John Cassian’s Response to Augustinianism

John Cassian was a zealous monk whose theology (unfortunately, one might say) has been massively influential on the church’s understanding of the whole of the gospel since the fifth century. His particular theology (commonly known as semi-Pelagianism), which was developed largely in response to Augustine’s doctrines of predestination, grace, and free will, has been adopted by many Christians—academics, clergy and lay people alike—throughout the centuries.Two major influences were at work in Cassian’s life and teachings. First, Greek neo-platonic philosophical theology shaped his understanding of anthropology in a way that prevented him from being able to engage Augustine on the level that he should have. And second, his intense devotion to the ascetic chastity of the monastery created a platform upon which his theology could develop, yet in a way that was almost entirely sub-biblical. The result of Cassian’s theological contributions to the church has been the obscuring of the God of the Bible in the vision of His people.

Cassianus was born (probably in Provence) around 360 A.D., and most likely assumed the name “Iohannes” (John) at his baptism or admittance to the monastic life. [1] He died in Massilia of Gaul (present-day Marseilles, France), where he had spent his most productive years as a monk, in 435. [2] His birthplace is uncertain, and little is known about his parents, education, or childhood, primarily because of his own silence regarding these in his writings.

It is known, however, that he had a rigorous education, as evidenced by his fluent bilingualism and familiarity with church fathers. Western-born, Latin was probably his native tongue; yet much of his thought is influenced by Greek writers, and much of his life was spent in the East, where he derived his perspective on monasticism. “[H]is entire achievement was built on” his bilingualism, [3] as it offered him access to all major writers, and undoubtedly enabled him to address any major audience. Much exposure to Greek philosophical theology, together with his zeal for ascetic chastity, would figure prominently in Cassian’s response to Augustine, as shall be discussed later.

Cassian spent many years as a monk with his companion, Germanus, in Bethlehem of Palestine and various places in Egypt with the desert fathers before they went to Constantinople. There Cassian studied under Bishop Chrysostom, until the teacher was banished from Constantinople. Cassian and Germanus then carried a petition on his behalf from the clergy of Constantinople to Pope Innocent in Rome, where Cassian made the acquaintance of one Archdeacon Leo, later to become Pope Leo the Great. [4] Eventually Cassian removed to Massilia, where monastic life had become increasingly popular during more recent years, in order to develop monasticism—he established two new monasteries—and to write. [5]

In Massilia Cassian, now an abbot, wrote his three major works: 1) his Institutes (De Institutis Coenobiorum et de Octo Principalium Vitiorum Remediis Libri XII), which detail rules for the monastic life; 2) his Conferences (Collationes XXIV), which record conversations with abbots during his time in Egypt; [6] and 3) On the Incarnation against Nestorius (De Incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium), a work of seven books written at the request of Pope Leo. [7] In this last writing Cassian is the first to point out similarities between Nestorianism and Pelagianism. Of certain Nestorians he writes, “in saying that Jesus Christ lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they liked.” [8] The high estimation of man’s sufficiency and strength of will that is pervasive in Pelagian writings is applied to the Jesus of Nestorianism, who was supposed to have overcome sin by the sheer power of His merely human will, becoming Christ only at His baptism. [9] This section of De Incarnatione clearly indicates Cassian’s desire to distance himself from “the teaching or rather the evil deeds of Pelagius.” [10]

Augustine’s influence and authority had been growing since the official defeat of Pelagianism, which was condemned in 418 at the 16th Council of Carthage. [11] The ‘initial spark’ was provided for the Cassian controversy when one of Augustine’s letters, concerning predestination and prevenient (and therefore irresistible) grace, came into the possession of monks at Adrumetum. Dispute arose among them over these doctrines, and they eventually sent a dispatch to Hippo to ask Augustine about the fuller meaning of his writings. [12] So Augustine wrote De Gratia et Libero Arbitrii (On Grace and Free Will) and De Correptione et Gratia (On Rebuke and Grace) in 426, with the hope of clarifying the matter. [13]

Of course, though this may have settled the matter for the monks at Adrumetum, the doctrines were not so easily incorporated into the life of thought at Massilia. The monks there, of whom Cassian can be considered chief, agreed with Augustine on many issues—even against Pelagianism. But they distrusted his teachings on predestination, grace and free will as a result of his letters to the monks at Adrumetum. [14] “They said that what Augustine taught as to the calling of God’s elect according to His own purpose was tantamount to fatalism, was contrary to the teaching of the fathers and the true Church doctrine, and, even if true, should not be preached, because of its tendency to drive men into indifference or despair.” [15]

