Paul and other apostles

[ahimsaman72]

I never see Paul spoken of much here on the forum in any regards. It’s almost like he’s a red-headed stepchild compared to the likes of Peter. (I mean no disrespect to him). Considering Paul wrote most of the New Testament and by far expounded on more early Christian beliefs than anybody, my question is - why is he not put on a higher pedestal by the Catholic Church leaders and lay people in general? I will be away from the internet for a few days, so I won’t be able to respond right away. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. God bless.

 

[Steven_Merten]

ahimsaman72:

I never see Paul spoken of much here on the forum in any regards. It’s almost like he’s a red-headed stepchild compared to the likes of Peter. (I mean no disrespect to him). Considering Paul wrote most of the New Testament and by far expounded on more early Christian beliefs than anybody, my question is - why is he not put on a higher pedestal by the Catholic Church leaders and lay people in general? I will be away from the internet for a few days, so I won’t be able to respond right away. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. God bless.

Hello ahimsaman72,

You must not have visited any of the faith VS. works threads. St. Paul is all over these threads.

Simply click the search menu at the top of the page and type in St. Paul. You will find him.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[Toni]

ahimsaman72:

I never see Paul spoken of much here on the forum in any regards. It’s almost like he’s a red-headed stepchild compared to the likes of Peter. (I mean no disrespect to him). Considering Paul wrote most of the New Testament and by far expounded on more early Christian beliefs than anybody, my question is - why is he not put on a higher pedestal by the Catholic Church leaders and lay people in general? I will be away from the internet for a few days, so I won’t be able to respond right away. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. God bless.

Recently there was a poll or something in regards to Peter and Paul.
I do love St. Peter but absolutely am amazed by St. Paul. I love his zeal. I have the video on Peter and Paul and there is quite a contrast between the two.
Years ago I had to deal with many religions trying to pull out my Catholic friends and family, and guess who they used, (as you said the red headed step child) oh this Paul I did not like, his writings were so misinterpeted and I never realized how much until I dealt with this. Paul became my rival, I did not want to look at his books in the bible any longer.
But then I woke up and fell in love with St. Paul and was glad in the end that I had to deal with all that. I would have never really looked into St. Paul much had it of not been for those protestants.
The reason you will not see much about St. Paul is because he is to easy for non catholics to jump on and throw around bits and pieces of his letters.
Every time I see them I cringe as I said poor St. Paul… what a great person to study.

 

[Todd_Easton]

ahimsaman72:

Considering Paul wrote most of the New Testament and by far expounded on more early Christian beliefs than anybody, my question is - why is he not put on a higher pedestal by the Catholic Church leaders and lay people in general?

Actually, based on the number of pages written, St. Paul did not write most of the New Testament. He did, however, write about one quarter of it, which is still a significant amount. (In my Bible, the Letters of St. Paul take up about 57 pages and the whole New Testament takes up about 233 pages, which means that St. Paul was responsible for about 25% of the New Testament by volume.) Even based just on the number of individual works, St. Paul was responsible for less than half (about 48%) of the New Testament since only 13 of the 27 works of the New Testament claim to be written by St. Paul. This is, however, still a significant number of the New Testament works.

St. Paul’s is often cited in official Church documents. For example, even though the writings of St. Paul make up only about one quarter (about 25%) of the New Testament, about one third (about 33%) of the New Testament citations in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church are to the writings of St. Paul. Therefore, one could easily argue the Catholic Church bases its beliefs on St. Paul more than any other New Testament writer.

St. Paul also holds a very high place in the liturgy of the Catholic Church. At Sunday Mass, during the Liturgy of the Word, there are three Bible readings: the First Reading (almost always a selection from the Old Testament); the Second Reading (a selection from a non-Gospel New Testament writing); and then the Gospel Reading (a selection from one of the four Gospels). Even though the Letters of St. Paul make up only about 45% of the non-Gospel New Testament writings, by volume, the Second Reading at Sunday Mass is usually from the writings of St. Paul (i.e., roughly 70% of the Second Readings are from St. Paul). In other words, if you go to Sunday Mass, you will probably hear something from the writings of St. Paul. Also, at any Mass, when Eucharistic Prayer 1 (the Roman Canon) is used and the saints are honored, Saints Peter and Paul are mentioned together before any of the other apostles. Likewise, whenever the Litany of Saints is prayed, Saints Peter and Paul are invoked together before any of the other apostles. Saints Peter and Paul are remembered together on the same feastday, June 29.

