He’s right that Jesus was Jewish and the roots of Christianity were Jewish. The Jews who accepted Jesus Christ became the first Christians. What he is omitting here as that those who we call Jews today reject Jesus Christ, and thus have made themselves our enemies and are the Synagogue of Satan, as the Bible teaches. xitter.cf/Catholic_State/status/…

My position is very similar to my friend @AmericanReform_ aka Alex Petersen. And yes, I have talked about race before on my website. Like these articles: christtheking.info/on-race-a… christtheking.info/ethnicity… christtheking.info/christian… christtheking.info/far-right… christtheking.info/white-nat… christtheking.info/the-great… I am a “race realist” meaning that I don’t take the position of @EMichaelJones1 (whom I greatly respect) and don’t think race is merely a category of mind. That’s too nominalistic. It’s true that the map is not the territory (meaning the categories we create aren’t 1:1 with reality), but the categories of race, although they have changed (it used to be case that we would separate races by national origin, and now we organize races by larger phenotypical categories, like white, black, asian, indian, latino, etc), the categories may have changed (meaning the map looks different) but the territory (objective reality, like the differences between phenotypes) exists apart from our categorization. Let’s be honest, humans generalize based on using pattern recognition skills, and even though generalizations (stereotypes) are not always trye, they are often true, which is why they become stereotypes in the first place. And the categories we create (although they do change) are based on real observable characteristics and generalizations made by pattern recognition, and aren’t just ex nihilo constructed in our minds. Let’s be honest: If you were put in a room with a bunch of people from different races, and all you knew about then were their race, and you were asked to create the best basketball team, math team, dance team, and civilization planning team, you would choose all the black people on your basketball team, all the Asians for your math team, all the latinos for your dance team, and all the white people to plan your civilization. If you say otherwise, you are just lying. Also, the Church teaches that filial preference for your own “tribe” whether that’s fellow Catholics, family members, close friends, neighbors, countrymen, and yes, even those who share the same race, is a natural good to have this preference for you own. Why would you love someone else’s child over your own? Why would you love another race more than your own? On the other hand, this nationalism and love for your race can be taken excessively. The Church teaches that we are all equal in human dignity, that we all come from the same original parents (Adam and Eve) and that all members of the human race are made in the image of God. Despite our differences, we must love each other as fellow brothers and sisters under God the Father. That means racial hatred is a sin. That means racial supremacy is a sin. The correct Catholic view is acknowledging our differences, but loving and respecting those that our different than us, and asking them to do the same. And this means if they are invading our countries because they have no respect for us (and we have no respect for ourselves) we have a right to put a stop to that. That’s a matter of respect not hate. Hopefully that clarifies.

Someone was asking for a compilation of sources that shows Traditional Catholic eschatology: How the Jews will receive the Antichrist as their "Messiah", how Enoch and Elijah will preach to them, and then how they will convert at the end of time. Here it is. docs.google.com/document/d/1…

