Paradoxically, the very text which is used to condemn private interpretation has not been infallibly defined, and is erroneously invoked as condemning the use of fallible human understanding in interpreting Scripture.
The approved notes to the official Roman Catholic Bible states on 2Pt. 1:20,21 ("For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." ) , often cited “against private interpretation, these verses in context are directed against the false teachers of 2 Pt 2 and clever tales (2 Pt 1:16). The prophetic word in scripture comes admittedly through human beings (2 Pt 1:21), but moved by the holy Spirit, not from their own interpretation, and is a matter of what the author and Spirit intended, not the personal interpretation of false teachers.”
Which is close, except that the full meaning is what the Divine author intended, while the human ones who penned it may have intended it in a more limited sense, and wonder at its meaning.
2Pt. 1:20 is referring to the manner by which prophecy is given, in contrast to “cunningly devised fables,” (2Pt. 1:16) as prophecy was not a product of the imagination of men, but of holy men of God speaking as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2Pt. 1:21) Therefore they were "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. " (1 Peter 1:11)
While prophecy was a mystery to men who wrote it, at least insofar as its prophetic meaning (many were written to describe present circumstances, but were prophetic in their fuller future application), other writing was not necessarily a mystery to men who wrote it, but they too wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, for all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. (2Tim. 3:16)
And searching therein we also see that it does not condemn "private interpretation," in the sense of making judgments and discerning truth based upon evidence, use of reason, and examination of the Scriptures, as this is appealed to and affirmed in Scripture, even if it conflicts with those who sit in authority, as that is how the Lord Jesus gained followers and the church began.
RCs cannot deny this, as they appeal to fallible human reasoning in seeking to persuade souls to assent to Rome as to Christ*. But once they have then their premise is that such use of reason in order to discover religious truth is no longer necessary, as an infallible Church gives him the Word of God and interprets it in the true and only sense. That is, "having once found the true Church, private judgment of this kind ceases; having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all." “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means")
Thus, even though the claims of Christ and the apostles were established upon Scripture (the law, the prophets, and wisdom books, which were established as being Divine without an assuredly infallible magisterium) in text and in power, it being the supreme transcendent standard for Truth, and even though the Catholic will condescend to appealing to Scripture as if it were the supreme authority, his goal is to bring one to submit to the church of Rome as the supreme, assuredly infallible authority, which she has infallibly defined herself to be. And assurance of the veracity of her pronouncements is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation.
However, while many Roman Catholics seem to broadly condemn any interpretation of Scripture apart from what Rome provides, relative little of Scripture has been infallibly defined by her, and approved commentaries can vary in their interpretation of texts, and within the parameters of Catholic teaching the Catholic has extensive liberty to interpret Scriptures in seeking to support their church (which itself involves some interpretation), even though these interpretations may contradict each other.
Therefore it is not any interpretation that the Roman Catholic is (supposed to be) condemning as “private interpretation,” but any interpretation that contradicts Roman Catholic teaching, even if the teaching or the text has not been infallibly defined (though determining this status involves interpretation), and regardless of whether the text at issue is used to support that teaching or not.
And again, this is based upon Rome infallibly defining herself as the supreme assuredly infallible authority on earth (while other Catholic churches contradict her), though Scripturally, this was not necessary for the providence and preservation of Truth and the supernatural establishment of writings as Scripture by the time of Christ, and it was against such overly presumptuous authority that the church began in dissent from, but which upheld a magisterium that looked to the Scriptures as the supreme material standard for obedience and testing truth claims, which they are abundantly evidenced to be.
And by which we see the teaching authority of the church is established, but not with assured formulaic infallibility, but as dependent upon Scriptural warrant, and in which truth claims are established upon conformity with it in text and in power, and enabling correction (by those whom God raise up) of those who presume more than what is written, for thus the church was established and by is preserved as the body of Christ.
Supplementary post here.
*What is infallibly proclaimed through solemn definitions or its ordinary and universal teaching requires “full assent of faith” (you must fully believe it with divine or ecclesiastical faith), while much of what Roman Catholics believe and practice is non-infallible (allowing for the possibility of error, if not critically salvific), and requires religious submission of the mind and will (you are to submit to it, and while some private questioning may be possible, it is to be done with a mind submissive to correction in loyalty to Rome, as explained in Donum Veritatis.)
This is not a paradox, nor is it cited erroneously. You are free to understand the Scripture by your own lights, with a decent respect for the opinions of your peers, excepting where it HAS been infallibly defined by the Church.
Your objection has no more merit than faulting a soldier for "murder" on the battlefield.
Apologies...
Upon review, I see your point and can put forward no substantive objection to it.
Indeed Peter’s words show it is actually God’s spirit producing the prophecy even though an individual may be speaking or writing.
In order to establish the early church these gifts of the spirit were given yet as Paul said (Heb. 5:14) those who were mature spiritually would be able to discern both right and wrong.
But in no case was it “private interpretation” as the source was God’s spirit.
Daniel studied Jeremiah’s prophecy and was able to give a prohecy about the 70 weeks. (Dan. 9:1)
“And searching therein we also see that it does not condemn “private interpretation,” in the sense of making judgments and discerning truth based upon evidence, use of reason, and examination of the Scriptures, as this is appealed to and affirmed in Scripture, even if it conflicts with those who sit in authority, as that is how the Lord Jesus gained followers and the church began.”
This was what Daniel was doing even though the full outworking he neither understood or lived to see.
“However, your church does not claim inspiration — whereby a man is so moved by the Holy Spirit that what he utters or writes are the very words of God — but infallibly claims she is protected from error by the Holy Spirit whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined criteria, whereby she makes nebulous oral Tradition equal to Scripture;” (from suppl. post)
The distinction made between inspiration and claims of infallibility seems a false one. If the Pope can speak as a representitive of God and at the same time admitt he is speaking without the possibility of error and hence must be obeyed how is that effectively different from claiming divine inspirtion and conformiy to it?
And ironically, appealing to the authority of Scripture to give itself authority and then denying anyone else the right to appeal to Scripture as the final authority in all matters pertaining to faith and morals AND appealing to Scriptural authority to give itself authority OVER Scripture.
If Scirpture is the authority by which the RCC has its authority, then it cannot have more authority than the document (Or person) which gave it that authority. It cannot have authority over that which gave it authority because that which gives someone or something authority is the greater authority than the people to which it is given.