Catholic Teaching and Wikipedia

[James82]

Gorgias,

You are right, and I was wrong regarding the dates that some of those authors asserted Markan priority.

However, although papal infallibility was set down as dogma in 1870 (?), it was widely believed and accepted at the outset of the counter-reformation. So I suppose one could argue that when it was defined dogmatically, it was simply the apex of a belief already widely asserted.

As such, within that context, a head of steam appeared to have built up in the 18th century as a counter to Matthean priority. Things are not born out of a vacuum my friend (as I’m sure your aware) and it is my take, in light of study, that to assert this was a Protestant reaction to Catholic Tradition.

Why though? Perhaps if St. Matthew’s gospel can be deconstructed enough, all that talk of keys to Heaven and authority can become obfuscated.

If in fact the synoptic gospels are out of order (as many do in fact claim); then what else is out of order? etc etc. Do you see the slippery slope?

Finally, although Matthean priority is not defined dogmatically, what is official teaching of the Church is that every last letter from Gen 1:1 through to Rev 22:21 is inspired by the Holy Spirit; man was instrumental. If I was a betting man, I would place my bet that what you see when you pick up Sacred Scripture (as far as book order) is what has been intended.

 

[Gorgias]

However, although papal infallibility was set down as dogma in 1870 (?), it was widely believed and accepted at the outset of the counter-reformation. So I suppose one could argue that when it was defined dogmatically, it was simply the apex of a belief already widely asserted.

Well, especially considering your comment about statements not be defined ‘in a vacuum’ (with which I agree!), I think that it might be more accurate to state that it’s more the case that questions and disagreements about the particular matter of faith is what drives doctrinal statements, rather than a desire to formally state beliefs ‘already widely asserted’!

As such, within that context, a head of steam appeared to have built up in the 18th century as a counter to Matthean priority.

Right; and, I think that it’s not unreasonable to assert that this ‘steam’ seems to have been the end-result of the particular forces in exegetical work in academia. Some of these did come from Protestant scholars; however, to assert that their motivation was to rake at the edifice of Catholic scholarship, per se, seems to be painting in rather broad strokes. In fact, short of a citation from these scholars, to the effect that “my goal is to rail against Catholics”, the slippery slope seems to be on the side of making assertions about others’ motivations…

Why though? Perhaps if St. Matthew’s gospel can be deconstructed enough, all that talk of keys to Heaven and authority can become obfuscated.

That’s a rather bold claim, don’t you think?!? You’re asserting that Protestant scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries were looking to impugn the Gospel of Matthew, simply to take a swipe at Petrine primacy?!?

Finally, although Matthean priority is not defined dogmatically, what is official teaching of the Church is that every last letter from Gen 1:1 through to Rev 22:21 is inspired by the Holy Spirit; man was instrumental.

If I was a betting man, I would place my bet that what you see when you pick up Sacred Scripture (as far as book order) is what has been intended.

Hmm… but the order of the books isn’t an indication, per se, of chronology (either in terms of its date of composition or its appearance in text). So, it’s difficult to assert Matthean priority in terms of order of appearance; and even more difficult to assert it casually, in terms of a simple “I bet that it’s so…” conjecture!