Based on these facts, I would say the Catholic Church considers St. Paul to be quite important indeed.

 

[Augustine]

ahimsaman72:

Considering Paul wrote most of the New Testament…

One cannot forget that St. Mark’s Gospel is pretty much St. Peter’s, as the former was the latter’s “sidekick”. St. Paul comments on the Gospel, thus on some of what St. Peter wrote.

While St. Paul wrote quite a bit, St. Peter would convert people by the thousands at the same time. There wouldn’t be churches for St. Paul to write to if it weren’t in great part for St. Peter’s preaching of the Word.

Which’s more important? Neither. Both spoke the Truth as inspired by the Holy Spirit. Both are but accidental authors. We Catholics don’t pay as much attention to the their personal merits as to their message.

May Sts. Paul and Peter pray for us and the Church they helped to grow.

 

[Ghosty]

Actually I’ve seen Paul’s writings quoted a TON on the Apologetics Forum espescially, since he wrote so much about proper practice and behavior for the Church. I think it’s more that he isn’t spoken about as a person so much, and likely because he isn’t as controversial as Peter (not being a Pope and all). Paul’s work is paramount in just about every apologetics discussion, however.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Ghosty:

Actually I’ve seen Paul’s writings quoted a TON on the Apologetics Forum espescially, since he wrote so much about proper practice and behavior for the Church. I think it’s more that he isn’t spoken about as a person so much, and likely because he isn’t as controversial as Peter (not being a Pope and all). Paul’s work is paramount in just about every apologetics discussion, however.

Well doesn’t even Peter say that “Paul is hard” - anything difficult isn’t “in” these days.

 

[Emmaus]

ahimsaman72:

I never see Paul spoken of much here on the forum in any regards.

ahimsaman72,

For reasons others have already stated, I do not agree with your premise. But in my my expeience, It does seem that non-Catholics focus more on Paul’s writings than on other portions of Scripture and the New Testment in particular. Catholics approach Scripture in a different manner.

The Gospels are primary. So many times, in areas of doctrinal dispute with non-Catholics, the empahsis is so much on Paul, that what Jesus had to say gets short shrift in comparison to Paul. But Paul must be interpreted in the light of the Gospels and what Jesus said in them, not the other way around. That is the key to a Catholic understanding of Scripture and the doctrine derived from it. It may also explain your perception that you “never see Paul of much here”.

 

[Exporter]

Augustine:

One cannot forget that St. Mark’s Gospel is pretty much St. Peter’s, as the former was the latter’s “sidekick”. St. Paul comments on the Gospel, thus on some of what St. Peter wrote.

While St. Paul wrote quite a bit, St. Peter would convert people by the thousands at the same time. There wouldn’t be churches for St. Paul to write to if it weren’t in great part for St. Peter’s preaching of the Word.

Which’s more important? Neither. Both spoke the Truth as inspired by the Holy Spirit. Both are but accidental authors. We Catholics don’t pay as much attention to the their personal merits as to their message.

May Sts. Paul and Peter pray for us and the Church they helped to grow.

---

THIS IS WORTH POSTING AGAIN!

 

[ahimsaman72]

Emmaus:

ahimsaman72,

For reasons others have already stated, I do not agree with your premise. But in my my expeience, It does seem that non-Catholics focus more on Paul’s writings than on other portions of Scripture and the New Testment in particular. Catholics approach Scripture in a different manner.

The Gospels are primary. So many times, in areas of doctrinal dispute with non-Catholics, the empahsis is so much on Paul, that what Jesus had to say gets short shrift in comparison to Paul. But Paul must be interpreted in the light of the Gospels and what Jesus said in them, not the other way around. That is the key to a Catholic understanding of Scripture and the doctrine derived from it. It may also explain your perception that you “never see Paul of much here”.

