THE whisper of the vilified virgins who dodge the gnat and swallow the camel. Israeli rabbi Rasson Arousi accuses the Supreme Pontiff of having uttered derogatory phrases about the Torah
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo
Presbyter and Theologian
( Click on the name to read all its articles )
Presbyter and Theologian
( Click on the name to read all its articles )
Latest posts by father ariel (see all)
- The disastrous episcopal appointments of a Church that despises and destroys talent to make ideology prevail - 5 May 2024
- "Something is changed". From Jack Nicholson to Cardinal Matteo Maria Zuppi honorary degree from the University of Catania - 14 April 2024
- The fans of Mary co-redemptrix, a gross contradiction in theological terms - 6 February 2024
Reverend P. Ariel,
I did not know his text “Erbe Amare” and looking on the internet I saw that she had already published it a few years ago and it seems to me that I have read that she had converted to Judaism before becoming a priest. E’ vero? How he was able to convert to Judaism given the assumptions he talks about in his article?
Thank you,
Nicola
Dear Nicola,
my biography is this WHO
unfortunately I cannot answer for what some have written about me, several of which, against the other, anonymous.
Reverend P. Ariel,
thanks for your feedback. I apologize if by chance I annoyed you [N.d.R. etc … etc … follows the message of the Reader who asks other questions]
_____________________________
Dear Nicola,
she absolutely and in no way bothered me, that's why I answered her privately with an email, since his questions centered a little’ on the staff. In my reply, I therefore specified that certain information was not true.
Unfortunately she sends the comments from an email … fake it, presumably created to ask personal questions in public that do not bother me in any way, having no skeletons to hide. As a result, the reply email that I sent her has come back, simply because the address you indicated does not exist at all, as you yourself can verify:
nicolad@yahoo.it (nicolad@yahoo.it)
The message could not be delivered. When Office 365 attempted to send the message, the external e-mail server returned the following error.
I think I've told you everything.
I greet you with great cordiality,
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo
It would be more interesting to understand what “law” you speak from time to time Paul rather than leaning everything on the Torah, and try to understand the reasons why he respected the precepts of the same, circumcised Timothy, and took a vow of Nazirite under pressure from James and because he further distinguished precisely if he referred to the Jewish law and not to other laws, the works of the law respect the law. Because the law does not save or justify we agree, but that a little is not necessary’ less. On the other hand, the most comical debate that can follow the just but banal speech of the Pope, And: “and then the commandments?” On the other hand, the apostle says that “The whole law in fact finds its fullness in a single precept: you will love your neighbor as yourself” that therefore the law is not necessary, it being feasible only in the Charity of the One Tripersonal? We may as well say that Grace is useless…or the sauce of the speech was soon said”In fact, even the circumcised themselves do not observe the law, but they want your circumcision to boast of your flesh”.
Ah.
Fors eun po’ as when penance was prescribed for certain sins and then nothing, or reduction to the lay state or even excommunication and instead nothing. This is why we have priests who should not be clerics even in the high degrees who should not remain so or should never have become so and nothing is done, just as we also have lay people who chatter instead of being chased away and anathematized and nothing is done. Law is not necessary…And…
The answers to his questions about the Law and the relationship between Christ and the Law and vice versa are given by the Blessed Apostle Paul in:
II Letter to the Corinthians
Letter to the Romans 7, 1-6
But most of all, the concept «The whole law in fact finds its fullness in a single precept: you will love your neighbor as yourself " that you mention, it is an extrapolation made from a very complex and articulated text, such is the Letter to the Galatians, in which the Blessed Apostle explains above all the Christological and Christocentric dimension, as in his other epistles (in Fil 2, 6-11 e in Ef 1, 3-12), changing the precept of the Book of Leviticus from “wish” in “Christological love”. Indeed, in the ancient biblical texts, there was no talk of “love of neighbor” But say “desire / respect” and the faithful translation from Hebrew would be: "You will want / want for your neighbor what you want for yourself" (Lv 19, 18).
And who explains it now to the Evangelist Matthew who made a mistake in putting Jesus in the mouth, when he replies to the doctor of the law, the verb “ἀγαπάω”
Ah, we do not understand each other?
Thank you for the translation of those passages from the First Covenant which would explain many things, but I sincerely hope also the Greek LXX expresses itself in the same way since the Masoretic text is quite recent as well as being unreliable.
