Who Interprets tradition: From a curious Evangelical

[aridite]

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.

Tradition and statements of the Magisterium are not texts to be interpreted. Texts, as something static, always have the question of interpretation as a problem. But Tradition is a living Tradition, and the Magisterium (Bishops in union with the Pope) is an active organ of understanding the truth (how Jesus fulfills the promise of sending the Holy Spirit to reveal all things). Inter-subjectivity is not really and practically the sort of theoretical problem it seems to be to philosophers (especially post-modern types). If you look at the really big issues of interpreting Scripture (Trinity, Incarnation, Sacraments, authority of the Church) they were hashed out by popes and Councils fairly early on, and it is isn’t really an issue of what we “mean” when we confess that God became man in Jesus Christ, but it is a matter of whether we will accept the Magisterium as having definitively interpreted “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” For every point of doctrine, there have been some would-be Christians who have denied it (including the incarnation, for example), but if you’re willing to accept some interpretation as definitive (and Truth seems to require that) you need some living organ of interpretation with the authority to give the authentic one. That’s the Magisterium.

 

[michaelp]

michaelp:

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

I moved this to a new thread because of it independent importance.

Thanks all.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

aridite:

Tradition and statements of the Magisterium are not texts to be interpreted. Texts, as something static, always have the question of interpretation as a problem. Magisterium.

I have tried to understand this, but I cannot. Just because they (tradition and magisterium) are not “texts” does not mean that they do not need to be interpreted. All information, by definition of its need to be contextualized, must be interpreted.

Thanks for the reply,

Michael

 

[Exporter]

MichaelP,
You wrote, for the second time,“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.”

You obviously do not know that you have a “Protestant Prejudice”. You may think you are interpreting. We do not attempt to do something reserved for the Magisterium.

Sir, we as parishoners do not have the Authority nor the years of hard-won knowledge that would allow us to “interpret” the Traditions!

**This is the second time I have written this, don’t you read these posts or are you a Protestant who is trying to stir up a controversy? **

I am attempting to be polite but it is hard to say again that WE DO NOT INTERPRET THE EARLY FATHERS, The BISHOPS DO THAT, and when gathered they are CALLED THE MAGISTERIUM. They interpret. Not us.

 

[Exporter]

MichaelP,
I just read something you wrote that makes no sence at all on a Catholic Website. Maybe you thought you were posting on some Protestant Forum. You wrote,“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.”

1. Can you name just one who is trying to interpret the Magisterium(to use your turn of the phrase)?
   2.Who are these people who are taking the place of the Magisterium in wrongy assuming they can “interpret”?
   3.My friend, we have worn that false argument,“Sola Scriptura” out.
2. No Sir, WE are not left to the instruction by the Holy Spirit…the Magesterium is left to interpret , anything, with the help of the Holy Ghost.
3. After this , you should not have more questions.

You say you do not understand. Could it be your Protestant Prejudice? You think anyone and everyone can read the Bible and then automatically be able to interpret it. It seems you want Catholics to say they can interpret what the Magesterium has You want to impose your Sola Scriptura on to Catholic teachings - it will not work any more than trying to put 10 pounds of sand into a 9 pound bag.

To us the fact that so many Protestant Churches have only the Bible of King James and all these P. Churches interpret the same Bible differently. How can that be Mr. MichaelP?

 

[michaelp]

Exporter:

MichaelP,
You wrote, for the second time,“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.”

You obviously do not know that you have a “Protestant Prejudice”. You may think you are interpreting. We do not attempt to do something reserved for the Magisterium.

Sir, we as parishoners do not have the Authority nor the years of hard-won knowledge that would allow us to “interpret” the Traditions!

**This is the second time I have written this, don’t you read these posts or are you a Protestant who is trying to stir up a controversy? **

I am attempting to be polite but it is hard to say again that WE DO NOT INTERPRET THE EARLY FATHERS, The BISHOPS DO THAT, and when gathered they are CALLED THE MAGISTERIUM. They interpret. Not us.

Please know that I am not trying to stir up trouble. I am a sincere person who is really willing to learn and understand. If I cannot ask these questions here, then where can I? I will gladly quit posting if you think that I am stirring up trouble. I do not wish to do so.

