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.
Topic: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning (Read 18215 times)