Did Augustine Change his Mind on the Canon?

In his Revisions (aka Retractiones), Augustine offers a number of corrections to his previous work.  He is the only author that comes to mind as having engaged in such systematic self-criticism.  The recent translation of his works "The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century," uses the title "Revisions," while some others have used "Retractions."  Retractions is a more natural cognate, but Revisions is probably more accurate as an overall description of his work.

One of the revisions he proposes relates to his Two Books on Genesis Against the Manichaeans.  The citation is Revisions, First Book, 10 (9), section 3, he writes (p. ):

Again, I do not seem to have been correct in referring to what is written, Why are earth and ashes proud? (Sir 10:9), as prophetic words, because they are not read in the book of someone who we are certain ought to be called a prophet.

The reference is to what Augustine said in On Genesis: A Refutation of the Manichees, Book II, 5 (6) (trans. from the WSAT21 series, vol. I/13, p. 74):

When the soul was being watered by such a spring as that, it had not yet "cast out its innards" through pride. The beginning, you see, of man's pride is to apostatize from God (Sir 10:12); and since his swelling out through pride to exterior things has put a stop to his being watered from that interior spring, he is very properly jeered at by these words of the prophet, and told: What has earth and ashes to be proud of, since in its lifetime it has cast out its innards? (Sir 10:9).

Later on, in Revisions, Second Book, 4 (31), section 2, he writes (p. 113):

In the second book, concerning the author of the book that many call the Wisdom of Solomon, namely, that Jesus Sirach wrote it just as he did Ecclesiasticus, I afterwards learned that this was not as agreed upon as it was said to be by me, and in all probability the book's author is not discoverable.

When I said, "The authority of the Old Testament is confined within these forty-four books," I referred to the Old Testament according to the Church's customary way of speaking. The Apostle, however, seems to refer only to what was given on Mount Sinai as the Old Testament.

Finally, in Revisions, Second Book, 20 (47), he writes (p. 128):

In the first [book], then, it did not occur to me that what I said about the manna--that it tasted in each person's mouth as he himself wished it to-- could not be demonstrated by any text apart from the Book of Wisdom, which the Jews do not accept as having canonical authorship. 

The "first [book]" in question is found in Augustine's works as Letter 54, and the specific citation is Letter 54,3,4. (trans. from the WSAT21 series, Letter 54, p. 212)

It also serves as a comparison in that in the earlier people the manna tasted in the mouth of each one as the individual wanted, just as that sacrament by which the world is conquered has a different taste in the heart of each Christian.

What's particularly interesting here is that Augustine's original argument does not hinge on Jewish acceptance of his argument.  He's writing to Januaris and the section is dealing with the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Why is Jewish acceptance relevant? The only answer staring us in the face is a tacit acknowledgment that Jerome is right about the canon.  Maybe the churches read and use Sirach and Wisdom, but they do not have full canonical status to establish doctrine.  Likewise, Wisdom is neither a book by Solomon (as originally thought by the North African councils) nor even a book by Jesus Ben Sira (as had been speculated).  Instead, it's a book of uncertain authorship, despite its obvious claims to be by Solomon.

Sword of Pain/Bereavement/Doubt in Mary's Heart?

John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 14

But this blessed woman, who was deemed worthy of gifts that are supernatural, suffered those pains, which she escaped at the birth, in the hour of the passion, enduring from motherly sympathy the rending of the bowels, and when she beheld Him, Whom she knew to be God by the manner of His generation, killed as a malefactor, her thoughts pierced her as a sword, and this is the meaning of this verse: Yea, a sword shall pierce through your own soul also Luke 2:35. But the joy of the resurrection transforms the pain, proclaiming Him, Who died in the flesh, to be God.

In this case, notice that John is suggesting that Mary escaped the pains associated with original sin at Jesus' birth, but nevertheless experienced them when he died on the cross.

Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 105 (Masoretic Psalm 104):

12. Next he does relate the story, mentioning what Joseph suffered in his low estate, and how he was raised on high. His feet they hurt in the stocks: the iron entered into his soul, until his word came Psalm 104:18. That Joseph was put in irons, we do not indeed read; but we ought no ways to doubt that it was so. For some things might be passed over in that history, which nevertheless would not escape the Holy Spirit, who speaks in these Psalms. We understand by the iron which entered into his soul, the tribulation of stern necessity; for he did not say body, but soul. There is a somewhat similar expression in the Gospel, where Simeon says unto Mary, A sword shall pierce through your own soul also. Luke 2:35 That is, the Passion of the Lord, which was a fall unto many, and in which the secrets of many hearts were revealed, since their sentiments respecting the Lord were extorted from them, without doubt made His own Mother exceeding sorrowful, heavily struck with human bereavement. 

While Augustine does not explicitly link it to sin and the fall, Augustine asserts that Mary was touched with human bereavement and consequent sorrow.

Basil, Letter 260, to Optimus the bishop, sections 6-9

6. About the words of Simeon to Mary, there is no obscurity or variety of interpretation. And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, Behold, this Child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (yea, a sword shall pierce through your own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. Luke 2:34-35 Here I am astonished that, after passing by the previous words as requiring no explanation, you should enquire about the expression, Yea, a sword shall pierce through your own soul also. To me the question, how the same child can be for the fall and rising again, and what is the sign that shall be spoken against, does not seem less perplexing than the question how a sword shall pierce through Mary's heart.

7. My view is, that the Lord is for falling and rising again, not because some fall and others rise again, but because in us the worst falls and the better is set up. The advent of the Lord is destructive of our bodily affections and it rouses the proper qualities of the soul. As when Paul says, When I am weak, then I am strong, 2 Corinthians 12:10 the same man is weak and is strong, but he is weak in the flesh and strong in the spirit. Thus the Lord does not give to some occasions of falling and to others occasions of rising. Those who fall, fall from the station in which they once were, but it is plain that the faithless man never stands, but is always dragged along the ground with the serpent whom he follows. He has then nowhere to fall from, because he has already been cast down by his unbelief. Wherefore the first boon is, that he who stands in his sin should fall and die, and then should live in righteousness and rise, both of which graces our faith in Christ confers on us. Let the worse fall that the better may have opportunity to rise. If fornication fall not, chastity does not rise. Unless our unreason be crushed our reason will not come to perfection. In this sense he is for the fall and rising again of many.

8. For a sign that shall be spoken against. By a sign, we properly understand in Scripture a cross. Moses, it is said, set the serpent upon a pole. Numbers 21:8 That is upon a cross. Or else a sign is indicative of something strange and obscure seen by the simple but understood by the intelligent. There is no cessation of controversy about the Incarnation of the Lord; some asserting that he assumed a body, and others that his sojourn was bodiless; some that he had a passible body, and others that he fulfilled the bodily œconomy by a kind of appearance. Some say that his body was earthly, some that it was heavenly; some that He pre-existed before the ages; some that He took His beginning from Mary. It is on this account that He is a sign that shall be spoken against.

9. By a sword is meant the word which tries and judges our thoughts, which pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of our thoughts. Now every soul in the hour of the Passion was subjected, as it were, to a kind of searching. According to the word of the Lord it is said, All you shall be offended because of me. Matthew 26:3 Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man — to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. He indicates that after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ. What was human in him was proved unsound, that the power of the Lord might be shown.

In this passage, Basil does not just assert, but demonstrates that Mary was affected by sinful doubt.

Augustine on Psalm 132:8 (Vulgate Psalm 131:8)

From Augustine's Expositions on the Psalms at Psalm 132:8 

8. Arise, O Lord, into Your resting place [Psalm 131:8]. He says unto the Lord sleeping, Arise. You know already who slept, and who rose again....You, and the ark of Your sanctification: that is, Arise, that the ark of Your sanctification, which You have sanctified, may arise also. He is our Head; His ark is His Church: He arose first, the Church will arise also. The body would not dare to promise itself resurrection, save the Head arose first. The Body of Christ, that was born of Mary, has been understood by some to be the ark of sanctification; so that the words mean, Arise with Your Body, that they who believe not may handle.

