The Private Interpretation Ploy

[fix]

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).

Comprehending reality is not private interpretation that is my point. You read my posts and you know what I am saying or you can ask me for clarification. That is reality.

Reading the bible without reference to an external living authority is not the same. Christ left such an authority. We can read what that authority says, ask questions, and seek definite answers. Our understanding of the Church’s answers are not a matter of private interpetation as we are reading and comprehending just as you do when you read these posts.

Private interpretation relies exclusively on each individual to determine exactly what God is saying and each private judgment will differ as we see today. You, or anyone, can find out what the Church teaches without having to privately assemble some system that is unverifiable and open to a type of relativism.

 

[noma]

Private interpretation relies exclusively on each individual to determine exactly what God is saying and each private judgment will differ as we see today. You, or anyone, can find out what the Church teaches without having to privately assemble some system that is unverifiable and open to a type of relativism.

The distinction exists, but it seems to be nominal. What Scripture says in many cases seems, with study, very clear (and I believe it clearly endorses its own authority as a part of Catholic Tradition). But even if it were not so, explanations provided by a source, even with beliefs connected to that source, do nothing to combat relativism. After all, I must still interpret the sources. I must also interpret you. And, from the relativist problem, I may not even know you exist.

I am not advocating Sola Scriptura. I think it is a terrible notion. But not because it leads to relativism. It has the same relativistic pitfalls as any form of authority, or any belief for that matter. One can call Scripture relative, or one’s interpretation can be called relative. The same is true with Tradition as a whole, or with the Magisterium. Or with your posts.

Sola Scriptura does not lead to relativism. Scripture plus Tradition does not lead to relativism. Scripture plus Tradition plus Magisterium does not lead to relativism.

If one could be shown to lead to relativism (sola scriptura), then all of them would necessarily lead to relativism.

 

[noma]

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

I hope you don’t misinterpret me.

And I interpret that you illustrate perfectly the point I am trying to make.

I may be interpreting that because you truly are illustrating my point.

Or maybe I see what I want to see.

The Catholic position, as the Protestant position, are equally vulnerable to relativism at the epistemological level. I think Protestantism does have troubles with relativism from the metaphysical level, because they do not have a regulated metaphysics.

 

[fix]

The distinction exists, but it seems to be nominal. What Scripture says in many cases seems, with study, very clear (and I believe it clearly endorses its own authority as a part of Catholic Tradition). But even if it were not so, explanations provided by a source, even with beliefs connected to that source, do nothing to combat relativism. After all, I must still interpret the sources. I must also interpret you. And, from the relativist problem, I may not even know you exist.

I think your position, with all respect, is disingenuous. If I tell you to stop at a red light you understand perfectly well what that means. If you do not get it you can gather more information to conform with reality.

I am not advocating Sola Scriptura. I think it is a terrible notion. But not because it leads to relativism. It has the same relativistic pitfalls as any form of authority, or any belief for that matter. One can call Scripture relative, or one’s interpretation can be called relative. The same is true with Tradition as a whole, or with the Magisterium. Or with your posts.

No, that is not so. The Catholic source can be studied and questioned. It claims to speak as Christ. Christ is not relative. The Protestant has no unifying source. The interpretation of the Catholic source, who speaks as Christ, can be known in the same way you know other things in real life. Unless, you think all of reality is really simply what you conjure up by your own doing?

Sola Scriptura does not lead to relativism. Scripture plus Tradition does not lead to relativism. Scripture plus Tradition plus Magisterium does not lead to relativism.

Anything that makes the private individual the final authority leads to a type of relativism. The Catholic Church presents the truth that you can know and accept or reject. The Catholic is not the final arbiter, the Church is.

If one could be shown to lead to relativism (sola scriptura), then all of them would necessarily lead to relativism.

Not so. Sola makes each person a pope. The Catholic has one Pope.

 

[noma]

Anything that makes the private individual the final authority leads to a type of relativism. The Catholic Church presents the truth that you can know and accept or reject. The Catholic is not the final arbiter, the Church is.

But each individual, Catholic or Protestant, is the final authority, in your sense. You may call my objection disingenuous, and so dismiss it, but I don’t think you can resolve it.

For Sola Scriptura, Scripture and not the individual is the authority. But, you may ask, “who interprets Scripture”? I may answer either myself, or someone else, or a group of people. I may hold that this interpretation is infallible, or that it is not.

