Catholic Fallacies: Private Interpretation

One of the statements that Catholic e-pologists like to throw around against Protestantism is the relativism and disunity of private interpretation. While Protestants look to the scriptures for authority on faith-based issues, Catholics look to the authority of their visible church organization.

Based on these claims by Catholics you would assume that a church-approved commentary of the Bible would exist to lead Catholic laypeople, especially Catholic apologists, to the correct interpretation of each biblical passage. Yet nothing even close to such a thing exists. In fact, very few biblical passages have been officially defined by the RCC.

I guess 2000 years (if you believe the RCC’s claim to history) is not quite long enough to figure out the truth. While some Protestants have written commentaries on the entire Bible in their own lifetime, the “infallible” RCC has been unable to even attempt the same in 2000 years.

Off the top of my head, I do not no how many verses there are in the bible, but seven is certainly a very, very small percentage. Catholics keep telling me that the RCC has the “fullness of truth” - I think it would be more honest to say “a very slow development of truth”.

Seems to me that much liberty could lead to chaos, and it does. Anyone who has interacted with more than one Catholic e-pologist knows that before long they begin to contradict each other.

But more to the point, how can the interpretation of a biblical passage by any Catholic apologist even be entertained? If their own infallible authority has only been able to define 7 passages of scripture over 2000 years, the apologist/e-pologist cannot have the integrity or the authority to even attempt to interpret scripture on their own. If they do, they fall into their own “private interpretation” trap so carefully, but foolishly, set for the Protestants.

LOL! You seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Please read slowly and carefully. Whose story is it you claim has changed? Mine, right? Not yours. Mine. *My* story is and has always been that I understood you, from the beginning, as referring to all Protestant apologists. You furthermore confirmed to me that I understood you correctly during our email conversation, noted above, where you clearly *accepted* rather than *rejected* my use of the now contested term “Protestant apologist” without challenge. Only now, in the light of public scrutiny, do you start making this bizarre distinction between Protestant apologists in general versus some special subspecies of Protestant apologist who is also bigoted and anti-Catholic. You are truly a wonderment. :)

(BTW, I invite the reader to observe: As I anticipated, Vlad will now neither admit nor deny the proposition that all Protestant apologists lie, though when he spoke to me in private he was, as I have shown, less guarded. I am sorry to say this latest evasion was entirely predictable, though I wish to my heart it was not.)

Back to you, Vlad. A couple of points I overlooked before. In our email conversation, you stated to me that none of the evidence you related to me is hearsay. I’m sorry, but if all I’ve got is *hearing* you *say* it, then its *hear*-*say*, one person’s word against another’s, generally worthless as evidence (with some specific exceptions). Doesn’t matter how real it is to you. To me you’re just some anonymous poster who has no problem “ascertaining” the dark motivations of every Protestant apologist on the planet. That sort of wildness is hardly a good basis for trusting your other statements, which most certainly are hearsay. If you don’t believe me, ask any attorney you trust. Please.

As for the Newman quote, er, summary as you say, if it is true these are your own chosen words and not Newman’s, then it is YOU who offered them without the additional qualifiers of “bigoted” or “anti-Catholic.” See here:

“As John Henry Newman said, Protestants, by necessity must lie. It’s all they have.”

So why would you say these words if you didn’t mean them as you said them? And frankly here it is even broader than merely Protestant apologists. It is the absolute set of all Protestants. Do you now admit you were wrong, that the scope is far more limited, that you meant me to magically understand you were only speaking of some special, small group of haters? Those are your words. Will you own them?

Daniel, as for the actual quote for which Vlad’s words are offered as a summary, I have found nothing. I’m not saying there’s no such thought in Newman’s body of work, only that I have not yet discovered it. However, I did find Newman saying this in his Apologia Pro Vita Sua:

“It never could be, that so large a portion of Christendom should have split off from the communion of Rome, and kept up a protest for 300 years for nothing. I think I shall never believe that so much piety and earnestness would be found among Protestants, if there were not some very grave errors on the side of Rome.” See in context here: http://books.google.com/books?id=fksE0AvRGXAC&pg=PT273&lpg=PT273&dq=john+newman+protestants+lie&source=bl&ots=xaaV3zI_nt&sig=5K0i1hUwbDoBxNfDAeWkLI4qKAM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ujU-U-aPLfK_sQSe_YKIBw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=john%20newman%20protestants%20lie&f=false

So at least at this point in his life, he draws a conclusion nearly opposite the summary proposed by Vlad. I find that … unsurprising.

Defendant; "but, but Your Honor...

everyone

that

I only hit some of them. Which means I'm not guilty as charged...because I was accused of hitting everyone with that one [again points to the same stick of the pair being displayed in evidence]

Judge [to Prosecutor] What was that other stick again? Isn't that the one the defendant hit everyone of this group with? Like -- right here in the court, right in the middle of the trial?

Prosecutor Yes Your Honor. That's the one. The court saw the entire affair. Even you yourself saw it with your own eyes. Yes, that second stick was wielded against the entire class, Sir, but the two do look a lot alike...

Judge [to Defendant] And what do you have to say?

Defendant Still not guilty as charged, Your Honor. The charges say I used stick #1 on all. I did not. Only on some [under his breath adding "and they deserved it"]

Judge What was that I just heard..? Who deserved, what?

Defendent They did, Your Honor. All of them, uh I mean only the anti- [redacted] bigots. Oh, and those others, too. They all lie. According to my factual opinion, your Honor.

Judge Your... opinion?

Defendant That's a fact, Your Honor.

“It never could be, that so large a portion of Christendom should have split off from the communion of Rome, and kept up a protest for 300 years for nothing.

Then he has never been educated by FR RCs,

"I think I shall never believe that so much piety and earnestness would be found among Protestants, if there were not some very grave errors on the side of Rome.”

He proceeds to say,

To suppose the contrary is most unreal, and violates all one's notions of moral responsibilities. All aberrations are founded on, and have their life in, some truths or other-and Protestantism, so widely spread and so long enduring, must have in it, and must be a witness for a great truth or much truth. That I am an advocate for Protestantism, you cannot suppose; -but I am forced into a Via Media, short of Rome, as it is at present. - John Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua April 26, 1841

This was before his formal conversion from Anglicanism in October 1845, which has its own problems. Yet, I read that Newman looked back on his conversion to evangelical Christianity in 1816 as the saving of his soul.

There are other testimonies of Catholic converts who likewise testified of there conversion being before they became Catholic, and the typical evangelical manner is in which baptism proceeds from regeneration with the profound effects which they testified of. And which converts Rome seeks to bring life to her pews, while the majority of converts from Catholicism to evangelical churches say the main reason was the spiritual deficiency they found in Rome.

You entertain me, and make me sad, all at once. You of course will not accept this, but for the readers here who may be misled by your various false accusations, I engaged in no “reduction” of the charge. I see integrity as the quality honesty wrought throughout the entire fabric of one’s character. Speaking of the misleading acts you uncovered as merely lying would have been pleading to a lesser crime.

Nevertheless, even in that, I find no pleasure in crowing over the sins I may find in others, because I find greater sins within myself all the time. And so as a matter of policy I strive to speak of those who have sinned, and in particular those who have admitted their sin, in terms of grace and forgiveness. “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.”

Now I do understand there are some in academia who have inverted this sense and allow themselves to speak of integrity in mere mechanical terms, as simple self-consistency. I consider this degenerative and below the high standards of character as presented by God in Scripture. If your grievance with me on that point is that you think I was using the term in that corrupted sense, then I can fully understand your objection. You would still, however, be wrong. Only it would be an honest mistake, and I would gladly overlook it.

However, I do not think this is the case, because I made clear to you in our private communication my belief that “source integrity” was indeed a form of lying. You therefore knew or should have known before this last statement of yours that I engaged in no such reduction. Indeed, from my point of view, I raised the stakes, as stated above. My only “crime” was that I didn’t copy and paste your exact words. Therefore your accusation is a fabrication.

As for your ongoing policy of deny deny deny, I am not sure why you use it. No one is fooled by it, no more than the innocent child was fooled by the emperor’s non-existent clothing. If it please you to continue on with it, by all means do so. You are making my job as a Protestant apologist easier. Not for reasons I enjoy. It is simply true. You have had abundant opportunity to defend your false accusations against the integrity of Protestant apologists, and you have utterly failed to do so. If that’s where you want to leave it, that’s your call.

And a word to my RC FRiends. Please understand that while I make no claim to be perfect, I do try very hard not to stereotype. As I’ve mentioned to Vlad before, I have Catholic relatives who have done murder to the unborn. But I also understand they are not model Catholics. Likewise, I do not apply the sad lessons of this particular conversation to anyone but the individuals involved.

May God bless you Vlad.

Peace,

“You of course will not accept this, but for the readers here who may be misled by your various false accusations, I engaged in no “reduction” of the charge.”

Actually, you did. Outright lying is OUTRIGHT LYING. It is not “source integrity”.

“As for your ongoing policy of deny deny deny, I am not sure why you use it.”

I have no policy of “deny deny deny”. You keep making things up like that. I suppose you think it helps you in some way, but it isn’t working.

“You have had abundant opportunity to defend your false accusations against the integrity of Protestant apologists, and you have utterly failed to do so.”

I made no accusation at all. Everything I said was absolutely correct.

“If that’s where you want to leave it, that’s your call.”

I have been absolutely right all along. Everything I said was absolutely correct.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.