St. Augustine on the papacy

[hoser]

Protestants are using the following to indicate that St. Augustine changed his mind and did not believe that Peter himself was the Rock. What are your thoughts.

"…At the end of his life, Augustine wrote his Retractations where he corrects statements in his earlier writings which he says were erroneous. One of these had to do with the interpretation of the rock in Matthew 16. At the beginning of his ministry Augustine had written that the rock was Peter. However, very early on he later changed his position and throughout the remainder of his ministry he adopted the view that the rock was not Peter but Christ or Peter’s confession which pointed to the person of Christ. The following are statements from his Retractations which refer to his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…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 kingdom 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 (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

Clearly Augustine is repudiating a previously held position, adopting the view that the rock was Christ and not Peter. This became his consistent position…"

This is from christiantruth.com/mt16.html There is a whole lot more there, however; I did not read it all. What are your thoughts?

 

[mtr01]

First thing to notice is that the title of the book is “Retractations”, not “Retractions”. Augustine does not retract any previously held beliefs in the book, he comments on his previous writing, that’s all.

If you want more in depth information, this page was specifically written to respond to Webster’s claims on christiantruth.com

 

[PhilVaz]

If you want rebuttals to Webster on Augustine, papacy, Peter, and rock, see the articles by Steve Ray and Joe Gallegos, and my own John Chapman article here

Augustine and Papacy by Chapman

See these articles by Steve Ray

See these articles by Joe Gallegos

Augustine had a both / and approach as many of the Fathers did, in one sense Peter is the rock, in another sense, Peter’s faith is rock, in another Christ is the rock, in another all the apostles or all believers are rocks. All of these positions are represented in the Catechism as well:

The literal interpretation is that Simon alone is the rock of Christ’s Church, the Church is built on Peter personally (CCC 881, 586, 552). However, the Catechism also notes that Peter is the unshakeable rock because of his faith in Christ (CCC 552); that the acknowledgement of Christ’s divine sonship is the Church’s foundation (CCC 442); on the rock of Peter’s faith Christ built His Church (CCC 424); and Christ Himself as rock and “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:4ff; 1 Cor 10:4; Eph 2:20) is the foundation (CCC 756).

Phil P

 

[Lorarose]

Augustine had a both / and approach as many of the Fathers did, in one sense Peter is the rock, in another sense, Peter’s faith is rock, in another Christ is the rock, in another all the apostles or all believers are rocks. All of these positions are represented in the Catechism as well:

Yes, now that I think of it my protestant friends tend to take an “either” “or” appoach to many issues.
I’ve seen it on this forum quite a bit also.

This is another great example where it does not have to be “either” “or” - it can be both.

Thanks for that post!

 

[mawst]

First thing to notice is that the title of the book is “Retractations”, not “Retractions”. Augustine does not retract any previously held beliefs in the book, he comments on his previous writing, that’s all.

If you want more in depth information, this page was specifically written to respond to Webster’s claims on christiantruth.com

Retractation
Re`trac*ta"tion, n. [Cf. F. r['e]tractation, L. retractatio a revision, reconsideration. ] The act of retracting what has been said; recantation.

 

[Catholicc]

Here are the simple facts:

In 396 AD Augustine was made Coadjutor Bishop of Hippo (assistant with the right of succession on the death of the current bishop), and became full bishop shortly thereafter. He remained in this position at Hippo until his death in 430 AD.

Hippo was part of the Westen Church. Therefore he was in full communion with the Pope and Rome, else he would not have remained in his post. Even anti-Catholics, who wrongly believe that the Catholic Church was “invented” in 325 AD must take note of the dates of Augustine’s time in office as Bishop.

There is no way that Augustine was anything but a faithful Catholic Bishop who was in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You guys rock!

Only a handful of posts and so many great answers.

 

[mardukm]

Yes, now that I think of it my protestant friends tend to take an “either” “or” appoach to many issues.
I’ve seen it on this forum quite a bit also.

This is another great example where it does not have to be “either” “or” - it can be both.

Thanks for that post!

Leave it to an anti-Catholic to quote the Fathers out of context. Immediately after the quote you gave from St. Augustine, he actually enjoins his readers to choose for themselves which interpretation to believe. If he was actually rejecting one of his own interpretations, then it would have been unconscionable of him as a bishop to permit his readers to adhere to such an interpretation.

