conversely, ignored as empty boasting.

"Looks like you would have found a perfect Bishop buddy in Flynn @Ultraviolet ! Throws around "anti-Semitism,"

When I "throw around" the charge there's support for it.

"loves Vatican II"

I don't.

"and especially Nostra Aetate"

I've cited it because it contradicts E. Michael Jones' bigotry -showing that he (and by extension you) are at variance with the Church's official teachings.

"doesn’t care if something is true"

Oh, on the contrary my dear AngelusMaria I DO care. I care enough to wade through reams of your endless nonsense and expose you for the biased historian and dishonest charlatan you truly are.

"if it criticizes anything Jewish, must be anti-Semitic"

Moar hyperbole and falsely derived. I've made specific criticism against a specifi person, I supported my claim with direct quotes contrary to your repeated claims otherwise. Those quote brand E. Michael Jones for what he is: an anti-Semite.

From this you're deriving a universal position. Your Fallacy Is: A strawman that your butthurt has set aflame..

"and the claims deserve no further investigation."

Readily disproven by all the links I've supplied contradicting you! I'm the one fact-checking you, much to your obvious and increasing embarrassment.

You're also being an idiot.

"So much for EMJ’s tweet."

LOLWUT? You mean all this endless nonsense was supposed to show... EMJ's claim was false? Or that it wasn't "anti-Semitic"?

Get out. You haven't shown anything of the sort.

I've lost count how many times I've picked apart your examples, shown the internal contradictions you have with your (and Jones) own position and your own direct contradiction to Catholic Catechism.

Sweetheart, you haven't shown diddley.

...except that you're either using dictation software or you're drinking a black-market brand of energy-drink.
Ultraviolet
"Hilaire Belloc encountered it in 1920s England, noting that when anyone "exposed a financial swindler who happened to be a Jew, he was an anti-Semite."

The two are not mutually exclusive. A person can be an anti-Semite -and- expose a financial swindler. If anything, an anti-Semite would have the most motivation to focus on the finanical dealing of Jews looking for swindlers.

Failed logic on …More
"Hilaire Belloc encountered it in 1920s England, noting that when anyone "exposed a financial swindler who happened to be a Jew, he was an anti-Semite."

The two are not mutually exclusive. A person can be an anti-Semite -and- expose a financial swindler. If anything, an anti-Semite would have the most motivation to focus on the finanical dealing of Jews looking for swindlers.

Failed logic on your author's part and yours for citing him.

"The undisputed conclusion of this study was that a disproportionately large number of Jews who are to disloyal to Jewish teachings have led and are leading the campaign for legalized abortion."

This is gorgeous... You silly fool. You've been prattling on so darn long now you're contradicting yourself.

A "disproportionately large number of Jews" "are to disloyal to Jewish teachings" and "are leading the campaign for legalized abortion."

These are your author's claims and they show: 1.) if they are "disloyal to Jewish teachings" AND leading the campaign for legalized abortion, then Judaism opposes abortion. Your own cited author just supported the claim I made earlier.

Likewise, because they're disloyal to Jewish teachings, they're self-evidently poor examples of religiously minded Jews, those who. DO follow Jewish teachings. That leaves only one criteria for them being "Jews" at all: their race/ ethnicity.

...and that's being anti-Semitic and a racial bigot. Wow! I'm not surprised his superiors weren't happy seeing that in a Catholic priest!

"The Talmud and Judaism as whole have several allowances for abortion, even among the strictest sects."

...as did Catholicism for centuries.

Following Aristotle's view, it was commonly held by some "leading Catholic thinkers" in early Church history that a human being did not come into existence as such immediately on conception, but only some weeks later. Abortion was viewed as a sin, but not as murder, until the embryo was animated by a human soul. In On Virginal Conception and Original Sin 7, Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) said that "no human intellect accepts the view that an infant has the rational soul from the moment of conception." A few decades after Anselm's death, a Catholic collection of canon law, in the Decretum Gratiani, stated that "he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body."

