An Official Interpretation of Private Interpretation and Other Observations on Blogosphere Lay-Catholicism

In his nuanced exposition of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Dulles, Professor at Fordham University and Professor Emeritus at The Catholic University of America, discusses the inevitable (and appropriate) use of private interpretation after official pronouncements by the Magisterium:

After the Magisterium has spoken, theologians play an indispensable role in giving effect to its pronouncements. Just as they took part in preparing the way for the pronouncements to be made, so too they inform the public about what has been decreed and in doing so interpret the documents. Every papal or conciliar definition or condemnation leaves a certain margin for interpretation, so that private judgment has to complete what public pronouncements left unstated. John Henry Newman insisted on this point in his defense of the Vatican decrees on papal primacy and infallibility. Once a thesis or treatise is censured, he writes, "theologians employ themselves in determining what precisely it is that is condemned in that thesis or treatise; and doubtless in most cases they do so with success, but that demonstration is not de fide." Newman considers this process of theological sifting a necessary safeguard, protecting the faithful against the "fierce and intolerant temper" of those who would brush aside theological distinctions and burden the consciences of the faithful with exorbitant demands. (Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ, Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith [Sapientia Press: Naples, FL, 2007], 42-43)

The significance of the quotation will not be lost on those familiar with lay-Catholic arguments on the subject. As we are often told by various lay-Catholic apologists, the use of private interpretation is unbiblical and leads to doctrinal chaos--a great spiritual evil. However, here we are told by an official representative of Catholicism that private interpretation has its place in rightly handling the public pronouncements of the Magisterium, and that it even plays a positive preventative role--inoculating the faithful against "exorbitant demands." While effective epistemological objections can be raised against the standard lay-Catholic argument above, it seems sufficient to note that the role of private interpretation cannot, on Catholic terms, be unbiblical in an unqualified sense. If Dulles is correct, and we have every reason to believe he is an official representative of Catholicism given his relevant qualifications, then the traditional texts leveled against this Protestant hermeneutical assumption are being interpreted too broadly; they strike at both Protestant and (official, authoritative) Catholic notions of private judgment. The lay-Catholic objection to private interpretation must either be abandoned or qualified. For the latter, however, it is difficult to conceive of a way in which an interpretation of a text like 2 Peter 1:20 could be seen to apply only to Protestant private interpretation, and not to the private interpretation discussed by Dulles.

I recommend Cardinal Dulles' work. Indeed, as a general matter, I think most Protestants interested in Catholicism should spend far less time reading and engaging lay-Catholic apologetic blogs and far more time reading and engaging the official works of the Magisterium and their approved scholars. The lay-Catholic convert industry, of which the lay-Catholic blogosphere is a definitive part, merely represents a conservative sociological trend. As Dulles warns, such movements may or may not properly represent the official teachings of the Magisterium:

The sense of the faithful should be carefully distinguished from public opinion in the Church, which is not a theological source attributable to the Holy Spirit, but merely a sociological fact. Public opinion may be correct, but it often reflects the tendencies of our fallen human nature, the trends of the times, and the pressures of the public media. (Ibid., 45)

Indeed, as more of us have come to see, a study of mainstream and approved Catholic scholarship shows a disparity between blogosphere Catholicism and official Catholicism (e.g. Dulles approvingly cites Raymond Brown, a scholar often dismissed as too "liberal" by conservative lay-Catholic apologists). The post-Vatican II sensibilities of the modern Magisterium cannot be found in the basic fundamentalist and evangelical sensibilities of blogosphere converts to Rome.

Consider as well how the informal hierarchy of the Catholic conversion industry functions. Acceptance into its authoritative ranks differs decidedly from entrance into the authority structure of the official Magisterium. In official Roman Catholicism, authority is transmitted via the appropriate form and application of Apostolic Succession. This naturally leads to the promotion of long-time insiders to the faith. In the conversion industry, authority is a function of the kind of conversion manifested (which necessarily excludes persons with a history of life-long Catholic commitment). The more spectacular, with respect to emotional gravity, and the more dramatic, with respect to prior involvement in Protestantism, the greater the authority of the convert to represent the (singular) core value of the movement. As such, those with a prominent voice in blogosphere Catholicism might very well be (and almost always are) completely unqualified to speak for Catholicism in any official capacity. For all their superficial attempts to cultivate an air of intellectual sophistication, Catholic sites such as Called to Communion represent little more than unauthoritative shrines to a selection of conversion narratives. Fellow converts will undoubtedly find such self-centered glorification of the cult of celebrity emotionally satisfying, as, by all accounts, they have imported and applied their evangelical altar-call sensibilities to their new faith community. But for those of us attempting to understand and engage official Roman Catholic belief and practice, nothing seems as fruitless as studying such narratives and interacting with their authors. In terms of official doctrine, they have no more standing than any other set of lay-Catholic opinions.

The natural outgrowth of such circumstances is, of course, the multiplication of situations like the one sketched above--where a popular lay-Catholic apologetic is found to be incompatible with official Roman Catholic teaching. Beyond responding to its effects on unwitting Protestants, there seems to be no value in rigorously engaging a movement that produces such arguments, since faithful adherence to the denomination it promotes would inevitably result in jettisoning many of the very arguments used to arrive at it in the first place.

