Crypto-Jews do not like faithful traditional Catholics. The Missal of St. Pius V reminds them of Hebraeorum gens. Crypto-Jews love Vatican II and turn their seductive blind eyes to all errors and scandals related to the essence of the post-conciliar revolution. They do not see any scandal whatsoever in adoring one God together with anti-trinitarian religions (cf. LG 16), religious liberty for all the impious sects (cf. DH) seen as the apparent source of salvation (UR 3) or looking for what's true & holy in false & unholy religions (NA 2). They do not see any scandal in the liturgical revolution i.e. an impudent attempt to put the ancient Rite of the Holy Roman Church after over 15 centuries to the trash heap of history. They like the old rite like esthetes do - as pleasant looking (of course without all those really ugly traditional prayers of Good Friday or Baptismal rite for adults).
Crypto-Jews hide their anti-trinitarianism. To impose it on unsuspecting dialoguing Catholics they want them to confess in new creed that Jesus was/is a Jew therefore he believed in judaism and therefore whoever meets Christ meets judaism (cf. JP II in Mainz 1980)
There are traces of errors of Synagogue brother John Paul II who claimed that only on the Cross Jesus had received the fullness of the Beatific Vision (cf. vatican.va/…udiences/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19881207.html vatican.va/…udiences/1989/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19890111.html ) there.
According to certain Scalfari J. M. Bergoglio developed the above baloney to the point that: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/10/francis-to-favorite-journalist-jesus.html Jesus of Nazareth, once having become a man, was, though a man of exceptional virtues, not at all a God.

"Crypto-Jews love Vatican II and turn their seductive blind eyes to all errors and scandals related to the essence of the post-conciliar revolution."

So all the "faithful traditional Catholics" who praise the post-conciliar document "Summorum Pontificum" are, then, "crypto-Jews".

"They like the old rite like esthetes do..."

You just contradicted yourself @V.R.S. You just said "Crypto-Jews love Vatican II". They cant "like the old rite" and also "love Vatican II" which suppressed the old rite.

"They do not see any scandal whatsoever in...."

...and then then baseless generalities flow. Unsurprisingly, a Polish Jew-hater with a poor command of English isn't the most reliable spokesman for what Jews see or not, crypto or otherwise. :D

The irony of you calling anyone a troll in a comment like that. @Steve D Nice to see you learned a new term from V.R.S. Durr hurr.. "Crypto...":P

I just did my own research, @xandergracie. Linked it, too. You haven't. All you've done is natter on with vague and useless advice

"A society which has kept the faith while waiting for Rome’s return"

Rome hasn't gone anywhere. The Church hasn't gone anywhere either, even if the SSPX chose to leave it. You can go right on waiting, guys..

@Ultraviolet @xandergracie @Steve D

"A society which has kept the faith while waiting for Rome’s return"

John-Paul II and Benedict XVI are genuine Successors of the Apostle Peter. The former kept the Faith and the latter still keep It!

The Church stands on Peter and his Successors that hold the Petrinian Ministry. The Roman Pontiff possesses the power to bind and to loose.

Our Lord Jesus-Christ declared:
''Amen, I say to you,
whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven!''

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was indubitably excommunicated along with the five others because he performed episcopal consecrations after he received an official warning from the reigning Supreme Pontiff formally commanding the Archbishop to refrain from proceeding.

Then came the schism. Subsequently the Successor of the Apostle Peter had no authority over the new separated parallel church given that Fr. Schmidberger was the ruler and Archbishop Lefebvre the patriarch without any Communion or ecclesiastical Communion with the Supreme Pontiff.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15) 1896: '' No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.''

Since then, Pope Benedict XVI removed the excommunication and granted to the clergy of the SSPX only ''Partial Communion'' and said:

''In the same spirit and with the same commitment to encouraging the resolution of all fractures and divisions in the Church and to healing a wound in the ecclesial fabric that was more and more painfully felt, I wished to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the "Society of St Pius X" to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church. As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.''

You guys are mad about somebody creating bishops, which historically saved the mass you follow, but aren’t mad about the Pope teaching people to believe in other gods.

Catholicism seems schizophrenic to me.

