Second Response to Gerry Soliman: On Private Interpretation by Carlos Antonio Palad

Codex Amiantinus

According to Mr. Soliman, I contradict what the American Catholic Truth Society says about private interpretation.

Here is the relevant part of his post. I have put his words in blue, my response is in bold black.

Private Interpretation

#11 - If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?

Mr. Palad's Response: The absence of “private interpretation” is not the same as the “exclusion of the individual”. The individual must always choose and must always use his mind – but for an individual to make a choice does not mean that he is therefore using “private interpretation”.

Private interpretation is simply the arrogant assumption that any individual can decide, without reference to any other authority, which Christian doctrines are right or wrong, and which Scriptural interpretations are correct or not. This is the reason why so many persons who founded various Protestant churches felt entitled to declare all other churches to be in one error or another, and they alone having the most perfect key to scriptures. This is the reason why many Protestant preachers have the temerity and arrogance to contradict even the Apostolic Fathers, who themselves were taught by the Apostles, and had known the very people who knew Christ in person. Some European Protestants have even condemned St. Luke and St. James for their Catholic tendencies!

However, it is possible for an individual to choose to believe in a particular Church without falling into the trap of “private interpretation”. Such an individual, rejecting the Protestant neglect of history and taking the Lord at His word that He will never abandon the Church, and that the gates of Hades shall never prevail against the Church, will realize that – if Jesus is no liar – then there has always been a Church that has kept His teaching pure and unadulterated, and that it is his (the person’s) task to approach that Church which has kept this teaching unchanged and intact. Such a person will NOT decide what is right and what is wrong entirely on his authority, and will not dream of overruling the early Church. Rather, he will endeavor to understand what the early Church overwhelmingly taught, then taking this to be true (without subjecting it to his judgment), trying to find out which modern Church has managed to keep all that the generality of the early Church taught. In all this, of course, he must be prayerful and invoke divine grace and guidance.

Comment: This reminded me of the discussion I had with Fr. Abe Arganiosa a month ago on private interpretation (see here). You will note that like Fr. Abe, Mr. Palad contradicts their international counterparts who agree that a private element (which include private interpretation) is involved when an individual decides which church or doctrine is true. Let's quote once again the American Catholic Truth Society:

That being said, of course there is a private element, as there is in all decision-making. The Church is not saying there can be no private element, but just that the private element has a different place in doctrinal decisions than it does in other decisions. What is clear is that despite the private element, the Catholic system provides something that sola scriptura doesn't: You see, both we and Prots start with an initially private judgment... they believe Scripture alone, we believe Scripture + Tradition + Church. There is indeed a private element. But in the Catholic system, it gives us access to an infallible interpreter. This does not mean that the private element suddenly disappears. But it means that it is not alone. The the kind of private judgment the Church has historically condemned is: whatever I say goes. Sola scripturists, on the other hand, cannot get away from the "private interpretor" for they are truly not left with "Scriptures Alone" but Scriptures and their interpretation of them. They cannot separate the individual (private) interpretation here without naming another "interpretor" and they are quite careful not to do this.

When an individual is engaged in a decision making process, he most certainly cannot avoid analyzing the data that will be presented to him. This analysis will eventually lead into an interpretation which is private since it was made by the individual himself.

CAP RESPONSE: Once again, Mr. Soliman reads without first nailing down the nuances.

There is absolutely no contradiction between what I said and what American Catholic Truth Society says. On the contrary, we agree on all points.

First and foremost, I clearly defined what I mean by personal interpretation:

Private interpretation is simply the arrogant assumption that any individual can decide, without reference to any other authority, which Christian doctrines are right or wrong, and which Scriptural interpretations are correct or not

The ACTS says:

The kind of private judgment the Church has historically condemned is: whatever I say goes.

In this, both ACTS and I are in full agreement. Neither I nor any serious Catholic apologist has denied that an individual has a role in the process of discerning the truth, for the simple reason that it is an obvious truth.

Furthermore, although I do not use the term “private element” I clearly state that the individual must use his mind, and that it is his task to approach the true Church. By the way, “private element” is not the same as “private interpretation”.

In part of his response to me, Mr. Soliman writes:

When an individual is engaged in a decision making process, he most certainly cannot avoid analyzing the data that will be presented to him. This analysis will eventually lead into an interpretation which is private since it was made by the individual himself.

To this I reply: I said this too. I CLEARLY state that “the individual must always choose and must always use his mind.” However, the use of one’s mind and the exercise of one’s capacity to analyse data is not the same as considering one’s mind and thought to be superior to any other authority, which is what Protestant-style private interpretation often does. The Church believes in the exercise of one’s mind, BUT humbly guided by the teachings of the Fathers and of the historic Church.

It is only a Protestant caricature that denial of private interpretation = denial of the use of one’s mind. On the contrary, one of the reasons why we Catholics deny the Protestant practice of private interpretation is precisely to protect the vast heritage of historic Christian faith and doctrine – a powerful heritage of insight and learning (among many other things) that cannot be surpassed – versus the whims and ignorance of arrogant individuals who think that they have all the light. If anything, it is the Catholic position that renders due respect to the capacities of the human mind, guided by natural reason and the light of the Holy Spirit.

************ ********* *****

In the third paragraph of Mr. Palad's answer he says:

Such an individual, rejecting the Protestant neglect of history and taking the Lord at His word that He will never abandon the Church, and that the gates of Hades shall never prevail against the Church, will realize that – if Jesus is no liar – then there has always been a Church that has kept His teaching pure and unadulterated, and that it is his (the person’s) task to approach that Church which has kept this teaching unchanged and intact.