Berkhof on the community-oriented interpretation of Scripture

Roman Catholic lay-apologists enjoy characterizing Protestant Bible interpretation as an event in which an individual runs into a closet, closes the door and reads the text for himself, coming to whatever conclusions he pleases, without consulting any relevant commentary or individuals in his Christian community, let alone the Church in its authoritative teaching capacity. This, it is said, is what generates the endless multitude of denominations within Christianity, as every Protestant acts as his own little Pope.

What I don't understand about this characterization is how it applies to Reformed Protestantism. Since when have the Reformed been known for promoting an individualistic interpretation of the Bible, the kind practiced by various fundamentalists with strong Anabaptist tendencies? Consider how the highly influential Louis Berkhof describes the formulation of dogma (emphasis mine):

The Church does not find her dogmas in the finished form on the pages of Holy Writ, but obtains them by reflecting on the truths revealed in the Word of God...it is not merely the individual Christian, but rather the Church of God as a whole, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that is the subject of this reflective activity. The spiritual man is the only one that is fit for this work, and even he can obtain a proper and adequate understanding of the truth in all its relations, and in all its fulness [sic] and grandeur, only in communion and in cooperation with all the saints...The formation of dogmas is not always a short process, nor is it a simple one. Its course is frequently determined more or less by long-drawn controversies. These are not always edifying, since they often generate a scorching heat and frequently lead to unholy antagonisms. At the same time they are of the greatest importance, and serve to focus the attention sharply on the question in debate, to clarify the issue at stake, to bring the different aspects of the problem into the open, and to point the way to the proper solution. The Church is largely indebted to the great doctrinal controversies of the past for its progress in the understanding of the truth.¹

Note that these profitable controversies could never, of course, occur in the mind of one individual sitting alone in a closet with his Bible. And Berkhof continues after this point to discuss the role of the Church in formally accepting the formulation of dogma, again rejecting the idea of supremely individualistic interpretations of Scripture holding any sort of higher or final interpretive weight.

Roman Catholic lay-apologists should appropriately characterize the Reformed approach to Biblical interpretation by treating it as fundamentally distinct from other groups with certain Anabaptist tendencies. Perhaps then their appeals to unity arguments can be reworked and taken as credible objections to the Reformation and its principles.

_____________________________

1. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, New Combined Edition (Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1996), 23.

Paul Hoffer all over the map

Paul Hoffer has been doing yeoman's work in a recent thread about whether Mary sinned in "anxiously" looking for the boy Jesus in Jerusalem, in Luke 2.  He is an attorney, so we'd hope that he'd be versed in the art of consistent argumentation.  Unfortunately, if these comments are any indication, he's among the 99% of attorneys that give the other 1% a bad name...

Let's start, though, in the middle of Paul Hoffer's first comment to me, where he said something very interesting:

can you point me to the official binding Calvinist interpretative authority that interprets Scripture to mean what you think it does?

Unfortunately for PH, this question is meaningless and has been dealt with dozens of times on this blog alone.
So let's ask PH:  Can you point me to the official binding Magisterial interpretative authority that interprets Scripture to mean what you think it does? 
Let's see how many times he does so.  Or does he just give us a bunch of personal, private, fallible interpretations of biblical passages and "Magisterial documents", and does he ever give us an infallible means of knowing whether these "Magisterial" statements are infallible?  Let's find out.



Apologetics is the responsibility of all Christians.

How does he know that?  Did the Mag infallibly state such? If he appeals to a verse like 1 Peter 3:15, can he give an infallible Mag interp of it?
If not, how does he know any of this?



The Magisterium is only an office within the Church that has limited parameters and specific responsibilities.

How does he know that?  Did the Mag infallibly state such?
How does he know the Mag won't in the future correct him?



Or are there times when one only needs a mechanic or could roll up one’s sleeves and change the oil himself.

Bad analogy.  What I hear from RCs all the time is that I need infallibility to be sure of things theological, that as a fallible individual, I have no hope to escape the chaotic quagmire of Protestantism.  But when convenient, apparently PH doesn't (edit: toe) that line.


I certainly can repeat what the Magisterium does teach

How does PH know that?  Did the Mag infallibly state such?

Yahweh says no need for a Magisterium

Here's a clear allusion from the Old Testament -- God's own testimony about the perspicuity of Scripture.

There is a clear allusion in this one passage (a) that the Lord formed the Church, and (b) that His Word is open and understandable. The proximity of these two elements is a clear rebuke to those who say that God's word is not clear, and that somehow a Magisterium is needed to interpret it:

"I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I did not speak in secret,
in a land of darkness;
I did not say to the offspring of Jacob,
'Seek me in vain.'
I the LORD speak the truth;
I declare what is right.

"Assemble yourselves and come;
draw near together,
you survivors of the nations!
They have no knowledge
who carry about their wooden idols,
and keep on praying to a god
that cannot save.
Declare and present your case;
let them take counsel together!
Who told this long ago?
Who declared it of old?
Was it not I, the LORD?
And there is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none besides me.

"Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn;
from my mouth has gone out in righteousness
a word that shall not return:
'To me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear allegiance.'

"Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me,
are righteousness and strength;
to him shall come and be ashamed
all who were incensed against him.
In the LORD all the offspring of Israel
shall be justified and shall glory."