Notice the contrast between this view and the interpretation alluded to by Pope Pius XII's "Munificentissimus Deus," that the ark is Mary.  That's not even Augustine's back-up interpretation of the text.

There's Something about ... Luigi Gambero

 Luigi Gambero is one of the leading Mariologists of our time.  His book, "Mary and the Fathers of the Church," (Ignatius Press, 1999 based on the Italian original of 1991) is one of the more exhaustive treatments of the subject that one can find from a Roman Catholic perspective.  Sorry to my younger readers for whom the 1990s are not "our time."  Gambero's work received cover endorsements from folks like Peter Stravinskas.  He's not some random guy who happens to be Roman Catholic.

The subject matter index of his book (p. 428), however, reveals a paucity of citations on the topic of the immaculate conception.  Only six authors are identified.  I have rearranged the list from alphabetical order to appearance order in the book (which is also approximately chronological order of birth of the various authors):
1. Ephrem the Syrian (c. A.D. 306-73) p. 110
Gambero writes:

Ephrem's insistence on Mary's spiritual beauty and holiness, and on her freedom from any stain of sin, has led some scholars to hold that he was aware of the privilege of the Immaculate Conception and to point to him as a witness to the dogma. Yet it does not appear that our author was familiar with the problem, at least not in the terms in which it was made clear by later tradition and the dogmatic definition of 1854. In one passage he even uses the term "baptized" to indicate her Son's saving intervention in her regard:

Handmaid and daughter of blood and water [am I] whom You redeemed and baptized.

(Hymns on the Nativity 16, 10)

There's not much to respond to here.  I agree that Ephrem represents one of the earlier examples of high views of Mary.  I also agree that Ephrem did not know of the idea of an immaculate conception of Mary.  Terms like "redeemed" and "baptized" imply that Mary was not always pure, but became so.  As such, while Ephrem does not represent a "Protestant" position, He also does not reflect a view of accepting Mary as always sinless, even with respect to her conception.
I would add that "redeemed" is poetically paired with "blood" and "baptized" with "water."  So, we are not talking about redemption in some other sense than the sacrifice of Christ, and - of course - the Baptism is a baptism related to the forgiveness of sins.

2. Gregory Nazianzen (c. A.D. 329-90) pp. 162-63
Gambero writes:

In the mystery of the Incarnation, the bishop of Nazianzus discerns a wondrous exchange between God and Mary. She offered him the gift of her undiminished virginity, while the Lord, for his part, intervened in an extraordinary manner to bring about her purification, in advance. He empowered her human abilities, to make her worthy of the unique event of the Incarnation:

He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor.[fn3]

From this doctrine of Mary's purification before the conception of Christ emerges an intuition of the truth which, in 1854, the Church would define as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

[fn3: Sermon 38, 13; PG 36, 325B]

The sense in which Gambero's claim that from Gregory's sermon "emerges an intuition of ..." the Immaculate Conception, is that the Immaculate Conception goes far beyond what Gregory claims.  For Gregory, Mary is in need of purification, body and soul, and she receives it prior to Christ's conception.  The dogma of the Immaculate Conception goes much further.  That dogma does not teach that Mary was purified from original sin, but that she was preserved from original.  Gregory's elevation of Mary to being specially purified is a step in the wrong direction toward the immaculate conception, perhaps, but it is still fundamentally inconsistent with the immaculate conception.  So is every author, patristic or otherwise, that takes the position that Mary was purified from something that she had, rather than taking the position that Mary was preserved from ever having original sin the in the first place.

3. Augustine of Hippo(A.D. 354-430) p. 226 (and 226 n. 25)

There seems no doubt that Augustine considered Mary's exemption from sin to be a great grace. But what sins does he mean? Undoubtedly he excludes any personal sin from Mary. Is it possible to hypothesize that Augustine also intended to exclude original sin? Some scholars think so and make him a forerunner of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. A full treatment of the question would call for a lengthy discussion. To us it seems safer to adopt the contrary position, which held by many experts and appears more in accord with numerous Augustinian texts. [fn25]

I would disagree with Gambero's contention that Augustine was saying that Mary was exempt from personal sin.  That said, as Gambero correctly concedes, Augustine nowhere teaches that Mary was exempt from original sin, rather he held the contrary view.  Perhaps in another post, we will consider the question of the famous place where Augustine says he will not discuss the sins of Mary.

4. Romanos the Melodist (Late 5th century to late 6th century) pp. 328-29 (and 329 n. 8)
Gambero has a section entitled, "The Birth of Mary." Gambero writes:

Romans' hymn on the birth of the Virgin may serve as an ancient witness to the introduction of the feast (September 8) in the Church of Constantinople, under the emperor Justinian. The poet sings of this event as a triumph of grace over the weakness and failings of human nature, as revealed in the sterility of Mary's aged parents:

The prayers of Joachim and Anna and the weeping of sterility reached the ears of God and were well received. Thus they gave a life-giving fruit to the world. For while he [Joachim] was praying on the mountain, she [Anna] hid her mortification in the garden. But the barren woman then joyfully brings to light the Mother of God, the nourisher of life.[FN: On the Birth of Mary 1.]

Considering the future mission of Mary, her birth to barren parents is considered a reason for great rejoicing, which the people of Israel already share by anticipation, unwittingly:

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified. [FN: Ibid. 4.]

In this hymn, Romanos recalls two important moments of Mary's infancy and youth: the years she spent in the Temple and  her betrothal to Joseph. Apparently Romanos takes his inspiration from the apocrypha, in particular from the Protoevangelium of James. Later on, addressing Anna directly, the poet weaves a marvelous praise of her extraordinary little daughter:

Your birth is worthy of veneration, O holy woman, because you brought to light the joy of the world, the powerful mediatrix of graces for men. Indeed she is the rampart, the defense, and the haven of whoever trusts in her. Every Christian finds in her, in your fruit, a protector, a defense, and the hope of salvation [FN: Ibid., 10.]

I certainly agree that literary source of this ode is the heretical forgery, the Protoevangelium of James.  Romanos does have a song on the Nativity of the Virgin Mary.  It's listed as hymn 35 in Maas' and Trypanis' edition (they also note it is 28 in Krumbacher's).  Based on a quick check, I think this is the same one quoted by Gambero.

The song does seem to be the first hint in history of any Christians celebrating the Birth of Mary.  Later, with Andrew of Crete and John of Damascus, we see that the practice apparently begun in the 6th century had caught on more widely in the 7th and 8th centuries.  Note, however, that this is the feast of the Birth of Mary, not her Conception.  There is a reason that Bernard of Clairvaux expressed concerns over the idea of celebrating such a feast, centuries later.

Of the presented material, the phrase, "ἒτεκεν τὴν ἄχραντον," translated by Gambero (or his source or his translator from Italian to English) as "had conceived the immaculate one" is the more obviously interesting.  The first issue with this translation is that ἒτεκεν means to give birth, not to conceive.  The second issue is that while ἄχραντον, which means "undefiled," can reasonably be translated here as "immaculate," it does not necessarily have anything to do with Mary's connection to original sin (or not).  That's only an issue for folks who are eager to see her as immaculately conceived and who forget that she was also viewed as an immaculate virgin.  

Moreover, while the text says that Anna gave birth to the Immaculate, this is not a commentary on when Mary became (in Romanos' understanding) Immaculate.  For example, in the first stanza we see: "But the barren woman then joyfully brings to light the Mother of God."  Surely no one would be so foolish as to think that Mary was born already a mother.  So, if one does not assume that, one should be careful what one assumes about the title, Immaculate.  

So, while Romanos is an example of relatively high Mariology, particularly for his century, he still falls short of knowing of the immaculate conception.