If I hold that my interpretation is not infallible, we are not left with relativism, but objective absolutes that we are not completely certain about (and this is just like any science).

Not so. Sola makes each person a pope.

No more than Catholicism, by requiring people to understand what the Pope is saying, makes everyone a Pope.

 

[fix]

But each individual, Catholic or Protestant, is the final authority, in your sense. You may call my objection disingenuous, and so dismiss it, but I don’t think you can resolve it.

I have resolved it. The Pope is a living authority who claims to transmit the truth we need exactly as Christ would. He may be questioned. A book, like the bible, cannot be questioned. Any authority who translates the bible or attempts to interpret it does not claim to speak as Christ would, do they? Do they claim the same authority as Peter?
If they do claim it how can they reconcile all the varying interpretations?

For Sola Scriptura, Scripture and not the individual is the authority. But, you may ask, “who interprets Scripture”? I may answer either myself, or someone else, or a group of people. I may hold that this interpretation is infallible, or that it is not.

You may hold that but where is your proof your conclusion is correct? The authority always comes back to some individual with no authority directly from Christ as the Pope has. Where can I trace the authority of one you claim to be infallible?

If I hold that my interpretation is not infallible, we are not left with relativism, but objective absolutes that we are not completely certain about (and this is just like any science).

Objective absolutes require a law-giver. To understand the laws one needs an interpreter. The interpreter needs to be one each can understand and can be questioned so as to adapt the knowledge as circumstances manifest themselves. That means we all have the ability to get the same teaching on any subject. If we each claim to interpet correctly then why so many differing understandings and which one is “absolute”?

No more than Catholicism, by requiring people to understand what the Pope is saying, makes everyone a Pope.

Again, everyone can read what the Pope says and ask questions to clarify. We all can know what he is saying. How has that worked out so far for private interpretation of the bible?

 

[noma]

I have resolved it.

Then let us examine what you have come up with.

The Pope is a living authority who claims to transmit the truth we need exactly as Christ would. He may be questioned. A book, like the bible, cannot be questioned.

I do accept this distinction. But any question would come with it an answer that must be interpreted. One may say that he or she who may be questioned is more easily understood, but certainly different people have interpretations as to what they think the Pope is trying to say. An example might be that what the Pope has said about abortion comes from the Pope being sexist, but the real message that must be interpreted from the Pope’s words is that he is against oppression. We could ask him about this, but any answer he gives could be interpreted differently. Who has the authority to interpret the Pope? And if someone has that authority, who has the authority to interpret him? It must somehow get back to me.

Any authority who translates the bible or attempts to interpret it does not claim to speak as Christ would, do they?

I would find their admittance of uncertainty much more genuine than the alternative.

If they do claim it how can they reconcile all the varying interpretations?

By declaring that some are wrong. And, indeed, some are (if we suppose an objective and absolute truth about these things). But in the absence of such an interpreter, I would say that there is simply uncertainty as to which are right, and which are wrong. This uncertainty does not allow for relativism at the epistemological level, as this uncertainty may be able to be reduced, even extremely, but can never be eliminated (I can never mathematically establish that what the Pope said is what I think he meant.)

You may hold that but where is your proof your conclusion is correct? The authority always comes back to some individual with no authority directly from Christ as the Pope has. Where can I trace the authority of one you claim to be infallible?

The authority is Scripture. And there is no proof. Not for me, not for you. You may claim that your position is more likely than Sola Scriptura. I would agree with you. But both of us are mired in uncertainty.

Objective absolutes require a law-giver. To understand the laws one needs an interpreter. The interpreter needs to be one each can understand and can be questioned so as to adapt the knowledge as circumstnaces manifest themselves.

And how will we ever be sure we understand the law giver?

Again, everyone can read what the Pope says and ask questions to clarify. We all can know what he is saying. How has that worked out so far for private interpretation of the bible?

I can also claim that the Bible is very clear, and there need be no questions, that my particular interpretation is correct, and that it has been denied throughout history simply because sinful people were to proud to accept what I can plainly read.

Conversely, I can claim that the Pope is no better authority than a street-corner bum, except that he may be better educated, and as such, we have uncertainty because we cannot ever know that the Pope was meant to have that authority. That is, unless we allow our personal interpretations to coincide with the Pope’s interpretation, but that begs the question.