Protestants have absolutely nothing from the Fathers to support their anti-Catholicism.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ismael]

Retractation
Re`trac*ta"tion, n. [Cf. F. r['e]tractation, L. retractatio a revision, reconsideration. ] The act of retracting what has been said; recantation.

Yes but Augustine write indeed in the sense of ‘revision’ and ‘reconsideration’ of some previous point.s

In Retractatio 1,21,1 , Augustine is clearly not sure of his interpretation of Matthew 16:19.

He concludes with ‘let the reader decide’, also in the same text, even if ‘The Rock’ is Jesus Augustine still points put that Simon remains a rock, although a ‘lesser’ rock dependent on Christ.

Augustine is by no means attacking Peter’s primacy (otherwise he would have stated so), but he’s reviewing the different positions and interpretations of Matthew 16:19 and in the end he leaves the question open.

In ANY case… being the Rock Peter or Christ, Augustine is not protesting Peter’s primate in any sense.

Augustine advocated Peter’s primacy on several occasions in his writing and he’s not ‘reconsidering’ that.

Protestants who use this text as an anti-catholic attack are like people who want to cut stone with butter.

 

[Philthy]

Protestants are using the following to indicate that St. Augustine changed his mind and did not believe that Peter himself was the Rock. What are your thoughts.

Clearly Augustine is repudiating a previously held position, adopting the view that the rock was Christ and not Peter. This became his consistent position…"

 

[josephdaniel29]

Leave it to an anti-Catholic to quote the Fathers out of context. Immediately after the quote you gave from St. Augustine, he actually enjoins his readers to choose for themselves which interpretation to believe. If he was actually rejecting one of his own interpretations, then it would have been unconscionable of him as a bishop to permit his readers to adhere to such an interpretation.

Protestants have absolutely nothing from the Fathers to support their anti-Catholicism.

Blessings,
Marduk

Do you ascribe no significance to the fact that St Augustine doesn’t seem to care which of those two interpretations his readers hold? He wasn’t retracting his former position but it certainly isn’t a resounding endorsement of modern Catholic teaching.

 

[josephdaniel29]

]It’s hard not to simply burst out laughing at those who somehow imagine that he was anything but a staunch Catholic in exactly the fashion that present day Catholics understand the term.

I don’t know how he could be. He wasn’t under the immediate jurisdiction of the pope, he didn’t believe in papal infallibility or universal jurisdiction. In fact some of the things he said about Rome would be considered sheer heresy by the modern Catholic Church.

In Christ
Joe

 

[clmowry]

In fact some of the things he said about Rome would be considered sheer heresy by the modern Catholic Church.

Like?

Chuck

 

[TinaG]

Like?

Chuck

Hi!

Specific, proven statements are of more worth than vague generalities.

I would be interested in seeing an unequivocal statement about his papal allegiance.

In the meantime I think this is interesting:

books.google.com/books?id=ZcUCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=contra+maximianum+arianum&source=bl&ots=d3pglyJb3s&sig=YieLMRnoQ-Ted9Ynnjo5XA_EH84&hl=en&ei=wIfJTJLZKMHflgfYwqW9AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=contra%20maximianum%20arianum&f=false

Here Augustine seems to be rejecting the authority of councils in favor of Scripture alone: Sola Scriptura.

-Tina “Thought I Would Pop My Head In for a Moment” G

 

[josephdaniel29]

Like?

Chuck

“Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defence; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.” - Letter 43

Link

Here St Augustine clearly states that Rome is subject to the authority of an ecumenical council. That is outright heresy according to modern Catholic teaching.

In Christ
Joe

 

[clmowry]

“Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defence; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.” - Letter 43
Link

Here St Augustine clearly states that Rome is subject to the authority of an ecumenical council. That is outright heresy according to modern Catholic teaching.

This statement is about the decisions of a tribunal in Rome, not the Bishop of Rome.

There is nothing “heretical” to Catholics in thinking that a tribunal in Rome might get a decision wrong and need to be corrected [in fact there is nothing heretical in thinking that the Pope might get a decision on a jurisdictional dispute wrong but he doesn’t even assert that here. If he claimed the Pope could be wrong and over rulled by a council on a doctrinal matter, you might have a point.]

