“Why do Trump voters always get Israel First when they vote for America First?”

On the Jewish Question and the Post-War Narrative

A Defense of E. Michael Jones, André Villeneuve, and a few other Catholic friends. An appeal for true dialogos based on truth and charity.

Author’s note: first of all, “He who in conversation wishes to establish his own opinion, even if it were true, is sick with the devil’s disease” (St. John Climacus). This is merely my own opinion, and I could be wrong. So take this for what it’s worth: nothing. Also, this article will probably offend someone, so please comment below and correct my inevitable errors! Forgive me, a sinner.

“Why do Trump voters always get Israel First when they vote for America First?”

So asked my friend, Dr. E. Michael Jones, the resident “antisemite” Catholic commentator. We’ll deal with that false charge against our Catholic brother in a minute.

First, let’s get back to Dr. Jones, who answers his own question (above) with this:

The first answer is theological and grows out of the evangelical wing of American Protestantism, which is now totally Zionist in its orientation and a prisoner of the bogus notes of the Scofield Bible. When @TuckerCarlson presses @SenTedCruz on why he supports regime change in Iran, Cruz quotes the passage in Genesis about the blessings which flow to those who bless "Israel" with no understanding that there is no continuity between Abraham and the guy who attended Cheltenham High School outside Philadelphia who now goes by the name of Binyamin Netanyahu.

Let’s stop here for a moment. First, Dr. Jones is no antisemite (meaning he does not commit the defined and condemned mortal sin of “hating the Jews”[1]). On the contrary, he truly loves the Jews. So why is he “always complaining about the Jews”? It’s because he merely thinks that the “Jewish Question” should be at the heart of our discussions.

Here’s my bookshelf - it’s a “good chunk,” maybe 50% of Jones’s corpus

(If you think Dr. Jones truly hates the Jews, you have believed hearsay against a fellow Catholic – not a good idea for anyone to do (“Don’t Let Social Media Send you to Hell”). I have followed Dr. Jones for years, enjoyed many conversations with him, and read a good chunk of his corpus – he doesn’t hate the Jews. If you don’t believe me, I can put you in contact with him and you can ask him yourself).

“The Jewish Question, The German Problem, & Joseph Ratzinger”

Now that we can bypass the slander against Dr. Jones, let’s move on to the real issues. I agree with Dr. Jones in his basic assertion: the “Jewish Question” should be at the heart of our discussions. Why? Because the “Jewish Question,” understood in its broadest possible sense,[2] is what St. Augustine answers when he says: “The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.”[3]

The Jewish question is what Our Lord answered when He solemnly declared:

Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled (Mt. v. 17-18).

The Jewish question is what St. Paul answered when he said: If righteouness cometh by the Torah (διὰ νόμου), then Christ died in vain (Gal. ii. 21).

The Jewish question is what St. Paul answered when he said I am a Jew (Acts xxii. 3) and then also said the Jews are the enemies of mankind (I Thess. ii. 15).

The Jewish question is what Jesus Christ answered when He said (twice): thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan (Apoc. ii. 9; iii. 9).

The Jewish question, in other words, cuts to the very heart of Christianity itself. In my view, the Jewish question can be boiled down to this: “What is a Jew”?

What is a Jew? Nature & Supernature

This where I must disagree with my friend Dr. Jones in his statement “there is no continuity between Abraham and …Binyamin Netanyahu.” Of course Dr. Jones is using hyperbole to make a point, and an important point at that: the New Covenant is not the Old Covenant. (In fact, there are multiple covenants in the Old Testament.)

Nevertheless there is indeed a continuity between Abraham and Netanyahu – but it is only on the natural level. Netanyahu is related by his national descent, i.e. his blood, to the figure of Abraham. The Mosaic Covenant was based on blood – i.e. nature[4] – whereas the New Covenant is based in baptism – i.e. supernature.

