Thank for the early sources, very important find.
It’s true that Paul’s statements in this passage are phrased absolutely, but surely we can at least allow for an implicit “except when they command you to sin” clause to any such injunction.
Solid analysis! I don’t agree completely, but I think you lay out an interesting case. However, if these letters are divinely inspired, and if we are to believe God wanted these letters in the Bible exactly as they are written now, then I wonder how we can look at them and act as though there must be a hidden meaning behind them. You may be completely correct about Paul’s intentions, but Paul’s intentions from a Catholic perspective shouldn’t really matter. What matters is that the Holy Spirit, again from the Catholic perspective, guided the Church to include these letters in the official canon without the context of the letters being truly available to those who would then later read the passages. I guess what I am saying is, does it even matter what Paul meant to say? Doesn’t it only matter that what we know he said was, by Divine intervention, placed in the Bible?
You may be right about what Paul meant…But it isn’t what he said. You are reading way too much into it. It’s obvious what Paul’s plain meaning is…and no one is suggesting Paul is saying we should do what the government tells us at all times, but what he is clearly saying is that we should never rebel against the government because the government is an agent of God.
I agree that Paul’s writing here is wrong…as history has proven on numerous occasions.
Individual verses do not stand alone. Catholics do not subscribe to the false dogma of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).
jinc1019, why do you always single out Paul for these questions? Your threads of this type seem to come down to questions about what inspiration entails and how we know what works are inspired, but it seems to me that the same questions could easily be applied to the Old Testament, the other epistles, Revelation, and even the Gospels. But it’s always Paul for you. Is there some greater goal that would be served if Paul’s writings were downgraded to a “lesser” form of Scripture?
Excellent question. Actually it does apply to those other documents (sort of). I believe firmly in Scott Hahn’s (and many in the Church) view of the Book of Revelation so that isn’t a problem for me. The Gospels are an entirely different issue because if the Gospels are accurate, then they are the words of Jesus and if you believe Jesus is God then that’s all that matters. So in essence, the Gospels are really purely about historical accuracy and based on the extensive research I have done, I believe they are pretty accurate and were accepted very early on.
I have never heard a Catholic scholar read this passage and try to explain it away as if it cannot be understood properly without understanding the totally of the epistle. It is very clear what the meaning of the passage is. I am not quoting one section of it. You can read the whole epistle and it doesn’t clarify it at all, at least not in a way that alters my assessment. Also, I do not believe in sola scriptura either…so making that argument has absolutely no place here.
Picking a verse out of context and attempting to understand it using only ones own individual, fallible interpretation is the epitome of false understanding.
This passage says absolutely nothing about opposing evil. It says the government does God’s work and to oppose them is to oppose God. You are really stretching things to see anything else.
Why do you think the whole teaching regarding a Catholic’s approach to government is contained in this one passage?
You give a perfect example of my point exactly when you state that that passage does not say anything about opposing evil. Opposition to evil is implicit, and in many places explicitly stated in Scripture. To properly understand a passage, you have to look at it in the context, not only of that verse, but the entire chapter, the entire book and the entire Bible. The principal that one cannot do evil is one of the foundational principals necessary to a proper understanding of Scripture. If one ignores these principals or dismiss them as not being contained an a specific passage, there is a high likelihood that they will misunderstand the passage. Take Rom 13:1-8 for example. If one does not consider these foundational principals, one might conclude that the admonition in this section of Scripture is absolute, no matter what. But there are times when the State wants to do evil and opposes God, as in the example I gave, there are conditions under which the admonition to obey the State must be opposed. Therefore, it is clear that one cannot take a passage without considering the total context, that is all of Scripture and the context of the culture in which it was written, from which the foundational principals are derived.Ignatius;10413151:
Individual verses do not stand alone. Catholics do not subscribe to the false dogma of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).jinc1019:
Ignatius;10408439:
jinc1019:
First we must know a premise or two for proper understanding. There are certain foundational concepts. For exemple, one cannot do what is wrong or evil. Also, for proper understanding the verse must be taken in the entirety of the context. The context includes first the local context surrounding the verse, then the section in which it resides, then the chapter, the book and the entirety of Scripture.
Throughout Scripture the Faithful are required to oppose evil. Therefore it would be a specious and erroneous interpretation that would take a passage and try to have it cause the faithful support the State in promoting evil.