Augustine taught that original sin had left humanity in a state of death (not just weakness), which necessitated the symmetrical actual giving of life in salvation by God. The will is alive and free, but its only function is to manifest the desire of a corrupt heart in a choice. So, in a sense, the will is utterly bound to sin, since men always and without exception love the darkness rather than the light, and this is death for them. The life came as God—of His own good pleasure, not motivated by anything He saw in sinners—regenerated the hearts of sinners, causing them to love God more than sin, by His Spirit (c.f. Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:22-28; Jer. 31:33-34; 32:38-41; 1 John 4:19). “This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart.” [16] Augustine explained that God did this for some and not for others by referring to Romans 9, where God says that He is willing to exert His wrath, yet has patience in order to display the glory of His grace toward His elect. [17] These are the doctrines of predestination, grace and free will that Cassian felt jeopardized important truth about God and humanity. And though Augustine wrote convincing treatises on these doctrines in response to the complaint of the Massilians (De Praedestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantiae; On the Predestination of the Saints and On the Gift of Perseverance [18] ), they would not be persuaded, and continued in their efforts to correct the doctrines they perceived as a threat to the life of the church.

Most of Cassian’s relevant arguments are laid out in the 13th book of his Conferences, which is a record of a conversation with Abbot Chaeremon entitled “On the Protection of God,” though he does touch upon the same doctrines, to lesser extents, in several other places. Methodologically, it must be said—to his commendation—that he uses Scripture with great frequency. For Cassian, and others in opposition to strong Augustinianism, it seems there were two factors of primary concern in the debate. First, being a monk whose daily life consisted of disciplined asceticism for the sake of chastity (moral purity), Cassian feared that Augustine’s doctrines would give an overwhelming sense of powerlessness and despondence in such pursuits. This, in turn, might lead to ethical irresponsibility (the lack of the feeling of accountability). [19]

It is of utmost importance to note that Cassian “positions his analyses of grace and free will within his discussions of chastity.” [20] The crucial issue for him was the empowerment for the pursuit of holiness. So great was his concern for chastity, in fact, that earlier in his life Cassian gave up the solitary life of an Anchorite monk in Egypt for that of a Coenobite in community with other monks, “in order that he might have the opportunity of practicing the virtues of obedience and subjection, which seemed out of the reach of the solitary.” [21] Quite unlike Pelagius, however, Cassian insisted that divine grace was absolutely necessary for spiritual progress. “How foolish and wicked then it is to attribute any good action to our own diligence and not to God’s grace and assistance, is clearly shown by the Lord’s saying, which lays down that no one can show forth the fruits of the Spirit without His inspiration and co-operation.” [22] Instead, he sought some middle ground of cooperation between man’s willful initiative and God’s enabling grace (libero arbitrio semper co-operatur).

In order to maintain his position that man must be capable of some motion toward God, he proposed that the will was not dead in sin. Instead, the free will was only severely weakened (infirmitas liberi arbitrii) as a result of the fall. Man was indeed capable of generating a small spark of initiative toward the good by the power of his own will, which must be then strengthened and aided by God to produce any actual good. Having a decidedly Eastern anthropology, it is understandable that Cassian would be more open to “natural possibility” than the Western Augustine. [23] Strangely enough, Cassian saw examples in Scripture of both monergistic (i.e. Matthew and Paul) and synergistic (i.e. Zacchaeus) beginnings of faith without any apparent difficulty. This is interesting, since, as R. C. Sproul observes, “The difference between Augustine and Cassian is the difference between monergism and synergism at the beginning of salvation.” [24] Nevertheless, Cassian was able to write, “when He sees in us some beginnings of a good will, He at once enlightens it and strengthens it and urges it on towards salvation, increasing that which He Himself implanted or which He sees to have arisen from our own efforts.” [25] This kind of assertion is common in his Conferences, and betrays his lack of understanding, at some level, of the issues at hand.

