First of all, I'm not of the opinion that the Church's reaction to the Da Vinci Code is just promoting the book more. The book is already hugely popular. A response was necessary. Having said that, I think to some extent all the hype is working in favor of the Church. Time has a cover story on Opus Dei. The Church is getting a lot of publicity in all this and nearly all of it is positive.

I also noticed that this and the recent hype of the Gospel of Judas is causing some Protestants to question sola scriptura. Who decided what to include in the Bible? The Da Vinci Code conceeds that it was the Catholic Church that was behind it all.

I just read that Time article today. I wasn't so sure about how positive it was. It sounded like OD was put on the defensive. However, you are right about the Church getting a lot of publicity--- good, bad, or indifferent.

And if that Gospel of Judas does drive Protestants to question sola scriptura, that wouldn't be such a bad thing. Maybe, from there, if that belief falls, maybe some of the other misbeliefs will fall as well, until they question themselves into the Church , as a lot of us have! (At least we can only pray!)

Some people are so anti-Catholic that if they ever really understand that the Catholic Church defined the canons of Holy Scripture, they won't just question sola scriptura, they'll question the canons as well.

"I am not convinced of the truth of Christianity because of the arguments for it, but because of the arguments against it." - G.K. Chesterton

Truth can only be known by one who is true. (George MacDonald said something to this effect). While such things as Da Vinci Code and the Gospel of Judas are in and of themselves against Christianity, like all weapons of Satan, when they are used, they exhaust themselves and the one who uses them. When Satan uses a weapon against Christ and His Church, both the weapon and Satan are exhausted in the process. The very weapon, upon it's use, begins the process of dying, and Satan 's power is thus diminished. This is the paradox of Satan's rebellion against God - it is self-defeating. For a man in search of the Truth, attacks such as these will appear superficial. Hamlet said Ophelia protested too much - her guilt was proved by nature of her plea of innocence. The opposite is true of the attacks on Christianity - it's truth is proved by the protests of guilt. Christianity could be a Lie, but it couldn't possibly be a thousand contradictory lies. The True man - the lover of Truth, sees this and is drawn to the Church by the very nature of the accusations which Her enemies level at her, which, upon reflection, he sees could not possibly be valid in their entirety. The very history of the Church's enemies and their attacks are a history of the Church's vindication before the court of human consciousness.

Most protestants wouldn't say the Catholic Church canonized the scriptures. They cannot do that. That would require them to accept the authority of the Catholic Church and thus not be protestant.

No. They just invent another heresy.

Like the self-revealing canon. Or that the canon was decided by the CHRISTIAN Church not the Catholic Church (as defined as an "invisible institution") or other relativistic nonsense.

I noticed you have to be a subscriber to read article.

One thing that the DaVinci Code has done is that it has exposed a level of anti-Catholic propaganda to the general population who has somehow not realized that anti-Catholic propaganda is all too prevalent and accepted in our culture.

Because the agenda of the DaVinci Code is SO transparent, it has led people to me with questions, and given me the opportunity to show them the inaccuracy of the DaVinci Code's precepts.

To that end, it is a good thing. It shows people that many Catholics are scholarly and educated...that we know history and we know scripture, which fights the misconception that we are mindless people who don't or can't "think for ourselves."

As for the Gospel of Judas...I read a segment of it online. What I noticed is that the idea that Jesus asked Judas to betray him is a misconception and misinterpretation of what I actually read in the translated Gospel of Judas. It seemed the me that Jesus told Judas he would betray Him, but we already knew that. Obviously, it did paint Judas as favored, which to me seems clearly subjective on the part of the author, rather than true to any scripture or gospel. It blatantly lacks objectivity, which could mean that it was written with an agenda against the other gospels, or that it was simply written by a defensive and troubled author. I also think that it is important to note that the writings have the tone of a troubled soul. For any of you that are psychologists or counselors, you will know what I'm talking about. The writing isn't clear...the thoughts put to the paper seem to be rapidly cycling and jumping about in the author's head. I have seen writing like this before from people who are in treatment for mental illness or temporary emotional distress.

That's a shame, because any possible truth that may have been found in the writing, in my opinion, is lost in the author's subjectivity and obvious turmoil. The obvious infirmity of the author is reason enough for the Church, and its members, to reject the Gospel of Judas, IMO.

I mention this because I think it is helpful for Protestants to know that our Church is a Church of wisdom and scholarship. I firmly believe that our Church would gladly acknowledge any newfound Gospel that was intellectually and spiritually worth acknowledging.

Rejection of the Gospel of Judas is not blind intolerance, it is not based on fear nor any Church "agenda." It is simply good scholarship and intelligent leadership from our Church.

Dani

Dani can you clarify your meaning here? It seems like you are saying there can be a new Gospel added in. You do realize the canon of the Bible is closed, right?


SV

Acknowledgement is NOT the same thing as addition to the Bible, and I made absolutely no implication that these two things were the same. If it seems that I am saying a new Gospel could be added to the Bible, that is either your own misinterpretation or my own poor communication.

In either event, I sincerely hope that I have provided you with adequate clarification.

Dani

Your emphasis on 'new found Gospel' and the comment about the Church acknowledgeing it is why I asked you to clarify.



Thanks,

SV

SV,

I think you make a valid correction, though, which I think bears mentioning. Why on earth are we calling it the Gospel of Judas? Isn't it wrong to call it the Gospel of Judas, since it's not really a Gospel so far as any of us can tell? Doesn't the Church decide if something is Gospel? It seems that in this case the media made that designation, and I don't think that I should use that term, so I thank you tremendously for your comments.

Also, I have to say that I am a bit put out by the way the word "authentication" has been used in the media in reference to this writing. All this "it's authentic" and "it's been authenticated" seems to be confusing people. Just because the language and paper have been dated to a corresponding era, does not mean that the writing is "authentic" in that it is divine or true. Do you think that people are being confused by the language that has been so casually tossed out there ("Gospel" and "authentic") or do you think I am being oversensitive or overreacting? I'd like to know if I am the only one who feels this way.

Thanks!

Dani

actually dani... there are many apocryphal writings (most of them gnostic) which are "called" the gospel of ....

i know there is the gospel of the Savior, of Thomas, of Peter , of Mary

in fact...check these out

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Ok now. Lets think for a second...do you honestly think a protestant who questions sola scriptura will go Catholic? Most of them won't. Instead they will mainly go atheist....

well, I'm certainly an example of one protestant who question the doctrines of protestantism and then went catholic. now, sure some will go either way, but i think that is mostly due to the level of sincerity in their spiritual lives. if they are really seraching for truth, they'll keep looking until they find it. if they are just looking for an excuse to bail out of religion altogether, then they will certainly find that to.

Anyone hear that Brown's doing a sequel?

That's all we need.

MIRARI VOS (On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism)
Pope Gregory XVI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Encyclical of Pope Gregory SVI promulgated on 15 August 1832.


15. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?

Add me to the list of protestants who questioned sola scripura heck check the "Journey Home on EWTN" every week they have a protestant who questioned sola scriptura don't sell your protestant brothers and sisters so short many are activly purusing the truth the best way they know how sometimes they do solve the rat maze and return to mother church. Yes some are so anti-catholic they would rather choose atheism than the catholic church but I beleive these are the exceptions most seek truth they just have been decieved for so long which makes the truth difficult to recognize heck how many craddle catholic don't recognize the truth and wallow in cafeteria catholcism.