What to make of Paul?

[SFH]

redactorab:

What are we to make of some of St. Paul’s notions that don’t really match current Catholic understanding? i.e., his desire that more people would get up and prophesy in church (try that at your parish next Sunday), or his admonition that women shouldn’t speak in church? These are both in 1 Corinthians 14. I raise the questions not to be quarrelsome, but rather to ask how we, as Bible readers, are to discern the essential from the nonessential. I like being a Catholic–though I’m a pretty poor example of one–but reading the Bible ALWAYS creates more problems for me than solutions, for just such reasons. Any ideas?

Well, some of these rules were laid down as liturgical norms to ease the transition of Jews and Gentiles into the Catholic Church, and the Apostles’ successors lifted them when they felt they were no longer necessary (e.g., blood sausage).

When St. Paul encourages prophesy in church, he isn’t necessarily referring to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Early Christians gathered in the churches for a number of reasons, including catechetical instruction, the Holy Eucharist, agape meals, etc. St. Paul’s encouragement of prophesy could be referring to gatherings for catechetical instruction or mutual support during the persecutions.

With respect to St. Paul’s prohibition against women speaking in church, note that women are still not allowed to deliver the homily at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass–that privilege is reserved to the deacon or priest and the Catholic Church has repeatedly emphasized that She cannot ordain women.

Finally, some of St. Paul’s counsels or liturgical requirements continue to be observed in other Catholic churches just not in the U.S. For example, St. Paul’s requirement that women’s heads should be covered is still enforced in many of the churches in Italy (as my wife discovered on our honeymoon several years ago).

 

[redactorab]

Thanks to all for the messages. All were helpful in their way.

geezerbob:

I found it helpful to read several books by scholars which dealt with society at the time of Paul, the historical significance of his writings, and the literary conventions that he and other biblical authors used.

…Suddenly, the light came on and I started putting things in perspective. Trying to build a theology from snippets of the bible just wasn’t getting it. Starting with God’s expectations of us (the two great commandments) and seeing how scripture fits in with those expectations made a lot more sense to me.

…I hope this will be of some little help to you and I will keep you in my prayers.

Geezerbob, I particularly like your approach, and it* is* a helpful way to think about this–i.e., starting with the two greatest commandments and then reading the rest of scripture in that light. It’s frustrating and mostly futile to get tangled up in the small, troublesome points of scripture…particularly when one does (as I do) have a respect and reverence for the overall message. Entanglement in scriptural minutiae is an easy trap for me–but ultimately it has the same effect as the legalistic hair-splitting that goes on among certain broadcast apologists–it can easily become a sort of intellectual labyrinth that leads to neither edification nor enlightenment.

If you can think of any of those books that helped you with your understanding of Paul, I’d appreciate a note about that.

I also appreciate your prayers. Thanks much for that.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

BayCityRickL:

In our day, it would be out of place to prophecy in the liturgical gathering of the Church, as a matter of propriety, as defined by the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM).

However, the opposite is true almost anyplace else in the Church, i.e. not the building, but the body of believers. At the right time and place, it is always good to share the Word that the Father has given to us.

To steal a thought from the late Fr.Raymond A Brown, a noted student of the Bible, part of the question may hinge on whether you take such a statement of Paul as being a blueprint for all time, or, as some might say, an admonition to a specific group at a certain time in the history of the Church.

Brown uses that distinction in a book of lectures called Biblical Reflections on Crises Facing the Church (c.1975) and applies it to the question about ordaining women as priests.

In regard to that specific question, the late pope, His Holiness John Paul II issued a statement c.1994 on the matter, coming down on the side of the “blueprint” interpretation of scripture, as it applies to ordaining men only.

That illustrates not only a couple ways of viewing scripture, but it illustrates a particular application of it.

I am not a Bible scholar, but, perhaps like you, I am a seeker.

Consider the verse in John 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. (NAB)

Do you take this to be figurative or literal? Is it simply hyperbole (exaggeration) ?

After much thought, I have concluded that it is more literal than figurative. If what Jesus has done in your life, my life, and the life of each person, both for salvation or condemnation, was written down, then as far as my finite mind can conceive, that might fill the world. Is that what the writer intended? I don’t know.

I never thought of that interpretation - TY for suggesting it ​

IMO, the passage has one single meaning - but can contain other meanings within itself, since it is goes to make up a work conceived by God (which is yet fully human). So, taken as a description of Jesus’ ministry on earth, the words would be hyperbole - while, taken as a description of His saving acts for the Church as existing by the time of the Evangelist, it might well be far from hyperbolical; because the saving power of the Risen and Glorified Christ had by then affected far more people than at the time of the Resurrection.

In one sense, all books are conceived by God - what sets the Bible apart, AFAICS, is that it is Christological, and is undertaken for a salvific purpose which is completed only in the next world. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

ComradeAndrei:

What I think when I read the Bible and find something that “supposedly” goes against the current teachings or practices of the Church is that the Church is the final interpreter of Scripture-what the Pope binds and looses and bound and loosed. Therefore, there can’t be an issue with Bible vs. Church.

The Church has been the protector and interpreter of Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the past 2,000 some years-there couldn’t possibly be any “proof text” that proves us wrong or that we are doing something wrong. Church theologians and Doctors have been over and over the Scriptures, I’m sure that we will not pick up on something that legions of men for hundreds of years didn’t already!

That could have been said in the 1500s, to those who wanted a revival in the reading of the Bible in Hebrew instead of the Vulgate ​

A lot of what has been learned about the OT - for example - would have impossible before archaeology became a proper discipline with its own methods. And that is of rather recent occurrence.

Should it happen that properly scientific study of the Bible should last for the next few thousand years, people will probably have an understanding of the Bible of which we can only dream - and as study and understanding raise further questions, it’s a safe bet this discussion will be repeated many times in the far future (technology & God allowing, of course). ##

 

[TOME]

I have a couple of thoughts about this thread. My first thought came from a presentation I once heard and our speaker started by saying the reading from the NT at Mass (Gospels excluded) violated a basic law of this country - Don’t read other people’s mail. This somewhat points to the problems of Paul’s writings. Except for a couple of times when he is obviously writing to an individual (Timothy, Titus et al) he is writing to a specific groupe for a specific purpose - usually addressing from problems with that particular Church. But after his vision on the road to Damascus and the other, more mysterious one he refers to in Corinthians, it becomes hard, I believe, to seperate any notion of his letters being just for that group in particular and not having an almost cosmic vision to them. However, he was addressing specific people, from specific cultures and he was rooted in his own culture as well - thus the difficulties. I would like to add one other thing about the refrence to Jesus’ words and actions not being able to be contained by all the books in the world. I think it is a bit of hyperboly however maybe a totally unconscienous Hype. I say this because remember the writers of the Gospel, even if the did not experience it first hand, were totally emerse in the effects of the Resurrection as we cannot really understand. The Resurrectional Experience permeated their entire being.