Who Interprets tradition: From a curious Evangelical

[michaelp]

I would like to share a confusion about objections that Roman Catholics have concerning Evangelicals/Protestants interpretation of sola scriptura. The main objection that I see that is expressed on this website concerning using the Scripture alone as the primary and only infallible source of revelation is that people will come up with their own interpretations that disagee. Therefore, the RCC is needed to interpret Scripture and protect orthodoxy. Am I right so far?

If the institution of the RCC is needed to interpret the Scripture so that there will be unity in the Church, and the traditions that have been handed down have done this, why is it that no one can agree on the interpretation of Tradition? On this website alone there are thousands of different opinions on how to interpret the counsels (especially Vatican II).

In reality, doesn’t the Roman Catholic understanding of Tradition just move the problem up one level? Do we we need another institution to preside over the interpretation of Tradition? If so, who? This is one of the many problems I have with the RCCs understanding of Tradition–it is just as hard to interpret as Scripture.

I am not asking this to be difficult. I know that you must have thought this through, so I really do look forward to hearing your response.

I pray God’s richest blessings upon you all.

Michael

 

[Digitonomy]

michaelp:

Do we we need another institution to preside over the interpretation of Tradition? If so, who?

Yes, the Church.

You hear a lot of disagreement, but these are about the finer points - we are unified on the vast majority of issues.

Someone else will be by to give a more serious answer, but imagine a painting… Catholics are examining it, and arguing whether a teal area is more green or more blue. Some Protestant groups, on the other hand, would be arguing on whether the painting should be cropped, what frame to use, which side was the top, what wall to put it on, how to hang it, and the Mormons would come by and suggest that a construction paper mosaic should be pasted on the front.

 

[aridite]

digitonomy:

Yes, the Church.

The Magisterium, or official teaching authority of the Church (which authority has been handed down from the Apostles). The Ordinary Magisterium is the College of Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), Extraordinary Magisterium would be Infallible Statements (ex cathedra) by the Pope (some would include declarations of Ecumenical Councils). Vat II puts it well: there are three foundations for God’s Revelation - Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium - and you can’t have one without the others. I think of it as what is interpreted (Scripture), the interpretation (Tradition) and the interpreter (Magisterium).

digitonomy:

You hear a lot of disagreement, but these are about the finer points - we are unified on the vast majority of issues.

I agree. Catholics are pretty united on what Jesus meant in John 6. Big doctrinal things like that have been definitively interpreted. Other parts of Scripture (the beast or dragon in Revelation) are not definitively interpreted – except negatively: they are not this or that contemporary leader or king or whatever.

 

[dennisknapp]

In regards to Tradition there are three legs–Sacred Scripture, Oral Tradition and the Magisterium. There is an excellent article on this: catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401clas.asp

They are given to us by God through differing modes in order to maintain the true teachings of Christ throughout the ages.

I have a question for you–Where do you find the belief in Sola Scriptura anywhere in the Church prior to the 1600’s?

 

[Church_Militant]

michaelp:

I am not asking this to be difficult. I know that you must have thought this through, so I really do look forward to hearing your response.

I pray God’s richest blessings upon you all.

Michael

You have no idea how nice it is to dialog w/someone who takes this attitude. Welcome to the CA forums. Please…stick around.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

michaelp:

I would like to share a confusion about objections that Roman Catholics have concerning Evangelicals/Protestants interpretation of sola scriptura. The main objection that I see that is expressed on this website concerning using the Scripture alone as the primary and only infallible source of revelation is that people will come up with their own interpretations that disagee. Therefore, the RCC is needed to interpret Scripture and protect orthodoxy. Am I right so far?

If the institution of the RCC is needed to interpret the Scripture so that there will be unity in the Church, and the traditions that have been handed down have done this, why is it that no one can agree on the interpretation of Tradition? On this website alone there are thousands of different opinions on how to interpret the counsels (especially Vatican II).

