The Private Interpretation Ploy

[Randy_Carson]

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

“But wait,” cried the Prostestants. “The Bible is our Authority.”

“If the Bible were your authority,” said the Catholic, “then you would do the things that the Bible tells you. As it is you deny Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and you do not confess your sins to one another. You do many other things like this.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they cried. “The only authority we have is God Himself.”

“If God were your Father, you would love His Church, for she is the Body of Christ.”

Based loosely on a passage from John 8:39-42.

 

[mlchance]

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

Untrue, unless, of course, you want to argue for the legitimacy of 13-year-old children having sex (as well as a host of other situations in which what is good for the goose is indeed not good for the gander).

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[estesbob]

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.

Not at all. Catholics NEVER use private interpertation-we rely in the interpertation of the Church. The way the game is played is that Protestants come here and demand one or two line explanations of complex doctrines. When a poster replies they scream private interperation! Of course that is not true-they are merely relating their understaning of Church teaching. OTH if we post links that conscisely explains Catholic Doctrines they dont read them-after all that would ruin the fun.

 

[Reformed1]

Not at all. Catholics NEVER use private interpertation-we rely in the interpertation of the Church. The way the game is played is that Protestants come here and demand one or two line explanations of complex doctrines. When a poster replies they scream private interperation! Of course that is not true-they are merely relating their understaning of Church teaching. OTH if we post links that conscisely explains Catholic Doctrines they dont read them-after all that would ruin the fun.

Your church has only interpreted, at least officially, a few scriptures. What do you do with the rest of the scriptures?

 

[DeFide]

…
Here are some good articles refuting the Private Interpretation Ploy:

SOLA SCRIPTURA AND PRIVATE JUDGMENT

Scott

This may be off-topic, but I appreciate this link. I read it last night, and thought to myself, “If I were a Protestant, this would be a very sobering article. I might object to the part about the Garden of Eden analogy if I was Protestant, but it would be sobering nonetheless.”

Unfortunately, the length of the article might deter a sizable majority of non-Catholics (and Catholics) from reading it.

Thanks for providing it.

 

[heisenburg]

The catholic church does not take a single verse and try and comment on that single verse… (as protestants like to do) what it does do is comment on over all sections so that context is never lost.

It is actually foolhearty and dangerous to try and make faith statements based on single verses.

This arguement that the catholic church doesnt look at the bible because it has only comment on a few versus is a straw man

in Christ

 

[YADA]

See my post above:

The Protestant submits to an institutional authority in their indoctrination, the church authority is just loosely organized. The protestant des not purely use private interpretation as they assert…that is the false ploy

 

[Reformed1]

The catholic church does not take a single verse and try and comment on that single verse… (as protestants like to do) what it does do is comment on over all sections so that context is never lost.

It is actually foolhearty and dangerous to try and make faith statements based on single verses.

This arguement that the catholic church doesnt look at the bible because it has only comment on a few versus is a straw man

in Christ

But the Catholic church has only ruled on the meanings of a few verses, what do you guys rely on when discussing the vast majority of the scriptures?

For example, in your church the issue with predestination is not settled. If you engage in debate or discussion concerning predestination are you not using private interpretation? Afterall, you church has only provided some loose guidelines that, as far as I know, aren’t infallibly defined.

 

[noma]

For example, in your church the issue with predestination is not settled. If you engage in debate or discussion concerning predestination are you not using private interpretation?

To answer for myself: no. And this I say as a Protestant.

I don’t make things up in my basement without letting others in the Body of Christ challenge me on them.

Concerning predestination, I have the authority of Augustine and Aquinas, among many others. These may not tell me “yes predestination”, or “no predestination” (or the much more reasonable “this much predestination”). But they do give me good corporate reasons for accepting what I do.

In Christianity, Protestant or Catholic, there can be no truly private interpretation. Otherwise, every person is a Church unto himself, and atheists, who interpret the Scriptures in a way very distinct from Protestants and Catholics, are just as much a part of the Bodies of Christ as anyone else.