Have a better example?

Chuck

Chapter 7
19. But when they actually found that the communion of the whole world with Cæcilianus continued as before, and that letters of communion from churches beyond the sea were sent to him, and not to the man whom they had flagitiously ordained, they became ashamed of being always silent; for it might be objected to them: Why did they suffer the Church in so many countries to go on in ignorance, communicating with men that were condemned; and especially why did they cut themselves off from communion with the whole world, against which they had no charge to make, by their bearing in silence the exclusion from that communion of the bishop whom they had ordained in Carthage? They chose, therefore, as it is reported, to bring their dispute with Cæcilianus before the foreign churches, in order to secure one of two things, either of which they were prepared to accept: if, on the one hand, by any amount of craft, they succeeded in making good the false accusation, they would abundantly satisfy their lust of revenge; if, however, they failed, they might remain as stubborn as before, but would now have, as it were, some excuse for it, in alleging that they had suffered at the hands of an unjust tribunal—the common outcry of all worthless litigants, though they have been defeated by the clearest light of truth—as if it might not have been said, and most justly said, to them: “Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defence; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.” Whether they have done this or not, let them prove: for we easily prove that it was not done, by the fact that the whole world does not communicate with them; or if it was done, they were defeated there also, of which their state of separation from the Church is a proof.

 

[josephdaniel29]

This statement is about the decisions of a tribunal in Rome, not the Bishop of Rome.

There is nothing “heretical” to Catholics in thinking that a tribunal in Rome might get a decision wrong and need to be corrected [in fact there is nothing heretical in thinking that the Pope might get a decision on a jurisdictional dispute wrong but he doesn’t even assert that here. If he claimed the Pope could be wrong and over rulled by a council on a doctrinal matter, you might have a point.]

Have a better example?

Chuck

Chapter 7
19. But when they actually found that the communion of the whole world with Cæcilianus continued as before, and that letters of communion from churches beyond the sea were sent to him, and not to the man whom they had flagitiously ordained, they became ashamed of being always silent; for it might be objected to them: Why did they suffer the Church in so many countries to go on in ignorance, communicating with men that were condemned; and especially why did they cut themselves off from communion with the whole world, against which they had no charge to make, by their bearing in silence the exclusion from that communion of the bishop whom they had ordained in Carthage? They chose, therefore, as it is reported, to bring their dispute with Cæcilianus before the foreign churches, in order to secure one of two things, either of which they were prepared to accept: if, on the one hand, by any amount of craft, they succeeded in making good the false accusation, they would abundantly satisfy their lust of revenge; if, however, they failed, they might remain as stubborn as before, but would now have, as it were, some excuse for it, in alleging that they had suffered at the hands of an unjust tribunal—the common outcry of all worthless litigants, though they have been defeated by the clearest light of truth—as if it might not have been said, and most justly said, to them: “Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defence; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.” Whether they have done this or not, let them prove: for we easily prove that it was not done, by the fact that the whole world does not communicate with them; or if it was done, they were defeated there also, of which their state of separation from the Church is a proof.

Then why not say, “Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained an appeal to the pope down the street, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defence; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.”?

By the way simply asserting that the Bishop of Rome was not part of a fourth century tribunal in Rome does not make it true.

 

[josephdaniel29]

This statement is about the decisions of a tribunal in Rome, not the Bishop of Rome.

There is nothing “heretical” to Catholics in thinking that a tribunal in Rome might get a decision wrong and need to be corrected [in fact there is nothing heretical in thinking that the Pope might get a decision on a jurisdictional dispute wrong but he doesn’t even assert that here. If he claimed the Pope could be wrong and over rulled by a council on a doctrinal matter, you might have a point.]

Have a better example?

