Bodleian Girl is wise to stand on Scripture.
It is the only inspired record we have and all agree upon...well, at least the NT.
Where is Rome's exegesis on the verses of the NT?
Has it produced a verse by verse explanation of the texts?
I mean, come on....ya'll only been around ~1400-1700 years. Surely, someone in Roman Catholicism has taken the time to explain the meaning of each text.
Every disputant on this Forum will quote Scripture, and even if there were no Catholics here, all the rest of the usual disputants would still be going after each other, hammer and tongs, over interpretation.
The problem with interpretation usually stems from the how the text is viewed. Roman Catholicism uses three views of the texts.
The allegorical, moral or anagogical (CCC 117).
And this is where Rome errors.
The allegorical allows one to "read into" the text things not there. Much of Mariology is founded upon this.
How should we interpret the Bible?
A proper way to understand the Bible would follow these:
The most important law of biblical hermeneutics is that the Bible should be interpreted literally. We are to understand the Bible in its normal or plain meaning, unless the passage is obviously intended to be symbolic or if figures of speech are employed.
A second crucial law of biblical hermeneutics is that passages must be interpreted historically, grammatically, and contextually. [I would add a working knowledge of the original languages is most beneficial as well] interpreting a passage historically means we must seek to understand the culture, background, and situation that prompted the text.
A third law of biblical hermeneutics is that Scripture is always the best interpreter of Scripture. For this reason, we always compare Scripture with Scripture when trying to determine the meaning of a passage. [This is why you've seen me say context is key in understanding the Word.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-hermeneutics.html
No. Do you think it ought to? There are all kinds of commentaries out there --- I rather like Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition --- but I think it unwise to expect 30,000+ authoritative interpretations for 30,000+ verses.
Historically speaking, definitions of doctrine are not worked out in the Church unless they are demanded, and they are not demanded unless there is some sort of dispute, and people are asking urgent questions which threaten to tear the church apart.
In other words, the Church does not act preemptively or pro-actively to answer every conceivable question. The Church's main role is the conservation and handing-on of the deposit of faith which was handed down to us from the Apostles. Some have called it a "theology of repetition."
Development/interpretation comes along later, often at times of challenge and controversy, so as to prevent disputes from leading people into error and damaging the unity of Christ's flock.