The Private Interpretation Ploy

[Scottgun]

I noticed this tired tactic being used in several threads. Basically the Private Interpretation Ploy runs like this:

1. A poster will ask a question about Church teaching or a bible passage.
2. Catholics here, not being complete idiots, sense a loaded question, but good faith prevails and we refer the poster to Church documentation and various sources that answer the question under the assumption that if the op has a genuine problem with something, he will state what with concrete examples.
3. Poster ignores all that, saying something to the effect of, “I don’t care what the official Church line is, I want to know what you think of it.”

And there is the ploy, if you answer, he pounces with, “Aha! Private interpretation! You are are doing the same thing non-Catholics do!”

This is all very cute, but it does not prove anything. This was all brilliantly refuted in Newman’s *Grammar of Assent, *the upshot of which is that we all believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the question is what we base that faith on. For Catholics it is the Church in the Apostles, their witness, and their teachings which they passed on to their successors either through writing or orally and continue in a living Church which is the proximate rule of faith. This is a perfectly reasonable basis for faith in Our Lord.

Here are some good articles refuting the Private Interpretation Ploy:

AND PRIVATE JUDGMENTSOLA SCRIPTURA

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

Scott

 

[sandusky]

Scottgun:

I noticed this tired tactic being used in several threads. Basically the Private Interpretation Ploy runs like this:

1. A poster will ask a question about Church teaching or a bible passage.
2. Catholics here, not being complete idiots, sense a loaded question, but good faith prevails and we refer the poster to Church documentation and various sources that answer the question under the assumption that if the op has a genuine problem with something, he will state what with concrete examples.
3. Poster ignores all that, saying something to the effect of, “I don’t care what the official Church line is, I want to know what you think of it.”

And there is the ploy, if you answer, he pounces with, “Aha! Private interpretation! You are are doing the same thing non-Catholics do!”

This is all very cute, but it does not prove anything. This was all brilliantly refuted in Newman’s Grammar of Assent, the upshot of which is that we all believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the question is what we base that faith on. For Catholics it is the Church in the Apostles, their witness, and their teachings which they passed on to their successors either through writing or orally and continue in a living Church which is the proximate rule of faith. This is a perfectly reasonable basis for faith in Our Lord.

So when an insurmountable Catholic argument is turned around, used against the Catholic, and shown to be surmountable, and legitimate for all, it becomes, in the eyes of the Catholic, “cute.”

Regardless of what Akin, or anyone else for that matter writes, all do come to conclusions and understandings based upon their own “private interpretation;” the Catholic is not excluded from that charge.

What is legitimate for one is legitimate for another; likewise, if it is declared illegitimate for one, it is illegitimate for all.

Hopefully you have learned that an argument that cuts both ways is inherently weak, and should be avoided; if not, I can assure you, it will be thrown right back at you.

 

[Dirk_Skene]

I just add them to my ignore list It works very well. I am almost to the point where I only see faithful Catholic and respectful Protestant posts.

 

[Scottgun]

So when an insurmountable Catholic argument is turned around, used against the Catholic, and shown to be surmountable, and legitimate for all, it becomes, in the eyes of the Catholic, “cute.”

At the end of the day, the Apostolic witness (the Church) is an objective thing that is out there in the real world and not just a head trip. Giving assent to it is reasonable. Giving assent to Sola Scriptura is arbitrary.

Regardless of what Akin, or anyone else for that matter writes, all do come to conclusions and understandings based upon their own “private interpretation;” the Catholic is not excluded from that charge.

LOL! I look forward to your dismantling of Akin’s argument.

What is legitimate for one is legitimate for another; likewise, if it is declared illegitimate for one, it is illegitimate for all.

Hopefully you have learned that an argument that cuts both ways is inherently weak, and should be avoided; if not, I can assure you, it will be thrown right back at you.

Hopefully you will have learned private judgement does not cut both ways in any meaningful sense.

 

[Strider]

I noticed this tired tactic being used in several threads. Basically the Private Interpretation Ploy runs like this:

1. A poster will ask a question about Church teaching or a bible passage.
2. Catholics here, not being complete idiots, sense a loaded question, but good faith prevails and we refer the poster to Church documentation and various sources that answer the question under the assumption that if the op has a genuine problem with something, he will state what with concrete examples.
3. Poster ignores all that, saying something to the effect of, “I don’t care what the official Church line is, I want to know what you think of it.”

