Do Catholics and Orthodox rely on private interpretation?

[Meowzltov]

If we take an issue like, for example, the meaning of John 6:47-63, it seems like there is no doubt about what the Catholic Church's Magisterium teaches on that.

Does the Protestant Magisterium have agreement on that?

Protestants don't have a Magisterium. That's why they can't agree among themselves. They range from Real Presence to Symbol Only to no communion at all since it's only "spiritual."

 

[Catherineanne]

I've often read the Catholic objection to Protestantism in that Protestants rely on their own private interpretation of Scripture which is fallible.

However, don't Catholics (and Orthodox) as well?

Okay, so Catholics obey and believe the Church's teaching, and that it is infallible, but how do they know what "the Church" is, and know that the Church is infallible? How does one identify it with the Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church?

Without descending into a circular argument, does this not require a private interpretation of Scripture and Tradition? Does it not rely on the intellect and one's own interpretative skills?

If so, then what use is the objection against Protestantism on these grounds? If Catholics ultimately rely on private interpretation as well, then where is the issue? It seems as if Catholics and Protestants are at the same level here, both relying on their own interpretative ability.

(Ultimately we rely on the Holy Spirit, I should add, but then there is no real issue as anyone can claim Holy Spirit guidance)

A further point, the objection that Protestantism has led to 30,000 denominations also fails with this point, because Catholics also rely ultimately on private interpretation.

I am Anglican.

I always check my interpretation with a Vicar if I am not sure whether I am remaining true to mainstream teaching or not. I never rely on my own personal interpretation unless I am very sure indeed of my ground. If the Vicar is not sure I will ask another one, and also check with any existing writing on the subject. Eventually I find enough evidence to let me know one way or the other.

I imagine other Apostolics would do something similar. It would be far too easy to get carried away into an alternative gospel of my own construction.

 

[Catherineanne]

I don't mind questions. I do mind people coming along with an axe to grind, and pretending that it is really a question.

 

[Albion]

Protestants don't have a Magisterium.

Some of them do.

As we see once again, the discussion is supposed to contrast a single denomination (RCC) against the whole of all churches classified as "Protestant," even though there's no church by that name.

Of course you're going to be able to say that the single denomination is more unified than a collection of thousands of disparate churches, many of which have almost nothing in common and never did, didn't split from each other, and never were part of the same church body!

It is a trick with words that proves zip.


.

 

[Meowzltov]

Some of them do.

I understood the remark to be referring to a general magisterium over all protestants. Perhaps I read it wrong.

 

[Albion]

I am Anglican.

I always check my interpretation with a Vicar if I am not sure whether I am remaining true to mainstream teaching or not. I never rely on my own personal interpretation unless I am very sure indeed of my ground. If the Vicar is not sure I will ask another one, and also check with any existing writing on the subject. Eventually I find enough evidence to let me know one way or the other.

I imagine other Apostolics would do something similar. It would be far too easy to get carried away into an alternative gospel of my own construction.

Your answer illustrates why this "Protestants use personal interpretation" claim is more a contrivance than genuine.

Hardly anyone makes a decision on what the Bible means....entirely unaided.

Even the lone wolf kind of Christian who doesn't want to associate with any denomination has formed his thinking in tandem with what some (or many) evangelist, book, video, or religious organization has contended.

 

[Meowzltov]

Hardly anyone makes a decision on what the Bible means....entirely unaided.

We are closer than we think, it's true. Nevertheless, most protestants will say that the Holy Spirit will guide them in understanding what the Bible means and that they don't need to lean on the teachings of others. Most Catholics on the other hand will depend upon the teachings of the Magisterium to understand the Bible. Again, these are as good and as bad as generalizations are.

 

[Albion]

We are closer than we think, it's true. Nevertheless, most protestants will say that the Holy Spirit will guide them in understanding what the Bible means

Who exactly are these "most protestants (sic)?"
I see you making that "some" claim often, and it appears that it's done so that you can get away with characterizing all Protestants according to the views or actions of an unrepresentative group. What if that were done with "some Catholics?" You'd immediately tell us that they are not the norm among Catholics.

Most Catholics on the other hand will depend upon the teachings of the Magisterium to understand the Bible.

So they make a personal choice of what to think about the meaning of the Bible, no less than any Protestant who is accused of doing that.

 

[patricius79]

Some of them do.

As we see once again, the discussion is supposed to contrast a single denomination (RCC) against the whole of all churches classified as "Protestant," even though there's no church by that name.

Of course you're going to be able to say that the single denomination is more unified than a collection of thousands of disparate churches, many of which have almost nothing in common and never did, didn't split from each other, and never were part of the same church body!

It is a trick with words that proves zip.

.

It sounds like you are saying "Protestantism" is made up of "thousands of disparate churches, many of which have almost nothing in common and never did."

