How to Deal with St. Paul and Difficult/Controversial Passages!

  • Thread starter Thread starter jinc1019
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jinc1019

Guest
Of all the New Testament documents, it seems to me that St. Paul’s have been the most controversial and troublesome for many Christians and various denominations. The same has certainly been true for myself. It is Paul, after all, who outlines the immorality of homosexuality, the requirement of women wearing head coverings, the suggestion that priests should be married and have children, the belief that secular government rulers are ordained by God, the confirmation of slavery as a valid institution (this is of course implicit because he talks about it but never rejects it, and numerous other difficult passages. The morality preached directly by Jesus Himself have so firmly become a part of Western culture that it is easy to accept those teachings without thinking twice. These teachings are, of course, from God directly and are roundly accepted by virtually all true Christian denominations.

St. Paul’s writings are more difficult to fully accept in the modern world (I acknowledge that for previous generations prior to the Reformation, these issues were not as problematic as they are today, but I am sure they still caused a lot of problems for a lot of people throughout the ages).
I am not a theologian, nor am I gifted with prophecy, so everything I am saying here is admittedly said without the protection of the Holy Spirit expressly given and is said to help better understand what the real theological truth actually is. It seems to me that much of the difficulty Christians have with St. Paul is that we universally reject or alter or interpret certain passages in his writings in a way that does not require strict adherence, such as the passages stating that women should be silent in church or women should have their heads covered. Other passages, such as the ones on homosexuality, are demanded by the Church to be followed completely and read plainly.

Now I know the obvious answer to these questions are Church authority and infallibility…But those answers offer no intellectual security or understanding at all on the issue actually at hand. So, in the spirit of actually trying to interpret Paul’s writings as they were intended, I believe a classification must be developed and applied to everything Paul wrote.
It seems from my novice examination of his writings that there are 4 categories of passages and writings, broadly speaking:
  1. Teachings about Christ generally or specifically. For instance, Paul tells us that God is love, that love is patient, that love is kind, the importance of his sacrifice, etc.
  2. Stories about Christ or his own life. Paul makes references to stories about Jesus or Paul’s own conversion story.
    Both of the above categories are straightforward and do not require any further comment because none of the difficult passages from Paul which are controversial in our modern world fall within them. The bottom line for these two categories are, however, they have universal and everlasting authority for all Christians exactly as they are written.
  3. Moral Code. St. Paul talks a great deal about how we should live our lives as good Christians, essentially teaching the newly converted gentiles, and non-gentiles alike, what it means to be a good Christian and how a good Christian should act in daily life. This category includes how we should treat each other, how we should treat the government, sexual purity (homosexual relationships), idol worshipping, etc.
  4. Church Code and Church Behavior. St. Paul also spends a great deal of time talking about how Christians should run the church. This category includes the requirements for being a bishop/priest, women speaking and teaching in church, modest clothing, conduct for the Eucharistic meal, how men should not cover their heads any longer, how women should cover their heads in church, and numerous other guidelines as well.
Categories 3 and 4, in my view, differ greatly in authority. The following is why I believe this to be true. Category 3 about morality and how Christians should act, includes statements which are clearly and definitively meant to be followed for all time. Why? Because they are about following God’s vision for man, and God’s vision for man does not change with time. We are ALWAYS called to avoid lying, to avoid lust, to never murder, to always love one another, etc. These are things which apply in our daily lives at all times for all-time.

Continued below…
 
Category 4, which is about the early church should operate and how we should behave in the early church, is written to fit certain cultures, communities, and times. This explains why in some letters, Paul contradicts himself on certain things. For instance, Paul suggests women can engage in “prophesies” in 1 Corinthians 11 (or teaching of the scripture/conducting prophecy; the interpretation could mean either) but only when their heads are covered, while he also says in another passage that women should be silent in Church. This is a clear contradiction. As far as I know, you cannot have “prophesies” in silence. If you could, there are still numerous other examples where the Church does not view the passage as authoritative. Women covering their heads is one of them. This is viewed as “discipline” only and not a requirement like Category 3. Priests and bishops being married is another. Paul is quite clear that they should be married, have kids, and have managed a household. Even if you are to believe Paul only means “this is the ideal candidate,” and not “this is the set in stone requirement,” you still must accept that the Catholic Church completely rejects this passage as authoritative.

There are other examples as well, but you get the point. Essentially the category 4 requirements seem to be less authoritative than all the other requirements. In a way, this makes perfect sense. Modern bishops can make all kinds of rules or requirements which Catholics are called to follow but which have no expectation of being eternal truths that last forever. Your local bishop probably has many of these rules which are distinct from other dioceses around the world. A dioceses in Chicago is going to be different than a dioceses in Syria, at least in terms of certain Church rules set by the bishop.

