How is it that the Catholic Church is evil?

BobRyan said:

I hope you do not view prayers and doing acts of kindness to others - as "self punishment"

I actually don't know the details of how you view this subject. You defined "Penance" as "the outward expression of repentance and self-punishment. ".

I am simply taking your word for it - while at the same time having some doubts as to whether you would really classify acts of charity in your term "self punishment". I was kind of doubting whether that was the case - but I needed you to clarify.

Click to expand...

Penance no longer refers to the sacrament itself, but an act demonstrating or expressing your repentance (I would drop the "self punishment.") Something showing you are sorry for your sins. That could include almsgiving, that could include fasting or some other task. Today typically a penance assigned by a priest is not that extreme, such as the extreme fasting done by the Apostles, the important part often emphasized is understanding God's mercy.

tampasteve said:

Well, not "never", of course he was a Catholic Priest before he jumpstarted the Reformation. Also, yes he did believe that the Eucharist was a means of grace for forgiveness of sins. He did not agree with the idea of Transubstantiation or view the Eucharist in exactly the same manner as the Catholic Church, but he did believe in the real body and blood and the Eucharist as a conduit (to use your wording) of Grace and forgiveness.

Of course.

I am not sure what these images are, but I only see these blocks of pink in your recent posts.

Christ's work on the cross atoned for all sins, but we as believers need to seek forgiveness for our sins. It isn't just a one time event for us, our ongoing relationship with Christ requires reconciliation and repentance.Although Christ's sacrifice atones for all sin, individuals must consciously recognize their wrongdoing, genuinely repent, and seek God's forgiveness in order to fully receive the blessings of that grace.

Catholics and Orthodox practice the Sacrament of Reconciliation as a way to acknowledge our sins, receive absolution, and experiencing God's healing grace.

Click to expand...

TampaSteve as I as said and you admit that Martin Luther certainly did not believe in how the Catholics believe in the transubstantian. More so of the power of the priest being the conduit between the bread and the wine and being able to turn the bread and the wine into the literal body and blood of Christ. He only believed that they became so just not by the power of the priest but by God himself. The very reason why I mentioned that God is omniscient he doesn't need the emphasis placed on a priest having that sort of power and control over the communion. The whole emphasis of communion is supposed to be on what the sacrifice of Christ has done for us each and not in the priest having such alleged powers.Seems your religion takes control and authority over communion as well. When it was meant for every believer to participate minus the supposed conduit powers of the priest over the believers communion. You ask about the pink blocks. They are topical break points. Tampasteve you again be referring to my post 236 of which you claimed that the apostles can save, forgive and withold forgiveness just as Christ did. My reply to that was the apostles only ever proclaimed the gospel but they never had the power to save anyone. It was God that done all the saving and not the apostles. This now be a entirely new subject you bring to the discussion. You now say Christs work on the cross did atone for sin . Yes . You than say as believers we need to seek forgiveness for our sin. Yes we do that in our thoughts and prayer now doubt countless times a day. Some maybe more some maybe less. You than say ( it just isn’t a one time event for us, our ongoing relationship with Christ requires reconciliation and repentance.) you then say again. ( Although Christs atones for all sin, individuals must consciously recognise their wrong doing, genuinely repent and seek Gods forgiveness in order to fully recieve the fullness of that grace ) Well that be your experiences with communion. I say Maybe sometimes. But mostly for many of us. We are to busy rejoicing in our communion experience in what Christ has done for us . We be to busy thinking upon Him then to be thinking upon ourselves and the self. Meaning do this in remembrance of me.. we have already passed from death unto eternal life. Steve to whom the Son sets free is free indeed ❤️

boughtwithaprice said:

That is wonderful , so you do not commit sin ever? Have you examined your conscience ?

Scripture tells us that the path to life is hard, and it is only through much suffering that we enter into life. How is it that you say it is easy?

Click to expand...