I was referring precisely to the letter to the Romans, which is Paul's worst interpreted letter.
The sad thing is that the Jews are not exposed. At least the guy he's reprimanding has exposed himself, and is part of a recognizable school. We should all know that in Judaism, from which we were born, matrilinearity if it ever made sense, he never had it in the biological sense ( in reality, matrilinearity is valid only insofar as the birth of a Jewess of Faith is in the fact that the son is not a bastard and the father an apostate ).
Because this awe against those who call themselves Jewish and do not even follow their rabbinic religion which is younger than Christianity?
Carnal? Let's go back to the origin, we are surrounded by Edomites, and I don't believe only among the Jews.
I apologize and try to explain myself better.
– In response to the doctor of the law, Jesus uses a term that means “to love / love deeply”.
– If the correct interpretation of that term of the Law had been "desire / respect", the lawyer would certainly have pointed this out to Jesus.
– E’ very likely that, having come the “fullness of time”, certain doctoral and rabbinical currents, they had already come to interpret that term in the way indicated by Christ.
Dear Orenzo,
we understood each other, I'll explain myself better.
Rabbinical Bible schools have always had trouble translating the Leviticus passage in question using the word “love”.
Two examples reported in detail in my book Erbe Amare which I reproduce here:
________________
GIVES “BITTER HERBS” pag. 372-373 – Jews still experience ulcerations produced by rabbis who do not hesitate to replace the word love with less dangerous verbs. Even if love runs through Jewish religious literature, there is no lack of some blissful mind that fears it. For two millennia, love has been the battle horse that Christians have appropriated, better therefore not to confuse the ideas of those Jews who must keep the banner of their supreme diversity spread out to the wind.
In the early years of the twentieth century an Italian Grand Rabbi of the late nineteenth-century school thus translated the famous passage from Leviticus: "You will love your neighbor as yourself" (Rav. Dante Lattes: Apology of Judaism [Formiggini Editore. Modena, 1923]). After a few decades, a master of the twentieth-century school thus translates the same passage: "Wish for your neighbor as for yourself" (Rav. Elia Artom: The Life of Israel [Rome, 4Revised and updated edition in 1993]).
Over time, several rabbis have silently replaced the verb to love ...
In the texts of the Bible in French, English, Italian, Spanish and German in use in the Catholic Church, in the Christian Orthodox Church, in the Anglican Community and in the Lutheran Community, the step in question (Lv 19, 18) it refers to love of neighbor, without any uncertainty.
In the Bible adopted by the Italian Episcopal Conference , as in the agreed Bible and in the biblical texts used by the various Protestant communities, including the more recent Christian communities, from Mormons to Jehovah's Witnesses, without penalty of misunderstanding, we speak of love for one's neighbor. Even in the Arabic version of the Pentateuch used in Muslim religious schools there is talk of love. Precisely because all the others speak of love, in the Torah in use for almost half a century in the Jewish communities of Italy, love has changed into a somewhat obscure desire:
«Do not take revenge and do not hold grudges towards the children of your people, and want for your neighbor what you want for yourself " (The Hebrew Bible, edited by Rav. Dario Di Segni. Leviticus: 19, 18. [Ed. La Giuntina, 1995]).
Loving one's neighbor is a precept that binds only the Israelites to one another? Not at all. A few lines ahead there is a clear reference to the goy, to the stranger, the non-Jew:
«[…] the stranger who will dwell among you, it must be like one of your natives, and you will love him as yourself " (From biblical texts in French, English, Italian, Spanish and German, in use in the Catholic Church, in the Christian Orthodox Church, in the Anglican Community and in the Lutheran Community. With reference to the Book of Leviticus, 19: 33-34).
According to the Torah, the neighbor to love is therefore the non-Jew as much as the Jew, therefore this second verse may appear more dangerous than the first. So here's how it was mitigated:
"The stranger residing with you must be for you the same as one of your natives, and you will love for him what you love for yourself " (The Hebrew Bible, edited by Rav. Dario Di Segni. Leviticus: 19: 33-34 [Ed. La Giuntina, reprint 1995]).
Leafing through the edition in use since the mid-nineteenth century in the Italian Communities, it turns out that in the same passage the verb to love was beautifully used:
«Do not take vengeance or keep hatred on the peoples of your people; rather, love your neighbor as yourself " (Torah with Italian text opposite. Print date: Rome, 1872 [Ital. & Heb. Pent.]. The ancient copy of the text bears the property stamp of the Jewish Temple in Rome. This is the official text approved by the rabbinical authority and adopted by the people to follow the synagogue liturgies).