(From Isaiah 45:18-25)

Note what commentator J. Alec Motyer says: "the world vision of verses 14–17 is to be understood in the light of revelation. In quiet rebuke of the allegation (Is. 45:15) that he 'hides himself', the Lord asserts that he never spoke in secret (lit. 'under cover'): his word was openly available; nor in a land of darkness where one might lose one's way: his word was intrinsically plain and straightforward; and it led them straight to himself: his word was not in vain, [it was] solid ground not shifting sand. What he said was truth and right: the former is 'righteousness', conformity to the absolute norm of divine truth; the latter is 'plain, straightforward', without deviance or duplicity.

(from J. Alec Motyer, "Isaiah," Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 290-291)

God’s word does not need a Magisterium to interpret it. He does not speak “under cover”. His word was intrinsically plain and straightforward; it leads straight to himself.

Ratzinger on Luther, the Church Fathers, & Allegory

I found this tidbit from the Catholic Answers Forum (give credit where credit is due). Cardinal Ratzinger discussed briefly Luther's attitude toward the church fathers and allegory in his book, Principles of Catholic Theology (pp. 141-142):

The quote is said to come from Luther's Sermons on the Second Book of Moses (Alleg. I, Wittenberger Ausgabe, 16.67). I don't doubt the validity of the quote being used (which was taken by Ratzinger from a secondary source. Luther preached on Exodus in 1524, and I think the reference is to a sermon on Exodus 1). While Luther said both positive and negative things about the church fathers throughout his career, this description of Luther's view is accurate.

As to discrediting the fathers because of their use of allegory, Luther likewise would often provide an allegorical interpretation of a passage of Scripture. Examples of this can be found in his sermons. I can recall my surprise reading a sermon from Luther's Church Postil and coming upon a section entitled, "The spiritual interpretation of this gospel." It wasn't that allegory automatically discredited the church fathers. Using allegorical interpretations as primary proofs was the issue. Luther complained that the papists and fanatics did this. Luther also fought against allegorizing as an accepted and recommended method of biblical interpretation prevalent in his day and previously. The primary proofs of the faith must be based on the clear exposition of scripture. Luther goes on in the very sermon Ratizinger cited to say of allegorical interpretation:

I too know well that hidden meanings do not have convincing power and should not be the ground on which we base ourselves. For we should and must rely on the clear, express, and plain word of God, such as that referring us to faith in Christ and love toward our neighbor. Thus one is saved. Other teachings and allegories you disregard. Such is also the allegory of St. Paul concerning Abraham, according to which his two sons signify the two testaments. For if this allegory were not grounded on this passage in Paul, my heart would doubt and constantly ask how I may be sure of it. For one would say: Who knows whether it be so? The heart must doubt in that case and cannot be sure. It dare not rest or rely on allegories. I must have the plain text and page of Holy Scripture (WA 16:72 cited in What Luther Says, 1:100-101).

Ratzinger then goes to make quite an interesting claim a short while later on the use of the church fathers as biblical interpreters and his earlier summation of Luther's view, that Luther's "historical instinct is clearly proving itself right" and also that "there is nothing to be proved or disproved" by referring to their interpretations of Scripture:

Circle the wagons!

In order...

Me: Why is that reasonable? Isn't it the RC position that you have all this unity and the truth on your organisation's side?

David Waltz: The Church on Earth has wheat and tares.

Me: Christ's parable of wheat and tares refers not to the church but to the world.

Matthew Bellisario: Really? Where did you get your definitive interpretation from? ... Where did God tell you that this passage only refers to the world Rhology (sic)? Sources please.

Matthew the Evangelist: Matthew 13:24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 “But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26 “But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27 “The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 “And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29 “But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 ‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.” 37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40 “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41 “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 “Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Matthew Bellisario: Rhology, once again we can why you are a Protestant. It is because you are truly ignorant of the Scriptures. It is plain to see that you don't understand the many levels of Sacred Scripture. Do you not understand symbolic interpretation?

Matthew Bellisario: The fact is, this Scripture can be interpreted symbolically as referring to the Church.

Matthew Bellisario: Come on Rhology, yes or no? Can the passage be interpreted symbolically as referring to the Church?

Matthew Bellisario: So Rhology, is your interpretation of this passage infallible? There is the one interpretation that you subscribe to, and all others are wrong, correct? Calvin was wrong, St. Augustine was wrong, St. Jerome was wrong, St. Chrysostom was wrong? Their interpretations were not infallible, but yours is, correct?


The entire thread that begins with this interaction is a carnival of buffoonery. As if "the field is the world" is not itself a symbolic interpretation! Disappointingly, David Waltz has joined in the cacophony, but didn't even bother to include the Matthew 13 text.
I just reproduced some of this to show the circle-the-wagons-at-all-cost mentality of some our RC friends. If they were interested in honestly defending their position from the thrust of my original statement, there are other biblical psgs they could try to use. Their parade of mockery and missing the point shows their motivations are less than above board.

Seen Scott Windsor's imprimatur?

Scott Windsor has responded to some of our recent interactions on his blog, in two parts. I'll address this first part here and then go on to the other post later.

It was YOU who referred to the Eph. 2 post

Yes, that's what's commonly called an "example". An "illustration". I apologise for using a concept that's apparently unfamiliar to you.
My question related to that post was very, very specific. You then responded to the Eph 2 post itself, which is not what I asked about. That is what I mean by your failure to follow the line of argumentation, and then you project your failure onto me and accuse me of shotgunning and partaking with Satan. Again, knock yourself out.