Chuck

Chapter 7
19. But when they actually found that the communion of the whole world with Cæcilianus continued as before, and that letters of communion from churches beyond the sea were sent to him, and not to the man whom they had flagitiously ordained, they became ashamed of being always silent; for it might be objected to them: Why did they suffer the Church in so many countries to go on in ignorance, communicating with men that were condemned; and especially why did they cut themselves off from communion with the whole world, against which they had no charge to make, by their bearing in silence the exclusion from that communion of the bishop whom they had ordained in Carthage? They chose, therefore, as it is reported, to bring their dispute with Cæcilianus before the foreign churches, in order to secure one of two things, either of which they were prepared to accept: if, on the one hand, by any amount of craft, they succeeded in making good the false accusation, they would abundantly satisfy their lust of revenge; if, however, they failed, they might remain as stubborn as before, but would now have, as it were, some excuse for it, in alleging that they had suffered at the hands of an unjust tribunal—the common outcry of all worthless litigants, though they have been defeated by the clearest light of truth—as if it might not have been said, and most justly said, to them: “Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defence; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.” Whether they have done this or not, let them prove: for we easily prove that it was not done, by the fact that the whole world does not communicate with them; or if it was done, they were defeated there also, of which their state of separation from the Church is a proof.

I’m no historian but a little internet research shows that Pope Miltiades was one of the bishops present at said tribunal.

Link

Link

Link

Convinced?

In Christ
Joe

 

[clmowry]

I’m no historian but a little internet research shows that Pope Miltiades was one of the bishops present at said tribunal.

So? I didn’t say he wasn’t there. [In fact I explicitly said that even if he made the decision himself it wouldn’t matter.]

What doctrinal issue does Augustine [or anyone else] assert that the Pope decided or ratified at the tribunal? i.e. Was there any doctrinal decision to be hypothetically overturned by some hypothetical council?

This was a tribunal to decide a jurisdictional dispute.

You are reading "Pope can be overruled by a council” where the text says nothing of the sort.

In order for your claim to have any teeth we would need to see Augustine asserting that a council can overturn a doctrinal pronouncement of the Bishop of Rome.

You must have a more clear example than this? No?

“Constantine wrote about this to Miltiades, and also to Marcus, requesting the pope with three bishops from Gaul to give a hearing in Rome, to Cæcilian and his opponent, and to decide the case. On 2 October, 313, there assembled in the Lateran Palace, under the presidency of Miltiades, a synod of eighteen bishops from Gaul and Italy, which, after thoroughly considering the Donatist controversy for three days, decided in favor of Cæcilian, whose election and consecration as Bishop of Carthage was declared to be legitimate.”

“That the African schismatics might have no ground of complaint, he ordered three of the chief bishops of Gaul, Reticius of Autun, Maternus of Cologne, and Marinus of Arles, to repair to Rome, to assist at the trial. He ordered Caecilian to come thither with ten bishops of his accusers and ten of his own communion.”

Chuck

 

[josephdaniel29]

So? I didn’t say he wasn’t there. [In fact I explicitly said that even if he made the decision himself it wouldn’t matter.]

What doctrinal issue does Augustine [or anyone else] assert that the Pope decided or ratified at the tribunal? i.e. Was there any doctrinal decision to be hypothetically overturned by some hypothetical council?

This was a tribunal to decide a jurisdictional dispute.

You are reading "Pope can be overruled by a council” where the text says nothing of the sort.

In order for your claim to have any teeth we would need to see Augustine asserting that a council can overturn a doctrinal pronouncement of the Bishop of Rome.

You must have a more clear example than this? No?

“Constantine wrote about this to Miltiades, and also to Marcus, requesting the pope with three bishops from Gaul to give a hearing in Rome, to Cæcilian and his opponent, and to decide the case. On 2 October, 313, there assembled in the Lateran Palace, under the presidency of Miltiades, a synod of eighteen bishops from Gaul and Italy, which, after thoroughly considering the Donatist controversy for three days, decided in favor of Cæcilian, whose election and consecration as Bishop of Carthage was declared to be legitimate.”

“That the African schismatics might have no ground of complaint, he ordered three of the chief bishops of Gaul, Reticius of Autun, Maternus of Cologne, and Marinus of Arles, to repair to Rome, to assist at the trial. He ordered Caecilian to come thither with ten bishops of his accusers and ten of his own communion.”

Chuck

It says exactly that. A council chaired by the pope passed judgement on the Donatist and St Augustine says that an appeal can be made to an ecumenical council and that if found wrong “their decisions might be reversed.” My friend you are grasping at straws blindfolded if you think that doesn’t contradict modern Catholic teaching.

Unless of course you are saying that there are instances where a papal sentence can be reversed by a council?