"...and the Talmud while you're at it."
You wrongly assume
1) ...that I haven't.
2.) that readding Jewis errors will make me adopt your errors. Your Fallacy Is. (pic related)
"You sound like a Christian Zionist."
...only anti-Semites and other mouth-breathing morons. I've stopped being surprised when your kind have that knee-jerk reaction.

"I write "Joo" because websites will delete and even ban you now for any criticism of the JEWS, that's how much power they have."
...that explains why you just wrote the term correctly, without any fear of them. ;-) Nothing like an anti-Semite getting caught in his own lies, eh? Oh, I'm gonna have whole lotta fun with you around here.
If you'd bothered to do even a cursory check using the "search" function, you wouldn't have been so terrified of the big bad all-powerful "joos". But you didn't, thus proving my assessment correct. I repeat: "You're a disgrace to The Church and an ueducated one at that."
"It has nothing to do with being anti-Semitic."
...that's what every Jew hater says, excepty your singular focus betrays the lie.
"And you just admitted the Talmudic Judaism of today blasphemes our Lord."
Wrong. I made no such distinction between "Talmudic Judaism" and "Judaism" in general. YOU did and falsely attributed it to me.
Not all Jews follow the Talmud, even today...
jweekly.com/…/israel-s-30-000-karaites-follow-bible-not-talmud/
As I said, you're uneducated along with being illiterate. That's usin' a couple big words to say you don't know what you're talking about and you ain't too good at readin' neither. :D
That said, there's nothing unique about Jewish blasphemy, as opposed to (say) Hindu blasphemy or even blasphemy from quasi-Christian groups like Mormons and Unitarians.
Blasphemy doesn't become "more" or "less" when a Muslim does it or Jew does it or anyone else does it. Except for your kind.
Blasphemy doesn't bother Jew-haters. "joos" bother Jew-haters. Your outrage over "blasphemy" is a false one and it gets turned on and off like a switch when you're trying to win converts.
"Any religion that blasphemes our Lord is bad, but they were specifically chosen by God, yet still rejected him and had him put to death,..."
...and once again, you're displaying a common logical fallacy among bigots: a Fallacy of Composition. A small group does not represent the whole. pic related.
You choose to blame "joos" as an entire group for the actions of a very small group of Jews in one place at one time.
Even at that exact point in time, there were "joos" all over Judea who weren't present and had never even met much less even heard of Jesus.
This fallacy isn't unique to you Jew-Haters. People who hate Catholics make the same fallacy you do to justify their own brand of bigotry.
They choose to malign all Catholic priests as pedophiles because of the actions of a tiny group.
They're stupid and wrong for the same reason you're stupid and wrong.
Your Fallacy -still- IS:

" to which they are still held accountable. This is basic Catholic teaching, at least prior to the Council."
My quote from Pope Piux XII predates "the council" (presumably Vatican II, since you're as sloppy in your cites as your mentor E. Michael Jones). You two better try re-writing Catholic history somewhere else, chum. I won't allow you to do so here. :-)
"The former undoubtedly was" are you now denying you said St. John was an anti-Semite?"
Now I see your problem... You're assuming there is only one "St. John" in Catholic theology. Wow, just wow... Dur hurr... St. John... :D
"If you have read the Talmud, you would know that the Judaism practiced today is younger than Christianity."
First: you assume reading a document is necessary for understanding its chronological place in history. Yes, you are that stupid.
Second: You assume I haven't read the Talmud simply because I disagree with the conclusions you derive from reading it (assuming you truly did and not just the parts E. Michael Jones spoon-fed you).
In a word, not everyone who reads the same document you did will reach the same fallacious conclusions you did. Yes you are that, that stupid.
Judaism is older than Christianity. It has evolved and expanded through history as Christianity itself has.
St. Paul wrote after Christ's death. Thus his teachings are "younger" than what Christ taught.
But that doesn't presuppose two separate forms of Christianity. Again, you're fabricating a false distinction in Judaism because you Jew-haters need to do so.
Third, proceeding from your second stupidity, your new fallacy is, pic related.

