St Augustine against the Donatists

[christosdavid]

Hi all, this thread is the start of a book reading interaction within the Traditional Catholic sub-forum.

It seemed good to us to read Augustine’s Donatist polemics and fit them within their historical framework as well as gain insight into the doctrine and Biblical Catholic teaching from this great Church Doctor.

To those who wanted to start with On the Trinity, my apologies, both are good and worthwhile and we can always move on to Augustine’s other writings when we so wish.

The link for Augustine’s anti-Donatist writings can be found at:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.html

although the original text is indeed in Latin so if anyone has further info for us, we would gratefully appreciate it (does anyone know a link to the Latin text?).

Please add comments as they occur to you, we are interested in different commentators coming from their point of Views as well as understanding the original intent of the great saint.

 

[christosdavid]

There are three works collated under this title:

On Baptism, Against the Donatists
(De Baptismo, contra Donatistas, Libri VII) ca. 400 AD

Answer to Letters of Petilian, Bishop of Cirta
(Contra Litteras Petiliani Donatistae Cirtensis Episcpoi, Libri IIII.) ca. 400 AD

The Correction of the Donatists
(De Correctione Donatistarum Liber seu Epistola CLXXXV.) ca. 417 AD

The first is in 7 books so perhaps a book a month rather than a chapter, I’ll also find some indtoductory data to help us get started.

 

[christosdavid]

Here is the link to an introductory essay which will help us to begin

ecmarsh.com/fathers/npnf1/NPNF1-04/npnf1-04-49.htm

Book One of Baptism is interested in seeing if a true baptism can be performed by Scismatics and/or heretics but its limited value whilst belonging to a group outside the Catholic Church.

Notes on Augustine’s Ecclesiology, Sacramental theology and their application by the modern church could also be interesting. For example in our dialogue on Ex opere operato and rebaptisms.

looking forward to reading and hearing what others think is of value will, I pray, be very rewarding, both Intellectually and Spiritually. God bless!

 

[followingtheway]

Rather interesting :yup: It’s amazing how many strange sects were around at that time, and now! St. Augustine, pray for us!

God bless :byzsoc:

David

 

[TrueLight]

Hi all, this thread is the start of a book reading interaction within the Traditional Catholic sub-forum.

It seemed good to us to read Augustine’s Donatist polemics and fit them within their historical framework as well as gain insight into the doctrine and Biblical Catholic teaching from this great Church Doctor.

To those who wanted to start with On the Trinity, my apologies, both are good and worthwhile and we can always move on to Augustine’s other writings when we so wish.

The link for Augustine’s anti-Donatist writings can be found at:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.html

although the original text is indeed in Latin so if anyone has further info for us, we would gratefully appreciate it (does anyone know a link to the Latin text?).

Please add comments as they occur to you, we are interested in different commentators coming from their point of Views as well as understanding the original intent of the great saint.

Awesome!

I’m excited.

Before starting to read, I thought I might familiarize myself with a little summary of the Donatists, and I found something on Wikipedia. I know, I know, but it has its uses. Hope this is helpful.

Donatists

The primary disagreement between Donatists and the rest of the early Christian Church was over the treatment of those who renounced their faith during the persecution under the Roman emperor Diocletian (303–5), a disagreement that had implications both for the Church’s understanding of the Sacrament of Penance and of the other sacraments in general.

The rest of the Church was far more forgiving of these people than the Donatists. The Donatists refused to accept the sacraments and spiritual authority of the priests and bishops who had fallen away from the faith during the persecution. During the persecution some Church leaders had gone so far as to turn Christians over to Roman authorities and had handed over religious texts to authorities to be publicly burned. These people were called traditores (“people who had handed over”). These traditors had returned to positions of authority under Constantine I, and the Donatists proclaimed that any sacraments celebrated by these priests and bishops were invalid.

The first question, therefore, was whether the Sacrament of Penance can effect a reconciliation whereby the apostate, or in some cases specifically the traditor, may be returned to full communion. The orthodox Catholic position was that the sacrament was for precisely such cases, though at the time the Church still followed the discipline of public penance whereby a penitent for such a grievous offence would spend years, even decades, first outside the doors of the church begging for the prayers of those entering, then kneeling inside the church building during services, then standing with the congregation, and finally receiving the Eucharist again in a long progress toward full reconciliation. The Donatists held that such a crime, after the forgiveness of Baptism, disqualified one for leadership in the Church, a position of extreme rigorism.

