Trad,
Romanists have this tendency to read back into the statements of the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) a certain meaning that one wants to see, regardless of whether that perceived meaning can stand the test of historical examination and scrutiny. Further, in
my wide-ranging rebuttal of numerous claims made that Protestants have no answer to Romanist one-liners about various topics I included adequate context and scrutiny to demonstrate that Augustine is not bowing to the existing church at Rome, but rather to
the authority of the church as the
means of the salvation of all persons from the preaching of the word of God. You argued for consideration of Augustine's other words elsewhere, and in my rejoinder I noted the contrary that supported my original position. All of which is to say that getting into a "he said this here, but later he says this elsewhere" is not going to prevail in support of any position you may have.
Augustine Belongs to The Church Militant - Not Rome Alone
There was a point in history when Rome viewed Augustine’s theology as cardinal, only rejecting it, indeed
anathematizing it, at Trent for
semi-Pelagianism. The Reformed still cling to Augustine's view of regeneration. R.C. Sproul has written that the WCF is "thoroughly Augustinian". B. B. Warfield noted that the Reformation was a theological revival to recover Augustinianism. Sacramentally, both to baptism and to communion, Augustine was a Lutheran, definitely not a Romanist. One need not wonder why Luther was an Augustinian. Soteriologically, Augustine was as Calvinistic as the Apostle Paul. Rome strives mightily to claim Augustine as a great supporter of its views. Those having studied and read what Augustine wrote will agree that said support of Rome is
very hard to come by. And as we see in this small discussion, when some of Augustine is put forth it is subject to interpretation; and some of what Augustine wrote is completely incompatible with Rome's views of the church authority. Neither Rome nor Protestantism owns Augustine; he belongs to the church.
Using the ECF Wisely
The ECF generally use but the language of the Scriptures upon the topics before us, while they scarcely make any statements which afford us materials for deciding in what precise sense they understood these topics. They rightly leave the matter very much where Scripture leaves it, and where, but for the rise of errors needing to be contradicted and opposed, it might still have been left. As long as Rome's apologists are able to speak in grandiose and general terms of the ECF for the claims of Rome, they are able to make it appear to others as though Rome's paradigm for ecclesiology is the answer to all ecclesiastical controversies. But once they try to offer specific examples, where such claims are represented by a particular case, their arguments are usually toppled by overt anachronistic readings of the ECF. Romanists do this very thing when they appeal to Augustine's use of "Rome" and "Church" to mean the Rome and its Church they now follow, all the while refusing to submit to the plain facts of history.
The Historical Rise of Romanism
For those who don't know much about
church history personal research availing oneself of
more than just Rome's own accounts of its history is in order in order to
separate mythology from factuality and to discount
Rome's claims of monolithicity. A good first step take would be to read First Clement. It's one of the earliest extra-Biblical Christian documents available, and it represents early Christianity in the city of Rome and is very relevant and contradictory to the claims about the early church, especially when Rome's apologists attempt to appeal to Rome as the bearer of its own historical foundations with the idea that the early particular church existing in Rome is that same church today.
The early days of
the particular church in Rome was organized as a presbytery until the middle to later part of the second century. The prebytery consisted of a plurality of elders or presbyters, the latter term being synonymous with bishops. Roman Catholicism does not exist
as such until the fourth century,
at the earliest, really until Leo I (440-461). Episcopacy, yes, but not Roman Catholicism. It was Damasus I (reigned 366–84 AD), who first claimed the title pope (from the Latin,
papa, “father”) for the bishop of Rome, and there was nothing remotely like the papacy as we know it until Gregory I (reigned 590–604), following the fall of the Empire in the West (476 AD). In fact, Gregory I was offended by the label
universal pope, noting
a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest. Sadly history tells us that Gregory I, the last good pope (HT:
Calvin), was ignored as Leo I and Galsius led the way to later bishops of Rome laying claim to this
proud address.
By the ninth century Christendom was divided governmentally into five geographic regions, having heads in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. Over the years Rome had started claiming more and more power and authority. The papacy as we know it is a medieval creature. And the Romanist's claims to an unbroken succession tumbles upon the facts of history, especially those facts cropping up at Avignon, Pisa, and Rome for a century in the late medieval period. See also
here. Years later at Reims in 1049, the Roman Church made it clear that the pope is
pontifex universalis, assuming upon itself what Gregory claimed as identification of the one who
in his self-exaltation [is] Antichrist’s precursor…. The papacy we see today really was not even present until Gregory VII (1073 AD).
The actual establishment of the political and ecclesiastical Rome owes its genesis to three popes: Hildebrand (1020-1085), Innocent III (1161-1216), and Boniface VIII (1235-1303). With Innocent III the papacy was cemented as a controller of church and state. His Fourth Lateran Council defined RCC's seven sacraments, required confession, and made the
penitential treadmill necessary as the only way to salvation. Finally Boniface's
Unam Sanctum made submission to the Pope necessary for salvation.
By the thirteenth century
the true church was in the wilderness existing in part among some within the RCC and the Waldenses. Justification by faith alone, the divine way of forgiveness and salvation had yet to be officially denounced and condemned. Lastly, the church had yet to declare that Rome's interpretation of inspired Holy Writ was
infallible and solely legitimate. So
the true church was there, but, as noted, scattered in the wilderness wherein the elect did hear our Lord's voice above that of the false shepherds, much like the blind man heard Jesus as the Christ in John 9.
