Hello, I was wondering if anyone else here has more to add
on this subject.

Since it is a rather complex and arduous topic to study, I'll
just summarize the basics, for which there are a multitude
of evidences, and see if anyone here wants to talk about it.

From the earliest times until Vatican II, the Magisterium always
maintained dates of composition and apostolic authoriship
for virtually all of the NT which were far different than has been
adjusted since VII.

Two examples, my 1942 "A Commentary on the New Testament"
Catholic Biblical Association on the New Testament
which has Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat says Matthew was definitely
written before A.D. 70, now the "Church" maintains Matthew was
definitely written after A.D. 70.

The change occurred concurrently with VII. It started with the
New American Bible. Anyone who has a New American Bible
knows how different the introductions to all the holy books of
the NT is to prior commentaries and Bibles. Apostolic authorship
is denied in all the docuмents except Paul's letters.

I also own a Catholic Family Bible from 1964 - which maintains
all the earlier dates and apostolic authorships.

I have spent years absorbing all this information and I have a
degree in History. The arguments of atheist "scholars", originally
started and rejected by the Church in the German textual criticisms
of the latter 19th century, are not convincing.
I would be less offended if all their arguments were truly more valid
than the traditional, long-standing timeline, but they are not.

What we have here is the Novus Ordo church seeking to destroy
belief in the New Testament as an authentic testimony. They are
actively seeking to erode confidence in our faith.

I simply don't have time to get into all this in some multi-page,
many-hours spend post, however I'd like to start the conversation.

Take a look at the latest introduction to Matthew on the USCCB
website. This is what the "Catholic Church" actually has in print
with Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, in direct opposition to all historical
opinion since before VII.

Are you ready for this ? They say that Matthew 22:7 "proves" the
gospel was written after the Fall of Jerusalem.
"The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Mt 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem."

I simply cannot believe anyone who knows what they are talking about
could say this. Jesus spoke in parables. The specific line of the parable
(Parable of the Wedding Feast) reads: "The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city."

Obviously, this is just one line in a symbolic, metaphorical description
Christ taught as a lesson. How in the world they could twist the intent
of a parable like this and say that it proves Matthew was written after
the Fall of Jerusalem is beyond unsupportable, it is intentional deception.
http://usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Matthew&ch=

The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia warns us that modernists
seek to make it believed that Matthew was written after A.D. 70
so as to make it look like Christ's prophecy about the Fall of Jerusalem
was invented later (it's fake!). Well, that is the official NewChurch
position.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

I could provide more examples, there are so many deceptions inherent
in the modernist criticisms. For example NAB says "660 of 661" Mark verses are found in Matthew, but 1911 CE says 180.
I'll also throw in just one example I noticed where Matthew differs
with Mark, describing the exorcism of the Gerasane demonaic.
Matthew describes two demonaics, Mark one. If Matthew "copied" Mark,
then why doesn't Matthew describe only one ?

This is all I have to say for now, see if anyone wants to talk
about this matter, which I consider to be a conspiracy, intentional,
performed by Freemasons and Satanists inside the "Church" who
want to destroy belief in our Holy texts, indeed they want to destroy
the historical Jesus and all understanding of what occurred in ancient
times of the first century. This is why I refuse to read much of anything
about our religion that is written after the late-60s.

Do you expect the modernists to spread the faith? Of course they don't believe. They are more perfidious than the Jєωs! They do the same thing to the Old Testament, believing that the five books of Moses were not written by Moses but by several different writers, one they call J, one they call E, and so on. Then they do not believe the books traditionally attributed to Solomon were written by Solomon. They do not believe the Psalms were written by David. They believe the book of Isaias was written later than claimed because the prophecies came true and they do not want anyone to believe prophecies could come true. And they also change the names of some of the books also. And they look at anyone who believes in the traditional beliefs to be morons. They are truly perfidious and enemies of God.

The Conciliar church is merely one of many liberal Protestant sects; this is why they accept the "biblical studies" methods and conclusions of the liberal Protestant organizations.

Modernists do not believe in miracles or prophesy.  In fact, it is not merely a disbelief but a positive denial that there are or ever have been miracles or true prophesy.  Thus they claim that the prophesy of Jesus of the fall of Jerusalem must have been written after the fall of Jerusalem since there would have been no way to know that the temple in Jerusalem was going to be so utterly destroyed until after that action had already been accomplished.

I know, but to actually see what they purport to be the reason in Matthew
as a mere line in a doggone PARABLE is just beyond words !
Obviously this also suggests the parables are not Christ's own words !
I feel bad for the millions of Catholics who still believe they go to a Catholic
church anymore. Or a Catholic university for that matter !