...This Aristotelian approach to delayed ensoulment was abandoned by the 17th century


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church…

Wow! So for one thousand six hundred years, the Church had the substantially the same view as the Jews, as this notion of "ensoulment" forms the basis for a very conditional allowance for abortion (e.g. the fetus is threatening the mother's health).

Worse (for you) it shows The Church -changed its policies-. It became more strict, true, but it was comparatively liberal for the majority of its history. If the Church can update its views on abortion thanks to improved science, The Church can do the same on racism and religious discrimination thanks to seeing the alternative put into practice.

"Well, Fr. Marx may have been abandoned by his Bishop, but he was not abandoned by fellow conservative Catholics."

Not all conservative Catholics are anti-Semtites, bunky. ;-) Some "conservative Catholics" understand the fallacy of blaming a race/ ethnicity/ religion for a social policy, one routinely championed by atheists.

That's the error you and Jones and this wayward priest make.

"Nathanson replied that it was 'correct' to say Jews dominated the abortion industry "

Good for Nathanson. So the proof is Nathanson said so.

Your fallacy is "Appeal to Authority".

"That is proving that EMJ is not an ant-Semite. You are asking me to prove a negative. "

That a problem for you, hon? ;-)

--Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudologic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics, including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.--

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

"Nothing you have shown reveals him to be an anti-Semite. "

Argumentum ad Nauseam.

"the term itself is designed as a weapon of abuse, and then you abuse EMJ with it."

Outright garbage. The term itself is a noun describing a demonstrable hostility to a specific group. That noun DOES carry a very negative connotation because that hostility is based on a host of character flaws and errors in reasoning.

"Indeed I wonder if a religion that holds the Talmud supreme can call itself a religion."

Likewise, I wonder if a person who doesn't follow the second half of Christ's greatest commandment has any business calling himself a Christian, much less a Catholic. We're all entitled to our musings, eh? ;-)

"In the Talmudic perspective, anyone who resists Jewish hegemony is an anti-Semite; as is anyone who points this out."

Please quote the Talmud where it states this.

Quote it directly or your clam about the Talmudic perspective fails.

"the term "anti Semite" has lost its power."

...which explains these book-length replies you're writing desperately trying to convince those readers willing to sit through the entirety of them, that -somehow- the charge doesn't apply to Jones. :D

All of this because you aren't wetting your pants in fright that someone might realize, golly-gee. E. Michael Jones really is an anti-Semite, Jew-basher, Hebrew-Hater and all around human toilet-brush covered in his own muck.
Ultraviolet
"People are realizing that it is a Pavlovian control mechanism,"

Unsupported claim. Obvious wish-fulfillment on the author's part.

"If it describes resistance to the out-sized Jewish role in the New World Order, "anti-Semite" could become a badge of honor worn with pride."

It doesn't. Instead, it accurately describes malicious, obsessed jerks which is why they go to such lengths trying to …More
"People are realizing that it is a Pavlovian control mechanism,"

Unsupported claim. Obvious wish-fulfillment on the author's part.

"If it describes resistance to the out-sized Jewish role in the New World Order, "anti-Semite" could become a badge of honor worn with pride."

It doesn't. Instead, it accurately describes malicious, obsessed jerks which is why they go to such lengths trying to prove the phrase doesn't apply to them.

"A healthy individual will listen to criticism courteously, acknowledge if it is valid, and mend his ways accordingly. He does not accuse them of harboring an irrational hate."

...except when that so-called "healthy individual" displays evidence of irrational hate.

Then the term applies and there is every reason to use it, if only for others' edification.

"The only explanation for the conventional response is that Jewish leadership knows it is at fault, but that does not deter it. "

Fallacy of the false dilemma.

There are other explanations, like, you know.. Jews don't like being defamed by bigots any more than Catholics do. That was easy.

"Also, in case you still wish to persist in your unwitting agency as a proxy warrior for judaizers..."

Judaizers are Christians who teach it is necessary to adopt Jewish customs and practices, especially those found in the Law of Moses, to be saved...

