There is no need to "interpret" the Church's teaching. The Church's teaching is distilled into the Catechism which is full of clear statements of what the Church believes to be the truth. Some of those statements are difficult to fully comprehend like those regarding the Holy Trinity (e.g. Three Persons in one God, etc.) but there is no interpretation necessary.
The Church believes their positions to be the truth because they are based in Holy Scripture, the interpretations of the Doctors of the church, the result of thoughtful discussion and prayer at various councils of wise and holy men, and because of the claim that Jesus stated the Church would be the one true Church.
The Doctors of the Church are considered by most all Christians (even Protestants) as being good guides to what Holy Scriptures says. Of course, even back then there was some dissension which unfortunately led to the Great Schism, but the differences that Rome has with the Eastern Churches pale in comparison to those between Rome and the Protestant sects.
Vatican II appears to be the beginning of a new schism. A cynic might claim this is proof that the Church's claims to the truth are suspect. However, it has been quite some time since the Reformation which was the last major schism, and since that time those that broke off claiming to have the truth have since shattered into thousands of sects.
You mean the latest Catechism, and that this was an infallible document from its first issuing, and is not subject to change? Yet I would agree that there is no need to "interpret" the Church's teaching is RCs are to heed such statements as those of Pope Pius X:
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
..in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council
Thus in one century a Catholic ruler must obey the pope in exterminating all the heretics from his land, (Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215) and consider all such as have not "remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church," and are not "subject to the Roman Pontiff" to be damned according to conciliar and infallible papal statements.
But in another century he is to affirm SS type baptized Prots as born again brethren.
The problem is that this "follow the Pastors as docile flock" is contrary to how the NT church began, which was actually in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead the common people followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and stablished His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
The Church believes their positions to be the truth because they are based in Holy Scripture, the interpretations of the Doctors of the church, the result of thoughtful discussion and prayer at various councils of wise and holy men, and because of the claim that Jesus stated the Church would be the one true Church.
Not quite. Rome believes and presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Thus reproofs that show that her distinctive claims are not warranted by Holy Scripture are dismissed since according to her intrerpretation, only here interpretation can be correct in any conflict, regardless of the evidence otherwise, or lack thereof.
Read here by the grace of God if you will, before replying.
The Doctors of the Church are considered by most all Christians (even Protestants) as being good guides to what Holy Scriptures says. Really? Consistent with what I said above about autocratic Rome, is this from "Doctor" Liguori:
St. Ignatius once said that should the Pope command him to undertake a voyage by sea in a ship without a mast, without oars or sails, he would blindly obey the precept. And when he was told that it would be imprudent to expose his life to danger, he answered that. "prudence is necessary in Superiors; but in subjects the perfection of prudence is to obey without prudence. This doctrine is conformable to Holy Scripture: Behold, says the Lord, as clay is in the potter s hands.' Religious must leave themselves in the hands of the Superior to be moulded as she wills." St. Alphonsus De Liguori, True Spouse of Christ, p. 68 http://wallmell.webs.com/LiguoriTrueSpouseChristVol1.pdf
Obey blindly; that is, without asking reasons. Be careful, then, never to examine the directions of your confessor....that in obeying your confessor, you obey God; force yourself, then, to obey him in spite of all your fears. And be persuaded that if you are not obedient to him, it will be impossible for you to go on well; but if you obey, you are always secure. But, you say, if I am damned in consequence of obeying my confessor, who will rescue me from hell? What you say is impossible." " St. Alphonsus De Liguori, The complete works of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori: the ascetical works: Volumes 10-11 (True Spouse of Christ) Google book search
Vatican II appears to be the beginning of a new schism. A cynic might claim this is proof that the Church's claims to the truth are suspect. However, it has been quite some time since the Reformation which was the last major schism, and since that time those that broke off claiming to have the truth have since shattered into thousands of sects.
Misleading, as Rome's limited unity is largely on paper, while those who esteem Scripture the strongest are far more conservative and unified in core beliefs and values that those whom Rome counts and treats as members. It seems you can be a Ted Kennedy Catholic more easily than a real conservative one.
Which explains all the disagreements among the Catholic sectlets.
Which STILL needs to be interpreted.
For that matter, EVERYTHING you read you interpret from your worldview, which is different from everyone else on the planet.
One of the obvious things is that the printed word do3es not carry tone of voice and inflection and you have to decide what it is for the situation.
So is it *Are you kidding???*
Or *Are you kidding!*
Or *Are you kidding?!?!?!*
Is it sarcastic?
Incredulous?
Tired, as in *Not again?*
All that for three words.
And no, the CCC is not clear at all about a lot of things. If it is, then perhaps you could tell us whether there is salvation outside the Catholic church.