February 2022
The Key to Restoring Catholic Orthodoxy
It is well known that the “Spirit of Vatican II” changed the Catholic landscape, undermining the orthodoxy that resulted in the pre-Vatican II golden age of Catholicism. What is not well known among Catholics is this:
For the past five decades instruction in most if not all of our Catholic seminaries and universities has been undermining the faith, in particular that of our seminarians. It casts doubt on the evangelists — including eyewitness-apostles Matthew and John — as writers of the Gospels, attributing them instead to unknown individuals writing a generation later. Superior biblical scholarship, which soundly debunks this errant instruction, is ignored or suppressed, even by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). This instruction facilitates ecumenism, but reduces the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church to just another of the thousands of Christian faith traditions.
Historical-critical instruction of this kind was seen by Pope Benedict XVI as reducing Jesus to “thin air.” This article outlines the fundamental flaws of this errant instruction and the compelling case by recognised scholars for a faith-affirming alternative that facilitates what is essential for a return to Catholic orthodoxy — a well-founded belief in Jesus, our divine Saviour and risen Redeemer, in the hearts and minds of the Catholic priesthood.
USCCB discredits the evangelists as writers of the Gospels
The USCCB discredits apostle-eyewitness Matthew as writer of Matthew in the closing paragraphs of, “Introduction to the Gospel according to Matthew,” on the USCCB web site:
“The ancient tradition that the author [of Matthew] was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on The Gospel according to Mark . . . The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience...” (Italics added).
The USCCB also casts doubt on Mark, associate of Peter, as writer of that Gospel, as well as on evangelists Luke and John as writers of those Gospels.
Imagine the effect on parishioners if, after reading from Matthew at Mass on Sunday a priest were to say:
“Full disclosure. You’ve just heard me read from, ‘The Gospel According to Matthew.’ You may have heard that this Gospel was written, probably in Hebrew, by Matthew the apostle and is therefore a translation of an authentic account of what this apostle personally witnessed in the ministry of Jesus Christ himself. However, in seminary I was taught that it is doubtful that any of the evangelists, including apostle-eyewitnesses Matthew and John, wrote a Gospel; all four Gospels were probably written anonymously a generation later by unknown individuals who may never have seen or heard Jesus. Some of my seminary classmates apparently doubted as well and left the seminary. Catholic seminarians have been taught that the Gospels were probably not written by the evangelists since soon after Vatican II, which includes just about every priest and bishop in active ministry today. The website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops casts doubt on all four evangelists as writers of the Gospels. With this in mind, let me begin my homily . . .”
Pope Benedict XVI decries the historical-critical scholarship dominant in recent decades in Catholic academia that reduces Jesus to “thin air”
In Jesus of Nazareth, (2007, xii), Pope Benedict XVI was severely critical of the results of four decades of “historical-critical scholarship.” He wrote, “Intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is in danger of clutching at thin air.” Just five years earlier, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he makes clear that the particular historical theory he criticises is, “the so-called two-source theory, accepted today by almost everyone.”
That theory, then dominant in Catholic academia for four decades as it is now, is the Markan Priority Two Source historical-critical theory/hypothesis of Gospel origin.
The devastating effect of Markan Priority instruction on the faith of seminarians is indicated in the following excerpt from an email I received from a Catholic priest about five years ago:
Dear Jerome,
I was taught the [Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis] Historical-Critical Method in the seminary in the 1970’s … [by] Fr. Raymond Brown. [H]e saw toward the end of his life how this method could destroy Catholic Faith in people rather than build it up. I saw seminarians lose their faith in my class when exposed to the unbridled use of this method. Many were converted by this method to heterodox teachings or beliefs. Others lost their faith and left the seminary.
The [Markan Priority TSH] HCM calls into question not only the infancy narratives but also the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Virgin Conception and birth, not to mention miracles of Christ and his physical death and resurrection. It really opens old heresies already resolved by the Church.“ (Italics added).
A heart-rending letter from a Catholic seminarian who will soon complete his studies was posted recently by Steve Skojec on his website, 1Peter5. The anonymous writer believes that his seminary experience, rather than preparing him for the priesthood, has all but destroyed his faith and his desire for ordination:
“Honestly, not much of my faith has survived the seminary ... The Church is crumbling into quicksand, and we are scolded ad nauseum that the Church still has to change more with the times ... We call good evil, and evil good ... The Church is like a wet cardboard box, and the bottom is falling out ... Is there any reason why I should remain Catholic? Further, is there any reason for anyone to remain Catholic, or become Catholic? I dare you to tell us one good reason. You can’t tell us that the Church is necessary for salvation, because we are no longer allowed to believe and teach that anymore. We don’t need to be saved from anything anymore–except from maybe tradition–it’s unhealthy to talk about sin, and hell no longer exists ...”
