Who Has the Final Authority?

[JonNC]

Perhaps passed down orally from one generation to the next via an unbroken line of transmission? Continuity seems the best way to preserve something, maybe? Logically, like anything, it’s when someone steps outside the bounds of that succession and starts to alter what has been passed down, that doctrinal disparity gains momentum. We start to see new movements competing with existing movements, all of which eventually trace back to the source movement which is the only movement that has maintained the traditions since the very beginning, thanks to that unbroken line of transmission.

It’s possible for something like the assumption of Mary to have been passed down orally (nothing ever committed to writing) - until someone eventually decided to commit that oral tradition to writing for one reason or another.

Ok. Got it. My question would then be, and you know I’m not into “gotcha” stuff, why is that oral Tradition not uniform within those communions who claim it as much as the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Why would not true scholars of the Church such as Father Martin (no one in his right mind questions his knowledge) not accept it as assumed and obvious if what you say is the case? I’m not questioning the belief you hold dearly, in fact I honor it, just trying to understand where things sort of went off the rails regarding Church unity, even long before the Reformation.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Thanks and also with you,
Jon

I find this a good explanation…

mark-shea.com/tradition.html

Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.

This is probably a rhetorical question; then who changed it regarding the understanding of the nature and scope of the supremacy of the pope, Rome? Or the other patriarchates?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I am frequently asked this question by many non-Catholics,especially fundamentalist. Well I usually respond:

Did the Jews always have the Torah or did they preach and teach orally and pass it on thoughout the years? What Bible did Abraham and others read from prior to anything being written down?

That’s a really good point. And regarding the apostolic era, and in the early years thereafter, I would agree. Wouldn’t you agree, however, that as time approached 1054, the opinions of what was the actual oral teaching of the apostolic era began to become somewhat divided?

Jon

EDIT: Just to add as an afterthought, this really is a good point you make, so much so that I think it necessary, even from a sola scripturist POV, to not dismiss Tradition too hastily.

 

[joe370]

JonNC;8476047]Ok. Got it. My question would then be, and you know I’m not into “gotcha” stuff…

…why is that oral Tradition not uniform within those communions who claim it as much as the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Why would not true scholars of the Church such as Father Martin (no one in his right mind questions his knowledge) not accept it as assumed and obvious if what you say is the case? I’m not questioning the belief you hold dearly, in fact I honor it, just trying to understand where things sort of went off the rails regarding Church unity, even long before the Reformation.

Who is Father Martin?

Communions such as the eastern orthodox churches? Well, the east west schism no doubt didn’t help matters. Perhaps either the EOC or the CC stepped outside the bounds of that unbroken apostolic succession where sacred tradition was being safeguarded, (just as sacred scripture was safeguarded until the printing press) - and started to drift away from what was being passed down via that unbroken line? One of these churches is guilty of disturbing that apostolic continuity that went back to the apostolic age.

Even within the CC we see individual leaders, regardless of the century, at times, disagreeing with one another regarding various doctrinal matters, as you know, but what differentiates the CC from Protestant churches, (to me anyway) - is the fact these individual church theologians, ECFs etc. (for example Jerome regarding the 7 OT deuteros or Thomas Aquinas regarding Mary’s IC) - in the end, always deferred to the authority of the CC teaching office (the united body of leaders with the pope as their head) - to definitively settle the matter for all, with sacred scripture and sacred tradition as the bases for any and all authoritative decisions, making it binding on the entire church universal, including said theologians and various church fathers/leaders.

This way of dealing with doctrinal discrepancies is foreign to the protestant mindset.

Your thoughts Jon?

 

[joe370]

Ok…
Jon

Jon, in your opinion, are these the only possible scenarios, regarding Christian authority:

1. Scripture alone as the Christians sole source of doctrinal truth, via private interpretation.
2. Scripture alone as the Christians sole source of doctrinal truth + the teaching office of the church, regardless of denomination, as the rightful custodian, discerner and interpreter of scripture.
3. Scripture + tradition as the Christians sole source of doctrinal truth + the teaching office of the church, regardless of denomination, as the rightful custodian, discerner and interpreter of both scripture and tradition.

