Refuting a Video Falsely Claiming that Pope Benedict XVI Denies Jesus as the Christ (Messiah)

This is just my short attempt [1] to react to a video posted in youtube, entitled "the Pope Benedict XVI Denies Jesus is the Christ (Messiah)". The one who posted it in 100% Katolikong Pinoy Facebook group was asking for its authenticity. I would like to show it is not and that the video was just 100% non-Katoliko and 100% made-up.

At 00:36, the narrator used Section II A (5) of the book The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which says "Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain." The narrator obviously used this to attack Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, President of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) who wrote the book's Preface.


To refute this, I wish to post the entire paragraph from where the narrator took his anchor text:

Section II A (5) Paragraph 4:

Insistence on discontinuity between both Testaments and going beyond former               perspectives should not, however, lead to a one-sided spiritualisation. What          has already been accomplished in Christ must yet be accomplished in us and          in the world. The definitive fulfilment will be at the end with the resurrection          of the dead, a new heaven and a new earth. Jewish messianic expectation is          not in vain. It can become for us Christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive          the eschatological dimension of our faith. Like them, we too live in          expectation. The difference is that for us the One who is to come will have          the traits of the Jesus who has already come and is already present and          active among us.

The narrator simply picked up one sentence from the paragraph and gave it his own meaning. He wanted to convey that the Pope is denying Jesus as the Christ by using "Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain". The Pope, then, as the narrator suggests, denies Jesus Christ by believing in a Jewish interpretation of the Christian Bible. However, the last sentence of the paragraph itself explains it: "The difference is that for us [Christians] the One who is to come will have the traits of the Jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us."

Is the Pope or rather the Pontifical Biblical Commission denying Jesus as the Christ? No. What the Commission is trying to say is that the Jews ARE YET WAITING for the One who is to come. However, for us Christians, the One who is to come HAS ALREADY COME AND IS ALREADY PRESENT AND ACTIVE AMONG US. Actually, moving further to the next paragraphs, one can find that all the Old Testament economy is in movements towards Christ (Section II A (6)).

The Commission was very clear that Jesus, the Messiah, the One who is to come, has already come and is already present. The book surely does not deny Jesus but points to Jesus as the one Christ that is being waited for by the Jews.

The narrator then jumps to Section II A (7), at 00:43, wherein we find, "to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions... which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God... Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one."

Well, the narrator uses this other text with the very same allegations as he did above. He gave the impression that the Jewish reading of the Bible which "excludes faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God"  is "a possible one". This can be refuted with the same refutation I made above, but I wish to post again two paragraphs, as well as the preceding, from where these was taken so we can clearly see what they Commission wanted to speak:

Section II A (7) Paragraphs 1 to 3:

The horror in the wake of the extermination of the Jews (the Shoah) during          the Second World War has led all the Churches to rethink their relationship          with Judaism and, as a result, to reconsider their interpretation of the Jewish          Bible, the Old Testament. It may be asked whether Christians should be blamed          for having monopolised the Jewish Bible and reading there what no Jew has          found. Should not Christians henceforth read the Bible as Jews do, in order to          show proper respect for its Jewish origins?                 In answer to the last question, a negative response must be given for         hermeneutical reasons. For to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily         involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full         acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and         rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of         God.         As regards the first question, the situation is different, for Christians can         and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one,         in continuity with the Jewish Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple         period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in         parallel fashion. Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective         faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. Consequently, both          are irreducible.

I see here that the narrator overreacts to the "possibility" of reading the Bible following Jewish interpretation (cf. Paragraph 3). It is very clear in Paragraph 2 that the answer to whether Christians should read the Bible as the Jews do (Paragraph 1) is NO. A negative response. It is possible, but it should not be because their interpretation excludes faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.

The Commission actually cited "hermeneutical reasons" for the negative response (cf. Paragraph 2) which I presume the narrator failed to consider. Interpreting the Bible as the Jews do would fall short of including all presuppositions, pre-understandings, and others necessary for encompassing everything in the interpretative process. I think the narrator got himself some trouble with his hermeneutics of this Vatican book which he is trying to interpret.




*********************

[1] This is just a short commentary on the first part of the video. When possible, i will write on the other parts.