One often hears from many Catholic apologists that, without the Papacy and the infallibility of the Catholic Church, one cannot meaningfully interpret the Bible. This is in error on a number of issues, not the least is that, at most, Rome has dogmatically defined a dozen passages, mainly relating to the role and status of Peter and the Eucharist.
Jesuit priest and scholar, Edmund O’Reilly (1811-1878), wrote the following where he admits that, even when a Pope or Council appeals to a biblical passage, they are not necessarily providing the correct meaning thereof:
A Pope or Council may indeed explicitly define that a particular text of Scripture is to be understood in a certain sense. In that case the interpretation is part of the doctrine taught, and is to be accepted as such. But if the text be merely brought forward as a ground of proof, the Infallible teaching does not include the meaning given to the text, though the citation of it in such a context is of very great weight as to the determination of its sense. (Edmund J. O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society: Theological Essays [ed. Matthew Russell; London: John Hodges, 1892], 47)
This meshes well with what Ludwig Ott wrote about Pius IX's appeal to Gen 3:15 as a "proof-text" for the Immaculate Conception:
The Bull “Ineffabilis” approves of this messianic-marianic interpretation. It draws from it the inference that Mary, in consequence of her intimate association with Christ, “with Him and through Him had eternal enmity towards the poisonous serpent, triumphed in the most complete fashion over him, and crushed its head with her immaculate foot.” The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage. It must also be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma. (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 200, emphasis added)
(For more on the Immaculate Conception, see Refuting Tim Staples on the Immaculate Conception and Patristic Mariology)
Speaking of papal infallibility (which had been decreed in 1870, only a short time after O’Reilly wrote his book), we read:
[T]he gift might have existed without being manifested. Christ might have decreed to preserve the Pontiff from error in his teaching, and still not have made known the decree. (198)
In other words, according to O’Reilly, it was possible that papal infallibility, which would be scientifically defined in 1870, was unknown, or at least, not explicitly recognised by the Church until Vatican I. So much for the claim, made famous by his friend John Henry Newman, that to be deep in history is to become Catholic!