 

[setter]

The authority is Scripture. And there is no proof. Not for me, not for you. You may claim that your position is more likely than Sola Scriptura. I would agree with you. But both of us are mired in uncertainty.

I can also claim that the Bible is very clear, and there need be no questions, that my particular interpretation is correct, and that it has been denied throughout history simply because sinful people were to proud to accept what I can plainly read.

Conversely, I can claim that the Pope is no better authority than a street-corner bum, except that he may be better educated, and as such, we have uncertainty because we cannot ever know that the Pope was meant to have that authority. That is, unless we allow our personal interpretations to coincide with the Pope’s interpretation, but that begs the question.

Only the magisterium of the Church is entrusted with proper interpretation of scripture.

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. (CCC)

137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit’s action’ (cf. Origen, Hom. in Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320). (CCC)

 

[noma]

Only the magisterium of the Church is entrusted with proper interpretation of scripture.

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. (CCC)

The reason we accept the authority of the Roman Magisterium to interpret Scripture is because of the Roman Magisterium? Hmmm…

 

[setter]

The reason we accept the authority of the Roman Magisterium to interpret Scripture is because of the Roman Magisterium? Hmmm…

Who entrusted the Church with the authority for the proper interpretation of scripture?

 

[noma]

Who entrusted the Church with the authority for the proper interpretation of scripture?

What do you mean by “Church”, and what do you mean by “authority”, in this case?

If by “Church” you mean the Roman Church, then I say no one.

If by “authority” you mean infallibility, then also I say no one.

If by “Church” you mean the general body of believers, and by “authority” you mean an ultimate understanding of the Truth, developing over the life of the believer, then Christ Jesus gave authority to the Church, to all believers, to interpret Scripture.

 

[mikeledes]

All rules of faith are not “splinter group” proof. As long as there is human sinfulness, there will always be divisions. However, there are rules of faith that have a far greater propensity for the formation of splinter groups and contradictory theologies. Sola Scriptura is directly responsible for the level of splintering found in Protestantism. Once you remove the ancient/historic intepretation of the Bible found in Tradition, you’re essentially left with private interpretation. Private interpretation exists in the Catholic Church, but only in areas that remain unclear and it must be done within the parameters of established by the Church. The Protestant reformation removed these parameters when they rejected Tradition and the God-given Magisterium. This opened the door to chaos. Within the first two decades of the Protestant Reformation, you have the appearance of several Protestant sects. The disputes within Protestant ranks sometimes led to violence against fellow Protestants (Zwinglian Zurich’s persecuation of Anabaptists). Every century since 16th century has witnessed the rise of a new Protestant denomination and there is no indication that this splintering will cease.

Many Protestants say that they all agree on the essentials. The problem is who determines these essentials and by what authority. Can anyone point out in the Bible where it gives a list of essential and non-essential doctrines. Since there is no clearly objective standard in order to discern the essential from the non-essential, Protestants ultimately have to rely on their own private opinion. Unfortunately, what one group of Protestants may consider a non-essential, other groups say is essential. So there is no universal agreement on what the essentials are.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[ricmat]

If by “Church” you mean the general body of believers, and by “authority” you mean an ultimate understanding of the Truth, developing over the life of the believer, then Christ Jesus gave authority to the Church, to all believers, to interpret Scripture.

So are you saying that Jesus was not smart enough to know that this path of “my own personal interpretation” would lead to fracture after fracture in his “one” Church? Is every man/woman for themselves what He wanted?

Or maybe Jesus was just a practical joker. “I’ won’t leave a single clear mechanism to help teach Truth - boy is it going to be fun to watch this play out!, I’ll need at least 50 billion bags of chips.”

If you want to argue that some other particular (one) authority is the actual repository of faith, at least that’s a logical starting point, but to argue that there are thousands of contradictory versions of Truth is…not logical.

 

[noma]

So are you saying that Jesus was not smart enough to know that this path of “my own personal interpretation” would lead to fracture after fracture in his “one” Church? Is every man/woman for themselves what He wanted?

I think you know that is not what I am saying. Rather, as another poster already said, fracture is inevitable. It happened with the Nestorians, with the Orthodox, and with the Protestants. It has accelerated because we can share information faster now, and because no one religious institution has strong political authority anywhere (except for Islam, and in those areas, there are very few divisions).

