Romans and Roman Catholicism

I was at Fatima Shrine with a friend who is the RC chaplain at our school, and we were browsing the bookstore. I picked up a commentary on St. Paul's epistle to the Romans. It was the typical mix of Federal Vision & New Pauline Perspective / N.T. Wright stuff, which is fine - I don't have any knowledge of Greek so I can't argue on exegesis really. I just think its annoying because at key points in the text they just throw things in like "but Trent declared this...so the verse can't mean that". I laughed and asked my friend if Scott Hahn (a co-author of the book) knew the difference between a commentary and a catechism.

I feel very confused when I read Romans now, its almost funny if it wasn't so tragic. I can't even see the text. I can't say "oh so that's what St. Paul meant", I just see polemical impositions from the 16th or 20th centuries. I see Luther, Calvin, Trent/Augustine, Wright, and Hahn/Shepherd.

When I observe newcomers to the scriptures reading Romans I am amazed at how confused they are, and how little they get out of it. Coming from a Protestant background, this book is sort of seen as encompassing all of Christianity. When I was 16 I asked my mom if our church believed in Jesus or Paul because I had been taught - in quasi-Reformed style - that Jesus taught moral obligations to show people the impossibility of keeping the law, and Paul revealed the true nature of salvation, by faith alone.

As a Catholic, the situation is much more nuanced. It's like: faith alone IF it's with love... BUT also the sacraments should come in there somewhere... BUT if they don't then they can be received by desire... UNLESS you have imperfect contrition... BUT even perfect contrition is not incompatible with imperfect contrition, etc, etc.

In the end, I hope the Lord opens my eyes and helps me to read Romans, as well as the whole of the scriptures, but then again perhaps such a thing is impossible, and we Roman Catholics are right after all in saying that scripture can only be read in a Tradition.

Childermas / Feast of the Holy Innocents

St. Stephen is called the protomartyr, meaning first martyr, but today's feast day seems to call that into question.

I first read about today's feast day in Charles Dicken's "Hard Times" (which I only got to about p. 10 in... but I'm still doing good in that course) it's today (according to my Liturgy of the Hours book), and I found it a fascinating feast.

It is in commemoration of those Herod killed in his attempt to murder our Lord as a child.

"Then Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry: and sending killed all the menchildren that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying: A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. But when Herod was dead, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph in Egypt, Saying: Arise, and take the child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel. For they are dead that sought the life of the child." - St. Matthew 2:16-20 (Douay-Rheims)

These children were considered martyrs for the kingdom by the Church, and commemorated on this feast day, and that seems to make alot of sense, they died in the efforts of slowing and presumably stopping Herod's quest to kill Jesus because he probably figured that he got him eventually. Herod's efforts to remove Jesus from history must make him Rudolf Bultmann's patron saint or something (German liberal biblical scholar who started 'the quest for the historical Jesus' *read* removing Jesus from history). Likewise all abortionists would look back to Herod in the same way, as every child they kill is made in the image and likeness of God, and so in a way, they too are seeking to kill Jesus (the same way the Nephillim did in Gen 4).

So in a lovely pseudo-evangelical altar call, I say: Pick a side today. Either commemorate those poor children - now robed in white as Christ's holy martyrs - and remember the sanctity of life, or neglect them as most did and try to remove Jesus from history and from your life as Herod did. ok, sermon over.

An interesting article with much more insight than I had is here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07419a.htm

an interesting point I found was that the Alleluia and Gloria will not be sung in masses today, in mourning for these children.

"gloriosa in conspectu Domini mors sanctorum eius" - "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints" - Psalm 116:15 (Vulg. 115:15)

Philemon Passages

I read Philemon today and found some beautiful passages I enjoyed alot.

"I have indeed received much joy and encouragement from your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you, my brother... I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty, yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love—and I, Paul, do this as an old man, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus. I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become ...I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you...I preferred to do nothing without your consent, in order that your good deed might be voluntary and not something forced. Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back for ever, no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, a beloved brother... Refresh my heart in Christ."

I love the language St. Paul uses. He says he has become this slaves father, and that he is sending his own heart back. It is a beautiful picture of the divine love God has for us runaways of his, the slaves to righteousness (rom.6) who have fled God our master, only to realize that God's love is everywhere, as difficult to escape as the hound of heaven.

On a less emotional, more theological note, I'd like to point out "in order that your good deed might be voluntary and not something forced". This implies that even if it was forced, it would still be a good deed. Meaning teleological/Aristotelian/Thomistic ethics are vindicated here.