"You guys are mad about somebody creating bishops, which historically saved the mass you follow,"

Wrong. Historically, The Latin Mass survived Vatican Council II entirely irrespective of Abp. Lefebvre's schism.

"but aren’t mad about the Pope teaching people to believe in other gods."

Assumption on your part, irrelevant to the topic discussed here, and flatly contradicted by posts elsewhere on GTV.

"Catholicism seems schizophrenic to me."

Since you feel that way, if you haven't already, please choose some other religious denomination or even a different religion altogether... one more in keeping with your own world-view.

Interesting. Where did the Latin Mass survive? I was under the impression, apparently mistaken, that there was a point where the SSPX were it.
Also, I’m curious why you are so committed to attacking them. What mass do you go to, if you don’t mind my asking?
You are going harder against them, than I’ve ever seen someone go hard at some of the Novus Ordo stuff like blessing gay marriages.
What are they guilty of? I don’t know the whole story.
Your commitment intrigues me.

"Where did the Latin Mass survive?" @Mikhael Manafort Montrose

Here and there... ;-) Sometimes even with the bishop's tacit consent. Those were crazy times.

"I was under the impression, apparently mistaken, that there was a point where the SSPX were it."

That's going to be news to all the priests who contineued offering Mass in Latin after Vatican Council II, most of which didn't follow Abp. Lefebvre into schism.

"Also, I’m curious why you are so committed to attacking them."

Loaded question is loaded and unfair. I'm not committed to attacking them, only in preventing them from misleading Catholics.

"What mass do you go to, if you don’t mind my asking?"

The latin Mass, of course. The Catholic Latin Mass.

"You are going harder against them, than I’ve ever seen someone go hard at some of the Novus Ordo stuff like blessing gay marriages."

...that's because the SSPX's proponents on GTV push their falsehoods every bit as hard.

"What are they guilty of?"

Schism, which is bad enough in itself. But mainly, misrepresenting themselves and, by so doing, misleading genuine Catholics into following them outside The Church and into error.

"The term crypto-jew has been around for centuries, einstein."

Irrelevant to where you learned the term. @Steve D. You really do put the "D" in dummy. This won't be fhe first time V.R.S. taught you a new trick. Where he leads, you follow with your tail wagging..

"Which are you? C'mon, be honest for once in your life."

You forfeited the right to use the word "honest" a long time ago. Your poor-man's Goebbels gimmick is a perfect example. D is for "defamation", Steve. Still, it's a comfort knowing you damn yourself a little further every time you profane the Eucharist unconfessed. ;-)

What would make them good, in your eyes?
What would they need to do?

Do you think maybe, that if one bug shot bishop says they aren’t in “schism,” and one says they are, that it’s an unclear situation?
I know I don’t want to go join the Novus Ordo. I have been to a few, and it is not for me. I haven’t been to a Tridentine Mass yet. I’ve seen videos. It looks amazing.

So I learned that the S.S.P.X. acknowledge Francis as the Pope? Doesn’t that really make things square?

Sorry for the questions. I’m really interested in the topic.

I'm glad to help, truly Your questions are at least honest.

"What would make them good, in your eyes? What would they need to do?"

Reconcilliation with The Catholic Church, submission to the Supreme Pontiff.

"Do you think maybe, that if one bug shot bishop says they aren’t in "schism," and one says they are, that it’s an unclear situation?"

Not at all. Bishops speak for themselves, they do not speak for the whole of the Catholic Church. Only the Pope can do that.. Pope John Paul II already has done so regarding the SSPX and his successors have not contradicted his judgement of them.

"I know I don’t want to go join the Novus Ordo. I have been to a few, and it is not for me."

Nor for me, however, they are genuine Catholic Masses, our shared personal preferences notwithstanding.

"I haven’t been to a Tridentine Mass yet. I’ve seen videos. It looks amazing."

Oh, it is! I'm rarely at a loss for words, but it's impossible to overstate the beauty, piety, and grandeur of the Latin Mass. There is literally nothing, nothing else close to it on the face of this earth.

Now then... practical advice for your first Latin Mass.

1.) Go to a "low" Mass. It's simpler and easier to follow along than High Mass.

