“The archaic use of some words are very different than they are now; so much so that in some cases the word can now mean the opposite of what it once meant.”
That’s exactly the foundation of my argument. This statement helps my cause, not yours, since you propose that the same word always meant what Rome currently believes.
“St. Augustine was a Catholic bishop for more than thirty years. He is a Doctor of the Church whose writings and theology is upheld as orthodox in line with Catholic teaching.”
Not on salvation, and not on the sacraments. The RCC today rejects Augustine’s views on grace and predestination, which actually are the origins of the reformation in the first place. (That is, that God Himself is the author of our faith, and chose us and ordained us before the foundation of the world, not because He foresaw that we would be good, but so that we would be good.) Though, Augustine was only reading it from the scripture... so, really, it’s more correct to say that it was the scripture which informed Augustine, which then informed Luther an Augustinian monk, and so forth.
“How have you come? By believing. Fear lest while you are claiming for yourself that you have found the just way, you perish from the just way. I have come, you say, of my own free choice; I have come of my own will. Why are you puffed up? Do you wish to know that this also has been given you? Hear Him calling, ‘No one comes to me unless my Father draws him’ [John 6: 44 p.].” - Augustine, Sermons xxvi. 3, 12, 4, 7 (MPL 28.172, 177, 172f., 174)
Augustine, Aurelius (2012-02-08). Augustine’s Writings on Grace and Free WIll (Kindle Locations 33-36). Monergism Books. Kindle Edition.
“But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that “having received God’s commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case,” they say, “He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. “But we say,” say they, “that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work.” But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, “We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.” [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: “Not of works, but of Him that calleth” [Rom. 9.12.] (although He might have said, “of Him that believeth”); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” [John 15.16.] For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe. But all the many things which we have said concerning this matter need not be repeated.” (Augustine, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Chapt. 38.)
“But, to ignore the fact that he was Catholic, subject to the very same authority as all Catholics are,”
You’re assuming that the Primacy of Rome has always existed, which it hasn’t. Even RCC scholars admit it is not a 2,000 year old institution, but rather one that went through development.
“It is clear that the Roman primacy was not a given from the outset; it underwent a long process of development whose initial phases extended well into the fifth century.” (Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy, From its Origins to the Present, the Order of St. Benedict, Inc, Collegeville, MN: A Michael Glazier Book published by The Liturgical Press, 1996, pg 36).
Even when the Primacy of Peter came into vogue, it still wasn’t applied to one particular Bishop, but rather to three Bishops.
Here is “Pope” Gregory the First asserting that the throne of Peter is held by three separate Bishops, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome.
“Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. — To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria Book VII, Epistle XL
Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
I actually became privy to these quotes and their context from the Eastern Orthodox, the OTHER guys who claim to be the One, True, Holy and Apostolic Church (and you guys are the schismatics and heretics. But don’t feel bad, so am I!).
Who do we believe in all these different traditions? The EO claim to be THE inheritors of sacred tradition, and so do YOU.
Why, I think I’ll stick with the scripture. It is not so fickle as you guys.
“Again, not just the simple remembering or recollection as it is used in context in Scriptures, first in the Jewish act of re-calling the Passover, the sacrificial nature of their celebration of that event. The Last Supper is tied to that re-calling in that the meal they were eating was the Passover meal. The fact that it is bread and wine which Jesus offers is tied to the Psalms which speaks of a clean offering in the order of Melchizadek whose sacrifice was of bread and wine. The only such sacrifice in the OT.”
I actually agree, though probably in a different way than you do. The Jews celebrated the Passover as ‘The Passover of the Lord,’ even though it was only signifying the passover. It wasn’t literally the Lord passing over all over again. This is a common way of speaking the Jews have always used, that is, of speaking of symbols by giving them the name of the realities they resemble. Since it is for “remembrance,” it cannot be for salvation.
*****That’s exactly the foundation of my argument. This statement helps my cause, not yours, since you propose that the same word always meant what Rome currently believes.*****
I’m afraid not. The word used which is translated as remembrance is a word that had a sacrificial basis when used in the OT, as in memorial offering or memorial portion. The Apostles would have recognized what the Lord meant, as they were Jews and were familiar with the meaning of Passover.
This is not a simple recalling of a memory, rather it is a placing of oneself within the events which are being remembered.
****Not on salvation, and not on the sacraments. The RCC today rejects Augustine’s views on grace and predestination, which actually are the origins of the reformation in the first place.*****
I think the “reformers” would like to think that but it is not the case. Augustine’s views on predestination were not the same as Calvin’s. Predestination in Augustine’s view was that the grace with which we are saved and the call to us to life in Christ were predestined from the beginning.
The elect are those who are moved by God’s grace to belief and for those who do believe, God has predestined for them all the grace they need to cooperate with God in their salvation.
Augustine did not teach God has chosen some and rejected others for no reason other than He can. Scripture tells us that God has written His law on the hearts of ALL men and that God desires that All be saved. And ALL need God’s grace to be made new and given new life.
There is no dogmatic Catholic declaration on predestination and the elect and those who will not be saved. That is God’s domain as is judgement.
Therefore, Augustine was not bound by a firm Catholic belief and did not contradict Catholic doctrine in his views. We are free to believe what Augustine taught or to reject it.
Augustine also believed that one could lose their salvation by outright rejection of it and of God. That is certainly in line with Catholic teaching on salvation. As the Doctor of Grace, I question why you think Augustine’s teachings on grace are rejected by the Catholic Church.
****(That is, that God Himself is the author of our faith, and chose us and ordained us before the foundation of the world, not because He foresaw that we would be good, but so that we would be good.)****
I don’t see where Catholicism rejects or contradicts this.
*****You’re assuming that the Primacy of Rome has always existed, which it hasn’t. Even RCC scholars admit it is not a 2,000 year old institution, but rather one that went through development.*****
One that went through development......I never intimated anything else and it is the Primacy of Peter, not of Rome which was where he was martyred.
What seems to be a fact unable to be grasped is that no one here, especially me has claimed that the Church just appeared in Rome and said, “We are the authority” in all things Christian. It was developed over the course of years as the Church grew and looked to the Bishop of Rome for guidance in the face of heresy.
Another fact is that not everything thought, word, deed or writing of a Catholic theologian, author, bishop or even pope is considered infallible.
It is only after the Church has spoken with authority through the pope, ex cathedra, from the seat of authority that something is considered infallible and is binding on the faithful.
Another fact is that Augustine practiced obedience to the Bishop of Rome as a Catholic bishop, an office and practice that was well established by the time he lived.
**** Since it is for “remembrance,” it cannot be for salvation.*****
The Passover celebration was part of Jewish Law, it was commanded and therefore is part of their salvation.
The Lord saved His people and delivered them from their slavery in Egypt. His people today are still saved by that “passing over” of the Spirit which saved their firstborn from death and delivered them out of Egypt.
The point is that all these centuries later, it is the same salvation and the Jews of today participate in that salvation through the Passover celebration.
In the same way, we Catholics are saved by the sacrifice of the cross in the same way those who were there were saved. When we celebrate the Eucharist, we are participating in the very same sacrifice that is once for all.