An abyss yawns between nature and supernature. But Covenants interpenetrate nature and supernature. And therefore the distinction between nature and supernature – one which has been the cause of perhaps the most contentious theological debate in the 20th century and beyond – is a critical piece of this puzzle. I’m not a theologian, and I have no desire to weigh in on this – I’m just going to speak here from the layman’s view (according to one Thomist I trust, the definitive resolution to this controversy was completed by Hebrew Catholic Dr. Larry Feingold in his text The Natural Desire to See God According to St. Thomas and His Interpreters).

This is where I think Dr. Jones’s thesis contained in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit is true, but incomplete. But you can read my book for my historical analysis on that. The point here is the Tradition of the Church makes a distinction between the New Israel, i.e. the Church (see Lumen Gentium[5]), and the Israel according to the flesh (I Cor. x. 18).

Because grace does not destroy nature, Israel according to the flesh remains, interpenetrating the Church, even after the Holy Spirit has filled the True Temple and True Ark of the Covenant with the Shekinah glory of Almighty God.[6]

The easiest answer to “what is a Jew” is that a Jew is an Israelite, i.e. a member of the nation of Israel. But if the New and Old Israels interpenetrate each other as two realities overlapping each other, we’ve already got a lot of confusion. It is indeed, as the aforementioned Feingold (and before him, Maritain) writes about, The Mystery of Israel.

Into this theological mystery then comes those who push for more war in this new conflict with Iran.

Enter the Warmongers

Charles A. Coulombe writes in his book Blessed Charles of Austria how Emperor Franz Joseph was being pressured after the murder of Franz Ferdinand by the war hawks to push for war. The emperor was like any good monarch, since he himself had led his troops in combat during the 19th century. What was the Emperor’s response to these war hawks?

Those who want war have absolutely no idea what war is.[7]

So what is war, really? Let’s go to Pope Francis in his beautiful encyclical on the Sacred Heart:

When we witness the outbreak of new wars, with the complicity, tolerance or indifference of other countries, or petty power struggles over partisan interests, we may be tempted to conclude that our world is losing its heart. We need only to see and listen to the elderly women – from both sides – who are at the mercy of these devastating conflicts. It is heart-breaking to see them mourning for their murdered grandchildren, or longing to die themselves after losing the homes where they spent their entire lives. Those women, who were often pillars of strength and resilience amid life’s difficulties and hardships, now, at the end of their days, are experiencing, in place of a well-earned rest, only anguish, fear and outrage. Casting the blame on others does not resolve these shameful and tragic situations. To see these elderly women weep, and not feel that this is something intolerable, is a sign of a world that has grown heartless.[8]

Indeed, the war hawks of the American Empire have shouted for war especially since the invasion of Canada in 1812, with an indifference to casualties and an obeisance to the goddess Libertas and the idolatry of infinite progress.[9] That bloody idolatry has taken a new form since the American Empire used psychological warfare against its own citizens and went worldwide following Woodrow Wilson’s rejection of the Catholic peace plan in World War I.[10] (If anyone is wondering whether I love America, I am proud Michigander who loves my State and loves these United States. I’m currently writing a book called Saving These United States from the American Empire).

The Post-War Narrative: Rationalising American War Crimes

Woodrow Wilson’s anti-Catholicism after World War I helped created the “First Sexual Revolution” of the 1920s and punished the German people for the war, leading to economic collapse in the Weimar Republic.[11] Meanwhile, Czarist Russia had hated the Jews and persecuted them, and the Jews hated the Czar in response.[12] The Jews of Russia, therefore, naturally joined enthusiastically the Marxist plot of the lunatic Vladimir Lenin, and Jews worldwide were joining with the elite goyim in spreading the errors of Russia. (See our upcoming Podcast on Russia & Fatima to discuss the hatred of Jews as one of the “errors of Russia”).

Many Jews in Germany joined on, and so many Jews were involved that the Marxist revolution in Bavaria was easily blamed on the Jews.[13] The German people, suffering under the injustice of Versailles, thought that Marxism was a Jewish conspiracy. And this idea was not a crackpot “conspiracy theory.” Even a great saint like St. Maximilian Kolbe gave credence to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[14] Why? Because many Jews were among the Marxists.

But St. Maximilian never for a moment thought that every Jew was a Marxist or a Freemason. That would be irrational. But the starving people of Germany were a suffering, irrational mob.

