Vatican Secretary of State: Dissident Catholics More Worrying than Atheists

[rpp]

patg, you have denied Catholic teaching, while claiming you are not denying it. You have described the Gospels with the despicable term “fiction”.

Furthermore, you have called into question my Catechesis by asking the pejorative question:

Have you had any adult religious education recently?

Here is a list of some of the books I have read within the last two years or so.

I’ll start with the Doctors of the Church
St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Thologiae, Volumes 1 & 2.
Summa Contra Gentiles, volumes 1-4
Shorter Summa

St. Augustine
City of God
On Christian Doctrine
Confessions

St. John of the Cross
Dark Night of the Spirit

St. Francis de Sales
Introduction to the Devout Life
The Catholic Controversy

St. Catherine of Sienna
Dialogues

St. Therese of Liseieux
The Story of a Soul

St. Therese of Avila
The Way of Perfection
Interior Castle
The Life of Therese of Avila by Herself

Now other authors

By the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit
The Bible (4 complete times, twice with the NAB, once with the RSV and once with the Douay-Rheims Haddock commentary, by far the best bound-in-the-Bible commentary!).

The Catholic Church
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Documents of Vatican II (all 16 plus several follow-up documents) as translated by Austin Flannery

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Salt of the Earth
Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith
Introduction to the Catechism

Introduction to Philosophy, Daniel Sullivan
The Liberal Illusion, Louis Veuillot
Liberalism is a Sin, Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany
The Way, St. Josemaria Escriva
This is the Faith, Cannon Francis Ripley
The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Msr. Klaus Gamber
The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty, Michael Davies
Imitation of Christ, Venerable Thomas a Kempis
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott.

This is not a complete list, just what I came to mind. I have also done several Bible studies from various authors, some popular, some scholarly.

I love to read.

I addition, I have attended numerous classes through my Archdiocese in pursuit of a certificate for Lay Ecclesial Minister (the USCCB is still working out the details for that) and DRE certificate. I also have special study weekly study sessions with my spiritual advisor (who has a Masters in Theology) and semi-monthly study sessions with my priest. We have a grand time!

I also sit on the Adult Faith Formation committee of my parish. I am one of only two people not elected on that committee, but rather appointed by our parish priest, the other is about to be ordained a permanent Deacon. (Though admittedly, I am getting weary from other commitments and may ask to step down.)

This list is not intended as a boast, but rather to counter your supercilious accusation That I have not had any recent adult faith formation.

** I have noticed that when it comes to substantive issues in my other posts, such as the logical conclusions as to your line of thinking, you ignore them.** Rather you rely on personal attacks and the absurd claim that by denying the veracity of the Bible, you are maintaining Catholic teachings.

You contradict yourself while insulting the intelligence of those who do not hold to apostasy. You denigrate as “literalism” while not even truly defending what you claim. When I quoted you, you implied I altered your quote. This is not a reasonable discussion, you have engaged in personal attacks.

And yet you claim to teach others the faith. If you teach what you post, you may well be putting souls in great peril.

As I have said before. This is exactly what Cardinal Bertone meant. Dissidents such as you **are **more dangerous than atheists.

Your insults have made me quite disappointed. It feels quite immodest to make the claims I have in this post, but you have challenged me with your refusal to make real responses to legitimate points, and instead insult my inteligence and me personally me by stating I know little or nothing. I am deeply worried that you are teaching these heinous errors to others and putting their souls in jeopardy, as well as your own. While I forgive you for your insults to me, I implore you to be humble and remove yourself from a teaching position.

 

[flazor1]

patg

I was going to respond to some of your comments regarding dogma and doctrine, but it sounds as if you are signing off this thread. Are you?

 

[Mijoy2]

patg, you have denied Catholic teaching, while claiming you are not denying it. You have described the Gospels with the despicable term “fiction”.

Furthermore, you have called into question my Catechesis by asking the pejorative question:

Here is a list of some of the books I have read within the last two years or so.

