Augustine

[dairygirl4u2c]

In regards to his belief in the papacy, no. In regards to his belief in the last supper, I withhold my stance.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=9101"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=9101[/url]

I wonder if those quotes are as deceiving as the papacy quotes. Anyway, I looked up the (decent) supposed papcy quotes in context, and here is what I've found. Bear with me!

The most decieving quotation is this one:
[quote]"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).[/quote]
[quote]
CHAP. 51
117. PETILIANUS said: "If you wretched men claim for yourselves a seat, as we said before, you assuredly have that one of which the prophet and psalmist David speaks as being the seat of the scornful(3) For to you it is rightly left, seeing that the holy cannot sit therein.'
118. AUGUSTIN answered: Here again you do not see that this is no kind of argument, but empty abuse. For this is what I said a little while ago, You utter the words of the law, but take no heed against whom you utter them; just as the devil uttered the words of the law, but failed to perceive to whom he uttered them. He wished to thrust down our Head, who was presently to ascend on high; but you wish to reduce to a small fraction the body of that same [b]Head which is dispersed throughout the entire world[/b]. Certainly you yourself said a little time before that we know the law, and speak in legal terms, but blush in our deeds. Thus much indeed you say without a proof of anything; but even though you were to prove it of some men, you would not be entitled to assert it of these others. However,[b] if all men throughout all the world were of the character which you most vainly charge them with, what has the chair done to you of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and which Anastasius fills to-day; [B][u][i]or the chair of the Church of Jerusalem, in which James once sat, and in which John sits today[/i][/u][/b], with which we are[b] united in catholic unity[/b], and from which you have severed yourselves by your mad fury?[/B] Why do you call the apostolic chair a seat of the scornful? If it is on account of the men whom you believe to use the words of the law without performing it, do you find that our Lord Jesus Christ was moved by the Pharisees, of whom He says, "They say, and do not," to do any despite to the seat in which they sat? Did He not commend the seat of Moses, and maintain the honor of the seat, while He convicted [b]those[/b] that sat in it? For He says, "[b]They[/b] sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."(1) If you were to think of these things, you would not, on account of men whom you calumniate, do despite to the apostolic seat, in which you have no share. But what else is conduct like yours but ignorance of what to say, combined with want of power to abstain from evil-speaking?[/quote]

I think that one is self explanatory. He doesn't just point out the church of rome; he also mentions the other large church as well. And catholic.com convieniently forgot to mention that. The point Augustine was trying to make was those churches were reliable due to their succession and antiquity. Also note that he paralled the seats of Moses with Peter meaning that there are many seats to the chair of Peter as we will see more clearly.

As for the another quotes. There is no reason for the context of this quote. But I wanted you all to know that I did look it up in context.

[quote]"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]).[/quote]

[quote]
CHAP. 4.--PROOFS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH.
5. For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, deed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)--[b]not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The [u]succession of priests[/u] keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present [u]episcopate[/u][/b]. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion in which almost all that you believe is contained. For in that unhappy time when we read it we were in your opinion enlightened. The epistle begins thus:--" Manichaeus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.; Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I donor believe Manichaeus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichaeus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichaeus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? [b][i]For my part[/i], I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. [/b] (this doesn't prove either of our my points, .. I just wanted to let you know that I am aware!) So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichaeus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;--If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichaeus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;--Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichaeus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? [b]It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me[/b], having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichaeus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichaeus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, (2) do not include the name of Manichaeus. And who the successor of Christ's betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles; (3) which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me. The same book contains the well-known narrative of the calling and apostleship of Paul. (4) Read me now, if you can, in the gospel where Manichaeus is called an apostle, or in any other book in which I have professed to believe. Will you read the passage where the Lord promised the Holy Spirit as a Paraclete, to the apostles? Concerning which passage, behold how many and how great are the things that restrain and deter me from believing in Manichaeus.[/quote]

Augustine frequently mentions how Peter represented the Church. If you look up episcopate even in the dictionary you will see that it means not only office of a bishop, but also a collection of bishops. As paralleled with the Moses quotes, many bishops held to their seats.

[quote]"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).[/quote]

[quote]LETTER LIII
TO GENEROSUS, OUR MOST LOVED AND HONOURABLE BROTHER, FORTUNATUS ALYPIUS AND AUGUSTIN SEND GREETING IN THE LORD.

