Obscurity and Perspicuity

I am a Roman Catholic. Now, it's a staple saying that Sola Scriptura Fundie Protestants stand for Biblical Perspicuity and Roman Catholics for Biblical Obscurity. I could, as Roman Catholic, presumably be expected to take the position that the Bible is obscure per se and becomes perspicacious through the Magisterium.

Well, there are areas where this is true. And I don't take it from the Magisterium, I take it from the Bible ... which I hold to be generally Perspicacious.

If I now take let us make brick, and bake them with fire as "let us make whites, burned chalk" and slime instead of mortar as "stomped earth for thickness," and also next verse a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven as "a three step rocket" (note, it's involved with "let us make" and no indication they succeeded then and there), I take this as a moderate lowering of my otherwise very high expectations on Biblical perspicuity. In defense of the here lower perspicuity, I actually make the text more perspicuous than the usual interpretation a few verses later: God really did intend to have all enterprises of man succeed, and that's why we sent Gagarin and Armstrong into space, no need to supplement an unstated "lest" ... but the point is, I take Genesis 11 as sufficiently perspicuous to point to Göbekli Tepe as Nimrod's original Babel.

And I rate most historic texts as higher in perspicuity than the early chapters of Genesis. For the exact same reason that a Greek reading Thucydides had a better understanding of the Pelopponesian war than a Greek reading Homer had of the Trojan one. The transition from a Mycenaean Greece in the shadow of a lost Hittite Empire to an Archaic Greece with a somewhat greater distance to but still menace or at least "impressions" or imposingness from Assyria had made lots of the traditional references obsolete and hard to understand. And the first eleven chapters of Genesis involve all of the post-Flood stone age and part of the copper age in parts of the world concerned. I also rate most doctrinal texts as sufficiently perspicuous if you approach them with the right terminological presuppositions. Husband of one wife = no more than one. Possibly also bishop = presbyter, while the actual bishops were instead variously termed, including Apostles, Evangelists, Teachers (a teacher in the Classical world has a cathedra, which sets him apart in the classroom, and a local bishop has a cathedra).

My point for there being obscurity in the sense that the usual Catholic apologist has had a tendency to exaggerate, is in fact not so much Empirical as Biblical. The usual prooftext the usual apologist offers also offers a limit of the obscurity.

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction
[2 Peter 3:15-16]

So, our first Pope clearly said: 1) in St. Paul's epistles some things are hard to understand, 2) unlearned and unsteady wrest these to their own destruction, 3) they also do so with the other Scriptures.

Other than what? Other than the obscure passages of St. Paul? Other than St. Paul? Obscure passages other than those in St. Paul? Or, Bible passages, other than those that are obscure? I take the latter view, since St. Peter said "the" Scriptures, and he was obviously not saying that all of them were obscure. So, the unlearned and unsteady in fact do wrest perspicacious passages against their perspicacity.

Both partial obscurity is affirmed and that obscurity is not responsible for all misunderstanding.

Another prooftext "against perspicuity" is the Ethiopian Eunuch.

And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him
[Acts Of Apostles 8:30-31]

This is evidence for one area: OT prophecy is obscure apart from the NT fulfilment. There are tons of Church Fathers and Scholastics who say with St. Augustine (who presumably counts for two tons among the CCFF) that the NT is hidden in the OT and the OT is opened in the NT. Let's not exaggerate obscurity here. Once the NT is known, one does not have the excuse of obscurity to reject it, as if the OT didn't become clear enough in face of the NT. Note here, by NT, I don't mean solely the text of the 27 books, I also mean the NT interpretation of OT prophecy and even of OT history as prophecy. The Catholic interpretation of what the NT is, sometimes wins, not so much because of an NT prooftext, but because of which reading of an NT text or which traditional doctrine makes best sense of OT prophecy. I've found the Protestant is either inventing an obscurity about the correspondence between Eliacim and Peter which isn't there, or pretending it's obscure whether all of OT history is prophecy about NT. It is on the contrary perspicuous:

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him
[Luke 24:27]

Now, what exactly does Catholic dogma require us to believe about the necessity of the Magisterium? We would all miss every text if it weren't for the Magisterium? No, the Magisterium is there so we don't miss out on even one of them. It's perfectly compatible with perspicuity that any reader of good will gets 90 % of the doctrine right, or even 95 % — but what if you need to get 100 % of it right? That's where the magisterium comes in.

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them And seeing him they adored: but some doubted And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world
[Matthew 28:16-20]

So, for our purpose here, the Magsiterium begins with 12 disciples, by this point reduced to 11, it lasts to the end of the world, it has Jesus as unceasing and omnipotent guide and its task involves teaching ALL truth. Not just 90 % or 95 % but 100 %. Presumably the Ethiopian Eunuch had got 95 or 99 % of the OT right, but he needed the emissary of the 12, St. Philip the Deacon (if it wasn't one of the 12, St. Philip the Apostle) to tell him what this passage was about. (If you check the wording, the Eunuch is giving a quote from Isaias 53, verse 7, but the Eunuch reads in the past tense, Isaias in the future tense: but that's in the Greek translation and others, in Hebrew, the future of a prophet often is equal to a past tense, grammatically).

So, I believe the infallibility of the Magisterium, because of Biblical perspicuity, not because of Biblical obscurity.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
XXIInd LD after Pentecost
9.XI.2025