St. Augustine Protestant mindset?

[TheQuestioner]

Augustine on the true church and body of Christ being the true believers, not the visible church

(On Christian Doctrine, 3:32)
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

I have nooooooo idea how you gleaned that idea from that passage. What Augustine is speaking of is something akin to “Federal Headship”, that being that sometimes God is talking to a whole people as if one person, because they are all in communion. Augustine himself was a Bishop, so it makes no sense that he would not believe in a visible along with an invisible Church as being part of the body of Christ.

 

[SyCarl]

Hmmm again out of context. You do realize here that Augustine was comparing a local council to an Ecumenical one here right?

Not out of context. Augustine specifically refers to a decision of Melchiades, Bishop of Rome, with the assistance of assessors. A decision of the Bishop of Rome could be taken to an Ecumenical Council.

First off, this passage you posted works to defend infant baptism. Second, you highlighted out of context. Augustine really just explains how it is appropriate and fitting that the sacraments are called what they are called since those names mirror what happened to Christ in His life too. It really has nothing to do with the true presence.

As a Presbyterian I accept infant baptism. Augustine clearly indicates that the sacrament has some points of resemblance to the things of which it is a sacrament. They have a likeness to the realities they resemble, clearly indicate a difference from the reality.

Augustine is clearly defending the sacrament of Reconciliation. In fact, he defends the Church’s authority since he says by the Churches authority we receive blessings of forgiveness.

Augustine mentions nothing about the sacrament of Reconciliation. He does not mention the sinner confessing to anyone and he is saved by his faith and repentance, not by an act of a priest.

 

[SyCarl]

I have nooooooo idea how you gleaned that idea from that passage. What Augustine is speaking of is something akin to “Federal Headship”, that being that sometimes God is talking to a whole people as if one person, because they are all in communion. Augustine himself was a Bishop, so it makes no sense that he would not believe in a visible along with an invisible Church as being part of the body of Christ.

He does not equate the institution with the body of Christ. It is a subset of that institution. It includes only those who will ultimately be with Jesus in Heaven, that is true believers.

 

[Ben_Dover]

Some Protestants just can’t accept defeat

their heresy knows no limits…

 

[TheQuestioner]

Augustine on penal substitution

(Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 4)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong interpretation.
From the same chapter:

Romans 6:6 The apostle boldly says of Christ, “He was made a curse for us;” for he could also venture to say, “He died for all.” “He died,” and “He was cursed,” are the same. Death is the effect of thecurse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which merits punishment, or the punishment which follows. Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment.

“Canceling guilt” and “doing away with punishment” are not part of the language of penal substitution, and I am wondering if you left out the last part on purpose, since its right after where you cut off the paragraph. By canceling guilt Christ removes guilt from us, and by doing away with our punishment Christ removes the need for it. Thus, He took our punishment in that He took it away, or “did away with our punishment” as stated by Augustine himself. Either you were dishonest in deciding the cut off point for your quote or you are only seeing what you want to see from Augustine.

(Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

Yes, Christ took on our nature and therefore suffered death for us, in order to repay our debt. Though He himself was blameless, He died because the wages of sin is death. So, because of our sins He suffered death. Hence Augustine says “Confess that He died, and you may also confess that He, without taking our sin, took its punishment.” What Augustine believed was called substitutionary atonement, and is very different from penal substitution. In penal substitution God has to punish someone in order be able to forgive man, so He punishes Christ. In substitutionary atonement the debt of sin must be repaid, and only He can do it, so He sends the God-man. Read about it before making leaps that you should not.

 

[TheQuestioner]

He does not equate the institution with the body of Christ. It is a subset of that institution. It includes only those who will ultimately be with Jesus in Heaven, that is true believers.

You are right in that he does not equate the institution with the body of Christ. However, neither do we (Catholics). We are all part of that body, this is Church teaching.

From your quote:

1. The second rule is about the twofold division of the body of the Lord; but this indeed is not a suitable name, for that is really no part of the body of Christ which will not be with Him in eternity. We ought, therefore, to say that the rule is about the true and the mixed body of the Lord, or the true and the counterfeit, or some such name; because, not to speak of eternity, hypocrites cannot even now be said to be in Him, although they seem to be in His Church. And hence this rule might be designated thus: Concerning the mixed Church. Now this rule requires the reader to be on his guard when Scripture, although it has now come to address or speak of a different set of persons, seems to be addressing or speaking of the same persons as before, just as if both sets constituted one body in consequence of their being for the time united in a common participation of the sacraments.

