Will schism be the Coup de Gras to plummeting Catholic faith and practice? An urgent appeal to our bishops

Will Schism be theCoup de Grâce to plummeting Catholic faith and practice? An urgent appeal to our bishops

 

By Jerome D. Gilmartin

Published February 26, 2024, Updated May 12, 2024

 

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!” 

 

Does that plea, so courageously expressed by Patrick Henry in 1775, have a corollary in the Church today? 

 

Is ecumenism so dear, or dialogue so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of the Gospels as given to us by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

 

As Schism threatens to rend the one Church Christ founded, let faithful Catholics everywhere answer, “Forbid it, dear bishops, successors of Christ’s apostles, forbid it!” *

 

For almost two millennia following Pentecost — despite heresies great and small — the Church strove, at times mightily to evangelize; to, “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).  

 

Teaching all Jesus commanded included the “hard sayings” of the Gospels, which prompted the fire and brimstone chiding of many who resisted those dire warnings by Christ about the reality of Hell and its “eternal fire.” (Mt 18:8). 

 

Hard those sayings may be. But most are conditions for our eternal salvation and the Gospels in which they are found were unequivocally affirmed as authentic by such Early Church Fathers as St. Irenaeus, who wrote: 

 

“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, 1, 1, from the New Advent website). 

 

In his book, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, Fr. William A. Jurgens lists 14 references by Early Church writers to Matthew as writer of that Gospel. Fr. Jurgens lists a total of 51 such ECF citations regarding the Evangelists, including 14 for Mark, 13 for Luke and 10 for John. (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. 

 

The many heresies that have challenged the Church since its earliest days are well documented. More recent responses to heresy would include the Syllabus of Errors. Promulgated by Pope Pius IX in 1864, it opposed numerous previously censured errors such as rationalism, communism, freemasonry and religious liberalism, including, it might be said, the heretical elements in each.   

 

By 1910, soon after the excommunication of Catholic priests Fr. Alfred Loisy and Fr. George Tyrrell for heresy (in 1907 and 1908, respectively) Pope Pius X found it necessary to institute The Oath Against Modernism, https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm, to be taken by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.  

 

No doubt some took the oath with something less than enthusiasm. But it is credited with having been a driving force behind what has been called the Golden Age of Catholicism, when Confessional lines were long, Masses well-attended and the Baltimore Catechism in the U.S. and Penny Catechism in England and Wales ensured that young Catholics knew their faith well. 

 

That Golden Age began to lose its luster after 17 July, 1967, however; soon after the close of The Second Vatican Council (1965) when the Oath Against Modernism was formally rescinded by Pope Paul VI.  

Rightly or wrongly, cultural issues aside, many now place much of the blame for that marked five-decade decline in Catholic faith and practice on the Mass of Paul VI; the Novus Ordo which in 1969 replaced the Traditional Latin Mass as the normative form of the Latin Rite.  In “The Ottaviani Intervention,” an attempt to prevent its approval by Pope Paul VI, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote:  

 

“He [the priest] now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister” and it “teems with insinuations or manifests errors against the integrity of the Catholic faith [and is] an incalculable error.” http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm

 

Soon after the New Mass was introduced, as Communion rails and statues of Saints were removed, as priests began saying Mass facing the people, and as the altar of Christ’s sacrifice became a table at which all are welcome, state of Grace apparently optional, something insidious was introduced into Catholic seminary instruction — something arguably more responsible than the Novus Ordo may have been for the plummeting of Catholic faith and practice that followed.  

 

From the earliest days of the Church, Catholic apologists could point with confidence to Mt 16:18 as their bedrock defense of Catholicism — Jesus instituting Petrine primacy uniquely in the apostolic “Church” (singular) he was founding. This defense is found, for example, in “The Great Heresies,” an informative article by Catholic Answers: 

 

“Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church, for he told Peter, ‘You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.’” (Matt. 16:18).  

