Understanding Romans

[GeorgeSword]

Does anyone have any resources on the Catholic interpretation of Romans? I’ve been trying to read it but I find it to be rather confusing, compared to the other Epistles, and it seems like every verse is, due to my lack of understanding, in contradiction of the last.

 

[CWBetts]

Does anyone have any resources on the Catholic interpretation of Romans? I’ve been trying to read it but I find it to be rather confusing, compared to the other Epistles, and it seems like every verse is, due to my lack of understanding, in contradiction of the last.

Try the Ignatius study bible commentary on Romans.

 

[NotWorthy]

Try the Ignatius study bible commentary on Romans.

Yes, and make sure its the 2nd edition by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. Great commentary.

 

[CWBetts]

Yes, and make sure its the 2nd edition by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. Great commentary.

That was the only one I was aware of. I have the commentary on the Gospel of John, but none of the others yet.

 

[crowcounty]

Does anyone have any resources on the Catholic interpretation of Romans? I’ve been trying to read it but I find it to be rather confusing, compared to the other Epistles, and it seems like every verse is, due to my lack of understanding, in contradiction of the last.

the latest of pauls undisputed letters to be written Romans contains the longest and most complex sustained argument in any of pauls letters even though it is addressed to christians that he never met.

oxford annotated eccumenical study bible

 

[NotWorthy]

Oh yeah! I am an idiot!

There’s a free on-line study of Romans that is extremely Catholic.

AgapeBibleStudy.Com has one on Romans Here. It will have a wealth of background information. I downloaded this study and printed it out and it took about 500 pages, so… Happy Reading!

After reading this, you’ll find that they have a great study on Hebrews as well as about 9 or studies (John, Revelation, Genesis, James, Exodus, etc.).

 

[COPLAND_3]

Here are tons of resources for Romans litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Letters+of+St.+Paul

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Robert Sungenis’ Catholic Apologetics Study Bible that combines Romans and James. I don’t think I am exaggerating when I say it is the most indepth resource you will find. Im reading it right now. it’s like 600+ pages at least, off the top of my head. Scholarly, extensive footnotes, but you won’t get lost. You can buy it online or just download for a lot less, which is what I did.

www.catholicintl.com

 

[erikd]

Does anyone have any resources on the Catholic interpretation of Romans? I’ve been trying to read it but I find it to be rather confusing, compared to the other Epistles, and it seems like every verse is, due to my lack of understanding, in contradiction of the last.

George, you’ve received some great instruments of study from the previous posters. I will add just one more, the Fr. George Leo Haydock Commentary, which comprises many different commentaries on the entire Bible.

haydock1859.tripod.com/

Also, if you wanted to go deeper into the study of Romans or any other book, I’d like to recommend a great product sold by Catholic Answers called the “Faith Database” which will give you a commentary, as well as an entire linguistic study of every verse of all 73 Books.

One thing I found very helpful in my study of this great Book is this one point: St. Paul does a lot of comparisons between the New Covenant and the Old Covenant. Remember that in the first chapter of Isaiah, the prophet speaks the Words of God saying “Stop bringing meaningless offerings!” (Isaiah 1:13) and the reason for this was because the Jews would offer sacrifices without having any kind of true repentance. The sacrifices became almost like a commodity trading for the sins of God’s people, since they sacrificed with no remorse. St. Paul draws on this idea, to explain why the Covenant had to be changed to being justified by faith apart from works, meaning of course the works mentioned previously such as sacrifices etc. Faith and repentance were a necessary part of the belief in God, and St. Paul draws on the comparisons between the Old and the New Covenants to show the dissimilarity as well as the reasons for eliminating the Old and starting the New. Let me know if this sets you on the right track, I’d be happy to continue further if you’d like.

 

[jeremy_k]

Does anyone have any resources on the Catholic interpretation of Romans? I’ve been trying to read it but I find it to be rather confusing, compared to the other Epistles, and it seems like every verse is, due to my lack of understanding, in contradiction of the last.

I know you have been given an ample number of resources on this question, but another great resource is Scott Hahn’s very in-depth and very thorough CD-set, “Romanism in Romans”. I found it exceedingly helpful in my own conversion from Protestantism.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I would point out that depending on the theologian, you will get a differing interpretation on Romans. Scott Hahn tends to go more for a “new perspective” on Paul, whereas Sungenis and others go more for the view that “works of the law” refers to all law, moral and mosaic.

I state this because it may cause some initial confusion if you are not familiar with either concept. I personally do not subscribe to the New Perspective, and I think the other view is more traditional, but neither is dogmatically wrong and both viewpoints can provide valuable insights.

