Friday, January 26, 2018

Francis Sullivan and the Catholic Claim to having "Certainty"

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.