 

But, unknown to most Catholics, by 1983 when the article was published the Reformation-rooted Markan Priority Two Source theory of Gospel origin, like a jackhammer had for a decade in Catholic seminaries been reducing that bedrock Matt. 16:18 defense of Catholic Doctrine to rubble — and with it the entire Gospel according to Matthew, including Matt. 16:19 in which Jesus promises to give Peter the Keys. That destruction continues to this day. 

 

Simply stated, turning a blind eye toward early Church evidence of Gospel authenticity, Matthew writing first, this theory presumes that The Gospel according to Mark was written first and that the writer of the Gospel according to Matthew used Mark as a source. With priority thus given to Mark 8:27-30 — which is silent in regard to Petrine primacy (for good reason, as noted below), over Matthew 16:15-20, in which Jesus does institute Petrine primacy — poof!, no more Petrine primacy and the Catholic Church becomes just another of the tens of thousands of faith traditions carrying the Christian banner. 

 

Much has been made of Mark’s silence regarding Petrine primacy in 8:27-30. But, as Irenaeus affirmed in Against Heresies, Mark wrote “what had been preached by Peter.” In Rome, with agents of Nero surely listening for any hint of sedition, 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 easily have preached most effectively without those words of Jesus. Therefore their absence in Mark would be expected. They are missing from Lk 9:18-21 as well, which would be expected since most scholars hold that mark’s gospel was a primary source for Luke.

   

Any attempt an apologist may make to defend Catholic Doctrine by quoting Jesus in the Gospel according to Matthew may now be challenged by a non-Catholic who points to the following on the USCCB website: 

 

“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 apologist won’t do well either by quoting Peter from The Gospel according to Mark

 

“Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated.” https://bible.usccb.org/bible/mark/0

 

Or by quoting from what was thought to be an eyewitness report by apostle 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. 

 

A Catholic priest or bishop, after reading a passage from the Gospel according to Matthew at Mass, would be ill-advised, as he begins his homily, to say to the congregation,  

 

“Tradition tells us that the apostle Matthew wrote this Gospel. In seminary, however, I was taught that apostle Matthew probably did not write it. We don’t know who did.”  

 

But, through many of the homilies such instruction has influenced, can there be any doubt that this theory has been instrumental in bringing about our five-decade free fall in Catholic faith and practice? 

 

Though long a mainstay of exegesis among mainstream Protestant, non-Evangelical biblical scholars and widely promoted since the 1970s in Catholic seminaries and universities, the Markan Priority Two Source theory is an ahistorical, indefensible house of cards. It is refuted in this and several other articles at https://7stepcatholic.com.

 

It can be compared to a package of epoxy glue without the second tube. Why? Because the second “Source” of this theory, a presumed collection of “Sayings of Jesus” called “Q,” without which, proponents acknowledge, the theory collapses — after more than 200 years of searching by countless biblical exegetes has never been found. As Catholic scholar Brant Pitre wrote:

 

“One huge problem with the Two-Source Theory is that it relies on “Q,” which exists only in the imagination of the scholars who believe in it. No manuscript of “Q” is ever made in the writings of the church fathers.” (The Case for Jesus, © 2016, 97).

 

If tomorrow “Q” were miraculously found, a number of Q proponents might not join in the celebration. Biblical exegetes do not all agree on exactly what sayings of Jesus Q must include. Though Q1 had apparently been found, proponents of Q2, Q3, etc., might well stand aside, saying, “Continue the search!” 

 

In any case, with the grave faith-undermining potential of this Markan Priority theory perhaps not well understood by most conciliar bishops, it was soon taught to most seminarians as the theory that best explains the origin of the Gospels. Among the first to feel its full, faith-crushing effects was a Catholic priest, a seminarian in the 1970s, as he relates in this excerpt from an email I received from him a few years ago:   

 

“Dear Jerome, 

I was taught the 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 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 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.“ (Italics added).  

 

Historical Criticism, to which this priest refers, can be described as a method of studying the text of Scripture in light of literary norms at the time it was probably written to determine more clearly what the original writers intended. Historical Critical scholars have developed more than a dozen theories / hypotheses of Gospel origin in this endeavor.