Since when does a "boldfaced word" indicate an internal critique? Boldfaced words mean emphasis.

Sigh. The bold word indicates a critique. If you weren't so busy acting offended, you might remember that I've already explained this to you.
-Here's the original comment from me.
-Mr Windsor's is right after, where he says: "Your use of "Romanist" in a truly bigoted fashion (related to another thread going on here and on my blog too as well as White's) is noted...but even make sure we take note by using bold text?"
-My next comment explains: "I put "from Romanists" in bold b/c I was trying to help you understand what I'd said. It appeared you hadn't followed that I was noting an inconsistency between what you'd said and what *other* ppl have said many times in the past."
-Mr Windsor ignores my explanation and offers this: "For example, if I were using a term like "Prottie" here - and someone expressed to ME that it was a bit of a bigoted term - I would respect them and refrain from further use - I would not go on and not only use it, but bold face it as well!"
-I responded in the next comment: "And again (see how boldface imparts emphasis?), I bolded "Romanist" to try to be helpful and direct attention to my meaning." And then I even explained it AGAIN: "Thus you are showing that you care not for the argument that *OTHER PEOPLE* have often made *IN THE PAST* here on this blog, that private, individual interpretation is useless. That is the extent of my point here."
-Mr Windsor seems finally to get it: "I can't speak for "*OTHER PEOPLE*" - but as for me, the only times I would have to be concerned about "private interpretation" is if I am interpreting something contrary to an already defined teaching"

If only you'd kept right on that train of thought, but no, it's apparently more amusing to vilify me. Whatever, have fun with that.



As I pointed out, there were at least 5 different topics among those 8 questions.

Yes, b/c YOU RESPONDED TO THE EPH 2 POST, Mr Windsor. Sauce for the goose and all that.
And there aren't 5 diff topics. They're all directed at taking your comment that "works" in Eph 2 refers to "works of the OT Law", so I was asking you if you attempt to fulfill the OT Law since Eph 2:10 says we're created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Since "works" = "works of the OT Law", it should be obvious to any reader that, if you believe that, you'd better get right on top of obeying the OT Law!
I note in passing that you've never put fwd any answer beyond "Christ fulfilled the OT Law for us"...as if you completely forgot the original context of the question - Eph 2. It's yet another thread of the argument you've lost track of, but I'll look at your other post on that topic.


Question 4 was asking about my sons (a personal question).

Seriously? Asking whether you fulfilled the circumcision commandments in the OT Law for your sons is "a personal question"?


5) Question 7 asked about graven images...which is wholly a different subject

Oh, the OT Law doesn't deal with graven images? Not even in, say, the 10 Commandments? Like the 2nd one?
Deut 7:5, 25, 12:3 29:17; Num 33:52; Lev 26:30? Aren't those psgs in the OT Law too?


Vague references to entire postings or entire threads of discussion don't cut it as documentation.

I told you where to see a couple of examples. You know, as an apologist you're not all that helpful. Don't you ever answer hypotheticals? It's not like it's not a specific hypothetical.


It sure sounds like St. Jerome was unilaterally acting in the quote you provided. Did he consult the elders of that congregation before acting? Or, did he just walk in and start ripping things down? Did he consult with the local bishop? Did he consult with ANYONE?

(You're shotgunning again, I note. I brought this up as an EXAMPLE, and you're taking it far afield, if we go by your own standard.)
Why would he consult the elders of a wrongdoing congregation?
Maybe he was very, very certain that such a thing was wrong and acted to communicate its wrongness to that church? Maybe he had consulted with the bishop. And wait a sec, why would he need to consult with the local bishop? I thought Christians and especially bishops throughout history have been in agreement about such important things as images. No doubt he agreed with you and knew his own bishop said images in church are a no-go, and thus figured the local bishop would agree, since bishops in Christ's church bind and loose and all that and have all that unity you like to talk about so often.


There may be some around, but I don't "use them" in "worship."

Let the reader judge whether the actions performed by RCs before their images is "using them" in "worship".

One can find SOME of the defined teachings of the RCC in many places. Others are said to be defined but are not. Some, it would be nice if they were, but they're not, such as an infallible list of infall teachings, a list of the infallibly-interpreted Scr psgs, etc.
But for the 3rd time, you say on the one hand that it's the reader's responsibility to figure it out, and on the other decry this individual interpretation if it differs from the RCC's teachings. How can we know who's right here?
IOW, you're asking me to act like a Protestant. It's really weird.
How about you actually exercise some of this humility you claim and submit ALL your work to the Magisterium for the imprimatur? What's so wrong with that request?


Catholic apologists are used to help explain what the Magisterium ...REALLY teaches as opposed to anti-Catholic propaganda. (source)

And why precisely can't the Magisterium take care of that? The Pope? Is he too busy making official visits to Hugo Chávez and kissing Qur'ans to pitch in?