The body of Christ is no subset if the institution, the institution is a subset of the Body. Augustine does not say the body of Christ is a subset of the institution anywhere. Rather he is talking about predestination. Remember Augustine believed in predestination, that we do not deny. So if this passage is talking about true believers and counterfeit believers being together, there is no problem. The Church has yet to rule out predestination.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Not out of context. Augustine specifically refers to a decision of Melchiades, Bishop of Rome, with the assistance of assessors. A decision of the Bishop of Rome could be taken to an Ecumenical Council.

…ok, you simply repeated what I said but in detail. Ecumenical Council trumps local synod. Reread your quote, this is what Augustine is saying.

As a Presbyterian I accept infant baptism. Augustine clearly indicates that the sacrament has some points of resemblance to the things of which it is a sacrament. They have a likeness to the realities they resemble, clearly indicate a difference from the reality.

You are right right there (bold part) and so Augustine believes these are appropriate names for them (baptism, communion, etc). I’m not sure what you mean by your last part.

Augustine mentions nothing about the sacrament of Reconciliation. He does not mention the sinner confessing to anyone and he is saved by his faith and repentance, not by an act of a priest.

O rly? From your quote:

He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should **believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved **by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance.

What is the grounds by which he is received into the bosom of the Church? The grace of Christ, which at his baptism was done by a priest or bishop. Is this not Reconciliation? And if the Church “does not believe the sins have been remitted they should not be remitted?” This is the language of excommunication and Reconciliation.

 

[Soutane]

I’m not sure there is anything left to say after this exemplary display by Soutane. Phenominal work my brother/sister in Christ. May I copy this for future reference? May God continue to bless you and grace you with even more enthusiasm for His Son and His Church.

Absolutely!But it is not my work.The reference to where I got it is there though:thumbsup:
Brudda,not sista

 

[Soutane]

Some Protestants just can’t accept defeat

their heresy knows no limits…

Some will even argue with"THIS IS MY BODY…"

They CAN"T accept defeat because if they do it means they’re wrong and (gulp)the Catholics are right.And that would be RIDICULOUS(…wouldn’t it?..)

Some have accepted defeat or rather enlightenment by the Holy Spirit and now they’re Catholic.There must be hundreds of converts who post here.

 

[SyCarl]

Troubling at first, till I read the entire paragraph are realized what Augustine was talking about. The symbolism does not lie in the body and blood being Christ’s actual body and blood, but on the latter part, “you have no life in you.” Now those who do not eat those the body and blood still have life. They still live and breathe. It is this part that is the figure.

The vice or crime being referred to is eating flesh and drinking blood. This is the figure.

Referring to the elements as the body or flesh of Christ or the blood of Christ does not mean someone is saying it literally. Any communion service I have ever been to refers to the elements as the body and the blood of Christ, whether they believe a Real Presence or not.

As an aside I believe in a Real Presence in a receptionist way, not by way of transubstantiation.

 

[Soutane]

It’s about time for Soutane to post a five page post LOL

I got in trouble for that one.I didn’t know I was breaking copywrite law by cutting and pasting from News sources.But nary a word of chastisement for the 5 page LENGTH of my post which I have to admit was a little excessive,but(sigh)I only do it for the elucidation of the confused and mistaken

 

[SyCarl]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong interpretation.
From the same chapter:

“Canceling guilt” and “doing away with punishment” are not part of the language of penal substitution, and I am wondering if you left out the last part on purpose, since its right after where you cut off the paragraph. By canceling guilt Christ removes guilt from us, and by doing away with our punishment Christ removes the need for it. Thus, He took our punishment in that He took it away, or “did away with our punishment” as stated by Augustine himself. Either you were dishonest in deciding the cut off point for your quote or you are only seeing what you want to see from Augustine.

Yes, Christ took on our nature and therefore suffered death for us, in order to repay our debt. Though He himself was blameless, He died because the wages of sin is death. So, because of our sins He suffered death. Hence Augustine says “Confess that He died, and you may also confess that He, without taking our sin, took its punishment.” What Augustine believed was called substitutionary atonement, and is very different from penal substitution. In penal substitution God has to punish someone in order be able to forgive man, so He punishes Christ. In substitutionary atonement the debt of sin must be repaid, and only He can do it, so He sends the God-man. Read about it before making leaps that you should not.

So when Augustine refers to punishment he really means debt? I think that is stretching it somewhat. You are reading modern teaching into what Augustine said. Patristic scholar J.N.D Kelly agrees with my interpretation, although he is an Anglican, not a Catholic.

