The Protestant hijacking of St. Augustine

[FatBoy]

I have talked to and read a number of Protestant theologions who just love St. Augsutine. They basicly say he was a Protestant. I have heard on many occations from Protestants that Augustine was a “symbolist” in regards to the Lord’s Supper amoung other things. Dispite the fact that St. Augustine wrote…

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

and…

“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397])

I have always wanted to know why they think this and other non-sense about St. Augustine. I wonder if it’s because St. Augustine refuted Pelagius and Protestants have no clue that the Catholic Church decleard Pelagianism a heresie?

 

[Cat]

They simply haven’t read much of St. Augustine. I know I haven’t. So they take phrases out of context and use them to prove a point.

If you did enough picking and choosing, you could probably prove that Pope John Paul II or even our current Holy Father are Protestants!

 

[Palladio]

Protestants recycle references and claims, not to say arguments, from the sixteenth century.

Ask them if they read Latin, or if their ministers do.

Ask them if their sola scriptura works on the koine Greek–are are they assuming what their translators have assumed in reading and interpreting their translation?

I’m getting worked up.

God bless.

 

[st_michael]

My favorite quote from St Augustine is below… I use it when I talk with people who also feel Augustine was Protestant…

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. (St Augustine)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm

A Protestant would never say the above…

 

[Palladio]

My favorite quote from St Augustine is below… I use it when I talk with people who also feel Augustine was Protestant…

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. (St Augustine)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm

A Protestant would never say the above…

Besides which, Augustine was drawn to the universality of the Roman Church, with which he would forever identify himself.

 

[bengal_fan]

one of my favorite Augustine quotes is:

“in essentials, unity. in non-essentials, charity.”

i have never heard a protestant say that Augustine was a protestant. Luther used (as well did Calvin) much of Augustine’s writings to establish his points. that is why many protestants today use a lot of his writings. we also have to understand that catholic simply means universal, and the one, universal church was the church Augustine was talking about.

i am a protestant (although there is very, very little i am “protesting”, there are a few practices i have trouble with, but very few doctrines), and i do read latin (but it’s not that that matters much since none of the scriptures were written in latin), greek, and studying hebrew. i think there is very little that separates those who have an historical as well as scriptural understanding of Christianity. i think much of the separation comes in practice rather than doctrine. i also, think some comes from simple semantics. but neither side is willing to bend on things i (and i believe Augustine) would deem and “non-essential” and there is the tragedy.

 

[Palladio]

one of my favorite Augustine quotes is:

“in essentials, unity. in non-essentials, charity.”

i have never heard a protestant say that Augustine was a protestant. Luther used (as well did Calvin) much of Augustine’s writings to establish his points. that is why many protestants today use a lot of his writings. we also have to understand that catholic simply means universal, and the one, universal church was the church Augustine was talking about.

i am a protestant (although there is very, very little i am “protesting”, there are a few practices i have trouble with, but very few doctrines), and i do read latin (but it’s not that that matters much since none of the scriptures were written in latin), greek, and studying hebrew. i think there is very little that separates those who have an historical as well as scriptural understanding of Christianity. i think much of the separation comes in practice rather than doctrine. i also, think some comes from simple semantics. but neither side is willing to bend on things i (and i believe Augustine) would deem and “non-essential” and there is the tragedy.

Of course catholic means universal: Augustine was drawn to the See of Rome because it originated and propagated that universality.

It matters vitally to read Latin: without which we would take on faith alone the Latin Church Fathers, including Augustine, and much of Sacred Tradition–to say nothing of the Roman philosophy Paul, for one, would have read in Latin.

Roman Catholic rite and ritual is in Latin–but then you rejected, I mean, ‘reformed’ that after it had been going on for over a millenium.

If there is little which separates the understanding you mention, why aren’t you Roman Catholic, as was Augustine?

Contraception and abortion separate a lot of Protestants from the RCC: I have no doubt who has misunderstood Scripture.

Then again, what doesn’t separate Protestants from one another? 20, 000 to 30,000 sects?

 

[MarysRoses]

we also have to understand that catholic simply means universal, and the one, universal church was the church Augustine was talking about.

.

I have to point out the assumption behind this statement.

The assumption is that the Universal Church spoken of by St. Augustine, is the ‘universal church’ as spoken of by Protestants.

St. Augustine and others of his time saw the Universal Church as visible, identifiable, and that “Universal” was an identifying mark of the true church.