Every group has its tradition. And though I reject the Catholic Church, I do accept that it is absolutely correct in a great many (maybe even most) things.

 

[sandusky]

Randy Carson:

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.

You have completely missed the point of the OP’s lament.

 

[sandusky]

Della:

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.

”And if not by your own private interpretation of anything, not even the Bible, how is that you have arrived at the conclusion that the RCC is to be trusted?” he asked in a whisper.

Your statement is filled with contradiction.

 

[Reformed1]

To answer for myself: no. And this I say as a Protestant.

I don’t make things up in my basement without letting others in the Body of Christ challenge me on them.

Concerning predestination, I have the authority of Augustine and Aquinas, among many others. These may not tell me “yes predestination”, or “no predestination” (or the much more reasonable “this much predestination”). But they do give me good corporate reasons for accepting what I do.

In Christianity, Protestant or Catholic, there can be no truly private interpretation. Otherwise, every person is a Church unto himself, and atheists, who interpret the Scriptures in a way very distinct from Protestants and Catholics, are just as much a part of the Bodies of Christ as anyone else.

Every group has its tradition. And though I reject the Catholic Church, I do accept that it is absolutely correct in a great many (maybe even most) things.

I appreciate you post.

While I agree with some of what you posted, our Catholic friends can’t appeal to Augusitne or Aquinas alone, without the church, because the ECF’s are a grab bag of mixed beliefs.

Many of the Catholics on this forum will tell you that as a non-Catholic you do in fact engage in private interpretation…I guess because you don’t have the infallible church behind your decisions.

My question to them is, since it is a fact that the Catholic church has only infallibly decided on an interpretation of but a few passages of scripture, what do they do with the rest of scripture since the church’s current thought on whatever the verse(s) may be could change.

If they don’t have church teaching to back them up aren’t they mired in the same pit they say I am stuck in?

 

[sandusky]

Heisenberg:

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.)

And how is it that you say, “I Believe that…” without using private interpretation? :ehh:

 

[sandusky]

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.

You are correct; what is a true charge is that everyone defers to self with respect to what they believe, and they do so on the basis of their own private interpretation.

 

[sandusky]

mlchance:

Untrue, unless, of course, you want to argue for the legitimacy of 13-year-old children having sex (as well as a host of other situations in which what is good for the goose is indeed not good for the gander).

– Mark L. Chance.

Your statement is a completely out-of-context rabbit trail.

The OP’s lament does not concern the legitimacy, or illegitimacy of a 13-year-old’s sex life; rather, his lament is his realization that he has employed the method of private interpretation—something he is accustomed to condemning when it is employed by a protestant.

 

[sandusky]

estesbob:

Not at all. Catholics NEVER use private interpertation-we rely in the interpertation of the Church.

How then does this reliance come about if not by private interpretation?

 

[sandusky]

Scylla:

Look…Catholics have their own private interpretation.

Yes, Scylla, they do.

 

[Reformed1]

How then does this reliance come about?

What do they do with the vast majority of scriptures which haven’t been interpreted by the church?

 

[noma]

If they don’t have church teaching to back them up aren’t they mired in the same pit they say I am stuck in?

I would say just as much, whether their Roman Church has said something or not.

After all, no Roman Catholic can prove mathematically that their Magisterium is protected from error in the way they would hold. They must live with uncertainty, though they may have faith.

Faith in Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium is no better from the outside than faith in scripture alone. Both will seem, from an objective viewpoint, to be equally arbitrary.

I choose to have faith in Scripture and Tradition, and in an imperfect Magisterium at times. I am more willing to accept my uncertainty, and so place faith only in Scripture and Tradition, and not in the Magisterium (and certainly not in the Roman Magisterium).

But just because I don’t accept something as having total authority over me doesn’t mean I don’t listen to it, or that it doesn’t influence me, or shouldn’t influence me.

 

[sandusky]

What do they do with the vast majority of scriptures which haven’t been interpreted by the church?

More importantly, how have they arrived at the conclusion that RCC is THE true church?

It is by fallible private interpretation that they believe in the infallibility of the RCC.

That realization is the OP’s lament.