I’ve posted three separate questions to ask an apologist I guess a week ago now but with no response. I’m going to throw two of them out here - I can’t remember the third at the moment - so that whoever likes can address one or both, or perhaps tell me why I haven’t received responses so far. No, I’m not a Catholic, but I have no axe to grind, and I’m not playing a game. I’m simply curious and find some of the postings here interesting. So here goes:
St. Paul, as we know has always been a controversial, even polarizing figure. What is the official Church estimation of him? Is he an imperfect vehicle that needs correction by the scriptures, or is completely reliable and needs only to be properly understood?
Is it possible to be a member of the Catholic Church while privately holding a non-literal understanding of the creeds & dogma (specifically those statements dealing with metaphysical questions), if that understanding does not lead to any improper outward behavior, and if that member does not oppose or criticize the official literal interpretations that others hold, does not hold that his interpretation is in any sense superior, and does not attempt to promote his particular way of seeing the truth?
Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the trouble to answer.