 

[pablope]

I find this a good explanation…

mark-shea.com/tradition.html

Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.

This is probably a rhetorical question; **then who changed it regarding the understanding of the nature and scope of the supremacy of the pope, Rome? Or the other patriarchates?**Jon

Hi, Jon…well, I will leave that to the historians…or the Pope’s committee studying the matter with the Orthodox.

I have been pondering about this…and I would like your 2cents…and anyone else who wants to chime in…

With development or growth of the understanding of the papacy through the years…could this be comparable to the mustard seed parable…that as the world grew and matured, this growth in the understanding of the papacy was an outgrowth…or required development…of the times?

Would Christendom before the Schism…been better served with this growth or not?

And post Schism…has Christendom been better served with this growth or not?

And let us take it to our times…is Christendom better served today, with papal supremacy or not? Or would it be better served with papal supremacy or not? by going back to the pre-schism understanding?

Or is this part of God’s plan for us?

Anyway, I hope you understand my rambling…

God bless…hope your nephew is doing better…

pablo

 

[joe370]

pablope;8476797]

Hi, Jon…well, I will leave that to the historians…or the Pope’s committee studying the matter with the Orthodox.

I have been pondering about this…and I would like your 2cents…and anyone else who wants to chime in…

With development or growth of the understanding of the papacy through the years…could this be comparable to the mustard seed parable…that as the world grew and matured, this growth in the understanding of the papacy was an outgrowth…or required development…of the times?

Would Christendom before the Schism…been better served with this growth or not?

And post Schism…has Christendom been better served with this growth or not?

And let us take it to our times…is Christendom better served today, with papal supremacy or not? Or would it be better served with papal supremacy or not? by going back to the pre-schism understanding?

Or is this part of God’s plan for us?

Anyway, I hope you understand my rambling…

God bless…hope your nephew is doing better…

pablo

*Mark 4:30-32 - "How shall we picture the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it? “It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil, yet when it is sown, grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and forms large branches…”
Hey Pablope that is a really good point. It seems the central point to the parable is to illustrate how the kingdom (Jesus’ church on earth, as the fulfillment of the long awaited Davidic kingdom) - will start out as an almost non-existent entity and eventually burgeon out as time progresses, and like anything that is almost infinitesimally inconsequential, but eventually, over time begins to grow, flourish, prosper (against all odds I might add) - and of course adapt to the changing times, as well as to the opposition that is always inevitable in such a case - development on almost every scale is not only bound to occur, but logically, must occur if it’s to survive those winds of change that adversely influenced Jesus’ church as each successive century passed.

Just like any fledgling organization, Jesus’ church is no different. His church needed to be tweaked in small degrees and developed when faced with insurmountable odds, constant sectarian resistance as she (the bride of Christ) - transitioned from an almost non-existent entity to one of the largest long lasting institutions in the whole world, necessitating the need for development on almost every level which is why the CC, over time, has developed on a structural/hierarchal level, doctrinal level, disciplinary level as well as an authoritative level, which includes the Papacy, and that development really wouldn’t have had a chance to find it’s rightful place in history until the Roman Empire stopped persecuting Jesus’ church and started recognizing Jesus’ church as a legal entity with all the rights of every other religion at that time, be it pagan or otherwise. If you notice, a lot of the catholic doctrinal definitions didn’t even start to unfold until the early part of the 4th century, and that of course is no coincidence.

The Catholic Church toppling and eventually supplanting the great Roman Empire is quite apropos considering it is God’s creation, as well as a perfect example of poetic justice…

 

[Erich]

b) In my Bible, at Romans 14 Paul tells the believers not to judge those whose faith differs from one’s own faith in regard to holy days and eating certain food. Instead, the believer was to tolerate the fellow believer who possessed different beliefs…b/c both were accepted by God. Did Paul get that right? Yes or no? …and if yes, do you think that Romans 14 provides an exhaustive list of things for which variation is acceptable. If yes, then why? …and if no, then what else is on the list?