Broughtwitaprice . Of course me sin. For all have sinned and fall short of the perfect God. Scripture says it’s well nigh impossible for anyone to enter the kingdom of God within their own strength. But with the God it much easy because he has the power to forgive whom he pleases. That simple. You have been brought at great price by the blood of Christ . Who is it that can break the seal of God when it comes to our salvation. Certainly not our selves or religious organisations nor the principalities of darkness can undo. Even if some claim they can

boughtwithaprice said:

That is where you are wrong. Scripture is clear that we ourselves can break “the seal of God when it comes to our salvation” God is merciful, and He is also Just. He will not be mocked nor let His word be mocked.
Committing any sin after we are born again is a grave matter that is not to be taken lightly. If we are caught in the habit of sin, then we need to ask God for help, as He has promised to help any who ask Him.
What is He to do if we will not ask? Sin breaks the seal of salvation and our relationship with God must be restored. We do not take our salvation for granted. We must keep our wedding garment pure.
Christ has given us the analogy of marriage to teach us the right place to put our hearts. We are going to the marriage supper of the Lamb, not a potluck.
Those that say we don’t do anything once we believe and works cannot make us more saved are like a slothful wife. She reasons in her heart, “I am now married, my husband is an honorable man and will never divorce me, so I will do nothing” She sits on the couch, watches TV and doesn’t move. She takes no thought for her husbands wishes and behaves as he is supposed to fill her every whim. Eventually, she begins to smell bad due to lack of hygiene. Her husband is honorable, so he does not divorce her, but the smell is so bad that he must put her out of the house, and there is no way he could live with the smell. He does not even consider enjoying the fullness of their love in intercourse because he cannot get near her. He will not divorce her, but neither can he delight in her, and he grieves that his love is rejected.
Now consider the wife that delights in her husband. She takes care of her home and herself to the best of her ability. If she cannot perform all of her duties, she asks her husband and he provides all assistance necessary. She studies her husband to know what he likes so that she may more please him. She greats him with a smile and gives off the odor of sweetness.
They are able to enter the bridal chamber and experience all the depths of their love.

It is the same with us and God. He loves us so much that He died for us, and the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. The drops of blood which He sweated on the ground were not from His fear of crucifixion, but from the agony of His heart that His love would be rejected and His assistance scorned. He asked the Father to take the cup away, not out of fear of pain, but the agony that He was dying for everyone, even those that reject Him and wind up in hell. As humans we know that there is not quite as deep a pain as when our love is rejected. How much more for God?
How much do we value our salvation? do we do all we can to please God, or do we want Him to please us? Our decision in that matter will determine our eternal destiny. God has given us free will, as love that is not free, is not love.

The Catholic Church differs from the Calvinists in that the Catechism teaches that there is not one soul for whom Christ did not suffer and die.
The souls in hell are not there because of punishment, but they are condemned because they have rejected the only Son of God. (John 3:17) He poured out His blood and died for them, there is nothing more He can do.

When Christ calls us, He says we must deny ourselves and take up our cross. What we want no longer matters. We must live to please God as a wife preparing herself for her husband. If we don’t, then we may find ourselves in outer darkness.

The question is how much do we love God, and if we do not love Him enough, are we willing to ask Him for the grace to love Him more?
Or are we just self centered and want God to love us while we do nothing ?

Click to expand...

Brougtwithaprice you say ( or are we self centred and want God to love while we do nothing . ) That is what Bible tells us. He first loved us and we not him. We do good works because we love God it’s an automatic reaction and certainly not as a penance or that I have to please God with continued confessions in some way to earn my salvation. You then use the example of a smelly bride and a sweet smelling bride. It seems to me that you sold like to defrock me of my salvation and everyone else for that matter. What your saying is that a Christian can lose their salvation. Then how do we keep it? Is it by continued daily ritual confessions. And how manny times do you lose it ? with each evil thought or action and how many times do we regain our salvation?. Is it a case of being saved and then not being saved with the interpretation of your religion on that matter, by us not following the standard that you promote of continual confession ? I always thought the law was to bring us into the realisation that we cannot keep the law, and that brought us to the realisation that we need a Saviour. And the question must be asked how can anyone know they are truly saved if we can lose our salvation if we follow your mode of confession. But the reality is that all true Christians confess their failings on a consistent basis anyway As to the Calvinism you mention . Well what influenced John Calvin more barring the Bible . St Augustine of course. He was rather Calvinistic. And finally Why is that your religion so infatuated in wanting to control every aspect of a Christian’s being. ? And now it also seems our salvation also with what you have explained to me that our salvation is now not guaranteed by God.

boughtwithaprice said:

I refer you to sacred scripture which clearly says that we cannot save ourselves, as does the Catholic Church, yet it does not tell us to act presumptuously. We are warned time and again to repent for the kingdom of God is at hand.
We are not told to rest now as salvation is assured. God is merciful, He is also just. God is love and love is voluntary. It requires an act of the will.
Salvation is not lost for those that actively love God. It can be discarded at any time for those that chose to discard God’s commands, do nothing and expect heaven blaming it all on someone that told them Jesus paid it all.
Jesus did pay it all, but if you want salvation, you have to ask for it. He who asks receives, seeks finds and knocks it is opened to them. That includes freedom from sin.
There is no excuse for a believing Christian to sin. The Bible says it is as if you crucify the Son of God afresh and bring Him to open shame. We need to react with horror to our sins, not take a lackadaisical attitude of no big deal, Jesus paid it all.
We can look at God’s warning in the Apocalypse also known as Revelation against taking salvation for granted. Those that have no fear of God say Jesus paid it all. They say I am rich, well fed and have need of nothing. God says they are miserable blind poor and naked. He then charges them to buy of Him gold tried in the fire, and gives promises to those that overcome. Those that won’t, He will vomit out of His mouth.
That is pretty scary.
We like to have our ears tickled and told everything is alright and we don’t have any responsibility, but that is not what the Bible says.
Some misinformed teachers say that, but we are not saved by teachers, we are saved the the Son of God who loves us and gives Himself for us. Do we love Him? Or take Him for granted ? Can we look on His broken body and continue to sin? Realizing that every sin is another spit of contempt, a crack of the whip that tears flesh, blood from His crown of thorns given to mock Him, and another drive of the nails that ended His life?
Can we really sin so easily knowing that is what we are doing? Can we really expect salvation from Him while treating Him with utter contempt? If you sin, that is what you are doing. Why would you scorn a Church that teaches us to confess our sins and not take Our Lord for granted?
Jesus is merciful and He will forgive our weakness, but we have to ask for forgiveness and show forth works of repentance. Scripture tells us to forgive our brother 70 times seven times but only after he says I repent. It does not teach us to give license to sin, nor should we presume the mercy of God and act as if we have a license to sin.
What? God will send to eternal hellfire those that do not believe and continue wickedness, but we can say, I believe in Jesus and we get a pass to do the same things? God forbid!
We do not sin more, so that grace may more abound. Freedom from sin is difficult but not impossible with the grace of God. He tells us narrow is the way, straight is the gate that leads to life. Strive to enter by the straight gate. Pursue holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
The spiritual battle is in our minds. Scripture says for us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. That involves us to stop listening to false teachers that tell you sin does not matter, you are saved and cannot be lost. If we want salvation, we have to ask for it. How can we ask for it if we allow our minds to be deceived into thinking we do not need it?
The Calvinists are right in one thing is that there is an elect. However they get it wrong in that the elect are not merely those that believe there is an elect. The elect are those that do the will of the Father, which is to repent and live a life of holiness.
Jesus tells us many ways in which salvation can be discarded. One of them is the parable of the seed. We have the seed on the path, the seed on rock, and the seed among thorns. All of those seeds have heard the Gospel and did not put it into practice, some even received it with great joy but discarded it.
Keeping the commandments of God is not impossible, we have to be willing to ask God for help, and then humble enough to accept the help that is offered. He has given some Apostles, some prophets, some teachers, etc. It is arrogant to reject the help God offers and say we don’t need them, I can go to Jesus myself. Ok, how is that working out?
The path of life is hard. Jesus tells us we will be hated by all men for His name’s sake. We are to deny ourselves and take up our cross. The path of life is one of poverty, contempt and humility. We must mortify the deeds of our flesh according to scripture. God loves us and will help us whenever we ask Him, and He has promised to cleanse us from all unrighteousness, but we have to ask.
God does not force Himself on us and that is another error of the Calvinists. Grace is not irresistible. Free will is maintained as God is love and love is not love if it is not free. Scripture says we have set before us the path of life and death, choose which one you will serve, as for me, I will follow the Lord, not with my lips only, but in deeds
Satan lies to us, and tells us that we don’t have to repent. He says you don’t have to follow that hard path, take it easy, don’t run the race, it’s already won. Don’t work out your salvation with fear and trembling, works can’t save you. Holiness? Puhh no one can be holy, so don’t worry about it. Relax, take it easy, suffering is for suckers. Don’t take that path of poverty, contempt and humility. I give you the path of wealth, vain glory, and pride. Don’t deny yourself, puff your self up and have your ears tickled instead.
Satan is an angelic being so he is infinitely more intelligent than us, as can make convincing arguments. We can see through them by comparing them with scripture and the humility of self denial, along with the willingness to accept contempt.
Salvation is available at anytime while we are alive. God has tremendous love and will save anyone that asks Him, but we have to ask Him to cleanse us because now is the time, today is the day of salvation. We stop sinning today, not some pie in the sky future day. The spiritual battle begins now, there is time in eternity for us to rest in a salvation which cannot be lost. For now we are in a battle, so put on the full armor of God and fight against the powers of darkness, else be over run by them. It is your choice

Click to expand...