5. Andrew of Crete (A.D. 650-740) pp. 392-95
In a section entitled, "Mary, Spotless Creature," Gambero writes:

Andrew's witness to the Church's faith in the exceptional holiness of the Mother of the Lord is absolutely remarkable. He affirms more than once that the Blessed Virgin lived her whole life without being contaminated by any moral sin. The insistence with which the bishop of Crete returns to this point is so strong that some have seen him as an exponent of the Immaculate Conception. Even if we cannot accept this thesis without hesitation, we must at least recognize that Andrew had a highly elevated concept of the Virgin's sinlessness and holiness. We cite one of the numerous texts:

It was right, then, that the admirable Joachim and his spouse, Anna, inspired by divine thoughts, did obtain her as the fruit of their prayer, her, I say, the queen of nature, the firstfruits of our race, whose birthday we celebrate, whose swaddling clothes we honor, and whom we venerate as the source of the restoration of our fallen race. [FN: Homily 3 on Mary's Nativity, PG 97, 860 B-C]

This text presents Mary as the firstfruits of the human race; that is, the first creature who received the gift of salvation. But Andrew explains it even more clearly:

This Mary the Theotokos, the common refuge of all Christians, the first to be liberated from the original fall of our first parents. [FN: Homily 4 on Mary's Nativity, PG 97, 880 C]

We could present many more passages in which Andrew expresses this concept. However, when our author speaks of Mary as the first person to be redeemed, or as the first to be liberated from original sin, he does not define the nature of the intervention God wrought in her. Hence we would not be justified to attribute to him the concept of preservation from original sin as we understand the concept today, precisely as the solemn Magisterium of the Church has defined it. It is true that Andrew is mentioned in the bull Ineffabilis Deus as being among the witnesses to the Immaculate Conception. More than anything else, however, his testimony witness to the development of the faith of the Christian people, on their journey toward a light that would illuminate the mystery ever more clearly.

I interrupt the section here to comment.  Mary being "liberated from the original fall" seems to imply that she was under it and then subsequently freed, not preserved from it.  While Andrew's excessively high view of Mary is definitely a step in the direction that ultimately became the error of the Immaculate Conception, the evidence of him adopting such a view is not there. 

Gambero continues:

Also, we have to keep in mind that the bishop of Crete did not share the notion of original sin that the Latin theologians had already formed. Therefore, it is understandable that he could speak in these terms without considering the problem of the presence or absence of original sin in Mary.

Instead, Andrew appears to have believed that God prepared the holy Virgin in advance, on both the moral and personal level, to make her worthy and capable of being God's Mother:

A place had to be prepared before the King's arrival. The royal garments had to be woven before they could receive the royal Child at his birth. Finally, the clay had to be prepared before the Potter's arrival.[FN: Homily 3 on the Nativity, PG 97, 860 B]

We have already seen, in more than one place, how this concept of Mary's purification at the moment of the Annunciation was shared by other Fathers of the Church in preceding centuries.

This acknowledges the key point: one of the early stages of the increasing Marian devotion was to say that Mary was purified at the Annunciation, namely just before Christ's conception.  This view is inconsistent with the doctrine of the immaculate conception.  While people can certainly speculate a notion of Mary being already perfectly pure and just getting more "grace" infused into her, it is hard to conceptualize the purification of something already perfectly pure.  

6. John Damascene (c. A.D. 675 - c. A.D. 749) pp. 401-02
Gambero writes:

John Damascene often speaks of Mary as a sublime creature, filled with spiritual treasures. Accordingly, his homily on the Nativity, for example, goes so far as to make clear and explicit allusions--unprecedented in previous centuries--to the mystery of the Immaculate Conception. Naturally, it is necessary to keep in mind the different view of original sin that already divided Byzantine theology from Western thought.

For John, both the Virgin Mary's conception and her birth took place completely under the influence of divine grace. These two events also shaped the role played by her parents, Joachim and Anna. Their previous sterility is explained thus:

Because it would come to pass that the Virgin Theotokos would be born of Anna, nature did not dare anticipate the seed of grace but remained unfruitful until grace bore fruit.[FN: Homily on the Nativity 2, PG 96, 664A]

Anna's sterility was, therefore, a condition previously arranged in the divine plan, so that the role of grace would appear fully predominant. This is why Damascene always names the Virgin's parents with profound respect: they would offer themselves as the passive instruments of God's miraculous intervention:

O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy fetus grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens [FN: Ibid., 2, PG 96, 664B]

It is worth noting here that even at the very end of the Patristic era, one must look to the very high Marian views of John of Damascus to find something approaching the Immaculate Conception.  This is not the actual doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, because of John of Damascus different view on original sin, but it is at least close.

You may recall from other discussions that for most of the fathers, Mary was not an exception because was generated the usual way: from a physical relationship between her parents.  John of Damascus finds a way around this by naming and claiming the immaculate ejaculate of Joachim.  Thankfully, that's not a dogma that Rome adopted.  If it was ever considered in Western thought, I would speculate that they would realize that this escape clause would eliminate the original need for Mary's virginity.  If Jesus could be born of Joseph's seed, some how immaculate-d beforehand, and if that would have resolved the issue, there would not have been a need for Jesus to be born of a virgin in the first place.  

We have now completed this particular survey.  Consider how little there was to review, and how far it was from demonstrating a continuous belief in the immaculate conception in the church from the time of the apostles onward.

-TurretinFan

Kenneth M. Wilson's "Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to 'Non-Free Free Will'" - Calvinism Discussion

Since one vocal contra-Calvinist has been relying on Dr. Wilson's materials to bash Calvinism, it makes sense to discuss every single place that Dr. Wilson mentions John Calvin in his book.

Based on a text search for "Calvin" within the book, there is exactly one hit:

Kolakowski argues that the Church's repeated anathemas on the teachings by Luther, Calvin, and the Jansenists also condemned Augustine's novel teachings on 'double predestination,' total incapacity of 'the will' for good, irresistible grace, "non-free free will," and limited atonement.[12]
[fn 12: Kolakowski (1995), 3-33.]

Leszek Kołakowski (1927-2009) was a Polish anti-Marxist philosopher. Kolakowski's "God Owes Us Nothing: A Brief Remark on Pascal's Religion and on the Spirit of Jansenism," is evidently the work Wilson was citing. He apparently refers to Kolakowski's work a couple more times.

Kolakowski's book begins with part one, "Why did the Catholic Church Condemn the Teaching of Saint Augustine?" (pp. 3-112) The sub-section boldly titled, "What Was Wrong with Augustine?" begins at page 30.

I couldn't figure out from looking at Kolakowski's material what Wilson's quotation mark convention meant. It feels like the single marks are non-adoptive quotations of individual words or phrases (aka scare quotes) and double quotations are Wilson's own paraphrase. In any event, the usage is - at best - distracting.

At page 5, Kolakowski fires this salvo:

This is an odd paradox for the "provisionalist" crowd, who don't want to be considered Pelagian, but nevertheless don't want to accept Augustine.

From what I can tell, Kolakowski does not opine on whether Augustine was the originator of the doctrines he taught. Kolakowski, at page 4, explains:

All of these, per Kolakowski, "defined their doctrinal stance first by giving their own interpretation of the canonical texts, in particular Paul's letter to the Romans...."

In any event, I'll end this meandering post here.

Garry Wills on Augustine and the Real Presence

Garry Wills is the author of "Why I am a Catholic," but also of "Why Priests?" and "Papal Sins: Structures of Deceit."  His "Lincoln at Gettysburg" won a Pulitzer Prize.  He also wrote a biography of Augustine, St. Augustine (a Penguin Lives Biography).  So, it might be good for folks to pay attention when he says (Why Priests, p. 16):

Indeed, Eucharist ("Thanksgiving") in its later sense, of sharing bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, is never used in the New Testament, not even in the Letter to Hebrews, which alone calls Jesus a priest. Even when the term "Eucharist" came in, as with the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, it was still, as in Paul, simply a celebration of the people's oneness at the "one altar." That meaning for the "body of Christ" would persist as late as the fourth and fifth centuries, in Augustine's denial of the real presence of Jesus in the elements of the meal.

