Private Judgment

[pneuma07]

Many non catholic brothers observe from time to time, that the catholic does have to use his own private judgment (PV) . If only to accept the authority of the Church. Hence, they say, we’re after all on the same boat, everyone with one’s own PV, and the catholic less consistently so.

IMHO, this point is both true and fallacious. It is very true, in that it is upon personal examination that the convert, as well as the cradle catholic looking into his heritage, accepts the Church as the best interpreter and guardian of Revelation.
He then goes on studying Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, by his own PV, while, in principle, ready to trustfully recognize, in a dialectical relationship, that Magisterium knows better. (A real risk for the catholic when in dialogue with a NC, is coming to identify his own voice with the Magisterium. This is IMHO the seed of much of the arrogance we see in our home. )
I’d say that the catholic as well as the protestant feels as right and duty studying Revelation, this being not where the attitudes/beliefs differ.

The fundamental divergence is IMHO that, in principle, the protestant mindset is shaped by a PV which comes to consider as the best interpreter of Revelation ( generally equated to Sacred Scriptures) … itself. In other words, rather than passing from PV to Church and PV, here the passage looks from PV to PV.
Which BTW could be seen either just subjectively ( “My self is the best interpreter for myself, yours for yourself” ), or objectively: ( “My self is the best interpreter, and that’s that, you’d just better listen to it” ), or in practice as any mix of the two. The former attitude appearing as against any real church building, the latter being IMHO the seed of the possible protestant type of arrogance, to be compared with the above mentioned catholic one.

My first question is then: is my impression on this fundamental watershed essentially wrong ?

Now, ( second question) if that is not the case, and if I hypothetically do accept personally the option that the best living interpreter of Revelation is my own self, and do not, as a matter of fact, follow my pastor, or my denomination’s leadership, or some smarter brother or anybody else ( and in this case what are their credentials to be seen by me as the de facto best interpreter of Revelation ? ), or profess agnosticism about whom or what to trust ( and in this case can I have any firm belief ?) , how can I present this option in the most plausible way and live it consistently ?

 

[Cluny]

You could point out that the Bible itself says that “NO prophecy of Scripture is of ANY private interpetation.”

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

 

[pneuma07]

Many non catholic brothers observe from time to time, that the catholic does have to use his own private judgment (PV) . If only to accept the authority of the Church. Hence, they say, we’re after all on the same boat, everyone with one’s own PV, and the catholic less consistently so.

By The Way, please read “PJ” (private judgment) any time you see “PV” in the OP.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Many non catholic brothers observe from time to time, that the catholic does have to use his own private judgment (PV) . If only to accept the authority of the Church. Hence, they say, we’re after all on the same boat, everyone with one’s own PV, and the catholic less consistently so.

IMHO, this point is both true and fallacious. It is very true, in that it is upon personal examination that the convert, as well as the cradle catholic looking into his heritage, accepts the Church as the best interpreter and guardian of Revelation.
He then goes on studying Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, by his own PV, while, in principle, ready to trustfully recognize, in a dialectical relationship, that Magisterium knows better. (A real risk for the catholic when in dialogue with a NC, is coming to identify his own voice with the Magisterium. This is IMHO the seed of much of the arrogance we see in our home. )
I’d say that the catholic as well as the protestant feels as right and duty studying Revelation, this being not where the attitudes/beliefs differ.

The fundamental divergence is IMHO that, in principle, the protestant mindset is shaped by a PV which comes to consider as the best interpreter of Revelation ( generally equated to Sacred Scriptures) … itself. In other words, rather than passing from PV to Church and PV, here the passage looks from PV to PV.
Which BTW could be seen either just subjectively ( “My self is the best interpreter for myself, yours for yourself” ), or objectively: ( “My self is the best interpreter, and that’s that, you’d just better listen to it” ), or in practice as any mix of the two. The former attitude appearing as against any real church building, the latter being IMHO the seed of the possible protestant type of arrogance, to be compared with the above mentioned catholic one.

My first question is then: is my impression on this fundamental watershed essentially wrong ?

Now, ( second question) if that is not the case, and if I hypothetically do accept personally the option that the best living interpreter of Revelation is my own self, and do not, as a matter of fact, follow my pastor, or my denomination’s leadership, or some smarter brother or anybody else ( and in this case what are their credentials to be seen by me as the de facto best interpreter of Revelation ? ), or profess agnosticism about whom or what to trust ( and in this case can I have any firm belief ?) , how can I present this option in the most plausible way and live it consistently ?

I think your analysis fails on a couple of grounds. First of all, probably most RC, like most Christians in general don’t really read and study at all. They accept what their church tells them. It doesn’t occur to them frankly that there are other interpretations.

Further, many RC, especially here, suggest that if after learning about what the RCC teaches you disagree, you must be wrong. You are told that you must continue to study until you can conform your beliefs to the churches, and that you are required to accept the church’s teaching all the while. This is as you might see rather dictatorial and obviates the entire issue of personal conscience.

Secondly, you fall into the trap that all Protestants somehow just interpret scripture for themselves. In most denominations, expecially mainline they do not. There is a full compendium of theology and biblical interpretation supported by Protestant scholars and Catholic for that matter. Most are not exclusive, but accept truth from any Christian writer who speaks it.