In my Bible, Romans 14:1 says, “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.” Which means, on the flip side, that on indisputable matters one should not accept without passing judgement. So… Paul got it right, but you didn’t.

As for a list of things for which variation is acceptable (and what else may or may not be on that list), consider this: 1 Cor 11:18-19 reads as follows: “*In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.” *

So, there were divisions among the Corinthian congregation. And, these divisions were such that they helped to reveal who had God’s approval. Which means, on the flip side, that there were those among the Corinthian congregation who did not have God’s approval.

Who gets to decide what variations are acceptable? Who gets to decide what is an essential and what is a non-essential doctrine? And, since doctrines come from the Word of God, which part of the Word of God does one actually dare to call “non-essential?” 1 Cor 11:18-19 shows that divisions among Christians - the Corinthians being written to by Paul were all members of the Church…they were all Christians - cannot simply be ignored by using a contrived theological system which divides doctrines into essential vs. non-essential. Differences among Christians are serious matters that lead to some being approved by God and some not being approved by God. In fact, we see also from 1 Cor 11:18-19, that there were Corinthians who had faith, but they obviously believed and did things that caused division in the congregation, and that these beliefs and/or actions resulted in some of them not receiving God’s approval.

Can those who do not have God’s approval be saved? Yes or no? If yes, then you are basically saying that God’s approval or disapproval doesn’t really mean a thing. I mean, if you can be saved whether God approves of you or not, then why worry about His approval? If no, then you are admitting that doctrinal differences, differences that lead to divisions within Christian congregations, can get someone sent to Hell. Which means that differences in the beliefs of the various Christian faith traditions cannot simply be glossed over because they can, and do, have very serious eternal consequences.

 

[joe370]

In my Bible, Romans 14:1 says, “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.” Which means, on the flip side, that on indisputable matters one should not accept without passing judgement. So… Paul got it right, but you didn’t.

As for a list of things for which variation is acceptable (and what else may or may not be on that list), consider this: 1 Cor 11:18-19 reads as follows: “*In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.” *

So, there were divisions among the Corinthian congregation. And, these divisions were such that they helped to reveal who had God’s approval. Which means, on the flip side, that there were those among the Corinthian congregation who did not have God’s approval.

Who gets to decide what variations are acceptable? Who gets to decide what is an essential and what is a non-essential doctrine? And, since doctrines come from the Word of God, which part of the Word of God does one actually dare to call “non-essential?” 1 Cor 11:18-19 shows that divisions among Christians - the Corinthians being written to by Paul were all members of the Church…they were all Christians - cannot simply be ignored by using a contrived theological system which divides doctrines into essential vs. non-essential. Differences among Christians are serious matters that lead to some being approved by God and some not being approved by God. In fact, we see also from 1 Cor 11:18-19, that there were Corinthians who had faith, but they obviously believed and did things that caused division in the congregation, and that these beliefs and/or actions resulted in some of them not receiving God’s approval.

Can those who do not have God’s approval be saved? Yes or no? If yes, then you are basically saying that God’s approval or disapproval doesn’t really mean a thing. I mean, if you can be saved whether God approves of you or not, then why worry about His approval? If no, then you are admitting that doctrinal differences, differences that lead to divisions within Christian congregations, can get someone sent to Hell. Which means that differences in the beliefs of the various Christian faith traditions cannot simply be glossed over because they can, and do, have very serious eternal consequences.

Hey Erich, I just caught the following; gave me a chuckle: Protons have mass? I didn’t even know they were Catholic! LOL…

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;8476165]
Who is Father Martin?

You’re kidding, right Joe? A former Lutheran?

Communions such as the eastern orthodox churches? Well, the east west schism no doubt didn’t help matters. Perhaps either the EOC or the CC stepped outside the bounds of that unbroken apostolic succession where sacred tradition was being safeguarded, (just as sacred scripture was safeguarded until the printing press) - and started to drift away from what was being passed down via that unbroken line? One of these churches is guilty of disturbing that apostolic continuity that went back to the apostolic age.