I do understand that I have a prejudice. We ALL do. Whoever denies this (please take this the right way) is extremely naive. Our goals are not simply to become objective interpreters (as if this can happen), but to recognize our own subjectivity, and work graciously from within. I try my best to do this, even though I often fail. This is why we need the community of believers to balance our biased perspectives.

In response (if I may be allowed), all information, by definition, must be interpreted, doesn’t it? If not, I think that we are using different definitions of interpretation.

Your statement, again, to me, is begging the question because we have to have an interpreter of the Magisterium. If I am beating a dead horse please let me know.

In sincerity,

Michael

 

[WBB]

michaelp:

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

Intelligent and humble to boot! Thanks for your participation.

 

[WBB]

michaelp:

Please know that I am not trying to stir up trouble. I am a sincere person who is really willing to learn and understand. If I cannot ask these questions here, then where can I? I will gladly quit posting if you think that I am stirring up trouble. I do not wish to do so.

I do understand that I have a prejudice. We ALL do. Whoever denies this (please take this the right way) is extremely naive. Our goals are not simply to become objective interpreters (as if this can happen), but to recognize our own subjectivity, and work graciously from within. I try my best to do this, even though I often fail. This is why we need the community of believers to balance our biased perspectives.

In response (if I may be allowed), all information, by definition, must be interpreted, doesn’t it? If not, I think that we are using different definitions of interpretation.

Your statement, again, to me, is begging the question because we have to have an interpreter of the Magisterium. If I am beating a dead horse please let me know.

In sincerity,

Michael

I think the answer that you are looking for is that no one in particular “interprets” the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the body of Bishops in union with the Pope who interprets Scripture and Sacred Tradition for us. They make pronouncements when a question as to how the church teaches a particular doctrine or dogma arises.

 

[Strider]

Michael,
I think your use of Deuteronomy in the context of your original question is misplaced. When Deuteronimy was being written, God was patiently teaching the Israelites about his ways, his person and the plan he had for them. It took him a long time.
Your question is about the Catholic Church’s view of Tradition. Jesus Christ, many centuries after Deuteronomy, established the Catholic Church.
Slow Burn in post #15 mentioned one of the key passages, but I would like to emphasize this and one other.
The first is Mt. 16:18,19. I’m sure you’re familiar with these verses. Jesus establishes the Catholic Church on Peter, the rock.
The key for your question, though, is “…and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Jesus gives the rabbinical power to Peter, but it is enhanced by the binding in heaven.
A page later, in Mt.18:18 , Jesus gives the binding and loosing power in heaven and earth to the rest of the apostles.
The way Jesus did this, giving the power to Peter, his first pope, then to the rest of the apostles a little later, is the model for the Magesterium.
The pope may act on his own in declaring dogma in the area of faith and morals, or the pope, in conjunction with the bishops, (the entire Magesterium) can make pronouncements on dogma and doctrine in the areas of faith and morals. This would be like a Church council, eg. Vatican II.
So the answer to your quesation, “who interprets Tradition?” is, the Holy Spirit working through the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, with the authority oif Jesus Christ.
Nowhere in Jesus’ establishment of his Church does he say that his ministers, bishops or pope must raise the dead or predict the future or perform any miracles. Your understanding of this scripture is flawed.
Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, prevents his Church from teaching error in the areas of faith and morals. Nobody “interpprets the Magesterium.” The Magesterium clarifies the teachings of Christ, written or oral.

 

[michaelp]

Strider (Great name!!),

To me, it is not so easy to dismiss the principle that God does not like for people to say that He said something that He did not say. This is what the laws of Duet. were given for. God was trying to tell people of all time that not just anyone could speak on His behalf. They would have to verify their words through both orthodoxy (Deut. 13) and some type of sign and wonder (Deut 18). I think that you would agree that God still cares about His word and does not want it misused. Peter had to verify himself and his words as did the rest of the Apostles. In fact, the Gospel of John goes to great lengths to demonstate that Christ had to show the signs of a prophet before anyone was expected to believe him.

This principle cannot be dismissed just by quoting Matt. 16 and 18 and interpreting it you have proposed. I must be honest with you, while I am open to God doing this, I have not seen the proof that God required not only of the Old Testament prophets, but of Jesus and the Apostles (read 2 Cor. 12:12). To overturn this principle simply on your reading of Matt. 16 and 18 is, forgive me for being so forthright, eisogesis (reading something into the text that is not there in order to confirm a preunderstanding). Honestly, don’t you see this? If not, we may have just come to an impass.

