Gospel According to Judas

[Petergee]

I don’t want to give publicity to this book, but I have to tell somebody that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry after reading this review. theage.com.au/news/books/judas-goes-to-rehab/2007/03/15/1173722652398.html
My first reaction on glancing at it was “Yawn! yet another historically ludicrous “correction” of the gospels by some bigoted anti-Catholic secularist”. Then I saw that this bloke is the head of the Australian Province of the Salesians of Don Bosco, and “The author of almost 40 books, many on the gospels, Moloney served for 18 years on the International Theological Commission to the Holy See. His positions have included professor of New Testament at the Catholic University of America in Washington DC and president of the Catholic Biblical Association of America.”

Fr Moloney states the gospels “were never intended to be a factual history of Jesus. Most of what the gospels say happened did happen. But certain major elements are the fruit of the imagination of the preaching church. They’re narratives composed of memories and stories” Has he even READ Vatican II’s Dei Verbum?

He tells us his “gospel” has* “eliminated some of the more spectacular miracles that people have trouble accepting. What I’ve left in are the sort of things I think Jesus possibly did.”

So no walking on water, no turning water into wine.

“It’s a more realistic Jesus. It’s a more human Jesus and I hope a more compassionate Jesus.”*

What the…? He doesn’t tell us if he has retained the most incredible miracle of all, the Resurrection, without which Christianity is meaningless.

But bizarrely, he’s admanat about conserving two minor points of the gospel truth. He put his foot down and refused to countenance his co-author’s idea that Judas should convert back to Christ before his death, on the grounds that it’s not in Tradition! Apparently Tradition doesn’t count for any of the more important issues. And the one thing in the book he’s not happy about is that some of the insults hurled at Jesus are presented as occurring earlier than they actually did. Work that out.

I’m not a doctrinal conservative by any means, but how does our church let people with such loopy, not to mention heretical, ideas, hold high office in the Holy See and a major religious order?

 

[tomch]

Hmmmm… sounds like we’re in the “last days”:

2 Timothy 3:1, 5 - "But understand this: there will be terrifying times in the last days…

as they make a pretense of religion but deny its power. Reject them."

 

[Petergee]

Maybe this thread should be moved to the Scripture forum.

 

[Genesis315]

Fr Moloney states the gospels “were never intended to be a factual history of Jesus. Most of what the gospels say happened did happen. But certain major elements are the fruit of the imagination of the preaching church. They’re narratives composed of memories and stories”

He tells us his “gospel” has* “eliminated some of the more spectacular miracles that people have trouble accepting. What I’ve left in are the sort of things I think Jesus possibly did.”*

So no walking on water, no turning water into wine.

That is textbook Modernism. Many people call all sorts of stuff modernism that really isn’t, but the above is exactly what it really is. Another textbook example is Fr. Richard McBrien’s “Catholicism.”

 

[Petergee]

That is textbook Modernism. Many people call all sorts of stuff modernism that really isn’t, but the above is exactly what it really is. Another textbook example is Fr. Richard McBrien’s “Catholicism.”

Yes, but many people will read this article and conclude that Moloney’s views represent a valid Catholic belief. He even tries to paint himself as a middle-of-the road Catholic, saying he expects criticism from both ‘the Left’ and ‘the Right’" !

For someone who was allegedly highly recommended by a Cardinal as being the finest ex- pupil of the pontifical biblical Instute, it’s amazing that almost everything Moloney says in the article is breathtakingly contrary to Catholic doctrine, e.g.

“Moloney says he’s long doubted the New Testament view of Judas, one reason being that the details in Matthew strike him as too neat a reflection of predictions made in the Old Testament.” Apparently the idea that this “neatness” is due to the fact that the events recorded in the gospels really were the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies, has not occurred to this illustrious priest.

 

[Genesis315]

Apparently the idea that this “neatness” is due to the fact that the events recorded in the gospels really were the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies, has not occurred to this illustrious priest.

Not to mention both have the same primary author: God.

 

[Genesis315]

For someone who was allegedly highly recommended by a Cardinal as being the finest ex- pupil of the pontifical biblical Instute, it’s amazing that almost everything Moloney says in the article is breathtakingly contrary to Catholic doctrine, e.g.

It could be that he was good before. Often times success can be a great occasion for pride and can destroy someone spiritually and can lead to heresy, which a symptom of pride–a desire to be a creator of truth, rather than a servant to it. This happened with a handful of theologians who had success at the Second Vatican Council and then afterwards spiraled out of control into heresy.

A good biblical example is Solomon who was once so wise and who walked upright in God’s way, but with all his success he fell into idolatry.