But as for what you claim as the process RC’s use, then Protestants use the same thing. They are taught in Church, and if so motivated, they investigate, real, study and if they come to agree that they have been taught correctly, they are more likely to defer to the Church in the future.

There is little difference as I see it, other than primacy of conscience is seriously uphelp in at least my tradition as part of what it means to be in God’s image.

You have fallen into the fallacy of thinking that all Protestants decide on scripture for themselves, and even fundamentalists don’t in large part even do this. In fact, they more strictly follow the teachings of their pastors I believe.

 

[pneuma07]

I think your analysis fails on a couple of grounds. First of all, probably most RC, like most Christians in general don’t really read and study at all. They accept what their church tells them. It doesn’t occur to them frankly that there are other interpretations.

Further, many RC, especially here, suggest that if after learning about what the RCC teaches you disagree, you must be wrong. You are told that you must continue to study until you can conform your beliefs to the churches, and that you are required to accept the church’s teaching all the while. This is as you might see rather dictatorial and obviates the entire issue of personal conscience.

Secondly, you fall into the trap that all Protestants somehow just interpret scripture for themselves. In most denominations, expecially mainline they do not. There is a full compendium of theology and biblical interpretation supported by Protestant scholars and Catholic for that matter. Most are not exclusive, but accept truth from any Christian writer who speaks it.

But as for what you claim as the process RC’s use, then Protestants use the same thing. They are taught in Church, and if so motivated, they investigate, real, study and if they come to agree that they have been taught correctly, they are more likely to defer to the Church in the future.

There is little difference as I see it, other than primacy of conscience is seriously uphelp in at least my tradition as part of what it means to be in God’s image.

You have fallen into the fallacy of thinking that all Protestants decide on scripture for themselves, and even fundamentalists don’t in large part even do this. In fact, they more strictly follow the teachings of their pastors I believe.

Hi Spirit,

Thank you for elaborating on my little euristic introduction.
On the first point I fully agree, of course. Let’s say I was speaking about theologically inclined guys.

On the fact that such a catholic, or any catholic, is under a rather dictatorial rule, and this “obviates the entire issue of personal conscience” I .cannot concur, as you can expect.
There are here , I as can see it, two opposite and equally frequent objections from our non catholic brothers .

One is that catholics have to become something like automatons, under remote control by their bishop or Vatican . Another one is that there would be no unity within catholicism, since, paying lip service to Magisterium, everyone has one’s own different position. What’s then the situation like ?

Look how J. Akin puts it:
*Christians, of course, had always taught a right to private judgment–that every individual had the right to think on and interpret the Scriptures for himself (this is why the Scriptures were read out loud at Mass, so that even the illiterate could hear them and think about their meaning). The exercise of private judgment was fine and wholesome and to be encouraged by all possible means so long as it was not used to reject those doctrines which had been determined by Christ’s appointed teachers (the Magisterium) to represent the authentic teachings of the Bible.
…In any area in which the teaching authority of Christ’s Church had not spoken (which was and is the great majority of areas), private judgment was permitted. It was only when a doctrine which had already been established to be true, such as the Trinity, the fully Divinity and humanity of Christ, the atoning death and resurrection of Christ, the efficacy of the sacraments, etc.–that private judgment was limited./I]

In other words:
Contrary to what is often said, PJ is of course exercised within Catholicism.
Contrary to what is in principle preached in Protestanisms, there are limits to PJ within Catholicism.

As for the real versus the theoretical situation within protestant communities, I do again fully
agree with your point . You can see it was included in my introduction.
if I hypothetically do accept personally the option that the best living interpreter of Revelation is my own self, and do not, as a matter of fact, follow my pastor, or my denomination’s leadership, or some smarter brother or anybody else ( and in this case what are their credentials to be seen by me as the de facto best interpreter of Revelation ? ), …

Therefore, the point
is, what the consistency of protestant practice versus protestant theory is.

Let’s listen a little to J. Akin again (www.cin.org/users/james/files/private.htm), this time on protestant pastors:
*
They must preach absolute right to PJ to
guarantee their own right to interpret and expound the Scriptures in public. They have no other basis for doing this.* If they concluded that the average person does not have an absolute right to interpret the Scriptures for himself, then how would they know they have this absolute right? They wouldn’t. …… The doctrine of PJ is thus
the thing which justifies their own positions of authority…

At the same time, they recognize that they must protect their group from being torn apart by dissent, and so they must prohibit in practice the free and public exercise of this absolute right within their group. They are between a rock and a hard place. …
Thus it is an unconscious or at least mostly unconscious hypocrisy. They can spend their time expounding the doctrine of PJ, knowing that only occasionally will someone in the congregation cause trouble by pertinaciously asserting his right to exercise PJ
Thus Protestant pastors feel comfortable preaching the doctrine of PJ and even publicly and pridefully scorning those churches which don’t preach it–and seldom or never seriously think about the contradiction between the theory of this doctrine and whether it is actually possible to implement it in practice. .*

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hi Spirit,

Thank you for elaborating on my little euristic introduction.
On the first point I fully agree, of course. Let’s say I was speaking about theologically inclined guys.

