Almost all Gnostic writings, specified as the so - called Gospel of Judas, are based on a kind of reversal of the order of good and evil, and hence various Gnostic sects have been programmaticly preaching, for example, the praise of breaking moral law. It was to be saved through sin. According to Gnostics, moral law is simply a law that binds a man in conscience and is the work of an evil Demiurg, an evil God. so salvation can be obtained either by breaking this law or by not recognizing it. Those who did not recognise him had to manifest it. Those who wanted to break them and come out of the "bad Demiurg's claws", had to turn all the signs and thus make the evil Apostle the "last just" who, through his betrayal, contributed to our salvation," says Paweł Lisicki, editor-in-chief of the weekly "To the Thing", an expert in the program "I, Catholic. EXTRA’ on PCh24 TV.
Dear Editor, let me begin our conversation with sarcasm, which I stress, so that there is no uncertainty about it. Why do you hatred so much? I am asking due to the fact that that is most likely the conclusion of modernists, progressives and another “modern” and “liberal” Catholics after reading the essay entitled “Judas and the conviction of condemnation”. I have frequently heard from modern theologians and priests that the Church has not condemned anyone, nor has it always categorically ruled that individual after death went to hell. Therefore, how can Mr. Editor combine Judas with condemnation and propose that specified a conviction has come upon him?
The church was founded by Christ and is to be faithful to Christ. In this peculiar case, even if 1 of the authoritative votes representing the Church declared that Judas was not condemned, I callback that Judas himself was condemned by the Lord Jesus. I understand, therefore, that these theologians who claim that there was no specified voice have only 1 way: they may think and proclaim that the words of the Lord Jesus concerning Judas as described in the fresh Testament--that the evil spirit has entered into him; that he is the 1 who delivered Christ to death; that he is the boy of destruction; that it would have been better for this man if he had not been born" (Mt 26:24)--for centuries had been misinterpreted and misread, and they themselves know better what Jesus meant. This, however, would lead us to a kind of overthrow, to the peculiar autonomy of the Church. It would turn out that by abandoning the teachings of his Master and Founder, the Church would itself have begun to establish its own teaching contrary to what was given to him.
Of course, it can be said that all these words and statements of the Lord Jesus are false that they come from later sources. This is an attitude characteristic of liberal, Protestant theology. If we accept it as our own, then we will lose the basis for the authority of the Church to always be the Scriptures. For if the clear, clear, unambiguous and unmistakable statements of Christ the Lord in the various Gospels of Judas are rejected, challenged, declared void, unimportant, then the same maneuver can be applied to any another statement, any another word of the boy of God. Nothing will stand.
This would lead us to conclude that there is no Revelation of God at all, there is no Word of God, and that the full Apostolic Tradition, which for centuries has been an inviolable deposit for the Church, is invalid and irrelevant.
But the Jesuit general himself called the "black pope" father Arturo Sosa in 2018 commenting on the words of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the religion of Cardinal Gerhard Müller about the inextricability of marriage, stated that in the days of the Lord Jesus there was no recorder to evidence his words... Since specified words come from an crucial figure in the Church...
Christians have always accepted Christ's teaching, not on the basis that individual played them a recording of the recorder or not, but on the basis of testimony, the confession of direct witnesses; those whom Christ himself chose. Those who were truthfully willing to die. It's stronger than any recorder.
When Judas' betrayal took place, and the apostles gathered in Jerusalem to complete the college of the 12 yet elected Maciej. This was done by a draw of 2 candidates. Who could have been chosen? The most crucial criterion was that the candidate had to accompany Jesus from the beginning, from John's baptism to his death and resurrection. He must so have been present at Christ throughout the period of public teaching and during the top challenges. To enter the Twelve, he had to see and hear everything.
The word “martyr” originally meant a witness in a court of law, a witness, a man appointed at the trial, so that he could attest to any fact, that is, what he could see either with his eyes or with his ears. More. It was expected to be a man who was convinced that he was reliable, that he was reliable, not cheating, not giving in to emotion, not creating reality. specified witnesses were the apostles who were witnesses to whom we can have full confidence. They were people who had actual cognition of the life and death of Jesus Christ. With Him they ate and drank, looked at His miracles, and listened to His teachings. They were sent by him. They were always physically present where God’s large things were happening.