In the next verse, the most dangerous one in which one urges to welcome and love the stranger, the nineteenth-century text does not invite us to love mildly for him what we love for ourselves, on the contrary it says:
"You know the stranger, who will dwell with you, like one of you who is a native of the land, so love him as yourself " .
The Grand Rabbi of the late nineteenth-century school mentioned above, it does not translate by inviting us to desire for others what we want for ourselves nor does it ambiguously invite us to love for others what we generally love for ourselves:
«And when a stranger emigrated to you in your land, do not do him injustice. The stranger who dwells with you, he will be for you like a citizen of your own, and you will love him as yourself " (Supra).
You are an intelligent person, expensive Orenzo, therefore, with this copy / paste from one of my books that I would suggest you read, he understood perfectly well what I mean between the lines.
Knowing that the “Septuagint”, dated to about the middle of the 2nd century BC., it was used by Christians to testify that Jesus was the expected Messiah, the Jews, after the fall of the Temple, they began to write down the Masoretic text, work completed in the 10th century AD.
Said this, I found the following reading very instructive, also because it clearly clarifies the relationship between Saint Paul and the Law: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_it.html
MAh. I have read the Pope's catechesis in its entirety and found it truly edifying. What would be the scandal in saying that the law acts as a pedagogue, and that alone is not enough for salvation, for the encounter with God? What a scandal in saying that Christ is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets? Bo. Most of the Pauline letters are centered on this question, pass “from law to grace”, that the law only gives knowledge of sin, but it does not save. In practice, according to this rabbi, we should throw a large part of St. Paul's letters to the bucket? Bo. The Pope said such obvious trivia.. MAh
… and if the unspoken and not easily expressed underlying problem, were indeed our unwelcome existence as Christians?
Who has ears to hear, mean:
– As he went out to travel, a man ran to meet him and, throwing himself on his knees in front of him, she asked him: «Good teacher, what must I do to have eternal life?». Jesus told him: "Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, if not God alone. You know the commandments: Do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not cheat, honor your father and mother ". (MC 10.17-19)
– "But, dad, one thing: this means that if I pray the Creed I don't have to keep the Commandments?”. No, the Commandments are topical in the sense that they are "pedagogues" who lead you to an encounter with Jesus. (and 11-08-2021)
But the rabbi on duty should be more angry than the Father with the prophet Jeremiah who affirmed in the name of D. : ” Torah experts have never known me”(cap 2).
SEE WHO the quote from our Reader
I add:
for that matter, the ancient Israelites, after being fed in the desert with manna, they complained that God only rained manna from heaven.
Such fathers, such children …
SEE HERE
Identification at the Torah, with the Law and the Law with the Decalogue, it means having understood nothing of the Torah, which could best be translated with: instruction, teaching, guide, doctrine, instruction, sapiential way, tradition…
I also wonder which Catholic, that has at least a minimum smattering of Catholicism and a shred of rationality, may ask: “if I pray the Creed I don't have to keep the Commandments?”
Esimio p. Ariel,
he is angry with the Talmud and not with Celsus that he wrote these things before everyone else?
GG
Thanks for the instructive article dear Father.
Just two thoughts. The first: the poor Protestant trades are always ready to give against the Holy Father for everything, but when he says well they are silent. Yet Catholicism teaches us that anyone who says good should always be given praise…but they were silent. Proof of their horrid bad faith.
Second: convinced Jews would have been enough to deny the existence of Christ as do so many atheists and so many enemies of the Church, rather no…albeit insulting him, they confirm it historically. Jesus existed, and if they tell them with their long biblical history, then its veracity is certain. What to say then?
THANK GOD. Thank you Jesus that you are confirmed by “older brothers” in continuity with the true history of man and his salvation.
Dad. It is the second time that I do not agree on what you write in an article. And that worries me. How can you not see that Bergoglio is making the Catholic-Christian church at the level of the Protestant one step by step? He is so skilled in his abstruse speeches that I fear he is not the one who gives birth to what he says in his catecheses. In my opinion someone drives it… Mamma Mia, now also in this case someone will call me a conspiracy theorist ?
We cannot do without Peter, whoever it is.
