The recently issued study document, “The Bishop of Rome,” seems to suggest that Pope Francis intends to establish a new “synodal exercise of primacy,” in effect foregoing the position of leadership assigned to him by Christ:
171 “Although the first millennium is decisive [apostle Matthew quoting Jesus: ‘Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my Church . . . I will give you the keys . . .’ Mt 16:15-20?] many dialogues recognize that it should not be idealized nor simply re-created, since the developments of the second millennium [the Protestant Reformation?] cannot be ignored and also because a primacy at the universal level should respond to contemporary challenges [ecumenical dialogue?]. Some principles for the exercise of primacy in the 21st century have been identified. 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.”
To do so it would be necessary for Pope Francis to credibly nullify at least two Gospel passages, both in Matthew: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church . . .” (Mt 16:15-20) noted above, as well as the commission of the eleven, including Peter, by the risen Jesus: “Go, therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing 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). [Note that Jesus told the apostles to make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe ALL, not just some, of what he commanded them].
The nullification of The Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety has in fact been underway since soon after Vatican II in most Catholic seminaries and universities, as well as the casting of doubt on the authenticity of the Gospels according to Mark and John.
The authenticity of all four Gospels is well attested by Early Church Fathers, most explicitly by Bishop Irenaeus:
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”
However, the nullification of The Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety has in fact been underway since soon after Vatican II in most Catholic seminaries and universities, as well as the casting of doubt on the authenticity of the Gospels according to Mark and John. Greater credibility is attributed to Mark under the ahistorical, Reformation-rooted “Markan Priority Two Source Theory of Gospel origin” as explained in, “Sorry, Catholics; Jesus never said ‘Thou art Peter . . .’ or promised him the Keys” and other faith-affirming articles posted at 7stepcatholic.com. Asked, “Who wrote the first Gospel?,” most Catholic priests and bishops will reply, “Mark.”
This two-source theory, though widely taught, is a house of cards. Though sought by countless biblical exegetes for more than 200 years the second “source,” called “Q” — without which the theory collapses — has never been found. Catholic scholar Brant Pitre writes:
“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).
Simply stated, this Markan Priority theory,
a) gives credibility to Mark 8:27-30 where Jesus, speaking to the apostles near Caesarea Philippi, does not mention, “Thou art Peter . . . I will give you the keys . . .” and,
b) negates the credibility of Matthew 16:15-20 — in which Jesus does say, “Thou art Peter . . . I will give you the keys . . .” — by considering TheGospel according to Matthew in its entirety to be anonymously written hearsay.
As noted above, this Markan Priority Two Source Theory is a house of cards because there is no indication that the second “Source” ever existed. To that two additional reasons can be added:
c) Markan prioritists seem to overlook the fact that Bishop Irenaeus stated that Mark, “did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” Anywhere Peter may have preached; including Antioch and certainly Rome, the heart of Nero’s Empire, with Nero’s agents surely listening for any hint of sedition, Peter would have been foolish to call listeners to a Kingdom to which he held the Keys. Peter had no need to preach that. Therefore Mark would not have written it. Mark’s silence on this point is therefore no reason to doubt that Jesus really did give primacy to Peter as in Mt 16:15-20.
d) As noted below, the best-known Catholic proponent of this Markan Priority theory seems to have just ignored, rather than attempted to refute, the well-attested Matthean Priority affirmation of Bishop Irenaeus: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome . . .”
Hard as it may be for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to explain, it denies that apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel attributed to him:
“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 . . .” (Caps added).
The USCCB casts doubt on Mark and John as well:
Mark: “Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated.”
John: “Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this.”
Fr. Raymond E. Brown was arguably the best-known champion of the Markan Priority Two Source theory in Catholic seminaries and academia from the 1970s until his death in 1998.
A “Synodal church” with a “Synodal papacy” — one that would not be deeply rooted in the Gospels — would jeopardize the eternal salvation of a great many souls.
The devastating effect of this theory on faith was driven home to me in an email a few years ago from a Catholic priest who was a seminarian in the 1970s, soon after Vatican II. His class must have been among the first to be taught by Fr. Raymond E. Brown that the Gospels, with the possible exception of Luke, are at best of doubtful authenticity:
“Dear Jerome: I was taught the [Markan Priority Two Source theory] Historical-Critical Method in the seminary in the 1970’s . . . [by] Fr. Raymond Brown . . . 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 Two Source theory] 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.”
Curious as to how Father Brown refuted Irenaeus — who authenticates all four Evangelists, Matthew writing first, as noted— I checked the index of each of the four books of his that span his teaching career, including one published in 1973, about the time he was teaching this seminarian, and his last in 1997. Father Brown cited Bishop Irenaeus briefly on an unrelated matter — but I found no attempt by Father Brown to refute the authentication by Bishop Irenaeus of all four Gospels.
Bishop Irenaeus was taught by Bishop Polycarp, who was taught by John, apostle of Christ. Bishop Polycarp chose martyrdom rather than revile Christ. Bishop Irenaeus succeeded a bishop who was martyred. He wrote what is quoted above while his own life was at risk under Roman Emperor Commodus.
Who, then, is more credible regarding the Gospels, Father Brown, who ignored early Church authentication of the Gospels, cast doubt even on Christ’s Resurrection and wrote two thousand years later; or Irenaeus, Bishop and Saint, who risked martyrdom by affirming Gospel authenticity as he did and was so closely linked to Christ through Saint Polycarp and John the apostle?
Given that a “Synodal church” with a “Synodal papacy” — one that would not be deeply rooted in the Gospels — would jeopardize the eternal salvation of a great many souls, let us pray that Pope Francis, in cooperation with bishops faithful to their vows of ordination and consecration, will soon restore the pre-Vatican II Catholic orthodoxy regarding Gospel origin that brought the Church to its pre-Vatican II Golden Age.