Anyway, the main point of this whole thing is that Mr Windsor apparently wants everyone to take his word for it on the question of whether he's submitted to the Magisterium. "Oh don't worry," he says, "I've written to my bishop, and in the past I've had good success getting a response." That's nice, and I'm sure such responses from men who wear such elaborate vestments and who hide and transfer pædophiles and can't decide what to do with obviously pro-baby-murder politicians among their constituents impart warm fuzzies, but from someone who's a little closer to the big-time than an anonymous race-baiting RC commenter like, say, Dozie, I'd like more than his assurance. I mean, I'm supposed to let RCC's dogmatic proclamations bind my conscience on pain of mortal sin (or, on pain of somehow wriggling out from under the virtual panacæa of the concept of "invincible ignorance"), but if Mr Windsor relies on his private interpretation to find out whether his own teachings are thus bound, I feel less motivated to do anything more than that.

Scott Windsor is cool with private interpretation. Why aren't you?

Mr Windsor, thanks for the time!
I just used the Eph 2 post as an example of what I was trying to bring out back at the Beggars All combox. Just to rundown for those who might not have read all that interaction...

Over here at BA, we make various arguments from the Bible against RC dogma. RCs come along and comment, and one of their principal arguments against our position is "That's just your private interpretation. We have an infallible interpreter, and so we can be sure that what the Magisterium says is the valid interp of the Bible, since she is the church founded by Christ and the gates of Hell won't prevail against her. Since you just have your private fallible interpretation, I don't need to pay attention to your contentions".
He was honest enough to admit, in the 02Nov post, that his apologetic blogging is not submitted to the RCC either (but that he will heretofore make his priest aware of it). I thanked him for his honesty and pointed out that the logical outworking of this fact is that he does not consider this common argument made by other RCs at various times in the past (I am unaware whether Mr Windsor has ever used this ridiculous argument) to be a valid one. I used the Eph 2 post as an example of that, asking Mr Windsor whether he would use that argument to overturn what I'd said in the 2007 post on Eph 2. It looks like the answer is mostly no, but I am a bit quizzical on Mr Windsor's request for specifics (see the end of his post).
Have you really never seen that argument used before? Not even once? Never listened to, for example, any of the many debates that James White has done with RCs over the years, wherein the RC apologists use that argument over and over?
Take a couple of examples, and please know that I am trying to be very specific in my question. I don't want to get into an extended debate on the subject matter itself, but rather on the principle of "he was only speaking as a private theologian/individual, not for the entire Church" nonsense.

"Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort--opposed as they are to our religion--shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge." - Epiphanius (Jerome's Letter 51:9)

"Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under the episcopate of Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 1:25:6)

"These men [heretics], moreover, practise magic; and use images, incantations, invocations, and every other kind of curious art." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 1:24:5)

"the law itself exhibits justice, and teaches wisdom, by abstinence from sensible images" - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 2:18)
"familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonour it by sense." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 5:5)
"Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:5)

We cite these as evidence against the RC contention that the church has been RCC throughout history. RCs most typically respond with "he was just speaking as a private theologian". Do you consider that a valid response? If so, why, since the question is what the Church has believed throughout history, and isn't that response simple special pleading? If not, can you explain the disunity and fragmentation that this disagreement displays in the ranks of RCC?


Now, on the other topic, your response to my contention with respect to Eph 2, since Paul goes on to mention circumcision, that means that v 10 - "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" is a command to perform the works of the Law, correct? Why does not the RCC do so, then? When was the last time you offered a grain offering? Were your sons (if you have any) circumcised on the 8th day? How have you solved the problem that has long vexed the Jewish people, that you don't have a Temple in which to perform the sacrifices? Why isn't Yom Kippur a big, big deal on the RC calendar? Why is it OK (a propos) to bow down to graven images now even though Joshua wouldn't've permitted Jews to bow down to images of the dead (but no doubt sainted) Moses?
And could you please answer another of the original challenges? - our RC friends are saying that justification is at least PARTLY due to works, ie, justification is not by faith alone, in light of your statement No Catholic argues that works of the Law justify. It sounds like you are saying precisely that. Clarification would be appreciated.

In Dialogue

I've been visiting my old cyber-home, the CARM boards this summer. Here's a snippet from a recent dialog. The aspect of the discussion I was involved with was on perpetual virginity and quotes from the Reformers.

Dbechtel78: Catholics do exaggerate the importance of Luther and oft perpetuate myths about him. However protestants do the same Mr. Swan and you know that- perpetuating myths and exaggerations about the crusades and Inquisition, etc.

Argument analysis: justification for Catholic misinformation. Simply because group x incorrectly does y, does not give group z the justification to incorrectly do y as well.

Dbechtel78:However the reason we often point to Luther and make such a big deal out of him is that he was the champion of Sola Scriptura. Even IF it could be shown that the Church was always "Sola Scriptura" nowhere in history do we see someone like Luther champion the Bible and "Sola Scriptura" the way he does. You have to admit the Reformation slogan of "Sola Scriptura" changed Christendom forever.

Luther is one of a number of people throughout history that have held Scripture as the sole infallible rule for the church. This does not deny that there are other authorities over the life of a Christian, but it does deny that there are other infallible authorities over the life of a Christian. All authorities less-than-God are subject to the sole infallible rule. See William Webster and David King's, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume III- The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura (WA: Christian Resources, 2001). There are numerous people throughout history that look to Scripture as the sole infallible rule, and likewise recognize lesser authorities governing the life of the church. See some examples, here.

Dbechtel78:Our point then in bringing up Luther or Calvin is to try and show that these very same people who championed "Sola Scriptura" believed the Bible taught some unique Catholic things- the PV of Mary for example.