Protestantism was born of Luther who believed that Peter could be done without.
We, Pietro's, we can not, we must not and we do not want to do without, whoever it is.
But father allow me, this answer is generic. I understood that you cannot do without a Pope but about what you wrote in this article, does not even agree [CENSORED]
Peacefully get out of your head that you can use the spaces de The Island of Patmos , which also boasts an average of 20 million visits per year, to advertise conspiracy theorists, anti-papists and videos posted on YouTube by various freaks hidden behind anonymity, but take it out of your mind.
Dear John,
conspiracy in itself is nothing compared to its matrix: ignorance. And I'm not saying this to offend her, but because many times it follows “the voice of the people”, without actually studying or deepening the various issues.
Well, if she had about 2000 year old, would know that the Sacred Tradition “unchangeable” ed “eternal”, which is so much defended by the so-called “traditionalists”, it does not exist in the terms in which it is presented, except as regards the infallible and certain magisterium, that is, the dogmas of faith. Everything else can be subject to theological reflection, with caution and patience, always on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and Tradition.
To give you an example, help me believe, if you can (with certain and reliable sources), that the apostle Peter and his immediate successors (throughout the first millennium) were the absolute monarchs of the entire Catholic Church (in the west and east). Clearly, as the Church proposes me to do, I believe in the primacy of the Pope, but because the Church asks me to do it in communion with the successor of St. Peter, leaving out what I assume I know and trying to be as docile as possible. To accept the Gospel, one must become ignorant. In conclusion, how big even the most serious worries can be, if the center and our guide is the Lord Jesus? I salute you.
Dear Vincenzo,
I join your answer given to dear John by simply adding this: the Council of Nicaea of the year 325 it was in many ways the most important Council of the Church, together with the subsequent Council of Constantinople. In this council the fundamental Christological dogmas were solemnly defined and from these two councils the Symbol of Faith, called Niceno-Constantinopolitan, namely the I believe that we still recite in churches today.
but yet, some traditional of noartri, they speak as if the church, in the III / IV century it had been as it was to that of Pius VII at the beginning of 1800. With rare ignorance – understood as a total lack of knowledge – unfortunately they ignore that the Supreme Pontiff was not even present at these two great and fundamental councils. Moreover, at the time, he was not yet called Supreme Pontiff, title that will come into use around the sixth century.
The Church at the beginning of the fourth century was certainly not that of the Supreme Pontiff Paul III that in 1545 he called the Council of Trent, nor that of the Supreme Pontiff Pius IX who in 1869 called the First Vatican Council, nor that of the Supreme Pontiff John XXIII who in 1962 he called the Second Vatican Council. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Council of Nicaea and subsequent ones, until the 9th century, they were convened and formally presided over by the emperor of the East, the last in series order by the Empress Irene the Athenian. In Nicaea and Constantinople, the one who at the time was known and referred to as the Bishop of Rome, he was not even present at these two councils which defined the fundamental dogmas of the faith, was represented, the chronicles tell, by two presbyters, but much more likely by two deacons, he was not even represented by two bishops.
It will be necessary to reach Leo I (440-461) and to Gregory the Great (590-604), so that the Bishop of Rome assumed a leading role in Western Christianity, filling with their initiatives, including political ones, the void created by the crisis and then by the disappearance of the Western Roman Empire.
I confess my deep frustration, that I often try to escape through irony and jack ass of certain subjects. I've been trying to convey for years, together with the foundations of faith and the sound doctrine of the Church, also clear and understandable elements of Church history and dogma history, to make people understand who we are and where we come from, to make people understand how the Church has evolved on the way since the first apostolic age. But unfortunately, invariably, the pious woman comes out after having a chat with the shaman in the hairdresser's salon, or the digital illiterate on duty who thinks he has understood everything about the Church by reading the rants poised between politics and gossip published on the blogs of certain retired Vatican journalists, who from the top of his chair erected on the internet shakes his little finger and says … “I do not agree … no, It is not so, because Our Lady of Medjugorje, the messages of Garabandal, of the Madonna of Anguera, they say that …”.
Some accuse me of swearing, well I tell you that today, to be priests and to be theologians it is not enough to have a lot of guts, it takes balls beyond all measure, because the priest and the theologian have to deal daily with the ignorance and arrogance of so many alleged Catholics who are in conditions of digital illiteracy and who sometimes find it impossible to guide and train, because they are closed to any kind of call and correct teaching.
