You've got to be kidding. I doubt you watched any of it. This evidence is absolutely damning. Even I was surprised by how many overly heretical statements Ratzinger has "taught" over the years.
Even Bishop Tissier, who studied the works of Ratzinger, characterized him as a heretic "worse than Luther". I have no idea what you're smoking, but it's a pretty sad case of denial and wishful thinking.
I will give you one example that is typical of the Dimondite analysis:
1. Watch the video at at the timestamp provided:
https://youtu.be/rkPiaS1z6Vs?t=2892. Read the
full context of those quotes the Dimonds pull out in
the docuмent from the Vatican website:
7. Contribution of Jєωιѕн reading of the Bible
22. The horror in the wake of the extermination of the Jєωs (the Shoah) during the Second World War has led all the Churches to rethink their relationship with Judaism and, as a result, to reconsider their interpretation of the Jєωιѕн Bible, the Old Testament. It may be asked whether Christians should be blamed for having monopolised the Jєωιѕн Bible and reading there what no Jєω has found. Should not Christians henceforth read the Bible as Jєωs do, in order to show proper respect for its Jєωιѕн origins?
In answer to the last question, a negative response must be given for hermeneutical reasons. For to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.
As regards the first question, the situation is different, for Christians can and ought to admit that the Jєωιѕн reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jєωιѕн Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible.
On the practical level of exegesis, Christians can, nonetheless, learn much from Jєωιѕн exegesis practised for more than two thousand years, and, in fact, they have learned much in the course of history.45 For their part, it is to be hoped that Jєωs themselves can derive profit from Christian exegetical research.
So the "last question" that docuмent asks is this:
"Should not Christians henceforth read the [OT] Bible as Jєωs do, in order to show proper respect for its Jєωιѕн origins?"The answer given by the docuмent itself is plainly stated:
"In answer to the last question, a negative response must be given for hermeneutical reasons."Do you see that? The answer from the authors of that docuмent is
"No, Christians should not read the [OT] Bible as Jєωs do."Then the authors of the docuмent address the "first question" which is:
"It may be asked whether Christians should be blamed for having monopolised the Jєωιѕн [OT] Bible and reading there what no Jєω has found."Here is the answer:
"As regards the first question, the situation is different, for Christians can and ought to admit that the Jєωιѕн reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jєωιѕн Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible."This answer means it is "possible" to read the Old Testament Scriptures and come up with the wrong interpretation of the Jєωs. This is precisely why Jesus came in the flesh: to clarify the proper teaching, which is what the New Testament does. But since the Jєωs don't accept the New Testament or Jesus on "faith," they continue to miss the true interpretation of their own scriptures.
Far from confirming that the Jєωιѕн interpretation is a good one, the docuмent says that "Christians should not read the Bible as the Jєωs do." And the primary reason for this is that the Christian "faith" will not allow it.
St. Paul was constantly using verses from the Old Testament and showing how they were misunderstood by the Jєωs. He told them over and over that many of those key verses should be understood "figuratively" but the Jєωs had taken them "literally." He showed them that it is only through the light of Christ's Gospel that one can understand those teaching properly. So the Jєωs needed to first accept ON FAITH that Jesus was the messiah. If they do that, then their misunderstandings of OT Scripture would be cleared up. But until they have THE FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, their interpretation will be incorrect.
So FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST is the prerequisite for the proper interpretation. Until the Jєωs have THAT FAITH they will have a "possible" but ultimately wrong interpretation of the OT. That is a fact. That is what that passage from the quote above is saying. It is not heresy. The Dimonds just do not understand, or intentionally misrepresent, the text in question, and the rest of what they say related to that point is based on a false premise and, therefore, false.
Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism? (Read 41413 times)