I don’t mean to argue with you, as I know little about E. Michael Jones. But if you say he’s antisemitic what do you base this conclusion on? If he has said he just doesn’t like Jews or holds some animus against them for historic purposes, I can well understand him being so labeled. But often you hear that opprobrium thrown around and there’s no basis for it. If this is not the case I’d like to know what you believe he did to deserve being so named.
Now I am an SSPX Catholic. I completely reject many of the teachings in Vatican II—especially Nostra Aetate. Does that make me an antisemite?
Also, there are many people who look askance at AIPAC and believe they are too influential on Capital Hill in their support for Israel. Pat Buchanan comes to mind in that regard. The media called him an antisemite for that. Was that deserved?
Indeed, some people genuinely believe that Israel was as wrong to drive the Palestinians out of the land they had occupied for centuries, much as England was wrong to drive the Catholics out of the North of Ireland 350 years ago. Are people who feel that way antisemites?
Again, I don’t mean to sound belligerent, but if E.Michael Jones is an antisemite it doesn’t say much for him as far as I’m concerned.
Perhaps you could share what you know about this man in that regard.
No, though some TradCaths are, and who (contrary to past Roman means of assurance and unity) are actually acting as Bible Christians are to,as regards making the veracity of church teaching subject to the test of conformity with past historical church teaching.
The critical difference is that TradCaths selectively choose past, premodern RC teaching, while we are to look to the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels), in which distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest.
May God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)