I agree with you.
Your point about Catholic disdain for Paul is interesting. I can count on one hand the number of times I ever listened to O’Reilly on the radio, but one of the few times I tuned in Bill was berating a caller for referencing something in one of the Pauline epistles. He pompously lectured her on the superiority of the gospels over and above the epistles. He was so off-base that it would have been funny if it hadn’t been so sad.
O’Reilly, as you pointed out, is a stauch RC and as such will ordinarily speak with heavy “Law laden” tones. The Gospels are superior in every way for a Catholic, and each “homily” given is always from somewhere in those four books. They give most weight to Jesus’ words even though the Father’s words (in the OT) would (under the same assumptions) would be just as crucial. But, IMHO, this derives from a sincere effort to produce a desired, but unattainable, self-righteousness. To be at the mercy of God, to be left as either among the elect or among those created for destruction, is simply an unacceptable situation. Jesus’ remarks sound like they can change this.
Paul, unfortunately (?), clarifies that there is no hope...if God does not elect. That is what the entire letter to the Italians is about. When he says, “You will say to me then, ‘How can He still find fault, for who can resist His will?’” Paul is setting out the crux of the matter. We are really at His mercy and waiting to see if we are among the elect. God really is the Potter, and we the clay. He can make one for honor and one for destruction. This is distasteful to a “religionist”. They insist that the choice be presented and the man be allowed to be the “chooser”. It is unacceptable to the O’Reillys for God to decide who is rescued.
You will notice a significant difference in the way RCs use the term “grace”. If one listens closely, it is not an “unmerited favor” given to an undeserving sinner, but a “super juice” granted to the deserving, obedient observer of Roman Catholic tradition...the doer of the Law, the fulfiller of the sacraments. This difference in nomenclature places biblical epistleary theology at odds with their tradition. The RCs demand control (the keys) and it is reflected in all of their positions.
During the Reformation, some teachers read “...the rest of the story.” in the Bible and discovered that Jesus was teaching the Law most of His three years, (Recall the Sermon on the Mount, “...for this is the Law and the Prophets”). When the blood was shed, the curtain was torn, the Law was disappearing, and grace was shed abroad. The Gentiles (non-Jews) were included in the “New Covenant” in His blood (the cross) and the whole world changed. This is what Paul exposits...but the religionist hates to hear.
Thanks for the info on O’Reilly. Forgive me rambiling on a bit.
The Gospels have the words of Christ in them. I’ll take them over the letters of St. Paul any day.
Is there some reason you do not like the words of Jesus?
Bill O’Reilly is pro-homosexual agenda. Hardly the spokesperson for the Christian way of life.
I do find it interesting how many who defend the RCC, pay allegiance to Peter over Paul, but are not of Jewish origin.
Yet, Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, while Peter was an Apostle to the Jews. Go figure.