Help finding another St. Augustine quote

[Reformed_Rob]

Hello,

In reading a couple articles on Sola Scriptura, I’ve come across something new. Nothing major really, but I’ve never been able to see a citation for this quote.

The argument goes that when one Pope agreed with him on some Pelagian issue, he said “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled” which I suppose is a paraphrase of what he said in Sermon 81/131 (at the bottom), but that when a Pope disagreed with him on some Pelagian-related issue, Augustine said “Christ has spoken, the matter is settled.” And the conclusion is that Augustine was selective in which judgements from Roman Bishops he actually submitted to.

Any help? I’ve searched, can’t find anything. One article cites a book I have (William Webster book), but the page number cited doesn’t reference that, so that’s a dead end!!

I like to post neat quotes, so here’s one:

1. But the possibility of regeneration through the office rendered by the will of another, when the child is presented to receive the sacred rite, is the work exclusively of the Spirit by whom the child thus presented is regenerated. For it is not written, “Except a man be born again by the will of his parents, or by the faith of those presenting the child, or of those administering the ordinance,” but, "Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit."870 By the water, therefore; which holds forth the sacrament of grace in its outward form, and by the Spirit who bestows the benefit of grace in its inward power, cancelling the bond of guilt, and restoring natural goodness [reconcilians bonum naturae], the man deriving his first birth originally from Adam alone, is regenerated in Christ alone.

-From St. Augustine Letter 98

I’d like to assume the best, and not think that this is some mythical quote. So thanks for any help!!!

 

[John_Taylor]

I found the assertion made in an article by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey entitled: What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura? but it doesn’t give us a reference:

sola-scriptura.ca/whatis.htm

Let me offer as an illustration two examples from the work of Augustine, often quoted against the Protestant position on the question of the authority of the church. At one point in his debate with the Pelagians, a bishop of Rome sided with Augustine, and Augustine declared, “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.” Later, however, another pope opposed Augustine on this subject, and Augustine responded by saying, “Christ has spoken, the matter is settled.” Augustine did not bow to the authority of the bishop of Rome, but turned to the word of Christ to evaluate the teaching of Rome.

You might try contacting Sola Scriptura Ministries International who publish the article:

Sola Scriptura Ministries International
350 Speedvale Ave W, Unit 11
Guelph, ON
N1H - 7M7

By Phone/Fax:

1(519)763-0339
Toll-Free - 1(800)563-3529
By Fax - 1(519)837-2883

By: E-mail
(info@sola-scriptura.ca)

The article notes that “Dr. W. Robert Godfrey is President of Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, California”

Using Yahoo’s “People Find” there’s only one “W Godfrey” listed for “Escondido, California”

W R Godfrey
1447 Gary Ln
Escondido, CA 92026-1624
Tel.: (760) 741-1635

It might be worth a try.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[John_Taylor]

Interesting quote from Augustine:

1. You ask me to state “whether parents do harm to their baptized infant children, when they attempt to heal them in time of sickness by sacrifices to the false gods of the heathen.” Also, “if they do thereby no harm to their children, how can any advantage come to these children at their baptism, through the faith of parents whose departure from the faith does them no harm?” To which I reply, that in the holy union of the parts of the body of Christ, so great is the virtue of that sacrament, namely, of baptism, which brings salvation, that so soon as he who owed his first birth to others, acting under the impulse of natural instincts, has been made partaker of the second birth by others, acting under the impulse of spiritual desires, he cannot be thenceforward held under the bond of that sin in another to which he does not with his own will consent. “Both the soul of the father is mine,” saith the Lord," and the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die;"but he does not sin on whose behalf his parents or any other one resort, without his knowledge, to the impiety of worshipping heathen deities. That bond of guilt which was to be cancelled by the grace of this sacrament he derived from Adam, for this reason, that at the time of Adam’s sin he was not yet a soul having a separate life, i.e. another soul regarding which it! could be said, “both the soul of the father is mine, and the soul of the son is mine.” Therefore now, when the man has a personal, separate existence, being thereby made distinct from his parents, he is not held responsible for that sin in another which is performed without his consent. In the former case, he derived guilt from another, because, at the time when the guilt which he has derived was incurred, he was one with the person from whom he derived it, and was in him. But one man does not derive guilt from another, when, through the fact that each has a separate life belonging to himself, the word may apply equally to both-“The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”

