Gospel of St Thomas

[Rochester]

I realize that our comments depart from the thread concerning the Gospel of St. Thomas so I will be brief. We are all sent temptations. You have singled out these two priests who loved the Church and have brought much joy and insight to many. I think their writings strengthened the Catholic faith immeasurably. You seem to think it led people away, perhaps because it included a measure of understanding and respect for other religions, but this is precisely what we were called to cultivate by Vatican II. The Notification posted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was done so many years after the death of Fr. DeMello. Obviously he could not respond. I would call that a cheap shot.

I believe the leaders of the Catholic Church are guided by the Holy Spirit. I do not know whether the Holy Spirit guides them exclusively and not leaders of other churches or indeed other religions. It would seem to me that would be putting the cart before the horse, insisting that we know the mind of God better than God. But this is a very human thing to do. I like the way the author Ann La Mott put it: “You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

I reject the idea that either Merton’s or DeMello’s writings “vary substantially” from the teaching of the Church. If this were true one would expect that the “Imprimi Potest,” “Nihil Obstat,” and “Imprimatur” would have been withheld. They were not removed from their religious congregations or the priesthood. This must rankle their critics to no end, but it speaks to the great strength and splendor of the Church. Jesus said “be not afraid.” The fear of having open discussions (like this) and questioning teachings and leaders to arrive at deeper understandings is toxic and against Christ’s teaching. As I wrote in my first message, Merton and DeMello are not beyond criticism, any more than Cardinals Ratzinger and Bertone are beyond criticism. But I am pretty sure that both Merton and DeMello will be remembered and quoted long beyond the other two, in spite of Ratzinger’s election to the papacy. I do not worship the pope. Anyone who has read even the most cursory history of the papacy quickly realizes that some of them were flawed and in even disastrous leaders. Time will tell whether Benedict proves saintly. I worship Jesus. And if you think that the Catholic Church requires the worship and slavish obedience to the will of popes you are way off base.

You have a way of twisting what I wrote and changing its meaning, which is underhanded. I did not attack the Church’s conservatism. I actually acknowledged that there may be legitimate differences of opinion, and I am sure that those who are speaking as the guardians of the faith usually do so without guile. For me to disagree is not the same as demonizing, but by using that word you inject real venom into the discussion.

One day we will have another pope and those seven paragraphs on the Vatican website attacking Fr. DeMello will be taken down and forgotten. It’s all political. If you read the lives of the saints, you will quickly see that even the greatest were often vilified by the religious leaders of their day, quite often bishops, Grand Inquisitors, and even a few popes. We do not remember those who did the vilifying. And that, my friend, is also the work the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for this great post!

 

[po18guy]

Those seven paragraphs also stood under John Paul II. Were you waiting for him to be replaced as well? How long before you get a Pope to your liking?

 

[Michael_Francis]

***6 posts pruned from this thread and several edited for being off topic.

Please stay on topic an insure that all post that all posts comply with the rules and guidelines found in this link***.
Very sincerely,

 

[Ignatias20]

Personally I prefer the “Protoevangelium of James”. I say it is more authentic than the Gospel of St. Thomas.

With my limitations, I find nothing heretical or contrary to the Scriptures in this Protoevangelium.

 

[Apollos]

i’m real confused how do i post a new thread?

 

[NotWorthy]

Personally I prefer the “Protoevangelium of James”. I say it is more authentic than the Gospel of St. Thomas.

With my limitations, I find nothing heretical or contrary to the Scriptures in this Protoevangelium.

Exactly.

The ProtoEvangelium of James reflects the traditional thinking of the early Christians. The Gospel of Thomas is “private revelations” that the ordinary masses wouldn’t comprehend unless they were given special understanding from God.

 

[prosebyme]

I have read the majority of the Gnostic Gospels and although interesting there are so many blank spaces that you often lose the meaning. Some of the New Testament Gospels are alluded to in the texts but are lacking, to me anyway, in any true value for gaining knowledge.

A fascinating book that I read was called Jesus in Egypt. The author travelled around Egypt, just after 9/11, to sites that were revered by Christians as places that the Holy Family stayed during their exile after Jesus birth. Although it is verbal traditions that are handed down, I found it to be a nice read and an interesting one as well since the author was moved from site to site. It also mentions the Coptic Church that Mother Mary is purported to have visited in the late 60’s. It’s on Youtube as well. Check it out if you haven’t seen it.

It just amazes me that people that have witnessed such events, in their own lifetime can be so blind to Christianity. Well, as they say faith is a gift. Anyway, totally off the subject. Yes, read the Gnostic Gospels but prepare to be confused.

 

[dunscotus]

Read the Gnostic Gospels, by all means, but read them in a scholarly and not in a devotional mode. In other words, you have to just look at them like an historian would.

For what it’s worth, I studied these in college and I, like my classmates, found them pretty dreary. The Gnostic worldview and theology is not very appealing when you see it for what it is. Primary sources are great, but I personally would recommend that you pursue whatever interest you have in the Gnostics by reading about them, rather than trying to work your way through their writings. Everett Ferguson’s Backgrounds of Early Christianity is a good source.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Hello All,
I recently came across the Gospel of St Thomas and Infancy Gospel of St Thomas. I know that it is not part of the Canonical Bible. However does the church advise us not to read them?

Will it be detrimental to my catholic faith if I read these books which are not yet 100% Authenticated ?

Hope to get some comments form theologians also from those who have already read them?
Cheers
Joe

Joe, these have been written by gnostic false teachers, so yes they can harm your faith.

 

[cthulhubryan]

The Gospel of St. Thomas is a gnostic gospel found at (or near) Nag Hammadi. One thing to remember about these is that the text of these works were not nearly complete (due to age and decay)

Much of the Gospel of St. Thomas echoes sayings from other Gospels. However, being a gnostic treatise, the point of it is to shape the words of Christ in such a way as to favor a different meaning than was transmitted to us via the Bible and the letters of early Church Fathers. Sometimes these differences are huge, other times they are small but it goes back to the tools you use to build your faith and understanding so you want to use good tools. Stick with canon until you are firm.

One (minor) example from the Gospel of St. Thomas:

The 77th verse of this work contains these lines:
" Split a piece of wood; I am there.

Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

There was a silly movie made back in the late 1990’s called Stigmata which was about the Catholic Church suppressing this work because these lines destroy the need for the Church. In reality, if you read the work in context it is much more aligned with the letter of St Paul to the Romans talking about how God is everywhere and not just in the temples of stone.

Stick with the CCC, the Bible, the Church Fathers,and Church teachings and you will be much happier and surer in the wonder that is the Catholic Church that was given to us by Jesus.

 

[Saul_DelTarso]

Without the cultural and mystical references that the people who read the Gospel of Thomas had, it’s just about useless to modern Christians, as Christians. I read it, and then decided I wanted to understand the background theology so that I could make sense of them. An academic study of Gnosticism (which is absolutley required to have ANY understanding of it) quickly gets very very complex, and IMO becomes a study not worth making unless you’re getting college credit for it. I think the GOT actually adds little to one’s faith as it is. Interesting to point to all the commonalities to the canon, but not much else without a ton of presumptions.

There’s a good web site with nearly ALL the early writings, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Mary, etc… Many are probably already aware of it, but this is a nice centralized reference to many, many early texts.earlychristianwritings.com