The precondition to proper understanding is a solid foundation in authentic Catholic teaching,
I have never heard a Catholic scholar read this passage and try to explain it away as if it cannot be understood properly without understanding the totally of the epistle. It is very clear what the meaning of the passage is.
Picking a verse out of context and attempting to understand it using only ones own individual, fallible interpretation is the epitome of false understanding.
Taking individual verses without context is highly problematic. There is a well-known dictum of exegesis that states: “the text without the context results in only a pretext.’
To properly understand Scripture, read it in consideration of the entire context and with the mind of The Church.
As to the subject of this thread, there really can be no confusion on this. The Faithful are required to oppose evil; therefore the faithful must oppose the State when it promotes evil.
This passage says absolutely nothing about opposing evil. It says the government does God’s work and to oppose them is to oppose God.
I don’t deny that one should examine scripture in its entirety to find the proper meaning. However, this passage clearly states the opposite of the conclusion you are seeking to gather form the rest of scripture. Paul uses this passage to explain why government is NEVER evil or wrong…that they exist ALWAYS as an agent of God…and that we are NEVER to disobey them. That’s the whole point of the passage, to clarify his answer to the question of how we should deal with government.
Ignatius:
Paul uses this passage to explain why government is NEVER evil or wrong…that they exist ALWAYS as an agent of God…and that we are NEVER to disobey them. That’s the whole point of the passage, to clarify his answer to the question of how we should deal with government.
.
That type of literalist interpretation is leads to false, erroneous conclusions. Poper exegesis look at the readings with the mind of The Church and take into account the foundational principals that are the underpinnings of everything in Scripture. The foundational principals give us a way to properly understand Scripture. At the very least we must not contradict Church teaching. What does The Church teach about Rom 13:1-8? That the population of Pol Pot should have obediently butchered their fellow citizens? No, of course not, it is erroneous to presume that Paul intended to contradict one of the overarching principals of Scripture.
Let me give another example of this type of erroneous, literalist interpretation of Scripture.
Romans 5:12 12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.
The passage says that ALL HAVE SINNED. If interpreted in a rigid, literalistic manner, this would contradict Church Teaching. Yet we know from Church Teaching that he did not mean that in a literalist absolutist way, The Church Teaches that Mary was sinless at her conception and throughout her entire life.
I am sorry but this is clearly not an example of taking a passage out of context. It’s very obvious what he was saying. And by the way, general Christian thought used this passage for centuries to support monarchies and empires. It isn’t just me taking things out of context, it is the entire Christian faith then for centuries doing the same thing. Say what you will, but the meaning of the passage is clear and you can try to suggest otherwise but to do so would be to do what many liberal Christians do to support various other social justice doctrines in the faith.
Ignatius:
That type of literalist interpretation is leads to false, erroneous conclusions. Proper exegesis look at the readings with the mind of The Church and take into account the foundational principals that are the underpinnings of everything in Scripture. The foundational principals give us a way to properly understand Scripture. At the very least we must not contradict Church teaching. What does The Church teach about Rom 13:1-8? That the population of Pol Pot should have obediently butchered their fellow citizens? No, of course not, it is erroneous to presume that Paul intended to contradict one of the overarching principals of Scripture.
Let me give another example of this type of erroneous, literalist interpretation of Scripture.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.
The passage says that ALL HAVE SINNED. If interpreted in a rigid, literalistic manner, this would contradict Church Teaching. Yet we know from Church Teaching that he did not mean that in a literalist absolutist way, The Church Teaches that Mary was sinless at her conception and throughout her entire life.
Say what you will, but the meaning of the passage is clear and you can try to suggest otherwise .
On the contrary, your statement that this “this passage clearly states . . . why government is NEVER evil or wrong” is the type of literalist interpretation is leads to false, erroneous conclusions and is contrary to Catholic Teaching about this. For proper exegesis we must take into account the foundational principals that are the underpinnings of proper understanding of Scripture. It is exactly the same erroneous misinterpretation as those who say Mary must have sinned because Romans 5:12 says all have sinned.
I’ve underlined the one of the key concepts above that is necessary for correct understanding.
There are actually number excellent articles on this subject at biblechristiansociety.com/home.php that may help you understand what causes that type of misinterpretation.