  

The Catholic Encyclopedia, published in 1907, faulted “Biblical Criticism,” better known today as the Historical Critical Method of biblical interpretation, because,  

 

“In reaching its results it sets more store on evidences internal to the books than on external traditions or attestations, and its undeniable effect is to depreciate tradition in a great measure . . .” 

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/  

 

Fr. Raymond E. Brown, from the 1970s until his death in 1998, was arguably the foremost Catholic champion of the Markan Priority Two Source theory of Gospel origin — an Historical Critical theory first promulgated by Protestant theologian Gottlob Christian Storr in 1786 — in Catholic seminaries and universities.  

 

Fr. Brown “depreciated tradition” severely according to that email from the priest taught by him as a seminarian. But, prolific author that he was, did Fr. Brown promote the Markan Priority Two Source theory in his books by prioritizing intertextual relationships among the Gospels and ignoring well-authenticated attestations of Gospel authenticity such as that of Irenaeus, quoted above?  

 

In his books and writings there is, in fact, evidence of such depreciating by Fr. Brown, i.e., of his casting doubt on, if not explicitly contradicting Catholic Doctrine: 

 

Peter in the New Testament, A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars, co-edited by Fr. Brown, was published by Augsburg Publishing House in 1973, about the time Fr. Brown was instructing the priest who sent the above email.  In it we find the apparent suggestion that the writer of Matthew falsified what he wrote about Jesus promising the Keys to Peter; that Jesus probably never said those words: 

 

“The fact remains, however, that only to Peter and to none other does Matthew have Jesus say,“ I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” (p. 107). 

 

In Biblical Exegesis & Church Doctrine, published by Paulist Press, 1985, Fr. Brown probably raised eyebrows even among his fellow Markan prioritists when he implied that Church Fathers could not answer questions about Church history, but two millennia later Fr. Brown could:

 

“The biblical opinions of Church Fathers or spiritual writers are extremely valuable to the development of overall Catholic thought; but unless those writers had historical information, they cannot answer historical questions.” (p. 20). 

 

In 101 Questions & Answers on the Bible, Paulist Press, © 1990, Fr. Brown doubted that apostle-eyewitnesses Matthew and John wrote those Gospels. They were probably written a generation later by what we would call a pseudo-Matthew and a pseudo-John:  

 

“A key to understanding Stage Three is that most likely none of the evangelists was himself an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus. All were what we may call second-generation Christians.” (p. 57).

 

From An Introduction to the New Testament. First published in 1997 by Doubleday, a division of Random House, Inc.: 

 

“By way of overall judgment on the “Matthew“ issue, it is best to accept the common position thatcanonical Matt was originally written in Greek by a noneyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q. Whether somewhere in the history of Matt’s sources something written in Semitic by Matthew, one of the Twelve, played a role we cannot know.“ (italics in the original text). (pp. 210- 211). 

 

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Smyrna, makes it quite clear that apostle Matthew wrote first as quoted above. With Matthew writing first there is no need for Q or a Q equivalent, as biblical exegetes Peabody, McNicol and Cope explain in their book, “One Gospel from Two: Mark’s use of Matthew and Luke,” © 2002. And, with apostle Matthew writing first there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of any of the Gospels. 

 

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). 

 

Fr. Brown must have written a compelling refutation of the claim of St. Irenaeus that Matthew, not Mark was the first of the four Evangelists to write a Gospel. And so I checked the Index — where a reference to any substantive refutation of that claim would be expected — in each of the four books of Fr. Brown I have that span his teaching career including his last, published in 1997, the year before his death. No mention of Irenaeus.  

 

In a footnote on p. 212 of his last book, An Introduction to the New Testament, Chapter 8, The Gospel according to Matthew, Fr. Brown did cite Against Heresies, 3, 1, 1., the relevant passage of which states:

  

“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.”  

