“”Although, oddly enough, Augustine wrote several books on interpreting scripture””
Yes,and Blessed Augustine adhered to authority of the Church regarding scripture,dear brother. Nice try though!
From Saint Augustine...
“If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospels, let him be anathema.”- Augustine “Contra litteras Petiliana”, (Against the Letters of Petiliana) Bk.3, ch.6
“Let us not hear, this I say, this you say; but thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe. There let us seek the Church, there let us discuss our case.” .... “Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”-Augustine (”De unitate ecclesiae”, [on the Unity of the Church]3)
“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the AUTHORITY of the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Augustine-Against the Letter of Mani 5,6, 397 A.D.
Your post is remarkable for its errors and exagerations. I don’t have time now, but will address some over the next day or two. Here is one:
““I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the AUTHORITY of the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Augustine-Against the Letter of Mani 5,6, 397 A.D.”
The question Augustine is answering is a heretical sect that has written ‘new scripture’ - “the Fundamental Epistle”.
Augustine rejects it, and Manichæus’s ‘Apostolic Authority’.
He wrote:
“Let us see then what Manichæus teaches me; and particularly let us examine that treatise which he calls the Fundamental Epistle, 131 in which almost all that you believe is contained. For in that unhappy time when we read it we were in your opinion enlightened.
The epistle begins thus:—”Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.” Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichæus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of.
Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.
So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;—Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason?
It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel.”
The entire passage and book can be read here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.viii.vi.html
It is easy, 1500 years later, to read into a sentence meaning the writer didn’t intend. Did Augustine mean ‘Because the Council of the Catholic Church under the Authority of the Pope declared it, I believe the Gospel’? Writing in 397AD, does he write, “Interestingly enough, just 4 years ago, the African Synod of Hippo discussed this very issue...” Does he say “The Council of Carthage has/will deal with this issue”? Does his writing have ANYTHING to do with top down hierarchical authority, or the Pope?
No. He references the Catholic Church once, and uses “Catholics” the next 5 times.
“If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;—Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you...”
The Catholics - used at that time of ALL christians, not those under the authority of Rome - taught Augustine the Gospel. And what Gospel? The one they all accepted. The Councils in Africa were not directed top-down by ‘The Vicar of Christ’, nor did they make any decision apart from what their believing members already thought. They largely RATIFIED current practice.
“First, the well-known distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena must be understood. Seven of the New Testament books (the antilegomena) were seriously doubted by some in the early church. The four gospels, Acts, the 13 letters of Paul, 1 Peter and 1 John were, however, never seriously questioned in the early church. These books are known as the homologoumena. As soon as the post-apostolic church becomes visible in the early second century, it emerges treating these books as possessing authority.
Second, the Christian must take into account the difficulties of communication in the early church. It is not surprising that some books took a period of time to gain acceptance in sections of the early church which were a long ways from those to hwome they were first written. Westcott argues this point persuasively:
The common meeting-point of Christians was destroyed by the fall of Jerusalem, and from that time national Churches grew up around their separate centres, enjoying in a great measure the freedom of individual development, and exhibiting, often in exaggerated forms, peculiar tendencies of doctrine or ritual. As a natural consequence [result—SW], the circulation of some books of the New Testament for a while depended, more or less, on their supposed connexion with specific forms of Christianity; and the range of other books was limited either by their original destination [the place they were first written to—SW] or by nature of their contents. (22)
Third, it must be remembered that what is under discussion is the universal acceptance of the New Testament. There is evidence that all of the books of the New Testament were regarded as possessing authority in some sections of the church almost from the beginning.
Fourth, it must be remembered that early Christians surrounded by a living oral tradition created by the original, apostolic preachers of the gospel did not feel the necessity for a written canon that we now feel. The need for a written canon may seem obvious to us, but it did not seem obvious to them at first. We must remember also that many early Christians lived in the hope of Christ’s imminent return. Thus, they did not see or sense the necessity of a New Testament canon immediately.”
Of books rejected, there were only 2 serious contenders - The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, and those two were only explicitly recognized (that I know of - I’m way our of my area of expertise, which is actually electronic warfare!) in one list around 400AD. Numerous church fathers rejected them both.
In rejecting Manichæus’s Epistle, Augustine asks what the African Councils asked - was it written by a recognized Apostle (no), and was it accepted as scripture - gospel - by the Catholics (Christians) of the time (no). Therefor he rejected its ‘authority’.
However, when you take one sentence out of context and apply modern ideas backwards into it, you get the idea that Augustine only believed the Gospel because the Pope told him to - which is ridiculous.
“Yes,and Blessed Augustine adhered to authority of the Church regarding scripture,dear brother. Nice try though!”
That is correct regarding canon - although Augustine used a ‘bottom-up’ approach to the question, as did the African Councils.
However, he didn’t write books on how to interpret scripture in hopes folks would not do so.
And if the Catholic Church has the authoritative interpretation of scripture, it would be nice if they would share it. I suggest publishing it...perhaps as, “The Vatican’s Authorized Interpretation of Scripture”. I’m sure it would be a best-seller, and all other Bible Commentaries - including those written by various church fathers - would no longer be needed.
But there is no authoritative church tradition handed down from the Apostles - a rather gnostic sounding idea anyways. When the Pope needs to announce a feast day for Mary, he just cherry-picks various catholic writers and calls it tradition, while ignoring those same fathers who disagree.