Second, and to a lesser degree, Cassian was concerned that the Augustinian view of particular (electing) grace stood in blatant opposition to the “clear” biblical truth of the universal availability of salvation. [26] He saw God’s love being extended to all in the universal offering of salvation, and could not stand the idea that God’s love would be so arbitrarily selective. “For if He willeth not that one of His little ones should perish, how can we imagine without grievous blasphemy that He does not generally will all men, but only some instead of all to be saved?” [27]

As a result, Cassian’s theology of God’s love required something of a fair chance for all people. If God really loved people (in the way Cassian thought), He would not permit the unfairness of a completely disabled will while demanding moral perfection. So original sin could not really have had the effect that Augustine claimed. Concordantly, prevenient grace would really be quite unnecessary, if people had the ability to initiate their own faith. And if prevenient grace were not a reality, then neither would be an Augustinian understanding of predestination. If people could really turn themselves toward God by their own will (as they must be able to do, if God is really fair and wants all to be saved), then God would only have to see (or foresee) who would create in themselves the spark of faith, and predestine them to eternal life on that basis.

Having ascertained Cassian’s main reasons for disagreeing with Augustine in these matters, a few presuppositions or foundations of his perspective become evident which warrant critique. First, it is most apparent from his great concern for the advance of disciplined chastity that Cassian’s view of salvation is more sanctification-oriented than justification- or reconciliation-oriented. Whereas Augustine is generally arguing for a specific soteriological position (i.e., who makes the first move to restore relationship between God and men?), Cassian seems not to be able to think in the same category. Columba Stewart attributes this to the fact that Western skills were honed by the Pelagian controversy, while Cassian—being an Eastern thinker—has simply not been so influenced. [28] Thinking so much as he does about chastity, he almost seems to treat God as a means to the end of the perfection of holiness. This is a major fault, as it fosters a fundamentally more anthropocentric view of salvation than theocentric.

Second, and closely related to the first, is the weak view of sin and grace in Cassian. Sin for him seems to be only a violation of command and conscience. For Augustine, and in Scripture, the essence of sin is more than this—it is a rejection of the supremacy of the glory of God for delight in things of infinitely less worth… and therefore much more dishonoring to God. Accordingly, Cassian’s view of grace is more Pelagian than Augustinian. For him grace is merely an agent of enabling unto holiness (seeing Christ more as an instructor than a savior). He would likely have a low view of the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

Third, there seems to be in Cassian the attempt to maintain some level of autonomy from God in the process of salvation. This is perhaps the point where Augustine sees Cassianism “as necessarily implying the basal idea of Pelagianism,” [29] thereby referring to it as “semi-Pelagianism.” Indeed, prior to regeneration we are all born Pelagians, [30] at our religious “best” hoping to commend ourselves to God by some means other than Christ and the total reliance upon the sovereign grace of God.

Fourth, and more commonly ignored among historical and systematic theologians than the other points, is the pernicious error of an unexamined, confused, unbiblical anthropology. It is obvious from Cassian’s Conferences that he sees the will as self-moved, self-initiated, and able to incline itself (albeit only slightly and weakly) toward the good. Also, he muddles the functions of the faculties of the soul in various places, not demonstrating any clear understanding of the will as a function of the heart, or of the desires as determining the direction of the will. For him, a man’s being and doing are reversed from the biblical perspective: “for each man must incline to one side or the other in accordance with the character of his actions.”

Prosper of Aquitaine, lay friend of Augustine, took up the defense of monergism against Cassian’s synergism from the beginning. He had alerted Augustine to the trouble in Massilia, motivating the bishop to write the two last works of his life against semi-Pelagianism (De Praedestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantiae). And shortly after Augustine’s death he, with his (otherwise unknown) companion, Hilary, petitioned Pope Celestine to condemn Cassian’s teachings. However, they encountered difficulty in

Semi-Pelagianism experienced some small official successes in Gaul at the Synods of Arles and Lyons in 472, but in 496 “Pope Gelasius I sanctioned the writings of Augustine and Prosper and condemned those of Cassian….” [33] Eventually, at the Council of Arausiacum (Orange: 529) semi-Pelagianism was officially condemned, and the church adopted a mostly-Augustinian stance. [34]

Tragically for the church, Augustinianism was being softened by the bishop’s successors before semi-Pelagianism was even officially condemned. [35] It was not held to strongly enough for the fundamental tenets of Augustine’s theology to take deeper root in the church. The resulting influence of Cassian has been widespread and long lasting. For, while it is true that the Council of Orange was a triumph over the “semi-Pelagian denial of the necessity of prevenient grace for salvation,” Robert L. Reymond observes,

And so the more complete majesty of God’s work in saving a people for Himself out of sin has gone through the centuries half-veiled, until the Day when the last vestiges of our self-reliance are stripped away, and all the earth trembles at the total sovereignty of the God whose pleasure it was to save some, sola gratia.