So when another lunatic named Adolf Hitler started bloody riots in Germany while promoting American eugenics and neo-Paganism, many Germans rallied to him, and National Socialism was born, which Catholic “Doctor of the Church of the 20th century” Dietrich von Hildebrand called “the Antichrist.”

Nevertheless the American Empire once again ended up on the winning side of the European World War II. But the American Empire won by committing the war crimes of dropping two nuclear bombs on two major cities filled with non-combatants. (One of these cities was the Catholic city of Nagasaki, where most of the Catholics lived, and where St. Maximilian Kolbe went on mission before the Nazis martyred him. The Nuclear blast destroyed the great Catholic Church in Asia: the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception).

If you commit war crimes like that, you feel guilty. What’s the answer? Find a scapegoat. Hence was born the “post-war narrative.” This narrative says that the Axis was pure evil and the Allies were “the good guys” and the good guys won because the Axis was pure evil. Therefore the Atomic Bomb was justified using Marxist logic: the ends justify the means.

But this narrative is completely contrary to Fatima, which says that World War II was the wrath of God and puts all the focus on stopping the spread of the errors of Russia. Instead, the American Empire puffed itself up and tried to win the Cold War, and by rejecting Fatima America lost the Cold War by adopting the errors of Russia in the form of Americanised Marxism. As one of the last great Jesuits would say in 1998, “The United States of America is the most powerful Marxist country in the world.”[15]

What Does any of this have to do with the Jews?

The Jewish question is the central piece of the post-war narrative, and thus the entire post-war power dynamic literally governing the entire globe at this time. That’s why I agree with Dr. Jones: we must face the Jewish Question in order to face the post-war narrative.

The post-war narrative answers the Jewish question with this half-truth: “What is a Jew? A Jew is a victim of Satan Incarnate, Adolf Hitler, and is thus entitled to the land known as the Modern State of Israel.”

This is half true because Hitler was indeed Satan incarnate (so to speak), but so was the American ally Stalin!

But here’s where Zionism comes in.

The post war narrative, whose axis is the Jewish question, was given a great boost by what Candace Owens (correctly, but incompletely) calls a “dispensationalist heresy” known as “Christian Zionism.” Now let’s return to Dr. Jones:

[This] brings us to problem number two, which is what happened to mainstream Protestant denominations like the Episcopalians, the group to which Tucker Carlson belongs. When Carlson claims there is no continuity between biblical Israel and the current ethnostate in the Middle East, Cruz accuses him of anti-Semitism, which simultaneously enrages and disarms Carlson, who fails to deal effectively with the charge because his mind is still conservative occupied territory, leading him to say that some of his best friends are Jews, that he knows good Jews, that he supports the state of Israel, etc. etc. when he should have gone deeper and talked about the Jewish revolutionary spirit and the effect it has had on the moral corruption of the American people which paved the way to the genocide in Gaza and has led this country to the brink of a war which America cannot win and should not fight.

Once again, I must disagree with Dr. Jones’s rhetoric here. It is imprecise to call the conflict in Gaza as a “genocide” since some Muhammadans use similar genocidal rhetoric as some Israelis. So it is useless and inflammatory to use this rhetoric. Pointing fingers while children are dying leads to more children dying.

But Dr. Jones has a point: this issue is much deeper and Cruz lays his cards out on the table, quoting Genesis to support Israel carte blanche. The issue, however, I think, is even deeper than Jones is going, and comes back to the mystery of Israel: “The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.”

“Catholic Zionism”: a tolerated opinion

Now we must meet my friend, Dr. André Villeneuve and my other friend, Dr. Matthew Tsakanikas. I’ve been working with both men on our Jewish Question series, which now has 28+ hours of content trying to delve deep in the Mysterium Israel.

Their recent debate is available for free here, but the rest of the content is behind a paywall. Some other Jewish topics are covered in this free playlist: “The Jewish Question.”

