Yeah, it is. ;-) Too bad you missed the point,dummy. A Jewish source stating Benedict XIV "energetically defended the Jews" supports my claim he denounced anti-Semitism. You, by contrast, haven't presented anything to the contrary.
Protip: A Jewish source that speaks favourably about a Catholic Pope isn't "anti-Church propaganda", either.
"Another example of the anti-Church propaganda I mentioned..."
"Another"? you haven't provided any examples whatsoever! This one doesn't even qualify.
So again, you haven't supplied any proof for your claim that I post "anti-Church propaganda".
All you've done is lie, lie to defame. I honestly don't know how guys like you can even call yourselves Christian, much less Catholic.
What kind of warped pathological interpretation of Scripture or Church teachings could possibly justify your tactics, elbow?
It doesn't matter where you go on Sunday. You don't follow the Church's teachings, much less Christ's. Show me where the Catechism says it's licit to lie about someone with the intent of defaming them. Then show me where I posted "anti-Church propaganda".
You won't do either because you've got a head full of bad-wiring and monstrous double-standards.
You and Matty are two of a kind in that. Always ranting about "the evil jooz" and their lies, but you're just as willing to resort to the same tactics.
For all the pride you take in your education, I'm happy to say I've grossly overestimated you, elbow. You've got a better vocabulary than Matty, but you end up making the same dumb mistakes he does.

"I hold a serious discussion with you after your perverted interpretation of A quo primum pointless."
Nahhh, I think it was after you got curb-stomped over Edith Stein. :D My "interpretaton" of Benedict XIV's statements are supported by Jewish sources. --and you're the one implying he didn't denounce anti-Semitism? Take it up with the Jews, buddy. Safe to say they've got a better understanding of anti-Semitism than you do.
You still haven't supported your claim that I post "anti-Church Propaganda". Still waiting, elbow :)
"I write my comments to warn other participants of this forum.
Good for you, bunky! Protip: Your "warnings" will carry a lot more weight if you backed them with factual support. Especially when challenged to do so by the very person you're "warning" everyone about. :D
"How can you call a Jewish source. a self-claimed "encyclopedia" (ROTFL)..."
Simple. That's the title of the work cited , duh.
"I call it a propaganda."
That would be the second claim you can't prove. Maybe you should prove the first one and then go from there. Don't dig the hole you're in any deeper.
A source that speaks favourably about a Catholic Pope is not "anti-Church." If anything, ti would be PRO-Church propaganda and that isn't what you accused me of posting.
Also, let's remember you made your accusation that I supposedly post "anti-Church propaganda" BEFORE I posted this source.
Surely you're not resorting to evidence ex post facto?
What it shows is you made a claim absent any factual support of your own. That doesn't do much for your big "warning", elbow. :D
Since you're busy preaching to the "other participants of this forum" maybe you can explain to them how you justify telling lies that you can't prove, specifically for the purposes of defamation. Which edition of the Catechism supports that line of reasoning? Care to quote it? Or Scripture, perhaps? Try a Gospel quote.
This should be interesting... First, prove your original claim, though. Still waiting... I'm not the only one, to be sure, "the other participants are" as well, the ones for whose benefit you're writing.
We're all breathlessly hanging on your every word as you flounder. :D

Indeed... ;-)
When are you going to start posting links supporting any of these ugly claims about what I said?
I believe I have asked that question at least once before.
Have you considered some links might help sway the "other participants of this forum" you're supposed to be warning?
Thus far, all you've done is make an ugly accusation intended to blacken my reputation. and haven't supplied any evidence supporting it, just more accusations and opinions.
Do you really expect that's escaped everyone's notice?
If my interpretation of the Pope's writings ascribe a positive action, i.e. "he denounced anti-Semitism" then that still isn't "anti-Church propaganda". So your "example" simply doesn't apply.
The Catholic Church's view is anti-Semitism is a bad thing. The Latin Mass traditionalists agree.
Can you find a direct quote from Jesus countering that view? Specifically one where He endorsed hating Jews on the basis of their religion or ethnicity? There's a question you should answer if only for your own benefit.
