Do Catholics and Orthodox rely on private interpretation?

[Sultan Of Swing]

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.

 

[dysert]

I am neither Catholic nor Orthodox, so maybe I shouldn't even reply (but I will anyway).

I can't speak to Orthodoxy, but as far as Catholicism goes, it's my understanding that Catholics count on their leadership to teach them, i.e., personal Bible study isn't encouraged all that much. So, the reasoning goes, if a parishioner trusts his priest, and the priest is trusting the bishop, and the bishop is trusting the cardinal, and the cardinal is trusting the pope, and (it is assumed) the pope is infallible under certain circumstances, then the parishioner will get good info trickled down to them.

Catholics also rely on church tradition for much of their doctrine, and much of said tradition is thought to be accurate. So (again, my understanding) if an individual Catholic doesn't try to glean info from the Bible but instead gets it from their leadership and church tradition then they supposedly always have good info instead of privately-discerned info.

(Catholics, if I've misrepresented your position in any way I apologize.)

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I am neither Catholic nor Orthodox, so maybe I shouldn't even reply (but I will anyway).

I can't speak to Orthodoxy, but as far as Catholicism goes, it's my understanding that Catholics count on their leadership to teach them, i.e., personal Bible study isn't encouraged all that much. So, the reasoning goes, if a parishioner trusts his priest, and the priest is trusting the bishop, and the bishop is trusting the cardinal, and the cardinal is trusting the pope, and (it is assumed) the pope is infallible under certain circumstances, then the parishioner will get good info trickled down to them.

Catholics also rely on church tradition for much of their doctrine, and much of said tradition is thought to be accurate. So (again, my understanding) if an individual Catholic doesn't try to glean info from the Bible but instead gets it from their leadership and church tradition then they supposedly always have good info instead of privately-discerned info.

(Catholics, if I've misrepresented your position in any way I apologize.)

And my problem with this is that in order to ascertain that the priests and bishops and cardinals and the Pope are trustworthy to begin with, one has to have ultimately already made a private discernment that they are trustworthy, thereby making their entire belief system reliant on a private discernment to begin with and so nullifying any objections that Protestants rely on private discernment.

 

[barryatlake]

Sultan of Swing, the Catholic Church [ being from Jesus to all generations ] was formed only on His Apostles and their Successors, so therefore have been given the power and authority directly from Jesus to operate without error on matters of the Christian Faith, be it in discernment or selecting its clergy.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Sultan of Swing, the Catholic Church [ being from Jesus to all generations ] was formed only on His Apostles and their Successors, so therefore have been given the power and authority directly from Jesus to operate without error on matters of the Christian Faith, be it in discernment or selecting its clergy.

In order to reach that conclusion in the first place, you have to use your own private interpretation of Scripture and Tradition.

 

[barryatlake]

No we do not, we use the Teachings of Jesus to His Apostles.

 

[Albion]

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?

Of course.

But many denominations have their favorite myths about the other churches.

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?

They take for granted that their church, which tells them that, is correct about it.

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?

Certainly.

If so, then what use is the objection against Protestantism on these grounds?

It's self-satisfying to say "we're right and you're wrong" no less than being a fan of the winning team and flaunting its colors, name, and etc in front of the other team's fans.

If Catholics ultimately rely on private interpretation as well, then where is the issue?

As I said, there is no issue except as some people need some dig to use against the other side. It doesn't matter if it's accurate so much as whether it hurts or ridicules the other side.

It seems as if Catholics and Protestants are at the same level here, both relying on their own interpretative ability.

Roughly speaking, that's true, but there are all kinds of Protestants and there are also charitable, ecumenically-minded Catholics in addition to the ones who go looking for arguments. IOW, generalizations are dangerous in this case.

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

Well, that IS a good example. There are not 30,000 denominations. That's just how one researcher decided to classify things. But even if he were not exaggerating, the Papal Church is certainly among the 30,000 , even if Catholic posters like to talk as though it's only adding up Protestant denominations. Moreover, that same study lists over 300 different Roman Catholic Church bodies.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

No we do not, we use the Teachings of Jesus to His Apostles.

How do you know "the Teachings of Jesus to His Apostles" means the Catholic Church? That requires private interpretation, does it not?

 

[barryatlake]

Sultan of Swing, all the evidence at our disposal--even though omitting, due to space, scriptural evidence--convinces us that Christ set up approx. 2000 years ago a visible, organized society. Its objective was to make all men holy and save their souls. The means to that were belief in Christ, reception of the sacraments He instituted and obedience to the authority He established. The members were those who believed and were baptized. The authority was the apostles' under the leadership of Peter, and their successors.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Sultan of Swing, all the evidence at our disposal--even though omitting, due to space, scriptural evidence--convinces us that Christ set up approx. 2000 years ago a visible, organized society. Its objective was to make all men holy and save their souls. The means to that were belief in Christ, reception of the sacraments He instituted and obedience to the authority He established. The members were those who believed and were baptized. The authority was the apostles' under the leadership of Peter, and their successors.

That, my friends, is the Gospel according to the Roman Catholic Church. The Gospel according to the Eastern Orthodox Churches is very similar.