The second question was the validity of sacraments celebrated by priests and bishops who had been apostates under the persecution. The Donatists held that all such sacraments were invalid; by their sinful act, such clerics had rendered themselves incapable of celebrating valid sacraments. This is known as ex opere operantis, Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting. The Catholic position, according to Augustine, was ex opere operato — from the work having been worked; in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God’s work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly. Hence, to the Donatists, a priest who had been an apostate but who repented could speak the words of consecration forever, but he could no longer confect the Eucharist. To Catholics, a person who received the Eucharist from the hands of even an unrepentant sinning priest still received Christ’s Body and Blood, their own sacramental life being undamaged by the priest’s faults.

As a result, many towns were divided between Donatist and non-Donatist congregations. The sect had particularly developed and grown in northern Africa. Constantine, as emperor, began to get involved in the dispute, and in 314 he called the Council of Arles; the issue was debated and the decision went against the Donatists. The Donatists refused to accept the decision of the council, their distaste for bishops who had collaborated with Rome came out of their broader view of the Roman Empire.

Can’t wait to start.

 

[tlimon]

I’ll start reading today! Thanks for floating this idea christosdavid.

 

[TrueLight]

This is from Chapter five of book one: newadvent.org/fathers/14081.htm

1. And yet this point had once, perhaps, been involved in obscurity and doubt. But that which is a source of health to those who give heed and receive correction, is but an aggravation of the sin of those who, when they are no longer suffered to be ignorant, persist in their madness to their own destruction. For the condemnation of the party of Maximianus, and their restoration after they had been condemned, together with those whom they had sacrilegiously, to use the language of their own Council, baptized in schism, settles the whole question in dispute, and removes all controversy. There is no point at issue between ourselves and those Donatists who hold communion with Primianus, which could give rise to any doubt that the baptism of Christ may not only be retained, but even conferred by those who are severed from the Church. For as they themselves are obliged to confess that those whom Felicianus baptized in schism received true baptism, inasmuch as they now acknowledge them as members of their own body, with no other baptism than that which they received in schism; so we say that that is Christ’s baptism, even without the pale of Catholic communion, which they confer who are cut off from that communion, inasmuch as they had not lost it when they were cut off. And what they themselves think that they conferred on those persons whom Felicianus baptized in schism, when they admitted them to reconcilation with themselves, viz., not that they should receive that which they did not as yet possess, but that what they had received to no advantage in schism, and were already in possession of, should be of profit to them, this God really confers and bestows through the Catholic communion on those who come from any heresy or schism in which they received the baptism of Christ; viz., not that they should begin to receive the sacrament of baptism as not possessing it before, but that what they already possessed should now begin to profit them.

Emphasis mine.

If we apply this to today, this seems to be saying that even though one can receive a baptism, say in a Protestant church, the Baptism doesn’t profit you anything unless you are in communion with the Catholic Church.

Am I reading this correctly?

If so, what types of things that were lacking in the Baptism is conferred when one is in communion, for example if one converts?

 

[christosdavid]

I’ll start reading today! Thanks for floating this idea christosdavid.

you are very welcome, I hope we are all blessed and encouraged by Augustine and each other!

 

[christosdavid]

This is from Chapter five of book one: newadvent.org/fathers/14081.htm

1. And yet this point had once, perhaps, been involved in obscurity and doubt. But that which is a source of health to those who give heed and receive correction, is but an aggravation of the sin of those who, when they are no longer suffered to be ignorant, persist in their madness to their own destruction. For the condemnation of the party of Maximianus, and their restoration after they had been condemned, together with those whom they had sacrilegiously, to use the language of their own Council, baptized in schism, settles the whole question in dispute, and removes all controversy. There is no point at issue between ourselves and those Donatists who hold communion with Primianus, which could give rise to any doubt that the baptism of Christ may not only be retained, but even conferred by those who are severed from the Church. For as they themselves are obliged to confess that those whom Felicianus baptized in schism received true baptism, inasmuch as they now acknowledge them as members of their own body, with no other baptism than that which they received in schism; so we say that that is Christ’s baptism, even without the pale of Catholic communion, which they confer who are cut off from that communion, inasmuch as they had not lost it when they were cut off. And what they themselves think that they conferred on those persons whom Felicianus baptized in schism, when they admitted them to reconcilation with themselves, viz., not that they should receive that which they did not as yet possess, but that what they had received to no advantage in schism, and were already in possession of, should be of profit to them, this God really confers and bestows through the Catholic communion on those who come from any heresy or schism in which they received the baptism of Christ; viz., not that they should begin to receive the sacrament of baptism as not possessing it before, but that what they already possessed should now begin to profit them.