On the fact that such a catholic, or any catholic, is under a rather dictatorial rule, and this “obviates the entire issue of personal conscience” I .cannot concur, as you can expect.
There are here , I as can see it, two opposite and equally frequent objections from our non catholic brothers .

One is that catholics have to become something like automatons, under remote control by their bishop or Vatican . Another one is that there would be no unity within catholicism, since, paying lip service to Magisterium, everyone has one’s own different position. What’s then the situation like ?

Look how J. Akin puts it:
*Christians, of course, had always taught a right to private judgment–that every individual had the right to think on and interpret the Scriptures for himself (this is why the Scriptures were read out loud at Mass, so that even the illiterate could hear them and think about their meaning). The exercise of private judgment was fine and wholesome and to be encouraged by all possible means so long as it was not used to reject those doctrines which had been determined by Christ’s appointed teachers (the Magisterium) to represent the authentic teachings of the Bible.
…In any area in which the teaching authority of Christ’s Church had not spoken (which was and is the great majority *of areas), private judgment was permitted. It was only when a doctrine which had already been established to be true, such as the Trinity, the fully Divinity and humanity of Christ, the atoning death and resurrection of Christ, the efficacy of the sacraments, etc.–that private judgment was limited./I]

In other words:
Contrary to what is often said, PJ is of course exercised within Catholicism.
Contrary to what is in principle preached in Protestanisms, there are limits to PJ within Catholicism.

As for the real versus the theoretical situation within protestant communities, I do again fully
agree with your point . You can see it was included in my introduction.
if I hypothetically do accept personally the option that the best living interpreter of Revelation is my own self, and do not, as a matter of fact, follow my pastor, or my denomination’s leadership, or some smarter brother or anybody else ( and in this case what are their credentials to be seen by me as the de facto best interpreter of Revelation ? ), …

Therefore, the point
is, what the consistency of protestant practice versus protestant theory is.

Let’s listen a little to J. Akin again (www.cin.org/users/james/files/private.htm), this time on protestant pastors:
*
They must preach absolute right to PJ to
guarantee their own right to interpret and expound the Scriptures in public. They have no other basis for doing this.* If they concluded that the average person does not have an absolute right to interpret the Scriptures for himself, then how would they know they have this absolute right? They wouldn’t. …… The doctrine of PJ is thus
the thing which justifies their own positions of authority…

At the same time, they recognize that they must protect their group from being torn apart by dissent, and so they must prohibit in practice the free and public exercise of this absolute right within their group. They are between a rock and a hard place. …
Thus it is an unconscious or at least mostly unconscious hypocrisy. They can spend their time expounding the doctrine of PJ, knowing that only occasionally will someone in the congregation cause trouble by pertinaciously asserting his right to exercise PJ
Thus Protestant pastors feel comfortable preaching the doctrine of PJ and even publicly and pridefully scorning those churches which don’t preach it–and seldom or never seriously think about the contradiction between the theory of this doctrine and whether it is actually possible to implement it in practice. .

I would agree that hopefully most RC’s don’t just accept what they are told. But I must caution you that there are some RC’s on this forum who do hold that there is no such thing as individual conscience if it is in opposition to the official teaching of the Church. It is by definition,they claim, improperly formed and therefore cannot be followed. They do not follow the CCC in this regard nor recent popes.

Further, again, not all by any stretch of the imagination, Protestant denominations follow sola scriptura. Mine surely doesn’t and that is most true of most mainline Protestant sects. To suggest that one denies tradition and reason, as my denominination most certainly does not, does not mean that scripture is necessarily self interpretated in any case. You’re reading Catholic apologetics for your information, and they are often wrong…

 

[manualman]

Akin, as usual does a nice job of making complex topics understandable.

I like to think of all of life’s decisions as a vast and varied landscape. There are broad plains, soaring mountains, rushing rivers, deep oceans, vast forests… God has given us this great life to explore and come to know Him. But the landscape also contains hazards. There are cliffs, pits of quicksand, rip tides, avalanch zones…

PJ is how we make the vast majority of decisions in life. In some potentially hazardous areas, wise and holy men and women have given us advice for navigating the landscape safely and we are wise to heed their experience, but not necessarily bound to. In other extremely hazardous areas, God has provided the Church the revelation to build fences. These fences are not restrictions on the faithful, but protective devices that serve to warn us to stay off of fatal terrain.

Private Judgement cannot overrule revelation in such matters as these. When it comes to sheer cliffs, you cannot dissent from the doctrine of gravity - you can only suffer the consequences of your defiance.

 

[pneuma07]

I would agree that hopefully most RC’s don’t just accept what they are told. But I must caution you that there are some RC’s on this forum who do hold that there is no such thing as individual conscience if it is in opposition to the official teaching of the Church. It is by definition,they claim, improperly formed and therefore cannot be followed. They do not follow the CCC in this regard nor recent popes.

