EXCHANGE WITH AN ANTI-CATHOLIC APOLOGIST ON THE BIBLE AND PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, Part 3

The prophet Isaiah proclaimed and wrote the oracle of God without Private Interpretation

Gerry Soliman said...

Good evening Fr. Abe.

[His book on Mariology is about to be published also and we are looking forward to it.]

Really? I'm sure that would be an interesting book to read. I want to get a copy, so if it is not too much to ask kindly make an announcement if it is available. Thanks.

[A Christian apologist must proclaim his faith. That is his duty. We are not commanded by Jesus to simply critique others’ faith but to shout our faith on the rooftop.]

Ha ha ha, and to solve that I will just put my articles of faith in my blog. Thanks for reminding me.

[Also, will you please be so kind to provide your own answers to your questions after I have given mine. As you can see Gerry, I am not treating you the way I treat the anonymous defenders of INC or ADD or Born Again. I respect people with identity and faces. You are discussing with me as a human person then I will respond to you with respect proper for a human person. Not anonymous, not wearing pseudo-names or the mask of a cartoon, super hero or a robot.

As fellow humans and Christians, let us lay our cards on the table.]

Fair enough. Like I said before, the focus what we are discussing is Private Interpretation.

As an introduction, a person who joins a certain church followed only one of two routes:

A - He accepted the claim of the church without asking questions and without analysis.

B - He read the appropriate references (Bible, tradition, history, etc.) and analyzed for himself, and from there arrived at a decision to join that particular church.

Route B implies private interpretation. For me, private interpretation simply means how the individual understands something. It's a technical but neutral terminology. It can lead to one of two results namely, right or wrong. Whether you like it or not, people always do private interpretation regardless of whom or what they are reading, watching, or listening to; it is part of a system we call communication.

Now you said that Christians are to avoid private interpretation. But tell me honestly, and similar to what I have asked, how does one arrive at the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is God's true church without engaging in private interpretation of references? Does that person take Route A?

Making the problem worse, there are plenty of churches claiming to be God's church. So how does an individual tell which one is rightfully dividing the word of truth?

Now let me clarify a few things:

[You have added “other appropriate sources such as history and tradition.” EXCUSE ME BUT I DIDN’T SAY THAT. Where did you get that? And why did you ADD that? That is committing the Crime of Luther that is, adding ALONE in the passages of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. O NO, NO, NO GERRY. That is foul.]

There is no intention to misrepresent you. It's just that you are resisting to answer the question on some pre-conceived idea that I was discussing sola scriptura. Remember that I quoted you correctly the first time in my first comment, so there is no intention to misrepresent. It is just that I was adjusting to your preference. So I added the words tradition and history so that we can proceed.

In fairness, you did give an answer:

[It is almost like denying man’s ability to search and find the truth.

If the Bible cannot settle for you the debate concerning the Identity of the True Church, then go to history… look for its Apostolic origin.

Man’s use of reason includes studies of the historical origin of those claiming to be the True Church.]

Well now, do these not involve private intepretation?

By the way, the INC also quotes from history books and other references. In their proof against the deity of Christ, they quote from history books that says this teaching was only made in the 4th century. As to Revelations 7:2, they will quote some encyclopedia that the Philippines is the in far east. What can you say about this verification as a supplement to the Bible? Did it end up agreeing with the Roman Catholic Church?

And lastly, you quoted 2nd Peter 1:20 to say that private interpretation must be avoided. But here how I understand the verse: The verse isn't saying to avoid private interpretation. It is only saying that the prophecy of Scripture did not come from private interpretation. Read how it is rendered in the Douay Rheims:

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is MADE by private interpretation. For prophecy CAME not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Thank you and God bless.

January 14, 2010 7:26 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

REPLY TO GERRY SOLIMAN

[Good evening Fr. Abe.]

Good day to you Bro. Gerry.

[Really? I'm sure that would be an interesting book to read. I want to get a copy, so if it is not too much to ask kindly make an announcement if it is available. Thanks.]

The texts are already sent to the publishing house and they are now being printed. We have to wait for some months for the completion of the printing and the formal launching ceremony.

[Ha ha ha, and to solve that I will just put my articles of faith in my blog. Thanks for reminding me.]

Very nice. Please be specific.

[Fair enough. Like I said before, the focus what we are discussing is Private Interpretation.]

Yes, private interpretation indeed.

[As an introduction, a person who joins a certain church followed only one of two routes:]

Is it really limited to two? Is there a possibility of other routes? And despite the number of routes, whether two or more, is it possible for a human person to attain certitude of faith and discover the true Church?