2.) Sit in the back. You'll be able to tell when to stand, sit, and kneel from the parishioners in front of you. Sitting in the back will also make you less self-conscious if you're unfamiliar with the service.

3.) If you're going during the week (a very good idea, since the church will have very few people which is comforting if you're a stranger), wearing "office casual" is acceptable. If you're going on a Sunday, a suit and tie is strongly recommended. Dress like you're going for a job interview. You'll be glad you did, especially when you see most of your fellow attendees equally well-dressed.

4.) Watch a LOT High Masses on YouTube before going to one. Watching it and actually being part of it are worlds apart.

5.) Buy a few "how to" books for the Latin Mass.

Probably the best one out there today for the entire Latin Mass, especially High Mass,is:

amazon.com/…asure-Tradition-Ultimate-Guide-Latin/dp/193663936X

Never mind Amazon's high prices. The book is available elsewhere on line. I just linked it since it's a comprehensive fast loading site.

This one also has a lot of fans...

amazon.com/…ginners-Guide-Traditional-Latin-Mass/dp/1621384926

I'm going to be back at work so I may not reply right away. If there's anything else, please do ask.

Cardinal Burke also said: "[T]here is no canonical explanation for it, and it is simply an anomaly," Burke remarked on the recent indults (of being allowed to hear confessions and celebrate marriages). "They're no longer excommunicated, but they're also not in regular communion with the Catholic Church." That pretty much sums it up - the position of the SSPX is an anomaly; they are not outside he Church - the Vatican indults make that clear - but because of their staunch stance to say only the Traditional Rite, their are considered not in "regular" communion. And it's an anomaly because the problem is not of the SSPX's making; they did not change - the Vatican did! And on a fundamental that no Pope or Cardinal has the authority to rule against. It is not as easy as Ultraviolet makes out - in order to fully submit, the SSPX would be expected to say the New Rite. They refuse to do so and rightly so; Canonically they do not have to. Really then, until Rome lifts itself out of the worldly mire, this state of "anomaly" is going to remain. Do I have an moral qualms about attending a SSPX Mass: no, none; they have emergency jurisdiction under Canon law. Is there, was there, an emergency? Oh yeah. Ask yourself, where would we all be without Archbishop Lefebrve? They would be no other Latin Mass movement - FSPP is an off-shoot from SSPX. This saintly archbishop stood up when most bishops capitulated to the revolutionary spirit, and set a standard that kept the Catholic Faith burning brightly.

"That pretty much sums it up - the position of the SSPX is an anomaly; they are not outside he Church -" @Carol H

Cardinal Burke was, more precisely referring to Abp. Lefebvre and his false bishops. BXVI lifted the excommunication against them. He did not say the SSPX was no longer in schism. This is typicaf misrepresention promoted by SSPX supporters.

Benedict XVI himself made that point clear: "The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions."

"the Vatican indults make that clear - but because of their staunch stance to say only the Traditional Rite, their are considered not in "regular" communion."

Rubbish. The FSSP have a "staunch stance to say only the Traditional Rite". They're also in full communion with the Catholic Church and submissive to the Supreme Pontiff. The SSPX is not.

"And it's an anomaly because the problem is not of the SSPX's making;"

Revisionist SSPX history. Abp. disobeyed the Pope and appointed bishops in outright defiance of repeated warning he must not do so.

"It is not as easy as Ultraviolet makes out - in order to fully submit, the SSPX would be expected to say the New Rite."

Wrong. The FSSP's priests do not celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass at all. yet they still fully submit to the Supreme Pontiff. Your claim fails.

"Really then, until Rome lifts itself out of the worldly mire, this state of "anomaly" is going to remain."

It will remain for as long as the SSPX refuses to submit to the Supreme Pontiff. Truth told, it's clear they like this anomaly. For them, it's the best of both wordls. They can do whatever they want, outside the Church's hierarchy and still misrepresent themselves as loyal Catholics.

"Do I have an moral qualms about attending a SSPX Mass: no, none; they have emergency jurisdiction under Canon law."

No they don't. The Pope forbade Abp. Lefebvre from appointing the bishops he wanted. Abp. Lefebvre claiming an "emergency" and doing it anyway, isn't an emergency. It's disobedience.

" Ask yourself, where would we all be without Archbishop Lefebrve?"