[1] Edgar C. S. Gibson, preface to The Works of John Cassian, by John Cassian, trans. Edgar C. S. Gibson, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), 375. [2] The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1954), s.v. “Cassianus Johannus,” http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=schaff&bookID=encyc02&page=435&view= [3] Columba Stewart, Cassian the Monk, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 5. [4] Gibson, 383. [5] Stewart, 5. [6] The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 ed., s.v. “John Cassian,” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03404a.htm [7] Gibson, 383. [8] John Cassian, On the Incarnation against Nestorius, in The Works of John Cassian, trans. with preface Edgar C. S. Gibson, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), 1:3. [9] Gibson., 387. [10] Cassian., Against Nestorius, 1:4. [11] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2d ed. rev. & updated (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 468-9. [12] B. B. Warfield, introduction to Saint Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works, by St. Augustine, trans. Peter Holmes & Robert Ernest Wallis, rev. B. B. Warfield, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st ser., vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), 89-90. [13] Gibson, 388. [14] Ibid., 389. [15] Warfield, 97-8. [16] St. Augustine, The Predestination of the Saints, in Saint Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works, by St. Augustine, trans. Peter Holmes & Robert Ernest Wallis, rev. with intro. B. B. Warfield, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st ser., vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), ch. 13, emphasis mine. [17] Ibid., ch. 14. See Rom. 9:22-23. For an excellent treatment of the righteousness of God in His sovereign election based on this passage, see John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), especially pp. 183-216. [18] Gibson, 389 [19] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity through the Centuries, 3rd ed. rev. & expanded (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 132. [20] Stewart, 76. [21] Gibson, 378. [22] Cassian, The Conferences of John Cassian, in The Works of John Cassian, 3:16. [23] Stewart, 19. [24] R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 73. [25] Cassian, Conferences, 13:8. [26] Sproul, 70. [27] Cassian, Conferences, 13:7. [28] Stewart, 78. [29] Warfield, 93. [30] Reymond, 469. [31] Stewart, 20-21. [32] Gibson, 390-391. [33] Sproul, 75. [34] J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978), 371-2. [35] Sproul, 75. [36] Reymond, 469

The Pope

Catholic Encyclopedia

I. INSTITUTION OF A SUPREME HEAD BY CHRIST

The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17.

MATTHEW 16:17-19

In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. His profession of faith was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the other Apostles. This is evident from the words of Christ. He pronounces on the Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a special revelation granted to him by the Father (cf. Matthew 11:27).

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter. . ." He further proceeds to recompense this confession of His Divinity by bestowing upon him a reward proper to himself:

Thou art Peter [Cepha, transliterated also Kipha] and upon this rock [Cepha] I will build my Church.

The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. The term ecclesia (ekklesia) here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God's Church (see THE CHURCH, I).

"And upon this rock I will build my Church. . ." Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter.

The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Hosea 8:1; 9:15; 1 Corinthians 3:9-17, Ephesians 2:20-2; 1 Timothy 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; 1 Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house.

He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation.

"And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."It is through her union with Peter, Christ continues, that the Church will prove the victor in her long contest with the Evil One:

The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

There can be but one explanation of this striking metaphor. The only manner in which a man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by possessing authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in dependence on whom all subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone, can be said to be the principle of stability, unity, and increase. The promise acquires additional solemnity when we remember that both Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 28:16) and Christ's own words (Matthew 7:24) had attributed this office of foundation of the Church to Himself. He is therefore assigning to Peter, of course in a secondary degree, a prerogative which is His own, and thereby associating the Apostle with Himself in an altogether singular manner.

"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the following verse (Matthew 16:19) He promises to bestow on Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where God declares that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless Sobna:

And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open.

In all countries the key is the symbol of authority. Thus, Christ's words are a promise that He will confer on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place.

"And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to "bind" and to "loose" -- words which, as is shown below, denote the grant of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure. Whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will receive the Divine ratification.