"And if you knew your Catholic faith, you'd know that the Judaism of our Lord was fulfilled on the Cross, and no longer exists."
Messianic Judaism isn't Catholicism. The Catholic Faith doesn't teach Judaism "no longer exists" (your words) after Christ's death and resurrection. That's false interpretation popular among you anti-Semites.
I understand the reasoning behind it perfectly.
It's the only way your kind can reconcile hating "joos" as a collective group (the way you bigots do today) except for Jews like Jesus, His Holy Family, His Apostles, His Disciples, His converts and then go back to hating all the other "joos" as a collective group (the way you normally do) in Jesus' time who supposedly all "still rejected him and had him put to death". -again your words
Happily the Catholic Church, the Catholic Faith, not to mention history itself doesn't reflect the asinine double-standards of you anti-Semites.

"His blood be upon us and our children." -Matthew 27:25
So every time Pope Francis speaks, he speaks for every Catholic alive today you included and every Catholic in the future.. Yes or no?
One small group of Jewish religious leaders 2000 years ago didn't speak for every Jew alive at the time, many of which knew nothing about Jesus. Nor do they speak for every Jew in history after them.
Does Father James Martin SJ speak for you as a Catholic, Steve-O? He is a Catholic Priest. How about Cardinal Marx? ;-) Bigots like you love mis-using Scripture so you can play "Pin The Blame On The Jew" but, like always, your double-stpandards betray you.
"Me thinks someone doth protest too much."
I'm not surprised you think that. You're an idiot who spends more time reading E. Michael Jones than you do the Gospels.
"People confident in their position, don't have to resort to such fury and vitriol..."
ORLY? ;-) "You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?" "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do."
.How fitting your premise just got contradicted by a Jew, one who lived 2000 years ago no less. :D.
"not to mention ad-hominem attacks."
Not to mention, that's the central premise of your entire reply. You're criticizing how I say something (fire and vitriol) instead of what I say, i.e. factually refuting the points I raised.
The lesson for you here is don't use debating terms you don't understand, Steve-O.
...because I'll make you eat them.. ;-)

