According to Catholicism, what must one believe and do to be saved?

bbbbbbb said:

There are historic teachings (at least as early as Augustine, if not earlier) which promote monergism, as well as synergism. The moment that God intervenes in a human's life, that human's will is compromised. The question which has been debated endlessly is to what degree does God's will compromises human will. I assuredly cannot answer the question and my speculations are of no more interest or value than others, who have promoted their understanding far more eloquently.

Click to expand...

And the church's basic teachings on how man is first moved to God are pure Augustinian, based largely on his arguments against Pelagianism which he made some 75 years before the church used them at council in 529 to formulate doctrine on the matter. And man is a limited, finite being in any case so; his will is never totally free, as in infinitely or absolutely or perfectly free as in the case of God, and even fallen man is not totally depraved in that area even as he's compromised in will, ignorant, corrupted, wounded, etc. Similarly, fallen man is also not as bad as he can possibly be, as in absolutely bad/evil, even as some theologies seem bent on characterizing him as such. But he's certainly lost, prideful, cut off from his Creator-from the "knowledge of God"-and therefore existing in a state of injustice based strictly on that alienation alone: an anomalous, disordered existence which consitutes the state sometimes referred to as "orignal sin". So that departure from God and from His wise and loving control is the essence of man's woundedness, sickness, death. Man was made for communion with God, so reconciliation with Him is the most essential aspect of man's justification.

Either way man is simply a morally accountable being, not an amoral beast, able to make choices for good or evil. He needs grace to move him to God, the ultimate and final Good, he needs revelation to inform him about God, he apparently benefits from the direct exeperience-the knowledge- of good and evil, in order to be able to choose between the two. He needs help, he needs grace, no doubt.

fhansen said:

And the church's basic teachings on how man is first moved to God are pure Augustinian, based largely on his arguments against Pelagianism which he made some 75 years before the church used them at council in 529 to formulate doctrine on the matter. And man is a limited, finite being in any case so; his will is never totally free, as in infinitely or absolutely or perfectly free as in the case of God, and even fallen man is not totally depraved in that area even as he's compromised in will, ignorant, corrupted, wounded, etc. Similarly, fallen man is also not as bad as he can possibly be, as in absolutely bad/evil, even as some theologies seem bent on characterizing him as such. But he's certainly lost, prideful, cut off from his Creator-from the "knowledge of God"-and therefore existing in a state of injustice based strictly on that alienation alone: an anomalous, disordered existence which consitutes the state sometimes referred to as "orignal sin". So that departure from God and from His wise and loving control is the essence of man's woundedness, sickness, death. Man was made for communion with God, so reconciliation with Him is the most essential aspect of man's justification.

Either way man is simply a morally accountable being, not an amoral beast, able to make choices for good or evil. He needs grace to move him to God, the ultimate and final Good, he needs revelation to inform him about God, he apparently benefits from the direct exeperience-the knowledge- of good and evil, in order to be able to choose between the two. He needs help, he needs grace, no doubt.

Click to expand...

One of the burning questions has been how much revelation is needed from God and how capable are folks in handling that revelation. There is a lot of current discussion which tends toward the notion that the general revelation which God has provided in His creation is sufficient for folks to attain salvation - without necessarily knowing a thing about the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is also a movement in which several Popes have glossed over the differences between Christianity and other religions such as Islam and have indicated that "good" non-Christians are capable of attaining salvation. It is a bitter pill to swallow if one determines to hold to historic Christianity which has asserted that there is no salvation outside of faith in Jesus Christ - or, in the case of some branches of Christianity that there is no salvation outside of their particular branch.

bbbbbbb said:

One of the burning questions has been how much revelation is needed from God and how capable are folks in handling that revelation. There is a lot of current discussion which tends toward the notion that the general revelation which God has provided in His creation is sufficient for folks to attain salvation - without necessarily knowing a thing about the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is also a movement in which several Popes have glossed over the differences between Christianity and other religions such as Islam and have indicated that "good" non-Christians are capable of attaining salvation. It is a bitter pill to swallow if one determines to hold to historic Christianity which has asserted that there is no salvation outside of faith in Jesus Christ - or, in the case of some branches of Christianity that there is no salvation outside of their particular branch.