In reality, doesn’t the Roman Catholic understanding of Tradition just move the problem up one level? Do we we need another institution to preside over the interpretation of Tradition? If so, who? This is one of the many problems I have with the RCCs understanding of Tradition–it is just as hard to interpret as Scripture.

I am not asking this to be difficult. I know that you must have thought this through, so I really do look forward to hearing your response.

I pray God’s richest blessings upon you all.

Michael

I understand what you are trying to ask, and this is a good question that should come up more often, both Catholics and Protestant would benefit.

Beliefs are our bias and responsible for our interpretations.

If you believe that Christ started the Catholic Church then everything that the Church teaches as part of its Tradition (including the Bible) is what you need to believe - and from that comes your interpretations on everything else.

On the other hand if you believe that the Bible is your primary source of Truth rather than the Catholic Church then you will always need to interpret the Bible correctly.

Simply put, the only way you can get an answer to this question is to believe that the Catholic Church was started by Christ. The other alternative is to keep falling back onto doubt whether the Catholic Church is responsible for the Bible.

 

[michaelp]

aridite:

The Magisterium, or official teaching authority of the Church (which authority has been handed down from the Apostles). Vat II puts it well: there are three foundations for God’s Revelation - Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium - and you can’t have one without the others. I think of it as what is interpreted (Scripture), the interpretation (Tradition) and the interpreter (Magisterium).

But isn’t this just a slight of hand? I would now have to ask the question: Who interprets the Magisterium? I would have a very difficult time if one were to say that no one needs to interpret the Magisterium, since all statements of truth need to be interpreted into the individual context, ways of thinking, and inherent presuppositions that the individual carries. In other words, we come back to the same problem that the this system is supposed to solve. Everyone will be left to interpret, at least to some degree, according to their own subjectivity. This result in the inevitable outcome that people have many different interpretations. Respectfully, this is what I see here on this website. Many people trying to interpret the Magisterium, each believing that they are led by the Holy Spirit. What is the difference in this and those who just start with Scripure. We are ultimately left to the unifying guidence of the Holy Spirit.

I am not saying that Protestants are as united as RCC, but to me, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, there is not much difference.

Look forward to your response.

Michael

 

[SocaliCatholic]

michaelp:

But isn’t this just a slight of hand? I would now have to ask the question: Who interprets the Magisterium? I would have a very difficult time if one were to say that no one needs to interpret the Magisterium, since all statements of truth need to be interpreted into the individual context, ways of thinking, and inherent presuppositions that the individual carries. In other words, we come back to the same problem that the this system is supposed to solve. Everyone will be left to interpret, at least to some degree, according to their own subjectivity. This result in the inevitable outcome that people have many different interpretations. Respectfully, this is what I see here on this website. Many people trying to interpret the Magisterium, each believing that they are led by the Holy Spirit. What is the difference in this and those who just start with Scripure. We are ultimately left to the unifying guidence of the Holy Spirit.

I am not saying that Protestants are as united as RCC, but to me, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, there is not much difference.

Look forward to your response.

Michael

This response is exactly the doubt that I was referring to in the previous post.

SocaliCatholic:

Simply put, the only way you can get an answer to this question is to believe that the Catholic Church was started by Christ. The other alternative is to keep falling back onto doubt whether the Catholic Church is responsible for the Bible.

 

[trogiah]

michaelp:

Therefore, the RCC is needed to interpret Scripture and protect orthodoxy. Am I right so far?

If the institution of the RCC is needed to interpret the Scripture so that there will be unity in the Church, …

I am not asking this to be difficult. I know that you must have thought this through, so I really do look forward to hearing your response.

I pray God’s richest blessings upon you all.

Michael

Thanks for asking the question.

I want to point out a change in what you asked - First you suggested that the RCC is needed to protect orthodoxy. In the next line “orthodoxy” was changed to “unity”. I think they are different and the difference is important.

My own belief is the RCC institution is absolutely necessary, not because every priest, bishop, or even pope was right in everything they say, but because without a single accepted source of authority, there will not be unity.

Without unity, we have things like World War II.

