Did Pope Francis Just Declare a non-Catholic a "Doctor of the Church?"

So welcome, Orthodox Freeper!

You're right, and I didn't mean to state that there are no real doctrinal divides. But I do think we have all the big stuff in common.

My "indisposition" was unto the precipice of death. My dispostion now? Warmer, with a scattering of clouds.

God be praised in all things.

“...the Orthodox need to turn to Catholicism...”

Agreed, (as far as doctrine, but retaining their own liturgies, etc.) and all your points are well taken. It did cross my mind that this Pope may have a bad motive such as the one you stated here. However, God can work all things towards good in the end and maybe this would start a reconciliation between the East and the West, if it can be done without changing the Church’s (pre Vatican II) doctrines. Probably not possible, but one can hope.

“...To call Gregory of Narek a “Doctor of the Universal Church” – a monumentally high standard – is an incredibly subtle, backhanded way of saying that it is okay TO BE WRONG ABOUT WHO GOD IS. That is to say, it is okay to break the First Commandment, that it doesn’t really matter WHO GOD IS, and that the efforts and labor of the Church, espoused to and protected by the Holy Spirit, to bring forth the infallible truth, taught infallibly by the Magisterium for over 1500 years about WHO GOD IS, is either

A.) not important,
B.) in error, or
C.) CHANGEABLE –

because it has to be one of those three. Sound familiar? This is exactly what it seems Francis and his cabal are trying to do with the Sixth Commandment. And the First Commandment is, at its core, more important than the Sixth. Therefore, in the big picture, this putative naming of Gregory of Narek as a Doctor of the Church, is actually worse...”

http://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/02/24/the-first-commandment-is-first-for-a-reason/

Yes, thanks for the link to St. Gregory of Narek’s writings. I really like the beginning of Prayer 54 (54A), which is in praise of Jesus Christ.

Well now. And I thought the main issue was the papacy.

Francis has truly done it now. He has named not only a schismatic, but a heretic as a Doctor of the Catholic Church.

God can’t allow this to go on much longer.

This will be a post responding to two papists in one go (one stone for two Papists, we can say):

AUGUSTINE SAYS YOU CAN LOSE YOUR SALVATION (i.e. CAN LOSE JUSTIFYING GRACE)

Read more carefully:

"when the feeling of delight has been imparted through. the same grace, the human will is formed to endure; it is strengthened with unconquerable fortitude; controlled by grace, it never will perish, but, if grace forsake it, it will straightway fall; by the Lord's free mercy it is converted to good, and once converted it perseveres in good; the direction of the human will toward good, and after direction its continuation in good, depend solely upon God's will, not upon any merit of man."

Since Augustine believes in baptismal regeneration, he does indeed believe that someone who has been regenerated (justified) can lose their salvation. Augustine believes, however, that whether a person perseveres or not depends entirely upon God's grace, not on their merits. The gift of perseverence is given only to the elect, and to those so given none can ever fall.

The Roman Catholic view is that damnation is always possible, and that the determining factor is not the grace of God (whom you claim gives grace to all), but the will of man.

Augustine's view, therefore, is entirely Reformed.

Notice also that you didn't dispute the L or Double Predestination. Obviously, if you uphold either of these Reformed Principles, the doctrine of Final Perseverance is logically necessary.

Now to Stonehouse01:

ertainly the writings listed are not the least bit problematic.

Only if you are a Catholic who doesn't know anything about Catholic or Reformed theology. Notice in your post you didn't actually challenge anything I said, but just threw out a strawman about transubstantiation. But even on Transubstantiation and on the doctrine of the Eucharist Augustine comes out Reformed:

“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)

This not only annihilates transubstantiation (for the eating occurs through faith without any physical eating), but Augustine also affirms salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and not through physical eating.

By the way, here is a quote from sermon 227 (the same one you quoted), which rules out the idea of transubstantiation (that is, that the bread and wine is the actual body and bread of Jesus Christ in the form of something else, as opposed to Christ being spiritually present through the faith of the believer):

“What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end.” (Augustine, Ser. 227)

Thus when you accuse me of being the MSM, in fact, that is exactly what you just did, only giving "part of the story."

suffice to say I don’t spend much time disputing with those who tell me the earth is flat, Ronald Reagan wasn’t a conservative or the Papist Bishop Augustine did not believe in the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist ( transubstantiation )

but for any lurkers out there that truly are interested in truth, I present a quote from a sermon St Augustine delivered to a group of newly baptized Catholics who were about to receive the Eucharist for the first time:

You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”

-”Sermons”, [227, 21

what “reformed” could ever say that? Notice St Augustine indicates the elements change after being sanctified by the word of God. for the reformed, the bread is bread before any prayers and remain bread after any prayers.

but a bigger proof that St Augustine held the Catholic doctrine, is his lack of attacking those who did hold the doctrine. He was not shy about going after heretics, yet where do we find in his writing attacks on Ambrose, Jerome, Athanatius, Cyril, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Ignatius??
He didn’t attack them because he believed the Catholic doctrine as they did.

one more proof, the Coptic Church is in the news lately. they separated themselves from the Catholic Church mid 5th century, just after the death of Augustine.
what does the Coptic Church believe about the Eucharist? same as the Catholic Church.

it is interesting the those that follow the 16th century tradition of men know it doesn’t pass the smell test to say there were no Christians from 95ad thru the 16th century, so they have chosen the Papist Bishop Augustine as someone acceptable to them, being completely ignorant that he was a Catholic thru and thru.

funny, Catholics never try and make Calvin, Luther or Wesley a Catholic.

Augustine’s view is not the least bit reformed.

Attempting to quote excerpt from the the Fathers as proof against the Church will always fail, especially when text is pulled out of context, as done on these posts.

St. Augustine CERTAINLY taught the Primacy of Peter:

Psalmus Contra Partem Donati (donatists were proto-protestants) 43.30

“Number the Bishops even from the very seat of Peter, and see every succession in that line of fathers; that seat is the rock against which the proud gates of hell can not prevail.

Luther would not agree.

Luther cherry picked Augustine to suit his own purposes.

Prima Luther is the foundation sola scriptura.