1) Who compiled the New Testament of Scripture as you have it now?
Jewish rabbis for the OT and the Apostles for the New.
Look, ignoring the fact that the modern-day RCC is a far-cry from the ante-Nicean Church, claiming that compiling a list of authoritative Scriptures gives you a special authority over them would be like me compiling a list of great classical musicians and claiming that I was greater than them. The Scriptures canonize themselves by virtue of their annointing by the Holy Spirit, not by virtue of being ratified by a later heirarchal body.
2) Do the contents of Scripture yield obvious truths revealed by God or are they liable to misinterpretation?
Yes. The Bible is, as one commentator put it, "waters shallow enough that a child can play in it, but deep enough that an elephant can immerse in it." Frankly, on most of the issues that divide us, the Bible is quite clear and you're forced to rely on out-of-context quotations and on placing tradition over the Scriptures.
Granted, there are a number of places where the Scriptures are obscure enough that honest theologians will doubtless disagree until Christ returns to explain them personally. In some cases, we're arguing about shades of meaning; in others, one side or the other is dodging the plain and natural interpretation in favor of one more comfortable to them or one that they were taught.
But either way, in regards to the issues of salvation, the nature of the Church, works vs. faith, Christ (not Peter) being the Rock, etc., the passages involved are extremely plain in their meaning, so much so that the Catholic is often reduced to simply dismissing the messenger rather than discussing the text.
3) Is your interpretation of Scripture infallible?
On every single point? I doubt it. Neither is yours, or the pope's, or tradition's. The goal is to continually grow in our understanding of the Scriptures, and through them, to know God better--not to simply accept some other authority's word on the matter.
"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers (rabbis); for One is your Teacher, the Christ" (Mt. 23:9-10).
Many Catholics like to get around the obvious injunction in the above by saying, "What do you call your earthly father?" That's not the point. The point Jesus was making was not to put anyone between you and Him as some kind of master interpreter or intermediary.
"would be like me compiling a list of great classical musicians and claiming that I was greater than them."
Or better, it would be like you compiling this list, but then deciding to eliminate the works (and thus the memory, over time) of Mozart, because you - not God - deemed it apocryphal. 2000 years later, we'd still have Beethoven and Bach, but thanks to your decision, no Mozart.
A complete canon of the New Testament did not exist from the beginning of Christianity - this is a falsification of history. The canon was fixed by the Catholic Church councils of the late fourth century, most importantly the Council of Carthage in 393. To deny that it is of any import that the Church defined which books were authentic and truly inspired by the Holy Ghost, to the exclusion of scrurrilous writings and even the inclusion of disputed works (St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, etc), is disingenuous. The Church is the author of the New Testament; therefore, it is held that she is the only true interpreter, ever remaining in consonance with the teaching of the Apostles.
Frankly, on most of the issues that divide us, the Bible is quite clear and you're forced to rely on out-of-context quotations and on placing tradition over the Scriptures.
Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture are the two fonts of Revelation - I don't have to place one over the other, as they are in perfect harmony. As for Scripture being "quite clear" and Catholics resorting to strained means of interpretation, let's take for an example a passage pertinent to the original thread:
"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (St. John vi.54)
By this, the Church teaches that sanctifying grace ("life") is giving through consuming the Holy Eucharist (Christ's "flesh" and "blood"). By what means does a Protestant such as yourself interpret this passage? In a clear manner without imputing metaphorical language on Christ's part?
Granted, there are a number of places where the Scriptures are obscure enough that honest theologians will doubtless disagree until Christ returns to explain them personally.
Christ sent his Apostles to "teach all nations" with the condition that "he that believeth not shall be condemned." If we had not the means to know what to "believe," i.e. what truths of the Faith require our assent for salvation, then He would have not made such a statement. The Church, the "pillar and the ground of truth," teaches these articles of faith as dogmas, which could be considered as the "true interpretation of Scripture."
Christ (not Peter) being the Rock, etc., the passages involved are extremely plain in their meaning...
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (St. Matthew xvi.18).
Yes, the passage is plain: Peter is the rock upon which Christ will build His Church. Why did Christ change Simon's name to Peter, which means "rock"? How would the sentence read in the language Christ spoke at the time, Aramaic? Consider also:
"Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew xvi.15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church...I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah xxii.22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. xxii.21), to lead them and guide the flock (John xxi.15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy."
History bears out this truth also, as the earliest known writings of the Church Fathers attest to Peter being given supreme authority over the Church of God. From St. Chrysostom:
"He saith to him, 'Feed my sheep'. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren...If anyone should say 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?", I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world."
To deny that Peter is the rock is to say that Christ misspoke, that the original language it was spoken in is grammatical unsound, that the context was meaningless, and that the earliest recorded Christians were deceived in attributing to Peter the supremacy of rule over the Church of God.
The goal is to continually grow in our understanding of the Scriptures...
You can grow in understanding of Scripture, but you must hold its teachings in the same sense as the Apostles or you will fall into error. The "doctrine of Christ," as St. John calls it, must be held in continuity, and those who revolt against it "have not God" (2 John 9).
...not to simply accept some other authority's word on the matter.
What an arrogant thing to say. Do you reject all authority, or just that which doesn't suit your fancy?