Author Topic: Is the SSPX anti-Semitic? (Read 5779 times)

Mark 79 · « **on:** December 08, 2024, 10:58:25 AM »

Is the SSPX Anti-Semitic?
by Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D.

This article was published in the July/August 2009 issue of Culture Wars magazine. Order

Today, allegations of anti-semitism are commonplace. Unfortunately, those who most often make the allegations fail to define what they mean by the term. Perhaps they do so unintentionally, believing that the public already has a common understanding. But it could also be a deliberate attempt at demagoguery; a scheme to win the war of words and labels before any shots are fired. I don’t know into which of these two categories Jєωιѕн convert Roy Schoeman fits because I don’t know his heart. Nevertheless, his bold and unqualified accusation of anti-semitism against the Society of St. Pius X brings the question of his own views and motives to the fore.
On his website, Mr. Schoeman has weighed in on L’affaire Williamson. But whereas neither the Vatican nor Bishop Fellay has accused Williamson of anti-Semitism for questioning the extent of Jєωιѕн deaths in WWII, Schoeman not only alleges that Williamson is guilty of this crime, he accuses the entire SSPX of being, as he puts it, “virulently anti-Semitic.” Schoeman confirmed his sentiment in a recent EWTN interview where he adds that the SSPX is “violently anti-Semitic” and that its teaching on the Jews “pretends to be Catholic theology, but is really very distasteful.”
On the website, Schoeman cites three articles written by SSPX authors in an attempt to prove his point: 1) The Mystery of the Jєωιѕн People in History, 2) The Jews Guilty of Deicide, and 3) What Really is Anti-semitism? He introduces these articles with this accusation:

the head of the Society of St. Pius X (or “SSPX)…emphasizing that the Society can only speak authoritatively on matters of ‘faith and morals.’ However, most distressingly, it is precisely in those matters of ‘faith and morals’ in which the Society professes to be authoritative that the Society presents some of its most virulently anti-Semitic teachings. The following articles from its website purport to represent authentic Catholic teaching on the Jєωιѕн people.

I’ve read the three articles. I can honestly say that I don’t find anything “anti-Semitic.” In fact, there is only one matter that I believe the SSPX treated incorrectly. It is in the article The Jews Guilty of Deicide.[1] So, the logical question is: Why does Roy Schoeman see anti-semitism in places where others do not? Obviously, it is because different definitions are being employed. But in Mr. Schoeman’s case I’m being rather gratuitous since he has never provided his readers with a working definition, for neither his website nor his two books contain one. Conversely, the SSPX has been very forthright. In the article, “What really is Anti-Semitism?” Rev. Denis Fahey is careful to cite various Catholic magisterial teachings that show the true meaning of anti-Semitism. As we have always known, the definition of anti-Semitism is not criticism of Jєωιѕн beliefs and actions, but hatred of the Jєωιѕн race regardless of what they believe or do. Here is an excerpt:

In the excellent review of my book The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism which appeared in the Jesuit magazine, La Civilta Cattolicá (Rome, March 1947), the reviewer laid special stress on the distinction which I have been making in all books. He wrote as follows:
“The author wants a clear distinction to be made between hatred of the Jєωιѕн nation, which is Anti-Semitism, and opposition to the Jєωιѕн and Masonic naturalism. This opposition on the part of Catholics must be mainly positive by acknowledging, not only individually, but socially, the rights of the supernatural Kingship of Christ and His Church.…
Space does not allow of lengthy quotations from papal docuмents to show that, on the one hand, the sovereign pontiffs insist that Catholics must stand unflinchingly for the integral rights of Christ the King as contained in the papal encyclicals, while, on the other hand, keeping their minds and hearts free from hatred of Our Lord’s own nation according to the flesh. On the other hand, they must battle for the rights of Christ the King and the supernatural organization of society as laid down in the encyclical Quas Primas, unequivocally proclaiming that the rejection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the True Messias, by His own nation, and the unyielding opposition of that nation to Him, are a fundamental source of disorder and conflict in the world. On the other hand, as members of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Catholics should neither hate the members of that nation in which, through our Blessed Mother, the Lily of Israel, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed human nature, nor deny them their legitimate rights as persons….
Two reasons can be assigned for the fact that Our Lord’s faithful members will often be betrayed by those who should be on the side of Christ the King. Firstly, many Catholic writers speak of papal condemnations of Anti-Semitism without explaining the meaning of the term and never even allude to the docuмents which insist on the rights of Our Divine Lord, Head of the Mystical Body, Priest and King. Thus, very many are completely ignorant of the duty incuмbent on all Catholics of standing positively for Our Lord’s reign in society in opposition to the Jєωιѕн naturalism. The result is that numbers of Catholics are so ignorant of Catholic doctrine that they hurl the accusation of Anti-Semitism against those who are battling for the rights of Christ the King thus effectively aiding the enemies of Our Divine Lord.
Secondly, many Catholic writers copy unquestioningly what they read in the naturalistic or anti-supernatural Press and do not distinguish between Anti-Semitism in the correct Catholic sense as explained above, and “Anti-Semitism,” as the Jews understand it. For the Jews, “Anti-Semitism” is anything that is in opposition to the naturalistic Messanic domination of their nation over all the others. Quite logically, the leaders of the Jєωιѕн nation hold that to stand for the Rights of Christ the King is to be “Anti-Semitic.” The term “Anti-Semitism,” with all its war-connotation in the minds of the unthinking, is being extended to include any form of opposition to the Jєωιѕн nation’s naturalistic aims and any exposure of the methods they adopt to achieve these aims.

So what does Mr. Schoeman find so objectionable in these words? We don’t find anything close, for example, to what Martin Luther once wrote: “Burn down their ѕуηαgσgυєs, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish (Luther’s Works, Vol. 47, “The Christian in Society IV”). In direct contrast to Luther, in The Mystery of the Jєωιѕн People in History, the SSPX concludes: “Under pain of sin, Catholics cannot hate the Jєωιѕн people, cannot persecute them or prevent them to live, nor disturb them in their private practice of their laws and customs.” In the same article the SSPX says it stands by the Decree of the Holy Office of March 25, 1928, which “condemns hatred against the people formerly chosen by God, that hatred that ordinarily goes by the name of Antisemitism.” Prior to that, the article cites and endorses the Apostolic Constitution, Licet Perfidia Judaeorum, of Pope Innocent III in 1199 AD, which solemnly stated:
They [the Jews] are the living witnesses of the true Faith. The Christian must not exterminate or oppress them…We must not molest them in the exercise of the privileges accorded them…As they seek our help, we accept and take them under our protection; and following our predecessors Callixtus, Eugenius, Alexander, Clement and Celestine, we forbid the forcing of baptism on a Jew, also harming them in any way or taking their goods, etc., or violating their cemeteries and digging up corpses to find money. The punishment for disobedience to these dispositions is excommunication.

Schoeman obviously read the three SSPX articles, but even though they all decry anti-Semitism, he apparently doesn’t accept the claims, preferring to believe that either the SSPX is trying to deceive the public or that it doesn’t understand its own psyche. All in all, Schoeman holds that both the historical Catholic Church and the SSPX have too narrow a view of anti-Semitism. As such, Schoeman’s trigger goes off when the SSPX articles begin to touch upon the negative side of Jєωιѕн history. He cringes when the SSPX points out the Catholic Church’s consistent warnings against Jєωιѕн power and influence, since these warnings invariably cast a dark shadow upon the Jews at large. He equally recoils when Fr. Fahey sums up the Church’s warnings by concluding that the Jews have designs to dominate the world. In one place Fahey says: “the rejection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the True Messias, by His own nation, and the unyielding opposition of that nation to Him, are a fundamental source of disorder and conflict in the world,” and in another, “For the Jews, ‘Anti-Semitism’ is anything that is in opposition to the naturalistic Messianic domination of their nation over all the others.” Schoeman balks at the suggestion that the Jews are to blame for the world’s troubles. Simply put, if the world believes the Jews are the cause of the trouble, the world will react by turning against the Jews (as they have done in the past); and since the Jews are outnumbered by 500 to 1, it doesn’t bode well for them. This is a legitimate fear, and Schoeman more or less admitted it in his EWTN interview. In answer to a query of why Bishop Williamson questions the h0Ɩ0cαųst, Schoeman responds: “I think it’s part of an overall kind of a volatile Jєωιѕн conspiracy world view….If the h0Ɩ0cαųst were a hoax…that would mean that this Jєωιѕн conspiracy ran the world, and ran the world’s government and ran the world’s press, and was able to pull off this huge hoax that eluded the rest of the world.”
Obviously, descriptions that portray the Jew as a power-hungry, money-grubbing, goy-controlling, Christ-rejecting misanthropist are certainly “distasteful.” This is the image that Schoeman probably sees in the SSPX article, The Mystery of the Jєωιѕн People in History, for the authors emphasize that, “The Sacred Scriptures record that the Israelite people had always a nature dominated by great pride and avarice.” Of Jesus’ tirade in Matthew 23, the same authors add: “No one in all the course of history has pronounced more terrible anathemas than those of the Son of God against the perfidious carnality of His own people.” Elsewhere they say: “The Jєωιѕн people, once a mystery of goodness, is now changed into a mystery of iniquity. It is no longer Isaac, but Ishmael. No longer Jacob, but Esau.” Or: “Judaism is inimical to all nations in general, and in a special manner to Christian nations.” Or: “All that is not of Christ and for Christ is done in favor of Judaism. It follows from that, that the de-Christianizing of the world runs parallel to its Judaizing.” Or: “In the domain of the material, it is the Jєωιѕн people who have the superiority. History tells us [Werner Sombart, Les juifs et la vie économique, Paris, 1923] that the renowned greatness of English and American Capitalism is only a Judaic creation.” Or:

The Jews not only monopolized money-changing; the real source of their wealth was usury…they gradually became the bankers and financiers for all classes…Jansen cites that in 1338, Emperor Louis Bavaria allowed the Jews to charge interest rates as high as 32.5%...Germany: 43% for foreigners in the city. At Ratisbon…as high as 86%.

The authors conclude with these points:

…this people refuses to assimilate itself into the country that gives it hospitality, and lives by тαℓмυdic laws contrary to the common good. The policy of the Catholic Church is to extend liberty to the Jєωιѕн people to develop and live within its legitimate laws while guarding Catholics, however, against its domination….If Christians wish to remain free, let them avoid entanglements with the Jєωιѕн people. It dominates in every branch of commerce and finance, in philosophy and the universities….Christendom under holy kings and pope knew how to guard against these dangers….To penetrate Christendom, the masses must be captivated and rebellion fomented against its two pillars – Pope and King.

And again:

The gifted Jєωιѕн bankers have created a controlled economy whose ultimate end is the multiplication of money….International Judaism has created international capitalism to gain international wealth….Jews get into posts of influence and submit society to a high degree of corruption in ways of thinking and acting, which leads to a reaction of public opinion against them.

The foregoing descriptions are hardly flattering, but what are we to do? Aside from any exaggerated caricatures of the Jew that should immediately be dismissed from our minds, are we to pretend that the Jews, whether on a local or global scale, have never said or done anything against Christ or Christianity for the last 2000 years? Are we to pretend that Jews have never tried to dominate the world and defeat Christianity by accuмulating money and political power to promote their anti-Christian and humanistic worldview? This is the essence of the three SSPX articles. But instead of acknowledging these facts, Schoeman ignores them and puts the blame on the SSPX for bringing them to our attention. The truth is, even the Jews themselves recognize that they strive for and have attained these positions of global power and influence, for the SSPX article also quotes the Jєωιѕн newspaper, Jєωιѕн World, boasting the following:

The great ideal of Judaism is that the whole world should be imbued with Jєωιѕн teaching, and that in a universal fraternity of nations – an enlarged Judaism – all separate races and religious should disappear….By their activity in literature and science, by expressing their dominant passion in every branch of public activity, they are gradually pouring into Jєωιѕн molds all non-Jєωιѕн systems of ideas” (February 9, 1863).