I’ll start with the Doctors of the Church
St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Thologiae, Volumes 1 & 2.
Summa Contra Gentiles, volumes 1-4
Shorter Summa

St. Augustine
City of God
On Christian Doctrine
Confessions

St. John of the Cross
Dark Night of the Spirit

St. Francis de Sales
Introduction to the Devout Life
The Catholic Controversy

St. Catherine of Sienna
Dialogues

St. Therese of Liseieux
The Story of a Soul

St. Therese of Avila
The Way of Perfection
Interior Castle
The Life of Therese of Avila by Herself

Now other authors

By the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit
The Bible (4 complete times, twice with the NAB, once with the RSV and once with the Douay-Rheims Haddock commentary, by far the best bound-in-the-Bible commentary!).

The Catholic Church
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Documents of Vatican II (all 16 plus several follow-up documents) as translated by Austin Flannery

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Salt of the Earth
Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith
Introduction to the Catechism

Introduction to Philosophy, Daniel Sullivan
The Liberal Illusion, Louis Veuillot
Liberalism is a Sin, Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany
The Way, St. Josemaria Escriva
This is the Faith, Cannon Francis Ripley
The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Msr. Klaus Gamber
The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty, Michael Davies
Imitation of Christ, Venerable Thomas a Kempis
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott.

This is not a complete list, just what I came to mind. I have also done several Bible studies from various authors, some popular, some scholarly.

I love to read.

I addition, I have attended numerous classes through my Archdiocese in pursuit of a certificate for Lay Ecclesial Minister (the USCCB is still working out the details for that) and DRE certificate. I also have special study weekly study sessions with my spiritual advisor (who has a Masters in Theology) and semi-monthly study sessions with my priest. We have a grand time!

I also sit on the Adult Faith Formation committee of my parish. I am one of only two people not elected on that committee, but rather appointed by our parish priest, the other is about to be ordained a permanent Deacon. (Though admittedly, I am getting weary from other commitments and may ask to step down.)

This list is not intended as a boast, but rather to counter your supercilious accusation That I have not had any recent adult faith formation.

.

With all due respect, how on earth do you find the time to read all this?

I have hopes of someday finding the time to read material such as this. I’ve read some of these books but finding time to read all I desire is impossible.

I’m thinking maybe after I retire but that is a good 12 -15 years off.

 

[irenaeus1]

Fortunately, Raymond Brown and the like do not do such things.

Yes he does. And in many places at that.

Yes, I always try to present the best from the brightest.
Fortunately for them, they are teachings of the church.

If you are presenting to them, for example, that the virgin birth may not have been a historical event, then you are not presenting the teachings of the church. Many of these so-called brightest scholars continually insist that certain things are a matter of faith but not history, as if they are mutually exclusive. The problem is that God intervened into human history by bringing forth His Son by taking on Flesh in the womb of the Virgin without the agent of a man. Yes, this is an article of faith, but it took place in history.

Have you had any adult religious education recently? I could fit you in.

Yes, I have and am currently in a diocesan class. Adult religious education from you?.. no thanks.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[rpp]

With all due respect, how on earth do you find the time to read all this?

I have hopes of someday finding the time to read material such as this. I’ve read some of these books but finding time to read all I desire is impossible.

I’m thinking maybe after I retire but that is a good 12 -15 years off.

A lot of coffee and Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics.

Actually , I am not a very fast reader. I have just read nothing else. And I have done almost nothing else. (Except the usual stuff, you know knee surgery, hand surgery, divorce, etc.) Finally, I guess it has been more like three years, not two. Sorry about that inaccuracy, I did not realize it had been so long. Being recently single and childless makes for plenty of free time.

Seriously, when I converted in 2003 and was confirmed in 2005 I felt I had a lot of catching up to do. I just started grabbing everything I could. The fact that I have prtetty much given up television helps alot too. Unfortunately, I have been spending way too much time on these boards and that is kind of cutting into my study time.

One other thing, I have never been entirely comfortable reading just one book at a time, I generally have between three and six going at once, particularly if the writing style is a bit dry.

 

[irenaeus1]

I denied absolutely nothing that is against church teaching, doctine, or dogma. Have you had any adult religious education recently? This has been taught in many parishes for many years and is the subject of many books by real catholics, some even under the imprimatur. And as I said before, the church also allows you to be a literalist - both paths are searching for the same truth.