Click to expand...

Well, in Rom 1, of course, Paul maintained that creation, itself, testifies to the reality of God, leaving no excuse for unbelief. That’s at least a “motive of credibility” as they’re sometimes called. And these can be aspects of His revelation and grace as well. Again, this world is a schoolhouse in itself, pointing to our need for something “bigger” than ourselves and the rest of creation. And we have to understand that He whom Jesus reveals to us, whom Jesus reconciles us with, whom Jesus unites us with, is God. That’s why Jesus came.

“Through Him you believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and glorified Him, and so your faith and hope are in God.” 1 Pet 1:21

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” John 17:3

To believe in Jesus is to believe in God. Faith is more than just a sort of arbitrary litmus test regarding belief in certain truths about Jesus Christ. It’s broader than that; it has to do with the whole purpose of Christ’s coming, rectifying the injustice caused at the Fall of man: the rift between man and God.

So…everything Jesus said and did is an expression of who God is and what He wants for us. When we see Jesus, we see God, when we know Jesus, we know God, and when we believe in, hope in, and love Jesus, we believe in, hope in, and love God. Are there people who are ignorant of Jesus for one reason or another, for maybe valid reasons, and yet have a certain, while imperfect, knowledge of God? Added to that, are our theologies as Christians necessarily perfect? The variety of beliefs here on these Christian forums sometimes reveal profoundly different understandings of the nature and will of God, often based on differing interpretations of Scripture.

So, is God pleased by faith, wherever it’s found, by those who acknowledge His existence first of all as per Heb 11:6, faith such as Abraham had without knowing Christ? Does He forgive our ignorance, our less than perfect understanding? Do some respond to whatever grace and the image of God as well as His law that resides within as best they can, thinking of Rom 2:12-16 here? I believe that we’ll be judged based on what we did with whatever we were given, with more demanded of those who’re given more, and less from those who’re given less, Luke 12:48. As Christians, generally speaking, we’ve been given much. At the end of the day anyone saved will be saved through Christ, including those who lived and died before His Incarnation.

fhansen said:

Well, in Rom 1, of course, Paul maintained that creation, itself, testifies to the reality of God, leaving no excuse for unbelief. That’s at least a “motive of credibility” as they’re sometimes called. And these can be aspects of His revelation and grace as well. Again, this world is a schoolhouse in itself, pointing to our need for something “bigger” than ourselves and the rest of creation. And we have to understand that He whom Jesus reveals to us, whom Jesus reconciles us with, whom Jesus unites us with, is God. That’s why Jesus came.

“Through Him you believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and glorified Him, and so your faith and hope are in God.” 1 Pet 1:21

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” John 17:3

To believe in Jesus is to believe in God. Faith is more than just a sort of arbitrary litmus test regarding belief in certain truths about Jesus Christ. It’s broader than that; it has to do with the whole purpose of Christ’s coming, rectifying the injustice caused at the Fall of man: the rift between man and God.

So…everything Jesus said and did is an expression of who God is and what He wants for us. When we see Jesus, we see God, when we know Jesus, we know God, and when we believe in, hope in, and love Jesus, we believe in, hope in, and love God. Are there people who are ignorant of Jesus for one reason or another, for maybe valid reasons, and yet have a certain, while imperfect, knowledge of God? Added to that, are our theologies as Christians necessarily perfect? The variety of beliefs here on these Christian forums sometimes reveal profoundly different understandings of the nature and will of God, often based on differing interpretations of Scripture.

So, is God pleased by faith, wherever it’s found, by those who acknowledge His existence first of all as per Heb 11:6, faith such as Abraham had without knowing Christ? Does He forgive our ignorance, our less than perfect understanding? Do some respond to whatever grace and the image of God as well as His law that resides within as best they can, thinking of Rom 2:12-16 here? I believe that we’ll be judged based on what we did with whatever we were given, with more demanded of those who’re given more, and less from those who’re given less, Luke 12:48. As Christians, generally speaking, we’ve been given much. At the end of the day anyone saved will be saved through Christ, including those who lived and died before His Incarnation.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the elaboration on the currently popular view of a form of the universality of the possibility of salvation for all people. To counter that view, we have multiple verses and passages such as John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 which make it crystal clear that without faith in Jesus Christ there is no salvation. Unlike the Old Testament where faith was quite secondary and the emphasis is solidly on God's choice of His people beginning with Noah and going through Abraham to Israel, faith (quite specifically faith in Jesus Christ alone) is the sine qua non for God's choice of His people, the Church, in the New Testament.

