You asked:
I'm curious to know how far Catholics can stray from the teachings of their church and publically make statements that contradict their core teachings. I'm also interested to hear your thoughts on why you believe the church as got it so wrong on such a critical issue concerning the origins of one of the most important books within New testament Canon?
Answering this adequately requires me to "
get theological" - you have flipped the switch Adrian and must now suffer one of my infamously monotonous soliloquies
In disputing Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, I am not denying something
de fide (a dogmatic truth of the deposit of faith, inherited from the Sacred Apostolic Tradition of the Church, such as the doctrine of Jesus's incarnation, Sunday being the 'Lord's Day' or the teaching that the one God is a Trinity).
That the Apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel is not a 'teaching' of my church
per se - it's a customary '
tradition', a hallowed and very venerable and very ancient and pious 'opinion' that must be treated with due respect, but not necessarily slavishly adhered to if it stands convicted for lack of evidence (or indeed, goes against available evidence).
Catholics distinguish between (bigT) "
Tradition" and (smallt) "
traditions".
The first category, 'Tradition' refers to the following, defined on April 8 1546 by the
Council of Trent in its Fourth Session:
~The Council of Trent - Session 4~
“. . . The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,--keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten Traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both –as also the said Traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.”
And again at the Second Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution
Dei Verbum in 1965:
Dei verbum
8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.
This Tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down...For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living Tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same Tradition the Church's full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son...
9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end...
10. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church.
Sacred Tradition is equal in status to Sacred Scripture, the Bible. It is the oral Word of God, witnessed to by the Church Fathers and made alive in the constant teaching of the universal church, and through her liturgy.
The second category of 'traditions' in a lesser and secondary sense, refers to this:
Catholic Tradition
We often write Tradition, with a capital ‘T’, to mean Sacred Tradition. This Catholic Tradition is different from those traditions (small ‘t’) that are merely customs, and which are not part of Divine Revelation
Now, where does the "authorship" of the Four Gospels fall down? Is it 'category 1' big-T or 'category 2' small-t?
To be part of
the Sacred Tradition, an 'unwritten tradition' has to pertain to faith and/or morals - which means that it must be
necessary in some sense for salvation. Is the idea that John authored the Fourth Gospel necessary to my salvation? Nope. Does it aid me morally? Nope.
But is the idea that the Fourth Gospel is
canonical and inspired by God necessary for my salvation? Of course! This is
de fide, the foundational premise is that:
Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day when He was taken up. (Dei Verbum, No. 19)
The
Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of Vatican II clearly asserts:
Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Sacred Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth, which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures. (No. 11)
As a Catholic, I may not deny the "divine inspiration" of the four gospels as '
faithfully hand[ing] on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day when He was taken up' and that they "
firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth, which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided".
They are the Word of God delivered through men (or women!) inspired by the Holy Spirit living in apostolic times, passing on what they learned either directly or through passing down of accounts - whether oral of written - from actual eyewitnesses, which these sacred authors used to compose our canon gospels.
However, the "traditions" regarding their authorship - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -
may be wrong. They are just venerable 'small-t' traditions, albeit very ancient and 'hallowed' ones. No matter who actually put the finishing touches on the sacred Scriptures, each is inspired. That's what matters to a Catholic at the end of the day.
But no, I do not believe that the Apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel for the very lengthy reasons I set out earlier in my initial three posts