Biblical Arguments Against the Supposed "Proof " of Sola Scriptura in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 on the Basis of the Phrases, "Man of God," "Profitable for Teaching," Etc.

 Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman (1802-1865)

I came across the preliminary basis for this argument (quite new to me), by perusing the work, Lectures on the Doctrines and Practices of the Roman Catholic Church, by Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman (London: J. S. Hodson, 1836), in preparation for my upcoming book (a collection of excerpts), Classic Catholic Biblical Apologetics: 1525-1925.

First, here is the Bible passage under consideration (RSV):

2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it [15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

On pages 208-209 of his book, Cardinal Wiseman comments upon it:

. . . it is manifest that St. Paul is speaking of the Scriptures here used, not as it has to be read and used for the individual instruction and edification of all the faithful, but as it is to be observed by pastors—for observe what he says; he says, expressly, it is profitable for those purposes which are the exclusive function of the ministry, and not of others, for the learners, for the subjects of the Church of Christ; for he says, it is "profitable for doctrine," that is, as the word means in its proper native sense, "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Therefore, he is to hold fast the doctrines which St. Paul taught, remembering upon whose authority he received them— that is, the authority of the Apostles. . . . he is to know besides, that this Scripture is profitable for the practice of his ministry, for correcting, for reproving, for instructing. These are points not for individual improvement, not for each one's edification; but they are essentially acts for the ministry of the priesthood, for those who have to teach others; and, consequently, if this text prove anything regarding Scripture, it only goes to prove that the pastors of the church should be familiar with it, and make use of it for the purpose of correcting, and edifying their flocks.

This (for me) was a new approach to the passage, and I was struck by how "individualistic" my take in the past had been: shot through with the casually non-institutional assumptions of my "low church evangelical" Protestant past. I had assumed without conscious analysis, that the "teaching," "reproof," "correction," and "training" referred to came straight from the Bible to the individual, whereas Cardinal Wiseman noted that it specifically referred to priests and pastors teaching their flocks. The Bible was, in other words, profitable as the essential aid for Christian teachers (essentially priests) to learn, in order to pass on Christian doctrine to laypeople. That is far different from the populist, anti-institutional, or anti-sacerdotal notion of sola Scriptura: the "me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit" mentality.

It's very interesting also, how in the larger context (the two previous verses: 3:14-15) of the passage as usually cited in Protestant polemics in favor of sola Scriptura (3:16-17 only), we see clear reference to apostolic tradition ("continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"). St. Paul is talking about himself and how he passed on the Christian tradition to Timothy (compare his language about receiving and delivering tradition -- including oral tradition -- in 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:1-3; Gal 1:9; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2).

Now here comes my part in this "new" analysis of a very familiar passage (much-beloved by Protestants as a supposed "proof" of sola Scriptura). Having discovered a better way to analyze in a general way the root meaning of the verses here, it occurred to me that the phrase "man of God" may be a further clue or key as to what St. Paul's intention was. I thought that it could very well be a description of the clergyman or person otherwise very specially devoted to serving God. And then I was curious how it was used elsewhere in Scripture. This turned out to be a very fruitful avenue indeed. hence, the (Catholic) Navarre Bible (commentary) on 1 Timothy 6:11, the only other place in the New Testament where the phrase appears ("But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness"):

“Man of God”: this expression was used in the Old Testament of men who performed some special God-given mission — for example, Moses (Deut 33:1; Ps 40:1), Samuel (1 Sam 9:6–7); Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17:18; 2 Kings 4:7, 27, 42). In the Pastoral Epistles (cf. also 2 Tim 3:17) it is applied to Timothy insofar as ordination has conferred on him a ministry in the Church. 

Protestant reference works concur in the general sense of noting that the phrase was used in the Old Testament to refer to exceptionally prominent followers of God; not any believer at all. Accordingly,  The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary ("Man of God", p. 684) notes:

A designation for early prophets in Israel . . . The term is used of unnamed prophets (1 Sam. 2:27; 1 Kgs. 13; 2 Chr. 25:7, 9), Moses (Deut. 33:1; Josh. 14:6; 1 Chr. 23:14; 2 Chr. 30:1; Ezra 3:2), the angel of the Lord -- thought to be a prophet (Judg. 13:6, 8), Samuel (1 Sam. 9:6-10), . . . Elijah (1 Kgs. 17:18, 24), and Elisha (e.g., 2 Kgs. 1:9-13; 5:8-15). In later periods the term apparently came to be applied to some, other than prophets, who were thought of as bearing some special relationship to God, such as David (Neh. 12:24, 36; cf. Jer. 35:4).

Likewise, Keil and Delitzsch' Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 5: Psalms, Part III, p. 48 -- a renowned Lutheran work -- (on Psalms 90), observes:

To the name, which could not be allowed to remain so bald, because next to Abraham he is the greatest man known to the Old Testament history of redemption, is added the title of honour [Hebrew] (as in Deut. xxxiii. 1, Josh. xiv. 6), an ancient name of the prophets which expresses the close relationship of fellowship with God, just as "servant of Jahve" [Yahweh] expresses the relationship of service, in accordance with the special office and in relation to the history of redemption, into which Jahve has taken the man and into which he himself has entered.

Wikipedia ("Man of God") gives a nice and handy summary of the usage, noting that only Moses was given this title in the Torah (first five books). Clearly, it was not used of any Jewish believer. See the entirety of all of the passages with the phrase, from an online RSV search page.

The argument then becomes, of course, that Paul was referring specifically to Timothy (an apostle) and other "men of God" of like eminence (priests) in 1 Timothy 6:11 and 2 Timothy 3:14-17. If so, the authority of Scripture was specifically to be delegated through authoritative, ordained interpreters, in accordance with the larger apostolic tradition (2 Tim 3:14-15, etc.). This is quite different from sola Scriptura in its usual Protestant definitions, and it is precisely harmonious with (if not identical to) the Catholic "three-legged stool" of Church-Scripture-Tradition.

If we go even deeper into the passage and reflect on the terms used, the case is strengthened all the more. For example, "profitable for teaching" (2 Tim 3:16). Does this make more sense as describing the Bible, or rather, a teacher (the "man of God") who is teaching from the Bible with authority? If we search "teach" or "taught" or "instructed" or any similar terms in the Bible, we are hard pressed to find them ever applied to a mere book. In every instance I have found so far, it is always applied as a description of a man or God teaching (at times using the Bible as an aid). Examples:

God Teaching Moses


Exodus 4:12, 15 Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak. . . . [15] And you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and will teach you what you shall do.

Deuteronomy 5:31 But you, stand here by me, and I will tell you all the commandment and the statutes and the ordinances which you shall teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess.
 
Moses

Exodus 18:20 and you shall teach them the statutes and the decisions, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do.

Deuteronomy 4:1 And now, O Israel, give heed to the statutes and the ordinances which I teach you, and do them; that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, gives you.

Deuteronomy 4:14 And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances, that you might do them in the land which you are going over to possess.

Deuteronomy 6:1  Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the ordinances which the LORD your God commanded me to teach you, that you may do them in the land to which you are going over, to possess it;

Aaron

Leviticus 10:11 and you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them by Moses.

The Levites

Deuteronomy 33:10 They shall teach Jacob thy ordinances, and Israel thy law; . . .

Ezra

Ezra 7:10 For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach his statutes and ordinances in Israel.

Parents Teaching Children

Deuteronomy 6:7 and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. (cf. 11:19)

Eleven Disciples

Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you . . .