Broughtwithaprice. Again we are sealed unto the day of redemption. Full redemption occurs when we recieve out resurrection bodies who can break that promise. Not you nor other religion claiming they can break the seal of God You say that God does not force his will upon us. Yet scripture says the opposite God does certainly force himself on whomever he chooses you say there is no excuse for a believing Christian to sin. Yet it happens to every Christian on a daily basis. It is inexcusable to say that we do not . Whilst we inherit our fallen nature we will continue to sin. Broughtwithaperice until cometh that perfect day. The resurrection when sin will entertain us no more. We are in a transitional period. The sin nature is only temporary for those saved in Christ while we remain in our sinful fallen nature. You again mention Calvinism. All Calvinism ever done was restore the Sovereignty of God in having to right to choose and going back to roots of the Bible for such authority and along with such notable church fathers as St Augustine who believed much the same . But you continue to ignore St Augustine. Because what you teach was not always the teaching of the church that being your claim that a believer can lose their salvation. But you may continue to believe as you please.

boughtwithaprice said:

You misunderstand the scriptures and Saint Augustine. There is no scripture that says God forces His will upon us. It is the opposite.
In the Apocolalypse(Revelation) we read the Spirit and the Bride say come. Whosoever will come drink of the waters of life freely.

You need to read St Augustine again, or if you have not, then actually read his writings and not take quotes apart from the whole.
Are you familiar with the heresy of Jansenism?
It is a good study of history if you would take the time to read it.

Scripture also tells us in apocalypse 3, Behold I stand at the door and knock. If any man open the door I will come in and he will sup with me and I with him. There is no mention of God forcing His will upon us. He waits for consent
He did not even force His will upon Mary, though He greatly desired to save us through her. He waited for her consent and Our Lady said, behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy word.

The teaching of the Church is that there is mortal and venial sin. All sin is without excuse, yet scripture says that those that commit mortal sin should not think they have any inheritance in the kingdom of God. We are to live circumspect lives and mortify the deeds of our flesh.
The Church teaches us to detach our hearts from material things and the esteem of the the world, as friendship with the world is enmity with God. If we neglect that duty and continue on thinking because we merely believe in Jesus we need not change, how can we think that we are following in His footsteps?
Scripture tells us that there is a class of people that think they are saved but are not. How do we know who they are and we are not one of them.
Scripture says to strive to make your calling and election sure. We do that through humility, obedience and well doing.
All of those are works which some say that we do not have to worry about. Scripture says otherwise. Jesus tells us to walk the narrow way, enter the straight gate. In Acts we read that it is only through much hardship that we enter into life. The spiritual battle requires continual self denial.
It would be horrific to live a life thinking we are saved, yet when we appear before Jesus, He says I never knew you, away from me ye that commit iniquity. Jesus does not save sin. He saves sinners. Sinners are saved unto good works. Good works are hard as they do not feel good, but we do them out of obedience to the word of truth

As you say, you are free to believe as you wish, but if you are not mortifying your flesh, you risk Jesus saying, I never knew you

Click to expand...

Boughtwithaprice you say I misunderstood the scriptures and also misunderstand St Augustine. Do I ? Whilst St Augustine spoke about a lot of issues. But the issue at hand is your dislike of Calvinism and denying the security of the believer being secure forever in Christ. I don’t know which St Augustine you do read. But the St Augustine’s I read says exactly that Now if your going to attack Calvinism your going to have upend one of the most influential church fathers as well. You go on to quote Matthew 7 with the words ( I never knew you depart from me ) you also state sinners are saved for good works that is true . We do good works because we love God. But not one iota of those works has anything to do with our salvation. And when thinking upon the many works and continued penances and confessions you claim be required. You must take a closer look at Matthew 7:21-23 . And see with full realisation that these people are condemned . They had all the good works you could claim and ask for . But they never knew the will of our Saviour. They were never Christians So good works mean nothing when it comes to keeping our salvation. And finally Christ came to seek his lost sheep . My sheep hear my voice . Christ has never lost a sheep yet. No not one. It is all because of Him and nothing from us. Boughtwithaprice. It’s all about this . For you are saved by grace and not by works. I not know why you hate the freedom of eternal life that God gives us and you say No And you than say and demand that everyone must earn their salvation by works or they are not truly saved

