|
The ChurchinHistory Information Centre www.churchinhistory.org
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
CHAPTER XX A ROOF WITHOUT WALLS In the previous chapter the attitude of the Church to dating the Gospels has been recounted and how Catholic exegetes suddenly felt themselves to be free to teach Markan priority. In this chapter we will look at the effect of this on Catholic life. The word `New` in the title of the 1969 New Catholic Commentary could imply that its ideas on the Scriptures have superseded those of the 1953 Commentary. But as the earlier edition conforms to history, the Church Fathers and the decrees of Church Councils, it is still valid and of use. A Markan priorist ((NCCHS 709fg)) wrote the commentaries in the 1969 edition on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, Acts, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Other Markans covered Luke and John. This edition should not be treated as if it makes the information in the 1953 edition out of date. The new edition merely provided an alternative presentation based on Markan priority. The coming years will show which stands the test of time. As explained in the previous chapter, by the late 1960s leading Catholic scholars were openly teaching that science had proved the gospels were not historical. They also taught that the 2000-year-old historical evidence and the traditional exegesis were now accepted by Rome as debatable. While the faith of many was undermined and some parted from the Church, others loved Christ and his church too much to leave. A group of Americans led by Fr. Raymond E. Brown set out to develop theories which would reconcile Catholic belief with the `scientific fact` of Markan priority. As many Protestants scholars considered the Gospels to have been composed in the second century, the attempt of Brown to place them in the first century appeared as pioneering work to find a middle way. Those sharing the same intellectual dilemma as Brown eagerly welcomed his theories. But, being based on his belief that Markan priority was a scientific fact, his ideas spread Markan priority to even wider circles. In this atmosphere it was easy to adopt a form of fideism where `religious experiences` and `feelings` replaced logic and reason. Today we hear much of `Gospel Values` but rarely of `Gospel Truths`. Yet how long will one last without the other? In 2003 Philip Trower wrote, `Radical Bible scholarship shook or destroyed belief, and some kind of philosophical subjectivism was then called in to shore up the ruins, with dogmas as symbolic expressions of personal experience`. When comparing Radical Scholarship with the effect of the theory of evolution, Trower added: `Although, in the destruction of belief, the part played by radical biblical scholarship was in the end to be greater, it took longer for the consequences to be felt. The effect of Darwin`s books was instantaneous`. ((PT 160-161)).
Leonard Johnson, a leading English Catholic scripture scholar, had earlier foreseen the danger of relying on personal experience and fideism. When introducing a book in 1960, he pointed out that the Gospel taught, `the Word became flesh`. But it would be of little value if, after a few years of Christ`s mortal existence, we lost contact with him and all we were left with was `the Christ of Faith`. He continued:
He was writing these warning words two years before the Vatican Council assembled. There is a sad and ironic aspect concerning the work of Brown and his associates. They sincerely tried to reconcile Christian beliefs to the ‘scientific facts`. But while they were engaged in this endeavour the upholders of Markan priority abandoned the arguments that had been used by people like Streeter to ‘prove` these facts. Markans today place their confidence in other ‘proofs` ((DBP 10)). In retrospect it would be easy to criticise the work of the Biblical Commission at the turn of the century as being overcautious and hampering research. But we need to remember that the Church is primarily a teaching body assisting people to know, love and serve God. It is not a society for theological research and debate however important. As such, She had to exercise great care regarding unproved theories being taught in Catholic schools. Some may judge the Commission to have been too prudent, but this prudence did preserve generations of Catholics from the devastation that Markan priority was causing throughout the Protestant world. We should also recognise that the efforts of people like Brown were not wasted. Some of their insights have made useful contributions to biblical understanding. To continue with Johnson`s simile, we need to