Catholic Bible - should it not be evolving?


Just a ponderment…

If Popes are infalible when speaking “ex-cathredra” (including Papal Bulls) why then are those statements not added to the Bible? Since they are infalible, shouldn’t each and every Christian know about each and every one declared?


I am not even remotely a biblical or theological scholar but I would think the answer to your question is that the books that make up what we know to be the Bible were gathered together in the 3rd or 4th century and confirmed in the early 1500’s. Except for the books removed from the Old Testament by our Protestant friends, the Bible is as it was for 100’s of years.:bible1:


We already have 2 papal encyclicals in the Bible (1 and 2 Peter) why add more? :slight_smile:


Answer part #2

And, since we have so much more than just the Bible to teach us the way we should go, it is incumbent on each and every Catholic to read the writings of the Doctors of the Church, and to know the Catechism and to listen to the teachings of the Magisterium including our Holy Father, and…

We are very blessed and rich indeed!


See, I said I am not a Biblical scholar. I should have known that one, though :slight_smile:


Also, the Bible is comprised of apostolic writings only. Since the Pope is not an Apostle (except for the first one) his writings cannot be added to the Bible.


Because Scripture is Scripture and Sacred Tradition is Sacred Tradition. Even though both of them are the Word of God, they are two entirely different means of transmitting that Word. The inspired Word of God in it’s written form was completed at the death of the last Apostle.

Here is how the Vatican II Document *Dei Verbum *explains it. Please read the whole thing carefully:

  1. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.
  1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.


Sorry my friend - Mark and Luke were not Apostles and they each got a Gospel in! Read Lukes intro - he doesnt even claim to be writing under inspiration, nor does he claim a first hand knowledge. He, like a good reporter, simply gathered info from first hand eye witnesses. It is only by virtue of the authority of the Church to declare such writings as inspired that they stand as inspired Scripture.


Actually, the writings have *apostolic **origins ***which is very different than saying they were written by apostles.


Popes are interpreting revelation already provided.

The real question is why Protestants don’t add to their Bible, since they claim fresh new ideas direct from the Holy Spirit post-Apostolic Age.


Only scrpture is inspired, the Oral Tradition, and the Teaching Magesterium are not inspired, but only infallible.

NO, the bible should not be added to. But I would say that the commentary should reflect the churches teaching.

The only one I know that added to the bible was Martin Luther when he added the word ‘alone’ to Romans 3:28 so it would reflect his theology.


Very good thoughs and comments - all of them. Thank you.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit