St. Augustine on the papacy

[josephdaniel29]

Not true. If the pope didn’t approve a council, it wasn’t a universal council, it was merrely a local council that had authority on the ones it was local to.

And if the bishop of Jerusalem didn’t approve a council it wasn’t considered “ecumenical.” But just for the record it wasn’t the approval of the pope that made the council ecumenical, it was the approval of a subsequent council.

Read it again. I thought Pax probably meant to say “doctor”.

Perhaps so. It’s still not a position based on the facts presented.

There is no ecumenical council without the pope. The pope makes a council universal.

Then what was the point of St Augustine saying what he did. Did St Augustine mean that the Donatist could appeal a decision by the pope to an ecumenical council which required the approval of the pope anyway? What, was the pope going to change his mind all of a sudden? What would be the point of that? That my friend in nonsensical.

How many ecumenical councils are there? What made them ecumenical? Which council(s) or part of any council did a pope repudiate?

Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

In Christ
Joe

 

[steve_b]

And if the bishop of Jerusalem didn’t approve a council it wasn’t considered “ecumenical.”

The pope can bind the entire Church. The bishop of Jerusalem can’t.
jd:

But just for the record it wasn’t the approval of the pope that made the council ecumenical, it was the approval of a subsequent council.

Which one are you speaking of?
jd:

Then what was the point of St Augustine saying what he did. Did St Augustine mean that the Donatist could appeal a decision by the pope to an ecumenical council which required the approval of the pope anyway? What, was the pope going to change his mind all of a sudden? What would be the point of that? That my friend in nonsensical.

Do you have the quote and the reference?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Do you have the quote and the reference?

Here is the quote in more length.

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 defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.

Link

Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the incident St Augustine is referring to.

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.

Link

In Christ
Joe

 

[steve_b]

Here is the quote in more length.
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 defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed.
Link

Thanks for the reference. I want to add further context.

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.

You asked "Did St Augustine mean that the Donatist could appeal a decision by the pope to an ecumenical council which required the approval of the pope anyway? What, was the pope going to change his mind all of a sudden? What would be the point of that? That my friend in nonsensical. "

Now that we have the reference, and can see the context, Is THIS really the smoking gun you want to make an issue of?

• Augustine poses a hypothetical, and not a very serious one at that because the case in his mind is non existent.
• Augustine didn’t believe their show, and dismisses their ability to even prove their case which he says is rediculous to begin with. (paraphrasing )

To take text which is a hypothetical, out of context, to make pretext that is totally unlike Augustine, is just wrong, not only to him but to anyone…
jd:

Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the incident St Augustine is referring to.
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.
Link

In Christ
Joe

There’s nothing here.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Thanks for the reference. I want to add further context.

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.

You asked "Did St Augustine mean that the Donatist could appeal a decision by the pope to an ecumenical council which required the approval of the pope anyway? What, was the pope going to change his mind all of a sudden? What would be the point of that? That my friend in nonsensical. "

Now that we have the reference, and can see the context, Is THIS really the smoking gun you want to make an issue of?

• Augustine poses a hypothetical, and not a very serious one at that because the case in his mind is non existent.
• Augustine didn’t believe their show, and dismisses their ability to even prove their case which he says is rediculous to begin with. (paraphrasing )

To take text which is a hypothetical, out of context, to make pretext that is totally unlike Augustine, is just wrong, not only to him but to anyone…

There’s nothing here.

Good grief Steve, the lengths you go to deny what’s right in front of your face. St Augustine said in the preceding sentence you decided to cut out.

…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:

Steve this is plain English. St Augustine says it could be “most justly said, to them” that they could appeal the decision of the tribunal to a “plenary” council. Simply because Augustine goes on to point out that they didn’t do that is irrelevant. If they indeed couldn’t appeal to a council, as modern Catholic teaching says, then why would St Augustine say that it could me “most justly said” to the Donanist that they could appeal to an ecumenical council?

In Christ
Joe

 

[Holly3278]

If Saint Augustine really believed this then he was most certainly no canonized saint! And since he is one, and since we know that canonization is infallible, we’d have to be calling the Church a liar in order to believe this! Now all you have to do is prove to this Protestant that the Church is infallible!

 

[steve_b]

Good grief Steve, the lengths you go to deny what’s right in front of your face. St Augustine said in the preceding sentence you decided to cut out.
…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:
Steve this is plain English. St Augustine says it could be “most justly said, to them” that they could appeal the decision of the tribunal to a “plenary” council. Simply because Augustine goes on to point out that they didn’t do that is irrelevant. If they indeed couldn’t appeal to a council, as modern Catholic teaching says, then why would St Augustine say that it could me “most justly said” to the Donanist that they could appeal to an ecumenical council?

In Christ
Joe

:doh2:good grief Joe! Nothing was left out.

let’s look at your selection in larger context.

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:

What is it you don’t understand? Augustine is saying

• these guys are worthless litigants.
• They’ve been defeated by the clearest light of truth - as if it wasn’t already presented to them in the clearest terms. But their stubbornness, and craftyness won’t let them see the truth. Even though the whole world sees it.(paraphrased )

Joe, how is it you’re having so much trouble with this?

 

[josephdaniel29]

:doh2:good grief Joe! Nothing was left out.

let’s look at your selection in larger context.

*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:

What is it you don’t understand? Augustine is saying

• these guys are worthless litigants.
• They’ve been defeated by the clearest light of truth - as if it wasn’t already presented to them in the clearest terms. But their stubbornness, and craftyness won’t let them see the truth. Even though the whole world sees it.(paraphrased )

Joe, how is it you’re having so much trouble with this?

And…Augustine said, despite all that, it could have been “most justly said”, that they could have appealed their case to a plenary council. :banghead:

The idea that it could be “justly said” that a sentence of the Roman Pontiff could be appealed to a ecumenical council is sheer heresy according to Pastor Aeternus. There really is no wiggle room on this one Steve. Seriously, I feel like I’m arguing with a liberal.

In Christ
Joe

 

[steve_b]

And…Augustine said, despite all that, it could have been “most justly said”, that they could have appealed their case to a plenary council. :banghead:

The idea that it could be “justly said” that a sentence of the Roman Pontiff could be appealed to a ecumenical council is sheer heresy according to Pastor Aeternus. There really is no wiggle room on this one Steve. Seriously, I feel like I’m arguing with a liberal.

In Christ
Joe

Are you kidding?

“as if it might not have been said, and most justly said, to them:”

This is NOT what Augustine said, he’s criticizing what the Donatist would say. How is it you’re not getting this?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Are you kidding?

“as if it might not have been said, and most justly said, to them:”

This is NOT what Augustine said, he’s criticizing what the Donatist would say. How is it you’re not getting this?

I give up…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I wouldn’t if I were you, joe. It’s definitely impossible to sit here and anachronistically look back 1600 years and say, “Augustine would definitely be a Roman Catholic were he here today, loyal to infallibility and the modern understanding of the papacy!” The Church of the age of Augustine was ONE: East and West: Catholic and Orthodox, united. It wasn’t a divided entity and the ideas of universal jurisdiction of the pope, papal supremacy, infallibility without an ecumenical council, and the idea that one patriarch is greater than all the rest in power rather than primacy alone, none of those ideas were on Augustine’s radar from my reading of him. He is a confusing character at best. He makes statements during his early career as a bishop and theologian that state Peter was the Rock and he seems to have the “Rome has spoken” mentality. But we see midway and later in his esteemed life as an oustanding doctor of the Church that he has a more Orthodox view of the papacy—a coryphaeus-style attitude.

Here are some quotes from Augustine that are worth noting:

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer–The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.

But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.–Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VI, St. Augustin, Sermon 26.1-4, pp. 340-341.

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.

I give up…

 

[TinaG]

If Saint Augustine really believed this then he was most certainly no canonized saint!

Holly,

I thought sainthood merely meant that person was definitely in heaven, not that all their beliefs were correct.

And since he is one, and since we know that canonization is infallible,
we’d have to be calling the Church a liar in order to believe this!

This does not follow.

Now all you have to do is prove to this Protestant that the Church is infallible!

I think you are referring to Joe. I recall that Joe identifies himself as Orthodox.

Infallibility, to my understanding, is extremely restricted and I don’t know that you can prove that it was involved in the situation presently being discussed.

-Tina “I, However, am Protestant” G

 

[clmowry]

I’m looking for the actual document issued by the pope.

Thanks

Chuck

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.

Link

 

[clmowry]

I give up…

Why there should be plenty of other evidence from Augustine’s writings to support this position.

No?

Chuck

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I posted some and can post more if asked…

Why there should be plenty of other evidence from Augustine’s writings to support this position.

No?

Chuck

 

[josephdaniel29]

I’m looking for the actual document issued by the pope.

Thanks

Chuck

I don’t know where you would find extant documents from the tribunal. Either way the findings of the tribunal are well attested to.

In Christ
Joe

 

[clmowry]

I don’t know where you would find extant documents from the tribunal. Either way the findings of the tribunal are well attested to.

In Christ
Joe

Yes the findings of a tribunal are well attested, this does not, however, a Papal pronouncement on Church Doctrine make.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

I posted some and can post more if asked…

Sorry, must have missed it…can you point out the post?

Thanks,

Chuck

 

[josephdaniel29]

Why there should be plenty of other evidence from Augustine’s writings to support this position.

No?

Chuck

Yes!

A little background. There was a controversy in the early Church over whether or not to re-baptize those who had apostatized from the faith. On one hand you had St Cyprian of Carthage who believed they should be re-baptized. On the other hand you had St Stephen who believed they should not be re-baptized. Eventually St Stephen’s position won the day. In this quote you have St Augustine commenting on Cyprian’s position. Remember, Stephen passed a judgment on this issue, even threatening to excommunicate St Cyprian. Here St Augustine basically says that Cyprian could be excused from holding an erroneous position because the issue had not been decided by a plenary council, even after the pope had issued his judgment.

1. On the question of baptism, then, I think that I have argued at sufficient length; and since this is a most manifest schism which is called by the name of the Donatists, it only remains that on the subject of baptism we should believe with pious faith what the universal Church maintains, apart from the sacrilege of schism. And yet, if within the Church different men still held different opinions on the point, without meanwhile violating peace, then till some one clear and simple decree should have been passed by an universal Council, it would have been right for the charity which seeks for unity to throw a veil over the error of human infirmity, as it is written “For charity shall cover the multitude of sins.” For, seeing that its absence causes the presence of all other things to be of no avail, we may well suppose that in its presence there is found pardon for the absence of some missing things.
2. There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his letters,—to come at last to him of whose authority they carnally flatter themselves they are possessed, whilst by his love they are spiritually overthrown. For at that time, before the consent of the whole Church had declared authoritatively, by the decree of a plenary Council, what practice should be followed in this matter, it seemed to him, in common with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church should, on joining the Church, be baptized anew.

Link

Here, just like in the earlier quote we’ve been discussing, St Augustine makes the case that an ecumenical council is an authority higher than the pope.

In Christ
Joe

 

[clmowry]

I must be missing the part where he says anything explicit about a council overriding the Pope?

I would submit that a proclamation of doctrine without the Pope would be a concept completely foreign the Augustine.

I just don’t see what you are asserting anywhere in his writings.

Chuck

Yes!

A little background. There was a controversy in the early Church over whether or not to re-baptize those who had apostatized from the faith. On one hand you had St Cyprian of Carthage who believed they should be re-baptized. On the other hand you had St Stephen who believed they should not be re-baptized. Eventually St Stephen’s position won the day. In this quote you have St Augustine commenting on Cyprian’s position. Remember, Stephen passed a judgment on this issue, even threatening to excommunicate St Cyprian. Here St Augustine basically says that Cyprian could be excused from holding an erroneous position because the issue had not been decided by a plenary council, even after the pope had issued his judgment.

1. On the question of baptism, then, I think that I have argued at sufficient length; and since this is a most manifest schism which is called by the name of the Donatists, it only remains that on the subject of baptism we should believe with pious faith what the universal Church maintains, apart from the sacrilege of schism. And yet, if within the Church different men still held different opinions on the point, without meanwhile violating peace, then till some one clear and simple decree should have been passed by an universal Council, it would have been right for the charity which seeks for unity to throw a veil over the error of human infirmity, as it is written “For charity shall cover the multitude of sins.” For, seeing that its absence causes the presence of all other things to be of no avail, we may well suppose that in its presence there is found pardon for the absence of some missing things.
2. There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his letters,—to come at last to him of whose authority they carnally flatter themselves they are possessed, whilst by his love they are spiritually overthrown. For at that time, before the consent of the whole Church had declared authoritatively, by the decree of a plenary Council, what practice should be followed in this matter, it seemed to him, in common with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church should, on joining the Church, be baptized anew.

Link

Here, just like in the earlier quote we’ve been discussing, St Augustine makes the case that an ecumenical council is an authority higher than the pope.

In Christ
Joe