The Private Interpretation Ploy

[estesbob]

Outa here

 

[noma]

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).

I also dislike the two options afforded by accepting the authority of the Magisterium.

(1) All statements from the Magisterium are dogmatic (if they meet correct criterion). But there are many I cannot accept.

(2) None are truly dogmatic. This is not a good place, either, but may be the only alternative.

So I hold out that there is a third option.

 

[mikeledes]

Almost all of the Protestant Churches were founded on the private interpretation of an individual, the Lutherans on Martin Luther, the Reformed Church on John Calvin, the Methodists on Wesley, etc.

In areas that are not clear in Divine Revelation, such as the precise relationship between predestination and free will, the Church allows for different theological theories. But these theories must obey the parameters established by the Church and those who recognize the teaching authority of the Church will obey these parameters.

There are things in Scripture that are a mystery and the human mind cannot fully comprehend, such as the Trinity and predestination. However, there are things that God clearly revealed to us, such as His plan of salvation and how it is accomplished. He clearly establishes that Christ died for our salvation. He also established that the grace of justification is conferred through baptism (i.e. baptismal regeneration.) This is the historic teaching of the Church found in the Church Fathers and upheld by Martin Luther. And yet, many Protestants have rejected it. Why? On the basis of private interpretation. They’ve rejected the historic and ancient interpretation of Christianity on the issue of baptism because they have found a couple of verses that seem to contradict this, despite the fact that Martin Luther taught otherwise.

Once you remove an objective interpreter outside oneself who defines doctrine and has the authority to establish paramaters for discussion in issues that are not clear, all that is left is private interpretation and the fractured state of Protestantism, which, BTW, has been fractured from the moment is was born.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[noma]

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.

A very good explanation. One I enjoyed immensly, and found to be very informative.

I still have the burning question, though. We have Scripture alone (protestant), Scripture and (in) Tradition (maybe a little Magisterium) (Orthodox), and Scripture, (in) Tradition and Magisterium (Catholic).

So we say that Scripture alone is bad because we have to interpret the Scripture, and whose to say if we are right?

I say, with Scripture + something else (say Magisterium), we have to interpret the Magisterium ourselves, and so seem to be in the same bad situation. Neither seems preferable.

 

[noma]

Once you remove an objective interpreter outside oneself who defines doctrine and has the authority to establish paramaters for discussion in issues that are not clear, all that is left is private interpretation and the fractured state of Protestantism, which, BTW, has been fractured from the moment is was born.

Something cannot be considered fractured that was never once united. And reality may truly be so uncertain that fractures are inevitable.

 

[mikeledes]

Something cannot be considered fractured that was never once united. And reality may truly be so uncertain that fractures are inevitable.

You’re right. Protestatism was never united. In the case of the Bible, reality has become uncertain because it was taken out of its God given context.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Reformed1]

Bob,

You may have given up on this thread but…

I asked "If you or another Catholic takes one side or the other, they aren’t putting themselves in opposition to any church teaching. So, what are they relying on in this case?"

You responded "Personal opinion…"

Is this not the definition of private interpretation?

 

[Reformed1]

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.

Scott,

Thanks Scott. You are one of the few that answered directly the question.

 

[mikeledes]

Scott,

Thanks Scott. You are one of the few that answered directly the question.

Hey, I thought I answered you in post # 103? Private opinion is okay as long as it’s within the parameters established by the Church.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Reformed1]

Hey, I thought I answered you in post # 103? Private opinion is okay as long as it’s within the parameters established by the Church.

God Bless,
Michael

I did say one of the few.

You rock Mike.

 

[noma]

You’re right. Protestatism was never united. In the case of the Bible, reality has become uncertain because it was taken out of its God given context.

God Bless,
Michael

But it is no better being fractured than being united to a wrong or incomplete belief system.

 

[runandsew]

What happens when their is some wiggle room in what your church teaches?

For example, your church has not ruled one way or the other on whether the creation story is describing 6 literal, 24 hour days or using alleogry.

There are Catholics on this board that take both sides of the issue.

The church has not ruled one way or the other, good Catholics are free to believe one way or the other on this issue.

Since they aren’t guided by the church in this area are they not engaging in private interpretation?

We as Catholics can either believe in 6 24 hour days or millions of years, as long as we believe that we came from a single set of Parents, Adam and Eve, and that they fell into sin, which is passed on even until today.

Think of it kind of like bob sledding, we can go down that slope very fast but we are in a channel which is there to keep us on course.

 

[Reformed1]

We as Catholics can either believe in 6 24 hour days or millions of years, as long as we believe that we came from a single set of Parents, Adam and Eve, and that they fell into sin, which is passed on even until today.