[A - He accepted the claim of the church without asking questions and without analysis.]

How about accepting the claim of the Church with questions and analysis and be convinced of it?

How about asking questions and giving analysis with the intention of building his own church rather than search for the one established by Jesus?

How about asking questions and giving analysis yet they do not count at all because the vote of the majority is the determining factor?

How about being convinced of the truth of that church because it has been drilled in his mind since childhood? He studied and analyzed things sincerely and diligently but his mind is already affected by the biases he has acquired throughout the years?

How about being convinced otherwise but he prefers to stay because he will loose his job, it will cause problems in the family, etc.?

[B - He read the appropriate references (Bible, tradition, history, etc.) and analyzed for himself, and from there arrived at a decision to join that particular church.]

What do you mean of ‘for himself’? Are you referring to the basic fact that the person who interprets the references intends to impose his own understanding of the data or he considers his ‘personal good’ as the goal of his study?

[Route B implies private interpretation.]

O, really? Where is the Private Interpretation there? What you have presented above is not a private interpretation but Human Interpretation in general. Please differentiate for me the following:

(1) Interpretation

(2) Private Interpretation

(3) Public Interpretation

(4) Authoritative Interpretation

(5) Ecclesial Interpretation

What makes your [B] ‘private’ interpretation?

[ For me, private interpretation simply means how the individual understands something.]

Ha, ha, ha... It sounds simply Interpretation to me Gerry. It fits the personal interpretation but it does not satisfy the ADJECTIVE ‘PRIVATE’. My hand carry Merriam-Webster Dictionary differentiates ‘Private’:

1. Belonging to or Intended for a particular individual or group (~ property)

2. Restricted to the individual: PERSONAL (~ opinion)

3. Carried on by individual independently (~ study)

4. Not holding public office (~ citizen)

5. Withdrawn from company or observation (~ place)

6. Not known publicly (~ dealings)

Since we are dealing with opinions on matters of Truth and Faith then we fall into no. 2 unless you want to go somewhere else.

The English word private refers to an opinion that is RESTRICTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL. Thus, it is obviously apparent in your repeated use of INDIVIDUAL and your stress of ‘FOR HIMSELF’. If we will apply Private Interpretation on the Biblical Texts it means that our interpretations shall be limited to the individual understanding of the texts and will result to the rejection of the Church.

[ It's a technical but neutral terminology.]

Technical? What do you mean? Do you want to tell us that it deals with mechanical and scientific matters? Or dealing with practical or scientific subjects? Or governed by strict rules to be followed?

Neutral? NEUTRAL? Are you sure? Neutral means it will not be favouring any position. It is indifferent. Meaning, in that individual’s search for truth he will not make any decision what is right and what is wrong. All are OK. All are fine. Everything is as good as the other. Ha, ha, ha... Is that right?

Please clarify these terms. It sounds dangerous. It will make all claimants of truths equal. It sounds as if you are rejecting Certitude of Knowledge and The Objective Nature of Truth and of Faith. It leads to Relativism. If you adhere to relativism please tell me so frankly.

[ It can lead to one of two results namely, right or wrong.]

So, there is a right or wrong. So then it is NOT Neutral. It discerns things, analyzes things and then there is a conclusion, decision or judgment. And in that conclusion, decision or judgment one is wrong and other is right. In Private Interpretation who makes that final judgment of which is erroneous and which is correct? Is it each and every individual or the established authority?

[Whether you like it or not, people always do private interpretation regardless of whom or what they are reading, watching, or listening to; it is part of a system we call communication.]

I already told you that human persons can interpret and therefore this reminder is not necessary. I do not deny human capacity to interpret or the fact that it is part of human communication. That insistence is non necessary. The fact that each human person can give their private interpretation on various subjects is also not in contention. The ability of man to give interpretation and even private interpretation is out of the question at bar. Rather, whether a Christian believer MUST employ Private Interpretation as his ultimate means of understanding the Sacred Scriptures to attain the True and Correct Faith. The Apostle Peter reminds us that no prophecy of Scriptures is of private interpretation.

[Now you said that Christians are to avoid private interpretation.]

It is not my statement. That is the statement of St. Peter the Apostle in his Epistle as presented in a non Catholic Bible KING JAMES VERSION. Why? Do you question the scholarship of KJV?

[But tell me honestly, and similar to what I have asked, how does one arrive at the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is God's true church without engaging in private interpretation of references?]

