Replies

"I have stated this in the past that “it seems to many (including me)” that Protestants start with St. Paul and interpret Christ and the Gospels from that context. This, from the Catholic perspective, is incorrect. The Catechism of the Catholic Church correctly points out how the Sacred Scriptures should be interpreted, that is with Christ as the reference point, and how the Bible was interpreted throughout Christian History.” I still hold to that position as most of the Protestant literature that one sees (and I have only lived in 3 states in the Southern U.S.), does in fact start with St. Paul and usually calls it the “Roman Road of salvation” The passage that most often starts the Protestant view of justification is Romans 3:28-30; and it is usually complemented by passages from Galatians and Ephesians"

I agree, we start with Christ. However, if I have to choose between understanding Christ's actions by the admitted divinely inspired words of Paul, or doing so by the Catholic theologians who followed, then I will cheerfully stick with Paul. Not because Paul supplants God, but because God inspired Paul.

As for 'totally depraved' vs "wounded by original sin and fallen...but not totally sinful", my answer is:

10As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." 13"Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips." 14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." 15"Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16ruin and misery mark their ways, 17and the way of peace they do not know." 18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Oh golly. There I go quoting Paul, when I ought to be reading Augustine...

But Paul was quoting Psalms, primarily, and Isaiah...and Jesus certainly knew those as well.

And what of Peter?

"4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes..."

John, maybe?

"16 For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world."

Perhaps the comments of Jesus on the Pharisees, who by all accounts worked very hard to obey the Law?

" 27 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."

Doesn't sound like someone who was “wounded by original sin and fallen from the original stature he had in Genesis 1”.

6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

But then, that is Paul creating Christianity without Christ...if only he had a Catholic theologian to point him to Christ!

Mr. Rogers:

I think you are mis characterizing what I stated. Catholic Justification looks at the person of Christ and thus Christology as the starting point, and thus St. Paul’s doctrines are understood in reference to the person of CHrist, which is Incarnation, his life and teachings, passion, death, resurrection and ascension into heaven.

As for the quote you cited about total depravity, I still think that is a bad term, as it applies man is absolutely evil, and something totally evil is really non-existance, of course following the neo-Platonist. Now while our understanding of original sin might be different, I agree that without God’s Grace, man can’t believe and follow God. Still, the notion that you are citing, which seems to support Calvin’s Total Depravity, implicitly seems like a rejection of free will, which of course is also wounded by original sin.

So again, original sin in Catholic Doctrine is not a positive inclination to do moral evils, which seems like what is the logical conclusion of Total depravity, but rather the lack of the facilities to do what is moral and just.

Grace restores us back to the original justice God intended for humanity before the fall and thus through Grace, our passions, will, intellect, etc or transformed and humanity is renewed and thus has communion with the Holy Trinity, which is Love itself.

So again, I think how you and I understand original sin, and its consequences, impacts how we understand Grace and Justification. If one accepts the Reformed understanding of Grace and Justification, that many is only declared forensically righttous through imputed Grace, then purgatory makes no sense.

However, that is not the way Grace and Justification were understood in the early Church, and thus not the Catholic view, so purgatory is consistent with the Catholic Notion of Grace and Justification

Regards

Oh golly. There I go quoting Paul, when I ought to be reading Augustine...

I'm not precisely sure what bronxville meant, but I took her to be saying that the GOSPELS should have a certain hermeneutic priority over PAUL'S LETTERS. The actual words of Christ, recorded and communicate by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John should be the ground upon which Paul's letters should be understood. But often -- it seems to me too, and I have heard this said before by different people on numerous occasions -- it seems Protestants start with Paul and then read the Gospels through that hermeneutic lense. However, it seems to make more sense to begin with the Gospels, and only then go to Paul for clarification. Going from Christ (in the Gospels) to Paul is the hermeneutic approach of the Catholics, and seems to lead to a more Catholic soteriology. But starting with Paul and reading the Gospels with a certain understanding of Paul leads one to have a different soteriology. These two views seem to be mutually exclusive, and so they both cannot be right.

But more on this later...it is late here.