Sorry Catholics – Jesus Never Said, “You are Peter, and on this rock…” or promised him the keys

Sorry, Catholics — Jesus never said, “You are Peterand on this rock . . .” 

or promised him the Keys 

 

Jerome D. Gilmartin — Revised April 12, 2024   

 

Well, yes he did. But not according to the theory taught to most Catholic seminarians as the best explanation of Gospel origin. Consider the following hypothetical conversation with a Catholic bishop: 

 

“Your excellency, If I may ask, who wrote the first Gospel?” Most will answer, “Mark.”  

 

“Well, if that’s true — with Matthew using Mark as a source as the USCCB claims and as widely taught for decades in Catholic seminaries — I guess there’s no reason for either of us to remain Catholic.”  

  

The response will be something like, “What are you talking about!”  

 

“Soon after Vatican II most Catholic seminaries and Catholic universities in the U.S. began teaching the Reformation-rooted Markan Priority Two Source theory as the best explanation of Gospel origin. Published by Protestant theologian Gottlob Christian Storr in 1786, it has been taught as such to virtually every Catholic priest and bishop in active ministry today. 

 

“Yes, Jerome, I was taught that theory in seminary. It lends itself well to the Ecumenism called for in the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism. What’s wrong with it?” 

 

“Well, would you say that the vows you’ve taken as priest and bishop are consistent with the following statement on the website of the USCCB, in accord with the Markan Priority Two Source theory?   

 

Matthew: 

  • “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 . . .” https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/0,  (Caps added).  

 

“No, my vows are not at all consistent with denying that apostle Mattheq wrote that Gospel.” 

 

“What about this statement?  

 

Mark: 

 

“No, it is well established that Mark wrote what Peter preached.” 

 

“And this one?:”  

 

John: 

  • “Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this.” https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/0.

     

“It is true that most Historical Critical scholars claim to doubt that apostle John wrote the Gospel attributed to him. If I’m not mistaken, however, there is compelling evidence from the Early Church Fathers that apostle John did write that Gospel.
 

Yes. St. Irenaeus — taught by St. Polycarp who was taught by apostle John — makes it quite clear that apostle Mathew wrote first, followed by Mark, Luke and apostle John:
 

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. Luke also, the companion of Paul recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm. (Eusebius of Caesarea, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1, from the New Advent website)

  

In his book, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, Fr. William A. Jurgens lists 8 references by Early Church writers to apostle Matthew as writer of that Gospel — with none even remotely suggesting it was written by a later pseudo-Matthew who probably never saw or heard Jesus. In that book Fr. Jurgens lists a total of 36 such ECF citations of the Evangelists, including 10 for Mark, 9 for Luke, and 9 for John. (Doctrinal Index, p. 414). 

 

“Yes, Jerome, and who but John the apostle-eyewitness would have written,This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.’” (Jn 21:24).

 

“And, Bishop, let’s point out that giving “priority” to Mark’s Gospel, as this theory does, means:  

 

  • giving priority to Mk 8:27-30, in which Jesus DID NOT say “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” (singular) or promise him the Keys,  

 

  • suppressing Mt 16:15-20 in which Jesus DID SAY “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” and promise him the Keys,  

 

Therefore the Markan Priority Two Source theory of Gospel origin negates the authority of Peter and every Pope of history. Catholic doctrine becomes no more authoritative than the writings of Luther or those promoted by the leaders of the myriad of Christian faith traditions with whom we now dialogue as doctrinal equals.”  

 

“Do you agree, Bishop, that this Two Source theory of Gospel origin, widely promoted in Catholic seminaries since Vatican II, may well have been instrumental in the post-Vatican II plummeting of Catholic faith and practice?” 

 

“It would be difficult to disagree. But, as you know, this Two Source theory is upheld by the USCCB and has long been promoted in most if not all Catholic seminaries and universities in the United States and many other places. Are you suggesting there are compelling reasons to reject this theory? Yes. Here is a list of six: 

 

  1. Irenaeus affirms that apostle Matthew was the first to write a Gospel.

     

  2. Matthew was there at Caesarea Philippi; he heard what Jesus said to Peter. Mark, not an apostle, was not there.

     

  3. Mark wrote what had been preached by Peter.” In Rome, with agents of Nero surely listening, would Peter, though he had in fact been given primacy by Jesus, have been so foolish as to invite his listeners to a “kingdom” to which he had been given the Keys? Certainly not. He could have preached most effectively without those comments. Therefore their absence in Mark would be expected.

     

  4. None of the Early Church Fathers, and to my knowledge not even Luther, suggested an unknown pseudo-Matthew as writer of that Gospel as does the Markan Priority Two-Source theory of Gospel origin in its present form; a theory that reduces the Gospel according to Matthew to indefensible hearsay as noted below.

     

  5. John was among the apostles at Caesarea Philippi. He also would have heard what Jesus said to Peter. Thanks to Eusebius we have the attestation of St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) that John did, in fact, approve the other Gospels before writing his own:

    (5.) Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: 

     

    (6.) The Gospels containing the genealogies, [Matthew and Luke] he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. 

     

    (7.) When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.  
    This is the account of Clement. 

    https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm 

     

  6.  The Gospels containing the genealogies, The Gospels containing the genealogies, [Matthew and Luke] he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.

     

When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.  

 

This is the account of Clement. (Church Fathers: Church History, Book VI, Chapter 14, 5-7  (Eusebius)https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm

 

  1. If Jesus had not given primacy to Peter and that passage in Matthew was a lie, John would have publicly condemned The Gospel according to Matthew to the dust bin of history, saying something like, “How dare the writer of that Gospel claim that Christ subjected all apostles to the authority of Peter when Christ did not do so!” That Gospel would never have received the approval of the Council of Rome in 382 as it did.     