The word private interpretation was rendered by NIV as ‘own interpretation’. Thus, private interpretation then is the person’s own interpretation rather than the official or authoritative interpretation. Thus,

• A lawyer gives a private interpretation if he presents and insists his ‘own’ interpretation of the Constitution. But he is not presenting a private interpretation when he gives and upholds the authoritative interpretation of the Supreme Court.

• A doctor gives a private interpretation if he presents and insists on his own understanding of the medical data but he is not doing so when he is upholding and applying the established interpretation of the official promulgation of World Health Organization on a medical case.

• A government official gives her private interpretation if she is simply giving her own idea about a government program. But, it stops being a private interpretation when she presents the official explanation of the President or of the Agency in which she is under. It becomes a Public Statement then.

• A priest or a minister or a pastor gives his private interpretation of the Scriptures if he merely expresses his own opinion or understanding of the Bible but his statement ceases to be a private opinion if he presents the official teaching of his church.

Thus, Private Interpretation is Personal Interpretation Only. The Official Interpretation also involves the Person but it added the presence of the Authority. ONCE THE INTERPRETATION IS MADE WITH FINALITY BY THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY THEN IT CEASES TO BE A PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Thus, your claim above to equate every interpretation as Private Interpretation is misleading and does not hold water.

[Does that person take Route A?]

Gerry, it doesn’t mean that when you limited yourself to only 2 routes then you can limit me to your two routes. The issue of Interpretation, Private Interpretation and Authoritative Interpretation is not limited to two routes. Please get real and widen your understanding of the matter. You are becoming simplistic in your approach on the topic.

[Making the problem worse, there are plenty of churches claiming to be God's church. So how does an individual tell which one is rightfully dividing the word of truth?]

That is your problem because you interpret all personal interpretation as private interpretation so in effect each person will become the ultimate ground of truth. Thus, there will be chaos because in variety of judgments and conclusions each will claim to be correct. That problematic situation is the effect of the method that you have chosen for yourself.

Much more, the fact that there are many claimants to the truth all the more proves my assertion that each human person can interpret. Since every one can interpret it is but practical that there is variety of interpretations and claims and conclusions. And since you consider interpretation as the same with private interpretation then it will be impossible for you to solve the impasse and determine the truth among the sea of private interpretations. The absence or denial or refusal of an Authoritative Interpretation will make the variety of interpretations impossible to be judged upon.

So, once again Gerry I’m asking you: How will you determine with finality the truth of faith? Have you found the true faith or the true Church? How and which one?

[There is no intention to misrepresent you.]

I want to believe that, indeed, you don’t have that intention. But why did you INSERT and ADD those words by putting them inside the bracket that claimed to be my statement? If you want to put History and Tradition on the table you could have formulated your own sentences for that. Instead of using your own statements you ADDED and INSERTED them in my own statements. Even if you are saying that there is no intention to misrepresent me your ACTION says OTHERWISE. Besides, how can you add something in my statement without intending to do such? It doesn’t jibe Gerry. Not at all!

[It's just that you are resisting to answer the question on some pre-conceived idea that I was discussing sola scriptura.]

All your questions I have answered. But look above and see that you have not answered most of my questions. Our readers can see for themselves. Try to put into bracket each and every question that I made and answer them one by one, point by point.

When I used Sola Scriptura I put it in my own statements not yours. Thus, it doesn’t give you justification to distort my statement by insertion or addition just because I expounded certain matter not according to your plan of discussion. Besides, you know that you uphold Sola Scriptura and you know that I reject it. If you don’t want to discuss Sola Scriptura you just have to say it.

YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ME A REASONABLE GROUND TO INSERT AND ADD TO MY STATEMENT. You are not uneducated Gerry. You are an apologist. You are a seasoned apologist. You have exchanged ideas with many people. You are fluent in English and an accountant. IF YOU CANNOT GIVE A VALID REASON FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, THEN, YOU DID IT ON PURPOSE.

[ Remember that I quoted you correctly the first time in my first comment, so there is no intention to misrepresent.]

You quoted me correctly the first time that’s why there was no problem the first time; our discussion was going on smoothly. You added and inserted in my statement the second time so there is a problem with the second time.

[It is just that I was adjusting to your preference.]

ADDING SOMETHING IN MY STATEMENT IS NOT MY PREFERENCE. HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT? I DIDN’T DO IT TO YOU WHICH MEAN IT IS NOT MY PREFERENCE. NOW YOU ARE JUSTIFYING IT BY POINTING THE FINGER ON ME RATHER THAN ON YOURSELF.