And there is the ploy, if you answer, he pounces with, “Aha! Private interpretation! You are are doing the same thing non-Catholics do!”

This is all very cute, but it does not prove anything. This was all brilliantly refuted in Newman’s *Grammar of Assent, *the upshot of which is that we all believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the question is what we base that faith on. For Catholics it is the Church in the Apostles, their witness, and their teachings which they passed on to their successors either through writing or orally and continue in a living Church which is the proximate rule of faith. This is a perfectly reasonable basis for faith in Our Lord.

Here are some good articles refuting the Private Interpretation Ploy:

SOLA SCRIPTURA AND PRIVATE JUDGMENT

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

Scott

But why would a Catholic reply to a question like that with anything other than Church teaching? Adherence to Magesterial teaching does not imply blind faith in men. It implies faith in the authority Christ gave to the Church. A Catholic should not have a different interpretation than the “official Church line.”
My interpretation is the Church’s interpretation. Also, we have, in most cases, differing levels of latitude in which the Church only says it must mean A, but it could be by means of B or C.
An example would be Genesis 1. Catholics can believe in direct creation or creation through an evolutionary process
as long as they acknowledge that God breathed a human soul into Adam and Eve AND there were only two persons from whom the rest of humanity arose.
In short: sitck to Magesterial teaching and no one can turn the interpretation argument against you.

 

[sandusky]

Scottgun:

At the end of the day, the Apostolic witness (the Church) is an objective thing that is out there in the real world and not just a head trip. Giving assent to it is reasonable. Giving assent to Sola Scriptura is arbitrary.

That’s just an opinion, and a weak one at that.

Here is another weak opinion:

At the end of the day, Sola Scriptura is an objective thing that is out there in the real world and not just a head trip. Giving assent to it is reasonable. Giving assent to the Church (Sola Ecclesia) is arbitrary.

Scottgun:

Hopefully you will have learned private judgement does not cut both ways in any meaningful sense.

Right you are, and with respect to the above two opinions, if the latter statement is meaningless, then the former is as well; we have successfully returned to square one.

 

[ricmat]

Regardless of what Akin, or anyone else for that matter writes, all do come to conclusions and understandings based upon their own “private interpretation;” the Catholic is not excluded from that charge.

Yes, but if my “interpretation” is not per the magesterium teaching, and the Pope says “Ricmat, you’re wrong” I say, “Yes sir Pope, sorry I got that wrong.”

Protestants with different interpretations, as we know, form new churches.

 

[LilyM]

What is legitimate for one is legitimate for another; likewise, if it is declared illegitimate for one, it is illegitimate for all.

Rubbish. It is legitimate for a parent to, for example, set a curfew for their child, it is not appropriate or legitimate for a child to attempt to do the same to a parent.

It is legitimate for a chef in a restaurant to cook and serve you food. It is not legitimate or appropriate for a customer to barge into that restaurant’s kitchen and start cooking for themselves.

So it is appropriate to analyse and discuss and study Church teaching on particular matters. It is appropriate to form your own understanding of them. It is even appropriate, in those areas which are grey (and these are numerous) to choose among equally viable alternatives.

It is NOT appropriate, if you are indeed Christian and a member of Christ’s ONE body, to ignore His ONE Church which in Timothy is declared to be the pillar and bulwark of truth, protected from teaching error for all times, and go on your own merry way based on your own entirely fallible interpretation of the Bible or the equally fallible interpretation of the various ‘reformers’.

 

[Church_Militant]

I noticed this tired tactic being used in several threads. Basically the Private Interpretation Ploy runs like this:

1. A poster will ask a question about Church teaching or a bible passage.
2. Catholics here, not being complete idiots, sense a loaded question, but good faith prevails and we refer the poster to Church documentation and various sources that answer the question under the assumption that if the op has a genuine problem with something, he will state what with concrete examples.
3. Poster ignores all that, saying something to the effect of, "I don’t care what the official Church line is, I want to know what you

think of it."

And there is the ploy, if you answer, he pounces with, “Aha! Private interpretation! You are are doing the same thing non-Catholics do!”

