How Is Interpreting Church Teaching Different from Interpreting Scripture?

A caller asked how to respond to the claim that both Catholics and Protestants rely on fallible interpretations of scripture - Protestants on their personal interpretation of scripture and Catholics on theirs. John Martignoni lays out the key differences between Catholic and Protestant approaches to scripture interpretation.

[SuperTommox]

This is why I never liked the "Bible is the only authority" argument.

[JoPinlix]

If anyone says "I got inspired by the Holy Spirit to be able to interpret the bible", then why there is 50.000+ protestant denominations? Wouldn't that indirectly mean that the Holy Spirit got "confused" while interpreting the bible?

[SaintMichael]

Amen. Even though prot and stubborn people, we still have to be patient with them and understand them. God bless to them all.

[apocryphanow]

This is similar to the question which came first, the Church or the Bible? If the Church came first, and the Bible is the ultimate authority, what was the ultimate authority in the Church before the Bible?

[windchimesilo]

Prostestants and the many denominations of it, as well as other denominations, bshot and continue to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to interpretation of scripture. The reason why there are so many denominations is because one singular person can leave a church due to unhappiness with the pastor's interpretation of scripture, and just start their own church, and take in people who agree with THEIR (subjective) interpretation. It escapes the authority that is objective under God. Jesus left the authority to a singular church, the catholic church today, to discuss and solve these matters. When doing this, Jesus already knew what the future held, and it was done by his will, which is always unified with his Father's will. The catholic church, with the pope and the bishops and others, interpret scripture through critical thinking and logic, examining history at the time, general academic investigation and most important of all, Jesus, the word made flesh, and the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

[TakumaNuva]

In the example of 2+2=4, is that actually teaching *infallibly* or would that teaching instead be *inerrant*? Perhaps it's a distinction without difference, but it's a thought that comes to mind.

[HaleStorm]

We can infallibly teach that some authority was lost when Apostles became successors.

[adelbertleblanc]

In that silence, we can discern, in the light of the Spirit, the paths of holiness to which the Lord is calling us. Otherwise, any decisions we make may only be window-dressing that, rather than exalting the Gospel in our lives, will mask or submerge it. For each disciple, it is essential to spend time with the Master, to listen to his words, and to learn from him always. Unless we listen, all our words will be nothing but useless chatter. (Pope Francis, Gaudete et Exultate, 150)

[nickk]

I would say it's not even an intelligent question to begin with. Everyone interprets/perceives individually, whether it's Scripture, Church teaching, Harry Potter, a comic from your local Sunday newspaper - it's all interpreted to some extent. So, I would ask in response to a question like that ... "what's your point"? The Church's teachings and doctrines also come from interpreting Scripture. The real question is, is there a Church with authority to interpret/teach/expound/define, etc. in a way that is definitive and binding on all Christians to believe?

What really gets me is that, as far as I understand it, Protestants don't even try to claim any kind of authority like that. Why then they have churches and listen to pastors preach, I don't understand. It seems like nothing more than a group of people gathered together listening to someone talk about their opinions on Scripture ... what's the point of that? What are the fruits of that? Now, I'm not passing judgement on anyone who is Protestant, but making the case that Protestantism as a "Christian" denomination is just ridiculous when you stop and really think about it.

[robinconnelly]

That's clever. Definitely gets the Catholics going 😄.

[michaellawlor]

That's a jay dyer argument. Just pushing it a step back.

[adelbertleblanc]

By the will of Christ, the Catholic Church is, in fact, mistress of truth: its function is to authentically express and teach the Truth which is Christ [...] the disciple is bound towards Christ Master TO THE DUTY TO KNOW EVER MORE FULLY THE TRUTH THAT HE RECEIVED FROM HIM, to announce it faithfully and to defend it energetically while refraining from any means contrary to the Spirit of the Gospel. (Extract from the book “365 Days of Hope” by Cardinal Nguyen Van Thuan who spent 13 years in jail in hard conditions, bacause his faith)

[TheologiaEvangelica]

We can always call up the priest, bishop, and pope to explain what the Magisterium and the Bible teach.

I'm not sure that this is actually Catholic teaching. Catholic theology does not believe that every single explanation that a priest, bishop, or pope is always infallible. Even if we could have a 5 hour conversation with the pope, that would not be an ex cathedra infallible teaching. And at the end of the day, has God just left us with the fallible teachings of people for us to know what he has infallibly said?

It seems this man is conceding the point which he denies at the end of the video: That in order to understand the infallible teachings of the Magisterium, when there are disagreements wven within Catholicism how to interpret the Magisterium, we have to rely on the best fallible argument.

I think actual Catholic teaching is different to that, but it it also seems that he is teyong to give a good argument to believe that Catholicism is true in the first place. If someone becomes Catholic on the basis of a really 'good argument', isn't that the same thing which he wants to oppose?

[anglicanaesthetics]

"As a Catholic I have people who can explain"--but you still have to interpret what they're saying. Even if they try to explain their teaching, you still have to interpret their words. If you point out you can still have knowledge of what a speaker is saying even though your interpretation is fallible, then youve realized *our* point.

"No contradictions in our doctrine"

Not if you count Amoris Laetitia, the reversal on the death penalty, the revision of what "outside the church there is no salvation", the contradicting of Jesus by actively forbidding communion in two kinds, the splitting up of clerical marriages in the medieval church in order to establish celibacy--not just mandating it, but dissolving marriages where Jesus taught the indissolubility of marriage, the blatant contradicting of history in Apostolicae Curae--and on it goes.

[thescoobymike]

The Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on exegesis. Sure, church councils may have compiled the Bible, but they did not write it. Textual, source, form, and literary criticism can be applied by academics to understand the Bible in the same way we do with any other book. No magisterium required.

[SupremeSkeptic]

Didn't really answer the question, did you?
what makes the church interpretation infallible and protestant's interpretation fallible?
If the Church can't show that its teaching is infallible, then maybe it isn't the "Church" Jesus meant in the Bible.

[rbnmnt]

THE CHURCH was not leave an authoritative church to interpret scripture. God left A CHURCH. There is NO Scripture that says any person or church that has sole authority to interpret scripture. NOT ONE. That why the church has done this. The church does not even go by what Peter wrote in his epistles.