Pls quote source for the last sentence...
I have never heard this b4.

Lazy.  You can't lift a finger to do your own search? It is not an obscure fact. Choose your favorite source:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Pope+Leo+X+тαℓмυd&t=brave&ia=web


Your turn. Please provide your references.

"Certainly"? "Imagine"? Really?

Which Index? Tridentine? or Pauline?

Which edition/year of the ever-changing indices?

If forbidden, why did Pope Leo X commission publication of one of the most ornate тαℓмυd editions ever? [see above]

Sorry, Roscoe, I'd need a reliable reference substantiating that the тαℓмυd was still on the Index during the papacy of Pope Pius XII, the last true Pope. (Was it ever on the Index under any true Pope???) 

Non-responsive. Bait & Switch. Nothing about Pope Leo X.

Non-responsive—I asked specifically about the Index, not about vague condemnations and burnings. I am looking for a verifiable reference that the тαℓмυd was placed on the Index and remained on the Index at the time of the most recent valid Pope. A Catholic may certainly read a "condemned" book to adduce and criticize the content worthy of condemnation (and burning). No permission is required to do that. The Index places an onus for permission. You have not demonstrated that the тαℓмυd was on the Index at the time of Pope Pius XII.  If you want to claim that Montini was a valid Pope, your entire case collapses because, putatively, that sodomite eliminated the Index.

Bait & Switch—see above. Proof of condemnation and burning are not the same canonically as the Index.

Nothing about Pope Leo X—Contrary to your claim: "…consult Plot Against The Church by Pinay. See pages 141, 150-151 and also 658. It says that Leo X CONDEMNED the тαℓмυd…" [bold emphasis mine, ALL CAPS emphasis yours, Roscoe], the pages you referenced do not say one word about Leo X. His name appears nowhere on those pages.  I asked you, "If forbidden, why did Pope Leo X commission publication of one of the most ornate тαℓмυd editions ever?" [emphasis added] The ornate Bomberg edition of the тαℓмυd could never have been published openly without the patronage of Pope Leo X. I provided a surfeit of references about Pope Leo X and the Bomberg тαℓмυd.  Your references neither mention nor vindicate Pope Leo X.

Vague condemnations and burnings do not suffice to see the тαℓмυd remained or was ever on the Index.

Vague condemnations and burnings by other Popes do not vindicate Pope Leo X.

I have scanned the pages you referenced, so that readers need not leave their easy chairs to verify what I have said.

Sorry, I did miss that. Yes, Pope Leo X is mentioned there.

Read carefully: "The Jєωιѕн writer Cecil Roth speaks abundantly in his work "Storia del Populo Hebraico' of the condemning of the 'Tamud" through Pope Gregor IX and his successors up to Pope Leo X in the XVIth century…."

The condemnations occurred until Pope Leo X who approved and patronized the most ornate тαℓмυd ever.

Your own reference corroborates the indictment of Pope Leo X.

MO is that, while the diction is bad, it means to INCLUDE Pope Leo X

More later...

Procrustean. You cannot legitimately parse the sentence that way.

If "Maurice" meant to include Pope Leo X as one condemning the тαℓмυd, the sentence would read: "The Jєωιѕн writer Cecil Roth speaks abundantly in his work "Storia del Populo Hebraico' of the condemning of the 'Tamud" from Pope Gregor IX through Pope Leo X in the XVIth century…."

Instead "Maurice" makes a distinction between Pope Leo X and his predecessors: "The Jєωιѕн writer Cecil Roth speaks abundantly in his work "Storia del Populo Hebraico' of the condemning of the 'Tamud" through Pope Gregor IX and his successors up to Pope Leo X in the XVIth century…."  The condemnations stopped at Pope Leo X in the 16th century.

You might argue that Pope Leo X was a hypocrite (he wouldn't be the first papal hypocrite) who publicly condemned the тαℓмυd while patronizing the publication of the most ornate тαℓмυd ever.

I simply argue that Pope Leo X was among those who attempted to "baptize" the тαℓмυd (and Kabbala).

And you still have not supplied any verifiable evidence that the тαℓмυd was still, if ever, on the Index in the pontificate of Pius XII.

This dispute arose with Meg insisting (without any support but her feelings) I should not be reading the тαℓмυd, so let's not get lost in the weeds about Leo X. Can you adduce any Index or canonical proscription applicable to me in 2020 A.D.?

Are you taking stylistic cues from Poche?

Quote and link my alleged criticism of Gregory IX verbatim or be known as "mistaken."

Can you adduce any Index or canonical proscription applicable to me in 2020 A.D.?