It must besides be remembered that people in ancient times had incomparably superior mnemotechnical techniques. Today, this full amount of information that we are dealing with is most frequently written not even on paper, but somewhere in a virtual cloud, on computer disks, on phones etc. There was no specified anticipation in ancient times. Hence, we had to practice our own memory, as the Jews, for example, did from an early age. We have messages saying that in a very early period, sometimes since the fourth, sometimes since the age of five, boys were trained to remember immense portions of material, so that they could callback from memory various facts.
In short, the memory of Christ's disciples, the memory of the Twelve, the memory of the Apostles, made it possible for us to have very far-reaching assurance in the authenticity of the fresh Testament message. In their eyes Jesus was the Prophet, the descendant of David, the divine boy of Man. From the beginning, then, keep in head all his actions and words. It can be thought that they recorded his teachings and recorded the stories of his deeds while he was alive. Then they repeated the messages repeatedly in memory. The apostles did not request dictaphones, for that was the function of their memory. What's more, it wasn't a dead memory, it means they were just passing on dry, bare facts. The Apostles transmitted facts with interpretation, with context, etc.
So if the Gospels convey to us the cognition of what was happening with Judas and how he was treated by Christ as his deed, we can be certain that it truly was.
Why, therefore, are the facts contained in the Gospels so frequently reinterpreted or read again? Why is there specified a critical approach to the Gospel, and as revealed truth, which should not be explored, but taken as a certainty to the so-called. Gnostic Gospels, including the Gospel of Judas, or the Gnostic Apocryph found respective decades ago?
The issue of all possible Gospel distortions is the subject of respective separate, very long talks. However, there is no uncertainty to me that the case of Judas and the change of approach to the traitor of Christ are crucial here.
We live in an age where people are mostly convinced that they will be saved. This is due to the fact that the Church has besides snuck in in a very disturbing way into a kind of ideology of universal salvation, or possibly alternatively theology of universal salvation. It is another side of the centuries of human worship. The glory of God replaces the worship of man, his expected infinite dignity. Man becomes quasi God. So he must be saved.
The first example of this theology is the old mistake of Origen, which was condemned by the Council in Constantinople in 553. According to Origen, all men will be saved. What's up, people? In his opinion, too, all evil spirits, demons, will be saved, which is in sharp contrast with the many sayings of Christ the Lord.
Unfortunately, since the Enlightenment period, this "radical salvation optimism" or belief that all men will be saved has penetrated the Church and is reaping more and more today. It began with Karl Rahner’s preaching that all people are Christians, even if they do not know it. No substance what they believe consciously, they are “anonymous Christians.” Even atheists live their own existence and thus "anonymously" believe. In this sense, religion has no substance.
Henri de Lubac preached akin teachings. In his opinion, unbelievers will besides be saved by the fact that believers in their name receive baptisms that they do not know about, etc.
Such different theories to justify that Christ unites with all man forever and all salvation is simply a full multum. They are all meant to exalt the natural man. They are a hidden form of human idolatry. alternatively of becoming blessed by grace, he is simply a natural god by birth.
For this false theology to gain recognition, Judas’ condemnation must be removed. Judas is simply a kind of border case. If we could "save" Judas would be easier. If we could officially declare that Christ's firm, unequivocal words condemning Judas and his betrayal of the boy of Man are any "fatherly admonition," "calling Judas to discern the situation," "a word of mercy," and thus Judas's actions absolutely do not entail any punishment, then the way opens for all. This would mean that there is no more specified act, specified evil, specified wickedness for which man is condemned. And if so, if Judas is not condemned, then it is no longer possible to condemn individual who has committed "minor crimes."
That's why Judas is the key. The overthrow of his condemnation, so distinct in the fresh Testament, is simply a way to adopt the ideology of universal salvation, universal salvation of all men. That is why so many theologians effort to reverse the message and give a fresh sense to Judas’ attitude and completely ignore or change the message contained in the Gospels.
Hence, the various pseudo-evangelists enjoy specified large recognition, due to the fact that that is the way to call these documents. For if we wanted to talk of the Gospel, we would gotta talk about the evidence of the message of witnesses, as in the case of the 4 canonical Gospels, the historical description, the people who were there, saw, heard who were reliable witnesses.
In the case of the alleged Gospel of Judas, the large popularity of this gnostic apocryphus comes from the fact that it reverses the full order of things. It turns out that Judas is “the good one” and cannot be condemned. That he was in fact a tragic figure, and that is due to the fact that he was the 1 who most and most trusted Christ, and Christ trusted him by entrusting him with the mission of "the betrayals of the boy of God."