I believe this explains why the Catholic Church has changed many of these requirements by St. Paul over the centuries, albeit slowly and carefully. I also believe this is why the Catholic Church, at least not from what I have seen, relies on Paul’s writings when explaining the position on the ordination of women. I think this is an important point so I will explain it further. The Church teaches women cannot be ordained. Pope John Paul II made it clear that the reasons for this is that men and women have different roles in Church and society, that Jesus did not select women when picking his apostles, and because it has always been Church tradition. He could certainly cite Paul as proof of this tradition, but at no point does he say “St. Paul’s letters are infallible and clearly state women must be silent in church, therefore the issue is resolved.” Why? Why doesn’t he do that? It seems a lot easier and it goes along with the conclusions of the Church anyway. I believe the reason is because the Church recognizes Paul’s requirements of Church conduct are NOT authoritative or even meant to be authoritative beyond Paul’s Episcopal authority at the time. In other words, the Catholic Church believes it has the authority to change any of Paul’s requirements in category 4 and has chosen NOT to change Paul’s requirement on women ordination because of issues not related to Paul, as I outlined above.
So my question to all of you is, does this make sense? Do I have this right? Is there anything you would change or alter? Is this helpful when thinking about interpreting St. Paul’s writings?

I appreciate all of your feedback and comments.

God Bless!
Justin
 
Many things in Paul are a such that cannot be changed (like on homosexuality) --others are not in that area (like head coverings).
 
For a good understanding of Paul I think you will find these audiences of Pope Benedict XVI interesting…

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061025_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061108_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061115_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061122_en.html

Series from the Year of St. Paul

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20080702_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20080827_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20080903_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20080910_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20080924_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081001_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081008_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081015_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081022_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081029_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081105_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081112_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081126_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081203_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081210_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090107_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090114_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090128_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090204_en.html

books that contain them:

ignatius.com/Products/SPAUL-H/saint-paul.aspx

ignatius.com/Products/JAEC-H/jesus-the-apostles-and-the-early-church.aspx
 
Without getting all into your long post…I will note quickly:

“Paul is quite clear that they should be married, have kids, and have managed a household. Even if you are to believe Paul only means “this is the ideal candidate,” and not “this is the set in stone requirement,” you still must accept that the Catholic Church completely rejects this passage as authoritative.”

No he does not. He says married only once. Paul himself was not married and he urged others to go the same route as he.

The Church does not “completely reject the passage as being authoritative”. But judges not to have married Bishops at all.
 
Category 4, which is about the early church should operate and how we should behave in the early church, is written to fit certain cultures, communities, and times. This explains why in some letters, Paul contradicts himself on certain things. For instance, Paul suggests women can engage in “prophesies” in 1 Corinthians 11 (or teaching of the scripture/conducting prophecy; the interpretation could mean either) but only when their heads are covered, while he also says in another passage that women should be silent in Church. This is a clear contradiction. As far as I know, you cannot have “prophesies” in silence.
The section you mention seems to be about discipline and roll of a man and a woman in worship. Then there is outside of worship. As you know from our history, disciplines like head covering at mass, we’ve seen come and go.
 
Without getting all into your long post…I will note quickly:

“Paul is quite clear that they should be married, have kids, and have managed a household. Even if you are to believe Paul only means “this is the ideal candidate,” and not “this is the set in stone requirement,” you still must accept that the Catholic Church completely rejects this passage as authoritative.”

No he does not. He says married only once. Paul himself was not married and he urged others to go the same route as he.

The Church does not “completely reject the passage as being authoritative”. But judges not to have married Bishops at all.
I know what the Church teaches about the meaning of the passage, but such an interpretation is contrary to logic and common sense…not to mention a simple reading of the passage. It clearly says what it says. To suggest it was placed there to address polygamy is absurd. Surely he meant to include that as well as part of the passage, but the passage says in clear terms that bishops should (not must) meet those criteria. To say otherwise is to completely ignore the reading’s language. Secondly, the Church does NOT base its stance on polygamy on this passage, therefore, I maintain this passage is rejected, and all like it, as non-authoritative.
 
The section you mention seems to be about discipline and roll of a man and a woman in worship. Then there is outside of worship. As you know from our history, disciplines like head covering at mass, we’ve seen come and go.
I agree. As I pointed out, the Church has gone in a totally different direction from many of Paul’s statements on how to behave and how the Church should be structured. The Church, in terms of structure, is RADICALLY different the one that existed when Paul was conducting his ministry. I believe our arguments work well together.
 
Many things in Paul are a such that cannot be changed (like on homosexuality) --others are not in that area (like head coverings).
Yes, this is exactly my point.

Except, how do we distinguish between the two? Other than relying on the Church, why would we read one of Paul’s statements about homosexuality and another about women being silent in church and read them differently? I agree that we should, but why should we? That’s what I was trying to address here…a way to differentiate between the statements that ARE authoritative and binding even for the Church and the ones that are not.
 
