How does one gauge how well a particular interpretation was conceived, though? In the scientific community, if one scientist reports results and other scientists are unable to replicate those results under the same conditions, that scientist’s work is discredited. How does one discredit another’s interpretation of a writing?
Question. How does one discredit another’s interpretation of a writing?
Answer. The same way that CAF members discredit another’s interpretation of a writing. I usually look for cherry picking and then ask for context, that is, after I personally checked context. Non sequitur approach can be used. Or even flaws in logic. In my childhood neighborhood, we learned to be careful of bait and switch tactics. One time, I simply suggested that the person scroll down to the bottom of the document and check the authors.
Peer review is a process that is never finished. I will again use an example everyone is tired of hearing by now: the overthrow of Newtonian physics by Relativity. There were many scientists who, before that overthrow, believed the matter was settled. Peer review of Newton’s work had already been going for two centuries, so how much more caution should we need, they must have thought. But no, there is no statute of limitations on peer review in science, which is why a result is never deemed infallible.
Now I am embarrassed. I thought you were referring to research papers for publication in peer reviewed science journals. All is not lost. Posts 279, 281 & 282 still stand as written.
Contrast this to the discussion in Councils. I am not an expert on this, but I am assuming that the Councils do finish up their work and eventually declare an interpretation infallible, correct?
Posts 279, 281 & 282 referred to Catholic doctrines. As explained in these posts, interpretations of Scripture are studied extensively. This includes studying the Church Fathers’ interpretations plus all kinds of writings. The studies become evidence for declaring an infallible doctrine. I did not address infallible interpretations because I am not familiar with that process.
I believe that there are some Scripture verses which have been declared truth filled. Sorry, I do not know the process for that.
I would argue that forming an interpretation and defining a doctrine amount to the same thing. As I attempted to illustrate with my foreign book analogy, being the sole interpreter essentially grants someone the same power they would hold as the author. It reminds me of a quote by Stalin (I think it was him, anyway): “The person who votes isn’t nearly as important as the person who counts the votes.” Granted, now you have a council of people deciding how they’ll translate the foreign book rather than an individual, but the principle is the same: their work is now beyond criticism since the council has made its decision.
There are all kinds of groups or councils who decide how to translate the original editions of the Bible that is the foreign book and then they publish it. Every so often, there is a CAF thread about the different Bibles. So the foreign book analogy made sense to me. The most recent discussion was about the new
New American Bible.
Come to think of it. There is plenty of criticism about Catholic doctrines, etc. etc. One of the doctrines was renamed as “granny’s magical mystery tour.” That was years ago – and I am still standing…and laughing!
Seriously,
Regarding the statement
“I would argue that forming an interpretation and defining a doctrine amount to the same thing.”
In my humble observation, people form interpretations of Holy Scripture all the time. I do interpretations on a limited basis. My rule is that my interpretation cannot contradict a Catholic doctrine. A lot of Catholics would say that what I am really doing is meditating on a Scripture passage. I can agree with that.
I am familiar with interpretations of Scripture being used as evidence in the process of determining infallibility of a proposed doctrine. I am not at all familiar with your points about interpretations. Thus, I would have to ask these questions: Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why?
I love Pope Francis. He is such a kind and loving man.
.
.
l .