Kathleen30 said:

Boughtwithaprice you say I misunderstood the scriptures and also misunderstand St Augustine. Do I ? Whilst St Augustine spoke about a lot of issues. But the issue at hand is your dislike of Calvinism and denying the security of the believer being secure forever in Christ. I don’t know which St Augustine you do read. But the St Augustine’s I read says exactly that View attachment 367166View attachment 367167View attachment 367168 Now if your going to attack Calvinism your going to have upend one of the most influential church fathers as well. You go on to quote Matthew 7 with the words ( I never knew you depart from me ) you also state sinners are saved for good works that is true . We do good works because we love God. But not one iota of those works has anything to do with our salvation. And when thinking upon the many works and continued penances and confessions you claim be required. You must take a closer look at Matthew 7:21-23 . And see with full realisation that these people are condemned . They had all the good works you could claim and ask for . But they never knew the will of our Saviour. They were never Christians So good works mean nothing when it comes to keeping our salvation. And finally Christ came to seek his lost sheep . My sheep hear my voice . Christ has never lost a sheep yet. No not one. It is all because of Him and nothing from us. Boughtwithaprice. It’s all about this . For you are saved by grace and not by works. I not know why you hate the freedom of eternal life that God gives us and you say No And you than say and demand that everyone must earn their salvation by works or they are not truly saved

Click to expand...

If you are going to try to quote Augustine, it is critically important you say where he said these things. There are many false quotes that go around, which is why it's important to show where they said it. As Abraham Lincoln wisely said: "Just because a quote is posted on the Internet does not mean it is true."

So you offer as quotes two images that give alleged quotes from Augustine, namely:

"Men are not Saved by Good Works, nor by the Free Determination of their Own Will, but by the Grace of God through Faith"
and
"God chooses us, not because we believe, but that we may believe."

No source is cited for these. Before we even get to whether Augustine said these things, it's not clear how these are relevant. You are holding them up, apparently, to try to support your statement of "But the issue at hand is your dislike of Calvinism and denying the security of the believer being secure forever in Christ. I don’t know which St Augustine you do read. But the St Augustine’s I read says exactly that". In other words, these are apparently supposed to support the claim he supported the doctrine of eternal security (often known colloquially as "once saved always saved"). Except I don't see how they're even relevant to that question.

But, regardless of their relevance, are these quotes accurate? I searched for these quotes online to see if someone else offered them. The first one you offer, "Men are not Saved by Good Works, nor by the Free Determination of their Own Will, but by the Grace of God through Faith"? Well, a search shows it's the title of a chapter in his work The Enchiridion (from the "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers" translation), which can be seen here (also here if one wishes to see the whole work at once, though it lacks the footnotes).

Sometimes these chapter titles aren't from the original author, and instead are added by a later editor or translator for reader convenience. To check into it, I tried to search up the Latin text in Patrologia Latina, which is found in volume 40 (volume 6 of its volumes of Augustine), we can find it is there... sort of. It says:

"Non meritis, nec libero arbitrio reparari homines, sed gratia"

So we do see this here, meaning it wasn't added in the translation, though I suppose it's possible in these things it got added in collections; I'd have to look at manuscripts to be sure. But regardless, I have to question the translation of the above as "men are not saved by good works, nor by the free determination of their own will, but by the grace of God through faith". I hesitate to do this because I'm sure the person who translated this ("J.F. Shaw", whoever he was) presumably knew Latin a whole lot better than I do, but some of the translation choices seem off.

A fairly literal translation of the above Latin would be something like:

"Not [by] merits, nor [by] free will are restored men, but [by] grace."
Or in more natural English:
"Men are not restored by merits, nor by free will, but by grace."

