The Private Interpretation Ploy

[Randy_Carson]

Reformed1, Sandusky, Noma and others are merely engaging in trolling at this point.

The arguments for sola scriptura are so weak, that they are reduced to “but how do you know your interpretation is correct?” to every response they are given.

This is the reformed version of “I know you are, but what am I?” “I know you are but what am I?”

Sorry, I have more important things to do than engage in playground level apologetics with folks who have no real interest in discussion.

Have fun, kids.

 

[Reformed1]

Balderdash.

Ever looked in the back of the Catechism? The Index of Citations of scripture in the Catechism is 32 pages of small print in double columns. Each scripture reference is applied in the context of explaining a teaching of the Church - the majority of which you would agree with, I might add, since we share so much of our faith in common.

Somebody better tell your professional apologists (Sungenis and Pacwa, for example) this, since I have never heard them claim that your church has either infallibly or officially interpreted all the scripture that is quoted in the catechism.

When they engage in formal debates, they concede the point that a very small portion of scripture is all that the church has infallibly interpreted.

 

[Reformed1]

Reformed1, Sandusky, Noma and others are merely engaging in trolling at this point.

The arguments for sola scriptura are so weak, that they are reduced to “but how do you know your interpretation is correct?” to every response they are given.

This is the reformed version of “I know you are, but what am I?” “I know you are but what am I?”

Sorry, I have more important things to do than engage in playground level apologetics with folks who have no real interest in discussion.

Have fun, kids.

Please show me where I have trolled in this thread.

I have had one poster actually answer my question and I believe that was DeFide. This same poster admitted that at times, Catholics do engage in private interpretation.

 

[Reformed1]

There is an enormous difference between speculation about creation and the continued argumentation over infant baptism and justification that continues between Protestant faith communities.

Not everything in theology is nailed down yet. This is especially true for those who must reinvent the wheel.

When you interpret scripture without the church’s offical guidance, is that not a private interpretation?

 

[estesbob]

How do you know that that Church teaches?

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[estesbob]

Somebody better tell your professional apologists (Sungenis and Pacwa, for example) this, since I have never heard them claim that your church has either infallibly or officially interpreted all the scripture that is quoted in the catechism.

When they engage in formal debates, they concede the point that a very small portion of scripture is all that the church has infallibly interpreted.

So? Being we are not shackeled by Sola Scriptura there is no need for us to wrestle with interperting individual verses of Scripture.

 

[Scottgun]

When you interpret scripture without the church’s offical guidance, is that not a private interpretation?

Private interpretation of Scripture among lay Catholics is perfectly legitimate. It’s when the lay Catholic tries to make that interpretation *authoritative *and against Church teaching.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Somebody better tell your professional apologists (Sungenis and Pacwa, for example) this, since I have never heard them claim that your church has either infallibly or officially interpreted all the scripture that is quoted in the catechism.

When they engage in formal debates, they concede the point that a very small portion of scripture is all that the church has infallibly interpreted.

You originally wroteL

Do you agree or disagree that your church has only “officially” or “infallibly” interpreted a few scriptures?

Clarification:

1. 32 pages is more than “a few scriptures”. Your characterization was polemic.
2. I think we can both agree that not every verse in Leviticus or Numbers is critical for understanding salvation.

It’s fair to say the Church has covered the high points, don’t you think? In 2,000 years. Yeah, I thought so.

 

[Reformed1]

The Church hasnt ruled because it doesnt matter in the least. the how is totally irelevant , the WHO is all that matters. only those who have shackeld themsleved with Sola scripture are concerend about such things.

Personal opinion which has no more impact than their pesonal opnion on who will win next years world series.

My question had nothing to do with what you or I thought was important to our salvation or what was or wasn’t dependent upon.

Augustine and Aquinas sure thought predestination was important as did Molina.

Anyway, by your last line I appreciate your admitting that Catholics sometimes too engage in private interpretation, at least as you guys define it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

When you interpret scripture without the church’s offical guidance, is that not a private interpretation?

Of course.

But we’re not still arguing over infant baptism or whether salvation can be lost.

Have fun on the merry-go-round.

The grown ups will be talking in another thread.

 

[sandusky]

Scylla:

This is an out of context quote, which ignores that truth actually matters.
An appeal to rationalism.
I am not going to discuss the private interpretation angle as there is absolutely no comparison between Catholicism and private interpretation. All it is, is a an appeal to personal ability and makes truth secondary, and that is evil.
There is God’s truth which God wants us to know and our own personal sinful interpretation.

Does truth matter for salvation? Discussing interpretation is a waste as non-catholics justify blasphemy if they accept private interpretation.
So the real question is, does truth matter for salvation?

In Christ
Scylla

Actually Scylla, you are trying to cloud the issue by making the OP’s lament more than it is; it is a simple, true lament.