YOU DID THAT AND THEREFORE THAT IS ‘YOUR’ PREFERENCE. IT IS GERRY SOLIMAN’S PREFERENCE, NOT MINE. I AM NOT USING YOUR MOUTH TO EXPRESS MY PREFERENCE. MY PREFERENCE ARE EXPRESSED IN MY OWN STATEMENTS, NOT SOMEBODY ELSE.

YOU DID NOT ADJUST YOURSELF TO MY PREFERENCE. YOU ADJUSTED MY STATEMENT TO SUIT YOUR PREFERENCE... BY ADDITION AND INSERTION.

[So I added the words tradition and history so that we can proceed.]

Where did you get the idea that ‘if you will not add those words we cannot proceed’? And where did you get the inspiration that by ADDING and INSERTING those words we can proceed? That is below the belt... rather twisting my mouth.

Our discussion was proceeding and was going well. Then you added and inserted important words in my statements which completely changed my position and affected the faith I am upholding. IT IS NOT SIMPLY ADDING, ITS DISTORTING.

How can we proceed if you are violating the position of the other side? You can speak for yourself but don’t try to speak for me by manipulating my statements. That is why we quote each other by putting into bracket each other’s statements. It means: THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE SAID. And from that we agree or disagree with one another.

[In fairness, you did give an answer:]

Of course I answered and I am answering.

[Well now, do these not involve private intepretation?]

No. Once the interpretation is an Official Interpretation that ceases to be a private interpretation, rather it is Authoritative Interpretation or Position. Once a person is grounded on the official stand of the legitimate authority then his interpretation is authoritative not private. That is the rule of jurisprudence, of sciences and of search for truth and of faith.

Will you be able to attain certitude of knowledge and of faith by private interpretation alone?

[By the way, the INC also quotes from history books and other references. In their proof against the deity of Christ, they quote from history books that says this teaching was only made in the 4th century. As to Revelations 7:2, they will quote some encyclopedia that the Philippines is the in far east. What can you say about this verification as a supplement to the Bible? Did it end up agreeing with the Roman Catholic Church?]

Ha, ha, ha... What you are pointing out to me here is that there are varieties of opinions in the market of ideas. Then, these opinions could be contradictory or contrary to one another. Then, there is a difficulty of attaining the truth because of the differences. I accept these and these are pretty obvious.

But my point is that even though there are differences of opinions and ideas, despite the market of ideas TRUTH CAN STILL BE ATTAINED. Certitude of Knowledge and Faith can still be attained. It is possible and it is attainable and indeed it is being upheld.

On your part, you have failed to answer categorically if Certitude of Knowledge is possible despite those differences and you have not answered my continues query whether Private Interpretation is the solution to that dilemma that you are presenting.

You keep on presenting the differences in opinions among religious groups yet you do not present a solution. If you present a problem then you are necessitated to present your solution. Will your dear Private Interpretation be that solution?

It appears to me that you are advocating Private Interpretation for our search for Truth of Faith and the true Church. And it also appears to me that you want to present as if Private Interpretation should be followed by each person in interpreting the Sacred Scriptures. Am I right on these?

On my part, we believe that the application of Private Interpretation on the Sacred Scriptures is one of the main sources of the confusing ideas that you have enumerated above. How can the source of the problems be the solution?

Well, concerning our Catholic Solution to the problem that you have presented here it is:

1. FAITH, the true Faith, comes from God. It is a Grace from God. Therefore, regardless of the confusion in the world God will call and attract and draw His people to the true faith.

How did the Apostles become members of the true Church? Jesus called them!

How did the Eunuch become a baptized member of the Church? The Holy Spirit guided a genuine teacher of the faith to teach him.

How did Paul become a Christian and Apostle? Jesus intervened in the event of his life.

Thus, the Catholic Church teaches its members that the true faith can only be attained by asking God the grace to know His Will. That He will send forth His Holy Spirit upon us to discern wisely what is good and what is bad, to know what is right and what is wrong. Because Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding are gifts of the Holy Spirit as well.

2. The Authority of the Church

The person must be guided by the authority of the Church. Philip guided the Eunuch. The first 3,000 converts listened to Peter, Cornelius did the same, Paul conferred with Peter then Paul taught and guided others.

