Was St. Augustine a Catholic?

[AugustineFanNYC]

Amen, CelticWarLord. I agree.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I stated one.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Why was it heretical?

 

[thephilosopher6]

https://oca.org/questions/teaching/st.-augustine-original-sin

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

St. Augustine & Original Sin - Questions & Answers - Orthodox Church in America

Are you E. Orthodox?

 

[steve-b]

Fantastic response. I completely agree that at the time of their enscripturation, the gospel was proclaimed orally. However, as we know the apostles saw the profound need to provide written record of this gospel, which they did through the writing of the four gospels, and the epistles that eventually became the New Testament canon. As you can see from John’s gospel and many of the epistles, the apostles had to do so because MANY errors were creeping into the Church through false teaching.

Yet John, who was the last remaining apostle alive, wrote Revelations at the end of his life, ~90 - 100 A.D. He was the only one I can think of, who was asked to write anything down. Everyone else who wrote, wrote because they wanted to write.

Hodos:

They recognized the need to correct this in a way that could be reliably transmitted. And the Church, recognizing the value of these writings, copied and distributed these writings enthusiastically so that by the end of the first century, beginning of the second century we had already accepted most of the NT canon. This IS the tradition that was handed down to us.

The canon was a work in progress to be sure. By ~170, there is the Muratorian canon

Excerpt

"it is yet shown-i.e., by this sevenfold writing-that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all. He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey.
4. The Epistle of Jude, indeed,37 and two belonging to the above-named John-or bearing the name of John-are reckoned among the Catholic epistles…

for context From: Muratorian Canon (Roberts-Donaldson Translation)

Hodos:

So, while you are correct, Paul did refer to the traditions he handed down, this tradition is the gospel of which he was preaching, which he provided a record of in his extensive letters.

We know from his writing, that he kept people he visited in the loop about the others he visited.

Example:

When Paul is writing to the Church of Rome, he says in his opening

Rom 1:7-13

Hodos:

In addition, Augustine himself made numerous statements whereby he proclaimed the scriptures to be the rule of norm for our doctrine.

Re: that subject, may I suggest reading this article. Scripture Through the Eyes of Saint Augustine | Catholic Answers | Catholic Answers

 

[thephilosopher6]

Yes. I am.

 

[steve-b]

as I have been told, that the Orthodox Church does not celebrate Augustine of Hippo as a Saint has no doctrine of original sin. Surely human sufficience is at the root of secularism.

I can’t speak to what you’ve been told.

Just speaking historically, and as an observation, and Re: Augustine

Note: All the following quotes

from the Early Church Fathers East and West, on original sin, are dated before there was E Orthodoxy. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/original-sin-0

 

[Hodos]

I concede the Paul wasn’t a mute. He had face to face contact with the people that he ministered to. However, here is the crux of the issue. Show me a Pauline, Johannine, or other apostolic quote that has been infallibly declared, that we can trace to the apostles that isn’t in scripture. Its all fine and dandy to keep referencing some nebulous oral tradition that supposedly came directly from the apostles, but when it comes down to it, the scriptures are the verifiable record of apostolic teaching. That is why the reformers subjected tradition to scripture, and it is why we continue to do so. And again, while Augustine speaks highly of tradition (and he should) he also says that doctrine is derived from scripture.

If you want an example of something said to be sacred tradition (although the normal apologetic response here is just to deny what is sacred tradition while someone of equal authority will contradict that statement - it ends up being a meaningless definition), that is clearly distinguishable as an innovation from the apostolic teaching, look to communion in one kind. I see it hotly debated frequently here, and all of the arguments fall flat because they all ignore what it was the Jesus instituted, that the Apostles handed to us in the scriptures. That’s just one example.

 

[AugustTherese]

I see it hotly debated frequently here, and all of the arguments fall flat because they all ignore what it was the Jesus instituted, that the Apostles handed to us in the scriptures. That’s just one example.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Hodos]

Must be right there next to disobey my words of institution.

 

[ZMystiCat]

I guess I just like to have a theocentric view of all this. As long as the grace first comes from God, and is only offered by Him, and we cannot do anything, choose anything, until he first offers it , giving Him all the glory, then I can live with that. Even if we freely choose, we are still bound by God’s grace that he freely offers. I mean even with the sacraments, you’re right, at every step it’s still all reliant on His grace.

As far as I’m aware, that’s all pretty standard Catholic theology, not necessarily Thomistic.

Now how would this square away with the perseverance of the elect or predestination?

Jimmy Akin goes into a bit more detail in this article on EWTN. From basic skimming, it seems to come in two key ways:

1. Even after baptism, one still is reliant on God’s grace to persevere and can only persevere to the end by His grace.
2. The predestined/elect are guaranteed to persevere to the end by nature of being predestined.

Do note that, though the second point may sound in line with Calvinism, there is a major difference in that we don’t believe on can really know if we will persevere, as opposed to the general Calvinist assumption that we can.

Is it we are free to accept or reject, but God knowing our choices, knowing our fate in the end, will keep offering it? Working with us, in synergy, until the end?

