You take Acts 8 as PROOF that the Church must interpret scripture to be understood? It was a story about one guy who witnessed to another guy. It made no sweeping pronouncements. Jesus interpreted His own words in scripture, yet you don't seem to think that there is a requirement that only God's interpretation (other scripture) of the Bible is valid.
Yeah, and the Gospel is a story about one guy telling "I am" to another guy. By this logic there will be nothing left of the scripture, as most of it is parabolic. Why, do you think did the inspired Evangelist record it?
you don't seem to think that there is a requirement that only God's interpretation (other scripture) of the Bible is valid.
I think that only the Church's interpretation of the scripture is valid, as she is the bride of Christ formed by Him for that express purpose (Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15; Luke 24:44-50; John 20:21, John 21:15-19), and guarded by Him from failure (Matthew 16:18). Got any scripture to the contrary?