Catholic doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimmo42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jimmo42

Guest
Greetings!

While reading an article on the .newadvent.org website I came across something that surprised me and also intrigued me. I am not a Catholic but I was always led to believe that Catholics were biblical literalists (which I have learned is incorrect). In the article I read, it mentions (referring to the Pauline epistles) “in his undoubtedly genuine Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians”,

“undoubtedly genuine”? This would indicate to me that the writer believes that there is some question on the authorship of other epistles. Is this a common Catholic belief? Is an “official” position of the Church? Are there sites where I can investigate the official position?

I am not a troll. I am not looking for an argument. I am genuinely interested.

Regards to all,

jimmo42
 
I do not know what the Official Church stand on it is. Eitherway the Church was preaching the same message as the bible, before the bible was written and canonized.

Esphesians

The letter is baroque, magnificent and mellifluous, flowing in long,repetitious sentences,quite unlike the darting, pugnacious style of Paul. Some Scholars still maintain that Paul himself wrote the letter, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that, rather than issuing from Paul’s pen, this is the earliest commentary on Paul, apllying his teaching to a new situation,and adopting certain portions of Colossians, which the author to be by Paul himself.

If it was not written by Paul himself, he probably authorized the letter, or the person used Paul’s teachings to base the structure of the letter.

Colossians

The theology of Colossians has devloped since Paul’s Great Epistles, to the extent that many wonder whether the author is Paul or a disciple deeply influenced by him, writings as he judged Paul would have written, and using keywords and many phrases from the Pauline letters.

PhilippiansSome of the information was drafted from the “The CTS, New Catholic Bible”

God Bless.
 
jimmo42 said:
“undoubtedly genuine”? This would indicate to me that the writer believes that there is some question on the authorship of other epistles.
Click to expand...
Here is the article referred to; the OCE article on Arianism.

The authenticity of the Pauline epistles which are in today’s New Testament were decided by the Church in several synods (Hippo and Carthage, etc.) in the 4th Century. There is no doubt as to their authenticity and the writer of that article did not intend to imply that such doubts existed.

The author was contrasting the Arians’ supposed “Pauline” doctrine with the real thing.
 
Thank you for your reply. One thing that always brothers me in discussions of this type are words like “probably” and “certainly” without any real evidence. Granted, you are being very clear about your comments being your opinion. However, I am curious as to what indicators your have that “he probably authorized the letter”.

I also do not see any reason why Paul’s writing style cannot change over time. However, this might be a more modern thing. That is, in ancient times writing styles never changed because being able to write at all way relatively rare. I don’t have the training in textual criticism to judge that. Still, its a possibility.

Thanks again!
 
jimmo42 said:
Thank you for your reply. One thing that always brothers me in discussions of this type are words like “probably” and “certainly” without any real evidence. Granted, you are being very clear about your comments being your opinion. However, I am curious as to what indicators your have that “he probably authorized the letter”.

I also do not see any reason why Paul’s writing style cannot change over time. However, this might be a more modern thing. That is, in ancient times writing styles never changed because being able to write at all way relatively rare. I don’t have the training in textual criticism to judge that. Still, its a possibility.

Thanks again!
Click to expand...
Catholic scholars do not agree on the Pauline authorship of Ephesians and Colossians, though to my knowledge no reputable scholar denies his authorship of Philippians.

Yes, as you note, Paul’s writing style could have changed over time. This of course raises the question…does this letter compared to this other letter indicate Paul’s change over time…or a different (literal) author? Scholars will continue to opine and disagree.

Regardless, the Catholic Church teaches of course that Scripture is inspired and true, and the “Pauline letters” are “Pauline” even if they weren’t literally (physically) written by him.
 
diggerdomer said:
Regardless, the Catholic Church teaches of course that Scripture is inspired and true, and the “Pauline letters” are “Pauline” even if they weren’t literally (physically) written by him.
Click to expand...
Are things like this simply axiomatic? By that I mean, you simply accept it as fact that the early church fathers were inspired (by the holy spirit?) and they selected the “right” books.
 
Cat_Herder said:
The author was contrasting the Arians’ supposed “Pauline” doctrine with the real thing.
Click to expand...
The full quote is:
A similar doctrine is laid down by St. Paul, in his undoubtedly genuine Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians.
Click to expand...
It is explicitly referencing “Epistles”, and not doctrine. So, I am not sure where you are getting “doctine” from.
 
jimmo42 said:
The full quote is:

It is explicitly referencing “Epistles”, and not doctrine. So, I am not sure where you are getting “doctine” from.
Click to expand...
Read the next paragraph, where it says “Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius.”