Where many of us were after Vatican Council II and where many of us are today: attending Traditional Latin Mass celebrated by Catholic priests in full communion with the Catholic Church.

" FSPP is an off-shoot from SSPX."

SSPX fans like to forget there were many priests and bishops who strongly supported the Latin Mass after Vatican Council II and they weren't part of the SSPX.

Disobeying the pope and leading Catholics away from God's one true Church makes Archbishop Lefebvre many things, but it doesn't make him a saint.

My dear fellow, as you pointed out to MMM, it matters not what terminology this Cardinal or that bishop uses, the official actions of the Holy Father is our guide: without having to renounce anything, the "excommunications" were lifted. Then the SSPX were granted statutes. Very strange things for the Vatican to do for "false bishops" would you not agree? As for His Grace, Archbishop Lefebvre, yes, he disobeyed the Pope. However, what you continually fail to acknowledge - God knows how - is that a revolution was underway undermining both the Holy Mass and the faith itself. Where was the FSPP during that first wave of the revolution? She didn't exist. So someone had to stand up and cry "No" to the humanist take-over. Was His Grace right in consecrating those four bishops? Certainly under the circumstances, His Grace believed he had no choice - it seemed at the time as if the whole world was throwing away the faith (One hell of of "an emergency" in anyone's books!). As for the FSPP, of whom I respect greatly, their founders were ex-SSPX priests FORMED by Archbishop Lefebvre. Their traditionalism stems from his legacy. I have to say UV, while I can understand you not agreeing with His Grace's actions, I do not understand your venom. It's odd given the bigger picture and it's odd given how the Holy Father now wants to clamp back down on the Old Rite; the blindness in Rome continues...

"My dear fellow, as you pointed out to MMM, it matters not what terminology this Cardinal or that bishop uses, " @Carol H

I made no such point and I'll thank you not to invent things I didn't write. What I actually stated was, "Bishops speak for themselves, they do not speak for the whole of the Catholic Church."

Dishonest SSPX tactics. Followed by this old, broken-toothed saw... "the official actions of the Holy Father is our guide"

Don't go there, hon. JP II formally confirmed the excommunication of Abp. Lefebvre and called his movement "the schism". That's his official actions. BXVI granted the wrong-doers clemency and like so many unrepentent criminals, they and their supporters claim vindication. However, that isn't in any way what BXVI intended. Direct Quote:

--"In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."--

That's his official ruling.

"without having to renounce anything, the "excommunications" were lifted."

The SSPX has a gift for re-writing history and by now I'm used to it.. ;-) Not so, they had to grovel a bit first as Benedict notes:

--"The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor...."--

Of course what you're proving once again that mercy, while a Christian virtue, is always abused by unrepentant criminals and their supporters.

JP II had the right of it. Confirm the expulsion of the schismatics and let them rot in the darkness outside The Church.

"Very strange things for the Vatican to do for "false bishops" would you not agree?"

I would not. Benedict was a merciful Pope and his mercy has been shamelessly misused and misrepresented.

"As for His Grace, Archbishop Lefebvre, yes, he disobeyed the Pope."

Concession noted. We are making progress. :) Yes, we are! Since we agree on this point, Abp. Lefebvre was, then, in violation of the following Canon Laws:

--273: Clerics are bound by a special obligation to show reverence and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and their own ordinary.--

--1382: A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.--

...both of which further confirm the following applies:

--751: schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.--

"However, what you continually fail to acknowledge - God knows how - is that a revolution was underway undermining both the Holy Mass and the faith itself."

I haven't failed to acknoweldge that. I do refuse to acknowledge it's a valid reason to disobey the Pope and usurp his Papal authority.

"Where was the FSPP during that first wave of the revolution? She didn't exist."

So? Many Latin-friendly clergy did exist and do exist. The SSPX loves to paint a false narrative that the only choice was between the Novus Ordo and themselves. That simply isn't true.

"So someone had to stand up and cry "No" to the humanist take-over."

Abp. Lefebvre did far more than that as Pope Paul VI angrily noted,

--"I hope to have before me a brother, a son, a friend. Unfortunately, the position you have taken is that of an antipope. What can I say? You have not allowed for any measure in your words, your actions, your behavior."--

and that defiant "stand up and cry'No' " as you so romantically re-write history, immediately turned into all sorts of cowardly snivelling from Abp. Lefebvre...

