I think I've made the point of the author clear which was a limited, historical observation about the interpretation of the Law.
There's nothing limited in saying someone is "an instrument of heaven . . .preparing the way of the Lord." If someone is has such an exalted position in the history of Christ's coming, then I expect the Church to teach something about it. I don't expect an author in the Angelus to be able to make such a statement on his own authority, and for the editors of the Angelus to defend it on the basis of a Catholic Encyclopedia article which
is far more limited (but still wrong, as the Catholic Encyclopedia sometimes is) This is the Angelus literally inventing a new Catholic religious figure: it's simply unbelievable.
This fact alone renders your exaggerated statements obviously contrived since after the coming of the Messiah, the Law was rendered moot thereby proving that the statement was in no way intended to praise false Judaism after Christ, much less today.
Christianity has no use for the тαℓмυd, and has never honored this originator of тαℓмυdic Judaism. The Angelus, however, since the lifting of the excommunications, seems fit to honor the founder of a different religion with the most exalted language who is not honored by the Church. That is false ecuмenism - plain and simple.
The question of the interpretation of the Law was controverted prior to Christ and observing that a particular Jєω understood it better than most is a perfectly acceptable assertion.
Suppose the editor had added the bit about Hillel permitting divorce for any reason, right after calling him an instrument of heaven. Or suppose the author had mentioned that Hillel is honored as the founder of тαℓмυdic Judaism, and that his school led the Jєωs in rejecting Christ for centuries? The author seems to be incredibly ignorant (as though he read nothing about Hillel, but I doubt that), and Father Heggenberger's response to Hoffman is a total stone-wall and dodge.
To infer that such an observation amounts to accepting Hillel's errors is your own logical fallacy.
They say Hillel's system was not condemned, but it's quite clear divorce was absolutely condemned. Christ didn't just condemn the onerous restrictions of Pharisaism. He also condemned
Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.http://bible.cc/mark/7-13.htmNow they said Christ didn't condemn Hillel's school. Is there any evidence at all for that?
But when one reads a little too much Hoffman and Jones, one's perception of reality is skewed.
Jones has actually condemned the Society for antisemitism.