St Augustine and the Keys

[petra]

jimmy:

Have you read the above quote from his retractations or have you just read it from another website? If so, which volume was it in?

I originally learned about the quote from Father Ambrose. But I haved ordered the book for myself and will soon have the direct source.

 

[petra]

jimmy:

You claimed that he wrote this in his “Retractations”. He wrote nothing about sermons in his “retractations”, yet you bring up a quote concerning a sermon from the Retractations.

I didn’t make the contents of the citation up–so I wasn’t “claiming” anything. I just quoted it like I saw it in the first place. I originally learned of this quotation from Father Ambrose.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Check the post on Sola Scriptura on the Apologist section. I found a bunch of quotes and tried to tie them together to show apostolic succession, premacy of Peter. Check it out, it might help. I’m reading a book right now that supports the Catholic view. Maybe it’s just your book.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

ERrr and heres the link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=57872

 

[jimmy]

petra:

I originally learned about the quote from Father Ambrose. But I haved ordered the book for myself and will soon have the direct source.

Can you tell me what volume of Retractations it is? I would like to order it too.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

petra-

I couldn’t find the full text online eiether. But this work does exist. I just ordered a copy from Barnes and Nobel.

You didnt have to, I dont want anyone spending money and going out of their way like this. If it was on the web then cool, otherwise dont worry about it.

I’m currently reading Eusebuis’ History of the Church. I’m at the end of Book 3 and it is at the point in history in which Clement is the Bishop of Rome. I have to tell you, I have not read anything that even hinted that Peter had primacy over the other apostles. In fact, equal recognition is given to Paul and Peter as being the founders of the Church–perhaps even a little more to Paul due to his conversion experience and having been personally taught by Christ when he was caught up to the third heaven. Also, the credit afforded to Peter and Paul appears to be due to their energetic efforts to spread the gospel and establish churches in many cities. These guys were very, very busy and very influencial.

I was having kind of the same debate with this protestant. They gave me a quote from Augustine’s letter to the Donatists out of book2 to “prove” sola scriptura, I spent a while and read the first two books, and I was shocked. If you read just the second book you could replace the term “donatists” with any denomination and it would still be understandable. Anyway here are some passages I showed them from book two here:

"For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church, when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision, claim or assume anything insolently and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held the primacy, and should rather be obeyed of those who were late and newly come…

… Here is a passage in which Cyprian records what we also learn in holy Scripture, that the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the apostles shines with such exceeding grace…

… I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing disrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever? …

I left out the middle stuff for space, but you can read it all in context. St Augustine seems to be sure who Peter is and what position he holds.

 

[petra]

jimmy:

Can you tell me what volume of Retractations it is? I would like to order it too.

This is what I ordered from Barnes and Noble:
Saint Augustine. the Retractations. Fathers of the Church, Volume 60. Translated By Sister Mary Inez Bogan. Roy J. Deferrari, Ed. ISBN 081320060

 

[petra]

Catholic Dude:

petra- You didnt have to, I dont want anyone spending money and going out of their way like this. If it was on the web then cool, otherwise dont worry about it.

It’s no problem. I’m very interested in this and am eager to have the whole work. I should be getting it this week.

Anyway here are some passages I showed them from book two here . . . I left out the middle stuff for space, but you can read it all in context. St Augustine seems to be sure who Peter is and what position he holds.
When did Augustine write this? I didn’t see a date. If it is before his Retractations, I’m still interested in understanding his later quote.

 

[kepha1]

I wasted 2 hours surfing the net looking for the “Retractions of Augustine”

I had it spelled wrong

 

[jimmy]

petra:

This is what I ordered from Barnes and Noble:
Saint Augustine. the Retractations. Fathers of the Church, Volume 60. Translated By Sister Mary Inez Bogan. Roy J. Deferrari, Ed. ISBN 081320060

thanks

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The passage from St. Augustine is often quoted out of context to support the protestant view that Augustine changed his mind.
In fact, CatholicDude has it right. The passage is not a change of mind, but a bringing up of two comments which Augustine made when making different points. He accepts both views as genuine (AND), but the reader is left to decide which interpretation they prefer at any given moment. Nowhere does Augustine deny that either interpretation is valid. He is just unhappy with not having made both points in his earlier arguments – Augustine tends to emphasize points when arguing with heretics.