How much clearer could it be? If Mr. Schoeman wants us to believe that there is nothing to fear from these self-professed Jєωιѕн aspirations to global domination, he must work a little harder than merely labeling the messengers as “anti-Semitic.” Schoeman must deal with the evidence the SSPX brings to the table, but from my experience with Schoeman (who has never answered even one of the numerous e-mails I’ve sent to him or taken up any of the public challenges I have given him), he simply will not discuss these issues or the issues E. Michael Jones raises in The Jєωιѕн Revolutionary Spirit. Apparently, it’s more effective to deal with critics by labeling them with derogatory names and never answering their challenges. His stance is especially disheartening when we see that Jєωιѕн antagonism against Christ and Christianity, except for very brief interludes, has not appreciably changed since the first century. How could it when we see the head of the Anti-Defamation League, Abe Foxman, flying to Rome to put pressure on the pope to change Catholic prayers that call for the conversion of the Jews, since he, as the self-appointed spokesman for Judaism, deems such prayers “anti-Semitic”? Does Roy Schoeman ever condemn such acts on his website or in his books? No, in all he has written over the years there is not one word of criticism against anyone Jєωιѕн. We do, however, find such things as “The Arab/nαzι Connection” or “The ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity/nαzι Connection” displayed on the homepage of Schoeman’s website, but nothing, for example, about the Israeli army’s continual h0Ɩ0cαųst against the Palestinians since 1948, and nothing about how Hollywood (which, by the Jews’ own admission, is run by them) promotes ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in television and movies, along with giving us a steady diet of abortion, divorce, adultery, drugs, and every other form of debauchery. If the SSPX were to put a link on their website titled, “The ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity/Jєωιѕн Connection” or “The Jєωιѕн/Abortion Connection” you can depend upon it that Mark Shea or Sandra Miesel would be writing a scathing article accusing the SSPX of seeing “Reds under the bed” or some other wild conspiracy theory designed to discredit them.
The fact remains, the SSPX has hit a nerve, and Roy Schoeman is trying to deal with it by telling us that we can’t believe what our own eyes are showing us. Not only does Schoeman dismiss the SSPX as anti-Semitic, he also encourages us to dismiss the consistent and numerous edicts from our popes and councils throughout history warning against Jєωιѕн designs to undermine the Catholic Church. The SSPX authors inform us that “There are at least 15 papal docuмents warning the Catholic Church against the dangers presented by the Jєωιѕн people.” Just as St. Paul did in the first century when he concluded in 1 Thess 2:14-16: “the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us; they do not please God, and are opposed to everyone, trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, thus constantly filling up the measure of their sins. But the wrath of God has finally begun to come upon them,” so, in almost in every century thereafter our popes have had to issue dire warnings to the Catholic faithful concerning the Jews. In fact, what we find in Scripture is much harsher than what either the popes or SSPX has said. The inspired authors tell us that the Jews murdered the prophets (Mt 23:35-38); they sinned horrendously (Acts 7:51); they refused their own Messiah (Acts 13:46; John 10:33); they instigated His murder (Jn 19:6-7; Ac 3:17); they are compared with the devil (Jn 8:44); they are called liars and hypocrites (Mt 23:13-32); they incite riots (Acts 13-14); they constantly harass Christians (Gal. 2-3; Col. 2); they are “the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan” (Ap 2:9; 3:9). The Bible is filled with these types of negative descriptions because the Jews made a constant and direct assault on Christianity. In fact, about 75 percent of the New Testament concerns Jєωιѕн antagonism against Christ and the Church. Because of that high percentage, one might wonder why the inspired authors paid so much attention to the Jews. One reason is that they are not merely recording historical facts for us, but in the same way that the Old Testament forecasts the future for the New (cf. 1Cor 10:6, 11; Rom 15:14), so the New Testament forecasts what we can expect for the remainder of the Church age—an intense spiritual war between the Jews and Christianity—the precise war that is being fought today.
Accordingly, Scripture’s characterization of the Jews has not gone unnoticed by many Jєωιѕн rabbis and theologians. How many times have we heard Abe Foxman, Rabbi Rosen and many other Jєωιѕн rabbis complain that the New Testament is anti-Semitic? Rabbi Michael Signer, a professor emeritus at Notre Dame University, made quite a name for himself teaching that the Gospel of John is anti-semitic, consequently destroying the faith of many of the Catholic college students who took his courses (see Culture Wars, May 2006). What definition of anti-semitism do you think they are all using? We don’t know for sure because, like Roy Schoeman, they never tell us, but we can surmise that the definition secretly holds that anything said or written which puts the Jews in a bad light is anti-Semitic, regardless whether the allegations are true or not.
So we seem to have a dilemma here. If we are not careful about our definition of anti-Semitism, we will end up calling the Catholic Church and the very word of God anti-Semitic. This is precisely the conclusion which Abe Foxman wishes to plant in your mind. Either that or, thanks to the undermining of Scripture fostered by liberal Catholic scholars who appeal to “historical criticism,” other Jews claim that the New Testament’s anti-Semitism did not originate with the four Evangelists and St. Paul but from second- or third-generation Christians who deliberately added anti-Semitic remarks to the Bible! Take your pick. Either way, the Church and the New Testament are made guilty of anti-Semitism.
In the end, if this war of words and labels is ever to subside and give place to genuine care and concern for each other’s welfare, it is imperative that all interested parties establish the proper definitions before any intellectual discourse takes place, the barriers of which no one should be allowed to cross. We need to come to a happy medium that, on the one hand, will not make Catholics fearful of pointing out worldwide Jєωιѕн opposition to Christianity, and, on the other hand, satisfy the Roy Schoemans of the world that neither Catholic doctrine nor Catholic people want to promote “anti-Semitism.” Of course, this is a very difficult task. How can we defend Christianity against Jews who so vociferously reject it without being cast, in some sense, as anti-Jєωιѕн? Is it possible to distinguish between Jєωιѕн ideological opposition to Christianity and Jєωιѕн political, financial and social power that is used to foster that opposition? I think this is the quintessential nature of “the Jєωιѕн problem” for the Catholic Church, and that it will never go away. Some have chosen to deal with it by appeasement; others by reproach; others by indifference. We can only hope that all sides will not go to the extreme in their respective approaches, but that each finds and maintains a happy medium of coexistence, as St. Augustine would have us, between the City of God and the City of Man.

LET’S PUT THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT

In order to reach a happy medium of coexistence, however, I think we need to level the playing field a bit. As such, it would be highly beneficial for Mr. Schoeman to put the shoe on the other foot so that he can feel what it is like to be accused of something of which he would surely object. Since Mr. Schoeman has been rather loose with his definition of anti-Semitism and thereby demonized the SSPX while insulating Jews against their critics, let’s turn the tables on Mr. Schoeman and make an allegation against him without defining the label we use. In Mr. Schoeman’s case, such an allegation is not too difficult to propose. Since Mr. Schoeman accuses the SSPX of being “anti-Semitic,” we could just as easily accuse Mr. Schoeman of being “anti-Catholic.” This is not because Mr. Schoeman does not desire to be a good Catholic (just as the SSPX does not wish to foster hatred of the Jєωιѕн people), but simply because, based on his books, articles, and speeches, Roy Schoeman has taught some of the most egregious errors about the Catholic faith that have ever been held by a Jєωιѕн convert.
Moreover, Schoeman has not even acknowledged these errors when they were brought to his attention, much less sought to rectify them. I know the charges I make here are serious, but I don’t make them lightly. In fact, I have about as good a witness to these charges as I can find. That witness is a well-qualified Catholic scholar who recently served as a consultant to the Association of Hebrew Catholics (AHC), at least until he resigned over what he concluded, in his own words, was “heresy” being taught by that organization. I speak of none other than Dr. Raymond A. Kevane, the brother of the late Monsignor Eugene Kevane, the latter of which was the founder of AHC.

KEVANE

Ray Kevane is no ordinary man. He has a Licentiate in Sacred Theology from the Gregorian University and a Doctorate in Canon Law from the Lateran University, both in Rome. To put it bluntly, Dr. Kevane has rubbed shoulders with the best and the brightest. He knows his Catholic theology, and he also knows when it is being misrepresented. Recently Ray wrote me a letter stating his grave concerns about the teachings of David Moss and Roy Schoeman. He also gave me a copy of an open letter he wrote to Mr. Moss in 2005 and another letter in 2006, both of which Moss has not answered, except for one short stop-gap letter stating that he would eventually respond. In his letters, Dr. Kevane was very kind to Moss, but he minced no words, even though he was pre-warned by another Jєωιѕн convert, Ronda Chervin, that he “should be very careful…not to offend egos.” At one place he wrote:

The purpose…of this letter is to explain further the depth of my concern about him [David Moss] and the Hebrew converts who follow him and Mr. Schoeman. As a theologian and a Canon Lawyer, I feel obliged to say very clearly: He and they are promoting Heresy – and I’m not talking about ‘judaizing,’ a word that I believe causes major irritation to Mr. Schoeman, if not to David Moss….With this letter, I submit my resignation as a consultant to the Association of Hebrew Catholics because I am convinced that the organization and its president have entered into a path which will lead to heresy. Of course, you can recant. If you do so, then I will reconsider…

Later I will quote more from Ray’s letter, but for now I want to point out the things about Roy Schoeman’s teachings that have upset Kevane. First, as for my own qualifications to make this critique of Schoeman, Dr. Kevane said of me in his letter: “I’ve been impressed with the validity of your Theology since I first read one of your writings, and there are very few ‘theologians’ I feel that way about.” With that endorsement, allow me to proceed.
In 2007, I wrote an article titled: “Problems in the Theology and Eschatology of Roy Schoeman.” I was vilified by Schoeman’s supporters with the usual epithets of “anti-Semitism” and many other derogatory names, but few, if any, could mount any sustainable objections to my points. (Some of these same points are reiterated by Dr. Kevane in his letters to David Moss). Among them are the following:

1. Schoeman claims that the Jews are “blessed by nature” (Salvation is of the Jews, p. 42). This is racial favoritism, and it is condemned in the New Testament (cf. Col 2:11-16; Eph 2:11-16; Ac 10:34-35; Gal 3:28; 5:1-4; 6:12-16; Rm 2:9-10; 2Co 3:6-14), and also condemned in Catholic magisterial teaching. Schoeman’s promotion of the Jєωιѕн race is even more disturbing when he adds that faith itself is not a criterion for divine blessing, for on the same page he says: “…a blessing by nature promised to…the Jєωιѕн race, despite their lack of faith in Christ.” Everything in Scripture and Church teaching says just the opposite (cf. Rm 4:1-24; 9:24-32; 10:16-21; Ac 7:1-53; 13:45-48). Dr. Kevane adds that in one of his conversations with David Moss, Moss was quoting Roy Schoeman as saying “‘Jews are an elect people. It is diminished when they become Christian, and that is the reason why Jews don’t convert.’ If you are quoting him accurately, this is an astonishing statement….Mr. Schoeman must believe as a Catholic that when a Jew or anyone converts to Catholicism, he or she becomes part of the People of Election in the New Covenant.”

2. Schoeman claims that Ishmael was the “illegitimate son” of Abraham (which is false), and concludes from this that present-day Arabs, because they come from Ishmael’s bastard seed, are “doing a good job” of fulfilling the description of people who “have their hand against every man,” and this is “borne out of the fact that in most of the violent conflicts throughout the world…one side is fighting in the name of Islam…as the sons of Ishmael” (Salvation is of the Jews, pp. 301-302). This is another statement of Jєωιѕн racism, since Mr. Schoeman caricatures a whole people as evil, and regards them as the world’s troublemakers based on nothing more than their ancestral origins. Is this not the very thing to which Schoeman objected in his EWTN interview when he said that critics of Jews have “an overall kind of a volatile Jєωιѕн conspiracy world view….that this Jєωιѕн conspiracy ran the world, and ran the world’s government and ran the world’s press”?

3. Schoeman claims that Jєωιѕн converts have been endowed with a special “Jєωιѕн charism” from God such that they are analogous to “yeast” that makes bread rise (Salvation is of the Jews, p. 71). This is akin to saying that the Jews are favored above Gentile converts and that the Church cannot be very successful without the Jews. But there is no teaching in the New Testament or the magisterium that says Jews have a special charism from God just because they are Jews. As Dr. Kevane stated in his letters: “Contrary to what Dave Moss seems to believe, Judaism is not the root onto which the Catholic Church is grafted, but Jesus Christ is the root, and Israel is a branch which was broken off (Rom 11:17, 19)….”You created new doctrine, for example, putting an interpretation on Catholic Baptism…e.g. through baptism, Gentiles are ‘grafted on to the root which is Israel’ ….Nostra Aetate says nothing of the kind.”

4. Schoeman claims that Jєωιѕн converts should be allowed to resurrect Jєωιѕн festivals, such as the seder meal, and other unspecified Jєωιѕн identity markers. (NB: At one time, David Moss considered bringing back the practice of circuмcision). This has been expressly forbidden by the Church. According to the Council of Florence, anyone who does so imperils his own salvation (e.g., Council of Florence, Denz. ¶712); and Thomas Aquinas says that those who do so commit mortal sin (Summa Theologica, I, II, Q. 103, Art. 4). Dr. Kevane told the same thing to David Moss: “In almost every century there has been an effort to bring the rites of the Jєωιѕн religion into the Catholic Church. Every time it has arisen, it has caused great harm to the Catholic Church before finally being discredited….I have been warned that in arguing against intermingling Jєωιѕн rites with Catholic liturgies (I believe some call it ‘judaizing’), I will be accused of being anti-Semitic and racist.”

5. Schoeman claims that we can look “to the тαℓмυd to examine some of what it has to say about the Messiah” (Salvation is of the Jews, p. 111). But the sad fact is, the “Messiah” of the тαℓмυd is not Jesus Christ, for the тαℓмυd did not believe Jesus was either God or the Messiah. In fact, the тαℓмυd claims Jesus was a false prophet, the bastard child of Mary (who it calls a “whore”), and that Jesus is in hell presently being boiled in human excrement. Let’s make this perfectly clear: The тαℓмυd is looking for another messiah, one who is not Jesus Christ. But instead of pointing out these anti-Christian tenets of the тαℓмυd, Schoeman exonerates the тαℓмυd and spends his time highlighting the immoralities and anti-Christian beliefs in the Koran (Salvation is of the Jews, pp. 299ff).

6. Schoeman says the Fathers of the Church and Catholic tradition perpetuated an error “for two thousand years” by interpreting the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the “restoration of Israel” as referring to the Catholic Church and not a future nation-state of Israel (Salvation is of the Jews, pp. 303-312, 352-353). But as Dr. Kevane notes in his open letter: “No Catholic can say that the Church has held an erroneous theology for 2000 years and still remain a Catholic.” Vatican II itself affirms that the Church is the “new Israel” (Ad Gentes 1, 5; Lumen Gentium 2, 9). Schoeman’s view is closer to the Protestant Dispensationalists who, like Schoeman, continue to view the Jews as a special race of people above other races, and who will subsequently be blessed far above other races, simply because they are Jews.

