The National Catholic Register portal (December 27, 2025) presents a biographical sketch of St. John the Evangelist, noting his inclusion in Christ’s inner circle, his designation as the “beloved disciple,” and his traditional association with Ephesus and the fourth Gospel. The article acknowledges his unique theological perspective while cautiously attributing Johannine authorship to Revelation and the epistles with qualifiers like “many claim” and “probable.” It concludes with standard hagiographical details about his patronage and a ruined Ephesian basilica allegedly once housing his relics.
Undermining Divine Inspiration Through Scholarly Ambiguity
The article’s treatment of Scripture exemplifies the conciliar sect’s corrosive skepticism. By stating John’s Gospel merely “stands out from the other three” rather than affirming its divine inspiration as defined by the Council of Trent (Session IV) and Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus, it reduces sacred text to literary artifact. The description of Revelation as “chock full of mystical imagery” dismisses its prophetic authority, ignoring Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus which condemns those who “explain away the miracles and prophecies” (¶18).
Erasure of Ecclesiastical Authority in Biblical Interpretation
While admitting “the vast majority of biblical scholars have deemed this beloved disciple to be John himself,” the article substitutes scholarly consensus for ecclesiastical certainty. The Council of Vatican I (Dei Filius, Ch. 2) anathematizes those denying that Scripture “have God as their author,” yet the portal avoids this doctrinal foundation. Nowhere does it cite Pope Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu which maintains that “the Catholic interpreter…should be chiefly concerned with the literal sense” (¶24) as determined by Holy Mother Church.
“many claim that he also wrote the Book of Revelation”
This phrasing embodies the neo-modernist disease condemned in Pope St. Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis (§13), where “the believer has no right to determine the limits of his own belief.” The Church’s uninterrupted tradition – from St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1) to Pope Benedict XV – affirms Johannine authorship without reservation. To suggest otherwise is to embrace the historical-critical method denounced in Lamentabili Sane (Propositions 11, 19).
Naturalistic Reduction of Sacred Relics and Patronage
The offhand mention that John’s Ephesian basilica “is now in ruins” subtly promotes archaeological positivism over devotional truth. Pope Benedict XIV established rigorous procedures for relic authentication in De Servorum Dei Beatificatione, yet the article dismisses Ephesian traditions with secularist indifference. Similarly, listing John as “patron of many things including writers” ignores how pre-conciliar hagiography rooted such patronage in supernatural efficacy – not folkloric accident – as evidenced by the Roman Martyrology’s commemoration of his miraculous boiling oil ordeal.
Unspoken Apostolic Fidelity Versus Conciliar Apostasy
Most grievously, the article omits St. John’s uncompromising combat against heresy – his condemnation of Cerinthus recorded by St. Polycarp (via Eusebius’ Eccl. Hist. 3.28) mirrors today’s battle against conciliar modernism. Where John thundered “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth justice is just” (1 Jn 3:7), the conciliar sect promotes false ecumenism condemned by Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos. This silence on doctrinal militancy reveals the article’s true aim: to neuter the last apostle into a harmless symbol.
Source:
St. John the Evangelist — apostle, Son of Thunder, beloved disciple, caretaker of Mary (catholicnewsagency.com)
Date: 27.12.2025