Jesus said at the beginning of Matthew chapter 23 (or maybe 24, I never get it right) that regarding the rules set forth by the Pharisees and scribes, his disciples should “do every thing they say and observe everything they tell you.” even though their example was clearly wrong. I believe Jesus would say the same thing regarding the Church leadership today and throughout history when it has been wrong as it has been at times.

I am a Roman Catholic who cherishes his tradition, I look to Scripture for guidance in my life and generally find it there. Often I find the insights of Catholic scholars and the inspiration of Saints to be helpful in seeking the kingdom of God that Jesus spoke of .

It isn’t like every Catholic has to ask a priest or bishop about every word in scripture to see if we got it right.

Peace,

-Jim

 

[Sherlock]

Michaelp,

First----thank you so very much for the respectful manner in which you have posed your question. Your considerate attitude is much appreciated.

You asked, "Do we we need another institution to preside over the interpretation of Tradition? If so, who?

We don’t need another interpreter of Tradition, we already have one—the Church, through the Magisterium. It has done an admirable job for 2000 years, and I trust it.

Be sure you understand the difference between “Tradition” (big “T”), and tradition (small “t”). Differences in smaller matters are not the same as differences (dissent) in matters of doctrine and dogma. Some of the divisions you see on the forum here fall into former category; differences in the latter represent dissent. It is true that there are dissenters here on the forum, but it is important to note that there is an authority by which one can call dissent what it is—dissent. However, that does not mean that we Catholics can’t argue forever about non-doctrinal matters!

I hope that helps. Again, thanks for your respectful attitude.

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

I have a question for you–Where do you find the belief in Sola Scriptura anywhere in the Church prior to the 1600’s?

I believe that the teaching of Sola Scriptura implies that it is God’s verified Word alone that binds our conscience. In other words the Scripture alone is the primary and only infallible source from which we recieve revelation from God. This is not to say that God cannot still speak infallibly through prophets today. If there was a verified prophet, we would listen to him.

God has always protected His word and verified His revelation through supernatural occurrences that left little doubt that it was God speaking. I think of Moses and the signs he performed to the Israelites to verify that he was from God. I think of the stipulations laid down for EVERYONE who claims to speak for God in Deut 13 and 18 (read them). I think of Paul’s statement in 2 Cor. 12:12 saying that the “signs of a true apostle were performed among you with signs and wonders.” I think that God has always been very protective of his word so that he would not be misrepresented. Therefore, he set up the rules that have not changed. If someone claims to speak for God, let him show UNDENIABLE sign (raise the dead, turn a staff into a snake, predict the future with 100% accuracy, heal the paralyzed, etc).

If someone were to do this, I would believe that they speak for God because God’s word compels me to do so. Therefore, sola scriptura is not an absolute statement that says that there cannot be any other infallible revelation that binds us. It just simply says that God is not speaking through VERIFIED prophets or apostles today. Therefore, the only VERIFIED source that we have right now is the Scripture–sola scriptura.

The problem that I have with the Pope, traditions, and the Magisterium is that they do not follow the pattern that God laid out for those who claim to speak for him (Deut 13 and 18). I certainly would be willing to follow the Pope if he met this criteria. But, from what I know, he has neither predicted the future nor shown and signs of an apostle that would compel me in any way. I am bound by Scripture to these guidelines.

Therefore, Protestants are not against continued revelation (a misunderstanding by many of sola scripture), we just say that whomever claims to speak infallibly for God had better show the signs of a prophet. This is the essense of sola scriptura and, when understood this way, it is found throughout all the Scripture.

Do you understand where I am coming from? I do hope that I am making myself clear. I do look forward to learning from you in your response.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

trogiah:

Thanks for asking the question.

I am a Roman Catholic who cherishes his tradition, I look to Scripture for guidance in my life and generally find it there. Often I find the insights of Catholic scholars and the inspiration of Saints to be helpful in seeking the kingdom of God that Jesus spoke of .

It isn’t like every Catholic has to ask a priest or bishop about every word in scripture to see if we got it right.