What you see passes away, but what is invisibly symbolized does not pass away. It perdures. The visible is received, eaten, and digested. But can the body of Christ be digested? Can the church of Christ be digested? Can Christ's limbs be digested? Of course not. [[Augustine, Sermon 227]]

If you want to know what is the body of Christ, hear what the Apostle [Paul] tells believers: "You are Christ's body, and his limbs" [1 Cor 12.27]. If, then, you are Christ's body and his limbs, it is your symbol that lies on the Lord's altar--what you receive is a symbol of yourselves. When you say "Amen," and you must be the body of Christ to make that "Amen" take effect. And why are you bread? Hear again the Apostle, speaking of this very symbol: "We are one bread, one body, many as we are" [1 Cor 10.17].[[Augustine, Sermon 272]]

Believers recognize the body of Christ when they take care to be the body of Christ. They should be the body of Christ if they want to draw life from the spirit of Christ. No life comes to the body of Christ but from the spirit of Christ.[[Augustine, In Joannem Tractatus 26.13]]

There are more quotations that could be added to the above, but those are certainly three of the key quotations that establish Wills point.

Wills actually devotes an entire chapter to Augustine and Transubstantiation - chapter 5.  He writes (pp. 55-56):

I mentioned earlier that Augustine did not believe in what is called "the real presence" of Jesus in the Eucharist and quoted several places where he said that. Here is his most explicit claim that what is changed in the Mass is not the bread given out but the believers receiving it:

This bread makes clear how you should love your union with one another. Could the bread have been made from one grain, or were many grains of wheat required? Yet before they cohere as bread, each grain was isolated. They were fused in water, after being ground together. Unless wheat is pounded, and then moistened with water, it can hardly take on the new identity we call bread. In the same way, you had to be ground and pounded by the ordeal of fasting and the mystery of exorcism in preparation for baptism's water, and in this way you were watered in order to take on the new identity of bread. After that the water of baptism moistened you into dough. But the dough dose not become bread until it is baked in fire. And what does fire represent for you? It is the [post-baptism] anointing with oil. Oil, which feeds fire, is the mystery of the Holy Spirit . . . The Holy Spirit comes to you, fire after water, and you are baked into the bread which is Christ's body. That is how your unity is symbolized. [[Augustine, Sermon 227]]

This Augustinian view of the Eucharist's real meaning did not die with him, though the church made long efforts to dismiss it. In 1944, the French Jesuit Henri de Lubac published a book, Corpus Mysticum, that traced a line of theologians in the first Christian millennium who drew on Augustine to provide a theory of the Eucharist opposed to transubstantiation.

Wills goes on (p. 57) to explain that the Vatican opposed de Lubac's book and punshied him along with other "leading liberal thinkers," Jean Daniélou, Yves Congar, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Karl Rahner, Teilhard de Chardin, and John Courtney Murray.  Nevertheless, after Vatican II these men were restored to the point that in 1981, John Paul II made de Lubac a cardinal.  Likewise, Jean Daniélou and Yves Congar became cardinals after their reinstatement.

-TurretinFan

Michuta on Augustine on the Canon - Some Mistakes Corrected

One of the faults of Gary Michuta's "Why are Catholic Bibles Bigger," is its apparent uncritical reliance on a number of secondary sources, especially Breen's "General and Critical Introduction," (here is one problem that came from that) and Gigot's "General Introduction." In the section on Augustine, Michuta seems to draw mostly from Charles J. Costello's "St. Augustine's Doctrine on the Inspiration and Canonicity of Scripture."  Unfortunately, it seems that Michuta did not dig deep enough into Augustine in preparing to write his book.

Michuta - evidently relying on Costello - states: "Augustine calls Sirach 'Holy Scripture' and states plainly that the book contains the words of a prophet." (p. 158)  Unfortunately for Michuta (and perhaps also for Costello), Augustine took back this particular claim, later in his life.

Moreover, I do not seem to have correctly called prophetic the words in this passage: "Why is earth and ashes proud?" [Sirach 10:9] for the book in which this is read is not the work of one whom we can be certain that he should be called a prophet. 

Augustine, Retractions, Section 3 of the Retractions regarding On Genesis Against the Manicheans, p. 43, The Fathers of the Church, Volume 60, Sister M. Inez Bogan, R.S.M. translator.(as previously posted here)

Keep in mind that Augustine's Retractions were written around 426-27 - over thirty years after the famous Council of Hippo that identified Sirach as canonical (in some sense).  It's unclear what this change of position on Augustine's part is based on mature reflection, Jerome's influence, or other factors.  You may recall that Augustine had recognized the conflict between the Jewish canon and the Christian canon in City of God, Book 18, Chapter 36:

After these three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, during the same period of the liberation of the people from the Babylonian servitude Esdras also wrote, who is historical rather than prophetical, as is also the book called Esther, which is found to relate, for the praise of God, events not far from those times; unless, perhaps, Esdras is to be understood as prophesying of Christ in that passage where, on a question having arisen among certain young men as to what is the strongest thing, when one had said kings, another wine, the third women, who for the most part rule kings, yet that same third youth demonstrated that the truth is victorious over all. For by consulting the Gospel we learn that Christ is the Truth. From this time, when the temple was rebuilt, down to the time of Aristobulus, the Jews had not kings but princes; and the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs, who, before Christ had come in the flesh, contended for the law of God even unto death, and endured most grievous and horrible evils.

It is interesting to note that Michuta quotes only the sentence beginning "These are held as canonical," without providing the preceding sentence (whether due to his reliance on Costello is unclear).  Regardless of his reasons for omitting that sentence, the sentence does suggest that Augustine is distinguishing between books that are edifying reading and books that are actually inspired.  After all, it would be hard to have an inspired book without a prophet.

Moreover, in the next chapter, Augustine clearly adopts the Jewish view of cessation of prophecy after Ezra (Esdras) (Book 18, Chapter 37):

In the time of our prophets, then, whose writings had already come to the knowledge of almost all nations, the philosophers of the nations had not yet arisen—at least, not those who were called by that name, which originated with Pythagoras the Samian, who was becoming famous at the time when the Jewish captivity ended. Much more, then, are the other philosophers found to be later than the prophets. For even Socrates the Athenian, the master of all who were then most famous, holding the pre-eminence in that department that is called the moral or active, is found after Esdras in the chronicles. Plato also was born not much later, who far out went the other disciples of Socrates.

Similarly, Augustine provides more clues in the next chapter (Book 18, Chapter 38):

What of Enoch, the seventh from Adam? Does not the canonical epistle of the Apostle Jude declare that he prophesied? [Jude 14] But the writings of these men could not be held as authoritative either among the Jews or us, on account of their too great antiquity, which made it seem needful to regard them with suspicion, lest false things should be set forth instead of true. ... But the purity of the canon has not admitted these writings, not because the authority of these men who pleased God is rejected, but because they are not believed to be theirs. Nor ought it to appear strange if writings for which so great antiquity is claimed are held in suspicion, seeing that in the very history of the kings of Judah and Israel containing their acts, which we believe to belong to the canonical Scripture, very many things are mentioned which are not explained there, but are said to be found in other books which the prophets wrote, the very names of these prophets being sometimes given, and yet they are not found in the canon which the people of God received. Now I confess the reason of this is hidden from me; only I think that even those men, to whom certainly the Holy Spirit revealed those things which ought to be held as of religious authority, might write some things as men by historical diligence, and others as prophets by divine inspiration; and these things were so distinct, that it was judged that the former should be ascribed to themselves, but the latter to God speaking through them: and so the one pertained to the abundance of knowledge, the other to the authority of religion. In that authority the canon is guarded. So that, if any writings outside of it are now brought forward under the name of the ancient prophets, they cannot serve even as an aid to knowledge, because it is uncertain whether they are genuine; and on this account they are not trusted, especially those of them in which some things are found that are even contrary to the truth of the canonical books, so that it is quite apparent they do not belong to them.

Notice that Augustine apparently has room for certain books as canonical books that lack prophetic authority but are an "aid to knowledge." 

We see some questions in Augustine's head even back in 396 when he wrote "On Christian Doctrine."  In discussing the canon (book 2, chapter 8, section 13) he wrote: 

For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative.

Still, even this list - coming after the council of Hippo - is presented with the following caveat (book 2, chapter 8, sections 12-13):

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.

13. Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:

Augustine is still asserting - after Hippo - that the individual must exercise judgment, despite the fact that Augustine believes that the individual should weigh the testimony of the churches (plural) in making the judgment.

