A good friend told me that in a Protestant forum they have tried to make a refutation of my original article (Saint Augustine, Did he interpret the Scriptures like Protestants?). The person making the reply is an amateur Protestant apologist who usually visits Catholic forums under various pseudonyms (Pepito, Demon Hunter, Janus, etc.). When I got a copy of the reply, I became interested in preparing a second part because there was still a great deal to say on the subject and this was a magnificent opportunity.

Note: Most of the quotations from the Protestant reply are in English because no effort was made to translate them. The ones I present, however, will always be translated.

Analyzing the reply…

Protestant:
“I recently had the opportunity to talk with a Protestant (Baptist) friend who told me that several Church Fathers, among them Saint Augustine, had “Protestant” positions, especially in their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, which, according to him, is a rejection of the current Catholic interpretation of the primacy of Peter and the Papacy.”
“It should not seem strange that Miguel uses his manipulative tactics of the truth again and there will be a topic that says: Are the Fathers Protestants? It is obvious that no Protestant church has ever taught such a thing, however the Church of Rome affirms that the Church Fathers were papists. The Church Fathers were papists? I think that really should be the topic since we must test the statement of the Church of Rome and know if it is true or not.”

There is no manipulation whatsoever. And it was not only my friend who thought that the Church Fathers had an interpretation similar to what Protestants have today, it is almost widespread among fundamentalist Protestants who have believed an alternative history where the Church of the first 3 centuries had a pure doctrine (we agree on this) but similar to what they profess today (tremendous nonsense). (Unless of course our friend openly acknowledges that no, his doctrine is corrupt and different from that of the first Christians). Thus, the majority believes that as a result of the edict of Milan where freedom of worship is decreed, the Church began to gradually become corrupt (Constantine Myth). You can consult for example the introduction of the Protestant Early Christianity website where they reflect this type of thinking:

Introduction of the Early Christianity Website
In the summer of the year 325, summoned by a Roman emperor: Constantine, the bishops of Christendom met in Nicaea, to elucidate questions of doctrine and put an end once and for all to the different theological and doctrinal disputes that disturbed the Church at that time… As a consequence of this contemporization with the temporal power (which was allowed to convene councils), which will use Christianity as a glue to maintain the unity of the empire for a few more centuries, the church will begin aprocess of paganization and “romanization” that will give rise a few centuries later to what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church.

Not all Protestantism propagates this distorted view of history, but much of it does. Among the Protestant scholars who reject the Constantine myth it is appropriate to mention Pastor Rick Wade, a graduate of Moody Bible Institute with a BA in Communications (broadcasting) and with honors in 1990 from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School with an MA in Christian Thought (theology/philosophy), completing his studies in a thesis on the apologetics of Carl FH Henry. Rick). He recognizes in his article “Tradition and the Early Church” the following:

Rick Wade, Tradition and the Early Church
Occasionally, one finds references to the idea of ​​the “fall” of the church following the conversion of Emperor Constantine in the 4th century. Some believe that under Constantine the church began its slide toward a state religion, having been corrupted by power and money. The interests of church and state overlapped, resulting in the corruption of the church. This cast a shadow over the entire history of the church until the Reformation. Tradition is considered an element of the corrupted and institutionalized church.
While it is true that the new freedom the church experienced under Constantine did have its downside, it does not follow from this that the church “fell,” as some say. Throughout history the church has made mistakes in its dealings with secular society and in knowing how to properly handle the freedom and power it has experienced. Some complain today that Christians link themselves too closely to political parties, bordering on compromise in doing so. This is no different from what was happening in Constantine’s time. That the church acquired a new color when it was established under Constantine, no one questions. But the idea that the church quickly became corrupt, and that the councils convened under its reign were simply pawns of the emperor, is simplistic. The church remained faithful to the task of clarifying and transmitting the apostolic tradition.”The faith professed and practiced in the early churches was not determined by the political machinations of emperors and episcopal hierarchies,” says Williams.”The essential formulation and construction of Christian identity was something that the fourth century received and continued to expand through biblical exegesis and liturgical life, as reflected in the creed tradition.”

It is common to see how some Protestants make great efforts to demonstrate that in some biblical interpretations the first fathers differed from what Catholics believe today, but they end up demonstrating that this faith is diametrically opposed to what they profess today. You won’t see the Protestant author of this reply discussing Augustine’s position on the need for infant baptism, apostolic succession, or other topics, because if you ask him about his church’s apostolic succession he will say, “Well, thank you.”

The Protestant continues:

Everything was fine until Jose Miguel began to speak, I think it would be good to make some interesting clarifications here, the first is that both Protestants and the majority of the Church Fathers hold Peter in high esteem as the first among equals, but we do not believe that Peter was the pope as Rome teaches.
Let’s look at some points of what the infallible Vatican Council I and II say about the papacy and its infallibility, therefore it should be proven that these points were held by Augustine to prove that he believed in the papacy since both Vatican I and II took the Church Fathers as proof for these points:
A. Christ gave the primacy of jurisdiction to Peter over the Church and over the entire world. B. Inherent in the primacy of jurisdiction is also an infallible teaching about the church. C. This right of Jurisdiction is given to Peter’s successors, the bishops of Rome, for all time. D. When speaking ex cathedra, that is, when speaking in his official capacity as pope, and defining doctrine on matters of faith and morals, the bishop of Rome teaches infallibly. E. The Roman pontiff has absolute authority inherent to his position, he has authority over all councils, his judgment cannot be questioned, he cannot be judged by a human tribunal. F. At all times in church history it has been necessary that every church throughout the world should be in agreement with the Church of Rome. G. These teachings have always been held by the entire church throughout all ages and can be validated by the Scriptures, the guns of the general councils and the unanimous council of the Church Fathers. H. It is necessary for salvation that everyone who professes to be a Christian must be subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff in all areas of faith, morals and discipline, and if anyone disagrees with the teachings of Vatican I, let him be anathema.1)