Almost all Gnostic writings, specified as the so - called Gospel of Judas, are based on a kind of reversal of the order of good and evil, hence, various Gnostic sects have been programically preaching, for example, the praise of breaking moral law. It was to be saved through sin. According to Gnostics, moral law is simply a law that binds a man in conscience and is the work of an evil Demiurg, an evil God. so salvation can be obtained either by breaking this law or by not recognizing it. Those who did not recognise him had to manifest it. Those who wanted to break them and come out of "the clutches of evil Demiurg" had to reverse all the signs, and thus the evil Apostle to make the "last righteous" who through his betrayal contributed to our salvation.
No substance what God's Law is, what is moral law and whether individual obeys it or breaks it, for it will inactive be saved. fewer of this theology of universal salvation is an encouragement to violate God’s Law, for we will always be saved by God’s Mercy. So there is no good and evil; there is only salvation, there is no condemnation. Whatever man does, he'll go to heaven erstwhile he dies. In this concept, the only law is lawlessness. 1 gets free of one’s conscience and does not feel the request to repent and make amends for his sins. Why should it be if no justice is above him? The concept of God's justice is erased. All we have left is simply a pseudo-mercy. God cannot condemn man due to the fact that he would admit that he is cruel. fresh theology takes God to the jasy, blackmails him. Either save everyone, or he's a cruel man.
I talk to pseudo-merciful due to the fact that mercy itself is simply a very crucial aspect of God's action, but only if at the same time we think of God as the Righteous God. Mercy without justice is simply a completely empty concept, and unfortunately it is frequently presented in this way. Moreover, specified an approach or specified designation that we will all be saved, is written, paint precisely what Catholic theology has described as 1 of the most severe sins over the centuries. It was the sin of pride, the sin of excessive trust in God's mercy.
How it happened that many modern theologians preach the thesis, which by the Church were repeatedly and unequivocally condemned; thesis which contradicts common sense; which contradicts the fresh Testament, is evidently a subject of separate conversation. But returning to the main theme, or Judas. The unsaved Judas is uncomfortable for progressives due to the fact that he is simply a denial of the explanation of universal salvation.
It's like a quantifier. If there is even 1 case that negates the common truth, then fact is no longer common. In this case, it means that not all will be saved, and if not all, individual will begin to wonder, “Or will I not be saved?” And that is, of course, something with which these theologians, journalists, etc. They are incapable to reconcile.
So we came to the absurd situation that anti-Christian thesis and ideologies are frequently recognized and proclaimed as belonging to the deposit of faith. That is why the slogan is promoted, that Judas was the first martyr for faith, that he was Christ's most zealous disciple for doing the Savior's will. This is besides why Judas is opposed to St. Peter, who has denied Jesus 3 times, and yet holds the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven? That is why Judas is opposed to the Good Dept. to whom the Lord Jesus promised on the Cross that you would be with him in heaven that day?
Yeah. This is simply a consequence of the penetration into the Church of Gnostic teachings, or the reversal of all values, or the re-esteem of all values. This is the concept of evil, which, to say the least, is not evil. Evil here is the inevitable minute of history's development, something essential for development. Without evil would not be good, and good grows through evil.
Judas fits perfectly here due to the fact that he is simply a essential part of this God - given plan. Of course, all of this has nothing to do with the Gospel demonstrations. This full concept, this full structure, is just a pseudophilosophy structure, resulting from human desire and from the request to be certain of being saved.
This is simply psychology and building theology and doctrine based on our request to safe ourselves. See, it replaces the nonsubjective Word. This means breaking with what is historical; with what is given; with what is revealed; with what is clear and with what is manifest.
Of course, each of us can make any theory. individual might think we're all dwarfs. individual else may announce that as part of the improvement of history, we are about to turn into steam machines or computers. So anyone can make any thesis. The human language has the ability to make sentences with it. any make sense, any don't. any correspond to reality and others do not, etc. But erstwhile we talk of Judas seriously, referring to the fresh Testament, no of the hypotheses of his salvation have any basis.
I'm sorry, but the people we're talking about, who form this fresh theology, who eat gnosy, etc. already have a ready answer to your doubts: the Apostles simply did not like Judas, so they chose him as the scapegoat, and they blamed him. It is as with the theories of the Jews--the Apostles were not to like them, and so they were blamed for Christ's death, not the Romans...
What can I say? Many of the Church's enemies have for centuries claimed that the Gospels in the form they have reached us actually contain a message falsified by the Apostles.
This approach is present, for example, in Islam. The believers of Allah besides believe that the Gospels are not actual Gospels, that this is the false message of the Apostles, that the reality and fact were completely different, that in fact in the "real" Gospels there was no mention of the Lord Jesus as the boy of God, that He sat at the right hand of God the Father, etc.