There's another puzzle in considering Augustine's canon.  In On Christian Doctrine, at Book 2, Chapter 8, Section 13, Augustine lists within his canon: "the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles."  While such a description is not unambiguous, it would be a good description of LXX Esdras A (aka "the Book of Esdras" or "the First Book of Esdras" ).  That book begins with an excerpt from 2 Chronicles, adds material from Ezra and Nehemiah, reordering some of the Ezra material, and adding a small amount of unique material.

I say, "unique material," because the material is not canonical.  The material, however, is described by the Encyclopedia Britannica this way: "The only new material is the “Tale of the Three Guardsmen,” a Persian folk story that was slightly altered to fit a Jewish context."

Michuta does have an interesting section on The Book of Esdras (pp. 238-42) in which he remarkably argues that the Roman Catholic canon is still open with respect to this book.  Michuta fails to apprise the reader of the source of the distinguishable material. He notes that "A few Church Fathers may have used Esdras as a canonical book, but this usage disappeared around the fifth century, although it remained in the Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint" (emphasis Michuta's).  Michuta does not note there - or in the Augustine section - that Augustine is one of those fathers.

In particular, in City of God, at book 18, chapter 36, quoted at more length above, Augustine wrote:

After these three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, during the same period of the liberation of the people from the Babylonian servitude Esdras also wrote, who is historical rather than prophetical, as is also the book called Esther, which is found to relate, for the praise of God, events not far from those times; unless, perhaps, Esdras is to be understood as prophesying of Christ in that passage where, on a question having arisen among certain young men as to what is the strongest thing, when one had said kings, another wine, the third women, who for the most part rule kings, yet that same third youth demonstrated that the truth is victorious over all.

This passage is Book of Esdras, chapters 3 and 4, the "unique" material from that book.  This seems to be pretty clear evidence that Augustine (and by extension, probably also the North African bishops who met in council at Hippo and Carthage) viewed the Book of Esdras as one of the two canonical books (rather than considering Ezra and Nehemiah as separate books).

I don't mean to suggest for a second that we should adopt the Book of Esdras as canonical on Augustine's say-so. I do think Augustine was wise to retract his error regarding Sirach (and presumably Wisdom as well, as he ascribes both of those writings to the same author, not to Solomon).  Likewise, I do not mean to suggest that we should hold the canon as tentatively as Augustine did or that we need to use precisely the same methods he did to come to the conclusions to which he came.  The point is, instead, to clear up some misinformation about Augustine - and to provide some important nuance regarding Augustine's use of the term "canonical," as not always implying that the books in question are inspired.

-TurretinFan

Hoffer - Real Presence and Transubstantiation

Paul Hoffer had posted some responses in our on-going dialog regarding Augustine and transubstantiation, which included the following kind of comment:

Before we begin addressing errors and omissions specific to Turretinfan's commentary on Sermon 272, I would refer the reader to Part I where I have already addressed Mr. Fan's apparent confusion between the term of "Real Presence" and the term "transubstantiation" in my commentary on his thoughts about Letter 36.

(source)

It was gratifying, therefore, to read the following from Fr. Dwight Longenecker:

The problem with this is that “the Real Presence” is a term that is also used by non-Catholics to refer to their beliefs about the Eucharist. I’ve heard Anglicans, Methodists and even a Baptist talk about “the Real Presence” at Holy Communion. They all mean something different by the same term.

This reflects a major problem in all theological and ecumenical discussion: people use the same terminology to describe totally different beliefs. The Catholic uses the term (or should) to refer to transubstantiation. The Anglican says he believes in “the Real Presence” and may be referring to consubstantiation (the belief that Christ is “with” or “beside” the consecrated bread and wine) or receptionism (Christ is received by the individual as he receives the bread and wine by faith) The term “Real Presence” used by a Baptist or Methodist may simply mean, “I feel close to Jesus when I go to communion.”

(source - emphasis added)

He links to a further entry, in which he provides a more detailed explanation:

So–like Ridley and Latimer before him– he used the term ‘real presence’ to sound as close to Catholicism as possible while in fact rejecting Catholic doctrine. Pusey believed the ‘real presence’ of Christ in the sacrament was only a spiritual and sacramental presence. In this way the Victorian Anglo-Catholic actually agreed with the reformer Ridley who wrote, “The blood of Christ is in the chalice… but by grace and in a sacrament…This presence of Christ is wholly spiritual.”

So why does it matter if the presence is only spiritual and sacramental? It matters because the whole work of Christ is more than spiritual. It is physical.

...

So likewise the church has always insisted–despite the difficulties– that the presence of Christ in the blessed sacrament is not simply spiritual and subjective. It is objective and corporeal. In some way it is physical. At the Fourth Lateran Council that explained that belief with the term transubstantiation. As the Oxford Dominican, Fr.Herbert McCabe has said, “Transubstantiation is not a complete explanation of the mystery, but it is the best description of what we believe happens at the consecration.”

So what should Catholics do when confronted with this confusing term ‘real presence’? First of all Catholics should realise that it is not a Catholic term at all. It’s history is mostly Anglican, and as such it was always used as a way to adroitly sidestep the troublesome doctrine of transubstantiation; and as such it is not an accurate term to describe true Catholic Eucharistic doctrine.

...

So as Catholics, we must use clear language about the sacrament. We can affirm the ‘real’ presence of Christ which non-Catholics affirm in the fellowship of the church, in the preaching of the gospel and in the celebration of the Eucharist, but we must also affirm that the fullest sense of the ‘real presence’ is that which we worship in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar.

Although Paul VI used the term ‘real presence’ in Mysterium Fidei the whole thrust of the encyclical is to support and recommend the continued use of the term ‘transubstantiation’ as the Catholic terminology. With this in mind I suggest Catholics should avoid the ambiguous term ‘real presence’ and speak boldly of transubstantiation. Instead of ‘real presence’ we should also use the terminology used in the twelfth century when the doctrine of transubstantiation was being hammered out. Then there was no talk of a vaguely spiritual ‘real presence’, instead they referred to the ‘real body and real blood of Christ.’

Mr. Hoffer has a lot more to say in the post which the first snippet referenced. In that much larger segment, Hoffer provides some discussion regarding "real presence" and "transubstantiation."  But, at most, the distinction between the two within modern Roman theology is that "transubstantiation" describes the change as a change, whereas "real presence" in modern Roman theology describes the result of that change. We might add that transubstantiation implies not only the "real presence" of the body, blood, soul, and divinity after the consecration but also the "real absence" of bread at that time - but some would say that the modern Roman "real presence" view includes that aspect as well.

As it relates to our discussion of Augustine, Mr. Hoffer's nuance is one that is interesting.  It seems that Mr. Hoffer is not willing to defend the idea that Augustine held to transubstantiation, even under a different name.  Thus, he seems to have conceded the major point we have consistently alleged.

On the other hand, it seems that Mr. Hoffer believes that Augustine held to the modern Roman concept of "real presence," which would require Augustine to believe that the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are all "really" present under each species (both under the species that has the appearance of bread, and under the species that has the appearance of wine diluted with water).

Augustine, we contend, held to a divine, spiritual and sacramental (in the Augustinian sense, not the modern Roman sense) presence.  That kind of presence is real, yet it is not the modern Roman conception of "real presence," but rather more like one of the Reformation conceptions of real presence, as Longenecker explains above.

So, at least a minor point of disagreement remains between us, namely whether Augustine held to a full-blown conception of modern Roman "real presence," or whether Augustine merely held to something like the Reformation view of a divine, spiritual, and sacramental (in the Augustinian sense) presence. 

-TurretinFan

Trent, Augustine, Scripture, and Justification

Trent makes a number of explicit claims about justification.

Of this Justification the causes are these:
the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting;
while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance;
but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father;
the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;
lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation.

Trent immediately explains:

For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity.

Whether or not other aspects of Trent can be reconciled to Augustine, these conceptions are not consistent with Augustine. Augustine took the position that the thief on the cross had the faith that justifies without having baptism. To use Trent’s categories, the instrumental means for the thief was (in Augustine’s view) faith, not baptism.