These two men, Villeneuve and Tsakanikas draw upon the recent Magisterial sources which explore the Mysterium Israel in light of the atrocities of the Shoah with Tradition. Both men are official theologians of the Church, which means that they swear an oath of fidelity to the Magisterium (the professio fidei) and do their theological work with the mandatum of their bishop.

In other words, these two men are not the same authority as me, because I am, in terms of my theological authority, merely “Joe Bag O’ Donuts Catholic blogger.”

Tsakanikas wrote an article called “Against Catholic Zionism,” (published by my friend Eric Sammons at Crisis) but it appears that what he meant was the “dispensationalist heresy.” The two men have engaged in dialogos on the topic, in part through our lay apostolate (see the aforementioned debate for links to all their writings).

But Dr. André’s hypothesis denies the central heresies of “Christian Zionism”:

1. that the modern State of Israel receives carte blanche from God to act with impunity according to the book of Genesis (as Sen. Ted Cruz strongly implies) and

2. that justice cometh by the Torah – i.e. the “dual covenant theory” that Jews can be saved without baptism.

Let me repeat, Dr. André explicitly rejects both of these heresies, which the Protestants promote via their false Zionism. Instead, he confesses the contrary dogmas:

1. The Modern State of Israel, like any government, possesses free will to act sinfully or righteously (on the natural level) in its governing actions

2. If righteousness cometh by the Torah, then Christ died in vain (Gal. ii. 21). Therefore Jews will not be saved from the fires of hell without Baptism.

Like I said, I’m not a theologian, but since I’m a parent, I need to know these dogmas to save my own soul (since to deny them would lead me into heresy). As I’ve studied the Jewish question for more than two decades, I’ve come to the conclusion this is indeed a divine mystery, and more than a lifetime of study can understand.

I was laughing with my wife recently: the older I get and the more I study, the more I realise I know very little and understand even less.

As the sources I’ve cited in this essay show, I’ve studied the Jewish question from every single angle I can find, and I’m continually finding more sources that bring about new aspects to the mystery that I did not know about. The short fact is that my Latin is not good enough to easily read Medieval sources (first of all), and there is not enough of these sources in translation to even begin to understand the whole Tradition on this matter. Therefore it is folly for me or anyone who is not a serious scholar to pronounce dogmatically on many aspects of the Jewish question beyond these few dogmas.

That’s why I had Villeneuve on Meaning of Catholic. He’s clearly not a Modernist, and he’s clearly not a heretic.

Rather, his view, it seems, is a tolerated opinion. He would admit that his view is indeed novel, but his sources show that his view is what the scholastics called probabilis, which means it is rational and pious.

Nevertheless the view of Villeneuve, as far as I can tell, would not enjoy anything like a significant theological note, but would be merely a tolerated opinion. This means two things:

1. It is a view which is less “secure” and has a great burden of proof to be established from the Tradition. But on the other hand,

2. No Catholic can claim his view is “heretical” and definitively rejected by the Church.

Thus Tsakanikas, as a good theologian, never does this in his written critique of Villeneuve. It’s important to remember that if you label someone a heretic, you should be following that up by contacting that person’s bishop (especially if they are authoritative theologians, like these men). However, charity requires you to speak with a man privately before you tell it to the Church, as His Majesty solemnly declared (Mt. xviii. 5). (I respect other Catholics who think you can publicly denounce others by name – but my only question is this: how do you not fear the judgement of Almighty God according to the words of Holy Scripture? Are you truly acting with fear and trembling?)

The fact is that we are departing from dogmata (which is the domain of all Catholics, clerics and faithful) and wading into the murky waters of disputatae quaestiones (which is the domain solely of the clerics and their theologians). This is where laymen like me must tread with fear and trembling.