Bro, every comment you make reeks of an extreme lack of charity.
...said the Jew-Hater. :D Motes and beams,"Bro", motes and beams.
Still, it's nice to see you finally noticed. Welcome to GTV, "Bro". :D
A lack of charity does not presuppose factual error or even correctness.
I can be uncharitable and still be correct. You, by contrast, are just as uncharitable when it comes to "joos" but "your" still wrong.
Raising the issue is irrelevant and in this context, a Red-Herring Fallacy. That little fish just turned around bit you, "Bro". :D
"Now your comparing yourself to Christ?"
Nope. I'm using Christ's teachings to show the error in your premise, namely vitriol supposedly implies a lack of confidence. It doesn't.
I don't have to compare myself to Christ to hold Christ up as an example. You've also forgotten Christ Himself said, "For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also."
That's John 13:15, "Bro" and it means...
1.) I can present Him as an example without making a comparison to myself ...
2.) I can use as much vitriol as I please in pointing out your errors because He did the same to His critics.
3.) Your half-witted attempt at pop psychology simply doesn't apply here.
You stink at logic as badly as you do theology, not to mention grammar. If nothing else, perhaps you'll finally learn the difference beween "your" and "you're".
If you're wondering why I keep pointing out "your" uneducated, it's because you insist on displaying it every chance you get, "Bro".. :D
I'm not comparing myself to you either, dummy. But I do enjoy poking fun at the mistakes "your" making.
"But I guess you'd rather say nothing and see the Jews perish, then call them out for rejecting their own Messiah and subverting the moral order."
This is a Catholic media portal, so "your" not evangelizing to "Joos" or trying to save them. "Joos" as either a race or a religion don't "subvert the moral order", either.
That claim is almost word for word straight out of The Gospel According to E. Michael Jones. "Your" showing just what a mindless little parrot you are, "Bro."
Don't try to sanctimoniously misrepresent what "your" doing here, bigot-boy. The last thing you Jew-haters ever want to do is help "joos".
All "your" doing here is trying to win converts to your own Jew-hating agenda and "your" not fooling nobody, "Bro". :D
Btw. "Your" forgettingw what yesterday, "Bro."
Why are you writing "Jews"? Yesterday you claimed you need to write "joos" because of "how much power they have" (your words, your claim) even though "your" on a Catholic-created and Catholic-run media portal.
I think there's a more likely reason: You were a liar yesteraday, and a stupid forgetful liar today.
Just admit it, you were poking fun at them, "Bro".
It's typical low-brow anti-Semitic humor. Durr hurr, let's call 'em "joos"... cuz dat's fuh-nee! :P
"Anyway, you can't have leaders without followers."
So according to that reasoning, "your" a follower of Pope Francis and agree with every asinine statement he makes.
When he speaks about Pachamama, "your" in full agreement. When he writes a glowing letter of praise to a pro-homosexual priest, "your" wishing you could sign the letter too.
He's the leader of The Church and, like you said, "you can't have leaders without followers"
Right, "Bro"? Gotcha! :D
In truth, all that quip demonstrates is "your" as ignorant of Catholic history as you are of basic political theory. Leadership does not require the agreement of those who are led.
The worst totalitarian leaders, including your own dear Uncle Adolph, led overwhelmingly by force alone.
I'm surprised "your" making a mistake like that, bigot-boy.
Maybe you should try reading that nice Time-Life 21 volume "The Third Reich" series on your bookshelf
Read it for once, instead of just looking at the pictures.
Tell me... Does "little Bro" stand up and salute when "your" gawking at the dead "Joos" for the umpteenth time ?
Rhetorical question... "Bro".You don't have to answer. . ;-)
"St. Paul was persecuted by the Jews everywhere he went in the Book of Acts."
That moment when an anti-Semite realizes St. Paul himself was a Jew. :P
Again, "your" choosing to conflate all Jews (i.e. "the Jews everywhere", your words verbatim) with only those Jews who really did persecute him.
Fallacy of Composition again, "Bro-ski".
...because anti-Semitism is built on such fallacies. Sound reasoning naturally repudiates the errors "your" making.
"It's the same story being played out throughout history."
The closest you'll ever come to history is what E. Michael Jones shoves in that empty little skull of yours or the echo-box you get with the other Jew-haters on Stormfront... you fatuous incompetent.
" -of course in your world they must all be anti-Semites."
Unsupported premise leading to a Non Sequitur Fallacy, bigot-boy. It's also a Strawman Argument, "Bro".
Do you have any other ignorance you'd like to display for my amusement? :D
Logical fallacies? Theological mistakes? Misreadings from Scripture? Grade-school grammatical errors?
If "your" still interested in giving me excuses to discredit you and expose you for the moron you are well...
"Keep 'em coming!" ;-)

"...your family must be so proud, if you haven't run them off or killed them yet." -said the bigot as he accuses others for being "the most vicous poster". Motes and beams, I told you that already. "Bro". ;-)

"True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today." --Declaration On The Reation Of The Church To Non-Christian Religions Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI, 28 Oct, 1965. You lose, "Bro" ;-)