Synergism requires that there is some cooperation on our part. This would seem to indicate that, regardless of the outcome, God is still offering grace, and we choose to cooperate or rebel against His grace.

As an added resource, there’s a podcast called Pints with Aquinas that’s run by Matt Fradd, who used to be with Catholic Answers. In Episode 105, he and his Dominican guest touched a bit on this topic.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Wow thanks, ZMystiCat!

I am actually loving that there is so much apologetics in the Catholic faith.

 

[steve-b]

I concede the Paul wasn’t a mute. He had face to face contact with the people that he ministered to. However, here is the crux of the issue. Show me a Pauline, Johannine, or other apostolic quote that has been infallibly declared, that we can trace to the apostles that isn’t in scripture.

I think that’s the wrong way to ask the question.

Example:

Luther added “sola” / alone, to scripture ( Rom 3) because he would have it so. And look how many people try to use scripture to prove “sola” faith or scripture, etc, and yet they can’t logically show where “sola” is there in scripture… http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt IOW he infallibly added sola where he wanted it.

Another example:

Jas 2:24 which historically, maybe you know this and maybe you don’t, but Luther got ticked off at James for writing that and wanted to throw James out of his bible. Like he did with 7 OT books.

Where does any book in the scripture declare itself scripture?

how do you use sola?

Hodos:

Its all fine and dandy to keep referencing some nebulous oral tradition that supposedly came directly from the apostles, but when it comes down to it, the scriptures are the verifiable record of apostolic teaching.

And you know that how?

Hodos:

That is why the reformers subjected tradition to scripture, and it is why we continue to do so. And again, while Augustine speaks highly of tradition (and he should) he also says that doctrine is derived from scripture.

We should have a discussion

 

[Hodos]

Luther added “sola” / alone, to scripture ( Rom 3) because he would have it so. And look how many people try to use scripture to prove “sola” faith or scripture, etc, and yet they can’t logically show where “sola” is there in scripture…

This is an oft-quoted oversimplification, which is funny given that many Catholic Bibles still contain the phrase do penance rather than repent. Luther was translating Romans 3:28, which states: For we maintain that a person is justified by faith APART from the works of the law.

Given that Paul has already stated that righteousness/justification does not come by works (Romans 3:19, 3:20, 3:21, ) and that righteousness comes by faith (Romans 1:17, 3:22, 3:24-25, 3:26) juxtaposing righteousness by faith against righteousness by works, Luther is certainly justified in saying we are justified by works alone apart from works of the law, as this is clearly taught in the passage. I am not a big fan of dynamic equivalents (I favor more formal equivalency), but they are certainly acceptable in the field of translation, and in this case can be easily justified.

 

[steve-b]

If you want an example of something said to be sacred tradition(although the normal apologetic response here is just to deny what is sacred tradition while someone of equal authority will contradict that statement - it ends up being a meaningless definition), that is clearly distinguishable as an innovation from the apostolic teaching, look to communion in one kind. I see it hotly debated frequently here, and all of the arguments fall flat because they all ignore what it was the Jesus instituted, that the Apostles handed to us in the scriptures. That’s just one example.

?

Could you be clearer?

 

[Hodos]

Jas 2:24 which historically, maybe you know this and maybe you don’t, but Luther got ticked off at James for writing that and wanted to throw James out of his bible. Like he did with 7 OT books

Luther is hardly alone in Church history in his criticism of James, and in fact is echoing sentiments made by Augustine. Ultimately, Luther translated James as inspired, so this criticism also is meaningless and can be equally aimed at catholic fathers.

Nor is he alone in saying that the books you are referencing are deuterocanonical. Jerome himself indicated the same. Also, Luther translated the Apocrypha, keeping them in a separate section, just as Jerome did.

 

[Hodos]

Where does any book in the scripture declare itself scripture?

Doesn’t have to. Scripture is canonical by its nature as God-breathed written revelation, not by virtue of a Table of Contents.

 

[Hodos]

We should have a discussion

I thought that is what we are doing.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Luther added “sola” / alone, to scripture ( Rom 3) because he would have it so. And look how many people try to use scripture to prove “sola” faith or scripture, etc, and yet they can’t logically show where “sola” is there in scripture…

This is an oft-quoted oversimplification, which is funny given that many Catholic Bibles still contain the phrase do penance rather than repent.

These are great opportunities to give references, properly referenced rather than just say it

Hodos:

Luther was translating Romans 3:28, which states: For we maintain that a person is justified by faith APART from the works of the law.

Given that Paul has already stated that righteousness/justification does not come by works (Romans 3:19, 3:20, 3:21, ) and that righteousness comes by faith (Romans 1:17, 3:22, 3:24-25, 3:26) juxtaposing righteousness by faith against righteousness by works, Luther is certainly justified in saying we are justified by works alone apart from works of the law, as this is clearly taught in the passage. I am not a big fan of dynamic equivalents (I favor more formal equivalency), but they are certainly acceptable in the field of translation, and in this case can be easily justified.

poor to bad Translations mislead