 

[GeorgeSword]

Thanks for all of your suggestions thus far. I’m open to more if you have any. I’ve been making use of various things you have offered as needed and looking at various spectrums

 

[erikd]

I would point out that depending on the theologian, you will get a differing interpretation on Romans. Scott Hahn tends to go more for a “new perspective” on Paul, whereas Sungenis and others go more for the view that “works of the law” refers to all law, moral and mosaic.

I state this because it may cause some initial confusion if you are not familiar with either concept. I personally do not subscribe to the New Perspective, and I think the other view is more traditional, but neither is dogmatically wrong and both viewpoints can provide valuable insights.

Nathan, I have not read Scott Hahn’s writings on the Book of Romans, though I believe he subscribes to the same traditional views many Church Fathers did. I say this because maybe I’m just not that familiar with his views on this Book. Since both Sungenis and Hahn are extremely well versed Catholic apologists, it would be interesting for me to see the difference between the two interpretations. Can you elaborate or point me to some reading material for further instruction? Thank you.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Hey man. I would say get both sets on Romans. They have extensive footnotes.

The main difference between the two is that Scott subscribes to a viewpoint that “works of the law” applied to Jewish ceremonial laws that set them aside as an ethnic group, whereas the other viewpoint that Sungenis takes is that “works of the law” applies to all law, the mosaic and the moral law.

The “new perspective” has its roots in more recent Protestant theological study, and can be seen in the likes of N.T Wright. It is an interesting viewpoint that takes a more “inclusive” view of “belief” for the purposes of salvation, so it kind of blurs the line between Catholic and Protestant beliefs. Sungenis takes a more hardline traditional approach.

Other differences include the fact that Sungenis takes a hard-line suppercessionist approach. The abrahamic covenant is still valid, but the mosaic is abolished, and is no longer valid. Scott argues more along the lines that the Covenant with the Jews was never abrogated, but that they are merely experiencing covenant curses until they come back to God. This is a vast oversimplification of thhese two viewpoints so I would suggest looking into it further on your own. To my understanding Scott somewhat modified his viewpoints in his tape series on Galations, but I have not listened to it and so cannot personally verify this. I am curious about some of Scott’s ideas, however, and so I just recently bought his disertation on covenant.

You can get Sungenis’ excellent apologetics study bible for download for only 18 dollars if I remember correctly, I am studying Romans now and it is superb. Scott’s stuff can be found at St. Joseph communications website.

Hope this helps a bit.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hey man. I would say get both sets on Romans. They have extensive footnotes.

The main difference between the two is that Scott subscribes to a viewpoint that “works of the law” applied to Jewish ceremonial laws that set them aside as an ethnic group, whereas the other viewpoint that Sungenis takes is that “works of the law” applies to all law, the mosaic and the moral law.

The “new perspective” has its roots in more recent Protestant theological study, and can be seen in the likes of N.T Wright. It is an interesting viewpoint that takes a more “inclusive” view of “belief” for the purposes of salvation, so it kind of blurs the line between Catholic and Protestant beliefs. Sungenis takes a more hardline traditional approach.

I find this ironic that Hahn’s view of “works of the law” is the Jewish rituals that the Protestants point to. Most Protestants I talk to look at “works of the law” as everything we do, for none of it can help us.

 

[erikd]

Hey man. I would say get both sets on Romans. They have extensive footnotes.

The main difference between the two is that Scott subscribes to a viewpoint that “works of the law” applied to Jewish ceremonial laws that set them aside as an ethnic group, whereas the other viewpoint that Sungenis takes is that “works of the law” applies to all law, the mosaic and the moral law.

The “new perspective” has its roots in more recent Protestant theological study, and can be seen in the likes of N.T Wright. It is an interesting viewpoint that takes a more “inclusive” view of “belief” for the purposes of salvation, so it kind of blurs the line between Catholic and Protestant beliefs. Sungenis takes a more hardline traditional approach.

Other differences include the fact that Sungenis takes a hard-line suppercessionist approach. The abrahamic covenant is still valid, but the mosaic is abolished, and is no longer valid. Scott argues more along the lines that the Covenant with the Jews was never abrogated, but that they are merely experiencing covenant curses until they come back to God. This is a vast oversimplification of thhese two viewpoints so I would suggest looking into it further on your own. To my understanding Scott somewhat modified his viewpoints in his tape series on Galations, but I have not listened to it and so cannot personally verify this. I am curious about some of Scott’s ideas, however, and so I just recently bought his disertation on covenant.

You can get Sungenis’ excellent apologetics study bible for download for only 18 dollars if I remember correctly, I am studying Romans now and it is superb. Scott’s stuff can be found at St. Joseph communications website.

Hope this helps a bit.

It does help, thank you for the clarification. Personally I’ve always subscribed to the same understanding as Robert Sungenis, though I will give Scott Hahn a read since I’ve always thought of him as a very worthy and skilled apologist.