 

[Thekla]

as some private interpretation was the source of the heresies, any interpretation is

measured against what was received from Christ and the Apostles

(the term idiwtis/idios means private, the etymological root of the English term 'idiot'; the term is used by Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians and is sometimes translated roughly catechuman ie not yet of the whole/community, still self-oriented)

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

as some private interpretation was the source of the heresies, any interpretation is

measured against what was received from Christ and the Apostles

(the term idiwtis/idios means private, the etymological root of the English term 'idiot'; the term is used by Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians and is sometimes translated roughly catechuman ie not yet of the whole/community, still self-oriented)

Determining "what was received from Christ and the Apostles" is a private judgement all to itself though...

 

[Albion]

Determining "what was received from Christ and the Apostles" is a private judgement all to itself though...

You're absolutely correct. It's a "private judgment" if you decide belief on the basis of your own study OR if you decide to defer to and accept someone else's opinion.

That's what any authoritarian religious body does--convince the hearer that it is the only correct church--and then the devotee simply makes his "private judgment" to believe that claim and all that the church proceeds to tell him.

 

[Thekla]

Determining "what was received from Christ and the Apostles" is a private judgement all to itself though...

this is a modern western understanding, though; the early Church existed in areas (for example the Greek culture) where "private interpretation" (see 2 Peter) was 'idiwtes/idias', contrasted with the sense of truth which is never a matter of private opinion but lived communal experience

thus, what was received is held by the community as a precious (and defining) deposit; it is the individualizing and private (idias) interpretation which is apparent against the backdrop of "always" and "received" and "as lived" in koinonia

 

[Thekla]

so then, when someone within the Church states a private (idiotic) interpretation or opinion, this is dealt with by correction and redirection "towards" the goal of Christ (see letters, for example, of early episkopoi dealing with errant and novel teachings, and also the epistles of the NT). When the heretical or private opinion (in history, usually the superimposition of a pagan system or philosophy on the teaching within the koinonia) gathers a 'group force' (ie collects and faction/heresy - see the epistles of Paul, John) then this one is not of the koinonia, and the response takes on a public dimension (as with the Ecumenical Council). Thus the epistles of the NT surely identify and warn against this problem, as it has been a danger from the first (even Judas, who saw the matter of Christ in a private way, ie not with the same eyes as the other disciples, and acted on his opinion thus betraying Christ).

 

[Meowzltov]

When I was looking for a church home, I was admittedly biased in favor of Catholicism precisely because it did not rely upon private interpretation, which I find prideful and incredibly unreliable. I was raised fundamentalist, and it is just an elephant in the room that private interpretation has led to the scandal of a gazillion denominations.

 

[Albion]

When I was looking for a church home, I was admittedly biased in favor of Catholicism precisely because it did not rely upon private interpretation, which I find prideful and incredibly unreliable. I was raised fundamentalist, and it is just an elephant in the room that private interpretation has led to the scandal of a gazillion denominations.

Yet all the Roman Catholics who post here rely upon it (private interpretation).

It looks to be more like a clever turn of phrase than a real difference between Protestants and Catholics.

 

[patricius79]

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 think one of the main problems in Catholicism is that "Catholics" do often rely on private judgment (i.e. they are "cafeteria Catholics")

In some parishes, some of Catholic doctrine--most notably Church teaching on contraception--is not preached because the people don't want it.

So in some respects, Protestants and Catholics have the same problems

(Just as in Protestantism there is an exodus from "mainline" groups into Protestant Evangelicalism, there--thankfully--a similar Catholic exodus from cafeteria Catholic parishes into Evangelical, Orthodox Catholic parishes)

However, I think there is a difference. As a Catholic who loves Scripture, I can interpret the Bible and apply it to my own life. I am even encouraged to do so. However, my private relationship to Scripture can never be allowed to contradict official Church doctrines.

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.

 

[Albion]

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?

Yes. Absolutely. It's demonstrated in hundreds of posts from members of the RCC right here on CF.

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?

Of course! All that's being done is, instead of forming a judgement based on Scripture, such people defer their judgement on specific doctrinal matters to someone else on the grounds that they've made a personal judgement to accept that other person or institution's opinion instead.

If so, then what use is the objection against Protestantism on these grounds?

It's an attack line, like "Protestants are in disagreement with each other so Sola Sciptura must be wrong" or "Where was your church before 1530 (or whatever)" or "Our church has never changed any of its beliefs."

All are incorrect, of course, but they serve a purpose.

 

[patricius79]

Yes. Absolutely. It's demonstrated in hundreds of posts from members of the RCC right here on CF.


Of course! All that's being done is, instead of forming a judgement based on Scripture, such people defer their judgement on specific doctrinal matters to someone else on the grounds that they've made a personal judgement to accept that other person or institution's opinion instead.


It's an attack line, like "Protestants are in disagreement with each other so Sola Sciptura must be wrong" or "Where was your church before 1530 (or whatever)" or "Our church has never changed any of its beliefs."

All are incorrect, of course, but they serve a purpose.

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?