Interesting article, but I don't agree with some of its basic contentions.

http://www.culturewars.com/2016/JєωsMuslimsvsSSPX.htm

Billig’s casual citation of Jules Isaac cannot go unchecked. The one man who had the greatest influence on the Catholic prelature in the 20th century concerning the precise nature of “wild anti-semitic stereotypes,” and the very man whose thesis held that the h0Ɩ0cαųst was the product of an extreme bias in the New Testament against the Jєωs, was Jules Isaac. He was especially influential on John XXIII, Cardinal Montini (Paul VI), and Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II). It began with his 1946 book Jésus et Israël. In it, Isaac is the first Jєω in history to charge the Gospels as being anti-semitic; and he took this unprecedented leap for the express purpose of changing the Church’s attitude toward the Jєωs. It was an all or nothing gamble for Isaac. If he hit, he had to hit with a single knockout punch; otherwise he knew nothing would change. As such, Isaac insisted that the four Evangelists told deliberate falsehoods about the Jєωs because, as he claims, “they were preoccupied with reducing Roman responsibility to the minimum in order, correspondingly, to increase that of the Jєωs.”

Let’s pay close attention to what is happening here. As the devil accused God of lying to Eve, when, in fact, it was the devil who was lying about God, Isaac’s argument to the Catholic pontiffs is that the Gospel writers were lying when, in fact, Isaac was lying about them. Never in history had such a risky apologetic been implemented by a Jєω. For all Isaac knew, his new approach would have gotten him thrown out on his ear by pontiffs who we assume would never stoop so low as to accuse the four Evangelists of lying about the Jєωs, no matter how ecuмenical these same pontiffs wanted to be in the 20th century.

But, Isaac knew a thing or two about modern Catholic hermeneutics. He knew, following the Jєωιѕн philosopher Spinoza, who poisoned the biblical well for everyone from Julius Wellhausen to Fr. Raymond Brown, that they were all being schooled in liberal Catholic seminaries which taught, and still do today, that the Bible is full of historical errors and that the Gospel writers and/or their redactors, could, indeed, be guilty of “fixing the text” against the Jєωs. To see a quick example of this, we need go no further than Pope Benedict’s recent book, Jesus of Nazareth (Ignatius Press, 2011). In it he claims that the infamous wording of the Jєωs in Matthew 27:25: “let his blood be on us and our children,” never happened, for, as he says, “Matthew is certainly not recounting historical fact here” (see Vol. 2, p. 186). Hence, a pope of the Catholic Church has said what we trusted we would never hear from a reigning pontiff, even if unofficially.

No wonder Mr. Isaac took his gamble. He knew that Catholic tradition, which had previously understood Matthew to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and written with God’s own words and thus without error, had passed the baton to a wishy-washy modern Catholic Church that now believes Matthew was not so inspired and thus She now teaches that Matthew deliberately embellished, exaggerated, or fixed the text to coincide with some latent anti-semitic attitude he harbored. This total about-face from a traditional view to a modern view is made, despite the fact that Matthew was a Jєω and there are no Greek textual variants that testify to such a “fixing of the text.” This is how blind the modern Catholic Church has become, and it is a welcome feast to Jєωs looking to veto its docuмents and change its direction.

The article has a lot more to offer but this seems to be somewhat of a turning point in it.

Article said:

Quote

To initiate the détente, Pope Francis (led by some of his more conservative curia) recently offered the SSPX a “personal prelature” (the same as enjoyed now by such organizations as Opus Dei and the Legionaries of Christ). In this arrangement, the SSPX would not be under a bishop and would be answerable only to the Pope. It is assumed that in this arrangement the Pope would give the SSPX the freedom to believe and practice what it has always done, and that the SSPX would give respective allegiance to the reigning pontiff — including generous donations to Peter’s Pence, to be sure. If accepted, there will, of course, be sticky points that may not be ironed out for quite a while, but at least both parties are moving in the right direction — unification under “one faith, one Lord, and one baptism” (Eph 4:5).

I thought it was generally an excellent article, but I disagree with the part in bold in the part I have quoted.

Funny - I remember seeing that and thought I'd give him a pass to see what else he had to say.  Then later I forgot about it!  HAHAHA

Anyway, when I saw this:

Although the Church is certainly against “anti-semitism” (e.g., Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate: “…the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jєωs and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jєωs at any time and by anyone”), as is usually the case, the problem is not so much “anti-semitism,” per se, but how one defines the term.

Here we come back to the age-old fight between liberals and conservatives. The conservatives usually define “anti-semitism” as any irrational hatred of the Jєωs simply because they are Jєωιѕн. In other words, it stresses one’s internal attitude towards the Jєωs at large. Conversely, the liberals usually define anti-semitism as being any attempt to criticize the Jєωs, including their political, religious, geographical, and monetary exploits, and, more specifically, criticizing such things as Zionism and anti-supercessionism. As such, their definition is more political.

My reaction was immediate.  

I would say that REAL conservatives recognize anti-Semitism for what it is:  It is anything the Jєωs don't like.

Furthermore, an αnтι-ѕємιтє is someone whose views are upsetting to the Jєωs, because what αnтι-ѕємιтєs say are things the Jєωs don't like to hear said, and consequently, they attempt to make them stop saying them (which touches on First Amendment rights of free speech but there was never a civil right that a persistent Jєω felt obliged to honor, and if anything marks a Jєω apart from the crowd, it is persistence!).

That being said, perhaps Sungenis is merely saying what he HAS to say here in order to avoid the accusations that would obviously fly were he to be so forthright as what see.

I don't understand this topic's title.  I though Bishop Fellay had announced that he was already joining them--he's just waiting for the Vatican to make it official.