I have a copy of the relevant page online, and will keep it there until December, 2005. (unless a catastrophe happens )
If you go to my personal web page, the relavent page is saved as a .jpg which you can browse or download (use save as).
The book is out of copyright (c) 1968. The Catholic University of America Press.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Huiou Theou:

The passage from St. Augustine is often quoted out of context to support the protestant view that Augustine changed his mind.
In fact, CatholicDude has it right. The passage is not a change of mind, but a bringing up of two comments which Augustine made when making different points. He accepts both views as genuine (AND), but the reader is left to decide which interpretation they prefer at any given moment. Nowhere does Augustine deny that either interpretation is valid. He is just unhappy with not having made both points in his earlier arguments – Augustine tends to emphasize points when arguing with heretics.

I have a copy of the relevant page online, and will keep it there until December, 2005. (unless a catastrophe happens )
If you go to my personal web page, the relavent page is saved as a .jpg which you can browse or download (use save as).
The book is out of copyright (c) 1968. The Catholic University of America Press.

Thanks.
So where is your page?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

If you click on a member’s name in the upper left corner of a posting, e.g. Huiou Theou, a little pull down menu appears. Click on Visit Huiou Theou’s home page, and you are there.
My home page is extremely simple right now.

 

[petra]

Huiou Theou:

The passage from St. Augustine is often quoted out of context to support the protestant view that Augustine changed his mind.
In fact, CatholicDude has it right. The passage is not a change of mind, but a bringing up of two comments which Augustine made when making different points. He accepts both views as genuine (AND), but the reader is left to decide which interpretation they prefer at any given moment. Nowhere does Augustine deny that either interpretation is valid. He is just unhappy with not having made both points in his earlier arguments – Augustine tends to emphasize points when arguing with heretics.

Thanks for the scan, Huiou. My book hasn’t arrived yet. For the benefit of readers, I’ve typed the entire section:

In this same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus who, after Majorinus, was the second bishop of the party of of Donatus at Carthage. In this letter, he argues that the baptism of Christ is believed to be only in his communion. It is against this letter that we speak in this book.

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: “On him as on a rock the Church was built.” This idea is also expressed in song by the voice of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose where he says about the crowing of the cock: “At its crowing he, this rock of the Church, washed away his guilt.” But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received the “keys of the kingdome of heaven.” For, “Thou art Peter” and not “Thou art the rock” was said to him. But “the rock was Christ,” in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.

This is pretty clear. Firstly, Augustine is not saying that either view is equally valid. Peter cannot both be the rock and not be the rock. These are mutually exclusive. Either Peter is the rock on whom the Church is built or he isn’t.

Augustine indicates that in a book against a letter of Donatus, he said of Peter that “on him as on a rock the Church was built.” But this was not his interpretation or intent with later writings: “very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said…” His later, mature view was, "For, “Thou art Peter” and not “Thou art the rock” was said to him. But “the rock was Christ…”

At the time of this writing, Augustine had a definite opinion on the matter (the rock is Christ, not Peter) but he suggests the reader make up his own mind. Leaving the reader to decide does not in any way mean that two mutually exclusive views are equally true. I could just as easily say, “I believe that the universe is billions of year old. Here is the evidence to support it and the evidence that it does not contradict Genesis. But you are certainly welcome to make up your own mind.” This does not mean that I hold mutually exclusive view or that I think the young-earth creation explanation is valid. It just means I suggest you make up your own mind.

So anyway, I’m with Augustine on this one. The rock was Christ and so the Church is built on Christ. Peter was named after the person on whom the Church was built because of his confession. It’s pretty clear that Augustine wasn’t even suggesting that it was the confession itself on which the Church was built.