Augustine connects the dots with Cornelius as well. Clearly he had the Spirit before baptism, which demonstrated his right standing with God (compare the argument about circumcision in Acts 15).
Augustine points out that the fact that the benefit can be invisibly applied (applied without the sacrament, the visible sign) should not lead us to scorn the sacrament. After all, even Cornelius was subsequently baptized.

Acts 10:30-48

And Cornelius said, "Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, and said, 'Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God. Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.' Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God."
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) that word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.
Then answered Peter, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Augustine goes on to say: “But what is the precise value of the sanctification of the sacrament (which that thief did not receive, not from any want of will on his part, but because it was unavoidably omitted) and what is the effect on a man of its material application, it is not easy to say.”
That’s perhaps the most troubling piece of all for those hoping to make Augustine in the image of Trent. Trent treats baptism itself as the instrumental means of justification, but it seems pretty clear that’s not what Augustine thinks.

And in case you think I’m speculating about his view on Cornelius, look at the parallel Augustine himself draws just shortly after:

And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.

Notice what Augustine concedes: he concedes that baptism and circumcision are parallel, that Abraham was justified before circumcision, and that Cornelius was analogously “enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit” before baptism.

If Rome would concede the same, we would find faith alone as the instrumental means of justification, rather than baptism. Moreover, we would find reputed righteousness, rather than actual righteousness, the formal cause. Whether that latter point is something that Augustine himself held, perhaps we can consider another time.

- TurretinFan

Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est - Debunked Some More

Advocates of the papacy frequently allege that Augustine said, "Roma locuta est, causa finita est."  Augustine did not say this.  My friend Dr. White debunked this urban legend some time ago.  Others have also debunked it.  I'd like to add my own two cents.

After all, I've recently encountered a couple of advocates of the papacy who argue that, although Augustine didn't say "Roma locuta est," he did say "causa finita est" (the cause is ended).  This is true.

Here's the relevant portion from Sermon 131 in context:

For already two councils have, in this cause, sent letters to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts have come back. The cause is ended: would that the error might some day end! Therefore we admonish so that they may take notice, we teach so that they may be instructed, we pray so that their way be changed.

Although he did say "the cause is ended," this sound bite doesn't actually help the papal advocate, for at least the following three reasons:

1) The appeal is to settled conciliar authority (not papal authority as such).  So, "Rome has spoken, the case is closed" is not a very accurate summary.  A more accurate summary would be "two councils have spoken - the case is closed."  That's not to say that the rescripts weren't from Rome - they were.

2) The reference to rescripts is a reference to a response from Rome regarding the decisions of the councils. Such a rescript neither has its own infallibility nor gives infallibility to the decrees of the councils, whether considered by Roman standards of that day or this day.

3) Notice that there were two councils, not just one.  This is part of Augustine's point.  His point is that, in terms of church court process, continuing this debate is beating a dead horse.  He's not saying that two councils is a magic number, just as he's not saying that getting a response from Rome magically makes the conciliar decisions correct. 

- TurretinFan

Waltz, Nicaea and Shea

David Waltz (no great fan of mine, if memory serves correctly) has nevertheless provided a helpful two-part post in response to my rebuttal to Shea's post on Nicaea. Mr. Waltz has, I suspect, read more about the Nicene and early post-Nicene period than most people ever will. So, I appreciate that he took the time to read and comment on my post.

Waltz concedes the central theses of my post, namely that Augustine was referring to the council of Nicaea, and that Nicaea was not properly a "local council." Once those points are conceded, Shea's argument is shot. The central, and oft-repeated, premise of Shea's post was that Augustine was referring to a local council.

One might expect that Waltz would realize that the point of the post was right on the money, and stop there. He did not. I won't speculate on his motives. After all, a man of his reading may simply have wanted to correct what he perceived to be some errors in my post. For such correction, where appropriate, I am always appreciative.

Let's consider Waltz's points:

Waltz corrects some citation and quotation problems in a post by the reader to whom Shea's post was addressed. While I appreciate Waltz's attention to details in this regard, I haven't bothered to confirm these matters, since they don't seem to have any direct connection to my own post.

Waltz corrects a typo in the name of the editor ("JohnE" should have been "John E") and pointed out that the quotation actually begins on page 281 (the citation had indicated p. 282). These errors have been corrected in the post. Thanks very much to Waltz for pointing them out.

Waltz next discusses the "little background" I provided with respect to the quotation from Augustine. Waltz writes:

Strictly speaking, TF's "little background" is deficient, for it fails to accurately portray the historical context of Augustine's statement. The period between the council of Nicaea in 325 and Augustine's Contra Maximinum Arianum (427/428) was one of the most contested in the history of the Christian Church; more than 130 councils were convened! (Consult Ramsay MacMullen's, Voting About God, pp. 3, 4 for the names and dates of the councils—see this thread for information about the book).

Without discussing his precise claims, I willingly concede that my background (which was completely accurate) was nevertheless not as complete a picture as could be drawn. In other words, Waltz has here mistaken the idea of precision (detail) with accuracy. Nevertheless, his error is of little significance, so let us proceed to his next comment regarding the background.

Concerning this turbulent period, Shea is certainly correct when he states that, "the Church Universal has not yet arrived at a consensus". Directly related to this historical fact is [the] nature and role of the various councils that were held during this period; the understanding that some councils were "ecumenical", that the "ecumenical" councils were infallible when teaching on faith and morals, and needed to be accepted de fide, was a much later doctrinal development. As such, to write that, "Augustine didn't share the epistemology of modern Rome", concerning nature and role of councils convened in 4th and early 5th centuries, is to state the obvious. IMO, TF is pretty much wasting our time here, for even Shea is in agreement with him on this point!

Shea certainly did not express an opinion that Augustine doesn't share the epistemology of modern Rome. In that regard, Waltz is wrong. Which is why Waltz's view about time being wasted should be revised. On the contrary, Shea claims that Augustine "is, instead, assuming a thoroughly Catholic backdrop to the whole discussion." (emphasis added) Perhaps Mr. Waltz thinks Shea doesn't mean "Catholic" to refer to the modern Roman conception of what it means to be "Catholic," but such a hypothesis is untenable. In short, my comments were a needed corrective to Shea, and I am glad that in substance Waltz agrees and even thinks my point is "obvious." It's obvious to Waltz, but it wasn't obvious to Shea.

The idea of the universal church arriving at a consensus by the time of Augustine on the topic of Arianism is, of course, to some extent an anachronism. In that sense, Shea is - we might say - accidentally correct (you will notice I didn't dispute his claim in my original post, I merely highlighted it and pointed out its inconsistency with the modern Roman view). He didn't mean to imply what he implied about Nicaea, but in this case we might almost say that two wrongs make a right. Viewed through the lens of modern Roman dogma regarding conciliar authority, Nicaea did represent a consensus view. However, there are serious problems with that kind of claim.

Waltz continued:

Moving on, TF's statement that, "Maximinus was an Arian", is, at best, breathtakingly simplistic. An Arian is one who adheres to the basic theology of Arius—did Maximinus endorse Arius' basic theology? No, he did not. In fact, he emphatically denied THE defining doctrine of Arius, the doctrine that the Son of God was created ex nihilo; note the following:

The part of Arius' doctrine which most shocked and disturbed his contemporaries was his statement that the Father made the Son ' out of non-existence' (ἐκ οὐκ ὄντων). (R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p. 24.)

This particular view of Arius [i.e. creation of the Son of God ex nihilo] has never been supplied with a convincing antecedent. It has always been an erratic boulder in his doctrine, preventing that doctrine being easily fitted into any known system...(Ibid., p. 88)

Waltz's criticism here is bizarre. The title usually given for Augustine's work from which the quotation in question comes, as Waltz knows, is "Contra Maximinum Haereticum Episcopum Arianorum libri duo." That "Arianorum" is the Latin word that we translate "Arian." It's normal and customary to refer to Maximinus as an Arian, without implying that his views are identical to those of Arius.