bbbbbbb said:

Thanks for the elaboration on the currently popular view of a form of the universality of the possibility of salvation for all people. To counter that view, we have multiple verses and passages such as John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 which make it crystal clear that without faith in Jesus Christ there is no salvation. Unlike the Old Testament where faith was quite secondary and the emphasis is solidly on God's choice of His people beginning with Noah and going through Abraham to Israel, faith (quite specifically faith in Jesus Christ alone) is the sine qua non for God's choice of His people, the Church, in the New Testament.

Click to expand...

In Catholicism faith is the beginning, the foundation of salvation, not the end of it as some would have it. Faith is the engrafting into the Vine. In Catholicism we’ll be judged by our love at the end of the day which should be the result of that connection-and will be to the extent that we continue to pick up our cross and follow Him. Is faith implied in love? I think so.

John knew what I know, that Jesus is Truth, that Jesus is Love, that Jesus is God. To reject Him is to reject God. If a person truly knows who Jesus is, if a person truly knows Jesus, and rejects Him, they’ve rejected God; they’ve confirmed and solidified man’s original choice in Eden for autonomy from God, confirming a choice against truth and love by rejecting truth and love Incarnate and revealed.

As Christians we have the advantage and opportunity to truly know Jesus, and thereby know the true God explicitly-and that knowledge should change us. And yet there are people outside of the immediate Christian fold who seem to live their lives as if they know Him better than many of us do. John also said, in his letters, that the righteous are those who do what is right-and true righteousness is fueled by love which in turn is fueled by grace.

In any case I would never become too complacent with some subjective faith-only profession; that can be just talk. I’ve come to value and appreciate good fruit as the real testimony of one’s relationship with God-of their love for Him and neighbor. Maybe the Master doesn’t always harvest where He directly sows-Matt 25:26. There'll be surprises in heaven either way.

bbbbbbb said:

Thanks for the elaboration on the currently popular view of a form of the universality of the possibility of salvation for all people. To counter that view, we have multiple verses and passages such as John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 which make it crystal clear that without faith in Jesus Christ there is no salvation. Unlike the Old Testament where faith was quite secondary and the emphasis is solidly on God's choice of His people beginning with Noah and going through Abraham to Israel, faith (quite specifically faith in Jesus Christ alone) is the sine qua non for God's choice of His people, the Church, in the New Testament.

Click to expand...

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
RSVCE
Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
RSVCE

Those passages do not "counter" the possibility of salvation for all people, those passages have been taken into account. There is nothing preventing Jesus from making Himself known to people at the moment of their death.

There is only one path to salvation - Jesus (as He stated, "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me")

Jesus founded the Catholic Church through His Apostle Peter, who was the first Pope of the Catholic Church ...

No other religion can claim the God-given authority Jesus vested in the Catholic Church through His Apostle Peter; “thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ... I will give unto thee the keys to the kingdom of heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” ( Matthew 16 :18 -19).

Thus, the answer to your question can be concisely stated: Conform to the tenets of the Catholic Church, trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior, and obey His commandments: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart , with all thy soul , and with all thy mind ,” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself ” ( Matthew 22: 37-39).

bbbbbbb said:

There are historic teachings (at least as early as Augustine, if not earlier) which promote monergism, as well as synergism. The moment that God intervenes in a human's life, that human's will is compromised. The question which has been debated endlessly is to what degree does God's will compromises human will. I assuredly cannot answer the question and my speculations are of no more interest or value than others, who have promoted their understanding far more eloquently.

Click to expand...

The earliest well-known traces of Monergism are in some of the more problematic writings of St. Augustine; many of his theological writings are problematic, and for this reason, with regards to soteriology, sacramental theology and apostolic succession, the Orthodox do not use him, but rather read theologies based on other early church fathers who were historically regarded as more authoritative, even in the Western Church, for example, St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. John Cassian.

