Robert Sungenis has written a response to my comments on Benedict XVI’s recent Talmud reference in the following two blog postings:
Robert Sungenis’ response is here:
Robert Sungenis apparently believes that Benedict XVI was evangelizing a group of rabbis, European “Jewish” Congress members, and other Judaic power-brokers in his September 12, 2008 address to the “Jewish” community at Paris, France. I find this a strange conclusion to draw. These rabbis and EJC characters are so acutely sensitive and hysterically averse to true Christian evangelization of “Jews” that if Benedict actually was attempting to evangelize them it would certainly be detected and would not be tolerated for a second. These people can’t even allow the minuscule traditional Catholic minority to pray for them in virtual seclusion on one day of the year.
If Sungenis wants others to believe as he does–that Benedict is evangelizing rabbis and their followers in the same spirit as Jesus Christ and St. Paul–he should offer some evidence that this is so. I haven’t seen any. I have, in fact, amassed a mountain of evidence that the contrary is true–that not only is Benedict affirming the errors of the anti-Christ religion of Orthodox Judaism, he’s also introducing these errors into the Christian fold; building deep relations between Catholics and “Jews.”
But this is besides Benedict’s sly misrepresentation of a Talmud passage which Sungenis apparently takes at face value. Sungenis writes:
“… the pope was quite correct in using the Talmud in his discussion with the Jews in France, for what he proposed to them from their own book about the Sabbath was precisely the same argument that Jesus used against the Pharisees. If, in some sections of the Talmud, it can be shown that the statements therein agree with godly principles and Christian truth, it is certainly appropriate to quote them to the people who believe they are authoritative, for you show them that even their own authority agrees with you.”
This is a trap into which many investigators of rabbinic texts fall which is dismantled in Judaism Discovered. Benedict has presented only one side of a dialectical argument which does not represent the halachic synthesis. The Talmud passage that Benedict quoted is not authoritative as Sungenis assumes. The rabbis that Benedict addressed know this. Benedict himself cannot be unaware of it. The rabbis–from the time of Christ till the present day–run a Sabbath law tyranny that is as far from Jesus’ Gospel teaching as black is from white. This is so patent that I can’t believe it needs an explanation. Jesus and the Pharisees were conflicted on the man-made (NOT biblical) pharisaic Sabbath laws because their teachings were completely opposed. Rabbi-contrived Sabbath laws have only become more tyrannical since the time of Christ and they are authoritative.
No, Benedict was not evangelizing those rabbis. He was, as usual, creating confusion in the minds of his own followers by asserting a commonality which does not exist.