Protestants define universal differently, as referring to an invisible number, difficult to identify and define exactly who is a member.
Pretty much anyone who refers to themselves as Christian is a member of this invisible body of Christ, and that is the “universal church”. Problem is, that is not what was originally meant by the phrase. There is a major difference in a universal body of believers identified by common beliefs and practices, and a loose fellowship of Christians with widely differing and contradicting practices and beliefs.

The Catholic Church does allow that there are Christians not in formal union with the Catholic Church that are united with us by way of baptism. That is a consequence of our divisions, not as it was intended to be.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Back in my evangelical days I was led to believe that Augustine was some kind of ancient “Calvinist” of sorts, certainly not a Catholic. Imagine my surprise when I read his CITY OF GOD
and saw him teaching the doctrine of Purgatory. I was floored.
Augustine was Catholic, no doubt about it.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Contarini]

I have talked to and read a number of Protestant theologions who just love St. Augsutine. They basicly say he was a Protestant.

The more sophisticated form of this argument is the statement of Warfield that the Reformation was a battle between Augustine’s theology of salvation (maintained by the Protestants) and his theology of the Church (maintained by Catholics). This is false, because Protestants departed significantly from Augustine’s theology of salvation, and did not think they were departing from his theology of the Church (as far as I can tell).

For a demonstration of the former claim, see the letter from Melanchthon to Brenz which Dave Armstrong dug up and I translated in full. Melanchthon rebukes Brenz for following Augustine’s soteriology rather than Paul’s (as interpreted by Luther and Melanchthon!), and admits that in his writings for public consumption he exaggerates/oversimplifies Augustine’s agreement with the Reformers because people respect Augustine’s name:

Augustine does not fully accord with Paul’s pronouncement, even though he gets closer to it than the Scholastics. And I cite Augustine as fully agreeing with us on account of the public conviction about him, even though he does not explain the righteousness of faith well enough.

To get the whole letter, you have to scroll down about half way. It’s surrounded by some perhaps overly nit-picky argument between myself and Dave (nit-picky on my part, that is) as to just how dishonest Melanchthon was being. Dave also documents some of the dismissive things Luther said about the Fathers in his Table Talk (which can be matched, in slightly less provocative form, by things he said in published writings; of course this is just one side of Luther’s complex attitude to the Fathers, but it is one important side).

Edwin

 

[Nella]

I have talked to and read a number of Protestant theologions who just love St. Augsutine. They basicly say he was a Protestant. I have heard on many occations from Protestants that Augustine was a “symbolist” in regards to the Lord’s Supper amoung other things. Dispite the fact that St. Augustine wrote…

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

and…

“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397])

I have always wanted to know why they think this and other non-sense about St. Augustine. I wonder if it’s because St. Augustine refuted Pelagius and Protestants have no clue that the Catholic Church decleard Pelagianism a heresie?

This is a ridiculous accusation. Why do you complain that Protestants pick fights with you but when you blatantly instigate them yourself, you tyr to justify them. What’s good for the goose is certainly not the same for the gander here…

 

[Calvinator]

FatBoy;2598236:

Protestants recycle references and claims, not to say arguments, from the sixteenth century.

Ask them if they read Latin, or if their ministers do.

Ask them if their sola scriptura works on the koine Greek–are are they assuming what their translators have assumed in reading and interpreting their translation?

I’m getting worked up.

God bless.

Go ask the catholics on this board if they read latin or if their priests do. This point is totally irrelevant.

And yes, sola scriptura isn’t change but helped by the koine Greek. Do you assume no one outside of the Catholic church can read Greek?

 

[Calvinator]

This is a ridiculous accusation. Why do you complain that Protestants pick fights with you but when you blatantly instigate them yourself, you tyr to justify them. What’s good for the goose is certainly not the same for the gander here…

Remember my post on the hypocrisy of some of the catholics on this board?

 

[estesbob]

The problem is that Protestants apporach Augustine the same way they do Scripture. Ignore the totality of what he wrote, grab a few random out of context sentences from what he wrote, put your own personal intererperation of what he meant and Voila! Augustine is a Protestant!

 

[Palladio]

Palladio;2598526:

Go ask the catholics on this board if they read latin or if their priests do. This point is totally irrelevant.

And yes, sola scriptura isn’t change but helped by the koine Greek. Do you assume no one outside of the Catholic church can read Greek?

I suspect that, of the 20000 or 30000 Protestant sects, precious few read Greek, and probably next to none of the ministers.

