Often Roman Catholic apologists will claim that Rome provides infallible
certainty and guidance. Sadly, many uncritically accept such claims, even some
former Latter-day Saints (e.g., Richard Sherlock [btw: will happily debate Sherlock on his errant comments
about the biblical evidence for the Mass, something he has harped on whenever
he presents his “conversion” story]). Just look at the debates internal to Rome (e.g., the question of
Vatican II and whether it is binding [the whole SSPX debate]; the nature of “invincible
ignorance”; the place of Islam and Muslins within the orb of salvation; the
debates about the Old Covenant and whether it is still binding to the Jews;
etc).
As an example of this ploy being used against the LDS Church, Tim
Staples wrote in an article, Mormonism
and the Question of Authority:
One way to know is to
ask another simple question: What if you were living in, let’s say, 1785, and
you were to read this very passage from St. Matthew. You could know that Jesus
would never lead you to a “church” with no one who could speak for him. In obedience
to Jesus, where would you go? The LDS did not exist yet. Jesus is the way, the
truth and the life. He would never lead us astray or command us to follow
error. If the true church did not exist on this earth for 1,800 years, then
Jesus misguided millions into obeying an error-filled church with no apostolic
authority. That would be unthinkable.
Such might
seem like a good question. However, for those familiar with Roman Catholic
theology and history, Staples' question is disingenuous. After all, if this
person from 1785 queried a Catholic of his time about what the Gospel of Jesus
Christ was, it would not include three dogmas he now must, under pain of
anathema, believe to be definitional of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (i.e., the
Immaculate Conception [1854]; Papal Infallibility [1870] and the Bodily
Assumption of Mary [1950]). Perhaps one could rephrase Staples' question
thusly:
"If Rome is the true Church, then it
misguided countless millions into obeying an incomplete Gospel in 1785. That
would be unthinkable."
Ultimately,
the question posed by Staples is just empty rhetoric for those familiar with
Roman Catholic theology and history.
We can look
to the claim that, only by accepting Rome’s claims to authority that one can
have a sound interpretation of the Bible. In reality, Catholicism has, at most,
infallibly interpreted 12 passages (e.g., the Petrine texts and the Eucharistictexts in the New Testament), and even then, (1) many claim they are not the
only valid interpretations of these texts and (2) some scholars claim Rome has
not infallibly interpreted any biblical text. Furthermore, (3) such has not
prevented there being a huge chasm
between liberal and conservative Catholics, all of whom are still in full
communion with the Church.
As Francis
Sullivan, a Jesuit and, at the time of writing, professor of ecclesiology at
the Gregorian University in Rome, wrote in his book on the Magisterium:
Two further considerations come to mind: First: the magisterium has hardly ever defined exactly
how any particular text of Scripture is to be interpreted. Secondly: it is
generally understood in Catholic theology that when the magisterium invokes
texts of Scripture in support of a doctrine it is defining, the weight of the solemn definition does
not fall on the exegesis of those texts which is expressed or implied in
the dogmatic statement. In other words, the exegesis of particular scriptural
texts is not seen as the proper role of the magisterium.
What then does Dei Verbum mean when it ascribes the function of interpreting the
Word of God, both in Scripture and in Tradition, to the magisterium? It seems
to me it has to mean the function of discerning the consistent patterns, the general directions, which the Scriptures
give in matters that concern Christian faith and practice, and of judging
whether interpretations that are proposed are consonant with the Gospel message
as it has been believed and lived in the Church. It is in this sense, I submit,
that bishops are rightly called ‘judges of faith and morals for the universal Church.’
(LG 25) (Francis A. Sullivan, S.J. Magisterium:
Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church [New York: Paulist Press, 1983],
192, emphasis added)
As with the
Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura,
the Roman Catholic claim to certainty is a shell-game—something is promised,
but when examined, turns out nothing is really there. A prime example of the
falsehood, of course, being the
Marian Dogmas.