That being said we do regard St. Augustine as a saint and he is officially venerated; some Old Calendarists have tried to claim that St. Augustine was historically viewed as a heretic by the Orthodox but this is utterly false, and the Menaion, the set of twelve hymnals, one for each month, which contains all the fixed feasts of the Eastern Orthodox church* contains a complete set of propers for his feast day, including a Troparion, Kontakion and odes for Matins and proper Scripture lessons. I am not sure if there are propers for him in all of the Oriental Orthodox liturgies, in part because even in the case of the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, there are still a few things which have either not been translated into English or are hard to find (for example, the funeral service for a bishop has been translated but is in a special and somewhat rare book), and in the case of the Syriac Orthodox liturgy, less has been translated, and much less has been translated in the case of the Armenian and Ethiopian liturgies.

*another pair of hymnals, the Triodion and Pentecostarion, contain the propers for holy days connected to the date of Easter, such as the days of the Great Lent, Holy Week, Pascha, and the Sundays after Pentecost, generally ending either last Sunday, all Saints Day, the first Sunday following Pentecost, or in some cases on the second Sunday following Pentecost, and another set of eight hymnals, contains the hymns for all days outside of Pentecost when there is no feast being observed, one hymnal for each tone of the week).

Naturalist said:

There is only one path to salvation - Jesus (as He stated, "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me")

Jesus founded the Catholic Church through His Apostle Peter, who was the first Pope of the Catholic Church ...

No other religion can claim the God-given authority Jesus vested in the Catholic Church through His Apostle Peter; “thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ... I will give unto thee the keys to the kingdom of heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” ( Matthew 16 :18 -19).

Thus, the answer to your question can be concisely stated: Conform to the tenets of the Catholic Church, trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior, and obey His commandments: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart , with all thy soul , and with all thy mind ,” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself ” ( Matthew 22: 37-39).

Click to expand...

But there is a legitimate question as to which the definition of the Catholic Church. There are compelling reasons to believe that the Catholic Church could be the Orthodox Church, or it could be both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church (this is strongly indicated by the fact that Roman Catholics are allowed by the Roman Catholic Church to receive the sacraments in Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian parishes, and vice versa, from the Roman Catholic side; in practice, the Eastern Orthodox and most Oriental Orthodox will usually not allow for either scenario, but the Assyrians and some Oriental Orthodox, such as the Syriac Orthodox in Turkey, where persecution has caused churches to be few and far between, are very open to Roman Catholics receiving communion in their parishes and vice versa), or it could be the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church and other traditional liturgical churches are collectively the Catholic Church.

Or it could be that Martin Luther was correct and Catholicity is a property that derives from orthodoxologia, that is to say, that whichever church worships correctly is Catholic, even if one disagrees with Luther on what the definition of correct worship is. This I will concede is possible.

It is unlikely (and also, I did not wish to type “It could be” again for fear of sounding like a certain phycisist well known to the media who likes to enumerate possibilites, including some generally regarded as unlikely, with that phrase, as if it were a verbal bullet-point), the eccelsiology that many Protestants believe, that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is invisible and thus indivisible, although this model (invisible church ecclesiology) suffers from a lack of Eucharistic unity and a vagueness.

It is also somewhat unlikely, but with a caveat, that Catholicity converges in the local church, which has in some cases been interpreted Eucharistically, the caveat being where it is Eucharistically interpreted, this view is less problematic than the Invisible Church ecclesiology since it still has a Eucharistic basis.