Let's discuss the points where the translation seems to diverge from the above. "Meritis" (ablative plural form of meritum) is translated as "good works". This seems to me an odd choice. Meritum, deriving from the Latin verb mero ("to deserve") means merit (noun). Based on this dictionary entry, it seems it can refer to both merit in the sense of a kind act or merit in the sense of something that is deserved. If we go by the "kind act" definition, "good works" could work as a translation, but if Augustine was specifically referring to that he could have said "bona opera" (literally, "good works"). In fact, Augustine does use a similar phrase in the actual chapter itself, "Quid enim boni operatur perditus, nisi quantum fuerit a perditione liberatus", which the English translation renders as "For what good work can a lost man perform, except so far as he has been delivered from perdition". Technically speaking the "boni operatur" is not "good works" but rather talking about the good a man can work, but this adjustment for sounding natural in English makes sense. At any rate, "good works" appears a stretch of a translation.

The translation of reparari as "saved" also seems rather odd. One could render it as "redeemed" (that's what Google Translate does, for the record, if you put this phrase there), but "saved" seems a step too far. The Latin word for saved is normally salvari/salvus. This is what is used in verses in the Latin version of the New Testament to refer to being saved, such as Matthew 10:22 ("his salvus erit") or Matthew 19:25 ("salvus esse"). Even more oddly, the exact same word is translated as "restored" in the text of the chapter itself, making it being "saved" in the title even more odd.

And lastly, "through faith" is not found at all in the chapter title. The translator just added that in. Now, "through faith" is mentioned in the chapter itself (namely, when Paul is quoted), but it is not in the chapter title.

Perhaps the translator was working from a different manuscript or something, but compared to the one in Patrologia Latina, it looks like they made some questionable translation choices and in fact added words not even there. I admit I am far from an expert on Latin. Maybe there are very valid reasons for these apparent errors that I don't know about because I don't know enough, and I'm suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect. But it certainly looks to me like the translation has been twisted somewhat.

As for the text of the chapter itself, the point Augustine is trying to make seems that one cannot restore themselves with God by works or their own free will, and that God has to free them from sin in order to do any of that. So this has nothing to do with eternal security, and if the point is to try to say this goes against Catholic doctrine, it doesn't seem to at all. These canons of the Council of Trent (Session 6) seem clear endorsements:

"If any one shall say, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the strength of human nature, or through the teaching of the law, without the divine grace through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema." (Canon 1)

"If any one shall say, that without the preventing inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent, as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be conferred upon him; let him be anathema." (Canon 3)

Or in Chapter 5 of the same session, it declares:

"...yet is he not able, without the Grace of God, by his own free will to move himself unto justice in His sight."

Thus, I don't see how Chapter 30 of the Enchiridion, when taken in its entirety rather than a possibly mistranslated title, goes against Catholic doctrine? The Council seems to be saying what Augustine said here.

As for the other quote of Augustine ("God chooses us, not because we believe, but that we may believe.") a search for that did not turn up anyone offering a source, but ChatGPT was able to point me to the source. (ChatGPT and other AI must be used cautiously and always be verified, but are nevertheless a useful tool for finding things) This is Chapter 38 (or 29 in an alternate division) of On the Predestination of the Saints. Book 1 of that can be found here in full or just the chapter here if one wants the footnotes.

I did not look up the Latin on this one so I cannot vouch for translation quality, but again, how does this go against any Catholic doctrine? It seems in accord with what the Council of Trent said.

So it's unclear to me what these quotes are supposed to prove. As noted, they don't relate to eternal security to begin with (they really relate more to the question of predestination, which while related, is not the same thing), and even if the goal was to try to point to some other contradiction with Catholicism, they don't seem to?

tl;dr: The first Augustine quote is found in the English translation, but makes what appear to me questionable translation choices and a more accurate rendering appears to be "Men are not restored by merits, nor by free will, but by grace". The second one seems legitimate. However, neither really relate to eternal security, and neither (especially after the apparent translation errors are fixed) appear to go against Catholic doctrine.

JSRG said:

If you are going to try to quote Augustine, it is critically important you say where he said these things. There are many false quotes that go around, which is why it's important to show where they said it. As Abraham Lincoln wisely said: "Just because a quote is posted on the Internet does not mean it is true."

So you offer as quotes two images that give alleged quotes from Augustine, namely:

"Men are not Saved by Good Works, nor by the Free Determination of their Own Will, but by the Grace of God through Faith"
and
"God chooses us, not because we believe, but that we may believe."

No source is cited for these. Before we even get to whether Augustine said these things, it's not clear how these are relevant. You are holding them up, apparently, to try to support your statement of "But the issue at hand is your dislike of Calvinism and denying the security of the believer being secure forever in Christ. I don’t know which St Augustine you do read. But the St Augustine’s I read says exactly that". In other words, these are apparently supposed to support the claim he supported the doctrine of eternal security (often known colloquially as "once saved always saved"). Except I don't see how they're even relevant to that question.