preserve beautiful embellishments made by some Markans to the roof, whilst putting in place stronger walls. THE ENGLISH SCENE The effects of Markan priority in England may be illustrated by the stories of two priests. The first, Charles Davis, was an intelligent young theologian who considered that as Europe had rejected monarchy and hierarchy as a political system, the continuing hierarchal structure of Pope, bishops, priests and laity was a barrier to conversion. In late 1966 Davis examined biblical criticism and saw how most exegetes, including many Catholics, had come to accept Markan priority and the late dating of the gospels. This meant that none of the Gospels had been written by eyewitnesses. Davis judged that the evidence for Christ establishing a hierarchical Church was therefore absent. He left the Church in December 1966 and in his subsequent book, devoted five chapters to Markan priority with one entitled: `The origin of my doubts` ((CD 126)). The second priest, although the main Markan priority contributor to the 1969 `New Catholic Commentary`, remained within the Church to devote his life to Christ. But the logic of his views eventually bore fruit. At a meeting in Jerusalem during 2002 he suggested that: `in the first generation of Christians the focus of overall authority was the church at Jerusalem not Peter`. He added: `…Peter seems to have lost his overriding authority at least after leaving Jerusalem and ... [the] probable reason for the authority of Rome in ecclesiastical matters is its overwhelming secular importance as the capital of the empire` ((HWF)). It is difficult to see how this opinion may be reconciled with a decree of the First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter I, sections 3, 4 and 6:
In a guide for teenage students, the same author teaches that `the beloved disciple`, was neither John the Apostle nor anyone else. It was an image of a perfect disciple of Christ created by an unknown author living in an unknown place at an unknown time. The students are not informed of traditional teaching or of Dei Verbum, paragraphs 7 and 18. The author did find room to inform the students of: `the great Rudolf Bultmann`. ((HWG 11 and 45)). Such ideas are not new. In the early 20th Century, Alfred Loisy denied ‘the beloved disciple’ was an historical person. ‘He is the young Church, to whom was entrusted the heritage of Judaism and Jewish Christianity’. Loisy was excommunicated ((CCHS607m)) MODERNISM AND MODERNISTS A Modernist claims there is a difference between `the Jesus of history` and the `Christ of Faith`, so no one can know what Jesus taught. Denying the existence of anything unable to be proved `scientifically`, he often rejects angels and miracles. Modernists say that there are no irrevocable doctrines and morality can change. What religious practice or feeling / experience remains with him is not supported by a rational basis. We may ask whether Modernism is a fruit of the rejection of the historicity of the gospels, or whether rejection of the gospels is a fruit of Modernism. For the individual Christian, the rejection of the historicity of the New Testament is often the gateway to the heresy of ‘Modernism`. But from the academic viewpoint, it was the philosophy of unbelieving Deism that over a long period undermined belief in the New Testament. However, although Modernism is an evil heresy, individual Modernists must not be seen as malign or insincere people. An insidious aspect of Markan priority/ Modernism is that it often infects some of those who love God and His holy Bible greatly. Once they accept the apparently harmless presumption that Mark`s `poor-Greek` was due to him writing first (rather than that he was taking down the spoken word), the plausible and logical step by step seduction, as set out in Chapter V (section 8), takes over and they are led to views undermining of the Word of God which they had set out to know and love more deeply. How many Catholics, Anglicans or Evangelicals have enrolled in a course to obtain a better knowledge of the bible, only to find disillusionment? Eta Linnemann, who for many years was a devoted follower of Bultmann, has deplored precisely the same thing happening to young Lutherans studying to be pastors in Germany ((EL 209-210)). The Christian virtues of an honest search for truth, and a willingness to be open to new insights, are the ones manipulated by this seduction.
Philip Trower has pointed out: ‘… as a system of ideas, modernism was not a Catholic invention. Its foundations had been laid a good sixty years earlier in Germany when Lutheran scholars started applying the critical method to the Bible`. ((PT 142)).