I used the guts and balls paradigm simply to say that today, to be a priest and a theologian, deep faith is needed, very solid and motivated, which was not required in the 19th century, when faced with the words also expressed by the last of the country curates, no faithful would have dared to sigh. Today instead, people who do not know the fundamentals of Catholic doctrine, at the end of the Mass they arrive at the sacristy, they point the finger at you and contest the homily by saying: “… I do not agree, because in my opinion … I think that …”. And if you ask them a question about the simplest rudiment of the Catechism of the Catholic Church they don't know what to answer.
One might say: you should try to put yourself in our place for a month and then see the air that pulls.
Thank you for your intelligent and Catholic comment.
Dear father Ariel, if this is the Catholic Faith, interpreter, and if this is an intelligent and Catholic answer indeed, then what other priests say on the merits of the question posed in his article, like Don Curzio Nitoglia who is not the last to arrive, who says the opposite of what she and Vincenzo say, then there being no certain but interpretable Truth for many of the Catholic issues, well then I become a Buddhist. Thank you.
I share everything. Thank you, father ariel.
The Lord is beside her. Courage and forward.
Thanks Vincenzo. So this Catholic Faith is all a joke since a lot, very interpretable. Father Ariel says one thing, Don Curzio Nitoglia another, how beautiful, it looks like a game. But if I want to play craps. Better to become a Buddhist.
You just confirmed your decision, total and absolute determination not to listen to all that in short, what is historically and theologically unexceptionable has just been explained to her in the intelligent and Catholic exchange between Vincent and me.
Bringing the presbyter Curzio Nitoglia as an example and model is like expecting that the Congregation for the Causes of Saints accepts to carry on the process of beatification of Moana Pozzi.
Reverend Curzio Nitoglia received priestly ordination, in a valid but illegal way, by the schismatic Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, then he abandoned the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X due to strong disagreements with the superiors of the same.
At present it is a “wandering cleric” not belonging to any diocese and not incardinated in any Order, Religious congregation, Priestly fraternity. It therefore does not have a bishop, nor a religious superior, in short, it is what is usually defined in secular language “loose cannon”.
You try to ask yourself why, no bishop in the world, he accepted to welcome him into his presbytery.
Otherwise I am a priest incardinated in a diocese, subjected to the authority of a bishop and in full communion and obedience with my bishop, which allows me to carry out the various ministries that I carry out in the service of the Church, including advertising activity and the publication of books.
His comparison between me, presbyter in “perfect rule” it's a “totally irregular presbyter” it might sound almost insulting to me, if it weren't for the fact that she expresses herself out of crass ignorance.
If he then wishes to become a Buddhist and thereby free the Catholic Church from his presence, know that it will do something pleasing to all believers who live the faith and the tests that faith entails, now with deep joy now with deep suffering, certainly not making childish and foolish tantrums like her.
I bless you from my heart.
Sorry but I will not free the Church from my presence, even if she would like it and this assumption is already wrong for a Priest and it says a lot, revealing it for what it is, perhaps you have forgotten that a priest should not speak in this way. So much for the evangelization he does, congratulations. She does just the opposite, whoever disagrees with her throws him out. But I will certainly be the one to free myself from his presence by following only priests recognized by the church (not excommunicated) but who would never dare to make his claims. The greeting.
If so, he has a moral duty to take first of all what you have written publicly, so what I replied to you and submit a protest note to the Ecclesiastical Authority, to which, however, he will have to explain whether it was she who provocatively feared his eventual conversion to Buddhism, or if it was me – according to him, an unworthy priest – to suggest in a rash way to become a Buddhist.
E’ she who launched a provocation, I just responded in kind to his provocation. Or maybe he wants to affirm, even in the face of proven evidence of the facts, that I was the one who provoked her out of the blue for no reason?
Please, take a seat, she has a moral duty to do what I told her, seen and considered that an unworthy priest like me could cause very serious damage to the Church and to the People of God.
Dear John,
just go to the sources (to all, and not only those of the last few centuries) to understand who is right, I know C. Nitoglia or the Catholic Church.
You are stating that the Church, Mater et Magistra, grossly wrong in matters of doctrine and faith?
But you are a Catholic, or a member of some sect who infiltrates the speeches by pretending to be Catholic?
However, thanks for the laughs it gives us.
