Scratch a Reactionary, Find a Jew-Hater

Fresh from the spectacle of screaming their way through a Kristallnacht commemoration in Buenos Aires, the Reactionaries again hold a teapot tempestfest by freaking out over this passage from Evangelii Gaudium:

“We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”. Evangelii Gaudium n. 247

With that, a latter day Marcionite named Fr. Paul Kramer, who is associated with another reactionary named Fr. Nicholas Gruner, has declared Francis a heretic and kicked him out of the papacy while (as all dissenters do) installing himself in his place. Most hilarious part: for the kooks at Novus Ordo Watch, that’s still not enough because he doesn’t hate and reject enough people yet.

Meanwhile, in the land of the sane:

“The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.” CCC 121

For those of you interested in a non-crazy approach to the relationship between the Old and New Covenants, may I offer my series on A Tale of Two Covenants, found here, here, here, and here.

  • ChGPe

    So a mere hours after describing Fr. Z’s readers as “Reactionary”, you now go on with the title of this post to more than imply that so-called Reactionaries are really just a bunch anti-semites underneath.

    Classy…

    • James H, London

      Well, if it walks like a duck, and quacks…

      • Steven

        Then it must be a witch! Wait…

    • Dan C

      Jews are a particular focus for these Reactionaries. Let them stray from religion a little and anti-Semite comments in the usual manner show up. All the regular stories.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Quite so! That’s the real problem here, not Fr. Kramer nor the fact that we’ve got reactionaries (or whatever denomination will comfort your prejudices) evidencing animosity towards Jews and the Church’s teachings concerning our Jewish brethren.

  • Steve

    A belligerent fella called up Catholic Answers last Thursday and gave Jimmy Akin an earful about “zionism” when this topic came up.

  • http://www.subcreators.com/blog Lori Pieper

    Fr. Kramer sneers: “Pope” Francis in Evangelii Gaudium n. 247:
    “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with
    God has never been revoked”. This text is an explicit profession of
    heresy,

    Pope Francis actually wrote (restoring a crucial edit:
    247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because
    their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of
    God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).

    So if Pope Francis is a heretic, what does that make St. Paul?

    • http://www.subcreators.com/blog Lori Pieper

      [I spent close to an hour an a half writing a reply to a reply to me that was just removed by our host- before I had a chance to send it. It's very relevant to this discussion all the same, so I decided to post it anyway].

      As it happens, Timothy, I know Matthew and Greek very well. I
      investigated, and you are correct about the literal meaning of
      ἀμεταμέλητα. (ametalemeta). But, as a professional translator, I know
      that the possibilities for translation aren’t exhausted by the literal
      meaning. The word “irrevocable” might be called for here for several
      reasons, among them the whole tone of this chapter of Romans, and Paul’s insistence on the continuation of Israel; even those Jews who have not accepted Christ still have their identity as branches (though separated) of the old (now become new) cultivated olive tree, and will in the end be grafted to it again.

      In addition, we also have Christ’s clear and unmistakeable words: ““Do
      not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have
      not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you,
      until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from
      the Law until all is accomplished.” (Mt. 5:16-18). The Mosaic law and
      the rest of the covenant in the pages of the Old Testament were not
      abolished, or revoked, but fulfilled in the New Covenant, which will
      last to the end of time. That’s one of the most elementary things we
      “uneducated” Catholics learn. Strange that you seem to have missed it.

      The truth is, you can find passages of NT scripture that say the Old
      Covenant did end with the new, as well as those in the opposite sense.
      That is all the more reason to pay close attention to what a particular
      Church document says on this matter.

      Strangely, at least going by the English version, the Council of Florence never says the Old Covenant was revoked in so many words, just that its sacrificial and ceremonial prescriptions came to an end and were replaced by the Catholic sacraments.

      “This council firmly believes, professes and teaches that
      the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are
      divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they
      were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were
      adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who
      was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of
      the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion,
      places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them
      as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could
      not save, sins mortally.”

      The council was saying that Christians could not practice the Mosaic Law, which for them lost its efficacy. The decree was actually concerned entirely with Jewish converts to Christianity. The question of the practice of the Jews really isn’t addressed.

      Please not that nowhere am I saying that the Old Covenant remains salvific for the Jews. That is an incorrect view, not held by Vatican II. It is true, as I understand, that there are elements of the Law that are still binding for Jews as for Christians, i.e. the Ten Commandments.

      There is an extremely helpful article about all this by the late Avery Cardinal Dulles:

      http://www.firstthings.com/print/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel—42

      That’s enough for this “uneducated” person for tonight!