 

[Ben_Dover]

So when Augustine refers to punishment he really means debt? I think that is stretching it somewhat. You are reading modern teaching into what Augustine said. Patristic scholar J.N.D Kelly agrees with my interpretation, although he is an Anglican, not a Catholic.

Well hell, if even J.N.D. Kelly agrees with you, I guess I’ll have to admit my Catholic heresy has been defeated…

*p.s. who is j.n.d. kelly and by what authority does he give opinions and why should I care what he thinks?

 

[SyCarl]

Some will even argue with"THIS IS MY BODY…"

They CAN"T accept defeat because if they do it means they’re wrong and (gulp)the Catholics are right.And that would be RIDICULOUS(…wouldn’t it?..)

Some have accepted defeat or rather enlightenment by the Holy Spirit and now they’re Catholic.There must be hundreds of converts who post here.

And some Catholics cannot accept that many Protestant concepts are found in the writings of the early church. Even if they were not predominant it was heresy to express these views.

I do not think Catholics are wrong about everything. I do think that they and many Protestants have declared things doctrines which may or may not be true but which are not necessary. For example, the Marian doctrines could well be true, but I don’t think they are necessary for belief. Obviously I do not believe everything the Catholic Church teaches or I would be Catholic, but I do not define myself by how I differ from Catholics but by what I believe.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

The *celibate *Augustine is light-years from Calvin and from Protestantism in general. And certainly there’s no shortage of documentation to prove it.

Consider:

A Guide to the Thought of St. Augustine, Eugène Portalié S. J. (1852-1909), Chicago, 1960. (Fr. Portalié has some articles on Augustine in the Catholic Encyclopedia, btw).

Chapter V: Augustine’s Unexcelled Teaching Role (pp. 91-94):

c. Catholic Character of his Teaching:

. Augustine’s teaching, essentially Catholic, is the very antithesis of Protestantism. It is important to establish this fact here.

One reason is that thus will not have to return to it as regards each particular dogma. The principal reason, however, is the change of attitude of Protestant criticism; towards St. Augustine. Nothing is more deserving of attention that the development of this criticism, so credible to the impartiality of the modern writers.

(1). Former contention of Protestants. Attempts to monopolize Augustine and make him an ante-Reformation reformer were not lacking. Luther naturally had to admit that he did not find in his works the doctrine of justification by faith alone, that generating principle of all Protestantism; he consoled himself, according to Schaff, 43 when he wrote: “Augustine has often erred and is not to be trusted. Good and holy though he was, he was often in error about the true faith just like the other Fathers.” But in general the Reformation did not make its mind up about him so easily, and it was long the custom to oppose the great name of Augustine to Catholicism. The Confession of Augsburg dared to attribute to him justification without works, 44 and Melanchthon called on authority in his Apologia confessionis." 45.

(2). Recent admissions. In the last thirty of forty years all this has been changed, and the best Protestant critics vie with one another in proclaiming the eminently Catholic nature of Augustinian teaching. In fact, some go to the other extreme of seeing him as the founder of Catholicism. Here is the comment of Reuter at the conclusion of hi important studies on the Doctor of Hippo: “Augustine is, in my opinion, the founder of Roman Catholicism in the West. … This is not a new discovery, as Kattenbusch seemed to think, but a truth long known by Neander, Julius Köstlin, Dorner, Schmidt, and others.” 46

Then, asking whether Evangelicalism is found in Augustine, he says: “On this point, modern reasoning is quite different from that of the past…. Phrases much used from 1830 to 1870, such as ‘Augustine is the Father of evangelical Protestantism and Pelagius is the Father of Catholicism’ are found but rarely today. They have since been found to be untenable, although they do contain a particle of truth.” 47

Schaff arrives at the same conclusions, 48 and Dorner says: “It is an error to ascribe to Augustine the ideas which inspired the Reformation.” 49 No one, however, has insisted on this idea more strongly than Harnack. Quite recently, in his lectures on “What Is Christianity?” he characterized the Roman Church by three elements, the third of which is Augustinism: the spirit and piety of St. Augustine. “So far as the inner life of this Church is religious life and religious thought, it follows the standard which St. Augustine authoritatively fixed.” 50

“In the fifth century,” he continues, “at the very time when the Church was setting itself to acquire the inheritance of the Roman empire, it came into possession of a religious genius of extraordinary depth and power, accepted his ideas and feelings, and up to the present day has been unable to get rid or them.” 51

The same critic dwells at length upon the ideas of what he calls “popular Catholicism,” of which Augustine forms a part. 52 The Characteristics of it are:

(1) the Church as a hierarchical institution with doctrinal authority;

(2) the meriting of eternal life and the disregard for the Protestant thesis of salvation by faith, “that is, salvation by that constant trust in God which the certainty of the forgiveness of sins brings about”; 53

(3) forgiveness of sins in the Church and by the Church;

(4) the distinction between the commands and the counsels; between venial and mortal sins; the scale of good and bad men; the degree of heavenly beatitude according to the measure of one’s merits.