Objections. The meaning of this passage does not seem to have been challenged by any writer until the rise of the sixteenth-century heresies. Since then a great variety of interpretations have been put forward by Protestant controversialists. These agree in little save in the rejection of the plain sense of Christ's words. Some Anglican controversy tends to the view that the reward promised to St. Peter consisted in the prominent part taken by him in the initial activities of the Church, but that he was never more than primus inter pares among the Apostles. It is manifest that this is quite insufficient as an explanation of the terms of Christ's promise.

Brother Diamond. I think I have discovered another fan of the Catholic Great, St. Augustine. That being the case, enoy these gems from the Great Doctor of the Catholic Church

AUGUSTINE ON AUTHORITY OF CATHOLIC CHURCH

Â“I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel me.Â”

AUGUSTINE ON BEING IN UNION WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

"Whosoever shall have separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how praiseworthy such a person may fancy his life has been, yet for that one crime of having cut himself off from the unity of Christ he shall not have eternal life, but the wrath of God shall abide with him for ever." St.Augustine of Hippo ("Letter 141," c. early 5th century)

AUGUSTINE: CATHOLIC CHURCH IS AN AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH

Â“The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saintsÂ…. When, then, we see so much help on GodÂ’s part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the apostolic chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority (Augustine, Â“The Advantage of Believing 35Â…392 A.D.)

SALVATION ONLY THROUGH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (AUGUSTINE)

Â“A man cannot have salvation, except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church he can have everything except salvation. He can have honor, he can have Sacraments, he can sing alleluia, he can answer amen, he can possess the gospel, he can have and preach faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; but never except in the Catholic Church will he be able to find salvation.Â” (Augustine, Discourse to the People of the Church at Caesarea, A.D. 418)

AUGUSTINE ON HOW MORTAL SINS AND VENIAL SINS ARE FORGIVENÂ….ONLY THE BAPTIZED CAN BE FORGIVEN

Â“But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the Body of Christ; perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities: that is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out[8, 16] In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in Baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet, God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.Â” (Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, AD 395)

AUGUSTINE URGES CHRISTIANS TO PRAY FOR THE DEAD (ONLY FOR THOSE STILL IN PURGATORY (NOT YET PURGED OF ALL SINS), BUT NOT TO PRAY FOR MARTYRS WHO ARE ALREADY IN HEAVEN)

Â“there is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God (17), where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended.Â” [Augustine, Sermons inter AD 391-430]

AUGUSTINE on the CATHOLIC CHURCH AS THE TRUE CHURCH:

Â“We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches.Â”

AUGUSTINE on PETER the ROCK and the KEYS GIVEN TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Â“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock (3) and they refuse to believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church. These are people who condemn as adulteresses widows who marry, and boast that theirs is a purity superior to the teaching of the Apostles!Â” (Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, AD 396 aut 397)

AUGUSTINE ON SUCCESSION

Â“The succession of priests, from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom our Lord, after His resurrection, gave the charge of feeding His sheep, up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And at last, the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all the heretics want to be called Catholic, when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets (2), none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house (3).Â” (Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, AD 396-397)

AUGUSTINE on REAL PRESENCE

Â“For it was the Body of the Lord and the Blood of the Lord even in those to whom the Apostle said: Whoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself (15).Â” (Augustine, Baptism, AD 400)

AUGUSTINE ON SACRAMENTS of BAPTISM and ORDERS

Â“Both of these, Baptism and Orders, are Sacraments, and each is given to a man by a certain sacred rite (1), when he is baptized, and the other, when he is ordained. In the Catholic Church, therefore, it is not permitted to repeat either of these Sacraments. For even if their leaders (2), when they come over to us from among the schismatics, are received for the good of peace and to rectify the error of schism, and even it is seen that it is feasible for them to carry on in the same offices which they had before, they are not ordained again, but, just as with their Baptism, so too their ordination remains whole; because the defect was in their separation, which is corrected by the peace that comes of unity, and not in the Sacraments, which everywhere they are found, are the same. (Augustine, Against the Letter of Paremenian. [ca A.D. 400]

AUGUSTINE on APOSTOLIC TRADITION

Â“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority.Â” (Augustine, Â“BaptismÂ” 4, 24, 31)

AUGUSTINE: BAPTISM AND EUCHARIST NECESSARY FOR SALVATION

Â“It is an excellent thing that the Punic Christians (8) call Baptism itself nothing else but salvation, and the Sacrament of ChristÂ’s Body nothing else but life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ, hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too.Â” (Augustine, Â“Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of sins, and the Baptism of Infants, AD 412)

