[quote="James82, post:7, topic:345701"]
According to the course notes I am currently jotting down and from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, yes indeed; the assertions that I am making are in line with both traditional Catholic Biblical scholarship and current authoritative Catholic Biblical Scholarship.
That's odd; looking at the introductions to both Matthew and Mark in the ICSB, I see only that they assert that there is sufficient reason to believe that both were written in a pre-70AD timeframe. Further, only the introduction to Mark mentions assertions of authorship in the 60's AD.
For the traditional view I point you in the direction of the Church Fathers who unanimously point to Matthew's Gospel as being written by the Apostle St. Matthew. Dr. Scott Hahn I would point to as an authoritative modern Catholic scholar who is in line with these beliefs.
Again, from the introduction:
"As with Mark, Luke, and John, the first Gospel nowhere mentions its author... the title 'According to Matthew' is thus not part of the original Gospel but was added at an early date to distinguish it from the other three Gospels. It bears witness to the unanimous consensus of the early church that Matthew the Apostle, an eyewitness of Jesus, is its author. It was not until the eighteenth century that the traditional of Matthean authorship was questioned."
So... while it points in the direction you mention, I think that its phrasing is quite lukewarm. It affirms the fact that this had been the unanimous teaching of the Church, but that's all.
You also realize that Marcan priority came about as a reaction to Rome's declaration of papal infallibility? (Which I adhere to)
That's an interesting assertion, especially considering that Lachmann, Wilke, Weisse, and Holtzmann all argued for Marcan priority... and all of them did so prior to Vatican I. ;)
Do you realize that to take away from the authenticity of Christ's Promises to St. Peter, German Protestant scholars (I will give names if needed) had to attack Matthean priority?
How so? Are you asserting that Marcan priority infers that Matthew's Gospel is in some way not legitimate? Otherwise, I can't see how your argument proceeds...
I am only just beginning my journey into Truth, something I have always had a nose for, and that Truth is Christ's Catholic Church. The Church Fathers were not in error on this.
And if the Church stated, dogmatically, that Matthean priority were fact, then I'd agree with you. She hasn't, though. Thus, the opinions of the Church Fathers, while valuable, can't be taken, a priori, as inspired truth... ;)