text: My mouth is agape at your reply, my friend, seriously.
  
  The formal magisterium is not in the business of passing judgement of scriptural interpretations per se. Instead it simply uses scripture in its pronouncements, and that regularly implies an interpretation. Problem for your view is that the Catholic approach to interpreting scripture has changed over time, and the magisterium's use of scripture changes along with scriptural scholarship. Typology and allegory were once all the rage; then there was literalism tainted by a ruthless effort to force complementarity out of outright contradictions (that got us, for instance, the attempt to use Joshua's sun standing still to deny astronomical discoveries). 
  
  I suggest Tridentinus, that perhaps when you think of modern scripture scholarship, you are thinking about the very real battles that exist among scholars, and some of the way-out-nonsense that some bring to the subject. Scholarly debate sorts that stuff out over time, as in science.