  • http://twitter.com/darosi Daniel

    I just took a look at the website you linked to, My first thought is that it is satire. Or written by Athiests as some form of counter-intelligence. I hope that no seeker ever stumbles on that disgusting vitriol.

  • Stu

    Who is Father Kramer?

    • kenofken

      I don’t know, but I think I found his mentor and confessor!

      THINK ABOUT IT!!…….:)

      http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsF/5910-6009.jpg

      • Stu

        I have to confess that I don’t who that is either.

        Sorry.

        • kenofken

          “Nick”, the army surplus store owner in “Falling Down.” He was rabidly anti-Semitic and racist and whenever he’d offer up some Zionist conspiracy, he’d exhort Michael Douglas’ character to “think about it!”

          It was an ugly and vulgar scene, but darkly funny at the same time because Jew haters all seem to have the same reasoning and mannerisms at some level.

          • Stu

            I love that movie too for the same reasons but it has been so long that I have forgotten the details. Everything except, “I’m the bad guy?”

      • ivan_the_mad

        HAHAHA!!! D-FENS!

        • kenofken

          “We’re the same, you and me, we’re the SAME!” :)

      • Guest

        Hahaha! D-FENS!

  • freddy

    See, I really don’t get this connection between reactionaries and anti-Semitism. I would think that the more one delved into the traditions and history of the Church, the greater appreciation for and love of the Jewish people and their history would result. It’s a shared history. They are “our” people in a very special and beautiful way, and as our people, our “elder brothers in faith” are deserving of our respect and friendship. I would think that especially a priest would be aware of this connection, particularly as every Catholic church is essentially a part of the Temple; with its holy of holies and inner court for the priesthood. Who, seeing this daily, would not be grateful to God’s Chosen?

    • wineinthewater

      The problem is that this particular kind of reactionary is not too traditional, but not traditional enough. The kind of traditionalism that characterizes this particular kind of reactionary doesn’t look to the fullness of Tradition, but only the last 500 years or so with shreds of revisionist history spreading earlier.

      A true and healthy traditionalist (and there are many more than the internet would lead you to believe) looks to the fullness of Tradition .. and sees a lot of Jewishness.

  • Illinidiva

    The sedevacanist set is incredibly anti-Semitic. The SSPX’s main issue with Vatican II was and has always been Nostra Aetate and the sedevacanists think that Fellay is a sellout.

  • Timotheos

    The title alone is mortally sinful. To call someone a ‘Jew-hater’ for holding to traditional Catholic doctrine on the so-called ‘Jews’ is a moral hate-crime, a wicked attempt to impugn their character and destroy their reputation.

    I predict that those who continue to follow AntiPope Jorge Bergoglio (or ex-AntiPope Ratzinger – please note, Fr Kramer) are going to be induced to commit even graver sins in future. So to all readers here, I would say, ‘Get out of this evil counterfeit-Catholic sect NOW before it’s too late and your heart has become wholly corrupted. Give up NOW the sinful pleasure you currently experience when listening to the vicious scoffing of such wicked blogs as this.’

    • HornOrSilk

      No, it was not “traditional” doctrine to hate Jews and to be anti-Semite. Augustine talks about the protection and respect Christians were to give to the Jews long before any of the medieval anti-Semite craze developed. The anti-semite tradition developed out of the debates with the Jews, but turned them around, from apologetical interests and pursuits to outright offenses. This is not Christianity. This is not Catholicism.

      • Timotheos

        Who said it was ‘traditional doctrine to hate Jews and to be anti-Semite’? You are so desirous to scoff that you have to create a strawman to argue against.

        Authentic Catholics don’t use the sinful weaponized term ‘anti-Semite’. It was coined in the 19th century to express opposition to the so-called ‘Jews’ on the basis of race, not religion. Therefore, to call a Catholic ‘anti-Semite’ is to defame him as a racist. That is a mortal sin.

        Furthermore, approx 90% of those calling themselves ‘Jews’ are Ashkenazim, i.e. non-Israelites unable to trace to their descent to Noah’s son Sem. So the term anti-Semitic is not just a vicious slur, it’s also patent nonsense predicated on a wicked obsession with race.

        • HornOrSilk

          And where do you get “authentic Catholics don’t say anti-Semite”? Where is this is the “authentic Catholic dogmatic manuals”? Wait, it is not. The term is a legitimate term, and yes, authentic Catholics use it, especially after Vatican II and Nostra Aetate.

          And your racism is apparent.

          • Timotheos

            Authentic Christians are not fixated on race (as you appear to be). They do not draw their vocabulary from the race-obsessed lexicons of the enemies of the Catholic Church. They understand that the Catholic Church is ‘catholic’, i.e. for all mankind irrespective of race. True Christians love ALL and preach the Gospel to ALL, including those who call themselves ‘Jews’ (whatever that means).