7. Not only does Schoeman claim that Old Testament prophecy predicts a “new Jєωιѕн state,” he says it “shall be extremely prosperous” and that the modern-day Israeli army is a God-favored entity such that God will see to it that “Israel will be miraculously militarily strong and able to defend itself” (Salvation is of the Jews, pp. 309-310). Neither the New Testament nor the Catholic Church teaches this type of divinely-blessed military prowess. It appears to be nothing more than political Zionism dressed in religious garb, and it has an uncanny resemblance to the Jews of the first century who wanted the Messiah to be a military leader to destroy the Romans. God is not behind the Israeli army any more than he is behind any other army. This was the same mistake that Menachem Begin, David Ben Gurion and Ariel Sharon made in 1948 when, under the guise that they were the new “Joshuas and Calebs” who were under divine mandate to “slaughter the Amelekites” (these exact words are in their speeches), they began slaughtering the Palestinians, since Israel was said to be divinely destined to retake the land of Canaan.

8. Schoeman claims that the “fullness of the Gentiles” (Rm 11:25) occurred in 1967, and the sign of its fulfillment was what he deems as the God-blessed six-day surge of the Israeli army against its Arab neighbors in which “Jerusalem…was recaptured by the modern state of Israel in the 1967 war” (p. 306). This is also Jєωιѕн racism, as well as a totally distorted and unprecedented interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

9. Schoeman claims that from 1967 onwards there have been tremendous numbers of Jєωιѕн conversions due to the fact that the “time of the Gentiles” is now complete and God is now dealing directly with the Jews (Salvation is of the Jews, pp. 350-351), despite the fact that, out of 6 million Jews in Israel today, only about 6,000 of them are Christians, which numbers are less, proportionately, than the remnant of 7,000 in the time of Elijah when Israel’s population was about the same as it is today (see Rom 11:5-8). In fact, the amount of Jєωιѕн Christians in Israel is about 30 times less than Palestinian Christians. All in all, the figures of Jєωιѕн conversions that Schoeman gives in his book are highly exaggerated. (Details are available upon request). Interestingly enough, Dr. Kevane notes that Moss and Schoeman also teach that the “Jews are not converting because the Father is not now drawing them to Christ – with individual exceptions – as Jesus Himself said (John 6:44: No man can come unless the Father who sent me draws him). Does Mr. Schoeman have a problem with that statement as did some of the Jews who heard Christ say it and who walked no more with him?”

10. Schoeman claims that those who try to “destroy the nascent State of Israel, well might be part of a diabolical attempt to prevent the Second Coming” (p. 316), thus promoting the idea that the existence and thriving of the nation state of Israel is absolutely necessary for Christ to return. This is a total distortion of Catholic teaching and a total misunderstanding of Scripture. Neither source states that the existence of an Israeli nation state is necessary for Christ to return. This is just another indication that Schoeman sees the Jєωιѕн race as the fulcrum upon which the rest of the world turns. As Dr. Kevane notes in his open letter: “To his credit, David Moss is quoted on the back of Schoeman’s book as follows: ‘Schoeman weaves together fascinating speculations on the ongoing role of the Jews in the light of…the Second Coming.’ ‘Speculations,’ of course, is the correct word, because many of his statements are not grounded in Scripture (except a twisted interpretation of it), and they ignore or falsify the doctrines of the Catholic Church as presented by the Popes and Ecuмenical Councils….Jesus Christ is the central figure in the salvific plan and acts of God, not the Jews – not even at the Second Coming – which, regardless of what the Jews do, will come at whatever time God has ordained. The idea that the Second Coming cannot occur unless the Jews accept Christ as the Messiah is an idea which has been pulled out of thin air without any support from Scripture, from Papal pronouncements, or from the Magisterium.”

11. Schoeman claims that the “one day” mentioned in Isaiah 66:8 is prophesying the establishment of the nation state of Israel on precisely one day, namely, May 14, 1948 (Salvation is of the Jews, p. 307). This view not only circuмvents the patristic consensus which regards prophecies of “restoring Israel” as referring symbolically to the Catholic Church (e.g., Acts 15:16-18, Ad Gentes 1, 5; Lumen Gentium 2, 9), but also ignores the fact that modern Jєωιѕн leaders and the United Nations formed the nation of Israel with absolutely no allegiance to Jesus Christ who is the centerpiece of Isaiah 66’s prophecy! This is further evidence of Schoeman’s erroneous belief that the Jews are “blessed by nature,” a blessing, as we noted above, that he says “would remain with the Jєωιѕн race, despite their lack of faith” (p. 42).

12. Schoeman claims in his public lectures and newsletter that the Blessed Virgin Mary “talked” to him and “answered his questions.” This alleged supernatural occurrence should have been immediately brought to his bishop to investigate its authenticity before it was ever broadcast by Schoeman as a true event worthy of praise and a cult following. As far as I know, no such investigation has been made, yet Schoeman consistently uses the alleged apparition to bolster his novel theological and apocalyptic interpretations of Scripture that we see above. As Dr. Kevane notes: “In view of Schoeman’s many ‘speculations’ which are presented as ‘fact,’ and his creation of certain ‘Catholic dogmas,’ these visitations by the Blessed Virgin must be viewed with a good deal of skepticism. In view of what happened at Medjugorje, which was finally identified as fraud, all so-called ‘supernatural occurrences’ must be carefully investigated by the Church before they are given any credibility.”

There is more. In his EWTN interview, Schoeman makes strange claims about his Jєωιѕн heritage, as well as proposing an unprecedented connection between Judaism and Christianity, both of which are very disturbing. He states:

First, I’m a “Jєωιѕн” convert…and see the Catholic Church is nothing but post-messianic Judaism. Obviously, if Jesus was the Jєωιѕн messiah, then the Catholic Church is the continuation of Judaism after the Jєωιѕн messiah came….I see myself as nothing but a Jew who has come into the fullness and correctness of Judaism, which is the Catholic Church….Every Jew who has entered the Catholic Church doesn’t see it as a conversion. They just see it as a Jew who has been wrong about who the Jєωιѕн messiah was, to a Jew who is right…and all the them, including me…thinks this makes you more Jєωιѕн, not less Jєωιѕн.

Where has the Catholic Church, as represented by her magisterium, tradition and official interpretation of Scripture, either past or present, ever taught that “the Catholic Church is nothing but post-messianic Judaism” or the “continuation of Judaism”? Where has it ever taught that Jews who join the Catholic Church are not really converts but have merely come into the “fullness and correctness of Judaism”? There is no such teaching in the Catholic Church, yet Schoeman asserts it as if it is somewhere between common knowledge and dogma.
In the same EWTN interview, Mr. Schoeman claims that Vatican II changed Catholic Church teaching on the Jews. As he puts it: “It was Vatican II, which for the first time, so dogmatically, proclaimed the innocence of the Jєωιѕн people, as a people. And it is precisely Vatican II which, up to now, the SSPX has rejected the authority of.” His words are even stronger when in the same interview he caricatured traditional Catholic teaching on the Jews as a “…remnant of medieval, pseudo-Catholic anti-Semitism dressed up in theological garb that some of the traditionalists have kind of incorporated” …. “a vestigial appendage of medieval anti-semitism that still has some root in the kind of right wing segments of the Church.”
When Dr. Kevane saw this statement from Schoeman, he said: “This is vicious. Both Schoeman and Moss indulge in a private kind of interpretation of the Scriptures and of Vatican Council II whose sole purpose is to support their own need to remain Jews. Are they therefore truly Catholics?” In place of Pope Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity,” it seems to be Mr. Schoeman’s express intent to foster the idea that Catholic doctrine completely changed at Vatican II, at which time the Church decided to give a blanket exoneration to the Jєωιѕн people. At best, the concept is highly distorted. As Dr. Kevane told David Moss: “Nowhere in ‘Nostra Aetate’ (The section in Vatican Council II which deals with the relationship with non-Christian religions), is there even a hint that the teaching of the Church has changed.” He is quite correct. Vatican II, although perhaps more emphatically than in the past, merely reiterated the same teaching that Catholic tradition maintained, namely, “neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his passion” (Nostra Aetate 4), for in no official teaching, past or present, have the Jews ever been declared a “deicide people” or blamed, as a race, for the death of Christ. The Catholic Church has consistently taught that it is not the Jews of today who are responsible for the death of Christ, but the Jєωιѕн leaders and their followers in 33 AD who instigated his murder. In fact, the New Testament implies that a majority of the Jews were involved in that instigation, even though it is said that they did so in “ignorance” (Acts 3:17).[2] If Mr. Schoeman thinks otherwise, I challenge him to show us one official statement from the Catholic magisterium that says what he claims.
An even more egregious instance in which Mr. Schoeman could be accused of being “anti-Catholic” comes from the assertion in his book, Salvation is of the Jews, in which claims “Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate and Pope John Paul II” taught against the doctrine of “supersessionism – that the Old Covenant had been entirely replaced (or superseded, hence ‘supersessionism’), made null and void, by the New.” He adds that supersessionism “dominated Christian theology for much of the past two thousand years” and that during this whole span of time the traditional teaching was “erroneous” (page 352). For the record, this is the same claim that the ADL and a number of Jєωιѕн leaders make about Nostra Aetate and John Paul II. But is it correct? Culture Wars published an article in January 2008: The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked? It contains conclusive evidence that the Catholic Church has solemnly taught in its tradition, in Vatican II, and in the teaching of John Paul II, that the Old Covenant has, indeed, been superseded by the New Covenant. This fact was more or less confirmed for the world when the United States bishops, by an official vote of 231 to 14 on August 5, 2008, decided to remove an erroneous sentence from the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, which stated on page 131: “Thus the covenant that God made with the Jєωιѕн people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.” But if we accept Mr. Schoeman’s thesis, we would have to conclude that Nostra Aetate and John Paul II “changed” the “two thousand” year-old Catholic doctrine on the Old Covenant. If that is the case, then the Catholic Church just shot itself in the foot, for it has proven, once and for all, that its traditional teaching and its official doctrinal statements are worthless. They can be overturned at any time by any future pope or council. So either Mr. Schoeman is wrong about Nostra Aetate or the Catholic Church has been wrong for 2000 years about its own identity. Dr. Kevane saw the same error in Moss and Schoeman’s teachings. He writes:

Not too long ago (March 2005), in a public statement on EWTN, Dave Moss rejected the idea that the Church replaced the people of Israel. He clearly identified the latter idea as an ‘erroneous theology’ that was taught for 2000 years by the Catholic Church. He further stated that the Church no longer teaches that the people of Israel are superseded. They are an eternal people with an irrevocable calling. How can any individual declare that the Catholic Church (“…whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…”) has taught erroneous theology for 2000 years. Surely, intended that way or not, this has to be the height of arrogance. Both statements are heretical. The ‘irrevocable calling’ the Jews have is the same as it is for the rest of us – to save their eternal souls.

To show why I raise the allegation that Moss and Schoeman could be considered “anti-Catholic” for these teachings, Dr. Kevane adds: “In one stroke he [Moss] denied the Scriptures as inspired by God, the infallibility of the Pope and the Ecuмenical Councils, and the fact of Tradition…No Catholic can say that the Church has held an erroneous theology for 2000 years and still remain Catholic.” After he made this statement, Dr. Kevane went on to list all the Scriptural, Magisterial and Traditional teaching against the “Old Covenant is not revoked” assertions of Moss and Schoeman.
Incidentally, we might wonder why EWTN makes no censorship of Moss and Schoeman’s erroneous statements. I don’t know the precise reason, but I do know the leadership at EWTN and I believe much of this laxity is due to EWTN’s shortage of academically qualified personnel to sort out these theological issues, in combination with either being overly enamored with Jєωιѕн converts or afraid to disagree with them for fear of being accused of anti-Semitism, especially such programs as The Journey Home. To say the least, I was shocked to find out when I signed up for Internet television (DTV) that the “Description” for EWTN was the following: “EWTN is a live religious channel that focuses on Christianity and Judaism.” For a secular television programmer to notice that EWTN promotes Judaism along with Christianity certainly raises suspicions as to where this professed Catholic station is heading. Knowing Mother Angelica as I do, I believe she would be appalled at the DTV description of EWTN, and equally appalled at the Judaistic programming EWTN now offers.
Let’s pose another case in which Mr. Schoeman has made errors in his Catholic teaching. As I have been saying for quite some time, just the mere title of his book, “Salvation is of the Jews,” is cause for alarm, for the simple fact that, after Jesus died and rose, salvation no longer came from the Jews, but Schoeman treats Jesus’ statement as if it is an ongoing reality. When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman in John 4:22 and said “Salvation is of the Jews” he was on the Old Testament side of the cross, and thus Jerusalem was still the place in which God could be found for salvation, even as the Queen of Sheba traveled to Jerusalem to hear the gospel from Solomon and thereby saved her soul (Matt 12:42). But after Jesus rose, salvation came from the Catholic Church, not the Jews. Unfortunately, there is no such disclaimer mentioned in Mr. Schoeman’s book. Dr. Kevane agrees:

Dave Moss apparently aligns himself with Roy Schoeman who makes the identical points in his book “Salvation is of the Jews.” What he has written does not stand up to the scrutiny of Catholic theology. It flies in the face of the definitive statements of the Church. The title of the book is a heretical statement. It interprets what Christ Himself said, using it as an invalid support of his thesis. Christ made that statement to the Samaritan woman before he died on the Cross, at a time when, indeed, salvation was from the Jews. However, once he died on the Cross, salvation came uniquely from Jesus Christ Himself. This is a twisting of the Scriptures in order to support an erroneous doctrine….In his Preface to the book, Schoeman says (p. 9): ‘If there is one theological issue that both Jews and Christians should be able to agree on, it is that salvation is from the Jews….And Christians…have no choice but to believe that…since those are the very words that Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well.’ On the contrary, I couldn’t disagree strongly enough.