Would such an outcry against the Church be occurring if Catholic seminary and university instruction had not reduced Jesus to “thin air” soon after Vatican II? I think not. Did the mutiny of Catholic academia against the authority of Rome at the Land O’ Lakes Conference in Wisconsin in 1967 pave the way for instruction undermining faith in Jesus as our divine Saviour and risen Redeemer?
The faith-undermining Markan Priority
Two Source Hypothesis is untenable
The dominance of the faith-undermining Markan Priority Two-Source Hypothesis of Gospel origin in Catholic seminaries, colleges and universities notwithstanding, is untenable for several reasons, including:
• Markan prioritists admit that the TSH ignores early Church history; history that unequivocally affirms all four evangelists as writers of the Gospels. By ignoring early Church history, Markan prioritists turn a blind eye toward:
a) the numerous affirmations of Christ as our divine Saviour and risen Redeemer in the New Testament letters of eyewitness-apostles Peter, John and James and, of course, Paul.
b) a total of 34 quotes of Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origin and the writings of Eusebius Pamphilus affirming each evangelist as writer of his Gospel — Matthew, 6; Mark, 10; Luke, 9 and John, 9. (William A. Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 414, #64-67).
In contrast, proponents of the faith-affirming Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis, “believe that, when critically evaluated, some testimonies from the Patristic period provide interesting, valuable, and reliable information.” (One Gospel from Two: Mark’s use of Matthew and Luke, Peabody, McNicol and Cope, 2002, 18).
• The Markan Priority TSH collapses without “Q,” a hypothetical, never found collection of “Sayings of Jesus.” As Catholic scholar Brant Pitre wrote:
“One huge problem with the Two-Source Theory is that it relies on “Q,” which exists only in the imagination of the scholars who believe in it. No manuscript of “Q” has ever been found. No reference to “Q” is ever made in the writings of the Church Fathers.” (The Case for Jesus, 2016, 97).
Biblical scholar David Laird Duggan, after an extensive exposition of scholarly criticism of Markan Priority, wrote:
“One might think that in the wake of this kind of crippling criticism, proponents of Markan priority would finally admit that it is an untenable hypothesis. Not at all. It continues to be used far and wide as if nothing had happened, resembling the headless horseman who rides across the countryside every Halloween in the light of the full moon.” (A History of the Synoptic Problem, 1999, 389).
The words of Jesus instituting Petrine Primacy, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [singular]... I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven...” (Mt 16:18-19) are omitted in Mark in the same scene near Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8:27-30). Because the Markan Priority TSH attributes more credibility to Mark than to Matthew, it suggests that Jesus may never have said those words of Petrine Primacy — the writer of Matthew, whoever that person was, may have added them, falsely, a generation later.
Without Petrine Primacy instituted by Jesus, the Catholic Church can be perceived as just another Christian faith tradition — its doctrines no more compelling than any of the thousands of denominational and non-denominational variants of Christian belief and practice. This view facilitates ecumenism of a sort, but not one that includes an invitation to be Catholic and it renders evangelisation pointless, except to non-Christians.
TSH instruction is apparently silent regarding the obvious explanation for Mark’s omission. Aware that Nero’s agents were surely among those listening and alert to any apparent disloyalty to Rome, Peter would not have been so foolish as to call listeners to “a kingdom to which I have been given the keys.” As Irenaeus wrote, “Mark . . . handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” Mark’s omission of Mt 16:18-19 means simply that Peter did not preach it. That omission is no reason to doubt that Jesus actually did personally establish Petrine Primacy in the one, catholic apostolic Church he was founding and, in Mt 28:19-20, promised to be with always.
The Matthean Priority Two-Gospel Hypothesis,
not at odds with Catholic belief, is suppressed
Scholars who dare express a preference for the Matthean Priority Two-Gospel Hypothesis — a much more credible explanation of Gospel origin that takes into account early Church history and is not at odds with Church teaching — do so at their peril. As one Religious Studies professor at a Catholic university told me:
“If an otherwise outstanding candidate favours something other than the Markan Priority Two-Source Hypothesis of Gospel origin, that candidate will not be hired.”