1. But the possibility of regeneration through the office rendered by the will of another, when the child is presented to receive the sacred rite, is the work exclusively of the Spirit by whom the child thus presented is regenerated. For it is not written, “Except a man be born again by the will of his parents, or by the faith of those presenting the child, or of those administering the ordinance,” but, “Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit.” By the water, therefore; which holds forth the sacrament of grace in its outward form, and by the Spirit who bestows the benefit of grace in its inward power, cancelling the bond of guilt, and restoring natural goodness [reconcilians bonum naturae], the man deriving his first birth originally from Adam alone, is regenerated in Christ alone. Now the regenerating Spirit is possessed in common both by the parents who present the child, and by the infant that is presented and is born again; wherefore, in virtue of this participation in the same Spirit, the will of those who present the infant is useful to the child. But when the parents sin against the child by presenting him to the false gods of the heathen, and attempting to bring him under impious bonds unto these false gods, there is not such community of souls subsisting between the parents and the child, that the guilt of one party can be common to both alike. For we are not made partakers of guilt along with others through their will, in the same way as we are made partakers of grace along with others through the unity of the Holy Spirit; because the one Holy Spirit can be in two different persons without their knowing in respect to each other that by Him! grace is the common possession of both, but the human spirit cannot so belong to two individuals as to make the blame common to both in a case in which one of the two sins, and the other does not sin. Therefore a child, having once received natural birth through his parents, can be made partaker of the second (or spiritual) birth by the Spirit of God, so that the bond of guilt which he inherited from his parents is cancelled; but he that has once received this second birth by the Spirit of God cannot be made again partaker of natural birth through his parents, so that the bond once cancelled should again bind him. And thus, when the grace of Christ has been once received, the child does not lose it otherwise than by his own impiety, if, when he becomes older, he turn out so ill. For by that time he will begin to have sins of his own, which cannot be removed by regeneration, but must be healed by other remedial measures.

-From St. Augustine Letter 98

 

[Reformed_Rob]

John Taylor:

I found the assertion made in an article by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey entitled: What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura? but it doesn’t give us a reference:

sola-scriptura.ca/whatis.htm You might try contacting Sola Scriptura Ministries International who publish the article: The article notes that “Dr. W. Robert Godfrey is President of Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, California”

Using Yahoo’s “People Find” there’s only one “W Godfrey” listed for “Escondido, California”

W R Godfrey
1447 Gary Ln
Escondido, CA 92026-1624
Tel.: (760) 741-1635

It might be worth a try.

Keep the Faith
jmt

Thanks for all that John!! That article you cite is one of the articles I read. The other is at a site, let’s see, it is here, the author is kind of the “top dog” in the RPCUS Denomination (presbyterian) that I’m from. He says that William Webster quotes it in p. 16 of “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History.” But it’s not on p. 16!! I looked in some other Webster Sola Scriptura books, not there!!

I suppose I could write the people above, the Ministry people. However, I don’t think Mr. Godfrey is a president of Westminster Seminary anymore. I went to their website looking for him, and I think he’s moved on and theres another president(s).

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Ok, I haven’t found it, but I’ve reviewed and can say a little more!! The letter where Augustine says something like “Rome has spoken” (referring to P. Innocent I)is in I think Letter 175 or 176, they’re hard to find. Somebody here sent them to me some time ago, and I appreciate that very much, I did read them.

Anyways, Webster addresses it on p. 65, and the footnote #12 on p. 221 reads…

… he discusses Karl Keating, says Keating quotes Augustine totally out of context, and then.… That should be obvious in that the next pope, Zosimus, also spoke, but his judgement was rejected and opposed by Augustine and the North African Church. ** Dollinger** makes these comments in correcting the false impression subsequently repeated by Keating and others:
'Innocent I, when invoked by the Africans, after five years of disputing, had sanctioned the decrees of their two Synods of Milevis and Carthage (417) and pronounced a work of Pelagius heretical, so that St. Augustine said, in a sermon, "The matter is now ended.’ But he deceived himself, for the strife was only fairly begun, and it was not ended till many years later, by the decision of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431.
But St. Augustine’s saying… has been alleged in proof of his accepting Papal infallibility, which, in dealing with the baptismal controversy, he so often and so pointedly repudiates. Such a notion was utterly foreign to his mind. The Pelagian system was in his eyes so manifest and deadly an error… there seemed to him no need even of a Synod to condemn it. The two African Synods, and the Pope’s assent to their decrees, appeared to him more than enough, and so the matter might be regarded at an end. That a Roman judgment was in itself was not conclusive, but that a ‘Concilium plenarium’ was necessary for that purpose, he had himself emphatically maintained; and the conduct of Pope Zosimus could only confirm his opinion." - Janus (Dollinger), The Pope and the Council, (Boston: Roberts, 1870) pp. 57-58
I put Dollinger’s words in bold, blue

