“On February 5, I posted a piece called ‘The authority question restated.’ I argued that the uncommitted inquirer, seeking the full and true presentation of the deposit of Christian faith (DF) as an object of faith rather than just of opinion, faces a choice between three mutually incommensurable ‘hermeneutical circles’: the Protestant, the Orthodox, and the Catholic. Each such circle can be viewed as a set of criteria for identifying the objective content of the DF precisely as an object of faith not opinion; as such and necessarily, each HC identifies an authority of ultimate appeal for distinguishing between true and false doctrine.”
http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2009/02/picking-your-hermeneutical-circle.html
One of the problems with this claim is that Catholic Bible scholars like Joseph Fitzmyer and Luke Timothy Johnson don’t go about interpreting Scripture in a way that’s fundamentally different from how we see Evangelical Bible scholars interpret Scripture. It’s not just that both sides often arrive at the same interpretations: it’s that both sides employ the same methodology. So far from being incommensurable, they are quite comparable.
Now, Liccione might say that this misses the point since he’s not limiting the hermeneutical circle to the narrow issue of Biblical interpretation, but to the broader issue of authority and criteria.
The problem, though, is that as long as the broad and narrow circles intersect at some point, then he can’t treat these two domains as if they were self-contained circles. If there’s a fair amount of common ground on both the interpretation of Scripture as well as the methodology by which we arrive at our interpretation of Scripture, then that, in turn, functions as a criterion or authority for judging rival claims about ecclesiology.
Liccione did a follow-up post:
http://perennis.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/development-of-doctrine-iv/
But the comparison and contrast between his position and that of his fellow Catholics is unintentionally deleterious to the Catholic rule of faith. Consider the spectacle of four high-level Catholic epologists (Carson, Prejean, Watson, Liccinone) who offer four divergent versions of the doctrine of development. Each Catholic epologist has to formulate his own doctrine of the doctrine of the development. They can't agree with each other on the correct interpretation of the doctrine of development. So each Catholic epologist comes an idiosyncratic, do-it-yourself version of what the doctrine of development really amounts to. This illustrates the unavoidable recourse to private interpretation.
"So each Catholic epologist comes an idiosyncratic, do-it-yourself version of what the doctrine of development really amounts to. This illustrates the unavoidable recourse to private interpretation."
ReplyDeleteIf I were a Catholic epologist, I'd offer up this defense, however weak it must appear, that private interpretation of doctrinal development is not the equivalent to private interpretation of Scripture.
I do wonder, however, whether Catholic epologists observe private interpretation occurring with respect to Magisterial interpretation of Scripture. And if so, what is the rejoinder?
Tuad
ReplyDeleteI asked at licciones blog about the magesteriums own private judgement that takes place when they are coming to new doctrine. i was told by Mr liccione that the the magesterium is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. I asked for proof and was told that there is none but that whilst there is none the fact that catholic doctrine has never gone back on itself is evidence that it true. not proof mind you just evidence.
I also asked about PJ in the case of a catholic looking at the cathechism and or the teachings of the magesterium- is this not Pj as we protestants would understand it? the response was yes but the difference was that unlike protestatns catholics always have the magesterium to correct them i.e. they have someone who can say " your interpreting that wrong" or "that is not what we are saying" we do not.
Thanks for making the inquiry, Space Bishop.
ReplyDeleteI'm not particularly persuaded by Dr. Liccione's line of reasoning, but that's what happens when the presuppositional approaches are so widely divergent.
Pax.