THE NEW CATECHETICS For 2000 years the Faith has been passed down the generations through the parish church, within the family and sometimes by the ethos of society. The deeper aspects of doctrine and theology were available to few. It was the emergence of universal education during the first half of the 20th century that provided the opportunity to teach doctrine widely. The method used was centred on the `Penny Catechism` of question and answer and it was very effective. But during this same period the parish lost its central role in local life and the ethos of family life and society became secular. This resulted in many children receiving a religious education where their proficiency in doctrine was not matched by a living relationship with Christ. Voices called for a fresh framework for religious education and by the 1960s teachers and clergy had developed the principles required for a `New Catechetics`. In England these were developed before the Vatican Council met and, following a series of lectures in Liverpool during 1963, were published in 1965 by Fr. Francis Ripley as; `A Basic Guide to Religious Instruction`. It proposed to replace the traditional method by the kerygmatic approach that aimed to move the Will. Teachers should not give a doctrinal statement and then explain it, but use scripture and stories to lead up to the doctrine. Old Testament stories should not be taught in isolation but shown to be a prefiguring of the New. The teacher had to bridge the gap between understanding Christianity and living it. Teaching should be Scriptural with the Church seen as Christ, not an organisation. Fear and an attitude of detachment from life should be avoided. The object of each lesson must be to get the pupils to respond in some practical way. A good teacher begins from where the pupil is at, not from where he wants him to be or where he ought to be or where he thinks he is. Memory work would be less but not ruled-out ((FJR 12-23)). Knowledge was to be presented in a systematic way and there was no suggestion that doctrine should be omitted. The whole point of the renewal was to help students absorb the Faith better. So in 1965 the aims of the English Catechetical Movement were clear and there were many dedicated teachers ready to put them into practice. The bishops, returning from the Council and realising how they harmonised with the thinking of the Council, supported immediate implementation. So why was there so much opposition, controversy and confusion? For an answer we need to recall how the `New Catechetics` was introduced. CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE In early 1966 the bishops of England and Wales established a National Catechetical Centre at Corpus Christi College in London. Cardinal Heenan saw that a deeper knowledge of Scripture was central to the new approach so, instead of appointing the experienced priests and teachers who had pioneered the new ideas, he chose two academics in the field of Scripture to run the courses. They were without experience in a state school ((AH 372)), but if experienced teachers had been appointed as supporting members of staff this lack of experience could have been overcome. The two academics, Hubert Richards and Peter De Rosa, had been lecturing at the Westminster Diocesan seminary. With their friend Charles Davies they had been at the centre of some disquiet ((AH 372)). But the bishops were trying to give greater freedom to young and adventurous people while taking their basic doctrinal reliability for granted. The college was established in March 1966 with plans to open in September. Richards and De Rosa gave nine lectures at a National Catechetical Study week held in Manchester during July ((HRPD)). These were in full accord with the Catechetical tradition in England and the teachings of Vatican II. No hint was given that the speakers had accepted Markan priority and were planning a revolution in September. Cardinal Heenan, responsible for the college was not alerted to any danger in placing the renewal of Catechetics in their hands. The Principal and his deputy considered Markan priority and its corollaries as the foundation for `renewal`. The Gospels were merely