 

[sandusky]

Randy Carson:

Do you think that be repeating this assertion over and over that it will become true?

It is not by private interpretation - that I come to all on my own sitting with a bible open in front of me.

I see; so then, it seems that what you are saying—and I trust that you will correct me if I am wrong—what you are saying is that your mind shut downs with respect to things theological, and there are no fallible thinking processes involved in your decision that the RCC is what it claims to be?
Randy Carson:

The Church publicly proclaims its infallibility.

Ahh, yes; Sola Ecclesia, the very reasoning condemned with respect to Sola Scriptura; namely, the Church is infallible because it says it is.
Randy Carson:

Reformed1, Sandusky, Noma and others are merely engaging in trolling at this point.

The arguments for sola scriptura are so weak, that they are reduced to “but how do you know your interpretation is correct?” to every response they are given.

This is the reformed version of “I know you are, but what am I?” “I know you are but what am I?”

Sorry, I have more important things to do than engage in playground level apologetics with folks who have no real interest in discussion.

Have fun, kids.

Thank you for your capitulation.

 

[heisenburg]

I will attempt to answer your question about private interpretation as best as possible.

Reformed, Noma, Sandusky, I offer this explaination as humbly as I can. Please forgive any offense as I am not trying to berate, or insult, but merely explain the concepts as best as I can. If I come off as such, i do appologize

For starters I want to address ceartain aspects of the quandry. That the CC has only addressed a few versus directly. As Mentioned, we need to be careful with this statement. We cant take a single verse or two and expect an honost understanding on those versus. More often than not, you will always end up with a skewed understanding. A good example of this is as follows.

“no man shall know the hour or the day!”

Often this is used by protestants (and catholics) to show that “See, we cant know X because of this. He is explicitly saying that we cant know for sure when he will return!” Some protestants churches would have their own version of an Infalaible statement proclaiming as such. However, context is lost. When you look at only a few of the surrounding versus. You see a completely differant arguement. Christ talks about signs much like a fig tree in bloom. So, he says you can atleast know he is on the way. You may not know when he will be knocking on your door, but you will know he is in the car on the way over.

This is jsut one example of many on why it is very difficult to have authoritative explainations of specific versus. Churches that do try and use specific versus often will loose meaning because of this. What the CC does is a little differant. They do not look for a specific verse and say this is what this single verse means, they look at the over all concepts in various parts of the bible. Then these over all concepts are what are infalaibly taught.

Example.
Eucharist:
There is infaliable teaching that says the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Catholic church will then point to and say, this is Talked about In John 6 (its ok if you dont agree with that interpretation right now, merely showing an example), this in cobination with other versus where christ says “This is my Body…”

Now is there an infaliable taching explicitly saying specific versus in John 6 mean X. No, but there are infaliable teachings surrounding and using those versus.

(VERY VERY BAD ANOLOGY BUT ONE THAT WILL HOPEFULLY HELP) Its almost like saying protestants start in the bible, make a declaration, and then build from there. For Catholics, many of the infaliable teachings predate the bible, so therefore the Teachings started outside the bible (Through the Apostles), but point to the bible.

(Cont…)

 

[Reformed1]

You originally wroteL

Clarification:

1. 32 pages is more than “a few scriptures”. Your characterization was polemic.
2. I think we can both agree that not every verse in Leviticus or Numbers is critical for understanding salvation.

It’s fair to say the Church has covered the high points, don’t you think? In 2,000 years. Yeah, I thought so.

Randy,

I have never heard or seen one of your professional catholic apologists make the claim that all the scripture referenced in the catechism was defined infallibly by the church.

My point is, you guys go on and on about private interpretation, as well as a few other things, when you also do the same thing.

 

[DeFide]

Private interpretation of Scripture among lay Catholics is perfectly legitimate. It’s [a problem] when the lay Catholic tries to make that interpretation *authoritative *and against Church teaching.

This may be the crux of the undercurrent here. The private interpretation by individuals does not impact the dogmatization of Catholic teaching. That is the role of the Magisterium of the Church.

In the realm of Sola Scriptura, however, you have two unpleasant options:

1. Every contradictory opinion is dogmatized, since no one can be denied the absolute right to private interpretation of scripture.
2. Nothing is dogmatized, because no human has authority, and all interpretations can be viewed as proposed by humans (especially if you don’t agree with them).

 

[estesbob]

My question had nothing to do with what you or I thought was important to our salvation or what was or wasn’t dependent upon.

Augustine and Aquinas sure thought predestination was important as did Molina.

Anyway, by your last line I appreciate your admitting that Catholics sometimes too engage in private interpretation, at least as you guys define it.