What we do know is that some specific aspects of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, specifically, Papal Supremacy over all churches including the Eastern churches, are contraadicted by Canons 6 and 7 of Nicaea, and also by canons of Ephesus pertaining to the autocephalous status of the churches of Constantinople and Cyprus; insofar as Canons 6 and 7 declare that the churches of Alexandria and Antioch, in the case of canon 6, and the newly restored Church of Jerusalem, in the case of canon 7, have the same privileges as the Roman Catholic church within their territories, they reinforce the Orthodox understanding of autocephaly. Likewise, the rebuke St. Victor received from St. Irenaeus of Lyons for attempting to impose the Paschalion on the churches in Asia Minor in the second century further reinforces the academic-historical understanding that the Roman church historically was one of several regional patriarchates, and was without a doubt the leader of the Western church, which was the second largest of those Patriarchates geographically, and the largest in terms of population (at least after the Patriarchate of Antioch granted autocephalous status to the Churches of Georgia, Armenia and Persia; these churches leaders historically used the title “Catholicos” which had, until they became autocephalous, the meaning of vice-Patriarch; later the effective meaning of the title was translated into Syriac Aramaic by the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch in order to differentiate their vice-Patriarch, hence forth referred to as Maphrian, from the Catholicos of the East, who lead the predominantly Syriac-speaking Church of the East, which at times had an adversarial relationship with the Syriac Orthodox, but at other times had a very close relationship.

Valletta said:

Those passages do not "counter" the possibility of salvation for all people, those passages have been taken into account. There is nothing preventing Jesus from making Himself known to people at the moment of their death.

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church has established Purgatory as Jesus' way by which all people can attain salvation...

The Catholic Church has established Purgatory as Jesus' way by which all people can attain salvation... except, of course, those guilty of mortal sin, such as satan....

The Liturgist said:

The earliest well-known traces of Monergism are in some of the more problematic writings of St. Augustine; many of his theological writings are problematic, and for this reason, with regards to soteriology, sacramental theology and apostolic succession, the Orthodox do not use him, but rather read theologies based on other early church fathers who were historically regarded as more authoritative, even in the Western Church, for example, St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. John Cassian.

That being said we do regard St. Augustine as a saint and he is officially venerated; some Old Calendarists have tried to claim that St. Augustine was historically viewed as a heretic by the Orthodox but this is utterly false, and the Menaion, the set of twelve hymnals, one for each month, which contains all the fixed feasts of the Eastern Orthodox church* contains a complete set of propers for his feast day, including a Troparion, Kontakion and odes for Matins and proper Scripture lessons. I am not sure if there are propers for him in all of the Oriental Orthodox liturgies, in part because even in the case of the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, there are still a few things which have either not been translated into English or are hard to find (for example, the funeral service for a bishop has been translated but is in a special and somewhat rare book), and in the case of the Syriac Orthodox liturgy, less has been translated, and much less has been translated in the case of the Armenian and Ethiopian liturgies.

*another pair of hymnals, the Triodion and Pentecostarion, contain the propers for holy days connected to the date of Easter, such as the days of the Great Lent, Holy Week, Pascha, and the Sundays after Pentecost, generally ending either last Sunday, all Saints Day, the first Sunday following Pentecost, or in some cases on the second Sunday following Pentecost, and another set of eight hymnals, contains the hymns for all days outside of Pentecost when there is no feast being observed, one hymnal for each tone of the week).

Click to expand...

The most disturbing thing about Augustine, and probably the most consequential, was his quasi-Manichean Christian anthropology. Pressed to its logical end, Augustine saw human embodiment, creaturely neediness, and relationships as deeply problematic. Putting away his common-law wife was completely unnecessary and hurtful, for instance, and sets a dangerous pattern for others to follow. His famous quote, "Our hearts are restless until they rest in You" can also be seen as a kind of spiritual bypassing, and should really raise more red flags than it does. It doesn't fit nicely with Patristic or Franciscan theology which is about communion (with God and with creation), not quasi-platonic, disembodied mysticism. Augustine set the pattern of a deep suspicion of the body and of women, as a result (contrast this with St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil, for instance, who didn't see human relationships as so fraught with "sin", even relationships with the opposite sex).

FireDragon76 said:

The most disturbing thing about Augustine, and probably the most consequential, was his quasi-Manichean Christian anthropology. Pressed to its logical end, Augustine saw human embodiment, creaturely neediness, and relationships as deeply problematic. Putting away his common-law wife was completely unnecessary and hurtful, for instance, and sets a dangerous pattern for others to follow. His famous quote, "Our hearts are restless until they rest in You" can also be seen as a kind of spiritual bypassing, and should really raise more red flags than it does. It doesn't fit nicely with Patristic or Franciscan theology which is about communion (with God and with creation), not quasi-platonic, disembodied mysticism. Augustine set the pattern of a deep suspicion of the body and of women, as a result (contrast this with St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil, for instance, who didn't see human relationships as so fraught with "sin", even relationships with the opposite sex).