Paul and Barnabas

Acts 15:35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

Paul

Acts 20:20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house,

Timothy 

1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.(cf. 4:11, 16)

Elders

1 Timothy 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;

I can't find a single example of "the Bible taught" or some sense of teaching directly from the Bible, in Scripture itself. If anyone finds this, please let me know. Here are all the instances of "teach" in the Bible, and "taught", and "instruct[ed]", and "learn[ed]".

When I search "word / teaches" to find some connection, I come up with nothing. When I search ""taught / word" I don't get passages referring to learning directly from the Bible; rather, I find passages (again) about people teaching the Word:

Galatians 6:6 Let him who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches. 

Then when I found "word" and "taught" together in another instance, it turned out to be an astonishingly striking corroboration of the Catholic interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, in similar words, and reinforcing the concept of authoritative interpretation and teaching of the Bible, since it is about a bishop:

Titus 1:7-9 For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, [8] but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; [9] he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. 

I want to make it clear that I am not arguing that no one can learn directly from Scripture. Of course they can. I'm referring specifically to the meaning and exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:14-17 and the phrase "profitable for teaching" and contending that according to all (far as I can determine) other instances of the notion of teaching in connection with the Bible or the Law (or separate from same) in Scripture itself, it always comes through human teachers or God, not directly from the Bible or the Law (that eventually comprised most of the first five books of the Old Testament). Therefore, I conclude that the phrase in 2 Timothy means "Scripture is profitable for the purpose of priests and other authoritative teachers in the church to pass on Christian teaching / tradition to all other believers."

The same scenario applies to the other words used. The notion of "reproof" or "reprove" in Scripture is always used of God or persons, not the Bible or the Law. For example:

Titus 2:15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. 

Revelation 3:19 Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; so be zealous and repent. 

It is the same for "correction" and for "training" (also never applied directly to the Bible apart from a teacher of it, and is applied to tradition):

1 Timothy 1:3-4 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, [4] nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith; 

Titus 2:11-12 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, [12] training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, 

Everything we can find in the Bible itself along these lines leads inexorably to the same conclusion: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is no proof for sola Scriptura at all, and is, to the contrary, a strong proof for the Catholic belief regarding authority and the rule of faith: the "three-legged stool" of Bible-Church-Tradition.


***

Why Don't Protestants Call the Blessed Virgin Mary "Blessed" When the Bible Records Four Such Instances, States That "All Generations" Will Do So, and Describes Her Also Being Hailed by an Archangel?

Luke 1:26, 28 (RSV: non-Catholic version): . . . the angel Gabriel . . . [28] . . . came to her and said, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"

Luke 1:41-42, 45 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit [42] and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!" . . . [45] "And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord."

[Elizabeth is described in 1:6 as "righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless"]

Luke 1:47-48 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, [48] for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;

Luke 11:27 As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!"


***

Exchange on Biblical Indications of Papal Succession and the Development and Nature of the Papacy

 [from a Facebook discussion, initially about my paper, The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter & the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant). My opponent's words will be in blue ]

* * * * *

Yet it always hinges on "interpretation" - the keys to Peter is scripturally clear . . . the passing of those keys as an "office" in perpetuity is an interprtation based on human thought rather than scripture . . . perhaps not unreasonable thought, but neverthless not scriptural.

It is not explicitly scriptural (passing on of the office), but it doesn't have to be. I would argue that it is common sense and straightforward deduction from other passages in the Bible about offices and succession. Peter is constantly portrayed in the Bible as the leader of the apostles.

There is a succession of Church offices: they are said to be perpetual in the Church. Judas defects and they choose Matthias to continue his function. Paul appears to pass on his office to Timothy (2 Tim 4:1-6).

Now, if Peter is given these keys, and it has the meaning as suggested by all these commentators in my paper, then it is simply common sense to assume that this was intended to be a permanent office in the Church. You could argue that this lone office of all offices discussed in Scripture was strictly temporary: confined to Peter alone, but I don't think it makes any sense. Why would there be a leader of the Church for Peter's lifetime only, and then there is to be no leader for all of the rest of history? I made a more extensive argument for papal succession elsewhere.