Yes, this is exactly my point.

That’s what I was trying to address here…a way to differentiate between the statements that ARE authoritative and binding even for the Church and the ones that are not.
From Pope Benedict himself…“Unfortunately – he said - these principles were also poorly understood.” In fact, intelligibility does not mean “banalizing” because the great texts of the liturgy - even in the spoken languages - are not easily intelligible, “they require an ongoing formation of the Christian, so that he may grow and enter deeper into the depths of the mystery, and thus comprehend”. And also concerning the Word of God - he asked - who can honestly say they understand the texts of Scripture, simply because they are in their own language? “Only a permanent formation of the heart and mind can actually create intelligibility and participation which is more than one external activity, which is an entering of the person, of his or her being into communion with the Church and thus in fellowship with Christ.”
 
Without getting all into your long post…I will note quickly:
“Paul is quite clear that they should be married, have kids, and have managed a household. Even if you are to believe Paul only means “this is the ideal candidate,” and not “this is the set in stone requirement,” you still must accept that the Catholic Church completely rejects this passage as authoritative.”
Bookcat is absolutely correct.

I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:7-9)

Priests are expected to exercise self control, and it is “well for them” to do so, or else they should marry and not become priests.

Married priests and deacons today are “Husbands of one wife”. They don’t get married after their wives die, exactly as it says in the Bible.

-Tim-
 
From Pope Benedict himself…“Unfortunately – he said - these principles were also poorly understood.” In fact, intelligibility does not mean “banalizing” because the great texts of the liturgy - even in the spoken languages - are not easily intelligible, “they require an ongoing formation of the Christian, so that he may grow and enter deeper into the depths of the mystery, and thus comprehend”. And also concerning the Word of God - he asked - who can honestly say they understand the texts of Scripture, simply because they are in their own language? “Only a permanent formation of the heart and mind can actually create intelligibility and participation which is more than one external activity, which is an entering of the person, of his or her being into communion with the Church and thus in fellowship with Christ.”
This is a very eloquent way of saying “the only way to know is to ask the Church’s position on it.” I am not here to debate whether that is a perfectly acceptable answer or not, but regardless of what you think (assuming you think that is the correct answer), there are millions of people around the world who would respond to reason rather than to faith in a Church they are not members of. Do you really expect evangelical Christians to believe they should accept the Church’s position because the position is always guaranteed to be right by the Holy Spirit? That’s a losing argument a major reason so many Americans have left the Catholic Church. Catholics need intelligible answers to these questions and engage in apologetics. For some people, you have to win their minds over too…and you should act as though that is a negative thing.
 
Bookcat is absolutely correct.

I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:7-9)

Priests are expected to exercise self control, and it is “well for them” to do so, or else they should marry and not become priests.

Married priests and deacons today are “Husbands of one wife”. They don’t get married after their wives die, exactly as it says in the Bible.

-Tim-
This quote really doesn’t disprove anything I said…I am not making the argument priests can or should be allowed to have marriages. My argument is…there needs to be a way to differentiate between the passages of scripture which the Church says are authoritative and the passages which are not. I don’t see that anywhere, although admittedly it could exist. As I already said, you can quote all kinds of parts of Paul’s letters the Church interprets in ways that a strict reading never could. They take a lot of liberty with their interpretations (not saying that is incorrect but it is a fact). So the point is, they should CLEARLY articulate HOW they make the distinction between parts of Paul’s letters which are authoritative as written and parts which are not. Otherwise, it just looks like they are making it up as they go.
 
This is a very eloquent way of saying “the only way to know is to ask the Church’s position on it.”

Well…how will one know unless one takes the initiative to ask, to seek, to study?🤷
I am not here to debate whether that is a perfectly acceptable answer or not, but regardless of what you think (assuming you think that is the correct answer), there are millions of people around the world who would respond to reason rather than to faith in a Church they are not members of.
 
I know what the Church teaches about the meaning of the passage, but such an interpretation is contrary to logic and common sense…not to mention a simple reading of the passage. It clearly says what it says. To suggest it was placed there to address polygamy is absurd. Surely he meant to include that as well as part of the passage, but the passage says in clear terms that bishops should (not must) meet those criteria. To say otherwise is to completely ignore the reading’s language. Secondly, the Church does NOT base its stance on polygamy on this passage, therefore, I maintain this passage is rejected, and all like it, as non-authoritative.
I repeat what I noted above.

With the clarification that I would say it was not placed there regarding “polygamy” but rather “second marriages”
 
I repeat what I noted above.

With the clarification that I would say it was not placed there regarding “polygamy” but rather “second marriages”
Fair enough, but I don’t think a straight reading of the passage makes it possible to come to that conclusion. It doesn’t explain the rest of the passage, requirements about children, financial responsibility, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top