AUGUSTINE on BAPTISM AS REGENERATIVE

Â“If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to thisÂ…The Sacrament of Baptism is most assuredly the Sacrament of regeneration. But just as the man who never lived cannot die, and one who has not died cannot rise again, so too one who was never born cannot be rebornÂ…..Unless we voluntarily depart from the rule of the Christian faith it must be admitted that inasmuch as infants are, by the Sacrament of Baptism, conformed to the death of Christ, they are also freed from the serpentÂ’s venomous bite. This bite, however, they did not receive in their own proper life, but in him who first suffered that wound.Â” (Augustine, Â“Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of sins, and the Baptism of Infants, AD 412)

AUGUSTINE SAYS TO PRAY FOR THE DEAD IN PURGATORY, BUT NOT THE DEAD IN HEAVEN OR HELL

The prayer either of the Church herself or of pious individuals is heard on behalf of certain of the dead; but it is heard for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not for the rest of their life in the body do such wickedness that they might be judged unworthy of such mercy, nor who yet lived so well that it might be supposed they have no need of such mercy. (21, 24, 2Â…..Augustine, Â“City of GodÂ” A.D. 413-426)

AUGUSTINE: SAYING THE LORDÂ’S PRAYER TAKES AWAY SINS

The daily prayer, which Jesus Himself taught and for which reason it is called the LordÂ’s Prayer, certainly takes away daily sins, when we say daily: Â“Forgive us our debts (40).Â” (Augustine, City of GodÂ” A.D. 413-426)

AUGUSTINE SAYS MARY NEVER SINNED

Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins, - for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom there was no sin- Â…..Â” (Augustine, Â“Nature and Grace A.D. 415)

DEGREE OF SIN DETERMINES LENGTH OF PUNISHMENT

Â“Sins which are punished by an extremely lengthy period of penalties are committed in an extremely short time (34); nor is there anyone who would suppose that the punishments should be as quickly over as the offenses were quickly performed, whether murder or adultery or sacrilege or any other crime whatsoever that is to be measured, not by how long it took to do it, but by the magnitude of its wickedness and impiety. (AugustineÂ…Â”City of GodÂ” 21, 11)

AUGUSTINE: PUNISHMENT FOR OUR SINS NOT COMPLETED WHEN WE DIE, WILL BE COMPLETED AFTER WE DIE BUT BEFORE JUDGMENT DAY (IE, PURGATORY)

Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment (35). But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment. (AugustineÂ….Â”City of GodÂ” 21, 13)

AUGUSTINE SAYS PURGATORY WILL END BY JUDGMENT DAY

Â“Let it not be supposed that there are any future purgatorial punishments, except before that last and tremendous judgment.Â”

AUGUSTINE REITERATES THAT SINS ARE FORGIVEN IN BAPTISM

Â“Â…..are cleansed and healed, not only all the sins which are remitted in Baptism, but even those which are committed laterÂ….Â” (Augustine, Â“Marriage and Concupiscence)

AUGUSTINE on UNBAPTIZED INFANTS

Â“If you wish to be Catholic, do not believe, do not say, do not teach that infants who are overtaken by death before they can be baptized are able to come to a forgiveness of original sins (3) (Augustine, Â“The Soul and Its Origin, A.D. 419-420)

AUGUSTINE: BAPTISM FORGIVES SINS

Â“We say that Baptism grants forgiveness (2) of all sins, and takes away crimes, not Â“shaving them off,Â” nor in such a way that Â“the roots of all sins are retained in the evil flesh, like the hairs shaved from the head, whence the sins may grow again to be cut down again.Â” (Augustine, Â“Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, A.D. 420)

AUGUSTINE: BAPTISM REMOVES SIN

Â“With the exception of the gift of Baptism, which is given against original sin, so that what was brought by generation might be taken away by regeneration, -though it also takes away actual sins, such as have ever been committed in thought, word, or deed Â– except therefore, for this great indulgence whereby manÂ’s restoration begins and in which all his guilt, both original and actual, is removed, the rest of our life from the age of the use of reason, however much that life may abound in righteousness, is always in need of the forgiveness of sinsÂ….Â” (AugustineÂ….Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love, A.D. 421)

