August–September 2025
Catholic or Synodal:
Which Church will Leo XIV lead?
“For want of a nail . . .”
In 1640 poet George Herbert wrote: “For want of a nail the shoe is lost, for want of a shoe the horse is lost, for want of a horse the rider is lost." It now seems that without papal or divine intervention the belief of the rider, i.e., Gospel-rooted faith in Christ on the part of many of the ordained and consecrated, may be lost.
Christ assured us that even the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, of course. But he did not say that the Gospels would always be taught as credible.
The nail that was lost, in most Catholic seminaries and universities at least, was the credibility of the fourfold Gospel. Authenticated by Irenaeus and other early Church writers as indicated below, it was taught in its fullness and with confidence until Vatican II. But — no doubt in view of the conciliar Decree on Ecumenism — it was then pried loose by influential prelates misled by biblical exegete Fr. Raymond E. Brown and other promoters of an obscure, ahistorical, “Markan priority” theory of Gospel origin proposed by a Protestant theologian in 1796. (This theory was a rejection of the Matthew-wrote-first assurance by Irenaeus, which requires no theory),
With nail removed and the shoe of Gospel certitude no longer firmly in place, the once-strong faith of the horseman-seminarian was severely tested, as we shall shortly see in an e-mail I once received from a Catholic priest taught by Fr. Brown in the 1970s. Lamenting the wreckage three decades later, Pope Benedict XVI would write,
Intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is in danger of clutching at thin air. (Jesus of Nazareth, 2007, xii)
Pope Leo XIV’s commitment to Synodality
With the true, Gospel-rooted Catholic faith still thus endangered, as indicated by the quotations below from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) website, on May 19, 2025, Pope Leo XIV addressed a group of other Christians, pagans, and Jews:
“Aware, moreover, that synodality and ecumenism are closely linked, I would like to assure you of my intention to continue Pope Francis’ commitment to promoting the synodal nature of the Catholic Church and developing new and concrete forms for an ever stronger synodality in ecumenical relations.”
However, among the solemn promises Pope Leo XIV would have made upon becoming a priest are these:
(a) to preach the Gospel and teach the Catholic faith with fidelity.
(b) to guard the deposit of faith in accordance with Tradition and Scripture.
Can the Gospel be preached and taught with fidelity with the USCCB, for example, having declared as noted below that it is UNTENABLE that apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel attributed to him?
Can the Deposit of Faith be ably guarded in accordance with Tradition and Scripture when bishops, “may not ignore a direction which emerges through proper discernment within a consultative [i. e., synodal] process...”, a direction that may conceivably call for, “a revision of Canon Law from a synodal perspective ....”? (Quoted text is from the synodal Final Document and the accompanying letter of Pope Francis noted below.)
The remainder of this article will serve as background for the foregoing commentary.
The authenticity of the Gospels
Soon after Pentecost the apostles began to follow the command of Jesus: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.“ (Mt 28:19-20). Two of those apostles, Matthew and John, would soon write eyewitness reports of all Jesus had commanded them, and Mark and Luke would write their Gospels as well. The authenticity of the four gospels would be underscored in later years by Early Church figures such as St. Irenaeus,[1] and others.
St. Irenaeus in his youth was taught by St. Polycarp, who became a martyr rather than deny what he, St. Polycarp, had been taught by John, apostle of Christ. St. Irenaeus (a bishop as was St. Polycarp), took the place of a bishop who was martyred and wrote what is linked in foonote 1 while his own life was at risk under Roman Emperor Commodus.
Further affirming Gospel authenticity are writings by early Church figures such as Papias, Origen, Tertullian and Clement. Such writings are cited in The Faith of the Early Fathers,
Volume 1, by Fr. William A. Jurgens (Doctrinal Index, p. 414): Matthew, 7 citations; Mark, 10; Luke, 9; John, 9. In context, none of these accounts are such that these early Church writers could have been referring to a pseudo-Matthew, pseudo-Mark, pseudo-Luke or pseudo-John.
The Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism
But the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism states:
10. Sacred theology and other branches of knowledge, especially of a historical nature, must be taught with due regard for the ecumenical point of view, so that they may correspond more exactly with the facts. It is most important that future shepherds and priests should have mastered a theology that has been carefully worked out in this way, and not polemically, especially with regard to those aspects which concern the relations of separated brethren with the Catholic Church. (Italics added)
Apparently there was a belief among influential conciliar Fathers that Gospel origin as authenticated by early Church writers — as noted above and which had driven evangelisation magnificently until Vatican II — did not quite correspond with the facts of Gospel origin. Petrine Primacy, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (singular) - Mt 16:18; long rejected by mainstream separated brethren, was a major deterrent to ecumenism; one that carried the risk of polemics.
An indefensible theory of Gospel origin “cancels” “Thou art Peter ...”
Protestant exegetes had long favoured the “Markan Priority Two Source theory” of Gospel origin, first proposed by Protestant theologian Gottlob Christian Storr in 1796. In its current form it posits that Mark wrote first and an unknown “Matthew,” NOT the apostle, used Mark as a source. By supposing that Mark wrote first and that a pseudo-Matthew used two sources, Mark and “Q” (a collection of “Sayings of Jesus”), Mt 16:18 would become doubtful. This is because in Mark’s account of that gathering of the apostles near Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8:27-30) Jesus does not give Peter Primacy; he writes nothing about it.
