St. Paul kidnapped
Too many times, I see my liberal "catholic" relatives constantly evoking St. Paul.  What is with this annoying trend? 
Could have something to do with how he supposedly rebelled against Peter, and did his own thing, independant of Church control.

...liberals (even of the nominal "Catholic" variety) generally embrace feminism... can they go on "evoking" St. Paul in light of his writings on women??  This makes no sense to me...
In the past I've seen Lutherans use Paul to explain Christ. I noted this as a specific problem with Protestants. It seemed to be a way around Peter.

Probably more accurate to say JPII/NO crowd.  I think Tim is correct regarding a "way around Peter", and therefore the Church. 
Do you all mean "invoke"? It makes more sense I think.
Yep.  My bad. :blush:
(02-06-2012, 11:35 PM)Tim Wrote: In the past I've seen Lutherans use Paul to explain Christ. I noted this as a specific problem with Protestants. It seemed to be a way around Peter.

The Protestant tendency to appeal to St. Paul ultimately goes all the way back to Luther and Calvin.  They read St. Paul's writings concerning grace, and concluded that the Church's teachings were incorrect.  Looking at the Reformation from a strictly theological standpoint (which is artificial), one could describe it as a disagreement over the proper context of St. Paul.  St. Paul focuses on the saving power of grace, and man's inability to obtain grace by his own works.  Because the Reformers took what we might call a minimalist or reductionist approach to scripture, they concluded that works have no role in salvation, other than to  manifest the existence of grace in a person.  The Church replied that St. Paul was often describing grace in general terms, and that a closer analysis of St. Paul reveals the distinctions between the the grace that predisposes a person to receive the Word and the grace that signifies friendship, or son-ship with the Lord.  However, because of the Protestant belief in private judgment, the Reformers rejected the traditional interpretation of St. Paul. 

The focus on St. Paul remains strong in the Evangelical churches, because they remain strongly bible based.  Without sacraments, Evangelicals also rely on St. Paul for the specific teachings on how to order the Christian life appropriately.  While Catholics tend to look  at avoiding sin as "doing good" (ie.not gorging at meals is a positive good), while Protestants tend to look at it passively, as a sign that grace exists in the person, the observed effect is the same for both:  Catholic and Protestant both refrain from gluttony. 

The more modern interpretations of Protestantism suffer from the same malady as their Catholic counterparts:  there is a strong desire to read St. Paul selectively, and to reinterpret him.  For example, from the ecumanists one hears very little about the word of God cleaving like a sword (Hebrews, 4:12) or the condemnation of the non believers, set forth at length in Romans.  There was a reason that the old mass did not dilute St. Paul with lengthy psalms and old testament readings and gave him his own side of the church.   
I think a major problem is that people read the writings of St. Paul as the writings of St. Paul.

They are not his writings. They are from the Holy Ghost. Also, all of his writings are letters and written to a specific target as well as for everyone. Understanding who first read them helps understand the focus. St. Paul and all the apostles spent their time traveling and teaching. The letters are a very small part of what they did and they supplemented what was taught. St. Paul was writing to real people who he had visited about teachings they were already taught.

It is clear that the writings of St. Paul deal with subjects in more detail that scripture generally does not, that is good, but it makes it easy for many to forget that what he wrote was not knew. It was implicit (at least) in the words of Jesus.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)