Â“The guilt of concupiscence is remitted in BaptismÂ….Â” (Augustine, Â“CorrectionsÂ” A.D. 426 aut 427)

AUGUSTINE ON PENANCE FOR VENIAL AND MORE SERIOUS SINS

Â“Yet those who do penance in accord with the kind of sin they have committed are not to despair of receiving GodÂ’s mercy in the Holy Church, for the remission of their crimes, however serious. In the penitential action, however, where the crime committed was such that he who committed it is separated from the body of Christ, it is not so much the length of time as the depth of sorrow that is to be considered.Â” (Augustine, Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love, A.D. 421)

AUGUSTINE ON PURGATORY

Â“That there should be some such fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, -through a certain purgatorial fire.Â” (Augustine, Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love, A.D. 421)

AUGUSTINE: VENIAL SINS CAN BE FORGIVEN THROUGH PRAYER

Â“For the daily sins of the brief and trivial kind without which this life cannot be lived, the daily prayer of the faithful makes satisfaction. The faithful can say: Â“Our Father, who art in heave (19)Â”; for to such a Father they are already reborn of water and the Spirit (20). This prayer takes away completely our lesser and daily sins.Â” (Augustine, Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love, A.D. 421)

AUGUSTINE: LIGHTER SINS GET LESS SEVERE PUNISHMENT

Â“Surely the lightest punishment of all will be given those who, besides the sin which they brought with them originally, have added no other; and among the rest who have added other sins, damnation there will be so much the more tolerable as their wickedness here was the less serious.Â” (Augustine, Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love, A.D. 421)

AUGUSTINE: PRAYING FOR THE DEAD IS USEFUL, AS LONG AS THE DEAD PERSON IS NOT IN HELL OR HEAVEN

Â“The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. [110] Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive. When the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offered for them, or when alms are given in the church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterwards be able to be helped by these things. For there is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicket that these helps are of no avail after death. There is indeed, a manner of living so good that these helps are not needed, and again a manner so evil that these helps are of no avail, once a man has passed from this life. (Augustine, Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love, A.D. 421)

AUGUSTINE SAYS PRAYING FOR THE DEAD IS A UNIVERSAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH

Â“We read in the books of the Maccabees that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the universal Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, wherein the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at His altar the commendation of the dead has its place. (Augustine, Â“The Care that Should be taken of the Dead, A.D. 421)

AUGUSTINE SAYS YOU CAN LOSE YOUR SALVATION (i.e. CAN LOSE JUSTIFYING GRACE)

Â“But if someone already regenerate and justified should, of his own will, relapse into his evil life, certainly that man cannot say: Â“I have not receivedÂ”; because he lost the grace he received from God and by his own free choice went to evil.Â” (Augustine, Â“Admonition and Grace, A.D. 426 aut 427)

AUGUSTINE ON APOSTOLIC TRADITION

"Those which we keep, not as being written, but as from, if observed by the whole of Christendom, are thereby understood to be committed to us by the apostles themselves or plenary Councils, and to be retained as instituted." (Ep 118).

AUGUSTINE ON APOSTOLIC TRADITION

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

AUGUSTINE ON APOSTOLIC TRADITION "And if anyone seek for Divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by an apostolic authority." (On Baptism 24 speaking of infant Baptism).

AUGUSTINE ON APOSTOLIC TRADITION

"[T]he custom of not rebaptizing converts] ...may be supposed to have had its origin in Apostolic Tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings"

AUGUSTINE: THE CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY CHRIST MUST BE HEADED BY DIRECT SUCCESSOR OF PETER

Â“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Â‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!Â’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: ‑Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is foundÂ” (Letters of Augustine 53, 2 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1st series, 1:298).

AUGUSTINE SAYS THE POPE OF HIS TIME, ANASTASIUS, SITS IN THE CHAIR OF PETER

Â“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?Â” [Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS AUTHORITY. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. EVERYONE IN THE WORLD KNOWS WHICH CHURCH IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Â“In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.

Â“And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.

Â“Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should...With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion...For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.Â”

AUGUSTINE SAID HE WHO SEPARATES FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CANNOT ENTER HEAVEN

Â“Whosoever shall have separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how praiseworthy such a person may fancy his life has been, yet for that one crime of having cut himself off from the unity of Christ he shall not have eternal life, buth the wrath of God shall abide with him for ever.Â” St Augustine of Hippo (Â“Letter 141Â” c. early 5th century)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.