The only problem with assuming "common sense' in application of revealed realities is that common sense doesn't always fit or apply: for example, the true presence in the Holy Eucharist - it defies and even seems in opposition to "common sense" yet is the reality . . . it required divine revelation to know this . . . so one can't rely on common sense as always having validity in things of Jesus. :)


I don't think that objection works because the Eucharist is an acknowledged mystery that goes beyond reason (without contradicting it). The papacy is an office, and not a mystery in terms of not being able to fully be rationally understood. It takes faith to believe in the office, just like anything else in the Bible, but common sense applies to how the office was to be "worked out" through history. People often reject the papacy not because it isn't understood, but because it is understood and they don't like the notion of being in submission to a final authority in matters of faith.

It's like the scenario in John 6: some disciples thought it was too difficult to accept Real, Substantial, Bodily Presence and so they split. They didn't simply misunderstand it; they rejected it. They lacked faith in Jesus; no longer totally trusted Him.

If you disagree with my rationale for common sense as an argument in favor of papal succession, then by all means try to overthrow my reasoning. Simply saying that the Eucharist is a mystery sidesteps the point and is not a sufficient analogy, I humbly submit. We see succession in several ways in Scripture. The only thing that remains is to determine if and how that also applies to the papal office.

How the Christians worked it out through history certainly suggests that they thought the papacy was a perpetual office.

Dave, I never said that your thoughts about the succession of the office was unreasonable . . . nor illogical . . .  just that it isn't scripture mandate, but a human application within the context of the "human aspect of the Church" rather than Divine directives. nothing wrong with that . . . just not an absolute based on Divine teaching.

Why do you require that it has to be explicitly scriptural in the first place? It does not. To require such a thing is pure Protestant sola Scriptura reasoning (itself massively unbiblical and unreasonable) What is it in my reasoning that is implausible as an interpretation of the scriptural data we do have?

It's not a merely human mandate if it is the perpetuation of an office divinely established (Matthew 16), by analogy to the perpetuation of all other offices in Scripture. I'm asking why anyone would make a special case for the papacy and assume it is to cease, while all other offices continue?

One either believes that God established the office of the papacy to lead the Church at all times or not. Many lack the faith to believe that; they disbelieve in that dogma of the Church: based on the biblical data. If someone disbelieves it, I think they run into many serious problems in the Bible itself: some of which I am briefly enumerating here.

This is, of course, also one of the Orthodox arguments that are made: the papacy was a mere human happenstance rather than a divinely mandated office: intended by God to be perpetual. I don't buy it. I think it fails to take into account many considerations such as the cross-referencing in my post above.

The Divine bestowal of the office says explicitly: you are Peter! . . . Jesus does not add, "and your successors as well" . . . my only point is that one must always distinguish between what is explicitly from Jesus and what is
not . . . always dangerous to confuse the two. 

It is implicit in Scripture by massive analogy. You have to take into account the analogy of Scripture with regard to other offices.

What do you personally believe? Was the papacy instituted by God or not? If not, you deny Matthew 16.

If you say it was established by God in Matthew 16 and Jesus' commissioning of Peter, but it was not perpetual (because you don't find that to be plausible based on lack of explicit Scripture: which is a Protestant methodology), you have to explain the seeming absurdity of God establishing a Church office, only to have it die an early death with the death of Peter. That makes no sense to me at all.

If it makes sense to anyone, I'd like to understand how they conceptualize such a thing in their heads, given what we see in the Bible. I have always found the anti-papal arguments based on the Bible rather weak and inexplicable and desperate.

I don't argue against the papacy . . . I simply observe that taking the office beyond Peter is a human reasoning within the institution . . . one that is not unreasonable . . . yet also one not able to show a direct teaching of it by Jesus . . . that's all I point out . . . it is more than open to evolution, change and even devolution as it has been such since the death of Peter . . . who knows where it will go in the future for the sake of ecumenical inter-communion . . . most relevant in these days where secular/social culture is anti-all-religion. 