All we have are our own personal interpretations, ultimately. This leaves us with necessary uncertainty. This also can cause divisions. I think Christ knew this, but will preserve His Church, so that the gates of hell will not prevail, by guiding these different fractured views toward the same central truths, and ultimately to unity with Him in heaven.

But truth lacking unity is fracture (the Protestants, if you could pick and choose carefully). Unity lacking truth is stagnation (the Romans and the Orthodox).

Or maybe Jesus was just a practical joker. “I’ won’t leave a single clear mechanism to help teach Truth - boy is it going to be fun to watch this play out!, I’ll need at least 50 billion bags of chips.”

There are single mechanisms: Scripture (we can debate what this is), Nature (we can also debate what this is), and Reason (we can also debate what this is). Within each of these three is uncertainty. God left us uncertainty, so that we can explore, not knowing in this lifetime whether we have come upon the ultimate or completely true answer, but believing certain things, and hoping certain things, always in love.

If you want to argue that some other particular (one) authority is the actual repository of faith, at least that’s a logical starting point, but to argue that there are thousands of contradictory versions of Truth is…not logical.

But I as a Protestant cannot argue that some particular living authority is the actual repository of faith (unless I was also a Mormon). But that does not mean that there are thousands of contradictory versions of the Truth. Rather, that there are thousands of slightly different ideas about what the Truth may be, and that I am supposed to discern which of them are more or less likely, and pray upon the Mercy of Christ, that He accept me into His Kingdom, though I likely won’t get it completely right.

Uncertainty is a part of life. To claim that some added authority gets rid of it is like sticking one’s head in the sand. Just because there is another source of Truth doesn’t get rid of uncertainty, but rather displaces it to another source. How do I know what the Magisterium really is saying?

Eventually, all knowledge comes down to personal interpretation.

 

[fix]

Then let us examine what you have come up with.

I do accept this distinction. But any question would come with it an answer that must be interpreted. One may say that he or she who may be questioned is more easily understood, but certainly different people have interpretations as to what they think the Pope is trying to say. An example might be that what the Pope has said about abortion comes from the Pope being sexist, but the real message that must be interpreted from the Pope’s words is that he is against oppression. We could ask him about this, but any answer he gives could be interpreted differently. Who has the authority to interpret the Pope? And if someone has that authority, who has the authority to interpret him? It must somehow get back to me.

I would find their admittance of uncertainty much more genuine than the alternative.

By declaring that some are wrong. And, indeed, some are (if we suppose an objective and absolute truth about these things). But in the absence of such an interpreter, I would say that there is simply uncertainty as to which are right, and which are wrong. This uncertainty does not allow for relativism at the epistemological level, as this uncertainty may be able to be reduced, even extremely, but can never be eliminated (I can never mathematically establish that what the Pope said is what I think he meant.)

The authority is Scripture. And there is no proof. Not for me, not for you. You may claim that your position is more likely than Sola Scriptura. I would agree with you. But both of us are mired in uncertainty.

And how will we ever be sure we understand the law giver?

I can also claim that the Bible is very clear, and there need be no questions, that my particular interpretation is correct, and that it has been denied throughout history simply because sinful people were to proud to accept what I can plainly read.

Conversely, I can claim that the Pope is no better authority than a street-corner bum, except that he may be better educated, and as such, we have uncertainty because we cannot ever know that the Pope was meant to have that authority. That is, unless we allow our personal interpretations to coincide with the Pope’s interpretation, but that begs the question.

I think we need to separate out some things. Private interpretation of the bible is not identical to people intepreting objective reality and and comprehending what words and actions mean.

The Pope is a person, not a book. He can be questioned. The book cannot be questioned.

As for folks misinterpreting what the pope says that does not make the situation equal to self interpretaing the bible. If someone, for whatever reason, cannot grasp what the Pope is saying that does not mean we each decide for ourselves what he really intends. It means some person or persons have a problem grasping reality.

For your argument to work it would mean society would never function. We would never be able to understand real life as we each would perceive things differently. There would be no academic disciplines, no laws, no communication, no way to verify what is real and what we imagine.

 

[setter]

I think you know that is not what I am saying. Rather, as another poster already said, fracture is inevitable. It happened with the Nestorians, with the Orthodox, and with the Protestants. It has accelerated because we can share information faster now, and because no one religious institution has strong political authority anywhere (except for Islam, and in those areas, there are very few divisions).

