Interpreting the Bible is not a matter of rocket science, and–being a rocket scientist, I would know.

Seriously, while there are passages in which the understanding can be nebulous, the vast majority is not difficult.

Most of the “difficulty” arises when we seek to impose our own agendas into the Scriptures.

We have the natural inclination to smooth over the hard passages rather than assume they mean what they say unless the rest of the corpus of Scripture provides clarification.

The other difficulty is that–to interpret it properly–you have to have a grasp of the entirety of Scripture. The Old Testament, for example, does not exist in a vacuum: in fact, we have the New Testament, something the patriarchs, kings, and prophets did not have at their disposal.

I’ll respond later tonight to Steve’s comments…this is going to be an interesting discussion!

I’d like to offer a different analogy that I think is a little better (not mine, but borrowed from JPII). I think the family in fact is the closest analogy we have to the Trinity.

The Trinity in fact can be accurately described as a life giving union/communion of Persons. The persons in question are the Father and the Son. The life brought forth from that union of love is the Holy Spirit. In the case of the Trinity, that union is so real, complete and perfect that it forms a third person who is Co-Equal to the Father and Son. In other words, Father eternally pouring out his totality and love to Son. Son eternally receiving and returning that love in it’s totality and perfection and returning it to the Father. That relationship being so real, total, and perfect is realized in the person of the Holy Spirit.

Now the family, while not a perfect image of this, is as close as we can get. It also can be described as a life giving union of persons. The persons in this case are husband and wife. Their union of love, while not perfect and total can bring forth a third person who is wholly real and individual in and of himself/herself. Each person retains their individuality, while at the same time being part of the one entity called family. Again, not perfect, but we cans see the parallel and the image of the Trinity most clearly here. JPII in his Theology of the body argues that indeed, nothing else in creation is a better image of the Trinity than the family.

>>>All we can do is try to live life as Christ would have us live it and let the non-believers see Christ in our daily lives.

I couldn’t agree more. In the words of St. Francis…. ‘Evangelize always, and when necessary, use words.’

>>4. Should we stop interpreting the Bible and start following it?

In principle, the answer of course is yes, and I can agree with much of your response, but……there is a more fundamental problem in Christendom that is lurking in this question. Follow what? The bible is a complex text (yes, I do believe it’s the inspired, inerrant word of God), written over a roughly 1000 year period, in specific cultures and times in history. To simply say follow it implies that it’s an easy thing to understand, which I think is manifestly not so.

The evidence for this is that even in the parts that you or I may think the clear sense is obvious, we would disagree with each other. The further evidence is the absolute Chaos in Christendom over doctrine, and not over trifles, but over essentials (baptism, Eucharist, justification). Put plainly, interpretation is inherent in the reading of the bible. Of course we should follow the bible, but we should follow the correct understanding of it. The real questions then boil down to what that correct interpretation is, and who (if anyone) has the authority to declare it such?

There’s a HUGE difference between Peter, chosen by Christ his ownself, and the very next leader of the Catholic branch of Christian Faith.

There is a difference of course in that they are, well….different people. But the question is not around the person of Peter per se, but rather his unique role as an apostle. That role is an office or duty he is performing for the Christian community and was a direct commission to him (Peter) as well as the other apostles from Christ himself. I think it’s fairly clear that at the very least the apostles had a special place of leadership in both the spreading of the faith and the teaching of the faithful. The question then becomes whether that role/office/duty/responsibility was to be passed on to the next generation of the Church leaders.

The Catholic understanding is that indeed this was the case, and that this was the only way to ensure the truth and integrity of the teaching (remember, the NT hasn’t even been fully written yet, let alone the canon determined during the apostolic age). The early church had one test as to whether someone was to be an acknowledged leader. That test was apostolic succession. The basic thinking was Jesus taught the apostles, the apostles taught their successors, their successors to the next generation of successors, and so on and so on. Saint Irenaeus as early as the late 189 A.D. century explains it thus (sorry for the long quote, but I hate proof-texting and context is important)….

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).

For me, as a Protestant, the position of Pope is really no better than my local Pastor.

Even if it can be shown that a direct, documented, historical succession from Peter to Benedict XVI exists? In what way can you ensure that your pastor is being faithful to the true teachings of Christ? What is your test?

but the claim that the Pope is infallible I can’t quite grasp.

I think you can, and in fact already do without realizing it. I gather from other comments you’ve made that we agree that scripture is the inerrant, inspired, infallible word of God, correct? So in recognizing that, you recognize that the Holy Spirit used clearly flawed men who in and of themselves where not inerrant or impeccable to communicate a true and flawless message. In other words, he protected these screwed up men from screwing up when writing the gospels. Peter after all denied the Lord three times, and was basically told he was thinking with the mind of Satan (get ye behind me), yet,….he had the protection of the HS to pen two letters we call scripture.

We Catholics just take that a step further. We argue that in order for the Christian message to be protected, the HS guaranteed that Peter and his successors would likewise be protected when it comes to matters of doctrine and morals

Peter, while being crucified upside down, was no different than the Peter who heard the cock crow that third time, or the Peter who was at Pentacost. Surely, he was Blessed by Christ, but to claim he was SINLESS(infallable) is…well…the difference between my Protestant Faith and your Catholic Faith.

And herein is a HUGE (and extremely common) misunderstanding as to what infallibility is. It’s why I suggested the links I did. Infallibility is not, nor ever has been, understood to be the impeccability (sinlessness) of Peter or any of his successors. Infallibility is rather a gift, given by Jesus to the church, that when the Bishop of Rome (Peter and his successor) speak on Faith or Morals (a limited sphere), they can not teach error. More accurately, the HS prevents them (as with the writers of scripture) from teaching error by virtue of their office and not by any inherent virtue in their personhood (whether Peter, JPII, or any other person).

I hope this begins to clarify things, but I realize there are so many assumptions I am taking for granted here and so much meat to tackle that it’s only the barest of beginnings.