Why the Catholic Church Says the Church—Not Scripture Alone—is the Final Authority
One of the deepest divides between Catholics and Protestants is this: Where does the authority to teach and interpret the Christian faith ultimately rest? Protestants argue for sola Scriptura—that the Bible alone is sufficient. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, teaches that Christ established a living, teaching Church to guard and interpret both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
So, who did Jesus leave in charge—the book, or the Church?
The Catholic View: A Living Church Guards the Faith
The Catholic Church teaches that the Word of God comes to us in two forms: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, both of which are entrusted to the Church to interpret faithfully through the Magisterium, its teaching office.
“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God… entrusted to the Church.”¹
“The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church.”²
This means the Church isn’t above the Bible—it’s the servant of the Word, ensuring it’s passed on without distortion.
Scripture Supports Church Authority
While sola Scriptura advocates often cite 2 Timothy 3:16—“All Scripture is inspired by God…”—that verse never says only Scripture is the rule of faith. The Bible itself shows the early Church relying on oral tradition and authoritative interpretation.
“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
“How can I [understand] unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:31)
Jesus established a visible, teaching Church—not just a book:
“Whoever listens to you listens to me.” (Luke 10:16)
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church… I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 16:18–19)
What the Early Church Fathers Believed
The earliest Christians believed that the authority to teach and interpret the faith was handed down through apostolic succession—not individual reading of the Bible.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 AD), writing against heretics who twisted Scripture, said:
“When, however, they are refuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse the Scriptures… But when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, and which is preserved by the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition… It is within the power of all… to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world.”³
Tertullian (c. 200 AD) asked: who has the right to interpret Scripture?
“If there be any heresies which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age… let them show the origins of their churches, let them unroll the list of their bishops, coming down in due succession from the beginning… for the truth is that which is one with the apostles, which is not different from them in doctrine.”⁴
Origen (c. 250 AD), known for his Scripture expertise, emphasized that not just anyone could interpret Scripture rightly:
“Now that there are many who think they believe what the Scriptures teach, and some of them are of different opinions… heresies have come into existence… The Church received from the apostles the tradition of faith, and that faith was handed down in the succession of bishops.”⁵
St. Athanasius (4th century), who defended the divinity of Christ against the Arians, emphasized the authority of the Church’s tradition:
“Let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers preserved. Upon this the Church is founded.”⁶
Vatican II: Scripture, Tradition, and the Teaching Church
The Second Vatican Council summarized the traditional Catholic position clearly:
“It is clear… that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church… are so linked… that one cannot stand without the others.”⁷
You can’t pull the Bible out of its historical context and expect unity. Without the Church, even Scripture becomes vulnerable to contradiction and confusion.
The Protestant View: Sola Scriptura and Personal Interpretation
Martin Luther launched the Protestant Reformation with the idea that Scripture alone is the sole authority, and every believer can interpret it:
“A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it.”⁸
This idea—sola Scriptura—was based on the belief that the Bible is clear enough to interpret without an official teacher or Church.
Why the Catholic Church Rejects Sola Scriptura
-
Scripture Doesn’t Teach It
There’s no verse that says the Bible alone is the only authority. On the contrary, it teaches the importance of oral tradition and apostolic authority. -
The Bible Came From the Church
The canon of Scripture wasn’t finalized until the 4th century by the authority of the Catholic Church.⁹ The Bible didn’t fall from the sky—it was discerned, preserved, and passed on by bishops and councils. -
Private Interpretation Leads to Chaos
Since the Reformation, sola Scriptura has resulted in more than 30,000 denominations, many of them contradicting each other on core doctrines. That’s not the unity Christ prayed for (John 17:21). -
Even Luther Saw the Danger
Luther later admitted the chaos that his teaching caused:“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads… No peasant is so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the Holy Spirit who inspires him.”¹⁰
Pope Benedict XVI: Scripture Needs the Church
“Scripture needs to be read and interpreted through the living Tradition of the Church… Without the Church, Scripture is just a book, open to anyone’s interpretation.”¹¹
The Church is not above the Word of God. But without the Church, the Word becomes fragmented and misused.
___________
Final Thought
The Bible is the inspired Word of God. But Jesus didn’t leave us a book and tell everyone to figure it out on their own. He established a visible Church, built on the apostles, with real teaching authority to guard and interpret His Word across generations.
That Church still exists today—and it’s the Catholic Church.
This is why I agree with and am a member of the Catholic Church—the one and only Church founded by Christ upon Peter and the Apostles. It’s not just historically rooted; it’s doctrinally consistent, biblically grounded, and spiritually alive. It is the Church that preserved the Bible, stood firm through heresies, councils, and empires, and continues to teach the full faith of the apostles.
In a world full of opinions and divisions, I choose the Church that speaks with Christ’s authority—not because I trust men, but because I trust the promise Jesus made:
“The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)
Footnotes
-
Catechism of the Catholic Church, §97
-
CCC, §100
-
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 2–3
-
Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 32
-
Origen, On First Principles, Preface, Book I
-
Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28
-
Vatican II, Dei Verbum, §10
-
Martin Luther, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520)
-
Council of Rome (382 AD), Synod of Hippo (393), Council of Carthage (397)
-
Martin Luther, On the Misuse of the Mass (1526)
-
Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth (2007)
Scripture Came From the Church, Not the Other Way Around
Jesus never told anyone to write a book.
He didn’t say, “Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah—now go write a book, and upon that book I will build my Church. I will give that book the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever that book binds on Earth will be bound in heaven.”
He said:
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church… I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” (Matthew 16:18–19)
Jesus built a Church, not a book. He didn’t write anything Himself—except once in the dirt (John 8:6). He taught by speaking and by forming a community around the apostles, who passed His teaching on orally, as they were commanded to do (Matthew 28:19–20).
When the apostles went out to evangelize the world, they didn’t carry a Bible under their arms. There was no New Testament yet. What they carried was the Gospel they had heard, seen, and touched (1 John 1:1–3). They preached, baptized, appointed bishops, and celebrated the Eucharist.
Only when disputes arose, or clarity was needed, did they write letters. Those letters—Paul to the Romans, Peter to the churches of Asia, John to his beloved children—were written to already-existing churches that had been living the faith without any New Testament writings at all.
So what did those early Christians rely on before they had any written Scripture?
They relied on Sacred Tradition—the teaching handed down from the apostles—and on the leadership of the bishops, who were appointed to preserve that tradition. St. Paul told the Thessalonians:
“Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
In fact, many Christian communities didn’t have access to the full New Testament until centuries later. What sustained them? The liturgy. The Eucharist. The rule of faith. The guidance of their bishop. And the unity of the Church that Christ had established.
The Church didn’t grow out of the Bible. The Bible grew out of the Church.
That’s why the early Church Fathers, over and over, insisted that the faith was preserved not in private interpretation, but in the continuity of apostolic teaching:
“Suppose there arise a dispute concerning some important question. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches, with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?”
— Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, 21
That’s the opposite of sola Scriptura. That’s the Church—the one Christ founded, the one guided by the Holy Spirit, the one that compiled the Scriptures, and the one that still teaches with authority today.
No comments:
Post a Comment