E
Estevao
Guest
Yes, I really think you should. I mean you can believe something without evidence if you want to OP, but I wouldn’t suggest starting this, it sets a bad precedent.
Do Catholics have to believe books in the Bible were written by the traditional authors?
- Status
A
Abu
Guest
The reality is that it is absolutely clear that the Church has taught the reality of the authors and I now quote Fr William Most that the “Magisterium provides moral certitude” from the Enchiridiron Symbolorum, ed. by Denzinger-Schonmetzer (a collection of official papal and conciliar statements) that:
- “St Matthew is the author of the Hebrew text of his Gospel” [DS 3561].
- “St Mark and St Luke are the authors of the Gospels that bear their name.” [DS 3568].
- “St Luke is the author of the Acts of the Apostles” [DS 3581]
- “St John the apostle is the author of of the Gospel bearing his name. [DS 3398].
Catholics Beliefs: The Bottom Line, 1988, Fr William G Most, Ph.D., p 14-15. Prow Books/ Franciscan Marytown Press].
C
catholictiger
Guest
could you please go find where these say these things. Wording can change a lot when it comes to Church documents. Myers interpretation of the documents are not morally binding. I want to see the text itself. I’m sure he has it correct but any time you claim something is morally binding I will only accept actual vatican documents, not articles interpreting vatican documents.
C
catholictiger
Guest
again again again
please actually post these documents don’t just say Fr. x says the documents say this.
We are discussing morally binding views of Catholic theology. These are serious claims. If you are correct that means both of my scripture scholars would be in grave error by even teaching about the Q source theory.
Plus those statements are very vague. Did Matthew write the entirety of his Gospel? What about Luke? Mark? John? Did Paul help write Acts? Was anything altered after the fact? There are still hundreds of questions that have to be answered by your 4 simple statements. But you act like this settles all discussion.
C
catholictiger
Guest
exactly, without discussion doctrine can’t develop. We should encourage discussion of biblical authorship in academic circles. BUT, it must be lead by the wisdom of the Church. Very few things in the Church (outside of Divine Revelation) are set in stone.
T
TMC
Guest
The US bishops have approved and widely promulgated biblical analysis that says that it is unlikely that John was written by one person, that it is unlikely that Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew, and which casts doubt into how closely the authors of Mark and Luke can be associated with eyewitnesses of the events they record. (All available on the USCCB website I linker to earlier.) It seems to me that action by the bishops demonstrates conclusively that the bishops believe that those opinions are consistent with Catholic teaching. Those that argue that the Church mandates another opinion must therefore be arguing that the bishops do not understand Catholic teaching on this point.
This is a problem that I have encountered here on CAF for seven years now. I have no problem with anyone saying that they believe X or Y, or that they agree or disagree with the Church on any particular point. But it is simply wrong to promote ones own private point of view by claiming that the Church mandates that point of view, when the Church does not. The Church simply does not mandate (or even necessarily support) the belief that the Gospels were written by the traditional authors.
po18guy
Well-known member
I hold reservations regarding any pronouncements made by the 501c3 organization known as the USCCB. If you look into the fiasco surrounding the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, you can see that prudence has been sorely lacking. When a sudden pronouncement is made at a vary late date, and which tends to cast doubt on the entirety of Church history, as well as the veracity of the pious traditions, it is time to test the spirits. As well, I note that rather than cite the traditional and consistent teaching of the Church, you rely on a tax-exempt organization which is one step removed from Church authority. Is that not a bit troubling?
No prior generation (both clergy and laity) in the history of the Church has veered so sharply from a narrow interpretation of revealed truth. I am not speaking of personal behaviors here, but interpretations. No prior generation has so severely questioned tradition. And, questioning tradition at one level intimates that tradition at other levels might also be subject to questioning. A little history is helpful here: This exact mindset and action was the genesis of the 16th century German rebellion.
Why does this even matter? Well, because tradition sets the context of and the boundaries of the interpretation of scripture. So? Well, scripture by itself is very easily manipulated to mean whatever the reader desires. Saint Peter warned of this nearly 2,000 years ago in his second letter. The result of the German rebellion in the 1500s was the discarding of tradition and the redefining of the faith. Truth was then malleable, and doctrine quickly spread to all corners of the map.
How does that relate to today’s situation?
Let us examine the sudden change in thinking (1952-1970) contained within the same organization (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine of the USCCB). From the introduction to the “The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ According to St. Mark” from the 1952 edition of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Bible:
This is confirmed by Clement of Alexandria*, who wrote:
Why were sources so close to the events so certain and we, almost two millennia away, now so uncertain about what occurred back then? For some reason, we are being incited to question the entire Church, beginning with the traditions surrounding the Gospels.