Emphasis mine.

If we apply this to today, this seems to be saying that even though one can receive a baptism, say in a Protestant church, the Baptism doesn’t profit you anything unless you are in communion with the Catholic Church.

Am I reading this correctly?

If so, what types of things that were lacking in the Baptism is conferred when one is in communion, for example if one converts?

Yes, very suggestive of Protestant sects isn’t it?

The most obvious grace that Augustine would see here is to be within “.**…the limits of the communion of the unity of Christ’s body” **(chap. 4-5)

the act of schism means that there is **hatred towards to Catholic community **and so chap 6-8 continues on to talk about Christian charity (love towards one another).

Conversion then to the Catholic church takes away the hinderence of hatred towards Christ’s people and the heresy of the schismatic group which could deform the character of their** Preseverance**.

We have to be careful in blanketing all Protestants with the Donatist brush. THey were maintaining that the Baptism of the Catholic Church had become invalid and thus the necessity for re-baptism.

Most historic Protestants now agree that they have a common baptism with the Catholic Church, which we can say with Augustine that it is in fact the Catholic Baptism which they are performing, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit which is where the distinction of ex opere operato (rather than ex opere operantis - the one performing the work) is important.

Anabaptists and others stemming from the radical reformation have never accepted Catholic baptism because they dont practise paedo-baptism (infant baptism) but rather a dedication (in some ways not unlike Augustine’s own dedication though without the sacramentals).

Augustine was providentially preserved from being caught up in whether his own baptism was “good enough” or in an appropriate church because he was baptised in Milan by St. Ambrose. Thus the Donatist faction nor the “Caelian” (Catholic) faction could point their finger at him. I think it also gave him perspective to see that the Church could not be restricted to North Africa in the way the Donatists argued.

Can anyone think of other benefits that are particularly Catholic?

Thanks TrueLight, you have a fascinating personal insight into this, maybe you can give us some comments on the development of baptismal graces…

 

[TrueLight]

Thanks TrueLight, you have a fascinating personal insight into this, maybe you can give us some comments on the development of baptismal graces…

I don’t know if it is an Evangelical thing, but I never studied much theology. The people who studied theology were mostly seminarians.

I say this to explain that the primary focus was on developing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through prayer, the word and fellowship with the believers. So I read lots of books about that.

Even though I had to attend a Baptism class which lasted for a couple of months before I converted, I never heard the term baptismal grace. Not that I can remember. I was a teen.

I knew that I had to get baptized once I really became serious about Christ and wanted to make a statement to the world of that. Also by being Baptized, I was truly becoming one with the body of Christ.

Baptism symbolically meant I died with Christ and rose again with him… a new creature. My sins were washed away. However, baptism was not necessary for salvation.

So I never learned about graces.

 

[TrueLight]

From Chapter 8:

1. Nor indeed were the prayers of the Gentile Cornelius unheard, nor did his alms lack acceptance; nay, he was found worthy that an angel should be sent to him, and that he should behold the messenger, through whom he might assuredly have learned everything that was necessary, without requiring that any man should come to him. But since all the good that he had in his prayers and alms could not benefit him unless he were incorporated in the Church by the bond of Christian brotherhood and peace, he was ordered to send to Peter, and through him learned Christ; and, being also baptized by his orders, he was joined by the tie of communion to the fellowship of Christians, to which before he was bound only by the likeness of good works

I find this passage very poignant. Cornelius was such a God fearer that God sent an angel to him so that he could go to Peter and be baptized.

God is indeed not bound by the sacraments, but it looks like wherever possible he wants us to live sacramental lives. Even his own son was baptized as an example.

 

[christosdavid]

The end of the first month is drawing nigh

The first book is not so hard to read so my encouragments to those who may be struggling. Try a different type set also, if you find it difficult. Or printed copies are also availiable if its difficult. I myself have a printed version from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series.



BTW the 28th of August is St. Augustine’s Feast Day.
May this patron of Theologians continue to guide us to Christ and aid the Church in her own quest to Believe and Understand.

 

[TrueLight]

The end of the first month is drawing nigh

The first book is not so hard to read so my encouragments to those who may be struggling. Try a different type set also, if you find it difficult. Or printed copies are also availiable if its difficult. I myself have a printed version from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series.