Further, again, not all by any stretch of the imagination, Protestant denominations follow sola scriptura. Mine surely doesn’t and that is most true of most mainline Protestant sects. To suggest that one denies tradition and reason, as my denominination most certainly does not, does not mean that scripture is necessarily self interpretated in any case. You’re reading Catholic apologetics for your information, and they are often wrong…

Dear Spirit,

warnings again other forumists and catholic apologists aside, it seems you , Akin and me basically agree here, particularly on “not all by any stretch of the imagination, Protestant denominations follow sola scriptura.”

I know there are many different Sola Scriptura definitions proposed by its supporters, but I guess they generally include Private Judgment ( expressing maybe it as “the Bible is the sole final authority”) .

Now what I’d like to focus on:

if PJ ( an absolute right to it) is what the founders of those denominations would appeal to (otherwise they would have remained where they were ), and therefore is central to the existence itself of those faith communities isn’t the fact that they now “not by any stretch of the imagination” follow this principle, which is for them a raison d’etre, somehow troubling ?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Dear Spirit,

warnings again other forumists and catholic apologists aside, it seems you , Akin and me basically agree here, particularly on “not all by any stretch of the imagination, Protestant denominations follow sola scriptura.”

I know there are many different Sola Scriptura definitions proposed by its supporters, but I guess they generally include Private Judgment ( expressing maybe it as “the Bible is the sole final authority”) .

Now what I’d like to focus on:

if PJ ( an absolute right to it) is what the founders of those denominations would appeal to (otherwise they would have remained where they were ), and therefore is central to the existence itself of those faith communities isn’t the fact that they now “not by any stretch of the imagination” follow this principle, which is for them a raison d’etre, somehow troubling ?

We don’t agree. My church doesnt agree that the bible is the sole final authority. We are a triad of belief as the RCC is, although we supplant the magisterium with reason. We also look to tradition.

Where we are getting off track is I think you presume that truth as expressed through the Magisterium is not PJ, but some perfect truth, guaranteed by the HS. Protestants, don’t agree that you have sole use of that mechanism. In reality, the Magisterium is a collection of men, over time who study and release statements of their conclusions. They are men. Other men and women, in Protestant settings merely do the same.

All followers of any denomination, RCC, EC, Lutheran or other, simply adhere to those beliefs if they feel they are correct. To that degree we all engage in PJ. However, I would submit that altough our compendium of “required” acceptance is a good deal smaller, we don’t function on any basis that says, read it for yourself and belief whatever you think it means. We take advantage of the same theologians and biblical experts you do, and perhaps we are more willing to look at even Catholic opinions than you re willing to look at Protestant theology and biblical study, but it’s the same process.

 

[pneuma07]

We don’t agree. My church doesnt agree that the bible is the sole final authority. We are a triad of belief as the RCC is, although we supplant the magisterium with reason. We also look to tradition.

Where we are getting off track is I think you presume that truth as expressed through the Magisterium is not PJ, but some perfect truth, guaranteed by the HS. Protestants, don’t agree that you have sole use of that mechanism. In reality, the Magisterium is a collection of men, over time who study and release statements of their conclusions. They are men. Other men and women, in Protestant settings merely do the same.

All followers of any denomination, RCC, EC, Lutheran or other, simply adhere to those beliefs if they feel they are correct. To that degree we all engage in PJ. However, I would submit that altough our compendium of “required” acceptance is a good deal smaller, we don’t function on any basis that says, read it for yourself and belief whatever you think it means. We take advantage of the same theologians and biblical experts you do, and perhaps we are more willing to look at even Catholic opinions than you re willing to look at Protestant theology and biblical study, but it’s the same process.

Dear Spirit,

I take note that your faith community officialy rejects Sola Scriptura. If I get it correctly you share with the Catholic Church the material principles ( Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition) , while officially differing on the formal one : reason instead of Magisterium.

You know BTW reason is so highly praised in catholic teaching “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).”
(From Fides et Ratio, by JPII, www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/jp2fides.htm#Ch5).

What I’d observe is:

1. by stating
   we don’t function on any basis that says, read it for yourself and belief whatever you think it means

you do say your denomination does have a magisteriurm ( teaching authority). I s that correct ?

And I wonder whether a religious body can exist as such without any teaching body.
About:
Where we are getting off track is I think you presume that truth as expressed through the Magisterium is not PJ, but some perfect truth, guaranteed by the HS…. In reality, the Magisterium is a collection of men, over time who study and release statements of their conclusions. They are men. Other men and women, in Protestant settings merely do the same.

You’re certainly right, the member of the body called Magisterium are merely men. But the interesting thing, is: Magisterium is not a set of PJs held by each of its members. A bishop has not more absolute right to PJ in the Church than you and me. He can contribute to the shaping of magisterial positions, being then bound by them.
Magisterium ( even when speaking through the Pope) is a collective voice.
So you have a Collective Judgment, rather than PJ… And this is a first essential point.

Second, this Collective Judgment is not absolutus, but is bound by Scripture, Tradition and the previous magisterial teachings themselves.

Last but not least, this teaching body can claim Apostolic Succession.

So, no, IMHO Magisterium and “men and women in Protestant settings” do not do “the same”.

And I wonder what the credentials of protestant magisteriums/teaching bodies are.