As an example of analogical argument, it was argued in the paper above by many Protestant commentators, that Jesus was hearkening back to the earlier office of prime minister to the king. That office did indeed have succession.

In effect, then, it would be like saying, "I am establishing, with you as the first office-holder, an office that is akin to the monarchy of England."

In American culture, we know what the English monarchy is, and was, and that it is an office of succession. That is understood in the very notion of the thing. Likewise, the Jews understood His reference to the keys, because it was a thing in their own Scripture, that they were familiar with.

If the direct analogy understood in the commission refers to an office itself inherently possessing succession, as a matter of historical fact, then it follows straightforwardly that the analogical office presently being established is also one of succession. That's not even just common sense (there are two distinct arguments to be made here). It is purely logical and based on facts concerning the thing that is the basis of the analogy.

And in that sense it is even strictly explicit in Scripture. Only the analogy is not explicit, but it is very clear and strong, which is why all these commentators are all talking about it, as the "key" to understand the passage in the context of its ancient Hebrew / OT background (pun intended).

I have just shown, I think, that it indeed was a "direct teaching of Jesus" by a compelling inescapable analogy to what he was referring to in the OT office that was the keyholder. So I disagree with you about the fact of it.

You seem to not grasp how analogical, scriptural cross-reference / exegetical reasoning applies in this case, because you keep sidestepping my various biblical arguments.

All I'm doing (ironically) is following the reasoning of the Protestant scholars. Obviously they have no stake in the papacy. They are just calling it as they see it, as Bible commentators and exegetes. That's why the argument is so strong, because it's not based on Catholic dogma; it's based on Protestant biblical exegesis: sort of a "hostile witness" scenario.

Again, it is a human assumption/interpretation that Jesus was hearkening back to the earlier office of prime minister to king . . . again, a human understanding and possibly then a misunderstanding. my point again is to not confuse the human thinking with Divine.  Catholic human thinking / Protestant human thinking . . . still not divine mandate.

I leave my reasoning to other readers who will see what I'm arguing (and accept it), I think.

Dave . . . the reality is I am not arguing against the papacy at all. :)

Right. You simply redefine it. I know the game well . . .

Dave, the papacy has been re-defined often in its 2000 year history . . . and not by "me" . . . but even by Rome itself.


. . . in the sense of consistent development of dogma, not inconsistent evolution of dogmas (that you referred to), which has been condemned by the Church.

Clearly it is something very different from what it was at the time of Saint Peter. It definitely evolved . . .

It developed, with complete consistency; two completely different things. Evolution of dogma was condemned by the Church. Pope St. Pius X commended Newman's view of development at the same time he condemned evolution of dogma. I had a whole debate about it with an anti-Catholic Calvinist, who claimed that the two views are identical. Wrong!

Yeah; it's different: in the way an oak tree is different from an acorn, or you and I are different from what we were one minute after we were conceived.

David, what you say about its "development: is pure human rationalization . . . nothing divine about it . . . the world developed and the structure of the papacy and the church has more in common with the Roman Empire of the caesars than scriptural schematic . . . what you say is true: the papacy was redefined and changed from what it originally was with Peter.

Just a as a final "p.s." note; according to Vatican I - the authority of The Pope rests in himself and is not able to be delegated - yet it is delegated universally across the entire Catholic Church . . . so quite a change even from the Vatican Council which defined the papacy. anyway . . you are free to understand or misunderstand it as you see it to be . . . have a great night.

Nothing essential in the papacy is changed at all. Vatican II: Lumen Gentium, III, 22 states:

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock; . . .

And in III, 25:

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.

The pope works together with bishops and Councils; of course; but He is the supreme head in a way in which they are not. ". . . therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable . . ."