In fact, based on his view of John 4:22, Schoeman proposes a thesis never before suggested, much less taught in Catholic history. Whereas traditional teaching has said that the Old Covenant is fulfilled or brought to fruition by the New, Schoeman reverses this and says that “the New Covenant will be brought to fruition by the Old” (Salvation is of the Jews, p. 353). He posits this novel idea because it coincides with his book title, “Salvation is of the Jews.” Schoeman holds that the Jєωιѕн Old Covenant somehow integrates with the New Covenant and allows salvation to come to the last of earth’s Jews just before Christ’s return. The Church has never taught this type of mixing and matching of the Old and New Covenants. If and when the Jews are saved, it is only because of the New Covenant and has absolutely nothing to do with the Old Covenant. Scripture calls it “old” (2Cor 3:14) precisely because it became aged and decrepit and finally breathed its last breath at the cross of Christ. This is the exact description of its demise given to us by the Hebrew writer: “When he [Jeremiah in Jr. 31:31-33] speaks of a ‘new’ covenant, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing” (Heb. 8:13, NAB). In other words, the Old Covenant had already grown old in Jeremiah’s day (circa 600 BC) because the Jews had so badly abused it, and it finally “disappeared” when Christ began the New Covenant (see also Heb. 7:18; 10:9; Col. 2:14-15; Eph. 2:14-15).
The confusion between the Old and New covenants is bad enough, but in his book Schoeman also gives us three distinctly different views of the Old Covenant. On page 129 he tells us it has been revoked. On page 352 he tells us it is not revoked (and makes erroneous use of Nostra Aetate and John Paul II to back up his claim), and on the next page, 353, he tells us that New Covenant will be fulfilled by the Old Covenant. The Catholic Church has only taught one of these, the one that appears on page 129.

CONCLUSION

Now, I point out all these theological errors in the teachings of Roy Schoeman only to make one specific point in this article. Let’s say I were an unyielding theological stickler and chose to work with an arbitrary definition of what it is to be “anti-Catholic.” Let’s say I was also quite disturbed by all the false concepts and inordinate confusion Schoeman has perpetuated among thousands of Catholics. Could I not accuse Mr. Schoeman of the same thing he has accused the SSPX, that is, that his teaching “pretends to be Catholic theology, but is really very distasteful,” and from that assessment also conclude that Mr. Schoeman is “anti-Catholic,” just as he, without a working definition, has accused the SSPX of being “anti-Semitic”? In fact, I could use Mr. Schoeman’s own words that he used against the SSPX and merely cross out references to the SSPX and replace them with the words “Jєωιѕн converts” or “David Moss and Roy Schoeman” as follows:

…the head of the Society of St. Pius X (or “SSPX) Jєωιѕн convert movement…emphasizing that the Society Jєωιѕн converts can only speak authoritatively on matters of ‘faith and morals.’ However, most distressingly, it is precisely in those matters of ‘faith and morals’ in which the Society Jєωιѕн converts profess to be authoritative that the Society David Moss and Roy Schoeman present some of its most virulently anti-Semitic anti-Catholic teachings. The following articles from its their websites purport to represent authentic Catholic teaching on the Jєωιѕн people and the Catholic faith.

In fact, in light of all the errors Mr. Schoeman has taught, he seems much more deserving of the label “anti-Catholic” than the SSPX is deserving of the label “anti-Semitic.” But in order to confirm my conclusion, I would also have to know whether Schoeman’s errors are deliberate or inadvertent. Could his erroneous teachings merely be slips of the theological pen, or perhaps poor education in Catholic theology? But they could also be deliberate attempts to undermine Catholic doctrine and promote Jєωιѕн thought. Perhaps Schoeman is just posing as a convert to Catholicism. Perhaps he has a secret hatred for Catholics who criticize Jєωιѕн history and ideas. Perhaps, perhaps. The truth is, “perhaps” is not good enough for me to make a final and comprehensive judgment that labels Mr. Schoeman as an “anti-Catholic.” Dr. Kevane seems to agree. He writes:

Let me digress a moment to say that in the first pages of his book, Mr. Schoeman clearly is trying to be a true Catholic. The same must be said for Dave Moss. And for that I salute them. But Mr. Schoeman trips himself up, unfortunately, by endeavoring to make a theological statement when he is clearly not a Catholic theologian. That he is a Jєωιѕн theologian – perhaps. But he should be applying Catholic theology in order to reach an acceptable Catholic conclusion….From these considerations, it would appear that none (or very few) of the converted Catholic Hebrews have undertaken an exhaustive study of Catholic theology. There are too many superficialities in their writings and statements.

By the same token, I must insist that it is not right for Mr. Schoeman to accuse the SSPX of anti-Semitism (or any Catholic who criticizes Jєωιѕн religion, politics or social mores), not only because he is making conclusions without a working definition of anti-Semitism, he simply doesn’t know the hearts and motives of his critics. Accusing someone of anti-Semitism is very serious business, because the accuser is essentially concluding that he knows the heart of the person and has the authority to declare him to be in mortal sin, and perhaps excommunicated. Does Mr. Schoeman, a very young convert to the Catholic faith, want to carry that heavy burden? One of the men he accuses, Fr. Denis Fahey, was one of the most devout Catholic priests of the past century, long before the SSPX had their troubles with Vatican II and the illicit 1988 consecrations. Fr. Fahey sought earnestly to define anti-Semitism only so that Catholics would not be hampered by arbitrary accusations from Jews who were using the label to stigmatize Catholics from teaching the Catholic faith and pointing out the anti-Christian tenets in Jєωιѕн teachings and practices. But unlike Fr. Fahey, whether deliberately or inadvertently, Mr. Schoeman has not given us a working definition of anti-Semitism. Since he hasn’t, then he is only adding to the confusion he has already perpetuated among Catholics. Consequently, he is raising a generation of Catholics who, on little more than a hunch, will think nothing of accusing someone of the mortal sin of anti-Semitism. But without proper definitions, the allegations become mere aspersions; and even more serious, those aspersions turn into the mortal sin of bearing false witness. Unfortunately, the unwritten definition of anti-Semitism with which Mr. Schoeman seems to be working, and the definition that is most popular among Jєωιѕн rabbis and political pundits today is: Anything negative said about the Jews, whether it is true or not, is, ipso facto, anti-Semitism. This must stop, and Catholics must take the lead in teaching the world the true nature of anti-Semitism. Last but not least, new converts such as Roy Schoeman and David Moss should spend a number of years learning the Catholic faith before they are given a platform to teach it. CW

Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D. is president of Bellarmine Theological Forum, formerly Catholic Apologetics International.
Index of SSPX articles from Fidelity and Culture Wars Magazines

[1] The SSPX article correctly concludes that it was because of the “insistence of the Jews” that Christ was put to death, since Scripture is clear that Pilate sought to release Christ (Mt 27:24; Jn 19:6-7; Lk 23:22-24). The SSPX is also correct in saying: “Surely it cannot be that there is a collective guilt of the Jєωιѕн race for the sin of deicide. For only those individuals are responsible for the sin who knowingly and willingly brought it about. Jews of today are manifestly not responsible for that sin.” But I believe the SSPX is wrong in concluding, based only on Matt. 27:25, that a “curse” came upon all Jews because their first century ancestors were guilty of deicide. The words of Matt 27:25 are merely from an unidentified bystander, not a direct curse that God put on the Jews because they murdered Christ. The New Testament specifies no such “curse” on the Jews. Although the SSPX is correct in saying that the Jews continue to have a “hardhearted rebelliousness of a people that has refused the time of its visitation,” this is not due to a curse for deicide, but to the same rebellion the Jews have perpetuated since their Old Testament history (cf. Mt 23:35-37; Rm 11:5-10; Acts 7:39-53; 1Cor 10:1-12; Heb 3-4). The rebellion merely continues into the New Testament and it eventually led them to murder Christ. I believe the SSPX is also incorrect in saying that the Vatican II docuмent Nostra Aetate is wrong to say that “the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.” St. Paul makes it quite clear in Rm 11:1-2 that the Jews are “not rejected,” otherwise they could not be saved today (and Paul uses his own salvation as proof); Moreover, the Jews are still “beloved” due to God’s promise to the patriarchs (Rm 11:28). I believe the SSPX is also wrong to say that Nostra Aetate gave “acceptation of Judaism as a legitimate religion,” for Nostra Aetate never uses the word “legitimate” in connection with either Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or any other religion. It merely recognizes their existence and says that “the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions” which “often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life.”
[2] Please note, however, that the use of “ignorance” in Acts 3:17 does not mean that the Jews were morally guiltless for the death of Christ. The distinction of committing a sin in “ignorance” (Greek: kata agnoian) originates from Old Testament law which distinguished between sins done without full knowledge from sins committed with full knowledge. Those who committed the latter sin were execu

Jaynek · « **Reply #1 on:** December 08, 2024, 11:50:45 AM »

Thanks for this article. It's a great summary of what is wrong with Roy Shoeman and his movement.

Around the time this article was written, I had my first meeting with an SSPX priest. I had been reading books and online discussions that convinced me that I had finally found a group that understood the importance of praying for the conversion of Jews. Although I was not a trad at that point, I sought out the closest chapel to request a Mass for that intention.

I had a lovely discussion with Fr. Peter Scott at that time. I cannot imagine anyone being more warm and welcoming when I told him the reason for my request, that I was myself a convert from Judaism. He told me that Archbishop Lefebvre had been a Spiritan Father and that this order considered Blessed Francis Libermann, a convert from Judaism, as a second founder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Libermann Fr. Scott made it clear that I would be very welcome to attend Mass with the SSPX and told that story to show that I already had a connection with them.

Over the years since then, I have encountered this accusation of SSPX anti-Semitism many times and always been struck with how different this was from my personal experience. I also read the allegedly "anti-semitic" SSPX articles referred to in the Sungenis essay. I found them very helpful for figuring out the traditional Catholic understanding of Jews and Judaism. I saw nothing hateful about them. But I have the impression that most of these people who like to throw the term "anti-semitism" around would also apply it to the traditional Catholic view.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 08, 2024, 02:13:13 PM »

Thank you!

Sadly, the SSPX has changed. Since the SSPX began disappearing their web pages on the Jews, it has become a bad habit for them. When they were caught shilling for vaccines using aborted baby cells, they disappeared the original article, but—oh, the embarrassment—the article had been archived.
Now you see it: https://web.archive.org/web/20201119204609/https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/can-catholic-good-conscience-receive-coronavirus-vaccine-62007
Now you don't: https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/can-catholic-good-conscience-receive-coronavirus-vaccine-62007

Mystery of the Jєωιѕн People in History
by Rev. Frs. Michael Crowdy & Kenneth Novak

Originally printed in the April 1997 issue of The Angelus magazine, but later scrubbed from the SSPX website
now archived at: https://archive.is/i56Jz

It cannot be denied that the subject of the Jєωιѕн people is both very difficult and very fascinating.

Difficult, because the Jєωιѕн people is present in all history both divine and human. There is no period of history about which one can write without mentioning them. Says the Jєωιѕн author of Jesus Told by the Wandering Jew (Editions Fleg, p.177):

“There are two mysteries of history. Jesus is a mystery as Israel is a mystery! And when you put these two mysteries together, do I have to tell what results? —A third mystery, more mysterious by itself than the two others!”

And fascinating, because who can concern himself with the Jєωιѕн people without a feeling of admiration or pity, or of both at the same time? The Jєωιѕн people brought Christ into the world, yet before Pilate it repudiated Him; the people without a nation of their own and yet unable to live together among others.

The Jєωιѕн people is still more fascinating because of its many strengths. It is to its credit as achievers that the Jєωιѕн people holds positions in governments, in international and party politics, in the direction of national economies, in the complex mechanisms of money, in the media and leisure, and in the influence over lifestyle and public opinion. For two thousand years it has applied itself with unique tenacity.

And when one thinks of this people, who live in the midst of all the nations, through the most varied changes of fortune but always and everywhere intact and incorruptible —one reflects that this people’s lineage is the greatest upon earth!

The Jєωιѕн people justly claims the greatest of lineages, because it has six thousand years of indestructible history. The greatest of lineages, because it was in it that Christ, the Son of the living God, took flesh. This is a people which, though a minority, is here and everywhere, as it has been for 20 centuries of Christian history. What is its origin? How and why does it continue? What is its destiny in history? What attitude should one adopt towards it? These are the questions this article hopes to explain.

This article claims to be an explanation of the Jew —a theological explanation— which in this case is the only possible one. Theology is the science of the mysteries of God. These mysteries are the inscrutable judgments of the Most High which are known to us when He deigns to manifest them to us. Without these manifestations we would have no inkling of them.