Click to expand...

That’s really not the case though; I’ve seen St. Augustine accused of a Manichaean influence to his views on sex, usually by Orthodox old believers who refuse to accept that the Eastern Orthodox church always venerated him as a saint and want him removed from the Menaion because he’s “too Catholic.” These criticisms have been dismissed.

The error St. Augustine made was rather a technical error, and he himself admitted there were technical errors in his writings, and openly repented of as many as he was aware of in his confessions.

tampasteve said:

That's an observation that I had not thought of. As a former Methodist myself (baptized in the UMC) I understand what you mean. Broadly, many (most?) Evangelical prayers of repentance are something along the lines of "Jesus forgive me for the sins that I have committed" and that's about it, I know that was true in my case. It was rare to actually contemplate the sins that I had committed, to think about each one or at least the nature of the sins that I had committed recently.

Maybe I would confess to Jesus for something that I recently did that I was guilty about, such as a lie or something, but rarely did I actually sit and think about the sins that I had committed since my last prayer of confession. Further, Evangelical confession rarely is combined with any sort of restitution or person advising you to make amends with the person that you wronged or to encourage you to pursue a prayer or practice of penitence. I know some groups or churches encourage "accountability partners" to confess to, but that's a shadow of the role that the priest is supposed to play.

Click to expand...

When I was Lutheran I once confessed to my pastor, though very few others did, from what I understand. It just felt wrong. Like I was speaking to a friend rather than a member of the clergy.

bbbbbbb said:

To address the OP, the list is virtually endless. Among many things it includes faith in the Catholic Church and its bureaucracy, its seven sacraments, theology, Mary and the saints, the Treasury of Merits, indulgences, Purgatory, penance, fasting, flagellation, holy days, masses, etc., etc., etc.

Click to expand...

We don’t need to flagellate ourselves. This isn’t Dan Brown stuff we’re talking about here.

FaithT said:

When I was Lutheran I once confessed to my pastor, though very few others did, from what I understand. It just felt wrong. Like I was speaking to a friend rather than a member of the clergy.

We don’t need to flagellate ourselves. This isn’t Dan Brown stuff we’re talking about here.

Click to expand...

Very few Roman Catholics have engaged in self-flagellation; I’ve heard of the Opus Dei doing it, and he made them a major plot point in his novel, but the Opus Dei has only been around for 97 years…

To put that into perspective, that means that Delta Air Lines and KLM Royal Dutch Airways and several other major airlines are older; indeed KLM was founded in 1919 and is along with Avianca one of the oldest airlines in existence (probably the oldest, at least since Chalk’s went out of business).

The Liturgist said:

Very few Roman Catholics have engaged in self-flagellation; I’ve heard of the Opus Dei doing it, and he made them a major plot point in his novel, but the Opus Dei has only been around for 97 years…

To put that into perspective, that means that Delta Air Lines and KLM Royal Dutch Airways and several other major airlines are older; indeed KLM was founded in 1919 and is along with Avianca one of the oldest airlines in existence (probably the oldest, at least since Chalk’s went out of business).

Click to expand...

Yep. Personally, to my knowledge I know of no one who does it. Maybe the nuns at the local monastery do it. I don’t know. I’ve spoken with two of them but the subject never came up.

The Liturgist said:

That’s really not the case though; I’ve seen St. Augustine accused of a Manichaean influence to his views on sex, usually by Orthodox old believers who refuse to accept that the Eastern Orthodox church always venerated him as a saint and want him removed from the Menaion because he’s “too Catholic.” These criticisms have been dismissed.

The error St. Augustine made was rather a technical error, and he himself admitted there were technical errors in his writings, and openly repented of as many as he was aware of in his confessions.

Click to expand...

I'm not speaking of Orthodox Christians, I'm speaking of western Christians who were critical of Augustine's dispositions towards guilt and shame, self-hatred, and self-erasure masked in piety.