Do Catholics and Orthodox rely on private interpretation?

[laternonjuror]

Because you really like to argue. Everyone else pretty much agrees that while its true Catholics use private interpretation to some degree, we pretty much depend upon the magisterium as our highest authority, and while Protestants use books and their pastor's opinions, they reserve the right to their private interpretation (guided by the holy spirit) as being the highest authority.

Madam, For Catholics, The Magisterium, is the Scripture, Councils and the Greek Fathers of the First three Centuries,.i.e. The early fathers!
Without wishing to be rude, Roman Catholics have the papacy, have they not? There is a world of difference! Even with Rome, the issue of private interpretation is not too far off. On another forum on this board the question is raised about the Matthew 16/20 , Rock, quotation!
At Trent 1564, the Roman Clergy and laity, were told' in the Creed of Pius IV, which is obligatory on all Roman's that they will promise and swear to continue in obedience to Rome.'Further, It is professed concerning Holy Scripture,"nor will I ever understand it or interpret it, except according to to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers"' Up to now this is the catholic approach, as I believe and is held by Anglican, Orthodox and Roman Catholics together!
Early Fathers , (first three centuries ) , when Roman posters were told that only,
17 EF's believed Peter was the rock,
44 EF's believed the Confession of faith S. Peter made was the rock.
16 were for it being Christ Himsef.
With 8 for it being all the Apostolic college! (Lanoy S.J..)
They wouldn't accept it, though the source was one of their own faith.
Seeing that Trent is not optional belief, what should we think of the Roman Catholics who will not accept the Canons of Trent! What is this but private belief or private interpretation?

 

[bbbbbbb]

And these Christians are exclusively Protestant.

The "I have the truth and and you are not allowed to disagree Catholic version" always relies on Magisterial teaching.

Ultimately, it seems that all such individuals source their absolute truth back to the Holy Spirit. Some Protestants do it quite directly. Many Catholics do it indirectly - the truth has been delivered through Christ's Church, which is the pillar and ground of truth. That Church has a Vicar who serves in the place of Jesus Christ and receives the fullness of the Holy Spirit, such that truth comes through this channel, having its source in God, the Holy Spirit.

 

[Albion]

With the criteria that I stated before, I would agree. I'm sure we've all met Christians who have "found the truth" and are so sure of it that they will not allow anyone to disagree with them without pulling the "my interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit talking directly to me, so you must be wrong" card. That is the type I was referring to before.

OK. I can't disagree there, although I'm aware that the charge is normally leveled at all Protestants indiscriminatly.

Most of the mainline Reformation churches seem to have some form of authority to establish what doctrine is to be believed.

Exactly so.

The only knock I can think of (and it is one that the EO use on the RCC) is that this doctrine has not been entirely consistent over centuries.

Well, neither has it been consistent in the Roman Catholic Church, although I agree that that's much less true of the Eastern Orthodox churches. And it's also Roman Catholics who seem to be the ones who most favor this "private interpretation" allegation.

 

[laternonjuror]

Isn't it interesting that at a time when the Catholic Church was being persecuted in Catholic France, the English government started relaxing the ban on the Catholic Church in England.

It would be if it were true!
The Catholic Church has been persecuted in England. It has been persecuted and fleeced of all its wealth and it churches , by the Calvinists in Parliament.They were returned when the protestant state collapsed in on itself. The King, a strong Catholic , was executed for refusing to sign away the faith, & Churches, that had been accumalated over 1600 years. Our Bishops were jailed and priests executed and sent in to indentured service,(slavery).
But you are not talking about the Catholic Church, you, I believe, are referring to the Holy Roman Church, a product of the Council of Trent! A Robber Council.
The responsibility for the treatment of the Roman Church is to be laid at the door of the papacy, in so much that the Roman Pontiff, interfered in English Politics. On the one hand calling for a civil war in England, in an effort to change the dynasty i.e. the monarch, on the other hand calling for an invasion of England, by the Monarchs of Northern Europe.
Calling on those people in England who supported his new Catholic Sect to rise and support the invaders. He caused a schism in the traditional Church in England. Some thirty years later, there was a Plot, that is remembered today, a plot to extirpate the Establishment ,both R.C. and Anglican and fill the new structure with admirers of the Papacy!What was the Government of the time to do, sit on its hands to keep them Warm?
The treatment of the Roman Catholics was justified in that the Bishop of Rome refused to allow his followers to take the Oath of Allegiance! Any Roman who suffered in England suffered for his politics.Blame the papacy! There was no persecution for religion. Except by the protestants (Calvinists in the main.)and it was Anglicans who suffered!

 

[Meowzltov]

But you are not talking about the Catholic Church, you, I believe, are referring to the Holy Roman Church

There you go again...

 

[patricius79]

Maybe it's time we returned to the topic of EOs and RCs using--or not--"private interpretation." My view is that that the comment "private interpretation" is nothing other than an insult, since it is not the case that Protestant churches advocate "private interpretation" any more than Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches do...and also that members of all of these faiths nevertheless do it to some degree, even those who pretend that they do not.

Then why are orthodox Catholic accused of blindly accepting the teaching of the Christian Magisterium?

 

[Meowzltov]

Then why are orthodox Catholic accused of blindly accepting the teaching of the Christian Magisterium?

Now I'm all confused because everyone is using terms in unconventional ways. What do you mean by "orthodox Catholic" and what is the "Christian Magisterium"? Are they any different from a regular Catholic and the regular Magisterium?

 

[patricius79]

You forget, or perhaps ignore the fact, that Augustine as a member of the Council of Carthage helped contradict the popes teaching, ignored his orders and expelled his legate!