Peace,

-Jim

Jim,

Thanks for the clarification. This helps. This statement that you made above is great. I agree with every point. You and I may only disagree here in semantics. Hey, maybe we are more unified than we may sometimes suspect.

God’s blessings apon you and yours this holiday season.

Michael

 

[ianraygor]

All is Tradition, actually. The Apostles and the Apostolic Church Fathers passed on these Traditions until the Church discerned which of the existing Gospels and epistles (and their versions) were included and which were not in the 4th century Councils and which of the Old Testament books would be included. When Tradition is separated from the interpretation of Scripture, you get what you see…baseless and diverse opinions causing discord. When you see a disagreement about Tradition, it is either because people are not aware and are still learning, or because they simply refuse to accept the authority of the Church and place their own judgement above it. Those who claim to be Catholics and are of bad example should not be considered in your discernment. It was confusing to me when I first arrived here as well, but I am learning to tell who holds to the true faith and who does not. If you truly wish to know what the Church teaches, read the CCC, the Church Fathers and Doctors, and history (Warren Carroll’s, A History of Christendom is very good). “Facts not votes determine the Truth.”

 

[twf]

I had this question during my journey as well. (I am a former Evangelical convert currently seeking full communion with the Church).

I would say a couple things.

Firstly, there are many issues the Church has yet to make a definitive stand on, and thus disagreements can occur on such issues, but such issues hardly concern eternal salvation.

Secondly, the Church is very precise, generally speaking. Documents like those of the Council of Trent, or the new The Catechism of the Catholic Church are written with the intent of explaining the entire Faith in a precise and clear manner. This only applies to what has been defined…we can still disagree over issues that have not yet come to the attention of the Magisterium. (For example, the canon of Scripture was not defined until the 4th century, so until that time bishops could disagree on what books should be read during Mass, to a degree. The Church only defines doctrine as a controversy comes up). Scripture, on the other hand, is a library of many books written in different genres. It is not intended as a catechism. No where does it, in detail, in a single place, clearly lay out the entire Christian Faith. That is why Scripture is more difficult to interpret. Many of it’s doctrines are also implicit, rather than explicit. For example, the Trinity is clearly implicit throughout the Bible, but no where in Scripture is a clear definitive definition of the Trinity given as the Church did a few centuries later.

Thirdly, I would say that the Magisterium is living. We have bishops in every generation. Each ‘generation’ of the Magisterium can respond to the particular circumstances of that generation. The current Magisterium can explain to us what “Pope Such and Such” meant in the 7th century, or what Canon 28 of “Council Such and Such” meant in the 8th century. The Magisterium is constantly guided by the Holy Spirit, thus it can not err, and always delivers the Faith to the world in new ways, presenting it in a way that is clear for all the Faithful.

Try reading the Catechism. I am currently reading through it myself.

I recommend any of the articles at Dave Armstrong’s site as well:
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ345.HTM.

In Christ,
Tyler

P.S. We can also come to a fuller understanding of the Faith over time. This is what Vatican II has done in many ways. While there has been varying interpretations given to it, the basic Truths it is re-iterating are very clear. Somethings are still within the realm of debate, as the Church need not define every single detail of every single aspect of the Faith—such would be unnecessary. As well, it should be remembered that there are many liberals and ultra-traditionalists who may distort the true meaning of the Magisterium’s deliberations. The Pope has made it clear that the constant teaching of the Church is that that women can not be ordained…yet many still claim that it is possible.

 

[Slow_Burn]

Michael,

This is an important question and one that has been used as an arguement in apologetics circles recently. That is, the concept of “infinite regression” of interpretation. The ultimate answer is that, yes, the Magesterium is the authority that Catholics appeal to in questions regarding the interpretation of Scripture (or Tradition, or the teaching of the Magesterium itself). It is a living, breathing, “immortal” authority, as Christ promised He would be with it forever (Matt. 28:20). Perhaps an example would help…

Let say I am having trouble discerning the meaning John 6. The Catholic would say that this chapter contains Christ’s promise of the Eucharist. The Protestant may say otherwise. Here we have a divergence of opinion. So, we ask the Magesterium.