It appears that you personal interpertation of my last line is a erroneous as your personal interpertation of scripture…

 

[heisenburg]

PRivate Interpretation…

Throwing out everyhting that was said by both sides of the arguement. I want to start over fresh. Again, I will try and describe the Catholic perspective of this question as best as possible.

Everyone, Everywhere, has preconceived notions. Whether it be by upbrining, parents, or jsut regular life experiences. Everyting about our POV is based on where we’ve been and no decision is made without these outside forces effecting us. Keep this in mind when talking about interpretation…

Now, let us say a Catholic picks up a bible and starts reading. He/She comes across various versus and develops an interpretation. At this stage, yes, there is a private interpretation and it should be recognized as such. This is where Catholic Theology and Protestant Theology with respect to interpretation start to split.

Said Catholic now has a notion formed abotu a specific subject. He has two choices. If he is a bad Catholic, he will continue with this understanding and not research it further. If he is a Good Catholic, he will take it to his pastor and discuss it and see what the Church teaches on this subject. If his understanding disagrees with the churches, he is REQUIRED to change his understanding to accomidate. At this point, it is his private interpretation that made him ask the questions, but it is ultimatly what the church teaches that he must believe and therefore, he is no longer using his private understanding.

Same scenario, but for a protestant. Again, if he is a bad protestant, he will jsut accept what he taught himself and question no further. A good protestant will go to his paster and ask. The Differance here is that at this game, he is still not required to change his understanding as protestants feel that private interpretations are OK (to a point).

Now, lets say there is very little teaching from the protestant or catholic church on a specific subject. as long as your personal understand does not conflict with other understandings, its ok… FOR NOW. However, the moment a teaching is made on a subject, as a catholic, if it conflicted with your previous understanding, you are required to give up your understanding and submit to the church. As A protestant, A teaching may be declared, but still, there is no requirement to believe it. Soemtimes this gets resolved with a particular denom, other times, it causes rifts and potentially new denoms.

The Final question to a catholic comes back to, well, how do you know that either 1) Why is the Popes interpretation any differant than a protesants pastors interpetation. and 2) How do you know how to interpret the interpretation of the Pope… Both Valid questions.

1. For a Catholic, we believe it is impossible for the Pope to make an Infaliable statement on faith and morals and it be wrong. Yes it does require a leap of faith that god would do this. And yes it requires a differant understanding of the “Peter the Rock” versus. I do not want to address these right now, other than to say, if you can accept christ instituted a visible church with a visible custodian, then accepting that said custodians statements will not be in err is not a far reach. Since protestants do not agree with this, understandably, they do not agree that his statements can always be trusted, adn thus, all catholics would simply be subject to the Popes private interpretation. Again, if you can accept that Christ would put someone in charge while he was away, It really isnt hard to accept that the Popes interpretation really is that of the HS.
2. Ussually there are enough people around in the Magesterium that DO know what the pope meant, and thus, this si not an issue. If your understanding is wrong, there are resources that will point you in the right direction. Again though, you have to beleive that the Magesterium will not be led astray. Something protestants do not accept.

'-----
I do appologize for the length, but i wanted to try and explain it as best (and peacefully) as I could. I understand you guys feel the CC is in error. I, among others, will give you any information you ask for. All that we ever ask is be respectful. (Not saying you havent)

May each of you be blessed in your Journey In Christ

 

[noma]

Your interpretation of data while subjective to you can be verified as objective, right?

Yes, it can, to a certain probability. But it cannot be verified by any authority outside myself, in any way I can imagine it, unless that authority speaks to me in a way that requires no interpretation (that requires no use of the senses, for one).

 

[noma]

Sorry, I have more important things to do than engage in playground level apologetics with folks who have no real interest in discussion.

Have fun, kids.

I think you misunderstand my point in asking the questions.

My point is this: There is no way to understand anything outside one’s own personal interpretation, though one may include many things, with certain qualifiers as primary, secondary, etc. when making the interpretation.

Eventually, faith must come down to “my decision”. It cannot become a matter of Church Authority, because unless we have “my decision”, we cannot even coherently talk about Church authority.

 

[noma]

(VERY VERY BAD ANOLOGY BUT ONE THAT WILL HOPEFULLY HELP) Its almost like saying protestants start in the bible, make a declaration, and then build from there. For Catholics, many of the infaliable teachings predate the bible, so therefore the Teachings started outside the bible (Through the Apostles), but point to the bible.

No, I think this is a good analogy. It is arguing from what can be considered objective facts as reason to accept your interpretation.

I consent. This is why I accept that Scripture is part of the Tradition of the Church Catholic.

But this reason is ultimately insufficient. It requires faith to ultimately accept, and that faith, though it should not be individual, should be personal. And not only should be, has to be.

The end of the line is not authority, but our decision, as to what beliefs are justifiable * to us*.