Take the Gospels in hand and read them in the light of the upright Magisterium, that is, of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (use the old edition), and do not be sidetracked by those who teach ideologies in contrast with the CCC.
Congratulations on the article!
I am a Franciscan priest and have discovered Jewish ancestry in my family. I read Hebrew and speak it quite well, but the dialogue with the many Judaisms that I met along my path was almost always a walk at night, drunk, in a minefield.
Dear Brother,
you know and you teach me, just as a presbyter of a glorious mendicant Order, that we Catholics have many different expressions within us which constitute precious charisms, gift of grace of the Holy Spirit. For instance: Dominicans and Franciscans constitute the two great mendicant orders, yet over the centuries, among them, clear differences and different ways of understanding and addressing certain theological questions emerged, but both, characterized by different religious life settings, they contribute to forming the preciousness of Catholic unity.
We also have different schools of thought that face the great theological issues in a sometimes even opposite way, but these currents and thoughts, even when they are at odds with each other, they constitute the precious patrimony of the one and only Catholic Church.
With this experience of ours, with this approach of ours, those among us who have not had the opportunity to truly delve into the history and reality of Judaism, they tend in the utmost good faith to face it in the most wrong way, high-ranking biblical scholars in the lead. Because, as you rightly say, we end up dialoguing with many Judaisms that do not lead to unity but to the most dispersed fragmentation, therefore «my path has almost always been a walk at night, drunk, in a minefield ".
I conclude with an example: to extract from Haron-ha Kodesh (for those who read us: the great tabernacle of the synagogue) the Sefer Torah (for those who read us: the roll, the great parchment of the Torah) a so-called mini Of 10 adult males, or 10 post puberi. However, there are Jewish sects who do not agree to include Jews in the count, to all intents and purposes such for the Halakah (for those who read us: orthodox rabbinic law) because they do not belong to their aggregation. These are things that many of our Catholics passionate about dialogue with Judaism do not know, along with many other things completely unknown to them.
E’ soon said: it would be thinkable that I, finding myself passing through one of your Franciscan convent, is not admitted to Eucharistic concelebration, or worse still at the Eucharistic celebration, because he was a member of the secular clergy, therefore not recognized, as a presbyter, by the priests of the Franciscan family? Obvious, that for us such a thing, as well as being unthinkable, if this happened, it would trigger the immediate ire of the diocesan bishops and major superiors of the Franciscan Order.
Instead, within the various “Judaisms” fragmented and quarrelsome, where communities disavow each other and where rabbis do not recognize the authority of rabbis of other communities as a matter of course, this is normal administration.
And some of our romantic Catholics think that having talked and had a meeting with a Grand Rabbi, they talked “with” Judaism.
With a few wise words you have painted in a surgical way that reality that some of our romantics and enthusiastic Catholic masters of dialogue at all costs and whatever costs, unfortunately I am just not able to grasp.
With deep priestly fraternity,
Ariel
How much and what knowledge has he given us this time too, dad.! I listened to the audio and I'm sure only a deaf person can “not perceive” essentiality’ of your reflections, perfect fruit of an austere and unassailable faith. Certainty by many lost or confused with bizarre and petty truths of our inauspicious time.
I've been wondering for a couple of days : but what did Pope Francis say so serious? but now every opportunity is good to treat yourself to a little’ of notoriety….
Dear father, I must apologize but I am not so much following these church matters anymore. But still driven by curiosity after seeing a video that talked about it, I went to hear what the Pope had said at the audience that day 11 Of this month. I understood well what Bergoglio says, but it closes badly. In fact, Bergoglio concludes by saying that the encounter with Jesus is more important than the whole law and that the Mosaic law, it is simply a means to get to Jesus, to get to know him, since the covenant of the people of God, the promise made by God is on the basis of Faith and not the Mosaic law that has come 450 years after Abraham and that instead it was the fault of the missionaries infiltrated among the Galatians to support the inviolability of the Mosaic Law, because to fight the paganism and hydrolatry of that time, argued that the Mosaic Law was constitutive of’ covenant with God. In short, they made it clear that without observing the Nosaic Law we could not be saved… At the end of this explanation, Bergoglio always emphasizes the word Love. In this general audience the dear Father seemed less cryptic to me than the other times, but, however, I would say to Bergoglio: ” but excuse your Holiness, but because today we are perhaps not in an age of Idrolatry and Paganism?” Yes, of course!!! So what???
???