The Protestant hijacking of St. Augustine

  • Thread starter Thread starter FatBoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St. Augustine is a Catholic and everyone knows it.

*“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397])

“We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor” (Faith and the Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

“Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him” (ibid., 141:5).

“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is catholic and which is called catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard” (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).

"“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” (ibid., 5:6). *

I wish the Protestants would have their own saints.
 
Sixtus said:
I am not sure Protestants have hijacked him. Don’t forget we both share a common history. He is as much their predecessor as ours. 🙂
Click to expand...
I hardly think that the Doctor of Grace would have agreed with Luther and Calvin.

Indeed, his sanctity was his glory because he mortified his body, and ‘fought the good fight’, instead of giving in, like Luther, who said it was useless to fight off temptation.

It is just another example of the hijacking of St. Augustine. And I am sure St. Monica would agree with us.

peace,
mgrfin
 
Re: The Protestant hijacking of St. Augustine
Augustine was a Calvinist, that’s why!

Ever read retractions??
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Re: The Protestant hijacking of St. Augustine
Augustine was a Calvinist, that’s why!

Ever read retractions??
Click to expand...
How could St. Augustine be a Calvinist. He preceded John Calvin by 800 years.

Are you trying to say that Calvin was an Augustinian?

peace,
mgrfin
 
I’m currently reading his “Confessions” and he clearly believes in free will playing a role in salvation.
 
Genesis315 said:
I’m currently reading his “Confessions” and he clearly believes in free will playing a role in salvation.
Click to expand...
Well, belief in free will wasn’t one of the strong points of Luther (faith only) or Calvin (predestination) .

peace,
mgrfin
 
To be fair to the Protestants (and Im a former Protestant so I can comment on it) they would say “well on some things the Early Church Fathers were correct and on others they were not.” In relation to the Eucharist they would argue that he just got it wrong, they say that there is no cohesion between all the Early Church fathers on every subject just like there is no cohesion, well at least not 100% cohesion between the Reformers. I don’t know if I buy that argument or if I consider it a cop out and an easy way to dismiss a claim or argument that a person does not agree with. I am no scholar on Church history and am certainly no authority on the ECFs so I can not comment on anything other than little quotes here and there that I have read. I think it would behoove all of us to immerse ourselves in the History and Tradition of our Church.
 
catholicmarsh said:
To be fair to the Protestants (and Im a former Protestant so I can comment on it) they would say “well on some things the Early Church Fathers were correct and on others they were not.” In relation to the Eucharist they would argue that he just got it wrong, they say that there is no cohesion between all the Early Church fathers on every subject just like there is no cohesion, well at least not 100% cohesion between the Reformers. I don’t know if I buy that argument or if I consider it a cop out and an easy way to dismiss a claim or argument that a person does not agree with. I am no scholar on Church history and am certainly no authority on the ECFs so I can not comment on anything other than little quotes here and there that I have read. I think it would behoove all of us to immerse ourselves in the History and Tradition of our Church.
Click to expand...
No one said that the early (patristic) fathers, each and everyone was infallible. Some even fell into error, like Origen and Tertullian. But in many ways they were witnesses to what the Church taught back in the day.

peace,
mgrfin

The Church is infallible in what it teaches in faith and morals.
 
mgrfin said:
How could St. Augustine be a Calvinist. He preceded John Calvin by 800 years.

Are you trying to say that Calvin was an Augustinian?

peace,
mgrfin
Click to expand...
Well, that’s unquestionably true (which is not to deny that Calvin went beyond or even contradicted Augustine on a number of points).

Edwin
 
Genesis315 said:
I’m currently reading his “Confessions” and he clearly believes in free will playing a role in salvation.
Click to expand...
The Confessions are not his last word on the subject, though they show the beginnings of his later views (in his insistence on the need for God to move our affections in order for us to return to Him). From the “Questions in response to Simplician” which if I remember rightly dated from 396, Augustine believed that predestination was based purely on God’s gracious will and not on His foreknowledge of human faith or any other human action. In his controversy with the Pelagians, he developed his views further, arguing that human beings were so radically corrupted by sin that their free will was unavailing to bring them back to God without God’s gracious choice to move the will, and that when God did so choose the will would inevitably (although, in Augustine’s definition, freely) choose to follow. In his mature theology, Augustine defined the freedom of the will as the choice to love God. This is what a truly free will would inevitably choose to do.