It's the same old conciliarist claptrap: to try to deny this and pretend that the Council or a vote of bishops is on a par with the pope. They are not. Vatican II is completely consistent with Vatican I: it merely developed the role of the Council and the layperson more. Both are consistent with Trent; and all three councils with the Bible.


Development of doctrine is a completely biblical concept, as I have demonstrated in many papers (one / two / three).

Just always remember to distinguish between his "infallibility" in dogmatic proclamations and his "authority" - two separate things altogether . . . dogmatic proclamations are so rare . . . yet the exercise of 'authority' which is in his person is applied daily . . . yet by delegation, which is in itself not true papal authority. 

So the pope delegates; so what? That is no disproof of his supreme authority at all, since God Himself delegates. Jesus delegated His apostles to represent Him directly. Does that mean He had less authority in so doing? Nope. "He who receives you receives me" (Matt 10:40; cf. Jn 13:20). "He that hears you hears me" (Lk 10:16). ". . . we are ambassadors for Christ . . ." (2 Cor 5:20).

But it does matter . . . for his authority to remain: "papal authority"; it cannot be delegated . . . it rests in his person . He must be present where he exercises it . . . can't be in Rome exercising authority in New York. That's not my version of it. That is Vatican I. But that might limit him so, Vatican I is ignored except for the part that states his infallibility and authority. I find that interesting in the 'evolution' of the papacy.

That's not true, Michael. Historically, papal legates were at most ecumenical councils. The pope need not be present to have authority. He has it by virtue of being pope. Period. This is neither inconsistent with Vatican I or II nor the historic Church all the way back to Nicaea.

Now you are not debating "me" but Vatican I's definition of papal authority. So take it up with those long deceased council fathers and pope.

Sheer nonsense. I have backed up everything I have said, with Scripture, reason, and Church documents. But you keep giving simply your own opinion backed up by nothing. Readers may decide where the truth lies.

Sheer nonsense is what you are proffering . . . I simply stated Vat. I teaching on Papal authority . . . you do not accept it . . . and I agree it is largely ignored by even the pope. It is not my opinion . . . it is simply the way it is. The institutional structure rests more on the old Roman Empire and emperor than on Jesus . . . I am not implying that the gospel does, but the ecclesial structure does . . . but as I said, you can see it as
you wish to.


I may indeed. And I see it as an orthodox, faithful Catholic, who accepts all that the Church teaches me, and who wishes to think with the Mind of the Church rather than cultural happenstance or the fashionable finger-in-the-wind zeitgeist.


I have no dispute with that. I am an Orthodox believer myself . . . I just comment on the human aspects and gravitate toward the Christ ones more . . .

You are Eastern Orthodox?

[no reply]




***

Martin Luther and His Lutheran Followers on the Duration of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the Elevation, and Adoration; Various Internal Absurdities of Arbitrariness

 From Bishop Bossuet, The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches, Vol. 1 (New York: John Doyle, 1842), pp. 193-197; further primary source information can be found by following the link for the book. A few minor variations of proper names were added, in order to adopt more standard usage.

* * * * *

Although Luther permitted Melanchthon to say whatever he pleased against the Mass, yet he in nowise departed from his former notions, nor did he reduce the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist to the bare reception of it. It is even plain that Melanchthon shifted with him on this subject; and there are two of Luther's letters, in 1543, wherein he commends a saying of Melanchthon's, "that the presence was in the action of the Supper, but not in a precise and mathematical point." As for Luther, he determined the time to be from the Pater Noster which was said in the Lutheran Mass immediately after the Consecration, until all the people had communicated, and all the remaining particles were consumed.

But why stops he there? If, at that instant, the communion had been carried to the absent, as St. Justin tells us was done in his time, what reason would there have been to say, that Jesus Christ had immediately withdrawn his sacred presence? But why should he not continue it for some days after, when the Holy Sacrament should be reserved for the communion of the sick? It is nothing but mere caprice to take away the presence of Jesus Christ in this case; and Luther and the Lutherans had no longer any rule, when, out of the actual reception, they admitted the use of it but for never so short a time.