That it has been taught in many parishes for many years does not make it correct. Many things have been taught in parish programs that are heretical.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

I denied absolutely nothing that is against church teaching, doctine, or dogma. Have you had any adult religious education recently? This has been taught in many parishes for many years and is the subject of many books by real catholics, some even under the imprimatur. And as I said before, the church also allows you to be a literalist - both paths are searching for the same truth.

You are quite arrogant. You continually presume that we have not taken any adult religious education classes and/or if we plan to, then we should consider taking instruction from you. You are quite full of yourself… or at least, full of …

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[patg]

You are quite arrogant. You continually presume that we have not taken any adult religious education classes and/or if we plan to, then we should consider taking instruction from you. You are quite full of yourself… or at least, full of …

In Christ,
Irenaeus

I guess it is easy to come across as arrogant using a communications method such as this. There is a lot of tedious typing and you want to get your point across somewhat quickly and efficiently. We could probably have a really good discussion in person but it is difficult here to go back and forth, not knowing what is being assumed or understood when an anonymous stranger is just out there somewhere. People do throw around “insults” like literalist, fundamentalist, dissident, heretic, pseudo-catholic, traditionalist, etc, much too easily in this environment for many reasons and I am sorry for the times I have done it.

I don’t care who you take classes fom, I was really just being silly and I hope you realize that - we can ease up a little.

If you have a disagreement with the church teachings I describe then the least you could do is relate what you have studied recently, who from, and what was presented or read that indicates I am involved with dissidence and heresy. I have told you what I teach and why.

 

[patg]

That it has been taught in many parishes for many years does not make it correct. Many things have been taught in parish programs that are heretical.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

That may be true - but it certainly doesn’t hurt!

 

[irenaeus1]

Here is a list of some of the books I have read within the last two years or so.

I’ll start with the Doctors of the Church
St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Thologiae, Volumes 1 & 2.
Summa Contra Gentiles, volumes 1-4
Shorter Summa

St. Augustine
City of God
On Christian Doctrine
Confessions

St. John of the Cross
Dark Night of the Spirit

St. Francis de Sales
Introduction to the Devout Life
The Catholic Controversy

St. Catherine of Sienna
Dialogues

St. Therese of Liseieux
The Story of a Soul

St. Therese of Avila
The Way of Perfection
Interior Castle
The Life of Therese of Avila by Herself

Now other authors

By the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit
The Bible (4 complete times, twice with the NAB, once with the RSV and once with the Douay-Rheims Haddock commentary, by far the best bound-in-the-Bible commentary!).

The Catholic Church
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Documents of Vatican II (all 16 plus several follow-up documents) as translated by Austin Flannery

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Salt of the Earth
Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith
Introduction to the Catechism

Introduction to Philosophy, Daniel Sullivan
The Liberal Illusion, Louis Veuillot
Liberalism is a Sin, Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany
The Way, St. Josemaria Escriva
This is the Faith, Cannon Francis Ripley
The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Msr. Klaus Gamber
The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty, Michael Davies
Imitation of Christ, Venerable Thomas a Kempis
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott.

This is not a complete list, just what I came to mind. I have also done several Bible studies from various authors, some popular, some scholarly.

I love to read.

I addition, I have attended numerous classes through my Archdiocese in pursuit of a certificate for Lay Ecclesial Minister (the USCCB is still working out the details for that) and DRE certificate. I also have special study weekly study sessions with my spiritual advisor (who has a Masters in Theology) and semi-monthly study sessions with my priest. We have a grand time!

I also sit on the Adult Faith Formation committee of my parish. I am one of only two people not elected on that committee, but rather appointed by our parish priest, the other is about to be ordained a permanent Deacon. (Though admittedly, I am getting weary from other commitments and may ask to step down.)

This list is not intended as a boast, but rather to counter your supercilious accusation That I have not had any recent adult faith formation.

I have noticed that when it comes to substantive issues in my other posts, such as the logical conclusions as to your line of thinking, you ignore them. Rather you rely on personal attacks and the absurd claim that by denying the veracity of the Bible, you are maintaining Catholic teachings.