In our Guild conversation with Dr. Tsakanikas, one of our Guild members pointed out that the greatest Augustinian theologian of the 20th century, Joseph Ratzinger, discussed the mystery of Israel in this way:

[T]he state of Israel, as such cannot be regarded theologically as the fulfillment of God’s promise of land [in the Torah]. Rather, it is in itself a secular state, which of course quite legitimately has religious foundations. To the fathers of the state of Israel (Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir et al.), it was quite clear that the state that they created had to be a secular state—if for no other reason than because that was the only way it could survive. I believe that the development of the idea of the secular state can also be largely attributed to Jewish thought, whereby “secular” does not mean “anti-religious.” Only on this premise was the Holy See able to establish diplomatic relations with the state of Israel. And the dispute with the Arabs, and also the search for peaceful coexistence with them are likewise connected with this outlook. I think furthermore, that in this way, it is not difficult to see that in the formation of the state of Israel we can recognize in a mysterious way God’s fidelity to Israel.[16]

Villeneuve said something fascinating to me (and very Augustinian) when he said to me in our interview, something like “What? Are we going to describe the modern state of Israel as a mere accident of history?”

That really struck me.

I do know one thing: it would indeed be a heresy to claim that there are any “accidents” in history. No. Everything happens by God’s active or permissive will. Everybody knows that (please God we can always take this to heart in times of desolation!).

So what is the modern formation of Israel? Active or permissive? Both? Jews migrated peacefully and legally to the land of Israel from the time the Ottomans held it. Since then, atrocities in the Middle East have been committed by Jews and Muhammadans both. (For a good introduction to the history, see Gary Taphorn’s texts and then read Sandy Tolan, The Lemon Tree: an Arab, a Jew, and the Heart of the Middle East, then talk to Dr. André)

That’s the mystery of Israel in our times. But the fact that more Jews are receiving baptism (perhaps more than at any time in history since Pentecost) makes me take seriously the theologians who are meditating on this mystery from all different views. It would seem to be false to say that the modern state of Israel is just like any other nation – in terms of God’s wise design of history.

E. Michael Jones, André Villeneuve, and everyone else agree on one thing: the Jews have a special place in history. And it is in the end times, during the reign of Antichrist (so say many Fathers) where this reality becomes acute (again, go to Solovyov’s “Short History of the Antichrist” to go to the depth of wisdom).

And that leads me to recommend my other friend, Fr. James Mawdsley, whose book is critical on this question:

See also my Hebrew Catholic friend Gideon Lazar in a fascinating analysis of Mawdsley and baptised Jewish Rabbi.

The problem is that the post-war narrative is so emotional because war trauma, real or imagined, creates strong emotional reactions by God’s own wise design. But this ends up confusing Catholic dogmas with the post-war narrative itself, as happened in the case of what E. Michael Jones called “L’Affair Williamson,” becoming the proximate cause of mortal sins against truth and charity.[17] These things directly affect souls!

The Nuclear Bomb and the Post-War Narrative

This leads back to the heart of the matter: the Jewish question and the post-war narrative. Here’s where Catholic Social Teaching comes to the rescue. The fact is, the infallible Word of God says this: Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one’s self unspotted from this world. (Ja. i. 27).

War is many things, but one thing it is infallibly is the mass creation of widows and orphans. If anyone believes war is “fruitful,” it is fruitful in creating widows and orphans. The whole point of Catholic Social Teaching is the corporal works of mercy on behalf of widows and orphans (especially the unborn and the other poorest of the poor).

This is why all the Popes and every cleric worth his salt has condemned war from the start of Christian history. This is why it is dogma non definitum to say, the Church is anti-war, but not pacifist.

We’re not pacifists because we do live in a fallen world and we must go to war sometimes, but we can only do so if it is a just cause. Therefore, the other dogma non definitum: the “just war theory.”

However, after the modern Popes witnessed the war crimes of the atomic bombs, they quickly concluded that nuclear weapons change everything about this question.

Therefore in this age of ours which prides itself on its atomic power, it is irrational to believe that war is still an apt means of vindicating violated rights [as in classical just war theory].[18]

Hence, Vatican II, while praising the American Empire in some sense,[19] implicitly condemned the America Empire’s war crimes with these words:

This most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes,[20] and issues the following declaration. Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation (Gaudium et Spes, 80).