Probably other non catholic western christian brothers, outside Spirit’s specific denomination, may also want to consider the question in post 8.

 

[pneuma07]

Akin, as usual does a nice job of making complex topics understandable.

I like to think of all of life’s decisions as a vast and varied landscape. There are broad plains, soaring mountains, rushing rivers, deep oceans, vast forests… God has given us this great life to explore and come to know Him. But the landscape also contains hazards. There are cliffs, pits of quicksand, rip tides, avalanch zones…

PJ is how we make the vast majority of decisions in life. In some potentially hazardous areas, wise and holy men and women have given us advice for navigating the landscape safely and we are wise to heed their experience, but not necessarily bound to. In other extremely hazardous areas, God has provided the Church the revelation to build fences. These fences are not restrictions on the faithful, but protective devices that serve to warn us to stay off of fatal terrain.

Private Judgement cannot overrule revelation in such matters as these. When it comes to sheer cliffs, you cannot dissent from the doctrine of gravity - you can only suffer the consequences of your defiance.

Hi Manualman.

Nicely put, IMHO.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Dear Spirit,

I take note that your faith community officialy rejects Sola Scriptura. If I get it correctly you share with the Catholic Church the material principles ( Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition) , while officially differing on the formal one : reason instead of Magisterium.

You know BTW reason is so highly praised in catholic teaching “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).”
(From Fides et Ratio, by JPII, www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/jp2fides.htm#Ch5).

What I’d observe is:

1. by stating
   we don’t function on any basis that says, read it for yourself and belief whatever you think it means

you do say your denomination does have a magisteriurm ( teaching authority). I s that correct ?

And I wonder whether a religious body can exist as such without any teaching body.
About:
Where we are getting off track is I think you presume that truth as expressed through the Magisterium is not PJ, but some perfect truth, guaranteed by the HS…. In reality, the Magisterium is a collection of men, over time who study and release statements of their conclusions. They are men. Other men and women, in Protestant settings merely do the same.

You’re certainly right, the member of the body called Magisterium are merely men. But the interesting thing, is: Magisterium is not a set of PJs held by each of its members. A bishop has not more absolute right to PJ in the Church than you and me. He can contribute to the shaping of magisterial positions, being then bound by them.
Magisterium ( even when speaking through the Pope) is a collective voice.
So you have a Collective Judgment, rather than PJ… And this is a first essential point.

Second, this Collective Judgment is not absolutus, but is bound by Scripture, Tradition and the previous magisterial teachings themselves.

Last but not least, this teaching body can claim Apostolic Succession.

So, no, IMHO Magisterium and “men and women in Protestant settings” do not do “the same”.

And I wonder what the credentials of protestant magisteriums/teaching bodies are.

Probably other non catholic western christian brothers, outside Spirit’s specific denomination, may also want to consider the question in post 8.

While reason is promoted as a good thing in the RCC, there is a point of departure. At the point that one’s reason disagrees with the Magisterium, one’s personal reason is in jeopardy to that of the Magisterium which is held to have some special abilities not given to ordinary people.

It is a hard thing to define I suspect. We do not have a teaching authority and are very much against that idea as we see that as one of the prime wrongs in the RCC. It has boxed the church into certain dogma that time, science, and so on have proved to be incorrect and yet they feel bound because of their insistence that the HS prevents error. Thus the Church entangles itself into twists and turns all in an attempt to “not change” . Of course it does, but it calls it something different.

We on the other hand do develop belief, but we don’t set it down in an ongoing “dogma.” Everyone is free to learn as the Church learns, but of course nothing but the core beliefs are required. We view tradition differently as well, since we evaluate tradition as did Jesus, and change or dismiss those that no longer serve the purpose for which they were intended.

When you say that the individual men within the Magisterium are not allowed PJ, you are of course being a wee bit dishonest, for every person in judging anything cannot avoid their own personal lens. It is a human thing, one no one can ignore, though we can do our best to be aware and to try to eliminate it as much as possible.

My point, is that in the end, members of your church actually use PJ just as much as anyone. They determine in choosing your faith tradition that they can agree with its basic tenets and find the explanations satisfactory to them. Every one does this at some point in their spiritual lives, and many of us many times.

And of course, we also claim Apostolic succession, though I can’t imagine thinking that this somehow makes anyone’s opinion on faith matters better because of it. I don’t think that furthers the argument one whit actually. My understanding is that the RCC claims that no one else has AS since somehow the Anglican’s changed some wording in the action of investing bishops. Such wording is something that any rational person might see as rather unimportant to God. God judges the mind and heart, rather than the pious outpouring of mouths. Jesus again, said this as well.

So we would claim the same Apostolic succession as you do, for whatever you think that is worth in sustaining your argument. In any case, it has been a pleasant conversation.

 

[Eucharisted]

Many non catholic brothers observe from time to time, that the catholic does have to use his own private judgment (PV) . If only to accept the authority of the Church. Hence, they say, we’re after all on the same boat, everyone with one’s own PV, and the catholic less consistently so.

