The Synodal church — Inaugurated by Pope Francis October 26, 2024
Jerome D. Gilmartin – April 15th, 2025
Soon after Pentecost the apostles began to follow the command of Jesus: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.“ (Mt 28:19-20). Two of those apostles, Matthew and John, would soon write eyewitness reports of all Jesus had commanded them, and Mark and Luke would write their Gospels as well. The authenticity of the four gospels would be underscored in later years by Early Church figures such as St. Irenaeus, https://newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm and others.
St. Irenaeus in his youth was taught by St. Polycarp, who became a martyr rather than deny what he, St. Polycarp, had been taught by John, apostle of Christ. St. Irenaeus, (a bishop as was St. Polycarp), took the place of a bishop who was martyred and wrote what is linked above while his own life was at risk under Roman Emperor Commodus. Further affirming Gospel authenticity are citations by early Church figures such as Papias, Origen, Tertullian and Clement: Matthew, 7 citations; Mark, 10; Luke, 9; John, 9. (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, by Fr. William A. Jurgens, Doctrinal Index, p. 414). In context, none of these references are such that these early Church writers could have been referring to a pseudo-Matthew, pseudo-Mark, pseudo-Luke or pseudo-John.
But the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism states: “10. Sacred theology and other branches of knowledge, especially of a historical nature, must be taught with due regard for the ecumenical point of view, so that they may correspond more exactly with the facts. It is most important that future shepherds and priests should have mastered a theology that has been carefully worked out in this way, and not polemically, especially with regard to those aspects which concern the relations of separated brethren with the Catholic Church.”
Apparently there was a belief among influential Council Fathers that Gospel origin as authenticated by early Church writers — as noted above and that had driven evangelization magnificently until Vatican II — did not quite correspond with the facts of Gospel origin. Petrine Primacy, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (singular), (Mt 16:18); long rejected by mainstream separated brethren, was a major deterrent to ecumenism; one that carried the risk of polemics.
Protestant exegetes had long favored the “Markan Priority Two Source theory” of Gospel origin, first proposed by Protestant theologian Gottlob Christian Storr in 1796. In its current form it posits that Mark wrote first and an unknown “Matthew,” NOT the apostle, used Mark as a source. By supposing that Mark wrote first and that a pseudo-Matthew used two sources, Mark and “Q,” a collection of “Sayings of Jesus,” Mt 16:18 would become doubtful. This is because in Mark’s account of that gathering of the apostles near Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8:27-30) Jesus does not give Peter Primacy; he says nothing about it.
The Markan Priority Two Source theory is a house of cards, however — thousands of Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes have searched in vain for the second “source” for more than 200 years, all the while ignoring the irrefutable writings of early Church figures authenticating the four Gospels, as explained above and in articles at https://7stepcatholic.com. But why, we may ask, would Mark omit them from his Gospel if Jesus really said those words to Peter?
St. Irenaeus wrote, “After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm. (Eusebius of Caesarea, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 1, from the New Advent website). In Rome, with Nero’s agents surely listening, Peter would never have risked being apprehended for sedition by calling listeners to a “kingdom” to which he held the keys. The absence of those words of Jesus in Mark is no reason to doubt apostle Matthew’s eyewitness account.
Hard as it may be to understand why our Catholic bishops would subject their seminarians to this discrediting of the Gospels, the Markan Priority Two Source theory has been taught in most Catholic seminaries and universities since Vatican II as the best explanation of Gospel origin. Asked, “Which Gospel was written first?” most Catholic bishops and priests will answer, “Mark.”
The website of the USCCB reflects the Markan Priority Two Source theory as it has been taught to most Catholic seminarians since Vatican II:
The Gospel according to 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),
The Gospel according to Mark:
“Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated.” https://bible.usccb.org/bible/mark/0
The Gospel according to 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
For seminarians whose vocations to the priesthood developed before Vatican II, with belief firmly rooted in the authentic Gospels, instruction in the Markan Priority Two Source theory soon after Vatican II would have been jarring, to say the least. Here is an excerpt from an email I received from one such seminarian:
“Dear Jerome,
I was taught the [Markan Priority Two Source Hypothesis*] Historical-Critical Method in the seminary in the 1970’s . . . [by] Fr. Raymond Brown. [H]e saw toward the end of his life how this method could destroy the Catholic Faith in people rather than build it up. I saw seminarians lose their faith in my class when exposed to the unbridled use of this method. Many were converted by this method to heterodox teachings or beliefs. Others lost their faith and left the Seminary.
“The [Markan Priority TSH] HCM calls into question not only the infancy narratives but also the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Virgin Conception and birth, not to mention miracles of Christ and his physical death and Resurrection. It really opens old heresies already resolved by the Church”
* This hypothesis or theory, one of many historical-critical theories, was championed by Fr. R. E. Brown and is the subject of many of his books.
It has been said that some seminarians who maintained their belief in Gospel authenticity “kept their heads down” and were ordained. But doubt, induced by the Markan Priority Two Source theory, may well have played some part in the post-Vatican II reluctance of many of the ordained and consecrated to preach the Gospel in all its fullness.
Pope Benedict XVI described the effect that the historical critical view of the Gospels has had on faith in Jesus: “Intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is in danger of clutching at thin air.” (Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007, xii).
Severely blurred as the Gospels may be in seminary instruction in this sixth decade after the close of Vatican II, at least the Church hierarchy is in place with the authority to take the steps necessary to reestablish the strong rootedness in the Gospels it once knew — Or do they still have that authority?
Pope Francis inaugurated the “Synodal church” October 26, 2024 when he promulgated the 54-page, “For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, Mission — Final Document.” His accompanying note includes:
“In approving the Final Document on 26 October, I said that it ‘is not strictly normative’ and that ‘its application will need various mediations.’ THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT DOES NOT COMMIT THE CHURCHES FROM NOW ON TO MAKE CHOICES CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS STATED IN IT. The local Churches and groupings of Churches are now called upon to implement, in their different contexts, the authoritative proposals contained in the Document through the processes of discernment and decision-making provided for by law and by the Document itself.” (emphasis added).
Par. 85 of the Final Document calls for “adequate biblical exegesis . . . while avoiding fundamentalist interpretations” [Such as, “This is my Body . . .”?],
Paragraph 92 limits the authority of bishops and notes that this new synodality may require a change in Canon Law: “In a synodal Church, the [exercise of authority of] the Bishop . . . is not without limits: it may not ignore a direction which emerges through proper discernment within a consultative process, especially if this is done by participatory bodies . . . . It seems appropriate to carry out a revision of Canon Law from a synodal perspective . . .”
The Vatican Document, “The Bishop of Rome” suggests that Pope Francis may be planning to exercise not the Petrine Primacy given by Jesus, but a “synodal exercise of primacy”:
“A first general agreement is the mutual interdependency of primacy and synodality at each level of the Church, and the consequent requirement for a synodal exercise of primacy,” (From par. 171, underline added.)
With the storm clouds of Schism darkening, belief in the one Church founded by Christ continues more or less among the faithful, thanks largely to priests and bishops who remain faithful to their vows. But, with the “Synodal church” now officially inaugurated, and with Pope Francis having authorized a special Ecclesial Assembly for October, 2028 to evaluate how well Catholic communities worldwide have implemented the terms of the Synod on Synodality, what can be said of the future of the one Gospel-rooted Church Christ founded and promised to be with “always, to the end of the age?”
—————
Jerome D. Gilmartin
April 15, 2025
