RCIA Issue

[akelios]

Hello,

This past Monday in our RCIA class, the deacon was explaining the synoptic gospels, and how we got them. He handed out this ‘spaghetti thing’ chart, showing how we got Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the different texts that went into them.

While he was discussing texts that no longer exist, he mentioned the Nag Hammadi library and the Gospel of Thomas. He said that no one knows why those texts weren’t included in the canon, and that the Gospel of Thomas matches with the gospels that are in canon.

I didn’t say anything, because I wasn’t certain of my facts, but I believe that the Nag Hammadi library consists of gnostic texts, which are considered heretical. I’ve since double checked, and they are gnostic texts.

So, my question is this, should I bring this up in the review next Monday? And if so, I want to have back up for this, from a Catholic source. Does anyone have any idea where I could find something like that? I have a book, but it’s by an agnostic author, and I’d like something from the church, to give it weight. I tried searching the Vatican’s site, but the things that came up weren’t in English.

-Amber

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It is quite possible you misunderstood his meaning. In general the subject matter is a bit deep for RCIA. If it bugs you bring it up however because the subject is deep please call the Deacon to inform him you want to review the subject again.

I think a better wording is “We have no reason to believe The Gospel of Thomas existed in the present form during the Apostles lives. It may have been written later from parts of other documents. Our earliest known dates are around the year 200”

 

[Joannm]

Hello,

While he was discussing texts that no longer exist, he mentioned the Nag Hammadi library and the Gospel of Thomas. He said that no one knows why those texts weren’t included in the canon, and that the Gospel of Thomas matches with the gospels that are in canon.

I
-Amber

It sounds to me that he never actually read the Gospel of Thomas or else he would know it does not match the canonical gospels. Sounds like he has been watching too much of the History Channel.

 

[akelios]

It is quite possible you misunderstood his meaning. In general the subject matter is a bit deep for RCIA. If it bugs you bring it up however because the subject is deep please call the Deacon to inform him you want to review the subject again.

I think a better wording is “We have no reason to believe The Gospel of Thomas existed in the present form during the Apostles lives. It may have been written later from parts of other documents. Our earliest known dates are around the year 200”

While it’s possible I misunderstood him, I sincerely doubt it. What I wrote is what he said. There was not even a hint that there might be something problematic with the writings in the Nag Hammadi find.

I realize it’s too deep a subject for RCIA, especially in the early stage, but all it would have taken was a simple mention that the writings found there did not match up with church doctrine and were written, and hidden, by heretical sects. Instead the group is left with the impression that they could go buy a copy of these things in any book store, read them, and what was there would be compatible with church teaching. I’ll bring it up in review, but I don’t expect to go into it at any length. Just a simple acknowledgement of the gnostic nature of the teachings would do.

I’ve found some sources, and while they’re not exactly what I’d like, they’ll do, and I’ve still got the book I originally read.

-Amber

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Simply stated, the gospel of Thomas is not one of the approved canonical books of the bible. End of story.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B