Dr. Robert Sungenis responded to my video on YouTube where I said I respectfully disagreed with Dr. E. Michael Jones on the Church teaching that Jews will convert at the end of time (after they bring forth and accept the Antichrist and Enoch and Elijah preaches to them) per Romans 11:25-26. Dr. Sungenis respectfully said this: Hello. This is Robert Sungenis. I have not had the pleasure of meeting you yet. Thank you for your show. I would like to start a dialogue with you, if you are amenable. Dr. Jones and I have worked together for the last 25 years, especially on the "Jewish" question. I would like to say one thing upfront. You state in this video that a consensus of the Fathers consists of whether a Father has "dissented" from the common view. As I understand the doctrine of consensus from Trent and Vatican I, a consensus consists when the Fathers actually TEACH the idea in question. If we were to define consensus as including those who don't dissent, we could include anyone we like. When consensus is understood as those who actually teach the doctrine in question, then I can assure you that there is no consensus among the Fathers on the idea that there will be a mass conversion of the Jews at or near the Second coming, and that can be proven very easily. I will be publishing a paper on this very soon. Thank you. God be with you. I responded with this: Hello Dr. Sungenis. You're welcome! I have to say that I appreciate and respect the work you've done, just like I appreciate and respect the work of Dr. Jones. That being said, I have to point out that the Fathers do teach the idea in question. I made this video on Romans 11:25-26 a few months back: youtu.be/HTSOIM-9f2o?si=ngHb… And in this video I quote several Fathers. Here's a snippet of Church Father quotes I found: St. Ambrose — Letter 34, §8 “For when the fulness of the Gentiles shall be come in, then all Israel shall be saved. For what people will He not pardon when He even pardons that persecuting people, who said, Crucify Him, crucify Him, and, His blood be on us and on our children. But since even the heavenly creation is subject to vanity, albeit in hope, will not He Who is ' truly Mercy itself and the Redeemer of the world, suffer even the perfidy and insolence into which these men through the vanity of the world have fallen to obtain pardon?" St. John Chrysostom — Homily 57 on Matthew, §1 “Since when He says, Elias indeed comes, and will restore all things, He means Elias himself, and the conversion of the Jews which is then to take place; but when He says, Which was for to come, He calls John, Elias, with regard to the manner of his administration. Yea, and so the prophets used to call every one of their approved kings, David; and the Jews, rulers of Sodom, Isaiah 1:10 and sons of Ethiopians; Amos 9:7 because of their ways. For as the other shall be forerunner of the second advent, so was this of the first.” St. Jerome — Letter 123, §13 “At their birth was broken down that middle wall of partition which typified the division existing between the two peoples; Ephesians 2:14 while the binding of Zarah's hand with the scarlet thread even then marked the conscience of the Jews with the stain of Christ's blood. And how shall I speak of the whore married by the prophet who is a figure either of the church as gathered in from the Gentiles or — an interpretation which better suits the passage — of the synagogue? First adopted from among the idolaters by Abraham and Moses, this has now denied the Saviour and proved unfaithful to Him. Therefore it has long been deprived of its altar, priests, and prophets and has to abide many days for its first husband. For when the fullness of the Gentiles shall have come in, all Israel shall be saved.” St. Augustine — The City of God, XX.29 & 30 “It is a familiar theme in the conversation and heart of the faithful, that in the last days before the judgment the Jews shall believe in the true Christ, that is, our Christ, by means of this great and admirable prophet Elias who shall expound the law to them... And at or in connection with that judgment the following events shall come to pass, as we have learned: Elias the Tishbite shall come; the Jews shall believe; Antichrist shall persecute; Christ shall judge; the dead shall rise; the good and the wicked shall be separated; the world shall be burned and renewed.” St. Cyril of Alexandria — Commentary on John, book II, introductory discussion of John 5 “But the one believed with his whole house, and confessed that Jesus is God, while the others. who ought to have been astonished, straightway desire to kill, and persecute, as though blasphemously transgressing, their Benefactor, themselves against themselves pronouncing more shameful condemnation in that they are found to fall short of the understanding of the aliens, and their piety towards Christ. And this it was which was spoken of them in the Psalms, as to our Lord Jesus, Thou shalt make them the back. For they having been set in the first rank because of the election of the fathers, will come last and after the calling of the Gentiles. For when the fulness of the Gentiles is come in, then shall all Israel be saved.” St. Prosper of Aquitaine — The Call of All Nations, I.21; P. De Letter translation, p. 69 “As we have already said above, 261 it is not given to any human study or genius to explore the decree and design according to which God, who is invariably good, invariably just, ever foreknowing, ever omnipotent, hath concluded all in unbelief, that He may have mercy on all; yet He delayed for centuries, while He was educating Israel, to enlighten the countless peoples of infidels; and now He allows that same Israel to go blind till the universality of the Gentiles enter the fold. He allows so many thousands of this people to be born and die to be lost, when only those whom the end of the world will find alive will attain salvation.” St. Gregory the Great — Moralia in Job, XXXV.24 & 26 “For though Holy Church now loses many by the stroke of temptation, yet in the end of this world she receives those things that are her own, twofold, when, having received the Gentiles in full number, all Judaea also which shall then be found, agrees to run to her faith... But these words which are subjoined attest that they rather announce the conversion of the Jewish people at the end of this world. For it is added; There came to him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all that knew him before, and did eat bread with him in his house. For then do His brethren and sisters come to Christ, when as many as shall have been found of the Jewish people are converted.” St. Isidore of Seville — On the Catholic Faith against the Jews, II.5, chapter heading; translation from the Latin “At the end of the world the Jews will believe in Christ.” St. Bede — Explanation of the Apocalypse, book I, on Revelation 3:10; Edward Marshall translation (1878), p. 26 “But as to this, it is believed that the wicked Jews will be deceived as well as deceive, but that others will understand the law spiritually through the instruction of the great prophet Elijah, and will be incorporated among the members of the Church, and bravely overcome the enemy.” This is just a sample. I found many more. But this should at least suffice to show that there is a consensus amongst the Church Fathers. Now the real question is this: Is this just a common opinion or is this unanimous consent? The bar for unanimous consent isn't that we have certainty that every Church Father taught it. That would be an impossible bar to overcome because there are quite a few Church Fathers that have little to no writings that exist. So the bar has to be that we cannot find a Church Father that explicitly dissents to this position (I know both Sts. Augustine and Jerome offer other alternatives in their writings, i.e. "All Israel shall be saved" could mean that all Jews ad Gentiles in Christ as saved, but neither dissent to this position that the Jews will coporately convert, as shown above). And I have yet to find one Church Father that diseents to this common opinion. And trust me, I have looked. I have probably the most extensive free source of the Catholic Adversus Judaeos Tradition on the Internet: christtheking.info/catholic-… That being said, Dr. Sungenis, you've been studying this issue for longer than me, so maybe you've found a source (or more) that I have not found that proves this is just a common opinion and not unanimous consent (we only need 1 dissenting Father here). So yes, I would be interested to know if you have found such sources, and if that's the case, then I will humbly change my view to that it's just a common opinion of the Fathers that the Jews will corporately convert at the end of time (after they bring forth the Antichrist, whom they will accept, and after Elijah and Enoch preach to them, of course). All the best, and God bless, Dr. Sungenis! I am actually very much interested in having this discussion. Everyone knows that Dr. Sungenis and I (and Dr. Jones for that matter) are all defenders of the Adversus Judaeos tradition and against Neo-Judaizing in the Church. So I will be very eager to hear what Dr. Sungenis has to say. @Robert_Sungenis @RSungenis @EMichaelJones1

Regarding the corporate conversion of the Jews at the end of time, the most common response from dissenters is the following: "I dOn'T cArE wHaT tHe ChUrCh FaThErS sAy... ThAt'S LiKe JuSt ThEiR oPiNiOn, MaN!" Here's what the Councils of Trent and Vatican I say about the opinion of the Church Fathers: "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established." - General Council of Trent: Fourth Session, DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS "Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers... In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers." - Decrees of the First Vatican Council, SESSION 2: Profession of Faith AND SESSION 3: Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 2 On revelation