Therein is the problem for me. Which one? I know it isn’t a problem for you.

Even within the CC we see individual leaders, regardless of the century, at times, disagreeing with one another regarding various doctrinal matters, as you know, but what differentiates the CC from Protestant churches, (to me anyway) - is the fact these individual church theologians, ECFs etc. (for example Jerome regarding the 7 OT deuteros or Thomas Aquinas regarding Mary’s IC) - in the end, always deferred to the authority of the CC teaching office (the united body of leaders with the pope as their head) - to definitively settle the matter for all, with sacred scripture and sacred tradition as the bases for any and all authoritative decisions, making it binding on the entire church universal, including said theologians and various church fathers/leaders.

This way of dealing with doctrinal discrepancies is foreign to the protestant mindset.

Well, honestly, I think you are right that this way of dealing with it is at least outside the practice of most protestants. That’s not to say that some have a process within the Church to solve these kinds of problems, with greater or lesser success.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;8476797]

Hi, Jon…well, I will leave that to the historians…or the Pope’s committee studying the matter with the Orthodox.
I think that’s a good position. One I share.

I have been pondering about this…and I would like your 2cents…and anyone else who wants to chime in…

With development or growth of the understanding of the papacy through the years…could this be comparable to the mustard seed parable…that as the world grew and matured, this growth in the understanding of the papacy was an outgrowth…or required development…of the times?

I see what you are saying. The question is did the mustard seed become a turnip? Lousy analogy, I know. When does development turn into a change in doctrine?
OTOH, perhaps development of doctrine is what moves east and west, and maybe others like me, into a new understanding of the leadership role of the papacy. Could be.

Would Christendom before the Schism…been better served with this growth or not?

It seems things were not bad in the first 700 or 800 years.

And post Schism…has Christendom been better served with this growth or not?

My thoughts are that, up through Vatican I, it hurt the possibility of reconciliation - declaration of infallibility (ex cathedra) and all. But then, my view is biased by my communion membership, I would admit. .

And let us take it to our times…is Christendom better served today, with papal supremacy or not? Or would it be better served with papal supremacy or not? by going back to the pre-schism understanding?

Since Vatican II, a glimmer of hope has emerged

Or is this part of God’s plan for us?

He may not have planned it, but He will certainly use it to His glory.

God bless…hope your nephew is doing better…

Thank you so much. He has had 2 better days in a row, responding to commands, etc.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon, in your opinion, are these the only possible scenarios, regarding Christian authority:

1. Scripture alone as the Christians sole source of doctrinal truth, via private interpretation.
2. Scripture alone as the Christians sole source of doctrinal truth + the teaching office of the church, regardless of denomination, as the rightful custodian, discerner and interpreter of scripture.
3. Scripture + tradition as the Christians sole source of doctrinal truth + the teaching office of the church, regardless of denomination, as the rightful custodian, discerner and interpreter of both scripture and tradition.

Somewhere between 2 and 3. IOW, 2, but with an important role for Tradition.
1, to me, is completely untenable.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

That’s a really good point. And regarding the apostolic era, and in the early years thereafter, I would agree. Wouldn’t you agree, however, that as time approached 1054, the opinions of what was the actual oral teaching of the apostolic era began to become somewhat divided?

Jon

EDIT: Just to add as an afterthought, this really is a good point you make, so much so that I think it necessary, even from a sola scripturist POV, to not dismiss Tradition too hastily.

Blessings Jon and peace to you. The comparison is very similar to Native Americans or the Mayan or Aztec cultures were everything was passed on orally for generations. As for oral teaching from apotolic era being divided? May you please give an example?

Exactly! One cannot dismiss Tradition because to dimiss it is to state that nothing (teaching,beliefs,etc) was never taught orally by the Jews prior to the Torah.

 

[JonNC]

And His peace also with you, my friend.

=Nicea325;8479276]Blessings Jon and peace to you. The comparison is very similar to Native Americans or the Mayan or Aztec cultures were everything was passed on orally for generations. As for oral teaching from apotolic era being divided? May you please give an example?