It is quite within the realm of possibility that Luther could be wrong on a Biblical interpretation. This in no way proves the failure of sola scriptura, nor the correctness of Perpetual Virginity.

Dbechtel78:In fact (with the exception of Calvin all of the reformers clearly believed the PV of Mary. Calvin is as I said unclear on his stance. At minimum what we do know about Calvin is that he believed certain verses in the Bible cannot be used to DENY the PV of Mary.) So Catholics wonder how it is that the very people who championed Sola Scriptura can believe so differently from the likes of protestants today? How is it Luther can find in Scripture the PV of Mary but you can't Mr Swan?

I base my understanding on Biblical exegesis, which has grown deeper and better since the 16th Century. Our abilities to study the Biblical languages far surpass any time that has come before (with the exception of the century in which the Biblical documents were penned). A Christian who adheres to the Scripture as the sole infallible authority will continually study the Scripture, and be humble enough to abandon non-Biblical tradition, and strive towards understanding the Scriptures coherently and consistently.

Dbechtel78:How is it Calvin can find Double Predestination in Scripture but Luther could not?

Well, I would suggest reading Luther's Bondage of the Will. I don't find too much different- however, they had a different way of explaining what they meant.

Dbechtel78:How is it sir that Luther could find in Scripture a very different (almost Catholic understanding) of the Last Supper then you and the other Calvinists?

I've read that Luther found Calvin's understanding of the Lord's Supper plausible, and said positive things about it. He recognized it to be quite different than what Zwingli was saying. Keep in mind as well, Catholics throughout history were not even completely united on the number of sacraments, let alone what they meant.

Luther, like all of us, was plagued with tradition. All of us have tradition. It is not surprising to me Luther retained many wrong traditions or interpretations. Simply because he was crucial in peeling off many layers of incorrect tradition from the church, doesn't mean he peeled them all off.

Dbechtel78:Catholics wonder at this rate how can the truth be known with certainty when it seems the Church is always moving from error to error, rather then from darkness into light?

Catholic interpretive "certainty" of the Bible is a myth. I wouldn't claim "certainty" if I were you, because Catholics don't have any infallible pronouncements on Predestination, nor was there complete Romanist unity throughout church history on the Lord's Supper. You can't logically criticize another position if yours falls from the same criticism.

Dbechtel78:Again sir, what is the truth? Where is the truth? Again, to point to Scripture and say "That is the truth" really doesn't solve anything does it? The arguments will go on and the Christian is left to judge for themselves what the truth is.

Again, apply your own standards to your own position before claiming to have "truth." Romanists do not have perfect unanimity now, or then, on important issues. Any study of church history both then and now clearly shows this. Catholics aren't even united on what the word "Tradition" means, and this is supposed to be an infallible authority!

Eric Svendsen has pointed out, variations among belief in a religious system among its advocates either invalidates that system or does not:

“One cannot…argue that his religious system is more legitimate on the basis that there is less disagreement within it than within other systems of belief. It is an all-or-nothing proposition. Either disagreements nullify a system, or they do not. Otherwise, the best one can argue is that his religious system more nearly conforms to a set standard of unity, but does not actually meet that standard. It is also important to keep in mind that the ‘diversity of belief’ argument is one that was invented by Roman Catholic Apologists….Any system that argues for an arbitrary criterion for being the ‘true’ church must itself conform to that criterion.” [Source: Eric Svendsen, Upon This Slippery Rock, 23].

The example Svendsen uses to dismantle Rome’s claim for absolute unity is the Vatican II document, Dei Verbum. He goes right to an extremely pertinent issue for anyone claiming the name “Christian”: the authority of Scripture. Dei Verbum states:

107. The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore ALL that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." [Vatican II DV 11]

Svendsen points out that this statement itself is prone to multiple interpretations with the Roman community. Conservative Roman Catholic apologists see this as a clear statement that the entirety of Scripture is without error. Some Roman Catholic scholars though (like R.A.F. MacKenzie and Raymond Brown) see the phrase “for the sake of our salvation” as limiting inerrancy to only those sections of Scripture that teach about salvation.

Svendsen notes, “No one can tell us what the ‘official’ Roman Catholic teaching is on this issue, and Rome’s ‘infallible interpreter’ is of absolutely no advantage to the Roman Catholic apologist, for he has remained silent on the matter." [Source: Eric Svendsen, Upon This Slippery Rock, 24]. Thus, the actual teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are prone to interpretation. The Catholic apologist must use his own private interpretation to determine what the meaning of Roman Catholic teaching is. The conservative and liberal Roman Catholic can read the same document and come to two differing opinions.

So on a fundamental issue- what are, or are not, the very Words of God, Catholics are not unified. Svendsen also points out that these important issues likewise do not have an "official" clarification, thus granting divergent opinion:

- Predestination

- The Literal vs. Mythical interpretation of the creation account in Genesis

- The validity of the new mass

Dbechtel78:Now you would most likely at this point say something like "Oh Yeah? Well Rome hasn't offered a better solution, so there."