All we have are our own personal interpretations, ultimately. This leaves us with necessary uncertainty. This also can cause divisions. I think Christ knew this, but will preserve His Church, so that the gates of hell will not prevail, by guiding these different fractured views toward the same central truths, and ultimately to unity with Him in heaven.

You are guilty of making unbiblical accommodation for “fracture is inevitable” when God did not intend for the one Church “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” with “Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” to be fraught with division. .

“So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” **Ephesians 2: 19-22 **

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.” Ephesians 4: 4-6

But truth lacking unity is fracture (the Protestants, if you could pick and choose carefully). Unity lacking truth is stagnation (the Romans and the Orthodox).

This statement reveals your lack of biblical understanding and vision for understanding the Catholic Church as the one true Church founded upon the apostles by Jesus Christ.

“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body … Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second …” (see 1 Corinthians 12: 1-31)

There are single mechanisms: Scripture (we can debate what this is), Nature (we can also debate what this is), and Reason (we can also debate what this is). Within each of these three is uncertainty. God left us uncertainty, so that we can explore, not knowing in this lifetime whether we have come upon the ultimate or completely true answer, but believing certain things, and hoping certain things, always in love.

Mystery of God does not mean uncertainty in faith. God did not leave the Church uncertain, that is simply untrue and unbiblical.

“…to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” Colossians 1: 25-27

“I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh,vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” 1 Timothy 3: 14-16

But I as a Protestant cannot argue that some particular living authority is the actual repository of faith (unless I was also a Mormon). But that does not mean that there are thousands of contradictory versions of the Truth. Rather, that there are thousands of slightly different ideas about what the Truth may be, and that I am supposed to discern which of them are more or less likely, and pray upon the Mercy of Christ, that He accept me into His Kingdom, though I likely won’t get it completely right.

Uncertainty is a part of life. To claim that some added authority gets rid of it is like sticking one’s head in the sand. Just because there is another source of Truth doesn’t get rid of uncertainty, but rather displaces it to another source. How do I know what the Magisterium really is saying?

Eventually, all knowledge comes down to personal interpretation.

A recipe for confusion and division …the fruit of the Evil one.

 

[noma]

I think we need to separate out some things. Private interpretation of the bible is not identical to people intepreting objective reality and and comprehending what words and actions mean.

Both seem to me to be equally arbitrary. I do not see interpretation of the Scriptures, even private interpretation, as arbitrary. But if I did, I may say I believed it as arbitrary on the grounds of it being written so that it could only be understood with the rest of tradition, or better understood with the rest of tradition.

I could not argue that those who accept Scripture alone, upon their own interpretation, are arbitrary because they have no authority for interpretation. By that logic, no one does. For, again, who is to interpret the Pope?

As for folks misinterpreting what the pope says that does not make the situation equal to self interpretaing the bible.

I never said that it did. But if there is a distinction, that distinction cannot be at the level of epistemology. In terms of what we can be certain that we know, the Sola Scriptura person is on equal footing with anyone else.

If someone, for whatever reason, cannot grasp what the Pope is saying that does not mean we each decide for ourselves what he really intends. It means some person or persons have a problem grasping reality.

How do we know who is having trouble grasping reality, and who has the correct interpretation? Is it by majority? And how do we know what the majority thinks, unless we individually interpret what they are saying?

For your argument to work it would mean society would never function. We would never be able to understand real life as we each would perceive things differently. There would be no academic disciplines, no laws, no communication, no way to verify what is real and what we imagine.

It depends on what you mean for “for the argument to work”. If you mean that, if we were only to accept what we knew with mathematical certainty, nothing would operate, I agree.

But rather I suggest we operate without mathematical certainty, through a necessary application of faith.

 

[noma]

You are guilty of making unbiblical accommodation for “fracture is inevitable” when God did not intend for the one Church “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” with “Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” to be fraught with division. .
[VERSES]

I don’t see how the verses support what you say. Furthermore, I do not see how what you say has anything to do with what I said.

My claim would be that the Church is built on the foundation of Christ, through apostles and prophets, but that in building we mean improving upon. The apostles were wrong about some things, as were the prophets. Same thing with their successors (and I believe we are all successors of St. Peter).