Moreover, R.P.C. Hanson identifies Maximinus as an example of a source for Arian writing (p. 100), as an example of Homoian Arianism (p. 126) of the work that Waltz cited, even though Hanson also acknowledges that Maximinus "explicitly denies" the tenet that Waltz highlighted above (p. 564).

At most, Waltz has correctly identified that there is more than one species of Arians, and that the normal practice of referring to Maximinus as an "Arian" is to paint Arianism with a broad brush.

Waltz continued:

Before getting to Maximinus' theology, I think it would be prudent to supply a little background. Shortly after the council of Nicaea (325), the ordained bishops of the Christian Church at large split into 4 distinct factions; modern patristic scholars have termed those 4 factions as: 1.) the homoousians, those who accepted the Nicene Creed; 2.) the homoiousians, those who replaced homoousios (same being/essence/substance) with homoiousios (like being/essence/substance); 3.) the homoians, those who rejected the terms homoousios and homoiousios as being un-Biblical, and embraced the view that the Son of God was homoiōs (like, similar, in the same way) with respect to God the Father; and 4.) the 'Neo-Arians', sometimes termed the anhomoians (see Hanson, Search, p. 598 for the reason why many modern patristic scholars prefer the name 'Neo-Arian' over others).

Of the 4 factions, only the 'Neo-Arians' accepted Arius' most basic tenant that the Son of God was created ex nihilo, with the other 3 emphatically rejecting this doctrine.

Now, Maximinus was a staunch homoian, his theology being essentially that of the creed universally adopted by Christian Church at a council convened in 360 AD at Constantinople, which creed was a slight revision of so-called "Dated Creed" that was adopted in 359 AD via the convocation of a general council by emperor Constantius II, which convened at two separate locations: Ariminium (now Rimini) and Seleucia.

Of course, none of this contradicts anything I said. In fact, most of what Waltz said is relatively non-controversial (in terms of the various divisions that existed, and so forth). One surprising point is Waltz's claim that regarding the creed of Ariminium, namely that it was "the creed universally adopted by Christian Church at a council convened in 360 AD at Constantinople... ."

Whether or not we should dispute this claim, I think Waltz must admit that Shea cannot accept this claim. Shea cannot admit that the "Christian Church" universally accepted an Arianizing creed, such as that of Ariminium.

Waltz wraps up the first part of his post this way:

Commenting on this creed of 360 AD, the esteemed patristic scholar, J.N.D. Kelly wrote:

Arianism, it will be appreciated, is really a misnomer, for the creed asserts none of the articles of the old heresy [i.e. Arius/Arianism] and explicitly condemns Anomoeanism [i.e. 'Neo-Arianism']. (Early Christian Creeds, 2nd edition, 1960, p. 294.)

So, is it accurate to call Maximinus an Arian? With all due respect to the scholars that do attribute the label "Arian" to Maximinus, to do so is, IMO, a "mis[n]omer", for Maximinus emphatically denied (as did all homoians) the most basic tenant of Arian theology: the creation of the Son of God ex nihilo. To call Maximinus an Arian would be analogous to calling someone who emphatically rejects TULIP a Calvinist!

Kelley himself, while conceding that the term is something of a misnomer, calls the very chapter from which Waltz is citing "The Triumph of Arianism," of which the very creed to which Waltz has been referring is the crown jewel. So, while it is a misnomer in the sense that the creed isn't fully consistent with Arius and/or Neo-Arianism, it is a description that is given to it not only by Hanson but also by Kelley.

Regarding TULIP, the comparison is somewhat inapt. TULIP was the production of the Synod of Dordt, held after Calvin's death. And even to this day, Amyraldians insist that Dordt departed from Calvin on the "L" (they're wrong, but that debate clearly is for another topic and day).

Moving from part 1 to part 2, Waltz begins:

In part 1, I demonstrated that Maximinus was not an Arian, but rather a homoian, and that homoian Christian bishops condemned Arianism.

This insistence on not referring to Homoian Arianism as "Arianism," is not something that Waltz actually demonstrated is necessary. Indeed, his own sources refer to Homoian Arianism as a species of Arianism, even if not fully consistent with Arius' own beliefs.

Waltz continues:

TF then states that, "Augustine was the orthodox ("catholic" but not "Catholic") bishop of Hippo, as everyone knows". Once again, TF is anachronistically portraying this historical period, for 'orthodoxy' was anything but a settled issue. (As for Augustine being "catholic" but not "Catholic", I will deal with this silliness in a subsequent post.)

Waltz is here arguing against a straw man. I didn't insist that orthodoxy was a "settled issue," at the time when Augustine was debating with Maximinus. Shea would need to insist that, given the modern Roman view of councils. I, however, am under no such obligation. I'm not sure why, given his penchant for decrying anachronism (even without it being offered), Waltz finds the distinction between "catholic" and "Catholic," silly. However, since he has left it for another post, and since it was a relatively minor point in my own post, it can safely be tabled for now.

Waltz once more:

He then gives one a misleading impression with his statement that, "both Augustine and Maximinus were in the same locale and region"—fact is, Maximinus had just arrived in Hippo with, "Count Sigiswulf (Segisvultus), a Goth," who in 427, "led a Roman army to Africa in order to suppress the rebellion of Bonifacius" [see John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J., Debate With Maximinus, Introduction (New York: New City Press, 1995), p. 175.]—his ordination, and conciliar loyalty, had NOTHING to do with the Hippo locale/region. Yet once again, though neither Shea, nor TF have a good grasp of the historical landscape of this period, Shea is the more accurate.

Waltz's points about where Maximinus came from doesn't really have a bearing on the fact (undisputed by Waltz) that Maximinus was the Arian bishop of Hippo (Waltz doesn't like that "Arian" label for the homoians, as noted above). In fact one scholar expressed it this way:

Nearly ten years after his Answer to the ‘Arian Sermon’ (between A.D. 427 and A.D. 428), Augustine entered into a public debate at Hippo with a major representative and vigorous defender of Homoian Arianism. Bishop Maximinus had only recently arrived in North Africa in the company of Count Sigiswulf (or Segisvultus), a Goth who led a Roman force against a local uprising, and who had encouraged this encounter with Augustine in order to secure peace between Arians and Catholics in the region.

Studia Patristica vol. 38, St. Augustine and His Opponents: Other Latin Writers, Wiles and Yarnold eds., “The Significance of the communication idiomatum in St. Augustine’s Christology, with special reference to his rebuttal of later Arianism,” by Joseph Torchia, O.P., pp. 314-15.

Waltz is dead wrong about Shea being more accurate. Shea had claimed, "[Augustine] regards himself as bound by the teaching and discipline of the synod whose jurisdiction is over his local geographic region, and the person he is writing to likewise feels bound by his local synod," (and Shea compared the situation to that of local fasting rules in Rome vs. Milan) but in fact the issue wasn't geographic and at the time of the dispute, the two bishops were in the same locale, directly contrary to Shea's analogy to Milanese vs. Roman fasting rules.

Waltz continued:

The only point that TF has "debunked" is that neither of the two councils being discussed were "local", the rest of his musings are [sic] do not fit the facts. FACT #1: no council and/or creed up to this period was recognized as universally binding; FACT #2: if any council up to the date of the debate between Augustine and Maxinimus (427/428) had any semblance of a claim to universal authority it was the dual councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, which were convoked by emperor Constantius II in 359. These two parallel councils were really essentially one council held in two different geographical locations for the sake of logistics. The estimates of the number of bishops that attended range between 550+ and 750+, which means that this dual council was significantly larger than council of Nicaea held in 325. Not only the size, but also the geographical and theological representation was considerably more significant—Augustine was engaging in a bit of 'damage control' when he demanded that competing councils be left out of the equation.

Waltz here concedes the main point of my post, and yet insists that the rest of my "musings" "do not fit the facts." But actually, Waltz cannot point to any of my musings that don't fit with his two purported facts. Moreover, of course, Shea is not free to admit with Waltz that Nicaea was not universal binding. I am free to agree with Waltz on that point, but Shea is not - because Shea's church insists on a particular view of conciliar authority - one that wasn't shared by Augustine.

