[Mrs. Don-o]

I doubt that you have been told by "my fellow Catholics" that there are just two categories here: "officially defined" vs "up for grabs." If you were told exactly that, then the person was in error, or carelessly imprecise.

If you can quote what somebody actually said, that would be helpful.

The Church often comes up with guidance telling us what a Scripture passage doesn't say, without "defining" the passage itself, as if one could comprise its whole meaning in one definitive statement. These "negative" points of guidance are of great importance. For instance, we can't define the whole, comprehensive meaning of Jesus' saying "The Father and I are one." But we can say it doesn't mean they are the same, unitary Person. It doesn't mean Jesus doesn't have a mind and a will of His own. It doesn't mean that Jesus is His own Father (begetting Himself). It doesn't mean that Jesus is not a man. It doesn't exclude the role of the Holy Spirit just because the Holy Sppirit is not mentioned. It doesn't mean that the Trinity itself has all of Jesus' human characteristics. It doesn't mean the Trinity was born of the Virgin Mary, the Trinity suffered on the Cross, the Trinity died. It doesn't mean that Jesus is two Persons, or that the Trinity is one Person.

So you see, because a belief, or in this case a verse of Scripture, is not "officially defined," it does not follow that it is "up for grabs."

Heretical implications --- maybe dozens of them --- can be authoritatively excluded, without the passage itself being globally comprehended in one infallible definition.

Do you see that?

[trisham]

Well said, Mrs. Don-o.

[metmom]

You didn’t answer the question.

If it’s not officially defined, then what is the option?

The person’s own personal interpretation of Scripture.

Unless you have other options?