providing the thoughts of `creative` theologians at the end of the first century, rather than being historical eyewitness accounts of the life and teaching of Christ. “When the study syllabus was published, it provided ample evidence that the new college was not going to confine its activities to catechetical formation”. It had, “an aura of an institute of speculative theology”. ((AH 372)). Doctrines disappeared or were demoted to subjects for discussion and doubt. The courses attracted priests and nuns rather than teachers. Within months, De Rosa and another member of staff had abandoned their vocations, and in the following years an alarming proportion of students were also found to be leaving the priesthood or their convent. Faced with protests from all over the country, Cardinal Heenan intervened in 1971, and Richards responded by leaving the priesthood. Richards, in his letter of resignation, wrote that he intended to remain a Catholic, but regarded his vocation to be: “to make the results of theological scholarship available to teachers and students, …”. It should be noticed how different this was from the reason he had been appointed to run the college. He found a post as a New Testament lecturer in a non-Catholic college ((CR 52-53)) and, following laicisation, married a former nun who had been a student at Corpus Christi. His wife later wrote a school textbook based on the teachings of her husband. It purported to teach Roman Catholicism, but Rome ordered the removal of its Imprimatur. In 1974 De Rosa published a book of seventy-one short chapters based on `the latest scriptural research`. This book rejected the historical truth of the Gospels. He wrote: “They tell us not simply what Jesus said and did but what the Christian Community believed him to be”. In the last chapter, entitled, `The meal at Emmaus`, we read:
It may be noticed how this differs from the words of Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu:
These examples indicate how Markan priority had been taught at the college under the name of ‘Renewal of Catechetics`. In 1965 the Cardinal had hoped the college ‘would train Catholic teachers to deliver the message of Vatican II to the schools` ((AH 372)). But Dei Verbum was ignored and replaced with Markan priority. Not only this, but the destructive theory was entwined, like cockle, around the renewal of Catechetical methods. It was a modern example of weeds being sowed amongst wheat (Matt 13: 24-30). Cardinal Wright, when Prefect of the Congregation of the Clergy, wrote:
He quoted Cardinal Heenan`s public statement of May 1971 recognising the `many and grave errors` in the new catechetics while trusting that they would be corrected in time ((JW 50)). By 1971, the year he intervened at Corpus Christi, Heenan lamented in a letter to Cardinal Wright, `Some of our Catechists are teaching a theology of their own`, and that `the great danger is that the faithful will be led to believe that there is no dogmatic theology left and that everything is a matter of free speculation`. ((AH 173)). The book published by Ripley had not contained the slightest hint of Markan priority. It accepted the historicity of the Gospels and the traditional doctrines of the Church. The book received its Nihil Obstat from Leonard Johnson, whose scornful response to Markan priority is printed above. The principles put forward were later encouraged by Pope Paul in Evangelii Nuntiandi of 1975 and by Pope John Paul II in Catechesi Tradendae of 1979 ((MJW 90 and 205)). Markan priority, with its vague doctrinal ethos is not a true part of modern catechetics. The traditional belief in the historicity of the Gospels is compatible with Christ centred teaching and the realistic assessment of the capability of each child. Its historical foundation provides a firm basis for the doctrines taught. AMERICA In 1968 the American Fr. Anthony Wilhelm wrote: `Christ Among Us`, which purported to explain the Catholic Faith. But Wilhelm had adopted Markan priority regarding the authors of the New Testament, so wrote on page 66: `They are not greatly concerned about when or where a thing happened, the details of what happened, the exact words Christ used, etc`. Monsignor Wrenn commented:
Wrenn then pointed out how Wilhelm builds his ideas on `a favourite notion of a certain type of modern Scripture scholar even while it is quite plainly at variance with the entire Catholic tradition` ((MJW 128)). The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith examined the book and ordered the removal of its Imprimatur ((MJW 124-125)). The author abandoned the priesthood. Monsignor Wrenn was appointed as Archbishop of New York in 2006. SCHOOL BOOKS The effects of Corpus Christi College and Markan priority are still to be seen in many schools. Rome has pleaded for the implementation of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. Yet sections 7, 18 and 19 of Dei Verbum are often ignored, as are paragraphs 26 and 172 of the Catechism ((CCC)). Those who have rejected the decree of the Council of Trent; its endorsement by the First Vatican Council; The Doctrinal Constitution Dei Verbum sections 7, 18 and 19; The Catechism of 1992 and repeated statements from Rome, may claim that these are `not infallible`, so do not apply to themselves. A discussion of the relationship of the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church to infallibility is outside the scope of this booklet. What is clear, however, is that the contents of these documents are intended to be the normative teaching in every Catholic educational establishment. Sometimes statements like the following are put forward as expressing Catholic teaching:
Such statements do not appear in official Catholic documents. They are evasive and ambiguous substitutes for the unambiguous words of Dei Verbum ((DV)). As explained in the previous chapter the wording of Dei Verbum, on the disputed issues, was chosen specifically to make clear the historicity of the Gospels. Dei Verbum does not teach that the gospels merely express, `the beliefs of the first generation`. THE END OF A QUEST I was prompted to study the historicity and authorship of the Gospels due to the conflicting messages coming from within the Catholic Community. I now have complete confidence that the Apostles Matthew and John, eyewitnesses of the life of Christ, wrote two of the Gospels. Also that Luke and Mark, secretaries to Paul and Peter wrote the other two. I also accept that Luke composed ‘Acts` and that the epistles were written by those whose names have been traditionally attached to them. I have also become aware of the endorsement the Catholic Church gives to these views. In the course of this quest, I have come to accept the evidence of Clement of Alexandria and the other early historians and its confirmation by modern literary analysis. This is that the Gospels were written in the order of Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, but published in the order of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I also accept that Mark conflated the Gospels of Matthew and Luke in a manner that explains his allegedly `poor Greek`. I find that two gospels were composed by eyewitnesses to Christ`s public life, while the other two were authenticated by the eyewitness Peter. I see the Markan priority theory, which was created to explain the alleged `poor Greek` of Mark, as unnecessary, redundant and dangerous. I wish to thank all who have assisted me by bringing books and articles to my attention. Also to offer a word of thanks to my wife for the patience she has shown when watching her Living Room being submerged in documents, folders, notepads and books. May God bless those who have read these words. I hope they have found them of interest and will include me in their prayers. Thank you.
CHAPTER XXI THE UNFOLDING OF EVENTS Undisputed dates in the list below are in bold type. The sequence of events concerning the Christian Community have been inserted, some tentatively, within this framework.
AD AD 2000, 582 Queensbury Street, Vic 3051, Australia. AF The Documents of the Second Vatican Council by Austin Flannery, 1975. AH Modern Catholicism by Adrian Hastings, 1991. AH1 Harmony of the Gospels by Augustine of Hippo, book 1 (web EP 445) AH4 Harmony of the Gospels by Augustine of Hippo, book 4 (web EP 447) AJM Luke`s Use of Matthew by A.J.McNicol, 1996. AJMT Two Gospel Hypothesis by A.J.McNicol, Perkins Journal, 1987. AMJ Ante-Marcionite Prologue to John, Regul MSS S2, 3, 7, 8. AMM Ante-Marcionite Prologue to Mark, Regul MSS J2, S2, 3. AP The Acts of Peter chapter 20, by author unknown, circa 180 (web ecw). AS Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum [908] by A. Souter BC The Early History of the Church of God by the Bishop of Clifton, 1901. BHSG The Four Gospels by B. H. Streeter, 1924. BHSR Reality, a new correlation of science and religion by B. H. Streeter, 1927. BMM The Early Versions of the New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger, 1977. BOA Annales Theologici, vol.7 (in English) by Bernard Orchard, 1993. BOD Dei Verbum & Synoptic Gospels, B.Orchard, July 1990 (web ES 99). BOF The Four Gospel Hypothesis by Bernard Orchard, 1993 BOM Matthew, Luke and Mark by Bernard Orchard, 2nd edition, 1977. BOO The Origin and Evolution of the Gospels by B.Orchard (pamphlet), 1993. CCC The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 (web E). CCCC Catechism of the Catholic Church, Corrigenda, 1997. CCHS A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1953 CD A Question of Conscience by Charles Davis, 1967. CE The Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1912, (web ce). CL Back to the Bible by Cuthbert Lattey, 1944. CMT The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis by C. M. Tuckett, 1983. COR Epistle of Clement of Rome to Corinthians, Kirsopp Lake. (web EP 503). CR From Nun to Mum by Clare Richards, 1991. CTG The Gospel of Matthew by Claude Tresmontant, 1986. CTH The Hebrew Christ by Claude Tresmontant, 1989. CTJ Jesus: Life or Legend by Carston Thiede, 1997. CTP The Jesus Papyrus by Carston Thiede, 1997. CTR Rekindling the Word by Carston Thiede, 1995. DAS Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pope Pius XII, 1943. (web E). DV Dei Verbum, Second Vatican Council, 1965. (web E). DVI De Viris Illustribus by Jerome (web na Fathers). DBP Mark`s Use of Matthew and Luke, edited by D.B.Peabody, 2002. *EB The Historicity of the Bible by Edith Black, H&PR, 1980 (web ca). EH Ecclesial History,Eusebius Pamphili,(Kirsopp Lake)1980(webEP189-191) EL Is There a Synoptic Problem? by Eta Linnemann, 1993. EM Influence de l’evangilo de saint Mattieu...by E. .Massaux Louvain, 1950. ESB Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, full Report, 1985 (web esb) FJR A Basic Guide To Religious Instruction by F. J. Ripley, 1965. FM Faith Magazine, 16a off Coniston Way, Reigate, RH2 0LN. GC Article by G. Caprile in Civilita Cattolica, 1966,1. GCD General Catechetical Directory, Congregation of the Clergy 1972 (web E). GE The Church in Rome in the First Century by G. Edmundson, 1913. GS Historical Introduction to the New Testament by George Salmon, 1885. HO Observations on the Four Gospels by Henry Owen, 1764. HR Preface to Luke by Harold Riley, 1993. HRPD Christ In Our World by Hubert Richards & Peter De Rosa, 1966. HWF The Future of The Church by H. Wansbrough, 2003 (web hwf) HWG Gospels by H. Wansbrough, Theology Trust, 2003. IAH Adversus Haereses, book 3, by Irenaeus tr. by J. Keble 1872 (web EP 13). IDU Ancient Christian Writers-Irenaeus,book 1, trans. intro. by D.Unger, 1992 IJK Irenaeus to Florinus translated by J. Keble, 1872 (web na second item). JATR Redating the New Testament by J.A.T. Robinson, 1976. JATRP The Priority of John by J. A. T. Robinson, 1985. JC The Birth of the Synoptics by Jean Carmignac, English, translated 1987. JHC John the Presbyter by John H.Chapman, 1911. JJK History/Critique ofMarcanHypothesis,Meijboom1835-66, J.J.Kiweit,1993. JMA First Apology to Emperor Antonius Pius by Justin Martyr. (web EP 2). JMD Dialogue with Trypho the Jew by Justin Martyr. (web EP 4). JNDK The Pastoral Epistles by J.N.D. Kelly, 1960. JPCT Catechesi Tradendae by Pope John Paul II, 1979 (web E). JPDV Dominum et Vivificantem, by Pope John Paul II, 1986 (web E). JPFR Fides et Ratio by Pope John Paul II, 1998 (web E). JPRC Redemptoris Custos, by Pope John Paul II, 1989 (web E). JPRM Redemptoris Mater by Pope Paul II, 1987 (web E). JRA The Ratzinger Report of 1984 by V. Messori, pub.1985. *JRL Lecture by Cardinal Ratzinger, 27th January 1988 (web