S
SirShaun
Guest
I found your question interesting. As such, I took it upon myself to search out the Church Fathers and see if there is any support for my beliefs among them. I have a lot of respect for Augustine, so I started with him. Before going further, I’d like to point out that I’m more interested in being conformed to the truth than with history: I wouldn’t go to a doctor who still thought my heart was a furnace and the blood was its fuel, nor would I go to a theologian which still held to the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. I believe all science, including Theology, is both positive and negative, with truths being established, and falsehoods erased. I see Augustine as a source of truth (though perhaps not all truth) and guided by God (though perhaps not in all he said and did.) Also, Augustine was very careful with is words, so as not to be misunderstood. If/when he implies something he doesn’t necessarily believe, he is careful to state his lack of faith in the statement. If he says something that his followers are not bound to believe, again he is careful for their sakes to say so.
As such, I have only three protests against the Roman Catholic Church: Infallibility of the Pope, Immaculate Conception of Mary, and transubstantiation.
For the first, I will state my assertion positively, and not negatively: Only God is infallible.
Augustine supports me in his exposition on the Psalms, specifically Psalm 89, where he states: “God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible.” In absence of any other evidence, this is good enough for me.
The next, the immaculate conception of Mary. In “Of Holy Virginity,” he says “Thus also her nearness as a Mother would have been of no profit to Mary, had she not borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her flesh.” But if she were to be believed as having not even original sin, what does she have to worry, would she then have lost her immaculate conception were she to have not believed? Augustine on several occasions speaks of hypothetical situations where only one variable is changed, and the consequences of such. So, the question becomes, since Augustine states she profited from her belief more than her conception, what did she profit from her belief? Again, in absence of anything more definite, this is good enough for me.
The third one is a little harder to pin down, and I’ll look into it. I’ll clarify what I protest in the Catholic doctrine: I don’t think the bread stops being bread, and I don’t think the wine stops being wine. I take no issue with either side (for I can see the arguments both ways) as to if it begins to be or to have or to contain Christ’s flesh and blood, I at this point take no definite stance.
In “Christian Doctrine” he says, “If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us” and in another place, “for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture.” That almost seems to follow with the more extreme opposite of what the Roman Catholic teaching is, however, I’m sure I’ve read in other places (forgive me for not taking time to find defenses for what I’m in essence arguing against) where he defends a more literal interpretation of that sacrament, so I’m not going to take that as the final word on what Augustine thinks on the subject. Regardless of what they thought, whether they thought it became truly human flesh and blood or was entirely a symbol, I doubt I’ll find a statement to the extreme among the Church fathers, because which ever they thought, they thought the other extreme was foolish to the point of not being worth mentioning.
To find a stance on this among the Fathers I’d accept, I’d probably need something along the lines of “It is no longer Bread/Wine” on one extreme, or an explicit statement that it is still bread and wine to the other extreme. I realize I’m a bit stricter on this one than I was on the first two, but my definition is a lot narrower for this one as well.
As such, I have only three protests against the Roman Catholic Church: Infallibility of the Pope, Immaculate Conception of Mary, and transubstantiation.
For the first, I will state my assertion positively, and not negatively: Only God is infallible.
Augustine supports me in his exposition on the Psalms, specifically Psalm 89, where he states: “God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible.” In absence of any other evidence, this is good enough for me.
The next, the immaculate conception of Mary. In “Of Holy Virginity,” he says “Thus also her nearness as a Mother would have been of no profit to Mary, had she not borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her flesh.” But if she were to be believed as having not even original sin, what does she have to worry, would she then have lost her immaculate conception were she to have not believed? Augustine on several occasions speaks of hypothetical situations where only one variable is changed, and the consequences of such. So, the question becomes, since Augustine states she profited from her belief more than her conception, what did she profit from her belief? Again, in absence of anything more definite, this is good enough for me.
The third one is a little harder to pin down, and I’ll look into it. I’ll clarify what I protest in the Catholic doctrine: I don’t think the bread stops being bread, and I don’t think the wine stops being wine. I take no issue with either side (for I can see the arguments both ways) as to if it begins to be or to have or to contain Christ’s flesh and blood, I at this point take no definite stance.
In “Christian Doctrine” he says, “If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us” and in another place, “for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture.” That almost seems to follow with the more extreme opposite of what the Roman Catholic teaching is, however, I’m sure I’ve read in other places (forgive me for not taking time to find defenses for what I’m in essence arguing against) where he defends a more literal interpretation of that sacrament, so I’m not going to take that as the final word on what Augustine thinks on the subject. Regardless of what they thought, whether they thought it became truly human flesh and blood or was entirely a symbol, I doubt I’ll find a statement to the extreme among the Church fathers, because which ever they thought, they thought the other extreme was foolish to the point of not being worth mentioning.
To find a stance on this among the Fathers I’d accept, I’d probably need something along the lines of “It is no longer Bread/Wine” on one extreme, or an explicit statement that it is still bread and wine to the other extreme. I realize I’m a bit stricter on this one than I was on the first two, but my definition is a lot narrower for this one as well.