IMHO, this point is both true and fallacious. It is very true, in that it is upon personal examination that the convert, as well as the cradle catholic looking into his heritage, accepts the Church as the best interpreter and guardian of Revelation.
He then goes on studying Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, by his own PV, while, in principle, ready to trustfully recognize, in a dialectical relationship, that Magisterium knows better. (A real risk for the catholic when in dialogue with a NC, is coming to identify his own voice with the Magisterium. This is IMHO the seed of much of the arrogance we see in our home. )
I’d say that the catholic as well as the protestant feels as right and duty studying Revelation, this being not where the attitudes/beliefs differ.

The fundamental divergence is IMHO that, in principle, the protestant mindset is shaped by a PV which comes to consider as the best interpreter of Revelation ( generally equated to Sacred Scriptures) … itself. In other words, rather than passing from PV to Church and PV, here the passage looks from PV to PV.
Which BTW could be seen either just subjectively ( “My self is the best interpreter for myself, yours for yourself” ), or objectively: ( “My self is the best interpreter, and that’s that, you’d just better listen to it” ), or in practice as any mix of the two. The former attitude appearing as against any real church building, the latter being IMHO the seed of the possible protestant type of arrogance, to be compared with the above mentioned catholic one.

My first question is then: is my impression on this fundamental watershed essentially wrong ?

Now, ( second question) if that is not the case, and if I hypothetically do accept personally the option that the best living interpreter of Revelation is my own self, and do not, as a matter of fact, follow my pastor, or my denomination’s leadership, or some smarter brother or anybody else ( and in this case what are their credentials to be seen by me as the de facto best interpreter of Revelation ? ), or profess agnosticism about whom or what to trust ( and in this case can I have any firm belief ?) , how can I present this option in the most plausible way and live it consistently ?

You would have made a good point if you had included in it that converts check the teachings of the Catholic Church before joining the Church, just as, in Acts, the Jews checked the Apostles’ preachings against the Scriptures to see if they were telling the truth or telling lies.

 

[JonNC]

Let’s listen a little to J. Akin again (www.cin.org/users/james/files/private.htm), this time on protestant pastors:
*
They must preach absolute right to PJ to
guarantee their own right to interpret and expound the Scriptures in public. They have no other basis for doing this.* If they concluded that the average person does not have an absolute right to interpret the Scriptures for himself, then how would they know they have this absolute right? They wouldn’t. …… The doctrine of PJ is thus
the thing which justifies their own positions of authority…

At the same time, they recognize that they must protect their group from being torn apart by dissent, and so they must prohibit in practice the free and public exercise of this absolute right within their group. They are between a rock and a hard place. …
Thus it is an unconscious or at least mostly unconscious hypocrisy. They can spend their time expounding the doctrine of PJ, knowing that only occasionally will someone in the congregation cause trouble by pertinaciously asserting his right to exercise PJ
Thus Protestant pastors feel comfortable preaching the doctrine of PJ and even publicly and pridefully scorning those churches which don’t preach it–and seldom or never seriously think about the contradiction between the theory of this doctrine and whether it is actually possible to implement it in practice. .

I’m in my mid-fifties, and was raised by a Lutheran pastor. Never, ever did my dad put a copy of scripture in my hands and say, “here, go interpret this for yourself, as your PJ is as good as anyone’s.” Never, ever in my life have I ever heard any Lutheran pastor say that we have the right of private interpretation, at least on those things considered doctrine.

Long before Mr. Akin, Martin Chemnitz wrote the following:

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

BTW, could someone point to where this “doctrine of Private Judgement” is written down? I’ve never seen it.

Jon

 

[pneuma07]

While reason is promoted as a good thing in the RCC, there is a point of departure. At the point that one’s reason disagrees with the Magisterium, one’s personal reason is in jeopardy to that of the Magisterium which is held to have some special abilities not given to ordinary people.

It is a hard thing to define I suspect. We do not have a teaching authority and are very much against that idea as we see that as one of the prime wrongs in the RCC. It has boxed the church into certain dogma that time, science, and so on have proved to be incorrect and yet they feel bound because of their insistence that the HS prevents error. Thus the Church entangles itself into twists and turns all in an attempt to “not change” . Of course it does, but it calls it something different.

We on the other hand do develop belief, but we don’t set it down in an ongoing “dogma.” Everyone is free to learn as the Church learns, but of course nothing but the core beliefs are required. We view tradition differently as well, since we evaluate tradition as did Jesus, and change or dismiss those that no longer serve the purpose for which they were intended.

When you say that the individual men within the Magisterium are not allowed PJ, you are of course being a wee bit dishonest, for every person in judging anything cannot avoid their own personal lens. It is a human thing, one no one can ignore, though we can do our best to be aware and to try to eliminate it as much as possible.

My point, is that in the end, members of your church actually use PJ just as much as anyone. They determine in choosing your faith tradition that they can agree with its basic tenets and find the explanations satisfactory to them. Every one does this at some point in their spiritual lives, and many of us many times.

And of course, we also claim Apostolic succession, though I can’t imagine thinking that this somehow makes anyone’s opinion on faith matters better because of it. I don’t think that furthers the argument one whit actually. My understanding is that the RCC claims that no one else has AS since somehow the Anglican’s changed some wording in the action of investing bishops. Such wording is something that any rational person might see as rather unimportant to God. God judges the mind and heart, rather than the pious outpouring of mouths. Jesus again, said this as well.