You contradict yourself while insulting the intelligence of those who do not hold to apostasy. You denigrate as “literalism” while not even truly defending what you claim. When I quoted you, you implied I altered your quote. This is not a reasonable discussion, you have engaged in personal attacks.

And yet you claim to teach others the faith. If you teach what you post, you may well be putting souls in great peril.

As I have said before. This is exactly what Cardinal Bertone meant. Dissidents such as you **are **more dangerous than atheists.

Your insults have made me quite disappointed. It feels quite immodest to make the claims I have in this post, but you have challenged me with your refusal to make real responses to legitimate points, and instead insult my inteligence and me personally me by stating I know little or nothing. I am deeply worried that you are teaching these heinous errors to others and putting their souls in jeopardy, as well as your own. While I forgive you for your insults to me, I implore you to be humble and remove yourself from a teaching position.

Quite impressive, rpp. I am also quite well read (over the last 8 years or so) in matters Catholic, and I read little else.

Keep up the education.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

That may be true - but it certainly doesn’t hurt!

Heretical teachings being taught in parish programs doesn’t hurt?

 

[rpp]

I guess it is easy to come across as arrogant using a communications method such as this. There is a lot of tedious typing and you want to get your point across somewhat quickly and efficiently. We could probably have a really good discussion in person but it is difficult here to go back and forth, not knowing what is being assumed or understood when an anonymous stranger is just out there somewhere. People do throw around “insults” like literalist, fundamentalist, dissident, heretic, pseudo-catholic, traditionalist, etc, much too easily in this environment for many reasons and I am sorry for the times I have done it.

I don’t care who you take classes fom, I was really just being silly and I hope you realize that - we can ease up a little.

If you have a disagreement with the church teachings I describe then the least you could do is relate what you have studied recently, who from, and what was presented or read that indicates I am involved with dissidence and heresy. I have told you what I teach and why.

 

[rpp]

I guess it is easy to come across as arrogant using a communications method such as this. There is a lot of tedious typing and you want to get your point across somewhat quickly and efficiently. We could probably have a really good discussion in person but it is difficult here to go back and forth, not knowing what is being assumed or understood when an anonymous stranger is just out there somewhere. People do throw around “insults” like literalist, fundamentalist, dissident, heretic, pseudo-catholic, traditionalist, etc, much too easily in this environment for many reasons and I am sorry for the times I have done it.

I don’t care who you take classes fom, I was really just being silly and I hope you realize that - we can ease up a little.

You asked, I answered and now you say you don’t care. How cruel.

No, patg, NO ONE realized you were being silly. Your explanation here reminds of the character of the boyfriend, played by Dwight Yokum, in the movie “Sling Blade”. I find you apology as sincere as that fictional character’s were.

Many of us here have the ability to not come across as arrogant. You, on the other hand, by doggedly insisting you are right but refusing to respond when we point out your errors is not poor communication being mistaken for arrogance. Some of us here have actually made is past the second grade, we can tell the difference.

If you have a disagreement with the church teachings I describe then the least you could do is relate what you have studied recently, who from, and what was presented or read that indicates I am involved with dissidence and heresy. I have told you what I teach and why.

We cannot disgree with the Church (“Church” should always be capitalized!) teaching you describe because you have not described any. You have described your own personal ideas, which are not in agreement with Church teachings or legitamate scriptural interpretation.

We have tried to have a discussion with you. We have done all these things. When I or the other bring up points, you ignore the points, then post an insult. Instead you insult us by using pejoritive and mocking terms like “literalist”.

I no longer believe you are what you say. I think instead you are baiting people. Can you prove me wrong?

 

[patg]

We cannot disgree with the Church (“Church” should always be capitalized!) teaching you describe because you have not described any.

I have described several in great detail. Have you ignored them? Do you want the posting number so you can find them? Or, as I suspect, you are ignoring them because you don’t personally think they are church teachings? Since you don’t discuss them I guess I’ll never know.

You have described your own personal ideas, which are not in agreement with Church teachings or legitamate scriptural interpretation.

Again you are totally wrong (or just not listening). I have not presented a single concept that I have come up with on my own as a personal idea. I have not written of a single interpretation that is not widely presented and accepted by the church’s recognized scholars. Who are you to define “legitimate interpretation”?