My premise wasn’t meant to be an absolute. I stated that i didn’t see him talked about much on the forum. I’ve looked at many threads and what I HAVE SEEN is very little of him. I would have to say your premise that, “so many times, in areas of doctrinal dispute with non-Catholics, the emphasis is so much on Paul…” is rather subjective in itself. Yes, Paul’s writings as any other author’s writings must be compared and interpreted according to what each other says.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Ghosty:

Actually I’ve seen Paul’s writings quoted a TON on the Apologetics Forum espescially, since he wrote so much about proper practice and behavior for the Church. I think it’s more that he isn’t spoken about as a person so much, and likely because he isn’t as controversial as Peter (not being a Pope and all). Paul’s work is paramount in just about every apologetics discussion, however.

that simply hasn’t been my experience browsing and posting over 150 times. I think Paul’s is actually some of the most controversial writings.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Todd Easton:

Actually, based on the number of pages written, St. Paul did not write most of the New Testament. He did, however, write about one quarter of it, which is still a significant amount. (In my Bible, the Letters of St. Paul take up about 57 pages and the whole New Testament takes up about 233 pages, which means that St. Paul was responsible for about 25% of the New Testament by volume.) Even based just on the number of individual works, St. Paul was responsible for less than half (about 48%) of the New Testament since only 13 of the 27 works of the New Testament claim to be written by St. Paul. This is, however, still a significant number of the New Testament works.

St. Paul’s is often cited in official Church documents. For example, even though the writings of St. Paul make up only about one quarter (about 25%) of the New Testament, about one third (about 33%) of the New Testament citations in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church are to the writings of St. Paul. Therefore, one could easily argue the Catholic Church bases its beliefs on St. Paul more than any other New Testament writer.

St. Paul also holds a very high place in the liturgy of the Catholic Church. At Sunday Mass, during the Liturgy of the Word, there are three Bible readings: the First Reading (almost always a selection from the Old Testament); the Second Reading (a selection from a non-Gospel New Testament writing); and then the Gospel Reading (a selection from one of the four Gospels). Even though the Letters of St. Paul make up only about 45% of the non-Gospel New Testament writings, by volume, the Second Reading at Sunday Mass is usually from the writings of St. Paul (i.e., roughly 70% of the Second Readings are from St. Paul). In other words, if you go to Sunday Mass, you will probably hear something from the writings of St. Paul. Also, at any Mass, when Eucharistic Prayer 1 (the Roman Canon) is used and the saints are honored, Saints Peter and Paul are mentioned together before any of the other apostles. Likewise, whenever the Litany of Saints is prayed, Saints Peter and Paul are invoked together before any of the other apostles. Saints Peter and Paul are remembered together on the same feastday, June 29.

Based on these facts, I would say the Catholic Church considers St. Paul to be quite important indeed.

Your facts are certainly there, but the waters have been muddied a little. Let’s put it this way, of all the NT writers, Paul wrote (arguably) 14 books. All of them written to early churches or church leaders with the exception of Titus and Philemon. In comparison - St. John wrote 5 books, St. Peter wrote 2 books, St. Luke - 2 books, and of course Matthew, Mark James and Jude each writing one book. Obviously, the four gospels take up much of the NT for good reason. So, although you quote pages and percentages, look at the obvious difference in books. Pretty substantial. I think that’s why most non-Catholics focus on St. Paul’s writings. Actually, I think your facts are a little deceptive when looked at closely, for example - “*Even though the Letters of St. Paul make up only about 45% of the non-Gospel New Testament writings, by volume,…” *C’mon friend. You are masking the reality that outside of the gospels, no other writers comes close in amount of writing. I’m not arguing that Paul is to be looked upon as some absolute authority. I’m saying that the evidence is OVERWHELMING as to who was the KEY figure in the early church. What I dislike is the fact that St. Peter is supposed to be the founder of the CC, but find that from the evidence of manuscripts themselves, Peter is not the primal figure in the NT.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Well doesn’t even Peter say that “Paul is hard” - anything difficult isn’t “in” these days.

