Did Augustine support Sola Scriptura?

[jfoges]

Sorry, my post seems to have been better suited to a different thread.
So then please tell me, what is it we’re looking at here? We, as Catholics, affirm and believe that Scripture is inerrant. How much further do you feel St. Augustine’s passage pushes that?

I think Augustine’s passage here is an indication that Augustine may have had somewhat different ideas of dogma then are currently taught by the Church. It seems like he felt that dogmatic propositions could be beneficial, but also could be mistaken and corrected. This is different from the current view, that dogmatic propositions that are taught by councils or the pope ex cathedra, are infallible and irreformable.

 

[Teflon93]

You are assuming that holding Sola Scriptura also means that one must believe that scripture is a collection of dogmatic propositions and one is not entitled to believe anything that is not expressly stated in scripture. By Sola Scriptura I only mean that scripture is held as a normative standard from which all subsequent dogmatic propositions can be critiqued. Notice in my first post I said “something LIKE sola scriptura”

Scripture is certainly revered within the Church, but papal documents and conciliar proceedings are not considered to be inferior to it, as what is only implied in Scripture is made explicit there----the Nicene Creed being a good collection of such dogma.

 

[Spirithound]

I think Augustine’s passage here is an indication that Augustine may have had somewhat different ideas of dogma then are currently taught by the Church. It seems like he felt that dogmatic propositions could be beneficial, but also could be mistaken and corrected. This is different from the current view, that dogmatic propositions that are taught by councils or the pope ex cathedra, are infallible and irreformable.

The question narrows

So, St. Augustine says “…earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones, if as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened…”
What is this “practical experience” ? I think it refers to disciplines which are found from time to time to be imprudent. This is the only part of our faith that has as part of its rationale “practicality”. If the Catholic Church were to declare artificial contraception to be morally licit (and let’s just pretend for a minute that this is correct), I don’t think they could have reached that conclusion from a “practical” source. Something doesn’t suddenly become right just because millions of people believe it. Rightness has a divine source.

 

[iaskquestions]

but it does mean that they can’t teach things that are **contradicted **by Scripture, for example, Jesus not being divine.

Exactly. I understood Augustine to be saying the same thing. He’s not saying that scripture is the sole rule of faith, rather, he is saying that whatever is taught should not **contradict **anything in scripture.

 

[jfoges]

The question narrows

So, St. Augustine says “…earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones, if as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened…”
What is this “practical experience” ? I think it refers to disciplines which are found from time to time to be imprudent. This is the only part of our faith that has as part of its rationale “practicality”. If the Catholic Church were to declare artificial contraception to be morally licit (and let’s just pretend for a minute that this is correct), I don’t think they could have reached that conclusion from a “practical” source. Something doesn’t suddenly become right just because millions of people believe it. Rightness has a divine source.

Church discipline is a matter that canon law deals with. Have ecumenical councils addressed matters of Church dicipline?

Also,councils have never delt with moral issues like contraception, as far as I am aware. As far as I am aware they have only dealt with matters of theology.

 

[teachccd]

jfoges: In a concise nutshell, what exactly are you purporting? This thread is going around in circles. Just come out and state your intentions. Your original post asks for our opinion on Augustine’s statement and then you reject all of our renderings. So, if you have an agenda just tell us. Don’t ask what we think and then continue to lead us into your own conclusions. If you have something to say then say it and don’t try to pull us through your hoops of questions…God Bless…teachccd

 

[historyb]

It is not a self refuting proposition. The concept of sola scriptura simply refers to the idea that the scriptures are the normative basis for all further theological ideas. It is the notion that dogmatic propositions can be critiquedin light of the normative basis of the faith, the inspired writings of canonical scripture.

There is nothing about this notion that goes against “2,000 years of church tradition” as ccd teacher seems to think. No, the idea that scripture is the normative basis for the faith is itself part of sacred tradition. The church currently teaches that all prophetic teaching was closed with the last writing of scripture. The Magisterium is not a prophetic voice but simply a teaching office that re-teaches what was already revealed.

good post

 

[jfoges]

jfoges: In a concise nutshell, what exactly are you purporting? This thread is going around in circles. Just come out and state your intentions. Your original post asks for our opinion on Augustine’s statement and then you reject all of our renderings. So, if you have an agenda just tell us. Don’t ask what we think and then continue to lead us into your own conclusions. If you have something to say then say it and don’t try to pull us through your hoops of questions…God Bless…teachccd

I don’t think I’ve been unclear about what my point is, but I’ll try to explain it here for you. My main argument is that Augustine does not support the idea of dogmatic infallibility. I think Augustine had a different view of dogma, a view tha admits dogma can err and may need correction sometimes.

 

[historyb]

I don’t think I’ve been unclear about what my point is, but I’ll try to explain it here for you. My main argument is that Augustine does not support the idea of dogmatic infallibility. I think Augustine had a different view of dogma, a view that admits dogma can err and may need correction sometimes.

That open a hosts of questions then, hmm.

 

[Teflon93]

And what were St Augustine’s years of service as Pope?

 

[teachccd]

I don’t think I’ve been unclear about what my point is, but I’ll try to explain it here for you. My main argument is that Augustine does not support the idea of dogmatic infallibility. I think Augustine had a different view of dogma, a view tha admits dogma can err and may need correction sometimes.