I am not. The term doesn't apply. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers

This reeks of Jones' "framework", which he's built with an autist's predilection for re-defining the every word in the language whenever he doesn't like the established definition.

"Since the term Jew actually gets used with some frequency, its use is determined by the political advantage of those who use it."

Wrong. Flat out garbage.

Its use is determined by its applicability to who's being addressed. At least that's what rational people do. Does a person have Jewish parents? (racial Jew) Does a person practice Judaism (religous Jew). There's nothing "political" about it that..

This is why E. Michael Jones gets labelled a failed academic and a nut-case. He is.

"but any reference to Jews as the perpetrators of some attack is, again, ipso facto evidence of anti-Semitism"

...invariably because the referenceto "Jews" is nearly always irrelvant to the perpetrator's motivation for the attack.

Your own citations provide numerous examples. "Of Jewish birth" was used to describe refering to a Marxist feminist who's pro-abortion. You focused on her racial origin. when denouncing her political advocacy.

That's what bigots do. That's what racists do. When bigotry and racism are applied to Jews, it's defined as "anti-Semitism" becuase that's what it is.

"Defining the term 'Jew' is a debate that is never ending. "

...only in the minds of bigots trying to re-define the language and thereby the disucssion.

It's tactic that goes something like "Jews are whatever we say they are so your definition of anti-Semitism which carries a negative connotation doesn't apply." Followed by "every attack on Jews as a group wasn't anti-Semitism" either.

"A Saint that you no doubt would accuse of anti-Semitism, along with St. John Capistrano, St. John the Evangelist/Apostle, and an encyclopedia’s worth of Catholic Saints through the centuries"

Some saints may have been anti-Semites. Christ was sinless, saints weren't. John the Evangelist wasn't an anti-Semite. Quote the supposed anti-Semitism in John. I've seen this argument before, Go ahead. You'll fail.

"The Christian then holds then that the Jewish people have a perduring role and are at least in part defined by their refusal of the New Covenant and by their relationship to Abraham and his ‘seed."

Wrong. Witness Christian Jews, Edith Stein again. She was a Jew, killed because of it, and yet at the time she had undoubtedly accepted "the New Covenant" since she was a Catholic nun.

Looks like you're going to have to copy/ post/ five hundred more paragraphs trying to "explain away" her racial heritage and you'll fail as badly as you did rying to "explain away" a single tweet by your great luminous scholar. :D

"The renowned Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner makes a clear distinction between Judaists and Jews, when he says:

...and that's a minority view, as readily evidenced by

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Jew

www.britannica.com/topic/Jew-people

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

www.pewforum.org/…/sidebar-who-is-…

Neusner may wish to draw an overly narrow distinction between Jew and Judaist, and E. Michael Jones may wish to exploit it for his own foul ends, but it's hardly a position that's been accepted in contempory scholarly literature.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Judaist

(rare) One who believes and practices Judaism.

Rare. Enough said.
Ultraviolet
"EMJ relates that it is of note that in some branches of Judaism ‘converts’ are regarded as having inferior position to cradle Jews..."

...and the same is true for Catholics along with many other faiths.

"While not all Jews practice Judaism, in the iron-clad consensus among contemporary Jews, Jews who practice Christianity cease to be part of the ethnic Jewish community, while those who practi…More
"EMJ relates that it is of note that in some branches of Judaism ‘converts’ are regarded as having inferior position to cradle Jews..."

...and the same is true for Catholics along with many other faiths.

"While not all Jews practice Judaism, in the iron-clad consensus among contemporary Jews, Jews who practice Christianity cease to be part of the ethnic Jewish community, while those who practice Buddhism remain within"

That supposedly "iron-clad consensus" better go talk to these guys.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

..and these guys...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Christian_movement

All of whom were Jews praying to Christ before Perfesser Neusner was even born.

Within Judaism, this is a complex issue, far beyond the pervue of -one- "renowned Jewish scholar "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew?