That seems very different from the Catholic Church, where it's difficult to be unable to find out what the Church teaches, even if people choose to disagree with it

 

[bbbbbbb]

It sounds like you are saying "Protestantism" is made up of "thousands of disparate churches, many of which have almost nothing in common and never did."

That seems very different from the Catholic Church, where it's difficult to be unable to find out what the Church teaches, even if people choose to disagree with it

If understanding what the Catholic Church teaches is so easy, please tell us about Purgatory.

 

[Vanellus]

For example, I can't claim that I am Catholic and then decide that John 6 is not Canonical, or that it is merely symbolic
However, if I am a Protestant, I can do so and many do.

This is not true for nearly all Protestants whose denominations have their own statements of faith which include a delineation of the canon of scripture e.g. Art 6 of the 39 Articles of the CofE

 

[Vanellus]

If we take an issue like, for example, the meaning of John 6:47-63, it seems like there is no doubt about what the Catholic Church's Magisterium teaches on that.

Does the Protestant Magisterium have agreement on that?

So whether or not the Magisterium is right or not doesn't matter to you. All that matters that you belong to an organisation that dictates what its followers should believe. Is that what you think?

 

[Albion]

This is not true for nearly all Protestants whose denominations have their own statements of faith which include a delineation of the canon of scripture e.g. Art 6 of the 39 Articles of the CofE

True, and the claim you are rebutting is just the old shell game of contrasting a single denomination (RCC) with every other church at once...and then triumphantly proclaiming, "We're united; 'you' are not!" Except that the "you" refers to everyone else and yet no one in particular. We can all win debates by doing that, no matter what the topic.

 

[Vanellus]

True Albion. Furthermore nearly all, if not all, Protestant denominations agree on the canon of Scripture - though maybe an anti-Protestant RCCer could find an exception if they set their mind to it.

 

[patricius79]

deleted by author

 

[patricius79]

So whether or not the Magisterium is right or not doesn't matter to you. All that matters that you belong to an organisation that dictates what its followers should believe. Is that what you think?

I think that whoever listens to the leaders of the Church listen to Christ (Lk 10:16, 1 Cor 3:1-6). So how could the Magisterium be wrong?

So, I don't agree with the idea of private judgment, if it means disagreeing with those sent by Christ to preach the oral Word (Heb 13:7, Rom 10:8,14,17)

I think the reason Protestanism is so disunified--as Albion has testified--is because of its lack of such a teaching authority.

 

[Vanellus]

patricius79,

You are misquoting Albion:

Of course you're going to be able to say that the single denomination is more unified than a collection of thousands of disparate churches, many of which have almost nothing in common and never did, didn't split from each other, and never were part of the same church body!

"Thousands" is Albion's view of what you would say, rather than his own words. Beyond that I will let Albion explain this if he so wishes.

Seems like you are doing some private interpretation - quoting scripture to make your point. Are you sure you are allowed to do that?

You're assuming that NT "church" equals RCC but the reasons to believe that are most tenuous.

Lk 10:16 refers to the mission of the 72.

In 1 Cor 3:1-6 Paul condemns the factionalism you support ("I follow the Pope")

Heb 13:7 Here you are assuming the "leaders" of the addressees of the Letter to the Hebrews can be assumed to now refer to the RCC. There is no proper justification for such an assumption.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think that whoever listens to the leaders of the Church listen to Christ (Lk 10:16, 1 Cor 3:1-6). So how could the Magisterium be wrong?

So, I don't agree with the idea of private judgment, if it means disagreeing with those sent by Christ to preach the oral Word (Heb 13:7, Rom 10:8,14,17)

Any body of humans is certainly capable of being wrong simply because they are sinful beings. Even Peter was found to be wrong by Paul and was directly confronted by Paul (Galatians 2:11-14).

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Thus, you have a Pope who allegedly was able to speak infallibly on faith and morals, actually speaking erroneously on a very serious matter of faith. If Peter was capable of such an egregious error, it assurely more than likely that a self-appointed body of men are quite capable of such things, if not worse.

BTW, I am pleased to see that you confess that you agree with and engage in private interpretation.

 

[patricius79]

patricius79,

You are misquoting Albion:


"Thousands" is Albion's view of what you would say, rather than his own words. Beyond that I will let Albion explain this if he so wishes.
.

But that is what Albion said, in his own words. He didn't say that that's what we would say. He seemed to clearly testify to the disunity of Protestantism.

 

[patricius79]

Any body of humans is certainly capable of being wrong simply because they are sinful beings. Even Peter was found to be wrong by Paul and was directly confronted by Paul (Galatians 2:11-14).

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Thus.

Paul was a sinful human being, yet you believe his words here are infallible. But not all his words, but only his words in a specific circumstance.