Do Catholics rely on private interpretation?

[Randy_Carson]

Randy - - Great Posts as usual…

Peace
James

Thanks.

Here’s the full suite of articles I wanted to post earlier:

Articles on Private Judgment and the Tu Quoque Fallacy

The Protestant Fallacy That Threatens to Undermine Christianity
By Joe Heschmeyer
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/
Shorter & Simpler

Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority
By Bryan Cross
calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

The Tu Quoque
By Bryan Cross
calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/the-tu-quoque/

Son of a tu quoque
By Andrew Preslar
calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/son-of-a-tu-quoque/

 

[edwest2]

I’ve often read the Catholic objection to Protestantism in that Protestants rely on their own private interpretation of Scripture which is fallible.

However, don’t Catholics as well?

Okay, so Catholics obey and believe the Church’s teaching, and that it is infallible, but how do they know what “the Church” is, and know that the Church is infallible? How does one identify it with the Roman Catholic Church?

Without descending into a circular argument, does this not require a private interpretation of Scripture and Tradition? Does it not rely on the intellect and one’s own interpretative skills?

If so, then what use is the objection against Protestantism on these grounds? If Catholics ultimately rely on private interpretation as well, then where is the issue? It seems as if Catholics and Protestants are at the same level here, both relying on their own interpretative ability.

(Ultimately we rely on the Holy Spirit, I should add, but then there is no real issue as anyone can claim Holy Spirit guidance)

EDIT: A further point, the objection that Protestantism has led to 30,000 denominations also fails with this point, because Catholics also rely ultimately on private interpretation.

I can see why you think this but it is not true. The Church has a teaching authority called the Magisterium which carries out its mission of, among other things, guiding and clarifying things in the Bible for lay people. I think you’ll find the following helpful:

cuf.org/2004/04/taking-god-at-his-word-a-catholic-understanding-of-biblical-inerrancy/

Peace,
Ed

 

[simspt]

I’ve often read the Catholic objection to Protestantism in that Protestants rely on their own private interpretation of Scripture which is fallible.

However, don’t Catholics as well?

Okay, so Catholics obey and believe the Church’s teaching, and that it is infallible, but how do they know what “the Church” is, and know that the Church is infallible? How does one identify it with the Roman Catholic Church?

Without descending into a circular argument, does this not require a private interpretation of Scripture and Tradition? Does it not rely on the intellect and one’s own interpretative skills?

If so, then what use is the objection against Protestantism on these grounds? If Catholics ultimately rely on private interpretation as well, then where is the issue? It seems as if Catholics and Protestants are at the same level here, both relying on their own interpretative ability.

(Ultimately we rely on the Holy Spirit, I should add, but then there is no real issue as anyone can claim Holy Spirit guidance)

EDIT: A further point, the objection that Protestantism has led to 30,000 denominations also fails with this point, because Catholics also rely ultimately on private interpretation.

Here is a good article that touches on your questions from multiple angles.

calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/sola-scriptura-a-dialogue-between-michael-horton-and-bryan-cross/

 

[simspt]

sorry i just read Randy’s post after last post and realized he might have given same link.
At any rate called to communion and Cross has a lot of good articles that address your questions.

 

[TarkanAttila]

There is also, if I am not mistaken, a difference between theological private interpretation, and one’s subjective judgement.

Theologically speaking, private interpretation is taking the Bible, reading it for yourself in the context of your own mind - regardless of what’s actually in that mind - and coming up with an interpretation of what you read. Of course, pastors tend to fill their minds with history and philosophy conducive to the doctrines of their own churches, but that by no means guarantees his congregation, or any Christian, has even remotely similar background in reading the Bible. The extreme logical conclusion of this sort of “private interpretation” is the Sceptic’s Annotated Bible. That, or every man being his own Church (as is often the case today, when a man doesn’t go to church on Sunday).

But subjective judgement, as Randy pointed out so thoroughly, is merely the fact that you are one person, and can only make conclusions based off of what you know. And the more you know, the better a judgement you can make.

The difference between the two is that "private interpretation"requires no knowledge except of something one sees in the Bible and wishes to interpret. Subjective observation does require knowledge - knowledge of the Old and New Testaments and their respective books, and even the compilation of said books, not to mention the early Church - in order to reach a conclusion.

Observing what the Bible means in its contexts is a real science, like understanding the evolution of the human species in the context of the world around our species’ ancestors.

But interpretation is opinion, like claiming that evolution disproves the claim that God made the world, because it works so well and “doesn’t need a God”, which is an opinion you may hold if you wish, but a logically poor observation.