BTW the 28th of August is St. Augustine’s Feast Day.
May this patron of Theologians continue to guide us to Christ and aid the Church in her own quest to Believe and Understand.

I thought this thread was dead. Where have you been?

 

[christosdavid]

sorry, unfortunatley I have been unwell. Its a long-term sickness, Ive been on medication for it for about 14 months at present.

Occassionally, I am so sick I cant think to write or read so in those times I have to “give my pain up to the passion of Christ” and can do little else than pray for respite from my bodily afflictions.

My consolation is that Paul had some kind of thorn in the flesh, no matter how many he healed through the Holy Spirit’s power, he needed to hear God say that his grace was sufficient.

Anyway, enough about boring you with my problems… good thing about texts is that they dont disappear as easily as thoughts. We can reexamine them at our leisure.

Are you baptised yet? I found your last answer interesting that noone has explained baptismal graces to you yet…

 

[TrueLight]

sorry, unfortunatley I have been unwell. Its a long-term sickness, Ive been on medication for it for about 14 months at present.

Occassionally, I am so sick I cant think to write or read so in those times I have to “give my pain up to the passion of Christ” and can do little else than pray for respite from my bodily afflictions.

My consolation is that Paul had some kind of thorn in the flesh, no matter how many he healed through the Holy Spirit’s power, he needed to hear God say that his grace was sufficient.

Anyway, enough about boring you with my problems… good thing about texts is that they dont disappear as easily as thoughts. We can reexamine them at our leisure.

Are you baptised yet? I found your last answer interesting that noone has explained baptismal graces to you yet…

I’m so sorry to hear that you are unwell. I will keep you in my prayers.

Well, guess what? I did eventually get up to baptismal graces in my instructions.

I have an excellent instructor.

BTW, I was baptized as a Protestant when I was about 19 and I recently found out I was baptized as a Catholic when I was a baby.

 

[christosdavid]

I’m so sorry to hear that you are unwell. I will keep you in my prayers.

Well, guess what? I did eventually get up to baptismal graces in my instructions.

I have an excellent instructor.

BTW, I was baptized as a Protestant when I was about 19 and I recently found out I was baptized as a Catholic when I was a baby.

great! its always interesting when you find out something like that

Many thanks for your prayers as well, its always encouraging to know that one is not alone…

Thats definately one of the graces, eh? incorporation into the mystical body of Christ, along with many others who Christ has called to be his own brothers and sisters.

The Donatists as outsiders had a “hate campaign” against the Catholics. They sent armed gangs named “circumcellions” around harrassing and beating up bishops/priests and burning churches etc.

They saw themselves as the continuing church of North Africa, the ark of salvation, who had not bowed the knee to the emperor after the decree of toleration enforced by Constantine’s edict.

Constantine replied by maintaining their illegal union but N.A. was a considerable way from Constantinople and although the Imperial army did try to supress the Donatists it merely confirmed for them that the Emperor wasnt Christian and did not join the entire Catholic church from that juncture.

Augustine’s late conversion overseas left him in no doubt that “Christ died for the world, not just Africa” but the baptisms that the Donatist’s had been performing were just the Catholic ones but within their church.

Cyprian was faced with this problem too but in declaring no-one could be saved outside the church also made the mistake of not recognising that a valid baptism had been performed. Augustine’s book one finishes at that point.

So, what implication does this fact have for the CC’s understanding of “the Father’s know best” when Cyprian and Augustine here disagree?

I’ll just post that question for the moment and we can discuss valid baptism’s and the “opinions” of the ancients…

 

[TrueLight]

So, what implication does this fact have for the CC’s understanding of “the Father’s know best” when Cyprian and Augustine here disagree?

I’ll just post that question for the moment and we can discuss valid baptism’s and the “opinions” of the ancients…

I’m not sure what the implications are, but the Fathers were also human, and as human beings grappled over different topics. Even the Apostles had disagreements. For example the early church disagreed on whether gentiles should be circumcised.

The Church always prevails in the end.

 

[christosdavid]

I’m not sure what the implications are, but the Fathers were also human, and as human beings grappled over different topics. Even the Apostles had disagreements. For example the early church disagreed on whether gentiles should be circumcised.

The Church always prevails in the end.

good illustrative point the “judaizer” difficulty between Paul and the anonymous “super-apostles” (Corinth, Galatians, Ac.15) but due to both Paul and Peter’s arguments very quickly diffused what could potentially have destroyed the Grace of God in salvation.