  

The Markan Priority Two Source theory facilitates ecumenism by negating Petrine primacy — thereby making the 2,000-year body of Catholic Doctrine no more authoritative than that of any of the thousands of later Christian Faith traditions. But the Markan Priority Two Source theory is a house of cards; Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars admit that after a 200+ year search by countless scholars, the second ‘Source’ has never been found.  

 

Jesus said, “Go, make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you . . .” The Catholic Church does this, including, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (Jn 6:53) At the Last Supper, “Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’” (Mt 26:26-28).    

 

Let’s remember that apostle Matthew was among the twelve when Jesus said what apostle John quoted about the necessity of eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood. Imagine the great relief of Matthew, John and all the apostles upon hearing that they were to fulfill that obligation by consecrating the bread and wine and partaking of them as Jesus did.  

 

Taken together, however these quotations from the Gospels of Matthew and John, quotations wrongly suppressed by this Two Source theory, are a formidable obstacle to ecumenical dialogue with those of other Christian faith traditions who somehow reject this consecration outright as merely symbolic.      

 

Reducing the Gospel according to Matthew to anonymously written hearsay and casting doubt on the authenticity of the Gospel according the John as Markan Priority does, it removes a great obstacle to ecumenical dialogue. Luke affirms Christ’s transubstantiation of the bread and wine in words similar to those of Matthew (Lk 22:18-20). With Matthew dismissed as mere hearsay, doubt can be cast on Luke as not an account of an eyewitness. 

 

Those using social media to dig deeper into the Markan Priority Two Source theory will find a great number of scholarly articles supporting that theory, including articles and books by Fr. Raymond E. Brown and other Catholic scholars. I would hope that job security is not an issue; however, one such professor at a Catholic university did tell me that if an otherwise excellent candidate for a position in its religious studies department did not favor the Markan Priority Two Source theory that candidate would not be hired. 

 

In comparison it may seem that the few articles defending Catholic orthodoxy and refuting the Markan Priority Two Source theory I’ve posted on 7stepcatholic.com and the scholarly works cited in them will be insignificant. But, like Goliath brought down by a single stone, this Two Source theory is brought down by a single fact: The second “Source,” an early collection of “Sayings of Jesus” sought for more than 200 years by countless biblical scholars, HAS NEVER BEEN FOUND, as earlier noted.   

 

Biblical scholar David Laird Duggan, after an extensive exposition of scholarly criticism of Markan Priority, wrote:  

 

“One might think that in the wake of this kind of crippling criticism, proponents of Markan priority would finally admit that it is an untenable hypothesis. Not at all. It continues to be used far and wide as if nothing had happened, resembling the headless horseman who rides across the countryside every Halloween in the light of the full moon.” (A History of the Synoptic Problem, 1999, 389). 

 

 

 Given the continuing overwhelming dominance of the Markan Priority Two Source theory in our seminaries and in Catholic higher education, the now-evident collapse of that theory notwithstanding, there is growing concern that  powerful schismatic voices may soon call Catholics — most not well formed in the faith — to leave the one Church Christ founded and promised to be with always. May this and other articles posted at 7stepcatholic.com serve as an appeal to each Catholic bishop to strengthen the faith of the clergy and religious in his diocese by bringing this collapse of credibility to their attention. In all cases may this Two Source theory be replaced with instruction that takes into account the faith-affirming statement of Irenaeus, quoted and linked above, that apostle Matthew did write the first Gospel and that all four Gospels are authentic. This is further affirmed by St. Augustine, The Council of Rome in 382, Jerome in the Vulgate and The Council of Trent in 1546; the teaching that resulted in the pre-Vatican II Golden Age of Catholicism.  

 

May this article also serve as an appeal to the leadership of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities and order-based centers of priestly formation to make this correction known not only in graduate courses where this Two Source theory is typically promoted but also in the religious studies courses typically taken by incoming students.  

 

If schism is somehow avoided, faithful Catholics will breathe a collective sigh of relief. But should we? Schism avoided, would Catholic faith and practice in general (TLM parishes excepted) not be likely to continue to plummet as it has been doing since Vatican II?  

 

Schism or not, it is vitally important that, in wherever dioceses faith has been undermined by promotion of the Markan Priority Two Source theory, our episcopal leadership must immediately take the steps necessary to not be vulnerable to accusations such as the following that, widely promoted on social media by schism promoters, could jeopardize the salvation of many poorly catechized Catholics by drawing them away from Christ’s true Church to a new Synodal “church”: 

 

  1. “Have you, Cardinals and bishops who oppose schism, not subjected most if not all your own seminarians to this Gospel-doubting Markan Priority theory as the best explanation of Gospel origin?”

     

  2. “Subjecting your seminarians to this Gospel-discrediting Two Source theory as you do, how can you credibly object to a Schismatic Synodal Church, which holds a similar view of the Gospels?”

     

  3. “You attend the semiannual meetings of the USCCB. Have you ever asked that USCCB support of this Markan Priority theory be placed on the agenda for a vote, with your call that it be eliminated? If not, how can you now claim to defend Gospel authenticity, in particular ‘You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church . . . and I will give you the Keys . . .’ (Mt 16:18-19), words Tradition attributes to Jesus but which this Two Source theory you promote calls into question by stating that it is “untenable” that Matthew the apostle wrote that Gospel?”    

 

With the Synod on Synodality scheduled to conclude in October of this year, 2024, my prayerful hope is that faithful cardinals and bishops will soon resolve these matters and, in the spirit of St. Athanasius, save the one, true, apostolic Church; the Catholic Church Christ founded and “promised to be with always, to the end of the age.”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *