Church is ultimate authority on The Bible

Not as such.

But, if there’s a teaching that isn’t perennial and universal, then it would not seem to meet the conditions for the ordinary magisterium. The question – in this case – is moot, since we do have expressions of the extraordinary magisterium, regarding the canon of Scripture. (One might expect that this fact would demonstrate that there wasn’t consensus on the question, and therefore, required a declaration by the pope and college of bishops.)

Now… I think you’re asking whether there have been bishops who were in need of correction, regarding something that otherwise would have been considered a part of the ordinary magisterium. I’m sure there have been, and I’m sure that the appropriate corrective actions were applied, so that the teachings could remain in the teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

However, your assertion that the canon of Scripture is part of the teaching of the ordinary magisterium seems manifestly erroneous, given the diversity of thought on the canon and the subsequent expression of the extraordinary magisterium on the subject. :man_shrugging:

This may already have been mentioned; without the Catholic Church there would be no bible. It was only because Catholicism collected, examined, and prayed over the hundreds of extant manuscripts that a final Canon of Scripture was chosen in the 4th century. Those who initially discerned were blessed to confer on the rest of us this lengthy document of Hebrew and Christian writings in the form we know today. In my opinion, they remain the final authority on the Book.


Without the Magisterium, the NT canon would be hundreds of books long, and still growing. That’s how consensus works.

1 Like

By their fruits you will know them. The Church is authoritative in Bible interpretation, unity results. Protestants are left to interpret on their own, 10,000+ denominations result.

The Holy Bible is the words of Prophets, Jesus, the Blessed Apostles, and others. It is the the oldest and most Sacred Traditions and teachings we have. Its important, because even though the Church doesn’t err, people in the Church do.

So if something sounds off, you can check with the Holy Bible. And since the words inside are ‘written in stone’, the Holy Bible should always be able to backup what the Church teaches.

But, sadly there are many within the hierarchy that are twisting the words of the Church for their own uses. So we must have the Holy Bible as an affirmation and clarification on what is already set in stone.

Circular reasoning. But also, how can you not read the Bible without interpreting it? How can you read anything without interpreting it?

Same problem. When the Bible says “Thou shalt not steal” you need the church to interpret it? You are relinquishing the authority of your own conscience and common sense. This is one reason - probably the biggest one - that Protestantism arose.

A lot of doublespeak, I am afraid. Encourages personal interpretation - “as long as it doesn’t go against sacred interpretation”. That pretty much ends it for “private interpretation”. The “treasures of the Word” can not be inexhaustable when someone is there disallowing interpretation which is private. For example, Jesus said “Matt 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven”. Pretty clear. No “interpretation” needed. Reading in context the verse before it says: “Matt 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.” We know Jesus was addressing spiritual issues. But what would the Church teach on this? Or should I ask "What would the Church demand regarding this question?

“Bible reading doesn’t involve interpretation or interpretation” is circular reasoning? Umm… pardon? :thinking:

By relying on the interpretation that comes from the divinely authorized institution who interprets it. Ever read a book and then the Cliff’s Notes? It’s the Cliff’s Notes that provides the interpretation, not you.

You can read, and then think. And, once you hear a valid interpretation, you accept that interpretation.

In terms of how you live it out in your life? Sure. As a sentence on its own, devoid of context? Nah… that one line seems pretty straightforward. However, let’s pick one that isn’t so obviously trivial: “thou shalt not kill”. Does that need interpretation? (I say ‘yes’.)

No – you form your conscience based on the teachings of the Church, as found in the Bible and in the Apostolic Tradition. That’s not “relinquishing”, that’s using your God-given rationality !!!

I agree. Folks decided that they didn’t want to listen to the Church whom Jesus gave us, and wanted to make it all up themselves. Yep; that’s one of the reasons for the ‘Reformation’, all right!

No it doesn’t. The Church doesn’t provide doctrinal interpretations of every verse of Scripture. When it does, however (e.g., that “this is my body … this is my blood” means literally what it says), then we’re called to hear and accept the authoritative teaching.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I mean, you’re seriously saying that there aren’t multiple, divergent, conflicting interpretations of this verse? “No ‘interpretation’ needed”??? Clearly, you’re mistaken…

That it’s hyperbole, and that other verses in the Bible demonstrate this to be the fact.


I don’t think what I wrote needs any more explanation, to be honest.

God Bless

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