St. Charles, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, was one of the greatest and holiest prelates of the years when the great Council of Trent was being completed and its enactments put into execution. He reformed the clergy and renewed the spirit of the monasteries in his diocese. He died in 1584.
There occured in my class on Scripture interpretation a great debate over the authorship of the Gospels. Whatever the latest scholars and self-styled experts may say, it is the ancient and constant tradition of the Church that the authors are in fact the holy apostles Matthew and John, as also Mark (the disciple of St. Peter), and Luke (the disciple of St. Paul). The Church has furthermore declared in a magisterial statement which binds the consciences of the faithful that [update: what follows has been modified] this traditional understanding is to be regarded as certain. The order in which the Gospels were written (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) is also defended and re-asserted by the magisterium in the replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
Okay, I'm finished; just wanted to get that on the record...
Another update: 4 years of Obama-nation are on their way! Here's to the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire...
9 comments:
"...a magisterial statement which binds the consciences of the faithful that none of the arguments against the assertion of their authorship are of sufficient weight to cast the traditional position into doubt."
Let me get this straight. The ancient and constant tradition is Matthew Mark Luke John (in that order, by the way?). But what I am obliged to believe is not that, but that no compelling argument to the contrary has been offered. Which seems to leave open the possibility that a Catholic scholar in good conscience can go looking for compelling contrary evidence. Non-Catholic scholars aside, is that loophole through which contrary-seeming evidence is pushed?
I probably worded that poorly trying to summarize a lot of different statements. The PBC decisions of course are exercises only of the ordinary magisterium and are therefore theoretically open to revision (by the Church).
In particulars it is more clear, and in regards to authorship I don't see any loopholes:
"may and should it be affirmed as certain that Matthew, the Apostle of Christ, was in fact the author of the Gospel current under his name?" Affirmative.
"Does the clear verdict of tradition... impose the definite affirmation that Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, and Luke, the doctor, the assistant and companion of Paul, were really the authors of the Gospels that are attributed to them respectively?" Affirmative.
"Does the constant, universal, and solemn tradition of the Church... prove that John the Apostle and no other is to be acknowledged as the author of the fourth Gospel, and that by an historical argument so firmly established (without reference to theological considerations) that the reasons adduced by critics to the contrary in no way weaken this tradition?" Affirmative.
Regarding the so-called "Synoptic Problem" on order and mutual relationships of the three Gospels:
"Should the verdict of tradition be considered to give adequate support to the statement that Matthew wrote before the other Evangelists and wrote the first Gospel in the native language then used by the Jews of Palestine for whom the work was intended?" Affirmative.
"As regards the chronological order of the Gospels is it right to depart from the opinion supported by the very ancient and constant testimony of tradition, which avers that after Matthew, who before all the others wrote his Gospel in his native tongue, Mark was the second in order, and Luke the third to write? Or on the other hand is opposition to be found between this opinion and that which asserts the second and third Gospels to have been written before the Greek version of the first Gospel?" Negative.
"Provided all is safeguarded that according to previous decisions must be safeguarded, especially concerning the authenticity and integrity of the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the substantial identity of the Greek Gospel of Matthew with its original text, and the chronological order in which they were written, in order to explain their mutual similarities and dissimilarities, is it lawful for exegetes, given the many different and contradictory opinions proposed by writers, to discuss the question freely and to have recourse to the hypotheses of tradition, whether written or oral, or also of the dependence of one Gospel on another or on others that preceded it?" Affirmative.
"Ought those to be considered faithful to the above prescriptions, who without the support of any traditional evidence or historical argument readily embrace what is commonly called the two-document hypothesis', the purpose of which is to explain the composition of the Greek Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke chiefly by their dependence on the Gospel of Mark and a so-called collection of the discourses of our Lord; and are they consequently free to advocate it?" Negative.
Lisa and John,
The media is reporting that Europeans are "elated" "relieved" with the election of President Obama...are they reporting accurately? What is your experience as an American living in Europe at this time?
Much love, Aunt Jenny
Well,
The European newspapers are reporting that Europeans are elated and relieved, etc.
The particular Europeans with whom we interact regularly are those here at the ITI which is a very pro-life, pro-traditional family institution. So, there is certainly not much elation around here.
No one that I know of was enthusiastic about McCain, though, either. So, disappointment would not describe the atmosphere here either. Disgust with the whole thing would probably be the most accurate descriptor.
Great to hear from you, by the way. Love to the whole family from Lisa, Maria, and myself!
It's refreshing to hear that there are Catholic scholars who believe in the traditional authorship of the gospels.
Dear PeacefulKing,
Thank you for the encouraging words. Since I don't recognize your pseudonym, may I ask how you came upon this little weblog? Please feel free to visit it as often as you like!
Pax,
John
I got a direct referral from your father-in-law. Sorry it took me so long to respond. I keep my Google password in a paper file--not always accesable.
Fred Christopherson
Wonderful! It's great to hear from you.
Post a Comment