Think of it kind of like bob sledding, we can go down that slope very fast but we are in a channel which is there to keep us on course.

Correct.

The point I was trying to make, however clumsily, is that Catholics also engage in private interpretation, no matter how much they deny it. This private interpretation may or may not center around what the RCC deems essential to the faith, but it does happen.

 

[Unitas]

Correct.

The point I was trying to make, however clumsily, is that Catholics also engage in private interpretation, no matter how much they deny it. This private interpretation may or may not center around what the RCC deems essential to the faith, but it does happen.

Private interpretation is just a by-product of reading domprehension. The heresy beings when that interpretation is taken as authoritative in refutation of Church doctrine.

Tradition came before the bible. Tradition helped the Church discern which books of the bible were inspired. To say the bible refutes Tradition is rediculous and a denial of history, for it was with the help of Tradition that protestants even have a bible.

 

[runandsew]

Correct.

The point I was trying to make, however clumsily, is that Catholics also engage in private interpretation, no matter how much they deny it. This private interpretation may or may not center around what the RCC deems essential to the faith, but it does happen.

Yes we catholics can have private interpretation.
but as catholics we have to remember

1. we are not infallible
2. the church is infallible
3. if my interpretation goes against church teaching then it is I who is in error, not the church.

As a catholic I would have to say that Martin Luther learned this the hard way.

 

[Reformed1]

Private interpretation is just a by-product of reading domprehension. The heresy beings when that interpretation is taken as authoritative in refutation of Church doctrine.

Tradition came before the bible. Tradition helped the Church discern which books of the bible were inspired. To say the bible refutes Tradition is rediculous and a denial of history, for it was with the help of Tradition that protestants even have a bible.

I’ve never heard that before.

 

[Reformed1]

Yes we catholics can have private interpretation.
but as catholics we have to remember

1. we are not infallible
2. the church is infallible
3. if my interpretation goes against church teaching then it is I who is in error, not the church.

As a catholic I would have to say that Martin Luther learned this the hard way.

Runandsew,

Thanks for your response.

Some of your brothers and sisters here would rather saw off their arm than admit they too engage in “private interpretation”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is truly unbelievable.

In the opening post of this thread, the OP provided a link to these articles discussing the very conclusion you’ve just reached 110 posts later. I have posted this very point made by Augustine elsewhere along this same topic. :banghead:

SOLA SCRIPTURA AND PRIVATE JUDGMENT

Catholic vs. Protestant Conceptions of the Meaning and Consequences of Private Judgment

Why the heck do you suppose he provided them???

And FWIW:

From the Catechism:

85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

You can engage in personal interpretation all you want. But the authentic interpretation of the Word of God had been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone.

But what do I know? This is just my interpretation of the Church’s Catechism.

I hope you don’t misinterpret me.

 

[Reformed1]

This is truly unbelievable.

In the opening post of this thread, the OP provided a link to these articles discussing the very conclusion you’ve just reached 110 posts later. I have posted this very point made by Augustine elsewhere along this same topic. :banghead:

Why the heck do you suppose he provided them???

And FWIW:

From the Catechism:

You can engage in personal interpretation all you want. But the authentic interpretation of the Word of God had been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone.

But what do I know? This is just my interpretation of the Church’s Catechism.

I hope you don’t misinterpret me.

You should share this with your fellow Catholics 'cuz they apparently don’t read the catechism. Seems like at least some of them would rather cut off their arm than admit they too engage in private interpretation.

By the way, there is disagreement among apparently faithful Catholics as to what certain segments of the CCC actually mean. So, an infallible magesterium that makes infallible declarations and writes infallible catechisms still has the problem of fallible humans interpreting their work. Just look at the VII documents that you guys quarrel over, but yet these documents are infallible are they not?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You should share this with your fellow Catholics 'cuz they apparently don’t read the catechism. Seems like at least some of them would rather cut off their arm than admit they too engage in private interpretation.

By the way, there is disagreement among apparently faithful Catholics as to what certain segments of the CCC actually mean. So, an infallible magesterium that makes infallible declarations and writes infallible catechisms still has the problem of fallible humans interpreting their work. Just look at the VII documents that you guys quarrel over, but yet these documents are infallible are they not?

Vatican II Documents are not infallible per se; however, they obviously restate many ideas that are de fide and taught by the Magisterium.

The distinction that I would make, Reformed, is that when we quarrel we have 1) documents to refer to and 2) the hierarchy of the Church to appeal to. The Bishop and ultimately, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would step in if the brouhaha got big enough.

The buck does stop somewhere.