Tom at Pro Multis has asked the “neo-Catholics” (as he calls those who don’t share his degree of traditionalism) to reconcile the decree on Jews from the 19th session of the Council of Basel with contemporary attitudes of the Church toward Jewish people.
I would suggest that the decree of the Council of Basel has been superceded by Nostra Aetate. I particularly draw attention to the following: “Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone. . . . We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God.“
There’s no excuse to call for the reinstitution of the ghetto, of making Jews wear “distinctive badges”, denying them admission to educational institutions or requiring their attendance at lectures.
Other decrees of the Council of Basel have been expressly superceded by subsequent decrees. Take, for example the decree of the 23d session regarding the number of cardinals. It was changed by Pope Sixtus V in the 1580s and changed again by Popes John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II.

As is well known, priestly celibacy was not mandatory throughout the entire history of the Church. For some time, neither the Immaculate Conception nor the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary were taught as dogmas of faith. Now all of those are binding on all Catholics, and rightfully so.

Similarly, the relationship of the Church to the people of the Old Covenant is a matter that has changed substantially since the days when Jesus prayed in the temple. I do not pretend to know how it may change in the future. I know, though, that this divinely-instituted Church led by the infallible magisterium will not lead me astray.

(I am not in this post stating or implying agreement with the “Reflections” document which is, after all, apparently meant as an instigation to discussion among bishops and theologians. I have not been asked to, nor have I, examined the “Reflections’ document in sufficient detail to comment on it.)