The Gospels

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StColette' post='1857637' date='May 4 2009, 12:36 PM']I don't believe I said that someone's salvation depends upon it. Louisville merely asked what the BPC said in 1911 so I gave him what they said lol[/quote]
I was actually responding to CatherineM and agreeing with the points she brought up.

In the final analysis, God alone knows the true dates of composition of the four Gospels, just as He alone knows who wrote the letter to the Hebrews.

[VoTeckam]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1857630' date='May 4 2009, 03:32 PM']Nor does it need to be taught, because it is not a dogmatic truth. No one's salvation depends upon knowing which of the four Gospels was written first and which was written last.[/quote]


Knowing the order in which they were written does help provide a framework of how they are to be understood.

Edited May 4, 2009 by VoTeckam

[StColette]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1857640' date='May 4 2009, 02:38 PM']I was actually responding to CatherineM and agreeing with the points she brought up.

In the final analysis, God alone knows the true dates of composition of the four Gospels, just as He alone knows who wrote the letter to the Hebrews.

[/quote]

Sorry, I thought you were responding to me. Pregnancy hormones, forgive me

And I agree completely with the final analysis.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1857638' date='May 4 2009, 12:36 PM']This is true, but I think it's good to have a basic idea of the time frame if not the actual order they were written in. It really helps when explaining the faith to those who state "But the Gospels were written [i]so long[/i] after Jesus." This way we can say "Actually no. The first Gospel was written thirty years after Christ's Ascension." (Not sure if 'thirty years' is 100% accurate, someone can correct me there...I was just giving an example.)[/quote]
The most that can be said with any accuracy about the four Gospels is that they were all written in the latter half of the 1st century.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='VoTeckam' post='1857641' date='May 4 2009, 01:38 PM']Knowing the order in which they were written does help provide a framework of how they are to be understood.[/quote]

I don't see how. Each has a different flavor, a different intent, a different group being written to, under different circumstances. It's like having 4 children. Each has a different personality, but are equally loved.

[StColette]

[quote name='VoTeckam' post='1857641' date='May 4 2009, 02:38 PM']Knowing the order in which they were written does help provide a framework of how they are to be understood.[/quote]

Care to elaborate?

[VoTeckam]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1857647' date='May 4 2009, 03:41 PM']I don't see how. Each has a different flavor, a different intent, a different group being written to, under different circumstances. It's like having 4 children. Each has a different personality, but are equally loved.[/quote]

It is hard to believe that if the second and third authors had access to the first it would not have shaped their own retelling. It is by no means critical in terms of fully understanding the gospels... and I suppose the only benefit of knowing is academic. Again.... I'm sticking this on my "who cares" shelf.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1857622' date='May 4 2009, 03:25 PM']That 1911 paper was not infallible, and was the result of Protestant theologians questioning the provenance based on new form criticism study. At the time the church was trying to grasp onto a fading belief that all the books of the bible were written by the "named" author. We now know that is often not the case. They were from Matthew or Paul's camp or discipleship so to speak. We didn't want to believe that Mark's gospel could have been written before Matthew's because Matthew was an Apostle, and Mark was simply one of Peter's or Paul's disciples (depending on how you viewed the theology).

That's why Pope Pius opened up Catholic biblical scholarship several decades later. He was able to realize that nothing in our faith is threatened by modern scholarship or new archeological evidence. Traditionalists who believe that every word in the bible is to be interpreted literally, like Evangelicals do, can't allow themselves to have the faith in our faith that Pope Pius did. Vatican II set a framework for how biblical scholarship should be done because this is obviously an area where misinterpretation can lead to trouble.

