Kicking around Augustine's Enchiridion

[Truthstalker]

I have gotten to the place in my reading program where I finally picked this work up and looked at it. I just began reading it and I was struck by several things.

As background, Augustine has been described as the fountainhead of western theology. He defined critical doctrines, explained others, defended the Church against numerous heresies, and left behind, I think, some 5 million words. He is prolix in the extreme, maddeningly wandering, effusive, redundant in example, syntactically complex, and touches only in passing on some issues that seem seminal to Catholics today.

Both Luther and Calvin quote him extensively. Luther had been an Augustinian monk before his little spat with the Pope. Calvin quotes him more than any other non-Biblical source. One would then assume that a familiarity with Augustine would help one determine who is the true heir of Augustine - the reformers or Rome.

So I took up his Enchiridion - Greek for "handbook", though he wrote in Latin - expecting to find some guidance. It was written as a handbook for Christians to carry about, emphasizing what is important in the Christian faith (namely faith, hope and love). In the table of contents I see he believed in purgatory and predestination. He discusses baptism but the Eucharist seems to not be mentioned. No paragraphs for Mary or the Pope. Perhaps I missed these things.

Augustine seems very Protestant on some things, very Catholic on others. I can allow for theological development, but there seems to be a contradiction when the Catholic Church affirms that the roles of Mary and the Pope and the significance of the Eucharist have always been there. If they were important when this bishop wrote the Enchiridion late in his career, they would have been included.

This is all very curious. What do you say?

[Spirithound]

Originally Posted by Truthstalker

This is all very curious. What do you say?

A general caution that silence does not mean absence, and that St. Augustine, scholarly and saintly as he was, is not the beginning and end of Catholic spirituality.

[fhansen]

To arrive at a more fully fleshed out notion of Catholic attitudes towards Mary, the Eucharist, etc. you can't depend on any one source. Go back even further, reading ECFs, such as in William Jurgens "The Faith of the Early Fathers". This three volume set includes topical indexes to search various categories of interest.

[Nita]

Originally Posted by Truthstalker

So I took up his Enchiridion - Greek for "handbook", though he wrote in Latin - expecting to find some guidance. It was written as a handbook for Christians to carry about, emphasizing what is important in the Christian faith (namely faith, hope and love). In the table of contents I see he believed in purgatory and predestination. He discusses baptism but the Eucharist seems to not be mentioned. No paragraphs for Mary or the Pope. Perhaps I missed these things.

I'm only up to Part II, Chapter 10 (I think) - where you must have flitted right past this paragraph on Mary:

But it was a nature entirely free from the bonds of all sin.
It was not a nature born of both sexes with fleshly desires, with
the burden of sin, the guilt of which is washed away in
regeneration. Instead, it was the kind of nature that would be
fittingly born of a virgin, conceived by His mother's faith and
not her fleshly desires. Now if in his being born, her virginity
had been destroyed, he would not then have been born of a virgin.
It would then be false (which is unthinkable) for the whole Church
to confess him "born of the Virgin Mary." This is the Church
which, imitating his mother, daily gives birth to his members yet
remains virgin. Read, if you please, my letter on the virginity
of Saint Mary written to that illustrious man, Volusianus, whom I
name with honor and affection.[72]

[Truthstalker]

Originally Posted by Nita

I'm only up to Part II, Chapter 10 (I think) - where you must have flitted right past this paragraph on Mary:

Yeah, well, as I said, I am only up to the table of contents..

And am wondering how Catholics approach the work.

It was by a bishop, so I assume it would have a "nihil obstat"...

[Nita]

Originally Posted by Truthstalker

And am wondering how Catholics approach the work.

Most of us never do. It's only thanks to your thread that I did!

It was by a bishop, so I assume it would have a "nihil obstat"...

[Truthstalker]

Originally Posted by Spirithound

A general caution that silence does not mean absence, and that St. Augustine, scholarly and saintly as he was, is not the beginning and end of Catholic spirituality.

Originally Posted by fhansen

To arrive at a more fully fleshed out notion of Catholic attitudes towards Mary, the Eucharist, etc. you can't depend on any one source. Go back even further, reading ECFs, such as in William Jurgens "The Faith of the Early Fathers". This three volume set includes topical indexes to search various categories of interest.

As I understand it (and here I am fishing for alternative views) this work is sort of like a Boy Scout Handbook. Not mentioning the Pope is sort of like the BSH leaving out any mention of Boy Scout Councils, exectives, national offices or anything past the troop level. Or like a driver's manual that does not mention a steering wheel. Modern Catholicism emphasizes papal priveledges, power and perogative. Would it not be odd to take RCIA and have the pope never mentioned, or to have a book written today by a bishop on "what is Catholicism" and not feature the pope and his place in the Church prominently? Or the Eucharist?

I've had this theory for a couple of years that either Catholicism or Reformed theology has historical continuity with Augustine, or both do, and it is a matter of comparing which is closer to Augustine to determine which is more faithful to that historical continuity. This work seems to raise the possibilities that either neither or both are faithful to that historical continuity. It's an odd feeling, like finally discovering your birth certificate, and it is yours, but all the names are different. Another possibility is to regard it merely as a historical curiosity, but it seems too important for that.

[fhansen]

Originally Posted by Truthstalker

As I understand it (and here I am fishing for alternative views) this work is sort of like a Boy Scout Handbook. Not mentioning the Pope is sort of like the BSH leaving out any mention of Boy Scout Councils, exectives, national offices or anything past the troop level. Or like a driver's manual that does not mention a steering wheel. Modern Catholicism emphasizes papal priveledges, power and perogative. Would it not be odd to take RCIA and have the pope never mentioned, or to have a book written today by a bishop on "what is Catholicism" and not feature the pope and his place in the Church prominently? Or the Eucharist?

I've had this theory for a couple of years that either Catholicism or Reformed theology has historical continuity with Augustine, or both do, and it is a matter of comparing which is closer to Augustine to determine which is more faithful to that historical continuity. This work seems to raise the possibilities that either neither or both are faithful to that historical continuity. It's an odd feeling, like finally discovering your birth certificate, and it is yours, but all the names are different. Another possibility is to regard it merely as a historical curiosity, but it seems too important for that.

My point was a general one; that, while highly influential, Augustine was not the be-all and end-all of Catholic theology. Reformers could-and still may-pick and choose their sources but the CCs theology is broad-based and has evolved within her own history, key players sometimes contributing important parts. And this evolution continues.Having said that, it would be interesting to know how heavily used Augustines' work was.

[Catholic Dude]

Originally Posted by Truthstalker

Yeah, well, as I said, I am only up to the table of contents..

And am wondering how Catholics approach the work.

It was by a bishop, so I assume it would have a "nihil obstat"...

I've read the work a few times, the "table of contents" (which the translators wrote, not St Augustine) is poorly worded and often not truly reflective of what he actually said in the chapter (the 'chapters' are only about a paragraph or two long).

Check out this amazing page from Dave Armstrong called "St Augustine was a Catholic, Not a proto-Protestant."
That puts the nail in the coffin as far as trying to make him Protestant goes. To paint him as Protestant is as bad and false as a Catholic trying to argue Calvin or Luther were actually Catholic.

[MarcoPolo]

Originally Posted by Truthstalker

Augustine seems very Protestant on some things, very Catholic on others. I can allow for theological development, but there seems to be a contradiction when the Catholic Church affirms that the roles of Mary and the Pope and the significance of the Eucharist have always been there. If they were important when this bishop wrote the Enchiridion late in his career, they would have been included.

What are some examples on which you think Augustine is exclusively "Protestant"?

Also, why do you think if he did not mention the papacy or Mary in the Enchiridion, that he therefore considered them unimportant? He wrote a lot more than just the Enchiridion. I don't think we must impose upon him mandatory exhaustion of all important beliefs in just the Enchiridion. As Catholic Dude linked above, and as I am familiar with his views on Mary and the papacy, I know Augustine didn't consider them "unimportant."

[Catholic Dude]

Originally Posted by MarcoPolo

What are some examples on which you think Augustine is exclusively "Protestant"?

Also, why do you think if he did not mention the papacy or Mary in the Enchiridion, that he therefore considered them unimportant? He wrote a lot more than just the Enchiridion. I don't think we must impose upon him mandatory exhaustion of all important beliefs in just the Enchiridion. As Catholic Dude linked above, and as I am familiar with his views on Mary and the papacy, I know Augustine didn't consider them "unimportant."

Then Enchiridion is not by any means a treatise on all the Christian essentials. The specific title is the "Enchiridion (Handbook) of Faith, Hope and Love."
St Augustine goes off on various paths, not specifically on even faith and hope and love. In fact, St Augustine spends only about 1% of the whole book writing on hope and love.

[CentralFLJames]

Originally Posted by Truthstalker

Or the Eucharist?

Well let's whittle away at the list. Augustine had a lot to say about the eucharist things:

Sermons, [227] A.D. 391-430:
... I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord's Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received.

Sermons, [272] A.D. 391-430:
What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. ... How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit. ... `You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.' If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: `Amen'; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: `The Body of Christ!' and you answer: `Amen!' Be a member of Christ's Body, so that your `Amen' may be the truth.

Explanations on the Psalms, [33, 1, 10] A.D. 392-418:
`And he was carried in his own hands [3 Kgs 20:13 LXX? corrupted].' But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it was meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: `This is My Body.' For He carried that Body in His hands.

Explanations on the Psalms, [98, 9] A.D. 392-418:
And adore the footstool of His feet, because it is holy [Psalm 98:9, LXX 99:9]. . .In another place in the Scripture it says: `The heavens are my throne, but the earth is the footstool of My feet' [Isa 66:1] Is it the earth, then, that He commands us to adore, since in this other place the earth is called the footstool of God's feet? . . . I am put in jeopardy by such a dilemma (Anceps factus sum): I am afraid to adore the earth lest He that made heaven and earth condemn me; again, I am afraid not to adore the footstool of My Lord's feet, but because the Psalm does say to me: `Adore the footstool of My feet.' I ask what the footstool of His feet is; and Scripture tells me: `The earth is the footstool of my feet.' Perplexed, I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless he adores it ; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; and not only do we not sin by adoring, we do sin by not adoring.

Additional info:
The Trinity, [3, 4, 10] A.D. 400-416:

172,2, circa 400 A.D.:
For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.

Homilies on the Gospel of John", 26, 13, 417 A.D.:
The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:
Confessions X, 43, 69-70:
Sermon 57, 7: 7.

James

[CentralFLJames]

Originally Posted by fhansen

...Having said that, it would be interesting to know how heavily used Augustines' work was.

I suspect now that the failed Protestant revolution is snowballing down hill out of control and fragmening into 10's of thousands of Protestants sects; and now that Christians are finally widely able to actually read and write, some Protestants have got around to reading the man. So now that they want to make Augustine out posthumously as a closet Protestant that makes the man more popular now than he ever was with his Catholic contemporaries.

I see this all as pure Augustinian genius. The man anticipated a future heresy formed around "faith alone" and sola scriptura and left a generous trail of writings that on the surface give some slim hope to the heretic that he is their advocate. But the man is just being charitable and setting Protestants up to re-discover actual history and Patristics and thereby in the pursuit for advocacy to justify the rebellion reform themselves into orthodoxy. Once he gets them weened off sola-scriptura and exposed to actual church history I expect Augustine will have the lot all self-reformed back into the pews of the Catholic Church as repentant schoolboys(under the pope).

I just love it when a long range plan comes together.

James

[Truthstalker]

Originally Posted by MarcoPolo

What are some examples on which you think Augustine is exclusively "Protestant"?

Where did I say "exclusively Protestant?"

Originally Posted by MarcoPolo

Also, why do you think if he did not mention the papacy or Mary in the Enchiridion, that he therefore considered them unimportant? He wrote a lot more than just the Enchiridion. I don't think we must impose upon him mandatory exhaustion of all important beliefs in just the Enchiridion. As Catholic Dude linked above, and as I am familiar with his views on Mary and the papacy, I know Augustine didn't consider them "unimportant."

While Augustine was writing to a parishioner, and hence, theoretically, someone who was aware of his teaching on a variety of subjects and of his practices. the "handbook" does seem to be intended to cover the important bases. I cannot imagine a Catholic today writing on what is Catholicism without mentioning the pope, or Marian devotion, or the Eucharist, described as the summit of Christian belief and practice. That Augustine would not even address these things is surprising, even more surpising that he did not do so at length. References to Mary and the Eucharist are at best passing in his works, covered in thoughts he had on his way to make some more important point. The papacy seems to have occupied little if none of his thinking..

And yes, Augustine did digress. Sometimes wonderfully, sometimes boringly. He also has a knack of wandering off and then suddenly turning a corner and I discover he had been on topic the whole time, and I was the one who really wandered.
Faith, hope and love cover a lot of things, and a lot of things are covered in his handbook which, although not exhaustive, should have at least covered the major points, and did. It covered the points Augustine considered major. If that is true, then the pope, Mary and the Eucharist were things he considered minor.
Not even a paragraph on each. And that emphasis is in itself significant.

Could Augustine, in his concentration upon some things, have neglected other things, and having completed the work, realized that he had neglected these weighty matters? Possibly, but he was yet to write the Retractions, which I am yet to read.

Sorry about the writing style. He is infectious.

[MarcoPolo]

Originally Posted by Truthstalker

Where did I say "exclusively Protestant?"

You said: "Augustine seems very Protestant on some things, very Catholic on others", making a contrast between the two. So what are some examples of the former?

While Augustine was writing to a parishioner, and hence, theoretically, someone who was aware of his teaching on a variety of subjects and of his practices. the "handbook" does seem to be intended to cover the important bases. I cannot imagine a Catholic today writing on what is Catholicism without mentioning the pope, or Marian devotion, or the Eucharist, described as the summit of Christian belief and practice. That Augustine would not even address these things is surprising, even more surpising that he did not do so at length. References to Mary and the Eucharist are at best passing in his works, covered in thoughts he had on his way to make some more important point. The papacy seems to have occupied little if none of his thinking..

And yes, Augustine did digress. Sometimes wonderfully, sometimes boringly. He also has a knack of wandering off and then suddenly turning a corner and I discover he had been on topic the whole time, and I was the one who really wandered.
Faith, hope and love cover a lot of things, and a lot of things are covered in his handbook which, although not exhaustive, should have at least covered the major points, and did. It covered the points Augustine considered major. If that is true, then the pope, Mary and the Eucharist were things he considered minor.
Not even a paragraph on each. And that emphasis is in itself significant.

Could Augustine, in his concentration upon some things, have neglected other things, and having completed the work, realized that he had neglected these weighty matters? Possibly, but he was yet to write the Retractions, which I am yet to read.

Sorry about the writing style. He is infectious.

Well, do keep reading, because I find the whole "if he considered it important he would have...." sort of logic the same kind of imposed demands the atheists put on God. You know the "If God exists He would do xyz" demands. So it is all fine speculation until you read the importance with which he defended such things as the Papacy in other of his plethora of writings. In this Enchiridion, he doesn't mention the word "bishop" which is in the Bible numerous times. Surely we don't then conclude he did not consider the episcopate important?

And by the way, he mentions Mary several times, including the Church as her figure, and especially in the context of her virginity about which he even references a letter he wrote (Chapt. X.34.b.). I'd also like to see you address some of Catholic Dude's #9 and #11.