This is precisely the point I’m trying to make about issues with Peter/Paul with Catholics. I’m glad you proved a very valid point.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Augustine:

While St. Paul wrote quite a bit, St. Peter would convert people by the thousands at the same time. There wouldn’t be churches for St. Paul to write to if it weren’t in great part for St. Peter’s preaching of the Word.

This is exactly what I mean when I ask where mentions of Paul are on this forum. Even if he is mentioned, he cannot hold light compared to Peter. Reminder - the apostles (plural) were to preach and teach and baptize all nations. Truth is that Paul said it well when he said, “I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.” I Cor. 3:6 (NIV) Everyone should get credit where credit is due, but ultimately the glory is due God. He also said later, “By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it.” I Cor. 3:10 and he goes on to say the Christ is the foundation of it all.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Steven Merten:

Hello ahimsaman72,

You must not have visited any of the faith VS. works threads. St. Paul is all over these threads.

Simply click the search menu at the top of the page and type in St. Paul. You will find him.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

Actually, I did a search for simply “Paul” and got gibberish threads. Is faith vs. works threads all his writings good for? Just wondering. There’s alot of talk about pillars and rocks, but little about Paul and the other apostles who founded the early churches.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Still, no one has addressed Paul’s massive amount of early Church doctrine that he expounded upon. Again, why is his apostolic teaching not studied and promoted and why aren’t also the other apostles recognized more? While I love St. Peter, I cannot help but feel that other disciples are overlooked (even the disciple whom Jesus loved - John) much more than need be. They all were instrumental in the early church (as they were commanded to be).

 

[ahimsaman72]

Ghosty:

Actually I’ve seen Paul’s writings quoted a TON on the Apologetics Forum espescially, since he wrote so much about proper practice and behavior for the Church. I think it’s more that he isn’t spoken about as a person so much, and likely because he isn’t as controversial as Peter (not being a Pope and all). Paul’s work is paramount in just about every apologetics discussion, however.

I did a search just now for “Paul” and got this: “response to islamic violence,” “chrismation and confirmation,” “moral dilemma, please help”, etc. etc. Go ahead, do your own search. There is not a “TON” on the apologetics forum". That’s why I posted this thread to start with. Given what I saw with this search and my own personal observation and over 150 posts so far - I’ve seen very LITTLE.

God bless…

 

[Emmaus]

ahimsaman72:

My premise wasn’t meant to be an absolute. I stated that i didn’t see him talked about much on the forum. I’ve looked at many threads and what I HAVE SEEN is very little of him. I would have to say your premise that, “so many times, in areas of doctrinal dispute with non-Catholics, the emphasis is so much on Paul…” is rather subjective in itself. Yes, Paul’s writings as any other author’s writings must be compared and interpreted according to what each other says.

ahimsaman,

Sorry if my post read like I was taking your premise as an absolute. I was merely responding to your perception by putting forth my perception as a means of illustrating why a board such as this might have less emphasis on Paul than you would find elsewhere. Perceptions are by their very nature subjective and I did start with the phrase “in my experience” which is certainly an acknowledgment of the subjective nature of what followed. Of course that does not necessarily dimish the validity my expressed subjective perception nor the validity of your subjective perception.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Emmaus:

ahimsaman,

Sorry if my post read like I was taking your premise as an absolute. I was merely responding to your perception by putting forth my perception as a means of illustrating why a board such as this might have less emphasis on Paul than you would find elsewhere. Perceptions are by their very nature subjective and I did start with the phrase “in my experience” which is certainly an acknowledgment of the subjective nature of what followed. Of course that does not necessarily dimish the validity my expressed subjective perception nor the validity of your subjective perception.

well put -

 

[SP38]

I was just thinking about Paul. AND, does he ever mention that Peter is the “head of the church?”

Seems like Peter gets all the ‘glory’ and somehow the designation of man in charge. . yet all I remember of Paul from Catholic grade school is hearing about the “conversion of Saul”

Seems a bit one sided.