Again, you're making the same mistake all over again, bigot-boy. Paul was writing about a very specific group of Jews who've been dead for 2000 years. It was those Jews "who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets and have persecuted us".
The Jews who persecuted Paul have been dust for two millenia now. The Catholic Church formally recognizes that even if Jew-haters who pretend they are Catholic refuse to.
"I think I will take the inerrant word of Scripture over a Vat II pope who..."
Scripture is inerrant. Your misinterpretation of it is not. Even better, that "Vat II pope" isn't contradicting Scripture at all. He's only contradicting you.
Oh man.. you walked right into that one! :D
Sloppy reasoning, "bro! " That's a defining characteristic of bigots everywhere, no matter which group you're bigoted against.
Or should I write "your" bigoted? You are, after all, such a scholar, aint'cha? . :D
"Bottom line, ALL must convert or perish even the Jews."
Their lack of conversion doesn't give you the right to help them "perish", bigot-boy.
Thats really the end-game of every anti-Semite no matter how much you choose to lie about it. Even here, even now, your focus betrays your true intent.
You might sneer at a "Vat II pope" but it was a war-time Pope, Piux XII, who denounced you Jew-haters and your murderous agenda decades before "Vat II' was even on the horizon.
Pope Piux XII saw first hand how you Jew-haters were applying "convert or perish" (your words) in Europe and it turned his proverbial stomach. Speaking as the head of the Catholic Church he told the whole sorry lot of you, collectively, that is not what Christians do.
"You do them no favors by defending their behavior."
I'm not defending their behavior,. I'm simply criticizng your behavior.. Jews aren't Catholics. Thus they are ipso facto, in error. So what's your excuse? :D
"but they don't have a right to subvert our Christian culture."
They don't. Leftists do and most leftists are not Jews. But you Jew-haters always choose to ignore that.
When a left-wing idiot in Ireland named McMillan subverts Christian culture, you Jew-haters are mute. McMillain ain't a Jew so you don't care about "our Christian culture" or how McMillan subverts it.
When a left-wing idiot named Weintraub or Goldfarb does the same thing, oh noes! Then you're outraged and only then. Not before and not after.
As I said, it isn't the act that bothers a hypocrite, it's who does it.
When it comes to subverting Christian culture, you Jew-haters are just the other side of the coin. Christ's teachings flatly contradict your bigotry which is why you Jew-haters can't quote Christ.
"Church teaching for centuries, bro!"
Wrong again, "bro." Now for the fun part. :D You see, I do know what you're referencing but... (uh oh). The Church doesn't teach what you teach and it never has. Not now, not then, not "for centuries, bro!"
Arrogance mixed with sloppy scholarship just got the better of you, Broski. Pride goeth before the fall, eh? ;-)
You should leave being arrogant to people like me, who at least have a genuine reason for our arrogance. We're consistenly right and we can back up our claims about "Church teaching" with properly cited, (invariably hotlinked as welll) direct quotes from The Church herself. Since we're awesome and monr
You sad-sacks can't do that.
If that is "Church teachings for centuries" As you just claimed...
Then you should be able to quote The Church where it wrote what you just claimed:
---
"No harm should come to them, but they don't have a right to subvert our Christian culture".
---
That is your quote, verbatim and this is your claim verbatim. "Church teaching for centuries, bro!"
You made the claim, now back it up, "Bro" :D
Quote The Church verbatim what you claimed is "Church teaching for centuries" verbatim.
Mind you, I'm only asking for one cite. By all rights, since you said "for centuries" I have every right to ask for at least two from two different centuries.
But I understand your intellectual limitations only too well. One direct quote will do.
You can't and you won't because "Church teaching for centuries" wasn't written by morons like you or bigots like you or failed academics like E. Michael Jones.
Your unsupported claim is worthless. Especially with your record for factual errors, "Bro". ;-)
Like I said, quoting you no less... "Keep 'em coming"
But first, you need to support your claim by directly quoting The Catholic Church -with- a citation.
Every time you reply from now on without doing so, I'm going to rub your stupid nose in it.. "Bro."
A "bro" can back up what he says, snivelling little Jew-haters can't.
Charity compels me to give you a fair warning on that, brosef. After all, you're already crying like prissy-sissy little school-girl how "vicious" I am.
If you don't have a direct cite from The Church for your claim of "Church teaching for centuries," then God help you.
The beating you're taking now is nothing, I'm just getting started on you., "Bro".
When you come up empty-handed, it's going to get a whole lot worse.. :D