Catholic theology teaches that the Jєωιѕн people is the object of a very special vocation from God. Only in the light of theology can one explain the Jew. Neither merely psychology nor the biological sciences, nor even purely historical studies can explain the Jєωιѕн people. This people is a topic of universal and eternal scope which by its very nature requires a universal and eternal explanation that is valid for today, for yesterday and forever. The Jєωιѕн people must be considered by an explanation which is eternal, like God; that is to say, a theological explanation.

What emerges from this explanation is not meant in any way to justify either Semitic or anti-Semitic activity. These two terms tend to trivialize a situation that is deeper and more universal. Catholic theology, while throwing light on the mystery of the Jєωιѕн people, will indicate the relations between Jews and Christians, who must live apart until the mercy of God disposes their reconciliation.

The Jєωιѕн People According to Catholic Theology

The Jєωιѕн people is not like the other peoples, who are born today and fade tomorrow, creating admirable civilizations limited to a point in time and space. We remember the great empires of Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans: their glory was the glory of a day.

The Jєωιѕн people, a tiny enclave at the crossroads of East and West, was made tiny for its purpose of bearing the mystery of God through the centuries. And to bear this mystery graven in its flesh it was not to create a civilization, because that is a human thing. What was necessary for it was the divine.

The Jєωιѕн people is the theological people which God created for Himself. Moses tells us in Genesis how, two thousand years before Jesus Christ, the Lord God called the patriarch Abraham, living at Ur of the Chaldees, in Mesopotamia, and told him:

1. Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and out of thy father’s house, and come into the land which I shall show thee.

2. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and magnify thy name: and thou shalt be blessed.

3. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee shall all the kindred of the earth be blessed (Gen. 12).

So the Jєωιѕн people, the sons of Abraham, have their origin in God, because it is He who has chosen them out of the rest of mankind and it is He that promises His blessing in such a way that in them all the kindred of the earth shall be blessed. Israel, then, is great with a theological greatness. But does this greatness consist purely in its bodily descent in the flesh from Abraham, the patriarch from whose body it was formed, or does it rest on the faith Abraham had in God’s Promise of a Redeemer?

This is an extremely important question. If the blessings of God are for Abraham’s bodily descendants only, then the Jєωιѕн people would be chosen and blessed among all the nations of the earth only for the fact of being sons of Abraham. But if the blessings are reserved to faith in the divine Promise, then simple descent by lineage is valueless. It is necessary to be a descendant of Abraham by faith in the Promise, that is to say, a spiritual descent based on faith.

Ishmael and Isaac

What, then, is the basis of Israel’s greatness in the light of God’s plan? To make it clear, God gave Abraham two sons. The one called Ishmael was by his slave-woman, Hagar, and his birth was in the ordinary course of nature. The other was given him, against all hope, by his wife Sarah in her old age, in accordance with the Promise of God. He was called Isaac.

It was to Isaac and his descendants that God confirmed the Pact made with Abraham. He also bestowed a blessing on Ishmael, but a purely material one, promising to make him the head of a great people. From Ishmael descend the present Arabs, who are in such bitter opposition of the entry of Jews into Palestine. That is because Abraham was persuaded by Sarah and commanded by God to show Hagar and Ishmael the door (Gen. 21).

What is signified by these two sons of Abraham? St. Paul, the great apostle of the divine mysteries, tells that two nations are prefigured in Ishmael and Isaac (Gal. 4).

Ishmael, the first to be born and the natural offspring of the slave, Hagar, represents the ѕуηαgσgυє of the Jews, which glories in its descent from the flesh of Abraham. But Isaac, born miraculously of the sterile Sarah according to a Promise of God, represents the Church which, like Isaac, is born by faith in the Promise of Christ.

So it is not lineal descent from Abraham which brings salvation, but spiritual union with Christ through faith. The Jєωιѕн people which began with Abraham will be able to attain to its salvation not by the fact of its material descent from Abraham, but in believing in Christ and assimilating itself to Him in faith.

All who are united in Christ form the blessed inheritance of Abraham and the patriarchs, and are the object of God’s Promises. The Catholic Church is Sarah made fruitful by the divine power. It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh, on the other hand, is worth nothing, as Jesus Christ was to say:

“It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.” (Jn. 6:64)

Could it happen that this people, or a part of it —united to Abraham by bodily descent— should believe that this same genealogical link alone is what gives justification and salvation? Yes, it could happen, and it did. St. Paul comments that, to show it in advance, God so disposed that...:

“...Abraham had two sons; the one by the bondwoman and the other by the free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman, was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman was by Promise.” (Gal. 4:22,23)

All this was said by way of allegory in order to signify that the simple fact of fleshly union with Abraham is represented by Ishmael, the slave’s son; and the imitation of Abraham, by faith in Jesus Christ, is represented by Isaac, the son of the Promise.

And one must also make a distinction between those who are true Israelites because they imitate Abraham’s faith in God by believing in Jesus Christ (those represented by Isaac), and the Israelites who descend from Abraham in the flesh without imitating his faith (who are prefigured by Ishmael).

Ishmael persecuted Isaac. St. Paul, commenting on this, adds:

“But as then he that was born according to the flesh persecuted him that was after the spirit: so also it is now.” (Gal. 4:29).

Here we see expressed the theological necessity by which Ishmael persecuted Isaac, the ѕуηαgσgυє persecutes the Catholic Church, and the Jews who are united to Abraham by only a union of the flesh persecute the Christians who are the true Israelites, united to Christ by faith.

The same mystery is revealed to us by the two sons granted by the Lord for the patriarch Isaac —Esau and Jacob. Let us turn to Genesis (ch. 25):

v.21: And Isaac besought the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and He heard him, and made Rebecca to conceive.

v.22: But the children struggled in her womb: and she said: If it were to be so with me, what need was there to conceive? And she went to consult the Lord.

v.23: And He answering said: Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be divided out of thy womb, and one people shall overcome the other, and the elder shall serve the younger.

v.24: And when her time was come to be delivered, behold twins were found in her womb.

v.25: He that came forth first was red, and hairy like a skin: and his name was called Esau. Immediately the other coming forth, held his brother’s foot in his hand, and therefore he was called Jacob.

In his Epistle to the Romans, in which he reveals the mystery of the Jєωιѕн people, St. Paul shows how Esau, the elder according to the flesh, is the Jєωιѕн people united to Abraham by a simple blood-tie, while the younger brother Jacob is the Catholic Church (formed of Jews and Gentiles) which, because it is united by faith to Christ, is preferred above Esau. In this way were fulfilled the words of Scripture (when God reproached the Jews for their ingratitude and lack of pure sacrifice, and called the Gentiles to offer up to Him in every place an acceptable sacrifice):

“I have loved you, saith the Lord: and you have said: Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau brother to Jacob, saith the Lord, and I have loved Jacob, but have hated Esau? and I have made his mountains a wilderness, and given his inheritance to the dragons of the desert.” (Mal. 1:2,3)

As it is written: “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” (Rom. 9:13)

So it is that the Church overcomes the ѕуηαgσgυє, although the ѕуηαgσgυє, like Esau...

“...always hated Jacob...and he said in his heart...I will kill my brother Jacob.” (Gen. 27:41)

The Greatness of the Jєωιѕн People

We have referred to these figures from among the Patriarchs as interpreted by the Catholic Church to show that at the very origins of the Jєωιѕн people there is foreshadowed both its greatness and complexity.

The Jєωιѕн people has a theological lineage, chosen, consecrated, and sanctified for the purpose of identifying and bringing to us the bodily reality of our Divine Lord Jesus Christ who had to come, and whom the Gentiles expected. This is what is awe-inspiring in the Jєωιѕн people: its flesh is sanctified and marked to bring us Him “Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life.”

But precisely why is this flesh holy? Why is it of Abraham’s lineage? Why must it bring to us the Christ? In other words, is it Christ who sanctifies the Jєωιѕн lineage, or the Jєωιѕн lineage that sanctifies Christ?

The fact is that Christ, as Isaiah had foretold (Rom. 9:32) had been placed as a stumbling block, a stone of scandal among his people. If, with the humility of Abraham, this people believed in Christ as sanctifying their lineage, then it was called to be the root and the stem of that flourishing Olive Tree which was to be the Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. On the other hand, if it was to reject Christ, confident in its pride of race, then it destined itself to be the root and stock of a wild vine which would produce bitter fruits.

In the former case, this people will be Isaac, Jacob, and Abel; in the latter, it is called to play the part of Ishmael, Esau, and Cain.

But this chosen line will always take precedence over all the other races of men. If it accepts Christ, it will be the principal and best part of the Catholic Church, the root and trunk of that Olive Tree that produces fruit for eternal life, as the Apostle Paul teaches. If it rejects Christ, it will be chief in the kingdom of iniquity. The great Apostle, St. Paul, who was proud to know himself an Israelite, emphasizes the Jєωιѕн pre-eminence for good or ill when he says:

“Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek…” (Rom. 2:9)

What advantage then hath the Jew, or what is the profit of circuмcision? Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them (Rom. 3:1,2).

The Jew then is first in the order of goodness, in the mystery of grace. The trunk of the tree that is the Catholic Church is Jєωιѕн. The Patriarchs are Jews; the Prophets are Jєωιѕн, John the Baptist is Jєωιѕн; St. Joseph is Jєωιѕн; the Mother of God is Jєωιѕн; and our Blessed Saviour in whom all nations of the earth are blessed is Jєωιѕн. The Apostles are Jєωιѕн; the Evangelists are Jєωιѕн; and the first of the Martyrs, St. Stephen, is Jєωιѕн.

What a people, this theological people that is the trunk of the tree of the Church! In the presence of this Olive Tree, what worth have the Gentile peoples who are only poor wild olives? What worth has the learning of the Greeks or the power of pagan Rome? Mere foolishness, says St. Paul, because these nations did nothing to bring salvation such as the Jєωιѕн nation did. If the Gentile nations–starting with the Greeks–wish to enter the way of salvation they must do so by charity, profiting by the general rejection of Jєωιѕн people in order to be grafted in. That is why St. Paul says the fall of a part of the Jєωιѕн people has become the opportunity of salvation for the Gentiles:

“And if some of the branches be broken, and thou, being a wild olive, art ingrafted in them, and art made partaker of the root, and of the fatness of the olive tree, boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.” (Rom. 11:17,18)

But Israel’s greatness, which was predestined to be in Christ, needs to be matched by a corresponding fidelity to Christ. What unhappy consequences visit this people if it repudiates the One Who is its salvation! Judas Iscariot, Annas, and Caiphas were Jєωιѕн. It was the Jєωιѕн chief priests who persuaded the people to call for the crucifixion of the Saviour and who cried out, “His blood be upon us and our children!” (Mt. 27:25) Jews stoned St. Stephen; Jews martyred St. James and laid traps for the apostles. The greatest crime of all time —the death of the God-Man— was perpetrated by this forlorn people.

What is the root of the errors of the Jews? —It is that “a part of this people” believed that the promises given to the Jєωιѕн people on account of Christ (who was due to be born from among them) were made to His flesh, to His lineage. However, the Jєωιѕн people, instead of acknowledging that it was the chosen people because of Christ, rather believed that it was Christ who had something to boast about on account of His genealogical lineage.

Thus, it was not Christ, but the flesh of Abraham, that was the source of glory. And the Pharisees, the veritable incarnation of this spirit of iniquity, declared proudly as a reason for not accepting Christ: “We have Abraham for our father.”

So their sin consisted in making carnal (i.e., material) the promises of God. In that way they attributed substantial value to what was only a foreshadowing. They expected salvation from what was only a sign of that salvation.

As for the Messiah, the One awaited, who was to bring grace and truth to the world, they made of Him a political, earthly ruler, who would assure and perpetuate the greatness of Israel over all the nations.

The Carnalization of the Jєωιѕн People

It will be instructive to distinguish the different stages in the process of the carnalization of the Jews. We have coined this word —carnalization—by which we mean to indicate the Jєωιѕн people’s historical material-mindedness.

The Sacred Scriptures record that the Israelite people had always a nature dominated by great pride and avarice. Moses himself distinctly warned the Israelites:

“Know therefore that the Lord thy God giveth thee not possession of this excellent land for thy justices [righteousness], for thou art a very stiff-necked [stubborn] people…” (Deut. 9:6)

“And again the Lord said to me: I see that this people is stiff-necked: Let me alone that I may destroy them, and abolish their name from under heaven, and set thee over a nation, that is greater and stronger than this.” (Deut. 9:13.14)

In the period of the Kings, the people’s dishonesty and materialism became particularly evident. They abandoned themselves to a thousand perversities and idolatries to such a degree that they were the first to be broken up and led into captivity in Babylon by King Nebuchadnezzar, six centuries before Christ. This hard captivity lasted seventy years. At the end of it the Jєωιѕн people, returning to Palestine, reformed themselves on new and firm foundations given by Ezra, whom the Jews considered as great a lawgiver as Moses. In fact, Judaism, as it was at the time of Christ and as it has remained until the present day, springs from the reorganization of the people under Ezra.

To generalize, it must be said that the Jews are a people bound to a book, the book above all others, the Law —the Torah. In reality, the Torah is composed of the first five books of the Sacred Scriptures [the Pentateuch], written by Moses as inspired by the Holy Ghost. But the Jews only accept as the Word of God (superior to that of Moses himself) the Torah together with the interpretations the rabbis have handed down by oral tradition. These interpretations have been collected and in some way petrified in a voluminous book called the тαℓмυd. The тαℓмυd is the civil and religious code of the Jєωιѕн people. [For a more extensive treatment of the Jews’ perversion of the meaning of Torah, see here.]