Magesterium: The answer to your question is that John 6 is a prefigurement of the Eucharist.

Protestant (or a Catholic for that matter): Well, I need to get an interpretation of what “prefigurement” means, since it’s still unclear to me. You, the Magesterium, have made an infallible prouncement regarding this particular chapter, but I need an interpretation of your interpretation.

Magesterium: OK, you tell me what you think we’re trying to say, and I’ll tell you if it’s right or not. If it’s not correct, I’ll tell you it’s not and try to help you understand what the correct meaning. If it’s wrong again, I’ll keep doing this until you tell me it correctly.

Protestant (or a Catholic for that matter): OK, I interpret your statement to mean that Christ will be present only spiritually in Communion. Is that correct?

Magesterium: Nope, we’re saying that Christ will be present fully; Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Now do you understand our statement regarding this chapter that has created such diverse opinions?

Protestant (or a Catholic for that matter): I think so. You mean that the proper interpretation is that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist? That Jesus was making the promise that he will be “really” present in the Eucharist?

Magesterium: YES! Now you understand the meaning. And since this was an infallible statement, it’s meaning cannot change. Now, there will be others who in the future will understand it correctly, but because we (the Magesterium) are lead by the Holy Spirit, we cannot teach error in regards to Faith or Morals.

So, you see, all questions can be boiled down to a “yes” or “no” answer. The Magesterium may interpret things that need to be interpreted. Some are simple, like me having to interpret that the round thing sitting on my plate right now is a pepperoni pizza. While some are more difficult, like whether the distinctive taste of this pepperoni pizza is due to the addition of oregano or garlic. All I need to do is ask the chef. If I’m wrong, he’ll say, “Your wrong”. If I try again to interpret what I’m tasting and get it right, he’ll say, “Your right”. So there doesn’t need to be an infitine regression of interpretation of interpretations. Hope that helps. May God bless you!

 

[michaelp]

Slow Burn:

Michael,

This is an important question and one that has been used as an arguement in apologetics circles recently. That is, the concept of “infinite regression” of interpretation. The ultimate answer is that, yes, the Magesterium is the authority that Catholics appeal to in questions regarding the interpretation of Scripture (or Tradition, or the teaching of the Magesterium itself). It is a living, breathing, “immortal” authority, as Christ promised He would be with it forever (Matt. 28:20). Perhaps an example would help…

Let say I am having trouble discerning the meaning John 6. The Catholic would say that this chapter contains Christ’s promise of the Eucharist. The Protestant may say otherwise. Here we have a divergence of opinion. So, we ask the Magesterium.

Magesterium: The answer to your question is that John 6 is a prefigurement of the Eucharist.

Protestant (or a Catholic for that matter): Well, I need to get an interpretation of what “prefigurement” means, since it’s still unclear to me. You, the Magesterium, have made an infallible prouncement regarding this particular chapter, but I need an interpretation of your interpretation.

Magesterium: OK, you tell me what you think we’re trying to say, and I’ll tell you if it’s right or not. If it’s not correct, I’ll tell you it’s not and try to help you understand what the correct meaning. If it’s wrong again, I’ll keep doing this until you tell me it correctly.

Protestant (or a Catholic for that matter): OK, I interpret your statement to mean that Christ will be present only spiritually in Communion. Is that correct?

Magesterium: Nope, we’re saying that Christ will be present fully; Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Now do you understand our statement regarding this chapter that has created such diverse opinions?

Protestant (or a Catholic for that matter): I think so. You mean that the proper interpretation is that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist? That Jesus was making the promise that he will be “really” present in the Eucharist?

Magesterium: YES! Now you understand the meaning. And since this was an infallible statement, it’s meaning cannot change. Now, there will be others who in the future will understand it correctly, but because we (the Magesterium) are lead by the Holy Spirit, we cannot teach error in regards to Faith or Morals.