*Sola scriptura *, which is extra-Biblical, does not work at all events, not even on great authors like Homer and Virgil. Even if it did, however, the only proper object would be texts in a. Hebrew and b. Greek. Which rather does away with every man his own interpreter.

Catholics have a learned magisterium–you know, the one that produced the Bible, which did not drop from heaven, in the first place, to rely on.

The most spiritually proud would expect to comprehend and interpret the Bible on their own, no matter the language, but also those many who, led to believe that that can be done, would, too. Hypocrites and Pharisees…

That attitude produces conspiracy theorists, anti-Stratfordians, and 20, 000 to 30, 000 sects.

You do not assume politically-correct praise of Protestants here, do you?

God bless.

 

[Calvinator]

I suspect that, of the 20000 or 30000 Protestant sects, precious few read Greek, and probably next to none of the ministers.

*Sola scriptura *, which is extra-Biblical, does not work at all events, not even on great authors like Homer and Virgil. Even if it did, however, the only proper object would be texts in a. Hebrew and b. Greek. Which rather does away with every man his own interpreter.

Catholics have a learned magisterium–you know, the one that produced the Bible, which did not drop from heaven, in the first place, to rely on.

The most spiritually proud would expect to comprehend and interpret the Bible on their own, no matter the language, but also those many who, led to believe that that can be done, would, too. Hypocrites and Pharisees…

That attitude produces conspiracy theorists, anti-Stratfordians, and 20, 000 to 30, 000 sects.

You do not assume politically-correct praise of Protestants here, do you?

God bless.

Every seminary I know of requires the study of Greek.

BTW, sola scriptura is not me and my Bible under a tree isolated from the rest of the world…false characterization on your part. Maybe you should read the credal statments on sola scriptura.

Also, the Pharisees you mention above were scolded by Jesus for putting their traditions above scripture.

 

[Nella]

The problem is that Protestants apporach Augustine the same way they do Scripture. Ignore the totality of what he wrote, grab a few random out of context sentences from what he wrote, put your own personal intererperation of what he meant and Voila! Augustine is a Protestant!

Ah, just the same way Catholics view St. Thomas Aquinas. They only wish to view what his early years were but you never hear Catholics talk about the vision Aquinas had later in his later years when afterwards he said that all of his writings “were but straw”.

 

[Nella]

Remember my post on the hypocrisy of some of the catholics on this board?

Yes, I remember and you were so right.

 

[bengal_fan]

I suspect that, of the 20000 or 30000 Protestant sects, precious few read Greek, and probably next to none of the ministers…

you would be sorely mistaken on this claim. most clergy have to have a working knowledge of greek to get through seminary. most would be able to read greek. not all would be greek scholars, but precious few catholic clergy are either.

*Sola scriptura *, which is extra-Biblical, does not work at all events, not even on great authors like Homer and Virgil. Even if it did, however, the only proper object would be texts in a. Hebrew and b. Greek. Which rather does away with every man his own interpreter.

there is an assumption here that all translators are trying to push an agenda. this is just simply a falsehood. most biblical translators are trying to stay as true to the actual words or at the very least intent of the phrases in the original languages. you just assume the worst of people when you think that they are just “out to get Rome”.

Catholics have a learned magisterium–you know, the one that produced the Bible, which did not drop from heaven, in the first place, to rely on.

The most spiritually proud would expect to comprehend and interpret the Bible on their own, no matter the language, but also those many who, led to believe that that can be done, would, too. Hypocrites and Pharisees…

there are just as many learned protestants. i agree with you that sola scriptura in the way you describe it is full of pride. try looking at how Luther and Calvin described it. it’s not “every man and his Bible” as you seem to think. they were simply saying that the final authority is scripture. Tradition (capital T) has it’s place in interpretation as does men and women more learned than ourselves, but nothing can “trump” scripture. that was their point.

That attitude produces conspiracy theorists, anti-Stratfordians, and 20, 000 to 30, 000 sects.

i’m sorry but those numbers are extremely inflated. not that i’m trying to defend the split that exists in Christianity (and has existed since long before the reformation when east split from west), but this number assumes that every non-denom congregation is an entirely separate theology from any other denomination, and that just shows a complete lack of understanding the real situation. the number should probably be closer 500-1,000.

 

[Calvinator]

Bengal,
Could you please edit your post so that the quoted portion reflects Palladio’s thoughts? The way in which Palladio quoted me was incorrect and now it appears that I am arguing against sola scriptura…oh the horror