But what made still more against them is, that the Mass and Oblation always remained; and, had there been but one moment of presence before the communion, this presence of Jesus Christ could not be deprived of any of the advantages which attended it. For which reason Melanchthon always aimed, whatever he might say to Luther, at placing the presence in the precise time of the reception alone, and this only way could he find of destroying the Oblation and Mass.

Nor was there any other way for destroying the Elevation and Adoration. It has been shown that, at taking away the Elevation, Luther, so far from condemning it, approved the principle of it. I repeat once more his words:—"The Elevation," he says, "may be preserved, as a testimonial of the real and corporal presence; since the doing that is saying to the people, Behold, Christians, this is the body of Jesus Christ, which was given for you." This was what Luther wrote after abolishing the Elevation; but why, then, one may say, did he abolish it?

The reason is worthy of the man; and we learn from himself, "that if he attacked the Elevation, it was only out of spite to the Papacy; and, if he retained it so long, it was out of spite to Carlstadt. In a word," concludes he, "it should be retained when it was rejected as impious, and it should be rejected when commanded as necessary." But, upon the whole, he acknowledged what, indeed, is not to be doubted—that there could be no difficulty in showing to the people this divine body from the very time it began to be present.

As to the Adoration, after having one while held it as indifferent, and another laid it down as necessary, he at length adhered to his last conclusion; and in the positions which he published against the Doctors of Louvain in 1545, that is, a year before his death, he called the Eucharist "the adorable sacrament." The Sacramentarian party, who had so much triumphed when he set aside the Elevation, was in a consternation; and Calvin wrote, "that, by this decision, he had raised up the idol in God's temple."

Melanchthon was then more than ever convinced that it was impossible to destroy the Adoration, or the Mass, without reducing the whole Real Presence to the precise moment of the manducation. He saw, even, that it was necessary to go further, and that all the points of Catholic doctrine relating to the Eucharist returned upon them one alter another, if they did not find out a way to separate the body and blood from the bread and wine. He then pushed the principle already spoken of so far as that nothing was done for the bread and wine, but all for man: insomuch, that in man only was the body and blood to be really found.

[see Facebook post, "Melanchthon's Silly Argument for a Temporary Real Presence"]

Melanchthon has never explained in what manner he would have this to be done: but as to the foundation of this doctrine, he never left off insinuating it with great secrecy, and in the most artful manner he was able: for there were no hopes, as long as Luther lived, of making him relent on this point, nor of being able to speak freely what men thought: but Melanchthon so deeply rooted this doctrine in the minds of the Wittenberg and Leipzig divines, that, after Luther and he were dead, they plainly explained themselves in favor of it in an Assembly, which, by the Elector's orders, they held at Dresden, in 1561.

There they feared not to reject Luther's proper doctrine, and the Real Presence which he admitted in the bread; and finding no other means of defending themselves against Transubstantiation, the Adoration, and Sacrifice, they went over to the Real Presence taught them by Melanchthon; not in the bread and wine, but in the faithful who received them.

They declared, therefore, "That the true substantial body was truly and substantially given in the Supper, although there was no necessity of saying that the bread was the essential body or the proper body of Jesus Christ, or that it was corporally and carnally taken by die corporeal mouth; that ubiquity raised a horror in them; that it was a subject of astonishment that men should be so positive in affirming that the body was present in the bread, since it was of much more importance to consider what is done in man, for whom, and not for the bread, Jesus Christ rendered himself present."