O.K. Now I see the dissent that I suspected…teachccd

 

[Teflon93]

“Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequent writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right; but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions or provinces must give way without quibbling (sine ullis ambagibus cedere) to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often (saepe) corrected (emendari) by later ones, if as a result of practical experience (cum aliquo experimento rerum) something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?”

Firstly, the “them” in bold refers to “the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon”; this manifestly includes this quote from St. Augustine.

This is what I mean by the OP interpretation being self-refuting.

Beyond that, St Augustine in this passage clearly makes the case for the hierarchy of the Church in formulating doctrine. It is no accident this passage is from his argument against the Donatists, who tried to overturn this hierarchy by placing their local ruling over that of the rest of the Church.

St Augustine did not agree that everyone has equal standing to interpret Scripture, nor that doctrine and dogma had to be based in it. Indeed, the very notion of the New Testament canon is a conciliar ruling; St Augustine respected the precedent.

You are reading far too much into “corrected” and not accounting enough for the difference between dogma and doctrine.

Poor St Augustine—he’s been made a heretic retroactively nearly as often as St Paul.

 

[jfoges]

“Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequent writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right; but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions or provinces must give way without quibbling (sine ullis ambagibus cedere) to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often (saepe) corrected (emendari) by later ones, if as a result of practical experience (cum aliquo experimento rerum) something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?”

Firstly, the “them” in bold refers to “the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon”; this manifestly includes this quote from St. Augustine.

This is what I mean by the OP interpretation being self-refuting.

Beyond that, St Augustine in this passage clearly makes the case for the hierarchy of the Church in formulating doctrine. It is no accident this passage is from his argument against the Donatists, who tried to overturn this hierarchy by placing their local ruling over that of the rest of the Church.

St Augustine did not agree that everyone has equal standing to interpret Scripture, nor that doctrine and dogma had to be based in it. Indeed, the very notion of the New Testament canon is a conciliar ruling; St Augustine respected the precedent.

You are reading far too much into “corrected” and not accounting enough for the difference between dogma and doctrine.

Poor St Augustine—he’s been made a heretic retroactively nearly as often as St Paul.

I think if you look at this quote you can see that Augustine is both supporting the teaching authority of the hierarchy AND supporting the fallibility of dogma. It isn’t one or the other. The Protestant/Catholic dichotamy, like so many others, established at Trent is a fals dichotamy. Look beyond Trent.

 

[Teflon93]

I think if you look at this quote you can see that Augustine is both supporting the teaching authority of the hierarchy AND supporting the fallibility of dogma. It isn’t one or the other. The Protestant/Catholic dichotamy, like so many others, established at Trent is a fals dichotamy. Look beyond Trent.

I hadn’t even considered Trent. I merely read the quoted passage closely.

St Augustine was quite familiar with heretics, having fought the Donatists and Pelagians. No dogma, no heresy.

 

[jfoges]

I hadn’t even considered Trent. I merely read the quoted passage closely.

St Augustine was quite familiar with heretics, having fought the Donatists and Pelagians. No dogma, no heresy.

The reason I mentioned Trent is that you keep assuming that if Augustine didnt support dogmatic infallibility then that would mean he would have to have all the rest of the protestant baggage too.

 

[Teflon93]

The reason I mentioned Trent is that you keep assuming that if Augustine didnt support dogmatic infallibility then that would mean he would have to have all the rest of the protestant baggage too.

Where have I assumed that?

Without dogma, the Donatists and Pelagians St Augustine fought would be with us still, along with the Arians, Monophysites, and everybody else.

Even without Trent, something very like Protestantism would have been the result of a lack of dogma.

 

[jfoges]

Where have I assumed that?

Without dogma, the Donatists and Pelagians St Augustine fought would be with us still, along with the Arians, Monophysites, and everybody else.

Even without Trent, something very like Protestantism would have been the result of a lack of dogma.

You can’t prove any of this. You can’t just make declarations about what would have happened in history if X had/had not happened. Thats impossible, and pointless in terms of the point we are arguing.

 

[Spirithound]

You can’t prove any of this. You can’t just make declarations about what would have happened in history if X had/had not happened. Thats impossible, and pointless in terms of the point we are arguing.

I think what Teflon is saying that the Church needed the authority to say THIS IS TRUE, otherwise the Donatists might just be “another alternative”, and that nobody had the the Truth to use to combat them.

 

[Teflon93]

I think what Teflon is saying that the Church needed the authority to say THIS IS TRUE, otherwise the Donatists might just be “another alternative”, and that nobody had the the Truth to use to combat them.

That’s absolutely right.

There are only two alternate paths the Church could have taken: the path of the Orthodox, wherein nothing was binding unless everyone agreed (thus no incentive for holding a council wherein one might lose, and therefore a paralyzing stasis of doctrine), or the path of the Protestant, where there is no authority and constant disintegration toward The Atomic Church of Me.

The wisdom of Christ in setting up St Peter as the shepherd of shepherds and allowing this authority to pass down to St Peter’s successors is clear.

There’s certainly not much in St Augustine’s voluminous writings to indicate that he was either ur-Orthodox nor ur-Protestant.

 

[jfoges]

There’s certainly not much in St Augustine’s voluminous writings to indicate that he was either ur-Orthodox nor ur-Protestant.

I have a master’s degree and I have never heard of the prefix “ur”. Can you just explain to me what that means for my own edification?