Pope Pius XII, in his Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis Christi, par. 12, defined the Mystical Body of Christ as the one holy Roman Catholic and apostolic Church. What he meant by "Roman" was all the different Rites under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, not the Western or Latin part of the Church only. Pope Pius XI, in his Encyclical Letter Mortalium Animos taught that no one could be a member of this Mystical Body of Christ who were not in fact subject to the Roman Pontiff.

This Mystical Body of Christ is not a denomination. Rather, it is the one true Church founded by Christ upon Blessed Peter -- be it his profession of faith or his role of primacy among the other Apostles, it does not matter as both are true. Blessed Peter went to Rome and took up the office of bishop there, and was martyred there on Vatican Hill. That is why Saint Peter's Basilica is built on Vatican Hill. He was succeeded by Linus and Clement -- both mentioned in Scripture -- and then by an unbroken succession of other men, whose names and histories we know, right down to our present day.

And so it is that from the time of Blessed Peter until this present day the one man in the world who has the power and authority to bind all of the Faithful to the doctrines and morals of the Christian Faith revealed by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is none other than the Bishop of Rome, and when he does so bind the Faithful, the Faithful are protected from ever being bound to error by the charism of infallibility which the Bishop of Rome alone possesses. No doubt God gives His Vicar on earth other helps in the execution of his office, but they do not rise to the level of being able to teach the entire Church with a guarantee against teaching error.

The Pope, then, is not impassible, nor is he impeccable. He must struggle through his own spiritual journey as best he can. But the Faithful can help him. In fact, the Faithful can render him more aid than will ever be known this side of heaven. The Faithful can pray for him. They can offer up all their prayers, works, joys and sufferings for his intentions. They can make all manner of sacrifices throughout the day for him. What a great gift (among so many others) God has given to His Faithful! Through their intercession His Vicar can gain the helps he needs to carry out his office in an extraordinary way. The Pope governs us in justice, and teaches us in truth, and we pray for him so that he may grow in holiness and fortitude. What an incredible relationship! But why should it not be? We are, after all, members of the same Mystical Body.

Well written Pax

Id add a reasonable line of biblical basis for your statement would be

Mt 16:18 ; Mt 18:17,18 ; 1 Tim 3:15 ; 1 Cor 12:27; Luke 10:16

Scripture is so subject to interpretation. I am almost coming to believe that it is a blasphemy against God to interpret Scripture. I never see the Church interpreting Scripture, just understanding Scripture at its various and inexhaustible levels of meaning. I make a distinction between interpreting and understanding only because the idea behind interpreting has become corrupted (IMHO). But, the historical record, that is not so easily interpreted to make it fit into preconceived notions. That the Church was always there, no one can deny. That all denominations broke away from that same Church is also undeniable. No heretic, schismatic or apostate can deny those facts. Instead, they interpret Scripture to make those facts mean something other than they obviously mean.

Can you tell me what you see as the difference between "interpreting" Scripture and "understanding" Scripture?

It is a distinction I personally make without any offence to anyone who wishes to use the words in their proper meaning. "Interpreting" to me has come to mean "making the Scriptures say what you want them to say." "Understanding" is just letting the Scriptures say what they do say. Without the lens of Sacred Tradition, one is forced to interpret the Scriptures. With the lens of Sacred Tradition, one comes to understand the Scriptures. Now, you will probably tell me, and you will be right, that I make a distinction without difference. The distinction is for my own sake, and I merely share it with others for the sake of revealing my own thoughts to people I have come to trust and love.

As long as you make clear what you're saying, I don't object, but I will say that I wouldn't use the word "interpret" in the way you do since it is likely to be "understood" wrongly.

Well, then I will keep those distinctions private so as not to confuse myself. I know the Church uses the word interpret in the proper sense and I use it in an improper sense. But so it is with living languages. Words have their meanings changed over time. The change in meaning begins first in everyday usage long before it makes it way into a dictionary. In today's common parlance the word interpret has a very relativistic meaning (but, then, so do most words which once had absolute meanings).

I do not disagree. The Church and the Church alone is the proximate rule of faith. When we try to ʻinterpretʻ scripture (or any Revelation) we fall into the danger, as heretics have, of ʻtwisting it to our own destructionʻ (cf. 2 Pet 2:16). If that is your point, then I do not object.

However understanding scripture in the light of the analogy of Faith (in congruence with the teaching of the Church) can increase our love and knowledge of the Faith.

Certainly we should agree on that. If not then many doctors of the Church did done wrong by using Scripture to explain some aspect of the Faith since, after all, some of them were not a part of the teaching Magisterium of the Church. I assume you would not make that claim.

With regard to your post on the ʻThe Mystical Body of Christʻ each of the Scripture passages I listed are not only clearly in line with Pius XIʻs writing but also used by various doctors, Pontiffs, and catechisms to explain the same concept.

So hopefully in can be seen that using those passages in support of your initial post demonstrates a proper understanding of scripture in the light of Tradition and the perennial teaching of the Church.

Believe me, my friend, I love and venerate the Holy Scriptures. That was not my point. Yes, only in the light of the teaching authority of the Church can Scripture be properly understood. My point (poorly made) was that we (the unwashed Faithful) are not interpreting the Scriptures, but merely understanding the Scriptures (as best we are able to understand them). And, yes, when we attempt to interpret the Scriptures without the benefit of the Magisterium, we do indeed run a very clear risk of falling into heresy. In fact, it is virtually unavoidable. And, yes, those verses were very applicable to my original post.