This prompts me to ask the following questions:

1. With respect to history, is the historian credible or even unbiased? Did that historian make reference to an independent source and not from the mouth of the Vatican ?

Two misconceptions here:

1) If it comes from the mouth of the Vatican == false, biased. This is the fallacy called “poisoning the wells of discourse”, which makes all discussion impossible because one party (the Protestant, in this case) considers that the other party (the Catholic) is full of lies and does not believe in truthfulness.

2) Catholics only make use of Catholic historians. This is news to me. On the contrary, Catholic historians make use of vast amounts of non-Catholic historical works and sources and scholarship, and non-Catholic historians have access to all the great libraries of Catholicism (the Vatican library, for instance). As a Catholic, I feel great pride at the enormous works of historical scholarship that the Catholic Church has generated through the centuries, compared to which the Evangelicals have very little.

2. What if, after doing Mr. Palad's suggestions, the person chooses the Eastern Orthodox instead? Would Mr. Palad say that the person did not use private interpretation?

It depends on the individual case, but it is conceivable that he did not use private interpretation. Still, he is wrong. One can go wrong even without private interpretation, and the Church has never denied that an individual can still go wrong even with all the lights and guidance provided to him. Just think of Judas. He was guided by Our Lord Jesus himself and yet he sinned greatly, rebelled against Christ, and fell from grace. Does that make Our Lord Jesus “un-infallible”?

3. On the subject of keeping the teachings of Christ, what if the person comes across a Roman Catholic figure in history who has a different view with Rome's teachings such as Jerome who did not believe the Apocryphal books are inspired, Tertullian who does not believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Augustine who does not have a final say that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18? Would he not depend on your Magisterium to explain these inconsistencies?

Two answers, pertaining to different aspects of this question:

A) The question reflects a typically Protestant approach to apologetics: trying to construct doctrine out of this or that verse of Scripture, now applied to the teachings of the Fathers. The Catholic approach is different, solidly structured as it is upon first principles. The fact is that one can always cherrypick what one wishes to hear from the vast storehouse of the Fathers, whose writings run into hundreds of thick volumes in tiny print. If some misuse the Bible in order to sustain all sorts of different and strange doctrines, then how much more the teachings of the Fathers?

Pitting one Father against another is futile, just as the perpetual game of fighting Bible verse versus Bible verse, which is what passes for apologetics in too many areas.

The question to ask, when faced by the differences among the Fathers, is: “what authority did the Fathers themselves acknowledge, to whom did they submit themselves”? The historical fact is that the Fathers acknowledged the authority of the 1) Ecumenical Councils and 2) the Church, especially the sentences of the See of Rome . Another question to ask is: “and who declared the Fathers to be Fathers in the first place”? Again, the question leads to: the Ecumenical Councils, and the Church, led by the Bishop of Rome .

If one truly considers the Fathers to be effective witnesses to the teaching of the Ancient Church , then one should – logically – submit to the authorities to which the Fathers themselves submitted.

Therefore, when an inquirer runs to the Magisterium for safe teaching when faced by the differences among the Fathers, he is not committing a fallacy of any shape or form. He is merely following through his reverence for the teaching of the Fathers to its logical conclusion.

B) Any informed Catholic knows that there are some inconsistencies between the individual Fathers and Doctors of the Church. However, this is not much of a problem given that the Church has never taught the doctrinal infallibility of any given Doctor or Father of the Church. The problem of “inconsistency” would be real only if there is an inconsistency between two dogmas. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that no dogma is ever proclaimed by the Church without first exhausting all discussions and without first parsing all viewpoints and arguments. Only when the Church has reached a practical unanimity of minds, and only when it is really necessary, does it proclaim something as dogma.

4. How about if he comes across the historical account where Galileo was punished by the pope for telling that the Earth revolves around the Sun? How about the Inquisition? The selling of indulgences that paved way for the Reformation?

Ho hum. I think I can retell all these stories in detail, every lurid and salacious turn of the story included. I’ve got news for Mr. Soliman: Catholicism never taught that its members can’t commit horrible sins. Another bit of news: Catholic historians often tell these stories, with as much if not more indignation than some non-Catholic historians. No other Church has opened itself up to self-examination as much as the Catholic Church has. No other Church has practiced self-criticism as much as the Catholic Church with regards to the weakness of her members. The numerous “apologies” uttered by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI bear witness to this.

What the Church has taught is that, despite the terrible human frailties and sins of the individual members of the Church and even of the hierarchy, the Church will not corrupt the doctrine passed down from the Apostles. The heliocentric- geocentric controversy, the Inquisition, the selling of indulgences (which was condemned by the Council of Trent), etc. all bear witness to the terrible weaknesses and sinfulness of some members of the hierarchy, but never touched the purity of the doctrine of the Church of Rome.

Overall what Mr. Palad is telling us here is that do not use private interpretation, instead use the standard set forth by his church to tell that the Church of Rome is the true church. Or simply put it, just accept our teachings without questioning.

Well, the mere fact that I am discussing these things with Mr. Soliman – as have countless Catholic apologists with other Protestants – should tell him that it is slanderous for him to say that we Catholics believe in acceptance without questioning. The Church has always spared no effort to explain her teachings to all comers.