--Lefebvre insisted it was never his intention to attack the pope, and he admitted "perhaps there was something inappropriate in my words, my writings."--

He had a big mouth when it came to slagging the Pope, except when he was face to face with the man himself.

"His Grace believed he had no choice - it seemed at the time as if the whole world was throwing away the faith"

You don't know what his Grace believed because you're not a mind-reader., much less a necromancer. ;-) Second, let's remember Abp. Lefebvre abided by Vaticacn Council II for at least 25 years.

It wasn't "emergency" or "grave necessity" or "the whole world was throwing away the faith" that motivated Apb. Lefebvre to disobey a direct order from The Pope. That had been going on for a quarter of a century.

No, It was the same arrogant disregard for Papal authority Paul VI noted decades earlier.

Abp. Lefebvre didn't get what he wanted so he tried to bull his way past the Pope and do whatever he wanted. He misjudged his opposition and applied the law as it was written.

"their founders were ex-SSPX priests FORMED by Archbishop Lefebvre."

...and many ex-Orthodox schismatics join The Catholic Church every year. Even so, the Orthodox are still schismatics and it doesn't justify them continuing in schism.

"Their traditionalism stems from his legacy."

Hardly. Their traditionalism stems from all the centuries of Latin Mass predating Vatican Council II.

Like most worshipful Lefebvre fans, you're giving the man credit for things he doesn't deserve.

Abp. Lefebvre's legacy is leading untold hundreds of traditionalist Catholics out of The Church and into schism. Benedict XVI may have lifted JP II's decree against Lefebvre and those false bishops. He did not do so for the rest of the SSPX, clergy and laity alike.

"I have to say UV, while I can understand you not agreeing with His Grace's actions, I do not understand your venom."

Venom? :D Darling, you should hang out on GTV more often. Truly... this isn't venom at all! I'm being civil to you, civil to the late (and for me, unlamented) archbishop. Don't worry, when my fangs come out and start dripping venom, you'll know it. :)

I fully acknowledge I am resolute on this issue, for theological reasons perfectly explained by Pope John Paul II:

--"Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."--

That was never rescinded... not by Benedict XVI not by Francis. As I said, that Papal decree applies to all SSPX clergy and laity today.

My motivation, what you choose to call venom, is a dedication to the truth.

SSPX proponents are like everyone else whose ideology is based on error, be it religious, social, or political.

They seek to misrepresent the truth and make "converts" to their own falsehoods. Now that's bad enough when the issue is, say, climate change or homosexuality.

It's utterly unconscionable when it comes to The Church and The Faith. The SSPX is in schism, they seek to misrepresent themselves as fully part of The Catholic Church. Like some fiendish pied pipers of "tradtionalism" they try to lead loyal, devout Catholics into that same state of error

Little wonder why a traditionalist Catholic would take objection to that, eh?

"It's odd given the bigger picture and it's odd given how the Holy Father now wants to clamp back down on the Old Rite; the blindness in Rome continues..."

Francis' fail is well-documented on GTV. A day doesn't go by without some new example and his successor-apparent, Cardinal Tagle will make Francis look like Benedict XVI by comparison. You heard it here first.

For all that, he's still the Pope and Catholic traditionalism will survive him without needing to lapse into Lefebvre's schism to do so.

Please UV - you have a tendency to get locked on a point in history without the capacity to see how it bares out as a whole historically. It also causes you not to hear what your comrades in Christ are actually saying: "What I actually stated was, "Bishops speak for themselves, they do not speak for the whole of the Catholic Church." Well, my point exactly. Totally agree. Much applause. We must watch what the Church does and the Church is slowly but surely exonerating the SSPX: 'excommunications' lifted without SSPX having to change; statutes officially granted to hear confessions and celebrate marriages. And what is your stock answer to all this? You jump up and down chanting "false bishops!" because YOU are stuck on what a Pope, Cardinal, bishop has said in the past.