CHAP. I. -- 1. Since you were pleased to acquaint us with the letter sent to you by a Donatist presbyter, although, with the spirit of a true Catholic, you regarded it with contempt, nevertheless, to aid you in seeking his welfare if his folly be not incurable, we beg you to forward to him the following reply. He wrote that an angel had enjoined him to declare to you the episcopal succession of [b]the Christianity of your town[/b]; to you, forsooth, who hold the Christianity not of your own town only, nor of Africa only, but of the whole world, the Christianity which has been published, and is now published to all nations. This proves that they think it a small matter that they themselves are not ashamed of being cut off, and are taking no measures, while they may, to be engrafted anew; they are not content unless they do their utmost to cut others off, and bring them to share their own fate, as withered branches fit for the flames. Wherefore, even if you had yourself been visited by that angel whom he affirms to have appeared to him, -- a statement which we regard as a cunning fiction; and if the angel had said to you the very words which he, on the warrant of the alleged command, repeated to you, -- even in that case it would have been your duty to remember the words of the apostle: "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." For to you it was proclaimed by the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, that His "gospel shall be preached unto all nations, and then shall the end come." To you it has moreover been proclaimed by the writings of the prophets and of the apostles, that the promises were given to Abraham and to his seed, which is Christ? when God said unto him: "In thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed." Having then such promises, if an angel from heaven were to say to thee, "Let go the Christianity of the whole earth, and cling to the faction of Donatus, the episcopal succession of which is set forth in a letter of their bishop in your town," he ought to be accursed in your estimation; because he would be endeavouring to cut you off from the whole Church, and thrust you into a small party, and make you forfeit your interest in the promises of God.
2. [b]For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !" The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius.[u] In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found.[/u] [/b]But, reversing the natural course of things, [b]the Donatists sent to Rome[/b] from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of "mountain men," or Cutzupits, by which they were known.
3. Now, even although some traditor had in the course of these centuries, through inadvertence, obtained a place in that order of bishops, reaching from Peter himself to Anastasius, who now occupies [b]that see[/b], -- this fact would do no harm to the Church and to Christians having no share in the guilt of another; for the Lord, providing against such a case, says, concerning officers in the Church who are wicked: "All whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." Thus the stability of the hope of the faithful is secured, inasmuch as being fixed, not in man, but in the Lord, it never can be swept away by the raging of impious schism; whereas they themselves are swept away who read in the. Holy Scriptures the names of churches to which the apostles wrote, and in which they have no bishop. For what could more clearly prove their perversity and their folly, than their saying to their clergy, when they read these letters, "Peace be with thee," at the very time that they are themselves disjoined from the peace of those churches to which the letters were originally written?

CHAP. II. -- 4. [b]Lest, however, he should [u]congratulate himself too much on the succession of bishops in Constantina, your own city[/u][/b], read to him the records of proceedings before Munatius Felix, the resident Flamen [heathen priest], who was governor of your city in the consulship of Diocletian for the eighth time, and Maximian for the seventh, on the eleventh day before the calends of June. By these records it is proved that the bishop Paulus was a traditor; the fact being that Sylvanus was then one of his sub-deacons, and, along with him, produced and surrendered certain things belonging to the Lord's house, which had been most carefully concealed, namely a box and a lamp of silver, upon seeing which a certain [b]Victor[/b] (Victor's attitude is important because of the easter controversy when he was going to excommunicate some peeps... though he's not the only person who excommunicates peeps) is reported to have said, "You would have been put to death if you had not found these." Your Donatist priest makes great account of this Sylvanus, this clearly convicted traditor, in the letter which he writes you, mentioning him as then ordained to the office of bishop by the Primate Secundus of Tigisis. Let them keep their proud tongues silent, let them admit the charges which may truly be brought against themselves, and not utter foolish calumnies against others. Read to him also, if he permits it, the ecclesiastical records of the proceedings of this same Secundus of Tigisis in the house of Urbanus Donatus, in which he remitted to God, as judge, men who confessed themselves to have been traditors -- Donatus of Masculi, Marinns of Aquae Tibilitanae, Donatus of Calama, with whom as his colleagues, though they were confessed traditors, he ordained their bishop Sylvanus, of whose guilt in the same matter I have given the history above. Read to him also the proceedings before Zenophilus, a man of consular rank, in the course of which a certain deacon of theirs, Nundinarius, being angry with [b]Sylvanus for having excommunicated him[/b], brought all these facts into court, proving them incontestably by authentic documents, and the questioning of witnesses, and the reading of public records and many letters.
5. There are many other things which you might read in his hearing, if he is disposed not to dispute angrily, but to listen prudently, such as: the [b]petition of the Donatists to Constantine, begging him [/b]to send from Gaul bishops who should settle this controversy which divided the African bishops; the Acts recording [b]what took place in Rome[/b], when the case was taken up and [b]decided by the [u]bishops[/u] [/b]whom he sent thither: also you might read in other letters how the Emperor aforesaid states that they had made a complaint to him against the decision of their peers -- the bishops, namely, whom he had sent to Rome; how he appointed other bishops to try the case over again at Arles; how [b]they appealed from that tribunal also [i]to the Emperor [u]again[/u][/i][/b]; how at last he himself investigated the matter; and how he most emphatically declares that they were vanquished by the innocence of Caecilianus. Let him listen to these things if he be willing, and he will be silent and desist from plotting against the truth.
CHAP. III. -- 6. [b]We rely, however, not so much on these documents as on the Holy Scriptures[/b], wherein a dominion extending to the ends of the earth among all nations is promised as the heritage of Christ, separated from which by their sinful schism they reproach us with the crimes which belong to the chaff in the Lord's threshing floor, which must be permitted to remain mixed with the good grain until the end come, until the whole be winnowed in the final judgment. From which it is manifest that, whether these charges be true or false, they do not belong to the Lord's wheat, which must grow until the end of the world throughout the whole field, i.e. the whole earth; as we know, not by the testimony of a false angel such as confirmed your correspondent in his error, but from the words of the Lord in the Gospel. And because these unhappy Donatists have brought the reproach of many false and empty accusations against Christians who were blameless, but who are throughout the world mingled with the chaff or tares, i.e. with Christians unworthy of the name, therefore God has, in righteous retribution, appointed that they should, by their universal Council, condemn as schismatics the Maximianists, because they bad condemned Primianus, and baptized while not in communion with Primianus, and rebaptized those whom he had baptized, and then after a short interval should, under the coercion of Optatus the minion of Gildo, reinstate in the honours of their office two of these, the bishops Felicianus of Musti and Praetextatus of Assuri, and acknowledge the baptism of all whom they, while under sentence and excommunicated, had baptized. If, therefore, they are not defiled by communion with the men thus restored again to their office, -- men whom with their own mouth they had condemned as wicked and impious, and whom they compared to those first heretics whom the earth swallowed up alive, -- let them at last awake and consider how great is their blindness and folly in pronouncing the whole world defiled by unknown crimes of Africans, and the heritage of Christ (which according to the promise has been shown unto all nations) destroyed through the sins of these Africans by the maintenance of communion with them; while they refuse to acknowledge themselves to be destroyed and defiled by communicating with men whose crimes they had both known and condemned.
7. Wherefore, since the Apostle Paul says in another place, that even Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, and that therefore it is not strange that his servants should assume the guise of ministers of righteousness: if your correspondent did indeed see an angel teaching him error, and desiring to separate Christians from the Catholic unity, he has met with an angel of Satan transforming himself into an angel of light. If, however, he has lied to you, and has seen no such vision, he is himself a servant of Satan, assuming the guise of a minister of righteousness. And yet, if he be not incorrigibly obstinate and perverse, he may, by considering all the things now stated, be delivered both from misleading others, and from being himself misled. For, embracing the opportunity which you have given, we have met him without any rancor, remembering in regard to him the words of the apostle: "The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." If, therefore, we have said anything severe, let him know that it arises not from the bitterness of controversy, but from love vehemently desiring his return to the right path. May you live safe in Christ, most beloved and honorable brother!
[/quote]