So, you see, all questions can be boiled down to a “yes” or “no” answer. The Magesterium may interpret things that need to be interpreted. Some are simple, like me having to interpret that the round thing sitting on my plate right now is a pepperoni pizza. While some are more difficult, like whether the distinctive taste of this pepperoni pizza is due to the addition of oregano or garlic. All I need to do is ask the chef. If I’m wrong, he’ll say, “Your wrong”. If I try again to interpret what I’m tasting and get it right, he’ll say, “Your right”. So there doesn’t need to be an infitine regression of interpretation of interpretations. Hope that helps. May God bless you!

Thank you very much, this does help.

Let me get this clarified then. Who exatly is the magisterium and are they infallible? In other words, has there every been any conflict in the interpretations of the Magisterium? If so, then again we are back to square one aren’t we? Fallible people interpreting an infallible text (for protestants this is scripture, for RCs this is scripture and tradition).

P.S. I have to go to my son’s birthday party (1 yr!!). I am very interested in this conversation. You all are very kind and candid and this make it very enjoyable to learn from you all. I will be back this evening.

Michael

 

[Exporter]

MichaelP,
You are an intellegent person. Can’t you as a Protestant figure this out? You wrote,“But isn’t this just a slight of hand? I would now have to ask the question: Who interprets the Magisterium? I would have a very difficult time if one were to say that no one needs to interpret the Magisterium, since all statements of truth need to be interpreted into the individual context, ways of thinking, and inherent presuppositions that the individual carries. In other words, we come back to the same problem that the this system is supposed to solve. Everyone will be left to interpret”

1. Who interprets the epistles of the Magisterium? THE BISHOPS
2. We are not like Protestants who think they as individuals can “interpret” the Bible or any other religious Document. You wrote,“Every one will be left to interpret”.

Michael, it is simple, Catholics ARE NOT Protestants. It the duty of the Bishops to interpret. When all of the Bishops meet with the Pope to do a serious work, we can be assured that their statement are INFALLIBLE.

Ordinary citizens like us do not have the graces, authority or the knowledge to “interpret” religious Doctrine!

So that is the end of it. We are not Protestants who think they can interpret. The Bishops will interpret anything coming from Rome. It is not our station to “interpret”.

 

[Strider]

michaelp:

But isn’t this just a slight of hand? I would now have to ask the question: Who interprets the Magisterium? I would have a very difficult time if one were to say that no one needs to interpret the Magisterium, since all statements of truth need to be interpreted into the individual context, ways of thinking, and inherent presuppositions that the individual carries. In other words, we come back to the same problem that the this system is supposed to solve. Everyone will be left to interpret, at least to some degree, according to their own subjectivity. This result in the inevitable outcome that people have many different interpretations. Respectfully, this is what I see here on this website. Many people trying to interpret the Magisterium, each believing that they are led by the Holy Spirit. What is the difference in this and those who just start with Scripure. We are ultimately left to the unifying guidence of the Holy Spirit.

I am not saying that Protestants are as united as RCC, but to me, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, there is not much difference.

Look forward to your response.

Michael

Michael,
This is a great, thoughtful question. Thank you.
Let 's try an example.
Vatican II, the Magisterium, institutes some changes in the Mass.
There are individual interpretations of these changes by bishops, the clergy and some liturgists (NOT the Magesterium) and abuses occur.
The Pope issues an encyclical (Magesterium) and directs his Office of Divine Liturgy (Magesterium) to issue directives to all of the bishops (Magesterium) to correct the abuses.
Yes, it has taken over forty years, and will probably take longer, but in the 2000 year history of the Church, that is an insignificant amount of time.
The point is that the Magesterium, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, is self-interpreting and self-correcting.
Hope this helps.

 

[trogiah]

michaelp:

. Hey, maybe we are more unified than we may sometimes suspect.

Michael

Pope John XXIII stated and Pope John Paul II emphatically affirmed regarding Christians outside the Catholic Church:

“That which seperates us as believers in Christ is far less than that which unites us.”

For what its worth, I happen to agree strongly with them.

-Jim

 

[michaelp]

Exporter:

MichaelP,
You are an intellegent person.

With this, I would have to respectfully disagree. I do try my best though!