Judaism

The Jews are a people created by the mentality of the rabbis, especially of the Pharisee rabbis. The Pharisee vividly displays the carnality of the Jews. We are not using the word carnal with the meaning that they have a special leaning to sins of impurity, but with the meaning Jesus Christ gave this word when He anathematized the tendency to give a literal, inferior, earthly interpretation to what in the mind of God has a superior and heavenly meaning.

The Pharisees, instead of following in the steps of prophets like Isaiah and Ezekiel who had preached a worship of God in spirit, compunction of heart, a reform of conduct, and charity to all men, worked to train the people in a literal following of petty observances and a feeling of pride in the fact of lineal descent from the patriarch Abraham. “They answered Him: We are the seed of Abraham...” (Jn. 8:33) as if it was the flesh of Abraham itself that brought justification.

The Pharisees had drawn up a host of rules on purification, ablutions, washing and immersion of hands, of the body, of cups and cloths, so as to preserve the purity of the people. They obliged any of their faithful who had touched a non-Jew in the street or in the market to wash himself. They considered the violation of these ritual prescriptions a grave sin.

Nothing shows better the carnalized Judaic mentality than the terrible “Woes” declared by the Jew, our Lord Jesus Christ, in the last days of His life on earth, when He denounced the hypocritical religion, purity, and piety of the Pharisees (Mt. 23). Against religious hypocrisy, He said:

v.13: Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter it; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.

v.15: Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him a child of hell twofold more than yourselves.

v.16: Woe to you blind guides....

v.23: Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cuмmin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith....

v.24: Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.

v.27: Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchers, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness.

He denounced simulated worship and piety towards ancestors when He said:

vv.29-32: Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchers of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just, and say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

vv.33-35: You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell? Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your ѕуηαgσgυєs, and persecute from city to city: that upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.

No one in all the course of history has pronounced more terrible anathemas than those of the Son of God against the perfidious carnality of His own people.

The Sin of the Jews

On the 14th of the month of Nisan in the year 33, the Jєωιѕн people, assembled before the praetorium of Pilate the Governor, and urged by the priests demanded the death of the Promised One:

“When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out saying, Crucify Him, crucify Him. Pilate saith to them: Take Him you, and crucify Him: for I find no cause in Him. The Jews answered him: We have a law; and according to the law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.” (Jn. 19:6,7)

The rabbis had said beforehand in a secret council against Jesus:

“If we let Him alone so, all will believe in Him; and the Romans will come, and take away our place and nation. But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.” (Jn. 11:48-50)

Then these Jews, in the name of their Law, their Torah, and to serve the material interests of their nation and race, demanded the blood of Him who had been promised them as their blessing. They stirred up the Gentiles against Jesus. Using them to carry out their plans, they crucified the One who was to be raised up as a “sign of contradiction”. (Lk. 2:34)

God will not exterminate the carnalized Judaism. When the Jews turn toward the Lord, and say to him as did Cain...:

“...My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. Behold thou dost cast me out this day from the face of the earth, and I shall be hidden from thy face, and I shall be a vagabond and a fugitive on the earth: every one, therefore that findeth me, shall kill me.” (Gen. 4:13-14)

...Then the Lord will say to them, as He did to Cain:

“And the Lord said to him: No, it shall not be so: but whosoever shall kill Cain, shall be punished sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, that whosoever found him should not kill him.” (Gen. 4:15)

And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any one who came upon him should kill him. And ever since, this people marked by God’s seal must wander through the world. And, what will they be doing? —Bearing in their flesh witness to Christ in the mystery of iniquity. Jesus Christ chose the flesh of His own race to, willingly or unwillingly, proclaim that it is He who is blessed for ever and ever. Jєωιѕн flesh proclaims it because Christ comes from that genealogy. One cannot remember Christ without remembering the Jews, and one cannot remember them without remembering Christ.

The Jєωιѕн people, once a mystery of goodness, is now changed into a mystery of iniquity. It is no longer Isaac, but Ishmael. No longer Jacob, but Esau. No longer Abel, but Cain.

Others have won from it the birthright. To others have been granted the blessings of the Promise. Those others are all of us who make up the Church of Jesus Christ–converted Jews at first and later the Gentile converts.

The Church of Christ is the true Isaac, the true Jacob, the true Abel. Christ has sanctified Jews and Gentiles to form a new creation, the Catholic Church, which adores the Father in spirit and in truth (Jn. 4:23).

Faced with the Church, which is Isaac, Jacob and Abel, what will the ѕуηαgσgυє do? —It will play the part of Ishmael, of Esau, and of Cain. What did Ishmael do to Isaac? He mocked him and persecuted him (Gen. 21:9). What did Esau do against Jacob? Genesis tells us:

“Esau therefore always hated Jacob for the blessing wherewith his father had blessed him: and he said in his heart: The days will come of the mourning of my father and I will kill my brother Jacob.” (Gen. 27:41)

That is the part that now falls to the ѕуηαgσgυє, to the Jew who will not recognize Christ as He revealed Himself and convert: he will set out to persecute the Church, as the Apostle Paul observes. In this way, just as in the kingdom of goodness the Jєωιѕн people had and still has the first place (for history is all present together in God’s eyes), so also the first place in the kingdom of evil must go to it. The other peoples, if wishing to do the work of evil, follow the example of the carnalized, unrepentant Jєωιѕн people. If the Gentiles want to be carnal, they must judaize. Thus it was with perfect theological precision that the Fathers of the Church gave the name of Judaizers to Gentiles who taught heresy.

Theological Conclusions

There is a theological opposition —that is to say, one arranged by God— which exists throughout Christian history between the ѕуηαgσgυє and the Church, between Christians and Jews, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau. What is indispensable at this point is to put down the theological conclusions in the light of which history must be interpreted.

First Conclusion: The Jєωιѕн people, whose destiny was to bring Christ to us, found Christ a stumbling block. A part of them believed in Him, and built on Him to form the roots and the trunk of that Olive Tree which is the Catholic Church. The other part fell, denying Him and invoking their carnal pride of race and nation. That part of Israel was rejected, and called upon itself the blood of Christ as a curse. It is this part that forms Judaism proper, which is the heir and the continuation of the rabbis who rejected Christ.

Second Conclusion: Judaism is inimical to all nations in general, and in a special manner to Christian nations. It plays the part of Ishmael who persecuted Isaac, of Esau who sought to kill Jacob, and of Cain who put Abel to death. St. Paul, the converted Jew, says:

“For you brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men.” (I Thess. 2:14,15)

Take note of St. Paul’s terrible and very important fact, written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That is to say, the adversarial relationship of the Jєωιѕн people is not a local enmity, or one based on blood, or on conflicting interests. It is an enmity disposed by God. The Jєωιѕн people, if it has not converted to Christianity, will, even if it does not wish to, seek to ruin Christianity, as Jesus Christ said when speaking to the Pharisees:

“You are of your father the devil, and the desire of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.” (Jn. 8:44)

Third Conclusion: If the unrepentant Jєωιѕн people are disposed by God to be a theological enemy, the status of this opposition must be universal, inevitable, and terrible.

Universal, because it must extend to all nations. Wherever Christendom extends, the Jєωιѕн people goes, too. There is no way of avoiding this, because it is theological.

Christendom and Jewry are destined inevitably to meet everywhere without reconciliation or mixing. It represents in history the eternal struggle of Lucifer against God, of darkness against the Light, of the flesh against the spirit. It represents in time the spiritual accomplishing and the fleshly accomplishing of the Scriptures. The Letter must be everywhere to be the servant of the Spirit. It is with this understanding St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that the Jєωιѕн people is the servant of the Church.

It is a terrible enmity, because it is theological. There is a mystery of iniquity in the Jєωιѕн people, as we are taught by St. Jerome and St. Justin, echoing Jesus Christ and the preaching of the Apostles. Jesus Christ anathematized them, calling them hypocrites and liars because the Pharisees practiced enmity under pretence of doing good. They only perpetuate what they did once to Christ.

Fourth Conclusion: Ever since Christ was lifted up on Mount Calvary, the world has been subjected to two truly opposite forces: the Jєωιѕн force and the Christian.

In the world as it is, there can be only two truly basic modes, two poles of attraction: the Christian and the Jєωιѕн. Only two religions: Christian and Jєωιѕн. All that is not of Christ and for Christ is done in favour of Judaism. It follows from that, that the de-Christianizing of the world runs parallel to its Judaizing.

Why are only these two modes possible? Because they are the only ones willed by God, they are the only theological ones. God has divided the world between Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Cain and Abel, and Christ and the Anti-Christ. All human energies must serve one front or the other.

That is why the Gentile peoples, we to whom the vocation to the Catholic Church is freely offered, have only two roads ahead to us: to Christianize ourselves or to Judaize ourselves, to be part of the Olive Tree of the Church or of the sterile Vine of Judaism, to be sons of Sarah the free woman, or else of Hagar the bondwoman.

If the Gentile people wishes to be free and great, it has no other solution than to humbly adhere to the Catholic Church. It can have no other greatness than the incomparable greatness of the Christian nations of the Middle Ages, which forged saints and heroes, raised the cathedrals, educated the peoples by the examples of the saints, gave them an understanding of beauty by Gregorian Chant and the frescoes of Fra Angelico and Giotto, and elevated their understanding with the Summa Theologica of the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas.

If the Gentile people now considers this genuine greatness of the medieval age as gloomy or obscurantist, and wishes to be great with the material greatness of Babylon, then it can have it: but only as a servant of Judaism. In the domain of the material, it is the Jєωιѕн people who have the superiority. History tells us (Werner Sombart) that the renowned greatness of English and American Capitalism is only a Judaic creation. While Capitalism fulfils its promises and is unquestionably of incomparable material greatness, it compromises the work of millions of Christians for the benefit of a much smaller number of the Jєωιѕн people.

Fifth Conclusion: The only protection of the Gentile people against enslaving itself to the material superiority of the Jєωιѕн people is the Catholic life. This is because Jesus Christ alone is the Saviour of all mankind. Note that the Middle Ages did not succuмb to material mastery for centuries.

Cautious of its theological disposition, the Catholic Church applied wise laws to the Jєωιѕн people, and was vigilant against their perversion of Catholics. The Catholic Church, however, has never hated the Jєωιѕн people. On the contrary, it has always prayed and asked prayers for its spiritual well-being, and defended them against harassment and unjust persecution. This has not gone unrecognized by the Jєωιѕн people itself. So, for instance, when in France (1807) the Jєωιѕн Sanhedrin met publicly for the first time in centuries, it rendered public homage to the benevolence of the Popes in a docuмent that one can still read today:

“The Israelite Deputies of the Empire of France and of the Kingdom of Italy, at the Hebrew Synod decreed on the 30th May ult., inspired with gratitude for the successive benefits that the Christian clergy has bestowed in past centuries on the Israelites of different European States, and full of gratitude for the welcome which diverse Popes in different epochs have given to Israelites of various countries when barbarism, prejudice and ignorance combined to persecute the Jews and expel them from society, declare as follows:

That the expression of these sentiments shall be recorded in the minutes of today so as to remain forever an authentic witness to the gratitude of the Israelites of this assembly for the benefits which the generations preceding us have received from ecclesiastics of different European countries.” (From Collection of the Acts of the Assembly of the Israelites of France and the Kingdom of Italy by Diogene Tama.)

Sixth Conclusion: Under pain of sin, Catholics cannot hate the Jєωιѕн people, cannot persecute them or prevent them to live, nor disturb them in their private practice of their laws and customs. But, they must nevertheless preserve themselves from the danger they represent. Catholics are not to enter into commercial, social, nor political relations which are bound hypocritically to seek the ruin of Christendom. Jews must not live together with Christians because this is what their own Jєωιѕн laws ordain and also because their errors and material superiority have virulent consequences among other peoples. If the other peoples reject these precautions, they will invite upon themselves these consequences, namely, to serve the Jєωιѕн people to whom belongs superiority in the kingdom of the material.

Seventh Conclusion: In the wandering and pitiable life of the Jєωιѕн people one must discover the Christian mystery. This is magnificently demonstrated by the converted Jew, Fr. Joseph Lehmann, in his book L’entrée des Israelites dans la société française (p. 3). The Jews were responsible —directly and/or indirectly— for covering the Just One with insults, throwing over His shoulders a cloak of contempt, putting on His head a crown of thorns and into His hands a reed. With striking, spitting, insults, and injury they lavished on Him every sort of humiliation. They spared Him no shame. Finally, He was sold for the slave’s price of 30 pieces of silver.