But, regardless of their relevance, are these quotes accurate? I searched for these quotes online to see if someone else offered them. The first one you offer, "Men are not Saved by Good Works, nor by the Free Determination of their Own Will, but by the Grace of God through Faith"? Well, a search shows it's the title of a chapter in his work The Enchiridion (from the "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers" translation), which can be seen here (also here if one wishes to see the whole work at once, though it lacks the footnotes).

Sometimes these chapter titles aren't from the original author, and instead are added by a later editor or translator for reader convenience. To check into it, I tried to search up the Latin text in Patrologia Latina, which is found in volume 40 (volume 6 of its volumes of Augustine), we can find it is there... sort of. It says:

"Non meritis, nec libero arbitrio reparari homines, sed gratia"

So we do see this here, meaning it wasn't added in the translation, though I suppose it's possible in these things it got added in collections; I'd have to look at manuscripts to be sure. But regardless, I have to question the translation of the above as "men are not saved by good works, nor by the free determination of their own will, but by the grace of God through faith". I hesitate to do this because I'm sure the person who translated this ("J.F. Shaw", whoever he was) presumably knew Latin a whole lot better than I do, but some of the translation choices seem off.

A fairly literal translation of the above Latin would be something like:

"Not [by] merits, nor [by] free will are restored men, but [by] grace."
Or in more natural English:
"Men are not restored by merits, nor by free will, but by grace."

Let's discuss the points where the translation seems to diverge from the above. "Meritis" (ablative plural form of meritum) is translated as "good works". This seems to me an odd choice. Meritum, deriving from the Latin verb mero ("to deserve") means merit (noun). Based on this dictionary entry, it seems it can refer to both merit in the sense of a kind act or merit in the sense of something that is deserved. If we go by the "kind act" definition, "good works" could work as a translation, but if Augustine was specifically referring to that he could have said "bona opera" (literally, "good works"). In fact, Augustine does use a similar phrase in the actual chapter itself, "Quid enim boni operatur perditus, nisi quantum fuerit a perditione liberatus", which the English translation renders as "For what good work can a lost man perform, except so far as he has been delivered from perdition". Technically speaking the "boni operatur" is not "good works" but rather talking about the good a man can work, but this adjustment for sounding natural in English makes sense. At any rate, "good works" appears a stretch of a translation.

The translation of reparari as "saved" also seems rather odd. One could render it as "redeemed" (that's what Google Translate does, for the record, if you put this phrase there), but "saved" seems a step too far. The Latin word for saved is normally salvari/salvus. This is what is used in verses in the Latin version of the New Testament to refer to being saved, such as Matthew 10:22 ("his salvus erit") or Matthew 19:25 ("salvus esse"). Even more oddly, the exact same word is translated as "restored" in the text of the chapter itself, making it being "saved" in the title even more odd.

And lastly, "through faith" is not found at all in the chapter title. The translator just added that in. Now, "through faith" is mentioned in the chapter itself (namely, when Paul is quoted), but it is not in the chapter title.

Perhaps the translator was working from a different manuscript or something, but compared to the one in Patrologia Latina, it looks like they made some questionable translation choices and in fact added words not even there. I admit I am far from an expert on Latin. Maybe there are very valid reasons for these apparent errors that I don't know about because I don't know enough, and I'm suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect. But it certainly looks to me like the translation has been twisted somewhat.

As for the text of the chapter itself, the point Augustine is trying to make seems that one cannot restore themselves with God by works or their own free will, and that God has to free them from sin in order to do any of that. So this has nothing to do with eternal security, and if the point is to try to say this goes against Catholic doctrine, it doesn't seem to at all. These canons of the Council of Trent (Session 6) seem clear endorsements:

"If any one shall say, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the strength of human nature, or through the teaching of the law, without the divine grace through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema." (Canon 1)

"If any one shall say, that without the preventing inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent, as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be conferred upon him; let him be anathema." (Canon 3)

Or in Chapter 5 of the same session, it declares:

"...yet is he not able, without the Grace of God, by his own free will to move himself unto justice in His sight."

Thus, I don't see how Chapter 30 of the Enchiridion, when taken in its entirety rather than a possibly mistranslated title, goes against Catholic doctrine? The Council seems to be saying what Augustine said here.

