On the authority of Augustine (and others)

[Mijoy2]

When pondering over many apologetic issues and questions catholic apologists and theologeans often refer to Augustine and other ECF, but most often Augustine, when attempting to pursuade, or at least, emphasize a point.

I have read Augustine’s Confessions and select chapters of The City of God. I find these books theological masterpieces but I’m often plagued with the thought; by who or by what authority do we attribute Augustines words as something we should hold in such high regard? And, just how high a regard should we hold his words? His writings are not trusted to be inspired in the way the scrpitures are and Augustine was not a pope thus his words are not deemed infallible (unless I am mistaken)

Therefore given this, how are we to accept his teachings? How are we to know where he may be in error. If Augustine can be in error (which I understand he can) if he made one error in all his writings, might not every teaching be the one in error therefore render every teaching suspect? If this is so why is refering to his teachings acceptable as reference to questions and issues posed by non-catholics?

I love Augustines works and find myself drawn to everything he has written. Maybe somebody can shed some light on just how I am to read and absorb Augustine.

Thank you,
–Mike

 

[Nita]

Mike,

That is one of the great beauties of having defined truths (dogmas and doctrines) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is our responsibility to learn those truths.

Once we have done that there is not much danger in being led astray since we’ll recognize when something is contrary to Church teaching. Some of the ECF had such illuminating ways of expressing things. We read and accept all that is in conformity with Church teaching. In those few areas where they may have been in error, it is not as though they were being heretical. Usually it’s in regard to a teaching that was not yet clearly understood and defined; where the Church was still in the process of searching for and determining the correct view.

Nita

 

[slowbutfaithful]

I have read Augustine’s Confessions and select chapters of The City of God. I find these books theological masterpieces but I’m often plagued with the thought; by who or by what authority do we attribute Augustines words as something we should hold in such high regard? And, just how high a regard should we hold his words?

One way to judge the credibility of St. Augustine’s writings as Catholic teaching is the number of times his work is referenced in documents describing Church doctrine. You’ll find his work referenced innumerable times in everything from encyclicals to the Catechism itself !! When the Magisterium embraces someone’s words to express a teaching of the Church, it’s a good indication it has teeth.

 

[Verbum]

H myjoy,

The Fathers are witnesses of the early teaching of the Church. They may misinterpret it, however. For the Church to accept a doctrine as valid teaching, the Church requires a consensus of the Fathers.

Verbum

 

[Mijoy2]

One way to judge the credibility of St. Augustine’s writings as Catholic teaching is the number of times his work is referenced in documents describing Church doctrine. You’ll find his work referenced innumerable times in everything from encyclicals to the Catechism itself !! When the Magisterium embraces someone’s words to express a teaching of the Church, it’s a good indication it has teeth.

I appreciate this, thank you. Although it puts the cart before the horse a little bit.

Augustine is not infallible.
Magisterium references Augustine in defining doctrine.
Catholic doctrine is infallible.

I’m trying to better understand the reasoning. Maybe I am asking for something there is no explaination for. Maybe the Magisterium is “guided by the Holy Spirit”, therefore any potential errors in Augustine’s teachings are filter out (if you will allow me such a crude way of expressing it).

I posted the question hoping (frankly) for a better answer then the one I hypothetically propose here.

 

[Mijoy2]

H myjoy,

The Fathers are witnesses of the early teaching of the Church. They may misinterpret it, however. For the Church to accept a doctrine as valid teaching, the Church requires a consensus of the Fathers.

Verbum

Thank you Verbrum, this helps somewhat.

 

[slowbutfaithful]

I appreciate this, thank you. Although it puts the cart before the horse a little bit.

Augustine is not infallible.
Magisterium references Augustine in defining doctrine.
Catholic doctrine is infallible.

I’m trying to better understand the reasoning. Maybe I am asking for something there is no explaination for. Maybe the Magisterium is “guided by the Holy Spirit”, therefore any potential errors in Augustine’s teachings are filter out (if you will allow me such a crude way of expressing it).

I posted the question hoping (frankly) for a better answer then the one I hypothetically propose here.

In what way(s) is the process of weeding out the (large or small) bits of Augustine’s writings that are referenced or incorporated into contemporary documents that define Church teaching any different from the debates and protocol followed by the early Church councils that eventually established the canon of bible?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

In what way(s) is the process of weeding out the (large or small) bits of Augustine’s writings that are referenced or incorporated into contemporary documents that define Church teaching any different from the debates and protocol followed by the early Church councils that eventually established the canon of bible?

St Augustine’s works are not described as “inspired by the Holy Spirit”. Largely because he wasn’t recoding the words of Jesus or, like St Paul, sufficiently close to Jesus in time to be considered a primary source.

In a few cases the Pope may have come down dogmatically on the side of Augustine - that is formally defined as a belief of the church that St Augustine was right. I suspect that this was done on the propensity to sin when Pelgius, who taught that moral perfection is achievable, was declared a heretic. However I am no scholar of these things.
Most of the time, however, papal pronouncements don’t define things dogmatically, they merely express sentiments that are broadly sympathetic to Augustine. Though a Catholic can disagree without putting himself outside of the church, he is separating himself from the main body of opinion is he does so to any large degree.

 

[slowbutfaithful]

St Augustine’s works are not described as “inspired by the Holy Spirit”. Largely because he wasn’t recoding the words of Jesus or, like St Paul, sufficiently close to Jesus in time to be considered a primary source.

Yes, BUT the early Church councils (populated by people who were not contemporaries of Christ) had to decide which of the many letters claimed to be “inspired by the Holy Spirit” were in fact so. How did that decision process differ from subsequent debates within the Magisterium that led to more recent dogmatic declarations, which might quote the works of Augustine and other Church fathers (also not contemporaries of Christ)?

 

[Mijoy2]

Yes, BUT the early Church councils (populated by people who were not contemporaries of Christ) had to decide which of the many letters claimed to be “inspired by the Holy Spirit” were in fact so. How did that decision process differ from subsequent debates within the Magisterium that led to more recent dogmatic declarations, which might quote the works of Augustine and other Church fathers (also not contemporaries of Christ)?

Good question. I suppose the answer is much the same answer as to what qualified the books of the cannon as inspired text.

Maybe someone here can answer this for me. If I were to guess at an answer my guess would be: Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit would lead us to Truth. He also promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. Given this I assume that the Bishops present at the early church councils believed thier decision(s) were properly guided to selecting the inspired inerrant text.

Boy, this really is a powerful case against sola scriptura.
The Church came before the complete Bible (as we know it today). Woulldn’t this mean that from the protestant perspective, the early church was guided by the Holy Spirit at the time the Bible was compiled. However this same Church was prevailed upon by the gates of the Hell thus needed seperation and human correction to get it back on track with all it’s early errors corrected.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Yes, BUT the early Church councils (populated by people who were not contemporaries of Christ) had to decide which of the many letters claimed to be “inspired by the Holy Spirit” were in fact so. How did that decision process differ from subsequent debates within the Magisterium that led to more recent dogmatic declarations, which might quote the works of Augustine and other Church fathers (also not contemporaries of Christ)?

If St Paul says something in his epistles, and you reject it, then you are saying that two authorities are wrong, St Paul for making the mistake in the first place, and the Church for giving his writings such a high status.

If you reject something that St Augustine says, you are also saying that two authorities are wrong. However the church isn’t as badly wrong as in the first case - Augustine is merely a doctor of the church, not an inspired writer. There is a whole hierarchy of the status of various doctrines, from the creed to the dogmas formally pronouced as infallible, to the writings of people like St Augustine, down to works like the catechism which are official and useful, but are not considered to be of the day.