May I answer in the form of a question? Do Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy agree on all oral Tradition? If they do not, there then is my example.

Exactly! One cannot dismiss Tradition because to dimiss it is to state that nothing (teaching,beliefs,etc) was never taught orally by the Jews prior to the Torah.

And this is why the Lutheran reformers kept the creeds and early councils.

Jon

 

[boastinjesus]

Please compare the canon of Scripture (which came down to us from Tradition and proclaimed in Councils) with the Bible. Where does the Bible teach what the canon of Scripture is?

You said:

Where can I find the canon of Scripture in the Bible?

Also, where can I find Christ having two wills in the Bible?

And are you aware that your approach to the councils are 1500 years removed from historical Christianity?

You say the councils err, can you provide a scripture passage that says this? Did Acts 15 council err? How do you know which ones err or not? IF you say “I check my Bible…” Well then what does your Bible say about the canon of Scripture or the two wills of Christ?

The whole argument fails because it presupposes that councils can err. When you claim such a thing, you are saying that you are the final authority. You are the one who determines what the truth is and what the truth isn’t. You can claim that your system is based on what the Bible says but that brings us back to the first issue: Protestants don’t even agree with each other on doctrinal matters. So now you have a system that has failed greatly. If I were to convert to Protestantism right now, which denomination should I join? We have anything from Fundamentalists to Anglicans. Which one should I join? Which one is the most biblical?

The issue isn’t about if councils are “useful” or not. The issue is if councils are authoritative. If you don’t believe they are then why do you have 27 books in your New Testament Bible? Why is 2nd and 3rd John in your Bible? Why is Hebrews in your Bible?

About the canon of Scripture: If no one could know which books of the Bible were inspired by God without the authority of the council, why did they wait hundreds of years to make this declaration at a council? Did no one have any clue prior to that official declaration? I know of someone who asks frequently how a Jew living shortly before the time of Christ would have known that Isaiah was God given? Jesus tells the Sadducees that they are wrong because they don’t know the Scriptures (Matt. 22:29): 1. He doesn’t tell them that they’re wrong because they are following the wrong tradition, but seems to hold them accountable to the Bible, and 2. It was known which books are “Scriptures” prior to the council that canonized them (Jamnia, 70AD).

About differing doctrines among Protestants: It’s clear from this forum that Catholic’s likewise have many differing opinions on doctrinal beliefs. I was at a Catholic funeral and the priest taught that the Gospel of John was not written by the apostle John (and he mocked those who do believe that). Is this uniformly Catholic teaching or is there also some diversity of belief within the CC? Don’t the infallible teachings of the councils have to be read and interpreted? If I decided to become Catholic, which Catholic church should I attend? The teachings are not the same in all of them.

Lastly, you say that if I reject the councils I’m making myself the final authority. The final authority is the Bible. My attestation of something has absolutely no impact on absolute truth. If I say anything doctrinally valid it is only because I am accurately undestanding and repeating the Bibles teaching. Stating that I am making myself out to be the final authority because I believe sola scriptura is like me saying that because you choose to submit to the councils, you’re making yourself out to be the final authority. If I ask you “On what do you base your belief that councils cannot err?” and you have a reason, then you must be making yourself out to be the final authority. I would say that your whole argument fails because you pressupose that councils cannot err. (Did Vatican II really teach that the Muslim god and the Christian God are the same?)

 

[Nicea325]

And His peace also with you, my friend.

May I answer in the form of a question? Do Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy agree on all oral Tradition? If they do not, there then is my example.

And this is why the Lutheran reformers kept the creeds and early councils.

Jon

Unfortunately Jon Catholics and Orthodox disagree over issues such as the papacy and the OT canon. And as a RCC I do not blame one side or the other,but both.

 

[Nicea325]

boastinjesus:

About the canon of Scripture: If no one could know which books of the Bible were inspired by God without the authority of the council, why did they wait hundreds of years to make this declaration at a council? Did no one have any clue prior to that official declaration?

Then why did the early church also wait 325 years to define and ratify the doctrine of the Trinity?

