For an interpretation of Scripture to be acceptable (which does not mean it is necessarily correct) it must at least conform to the basic dogmatic teachings of the Church."For an interpretation of Scripture to be acceptable (which does not mean it is necessarily correct.)"
So why would it be acceptable? And to whom? To God? Surely not to God if it is not correct.
The rest of what I quoted from the article:
"...it must at least conform to the basic dogmatic teachings of the Church."
It must at least conform to the basic dogmatic teachings of the Church?
Let me make a stab at something.
By the Church, you mean the Christian denomination commonly referred to as Catholic?
If that is the case, carry on and have a nice discussion about "basic dogmatic teachings" but don't expect simple Christians that depend on the One that was sent to teach us all things, the Holy Spirit of God, to rely on anything or anybody else to lead us into all wisdom and knowledge.
Praying for the Holy Spirit to interpretate the Holy Scriptures will continue to be the best way to understand them.
I tripped over that too. I finally figured that it's like the imprimatur. It is possible to agree with established dogma but, in dealing with the array of possible ramifications, to go down a road which has not been SHOWN to be wrong but which will turn out to be wrong.
Catholic dogma doesn't claim to have exhausted all the possibilities of all its ramifications.
If I'm right, Aquinas's disagreement with the Immaculate Conception and his related thought that EARLY abortion is not murder were, at the time, "acceptable" because the principle of his disagreement was about when the "conceptus" becomes human. Later learning resolved some questions and he turned out to be wrong.
I hopethat's (a) right and (b) clear.