We have tried to have a discussion with you. We have done all these things. When I or the other bring up points, you ignore the points, then post an insult. Instead you insult us by using pejoritive and mocking terms like “literalist”.

I have tried to have a discussion with you. I have done all these things. When I or the bring up points, you ignore the points, then post an insult. Instead you insult me by using pejoritive and mocking terms like heretic, dissident , and ignoring church teachings.

I no longer believe you are what you say. I think instead you are baiting people. Can you prove me wrong?

I no longer believe you are what you say. I think instead you are baiting people.

Can you prove me wrong?

Yes, that’s easy. Please look back at my posts on what an infancy narrative is, what the church requires you to believe about the gospels, what the recognized church scholars have written under the *imprimatur, *what the official church documents (such as dei verbum) say about gospel interpretation. You have not discussed any of these topics, you only respond with “that’s against church teaching” as if that passes for a discussion. If you disagree, why can’t you talk about it? I am here to learn - I certainly don’t pretend I am going to change anyone’s mind. I have a long history of debating others on these topics as you can see from a quick search of these forums. There has been a lot of serious discussion and thoughtful dialog with no baiting whatsoever. I have argued openly and honestly in hundreds of posts so I just wonder what

 

[patg]

We cannot disgree with the Church (“Church” should always be capitalized!) teaching you describe because you have not described any.

I have described several in great detail. Have you ignored them? Do you want the posting number so you can find them? Or, as I suspect, you are ignoring them because you don’t personally think they are church teachings? Since you don’t discuss them I guess I’ll never know.

You have described your own personal ideas, which are not in agreement with Church teachings or legitamate scriptural interpretation.

Again you are totally wrong (or just not listening). I have not presented a single concept that I have come up with on my own as a personal idea. I have not written of a single interpretation that is not widely presented and accepted by the church’s recognized scholars. Who are you to define “legitimate interpretation”?

We have tried to have a discussion with you. We have done all these things. When I or the other bring up points, you ignore the points, then post an insult. Instead you insult us by using pejoritive and mocking terms like “literalist”.

I have tried to have a discussion with you. I have done all these things. When I bring up points, you ignore the points. Instead you insult me by using pejoritive and mocking terms like heretic, dissident, and ignoring church teachings without supporting your statement whatsoever.

I no longer believe you are what you say. I think instead you are baiting people. Can you prove me wrong?

I no longer believe you are what you say. I think instead you are baiting me. You pretend to talk about the church’s teachings and say you are defending them but you refuse to discuss what they are.

Can you prove me wrong?

Yes, that’s easy. Please look back at my posts on what an infancy narrative is, what the church requires you to believe about the gospels, what the recognized church scholars have written under the *imprimatur, *what the official church documents (such as dei verbum) say about gospel interpretation. You have not discussed any of these topics, you only respond with “that’s against church teaching” as if that passes for a discussion. If you disagree, why can’t you talk about it? I am here to learn - I certainly don’t pretend I am going to change anyone’s mind. I have a long history of debating others on these topics as you can see from a quick search of these forums. There has been a lot of serious discussion and thoughtful dialog with no baiting whatsoever. I have paid my dues on these forums by arguing openly and honestly in hundreds of posts so I just wonder why this is so difficult?

 

[patg]

Heretical teachings being taught in parish programs doesn’t hurt?

Please, please, please name one thing I have said which you find to be heretical…

 

[patg]

Here is a list of some of the books I have read within the last two years or so.

If you want to discuss biblical historicity then I am very surprised you don’t provide many references to it. Try these:

Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels by the Pontifical Biblical Commission

The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - *DEI VERBUM *by Pope Paul VI.

The encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pope Pius XII.

*An Introduction to the New Testament, The Birth of the Messiah, An Adult Christ At Christmas *by the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Raymond Brown.

The three volume Rethinking the Historical Jesus series by the Jesuit John Meier (imprimatur).

And God said What? - the adult ed textbook written Margaret Ralph, a student of Raymond Brown who is also the director of religeous education of an archdiocese.

As I have said before. This is exactly what Cardinal Bertone meant. Dissidents such as you **are **more dangerous than atheists.