(5) Augustine is accused “of improving on the superstitious ideas” of this popular Catholicism: the infinite value of the satisfaction of Christ; salvation considered as the enjoyment of God in heaven; the mysterious efficacy of the sacrament (ex opera operato); the idea the virginity of Mary, even in childbirth; “the idea of her purity and her conception, unique in their class.” Harnack does not dare to state openly that Augustine taught the Immaculate Conception, but Schaff has no doubts: “Augustine,” he states, “is responsible for many serious errors of the Roman Church; … he has anticipated the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and his prophetic statement, ‘Rome has spoken, the subject is closed,’ can almost be cited in favor of the Vatican decree on papal infallibility.” 54

 

[SyCarl]

Well hell, if even J.N.D. Kelly agrees with you, I guess I’ll have to admit my Catholic heresy has been defeated…

*p.s. who is j.n.d. kelly and by what authority does he give opinions and why should I care what he thinks?

Kelly is a well respected author of Early Christian Doctrines and is quoted quite often by Catholic posters here.

 

[SyCarl]

The *celibate *Augustine is light-years from Calvin and from Protestantism in general. And certainly there’s no shortage of documentation to prove it.

Consider:

Augustine was celibate only in the sense that he was unmarried. He had a bastard son who predeceased him. He was born before Augustine’s conversion.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Continuing with Portalié:

(3). Theory of contradictions. It would be a mistake, however, to think that modern Protestant have given up Augustine entirely. They like to say that it was this doctor, although basically a Catholic, who had inspired Luther and Calvin. The new thesis is, then, that each of the two Churches can make use of his name. Burke’s expression is characteristic: “In Augustine ancient and modern ideas are mingled and the papal Church has as much right to call on his authority as the Churches of the Reformation.” 55

No one sets this contradiction forth more clearly than Loofs. 56 After stating that Augustine has emphasized the characteristic elements of Western (Catholic) Christianity, that because of this he has become its Father in following ages, and that “the Ecclesiasticism of Roman Catholicism, Scholasticism, Mysticism, and the claims of the papacy to temporal government are founded on a tendency imparted by him,” Loofs affirms that Augustine is the teacher of all the reformers and their bond of union, and concludes with this strange paradox: “The history of Roman Catholicism is the history of the progressive elimination of Augustinism.” This facility among the critics in presuming violent contradictions in a genius like Augustine is less startling when one remember that, with Reuter, they justify this theory by the reflection: “In whom are more contradictions to be found than in Luther!” 57

“Others, with Harnack, pretend that in a genius like Augustine there are many distinct personalities which express in turn the dominant thought of the moment. 58 We will show when speaking of his teaching on grace – and there especially they wish to find contradictions – that the theories of the critics rest on a false interpretation of the thought of St. Augustine, which is frequently misconstrued by those who are not sufficiently acquainted with his language and terminology.”

Chapter XV, St. Augustine’s Moral Theology: The Doctor of Charity.

C. Merit and the Necessity of Good Works:

Here especially, if we can believe the Protestant critics, is where the Catholic character of Augustinian teaching stands out. This teaching moreover, in eminently moral in character. How was Protestantism able to break the indissoluble bond which natural morality had established between duty and salvation and to posit the uselessness of virtue as the basis of the new Gospel?

It could do this only by relinquishing all claims to the authority of Augustine on this point. ‘In his writings,’ says Bindemann, ‘the relation of works with faith are vigorously asserted in the Catholic sense. There he treats both merits and the invocation of the saints.’ 31

It will be sufficient then to mention the three principles which Augustine placed in opposition to the Protestant conception.