Ever since, similar insults have been visited upon the Jєωιѕн people as a chastisement and penalty for its deed. Moses himself warned:

“And thou shalt be lost, as a proverb and a byword to all people, among whom the Lord shall bring thee in [will lead you away].” (Deut. 28:37)

How long must this terrible enmity between Jews and Christians last? Until God in His mercy brings about the conversion and reconciliation of the Jєωιѕн people. St. Paul teaches us that the day will come when Israel will recognize Him whom he has denied:

“For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, (lest you should be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all Israel should be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” (Rom. 11:25,26)

When the moment arrives (which is in the hands of God), then Esau will be reconciled with Jacob, that is to say, the Jews will become Catholics, and the words of the prophet Ezekiel, five centuries before Christ, will be fulfilled:

“...Thus saith the Lord God: Behold I will take the children of Israel from among the midst of the nations whither they are gone: and I will gather them on every side, and will bring them to their own land. And I will make them one nation in the land on the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king over them all: and they shall no more be two nations, neither shall they be divided any more into two kingdoms. Nor shall they be defiled any more with their idols, nor with their abominations, nor with all their iniquities: and I will save them out of all the places in which they have sinned, and I will cleanse them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.” (Ezek. 37:21-23)

Then all will be one in Christ because the Jєωιѕн people will convert from its Judaism and the Christians will be Christians in earnest, and peace will become a reality as the fruit of justice and charity, in Him Who promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is Jesus Christ, the Blessing of all the ages.

The Jєωιѕн and Christian Peoples

The relations of Christians and Jews cannot be governed by the common law of Christians, but only by an exceptional legislation which takes count of the theological status of the Jєωιѕн people. The Catholic Church’s teaching is that they should neither be eliminated from among us (as anti-Semitism seeks) nor given equality of rights, which leads to their superiority (as is advocated by liberalism or philo-Semitism).

The Catholic Church has always had the habit of praying for the Jєωιѕн people, which was the depository of the Divine Promises up to the coming of Jesus Christ, in spite of this people’s blindness. More than that, it has done so on account of that very blindness. Ruled by the same charity, the Apostolic See has protected this people against unjust vexations, and just as it reproves all hatred between peoples, so it condemns hatred against the people formerly chosen by God, that hatred that ordinarily goes by the name of Anti-Semitism (from the Decree of the Holy Office, 25 March, 1928).

The Jєωιѕн people must live among Christians as a blind witness to the Christian truth, like a spur to keep us faithful. The Catholic Church teaches that it must not be exterminated (for the Jєωιѕн people bears the mark of Cain given it by God so no one would kill it) nor frequented (for God warns of its danger). As once they treated Christ, ever since, to persecute Christianity is their theological preoccupation.

“Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he, that was born according to the flesh [i.e., Ishmael], persecuted him that was after the spirit [i.e., Isaac]; so also it is now.” (Gal. 4:28,29)

This theological law is stronger than all human plans and expedients. The Jєωιѕн people realizes this law. The law contained in the тαℓмυd, which governs Jews, orders enmity with Christians.

The celebrated rabbi, Paulus L.B. Drach, who converted to the Catholic Church, authored a valuable work on the тαℓмυd, De l’harmonie entre l’église et le ѕуηαgσgυє (ed. Paul Melier, Paris 1844). The тαℓмυd is the corpus of Jєωιѕн doctrine, to which the most authentic teachers of Israel in different periods have contributed. It is the complete civil and religious code of the ѕуηαgσgυє. Its object is to explain the Law of Moses in conformity with verbal tradition, and includes discussions of doctors. Although the Christian reader will sometimes be repelled, for one reason or another, he will get valuable information to help explain obscure passages in the New Testament. From the time of the Captivity in Babylon (586 BC), the authority of the rabbis took the place of that of Moses and the Prophets. Rules for the temporal development of the people got more important than rules for religious betterment.

The тαℓмυd got particularly virulent after Christianity appeared. Insolent and sacrilegious infamies against Christ and Christians were written into it, which is why copies were burnt by order of Christian rulers and popes. Hence, a Jєωιѕн synod in Poland in 1631 ordered all in the тαℓмυd that related to Christ and Christians to be suppressed, saying:

“...when you publish a new edition of these books, leave blank the pages referring to Jesus of Nazareth, making a circle like an O; and every rabbi or other teacher will take care not to teach these passages except verbally. In this way, learned Christians will have nothing to reproach us with on this, and we will live in peace.”

We have already discussed the spiritual greatness of the nation from which Christ came. Israel is so great in whatever he does that it is unable to perpetrate evil except also in a great, a terrible way. We will discuss four of these ways. He is a consecrated lineage which, if he saves us in Christ, ruins us in the Antichrist. Yet, Christians cannot hate him, only lament him. Jєωιѕн writers like Barnard Lazare recognize this, the Jєωιѕн people forged as it is by the spirit of the rabbis.

The rabbis had separated Israel from the community of nations; they had made the people a wild solitary people, rebellious against all law, hostile to all fraternity, shut against every beautiful, noble and generous ideal; a miserable little nation made bitter by isolation, made brutish by a narrow education, demoralized and corrupted by an unjustifiable pride (l’Antisemitisme, v.1, p.57).

1. The Jєωιѕн people persecute Christendom.

St. Paul denounces it for persecution:

“...for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end.” (I Thess. 3:14b-16)

See also St. Justin in his Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon (XVI, 133). St. Basil affirms that the Jєωιѕн and pagan people were formerly at enmity, but joined together against Christians, as is confirmed by Tertullian, Origen, and Gregory nαzιanzen. See Leclerc, Les Martyres (Paris, 1905, v.1, p.103); and the article of J. Vernet, “Juifs et Chretiens” in Dictionnaire d’apologétique.

Since the 12th century these persecutions became rare because of the Church’s vigilance. But we find them allied to heretics repeatedly: Cathars, Vaudois, Hussites. As the Jew Darmesteter himself said (Les prophètes d’Israel), all revolutionaries in spirit go to the Jews for arguments.

2. The Jєωιѕн people conspire against the Christian State.

Some facts: In Spain (694) the Jews conspired with the Jews in Africa to let the Arabs into Spain; in 711 they allied with the Arabs; in 952 they handed over Barcelona. In 854, Bordeaux was delivered to the Normans by the Jews; at the end of the 12th century they made common cause with the Mongols against the Christians of Hungary.

3. The Jєωιѕн people win control of property by usury.
[The main vice of the Gentile people is its sensuality. To satisfy this, it spends itself into debt and must seek moneylenders.—Ed.]

The Jєωιѕн people were forbidden to lend at interest among themselves.

“Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury, nor corn, nor any other thing: but to the stranger [i.e., foreigner]. To thy brother thou shalt lend that which he wanteth, without usury:...”(Deut. 23:19,20)

St. Thomas Aquinas says (II-IIae, Q. 78, A. 1) God permitted them to lend usuriously to foreigners, not as though it were lawful, but in order to avoid the greater evil, that is, through the avarice to which they were prone (Is. 56:11) that they should take usury from their own Jєωιѕн people who worshipped the true God.

Jansen, the great historian of the Reformation wrote:

“The Jews not only monopolized money-changing; the real source of their wealth was usury...they gradually became the bankers and financiers for all classes.”

Jansen cites that in 1338, Emperor Louis of Bavaria allowed the Jews to charge interest rates as high as 32½% upon the citizens of Frankfurt, Germany; 43% for foreigners in the city. At Ratisbon, Augsburg, and Vienna, the legally permitted interest was as high as 86%. One of Jansen’s contemporaries wrote:

“The Jєωιѕн usurers now install themselves in fixed places in even the smallest towns; when they advance five florins they take security representing six times the value of what is lent; then they claim interest and compound interest, so that the poor man is deprived of all he had (Erasmus of Erbach” 1487)

The superiority of the Jєωιѕн moneylenders and the extravagant wastefulness of the Gentiles is exemplified by the fact that when Philip Augustus expelled the Jєωιѕн people from France in the 12th century, they owned a third of the land, and had so gotten hold of the money, that when they left, it was difficult to find any anywhere.

4. Jews are known to kill Christians.

Already St. Justin (3rd century) said so. The тαℓмυd allows it. History confirms it. It is certain that lives of Christians have been taken: St. William of York, 12 years old (1144); St. Richard of Paris (1179); St. Dominic de Val, crucified at Saragossa, Spain (1250); Bl. Henry of Munich (1345); Bl. Simeon (1475); the controversial martyrdoms of Fr. Thomas of Cangiano and his aide (1840) in Damascus.

As grisly as they are, these four accusations can be docuмented in every period and country where Jews live with Christians. In earlier times the Jews could only act directly against Christians who were well-cautioned about them. But now that Christians are de-Christianized, the Jews pursue their aggression with the help of the Christians themselves.

Judgments of Popes Regarding the Jєωιѕн People

There are at least 15 papal docuмents warning the Catholic Church against the dangers presented by the Jєωιѕн people. Catholic theology has always recognized that the Jєωιѕн people are a sacred people. In one sense, the Jєωιѕн people is the Father of the Church, because the oracles of God were given to it; and however perverse a father may be, he is owed protection and respect. Anti-Semitism is condemned because it is persecution of the Jєωιѕн people without taking account of their sacred character nor the rights that come from this. An excerpt from one of the papal docuмents regarding the Jєωιѕн people tidily summarizes the Catholic teaching:

“They are the living witnesses of the true Faith. The Christian must not exterminate or oppress them....We must not molest them in the exercise of the privileges accorded them....As they seek our help, we accept and take them under our protection; and following our predecessors Callixtus, Eugenius, Alexander, Clement and Celestine, we forbid the forcing of baptism on a Jew, also harming them in any way or taking their goods, etc., or violating their cemeteries and digging up corpses to find money. The punishment for disobedience to these dispositions is excommunication.” (from the Constitution Licet Perfidia Judaeorum, Pope Innocent III, 1199)

Nevertheless, though the Jєωιѕн people must be protected, it was recognized it was dangerous enough to be isolated into its own neighbourhoods. Was this an offence against its natural human rights? —No, for this people refuses to assimilate itself into the country that gives it hospitality, and lives by тαℓмυdic laws contrary to the common good. The policy of the Catholic Church is to extend liberty to the Jєωιѕн people to develop and live within its legitimate laws while guarding Catholics, however, against its domination.

The Church’s Wisdom

The Catholic Church perceives the deep desire of the Jєωιѕн people to impose its material superiority and the guilt of Catholics who seek this people to get material gain. The enslaving of Christians and Christian nations began by the fault of Christians.

If Christians wish to remain free, let them avoid entanglements with the Jєωιѕн people. It dominates in every branch of commerce and finance, in philosophy and the universities. Its action is felt in the consequences of the French Revolution, in the socialization of socialist countries, and in the slavery of Communism. If the Gentile people wishes for a civilization based on economic greatness and the comfortable life, with everything set at the epitome of organization and technical development–then it can have it, with the Jєωιѕн people as master and the all the rest as slaves.

Since Christ came into the world, a civilization where Mammon is king is only possible under the Jєωιѕн people because, as said previously, the gift of dominance has been given it in all that is of the flesh, the world.

Theology rules history. History has a meaning, a theological one; because God knows how to profit from all the successes and failures of men to realize His plan.

God gave two enemies to the nations that flourished under the Church’s guidance in the Middle Ages: an internal one, the spirit of rebellion against the spiritual in order that worldly greatness be achieved; and an external one, the Jєωιѕн people, who live among the Christians to be a goad and a spur. Christendom under holy kings and popes knew how to guard against these dangers. Christendom perceived in a truly theological manner the Jєωιѕн people’s domination of the material world and so isolated this sacred but perfidious people.

But in the Renaissance and Protestant Reformation, carnal instincts rebelled, and by a theological necessity stronger than men’s calculations, the emancipation of the Jєωιѕн people necessarily followed: an emancipation that under Capitalism and Communism turned into domination.

Fault is not to be charged to the Jєωιѕн people for the evils that have come upon society. It is realizing the program which, in God’s plan, is its task to bring to completion. The fault is on the Catholics, unfaithful to their great vocation, who have sought with its help a material, carnal, worldly greatness–which ends in rivers of Christian blood.

The Jєωιѕн People and the De-Christianized Peoples

The true defence of Christendom is not police measures, but Jesus Christ. Woe to the world if it forgets Him! At the end of the Middle Ages, the Gentile people committed great sins, especially the clergy. Thus weakened, this people succuмbed to the brain and hand of Judaization —through the Renaissance, the French Revolution, and Communism. Judaism would give mental ammunition to the rebels, e.g., Renaissance sceptics and 18th-century libertines. Werner Sombart, the authoritative historian of Capitalism who is neither Catholic nor αnтι-ѕємιтє, shows in his book Les juifs et la vie économique how some Protestant sects, especially the Puritans, are Judaic. Close relations formed between Judaism and some of the Reformation sects and a great keenness for Hebrew studies swept Europe. In England alone, for instance, a sect named the “Levellers” called themselves Jews and wished to make the Torah the English code of law, Cromwell was urged to imitate the Sanhedrin by numbering 70 members in the Council of State, and it was proposed (1629) in Parliament to change the Sunday worship to Saturday.

Whatever influence Judaism had in the Renaissance and Reformation, it certainly profited. The Jєωιѕн author, Bernard Lazare, says:

“The Jєωιѕн spirit triumphed with Protestantism.” (l’Antisemitisme, x.I, p.225)

From the breach thus opened in the structure of Christendom, the Jєωιѕн people hope to exercise their astuteness to realize their ancient dream of a world empire. Having rejected Christ, it awaits the messiah promised in the тαℓмυd who will “give to the Jews the sceptre of the world.”

To penetrate Christendom, the masses must be captivated and rebellion fomented against its two pillars —Pope and King. The formula prepared by Judaism for their destruction: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. This formula was introduced first to the malcontents making up the membership of the Freemasonic lodges. The lodges proclaim inoffensive programs about the improvement of humanity, but the real aim is to “destroy all that the Catholic Church has done in the world” (Etudes sur la franc-maçonnerie américaine, A. Preuss).