 

Fr. Brown deserves credit for citing AH 3 .1 .1., the most formidable Early Church challenge to the credibility of the Markan Priority Two Source theory. Here was his opportunity to try to defend that theory and the ecumenism to which Markan Priority is foundational. But Fr. Brown did not quote the above statement of Irenaeus, which bursts the Markan Priority bubble, nor make any attempt to refute it. Instead, Fr. Brown simply wrote:  

 

“Irenaeus, AH 3. 1. 1., locates Matt ‘among the Hebrews in their own language,’”

  

Bishop Irenaeus was taught by Bishop Polycarp, who was taught by apostle John, taught by Jesus. Bishop Polycarp chose martyrdom rather than revile Christ. Bishop Irenaeus succeeded a bishop who was martyred. He wrote what is quoted and linked above while his own life was at risk under Roman Emperor Commodus.

  

The never-found second Source aside; who, then, is more credible regarding the Gospels; Fr. Brown, who simply dismissed early Church testimony, cast doubt even on Christ’s Resurrection and wrote two thousand years later; or St. Irenaeus, who risked martyrdom by attesting to Gospel authenticity as he did and was so closely linked to Christ through St. Polycarp and John the apostle? 

 

Early on as I began to look into this matter I thought, “This Markan Priority theory may have gained dominance in the U.S. and other first world countries, as they’re called. I knew that the great majority of U.S. priests and bishops when asked, “Who wrote the first Gospel?” would answer, “Mark.” But I assumed this error had not reached seminaries in Africa. Then I met a priest from Ghana who accepted it and attempted to defend it.  

 

In hindsight it seems hard to believe that conciliar bishops did not foresee that an abrupt shift to ecumenical dialogue — which by its very nature suppresses the forthright evangelization ordered by Christ in Mt 28:19-20 — would not end well in regard to the salvation of the many souls for whom each is responsible. But the Decree on Ecumenism includes the following:  

 

“Sacred theology and other branches of knowledge, especially those of a historical nature, must be taught with regard for the ecumenical point of view, so that they may correspond as exactly as possible with the facts. 

 

“It is important that future pastors and priests should have mastered a theology that has been carefully elaborated in this way and not polemically, especially in what concerns the relations of separated brethren with the Catholic Church. For it is upon the formation which priests receive that so largely depends the necessary instruction and spiritual formation of the faithful and of religious.” (Decree on Ecumenism, II, 10). (Italics added). 

 

Did conciliar bishops feel that only way they could comply with this Decree, ensuring no “polemics,” was by giving dominance to this Markan Priority theory in seminary instruction; at odds though that decision was with the evangelization Jesus ordered in Mt 28:19-20?      

Whatever the motivation for this Markan Priority theory first being promoted in our seminaries, the many compelling arguments since made against it and, in particular, 200+ years of failure to find the essential second “Source,” has removed any rationale bishops of today may have had for continuing this instruction. 

 

As the title of this article states, this is an urgent appeal to our bishops. It is an appeal as well 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. 

 

The appeal is urgent because, if the Synodal process were to end today rather than in June, 2025 as apparently planned, our faithful bishops would be in a very unfavorable position to oppose a Synodal “church.” 

Why? Because those promoting a Synodal church might well confront them with these questions: 

 

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

 

● Subjecting your seminarians to this Gospel-discrediting Two Source theory as you do, how can you credibly object to a Synodal Church, which holds a similar view of Gospel authenticity?

 

● 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)? 

 

Tradition attributes these words to Jesus but this Two Source theory you promote calls them into question by stating that it is “untenable” that Matthew the apostle wrote that Gospel.”

   

My prayerful hope is that faithful cardinals and bishops will soon resolve this matter and, in the spirit of St. Athanasius, save the one, true, Petrine, apostolic Church; the Catholic Church Christ founded and “promised to be with always, to the end of the age.”

 

* Note: Under the Canonical definition of schism, it would be those who refuse to become submissive to the Pope as head of a Synodal church who would be in schism; not those who submit to the Pope in a Synodal church:

  

“. . . schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (Canon 751; CCC 2089).

Leave a comment

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