As far as your evidence goes my dissidence seems to only exist in your imagination.

Your insults have made me quite disappointed.

I feel exactly the same.

It feels quite immodest to make the claims I have in this post

Not at all, I’m always interested in what people are reading.

but you have challenged me with your refusal to make real responses to legitimate points, and instead insult my inteligence and me personally me by stating I know little or nothing.

Funny, I feel exactly the same.

I am deeply worried that you are teaching these heinous errors to others and putting their souls in jeopardy, as well as your own. While I forgive you for your insults to me, I implore you to be humble and remove yourself from a teaching position.

When you calm down enough to tell me what the errors are we may be able to get somewhere.

 

[patg]

Since this thread seems to be totally hijacked now, lets try this:

I’ll write something simple I believe and you tell me why the church teaches it is heretical and dissident:

The stories in Matthew about the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt are traditional Jewish Midrash created by Matthew to teach the theological truth that Jesus is the New Moses come to lead the Jewish people to God.

There is no historical evidence, they are not mentioned in the other gospels, and they are in the well-known pattern of Jewish midrash. If you want to believe they are history, that is fine. If you don’t understand the points Matthew is making, that is not at all fine. Not being history does not alter the teaching.

 

[irenaeus1]

Please, please, please name one thing I have said which you find to be heretical…

Generically speaking, I stated, “Many things have been taught in parish programs that are heretical.”

You replied, “That may be true - but it certainly doesn’t hurt!”

I replied, “Heretical teachings being taught in parish programs doesn’t hurt?”
You replied, “Please, please, please name one thing I have said which you find to be heretical…”

This is independent of whether you hold a heretical position… I was curious as to your response that heretical teaching does not hurt anyone.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

Since this thread seems to be totally hijacked now, lets try this:

I’ll write something simple I believe and you tell me why the church teaches it is heretical and dissident:

The stories in Matthew about the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt are traditional Jewish Midrash created by Matthew to teach the theological truth that Jesus is the New Moses come to lead the Jewish people to God.

There is no historical evidence, they are not mentioned in the other gospels, and they are in the well-known pattern of Jewish midrash. If you want to believe they are history, that is fine. If you don’t understand the points Matthew is making, that is not at all fine. Not being history does not alter the teaching.

The Church has never taught that the infancy narrative of Matthew’s gospel is midrash. Jewish midrash was scarcely around at the time Matthew’s gospel was written, if at all, and was more commonly used as a Jewish literary style well into the second century A.D. (after Matthew’s gospel was even written). Midrash tends to embellish OT stories. Matthew is obviously not doing this since the infancy narrative about Jesus is a new story – not an embellishment of an existing story of Jesus’ birth. Also, there is not much credibility in depicting Jesus as fulfilling various OT prophecies to indicate Jesus’ identity if in fact he did not fulfill the same said prophecies. If Jesus and His parents did not in fact flee to Egypt, then it cannot be said that Jesus fulfilled the promise that God’s Son would be called out of Egypt; otherwise, anyone of us could fulfill this prophecy since no one really has to have done it in actuality. Someone could write an oracle about me, stating that I was born in Bethlehem, then fled to Egypt, then eventually returned to Nazareth. In actual history, I was born in Galveston, Texas, but no matter, because this was just a literary device to demonstrate that I fulfilled certain OT prophecies (when in actuality, I didn’t) to merely indicate that I am the promised Messiah.

Failure to be mentioned in the other gospels is not a good foundation upon which to determine if something is historically true. Otherwise, we would have to conclude that Jesus never actually told the parable of the prodigal son, or Jesus never really washed the feet of His disciples at the Last Supper.

As to whether there is historical evidence for a particular event… if Matthew’s gospel was not in the bible, many would consider Matthew’s gospel as historical evidence, but it is disqualified merely because it is a religious text. Also, just because the only written evidence may be in scripture does not make it untrue. Scripture has been vindicated time and again as more and more archeological evidence has been discovered that support biblical accounts. These accounts didn’t become true only after other extra-biblical evidence was discovered to support it; they have always been true, but with just more corroborating evidence.

In Christ,
Irenaeus