No, all you did was quoted what Augustine said, but it is obvious you have no idea what he meant.
And thanks for bringing up J.N.D. Kelly.
Sure he is a reputable patristics scholar and he agrees with me in reference to Augustine.
“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1)."
- Yes, Catholic did mean the universal church and is not equivalent to the Roman Catholic Church, thanks for making that point. 2) Yes, the Catholic((universal) Church is the true church and not a heretical congregation. Thanks for pointing that out. 3) Yes, the church is a visible entity and even though the earliest fathers didn’t speak of an invisible church that is clearly Biblical. Furthermore, even your church affirms it when it speaks of people being saved who are not a part of the visible church. Finally, you should have quoted the next sentence where he Kelly says the following:
Yet speculation about the Church as a pre-existent, spiritual reality was already at work, and traces of it appears in 2 Clement and Hermas. The former, perhaps taking his cue from **St. Paul (Eph. I, 3-5), represents the Church as having been created before sun and moon and as being the mother of Christians. (J.N.D. Kelly, “Early Christian Doctrine”, immediately after the last sentence Bishopite quoted ).
So what do we have here. First of all, I have no idea what this has to do with the topic at hand. But once it again it shows the Catholic apologetic play book. Quickly divert to another topic when the walls are closing in on you. Second, the invisible church has precedent not only in the ECFs, but also in the Scriptures. I could actually argue more convincingly for it from the Scriptures. Also Rome has a concept of it even though her apologists often try to deny it. Finally, it shows one can have a book and not understand the issues it presents or misrepresent them.
Yes, I have his book.
You mentioned St. Athanasius. Here is what he believed about the Eucharist.
“You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected.”,
[RIGHT]-“Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D[/RIGHT]
Since you have the book maybe you should read it on page 440-442 and Kelly would help you with your problem of interpreting Athanasius, Agustine, and others. Allow me to explain. Every time a father says some thing like “the bread is the body of Christ” or “we feed on the body and blood of Christ”, Catholics shout transubstantiation. However, the only thing the fathers are doing is using sacramental and biblical language. Jesus himself says this is my body. You have to read a bit deeper on these issues to understand what the individuals mean when they used these types of phrases which is why asked the other two questions in a separate post. After making this point on the aforementioned pages Kelly says the following about Athanasius:
Athaanaius, too*, while not eimploying such terms as ‘symbol’ or ‘antitype’, clearly distinguishes the visible bread and wine from the spiritual nourishment they convey.( pg. 441; that I know you read since you have the book )
So don’t just have the book or even just read the book, but you must understand the meaning of the words in the book.