Also, William Webster says on p. 65 of "Church of Rome at the Bar of History:

During the Pelagian controversy, in an encyclical letter and therefore when he was speaking authoritatively on a matter related to faith and morals, Pope Zosimus rebuked Augustine and the North African Church for their condemnation of Pelagius and his teachings… (I’ll paraphrase the rest) … Zosimus declared Pelagius and Celestius to be orthodox, and that the North African church submit to his judgement and authority, which is contrary to Pope Innocent’s previous judgement. The African Bishops warned Zosimus that he was misled, but he said he’s made up his mind, but after a general synod in Carthage in 418, where Pelagius was condemned, in defiance to Zosimus, Pope Zosimus himself reversed his ruling and also condemned Pelagius and the Pelagianism.* The argument here is that… this is clear evidence that the early Church did not believe the Bishops of Rome were infallible. As a matter of fact, apparently even the Bishop of Rome didn’t believe that, because he was contradicting an earlier Papal ruling on the Pelagian issue!!

*I suppose that the issue between Cyprian and Pope Stephen is somewhat related, but that’s too much for right now!!

 

[John_Taylor]

This is one of those issues that will require some extensive reading of the primary literature to figure out the correct context - seems it has come up before:

Pope Zosimus and Pelagianism
bringyou.to/apologetics/num17.htm

but my son has just invited me to a movie so we’re off on a “father and son” outing…I’d like to follow up on this. I can’t imagine it being an issue that hasn’t been thoroughly refuted by Catholic Apologists but then that’s my “default assumption”

Keep us posted

Sincerely
John

 

[Reformed_Rob]

John Taylor:

Pope Zosimus and Pelagianism
bringyou.to/apologetics/num17.htm

Keep us posted

Sincerely
John

Thanks again, John. Phil Vaz, yay, go Phil Vaz!!

I’ll read that, and surely it will help some. I see that it wasn’t one of the issues that P. Madrid confronted in “Pope Fiction.” It’s probably more of an obscure thing. Like the Franciscans poverty issue and John XXII, not a common objection, but it’s there!!

 

[RobNY]

This probably won’t be very helpful, but I read this article on Augustine and Petrine Primacy. At the very least, he picks out plenty of quotes that you can check on your own in context.

cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm

 

[Bishopite]

Also, William Webster says on p. 65 of "Church of Rome at the Bar of History:

During the Pelagian controversy, in an encyclical letter and therefore when he was speaking authoritatively on a matter related to faith and morals, Pope Zosimus rebuked Augustine and the North African Church for their condemnation of Pelagius and his teachings… (I’ll paraphrase the rest) … Zosimus declared Pelagius and Celestius to be orthodox, and that the North African church submit to his judgement and authority, which is contrary to Pope Innocent’s previous judgement. The African Bishops warned Zosimus that he was misled, but he said he’s made up his mind, but after a general synod in Carthage in 418, where Pelagius was condemned, in defiance to Zosimus, Pope Zosimus himself reversed his ruling and also condemned Pelagius and the Pelagianism.The argument here is that… this is clear evidence that the early Church did not believe the Bishops of Rome were infallible. As a matter of fact, apparently even the Bishop of Rome didn’t believe that, because he was contradicting an earlier Papal ruling on the Pelagian issue!!

This statement by William Webster is clever and very deceptive.

Pope Zosimus as any successor to Peter had and has to have certain requirements met in order for their proclamation to be infallible.

1. The pronouncment must be made by a lawful successor to Peter–in other words, a pope.
2. The subject of the declaration must be in the area of faith and morals. Science, economics, history, who will win the world series don’t fall within papal infallibility.
3. The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, [means from the very seat and office of Peter], and he must be specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine, binding the Church to its assent.

If one or more elements are missing then there is no papal infallibility.

Notice the last portion of # 3. This was specifically missing with pope Zosimus since he had no intention nor declaration to impose pelagianism making it binding on the Catholic Church, thus the idea of it being a supposed infallible statement by William Webster then the pope changing his mind is very much untrue. I had an email dialogue with Webster many years ago and he tried to tell me that pope Honorius taught in the seventh century a heresy known as monotheleticism [that Jesus had on nature] instead of the orthodox Christian position that Jesus has two natures [hypostatic union] one human and one divine. I did my own study only to find out Webster was completely wrong.

 

[bnapgh]

This seems to be a recurring issue. Thanks.