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.?
Topic: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning (Read 18237 times)