After that they explained their sentiments concerning the Adoration, and maintained that it could not be denied, admitting the Real Presence in the bread, although it should even be explained that the body is not present in it except in the actual use: "That the Monks would always have the same reason for beseeching the eternal Father to hear them through his Son, whom they rendered present in this action; that the Supper having been instituted for the remembrance of Jesus Christ, as he could not be taken nor remembered without believing in, and calling on him, the addressing one's self to him in the Supper as present, and as placing himself in the hands of sacrificing priests after the words of Consecration, could by no means be hindered."

By the same reason they maintained that, admitting this Real Presence of the body in the bread, the sacrifice could not be rejected, and they proved it by this example: "It was," said they, " the ancient custom of all suppliants, to take in their arms the children of those whose assistance they implored, and present them to their fathers, in order to prevail with them by their interposition."

They said, in the same manner, that having Jesus Christ present in the bread and wine of the Supper, nothing could hinder us from presenting him to his Father, in order to render him propitious to us; and, lastly, they concluded "that it would be much more easy for the monks to establish their Transubstantiation, than for those to impugn it, who, rejecting it in word, affirmed, nevertheless, that the bread was the essential body, that is, the proper body of Jesus Christ."

Luther had said at Smalkald, and made the whole party subscribe to it, that the bread was the true body of our Lord equally received by saints and sinners: he himself had said, in his last "Confession of Faith," approved by the whole party, " that the bread of the Eucharist is the true natural body of our Lord." Melanchthon and all Saxony had received this doctrine with all the rest, for Luther would be obeyed: but, after his death, they fell off from it, and owned with us, that these words, "the bread is the true body," import necessarily the change of bread into the body; since, it being impossible for the bread to be the body by nature, it could not become so but by a change; thus they openly rejected their master's doctrine.

But they went much further in the above declaration, and confess that, admitting, as Lutherans had hitherto done, the Real Presence in the bread, there could be no objection to the sacrifice, which Catholics offer to God, nor to the adoration they pay to Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

Their proofs are convincing. If Jesus Christ is believed to be in the bread, if faith lays hold of him in this state, can this faith subsist without adoration? Does not this faith itself necessarily imply the highest adoration, since it draws after it the invocation of Jesus Christ, as Son of God, and as there present? The proof of the sacrifice is not less conclusive: for, as these divines say, if, by the sacramental words, Jesus Christ is rendered present in the bread, is not this presence of Jesus Christ of itself agreeable to the Father, and can our prayers be sanctified by a more holy oblation than that of Jesus Christ present? 

What do Catholics say more, and what is their sacrifice else but Jesus Christ present in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and representing himself to his Father the victim by which he had been appeased? There is no way, then, of avoiding the sacrifice, no more than the adoration and transubstantiation, without denying this real presence of Jesus Christ in the bread. 

Thus the Church of Wittenberg, the Mother of the Reformation, and whence, according to Calvin, the light of the Gospel proceeded in our days as it proceeded formerly from Jerusalem, no longer can maintain the sentiments of Luther, her first founder. The whole doctrine of this head of the Reformation contradicts itself: he invincibly establishes the literal sense and Real Presence: he rejects the necessary consequences therefrom, as maintained by Catholics. If, with him, the Real Presence is admitted in the bread, the whole Mass, with the Catholic doctrine, must of course be admitted without reserve. 

This seems too grating to these new Reformers; for what good have they been doing, if they must be forced to approve these things, with the whole worship of the Church of Rome? but, on the other side, what more chimerical than a Real Presence separated from the bread and wine? Was it not, in showing the bread and wine, that Jesus Christ said, "This is my body"? Has he said, we should receive his body and blood divided from those things wherein it was his pleasure they should be contained; and if we are to receive the proper substance of them, must it not be after such a manner as he declared at the institution of this mystery?  

In these inextricable difficulties, the desire of abolishing the Mass prevailed; but the method which Melanchthon and the Saxons had taken to destroy it was so bad, that it could not subsist. Those of Wittenberg and Leipzig themselves soon after came back, and Luther's opinion, which placed the body in the bread, kept its ground.

***