So we would claim the same Apostolic succession as you do, for whatever you think that is worth in sustaining your argument. In any case, it has been a pleasant conversation.

Dear Spirit,

to clarify the point you consider a bit dishonest, what I say is that while of course contributing, each with one’s own PJ ( or personal lens, if you prefer ), to magisterial formulations, the members of Magisterium are bound to the Collective Judgment which is the outcome of their individual contributions, no less than any catholic in the pews. I hope this helps.

As to the tenets of your denomination that you describe if I get correctly:

• Sola Scriptura is rejected
• On Magisterium: “We do not have a teaching authority and are very much against that idea as we see that as one of the prime wrongs in the RCC.”
• On Tradition: “we evaluate tradition as did Jesus, and change or dismiss those that no longer serve the purpose for which they were intended.” ( i guess you probably mean “traditions” rather than “Tradition” here).

As for the validity of Apostolic Succession in the Anglican Communion or absence of it , that would be quite off topic here, and there are real experts on that in the Forum.

( BTW The Catholic Church for sure does not hold that “no one else has AS”)

In any case, it has been a pleasant conversation

Thanks Spirit. My pleasure. See you

 

[pneuma07]

I’m in my mid-fifties, and was raised by a Lutheran pastor. Never, ever did my dad put a copy of scripture in my hands and say, “here, go interpret this for yourself, as your PJ is as good as anyone’s.” Never, ever in my life have I ever heard any Lutheran pastor say that we have the right of private interpretation, at least on those things considered doctrine.

Long before Mr. Akin, Martin Chemnitz wrote the following:

BTW, could someone point to where this “doctrine of Private Judgement” is written down? I’ve never seen it.

Jon

Hi JonNC,

thanks for your witness.

Never, ever in my life have I ever heard any Lutheran pastor say that we have the right of private interpretation,

and Chemnitz’s

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages

are clear words ( certainly different from experiences and beliefs of many other protestant brothers). And they really seem to point to a rejection of PJ in Lutheranism. ( although in Chemnitz’s case this has to do more with tradition than magisterium)

I don’t know whether you can consider the famous statement in Worms

*I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the councils, because it is clear as the day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the word of God, I cannot and I will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. *

as propounding precisely Private interpretation ( to which no Lutheran pastor ever said you have the right) , or something completely different from that.

Regardless, wouldn’t you agree that in challenging and rejecting Catholic doctrine a Reformer had at some point to postulate somehow ( implicitly maybe) not only Scripture as the only source of Revelation , but his own private ability in understanding and guarding Revelation as better than the Church’s ( more precisely the magisterium of the Catholic Church) ?

The problem was that other guys ( each of them individually) would soon propose that their own personal judgments were
better not only than the Church’s … but also than Luther’s.

It seems to me:

• Every new christian faith community was born out of a founder ( or group of founders) affirming ( maybe only de facto) his personal judgment as the best living interpreter of Revelation.
• But no religious body can live by both theoretically and practically encouraging every member to consider individually him/herself as the best interpreter of Revelation.

Therefore it’s not surprising that J. Akin experienced religious bodies where PJ was theoretically, but only theoretically taught, and you experienced a religious body where PJ looks even theoretically rejected.

The underlying problem for both situations, IMHO, remains. It appears that PJ, as affirmed de jure or de facto by its founder(s), is precisely what caused these bodies to be born in the first place.

 

[JonNC]

Hi JonNC,

thanks for your witness.

Never, ever in my life have I ever heard any Lutheran pastor say that we have the right of private interpretation,

and Chemnitz’s

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages

are clear words ( certainly different from experiences and beliefs of many other protestant brothers). And they really seem to point to a rejection of PJ in Lutheranism. ( although in Chemnitz’s case this has to do more with tradition than magisterium)

I don’t know whether you can consider the famous statement in Worms

*I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the councils, because it is clear as the day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the word of God, I cannot and I will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. *

as propounding precisely Private interpretation ( to which no Lutheran pastor ever said you have the right) , or something completely different from that.

Regardless, wouldn’t you agree that in challenging and rejecting Catholic doctrine a Reformer had at some point to postulate somehow ( implicitly maybe) not only Scripture as the only source of Revelation , but his own private ability in understanding and guarding Revelation as better than the Church’s ( more precisely the magisterium of the Catholic Church) ?

The problem was that other guys ( each of them individually) would soon propose that their own personal judgments were
better not only than the Church’s … but also than Luther’s.

It seems to me:

• Every new christian faith community was born out of a founder ( or group of founders) affirming ( maybe only de facto) his personal judgment as the best living interpreter of Revelation.
• But no religious body can live by both theoretically and practically encouraging every member to consider individually him/herself as the best interpreter of Revelation.

Therefore it’s not surprising that J. Akin experienced religious bodies where PJ was theoretically, but only theoretically taught, and you experienced a religious body where PJ looks even theoretically rejected.

The underlying problem for both situations, IMHO, remains. It appears that PJ, as affirmed de jure or de facto by its founder(s), is precisely what caused these bodies to be born in the first place.