There is a spirit of doubt which drives this modern mania to either make the Gospels into ancient “copies and pastes”, or fabrications out of whole cloth. Look at what this modernist idea did to footnotes regarding Mary’s Magnificat (from the USCCB-approved NAB/RE (bolding mine):
So, Luke is promoted as having fabricated portions of his Gospel, for the sake of literary beauty. Are you kidding me? Such notes amount to little more than being the devil’s advocate and have no place in juxtaposition to the scriptures! This is pure modernist nonsense and seeks to suck the supernatural element out of God’s word - as does nearly all modernism. This entire line of reasoning is corrosive to the faith.
Please explain how that comes from God.
T
TMC
Guest
So your position is, in fact, that you are a better authority on Church teaching than the bishops?
E
Erich
Guest
You won’t see a document that states that, in so many words. But, given everything I’ve said/quoted on this thread, everything that ***Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae ***has said, and everything that Dei Verbum has said, and taking all of that to its logical conclusions, if one is to believe that two of the Gospels were written by eyewitness Apostles (knowing that John’s Gospel was written last and knowing that the other would not base his Gospel on the testimony of a non-eyewitness Apostle) – and we are to believe that – then what else is there to believe but that Matthew wrote before Mark (which no one seriously doubted until the 19th century)?
As for the NAB translation of the Bible that’s on the USCCB site… the NAB takes a more “dynamic equivalence” approach to translation (in fact they had to try 3 times before Rome approved it for liturgical use, and even then the psalms are still unacceptable), some of the translation choices were guided by liberal scholarship, and some footnotes are blatantly heretical.
For example, Romans 9 NAB Footnotes:
1 [9:1-11:36] Israel’s unbelief and its rejection of Jesus as savior astonished and puzzled Christians. It constituted a serious problem for them in view of God’s specific preparation of Israel for the advent of the Messiah. Paul addresses himself here to the essential question of how the divine plan could be frustrated by Israel’s unbelief. At the same time, he discourages both complacency and anxiety on the part of Gentiles. To those who might boast of their superior advantage over Jews, he warns that their enjoyment of the blessings assigned to Israel can be terminated. To those who might anxiously ask, “How can we be sure that Israel’s fate will not be ours?” he replies that only unbelief can deprive one of salvation.
To say St. Paul commanded faith alone, and that mortal sin as well does not deprive one of salvation (1 Cor 6:9-10) is blatantly heretical. St. Paul NEVER preached the protestant heresy of “sola fide.”
There are other problems with the NAB, but they are beyond the scope of this thread.
E
Erich
Guest
But then they go on to articulate this one position (i.e. the Two-Source Theory) at great lengths – and in the process, they call the traditional position “untenable”. They completely ignore any evidence for the traditional belief that Matthew actually wrote the Gospel of Matthew and that he wrote it first.
Thus, the clear implication is that Catholics used to believe this traditional view, but now the majority think otherwise. The average Catholic is going to assume that the “majority of scholars” is correct, especially since they bring up no counter-evidence whatsoever.
T
TMC
Guest
And Catholics are free to agree with the position put forth by the bishops, or to adopt some other position that is supposedly more traditional, or something else altogether. But the point is that the Church does not mandate that Catholics believe that the books in the Bible were written by the traditional authors. That is my only point - that the Church does not mandate that viewpoint over other viewpoints.
C
catholictiger
Guest
So I did some asking around at seminary today, and one of my Dogmatic Theology professors pointed me to this document. piercedhearts.org/scriptures/historical_truth_gospels_pont_biblical_com.htm
this came out directly before Vatican II and should give you a detailed position of the Churches view of the Authors of the Gospels.
I wasn’t aware of this earlier today, so my view is in line with this document. I will comment tonight after my day slows down.
God Bless.
this came out directly before Vatican II and should give you a detailed position of the Churches view of the Authors of the Gospels.
I wasn’t aware of this earlier today, so my view is in line with this document. I will comment tonight after my day slows down.
God Bless.
po18guy
Well-known member
So, did you actually bother to read the post and link and ponder its content before firing back a snarky response?
Do you have a local Bishop? Is he the one that you answer to and seek direction from, or do you prefer a 501c3 political organization? Your answer speaks volumes regarding your mindset.
Please consider that your problems here at CAF may be due to the fact that you “might” be either a progressive modernist, or a reactionary traditionalist. CAF is right down the middle, even though her members encompass a wide variety of opinions.
T
TMC
Guest
Setting aside the snark, are you willing to address the substance of my point? Do you agree that the Church does not mandate that Catholics believe that the Gospels were written by the traditional authors? If not, are you saying that the bishops are wrong?
I fail to see how the tax status of the bishops’ organization is relevant. The bishops are not only responsible for what the USCCB puts out, they are also responsible for the contents of the NABRE (which they approved for publishing). You seem to be arguing that the bishops are allowing their own organization, the USCCB, to put out teaching in a very important area that is contrary to the Church. Even if that seemed possible (which it doesn’t), the exact same language appears on the Vatican’s website. So we are faced with either (1) believing that both the USCCB and the Vatican are willfully putting out information that directly contradicts the Church’s teaching, or (2) understanding that the Church does not mandate belief in the traditional authors. I think the second makes sense, and the first does not.
- Status