Perhaps this is why Pope Francis said the following in Fratelli Tutti:

We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war! [His footnote]: Saint Augustine, who forged a concept of “just war” that we no longer uphold in our own day, also said that “it is a higher glory still to stay war itself with a word, than to slay men with the sword, and to procure or maintain peace by peace, not by war” (Epistola 229, 2: PL 33, 1020).[21]

In any case, it is critical to understand that Vatican II – with the whole Conciliar pastoral approach – is a post-war reality. (The council should be called “The Post-War Council.”) In fact, the basic doctrine of Vatican II contained in Christian Personalism – since it utterly destroys the Errors of Russia by refuting both Liberalism and its two ugly daughters Communism, and Feminism – is essential for liberating our minds from slavery to the post-war narrative. Moreover, it was Liberalism that failed to answer the 19th century Jewish question, with horrible results. In 1890, the Jesuits at La Civiltà Cattolica lamented that Europe was “in the grips of [the Jewish Question], a very sad question,” which “in the twentieth century, there will possibly be... calamitous consequences.”[22] Instead of embracing Catholic Social Teaching the American and Soviet Empires embraced the errors of Russia after World War I, which resulted in the Jewish Holocaust and eventually the unborn holocaust spread throughout the world.[23]

And so Catholic Social Teaching can bring peace to the Middle East and answer the Jewish Question at least on the level of natural justice. The reality is that neither post-Temple Judaism (which believes in the “Jewish virtue of hate”) nor Muhammadanism (whose telos is only the theocratic Caliphate, according to Islamic tradition) can solve the ongoing crisis.[24]

The only thing that can save the Middle East is what Roy Schoeman calls “Post-Messianic Judaism,” or what I call “the True Jewish New World Order:” the King of the Jews and His Kingdom, the Catholic Church. Hence Augustine declares:

• “[Those who have rejected Christ] are not worthy to be called Jews, except only in the flesh…”

• “The true Judea, then is the Church of Christ, believing in that King, who hath come out of the tribe of Judah through the Virgin Mary.”

• “Concerning Israel also we ought so to take it as we have concerning Judaea: as they were not the true Jews, so neither was that the true Israel… the true Sion is the Church of Christians.”[25]

Vatican II was right: Catholic Personalism is the answer. This doctrine destroys every rationalisation for war crimes or child murder – because a person’s life can never be a means to an end.

But Vatican II itself needs to be rescued from the post-war narrative, since so many Bishops in Euro-America seem to interpret the Council not according to “the norms of theological interpretation” (as Lumen Gentium stipulates) but according to the post-war narrative, which itself is swallowed by the errors of Russia.

The greatest Personalist cleric, Pope St. John Paul II, opposed the invasion of Iraq by the American Empire (based on lies about nuclear weapons), but his own biographer, George Weigel, supported the post-war American Empire in the same unjust war which destroyed another traditional (and yet more ancient than Japan) Catholic civilisation.

But if we take a step back and consider the fact that waging a just war with nuclear weapons is impossible, then even possessing nuclear weapons is a crime per se, and every country which is not doing everything possible to disarm themselves and others is part of the problem. Thus we realise that this war hawk propaganda about Iran and nukes is empty. As long as nuclear weapons exist, worldwide mass murder is just a few key strokes away. Who are the “good guys” and “bad guys” when the “good guys” hold mass murder in their hands? A good man would utterly reject such a weapon as created by the Devil and never to be used against human life!

The answer of course, is Fatima. Even though Pius XI failed to consecrate Russia and therefore is the cause (in some sense) of all this mess we now face, numerous Pope since him (including Paul VI) have consecrated Russia at least in some way as Our Lady asked.

What’s the answer? Fatima tells us that if we don’t repent, God will punish us more with “a greater war.” That prediction was fulfilled with World War II. Will God punish us again with “a greater war”… World War III? Thanks be to God, Jesus is on His Eucharistic Throne, no matter what petty nations do to serve their idols. As for us, let us remain faithful until the end. He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved (Mt. xxiv. 13).