" In rejecting Christ, Judaism took on a negative identity, something that many Jews have realized at one time or another. "

Does EMJ have a citation showing that "many Jews" have realized Judaism took on a negative identity directly caused by rejecting Christ? This another one of his band-wagon fallacies.

Judaism rejected Christ. It pre-existed before Christ and continued to exist after him. Christ did not define Judaism as a religion.

"Talmudic stories mock claims of Jesus’s birth from the Virgin Mary, challenge His claim to be the Messiah and state that He was rightly executed for blasphemy and idolatry, and that He resides in Hell, where His followers will go. "

Typical fixation on "da Joos" Islam also repudiates the divinity of Christ's birth yet, tellingly, EMJ even makes excuses for his fellow Jew-haters. Like so:

"Islam did not reject Christ; Islam failed to understand Christ, as manifested in its rejection of both the Trinity and the Incarnation..." (TJRS p.15)

Let us compare the Quran of Jones according to the Quran of The Prophet. ;-)

He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him." [Surah 112:1-4]

That's a flat-out rejection of Jesus' divinity.

Allah forgiveth not (The sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right). (Surah 4:116)

...and again

It is only God who deserves all praise. He has not begotten a son and has no partner in His Kingdom. (Surah 17:111)

EMJ is directly contradicted by the Quran. Mohammed understood the concept of God The Father and God The Son and he found it abhorrent.

Then, naturally, EMJ gets back to business:

"The situation with Jews is completely different."

No it wasn't. They rejected Jesus as the Son of God and so did the Muslims. They're both in error and it's the same error.

But when a Jew makes the same error every other non-Christian religion makes it's "completely different" -because they're Jews.

"And while many Jews may never read such passages there can be little doubt that they arose from the defining rejection of Christ by many Jews of His time,"

...there's plenty of doubt since the earliest Talmud wasn't even compiled until AD 500 in Babylon. That's the entire history of America, doubled.

And yet EMJ will claim such passages "arose from the defining rejection of Christ by many Jews of His time". Not one iota of historical literature in support of his claim. Nothing dating to much less authored by the "many Jews of His time", EMJ just made it up.

Oh yeah, this guy's a winner and then you urge me to read his book when it's filled with this laughable pretense of pseudo-academic scholarship.
Ultraviolet
"Baruch Levy, a correspondent of Marx also brought his Jewish revolutionary spirit to the modern era, when he wrote:"

...and again, because it suits the anti-Semite, one Jew is held up to speak for all Jews. Wow. Up next, Cardinal Marx speaks for all Catholics, amirite?

Like I said, this is a common and mistake anti-Semites make and it's obvious why they choose to make it.

"EMJ provides a …More
"Baruch Levy, a correspondent of Marx also brought his Jewish revolutionary spirit to the modern era, when he wrote:"

...and again, because it suits the anti-Semite, one Jew is held up to speak for all Jews. Wow. Up next, Cardinal Marx speaks for all Catholics, amirite?

Like I said, this is a common and mistake anti-Semites make and it's obvious why they choose to make it.

"EMJ provides a detailed account of the Church and her Popes’ protection of Jews from anti-Semitic attacks and at the same time protecting her Catholic flock from Jewish subversion and exploitation. By providing a scholarly approach to the Jewish role in world history and their relation to the Church, EMJ helps the honest reader to understand and navigate these complex issues."

What is this a book review? :D Unless you're quoting EMJ directly on these points, your claims to what EMJ does or doesn't do are unsupported and clearly coming from a biased, openly infatuated source.

"or those who deny them justice and charity by deflecting honest and needed attention to revolutionary spirit endemic"

LOL... this is how anti-Semites really think. Their pathological obsession with twisting history to blame "The Jews" for every evil is (wait for it) "honest and needed attention"

Gotta love the use of the word "honest".

1.) Holding "the Jews" responsible for individual Jews is not honest.

2.) Quoting only a paltry few self-aggrandizing Jews and pretending they speak for all Jews is not honest.

3.) Doing 1.) and 2.) interchangeably is not honest.