When bitter debates raged on about the necessity or non-necessity of Circumcision Paul and Barnabas didn’t implement Private Interpretation: they asked the Authority of the Church. The Elders called for Jerusalem Council and it was the Church Authority that settled it. Not Private Interpretation but the legitimate authority of the Church.

3. The Human Person’s openness to the Grace of God and his willingness to be guided by the Church.

Then, despite the fact that the grace of God enables man to find the truth and the Church Authority established by Jesus can guide properly if the human person will not be cooperative to the grace of God and to the authority of the Church then he will not attain the true faith.

You might say: BUT OTHERS CAN DENY THAT. THE INC OR ADD CAN QUOTE REFERENCES THAT SPEAKS OTHERWISE... Well, that’s true. Every people can always present an opposite opinion. But it doesn’t deny the fact that TRUTH can be attained by GRACE + CHURCH AUTHORITY + HUMAN REASON. Jesus was debated by Satan, opposed by the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Apostles experienced rejections but TRUTH PREVAILED as ONE GOD, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM. And the truth of faith is not negated by the presence of opposition but rather all the more makes it known. Truth shines in the darkness. And this truth is not attained through application of PRIVATE REVELATION ON SACRED SCRIPTURES.

[And lastly, you quoted 2nd Peter 1:20 to say that private interpretation must be avoided. But here how I understand the verse: The verse isn't saying to avoid private interpretation. It is only saying that the prophecy of Scripture did not come from private interpretation.]

Ha, ha, ha... If that is your interpretation of the text then it supports more our position. If no prophecy of Scripture came from private interpretation then we cannot prophesy about the Scriptures coming from our private interpretation. If the prophecy of Sacred Scriptures is not made of private interpretation it is foolish to formulate doctrines based on a method that the Holy Spirit Himself avoided. The two translations that have been provided, one Catholic [Douay-Rheims] and another Protestant [King James Version] have something in common: PRIVATE REVELATION VS INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. St. Peter favoured Inspiration and rejected Private Revelation . It is not of the will of man says St. Peter in 2 Peter 1:21. Yet, Mr. Gerry Soliman seems to insists on PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

Why is it that Private Revelation is incompatible with the Biblical Interpretation?

Private Revelation starts and ends with man. The origin and goal of private interpretation is the human person. But the prophecy of Scriptures are not from human persons but from God, thus the Catholic Church calls her believers to search the will of God in Scriptures not our will. As Jesus stated in the Our Father: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” [Matthew 6:10]. Until death the Lord taught us to look at the will of God and not ours: “Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my willl, but thine, be done.” [Luke 22:42]. It is a call to read the Scriptures in accordance with the Spirit and in communion with the Church.

Is there a statement in there that supports the position that from then on Christians must create, make, produce and apply their own private interpretations on Sacred Scriptures? Private Interpretation has been rejected by the Holy Spirit as a method in formulating the prophecies of the Sacred Scriptures. And He did that despite the fact that those He employed in setting into writing the texts of the Bible were human persons: Moses, David, Solomon, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude and others.

It means that when Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Paul, James and Jude wrote together with the writers of the Old Testament THEY DIDN’T APPLY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. SO, HOW CAN YOU CLAIM THAT PRIVATE INTERPRETATION IS INDESPENSABLE TO HUMAN PERSONS? There are persons who can write and preach and testify about God, the Church and the Faith who did not follow much more implement Private Interpretation.

Rejection and avoidance of Private Interpretation is possible and indeed operative under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If the lawyers and teachers can provide authoritative interpretation of ideas, how much more the Christian believers who are seeking the truth from the Spirit of God?

[Read how it is rendered in the Douay Rheims:

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is MADE by private interpretation. For prophecy CAME not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.]

It does not change anything. It all the more upheld our position that private interpretation should be rejected. The prophecies that are NOT MADE OF Private Interpretation must not be subjected to Private Interpretation.

Whether we use the King James Version or the Douay-Rheims version one clear truth is present there: THE HOLY SPIRIT REJECTED PRIVATE INTERPRETATION WHEN HE INSPIRED THE BIBLICAL WRITERS IN SETTING THE SCRIPTURES INTO WRITING.

We, Catholics, reject what the Holy Spirit rejected and what the Holy Writers refused to apply. How about you Gerry? Do you apply it? Do you prefer to implement it? Will you insist to implement it? Is truth to be found using Private Interpretation in Sacred Scriptures despite the fact that such a method of interpretation is a NO, NO to the Spirit of God?

[Thank you and God bless.]

God bless you too Gerry and thank you.

January 17, 2010 10:48 PM