This statement reveals your lack of biblical understanding and vision for understanding the Catholic Church as the one true Church founded upon the apostles by Jesus Christ.

“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body … Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second …” (see 1 Corinthians 12: 1-31)

I believe that the True Church is mysteriously united, but this unity is so we may speak truth in love. As I do not think the Roman Church has the fullness of Truth, I reject its claim to being the one true Church. The Church may include some Roman Catholics, but the Church is not Roman Catholic.

Mystery of God does not mean uncertainty in faith.

No, but faith is accepting something where there is legitimate room for uncertainty.

God did not leave the Church uncertain, that is simply untrue and unbiblical.

Insofar as the Church has as its members sinful humans, and insofar as sinful humans are uncertain, the Church is uncertain. Its certainty is found in its Head, which is Christ, but will not be understood by all its members until the end of days.

“I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth…"

Which, despite its flaws, will uphold and improve upon understanding of this Truth. So the reformers have built upon the bulwark. The Roman Church seems to be stagnating (until late; Vatican II had many good changes).

A recipe for confusion and division …the fruit of the Evil one.

Sticks and stones.

 

[setter]

I don’t see how the verses support what you say. Furthermore, I do not see how what you say has anything to do with what I said.

My claim would be that the Church is built on the foundation of Christ, through apostles and prophets, but that in building we mean improving upon. The apostles were wrong about some things, as were the prophets. Same thing with their successors (and I believe we are all successors of St. Peter).

I believe that the True Church is mysteriously united, but this unity is so we may speak truth in love. As I do not think the Roman Church has the fullness of Truth, I reject its claim to being the one true Church. The Church may include some Roman Catholics, but the Church is not Roman Catholic.

No, but faith is accepting something where there is legitimate room for uncertainty.

Insofar as the Church has as its members sinful humans, and insofar as sinful humans are uncertain, the Church is uncertain. Its certainty is found in its Head, which is Christ, but will not be understood by all its members until the end of days.

Which, despite its flaws, will uphold and improve upon understanding of this Truth. So the reformers have built upon the bulwark. The Roman Church seems to be stagnating (until late; Vatican II had many good changes).

Sticks and stones.

Rather than regress to a tit for tat exchange, I will give you the bottom line: You are speaking from and addressing the human side of the Church founded on the apostles with Jesus Christ as the rock solid sure foundation.

Until you get this reality down and in place (via faith), yiou will be at the whims of human interpetation and undertanding of the mystical body of Christand the unshakable foundation that He entrusted to the Apostles.

 

[fix]

Both seem to me to be equally arbitrary. I do not see interpretation of the Scriptures, even private interpretation, as arbitrary. But if I did, I may say I believed it as arbitrary on the grounds of it being written so that it could only be understood with the rest of tradition, or better understood with the rest of tradition.

One can read the CC position and know it. Anyone can read the bible and have an opinion that is contradicted almost as soon as one forms it. There is no one authority that can be traced back to Peter and Christ except the pope.

I could not argue that those who accept Scripture alone, upon their own interpretation, are arbitrary because they have no authority for interpretation. By that logic, no one does. For, again, who is to interpret the Pope?

The Pope’s interpretation is gauranteed by Christ as infallible. No one else’s is.

I never said that it did. But if there is a distinction, that distinction cannot be at the level of epistemology. In terms of what we can be certain that we know, the Sola Scriptura person is on equal footing with anyone else.

How so? The Sola person is their own authority. They are the final arbiter. Again, for the Catholic the pope is the final arbiter.

How do we know who is having trouble grasping reality, and who has the correct interpretation? Is it by majority? And how do we know what the majority thinks, unless we individually interpret what they are saying?

It is by right reason. It is often quite easy to see who is decieved and who is logical. Do you think it is only by majority you know an apple is really an apple and not a cloud?

It depends on what you mean for “for the argument to work”. If you mean that, if we were only to accept what we knew with mathematical certainty, nothing would operate, I agree.

It is not about a mathematical certainty. These are philosophical issues with philosophical proofs.

But rather I suggest we operate without mathematical certainty, through a necessary application of faith.

I do not deny faith is important, but you argument in this particular aspect of the discussion regards how to properly understand what we perceive. My point is there is a tremendous difference betwen “intepreting” arcane translated and seemingly contradicting sentences in the bible and grasping the words we all use each day to communicate intelligently.