There are solid proofs of their deadly activity in the public record, especially in confiscated Masonic docuмents and the public claims of the Masons themselves. The Jєωιѕн author Isaac Wise reported:

“Masonry is a Jєωιѕн institution, whose history, regulations, duties, recommendations and explanations are Jєωιѕн to the end.” (The Israelite, August, 1855)

Under the deceitful slogan of the Rights of Man, Christian society has become ripe for conquest. Firstly, by Capitalism, all wealth falls to centralized control. Secondly, by Liberalism and Socialism, the understanding of nations is perverted and their heart corrupted. Thirdly, by Communism, all opposition is eliminated and the remaining people are submitted to a yoke from which they cannot escape.

Capitalism

The essence of the capitalist regime in force since the French Revolution which has produced the material greatness of the modern world is the regime of financial wealth as the prime mover of all economic affairs. The financial power concentrated in the banks assures the development of all commercial, industrial, and agricultural activity. By means of credit and lending at interest, finance capital mobilizes great wealth, which in turn increases that same finance capital. The banks enrich themselves rapidly by lending at interest. By being loaned, money acquires a magnetic power. Lending at interest, in a regime with monetary stability, tends to create two well-defined classes. The lending, capitalist class necessarily goes on getting richer, because the money cannot help increasing. The working class must work both for itself and for the lender. The moment comes when the work done does not cover what is due to the lender, and then it goes into debt.

Another way by which bankers enrich themselves is the numerous operations of loans and repayment of loans. It is a real creation of money for the use of the banker. Credit is money, and in creating it, they become wealthy.

It is public knowledge that the Jєωιѕн sector, relatively small compared to the Gentile sector which devotes itself to the creation of wealth, controls especially the financial power that is exercised through banks. Wise Solomon observes for us under the power of the Holy Ghost:

“By slothfulness a building shall be brought down, and through the weakness of hands, the house shall drop through. For laughter they make bread, and wine that the living may feast: and all things obey money.” (Eccl. 10:18,19 [emphasis added])

The gifted Jєωιѕн bankers have created a controlled economy whose ultimate end is the multiplication of money. Even money-strapped governments become their obedient clients. Governments could break their financial bonds except that, despite many other circuмstances, these bankers are also national or international at will and can bring pressure to bear from nearly any point. International Judaism has created international capitalism to gain international wealth. Werner Sombart’s voluminous work (Les juifs et la vie économique, Payot, Paris, 1923 [translated from the German]) shows how Judaism has created Capitalism and could not be otherwise explained without it.

Demo-liberal Corruption and Socialism

Beyond its financial influence, Judaic thinking comes to dominate the cultural and educational fields. The pattern repeats: Jews get into posts of influence, and submit society to a high degree of corruption in ways of thinking and acting, which leads to a reaction of public opinion against them.

But demo-liberalism is only a stage. The next step is socialism, whose seminal thinkers, from Marx to Leon Blum, were of the Jєωιѕн people. The construction of both Capitalism and Socialism, two opposing forces, is to further divide and conquer. Capitalism robs Christians of what they have. Socialism poisons those who have not, and so starts the Class War. Catholicism, however, which constructed Christendom, is confined to sacristies and convents.

The people are Judaized: the rich with Liberalism, the poor with Socialism. It thinks and acts in the manner of Judaism. Thinking itself free, it thinks with the Judaized mind of the media.

“The great ideal of Judaism is that the whole world should be imbued with Jєωιѕн teaching, and that in a universal fraternity of nations —an enlarged Judaism —all separate races and religious should disappear.... By their activity in literature and science, by expressing their dominant passion in every branch of public activity, they are gradually pouring into Jєωιѕн molds all non-Jєωιѕн systems and ideas.” (Jєωιѕн World newspaper, Feb. 9, 1863) . [See also the Noahide Deceit and Chabad and AIPAC]

Communism

It is a matter of public historical record that Communism was financed by Jєωιѕн money. Jacob Schiff and his banking partners, Felix and Max Warburg, financed revolutionary propaganda among Russian prisoners of war in different countries and helped Trotsky. Schiff publicly declared (1917) that the revolution had succeeded thanks to his help.

A Jєωιѕн review declared that Communism had achieved “the emancipation of Jews and the triumph of Judaism,” because it had “been created, realized by Jews” (Vu, April, 1932).

Capitalism is only a transition stage toward the egalitarian levelling of Communism. That Communism was created by Judaism does not mean it has the control of it as it once had, especially since 1947 when the alliance broke into two blocks. In Russia now there is a general anti-Judaism feeling and though Judaism still promotes Communism, it prefers to see it realized in another manner.

Will the Jєωιѕн people succeed in its ambitions? To what extent? God knows. He has His plans, and knows how to combine human acts to further them. The amalgamation of the Jєωιѕн and Gentile peoples has been catastrophic; but God has allowed it, so something good will come of it.

One of the goods will be that Catholic nations will expiate for their centuries of infidelities. These nations who, headed by France, should have been the heralds of Christ to the peoples of East and West have instead been heralds of sin. As the Jєωιѕн people were punished in 70 AD, so the Gentile people. For the Christian peoples, yesterday it was Russia; tomorrow, the world. A global chastisement is due for both Jew and Gentile alike, for both have offended God for centuries and need purifying. Afterwards then will appear men of sanctity, full of the genuine Catholic faith and charity of the martyrs. A weak and hypocritical Catholicism will no longer be possible. Only after this purification will be possible the reconciliation of Jacob and Esau, Christian and Jew. St Paul teaches that when the knowledge of the Catholic Faith shall have reached all nations, Israel will convert en masse. In the shared pain of a common chastisement, all will understand that we are brothers in Him who was promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; in Whom all nations of the earth are blessed. There will be an outpouring of the Spirit of God in the coming collision of the forces of evil against the few who will resist. He will inflame hearts through the flames of material punishment. He will enter them and teach them to meet together in Him who is “meek and humble of heart.” Because we all have been ruined by pride and materialism, and must be saved in the humility of Christ.

The Mystery of History and Eschatology

The Jєωιѕн people are of exceptional importance in human history. Other peoples have been dominant, but only for a time. To begin to understand the mystery of the Jєωιѕн people in history, let us make some theological considerations about history.

History begins with the Creation. Here the initiative was with God. God continues to act on humanity, to continue what He made good at the start. He can give direction and meaning to otherwise absurd acts of men. Man, however, has the initiative in doing evil.

Looking at things from a human viewpoint, one can see two histories, one written by the intervention of God, and the other, by man. In the divine history of God, Christ is the centre. Profane history is the history of successive civilizations. In the profane history of civilizations, it seems that man’s will prevails. In it, however, one sees a strong dose of fat

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #3 on:** December 08, 2024, 08:33:39 PM »

Great posting, thanks Mark.

There is no more shameful page in the history of the SSPX than their persecution and ridiculing of Bishop Williamson over his famous 'h0Ɩ0cαųst Interview'. When Pope Benedict XVI as good as held up the h0Ɩ0cαųst as a Catholic dogma, rather than standing up for Catholic truth, Bishop Fellay preferred to grovel before his modernist master. It beggars belief that most of the Traditional Catholic world was more prepared to believe in a supposed imprudence of Bishop Williamson than a shocking betrayal of Bishop Fellay.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 08, 2024, 08:38:40 PM »

You are welcome. Hopefully that Cabal will cease their kissy-face/grab-ass with the Novus Ordo cult.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #5 on:** December 08, 2024, 08:41:27 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on December 08, 2024, 11:50:45 AM

Thanks for this article. It's a great summary of what is wrong with Roy Shoeman and his movement.

Around the time this article was written, I had my first meeting with an SSPX priest. I had been reading books and online discussions that convinced me that I had finally found a group that understood the importance of praying for the conversion of Jєωs. Although I was not a trad at that point, I sought out the closest chapel to request a Mass for that intention.

I had a lovely discussion with Fr. Peter Scott at that time. I cannot imagine anyone being more warm and welcoming when I told him the reason for my request, that I was myself a convert from Judaism. He told me that Archbishop Lefebvre had been a Spiritan Father and that this order considered Blessed Francis Libermann, a convert from Judaism, as a second founder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Libermann Fr. Scott made it clear that I would be very welcome to attend Mass with the SSPX and told that story to show that I already had a connection with them.

Over the years since then, I have encountered this accusation of SSPX anti-Semitism many times and always been struck with how different this was from my personal experience. I also read the allegedly "anti-semitic" SSPX articles referred to in the Sungenis essay. I found them very helpful for figuring out the traditional Catholic understanding of Jєωs and Judaism. I saw nothing hateful about them. But I have the impression that most of these people who like to throw the term "anti-semitism" around would also apply it to the traditional Catholic view.

That's wonderful Janek! Thank you for sharing. Fr Scott is also a convert as you probably know - from Protestantism. Tell us more about your conversion if you want to :-)

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #6 on:** December 08, 2024, 08:46:24 PM »

Bishop Williamson quotes someone (I can't remember whom) as saying that when a Jew labels someone as antisemitic, it is more often than not the case that it is not someone who hates the Jews, but someone the Jews hate.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 08, 2024, 08:56:42 PM »

It was the late Joe Sobran, among the first to suffer (((cancel culture))).

“An αnтι-ѕємιтє used to mean a man who hated Jews. Now it means a man who is hated by Jews.”

― Joseph Sobran

See also: antisemitism https://archive.is/NiTgG#lexicon

You may appreciate the Jєωιѕн lexicon and memes. I have not yet updated to the archive links, but please enjoy…

Jєωιѕн lexicon

memes

Mark 79 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 08, 2024, 09:06:49 PM »

updated

Giovanni Berto · « **Reply #9 on:** December 08, 2024, 09:41:53 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on December 08, 2024, 08:46:24 PM

Bishop Williamson quotes someone (I can't remember whom) as saying that when a Jєω labels someone as antisemitic, it is more often than not the case that it is not someone who hates the Jєωs, but someone the Jєωs hate.

Is there ever a case when anti-Semitism is actually a bad thing? I mean, it's simply common sense to avoid bad people.

If most pitbulls are going to bite you, if you are not stupid, you will stay away from each and every one of them, even the ones that seem to be cool. And they are way less treacherous than Jews.

Of course, I don't mean to offend anyone with this post, specially well behaved dogs.

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #10 on:** December 08, 2024, 09:56:58 PM »

Quote from: Giovanni Berto on December 08, 2024, 09:41:53 PM

Is there ever a case when anti-Semitism is actually a bad thing? I mean, it's simply common sense to avoid bad people.

If most pitbulls are going to bite you, if you are not stupid, you will stay away from each and every one of them, even the ones that seem to be cool. And they are way less treacherous than Jєωs.

Of course, I don't mean to offend anyone with this post, specially well behaved dogs.

Of course we love all men, especially our enemies, but that doesn't mean we keep bad company and expose ourselves to evil.
As Our Lord said, if we only love those who love us, where is the merit in that?
It is not loving someone, however, to confirm and encourage them in their evil, but to help them see the truth, painful though it may be.
It is much more painful, for all eternity, to reject the truth.

Giovanni Berto · « **Reply #11 on:** December 08, 2024, 10:30:48 PM »

Quote from: Plenus Venter on December 08, 2024, 09:56:58 PM

Of course we love all men, especially our enemies, but that doesn't mean we keep bad company and expose ourselves to evil.
As Our Lord said, if we only love those who love us, where is the merit in that?
It is not loving someone, however, to confirm and encourage them in their evil, but to help them see the truth, painful though it may be.
It is much more painful, for all eternity, to reject the truth.

I believe that he Popes set a good example for us. They put the Roman Jews in the ghetto and said that they were not to be hurt, and even that they could perform their dirty rituals in their ѕуηαgσgυєs (no ritual murders allowed, of course). That's very charitable, considering that the Popes at the time were powerful enough to get them all killed or simply expelled from the Papal States.

In the present day, some people might even be forced to tolerate them on a daily basis, like if you have a Jєωιѕн workmate, for instance.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 09, 2024, 02:43:52 AM »

Giovanni, you are consistently one of the most insightful and honest posters on CathInfo. Thank you.

Everlast22 · « **Reply #13 on:** December 09, 2024, 08:25:16 AM »

As a Catholic you should be anti-anything that's is not Catholic.. Especially Anti-Jew. They are objectively our worst enemy. Apparently "Anti" to some people means = genocide/treated very badly.

Author Topic: Is the SSPX anti-Semitic? (Read 5779 times)

Mark 79

Is the SSPX anti-Semitic?

Jaynek

Re: Is the SSPX anti-Semitic?

Mark 79

Re: Is the SSPX anti-Semitic?

Plenus Venter

Re: Is the SSPX anti-Semitic?

Mark 79

Re: Is the SSPX anti-Semitic?

Plenus Venter

Re: Is the SSPX anti-Semitic?

Plenus Venter

Re: Is the SSPX anti-Semitic?

Mark 79

Re: Is the SSPX anti-Semitic?

Mark 79

Re: Is the SSPX anti-Semitic?

Giovanni Berto

Re: Is the SSPX anti-Semitic?

Plenus Venter

Re: Is the SSPX anti-Semitic?

Giovanni Berto

Re: Is the SSPX anti-Semitic?

Mark 79

Re: Is the SSPX anti-Semitic?

Everlast22

Re: Is the SSPX anti-Semitic?