Thanks Steve D. I'm fairly new to Gloria TV but I have a friend who suffers from the same problem: gets locked on a detail and can't see beyond what they want to be right (can't see "the wood for the trees" as they say). The more UV gets rattled, the more he puts his foot in it so all good :)

"Please UV - you have a tendency to get locked on a point in history without the capacity to see how it bares out as a whole historically."

Your claim is entirely false. I've addressed the roots of Abp. Lefebvre's disobedience and conflict with The Church through two popes and over a quarter of a century after Vatican Council II.

I have a tendency to stop my opponents from re-writing history to suit their fancy. I also have a tendency to remind them of history they'd much rather pretend didn't exist.

"It also causes you not to hear what your comrades in Christ are actually saying"

My comrades in Christ are fellow Catholics. All others are in error and not my "comrades".Matthew 12:30 applies here.

"Well, my point exactly. Totally agree. Much applause."

Oh really? Then why did you misrepresent what I originally said? You wrote, "My dear fellow, as you pointed out to MMM, it matters not what terminology this Cardinal or that bishop uses..." -which I did not "point out".

Well?

"We must watch what the Church does and the Church is slowly but surely exonerating the SSPX"

Every Pope who's dealt with the SSPX has underscored the fact they are not in communion with The Church, including Francis. That isn't "exoneration."

"'excommunications' lifted without SSPX having to change"

As Benedict XVI pointed out, excommunications are against individuals and not institutions.

The four SSPX excommunicated had to acknowledge his Papal supremacy, at least superficially enough to wring some misguided mercy from The Pope. That's a big change.

...and as you've just shown, a mistake on Benedict XVI's part because the SSPX and their supporters immediately use it to claim some kind of false "exoneration"

If a criminal gets paroled, he's still a criminal and he hasn't been exonerated from committing the crime..

"statutes officially granted to hear confessions and celebrate marriages."

Something Francis was clear to point out was being done for the pastoral benefit of Catholic laity, not because the SSPX have been exonerated.

In that same document, Francis underscored such priests need God's help for the recovery of full communion with The Church.

Catholics are already in full communion with The Church. Schismatics are not.

"You jump up and down chanting "false bishops!" because YOU are stuck on what a Pope, Cardinal, bishop has said in the past."

Cheap rhetoric and misrepresentation won't help your case. It only makes you look silly. I've been quoting every Pope who's ever dealt with the SSPX, including the present one.

By contrast, you and the rest of the SSPX have an understandable dislike of what The Church has said "in the past" because it formally branded the SSPX as a schism.

It's ironic that a supporter of the supposedly "traditionalist" SSPX, is so quick to gripe about being "stuck on what a Pope, Cardinal, bishop has said in the past." That's a complaint I'd expect from the Novus Ordo, eh? ;-)

Being stuck on what a certain Archbishop said "in the past" suits you just fine. After all, you people have been re-hashing Abp. Lefebvre's excuses for nearly forty years now.

You lose interest "in the past" when The Church and the Pope addressed his errors and labelled them in ways you don't like.

On a side note, you'll find that Steve D has his own agenda. He has no interest in the SSPX one way or the other. He's a rabid anti-Semite who promotes E. Michael Jones. He's here on GTV trying to make "converts" of his own.

As a Catholic, I object to that and he's lost every theological and political debate with me, something that infuriates him no end.

His response has been to "report" me on a regular basis for bogus offenses, hoping to get me banned.

Since that hasn't been successful, now he follows me around GTV like yapping little dog, calling me a "troll" or a "Jew" or a "shabbos goy" along with all the rest of his abuse. --because, of course, that isn't "trolling", eh?

You're seing the tip of the iceberg here and he's taken care to hide the rest. There's a reason he's deleted most of his old comments. ;-)

In short, he's like all bigots: a dishonest hypocrite without a shred of any Catholic (much less Christian) morality.

The ends justifies the means for any bigot,, including Jew-haters.

For obvious reasons, people like Steve D follow propaganda ministerJosef Goebbels' smear-tactics. If that means scamming a new user with some "helpful" false advice, or a bogus accusation of "sock puppet account" that isn't a problem for him.

A bigot defines right and wrong by whether he accomplishes his objective and the truth is irrelevant and usually an impediment. Little wonder why he calls those who speak it "trolls".