You didn't supply a direct quote from "Church teaching" supporting what you claim it teaches. That makes it Bigot-Boy BS.
Of course I lack humility. I'm right and you're wrong and I'm consistently right and you're consistently wrong. See my last comment. . Don't act like a stinking little dog and walk away from your droppings. Be a man and admit you made the "Church teaching" up out of thin air.
As for charity? Jew-hating bigots forfeit the right to criticize anyone for a lack of charity.
"which leaves me to believe you're not even Catholic."
I'm sure it does lead you to believe that. That's a Non Sequitur Fallacy and you're a moron who makes it that fallacy constantly. All too easy.
Here's your mistake, bigot-boy. Everyone who is smarter than you and arrogant about being smarter than you isn't "Jewish" or a "convert" or a "Jewish convert". it literally (in Latin) "does not follow".
" Probably a butt-hurt Jewish convert to something or other"
If you're what a "Cradle Catholic" supposedly looks like, there's hope for every Jew and Muslim and idol-worshipping Hindu on the planet. :P
"there's no use in trying to reason with someone who interprets Scripture and Church teachings to their liking."
It's ironic that you define your own error so clearly while projecting it onto others.
I can reason, I do reason, I reason from The Church and from Scripture and you don't. You misquote it and misinterpret it just as you do with "Church teaching for centuries" ...which you still haven't quoted, "Bro."
" St. Paul's words are crystal clear"
...and so are the words of the Catholic Church interpreting what he said. The Catholic Church repudiates YOUR warped interpretation of St. Paul literally point by point..
"and so were St. John's"
...implying there's one St. John. You made that mistake before, dummy. You still haven't learned from it.
"and Jesus Christ himself."
You're not quoting "Christ himself" because Christ was a Jew and raised as a Jew. Christ was the most intelligent human who ever lived. He wasn't an uneducated Jew-hating bigot like you.
Speaking of "uneducated", we Catholics capitalize pronouns referring to Christ.. You should have written "and Jesus Christ Himself". ...and then you sneer at "Jewish converts".
Most converts tend to be extremely scrupulous over their acceptance of the True Faith. They chose to be Catholic while morons like you just fell into the Faith thanks to your parents.
"...not to mention the multitude of the saints going back to ancient times."
I'm impressed. You manageed to make three fallacies in one phrase.
Fallacious Appeal to Antiquity
(things aren't always right just because they're ancient),
Fallacious Appeal to Authority
(saints aren't always right about everything just because they are saints)
...Saint John Paul II wasn't an anti-Semite and that's a saint you bigots like to ignore.
Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence. "aka... 'cherry-picking' examples"
(most saints weren't anti-Semites like you. Quoting the very few who were and ignoring the rest, is a lie by exclusion)
You got any more fail you want to expose, Bigot-Boy?
Like you said, "Keep 'em coming!" :D But first, get me that quote/ citation from "Church teaching for centuries" --- bro. Can't forget the "bro", can we? ;-)

That quote isn't what you claimed the Church teaches "for centuries, bro." Seem you got caught in a lie, "bro". :D
Second If you're going to quote 2 Corinthians 3:13-16, you should include a proper citation. As I said, you're uneducated and it shows. Sloppy scholarship, "bro". E. Michael Jones is just as sloppy quoting Scripture. You've had poor teachers. ;-)
Third, You can't read Latin so quoting Scripture in Latin just brands you a pretentious joke of a "scholar". You're trying to display an education you don't possess. Worse, you're trying a Latin-scam on the wrong person.
I've beaten Latin-speakers on points of Latin grammar relating to Church Law. You can't even properly capitalize "Christ himself" in English, you silly little fool. Don't make it worse dragging in Latin. .
Fourth, praying for people who are in error is praise-worthy but it doesn't give you the right to despise them and obsessively them blame for all of the world's problems or to mislead others to follow you or to kill them the way your Jew-haters always do when you can.
Again, "St. Paul's words are crystal clear," but your perverted misapplication of them is rooted in the filthy muck of your own lack of education, and your own stubborn bigotry.
I can't fix stupid and I can't fix stubborn.and I'm not trying to. I'm just making sure everyone reading recognizes that's what you are.... "bro."