4.) Noting how a Marixst Feminist promoting abortion is still "of Jewish birth" is not honest.

5.) Band-wagon fallacies are not honest.

6.) Misrepresenting the Quran is not honest.

As for the non-Jews who step up and refute such endless falsehoods? Those are the bad guys! :D

Factually discrediting the "honest and needed attention" of obsessed bigots like Jones is not denying anyone anything except the anti-Semites the chance to mislead others..

The man has spent decades of his life with the singular purpose of defaming Jews. That isn't in any way acts of "justice and charity",

That's just sick.

History has plenty of examples of what happens when people like Jones and you focus some "honest and needed attention" on Jews. The body count from Jones' brand of "justice and charity" runs in the millions

...and then you, you twisted Jew-hating lunatic, then claim, "all the actions taken against the Jews were to protect them..."

Pope Pius XI did indeed say "we acknowledge that everyone has the right to defend himself, in other words to take the necessary precautions for his protection against everything that threatens his legitimate interests."

Naturally, anti-Semites never consider the Pope might have been talking about the right of Jews right to do so, even though he was defending Jews when he said it.

No. Not in Jonestown.

The Pope was giving El Jonso the green-light and the thumbs-up to do just the opposite so long as Jones chooses to claim Judaism "threatens his legitimate interests". Then of course, Jonesy has "the right to defend himself".

...and he's just itchin' to do that. So are you. That's what it always comes down to, "Actions taken against the Jews." amirite? Actions... that's how you anti-Semities white-wash genocide.

Seriously, people like Jones are the reason some Dutch Christians quietly told Mr. and Mrs. Frank there was a spare room available. :D

"On the other hand, they aim unceasingly at protecting Christians from the contamination of Jewish Naturalism "

Roy Wood Sellars and John Dewey weren't Jews. But because SOME founderrs of Naturalist philosophy were Jews, the anti-Semite heaps the blame entirely on Jews. It isn't Naturalism anymore, it's Jewish Naturalism.

By now, this is just another example of anti-Semites being anti-Semitic. The problem becomes a "Jewish" problem even when ALL of the founders of the "Jewish" naturalism happen to be non-Jews or agnostics, or outright atheists.

But that's when the Jew-hater steps in with a sly wink and carefully point out, two founding Naturalists are "of Jewish birth" even if you've claimed elsewhere, "we are not dealing with race here."

We sure aren't.

We're dealing with anti-Semitism and the way it applies blame for everything that's racially, ethnically, religiously connected in any way, however tenuously or indirectly, no matter how far removed, to a Jew.

Then you and E. Michael Jones and many other like-minded idiots immediately brand it "Jewish" and start heaping your bent "justice and charity" and "honest and much needed attention" on it to the exclusion of all other causes.

"you prevent them from attaining their highest and ultimate good: Salvation. And THAT, @Ultraviolet, is what makes YOU a rabid and vicious anti-Semite."

---
*slow derisive clapping*


Wow... just wow.

I'm "a rabid and vicious anti-Semite" because I'm defending Jews against your falsehoods.

I'm opposed to the "justice and charity" E. Michael Jones would see inflicted on them.

Your great thinker has built an entire philosophy around a stack of logical fallacies, historical and Scriptural errors.. Like so:

"When the Jews tell Jesus in John 8 that they are the "seed of Abraham," in Greek "sperma Abraam," He changes the term of the argument by replying "If you were Abraham's children, you would do as Abraham did," which is to say follow God's will and accept Jesus as the son of God and Messiah." (p. 15)

...except Abraham lived and died millenia before Jesus was born. A bit difficult for a man to "accept Jesus as the son of God and Messiah" when he was long dead before any Hebrew prophets ever predicted a Messiah would come.

Oh dear. :D

Jones shows what happens when a pedestrian intellect devotes itself to a life-long mania for quoting only sources who agree with him, misrepresting those who don't, while discarding everything to the contrary.