What I'm saying is for your argumentation to be sound, it shouldn't refute your own position. This is one of Rome's biggest problems. It can attack sola scriptura, but it can't offer anything consistent in its place. Romanists hope that if they cause enough doubt in the sola scriptura paradigm, that is enough to bring someone "home to Rome." what Romanists typically never do, is apply the same standards to their own position they attack Protestants with. I'm sorry- this is bogus argumentation that Catholic apologists put forth.

Dbechtel78:Whether "Rome" has offered a better solution is not the question right now. The question concerns protestantism and its nature.

If I outlined the actual position on sola scriptura, it is the better solution. An informed Protestant can outline a positive case for sola scriptura, defend it, and then tear Rome's authority claims to shreds. Rome cannot do likewise. They can only tear down, but not consistently apply the same standards to their own position. I think on a fundamental level, you misunderstand sola scriptura. If you did understand it, the majority of what you stated would not have been written.


*******************************
A few days later, this counter response was put forth. I did not bother to respond:

Mr. Swan- if all you have ever read is the standard Catholic apologetics such as those put out by Catholic Answers and such I can see why you would think this is good argumentation. If all I ever read was the stuff they put out, I would agree with you.

Fortunately I have read more then Catholic Answers, and so let me just say your argumentation is flawed becasue it makes a number of misunderstandings, misapplications, misrepresentations, miscontructions, and the like. I will cite just one, though there are many: You complain there is no list of infallible interpretations of any Bible verses offered by "Rome." This presupposes "Rome" (whatever that means- I guess by "Rome" you mean "The pope.") is supposed to offer us such a list. Mr Swan, you confuse papalism (which "Rome" rejects) with the papacy which the Universal Church (excuse me sir, the "Romanist" or "Roman Catholic" Church) accepts, teaches, and believes, hence is also taught by "Rome." Furthermore even if there was such a list offered by "Rome" what good would that do? All it would do is push the problem back- becasue now the Catholic has to make a fallible interpretation of the infallible list! Even more problematic is the fact that "Rome" would then have to issue a list of infallible interpretations of their infallible list to clear up the mud- but it wouldn't. It would just create more mud and more lists! (and I am certain you would be happy to point that out if I provided such a list. Hence even if I produced a list for you, I couldn't win could I?) No, sir, again, you fail to understand the nature of the Church's mission, and the nature and purpose of its heirarchy. In any case sir you might want to read up on Catholocism. Catholic Answers serves a useful purpose and does quite well, but you must understand their mission is to the average Joe Catholic or Joe Protestant. Not the likes of scholars.

"they mean at least this much."

I ventured over to a discussion board (something I haven't done in a while), and noticed the following question:

"What is the official RCC teaching on the verses I bolded? Can you show me something from an official catholic document."

This is asking for something Roman apologists cannot give you. Just this month, Jimmy Akin, one of the main hosts of Catholic Answers admitted the Roman Church can't give you an infallible, official interpretation of exactly what any particular Bible verse means. The Roman Church, according to Akin, can only tell you, in some instances a Bible verse "mean[s] at least this much."The clip can be found here , or in the imbedded audio player below:

The glory and the relief of the way we interpret Scripture

The often wacky, sometimes insulting Lucian has commented on my blog, wondering about the many strains of interpretive tradition present in the life of Eastern Orthodoxy. Is it best to interpret the Scripture literally, he asks?


Among his propositions are to take Ezekiel 44:2 and apply it to the perpetual virginity of the BVMary.

Or to take the 4 rivers of the Paradise of Eden. In the literal interpretation, they are the four earthly rivers of Tigris, Euphrates, Pison and Gihon. On a more spiritual level, exemplified by the Exegetical School of Alexandria, the four rivers of Paradise are -let's say- the four cardinal virtues, which water our hearts.
And yet, on a still DEEPER, and, this time, Christological level, exemplified now by the Exegetical School at Antioch, the four rivers of the Paradise are the Four Gospels, which, -again-, water our hearts through the Holy Spirit that enbreathes them.

I, OTOH, am proposing the grammatico-historical method. The GHM employs the grammar, vocabulary, and context of the author, the historical context, the context of the passage in question, the context of the book, and the context of the rest of the Bible to determine authorial intent of the passage in question. That's the GHM in a nutshell. What the author intended is the correct interpretation.

This is, by the way, the method that anyone uses virtually all of the time while reading virtually anything. And of course authorial intent is what we want to discover since we believe that the Scripture is God speaking. Thus, obviously, we want to know what God said and less what man said about what God said, even though that has its (far subordinate) place.

Now, what does that mean for us in the examples Lucian brought up? Alot. The really fun thing is that EOx are often quick, as I mentioned, to question what a SS-ist might say in regard to, say, justification by faith alone. "That's just your individual, private interpretation! Your interp must agree with what The Church® says!"