For example, we can hear akin nonsense from Jehovah’s Witnesses. They besides believe that a large condition of the Gospel was falsified to attribute divinity to Jesus.
In consequence to specified foolish thesis, there is 1 argument which Saint Augustine utilized in the debate with the Manicheans. The Manicheans raised precisely the same arguments about the truthfulness of the Gospel as I mentioned above. They claimed that they were falsified, that in the first version they looked rather different. In response, Saint Augustine asked them a very simple question, which – even though it had been 1700 years ago – did not lose any strength. The question was, "Will you show me the unfalsified Gospels?" The Manicheans then moved helplessly with their hands, but they continued to say that they knew they existed. Although they did not have and never had them in their hand, they claimed that they had to exist. This is simply a classical example erstwhile emotion and will dictate to the head what the fact is.
The same question can be asked to all pseudo-theologists who base their constructions on alleged falsifications, claiming that they have access to the authentic Gospels. Let them show them! Let them show us this "authentic" Gospel, unfalsified by the apostles! Of course, there is no specified thing. It's a fantasy, it's a ghost, it's a complete desire and nothing more.
Unfortunately, the same mentality that was characteristic of the Manicheans, then Muslims, then various another sects specified as Jehovah’s Witnesses, is characterized by liberal theologians or liberal publicists. They cut the Gospel to their own needs, and what does not suit them, which is contrary to their feelings, emotions, desires, reject, claiming that it is "unauthentic." Then they make a unusual plan from this cutting and announce that this is the actual and only Gospel in which Judas is simply a large hero. They are incapable to accept the condemnation of Judas and thus the existence of Hell and thus remove the scriptures that talk of it.
As for the Jews and the apostles, who allegedly wanted to place their work on them. This thesis is ludicrous in all respects, even due to the fact that all the Apostles were cultural Jews. By the 1940 ’ s, practically all Christians were cultural Jews. This only began to change erstwhile St. Peter baptized Cornelius.
I wrote a comprehensive book “Blood on Our Hands” on this subject and explained in item why this concept is absurd. Sorry... It would be absurd and unworthy of attention if it did not function as a valid opinion of any circles in the Church. This is, however, the subject to which for the next, most likely the 3rd longer discussion for the future.
In your book The Antichrist Age, the Pope accepts the name Judas... Is that all you said here, or is it not a manifestation that we are surviving in the antichrist's age or that this epoch is approaching in large steps?
In a sense, that's where my thought came from to cast Judas as the eschatological Antichrist.
I have the impression that we are surviving in an era in which all these opinions of alleged theologians and church hierarchs have 1 goal – the announcement of universal salvation's universal theology. The worship of man is to deny the worship of God. For this imagination to be consistent, no 1 can be condemned.
This is highly dangerous and highly ungodly theology, which is why, as I have already mentioned, he seeks to declare Judas holy, to declare that he is in Heaven, among the saved. Anyone who professes theology of universal salvation must sooner or later measurement the borderline case of Judas. How can 1 talk of universality, universality of salvation, that Christ has united forever with all man, whether he knows it or not, if he leaves Judas beyond the limits of eternal happiness, in hell? Therefore, in the novel, I presented the last pope who took the name Judas and raised Judas to altars. In my opinion, this is simply a essential consequence of this fresh theology. It develops over time. all year, we see her progress. At the end comes the figure of Judas, the savior, the saint, Judas the sacrifice of the apostles. This is simply a essential consequence of theology of universal salvation.
This can be said: believing in universal and universal salvation is the fresh betrayal of Judas. Modern theologians who accept this concept behave like Judas, who kissed out the boy of Man.
According to the fresh theology, there is no discrimination between good and evil, there is no division between faithful and unfaithful Gospels, God's law does not exist, and the supernatural dignity of God's child, which is gained through baptism, is superstition. All that matters is that Judas hanged himself and suffered. His despair is on the pedestal, and the fact that Judas fell becomes his justification. After all, he suffered and fell into despair an infinite god, for that is what all man is, and so is to be saved. Since Judas himself did justice, not counting on God’s mercy, without repentance and without supplication for repentance, he should be a function model. The infinite dignity of man cannot be violated. Judas' grief and suicide are not only justified but praised, exalted, sanctified. What is the release of the boy of Man to death compared to the despair of a traitor? This perverse knowing spreads in the Church like cancer.
God bless the conversation.
Tomasz D. Kolanek