I’ve brought this matter to the attention of many Catholic luminaries via email. Few responded; none with any indication of concern.
I’ve written several articles on this subject, most recently, “The Poison Pill taken by Catholic Colleges, Universities and Seminaries — and the Antidote.” “Jesus Emerges from the Historical-Critical Fog” was published in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly, Fall/Winter, 2017. No scholar responded in defense of the faith-undermining Markan Priority TSH or challenged the greater credibility of the faith-affirming Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis. These and other articles are posted on my website: https://7stepcatholic.org
Clearly, as noted, the key to restoring Catholic orthodoxy is restoring a well-founded belief in Jesus, our divine Saviour and risen Redeemer, in the minds and hearts of the Catholic priesthood.
I write in the hope that this information will encourage individual bishops, the leadership of the USCCB, the Association of Catholic Colleges and the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities to replace salvation-jeopardising Markan Priority TSH instruction with the faith-affirming Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis, if not with Augustine’s view of Gospel authenticity that brought Catholic faith and practice to the golden age that preceded Vatican II.
A respectful suggestion for bishops who oversee seminaries and
presidents of Catholic universities and colleges
Change, even for the best reasons, may not be readily embraced by those who, with the best intentions, have long taught differently. With this in mind, approaching the matter along the following lines with faculty may be helpful:
“Five decades ago, when the Catholic faith and practice were thriving and belief in Jesus as presented to us in the Gospels was strong, we joined virtually all of Catholic academia in setting aside St. Augustine’s conclusions that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels that bear their names. We did so because at that time the great majority of biblical exegetes held that the Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis — although it held the Synoptic Gospels to be probably written anonymously — best explained their origin. At the urging of Catholic exegetes we also began teaching that John was probably not written by John the apostle.
“Should we continue instruction favouring the Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis (TSH) as the best explanation of Gospel origin? There are now five compelling reasons why we should not:
• The Markan Priority TSH ignores explicit early Church testimony affirming all four evangelists as writers of the Gospels.
• “Q,” as we know, is a list of sayings Jesus must have said if Mark is to be considered the first Gospel written. However, though sought by biblical exegetes for at least 100 years, “Q” has never been found and such a list is never mentioned in Church history. Without “Q” the Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis is untenable. It can no longer be credibly defended.
• After four decades of historical-critical Markan Priority TSH instruction in virtually all of Catholic higher education Pope Benedict XVI wrote, with good reason, that such historical-critical instruction reduces Jesus to “thin air.” (Jesus of Nazareth, 2007, xii).
• Thanks to advances in scholarship in recent decades the Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis has gained peer-recognition as one of only four “Major” historical-critical hypotheses. (The Synoptic Problem: Four Views, 2016, S. Porter, B. Dyer, a book recommended to me by a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission). It is the only major hypothesis that is not at odds with Church teaching. Without making any claim about who wrote the Synoptics or when they were written it makes a compelling historical-critical case that Matthew was written first, that Luke was written next with reference to Matthew, then Mark was written with reference to both. It does not require “Q.” Coupled with the strong evidence for the pre-70 A.D. writing of the Synoptic Gospels, the Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis is not at odds with Catholic teaching, regarding the Synoptics, as expressed in Dei Verbum:
‘For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.’
• The evidence is also compelling that John, the apostle/eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, wrote The Gospel according to John before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and, though he lived for more than two decades afterward, did not object to anything in that Gospel, including the divinity and physical Resurrection of Jesus. John, according to St. Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150-215), verifies the authenticity of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, (as well as his own Gospel): “John, last of all, seeing that the plain facts had been clearly set forth in the Gospels, and being urged by his acquaintances, composed a spiritual Gospel under the divine inspiration of the Spirit.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14).
“We claim to be a Catholic seminary/college/university. But are we, really, if we reject the Gospel-authenticating Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis and continue Markan Priority instruction that reduces Jesus to “thin air” for our students?
“Given, a) our obligation to instruct students in a manner conducive to their eternal salvation, b) the serious flaws of the Markan Priority Two-Source Hypothesis demonstrated by recognised biblical exegetes and, c) the compelling case made in favour of the Matthean Priority Two Gospel Hypothesis, coupled with the strong evidence that all four Gospels were written before A.D. 70 — evidence clearly pointing to the Gospels being written by evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, let us now revise our instruction accordingly.”