If I state Benedict XIV denounced anti-Semitism, then I'm stating he denounced something the Church considers bad. i.e. Benedict XIV did a positive act.
Therefore my statement isn't "anti-Church" propaganda.
"Again - especially for you: A Jewish source that speaks [as the self-claimed "encyclopedia"] about a Catholic Pope..."
FAVORABLY, and therefore it isn't anti-Church propaganda.
Try again. You keep letting your hatred of Jews get in the way of reasoning clearly.
If this was a source promoting "anti-Church propaganda" the way you claim, then they should be doing everything in their power to paint this Pope as an anti-Semite. After all, it's a Jewish source aimed at a predominantly Jewish readership.
But that's not what they're doing because your accusation against this source (and by extension, against me) is just more of your bigoted manure.
"and omitts the encyclical which such Pope issued on the Jewish (vile) practices. "
Completeness of the Pope's biographical entry isn't the basis of your accusation. Have you forgotten that?
The entry's completeness isn't the issue. You claimed it's "anti-Church propaganda". You need to show a bias in the entry against the Church -and- the material is aimed at "injuring an institution, a cause, or a person" as Merriam Webster defined the term propaganda.
Those ARE the two points you need to prove if your claim was to stick. Good luck with that since the entry speaks favorably about Benedict XIV and his actions as the leader of the Catholic Chuch in defending Jews.
Also worth remembering this source has no bearing on supporting your original claim. You're trying to include it after the fact.
I'm playing along only because 1.) ti's fun pushing you around even when you move the goal posts and 2.) you failed so miserably showing any proof that my interpretation of Benedict XIV's writings were either "perverted" or "anti-Church" or "propaganda".
Right now all you're doing is finger-wagging at material I supplied proving my interpretation is correct..
That's not what you should be doing, elbow. The burden of proof for your claim is on you. and you haven't supplied zip in supporting it. I'm pointing this out, not only for your benefit but for the "other forum participants" following along.
Do you plan on explaining why you keep fixating on this Jewish Enclopedia source instead of showing whatever evidence supposedly prompted you to make the original claim in the first place?
You've been downright vague and evasive on that. Time for you to start pulling your weight, don't you think?
If you're not, then you're really just wasting your time. It's fun to watch you squirm, though.
Another question...
Do you believe an opinionated summary of a source's content is a valid substitute for disproving the content of the source itself?
I don't. I've seen you pull that stunt before on others and they didn't catch on. It's clever, but it's still as wrong and as baseless as your original accusation.
Simply put, this source isn't "anti-Church propaganda" simply because you claim it is or summarize it to suit your bigoted world-view.. My interpretation of Benedict XIV's writing isn't perverted or "anti-Church propaganda because you claim it is, either.
More importantly, this source didn't prompt you to accuse me of posting "anti-Church propaganda", did it?
So what did? Your asinine equally unsupported opinion of something I wrote? An opinion of yours with zero factual support behind it?
Why haven't you linked up your big "smoking gun" proof, elbow?
Are you going to quote me directly and post an URL to ANYTHING that prompted you to claim I posted "anti-Church propaganda"?
Anything?. Or were you just counting on that lie to "stick" and become the basis of another one of your pet mythologies? Propaganda of your own, no less?
Your interpretation isn't the same as what I wrote, is it? You need to show that what I've wrote or what I posted, defamed the reputation of the Catholic Church. The only one doing slapping mud or reputations around here is you.
Why aren't you quoting me directly? Why aren't you linking everything up for the "other forum participants" to read?
Is it because you were simply hoping to start a lie that would take on a life of its own? Isn't that a tactic favored by the leftist media groups? The same ones you and Matty always claim are run by evil "jooz"?
Your interpretation of my interpretation doesn't count for squat, bucko. Neither does your contrived "summary".
Are you going to deliver the goods or play it smart and retract the claim.?
Can you swallow your pride, man up and do that, elbow? ;-) Hey, I'm askin'.