He has an illness, it's an old illness, he isn't the first to come down with it and he's obviously spread it to you. It's a conceptual illness that prompts seemingly intelligent people to seriously suggest, "all the actions taken against the Jews were to protect them..."

Maybe that's your idea of "protection" and Jones' idea of "justice and charity" but Hell will freeze over before I'll ever allow the likes of you to repeat it.
AngelusMaria
I've read through your responses and began my responses, but stopped. It is clear that you have no interest in understanding, no interest in arriving at the truth in this matter. You consistently misrepresent and choose to ignore the evidence. Your prejudice has blinded you to the distinctions necessary to understand the issue and even after distinctions have been made, you resort back to …More
I've read through your responses and began my responses, but stopped. It is clear that you have no interest in understanding, no interest in arriving at the truth in this matter. You consistently misrepresent and choose to ignore the evidence. Your prejudice has blinded you to the distinctions necessary to understand the issue and even after distinctions have been made, you resort back to arguing against positions not held by EMJ. I started a thorough reply days ago, but I see there is no point. You have no interest in truth, only in arguing.
Ultraviolet
"It is clear that you have no interest in understanding, no interest in arriving at the truth in this matter." @AngelusMaria

The truth in this matter is E. Michael Jones is a bigot, an anti-Semite, and a failed academic. (more on this last point in juuuust a wee bit.)

Your kind invariably fall back on referring to your beliefs as "the truth" even when they've been shown to be in error.

"…More
"It is clear that you have no interest in understanding, no interest in arriving at the truth in this matter." @AngelusMaria

The truth in this matter is E. Michael Jones is a bigot, an anti-Semite, and a failed academic. (more on this last point in juuuust a wee bit.)

Your kind invariably fall back on referring to your beliefs as "the truth" even when they've been shown to be in error.

"You consistently misrepresent and choose to ignore the evidence."

I have spent umpteen thousand words going point by point over your "evidence" and refuting both it and your reasoning.

At this point it's fair to say you can take that claim and shove it as far up as it will go.

"You have no interest in truth, only in arguing."

You conflate "truth" with your opinion, as bigots invariably do when they're wrong.

All your kind ever do under these circumstances is go back to making an unsubstantiated claim of factual and moral validity.

It's argumentum ad nauseam, made all the more ridiculous since you present it after your supporting examples and reasoning have been shown to be (respectively) false and fallacious.

I will never change your opinion, I know that.

Your beliefs are untouched by facts or reasoning. No surprises there. You've made a religion out of your false-prophet Jones the way the Muslims did with Mohammed.

I could show a dozen times over where the Quran is historically wrong. It won't change a Muslim's belief that everything Mohammed wrote came directly from Allah through Gibreel.

You are no different except in the errors you've adopted as a religion, one that is in direct opposition with the teachings of The Church today.

While I'll never convert you, I can prevent you from converting others into your foul, heretical parody of the Catholic faith. GTV has a vast readership, hence the time I've spent.

Your claim about my interest is wrong for two other reasons. First, arguing is a means to an end. I don't have an interest in arguing. I have an interest in winning, in beating my opponent and knowing they know it. Kinda like what's happening right... about.. now. :D

I have an interest in this.. Very, very much! :D

Second, I do have an interest in the truth for two additional and complementary reasons. Practically speaking, it's the single best way of making sure I will win.. Bigotry is based on deliberate willful error. It is you who ignore what contradicts your malicious fantasies, your endlessly reflected confirmation-bias. You're no different than a horse wearing blinders, with E. Michael Jones riding on your back, spurring your flanks, whispering in your ears, "jewz, jewz, jewz.." until you're as crazy as he is. The whole world is outside those bigot-blinders and you will never, ever see it.

It is you who misrepresent the truth, you and Jones both. ...and that is why it is you who have lost. Your kind always lose because your position is based on falsehood. Mine is based on truth.

The other reason I favour the truth points back to my original interest. It's good sportsmanship. Tricking an opponent with a falsehood is cheating. Even if you fail to catch it, I would still know and that takes all the joy out of winning. My pride may be a sin, but does produce a powerful conscience.