This is all very cute, but it does not prove anything. This was all brilliantly refuted in Newman’s *Grammar of Assent, *the upshot of which is that we all believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the question is what we base that faith on. For Catholics it is the Church in the Apostles, their witness, and their teachings which they passed on to their successors either through writing or orally and continue in a living Church which is the proximate rule of faith. This is a perfectly reasonable basis for faith in Our Lord.
ScottMy answer is… "I agree with the Church. They agree with the ECF and the Word of God.

And who are you?" (to them…)

 

[Church_Militant]

So when an insurmountable Catholic argument is turned around, used against the Catholic, and shown to be surmountable, and legitimate for all, it becomes, in the eyes of the Catholic, “cute.”

Cute’s the nice term.

Regardless of what Akin, or anyone else for that matter writes, all do come to conclusions and understandings based upon their own “private interpretation;” the Catholic is not excluded from that charge.

Bunk… when one is honest and examines the evidence as I did and then concludes that the Catholic Church is correct and aligns oneself with it that is simply the logical outcome.

What is legitimate for one is legitimate for another; likewise, if it is declared illegitimate for one, it is illegitimate for all.

But that’s not how you n-Cs roll is it? That’s one reason you guys are hip deep in denominations and independent churches with myriad attending interpretations, beliefs, and practices.

Hopefully you have learned that an argument that cuts both ways is inherently weak, and should be avoided; if not, I can assure you, it will be thrown right back at you.

And that would be different precisely how?

You ignore the fact that virtually all the faithful Catholics align with the church in their beliefs and that we can and do routinely point up the scriptural, historical, and traditional reasons for those beliefs. Then you say it’s a personal interpretation when in fact it’s just God-given common sense and the wisdom to align ourselves with those who know better than we (or you) do.

The only weak argument is yours.

 

[runandsew]

I noticed this tired tactic being used in several threads. Basically the Private Interpretation Ploy runs like this:

1. A poster will ask a question about Church teaching or a bible passage.
2. Catholics here, not being complete idiots, sense a loaded question, but good faith prevails and we refer the poster to Church documentation and various sources that answer the question under the assumption that if the op has a genuine problem with something, he will state what with concrete examples.
3. Poster ignores all that, saying something to the effect of, “I don’t care what the official Church line is, I want to know what you think of it.”

And there is the ploy, if you answer, he pounces with, “Aha! Private interpretation! You are are doing the same thing non-Catholics do!”

This is all very cute, but it does not prove anything. This was all brilliantly refuted in Newman’s *Grammar of Assent, *the upshot of which is that we all believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the question is what we base that faith on. For Catholics it is the Church in the Apostles, their witness, and their teachings which they passed on to their successors either through writing or orally and continue in a living Church which is the proximate rule of faith. This is a perfectly reasonable basis for faith in Our Lord.

Here are some good articles refuting the Private Interpretation Ploy:

SOLA SCRIPTURA AND PRIVATE JUDGMENT

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

Scott

You are probably right, but I think that sometimes they just want a short answer without having to read several pages of a document.
I try to shy away from putting some of the Church doctrine into my own words if I am not exactly sure how to explain them correctly, and I don’t want to pass on misinformation.
So at that point I will give a link.

 

[sandusky]

ricmat:

Yes, but if my “interpretation” is not per the magesterium teaching, and the Pope says “Ricmat, you’re wrong” I say, “Yes sir Pope, sorry I got that wrong.”

Protestants with different interpretations, as we know, form new churches.

Interesting, but not the topic.

The OP takes umbrage with the fact that what he once considered to be an exclusive fallacy of protestant thought, if it is indeed a fallacy, is a fallacy of Catholic thought as well.

 

[sandusky]

LilyM:

Rubbish. It is legitimate for a parent to, for example, set a curfew for their child, it is not appropriate or legitimate for a child to attempt to do the same to a parent.

It is legitimate for a chef in a restaurant to cook and serve you food. It is not legitimate or appropriate for a customer to barge into that restaurant’s kitchen and start cooking for themselves.

Those have nothing to do with the OP’s lament.

LilyM:

So it is appropriate to analyse and discuss and study Church teaching on particular matters. It is appropriate to form your own understanding of them. It is even appropriate, in those areas which are grey (and these are numerous) to choose among equally viable alternatives.

Your fallible, private interpretation.

LilyM:

It is NOT appropriate, if you are indeed Christian and a member of Christ’s ONE body, to ignore His ONE Church which in Timothy is declared to be the pillar and bulwark of truth, protected from teaching error for all times, and go on your own merry way based on your own entirely fallible interpretation of the Bible or the equally fallible interpretation of the various ‘reformers’.