It's interesting that Sylvanus excommunicated peeps and wasn't a pope. Victor (whose rash attitude is shown here) didn't exommunicate anyone because of Ireneus. But even had he had excommunicted someone, it's no more than sylvanus did, and no more than the leading church would do.

Also we see that Augustine was showing the apostolicity of Rome, to whom he is appealing, and contrasting it with this dudes church. I'm sure he'd appeal to Rome if it was large and influential. And take the next quote to see where councils met.


This next one is almost the most compelling.

[quote]"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]). [/quote]

[quote]10. What then was said of the Jews, the same altogether do we see in
these men now. "They have a zeal of God: I hear them record that they have
a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge."[4] What is, "not according
to knowledge"? "For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and wishing to
establish their own, they have not submitted themselves unto the
righteousness of God."[5] My Brethren, share with me in my sorrow. When ye
find such as these, do not hide them; be there no such misdirected[6] mercy
in you; by all means, when ye find such, hide them not. Convince the
gainsayers, and those who resist, bring to us. [b][B]For already have [i][u]two
councils[/u][/i] [/b]on this question been sent to the [b]Apostolic see[/b]; and rescripts
also have come from thence. [/B]The question has been brought to an issue;
would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too! Therefore
do we advise that they may take heed, we teach that they may be instructed,
we pray that they may be changed. Let us turn to the Lord, etc.[/quote]

That Apostolic see is somewhat compelling but the fact that there were councils kinda cancels it out. It doesn't disprove or prove the papacy. I don't think this one word can prove the papacy or is enough to say it was in Augustine's mind. But maybe.. maybe.. we can say that Rome was the center of the church. To this I'll need to look into Nicea and COnstantine. But even if it was the center without these guys, it doesn't really prove anything.

I don't deny that Augustine was a Catholic for the succession and for the unity. And apparently matters were resloved with councils. It [i]would[/i] be compelling if the bishop of Rome was the final authority.... but we have no evidence of this.


I also havea quote on the keys that I will add in a bit.

So in the end, Augustine is Catholic, but not Roman Catholic. He is a memeber of the CC bc it is more likely to be true than any other christianities. If succession is to be a factor, I would say the Eastern Orthodox are just as much in line with the CC of that day as the CC of today is. There are no quotes that are much compelling and considering this, and while these quotes don't necessarily disprove the CC, to argue for the papacy, more than Rome being just large and influential, is to argue from silence. The CC is on the offensive right now so you have to do more than defend it.

Edited March 20, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

oooo no! he just taught APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY and APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, but because that can't DEFINITIVELY SHOW THE PAPACY you dismiss any of it's catholicity?


would someone show this girl Augustine believed in the primacy of Peter! because that quote was just showing how Anastasius was Peter's successor and John is Jame's successor. but of course since Peter has primacy over James Anastasius by default has primacy over John.