The Markan Priority Two Source theory is a house of cards, however, riddled with indefensible assumptions and speculation. The most obvious reason for that is that thousands of Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes have searched in vain for the second “source” for more than 200 years; all the while ignoring the irrefutable writings of early Church figures authenticating the four Gospels, as explained above and in articles available at: https://7stepcatholic.com. Without “Q” the theory collapses.
Worth noting, I think, is the clever way Fr. R. E. Brown acknowledged the importance of the “opinions” of early Church Fathers and spiritual writers while suggesting they were unable to answer historical questions:
The biblical opinions of Church Fathers or spiritual writers are extremely valuable to the development of overall Catholic thought; but unless those writers had historical information, they cannot answer historical questions.” – Biblical Exegesis & Church Doctrine, Paulist Press, 1985, p. 20. (Bold italics added).
Was Fr. Brown suggesting that his information about Christ two millennia later was more credible than, for example, that of St. Polycarp, so closely linked to Christ and who chose martyrdom rather than revile Christ?
Why does “Thou art Peter...” not appear in Mark’s Gospel?
But, we may ask, why would Mark omit “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” from his Gospel if Jesus really said those words to Peter? The answer, it seems to me, is provided by St. Irenaeus, who wrote,
After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”[2] (Eusebius of Caesarea, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1, from the New Advent website).
In Rome, and Antioch as well, with Nero’s agents surely listening, Peter would never have risked being apprehended for sedition by calling listeners to a “kingdom” to which he held the keys. The absence of those words of Jesus in Mark is no reason to doubt apostle Matthew’s eyewitness account.
Hard as it may be to understand why our Catholic bishops even today would subject their seminarians to this discrediting of the Gospels, in fact the Markan Priority Two Source theory has been taught in most Catholic seminaries and universities since Vatican II as the best explanation of Gospel origin.
Asked, “Which Gospel was written first?” most Catholic bishops and priests will answer, “Mark.”
The following extracts from the website of the USCCB reflect the Markan Priority Two Source theory as it has been taught to most Catholic seminarians since Vatican II:
The Gospel according to Matthew:
The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is UNTENABLE ... The UNKNOWN author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience. . .[3] (Last paragraphs; caps added. If misdirected by the link enter “Matthew, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW – USCCB” in a browser).
The Gospel according to Mark:
Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated.[4]
The Gospel according to John:
Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this.[5]
For seminarians whose vocations to the priesthood developed before Vatican II, with belief firmly rooted in the authentic Gospels, instruction in the Markan Priority Two Source theory soon after Vatican II would have been jarring, to say the least. Here is an excerpt from an email I received a few years ago from a priest who was a seminarian at that time:
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 the 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”
* The Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis or theory of Gospel origin, one of many historical-critical theories, was championed by Fr. R. E. Brown and is the subject of many of his books.
It has been said that some seminarians who maintained their belief in Gospel authenticity “kept their heads down” and were ordained. But doubt, induced by the Markan Priority Two Source theory of Gospel origin, may well have played some part in the post-Vatican II reluctance of many of the ordained and consecrated to preach the Gospel in all its fullness.
As noted earlier, Pope Benedict XVI described the effect that the historical critical view of the Gospels has had on faith in Jesus: “Intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is in danger of clutching at thin air.” Severely blurred as the Gospels may be in seminary instruction in this sixth decade after the close of Vatican II, at least the Church hierarchy is in place with the authority to take the steps necessary to re-establish the strong rootedness in the Gospels it once knew — Or do they still have that authority?
Inauguration of the Synodal church by Pope Francis
Pope Francis inaugurated the “Synodal church” October 26, 2024 when he promulgated the 54-page, For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, Mission — Final Document. His accompanying note includes:
In approving the Final Document on 26 October, I said that it ‘is not strictly normative’ and that ‘its application will need various mediations.’ THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT DOES NOT COMMIT THE CHURCHES FROM NOW ON TO MAKE CHOICES CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS STATED IN IT. The local Churches and groupings of Churches are now called upon to implement, in their different contexts, the authoritative proposals contained in the Document through the processes of discernment and decision-making provided for by law and by the Document itself. (Capitalisation added).
Par. 85 of the Final Document calls for “adequate biblical exegesis ... while avoiding fundamentalist interpretations” [—such as, “This is my Body...”?]
Paragraph 92 limits the authority of bishops and notes that this new synodality may require a change in Canon Law:
In a synodal Church, the [exercise of authority of] the Bishop ... is not without limits: it may not ignore a direction which emerges through proper discernment within a consultative process, especially if this is done by participatory bodies .... It seems appropriate to carry out a revision of Canon Law from a synodal perspective.
The Vatican Document, The Bishop of Rome suggests that Pope Francis may have planned to exercise not the Petrine Primacy given by Jesus, but a “synodal exercise of primacy”:
A first general agreement is the mutual interdependency of primacy and synodality at each level of the Church, and the consequent requirement for a synodal exercise of primacy (From par. 171, underline added.)
With bishops unable to “ignore a direction which emerges through proper discernment within a consultative [i.e., synodal] process,” Pope Leo XIV will soon find synodal consensus irreconcilable with his solemn promises. Let us pray that, remembering those promises, he will then stand firm for Christ and Gospel-rooted Catholic orthodoxy.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] https://newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm
[2] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm
[3] https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/0