(I) Nature of salvific faith. Neander had pretended to fine in the Bishop of Hippo the Protestant idea of faith, the assurance of one’s own justification by Christ. But Dorner, following Wiggers, proves quite well that Augustine demands and intellectual adherence to revealed truths. 32

(2) Necessity of works. Not only did Augustine never admit the Protestant theory of salvation by faith alone, as Harnack concedes, 33 but he rejected it repeatedly. The only faith which justifies is that which operates through charity. 34 Or again, without works faith will save no one. 35 He also reconciles St. Paul (Rom. 3:28) with St. James (2:20) this way: The former asserts the uselessness of works before faith while St. James is underlining the need of works after faith. 36

(3) Good works are meritorious for the believer. This point is one which must forever stand in irreducible opposition to anyone who would attribute to Augustine a deterministic fatalism. The idea of merit presupposes, as a matter of fact (by the nature of things and according to the teaching constantly proposed by the great doctor), responsibility of the agent, freedom of choice, and dominion over one’s actions. 37 Now he always asserted the merits of the just, though he maintained at the same time that these merits were due to a gratuitous gift: “Whoever enumerates his true merits, what is he enumerating except Your gifts?” 38

Loofs concludes that this theory of merit was an open invitation to Semipelagianism. 39 That is evidently wrong, however, since the very first merit is also due to grace. It would have more correct to conclude that people were deluded when they attribute to Augustine the idea of a necessitating grace, absolutely incompatible with merit.”

A Guide to the Thought of St. Augustine, Eugène Portalié, Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1960, pp. 274-275.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Continuing with Fr. Portalié:

The infallibility of the pope clearly stands out both from the teaching and from the very conduct of the bishop of Hippo. To illustrate this we present some characteristics of the correspondence exchanged with Rome during the struggle against Pelagius.

(1) The collective letters of Augustine and his associates to Innocent I (88) in the name of the Council of Milevis in 417 (89) and of Augustine and some other bishops (90) attest the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. In the first we read: It is a duty to have recourse to the ‘Apostolic See’ and to its pastoral ministry. God especially directs the pope in his counsels: ‘He deigns to direct you in your deliberations and to hear your prayers.’ (91) The pope’s authority is confirmed by Holy Scripture. (92)

(2) After Innocent I had asserted in his reply the doctrinal primacy of Rome, (93) Augustine approved this reply. (94)

(3) He accuses Julian of Eclanum of not having listened to Pope Innocent whose replies could not betray the ancient doctrine of the Church. (95)

(4) Finally, according to Augustine, the reply of the pope settles all debate. It is therefore irreformable and infallible. If the formula, ‘Rome has spoken, the case is closed,’ is not found in so many words in Augustine, the exact equivalent is found in one of his sermons: ‘Concerning the case [Pelagianism] the reports of two councils were sent to the Apostolic See. From there replies came; the case is closed. Would also that the error were ended.’ (96)

Thus the Roma episcopate is the Apostolic See par excellence; councils are subject to its judgment and have no validity without its approval. Once Rome has spoken all dispute is settled without reference to the consent of the Church.

1. Ecclesiastical Government of Souls.

St. Augustine includes under this subject the legislative and coercive power. The existence of the legislative power, which he calls the ‘ruling of the Church,’ (97) is not doubtful in his mind. On the one side are the ‘lords by whom the Church is now governed,’ (98) on the other is the multitude to be governed, ‘the people to be ruled.’ (99) The right of government demands the strict duty of obedience in these subjects and Augustine repeats often: ‘the care belongs to us; obedience, to you.’ (100)

A certain coercive power is, according to Augustine, consequent upon the power of the keys: ‘The Church has received with the keys the right to bind and loose. If anyone spurns her reprimands and her corrections, he becomes, as the Lord said, as a pagan and a publican.’ (101) As for the exercise of the right, the holy doctor describes the sanctions of his times in these terms: ‘By correction, degradation, excommunication, and other licit and ordinary checks which take place daily, keeping the unity of peace, in the Church.’ (102)

In particular it is interesting to see Augustine describing the two excommunications which later came to be known as the greater and the lesser. The latter, of a penitential nature, deprives a person of certain advantages without breaking off his union with the Church: ‘For we do not separate from the people of God those whom we lower by degradation or excommunication to a more humble place for doing penance.’ (103)

The other excommunication, on the contrary, radical and complete, entirely cuts off ‘incurable members.’ (104) ‘This excommunication produces the same effect in the Church that the ancient law accomplished by the punishment of death.’ (105) Augustine still consoles those who are victims of unjust excommunication. Let them obey and then ‘they pass the test more than if they had remained within.’ (107)

The account of Augustine’s opinions on the use of force has been related in the history of his life.” (108)

 

[Soutane]

Sy Carl I note that you did not address my rateher long and admittedly copied treatise on the Catholicity of St Augustine,and also the words of his mom St.Monica.