It is you bigots who cheat and lie. For you and yours, the ends justify the means. You're on a mission, you want ot make converts to your ideology. Your beliefs are foul and un-Christian, so it's understandable why your methods for promoting them are as well.

That simply isn't good enough for me. My pride (and by extension, my conscience) forbids stooping to your level.

~Nemo pervenit qui non legitime certaverit.~ ;-)

Incidentally, I took your advice and began reading Jones' book, "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit". You said (somewhere lost now in acres of text) something to the effect of "give the man a chance to speak for himself".

So I did.

Mind you, I didn't have to. I'd beaten you, I could have just popped open a can of Fanta and sat on my laurels. But I didn't. I was curious what inspired such passion that would motivate you to this extent. You've surpassed the dedication of Islamic scholars in defending their beliefs. You've even eclipsed Star Trek fanboys and I mean the kind who grew up reading Starlog magazine.. I wasn't exaggerating. I've never seen anybody react the way you have here about anything, anywhere.

What my curiosity shows, dear heart, is I DO have an interest in the truth. I read the Quran and the Hadiths for the same reason. Heck, I even sat through Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS) just to see what the fuss was about.

...and so I started reading "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit".

Very early on, Mr. Jones writes this:

"When the Jews rejected Christ, they rejected Logos, and when they rejected Logos, which includes within itself the principles of social order, they became revolutionaries." (p. 15)

That is a direct, annotated, quote and forms the central premise of his (publicly stated) world-view.

..and it is factually, historically wrong.

Jews in the Roman Empire were already "revolutionaries" long before a few of them in Jerusalem rejected Christ. The Jews were "revolutionaries" before Christ was even born. The Jews in Judea had already attempted a revolt against Rome once before in 4 BC. It was suppressed by Publius Quinctilius Varus.

(from wiki)
--The Jewish historian Josephus mentions the swift action of Varus against a messianic revolt in Judaea after the death of the Roman client king, Herod the Great, in 4 BC. After occupying Jerusalem, he crucified 2000 Jewish rebels and may have thus been one of the prime objects of popular anti-Roman sentiment in Judaea (Josephus, who made every effort to reconcile the Jewish people to Roman rule, felt it necessary to point out how lenient this judicial massacre had been). Indeed, at precisely this moment the Jews, nearly en masse, began a full-scale boycott of Roman pottery (Red Slip Ware). Thus, the archaeological record seems to verify mass popular protest against Rome because of Varus' cruelty.--

(From the online Encylopedia Britannica)
--When Judaea rebelled on the death of Herod I the Great (4 bc), Varus marched an army against the insurgents, crushed them, and reestablished direct Roman government.--

Therefore a "Jewish revolutionary spirit" as Mr. Jones titled his book categorically did not occur as a result of rejecting Christ. Jews did not become revolutionaries when they rejected Christ, they already were evolutionaries before Christ. They were revolutionaries who simply wanted Rome off their backs..

History shows that revolutionary spirit clearly predates both the Nativity and the Annunciation. That is a fact. Irrefutable, amply supported by history.That is the truth.

Therefore it is impossible for the so-called "revolutionary spirit" to result from the Jewish leaders at Jerusalem rejecting Christ because it was already present BEFORE Christ. That "Jewish revolutionary spirit" had resulted in one failed revolt against Rome's "principles of social order" already.

Likewise, the very existence of the Roman Empire shows those same "principles of social order" existed before Christ/ Logos. Again, Jones is wrong.

E. Michael Jones' central claim that Jews became revolutionaries when they rejected Christ has thus been disproven.

Yes, I DO have an interest in the truth... enough of an interest to start checking your author's claims against Roman history. So far, history isn't supporting Mr. Jones, that is to say Mr. Jones' claims are not true.

Let's continue, shall we? I'm not done with Mr. Jones. Not just yet. ;-)

If I could sit through your epic posts re-printing page after page from Jones' book, you can do me the courtesy of reading one infinitely shorter reply which is predominantly my own.