A few points on that, by way of reminder:
1) How would I know I'm supposed to submit to what The Church® says except the Scr allegedly instructs me to do so? But of course that would be an individual private interpretation of the allegedly-supportive passages. Either that or I a priori accept The Church as infallible interper and then see that it teaches that these Scr psgs direct the reader to submit to The Church as infall interper. Problem solved either way, right?
2) Of course, I can't infallibly know what the infall interper says, b/c I'd be exercising private individual interp of what the infall interper said. I need an infall interper of the infall interper.
3) And then of course I'd need an infall interper of the infall interper of the infall interper of the Scr.
4) And then I'd need an infall interper of the infall interper of the infall interper of the infall interper of the Scr.
5) Another problem is that there is not necessarily any reason within EOdox Tradition to take the psgs that allegedly direct me to submit to the EOC as infall interper as a command. Rather, as demonstrated here by Lucian, there are a few possibilities:
a. I could go off into flights of allegorical fancy. No, Peter is not LITERALLY given the keys to the kingdom of heaven in Matt 16. Jesus changes Peter's name from bending reed (Simon) to Peter (rock), symbolising how the Jewish people would become no longer pliable to what the Lord said back in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra, and now they would be hardened in heart against the Messiah, and they would open the door to heaven for the Gentiles to come in.
b. I could easily, in my flight of fancy, contradict EO Tradition.
c. There's no good mechanism (beyond I said so b/c my bishop said so b/c The Church® said so) to distinguish between what is true and what is false in this tremendously wide scope of possibility of interpretations.
d. Why can't I just allegorise the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ as well? Don't talk to me about context or 1 Corinthians 15. No, I'm spiritualising the text here. (Do I sound like John Shelby Spong yet?)

Or we could stick to the GHM and let the text speak for itself. The danger is, of course, to run the risk of private interps and unsupported, sinful ideas being taken and run with by someone, possibly leading people away with him. But I'd ask: How is that different than what we've seen here? Isn't Sacred Tradition just a chrismated bundle of private interps that somehow the amorphous, vague mass The Church® has "stated" that it will accept as part of its teaching? At least in this way, errors can be corrected from becoming fossilised and ingrained into the life of the church, never to be correctable again. Especially not by someone's "private interp."

Infallible Pronouncements Based On Possible fallible Proofs: The Folly Of Rome's Claim For Certainty

I began a CARM discussion based on my previous blog entry. In that entry, I pointed out that the certainty Roman Catholics have is not in the text of Scripture, but in the doctrines infallibly declared by the Roman Catholic Church. My understanding is that the Roman Catholic Church says that a doctrine can be defined, but the scriptural proofs used to support it utilized by the Church’s theologians might not actually support it. In other words, one can have certainty for a doctrine, but not have certainty in the scriptural proof texts for that doctrine. The infallibleness is in the decree, not in the reasoning to that decree.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states,

“…the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.”

Also note this statement from Roman Catholic theologian, Johann Mohler:

“Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined.” [Source: Johann Adam Mohler, Symbolism: Exposition of the doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolic Writings, trans James Burton Robertson (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1997), p.296. I cited this quote from David T. King, Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar Of Our Faith Volume 1 (WA: Christian Resources Inc, 2001), 224].

Most of the Catholic responses in the CARM thread were rabbit trails. Only one response so far, has attempted to delve into this issue. A response from “STJ” said:

“I would like to comment on your opener from an oblique angle. Every criticism that you might wish to raise against an infallibly defined doctrine or the idea of infallibility faces difficulty for your position. Every on fire protestant that I know claims to speak infallibly although they deny it. When one claims with certainty the doctrines of "sola scriptura" and "sola fide" they are operating as if these are infallibly defined. The scriptural planks underlying these two non-Catholic doctrines are subject to the same criticisms that you level against the Catholic Church in how she arrives at an infallible doctrine. There exists substantial dispute as to whether or not scripture supports these two vital planks of Protestantism.

Protestants agree with Catholics and for the most part rightly proclaim the Trinity. They do this as if the Trinity is infallibly defined and are rightly horrified at JW's and Mormons for denying it. If this doctrine has no doubt or question about it and if denying it is truly heretical then it must have been infallibly defined. If not it was simply arrived at by consensus. Consensus is not how such doctrines are defined and scripture does not make such things perfectly clear. JW's, Mormons, and others that use the Christian scriptures are proof that doctrines are not arrived at by consensus. Moreover, the pluralistic views of Protestants are also evidence that doctrinal protections and definitions are not achieved by consensus.”

I find these comments an exercise in evasiveness. What is the defense of a dogmatic infallible conclusion substantiated by possible fallible logic? I’ve been reading and hearing for years about the “certainty” that Roman Catholics have, yet when scrutinized, it really boils down to nothing more than a façade. One should be willing to take a very close look at one’s beliefs before diverting the discussion another way. In other words, before evaluating my beliefs, defend yours.

How is it possible to have certain conclusions with uncertain facts substantiating the conclusion? Why do you accept this? Did you use your own private judgment to determine that conclusions can be infallible while the proofs don't need to be? Or do you have an infallible ability to determine this? How is it you are able to use your fallible judgment and determine that Rome is true, while I’m in error for placing my fallible judgment in the words of Scripture?

The fallible/infallible game goes on and on in discussions like this. Ultimately, Catholics have to admit they use fallible judgment all the time, and do so especially when they place their faith in the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, you can't on any reasonable ground criticize protestants by using a paradigm of fallible/infallible, when Catholics, unless they claim to be Pope and have the gift of infallibility, also use their own private judgment in determining truth.

What divides us is this: Catholics have decided to trust in Jesus according to Rome, I have decided to trust in Jesus according to the Bible. Recall, Jesus says, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Jesus continually challenged the Jews to reexamine their beliefs and traditions by examining the Scriptures. He says often, “Have you not read…” Recall John's words about his Gospel: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." Are John's words so confusing that they can't be understood? Do I need an infallible pronouncement on this verse to explain it to me?