 

[Abu]

Sultan Of Swing #1
Okay, so Catholics obey and believe the Church’s teaching, and that it is infallible, but how do they know what “the Church” is, and know that the Church is infallible? How does one identify it with the Roman Catholic Church?

Without descending into a circular argument, does this not require a private interpretation of Scripture and Tradition?

That is a common misconception that clouds many minds.

This is clearly explained by Karl Keating in Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius, 1988, p 125-127:
“What we really have is a spiral argument.

1. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible as history. From that we conclude an infallible Church was founded.
2. Then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. It reduces to the proposition that, without the existence of the Church, we could not tell if the Bible were inspired. As Augustine said, ‘I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.’ ”

So it emphatically is not circular. “We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument.” [p 126].

“As Arnold Lunn put it in a 1932 letter to C.E.M. Joad:
‘The Catholic claims to prove by pure reason that Christ was God, that Christ founded an infallible Church, and that the Roman Catholic Church is the church in question. Having traveled thus far by reason unaided by authority it is not irrational to trust the authority, whose credentials have been proved by reason, to interpret difficult passages in the Bible.’ ”[p 126].

 

[MarcoPolo]

How does someone without an ‘absolute’ right to private judgement decide that the Catholic Church is the true Church to begin with? Their private judgement is fallible, so ultimately their submission to the Magisterium is based on their original fallible decision to believe the Catholic Church?

I think what you are describing is free will. Yes, we have the free will to assent or to reject the Church and ultimately, we are responsible for our own decision. However, the existence of an infallible Church is not dependent on any individual’s fallibility. In similar words, whether or not God is infallible Himself, is not dependent on any individual person to be infallible themselves. And if that God is the protector of a Church, assuring that Church to never teach in error, then that reality is neither dependent on whether or not this or that individual has the charism of infallibility himself.

One must therefore exercise his free will and honest analysis by way of reason, completed by faith. Even when the early Christians exercised apologetics, they used reason and the evidences of the OT into the NT, etc… So I don’t think you can say the average Protestant is in the “same boat” as a Catholic because I think thorough reasoning and examination of divine revelation will point to the Church. The best Catholic apologetics withstand scrutiny that the best non-Catholic apologetics cannot withstand, in my view. And please don’t take all this post necessarily as a rebuff of anyone else’s post, because I may be looking at it from a particular angle.

See also Fallacies on Infallibility.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I’ve often read the Catholic objection to Protestantism in that Protestants rely on their own private interpretation of Scripture which is fallible.

However, don’t Catholics as well?

Oh, yeah, they do it here ALL THE TIME. If you don’t believe me, post a thread asking if works are necessary for salvation. You will get all sorts of Catholics (including many highly knowledgeable and respected, long-time, Forum Masters and Elders) expounding their own exegesis of Paul and (mostly) James (with a dose of Matthew 25), without a shred of actual Catholic doctrine that says that works of any sort are necessary as a condition of salvation. Because that’s actually heresy, so, umm, the Church doesn’t teach it.

The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by the Grace of Christian Baptism, and nothing else (this Grace is renewed, if necessary, by Sacramental Confession, and by nothing else). It’s really that simple.

There’s nothing wrong with Catholics interpreting Scripture, as long as it does not conflict with established Catholic doctrine. The idea that works (apart from receiving Baptism and perhaps Penance) are necessary as a condition of salvation is not Catholic doctrine, and it is absolute heresy. That’s where people (without realizing it, and with the best of intentions) cross the line, superimposing their personal Biblical exegesis upon authentic Catholic salvation theology.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Oh, yeah, they do it here ALL THE TIME. If you don’t believe me, post a thread asking if works are necessary for salvation. You will get all sorts of Catholics (including many highly knowledgeable and respected, long-time, Forum Masters and Elders) expounding their own exegesis of Paul and (mostly) James (with a dose of Matthew 25), without a shred of actual Catholic doctrine that says that works of any sort are necessary as a condition of salvation. Because that’s actually heresy, so, umm, the Church doesn’t teach it.

The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by the Grace of Christian Baptism, and nothing else (this Grace is renewed, if necessary, by Sacramental Confession, and by nothing else). It’s really that simple.

There’s nothing wrong with Catholics interpreting Scripture, as long as it does not conflict with established Catholic doctrine. The idea that works (apart from receiving Baptism and perhaps Penance) are necessary as a condition of salvation is not Catholic doctrine, and it is absolute heresy. That’s where people (without realizing it, and with the best of intentions) cross the line, superimposing their personal Biblical exegesis upon authentic Catholic salvation theology.

It seems to me works are involved in staying in the state of grace and avoiding sin. Both sins of omission and commission. I agree with you, but I see the James 2 and Matt 25 works being performed to maintain the state of grace.