BTW: This does not make any sense to me, “I think your use of Deuteronomy in the context of your original question is misplaced. When Deuteronimy was being written, God was patiently teaching the Israelites about his ways, his person and the plan he had for them. It took him a long time.” I really don’t know what you are trying to say here. Do the principles no longer appy? If so, this must be justified better than this, don’t you think?

I pray that this is taken in love and grace as I mean it to be.

Thanks for the reply.

Michael

 

[aridite]

michaelp:

I have tried to understand this, but I cannot. Just because they (tradition and magisterium) are not “texts” does not mean that they do not need to be interpreted. All information, by definition of its need to be contextualized, must be interpreted.

Thanks for the reply,

Michael

This particular fine point of hermeneutics and philosophy of language may not be all that crucial to the rest to the thread, but I’ll make this one point. The Magisterium does not need an interpreter because it is an interpreter and it is living. It is constantly speaking – if it seems to be being misunderstood, it speaks again in a new form of words at a new time, but the truth spoken (the authentic revelation of Jesus Christ which he handed on and was then written down to form the Scriptures) remains the same. Sure, every utterance (except maybe one’s own (but only “maybe”)) needs to be understood and so interpreted to that extent, but realistically and practically, we just don’t worry about authentic interpreters when we are normally speaking with good will. It is a slippery slope which will end our conversation (because it will make it in principle impossible) to insist that every utterance must have an authentic interpreter before it can be received. After all, how do I know I’ve really understood you, and you me. Any clarification will itself have to be understood, and so on, ad infinitum. This is not a real problem for people of good will. (It has only been a problem for philosophers who took Descartes too seriously.) The Magisterium makes clear what God’s Revelation (first in Tradition, then written in Scripture) is, and if the rest of the Church has trouble understanding, it tries to make it clear in another way (or in later times). Every Christian and every Christian denomination has an interpretation they consider authentic, so the theoretic problem isn’t unique to the Catholic Magisterium. But it is a **logical **truth that not all denominational interpretations are able to be simultaneously true, and it is a theological truth that only one of them is.

 

[WBB]

michaelp:

Strider (Great name!!),

To me, it is not so easy to dismiss the principle that God does not like for people to say that He said something that He did not say. This is what the laws of Duet. were given for. God was trying to tell people of all time that not just anyone could speak on His behalf. They would have to verify their words through both orthodoxy (Deut. 13) and some type of sign and wonder (Deut 18). I think that you would agree that God still cares about His word and does not want it misused. Peter had to verify himself and his words as did the rest of the Apostles. In fact, the Gospel of John goes to great lengths to demonstate that Christ had to show the signs of a prophet before anyone was expected to believe him.

This principle cannot be dismissed just by quoting Matt. 16 and 18 and interpreting it you have proposed. I must be honest with you, while I am open to God doing this, I have not seen the proof that God required not only of the Old Testament prophets, but of Jesus and the Apostles (read 2 Cor. 12:12). To overturn this principle simply on your reading of Matt. 16 and 18 is, forgive me for being so forthright, eisogesis (reading something into the text that is not there in order to confirm a preunderstanding). Honestly, don’t you see this? If not, we may have just come to an impass.

BTW: This does not make any sense to me, “I think your use of Deuteronomy in the context of your original question is misplaced. When Deuteronimy was being written, God was patiently teaching the Israelites about his ways, his person and the plan he had for them. It took him a long time.” I really don’t know what you are trying to say here. Do the principles no longer appy? If so, this must be justified better than this, don’t you think?

I pray that this is taken in love and grace as I mean it to be.

Thanks for the reply.

Michael

I think you will find that you will be at an impasse then. Catholics take Jesus at his word when he says he will not leave the church alone. We have faith that the Holy Spirit will prevent the teachings of the church from being in error. Protestants have a more difficult time accepting this with the same kind of faith.

 

[michaelp]

aridite:

The Magisterium does not need an interpreter because it is an interpreter and it is living.