As for the other quote of Augustine ("God chooses us, not because we believe, but that we may believe.") a search for that did not turn up anyone offering a source, but ChatGPT was able to point me to the source. (ChatGPT and other AI must be used cautiously and always be verified, but are nevertheless a useful tool for finding things) This is Chapter 38 (or 29 in an alternate division) of On the Predestination of the Saints. Book 1 of that can be found here in full or just the chapter here if one wants the footnotes.

I did not look up the Latin on this one so I cannot vouch for translation quality, but again, how does this go against any Catholic doctrine? It seems in accord with what the Council of Trent said.

So it's unclear to me what these quotes are supposed to prove. As noted, they don't relate to eternal security to begin with (they really relate more to the question of predestination, which while related, is not the same thing), and even if the goal was to try to point to some other contradiction with Catholicism, they don't seem to?

tl;dr: The first Augustine quote is found in the English translation, but makes what appear to me questionable translation choices and a more accurate rendering appears to be "Men are not restored by merits, nor by free will, but by grace". The second one seems legitimate. However, neither really relate to eternal security, and neither (especially after the apparent translation errors are fixed) appear to go against Catholic doctrine.

Click to expand...

Jsrg you say if I’m going to quote Augustine it’s important that you say where from. That is correct. It’s also correct as you say that there be many false quotation around. As attested with Plato in these quotes of which plato never said Jsrg are my quotes merely alleged or factual. They be factual. You’ve already verified one of my quotes in St Augustines Enchiridion chapter 30. As the the other quotation you could not verify as shown below. You do find in St Augustine’s publication On the predestination of the Saints midway through chapter 19. You than bring forth the claim of the quote possibly not being of Augustine’s authorship with it being a title being added in by a later translator or editor This could well be very true. But at the same time authors put forth their own title headings just as much as translators or editors do. And we also would then have to consider the entirety of the 32 chapter titles from the book of Enchiridion being suspect to translator or editor influence too. Jrsg it’s possible but we not know either way so that would make it a assumption for now. You than say you checked the Latin and you say it’s soughta there : ) ok. . You then mention the Patrologia which has much of Augustines writings more so in Latin I did look upon the page. Even though me still very young and my eyes very much good, the writing was much so little for me to discern. You say there are words like grace not written in the Latin and that the English translation leaves much to be desired. I not doubt you on your observation that you do mention. And of J F Shaw as maybe not translating so right. But with J F Shaw is very hard to find any information on him . Only that he sleep long time now. But in the time he had he translated a multitude of books from the church fathers and seems to be much respected. It seems hard to believe that he would not have picked up on that with Latin with all his experience more so if he was working with the Latin text in the patrologia you mention and not corrected his translation accordingly . It seems to me that he was probably using different Latin manuscripts. I’m sure that the writings of Augustine in Latin be quite large in number with multiple copies. And so the translations would no doubt vary, and as you said that it could be the very reason why in that that he was using different texts. Jsrg you say it unclear to you why I even used the quotes of St Augustine. I used for good reason. Firstly it was not me that brought up issue of Calvinism it was brought up in Broughtwithaprice post 251. And that being in a very negative way. Only agreeing with the Calvinist ones upon the elect. And knowing broughtwithaprice. That elect would no doubt be rowing and working their asses off down in the ship’s galley in order to retain their salivation. The quotes of Augustine were to remind broughtwithaprice that the eternal security of each believer and of predestination and of Gods right to choose were well known and respected doctrines within the church long before John Calvin saw the light of day. Jsrg I have no problem with what you quote from the council of Trent at least in the passages you quote. Broughtwithaprice might have a big problem though considering that he believes a Christian saved by the power of God can lose their salvation if they not be active enough or faithful enough to the God . As to you having the Dunning Kruger affect. : ) I not think you have and me not wish it upon you. ❤️Yours Kathleen

boughtwithaprice said:

Very nice analysis. The problem with modern Protestantism that I can see is the overemphasis on faith, which we get from Martin Luther saying we are saved by faith alone.
Augustine does not teach that and neither does scripture. Scripture says we are saved BY grace THROUGH faith.

Click to expand...

I think the so-called "Five Solas" of the Reformation have it right, that salvation is:

sola scriptura (by Scripture alone), solus Christus (in Christ alone), sola fide (through faith alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), and soli Deo gloria (to the glory of God alone).