The author is saying that the genuine doctrine of Paul is Trinitarian, as taught in his Epistles, and we know this is the genuine doctrine because those epistles are in fact genuine.
 
jimmo42 said:
Are things like this simply axiomatic? By that I mean, you simply accept it as fact that the early church fathers were inspired (by the holy spirit?) and they selected the “right” books.
Click to expand...
I may not understand what you mean, exactly, so please clarify…but in general I would say yes I accept the Christ’s promise to never leave the Church, and His gift of the Holy Spirit protects the Church from fundamental error…and so, more to the point, the canon of Scripture that the Church accepted is inspired and true.
 
Cat_Herder said:
Read the next paragraph, where it says “Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius.”

The author is saying that the genuine doctrine of Paul is Trinitarian, as taught in his Epistles, and we know this is the genuine doctrine because those epistles are in fact genuine.
Click to expand...
It can be difficult to proclaim a Trinitarian doctrine based on Paul’s letters. After all, it wasn’t until the 4th century and later that the Church finally resolved such issues through the teachings of the early Ecumenical Councils. Remember, Paul was a monotheistic Jew.
 
diggerdomer said:
I may not understand what you mean, exactly, so please clarify
Click to expand...
The axiom is that when the early church decided on both doctrine and the canon, they “axiomatically” picked the correct books. Considering how many different variants of Christianity there was at the time, what “evidence” do you have that neither the Marcionites
nor Ebionites had the “correct” doctrine? You have “faith” that the leader of the “official government church” were inspired by the Holy Spirit. There is no real evidence, thus it’s axiomatic.

There is evidence that the some of the Pauline epistles were not really from Paul’s hand and despite the fact there is no evidence at all saying he dictated them and thus there is no evidence he had anything to do with them, you believe that they are still “accepted is inspired and true”. It is quoite possible they were not written by anyone even remotely associated with the apostles and thuse do not met the criteria for inclusion in the canon.
 
The Canonical books of the New Testament are Canonical, before the early Church Fathers believed that they were written by eyewitnesses, and do not contain error. This tradition was codified only in the Council of Trent (16th century), but the list was closed by in the the third century.

In this list all the 14 letters are attributed to St Paul, including the Letter to the Jews.

Naturally the ‘written’ by does not mean that he took the pen and wrote his own hand. He dictated some of them, for others he told what to write, his help formed the words, and he approved it. For this reason the argument for different authorship based on the style is invalid. The content is important and revealed, not the style.

The most serious doubt is against the so called Pastoral letters (1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus). They represent a more developed structure of the hierarchy of the Church than the other letters. We believe that this hierarchy was established through St Paul and the other Apostles, and thus rightly described in his letters.

The somewhat official opinion of the Church can be read in the introductions of the New American Bible:

usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml#romans

This gives voice to the opposition, but keeps the concept of the original eyewitness author.
 
jimmo42 said:
Are things like this simply axiomatic? By that I mean, you simply accept it as fact that the early church fathers were inspired (by the holy spirit?) and they selected the “right” books.
Click to expand...
On the other side of that coin is the high probability many of the books on Christ were lost or destroyed.
 
jimmo42 said:
The axiom is that when the early church decided on both doctrine and the canon, they “axiomatically” picked the correct books. Considering how many different variants of Christianity there was at the time, what “evidence” do you have that neither the Marcionites
nor Ebionites had the “correct” doctrine? You have “faith” that the leader of the “official government church” were inspired by the Holy Spirit. There is no real evidence, thus it’s axiomatic.

There is evidence that the some of the Pauline epistles were not really from Paul’s hand and despite the fact there is no evidence at all saying he dictated them and thus there is no evidence he had anything to do with them, you believe that they are still “accepted is inspired and true”. It is quoite possible they were not written by anyone even remotely associated with the apostles and thuse do not met the criteria for inclusion in the canon.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I think I disagree with you definition of “axiomatic” but that may be too far afield to follow up on. I don’t have faith that some early leader of the Church was inspired by the Spirit, but rather that the whole Church was, is, and always will be. The Marcionites and Ebionites of course had some correct doctrine. But they also had incorrect doctrine, that’s why they were considered heretical or schismatic or whatever by the early Church.

I think the Catholic understanding of Scripture would disagree with your suggestion that it’s possible that Pauline epistles were not written by anyone even remotely associated with the apostles and so do not meet criteria for canonicity. The early Church was very concerned with Tradition, and Apostolicity. I’ve never come across anything to suggest that the Church’s teaching on canonicity, regarding apostolic authorship, is called into question.
 
I wish to thank everyone for taking the time to reply. I definitely have a much better understanding.

Regards to All!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top