Scripture Interpretation

Sola Scriptura has been a thorn in Catholics sides since Martin Luther penned it a few centuries ago. It is still argued over today without much effect. Catholics basically had to restructure its original meaning to defeat protestants, they couldn't defeat the original meaning. So they created some straw man arguments they could defeat and called it sola scriptura debate. One must go back to its original wording and meaning to see the true debate. I'm not a fan of Martin Luther in a broad sense, I'm not Lutheran or protestant. I don't believe in sola fide or faith alone.

I do believe in the original concept of sola scriptura. It didn't mean scripture alone in a broad sense. The debate was infallibility, this narrowed the meaning. Luther believed only the scriptures were infallible and the Popes and teaching officers of the church were not. Catholics believed the Pope sitting ex-cathedra and interpreting scripture was infallible. They believed the church could never fall away into heresy and the church as a whole was infallible. So, it was a debate over infallible authority. Martin Luther taught the scriptures were our only infallible authority on earth.

With this definition we can proceed. With a different definition it isn't really sola scriptura. Let me start by saying the scriptures are only infallible in their original form. Mistranslations, incomplete bibles, twisted bibles, etc aren't infallible. Only originals in their first form are perfect. Latin bibles left out the definite articles, they aren't infallible. So, the scriptures Popes interpreted wern't necessarily infallible, so how could the Popes interpretations be infallible? I believe most scholars concur and would stipulate the original scriptures were inspired and perfect as God designed them, but Popes using fallible bibles would be an issue. Martin Luther argued the Pope was using an altered bible, changed in translating to Latin. 

The issue is, what else could be infallible besides scripture? More important is what surpasses the theoretical possibility and is actually infallible in practiace. The Holy Spirit, yes, but there is no proof he inspired a papal decree through Peter.  The popes are human, we know we humans are fallible. Yet that isn't an issue if Peter never wrote a Papal decree himself. There is no record he ever wrote one. His letters were scripture and not Papal decrees. I Peter and 2 Peter were scripture. If there were no such documents, then Rome doesn't have precedent to write them. They need to show where Peter wrote a Papal decree.

Peter said no scripture was of any private interpretation, so his writings weren't considered his interpretations. He certainly didn't think so. Rome would lose precedent to interpret. Peter's scripture were of the Holy Spirit and not his personal judgments. With no other writings from Peter himself Rome has no actual basis for writing in his office. If there even is a Peter born office to them. If he didn't write, why would they?

There are writings from Jerusalem but not in Peter's name. It was the entire apostles and elders. 

Acts 15:22

Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely,] Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 

Acts 15:23

And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren [send] greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: 

So, we have no preserved writing by Peter that Rome could use as a precedent of an ex-cathedra judgment. There is no proof Peter even worked in such a way. He seems to have never written a Papal decree. If he didn't why would they?

There is no proof Papal decrees have the same authority as scripture, or that ex-cathedra speech is infallible. There is the claim.