Augustine was an Early Father , just! The split in the Holy Catholic Church came in with the departure of the Calvinists and Lutherans. But there was another hiccup, as they do say, with the papacy organising a Coup, at a illegitimate Council ,usually called Trent. This was when the Roman Church turned itself in to a Catholic Sect, by unnaturaly exalting the Bishop of Rome above his place, which was set by the Nicean Council.
Here, the bishops of Northern Europe resigned their Catholic and apostolic duties on to the shoulder of the Bishop of Rome. Thus breaking Holy Tradition by ignoring the Pauline Injunction of neither adding to or diminishing the content of scripture,I.E. paul's injunction to keep the deposit!.

You mentioned Augustine. He said

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18

That doesn't sound like private judgment.

 

[patricius79]

Now I'm all confused because everyone is using terms in unconventional ways. What do you mean by "orthodox Catholic" and what is the "Christian Magisterium"? Are they any different from a regular Catholic and the regular Magisterium?

orthodox Catholic means those Catholics who actually accept Church teaching

Christian Magisterium means Catholic Magisterium

 

[Meowzltov]

orthodox Catholic means those Catholics who actually accept Church teaching

Christian Magisterium means Catholic Magisterium

Thanks!

 

[patricius79]

Thanks!

I realize that a "Catholic" is really a heretic if they knowingly and freely reject any doctrine of the Church.

 

[Meowzltov]

I realize that a "Catholic" is really a heretic if they knowingly and freely reject any doctrine of the Church.

Actually, a Catholic can doubt any teaching of the Church, but as long as they don't publicly proclaim that doubt, they are not a heretic. Trust me. I have wrestled deeply with many doubts and have prayed long and hard and have received a lot of council from my parish priest both inside and outside the confessional. I know exactly where the line is, if I should fall into sin or not.

 

[patricius79]

Actually, a Catholic can doubt any teaching of the Church, but as long as they don't publicly proclaim that doubt, they are not a heretic. Trust me. I have wrestled deeply with many doubts and have prayed long and hard and have received a lot of council from my parish priest both inside and outside the confessional. I know exactly where the line is, if I should fall into sin or not.

Hi OpenHeart,

That's why I said "knowingly and freely". I'm not talking about involuntary doubt, which is not sinful.

 

[laternonjuror]

There you go again...

Dear Lady,
I admire your persistence! But , I must tell you that if it was an embarrassment to admit my church's name, I would have to take some deep thought on the question why?

 

[laternonjuror]

You mentioned Augustine. He said

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18

That doesn't sound like private judgment.

The magisterium is , if I might remind you, Christ's Gospel, or Revelation, entered in to scripture and Interpreted by the Holy Fathers in Council! The Holy Councils are the Seven and of course the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. The whole fabric of the organisation of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic was based on the custome and practice of the Empire. The Bishop of Rome was elevated to the Primacy simply on this practice of what had occured before within the Church and Empire. Both Constantinople (Orthodoxy) and Rome were made thus by the Councils. Much to the chagran of the Bishop of Rome.
Further the Council instructed Church's through their bishops that questions and points of order had to go through the Metropolitans and patriarchs, who would report back. Further any notices sant out and queries had to go from the leadership The early church was a federation of five Patriarchies? Antioch, Alexandria,Ephesus and Rome , with of course Jerusalem, the golden, as the pinnacle!
All Augustine was doing was his job as a bishop directing enquiries to the nearest apostolic see, or the chief honcho of the Suburbicarian Church of Rome!
Remember, as I have already shown Christianity comes from Christ, not the other way around. Don't forget that S.Gregory the Great, claimed that there were three sees of Peter, Antioch Alexandria and Rome! Augustine's relationship with Rome was that of any 20th, Cent, Anglican bishop with Canterbury!

As

 

[Meowzltov]

Dear Lady,
I admire your persistence! But , I must tell you that if it was an embarrassment to admit my church's name, I would have to take some deep thought on the question why?

Now if we can just get you to use the small case c as in catholic so that people don't think you are referring to the Catholic Church in union with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[patricius79]

The magisterium is , if I might remind you, Christ's Gospel, or Revelation, entered in to scripture and Interpreted by the Holy Fathers in Council! The Holy Councils are the Seven and of course the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. The whole fabric of the organisation of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic was based on the custome and practice of the Empire.

Do you have any Church fathers or Scriptures which say that, or are you practicing private judgment?

St. Cyprian had a quarrel with the Papacy, yet he said things like this.:

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance." (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), to Cornelius of Rome)

and:

"There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is One and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another." (Cyprian, Letter 66 (69) to Florentius Pupianus)

This doesn't sound like private judgment either.

 

[Meowzltov]

St. Cyprian had a quarrel with the Papacy, yet he said things like this.:

I am humbled by your knowledge of the ECF.

 

[laternonjuror]

Do you have any Church fathers or Scriptures which say that, or are you practicing private judgment?

St. Cyprian had a quarrel with the Papacy, yet he said things like this.:

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance." (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), to Cornelius of Rome)

and:

"There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is One and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another." (Cyprian, Letter 66 (69) to Florentius Pupianus)
This doesn't sound like private judgment either.

The Bishop of Rome was simply doing his work as a Bishop of a particular church, The Suburbicarian Church of Rome!!! Cyprian was pointing out Catholic practice from the fount of Orthodoxy the Bishops in Council.

 

[Meowzltov]

The Bishop of Rome was simply doing his work as a Bishop of a particular church

When Pope Clement I wrote outside of his bishopric to the church at Corinth, how was that simply doing his work as the Bishop of the diocese of Rome?