"Jews may have become revolutionaries at the foot of the cross, but the full implications of their decision didn't become apparent until 30 years later..." (p. 16)

It so happens, the Jews were not unique in their desire to be free of Rome. If rebelling against Rome is proof Jews became "revolutionaries" as Jones tries to argue, history shows many other peoples were "revolutionaries" as well with an identical "revolutionary spirit".

The Falisci and Fregellae revolts in 241 and 125 BC (respectively) are proof of an "Italian revolutionary spirit". The Bellovaci and Aquitanian revolts in 46, 44, 38 BC proves there's a "Gallic revolutionary spirit." The Thebaid revolt in 30 BC shows an "Egyptian revolutionary spirit". Even the Bulgarians can lay claim to a "revolutionary spirit" thanks to the Vologases Revolt in 13 BC.

Special mention must also be made of the "German revolutionary spirit" shown in the successful revolt of the Frisii in 28 AD. (all cited here on Wiki)

Depending on how closely one correlates the dates, Christ hadn't even started His ministry yet when the German "reovlutionaries" rejected Rome's "principles of social order" and gave the Empire a stinging defeat.

Never mind Jones smug reference to the destruction of the Jewish Temple "30 years later", the "full implications" of the Jews previous revolt were already the backdrop for Pilate's fateful conversation with Christ. Much of their interchange recorded in the Gospels underscores Pilate's concern he was confronting yet another Jewish "revolutionary."

As military governor of Judea, it's a near-certainty he was familiar with the prior revolt under an earlier administrative predecessor. Given the excellence of Roman roads and Roman military communications, it's possible Pilate may have known about the Frisiian revolt and their subsequent victory.

In short, "the revolutionary spirit" Jones describes is common to all people who are under foreign dominion. There's nothing unique about the "revolutionary spirit" possessed by Jews.There is nothing unique about their rejection of "the principals of social order" created by Rome's tyranny and the Pax Romana bred "revolutionaries" nearly everywhere it was implemented.

The Jews were nothing unique. If anything, the Frisii were better "revolutionaries" than the Jews and not a single man among them ever rejected Christ much less even knew of His existence.

More importantly, the rejection of Christ by a small handful of Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalm had absolutely nothing to do with creating a "revolutionary spirit". That spirit was already present: it was present in the Jews, in the Bellovaci, in the Aquitanians, in the Thebans, in the Volgases and in the Frisii.

They were ALL "revolutionaries", they were ALL rejecting Rome's "principles of social order", and they were ALL doing so before Christ's death and in nearly every case (the Frisii, excepted) long before His birth as well..Very likely, the Frisii were joyfully celebrating their independence before Christ even began His Ministry.

History directly contradicts Mr. Jones' historical claim and the argument he derives from it.

Simply put, E. Michael Jones is wrong.. That is truth.
Our Lady of Sorrows
President Donald Trump now has a new goal: Operation Warp Speed. That’s a partnership with “pharmaceutical companies and the military” in a rush to create a coronavirus vaccine that will be mandatory. He’s stepping into Bill Gates’ shoes.
chuckbaldwinlive.com/…/Trump-Fast-Trac…
Lisi Sterndorfer
“God wished to produce His works in likeness to Himself, as far as possible, in order that they might be perfect, and that He might be known through them.” —St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae
Be Ye Separate
@eticacasanova It is revealing, how some people get triggered when light is shining on the evils that Jews inflict on humanity.
It's fine to them to reveal the evils of any other people, just not the Jews.
Instead of white privilege, it should be Jew privilege.
Ultraviolet
It is also revealing how warped some Catholics get if they believe hating another race is in ANY way supported by Christ's teachings. You can not follow God and also E. Michael Jones. Choosing one repudiates the other. Likewise, the Church repudiates E. Michael Jones, both in principle and in actual practice.
Scapular
40 days of prayer and penance!
www.youtube.com/watch
Jmy1975
EM Jones is an anti Semitic nut.