S
sousley
Guest
Your comment made me think of an exposition by Msgr. Hugh Pope on Romans; you might be interested in seeing. It would appear that many Church Fathers shared your sentiments, particularly Origen and St. Jerome here:
Code:
"The whole Epistle to the Romans," says St. Jerome, "calls for interpretation; it is involved in such obscurity that to understand it we need the assistance of the same Holy Spirit Who dictated it through the Apostle. . . . Nothing, however (in the way of interpretation), appeals to me save what is ecclesiastical and what we are not afraid to declare in the Church. . . . It is much better simply to confess one's ignorance and, amongst the many other things which we do not know, to take refuge in the obscurity of this passage (he is discussing Romans 9:14-29) than, in our anxiety to prove the justice of God, fall into (various) heresies."“many things,” says St. Jerome, “are to be found in the Epistle to the Romans as well as in those to the other Churches, especially to the Corinthians, which are said in remiss fashion and almost in conversational style.” It arises also from the speed at which the Apostle composed, and is probably largely due to the fact that he dictated, with the result that his thoughts and words outran his scribe’s pen. Moreover, St. Paul was not a Greek: “He was a Hebrew of the Hebrews,” remarks St. Jerome, and most skilled in his own vernacular; consequently he was unable to express in a foreign tongue his own most profound thoughts. Indeed, he recked little for the words provided he was clear about his meaning!" St. Jerome even goes so far as to maintain that the Apostle’s grief at not finding Titus was due, at least in part, to the fact that he could not explain himself in Greek without the assistance of Titus! The Apostle had, moreover, to coin terms wherewith to express ideas which up to that time had no equivalent in Greek, much as the scholastic theologians of a later date had to mint a Latin which was unknown to Cicero.
Origen is never weary of pointing out that we must read this Epistle "carefully."The thought, he says, is confused; it is not always easy to see who precisely is addressed whether the believer or the unbeliever, the circumcised or the convert from heathenism; the argument seems at times to lack consecutiveness; appeal is made to the “Law,” and the “Law” stands now for the law of nature, now for the positive Mosaic Law, and all this involves apparent contradiction. Small wonder, then, that Origen should characterize this Epistle as the happy hunting-ground of “those who would split up the Church’s unique doctrine into the various teachings of the sects, and who look only at those passages of Holy Scripture which favor their own tenets, while they refuse to extend even a finger-tip to those passages which make against them.”
That line of St. Jerome’s about it being better to simply confess one’s ignorance than to risk falling into heresy, is one of my particular favorites. I have to continually remind myself that I may not correctly understand something as I think I do and that I have to guard against pride so as to not block myself from a truer understanding that may come later. I am one of those that have an intellectual thirst so intellectual pride can be more an issue for me. Haven’t talked to you in a while; I hope things are going great for you.