Before analyzing this comment, I want to make available the original text of the First Vatican Council, because our interlocutor does so in an imprecise and somewhat distorted manner:

See the text HERE

This is exactly one of the objections of Webster and other Protestant apologists like Jason Enger. It is anachronistic to try to see in Augustine’s thought a level of explicitness such as appears in the canons of the First Vatican Council. After all, the Church’s understanding of truths of faith has been increasing over the centuries. However, in the topic presented to us we will see that in essence his recognition of Petrine primacy is indisputable and in essence the same as that presented by the Council.

Let’s look at some new examples, and review other texts by Augustine:

Saint Augustine, De utilit.credential c.17 n.35
“Since we see in them a great help from God and so much benefit and usefulness, will we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of this Church which, according to the confession of the human race, has in mind the Apostolic See [Rome] and has maintained by the succession of its bishops the supreme authority, despite the cries of the heretics who besiege it and have been condemned, either by the judgment of the people, or by the solemn decisions of the councils, or by the majesty of miracles? Not wanting to give him first place is surely the product of sovereign impiety or desperate arrogance..And if every science, even the most humble and easy, requires, to be acquired, the help of a doctor or a teacher, can one imagine a more reckless pride, in the case of books of the divine mysteries, to refuse to receive it from the mouths of their interpreters and, without knowing them, to want to condemn them?»

I make a parenthesis between these quotes to emphasize what the error of the Protestant side is: Throughout the entire study he tried to prove that Saint Augustine, when interpreting Matthew 16:18, saw in the confession of faith the rock on which the Church is built. This shows that he did not really understand the meaning of the article. At the same time, it also confirms what was said at the beginning: When a Protestant sees that some church father interprets this way, he assumes that it is a rejection of the Roman primacy. Precisely for this reason, at the beginning of the article, the texts where Saint Augustine interprets in this way were placed. Thus, although what was proven was that this interpretation did not represent a rejection of the Roman primacy and our friend never understood it.

And certainly this rejection not only did not exist, but in the texts presented Saint Augustine is seen declaring first of all that the succession of bishops is taken into account (it is not necessary to remember that Protestants reject the doctrine of apostolic succession, this being another point in which Augustine’s thought opposes them). Later he affirms that the one that he recognizes comes from Peter himself is more true. If this is not enough then give the list of bishops of Rome.

Let’s review some texts where Saint Augustine maintains the same idea.

Saint Augustine, Serm.120 n.13
Those who do not teach that the Roman faith must be kept cannot be believed to keep the Catholic faith.

Saint Augustine. C. ep. Man. 4,5.
“Even leaving aside the sincere and genuine wisdom…, which in your opinion is not found in the Catholic Church, many other reasons keep me in its bosom: the consent of the towns and nations; authority, built with miracles, nourished with hope, increased with charity, confirmed by antiquity; the succession of bishops from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord entrusted, after the resurrection, to feed his sheep, to the episcopate of today;and finally, the very appellation of Catholic, which without reason only the Church has achieved….These bonds of the Christian name – so many, so great and so sweet – keep the believer within the Catholic Church, despite the fact that the truth, due to the clumsiness of our mind and the unworthiness of our life, has not yet shown itself.

When Saint Augustine fights the Donatists he writes in one of his letters:

Saint Augustine, Ep 43,3,7
“…They saw that Caecilian was united by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the primacy of the apostolic chair has always resided.…”

As we progress in the study we will place more evidence, however for now I want to highlight that in this sense the entire reply is literally insubstantial, since it uselessly invests energy in proving something that we do not discuss. Let’s see how it continues:

On whom was the Church founded?
Jose Miguel, like his church, teaches that it is about Peter, however both Protestants, the New Testament and Augustine say that it is about the Confession of Peter and this is faith in Christ.
According to Augustine, and not a Protestant of the 16th century or the 21st century, he says that the stone is not Peter, but the confession: “On this statement that you have made: You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God, I will build my Church.”The church is built on the confession of faith not on Peter.
The Catechism of the Church of Rome says the following: “CCC 881 The Lord made Simon, to whom he gave the name Peter, and him alone, the stone of his Church” and it also says this “Peter, because of the faith confessed by him, will be the unbreakable rock of the Church. He will have the mission of guarding this faith in the face of every weakness and of confirming his brothers in it (cf. Lk 22, 32).”
As Could it be that Augustine’s vision is closer to that of the Church of Rome, when he himself says that the rock is not Peter?How can Augustine be a papist if he completely contradicts Vatican I, II and the catechism itself?

It is also necessary to make a clarification because apparently our friend did not read the initial article correctly: For us Catholics AMBAS interpretations complement each other, it is therefore false to affirm that Saint Augustine contradicts the Catechism who also says the same thing:

CCC 424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe and confess about Jesus: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16, 16). On the rock of this faith, confessed by Saint Peter, Christ has built his Church (cf. Mt 16, 18; Saint Leo the Great, serm. 4, 3;51, 1;62, 2;83, 3).

In his previous paragraph he is scandalized because Saint Augustine interprets that in Matthew 16:18 the Stone is the faith confessed by him, but he does not realize that the catechism also says the same thing. Let’s hope he doesn’t come to say that the catechism teaches Protestant ideas, that it contradicts itself, or that Leo the Great (whom some Protestants disparagingly point out as the most “popish” of the Popes) also did not recognize Roman primacy.

Thus, he starts from an erroneous assumption (that Catholics do not accept as complementary or possible the interpretation that the Stone is also Peter’s faith) to argue a straw man fallacy.

However, the catechism is there to deny him or, at best, show him his error. Thus, if St. Augustine’s particular interpretation is that the Stone is Peter’s faith, we have already shown this is not a rejection of the primacy.

The Protestant continues:

Before finishing this part of the writing I want us to go to Augustine’s retractions, at the beginning of his ministry Augustine said that Peter was the Rock, but later he retracted it and as we see throughout his great theological career his preferred point of view was that the church was founded on Christ or the faith of Peter, but not on his person, let’s see what Augustine says:
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock,and you have received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the most probable. The Church Fathers (Washington DC, Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1
This is extremely interesting and I want us to look at it carefully:
1.- In his Retractions, Augustine corrected the previous point of view where Peter was the Rock.
2.- Then he gives the opinion that he held throughout his ministry and this is Peter is not the rock.

To better analyze this argument, and although at first we had declined to delve into Augustine’s opinion on Matthew 16:18 because it does not represent an undermining of the primacy on the part of Saint Augustine, we will now go a little deeper to really show the true context and how Saint Augustine finally in his retractions, although he leans towards the second interpretation, considers both as possibly valid and in his retractions he leaves the reader to lean towards the one he considers most appropriate.

Some of the quotes where Saint Augustine saw the stone in Peter are:

Saint Augustine, Christian Combat, 31:33(AD 397), in JUR,3:51
“We do not allow ourselves to listen to those who deny that the Church of God is capable of forgiving all sins. They are wrong because they do not recognize Pedro the Rock and they refuse to believe that the keys to heaven, from their own hands, have been given to the Church.”
St. Augustine, Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(AD 417), in NPNF1,VII:76
“When he had thus said to his disciples, “You also will leave me,” Pedro, the Rock answered for everyone: “Lord, to whom will we go, you have words of eternal life”
St. Augustine, In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (AD 418), in Butler, 251
“Peter, who had confessed Him as the son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock on which the Church was to be built.”
Saint Augustine, In Psalms, 104[103]:16(AD 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513
“...But that Rock, Peter himself, the great mountain…”

And now we come to his retractions where I will emphasize what our friend has omitted to comment:

Saint Augustine, Retractations,1:21(AD 427),in GILES, 177
“In my first book Contra Donatus I mentioned somewhere a reference to the apostle Peter as ‘the church is founded on him as on a rock.’ This interpretation also sounds on many lips in the blessing lines of St. Ambrose, where, speaking of domestic cooking, he says: When he sings, the rock of the Church, he absolves sin. But I remember that I frequently explained our Lord’s words to Peter ‘on this rock I will build my church,’ so that they should be understood as referring toto the confession of Peter himself when he says “You are the Christ, the son of the living God, and as if signifying that Peter had then been called a rock, he carried the figure of the Church, which is built on this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. From what was said of him it was not ‘You are a Rock’ but ‘You are Peter’, but the Rock was Christ, having been confessed by Simon (and as the entire Church confesses) who was called Peter. Which of these interpretations is more correct, the reader decides.”

From the previous texts we can understand that:

1. Saint Augustine was first in favor of calling Peter the Stone on which the Church is built.

2. He comments that this interpretation is very widespread and mentions another father of the Church who favors it: Saint Ambrose.

3. He favors the interpretation that the Stone of Matthew 16:18 is the faith of Peter, but he does not definitively reject the first interpretation, which is why he cites Saint Ambrose (another renowned Father of the Church), and thus leaves open the possibility that the other interpretation is also correct, allowing the reader to decide.

This simple fact that our friend and Webster omit illuminates the matter enough to understand that with respect to Matthew 16:18 the two interpretations were possibly valid.

The Protestant continues:

I want you to read these observations from John Rotelle who is the editor of the Catholic series of Augustine’s sermons:
“‘There was Peter, and he hadn’t yet been confirmed in the rock’: That is, in Christ, as participating in his ‘rockiness’ by faith. It does not mean confirmed as the rock, because Augustine never thinks of Peter as the rock. Jesus, after all, did not in fact call him the rock…but ‘Rocky.’The rock on which he would build his Church was, for Augustine, both Christ himself and Peter’s faith, representing the faith of the Church (emphasis mine) (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993), Sermons, Sermon 265D.6, p. 258-259, n. 9.”
It is interesting that this Catholic author and that his series have the imprimatum of the church by giving us the reason for everything that has been said up to this point, let’s see:
1.- Augustine never thought of Peter as the Rock.
2.- Jesus did not call Peter the Rock after all
3.- The Rock on which he would build his church, according to Augustine, was both Christ himself and the faith of Peter, representing the faith of the Church.

At this moment the Protestant party copies verbatim and without translating a quote that Willian Webster has posted in one of his publications. Thus, without going into an in-depth analysis of whether the original author has been taken out of context, it is interesting to note several things.

Regarding point 1 when it says that Augustine NEVER thought of Peter as the Rock, we have already shown that it is fake, we have just given numerous quotes from Saint Augustine where he does so. He himself recognizes this in his retractions, so if our friend or the Catholic scholar affirm this, they are wrong.

Regarding point 2, whether or not Jesus called Peter the Rock (not speaking of the opinion of Saint Augustine) is a separate issue, but if what the Protestant side wants to imply is that Catholic scholars do not believe that Jesus called Peter “the Rock” taking the author they quote as an example, they are blatantly trying to deceive us. For example, you can consult the work “The Roman pontificate in History“by José Orlandis, who has been professor of legal history at the University of Zargoza. First Dean of the faculty of canon law at the University of Navarra, and first director of the Institute of Church History, he has written more than two hundred works and more than twenty books, who writes:

The Roman Pontificate in history, José Orlandis, Page 14
“…It would be up to Peter in the future Church to be a rock, an unbreakable foundation, which would ensure its perenniality.: And I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”, and the promise of the keys of the Kingdom: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” – of binding and loosing in the world with decisions of resonance and transcendent effects: “everything you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven; and everything you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven”

Rest assured, as well as this I could cite a large number of Catholic scholars of this opinion. So if what our friend is trying to give the false impression that these scholars have a different position than yours truly, he is waiting for it to be cold in hell.

Regarding point 3 and having seen that for Saint Augustine both interpretations were valid, I once again note that this does not imply a rejection of the primacy. And since our friend is attracted to taking Webster’s quotes from third parties, what can we say about those of Protestant scholars like Cesar Vidal who write that Saint Augustine always recognized the primacy of the Roman See?

Cesar Vidal. Dictionary of Patristics. Augustine of Hippo:
“…Ecclesiologically, Augustine is not univocal in the use of the term “church”, referring both to the community of the faithful, built on the apostolic foundation, and to the group of predestined ones who live in blessed immortality. He considers a heretic not to him who errs in the faith (Ep. XLIII, I) but to him who “resists the Catholic doctrine that is manifest to him” (De Bapt. XVI, 23), which is expressed inthe baptismal symbol, in the councils (Ep. XLIV, I) and in the see of Peter, who always enjoyed the primacy (Ep. XLIII, 7)”.

The Protestant interlocutor continues rambling:

So the question is, was Augustine a papist? We believe not since his point of view is very far from that of Rome, in fact he could be classified as a heretic by some councils of the Church of Rome.
So we summarize like this:
1. The Church of Rome says that the church is founded on Peter since he is the Stone of Matthew 16:18 2. Augustine says that the church is founded on the faith of Peter, this is on Jesus Christ, according to Peter is not the stone of Matthew 16:18.

Let’s now analyze the points of your summary:

1. We have already seen that point 1 is wrong, we show the text of the catechism where the second interpretation is also made room for and says: “…On the rock of this faith, confessed by Saint Peter, Christ has built his Church.”

2. If Augustine says that the Church is founded on the faith of Peter, the catechism also says the same, there is really no problem. If the problem is that the catechism also uses the other interpretation, there is no problem either because Augustine himself in his retractions allows the reader to choose the interpretation that he considers most convenient. If we add to this that Augustine himself was a supporter of it and it is he himself who reminds us that at that time this interpretation was also popular among reputed fathers (such as Saint Ambrose), our friend’s argument collapses faster than the tower of Babel.

In the first quote given about Augustine, he speaks of Peter as the first of the apostles. What does Augustine mean by this?Did Peter have any office that made him the first among them? The answer is simply No, for Augustine all the apostles were equal since there was no pope.

That Peter was the first is not a primacy of jurisdiction but of honor, we could say of time since Peter was the first to be chosen by the Lord

In previous texts we have demonstrated that Saint Augustine recognized primacy in the Church of Rome. Later we will demonstrate with evidence that this primacy included jurisdiction over other Churches, however I first want to stop at an absurd argument on the Protestant side. Note that he alleges that Pedro has the primacy of honor for being the first to be chosen, and that is why he is “the first among equals.” To justify this he gives the following quotes (also untranslated) to support his point:

As you know, all of you who know the holy scriptures, among the disciples whom the Lord chose while present in the flesh, Peter was the first to be chosen. Paul on the other hand was not chosen among them, nor with them, but a long time afterward, though not for all that unequal to them. So Peter is the first of the apostles, Paul the last;while God, whose servants these two are, whose heralds, whose preachers these two are, is the first and the last (Rv 22:13). Peter first among the apostles, Paul last among the apostles;God both first and last, before whom nothing and after whom nothing. So God who has presented himself as eternally the first and the last, himself joined together the first and the last apostles in martyrdom (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Sermons III/8 (Hyde Park: New City, 1994), Sermon 299.2, p. 229).
The blessed apostles Peter and Paul were called at different times, and crowned on the same day. The Lord called Peter before all the others, Paul after all the others;Peter the first of the apostles, Paul the last;they were led to martydom on one and the same day by the First and the Last (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Sermons III/8 (Hyde Park: New City, 1994), Sermon 299C.1, p. 250).

Note that these texts are talking about Peter and Paul as apostles (we believe that Peter is as much an apostle as Paul and vice versa). There he is not delving into the primacy of Peter, but rather the relationship of the holy apostles Peter and Paul regarding their order of calling. Therefore, this argument does not support the Protestant position.

There are other texts by Saint Augustine however that completely deny that Peter in his office as primate has the same authority as the rest of the apostles, and we will see them below.

We have an example when he writes that Pedro is:

Saint Augustine, Serm 76.3
“...the first and chief in the order of the apostles, in which the Church was represented”

Thus in Augustine’s interpretation, Peter can represent the Church and is called the head of the apostles. Note the discrepancy between what was expressed by the Protestant side and Augustine’s own words. Any speculation relating his primacy to the order in which he was called by Jesus is inconsistent.(Without entering into the controversy of who was really called first, since the gospels narrate it was Andrew). Take an example from daily life and consider whether the most senior employee in a company can already be called the boss.

Other texts where Augustine uses similar expressions:

Saint Augustine, Serm 295 2.75 9
“Among the apostles, almost everywhere, only Peter deserved to carry the person of the Church, because this same person, the only one of the entire Church who supported it, only he deserved to hear: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.“For you the keys, not for one man, but to receive the unity of the Church. Since then the excellence of Peter is established, because he supported the figure of that same universality and unity of the church when it was said to him: I give you, in the case of something that has been given to all. Therefore, that you may know that the Church has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: Receive the Holy Spirit. And then: Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, but whose sins you retain are retained. In this same sense, the Lord, after his resurrection, also entrusted his sheep to feed them. It is not that he was the only one of the disciples who had the charge of feeding the Lord’s sheep;It is that Christ, by referring to only one, wanted to signify the unity of the Church;and, if he addresses Peter in preference to the others, it is because Peter is the first among the apostles. Do not be sad, apostle;Answer once, answer twice, answer three. May your profession of love conquer three times, since fear defeated your presumption three times. What you had bound three times must be loosed three times. Unleash through love what you had bound through fear. Despite his weakness, for the first, second and third time the Lord entrusted his sheep to Peter.

According to Augustine, only Peter deserved to bear the person of the entire Church, he was the only one who supported the entire Church and only he deserved to hear: “I’ll give you the keys.” Through him he gives them to the entire Church, but he is the bearer. They are all shepherds of the flock, but Peter, the head of the other apostles (as Augustine calls him) represents them by reason of his Primacy. All apostles can bind and loose in communion with their chair. It is deduced from all of Augustine’s texts where he states that to be united to the Catholic Church one must be united to the apostolic see.

St. Augustine, On the Gospel of John, Tract 124:5 (AD 416), in NPNF1, VII:450
“As the Church acts in blessed hope towards this problematic life, and this Church…was personified in the apostle Peter, on account of the primacy he had among the apostles.”

At this point it is indisputable that Saint Augustine recognized the primacy of Rome. Now, if you try to argue that this primacy was only a primacy of “honor” this argument also fails and we will give several reasons.

In parallel texts where Augustine uses this same word, this interpretation cannot be accommodated, for example when he writes:

Saint Augustine, (To Glorius et. al., Epistle 43:3(AD 397-398), in FC, XII:184)
“I noticed that we had other ecclesiastical records. According to them, Segundo Tigisitano, who was then the primate of Numidia, had left the traditors, who were present and confessed their crime, to the judgment of God.”He allowed them to remain as they were in their episcopal sees.”

Tigisitano’s second at that time maintained the primacy in the province of Numidia. Thus, by maintaining primacy he presided over other bishops of Numidia, (At the council of Cirta Segundo presided over the council)

But through the review of historical facts it is possible to more forcefully prove Saint Augustine’s recognition of the primacy of Rome, not only a primacy of honor but also of jurisdiction. We have clear proof when in several councils held in Carthage and Milevis the African bishops condemned Pelagianism and appealed to the Pope to ratify their decision. An excerpt from the letter that 68 bishops sent to the Pope says:

Council of Carthage to Pope Innocent I
“We have gone according to custom to the Church of Carthage, and a synod was held to discuss various topics, when our brother presbyter Orosius presented us with letters from our holy brothers and fellow bishops Heros and Lazarus, which we included. Having read these, we have perceived that Pelagius and Celestine were accused of being authors of a perverse error, which must be condemned by us all. Therefore we ask that everything that has been done regarding Celestine here in Carthage for about five years must be carried to the end. Having read this, as your Holiness can perceive from the minutes that we attach, although the decision was clear, by which it had been shown how great a wound had been amputated from the Church by episcopal judgment, we still thought it expedient in common deliberation, that the authors of this persuasion (despite the fact that it was said that this Celestine has since reached the priesthood), be openly.anathematized so that, if their salvation is not achieved, at least that of those who have been or may be deceived by them can be achieved, when they know about the sentence against them. We think it is correct that this act, honorable brother, was communicated to your holy charity, so that the authority of the Apostolic See could be added to the stature of our smallness. (ut statutis nostrae mediocritatis etiam apostolcae sedis adhibeatur auctoritas) for the preservation of the security of many, and for the correction of the perversity of some.”
“And we fear that by repeating to you these same things that you preach with greater grace from the Apostolic chair (quae majore gratia de sede apostolica praedicas), it might seem that we acted in an inconvenient manner. But we do it properly, only taking into account our greatest weakness, the more zeal we show in preaching the Word of God, the more constant and daring the attacks of the heretics are. If, therefore, Pelagius seems to his Holiness justly absolved by the Episcopal acts which are said to have been negotiated in the East, in any case, the very error and impiety which now has many promoters in various places, He must also be anathematized by the authority of the Apostolic See. May your Holiness consider and feel with us in your shepherd’s heart how vain and destructive the necessary consequences of your sacrilegious discussion are for the sheep of Christ.”
“For, even if Pelagius and Celestine have corrected their conduct or announce that they never held such opinions, and deny that any writings presented to us as evidence against them are theirs, and if there is no way to convince them of their falsity, still in general whoever wants to assert dogmatically, etc., is anathema. Whatever other things are objected to against them, We do not doubt that your Reverence, after reading the Episcopal acts that are said to have been drawn up in the East for the same reason, will issue such a sentence that will make us all rejoice in the mercy of God. (id judicarurum unde omnes in Dei misericordia gaudeamus).”

Another letter sent by 61 bishops of the Council of Milevis (Saint Augustine included) said:

Council of Milevis to Pope Innocent I
“Since God by a special gift of His grace has placed you in the Apostolic See, and has given us someone like you in our times, so that it may rather be imputed to us as a lack of negligence if we fail to show to your Reverence what is suggested for the Church, than to you having received the same with contempt or negligence we beg you to involve your pastoral diligence towards the great danger of the weak members of Christ.”
“By hinting these things to his Apostolic breast We do not need to say much, and pile up words about this impiety, because it will undoubtedly move in you such wisdom that you will not be able to refrain from correcting them, so that they cannot continue to infiltrate any further… It is said that the authors of this pernicious heresy are Pelagius and Celestine, who, in truth, should prefer to be cured with the Church, instead of being needlessly separated from the Church. One of them, Celestine, is said to have even reached the priesthood in Asia. His Holiness is better informed by the Council of Carthage about what was done against him some years ago. Pelagius, the letters of some of our brethren inform us, is in Jerusalem, and is said to have deceived many there. Many more, however, who have been able to examine his views more closely, are fighting him in the name of the Catholic Faith, but specifically his holy son, our brother and fellow priest, Jerome. But we consider that with the help of the mercy of our God, to whom we pray to advise him and hear his prayers, those who hold these perverse and banal opinions They will yield more easily to the authority of His Holiness, which has been taken from the authority of the Holy Scriptures (auctoritati sanctitatis tuae, de sanctarum scripturarum auctoritate depromptae facilius….esse cessuros), so that we may rejoice in its correction rather than grieve at its destruction. But whatever they themselves choose, your Reverence perceives that at least care must be taken of those many who may be entangled in their networks if they do not submit honestly. We write this to your Holiness from the Council of Numidia, imitating our fellow bishops of the Church and province of Carthage, who we understand have written on this subject to the Apostolic See that your Grace adorns.”

In these letters the Pope is pointed out as the one who received from God the special grace of sitting in the apostolic chair, but the most striking thing is that although the sentences of two local councils full of bishops (Augustine included) is rejected by the heretics, the authority of the apostolic chair can either terrify them or perhaps convert them.

It is necessary to highlight that the bishops ask for an authoritative condemnation from the Pope of those doctrines that they had previously condemned, so that evil is entirely eradicated, implicitly recognizing that while a local council can only reach the African regions, the Pope’s reach has universal force. If this is not jurisdiction, ask yourself what is.

And if the bishop of Rome did not have authority over the entire Church, why would the bishops of Africa and Augustine worry about what the Pope (also a bishop) said or not?Why would the heretics who had ignored the decision of more than 100 bishops convert because of what one said?

Later, Saint Augustine sends a letter to a bishop named Hilary, warning him against the heretics:

Saint Augustine, Ep 178, p.773
“…we have heard that in the Church of Carthage a decree of a council of bishops has been made against them to be sent by letter to the holy and venerable Pope Innocent, and we have similar letters from the Council of Numidia to the same apostolic chair.”

Let us now see the Pope’s response to the letters of the African bishops on January 3, 417:

Letter from Pope Innocent I to the Council of Carthage, Ep 181 in FC, XII:121-122, 125, 127
“By inquiring into those things which ought to be treated with all diligence by bishops, and especially by a true and just Catholic Council, preserving, as you have done, the example of ancient tradition, and taking care of ecclesiastical discipline, you have truly strengthened the vigor of our Faith, no less now that you consult us than when you passed your verdict. Since you decided that it was appropriate to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all of us who are in this place, wish to follow the Apostle (Peter) from whom the very episcopacy and the entire authority of this name are derived.Following in his footsteps, we know how to condemn evil and approve of good. Likewise, you have preserved through your priestly office the customs of the Fathers and have not disdained that which It is decreed by a divine and not a human sentence, that whatever is done, even in distant provinces, must not end without having been made known to this See. That it is by his authority that all righteous pronouncements must be strengthened, and that from these all the other Churches (like waters flowing from their source and running through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of the only incorrupt head) must receive what they seek to impose, whom they must wash and whom this water, worthy of pure bodies, must avoid as desecrated with unwashable filth. I congratulate you, therefore, dear brothers, for having addressed letters to us through our brother and companion Bishop Julius, and for, while you care for the Churches that you govern, you have shown your concern for the well-being of all and that you ask for a decree that should benefit all the Churches of the world at once, so that the Church, having established in its rules and confirmed by this decree a just pronouncement against these errors, may avoid fearing these men, etc.
Letter from Pope Innocent I to the Council of Milevi, Ep 182, in FC, XII:127, 128, 130, 131
“Within the duties of the Roman Church and the activities of the Apostolic See in which we deal with the faithful and healing discussions of the consultations of various people, our brother and fellow bishop Julius has unexpectedly brought me the letters of his charity that they send from the Council of Milevis in their serious care for the Faith, adding to the writing a similar complaint from the Council of Carthage. It is therefore with due care and appropriately that you consult the secrets of the apostolic office (apostolici consitis honoris [al. oneris] arcane) that job, I mean, to which it corresponds, as well as things outside, the care of all the Churches, about what opinion they should have on this worrying question, following then the old rule that you know has been observed with me throughout the world. But I discard this topic, because I do not think that it is unknown for its prudence;If not, why confirm it with your action, if you did not know that the answers always flow from the Apostolic source to all the provinces for those who ask for them?Especially frequently a question of faith is discussed. I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer them to no one other than Peter, the author of his name and office, even as now that his charity has referred to us a topic that can be useful throughout the world to all the Churches in common. For of necessity we must become more cautious when we see the inventors of evil, because of the relationship of the two synods, have been cut off by our sentence from ecclesial communion. Your charity will therefore do double good. Because you will obtain the grace of having preserved the canons and the whole world will share its benefit.”

It would be very foolish to deny the conviction that the Pope expresses in his letters to the African bishops (Augustine included) about his jurisdiction over the world. In fact, he expresses it clearly when he states that “it must not end without having been made known to this Headquarters. That it is by its authority that all just pronouncements must be strengthened”.Interesting is that it is stated that this is an ancient rule that is followed everywhere, and even clearer when it is stated that it is the responsibility of the care of all the Churches, and that the answers flow from this apostolic source to all the provinces that request it, especially in matters of faith.

It is not necessary to say that such a letter would not have been well received by Saint Augustine and the African bishops if they thought like our Protestant counterpart, and if there had not been such primacy and jurisdiction of the Pope over the provinces of the world, the Pope’s words would have been completely out of place. However, Saint Augustine does not show any evidence that said letter caused discomfort in any sense, and not only does he not say “pio”, but he rejoices at the Pope’s ruling and writes that Rome has already spoken, the case is closed:

Saint Augustine, Sermo 131,10,10;Ep 1507
“For this reasonTwo letters have been sent to the apostolic see and two rescripts have also come from there. The case is over so that the error finally ends”

In the future, Saint Augustine reaffirms his thoughts on the definitiveness of Pope Innocent’s decree.

Saint Augustine, On Original Sin, 7:8 (AD 418), in NPNF1, V:239
“[Caelestius] should maintain his assent to the decree of the apostolic chair which he had published by his predecessor of sacred memory. The accused, however, refused to condemn the objections made by the deacon, yet he did not dare to openly support the letter of the blessed Pope Innocent.”
St. Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 3:5 (AD 420), in NPNF1, V:393
“…he answered that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent of blessed memory, in whom all doubt on this matter was removed”
St. Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 4:6 (AD 420), in NPNF1, V:394
“The words of the venerable bishop Innocent referring to this matter to the Carthaginian Council.What could be clearer or more manifest than the judgment of the apostolic chair?”

So any objection to denying that Saint Augustine considered the Pope’s decrees as authoritative and definitive is laughable.

Once we have seen all this, we can gracefully see comments from the Protestant side that affirm “Augustine does not say that the successors of Peter have jurisdiction over the church.”

Let us now analyze other objections from the Protestant side:

And here we see another lie from Jose Miguel since he says: “For the holy bishop of Hippo, the ministry granted to Peter was specifically carried out by the bishops of Rome in uninterrupted succession.”Which ministry?The one from the papacy?Vicars of Christ?Papal infallibility?Jurisdiction over the Church?Can you answer us, Mr. Miguel?

We mean of course to the office of the apostolic chair, the chair of Peter, or whatever you prefer to call it.

I quote again from Epistle 53 where Saint Augustine explicitly states that the succession of the bishops of Rome reaches back to Peter himself, and even gives us the list of bishops of Rome up to the time he wrote this letter.

Saint Augustine. Ep.53.2 
“If the succession of bishops is taken into account, the more certain and beneficial the Church that we recognize reaches Peter himself, the one who bore the figure of the entire Church, the Lord said to him: “On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it!” Peter’s successor was Linus, and his successors in order of uninterrupted succession were these: Clement, Anacletus, Evaristo, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus,Hyginius, Anicetus, Pius, Sotero, Eleuterio, Victor, Cepherinus, Callixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antero, Fabian, Cornelius, Lycius, Stephen, Sixtus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Mark, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present bishop Anastasius In this order of.succession, no Donatist bishop is found.”

I have also shown the letters of the African councils (Augustine included) where this office is recognized and his definitive pronouncement is requested to eradicate the heresy. These are conclusive evidence, but of course, “There is no worse blind man than he who does not want to see.”

The Protestant continues:

Although I put my emphasis on the last contributions of JMA, the first is interesting, where Augustine gives the reasons why he does not depart from the Catholic Church, which is not the same as that of JMA, here we see his ecclesiology well defined that he obtained from Optatus who wrote “Seven books on the Donatist schism” PL, XI, 883-1103. Augustine’s point of view does not differ much from that of Optatus, regarding the catholicity of the church he says that it consists of being throughout the earth “Of the Unity of the Church”,3 (BAC XXX 659) 4) and the apostolicity of the church is based on the apostolic succession of its bishops, whose epitome is found in Rome, since there an uninterrupted succession can be noted from Peter, “figure of the entire Church” Epistola LII, 1 (BAC, LXIX, 301).
The Donatists did not have these characteristics, since their doctrines did not agree with those of the apostolic churches, therefore their doctrines were not orthodox. However, we never find in the quote given by JMA any jurisdiction of Peter and his successors over the Church, as taught by Rome, or that Augustine remains in the church for the simple fact that the bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ on earth. In Augustine’s thought there was no primacy other than that of the apostolic church and not that of a “papacy” as JMA wants to deceive us, Augustine had the Church of Rome and its Bishop in high esteem, but he did not have any type of papal view over them, let’s see what this Historian of Rome says:
Elsewhere I have argued in detail Augustine’s views of authority in the Church and that, in my opinion, the council [not the Pope] was the primary instrument for settling controversies….I believe that Augustine had great respect for the Roman church whose antiquity and apostolic origins made it outshine by far other churches in the West. But as with Cyprian, the African collegial and conciliar tradition was to be preferred most of the time.” (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 79)

Here the Protestant side begins with an obvious straw man fallacy, stating that Saint Augustine does not depart from the Catholic Church for reasons different from those that I have given, but which one have I given? I limited myself to copying verbatim the quote from Augustine where he explains it in his own words:

Saint Augustine. C. ep. Man. 4,5.
“Even leaving aside the sincere and genuine wisdom…, which in your opinion is not found in the Catholic Church, many other reasons keep me in its bosom: the consent of the towns and nations; the authority, erected with miracles, nourished with hope, increased with charity, confirmed by antiquity; the succession of bishops from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord entrusted, after the resurrection, to shepherd hissheep, to the episcopate of today; and finally, the very appellation of Catholic, which is without reason only the Church has achieved…. These bonds of the Christian name – so many, so great and so sweet – keep the believer in the bosom of the Catholic Church, despite the fact that the truth, due to the clumsiness of our mind and the unworthiness of our life, has not yet shown itself.

It is Saint Augustine (not me) who affirms that one of the reasons why he does not depart from the Church is because of the succession of bishops from the very see of the apostle Peter. It is notable that also in this same epistle he says later: “I would not believe in the gospel if I were not moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”

Now, I haven’t said that that was the only reason, and if that’s what you’ve tried to imply, you’re lying. But something that Augustine does testify is that if one is not in communion with Rome (as is the case of the author of the Protestant reply) he does not have communion with the Catholic Church, just as he reproaches the Donatists:

Saint Augustine, Serm.120 n.13
Those who do not teach that the Roman faith must be kept cannot be believed to keep the Catholic faith.
Saint Augustine, Psalm against the Donatist Party, 2 (AD 393), in GILES, 182
“Come, Donatist brothers, if you wish to be united to the vine. It is painful when we see you thus cut off. NI raised priests even from the seat of Peter.And in that order of parents, see who succeeded them: That is a rock that the gates of hell cannot conquer.All who rejoice in peace only judge truly.”

The next thing he says is a gratuitous statement about the denial of evidence of the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over other churches, an argument that we already refute clearly enough.

Regarding the quote from Michael Glazier where despite the words he inserts in brackets, to change the original meaning of the text, this does not support his point either, because what he says is that councils were the first instrument to resolve disputes, but the same thing happens today. It is not the same to say the first instrument as the last instance or highest authority. Let us not forget that it is the same popes who used and use councils as the main instrument to solve problems, and that did not diminish their authority. We have just shown palpable proof: the conflicts with the Pelagians tried to be resolved through councils and in these cases the approval of the Bishop of Rome was requested to confirm these decisions and make them the rule for the entire Church.

To finish I will analyze an irrelevant comment where I am accused of anachronism:

“What more can you ask for? That he mentions you with the title of “Pope”? Well, he also does that on countless occasions, which would be very laborious to count,”
The use of the word “pope” is a complete anachronism, since at that time the word “pope” was used, which simply means “father” to each bishop, for example Jerome calls Athanasius, Epiphanius, Paulinus and Augustine with the title of pope, the Greeks continue to use it with any priest, however Jose Miguel wants to deceive us that Augustine’s use of the word “pope” to the bishops of Rome means that he supports thepapacy that promotes the Church of Rome, but does not say that it was until the 7th century that in the Latin church it became the property of the bishops of Rome. Gregory VII ordered that in 1073 the title be reserved exclusively for the bishop of Rome. So Jose Miguel, you don’t want to give a meaning to the word “pope” that it didn’t have until centuries after Augustine.

In this part our friend openly declares himself clairvoyant and affirms what I want or do not want people to believe. I have not said that the title of Pope was exclusive at that time for the bishop of Rome and I have not claimed that the primacy of the bishop of Rome depends directly on being called Pope, the evidence presented was sufficient. My comment does not have to be understood beyond what it says and that is that if my Protestant friend, after all the evidence presented, the only thing he needed was to hear that the bishop of Rome was called “Pope” then he has that there too.

Conclusion

I hope that this brief study allows us to delve deeper into this topic, of which there is so little published on the Web in Spanish. I hope in a next installment to touch on other evidence on such an extensive topic. I thank the Protestant counterpart who has been the trigger to continue enriching Catholic apologetics.

Author: José Miguel Arraiz
Collaboration in the translation of patristic texts: Carlos Urutia (carlos@hitechtranslations.com)

Bibliography

BAC 422. Patrology III, Patristic Institute Augustinianum

BAC 457. Complete Works of Saint Augustine, XXXV

BAC 69. Complete Works of Saint Augustine, VIII

BAC 99b, Complete Works of Saint Augustine, XI b

The Roman pontificate in History, José Orlandis

Jesus, Peter & Keys, Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, Rev. Mr. David Hess

Upon this Rock, Stephen K. Ray

St. Augustine, St. Peter & the Papacy, Stephen K. Ray

St. Augustine, Pelagianism, and the Holy See, by John Chapman

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Dictionary of Patristics, Cesar Vidal Manzanares