I know of someone who asks frequently how a Jew living shortly before the time of Christ would have known that Isaiah was God given? Jesus tells the Sadducees that they are wrong because they don’t know the Scriptures (Matt. 22:29): 1. He doesn’t tell them that they’re wrong because they are following the wrong tradition, but seems to hold them accountable to the Bible, and 2. It was known which books are “Scriptures” prior to the council that canonized them (Jamnia, 70AD).

No. Jesus teaches we are accountable to God,not the Bible. Second, the council of Jamnia was not even an official council and canonization was not even the priority.Third,if the Jews already knew which books were “scripture” then by whose authority was the Jewish canon fixed?

About differing doctrines among Protestants: It’s clear from this forum that Catholic’s likewise have many differing opinions on doctrinal beliefs.

Opinions have no bearing on doctrinal Truth.

I was at a Catholic funeral and the priest taught that the Gospel of John was not written by the apostle John (and he mocked those who do believe that). Is this uniformly Catholic teaching or is there also some diversity of belief within the CC? Don’t the infallible teachings of the councils have to be read and interpreted? If I decided to become Catholic, which Catholic church should I attend? The teachings are not the same in all of them.

Well it depends on what perspective one wants to approach the authorship of John. From a faithful position,yes John wrote it. From a historical perspective,there is not empirical-historical sources proving John did in fact write it. As for the teachings? Actually the teachings are the same and the fact someone may not be teaching something correct does not mean the entire church is false.

Lastly, you say that if I reject the councils I’m making myself the final authority. The final authority is the Bible.

Chapter and verse where Jesus states the Bible is the final authority?

My attestation of something has absolutely no impact on absolute truth. If I say anything doctrinally valid it is only because I am accurately undestanding and repeating the Bibles teaching. Stating that I am making myself out to be the final authority because I believe sola scriptura is like me saying that because you choose to submit to the councils, you’re making yourself out to be the final authority. If I ask you “On what do you base your belief that councils cannot err?” and you have a reason, then you must be making yourself out to be the final authority. I would say that your whole argument fails because you pressupose that councils cannot err. (Did Vatican II really teach that the Muslim god and the Christian God are the same?)

Well if you are claiming the councils can err,then with what certitude do you know the very Bible you read has the correct books? What about the Trinity? Incarnation?

 

[joe370]

You’re kidding, right Joe? A former Luther

an?

Oh, you were referring to Father Martin Luther…OK.

Therein is the problem for me. Which one? I know it isn’t a problem for you.

 

[joe370]

Hey boastinjesus, you said:

If no one could know which books of the Bible were inspired by God without the authority of the council, why did they wait hundreds of years to make this declaration at a council?

Good question. No doubt because the question as to which books were authentic and which books were not, had finally reached a feverish pitch, necessitating the need for the CC to settle the matter regrading the correct inclusion of books in the canon and vice versa.

As per protestant scholarship, clearly everyone did not have an understanding as to which books were inspired and which books were not?

If everyone from the 1st century to the 4th century knew, without doubt, which books of the Bible were inspired by God and which books were not then why the need for the various declarations via Synod?

Clearly division ensued regarding which books were authentic apostolic writings and which books were not. History confirms this as fact, but if you do not believe it for whatever reason, that’s cool. To each his own…

 

[joe370]

boastinjesus:

I was at a Catholic funeral and the priest taught that the Gospel of John was not written by the apostle John (and he mocked…) Is this uniformly Catholic teaching or is there also some diversity of belief within the CC? Don’t the infallible teachings of the councils have to be read and interpreted? If I decided to become Catholic, which Catholic church should I attend? The teachings are not the same in all of them.

So the priest, actually took time during a funeral Mass to mock those to whom he was speaking? Hmm…kind of hard to believe…but if you say so…

There is no official teaching as to who wrote the gospel of John. The unofficial consensus is that John wrote John. No it’s not an example of diversity of belief within the CC because it is merely his opinion of an unofficial belief. You are free to disagree or agree with him.

Just curious: why do you believe (if you do) - that the authors of the 4 gospels and Hebrews, are, respectively, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul?