Who wrote the four Gospels?
Why do you think this?
Unh, uh.....
Nope.
I asked first and have not yet got an answer. The default reaction to any question a Catholic can’t/doesn’t want to/ refuses to answer, is always.... I’ll answer your question if you answer mine back to you first.
Been there enough and I’m not going there.
I would expect *you* to keep your word about answering, which is not something I expect out of any of the other FRoman FReepers who virtually always end up deflecting and then fading into the woodwork, but they are not conditional questions. They are questions that I am more convinced by the day have no answer what with the amount of evasion I see when they are posted.
IOW, basically, there are no documents recording what the traditions are to which Paul was referring, there is no way to verify that they are what Paul in particular taught, there is no way to verify that they have been passed down faithfully, and there are no links to the sources for the non-existent documents.
Why do you think this?
The answer for that, is not nearly enough basis for there being "a big hole" as you had in other comment postulated;
for it rather (in a sense) caved in upon itself immediately (unless the first recipients where not at that time provided that information) for it is safe enough to assume that by true & actual 1st order Apostolic sources, the answers to those questions were first provided, then circulated/spoke/wrote about concerning those answers.
"Tradition" --- that very initial and most primitive form shall we say, once honestly appraised to then answer thus honestly & best fill that rhetorically produced void, does not then empower anyone to later assert that whatever they may say otherwise (Sola Ecclesia) at much later dates, in regards to those Gospels, and the earliest conditions in which those Gospels were produced also -- is beyond any dispute (or needful correction).
Isn't that true?
For isn't that latter condition, the one which encompasses possible call for there to be need of correction -- being aimed towards "Protestants" widely, in general?
Yet those of Rome won't allow the Orthodox to correct the RCC in regards to such things as singular papacy (as Rome has, over long centuries, built up and accumulated large amounts of theological baggage concerning).
Yet on that very score, -- the evidences as towards "who wrote the Gospels?", even under and by the VERY SAME capital "T" Traditions which you, yourself are seemingly requesting persons here to examine and re-appraise, are found evidences that there was no singular "papacy" at that earliest age of the Church, what-so-ever, period, dot.
In fact, the evidence is quite strong for there to have been solid opposition for the very idea itself (the idea that there be only one singular, visible & earthly, office of "papacy" over all Christians, universally) when that was initially asserted, and then yet again and again and again thru many centuries each and every time it was pronounced, until at last Rome had it's way, expanding that which had grown to be accepted by generally most all as being that bishop's patriarchate, including those outside of that rather geographical territory having accepted that concept at one time -- which 'Rome' now presses claim be unto the ends of the earth, inclusive of all spiritual considerations which Traditionally, universally, catholically, was held equally and collectively by others also, with that more horizontal conceptual acceptance of the relationship between the various churches having been at time of such individuals as Athanasius, his predecessors and multitudes of bishops of that era (and every other Archbishop, and/or "patriarch" which word once [ahem] traditionally equated also as pope -- all of which leaves the papists around here obviously needing to be pointing towards something other than, or beyond just the Roman Catholic Church when pointing towards their own "tag" line (present under comments, this thread).
The projected and much assumed (by Roman Catholics) existence for only their own ekklesia having been even supernaturally, by God, protected from all theological error (thus be infallible) not only assumes facts not entirely in evidence (and it would need be entire or else not free of any error -- including even shadings of teachings -- which can use virtually the same words) but to maintain that premise, one most obviously must respond to difficulties & challenges to that premise either by willful blindness, or special pleading qualifications be applied to what even those at highest levels say, describing those things as just that which people say or do (have said or have done) and it not be "the church".
But leaving that somewhat aside, moving on to other aspect of this discussion, I can honestly say that;
I have seen a few whom indicate they are [Roman] Catholics (in regards to Christian traditions) point all the way back to Abraham as being inclusive of "the church" -- and why not? I do think that be proper enough.
You want us to consider and think about Tradition?
Like -- many of us here have not, already? (or do not on daily basis, read and evaluate).
Perhaps some have not, or do not engage in that activity --- much.
The one here whom we know as "metmom" is not generally one of those (who has not or does not consider "Traditions" of the Church).
I am not one who does not consider them, either.
Although I cannot put myself into category such as Philip Schaff, Henry Wace and others whom worked with and in conjunction with those two men --- I can at least read their written works.
I mention those two, in part, that their works of translation and history are oft cited in the Catholic Encyclopedia, with entries traced back to those men at web locations such as New Advent (when NA is citing CE).
Yet those men themselves ----- with all the in-depth and extremely detailed knowledge which they had of "traditions" within the Church, did not themselves covert to [Roman] Catholicism, yet they were still "Catholic" or perhaps better put in lower case ---catholic.
As for your "tag", you may see The Roman Catholic Church as the One True Church --- and everyone else (including all the various 'flavors' or arrangement of those who refer to themselves as Orthodox) either not, or lesser so.
That is the great and pervasive Romish conceit, that "they" are the center of everything --- having all and being all -- with none other having "all" of that which is good & and of Christ -- or even be allowed access to it (when it comes to "Protestants" anyway...) unless anyone seeking Him first [figuratively, and in previous ages even literally] prostates themselves in front of the bishop of Roma (A.K.A) "the pope" as if he truly was God's own foremost.
Again, the very same traditions by which it can be well enough, assuredly known "who wrote the Gospels" does not provide support for all which has came into being, centuries afterwards.