The slight difference here is that the words recorded about the debate are also inspired by the Holy Spirit as part of the Canon.

Interestingly, it was because of Cyprian’s forbearance and priestly forgiveness that the schism occured. Cyprian was willing to forgive those apostates (tradiatores) that had handed over Scriptures to be burned rather than be martyred.

Even though it was later shown that many had handed over lesser books, lectionaries and apocryphal writings rather than the gospels.

Donatus decried this, after all, why then had the martyrs had to die? everyone could have just apostacized and been forgiven later.

There’s no specific answer to my question, more a recognition that things have developed in times of need. For eg. at this time there is no confessional, nor sacrament of reconciliation. This is the beginning of the priests role in absolution in Cyprian’s time. (the practise of confession as we know it is related to the Irish monastic method).

Anyway, all this sparked up anti “the other” sentiment between the churches. Donatists were rigorist and legalistic. Catholics were accused of anti-nomianism and being soft on traitors.

Then, were these bishops and priests who had themselves handed over books still able to minister the sacraments?

What if the priest is unholy and performs a baptism, is it valid?

 

[TrueLight]

What if the priest is unholy and performs a baptism, is it valid?

The Baptism is still valid as long as it is done in the required way with the required words.

I just read this portion today.

It is true that Christ’s baptism is holy; and although it may exist among heretics or schismatics, yet it does not belong to the heresy or schism; and therefore even those who come from thence to the Catholic Church herself ought not to be baptized afresh. Yet to err on this point is one thing; **it is another thing that those who are straying from the peace of the Church, and have fallen headlong into the pit of schism, should go on to decide that any who join them ought to be baptized again. **For the former is a speck on the brightness of a holy soul which abundance of charity would fain have covered; the latter is a stain in their nether foulness which the hatred of peace in their countenance ostentatiously brings to light. But the subject for our further consideration, relating to the authority of the blessed Cyprian, we will commence from a fresh beginning.

Even today, there are groups who will do a conditional baptism if you were baptized in the … well, I’m going to say “Novus Ordo” because that’s how it would be described. Hopefully no one gets offended. It’s amazing that these type of discussions were going on back then.

As the book of Ecclesiastes says, “There is nothing new under the sun.”

 

[christosdavid]

The Baptism is still valid as long as it is done in the required way with the required words.

I just read this portion today.

Even today, there are groups who will do a conditional baptism if you were baptized in the … well, I’m going to say “Novus Ordo” because that’s how it would be described. Hopefully no one gets offended. It’s amazing that these type of discussions were going on back then.

As the book of Ecclesiastes says, “There is nothing new under the sun.”

“Solomon” is so true.

The answer the church came up with agrees with Augustine. *Ex Opere Operantis *where the virtue of the minister is taken into account creates a mess. both doctrinally and pastorally.

We ended up with the position called *ex opere operato *which is what you’ve described above. As long as the work itself is done, then the sacrament was successful. but it is not the baptism of heretics we are confirming but our own, which was performed by them ( Bk IV ch 4-6).

Augustine didnt want Cyprian’s name to become mud, however, and so wrote, “…whilst he differed in opinion from them, not through any contention of ill will, but through human infirmity, erring on a point which God, in his own time, would reveal to him by by reason of his perseverance in love.” ch 8

baptism is holy in itself, not “in any way defiled by their wickedness” (10-15)

“…but when baptism is given in the words of the gospel, however great be the perverseness of understanding on the part either of him through whom, or of him to whom it is given, the sacrament itself is holy in itself on account of Him whose sacrament it is. And if anyone,** receiving it at the hands of a misguided man, yet does not receive the perversity of the minister,** but only the holiness of the mystery, being closely bound to the unity of the Church in good faith and hope and charity, he receives remission of sins, - not by the words which do eat as a canker, but by the sacraments of the gospel flowing from a heavenly source.” (ch 12-19)

Even a heretic, who holds to virtue may be in a better position than a bad catholic (20-28) or the burning zeal of the catechumen above a baptised heretic (29-30) because of the Holy Spirit working in them
"So neither ought we to depreciate the sacrament of baptism, even though it has been received outside the church. But since it is of no avail for salvation unless he who has baptism be incorporated into the church, correcting also his own depravity, let us therefore correct the error of the heretics, that we may recognize what in them is not their own but Christ’s."