            The judaeo-masonic AntiCouncil ‘Vatican II’ and the heretical document ‘Nostra Aetate’ are wholly void of authority for a Catholic. The only reason that people love these false ‘authorities’ is because they HATE the traditional teaching of the Church, and they foolishly imagine in their wicked hubris that THEY can change it!

            • HornOrSilk

              How is it that someone says don’t discriminate and attack the Jews for being Jews that they are “fixated” on race? If the attack was on African Americans, I would also criticize such racism and denounce it, and it would not mean I am fixated on African Americans. I am for the Christian charity which is not racist in any stripe, and does not engage generalizations due to race (or race bait, like stories of “Jews killed babies and drank their blood” did in the medieval era).

              Seeking to preach to all is not the same thing as preaching hatred against those who you want to convert. This is what you fail to recognize.

              And your rejection of Vatican II says enough about you. You are NOT CATHOLIC, but as much a “Catholic” as Luther was when he rejected the teachings of the Church for his own ideology. You will find the teachings of Nostra Aetate preached in the writings of the martyrs (like St Justin), or, in the renaissance, people like Nicholas of Cusa (heracles of the Eugenists, you know), et. al. You just do not know tradition, nor Catholicism. You are a racist, and your baiting above showed it.

              • Timotheos

                Those who indulge in scoffing abandon their critical reasoning skills. This explains why you have just erected your STRAWMAN again (groan), a strawman who ‘attacks Jews for being Jews’ and who ‘preaches hatred’ against them. This is nothing but tiresome racist, antichrist propaganda. And you have obviously bought it hook, line and sinker. Get rid of it before it utterly rots your soul.

                If I am like Luther, why on earth are you attacking me?! Vatican II is neo-Lutheran through and through. According to ‘Cardinal’ Willebrands, Luther is ‘our common master’, and Ratzinger praised the ‘greatness of his spiritual fervour’. No wonder the Vatican II sect signed the ‘Catholic-Lutheran’ Agreement of 1999. And now they are preparing to commemorate the fifth centenary of their new ‘saint’ in 2017.

                • HornOrSilk

                  So you indulged in scoffing by calling authentic Popes, anti-Popes, and an authentic Council, Masonic. Oh, wait, you can scoff, but you will then act like Mr. Logic in reply (and no, it was not a strawman, the fact that you promote a Jewish-Masonic conspiracy points out that you do engage in race baiting and racism).

                  You also do not understand the Church, or the ways Luther was wrong. The fact that some things could be and were learned from him does not make him Catholic. This is again the poor logic of the extremists like you engage. The Church always looks for the positive even in outsiders. You keep making the strawmen (now with your Church is Lutheran comment; making agreements is good, this is how the Church always works, I am sure you would have joined in with Dioscorus against Pope Leo at Chalcedon because he made “deals” with the “Nestorians” right?)

                  Seriously, you are FAR out of it.

                  • Timotheos

                    The judaeo-masonic conspiracy and its exposure have nothing to do with race. Those at the top of the judaeo-masonic conspiracy know this just as well as I do. The only reason they play the anti-Semite card all the time is because they know how effective it is in deflecting from the real issues, viz. their plot to impose the kingdom of Satan under the cover of their counterfeit ‘church’. To expose their criminality is a Christian duty.

                    St Justin Martyr would have died before signing the wicked document Nostra Aetate. You clearly haven’t read any of his writings, in particular his Dialogue with Trypho.

                    Nor do you have a proper understanding of Ecclesiastical History, as evidenced by your fatuous remark concerning the monophysite Dioscuros. The Church never makes ‘deals’ with heretics. Only an AntiChurch behaves like that.

                    I’ll leave you to argue with your follow sectarians about the merits of Martin Luther. They regard him as a fellow Christian, a member of Christ’s One Church now in Heaven (apparently). But you clearly have a problem with that point of view.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      Does Bishop Williamson let you wear his paper mitre, or does he reserve that solely for himself?

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      I must have hit too close to the mark. I’m sorry that you and Bishop Williamson experience such strife over whose turn it is to wear the paper mitre.

                    • Timotheos

                      Three comments deleted. My, my. I wonder whether Hilaire Belloc would have exhibited such pusillanimity in debate.

                      Furthermore,
                      the fact that you allow your one-sided comments to stand whilst
                      assiduously deleting mine reveals that you are quite happy to deceive
                      your trusting readers. So that’s mendacity as well as pusillanimity to
                      add to the list.

                      Time to stop wearing Mr Belloc’s picture methinks. It simply doesn’t fit, does it?

    • chezami

      The butthurt. It burns! Goodbye.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X