FWIW, "doc", the eminent Roman Catholic the reverend Father William Most does NOT misinterpret or misconstrue the teachings of the great Doctor Saint Augustine on the Biblical Doctrine of Absolute Predestination.
The reverend Father William Most has made a very honest admission, which relatively few Roman Catholics are willing to make: Fr. Most acknowledges that Doctor Saint Augustine taught that Divine Predestination is Double, Determinate, and Absolute.
And, believing (as do we all) that Augustine is NOT in-and-of-himself INFALLIBLE, the reverend Father William Most calls all of Roman Catholic magisterial teaching to his cause to demonstrate that Augustine's position on Absolute Divine Sovereignty is, in his opinion, quite mistaken according to the "Infallible Bar" of Roman Conciliar Tradition.
But that said, EVEN IF WE ADMIT the reverend Father Most's argument that Augustine WAS WRONG (and of course, here in America, Rev. Fr. William Most certainly enjoys the constitutional first-amendment Right to believe whatever he likes), it is important to recognize the premise that Fr. Most's analysis of Doctor Saint Augustine does admit.
And it is this, nothing less:
...as concerns the Doctrine of Absolute Predestination...
SAINT AUGUSTINE HIMSELF WAS IN FACT ESSENTIALLY PROTESTANT, Lutheran, and Calvinist.
And of course, that's what we have always maintained.
The Romanists can argue that Doctor Saint Augustine was wrong (and indeed, we would even expect that they would argue thus!!); but unless the good reverend Father William Most was lying though his teeth, the fact of the matter is that...
...as concerns the Doctrine of Absolute Predestination...
SAINT AUGUSTINE HIMSELF WAS IN FACT ESSENTIALLY PROTESTANT, Lutheran, and Calvinist.
And as far as the Patristics go, that is what we have been saying all along.
I belong to a Wesleyan church at this time, I read Gods word every day, pray about as much as one person can.
In short, I love my God with all my heart. And I try always to understand Gods word, knowing full well that I will never measure up to the task.
It is the mystery of God that He reveals to us what He wants us to know in His own good time.
This is the crux of the problem really. It is you doing the interpreting instead of the teaching church established by Christ. The early Church fathers have taught us well.
One of the oldest Christian documents in existence is the Didache, also known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which was written between 50-150 A.D. and was used to instruct new Christians or catechumens. It says:
"In regard to the Eucharist--you shall give thanks thus: First, in regard to the cup: --We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David your son, which you made known to us through Jesus your son [who was a descendant of David]. Glory be to you forever. In regard to the broken bread [the bread is broken at every Mass]: --We give you thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge you have made known to us through Jesus your Son. Glory be to you forever. At this the broken bread was scattered on the mountains, but brought together was made one, so gather your Church from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. Let no one eat or drink of this Eucharist with you except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord; for it was in reference to this that the Lord said, 'Do not give that which is holy to dogs.'"
St. Ignatius of Antioch, the third *Bishop of Antioch, who provided the first written evidence that the Church called itself “catholic’ [meaning “universal”] referred to the Eucharist [Body and Blood of Jesus received in Communion at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass] in the following terms in his letter to the Ephesians written before 110 A.D. when he was on his way to Rome to be martyred for his faith:
Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.
*the word Apostle in Greek is Episkopoi which means “bishop or overseer”
Ignatius, in a Letter to the Romans written at the same time, notes, “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.” Again in his letter to the Smyrnaeans he writes:
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their own disputes. "
Writing to the pagan emperor Antoninus in about 151 A.D., St. Justin Martyr wrote of the Christian celebration of the Eucharist in the terms present day Catholics can easily recognize from the Mass:
. . . . After the president has given thanks, and all the people have shouted their assent, those whom we call deacons give to each one present to partake of the Eucharistic bread and wine and water; and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who has been washed in the washing [baptism] which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [2 Pet 3:21], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him [1 Cor 11: 23-26; Lk 22; 19] and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished is both the flesh and blood of the incarnated Jesus. (First Apology of Justin, chapter 128)
Justin Martyr explains how the Eucharist of the New Covenant replaces the Temple sacrifices of the Old Covenant:
"Concerning the sacrifices once offered by you Jews, God as I have already said, has spoken through Malachi the prophet [see his book in the Old Testament], who was one of the Twelve [minor prophets]: 'I have no pleasure in you,' says the Lord, 'and I do not accept your sacrifices from your hands, because from the rising of the sun to its setting my Name has been glorified among the Gentiles. And in every place incense and a pure sacrifice are offered to my Name, because my Name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord, while you have profaned it.' (Malachi 1: 10-12). Already then did he prophesy about the sacrifices that are offered to him in every place by us Gentiles, speaking, that is, about the Bread of the Eucharist and the cup of the Eucharist." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew)
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, France, and greatest theologian of the Second Century and one who taught that the Eucharist prepared our bodies for the resurrection, writing about 189 A.D. in his great work, Adversus Haereses or Against Heresy, notes, “If the Lord were from other than the Father [and thus capable of performing miracles], how could he rightly take bread, which is the same creation of our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” He continues:
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life–flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (Ibid., 5:2)
In Book IV of the same document seeking to counter the arguments of Gnostics who denigrate the value of the body, he explains:
"Again, moreover, how do they [heretics] say the flesh will end in corruption and not receive life, that flesh which is nourished by the Body and Blood of the Lord? Therefore let them either change their opinion or cease to assert such things. Our opinion is in conformity with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our opinion . . . Just as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but rather the Eucharist consisting of two things, the earthly and the heavenly, so our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection to eternal life."
Clement, the third Pope, writes, “‘Eat my flesh [Jesus] says, and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children.” (The Instructor of Children 1:6: 43: 3) [191 A.D.]
Tertullian writes:
Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
Tertullian again notes:
There in not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . The flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul may also be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God. [The Resurrection of the Dead 8, 210A.D.]
Hippolytus wrote, “‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Proverbs 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table" [i.e., the Last Supper] [Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs, 217 A.D.] He also wrote of the Eucharist in his treatise Apostolic Tradition:
Everyone should be on guard lest a non-believer taste of the Eucharist, to say nothing of a mouse or some other animal, or lest some part of It fall and be lost For this is the Body of Christ, which is to be eaten by believers; It must not be despised.
Origen spoke in a similar manner of concern. In his Homilies on Numbers 7:2 he says:
Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit [baptism]. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.’ [John 6: 55] (about 248 A.D.)
Although the Fathers of the Church did not have the refined concepts and vocabulary that were developed by Scholastic theologians during the Middle Ages, their belief in the Real Presence of Christ after the Eucharistic prayer or Epiclesis [calling upon the Holy Spirit to transform the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus]. Although they did not use terminology like “transubstantiation” [change of substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ], they believed the transformation occurred when the priest recited the words used by Jesus at the Last Supper [the Eucharistic prayer or Epiclesis in Greek] “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood.” Early theologians were not concerned with exactly when the change happened but with the simple truth that it did.
Cyprian cites St. Paul to recall the great sin of receiving the Lord unworthily. He writes:
He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward and denounces them saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” [1 Cor 11: 27]. All these warnings being scorned and condemned [lapsed Christians will often take communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged, by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord. [The Lapsed 15-16m 251 A.D.]
Aphraahat the Persian Sage wrote:
After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested [Golgotha]. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his own blood as drink. [Treatises 12: 6, about 340 A.D.]