Question about the Pauline epistles

  • Thread starter Thread starter frenchbeatle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Fathers unanimously held that the Pauline Epistles were written by Paul.
  2. The Council of Trent forbid anyone to contradict the unanimous teaching of the Fathers.
  3. The Council of Trent, in the context of infallibly defining which books are sacred and canonical, explicitly stated that the Pauline Epistles are the letters of Paul the Apostle.
  4. Therefore, the Church teaches that Paul wrote the Pauline Epistles.
  5. All of the Pauline Epistles (but not Hebrews) explicitly state that they were written by Paul, or by Paul with other authors.
  6. If any of these Epistles were not written by Paul, then those statements in those verses of Scripture would be in error.
  7. Several Popes definitively taught that Sacred Scripture is both entirely inspired by God and entirely inerrant, even in matters beyond the subject of faith and morals, AND that this teaching is the teaching of the Church.
  8. Therefore, the Church teaches that Paul wrote the Pauline Epistles.
St. Thomas Aquinas: It is unlawful to hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or that the writers thereof have told untruths, because faith would be deprived of its certitude which is based on the authority of Holy Writ. (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 110, A. 3).

If Paul did not write the letters which state that he is their author, then canonical Scripture would contain false assertions.

"St. Jerome’s teaching on this point serves to confirm and illustrate what our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, declared to be the ancient and traditional belief of the Church touching the absolute immunity of Scripture from error: So far is it from being the case that error can be compatible with inspiration, that, on the contrary, it not only of its very nature precludes the presence of error, but as necessarily excludes it and forbids it as God, the Supreme Truth, necessarily cannot be the Author of error. " (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 16)

If Paul did not write the letters which state that he is their author, then Scripture is not absolutely immune from error.

“But although these words of our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 18 )

If Paul did not write the letters which state that he is their author, then there is room for doubt or dispute about inerrancy.

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21)

If Paul did not write the letters which state that he is their author, then there are exceptions to inerrancy in the inspired text.

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

The idea that Scripture contains some false assertions has been condemned by several Popes. So why does this idea persist?
 
Bookcat said:
If the writer was writing according to contemporary literary forms where it makes use of the names of important figures to convey important ideas of their school of thought…then that writer was not intending to assert that the person named was actually writing the letter…but was making use of the name as was the custom of the time…
Click to expand...
If any writer deliberately choses to assert that a false statement is true, then he commits the intrinsically evil sin of lying. A good intention can never make an intrinsically evil act moral. No intention, no purpose can ever transform an inherently immoral act, such as lying, into a good act.

This is the same mistake that many commentators make on the subject of morality. They fail to understsand that good intentions cannot justify or transform intrinsically evil acts.

The good intention to convey an important idea does not justify the deliberate assertion of a falsehood, nor does it change the moral object from evil to good. And the assertion of falsehoods is NOT a type of literary form. But even if, in this sinful world, the assertion of falsehoods were foolishly considered a literary form, it is certainly not a type of literary form that the Holy Spirit would use.

Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that an author could write a letter, under inspiration from the Spirit of Truth, and falsely claim that the author was Paul the Apostle. This is especially true since these letters both teach and command with authority, the authority of Paul, a Bishop and Apostle. The Holy Spirit could not possibly inspire another person to falsely claim to have the authority of Paul – unique authority in the Church since he was appointed by the Pope, Peter, to preach the Gospels to the Gentiles. It is NOT a literary form to falsely claim to have the authority of a Bishop and Apostle, and then to teach and command with that claimed authority.
 
Ron_Conte said:
If any writer deliberately choses to assert that a false statement is true, then he commits the intrinsically evil sin of lying. A good intention can never make an intrinsically evil act moral. No intention, no purpose can ever transform an inherently immoral act, such as lying, into a good act.

This is the same mistake that many commentators make on the subject of morality. They fail to understsand that good intentions cannot justify or transform intrinsically evil acts.

The good intention to convey an important idea does not justify the deliberate assertion of a falsehood, nor does it change the moral object from evil to good. And the assertion of falsehoods is NOT a type of literary form. But even if, in this sinful world, the assertion of falsehoods were foolishly considered a literary form, it is certainly not a type of literary form that the Holy Spirit would use.

Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that an author could write a letter, under inspiration from the Spirit of Truth, and falsely claim that the author was Paul the Apostle. This is especially true since these letters both teach and command with authority, the authority of Paul, a Bishop and Apostle. The Holy Spirit could not possibly inspire another person to falsely claim to have the authority of Paul – unique authority in the Church since he was appointed by the Pope, Peter, to preach the Gospels to the Gentiles. It is NOT a literary form to falsely claim to have the authority of a Bishop and Apostle, and then to teach and command with that claimed authority.
Click to expand...
You are misunderstanding this…

Scripture does not contain “false assertions” …though the assertions must be understood correctly…

I refer you to the Church on this, Dei Verbum…etc

and to the various exegetes of orthodox reputation.

Oh…heck…I just refer you to Pope Benedict XVI!
 
Again…this does not mean that Paul did not write them…I think he did.

Only that it is not a simple case of “it says Paul” therefore it would be a lie if such is not the case…and such could not happen…therefore it is Paul.

The claim of authorship can be merely a literary device…from a “School of Paul” etc …which would be understood as such in the context it was written…from the way people wrote in this time and place. But again I do not hold this was the case here.

In any case it is Sacred Scripture etc…

and I would say it is “from Paul” perhaps via a different amanuensis than he used before…but Paul none the less.

My only point in the above was to say that the Church per se does not exclude the possibility…and does not per se say one must hold the letters to Timothy as being from Paul. etc
 
frenchbeatle said:
At my parish, before the first two readings, the lector reads an excerpt from a source giving background and explanation about the reading. (And no, I don’t know what this source is.) For the epistles, there have been times when the source says that the author is unknown.

For the past few weekends, when we hear the letters to Timothy, the source says “the author” as opposed to saying Paul, and the first weekend of the Timothy readings, the source says Paul probably didn’t write this letter, but it has been traditionally assigned to him. The Letter to the Hebrews is the same way, the author is unknown.

The reason I’m confused is that my bible, the Douay-Rhiems version, titles both these letters as “The Epistle of St. Paul to…” either Hebrews or Timothy. Plus, the first lines of both letters to Timothy both identify that Paul wrote them.

So who is right? Who wrote these letters? Do we even know with any degree of certainty?
Click to expand...
We don’t know who wrote the letter to the Hebrews. No one in the letter claims to be the author. The letters to Timothy on the other hand were clearly authored by Paul:

1 Timothy chapter 1:
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, 2 to Timothy, my true child in faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Timothy chapter 1:
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God for the promise of life in Christ Jesus,
2 to Timothy, my dear child: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
 
frenchbeatle said:
At my parish, before the first two readings, the lector reads an excerpt from a source giving background and explanation about the reading. (And no, I don’t know what this source is.) For the epistles, there have been times when the source says that the author is unknown.

For the past few weekends, when we hear the letters to Timothy, the source says “the author” as opposed to saying Paul, and the first weekend of the Timothy readings, the source says Paul probably didn’t write this letter, but it has been traditionally assigned to him. The Letter to the Hebrews is the same way, the author is unknown.

The reason I’m confused is that my bible, the Douay-Rhiems version, titles both these letters as “The Epistle of St. Paul to…” either Hebrews or Timothy. Plus, the first lines of both letters to Timothy both identify that Paul wrote them.

So who is right? Who wrote these letters? Do we even know with any degree of certainty?
Click to expand...
Mass is the worship of God, not Bible study class. The lector who allows it should be discharged as he/she has failed in his/her duty. They have no right to stand on the altar of Our Lord in such arrogant disobedience.

Obviously the priest knows this is going on, and should be severely reprimanded by this bishop.

Again, Mass is only for the public worship (“liturgy”) of our God. This is a severe abuse that needs to be addressed - the lector might be leading the people astray - from God instead of towards Him – what God said in His book is sufficient - the lector does not need to try to ‘improve’ on God. That is why it is so arrogant and offensive…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top