Saint Paul as Infallible

[JesuXPIPassio]

Why do we consider Saint Paul’s writings as worthy of being in the canon? He argued and disagreed with Saint Peter and the rest of the Apostles.

Paul’s writings are all lectures about how to live a Christian life, even though Saint Paul never even actually met Jesus. In all of Scripture, Paul only quotes Jesus once.

I don’t think we can say that Paul’s writings are in the canon because he’s a saint and someone important in the foundation of Christianity. Saint Augustine of Hippo was important too, and we don’t put his writings in the canon. Same with all of the Church fathers. We certainly don’t consider them to be infallible.

Just wondering. I’m not challenging the decision, because I’m sure that we have very valid reasons for the inclusion of the Pauline Epistles. I’m just curious why. Unlike Luther, I don’t claim that I know better than the judgement of the Church as to what books should be in the Bible or not.

 

[awalt]

While Paul had some disagreements with Paul, most notably as I recall the issue of whether Gentiles should be circumsized and adhere to Hebrew law, those disagreements were part of the process and Paul was actually right on that one, and that’s wehat the Church adopted.

Paul’s theology is 100% consistent with the rest of the NT. Eph 2:1-10, on the importance of faith and works, through grace, is classic Catholic teaching, and while his style is very much a pastoral style since he was developing these Church communities, don’t assume there isn’t solid, meaty Catholic teaching in the letters. Remember also, these letters were written very early after Christ’s resurrection, so they may have been the first written words these communities had about Christ. Everything else was oral preaching.

It is in the Bible, and the Church infallibly declared it so, because it is inspired work. See Acts 1:1-19 for when Saul, who is Paul, met Jesus on the road to Damascus (which was his conversion). He repeats the story in Acts 22 and 26.

Paul states how he has received personal revelation from CHrist in Eph 3, might be one other place as well.

 

[JimO]

Paul’s writings are all lectures about how to live a Christian life, even though Saint Paul never even actually met Jesus. In all of Scripture, Paul only quotes Jesus once.

Paul did meet Jesus, the risen Jesus, when he was thrown off his horse and converted. Many of Paul’s writings give us important insights into our faith. He was an apostle through his encounter with Christ and was recognized as such by the Twelve. He was the Apostle to the Gentiles and responsible for spreading the faith to much of the Gentile world.

 

[JimO]

Paul states how he has received personal revelation from CHrist in Eph 3, might be one other place as well.

He also makes this point in Gal 1:11-20. Also, he established the Mass in the Gentile churches. Note in I Cor 10:14-22 and I Cor 11:31, where he not only states that he received this from the Lord (not from the Apostles), but makes it clear that it is the Body and Blood of Christ and that one must go to confession before receiving. These passages demonstrate the importance of the Eucharist because it shows that God made special provision to ensure that the churches established by Paul were clearly instructed in the theology of the Eucharist.

 

[awalt]

Thanks Jim.

I just remembered another great advantage of the Pauline works - since they were so early, and because he specifically references the Resurrection (1Cor 15, 2 Tim 2, 1 Cor 6, 1 Cor 15, 1 Thess 4), this is the ultimate proof against the later heresies that said the CHurch made up the whole ressurection thing a couple hundred years down the road.

 

[blackrobe]

Paul did meet Jesus, the risen Jesus, when he was thrown off his horse and converted. Many of Paul’s writings give us important insights into our faith. He was an apostle through his encounter with Christ and was recognized as such by the Twelve. He was the Apostle to the Gentiles and responsible for spreading the faith to much of the Gentile world.

Nitpick: There is no horse involved in that episode, at least as it is related in Scripture. This is a case of art influencing belief.

JSA

 

[Crumpy]

Nitpick: There is no horse involved in that episode, at least as it is related in Scripture. This is a case of art influencing belief.

JSA

Exactly, just as “The Last Supper” is not mentioned in scripture; it is a painting of the Lord’s Passover meal that was painted by DaVinci.

Even the Catechism uses the phrase Last Supper. What did “last” supper mean to DaVinci? Did he conceive of it as a last meal, such as inmates on death row get before they are executed?

Is “The Last Supper” the real title of the painting? You know, things get lost or changed in the translation sometimes.

I disagree with the implication of the title of this thread. Paul’s writings (or writings attributed to him) were considered inspired, why not leave it at that?

 

[copland]

Remember that St. Peter considered St. Paul’s writings to be Scripture, notice how Peter refers to Paul writings and compares them to “other Scriptures.”

2Peter 3:15

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
*

 

[rwoehmke]

One might also notice when Paul comes back to Jerusalem to discuss the mode of entry for gentiles into the Church, it is Peter who makes the final decision and James who sets the wheels in motion to spread the word. It would seem the road to truth involves various viewpoints and arguements which reach a settlement on one sort or another.

 

[Golf_Nut]

While Paul had some disagreements with Paul, most notably as I recall the issue of whether Gentiles should be circumsized and adhere to Hebrew law, those disagreements were part of the process and Paul was actually right on that one, and that’s wehat the Church adopted.

Why is it that we do not have to follow Hebrew law?

 

[quasimodo]

Paul disagreed with Peter over table fellowship. Peter led the way for gentiles to be accepted into the Church - and he did not circumcise them first.

 

[JimO]

Exactly, just as “The Last Supper” is not mentioned in scripture…

Perhaps I should have done some research before posting. Sorry for the sloppy terminology, but I hope you understood the points I was making. Paul recounted “the Passover meal Jesus had with his apostles when he instituted the Eucharist, the evening before he died” (isn’t “The Last Supper” less cumbersome?) even though he wasn’t present. He didn’t claim this to have been passed on to Him by the apostles, but by the Lord Himself. That is significant.