Waltz is right about the fact that the size of the councils of Ariminum and Seleucia were (in combination - and perhaps even Ariminum individally) considerably bigger and more geographically diverse than Nicaea. That's one of those inconvenient conciliar truths I try to warn people about, when they place their confidence in large councils.

Waltz's final point is to argue that Augustine's quotation makes it sound as though Maximinus had tried to suggest that Ariminum was binding, whereas Maximinus had likewise agreed to settle the matter by the Scriptures. Of course, the purpose of my post was not to suggest that Maximinus believed what Shea believes about councils, or even to discuss at all what Maximinus thought of conciliar authority. So, while I might quibble over whether Augustine's comments give a misleading impression regarding Maximinus' position, it seems Waltz's comments in Maximinus' defense are at best tangential to the thrust of my post.

Waltz concludes:

To sum up, apart from incorrectly terming the councils of Armininum (359) and Nicaea (325) as "local", Shea's assessment that, "What Augustine is doing is appealing to a common authority in a dispute where the Church Universal has not yet arrived at a consensus", is quite accurate, whilst TF's overall critique is significantly flawed.

As noted above, if Shea is correct in that sentence, it is only because, although he has a wrong view of conciliar authority, he mistakenly thought that Nicaea was a local council. Thus, while Shea may be accidentally correct in that statement (as mentioned above - and as was not denied in my original post), Shea's underlying rationale is at odds with his Roman views of Nicaea.

So, thanks again to Waltz for his additional comments and - frankly - reinforcement of the points I was making. I don't find Waltz's objection to referring to Homoian Arians as "Arians," to be particularly compelling, and that seems to be the major beef he has with my post. I also reiterate my thanks to him for his identification of the editorial problems in my original post to which I've now attended.

-TurretinFan

Nicaea Was Local Council, Arianism Not Settled Controversy, Implies Shea

I admit that I've never had a high view of Mark Shea's scholarship, yet a mixture of surprise and amusement washed over me as I took in Shea's breathtakingly ignorant response to a reader's question regarding Augustine and Sola Scriptura. A reader had pointed out to Shea that Augustine, in responding to the Arian heretic Maximinus, had sounded exactly like a Sola Scriptura Christian.

Augustine (354-430 AD):

The Father and the Son are, then, of one and the same substance. This is the meaning of that “homoousios” that was confirmed against the Arian heretics in the Council of Nicaea by the Catholic fathers with the authority of the truth and the truth of authority. Afterward, in the Council of Ariminum it was understood less than it should have been because of the novelty of the word, even though the ancient faith had given rise to it. There the impiety of the heretics under the heretical Emperor Constantius tried to weaken its force, when many were deceived by the fraudulence of a few. But not long after that, the freedom of the Catholic faith prevailed, and after the meaning of the word was understood as it should be, that “homoousios” was defended far and wide by the soundness of the Catholic faith. After all, what does “homoousios” mean but “of one and the same substance”? What does “homoousios” mean, I ask, but the Father and I are one (Jn 10:30)? I should not, however, introduce the Council of Nicaea to prejudice the case in my favor, nor should you introduce the Council of Ariminum that way. I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicaea. By the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone, but the common witnesses for both of us, let position do battle with position, case with case, reason with reason.

John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J., Answer to Maximinus, Book II, XIV - On the Sameness of Substance in the Trinity, Section 3 (New York: New City Press, 1995), pp. 281-82.

Shea responded: "What Augustine is doing is appealing to a common authority in a dispute where the Church Universal has not yet arrived at a consensus."

Perhaps a little background would be helpful here. Maximinus was an Arian. The question was whether the Father and the Son are consubstantial. This is a matter that was directly addressed by the Council of Nicaea. We can agree with Shea in a limited way, namely that the Council of Nicaea was not ecumenical in the sense of speaking for every person who professed to be a part of the Christian faith: after all, it condemned the Arians. By that standard, there have not been any ecumenical councils, ever. If that's Shea's position, he's at loggerheads with Rome.

Judging Nicaea by modern Roman standards, though, Nicaea did not just "arrive at a consensus" but actually defined dogma that must be accepted de fide. That's obviously not how Augustine judged Nicaea, but that's because Augustine didn't share the epistemology of modern Rome.

Shea continued: "The councils he is referring to are local synods."

Augustine refers to two councils: Ariminum and Nicaea. Neither was a "local synod." Ariminum and Nicaea were both massive councils involving hundreds of bishops. Nicaea is typically identified by Rome as the "First Ecumenical Council." The Arians viewed Ariminum as having similar weight, given its similar size in terms of number of bishops. Perhaps Shea would not want to call Ariminum an "ecumenical council," but he must at a minimum acknowledge it to be a regional council. On the other hand, it is only out of ignorance that Shea can claim that Nicaea is a "local synod." Nicaea was dominated by Eastern bishops, to be sure, but again it is minimally a regional synod, and Shea's own church declares it to be an ecumenical synod.

Shea again: "He regards himself as bound by the teaching and discipline of the synod whose jurisdiction is over his local geographic region, and the person he is writing to likewise feels bound by his local synod."

Maximinus was the Arian bishop of Hippo (see Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature). Augustine was the orthodox ("catholic" but not "Catholic") bishop of Hippo, as everyone knows. Even if the two councils mentioned were "local" councils, or even regional councils, both Augustine and Maximinus were in the same locale and region. Thus, this is the sort of impossible explanation for Augustine's words that can only come out of gross ignorance of the people involved in the dispute.

Shea again: "With Augustine’s particular question the issue is this, lacking a verdict from the Church universal, and faced with differing rulings from different local councils, he is attempting to come to concensus [sic] by appeal to Scripture, since it is an authority appealed to by both him and his correspondent."

This is basically the same debunked theory we've already addressed above.

Shea once more: "But (getting back to your question) the point is this: Augustine is attempting “preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” in a particular discussion centering different juridical differences between two local councils."

Leaving aside Shea's continued nonsense about these councils being "local," who knows what Shea is trying to say with his garbled phrasing, " ... in a particular discussion centering different juridical differences ... ." Perhaps "different" should be "on." But the issue in question is whether Father and Son are consubstantial. That can hardly be characterized as primarily a juridical question.

Shea continues: "Since the Church universal has not addressed the matter via either an ecumenical council, nor via the Holy Father, he appeals to the authority that both he and his correspondent hold in common: Scripture."

This can only be true if no bishop of Rome had weighed in on the Arian controversy, and if Nicaea is not an ecumenical council. Surely Shea would not be so brash as to try to assert those things. So, actually, what Shea is saying is really more a reflection on the fact that Augustine does not consider the bishop of Rome's comments or the comments of Nicaea to be of equal authority with Scripture, or even to be binding on the Arian bishop with whom he's dealing.

Shea again: "He is not trying to make any point at all about sola but is, instead, assuming a thoroughly Catholic backdrop to the whole discussion."

So now Arianism is "thoroughly Catholic" and so is Maximinus' rejection of Nicaea!?! Of course, that conclusion would assume that Shea actually had the foggiest clue about what Augustine and Maximinus were discussing. He doesn't. Instead, he offers his comment from the foundation of dogmatic affirmation of whatever Rome says and ignorance of the fathers.

Shea once more: "Be careful of importing post-Reformation categories into patristic arguments."

That's actually good advice. It's not particularly relevant advice, but it is good advice. We should be on guard against anachronism. But in this case, it is clear where the anachronism lies: it lies on the one trying to turn Augustine into a modern Roman Catholic.

While it might be instructive to consider in detail the absurdity of comparing the Arian controversy (as Shea does - see his post) to the controversy over when to celebrate Easter or the question of whether to fast on Saturdays in Milan and in Rome, I'll simply let the reader decide whether even by modern Roman standards those issues would be deemed disciplinary or dogmatic.

To sum up, no, Mr. Shea, Nicaea wasn't a local council. Nevertheless, Augustine did not view Nicaea as binding on Arian bishops such as Maximinus, but nevertheless appealed to the Scriptures as the alone Rule of Faith by which to settle the Arian controversy in Hippo.

-TurretinFan