Of course, there’s nothing to say that Christians can’t follow the early rather than the later Augustine, except when that would lead to the heresies of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Well, that’s unquestionably true (which is not to deny that Calvin went beyond or even contradicted Augustine on a number of points).

Edwin
Click to expand...
Well, thank God for that. The Doctor of Grace wouldn’t want to be associated with heresy.

peace
mgrfin
 
(Originally by mgrfin)—
How could St. Augustine be a Calvinist. He preceded John Calvin by 800 years.

Are you trying to say that Calvin was an Augustinian?

I think that is what is trying to be said 👍
 
Is St. Augustine’s understanding of the Bread of Life discourse more Roman Catholic or ‘Protestant’? Let’s allow St. Augustine weigh in on the subject:
Chapter 16.—Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. “If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
This quote is taken from Augustine’s “On Christian Doctrine” Book 3, Chapter 16, easily found at Newadvent.org. While you’re at the web site, you may wish to peruse Augustine’s commentary of the Bread of Life discourse, specifically Tractates 25, 26 & 27. You wil find highly instructive quotes by Augustine, such as “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:” Romans 3:28” , and “Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food”. He also says, " “This, then, is the bread that comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die.” But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eats within, not without; who eats in his heart, not who presses with his teeth." and " In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. “He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.” This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth]," or, “just as we are made better by participation of the Son, through the unity of His body and blood, which thing that eating and drinking signifies. We live then by Him, by eating Him; that is, by receiving Himself as the eternal life” and “The Lord gives us His flesh to eat, and yet to understand it according to the flesh is death; while yet He says of His flesh, that therein is eternal life. Therefore we ought not to understand the flesh carnally”. In Tractate 27.3 Augustine continues, " “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting".
The 3 Tractates are quite a bit of reading, but are also quite informative.
 
Well, my thoughts are that the Bread of Life discourse is understood figuratively by the ‘Protestants’, while Roman Catholics cling to a literal, physical understanding of the passage. As St. Augustine writes, “If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure”, he clearly indicates here, in addition to the other quotes that were previously provided, that the passage is to be understood figuratively.
 
Romans828 said:
Well, my thoughts are that the Bread of Life discourse is understood figuratively by the ‘Protestants’, while Roman Catholics cling to a literal, physical understanding of the passage. As St. Augustine writes, “If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure”, he clearly indicates here, in addition to the other quotes that were previously provided, that the passage is to be understood figuratively.
Click to expand...
Rather than rely on your **personal **intepretation of what Augustine said lets see what he really said:

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, **‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” **(*Explanations of the Psalms *33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"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]).

…

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you.** But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. **This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
 
Did I not clearly and fully quote the words of St. Augustine?
Kindly, respond to the passages that I have set forth.
 
Romans828 said:
Well, my thoughts are that the Bread of Life discourse is understood figuratively by the ‘Protestants’, while Roman Catholics cling to a literal, physical understanding of the passage. As St. Augustine writes, “If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure”, he clearly indicates here, in addition to the other quotes that were previously provided, that the passage is to be understood figuratively.
Click to expand...
Catholics don’t have to ‘cling’ to anything. I don’t understand the chapter and verse you are quoting or interpreting as figurative.

As a Protestant, you are supposedly more biblical than we. You have a list of the standard texts regarding the institution of the Eucharist, and the Real Presence. Go there first; please don’t try a backdoor approach to disproving the Real Presence.

The Fathers of the Church speak quite clearly of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament.

You may want to quote Zwingli that the Eucharist is merely a figure of the Body of Christ. But don’t quote the Fathers, as such.

Augustine clearly believes in the Real Presence, referring to the Eucharist as a sign of the Body and Blood of Christ, and evidently he must be understood to mean the appearances of bread and wine are the sign of the body and blood of Christ which are really, though invisibly, present beneath them. (Ep. 98; Contr. Adiman, xii, 3; Enarr. in Ps. iii i.)

In the days when the Real Presence was not impugned by heretics but was peaceably believed by all Catholics, there was no danger of such symbolical phrases being misunderstood.

There are some sermons on the Eucharist by Augustine. If you read them, you will understand that the Doctor of Grace believed in the real presence of Christ, without any doubt.

Try this one: St. Augustine, Ep. 54, c. 6: (Fasting) “It is clear that when the disciples first received the body and blood of the Lord, they did not receive fasting….Later, however, it pleased the Holy Spirit that, for the honor due to a great sacrament, the Body of Christ should enter the mouth of a Christian before any other food”.

peace,
mgrfin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top