Most Catholic theologians, including most who are currently on the Pontifical Biblical Commission, believe in the Two-Source Hypothesis meaning that Mark was written first, rather than the Two-Gospel Hypothesis meaning that Matthew was first, because it answers most (but far from all) of the source issues of the Synoptic Problem. There will be no way to definitively prove either hypothesis until, and unless, we discover some ancient manuscript that can be carbon dated or definitively authenticated. I'm hopeful that someday the Q document, or maybe the Aramaic version of Matthew or a Proto-Mark will be discovered hidden in the desert. Until then, it gives biblical scholars something to write papers on.[/quote]

Thanks for the explanation. Even if the 1911 findings have turned out to be quite fallible, it is useful to learn where the Church has come from and to know the trends they were fighting and exactly what they were defending. What you've explained is essentially what I learned from a public university New Testament course taught by a Baptist professor, which was a few years before I became Catholic. I find it rather fascinating that the early Church really didn't have all the answers... the body of Scripture, the practice of sacraments, etc. were figured out over hundreds of years, yet we remain the same Church under the same authority.

Edited May 4, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1857670' date='May 4 2009, 03:21 PM']the body of Scripture, the practice of sacraments, etc. were figured out over hundreds of years, yet we remain the same Church under the same authority.[/quote]

Each of the seven Sacraments was celebrated during the Apostolic age.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1857700' date='May 4 2009, 03:32 PM']Each of the seven Sacraments was celebrated during the Apostolic age.[/quote]

Yep. I got into a big fight with a new convert in my scripture class when he started in about female ordination. I explained that Jesus broke every social norm of the day, so if he had wanted to ordain women, he would have done so, and that's why the Magisterium has said it is no longer up for debate. He replied that Jesus didn't ordain anyone. I just looked at the professor, whose eyes got very big, and he looked like he wanted to dive for cover, because he knew what was coming. I was good though, and explained very politely that Jesus instituted all 7 sacraments, and directed him to the passages. I also commented about the inadequate instruction from his RCIA catechists.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1857700' date='May 4 2009, 05:32 PM']Each of the seven Sacraments was celebrated during the Apostolic age.[/quote]

Yep... I didn't say otherwise.

[Apotheoun]

The Eastern Churches do not limit the mysteries to seven rites only; instead, in addition to the seven listed commonly by Western Christians, we hold that Tonsure (of monk or nun) is a mystery, as is the Blessing of Theophany Water ([i]Agiasmo[/i]), and the Consecration of a Church, the Funeral Absolution given by a priest, and even an icon is a sacrament, to name just a few of the mysteries of the Church.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

The [b]Ecumenical[/b] Council of Trent has this to say about the number of sacraments:

"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, or [b]that there are more or less than seven[/b], namely baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony, or even that anyone of these seven is not truly and strictly speaking a sacrament: let him be anathema." (Denzinger-Schonmetzer 1601, emphasis added)

Edited May 4, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

Trent is a local council of the Latin Church.

In their critique of the Latin Church's new catechism the Eastern Catholic Bishops of America expressed concern about the presentation of the sacraments:

[quote]The medieval approach to presenting the Sacraments (Part Two, Section Two) - Some attempt has been made to add more patristic references, but this limiting perspective remains. Seemingly the intention is to return to the scholastic ordering for understanding the sacraments. One example is the treatment of the institution of the sacraments by Christ (2084-88). In 2087 it is stated that the Church does not invent or institute the sacraments; rather they have been instituted by Christ (see also 2095), implying a distinction proper to the earthly life of Jesus. This approach has necessitated locating moments in the Gospel when Christ instituted each sacrament, a major issue at the time of the Reformation.

In 2088 a more patristic approach is enunciated: that the Church is not exterior to Christ. It is His Body, the 'whole Christ.' It is rather in this sense that the origin of the sacraments should be envisioned, avoiding the fundamentalist snare of the medieval stance.[/quote]
The idea that there were only seven sacraments developed in Scholasticism (a uniquely Western philosophical movement), and was reinforced by the polemics following the Protestant revolt of the early 16th century.


Click the link below in order to read the Eastern Catholic Bishops critique of the catechism:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=90683&view=findpost&p=1857302"][u]Toward a Response to the Universal Catechism[/u][/url]

Edited May 4, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

No. Trent is an Ecumenical Council of the Universal Church.

That that the seven sacraments were all instituted by Jesus Christ is a divinely revealed dogma.

The bishops of the Eastern Churches signed to this at the [b]Ecumenical[/b] Council of Florence.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Resurrexi