CathInfo.com

As for "Yeshu"—The Jews' use of  “zecher tzaddik liv'racha” (May the memory of this holy person be a blessing) about a deceased ally is common. So too, “yimach sh’mo” (May his name be erased) and “yimakh shemo ve zikhro” (May his name and memory be erased) and similar variants are common curses against their perceived enemies, so common that they are set phrases. Though as reflexive as "gesundheit" following a sneeze, these set phrases are arguably among the strongest curses used by Satan's chosen people. Wallow in the Israeli press or rabbinical literature (as I do to update http://judaism.is ) and you will encounter both phrases.





It is risible to suggest that the phrases are scarcely known among Jews. Since the "Yeshu" insult has been common since the earliest days of тαℓмυdic Judaism, appearing in the title and content of the medieval Toledot Yeshu (Life/History of Yeschu), it is even more risible to suggest that the thoroughly-schooled "Chagall" (or the slut in the video I linked) did not know the curse or its application to Our Savior.  The Toledot Yeschu embellishes on the тαℓмυd insults described here: http://judaism.is/jesus-in-the-тαℓмυd.html





As for Jorge and Ratzinger—one of their pals is the Chief Rabbi of Rome Ricardo Di Segni, the author/editor of the Italian translation of the Toledot Yeshu under the misleading title Il vangelo del ghetto (The Gospel of the Ghetto), subtitled storie di Gesù (The History of Jesus) and described as "leggende e docuмenti della tradizione medievale ebraica" (legends and docuмents of the medieval Jєωιѕн tradition). https://openlibrary.org/books/OL2620845M/Il_vangelo_del_ghetto Especially in view of Jorge's decades of intensive тαℓмυd tutoring, to a moral certainty, Jorge knows of the Jєωιѕн blasphemies against the Holy Family.

The translation as "sin" is problematic, because the Hebrew word for "sin," chattath חטאת, is correctly used for "sin" or "sin offering."  The Hebrew ambiguity carries over in Greek, Latin, and vernacular translations such that "sin" is used in the Bible dozens of times for both "sin" and "sin offering." It is jarring to encounter the ambiguity, as in the case of 2 Cor 5:21, but the Magisterium has defined the meanings of the "sin"/"sin offering" instances.

I know that the Haydock commentary says that it should be understood as sin offering in 2Cor 5:21, but I am not familiar with a magisterial source for this.  Do you know of one?  If it is merely a theological tradition, it would not be heterodox to take it as meaning sin.

That said, nowhere does Scripture offer verses—whether clear or ambiguous—suggesting that Jesus became the devil.

The statement was in the context of a meditation on the typology of the bronze serpent.  As a type, the serpent represents Jesus.  But in other places serpents represent the devil.  Francis meditates on the mystery of the Cross to consider how these seemingly opposite symbols coexist.  Within this imagery, Jesus removing our sin by being "lifted up" (the expression in Scripture) is like Him becoming a devil/serpent.  It is not a claim that Our Lord was a devil in the sense of saying that Our Lord was evil. 

Jorge's statement is an outrageous blasphemy and that is precisely why the Curia had to re-write his statement and surround it with a load of mis-direction.

I'm just not seeing an outrageous blasphemy in either the words you quoted or the ones that I did.  I can see that it might be confusing without the context that he was talking about typology, but I cannot understand how there is a problem in context. It all seems to be leading to the conclusion that the only true salvation is in Christ crucified.  That idea is certainly orthodox.