Jesus is King! Glory to God for all things! :)

Timothy

---

[1] After recalling that the Church has always prayed for the Jews and their conversion, the 1928 decree adds: “Moved by this charity, the Apostolic See has protected the same people against unjust vexations, and just as it reproves all ill-will and animosity among peoples, so also does it condemn, in the strongest possible terms, hatred against the people that was once chosen by God, namely that hatred that is now usually termed ‘Antisemitism’.” Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, Decretum de consociatione vulgo “Amici Israël” abolenda, March 25, 1928, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 20 (1928): 104. Nostra Aetate confirms this in paragraph 4 “moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love.”

[2] The phrase “the Jewish Question” arose in the 19th century, but it is much more fundamental than that.

[3] St. Augustine, Quaest. in Hept. 2,73: PL 34, 623; cf. DV 16.

[4] The Old Covenants were also supernatural in a different sense, but I’m trying to simplify the realities, since this is such a great mystery.

[5] “Israel according to the flesh, which wandered as an exile in the desert, was already called the Church of God. So likewise the new Israel which while living in this present age goes in search of a future and abiding city is called the Church of Christ” (Lumen Gentium, 9).

[6] This was the point of one Joseph Ratzinger’s final texts on the Jewish Question, “Grace and Vocation without Remorse: Comments on the Treatise De Judaeis,” Communio (Spring 2018), 163-184.

[7] Katrin Unterreiner, Emperor Franz Joseph, 1830-1916: Myth and Truth (Brandstätter Verlag, 2015), 100 cited in C. A. Coulombe, Blessed Charles of Austria (TAN: 2020), 127.

[8] Francis, Dilexit Nos (2024), 22.

[9] Patriot’s History admits that the “frontier warfare fueled expansionist desires to invade Canada, and perhaps Spanish Florida as well. Southern and western farmers openly coveted the rich North American agricultural lands held by Britain and Spain” although some Federalists also opposed it. Schweikart and Allen, Patriot’s History of the United States 1st ed. (Sentinel, 2004), 183-188.

[10] See Flanders, City of God vs. City of Man (Our Lady of Victory Press, 2021), 369-376.

[11] Ibid., 377ff.

[12] The Way of the Pilgrim has an interesting passage which describes the hatred of Jews by Russians and Russians of the Jews. The Starets condemns this hatred of the Jews as entirely anti-Christian (Way of the Pilgrim, Fifth Tale). Vladimir Solovyov, in his brilliant essay “Jews and the Christian problem,” says that the Jews hate Christians, but they do so according to their imperfect law. On the contrary, Christians hate Jews in complete contradiction to the law of Christ, and, moreover, this is why Jews reject Christ. That’s why “the Jewish problem” is actually “the Christian problem.”

[13] E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 2nd ed. (South Bend, IN: Fidelity Press, 2020), vol. II, 201-230.

[14] See the defence of St. Maximilian by Hebrew Catholic Roy Shoeman here.

[15] John Hardon, “The Influence of Marxism in the United States,” <https://hardonsj.org/influence-of-marxism-in-united-states-today/>, accessed March 29, 2021.

[16] Joseph Ratzinger (“Pope Benedict XVI Emeritus”) What is Christianity? trans. Miller (Ignatius, 2023), 100-101.

[17] E. Michael Jones, op. cit., vol. III, 31-140.

[18] Cf. John XXIII, encyclical letter Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), p. 291.

[19] Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Curia (22 Dec 2005).

[20] Cf. Pius XII, Allocution of Sept. 30, 1954: AAS 46 (1954) p. 589; Radio message of Dec. 24, 1954: AAS 47 (1955), pp. 15 ff, John XXIII, encyclical letter Pacem in Terris: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 286-291; Paul VI, Allocution to the United Nations, Oct. 4, 1965.

[21] Francis, Fratelli Tutti (2020), 258.

[22] La Civiltà Cattolica, The Jewish Question in Europe (1890), trans. anonymous (South Bend, IN: Fidelity Press, 2020), 13.

[23] In our Guild series we dive deep into the sources of “Holocaust revisionism.” But this is for Guild members only.

[24] See Flanders, op. cit., 162-179; 231-266.

[25] Augustine, Commentary on Ps. 76/75, chs. 1-2. Thank you to Dr. Tsakanikas who shared these texts with me.