I think you make a good point here, in that Luther, and Melanchton, believed strongly that there were abuses and errors being permitted in the Church. What Luther was asked to recant was, in part confirmed in the “counter-reformation”. So, perhaps you are right that Luther should have submitted. But rather than recant, he simply asked that scripture and reason be provided that proved him wrong. And, for whatever reason, maybe because of the politics, or level of abuse in the Church at that time, Worms, instead of an opportunity to discuss and resolve, became a confrontation that has wounded the ministry of the Church ever since.
It might also be said that the PJ of some within the Church just as surely led to the Reformation.

Jon

 

[manualman]

Jon,

I got beat to the punch, but it isn’t just Luther. Every single of the thousands of denominations and non-aligned christian groups out there began when someone in a leadership position made the decision that his (sometimes her) private judgement was more reliable than that of the leadership of the group they split off from. And thus, the NEXT denomination was born.

While you are correct that it would be hard to find explicit instruction about the absolute authority of PJ in any sort of protestant instructional materials, it is awfully hard to avoid the inferred principle when learning about the famous names in Reformation history, isn’t it?

An aside quibble to Spiritmeadow: You dismiss the catholic position on Anglican non-apostolic succession as petty tribalism to be expected. But such a dismissal does not explain why catholicism does not manufacture a similar dismissal of the validity of AS for the Orthodox, the Polish national Catholic Church and so on. It’s certainly understandable that an Episcopalian would disagree with catholics on the matter, but there are ways to do it respectfully. Posters Contarini and GKC pull it off quite charitably without ceding an inch. For your consideration in future posts.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Jon,

I got beat to the punch, but it isn’t just Luther. Every single of the thousands of denominations and non-aligned christian groups out there began when someone in a leadership position made the decision that his (sometimes her) private judgement was more reliable than that of the leadership of the group they split off from. And thus, the NEXT denomination was born.

While you are correct that it would be hard to find explicit instruction about the absolute authority of PJ in any sort of protestant instructional materials, it is awfully hard to avoid the inferred principle when learning about the famous names in Reformation history, isn’t it?

An aside quibble to Spiritmeadow: You dismiss the catholic position on Anglican non-apostolic succession as petty tribalism to be expected. But such a dismissal does not explain why catholicism does not manufacture a similar dismissal of the validity of AS for the Orthodox, the Polish national Catholic Church and so on. It’s certainly understandable that an Episcopalian would disagree with catholics on the matter, but there are ways to do it respectfully. Posters Contarini and GKC pull it off quite charitably without ceding an inch. For your consideration in future posts.

I find it odd frankly that you would ask me or wonder how I would explain that the RCC grants validity to some other forms of Catholicism. I don’t explain it at all. We simply have no reason to grant that the RCC has some special right to “decide” these things. We decide them for ourselves, as you do for yourselves.

As to being “respectful.” What is respectful about RC posters who say, “Anglican priests and priestesses have no apostolic validity and cannot confect a valid Eucharist. You partake of bread and wine, and nothing else.” Is this repectful? I’d say no, but of course we are reminded that RC are allowed to speak their truth as they see it and somehow that avoids being rude. I am doing no less. I am aware that a couple of Anglican/Episcopalians are most solicitous of your feelings in the matter, but of course one of them won’t even use the word woman priest since he finds it distasteful. He insults Episcopalians, but apparently that is okay because he is properly bowing to you. I don’t have an issue with it, frankly, but I’m rather tired of being told that somehow I’m supposed to care what the RCC thinks about my faith tradition. And worse yet, I’m supposed to accept this as “truth” because the poster is of the OPINION it is. Your opinion is respected, but when you or others insist on telling me it is the truth because your tradition insists that it is, we part company.

I’m not sure where this notion arises from frankly. But it seems endemic here. There are quite a few RC’s who cannot separate truth from opinion. Faith is by its nature, not susceptible to proof in an objective way. Therefore, all is opinion. It may be good opinion and logical opinion or it may be far from that, but it remains opinion.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

I got beat to the punch, but it isn’t just Luther. Every single of the thousands of denominations and non-aligned christian groups out there began when someone in a leadership position made the decision that his (sometimes her) private judgement was more reliable than that of the leadership of the group they split off from. And thus, the NEXT denomination was born.

While you are correct that it would be hard to find explicit instruction about the absolute authority of PJ in any sort of protestant instructional materials, it is awfully hard to avoid the inferred principle when learning about the famous names in Reformation history, isn’t it?

I have a hunch that if you search some of the American evangelical groups, it might be somewhat explicit, though, admittedly, I have no evidence to put forward in support of that opinion.

As for Luther, it is often underestimated that he was excommunicated. Now, perhaps he would have left anyway, we’ll never know. But I suspect the papal bull had a big influence on his leaving the church, and I don’t mean that sarcastically. And any discussion on the Reformation should always include the question, “what do we, together as brothers and sisters in Christ, do about it now?”

If we are to discuss PJ, I guess it is safe to say we all exercise it: you to stay in the Catholic Church, me to remain in the Lutheran Church. It is, at least in my view, an equality of PJ.

Jon