I hope that I am not being difficult, but the entire premise of this statement is question begging. It is using its conclusion to validate its premise.

Thanks for your time.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

WBB:

I think you will find that you will be at an impasse then. Catholics take Jesus at his word when he says he will not leave the church alone. We have faith that the Holy Spirit will prevent the teachings of the church from being in error. Protestants have a more difficult time accepting this with the same kind of faith.

I agree. I admire the system, but cannot justify its existence. Thanks for you time.

Michael

 

[WBB]

michaelp:

I hope that I am not being difficult, but the entire premise of this statement is question begging. It is using its conclusion to validate its premise.

Thanks for your time.

Michael

But that is what the Magisterium does…it interprets for the church. It is the final authority when it comes to interpretation. It would be like you saying that you have interpreted something yourself and then another person coming behind you and saying, “Well who interprets you.”

 

[WBB]

michaelp:

I agree. I admire the system, but cannot justify its existence. Thanks for you time.

Michael

If you are really interested in understanding where the Magisterium comes from, I would suggest that you read Mark Shea’s book,* By What Authority. *Shea is a former evangelical who came to the Catholic Church. It will give an insight from someone who is familiar with the evangelical thought process.

 

[aridite]

michaelp:

I hope that I am not being difficult, but the entire premise of this statement is question begging. It is using its conclusion to validate its premise.

Thanks for your time.

Michael

I hope I don’t sound glib, but you are sure you disagree with me. How can you be so sure? Perhaps, you misunderstood. Of course you didn’t, but given the actual, real work of the Magisterium, neither is it (in the long run) misunderstood. Seems consistent to me, but I appreciate your honesty and respect. I hope we Catholics will have appeared the same. (But who can be sure ? . . . )

 

[enanneman]

Peace be with you, MichaelP.

I’m not certain if we’re all making a mountain out of a mole hill in trying to explain the Magisterium. The sole function of the Magisterium is to teach the faith. Your question as to how does one interpret the Magisterium confuses me, because it would be akin to how does one interpret my Physics professor?

As has been said in previous posts, the documents the Magisterium puts out seek to clarify the teachings of Christ revealed through His Church. These documents, from my view, are concise and quite clear. Simply pick up the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and you’ll see that there is no room for individual interpretation. Having said that, is there a specific document or teaching for which you would like some clarification? Simply ask it, and you’ll get a dozen responses from us in the blink of an eye.

I warn you, however, if you delve too deeply into the Catechism, you may find the pull of Christ too strong to avoid His call to join the Catholic Church. I challenge you to find one paragraph from the Catechism that you personally disagree with. Indeed, once you see the fullness of truth offered by the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, I think you’ll find it irresistible to not fall in love with it.

I know I did. Simply because falling in love with the Catholic Church equals falling in love with Christ.

Peace and God bless!

Eric

 

[michaelp]

enanneman:

Peace be with you, MichaelP.

I’m not certain if we’re all making a mountain out of a mole hill in trying to explain the Magisterium. The sole function of the Magisterium is to teach the faith. Your question as to how does one interpret the Magisterium confuses me, because it would be akin to how does one interpret my Physics professor?

As has been said in previous posts, the documents the Magisterium puts out seek to clarify the teachings of Christ revealed through His Church. These documents, from my view, are concise and quite clear. Simply pick up the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and you’ll see that there is no room for individual interpretation. Having said that, is there a specific document or teaching for which you would like some clarification? Simply ask it, and you’ll get a dozen responses from us in the blink of an eye.

I warn you, however, if you delve too deeply into the Catechism, you may find the pull of Christ too strong to avoid His call to join the Catholic Church. I challenge you to find one paragraph from the Catechism that you personally disagree with. Indeed, once you see the fullness of truth offered by the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, I think you’ll find it irresistible to not fall in love with it.

I know I did. Simply because falling in love with the Catholic Church equals falling in love with Christ.

Peace and God bless!

Eric

I do appreciate your challenge, but I have had a copy of the Catechism since it came out. I read it regularly, but it is sometime difficult to interpet. Who can help?

 

[enanneman]

michaelp:

I do appreciate your challenge, but I have had a copy of the Catechism since it came out. I read it regularly, but it is sometime difficult to interpet. Who can help?

Tell me the paragraph and your question.

Eric