 

[jimmy]

petra:

Thanks for the scan, Huiou. My book hasn’t arrived yet. For the benefit of readers, I’ve typed the entire section:

This is pretty clear. Firstly, Augustine is not saying that either view is equally valid. Peter cannot both be the rock and not be the rock. These are mutually exclusive. Either Peter is the rock on whom the Church is built or he isn’t.

Augustine indicates that in a book against a letter of Donatus, he said of Peter that “on him as on a rock the Church was built.” But this was not his interpretation or intent with later writings: “very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said…” His later, mature view was, "For, “Thou art Peter” and not “Thou art the rock” was said to him. But “the rock was Christ…”

At the time of this writing, Augustine had a definite opinion on the matter (the rock is Christ, not Peter) but he suggests the reader make up his own mind. Leaving the reader to decide does not in any way mean that two mutually exclusive views are equally true. I could just as easily say, “I believe that the universe is billions of year old. Here is the evidence to support it and the evidence that it does not contradict Genesis. But you are certainly welcome to make up your own mind.” This does not mean that I hold mutually exclusive view or that I think the young-earth creation explanation is valid. It just means I suggest you make up your own mind.

So anyway, I’m with Augustine on this one. The rock was Christ and so the Church is built on Christ. Peter was named after the person on whom the Church was built because of his confession. It’s pretty clear that Augustine wasn’t even suggesting that it was the confession itself on which the Church was built.

Your misinterpreting what Augustine said. Augustine did not make any claim that his earlier statement that Peter was the rock was incorrect. In this passage he just brings up both instances and allows the reader to make the destinction to which one was correct.

In fact, they are both correct. Christ is whom the faith of The Church was founded upon, but Peter is whom the Church is founded upon as a structure. As Augustine says, Ambrose was a supporter of the idea that it was Peter, so do Cyprian and many other earlier fathers.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Ummm … Sort of,

The entire subject is the Donatists, and mistakes with respect to them. Look at (2) and (3), Augustine says I made this kind of mistake, but it is still right. I caught the guilty man.

In the questionable passage, the translation uses peter and rock.
The Latin (in preserving the Greek original), uses ONE word with two different declensional endings. The preservation of the Greek is exact – both Peter and the foundation are ROCK.

In Latin, (the original), goto the link, choose Liber I, search for 276.
Same passage in Latin

hints:
Petr + us = rock as subject of sentence ( nominative singular, Second Declension = Masculine )
Petr + a = rock as subject of sentence ( Nominative singular, First declension )
Petr + am = rock as object of sentence ( Accusative, singular, First declension )

To anyone reading the biblical text in latin:
The neo vulgate: Mt 16:18, from the Vatican.

18 Et ego dico tibi: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam.

Now, there is no question of Peter being ROCK.
Augustine is simply interpreting the passage in two ways.
The first is the one which others in the church are interpreting it.

The second is Augustine’s personal interpretation.

No matter which interpretation you choose, for the purpose of the Donatists, the condemnation of the Donatists will still stand.

So Augustine doesn’t bother to clarify the statement any more than to indicate in both cases, that Peter has the primacy.

I think you went awry when you asserted that the two interpretations are mutually exclusive, and that you would choose the second.

If I had to choose between them, I would choose the first since the rest of the church accepted it already. Ambrose, by the way, is the bishop who taught Augustine and was instrumental in his conversion. Augustine is not quoting a peer, he is quoting a “Tradition”, to which he is bound by a teacher. The second interpretation is threrefore novel. (It may have something to do with Augustine knowing Greek, but not extremely well).

However, I do not believe the two interpretations are exclusive.
The second interpretation is from a different part of scripture, which makes a similar analogy where Christ is the foundation stone, then comes the 12 foundation stones of the apostles, then comes the building.

 

[jco2004]

St. Augustine never said, “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.” Joe