ca). *JRLT Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on Liberation Theology 1984 (web ca). *JRC Cardinal Ratzinger at Catechetical Conference, 9th Oct. 2002 (web ca). JW The Church, Hope of the World by Cardinal John Wright, 1972. KCH The K. C. Hanson Collection of Ancient Documents (web kch). LC The Four Gospels by Lucien Cerfaux, 1960. LT Living Tradition, PO. Box 109 Eastman, WI54626, U.S.A (web rt). LOR L` Osservatore Romano, 21st April 1986. MFGR Muratorian Fragment by Hippolytus, tr. by G. Rauschen 1905(web EP 97). MJW Catechisms and Controversies by Michael J. Wrenn, 1991. MP Paul the Letter Writer & the 2nd Letter to Timothy by Michael Prior, 1989. NCCHS The New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1969, 1981. PBCB Interpretation of the Bible by Pontifical Biblical Comm. 1994 (web E). PBCG On Historic Truth of Gospels by Pontifical. Biblical Comm.1964 (web E). PCB Peake`s Commentary on the Bible, 1962. PDR Jesus who became Christ by Peter DeRosa, 1974. PT Turmoil and Truth by Philip Trower, Family Publications/ Ignatius, 2003. *PT17 Turmoil and Truth by Philip Trower, chapter 17 only (web ca). RB Response to 101 Questions on the Bible by Raymond E. Brown, 1990. RBM The Birth of the Messiah by Raymond E. Brown, 1977. RDCA Clement of Alexandria fragment trans. by Robert-Donaldson (web ecw) RL The Truth of Christmas by Rene Laurentin, 1986. RO The Order of the Synoptics by H. Riley and B. Orchard, 1987. RSV The Holy Bible: RSV Version, Catholic Edition, 1966. SB Scripture Bulletin, Newman College of H.E. Birmingham, B32 3NT. SH The Shepherd by Hermes (web EP 936). SGP The Syrian Christians by S. G. Pothan, 1963. SNTW Interpretation of the New Testament by Stephen Neill & Tom Wright 1988. TE The Tertullian Project by R. Pearse (web te). *TMH The Gospels as History by T. Mc Govern, H&PR 1992 (web ca). *TMM Magisterium, Scripture, Catholic Exegetes by T. McGovern 1991(web ca). TR The Council of Trent, 1546, (web E). TW The Wanderer, 20thApril 1995. (web ES 100). VAT [First] Vatican Council, Session 4, chap.1, sections 3, 4 and 6 (web E). WGK The New Testament by W.G. Kummel, 1973. WMA The Documents of Vatican II translated by W. M. Abbott, 1965. WW The Relationship Among The Gospels edited by W. Walker, 1978. WRF The Synoptic Problem by W.R.Farmer, 1976. WRFB Bismarck & The Four Gospels by W.R.Farmer, 1996 (web cih). WRFN New synoptic Studies by W. R. Farmer, 1983 H&PR=Homeletic and Pastoral Review. DR=Downside Review. URL of the 'Christendom Awake' Home Page is www.christendom-awake.org/ cih ---------- This web site ca ----------- [Items indicated by * are on the Christendom Awake website] (web ca) E )---------- Type in EWTN library, then click on Documents library. EP)---------- In our text, E represents modern books, EP Patristic, ES Scripture. ES)---------- A number in our text after the letter or letters refers to the item on the particular EWTN list. ecw -------- www.earlychristianwritings.com esb ------- Type into search engine: Bishops Final Report 1985 kch ------ Type into search engine: Census Edict then click Cache na -------- www.newadvent.org/ [See under ‘Fathers’] ce -------- www.newadvent.org/cathen/ cc -------- www.newadvent.org/cathen/06659a [Search Engine: Byzantine Church, Gospels in the Liturgy, then scroll to Chapter II]. col -------- http://www.colby.edu/rel/2gh/ te -------- www.tertullian.org/works/adversus_marcionem.htm hwf -------- http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sben0056/churchofthefuture rt --------- www.rtforum.org/lt/index.html va -------- www.vatican.va/ sa --------- www.santanselmo.org/ It may sometimes be quicker to type an item directly into a Search Engine. When a website reference has been added for a document, there may be a variation in translation compared with a printed version in a book. Leaflets concerning themes developed in this booklet are available on the web site. `Turmoil and Truth` by Philip Trower (see above) provides the historical background and philosophical context for the events and ideas mentioned in this booklet. ADDENDUM Previous editions of this booklet have raised two interesting questions. These
will be discussed below. -----0-----
|