Assumes that your fallible, private interpretation is correct.

That is the lament of the OP; he has come to realize that he employs what he thought was exclusively a protestant methodology—private interpretation—to arrive at his conclusion that the RCC is the place to be; therefore, he finds himself on the horns of the same dilemma upon which he has placed the protestant.

 

[sandusky]

Church Militant:

Bunk… when one is honest and examines the evidence as I did and then concludes that the Catholic Church is correct and aligns oneself with it that is simply the logical outcome.

You have not yet understood the OP’s lament.

Let’s rephrase your post:

Bunk… when one is honest and examines the evidence as I did and then concludes that the Sola Scriptura is correct and aligns oneself with it that is simply the logical outcome.

Church Militant:

But that’s not how you n-Cs roll is it? That’s one reason you guys are hip deep in denominations and independent churches with myriad attending interpretations, beliefs, and practices.

Ahhh, the ad hominem fallacy; I have the upper hand.
Church Militant:

You ignore the fact that virtually all the faithful Catholics align with the church in their beliefs and that we can and do routinely point up the scriptural, historical, and traditional reasons for those beliefs. Then you say it’s a personal interpretation when in fact it’s just God-given common sense and the wisdom to align ourselves with those who know better than we (or you) do.

Ahh, yes—when the protestant engages in private interpretation, it is fallible, but it is a different matter for the Catholic; when the Catholic engages in private interpretation it is God-given common sense; I believe the Lord refers to that as hypocrisy.

The Catholic says, “We can’t understand the Scriptures apart from the interpretations of the RCC, but we must interpret the Scriptures ourselves to discover that the RCC has been given that authority.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Interesting, but not the topic.

The OP takes umbrage with the fact that what he once considered to be an exclusive fallacy of protestant thought, if it is indeed a fallacy, is a fallacy of Catholic thought as well.

Your error is in overlooking the fact that the Catholic begins by stating the Church’s official teaching. There is only one official Church position on any given topic - unless the Church has no declared positon, of course.

The Protestant says, “Well, what do you think of the Church’s official teaching? How do you interpret it?”

I say, “It is written…”

Then the Protestant says, “Well, here are 14 Catholic theologians who have published articles questioning that teaching.”

I say, “I don’t give a rip what they say. I go by official teaching.”

Protestant says: “Well, who are we to believe - you or this famous, published theologian who is a golfing buddy with the Pope.”

I say: “Until his name appears on an encyclical or as the head of a Congregation it matters little what he says.”

Protestant sez: “But the Pope obviously listens to him…”

And on and on and on…

This ploy is an attempt to pull Catholicism DOWN to the low level to which Protestant denominationalism has sunk.

Assuming for the sake of argument that what you claim about private Catholic interpretation is true, so what? All you’ve done then is to prove that we’re just as screwed up as you are. It doesn’t actually lift YOU up and out of the mire. Perhaps this makes you feel a little better in the context of apologetics debate, but what has it accomplished to make your lives as dysfunctional sectarians any better than it was before? Your own ascendancy is not advanced one inch.

No, I will not assume your argument has merit. It offers nothing that convinces me that you actually have a better mousetrap.

 

[Della]

sandusky:

The Catholic says, “We can’t understand the Scriptures apart from the interpretations of the RCC, but we must interpret the Scriptures ourselves to discover that the RCC has been given that authority.”

That is not at all what the Catholic says. The Catholic says, “History, Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium established by Christ tell us the Church is to be trusted in matters of faith and morals.” Not our own private interpretation of anything, not even the Bible.

 

[heisenburg]

Quick Comment…

It all comes down to Authority. If you do not believe christ established a central authority, and that he would protect that authority, then you are limited by force to only one thing. Bible Only and personal interpretations of the bible. Its not a logical or philisophical choice, It is a required consequince of denying the papicy. Without an authoritative voice, who is to say what is right? No one. No Pastor, no preacher, no sunday school teacher. Without a central authority, you are required to make a statement no stronger than “I Believe that…” however, if you are being true to yourself, you must also ackowledge that you could be completely wrong (other wise you would be guilty of too much Pride in your own abilities.)

Such a senario is ultimatly why there are so many differant protestant beliefs on so many differant subjects, and ultimatly why there is chaos when you look at the state of protestantism as a whole (not church level)

To deny this chaos exists is keeping your head in the sand.

Also, to say “well we all agree on the essential/core requirements” to this is say… which are required, where is it written which to follow and which to not. I also say, No, you dont all agree on the ‘esentials’ otherwise everyone would agree on baptism, or trinity, comunnion.

Without an authoritative guide protected by God, Chaos is the only outcome. I thank God he gave us the Magesterium (sp) I would hate to have to try and figure out what si meant by the bible all alone.

In Christ

 

[scylla]

Look…
you need to understand the mentality of the person who pushes private interpretation. He doesn’t want an answer.

They believe everyone is right enough to get to heaven, everything else is just silly as it all comes down to interpretation. Since we are all human every organization has faults so it doesn’t bother a non-catholic to have faults pointed out in his denomination. He says “so what, so do you”

He thinks Catholics are crazy when they talk about a faith that is perfect as he sees a church and sees the people and understands it from a non-catholic point of view, so he sees faults.

It does no good to compare the non-catholic religion with the Catholic as all it does is reinforce his perspective as he sees them as both faulty institutions with his being better.

The private interpretation ploy just feeds into this by denying that truth can be known or that God wants us to know truth. This is never addressed but is the main point of the arguement that Catholics have their own private interpretation.
What needs to be addressed is does truth matter for salvation and does it really matter what you believe. If private interpretation was correct then it really doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you try a little bit. I could believe that Mary had kids, 120 of them (Acts 1:16)and still get into heaven or that she was always a virgin. It doesn’t matter if I misrepresent God’s truth, as truth doesn’t matter.
It would just be an oops, to err is human, mentality.
This is the private interpretation mentality and essentially just says that I could be wrong and so could you.

So don’t fall for the neverending discussion of private interpretation as what really matters is “does truth matter”.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[heisenburg]

doesnt christ say he is the way, the truth, and the light?

hmmm…

so if someone is saying truth doesnt matter, are you not really saying christ doesnt matter?

Just a thought…

 

[YADA]

I’ve reflected much upon this proposition of believing in the Church’s interpretation or upon self interpretation. It is actually a false charge by protestants to say that catholics defer to the church and the protestant defers to self.

Every protestant has been introduced to God, Jesus, Holy Scripture and Christian faith from within some framework [read that as context, church, scriptural translation, the footnotes, the witness of some ‘believer’]. That introduction contains a theology and an understanding of the christian faith. All further spiritual growth occurs within that framework.

The same is true for the catholic believer, whether they are brought into the church as an infant or as an adult. The difference is that the catholic freely consents and admits the foundation [context - the Teaching Authority of the Church] upon which their faith rest. Then they recognize that authority [or attepts to recognize or freely dissents from that authority - depending upon the catholic of course].

The protestant says they are free to interpret scripture with the holy spirit as it [the Bibe] is the sole authority. But this is a teaching of men. Even the protestant that has not read Martin Luther or heard the term Sola Scriptura has had the faith intorduced to them within that context.

And how does this independent thinker "know’ what the bible texts are? It is handed to them, they do not gather all of the early christian writings available to them [in the original languages] translate them, read them, decide what is the authentic inspired words, authentic commentary upon those words and what is heresy. They are given a collection of texts and told this is the “Bible”

That Bible comes completely translated and with footnotes that contain a ‘context’. The Protestant submits to a teaching authority. This teaching authority is just far more fluid, less precise and subject to the whims and winds of change

They can even, once introduced, become their own source of change. That is why the Christian faith as practiced by protestantism has fractured in belief, faith and practice. The differences can be minor to significant.

Hence the Protestant can believe:

• In the Trinity - Father, Son, Holy Spirit
• Not believe in the Trinity
• That Jesus was a prophet not the Messiah
• That worship o Sunday is sinful and unhistorical
• Worship on Sunday is not sinful and that it is historical
• That Jesus was born of a virgin
• That Jesus was concieved by the rape of a roman soldier upon Mary
• That Jesus died on the cross for our sins
• Jesus died because of the politics of his day and nothing more
• Jesus rose from the dead
• That the Apostles suffered trauma and the resurrection is a hoax or an hallucination, Jsus did not rise from the dead
• The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ
• The Eucharist is a symbol only
• Baptism cleanses the sinner and is necessary
• Baptism is symbolic only and is not necessary
  The list is endless…